SPE-206122-MS

Improved Prediction of Sand Erosion by Accurate Particle Shape

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

Representation in CFD-DEM Modelling

Madhusuden Agrawal, BP; Ahmadreza Haghnegahdar and Rahul Bharadwaj, ESSS

Copyright 2021, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2021 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 21 - 23 September 2021.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Predicting accurate erosion rate due to sand particles in oil and gas production is important for maintaining
safe and reliable operations while maximizing output efficiency. Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) is
a powerful tool for erosion prediction as it provides detailed erosion pattern in complex geometry. In an
effort to improve accuracy of erosion prediction, this paper proposes an algorithm to accurately represent
particle shape in CFD erosion simulation through coupling with Discrete Element Method (DEM) for non-
spherical shape particles. The fluid motions are predicted by CFD and the particle movements (including
particle-particle and particle-wall collisions) and fluid-particle interaction are calculated using DEM.
It is widely known that sand particles are of finite volume with a non-spherical shape, accurate
representation of sand particles is important in CFD modelling for accurate prediction of erosion rate.
Traditional CFD approach usages lagrangian tracking of sand particles through Discrete Phase Model
(DPM), where a particle is assumed as a point mass for the calculation of trajectory and particle-wall
interaction. Particle impact velocity and impact angle are important parameter in determining erosion.
Assumption of point mass in DPM approach, will not capture particle-wall interaction accurately especially
when particles are of non-spherical in shape. In additional, DPM approach ignores particle-particle
interactions. This can adversary affect the accuracy of erosion predictions. Integrating non-spherical DEM
collision algorithm with CFD erosion simulation, will overcome these limitations and improve erosion
predictions.
Benefits of this CFD-DEM erosion modelling was demonstrated for gas-solid flow in a 2" pipework
which consists of out-of-plane elbows in series and blind-tees. Experimental dataset [1] for erosion pattern
on each elbow was used to validate CFD predictions. Three different erosion CFD simulations were
performed, traditional DPM based CFD simulation, CFD-DEM simulation for spherical shape particles
and CFD-DEM simulation for non-spherical shape particles. CFD-DEM coupled simulations clearly show
an improvement on erosion predictions compared to DPM based CFD simulation. Effect of non-spherical
shape on rebound angle during particle-wall collision is captured accurately in CFD-DEM simulation. CFD-
DEM simulation using non-spherical particle, was able to predict erosion pattern closer to experimental
observations.
This paper will demonstrate an increase in accuracy of sand erosion prediction by integrating DEM
collision algorithm in CFD modelling. The prediction results of elbow erosion subject to a condition of
2 SPE-206122-MS

dilute gas-particle flow are validated against experimental data. Improved prediction of erosion risk will
increase the safety and reliability of oil & gas operations, while maximizing output efficiency.

Introduction
In many oil and gas wells, particles such as sand, carbonate, or other solid impurities are produced; one
of the biggest issues with these situations is the erosion of pipelines and fittings. Predicting more accurate

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

sand erosion rate in oil and gas production is important for maintaining safe and reliable operations while
maximizing output efficiency. There exist various approaches to predict solid particle erosion. One of the
earlier guidelines was the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice 14E [1], in which an
"erosional threshold velocity" is compared with the actual process flow velocity. This guideline, however,
does not account for many parameters that contribute to erosion. There are also empirical equations such as
those developed by Salama and Venkatesh (1983) [2], by Parsi et al. (2017) [3], semi-mechanistic-empirical
model by Shirazi et al. (2016) [4]. A comprehensive review of solid particle erosion modeling for oil and gas
wells was provided by Parsi et al. (2014) [6]. These methods accounted for many variables that governed
the sand erosion rate.
Sand erosion modelling is complex phenomena and requires a good understanding of fluid dynamics,
particle transport, and its relationship to the removal of material at the pipe surface. Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) has become a common modelling tool for erosion prediction for complex and uncommon
geometries, especially when prediction of erosion pattern is important. Recent advances in commercially
available CFD codes and their ease of use facilitates straightforward analysis of erosion damage for many
industrial applications. However, exact mathematical equations which robustly capture the physics of solid
particle erosion have not yet been fully developed. Mathematical equations included in these codes are
associated with numerous empirical coefficients and sub-models. Therefore, it is important to exercise
appropriate judgment and caution if one desires to achieve a high level of accuracy in erosion prediction.
There are multiple challenges involved in CFD based erosion modelling. In addition to more accurate
prediction of fluid flow and turbulence, proper treatment of fluid-particle interaction is important for erosion
modelling. There are additional challenges in particle tracking for multiphase flow to capture effect of liquid
damping and solid shielding. Different researchers have tried to investigate and improve different aspects of
CFD-based erosion modeling. This includes erosion equation development, particle-wall rebound modeling,
particle size and multiphase effect on erosion, and erosion modeling in blind tees and elbows among many
others. Agrawal et al. (2019) [8] have performed a series of sensitivity studies on the stochastic tracking
parameters for three different geometries, different Reynolds and Stokes numbers. These sensitivities studies
suggest that the erosion prediction is highly dependent on particle tracking parameters - number of stochastic
tries, number of injections and time scale factor.
The approach used in carrying out a CFD-based erosion study will depend on the physical case and
desired level of detail. In many cases, an erosion calculation can be achieved from a steady-state CFD
analysis of the flow field. This simplifies the modeling approach to three discrete stages: first, the fluid is
modeled and converged to a steady solution; second, as a postprocessing step, sand particle trajectories are
simulated based on the flow field; and finally, the erosion damage on solid surfaces is evaluated. Since each
step is dependent on the previous one, any non-physical result in any of the three steps affects the final
erosion results. For situations where a realistic flow field cannot be calculated from a steady-state solution,
a combined fluid, particle trajectory, and erosion calculation are conducted in a transient procedure. This is
computationally expensive and requires considerable resources and technical expertise. Gocha et al. (2020)
[11] provided a detailed review of various guidelines for predicting solid particle erosion using CFD codes.
Particle impact velocity and impact angle are important parameter in determining erosion. Particle
trajectories are calculated using a Lagrangian approach, also referred as a discrete phase model (DPM).
Here particles are considered as a dispersed phase interacting with the fluid, which is the continuous phase.
SPE-206122-MS 3

The motion of a single particle is calculated by solving the particle equation of motion. In DPM approach,
the particle is assumed as a point mass for the calculation of trajectory and particle-wall interaction. It is
widely known that sand particles are of finite volume with a non-spherical shape, accurate representation
of sand particles is important in CFD modelling for accurate prediction of erosion rate. Assumption of
point mass in DPM approach, will not capture particle-wall interaction accurately especially when particles
are of non-spherical in shape. In additional, DPM approach ignores particle-particle interactions. This can
adversary affect the accuracy of erosion predictions. Integrating non-spherical Discrete-Element-Model

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

(DEM) collision algorithm with CFD erosion simulation, will overcome these limitations and improve
erosion predictions.
This paper is an attempt to show the benefits of DEM coupling in CFD based erosion modelling. CFD-
DEM modelling was demonstrated for gas-solid flow in a 2" pipework which consists of out-of-plane elbows
in series. Experimental dataset from Kumar et. al. (2014) [5] for erosion pattern on each elbow was used to
validate CFD predictions. Three different erosion CFD simulations were performed, traditional DPM based
CFD simulation, CFD-DEM simulation for spherical shape particles and CFD-DEM simulation for non-
spherical shape particles.

DEM Methodology and CFD-DEM Coupling

Discrete element method (DEM) is a numerical technique for predicting the behavior of bulk solids. DEM
is a mesh-free method and does not solve the continuum equations of motion and hence, no stress- strain
constitutive law for the material is needed. Geometrical calculations related to the interaction of particles
with real shape representation are incorporated into DEM that provides accurate predictions for individual
interaction among particles and between particles and boundaries. This will be advantageous to erosion
modeling as it can provide high-resolution particle spatial information for the prediction of shielding effects
during the particle impact.
In the DEM-CFD method, the fluid flow is obtained by the conventional continuum approach, providing
information to calculate the fluid forces acting on individual particles while the motion of the particle is
obtained by using a discrete particle method. Each particle is individually tracked along with the fluid
phase by the result of forces acting on them by numerically integrating Newton's equations that govern
the translation and rotation of the particles. In addition, as each individual particle is tracked by the DEM
solver, the complete history is available for all particles inside the domain. Bringing together the level of
information that provides deeper insight into the complex fluid-solid problems.

Test Case Description

Kumar et. al. (2014) [5] presented experimental test and data of erosion thickness loss for gas-solid flow
in a 2inch flow-loop. These datasets were used to benchmark CFD-DEM coupling for erosion predictions.
In this experiment, erosion studies were conducted on a carbon steel erosion loop with Nominal Pipe Size
(NPS) of 50.8mm of schedule 80 [ID= 49.25mm]. The air with sand flows through a series of three elbows.
The first two elbows are short radius elbows (R/D = 1) and are kept apart horizontally at a distance of
609.6mm. The third elbow is 1422.4mm from the second elbow. Elbow three is a standard elbow (R/D=1.5)
and it points up vertically. The schematic of the erosion testing loop is given in Figure 1. Sand with a mean
diameter of 28 microns, density of 2650kg/m3 and hardness of 7.0 was used in the experiments. The sand
is loaded in the solid injection system and air is allowed to flow at the required rate of 32.2m/s through the
loop. After a steady flow is established in the loop, sand injection is started. The experiment was carried
out for a total of 14hours during which 234kg of sand was passed through the loop. Thickness measurement
was recorded at all three elbows along the center line and 10 degrees above and below the centerline.
4 SPE-206122-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

Figure 1—Schematic diagram of experimental setup and the test section

The CFD simulations were carried out using the commercial solver Ansys Fluent v2020 R2. CFD domain
include all three elbows and upstream and downstream pipework, as shown in Figure 2. The geometry was
meshed with about 5 million cells and the first layer thickness was kept as 50 microns approximately twice
the diameter of the particle. Snapshot of the surface mesh on the inlet plane and at one of the elbows is
shown in Figure 3. The boundary layer used was able to provide an average y+ value of approximately
10 for the first grid point from the wall. The Realizable k - ε (RKE) turbulence model with scalable wall
function was used to capture the turbulence field. Constant fluid properties (density and viscosity) of air
were used for the continuous phase and the particles are tracked in the flow using the Lagrangian framework
through the DPM. The turbulence-particle interactions are captured by the Discrete Random Walk (DRW)
method. DRW is a stochastic model used to predict the trajectories of particles in a turbulent flow using the
mean fluid phase velocity and velocity fluctuations based on local turbulence levels.

Figure 2—CFD domain including elbows in series

Figure 3—The snapshots of the surface mesh on the elbow (left) and on the inlet plane (right)
SPE-206122-MS 5

The particle-wall interactions are characterized by the coefficient of restitution. Incorporating a particle-
wall rebound model is essential in erosion simulations. The impact angle, along with the coefficients of
restitution, determines the particle velocity after impact. The normal and tangential coefficient of restitution
is set at the wall of the geometry which determines the rebound nature of the particles impacting the wall. The
stochastic restitution coefficient model proposed by Grant and Tabakoff (1975) [9] and Forder et al. (1998)
for carbon steel-sand is used in the simulations, these the polynomial functions for normal and tangential
restitution coefficients are shown below:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

Here:
Rn = the restitution coefficient in normal direction
Rt = the restitution coefficient in tangential direction
α = the impact angle in degrees
E/CRC (Erosion Corrosion Research Center) University of Tulsa Erosion model included in Zhang et al.
(2007) [10] was used to correlate particle impact information for erosion rate. This model is based on a series
of direct impact experiments for different particle shapes and impact angles for calculating the erosion ratio.
The variables that are required for computing erosion in this model include the particle impact velocity, the
angle of impact and the solid particle mass flow rate, as defined in the equation below. Predicted erosion rates
on the wall surfaces were converted into thickness loss in microns for comparison with experimental data.

Where f(α) is the impact angle function and defined as below -

Following model constants are used in this erosion ratio equation.

• Fs = the sharpness factor for sand particle

• B = the Brinell hardness of solid surface

• Cd = 2.17×10-7, an empirical constant which is independent of particle diameter.

• Velocity exponent, n = 2.41

The DEM simulations were carried out using the commercial solver Rocky DEM v4.4. Steady state
results of flow and turbulent field from Ansys Fluent simulations were passed into Rocky DEM for one-way
coupling of CFD with DEM. Soft-sphere contact algorithm was used for particle-particle and particle-wall
collisions. CFD-DEM coupled simulations were performed for spherical as well as non-spherical particle
to quantify the shape effect on erosion behavior.
Non-spherical particle will be able to represent the actual shape of the sand particle much better. Non-
spherical shape is captured through 15 corners with an aspect ratio of 1.5 in vertical direction and aspect ratio
of 0.75 in horizontal direction. Figure-4 shows an image of the non-spherical particle and main parameters
to define its shape. Schiller-Naumann drag model is used for the spherical particles whereas Ganser drag
model is used for non-spherical particles. A torque law of Denis, Singh & Ingham was also used for non-
spherical particles.
6 SPE-206122-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

Figure 4—Description of the non-spherical shape of sand particle

An API (Application Programming Interface) was written for Rocky DEM which allows the use of
empirical wear models to compute the eroded mass due to particle-boundary collisions. This does not change
the geometry, but calculates the cumulative eroded mass associating it to a boundary-triangle for post-
processing the erosion rate. Consistent with Fluent DPM calculations, E/CRC University of Tulsa Erosion
model included in Zhang et al. 2007 was used to correlate particle impact information for erosion rate for
these CFD-DEM erosion analyses. Transient DEM analysis was performed for long enough duration to
ensure steady behavior of particles in the domain. Separate post processing scripts were used to output time-
averaged erosion rate profile on the elbows and pipework.

Results
Kumar et. al. (2014) [5] paper reported ultrasonic erosion measure of thickness loss for all three elbows.
These plots of experimental wall thickness loss on elbows are shown in Figure 5. Erosion damage on almost
entire concave part of all three elbows was observed and there are a few comparatively higher hot spots in
the elbows. The comparatively higher erosion spots were not exactly located on the centerline of the elbows,
but more dependent on the secondary flows of the carrier fluids path in elbows in series. For elbow-1,
thickness loss increases as the angle from the inlet increases and decreases toward the outlet and maximum
erosion was observed around 50-60deg. Elbows 2 and 3 observed widespread erosion on the concave face
with some sporadic peaks. Elbow 1 experienced relatively higher erosion compared to elbows 2 and 3.

Figure 5—Experimental erosion damage measured for elbow1 (left), elbow2 (middle) and elbow3 (right)
SPE-206122-MS 7

Steady state simulation of flow field and steady particle tracking was performed for erosion prediction
of Fluent-DPM modelling. Figure 6 shows particle trajectory of single particle stream (including stochastic
random tracking for turbulence dispersion), highlighting particle tracks at three elbows. Because of steady
particle tracking and spherical shape assumption for particle-wall collisions, steady pattern of particle
trajectory is observed. Contour plot of thickness loss, as shown in Figure 7, clearly shows erosion hot-spot
on elbow-1 due to jet effect while bifurcated erosion pattern is predicted on elbow-2. Erosion on elbow-3
is concentrated on the centerline. Magnitude of erosion damage is predicted quite high (maximum value is

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

predicted about 2000μm on elbow 1)

Figure 6—Particle trajectory colored by particle velocity magnitude (range 10m/s to 30m/s) - Fluent DPM case

Figure 7—Contour plot of thickness loss (µm) on the pipe surface (range 0 - 1200 µm) - Fluent DPM case

CFD-DEM coupled simulation involves transient trajectory of the particle with soft-sphere collision
algorithm for particle-particle and particle-wall interactions. Figure 8 shows particle trajectory at one instant
of time for the DEM simulation with spherical shape particles. As the DEM model can capture the particle-
wall collision more accurately, impact angle and impact velocity at elbows are predicted better. Though
particles are still concentrated towards the outer surface of the elbows. Contour plot of the thickness loss,
as shown in Figure 9, shows more dispersed erosion pattern though still showing hot spots on centerline of
elbows. Maximum erosion damage is predicted about 1000μm on 1st elbow. More consistent erosion pattern
is predicted on 2nd and 3rd elbows.
8 SPE-206122-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

Figure 8—Particle trajectory colored by particle velocity magnitude
(range 10m/s to 30m/s) - CFD-DEM case with spherical particles

Figure 9—Contour plot of thickness loss (µm) on the pipe surface (range 0 - 400 µm) - CFD-DEM case with spherical particles

Figure 10 shows instantaneous snapshot of particle trajectory for the DEM simulation where non-
spherical shape was included. Presence of multiple corners in non-spherical particle shape will lead to more
randomness in particle rebounding, hence particles are spreading to wider surface at each elbow, especially
for 2nd and 3rd elbows. Contour plots of eroded thickness loss in Figure 11 clearly shows further spread of
erosion hot spots in 2nd and 3rd elbows. Erosion pattern on 1st elbow does not see much effect of particle shape.
Maximum erosion damage on elbow-1 is predicted about 600μm. Erosion rate is predicted be relatively
lower with non-spherical DEM compared to spherical DEM because particles are impacting much wider
surface area due to irregular particle shape. Spherical assumption of the particle shape will lead to more
focused impact location as it will not account for particle roughness (due to shape) effect in particle-wall
collisions.

Figure 10—Particle trajectory colored by particle velocity magnitude

(range 10m/s to 30m/s) - CFD-DEM case with non-spherical particles
SPE-206122-MS 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

Figure 11—Contour plot of thickness loss (μm) on the pipe surface
(range 0 - 200 μm) - CFD-DEM case with non-spherical particles

The erosion rate computed using Fluent-DPM and CFD-DEM (both spherical as well as non-spherical)
are compared with experimental observations along the centerline for elbow-1, elbow-2 and elbow-3 are
presented in Figures 12–14. Fluent-DPM simulation significantly overpredicted erosion rate for elbow-1,
and the hot spot is predicted slightly downstream part of the elbow. DEM simulation improves the
erosion predictions, maximum erosion rate predicted by non-spherical DEM simulation is quite close to
experimental values. However, the location of peak erosion is slightly downstream.

Figure 12—Comparison of experimental and Fluent DPM and DEM prediction of

erosion damage along the centerline for Elbow-1. The erorion information is gathered
from a slice at the elbow's outer surface and the angle is based on the flow direction.

Figure 13—Comparison of experimental and Fluent DPM and DEM

prediction of erosion damage along the centerline for Elbow-2
10 SPE-206122-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

Figure 14—Comparison of experimental and Fluent DPM and DEM
prediction of erosion damage along the centerline for Elbow-3

Erosion profile on the elbow-2 is more complex. Fluent-DPM predicted much higher erosion rate and
could not capture the location of peak erosion. Rocky DEM simulations improved the erosion predictions,
non-spherical DEM could predict the erosion behavior quite well in the 2nd half (downstream part) of the
elbow. However, none of the simulation could capture the erosion pattern in the 1st half (upstream part)
of the elbow. Experiment reported higher erosion in 30-50deg range, which was not observed in CFD and
CFD-DEM simulations. It is possible that large particles (100μm or more) in the experiments caused higher
erosion in upstream part of elbow, while the simulations have assumed uniform size of 28μm.
Similar behavior is also observed for elbow-3, where Fluent-DPM simulation predicted much higher
erosion rates while Rocky DEM simulations improved the erosion patten significantly. Erosion rate
predicted by non-spherical DEM simulation is quite close to experimental observation.

Conclusion
Traditional CFD based erosion modelling uses DPM approach for particle trajectories. In this approach the
particle is assumed as a point mass for the calculation of trajectory and particle-wall interaction, which
can affect the accuracy of erosion predictions. It is widely known that sand particles are of finite volume
with a non-spherical shape, accurate representation of sand particles is important in CFD modelling for
accurate prediction of erosion rate. This paper has successfully demonstrated the advantages of CFD-
DEM coupling (ANSYS Rocky DEM) in improving the erosion predictions for the gas-solid flow in a 2
inch pipework consisting of out-of-plane elbows in series. Results clearly shows significant improvement
in prediction of erosion pattern and peak erosion rate by integrating DEM collision algorithms in CFD
modelling. Incorporating non-spherical shape in DEM, further improves the results.

Nomenclature
CFD Computational Fluid Dyamics
DEM Discrete Element Method
DPM Discrete Phase Model
E/CRC Erosion Corrosion Research Center
NPS Nominal Pipe Size
DRW Discrete Random Walk
RKE Realizable K-Epsilon Turbulence Model
Fs Sharpness factor for sand particle
SPE-206122-MS 11

B Brinell hardness of solid surface

Cd An empirical constant which is independent of particle diameter.
n Velocity exponent
API Application Programming Interface
Fluent Commercial CFD software from ANSYS
Rocky Commercial DEM software from ESSS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/21ATCE/2-21ATCE/D022S084R002/2487680/spe-206122-ms.pdf/1 by University of Tulsa user on 06 December 2022

References
1. API RP 14E (1991, reaffirmed 2000), "Recommended practice for design and installation of
offshore production platform piping systems", (Washington, American Petroleum Institute)
2. M.M. Salama, E.S. Venkatesh, "Evaluation of API RP 14E Erosional Velocity Limitations for
Offshore Gas Wells," Proc., 15th Offshore Technology Conference, Paper OTC 4485 (1983).
3. M. Parsi, A. Al-Sarkhi, M. Kara, P. Sharma, B.S. McLaury, S.A. Shirazi, "A new dimensionless
number for solid particle erosion in natural gas elbows, Wear 390, 80–83, (2017)
4. S.A. Shirazi, SPE, B.S. McLaury, H. Arabnejad, "A Semi-Mechanistic Model for Predicting
Sand Erosion Threshold Velocities in Gas and Multiphase Flow Production," SPE-181487
(2016).
5. Praveen Kumar, G, Byron Smith, RJ, Damodaran, V Sand fines erosion in gas pipelines-
experiments and CFD modelling. Corrosion conference expo. San Antonio, TX, USA 2014, pp.
9–13.
6. M. Parsi, K. Najmi, F. Najafifard, S. Hassani, B. S. McLaury, S. A. Shirazi, "A comprehensive
review of solid particle erosion modeling for oil and gas wells and pipelines applications,"
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 21 pp. 850 - 873 (2014).
7. A. Asgharpour, P. Zahedi, H.A. Khanouki, S.A. Shirazi, and B.S. McLaury, "Experimental
Investigation of Solid Particle Erosion in Successive Elbows in Gas Dominated Flows," ASME
2018 5th Joint US-European Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (2018).
8. M. Agrawal, S. Khanna, A. Kopliku, T. Lockett, Prediction of sand erosion in CFD with
dynamically deforming pipe geometry and implementing proper treatment of turbulence
dispersion in particle tracking, Wear Volumes 426-427, Pages 596–604 (2019)
9. G. Grant, W. Tabakoff, Erosion prediction in turbomachinery resulting from environmental solid
particles. J. Aircr. 12 (5), 471–478. (1975).
10. Y. Zhang, E.P. Reuterfors, B.S. McLaury, S.A. Shirazi, E.F. Rybicki, "Comparison of Computed
and Measured Particle Velocities and Erosion in Water and Air Flows," Wear 263, 330–338
(2007).
11. G. Chochua, M. Parsi, Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, T.A. Sedrez, S. Karimi, F. Darihaki, J. Edwards, H.
Arabnejad, M. Agrawal, A. Asgharpour, R.E. Vieira, P. Zahedi, E. Gharaibah, S.A. Shirazi, "A
Review of Various Guidelines for Predicting Solid Particle Erosion Using Computational Fluid
Dynamics Codes", NACE International C2020-15105 (2020)