Ultrasonic Measurement

of Multiphase Flow Erosion

N. R. Kesana
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Tuisa,
Tuisa, OK 74104
e-mail: nrk301@utulsa.edu
S. A. Grubb
ConocoPhillips - Technology,
600 North Dairy Ashford,
Houston, TX 77079-1175
e-mail: scott.a.grubbiSconooophlilips.com
B. S. McLaury
e-maii: brenton-mciaury@utulsa.edu
S. A. Shirazi
e-mail: siamack-shirazi@jtulsa.edu
Department of Mechanicai Engineering,
University of Tuisa,
Tuisa, OK 74104
Patterns in a Standard Elbow
Solid particle erosion is a mechanical process in which material is removed from a sur-
face due to impacts of solid particles transported within a fluid. It is a common problem
faced by the petroleum industry, as solid particles are also produced along with oil and
gas. The erosion not only causes economic losses resulting from repairs and decreased
production but also causes safety and environmental concerns. Therefore, the metal
losses occurring in different multiphase flow regimes need to be studied and understood
in order to develop protective guidelines for oil and gas production equipment. In the
current study, a novel noninvasive ultrasonic (UT) device has been developed and imple-
mented to measure the metal loss at 16 different locations inside an elbow. Initially,
experiments were performed with a single-phase carrier fluid (gas-sand) moving in the
pipeline, and the erosion magnitudes are compared with computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) results and found to be in good agreement. Next, experiments were extended to
the multiphase slug flow regime. Influence of particle diameter and liquid viscosity were
also studied. Two different particle sizes (150 and 300 ¡xm sand) were used for performing
tests. The shapes of the sand are also different with the 300 um sand being sharper than
the 150 ßm sand. Three different liquid viscosities were used for the present study (1 cP,
10 cP, and 40 cP). While performing the UT experiments, simultaneous metal loss meas-
urements were also made using an intrusive electrical resistance (ER) probe in a section
of straight pipe. The probe in the straight pipe is an angle-head probe which protrudes
into the flow with the face placed in the center of the pipe. The UT erosion measurements
in a bend are also compared with experimental data obtained placing an intrusive flat
head ER probe flush in a bend, and the results were found to be in good agreement.
Finally, the noninvasive nano UT permanent placement temperature compensated ultra-
sonic wall thickness device developed for this work has the capability of measuring metal
loss at many locations and also identifying the maximum erosive location on the pipe
bend. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4023331]

Introduction tion such as elbows, tees, and sudden expansion and contraction
zones. Since erosion depends on multiple factors, developing a
In oil and gas production, sand creates many problems, ranging predictive tool for erosion is a challenging task.
from accumulation of the sand in perforation tunnels, damage to
The severity of erosion can be clearly emphasized by the pic-
pumps, well tubing, and fittings. Sand screens or gravel packs are
ture shown below. Figure 1 shows the location of a through wall
commonly installed in open hole well bores to avoid the passage
failure caused by erosion in a stainless steel elbow. This location
of sand along with the reservoir fluids. However, this sand control
of failure supports the statement already made that erosion
approach may fail due to plugging of the screens with smaller
particles causing an increase in the local fiuid velocity at other
portions of the screen causing damage. Sand in production fluids
repeatedly impacts pipe walls removing material gradually. The
mechanism of material loss depends on the type of pipe wall
material. For example, the erosion of ductile materials is caused
by localized metal deformation resulting in cutting action due to
severe particle impacts. Other types of failure mechanisms include
plowing, fatigue, and brittle fracture.
Prediction of solid particle erosion is difficult because erosion
depends on many factors. The important factors are flow pattern,
sand distribution, flow geometry, fiuid flow rates, and particle
properties such as size, shape, and hardness. The complexity of
erosion is increased in multiphase flow because different flow
patterns can occur under different operating conditions. The flow
pattern affects the sand particle impact characteristics and causes
different amounts of erosion. The geometries, which are more
susceptible to erosion, are the ones which change the flow direc-

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL

OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOOY. Manuscript received June 19, 2012; final
manuscript received December 6, 2012; published online May 24, 2013. Assoc. Fig. 1 Stainless steel elbow failure as the result of erosion in
Editor; Christopher J. Wajnikonis. muitiphase fiow

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright ©2013 by ASME SEPTEMBER 2013, Vol. 135 / 032905-1
failures commonly occur in locations where the flow direction
changes. This failure was observed after conducting experiments
in a laboratory for approximately 3 months.
Slug Flow—^Literature Survey
The major focus is to conduct slug flow experiments with sand
and measure the erosion. So, a brief description of slug flow is
given in this section.
The study of intermittent flow has received considerable atten-
tion for the past 30 years due to its most complex flow structure.
In horizontal pipelines, two intermittent flow patterns are ofren
seen: plug flow and slug flow. Plug flow is characterized by liquid
plugs without gas entrainment, moving between the stratiñed zone
of the gas bubble and the liquid fllm regions. Plug flow occurs at
lower gas rates. If the gas rate is increased while maintaining a
constant liquid rate, a three-dimensional mixing zone is observed
at the front of the plug. This three-dimensional mixing zone
results in entrainment of the gas bubbles inside the liquid plugs,
creating aerated plugs. The aerated plugs are commonly referred
to as slugs.
Slug flow is characterized by slugs moving at a velocity approx-
imately equal to the mixture velocity (mixture velocity is deflned
as the sum of superñcial liquid and gas velocities) between the
stratiñed gas and liquid film region. In the stratifled zone, gas
moves on top and the liquid film flows beneath it. The gas bubble
seen in the stratifled region is usually called the Taylor bubble.
The combination of liquid slug body and the Taylor bubble region
is called the slug unit. The various components of the slug flow
are shown in Fig. 2
Pseudo slug flow is a type of intermittent flow pattern which is
seldom described in literature. In this type of flow pattern there is
entrainment of liquid droplets inside the Taylor bubble within the
stratifled region, in addition to the entrainment of the gas bubbles
in the liquid slug region.
Many researchers have focused on the flow rates which result
in the transition from stratifled flow to slug flow. Two different
approaches were followed by researchers. The first approach is to
use classical linear stability analysis and the other is to examine
the stability of the slugs travelling over the liquid layer. Duckler
and Hubbard [1] flrst proposed the concept of a stable slug. They
said that a fast moving liquid slug picks up slow moving liquid
inside a liquid film and accelerates the liquid to the slug velocity.
It then sheds the liquid back into the liquid film region. For a
steady state slug flow, the rate of liquid picked up by the slug front
is equal to the rate of the liquid shed at the slug back. Taitel and
Bamea [2] developed a comprehensive model for slug flow by
applying the momentum balance on the liquid film region. The
final output of this model is to determine the pressure drop across
the slug unit, where the slug unit is defined as the combination of
slug body and the liquid fllm region. This model takes into consid-
eration four types of closure relationships: translational velocity
(interface velocity between Taylor bubble and the liquid slug
Flow
Taylor Bubble
—^ -—^
Liquid Film
Fig. 2 Schematic of the siug unit (note: figure is not to scaie)
032905-2 / Vol. 135, SEPTEMBER 2013
body), slug body length, slug liquid holdup, and velocity of gas
bubbles entrained inside the liquid slug body.
There is a vast amount of literature available on studies of
slug characteristics as they tend to be important in models, which
predict pressure drop. Several experimental techniques have
evolved in the recent past to study details of slug flow such as
its structure, length distribution, and void fraction. Some of
the instruments used by researchers are conductance probes,
nuclear-densitometers, fiber-optic sensors, wire mesh sensors,
piezo-electric sensors, hot-film anemometers, and tomography
techniques. Slug length measurements suggest that the slug body
length is not constant and it follows a log normal distribution
[3-8]. This suggests that the volume of liquid inside the slug body
is continuously changing and over a certain period of time there
will be stable, decaying and growing slugs passing by a particular
cross-section inside the pipe which would be sufficiently far from
the inlet of the pipe. Also, several correlations have been devel-
oped for the calculation of the mean slug length based on pipe
diameter and orientation of the pipe. Recently, Sarica et al. [9]
conducted a sensitivity analysis on the influence of slug length
correlations on frequently used mechanistic models in the litera-
ture which are used to predict the pressure drop in the slug flow
regime. They found that the influence of slug length correlations
is relatively small in the calculations of pressure drop and liquid
holdup.
Slug liquid holdup and translational velocity measurements
have also been conducted by many investigators. There are many
slug liquid holdup correlations available in the literature. Gomez
et al. [10] is a commonly used slug liquid holdup correlation as it
is applicable to all inclination angles. Also, Zhang et al. [11]
developed a unifled mechanistic model which predicts slug liquid
holdup by equating the kinetic energy possessed by the slug body
to the surface free energy of the entrained spherical gas bubbles.
Pereyra et al. [12] gathered huge data sets on slug liquid holdup
from literature and compared the data with the published correla-
tions. They improved the slug liquid holdup correlations by tuning
them to the available data and finding new constant values for the
correlations.
Slug flow characteristics are important for understanding and
predicting erosion. Despite the literature available on slug flow, it
is currently an active research area due to its vast appearance in
many areas and enormous complexity.
Sand Distribution and Transport
In addition to the multiphase flow characteristics, sand distribu-
tion and transportation characteristics also directly influence the
erosion behavior and magnitudes. So, a general overview on the
influence of the sand characteristics on erosion is explained
below.
Hill [13] examined the behavior of sand flowing in horizontal
pipes and determined critical transport velocity. He observed
the effects of particle concentration (0.01%, 0.1%, 1% by vol-
ume), particle diameter (20/¿m, 150/¿m, 300 ^m), liquid viscosity
Transactions of the ASME
(lcP, lOcP), and the pipe diameter (50.8 mm, 101.6mm) on the
critical flow rates for particle transport. Experiments were per-
formed under single-phase (liquid and sand) and multiphase (liq-
uid, gas and sand) conditions. Hill found increasing particle
concentration, particle diameter, liquid viscosity or pipe diameter
increased the fluid flow requirements for particle transport. So, for
similar particle size and the fluid flow characteristics, the erosion
for smaller pipe sizes may be higher than larger one.
Al-lababidi et al. [14] studied the influence of pipe angle
(-1-5 deg inclined) on the solid particle transport for single-phase
water flow and air-water flow regimes. They conducted experi-
ments using an average sand size of 200 ;um and varied the
particle volume concentrations. In the inclined pipe, the efficient
means of particle transport was found to be in pseudo slug flow. It
was found that the number of particles entrained in the pseudo
slugs is higher, because of the increase in turbulence energy at the
front of the liquid slug body. This result has a direct influence
on erosion, since increasing the number of particle impacts at a
specified location in the pipe increases the metal loss. Also, the
particles entrained in the liquid slug body possess high kinetic
energy causing severe impacts with the pipe wall. Al-lababidi
et al. also mentioned that the change in gas throughput influences
the minimum transport condition of the particle. The authors
attributed this behavior to the change in turbulent intensities in the
liquid by increasing the gas velocity. They have also emphasized
that the change in the particle concentration has a significant
impact on the particle transportation characteristics which is in
agreement with the findings of Hill. Recently, Zeinali et al. [15]
studied the influence of near wall turbulent structures on particle
removal from a deposited sand bed. They found with increase in
time, the concentration of the finer particles on the pipe bottom
was increased, thereby coarser particles were removed by turbu-
lent structures. The range of particle sizes they studied was from
0.1 ßm to 50fim. However, these experiments were performed in
a single-phase liquid flow, and the influence of gas-liquid on the
particle removal was not studied.
As mentioned earlier, sand distribution characteristics in
multiphase flows along with the transport characteristics influen-
ces erosion. However, unlike the sand transportation data, the
sand distribution data in the pipelines operating under multiphase
flow regimes is extremely limited. McLaury et al. [16] studied the
influence of the distribution of sand particles in horizontal and the
vertical annular flow on erosion. They said that the distributions
of the particles and liquid are relatively uniform for the vertical
pipe compared to the horizontal orientation. They found that the
amount of liquid and sand collected at the centerline of the pipe
increased by increasing the gas velocity. Particles travel in the gas
core at higher velocities, so more particles near the centerline
cause more erosion. The nonuniform distribution of the particles
in the horizontal pipes was attributed to gravity. Also, they found
that for a similar sand throughput the metal loss in the vertical
pipe is higher than that for horizontal pipe which was attributed to
the distribution of the particles. Entrainment of liquid and par-
ticles is less in horizontal flow, so more particles are in the slower
moving liquid film than the gas core. Authors also tried to relate
the liquid film thickness to erosion magnitude, stating that the
increase in the liquid-film thickness in horizontal flow decreases
erosion. However, the sand distribution behavior needs to be veri-
fied for the slug flow regime for which the sand transport charac-
teristics are very different than other multiphase flow patterns.
Slug Flow Erosion-Previous Studies
The complexity in understanding erosion in slug flow is even
more complicated than slug flow alone as the additional phase
(solid) is introduced to the liquid and gas phases. There are very
few studies in the literature studying erosion in slug flow.
Gundameedi [17] conducted erosion experiments using an ER
probes installed at a bend and in a straight pipe section in the slug
flow regime. His main objective was to study the performance of
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
acoustic monitors and ER probes in slug flow. ER probes are in-
trusive instruments which relate the metal loss to the change in
electrical resistance between sample and reference elements
where the sample element is exposed to the flow, whereas the
reference element is protected from the flow. He concluded that
ER probes are successful in detecting metal loss in the slug flow
regime, and acoustic monitor output can be useful in detecting the
sand rates. He also stated that acoustic monitor raw output
increases by increasing the particle size and these monitors are
ineffective in detecting particle impacts of 20 fim particles i.e.,
finer particle sizes. Odigie [18] extended the acoustic monitor
study to detect the threshold sand rate for annular, slug, and strati-
fied flow regimes.
Rodriguez [19] developed a one-dimensional mechanistic
model for erosion in slug flow using a stagnation length concept
developed by Shirazi et al. [20]. In this approach, stagnation
length is the distance away from the wall where viscous effects
are important. He calculated particle impact velocities by applying
a force balance on the particle which is used to compute erosion.
Finally, he compared the predictions of the model with the experi-
mental data and found good agreement with larger particle sizes.
The model under predicted the erosion data collected using
smaller particles.
Throneberry [21] conducted measurements with smaller par-
ticles using ER probes installed on a bend and in a section of
straight pipe. He extended the Rodriguez's model to two dimen-
sions thereby considering both normal and tangential impacts of
the particles at the wall.
The prior erosion measurements under the slug flow regime
were made at a maximum of two locations inside the bend due to
the size constraints associated with the ER probes. Therefore,
there is a need for a new measurement technology which enabled
erosion inside the bend to be characterized in more detail.
Objectives
Thus, it is clear that the experimental data is limited in the area
of erosion in multiphase slug flow despite considerable studies
being done on slug flow behavior. So, the objectives of the current
study are as follows:
• Measure erosion inside a standard bend using the nonintru-
sive state-of-the art UT at sixteen different locations in
single-phase (gas) flow with sand and multiphase air-water
slug flow in horizontal pipes.
• Study the influence of viscosity on erosion inside the bend.
• Predict erosion using a CFD for the gas-solid flows and com-
pare to the measurements made.
• Conduct measurements using the flat head ER probe mounted
at 45 deg to the bend and the angle-head probe mounted in a
straight pipe section.
• Also, compare UT erosion measurements around the 45 deg
location in the bend to meastirements made using a flat head
ER probe.
Experimental Facility
The large scale tower boom loop at the University of Tulsa's
North campus is used for conducting erosion experiments. Figure 3
shows a schematic of the experimental facility. It has the potential
to generate a wide variety of flow patterns, and the test section
can be oriented at any angle between 0 and 90 deg. The major
components of the loop are compressors, slurry tank, liquid injec-
tion port, gas injection port, test sections, and the collecting tank.
The gas required in the test section is supplied by two independent
Ingersol Rand diesel compressors each with a capacity of 400
standard cubic feet per minute. The boom loop is also equipped
with a Caterpillar Sullair 375H air compressor rated with capacity
of 375 cubic feet per minute to drive one set of the pumps (2.1
and 2.2) shown in Fig. 3. Pumps 2.1 and 2.2 are Ingersoll Rand
SEPTEMBER2013, Vol. 135 / 032905-3
 Boom
Gas and ,,
Liquid
Diesel Compressors Pump 2.1)
Fig. 3 Schematic of the experimental faciiity
ARO 3 "outlet metallic double diaphragm pumps, these are bigger
pumps which provide a greater amount of liquid inside the test
section. The other set of pumps (1.1 and 1.2) are used when lesser
amounts of liquid are needed inside the flow loop. The slurry tank
has a capacity to hold 230 gallons of liquid, and it is equipped
with a '/2 horsepower mixer. The mixer creates a homogeneous
slurry inside the tank keeping particles from settling at the bottom
of the tank while conducting experiments. The boom tower is
18 m long and is equipped with two pipe mountings to hold two
different sized pipe sections. Another important component of the
loop is the collecting tank which separates gas from the flowing
mixture. Gas is allowed to exhaust from the top of the collecting
tank, whereas the liquid/solid mixture is pumped back into the
slurry tank to conduct recirculating experiments. If once-through
experiments were needed, the liquid/solid mixture was pumped to
a tank which is connected to a drain. The sand particles were
filtered using filter bags inside the tank before allowing the liquid
to enter the drain.
The experimental procedure for generating the multiphase slug
flow in the test section is explained as follows. The slurry mixture
is prepared after ensuring all the valves are closed. The amount of
slurry mixture depends on the kind of flow pattern required inside
the test section. As the experiments presented in this paper are
for the slug flow regime, a large amount of liquid is needed as
compared to other flow regimes. Also in this paper, measurements
for different viscosities are shown.
To vary the viscosity, different amounts of carboxlmethyl cellu-
lose (CMC) are added. CMC is a polymer which is commonly
used in the food industry as an additive. Adding CMC to the liquid
will not alter its density significantly while changing the viscosity.
It is highly advised to prepare the CMC solution in batches in a
separate container using a mortar mixer drill. These CMC solution
batches were dumped into the slurry tank until the desired quan-
tity of liquid solution with predetermined viscosity is achieved.
The viscosity of the liquid solution is measured using a Hydramo-
tion Viscolite 700 portable viscometer. After the slurry prepara-
tion process, the gas is injected into the test section. The valves
are adjusted to achieve the desired gas flow rate in the test section.
032905-4 / Vol. 135, SEPTEMBER 2013
Flat Head
ER Probe
Acoustic
Gas I Sand
Monitor
Pump 2.2)
Once the required superficial gas velocity is achieved, the pumps
which supply the liquid to the test section are started. The flow
rate of the pumping liquid is calculated by measuring the drop in
the liquid level over a period of time. The desired liquid flow rate
is achieved by adjusting the pressure supplied to the pneumatic
pumps.
As this paper also shows measurements in single-phase (gas)
flow, the experimental procedure for generating gas-solid flows is
explained as follows. First, the gas required inside the test section
is achieved by adjusting the valves. Once the gas velocity required
inside the test section is achieved, sand is injected via a port which
is downstream of the gas flow adjusting valve. Sand is initially
filled in a graduated cylinder, and it is allowed to flow with the
help of gravity. The valve at the bottom of the graduated cylinder
is used to adjust the sand flow rate. Gas moving at very high
velocity inside the pipeline will carry the particles which subse-
quently erode the pipe bend. The gas and sand particles finally
travel to the collecting tank where gas exhausts from the top of
the tank, and the sand particles are deposited at the bottom of the
tank. These deposited particles were removed after finishing the
erosion experiments by sending liquid into the collecting tank and
pumping the slurry out of the collecting tank.
Particles Used in Erosion Experiments
Two different abrasive sand particles were used for the erosion
measurements. California 60 mesh is the biggest sized particle.
The mean diameter (Dp) of the particle is 300 ßm. Figure 4 shows
the microscopic image of the California 60 mesh sand particles
showing sharp edges.
The other sand particle size used in the experiments is Okla-
homa #1. The mean particle size of these particles is around
150/¿m. Oklahoma #1 sand has rounded edges in comparison to
the California 60 mesh sand. It is considered to be semirounded
sand, and Fig. 5 shows an image of the Oklahoma #1 sand.
In all the experiments, the initial sand concentration was kept
constant irrespective of its size or shape. Concentration by weight
Transactions of the ASME

200|im—I
Fig. 4 Scanning electron microscopic image of California 60
sand particies
Oklahoma-« 220x
Fig. 5 Scanning electron microscopic image of the Okla-
homa#1 sand particles
of the sand particles was maintained at 1% (i.e., around 9 kg of
sand in 870.61 liters (230 gallons) of liquid).
Ultrasonic Testing for Measuring Erosion
A standard 76.2 mm (3-in.) elbow has been equipped with 16
transducers at different locations mounted on the elbow. This ena-
bles the erosion pattern under different operating conditions to be
determined. The elbow test section can be removed from the
boom loop. This enables data acquisition to be performed before
and after the slug flow experiments. Before introducing the fluids
inside the test section, the elbow is transported from an indoor
conditioned space and bolted to the flanges in position on the
boom loop. Additional anchoring to the elbow is provided by
strapping the elbow tightly with belt and pipe holders. This is
necessary as slug flow is associated with vibrations in the loop,
and these vibrations may remove the elbow from the boom loop if
the necessary anchoring is not provided.
Transducers utilized in this work are manufactured by Olympus
NDT, and the frequency of the transducers used is 10 MHz. The
size of the transducers used in this work (approximately 6.35 mm
(1/4 in.)) enables a relatively high sensor density on the outside of
the elbow. The high sensor density allows thickness measure-
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Transntter
DebyLlne
Acoustic Baniw
Fig. 6 Component view of duai eiement ultrasonic transducer
ments at multiple locations on the bend. Also, the technique is
nondestructive, not disturbing the flow inside the elbow. The
ultrasonic wave speed inside the elbow is linear in the normal
temperature range, so the thickness can be compensated for the
temperature mathematically. The thickness of the pipe wall at the
location of interest can be determined by multiplying the velocity
of the sound wave in that particular material and the time required
to travel through that thickness. The transducers which perform
the dual role of sending and receiving are called dual element
transducers. In the present study, the pulse/echo technique is
implemented, and therefore dual element transducers are used.
The two elements (sending and receiving) of the dual element
transducer are separated by an acoustic barrier; therefore, the
elements are acoustically separated. Accommodating both ele-
ments in the same body has an advantage of avoiding the ring
down effect. Ring down effect occurs when an element receives
the ultrasonic energy while it is transmitting. This can be observed
when a single element is used in the probe body. Also, the ele-
ments in the dual element transducer are arranged at different
angles avoiding interference between the incoming and outgoing
waves. Figure 6 shows a schematic of a dual element transducer.
UT Data Acquisition Procedure
Long period experiments were not possible in the experimental
setting for the erosion measurements. Compressors which provide
the necessary amount of gas into the test section can only operate
for a period of 6-8 h when started with a full tank of diesel.
Hence experimental runtime is limited to 6-8 h. For the gas-sand
experiments, this time period is sufficient as it is highly erosive.
Maximum wall loss rates can be observed in real-time without
further analysis of raw data. This further analysis consists of
applying the temperature-compensated post processor algorithm
to the raw data. The temperature compensated post processor
requires the appropriate temperature profile of the wall with nec-
essary variation, so as to provide reasonable metal loss results.
The temperature of the wall is measured from outside of the bend
by flush mounting 4 resistance temperature detectors (RTDs)
against the outer elbow wall which are strapped tightly using
thin copper wires. The temperature changes significantly during the
experiments. A pseudo steady-state temperature profile is observed
to be acceptable for the temperature compensation post processor.
So the data collected during the pseudo steady state period is used
for calculating the metal loss at the wall. The data gathered with
very high temperature gradients are excluded from the analysis.
Time required to reach the pseudo steady state period is approxi-
mately 45 min for the gas-sand experiments during the experimen-
tal run time. However, for the slug flow experiments, achieving the
pseudo steady-state during the experimental time period is not pos-
sible due to the intermittent nature of the slug flow regime which
significantly influences the temperature measurements. Figures 7
and 8 show the temperature profile of three different gas-sand and
multiphase slug flow experiments conducted during three different
SEPTEMBER2013, Vol. 135 / 032905-5
 S H Only Temperature ProMe
0 0.5 1 1.6 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Fig. 7 Temperature profiles for single-phase (gas-sand) ero-
sion experiments
Slug TeoiperaMire Profll«
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Fig. 8 Temperature profiles for multiphase slug (gas-liquid-
sand) erosion experiments
dates. These figures have the horizontal axis as the experimental
run-time and vertical axis as average surface temperature from the
mounted 4 RTDs. It is clear from the single-phase (gas-sand)
experiments that a pseudo steady-state temperature profile is
achieved. But for the slug flow experiments, the temperature profile
is changing even after 4 h of experimental run-time. Temperature
profiles like these cannot be used for the temperature compensated
post processor algorithm. In order to analyze the slug flow experi-
mental data in real time, either the experiments need to be con-
ducted for longer periods or the temperature of the outside large
scale boom loop needs to be controlled. Both of the mentioned sol-
utions were not possible as experimental run-time is constrained by
the diesel availability to the compressors and temperature control to
such a large scale loop is cost prohibitive. Instead, a simple before
and after data capture is implemented. Before and after the experi-
ment, data are gathered from the ultrasonic transducers where the
elbow is moved indoors and is covered with insulation. Also,
changing the direction of wall temperature gradient across the
elbow wall is avoided by circulating warm air inside the elbow.
This process always allows the heat transfer from inside the elbow
to the outside room and also achieves a uniform temperature distri-
bution across the elbow. The components needed for the warm air
circulator are two sections of metÉil duct, a metal tee, a small heat
source and an in-line vent blower. Air recirculates in a closed loop
across the heat source gaining heat and losing that heat gradually
until reaching the heat source again for more energy. Finally, metal
loss is calculated from the temperature compensated post processor
by inputting the file containing data of both before and after testing.
More details on the temperature compensated post processor algo-
rithm are provided by Grubb [22].
032905-6 / Vol. 135, SEPTEMBER 2013
5 5.5 G 6.5
Fig. 9 Picture showing the location of the transducers on the
standard 3-in. elbow when attached to the testing section
Table 1 Operating conditions for the experiments performed
for the single-phase (gas-sand) flow pattern
Experiment VQ Observed Experiment Sand rate Sand size
no. (ft/s) flow pattern run time (h) (g/min) (jum)
1 110 Single-phase 4 68 150
2 108 Single-phase 3.75 69 150
3 95 Single-phase 3 69.6 150
UT Test Results
S 5.5 The elbow is equipped with 16 transducers, and the locations of
the transducers are shown in Fig. 9. The arrow showing the fiow
direction indicates the order of the transducers when placed in the
testing section. The erosion patterns are presented for single-
phase (gas) flow and multiphase slug flow regimes with sand.
Effects of particle size and viscosity on erosion are studied.
Single-Phase (Gas-Sand Flow). Initially, the experiments
were perfonned using gas (single-phase fiow) and sand. The
experimental conditions are shown in Table 1. One reason for test-
ing with 150 jum sand is the relative ease in dry sand injection.
Typically, dry sand injection is much more difficult than injecting
sand along with liquid. The 150 ^m sand is more rounded and
flows through the sand injection device more easily than angular
sand. Erosion in mm per year (mm/y) is reported by dividing the
metal loss by the experimental runtime. It is assumed that the
metal loss rate is constant.
Figure 10 shows the erosion results in mm/y for a gas velocity
of 33.5m/s (llOft/s) and a sand rate of 68g/min using 150/im
sand particles. The experimental run time for this test was 4h.
The location of the maximum erosion can be identified, and also
the erosion pattern on the bend can be clearly seen. The maximum
erosion location inside the bend is around 45 deg to the flow direc-
tion in the straight pipe. The repeatability of the single-phase flow
experiment is tested by performing the same experiment with
more or less the same operating conditions.
Figure 11 shows the erosion results for a superficial gas velocity
of 32.9 m/s (108 ft/s), sand rate of 69 g/min using 150/¡m particle
size and an experiment run time of 3 h and 45 min. Operating con-
ditions of this experiment are close to the conditions for Fig. 10.
The erosion pattern of Fig. 11 is similar to Fig. 10. The location of
maximum erosion was clearly repeated. However, the magnitudes
of the erosion were not repeated. Still, the erosion magnitudes are
similar considering that erosion is a complex phenomenon and
variations in results are anticipated. The possible reasons for the
variation in the magnitude of erosion are as follows:
Transactions of the ASME
Fig. 10 Erosion shown in mm per year (mm/y) for a single
phase (gas + sand) experiment using 150/im sand at a gas ve-
locity of 33.5 m/s and sand rate of 68 g/min for an experimental
runtime of 4 h
Fig. 11 Erosion shown in mm per year (mm/y) for a single
phase (gas + sand) experiment using 150/(m sand at a gas ve-
locity of 32.9 m/s and sand rate of 69 g/min for an experimental
runtime of 3 h 45 min
• These experiments were conducted on different days, and the
difference in humidity may affect the erosion results. For
higher humidity's, more moisture is present in the test section
which can cause particles to stick to the pipe walls. In severe
cases, the particles may form a protective barrier on the bend
preventing subsequent erosion. This kind of phenomenon is
also observed by the low liquid loading experiments con-
ducted by Fan [23].
• There may be a little variation in sand flow rate into the test
section. The sand may become clogged in the sand injection
device. This mishap will prevent the sand from flowing until
it is cleaned. However, this effect can be limited by monitor-
ing the experiments closely.
After examining the repeatability of the tests, erosion experi-
ments proceeded to the next step. The gas flow rate in the test sec-
tion was reduced to observe the effect of gas velocity on the
erosion magnitude. Figure 12 shows the erosion pattern for the
single-phase (gas) experiment with sand conducted at a gas veloc-
ity of 28.9 m/s (95 ft/s) with sand flow rate of 69.5 g/min using
150/im sand particles. As expected, this experiment demonstrates
that decreasing the gas velocity decreases the erosion magnitude.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Fig. 12 Erosion shown in mm per year (mm/y) for a single
phase (gas + sand) experiment using 150/<m sand at a gas ve-
locity of 28.9 m/s and sand rate of 69.6 g/min for an experimental
runtime of 3 h
However, the location of maximum erosion did not change. This
implies that for gas-sand flows the location of maximum erosion
occurs at 45 deg in a standard bend.
Comparison of UT Single-Phase Erosion Results With CFD
Erosion Predictions. Past studies have shown good agreement
between experimental erosion rates and predicted erosion rates
using CFD for sand traveling in gas. So to gain confidence in the
erosion measurements for single-phase (gas) flows with sand
conducted using the ultrasonic technique, erosion results were
compared to CFD erosion predictions. This was done to achieve
assurance of the ultrasonic technology to continue the measure-
ments in the multiphase slug flow regime which is the prime focus
of this paper. Structured grid with regular sweep meshing was
used for the geometry of a horizontal straight pipe followed by a
standard elbow and a straight pipe of similar length connected at
the exit of the elbow. Grid independence was evaluated by exam-
ining erosion values. 570,000 number of cell volumes are used for
the current study. The boundary conditions were velocity inlet,
pressure outlet, and wall on the solid surfaces, ANSYS FLUENT Reyn-
olds stress 7 equation model was used for simulating turbulence
inside the flow domain. Discrete phase model was used to track
particles and the erosion/corrosion research center (E/CRC) ero-
sion equation was utilized to compute the magnitudes of the metal
loss inside the bend. More details about the solution approach is
not mentioned here as CFD is not the focus of this paper.
Figure 13 shows the comparison between CFD predictions and
the UT measurements for the gas-sand flows. The horizontal axis
shows the gas velocity in m/s and vertical axis shows the erosion
rate in mm per year (mm/y). The bars in the plot show the CFD
predicted erosion rates and the maximum measured erosion rates.
From this plot, it is clear that the predicted and the measured ero-
sion magnitudes were in good agreement.
Multiphase Slug Flow Tests
The next set of experiments was conducted with slug flow. The
erosion results in a standard 76.2 mm (3-in.) bend caused by
150/im sand particles with 1 cP liquid viscosity are shown in
Figs. 14 and 15. Figure 14 shows the erosion pattern in a standard
76.2 mm (3-in.) bend with superficial gas and liquid velocities of
35.6 m/s (117 ft/s) and 0.7 m/s (2.4 ft/s), and the experiment is
conducted for a period of 5.4 hs. Figure 15 shows the erosion
pattern for similar operating conditions as in Fig. 14 but with a
superficial liquid velocity of 0.8 m/s (2.5 ft/s). Observing these
SEPTEMBER2013, Vol. 135 / 032905-7
 • CFD Erosion
s Measured Erosion

28.9 32.9 33.5

Gas Velocity [m/s]

Fig. 13 Comparison of CFD erosion predictions to the UT

measurements for gas-sand fiows
Fig. 15 Erosion pattern for 150 //m particle size with superficiai
gas and liquid velocities of 35.6 m/s and 0.8 m/s and iiquid vis-
cosity of 1 cP with an experimental run time of 5.4 h (erosion is
shown in mm/y, exp date: Juiy 29, 2011)

Fig. 14 Erosion pattern for 150 fim particie size with superficial
gas and liquid velocities of 35.6 m/s and 0.7 m/s and liquid vis-
cosity of 1 cP with an expérimentai run time of 5.4 h (erosion is
shown in mm/y, exp date: Aug. 2, 2011)

two figures, the location of highest erosion is similar for
these two different experiments. However, there is a difference
in the magnitudes of erosion. To understand the amount of varia-
tion in erosion magnitudes, both sets of results are plotted
together.
Figure 16 shows the comparison of these two erosion experi-
ments. The magnitudes of erosion measured by transducers 4, 6,
7, 9, 10, and 12 were only considered for the comparison. These
locations experienced the most severe erosion in the slug flow
regime compared to the other locations. From Fig. 16, it can be
said that the location of maximum erosion is similar for the
experiments and the experimental magnitudes are comparable.
The percentage difference of erosion magnitude between experi-
ments for transducers 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are 30.8, 26.7, 31.8,
1.74, 52.8, and 31, respectively. For erosion experiments, these
differences are considered to be acceptable.
Definitely for the slug fiow condition, the erosion pattern is sig-
nificantly different from the single-phase (gas-sand) flow. The dif-
ferences observed in the erosion between these two flow patterns
are shown below:
• The location of highest erosion is slightly above of what was
observed for the gas-sand flows.
• The erosion magnitudes are significantly lower than for the
gas-sand flow. This is due to the different particle behavior in
the slug flow compared to the gas flow.
6 7 9 10 12
Channel
Fig. 16 Comparing magnitudes of erosion measured by trans-
ducers numbered 4, 6, 7, 9,10, and 12 for the experiments con-
ducted Juiy 29, 2011 and Aug. 2, 2011 (neariy simiiar operating
conditions in siug fiow)
Influence of particle size on erosion was also studied by
conducting experiments with 300//m particles. Figure 17 shows
the erosion experimental results with superficial gas and liquid
velocities of 33.5m/s (llOft/s) and 0.9m/s (3ft/s) using 1 cP
liquid viscosity. This experiment was conducted for a period of
5 h. It is noticed that the location of highest erosion did not shift
despite increasing the particle size. Definitely, the erosion magni-
tude increased since 300/¿m particles are sharper than the 150/¿m
sand particles. Also, the erosion is spread over a larger area as
compared to the 150^m experiments. It is shown that the majority
of the transducers, other than the transducers lying at the bottom
of the elbow, measure erosion greater than 2.54 mm/y. The lower
erosion at the bottom of the bend can be explained by the presence
of a slow moving liquid film that provides the bend some protec-
tion. As with the experiments using 150/im sand particles, a simi-
lar study was done to examine the repeatability of the 300 ßm
slug flow experiment and found the results were in good

032905-8 / Vol. 135, SEPTEMBER 2013 Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 17 Erosion pattern for 300 ,/m particie size with superficiai
gas and liquid veiocities of 33.5 m/s and 0.9 m/s and iiquid vis-
cosity of 1 cP for experimental run time of 5 h (erosion is shown
Fig. 18 Erosion pattern for 300 /im particie size with superf iciai
gas and iiquid velocities of 35.6 m/s and 0.7 m/s and liquid vis-
cosity of 10 cP for expérimentai run time of 6.5 h (erosion is
shown in mm/y)
agreement. The difference in the maximum erosion values
between these two experiments was 8.3%.
The effect of liquid viscosity was studied after studying the
influence of particle size on the erosion pattern. For this study,
liquid with viscosities of 10 cP and 40 cP were considered.
Figures 18 and 19 show the erosion magnitude patterns for similar
superficial velocities with liquid viscosities of 10 cP and 40 cP.
Figure 18 shows the erosion magnitude pattern for superficial gas
and liquid velocities of 35.6 m/s (117 ft/s) and 0.7 m/s (2.4 ft/s)
with liquid viscosity of 10 cP and particle size of 300/im for an
experimental run time of 6.5 h. The location of the highest erosion
is similar to the other slug flow tests even with the change in liq-
uid viscosity. Also, interestingly it is observed that the erosion
magnitudes measured by the transducers were slightly higher than
that measured for the viscosity of 1 cP. The reason behind this
behavior is still unidentified. A possible reason for this behavior
may be more gas entrainment in the liquid slug body. Similar to
the previous experimental results, the transducers mounted at the
bottom of the pipe bend measure minimal or no metal loss due to
the movement of the slow moving liquid fllm (note: some of the
transducers of the bend shown in red in Figs. 14, 15, 18, and 19
provided surprising results. The reason for these results is still
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
pig. 19 Erosion pattern for 300 fim particie size with superficiai
^„^ |¡ ¡^ veiocities of 35 m/s and 0.7 m/s and iiquid viscos-
¡ty ,,, 40 g ^p ^^^ expérimentai run time of 6.5 h (erosion is
Shown in mm/y)
1 10
Viscosity [cP]
Fig. 20 Liquid viscosity effect on erosion in slug flow
unknown). As performed for previous experimental conditions,
the experiment for the 10 cP liquid viscosity was conducted again
to observe the repeatability and the results were agreeable. The
difference in the maximum erosion values obtained for 10 cP liq-
uid viscosity experiments was 16.8%. To further investigate the
behavior of erosion as a function of viscosity, experiments were
conducted with a liquid viscosity of 40 cP. It should be mentioned
that conducting experiments with higher liquid viscosity, in this
case 40 cP, is extremely challenging. The particles tend to stick to
the surface of the slurry tank even though a powerful mixer is in
use to keep the sand particles suspended. To alleviate this issue,
hand stirring was also implemented. Figure 19 shows the erosion
magnitude plot for the superficial gas and liquid velocities of
35 m/s (115 ft/s) and 0.7 m/s (2.3 ft/s) using 300 ßm sand particles
with liquid viscosity of 40 cP and an experimental run time of
6.5 h. This plot implies that the location of the highest erosion did
not change by changing the viscosity of the liquid for the operat-
ing conditions examined. However, the magnitude of highest ero-
sion dropped by approximately three times compared with 1 cP
and 10 cP experiments. It seems that there are very few locations
inside the bend that experience severe erosion under these
viscosities.
Erosion rate as a function of viscosity is shown in Fig. 20. Hori-
zontal axis shows the viscosity in centipoise, and the vertical axis
SEPTEMBER2013, Vol. 135 / 032905-9
 • ER@45
• UT@45
35.7 28.0 32.9 33.5 25.9 35.7
0.7 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7
1 1 10 1 1 10
150 150 150 300 300 300 Size [Mm]
Fig. 21 Comparison of erosion magnitudes at variety of oper-
ating conditions in a slug flow regime using a flat head ER
probe and the ultrasonic transducer mounted at 45 deg to the
bend
shows the averaged erosion rate at transducer number 6 in mm/y
(note: this transducer measures the highest erosion). The location
of highest erosion in the slug fiow regime is independent of vis-
cosity but the magnitude depends on fluid viscosity. The averaged
erosion rate at transducer 6 for the 10 cP viscous fluid is slightly
higher than 1 cP. However, the averaged erosion rate at transducer
6 for the 40 cP viscous fluid is significantly lower than 1 and
10 cP liquid viscosities. The reason is that the slugs for the 40 cP
liquid viscosity are not as energetic compared with 1 cP or 10 cP.
The turbulence associated with 40 cP liquid slugs are lower than
the other lower viscosities, thereby reducing the particle impact-
ing velocities at the wall and subsequently causes decreased
metal loss. However, as explained previously the reason for the
unexpected behavior of erosion magnitudes for the 10 cP liquid
viscosity is an unknown. The exploration of this behavior is
planned for future research.
Comparison of Nonintrusive UT Data for Slug Flow
to the Intrusive ER Prohe Data
Slug flow erosion data collected using the ultrasonic transducer
mounted on the outside wall around 45 deg to the flow direction
was compared to the data gathered using the flat head ER probe
mounted flush to the inside elbow wall mounted at 45 deg.
ER probe experiments were performed separately on a different
stainless steel elbow equipped with the probe. Necessary precau-
tions were taken to conduct erosion experiments using ER probes
by generating similar operating conditions in the test section com-
pared to the ultrasonic experiments. Figure 21 shows that compar-
ison with horizontal axis as superficial liquid velocity, superficial
gas velocity, dynamic viscosity and the particle size. The vertical
axis is erosion rate in mm/y. The bars in Fig. 21 show the erosion
magnitudes measured using ultrasonic transducers and the flush
mounted electrical resistance probes. It is evident that the data
collected with these two instruments are agreeable irrespective of
the operating condition or particle size. After the comparison
between the instruments, the maximum erosion obtained through
the measurements using the UT instrument were compared to the
erosion data collected using the angle-head ER probe mounted
inside the straight pipe section. This was done as oil and gas pro-
ducers tend to measure erosion by inserting the probe in the
straight section due to accessibility. For the current measurements
with the angle-head probe, the probe is inserted from the top of
the pipe until the center of the head of the probe reached the cen-
terline of the pipe section. The diameter of the angle-head probe
used was 25.4 mm (1-in.). Figure 22 shows the comparison
032905-10 / Vol. 135, SEPTEMBER 2013
Anglehead
• UT Maximum
UJ
35.7 28.0 32.9 33.5 25.9 35.7 33.5
0.7 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 Vsu[m/s]
1 1 10 1 1 10 40 JJ[CP]
150 150 150 300 300 300 300 Size [pm]
Fig. 22 Erosion magnitudes comparison between UT maxi-
mum erosion and the erosion measured using the angle-head
probe mounted in the straight pipe section in slug flow regime
under variety of operating conditions and particle sizes
between highest erosion measured for the elbow using the ultra-
sonic instrument and the erosion measured using the angle-head ER
probe. The bars in Fig. 22 show the erosion magnitudes measured
using ultrasonic transducers and the fiat head angle-head probe.
From the data comparison, irrespective of the operating conditions,
it is evident that the angle-head measurements were higher than the
highest erosion measured for the bend. One explanation of the
results is the blockage provided by the probe. The 25.4mm (1-in.)
diameter angle-head probe is inserted into a 76.2 mm (3-in.) diame-
ter pipe thereby increasing the local fluid velocity resulting in
higher velocity particle impacts. These higher velocity particle
impacts cause higher measured metal loss using the angle-head
probe compared to the maximum metal loss occurring inside the
bend. Therefore, the measurements from the angle-head probe are
conservative when using these results as a guide for erosion in
bends.
Conclusions
Erosion experiments were performed implementing the ultra-
sonic technique in a 76.2 mm (3-in.) diameter pipe on a standard
elbow. Several conclusions were drawn from the current study
and they are stated as follows:
• Novel noninvasive nano UT permanent placement tempera-
ture compensated ultrasonic wall thickness device was devel-
oped for this work. It was successful identifying the erosion
pattern on a standard bend.
• Location of highest erosion for the single-phase (gas) fiow
was identified around 45 deg to the bend whereas the location
of highest erosion in slug flow was identified at the top of the
bend.
• Erosion measurements in the single-phase fiow were com-
pared to the CFD predictions and the results were reasonably
agreeable.
• Under the slug flow regime, transducers mounted at the bot-
tom of the elbow measured very low erosion as the bottom of
the elbow is protected by a slow moving liquid film.
• Erosion measurements were obtained using 150 ^im and
300/im particle sizes. Increasing the particle size increased
the metal loss. The location of maximum erosion was unal-
tered by increasing the particle size in the slug flow regime.
It should be noted the 300 ßm particles were sharper than the
150/im particles.
• In the slug flow regime erosion measurements, there is a
slight increase in erosion magnitude in a bend for 10 cP
Transactions of the ASME
 viscous liquid compared to 1 cP. However, there is a signifi-
cant decrease in the erosion magnitude after increasing the
liquid viscosity to 40 cP.
Metal loss measured using angle-head probe in straight pipe
was always higher than the highest erosion inside the bend.
Metal loss measurements in the slug flow regime under a
variety of operating conditions using the ultrasonic technol-
ogy are similar to the measurements conducted using the ER
probe.
Acknowledgment
This material is based upon work supported by the E/CRC
member companies. The authors also gratefully acknowledge
Dr. David Blumer for his assistance in developing ultrasonic time-
of-fiight algorithm. We also express our appreciation for the fund-
ing to develop custom built ultrasonic instrument provided by the
Production Assurance Technology group at the ConocoPhillips
Bartlesville Technology Center in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Thanks
are also due to Ed Bowers, senior technician at E/CRC for build-
ing the boom loop facility at Utiiversity of Tulsa North Campus.
Nomenclature
cP = centipoise
CMC = carboxymethyl cellulose
D = diameter of pipe (m)
Dp = particle diameter (/im)
ER = electrical resistance probe
L = length of pipe (m)
length of the liquid film (m)
length of the slug body (m)
UT = ultrasonic testing
superficial gas velocity
superficial liquid velocity
¡1 dynamic viscosity (cP)
density of fluid (kg/m^)
p [20] Shirazi, S. A., Shadley, J. R., McLaury, B. S., and Rybicki, E. F., 1995, "A Pro-
References
[1] Duckler, A. E., and Hubbard M. G., 1975, "A Model for Gas Liquid Slug Flow
in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Tubes," Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 14, pp.
337-347.
[2] Taitei, Y., and Bamea, D., 1990, "Two Phase Slug Flow," Adv. Heat Transfer,
20, pp. 83-132.
[3] Brill, J. P., Schmidt, Z., Coberly, W. A., Herring, J. D.. and Moore, D. W.,
1981, "Analysis of Two Phase Tests in Large-Diameter Flow Lines in Prudhoe
Bay Field," SPEJ, 271, pp. 363-378.
[4] Scott, S. L., Shoham, O., and Brill, J. P., 1989, "Prediction of Slug Length in
Horizontal, Large-Diameter Pipes," SPEPE, 4(3), pp. 335-340.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
[5] Nydal, O. J., Pintus, S., and Andreussi, P., 1992, "Statistical Characterization of
Slug Flow in Horizontal Pipes," Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 18, pp. 439-453.
[6] Cook, M.. and Behnia, M., 2000, "Slug Length Prediction in Near Horizontal
Gas-LIQUID Intermittent Flow," Chem. Eng. Sei., SS, pp. 2009-2018.
[7] van Hout, R., Bamea, D., and Shemer, L., 2001, "Evolution of Statistical
Parameters of Gas-Liquid Slug Flow Along Vertical Pipes," Int. J. Multiphase
Flow, 27, pp. 1579-1602.
[8] Wang, X., Guo, L., and Zhang. X., 2006, "Development of Liquid Slug Length
in Gas-Liquid Slug Flow Along Horizontal Pipeline; Experiment and Simu-
lation," Chin. J. Chem. Eng., 14, pp. 626-633.
[9] Sarica, C , Zhang, H.-Q., and Wilkens. R. J., 2011, "Sensitivity of Slug Flow
Mechanistic Models on Slug Length," ASME J. Energy Resourc. Technol.,
133(4), p. 043001.
[10] Gomez, L. E., Shoham, O., Schmidt, Z., Choshki, R. N., and Northug, T., 2000,
"Unitied Mechanistic Model for Steady State Two Phase Flow: Horizontal to
Upward Verticle Flow," SPEJ, S, pp. 339-350.
[11] Zhang, H.-Q., Wang, Q., Sarica, C , and Brill, J. P., 2003, "A Unified Mechanis-
tic Model for Slug Liquid Holdup and Transition Between Slug and Dispersed
Bubble Flows," Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 29, pp. 97-107.
[12] Pereyra, E., Arismendi, R., Gomez, L. E., Mohan, R. S., Shoham, O., and
Kouba G. E., 2012, "State of the Art of Experimental Studies and Predictive
Methods for Slug Liquid Holdup," ASME J. Energy Resourc. Technol., 134(2),
p. 023001.
[13] Hill, A. L., 2011. "Determining the Critical Flow Rates for Low-Concentration
Sand Transport in Two-Phase Pipe Flow by Experimentation and Modeling,"
M.S. thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK.
[14] Al-lababidi, S., Yan, W., and Yeung, H., 2012, "Sand Transportations and Dep-
osition Characteristics in Multiphase Flows in Pipelines," ASME J. Energy
Resourc. Technol., 134(3), p. 034501.
[15] Zeinali, H., Toma, P., and Kuru, E., 2012, "Effect of Near-Wall Turbulence
on Selective Removal of Particles From Sand Beds Deposited in Pipelines,"
ASME J. Energy Resourc. Technol., 134(2), p. 021003.
[16] McLaury, B. S., Shirazi, S. A., Viswanathan, V., Mazumder, Q. H., and Santos,
G., 2011, "Distribution of Sand Particles in Horizontal and Vertical Annular
Multiphase Flow in Pipes and the Effects on Sand Erosion," ASME J. Energy
Resourc. Technol., 133(2), p. 023001.
[17] Gundameedi, V. M., 2008, "Performance of Elecrical Resistance Probes and
Acoustic Monitors in Slug Flow," M.S. thesis. Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[18] Odigie, M. E., 2008, "Acoustic Monitor Threshold Limits for Sand Detection in
Multiphase Flow Production Systems," M.S. thesis. Department of Mechanical
Engineering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[19] Rodriguez, J. C , 2008, "Effects of Liquid Viscosity and Sand Size on Erosion
in Slug Multiphase Flow," M.S. thesis. Department of Mechanical Enigneering,
The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
cedure to Predict Solid Particle Erosion in Elbows and Tees," ASME J. Pressure
Vessel Technol., 117, pp. 45-52.
[21] Throneberry, J. M., 2010, "Solid Particle Erosion in Slug Flow," M.S.
thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa,
OK.
[22] Grubb, S. A., 2011, "Development and Use of a Multi-point Temperature Com-
pensated High Precision Permanent Mounted Ultrasonic Instrument to Measure
the Slug Flow Erosion Pattern in a Horizontal Standard Elbow," Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa,
OK.
[23] Fan, C , 2010, "Evaluation of Solid Particle Erosion in Gas Dominant Flows
Using Electrical Resistance Probes," M.S. thesis. Department of Mechanical
Engineering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
SEPTEMBER2013, Vol. 135 / 032905-11
Copyright of Journal of Energy Resources Technology is the property of American Society of
Mechanical Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.