10 vues

Transféré par Ayush JAin

Paper on Sand Erosion in contraction

- Urban Areas
- 118076164 Gravity Separation of Particulate
- KIVA2
- Cfdb 6 Turbulence
- Assignment01_MECH5304_BendFlow
- Fluent-Intro_14.5_L03_Turbulence&HeatTransfer&Transient.pdf
- asssement of wear erosion in pumps.pdf
- PENEMPATAN FLUIDA
- An Experimental Evaluation of Refrigerated Display Case Performan
- Statement of Qualifications-CFD
- Turbulence
- IJERTV3IS030773.doc
- rnoti-p354
- Improving the Capacity of a MSW Incineration Plant
- Mi, Deo and Nathan 2005 - Fast Covergent Itteratiuve Scheme for Filtering Velcoity Signals and Finding Kolmogorov Scales
- Flow Through Screens
- Numerical Simulation of Hot Air Drying Kiln Velocity Field Based on Computational Fluid Dynamics
- Physics I Problems (75).pdf
- Module 12- Phys 13 And11a Momentum
- rocket lab

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

www.elsevier.com/locate/compuid

a pipe with sudden contraction

H.M. Badr *, M.A. Habib, R. Ben-Mansour, S.A.M. Said

Mechanical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals,

Box # 322, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

Received 14 April 2003; received in revised form 31 January 2004; accepted 27 May 2004

Available online 27 October 2004

Abstract

This paper deals with erosion prediction in a pipe with sudden contraction for the special case of twophase (liquid and solid) turbulent ow with low particle concentration. The pipe axis was considered vertical and the ow was either in direction of gravity (downow) or against it (upow). The mathematical

models for the calculations of the uid velocity eld and the motion of the solid particles have been established and an erosion model was used to predict the erosion rate. The uid velocity (continuous phase)

model was based on the time-averaged governing equations of 3-D turbulent ow and the particle-tracking

model (discrete phase) was based on the solution of the governing equation of each particle motion taking

into consideration the eect of particle rebound behavior. The eects of ow velocity and particle size were

investigated for one contraction geometry considering water ow in a steel pipe. The results showed the

strong dependence of erosion on both particle size and ow velocity but with little dependence on the direction of ow. The eect of ow direction was found to be signicant only for large particle size and moderate

ow velocity. The erosion critical area was found to be the inner surface of the tube sheet (connecting the

two pipes) in the region close to the small pipe. The results also indicated the presence of a threshold velocity below which erosion is insignicant for all particle sizes.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +966 3 860 2543; fax: +966 3 860 2949.

E-mail address: badrhm@kfupm.edu.sa (H.M. Badr).

0045-7930/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.compuid.2004.05.010

722

Nomenclature

A

b

CD

Cl

C1

C2

C 2

d

Dp

E

F

Gk

g

k

mp

Np

p

Rep

s

Uj

u

uj

up

Vi

Vt

up

xj

t

Greek

a

e

l

q

rk

re

surface area

constant dened in Eq. (13)

drag coecient

constant dened in Eq. (4)

constant dened in Eq. (6)

constant dened in Eq. (8)

constant dened in Eq. (6)

diameter

Solid particle diameter

Erosion rate, mg/g

force

generation of turbulent kinetic energy

gravitational acceleration

turbulent kinetic energy

mass of individual particle

number of particles

pressure

particle Reynolds number

Sand ow

average velocity component

uid velocity vector

uctuating velocity component

particle velocity

Flow inlet velocity

Threshold erosional velocity

particle velocity

space coordinate

time

letters

impact angle

dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy

dynamic viscosity

density

eective Prandtl number for k

eective Prandtl number for e

Superscripts

time rate

time average

723

Subscripts

D

drag

f

uid

sl

Saman lift

lc

local

m

target material

p

particle

pg

pressure gradient

vm

virtual mass

1. Introduction

Erosion is one of the important problems in various gas and liquid ow passages such as ow in

pipes and pipe ttings (valves, bends, elbows, ow meters, . . . etc.), ow in pumps, turbines, compressors and many others. Erosion may cause equipment malfunctioning (vibration, leakage,

excessive energy losses, . . . etc.) and may also lead to complete failure of machine components.

Accurate prediction of the rate of erosion in a specic application is one of the very complicated

problems since it requires detailed investigation of the solid particle motion before and after impact. The diculty arises mainly from the fact that most ows occurring in industrial processes

are turbulent which makes the particle trajectory and impact characteristics dicult to predict

taking into consideration all uid forces acting on the particle. The following literature review

is limited to previous work done on erosion in pipes and pipe ttings.

Previous erosion studies can be classied under three categories; experimental investigations,

erosion model developments, and numerical simulations. Tilly [1] presented a thorough analysis

of the various parameters aecting erosion, including particle properties, impact parameters, particle concentration, material temperature, and tensile stress. He also reviewed the dierent mechanisms of erosion, which were categorized into brittle and ductile behaviors. Ru and Wiederhorn

[2] presented another review of the solid particle erosion phenomena considering single and multiple particle models on erosion of metals and ceramics. The signicant parameters for eroding

particles and material characteristics were also presented. Humphrey [3] reported a more comprehensive review of the fundamentals of uid motion and erosion by solid particles. The review includes a discussion of the experimental techniques and the various fundamental considerations

relating to the motion of solid particles. An assessment of the uid mechanics phenomena that

can signicantly inuence erosion of material surfaces by impinging particles was also presented.

Because of its direct relevance to gas and oil industries, erosion of pipes and pipe ttings attracted

many researchers. Several experimental studies were conducted with the main objective being to

determine the rate of erosion in such ow passages and its relation with the other parameters involved in the process. Among these studies are the works by Rochester and Brunton [4], True

and Weiner [5], Glaeser and Dow [6], Roco et al. [7], Venkatesh [8], and Shook et al. [9]. Soderberg

et al. [10,11] and Hutchings [12,13] reported the advantages and disadvantages of such experiments.

The recent experimental study by McLaury et al. [14] on the rate of erosion inside elbows and

straight pipes provided correlations between the penetration rate and the ow velocity at dierent

724

values of the elbow diameter and sand rate and size. Edwards et al. [15] reported the eect of the

bend angle on the normalized penetration rate. The objective of most of these experimental studies

was to provide data for establishing a relationship between the amount of erosion and the physical

characteristics of the materials involved, as well as the particle velocity and angle of impact. Blanchard et al. [16] carried out an experimental study of erosion in an elbow by solid particles entrained

in water. The elbow was examined in a closed test loop. Electroplating the elbow surface and photographing after an elapsed period of time were carried out to show the wear pattern. The theoretical model developed by Rabinowicz [17] was used to calculate the volume of material removed.

The results indicated that the sand particle trajectories appeared to be governed by the secondary

ows and that there was no simple liquid velocity prole that can be used to calculate the particle

trajectories in order to make an accurate prediction of the location of the point of maximum wear.

Several erosion models/correlations were developed by many researchers to provide a quick answer to design engineers in the absence of a comprehensive practical approach for erosion prediction. One of the early erosion prediction correlations is that developed by Finnie [18] expressing

the rate of erosion in terms of particle mass and impact velocity. In that correlation, the rate of

erosion was proportional to the impact velocity squared. In a recent study, Nesic [19] found that

Finnies model overpredicts the erosion rate and presented another formula for the erosion rate in

terms of a critical velocity rather than the impact velocity. One of the early erosion models was

that suggested by Bitter [20,21]. In that model, the erosion was assumed to occur in two main

mechanisms; the rst was caused by repeated deformation during collisions that eventually results

in the breaking loose of a piece of material while the second was caused by the cutting action of

the free-moving particles. Comparisons between the obtained correlations and the test results

showed a good agreement. It was concluded that cutting wear prevails in places where the impact

angles are small (such as in risers and straight pipes) and it is sucient to use hard material in such

places to reduce erosion. Tilly [1] suggested another two-stage mechanism for explaining dierent

aspects of the erosion process for ductile materials. In the rst stage, the particles indent the target

surface, causing chips to be removed and some material to be gouged and extruded to form vulnerable hillocks around the scar. The second stage was the one in which the particles break up on

impact causing fragments to be projected radially to produce a secondary damage. A correlation

was presented relating erosion to the energy required to remove a unit mass and the particle velocity and size. The calculated values of erosion were compared with the experimental data for different particle sizes and a reasonable agreement was found, however, the validity of the work was

limited to ductile materials and could not be generalized to include other materials. Other erosion

models were suggested by Laitone [22], Salama and Venkatesh [23], Bourgoyne [24], Chase et al.

[25], McLaury [26], Svedeman and Arnold [27], and Jordan [28].

Recently, Shirazi and McLaury [29] presented a model for predicting multiphase erosion in

elbows. The model was developed based on extensive empirical information gathered from many

sources, and it accounts for the physical variables aecting erosion, including uid properties,

sand production rate and size, and the uid-stream composition. An important dierent feature

of this model was the use of the characteristic impact velocity of the particles. The method used

for obtaining this characteristic velocity for an elbow was an extension of a previous method

introduced by the same authors for the case of a single-phase ow. The results from the model

were compared with previous experimental results for elbows and were found to have a better

agreement with eld failure data.

725

modeling, Lagrangian particle-tracking, and the use of erosion correlations. The ow model is

used to determine the ow eld for a given geometry while the particle-tracking model is used

to determine the particle trajectories for solid particles released in the ow. The particle impingement information extracted from the trajectories is used along with the empirical erosion equations to predict the erosion rates. This model, which is sometimes called the Lagrangian

approach, requires expertise in uid dynamic modeling and a large amount of computational

work. Boulet et al. [30] conducted numerical solutions for the turbulent ow of an airsolid suspension in a heated vertical pipe using EulerianEulerian and EulerianLagrangian formulations.

The main task was to assess the accuracy of these two formulations, taking the experimental data

reported by Tsuji et al. [31] and Jepson et al. [32] as a base for comparison. The rst part of the

pipe contains developing ow with no heat transfer. In the second part of the pipe, the dynamically fully developed ow was heated using a heated section of the pipe (constant heat ux). The

simulation was carried out for dierent values of mass loading with particles of 500 lm diameter.

The comparisons with experimental data for the dynamic features of the ow showed the same

accuracy level for both formulations, especially for dilute ows. However, the accuracy was found

to decrease signicantly in both formulations as more particles were injected in the ow.

Lagrangian models were developed by many researchers such as Lu et al. [33], Wang et al. [34],

Keating and Nesic [35] and Wallace et al. [36] who used combinations of computational uid

dynamics and dierent Lagrangian particle-tracking models to predict the particle movement

through complex geometries. Dierent computational uid dynamic packages such as PHOENICS [35,37] and CFX-code [38] were used to predict the uid ow eld. Wang et al. [34] developed a computational model for predicting the rate of erosive wear in a 90 elbow for the two

cases of sand in air and sand in water. The ow eld was rst obtained and then the particle trajectory and impacting characteristics were then determined by solving the equation of particle motion taking into consideration all the forces including drag, buoyancy, and virtual mass eects

with the assumption of a uniform distribution of the solid particles at the starting section. The

penetration rate was obtained using a semi-empirical relation that was previously developed by

Ahlert [39]. A comparison between the predicted penetration rates and the available experimental

data showed a good agreement.

In a recent study by Edwards et al. [15], an erosion prediction procedure was developed and

veried based on a CFD code combining ow eld analysis and particle-tracking for obtaining

particle impingement data. The erosion rate was then computed using the empirical relations of

Ahlert [39] and applied to predict erosion in a pipe bend tting made of carbon steel. The

CFD code utilized a nite-volume multiblock approach for solving NavierStokes equations

based on a user-dened computational model that was described by Patankar [40]. The authors

used the Lagrangian particle-tracking algorithm of the CFD code for the prediction of individual

trajectories of the dispersed phase through the ow eld.

Based on the above literature search and to the best of the authors knowledge, most of the published work on erosion in pipes focused on straight pipes and pipe ttings such as bends and

elbows. Apart from the work of Nesic [19], Postlethwaite and Nesic [41] and Blatt et al. [42],

the erosion process occurring in a pipe with sudden contraction or sudden enlargement was

not considered in any previous study. Postlethwaite and Nesic [41] and Blatt et al. [42] provided

experimental data for erosion inside a pipe with sudden contraction and sudden enlargement. The

726

present research work aims at studying the eect of uid ow parameters on the rate of erosion in

a pipe contraction under conditions simulating the actual working conditions. The calculations of

the ow pattern and solid particle motion inside the pipe contraction were performed and the

available data in the literature were used for estimating the rate of erosion. The computational

procedure is validated against the results of Postlethwaite and Nesic [41].

The ow domain consists of a straight pipe of diameter, D = 200 mm, connected to a smaller

pipe of diameter, d, as shown in Fig. 1 with diameter ratio, d/D = 0.5. The pipe centerline is always

vertical while the direction of uid ow is either vertically upward or vertically downward. Both

pipes are made of carbon steel and both are long enough to justify the assumption of fully developed ow at the entrance and exit sections of the ow domain. The uid considered in this study is

water at 20 C with low particle concentration such that the eect of particle motion on the uid

ow eld is negligibly small.

In general, the rate of erosion in tubes depends upon many parameters such as the properties of

the impacting particles, the properties of the tube material, and the other parameters of the impact

process [1,2,43]. In this study, the main parameters aecting erosion are the ow velocity and particle size and concentration. In order to predict the rate of erosion, the ow eld characteristics

and the details of the particle impact process in addition to the erosion rate correlations are required. The Lagrangian particle-tracking method is used to model the erosion process and is normally carried out using the following steps [36]:

(a) Predict the ow velocity eld in the domain of interest.

(b) Calculate the trajectories of solid particles entrained in the uid using Lagrangian particletracking calculations and then extract the particle impact data.

(c) Predict the erosive wear using one of the available semi-empirical correlations.

Fig. 1. Flow passage geometry for the two cases of upow and downow.

727

This approach represents a one-way ow-to-particle coupling method that can be used when

low volume of particles is simulated. Two computational models were developed; the rst is

the continuous phase model (dealing with the prediction of the ow velocity eld) and the second

is the particle-tracking model (dealing with the prediction of particle motion). A brief discussion

of the two models is presented in the following sections.

2.1. The continuous phase model

A combination of computational uid dynamics and Lagrangian particle tracking are normally

used to predict the particle movement through complex geometries [34,35,15,36]. To predict the

ow pattern of the continuous ow phase, the conservation equations for mass and momentum

are solved. Additional transport equations for the turbulence model are also solved since the ow

is turbulent. The time-averaged governing equations of 3-D turbulent ow can be found in many

Refs. [44,45] and can be presented as follows.

2.1.1. The continuity and momentum equations

The steady state time-averaged conservation equations of mass and momentum can be written

as

o

qU j 0

oxj

o

op

o

oU i

o

qU i U j

l

qui uj

oxj

oxi oxj

oxj

oxj

where p is the static pressure and the stress tensor qui uj is given by

oU i oU j

2

qui uj leff

qkdij

3

oxj

oxj

where dij is the Kronecker delta and le = lt + l is the eective viscosity. The turbulent viscosity,

lt, is calculated using the high-Reynolds number form as

k2

4

e

with Cl = 0.0845, k and e are the kinetic energy of turbulence and its dissipation rate. These are

obtained by solving their conservation equations as given below.

lt qC l

The conservation equations of the turbulence model (Reynolds [46] and Shih et al. [47]) are

given as follows:

o

o leff ok

Gk qe

qU j k

5

oxj

oxj rk oxi

728

o

o leff oe

e

e2

qU j e

C 1 Gk C 2 q

oxj

oxi re oxi

k

k

where Gk represents the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients

and is given by

oU j

7

Gk qui uj

oxi

The quantities rk and re are the eective Prandtl numbers for k and e, respectively and C 2 is given

by Shih et al. [47] as

C 2 C 2 C 3

where C3 is a function of the term k/e and, therefore, the model is responsive to the eects of rapid

strain and streamline curvature and is suitable for the present calculations. The model constants

C1 and C2 have the values; C1 = 1.42 and C2 = 1.68.

The wall functions establish the link between the eld variables at the near-wall cells and the

corresponding quantities at the wall. These are based on the assumptions introduced by Launder

and Spalding [48] and have been most widely used for industrial ow modeling. The details of the

wall functions are provided by the law-of-the-wall for the mean velocity as given by Habib et al.

[44].

2.1.3. Boundary conditions

The velocity distribution is considered fully developed q

at

the inlet

section. Kinetic energy and its

dissipation rate are assigned through a specied value of k=U equal to 0.1 and a length scale, L,

equal to the diameter of the inlet pipe. The boundary condition applied at the exit section is that

of fully developed ow. At the wall boundaries, all velocity components are set to zero in accordance with the no-slip and impermeability conditions. Kinetic energy of turbulence and its dissipation rate are determined from the equations of the turbulence model.

2.1.4. Solution procedure

The solution domain was rst divided into a large number of nite volumes (at least 30,000

nite volumes). All meshes are of structured type and have ne meshing at the contraction

down to a minimum rectangular cell size of 0.1 mm (in the radial direction) 0.15 mm (in the

axial direction). This ne mesh is necessary to capture the steep velocity gradients close to

the contraction. The conservation equations are integrated over every nite volume to yield

the details of the velocity eld. The equations are solved simultaneously using the solution procedure described by Patankar [40]. Convergence is considered when the maximum of the summation of the residuals of all the elements for U, V, W and pressure correction equations is less

than 0.1%. The grid independence tests were performed by increasing the number of control

volumes from 7000 to 43,750 in two steps; 700030,000 and 30,00043,750. The results of rening the grids are shown in Fig. 2a and b for the axial and radial velocity proles. The inuence

of rening the grid on the continuous-phase velocity eld is very negligible and indicates that

more mesh renement will result in negligible changes in the results of the computational

model.

729

20.0

18.0

16.0

Axial velocity, m/s

14.0

12.0

10.0

Mesh 3, 43750 volumes

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

-0.30

-0.20

(a)

0.0

0.00

-0.10

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.025

Radial distance, m

0.020

Mesh 2, 30000 volumes

Mesh 3, 43750 volumes

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

-2.0

(b)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Fig. 2. Grid independence tests. (a) Comparison of axial velocity along the tube axis for dierent mesh sizes.

(b) Comparison of axial velocity along the radius at 1 mm upstream of the contraction for dierent mesh sizes.

2.2. Particle-tracking

The particle-tracking calculations aim to determine the particle trajectory from the moment it

enters the ow domain until it leaves the small tube. Of special interest is the particle velocity

(magnitude and direction) before every impact either on the pipes walls or anywhere on the tube

sheet. Such impact velocity is not only important for the calculation of solid surface erosion but

also important in the determination of the particle trajectory during its subsequent course of motion following impact. One of the main assumptions in this study is that the solid particles are not

interacting with each other (the particles do not collide and the motion of any particle is not inuenced by the presence or motion of neighboring particles). Moreover, the inuence of particle motion on the uid ow eld is considered very small and can be neglected. These two assumptions

are based on the condition of fairly dilute particle concentration. The same assumptions were

730

made by Lu et al. [33], Shirazi et al. [49], Edwards et al. [15], Keating and Nesic [35] and Wallace

et al. [36] in the solution of similar problems of low particle concentration (<23% by weight).

Taking the main hydrodynamic forces into consideration, the particle equation of motion can

be written as:

dup

F D u up gqp q=qp F vm F pg F sl

dt

where FD(uup) is the drag force per unit particle mass and F D 3C D lRep =4qp D2p , gqp q=qp is

the buoyancy force term, Fvm is the virtual mass term (force required to accelerate the uid surrounding the particle), Fpg is the pressure gradient term and Fsl is the Saman lift force [50]. The

Magnus lift force (resulting from particle rotation) and the Basset history force (the force accounting for the ow eld unsteadiness) have been neglected. The particle Reynolds number, Rep, and

the drag coecient, CD, are obtained from

Rep

qDp jup uj

l

C D a1

a2

a3

Rep R2ep

10

11

where the as are constants given by Morsi and Alexander [51] for smooth spherical particles over

several ranges of Re. Another equation that is frequently used for CD [52] is given by

CD

24

b3 Rep

1 b1 Rbep2

b4 Rep

Rep

12

where b1, b2, b3 and b4 are constants that depend on the particle shape.

Because of the low particle concentration assumed in the present study, the particle motion is

considered non-interacting and the dominant force in Eq. (9) is the drag force [15]. Some of the

other forces given in Eq. (9) are of small order of magnitude and can be neglected in this study.

The rst of these is the virtual mass term that takes care of the force required to accelerate the

uid surrounding the particle. This term can be expressed as

F vm

1 q d

u up

2 qp dt

13

Although the virtual mass force, Fvm, is only important when q > qp which is not the case in the

present study, the virtual mass force was considered in the present calculations. The second force

is that due to pressure gradient, Fpg, that arises from the inuence of the pressure gradient in the

ow which acts on every volume element of the owing medium and can be written as:

!

q

F pg

rp

14

qp

The above statement implies that the pressure does not vary signicantly over a distance of one

particle diameter, a condition that is normally satised for reasonably small particles. Accordingly,

the pressure gradient force is neglected in the present study not only due to the small size of the

731

particles but also due to the small pressure gradient prevailing in the ow eld. The other forces

include the thermophoretic force which is related to small particles suspended in a gas that has

a temperature gradient. The particles under such circumstances experience a force in the direction

opposite to that of the gradient. Brownian force [53] apply for sub-micron particles. These forces

are neglected in the present study. The Samans lift force, or lift due to shear is also neglected.

2.2.1. Particle trajectory

The particle velocity, up, is rst obtained by stepwise integration of the particle equation of motion (9) over a discrete time step. The particle trajectory is then predicted by integrating the equation

dr

15

up

dt

where r is the position vector. The above equation is integrated in each coordinate direction to

predict the trajectories of the discrete phase. During the integration, the uid phase velocity, u,

is taken as the velocity of the continuous phase at the particle position. Turbulent dispersion

of particles was modeled using a stochastic discrete-particle approach, Wallace et al. [36]. The

tracking for the particle is done with a step size of 0.1 mm to make sure that the particle-tracking

is updated in every cell in the particle path. Including all the important forces (gravity, virtual

mass and pressure gradient) the particle-tracking is expected to be as accurate as the prediction

of the uid ow eld.

2.2.2. Discrete phase boundary conditions

The boundary conditions considered when a particle strikes a boundary surface depends on the

nature of that surface and one of the following possibilities may occur:

(a) Reection via an elastic or inelastic collision

Reection is the term used to describe the particle rebound o the solid boundary with a change in

its momentum. The normal coecient of restitution denes the amount of momentum in the direction normal to the wall that is retained by the particle after colliding with the boundary [54]. The

coecient of restitution is taken as 0.9 in the present calculations for the case of reection at a wall.

(b) Escape through the boundary

The calculations of the particle trajectory are terminated at the point when it passes through an

open boundary (the exit section). When the particle encounters such boundary, it is considered

that the particle has escaped and the trajectory calculations are then terminated.

(c) Particle trapping

The trajectory calculations for some particles (normally very few particles) are terminated when

the particles get trapped in the ow eld. This is found to occur when a particle circulates in a

conned ow zone. In such a case, the trajectory calculations are terminated.

Erosion is dened as the wear that occurs when solid particles entrained in a uid stream strike

a surface. The previous experimental results [43,55] show that the erosive wear-rate exhibits a

732

power-law velocity dependence. The velocity exponent ranges from 1.9 to 2.5. The results also

indicate that the erosion rate is a function of the angle of impact. It is shown that the inuence

of the angle of impact depends greatly on the type of material being brittle or ductile. Prediction

of erosion in straight pipes, elbows and tees show the strong inuence of uid properties, sand size

and ow velocity on the rate of erosion [56,49,41].

There have been many attempts in the past to express the solid particle erosion by an analytical

formula that could be used to predict erosion under any condition. The complexity of the erosion

process and the number of factors involved made it dicult for obtaining a generally applicable

equation. Almost all of the formulae generated have therefore some degree of dependence on

empirical coecients provided by various experimental erosion tests. No denitive theory of erosion currently exists, however, a number of qualitative and quantitative models do exist. These

were described by Finnie [18] and Finnie et al. [57], Wang et al. [34], Keating and Nesic [35], Edwards et al. [15] and Shirazi and McLaury [29].

The empirical erosion equations suggested by Neilson and Gilchrist [58] were later used by Wallace et al. [36] to correlate the experimental erosion data in order to develop an erosion modeling

technique. Wallace et al. [36] reported the following formulae that resulted in good accuracy when

compared to the experimental data:

(

)

2

1 12 u2p cos2 a sin 2a 12 u2p sin a

a 6 45

16a

E

Np

c

r

1

E

Np

1 2

u cos2 a

2 p

1 2

u sin2 a

2 p

a > 45

16b

where c and r are the cutting wear and deformation wear coecients having the values 33316.9

and 77419.7 respectively [36]. This formula is used in the present calculations of erosion rate.

Using the particle-tracking model, the impingement data (impact speed and angle) were rst

compiled for all particles impacting the solid boundaries of the ow domain. The compiled data

were then used together with Eqs. (16a) and (16b) for computing the erosion rate at dierent locations on the tube sheet. This part required the use of FORTRAN subroutines together with the

CFD code.

The rate of erosion in a pipe with sudden contraction has been investigated for the case when

the diameter ratio, d/D = 1/2. The direction of ow is considered either vertically upward (against

gravity) or vertically downward (in direction of gravity) as shown in Fig. 1. Although the direction

of the pipe axis has no eect on the ow pattern, it is expected to aect the particle trajectory

through the contribution of gravity forces on the particle motion. The upstream pipe diameter

is 200 mm and the average velocity of the approaching ow ranges from 1.0 to 10.0 m/s. The uid

considered is water at 20 C (q = 998 kg/m3 and l = 103 N s/m2) which results in ow Reynolds

number (based on the diameter of the large pipe, D) ranging from 2 105 to 2 106. The solid

733

particles are considered sand particles of spherical shape with diameters ranging from 10 lm to

400 lm.

In order to verify the accuracy of the computational scheme, the present results were compared

to the experimental data of Postlethwaite and Nesic [41]. The experimental data were obtained for

contraction ratio of d/D = 0.5. The large tube is 42.1 mm diameter and has an inlet velocity of

3.3 m/s. Three values of particle concentration of 2%, 5% and 10%, by volume, were considered.

The sand particle diameter was 430 lm. Short 3-mm segments were used at the inlet region of the

sudden contraction to determine the penetration rate. In the present calculations, the step height

was divided to 1000 discs, then, data were integrated to give the results over a disc of 3 mm width

having its inner diameter as the smaller tube. The results of the comparison are given in Fig. 3 in

terms of the penetration rate. The penetration rate, Pn, is calculated using the following equation

[34,49]:

pn 31:536

106

s_

qm A

Elc

17

where A is the impingement area (m2), Elc is the local erosion rate (mg/g), Np is the total number

of particles being tracked, pn is the penetration rate (mm/year), s_ is the sand rate (kg/s) and qm is

the density of target material (kg/m3). The comparison shown in Fig. 3 indicates a reasonably

good agreement.

To present the obtained data in a meaningful way, a number of investigations were carried out

with the objective to determine the critical erosion areas. These investigations covered the entire

ranges of ow velocity and particle diameter. It was found that erosion occurs mainly in the contraction section ABCD shown in Fig. 1 while being insignicant upstream and downstream of it.

Fig. 4 shows the trajectories of a number of particles released at the same time at the inlet section

of the ow eld when the ow velocity is 10 m/s and the particle diameter is 400 lm. The gure

shows that almost all particle impacts occur on the at surface ABCD while impacts on the pipe

walls are insignicant. Accordingly, erosion data will be presented only at section ABCD.

Fig. 5 shows the variation of the local erosion rate on the tube sheet (ABCD) for the upow

case. This tube sheet has the shape of an annulus with inner radius, r/R = 0.5, and outer radius,

r/R = 1.0, where R = D/2. The erosion rates are obtained for four values of the particle diameter

(10 lm, 100 lm, 200 lm, 400 lm) and for three values of ow velocity (1 m/s, 5 m/s, 10 m/s) as

shown in Fig. 5ad. The results indicate that for particles of small diameter (Dp = 10 lm), the erosion rate is negligibly small in the outer region of the annular plate (0.67 6 r/R 6 1.0) and reaches

its maximum close to the entrance of the small pipe (r/R 0.5) as shown in Fig. 5a. The highest

rate of erosion (E 8 107 mg/g) was found when the velocity of ow is maximum (10 m/s) and

decreases rapidly with the decrease of ow velocity until reaching zero value when the ow velocity reaches 1 m/s. Although the rate of erosion increases with the increase of particle diameter as

shown in Fig. 5bd, the trend is almost the same in the four cases. However, for large particle size

(Dp = 400 lm), the region of negligible erosion for all ow velocities diminishes to (0.83 6

r/R2 6 1.0) which is much smaller than that obtained in the case of small particle sizes. The other

interesting feature that is common in the four gures is the absence of erosion for all particle sizes

in the entire ow domain in the case of low ow velocity (1 m/s). Qualitatively, such behavior is in

conformity with the erosion prevention criterion established by Salama [59] in which a threshold

velocity was set by the recommended practice API RP 14E for eliminating erosion. Another

734

1000

100

Present calculations

10

0

10

12

Fig. 3. Comparison of the calculated penetration rate and the experimental data of Postlethwaite and Nesic [41].

Fig. 4. The trajectories of a number of particle released at the same time at the inlet section showing impact on the

contraction plate for the case of downow with Vi = 10 m/s and Dp = 400 lm.

similar criterion for the threshold velocity was developed by Salama and Venkatesh [23] for erosion in elbows.

9.0E-07

735

1.2E-06

1.0E-06

7.0E-07

1m/s

6.0E-07

8.0E-07

5m/s

5.0E-07

10m/s

4.0E-07

3.0E-07

2.0E-07

1.0E-07

0.0E+00

0.7

(a)

10m/s

4.0E-07

2.0E-07

0.5

0.9

0.7

(b)

r/R

0.9

r/R

8.0E-06

4.0E-06

3.5E-06

1m/s

3.0E-06

5m/s

2.5E-06

10m/s

7.0E-06

Erosion rate, mg/g

5m/s

6.0E-07

0.0E+00

0.5

2.0E-06

1.5E-06

1.0E-06

5.0E-07

0.0E+00

1m/s

6.0E-06

5m/s

5.0E-06

10m/s

4.0E-06

3.0E-06

2.0E-06

1.0E-06

0.0E+00

0.5

(c)

1m/s

8.0E-07

0.6

0.7

0.8

r/R

0.9

0.5

1.0

(d)

0.7

0.9

r/R

Fig. 5. The variation of the local erosion rate on the contraction plate (ABCD) for the case of upow: (a) Dp = 10 lm,

(b) Dp = 100 lm, (c) Dp = 200 lm, (d) Dp = 400 lm.

The variation of the local erosion rate presented in Fig. 4 can be explained on the basis of the

streamline pattern plotted in Fig. 6a for the case when the ow velocity is 5 m/s. The gure shows

a recirculating ow region upstream of the contraction section and extending to the tube sheet

(ABCD). An enlarged view of that region is shown in Fig. 6b. The ow velocity in this region

is very small and the presence of solid particles, if any, in such low velocity zone will cause negligible erosion in accordance with Eqs. (16a) and (16b). The gure also shows that this recirculating ow zone occupies the area on the annular plate between r/R 0.72 and r/R = 1.0. This is

approximately the same area characterized by negligible erosion in Fig. 4ad. Moreover, the maximum erosion rate occurs in a region where the approaching ow has high velocity and large curvature. Both eects will give rise to higher particle velocity that impacts the surface of the tube

sheet close to r/R 0.5. These features are conrmed by the particle trajectories given in Fig. 4

that clearly shows the high intensity of particle impact on the tube sheet in the region close to

r/R 0.5.

The eect of particle diameter on the total rate of erosion occurring on the tube sheet (ABCD)

is presented in Fig. 7 for four dierent velocities. The strong dependence of erosion on ow velocity is very clear in the gure. It is also clear that there is a threshold velocity, Vt, below which

erosion is insignicant. The gure also shows that the rate of erosion increases exponentially with

736

Fig. 6. (a) The streamline pattern for the case of Vi = 5 m/s. (b) An enlarged view of the circulatory ow zone at the

contraction regioncase of Vi = 5 m/s.

2.5E-05

1m/s

Erosion rate, mg/g

2.0E-05

3m/s

5m/s

10m/s

1.5E-05

1.0E-05

5.0E-06

0.0E+00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Particle diameter, m

Fig. 7. Eect of particle diameter on the total rate of erosion occurring on the tube sheet for dierent inlet velocities in

the case of upow.

particle diameter. Fig. 8 represents the same data plotted in Fig. 7, however, the inlet ow velocity

is used as abscissa instead of the particle diameter. The gure emphasizes the power law growth of

737

2.5E-05

10 m

100 m

2.0E-05

200 m

400 m

1.5E-05

1.0E-05

5.0E-06

0.0E+00

0

4

5

6

Inlet flow velocity, m/s

10

Fig. 8. Eect of inlet ow velocity on the total rate of erosion occurring on the tube sheet for dierent particle diameters

in the case of upow.

1.2E-06

8.0E-07

1m/s

7.0E-07

5m/s

6.0E-07

10m/s

5.0E-07

4.0E-07

3.0E-07

2.0E-07

5m/s

8.0E-07

4.0E-07

2.0E-07

0.0E+00

0.0E+00

0.5

0.6

0.7

(a)

0.8

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.7

(b)

r/R

0.9

r/R

8.0E-06

3.5E-06

1m/s

3.0E-06

5m/s

2.5E-06

10m/s

2.0E-06

1.5E-06

1.0E-06

4.0E-06

Erosion rate, mg/g

10m/s

6.0E-07

1.0E-07

7.0E-06

10m/s

4.0E-06

3.0E-06

2.0E-06

1.0E-06

0.0E+00

0.5

0.9

r/R

5m/s

5.0E-06

0.0E+00

0.7

1m/s

6.0E-06

5.0E-07

0.5

(c)

1 m/s

1.0E-06

Erosion rate, mg/g

9.0E-07

(d)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

r/R

Fig. 9. The variation of the local erosion rate on the contraction plate (ABCD) for the case of downow:

(a) Dp = 10 lm, (b) Dp = 100 lm, (c) Dp = 200 lm, (d) Dp = 400 lm.

738

2.5E-05

1m/s

2.0E-05

3m/s

5m/s

10m/s

1.5E-05

1.0E-05

5.0E-06

0.0E+00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Particle diameter

Fig. 10. Eect of particle diameter on the total rate of erosion occurring on the tube sheet for dierent inlet velocities in

the case of downow.

the rate of erosion with the increase of inlet ow velocity. Moreover, the threshold velocity, Vt,

can be approximately determined from Fig. 7 since the rate of erosion is insignicant for ow

velocities below 2 m/s for all particle diameters.

The erosion rates obtained for the downow case are presented in Fig. 9 for the same particle

diameters and inlet ow velocities. The results are almost the same as those obtained in the upow

case except in Fig. 9d (Dp = 400 lm) that shows higher rate of erosion (50% increase) at a ow

velocity of 5 m/s. It is quite expected that the eect of gravity on particle motion becomes significant at low ow velocities. However, such eect did not inuence the rate of erosion at the lowest

ow velocity (1 m/s) because such velocity is considerably below the threshold velocity, Vt. On the

other hand, the ow velocity of 5 m/s is denitely above the threshold velocity (see Fig. 8) and the

2.5E-05

10 m

2.0E-05

100 m

200 m

400 m

1.5E-05

1.0E-05

5.0E-06

0.0E+00

0

10

Fig. 11. Eect of inlet ow velocity on the total rate of erosion occurring on the tube sheet for dierent particle

diameters in the case of downow.

739

eect of gravity becomes sensible. A quick comparison of the data presented in Figs. 5 and 9

shows that the eect of gravity on the rate of erosion is very small in the case of high inlet ow

velocity (10 m/s) for all particle sizes. This can be explained based on the fact that the relative contribution of gravity to the motion of solid particles gets smaller with the increase of ow velocity.

Fig. 10 shows the variation of the total erosion rate at the contraction section with particle size for

dierent ow velocities. Although the trends are the same as in Fig. 7 the values obtained are

slightly dierent especially in the case of moderate ow velocity (5 m/s) and large particle size

(Dp = 400 lm). The same data is presented in Fig. 11, however, the inlet ow velocity is used as

abscissa instead of the particle diameter. The gure shows that the threshold inlet velocity is

approximately the same as that in the case of upow (2 m/s). To clearly show the eect of ow

direction on the rate of erosion, Fig. 12a and b are plotted with inlet ow velocity as abscissa and

8.0E-06

7.0E-06

6.0E-06

5.0E-06

4.0E-06

3.0E-06

upward flow

2.0E-06

downward flow

1.0E-06

0.0E+00

0

(a)

10

12

2.50E-05

2.00E-05

1.50E-05

1.00E-05

upflow

5.00E-06

downflow

0.00E+00

0

(b)

10

12

Fig. 12. Eect of ow direction and inlet velocity on the total rate of erosion for the two cases of (a) Dp = 200 lm, (b)

Dp = 400 lm.

740

the total rate of erosion as ordinate for the two particle sizes of 200 lm and 400 lm respectively. It

is clear from the gure that the eect of ow direction is only appreciable at the moderate velocity

of 5 m/s for the large particle size (400 lm) as explained earlier.

4. Conclusions

The eects of ow velocity and particle size on erosion in a vertical pipe with sudden contraction were investigated for the special case of two-phase (liquid and solid) turbulent ow with low

particle concentration. The ow was either in direction of gravity (downow) or against it (upow). The investigation follows the Lagrangian approach in which two mathematical models were

used for the determination of the uid velocity eld and the solid particle trajectory and an erosion model was used to predict the erosion rate. The investigation was limited to one diameter

ratio for the pipe contraction and one uid. The ow velocity in the large pipe ranged from

1 m/s to 10 m/s and the particle size ranged from 10 lm to 400 lm. In these ranges, the results

showed the strong dependence of erosion on both particle size and ow velocity but with little

dependence on the direction of ow. The eect of ow direction was found to be signicant only

for large particle size (400 lm) and moderate ow velocity (5 m/s). The erosion critical area was

found to be the inner surface of the tube sheet (connecting the two pipes) in the region close to

the small pipe inlet. The results also indicated the presence of a threshold velocity of approximately 2 m/s below which erosion is insignicant for all particle sizes.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to acknowledge the support received from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals during this study.

References

[1] Tilly GP. A two-stage mechanism of ductile erosion. Wear 1973;23:8796.

[2] Ru AW, Wiederhorn SM. Erosion by solid particle impact. In: Preece CM, editor. Treatise on materials science

and technology, vol. 16. New York: Academic Press; 1979. p. 69125.

[3] Humphrey JAC. Fundamentals of uid motion in erosion by solid particle impact. Int J Heat Fluid Flow

1990;11(3):17095.

[4] Rochester MC, Brunton JH. Inuences of physical properties of the liquid on the erosion of solids. Erosion, wear

and interfaces with corrosion ASTM STP 567. American Society of Testing and Materials; 1974. p. 12851.

[5] True ME, Weiner PD. A laboratory evaluation of sand erosion of oil and gas well production equipment. Annual

API production division meeting. Los Angeles, CA: 1976. p. I-1, I-27.

[6] Glaeser WA, Dow A. Mechanisms of erosion in slurry pipelines. In: Proceedings of the second international

conference on slurry transportation. Las Vegas, NV: March 24, 1977. p. 13640.

[7] Roco MC, Nair P, Addie GR, Dennis J. Erosion of concentrated slurries in turbulent ow. J Pipelines

1984;4:21321.

[8] Venkatesh ES. Erosion damage in oil and gas wells, SPE paper 15183. Rocky mountain regional meeting of the

society of petroleum engineers. Billings, MT: 1986.

741

[9] Shook CA, Mckibben M, Small M. Experimental investigation of some hydrodynamics factors aecting slurry

pipeline wall erosion. ASME paper no. 87-PVP-9, 1987.

[10] Soderberg S, Hogmark S, Swahn H. Mechanisms of material removal during erosion of a stainless steel, Paper no.

82-AM-4A-1. 37th ASLE Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, May 1013, 1982.

[11] Soderberg S, Hogmark S, Engman U, Swahn H. Erosion classication of materials using a centrifugal erosion

tester. Tribol Int 1981:33344.

[12] Hutchings IM. Monograph on the erosion of materials by solid particle impact. Materials Technology Institute of

Chemical Process Industries, Inc.; MTI publication no. 10, 1983.

[13] Hutchings IM. Introduction to the microscopy of erosion. J Microscopy 1983;130:3318.

[14] McLaury BS, Wang J, Shirazi SA, Shadley JR, Rybicki EF. Solid particle erosion in long radius elbows and

straight pipes. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Paper no. SPE 38842, 1997. p. 97786.

[15] Edwards JK, McLaury BS, Shirazi SA. Evaluation of alternative pipe bend ttings in erosive service. Proceedings

of 2000 ASME uids engineering summer meeting, June 1115, 2000. Boston, MA: Paper no. FEDSM2000-11245,

2000.

[16] Blanchard DJ, Grith P, Rabinowicz E. Erosion of a pipe bend by solid particle entrained in water. J Eng Indust

1984;106:2137.

[17] Rabinowicz E. The wear equation for erosion of metals by abrasive particles, Department of ME, MIT: 1979.

[18] Finnie I. The mechanism of erosion of ductile metals. In: Proceedings of 3rd US national congress of applied

mechanics. 1958. p. 52732.

[19] Nesic S. Computation of localized erosion-corrosion in disturbed two-phase ow, PhD thesis, University of

Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, 1991.

[20] Bitter JGA. A study of erosion phenomena, Part I. Wear 1963;6:521.

[21] Bitter JGA. A study of erosion phenomena, Part II. Wear 1963;6:16990.

[22] Laitone JA. Erosion prediction near a stagnation point resulting from aerodynamically entrained solid particles.

J Aircraft 1979;16(12):80914.

[23] Salama MM, Venkatesh ES. Evaluation of erosional velocity limitations of oshore gas wells. 15th Annual OTC.

Houston, TX: May 25, OTC no. 4485, 1983.

[24] Bourgoyne AT. Experimental study of erosion in diverter systems due to sand production, Presented at the SPE/

IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, SPE/IADC 18716, 1989. p. 80716.

[25] Chase DP, Rybicki EF, Shadley JR. A model for the eect of velocity on erosion of N80 steel tubing due to the

normal impingement of solid particles. Trans ASME J Energy Resour Technol 1992;114:5464.

[26] McLaury BS. A model to predict solid particle erosion in oil eld geometries. MS thesis, The University of Tulsa,

1993.

[27] Svedeman SJ, Arnold KE. Criteria for sizing Multiphase ow lines for erosive/corrosive services. Paper presented

at the 1993 SPE conference, Houston SPE 26569, 1993.

[28] Jordan K. Erosion in multiphase production of oil and gas. Corrosion 98, Paper no. 58, NACE International

Annual Conference, San Antonio: 1998.

[29] Shirazi SA, McLaury BS. Erosion modeling of elbows in multiphase ow. In: Proceedings of 2000 ASME uids

engineering summer meeting, June 1115, 2000. Boston, MA: Paper no. FEDSM2000-11251, 2000.

[30] Boulet P, Oesterle B, Andreux R. Comparisons between EulerianEulerian and EulerianLagrangian formulation

of a gassolid suspension ow in a heated pipe. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ASME uids engineering division

summer meeting. San Francisco, CA: FEDSM99-7860, 1999.

[31] Tsuji Y, Morikawa Y, Shiomi H. LDV measurements of an airsolid two-phase ow in a vertical pipe. J Fluid

Mech 1984;139:41734.

[32] Jepson G, Poll A, Smith W. Heat transfer from gas to wall in a gas/solid transport line. Trans Inst Chem Engrs

1963;41:20711.

[33] Lu QQ, Fontaine JR, Aubertin G. A Lagrangian model for solid particles in turbulent ows. Int J Multiphase

Flow 1993;19(2):34767.

[34] Wang J, Shirazi SA, Shadley JR, Rybicki EF. Application of ow modeling and particle tracking to predict sand

erosion rates in 90-degree elbows. FED-vol. 236, 1996 ASME uids engineering division conference, vol. 1. 1996. p.

72534.

742

[35] Keating A, Nesic S. Particle tracking and erosion prediction in three-dimensional bends. In: Proceedings of 2000

ASME uids engineering summer meeting, June 1115, 2000. Boston, MA: Paper no. FEDSM2000-11249, 2000.

[36] Wallace MS, Peters JS, Scanlon TJ, Dempster WM, McCulloch S, Ogilvie JB. CFD-based erosion modeling of

multi-orice choke valves. In: Proceedings of 2000 ASME uids engineering summer meeting, June 1115, 2000.

Boston, MA: Paper no. FEDSM2000-11244, 2000.

[37] Hanson R, Patel MK. Development of a model to predict the life of pneumatic conveyor bends subject to erosive

wear. In: Proceedings of 2000 ASME uids engineering summer meeting, June 1115, 2000. Boston, MA: Paper no.

FEDSM2000-11246, 2000.

[38] Forder A, Thew M, Harrison D. A numerical investigation of solid particle erosion experienced within oileld

control valves. Wear 1998;216:18493.

[39] Ahlert KR. Eects of particle impingiment angle and surface wetting on solid particle erosion on ANSI 1018 steel,

MS thesis, University of Tulsa, USA, 1994.

[40] Patankar SV. Numerical heat transfer and uid ow. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis; 1980.

[41] Postletwaite J, Nesic S. Erosion in disturbed liquid/particle pipe ow; eects of ow geometry and particle surface

roughness. Corrosion 1993;49(10):8509.

[42] Blatt W, Kohley T, Lotz U, Heitz E. The inuence of hydrodynamics on erosion-corrosion in two-phase liquid

particle ow. Corrosion 1989;45(10):793804.

[43] Davies JE, Stead RJ, Andrews CJ, Richards JR. The airborne particle erosion resistance of a Range of engineering

materials. Key Eng Mater 1991;117:4552.

[44] Habib MA, Attya AE, McEligot DM. Calculation of turbulent ow and heat transfer in channels with streamwise

periodic ow. ASME J Turbomach 1989;110:40511.

[45] Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W. An introduction to computational uid dynamics; the nite volume method. London: Longman Scientic and Technical; 1995.

[46] Reynolds WC. Fundamentals of turbulence for turbulence modeling and simulation, Lecture notes for Von

Karman institute, Agard report no. 755, 1987.

[47] Shih TH, Liou WW, Shabbir A, Zhu J. A new ke eddy-viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent

owsmodel development and validation. Computers and Fluids 1995;24(3):22738.

[48] Launder BE, Spalding DB. The numerical computation of turbulent ows. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng

1974;3:26989.

[49] Shirazi SA, Shadley JR, McLaury BS, Rybicki EF. A procedure to predict solid particle erosion in elbows and tees.

J Pressure Vessel Technol 1995;117:4552.

[50] Saman PG. The lift on a small sphere in a slow shear ow. J Fluid Mech 1965;22(2):385400.

[51] Morsi SA, Alexander AJ. An investigation of particle trajectories in two-phase ow systems. J Fluid Mech

1972;52(2):193208.

[52] Haider A, Levenspiel O. Drag coecient and terminal velocity of spherical and nonspherical particles. Powder

Technol 1989;58:6370.

[53] Li A, Ahmadi G. Dispersion and deposition of spherical particles from point sources in a turbulent channel ow.

Aerosol Sci Technol 1992;16:20926.

[54] Tabako W, Wakeman T. Measured particle rebound characteristics useful for erosion prediction. ASME paper

82-GT-170, 1982.

[55] Isomoto Y, Nishimura M, Nagahashi K, Matsumura M. Impact angle dependence of erosion by solid particle

impact for metallic materials. Erosion Eng 1999;48(6):35561.

[56] McLaury BS, Shirazi SA. Predicting erosion in straight pipes. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ASME uids engineering

division, FEDSM 98-5226, June 2125. Washington, DC: 1998.

[57] Finnie I, Stevick GR, Ridgely JR. The inuence of impingement angle on the erosion of ductile metals by angular

abrasive particles. Wear 1992;52:918.

[58] Neilson JH, Gilchrist A. Erosion by a stream of solid particles. Wear 1968;11:11122.

[59] Salama MM. An alternative to API 14E erosional velocity limits for sand-laden uids. 1998 Oshore Technology

Conference, Houston, TX, May 47, 1998. p. 72131.

- Urban AreasTransféré parsreejusl
- 118076164 Gravity Separation of ParticulateTransféré parChulka
- KIVA2Transféré parmfontenot29
- Cfdb 6 TurbulenceTransféré parMahir Mahmood
- Assignment01_MECH5304_BendFlowTransféré parPraveen P Jose
- Fluent-Intro_14.5_L03_Turbulence&HeatTransfer&Transient.pdfTransféré parWedye Bagonk
- asssement of wear erosion in pumps.pdfTransféré parIjabi
- PENEMPATAN FLUIDATransféré parRiana Okta Lestari
- An Experimental Evaluation of Refrigerated Display Case PerformanTransféré parTommy Romano
- Statement of Qualifications-CFDTransféré parTran Bich Son
- TurbulenceTransféré parfdpinto
- IJERTV3IS030773.docTransféré pargamer29
- rnoti-p354Transféré parzakaria mansouri
- Improving the Capacity of a MSW Incineration PlantTransféré parbaskaranjay5502
- Mi, Deo and Nathan 2005 - Fast Covergent Itteratiuve Scheme for Filtering Velcoity Signals and Finding Kolmogorov ScalesTransféré parDr Ravinesh C Deo
- Flow Through ScreensTransféré parHadi Dashtaki
- Numerical Simulation of Hot Air Drying Kiln Velocity Field Based on Computational Fluid DynamicsTransféré parInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Science
- Physics I Problems (75).pdfTransféré parbosschellen
- Module 12- Phys 13 And11a MomentumTransféré parNaitsirhc Aganirob
- rocket labTransféré parapi-248779871
- Towards the Unity of Classical PhysicsTransféré parharishkumarsingh
- Felix Kaplanski et al- A generalised vortex ring modelTransféré parJuaxmaw
- Alessandro Gomez 05-Turbulent SpraysTransféré parJuan Carlos Valdez Loaiza
- Impuls AtTransféré parrizal123
- 2012 Ring Formation in Rotary KilnsTransféré parjmpbarros
- 1 - MomentumTransféré parnanio_7
- README.txtTransféré parKhushpreet Singh
- The velocity and temperatureTransféré parsuilanro
- 2007_guptaTransféré paromkarexcell
- User Manual Fluxus f808Transféré parPablo Quiroga

- NS EquationTransféré parAyush JAin
- Erosion effect over velocityTransféré parAyush JAin
- Photovoltaic effect briefTransféré parAyush JAin
- PressCylinderHamTransféré partiansiang
- Collocated GridTransféré parAyush JAin
- Parallelism in StructureTransféré parAyush JAin
- Pablo Neruda 2011 3Transféré parchessgeneral
- DPM U BendTransféré parharabnezhad
- Bioinformatics Drug DesignTransféré parAyush JAin
- RiserValveTransféré parAyush JAin
- Photoelectric effectTransféré parAyush JAin
- Thick Walled CylindersTransféré parHabeeb Khaja
- Case Study on Bearing FailureTransféré parAyush JAin
- Research paperTransféré parAyush JAin
- System Coupling Users GuideTransféré pargarystevensoz
- BOM_Human Powered CommuterTransféré parAyush JAin
- Dielectric MaterialsTransféré parAyush JAin
- Daad ExchangeTransféré parAyush JAin
- Vernier ImagesTransféré parAyush JAin
- Random DocTransféré parTosin Adelakun
- Suspension DesignTransféré parrlmagidson
- parallel portTransféré parAyush JAin
- FAQTransféré parAyush JAin
- Recent Trends in Wind Energy by Ayush JainTransféré parAyush JAin
- Hindu ScienceTransféré parmanyascribda2
- Software LicencesTransféré parAyush JAin
- malik HT12DTransféré parrohitjmd
- AjTransféré parAyush JAin
- Mechanical RankingTransféré parAyush JAin

- VidurTransféré parJitesh Bansal
- An Overview of Data Mining Techniques.docTransféré parjayaesa431
- C2-028.840.01.09.02.pdfTransféré parw.h.n
- General_Ledger_-_All_Users_Student_Guide.pdfTransféré partanhanvankiep
- unit 2 study guide answer keyTransféré parapi-277841875
- Bucket_elevator-ME Carlos III UTransféré parjack-bc
- SRD991_2MI_E_001_enTransféré parwilfredo
- Product Development Regal Marine RevTransféré parIlhamChanief
- A Musician From Kalinga Helps Preserve Kalinga Culture Through Music and InstrumentsTransféré parJamy Amla
- Structural SystemTransféré parEdmund Goh
- SAP CRM Access Control EngineTransféré pargoldy666
- rnc 6900Transféré parMochammad Jainul
- 11_Weighing Without a Balance-1 (1)Transféré parMarco Cattafesta
- Dividing Complex Surfaces Into Regular Patterns Using RevitTransféré parsplaw9484
- Oswestry Disability IndexTransféré parKevin Holmes
- PIA Quantitative and Quality AnalysisTransféré parmadnansajid8765
- Type 1510 Electric Level Switch 498Transféré parlilygarciao
- Jurgen Fuchs and Carl Stigner- On Frobenius Algebras in Rigid Monoidal CategoriesTransféré parjsdmf223
- Register.phpTransféré parRanjitha Bachina
- maximum pressureTransféré paranhhung80
- essay 3Transféré parapi-354639101
- KamanJan ChloroquineTransféré parkimberly_caberte
- 0513_3 Workstation Network MaintenanceTransféré parSumit Dahiya
- 3.1 WA Guide [h005801e]Transféré parAnirban Sur
- 7. GeothermalTransféré parWillian
- Ewald's SphereTransféré parVinodh Srinivasa
- Nonlinear Micro Finite Element Analysis of Human Trabecular Bone 2003Transféré parSIMULIACorp
- tf00001226 [Autosaved].pptxTransféré parFritz Fatiga
- The Dark Side of the Truth, M.S. 62 DitmasTransféré parstevekinney
- Swlab Report HoadisTransféré parFazal Amin