• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Offshore Technology Conference;ExxonMobil;FMCTechnologies;Schlumberger >Comparative Study of Different Erosion Model Predictions for Single-Phase and Multiphase Flow Conditions
【24h】

Comparative Study of Different Erosion Model Predictions for Single-Phase and Multiphase Flow Conditions

机译：单相和多相流动条件下不同侵蚀模型预测的比较研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

There are various equations and models for assessing erosion for both single phase and multiphase flowrnscenarios. Consequently, this study was performed to shed light on the issue of which models providernbetter predictions. For the single phase situation (air-sand flow), Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)rnerosion modeling in a direct impact geometry was conducted, and the performance of four differentrnerosion equations was scrutinized. On the other hand, for the multiphase flow scenario, churn/annularrnmultiphase flow regimes, that can be highly erosive when sand is present within the piping system, werernselected to examine the accuracy of six different widely-used multiphase flow erosion models. For bothrncases, the modeling results were compared to available experimental data.rnFor the first part of the study, ANSYS FLUENT 16.1 was used to perform CFD-based erosionrnmodeling including flow modeling, particle tracking, and erosion calculation. For the other part, severalrncodes were employed to investigate six empirical/mechanistic erosion models including: 1D churn model,rn2D mixture model, multiphase model, annular model, DNV GL model, and Salama model. The Universityrnof Tulsa SPPS software and the DNV GL Erosion Tool were used for this part. Furthermore, the Salamarnmodel was coded.rnIt was revealed that under air-sand flow conditions, Arabnejad et al. (2015a) mechanistic modelrnprovided the best results (15% error compared to experimental data). For the multiphase flow part of thernstudy, it was found that regardless of particle size, the multiphase erosion model underpredicts all erosionrndata, and the 1D churn, Salama and 2D mixture erosion models significantly overpredicted the experimentalrndata. Moreover, the annular and DNV GL models provided the best predictions among all sixrnmodels.rnA literature survey reveals that there is a limited number of comparative studies for erosion predictionrnmodels. This study, therefore, should be of interest to a broad readership including but not limited tornerosion, corrosion, multiphase flow, and flow assurance.
机译：有多种方程式和模型可用于评估单相流和多相流情况下的侵蚀。因此，进行这项研究是为了阐明哪些模型提供了更好的预测。对于单相情况（风沙流），进行了直接冲击几何中的计算流体动力学（CFD）侵蚀建模，并研究了四个不同的侵蚀方程的性能。另一方面，对于多相流方案，选择了流沙/环形多相流态，当管道系统中存在沙子时，它们会高度腐蚀，以检验六个不同的广泛使用的多相流侵蚀模型的准确性。对于这两种情况，将建模结果与可用的实验数据进行比较。在研究的第一部分中，ANSYS FLUENT 16.1用于执行基于CFD的侵蚀建模，包括流动建模，颗粒跟踪和侵蚀计算。对于另一部分，使用几个代码来研究六个经验/机械侵蚀模型，包括：一维搅动模型，二维混合物模型，多相模型，环形模型，DNV GL模型和Salama模型。该部分使用了Universityrnof Tulsa SPPS软件和DNV GL Erosion Tool。此外，还对Salamarn模型进行了编码。 （2015a）机械模型提供了最佳结果（与实验数据相比，误差为15％）。对于研究的多相流部分，发现不管颗粒大小如何，多相侵蚀模型都低估了所有侵蚀数据，而一维搅动，萨拉马和二维混合侵蚀模型则大大高估了实验数据。此外，环形和DNV GL模型在所有六个模型中提供了最好的预测。文献调查显示，对于侵蚀预测模型的比较研究数量有限。因此，这项研究应引起广大读者的关注，包括但不限于弯曲，腐蚀，多相流和流保证。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号