See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308752909

Eulerian-Eulerian Simulation of Particle-Liquid

Slurry Flow in Horizontal Pipe

Article · January 2016

DOI: 10.1155/2016/5743471

CITATIONS READS

2 56

2 authors, including:

Titus Ntow Ofei

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
21 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flow Assurance - Well Hydraulics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Titus Ntow Ofei on 21 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Journal of Petroleum Engineering
Volume 2016, Article ID 5743471, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5743471

Research Article
Eulerian-Eulerian Simulation of Particle-Liquid Slurry Flow in
Horizontal Pipe

Titus Ntow Ofei and Aidil Yunus Ismail

Petroleum Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar, Malaysia

Correspondence should be addressed to Titus Ntow Ofei; [email protected]

Received 25 July 2016; Accepted 14 August 2016

Academic Editor: Alireza Bahadori

Copyright © 2016 T. N. Ofei and A. Y. Ismail. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

In this study, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation which adopts the inhomogeneous Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid
model in ANSYS CFX-15 was used to examine the influence of particle size (90 𝜇m to 270 𝜇m) and in situ particle volume fraction
(10% to 40%) on the radial distribution of particle concentration and velocity and frictional pressure loss. The robustness of various
turbulence models such as the 𝑘-epsilon (𝑘-𝜀), 𝑘-omega (𝑘-𝜔), SSG Reynolds stress, shear stress transport, and eddy viscosity
transport was tested in predicting experimental data of particle concentration profiles. The 𝑘-epsilon model closely matched the
experimental data better than the other turbulence models. Results showed a decrease in frictional pressure loss as particle size
increased at constant particle volume fraction. Furthermore, for a constant particle volume fraction, the radial distribution of
particle concentration increased with increasing particle size, where high concentration of particles occurred at the bottom of the
pipe. Particles of size 90 𝜇m were nearly buoyant especially for high particle volume fraction of 40%. The CFD study shows that
knowledge of the variation of these parameters with pipe position is very crucial if the understanding of pipeline wear, particle
attrition, or agglomeration is to be advanced.

1. Introduction CFD has become an effective tool for modelling complex

multiphase flow behaviours as it has the capability to tackle
Conveyance of slurries through pipelines is common unlimited number of physical and operation conditions.
throughout the worlds. Over the decades, the flow of slurries Ekambara et al. [3] used CFD simulation to investigate
through pipelines had been a common practice for various the effect of in situ solids volume concentration, particle
industries such as the oil and gas, food, pharmaceutical, size, mixture velocity, and particle diameter on local time-
solid handling, tailing, and even power generation. Many averaged solids concentration profiles, particle and liquid
factors affect slurry flow behaviour in pipelines. These velocity profiles, and frictional pressure loss. The simulated
include particle size, velocity profile, frictional pressure loss, results were compared to experimental data from published
and concentration profile [1–4]. Past studies have suggested literature with good agreement. The study revealed that
many empirical correlations to predict slurry flow behaviour; particles were asymmetrically distributed in the vertical plane
nonetheless, the capability of these correlations is limited to with the degree of asymmetry increasing with increasing
some data range and experimental setup. particle size.
In the oil and gas industry, applications of horizontal Nabil et al. [4] examined the effect of particle size on
well have increased especially in cementing operations and frictional pressure loss in a horizontal pipeline using both
hydraulic fracturing treatment. Furthermore, in unconsoli- experimental setup and CFD technique. They observed that
dated formations, oil is usually produced along with sand fine particle size recorded the least pressure loss, whereas
particles and transported through horizontal pipes. To have coarse particle size recorded the highest pressure loss for
an efficient design, accurate prediction of the transport of each constant particle volume fraction (5% to 30%). CFD
slurry properties in horizontal pipe is required. Recently, prediction of pressure loss was in agreement with measured
2 Journal of Petroleum Engineering

experimental data especially at low particle volume fraction particle trajectories in slurry flow. It involves the capturing
and fine particle size. Furthermore, the study revealed that of the movement of erodent particles using the discrete
the particle velocity profiles were asymmetric in nature and phase method (DPM) and calculating the interfaces between
dependent on particle size. The degree of asymmetry was fluid phase and gas phase using the volume of fluid (VOF)
observed to be directly proportional to the particle size due method. The authors revealed that their model results were
to the gravitational effect and inversely proportional to the in reasonable agreement with experimental observations in
mixture velocity at constant volume fraction. terms of normal impact velocity on the specimen surface.
An approach related to slurry flow modelling started Recently, Miedema [22] proposed a framework for predicting
where one-dimensional (1D) Schmidt-Rouse equation [5] or head loss and limit deposit velocity in slurry flow. The frame-
equivalent to Hunt [6] was developed to relate the particle work is based on constant spatial volumetric concentration
sedimentation rate to the turbulence exchange rate, as rep- curves and uniform sand or gravels for five flow regimes
resented by solid eddy diffusivity. Based on this formulation, in Newtonian fluid, namely, the stationary or fixed bed
Karabelas [7] built an empirical model to predict the profile regime, the sliding bed regime, the heterogeneous regime, the
of particle concentration. Work done by him was then homogeneous regime, and the sliding flow regime. The author
continued by Kaushal and coworkers [8–12] in developing a concluded that the new framework explained the behaviour
diffusion model. The model proposed a modification for solid of very small particles in terms of the mobilisation of the
diffusivity for coarse slurry flows and their functions show lubrication effect of the particle poor viscous sublayer.
that the increase in solid concentration is due to the increase In this study, the effects of particle size (90 𝜇m to 270 𝜇m)
in the solid diffusivity. However, the model was formulated and volume fraction (10% to 40%) which are typical of
without taking into consideration solid diffusivity on both slurry conditions in the oil and gas industry are analysed
particle size and pipe Reynold number [13]. By comparing on the radial distribution of particle concentration and
their pressure loss data with modified Wasp model, they velocity and frictional pressure loss in horizontal pipe using
found a match at higher fluid velocity; however, significant CFD method. The findings are helpful to understand slurry
deviation shows at flow velocities near the deposition velocity transport behaviour on pipeline wear, particle attrition, or
[14]. agglomeration.
A 1D two-layer model considering coarse particle slurry
was developed by Wilson [15]. The author considered each
layer with a uniform velocity and particle concentration
2. Materials and Method
because he assumes the particles to be very coarse. Doron et A commercial CFD software ANSYS-CFX 15.0 is imple-
al. [16] developed a 2D model to predict flow patterns and mented in this study. The inhomogeneous Eulerian-Eulerian
pressure loss which is similar to Wilson’s model, where the model, sometimes called the two-fluid model, which regards
authors assumed the lower layer as stationary. Wilson and both continuous (liquid) and dispersed (solid) phases as
Pugh [17] expanded the dispersive force model by accounting interpenetrating continuum is used to model the slurry flow.
for particles suspended by fluid turbulence and contact- The Eulerian-Eulerian model is best suited for high volume
load (Columbic) friction. Their model prediction of particle fractions of the dispersed phase which is averaged over each
concentration and velocity profile was in a good agreement control volume. Each phase is governed by similar conser-
with measured experimental data. vation equations and modelling is needed for interaction
Doron and Barnea [18] extended their study to a three- between the phases, turbulent dispersion of particles, and
layer model of slurry fluid flow in horizontal pipeline which collision of particle with walls. A drawback of this model
consists of a suspended layer, a bed layer, and a dispersive is, however, that complex closure relations are required. The
layer which lies in between the suspended and bed layers. following continuity and momentum equations representing
They assumed the dispersive layer to be high in concentration the two-phase flow model are described for the sake of
gradient where a no-slip condition was imposed between brevity.
fluid and solid particles. The model prediction successfully
showed assent with experimental data. Ramadan et al. [19]
2.1. Continuity Equations. The volume-averaged, incom-
also proposed a three-layer model. The model predictions
pressible, isothermal, and transient Navier-Stokes continuity
were then compared with experimental data where satisfac-
equations for both liquid and solid phases are, respectively,
tory agreement was achieved.
given by [23, 24]
Messa and Malavasi [20] proposed a new two-fluid model
for the simulation of fully suspended liquid-solid slurry flows
𝜕
in horizontal pipes. The model is claimed to address wall (h ) + ∇ (h𝑙 𝑈𝑙 ) = 0,
boundary conditions for solid phase, viscosity of the slurry 𝜕𝑡 𝑙
(1)
mixture which incorporates particle shape, and a solution 𝜕
(h ) + ∇ (h𝑠 𝑈𝑠 ) = 0,
algorithm which reduces computational burden. The authors 𝜕𝑡 𝑠
emphasised that the new model increased the accuracy
of the pressure gradient predictions without affecting the where h𝑙 and h𝑠 are the volume fraction of liquid and solid,
model’s capability in reproducing other engineering features respectively, and 𝑈𝑙 and 𝑈𝑠 are the velocity vector of liquid and
such as solid volume fraction and velocity distributions. Ma solid, respectively. The mass exchange between the liquid and
et al. [21] conducted a CFD study for calculating erodent solid phases due to reaction or combustion is not considered.
Journal of Petroleum Engineering 3

2.2. Momentum Equations. The momentum balance for the 2.3. Interphase Models
liquid and solid phases which includes the interphase mo-
mentum transfer term that models the interaction between 2.3.1. Drag Force. For spherical particles, the drag force per
each phase is given by the Navier-Stokes equations as [23, 24] unit volume is given as
3𝐶𝐷 󵄨 󵄨
𝜕𝑈𝑙 𝑀𝑑 = k 𝜌 󵄨󵄨𝑈 − 𝑈𝑙 󵄨󵄨󵄨 (𝑈𝑠 − 𝑈𝑙 ) . (8)
𝜌𝑙 k𝑙 [ + 𝑈𝑙 ⋅ ∇𝑈𝑙 ] 4𝑑𝑠 𝑠 𝑙 󵄨 𝑠
𝜕𝑡
For densely distributed solid particles, where the solid volume
= −k𝑙 ∇𝑝 + k𝑙 ∇ ⋅ 𝜏𝑙 + k𝑙 𝜌𝑙 𝑔 − 𝑀, fraction k𝑠 < 0.2, the Wen and Yu [27] drag coefficient,
(2) 𝐶𝐷, model may be utilised. This model is modified and
𝜕𝑈 implemented in ANSYS-CFX to ensure the correct limiting
𝜌𝑠 h𝑠 [ 𝑠 + 𝑈𝑠 ⋅ ∇𝑈𝑠 ]
𝜕𝑡 behaviour in the inertial regime as

= −h𝑠 ∇𝑝 + h𝑠 ∇ ⋅ 𝜏𝑙 + ∇ ⋅ 𝜏𝑠 − ∇𝑃𝑠 + h𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑔 + 𝑀, 24
𝐶𝐷 = k−1.65
𝑙 max [ 󸀠
󸀠0.687
(1 + 0.15𝑁Re ) , 0.44] , (9)
𝑁Re 𝑝
𝑝

where 𝑔 is the gravity term, 𝑝 is the thermodynamic pressure,

󸀠
𝜌𝑙 and 𝜌𝑠 are density of liquid and solid, respectively, 𝑀 is the where 𝑁Re 𝑝
= k𝑙 𝑁Re𝑝 and 𝑁Re𝑝 = 𝜌𝑙 |𝑈𝑙 − 𝑈𝑠 |𝑑𝑠 /𝜇𝑙 .
sum of interfacial forces including drag force and lift force, For large solid volume fraction, k𝑠 > 0.2, the Gidaspow
and 𝜏𝑙 and 𝜏𝑠 are the shear stress tensor for both liquid and drag model may be used with the interphase drag force per
solid, respectively. unit volume defined as [26]
The liquid phase and solid phase stress tensors can be 2 󵄨 󵄨
represented, respectively, as 150 (1 − k𝑙 ) 𝜇𝑙 7 (1 − k𝑙 ) 𝜌𝑙 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑈𝑙 − 𝑈𝑠 󵄨󵄨󵄨
𝑀𝐷 = + . (10)
k𝑙 𝑑𝑠2 4 𝑑𝑠
𝑇 2
𝜏𝑙 = 𝜇𝑙 [∇𝑈𝑙 + (∇𝑈𝑙 ) ] − 𝜇𝑙 (∇ ⋅ 𝑈𝑙 ) 𝐼, In this study, both Wen and Yu and Gidaspow drag models
3 were employed depending on the computed solid volume
𝜏𝑠 = (−𝑃𝑠 + 𝜁𝑠 𝑈𝑠 ) 𝐼 (3) fraction.

𝑇 2 2.3.2. Lift Force Model. For spherical solid particles, ANSYS-

+ 𝜇𝑠 {[∇𝑈𝑠 + (∇𝑈𝑠 ) ] − (∇ ⋅ 𝑈𝑠 ) 𝐼} ,
3 CFX employs the Saffman and Mei lift force model as
where 𝜇𝑙 and 𝜇𝑠 are the shear liquid and solid viscosity, 𝑀𝐿
respectively, and 𝜁𝑠 is the bulk solid viscosity which accounts
3 √]𝑙 (11)
for the resistance of the granular particles to compress and = 𝐶󸀠 h 𝜌 (𝑈 − 𝑈𝑙 ) (∇ × 𝑈𝑙 + 2Ω) .
expand and has the form [25] 2𝜋 𝑑 √󵄨󵄨󵄨∇ × 𝑈 󵄨󵄨󵄨 𝐿 𝑠 𝑙 𝑠
𝑠 󵄨 𝑙󵄨

4 Θ Saffman [28, 29] correlated the lift force for low Reynolds
𝜁𝑠 = h2𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑑𝑝 𝑔0 (1 + 𝑒) √ . (4) number past a spherical solid particle where 𝐶𝐿󸀠 = 6.46 and
3 𝜋
0 ≤ 𝑁Re𝑝 ≤ 𝑁Re𝜔 ≤ 1. For higher range of solid particle
Similarly, 𝑃𝑠 is the solid pressure that represents the solids Reynolds number, Saffman’s correlation was generalised by
phase normal forces caused by particle-particle interactions Lun et al. [25] as follows:
and takes the form [26]
𝐶𝐿󸀠
𝑃𝑠 = 𝜌𝑠 h𝑠 Θs + 2𝜌𝑠 h2𝑠 Θs (1 + 𝑒) 𝑔0 . (5)
{6.46 ⋅ 𝑓 (𝑁Re𝑝 , 𝑁Re𝜔 )
{ for : 𝑁Re𝑝 < 40 (12)
={
The first term represents the particle velocity fluctuations and {6.46 ⋅ 0.0524 ⋅ (𝛽𝑁 )1/2 for : 40 < 𝑁Re𝑝 < 100,
Re𝑝
the second term represents the particle collisions. {
The shear solid viscosity can be represented as the sum of where
the kinetic and collisional contributions as
𝑁Re𝜔
𝛽 = 0.5 ( ),
𝜇𝑠 = 𝜇𝑠,kin + 𝜇𝑠,col . (6) 𝑁Re𝑝

−0.1𝑁Re𝑝
The kinetic and collisional component of the solids viscosity 𝑓 (𝑁Re𝑝 , 𝑁Re𝜔 ) = (1 − 0.3314𝛽0.5 ) ⋅ 𝑒
are modelled, respectively, as [26]
+ 0.3314𝛽0.5 , (13)
5√𝜋 𝜌𝑠 𝑑𝑝 4 2
𝜇𝑠,kin = (1 + 𝜂 (1 + 𝑒) 𝑔0 h𝑠 ) √Θ, 𝜌𝑙 𝜔𝑙 𝑑𝑠2
48 (1 + 𝑒) 𝑔0 5 𝑁Re𝜔 = ,
(7) 𝜇𝑙
4 Θ
𝜇𝑠,col = h2𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑑𝑝 𝑔0 (1 + 𝑒) √ . 󵄨 󵄨
𝜔𝑙 = 󵄨󵄨󵄨∇ × 𝑈𝑙 󵄨󵄨󵄨 .
5 𝜋
4 Journal of Petroleum Engineering

Figure 1: 2D and 3D meshed geometry.

2.3.3. Turbulence 𝑘-𝜀 Model. The 𝑘-𝜀 turbulence model offers where 𝑁Re is the Reynolds number of the liquids and 𝐷ℎ is
a good compromise in terms of accuracy and robustness the hydraulic diameter.
for general purpose simulations. It is a semiempirical model The geometry was meshed into small grid cell using
based on transport equation for the estimation of turbulent unstructured tetrahedral mesh type with inflation layers
length scale and velocity scale from the turbulent kinetic created at the boundary of the pipe to accurately capture the
energy (𝑘) and dissipation rate (𝜀) [30]. In multiphase flow, flow effect in that region [32]. Figure 1 presents the meshed 3D
the transport equations for 𝑘 and 𝜀 are phase dependent geometry. The number of elements were optimised until the
and assume a similar form to the single-phase transport results were no longer affected. In this study, the optimised
equations, respectively, as number of elements used was 801,848.
𝜕
(𝐶 𝜌 𝑘 ) + ∇
𝜕𝑡 𝛼 𝛼 𝛼 2.5. Boundary and Initial Conditions. At the inlet of the
pipe, mixture velocity and volume fraction of both liquid
𝜇𝑡𝛼 and particles phases were specified. At the outlet, static
⋅ (𝐶𝛼 (𝜌𝛼 𝑈𝛼 𝑘𝛼 − (𝜇 + ) ∇𝑘𝛼 ))
𝜎𝑘 pressure was specified. At the wall, no-slip condition was
(𝑘)
imposed on the liquid, while free-slip condition was imposed
= 𝐶𝛼 (𝑃𝛼 − 𝜌𝛼 𝜀𝛼 ) + 𝑇𝛼𝛽 , (14) on the particles. To initiate the numerical solution, average
volume fractions and mixture velocity were specified as initial
𝜕 𝜇
(𝐶 𝜌 𝜀 ) + ∇ ⋅ (𝐶𝛼 𝜌𝛼 𝑈𝛼 𝜀𝛼 − (𝜇 + 𝑡𝛼 ) ∇𝜀𝛼 ) conditions.
𝜕𝑡 𝛼 𝛼 𝛼 𝜎𝜀
𝜀𝛼 (𝜀) 2.6. Numerical Solution. In this transient simulation particle-
= 𝐶𝛼 (𝐶 𝑃 − 𝐶𝜀2 𝜌𝛼 𝜀𝛼 ) + 𝑇𝛼𝛽 ,
𝑘𝛼 𝜀1 𝛼 water slurry study, the Navier-Stokes governing equations
together with their closure terms were solved using ANSYS-
where 𝐶𝜀1 = 1.44, 𝐶𝜀2 = 1.92, 𝐶𝜇 = 0.09, 𝜎𝑘 = 1.0, and 𝜎𝜀 =
(𝜀) (𝑘)
CFX-15.0 solver. The mass and momentum equations were
1.3 are standard constants. 𝑇𝛼𝛽 and 𝑇𝛼𝛽 are the interphase discretised using the control volume technique. The first-
transfer for 𝜀 and 𝑘, respectively. order implicit method was adopted for time discretisation,
Diffusion of momentum in phase 𝛼 is governed by an whereas the second-order implicit method was also adopted
effective viscosity as for space in solving the conservation law equations. The
SIMPLE algorithm was utilised to solve the pressure-velocity
𝜇eff = 𝜇 + 𝜇𝑡𝛼 . (15)
coupling in the momentum equations, while the high resolu-
The 𝑘-𝜀 model assumes that the turbulence viscosity is linked tion discretisation scheme was employed for the convective
to the turbulence kinetic energy and dissipation by the terms. A constant time-step of 0.001 s and a total time of
relation 20 s were used to perform the entire simulation. The solution
was assumed to be converged when the root mean square
𝑘𝛼2
𝜇𝑡𝛼 = 𝐶𝜇 𝜌𝛼 . (16) (RMS) of the normalised residual error reached 10−4 for all
𝜀𝛼 simulations.
The governing sets of partial differential equations were
discretised using finite volume technique. The discretised 2.7. Model Validation. The simulation model setup was
equations together with initial and boundary conditions are validated against experimental data available in literature
solved iteratively for each control volume of pressure drop [31]. The particles properties employed were as follows: size,
and cuttings concentration using ANSYS-CFX 15.0 solver. 𝑑𝑝 = 270 𝜇m; specific gravity, SG = 2.65; and in situ
particle volume fraction, k𝑠 = 0.10. The mixture velocity
2.4. Geometry Modelling and Meshing. The three-dimension- used is 5.4 m/s. Several simulation runs were carried out
al (3D) horizontal pipe geometry was modelled using ANSYS to investigate the accuracy of various turbulence models in
15.0 Workbench Design Modeller. The dimensions of the predicting the experimental particle concentration profile
geometry were taken from literature [31]. In order to ensure data. The 𝑘-epsilon (𝑘-𝜀), 𝑘-omega (𝑘-𝜔), SSG Reynolds
a fully developed flow, a hydrodynamic entrance length was stress, shear stress transport, and eddy viscosity transport
computed using the following expression: were among the tested models. The 𝑘-𝜀 model was very robust
1/6 in predicting the particle concentration profile as compared
𝐿 ℎ = 4.4 × 𝑁Re × 𝐷ℎ , (17) to the other models as shown in Figure 2, thus confirming the
Journal of Petroleum Engineering 5

1.0

0.8

0.6

r/R
0.4

0.2

0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Particle concentration (—)

Experimental k-epsilon
k-omega SSG Reynold stress
Shear stress transport Eddy viscosity transport

Figure 2: Comparison of predicted and experimental particle concentration profile.

Table 1: Simulation matrix. of oil in addition to sand particles, larger particles may
Simulation parameter Values
accumulate at the bottom of the pipe thereby blocking the
effective flow area and reducing productivity.
Pipe diameter, 𝐷 103 mm
Figures 4(a)–4(c) also show the predicted concentration
Pipe length 44 × 𝐷 profiles in the radial direction of the horizontal pipe for three
Size of particle 90 𝜇m–270 𝜇m different in situ particle volume fractions: k𝑠 = 10%, 25%,
Particle volume fraction 0.10–0.45 and 40% with varying particle sizes. The results represent
Specific gravity of particle 2.65 a broad spectrum of fluid turbulence effect on particle sus-
Specific gravity of water 1.00 pension from neutrally buoyant to sluggish especially at the
Velocity of mixture 5.4 m/s bottom of the pipe as particle size increases for each constant
Turbulence equation 𝑘-𝜀 model in situ particle volume fraction. This phenomenon was also
observed by Ekambara et al. [3]. It is noteworthy that particle
concentration increased as in situ particle volume fraction
validity of the simulation model. The simulation matrix used also increased. For particle size of 𝑑𝑝 = 90 𝜇m, there was
in performing sensitivity study is shown in Table 1 where the no noticeable change in the particle concentration profile for
𝑘-𝜀 model was employed in all simulation run. all in situ particle volume fractions (see Figures 4(a)–4(c)).
This is because the particles are relatively fine and the mixture
velocity is significantly greater than the deposition velocity.
3. Results and Discussion Nonetheless, for particle size of 𝑑𝑝 = 270 𝜇m and k𝑠 = 10%,
This section shows the effects of particle size and in situ the particle concentration profile collapses rapidly due to the
particle volume fraction on the radial distribution of particle weak particle-particle interactions which is further overcome
concentration and velocity and frictional pressure loss. by the particle depositional velocity (see Figure 4(a)). When
the in situ particle volume fraction increases to k𝑠 = 40%,
a strong particle-particle bond is formed thereby suspending
3.1. Effect of Particle Size on Particle Concentration. Contour
the particle concentration in almost the entire pipe as shown
plots of particle concentration as a function varying particle
in Figure 4(c). A further description can be viewed in the
size at the outlet of the pipe are shown in Figures 3(a)–
contour plots in Figures 5(a)–5(c).
3(d). With a constant in situ particle volume fraction of
k𝑠 = 0.10, there are significant differences in the particle
concentration as the particle size increases. It is observed that 3.2. Effect of In Situ Particle Volume Fraction on Particle
the smallest particles (𝑑𝑝 = 90 𝜇m) were more buoyant and Velocity. Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show the effect of in situ
homogeneously dispersed in the liquid phase. As the particle particle volume fraction on particle velocity for constant par-
size increases from 𝑑𝑝 = 90 𝜇m to 270 𝜇m, the particle ticle size of 90 𝜇m and 270 𝜇m, which represent the fine and
concentration becomes high at the bottom of the pipe due coarse particles, respectively. Generally, it is observed from
to gravitational effect which prevents the large particles from both results that particle velocity profiles were asymmetrical
travelling farther and exiting out of the pipe. The maximum about the central axis; however, the degree of asymmetry is
recorded particle concentrations deposited at the bottom of influenced by particle size. For particle size of 270 𝜇m, the
the horizontal pipe are 15.1%, 21.5%, 25.8%, and 30.7% for particle velocity profile plots are more skewed to the bottom
particle size of 𝑑𝑝 = 90 𝜇m, 150 𝜇m, 210 𝜇m, and 270 𝜇m, of the pipe as shown in Figure 6(b). This is due to particle
respectively. These results show that, in the transportation settling of the coarse particles as a result of gravity effect. This
6 Journal of Petroleum Engineering

0.151 0.215
0.142 0.196
0.133 0.177

Cuttings volume fraction

0.124

Cuttings volume fraction

0.157
0.114 0.138
0.105 0.119
0.096 0.099
0.087 0.080
0.077 0.061
0.068 0.041
0.059 0.022

0 20.000 40.00 60.00 80.00 0 20.000 40.00 60.00 80.00

(ＧＧ) (ＧＧ)
(a) (b)
0.307
0.258
0.277
0.232
0.246
0.207

Cuttings volume fraction

0.216
Cuttings volume fraction

0.182
0.185
0.157
0.155
0.132
0.124
0.107
0.093
0.082
0.063
0.057
0.032
0.032
0.002
0.006

0 20.000 40.00 60.00 80.00 0 20.000 40.00 60.00 80.00

(ＧＧ) (ＧＧ)
(c) (d)

Figure 3: Contour plots of particle concentration at k𝑠 = 10%: (a) 𝑑𝑝 = 90 𝜇m, (b) 𝑑𝑝 = 150 𝜇m, (c) 𝑑𝑝 = 210 𝜇m, and (d) 𝑑𝑝 = 270 𝜇m.

phenomenon has also been demonstrated experimentally is observed that frictional pressure loss in the pipe decreased
by Gillies and Shook [33]. Furthermore, for each constant with increasing particle size for each constant in situ particle
particle size, particle velocity increased with decreasing in volume fraction. It is noteworthy that turbulent flow will keep
situ particle volume fraction. This is due to fluid turbulence fine particles (𝑑𝑝 = 90 𝜇m) in suspension. This will increase
effect on the weak particle-particle interaction of the low in the effective viscosity of the suspension and hence decrease
situ particle volume fraction of k𝑠 = 10%. The increase in its Reynolds number. Since friction factor is inversely pro-
particle velocity for varying in situ particle volume fractions portional to the Reynolds number, a decrease in Reynolds
is however more pronounced for fine particle size of 90 𝜇m as number will increase friction factor. The frictional pressure
shown in Figure 6(a). loss will ultimately increase since it is directly proportional to
the friction factor. On the contrary, coarse particle sizes (𝑑𝑝 >
3.3. Effect of Particle Size on Frictional Pressure Loss. In 90 𝜇m) will settle easily at the bottom of the horizontal pipe,
Figure 7, the effect of particle size on frictional pressure loss thus blocking part of the effective flow area. This will increase
for constant in situ particle volume fraction is presented. It the fluid velocity in the effective flow area and as a result
Journal of Petroleum Engineering 7

1 1

Normalised radial position, r/R

Normalised radial position, r/R

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

− 0.5 − 0.5

−1 −1
Particle concentration (—) Particle concentration (—)

90 Ｇ 210 Ｇ 90 Ｇ 210 Ｇ
150 Ｇ 270 Ｇ 150 Ｇ 270 Ｇ
(a) (b)

1
Normalised radial position, r/R

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

− 0.5

−1
Particle concentration (—)

90 Ｇ 210 Ｇ
150 Ｇ 270 Ｇ
(c)

Figure 4: Effect of particle size on particle concentration profile: (a) k𝑠 = 10%, (b) k𝑠 = 25%, and (c) k𝑠 = 40%.

increase the Reynolds number. The friction factor decreases, 4. Conclusion

thereby resulting in an increase in the pressure loss. It was
observed that as particle size increased from 𝑑𝑝 = 90 𝜇m to The Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid model was adopted in a
270 𝜇m, the frictional pressure loss decreased by 27.9%, 47.6%, three-dimensional transient simulation of slurry flow in a
and 38.1% for constant particle volume fraction, k𝑠 , of 10%, horizontal pipe. The particle concentration, particle velocity,
25%, and 40%, respectively. and frictional pressure loss were some of the output results
observed as functions of particle size and in situ particle
volume fraction. The 𝑘-𝜀 turbulence model was found to sat-
3.4. Effect of In Situ Particle Volume Fraction on Frictional isfactorily predict the concentration profile of experimental
Pressure Loss. The presence of solid particles in the liquid data as compared to other turbulence models. The particle
phase increases the frictional pressure loss due to momentum concentration profiles for fine particles were neutrally buoy-
interaction between the solids and the liquid. It is shown in ant as the fluid turbulence kept the particles in suspension.
Figure 8 that high particle volume fraction resulted in high The particle concentration profiles for coarse particle were
frictional pressure loss as compared to low particle volume primarily dependent on the in situ particle volume fraction.
fraction. This is mainly due to high friction between particle- Particle velocity profiles for high particle volume fraction
particle, particle-liquid, and particle-wall interactions. For were asymmetric; nonetheless, fine particle size travelled
instance, a percentage increase in frictional pressure losses faster than coarse particle size. Frictional pressure loss was
of 106.4%, 55.8%, 59.3%, and 77.3% occurred as the in situ increased for fine particle-sized slurry and decreased for
particle volume fraction increased from k𝑠 = 10% to 40% at a coarse particle-sized slurry. Moreover, high particle volume
constant particle size of 90 𝜇m, 150 𝜇m, 210 𝜇m, and 270 𝜇m, fraction resulted in high frictional pressure loss. The study
respectively. has shown that the available CFD models are capable of
8 Journal of Petroleum Engineering

0.307 0.410

0.277 0.370

0.246 0.330

Cuttings volume fraction

Cuttings volume fraction
0.216 0.290

0.185 0.250

0.155 0.210

0.124 0.170

0.093 0.130

0.063 0.090

0.032 0.050

0.002 0.010

0 20.000 40.00 60.00 80.00 0 20.000 40.00 60.00 80.00

(ＧＧ) (ＧＧ)
(a) (b)
0.489

0.445

0.402

Cuttings volume fraction

0.358

0.314

0.270

0.227

0.183

0.139

0.096

0.052

0 20.000 40.00 60.00 80.00

(ＧＧ)
(c)
Figure 5: Contour plots of particle concentration at 𝑑𝑝 = 270 𝜇m: (a) k𝑠 = 10%, (b) k𝑠 = 25%, and (c) k𝑠 = 40%.

1.0 1.0
Normal radial position, r/R
Normal radial position, r/R

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50 2.20 3.20 4.20 5.20 6.20

− 0.5 − 0.5

−1.0 −1.0
Particle velocity (m/s) Particle velocity (m/s)

10% 40% 10% 40%

25% 25%
(a) (b)
Figure 6: Effect of in situ particle volume fraction on particle velocity profile: (a) 𝑑𝑝 = 90 𝜇m and (b) 𝑑𝑝 = 270 𝜇m.
Journal of Petroleum Engineering 9

5500 pipeline flow using ANSYS-CFX,” Industrial & Engineering

Chemistry Research, vol. 48, no. 17, pp. 8159–8171, 2009.
Frictional pressure loss (Pa/m)

[4] T. Nabil, I. El-Sawaf, and K. El-Nahhas, “Computational

4500
fluid dynamics simulation of the solid-liquid slurry flow in
a pipeline,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Water
3500
Technology Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, November 2013.
[5] R. G. Gillies, C. A. Shook, and K. C. Wilson, “An improved
two layer model for horizontal slurry pipeline flow,” Canadian
2500 Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 173–178, 1991.
[6] J. N. Hunt, “The turbulent transport of suspended sediment in
open channels,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A:
1500 Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 224, no.
90 150 210 270
1158, pp. 322–335, 1954.
Particle size (Ｇ)
[7] A. J. Karabelas, “Vertical distribution of dilute suspensions in
10% 40% turbulent pipe flow,” AIChE Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 426–434,
25% 1977.
[8] D. R. Kaushal, Y. Tomita, and R. R. Dighade, “Concentration
Figure 7: Effect of particle size on frictional pressure loss for con- at the pipe bottom at deposition velocity for transportation of
stant in situ particle volume fraction. commercial slurries through pipeline,” Powder Technology, vol.
125, no. 1, pp. 89–101, 2002.
6000 [9] D. R. Kaushal and Y. Tomita, “Comparative study of pressure
drop in multisized particulate slurry flow through pipe and
Frictional pressure loss (Pa/m)

5000 rectangular duct,” International Journal of Multiphase Flow, vol.

29, no. 9, pp. 1473–1487, 2003.
4000 [10] D. R. Kaushal, K. Sato, T. Toyota, K. Funatsu, and Y. Tomita,
“Effect of particle size distribution on pressure drop and
3000 concentration profile in pipeline flow of highly concentrated
slurry,” International Journal of Multiphase Flow, vol. 31, no. 7,
2000 pp. 809–823, 2005.
[11] V. Seshadri, S. N. Singh, and D. R. Kaushal, “A model for the
1000
prediction of concentration and particle size distribution for the
0
flow of multisized particulate suspensions through closed ducts
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 and open channels,” Particulate Science & Technology, vol. 24,
In situ particle volume fraction ( %) no. 2, pp. 239–258, 2006.
[12] D. R. Kaushal and Y. Tomita, “Experimental investigation for
90 Ｇ 210 Ｇ near-wall lift of coarser particles in slurry pipeline using 𝛾-ray
150 Ｇ 270 Ｇ densitometer,” Powder Technology, vol. 172, no. 3, pp. 177–187,
2007.
Figure 8: Effect of in situ particle volume fraction on frictional
pressure loss for constant particle size. [13] I. C. Walton, “Eddy diffusivity of solid particles in a turbulent
liquid flow in a horizontal pipe,” AIChE Journal, vol. 41, no. 7,
pp. 1815–1820, 1995.
[14] E. J. Wasp, J. P. Kenny, and R. L. Gandhi, Solid Liquid Flow Slurry
satisfactorily predicting slurry flows and other hydrodynamic Pipeline Transportation, Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal-
flows. Zellerfeld, Germany, 1st edition, 1977.
[15] K. C. Wilson, “A unified physical-based analysis of solid-liquid
pipeline flow,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
Competing Interests of Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes (Hydrotransport 4 ’76),
Paper A1, pp. 1–16, BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, UK,
The authors declare that there are no competing interests
1976.
regarding the publication of this paper.
[16] P. Doron, D. Granica, and D. Barnea, “Slurry flow in horizontal
pipes-experimental and modeling,” International Journal of
References Multiphase Flow, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 535–547, 1987.
[17] K. C. Wilson and F. J. Pugh, “Dispersive-force modelling of
[1] C. Y. Wong, C. B. Solnordal, and J. Wu, “CFD modelling and turbulent suspension in heterogeneous slurry flow,” Canadian
experimental observations of changing surface profiles caused Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 721–727, 1988.
by solid particle erosion,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, [18] P. Doron and D. Barnea, “A three-layer model for solid-liquid
vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 61–74, 2013. flow in horizontal pipes,” International Journal of Multiphase
[2] S. K. Lahiri and K. C. Ghanta, “Slurry flow modelling by CFD,” Flow, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1029–1043, 1993.
Chemical Industry & Chemical Engineering Quarterly, vol. 16, [19] A. Ramadan, P. Skalle, and A. Saasen, “Application of a three-
no. 4, pp. 295–308, 2010. layer modeling approach for solids transport in horizontal and
[3] A. Ekambara, R. S. Sanders, K. Nandakumar, and J. H. inclined channels,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 60, no. 10,
Masliyah, “Hydrodynamic simulation of horizontal slurry pp. 2557–2570, 2005.
10 Journal of Petroleum Engineering

[20] G. V. Messa and S. Malavasi, “Improvements in the numerical

prediction of fully-suspended slurry flow in horizontal pipes,”
Powder Technology, pp. 358–367, 2015.
[21] L. Ma, C. Huang, Y. Xie et al., “Modeling of erodent particle
trajectories in slurry flow,” Wear, vol. 334-335, pp. 49–55, 2015.
[22] S. A. Miedema, “The heterogeneous to homogeneous transition
for slurry flow in pipes,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 123, pp. 422–
431, 2016.
[23] B. G. M. Van Wachem and A. E. Almstedt, “Methods for mul-
tiphase computational fluid dynamics,” Chemical Engineering
Journal, vol. 96, no. 1–3, pp. 81–98, 2003.
[24] M. Eesa and M. Barigou, “Horizontal laminar flow of coarse
nearly-neutrally buoyant particles in non-Newtonian convey-
ing fluids: CFD and PEPT experiments compared,” Interna-
tional Journal of Multiphase Flow, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 997–1007,
2008.
[25] C. K. K. Lun, S. B. Savage, D. J. Jeffrey, and N. Chepurniy,
“Kinetic theories for granular flow: inelastic particles in Couette
flow and slightly inelastic particles in a general flowfield,”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 140, pp. 223–256, 1984.
[26] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and
Kinetic Theory Descriptions, Academic Press, New York, NY,
USA, 1994.
[27] C. Y. Wen and Y. H. Yu, “Mechanics of fluidization,” Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series, vol. 62, no. 62, pp. 100–
111, 1966.
[28] P. G. Saffman, “The lift on a small sphere in a slow shear flow,”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 385–400, 1965.
[29] P. G. Saffman, “The lift on a small sphere in a slow shear flow—
corrigendum,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 31, no. 3, p. 624,
1968.
[30] B. E. Launder and D. B. Spalding, “The numerical computation
of turbulent flows,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 269–289, 1974.
[31] R. G. Gillies, C. A. Shook, and J. Xu, “Modelling heterogeneous
slurry flows at high velocities,” Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 1060–1065, 2004.
[32] T. N. Ofei, S. Irawan, and W. Pao, “CFD method for predicting
annular pressure losses and cuttings concentration in eccentric
horizontal wells,” Journal of Petroleum Engineering, vol. 2014,
Article ID 486423, 16 pages, 2014.
[33] R. G. Gillies and C. A. Shook, “Concentration distributions
of sand slurries in horizontal pipe flow,” Particulate Science &
Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 45–69, 1994.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

View publication stats