4.7 Article

Numerical simulation of solid particle erosion in the gas-liquid flow of key pipe fittings in shale gas fields

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csite.2023.102742

关键词

Shale gas fields; Multiphase flow; Particle erosion; Pipe fittings; CFD numerical simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to investigate the erosion laws of 90 degrees elbow, right-angle pipe, and blind tee based on the production parameters of a gas field. The results show that the maximum erosion rate of pipe wall increases exponentially with the fluid velocity. With the development of mining, the lower the free water content, the more serious the pipe wall erosion. Additionally, under the same working conditions, the blind tee is relatively erosion-resistant compared to the 90 degrees elbow and right-angle pipe.
Erosion caused by solid particles is one of the important reasons for the failure of shale gas gathering pipelines. However, the erosion laws of right-angle pipe and blind tee were rarely compared in previous studies, and the parameter settings almost did not meet the actual requirements of shale gas exploitation. The aim of this paper is to study the erosion laws of 90 degrees elbow, right-angle pipe and blind tee based on the production parameters of a gas field. CFD-DPM approach integrates the Mixture model, the Discrete Phase Model, and an erosion model is employed to predict solid particle erosion in gas-liquid two-phase flow in the shale gas field. The results show that the maximum erosion rate of pipe wall increases exponentially with the fluid velocity. With the development of mining, the lower the free water content, the more serious the pipe wall erosion. In addition, under the same working conditions, the blind tee is relatively erosion-resistant compared with 90 degrees elbow and right-angle pipe. The shale gas gathering and transmission system can use blind tees to connect pipes and limit fluid velocity, so as to prolong service life and ensure flow safety.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据