GE Oil & Gas

Flow assurance aspects

of intrusive erosion probes
BY EMAD GHARAIBAH, JOHN FRIEDEMANN, NIKLAS DAVIDSSON / GE OIL & GAS
2
GE Oil & Gas
Flow assurance aspects
of intrusive erosion probes
BY EMAD GHARAIBAH, JOHN FRIEDEMANN, NIKLAS DAVIDSSON / GE OIL & GAS
Abstract
Sand erosion in subsea components and pipelines can cause serious design and production
problems. Erosion is a complex process that is affected by numerous factors such as piping
geometry, ow conditions, uid properties and sand characteristics. Changes in operating conditions
can also signicantly affect the rate of material loss caused by sand particle erosion.
It is therefore important to continuously monitor the sand production status and erosion. The choice
of the monitoring device depends on the ow conditions and the monitoring purposes. Intrusive,
erosion-based sand probes (IEP) are commonly used to detect local erosion rates. However, the
choice of the intrusive probe location strongly inuences the accuracy of the measurements. The
erosion rate reported by the sensor is a direct function of the sand concentration at the probe
location. The intrusive probe may also affect the ow eld causing acceleration of the sand particles
resulting in additional erosion hotspots as well as local increases in erosion. Therefore, the location
of the probes should be carefully evaluated within the constraints of the piping geometry, ow
conditions, uid properties and sand characteristics.
This paper describes methods for using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for examining ow
related to the use of intrusive sand probes: the inuence of the location of the intrusive sand probe
and operating conditions on the readings from the probe, the effect of high velocity gas ow on
the probe temperature readings, and the heating of the probe body that results from sand particle
impacts. Flow-induced vibration is also introduced and investigated in this paper.
The individual CFD ow and sand particle tracking simulations show that the development of a
denitive rule-of-thumb for the optimal placement of the probes is difcult. The results show that the
optimal location of intrusive erosion probes is strongly inuenced by the peculiarities of the case in
hand. In reality, the variation in operating conditions and geometry are signicant and point in the
direction of optimizing sensor placement by using CFD tools to maximize detection while minimizing
damage from heating and sand jetting.
Introduction
Sand erosion in subsea components and
pipelines can cause serious design and
production problems. Therefore, continuous
monitoring of the status of sand production and
erosion is crucial to maintaining operational
safety while optimizing production. To t
that need, sand sensor systems have been
developed and qualied as a part of subsea
production systems. These systems normally
consist of acoustic sand detectors that quantify
sand ow rates and erosion probes that
measure erosion rates. Electrical resistance/
capacity-based intrusive erosion probes (IEP)
are the most common sensors used for the
direct measurement of material loss rates.
The measurement principle of intrusive erosion
probes can be briey described. The probe
detects sand production via the effect that
erosion of the sensing elements has on the
electrical properties of the sensor elements in
Flow assurance aspects of intrusive erosion probes
This paper was prepared for presentation at Offshore Technology Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
4-6 October 2011.
3
GE Oil & Gas
the probe. The sensor surfaces are mounted on the front
face and are directly exposed to the sand particle stream.
When sand particles hit the probe, the sensing elements
are eroded and the resulting change of their electrical
properties is continuously measured. Each element is
connected to wires and fed with a constant current. By
measuring the potential drop across the element, the
change in electrical properties of each element can be
monitored and converted to material loss that can be
expressed in erosion rates.
The sensing elements are cast into the probe body, which
is normally made from stainless steel or a composition
of different materials to ensure that the probe has the
necessary mechanical strength and corrosion resistance.
Figure 1 illustrates a typical intrusive erosion probe. The
sand probe is designed to reach a target location often
midstream or further. Different designs of the probe
shape, geometry and cross section (circular or square or
with angle head) may be chosen based on the application,
ow condition, and desired accuracy. Several sensing
elements are normally mounted on the probe body and
are staggered to capture a maximum number of sand
particles. The element thickness is chosen to meet the
eld life requirements by evaluating the effect of well
production rates, sand specications and reservoir data
over the eld life. The total material loss on each element
can then be calculated. The desired lifetime is achieved by
applying a safety margin to the maximum material loss
expected.
FIGURE 1 Typical intrusive erosion probes
Empirical models are used in erosion probe monitoring
systems to correlate the readings from the erosion probe
to the erosion rates on the critical system components at
different locations, e.g., bends, T-joints, ow meters, etc. [7].
This is usually a black box in commercial monitoring systems.
The IEP location in the subsea system is normally dened
after reviewing the expected production rates, maximum
tolerable continuous sand production and average
reservoir grain size and, nally, by applying rules-of-
thumb [8]. The correlations used to convert the IEPs
erosion readings to the system erosion usually assume
a homogenous sand particle distribution over the cross
section of the pipe at the location of the IEP see for
example the DNV Recommended Practice O501 [7]. In
fact, the local sand concentrations often vary from a
homogeneous distribution, in particular after a series of
bends or after changes in pipe diameter. Consequently,
this can lead to an erosion distribution pattern that
is different from a system with homogenous sand
concentration. In an erosion monitoring system, the IEP
disturbs the ow and may cause erosion hotspots at
components just downstream of the IEP. In addition, a
component such as a bend just upstream of the IEP may
affect the actual amount of sand that hits the IEP sensing
element. In an extreme case, a concentrated sand stream
from upstream of the component may bypass the IEP
without eroding it, but cause an erosion hotspot on the
downstream component.
Because the electrical properties of the sensing element
change with temperature, the software and electrical
design needs to include an algorithm to compensate
for the changes in temperature. The temperature
measurement should reect the actual sensing elements
temperature as the surface of the device can be affected
by high velocity gas ow (stagnation at the probe leading
edges) and heating by sand particle impact on the sensing
elements. i.e., the temperature compensation using the
measured owing gas temperature may not be sufcient.
Vortex shedding is also a dominant concern for intrusive
probes in cross-ow applications. The phenomenon
can be capable of forcing the intrusive elements into
resonance with pressure pulses resulting from vortex
shedding. This introduces the possibility of fatigue failure
of the sensor or other equipment in the ow path.
This paper describes a method for examining ow
assurance issues related to the use of IEPs by means of
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations and
other analytical modeling approaches. The main subject
of this paper is the investigation of IEPs to address their
effectiveness in reproducing the system erosion rates and
quantifying the amount of sand that is entrained in the
production ow. Therefore, the inuence of location and
operating conditions on the readings from the IEPs has
been considered and the impact of IEPs on the ow and
sand/erosion characteristics was highlighted. An attempt
has been made to understand the effect of high velocity
gas ow on the probe temperature readings and heating
of the probe body that result from sand particle impact.
The effects of ow induced vibration on IEPs and the
system integrity are also discussed.
Sensing
elements
Probe body
Cross section can be circular or square of with an angle head. The probe may span
any radial distance normally not the entire pipe diameter
4
GE Oil & Gas
Computational modeling and
congurations tested
Numerical experiments were performed on a generic
piping system and intrusive probe body consisting
of straight pipes (ID=6) and standard bends (R=1.5D,
where R and D are the curvature radius and the internal
diameter of the bend, respectively) see Figure 2. Three
congurations were investigated:
1. A simple piping system without IEP to capture the
ow characteristics and predict the erosion of the
system in the absence of the intrusive probe. The
model consists of a straight pipe upstream of the 1.5D
bend to guarantee fully developed ow and uniform
distributed sand particles before they enter the bend.
2. The same simple model mentioned above with a typical
intrusive erosion probe The probe cross section can
be square or circular, and other shapes were also
investigated in this study. In addition, the sensors
can range from ush mount to full span designs. The
example covered herein is a full span device and both
square and circular cross section probes.
3. The model in B extended with a 1.5D bend upstream
of the erosion probe to explore the inuence of the
geometry changes on the erosion rates of the probe
and system components close to it.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for the ow and the
particle tracking simulation, in conjunction with erosion
models, has become an established tool for quantitatively
predicting the erosion distribution generated by sand
ows in the last few years. Models are validated in (Zhang,
Y, 2007), (Xianghui Chen, 2004), (Gary Brown, 2006),
(Manickam, 1999), and (Graham, 2009).
In this study, the commercial CFD software package
ANSYS CFX was used to calculate the uid velocity eld,
particle trajectories and consequent erosion. A one-way
coupling technique between the uid and particle phases
is employed in the calculations. The uid velocity eld
without particles is solved rst, followed by Lagrangian
particle tracking as a subsequent run without considering
the effects of the particle phase on the uid phase. The
steady state non-buoyant compressible ow eld was
solved using a 3D structured computation mesh, with a
k- turbulence model under the assumption that both the
inlet velocity eld and particle distribution are uniform.
Particle tracking was performed using the standard
transport model in CFX with turbulent dispersion, and
30,000 particles were released in a random uniform
distribution at the inlet at zero-slip velocity. Initial studies
were performed to ensure that the numerical solutions
(both ow eld solution and erosion predictions) were
independent of the computation mesh resolution and
particle number.
FIGURE 2 Three piping system congurations were investigated
Erosion model
In the CFD simulations, erosion equations were used to
calculate the erosion rate caused by each impingement.
The major input for most of the erosion equations is particle
impact information, such as impact angle, impact speed,
and impact location. A wide variety of erosion equations
have been developed by many investigators. Among these,
the erosion equations developed by Tulsa E/CRC (Zhang, Y,
2007) and DNV (DNV, 2007) are most commonly used in the
oil and gas industry. In this work, the DNV erosion equation,
as shown in Equation 1, is applied.
Where:
E Erosion rate or the material mass loss rate [kg/s]
m
p
Amount of sand hitting the surface [kg/s]
U
p
Sand particle impact speed [m/s]
K, n Constants dependent on the material
Sand particle impact angle [rad]
A
i
Coefcients given in [7]
Results and discussion
Erosion
The inuence of the intrusive erosion probes on the
ow, particle tracking and erosion was investigated by
simulations of gas ow (methane) loaded with 200m
sand particles using piping system congurations A and
B in Figure 2. Both congurations are similar except that
model B includes an intrusive erosion probe that spans
the entire internal diameter of the straight pipe. The
simulations were performed with a ow velocity of 68 m/s
at the pipe inlet. This corresponds to a methane ow rate
[Eq 1] F() = A
i

i
i=1
n

E = m
p
K U
n
p
F()
Configuration A
Inlet
Inlet
intrusive
erosion
probe
Inlet
Flow
Outlet Outlet Outlet
Configuration B Configuration C
5
GE Oil & Gas
of 325 MMscfd at a temperature and pressure of 138C
and 140 bar, respectively. The sand ow rate is 0.1 lb/
MMscfd with the sand particles injected with a uniform
distribution at the inlet.
The simulation results show that the sand particle tracking
paths are uniformly distributed all the way from the inlet
to the bend for conguration A (without a probe in the
straight pipe). In conguration B, however, most particles
are affected by the intrusive probe. At the probes leading
edge and sensing elements, the particles are accelerated
toward the pipe surfaces with a velocity increase of
roughly 35% over the inlet velocity (Figure 3 right). The
main particle velocities in conguration A keep an average
value that is close to the particle inlet velocity. When the
sand particles reach the bend, typical bend acceleration
and deceleration are observed as shown in Figure 3 -left.
Note that the particle trajectories also illustrate the risk
associated with following the classic placement rules-
of-thumb. The particles swirl and do not impact at the
midpoint of the outside edge of the bend. The particles
also do not impact at the outside edge of the exit.
The intrusive probe in conguration B disturbs the
uniformity of the sand particles and leads to particle
stream jetting at the downstream bend. This, in turn,
results in a higher erosion rate at that bend than that
predicted for conguration A. The same phenomena
are observed at the pipe surface in the areas close to
the top and bottom edges of the probe. Figure 4 shows
the erosion at the bend in congurations A and B. The
maximum erosion rate at the bend in conguration B is
about three times higher than that in conguration A. The
increase in erosion is mainly due to the higher local sand
concentration hitting the bend at higher velocity. The
erosion associated with the sand jetting in the vicinity of
the probe is also shown in Figure 4. The erosion at the
FIGURE 3 Particle tracking paths in simulation congurations
A and B (without probe and with probe). Strong
directional changes and acceleration of sand
particles are caused by the probe in the pipe
pipe surface close to the lower and upper edges of the
probe was also observed in the experiments by Graham
et al. (Graham, L.J.W. et al., 2010) see Figure 5.
FIGURE 4 Erosion in congurations A and B
FIGURE 5 Qualitative comparison of the simulation results vs.
experiment by (Graham, L. J.W. et al., 2010)
In conguration B, the erosion rates at the intrusive probe
and the downstream bend are also quite different. Figure
6 shows that, in one of the simulations, the maximum
erosion rate at the downstream bend (9 mm/yr) is about
twice the erosion rate on the probe (4 mm/yr). The
sample particle trajectories (colored by particle velocity,
where green represents low velocity and red represents
high velocity) in the gure show that the particles are
at relatively low speed and homogenously distributed.
After the probe, many particles are accelerated. At the
same time, the particles collect and generate high local
concentrations. This explains the increased erosion rate at
the downstream bend. If the distance between the probe
and the downstream bend is long enough, the particles
will be decelerated and become homogeneous again. The
erosion rate at the bend is then expected to be closer to
the erosion rate observed on the probe. The erosion rate
on the probe, and consequently the device ready, may
not reect the erosion rates at other critical parts of the
system.
sand. velocity
sand. velocity
res PT for sand
Configuration A Configuration B
[ms
-1
]
[ms
-1
]
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Erosion rate [mm/yr] Erosion rate [mm/yr]
Configuration A
3.0
2.6
2.2
1.7
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.0
9.0
7.7
6.4
5.1
3.9
2.6
1.3
0.0
Configuration A
Configuration B
Configuration B
Erosion rate [mm/yr]
6
GE Oil & Gas
FIGURE 7 Conguration C, with bend upstream of the probe
leading to non-uniform distribution of the sand at the
probe and sand particle stream bypassing the probe
Not only does the effect of the IEP on the downstream
components need to be considered, ttings upstream
of the IEP can also signicantly affect its output. In
conguration C, a 1.5D bend was added upstream of the
straight pipe containing the erosion probe. Simulations
were conducted with the same ow and sand particle
specications as with the other congurations. Figure 7
shows some sample particle trajectories and the sand
concentration just before the erosion probe. The bend
upstream of the probe changes the particle distribution
and the concentration in the straight pipe is no longer
uniform and, worse, the majority of the particles do not
impact on the middle of the probe. Only a small portion
of the particles inuence this sensor area giving a low
measurement of the erosion rate. The location of the
FIGURE 8 Erosion at the probe and the bend downstream for
simulation with bend installed upstream of the probe
elements in the sensor design clearly plays a role in
the placement of the sensor. The simulation results for
conguration C (like those for conguration B) show that
the erosion rate at the downstream bend is much higher
than that on the probe compare Figure 8.
Simulations were performed using conguration B with
a cylindrical probe (see Figure 9). The erosion results
are close to those of the simulations with the square
probe except for the erosion hotspot locations of the
components downstream of the probe.
Erosion rate [mm/yr]
Configuration C Configuration C
Configuration C
9.0
6.8
4.5
2.3
0.0
Configuration B
Erosion rate [mm/yr]
9.0
7.7
6.4
5.1
3.9
2.6
1.3
0.0
Probe erosion Configuration B
Uniform distributed
low velocity sand
particles
Concentrated high
velocity sand
particles
FIGURE 6 Conguration B details of erosion at the probe and downstream bend
sand particel paths sand concentration u/s of probe
Configuration C
sand. velocity
res PT for sand
m s
-1
100
83
65
48
30
7
GE Oil & Gas
FIGURE 11 High velocity stagnation of gas ows may impact
the erosion readings of the probes by changing the
thermal and electrical properties of the sensing
elements
To examine the inuence of
operating condition changes
on the sand distribution pattern
and the erosion reading of the
probe, one more simulation with a
lower ow rate (100MMscfd) was
performed using conguration
C. The simulation was also
carried out with methane at a
temperature and pressure of
130C and 120 bar, respectively.
The sand ow rate is 0.1 lb/
MMscfd with the 200m sand
particles injected with a uniform
distribution at the inlet. The ow
velocity at the pipe inlet was
20.5 m/s.
The results show the same
tendency as in the ow scenario
with the higher ow rate
discussed above, i.e., non-uniform
concentrations of sand particles
are observed upstream of the
probe. However, the erosion
pattern is different. The location
of the erosion hotspot at the bend
changes due to the change of
the ow rate (compare Figures
7 and 10). The relative severity
of erosion at the probe and the
bend is also different from that
in the higher ow case discussed
above. This indicates difculties in
the choice of the probe location
to satisfy the operation under
variable operation conditions.
Heating and thermal issues
In an actual IEP monitoring device, compensation for
temperature changes, which inuence the electrical
properties of the sensing element material, is normally
required. For this compensation, the actual temperature
of the sensing elements should be measured. In some
IEP monitoring systems the temperature sensors are
mounted at the trailing edge of the probe body. This
may result in inaccurate compensation due to the
temperature difference between the erosion sensors
and the temperature sensors. Figure 11 shows a typical
temperature distribution around the probe in a gas ow
system. The probe front experiences a slightly higher
temperature because of the gas stagnation effect. Impact
from high speed sand particles may also increase the
temperature of the erosion sensors in the front of the
Configuration C
100MMscfd
Configuration C
100MMscfd
Configuration C
100MMscfd
FIGURE 9 Erosion at the probe and the downstream components for simulation using
a circular probe
FIGURE 10 Conguration C Simulations with ow scenario 100MMscfd
Configuration B
Cylindrical probe
Configuration B
Cylindrical probe
Configuration B
Cylindrical probe
Configuration B
Cylindrical probe
Temperature
[C]
8
GE Oil & Gas
probe. This can become even more complicated in gas/
liquid/sand multiphase ow systems.
Flow-induced vibration
Depending on the size and shape of the probe body as
well as the ow conditions, unsteady ow and separation
of the boundary layer may occur. Consequently,
vortices are created at the back of the body and detach
periodically from either side of the body (A snapshot
of large scale eddies observed in the steady state
simulations carried out in the framework of the current
study is shown in Figure 12 in a horizontal cross section
left). The detached vortices induce forces on the sand
probe and are an acoustic (pulsation) source. The nature
of the induced pressure pulsations from the vortices
are those of a dipole, which decay quite rapidly with
increasing distance away from the sand probe. For this
reason, these pressure pulsations are considered to be
potentially capable of only affecting the integrity of
the probe itself. The frequency with which the induced
pressure pulsations interact with the sand probe are
governed by the dimensions of the sand probe, the ow
velocity, the Strouhal number (describing oscillating ow
mechanisms), the unperturbed velocity of the uid at the
leading edge of the boundary layer and a representative
length scale of the sand probe.
Where:
F Pressure pulsation frequency [Hz]
S
r
Strouhal number
U Unperturbed ow velocity at the leading edge
of the boundary layer [m/s]
D Representative length scale [m]
The amplitude of the pressure uctuations can be
enhanced by virtue of positive feedback from the acoustic
eld surrounding the sand probe to the ow instabilities
in the shear layer. This will only occur if the frequencies of
the pressure pulsations closely match an acoustic Eigen
mode of the volume enclosed between the sand probe
and the pipe wall. Experience indicates that, in such a
case, the pressure pulsation amplitude can be amplied
by a factor of 6. Similarly, the resulting vibrations of
the sand probe in response to the acoustic load will be
similarly amplied if the frequency is in the vicinity of the
sand probes natural vibration frequency.
The ow pattern resulting from a simulation with a more
realistic probe conguration is illustrated in Figure 12 (right).
The probe in this case does not span the entire diameter
of the pipe but forms a gap between the lower probe
edge and the pipe internal surface free probe edge. This
conguration led to ow acceleration in the gap. Velocity
and pressure uctuations downstream of the gap may
inuence the probe integrity. Transient ow modeling is
required to deepen the understanding of this phenomenon.
Conclusions
One of the major assumptions of many IEP monitoring
systems is that the sand particles are uniformly
distributed in the system. This assumption may not be
valid for all applications. The local sand concentration and
velocity can also be affected by the IEP itself. Changing
operating conditions can also affect the erosion pattern
of the piping system. These pose several challenges in
applying the IEP monitoring system.
First of all, the readings from the IEP may not be
representative. The IEP may measure a small amount
of erosion while much more severe erosion occurs at
other parts of the piping system. One should not expect
to use a general correlation built into the IEP monitoring
system to relate the IEP readings to erosion on other
critical parts, since it depends on the piping conguration,
the operating conditions, and the IEP locations. Each
system needs its own correlation that can cover a certain
range of operating conditions.
This requires experiments and
modeling.
Secondly, for the same reason,
calibration of IEP monitoring
systems by injecting a known
amount of sand should be done
carefully, making sure that the
expected amount of sand reaches
the probe sensing elements and
that the injection point is properly
located so that the injection method
does not affect the outcome.
Velocity Velocity (projection)
m s
-1
m s
-1
[Eq 2]
= S
r

U

D
FIGURE 12 Flow led and vortex shedding downstream of the probe body
9
GE Oil & Gas
Thirdly, the IEP itself may result in more erosion in certain
areas of the pipeline. It needs to be carefully evaluated for
the application.
The results show that the optimal location of the IEP is
strongly affected by the peculiarities of the case in hand.
In reality, the variation in operating conditions and piping
system are signicant. Sensor placement optimizing
using CFD tools to maximize detection while minimizing
damage from heating and sand jetting is recommended.
References
[1] Graham, L.J.W. et al., 2010, Quantication of erosion distributions in
complex geometries, L.J.W. Graham et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 10661071
[2] Zhang, Y., Reuterfors, E.P., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., and Rybicki, E.F.,
2007,Comparison of Computed and Measured Particle Velocities and
Erosion in Water and AirFlows, Wear, 263, pp. 330-338
[3] Xianghui Chen, Brenton S. McLaury and Siamack A. Shirazi, 2004,
Application and experimental validation of a computational uid
dynamics (CFD)-based erosion prediction model in elbows and plugged
tees, Computers and Fluids, v33 (19), pp.1251-1272
[4] Gary Brown, 2006, Use of CFD to Predict and Reduce Erosion in an
Industrial Slurry Piping System, Fifth International Conference on CFD
in the Process Industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, 13-15 December
2006
[5] Manickam, M. , Schwarz, M. P. and Mcintosh, M. J. 1999, CFD
Analysis of Erosion of Bifurcation Duct Walls, Second International
Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries, CSIRO,
Melbourne, Australia, 6-8 December 1999
[6] Graham, L.J.W., Lester, D. and Wu, J. ,2009, Slurry Erosion in Complex
Flows: Experiment and CFD, Seventh International Conference on CFD
in the Minerals and Process Industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, 9-11
December 2009
[7] DNV 2007, Recommended Practice RP O501 Erosive Wear in Piping
Systems, DNV RP O501 rev 4.2 - 2007
Copyright 2011, Offshore Technology Conference
For more information
Global Headquarters
Via Felice Matteucci, 2
50127 Florence, Italy
T +39 055 423 211
F +39 055 423 2800
customer.service.center@ge.com
Nuovo Pignone S.p.A.
Nuovo Pignone S.r.l.
Americas Regional Headquarters
4424 West Sam Houston Parkway North
Houston, Texas 77041
P.O. Box 2291
Houston, Texas 77252-2291
T +1 713 683 2400
F +1 713 683 2421
ge.com/oilandgas
The information contained herein is general in nature
and is not intended for specic construction, installation
or application purposes. GE reserves the right to make
changes in specications or add improvements at any
time without notice or obligation.
GE, the GE Monogram, and imagination at work are
registered trademarks of the General Electric Company.
2012 General Electric Company
All Rights Reserved
GE imagination at work