Erosion in the tube entrance region of a shell and tube heat exchanger

Abstract

Purpose

In oil and gas industries, the presence of sand particles in produced oil and natural gas represents a major concern because of the associated erosive wear occurring in various flow passages. Erosion in the tube entrance region of a typical shell and tube heat exchanger is numerically predicted.

Design/methodology/approach

The erosion rates are obtained for different flow rates and particle sizes assuming low particle concentration. The erosion prediction is based on using a mathematical model for simulating the fluid velocity field and another model for simulating the motion of solid particles. The fluid velocity (continuous phase) model is based on the solution of the time‐averaged governing equations of 3D turbulent flow while the particle‐tracking model is based on the solution of the governing equation of each particle motion taking into consideration the viscous and gravity forces as well as the effect of particle rebound behavior.

Findings

The results show that the location and number of eroded tubes depend mainly on the particle size and velocity magnitude at the header inlet. The rate of erosion depends exponentially on the velocity. The particle size shows negligible effect on the erosion rate at high velocity values and the large‐size particles show less erosion rates compared to the small‐size particles at low values of inlet flow velocities.

Originality/value

In oil and gas industries, the presence of sand particles in produced oil and natural gas represents a major concern because of the associated erosive wear occurring in various flow passages. The results indicate that erosion in shell and tube heat exchanger can be minimized through the control of velocity inlet to the header.

Citation

Habib, M.A., Ben‐Mansour, R., Badr, H.M., Said, S.A.M. and Al‐Anizi, S.S. (2005), "Erosion in the tube entrance region of a shell and tube heat exchanger", International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 143-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/09615530510578429