PSI - Issue 71

Rahul Tarodiya et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 71 (2025) 241–247

244

( ) 0.038

1 bk

0.12

V K(aH )

V 65(H )

−

2 V k 2.3 H =

. The term

is considered to

from the Ref. (Parsi et al. 2019), in the

present work. The impact angle function f(α) is expressed as: ( ) ( ) ( 1 n

) 2 n

(5)

V f sin 1 H 1 sin  =  + −     

( ) 0.14

( ) 0.94 −

1 V n 0.71 H =

2 V n 2.4 H =

where, n 1 and n 2 are the angle functions and considered as,

and

2.4. Validation The accuracy of erosion prediction is ascertained from the available experimental data obtained with a 3D surface profiler (Solnordal et al. 2015), for the material Aluminum 6061, at bend extrados. The flow domain is modeled in the same dimensions as the experimental facility used to generate the results. For the simulations the operating conditions are selected the same as the experiments i.e., the air inlet velocity is set to 21.1 m/s, and particle density, size, and mass flow rate are set to 2650 kg/m 3 , 184 µm, and 0.3 kg/s, respectively. The profile data designated A, in the reference paper (Solnordal et al. 2015), on the surface of the bend are evaluated for thickness loss comparison. The comparison of the predicted results from CFD and experiments is shown in Fig. 2. The predicted erosion profile as well as the location of maximum erosion agrees reasonably well with the experimentally observed erosion profile. This indicates that the present numerical modeling of the pipeline for erosion prediction is reliable for predicting the erosion profile of the elbow for different operating conditions. 3. Results and Discussions The simulated results at an inlet velocity of 25 m/s were analyzed for particle sizes of 50 µm, 100 µm, 200 µm, and 400 µm. Fig. 3 shows the contours of the thickness loss rate in both the primary and secondary elbows for simulations at different connecting pipe lengths between the elbows from 3D to 50D, and particle sizes of 50 µm and 200 µm. The results indicate that the maximum erosion occurs at the extrados of both the primary and secondary elbows. There is no significant change in the erosion behavior of the primary elbow with the change in connecting lengths between the two elbows. However, as the connecting length between the elbows changes from 3D to 50D, both the thickness loss rate and the location of maximum erosion in the secondary elbow varies significantly. Further, an increase in particle size results in a higher thickness loss rate in the primary elbow, likely due to the increased kinetic energy of larger particles.

Fig. 3 Contours of thickness loss rate on primary and secondary elbow for different particle size and different pipe length connecting two elbows (3D and 30D).

Fig. 4 plots the variation in thickness loss rate at the elbow extrados for different angular positions, considering changes in connecting length and particle size. The results show that the thickness loss rate of the secondary elbow is influenced by both particle size and connecting length. This may attribute to the change in trajectories of particles and particle impingement characteristics on elbows with the change in connecting pipe length which in turn change the