Wear 255 (2003) 237–245

Case study
Evaluation of erosion–corrosion in multiphase flow
via CFD and experimental analysis
Benedetto Bozzini a , Marco E. Ricotti b,∗ , Marco Boniardi c , Claudio Mele a
a INFM, Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Innovazione, Università di Lecce, v. Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, Italy
b Dipartimento di Ingegneria Nucleare, Politecnico di Milano, Via Ponzio 34/3, 20132 Milano, Italy
c Dipartimento di Meccanica, Politecnico di Milano, v. Bonardi 9, 20133 Milano, Italy

Abstract
A numerical simulation is proposed of erosion–corrosion phenomena in four-phase flows comprising two immiscible liquids, gas and
particulate solid. The simulation geometry is a pipe bend and the evaluated quantity is the wall erosion–corrosion brought about by the flow
of a fluid mixture of two liquid phases, one of which is corrosive, plus a gas phase flow and a solid phase. A computational fluid dynamic
tool has been adopted for the simulation of the flow field inside the piping and for the simulation of the particle trajectories and impact
rates. As far as corrosion is concerned, a passivating and an actively corroding metallic material have been considered. Erosion model
parameters have been derived from experiments correlating particle impact angle and erosion rate. Corrosion model parameters have been
obtained from electrochemical measurements. The effects of the key operating parameters (fluid flow velocity, particulate content and gas
volume fraction) have been evaluated by a two-level design of experiments approach. The single most important effects on synergistic
damaging and on the ratio of corrosive to overall damaging have been identified. Erosion-enhanced and erosion-limited effects of flow
conditions have been highlighted for the passivating and for the actively corroding alloys, respectively.
© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Erosion; Corrosion; Computational fluid dynamics; Multiphase flow

1. Introduction in two-dimensional geometry. The turbulence is typically

Investigations into the field of erosion–corrosion are
typically daunted by the huge amount of experimental
parameters which may have an effect on this synergistic
damage mechanism, including: flow conditions, compo-
sition of the structural material, chemistry of the flowing
system and temperature. Multiphase flows exhibit the ad-
ditional challenge of requiring further phase composition
parameters with the respective physical and modelling de-
scriptors. Furthermore, experiments in realistic conditions
are extremely hard to manage. An overall lack of predic-
tivity is therefore characteristic for this kind of studies.
The contribution of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
in simulating realistic flow patterns and in data reduction
is proving fruitful. Even if several outstanding papers,
among which [1–8], have been published, plenty of factors
still await investigation. The computational approach to
erosion–corrosion thus far has been dominated by the anal-
ysis of single-phase flow with a particulate solid, typically
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-02-2399-6325;
fax: +39-02-2399-6309.
E-mail address: marco.ricotti@polimi.it (M.E. Ricotti).
simulated with the low Reynolds number k − ε model in
non-disturbed and disturbed flows. Reynolds stress trans-
port models have also been considered [6]. The motion of
the dispersed particulate phase in the turbulent flow field
has been modelled by Lagrangian, Eulerian or stochastic
approaches. Slurry flows have been shown to differ very
little from water flows, the predicted turbulence profiles are
basically unchanged and Newtonian fluids have invariably
been regarded as an acceptable approximation. CFD is suit-
able for providing local evaluation of the mechanical action
of the fluid flow and mechanical parameters of the impact-
ing solids suspended in the flow. This information ought
to be linked with electrochemical information accounting
for the corrosive contribution to erosion–corrosion. The
synergy between erosion and corrosion phenomena mainly
stems from alterations of the corrosion process brought
about by the mechanical actions. These effects are widely
diverse in nature and depend on the material–environment
coupling. This variety of mechano-chemical phenomena
can give rise to both enhancing and limiting effects of the
corrosive component of the damage mechanism. Although
the former generally dominates, the latter has been doc-
umented [9]. Enhancing effects are typical of passivating

0043-1648/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00181-9
238 B. Bozzini et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 237–245
materials, while actively corroding ones can be beneficially
affected by the presence of a plastic deformation process,
resulting in a lower overall damage rate when the mechan-
ical action is superimposed on the merely electrochemical
one.
A strong demand for the analysis of multiphase flow prob-
lems is felt in the field of process engineering. Specific stim-
ulus comes from the oil and gas production industry. Only
pioneering work is available in the literature on four-phase
flows [10], which is the typical operating condition for the
off-shore oil extraction industry implying pipe flow of two
immiscible liquids (oil and sea water), one gas (hydrocarbon
mixture) and one dispersed solid (sand).
The scope of this particular research is the simulation of
the erosion–corrosion of pipe walls, due to the internal flow
of gas–liquid four-phase mixtures carrying an inert particu-
late solid dispersion. Reference is made to both passivating
and actively corroding metals.
A three-dimensional analysis of a 90◦ elbow of a circu-
lar cross-section pipe is carried out. The operating variables
and the phase composition were investigated in a wide range
and their effects were evaluated on the basis of a two-level
design of experiments approach. The parameters relating to
the individual effects of erosion and corrosion were evalu-
ated experimentally.
2. The CFD approach
A computational fluid dynamic tool has been selected for
the simulation of the flow field inside the piping and for the
simulation of the particle trajectories and their impact on the
bend walls. CFD is currently one of the more sophisticated
and promising approaches for the analysis and solution of
a wide class of problems involving flow domains and in a
wide set of research and industrial application fields. CFD
codes are capable of solving the full set of fluid dynamic
balance equations, usually in Navier–Stokes formulation for
momentum balance. Turbulence can be approximated by dif-
ferent models. In particular, the FLUENT code [11] adopted
for this study solves the balance equation set via domain
discretisation, using a control volume approach to convert
the balance partial differential equations (PDEs) into alge-
braic equations solved numerically. The FLUENT code has
been used in the investigation of solid particle erosion in gas
flow in components of complex geometry [12]. The solution
procedure integrates the balance equations over each con-
trol volume, thus obtaining discrete equations that conserve
primary quantities on a control volume basis. The numerical
solution defines the flow field quantities, possibly used by
routines implementing models for further flow-related quan-
tities than, e.g. phases transported by a given fluid phase.
One of the more important features of this class of fluid
dynamic codes is the ability to simulate complex fluid flows
and geometric domains, both in two- and three-dimensions,
also accounting for turbulence. A set of models are usually
made available to the user, differing mainly in the scale
of turbulence they can evaluate. The present case study
has been performed by adopting a three-dimensional un-
structured mesh for the pipe, an implicit method for the
numerical solution of mass and momentum equations and
a k − ε model for the turbulence. The mixture composition
and phase velocities are defined at the inlet boundary. The
system pressure is fixed at the outlet boundary.
3. Multiphase flow model
The fluid flow under analysis is a ternary one, with two
liquid and one gas immiscible phases. The fourth phase to
be modelled, i.e. the solid dispersion, was dealt with sepa-
rately, as described here. Specialised models enable the code
to handle different multiphase flow domains, even if current
computational fluid dynamics is still far from the possibility
of simulating the details of multiphase flow, mainly owing
to the complexity of flow regimes and related phenomena
such as phase transition or interphase heat transfer. One of
the most stringent assumptions necessary for our analysis is
the perfect homogeneity among the phases. This hypothesis
implies that the phase fraction composition of the flow mix-
ture is homogeneous throughout the mesh. The simulation
of the actual flow regime in the piping is therefore disre-
garded in this approach. This approximation is expected to
be physically unsound only in the case of large void frac-
tions, leading to large intermittent plugs, annular dispersed
flow or free surface regimes, as might occur in at low fluid
velocities.
Among the available models for the simulation of fluid
phases, the volume of fluid (VOF) option has been selected.
Even if this model allows the simulation of the position of the
interface between the fluids, this feature has been deactivated
according to homogenisation hypothesis discussed above. A
single set of momentum balance equations for the mixture is
solved and the volume fraction of each of the phases in each
computational cell is evaluated throughout the domain. Both
the liquid and gas phases are treated as incompressible. The
main physical properties for the fluid phases are reported in
Table 1.
4. Discrete phase model
A specialized model is also available within FLUENT
for the simulation of particles transported in the continuous
Table 1
Main physical properties for the fluid phases
Water–liquid Gasoline– Gasoline–
phase liquid phase gas phase
Density, ρ (kg m−3 ) 998.2 830 9.4
Viscosity, µ (kg m−1 s−1 ) 0.001003 0.00332 7E−6
 B. Bozzini et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 237–245 239

flow field. The discrete phase model (DPM) option solves where k and ε are the turbulent kinetic energy and the tur-
the equation of motion for a discrete phase dispersed in bulent dissipation rate, respectively. The velocity and tra-
the continuous phase, by adopting a Lagrangian frame of jectory calculations for the particles can be treated both as
coordinates and leading to the computation of the particle uncoupled or as coupled with the continuous fluid field so-
trajectories. The force balance equation on the particle is lution. Obviously, the second option requires iterations be-
solved using the local continuous phase conditions: tween each set of balance equations. This option is use-
dvp (ρp − ρf ) ful in the case the discrete phase injection is such that a
= FD (vf − vp ) + g + Fx (1) feedback on the fluid field quantities (e.g. velocity, pres-
dt ρp
sure) is expected. Otherwise, the segregation between the
where vp and vf are the particle and fluid velocities, ρp two solutions is acceptable. The coupled method has been
and ρf are the particle and fluid densities, respectively, g is adopted in order to directly evaluate the erosion mass flux.
the gravitational acceleration, Fx is a term accounting for The steady-state analysis is carried out through the follow-
additional forces, FD (vf − vp ) is the drag force per unit ing steps: (i) solving of the continuous phase flow; (ii) in-
particle mass, FD is dimensionally an inverse of time and jection of the discrete phase; (iii) solving of the coupled
reads: flow and particle trajectories; (iv) tracking of the discrete

  
1 18µ CD Re phase.
FD = α= (2)
τa ρp Dp2 24
4.1. Boundary conditions
where τ a is the aerodynamic response time for the particle,
Re is the Reynolds number for the particle referred to the Particles are assumed to be spherical and monodispersed
relative velocity and CD is the drag coefficient: in diameter. They are injected in a single point at the inlet
ρf |vf − vp |Dp boundary, in the centre of the pipe cross-section area, and
Re = (3) released into the flow as from a spray cone dispenser at
µf
the same inlet multiphase flow velocity. The particle stream
a2 a3
CD = a1 + + 2 (4) impact on the pipe wall boundaries is treated as an an elastic
Re Re reflection, with fixed momentum restitution coefficients in
with coefficients a derived in [13] for two-phase flows. both normal and tangent directions with respect to the hitting
Eq. (1) needs to be coupled with the trajectory equation direction on the wall. The main assumptions for the DPM
in the Lagrangian frame, ds/dt = vp , where s is the tra- analysis are summarized in Table 2.
jectory abscissa, in order to close the solving equation set A total inert particle mass flow rate is defined for each
and to give velocity and position for the particle. Moreover, injection. Thus, the total solid phase flow rate is propor-
in turbulent flows the effect of turbulence on the particle tionally split in a number of stream flow rates equalling the
dispersion can play a significant role. A stochastic model, number of streams defining the whole injection. The total
the discrete random walk (DRW) or “Eddy lifetime” model, number of particle streams or stochastic histories analysed
predicts the turbulent dispersion of particles by integrating (S) is given by the product of the number of particle injec-
the trajectory equations for each particle by adopting the in- tions (Nj ) and the number of particle streams per injection
stantaneous fluid velocity along the particle path. The fluid (Ms ). In our case, being a single point of injection chosen,
velocity in that space position where the particle is located, S = Nj × Ms = 1 × 10, 000 = 1E+4.
is v = v̄ + v , where v̄ is the mean fluid phase velocity The number of histories gives sufficient confidence that
and v is the turbulent part of the fluid velocity. The turbu- the simulation results are statistically meaningful. A sensi-
lent contribution is given by a Gaussian distributed random tivity analysis was carried out in order to ensure statistical
fluctuation, which is taken as constant over the solution ad- reliability, by increasing the number of particle streams or
vancement time step t that cover the Eddy time scale τ e the injection points while keeping constant the total injected
or “Eddy lifetime”: mass flow rate of inert phase. An increase of one order of
k magnitude in the stream number did not lead to significant
τe = 0.30 (5) improvement in the simulation.
ε

Table 2
Main assumptions for the discrete phase model
Particle Density Mean diameter Number of Number of particle Reflection at wall Reflection at wall
type (kg m−3 ) (spherical particles) injections/type streams per injection normal coefficient tangent coefficient
(␮m)
Sand 2800 300 1 injection/cone 10000 0.8 0.8
(20◦ semiangle)
240 B. Bozzini et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 237–245
5. Erosion
The model available in the FLUENT code for the calcu-
lation of the erosion flux is a simplified model taking into
account the mass flow rate of the impacting stream (Γ s ), the
surface area of the impacted wall boundary cell (A) and an
impact angle function f(θ). Other terms in the erosion equa-
tion could be defined (a function of the particle diameter
C(Ds ) and a function of the particle stream relative veloc-
ity b(v)), but were not considered in the present case for the
sake of simplicity:
N b(v)
stream
Γs,i f(θi )C(Ds,i )vi
E= (6)
Ai
i=1
The angular dependence f(θ i ) to be used in Eq. (6) was eval-
uated experimentally by performing sand-blasting erosion
tests on disk-shaped 2205 Duplex stainless steel specimens
(disk diameter: 2 cm, disk thickness: 0.5 cm, impact velocity
4 m s−1 , sand diameter ca. 400 ␮m). Duplex stainless steel
(DSS, composition 22Cr–5.5Ni–3Mo–1.5Mn–17N + Si, P,
C, S; hardness 248 HV; yield stress 516 MPa; ultimate ten-
sile stress 790 MPa) have been successfully used in process
industry, including food and biomedical, due to their me-
chanical and corrosion resistance properties which are bet-
ter than conventional austenitic or ferritic grades. The high
chromium and molybdenum contents allow the use of DSSs
under conditions of pitting, crevice and above all stress cor-
rosion cracking that would be critical for the traditional
stainless steels grades.
The erosion rate was estimated gravimetrically. The ex-
perimental data could be approximated with the Eq. (7),
f(θi ) = B sin θi (7)
where B = 8.5 mg cm−2 s−1 . A graph showing experimen-
tal data of erosion rate and their fitting as a function of
Fig. 1. Experimental erosion rate data (dry angle-dependent sand blasting)
for 2205 DSS.
impact angle is reported in Fig. 1. The fit curve has been
implemented in the CFD code for the erosion analysis.
6. Corrosion
As previously mentioned, the synergistic action typical
of erosion–corrosion processes is obtained by modelling the
merely electrochemical corrosion mechanism allowing for
the mechanical effects. Simple approximate models are pro-
posed for both passivating and actively corroding materials.
The electrochemical component of corrosion has been taken
into account by the “recovering target” concept. The parti-
cles are modelled with rigid monodisperse spheres of radius
R. The particle impact process is assumed to be Poissonian
with parameter λ impacts m−2 s−1 . Each independent im-
pact is assumed to give rise to an alteration of the corrosion
mechanism whose effect is a transient local variation of the
corrosion current density for a typical time.
The effective corrosion current density icorr (nA cm−2 ) at
a given electrode potential (typically the corrosion poten-
tial) can be related to the mechanically affected corrosion
component of the synergistic damage through a coefficient
fa (such that 0 ≤ fa ≤ 1) expressing the fraction of the
corroding surface which is affected by the erosive action of
impinging particles, by Eq. (9),
icorr = fa ia + (1 − fa )iu (9)
where the pedices a and u stand for “affected” and
“unaffected”, respectively. The current densities ia and iu
are characteristic for the corroding material in the absence
and in the presence of the relevant mechanical action and in
principle can be measured separately by means of suitable
experiments. In general the coefficient fa can be defined as
Eq. (10):



no. of impacts damaged area
fa =
control area impact
×recovery time = λAa τ (10)
The numerical value of fa depends on the fluid dynam-
ics through λ and on the material properties through Aa ,
and τ. Aa of course depends on the specific mechanism
through which the chemical behaviour is affected by the
mechanical action. The recovery time τ, instead, depends
merely on materials properties and, in particular, on the
metal–environment coupling. In the present investigation,
the material-related parameters Aa have been related to the
impinging particle radius by simple modelling.
As far as the estimation of Aa values for passivating and
actively corroding metals is concerned, we followed a sim-
ple mechanical modelling approach. The need for somewhat
crude approximations at this stage of the research is due to
the fact that a velocity spectrum for the impinging particles
has not been considered, since it is not possible to extract
 B. Bozzini et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 237–245
velocity information for each impinging particle from the
available CFD code.
In the case of passivating materials, the alteration of the
corrosion mechanism caused by particle impact is depassi-
vation due to the mechanical removal of the protective layer.
In the present treatment we assume that the passivating film
behaves like a brittle thin ceramic layer and that the area ex-
periencing cracking and spalling after application of the me-
chanical action by the impinging particle can be identified
with the activated area Aa . The area damaged by a spherical
particle of radius R pressed against the metal surface with a
force typical for the case at hand can be estimated to be of
the order of π/4R2 [14]. This quantity can thus be identified
with Aa .
In the case of actively corroding metals, the specific
mechano-chemical effect is related to the plasticisation
of the material, affecting its activity through variations of
metal density and grain defectivity. We take into account a
model system consisting of an initially annealed material,
which is locally deformation-hardened by the action of par-
ticle impacts. An effective impact of a particle of radius R
can be though of as producing a hemispherical plasticised
volume. For the material and mechanical actions at hand,
the radius of the plasticised hemisphere can be estimated to
be ∼0.3R, giving rise to a typical value for activated area
Aa of ∼8 × 10−3 R2 [15]. Values for τ, iu and ia have been
evaluated by suitable experiments.
In the case of a passivating metal, provided the surface
is initially in the passive state, iu corresponds to the pas-
sivity current density and ia to the current density which
can be measured after removal of the passive layer (e.g. by
scratching under controlled conditions) at the electrode po-
tential of interest. τ is the time the abraded surface takes
for reforming the passivation layer under the relevant en-
vironmental and electrochemical conditions. As a typical
passivating material of interest for the petrochemical indus-
try, we tested 2205 DSS polarised potentiostatically in NaCl
35 g l−1 in the passive range at +0.6 V versus immersion po-
tential and scratched. The thereby following current density
transient was recorded and interpolated with a single expo-
nential decay, whose time constant is used as an estimate of
τ. The relevant current density contribution was evaluated
after measuring the scratched area under an optical micro-
scope. Electrode scratching was carried out on a horizon-
tal upward-facing surface. The scratching tip—a standard
Vickers pyramidal diamond indenter—was loaded with 25 g
and slid across the surface. The resulting scratching exhib-
ited an asymptotic width of ca. 35 ␮m. The experimentally
derived quantities were: τ = 2.5 s, ia = 96 nA cm−2 , iu =
8 nA cm−2 .
In the case of an actively corroding metal, the small de-
formed undersurface volume which displays the corrosion
behaviour typical for the mechanically affected material, is
dissolved by the ongoing corrosion process in a time τ. The
annealed, mechanically unaffected areas and the deformed
ones exhibit corrosion rates which are proportional to iu
241
and ia , respectively. The hemispherical volume plasticised
by the particle impact can be approximated by a cylinder
with a plasticisation depth hp = 0.2ap , where ap is the ra-
dius of the above-mentioned plasticised hemisphere. Since
the corrosion rate of the deformed material N (␮m s−1 ) is
∼5 × 10−5 ia /ρ for a bivalent metal of density ρ (g cm−3 ),
the recovery time τ can be estimated as the time required
to dissolve the plasticised volume τ ∼ hp /N. In this re-
search we considered an electrochemically very simple and
instructive system of admittedly limited industrial value.
We studied a 0.1% carbon steel in the annealed (120 HV)
and laminated (180 HV) states to represent the pristine and
hardened conditions, respectively. The employed electrolyte
was NaCl 35 g l−1 acidified to pH 2 by addition of H2 SO4 .
This metal–electrolyte system provides a very straightfor-
ward generalised corrosion behaviour in which the cathode
reaction is hydrogen reduction. Galvanic coupling effects
between undeformed and deformed areas have been disre-
garded. Potentiodynamic polarisation measurements (scan
rate: 5 mV s−1 ) have been performed for the two materials
(Fig. 2) and the corrosion current densities have been es-
timated by the polarisation resistance and Tafel extrapola-
tion methods, yielding pretty consistent values: ia = 5 ×
104 nA cm−2 , iu = 6×105 nA cm−2 . This result implies that
deformation results in a beneficial effect on the corrosion
behaviour of this material. A typical value for the recovery
time in these conditions is τ ∼7 × 10−3 R (t expressed in s
and R in ␮m).
As commented above in Section 1, this effect—which
has a bearing on the surface activity of the alloy, in a Nern-
stian sense—of course does not apply in general. In actual
facts, most of the occurrences of surface plastic deforma-
tion are reported to give rise to a decrease of the material
stability against corrosion. Nevertheless, in some instances
of high plastic strain and plastic flow localisation, such as
sand impingement in a corrosive environment, the reverse
behaviour has been observed beyond any reasonable doubt
[9]. The experiments carried out in this research are a case
Fig. 2. Corrosion current densities for laminated and annealed materials,
via potentiodynamic polarisation.
242 B. Bozzini et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 237–245
of such an unexpected behaviour, which can however be
easily rationalised in terms of surface compaction and/or
variation of quality of surface crystalline defects or chemi-
cal stability of the thereby ensuing oxidation products. The
dramatic difference in the potentiodynamic curves measured
in this research, between the deformed and undeformed
specimens ensures that, in this specific case, the results are
not an artefact.
The above-estimated numerical values of the corrosion
parameters are inserted in Eqs. (9) and (10) for the evalua-
tion of the effective corrosion current density. If the numer-
ical value of fa computed during the simulation procedure
exceeds unity, it is forced to be equal to one, in order to
account for saturation of the mechanical effect on the cor-
rosion behaviour corresponding to the whole of the surface
being affected by the erosive action.
7. Criteria for the definition of the case matrix
Three fluid dynamic characteristic parameters have been
selected as key points for the case matrix definition, namely:
(i) fluid flow inlet velocity, (ii) inlet volumetric flow ratio for
the gas–liquid phase; (iii) mass flow rate of inert particles
injected.
A further fourth parameter was initially selected, namely
the inlet volumetric flow ratio for the water (liquid) phase,
but the model adopted in the multiphase mixture treatment
(VOF) together with the simplifying assumptions and the
scope of the work, suggested to eliminate the investigation of
this parameter. No significant differences are expected to be
encountered by changing the volumetric ratio between wa-
ter and gasoline, keeping fixed the gas phase volume: only a
mean density change in the mixture would result, with mi-
nor effects on the inertia forces and the particle trajectories.
Therefore, the further possible parameter quantifying the in-
let volumetric flow ratio for the water (liquid) phase was
disregarded in the parametric analysis. In addition, the way
the multiphase mixture is treated in the code (VOF) limits
the physical insight which can be gleaned by considering
this particular phase ratio.
Two values for each parameter have been selected to com-
pose the eight cases set, representing typical high and low
levels of the relevant quantities, in a design of experiments
frame of mind. The values assigned to the parameters define
a range sufficiently wide to cover a representative domain
for the phenomena. The resulting case matrix is reported in
Table 3.
Table 3
Case matrix for the CFD analysis
Values Particle mass Fluid velocity Phase volume ratio
flow rate (m s−1 ) (gas–water–gasoline)
(kg s−1 ) (%)
High 0.1 10 40–30–30
Low 0.01 1 5–30–65
8. Results
8.1. Erosion
The space domain for the CFD analysis refers to a 90◦
bend, 3.5 in. i.d. pipe. A three-dimensional mesh has been
set up, by adding further volumes both at the inlet and the
outlet of the bend. The former, corresponding to several tens
of diameters in length with respect to the Reynolds number
of the flow, in order to reach both a steady, fully developed
flow and a sufficient dispersion of the particles injected in
the stream, prior to reaching the bend zone. The latter in
order to avoid possible recirculation flow paths at the out-
let surface of the domain, thus leading to numerical conver-
gence errors or unphysical results. A scheme of the regular,
hexahedral mesh made up by 115,000 volumes is depicted
in Fig. 3. A preliminary sensitivity study on the mesh size
led to an acceptable compromise between accuracy in flow
field simulation and computational time required by the code
runs. As far as the numerical and the turbulence models are
concerned, a segregated, implicit, steady-in-time solver has
been adopted, together with a standard k−ε model for turbu-
lence. Standard wall functions for the near-wall zone treat-
ment have been selected. According to the case matrix in
Table 3, eight simulations have been performed. The com-
plete computational procedure consisted of the following
successive steps: (i) convergence in the flow field domain,
(ii) calculation of the particle steam trajectories, (iii) compu-
tation of the erosion rate at the bend surface, (iv) evaluation
of the impact-induced corrosion effect, (v) evaluation of the
synergic erosion–corrosion damage.
The adoption of a three-dimensional geometry is a manda-
tory choice, in order to take into account possible effects
of secondary flow paths on the particle stream trajectories
and on the corresponding erosion effect. These secondary
flow paths develop in transverse planes with respect to the
main flow direction and are well known fluid dynamic char-
acteristic of flow in bends, arising from centrifugal effects
on the fluid due to the curvature of the domain. The cor-
responding, typical velocity field in a cross-section close
Fig. 3. Hexahedral mesh adopted in the CFD analysis: bend zone and
tube outlet zone.
 B. Bozzini et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 237–245
Fig. 4. Secondary recirculation path in the tube cross-section area at bend
outlet: velocity vector plot (up) and velocity magnitude contour plot.
to the outlet of the simulated bend, a sort of recirculation
path, is depicted in Fig. 4, obtained from one of the anal-
ysis listed in the case matrix. This feature of the flow field
will lead to some peculiar results in the simulation, as will
Fig. 5. Different erosion rates and their distribution on the bend surface (test cases: fluid velocity of 10 and 2 m s−1 ).
243
be described in the following paragraphs, and would not be
observed in a two-dimensional domain. Moreover, gravita-
tional effects like particle settling could be difficult to ac-
count for in two-dimensional geometry.
By changing the configuration values for the flow velocity,
the CFD analysis shows the qualitative results reported in
Fig. 5, in terms of evaluated erosion rate. Two images of the
bend and outlet pipe zone are shown, representing a lateral
view from the outer side of the bend of the erosion rate
distribution. The erosion rate distribution for a low velocity
(2 m s−1 ) and a high velocity (10 m s−1 ) fluid test show the
typical shift of the erosion peak, from the bottom to the side
of the bend, as the fluid speed increases. The corresponding
quantitative results are described in Figs. 6 and 7, where the
erosion rate values are reported over the 360◦ angle of the
bend outlet section.
As far as the tests included in the case matrix are con-
cerned, the low values configuration case (low flow velocity,
low gas volume, low particulate content) demonstrates the
low transport capability of the mixture on the solid phase,
mainly due to the low inertia and low flow velocity, hence
the reduced drag force on the particles. Thus, the particle
streams tend to collect on the bottom of the straight pipe and
the bend and to concentrate their erosion effect in the first
half of the bend. Due to the secondary flow paths, the parti-
cles tend also to move towards the lower, intrados part of the
bend. The maximum value reaches 8.46E−11 kg m−2 s−1 .
This concentration effect is enhanced by the increase of the
gas content in the mixture. The bend surface affected by
the erosion is further reduced and the corresponding rate
increased, with a maximum value at 3.91E−10 kg m−2 s−1 .
To augment the solid phase content has the reasonable effect
244 B. Bozzini et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 237–245

the bend, where the separation of the two transverse, re-

circulation path takes place, as already reported in Figs. 4
and 5. The peaks of erosion are at 2.59E−9 kg m−2 s−1 for
the low value in solid phase flow rate. They increase up
to 2.97E−8 kg m−2 s−1 for the high value. In this case, the
weight of the impact angle (Fig. 1) leads to concentrate the
erosion effect as the stream flow rate increases.
The high value on the gas content is taken into account
as well: when compared with the low void fraction config-
uration, the presence of a significant gas phase percentage
decreases the drag and inertia capability of the mixture on
the particles, thus leading to a more effective gravitational
settling. The overall result is a lower peak in the top half of
the wall bend, extrados side. As a further effect, an increase
of the maximum erosion rate occurs in the bottom half, from
2.59E−9 to 3.66E−9 kg m−2 s−1 .
Fig. 6. Erosion rate on the bend surface, outlet circumference, for fluid
velocity equal to 10 m s−1 .
8.2. Erosion–corrosion

of increasing the erosion rate without significantly perturb-
ing the flow field in the pipe and the bend. The qualitative
results are the same as in the previous cases, but the max-
imum erosion rates of 8.38E−10 and 3.96E−9 kg m−2 s−1 ,
for a solid particle phase injected of 0.1 kg s−1 , with 5 and
40% gas void fraction, respectively.
The case matrix high values configurations in term of flow
velocity show the dramatic effect of the fluid dynamic field
both on the erosion distribution on the bend surface and
on the erosion rate. The main effect is to push the particle
streams to impact on the extrados, side wall of the bend, to-
wards the exit of the bend zone, due to the inertial and drag
forces. In this case almost half of the bend surface is signif-
icantly interested by the erosion. It is also clearly recognis-
able from the results that the secondary flow paths effects
on the erosion rate are that a double peak zone develops,
one above and one under the horizontal symmetry plane of
The synergic effects of erosion and corrosion give rise
to an overall damage which can be related to the simula-
tion conditions with a design of experiments approach. The
single and joint effects of the simulation parameters have
been evaluated as described, e.g. in [16] and are reported in
Table 4. The intensity of the effects on a given quantity are
normalised to 1, positive and negative values refer to corre-
lation and anti-correlation between the parameter and the ef-
fect, respectively. The damage estimators we considered are:
(i) the mean damage (MD), defined as the sum of the ero-
sion and corrosion damage rates (expressed in kg m−2 s−1 )
and (ii) the relative mean corrosion damage (RMCD), de-
fined as the ratio of the mean corrosion damage to the MD.
The effects on the MD estimator have been evaluated from
the decimal logarithms of the damage rates.
From Table 4 it can be concluded that the synergic damage
effects can be typically related to a single dominating factor.
The flow velocity v is the leading factor driving syner-
gistic damage for the stainless steel. The next single most
important factor is the particle injection rate p. It is worth

Table 4
Normalised single and joint effects of operating parameters on
erosion–corrosion damage estimators
Operating parameters MD DSS MD RMCD RMCD
carbon Duplex carbon
steel steel
Flow velocity, v 1.000 −0.2841 −1.000 −1.000
Gas fraction, g −0.02777 −0.2291 −0.006327 −0.1551
Particle injection 0.5092 −1.000 −0.2239 −0.7219
rate, p
v⊗g 0.1245 0.02065 −0.02502 −0.1644
v⊗p 0.1842 −0.1845 0.006773 −0.6940
g⊗p −0.02600 −0.1238 −0.01647 −0.1368
v⊗g⊗p 0.06879 0.05558 −0.01015 −0.1445
Fig. 7. Erosion rate on the bend surface, outlet circumference, for fluid MD: mean damage (mean erosion + mean corrosion). RMCD: relative
velocity equal to 2 m s−1 . mean corrosion damage (mean corrosion/MD).
 B. Bozzini et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 237–245
noting that the introduction of a corrosion model allowing
for damaging saturation brings about a reversal of the rela-
tive importance of v and p with respect to the linear model
reported in [16]. According to our simulation, the gas vol-
ume fraction g and all the joint effects play a minor role in
the erosion–corrosion damaging of the DSS. v exhibits the
single most important effect on the ratio of erosion versus
overall damage. A limited enhancing effect of the relative
corrosion damage is due to the combination of v and p.
As far as the carbon steel is concerned, the overall dam-
age is negatively correlated with p, v and g, p being the sin-
gle most important factor. Joint effects seem to play a role
comparable to that of secondary single effects. A slight en-
hancing effect is attributed to the triple joint effect. The rel-
ative corrosion damage is mainly negatively affected by vp
and the joint effect of v and p are the next most important
factors tending to enhance the relative erosion damage.
The differences in the coupling of the erosive and corro-
sive actions for the two different materials are evident from
the above discussion. v and p tend to enhance the overall
damage of the passivating alloy and to depress that of the
actively corroding one. If these quantities are increased, the
erosion fraction of the overall damage tends to increase for
both kinds of material. v is the single most important factor
in damage enhancement for the stainless steel, while p is the
single most important factor in damage reduction by plas-
ticisation for the carbon steel. As far as the stainless steel
is concerned, the factor by far dominating the relative en-
hancement of the erosion to overall damage is v, while for
the carbon steel even though v is still the key factor, p and
joint actions of v and p play quantitatively similar roles.
9. Conclusions
The following conclusive remarks ensue from our
analysis.
As far as the fluid dynamic analysis is concerned:
• the fluid dynamics of four-phase mixtures has been stud-
ied by means of a CFD tool. The treatment of the mixture
as an homogeneous mixture does not allow a thorough
evaluation of the different flow regimes which could oc-
cur in the pipe and the bend (e.g. slug, intermittent, bub-
bly), hence the particular effects they could have on the
solid phase transport have been disregarded in the present
approach. The evaluation of the effects of these regimes
on erosion–corrosion is a challenging topic, especially
in horizontal multiphase flows. Our essentially homoge-
neous treatment of the mixture has been chosen also in
order to limit the computational effort when compared
with that required by the main goal of the study, i.e. the
investigation of erosion–corrosion effects;
• the use of a three-dimensional geometry proved to be vital
for similar investigations, because secondary flow paths
develop owing to turbulence and affect the particle dy-
namics and ensuing erosion and erosion–corrosion rates;
245
• gas volumetric void fraction effects: the main effects of the
mixture composition on the solid phase—in terms of drag
force or momentum exchange, inertial and gravitational
forces—have been pointed out; the bottom half of the
bend is more damaged than the top half when a high gas
content is present;
• fluid velocity effects: the gravitational settling is the main
effect at low velocity values, while the drag force is more
important at high values; this moves the zone of main
erosion from the bottom, entrance zone of the bend to the
extrados, side wall, outlet zone of the bend, as the fluid
velocity increases; also the damaged area increases with
fluid speed, as the particle streams are more spread in
trajectory;
• solid phase content effects: increasing the solid content
injected into the mixture leads to a concentration of the
erosion damage, due to a corresponding increase of im-
portance of the streams impinging with high impact angle
on the bend walls;
• other general, qualitative effects arose from the CFD anal-
ysis, namely (i) secondary flow paths develop in the bend
region, that decrease the erosion damage on the bend mid-
dle line in the horizontal plane and (ii) erosion damage
tends to concentrate towards the outlet of the bend zone.
• The flow velocity is the single most important variable
affecting the erosion–corrosion behaviour of both passi-
vating and actively corroding metals. The joint effects of
phase composition and flow parameters seem to have a
limited effect on the nature and amount of damage.
• Corrosion-enhancing and corrosion-limiting mechano-
chemical effects have been identified for the passivating
and actively corroding alloys, respectively.
References
[1] B. Poulson, Wear 233–235 (1999) 497.
[2] S. Nesic, J. Postlethwiate, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 69 (1991) 698.
[3] S. Nesic, J. Postlethwiate, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 69 (1991) 704.
[4] Y. Wang, J. Postlethwaite, Corros. Sci. 39 (1997) 1265.
[5] Y.M. Ferng, Y.P. Ma, K.T. Ma, N.M. Chung, Corrosion 55 (1999)
332.
[6] J. Postlethwaite, S. Nesic, G. Adamopoulos, D.J. Bergstrom, Corros.
Sci. 35 (1993) 627.
[7] B. Poulson, Corros. Sci. 35 (1993) 655.
[8] S. Nesic, J. Postlethwaite, Corrosion 46 (1990) 874.
[9] B. Bozzini, P.L. Cavallotti, G. Parisi, Br. Corros. J. 36 (2001) 49.
[10] B. Bozzini, M. Ricotti, A. Fanigliulo, Numerical simulation of
erosion–corrosion in four-phase flow, in: Proceedings of the 100th
Spring Electrochemical Society Meeting, May 2002, Philadelphia, in
press.
[11] FLUENT User’s Guide, vol. 2, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, USA, 1998.
[12] G.I. Parslow, D.J. Stephenson, J.E. Strutt, S. Tetlow, Wear 233–235
(1999) 737.
[13] S.A. Morsi, A.J. Alexander, J. Fluid Mech. 55 (1972) 193.
[14] B. Bozzini, M. Boniardi, Z. Metallkd. 88 (1997) 493.
[15] B. Bozzini, M. Boniardi, J. Mater. Sci. 36 (2001) 511.
[16] B. Bozzini, M. Boniardi, A. Fanigliulo, F. Mogani, Mater. Res. Bull.
36 (2001) 1889.