IBP1016_19

IMPORTANCE OF FLOW MODELING IN ROOT CAUSE

ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL WEAR IN LONG DISTANCE
SLURRY PIPELINES
Ashwin Pinto , Charles Ofosu , Gareth Smith3, Jozef Soltis4
1 2

Copyright 2019, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019, held
between 03 and 05 of September, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the
Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the
author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is
presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its
Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline
Conference and Exhibition 2019.

Abstract

Internal pipeline degradation in long distance slurry transporting pipelines is undesirable. This is often
attributed to erosional wear, corrosion or a combination of both. By understanding the true mechanism, operators
can optimize slurry transport conditions to maintain integrity and life span of a slurry pipeline. Slurry pipe wear is
affected by particle properties, slurry properties, pipeline design and its operation. Accordingly, different slurry
flow regimes can occur in the pipeline. Amongst these regimes, for example, the detrimental effect of the ‘sliding/
moving bed’ on erosional wear is well known.

To understand the effect of these parameters on erosional wear, a holistic approach was employed
encompassing analysis of the slurry rheology, particle properties and pipeline internal conditions to develop slurry
flow regimes. Hydraulic calculations were performed to determine the viscous transitional velocity. Single point
calculations were performed using a mechanistic two-layer model to simulate the solid deposition behavior. A
multiphase flow model integrated with particle tracking was used to understand the pipeline locations susceptible
to sliding bed and deposition velocity. This paper emphasizes the importance of performing solid particle
deposition calculations to provide key insights and causal factors into the pipeline degradation mechanisms with
a case study example.

Keywords: Slurry, OLGA, Two-layer, Wear, Erosion, Multiphase, Flow regime, Root Cause Analysis

1. Introduction

Over the last few decades, pipelines have been accepted as a convenient, reliable, safe and economical
mode of slurry transportation, particularly over long distances and across challenging terrains. Slurry pipelines
have been used successfully to transport materials, such as concentrates of coal and iron ore, gold and copper
tailings, nickel laterite, kaolin, limestone etc. (Miller et al., 1987 and McKetta, 1992).

Efficient transportation of slurries comes with challenges. Typically, there is a focus on maintaining a
balance between the energy costs and flow required to keep slurry particles suspended, as this minimizes internal
wear in pipelines. Other challenges come in the form of pressure and temperature variations, slurry properties such
as pH, viscosity, density, and importantly particle characteristics, e.g. their size, shape and hardness. It is therefore
not surprising that slurry pipelines continue to be subjected to progressive internal degradation, where the primary
damage mechanisms are corrosion, erosion, and a combination of the two. If uncontrolled, excessive internal wear
can have a significant impact on the slurry pipeline integrity, even in relatively new assets. A passive (or reactive)
approach to deal with such issues is known to be an expensive and time consuming exercise, prone to unplanned
______________________________
1
C.Eng., Senior Flow Assurance Engineer - ROSEN Group
2
M.Sc., Flow Assurance Engineer - ROSEN Group
3
Ph.D., Principal Flow Assurance Engineer - ROSEN Group
4
Ph.D., Principal Corrosion Engineer - ROSEN Group
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

shutdowns, loss of revenue and excessive maintenance costs. Consequently, there is a need for systematic approach
to asset integrity management that would minimize the rate of internal wear and ensure safe and efficient operation
of slurry pipelines. One of the key elements to provide essential information for this systematic approach is flow
modelling.

2. Slurry Transport - Background

Slurries can be regarded as two-phase, solid-liquid mixtures that can be transported in pipes and flumes
(Brown and Heywood, 1991). Depending on the type of service, the solid particle fraction below 44 µm is generally
categorized as ‘fines’, whilst particle sizes above 44 µm are referred to as ‘coarse’ (Spelay et al., 2018). This fines-
coarse boundary depends on a number of factors, including the particle settling tendency, nature of the particles
(flocculating or inert) and industry specific considerations. Shook et al. (2002) proposed dividing slurry into three
components, in order to simplify the analysis of friction losses associated with slurry pipeline flow. The following
three components were considered; (i) a mixture of the fine particles and the liquid medium known as the ‘carrier
fluid’, (ii) the fraction of particles in suspension due to turbulence generated mixing effects and (iii) the fraction
of particles supported through contact with the pipe wall.

In general, slurries can be classified as settling and non-settling systems, based on their tendency to settle
under conditions of low or no-flow (Brown and Heywood, 1991). Settling slurries are heterogeneous, associated
with asymmetric velocity and concentration profiles, they tend to be of lower solids concentration and have larger
particle sizes. They exhibit two-phase behavior under no-flow conditions resulting in a variation of concentration
profile across the pipeline cross-section, with the increased concentration of larger sized coarse fraction at the
bottom of the pipeline (Aude, 1971). According to Spelay et al., (2018), settling slurries contain mainly coarse
particles where friction is dominated by particle interactions, i.e. a momentum exchange through fluid collisions.
The opposite is true in the case of non-settling slurries, where solid particles are homogeneously distributed in the
liquid media (Aude, 1971). The solid particles either do not settle under gravity in the carrier fluid, or settle quite
slowly, and get uniformly distributed across the pipe cross-section. Non-settling slurries can be transported around
under laminar flow conditions, whereas turbulent flow conditions are required for settling slurries. A carrier fluid
for slurries can be either Newtonian or non-Newtonian type; however, it is noted (Spelay et al., 2018) that most
slurries are in fact non-Newtonian systems.

The role of the flow characteristics of settling slurries on the internal degradation of pipelines is of
particular interest to the authors of this work and forms the basis of discussion from here onwards.

3. Slurry Flow Characteristics and Internal Pipeline Degradation

Internal pipe wear in slurry lines commonly occurs due to synergistic effects of erosion and corrosion,
with the subject covered extensively elsewhere, e.g. see the work of Jacobs (2006), Clark (2002) or Bahadur and
Badruddin (1990). Erosion of the pipe wall occurs due to repeated impingement, cutting, sliding and grinding
actions by the abrasive particles against the pipe wall. The important factors that influence the wear (erosion) rate
include the slurry density, viscosity, abrasive property of the particle (e.g. hardness, size, shape), concentration,
impact angle, pipe wall material of construction and flow characteristics, such as the fluid velocity, shear stress,
flow regime etc. (Jacobs, 2006; Clark, 2002; Bahadur and Badruddin, 1990). Erosion over time, scours the surface
and removes the protective oxide or scale films (or interfere with the scale formation), further exposing the eroded
unprotected metal surface to the corrosive medium, and thus accelerating corrosion.

3.1. Fluid Velocity

In non-Newtonian settling slurries, turbulent flow conditions are required to maintain a flow velocity
greater than the deposition velocity (vd) and laminar-turbulent (viscous) transition velocity (vt). The deposition
velocity (vd) is defined as the mean slurry velocity below which particles begin to deposit on the bottom of a
horizontal/inclined pipeline, during slurry transport operations. This velocity depends on the physical properties
of the slurry particles, fluid, and pipeline system (Brown and Heywood, 1991).

The deposition velocity is found to occur near the flow velocity required to reach turbulent flow and
increases with slurry rheological properties (yield stress and viscosity) as the viscous forces dampen the formation
2
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

of turbulent eddies. In the absence of turbulent eddies, necessary for particle transport, the particles will settle
when the velocity falls below this threshold, called the laminar-turbulent transition velocity (Poloski et al., 2009).
In cases where this transition velocity boundary is high (e.g. in slurries with high yield stress), the high velocity
required to maintain turbulent flow will promote the particles-pipe wall interaction and higher erosion rates (Hu,
2006; Abulnaga, 2002; Brown and Heywood, 1991). However, it is important to stress that the rate of internal
wear increases by a few orders of magnitude (power law correlation) with increasing fluid velocity (James and
Broad, 1983).

For an efficient pipeline operation, velocities 25-50% higher than the deposition velocity (i.e. critical
velocity) are typically recommended (Brown and Heywood, 1991). The laminar-turbulent transition velocity and
the deposition velocity will decrease with an increase in solid concentration. As a rule of thumb, the most
economical approach considers conditions under which the two velocities are comparable (Gandhi et al., 2006).

3.2. Flow Regime

Slurry flow regimes are normally described in terms of the distribution of solid particles within the pipe
cross-section and can be classified into the four main flow patterns shown in Figure 1. The flow regime is
determined by a complex interaction of various variables such as operating conditions, phase velocities and slip
effects, pipeline inclination and slurry and particle properties, and solids concentration (Brown and Heywood,
1991).

Figure 1. Flow Regime Classification (reproduced from Heywood, 1999)

Two out of the four flow regimes are of the primary interest, as both can have a significant impact on the
pipeline operational efficiency and its integrity. The ‘sliding bed’ flow regime occurs when the flow velocity of
the heterogeneous flow is reduced below the deposition velocity. This results in an increased concentration of
coarse particles near the bottom. The ‘fines’ remain in suspension in the carrier fluid within the upper layer, moving
faster than particles in the lower layer. Due to the concentration gradient, a layer of larger particles will develop
and ultimately form a packed bed (Crowe, 2006). The bed can move due to shear forces exerted by the carrier
fluid, which results in the formation of a sliding (moving) bed and pipe wear. When the bed remains stationary
(saltation), coarse particles in the upper layer move en masse because the material in suspension above the bed is
carried along by the suspending carrier fluid. These particles sliding and rolling along the lower portion of the pipe
cause its wear (James and Broad, 1983). It is now well established that pipeline operation under either of the two
flow regimes leads to blockages and increased pressure (energy) requirements.

In general, settling slurry flow is associated with non-uniform wear of the pipeline around its entire
circumference. The most pronounced wear is associated with the bottom half of the pipeline that gradually
decreases towards the pipeline top half; shown in Figure 2 is a comparison of typical wear patterns in slurry
pipelines as a function of flow regime (Spelay et al., 2018).

3
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Figure 2. Schematic depicting typical wear patterns in slurry pipelines as a function of flow regimes (Spelay et.
al., 2018).

3.4. Slurry Properties

Slurry properties such as yield stress and viscosity can have a significant impact on the slurry pipeline
hydraulics. Slurry particles tend to break down and generate fines when subjected to shear. Consequently, the yield
stress is subject to change as the slurry is transported (Gandhi et al., 2006), leading to a direct impact on pipeline
energy requirements and operations. Surry viscosity increases with increasing solids concentration. This
phenomenon is attributed to the physical particle interactions that occur when solids are dispersed in a liquid.
According to Cheng (1980), at medium to high solid concentrations, particle frictional contact dominates over the
hydrodynamic effects expected at low to medium solids concentrations. Increasing slurry concentration typically
results in increased wear rates, mainly as a consequence of increased particle-material surface interactions (Brown
and Heywood, 1991). However, this relationship shows a parabolic trend and thus, any further increase has only
insignificant impact on the rate of wear after a critical solids concentration is reached.

4. Slurry Flow Modelling

The effective design, control and safe operation of slurry pipelines requires a good understanding of slurry
flow behavior in order to (i) minimize wear in slurry pipelines, (ii) optimize operational velocities, (iii) identify
locations with increased wear rates and (iv) improve energy requirements, operational costs, pipeline integrity and
expected service life. Hence, there is a need for flow modelling. However, the prediction of slurry flow behavior
is highly complex, mainly due to the interactions between the phases and the pipeline walls. Additionally, carrier
fluid type and properties, solids concentration, size, shape, density, particle size distribution (PSD), pipe
roughness, inclinations etc., affect the resulting shear and drag forces acting on the particles.

A good mechanistic model should be robust enough to predict pressure loss and deposition velocities for
slurries with broad particle size and density distributions, and turbulent flow in non-Newtonian settling slurries.
An existing model capable of such calculation is the ‘two-layer model’ that consists of a set of algebraic equations,
which describe the flow in terms of idealized versions of concentration and velocity distributions. The model has
been extended over time to account for fine particles and high concentrations, utilizes a broad range of
experimental data and is applicable to turbulent pipe flow of solid-liquid systems (Spelay et al., 2018). The two-
layer model is conceptually based on identification and analysis of two distinct regions; (i) an upper layer in which
fine particles are fully suspended (carrier fluid) and (ii) a lower layer in which coarse particles are transported in
a sliding bed. The interfacial friction between the upper and lower layers, and the friction between the particles
sliding in contact with the pipe bottom (Coulombic friction) contribute to the prediction of the pressure losses.

4
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

4. Case Study – Long Distance Slurry Pipeline System

The presented work demonstrates the use of flow modelling in support of an investigation where the
primary objective was to establish causal factors of uneven internal wear in a slurry pipeline.

4.1 Background

The case study involves a long distance (> 100 km) slurry pipeline that suffered from excessive internal
wear that was localized (channeling effect) and varied around the pipeline circumference and its length; refer to
Figure 3 for the representative distribution of the pipeline circumferential wear.

Figure 3. Schematic showing the representative circumferential wear of the pipeline; note the distinct
channeling at the 6 o’clock position (180°).

The pipeline was designed to transport slurry from a Pumping station (PS) to the Receiving station (RS)
via an intermediate Boosting station (BS) that was positioned approximately half way along its length. For the
elevation profile and approximate locations of the pumping stations, refer to Figure 4. Over the years, it was
operated in a constantly increasing slurry batch mode to meet the production requirements, with the respective
average flowrates for water and slurry of 1666 and 1737 m3/hour. Occasionally, there were periods during which
the pipeline was operated at low flow rates.

5
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Figure 4. Plot showing the slurry pipeline elevation profile.

The slurry rheological behavior was characterized as Bingham Plastic, with a yield stress and viscosity
of 44.3 dyne/cm2 and 9 cP, respectively. The transition and deposition velocities, as well as the internal pipe
surface roughness were all experimentally estimated at 1.6 m/s, 1.7 m/s and 1.9 mm, respectively. The slurry was
characterized by the presence of both (i) coarse particles, with the size of up to 6 mm, as well as (ii) increased
concentration of fines. The deposition of solids at the bottom half of the pipeline was evident from operational
cleaning and inspection activities.

4.2 Approach and Methodology

Modelling slurry behavior in the pipeline involved the following stages: (i) hydraulic calculations to determine
vt for a given slurry rheology, (ii) flow modelling to estimate vd and to confirm vt , and (iii) solid deposition
modelling to determine vd and quantify proportion of particle distribution into distinct slurry layers which form as
a consequence of variation in fluid regimes.

Hydraulic Calculations

In order to determine vt for the considered slurry system, relationships defining Bingham Plastic behavior were
used to calculate wall shear stresses (τ) associated with a range of flowrates under turbulent flow conditions, and
estimate critical dimensionless parameters which defined flow under turbulent conditions, i.e. Hedstrom Number,
critical Reynolds number (Re) etc.

Flow Modelling

The OLGA multiphase hydraulic simulator (version 2016.2) was used to simulate the pipeline hydraulics. The
developed model took into the account the variations in pipeline wall thickness, inclination angles, internal wall
roughness, non-Newtonian viscosity (Bingham Plastic), tracking of water-to-slurry batch changes, flow regime
and tendency of particles to settle. The solid deposition module in OLGA simulator considers bed formation, as
well as radial and axial distribution of particles between different fluid layers. However, it does not consider the
system as a multispecies (i.e. the full PSD) problem.

Solid Deposition Modelling

A mechanistic two-layer model that accounts for non-Newtonian slurry rheology was used to predict vd
through a number of sensitivities covering the effects of pipeline inclination, diameter and roughness, slurry
flowrate, yield stress and viscosity, particle density and solid concentration. The model also allowed a given slurry
to be treated as a multispecies system, i.e. particles are divided conceptually into particle fractions based on their
density, size and concentration. At this stage, the slurry was treated as a ‘settling’ slurry with a homogeneous
carrier fluid containing fine particles (size below 44 µm).

6
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

4.3 Results

Hydraulic Calculations

Figure 5 shows the results for the distribution of wall shear stress as a function of slurry velocity. It is
clearly evident that the laminar-to-turbulent transition occurs at the velocity of 1.5 and 1.62 m/s, for the pipe
surface roughness of 1.9 mm and 0.05 mm (smooth pipe), respectively. The predicted Re ranged from 0.46 to
1.1x105, for the pipeline surface conditions (roughness) considered.

Figure 5. Plot showing wall shear stress (τ) as a function of slurry velocity for different pipe wall
surface roughness; τL is the laminar shear stress and τT is the turbulent shear stress.

Flow Modelling

The flow model developed for the pipeline system was benchmarked against the field operational data during
the pipeline water batch operation. The results presented in Figure 6 show that the actual pipeline pressure profile
deviates from the pressure profile that corresponds to the experimentally obtained roughness of 1.9 mm. There
was a good correlation between the predicted pressure profile for 0.3 mm surface roughness and the actual field
pressure data, when compared to 1.9 mm obtained experimentally. It must be noted that the pressure profile for a
smooth pipeline (surface roughness of 0.05 mm) has been included for comparison.

Figure 6. Plot comparing pressure profiles predicted for considered pipeline roughness.

7
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

The benchmarked model was then used in sensitivity studies to simulate slurry flow and its tendency to settle,
for the range of boundary conditions considered in Table 1. The results indicated the absence of a stationary bed
at the lowest velocity of 0.8 m/s, for the smallest d50 particle size of 48 µm. For the largest particles (coarse), with
the mean size of 1.1 mm, vd of 1.52 m/s was predicted, whilst the critical velocity at which stationary bed would
not form was predicted to be 2 m/s. It was also predicted that the particle settling was not affected by the pipeline
elevation profile.

Table 1. Simulation matrix of variables considered in the sensitivity study.

Liquid Velocity (m/s) Particle Size (mm) Note
0.8 to 2.5 0.048, 0.178, 0.652, 1.091
Note: Average “coarse” particle diameter (d50 in each category) of species retained between two meshes, where d50 is the mean particle
size of the “coarse” fraction.

Solid Deposition Modelling

The value of vd was estimated to be 1.1 m/s for the initial assumed roughness of 1.9 mm; however, modelling
results did show that particle settling would occur under the typical pipeline operational velocity of 1.77 m/s.
Under such conditions, slurry would segregate into lower and upper layers, with volume fractions of about 4.8 and
95.2%, each flowing at velocities of 0.88 and 1.81 m/s, respectively. This is illustrated in Figure 7, which also
shows the approximate depth of each layer. It is important to highlight at this stage that there is a distinct difference
between the bulk slurry and the two layers’ velocities. More specifically, the top 95% volume fraction flows at a
velocity greater than the bottom 5%, that contains higher concentration of particles and majority of, if not all, large
particles. The predicted distribution of the layers showed a good correlation with the reported circumferential wall
loss of the pipeline. It is clear that the bottom layer flows at a velocity < vd, whilst we predict that some of the
solids would be partially supported by the pipe wall.

Figure 7. Schematic showing an approximate size of predicted layers; based on slurry phase fractions.

Solid deposition calculations were also performed for the corrected pipeline roughness value of 0.3 mm.
The vd was predicted to increase to 1.3 m/s; this behavior agrees with Brown and Heywood (1991), where the
deposition velocity approaches the operating velocity in systems with a significant solids concentration profile.
There was no significant difference in the lower layer volume fraction when compared to that predicted for the 1.9
mm roughness.

8
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

4.4 Discussion
Flow modelling was initially used to understand the internal conditions under the current operating
conditions. The model benchmarking exercise highlighted that the pipeline actual surface roughness (0.3 mm) was
approximately 6 times lower than the initially expected value (1.9 mm). The two-layer and the benchmarked flow
modelling calculations clearly suggested that the laminar-to-turbulent flow transition occurs at a velocity of
approximately 1.3-1.5 m/s.

The two-layer model calculations demonstrated that when the slurry is transported at around 1.77 m/s
(typical operational velocity), the particles partially segregate. The top 95% volume fraction flows at a velocity
slightly higher than the bulk slurry, whereas the bottom 5% fraction flows at a significantly lower flowrate. Note
that there was a higher solids concentration and a larger proportion of the bigger particles in the lower layer. When
the largest particle was approximately 1 mm in size, the dynamic exchange between upper and lower layers ensures
that although a small fraction of solids are supported by the bottom pipe wall, they do not settle permanently.
When the largest particle size was above 2 mm, then such particles are more likely to settle permanently at the
bottom of the pipeline without dynamic exchange into the bulk flow. In general, these results correlate well with
the reported studies for the uneven wear in solids-transporting pipelines (at 6 o’clock position), which is linked to
higher concentrations of particles at the pipeline bottom.

OLGA modelling results predicted that the deposition of the solids was not significantly affected by the
pipeline elevation. In all the studied cases, a sliding (moving) bed layer was observed to flow above the stationary
bed. This stationary bed was predicted to form along the bottom of the pipeline, for “coarse” particles when the
velocities decreased below a critical deposition velocity. The flow modelling studies confirmed that particles larger
than 1 mm in size were predicted to settle at the pipeline bottom, forming a stationary and/or sliding bed. Although,
not the outcome of the modelling studies, operational maintenance activities confirmed the presence of particle
sizes up to 6 mm in the pipeline. Overall, this would have contributed to the observed channeling wear.

5 Concluding Remarks
Slurries generally show complex rheology as they are often characterized by complex particle shapes,
particle size distributions and particle interactions resulting in non-Newtonian flow behavior. Flow parameters in
a non-Newtonian flow, such as fluid velocity, flow regime, particle concentration etc., can have a significant
impact on pipeline wear. For example, a sliding bed and saltation flow regime is known to promote wear in an
asymmetric profile along the bottom of the pipeline. Determining the interplay of flow parameters and its impact
during transportation of slurries is key to minimizing the wear effects. Over the years, several intrusive and non-
intrusive monitoring methods have been employed to provide such data. However, these methods are considered
“lagging” in approach and sometimes limited by the sampling location for example, or simply costs. A proactive
approach to this could be to employ flow modelling, which can complement the existing monitoring methods to
enhance diagnostics. In addition, direct measurements can be used to validate modelling predictions and make
decisions on a sound engineering basis.

Predicting system hydraulics in a long distance pipelines transporting complex non-Newtonian slurry is
difficult and requires a robust modelling approach. Several mechanistic flow models exist to predict particle
deposition velocity and frictional losses in slurry lines. In the case study example illustrated in this paper, a two-
layer model was used to determine the causal factors affecting a long distance slurry line. This model considers
particle size distributions and their interactions in a non-Newtonian fluid. The model predicted that a coarse solids
fraction would be supported by the pipe wall under typical operating flowrates. This particle bed was suspected to
be in the sliding bed flow regime, which is known to cause erosional wear due to the rolling and sliding action of
particles. A rigorous multiphase flow code (i.e. OLGA) considers pipeline design details such as wall thickness
changes and inclinations angles in the model, was used to establish the flow behavior along the pipeline. The
modelling results also confirmed formation of stationary and/or sliding bed along the pipeline bottom for “coarse”
particles, when the flow velocities decreased below vd.

Flow modelling was found to be an essential tool in establishing causal factors for the internal wear of
the slurry pipelines. Hence, it represents a vital element to proactively build a picture of the pipeline internal
conditions and perform wear diagnosis with greater confidence. This in turn can serve as a foundation for increased
production efficiency, reliability and life of the pipeline asset.

9
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

5. References
JACOBS, B. E. A., Design of Slurry Transport Systems, p. 105-119, BHR Group, 2006.
GANDHI, R.L., NORWOOD, J., CHE, Y., Cross-Country Bauxite Slurry Transportation, Light Metals, p. 70-74,
2006.
CLARK, H. M., “Particle velocity and size effects in laboratory slurry erosion measurements OR… do you know
what your particles are doing?,” Tribol. Int., vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 617–624, Oct. 2002.
BAHADUR, S. and BADRUDDIN, R. “Erodent particle characterization and the effect of particle size and shape
on erosion,” Wear, vol. 138, no. 1–2, pp. 189–208, Jun. 1990.
BROWN, N. P. and HEYWOOD, N. I, Slurry Handling – Design of Sold-Liquid Systems, Elsevier Science
Publishers Ltd., 1991.
CROWE, C. T., Multiphase Flow Handbook, p. 4-52, Taylor and Francis Group, 2006.
J G JAMES and B A BROAD, Wear In Slurry Pipelines: Experiments With 38mm Diameter Specimens In A
Closed-Loop Test Rig, Transport And Road Research Laboratory Department Of The Environment Department
Of Transport Supplementary Report 773, 1983.
SPELAY, R., SANDERS, S., COOKE, R., Slurry Pipeline Systems, SRC Pipe Flow Technology Centre, Paterson
& Cooke, Saskatoon, Canada, 2018.
POLOSKI, A. P et al, Deposition Velocities of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Slurries in Pipelines, Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009.
ABULNAGA, B.E., Slurry Systems Handbook, McGraw Hill Professional, 2002
HU, S., Fluid-Solid Transport in Ducts: Slurry Flows. In: Crowe, C. ed. Multiphase Flow
Handbook. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press, 2006.
SHOOK, C., GILLIES, R. and SANDERS, R., Pipeline hydro transport With Applications in the Oil Sands
Industry, SRC Pipe Flow Technology Centre, Saskatoon, SK, 2002.
SHOOK, C. and ROCO, M., Slurry flow, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991.
GILLIES, R. G., SHOOK, C. A., WILSON, K. C., An improved two layer model for horizontal slurry pipeline
flow, p.173-178, The Canadian Journal of Chemical engineering, Volume 69, Issue1, 1991.
MICHAELIDES, E., CROWE, C.T., SCHWARZKOPF J.D., Multiphase Flow Handbook, CRC Press; 2 edition,
2016.
McKETTA, J. J. Jr., Piping Design Handbook, CRC Press; 1st edition, 1992.
MILLER, J.E., and SCHMIDT, E. I., Slurry Erosion: Uses, Applications, and Test Methods (Astm Special
Technical Publication), Astm Intl, 1987.

10