Erosion Guidelines

Erosion Guidelines Revision 2.
1 (1999)
J W Martin
Sunbury Report No. S/UTG/102/99 dated October 1999
Main CD Contents
EROSION GUIDELINES REVISION 2.1 (1999)

By J W Martin
Summary
Erosion can be defined as the mechanical loss of material by the impact of liquid droplets and/or solid particles. Under aggressive operating conditions velocity limits, and hence production limits, are set to avoid erosion. If these limits are overly conservative then BP AMOCO loses production; if they are too optimistic then BP AMOCO risks erosion damage and the loss of system integrity. This document updates the knowledge on the erosion of piping and tubing in production and injection service (Ref. 1). The two 'Flow Charts' for the assessment of erosion risk have also been updated: The 'Velocity Limits for Avoiding Erosion' flow chart lays down rule-of-thumb velocity limits for the avoidance of erosion damage in non solids-containing environments, i.e. totally solids free or nominally solids free conditions. Nominally solids free conditions are defined as up to 1 pound of solids per thousand barrels of liquid for liquid systems or up to 0.1 pounds of solids per million standard cubic feet of gas for gas systems. For solids-containing environments it is necessary to first establish the likely rate of erosion by referring to the Calculation of Erosion Rates flow chart. The velocity limit flow chart can then be used to determine whether erosion-corrosion is likely and to evaluate the possible rate of erosion-corrosion. The 'Calculation of Erosion Rates' flow chart makes recommendations for evaluating the erosion rate for solids-containing duty, or where greater precision is required than afforded by a simple velocity limit for nominally solids-free conditions in the 'Velocity Limits for Avoiding Erosion' flow chart. Different velocity limits will apply in different situations, depending on the flow (gas, liquid or multiphase gas/liquid), the environment (corrosive or non-corrosive) and whether or not solids are present. The models used for the calculation of erosion wastage rates are based, in the main, on laboratory test programmes. Hence they are likely to be at their most reliable for simple flow conditions in non-corrosive environments. There is less confidence in the models for
multiphase solids erosion and guidance for erosion-corrosion (solids plus corrosive environment), as these are based on a very limited data set. All of the predictive models suffer from limited comparison with field experience.
Contents
Erosion Guidelines....................................................................................................... 1 Summary.......................................................................................................... 1 Contents .......................................................................................................... 2 Summary Guidelines - Flow Charts and General Comments ......................................... 3 Figure 1 - First Pass Velocity Limits................................................................. 4 Figure 2 - Calculation of Erosion Rates ............................................................ 5 Notes on Flow Charts. ..................................................................................... 6 Figure 1 - First Pass Velocity Limits ..................................................... 6 Figure 2 - Calculation of Erosion Rates................................................. 8 General Comments and Conclusions................................................................. 10 Erosion Guidelines - Discussions ................................................................................. 12 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12 Discussion of the Guidelines............................................................................. 17 1. Non-corrosive fluid flow, no solid particles ...................................... 17 2. Corrosive fluid flow, no solid particles ............................................. 17 3. Non-corrosive fluid, with solid particles ........................................... 19 References: ...................................................................................................... 30
Summary Guidelines - Flow Charts and General Comments

A flow chart for determining 'first pass' erosional velocity limits (entitled "Velocity Limits for Avoiding Erosion") is given in Figure 1. The recommendations in this flow chart are generally based on an allowable erosion rate of 0.1 mm/yr. For totally solids free or nominally solids free conditions, if production is required outside these limits then advice can be sought from the relevant specialists in the Upstream Technology Group (UTG). For solids containing conditions, reference should first be made to Figure 2 ("Calculation of Erosion Rates") for evaluating the possible erosion rate and then to Figure 1 ("Velocity Limits for Avoiding Erosion) to assess whether erosion-corrosion is likely to be an issue and to evaluate the possible erosion-corrosion wastage rate. This should be used to establish whether the predicted wastage rates are acceptable. This approach, in allowing for bends in pipework and constrictions in tubing, is likely to be conservative for straight piping and tubing. A flow chart for the assessment of erosion rates (entitled "Calculation of Erosion Rates") is given in Figure 2. It is recommended that this is used with care. There are many areas of uncertainty and the models recommended in the flow chart are relatively unproven and many are still being developed. Under conditions of erosion-corrosion the guidelines in Figure 1 are applicable for estimating the erosion-corrosion rates.
VELOCITY LIMITS FOR AVOIDING EROSION

Note 1: Data Collection Gas/Liquid ratio. Production rates. Tubing or piping internal bore. Solids present or absent. Gas and liquid densities at temperature and pressure (if these are not known then a rough assessment can be made on the basis of an oil density of 800 kg/m3, a water density of 1000 kg/m3 and a gas density of 1 kg/m3 at STP and then adjusting the density for pressure and temperature.) Note 2: Solids Present? "Totally solids free" - the flow stream are such that there is no risk of solids being transported in the fluids. It should be noted that even very low levels of solids can cause significant wastage (erosion or erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is very important for the user of these guidelines to be sure that there is no risk of solids entrainment before using these limits. "Nominally solids free" - less than 1 pptb for liquid systems, less than 0.1 lb/mmscf for gas systems; no solids detectable. "Solids Present" - solids detectable in system. In this case the levels of solids will need to be known, or appropriate assumptions made on their likely level.
Data Collection
Note 3:Gas, No Liquid? Pure dr y gas streams. No significant liquid loading.
Solids present Evaluate erosion rate (refer to 'calculation of erosion rate' chart)
Note 9: Evaluate Erosion Rate (refer to 'Calculation of Erosion Rate' chart) For pure dry gas streams with solids present it is not possible to define a rational flow velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this case it will be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models outlined on the 'Calculation of Erosion Rate' flow chart. Account will also need to be taken of the likelihood of the sand becoming entrained in the gas such that it will be transported at/near the gas velocity or whether the solids will 'settle' out of the flow stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly moving bed of solids.
Solids present?
Note 12: Totally Solids Free This guidance is only applicable to 'totally solids free' conditions, i.e. where there is no risk of solids particles being transported in the flowstream. It should be recognised that even very low levels of solids (below the detection levels of even 'state of the art' solids monitoring techniques) can cause significant wastage (erosion or erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is encumbent on the user of this flow chart to ensure that there is no risk of solids entrainment before using the guidance for 'totally solids free' flow.
Totally solids free
Note 13: Are the Conditions Non-corrosive? For the purpose of these Guidelines 'non corrosive' is defined as either: A system where there are no corrodents (i.e. the system is totally dry or there are no corrosive species, such as H2S, CO2, O2, acids). or A system where the materials of construction are fully corrosion resistant to the anticipated conditions.
Gas, no liquid?
Yes
Nominally solids free
Yes
Are the conditions noncorrosive?
No
No
Note 5: Liquid/no gas: Vmax=250/m (carbon steel); Vmax=300/m (13 Cr steel); Vmax=450/m (duplex stainless steel) Vmax=250/m for carbon steel based on strength of protective scale on carbon steel in sea water injection service. Vmax=300/m for 13Cr steel based on the criteria used for multi-phase conditions. Vmax=450/m for duplex stainless steel based on tests for sea water injection service undertaken on behalf of BPA by DNV, Norway.
Gas, no liquid?
Yes
Evaluate erosion rate (refer to 'calculation of erosion rate' chart)
No velocity limits for the avoidance of erosion
Yes
Gas, no liquid?
No
Is the system carbon steel?
Vmax = 250/m (Carbon Steel) Vmax = 300/m (13% Cr Steel) Vmax = 450/m No (duplex stainless steel)
* see Note 5
Yes
Liquid, no gas?
No
Note 14: Non-corrosive; Gas no liquid; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of Erosion There are other flow related phenomena that need to be considered for high velocities, e.g. noise and vibration.
No
Seek further advice
Yes
No
Seek further advice
No
Duplex SS?
No
13 Cr SS?
No
Carbon steel?
Assume multi-phase
Yes
Vmax = 350/m
Yes
Vmax = 300/m
Yes
Vmax = 135/m
Note 4: Evaluate Erosion Rate (refer to 'Calculation of Erosion Rate' char t) For pure gas streams with any solids present it is not possible to define a rational flow velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this case it will be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models outlined on the 'Calculation of Erosion Rate' flow chart. For 'nominally solids free' conditions it is recommended that it is assumed that the levels of solids are 0.1 lb/mmscf. Account will also need to be taken of the likelihood of the sand becoming entrained in the gas such that it will be transported at/near the gas velocity or whether the solids will 'settle' out of the flow stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly moving bed of solids.
* see Note 5
Yes
Liquid, no gas? Liquid, no gas?
Yes
N o t e 1 5 : N o n - c o r ro s i v e ; Liquid no gas; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of Erosion It is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid other possible problems, such as cavitation; plant noise/vibration; water hammer; etc.
No

Note 17: Corrosive; Liquid no gas; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of Erosion Consideration may need to be given to the possibility of flowenhanced corrosion, which is outside the scope of these Guidelines. It is important to take necessar y steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid other possible problems, s u c h a s c av i t a t i o n ; p l a n t noise/vibration; water hammer; etc.
No
Assume wet gas or multi-phase
Note 6: Estimated Erosion Rate > 0.1mm/yr For liquid and multi-phase flow streams with solids present it is not possible to define a rational flow velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this case it will be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models outlined on the 'Calculation of Erosion Rate' flow chart. If the calculated erosion rate is less than 0.1mm/yr then the erosion/erosion-corrosion rate is likely to be acceptable. If the calculated erosion rate is greater than 0.1mm/yr then for carbon steel and 13Cr steel (where the operating temperature is less than 80C) the possibility of erosion-corrosion needs to be considered and the potential erosion-corrosion rate calculated.
Note 7:Vmax=300/m (for 13 Cr stainless steel) If higher production rates required seek further advice.
Note 8:Vmax=350/m (for duplex stainless steel) If higher production rates required seek further advice.
Note 16: Non-corrosive; multiphase; limit velocity to 70m/s (230ft/sec) This is the maximum velocity limit defined to avoid the possibility of droplet erosion for gas-condensate wells in the DNV Recommended Practice ('Assessment of Erosive Wear in Piping Systems')
Limit velocity to 70 m/s (230 ft/sec)
Assume multi-phase
Yes
Are corrosion inhibitors being used?
Estimated erosion rate >0.1mm/yr
Yes
Carbon steel?
No
13 Cr SS?
No
Duplex SS?
No
Seek further advice

Note 11: Nomenclature for Erosion-Corrosion Equations WR - Wastage Rate ER - Erosion Rate UCRCS - 'Unfilmed' corrosion rate for carbon steel FCRCS - 'Filmed' corrosion rate for carbon steel CR13Cr -Corrosion rate for 13%Cr steel
Note 18: Vmax=200/rm or 20m/s whichever is less Corrosion inhibition selection will need to take account of the fact that the inhibitor will have to 'work' under flowing conditions and it may be possible to select an inhibitor that will 'work' at velocities above the limits defined here.
Vmax = 200/m or 20 m/s whichever is lower
No
No
Yes
Iron Carbonate Scaling?
Yes
Operating Temperature?
Yes
WR = ER
If estimated erosion rate acceptable no further action required
No
Yes
80C
<80C
General Comments: Velocities refer to net mixed velocities (nominal gas velocity plus nominal liquid velocity). Units are in ft/s (1 m/s = 3.281 ft/s). m refers to mixed fluid density in lbs/ft3 (1 kg/m3 = 0.06242 lbs/ft3) C factors relating Vmax to m are in ft/s(lbs/ft3)1/2. Multiply by 1.22 to convert to C factors in m/s(kg/m3)1/2 pptb - pounds of solids per thousand barrels of liquid. lb/mmscf - pounds of solids per million standard cubic feet of gas. Advice on erosion-corrosion is best available at time of publication. The situation is uncertain and the guidelines are subject to change. Fur ther advice can be obtained from the relevant specialists in UTG.
Note 17: Corrosive; Liquid no gas; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of Erosion Consideration may need to be given to the possibility of flow-enhanced corrosion, which is outside the scope of these Guidelines. It is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid other possible problems, such as cavitation; plant noise/vibration; water hammer; etc.
WR = ER +CR13cr
WR = ER + UCRc/s
WR = ER +UCRc/s
WR = ER + 2 * UCRc/s
Note 10: Erosion-Corrosion Synergy between erosion and corrosion assumed for carbon steel with an iron carbonate scale (doubling of 'unfilmed' corrosion rate) and 13% Cr stainless steel up to 80C (corrosion rate equal to that expected for 'unfilmed' carbon steel in non-erosive environment). No synergy expected for duplex stainless steel or for 13%Cr steel above 80C.
GQS38294/2
CALCULATION OF EROSION RATES

Note 1: Data Collection. For the simpler models: Production Rate (i.e. liquid and gas flow rates [or GOR]). Pressure and Temperature. Liquid density and gas density (under operating conditions). Tubing or piping size. Solids content and particle size. For the 'full' Harwell and Tulsa Models: The data indicated above plus; Gas Viscosity (under operating conditions). Liquid Viscosity (under operating conditions). Solids density and 'shape' (e.g. sharp, semi-rounded). CO2 and H2S partial pressures. Tubing or piping geometry and configuration. Steel hardness (if material of construction is a carbon/low alloy steel). Note 3: Salama (Salama and Venkatesh) or Full Tulsa. The Salama model is best used for single phase (gas or liquid) systems and can be used for a 'first pass' assessment. The full Tulsa model should be used where the Salama model indicates an unacceptably high wastage rate, to 'optimise' the prediction (NB the Full Tulsa Model will often give a lower wastage rate than the Salama model). The Salama Model is: E = (5x10-4 W x V2 x D)/(d2 x m)
Data Collection
where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, W is the sand flow rate in kg/day, V is the mixture velocity in m/s, D is the sand size in microns, d is the pipe internal diameter in mm, m is the fluid mixture density in kg/m3. From the assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG, it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the 'full' Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features other than 5D bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves). A very simplified version of the Salama model (developed by Salama & Venkatesh), applicable to gas systems with carbon steel bends (including 1.5D elbows, tees, etc.) is: E = 604 x MV2/d2 where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed velocity in m/s and d the pipe diameter in mm.
Note 2: Gas, No Liquid? Pure gas streams. No significant liquid loading.
Gas, no liquid?
Yes
Salama, (Salama and Venkatesh) or Full Tulsa

Note 5: 1st Pass: Salama, RCS and/or API model, 2nd Pass: Full Tulsa model. In liquid systems particle impact velocities are reduced by the flow regime and the presence of a liquid buffer layer at the metal surface. The RCS and API models are based on empirical tests in liquid piping and bends and have built-in allowances for such effects. This does mean, however, that there can be scaling problems in different geometries or with different solid particle sizes. The Salama model is still a 'simplified' model, but will take some account of solid particle sizes. The Salama Model is: E = (5x104 W x V2 x D)/(d2 x m)
No
where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, W is the sand flow rate in kg/day, V is the mixture velocity in m/s, D is the sand size in microns, d is the pipe internal diameter in mm, m is the fluid mixture density in kg/m3. From the assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG, it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the 'full' Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features other than 5D bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves). Simplified versions of the RCS and the API models, applicable to carbon steel bends, are: RCS: API: E = 4.1 x MV2.5/d2 E = 5.33 x MV2/d2
where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed velocity in m/s and d the pipe diameter in mm.
Note 4: Liquid, No Gas Single phase liquid streams. No gas bubbles.
Liquid, no gas?
Yes
1st Pass: Salama, RCS and/or API Model
2nd Pass: Full Tulsa Model
Note 6: Slug Flow? The Harwell model for multiphase erosion is based on vertical flow. Under such conditions slug flow, which leads to liquid being thrown down onto the bottom of a pipe, is not produced. Thus the standard Harwell models for annular mist, churn and bubble flow are not applicable. In slug flow the 'liquid slug' will be thrown against the pipe wall at velocities approaching the net mixed velocity. In addition, at the slug front there will be considerable mixing and hence entrained gas, such that the slug front will approach the homogenous mixture. Therefore, it is recommended that the pure liquid models be used (see Note 5) but that the mixed fluid velocity and mixture properties should be used rather than the liquid velocity and density.
No
No
Slug flow? Stratified flow?
No
Bubble/Churn Flow?
No
Annular flow?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note 8: Slug Flow? 1st Pass Salama, RCS and/or API Model Use the mixed (averaged) fluid density and velocity
1st Pass: Salama,RCS and/or API Model
Full Tulsa Model
Harwell and/or Full Tulsa Model

Note10: Bubble/Churn Flow? Harwell and/or Full Tulsa Model Do not use the Tulsa Model for Churn flow. For bubbly flow with the Full Tulsa Model use the mixed (averaged) velocity and liquid properties Note 11:
Harwell Model
Note 7: Stratified Flow? Full Tulsa Model Use the liquid velocity calculated for the hydraulic diameter
Annular Flow? Harwell Model. For comparison, check using the Full Tulsa Model with the mixed velocity and with: (i) Mixed (averaged) fluid properties (ii) Liquid properties The actual erosion rate should be somewhere between the two values.
Note 9: Slug Flow? 2nd Pass, Full Tulsa Model Use the mixed (averaged) fluid properties (density and viscosity) and velocity
2nd Pass: Full Tulsa Model
General Comments: Advice is best available at time of publication. Most of the models used assume sharp sand particles with a diameter of 150 m. The Salama model (used for single phase gas or liquid conditions only) and more detailed Tulsa and Harwell models can make allowances for solids particle size (all three models), plus density and shape (Tulsa model only). The erosion calculations are generally for bends and conditions of turbulence (e.g. constrictions) only. The exception to this is the Tulsa model that has a (as yet untested) module for evaluating the erosion rate in straight pipe. In general, erosion in straight sections is at least an order of magnitude less than at bends. The only exception to this will be horizontal slug flow where liquid is thrown against the pipe wall. The Full Tulsa Model is available as a computer software package ('Sand Production Pipe Saver'; SPPS v. 4.1.) The Harwell Model is available as a computer software package ('Design Procedure for Erosion-Corrosion in Multi-phase Flow'; Sandman v. 3.9.). Further advice can be obtained the relevant specialists in UTG.
GQS38294/1
Notes on Flow Charts.

Figure 1 - Velocity Limits for Avoiding Erosion General guidance on velocity limits for corrosive or non-corrosive fluids in injection and production service. This guidance does not take into account velocity limits for corrosion alone (e.g. allowable flow rates for effective corrosion inhibition) or the effect of flow on corrosion (i.e. flow-enhanced corrosion). General Comments: Velocities refer to net mixed velocities (nominal gas velocity plus nominal liquid velocity). Units are in ft/s (1 m/s = 3.281 ft/s). m refers to mixed fluid density in lbs/ft3 (1 kg/m3 = 0.06242 lbs/ft3) C factors relating Vmax to m are in ft/s(lbs/ft3)1/2. Multiply by 1.22 to convert to C factors in m/s(kg/m3)1/2 pptb - pounds of solids per thousand barrels of liquid. lb/mmscf - pounds of solids per million standard cubic feet of gas. Advice on erosion-corrosion is best available at time of publication. The situation is uncertain and the guidelines are subject to change. Further advice can be obtained from the relevant specialists in UTG. Note 1: Data Collection Gas/Liquid ratio. Production rates. Tubing or piping internal bore. Solids present or absent. Gas and liquid densities at temperature and pressure (if these are not known then a rough assessment can be made on the basis of an oil density of 800 kg/m3, a water density of 1000 kg/m3 and a gas density of 1 kg/m3 at STP and then adjusting the density for pressure and temperature.) Note 2: Solids Present? Totally solids free - the flow stream are such that there is no risk of solids being transported in the fluids. It should be noted that even very low levels of solids can cause significant wastage (erosion or erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is very important for the user of these guidelines to be sure that there is no risk of solids entrainment before using these limits. "Nominally solids free" - less than 1 pptb for liquid systems, less than 0.1 lb/mmscf for gas systems; no solids detectable. "Solids Present" - solids detectable in system. In this case the levels of solids will need to be known, or appropriate assumptions made on their likely level. Note 3:Gas, No Liquid? Pure dry gas streams. No significant liquid loading. Note 4: Evaluate Erosion Rate (refer to Calculation of Erosion Rate chart) For pure gas streams with any solids present it is not possible to define a rational flow velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this case it will be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models
outlined on the Calculation of Erosion Rate flow chart. For nominally solids free conditions it is recommended that it is assumed that the levels of solids are 0.1 lb/mmscf. Account will also need to be taken of the likelihood of the sand becoming entrained in the gas such that it will be transported at/near the gas velocity or whether the solids will settle out of the flow stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly moving bed of solids. Note 5: Liquid/no gas: Vmax=250/m (carbon steel); Vmax=300/m (13 Cr steel); Vmax=450/m (duplex stainless steel) Vmax=250/m for carbon steel based on strength of protective scale on carbon steel in sea water injection service. Vmax=300/m for 13Cr steel based on the criteria used for multi-phase conditions. Vmax=450/m for duplex stainless steel based on tests for sea water injection service undertaken on behalf of BPA by DNV, Norway. Note 6: Estimated Erosion Rate > 0.1mm/yr For liquid and multi-phase flow streams with solids present it is not possible to define a rational flow velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this case it will be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models outlined on the Calculation of Erosion Rate flow chart. If the calculated erosion rate is less than 0.1mm/yr then the erosion/erosion-corrosion rate is likely to be acceptable. If the calculated erosion rate is greater than 0.1mm/yr then for carbon steel and 13Cr steel (where the operating temperature is less than 80C) the possibility of erosion-corrosion needs to be considered and the potential erosion-corrosion rate calculated. Note 7:Vmax=300/ m (for 13 Cr stainless steel) If higher production rates required seek further advice. Note 8:Vmax=350/ m (for duplex stainless steel) If higher production rates required seek further advice. Note 9: Evaluate Erosion Rate (refer to Calculation of Erosion Rate chart) For pure dry gas streams with solids present it is not possible to define a rational flow velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this case it will be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models outlined on the Calculation of Erosion Rate flow chart. Account will also need to be taken of the likelihood of the sand becoming entrained in the gas such that it will be transported at/near the gas velocity or whether the solids will settle out of the flow stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly moving bed of solids.
Note 10: Erosion-Corrosion Synergy between erosion and corrosion assumed for carbon steel with an iron carbonate scale (doubling of unfilmed corrosion rate) and 13 % Cr stainless steel up to 80c (corrosion rate equal to that expected for unfilmed carbon steel in non-erosive environment). No synergy expected for duplex stainless steel or for 13%Cr steel above 80 c. Note 11: Nomenclature for Erosion-Corrosion Equations WR - Wastage Rate ER - Erosion Rate UCRCS - Unfilmed corrosion rate for carbon steel FCRCS - Filmed corrosion rate for carbon steel CR13Cr -Corrosion rate for 13%Cr steel Note 12: Totally Solids Free This guidance is only applicable to totally solids free conditions, i.e. where there is no risk of solids particles being transported in the flowstream. It should be recognised that even very low levels of solids (below the detection levels of even state of the art solids monitoring techniques) can cause significant wastage (erosion or erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is encumbent on the user of this flow chart to ensure that there is no risk of solids entrainment before using the guidance for totally solids free flow. Note 13: Are the Conditions Non-corrosive? For the purpose of these Guidelines non corrosive is defined as either: A system where there are no corrodents (i.e. the system is totally dry or there are no corrosive species, such as H2S, CO2, O2, acids). or A system where the materials of construction are fully corrosion resistant to the anticipated conditions. Note 14: Non-corrosive; Gas no liquid; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of Erosion There are other flow related phenomena that need to be considered for high velocities, e.g. noise and vibration. Note 15: Non-corrosive; Liquid no gas; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of Erosion It is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid other possible problems, such as cavitation; plant noise/vibration; water hammer; etc.
Note 16: Non-corrosive; multiphase; limit velocity to 70m/s (230ft/sec) This is the maximum velocity limit defined to avoid the possibility of droplet erosion for gas-condensate wells in the DNV Recommended Practice (Assessment of Erosive Wear in Piping Systems) Note 17: Corrosive; Liquid no gas; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of Erosion Consideration may need to be given to the possibility of flow-enhanced corrosion, which is outside the scope of these Guidelines. It is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid other possible problems, such as cavitation; plant noise/vibration; water hammer; etc. Note 18: Vmax=200/m or 20m/s whichever is less Corrosion inhibition selection will need to take account of the fact that the inhibitor will have to work under flowing conditions and it may be possible to select an inhibitor that will work at velocities above the limits defined here.
10
Figure 2 - Calculation of Erosion Rates General Comments: Advice is best available at time of publication. Most of the models used assume sharp sand particles with a diameter of 150 m. The Salama model (used for single phase gas or liquid conditions only) and more detailed Tulsa and Harwell models can make allowances for solids particle size (all three models), plus density and shape (Tulsa model only). The erosion calculations are generally for bends and conditions of turbulence (e.g. constrictions) only. The exception to this is the Tulsa model that has a (as yet untested) module for evaluating the erosion rate in straight pipe. In general, erosion in straight sections is at least an order of magnitude less than at bends. The only exception to this will be horizontal slug flow where liquid is thrown against the pipe wall. The Full Tulsa Model is available as a computer software package (Sand Production Pipe Saver; SPPS v. 4.1.) The Harwell Model is available as a computer software package (Design Procedure for Erosion-Corrosion in Multi-phase Flow; Sandman v. 3.9.). Further advice can be obtained the relevant specialists in UTG. Note 1: Data Collection. For the simpler models: Production Rate (i.e. liquid and gas flow rates [or GOR]). Pressure and Temperature. Liquid density and gas density (under operating conditions). Tubing or piping size. Solids content and particle size. For the full Harwell and Tulsa Models: The data indicated above plus; Gas Viscosity (under operating conditions). Liquid Viscosity (under operating conditions). Solids density and shape (e.g. sharp, semirounded). CO2 and H2S partial pressures. Tubing or piping geometry and configuration. Steel hardness (if material of construction is a carbon/low alloy steel). Note 2: Gas, No Liquid? Pure gas streams. No significant liquid loading. Note 3: Salama (Salama and Venkatesh) or Full Tulsa. The Salama model is best used for single phase (gas or liquid) systems and can be used for a first pass assessment. The full Tulsa model should be used where the Salama model indicates an unacceptably high wastage rate, to optimise the prediction (NB the Full Tulsa Model will often give a lower wastage rate than the Salama model). The Salama Model is: E = (5x10-4 W x V2 x D)/(d2 x m) where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, W is the sand flow rate in kg/day, V is the mixture velocity in m/s, D is the sand size in microns, d is the pipe internal diameter in mm, m is the fluid mixture density in kg/m3.
11
From the assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG, it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the full Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features other than 5D bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves). A very simplified version of the Salama model (developed by Salama & Venkatesh), applicable to gas systems with carbon steel bends (including 1.5D elbows, tees, etc.) is: E = 604 x MV2/d2 where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed velocity in m/s and d the pipe diameter in mm. Note 4: Liquid, No Gas Single phase liquid streams. No gas bubbles. Note 5: 1st Pass: Salama, RCS and/or API model, 2nd Pass: Full Tulsa model. In liquid systems particle impact velocities are reduced by the flow regime and the presence of a liquid buffer layer at the metal surface. The RCS and API models are based on empirical tests in liquid piping and bends and have built-in allowances for such effects. This does mean, however, that there can be scaling problems in different geometries or with different solid particle sizes. The Salama model is still a simplified model, but will take some account of solid particle sizes. The Salama Model is: E = (5x10-4 W x V2 x D)/(d2 x m) where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, W is the sand flow rate in kg/day, V is the mixture velocity in m/s, D is the sand size in microns, d is the pipe internal diameter in mm, m is the fluid mixture density in kg/m3. From the assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG, it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the full Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features other than 5D bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves). Simplified versions of the RCS and the API models, applicable to carbon steel bends, are:
12
RCS: E = 4.1 x MV2.5/d2 API: E = 5.33 x MV2/d2 where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed velocity in m/s and d the pipe diameter in mm. Note 6: Slug Flow? The Harwell model for multiphase erosion is based on vertical flow. Under such conditions slug flow, which leads to liquid being thrown down onto the bottom of a pipe, is not produced. Thus the standard Harwell models for annular mist, churn and bubble flow are not applicable. In slug flow the liquid slug will be thrown against the pipe wall at velocities approaching the net mixed velocity. In addition, at the slug front there will be considerable mixing and hence entrained gas, such that the slug front will approach the homogenous mixture. Therefore, it is recommended that the pure liquid models be used (see Note 5) but that the mixed fluid velocity and mixture properties should be used rather than the liquid velocity and density. Note 7: Stratified Flow? Full Tulsa Model Use the liquid velocity calculated for the hydraulic diameter Note 8: Slug Flow? 1st Pass Salama, RCS and/or API Model Use the mixed (averaged) fluid density and velocity Note 9: Slug Flow? 2nd Pass, Full Tulsa Model Use the mixed (averaged) fluid properties (density and viscosity) and velocity Note 10: Bubble/Churn Flow? Harwell and/or Full Tulsa Model Do not use the Tulsa Model for Churn flow. For bubbly flow with the Full Tulsa Model use the mixed (averaged) velocity and liquid properties Note 11: Annular Flow? Harwell Model. For comparison, check using the Full Tulsa Model with the mixed velocity and with: (i) Mixed (averaged) fluid properties (ii) Liquid properties The actual erosion rate should be somewhere between the two values.
13
General Comments and Conclusions

1. In the absence of any solids, erosion by non-corrosive fluids (e.g. droplet erosion) is not significant at velocities below 70 m/s (230 ft/s). However, totally solids-free, noncorrosive fluids at such high velocities are relatively uncommon in oil/gas field service, with the possible exception of flow through choke valves, which are covered in separate Guidelines. 2. Erosion by solids is generally proportional to MV2/d2 if all else (e.g. flow regime, gas-liquid ratio) remains constant, where M is the solids production rate (e.g. in g/s), V is the net fluid velocity (e.g. in m/s) and d is the pipe or tubing internal diameter (e.g. in mm). - It should be noted that this can be expressed as SV2/d2 where S is the solids concentration in the fluid (e.g. in pounds per thousand barrels of liquid, lbs/mmscf of gas or ppm). - Thus if the production rate doubles then the pure erosion rate (ie ignoring corrosion) will increase by a factor of 8. - Given that increased production can often increase the solids concentration (or solids "loading") then a rule-of-thumb would be that a two-fold increase in production gives an order of magnitude increase in erosion if solids are present. 3. Erosion rates are proportional to the solids concentration in the fluid. It is unclear whether there is a threshold solids concentration below which erosion cannot occur. However, 1 pound per thousand barrels (1 pptb) of liquid for oil/multiphase systems (equivalent to about 0.1 lb/mmscf of gas for gas systems) is at the level of detection of current solids (e.g. sand) monitoring techniques. Therefore, for the sake of these Guidelines "nominally solids free" conditions are assumed to contain 1 pptb for liquid/multiphase systems and 0.1lb/mmscf for gas systems. Totally solids free indicates duties where there is absolutely no risk of entrained solids in the flowstream under any circumstances (e.g. some treated gas transport lines, some gas fields). 4. Erosion depends critically on the fluid flow regime. Solid particles carried in gas flow may hit pipe walls at the full gas velocity, although it is likely that in many cases the solid particles will drop out of the gas stream and either form a static bed or a moving bed (moving dunes, scouring). Under full liquid flow, solid particles will frequently travel at the liquid velocity, but will be significantly slowed by a liquid barrier layer on the pipe wall before striking the pipe material surface. Under multiphase flow, some solid particles may be carried at/near the gas velocity (if the flow is annular mist) and may or may not be slowed down by a liquid barrier layer - depending on the thickness of the annular liquid film. Careful assessment and a knowledge of flow regimes is required in such cases. 5. Empirical and field data suggest that there is a threshold solid particle size below which erosion will not occur. This threshold is unclear and probably relates to whether, at the net fluid velocity, a given particle has the momentum to carry it through the barrier fluid at the pipe or tubing surface. It should be noted that such thresholds are only
14
applicable to normal flow conditions. For example, is has been found that for downhole sand screens through which very small particles can pass even these very small particles can result in erosion due to the very high energy flow and high probability of impacting the metal surface. Most of the work reported is based on sand particles of 150 m diameter. However, the full Tulsa model can make allowance for different particle sizes, densities, shapes and sharpness. The full Harwell model and the Salama model can make allowance for different particle sizes. 6. Most erosion damage will occur at bends and flow disruptions and is likely to be at least an order of magnitude greater than erosion in straight pipe or tubing. The possible exception to this is slug flow where flow can impact on the pipe or tubing wall on straight sections. The full Tulsa model now contains a module (as yet not validated) for erosion in straight pipe. Presently this only covers single phase flow (e.g. slug flow is not covered). 7. Although different materials exhibit different solids erosion characteristics, the variation is not large between the common materials, e.g. carbon steel, 13 Cr stainless steel and duplex stainless steel. As a first pass, it is sufficient to ignore differences between the erosion resistance of such materials. 8. In many production and injection services there will be a significant corrosion risk from either CO2 or O2 corrosion. It should be noted that velocity can effect such corrosion in three ways: - increase the mass transport of the corrosion species. - in the absence of solids, lead to flow that can damage the protective layers normally formed in such service. - in the presence of solids, lead to erosion that can damage or remove protective layers as well as cause physical removal of metal. All of the above are referred to at times as erosion or erosion-corrosion. In this report the first is referred to as flow-enhanced corrosion. The second and third are forms of enhanced corrosion resulting from erosion-corrosion. 9. The severity of erosion-corrosion depends on whether there is a synergistic effect between erosion and corrosion or whether the erosion and corrosion are independent. If the former then the total wastage will be greater than the sum of the independent erosion and corrosion wastage. 10. In environments containing CO2 and/or O2 corrosion is often controlled by the presence of protective layers. In the case of carbon steel this is normally a precipitated layer of corrosion product; in the case of duplex and austenitic stainless steels it will be a very thin (around 10-9 m or 10's of ) passive layer; in the case of 13 Cr stainless steel it will be something intermediate between a precipitated layer and a passive film. Under solids-free conditions these protective layers can be damaged or eroded by pure fluid flow. Droplet impact in multiphase flow is possible (e.g. in annular-mist flow) and the resultant
15
damage can be significantly more severe than the damage caused by shear stress forces in pure liquid flow. Passive films on materials such as duplex stainless steel are the strongest and most adherent and reform very rapidly; precipitated films on carbon steel are the weakest and least adherent and reform relatively slowly. 11. In solids-containing environments, the situation for erosion-corrosion is unclear. If either the expected erosion or expected corrosion are an order of magnitude less than the other then synergistic effects are likely to be small. Laboratory data suggests that solids erosion can lead to severe localised attack in carbon steel if the erosivity is below a certain value or totally destroy a region of protective layer at higher values (leading to general corrosion but not penetrating the wall so quickly). There is evidence to suggest that, in anaerobic CO2 containing environments, solids can damage protective layers on 13 % Cr materials leading to erosion-corrosion at temperatures up to 80c. Above this the 13%Cr steel has been found to re-film very quickly, i.e. no synergy between erosion and corrosion is expected. Results on duplex stainless steel suggest that there is no corrosion-erosion synergy - implying that the wastage is only through erosion.
16
Erosion Guidelines - Detailed Discussions

Introduction
Erosion can be defined in a variety of ways, but is essentially the wastage of material due to the mechanical removal of material surfaces by flowing environments. Such wastage is most extreme when solids are present in the environment. Erosion is a problem to BP AMOCO when operating conditions lead to erosion and consequent damage to equipment or, conversely, when velocity and hence production limits are set to avoid erosion. If these limits are overly conservative then BP AMOCO loses production; if these limits are overly optimistic then BP AMOCO risks erosion damage, with consequential loss of production, increased maintenance costs and/or possible loss of system integrity. Erosion problems are likely to increase in BP AMOCO in the future because of: increased water cuts putting pressure on total fluid production rates to maintain oil production, increased use of multiphase flow in the transport of production fluids, increased sand and solids production rates due to a number of factors, such as increased water cut, use of proppant and reservoir fracturing techniques.
Many flow dependent wastage mechanisms are termed "erosion". For produced fluids there are four main mechanisms to be considered: erosion by non-corrosive fluids through liquid droplet impact "pure" solids erosion by a non-corrosive fluid carrying solid particles erosion-corrosion by a corrosive medium in the absence of solids erosion-corrosion by a corrosive medium containing solids.
The third of these is sometimes confused with flow-enhanced corrosion, where the flow regime leads to enhanced mass transport of corrosion products and reactants. In these Guidelines erosion-corrosion in the absence of solids is taken to refer to enhanced wastage due to the physical rupture of the protective, corrosion-product layer by energetic fluid flow regimes and the consequential corrosion. The mechanical removal of inhibitor might be defined as a form of erosion-corrosion but is not discussed in detail in these Guidelines. Erosion-corrosion occurs in environments which have the potential to be both erosive and corrosive. The erosion and the corrosion can either be independent, in which case the total wastage is the sum of the wastage produced by each mechanism in isolation, or synergistic, in which case the total wastage is greater than the sum of the independent processes of erosion and corrosion.
17
Discussion of the Guidelines

1. NO solid particles The Guidelines in this Section are only applicable to totally solids free conditions, i.e. where there is no risk of solids particles being transported in the flowstream. It should be recognised that even very low levels of solids (below the detection levels of even state of the art solids monitoring techniques) can cause significant wastage (erosion or erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is encumbent on the user of these Guidelines to ensure that there is no risk of solids entrainment before using the guidance in this Section. 1.1. Non-corrosive fluid flow For pure single phase non-corrosive gases in the total absence of solids or entrained liquids there are no velocity limits to avoid erosion. However, there are other flow related phenomena that need to be considered for high velocities, e.g. noise and vibration. For single phase non-corrosive liquid flow (i.e. totally solids free and with no entrained gas bubbles) there are no velocity limit requirements to avoid erosion damage. However, it is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid other possible problems, such as cavitation1; plant noise/vibration; water hammer2; etc. Liquid droplet erosion (e.g. in annular mist flow) of metals under non-corrosive conditions in the total absence of solids will only be a concern at velocities above 70 m/s (230 ft/sec). This is the maximum velocity limit defined to avoid the possibility of droplet erosion for gas-condensate wells in the DNV Recommended Practice (Ref. 13). Totally solids-free, non-corrosive fluids at such high velocities are relatively uncommon in oil/gas field service, with the possible exception of flow through choke valves, which are covered in separate Guidelines. 1.2. Corrosive fluid flow In the total absence of solids, erosive effects can be produced by the flow regime physically damaging protective/semi-protective corrosion-product layers. However, corrosion will still occur in corrosive regimes even if this does not happen; ie if the velocity or production rate is below a critical threshold for physical disruption of any protective layers. This corrosion will be fluid-flow dependent. For example, carbon steel
Where liquid pressures are at or near the vapour pressure/gas bubble point pressure then bubbles can form at regions of localised pressure drop these can then implode abruptly at points where the local pressure rises again above the saturation/bubble point pressure. These implosions can cause removal of material [cavitation] and/or noise problems. 2 Water hammer results from the shock pressure due to the sudden stopping of a liquid (e.g. when closing a valve or where reciprocating pumps or compressors are used). The magnitude of this shock pressure is a function of the fluid velocity, the stoppage time and the elasticity of the pipe. The accompanying mechanical vibrations can result in fatigue failure if corrective actions are not taken.
18
in CO2 and O2-containing environments (eg sea water injection) will generally suffer accelerated attack as the flow rate increases, as a result of increased mass transport. The situation is made much worse if the flow rate increases enough to cause erosive or mechanical breakdown of protective layers. There are two circumstances to be considered - multiphase gas-liquid flow and single phase liquid flow. The former is generally much more energetic than the latter and thus more likely to lead to mechanical disruption of protective product layers. For single phase liquid flow (i.e. totally solids free and with no entrained gas bubbles) there are no velocity limit requirements to avoid erosion damage. However, as note above, it is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid other possible problems, such as enhanced corrosion under flowing conditions; cavitation1; plant noise/vibration; water hammer2; etc. For wet (i.e. potentially corrosive) gas and multi-phase flow conditions, in the specific case of inhibited carbon steel it is recommended that the maximum velocity for design considerations should be taken as C=200 or 20m/s (whichever is lower). However, corrosion inhibition selection will need to take account of the fact that the inhibitor will have to work under flowing conditions and it may be possible to select an inhibitor that will work at velocities above the limits defined here. For other materials/conditions it is recommended to consider the limits for nominally sand-free conditions as an interim measure, as there is little/no information available on how the limits for these materials/conditions may differ for totally solids free conditions (i.e. where the only erosion damage mechanisms are the result of liquid droplet or gas bubble impingement). 2. Nominally solids free For the purpose of these Guidelines nominally solids-free conditions are defined as less than one pound of solids per thousand barrels of liquids (<1pptb) for liquid (e.g. oil/water) systems and less than 0.1 pounds of solids per million standard cubic feet of gas (<0.1lb/mmscf) for gas systems. The origin of the 1pptb limit is that this was determined to be the minimum level of solids that could be detected using state of the art sand detection tools. The 0.1lb/mmscf was determined to be the equivalent quantity of solids for a gas system. Therefore these limits should be applied to systems where there is the possibility of solids being present, but where these are likely to be (or actually are) below the limits of detection when using state of the art sand detection monitors3.
Note the limit of detection of less rigorous sand detection methods is significantly less than these limits. For example in the case of the shake out centrifuge test the limit of detection is only 275pptb and the limit of detection for the Leutart Sampler is 5pptb. This must be taken into account when determining whether a system can be considered nominally solids free or not.
19
2.1. Non-corrosive fluid flow There are no specific issues for nominally solids free, non-corrosive fluid flow conditions. This can best be dealt with in the same way as for Solids containing - noncorrosive fluid flow (Section 3.1.) with the solids content being set to 1pptb or 0.1lb/mmscf, as appropriate for the particular application. 2.2. Corrosive fluid flow There are two circumstances to be considered - multiphase gas-liquid flow and single phase liquid flow (NB guidance for wet gas is included under multi-phase gas-liquid flow, as liquid water is required for corrosive conditions). The former is generally much more energetic than the latter and thus more likely to lead to mechanical disruption of protective product layers. 2.2.1. Multiphase Flow For nominally solids-free conditions C values of 135, 300 and 350 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 are currently recommended for carbon steel, 13 % Cr and duplex stainless steels respectively under conditions of CO2 corrosion. Damage, if it occurs, is most likely at bends and elbows between the 15o and 50o positions on the outer radius. The rate of attack is uncertain. For carbon steel the localised damage of any protective layers is liable to initiate a form of "mesa" attack (steep-sided pitting in CO2 service) and the rate of penetration could be up to twice the bare-surface Cassandra rate (see Ref. 2 for details on estimating CO2 corrosion rates using the BP Amoco Cassandra software package). For 13 % Cr steel localised pitting may result, but there is little service experience with such attack. Under such circumstances the ability of the alloy to repair damage to the protective film will be critical. There could be a significant delay in the reformation of the protective film on 13 % Cr material at lower temperatures (below say 80C). However, it has been found that above this temperature film repair can be rapid in CO2 service. For duplex stainless steel the protective film (passive layer) is very resilient, even if it is damaged it reforms (repassivates) very rapidly. Therefore, little or no interaction between erosion and corrosion would be expected for duplex stainless steel. This has been borne out by laboratory experiments (Ref. 3). In the case of 13%Cr steel the C-factor of 300 was determined from previous testing at AEA Harwell (Ref. 14) and field experience. Rather than defining a true 'velocity limit' above which unacceptable erosion/erosion-corrosion will occur, this represented the maximum C-factor for which data was available and for which there was no evidence of unacceptable erosion/erosion-corrosion. Therefore, it represents a limit of understanding rather than an actual acceptance limit. A number of E&P Business Units have identified a need to exceed the present maximum allowable velocity to maximise production. There is therefore a clear business driver to understand the maximum flow rates that could be allowed for 13%Cr steel. As a result if this a Project has been set up within the No Corrosion R&D programme for 1999/2000 to evaluate the maximum allowable velocity for 13%Cr steel via Field Tests on gas flowlines in the Tuscaloosa (Louisiana) Field.
20
Similarly for duplex stainless steel, the C-factor of 350 was established by examining the limits of data available from previous testing at AEA Harwell, published information and field experience. The test work in 1999/2000 to evaluate the maximum allowable velocity for 13%Cr steel may well be extended to duplex stainless steel to examine if this C-factor can be increased, if there is sufficient Business Unit interest. In stratified and annular mist flow direct impingement on the pipe wall will be most severe at bends. The situation with multiphase slug flow is more uncertain. In slug flow the churning and breaking wave at the leading edge of a slug can give rise to perpendicular impacts on the bottom of straight horizontal pipe as well as at bends. There is currently no well defined limit for the initiation of such damage, especially as the situation is complicated by the presence of significant mixing and entrained gas bubbles in the slug front. If it is assumed that the liquid slug impacting on the wall needs to have the same impact velocity as above and that the liquid slug impact velocity is, at worst, equal to the mixed fluid velocity, then the API limit with C=135 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 could be applicable in the case of carbon steel. Thus for carbon steel if slug flow is established and if the mixed fluid velocity is above the API limit with C=135 ft/s(lbs/ft ft3)0.5 then pitting damage could be expected at any location all along the bottom of a pipe. The situation might be mitigated somewhat if the protective layer on carbon steel can reform between slugs This is not possible in continuous annular flow and not likely at bends in slug flow. (NB apply the same principle but use C=300 and 350 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 for 13 % Cr steel and duplex stainless steel respectively) The situation is further complicated in multiphase annular mist flow and multiphase slug flow when corrosion inhibitors are added. There is some suggestion that corrosion inhibitors might be effective up to the same velocity as protective corrosion-product layers (Refs. 4 & 5). If this is the case, then once the thresholds for physical damage to protective corrosion-product layers have been reached, corrosion inhibition is unlikely to be effective. However, the strength of the bond between the corrosion inhibitor and the metal surface may be greater than that of the precipitated corrosion product layer. The latter is only physically bonded to the metal surface whereas the corrosion inhibitor will be chemically bonded and perhaps more able to resist displacement. If the corrosion inhibitor is bonded to the corrosion product layer then the layer/metal bond may be the weak link. In such a case the erosion may clean the surface of weakly bonded corrosion product layers and the corrosion inhibitor can then bond directly to the bare metal surface, providing far greater resistance to corrosion even under erosive conditions. Flowing sand particles do eventually remove a corrosion inhibitor film from a steel surface in experiments using an impinging liquid jet containing sand. However, work at the University of Tulsa showed that a suitable corrosion inhibitor chemical was still beneficial, by significantly increasing the safe operating velocity of the fluids by as much as a factor of 4 or 5. These are still preliminary findings for a particular product and set of conditions. It is not yet possible to derive a semi-quantitative rule of thumb.
21
For wet (i.e. potentially corrosive) gas and multi-phase flow conditions, in the specific case of inhibited carbon steel it is recommended that the maximum velocity for design considerations should be taken as C=200 or 20m/s (whichever is lower). However, corrosion inhibition selection will need to take account of the fact that the inhibitor will have to work under flowing conditions and it may be possible to select an inhibitor that will work at velocities above the limits defined here. Loss of corrosion inhibitor from bulk fluids by adsorption onto the surface of sand particles can be a significant effect under certain circumstances ,such as high inhibitor concentrations (>150 ppm) and high sand concentrations (>35 pptb). The adsorption losses are normally insignificant for low corrosion inhibitor concentrations (<50 ppm) and low sand concentrations (<35 pptb). 2.2.2. Single Phase Liquid Flow Provisionally, it is recommended that a C value 250 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 should be used as the limit for carbon steel under CO2 corrosion in the absence of corrosion inhibition. However, the situation in the field is often aggressive enough to require the use of corrosion inhibitors. If this is the case, highly turbulent flow will increase corrosion rates further. Some corrosion inhibitors perform poorly under highly turbulent flow conditions whilst others can perform acceptably under extremely aggressive flow. In general, the more turbulent the flow regime, the higher concentration of inhibitor that will be required to achieve acceptable corrosion rates and therefore operating costs will increase. Under such circumstances corrosion inhibition selection (and dosage levels) will need to take account of the fact that the inhibitor will have to work under flowing conditions upto the maximum liquid velocity expected. In addition, flow velocities in excess of 10 m/s should be viewed as high and extra thought given to corrosion control and monitoring. UTG have issued guidelines on the prediction and monitoring of CO2 corrosion (Refs. 6 & 7). For 13%Cr steel it is recommended that the C-factor developed for multi-phase flow of 300 is used in the absence of any better information (this is likely to err on the conservative side). For duplex stainless steel a series of laboratory based flow loop tests were carried out on behalf of BP Amoco by Det Norske Veritas Industry AS (DNV), Norway using treated sea water. Interpretation of the test results demonstrated that for single phase liquid flow a C-factor of 450 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 could be applied for the nominally solids free condition of up to 1pptb (Ref. 15).
22
3. Solids-containing flow 3.1. Non-corrosive fluids 3.1.1. Introduction Although the specific erosion models produced by the different R&D programmes are not always in good agreement, there are several areas of general agreement. The basic mechanism of erosion of most metals (i.e. ductile materials) is ductile ploughing of the surface by impacting solid particles. The material lost per impact is greatest at angles of impact between 15 and 60 and is proportional to m(Vi)n where n is between 2 and 2.5, m is the particle mass and Vi the actual particle impact velocity. The overall wastage rate is then the mass loss per impact times the impact rate. In the simplest case, the rate of impact is equal to the mass flow rate of the particles divided by the mass per particle and if it is assumed that area of impact is the projection of the cross-sectional area onto a bend (or a projected area in the path of the flow, such as a restriction) then the overall wastage rate per unit area (i.e. the penetration rate) will be a function of m(Vi)n times M/m divided by the pipe cross-sectional area A, where M is the solids production rate. However, M will be proportional to the product of the solids concentration, S, and the mixed fluid velocity, V. Thus: E = K x m(Vi)n x M/(m x A) or E = K' x (Vi)n x S x V/d2 where d is the pipe diameter, K and K' constants and E the erosion rate. If a further simplification is made that the particle impact velocity, Vi, equals the mixed fluid velocity, V (or is a constant proportion of the mixed fluid velocity) and that n=2 then: E = K' x V3 x S/d2 or E = K' x V2 x M/d2 This, in essence, is the core form of all of the simple erosion models produced by RCS, API, Tulsa, and Salama & Venkatesh (but not the Harwell model for multiphase flow), i.e.: RCS: E = 4.1 x MV2.5/d2 API: E = 22.4 x MV2/d2 Salama & Venkatesh: E = 604 x MV2/d2 Tulsa:
23
E = 4280 x MV1.73/d2 where M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed velocity in m/s, d the pipe diameter in mm and E the erosion rate in mm/yr. As can be seen, the difference between these models lies in the different values of the constant K' and some variation in the exponent of V. Although the Salama & Venkatesh, simplified Tulsa, RCS and API approaches are simple to use, a full understanding of the effect of various parameters such as flow regime, pipe size and fluid viscosity is only possible by utilising either the full Tulsa model (SPPS v. 3.0) or the AEA Harwell Model (Sandman version 3.9). 3.1.2. Single phase flow For single phase gas flow the Salama & Venkatesh approach can be used to give an order of magnitude indication of the likely wastage rate. This will give the worst case erosion rates in the absence of liquid buffering at the metal surface and assuming that the solids remain within the gas stream, i.e. that they do not 'drop out'. Alternatively the more recent Salama model (Ref. 16) can be used to give an indication of the likely wastage rate. However, in this case it should be noted that an assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG indicated that it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the full Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features than 5D bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves). For a more detailed consideration of the likely erosion rate the full Tulsa model (SPPS v. 3.0) should be used. For single phase liquid flow the full Tulsa Model (SPPS v. 3.0) should be used where possible. However, given that this is a computer software package that will not be universally available, the API and/or RCS models can be used for initial assessments (the latter giving rapid assessment and the former a more accurate assessment based on bend geometry). These models are based on simple slurry impingement tests and lab-scale flow loops and may suffer a problem with scale-up to field conditions. However, they should give rates of the correct order of magnitude. Alternatively the more recent Salama model (Ref. 16) can be used to give an indication of the likely wastage rate. However, in this case it should be noted that an assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG indicated that it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the full Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features than 5D bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves).
24
3.1.3. Multiphase flow For multiphase flow regimes the situation is more complicated. For regimes very close to pure gas flow the Salama & Venkatesh or Salama models can be used for order of magnitude estimates (see restrictions on use of the Salama Model in Section 3.1.2.). However, when there is any appreciable liquid present then this rate will be mitigated, although the degree of mitigation will depend very strongly on the flow regime characteristics. For regimes very close to pure liquid flow the API, RCS and/or Salama models can be used (see restrictions on use of the Salama Model in Section 3.1.2.). However, where there is any appreciable gas present this will not be appropriate as it is likely to be non-conservative. For multi-phase flow erosion rates below those for pure gas but above those for pure liquid flow would normally be expected. The Harwell programme complemented the Tulsa programme; the latter is based on fluid flow and modelling and has started with single phase flow conditions while the Harwell programme was an empirical programme based on multiphase flow conditions. The major concern with the Harwell programme is that it was based almost entirely on a 2" test loop and scale-up complications are likely to be present in multiphase flow. The Harwell programme showed that, even for the same mixed velocities, the erosion rate depends on the flow regime. The dependence was so strong that the proposed erosion model was a function of SxV rather than SxV3: E = S x (C1 + C2 x V x m) where E is the erosion rate, C1 and C2 constants which depend on flow regime, S the solids concentration, V the mixed fluid velocity and m the mixed phase density. Harwell have developed a computer software program Design Procedure for ErosionCorrosion in Multi-phase Flow, Release 3. As with the Tulsa software package this program is not available commercially, but is only available to participants in the Joint Industry Programme (JIP). BPX was a member of this JIP. The Program enables the user to determine the flow regime, it then calculates the likely erosion wastage rate based on the appropriate C1 and C2 values. For first pass assessments of the likely erosion wastage rate the following procedures can be used: It is recommended that the flow regime for the intended multiphase duty is firstly assessed. The following criteria can then be applied: Annular Flow: Use the Harwell Release 3 software package to assess the likely erosion wastage rate. An order of magnitude assessment can be achieved using the Tulsa SPPS v. 3.0 software
25
package using the mixed velocity together with (i) the averaged fluid properties and (ii) the liquid properties. The actual erosion rate should then fall between these two values. Bubble/Churn Flow: Use the Harwell Release 3 software package to assess the likely erosion wastage rate. Additionally the Tulsa SPPS v. 3.0 software package with mixed velocity and liquid properties can be used for comparison purposes. Stratified: Use the Tulsa SPPS v. 3.0 software package with the liquid velocity calculated for the hydraulic diameter and the liquid properties. Horizontal Slug Flow: One flow regime that has not been covered by either the AEA Harwell or Tulsa JIPs to date is horizontal slug flow. Slug flow is of interest to BP Amoco at a number of locations, e.g. in Alaska slug flow in large diameter flow-lines is often encountered, where solids are often present and, indeed, failures have been experienced. Unfortunately, there is no available data from either the JIP programmes or the literature in this area and BP AMOCO's own experience is complicated by CO2 corrosion. If erosion is a problem in such regimes then there are two possible solid impingement mechanisms: solids on the bottom of a line are picked up and thrown down by a passing slug but do not get carried forward a significant distance. solids are entrained in the slug carried forward and thrown against the pipe wall by the breaking wave at the slug front.
In both cases solids are unlikely to be carried at velocities exceeding the mixed fluid velocity. The erosion may be mitigated to some extent as the pipe wall would be expected to be protected by a significant liquid layer. However, the liquid slug front will be a zone of considerable mixing and entrained gas, such that the liquid slug front may approach the homogenous mixture. Therefore, as an interim measure until this type of flow has been fully investigated, it is recommended that for such instances the Tulsa SPPS v. 4.0 software package is used with the mixed fluid properties (density and viscosity) and velocity. For an order of magnitude assessment the API or RCS Models can be used, again employing the mixed fluid properties (density) and velocity. The use of these models together with the mixture properties and velocity are likely to give a conservative estimate of the erosion under slug flow, as it assumes that any point on the pipe wall will be subjected to impingement by a liquid slug front continuously. Whilst this in built conservatism needs to be recognised, it is considered that this represents the best advice available at this time.
26
3.1.4. Effect of Material All of the erosion rate models show a dependence of erosion rate on the substrate material. The programmes that consider alloyed steels show a slight increase in erosion resistance going from carbon steel to the more highly alloyed materials. This effect is, however, not marked. Thus, for example, the Tulsa programme has a factor of 1.5 between carbon steel and annealed 13 Cr steel, with 22 Cr duplex stainless steel being approximately the same as carbon steel. The Salama & Venkatesh model has an inverse relation between erosion rate and carbon steel hardness, and the Tulsa model has the erosion rate proportional to the hardness to the power of -0.59. Given the range of hardness likely for carbon steel pipework and tubing neither correction will account for much more than a factor of two. Thus, for pure solid particle erosion, the effect of substrate material (when comparing steel alloys) on the erosion rate is a second order effect of much less importance than flow regime, mixed velocity or solids content. The effect can be quantified in different models, but a reasonable 'rule-of-thumb' would be that steel alloy composition does not have a significant effect on erosion resistance. 3.1.6. Effect of Particle Size In general, the erosion resulting from the impact of a single solid particle is a function of the momentum of that particle at impact and the total erosion is a function of the total momentum impacting on a surface. By this reasoning, there could be several impacts from a large number of small particles or one impact from a single large particle but, so long as the total momentum was the same, the erosion would be the same. However, the presence of a barrier layer of liquid at the surface and the bulk flow of fluids round bends can mean that smaller particles are less likely to reach the surface than large particles; or, at least, suffer a greater percentage loss of momentum. Thus, in practice, erosion is likely to be less for smaller, less massive, particles than for large particles, even if the total solids mass production rate is the same. Only three of the Models, i.e. Tulsas SPPS v.4.0., Harwells Sandman v.3.9. and the Salama Model take any account of the particle size in their calculation of the erosion wastage rae. 3.2. Corrosive liquids 3.2.1. Synergy between erosion and corrosion If there is no synergism between corrosion and erosion for a given environment then the wastage will be the sum of the corrosion wastage and the erosion wastage. Guidelines are available for the prediction of likely corrosion rates (eg Ref. 2) and hence allowances for corrosion can be calculated.
27
In the Harwell project, broadly speaking for the conditions tested (2bara CO2, 30oC) the erosion-corrosion rate was found to be equal to erosion rate plus the 'unfilmed' corrosion rate. It is worth pointing out that under the conditions tested (2bara CO2, 30oC) the formation of iron carbonate films (often termed scaling in CO2 corrosion) would not be expected. The Tulsa programme tested carbon steel in CO2 and sand-containing environments with 50 psig CO2 at 200 oF (93.3 oC) and at pH 5.0, 5.5 or 6.0 (i.e. conditions under which the formation of iron carbonate films is likely). Three regimes in the erosion-corrosion wastage of carbon steel were identified. These were as follows: (i) 'Scaling Regime'. In this regime the semi-protective corrosion product layer is retained on the metal surface, affording some protection. This is the normal situation for solids free conditions, or more benign erosion-corrosion conditions. (ii) 'General Wastage Regime'. In this regime any scales/surface films are removed from the metal surface by solids erosion and/or do not have the time to form. Hence metal wastage as a result of both erosion and corrosion can go on unabated. This is the normal situation for very aggressive erosion conditions. (iii) 'Pitting Regime'. In this regime the solid particles prevent scales/surface films forming at impingement points on the metal surface, whilst scale/surface films form on the rest of the surface. This leads to pitting damage. Corrosion in the 'bare' impingement areas can be significantly more aggressive in terms of metal penetration rate than for general wastage. Some scales/surface films can act as cathodic areas, significantly accelerating the corrosion rate in the relatively small anodic 'bare' impingement areas. This occurs at conditions intermediate between 'scaling' or 'general wastage'. Corrosion rates up to twice that anticipated for un-filmed conditions have been observed. ECRC have developed a software program (SPPS-EC), which can predict the threshold velocities for these three regimes. However, at present the model can not predict the likely wastage rate under erosion-corrosion conditions. The Tulsa work has also indicated that some corrosion inhibitors may be able to increase the threshold velocities for these three regimes (Ref. 10). However, this effect is not yet sufficiently well established for use in design. In any event, any such increase is likely to be corrosion inhibitor and system dependant, meaning that to apply any increase in threshold velocity to the design would require specific testing of the candidate corrosion inhibitors under the anticipated system conditions. 3.2.2. Carbon Steel It is clear from the above that there is possible synergy between erosion and corrosion in carbon steel systems. However, the quantification of such effects is difficult. At this stage it is suggested that no clear velocity thresholds can be established for erosion-corrosion. As an interim measure the following philosophy is recommended:
28
If the erosion rate is less than 0.1 mm/yr then there is no need to consider erosion/corrosion interactions, i.e. the total wastage rate will be the predicted corrosion rate plus the predicted erosion rate. If the predicted erosion rate is greater than 0.1 mm/yr, then use the CO2 model (Ref. 2) to determine the likelihood of iron carbonate scale formation. For the case where no iron carbonate scale is anticipated the total wastage rate can be taken as the erosion rate plus the un-filmed corrosion rate (i.e. in line with the conclusions of the Harwell work). For the case where iron carbonate scale is anticipated the total wastage rate can be taken as the erosion rate plus twice the un-filmed corrosion rate (i.e. to reflect the pitting regime in the Tulsa work). Alternatively, when it is available, the Tulsa SPPS-EC computer software programme can be used to determine the regime into which the service conditions fall, then the following criteria can be applied: Scaling regime: wastage rate = erosion rate + filmed corrosion rate Pitting regime: wastage rate = erosion rate + twice the un-filmed corrosion rate General wastage regime: wastage rate = erosion rate + un-filmed corrosion rate 3.2.3. 13%Cr Steel. In the Harwell programme the 13%Cr steel was found not to corrode at lower temperatures (30C) under erosion-corrosion conditions until about 2 m of material had been removed by erosion. Thereafter the wastage rate increased to 1 - 2 mm/yr, remaining at this level even after the sand was removed. The 'corrosion resistant' properties were only restored once the material had been re-exposed to air. This observation is in agreement with studies in Sunbury (Ref. 11), which found that at 30C in CO2-containing solutions the protective layer never completely reformed. At higher temperatures (50C and 80C) the results from Harwell indicated no synergy between erosion and corrosion. These results were again supported by data from the Sunbury experiments (Ref. 11), which found that the protective film reformed very rapidly after damage at temperatures of 80C and above (temperatures up to 150C were tested) in a CO2-containing solution. As a result of these observations, the following is recommended: If the erosion rate is less than 0.1 mm/yr then there is no need to consider erosion/corrosion interactions, as it is anticipated that the protective film will not be destroyed, i.e. the re-filming processes will be faster than the wastage rate. Therefore, the total wastage rate will be the predicted corrosion rate (if any, see Ref. 12 for further details) plus the predicted erosion rate.
29
If the erosion rate is greater than 0.1 mm/yr then the total wastage rate at temperatures lower than 80C should be taken as the erosion rate plus the corrosion rate for un-filmed carbon steel in the given chemical environment. For temperatures above 80C, the total wastage rate should be taken as the erosion rate plus the corrosion rate expected on 13%Cr steel (Ref. 12). 3.2.4. Duplex Stainless Steel In the Harwell work the duplex stainless steel was found not to corrode under the conditions used, even in the presence of sand. Therefore, it is recommended that in this case the total wastage rate is taken to equal the erosion rate, i.e. that no allowance is made for corrosion.
30
References: 1. "Erosion Guidelines Revision 2.0 (1996)", J W Martin & J Pattinson, BP GRE Report No. ESR.97.ER.002, January 1997. 2. "A Corrosion Philosophy for the Transport of Wet Oil and Multiphase Fluids Containing CO2", J Pattinson, ID Parker & AS Green, BP GRE Report No. ESR.93.ER.013, March 1993. 3. "Erosional Velocity Limits for Duplex Stainless Steel", J Pattinson & J W Martin, BP GRE Report No. ESR.95.ER.058, July 1995 4. "A Review of Erosion Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production", JS Smart, Paper 10, NACE Corrosion Conference, 1990 5. "Materials Performance in Khuff Gas Service", R Duncan, Materials Performance, Vol 19, No. 7, July 1980 6. Corrosion Prediction Modelling, A McMahon & D M E Paisley, ESR.96.ER.066 7. Corrosion Monitoring Manual, S Webster & R C Woollam, ESR.95.ER.053, November 1996 8. "Salt water velocities in pipes; for continuous flow", British Standard MA18, 1976 9. "The Wear Equation for Erosion of Metals by Abrasive Particles", E Rabinowicz, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Erosion by Solid and Liquid Impact. 10. "Erosion/Corrosion Research Center: Advisory Board Report May 11, 1996", E F Rybicki, University of Tulsa, USA 11. Report in Preparation, A McMahon, 1996 12. Guidelines for the Use of 13%Cr Stainless Steels in Chloride Containing Waters Under Non-Sour Conditions, DME Paisley, BP GRE Report No. ESR.95.ER.040, April 1995. 13. Assessment of Erosive Wear in Piping Systems, DNV Recommended Practice DNV RP O501, 1997. 14. Erosion - Material Limitations (115-4277) 1995 End of Years Status, J W Martin, BP GRE Report No. ESR.96.ER.002. 15. Erosion of Alloy 625 and 25%Cr Duplex Stainless Steel in Water Injection Service, memorandum by J W Martin to S Whitehead dated 22nd April 1997.
31
16. An Alternative to API RP14e Erosional Velocity Limits for Sand Laden Fluids, M M Salama, OTC Proceedings 1998, Paper 8898.
32

Erosion Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Erosion Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Erosion Guidelines Revision 2.

Sunbury Report No. S/UTG/102/99 dated October 1999

EROSION GUIDELINES REVISION 2.1 (1999)

Summary Guidelines - Flow Charts and General Comments

VELOCITY LIMITS FOR AVOIDING EROSION

Note 3:Gas, No Liquid? Pure dr y gas streams. No significant liquid loading.

Totally solids free

Nominally solids free

Note 3:Gas, No Liquid? Pure dr y gas streams. No significant liquid loading.

Are the conditions noncorrosive?

No velocity limits for the avoidance of erosion

Is the system carbon steel?

No velocity limits for the avoidance of erosion

Assume wet gas or multi-phase

Limit velocity to 70 m/s (230 ft/sec)

Are corrosion inhibitors being used?

Estimated erosion rate >0.1mm/yr

Seek further advice

Vmax = 200/m or 20 m/s whichever is lower

If estimated erosion rate acceptable no further action required

No velocity limits for the avoidance of erosion

CALCULATION OF EROSION RATES

Note 2: Gas, No Liquid? Pure gas streams. No significant liquid loading.

Salama, (Salama and Venkatesh) or Full Tulsa

Note 4: Liquid, No Gas Single phase liquid streams. No gas bubbles.

1st Pass: Salama, RCS and/or API Model

2nd Pass: Full Tulsa Model

1st Pass: Salama,RCS and/or API Model

Full Tulsa Model

Harwell and/or Full Tulsa Model

2nd Pass: Full Tulsa Model

Notes on Flow Charts.

General Comments and Conclusions

Erosion Guidelines - Detailed Discussions

Discussion of the Guidelines

You might also like