Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Erosion Guidelines PDF
Erosion Guidelines PDF
Guidelines
Revision 2.1
(1999)
J W Martin
Main CD
Contents
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
Data Collection
Solids present
Evaluate erosion
rate
(refer to
'calculation of
erosion rate'
chart)
Yes
Gas, no liquid?
Solids
present?
No
Nominally
solids free
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
Gas, no liquid?
gas such that it will be transported at/near the gas velocity or whether the solids
bed of solids.
Vmax = 250/m
(Carbon Steel)
Vmax = 300/m
(13% Cr Steel)
Vmax = 450/m
No steel)
(duplex stainless
* see Note 5
No
Yes
Liquid, no gas?
Yes
No
No
Duplex SS?
Yes
Yes
Vmax = 300/m
Note 7:Vmax=300/m
(for 13 Cr stainless steel)
If higher production rates
required seek further advice.
Yes
No
Note 8:Vmax=350/m
(for duplex stainless steel)
If higher production rates
required seek further advice.
No
No
13 Cr SS?
Duplex SS?
Yes
Yes
Yes
WR = ER
If estimated
erosion rate
acceptable no
further action
required
No
Iron
Carbonate
Scaling?
Yes
80C
Operating
Temperature?
WR = ER +CR13cr
WR = ER +UCRc/s
WR = ER + 2 * UCRc/s
No velocity
limits for the
avoidance of
erosion
Yes
No
WR = ER + UCRc/s
No
Is the
system
carbon
steel?
Yes
Seek
further
advice
* see Note 5
Yes
Liquid, no gas?
Liquid, no gas?
Yes
No velocity
limits for the
avoidance of
erosion
Limit velocity
to 70 m/s
(230 ft/sec)
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
<80C
No
Gas, no liquid?
No
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.
No velocity
limits for the
avoidance of
erosion
No
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.
Vmax = 135/m
No
Carbon steel?
Assume
multi-phase
Carbon steel?
Yes
Vmax = 350/m
Estimated
erosion rate
>0.1mm/yr
No
13 Cr SS?
Evaluate erosion
rate
(refer to
'calculation of
erosion rate'
chart)
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.
No
Seek
further
advice
Are the
conditions
noncorrosive?
Yes
will 'settle' out of the flow stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly moving
Assume
multi-phase
Yes
Vmax = 200/m
or 20 m/s
whichever is lower
Are corrosion
inhibitors
being used?
No
No velocity
limits for the
avoidance of
erosion
GQS38294/2
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.
Data Collection
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).
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:
No
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)
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.
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.
Liquid, no gas?
Yes
1st Pass:
Salama, RCS
and/or API Model
2nd Pass:
Full Tulsa Model
No
No
No
Slug flow?
Stratified flow?
Yes
Bubble/Churn
Flow?
No
Annular flow?
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
Harwell
and/or
Full Tulsa Model
Harwell
Model
Note 7:
Note10:
Note 11:
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
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.
10
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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