ECE 5x User Guide

ECE User Guide
ECE
Electronic
Corrosion
Engineer
Version: 5.4
Table of Contents
Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) ........................................................................................................ 7
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 9
About ECE ........................................................................................................................................ 9
What's New in ECE ........................................................................................................................... 10
Version Compatibility ....................................................................................................................... 11
Support and Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 11
Feedback and Suggestions ................................................................................................................ 11
Using ECE .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Using ECE ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Hardware and Software Requirements ................................................................................................ 14
Starting to use ECE .......................................................................................................................... 15
Saving and Retrieving Files ............................................................................................................... 15
Saving and Retrieving Files ............................................................................................................ 15
Reporting and Printing...................................................................................................................... 16
Menus ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Get Help ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Project File Tools ............................................................................................................................. 17
ECE Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Data Security .................................................................................................................................. 18
Corrosion Prediction Tools................................................................................................................. 18
Corrosion Prediction Graphs .............................................................................................................. 18
Life Cycle Prediction Graphs .............................................................................................................. 19
ECE Tools ........................................................................................................................................... 21
ECE Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Project File Tools ............................................................................................................................. 21
Corrosion Prediction Tools................................................................................................................. 22
Corrosion Prediction Graphs .............................................................................................................. 22
Tubing Corrosion Prediction .................................................................................................................. 23
Tubing Corrosion Prediction Tools ...................................................................................................... 23
Tubing CRA Manufacturers ................................................................................................................ 23
Tubing Corrosion Predictor ................................................................................................................ 24
Tubing Corrosion Predictor Overview .............................................................................................. 24
Tubing Corrosion Predictor Report .................................................................................................. 25
Data Input................................................................................................................................... 26
Data Output ................................................................................................................................ 27
Project ........................................................................................................................................ 27
Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 28
Throughput ................................................................................................................................. 30
Deviation Angles .......................................................................................................................... 31
Steel........................................................................................................................................... 32
Advanced .................................................................................................................................... 33
Page 3 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Corrosion Rate Graph ................................................................................................................... 34
Risk Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 35
All Graphs ................................................................................................................................... 36
Details ........................................................................................................................................ 37
Tubing Erosion Predictor ................................................................................................................... 38
Tubing Erosion Predictor Overview.................................................................................................. 38
Tubing Erosion Predictor Report ..................................................................................................... 39
Data Input................................................................................................................................... 41
Data Output ................................................................................................................................ 41
Project ........................................................................................................................................ 42
Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 42
Throughput ................................................................................................................................. 44
Deviation Angles .......................................................................................................................... 45
Steel........................................................................................................................................... 46
Advanced .................................................................................................................................... 47
All Graphs ................................................................................................................................... 49
Details ........................................................................................................................................ 50
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator .............................................................................................................. 51
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator ........................................................................................................... 51
Data Input................................................................................................................................... 52
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator Report................................................................................................. 52
Production ................................................................................................................................... 53
Tubing Details.............................................................................................................................. 54
Inhibition .................................................................................................................................... 54
Financial ..................................................................................................................................... 55
Net Present Value......................................................................................................................... 56
Life Cycle Cost Calculation ............................................................................................................. 56
Tubing CRA Evaluator....................................................................................................................... 57
Tubing CRA Evaluator ................................................................................................................... 57
Using the Tubing CRA Evaluator ..................................................................................................... 58
Tubing Alloy Evaluator Report ........................................................................................................ 59
Alloys for Production Tubing .......................................................................................................... 60
Composition of Tubing Alloys ......................................................................................................... 61
MSS - Standard 13Cr .................................................................................................................... 62
MSS - Low Carbon 13Cr ................................................................................................................ 64
22Cr and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels............................................................................................ 65
Alloy 28 ...................................................................................................................................... 67
Alloy 2550 ................................................................................................................................... 68
Alloy C276 ................................................................................................................................... 69
Alloy 825..................................................................................................................................... 70
Flowline Corrosion Prediction ................................................................................................................ 71
Flowline Corrosion Prediction Tools .................................................................................................... 71
Flowline Corrosion Prediction Tools .................................................................................................... 71
Flowline CRA Manufacturers .............................................................................................................. 71
Flowline Corrosion Predictor .............................................................................................................. 72
Flowline Corrosion Predictor ........................................................................................................... 72
Flowline Corrosion Predictor Report ................................................................................................ 73
Data Input................................................................................................................................... 75
Data Output ................................................................................................................................ 75
Project ........................................................................................................................................ 75
Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 76
Throughput ................................................................................................................................. 78
Advanced .................................................................................................................................... 80
Risk Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 82
Details FL .................................................................................................................................... 83
All Graphs ................................................................................................................................... 84
Flowline CRA Evaluator ..................................................................................................................... 85
Flowline CRA Evaluator ................................................................................................................. 85
Using the Flowline CRA Evaluator ................................................................................................... 86
Flowline Alloy Evaluator Report ...................................................................................................... 88
Alloys for Flowlines ....................................................................................................................... 89
Composition of Flowline Alloys ....................................................................................................... 89
Martensitic Stainless Steels for Flowlines ......................................................................................... 90
Duplex Stainless Steel for Flowlines ................................................................................................ 92
Alloy 316L - Cladding or Lining....................................................................................................... 94
Alloy 904L - Cladding or Lining ....................................................................................................... 95
Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining ........................................................................................................ 95
Alloy 625 - Cladding or Lining ........................................................................................................ 96
Alloy 6Mo - Super Austenitic Stainless Steel .................................................................................... 97
Flowline Life Cycle Calculator ............................................................................................................ 97
Flowline Life Cycle Calculator ......................................................................................................... 97
Data Input................................................................................................................................... 99
Flowline Life Cycle Calculator Report .............................................................................................. 100
Flowline Details ........................................................................................................................... 100
Financial .................................................................................................................................... 101
Inhibition and Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 102
Welding Costs ............................................................................................................................. 103
Net Present Value........................................................................................................................ 104
Installation ................................................................................................................................. 105
Life Cycle Cost Calculation ............................................................................................................ 106
Bulk Calculation.............................................................................................................................. 107
Corrosion Model Background ............................................................................................................... 109
CO2 Corrosion Rate Model ............................................................................................................... 109
Influence of Carbonate Scales .......................................................................................................... 110
Influence of Carbonate Scales ....................................................................................................... 110
Effect of H2S .................................................................................................................................. 110
pH and Water Chemistry.................................................................................................................. 112
Influence of Crude Oil ..................................................................................................................... 114
Condensation of Water .................................................................................................................... 115
Condensation of Water ................................................................................................................. 115
Top of Line Corrosion ...................................................................................................................... 115
Corrosion Inhibition ........................................................................................................................ 116
Flow Patterns ................................................................................................................................. 117
Glycol Injection .............................................................................................................................. 118
Erosion-Corrosion ........................................................................................................................... 119
Particle Erosion .............................................................................................................................. 119
Risk of Failure ................................................................................................................................ 120
Risk of Failure ............................................................................................................................. 120
Acetic Acid ..................................................................................................................................... 121
Acetic Acid ................................................................................................................................. 121
Model Predictions............................................................................................................................ 121
Guidance on Accuracy of Prediction ............................................................................................... 121
Summary of Application Limits ...................................................................................................... 122
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 123
Disclaimer ......................................................................................................................................... 125
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 127
Index ............................................................................................................................................... 129

Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE)
Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) enables the quantitative estimation of corrosion rates and the selection of
materials for oil and gas production systems and processing facilities. At the heart of ECE is a new and
improved model for corrosion analysis and material selection, firmly based on laboratory data, and field
calibration studies both with pipeline and with downhole tubing.
ECE is available as the Professional Edition (for a single user) or the Enterprise Edition (for multiple users on a
network). Licensees receive regular updates, including further functionality improvements and new materials
data, and have the benefit of expert Technical Support. See Also: What's new in ECE
We welcome feedback, comments and suggestions on any aspect of the ECE. The feedback we receive is vital for the future
development of the software. Any comments can be sent by email to ece@woodgroup.com.

Overview
About ECE
Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) enables the quantitative estimation of corrosion rates and the selection of
materials for oil and gas production systems and processing facilities. At the heart of ECE is a new and
improved model for corrosion analysis and material selection, firmly based on laboratory data, and field
calibration studies both with pipeline and with downhole tubing.
Tubing Corrosion Prediction deals principally with the vertical flow, although deviated tubing can also be
modelled. The Flowline tools deal predominately with horizontal flow. The orientation has a significant influence
on the flow regime which impacts on some aspects of the corrosion rate, such as the likelihood of having
erosion of corrosion product scales or separation of water from oil.
Each tool can be used independently so that the evaluation of the carbon steel corrosion rate and the risk of
carbon steel failure can be carried out without any reference to the evaluation of suitable CRA's, their sources
and the LCC comparison between the CRA and carbon steel options. Similarly, the CRA evaluation or check on
suppliers of a given type of CRA can be done without first checking the potential carbon steel corrosion rate.
Parameters are not carried over from one Tool to another and changing an input value in one Tool does not
change values elsewhere.
ECE can be used to estimate the corrosion rate in facilities and top-side pipe work. ECE does not consider the
impact of tight bends and other flow disturbances typical of process piping.
• Corrosion Prediction: ECE is principally concerned with material selection for two key capital
expenditure items in oil and gas developments: downhole production tubing and flowlines. The aim is to
propose a safe material selection at minimum cost. The Predictions are carried out independently using
Tubing Corrosion Predictor and Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
• CRA Evaluation: Analysis of the potential corrosion rate of carbon steel under the given conditions,
together with an evaluation of the risk of failure of carbon steel based on the estimated corrosion rate
and given tubing/flowline wall thickness is completed using Tubing CRA Evaluator and Flowline CRA
Evaluator.
• Life Cycle Evaluation: Evaluation of the suitability of various CRA's for the given conditions; selecting
those that will not fail by either localized or general corrosion, or by cracking is completed using Tubing
Life Cycle Calculator and Flowline Life Cycle Calculator.
• Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Evaluation: Use either the Tubing CRA Manufacturers or the Flowline CRA
Manufacturers database to check on the possible sources of the selected CRA.

What's New in ECE
ECE 5.4 contains the following new features.
• Erosion Tool: a calculation tool for estimating particle erosion is provided in the downhole Tubing
module
• Data Table output: raw data from the corrosion calculation can be output as an Excel table showing
values as a function of distance or depth, in addition to the existing graphical and tabular report
formats. This applies to both Flowline and Tubing modules.
• The Bulk Calculation function introduced in ECE 5.3 has been extended to allow inputs of API gravity,
acetic acid content and chemical inhibition information. This applies to both Flowline and Tubing
modules.
• Corrosion resistant alloy selection tools now allow input of organic acid content for calculation of the pH
used in the selection rules.
• Licence Implementation has been improved. Reactivation of the ECE Licence is required to use ECE 5.4.
• ECE installer will install the required .NET Framework version if necessary, removing the need for User
to install it separately.
• Earlier Features and Enhancements included in ECE 5.4
• Improved installation - Upgrade quicker and easier than ever!
• Enhanced Help File with Technical Background and References.
• Hyper-linked index page for quick access to subject matter.
• Launch from within ECE® and viewable side by side. No having to jump between windows.
• Context sensitive topics can be accessed directly from ECE®.
• Improved Corrosion Predictor Reports; Summary and Full Report Options
• Chloride & Corrosion Pitting rating now reported.
• 6Mo super-austenitic stainless steel added to Flowlines Alloy Evaluator. View the suitability of this material
based on ECE® and ISO 15156-3 rules.
• Increased Chloride range in the CRA Evaluator tools.
• H2S can now be entered in ‘ppm’ making it much simpler to input smaller H2S levels.
• Improved usability of input ranges. ECE® responds more intuitively to values entered outside of selected
ranges.
• Increased number of calculation points depending on flowline length gives greater precision for pipelines above
1 km length.
• Acetic Acid input is available in CRA selection tools for a more accurate pH calculation.
• Corrosion rate graph now available in ‘mil per year’ version.
• An exciting new Bulk Calculation function in the Flowlines module.
• Save time by uploading calculations for multiple streams via a validated spreadsheet.
• Export results straight back to spreadsheet format.
• The allowable range of values of C value for calculating Erosional Velocity as per API RP 14E has been
extended.
• Input for dissolved NaCl in the corrosion predictor tools; model calculates the impact on pH and on corrosion
rate.
• With H2S present, a qualitative ranking of the risk of film breakdown and pitting corrosion is provided.
• New graphs available for flowlines to display pipeline elevation, heat transfer factors and flow pattern.
• Corrosion-rate prediction for sweet and sour service conditions based on the fundamental chemistry of the
solubility of the corrosion products.

• Corrosion evaluation incorporates critical factors such as oil API gravity, water cut, flow rates and angle of flow.
• Calculated outputs for multiple positions along a flowline or up a tubing string.
• Instant output updates, for example, corrosion-rate profiles, with changes in input parameters.
• Carbon steel failure risk evaluation considering both generalised and pitting corrosion risks.
• Quantitative evaluation of corrosion-resistant-alloy suitability for a matrix of conditions that covers

temperature, partial pressure of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, chloride content and pH.
• Life cycle cost analysis that takes into account fabrication speed, pipe-laying method and means of corrosion
control.
The following features have been discontinued in version 5.4

• Import of ECE 4.x files
• Licence Transfer Wizard
Version Compatibility
The latest version of ECE 5.x is compatible with previous versions. The Project Files created in previous version
of ECE are supported in the latest version.
• Import of ECE 4.x files has been removed in ECE 5.4.
• Licence Transfer Wizard has been removed in ECE 5.4.
• Reactivation of your ECE Licence is required to use ECE Professional Edition 5.4 and above.
• You cannot upgrade from ECE version 5.2.2 or earlier to ECE version 5.4 or later. In this case, you must
install ECE. ECE version 5.2.2 or earlier will not be removed and must be removed manually using
Microsoft Windows Programs and Features.
Support and Maintenance

The ECE Development Team provides support and maintenance to users with a current licence, including the
following:
• Support and advice on installation and how to use ECE.
• How to use the model.
• Advice on corrosion engineering issues related to the corrosion model, how best to use the ECE models
for specific situations.
• Critical Bug Fixes.
• A schedule of new ECE releases with maintenance and enhancement upgrades.

• If you have a query related to a particular set of data or situation, email a copy of the ECE datafile
(*.ecx) or the original data to the ECE Development Team along with your query.
Feedback and Suggestions

We welcome feedback, comments, and suggestions on any aspect of the ECE. The feedback we receive from
users is vital for the future development of the software. Send your feedback to the ECE Development Team.

Using ECE
Using ECE
• Starting to use ECE: When ECE first starts, the ECE Splash Screen is briefly displayed before ECE opens
with the New Project dialog displayed.
• Project Tools: The Project Tools are accessed via the File menu, which is used to manage each
Corrosion Prediction Project. Includes Saving and Retrieving Files.
• Corrosion Prediction Tools: The Corrosion Prediction Tools can be opened from the Tools menu. The
Tools menu will be prefixed with either Tubing or Flowline depending upon the Corrosion Prediction
Project selected.
• Corrosion Prediction Graphs: The Corrosion Prediction Graphs; Corrosion Rate Graph, Risk Analysis
Graph, pH Graph, Water Flow Rate Graph, Water Cut Graph, Liquid HoldUp, Liquid Velocity, Gas
Velocity, Pressure, and Temperature can be displayed in the Corrosion Prediction Project.
• Life Cycle Prediction Graphs: The Life Cycle Prediction Graphs; Net Present Value Bar Chart and Capital
Bar Chart can be displayed in the Life Cycle Calculation.
• Reporting and Printing: Results (Reports or Images/Graphs) produced by ECE may be printed, saved or
exported to other software.
• ECE Help: The Help menu in ECE is used to access the ECE Help File and associated topics.

Hardware and Software Requirements
The Hardware and Software Requirements for ECE are listed below:
Operating Systems Supported:
Professional Edition/Enterprise Edition Client

• Microsoft Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit)
Enterprise Edition Server
• Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 – all versions.
• Microsoft Windows Server 2012 – all versions.
Minimum Software Requirements:
Microsoft .NET Framework 4.5.2 or above is required by ECE 5.x.
Edition.Minimum Hardware Requirements:
Professional Edition/Enterprise Edition Client

• 1.5 GHz for Microsoft Windows 7
• 1 GB of RAM for Microsoft Windows 7
• 40 MB of available hard disk space
• Graphics card capable of a minimum resolution of 1024 x 768
Enterprise Edition Server
• 1.5 GHz CPU
• 512MB of RAM
• 40 MB of available hard disk space on a physical server
• Graphics card capable of a minimum resolution of 1024 x 768

Starting to use ECE
When ECE first starts, the ECE Splash Screen is briefly displayed before ECE opens with the New Project window
displayed.
• Terms of Use: The ECE Disclaimer is displayed when ECE first starts. Click Accept and Hide Terms to
hide the Disclaimer. ECE will confirm that hiding the Terms of Use panel constitutes an acceptance of
the Disclaimer and Copyright terms. Click OK to continue.
• Show Terms: Once the Terms of Use have been accepted, click Show Terms to display the Disclaimer at
any time.
• Display this Window at Start-Up: Select to display the New Project window each time ECE is started.
Clear this option to start ECE without the New Project window displayed.
• Create a new Tubing Project: Opens the Tubing Corrosion Predictor, select to create a new Tubing
Corrosion Project.
• Create a new Flowline Project: Opens the Flowline Corrosion Predictor, select to create a new Flowline
Corrosion Project.
• Close Project: Select to close the New Project dialog. To reopen the New Project dialog, open the File
menu and select New Project.
Saving and Retrieving Files
Saving and Retrieving Files
The data inputs to the ECE tools can be saved for reference as a Project File. A Project File contains a full set of
input values for the six ECE Tools. These Project data files have the file extension .ecx. Output data values are
not saved in the Project data files, but are recalculated when the Project file is reopened.
To save a Project, select Save Project from the File menu. Enter a file location and file name. Subsequently, the
Project can be saved with the File, Save project command or the Save Project icon.
The file can be saved in an appropriate directory with a name of choice; it is recommended to keep data files
separate from ECE files.
Project Files can be opened by selecting Open Project from the File menu, or select from the list of recently
opened projects shown on the File menu. The selected project file will automatically replace all the input data in
all the tools.
A list of recently opened Projects is shown at menu item File-Recent Projects.

Reporting and Printing
Results (Reports or Images/Graphs) produced by ECE may be printed, saved or exported to other software.
• Reports: Output data from the Corrosion Prediction, CRA Selection and Life Cycle Costing tools can be
printed, saved or exported in the form of Reports. To produce a Report select File, Tubing or Flowline
Corrosion Predictor Report (or Tubing or Flowline Life Cycle Calculator Report) from the menu bar. Two
formats of Report., “full” and “summary” are available for the Corrosion Predictor Tools. The Report is
displayed in a new window.
• Saving to an External File: The Reports may also be saved as Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word or PDF
format files, selected from the drop down list on the save icon in the report window. The Report can
also be opened directly in Microsoft Excel using the icon towards the bottom left of the Report window.
• Data Table: raw data from the Corrosion and Erosion Predictors can be output as an Microsoft Excel
table, showing the individual values for each step of the corrosion (or erosion) calculation. To produce a
Data Table, select File, Tubing (or Flowline) Corrosion Predictor Report - Data Table from the menu
bar.
• Printing: Printing is selected by the print icon in the Report window.
• Graphs: Any graphs displayed on the right-hand side of the Corrosion Predictor tools and the LCC tools
may be copied, printed, or saved using the icons at the top of the graph. Graphs may be saved in emf,
jpg, tiff, BMP, png and gif formats. Copied graphs may be pasted directly into other documents.
Menus
ECE has the following menus available.
• File: Used to manage each Corrosion Prediction Project, providing options such as New Project, Open
Project and Save Project. Reports and Data Tables are accessed here. Some Project options are also
available on the toolbar.
• Tools: Access the Corrosion Prediction Tools, Erosion Prediction Tools, CRA Calculation, Manufacturers
and Life Cycle Calculations which can be opened in addition to the Corrosion Prediction Project and can
be selected from the Tools menu or from the toolbar.
• Windows: All open tools and projects can be selected from the Windows menu. The available tools will
be dependent upon the selected Corrosion Prediction Project Window and will be either Tubing or
Flowline. Windows may also be re-sized by dragging the edges of the window to create a custom size.
When a Window is minimised, it will reduce to the bottom left corner of the work space. From here the
window can be moved around and maximised from anywhere in the work space.
• Help: The Help menu provides access to all help and licence related options.
• Multiple Instances of ECE: Multiple instances of ECE can be opened simultaneously. This can be useful
for comparing two or more different sets of data side-by-side. If you have multiple projects open, click
Next from the Window menu to toggle through all open projects. Alternatively using the keyboard
shortcut Ctrl+F6 to toggle through all open projects.
Get Help
The Get Help menu displays all available help in the following formats:
• Index: Opens the ECE Help file with the Index tab displayed.
• Contents: Opens the ECE Help file with the Contents tab displayed.
• Manufacturers: When a Tubing Corrosion Prediction Project is open, displays the Tubing Manufacturers
help page.
• Flowline Corrosion Predictor: When a Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project is open, displays the Flowline
Corrosion Predictor help.

• Project Window: When a Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project is open, displays the Using ECE help.
• Upgrade Licence: Opens the Registration dialog where Upgrade Registration Keys can be entered and
ECE Registration can be completed.
• About: Displays the ECE Splash Screen containing product information, for example, ECE Edition and
Version Number.
Project File Tools

The File menu is used to manage each Corrosion Prediction Project which can be saved for reference as a
Project File. A Project File contains a full set of input values for the six ECE Tools contained within each
Corrosion Prediction Project. ECE Project data files have the file extension *.ecx. On selecting a new project,
the relevant Corrosion Predictor will open. Output data values are not saved in the Project file but are
recalculated when the Project file is reopened. It is recommended to keep data files separate from ECE files.
The following options are available in the File menu.
• New Project: Opens the New Project dialog where you can select either a New Tubing Project or a new
Flowline Project.
• Open Project: Opens the Open ECE Project dialog where you can browse to and select a previously
saved Corrosion Prediction Project. Alternatively, you can select the Open Project button on the toolbar
to open the selected project.
• Save Project: Opens the Save ECE Project dialog where you can browse to a required location and save
the selected Corrosion Prediction Project. This option is only available if a Corrosion Prediction project is
open. Alternatively, you can select the Save Project button on the toolbar to save the selected project.
• Save Project As: Save Project: Opens the Save ECE Project dialog where you can browse to an
appropriate directory and save the selected Corrosion Prediction Project with a different name. This
option is only available if a Corrosion Prediction project is open.
• Corrosion Prediction Report: Displays the Corrosion Prediction Report for the selected Corrosion
Prediction Project and will either display Tubing or Flowline Corrosion Prediction Report. The Report is
displayed in a new window and can be printed or saved to Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word or Adobe
PDF. Data Tables are also accessed here.
• Close Project: Closes the select Project. Where there are unsaved changes, ECE will prompt you to
confirm that you want to save the changes before closing. Alternatively, you can select the Close
Project button on the toolbar to close the selected project.
• Recent Projects: A list of recently opened Projects is shown at menu item File-Recent Projects.
• Exit: Closes ECE.
ECE Tools
ECE provides a number of invaluable tools for corrosion analysis and material selection; enabling Corrosion Rate
Prediction, Risk Prediction, Corrosion Resistant Alloy Evaluation and Life Cycle Cost Calculation.
• Corrosion Rate Prediction: Predict Corrosion Rates for carbon steel in sweet and sour conditions that
consider different options for corrosion control. Particle erosion can also be predicted in the Tubing
module.
• Risk Prediction: Tools that evaluate the risk of carbon steel failure
• Corrosion-Resistant Alloy Evaluation: Corrosion-resistant alloy evaluators that select the most suitable
alloys for the specified environmental conditions and automatically take into account the risks of
corrosion, pitting and stress-corrosion cracking
• Life Cycle Cost Calculation: Life cycle cost calculators that evaluate the economics of carbon steel and
corrosion-resistant-alloys option based on net present value, so that material cost comparisons can be
made

• ECE Database: The ECE Database contains alloy-tubing and pipe manufacturer details.
Data Security
ECE Data Security is outlined below:
• All data used and created by the ECE software is stored locally on the User’s system. No data is
transferred outside the User’s system. We have no access to, and no knowledge of, the data or
metadata that is input or created by User.
• There is no communication by the ECE software outside the User’s computer systems at any time. This
includes the licencing process which is manual (Keys are transferred by email, User enters them
manually). There is no communication for diagnostics or event logging.
• The software does not require access to internet to operate or to be licenced.
• Updates are installed only by the User downloading an update and installing it manually. There is no
automatic update mechanism.
• Licence expiry does not involve communication to or from our systems.
Corrosion Prediction Tools

The Corrosion Prediction Tools can be opened from the Tools menu which will be prefixed with either Tubing or
Flowline depending upon the project selected.
• Corrosion Predictor: Opens the current Corrosion Prediction Project window, either Flowline or Tubing
dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project selected.
• CRA Evaluator: Opens the Alloy Evaluator for the current Corrosion Prediction Project, either Flowline or
Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project selected.
• CRA Manufacturers: Opens the Manufacturers for the current Corrosion Prediction Project, either
Flowline or Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project selected.
• Life Cycle Cost Calculation: Opens the Life Cycle Cost Calculator for the current Corrosion Prediction
Project, either Flowline or Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project selected.
Corrosion Prediction Graphs

The Corrosion Prediction Graphs can be displayed in the Corrosion Prediction Project.
• Corrosion Rate Graph: The Corrosion Rate graph is displayed by default on the Corrosion Rate tab when
the Corrosion Prediction Project is opened. The Corrosion Rate Graph displays the Corrosion Rate
(mm/year) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project.
• Risk Analysis Graph: The Risk Graph is displayed on the Risk Analysis tab of the Corrosion Prediction
Project. The Risk Analysis Graph displays Risk of Failure (%) over Time (year).
• pH Graph: The pH graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and
displays the pH value over Tubing Length (ft). This Graph cannot be zoomed.
• Water Flow Rate Graph: The Water Flow Rate graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion
Prediction Project and displays the Water Rate (m3/d) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a
Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project.
• Water Cut Graph: The Water Cut graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Water Cut (%) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline
Corrosion Prediction Project.
• Liquid HoldUp: The Liquid HoldUp graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Liquid HoldUp (% cross section) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a

• Liquid Velocity: The Liquid Velocity graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Liquid Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline
• Gas Velocity: The Gas Velocity graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project
and displays the Gas Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion
Prediction Project.
• Pressure: The Pressure graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and
displays the Pressure (bar) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion Prediction
Project.
• Temperature: The Temperature graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Temperature (°C) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline
Life Cycle Prediction Graphs

The Life Cycle Cost Bar Charts can be displayed in the Life Cycle Cost Calculator.
• Net Present Value Bar Chart: Available in the Life Cycle Calculator and displays the Net Present Value
over Time for Carbon Steel, CRA and Carbon Steel/Continuous Inhibition. This chart is available for both
Tubing and Flowline Life Cycle Cost Calculation. This chart cannot be zoomed.
• Capital Bar Chart: Available in the Life Cycle Calculator and displays the Material Cost and Construction
Cost values. This chart is only available when a Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project is selected. This
chart cannot be zoomed.
• Tooltip: The actual point values associated with the graph line are displayed in a tooltip when the cursor
is held over that part of the graph line in the format (x-axis, y-axis). When H2S is present, the risk of
pitting corrosion is displayed within the tooltip for the "isolated pitting" line on the main Corrosion Rate
Graph. This is accessed by holding the cursor over the isolated pitting line. Graphs may be saved in
emf, jpg, tiff, BMP, png and gif formats. Copied graphs may be pasted directly into other documents.
• Zoom: It is possible to zoom into areas on most graphs using the mouse cursor. The selected area is
indicated by red lines and darker shading. You cannot use Zoom for the pH Graph, the Net Present
Value Graph or the Capital Graph.
• Actions: Any graphs displayed on the right-hand side of the Corrosion Prediction Project and the LCC
tools may be copied, printed, or saved using the icons at the top of the graph. Graphs may be saved in
emf, jpg, tiff, BMP, png and gif formats. Copied graphs may be pasted directly into other documents.

ECE Tools
ECE Tools
ECE provides a number of invaluable tools for corrosion analysis and material selection; enabling Corrosion Rate
Prediction, Risk Prediction, Corrosion Resistant Alloy Evaluation and Life Cycle Cost Calculation.
• Corrosion Rate Prediction: Predict Corrosion Rates for carbon steel in sweet and sour conditions that
consider different options for corrosion control. Particle erosion can also be predicted in the Tubing
module.
• Risk Prediction: Tools that evaluate the risk of carbon steel failure
• Corrosion-Resistant Alloy Evaluation: Corrosion-resistant alloy evaluators that select the most suitable
alloys for the specified environmental conditions and automatically take into account the risks of
corrosion, pitting and stress-corrosion cracking
• Life Cycle Cost Calculation: Life cycle cost calculators that evaluate the economics of carbon steel and
corrosion-resistant-alloys option based on net present value, so that material cost comparisons can be
made
• ECE Database: The ECE Database contains alloy-tubing and pipe manufacturer details.
Project File Tools

The File menu is used to manage each Corrosion Prediction Project which can be saved for reference as a
Project File. A Project File contains a full set of input values for the six ECE Tools contained within each
Corrosion Prediction Project. ECE Project data files have the file extension *.ecx. On selecting a new project,
the relevant Corrosion Predictor will open. Output data values are not saved in the Project file but are
recalculated when the Project file is reopened. It is recommended to keep data files separate from ECE files.
The following options are available in the File menu.
• New Project: Opens the New Project dialog where you can select either a New Tubing Project or a new
Flowline Project.
• Open Project: Opens the Open ECE Project dialog where you can browse to and select a previously
saved Corrosion Prediction Project. Alternatively, you can select the Open Project button on the toolbar
to open the selected project.
• Save Project: Opens the Save ECE Project dialog where you can browse to a required location and save
the selected Corrosion Prediction Project. This option is only available if a Corrosion Prediction project is
open. Alternatively, you can select the Save Project button on the toolbar to save the selected project.
• Save Project As: Save Project: Opens the Save ECE Project dialog where you can browse to an
appropriate directory and save the selected Corrosion Prediction Project with a different name. This
option is only available if a Corrosion Prediction project is open.
• Corrosion Prediction Report: Displays the Corrosion Prediction Report for the selected Corrosion
Prediction Project and will either display Tubing or Flowline Corrosion Prediction Report. The Report is
displayed in a new window and can be printed or saved to Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word or Adobe
PDF. Data Tables are also accessed here.
• Close Project: Closes the select Project. Where there are unsaved changes, ECE will prompt you to
confirm that you want to save the changes before closing. Alternatively, you can select the Close
Project button on the toolbar to close the selected project.
• Recent Projects: A list of recently opened Projects is shown at menu item File-Recent Projects.
• Exit: Closes ECE.

Corrosion Prediction Tools
The Corrosion Prediction Tools can be opened from the Tools menu which will be prefixed with either Tubing or
Flowline depending upon the project selected.
• Corrosion Predictor: Opens the current Corrosion Prediction Project window, either Flowline or Tubing
dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project selected.
• CRA Evaluator: Opens the Alloy Evaluator for the current Corrosion Prediction Project, either Flowline or
Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project selected.
• CRA Manufacturers: Opens the Manufacturers for the current Corrosion Prediction Project, either
Flowline or Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project selected.
• Life Cycle Cost Calculation: Opens the Life Cycle Cost Calculator for the current Corrosion Prediction
Project, either Flowline or Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project selected.
Corrosion Prediction Graphs

The Corrosion Prediction Graphs can be displayed in the Corrosion Prediction Project.
• Corrosion Rate Graph: The Corrosion Rate graph is displayed by default on the Corrosion Rate tab when
the Corrosion Prediction Project is opened. The Corrosion Rate Graph displays the Corrosion Rate
(mm/year) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project.
• Risk Analysis Graph: The Risk Graph is displayed on the Risk Analysis tab of the Corrosion Prediction
Project. The Risk Analysis Graph displays Risk of Failure (%) over Time (year).
• pH Graph: The pH graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and
displays the pH value over Tubing Length (ft). This Graph cannot be zoomed.
• Water Flow Rate Graph: The Water Flow Rate graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion
Prediction Project and displays the Water Rate (m3/d) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a
• Water Cut Graph: The Water Cut graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Water Cut (%) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline
• Liquid HoldUp: The Liquid HoldUp graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Liquid HoldUp (% cross section) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a
• Liquid Velocity: The Liquid Velocity graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Liquid Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline
• Gas Velocity: The Gas Velocity graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project
and displays the Gas Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion
Prediction Project.
• Pressure: The Pressure graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and
displays the Pressure (bar) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion Prediction
Project.
• Temperature: The Temperature graph can be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Temperature (°C) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline

Tubing Corrosion Prediction
Tubing Corrosion Prediction Tools
The Tubing Corrosion Prediction Tools available in ECE are:
• Tubing Corrosion Predictor: Used to predict the internal corrosion rate of carbon steel downhole tubing.
The corrosion model estimates the corrosion caused by the presence of water with dissolved CO , which
2
is modified by the presence of other chemicals like H S and carbonate/bicarbonate salts. The
2
background to the model is described in Corrosion Model Background.

• Tubing Erosion Predictor: Used to predict the internal erosion rate of carbon steel downhole tubing due
to solid particles, side by side with the corrosion model prediction. The background to the model is
described in Corrosion Model Background.
• Tubing CRA Evaluator:Used to evaluate Tubing Conditions against technical acceptability. There are two
alternative evaluation schemes; evaluation based on ISO 15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 and
evaluation based on selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE Rules).
• Tubing Life Cycle Calculator: Used to make an economic comparison of various corrosion control options
for tubing, Carbon Steel, Corrosion Resistant Alloy, Carbon Steel with Continuous Inhibition or Carbon
Steel with Squeeze Inhibition.
• Tubing CRA Manufacturers: Used to select Tubing CRA Manufacturers from a database of CRA pipe
suppliers (refers to primary international manufacturers).
Tubing CRA Manufacturers

The Tubing CRA Manufacturers can be selected from a database of CRA pipe suppliers (refers to primary
international manufacturers). Details of stockists are not included. The list of manufacturers, materials and
sizes offered is based on publicly available information and believed to be correct at the release date of the
software or latest upgrade. Wood Group do not endorse suppliers included in the listings or imply any criticism
if a supplier is omitted from the listings.
• From the Tubing Tools menu, select CRA Manufacturers.

• Select an alloy from the left-hand list by clicking with the left mouse button.
• Select a pipe diameter to display the list of companies making pipe in that alloy and diameter.
• Select the required supplier to display the contact details for the selected supplier.

Tubing Corrosion Predictor
Tubing Corrosion Predictor Overview
The Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to predict the internal corrosion rate of carbon steel downhole tubing.
The corrosion model estimates the corrosion caused by the presence of water with dissolved CO , which is
2
modified by the presence of other chemicals like H S and carbonate/bicarbonate salts. The background to the
2
model is described in Corrosion Model Background.
• Data Input: Input Values are added to the Tubing Corrosion Predictor using the tabs; Project,
Conditions, Throughput, Deviation Angles, Advanced and Steel. Enter the required values to display the
Output Results.
• Project: Used to input Project specific information. The Title and Details fields allow entry of a
description and identifying information for the current Project. This information is saved with other data
and exported with Project outputs.
• Conditions: Used to input Temperatures, Pressure, Gas Composition and Water Chemistry.
• Throughputs: Used to input Throughput information.
• Deviation Angles: Used to input Deviation Angles.
• Steel: Used to input Tubing parameters. Tapered Tubing Settings can be defined here.
• Advanced: Used to input Inhibition, Dissolved Fe at inlet and Erosional Velocity of Gas information.
• Data Output: Output Results are displayed in the tabs; Corrosion Rate, Risk Analysis, All Graphs and
Details. The Output Results can also be exported as text Reports and graphs can be copied, saved or
printed.
• Corrosion Rate Graph: Displays a graph of the corrosion rate as a function of depth in the tubing.
• Risk Analysis: Displays a graph of accumulated risk of failure vs. time.
• All Graphs: Used to select parameters to be displayed in the graph over Tubing Length (ft).

• Details: Used to view Output Details for the selected Tubing Corrosion Prediction Project.
Tubing Corrosion Predictor Report
The Tubing Corrosion Predictor Report option is used to display the Tubing Corrosion Prediction Results as
either a Full Report, Summary Report or as a Data Table.
• With the Tubing Corrosion Predictor open, select File, Tubing Corrosion Prediction Report to display the
shortcut menu.
• Select the required option, Full, Summary or Data Table.
• Full Report: Displays the Tubing Corrosion Prediction as a Full Report. Click Export to Excel to open
Microsoft Excel with the Full Report displayed.
• Summary Report: Displays the Tubing Corrosion Prediction as a Summary Report. Click Export to Excel
to open Microsoft Excel with the Summary Report displayed.

• Data Table: Displays the Tubing Corrosion Prediction in Microsoft Excel as a Data Table.
Data Input
The Tubing Corrosion Predictor requires the input of various operational parameters. If the conditions for a
project are outside the allowed ranges then you may still utilise the Tubing CRA Evaluator for material
selection. Enter the required values to display the Output Results. Input values can be entered in metric or

customary engineering units, or a mixture of units. ECE automatically converts and displays the equivalent
values as you enter the data. If required a Range can be specified using the Ranges button.
• Project: Input of identification details for the Project.
• Conditions: Input of temperature, pressure, gas composition and water bicarbonate content.
• Throughput: Input of oil, gas and water production rates, density of crude oil, liquid hold up and
optional variation in water cut at constant total liquid velocity.
• Deviation Angles: Input of tubing angle from vertical for deviated wells.
• Advanced: Input of parameters related to inhibition, selection of non-saturated or supersaturated iron
content and total acetic acid.
• Steel: Input of tubing dimensions (with option for tapered tubing), type of steel and carbon and (for
normalised steel only) chromium content.
Data Output
Output Results are displayed in the tabs; Corrosion Rate, Risk Analysis, All Graphs and Details. The Output
Results can also be exported as text Reports and graphs can be copied, saved or printed.
• Corrosion Rate: Graphic representation of corrosion rate vs measured depth of the tubing.
• Risk Analysis: Risk of failure of tubing as a function of time indicating the risk for upper and lower
sections of tapered tubing.
• All Graphs: Graphs for pH, water flow rate, water cut, liquid hold up, liquid velocity, gas velocity,
temperature and pressure vs distance along the tubing. Click pH to display graphs.
• Details: Additional information including fluid velocities, composition data, expected flow pattern and
sour service requirements.
Project
Project
The Project tab on the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to input Project specific information. The Title and
Details fields allow entry of a description and identifying information for the current Project. This information is
saved with other data and exported with Project outputs.

Conditions
The Conditions tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to input Temperatures, Pressure, Gas Composition
and Water Chemistry.

• Temperatures: Temperatures at wellhead and at bottom hole are entered directly into text boxes (as °C
or °F) or by the sliders.
• Pressure: Pressure at the wellhead and at bottom hole are entered directly into text boxes (as bar or
psi) or by the sliders. Pressures are absolute pressures, not gauge pressures.
• It should be noted that a change in flow rates (see below) should be accompanied by a change of the
pressure and temperature gradient. This is NOT done automatically, and you are responsible for making
sure that all parameters are in reasonable agreement with each other. The mole percent of acid gases
CO and H S are entered directly into text boxes or by the sliders. The range buttons on the right-hand
2 2
side of the sliders allow selection of appropriate composition ranges. The software does not allow entry
of CO and H S beyond certain limiting partial pressures (mol% x total pressure).
2 2
• ECE assumes that the fluid bubble point coincides with the bottom of the tubing. Fluid bubble point is
sensitive to the composition of the well fluids and estimates of bubble point require full fluid
composition data which is often not available, or not of the necessary accuracy. In many cases, it is
reasonable to assume the bubble-point is at the formation depth: when a well is flowing there is
typically a significant pressure drop in the tubing (bottom hole flowing pressure is less than bottom hole
static pressure). This will generally be a conservative assumption as it leads to the calculated dissolved
CO2 and H2S values in the lower part of the well being higher than if the bubble point were further up
the tubing.
• Water Chemistry: The bicarbonate level influences the pH, which can be observed on the output pages.
The unit here is mg/l of HCO3- ions. It relates to the bicarbonate present, as soluble salts of any kind,
for example, sodium, potassium, iron, after any dissolved gases are flashed off.
• Acetic Acid: Enter the total Acetic Acid value in parts per million by weight (ppmw).
• Sodium Chloride: Affects hydrogen activity, solubility of acid gases and the Risk Ranking for sour
pitting. Other neutral salts can be treated as if NaCl; the Total Dissolved Solids value can be entered
here.
• Organic Acid: Concentration can be entered with the text box or using the slider. Entry is as ppmw
(mg/l) of total dissolved acetic acid (both associated and non-dissociated). Other similar organic acids
(for example. formic) can be treated as equivalent to acetic acid and added to the input value. Since
this type of information is relatively rare, the default setting is zero.
Throughput
The Throughput tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to input Throughput information.
• Flow rates: Flow rates for oil or gas condensate, gas and water are entered directly or using the slider
bars, and the ranges can be changed using the Range buttons on the right-hand end of the sliders. All
values are expressed in standard units, so are in effect mass flow rates. The values for oil / condensate,
water and gas relate to the amounts at the wellhead, for example as measured at a test separator.
• Water Flowrate: The data input for water flow rate relates to wellhead conditions. When water
condensation occurs, the water rate and water cut may vary up the tubing, and this is calculated
automatically by ECE. The Details page displays the calculated water flow rate at bottom hole and the
Watercut at the wellhead, and the Water Flow Rate and Watercut graphs display the water rate and
water cut through the well. A minimum water rate of 0.001 m /d is applied throughout the depth of the
3
well, even if the underlying water condensation calculation predicts zero free water along some length.
• Hydrocarbon Density: The hydrocarbon density is entered with the API Gravity text box or slider. A high
API gravity of 50 corresponds to a light gas condensate oil. A low API density corresponds to a very
heavy crude. Conversion to specific gravity (density) g/cm3 @60degF is given (note that the density is
very temperature dependent). The SG and API gravity inputs, and the conversion within ECE are for
standard conditions of both temperature and pressure. The API gravity setting influences the effect of
the water cut on corrosion rates by altering the ability of the oil to entrain water. Values of API gravity
above 50 have no further impact on the corrosion model, so for very light oils / condensates with API
gravity greater than 50, you should input 50.

• Liquid HoldUp Change: The liquid hold up (fraction of cross-section occupied by liquids) is shown in the
Liquid Holdup Graph, and the maximum and minimum values shown above that graph. Liquid hold up
change provides a means to manually alter the liquid hold up from the values calculated by ECE.
Holdup: Percentage of the cross-section of a pipe filled with liquid, the remainder being taken up by gas.
• When the liquid hold up change is set at 0% change the velocities of liquid and gas are the same. The
default setting of 2% change in ECE means the gas is flowing slightly faster than the liquid. This is the
normal situation, as the higher drag on the liquid will cause a lower liquid velocity and an increase in
liquid hold up (the hold up change is greater than zero). This, in turn, will increase the gas flow velocity
and will tend to lower the corrosion rate. These velocities can be seen on the details tab for the
wellhead or on the graphs of gas and liquid velocities.
• When input flow rates of liquids and gas are changed, the absolute value of hold up of course changes.
The Liquid Holdup Change setting is maintained, however, which means that the hold up is always
adjusted to the same percentage above the minimum possible.
• In nearly all situations, we recommend that you leave liquid hold up change at the default value.
• One situation where it may be useful to alter the liquid hold up change from the default is where values
for the hold up are available from other sources (either modelling or field measurement). The maximum
that the liquid hold up change can be modified is up to 50% of the available range (from the minimum
hold up (gas and liquid velocity equal) up to 100% hold up). In practical situations, the realistic range
of liquid hold up change is normally much more restricted, probably no more than 5-10%.
• Watercut: When all the production flow rate values have been entered, the water cut at the bottom of
the tubing will be shown by the Watercut (at bottom) value at the bottom of the Throughput page.
When the inputs for oil or water flow rate are changed, the water cut changes accordingly. This box and
slider may also be altered to investigate the effect of adjusting the water cut at constant total liquid
velocity. This can be useful when the water cut is not known or likely to change, by showing the
sensitivity to this parameter, without changing the liquid velocity at the same time.
Watercut: Percentage of water in total liquid (crude oil/condensate plus water).
Deviation Angles
The Deviation Angles tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to input Deviation Angles. The deviation is
the angle of the tubing to the vertical, an angle of zero corresponds to perfectly vertical tubing. The angle of
deviation influences the corrosion rate because of the effect on the water distribution onto the tubing wall. A
higher deviation often results in a higher corrosion rate. The effect is more noticeable at lower water contents
but may be negligible for wells with a high water cut because water wetting is then continuous.

The modelling of flow regime and tubing deviation effects in ECE has been developed with the benefit of real-
life corrosion experience from many production wells. It should be noted that the treatment of flow regimes
within ECE for tubing is different than for flowlines and so a horizontal tubing will not necessarily give an
identical output to the ECE Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
• All Angles Equal: All deviations can be set to the same value by clicking the box All angles equal, and
using the vertical slider at the right of the page to set the deviation angle.
• Position Deviation Angles: Deviation angles at positions down the well are entered using the slider bars
or the up/down arrows on the text boxes. The deviation information can be taken from the well
deviation survey, if that information is known. Otherwise the angle of the well at full depth can be
entered and a suitable profile judged to the surface.
Steel
The Steel tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to input Tubing parameters.

• Entire Well: The default setting is for one production tubing size through the whole well from wellhead
to bottom hole. In this case, the measured depth of the tubing and the tubing outside diameter and
total wall thickness are entered under the heading Dimensions.
• Tapered Tubing: A well completion with two tubing sizes can also be modelled. To do this, select
Tapered Tubing. Additional data entry fields now become available under the heading lower tubing
dimensions. The measured depth from wellhead to the bottom of the upper tubing section along with
the upper tubing dimensions are entered in the upper box under the heading Upper tubing section
dimensions as before. The total measured depth of the well (i.e. the measured depth from the wellhead
to the bottom of the lower tubing section) are entered under lower tubing section dimensions.
• Quenched and Tempered: Chromium content (up to 1.2% max., according to API 5CT) of the carbon
steel is entered for quenched and tempered tubing. If normalised steel is selected then the carbon
content can also be entered (up to 0.50%max.). The chemical composition of the steel has a slight
influence on the predicted CO corrosion rate.
2
Advanced
The Advanced tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to input Inhibition, Dissolved Fe at inlet and
Erosional Velocity of Gas information.

• Inhibition: There are three options for inhibition: none (the default), continuous or squeeze. Continuous
inhibition is modelled using the common accepted efficiency – availability model to determine the mean
corrosion rate with inhibition treatment. The efficiency and availability inputs both have maximum
values of 99%.
• For squeeze inhibition, the squeeze frequency is entered. The inhibition effect inside the tubing is then
built up in about one month, and then reduces slowly in about 2 months. The corrosion model adds the
effect of repeated squeezes for the calculation of the average corrosion rate per year.
• Dissolved Fe at Inlet: Dissolved Fe at inlet (i.e. bottom hole) relates to the dissolved iron concentration
in the water at the inlet, which may be low in Fe, or may be supersaturated with iron carbonate. There
are two options. The default setting is supersaturated.
• Erosional Velocity of Gas: The value of the C-Constant used in calculation of the Erosion Velocity can be
changed from the default values of =100 lbs/ft)^0.5/s or c=122 (kg/m)^0.5/s. This allows you to work
with different C-values or erosional velocity limits depending upon different User's policies. See "Erosion
-Corrosion" for more details.
Corrosion Rate Graph
The Corrosion Rate Graph displays a graph of the corrosion rate as a function of depth in the tubing. When H S 2
is present, an additional line indicates the potential pitting corrosion rate that applies if the protective sulphide
scale breaks down. The Pitting Risk Rank is displayed as a tooltip when the cursor is positioned over the
isolated pitting line. (the Pitting Risk Rank is also included in the Corrosion Predictor Report, see Reporting) The
mouse can be used to select and zoom in on areas of the graph. Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see
Reporting and Printing for details.

Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis
The Risk Analysis tab displays a graph of accumulated risk of failure vs. time. For its construction, it is assumed
that the calculated corrosion rates have a normal distribution with a standard deviation of 25% (see Risk of
Failure for details). In the presence of H S, the arbitrary assumption has been made that there is a 25% risk
2
that the protective sulphide layer fails.

When the tapered tubing option is selected in the input pages, then risk curves can be chosen for the upper,
lower or for both tubing sections using the buttons at the top of the risk graph. The risk graphs are calculated
using the maximum corrosion rate for the appropriate tubing section (upper or lower).
All Graphs
The All Graphs tab is used to select parameters to be displayed in the graph over Tubing Length (ft). The
default graph displayed is the Corrosion Rate (US) graph. The maximum and minimum values are also reported
at the top-right of the selected graph. The mouse can be used to select and zoom in on areas of the graph.
Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see Reporting and Printing for details.

• pH: Displays pH value over Tubing Length (ft).
• Water Flow Rate: Displays Water Flow Rate (m3/d) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Water Cut: Displays Water Cut (%) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Liquid HoldUp: Displays Liquid HoldUp (% cross section) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Liquid Velocity: Displays Liquid Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Gas Velocity: Displays Gas Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Pressure: Displays Pressure (bar) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Temperature: Displays Temperature (°C) over Tubing Length (ft).
Details
The Details tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to view Output Details for the selected Tubing

• At Wellhead: Gas to Oil ratio and water cut at the wellhead are reported here, together with values for
the liquid and gas velocity at the wellhead. This allows a quick check that the flowrates are reasonable,
typically a few m/s for liquid, and no more than about 20 m/s for gas. The water in at bottom hole is
reported: this value was input data in ECE 4.x, but is a calculated value in ECE.
• Velocities at Wellhead: The erosional gas velocity at the wellhead according to API RP 14E is also
reported. When this velocity is exceeded, the effects of protection by carbonate layers, inhibitor films
and sulphide layers are set to zero. This only happens when the flow pattern is reported to be Annular
Mistflow. In other cases it will report "N/A" ("not applicable").
• Flow Pattern: The flow pattern evaluation is restricted to Bubble/Slug Flow, Annular Mist flow and
Liquid-full for the purpose of corrosion rate calculations.
• Sour Service: The sour service region applicable to sulphide stress cracking according to ISO 15156
part 2 is reported: either "No" (i.e. Region 0), Region 1, Region 2 or Region 3.
• Partial Pressures at Wellhead: Partial pressures (not fugacities) of CO and H S at the outlet are reported
2 2
in metric and US customary units, along with the concentration of H S in ppm (vol).
2
Tubing Erosion Predictor
Tubing Erosion Predictor Overview
The Tubing Erosion Predictor is based on the Tubing Corrosion Prediction tool with additional inputs to allow
prediction of erosion due to particle loading.

The background to the erosion model is described in Erosion Model Background. The corrosion model part is
identical to that in the Tubing Corrosion Predictor. Note that the erosion and corrosion effects are not coupled: -
there is no synergistic erosion - corrosion recognised in the model.
Tubing Erosion Predictor Report
The Tubing Erosion Predictor Report option is used to display the Tubing Erosion Prediction Results as either a
Full Report, Summary Report or as a Data Table.
• With the Tubing Erosion Predictor open, select File, Tubing Erosion Prediction Report to display the
shortcut menu.
• Full Report: Displays the Tubing Erosion Prediction as a Full Report. Click Export to Excel to open

• Summary Report: Displays the Tubing Erosion Prediction as a Summary Report. Click Export to Excel to
open Microsoft Excel with the Summary Report displayed.
• Data Table: Displays the Tubing Erosion Prediction in Microsoft Excel as a Data Table.

Data Input
The Tubing Erosion Predictor requires the input of various operational parameters. If the conditions for a project
are outside the allowed ranges then you may still utilise the Tubing CRA Evaluator for material selection. Enter
the required values to display the Output Results. Input values can be entered in metric or customary
engineering units, or a mixture of units. ECE automatically converts and displays the equivalent values as you
enter the data. If required a Range can be specified using the Ranges button.
• Project: Input of identification details for the Project.
• Conditions: Input of temperature, pressure, gas composition and water bicarbonate content.
• Throughput: Input of oil, gas and water production rates, density of crude oil, liquid hold up and
optional variation in water cut at constant total liquid velocity.
• Deviation Angles: Input of tubing angle from vertical for deviated wells.
• Advanced: Input of parameters related to inhibition, selection of non-saturated or supersaturated iron
content and total acetic acid.
• Steel: Input of tubing dimensions (with option for tapered tubing), type of steel and carbon and (for
normalised steel only) chromium content.
Data Output
• Corrosion Rate: Graphic representation of corrosion rate vs measured depth of the tubing.

• All Graphs: Graphs for pH, water flow rate, water cut, liquid hold up, liquid velocity, gas velocity,
temperature and pressure vs distance along the tubing. Click pH to display graphs.
• Details: Additional information including fluid velocities, composition data, expected flow pattern and
sour service requirements.
Project
The Project tab on the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to input Project specific information. The Title and
Details fields allow entry of a description and identifying information for the current Project. This information is
saved with other data and exported with Project outputs.
Conditions
The Conditions tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to input Temperatures, Pressure, Gas Composition
and Water Chemistry.

• Temperatures: Temperatures at wellhead and at bottom hole are entered directly into text boxes (as °C
or °F) or by the sliders.
• Pressure: Pressure at the wellhead and at bottom hole are entered directly into text boxes (as bar or
psi) or by the sliders. Pressures are absolute pressures, not gauge pressures.
• It should be noted that a change in flow rates (see below) should be accompanied by a change of the
pressure and temperature gradient. This is NOT done automatically, and you are responsible for making
sure that all parameters are in reasonable agreement with each other. The mole percent of acid gases
CO and H S are entered directly into text boxes or by the sliders. The range buttons on the right-hand
2 2
side of the sliders allow selection of appropriate composition ranges. The software does not allow entry
of CO and H S beyond certain limiting partial pressures (mol% x total pressure).
2 2
• ECE assumes that the fluid bubble point coincides with the bottom of the tubing. Fluid bubble point is
sensitive to the composition of the well fluids and estimates of bubble point require full fluid
composition data which is often not available, or not of the necessary accuracy. In many cases, it is
reasonable to assume the bubble-point is at the formation depth: when a well is flowing there is
typically a significant pressure drop in the tubing (bottom hole flowing pressure is less than bottom hole
static pressure). This will generally be a conservative assumption as it leads to the calculated dissolved
CO2 and H2S values in the lower part of the well being higher than if the bubble point were further up
the tubing.
The unit here is mg/l of HCO3- ions. It relates to the bicarbonate present, as soluble salts of any kind,
for example, sodium, potassium, iron, after any dissolved gases are flashed off.
pitting. Other neutral salts can be treated as if NaCl; the Total Dissolved Solids value can be entered
here.

• Organic Acid: Concentration can be entered with the text box or using the slider. Entry is as ppmw
(mg/l) of total dissolved acetic acid (both associated and non-dissociated). Other similar organic acids
(for example. formic) can be treated as equivalent to acetic acid and added to the input value. Since
this type of information is relatively rare, the default setting is zero.
Throughput
The Throughput tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to input Throughput information.
• Flow rates: Flow rates for oil or gas condensate, gas and water are entered directly or using the slider
bars, and the ranges can be changed using the Range buttons on the right-hand end of the sliders. All
values are expressed in standard units, so are in effect mass flow rates. The values for oil / condensate,
water and gas relate to the amounts at the wellhead, for example as measured at a test separator.
• Water Flowrate: The data input for water flow rate relates to wellhead conditions: this is a change from
ECE 4.x. When water condensation occurs, the water rate and water cut may vary up the tubing, and
this is calculated automatically by ECE. The Details page displays the calculated water flow rate at
bottom hole and the Watercut at the wellhead, and the Water Flow Rate and Watercut graphs display
the water rate and water cut through the well. A minimum water rate of 0.001 m /d is applied
3
throughout the depth of the well, even if the underlying water condensation calculation predicts zero
free water along some length.
• Hydrocarbon Density: The hydrocarbon density is entered with the API Gravity text box or slider. A high
API gravity of 50 corresponds to a light gas condensate oil. A low API density corresponds to a very
heavy crude. Conversion to specific gravity (density) g/cm3 @60degF is given (note that the density is
very temperature dependent). The SG and API gravity inputs, and the conversion within ECE are for

• Liquid HoldUp Change: The liquid hold up (fraction of cross-section occupied by liquids) is shown in the
• When the liquid hold up change is set at 0% change the velocities of liquid and gas are the same. The
adjusted to the same percentage above the minimum possible.
• In nearly all situations, we recommend that you leave liquid hold up change at the default value.
• Watercut: When all the production flow rate values have been entered, the water cut at the bottom of
the tubing will be shown by the Watercut (at bottom) value at the bottom of the Throughput page.
When the inputs for oil or water flow rate are changed, the water cut changes accordingly. This box and
slider may also be altered to investigate the effect of adjusting the water cut at constant total liquid
velocity. This can be useful when the water cut is not known or likely to change, by showing the
sensitivity to this parameter, without changing the liquid velocity at the same time.
Deviation Angles
The Deviation Angles tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to input Deviation Angles. The deviation is the
angle of the tubing to the vertical, an angle of zero corresponds to perfectly vertical tubing. The angle of
deviation influences the corrosion rate because of the effect on the water distribution onto the tubing wall. A
higher deviation often results in a higher corrosion rate. The effect is more noticeable at lower water contents
but may be negligible for wells with a high water cut because water wetting is then continuous.

The modelling of flow regime and tubing deviation effects in ECE has been developed with the benefit of real-
life corrosion experience from many production wells. It should be noted that the treatment of flow regimes
within ECE for tubing is different than for flowlines and so a horizontal tubing will not necessarily give an
identical output to the ECE Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
• All Angles Equal: All deviations can be set to the same value by clicking the box All angles equal, and
using the vertical slider at the right of the page to set the deviation angle.
• Position Deviation Angles: Deviation angles at positions down the well are entered using the slider bars
or the up/down arrows on the text boxes. The deviation information can be taken from the well
deviation survey, if that information is known. Otherwise the angle of the well at full depth can be
entered and a suitable profile judged to the surface.
Steel
The Steel tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to input Tubing parameters.

• Entire Well: The default setting is for one production tubing size through the whole well from wellhead
to bottom hole. In this case, the measured depth of the tubing and the tubing outside diameter and
total wall thickness are entered under the heading Dimensions.
• Tapered Tubing: A well completion with two tubing sizes can also be modelled. To do this, select
Tapered Tubing. Additional data entry fields now become available under the heading lower tubing
dimensions. The measured depth from wellhead to the bottom of the upper tubing section along with
the upper tubing dimensions are entered in the upper box under the heading Upper tubing section
dimensions as before. The total measured depth of the well (i.e. the measured depth from the wellhead
to the bottom of the lower tubing section) are entered under lower tubing section dimensions.
• Quenched and Tempered: Chromium content (up to 1.2% max., according to API 5CT) of the carbon
steel is entered for quenched and tempered tubing. If normalised steel is selected then the carbon
content can also be entered (up to 0.50%max.). The chemical composition of the steel has a slight
influence on the predicted CO corrosion rate.
2
Advanced
The Advanced tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to input Inhibition, Dissolved Fe at inlet and Erosional
Velocity of Gas information.

• Inhibition: There are three options for inhibition: none (the default), continuous or squeeze. Continuous
inhibition is modelled using the common accepted efficiency – availability model to determine the mean
corrosion rate with inhibition treatment. The efficiency and availability inputs both have maximum
values of 99%.
• For squeeze inhibition, the squeeze frequency is entered. The inhibition effect inside the tubing is then
built up in about one month, and then reduces slowly in about 2 months. The corrosion model adds the
effect of repeated squeezes for the calculation of the average corrosion rate per year.
• Dissolved Fe at Inlet: Dissolved Fe at inlet (i.e. bottom hole) relates to the dissolved iron concentration
in the water at the inlet, which may be low in Fe, or may be supersaturated with iron carbonate. There
are two options. The default setting is supersaturated.
with different C-values or erosional velocity limits depending upon different User's policies. See "Erosion
-Corrosion" for more details.
The Corrosion Rate Graph displays a graph of the Corrosion Rate and the Erosion Rate as a function of depth in
the tubing. When H S is present, an additional line indicates the potential pitting corrosion rate that applies if
2
the protective sulphide scale breaks down. The Pitting Risk Rank is displayed as a tooltip when the cursor is
positioned over the isolated pitting line. (the Pitting Risk Rank is also included in the Corrosion Predictor Report,
see Reporting) The mouse can be used to select and zoom in on areas of the graph. Graphs may be copied,
printed, or saved, see Reporting and Printing for details.

All Graphs
The All Graphs tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to select parameters to be displayed in the graph
over Tubing Length (ft). The default graph displayed is the Corrosion Rate (US) graph. The maximum and
minimum values are also reported at the top-right of the selected graph. The mouse can be used to select and
zoom in on areas of the graph. Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see Reporting and Printing for details.

• pH: Displays pH value over Tubing Length (ft).
• Water Flow Rate: Displays Water Flow Rate (m3/d) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Water Cut: Displays Water Cut (%) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Liquid HoldUp: Displays Liquid HoldUp (% cross section) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Liquid Velocity: Displays Liquid Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Gas Velocity: Displays Gas Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Pressure: Displays Pressure (bar) over Tubing Length (ft).
• Temperature: Displays Temperature (°C) over Tubing Length (ft).
Details
The Details tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to view Output Details for the selected Tubing Erosion
Prediction Project.

• At Wellhead: Gas to Oil ratio and water cut at the wellhead are reported here, together with values for
the liquid and gas velocity at the wellhead. This allows a quick check that the flowrates are reasonable,
typically a few m/s for liquid, and no more than about 20 m/s for gas. The water in at bottom hole is
reported: this value was input data in ECE 4.x, but is a calculated value in ECE.
• Velocities at Wellhead: The erosional gas velocity at the wellhead according to API RP 14E is also
reported. When this velocity is exceeded, the effects of protection by carbonate layers, inhibitor films
and sulphide layers are set to zero. This only happens when the flow pattern is reported to be Annular
Mistflow. In other cases it will report "N/A" ("not applicable").
• Flow Pattern: The flow pattern evaluation is restricted to Bubble/Slug Flow, Annular Mist flow and
Liquid-full for the purpose of corrosion rate calculations.
part 2 is reported: either "No" (i.e. Region 0), Region 1, Region 2 or Region 3.
• Partial Pressures at Wellhead: Partial pressures (not fugacities) of CO and H S at the outlet are reported
2 2
in metric and US customary units, along with the concentration of H S in ppm (vol).
2
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator
The Tubing Life Cycle Calculator is used to make an economic comparison of various corrosion control options
for tubing; Carbon Steel, Corrosion Resistant Alloy, Carbon Steel with Continuous Inhibition and Carbon Steel
with Squeeze Inhibition.

• Life Cycle Cost Calculation: The can be used to carry out a cost comparison on completion of a
corrosion analysis and CRA material selection, or it can be used totally independently by overwriting all
the input field data with new information for any case being investigated.
• LCC Evaluation: The LCC evaluation is helpful to compare the cost of certain options, but it is not a full
costing exercise and cannot be used for estimating the actual costs of projects. Many significant costs
which are basically the same regardless of the corrosion control option chosen are not included in the
Tubing LCC, because they do not affect the comparison between the different options. All costs are
indicated in dollars ($). However, any other currency unit could be used so long as the same currency is
used for all inputs.
Data Input
Input Values are added to the Tubing LCC using the tabs on the left; Production, Tubing Details, Financial and
Inhibition. Default Values are loaded when the Tubing LCC is launched. Enter the required values to display the
Output Results. Input Values for the Tubing LCC are not derived from the Tubing Corrosion Predictor, nor are
they linked to the Tubing Corrosion Predictor.
• Production: Used to enter the Oil Production Rate, Gas Production rate and Expected Life of Well into
the LCC.
• Tubing Details: Used to enter the Tubing Length, Diameter, Wall Thickness and Corrosion Rate.
• Financial: Used to enter Material and Workover Costs.
• Inhibition: Used to enter the Inhibition or Glycol Injection costs and the Squeeze Treatment. The LCC
considers the costs of inhibiting by either continuous injection of chemicals or by squeeze inhibition. The
latter is normally considered only for oil wells and not for gas wells.
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator Report
The Tubing Life Cycle Calculator Report option is used to display the Tubing Life Cycle Calculation Results
produced by the Tubing Life Cycle Calculator.

• With the Tubing Life Cycle Calculator open, select File, Tubing Life Cycle Calculator Report.
Production
Production
The Production tab is used to enter the Oil Production Rate, Gas Production rate and Expected Life of Well into
the LCC.

Tubing Details
The Tubing Details tab is used to enter the Tubing Length, Diameter, Wall Thickness and Corrosion Rate.
• Tubing Length: The Tubing Length is entered at the top of the page.
• Dimensions: Dimensions are entered for both Carbon Steel and CRA options: different tubing outside
diameter and wall thickness can be entered for each option.
• Corrosion Rate: The Corrosion Rate (without inhibition) can be entered in mm/yr or mils/yr using the
boxes, or with the slider bar. Conversion between mm and mils is automatic.
Inhibition
The Inhibition tab is used to enter the Inhibition or Glycol Injection costs and the Squeeze Treatment. The LCC
considers the costs of inhibiting by either continuous injection of chemicals or by squeeze inhibition. The latter
is normally considered only for oil wells and not for gas wells.
• Continuous Inhibition: Continuous inhibition requires some capital expenditure to provide for inhibitor
injection equipment, topside and downhole, and tanks for inhibitor storage. These costs are entered
under Injection Equipment Cost. The LCC model includes this expenditure in the capital cost of
installation in the inhibited carbon steel cases.
• Continuous inhibition also has associated annual operating costs for the purchase of the chemicals and
solvents being injected and also the annual cost of the labour to keep control of the system and ensure
inhibitor tanks are kept filled. These are entered against Chemical Cost and Labour Cost.
• These costs are added for each year of operation, with future costs multiplied by the coefficient
1/(1+i)n which actualizes the costs to their net present value.
• Squeeze Inhibition: Squeeze inhibition does not have any major capital expenditure but does have a
cost associated with each squeeze treatment. This has to cover hire of the labour and equipment, cost
of the chemicals plus 24-48 hours lost production. These costs are entered against Total Cost per
squeeze. The cost of a single squeeze treatment is often known for a specific locality.
• Initial values are provided for these input values, but these should be overwritten with accurate
information if it is available.

• Inhibited Corrosion Rate: The calculation of the LCC associated with inhibition requires the inhibited
corrosion rate to be estimated to determine the time at which tubing replacement may be required.
• For this purpose, the uninhibited corrosion rate is reduced to one tenth for the continuous inhibition
case. This implies quite a high level of availability (>90%) and so the costs required for the inhibitor
and solvent and for the labour to maintain and operate such a system would be quite high.
• For the squeeze inhibitor case the frequency of inhibition is taken to be 3 times per year and the
availability is taken to be 70%.
Financial
The Financial tab is used to enter Material and Workover Costs. The LCC calculator calculates the net present
value of the future operating costs and workover costs. The discount rate used will vary, not only for different
companies, but also potentially for different projects. The Real Discount Rate, which is entered in the LCC
Input, should be the current discount (or interest rate) minus the inflation rate to give the effective real
discount rate. Costs are calculated up to the anticipated end of life of the project so this project life is a
required input value.
• Material Cost: Prices are required for the carbon steel and for the selected alloy production tubing. The
price of production tubing is usually expressed in $/ft. This means that the cost of tubing changes both
with alloy type and also with diameter and wall thickness. The cost also depends upon the selected
strength grade. The program automatically gives the price of the CRA tubing as 3X the price of the
carbon steel as a starting point. Prices are subject to change with time and depend upon the demand
for a given product. For these reasons it is important to obtain up-to-date prices!
• Workover Costs: In selecting material for production tubing the option exists to use carbon steel (with
or without inhibitor) with planned replacement just before the tubing leaks. This implies that there will
be a workover which has the following costs associated with it:
• Replacement Tubing Cost: Automatically calculated by ECE from the length and $/ft cost value given on
Tubing Details and Financial Pages.
• Hire Costs: The cost of hiring the team and equipment. This is the ‘workover cost, $/day’. A value
$150,000/day is predefined for this input, but this can be overwritten with accurate information if it is
available.

• Production Value: The value of production which is deferred during a workover. This is calculated from
the workover duration and the product prices entered on this page, and the production rates entered on
the Production Page. When the amount of gas production is limited, the value of lost production can
best be calculated just from the oil price. Up to date prices should be obtained for specific projects.
Net Present Value
Net Present Value
The Net Present Value (NPV) is displayed on the right side of the LCC and displays the changing cost of the CRA
and carbon steel options as a function of time, up to the given life of the project. The graph shows the CRA
option as a straight line. This is because there are no operating costs calculated for this material option, as
there is no need for inhibitor injection.
The carbon steel option has no annual operating cost, in this model, so there is no increase in the costs on an
annual basis. Hence the graph is horizontal, unless a workover and tubing replacement is required, which
shows as a step in the NPV graph. At this point the costs arise for the tubing replacement, workover and
deferred production. These costs reduce for later years because of the time value of money and so the jumps
become progressively less large. Note that with very high corrosion rate values the tubing replacements may be
so frequent that the graph may appear to be a continuously rising line.
In practice there would be some annual costs arising from operations, inspection and monitoring, but these are
assumes to be roughly equivalent for the different tubing options.
The carbon steel + inhibitor lines show an annual increase because of the operating costs. Costs later in the
future are less than costs today, so the slope of the lines gradually becomes less steep in later years. Again, if
tubing replacement is expected there will be a jump in the graph for the workover costs.
The most economic material option is the one that is lowest in cost (the lowest line) at the end of the required
project life.
Life Cycle Cost Calculation
The Life Cycle Cost Calculation is the mathematical definition of the Life Cycle Cost.

The usual economic method of dealing with inflation and the time-cost of money is to make all the calculations
in terms of value in year zero. The coefficient 1/(1+i)n reduces the actual cash value in year n to its net
present value. It should be noted that this coefficient is < 1 which accounts for the time value of the money.
The discount rate, i, will vary, not only for different companies, but potentially for different projects. Net
present values should always be quoted with the year of starting and the discount rate used. The Real Discount
Rate which is entered in the LCC Input tabs should be the current interest rate minus the inflation rate to give
the real effective discount rate.
The Life Cycle Cost symbols have the following meanings:
• LCC: Life Cycle Cost
• AC: Initial acquisition cost of materials
• IC: Initial installation costs (including fabrication)
• OC: Operating +/or maintenance costs
• LP: Lost production costs during downtime
• RC: Replacement materials costs
• SC: Residual value of replaced materials
• N: Desired life time (years)
• i: Discount rate
• n: Year of the event
Tubing CRA Evaluator
Tubing CRA Evaluator
The Tubing CRA Evaluator is used to evaluate Tubing Conditions against technical acceptability.
• Alloys for Production Tubing: Describes Alloys for Production Tubing. Includes a range of typical tubing
alloys suitable for a range of environmental conditions.
• Composition of Tubing Alloys: Displays the Composition of Tubing Alloys table.
• MSS - Standard 13Cr: Describes MSS - Standard 13Cr martensitic steel (typically AISI 410 or 420)
which has been widely applied in sweet wells internationally.
• MSS - Low Carbon 13Cr: Describes MSS - Low Carbon 13Cr, MSS's are highly resistant to corrosion in
sweet environments. The standard 13Cr grades have been widely applied for downhole tubing and their
corrosion characteristics are well characterized.
• 22Cr and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels: Describes 22Cr and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels, these are
highly resistant to corrosion in sweet environments.
• Alloy 28: Describes Alloy 28, which is used in the solid form for production tubing.
• Alloy 2550: Describes Alloy 2550 which is used in the solid form for production tubing.
• Alloy C276: Describes Alloy C276, which is used in the solid form for production tubing.
• Alloy 825: Describes Alloy 825, which is used in solid form for downhole tubing.

Using the Tubing CRA Evaluator
The Tubing CRA Evaluator is used to evaluate Tubing Conditions against technical acceptability. ECE offers two
alternative evaluation schemes; evaluation based on ISO 15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 and evaluation based
on selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE Rules). The limits are assessed based upon the following
input data; Temperature (°C or °F), Pressure (psia or bara), CO (mol% in gas phase), H S (mol% in gas
2 2
phase), Chloride Content ( mol% NaCl or ppmw Cl-) Bicarbonate content, (ppmw) and organic acid content
(ppmw).
• Tubing Conditions: The Tubing Conditions are input on the left-hand side of the CRA Evaluator. All the
values can be altered by moving the sliders, entering figures directly into the boxes or using the
up/down arrows on the boxes.
When selecting a material it is important to consider various conditions such as the extreme design conditions or
upset conditions as well as the operating conditions. Other factors beyond those listed above (such as presence of
elemental sulphur or oxygen) are not covered by the tools.
The assessment of the suitability of all CRA's is considered for each set of input data entered. This assessment of
CRA's is independent of any data entered in other tools within ECE, for example the Corrosion Predictor. The range
of conditions which can be evaluated is wider than the Corrosion Predictor window allows, since CRA's may be
utilized in conditions where carbon steels would not be applicable.
• Traffic Lights: The suitability of the alloys in a given environment is indicated by Traffic Light indicators
on the right.
• Green: The assessment indicates that an alloy will not suffer general or localized corrosion or sulfide stress
corrosion cracking. An acceptable result (green indicator) does not mean that all products of that alloy are
necessarily suitable for the proposed service. In many cases, qualification testing of specific products and/or
production routes is good practice.
• Red: The assessment indicates that there is a high risk of corrosion or cracking and the alloy should not be
applied.
• Amber: This option is not used for ISO 15156 rules. With ECE rules a safety margin is established in some
cases to indicate that the alloy is close to its application limit. When the alloy is judged to be close to a limit
where there may be a risk of corrosion or of cracking then an amber light will show. The amber light is
typically set to be visible when the temperature is within 10°C of the maximum limit for corrosion
considerations. It is also visible when the cracking data indicates variable performance in laboratory test
data. The amber light indicates that further detailed checks are necessary to confirm the suitability of the

alloy for use. Such checks may require further evaluation of the alloy’s performance in past field
applications, or possibly laboratory testing.
• ECE Evaluation Rules: The limits of use of the different alloys are defined in terms of their resistance to
corrosion in sweet conditions and Corrosion and cracking in sour environments. There is no minimum
value partial pressure of H S which has to be exceeded for the environment to be referred to as Sour,
2
the performance of CRA's is checked against limits defined for each alloy individually as soon as any
level of H S is present. The basis of the ECE rules is explained on the help pages for the individual
2
alloys.
• ISO 15156-3 Evaluation Rules: The limits of use of the different alloys are defined only in terms of their
resistance to failure by stress corrosion cracking in sour environments (containing both CO and H S). 2 2
Failure by corrosion either in sweet conditions (containing CO but free of H S) or in sour conditions is
2 2
not necessarily covered by the ISO 15156-3 rules.

• Environmental Details: The CRA Evaluator reports the partial pressures of CO and of H S in bar and psi
2 2
based on the input pressure and mol% CO and H S. It also reports the pH value calculated either at
2 2
room temperature (20°C) or at the in-situ temperature and pressure. These values are utilized for the
evaluation of the suitability of certain CRA's.
• Metallurgical Condition: The Tubing CRA Evaluator assumes that the alloy is in the normal product form
and metallurgical condition appropriate for tubing. This includes the cold-worked conditions for those
alloys where this is the normal condition used for tubing. The assessment results may not be applicable
for alloys in other metallurgical conditions or for other product forms (for example, castings). The
different CRA's have different mechanical properties. You should be aware of the need to consider the
different strength of alloys, which will affect the required wall thickness.
• Reporting: To produce a Report chose menu item File - Tubing Alloy Evaluation Report. The Report is
produced in a new window.
• Note on pH calculation: ISO 15156-3 requires the selection to be based on in-situ pH (at the service
pressure and temperature). This is nearly always a calculated value, both in field data and in laboratory
data, due to the difficulties of making direct measurements. Laboratory data often includes a measured
value for pH at ambient temperature, and ECE also reports the calculated value at 20°C for comparison.
Tubing Alloy Evaluator Report
The Tubing Alloy Evaluator Report option is used to display the Tubing Alloy Results produced by the Tubing
CRA Evaluator.

• With the Tubing CRA Evaluator open, select File, Tubing Alloy Evaluator Report.
Alloys for Production Tubing
Alloys for Production Tubing includes a range of typical tubing alloys suitable for a range of environmental
conditions.
• Martensitic Stainless Steel: Two martensitic stainless steels are included. The standard 13Cr grade
(which is typically AISI 410 or AISI 420) is widely applied (typically as an L80 grade strength) for its
resistance to CO corrosion. The more highly alloyed, lower carbon content Super-13Cr grades are
2
typically used at a higher strength level (for example, C95) and have been promoted for wells that are
experiencing some souring. However, the limits of application of these materials in environments
containing H S has been kept rather limited in ECE.
2
• Duplex Stainless Steel: Duplex stainless steels with either 22Cr or 25Cr content are used for
applications where higher strength is required, potentially with resistance to slightly higher levels of
H S.
2
• Presence of H S: When there is significant H S present then groups of more highly alloyed metals are
2 2
used.
Typical examples, which have been considered here, include Alloy 28 and Alloy 825, both of which can be cold
worked to high strength levels for example, grade 110.
In even more aggressive conditions, with higher temperature and chloride content as well as H S Alloy 2550 is
2
considered, along with alloys of comparable corrosion resistance such as Alloy G3. Alloy 2550 is used as a typical
example of this group of alloys. These may be applied at high strength levels such as grade 125.
In the most aggressive producing conditions Alloy G50 and Alloy C276 are used. Alloy C276 is used as a typical
example of this group of alloys. These may be applied at high strength levels such as grade 125.

Composition of Tubing Alloys
Composition of Tubing Alloys
The Composition of Tubing Alloys table describes the composition for each of the Tubing Alloys.
C% Cr% Ni% Mo% N% Mn% Others%
MSS
13Cr 0.15 11.5-13.5 - - -
S-13Cr
0.015 10.5-13.5 1.5-7.0 0-3.0 0.012 max. 1.30 max. Cu
(various ranges)
22CrDSS
S31803 0.030 21.0-23.0 4.50-6.50 2.50-3.50 0.08-0.20 2.00 max.
S32205 0.030 22.0-23.0 4.50-6.50 3.00-3.50 0.14-0.20 2.00 max.
25CrDSS
S32550 0.040 24.0-27.0 4.50-6.50 2.00-4.00 0.10-0.25 1.50 max. Cu 1.50-2.50
Cu 0.20-0.80
S31260 0.030 24.0-26.0 5.50-7.50 2.50-3.50 0.10-0.30 1.0 max.
W 0.10-0.50
S31200 0.030 24.0-26.0 5.50-6.50 1.20-2.00 0.14-0.20 1.0 max.
S32520 0.030 24.0-26.0 5.50-8.0 3.0-5.0 0.20-0.35 1.5 max. Cu 0.50-3.00
S32750 0.030 24.0-26.0 6.0-8.0 3.0-5.0 0.24-0.32 1.2 max
Cu 0.5-1.0
S32760 0.030 24.0-26.0 6.0-8.0 3.0-4.0 0.20-0.30 1.0 max.
W 0.5-1.0
Cu 0.20-0.80
S39274 0.030 24.0-26.0 6.0-8.0 2.50-3.50 0.24-0.32 1.0 max.
W 1.5-2.5
Nickel-Base Alloys
N088028 (28) 0.03 26-28 29.5-32.5 3-4 - 2 max. Cu 0.6-1.4
N08825 (825) 0.05 19.5-23.5 38-46 2.5-3.5 - 1 max.
Cu 1 max.
Alloy 2050 0.02 20-22 50-52 9-11 - 1 max.
W 1 max.

Fe 19.5
N06985 (G3) 22 44 7.0
Cu 2.0
Fe 17
N06950 (G50) 20 50 9
W 0.7
Fe4-7
N10276 (C276) 0.02 14.5-16 Balance 15-17 - 1 max. C0 2.5
W 3.0-4.5
* The composition given for the martensitic stainless steels (MSS) is very broad as there is a wide range of
compositions available from different manufacturers.
MSS - Standard 13Cr
The MSS - Standard 13Cr martensitic steel (typically AISI 410 or 420) has been widely applied in sweet wells
internationally.
• Standard 13Cr Limits: The limits of environmental parameters for these materials were originally
published by B.D. Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series
Publication 10073. This figure defined the updated (2011, Smith) limits of use of the 13Cr grades used
for downhole tubing.

• Sour Environments: In hydrogen sulfide containing environments 13Cr tubing may crack by a sulfide
stress cracking mechanism. The resistance to sulfide stress cracking has been evaluated as a function
of pH and partial pressure of H S (M.B. Kermani et al, NACE Corrosion 91, LM Smith, Martensitic
2
Stainless Steel Pipe, a report for sponsors, pub. by Intetech Ltd, Jan 2000). The latest consensus from
laboratory work and field data shows that standard API 13Cr L80 can tolerate a little higher H S than
2
early publications seemed to suggest. The transition region between the non-cracking and cracking
regions of the graph is indicated by an amber light.

• Limits for 13Cr MSS in Sour Service: The risk of cracking by hydrogen embrittlement is highest at
ambient temperature. Even though wells operate at higher temperatures the cracking risk is evaluated
based upon room temperature cracking criteria since the tubing may be pulled out of the well and cool
down whilst still being saturated with hydrogen from its exposure to corrosive conditions. This could
cause the tubing to crack, possibly during a workover. For situations where tubing is already in the well
(and therefore at a higher temperature) and conditions are gradually souring, it may be possible to use
the tubing at higher levels of H S than this CRA Evaluator would allow. This requires an analysis of test
2
data at higher temperatures or laboratory evaluation.
MSS - Low Carbon 13Cr
The MSS - Low Carbon 13Cr, MSS's are highly resistant to corrosion in sweet environments. The standard 13Cr
grades have been widely applied for downhole tubing and their corrosion characteristics are well characterized.
The Super-13Cr grades have much lower carbon content which means that there is more chromium available in
the metal to provide corrosion resistance. Many of the Super 13Cr’s also have additional molybdenum alloying
which further enhances their corrosion resistance in sweet conditions.
A comparison of the corrosion data in the literature, with the limits established for shows that the corrosion
rates for steels with the composition of the Super 13Cr grades are typically one order of magnitude lower (LM
Smith, Martensitic Stainless Steel Pipe, a report for sponsors, pub. by Intetech Ltd, Jan 2000).
As a first approximation, it is estimated that adding 30°C to the temperature limit for the standard 13Cr
material can represent the limit of use of the Super 13Cr grades in sweet conditions. Thus, for the purposes of
this program, the limit of use of the Super 13Cr in sweet conditions is taken to be the same as for the standard
13Cr grades, but with the temperature increased by 30°C. This is believed to be quite a conservative approach,
and one which should be refined as more data becomes available.

• Sour Environments: Individual proprietary grades of Super 13Cr MSS can show quite a wide range of
properties in sour conditions. In some cases superior cracking resistance may be noted compared to
standard 13Cr, but in many cases the cracking resistance is poorer, one factor being the generally
higher yield strength of the Super 13Cr grades. The Sour Environments figure indicates a safe range for
cracking resistance for the majority of alloys; individual alloys may be qualified for more aggressive
conditions by testing or review of appropriate data.
22Cr and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels
22Cr and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels's are highly resistant to corrosion in sweet environments. The limits of
environmental parameters for 22Cr DSS were established by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and
Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. These alloys show little sensitivity to partial pressure of
CO and a simplified version of Craig’s proposal is used in this program.
2
The higher alloyed 25Cr grade would be expected to show even greater resistance to general corrosion in sweet
conditions and so the limits have been taken, arbitrarily, to be 20°C higher than the limits of the 22Cr grade in
the Limits of Duplex Stainless Steels graph.

With H S present consideration has to be given to the risk of cracking. Duplex stainless steels are most sensitive
2
to cracking at 80-110°C and so test data at that temperature has been checked to establish the safe
environmental limits. Cracking is also dependent on the pH and on the chloride content. The pH value is taken
at room temperature since this is the value reported for the laboratory test data on which the limits are based.
The degree of cold-work and strength level also has a strong effect on resistance to cracking. The limits in ECE
are applicable to tubing with specified minium yield stress (SMYS) no greater than 125 ksi.
The H2S Limits for 22Cr Duplex Stainless Steels graph displays the limits of H S as a function of pH and chloride
2
content are provided.

The Proposed Limits for 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels graph displays limits that were established in a review of
laboratory test data on duplex stainless steels carried out by Shell.
Alloy 28
Alloy 28

Alloy 28 is used in the solid form for production tubing. The limits of environmental parameters for Alloy 28 in
terms of partial pressure of H S, partial pressure of CO and temperature were established by Craig in Corrosion
2 2
Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry, NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. The Alloy 28 graph
assumes that there is a significant level (about 100g/l) of chloride present.
Alloy 2550
Alloy 2550
Alloy 2550 is used in the solid form for production tubing. The limits of environmental parameters for Alloy
2550 in terms of partial pressure of H S, partial pressure of CO and temperature were established by Craig in
2 2
Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. The
Environment Limits for Alloy 2550 graph assumes that there is a significant level of chloride present i.e. about
100g/l. Alloy 2550 is utilized in the ECE Evaluator as being typical of the performance of a group of alloys
including Alloy G3.

Alloy C276
Alloy C276
Alloy C276 is used in the solid form for production tubing. The limits of environmental parameters for Alloy
C276 in terms of partial pressure of H S, partial pressure of CO and temperature were established by Craig in
2 2
Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry, NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. The
Environmental Limits of Alloy C276 graph assumes that there is a significant level of chloride present i.e. about
100g/l.

Alloy C276 is utilized in the ECE Evaluator as being typical of the performance of a group of alloys including
Alloy C22 and Alloy G50. These alloys are also capable of withstanding corrosion in conditions containing
elemental sulfur.
Alloy 825
Alloy 825
Alloy 825 is used in solid form for downhole tubing. The limits of environmental parameters for Alloy 825 in
terms of partial pressure of H2S, partial pressure of CO and temperature were established by Craig in
2
Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. A simplified
version is used in the ECE Evaluator since there is little dependence on CO2. The Alloy 825 graph assumes that
there is a significant level of chloride present i.e. about 100g/l.

Flowline Corrosion Prediction
Flowline Corrosion Prediction Tools
The Flowline Corrosion Prediction Tools options are:
• Flowline Corrosion Predictor: Used to predict the internal corrosion rate of a carbon steel flowline. The
corrosion model estimates the corrosion caused by the presence of water with dissolved CO , which is
2
modified by the presence of other chemicals like H S and carbonate/bicarbonate salts. The background
2
to the model is described in Corrosion Model Background.

• Flowline CRA Evaluator: Used to evaluate Flowline Conditions against technical acceptability. ECE offers
two alternative evaluation schemes; Evaluation based on ISO 15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 or
Evaluation based on selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE Rules).
• Flowline Life Cycle Calculator: Used to make an economic comparison of various corrosion control
options for a flowline, Carbon Steel, Carbon Steel with Chemical Inhibition and Corrosion Resistant
Alloy.
• Flowline CRA Manufacturers: Used to select Flowline CRA Manufacturers from a database of tubing
• Bulk Calculation: Used to load multiple flowline values for calculation into ECE.
Flowline Corrosion Prediction Tools

The Flowline Corrosion Prediction Tools options are:
• Flowline Corrosion Predictor: Used to predict the internal corrosion rate of a carbon steel flowline. The
corrosion model estimates the corrosion caused by the presence of water with dissolved CO , which is
2
modified by the presence of other chemicals like H S and carbonate/bicarbonate salts. The background
2
to the model is described in Corrosion Model Background.

• Flowline CRA Evaluator: Used to evaluate Flowline Conditions against technical acceptability. ECE offers
two alternative evaluation schemes; Evaluation based on ISO 15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 or
Evaluation based on selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE Rules).
• Flowline Life Cycle Calculator: Used to make an economic comparison of various corrosion control
options for a flowline, Carbon Steel, Carbon Steel with Chemical Inhibition and Corrosion Resistant
Alloy.
• Flowline CRA Manufacturers: Used to select Flowline CRA Manufacturers from a database of tubing
• Bulk Calculation: Used to load multiple flowline values for calculation into ECE.
Flowline CRA Manufacturers

Flowline CRA Manufacturers can be selected from a database of tubing suppliers (refers to primary international
manufacturers). Details of stockists are not included. The list of manufacturers, contact details, materials and
sizes offered is based on public information and believed to be correct at the release date of the software or
latest upgrade. Wood Group do not endorse suppliers included in the listings or imply any criticism if a supplier
is not present in the listings.

• From the Flowline Tools menu, select CRA Manufacturers.
• Select an alloy from the left-hand list by clicking with the left mouse button.
• Select a tubing diameter to display the list of companies making tubing in that alloy and diameter.
• Select the required supplier to display the contact details for the selected supplier.
Flowline Corrosion Predictor
Flowline Corrosion Predictor
The Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to predict the internal corrosion rate of a carbon steel flowline.
• Data Input: Input operational parameters to display the output results.

• Project: Used to input Project information into the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.

• Conditions: Used to input Temperature, Pressure, Gas Composition and Water Chemistry information
into the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
• Throughput: Used to input Crude Oil/Condensate, Gas, Water, Holdup and Watercut information into
the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
• Advanced: Used to input the Glycol Injection Rate, Inhibition, the Dissolved FE at Inlet and the
Erosional Velocity of Gas information into the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
• Data Output: Output Results are displayed in the tabs; Corrosion Rate, Risk Analysis, All Graphs and
Details.
• Corrosion Rate Graph: Displays the Flowline Corrosion Rate Graph, Corrosion Rate (mm/year) over
Distance (km) along the flowline.
• Risk Analysis: Displays a graph of accumulated risk of failure vs. time.
• All Graphs: Used to select parameters to display as a graph over distance along the flowline.
• Details: Used to view Output Details for the selected Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project.
Flowline Corrosion Predictor Report
The Flowline Corrosion Predictor Report option is used to display the Flowline Corrosion Prediction Results as
either a Full Report, Summary Report or as a Data Table.
• With the Flowline Corrosion Predictor open, select File, Flowline Corrosion Prediction Report to display
the shortcut menu.
• Full Report: Displays the Flowline Corrosion Prediction as a Full Report. Click Export to Excel to open
• Summary Report: Displays the Flowline Corrosion Prediction as a Summary Report. Click Export to
Excel to open Microsoft Excel with the Summary Report displayed.

• Data Table: Displays the Flowline Corrosion Prediction in Microsoft Excel as a Data Table.

Data Input
The Flowline Corrosion Predictor requires the input of various operational parameters to display the output
results. Default Values are loaded when the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is launched. The Input Values can be
entered in metric or customary engineering units, or a mixture of units. ECE automatically converts and
displays the equivalent values as you enter the data. A Range can be specified using the Ranges button. If the
conditions for a project are outside the allowed ranges then you may still utilise the Flowline CRA Evaluator for
material selection.
• Sections: Allows the entry of flowline elevation, heat transfer factor and ambient temperature as a
function of distance.
• Project: Input of identification details, flowline dimensions and steel carbon content.
• Conditions: Input of temperature, pressure, gas composition and water chemistry.
• Throughput: Input of oil, gas and water production rates, density of crude oil and optional variation in
water cut at constant total liquid velocity.
• Advanced: Input of parameters related to inhibition, glycol injection, selection of non-saturated or
supersaturated iron content.
Data Output
• Corrosion Rate: Graphical representation of corrosion rate vs distance along the flowline, giving the
corrosion rate at the bottom and the top of the line (when applicable).
• Risk Analysis: Risk of failure as function of time.
• All Graphs: Graphs for pH, water flow rate, water cut, liquid hold up, liquid velocity, gas velocity, glycol
concentration, temperature, pressure, corrosion rate & flow regime, and heat transfer factors; all
versus distance along the pipeline.
• Details: Additional information including velocities, composition data, expected flow pattern and sour
service requirements.
Project
The Project tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to input Project information into the Flowline
Corrosion Predictor.

• Project Details: The Title and Details fields allow entry of a description and identifying information for
the current Project. This information is saved with other data and exported with Project outputs.
• Pipe Dimensions: These may be typed directly into text boxes or entered by the sliders. Input can be
done in metric or US customary units: conversion between these is automatic. If data is entered on the
Sections tab, flowline length cannot be entered here, ECE will display a confirmation message.
• Steel: Carbon content of the steel can be entered.
Conditions
The Conditions tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to input Temperature, Pressure, Gas Composition
and Water Chemistry information into the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.

• Temperature: There are two options for the flowline temperature profile. If Use straight-line
temperature profile is chosen, the inlet and outlet temperatures should be entered. Alternatively, the
Calculate Temperature Profile option can be chosen. The resulting temperature profile can be seen on
the All Graphs – Temperature view. Inputs can be in °C or °F, and conversion between these
alternatives is automatic. If data is entered on the Sections tab, temperature data cannot be entered
here, ECE will display a confirmation message.
• Calculate Temperature Profile: The Calculate Temperature Profile option should be chosen in order to
model Top-of-Line corrosion rates. If the Calculate Temperature Profile option is chosen, the software
calculates the temperature profile from the inlet temperature, ambient temperature, the Heat Transfer
Factor and the data entered on the Throughput page.
The basic equation used to calculate the Temperature Profile is displayed here:
T(x) = Tamb +[ Tin -Tamb] . exp [(-ax)]
Where T(x) is the temperature at distance x, Tin is the entry temperature, and Tamb the external temperature. The
factor "a" is given by
R = pipe radius, U = combined heat transfer coefficient, (Σ m.Cp ) is the mass-flow and heat capacity of each phase
in the pipe line (water, gas and hydrocarbon).
This equation is explained in standard pipeline engineering textbooks (for example Subsea Pipelines & Risers, Bai &
Bai (2005), chapter 19.4). The equation ignores some effects such as gas expansion and the variation of Cp with
temperature and pressure, which are usually minor in flowline situations. ECE uses typical values for hydrocarbon
and gas heat capacities. Note that U is the combined heat transfer coefficient, which includes all contributions to
heat transfer resistance, including the pipe itself, the pipe coating and the external environment. The combined heat
transfer coefficient may be determined or specified during pipeline design, otherwise typical values can be used
depending on the pipeline environment and coating system. For subsea flowlines, some typical ranges for U are:
• Bare Pipe: 200-1000

• FBE or 3 Layer PP: 50-300
• Concrete Coated: 20-40
• Foam Insulation Coating: 2-10
• Pipe-in-Pipe: < 2
Alternatively, if you know the entry temperature and one other point, the input value of U can be adjusted to make
the temperature profile fit to these known values.
• Pressure: Pressure at in- and outlet of the flowline are entered directly into text boxes (as bar or psi) or
by the sliders. Pressures are absolute pressures, not gauge pressures.
• Gas Composition: The molecular fraction of acid gases CO and H S are entered directly into text boxes
2 2
or by the sliders. The range buttons on the right-hand side of the sliders allow selection of appropriate
composition ranges. The software does not allow entry of CO and H S beyond certain limiting partial
2 2
pressures (for example, mol% x total pressure).

The unit here is mg/l of HCO3- ions. It relates to the bicarbonate present, as soluble salts of any kind
for example, sodium, potassium or iron, after any dissolved gases are flashed off.
pitting. Other neutral salts can be treated as if NaCl (for example, the Total Dissolved Solids value can
be entered here).
Throughput
The Throughput tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to input Crude Oil/Condensate, Gas, Water,
Holdup and Watercut information into the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.

• Flowrates: Mass flow rates for oil or gas condensate, gas and water are entered directly or using the
slider bars, and the ranges can be changed using the Range buttons on the right-hand end of the
sliders. All values relate to rates at the flowline inlet, and the water rate is for liquid water only, not
including any water in the vapour phase. All values are expressed in standard units, i.e. volumes that
would be occupied at standard conditions of pressure and temperature, NOT volumes at the process
condition. Where water condensation is occurring, the water (liquid) rate may vary along the flowline.
The Details page displays the calculated water flow rate at the flowline outlet, and the All Graphs –
Water Flow Rate displays the water rate along the line.
• API Gravity: The hydrocarbon density is entered with the API Gravity text box or slider. A high API
gravity of 50 corresponds to a light gas condensate oil. A low API density corresponds to a very heavy
crude. Conversion to specific gravity (density) in g/cm3 @60degF is given (note that the density is very
temperature dependent). The SG and API gravity inputs, and the conversion within ECE, are for
• Liquid Holdup Change: The liquid hold up (fraction of cross-section occupied by liquids) is shown in the
• When the liquid hold up change is set at 0% Change the velocities of liquid and gas are the same. The

adjusted to the same percentage above the minimum possible. In nearly all situations, it is
recommended that you leave liquid hold up change at the default value.
• Watercut: When all the production flow rate values have been entered, thewater cut at inlet of the line
will be shown by the Watercut (at inlet) value at the bottom of the Throughput page. When the inputs
for oil or water flow rate are changed, the water cut changes accordingly. This box and slider may also
be altered to investigate the effect of adjusting the water cut at constant total liquid velocity. This can
be useful when the water cut is not known or likely to change, by showing the sensitivity to this
parameter, without changing the liquid velocity at the same time.
• Details: Displays the water cut at the outlet and the Watercut graph shows the water cut along the
whole line.
• Low Spot Water Dropout: The button Low Spot Water Dropout can be used when ECE predicts that
water is entrained in the oil phase, but you want to investigate the impact of local water dropout. ECE
evaluates whether or not entrainment occurs on the basis of a perfectly horizontal flowline, but in
practice there can to be low spots in a line which enhance the likelihood of water separating from the
oil. Clicking this button will override ECE's prediction that the water is entrained, so that the effect of a
separate water phase can be seen throughout the length of the line. As a warning that this override is
switched on, the button will become red, and a warning is displayed under the corrosion graph on the
right-hand side of the window. This evaluation mode can be switched off by clicking the button again.
• If the water is not entrained in an oil/water system (low velocity stratified flow), this option has no
function and the button is shaded.
Advanced
The Advanced tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to input the Glycol Injection Rate, Inhibition, the
Dissolved FE at Inlet and the Erosional Velocity of Gas information into the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.

• Glycol Injection Rate: The Glycol injection rate influences the concentration of the glycol in the water
carried by the pipeline. This concentration is calculated along the length of the pipe while being diluted
by water condensing from the gas and can be seen on the Glycol Concentration Graph. The injected
glycol is conservatively assumed to be DEG (diethylene glycol) of 95% purity. The effect of other
glycols like MEG is similar. The resulting concentration of the DEG at the outlet is shown under the
Details page.
• Inhibition: The effect of an inhibitor is modelled using the common accepted efficiency – availability
model to determine the mean corrosion rate with inhibition treatment. The efficiency and availability
inputs both have maximum values of 99.
• Dissolved Fe at inlet: Dissolved Fe at inlet relates to the dissolved iron concentration in the water at the
inlet, which may be low in Fe, or may be supersaturated with iron carbonate. There are two options.
The default setting is supersaturated, assuming that the water has been flowing through carbon steel
equipment for some distance before entering the flowline: this would be appropriate if the fluids come
from a well completed with carbon steel production tubing for example. When most of the water comes
from condensation from water vapour in gas, this setting should be changed to none, which can lead to
increased corrosion rates for a short distance at the inlet region. This would be appropriate for a gas
overhead line from a separator vessel for example.
with different C-values or erosional velocity limits depending upon different User's policies. See Erosion-
Corrosion for more details.

The Corrosion Rate Graph tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor displays the Flowline Corrosion Rate Graph,
Corrosion Rate (mm/year) over Distance (km) along the flowline.
• Stratified Flow: In the case of stratified flow, with the top of the line wetted by liquid condensing from
the gas, the corrosion rates at the bottom and the top of the line are different, and two lines will be
shown in the corrosion graph. When the flow pattern is not stratified, the line for the top-of-line
corrosion will automatically disappear. The highest estimated corrosion rate is reported separately at
the top of the graph.
• Presence of H S: When H S is present, an additional line indicates the potential pitting corrosion rate
2 2
that applies if the protective sulphide scale breaks down. The Pitting Risk Rank is displayed as a tooltip
when the cursor is positioned over the isolated pitting line.
• Zoom: The cursor can be used to select and zoom in on areas of the graph.
• Actions: Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see Reporting and Printing for details.
Risk Analysis
The Risk Analysis tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor displays a graph of accumulated risk of failure vs.
time. For its construction, it is assumed that the calculated corrosion rates have a normal distribution with a
standard deviation of 25% (see Risk of Failure for details). In the presence of H2S, the arbitrary assumption
has been made that there is a 25% risk that the protective sulphide layer fails.

• Zoom: The mouse can be used to select and zoom in on areas of the graph.
• Actions: Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see Printing for more details.
Details FL
The Details FL tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to view Output Details for the selected Flowline

• At Outlet: Values of Gas to Oil ratio (GOR), water cut, water rate and liquid and gas velocities at the
flowline outlet are reported at the top of the page. This allows a quick check that the flowrates are
reasonable, typically a few m/s for liquid, and less than about 20 m/s for gas. The difference between
water flowrate at inlet (Throughput tab) and that at the outlet is the amount of water condensed from
the gas.
• Velocities at Outlet: The erosional gas velocity according to API RP 14E is also reported. When this
velocity is exceeded, the effects of protection by carbonate layers, inhibitor films and sulphide layers
are set to zero. This only happens when the flow pattern is Annular Mist flow. For other flow patterns
ECE will report N/A ("not applicable")
• Flow Pattern at Inlet: The flow pattern evaluation is restricted to Stratified (nonsymmetrical),
Slug/Bubble, Liquid-full and Annular Mist (symmetrical) for corrosion rate calculations.
part 2 is reported: either No (i.e. Region 0), Region 1, Region 2 or Region 3. The concentration of glycol
at inlet and at outlet is given, when injected, together with the quantity injected in kg/d. These values
will change when the glycol injection rate is varied.
• Partial Pressures at Outlet: Partial pressures (not fugacities) of CO and H S at the outlet are reported in
2 2
metric and US customary units, along with the concentration of H S in ppm (vol).
2
All Graphs
The All Graphs tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to select parameters to display as a graph over
distance along the flowline. The default graph displayed is the Corrosion Rate (US) graph. The maximum and
minimum values are also reported at the top-right of the selected graph. The mouse can be used to select and
zoom in on areas of the graph. Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see Printing for details.

• pH: Displays pH value over Distance (km).
• Water Flow Rate: Displays Water Flow Rate (m3/d) over Distance (km).
• Water Cut: Displays Water Cut (%) over Distance (km).
• Liquid HoldUp: Displays Liquid HoldUp (% cross section) over Distance (km).
• Liquid Velocity: Displays Liquid Velocity (m/s) over Distance (km).
• Gas Velocity: Displays Gas Velocity (m/s) over Distance (km).
• Pressure: Displays Pressure (bar) over Distance (km).
• Temperature: Displays Temperature (°C) over Distance (km).
• Glycol Concentration: Displays Glycol Concentration (%) over Distance (km).
Flowline CRA Evaluator
Flowline CRA Evaluator
The Flowline CRA Evaluator is used to evaluate Flowline Conditions against technical acceptability.

• Alloys for Flowlines: Includes a range of corrosion resistant alloys (CRA's) considered for flowlines has
been mainly restricted to those most commonly used in the past 30 years.
• Composition of Alloys: Displays the Composition of Alloys table.
• Martensitic Stainless Steel for Flowlines: MSS's are highly resistant to corrosion in sweet environments.
• Duplex Stainless Steel for Flowlines: DSS,s are highly resistant to corrosion in sweet environments.
• Alloy 316L - Cladding or Lining: Used as a Cladding or Lining in pipe for flowlines.
• Alloy 904L - Cladding or Lining: Used as a Cladding or Lining in pipe for flowlines.
• Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining: Used as a Cladding or Lining in pipe for flowlines.
• Alloy 625 - Cladding or Lining: Used as a Cladding or Lining in pipe for flowlines.
• Alloy 6Mo - Super Austenitic Stainless Steel: Used as solid piping or pipeline material
Using the Flowline CRA Evaluator
The Flowline CRA Evaluator is used to evaluate Flowline Conditions against technical acceptability. There are
two alternative evaluation schemes; Evaluation based on ISO 15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 or Evaluation
based on selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE Rules). The limits are assessed based upon the
following input data; Temperature (°C or °F), Pressure (psia or bara), CO (mol% in gas phase), H S (mol% in
2 2
gas phase), Chloride Content ( mol% NaCl or ppmw Cl-) and Bicarbonate content, (ppmw).

• Flowline Conditions: The environmental conditions are input in the left hand side of the window. All the
values can be altered by moving the sliders, entering figures directly into the boxes or using the
up/down arrows on the boxes. clicking at the end of the sliders.
• When selecting a material it is important to consider various conditions such as the extreme design
conditions or upset conditions as well as the operating conditions. Other factors beyond those listed
above (such as presence of elemental sulphur or oxygen) are not covered by the tools.
• The assessment of the suitability of all CRA's is considered for each set of input data entered. This
assessment of CRA's is independent of any data entered in other tools within ECE, for example the
Corrosion Predictor. The range of conditions which can be evaluated is wider than the Corrosion
Predictor window allows, since CRA's may be utilized in conditions where carbon steels would not be
applicable.
• Traffic Lights: The suitability of the alloys in a given environment is indicated by Traffic Light indicators
on the right.
• Green: The assessment indicates that an alloy will not suffer general or localized corrosion or sulfide stress
corrosion cracking. An acceptable result (green indicator) does not mean that all products of that alloy are
necessarily suitable for the proposed service. In many cases, qualification testing of specific products and/or
production routes is good practice.
• Red: The assessment indicates that there is a high risk of corrosion or cracking and the alloy should not be
applied.
• Amber: This option is not used for the ISO 15156 Evaluation Rules.
With the ECE Rules, a safety margin is established in some cases to indicate that the alloy is close to its
application limit. When the alloy is judged to be close to a limit where there may be a risk of corrosion or of
cracking then an amber light will show. The amber light is typically set to be visible when the temperature
is within 10°C of the maximum limit for corrosion considerations. It is also visible when the cracking data
indicates variable performance in laboratory test data.
The amber light indicates that further detailed checks are necessary to confirm the suitability of the alloy for
use. Such checks may require further evaluation of the alloy’s performance in past field applications, or
possibly laboratory testing.
• ECE Evaluation Rules: The limits of use of the different alloys are defined in terms of their resistance to
Corrosion in sweet conditions and Corrosion and cracking in sour environments. There is no minimum

value partial pressure of H S which has to be exceeded for the environment to be referred to as ‘sour’,
2
the performance of CRA's is checked against limits defined for each alloy individually as soon as any
level of H S is present.
2
• ISO 15156-3 Evaluation Rules: The limits of use of the different alloys are defined only in terms of their
resistance to failure by stress corrosion cracking in sour environments (containing both CO and H S).
2 2
Failure by corrosion either in sweet conditions (containing CO but free of H S) or in sour conditions is
2 2
not necessarily covered by the ISO 15156-3 rules.

• Environmental Details: The CRA Evaluator reports the partial pressures of CO and of H S in bar and psi
2 2
based on the input pressure and mol% CO and H S. It also reports the pH value calculated at room
2 2
temperature (20°C) or at the in-situ temperature. These values are utilized for the evaluation of the
suitability of certain CRA's.
• Metallurgical Condition - Important: The evaluation tools assume that the alloy is in the normal product
form and metallurgical condition appropriate for flowline pipe. In sour service conditions, the material
should comply with any restrictions on processing or properties defined for that alloy in ISO 15156-3.
The assessment results may not be applicable for alloys in other metallurgical conditions (for example
heavily cold-worked) or for other product forms (for example castings).
• The different CRA's have different mechanical properties. You should be aware of the need to consider
the different strength of alloys, which will affect the required wall thickness. For flowlines this will have
an impact on the welding time and overall capital cost of installation. CRAs show varying toughness as
a function of temperature and you should be aware of the need to select a material which meets
toughness requirements at the minimum design temperature.
• Reporting: To produce a Report chose menu item File - Flowline Alloy Evaluation Report. The Report is
produced in a new window.
Flowline Alloy Evaluator Report
The Flowline Alloy Evaluator Report option is used to display the Flowline Alloy Results produced by the Flowline
CRA Evaluator.

• With the Flowline CRA Evaluator open, select File, Flowline Alloy Evaluator Report.
Alloys for Flowlines
Alloys for Flowlines
Alloys for Flowlines includes a range of corrosion resistant alloys (CRA's) considered for flowlines has been
mainly restricted to those most commonly used in the past 30 years.
Amongst solid CRA's the most widely applied for flowlines has been 22Cr duplex. There has also been some
25Cr super-duplex used. From about 1997 there was increasing use of low carbon content martensitic stainless
steels (the so-called weldable 13Cr steels). These are referred to by the term MSS in this help file.
When more highly alloyed CRA's are required it is more common for them to be manufactured as a Cladding or
Lining in a carbon steel pipe. All the different types of manufacturing methods are referred to generally as
‘clad’. Amongst alloys available for clad pipes the most commonly applied are stainless steel AISI 316L (316L
clad) and the higher nickel content alloy 825 (825 clad). Whilst rarely used so far, stainless steel AISI 904L has
been considered for clad flowlines and the environmental limits of that material are included in too (904L clad).
Nickel alloy 625 is sometimes used as a cladding in parts of flowlines and may be required for extremely
aggressive conditions. In the rare cases in which these alloys are considered in solid form (for example for
small diameter lines where clad pipe is relatively less economic), the same limits can be assumed to apply to
the solid product as to the clad or lined product.
Other CRA's may be considered for flowlines at the recommendation of manufacturers, or after carrying out
appropriate laboratory test programmes to prove the performance in the expected production conditions.
In all cases it is assumed that the corrosion properties of the weld and heat affected zone are equivalent to the
properties of the base material. This should be established by appropriate testing during welding procedure
qualifications.
Composition of Flowline Alloys
The Composition of Flowline Alloys table describes the composition for each of the Flowline Alloys.
C% Cr% Ni% Mo% N% Mn% Others%
MSS
MSS 0.015 10.5-13.5 1.5-7.0 0-3.0 0.012 max. 0.012 max. Cu
22CrDSS
S31803 0.030 21.0-23.0 4.50-6.50 2.50-3.50 0.08-0.20 2.00 max.
S32205 0.030 22.0-23.0 4.50-6.50 3.00-3.50 0.14-0.20 2.00 max.
25CrDSS
S32550 0.040 24.0-27.0 4.50-6.50 2.00-4.00 0.10-0.25 1.50 max. Cu 1.50-2.50
Cu 0.20-0.80
S31260 0.030 24.0-26.0 5.50-7.50 2.50-3.50 0.10-0.30 1.0 max.
W 0.10-0.50
S31200 0.030 24.0-26.0 5.50-6.50 1.20-2.00 0.14-0.20 1.0 max.

S32520 0.030 24.0-26.0 5.50-8.0 3.0-5.0 0.20-0.35> 1.5 max. Cu 0.50-3.00
S32750 0.030 24.0-26.0 6.0-8.0 3.0-5.0 0.24-0.32 1.2 max
Cu 0.5-1.0
S32760 0.030 24.0-26.0 6.0-8.0 3.0-4.0 0.20-0.30 1.0 max.
W 0.5-1.0
Cu 0.20-0.80
S39274 0.030> 24.0-26.0 6.0-8.0 2.50-3.50 0.24-0.32 1.0 max.
W 1.5-2.5
Cladding or Lining Alloys
S31603 (316L) 0.03 16-18 10-14 2-3 0.1 max. 2 max.
N08904 (904L) 0.02 19-23 23-28 4-5 - 2 max.
N08825 (825) 0.05 19.5-23.5 38-46 2.5-3.5 - 1 max.
Fe 5 max.
N06625 (625) 0.01 20-23 Balance 8-10 - 0.5 max. Ti 0.4 max.
Nb 3.15-4.15
6Mo Super-austenitic Stainless Steel
S31254 0.02 max. 19.5-20.5 17.5-18.5 6-6.6 0.18-0.22 1 max. Cu
N08926 0.02 max. 19-20 24-26 6-7 0.15-0.25 2 max. Cu
N08367 0.03 max. 20-22 23.5-25.5 6-7 0.18-0.25 2 max. Cu
* The composition given for the martensitic stainless steels (MSS) is very broad as there is a wide range of
compositions available from different manufacturers.
Martensitic Stainless Steels for Flowlines
Martensitic Stainless Steels for Flowlines
Martensitic Stainless Steels for Flowlines, MSS's are highly resistant to corrosion in sweet environments. The
standard 13Cr MSS grades have been widely applied for downhole tubing and their corrosion characteristics are
well characterized. The weldable grades used for flowlines are comparable in chemistry to the Super-13Cr
grades used downhole. They have much lower carbon content, which allows them to be welded without
hardening too much in the heat affected zone. This low carbon also means that there is far more chromium
available in the metal to provide corrosion resistance. Many of the MSS's also have additional molybdenum
alloying which further enhances their corrosion resistance in sweet conditions.

A comparison of the corrosion data in the literature, with the limits established for standard 13Cr materials
shows that the corrosion rates are typically one order of magnitude lower in the weldable MSS grades. It seems
that the weldable MSS grades show a lower sensitivity to the CO2 content than the standard 13Cr grades.
As a first approximation, it is estimated that adding 30°C to the temperature limit for the standard 13Cr
material can represent the limit of use of the weldable MSS's in sweet conditions. Thus, for the purposes of this,
the limit of use of the weldable MSS's are taken to be the same as those for the standard 13Cr grades, but with
the temperature increased by 30°C. This is believed to be quite a conservative approach, and one which may be
refined based on data for the specific MSS alloy being considered.
A detailed review of the performance of the MSS's in sour conditions shows that the tendency for cracking of
MSS's at ambient temperature can be represented by a combination of pH and partial pressure of H S. 2
The Limits for Weldable MSS in Sour Service graph is based principally on the results of test on welded
samples, shows that the sensitivity to cracking is very high, particularly below pH=4. Thus, even though the
material might have a higher general corrosion resistance, the tendency to cracking is very high if any
hydrogen enters the microstructure. The cracking resistance of these grades in the welded condition is taken to
be slightly worse than that of the standard 13Cr grades in this ECE Evaluator. (It is, therefore, also taken to be
slightly worse than Super-13Cr tubing, on the basis that flowlines have to be welded and this introduces an
increased risk of variable performance, because of the influence of the heat affected zone.
Warning: Performance of weldable MSS is very much influenced by the details of welding procedures and heat
treatment, and by details of installation. More recently, developments in MSS alloys and welding procedures are
claimed to have overcome these problems. This issue is not covered by the Flowline CRA Evaluator, anyone
considering welded MSS for flowline applications should satisfy themselves that welded joints will have
satisfactory performance.

The transition region between the non-cracking and cracking regions of the Limits for Weldable MSS in Sour
Service graph shown is indicated by an Amber traffic light indicator.
Individual alloys from specific manufacturers may show superior performance and could be used in more severe
conditions than indicated if individually qualified for an application by laboratory testing in appropriate
conditions.
References:
H Lange, T Rogne, Material selection of weldable super martensitic stainless steels for line pipe material, SINTEF Report nr.
STF22 A04222-Open, 2004.
LM Smith, Martensitic Stainless Steel Pipe, a Report for Sponsors, pub. by Wood Group, Jan 2000.
Duplex Stainless Steel for Flowlines
Duplex Stainless Steel for Flowlines
Duplex Stainless Steel for Flowlines, DSS's are highly resistant to corrosion in sweet environments. The limits of
environmental parameters for 22Cr DSS were established by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and
Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073.
These alloys show little sensitivity to partial pressure of CO and a simplified version of Craig’s proposal is used
2
in this program. The higher alloyed 25Cr grade would be expected to show even greater resistance to general
corrosion in sweet conditions and so the limits have been taken, arbitrarily, to be 20°C higher than the limits of
the 22Cr grade in the Limits of Using the Duplex Stainless Steels graph.
With H S present consideration has to be given to the risk of cracking. Duplex stainless steels are most sensitive
2
to cracking at about 80-110 °C and so test data at that temperature range has been checked to establish the
safe environmental limits. Cracking is also dependent on the pH and on the chloride content. The pH value is
taken at room temperature since this is the value reported for the laboratory test data on which the limits are
based.

The H2S Limits for 22Cr Duplex Stainless Steels graph displays the limits of H S as a function of pH and chloride
2
content are provided.
The Proposed Limits for 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels graph displays that limits were established in a review of
laboratory test data on duplex stainless steels carried out by Shell. At chloride ion concentrations lower than
50ppm this material is not sensitive to H S content.
2

Alloy 316L - Cladding or Lining
The Alloy 316L - Cladding or Lining is used as a Cladding or Lining in pipe for flowlines and is resistant to
corrosion in sweet environments. The limits of environmental parameters for Alloy 316L in terms of NaCl%,
partial pressure of CO and temperature were established by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and
2
Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. The Alloy 316L - Cladding or Lining graph indicates a
rather high sensitivity to chloride contents when the partial pressure of CO is very high and displays the 316L
2
Application Limits in Sweet Service.
Figure: 316L Application Limits in Sweet Service

The limits of use of Alloy 316L in environments containing H2S are based on recent test data used to support
the limits in the 300 series austenitic stainless steels in ISO15156. At operating temperatures below 200 °C for
chloride ion content up to 50ppm there are no limits on the maximum partial pressure of H2S that AISI 316L
can tolerate. Above 50ppm chloride ion content the alloy may suffer SSC at more than 15psi H2S.

The Alloy 904L - Cladding or Lining is used as a Cladding or Lining in pipe for flowlines. Alloy 904L is highly
resistant to corrosion in sweet environments. The ECE Evaluator assumes that alloy 904L can be used up to
about 260°C in production environments that contain no H S. At chloride ion concentrations lower than 50ppm
2
this material is not sensitive to H S content.

2
In sour environments there is limited data on the performance of 904L. A review by TWI “Alloy Materials for
Sour Service Environments – A Critical Review” by T.G. Gooch and R.N. Gunn, June 1992, indicated that 904L
was suitable for use with up to 0.9 bar H S with up to 100g/l chloride. It is expected that 904L could tolerate
2
higher partial pressures of H S at lower chloride contents so a limit of 1.2bar has been given for chloride
2
contents lower than 10g/l. These limits are regarded as conservative.
Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining
The Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining is used as a Cladding or Lining in pipe for flowlines. It is also used in solid
form. At chloride ion concentrations lower than 50ppm this material is not sensitive to H S content. The limits of
2
environmental parameters for Alloy 825 in terms of partial pressure of H S, partial pressure of CO and
2 2
temperature were established by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry NiDI Technical
Series Publication 10073. A simplified version is used in the ECE Evaluator since there is little dependence on
CO . The Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining graph assumes that there is a significant level (about 100g/l) of chloride
2
present.

The Alloy 625 - Cladding or Lining is used as a Cladding or Lining in pipe for flowlines. The limits of
environmental parameters for Alloy 625 in terms of partial pressure of H S, partial pressure of CO and
2 2
temperature were established by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry NiDI Technical
Series Publication 10073. The Alloy 625 - Cladding or Lining graph assumes that there is a significant level
(about 100g/l) of chloride present. At chloride ion concentrations lower than 50ppm this material is not
sensitive to H S content.
2

Alloy 6Mo - Super Austenitic Stainless Steel
Alloy 6Mo - Super Austenitic Stainless Steel
This represents a group of high alloy stainless steels such as UNS S31254, N08926 etc, They are used as solid
piping or pipeline material. In general, the corrosion resistance of Alloy 6Mo is superior to that of 316L and
904L grades and it can tolerate higher chloride and/or H S contents. There is a limited amount of documented
2
field or test data. The limits in ECE Evaluation Rules are based on a combination of published and unpublished
test data and field experience. The limits are regarded as conservative. Hydrogen Sulphide Resistance of
Highly-Alloyed Austenitic Stainless Steels, ACOM 1997 – vol. 2.
Flowline Life Cycle Calculator
Flowline Life Cycle Calculator
The Flowline Life Cycle Calculator (LCC) for flowlines is used to make an economic comparison of various
corrosion control options for a flowline; Carbon Steel, Carbon Steel with Chemical Inhibition and Corrosion
Resistant Alloy.

The Flowline Life Cycle Calculation can be used to carry out a cost comparison on completion of a corrosion
analysis and CRA material selection, or it can be used totally independently by overwriting all the input field
data with new information fora ny case being investigated. The LCC evaluation is helpful to compare the cost of
certain options, but it is not a full costing exercise and cannot be used for estimating the actual costs of
projects. Many significant costs which are basically the same regardless of the corrosion control option chosen
are, for simplicity, not included in the Flowline Life Cycle Calculator, because they do not affect the comparison
between the different options. All costs are indicated in dollars ($). However, any other currency unit could be
used so long as the same currency is used for all inputs.
• Data Input: Input Values are added to the Flowline LCC using the tabs on the left; Flowline Details,
Financial, Welding Costs and Inhibition and Monitoring. Default Values are loaded when the Flowline
LCC is launched. Enter the required values to display the Output Results.
• Details: Used to enter the Pipe Dimensions, Carbon Steel, Corrosion Resistant Alloy and Corrosion
values to the Flowline LCC.
• Financial: Used to enter the Financial Conditions and Cost of Materials.
• Welding Costs: Used to enter the welding reference data into the Flowline LCC.
• Inhibition and Monitoring: Includes costs associated specifically with corrosion inhibition of carbon steel
(through inhibitor injection) and inspection and monitoring of corrosion in carbon steel.
• Data Output: Output Results are displayed in the tabs; Net Present Value and Capital. The Output
• Net Present Value (NPV) Graph: Displays the changing cost of the CRA and carbon steel options as a
function of time, up to the given life of the project.

• Capital Graph: Displays just the capital costs of purchasing the two types of pipe and laying it initially.
Data Input
Data Input
Input Values are added to the Flowline LCC using the tabs on the left; Flowline Details, Financial, Welding Costs
and Inhibition and Monitoring. Default Values are loaded when the Flowline LCC is launched. Enter the required
values to display the Output Results. Input Values to the Flowline LCC are not derived from the Flowline
Corrosion Predictor, nor are they linked to the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.

Flowline Life Cycle Calculator Report
The Flowline Life Cycle Calculator Report option is used to display the Flowline Life Cycle Calculation Results
produced by the Flowline Life Cycle Calculator.
• With the Flowline Life Cycle Calculator open, select File, Flowline Life Cycle Calculator Report.
Flowline Details
The Flowline Details tab is used to enter the Pipe Dimensions, Carbon Steel, Corrosion Resistant Alloy and
Corrosion values to the Flowline LCC.

• Pipe Dimensions: Flowline length and installation method are entered in the top box. Three options are
given, S-Lay, Reel Lay and Onshore. The costs associated with these can be entered in the Welding
Costs tab. The costs associated with other pipe lay techniques, such as bundle –laying are too complex
to model in a simple way since this normally involves laying several pipes at once.
• Pipe dimensions may be typed directly into text boxes or entered by the sliders. Input can be done in
metric or US customary units, conversion between these is automatic. Different dimensions can be
entered for Carbon steel and CRA options, as these may differ due to the corrosion allowance required
for carbon steel and possible differences in material strength.
Financial
The Financial tab is used to enter the Financial Conditions and Cost of Materials. The page requires the CRA
alloy to be selected. This alloy selection automatically proposes an example price for that CRA in the box
underneath. It should be noted that CRA prices can be relatively volatile and vary a great deal over time, also
they depend upon the dimensions of the pipe. For these reasons it is important to obtain up-to-date prices and
to enter them, rather than relying on the initial default values. The selection of a particular CRA on the LCC
input sheet sets the alloy density for calculation of the required weight of CRA for the given steel dimensions.

• Conditions: The Project Life and the Real Discount Rate are entered directly into the boxes or using the
sliders.
• Cost of Materials: The material cost of carbon steel should be adjusted from the pre-set initial price to
reflect the current cost.
Inhibition and Monitoring
The Inhibition and Monitoring tab includes costs associated specifically with corrosion inhibition of carbon steel
(through inhibitor injection) and inspection and monitoring of corrosion in carbon steel.
• Inhibition or Glycol Injection Costs: The use of inhibitors requires some additional capital expenditure
initially to provide for inhibitor injection equipment and tanks for inhibitor storage: these are entered as

injection equipment cost. It also has associated annual operating costs for the purchase of the
chemicals being injected and also the cost of the labour to keep control of the system and ensure
inhibitor tanks are kept filled: these costs are entered against chemical injection cost and labour cost
chemical application. Part of these annual labour costs would also cover the costs of labour to review
the corrosion monitoring equipment output on a regular basis.
• Inspection Cost: Corroding pipe should be regularly inspected. The inspection cost forms part of the
operating costs of the carbon steel pipe.
• Inspection Interval: The inspection interval can be altered and the typical inspection cost per km of pipe
can be set.
• Monitoring Equipment Cost: Monitoring equipment is normally purchased where carbon steel is being
used and corrosion is expected to be taking place. Monitoring equipment can vary widely in
sophistication and therefore in cost. The monitoring equipment cost is accounted for as an element of
the capital cost of using carbon steel.
Welding Costs
The Welding Costs tab is used to enter the welding reference data into the Flowline LCC.
• CRA Pipe Unit Length: The welding reference data includes the length of the individual CRA pipes. The
standard pipe length is 12.2m but some CRA pipes can be supplied in longer lengths in certain sizes
from some manufacturers, whilst in other cases the pipes are shorter than 12.2m. The model assumes
that carbon steel pipes are always supplied in 12.2m lengths.
• Cost for welding onshore: The cost for the welding spread on land, or the lay barge for offshore S-
laying is entered on this page.
• Lineup Time: The factors affecting the speed of completing welding are given, all these preset values
can be altered as required. The lineup time for the weld will depend upon the diameter, accuracy of the
end dimensions of the pipe and the criticality of the bevel design. Generally CRA's require a little more
time for lineup than carbon steel because of the greater criticality of fit-up.
• Root Welding Rate: The root welding rate is important in influencing the overall cost of fabrication. The
rates of welding given are 150mm/min (typical of GTAW, or TIG welding) which has been frequently
used in the past for CRA root run welding, and 250mm/min (typical of GMAW or MIG welding) which is

typically used for welding carbon steels. It is important to note that GMAW welding has, however, been
used with great success for welding several CRA flowlines. As this is the trend, there is an incentive to
set the welding rate of both materials to the same welding rate. Where the actual welding rate is known
then that can be entered in place of the guideline figures.
• Weld Repair Rate: The repair rate reflects the inevitable need to repair some of the welds made. The
time required for a cut-out and re-weld will vary for different materials depending upon the selected
welding method and pipe dimensions. Rather arbitrary values have been preselected for weld repair
rate and weld repair time but these guideline figures can be altered when more accurate estimates have
been made.
Net Present Value
The Net Present Value (NPV) graph displays the changing cost of the CRA and carbon steel options as a function
of time, up to the given life of the project. The graph shows the CRA option as a straight line. This is because
there are no operating costs calculated for this material option, there is no need for inhibitor injection,
inspection or corrosion monitoring with CRA's.
The carbon steel + inhibitor line shows an annual increase because of these operating costs. Costs later in the
future are less than costs today, so the slope of the line gradually becomes less steep in later years. The
mathematical explanation for the shape of the graph is given in the topic Life Cycle Cost Calculation.
The carbon steel option has a lower annual operating cost, just arising from inspection and monitoring, but with
no inhibitor injection.
The model does not include any costs associated with insurance of the pipeline. Insurance costs reflect the
relatively high reliability of CRA pipelines in that the probability of failure is so much lower (based upon past
field experience) than carbon steel lines that the annual insurance premiums are lower. However, the inclusion
of this cost item would have a very small effect on the general cost picture
The NPV graph will frequently show a jump in value at some point in time because the pipe is estimated to
require replacement in that year. In reality it is highly unlikely that a material would be chosen for a flowline
when it is anticipated that the line will require replacement before the end of the project life. If there are such
jumps in the carbon steel line(s) it would be more typical to consider a greater corrosion allowance on the pipe.
This can be tested by increasing the wall thickness of the carbon steel pipe on the LCC Input sheet.

The program is preset to have minimum time for first replacement of a line at one year. This generalization
may introduce some inaccuracy in the output graph when corrosion rates are extremely high. In such
circumstances it will anyway be clear that the replacement frequency of the carbon steel option is impractical.
The most economic material option is the one that is lowest in cost (the lowest line) at the end of the required
project life.
• Capital Graph: Displays just the capital costs of purchasing the two types of pipe and laying it initially.
Installation
Installation
S-laying is the conventional offshore pipe-lay method suitable for moderate water depths. The cost of laying
depends principally upon the time required to hire the laybarge. This depends upon the speed of making the
first weld run in the case of carbon steel welding, since after the first run is complete the barge can move
forward to add in the next piece of pipe whilst the rest of the weld is completed in the other welding stations.
Thus lining up the weld and completing the first run are the critical steps for which the time has to be
estimated.
The line up time is taken from the value given on the welding ref data sheet.
The approximate time to complete the root run is taken from the circumference of the pipe (taken from the OD)
divided by the welding rate.
The model takes these times together and multiplies them by the number of welds in the line (calculated from
the pipeline length divided by the length of individual pipes).
To this is added the time required to make the repairs. This is the total number of welds X the repair rate (%) X
the time required for the complete weld repair.
These figures together give the total time the welding operation will take. (Note that the working day is
assumed to be 24hours on a welding laybarge). This time, multiplied by the cost of hiring the given barge of
the correct diameter capacity, gives the fabrication cost.
NB In the case of CRA pipes the model assumes that both the root run and the second pass have to be
completed before the pipe can be moved. This is because all CRA's require gas shielding of the root of the weld
to prevent excessive oxidation. It is generally assumed that the heat flux from the third weld-bead onwards is

not too great to cause blackening of the weld region and so the shielding gas device can be moved after the
second pass. This means that the model effectively doubles the number of welds for the CRA pipe, compared to
the carbon steel pipe. If the user wishes to consider the case of moving onto the next weld after just the root
run is complete, then they may simply double the welding rate. This will have the same effect as welding just
the root run at the normal speed.
For Onshore laying the costs can similarly be estimated from the cost of completing the root run, since several
welding stations can be used for completing the weld once the critical line-up and root weld is completed. The
cost of the welding spread on land is lower than offshore. The welding day is taken to be just 12 hours on land.
For Reel laying, most of the time is spent welding pipe onshore, preparing stalks of 6 pipes which are
subsequently welded together and ‘reeled’ onto reels to be ‘unreeled’ at sea. Since this welding work is done on
land, the costs are taken to be the same as onshore welding costs. The welding of the stalks and the reeling
operation are taken to require an extra one hour for every stalk (6 pipes). An additional charge (at the same
rate as the onshore welding rate per day) is taken for the costs of the reeling operation itself based on a barge
time for unreeling of 10km/day. (Actual reeling times varying with pipe length and diameter and depending
upon whether the barge has to return to shore to collect another ‘reel’ of pipe. Such details are not
incorporated in this model).
NOTES:
1) This model does not include certain other costs in the calculation of the cost of fabrication. No charge is included for
welding consumables, such as filler metals and gases or for pipe bevelling. These costs would increase the fabrication costs,
particularly of the more expensive CRA's, but the percentage error on the total fabrication cost due to ignoring these items is
not large.
2) No costs are taken for mobilizing the barge to the project location as these costs will vary for every project. They are also
the same for every type of pipe material and so the costs cancel out in the LCC comparison. The same argument applies to
many other overhead costs which are essentially the same irrespective of the material selected.
Life Cycle Cost Calculation
The Life Cycle Cost Calculation is the mathematical definition of the Life Cycle Cost.
The usual economic method of dealing with inflation and the time-cost of money is to make all the calculations
in terms of value in year zero. The coefficient 1/(1+i)n reduces the actual cash value in year n to its net
present value. It should be noted that this coefficient is < 1 which accounts for the time value of the money.
The discount rate, i, will vary, not only for different companies, but potentially for different projects. Net
present values should always be quoted with the year of starting and the discount rate used. The real discount
rate which is entered in the LCC Input sheet should be the current interest rate minus the inflation rate to give
the real effective discount rate.
The Life Cycle Cost symbols have the following meanings:
• LCC: Life Cycle Cost
• AC: Initial acquisition cost of materials
• IC: Initial installation costs (including fabrication)
• OC: Operating +/or maintenance costs
• LP: Lost production costs during downtime
• RC: Replacement materials costs
• SC: Residual value of replaced materials
• N: Desired life time (years)
• i: Discount rate

• n: year of the event
Bulk Calculation
Bulk Calculation is used to load multiple flowline values for calculation into ECE.
• From the Flowline Tools menu, select Bulk Calculation to display the Bulk Calculation dialog.
Alternatively you can also select the Bulk Calculation button on the Flowline toolbar to display the Bulk
Calculation dialog.
• From the Bulk Calculation dialog, click Download to Save the Bulk Calculation Template.

• Complete, Save and Close the Template. Where incorrect values have been entered the cell will be
shaded red. You can upload the template with errors, however these values will not be included in the
calculation. The Template must be closed for the calculation to run correctly.
• Click Browse to select and upload the completed Template.
• Click Calculate to complete the calculations.
• Save the results using Save. Results can then be viewed in the Bulk Upload Results file.

Corrosion Model Background
CO2 Corrosion Rate Model
The CO2 Corrosion Rate Model recognises the occurrence of two cathodic processes:
The first reaction is mainly controlled by the electrochemical processes at the liquid/metal interface, while the
second reaction is controlled by the mass transfer of the carbonic acid to the metal. The sum of the flow of
electrons from these reactions is balanced by the anodic dissolution reaction of the metal, for example:
The basic CO corrosion rate is the combination of these two processes:

2
For normalised steels the equation for the reaction controlled part is:
and for the mass-transfer controlled part:
where t is the temperature (°C), fCO is the fugacity of the CO (bar), pHCO is the pH of pure water saturated
2 2 2
with CO at prevailing temperature and pressure.

2
pHactual is the pH resulting from the presence of dissolved salts. These can be various dissolved carbonate and
bicarbonate salts; whose concentration is adjustable in ECE. A very important bicarbonate is dissolved iron
bicarbonate, which is the primary corrosion product in the absence of H S. Because of its slow conversion to
2
insoluble iron carbonate, its presence can increase the pH considerably. Further information is given under the
topic "pH".
All units are expressed in the kg.m.sec system. The above equations are normalised / as-rolled steels. For
quenched and tempered steels these equations are slightly different.
These equations represent a best fit to a large number of flow-loop data measured at IFE (Institutt For
Energiteknikk) in Norway, where test conditions and environments were strictly controlled. From a regression
analysis with these data, the error distribution obtained with this fit had a standard deviation of 25%.
The results from the above equations are adjusted for the presence of protective scale, H S, crude oil or
2
condensate, glycol and inhibitor by means of multipliers on the basic CO corrosion rate:
2

The basic corrosion rate Vcor is adjusted by the use of a number of multiplying factors to account for situations
which differ from the base case. While in wet gas systems the corrosion takes the form of "mesa" type attack
(pits with flat bottoms), the corrosion normally experienced in oil systems is also localised, but with rounded
pits. The model actually predicts the pit penetration rate.
The fugacity of CO is similar to its partial pressure, but corrected for non-ideality of natural gas & CO at high
2 2
pressure and temperature. The same basic CO fugacity correction is used as in previous versions of ECE:
2
The maximum pressure in this equation, P, is limited to 250 bar and the equation is adjusted slightly for
temperatures above 140°C to provide a better fit to curves of fugacity against reduced pressure and reduced
temperature.
Reference:
C. de Waard, U. Lotz and A. Dugstad, Influence of liquid velocity on CO2 corrosion: a semi-empirical model, NACE Corrosion
1995, Paper 128.
L. Smith, C de Waard, Corrosion Prediction and Materials Selection for Oil and Gas Producing Environments, NACE Corrosion
2005, Paper 05648.
Influence of Carbonate Scales
Influence of Carbonate Scales
Above certain temperatures which are CO partial pressure dependent, the corrosion rate decreases with
2
increasing temperature through formation of a protective carbonate scale on the steel's surface. This is
expressed by means of a multiplier on V , the so-called scaling factor:
cor
with F scale < 1. A minimum value is applied at higher temperatures and CO partial pressures.
2
Refer to Effect of H2S for the effect of sulphides formed in the presence of H S. 2
Effect of H2S
The effect of the presence of H S on corrosion in the ECE model is threefold:
2
• Increasing the acidity of the water.

• Scavenging the dissolved Fe ions by forming Fe- sulphide precipitates, which decrease the pH and
increase the corrosion rate
• Covering the steel with a protective iron sulphide layer.
Factors (1) and (2) can slightly increase the corrosion rate under certain conditions, but, except at very low
concentrations of H S, these effects are usually outweighed by significant reductions in corrosion rate due to
2
sulphide scaling, factor (3).

The protectiveness of the sulphide layer is expressed in the form of a multiplier on the CO corrosion rate:
2

where H Saq and CO aq are the concentrations of H S and CO dissolved in the water, f and f' are functions and
2 2 2 2
a & b are constants. This formula is a development of the formulae in previous versions of ECE, in light of field
experience of corrosion in sour systems. The principal difference from ECE 4.x is that slightly lower corrosion
rates are predicted for CO / H S ratios of around 200 and less and particularly from ratios of 20 or less. This
2 2
better reflects the common experience of low corrosion rates in many highly sour production environments.
• Warning: this formula is a proposal rather than an established model! However, it describes many of
the trends often observed both in laboratory test work and in actual field experience.
It will be observed that the presence of H S can significantly reduce the general corrosion rate. This is in line
2
with field experience of sour equipment which forms an adherent FeS film on the surface. Successful operators
of carbon steel in sour service take operational steps to optimise and sustain this sulfide film. Typically,
equipment is commissioned for service by flushing with a solution of inhibitor and/or continuous inhibition is
maintained throughout the service life. Great effort is taken to prevent the entry of air into the equipment as
this can oxidise the FeS, releasing elemental sulfur, which is very aggressive.
• Pitting Corrosion: Although low corrosion rates due to protective sulphide films are often the norm in
production conditions, very much higher corrosion rates can occur if film breaks down. The form of
corrosion which takes place is pitting corrosion. Without the protective film, the rate of attack is
typically similar to the rate of CO corrosion. When H S is present, ECE re-models the environment
2 2
where the surface is completely filmed. When the dissolved iron is precipitated as FeS, this H2S-
containing environment is more acid than without the FeS film because there is no dissolved iron
carbonate. The corrosion rate in this environment is taken as a possible rate of pitting corrosion, in case
the film breaks down locally, leading to isolated pitting. When H S is present, this potential pitting rate
2
is also reported in the Corrosion Rate Graph.

• Likelihood of Pitting Corrosion: This is an area of active research and satisfactory quantitative models
have not been fully developed, however the main trends are known from laboratory studies and field
experience. Many of these parameters also impact the filming corrosion rate, pH or pitting corrosion
rate (as opposed to the likelihood) calculated within ECE.
• Flow velocity: This is the most important factor in field experience. Pitting is expected in stagnant and
low flow conditions, possibly related to the velocity at which deposits settle or are not moved. At very
high velocities, erosion can damage sulphide films: this effect is included in ECE via the API 14E
erosional velocity limit.
• Flow Regime: Pitting is more commonly experienced in low velocity, stratified flow. This can be viewed
as an alias for flow velocity, not an independent factor.
• Dissolved Solids and Chlorides: Evidence is inconsistent. Some laboratory studies suggest that the
presence of chloride is necessary or helpful in the film break-down process. However, in field
experience with produced fluids where there is nearly always some level of chloride, correlation
between chloride concentration and the occurrence of pitting attack is poor.
• pH: Most iron sulphides are more soluble at low pH, so there is a basis for film breakdown and higher
corrosion at lower pH, and this is seen in some laboratory conditions. However, field experience is less
clear and very low corrosion rates are observed in some lower pH environments, such as sour gas lines
with condensed water.
• Temperature: Field and laboratory data is inconsistent, with different ranges being found to be worse
for sour pitting attack. The weight of evidence is that lower temperatures, below about 60°C, are most
severe.

• Water Cut: Effects of water cut, fluid velocity, oil-wetting and chlorides are difficult to separate in field
conditions. ECE includes modelling of oil-water effects related to water cut.
• Sour Pitting Risk Ranking: ECE includes a qualitative ranking scheme to describe the risk of sour pitting
corrosion based on the model inputs. Note that the occurrence of pitting can be affected by operational
factors not in the scope of ECE, for example pigging, stability of process conditions, contamination with
trace oxygen, presence of solids. These factors are NOT included in the ranking model.
• Pitting risk ranking is based on Flow Velocity (main factor), modified by chloride content, pH and
temperature.
• Main factor - Flow Velocity: High risk, liquid velocity < 1 m/s; Medium 1 -2 m/s; Low > 2 m/s, or
superficial gas velocity > 3 m/s.
• Modifying Factors:
• Chloride: high > 10,000ppm ; medium 1000 - 10,000 ppm ; low < 1000 ppm
• pH: high < 3.2; medium 3.2-5; low > 5
• Temperature: high, < 60°C; medium 60-90°C; low > 90°C
• The overall Risk is described as Very High, High, Moderate or Low based on the above factors.
• Cracking in Sour Conditions: H S also causes cracking in carbon steels by various mechanisms. The
2
severity of the environment as regards of sulfide stress cracking of carbon steels is assessed against
the criteria defined in ISO 15156-2 and the result is reported on the Details page in the Corrosion
Predictor.
• H S can cause hydrogen induced cracking (HIC) (also called step-wise cracking). No evaluation of this
2
risk is made since it is extremely sensitive to the material properties and manufacturing processes. It is
assumed that HIC-sensitive materials (such as rolled carbon steel products not specifically produced for
sour service) may suffer HIC even in the presence of traces of H S. 2
• The CRA Evaluation tools provide guidance on appropriate CRA alloys in sour service.
• Refer to other resources for further advice on the avoidance of cracking risks in H S, including EFC
2
Document nr 16, and NACE MR0175 / ISO 15156

Reference:
Michel Bonis (TOTAL E&P), Weight-loss corrosion with H2S: From facts to leading parameters and mechanisms, NACE
Corrosion 2009, Paper 09654.
Stephen N. Smith, Michael W. Joosten, Corrosion of Carbon Steel by H2S in CO2 - containing Oilfield Environments, NACE
Corrosion 2006 Paper 06115.
pH and Water Chemistry

The pH is evaluated by calculating the concentration of the following species:
CO , H CO , HCO -, CO --, H S, HS-, S--, H+, OH-, H O, Fe++ , CH COOH (acetic acid), CH COO-.
2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3
The effective carbonic acid concentration is calculated from the CO fugacity and Henry's constant, which is
2
temperature dependent. The concentrations of the carbonate and bicarbonate species then follow from the
dissociation constants, which are also temperature dependent. For the H S derived species the calculations are
2
analogous.
The pH is finally obtained by changing the H+ concentration until all ionic species are in equilibrium of charge.
An important role is played by dissolved iron bicarbonate, which is the initial corrosion product formed.
Although the solubility of FeCO is quite low, the slow reaction:
3
Fe(HCO ) ---------> FeCO +H CO

3 2 3 2
3
causes a supersaturation with dissolved Fe++, which increases the pH (=pHact) and reduces the corrosion rate.
The extent of supersaturation with Fe(HCO ) is temperature dependent (more supersaturation at lower
3 2
temperature). The precipitation rate of FeCO (=removal rate of Fe(HCO ) from solution) can be calculated from
3 3 2
van Hunnik's formula:

where Ksp is the solubility product of FeCO , A/V is the surface area/volume ratio and S is the supersaturation
3
level.
The iron bicarbonate concentration [Fe++] is calculated as a function of distance into the pipe. This is done by
dividing the pipe into segments of equal size, and determining the pH and ferrous ion mass balance for every
segment. For a stable, once-through system, like a pipeline the dissolved iron carbonate concentration will
become time independent, and for every segment the fluxes of the concentration (=change per time unit)
brought about by corrosion, precipitation of FeCO , and flow into and out of the segment should balance.
3
All chemical equilibria, pH and resulting Fe++ concentration are recalculated in each segment, with the dissolved
iron from a previous segment acting as input for the next one. Note that the pH calculated in this way for any
location is dependent on the flow velocity.
The model needs to know whether the inlet water is supersaturated with iron carbonate , or whether this water
contains no iron at all (condensed water). The default setting is for supersaturation with iron carbonate, but this
can be changed in Defaults. The possible cases are:
• Unsaturated: Applicable to laboratory conditions or condensing water straight from a gas phase (for
example, after a compressor and cooler).
• Supersaturated: Applicable to the majority of flowing systems where there is insufficient time to
achieve equilibration and therefore there is an over-saturation of iron carbonate in the water.
In the presence of H S, the effect of iron carbonate supersaturation disappears because the dissolved iron is
2
converted to insoluble sulphides (and the corrosion rate is lowered by the presence of H S). The precipitation
2
rate of Fe-sulphides, once the solubility product has been exceeded, is much faster than that of FeCO , and can
3
be assumed to be instantaneous. This effect is also calculated as function of pipe length from the solubility of
FeS, which is a function of temperature.
For systems which are producing a formation water that contains alkali bicarbonates which are input on the
bicarbonate scroll bar, the effect of iron carbonate supersaturation then vanishes. Note that when this input is
set to zero, there is still some bicarbonate corresponding to the dissolved CO . Adding more bicarbonate
2
increases the pH and lowers the corrosion rate.

Note that the CRA Evaluation tools also give pH values, both at in-situ temperature and pressure and also in
the given environment but at 20ºC.
• Impact of Dissolved Salts: Dissolved salts have two main impacts on water chemistry, namely salting
out effect on gas solubility and impact on hydrogen ion activity. Within ECE, dissolved salts are treated
as being NaCl. The overall impact on corrosion rates is for reduced corrosion at very high ionic strength.
This is observed in laboratory studies.
• Salting out: The general trend is that gas solubility decreases with ionic strength, and to a first
approximation this is consistent over a wide range of pressure and temperature. ECE bases salting-out
on the empirical formula derived by Enick and Klara.
• Hydrogen Activity: Starting from pure water and increasing ionic strength, the trend is initially for
slightly lower activity, then increasing activity in very concentrated solutions. There are simple
equations for dilute solutions (Debye – Huckel equation for example). Activity coefficient corrections in
ECE are based on a combination of values from dilute solution equations and empirical data for higher
strength solutions.
pH = -log (γ [H+] )
• Where γ is the hydrogen activity coefficient, which is a function of ionic strength.

Reference:
C. de Waard, U. Lotz and A. Dugstad, Influence of Liquid Velocity on CO2 Corrosion: a Semi-Empirical Model, NACE Corrosion
1995 Paper 128.
E.W.J. van Hunnik et al, The formation of protective FeCO3 corrosion product layers in CO2 corrosion, NACE Corrosion 1996,
Paper 6.
Fang et al, High salt concentration effects on CO2 corrosion and H2S corrosion, NACE Corrosion 2010, Paper 10276.
L. Smith, C de Waard, Corrosion Prediction and Materials Selection for Oil and Gas Producing Environments, NACE Corrosion
2005, Paper 05648.
R. Enick, S Klara, CO2 solubility in water and brine under reservoir conditions, Chem Eng Comm 1990, Volume 90 pp 23-3.
Influence of Crude Oil

The presence of hydrocarbons may have an important effect on corrosion rate. At higher velocities, the water
may be entrained in the oil, and the effect on corrosion than depends on how well the water can wet the steel's
surface. The ECE model proposes that this wetting ability depends on the amount of water which the oil can
carry in the form of an emulsion. The ability of an oil to form emulsions with water can be expressed as the
emulsion breakpoint, which is the amount of water above which the emulsion will separate. Water contents less
than this breakpoint will cause less water wetting of the steel, and give less corrosion since the water is being
carried as an emulsion in the oil. The corrosion rate reduces as the water content reduces. Water contents
greater than the breakpoint will result in more corrosion, as there is water separation. This results in water
wetting of the steel even if the water remains entrained in the oil because of turbulent flow. The oil then still
has an inhibiting effect on the corrosion rate.
It has been found that there is a simple relationship between the API gravity of the oil and the emulsion
breakpoint. Data were used from Craig (Corrosion Vol.54, 8, p.657) .
Where WBreak = the water cut in the oil at the emulsion breakpoint, API = gravity of the oil in °API
A light oil with a very high API density can hardly carry any water in emulsion, and the emulsion breakpoint will
be exceeded already with a very small water cut. This in line with the accepted fact that gas condensate does
not give any protection at all,.
The oilfactor, Foil for production tubing is given by:
where W is the water cut (as fraction of total liquid volume),

Uliq = liquid velocity, and
alpha = angle of deviation (from vertical)
This formula extrapolates field experience for vertical flow and deviated flow which showed that at low
watercuts the corrosion from oil/water mixtures is highly dependent on the angle of tubing. Straight vertical oil
wells have shown lower tendency to corrode than deviated wells. This probably reflects the tendency for the
denser water phase to contact the tubing wall when flowing at an angle. Furthermore, the formula attempts to
quantify the intuitive notion that heavier crude oils are more protective against corrosion than light crudes or
condensates.
At high water cuts at some point there will be a change from water-in-oil emulsion to an oil-in-water emulsion
and that there will always be wetting of the steel above a certain water cut so that Foil = 1. ECE The program is
set to give a straight line transition between the oil factor equation and Foil = 1 over a transition range. In ECE
4.x the transition range was set at water cut of 70% to 80%. Experience with oil wells at high water cuts has
shown that in practice the protective effect of oil extends to higher water cuts, even in excess of 90%, and the
transition range has therefore been changed to 80-90% for the Tubing Corrosion Predictor only. Based on field
experience, this range is still conservative for many wells. The transition range for Flowlines is 70-80%.
• Warning: the stability of oil/water emulsions is influenced strongly by the natural presence of surface
active chemicals, or by the presence of added chemicals like "emulsion breakers". These are often used

in operations to facilitate the separation of water from crude oil and downstream of the separators, and
they may still be causing water to separate out more easily than the API gravity and flow rate would
predict.
For horizontal flow, when the flow regime is stratified, the multiplier Foil=1 when the water separates
from the oil so that there is complete water wetting of the surface. The velocity of water separation is
dependent upon pipe diameter, pipe angle, oil density etc . A lower limit can be taken in general to
occur at liquid velocities < 1 m/s, and there is some dependence on pipeline diameter. In ECE, a critical
velocity of 1 m/s or 2.25 x (pipe diameter)^0.5 is applied (whichever is greater). This constraint for Foil
is superimposed on the formula for Foil given above.
• Force Water Drop-out: In pipelines, which are never perfectly horizontal, there may be pockets of water
hold up at low points even at flow velocities above the general critical value. Pressing the Force Water
Drop Out button on the Throughput tab can check the corrosion rate with forced water dropout for
systems where the bulk velocity is higher than the critical velocity. Force Water Drop Out can also be
selected for other situations where oil-water separation is expected, for example if demulsifier
chemicals are present.
Reference:
B Craig, Predicting the Conductivity of Water-in-Oil Solutions, Corrosion Volume 54, 8, p. 657 1998.
C. de Waard, L. Smith, P. Bartlett and H. Cunningham, Modelling Corrosion Rates in Oil Production Tubing, Eurocorr 2001,
Paper 254.
C. de Waard, L. Smith and B. Craig, The Influence of Crude Oil on Well Tubing Corrosion Rates, NACE Corrosion 2003, Paper
03629.
C. de Waard and U. Lotz, Prediction of CO2 Corrosion of Carbon Steel, Working Party Report on Predicting CO2 corrosion in
the oil and gas industry, European Federation of Corrosion 1994.
J. Cai, S. Nesic and C de Waard, Modeling of Water Wetting in Oil-Water Pipe Flow, NACE Corrosion 2004, Paper 4663.
Condensation of Water
Condensation of Water
The amount of water inside the pipe or tubing is recalculated for every point along the length. Use is made of a
computerised graph from McKette and Wehe (Hydroc Proc Aug 1958) of gas temperature vs. water content of
natural gas, with gas pressure as parameter. This changes liquid hold up and liquid velocities and water cut
along the pipe length or up the height of the tubing. Gas temperature and water content will not always be in
equilibrium at high flow-rates: this effect is outside the scope of ECE.
When glycol is added for hydrate or corrosion control in a pipe, the amount of condensed water is modified as
function of the glycol injection rate.
ECE can be used to estimate the total amount of condensed water from gas at the outlet by subtracting the
water at inlet rate (Throughput page ) from that at the outlet (Details page).
Top of Line Corrosion

When there is a stratified flow pattern in a flowline, there is the potential for Top-of-Line Corrosion. This is
corrosion attack on the upper part of the internal pipe surface in contact with the gas phase, in contrast to
attack on the lower part in contact with the bulk liquid water phase. In sweet conditions, severe Top-of-Line
corrosion is typically associated with high temperature gradients and high rates of water condensation on the
pipe walls. Note that Top-of-Line Corrosion includes the whole surface in contact with the gas phase, not just
the 12 clock position.
The predicted Top-of-Line corrosion rate is proportional to the rate of condensation of water from the gas (per
unit area of pipe wall) and the maximum Fe concentration in water at the particular conditions of pressure,
temperature and gas composition. In physical terms, this expresses the maximum rate at which water can
remove iron ions from the pipe wall as it condenses and then runs-off down to the bulk liquid phase at the
bottom of the pipe. This limits the potential rate of corrosion of the pipe wall.
The iron concentration is the iron super-saturation limit, not the equilibrium saturation limit, as the precipitation
of iron carbonate is a slow reaction and the water phase does not reach equilibrium. The water condensation
rate is calculated from the temperature profile, pressure and gas rate. The concept is similar to that proposed
by Olsen & Dugstad, but the details of the calculation of iron concentration differ.
• Scale and Oil factors are not applied to the Top-of-Line corrosion rate.
• Chemical inhibition is not applied to Top-of-Line corrosion rate
• Acetic acid is slightly volatile and has a significant vapour pressure. Hence it is present in the gas phase
and can enter the condensed water phase at Top-of-Line.
• Acetic acid is therefore included in the pH and Fe solubility calculations at Top-of-Line. In contrast,
bicarbonate is not present in the condensed water at the Top-of-Line. Organic acids have been
associated with several field examples of severe Top-of-Line corrosion.
• Advice for Modelling Top-of-Line Corrosion: Because the Top-of-Line corrosion rate depends on water
condensation rates, it is important to use a realistic temperature profile. We recommend you use the
option to calculate temperature profile on the Flowline Corrosion Predictor Conditions page.
Alternatively, heat transfer factors and ambient temperature can also be entered as sectional data on
the Sections tab.
• Sour Conditions: Top-of-Line corrosion has occasionally been reported in sour conditions, but it is not
related to high water condensation rates and appears to be a different mechanism to that which applies
in sweet conditions. The ECE model will predict very low Top-of-Line corrosion rates in sour conditions
due to the low solubility of iron sulphide. This is reflects the majority of field experience. In at least
some cases, the top of line corrosion seen in sour conditions may be similar to the pitting corrosion rate
which is also displayed on the Corrosion graph.
Reference:
Stein Olsen, Arne Dugstad, Corrosion under Dewing Conditions, NACE Corrosion 1992, Paper 472
Rolf Nyborg, Arne Dugstad, Top of Line Corrosion and Water Condensation Rates in Wet Gas Pipelines, NACE Corrosion 2007,
Paper 07555.
Corrosion Inhibition
Corrosion inhibitors, when carefully selected and conscientiously applied, can give a significant reduction of the
corrosion rate. In ideal situations, well-chosen inhibitors can achieve efficiencies of 99%.
In practice, the main factor for inhibitors to be less effective is that the reliability (or availability) of the
injection is seldom 100% and frequently much lower. Availability is defined as the percentage of operating time
during which inhibitor is injected at or above the minimum rate required for effective protection.
The corrosion during the uninhibited periods of time may quickly reaches uninhibited rates. In the model, the
corrosion rate is assumed to be the full uninhibited rate during these periods. For continuous inhibition, ECE
allows you to alter both the availability and efficiency of the corrosion inhibitor to test its effect on the overall
corrosion rate.
Note that in all cases, the inhibited corrosion rate per year output by ECE is the overall corrosion rate taking
into account periods with and without inhibition.

• Types of Inhibition: Two modes of inhibition are considered. In the case of flowlines only continuous
inhibition is appropriate. For tubing there is also the option of using squeeze inhibition. Here the
inhibitor solution is injected into the producing reservoir formation, and then slowly released into the
produced oil. The inhibition effect inside the tubing is then built up in about one month, and then
reduces slowly in about 2 months. The corrosion model adds the effect of consecutive squeezes for the
calculation of the average corrosion rate per year.
• Top-of-Line corrosion: In stratified gas-liquid multi-phase systems, conventional inhibitors are generally
unable to reliably protect the top part of the pipeline where fresh water may condenses. Inhibition is
therefore not applied to the Top-of-Line corrosion rate in ECE. It is possible that the corrosion at the top
of the line becomes decisive for the life of the line (for example where the bottom of the line rate is
reduced by favourable oil protection) and the addition of inhibitor cannot influence this. The presence of
crude oil also does not reduce the Top-of-the-Line corrosion rate.
• Inhibition in presence of H2S: Note that in the ECE model, the inhibition only reduces the overall
corrosion rate, but the Isolated Pitting line with H S present in the Corrosion graph is not affected by
2
the presence of inhibitor. In practice, inhibition may have an effect on the likelihood of pitting occurring,
although perhaps not on the pitting rate if or when it does occur.
References:
B.F.M. Pots and E.L.J.A. Hendriksen, CO2 corrosion under scaling conditions – The special case of top-of-Line corrosion in wet
gas pipelines, NACE Corrosion 2000.
Flow Patterns
Complete modelling of flow patterns in multi- phase flow is an extremely complex problem, requiring knowledge
of many parameters which in practice are often not accurately known, or which will in any case change over
time or from point to point in the tubing or flowline. Even in ideal laboratory conditions, accurate prediction of
flow patterns has proved difficult. However, for the purpose of corrosion modelling it is possible to group the
possible patterns into several broader classes: the fundamental distinctions are between annular-mist flow, slug
and bubble type flow patterns, and (for flowlines) stratified, nonsymmetrical flow patterns. ECE uses flow
pattern regimes based on a simplified version of the scheme of Petalas and Aziz. Additionally, there is a Liquid
Full regime.
• Flow Pattern Types for Flowlines: Annular Mist Flow, Intermittent Slug/Bubble Flow, Stratified Flow and
Liquid Full. This schematic diagram displays the flow pattern regimes for horizontal flow in Flowlines.
The model does not allow the stratified regime for up-hill flow above a very low angle (about 1-2
degrees).

• Flow Pattern Types for Tubing: Annular Mist Flow, Slug/Bubble Flow and Liquid Full. Click here to view a
schematic diagram of the flow pattern regimes for vertical flow in Tubing. The evaluation of flow regime
has an impact upon the hold up calculations and actual gas and liquid velocities which may influence
the corrosion rate. Note that in the Tubing Corrosion Predictor, the calculation of oil-wetting effects on
corrosion rates is also influenced by the tubing deviation angle. Top-of-Line corrosion only applies to
stratified flow in flowlines.
• Liquid Full Regime: In multi-phase flow, the dissolved concentrations of CO or H S along the flow-line
2 2
can change with temperature and pressure due to equilibrium with the gas phase. In contrast, this
cannot occur where there is no gas phase present. This effect is accounted for when the liquid full flow
pattern applies.
Reference:
N. Petalas and K. Aziz, A Mechanistic Model for Multiphase Flow in Pipes, Stanford University, 1998.
Glycol Injection
A special form of inhibition consists of the injection of concentrated glycol in flowlines carrying wet natural gas
without formation water production. The glycol acts in two ways:
• As a drying agent, lowering the water dew point of the gas and the condensation rate of pure water.
• As a corrosion inhibitor.
The inhibitive action is a function of the water content of the glycol: when it is diluted with too much water, the
corrosion reduction disappears. The effect of glycol is also treated as a multiplier to the corrosion rate:
where A is a constant =1.6, which weakly depends on the type of glycol, and Water% is the water content of
the glycol/water mixture. The concentration of the glycol is recalculated at every point in the line from the
water vapour pressure in equilibrium with the concentration of the glycol. At high temperatures of (for example,
above 50ºC), the gas carries too much water, which dilutes the glycol excessively. For the same reason the

technique is only practical when most of the liquid water has been knocked out from the gas before entering
the line.
There are several types of glycol which can be used, the most common one being diethylene glycol (DEG). ECE
assumes that any glycol which is injected is DEG of 95% purity. At equal concentrations, the inhibitive action of
the various types of glycol (MEG, DEG, TEG) is quite similar. Hence other glycol types can be treated as
equivalent to DEG for the purpose of corrosion modelling. Top-of-the-line corrosion is also suppressed in (at
least) the same proportion by the injection of glycol.
Reference:
C.de Waard, U.Lotz and D.E. Milliams, Predictive model for CO2 corrosion engineering in wet natural gas pipelines. NACE
Corrosion 1991 Paper 577.
R. Nyborg, A. Dugstad and L. Lunde, NACE Corrosion 1993, Paper 77.
Erosion-Corrosion
The Corrosion Model incorporates the erosional effect of high gas velocities in removing protective layers like
iron-carbonates and –sulphides, and inhibitor films. Their effect is disabled in the model when a critical gas
velocity is exceeded, under the condition that the flow regime is annular mist.
In the present model, this velocity is calculated from API RP 14E, for example, if the velocity is greater than API
erosional velocity, and the flow regime is annular mist, then the protective layers are presumed to fail. The
standard API 14RE critical velocity limit is likely to give conservative results. It is calculated from the following
formula:
Here "dens" stands for the gas/liquid mixture density at flowing pressure and temperature, and c is an
empirical constant. For continuous solids-free service c=100 when empirical units are used: c then has the
dimension (lb/ft)^0.5/s (V erosion in ft/s), or c=122 (kg/m)^0.5/s, when metric units are used (V erosion in m/s).
The mixture density is calculated approximately from the proportions of fluids flowing. A liquid density of 900
kg/m3 is assumed and the density of gas is taken to be 0.7 of that of air (which is 1.226 kg/m3 at 1 bar and 15
°
C), and corrected for prevailing temperature and pressure according to the ideal gas laws. Changes in these
assumptions only give changes in the decimal places of the calculated critical velocity in most practical cases.
It should be appreciated that the critical velocity is also a function of the smoothness of the bore of the pipe
and that the above velocity approach is an extrapolation of experience with piping systems, and does not
necessary apply to pipelines or tubing. At the present, however, this approach is used in industry.
The behaviour of protective layers is treated in the model as a step-function: the layer is either on or off. The
erosional velocity is recalculated for every point in the line. This can lead to a sharp jump in the graph of
corrosion rate vs distance when the erosional velocity is exceeded, where in actual practice the loss of
protection will be less sudden.
A separate model is provided to calculate particle erosion in the Tubing module, see “Particle Erosion”.
• Changing the C-constant: You can change the value of the C-constant on the Advanced page.
Alternative values for different situations have been suggested by some researchers. This option allows
you to work with different C-values or erosional velocity limits depending upon User's policies for
assessing the threat of erosion. Also, entering a very high C value in effect allows you to over-ride the
erosional limit feature.
Reference:
Russell et al, Choosing Better API RP 14E C Factors for Practical Oilfield Implementation, NACE Corrosion 2011, Paper 11248.
Particle Erosion
The Tubing Erosion Predictor model is a slightly simplified implementation of the smooth straight pipe and bend
models from DNV-GL RP O501:2015 “Managing sand production and erosion”. The tool is intended for a first –

pass assessment or exploratory modelling. For detailed assessment, reference to the full DNV-GL Code is
recommended.
The substrate material properties are for Carbon Steel.
The particle correction factor is fixed at 1 (worst case assumption). Accurate information on the particle size
distribution and density is needed to calculate this parameter and this is very often not available. Fixing this
value gives an upper bound result in terms of the RP O501 model.
The erosion values are calculated with the smooth straight pipe formula and also with the pipe bend formula
using the radius of curvature from the tubing deviation profile. The largest of these two values is reported.
The other necessary data for erosion calculation including pipe dimensions and fluid flow velocities are
calculated from the inputs in ECE such as pressure, temperature, flow rates etc.
Note that there is no interaction between the particle erosion model and corrosion model, and any synergistic
effects that might occur are not covered. The corrosion model removes the protective effect of scale and
sulphide filming at velocities above the API 14E erosional limit (see “Erosion –corrosion”) .
In practice, to produce significant particle erosion rates in tubing (essentially straight, smooth pipe) requires
rather extreme conditions of flow velocity and particle loading.
Reference: DNV-GL RP O501:2015 “Managing sand production and erosion”
Risk of Failure
Risk of Failure
The corrosion prediction models used in ECE have a limited accuracy. The formulas used for CO2 corrosion
prediction give a standard deviation of about 25% for the corrosion rate over their validated ranges, which
means that there is a chance of almost 16% that the actual corrosion rate is outside the range ± 25%,
assuming the statistics for a normal distribution apply. Anyone who has been involved in practical corrosion rate
measurements in the laboratory or the field will also appreciate that actual measurements on replicate coupons
or at equivalent positions can sometimes vary by at least this much, often without a clear reason.
ECE calculates a normal distribution curve around the maximum corrosion rate (truncated at zero corrosion
rate) and converts this to an accumulated risk of failure by dividing into the wall thickness and integrating over
time. This yields a curve for the accumulated risk of failure vs time: the time to reach a 50% risk of failure
corresponds to the nominal value of the maximum corrosion rate. Longer exposure of the pipe or tubing will
increase the risk of failure, until finally a point is reached where failure is almost certain.
In the presence of H S there is a risk that the protective sulphide layer on the steel is disturbed, and that
2
localised pitting corrosion occurs. The rate of penetration at these pits are often equal to the CO corrosion rate.
2
This is accounted for in the risk of failure prediction by adding an arbitrary 25% chance that the corrosion rate
is based entirely upon the localised pitting corrosion rate. The standard deviation for the resulting prediction is
larger (= less certain) and has been set to 30%. When H S is present, the risk of loss of protection of the
2
sulphide layer shows up as a plateau early in the life in the accumulated risk curve, when, of course, the CO 2
corrosion rate is high enough to show the effect.

Acetic Acid
Acetic Acid
Natural gas can contain small amounts of vapour of organic acids, notably acetic acid. In view of the high
solubility in water, this can lead to concentrations of dissolved acetic acid in condensed water, which can be
significant in increasing the corrosion rates to higher values than with CO only. This is particularly noticeable in
2
increasing the top of the line corrosion rates since in such condensing conditions the local environment is not
influenced by alkaline constituents like dissolved carbonates.
It is customary to report the acetic acid or acetate concentration dissolved in the water, rather than the partial
pressure (in contrast to the case of CO ). If dissolved acetic acid is detected in the field, the effect on corrosion
2
rate can modelled by changing the default value for this acid from zero.
The action of dissolved acetic acid has been shown to be analogous to that of carbonic acid: the undissociated
acetic acid is directly reduced at the metal's surface in addition to the reduction of the undissociated carbonic
acid. This modifies the Vm term in the corrosion rate formula , and causes the larger part of the increase in
corrosion rate.
This theory has been validated by laboratory tests.

The dissociated part of the acid can modify the Vr term in the CO corrosion rate formula through a effect on
2
pH. Since the undissociated part of the acetic acid is the most corrosive, an increase in pH will reduce the effect
of the acid, because this will cause the acid to dissociate to form more acetate ions, which are relatively
harmless. For this reason the presence of dissolved iron at lower temperatures can be very important for
prediction of the effect of acetic acid, especially when iron carbonate supersaturation can occur.
With H S present and acetic acid, the model can predict high corrosion rates due to the impact of sulphide in
2
removing Fe from solution and in lowering the pH. It is important to include any Bicarbonate present in the
water phase because this will also affect the pH and corrosion rate.
Reference:
Keith George, Srdjan Nesic and C. de Waard, Electrochemical Investigation and Modelling of CO2 corrosion in the presence of
Acetic Acid, NACE Corrosion 2004, Paper 04379.
Model Predictions
Guidance on Accuracy of Prediction
The original de Waard corrosion model was largely based on experimental data including flow loop data
produced at IFE. Wood Group have developed the ECE implementation of the de Waard model and calibrated it
with field corrosion data over many years.
Generally, ECE is optimized for realistic production scenarios with moderate corrosion rates (about 0.05 – 10
mm/yr), where carbon steel (with or without inhibition) might be an option. Output values in several 10s of
mm/yr are not necessarily accurate – but carbon steel is not a realistic option in this situation. CO corrosion
2
typically is not uniform, but has regions of lower and higher corrosion rates. The prediction in ECE is for the
regions of maximum corrosion.

Summary of Application Limits
• Sweet Service: Any mixture of Liquid Hydrocarbon, Gas and Water. Any level of Bicarbonate. In oil
production where emulsion formation is significant, water separation is a threshold effect as a function
of fluid velocity, which means that behaviour both in real service and in the model can be variable at
velocities round the threshold value.
Typical
Partial Pressure of CO 2 Temperature Fluid Velocity Chloride Content
Accuracy
+/- bar °C m/s g/NaCl
High: 25% 0-20 0-120 0.5-15 0-50
0-2-0.5
Moderate: 50% 20-75 120-160 50-100
15-30
Low:
0.2
Illustrative of >75 n/a >100
>30
Trends
ECE tends to under-
ECE tends to over-predict predict for v<0.5 m/s. Probably over-predicts

Maximum allowed
Comment corrosion at very high Erosional threshold at corrosion for very high
input is 160°C
partial pressure of CO .
2
high velocity calculated salt content.
according to API 14E.
•
• Sour Service: Corrosion in sour conditions is often very low due to protective sulphide filming, but
occasionally very high where films are not protective. As yet, no fully satisfactory model has been
developed for sour corrosion.
• Filming Corrosion Rates: These are based on field data for H S partial pressures from nil to about 15
2
bar, and only a few data points at higher H S partial pressure. Although filming corrosion rate predicted
2
by ECE is often lower than for other corrosion models in many cases ECE still over-predicted the filming
corrosion rates in this range compared with field.
• Potential Pitting Corrosion Rates: Prediction of the potential pitting corrosion rates is subject to the
same trends as the sweet corrosion model: for example, tend to under-predict at very low velocities;
very large rates >> 10 mm/yr are not necessarily accurate.
• Pitting Corrosion in Sour Conditions: Typically, inhibition has some impact in reducing the rate or
frequency of pitting corrosion in sour conditions. This is NOT included in the ECE model and pitting
corrosion rates are uninhibited.
• Presence of both H2S and Acetic Acid: If both H S and acetic acid are present, the ECE model typically
2
predicts high corrosion rates, often in 10s of mm/yr depending on other inputs. This is based on
laboratory data. We lack the field data to bench-mark this situation and are not able to state if ECE is
correct or under / over-predicting.

Acknowledgements
Wood Group extends its thanks to all who have contributed towards ECE .
• Corrosion Model: Liane Smith, Mike Billingham, C. de Waard
• ECE Team: Daniel Thomas, Michelle Wright, Huseyin Ozyilmaz, Ged Lunt.
• Contributors: Thank You to all ECE users for their comments, feedback and suggestions.
• Credits: Microsoft© Word, Microsoft© Excel and Microsoft© Windows are either registered trademarks
or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
For Support contact the ECE Development Team - Email: ece@woodgroup.com - Telephone: +44 (0) 1244 336386

Disclaimer
Materials and Corrosion Engineering is (not yet) an exact science. The information and model predictions
contained in this program is claimed to be state of the art,but no responsibility is accepted for damages from or
related to, its use.
The Electronic Corrosion Engineer is a tool for the corrosion or materials engineer to evaluate some important
aspects of corrosion control and materials selection. It is intended for use by an engineer who understands the
significance of the input data and how to apply the output data. ECE is not an expert system or a replacement
for a corrosion engineer.
The technical background to this program has been meticulously researched and it is believed to present the
state-of-the-art in terms of quantitative corrosion modelling and materials selection for corrosive oil and gas
production environments. However, a full consideration of all issues related to materials selection requires
detailed knowledge of the precise operating conditions, the external environment and the intended mode of
operation. This is beyond the scope of the model. The writers, therefore, do not accept any liability for any
damage resulting from actions or decisions based on the output of ECE.
Electronic Corrosion Engineer and ECE are registered trademarks or trademarks of John Wood Group plc in the
United Kingdom and other countries.
Electronic Corrosion Engineer is the copyright of John Wood Group plc and is protected by copyright laws and
international treaty provisions. It may not be copied, modified or distributed in any way. It is illegal to attempt
to reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble this software for any purpose whatsoever.
Copyright © 2017 John Wood Group plc. Electronic Corrosion Engineer and ECE are registered trademarks or trademarks of
John Wood Group plc in the United Kingdom and other countries.

Glossary
H
W

Index

2 DSS 63
22Cr 63 Duplex Stainless Steel 90
25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels 63 Flowlines 90
A E
Acetic Acid 118 ECE 5
Acknowledgements 121 Welcome 5
Advanced 31 Effect 108
Tubing 31 H2S 108
All Graphs 34 Erosion-Corrosion 117
Tubing 34 F
Alloy 2550 66 Failure 118
Alloy 316L 91 Risk 118
Alloy 625 94 Feedback 9
Alloy 825 68, 93 Feedback and Suggestions 9
Alloy C276 67 Financial 53
Alloys 87 Tubing 53
Composition 87 Flow Patterns 115
C Flowline Advanced 78
Carbonate Scales 108 Flowline Corrosion Predictor 73
Influence 108 Flowline Corrosion Rate 80
Cladding 91, 93, 94 Flowline CRA Evaluator 84
CO2 Corrosion Rate Model 107 Flowline Financial 99
Composition 58, 87 Flowline Installation Options 103
Alloys 87 Flowline LCC Details 98
Tubing Alloys 58 Flowline Life Cycle Cost Calculation 104
Condensation 113 Flowline Project 73
water 113 Flowline Risk Analysis 80
Corrosion Inhibition 114 Flowlines 88, 90
Corrosion Prediction Graphs 16, 20 Duplex Stainless Steel 90
Corrosion Prediction Tools 15, 20 Martensitic Stainless Steels 88
Corrosion Predictor 22 H
Tubing 22 H2S 108
Costs 101 Effect 108
Welding 101 I
CRA Evaluator 55 Influence 108
Tubing 55 Carbonate Scales 108
D L
Details 35 LCC Details 52
Tubing 35 Tubing 52
Deviation Angles 29 Life Cycle Cost Calculation 54
Tubing 29 Tubing 54
Disclaimer 123 Lining 91, 93, 94

Low Carbon 13Cr 62 Advanced 31
M All Graphs 34
Martensitic Stainless Steels 88 Corrosion Predictor 22
Flowlines 88 CRA Evaluator 55
MSS 60, 62 Details 35
P Deviation Angles 29
PH 110 Financial 53
Production 51 LCC Details 52
Tubing 51 Life Cycle Cost Calculation 54
Project 25 Production 51
Tubing 25 Project 25
Project File Tools 14, 19 Risk Analysis 33
R Steel 30
Risk 118 Throughput 28
Failure 118 Tubing Alloys 58
Risk Analysis 33 Composition 58
Tubing 33 U
S Use ECE 12
Standard 13Cr 60 Starting 12
Starting 12 W
use ECE 12 Water 113
Steel 30 Condensation 113
Tubing 30 Water chemistry 110
Suggestions 9 Welcome 5
Support and Maintenance 9 ECE 5
T Welding 101
Throughput 28 Costs 101
Tubing 28 What's New in ECE 7
Tubing 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 51, 52,
53, 54, 55


ECE 5x User Guide

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ECE 5x User Guide

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ECE User Guide

Page 3 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 6 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 7 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 9 © John Wood Group plc 2017

• Enhanced Help File with Technical Background and References.

• Hyper-linked index page for quick access to subject matter.

• Context sensitive topics can be accessed directly from ECE®.

• Improved Corrosion Predictor Reports; Summary and Full Report Options

• Chloride & Corrosion Pitting rating now reported.

• Increased Chloride range in the CRA Evaluator tools.

• Corrosion rate graph now available in ‘mil per year’ version.

• An exciting new Bulk Calculation function in the Flowlines module.

• Export results straight back to spreadsheet format.

Page 10 © John Wood Group plc 2017

• Calculated outputs for multiple positions along a flowline or up a tubing string.

• Quantitative evaluation of corrosion-resistant-alloy suitability for a matrix of conditions that covers

The following features have been discontinued in version 5.4

Support and Maintenance

• A schedule of new ECE releases with maintenance and enhancement upgrades.

Feedback and Suggestions

Page 11 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 13 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Operating Systems Supported:

Professional Edition/Enterprise Edition Client

• Microsoft Windows Server 2012 – all versions.

Minimum Software Requirements:

Microsoft .NET Framework 4.5.2 or above is required by ECE 5.x.

Edition.Minimum Hardware Requirements:

Professional Edition/Enterprise Edition Client

Page 14 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Saving and Retrieving Files

Saving and Retrieving Files

Page 15 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 16 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Project File Tools

Page 17 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Corrosion Prediction Tools

Corrosion Prediction Graphs

Page 18 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Life Cycle Prediction Graphs

Page 19 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Project File Tools

Page 21 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Corrosion Prediction Graphs

Page 22 © John Wood Group plc 2017

background to the model is described in Corrosion Model Background.

Tubing CRA Manufacturers

• From the Tubing Tools menu, select CRA Manufacturers.

Page 23 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Tubing Corrosion Predictor Overview

model is described in Corrosion Model Background.

Page 24 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Tubing Corrosion Predictor Report

Page 25 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 26 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 27 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 28 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 30 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 31 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 32 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Page 33 © John Wood Group plc 2017

Corrosion Rate Graph

Corrosion Rate Graph