Erosion

Guidelines
Revision 2.1
(1999)
J W Martin

Sunbury Report No. S/UTG/102/99

dated October 1999

Main CD
Contents
 EROSION GUIDELINES REVISION 2.1 (1999)

By
J W Martin

Summary

Erosion can be defined as the mechanical loss of material by the impact of liquid droplets
and/or solid particles.

Under aggressive operating conditions velocity limits, and hence production limits, are set
to avoid erosion. If these limits are overly conservative then BP AMOCO loses
production; if they are too optimistic then BP AMOCO risks erosion damage and the loss
of system integrity.

This document updates the knowledge on the erosion of piping and tubing in production
and injection service (Ref. 1). The two 'Flow Charts' for the assessment of erosion risk
have also been updated:

The 'Velocity Limits for Avoiding Erosion' flow chart lays down rule-of-thumb
velocity limits for the avoidance of erosion damage in non solids-containing
environments, i.e. ‘totally solids free’ or ‘nominally solids free’ conditions.
‘Nominally solids free conditions’ are defined as up to 1 pound of solids per
thousand barrels of liquid for liquid systems or up to 0.1 pounds of solids per
million standard cubic feet of gas for gas systems.

For solids-containing environments it is necessary to first establish the likely rate of

erosion by referring to the ‘Calculation of Erosion Rates’ flow chart. The velocity
limit flow chart can then be used to determine whether erosion-corrosion is likely
and to evaluate the possible rate of erosion-corrosion.

The 'Calculation of Erosion Rates' flow chart makes recommendations for

evaluating the erosion rate for solids-containing duty, or where greater precision is
required than afforded by a simple velocity limit for ‘nominally solids-free’
conditions in the 'Velocity Limits for Avoiding Erosion' flow chart.

Different velocity limits will apply in different situations, depending on the flow (gas,
liquid or multiphase gas/liquid), the environment (corrosive or non-corrosive) and whether
or not solids are present.

The models used for the calculation of erosion wastage rates are based, in the main, on
laboratory test programmes. Hence they are likely to be at their most reliable for simple
flow conditions in non-corrosive environments. There is less confidence in the models for
multiphase solids erosion and guidance for erosion-corrosion (solids plus corrosive
environment), as these are based on a very limited data set.

All of the predictive models suffer from limited comparison with field experience.

2
Contents

Erosion Guidelines....................................................................................................... 1
Summary.......................................................................................................... 1
Contents .......................................................................................................... 2
Summary Guidelines - Flow Charts and General Comments ......................................... 3
Figure 1 - First Pass Velocity Limits................................................................. 4
Figure 2 - Calculation of Erosion Rates ............................................................ 5
Notes on Flow Charts. ..................................................................................... 6
Figure 1 - First Pass Velocity Limits ..................................................... 6
Figure 2 - Calculation of Erosion Rates................................................. 8
General Comments and Conclusions................................................................. 10
Erosion Guidelines - Discussions ................................................................................. 12
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12
Discussion of the Guidelines............................................................................. 17
1. Non-corrosive fluid flow, no solid particles ...................................... 17
2. Corrosive fluid flow, no solid particles ............................................. 17
3. Non-corrosive fluid, with solid particles ........................................... 19
References: ...................................................................................................... 30

3
Summary Guidelines - Flow Charts and General Comments

A flow chart for determining 'first pass' erosional velocity limits (entitled "Velocity Limits
for Avoiding Erosion") is given in Figure 1. The recommendations in this flow chart are
generally based on an allowable erosion rate of 0.1 mm/yr.

For ‘totally solids free’ or ‘nominally solids free’ conditions, if production is required
outside these limits then advice can be sought from the relevant specialists in the Upstream
Technology Group (UTG).

For ‘solids containing’ conditions, reference should first be made to Figure 2 ("Calculation
of Erosion Rates") for evaluating the possible erosion rate and then to Figure 1 ("Velocity
Limits for Avoiding Erosion”) to assess whether erosion-corrosion is likely to be an issue
and to evaluate the possible erosion-corrosion wastage rate. This should be used to
establish whether the predicted wastage rates are acceptable. This approach, in allowing
for bends in pipework and constrictions in tubing, is likely to be conservative for straight
piping and tubing.

A flow chart for the assessment of erosion rates (entitled "Calculation of Erosion
Rates") is given in Figure 2. It is recommended that this is used with care. There are
many areas of uncertainty and the models recommended in the flow chart are relatively
unproven and many are still being developed. Under conditions of erosion-corrosion the
guidelines in Figure 1 are applicable for estimating the erosion-corrosion rates.

4
 VELOCITY LIMITS FOR AVOIDING EROSION
Note 1: Data Collection
Gas/Liquid ratio. Production rates. Tubing or piping internal bore. Solids present or
absent. Gas and liquid densities at temperature and pressure (if these are not known
then a rough assessment can be made on the basis of an oil density of 800 kg/m3, a Data Collection
water density of 1000 kg/m3 and a gas density of 1 kg/m3 at STP and then adjusting the
density for pressure and temperature.)

Note 2: Solids Present?

"Totally solids free" - the flow stream are such that there is no risk of solids being
transported in the fluids. It should be noted that even very low levels of solids can cause Note 12: Totally Solids Free
significant wastage (erosion or erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is very important for the This guidance is only applicable to 'totally solids free' conditions,
user of these guidelines to be sure that there is no risk of solids entrainment before using i.e. where there is no risk of solids particles being transported in
these limits. the flowstream. It should be recognised that even very low levels Note 13: Are the Conditions Non-corrosive?
"Nominally solids free" - less than 1 pptb for liquid systems, less than 0.1 lb/mmscf for of solids (below the detection levels of even 'state of the art' solids For the purpose of these Guidelines 'non corrosive' is
gas systems; no solids detectable. monitoring techniques) can cause significant wastage (erosion or defined as either:
"Solids Present" - solids detectable in system. In this case the levels of solids will need to erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is encumbent on the user of this • A system where there are no corrodents
be known, or appropriate assumptions made on their likely level. flow chart to ensure that there is no risk of solids entrainment (i.e. the system is totally dry or there are no
before using the guidance for 'totally solids free' flow. corrosive species, such as H2S, CO2, O2, acids).
Solids or
present? • A system where the materials of construction
Note 3:Gas, No Liquid? Solids present Totally solids free are fully corrosion resistant to the anticipated
Pure dr y gas streams. conditions.
No significant liquid loading.
Are the
Evaluate erosion Note 9: Evaluate Erosion Rate (refer to 'Calculation of Erosion Rate' chart)
Nominally Note 3:Gas, No Liquid? Yes conditions No
Yes rate
For pure dry gas streams with solids present it is not possible to define a rational
solids free Pure dr y gas streams.
non-
Gas, no liquid? (refer to
flow velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this No significant liquid loading.
corrosive?
case it will be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate
'calculation of using the models outlined on the 'Calculation of Erosion Rate' flow chart. Account
erosion rate' will also need to be taken of the likelihood of the sand becoming entrained in the Yes No velocity Yes Is the
chart) gas such that it will be transported at/near the gas velocity or whether the solids Gas, no liquid? limits for the No system
avoidance of Gas, no liquid?
No will 'settle' out of the flow stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly moving carbon
bed of solids. Evaluate erosion erosion steel?
Note 3:Gas, No Liquid?
Note 5: Liquid/no gas: Vmax=250/√ρm (carbon steel); rate Pure dr y gas streams.
Vmax=300/√ρm (13 Cr steel); Vmax=450/√ρm (duplex Vmax = 250/√ρm (refer to Note 14: Non-corrosive; Gas no No significant liquid loading.
stainless steel)
Vmax=250/√ρm for carbon steel based on strength of (Carbon Steel) * see Note 5 No 'calculation of liquid; No Velocity Limits for the
Avoidance of Erosion
No Yes
protective scale on carbon steel in sea water injection
service.
Vmax = 300/√ρm Yes erosion rate' There are other flow related phenomena
that need to be considered for high Seek
Vmax=300/√ρm for 13Cr steel based on the criteria used for (13% Cr Steel) Liquid, no gas? chart) velocities, e.g. noise and vibration.
multi-phase conditions.
further
Vmax=450/√ρm for duplex stainless steel based on tests for Vmax = 450/√ρm Note 4: Evaluate Erosion Rate (refer to advice
sea water injection service undertaken on behalf of BPA by
DNV, Norway.
No steel)
(duplex stainless
'Calculation of Erosion Rate' char t)
For pure gas streams with any solids present it * see Note 5
is not possible to define a rational flow velocity
for all possible conditions below which erosion
Yes
No will not occur. In this case it will be necessary to Liquid, no gas? Liquid, no gas?
undertake an assessment of the likely erosion
rate using the models outlined on the
'Calculation of Erosion Rate' flow chart. For
Yes
'nominally solids free' conditions it is
Seek No No No Assume recommended that it is assumed that the levels
further Duplex SS? 13 Cr SS? Carbon steel? multi-phase
of solids are 0.1 lb/mmscf. Account will also
No velocity No velocity
advice need to be taken of the likelihood of the sand
becoming entrained in the gas such that it will limits for the No limits for the No
be transported at/near the gas velocity or
whether the solids will 'settle' out of the flow
avoidance of avoidance of
stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly erosion erosion
moving bed of solids.
Yes Yes Yes N o t e 1 5 : N o n - c o r ro s i v e ;
Note 17: Corrosive; Liquid no
gas; No Velocity Limits for the
Liquid no gas; No Velocity Avoidance of Erosion
Limits for the Avoidance of Consideration may need to be
Erosion given to the possibility of flow-
It is important to take necessary
Vmax = 350/√ρm Vmax = 300/√ρm Vmax = 135/√ρm steps (including possibly limiting
enhanced corrosion, which is
outside the scope of these Assume wet gas
the fluid velocity) to avoid other Guidelines. It is important to take
possible problems, such as necessar y steps (including or multi-phase
cavitation; plant noise/vibration; possibly limiting the fluid velocity)
water hammer; etc. to avoid other possible problems,
Note 6: Estimated Erosion Rate > 0.1mm/yr Note 7:Vmax=300/√ρm Note 8:Vmax=350/√ρm s u c h a s c av i t a t i o n ; p l a n t
For liquid and multi-phase flow streams with solids present it is not possible (for 13 Cr stainless steel) (for duplex stainless steel) noise/vibration; water hammer;
to define a rational flow velocity for all possible conditions below which If higher production rates If higher production rates Note 16: Non-corrosive; multiphase; etc.
erosion will not occur. In this case it will be necessary to undertake an limit velocity to 70m/s (230ft/sec)
assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models outlined on the
required seek further advice. required seek further advice.
Limit velocity
'Calculation of Erosion Rate' flow chart. If the calculated erosion rate is less
This is the maximum velocity limit defined
to avoid the possibility of droplet erosion to 70 m/s Assume
than 0.1mm/yr then the erosion/erosion-corrosion rate is likely to be for gas-condensate wells in the DNV
(230 ft/sec) multi-phase
acceptable. If the calculated erosion rate is greater than 0.1mm/yr then for Recommended Practice ('Assessment of
carbon steel and 13Cr steel (where the operating temperature is less than Erosive Wear in Piping Systems') Yes Are corrosion
80°C) the possibility of erosion-corrosion needs to be considered and the
potential erosion-corrosion rate calculated.
inhibitors
being used?

Estimated Yes No No No Seek Note 18: Vmax=200/√rm or 20m/s whichever

erosion rate Carbon steel? 13 Cr SS? Duplex SS? further is less
Corrosion inhibition selection will need to take
Vmax = 200/√ρm No
>0.1mm/yr advice account of the fact that the inhibitor will have to or 20 m/s
'work' under flowing conditions and it may be
possible to select an inhibitor that will 'work' at whichever is lower
velocities above the limits defined here.
Note 11: Nomenclature for Erosion-Corrosion Equations
No Yes Yes Yes
WR - Wastage Rate
ER - Erosion Rate
UCRCS - 'Unfilmed' corrosion rate for carbon steel
FCRCS - 'Filmed' corrosion rate for carbon steel Note 19: Corrosive; Multiphase; Limit Velocity to 70m/s
WR = ER CR13Cr -Corrosion rate for 13%Cr steel This is the maximum velocity defined to avoid droplet erosion (see Note
17). For carbon steel this limit assumes that the fluids have sufficiently low
Limit velocity
Iron corrosivity to justify it’s use and that the carbon steel is ’un-filmed’ (i.e. to 70 m/s (230
If estimated Operating that there is no carbonate film present). For carbonate filmed carbon steel ft/sec)
Carbonate Temperature?
≥80°C
use the ’inhibited’ flow velocity limits (see Note 18).
erosion rate Scaling? <80°C
acceptable no No Yes
further action General Comments:
required ∗ ∗ Velocities refer to net mixed velocities (nominal gas velocity plus nominal liquid velocity).
WR = ER +CR13cr WR = ER + UCRc/s Units are in ft/s (1 m/s = 3.281 ft/s).
ρm refers to mixed fluid density in lbs/ft3 (1 kg/m3 = 0.06242 lbs/ft3)
C factors relating Vmax to √ρm are in ft/s(lbs/ft3)1/2. Multiply by 1.22 to convert to C factors
Note 10: Erosion-Corrosion in m/s(kg/m3)1/2
Synergy between erosion and corrosion assumed for carbon steel with pptb - pounds of solids per thousand barrels of liquid.
an iron carbonate scale (doubling of 'unfilmed' corrosion rate) and 13% lb/mmscf - pounds of solids per million standard cubic feet of gas.
∗ ∗ Cr stainless steel up to 80°C (corrosion rate equal to that expected for Advice on erosion-corrosion is best available at time of publication. The situation is
WR = ER +UCRc/s WR = ER + 2 * UCRc/s 'unfilmed' carbon steel in non-erosive environment). No synergy uncertain and the guidelines are subject to change.
expected for duplex stainless steel or for 13%Cr steel above 80°C. Fur ther advice can be obtained from the relevant specialists in UTG. GQS38294/2
 CALCULATION OF EROSION RATES
Note 1: Note 3:

Data Collection. Salama (Salama and Venkatesh) or Full Tulsa.

For the simpler models:
Production Rate (i.e. liquid and gas flow rates [or
GOR]). Pressure and Temperature. Liquid density
and gas density (under operating conditions). Tubing
or piping size. Solids content and particle size.
Data Collection The Salama model is best used for single phase (gas or liquid) systems and can be used for a 'first pass' assessment. The full Tulsa model
should be used where the Salama model indicates an unacceptably high wastage rate, to 'optimise' the prediction (NB the Full Tulsa Model
will often give a lower wastage rate than the Salama model).
The Salama Model is: E = (0.182 x W x V2 x D)/(d2 x ρm)

For the 'full' Harwell and Tulsa Models:
The data indicated above plus; Gas Viscosity (under
operating conditions). Liquid Viscosity (under operating
conditions). Solids density and 'shape' (e.g. sharp,
semi-rounded). CO2 and H2S partial pressures. Tubing
or piping geometry and configuration. Steel hardness
(if material of construction is a carbon/low alloy steel).
where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, W is the sand flow rate in kg/day, V is the mixture velocity in m/s, D is the sand size in microns, d is the
pipe internal diameter in mm, ρm is the fluid mixture density in kg/m3.
From the assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG, it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the 'full'
Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features other than 5D bends may be
present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although
in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves).

A very simplified version of the Salama model (developed by Salama & Venkatesh), applicable to gas systems with carbon steel bends (including
1.5D elbows, tees, etc.) is:

E = 604 x MV2/d2

where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed velocity in m/s and d the pipe diameter in mm.

Note 2: Salama,
Gas, No Liquid?
Yes (Salama and Venkatesh)
Pure gas streams. No significant liquid loading.
Gas, no liquid?
or
Full Tulsa

Note 5:
No
1st Pass: Salama, RCS and/or API model, 2nd Pass: Full Tulsa model.
In liquid systems particle impact velocities are reduced by the flow regime and the presence of a liquid buffer layer at the metal surface. The
RCS and API models are based on empirical tests in liquid piping and bends and have built-in allowances for such effects. This does mean,
however, that there can be scaling problems in different geometries or with different solid particle sizes. The Salama model is still a 'simplified'
model, but will take some account of solid particle sizes.

The Salama Model is: E = (0.182 x W x V2 x D)/(d2 x ρm)

where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, W is the sand flow rate in kg/day, V is the mixture velocity in m/s, D is the sand size in microns, d is the
pipe internal diameter in mm, ρm is the fluid mixture density in kg/m3.

From the assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG, it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the 'full'
Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features other than 5D bends may be
present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although
in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves).

Simplified versions of the RCS and the API models, applicable to carbon steel bends, are:

RCS: E = 4.1 x MV2.5/d2

API: E = 5.33 x MV2/d2

where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed velocity in m/s and d the pipe diameter in mm.

Note 4:

Liquid, No Gas Yes 1st Pass:

Single phase liquid streams. No gas bubbles. 2nd Pass:
Liquid, no gas? Salama, RCS
Full Tulsa Model
and/or API Model

Note 6: No
Slug Flow?
The Harwell model for multiphase erosion is
based on vertical flow. Under such conditions
slug flow, which leads to liquid being thrown No No No
down onto the bottom of a pipe, is not produced.
Slug flow? Stratified flow? Bubble/Churn Annular flow?
Thus the standard Harwell models for annular
mist, churn and bubble flow are not applicable.
Flow?
In slug flow the 'liquid slug' will be thrown against
the pipe wall at velocities approaching the net
mixed velocity. In addition, at the slug front there
will be considerable mixing and hence entrained
gas, such that the slug front will approach the
homogenous mixture. Therefore, it is Yes Yes Yes Yes
recommended that the pure liquid models be
used (see Note 5) but that the mixed fluid velocity
and mixture properties should be used rather
than the liquid velocity and density.

Note 8:
1st Pass: Harwell
Slug Flow? 1st Pass Salama,
Full Tulsa Model Harwell
RCS and/or API Model Salama,RCS and/or
Model
Use the mixed (averaged) fluid density and and/or API Model Full Tulsa Model
velocity

Note 7: Note10: Note 11:

Stratified Flow? Full Tulsa Model
Use the liquid velocity calculated for
the hydraulic diameter
Note 9:
Bubble/Churn Flow? Harwell
and/or Full Tulsa Model
Do not use the Tulsa Model for
Churn flow. For bubbly flow with
the Full Tulsa Model use the mixed
(averaged) velocity and liquid
properties
Annular Flow? Harwell Model.
For comparison, check using the Full
Tulsa Model with the mixed velocity and
with:
(i) Mixed (averaged) fluid properties
(ii) Liquid properties
The actual erosion rate should be
somewhere between the two values.

Slug Flow? 2nd Pass, Full Tulsa Model 2nd Pass:

Use the mixed (averaged) fluid properties (density
and viscosity) and velocity
Full Tulsa Model General Comments:
Advice is best available at time of publication.
Most of the models used assume sharp sand particles with a diameter of 150 µm. The Salama model (used
for single phase gas or liquid conditions only) and more detailed Tulsa and Harwell models can make allowances
for solids particle size (all three models), plus density and shape (Tulsa model only).
The erosion calculations are generally for bends and conditions of turbulence (e.g. constrictions) only. The
exception to this is the Tulsa model that has a (as yet untested) module for evaluating the erosion rate in straight
pipe. In general, erosion in straight sections is at least an order of magnitude less than at bends. The only
exception to this will be horizontal slug flow where liquid is thrown against the pipe wall.
The Full Tulsa Model is available as a computer software package ('Sand Production Pipe Saver'; SPPS v. 4.1.)
The Harwell Model is available as a computer software package ('Design Procedure for Erosion-Corrosion in
Multi-phase Flow'; Sandman v. 3.9.).
Further advice can be obtained the relevant specialists in UTG.

GQS38294/1
Notes on Flow Charts.

Figure 1 - Velocity Limits for Avoiding Erosion

General guidance on velocity limits for corrosive or non-corrosive fluids in injection and
production service. This guidance does not take into account velocity limits for corrosion
alone (e.g. allowable flow rates for effective corrosion inhibition) or the effect of flow on
corrosion (i.e. flow-enhanced corrosion).

General Comments:
Velocities refer to net mixed velocities (nominal gas velocity plus nominal liquid velocity).
Units are in ft/s (1 m/s = 3.281 ft/s).
ρm refers to mixed fluid density in lbs/ft3 (1 kg/m3 = 0.06242 lbs/ft3)
C factors relating Vmax to √ρm are in ft/s(lbs/ft3)1/2. Multiply by 1.22 to convert to C
factors in m/s(kg/m3)1/2
pptb - pounds of solids per thousand barrels of liquid.
lb/mmscf - pounds of solids per million standard cubic feet of gas.
Advice on erosion-corrosion is best available at time of publication. The situation is
uncertain and the guidelines are subject to change.
Further advice can be obtained from the relevant specialists in UTG.

Note 1: Data Collection

Gas/Liquid ratio. Production rates. Tubing or piping internal bore. Solids present or
absent. Gas and liquid densities at temperature and pressure (if these are not known then a
rough assessment can be made on the basis of an oil density of 800 kg/m3, a water density
of 1000 kg/m3 and a gas density of 1 kg/m3 at STP and then adjusting the density for
pressure and temperature.)

Note 2: Solids Present?

“Totally solids free” - the flow stream are such that there is no risk of solids being
transported in the fluids. It should be noted that even very low levels of solids can cause
significant wastage (erosion or erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is very important for the
user of these guidelines to be sure that there is no risk of solids entrainment before using
these limits.
"Nominally solids free" - less than 1 pptb for liquid systems, less than 0.1 lb/mmscf for gas
systems; no solids detectable.
"Solids Present" - solids detectable in system. In this case the levels of solids will need to
be known, or appropriate assumptions made on their likely level.

Note 3:Gas, No Liquid?

Pure dry gas streams. No significant liquid loading.

Note 4: Evaluate Erosion Rate (refer to ‘Calculation of Erosion Rate’ chart)

For pure gas streams with any solids present it is not possible to define a rational flow
velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this case it will
be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models

7
outlined on the ‘Calculation of Erosion Rate’ flow chart. For ‘nominally solids free’
conditions it is recommended that it is assumed that the levels of solids are 0.1 lb/mmscf.
Account will also need to be taken of the likelihood of the sand becoming entrained in the
gas such that it will be transported at/near the gas velocity or whether the solids will
‘settle’ out of the flow stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly moving bed of
solids.

Note 5: Liquid/no gas: Vmax=250/√ √ ρm (carbon steel); Vmax=300/√√ ρm (13 Cr steel);

Vmax=450/√ √ ρm (duplex stainless steel)
Vmax=250/√ρm for carbon steel based on strength of protective scale on carbon steel in sea
water injection service.
Vmax=300/√ρm for 13Cr steel based on the criteria used for multi-phase conditions.
Vmax=450/√ρm for duplex stainless steel based on tests for sea water injection service
undertaken on behalf of BPA by DNV, Norway.

Note 6: Estimated Erosion Rate > 0.1mm/yr

For liquid and multi-phase flow streams with solids present it is not possible to define a
rational flow velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In
this case it will be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the
models outlined on the ‘Calculation of Erosion Rate’ flow chart. If the calculated erosion
rate is less than 0.1mm/yr then the erosion/erosion-corrosion rate is likely to be
acceptable. If the calculated erosion rate is greater than 0.1mm/yr then for carbon steel
and 13Cr steel (where the operating temperature is less than 80°C) the possibility of
erosion-corrosion needs to be considered and the potential erosion-corrosion rate
calculated.

Note 7:Vmax=300/√ √ ρ m (for 13 Cr stainless steel)

If higher production rates required seek further advice.

Note 8:Vmax=350/√ √ ρ m (for duplex stainless steel)

If higher production rates required seek further advice.

Note 9: Evaluate Erosion Rate (refer to ‘Calculation of Erosion Rate’ chart)

For pure dry gas streams with solids present it is not possible to define a rational flow
velocity for all possible conditions below which erosion will not occur. In this case it will
be necessary to undertake an assessment of the likely erosion rate using the models
outlined on the ‘Calculation of Erosion Rate’ flow chart. Account will also need to be
taken of the likelihood of the sand becoming entrained in the gas such that it will be
transported at/near the gas velocity or whether the solids will ‘settle’ out of the flow
stream creating a stationary bed or more slowly moving bed of solids.

8
Note 10: Erosion-Corrosion
Synergy between erosion and corrosion assumed for carbon steel with an iron carbonate
scale (doubling of ‘unfilmed’ corrosion rate) and 13 % Cr stainless steel up to 80°c
(corrosion rate equal to that expected for ‘unfilmed’ carbon steel in non-erosive
environment). No synergy expected for duplex stainless steel or for 13%Cr steel above 80
°c.

Note 11: Nomenclature for Erosion-Corrosion Equations

WR - Wastage Rate
ER - Erosion Rate
UCRCS - ‘Unfilmed’ corrosion rate for carbon steel
FCRCS - ‘Filmed’ corrosion rate for carbon steel
CR13Cr -Corrosion rate for 13%Cr steel

Note 12: Totally Solids Free

This guidance is only applicable to ‘totally solids free’ conditions, i.e. where there is no
risk of solids particles being transported in the flowstream. It should be recognised that
even very low levels of solids (below the detection levels of even ‘state of the art’ solids
monitoring techniques) can cause significant wastage (erosion or erosion/corrosion) rates.
Hence it is encumbent on the user of this flow chart to ensure that there is no risk of solids
entrainment before using the guidance for ‘totally solids free’ flow.

Note 13: Are the Conditions Non-corrosive?

For the purpose of these Guidelines ‘non corrosive’ is defined as either:
• A system where there are no corrodents (i.e. the system is totally dry or there are no
corrosive species, such as H2S, CO2, O2, acids).

or

• A system where the materials of construction are fully corrosion resistant to the
anticipated conditions.

Note 14: Non-corrosive; Gas no liquid; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of
Erosion
There are other flow related phenomena that need to be considered for high velocities, e.g.
noise and vibration.

Note 15: Non-corrosive; Liquid no gas; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of
Erosion

It is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to
avoid other possible problems, such as cavitation; plant noise/vibration; water hammer;
etc.

9
Note 16: Non-corrosive; multiphase; limit velocity to 70m/s (230ft/sec)
This is the maximum velocity limit defined to avoid the possibility of droplet erosion for gas-
condensate wells in the DNV Recommended Practice (‘Assessment of Erosive Wear in Piping
Systems’)

Note 17: Corrosive; Liquid no gas; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of Erosion
Consideration may need to be given to the possibility of flow-enhanced corrosion, which is
outside the scope of these Guidelines. It is important to take necessary steps (including possibly
limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid other possible problems, such as cavitation; plant
noise/vibration; water hammer; etc.

Note 18: Vmax=200/√ √ ρ m or 20m/s whichever is less

Corrosion inhibition selection will need to take account of the fact that the inhibitor will have to
‘work’ under flowing conditions and it may be possible to select an inhibitor that will ‘work’ at
velocities above the limits defined here.

Note 19: Corrosive; Multiphase; Limit Velocity to 70m/s

This is the maximum velocity defined to avoid droplet erosion (see Note 17). For carbon steel
this limit assumes that the fluids have sufficiently low corrosivity to justify it's use and that the
carbon steel is 'un-filmed' (i.e. that there is no carbonate film present). For carbonate filmed
carbon steel use the 'inhibited' flow velocity limits (see Note 18).

10
Figure 2 - Calculation of Erosion Rates
General Comments:
Advice is best available at time of publication.
Most of the models used assume sharp sand particles with a diameter of 150 µm. The
Salama model (used for single phase gas or liquid conditions only) and more detailed
Tulsa and Harwell models can make allowances for solids particle size (all three models),
plus density and shape (Tulsa model only).
The erosion calculations are generally for bends and conditions of turbulence (e.g.
constrictions) only. The exception to this is the Tulsa model that has a (as yet untested)
module for evaluating the erosion rate in straight pipe. In general, erosion in straight
sections is at least an order of magnitude less than at bends. The only exception to this
will be horizontal slug flow where liquid is thrown against the pipe wall.
The Full Tulsa Model is available as a computer software package (‘Sand Production
Pipe Saver’; SPPS v. 4.1.)
The Harwell Model is available as a computer software package (‘Design Procedure for
Erosion-Corrosion in Multi-phase Flow’; Sandman v. 3.9.).
Further advice can be obtained the relevant specialists in UTG.

Note 1: Data Collection.

For the simpler models:
Production Rate (i.e. liquid and gas flow rates [or GOR]). Pressure and Temperature.
Liquid density and gas density (under operating conditions). Tubing or piping size.
Solids content and particle size.
For the ‘full’ Harwell and Tulsa Models:
The data indicated above plus; Gas Viscosity (under operating conditions). Liquid
Viscosity (under operating conditions). Solids density and ‘shape’ (e.g. sharp, semi-
rounded). CO2 and H2S partial pressures. Tubing or piping geometry and configuration.
Steel hardness (if material of construction is a carbon/low alloy steel).

Note 2: Gas, No Liquid?

Pure gas streams. No significant liquid loading.

Note 3: Salama (Salama and Venkatesh) or Full Tulsa.

The Salama model is best used for single phase (gas or liquid) systems and can be used
for a ‘first pass’ assessment. The full Tulsa model should be used where the Salama
model indicates an unacceptably high wastage rate, to ‘optimise’ the prediction (NB the
Full Tulsa Model will often give a lower wastage rate than the Salama model).

The Salama Model is:

E = (0.182 x W x V2 x D)/(d2 x ρm)

where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, W is the sand flow rate in kg/day, V is the mixture
velocity in m/s, D is the sand size in microns, d is the pipe internal diameter in mm, ρm is
the fluid mixture density in kg/m3.

11
From the assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG, it best equates to a
5D bend situation in comparison with the ‘full’ Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore
recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features other than 5D
bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most
probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although in this instance care
needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves).

A very simplified version of the Salama model (developed by Salama & Venkatesh),
applicable to gas systems with carbon steel bends (including 1.5D elbows, tees, etc.) is:

E = 604 x MV2/d2

where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed
velocity in m/s and d the pipe diameter in mm.

Note 4: Liquid, No Gas

Single phase liquid streams. No gas bubbles.

Note 5: 1st Pass: Salama, RCS and/or API model, 2nd Pass: Full Tulsa model.
In liquid systems particle impact velocities are reduced by the flow regime and the
presence of a liquid buffer layer at the metal surface. The RCS and API models are based
on empirical tests in liquid piping and bends and have built-in allowances for such
effects. This does mean, however, that there can be scaling problems in different
geometries or with different solid particle sizes. The Salama model is still a ‘simplified’
model, but will take some account of solid particle sizes.

The Salama Model is:

E = (0.182 x W x V2 x D)/(d2 x ρm)

where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, W is the sand flow rate in kg/day, V is the mixture
velocity in m/s, D is the sand size in microns, d is the pipe internal diameter in mm, ρm is
the fluid mixture density in kg/m3.

From the assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG, it best equates to a
5D bend situation in comparison with the ‘full’ Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore
recommended that it is not used for systems where geometrical features other than 5D
bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe constrictions). The model is most
probably suitable for application to downhole completions, although in this instance care
needs to be taken regards regions of significant flow constriction (e.g. insert valves).

Simplified versions of the RCS and the API models, applicable to carbon steel bends, are:

12
RCS:
E = 4.1 x MV2.5/d2
API:
E = 5.33 x MV2/d2

where E is the erosion rate in mm/yr, M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed
velocity in m/s and d the pipe diameter in mm.

Note 6: Slug Flow?

The Harwell model for multiphase erosion is based on vertical flow. Under such
conditions slug flow, which leads to liquid being thrown down onto the bottom of a pipe,
is not produced. Thus the standard Harwell models for annular mist, churn and bubble
flow are not applicable. In slug flow the ‘liquid slug’ will be thrown against the pipe wall
at velocities approaching the net mixed velocity. In addition, at the slug front there will be
considerable mixing and hence entrained gas, such that the slug front will approach the
homogenous mixture. Therefore, it is recommended that the pure liquid models be used
(see Note 5) but that the mixed fluid velocity and mixture properties should be used rather
than the liquid velocity and density.

Note 7: Stratified Flow? Full Tulsa Model

Use the liquid velocity calculated for the hydraulic diameter

Note 8: Slug Flow? 1st Pass Salama, RCS and/or API Model
Use the mixed (averaged) fluid density and velocity

Note 9: Slug Flow? 2nd Pass, Full Tulsa Model

Use the mixed (averaged) fluid properties (density and viscosity) and velocity

Note 10: Bubble/Churn Flow? Harwell and/or Full Tulsa Model

Do not use the Tulsa Model for Churn flow. For bubbly flow with the Full Tulsa Model
use the mixed (averaged) velocity and liquid properties

Note 11: Annular Flow? Harwell Model.

For comparison, check using the Full Tulsa Model with the mixed velocity and with:
(i) Mixed (averaged) fluid properties
(ii) Liquid properties
The actual erosion rate should be somewhere between the two values.

13
General Comments and Conclusions

1. In the absence of any solids, erosion by non-corrosive fluids (e.g. droplet erosion)
is not significant at velocities below 70 m/s (230 ft/s). However, totally solids-free, non-
corrosive fluids at such high velocities are relatively uncommon in oil/gas field service,
with the possible exception of flow through choke valves, which are covered in separate
Guidelines.

2. Erosion by solids is generally proportional to MV2/d2 if all else (e.g. flow regime,
gas-liquid ratio) remains constant, where M is the solids production rate (e.g. in g/s), V is
the net fluid velocity (e.g. in m/s) and d is the pipe or tubing internal diameter (e.g. in
mm).
- It should be noted that this can be expressed as SV2/d2 where S is the solids
concentration in the fluid (e.g. in pounds per thousand barrels of liquid, lbs/mmscf of gas
or ppm).
- Thus if the production rate doubles then the pure erosion rate (ie ignoring
corrosion) will increase by a factor of 8.
- Given that increased production can often increase the solids concentration (or
solids "loading") then a rule-of-thumb would be that a two-fold increase in production
gives an order of magnitude increase in erosion if solids are present.

3. Erosion rates are proportional to the solids concentration in the fluid. It is unclear
whether there is a threshold solids concentration below which erosion cannot occur.
However, 1 pound per thousand barrels (1 pptb) of liquid for oil/multiphase systems
(equivalent to about 0.1 lb/mmscf of gas for gas systems) is at the level of detection of
current solids (e.g. sand) monitoring techniques. Therefore, for the sake of these
Guidelines "nominally solids free" conditions are assumed to contain 1 pptb for
liquid/multiphase systems and 0.1lb/mmscf for gas systems. “Totally solids free” indicates
duties where there is absolutely no risk of entrained solids in the flowstream under any
circumstances (e.g. some treated gas transport lines, some gas fields).

4. Erosion depends critically on the fluid flow regime. Solid particles carried in gas
flow may hit pipe walls at the full gas velocity, although it is likely that in many cases the
solid particles will drop out of the gas stream and either form a static bed or a moving bed
(moving dunes, scouring). Under full liquid flow, solid particles will frequently travel at
the liquid velocity, but will be significantly slowed by a liquid barrier layer on the pipe wall
before striking the pipe material surface. Under multiphase flow, some solid particles may
be carried at/near the gas velocity (if the flow is annular mist) and may or may not be
slowed down by a liquid barrier layer - depending on the thickness of the annular liquid
film. Careful assessment and a knowledge of flow regimes is required in such cases.

5. Empirical and field data suggest that there is a threshold solid particle size below
which erosion will not occur. This threshold is unclear and probably relates to whether, at
the net fluid velocity, a given particle has the momentum to carry it through the barrier
fluid at the pipe or tubing surface. It should be noted that such thresholds are only

14
applicable to ‘normal flow’ conditions. For example, is has been found that for downhole
sand screens through which very small particles can ‘pass’ even these very small particles
can result in erosion due to the very high energy flow and high probability of impacting the
metal surface. Most of the work reported is based on sand particles of 150 µm diameter.
However, the full Tulsa model can make allowance for different particle sizes, densities,
shapes and sharpness. The full Harwell model and the Salama model can make allowance
for different particle sizes.

6. Most erosion damage will occur at bends and flow disruptions and is likely to be at
least an order of magnitude greater than erosion in straight pipe or tubing. The possible
exception to this is slug flow where flow can impact on the pipe or tubing wall on straight
sections. The full Tulsa model now contains a module (as yet not validated) for erosion in
straight pipe. Presently this only covers single phase flow (e.g. slug flow is not covered).

7. Although different materials exhibit different solids erosion characteristics, the

variation is not large between the common materials, e.g. carbon steel, 13 Cr stainless
steel and duplex stainless steel. As a first pass, it is sufficient to ignore differences
between the erosion resistance of such materials.

8. In many production and injection services there will be a significant corrosion risk
from either CO2 or O2 corrosion. It should be noted that velocity can effect such
corrosion in three ways:

- increase the mass transport of the corrosion species.

- in the absence of solids, lead to flow that can damage the protective layers
normally formed in such service.
- in the presence of solids, lead to erosion that can damage or remove protective
layers as well as cause physical removal of metal.

All of the above are referred to at times as erosion or erosion-corrosion. In this report the
first is referred to as flow-enhanced corrosion. The second and third are forms of
enhanced corrosion resulting from erosion-corrosion.

9. The severity of erosion-corrosion depends on whether there is a synergistic effect

between erosion and corrosion or whether the erosion and corrosion are independent. If
the former then the total wastage will be greater than the sum of the independent erosion
and corrosion wastage.

10. In environments containing CO2 and/or O2 corrosion is often controlled by the

presence of protective layers. In the case of carbon steel this is normally a precipitated
layer of corrosion product; in the case of duplex and austenitic stainless steels it will be a
very thin (around 10-9 m or 10's of Å) passive layer; in the case of 13 Cr stainless steel it
will be something intermediate between a precipitated layer and a passive film. Under
solids-free conditions these protective layers can be damaged or eroded by pure fluid flow.
Droplet impact in multiphase flow is possible (e.g. in annular-mist flow) and the resultant

15
damage can be significantly more severe than the damage caused by shear stress forces in
pure liquid flow. Passive films on materials such as duplex stainless steel are the strongest
and most adherent and reform very rapidly; precipitated films on carbon steel are the
weakest and least adherent and reform relatively slowly.

11. In solids-containing environments, the situation for erosion-corrosion is unclear. If

either the expected erosion or expected corrosion are an order of magnitude less than the
other then synergistic effects are likely to be small. Laboratory data suggests that solids
erosion can lead to severe localised attack in carbon steel if the erosivity is below a certain
value or totally destroy a region of protective layer at higher values (leading to general
corrosion but not penetrating the wall so quickly). There is evidence to suggest that, in
anaerobic CO2 containing environments, solids can damage protective layers on 13 % Cr
materials leading to erosion-corrosion at temperatures up to 80°c. Above this the 13%Cr
steel has been found to re-film very quickly, i.e. no synergy between erosion and corrosion
is expected. Results on duplex stainless steel suggest that there is no corrosion-erosion
synergy - implying that the wastage is only through erosion.

16
 Erosion Guidelines - Detailed Discussions

Introduction

Erosion can be defined in a variety of ways, but is essentially the wastage of material due
to the mechanical removal of material surfaces by flowing environments. Such wastage is
most extreme when solids are present in the environment.

Erosion is a problem to BP AMOCO when operating conditions lead to erosion and

consequent damage to equipment or, conversely, when velocity and hence production
limits are set to avoid erosion. If these limits are overly conservative then BP AMOCO
loses production; if these limits are overly optimistic then BP AMOCO risks erosion
damage, with consequential loss of production, increased maintenance costs and/or
possible loss of system integrity.

Erosion problems are likely to increase in BP AMOCO in the future because of:

• increased water cuts putting pressure on total fluid production rates to maintain oil
production,
• increased use of multiphase flow in the transport of production fluids,
• increased sand and solids production rates due to a number of factors, such as
increased water cut, use of proppant and reservoir fracturing techniques.

Many flow dependent wastage mechanisms are termed "erosion". For produced fluids
there are four main mechanisms to be considered:

• erosion by non-corrosive fluids through liquid droplet impact

• "pure" solids erosion by a non-corrosive fluid carrying solid particles
• erosion-corrosion by a corrosive medium in the absence of solids
• erosion-corrosion by a corrosive medium containing solids.

The third of these is sometimes confused with flow-enhanced corrosion, where the flow
regime leads to enhanced mass transport of corrosion products and reactants. In these
Guidelines erosion-corrosion in the absence of solids is taken to refer to enhanced wastage
due to the physical rupture of the protective, corrosion-product layer by energetic fluid
flow regimes and the consequential corrosion. The mechanical removal of inhibitor might
be defined as a form of erosion-corrosion but is not discussed in detail in these Guidelines.

Erosion-corrosion occurs in environments which have the potential to be both erosive and
corrosive. The erosion and the corrosion can either be independent, in which case the
total wastage is the sum of the wastage produced by each mechanism in isolation, or
synergistic, in which case the total wastage is greater than the sum of the independent
processes of erosion and corrosion.

17
Discussion of the Guidelines

1. NO solid particles

The Guidelines in this Section are only applicable to ‘totally solids free’ conditions, i.e.
where there is no risk of solids particles being transported in the flowstream. It should be
recognised that even very low levels of solids (below the detection levels of even ‘state of
the art’ solids monitoring techniques) can cause significant wastage (erosion or
erosion/corrosion) rates. Hence it is encumbent on the user of these Guidelines to ensure
that there is no risk of solids entrainment before using the guidance in this Section.

1.1. Non-corrosive fluid flow

For pure single phase non-corrosive gases in the total absence of solids or entrained
liquids there are no velocity limits to avoid erosion. However, there are other flow related
phenomena that need to be considered for high velocities, e.g. noise and vibration.

For single phase non-corrosive liquid flow (i.e. totally solids free and with no entrained
gas bubbles) there are no velocity limit requirements to avoid erosion damage. However, it
is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to avoid
other possible problems, such as cavitation1; plant noise/vibration; water hammer2; etc.

Liquid droplet erosion (e.g. in annular mist flow) of metals under non-corrosive conditions
in the total absence of solids will only be a concern at velocities above 70 m/s (230 ft/sec).
This is the maximum velocity limit defined to avoid the possibility of droplet erosion for
gas-condensate wells in the DNV Recommended Practice (Ref. 13). Totally solids-free,
non-corrosive fluids at such high velocities are relatively uncommon in oil/gas field
service, with the possible exception of flow through choke valves, which are covered in
separate Guidelines.

1.2. Corrosive fluid flow

In the total absence of solids, erosive effects can be produced by the flow regime
physically damaging protective/semi-protective corrosion-product layers. However,
corrosion will still occur in corrosive regimes even if this does not happen; ie if the
velocity or production rate is below a critical threshold for physical disruption of any
protective layers. This corrosion will be fluid-flow dependent. For example, carbon steel

1
Where liquid pressures are at or near the vapour pressure/gas bubble point pressure then bubbles can
form at regions of localised pressure drop these can then implode abruptly at points where the local
pressure rises again above the saturation/bubble point pressure. These implosions can cause removal of
material [cavitation] and/or noise problems.
2
Water hammer results from the shock pressure due to the sudden stopping of a liquid (e.g. when closing
a valve or where reciprocating pumps or compressors are used). The magnitude of this shock pressure is a
function of the fluid velocity, the stoppage time and the elasticity of the pipe. The accompanying
mechanical vibrations can result in fatigue failure if corrective actions are not taken.

18
in CO2 and O2-containing environments (eg sea water injection) will generally suffer
accelerated attack as the flow rate increases, as a result of increased mass transport.

The situation is made much worse if the flow rate increases enough to cause erosive or
mechanical breakdown of protective layers. There are two circumstances to be considered
- multiphase gas-liquid flow and single phase liquid flow. The former is generally much
more energetic than the latter and thus more likely to lead to mechanical disruption of
protective product layers.

For single phase liquid flow (i.e. totally solids free and with no entrained gas bubbles)
there are no velocity limit requirements to avoid erosion damage. However, as note above,
it is important to take necessary steps (including possibly limiting the fluid velocity) to
avoid other possible problems, such as enhanced corrosion under flowing conditions;
cavitation1; plant noise/vibration; water hammer2; etc.

For wet (i.e. potentially corrosive) gas and multi-phase flow conditions, in the specific
case of inhibited carbon steel it is recommended that the maximum velocity for design
considerations should be taken as C=200 or 20m/s (whichever is lower). However,
corrosion inhibition selection will need to take account of the fact that the inhibitor will
have to ‘work’ under flowing conditions and it may be possible to select an inhibitor that
will ‘work’ at velocities above the limits defined here. For other materials/conditions it is
recommended to consider the limits for ‘nominally sand-free’ conditions as an interim
measure, as there is little/no information available on how the limits for these
materials/conditions may differ for totally solids free conditions (i.e. where the only
erosion damage mechanisms are the result of liquid droplet or gas bubble impingement).

2. Nominally solids free

For the purpose of these Guidelines ‘nominally solids-free’ conditions are defined as less
than one pound of solids per thousand barrels of liquids (<1pptb) for ‘liquid’ (e.g.
oil/water) systems and less than 0.1 pounds of solids per million standard cubic feet of gas
(<0.1lb/mmscf) for gas systems.

The origin of the 1pptb limit is that this was determined to be the minimum level of solids
that could be detected using ‘state of the art’ sand detection tools. The 0.1lb/mmscf was
determined to be the equivalent quantity of solids for a gas system. Therefore these limits
should be applied to systems where there is the possibility of solids being present, but
where these are likely to be (or actually are) below the limits of detection when using
‘state of the art’ sand detection monitors3.

3
Note the limit of detection of less rigorous sand detection methods is significantly less than these limits.
For example in the case of the ‘shake out’ centrifuge test the limit of detection is only 275pptb and the
limit of detection for the ‘Leutart Sampler’ is 5pptb. This must be taken into account when determining
whether a system can be considered ‘nominally solids free’ or not.

19
2.1. Non-corrosive fluid flow

There are no specific issues for ‘nominally solids free, non-corrosive fluid flow’
conditions. This can best be dealt with in the same way as for ‘Solids containing - non-
corrosive fluid flow’ (Section 3.1.) with the solids content being set to 1pptb or
0.1lb/mmscf, as appropriate for the particular application.

2.2. Corrosive fluid flow

There are two circumstances to be considered - multiphase gas-liquid flow and single
phase liquid flow (NB guidance for wet gas is included under multi-phase gas-liquid flow,
as liquid water is required for corrosive conditions). The former is generally much more
energetic than the latter and thus more likely to lead to mechanical disruption of protective
product layers.

2.2.1. Multiphase Flow

For nominally solids-free conditions C values of 135, 300 and 350 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 are
currently recommended for carbon steel, 13 % Cr and duplex stainless steels respectively
under conditions of CO2 corrosion. Damage, if it occurs, is most likely at bends and
elbows between the 15o and 50o positions on the outer radius. The rate of attack is
uncertain. For carbon steel the localised damage of any protective layers is liable to initiate
a form of "mesa" attack (steep-sided pitting in CO2 service) and the rate of penetration
could be up to twice the bare-surface “Cassandra” rate (see Ref. 2 for details on
estimating CO2 corrosion rates using the BP Amoco ‘Cassandra’ software package). For
13 % Cr steel localised pitting may result, but there is little service experience with such
attack. Under such circumstances the ability of the alloy to repair damage to the
protective film will be critical. There could be a significant delay in the reformation of the
protective film on 13 % Cr material at lower temperatures (below say 80°C). However, it
has been found that above this temperature film repair can be rapid in CO2 service. For
duplex stainless steel the protective film (passive layer) is very resilient, even if it is
damaged it reforms (repassivates) very rapidly. Therefore, little or no interaction between
erosion and corrosion would be expected for duplex stainless steel. This has been borne
out by laboratory experiments (Ref. 3).

In the case of 13%Cr steel the C-factor of 300 was determined from previous testing at
AEA Harwell (Ref. 14) and field experience. Rather than defining a true 'velocity limit'
above which unacceptable erosion/erosion-corrosion will occur, this represented the
maximum C-factor for which data was available and for which there was no evidence of
unacceptable erosion/erosion-corrosion. Therefore, it represents a limit of understanding
rather than an actual acceptance limit. A number of E&P Business Units have identified a
need to exceed the present maximum allowable velocity to maximise production. There is
therefore a clear business driver to understand the maximum flow rates that could be
allowed for 13%Cr steel. As a result if this a Project has been set up within the ‘No
Corrosion R&D’ programme for 1999/2000 to evaluate the maximum allowable velocity
for 13%Cr steel via ‘Field Tests’ on gas flowlines in the Tuscaloosa (Louisiana) Field.

20
Similarly for duplex stainless steel, the C-factor of 350 was established by examining the
limits of data available from previous testing at AEA Harwell, published information and
field experience. The test work in 1999/2000 to evaluate the maximum allowable velocity
for 13%Cr steel may well be extended to duplex stainless steel to examine if this C-factor
can be increased, if there is sufficient Business Unit interest.

In stratified and annular mist flow direct impingement on the pipe wall will be most severe
at bends. The situation with multiphase slug flow is more uncertain. In slug flow the
churning and breaking wave at the leading edge of a slug can give rise to perpendicular
impacts on the bottom of straight horizontal pipe as well as at bends. There is currently
no well defined limit for the initiation of such damage, especially as the situation is
complicated by the presence of significant mixing and entrained gas bubbles in the slug
front. If it is assumed that the liquid slug impacting on the wall needs to have the same
impact velocity as above and that the liquid slug impact velocity is, at worst, equal to the
mixed fluid velocity, then the API limit with C=135 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 could be applicable in the
case of carbon steel. Thus for carbon steel if slug flow is established and if the mixed fluid
velocity is above the API limit with C=135 ft/s(lbs/ft ft3)0.5 then pitting damage could be
expected at any location all along the bottom of a pipe. The situation might be mitigated
somewhat if the protective layer on carbon steel can reform between slugs This is not
possible in continuous annular flow and not likely at bends in slug flow. (NB apply the
same principle but use C=300 and 350 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 for 13 % Cr steel and duplex stainless
steel respectively)

The situation is further complicated in multiphase annular mist flow and multiphase slug
flow when corrosion inhibitors are added. There is some suggestion that corrosion
inhibitors might be effective up to the same velocity as protective corrosion-product layers
(Refs. 4 & 5). If this is the case, then once the thresholds for physical damage to
protective corrosion-product layers have been reached, corrosion inhibition is unlikely to
be effective. However, the strength of the bond between the corrosion inhibitor and the
metal surface may be greater than that of the precipitated corrosion product layer. The
latter is only physically bonded to the metal surface whereas the corrosion inhibitor will be
chemically bonded and perhaps more able to resist displacement. If the corrosion inhibitor
is bonded to the corrosion product layer then the layer/metal bond may be the weak link.
In such a case the erosion may clean the surface of weakly bonded corrosion product
layers and the corrosion inhibitor can then bond directly to the bare metal surface,
providing far greater resistance to corrosion even under erosive conditions.

Flowing sand particles do eventually remove a corrosion inhibitor film from a steel surface
in experiments using an impinging liquid jet containing sand. However, work at the
University of Tulsa showed that a suitable corrosion inhibitor chemical was still beneficial,
by significantly increasing the safe operating velocity of the fluids by as much as a factor
of 4 or 5. These are still preliminary findings for a particular product and set of
conditions. It is not yet possible to derive a semi-quantitative rule of thumb.

21
For wet (i.e. potentially corrosive) gas and multi-phase flow conditions, in the specific
case of inhibited carbon steel it is recommended that the maximum velocity for design
considerations should be taken as C=200 or 20m/s (whichever is lower). However,
corrosion inhibition selection will need to take account of the fact that the inhibitor will
have to ‘work’ under flowing conditions and it may be possible to select an inhibitor that
will ‘work’ at velocities above the limits defined here.

Loss of corrosion inhibitor from bulk fluids by adsorption onto the surface of sand
particles can be a significant effect under certain circumstances ,such as high inhibitor
concentrations (>150 ppm) and high sand concentrations (>35 pptb). The adsorption
losses are normally insignificant for low corrosion inhibitor concentrations (<50 ppm) and
low sand concentrations (<35 pptb).

2.2.2. Single Phase Liquid Flow

Provisionally, it is recommended that a C value 250 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 should be used as the
limit for carbon steel under CO2 corrosion in the absence of corrosion inhibition.

However, the situation in the field is often aggressive enough to require the use of
corrosion inhibitors. If this is the case, highly turbulent flow will increase corrosion rates
further. Some corrosion inhibitors perform poorly under highly turbulent flow conditions
whilst others can perform acceptably under extremely aggressive flow. In general, the
more turbulent the flow regime, the higher concentration of inhibitor that will be required
to achieve acceptable corrosion rates and therefore operating costs will increase. Under
such circumstances corrosion inhibition selection (and dosage levels) will need to take
account of the fact that the inhibitor will have to ‘work’ under flowing conditions upto the
maximum liquid velocity expected. In addition, flow velocities in excess of 10 m/s should
be viewed as high and extra thought given to corrosion control and monitoring. UTG
have issued guidelines on the prediction and monitoring of CO2 corrosion (Refs. 6 & 7).

For 13%Cr steel it is recommended that the C-factor developed for ‘multi-phase’ flow of
300 is used in the absence of any better information (this is likely to err on the
conservative side).

For duplex stainless steel a series of laboratory based flow loop tests were carried out on
behalf of BP Amoco by Det Norske Veritas Industry AS (DNV), Norway using treated
sea water. Interpretation of the test results demonstrated that for single phase liquid flow a
C-factor of 450 ft/s(lbs/ft3)0.5 could be applied for the ‘nominally solids free’ condition of
up to 1pptb (Ref. 15).

22
3. Solids-containing flow

3.1. Non-corrosive fluids

3.1.1. Introduction
Although the specific erosion models produced by the different R&D programmes are not
always in good agreement, there are several areas of general agreement.

The basic mechanism of erosion of most metals (i.e. ductile materials) is ductile ploughing
of the surface by impacting solid particles. The material lost per impact is greatest at
angles of impact between 15° and 60° and is proportional to m(Vi)n where n is between 2
and 2.5, m is the particle mass and Vi the actual particle impact velocity. The overall
wastage rate is then the mass loss per impact times the impact rate. In the simplest case,
the rate of impact is equal to the mass flow rate of the particles divided by the mass per
particle and if it is assumed that area of impact is the projection of the cross-sectional area
onto a bend (or a projected area in the path of the flow, such as a restriction) then the
overall wastage rate per unit area (i.e. the penetration rate) will be a function of m(Vi)n
times M/m divided by the pipe cross-sectional area A, where M is the solids production
rate. However, M will be proportional to the product of the solids concentration, S, and
the mixed fluid velocity, V. Thus:

E = K x m(Vi)n x M/(m x A)
or
E = K' x (Vi)n x S x V/d2

where d is the pipe diameter, K and K' constants and E the erosion rate.

If a further simplification is made that the particle impact velocity, Vi, equals the mixed
fluid velocity, V (or is a constant proportion of the mixed fluid velocity) and that n=2
then:
E = K' x V3 x S/d2
or
E = K' x V2 x M/d2

This, in essence, is the core form of all of the ‘simple’ erosion models produced by RCS,
API, Tulsa, and Salama & Venkatesh (but not the Harwell model for multiphase flow),
i.e.:

RCS:
E = 4.1 x MV2.5/d2
API:
E = 22.4 x MV2/d2
Salama & Venkatesh:
E = 604 x MV2/d2
Tulsa:

23
 E = 4280 x MV1.73/d2

where M is the solids production rate in g/s, V the mixed velocity in m/s, d the pipe
diameter in mm and E the erosion rate in mm/yr.

As can be seen, the difference between these models lies in the different values of the
constant K' and some variation in the exponent of V.

Although the Salama & Venkatesh, simplified Tulsa, RCS and API approaches are simple
to use, a full understanding of the effect of various parameters such as flow regime, pipe
size and fluid viscosity is only possible by utilising either the full Tulsa model (SPPS v.
3.0) or the AEA Harwell Model (Sandman version 3.9).

3.1.2. Single phase flow

For single phase gas flow the Salama & Venkatesh approach can be used to give an ‘order
of magnitude’ indication of the likely wastage rate. This will give the worst case erosion
rates in the absence of liquid buffering at the metal surface and assuming that the solids
remain within the gas stream, i.e. that they do not 'drop out'. Alternatively the more recent
Salama model (Ref. 16) can be used to give an indication of the likely wastage rate.
However, in this case it should be noted that an assessment of the Salama Model
undertaken within UTG indicated that it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison
with the ‘full’ Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for
systems where geometrical features than 5D bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees,
severe constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole
completions, although in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant
flow constriction (e.g. insert valves). For a more detailed consideration of the likely
erosion rate the full Tulsa model (SPPS v. 3.0) should be used.

For single phase liquid flow the full Tulsa Model (SPPS v. 3.0) should be used where
possible. However, given that this is a computer software package that will not be
universally available, the API and/or RCS models can be used for initial assessments (the
latter giving rapid assessment and the former a more accurate assessment based on bend
geometry). These models are based on simple slurry impingement tests and lab-scale flow
loops and may suffer a problem with scale-up to field conditions. However, they should
give rates of the correct order of magnitude. Alternatively the more recent Salama model
(Ref. 16) can be used to give an indication of the likely wastage rate. However, in this
case it should be noted that an assessment of the Salama Model undertaken within UTG
indicated that it best equates to a 5D bend situation in comparison with the ‘full’
Tulsa/Harwell models. It is therefore recommended that it is not used for systems where
geometrical features than 5D bends may be present (e.g. 1.5D elbows, tees, severe
constrictions). The model is most probably suitable for application to downhole
completions, although in this instance care needs to be taken regards regions of significant
flow constriction (e.g. insert valves).

24
3.1.3. Multiphase flow

For multiphase flow regimes the situation is more complicated. For regimes very close to
pure gas flow the Salama & Venkatesh or Salama models can be used for ‘order of
magnitude’ estimates (see restrictions on use of the Salama Model in Section 3.1.2.).
However, when there is any appreciable liquid present then this rate will be mitigated,
although the degree of mitigation will depend very strongly on the flow regime
characteristics. For regimes very close to pure liquid flow the API, RCS and/or Salama
models can be used (see restrictions on use of the Salama Model in Section 3.1.2.).
However, where there is any appreciable gas present this will not be appropriate as it is
likely to be non-conservative. For multi-phase flow erosion rates below those for pure gas
but above those for pure liquid flow would normally be expected.

The Harwell programme complemented the Tulsa programme; the latter is based on fluid
flow and modelling and has started with single phase flow conditions while the Harwell
programme was an empirical programme based on multiphase flow conditions. The major
concern with the Harwell programme is that it was based almost entirely on a 2" test loop
and scale-up complications are likely to be present in multiphase flow.

The Harwell programme showed that, even for the same mixed velocities, the erosion rate
depends on the flow regime. The dependence was so strong that the proposed erosion
model was a function of SxV rather than SxV3:

E = S x (C1 + C2 x V x √ρm)

where E is the erosion rate, C1 and C2 constants which depend on flow regime, S the
solids concentration, V the mixed fluid velocity and ρm the mixed phase density.

Harwell have developed a computer software program “Design Procedure for Erosion-
Corrosion in Multi-phase Flow, Release 3”. As with the Tulsa software package this
program is not available commercially, but is only available to participants in the Joint
Industry Programme (JIP). BPX was a member of this JIP. The Program enables the user
to determine the flow regime, it then calculates the likely erosion wastage rate based on
the appropriate C1 and C2 values.

For ‘first pass’ assessments of the likely erosion wastage rate the following procedures can
be used:

It is recommended that the flow regime for the intended multiphase duty is firstly assessed.
The following criteria can then be applied:

Annular Flow:

Use the Harwell Release 3 software package to assess the likely erosion wastage rate. An
‘order of magnitude’ assessment can be achieved using the Tulsa SPPS v. 3.0 software

25
package using the mixed velocity together with (i) the averaged fluid properties and (ii)
the liquid properties. The actual erosion rate should then fall between these two values.

Bubble/Churn Flow:

Use the Harwell Release 3 software package to assess the likely erosion wastage rate.
Additionally the Tulsa SPPS v. 3.0 software package with mixed velocity and liquid
properties can be used for comparison purposes.

Stratified:

Use the Tulsa SPPS v. 3.0 software package with the liquid velocity calculated for the
hydraulic diameter and the liquid properties.

Horizontal Slug Flow:

One flow regime that has not been covered by either the AEA Harwell or Tulsa JIPs to
date is horizontal slug flow. Slug flow is of interest to BP Amoco at a number of
locations, e.g. in Alaska slug flow in large diameter flow-lines is often encountered, where
solids are often present and, indeed, failures have been experienced. Unfortunately, there
is no available data from either the JIP programmes or the literature in this area and BP
AMOCO's own experience is complicated by CO2 corrosion. If erosion is a problem in
such regimes then there are two possible solid impingement mechanisms:

• solids on the bottom of a line are picked up and thrown down by a passing
slug but do not get carried forward a significant distance.
• solids are entrained in the slug carried forward and thrown against the pipe
wall by the breaking wave at the slug front.

In both cases solids are unlikely to be carried at velocities exceeding the mixed fluid
velocity. The erosion may be mitigated to some extent as the pipe wall would be expected
to be protected by a significant liquid layer. However, the liquid slug front will be a zone
of considerable mixing and entrained gas, such that the liquid slug front may approach the
homogenous mixture. Therefore, as an interim measure until this type of flow has been
fully investigated, it is recommended that for such instances the Tulsa SPPS v. 4.0
software package is used with the mixed fluid properties (density and viscosity) and
velocity. For an ‘order of magnitude’ assessment the API or RCS Models can be used,
again employing the mixed fluid properties (density) and velocity. The use of these models
together with the mixture properties and velocity are likely to give a conservative estimate
of the erosion under slug flow, as it assumes that any point on the pipe wall will be
subjected to impingement by a liquid slug front continuously. Whilst this ‘in built’
conservatism needs to be recognised, it is considered that this represents the best advice
available at this time.

26
3.1.4. Effect of Material

All of the erosion rate models show a dependence of erosion rate on the substrate
material. The programmes that consider alloyed steels show a slight increase in erosion
resistance going from carbon steel to the more highly alloyed materials. This effect is,
however, not marked. Thus, for example, the Tulsa programme has a factor of 1.5
between carbon steel and annealed 13 Cr steel, with 22 Cr duplex stainless steel being
approximately the same as carbon steel.

The Salama & Venkatesh model has an inverse relation between erosion rate and carbon
steel hardness, and the Tulsa model has the erosion rate proportional to the hardness to
the power of -0.59. Given the range of hardness likely for carbon steel pipework and
tubing neither correction will account for much more than a factor of two.

Thus, for pure solid particle erosion, the effect of substrate material (when comparing
steel alloys) on the erosion rate is a second order effect of much less importance than flow
regime, mixed velocity or solids content. The effect can be quantified in different models,
but a reasonable 'rule-of-thumb' would be that steel alloy composition does not have a
significant effect on erosion resistance.

3.1.6. Effect of Particle Size

In general, the erosion resulting from the impact of a single solid particle is a function of
the momentum of that particle at impact and the total erosion is a function of the total
momentum impacting on a surface. By this reasoning, there could be several impacts from
a large number of small particles or one impact from a single large particle but, so long as
the total momentum was the same, the erosion would be the same.

However, the presence of a barrier layer of liquid at the surface and the bulk flow of
fluids round bends can mean that smaller particles are less likely to reach the surface than
large particles; or, at least, suffer a greater percentage loss of momentum. Thus, in
practice, erosion is likely to be less for smaller, less massive, particles than for large
particles, even if the total solids mass production rate is the same. Only three of the
Models, i.e. Tulsa’s SPPS v.4.0., Harwell’s Sandman v.3.9. and the Salama Model take
any account of the particle size in their calculation of the erosion wastage rae.

3.2. Corrosive liquids

3.2.1. Synergy between erosion and corrosion

If there is no synergism between corrosion and erosion for a given environment then the
wastage will be the sum of the corrosion wastage and the erosion wastage. Guidelines are
available for the prediction of likely corrosion rates (eg Ref. 2) and hence allowances for
corrosion can be calculated.

27
In the Harwell project, broadly speaking for the conditions tested (2bara CO2, 30oC) the
erosion-corrosion rate was found to be equal to erosion rate plus the 'unfilmed' corrosion
rate. It is worth pointing out that under the conditions tested (2bara CO2, 30oC) the
formation of iron carbonate films (often termed ‘scaling’ in CO2 corrosion) would not be
expected.

The Tulsa programme tested carbon steel in CO2 and sand-containing environments with
50 psig CO2 at 200 oF (93.3 oC) and at pH 5.0, 5.5 or 6.0 (i.e. conditions under which the
formation of iron carbonate films is likely). Three regimes in the erosion-corrosion
wastage of carbon steel were identified. These were as follows:

(i) 'Scaling Regime'. In this regime the semi-protective corrosion product layer is
retained on the metal surface, affording some protection. This is the normal situation for
solids free conditions, or more benign erosion-corrosion conditions.

(ii) 'General Wastage Regime'. In this regime any scales/surface films are removed from
the metal surface by solids erosion and/or do not have the time to form. Hence metal
wastage as a result of both erosion and corrosion can go on unabated. This is the normal
situation for very aggressive erosion conditions.

(iii) 'Pitting Regime'. In this regime the solid particles prevent scales/surface films
forming at impingement points on the metal surface, whilst scale/surface films form on the
rest of the surface. This leads to pitting damage. Corrosion in the 'bare' impingement areas
can be significantly more aggressive in terms of metal penetration rate than for general
wastage. Some scales/surface films can act as cathodic areas, significantly accelerating the
corrosion rate in the relatively small anodic 'bare' impingement areas. This occurs at
conditions intermediate between 'scaling' or 'general wastage'. Corrosion rates up to twice
that anticipated for ‘un-filmed’ conditions have been observed.

ECRC have developed a software program (SPPS-EC), which can predict the threshold
velocities for these three regimes. However, at present the model can not predict the likely
wastage rate under erosion-corrosion conditions. The Tulsa work has also indicated that
some corrosion inhibitors may be able to increase the threshold velocities for these three
regimes (Ref. 10). However, this effect is not yet sufficiently well established for use in
design. In any event, any such increase is likely to be corrosion inhibitor and system
dependant, meaning that to apply any increase in threshold velocity to the design would
require specific testing of the candidate corrosion inhibitors under the anticipated system
conditions.

3.2.2. Carbon Steel

It is clear from the above that there is possible synergy between erosion and corrosion in
carbon steel systems. However, the quantification of such effects is difficult. At this stage
it is suggested that no clear velocity thresholds can be established for erosion-corrosion.
As an interim measure the following philosophy is recommended:

28
If the erosion rate is less than 0.1 mm/yr then there is no need to consider
erosion/corrosion interactions, i.e. the total wastage rate will be the predicted corrosion
rate plus the predicted erosion rate.

If the predicted erosion rate is greater than 0.1 mm/yr, then use the CO2 model (Ref. 2) to
determine the likelihood of iron carbonate scale formation.

For the case where no iron carbonate scale is anticipated the total wastage rate can be
taken as the erosion rate plus the un-filmed corrosion rate (i.e. in line with the conclusions
of the Harwell work).

For the case where iron carbonate scale is anticipated the total wastage rate can be taken
as the erosion rate plus twice the un-filmed corrosion rate (i.e. to reflect the ‘pitting
regime’ in the Tulsa work).

Alternatively, when it is available, the Tulsa SPPS-EC computer software programme can
be used to determine the ‘regime’ into which the service conditions fall, then the following
criteria can be applied:

Scaling regime: wastage rate = erosion rate + ‘filmed’ corrosion rate

Pitting regime: wastage rate = erosion rate + twice the ‘un-filmed’ corrosion rate
General wastage regime: wastage rate = erosion rate + ‘un-filmed’ corrosion rate

3.2.3. 13%Cr Steel.

In the Harwell programme the 13%Cr steel was found not to corrode at lower
temperatures (30°C) under erosion-corrosion conditions until about 2 µm of material had
been removed by erosion. Thereafter the wastage rate increased to 1 - 2 mm/yr, remaining
at this level even after the sand was removed. The 'corrosion resistant' properties were
only restored once the material had been re-exposed to air. This observation is in
agreement with studies in Sunbury (Ref. 11), which found that at 30°C in CO2-containing
solutions the protective layer never completely reformed. At higher temperatures (50°C
and 80°C) the results from Harwell indicated no synergy between erosion and corrosion.
These results were again supported by data from the Sunbury experiments (Ref. 11),
which found that the protective film reformed very rapidly after damage at temperatures of
80°C and above (temperatures up to 150°C were tested) in a CO2-containing solution.

As a result of these observations, the following is recommended:

If the erosion rate is less than 0.1 mm/yr then there is no need to consider
erosion/corrosion interactions, as it is anticipated that the protective film will not be
destroyed, i.e. the re-filming processes will be faster than the wastage rate. Therefore, the
total wastage rate will be the predicted corrosion rate (if any, see Ref. 12 for further
details) plus the predicted erosion rate.

29
If the erosion rate is greater than 0.1 mm/yr then the total wastage rate at temperatures
lower than 80°C should be taken as the erosion rate plus the corrosion rate for ‘un-filmed’
carbon steel in the given chemical environment. For temperatures above 80°C, the total
wastage rate should be taken as the erosion rate plus the corrosion rate expected on
13%Cr steel (Ref. 12).

3.2.4. Duplex Stainless Steel

In the Harwell work the duplex stainless steel was found not to corrode under the
conditions used, even in the presence of sand. Therefore, it is recommended that in this
case the total wastage rate is taken to equal the erosion rate, i.e. that no allowance is made
for corrosion.

30
References:

1. "Erosion Guidelines Revision 2.0 (1996)", J W Martin & J Pattinson, BP GRE Report
No. ESR.97.ER.002, January 1997.

2. "A Corrosion Philosophy for the Transport of Wet Oil and Multiphase Fluids
Containing CO2", J Pattinson, ID Parker & AS Green, BP GRE Report No.
ESR.93.ER.013, March 1993.

3. "Erosional Velocity Limits for Duplex Stainless Steel", J Pattinson & J W Martin, BP
GRE Report No. ESR.95.ER.058, July 1995

4. "A Review of Erosion Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production", JS Smart, Paper 10,
NACE Corrosion Conference, 1990

5. "Materials Performance in Khuff Gas Service", R Duncan, Materials Performance, Vol

19, No. 7, July 1980

6. “Corrosion Prediction Modelling”, A McMahon & D M E Paisley, ESR.96.ER.066

7. “Corrosion Monitoring Manual”, S Webster & R C Woollam, ESR.95.ER.053,

November 1996

8. "Salt water velocities in pipes; for continuous flow", British Standard MA18, 1976

9. "The Wear Equation for Erosion of Metals by Abrasive Particles", E Rabinowicz, Proc.
5th Int. Conf. on Erosion by Solid and Liquid Impact.

10. "Erosion/Corrosion Research Center: Advisory Board Report May 11, 1996", E F
Rybicki, University of Tulsa, USA

11. Report in Preparation, A McMahon, 1996

12. “Guidelines for the Use of 13%Cr Stainless Steels in Chloride Containing Waters
Under Non-Sour Conditions”, DME Paisley, BP GRE Report No. ESR.95.ER.040,
April 1995.

13. “Assessment of Erosive Wear in Piping Systems”, DNV Recommended Practice DNV
RP O501, 1997.

14. “Erosion - Material Limitations (115-4277) 1995 End of Years Status”, J W Martin,
BP GRE Report No. ESR.96.ER.002.

15. “Erosion of Alloy 625 and 25%Cr Duplex Stainless Steel in Water Injection Service”,
memorandum by J W Martin to S Whitehead dated 22nd April 1997.

31
16. “An Alternative to API RP14e Erosional Velocity Limits for Sand Laden Fluids”, M
M Salama, OTC Proceedings 1998, Paper 8898.

32