Erosion

Guidelines
Revision 2.1
(1999)
J W Martin

Sunbury Report No. S/UTG/102/99

dated October 1999

Main CD
Contents
 EROSION GUIDELINES REVISION 2.1 (1999)

By
J W Martin

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2
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.

3
 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
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

6
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.

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

7
FCRCS - ‘Filmed’ corrosion rate for carbon steel
CR13Cr -Corrosion rate for 13%Cr steel

Note 12: Totally Solids Free

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

Note 13: Are the Conditions Non-corrosive?

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

or

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

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

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

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

Note 16: Non-corrosive; multiphase; limit velocity to 70m/s (230ft/sec)

This is the maximum velocity limit defined to avoid the possibility of droplet erosion
for gas-condensate wells in the DNV Recommended Practice (‘Assessment of Erosive
Wear in Piping Systems’)

Note 17: Corrosive; Liquid no gas; No Velocity Limits for the Avoidance of
Erosion

Consideration may need to be given to the possibility of flow-enhanced corrosion,

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

8
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).

11
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.

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

10
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:

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

11
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.

12
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 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

13
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 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.

14
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.

15
 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.

16
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 in CO2 and O2-containing environments (eg sea water injection) will generally

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.

17
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.

2.1. Non-corrosive fluid flow

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.

18
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.

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

19
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.

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.

20
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).

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

21
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:
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'.

22
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).

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:

23
 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 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:

24
 • 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.

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.

25
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.

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

26
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:

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

27
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.

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.

28
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.

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

29