OTC 4485

Evaluation of API RP 14E Erosional Velocity Limitations

for Offshore Gas Wells
by M.M. Salama and E.S. Venkatesh, Conoco /nc.

Copyright 1983 Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 15th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas. May 2-5, 1983. The material la subject to correction by the author. Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

Abstract disturbed due to a local change in direction, a velocity

component normal to the pipe wall will be introduced, re-
In order to avoid erosion damage and associated
sulting in repeated impacts on the pipe wall. Erosion dam-
problems in two-phase flow systems, API RP14E recon-
age of the pipe is caused by the repeated bombardment of
mends limiting the maximum production velocity to a value
liquid and solid particles. The erosion damage is enhanced
defined by the following empirical equation:
by increasing the production capacity of a given flow sys-
tern (i.e., increasing flow velocity). In order to avoid poten-
Ve= c/* tial erosion problems, most oil companies have been limit-
ing their production rate by reducing the flow velocity to a
where
level below which it is believed that erosion does not occur.
This limiting flow velocity is calculated using the API RPI 4E
V. = the maximum allowable erosional velocity in ft/sec
recommended empirical equation:l
P = the density of fluid in lb/cu ft at flowing conditions of
temperature and pressure
C = a constant generally known as the C factor, is in the
Ve=clfi . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(1)
range of 100 to 125
where
Evaluation of the above equation has shown that in
V. = the maximum allowable erosional velocity (fVsec)
cases where the form of the equation can be rationalized,
= the fluid density (lbs/cu ft)
the value of C, as recommended by API, is extremely
~ = an empirical constant generally known as the C
conservative. These cases include erosion due to liquid
factor
particle impingement and corrosion-assisted erosion due to
the stripping of corrosion inhibitor films. For the case of
For a sand-free, two-phase flow situation, the C factor
erosion due to sand particles entrained in the fluid, the form
is limited to 100 for continuous flow and 125 for intermittent
of the equation appears to be incorrect. The API RP14E
flow. The API RP14E recommends the use of a lower
recommendations to reduce the value of C to account for
unspecified C factor for fluids containing sand.
sand in the produced fluid is, therefore, improper.
Previously, production rates were generally restricted
A method for calculating erosion damage as a func-
to lower values than those specified by Equation (1) due to
tion of fluid and flow characteristics is proposed. This
fear of formation damage or excessive sand production.
approach can be used to calculate a limiting flow velocity for
However, the recent advances in well completion proce-
any specified allowable erosion rate.
dures, sand control techniques, and our understanding of
reservoirs’ flow behavior permit higher production rates.
Introduction
These developments, in addition to the current economic
The production of hydrocarbons from underground incentives, are motivating the oil industry to increase pro-
reservoirs is associated mainly with the flow of a liquid (oil duction rates, particularly for high-capacity gas wells.
and water), gas (natural gas), and/or solid (sand). This flow Under this condition, the API RPI 4E erosional velocity
situation is essentially one of a liquid-gas, two-phase flow equation represents a major obstacle. Although the API
with entrained solid particles. When the fluid flow in a pipe is equation has been widely accepted, the authors were un-
successful in all attempts to determinethe basis of this
References and illustrations at end of paper. equation. These were the main reasons for initiating this

-- .
3{1

—
 EVALUATIONOF THE API RP14EEROSIONAL
2 \/Fl
.GLWW,
CWITV , !
I-00.,lMITATlnN.~
,0 . . ..- ..-
Ff)R
.- . .
nFFSHORF
. . . -. . . . .- WFI-LS
..- —— -
nr~
“ , “
A
-r-

study. This paper summarizes the initial phase of this study.
Several areas which require further evaluation are identi-
fied.
Erosion Mechanisms
Erosion is defined as the physical removal of material
from the surface. This is different from corrosion, which
involves material removal by chemical or electrochemical
reaction. The material removal by erosion is caused by one
or more of the following:
1. Cavitation (bubble collapse)
drop range for high capacity wells is 3,000 to 5,000 ps
These numbers correspond to a value for the constant C
the range 80 to 100. Although there is a very close similarity
between the Bernoulli relationship (Equation (2)) and th
API empirical criterion (Equation (1)), they should have n
correlation because they represent two completely differen
phenomena.
For the case of erosion due to liquid impingement on
surface, the relationship between flow velocity, V (ft/see)
and erosion rate, h (roils per year), can be written as follows
(Appendix 1):

2. Liquid particle impingement v = B h1”6

7“”””’”””””””””””(3)
3. Solid particle impingement
where
Erosion damage occurs as a result of one of three mechan-
isms: P = the fluid density (lbs/cu ft)
B = a constant which depends on the target materia
1. Fatigue due to repeated loads induced by a bubble hardness and critical strain to failure.
collapse or particle impingement.
For most practical cases and allowing for a 10-mii-per-year
2. Abrasion due to repeated impingement of hard particles erosion rate, Equation (3) reduces to:
on ductile material.

3. Corrosion-assisted erosion due to the breakage of the

protective surface layer either by fatigue or abrasion.
V=%””””””””
The value of C under these conditions is much higher than
Possible Rationalization of API Erosional that recommended by the empirical equation of AP
Velocity Equation RP14E.
Examination of the API erosional velocity equation
suggests that it may have been derived using one of the The velocity limitation imposed by Equation (4) is ver
following approaches: stringent when compared with experimental data obtained
to date for liquid impingement erosion. For example, Equa
1. Constant pressure drop limitation using Bernoulli rela- tion (4) gives a limiting velocity of 38 ft/sec for water im
tionship. pingement which if far lower than experimentally deter
mined threshold velocities shown in Table 1 during wate
2. Limitation on erosion rate due to liquid impingement. impingement erosion tests. The threshold velocity is de
fined as the velocity below which no measurable erosion
3. Limitation on velocity to avoid removing corrosion- damage occurs after a large number of impacts (106- 10
inhibiting layers. impact). In most of these experiments the erosion is caused
by the multiple impacts of a water jet on specimens
The Bernoulli relationship can be written (for the case mounted on a rotating disk. Since erosion is generally
where the gravity effect and initial fluid velocity are ignored) considered as analogous to fatigue,7 the threshold velocity
as follows: corresponds to the endurance limit. All these experimental-
ly determined threshold velocites*7 are higher than thos
“Jzm_ c predicted by Equation (4). Therefore for a sand-free pro
~-~ . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)
duction system, an increase in the C factor from 100 (a
recommended by API) to a value around 300 should no
where pose any operational problems.

V = the maximum flow velocity

If we consider the case where the limiting velocity
= the fluid density
governed by the stripping of the protective inhibitor film from
~P = the total pressure drop along the flow path
the surface of the steel tubulars, the limiting velocity can b
expressed by:
The total pressure drop along the flow path (AP) is com-
posed of four components. These are the pressure drops in
the reservoir, across the completion, along the production
tubing, and across any restriction. A typical total pressure

372
OTC 4485 MamdouhM. Salamaand EswarahalliS. Venkatesh
where
T = the shear strength of the inhibitor interface
f = the friction factor
This equation is derived by equating the flow induced shear
stress at the pipe wall with the shear strength of the inhibi-
tor. For most practical cases, ~ equals 8,000 psis and f
equals 0.0015,9 Equation (5) can be written as:
‘= F””””””””””””””””(E)
Equation (6) has the same form as the API empirical Equa-
tion (1). The value of C based on this criterion is far higher
than that proposed by the API equation. It is clear from the
above discussion, therefore, that the current API erosional
velocity limitation seems to be extremely conservative.
Proposed Erosional Velocity Equation
It appears that erosion will occur in a solid-free fluid
flow system only at very high velocities, which would not be
allowed in a properly designed system because of severe
pressure drops. In process piping, a velocity limitation of
about 100 feet per second is used. Above this velocity, it
becomes more economical to increase the pipe diameter
than to increase the pumping capacity. It is therefore the
authors’ belief that erosion in the oil industry is mainly due to
sand particles entrained in the produced fluid.
Although estimating the quantity of sand produced
from a gas or oil well appears to be straightforward, the
quantification process is somewhat more complicated in
practice. Typically, sand production is extremely erratic.
Most producers seek to limit sand production to onl a few
pounds per day per well, perhaps 5 to 10 pounds.l r Wells
that produce this level of sand are sometimes characterized
as sand-free wells.
The presence of sand particles in the produced fluid
results in erosive damage by abrasive wear mechanism.
However, in order for the sand being conveyed by the
mixture of gas and oil to cause damage, it is necessary for
the sand to acquire a velocity normal to the pipe wall. This
velocity can be attributed to three sources:
1. Turbulent fluctuation in the flow.
2. Secondary flows in the vicinity of bends and fittings.
3. Radial two-phase velocity fluctuations.
Radial transport-turbulent fluctuations range up to about 10
percent of the main flow. The velocity of particles depends
on the size, but it is generally less than the fluctuation
velocity. Radial velocity due to secondary flows is impor-
tant. The location of the maximum wear in bends and
sometimes the peculiar wear patterns in the wake of pro-
tuberances and orifices can only be accounted for by
secondary flow. Due to the structure of the flow, two-phase
flows have strong radial velocities. Fora slug flow, the radial
373
3
velocity near the tip of a bubble is about equal to the local
relative velocity between the two phases. Similar velocities
must occur in the roll waves of annular flows. It is very
difficult without appropriate experiments to identify which of
the above three possibilities is most significant and, hence,
what is the value of the radial velocity.
Rabinowiczl 1 has shown that experimental results of
erosive damage of ductile metals due to solid particle im-
pingement agree reasonably well with the following erosion
‘ate ‘quation:
“_KWV2~
. (7)
gP ““””””””””””””
where
U = the volume of metal eroded
W = the total weight of impinging solid particles
V = the particle velocity
P = the penetration hardness of the target material
13 = a coefficient which depends on the impingement
angle. It equals 1.0 for angles between 10 and 60
degrees and 0.50 for other angles. 12 For the fully
developed turbulent flow system, as in the case of a
producing well system, p is appropriately chosen as
0.75.
K = a nondimensional erosive wear coefficient.
Rabinowicz12 has shown by statistical analysis of
the experimentally determined K values that the
mean value is 0.0103. A reasonable value for K in
the case of the producing well system can be based
on mean plus two standard deviation. This value for
K is 0.071.
g = the gravitational constant (32.2 ft/sec2)
For the case of flow in pipes, the maximum erosion is
expected to occur in elbows. As a conservative first approx-
imation, the eroded area is considered to be equal to the
projected area of the pipe and the particle velocity equals
the average flow velocity (V). The amount of impinging solid
particles (W) on the surface of the elbow is a percentage of
the total particles in the flow. Griffith13 has estimated that for
a low-density gas system, this percentage is about 100
percent, and as density increases, the percentage is re-
duced to a limiting value of 30 percent for liquids. This is
rationalized because in high-density fluids, most of the
particles will be carried in the stream in the center of the flow
without impacting the surface of the elbow. This observa-
tion is interesting because it indicates that as the density
increases, the amount of impinging particles decreases,
thus decreasing erosion rate and, therefore, increasing the
allowable velocity. This is opposite to what is implied by API
erosional velocity equation. For a two-phase flow system,
the ratio of the weight of impinging particles to the weight of
all the particles in the flow is, therefore, between 0.3 and
1.0. A reasonable ratio is 0.65 for a medium-density two-
phase fluid, as in the case of a gas well system.
Using the above analysis in Equation(7), the erosion
rate due to flow in elbows can be given as:
 EVALUATIONOF THE API RP14E EROSIONAL
4 VELOCITY LIMITATIONS FOR OFFSHORE WELLS OTC 4

~= K(0.65W)V2
gP(m/4dz)
where
h = erosion rate (roils per year,
W = sand flow rate (bbl/month;
pounds)
V = fluid flow velocity (ft/see)
P = hardness (psi)
d = pipe diameter (inches)
g = gravitational constant (32.2
A = correction factor for proper
The value of A in the above units is calculated to be:
(~) ●A. Although Equation (7) offers a sound theoretical basis
““”””””””(8) to assess the problems of erosion in pipes, it is clear that
several assumptions have to be made to derive design
equations, such as Equation (12). An experimental pro-
gram should be undertaken to establish the rationalization
mpy) of these assumptions and verify the values of their corres-
barrel of sand = 945
ponding parameters. Such an experimental program
should also address the effect of sand erosion on the forma-
tion of a protective inhibitor film which is necessary to avoid
corrosion problems in corrosive wells.
ft/sec2) Conclusions
units
1. Erosion damage in gas-producing wells occurs primarily
due to solid particle impingement.

2. API RP14E erosional velocity equation is extremely

A= I.36 x106 . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9) conservative for sand-free production conditions.

for p = 0.75 and K = 0.071, Equation (8) reduces to:

3. Appropriate equations have been proposed for use in
design against erosion for both sand-free and sand-
h=l.86x105~ -. . . . . . . . ..(10) producing wells.

Comparison between the predicted erosion rate us-
ing Equation (1O) and experimental data developed as part
of API -OSAPR- project 2 on sand erosion by Texas A&M
University Research Centeri4 is shown in Table 2. The
results illustrate the validity of Equation (1O) in predicting
sand erosion rates. On the average, Equation (1O)overesti-
mates the erosion rates by a factor of 1.44.
The result of AP1-OSAPR-project 214 also showed
that for flow infield ells and tees, the erosion rates are about
50 percent that in elbows and, therefore, Equation (1O) can
be written as follows:
h=93,000$$ ..:.; . . . . . ..(11)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank management of
Conoco Inc. for permission to publish this paper. The au-
thors sincerely express their appreciation to Professors
Ernest Rabinowicz and Peter Griffith of Massachusetts
Institute of Technology for their valuable suggestions and
for giving permission to reference some of their unpub-
lished work. The authors would also like to thank Messers
John Wolfe and Fred Gipson and Dr. Richard Vennett for
their assistance and advise.
References
‘API RPI 4E, “Recommended Practice for Design and
Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping Sys-
tem,” Third Ed., December 1981.

Substituting the value of P for steel (P = 1.55 x 105 psi) 2Thiruvengadam, A.; Rudy, S. L.; and Gunasekam, M.
and assuming that erosion velocity is based on an erosion “Experimental and Analytical Investigation on Liquid im-
rate of 10 roils per year, Equation (11) can be written as: pact Erosion,” Characterization and Determination o
Erosion Resistance, ASTM STP474, p. 249, (1970).

‘+$ ““”””””””””””””(’2)
When W approaches zero, the value of V is limited by
Equation (4), which is for sand-free system. For a pipe with
3-inch diameter, the erosional velocity V (ft/see) can be
given as a function of the rate of sand production W (barrels
per month) as follows:
3Hancox, N. L., and Brunton, J. H., “The Erosion of Solids
by the Repeated Impact of Liquid Drops,” Phil. Trans.
Roy. Sot., London, Vol. 260A, p. 129, (1966).
4Baker, D. W.; Jolliffe, K. H.; and Pearson, D., “The Resist-
ance of Materials to Impact Erosion Damage,” Phil
Trans. Roy. Sot., London, Vol. 260A, p. 168, (1966).

v=%““””””””’””””””(’3) 5Hobbs, J. M., “Factors Affecting Damage Caused by

Equation (13) is reasonably conservative and, therefore,
could be used as a design criterion. Allowable velocity, a
function of sand production as calculated by Equation (13),
is shown in Table 3 for sand containing fluid.
Liquid Impact, National Engineering Laboratory Report
No. 266, December 1966.
6Vater, M., “Prufung und Verhalten Metallischer Werk
Staffe Gegen Tropfenschlagund Cavitation, “Korrosion
and Metallschutz, Vol. 20, No. 6, p. 171, (1944).

a-, .
s/q
ITC 4485 ..—------ M.. Salama
Mamrkmh ——.—...—and
—.. —.Venkatesh
—Eswarahalli S. 5

7Heymann, F. J., “A Survey of Clues to the Relationship where

Between Erosion Rate and Impact Parameters,” Proc. of
the 2nd Meersburg Conference on Rain Erosion and U =wear volume rate
Allied Phenomena, Royal Aircraft Establishment, U.K., p. v =impacting fluid volume rate
683, (1968). =fluid density (lb/ft3)
1’ =impact velocity (ft/see)
8Kemball, C., “intermolecular Forces and the Strength of P =tar et material hardness, psi (for steel, P = 1.55 x
Adhesive Joints,” in the Proceedings of the Symposium 10 .9psi)
on Adhesion and Adhesives Fundamentals and Practice, cc = Critical strain to failure (0.1 O for steel)
Cleveland, Ohio, p. 69, (1954). g = gt13Vih5ttiOrtal constant (32.2 ft/sec2)
K = high-speed erosion coefficient (= 0.01)
‘Fox, R. W., and McDonald, A. T., “introduction to Fluid
Mechanics,” John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 1973. Considering the case where v is given as
V=AV . . . . . . . . . . . . (Al -2)
10Estimating Sand Production Handbook, O. 1. Corpora-
tion, Houston, Texas, 1982.
and erosion depth h is given as
11Rabinowicz, E., “The Wear Equation for Erosion of Met-
als by Abrasive Particles,” Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. on Ero- h=: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Al -3)
sion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, England, p.
38-1, (1979).
where A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe.
12Rabinowicz, E., “Factors Modi~ing the Erosive Wear
By substitution, Equation (Al-1) becomes:
Equations for Metals,” Israel J. Tech., Vol. 18, p. 193,
(1980).
h=~~~2 . . . . . ..(A1-4)
13Griffith, P. (1982), Private Communication. ( )

By substituting the above values for K, g, and EC,Equation

14Weiner, P. D., and Tone, G. C., “Detection and Preven-
(Al -4) can be given as:
tion of Sand Erosion of Production Equipment,” API
OSAPR Project No. 2, Research Report, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, 1976.
V“’7=%+ ““””” ”””(A’-5)
15Griffith, P., and Rabinowicz, E. (1982), Private Com-
munication. This equation can be simplified by substituting the value of
P for steel and by accounting for V1’6 into the numerical
constant as follows:
APPENDIX 1
EROSION DUE TO LIQUID IMPINGEMENT V=v ““””” ”””’” ””(A1-6)

Erosion rate due to a liquid impingement can be calculated Assuming that the allowable erosion rate h is 10 roils per
as follows:i 5 year, the above equation becomes:

U=W2 2PV2 2 . . . . .. (Al-l)

2Pg (27 gP ~2C) V=* ““””” ””””” ”””” (A’-7)

_—
-
375
s3i?i?ei?l?i?i2i?i?8s8. . . 8
.

mlcucNc9d-lnlnmul