An Alternative to API 14E Erosional Velocity

An Alternative to API 14EErosional Velocity Limits for Sand-Laden Fluids The current practice for eliminating erosional problems in piping systems is to limit the flow velocity 共 Ve兲 to that established by the recommended practice API RP 14E based on an empirical constant (C-factor) and the fluid mixture density 共 ␳ m兲 as follows:Ve Mamdouh M. Salama ⫽ C/ 冑␳ m. The API criterion is specified for clean service (noncorrosive and sand-free), Conoco Inc., and it is noted that the C-factor should be reduced if sand or corrosive conditions are 1000 South Pine Street, present. The validity of the equation has been challenged on the basis that the API RP P.O. Box 1267, 14E limits on the C-factor can be very conservative for clean service and is not applicable Ponca City, OK 74602-1267 for conditions when corrosion or sand are present. Extensive effort has been devoted to Fellow ASME develop an alternative approach for establishing erosional velocity limits for sand-laden fluids. Unfortunately, none of these proposals have been adopted as a standard practice because of their complexity. This paper will review the results of these studies and pro- poses an alternative equation that is as simple as the API 14E equation. This alternative equation has the following form: Ve⫽SD冑␳m/冑W. The value of the S-factor depends on the pipe geometry, i.e., bend, tee, contraction, expansion, etc. Using the units for mixture flow velocity 共 Ve兲 in m/s, fluid mixture density 共 ␳ m兲 in kg/m3, pipe diameter (D) in mm and sand production (W) in kg/day, the value of the S-factor is 0.05 for pipe bends. The accuracy of the proposed equation for predicting erosion in pipe bends for fluids contain- ing sand is demonstrated by a comparison with several multi-phase flow loop tests that cover a broad range of liquid-gas ratios and sand concentrations. 关S0195-0738共00兲00202-8兴 Introduction However, no guidelines are provided for these reductions. It has been argued by several investigators that the API RP 14E relation Erosion is defined as the removal of material from a solid sur- is extremely conservative under these conditions and this led to face by the repeated application of mechanical forces. These the changes in the 1991 edition 关2兴. However, the recent changes forces are induced by solid particles, liquid droplets, or cavitation. 关2兴 imply that a C-factor of 100 is acceptable for corrosive sys- Liquid impingement erosion occurs when liquid drops or liquid jet tems and a C-factor of 150 to 200 is acceptable for inhibited repeatedly impact the solid surface. Erosion may be attributed to systems. removal of the metal, the inhibited film, and/or protective corro- In this paper, the basis for the API RP 14E equation will be sion scales. In order to avoid erosion damage, the current oil in- investigated and the current industry practice in its application dustry practice for sizing process piping, flow lines, pipelines, and will be examined. The paper will then focus on examining the tubing is to limit the flow velocity to the maximum erosional validity of the API 14E equation for sand-laden fluids and present velocity as calculated by the following API RP 14E equation several models that are being advanced by the industry to predict 关1,2兴: sand erosion in piping systems. A new simplified model will be proposed and its accuracy will be examined using a large number C of two-phase 共liquid-gas兲 flow loop experiments. V e⫽ (1) 冑␳ m Basis of the API RP 14E Erosional Velocity Equation V e ⫽ fluid erosional velocity, ft/s The basis and the source of this API RP 14E equation 关1,2兴 C ⫽ empirical constant have been the subject of speculation in several papers and reports. ␳ m ⫽ gas/liquid mixture density at flowing pressure and tem- Several suggestions were offered for the basis of this equation. perature, lb/ft3 These suggestions are summarized in Table 1. A detailed discus- sion on these suggestions is presented by Salama 关3兴. Although C is 100 for continuous service and 125 for intermittent service. several authors attempted to rationalize the validity of the C-factor Consideration should be given to reducing these values if solids limit, none of the references succeeded in providing evidence sup- production 共sand兲 is anticipated. In the latest API RP 14E 关2兴, porting the use of a C-factor of 100 or 150 to avoid erosion. higher C-values of 150 to 200 may be used when corrosion is Both Salama and Venkatesh 关4兴 and Heidersbach 关5兴 suggested controlled by inhibition or by employing corrosion-resistant al- that the API equation was based on limits on pressure drop in loys. pipes. As an extension to this argument to two-phase flows, The original API criterion 关1兴 is specified for clean service Salama 关3兴 suggested the following equation that relates pressure 共noncorrosive and sand-free兲, and it is noted that the C-factor drop in two-phase horizontal pipes to the API C-factor and should be reduced if sand or corrosive conditions are present. showed that predictions made by this equation compare very well with those made using Beggs and Brill model 关6兴 for several two- Contributed by the Petroleum Division and presented at the Offshore Technology phase flow conditions 冉 冊 Conference, Houston, Texas, May 4–7, 1998, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ME- CHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the Petroleum Division, March 23, ␦P 0.00045 1.62 1999; revised manuscript received March 3, 2000. Associate Technical Editor: C. ⫽ C (2) Sarica. ␦L D 1.2 Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright © 2000 by ASME JUNE 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 71 Downloaded 23 Aug 2011 to 200.174.154.60. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm tubing. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. composition. extreme care must be taken in selecting inhibitors for sys- the 3.174. CuNi. i. ary conditions lose their effectiveness at higher velocities. 122. sion and pitting. which corresponds to a C-factor of 800. impact velocity.兲 C⫽API C-factor⫽V m 冑␳ m V m ⫽mixture velocity between 220 and 260 in a seawater flow loop containing fiberglass 共ft/s兲 ␳ m ⫽mixture density 共lb/ft3兲 pipes and pipe bends of CuNi and stainless steel 关18兴. However. sand experiments.154. Deffen. and material properties 共hardness. experimental results 关20兴 baugh and Buckingham also presented data developed by Arco on have confirmed that corrosion rates in a deaerated system can be velocity effect of inhibited systems 共with and without solids兲 on high when the pH value is low. However. the use of a C-factor of 150 to 200 as Heidersbach 关5兴 reported that Phillips does not use API 14E to suggested by API RP 14E 关2兴 can be risky unless the inhibitor is determine production rates.9 yr兲 until a failure oc. JUNE 2000 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 23 Aug 2011 to 200. or stainless steel. even at curred in the AISI 4140 carbon steel tubing at the flow coupling. choke. shape/sharpness. be surprised if corrosion failure occurs in this system at Unlike erosion in sand-free systems where erosion rate is re- the joints because of the susceptibility of 13 Cr to crevice corro. and chokes. and Arco uses a C-factor of 200 for ever.5. no erosion/corrosion was reported for C-factors up to on the operating condition. in most characteristics 共flow rate. it was attributed to the pres. C-factors lower than 100 关21兴. High corrosion rates were. there are inhibitors that The failure of the coupling was attributed to liquid impingement maintain their effectiveness even at a C-factor of 400 关21兴. a velocity of 100 ft/s. The flow coupling was replaced by L80-13 Cr tems operating at high C-factors. downhole safety valve into fore. lated to two parameters. ence of microscopic solid particles in the liquid. depending ponents. but the velocity was also reduced. observed when the steel joints were not cathodically pro- continuous service and C-factor of 250 for intermittent service tected. Erichsen 关16兴 reported that one North evaluated using a flow loop testing at the operating C-factor. elbows. This high corrosion rate was unexpected because the when corrosion is controlled and if sand can be avoided. size distribution.cfm . For other com.9-in. The results show that there locity equation is being questioned by many. In Sea operator produced from a condensate well at a velocity of 286 many cases. inhibitors that provide good protection under station- ft/s 共C-factor of 726兲 for 1050 days 共@2. impact angle. The results also show that at a C-factor of 400.e. density兲. viscosity兲. There 72 Õ Vol. where ␦ P/ ␦ L⫽pressure drop per unit length 共psi/ft兲 D⫽Pipe di. corrosion was observed for C-factors up to 500. One should not. even with sand. many companies are using 40 and that of 400.7–15兴. oxygen level was very low. Table 1 Speculations regarding the origin of API RP 14E erosional velocity equation Information in the table taken from 关4. Equation providing corrosion can be suppressed. a C-factor of 400 can be Although the source and validity of the API 14E erosional ve. higher values for the C-factor than suggested in the API RP 14E carbon steel showed no signs of erosion when corrosion was sup- document.. microstructure兲.asme. tors to suppress corrosion. There- caused by the fluids exiting the 2-in. hardness. component geometry 共bend. density. tests were conducted at a velocity corresponding to a C-factor ameter 共in. its use within the oil is no difference between erosion/corrosion rate for a C-factor of industry is widespread. see http://www. number of particles hitting the surface. how- does not limit flow velocities. erosion due to sand is influenced by several factors including fluid Results by Camacho 关17兴 showed no erosion damage. material and no failure was reported. tee. mixture density and flow velocity. Erichsen also reported that another North Sea operator has used a C-factor of 300 as upper limit for Gullfaks subsea water injectors completed with L80-13 Cr tubing. Application of the API RP 14E Erosional Velocity Single 共distilled water兲 and two-phase 共water and nitrogen兲 flow loop test results on simulated tubular joints 关19兴 showed that. for N-80 steel after repeated impact by liquid slug at characteristics 共concentration.60. Three-month joint兲. Even for systems that rely on inhibi- 300. C-factor values higher or lower than 100 are possible. no erosion/ Since corrosion rates can be influenced by flow velocity. However. used without any concern for erosion.org/terms/Terms_Use. Deffenbaugh and Buckingham 关9兴 reported that Mobil pressed by cathodic protection. which was the situation in this carbon steel and 316 stainless steel for pipes. The results showed that for a straight pipe section. When erosion damage was observed. Sand Erosion however. The tests were concluded without any erosion damage in the fiberglass. case. typical sand size is 250 micron and in ments to the values under the process conditions. equation. Equation 共6兲 can be rewritten to predict erosion rate 共mm/yr兲 in lowing form: terms of sand production rate 共kg/day兲 as follows: 2 ER⫽F 共 aV ln ⫹be ⫺cV l 兲 (5) 1 WV m d ER⫽ (7) Sm D ␳m 2 where a. This model sug- ligible because of the different competing parameters of particle gests the following equation for erosion prediction in steel with weight. the effect of viscos- ity on erosion rates for liquids having the same density has not S m ⫽ 0. The value of F( ␣ ) is maximum for ductile materials critical because. Although the equation proposed by Salama and Venkatesh analyses and particle tracking simulation models. the amount of sand hitting the target is none of these proposals have been adopted as a standard practice influenced by the flow conditions.1 mm/yr 共4 mpy兲 is consid- The models developed by DNV 关22兴 and Tulsa University 关23兴 ered tolerable.兲. of Tulsa University 关28兴. while the DNV model using the following equation: allows actual calculations. depending on the impact on experimental data. The function depends on the target material ductile/brittle by two orders of magnitude. which makes it necessary to reduce production rate. but they selected the constant of the equation based on cali- Kvernvold of DNV 关22兴. When proposing their equation. it may not be the same as simple. For oil and gas production. All models are limited to erosion becomes increasingly conservative as the liquid-gas ratio in- predictions in simple pipe geometries. i. the velocity depends on the flow conditions. Eq. The value of S p . while one model shows that certain operating such as steel at impact angles of 20 to 40 deg. The Tulsa model relies on empirical sion rate of different materials.6 in the ponent. For brittle material. The S m ⫽ 0. such as pipe bends and creases.. the erosional velocity limit can be given are similar in their attempts to incorporate flow conditions in the in the following form: Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2000. It must be noted that almost all the experimental data for S m . 共4兲 by incorporating the effect of fluid mixture ER⫽S m (4) density and particle diameter as follows: D2 2 1 Vm d where ER is erosion rate in mpy. These they suggested that the fluid properties have an effect on erosion models are based on work done by Salama and Venkatech 关4兴. The accuracy of Eq.154. For ductile materials the value of n is in the 关22兴. as simple as the API RP 14E equation. another model shows them unaccept- materials such as ceramics at 90 deg. n can be as high as 6.73 in the Tulsa University’s model and 2. their predictions for the same case can vary angle. therefore. but the values of the constants are different. general erosion rate in the order of 0. and c are functions of the gas velocity. One can account for these lish erosion rate or erosional critical velocity for fluids containing factors through the use of computational fluid dynamic 共CFD兲 sand.017 共for long radius elbow兲 been fully quantified. sand concentration. Unfortunately.60. sand density. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright.. Therefore. and n are experimentally determined constants that depend on the The models developed by Salama and Venkatesh 关4兴. whose Proposed Sand Erosion Model values depend on: fluid density. 关4兴 is simple. Resolution of these differences is behavior. yield strength of 50 to 80 ksi: The new equation being proposed in this paper is based on WV 2 modifying Eq. establishing velocity limits for sand-laden fluids. erosion prediction model.asme. the geometry of the com. thus. It is. This While the value of n in Salama and Venkatesh’s model is 2. V p is the equation. bration with sand erosion in air.174. D is pipe internal diameter in in. 共3兲. S m Sp D ␳m 2 is a geometry-dependent constant. exists an extensive database that can be used to characterize ero. b. V p .038 共for pipe bends兲 results of this comparison are presented in Table 2 and shown in S m ⫽ 0. the DNV model where E r is erosion ratio measured as the ratio between the mass predicts erosion rate distribution along a pipe bend based on cal- of metal loss and the mass of sand hitting the target material. 1. are given in posed by Salama and Venkatech 关4兴. and velocity. value is 1. Also. tee. expected that the erosion rate S m ⫽ 6⫻10⫺4 共for plugged tees兲 will be lower for liquids that have higher viscosity while having The AEA model 关24兴 which is based entirely on experimental the same density. Vol. 122 Õ 73 Downloaded 23 Aug 2011 to 200. sand size. as well as the value of other constants Svendeman and Arnold 关25兴 recommended the same equation pro. DNV material properties. of AEA 关24兴. F( ␣ ) is a function DNV’s model. pipe size. as the mixture density ( ␳ m ) increases.019 共for tees兲 Fig. Shirazi et al. pipe diameter. see http://www. liquid-gas ratios. sand particle di- Extensive effort has been devoted to develop an approach for ameter. of the trajectories of the sand particles. able.cfm . tees. correlations. Eq. In addition. and Tulsa University 关23兴 incorporate the standard erosion range of 2 to 3. and by different investigators. fluid viscosity. The model Above 400 microns. rate. impact velocity of the sand particle on the metal surface. is available in a spread sheet form and has the fol. and the because of their complexity. 共4兲. etc. they did not account for the sand particle size which is known to Salama and Venkatech’s model 关4兴 is a closed-form equation have an effect on erosion rate for particles less than 400 microns. and for brittle conditions are acceptable. Not surprising that their equation and Lockett et al. These data are generally presented formulas to account for particle tracking. and sand properties 共density and size兲. though simplified. While all other models predict a single value E r ⫽AV np F 共 ␣ 兲 (3) that corresponds to the maximum erosion rate. to estab- the total amount of sand in the flow. F is a function of several nondimensional groups that relates values from experi. The difficulty in calculating erosion rates is in predicting the proper values of particle impact angle. the effect of sand particle size becomes neg- was verified using sand erosion data in air flow. it is not very accurate when applied to two-phase There are four main models that have been developed within 共gas-liquid兲 flow systems. A culations of impact velocity and angle at all locations. but proposed different values Table 3. drag and number of particles per unit sand weight. ␣. Their values for gas systems are as follows: used in validating this model were derived from erosion tests in liquid 共water兲 and gas 共air or nitrogen兲. yet geometry of the component. however. 共6兲. V E p⫽ (6) is fluid flow velocity in ft/s. that will be derived later by reformatting Eq. 共6兲 is demonstrated by comparing its predic- Salama and Venkatech 关4兴 suggested the following values for tions with measured erosion rates in pipe bends from flowloop Sm : experiments conducted under different flow conditions. whose predictions are accurate for mainly gas systems. W is sand flow rate in lb/day. Although each model claims to be verified based whose value varies between 0 and 1. choke. and pipe geometry 共elbow.org/terms/Terms_Use. There is a need for a reliable. the industry for predicting sand erosion in piping systems.e. and Sc physical uncertainty of pipe diameter and wall thickness. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. when erosion predictions are used as basis for placing velocity for elbows is: V e ⫽11. the probabilistic approach is more ap- 冑W propriate because of the many uncertainties of erosion calcula- Sometimes. Table 2 Measured and predicted erosion rates using Eq. uncertainty of sand size distribution. These uncertainties are associated with both the input pa- certain tolerable sand concentration. par- erosion rate of 0.154. Equation 共7兲 can be rewritten rameters and the predictive models. Uncertainties in the input in terms of sand concentration as follows: parameters include uncertainty in the calculation of flow velocity.7 m/s. the critical erosional mixture ticularly. It is critical to properly account for these uncertainties. 122. operators establish operating conditions based on a tions. 冉 冊 uncertainty associated with the forecast of production data. a tolerable sand concentration of 5 ppm is specified and in addition to the obvious uncertainty in the predictive model a sand size of 250 micron is considered.1 mm/yr 共4 mpy兲.60. Considering a tolerable itself.cfm . uncer- 1 ER⫽ 3 M dV m (9) tainty of fluid properties. limitations on production rate and/or serving as the sole input in 74 Õ Vol.174. JUNE 2000 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 23 Aug 2011 to 200.org/terms/Terms_Use. „6… D 冑␳ m Although it is more convenient to treat erosion predictions as a V e ⫽S (8) deterministic phenomenon.asme. This is Typically. see http://www. establishing the inspection frequency of production and process systems. Proposed Erosional Velocity Limits The accuracy of the form of Eq. 1 Correlation between empirical model predictions and four independent laboratories. The constants are validated based on tests conducted by Fig.org/terms/Terms_Use. Table 2.174. see http://www. Vol. 共6兲 is clearly demonstrated as shown in Fig. 1.154. The constants based on the work by measured sand erosion rate in bends Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2000. Based on the extensive experi- mental data base presented in Table 3.cfm .60. 122 Õ 75 Downloaded 23 Aug 2011 to 200. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright.asme. The value of the constant S p and the other related constants for the different pipe geometries can be derived based on experimental results as given in Table 3 or by detailed CFD analysis for the required geometry. it is recommend that the value of the constants should be limited to those identified for elbows. (Continued) Information in the table taken from 关26–30兴. V g ⫽ gas superficial velocity in m/s 3 For sand-laden fluids. inhibitors exist that are effec. But the effect decreases as the liquid to gas ratio increases. For plugged tee. the effect of Locket of AEA. Tim without further validation.60. Therefore. gas-liquid mixture density at flowing pressure and temperature in 共Note: The effect of d on ER becomes negligible lb/ft3. which is ratio between Conclusions and Recommendations penetration in metal and mass of sand hitting target material 1 For solid-free. The author would also like and used to predict E p in terms of flow parameters 76 Õ Vol. see http://www. V e 共m/sec兲 The author would like to thank the management of Conoco for S p ⫽ geometry-dependent constant.兲 tion: Erosion measurements D 冑␳ m E r ⫽ erosion ratio in kg/kg. specified in this paper their permission to publish this paper. the maximum flow rate limit can be V m ⫽ fluid mixture velocity in m/s established using the following equation: ⫽ V l ⫹V g V e ⫽ erosional velocity limit. unless noted otherwise in the text of for establishing erosional velocity limits for oil and gas produc. of 400 is used. noncorrosive fluids. providing pressure drop is ER ⫽ erosion rate in mm/y. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. and Sia Shirazi of Tulsa University for their pipe bend radius was not considered because test results did not input. In the proposed equation. the presence of sand enhances the corro. Table 3 Values of sand erosion constants Information in the table taken from 关26–30兴. ␳ m is the d ⫽ sand size in micron 共typical value 250 micron兲. Fluids phase pipelines. 共8兲 as the basis. the maximum flow rate can be established using the metal by erosion following form of API RP 14E equation: Sand 400 W ⫽ sand flow rate in kg/day V⫽ 冑␳ m M ⫽ sand concentration ppm 共by weight兲. This Nomenclature observation is also illustrated by Bourgoyne’s work 关30兴. which is rate of penetration in not a concern. At low flow rates where sand Constants settling occurs.154. Using Eq. the paper. V e 共in ft/s兲 S ⫽ geometry-dependent constant.兲 tive at flow velocities corresponding to C-factors higher than 300. the following is the recommended equation 共Units are as stated here. the limit 2 For sand-free.asme. show a major difference between erosion in 1 1/2 and 5 D elbows. and therefore cannot be used to express his appreciation to Oddmund Kvernvold of DNV.1 mm/yr 共4 mpy兲 and sand size of 250 micron兲 Acknowledgment to predict erosional velocity limit. sand has no effect on corrosion rates in uninhib- ited solutions. above 400 micron. it is very important that the effectiveness of the inhibi- tor be evaluated in a flowloop at these high velocities. For multi. specified in this paper for typical operating conditions 共tolerable erosion rate of 0. which is ratio between mass V e⫽ (10) 20冑W of metal loss and mass of sand hitting target material E p ⫽ erosion parameter in mm/kg. predict the erosional velocity limit. ␳ s ⫽ sand density in kg/m3 共typical value 2650 kg/m3兲 However. 122. for d⬎400. Bourgoyne 关30兴 appear to be high. ⫽ ( ␳ l V l ⫹ ␳ g V g )/V m sion of steel in both uninhibited and inhibited solutions due to erosive wear of protected corrosion product and/or depolarization Pipe geometry of anodically/cathodically controlled corrosion process by plastic D ⫽ pipe internal diameter in mm deformation of the metal surface.174. which is the ratio of mass of sand to mass of fluid where V is the maximum fluid velocity limit in ft/s. but it can have a profound effect on the rates in C ⫽ empirical constant specified by API 14RP 14E to inhibited solutions.cfm . JUNE 2000 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 23 Aug 2011 to 200.org/terms/Terms_Use. both CFD analysis and limited experimental work suggest that the erosion rate is lower than that for elbows. m/s D 冑␳ m ␳ l ⫽ liquid density in kg/m3 V e⫽ 20冑W ␳ g ⫽ gas density in kg/m3 ␳ m ⫽ fluid mixture density in kg/m3 4 At high flow rates. the effectiveness of the corrosion control program V l ⫽ liquid superficial velocity in m/s depends on the proper transport of the inhibitors in the pipeline. corrosive fluids. 2. ‘‘Effect of Flow Velocity on the Performance of Selected of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems. 1991. 1990. Erosional Velocity Limitations for Offshore Gas Wells. west Research Institute Final Report.’’ M... G. 617. D. J. J.’’ Report No. Bur. 15th Offshore ‘‘Generalization of the API RP 14E Guidelines for Erosive Services. Flow Lines for Erosive/Corrosive Services... J. prepared for the 关28兴 Tolle. 关15兴 Patton. Pet. P.. Gas. 25.. M. 1988. 607. ‘‘Understand Two-Phase Flow in Process Piping. 1995. Nov. ‘‘The Meaning of the API RP 14E Formula for Erosion/ leans.’’ SPE Prod. D.. 关26兴 Birchenough. 693–698. pp. O. ample: S m equals 365/S p to convert E p to ER.. M.. American Pe- 关11兴 Smart. S. thesis. 1983. B. ‘‘An Alternative to API 14 E Erosional Velocity Limits Tulsa.... O.’’ troleum Institute. Veritas 共DNV兲. NACE. Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2000. P. M. 关8兴 Engel. O. Technology Conference. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.154. DC.. Conoco Inc. 1989.. Paper OTC 4485. and Richardson.’’ API OSAPER Project No. and Tolle. 关25兴 Svendeman. OK. and Brill. 93-3252. J. 1993. S. Stand. D. Norway. 1977.s. D. J. G. NACE. K. Pet..asme. No. F. ‘‘Velocity Limits for Multi-Phase Piping. H. Birchenough. 17th 关24兴 Lockett. P. 23. R. T.’’ Proc. 关2兴 API. 关27兴 Kvernvold. University of Tulsa. S..’’ 3rd Edition. Offshore Technology Conference. 1998. 11. ‘‘Criteria for Sizing Multi-phase 关7兴 Rybicki. 577–583. and Venkatesh. Oil Field Corrosion Inhibitors in Vertical Tubing. Under Two-Phase Flow troleum Institute.’’ Technology. 122 Õ 77 Downloaded 23 Aug 2011 to 200. ‘‘Erosion/Corrosion in Sweet Multiphase Sys- 关6兴 Beggs. Pipes. Paper 468. P. 1989. 1987. Manual of Southwest Petroleum Short Course. Beech.’’ Proc. Prog. R. P.. 1976. tion. pp..cfm . 1993. J.’’ Corrosion 93. 54.. 1989.. Texas A&M Research Foundation. ‘‘A Review of Erosion Corrosion in Oil and Gas Produc.. OK. 281–298. Texas Tech University.’’ Chem. 关4兴 Salama. and Greenwood. 44–49. 1977. UK. E. University of Tulsa. 1988. J. troleum Inst. Technol... McCarthy. pp. Tulsa. American Pe.’’ API OSAPER Project No. ‘‘API RP 14E Recommended Practice for Design and Installation internal report. ‘‘Critical Flow Rates Working Party. 1174. S. S. M.174..... Construction. Shadley. No. 8.. ‘‘Testing of Composite Pipes in High Velocity Seawater. F. specified in this paper Subassembly Description for North Sea Wells. AEA-TSD-0348. F. A... Pits and Pieces.. pp. As an ex. S. Paper OTC 4974.org/terms/Terms_Use. 04-2433. 1985..’’ Proc. ‘‘Petroleum Production Engineering. 1994.. C. 1.. Project No.兲 关18兴 Saetre. J.’’ Corrosion 91.’’ Technical Report No. 关3兴 Salama. 1995. and McCarthy. E.S p . M. S. S.’’ Proc.. No. Mechanical Engineering.’’ Corrosion 90..S c are all related... pp. Annual Offshore Technology Conference. and other flow parameters 关17兴 Camacho. Det Norske Veritas 共DNV兲. A. Lock. ‘‘Design of Fittings to Reduce Minerals and Management Service. ‘‘Are We Out of the Iron Age Yet?. ‘‘The Design.S m . ‘‘Production Rate Limits in Two- 关10兴 Deffenbaugh. and Sandberg. D. and Rybicki. Wear Caused by Sand Erosion. 86. of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems... G.. C. p. 1955. 3rd 关30兴 Bourgoyne. NACE.. Washington. M. S. see http://www. Conditions. Due to Sand Production. Texas A&M Research Foundation. T. Materials Performance. The University of Tulsa. 1991. 关20兴 Salama. B. AEA 关9兴 Gipson. Technol... S m ⫽ geometry-dependent constant. ‘‘Erosional Velocity for Water Injection Systems.’’ South.’’ private communications. P..’’ Volume III. Petroleum Inst. flow parameters 关16兴 Erichsen. M. A. Paper and used to predict ER given sand rate 共W兲 and other No. 5. G. OK.. Norway. ASME. E.. 1997. M. ‘‘ERBEND 2—Erosion in Pipe Bends. Paper 10. and Buckingham. M. Impingement. Lockett. Natl.. Vol. 关13兴 Coulson. Washington. C. References 关19兴 Salama. J. eds. 1981. Part B Proc.. McLaury. B.’’ J. U. ‘‘API RP 14E Recommended Practice for Design and Installation 关21兴 Greving.. 1973. Res. ‘‘Nipple. ‘‘Detection and Prevention of Sand 关12兴 Coker. DC. 1993.’’ M. Dawson. 47. 关5兴 Heidersbach. 91. April 17–20. private communication. 22.. and Worraker. Nor- and used to predict ER given sand concentration 共M兲 ske Conoco a. AEA Technology plc. C.’’ 5th Edition.. Department of the Interior. American Eng. UK. ‘‘Experimental Study of Erosion in Diverter Systems Edition.. Facil. 1998. Pergamon Press. A. C. ‘‘Water Drop Collisions with Solid Surfaces.. R. and Arnold. J. and Testing of a Liquid Impingement Apparatus and a Study of Metal Surfaces Eroded by Liquid 共Note that the parameters S. Dawson. No. ‘‘A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined tems. 60–65. Tulsa. E. Chemical Engineering.. P. M. specified in this paper Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production. J. 10th International Conference on Offshore Mechan- ics and Arctic Engineering. 56. LA. and Flow Coupling Recommendations and S c ⫽ geometry-dependent constant. p. American Pe. Erosion of Production equipment. p. 关22兴 Kvernvold. Salama et al. ‘‘A Study of the Erosional/ Phase Flow Suystems: Erosion in Piping Systems for Production of Oil and Corrosional Velocity Criterion for Sizing Multi-Phase Flow Lines. R.’’ AEAT Report No. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright.’’ J. O. 6.. T. pp.’’ Det Norske OTC Paper 8898. 关29兴 Weiner. 32.. NACE.. M. 5. ‘‘Evaluation of API RP 14E 关23兴 Shirazi. H. No. 7.60. SPE/IADC 18716.. M. G.. for Sand Laden Fluids. 1990. W... 1991.’’ J.’’ unpublished 关1兴 API. K. S. thesis.S. ‘‘Velocity Limits for Erosion-Corrosion. M. New Or- 关14兴 Smart. 1996. M. M. 1991. R.