Generalization of the API RP 74E Guideline for Erosive Services

~~f,~ S.A. Shirazi, B.S. Mcl.aury, J.R. Shadley and E.F. Rybicki, U. of Tulsa Summary

The commonly used practice for controlling sand erosion in gas and oil producing wells is to limit production velocities following the provisions of American Petroleum Inst. (API) RP14E. TM guideline contains a procedure to calculate a threshold velocity, the flow velocity below which an allowable amount of erosion occurs. WMle providing the advantage of computational ease, the approach has mzmv factrtn influence the ------ A.-A ,-*. ~ulllGU,=-U% -,,.ugwa. .,ne .-. .-., while .. ....4 .... .., -_-erosion rate, API RP14E includes only one factor, the density of the medium. Thus, such factors as flow geometty, type of metal, sand for. Another disadsize, and p=e~~~!d~~um.ber ~r~ M Kcounted vantage is that API RP14E does not specify the tolerable amount of erosion, in terms of loss of wall thickness. A method is presented to QYerCQrnC t~-escdisadvmtages by (1) accounting for many of the physical variables in the flow and erosion processes and (2) including away to predict the maximum penetration rate for sand erosion. The capabilities of the method are evaluated by comparing predicted penetration rates with experimental data found in the literature. In this paper, the method is applied to calculate threshold velocities. The computational procedure allows an allowable amount of erosion to be specified in roils per year for elbows, tees, and directimpingement geometries. Threshold flow-stream velocities are calculated for carrier fluids of crude oil, water, and methane at elevated pressure. Resulting threshold velocities are presented for a range of sand sizes, pipe diameters, sand production rates, and methane pressures. Results show that threshold velocities for single-phase gas n.-.. alc . . .. .. . + -.. .haca (n- cim la fih .- lin)li~ fIfiwc s-- .--l. llUW> lllUL1l lVWG, LF la,, ,,,aG ,, =I,,g.e=y..ik .Sq,.. . . . . . ~.
-C n P k t~at

ognize many factom that contribute to erosioticotrosion. Therefore, its use can result in unrealistically low production-velocity limits for preventing pipe damage in erosive sewices. The only physical variable accounted for in Eq. 1 is fluid density. The formula suggests that the limiting velocity could be increased when the fluid densityis decreased. Ttds does not agree with experimental obsewations for sand erosion, because sand in gases with lower densities will cause higher erosion than sand in liquids with htgher densities. Recent methods for predicting threshold velocities in producing wells are based on penetration rates in an elbow geometry because sections with this geometry are more susceptible to erosion damage than a straight-pipe section. A common procedure is to extrapcdate a threshold flow-stream velocity relation from erosion-tute data for an elbow geometry based on an allowable amount of erosion (e.g., a penetration rate of 5 or 10 millyr). For example, Saiarna and Venkateshl developed a model for predicting the penetration rate for an elbow. Their suggested equation is h=496,920(qdv;/Tdz). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)

By assuming T= 1.55 X 105psi and an allowable penetration rate of h =10 mil/yr, Salama and Venkatesh obtained an expression for an erosional velocity (threshold velocity for sand erosion): v,=l.73d/,&d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)

Introduction

Sand erosion is a major proitiem in many production sitttadmts because small amounts of sand entrained in the produced fluid can result in significant erosion and erosion-corrosion damage. Even in sand-free or clean service situations where sand production rate day, erosion damage could be very seis as low as a few pounds vere at high production veloci~es. 1 Sand erosion can also cause localized erosion damage to protective corrosion scales on pipe walls and result in accelerated erosion-corrosion damage. The objective of this work is to develop guidelines for predicting a threshold velocity and/or particle size below which only a small, allowable amount of erosion occurs. Threshold-velocity guidelines help operators to estimate safe production velocities in erosive services and serve as a tool to engineers for the cost-effective design of piping systems. selection of piping materials, and selection of appropriate screen sizes for new wells.
per

The authors suggested using Eq. 3 for gas flows only and indicated that the particle-impact velocity in gas flows (with low density and , , neartv ..---., ermals -n --- the flow-stream velocity. They noted that Eq. 3 is not valid for liquid flows because the threshold velocity given by Eq. 3 actually represents the particle-impact velocity, which the flow-stream velocity. Furthermore, the gcnera]!y is sand-flow rate, q~d,must be adjusted for the number of particles actually impinging the pipe wall because, with hlghdensity and -viscosit y fluids, many particles may pass through an elbow without causing any erosion damage. On the basis of Saianta and Venkatesits woiK and Bourgoytte*s4 extensive experimental data, Svedeman and Amoid5 suggested the following formula for predicting a threshold velocity (based on 5-mil/yr penetration rate):
V!SCOS@) lower than

vc=K,(d/&~).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)

A major drawback of the earlier methods is that they are based on specific experimental conditions and may not be applicable to varia.:. . . 4-n..:A . ....-.+:* ...-+ u= .2.Ift,tic+ ,,*S, . a-. ... Aencitv . . ........ vicrgcitv . .- . ..-2.@ CQrnUvlla G, ,,U,U p,p, position. Also the earlier procedures do not account for sand size, which, as this study shows, is very significant. In this work, we attempt to generalize the earlier methods presented in the literature to account for a number of variables, including flow geometry, pipe size, material type, sand density, sand size, sand sharpness, flowstream velocity, fluid viscosity, and fluid density.
Method Daacription

Background

Some of the existing guidelines for avoiding erosional damage by limiting production rates are based on purely empirical relations, such as the recommended velocity limitation described by API RP14E.2 This guideline gives a limiting production velocity by Vc = c/&
............. .... .... ... ............

(1)

where the recommended value for the constant C is 100 for continuous sewice and 125 for intermittent sewice. When sand is present, API RP14E suggests that the value of C should be c 100 but does not indicate what the value should be. The API formula is very simple and easy to use: but, as noted in the literature,l3 the formula does not reccop~t
@?IMl
May

tW5 SOOiOtY Of Petmbum Engineers

~ mwwacrw mceki SPE mnmm fW@MLI for rsww Oct. 10,?ss4. ZS, 1SSS.Psperpwrapprowd ktay 11, 1S95. Paper (SPEZS518)timtpmsented attba in NW tMBUIS, So@. 25-SS. 1SS4 SPE Annual TechnicalConrerwwe and

ExtMtlm W

It is well recognized by the authors and other investigators in this area that predicting erosion is a very complex problem. The erosion problem is even more complicated in flow systems where sand particles are entrained in a complex turbulent flow and the particle impingement velocity and impingement location on the pipe wall must be determined. However, simpler mechanistic models can be devised that account for all the variables and are representative of erosional behavior. In this work, a formula is proposed for computing penetration rates for various pipe geometries that contains the following expres693

/!wg@

1995

Eqivalant StagnationLength

3.5 ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0

Y 1
Tee

-.

Stagnation Zona I . D
Elbow

o hwer
V,=v-; v v

Panicle Initial Position

2.5 2.0 s 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

1
L ~

Elkow

.................................

. .

... ............

=1-1.27 Tan-(l.O1 d]s9)+d0129. . . . . . . . . . . . .

FluidVetoeity

-1
~Jf

~= 1.18in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . .. .. .. .... .... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ ------ . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. . . .. . . ....... . ... . .... .. ... . .. .. .. .. . ........ .. .. .. .. .. . .... . .. .. .. ... ......... CD .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. ... .. ... ... . . .... ... ... .. . ... .. . ..... . ... .. .. . .. ... .. ...

Fig. l-Coneapt

of aquivatant stagnation length.

8 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I # I 1 I 1 I 69101112 1234567 Inner Diameter (inches)

sion for computing the maximum penetration rate in elbows for carbon steel material: h =AF~FP(q,~ pPv}73/B0s9d2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) The relation is developed on the basis of extensive empirical information that we gathered and data gathered at Texas A&M u.7,8 Note that Eq. 5 is somewhat similar to Eq. 2. However, a major difference between this and the earlier work is that, in the present work, a method is developed to find the characteristic impact velocity of the particleson the pipe wall, VP.This characteristic impact velocity of the particles depends on many factors, including pipe geometry and size, sand size and density, flow regime and velocity, and fluid properties.
Characteristic Impact Velocity of Sand Ptwticles. Refs. 9 and 10 present a method for computing VPwith the pipe wall for a tee and an elbow geometry; we give a brief description here. The characteristic impact velocity of the particles is obtained by creating a simple model of the pipe geometry. This is done by relating the erosion rates of complex geometries to erosion occurring in a direct, or nor1 chmm mrnmamfJ -------.y-:..~ -...-... .. . . . . . . . ---s -.. ..0 thic ..- m.n,wd,.rn y.wwwuns. ~.ha,,.w conceptually. To impinge the target wall, the sand particles must penetrate the fluid layer (the so-called stagnation zone) for each of the geometries shown in Fig. 1. The behavior of the particles in the stagnation region strongly depends on the pipe-fitting geometry, fluid properties, and sand properties. lltus, the impact velocity of the sand prdc!es with a pipe wall is a SKUM ~ function .--------- nf three ----- nmn~.-r erdes as well as the amounts of fluid through which the particle must
mal imninm=ment citllntinn S7ia

Fig. 2-Stagnation

tangth vs. PIPSdiameter for elbow.

travel to strike the pipe wall. A characteristic length, called the equivalent stagnation length, L (Fig. 1), is used to represent tits distance in the simpler direct-impingement model. The impact velocity of the particles in the simpler model is referred to as the characteristicimpact velocity of the particles. The equivalent stagnation lengths for elbow as well as tee geometries were obtained by erosion testing, flow modeling, and particletracking results. F%. 2 shows the results, which could be used for estimating the equivalent stagnation length for an elbow geometry. This figure shows how L.varies with the pipe diameter, d. A simplified particle-tracking model is used to compute the characteristic impact velocity of the particles.9 This model assumes that the particle is traveling through a lD flow field that is assumed to have a linear velocity in the direction of the particle motion and uses a simplified drag-coefficient model. Fig. 3 shows the results for the characteristic impact velocity of the particles with the pipe wall as a function of several production parameters. The impact velocity A---- J.. UII -- cl_... -.- VCIWI I y, v, u wmracwnsuc mngm saue ueIIuw-suGiuII scribkg pipe geometry and size, fluid density and viscosity, and particle density and diameter. These parameters are combined into three dimensionless groups related to one another as shown in Fig. 3. The following are the dimensionless groups. basedon flow-stream veloc1. A particle Reynolds number, NRC,
..-1 --:... . -L- -.--! _.2. ,--..L _--, Jucpaxh

;*., . .. -A cu.
%e

Fms.A-.la Ai.lm-*-.. pal UWn, UCu,,w.wl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pj%lfif

(6)

1.0
0.9

. ....... ... .. .. .... .. ........ ..... ..... .

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 t 1E-2 1E-1 1E+O lE+l

...

2. A dimensionless parameter,@, that is proportional to the ratio of the mass of the fluid being displaced by the particle to the mass of the impinging particle:

@=@+dP%.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)

...... ..... ... ....... .

Fig. 3 contains much useful information about how various parameters affect VP and sand erosion. For example, it shows how fluid and sand properties affect VP.Once VPis determined, it is used in Eq. 5 to compute erosion and penetration rates for a specific geometry, such as an elbow.
Summaryof thePmceshsre. This section presents our method in a step-by-step manner that demonstrates how the method could be used to compute the penetration rates for an elbow geometry. Step Z. The fwst step is to estimate L.for a given geometry. The serniempirictd equivalent stagnation length depends on pipe geometry and is presented as a function of pipe dmeter in Fig. 2 for an elbow geometry. Step 2. The next step is to compute two dimensionless parameters, NReand Q, from Eqs. 6 and 7. These parameters are used to compute VPin Step 3. Consistent units should be used to compute these dimensionless parameters. August 1995 q JPT

. .. ........ ... ..... . ........ ... ..... .... ........

1E+2 1E+3

Fig.3-Effaet of different factors on pattiofe impaot veloeity.

694

1.00

TABLE lSAND SHARPNESS FACTORS, & Deaeription Sharpcorners,angular Semirounded,roundedcorners Rounded,sphericalglass beads -.& 1.0 0.53 0.20

0.10

l,i,,:)\:::)l:!::i:%::i ..
j:::::::::::l::::::::: t::::::::\ :::::\~ :::::: ....
Step 5. From Eq. 5, with A = 0.9125, F, = 1.0, Fp= 3.68 in.flbm, VP=79 ftkec, B = 109, q~d = 1.019 ft3/D, and d= (2.067 in.11.0 in.) =2.067, one obtains h = 0.9125(1.0)(3.68) 1.019( 165.4)(79)173 109.s92.067z
# loom

...... .. ... . . ..... .. .......... ...... .. . .. . . . . .......... ....

0.01 1

1 I , ##,,,## # #mu 1E+O 1 E-1 1E-2

I
I
111

= 15, 956fyr.
1E+2 1E+3

1E+l

L Pf
Cfppp

Fig. 4-Effect of different factors on partkla-impect velocity (kg-iog soaiej.

Step 3. Then, @ and NRe are used in Fig. 3 or 4 to find the ratio of VP to v.Fig. 4 presents the relationship between @and VP in log-log form to make it easier to read values of between 0.01 and 0.1. Then, VPis computed by vP=(vP/v)v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(8)

Step 4. Select particle sharpness factor, F,, from Thble 1 and a penetration factor, FP (for the present work, FP is assigned a value of 3.68 in.flbm; this vrdue is obtained from experimental data7 for steel elbows and tees). Step 5. Compute penetration rate with Eq. 5.
Model Verification

The result of 15,956 mil/yr is compared with the observed value of 6.5538 x 10-7 lbrn/sec. We need to convert to mil/yc h = (6.5538 x 10-7 lbrn/sec)(3.68 in./lbm)( 1.0/2.067)2= 17,802 rnillyear. Table2 presents a summary and comparison of predictions and data for several cases from Refs. 7 and 8. (Other input data not given in Table 2, are the same as in Exampie i.) Ilie agreetnerii Mweert the model and the data is excellent at low sand rates. The dkcrepancy between the model and the data at h]gh sand rates was anticipated because the model was not designed for cases where the sand rate would be this high compared with sand rates found in production. Another check case was based on experimental data published in a study of erosion in diverter systems.4 Although these data were obtained under high particle concentrations and high wear rates (as high as 7 x 107 in some cases), several cases were chosen to compare with predicted values from the present model. Example 2 is one such case.
Example2. Duta The pipe was 2-in. Schedule 40, ASTM 234

The procedure outlined above has been verified by comparing nesults from the model to available experimental data provided in the literature. Tone and Greenwood7 and Weiner and Tolleg performed extensive experiments to study different fittings to reduce wear caused by sand erosion. These authors used both high and low concentrations of sand in air flow at different flow velocities. Tone and Greenwoods data at low sand concentrations is probably more representative of actual sand production rates, but both high and low sand concentrations are considered. Examples of the prediction procedure follow.
Example1.Information From Experimental Data The water elbow is 2 in.; sand size is 40/60 mesh; air velocity is 80 ftkc; sand rate is 1.951 x 10-3 lbrrdsec (1.019 ft3/D); and observed wear rate is 6.5538X 10-7 Ibm/sec. Prediction. From data in Refs. 7 and 8, we assumed sharp sand with an average size of 300 pm and a sand density of 165.4 lbnt/ft3. Assumed air P,= 0.075 lbnt/ft3 and p = 1.82 X 10-2 CP. Average B= 109 (from Ref. 8). Procedure. Step I. From Fig. 2, Lib= 1.78 with L = 1.18 in. Then, L=l.78XL=2.1 in. Step 2. Compute @= Lpj/dPpP and N~, = p,vdP /p. Because these are dimensionless numbers, we need to use consistent units. For example, using L= 2.1 in..o =0.01 18 in. (300pm), 0.075 lbtrr/ft3, and PP = 165.4 Ibm/ft3, one obtains @=0.081. With Pf= 0.075 lbrrdft3, V = 80 ft/see, dP= 9.84 x 10-4 ft (300pm), and # = 1.22X 10-5 lbtnlft-see, one obtains NRC=484. Step 3. Use@ and NRein Fig. 3 to find Vpk Vplv= 0.%8. (A fJomputer program used to generate Figs. 3 and 4 was actually used to obtain more accurate tesuks.) Iltem compute Vp with vp= (VJ V) X 80= 79 ftkc. Step 4. Table 1 gives F,= 1.0, and use Fp= 3.68 in.flbm (based on 1-in. diameter).
Pf =

Gradell WPB seamless elbow with an ID of 2.067 in.; the r/d ratio was 1.5; the liquid used was clay/water mud at a velocity of31 ftl see; sand rate was 1.754 ft31D;and observed penetration rate was 4,238 rnil/yr. ~mtititisofti Ref.4@w_tidtitim average size of =350 gm and a sand density of 165.4 lbtdli3 was assumed.The liquidused was clay/watermud with a 6-cp pkstic viscosity and yield pointof 3 lbtWXt!i2.The assumed fluid densitywas 68.7 lbml fiqandtity was6cp. BtineUhadness factor wasappmximatedbY Bectttalstensilestmmzth~videdbYSXkwithantinirnuma~@ of 6iNlM psi for Gr&JeWPB (ft&n Ref. 11), B= 120.
TABLE 2-COMPARISON OF PRESENT PREDICTfONS WfTH DATA FROM REFS. 7 AND 8 Gas Vekeity (ftJsec) Data Penetration Rate J?!!@)_ Predicted Penetration Rate J!!!!Yl

Sand Rate (Ibrrdsee)

~ 30 40
50 60 70 60 1$36X 10-3 2,330 4,160 1.841X1 O-3 8,160 1.927 x10-3 9,990 1.937 X1O-3 13,300 1.934X1O-3 17,800 1.951X1O-3 19,600 1.951 X1O-3 22,300 1.941X1O-3 High Sand Rates (from Ref. 8) 107,OOO* 4.278 x10-2* 399,00W 4.542x 10-2

2,890
4,760 6,980 9,630 12,600 16,000 19,600 23,400 276,000 547,000**

[90
I

100
70 ,00..

.owmerfyor dlp4peiselbow. P&I@. AVOWWIWfortowdata

A ..~iml!!sto rsixdatspoiln.s.

I
695

TABLE 3-COMPARISON OF PRESENT PREDICTIONS WITH REF. 4 DATA FOR SAND IN SINGLE-PHASE GAS AND LIQUID
renewawm

Data m-_..-,:-Rate

Predicted
per,e~:a~~cn

vL~ Geometry

Rate

Seamless elbow Seamless elbow Seamless elbow Seamless elbow C*: ~!~~%, Cast elbow Cast elbow Cast elbow

rid 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3,25

3.25 2.125 3

(ft/see)
0 0 0 31 47.9 0 0 37.7

(R%@
105 384.1 728.3 0 ~ 384.1 380.6 0

(fttD)

53.1 442.4 347.8 1,754.4 2:712.5 634.6 402.8 4,271.6

(mil/yr) 4.84X105 2.77XI07 8.70x 107 4.25x16 2.99xl@ 7,84X107 7.13X107 4.33X103

(mil/yr) 6.67 xl@ 4.80X 107 1.25xl@ 2.01 x 103 1.96xl@ 6.28x107 4.31X107 1.2OX1O7

Procedure. Step I. From Fig. 2, compute L = 2.1 in. Step 2. usingL= 2.1in., dP= 0.0138 in. (350 #m), Pf = 68.7 lhndft3 g~~ n.= Using p,=68.7 lbrn/fi4 v= 31 ftisec, dp = 1.15 x 10-3 ft (350#m), and ,u = 4.03 x 10-3 lbm/ft-sec (6 cp), one obtains~Re= 608. Step 3. Use@ and N~ in Fig. 3 to find VPIV VPIV = 0.015S(acowuter program was used to get an accurate value). Then. vp= 0.48 w=. Step 4. From Table 1, F, = 0.53 (semirounded),and useFp = 3.68
1s11. , ! SS.4 !~rnJf@, Qne ob~ins @=63.2.

threshold velocity increases with increasing pipe diameter. 350-pm

sand in a methane carrier fluid is a problem ~n~y size pipe. This size sand in water can be a problem in pipes c 4 in. in dlasneter. Sand ero-

sion with a crude-oil carrier fluid should be minimal in any size pipe. m!.m .-2 veloritv de-I.-.., A.- +1.--.knM flmu-ctnanm . . . . . . . . . . . . d. . . . . -. As F Igs. \ mu 8 S1lVW,UIG UuLansa creases with sand rate. If the sand rate is high enough, threshold velocities for large sand in a water carrier fluid can be below desired flow rates. Threshold velocities for a methane carrier fluid are extremely low at higher sand rates. In some cases, the threshold flowstrcam velocity for methane maybe below the critical deposition velocity (i.e., the flow velocity required to keep sand particles in suspension end moving with the fluid). For smaller sand sizes of 150 Am, threshold velocities are much larger than for the case of 350-,um sand. For liquids, with small sand entrained and low sand rates, the threshold velocity is limited only by hydraulic requirements.Predictions of threshold flow-stream velocity (and particle size), such as the results shown in Figs. 5 through 9, could be used by operators when setting erosional-threshold flow-stream velocities for sandproducing wells. Results such as these help engineers to select pipe size and screen sizes effectively for producing wells. Fig. 9 shows the effects of pressure on the threshold flow-stream velocity. As shown in Table 5, the effects of pressure are reflected in significant variation of gas density snci StnSiiCitatlgesifi the viscosity. Gas pressure has a significant effect on threshold velocity; the threshold velocity increases significantly with increasing gas pressure. However, even for methane pressures of 10,000 psi, thrcsTABLE 4-PARAMETERS FOR COMPUTATION OF THRESHOLD FLOW-STREAM VELOCITV Pipe Geometry Material Brinellhardness Allowablepenetration,miVyr Sand Density,lbrt@ Sharpnessfacbr Rate, ft3/tt Sizes,pm Fluids Crude oil viscosity,Cp Density,Ibm/@ Water Temperature,F Vkcoaity, cp Density, Ibrnlfts Methane Temperature,F Pressure,psi Viacoaity,Cp DertsiF;, !bm@ 6-in. standardelbow Carbonsteel 210 5 165.43 i.0 1 80,150, and 350 Texea gulfcoast 16 55.19 200 0.30 80.12 400 15,000 0.035 15.76 August 1995 q JPT

in.ilbm.

Step 5. Using ~. 5 with F, = 0.53, FP= 3.68 in.flbm, Vp= 0.48 fti sec. B= 120, and q~d= 1,754 ftq~ gives h = 2,014 mil/yr. Compare with the observed value of 4,238 rnil/yr. Table3 presents a comparison of several computed cases of Bourgoynes4 data including Example 2. Results for both singlephase liquid and gas (air) cases are presented. The agreement between the predictions and data is good. Considering that the present procedute was derived independently of the Ref. 4 data and the wide variation in erosion condkions, the model predictions me remarkably accurate over four orders of magnitude. These and earlier results (see Refs. 9, 10, and 12) clearly indicate that the proposed procedure is a viable technique. However, the procedure has not been verified for all cases of interest and merits furtiier extension, refinement, and verificttdon. As incmeMmnatiwt and data become available, plans are to upgrade the procedure.
Erosional-Thrashold-Valocitv Pradlotiona Theprocedure used to determine penetration rates in elbow geometries could be used in reverse to compute the erosional-threshold

flow-stream velocity or the threshold particle size. Given an allowveab!e perte@-!itM rate (of 5 CM !0 tniU)V):a threshold flow-stream locity or particle size can be readily computed. Becausethe flowstream velccity and the particle size appear in a nonlinear form in the dimensionless pamrtteters of Fig. 3, an iterative solution procedure is required to determine the threshold flow-stream velocity and particle size. Ref. 12 describes the details of this procedure. A userfriendly computer program for the procedtue, tailed Sand Production Pipe Saver (SPPS), was developed to facilitate calculations. The threshoici-veiocity procedure is used to show how wu-ioiisparameters affect threshold flow-stream velocity. Computations of the threshold flow-stream velocity are made for the conditions listed in Table 4, with one of the parameters listed varied to investigate its effect on the threshold flow-stream velocity. F]g. 5 shows tbe effects of the sand size on the threshold flow-stream velocity for the three different fluids. The figure indicates that threshold flow-stream velocity increases significantly when the sand size is reduced. The threshold velocities for the viscous and more dense liquids are much Iargerthen those for the gas case. Obviously, the erosionaMhrcshold flow-stream velocity for the cmde oil is much larger than the limits set by the hydraulic requirements. This means that the velocity limit owing to pumping requirements is smaller than the erosionalthreshold flow-stream velocity. For methane, the threshold velocities are much lower than those for the liquids and could limit production rates for sand sizes >100 #m in diameter. Fig. 6 shows the effects of pipe diameter on threshold flow-stream velocity for a sand size of 350 #m. This figure indicates that the 696

1000

m ~: . .. .... ....!...! .W=!.!.W!I.(:: .. ..X

. . .. ..s.............
q

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

. .............. ........................... ......

1~

-J . . .. I Sand Sze-3~micmns

1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .......... ....
Crude

q ,

Water

Oil

. -1Uu

-\ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-~ .
I 1 100 I 1 200

\ . . . . . . . ...9 . .\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. : : :?: : : : : . . . . . ..-*..... ............ ::::\ ::::::::::::::::-- .- w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. -.k-. -.. - . . . . ..-. -.. -*w. .- . . ----------------. -\-.- .-. . . . . . - . . ..9. -*.0-.--. ...... . . . . . . . .-.\.< . -. . - . . . . . . ----------.----.9 -. -.. . ----. - . . ..--- ..~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

------E=2:
-.=&.* .............
........ ....

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . -- ~ ~ Matttane
1 300 I --W 1 I 400 1 600 1 i 600

10

. . . . . . . . . . ...0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . ...= --e. ~o 0 ---0 2 4 6

# . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* . . . .. . . . . . . . .
Water

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H*.* ..

~ ~ ........... ......

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . *Z .. **

# *... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methane p. -.0.-.-9 1
8

8 o

I
10

12

Sand Size (microns) Fig. S-Thrashold velocity vs. sand size for a 64n. carbon-stael albow. Fig. 6-Thraahold albow.

Elbow Dktrneter (inches) velocity va. pips diameter for oerbon-ataal

hold velocities may be below desired production velocities if the sand size is greater than = 100pm. Predictions of threshold flow-stream velocity (and particle size), such as the results shown in Figs. 5 through 9, could be used by operators when setting erosional-threshold flow-stream velocities for sand-producing wells. Results such as these help engineers to select pipe size and screen sizes effectively for producing weii~. Currently, new efforts are under way at the U. of Tulsa to create some guidelines for prdcting sand erosion in two-phase (gas/Iiquid) systems. However, until the new data are available for sand erosion, a rough estimate of the erosion rates can be obtained by extending the present method to predict sand erosion in two-phase flows. For example, as a first-order approximation, one way of extending the present procedure for two-phase flow calculations is to use the mixture flow velocity and properties13 in the present procedure. This means that the flow-stream velocity in the procedure will be replaced with the mixture fluid velocity; the fhsid properties will be replaced with two-phase flow properties.
Conclusions Thepublished methods to improve API RP14E illustrate a wide interin UICcnnmn giikkihie~ f~i tili est in accounting for more pStSmCLms - .- ._ .L. -_-:

erosion process. These parameters are flow-steam velocity; fluid viscosity and density: sand size, density, and shape; pipe size and material;and flow geometry. A central feature of the model is that it includes the impact velocity of the particles impinging on the pipe wall. The accuracy of the model predictions was verified by comparisons of the model results with experimental data from the literature. ..1.- r- L...l. ..:--la -I.ma ga. .,. . ...41: .Li. --wall predicted results mrr UUUI MU&IG-pU~== ai,u ..+-. -~.--.. with experimental data. The model was then applied to prediction of erosional-threshold flow-stream velocities for three fluids: crude oil, water, and methane at elevated pressures. A PC-based computer program called SPPS was written to automate the calculations. Results indicate that inmost cases, sand erosion should not be expected when the canier fluid is cmde oil. If the carrier fluid is metftane, sand erosion is almost always a problem, even for high gas pressures and small-diameter sand particles. When the carrier fluid is water, erosion damage can be a problem if the sand particles are large or if the pipe diameter is small. The work presented in W paper is part of an ongoing research

h.a A DI Pp IAr to .qymnt qmnv factors&af.. . . .-., -et%rt W gtmeridw L,. n. . .. . 7- . ..- -... for

fecting erosion-comosion. The model described here is not intended to be in final form, but is being developed and upgraded as new in~.ail nhls methm-t nresent~d showsa f,--~ifi~ ,, ,,.-.. ., --..1- . . ...... The . ... .... .... . ~------- - here -b.~-m.

and gas production.To addressthis need, a mechanisticmodel was developedto include nine key parameters describing the flow and

general framework to account for diffem.nt factors affecting erosion

through the useof a mechanisticmodel.
1000

4 . . . ..----

................................................... . ..................... ..................... 1

6 Elbow CarEon Steal
~~~

.....................
.................. .

.---I

1..

Sand Size. 350 mkrone -. 100

.... .............................................. ....... :::::::::::w:; :::::::::: #--... 7 -.:.-:~9:L:;:::=

. .-=-,x< . ... .. ............... _ Methane
~M.6 .0 . ..-...=.

+ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10

i>--G&_---& :M-----

..................... ........................ ................................................... 1

I

4
0

- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .--q . . ------. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

......... ... . . ...... .................. .. ........... .. ........... ......... ... .............. 1 8

1

10

10

Sand Rate (ft3/day) Fig. 7Thraahold veloofty vs. sand rata (MO-pm aand) fors 6-in. oarbon-eteel elbow. JP1 . August 1995

Sand Production Rate (@/day) Fig. 8-Thraahokf velocity ve. sand rete(150-pm aend)for6-in. carbon-ataal elbow. 697

100 ~- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-1-1
.
80 ---

60

1
.. . I
.O=:==== 1

8II . ........ ... ........................*?

6-tWowCwbonStead

1------;
I

TABLE 5-VARIATION OF METHANE DENSIN AND VISCOSITY WITH PRESSURE Pressure (psia) 100 500 . --1,Wu 5,000 10,OOO 15,000 Densi 2) (lbrn/ft 0.17 0.87 . -I./b 8.28 12.70 15.76 Viscosity (Cp) 0.016 0.016 - . ..U.ul f

Sand Rate=l.0ft31day

--....--..-.---

. .

. . ..........

. . . . .../.....

40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . .--4 . . ------60 microns,~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,,. ?.. ..? .?.?.ns~ ...... .. /..

0.024 0.029 0.035

.--. .- . . . ..-.. --. ----

..-.2 e-.. .--.-.ti-f -------

a--- --.:~~-

100

1000
Prea&tre (psia)

10000

Fig. S-Thrashold velocity vs. prasssuraof rnathana in a 6-in. carbon-atael altsow. Nomersclatura

empirical constant= 0.9125 for catbon-steel material B = Brinell hardness C = constant d = pipe diameter, L, #m dp = particle diameter, L, pm FP = penetration factor for steel based on 1-in. pipe diameter, IJm, in./lbm F, = empirical sand-sharpness factor It = penetration rate, L/t, mil/yr L = equivalent stagnation length, L, ft K. = empirical constant based on data from Ref. 4 NRe = particle Reynolds number (use consistent units) = sand production rate, L3/t, ft3/D %d r = elbow radius of curvature, L, in. T = hardness, m/Lt2, psi (from Ref. 1) v = flow-stream velocity, IJt, ftkc v< = erosional-threshold velocity, LA, ftkc Vgs = superficial gas veloeity, IA, ft/sec v~ = supeti]cial liquid velocity, L/t, ft/sec VP = particle-impact velocity, L/t, ft/sec @ = dimensionless parameter (use consistent units) Yf = fluid viscosity, fit, cp ~ = fluid density, rn/L3, lbm/ft3 @ = particle density, m/L3, lbm/ft3
A =
A..l. - . . . ..1A-----rswmlmmwuu~rllwrlba

5. SVedSrnarS: S,J. and tlrno!d: K.E.: Criteria for Sizing Multiphase Ftow Lines for Erosive/Comosive Service, SPEFE (Feb. 1994) 74. 6. Chuse,D.Fl,Rybicki,E.F.,and Shadley,J.R.: A Model of the Effectof Velocityon Erosionof N80 Steel llsbingDue to the Normal Impingementof Solid PiuticlesVJ. EnetgyResourres & Technology (March 1992)114,54. 7. Tone,G.C. and Greenwood,D.R.: Designof Fittings to RedueeWear Causedby SandErosion: APIOSAPERProjectNo.6, TexasA&M Research Foundation, College Station (May 1977). 8. Weiner,P.D.and Tone,G.C.:DetectionandPreventionof Sand Erosion of production Equipment: API OSAPER Project No. 2, TexasA&M Research Foundation, College Station (March 1976). 9. McLaury, B.S.: A Model to Predict Solid Particle Erosion in O]ltield Geometries: MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa (1993). 10. Shmi. S.A. et aL: A Procedure to Predict Solid Particle Erosionin El-

bowsandTees,Codes and Standards in a Global Environment. ASME

Pressure Vessels & Piping DIV.,New York City (1993) 259,159-167. 11. Spec. 234, Specifications for Steel Piping A4aferials, ASTM, Philadelphia (1948). 12. McLsury, B.S. et a/ A Particle Tracking Method to Predict Sand Erosion Threshold Velocities in Elbows and Tees, Liquid-So/id Flows, ASME Fluid Engineering DIV.,New York City (1994) 189, 145-153. 13. BriH,J.P. smdBeggs, H.D.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, sixth edition, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa (Jsm. 1991).

S1Metric Convoraion Faatora

bbl
X 1.589873 Cp x 1.O* ft X 3.048 ftq X 2.831685

F (F32)/l.8 in. X 2.54* lbm x4.535 924 mil x 2.54* psi x 6.894757 Convwrmn fslmllaSsscr.

E-01 =m3 E03=Pas E01 =m E-02 =m3 = C E+ OO=cm E-01 =kg E-05=m E+ OO=kPa

Siamack A. Shircsd is an assistantprofessor of mechanical engineering at the U, of Tulsa. Shirazi teaches and conducts research in the area of computational fluid dynamics of multiphase flows, specializing in erosion/corrosion and muitlphase separation technology. ShIrcrzi holds 8S, MS, and PhD degrees in mechanical engineering from the U. of New Mexico. fk.nton S. Mclaury is a PhD student working for the erosion-corrosion Research Center at the U, of Tulsa. He holds 8S and MS degrees in mechanical engineering from ttte U. of Tulsa. John R.Shadley

Thk work is supported by the Erosiort/Cotrosion Research Center (H CRC) at the U. of Tulsa. Discussions and comments fmm the IYCRC member representatives, especially Mamdouh Salama of Conoco Inc., nf Rritich and Tlm&-1 I nnw.. nf Rdwti Wnrut ------- . ---. . . . . . . . . Petmb}m - . . . .. . . . .. ~liff . . . . f%w - . ...-.. . . . Mn. ...? bit Corp., and Dirk Swanson of Chevron Corp., wets helptid in the development of the model. We also thank F~zeh Wan for her work in programming the threshold-velocity calculation procedure.
Rafarenoea 1. Salama, M.M. and Venkatesh,E.S.: Evaluation of API RP14E Erosional Velocity Limitations for Offshore Gas Wells. paper SPE 1253I 1983

is a professor of mechanical

engineering at the U. of Tulsa,

where he has ongoing research in erosion and comosion and in thermal spray coatings. Edmund F.Rybkki isa professor in and chair of the Mechanical Engineering Dept. at the U. of Tulsa, where he conducts research in erosion/corrosion and in thermal spray coatings. He holds a PhD degree in engineering from Case Western Reserve U.

OffshoreTechnologyConference,Houston,May 2-5. for ---= Desire ..-.. and . Imtdlation 2, RP14E,ReCQrnrnended Practice--.. .. ... ... of ., CMvhore _,J- ...._ Pmducrion Pla@orm Piping Sys;etrrs, third edition, API, Washington, DC (Dec. 1981). J.B.: How to IncreaseGas Well 3. Famhsd,F.I?,Gher, J.D., and Bradproductionand TemperCorrosiirLPet fig. Irrrf.(Apri!1983)55, No.5,82. 4. Bourgoyne,A.T. Jr.: Experimental Study of Erosion in DiverterSys-

tems Due to Sand Production; paper SPE 18716presentedat the 1989 Drilling Conference. New Orleans, Feb. 26-March 3. SPIYIADC
698

Stsirazi

McLaury

August

1995

JPT