Sand Effects On Production Assets

Sand Effects on Production Assets
Contents
Introduction – Review of existing guidelines through SIEP and OU’s
Sand Characteristics
Monitoring
Erosion
Sand Handling
Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

1.0 Introduction
Throughout the assets, sand production has an impact in a number of areas ranging from
downhole completion equipment, surface equipment such as wellhead valves, chokes, flowlines,
manifolds, and other processing equipment such as separators. These are schematically
illustrated in Figure 1. Primary areas where sand damage can occur is where the flow stream
either changes direction or is constricted. In rotating equipment such as pumps and
compressors, the effect of sand has to be assessed. Pump seals and rotors may have to be
redesigned or maintenance planned. The decision on how to design for sand production in the
assets has to include an economic assessment of the cost of sand control. Assessing it starts
downhole with the equipment selection for sand control, estimating its impact on hydrocarbon
production and its efficiency in sand control. Further, if sand is produced the effect of sand on the
surface facility has to be considered and economic estimates made. An assessment has to be
made on whether it is cheaper to deal with the sand downhole by excluding it or design erosion
tolerant equipment at the surface, install sand removal equipment and implement a sand disposal
plan.
WELLHEAD
FLOW LINES
SLUGCATCHER
MANIFOLD
CO2
TRUNKLINE/
PIPELINE
H2S
SEPARATOR
TRUNKLINE/
SAND PIPELINE
TANKAGE
OIL
GAS
H2O water disposal
RESERVOIR
Figure 1. Overview of locations where sand production can be a problem: downhole, wellhead,
flowlines, manifold, and separator or processing vessels. Problems are primarily associated with
a change in flow direction or a restriction in flow.

Issues to be addressed in this document include:
♦ Sand characteristics,
♦ Sand measurement,
♦ Sand monitoring,
♦ Erosion (sand screen and elbows, tees), and
♦ Over view of sand handling options.
Information from several OU’s has been included in this guideline. The intention of this report is
to make available the technology developed since the early 90’s on sand and erosion. It can be
used as a tool to develop the sand management strategy for a project. This document is not
meant to address downhole sand control but to address issues associated with sand when it is
produced either intentionally or not.
Sand management can span the gamut from little to no sand tolerance with a project, where sand
concentrations of 10ppmw can be a problem to projects where 5 g/m3 of oil can be the norm.
Different strategies can be used to allow production while implementing different levels of solids
handling capabilities. These decisions have to be addressed in the individual OU environment.
Tools are made available here to assess factors that go into the decision on how to handle
produced solids.
Of particular note, the erosion models presented here can be used to assess sand production
effects. These models replace the erosional velocity calculation found in API RP 14E (Ref 1).
The API equation does not address the factors involved in erosion, thus should not be used. The
erosion equation currently available on WeBs is a good first approximation for an erosion
assessment. Detailed erosion assessments can be carried by using the models presented here
that include the AEA Harwell model and the U of Tulsa model. These last two models take into
account production rates, particle size, and alloy hardness.
As a general consideration, a sand production strategy, should include a means to access how
much damage can occur due to the volume of sand produced, the velocity of the particulates, and
the accumulation of the sand. Handling of it may or may not be a problem. If critical components
are identified where erosion damage can occur, then an inspection program should be
implemented that is triggered by a sand monitoring program that indicates a sand production rate
of concern. This document lays out the tools needed to address most of the elements of a sand
production system.
This report updates and supplements the information in the Sand Management Guide, volume 3
(Ref 2) and that in the Sand Control Handbook (Ref 3)

2.0 Sand Characteristics
2.1 Composition, Shape, Density, and Size

Sand can be produced from the bottom of the well through several sources: the
formation, proppant used in the well completion, or the gravel pack. Both
formation sand and proppant are predominantly silica. Their densities are in
Table 1. Shape can be a factor in some sand effects so its shape is shown in
Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 is a picture of some formation sand and carbolite
proppant sampled from the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) - note the size difference and
angularity of the formation sand. Figure 3 is an example of proppant, round in
shape. Its sized can range from 500 um to greater than 1000 um, depending on
that used for the particular well activities.
0 .5
0 5
1
Figure 2. Photo of proppant and formation sand. Figure 3. Photo of proppant.

Sand can be characterized by size. It can range from powdery, flour type silica to large proppant
sizes up to one or two millimeters in diameter. If sand is a concern, a sand sample should be
taken and the size determined. For a given solids sample, it can be sized by determination of the
size distribution range. The size distribution determines the median particle size as a function of
weight. Figure 4 is an example of such a distribution. For this example the median particle
diameter is 60.3 microns. This means that half the sand is smaller and half is larger. The highest
incidents or frequency of particle size occurs at 60.3 microns Sand particles sized at the D50 or
D90 can be used for the sand size.
100.0 16.0
90.0 14.0
80.0 12.0
70.0
10.0
Frequency %
60.0
Cum Wt %
8.0
50.0
6.0
40.0
4.0
30.0
20.0 2.0
10.0 0.0
0.0 -2.0
300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4. Sand size distribution curve. D50 (median) sand size is 60.3µ.

Table 1. Sand Density
Density
Kg/m3 Lb/ft3
Silica/Quartz 2650 165.5
Proppant 353 22.0
Silicon carbide 1400 87.4
Solids may also be produced if there is failure of a gravel pack. In this case particle sizes are
based on the gravel pack that was used. Table 2 provides information on common gravel pack
sand sizes. If produced solids samples are available, they can be compared to gravel pack sand
size and may help to distinguish if the solids come from the formation or the gravel pack.
Table 2a. Common Gravel Pack Sand Sizes

Common Gravel Pack Sand Sizes
Arithemetic Average
Diameter
Gravel U.S. Mesh mm in mm micron in
6 X 8 (1) 3.360 X 2.380 0.1320 X 0.0937 2.8700 2870 0.11285
6 X 10 (1) 3.360 X 2.000 0.1320 X 0.0787 2.6800 2680 0.10538
8 X 10 (1) 2.380 X 2.000 0.09737 X 0.0787 2.1900 2190 0.08614
8 X 12 (1) 2.380 X 1.680 0.0937 X 0.0661 2.0300 2030 0.07982
8 X 16 (2) 2.380 X 1.190 0.0937 X 0.0469 1.7850 1785 0.07019
10 X 20 (1) 2.000 X 0.841 0.0787 X 0.0331 1.4205 1421 0.05586
12 X 20 (3) 1.680 X 0.841 0.0661 X 0.0331 1.2605 1261 0.04956
16 X 20 (1) 1.190 X 0.841 0.0469 X 0.0331 1.0155 1016 0.03993
16 X 30 (2) 1.190 X 0.595 0.0469 X 0.0234 0.8925 893 0.03509
20 X 40 (3) 0.841 X 0.420 0.0331X 0.0165 0.6305 631 0.02479
30 X 50 (2) 0.595 X 0.297 0.0234 X 0.0117 0.4460 446 0.01754
40 X 60 (3) 0.420 X 0.250 0.0165 X 0.0098 0.3350 335 0.01317
50 X 70 (1) 0.297 X 0.210 0.0117 X 0.0083 0.2535 254 0.00997
(1)
Gravel Size not recognized by API RP 58 (1986)
(2)
Alternate API gravel size (from API RP 58 (1986)
(3)
Primary API gravel size (from API RP 58 (1986)

Table 2b U.S.A. sieve Series ASTM E-11-70
Sieve Opening Size
US Mesh micron Inch
3.5 5600 0.22
4 4750 0.187
5 4000 0.157
6 3360 0.132
7 2830 0.11
8 2380 0.0937
10 2000 0.0787
12 1680 0.0661
14 1410 0.0555
16 1190 0.0469
18 1000 0.0396
20 841 0.0331
25 707 0.0278
30 595 0.0234
35 500 0.0197
40 420 0.0165
45 354 0.0139
50 297 0.0117
60 250 0.0098
70 210 0.0083
80 177 0.0070
100 149 0.0059
120 125 0.0049
140 105 0.0041
170 88 0.0035
200 74 0.0029
230 63 0.0025
270 53 0.0021
325 44 0.0017
400 37 0.0015
Information on gravel pack sizes is provided so that if sand sampling occurs and a gravel pack
failure is suspected; or if it has to be accounted for in an erosion calculation, sand size
information is available.
2.2 Sand Measurement

A critical component for characterizing sand effects is measurement of sand concentration. The
effect of sand has a concentration component that should be assessed. Typical concentration
units are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Sand Concentration Units
Sand in Oil Oil Density Sand Concentration
Lb/1000 bbl Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Lb/ft3 ppmw
5 0.014 860 53.6 16
6 0.016 860 53.6 19
50 0.135 860 53.6 157
500 1.35 860 53.6 1573
Sand in Gas Gas Density Sand Concentration
Lb/MMsft3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Lb/ft3 ppmw
0.5 8.0X10-6 0.8 0.051 10
5 8.0X10-5 0.8 0.051 100
50 8.0X10-4 0.8 0.051 1000
The amount of sand that is produced should be measured for an assessment of the erosion
damage. Such measurement can take place when sand production is occurring. Commonly,
fluid samples are needed. These can be achieved by a number of approaches:
• Wellhead shakeouts
}
• Batch sampling Information needed with these sampling methods
• Filtration-millipore Fluid production rate
• Filtration-cartridge Sampling time
• LACT Sampler Collection volume
• Desander
Below are the main features of each of these methods. Table 4 is summary table on these
methods with a listing of their limitations. These methods are treated in some detail in Ref 4.
2.2.1 Wellhead Shakeouts

These are taken downstream of the choke where the pressure drop is small. Typically they are
taken at a manifold by opening a needle valve to atmospheric pressure. There are specific
procedures and measuring devices for the shake out, but this method is only be a rough estimate
of sand production. They are usually performed before and after choke changes on oil wells. If a
needle valve is used for the sampling port, sand bridging may occur leading to erroneous results.
2.2.2 Batch Sampling

This method is used when fluid production is low. Fluid is diverted to a collection container, such
as a large bucket or pressure vessel, until a specific volume is obtained. The sampling time is
recorded. The sample is filtered to collect the solids that are then cleaned and weighted. The
collection volume and time period are adjusted depending on the desired accuracy of the
measurement.
2.2.3 Membrane or Millipore Filtration

This method was developed at Westhollow Technology Center, similar to a batch collection
method, to allow a quantitative method to measure sand production in the high rate wells in the
GoM (Gulf of Mexico). (Ref 5) This skid-mounted device is installed to take a side stream sample
upstream of the test separator. A volume of fluid is diverted through the skid-mounted desander
then the fluid flows through a Millipore filter that collects the solids. These filters are pre-weighted
prior to use. After the sampling period, the filters are cleaned of hydrocarbons and dried, then
weighted. The particle size of the sand sample collected is dependent on the size of the Millipore
filter used for the sample. When a 5-8 micron Millipore filter is used, the detectable range is 10-

1000micron sand. The Millipore filters can be sent to lab onshore for further analysis to
determine type and sand size.
2.2.4 Filtration Cartridge

Usually these cartridge filters are steel mesh inside a steel casing. Fluid is side streamed through
a valve at the inlet of the test separator, then through the filter. After sampling, the filter is taken
out of its casing, the solids are scraped off, cleaned and analyzed.
2.2.5 Continuous Sampling

This is accomplished via a LACT (Lease Automatic Custody Transfer) sampler. It can be placed
on the flowline upstream of the test separator. This device retrieves a small volume of fluid over
a specified time period. The fluid is cleaned, filtered, and weighted.
2.2.6 Desander or Separator

Cyclonic devices can be used to separate solids and liquids. At high pressure a Krebs desander
can be used. In this cased it is attached to the wellhead and separates low concentration of solids
from the well stream.

Table 4. Sand Measurement Techniques
Principle/System Shake-outs Batch Sampling Filtration- Filtration - Cartridge LACT Sampler Desander
Millipore/Sieve
Sand ~ 500 lb/1000 bbl of oil Quantitative , Qualitative 5 bl/1000 bbl of oil Qualitative
Measurement - 500 lb/1000 bbl of oil 5lbs/1000bbls of oil;
Lower Limit of not available for gas
Detection wells
Reportable Vol% or lbs./day Vol% or lbs./day 1) visual observation Visual observation ppmw lbs/bbl
Quantity and 2) lbs/day
Responsiveness ~Daily ~Daily 1) minutes and 2) days Hours 1) minutes and 2) Hours-Days
days
Limitations Unreliable-sampling Slugging can be a Not continuous, has to This is not a Unreliable; problems
port can easily plug problem if the be installed when flow quantitative method if with sample handling.
with sand not allowing sampling time is short; is diverted to test time and volume are
a sample to be taken; cleaning of sample and separator; requires not recorded. But
sampling time is short, weighing procedure some special training; samples can be taken
less than 2 minutes; should be established. careful sample to determine sand
slugging results in handling and cleaning size, type i.e.if
unreliable is needed. reservoir sand, gravel
measurement ;sample pack sand or proppant
handling procedure is is being produced.
difficult.
Field Experience 20+ Yr. 20+ Yr. 3 years New Application Limited New
Application
Operability Labor Intensive, but no special training Labor Intensive Labor Intensive Sampling automated, Semi-
needed. lab analysis for Automated
quantity
Surveillance Trends Trends Diff. Press. Trends Trends Trends
Mode

3.0 Sand Monitoring
Another component in a sand management system is the detection of sand, or sand monitoring.
In this process, a continuous detection method is in place that provides some indication that sand
is being produced. In the optimum, the detection system would provide information on the
amount of sand being produced. To date, that information is not quantitatively available. In this
section information on the types of sand detectors that are available is provided. Some indication
of where they are in use is also provided.(Ref 6)
Sand monitors can be divided into two types: intrusive and non-intrusive. Table 5 lists the
intrusive types, while Table 6 lists the non-intrusive.
3.1 Intrusive Monitors

These devices consist of elements that are placed into the flow stream. There are generally two
types:
• pressure trigger probes
• electrical resistance probes
3.1.1 Pressure Trigger Probes

The pressure trigger probes have a hollow center in which the pressure is different than the flow
line pressure. As the probe erodes, the pressure on the inside of the probe equals that of the
flowline. The change in pressure then triggers an alarm. There are three manufacturers of these
devices, but they each rely on the same principle of operation and have the same characteristics.
These devices are location dependent with respect to flow in the line of interest and therefore can
be very unreliable if they are improperly placed in the flow stream.
A similar approach is used in sub-sea tree valves. In this case there are two holes of different
depths are drilled into a valve cavity. If one of the holes erodes pressure is detected, it signals to
the surface that erosion has occurred. There is one more hole left at a different depth, and it
erodes away, pressure is detected. This is usually an indication that production should be
stopped and the tree examined for erosion damage.
3.1.2 Electrical Resistance Probes

The electrical resistance probes are on a corrosion resistance element that is placed in the fluid
stream where solids in the fluid will impact the sensor and erode it. By measuring the voltage
drop across the probe, the electrical resistance of the probe can be measured. The reading is
converted to a metal loss rate or erosion rate. The change in the voltage can also be an
indication of sand production rate. There are at least three manufacturers for these devices listed
in Table 5, but they each rely on the same principle of operation. If they are improperly placed in
the flow stream, their output is unreliable.
Two well-known examples of electrical resistance probes are manufactured by CorrOcean and
Cormon.

CorrOcean Probe Features
• It consists of a probe, sand logger, power
supply and their own PC software. There Cormon Erosion probe
are two sensing elements, mounted • This probe compares two sensing
perpendicular to each other that are elements. One is exposed to the flow
inserted into the flow stream via an access stream, and a velocity shield protects the
fitting. As the elements are eroded, the other from it. As the first one erodes, the
electrical resistance is measured and metal loss rate is calculated by using the
interpreted as the element thickness in ratio of the resistance of the two elements.
nanometers. • A very sensitive element made of gold is
• The software interprets the metal loss as an option that can be used for small
cumulative sand flow rate (kg/s) taking into amounts of sand detection while a robust
account the flowing conditions. stainless steel element can be used for
• It is used in Expro, the GoM, and BSPin long term erosion monitoring. The latter
topside installations. element is less sensitive to small amounts
• It has been difficult to use and requires of sand production.
attention from the supplier of the • Topsides us in Shell is llimited.
instrument to keep it running.
• Interpretation of the software into
quantitative data has also proved difficult.
Subsea installation is available.
3.1.3 Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Intrusive Probes
Strengths of intrusive probes

• An erosion rate can be established with these probes.
• Erosion rate output is independent of flow regime
• Not affected by flow noise or mechanical knocking the system
• Electrical resistance probes can have either retrievable or non-retrievable configurations.
The retrievable probes may be removed while under pressure.
Weaknesses of intrusive probes

• These devices are difficult to calibrate for the sand production rate. Only CorrOcean
manufacturers a probe that allows calibration in an attempt to provide quantitative
information on the amount of sand that is being produced.
• Electrical resistance probes can have either retrievable or non-retrievable configurations.
The non-retrievable probes are permanent and cannot be removed unless the line in which
they are installed is shut in. Probe access has to occur either when the line is new or it is
shut in.
• Electrical element can erode and need replacement. Generally, the more sensitive the
element, the shorter its life.
• Maintenance of the probe has to be taken into account.
• A probe in the flow stream can be the source of flow restriction or flow perturbation or
problems if it breaks. If broken, sections of the probe can inhibit the operation of a down
stream valve.
• The wellhead thickness element is an on-off device. Once it triggers, no further information
is available.

3.2 Non-Intrusive Monitors
Non-intrusive devices consist of acoustic devices or infrared cameras that can detect the
presence of sand in piping or separators.
3.2.1 Infrared Cameras

Infrared cameras may be used to determine if there is sand accumulation in a vessel or
component. They are able to detect the difference in temperature in the vessel where there is a
sand accumulation. These cameras are available in the industry and can be part of the
surveillance equipment for an asset that can have multifunctional aspects. The camera is useful
if sand levels in a collection point are of concern.
3.2.2 Acoustic Monitors

These devices are designed for attachment to the outside of pipe work. They can be installed at
a surface pipe system or subsea. It is a passive acoustic detection of flow generated noise. The
particle or sand monitor is tuned to detect the sounds made by particles impacting pipe wall as
the particles collide into bends in pipe work. A general problem with these devices is that they
detect noise generated by other sources than particles in the fluid stream. These interferences
can be:
• Electrical
• Mechanical/structure noise (e.g. pumps in the system, construction)
• Noise from the liquid/gas mixtures (e.g. a choke change)
Several studies on the use and working envelopes for acoustic monitors have been undertaken
(Ref 7-9). The attraction of the monitors is that they can provide real time information on sand
production as a function of production rates. For example, the acoustic device can monitor the
sand production as the production occurs as in Figure 4.
There are several manufacturers of acoustic sand detection equipment:

Fluenta -available in surface and subsea versions
ClampOn - available in surface and subsea versions
Milltronics (Stresswave) – available in surface version only.
The work that generated the application map shown in Figure 5 did not include the Milltronics
product, only the Fluenta and ClampOn devices. Work at U of Tulsa, however, has found that the
Milltronics device, aka SandAlert does not perform well in the same region identified in Figure 5.
3.2.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Acoustic Devices
Strengths Weakness
• Placement outside of the flow stream on • Signals can be confused by spurious
the piping component noise.
• Low maintenance • Software can be confusing
• Subsea devices are available • Qualitative data with respect to
• Low detection limit in high velocity gas amount of sand produced

180000 1360
Well test during sand injection:
P = 30/50 Econoprop Proppant - 446 31.8 MMCFGPD 5025 BHP
micron 1023 BOPD 3767 FTP
26 BWPD
160000 1320
Inject 10g S
140000 1280
Inject 10g P Flowline pressure increased 100psi while
conducting test.
Inject 1g P
Note the background noise level from the sand
120000 detector is sensitive to this change in pressure! 1240
MMCFD, Clampon Raw Signal
Inject 1g S
Flowline PSI
100000 1200
Detected noise
Inject 0.25g P from opening Inject 0.25g S
swab valve
80000 1160
Inject Water
(no particles)
60000 Detected noise

1120
from opening
swab valve
40000 1080
20000 1040
Injection tests performed 9/8/99 Sand Detector Raw Signal Gas Flow Rate Flowline Press.
0 1000
17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30
Figure 4. Example of sand detection with time and production rates. Note sensitivity to small
amounts of sand.

The studies on the use of the sand monitors have led to the development of a map of where
acoustic devices can be used successfully to detect sand. Figure 5 shows the map developed
based on experimental work and actual field use. Work in this area shows that devices perform
well at high GOR conditions and are not reliable for sand detection at the low GOR or high liquid
production levels. This is a very positive situation since sand production is primarily a concern in
high gas systems where fluid velocities are high ~100 ft/s (33 m/s) where small amounts of sand
production may result in erosion.

Re gim e m ap for sand de te ction
10
S upe rficia l liquid ve locity / (m /s ) De te ction is poor:
10 - 100k g/day (0.1- De te ction is ok:
1g/s ) 1-10k g/day (0.01-0.1g/s )
0.1
De te ction is good:
be tte r tha n 1k g/day (0.01g/s )
0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50
De te ction is ve ry poor:
S upe rficia l ga s ve locity / (m /s )
sa nd tra nsport is unre lia ble
Figure 5. Acoustic device regime of applicability map (ref 8).
With respect to the effect of viscosity on the performance of the acoustic devices, Figure 6 shows
a plot of the effect of sand size and viscosity on the lower detection limit. At viscosities of 10cP or
greater with small particle sizes of 50 micron or less, the device will not detect sand. At 10cP,
particle sizes greater than 100 micron may be detected, but the detection limit is about
1.4lbs/1000 bbl.
De te ction Lim it for Acoustic Monitor Sa nd size vs Viscosity
1.6
Sand Concentration Detected (lb/1000bbl)
1.4
1.2
1
Sand Size =50 um
0.8 Sand Size =150 um

Sand Size =300 um
0.6
0.4
No sand detected
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Viscosity (cP)
Figure 6. Plot of the effect of fluid viscosity and solid particle size on the response of
acoustic devices.

Table 5. Sand Monitors – Intrusive Devices
Pressure Trigger Probes
Principle/System Erosion Tube HLR Erosion Probe Cortest Erosion Electrical Resistance
Probe
Suppliers Anderson Greenwood Reith Corp. Cortest Rohrback Cormon CorrOcean
Cosasco
Measurement Erosion/Metal Loss Erosion/Metal Loss Erosion/Metal Loss Erosion (CS & SS) Erosion (CS, SS, Erosion
Element gold) (directional plates,
Monel)
Sand Measurement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cumulative (#/day)
Responsiveness Hours- Hours- Hours- Minutes-Days Minutes-Days Minutes-Days
Sensitivity Low Low Low Low Low Moderate/Low
Field Experience 20+ Yr. 20+ Yr. 20+ Yr. 10+ Yr. 10+ Yr. ~5 Yr.
Repair Record Poor, getting better Poor, getting better Poor, getting better Fair Fair Fair
Operability Automated Automated Automated Automated Automated Automated
Surveillance Mode On/Off On/Off On/Off Trends Trends Trends
Calibration N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sand slurry or use
manuf. calib.
curves.
Comments Location dependent Location dependent Location sensitive. Location sensitive. Location sensitive,
and unreliable. and unreliable. Can provide Can provide should be away
indication of sand indication of sand from a bend.
production. production. Mount in vertical
downward flow
Subsea ROV
retrievable system
available.

Table 6. Sand Monitors – Non-Intrusive Devices.
Infrared Acoustics Mass Flow Meters Neuton Back Flowing Tubing
Principle/System Camera Scatter l Pressure
Suppliers Milltronics Fluenta SAM Clampon Corrolis Anderson Greenwood
(Stresswave) 400
Measuring Infrared radiation Metal sound Metal sound Metal sound Pressure drop Radiation from Pressure fluctuations
Element detection detection) detection solid accumulation
Sand Cumulative Impacts/s Impacts/s Impacts/s Change in fluid Cumulative Indicates sand
Measurement density. production
Reportable Estimate of lbs. per hour lbs. per hour lbs. per hour per unit of Estimate of Within minutes
Quantity accumulation in production accumulation in
vessels vessels
Responsiveness Minutes when High, minutes High, minutes High, minutes High, minutes Low Low
camera is on
Sensitivity Low Moderate to Moderate to Low to High Suspect fairly low Low Low
High High
Field Experience ~5yrs. ~5yrs. Unknown in this Scattered 5+ yrs
application
Comments Technique Unreliable at Software Easy to use A mass flow meter This technique tracks
primarily used for fluid velocities > package difficult software, semi works in slurry flow the pressure
vessels. Infra red 70 ft/s-signal to use. Needs quantitative, needs lines, but has not fluctuations for an
camera can be becomes calibration. calibration-sand been used in oil & indication that solids
expensive, but confused. injection. gas production. are being produced.
portable and can Presently, data Responds well at
be used in is qualitative high flow velocities
various locations. and multiphase
flow.
Where used GoM -SEPCO In the GoM at all No experience Installed in new GoM - SEPCO
TLP's primarily in the GoM, In GoM subsea
in single phase use in the projects Fall 99;
line applns. N.Sea & installed in NAM &
N.Sea.

4.0 Erosion
Erosion is the wearing away of material by action of a fluid, like water or particulate matter,
carried by the fluid. In oil & gas production, particulate matter is usually sand (formation sand)
proppant, salt or solids. The source of abrasives or abrasive fluid can be from several factors,
the fluid itself being produced at a very high velocity, or solids entrained in the fluid. The solids
can come from the formation, failure of a gravel pack that was part of the completion or
production of the proppant that may have been used in a fracturing operation.
Several factors play a part in erosion, these are:

Velocity of fluid and entrained particles
Concentration of the solids
Component geometry
Angle of impingement
Size of the particles impinging
Density of the fluid
Viscosity of the fluid
Hardness of the material being eroded
Erosion is primarily a problem in equipment where there is a change in the direction of the fluid,
e.g. an elbow, a tee, a valve or a constriction in the flow, e.g. a choke. Erosion is less a problem
in straight flow unless there is a very heavy solids loading such as a slurry.
Studies have been underway for a number of years to develop approaches to evaluating erosive
service. Before these models were available the only approach to designing for erosive service
was the use of the API RP 14E formula (Ref 1) that addressed corrosive service with solids
production. This formula had been developed for the steam turbine industry (Ref 10) and had
been adopted for the piping in oil and gas surface applications. The resulting guidance from the
use of the formula was either very conservative production rates or very risky operation. Figure 7
is an example of these instances. API RP 14E does not account for sand concentration and
incorrectly accounts for the effect of fluid density. (Ref 11-14) Its use is discouraged hence a
discussion of the formula is not undertaken.
1000
Superficial Liquid Velocity, VSL (ft/s)
100
Pressure = 200 psig

10 500 psig
Water and Methane (100 F)
Pipe diameter = 4 inches 1000 psig
1 Sand Size = 150 micron
Sand Rate = 10 lb/day
Pen. Rate = 5 mpy
0.1
API RP 14E
r 200 psig
0.01
d 500 psig
1000 psig
0.001
1 10 100
Superficial Gas Velocity, VSG (ft/s)
Figure 7. Plot comparing allowable velocities for penetration rate of an elbow component using
API RP14E and that predicted by the Tulsa model for an erosion rate of 5 mpy.

The velocity of particles in the fluid stream dominates erosion. The erosion rate (ER) is
proportional to the velocity to the power of 1.5-2, or
ER α V 1.5-2
The erosion rate is also directly proportional to the amount of particles, the size of the particles,
and in steels, less dependent on hardness of the alloy. The velocity of the particle in the fluid
stream, depends on the efficiency of exchange of momentum between the fluid and the particle
as well as the type and size the pipe geometry. The efficiency of exchange of momentum
between the fluid and the particle depends on the fluid properties and sand density and size. For
example, the efficiency of exchange of momentum between a particle and a gas such as air near
standard conditions is very low. The density and viscosity of the air are too low to dramatically
alter the motion of a particle such as sand. The efficiency is reduced even further as the density
or size of the particle is increased. However, the efficiency of exchange of momentum between a
particle and a liquid is much greater. The density of the fluid approaches the density of the
particle, and the fluid can alter the motion of the particle in a relatively short amount of time. The
type and size of the geometry of the pipe affect the size of the stagnation zone. Further, in piping
geometries, there is a stagnation zone that forms. This zone for a 4 inch elbow is greater than in
a 1 inch elbow; therefore, the particle has a greater opportunity to reduce in velocity before
impinging the wall.
Elbow Stagnation
zone
Stagnation
Zone
Figure 8. Diagram of stagnation zone for elbow and tee.
The development of erosion modeling and erosion rate calculations has been undertaken at (1)
The University of Tulsa and (2) AEA Technology in the UK. Both studies have resulted in models
that may be utilized in evaluating erosion in pie components, pipelines, or facilities. The AEA
model has been developed from an empirical approach in churn and bubbly flow regimes, where
as the Tulsa model was derived via a theoretical route, but has experimental verification for
annular mist, dispersed bubble and churn flow. In 1998, B.F.Pots et al evaluated the various
models available then (Ref 15) Figure 9 is comparison of the AEA and Tulsa (SPPS) model
similar to that from Ref 15 but using the latest Tulsa multiphase flow model rather than the single
phase model. The comparison uses the base case parameters from the report shown in Table

Table 7. Production conditions considered in Figure 9.
Erosion Rate 4 mpy (0.1 mm/yr)
Sand Concentration 20 ppmw
Particle density 2650 kg/m3
Particle diam 100 µm
Particle sharpness angular
Geometry Bend r/d=1.5
Pressure 100 bar (1470 psi)
Diam 4 in (0.1 m)
Alloy Carbon steel, 150
BHn
Temperature 50C (122F)
GOR (Sft3/bbl)
10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
100
Tulsa-SPPS
Erosional velocity (m/s)
10
AEA-Sandman
1
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
3 3
Liquid-gas ratio m /mln Sm
Figure 9. Comparison of erosion rate prediction of multiphase erosion models.
The following is an explanation of how to use each of the programs available on the
accompanying CD. However, a discussion of erosion in solids free service follows since solids
free service with high velocity fluids can have a risk of erosion.
Solid Free Service -Erosion by Liquid Droplets

In the case of wet gas, at very high velocities in annular mist flow regime, impacting liquid
droplets may cause erosion by physical removal of the metal. The mechanism for this type of
erosion is the formation of very high pressures and shear stress that develop on contact of the
droplet with the metal surface. At the edge of the impinging droplet, the pressure increases to
levels higher than the transient stresses, leading to the cause of the erosion damage. Essentially

the metal is work hardened, fatigued and eventually eroded away. The most damage is at a 90°
impact angle; but any slight deviation from 90° allows the liquid to flow out freely over the surface
without a transient pressure build up or erosion of the base metal. In most piping applications, a
90° impact is highly unlikely to occur. In addition, the annular liquid film provides a cushioning
effect for the liquid droplet mitigating the pressure build up of the droplet. Erosion by liquid
droplet has been correlated to:
• materials properties,
• liquid content
• fluid velocity
• angle of impingement,
• liquid film thickness
• fluid density
Studies in Shell (Ref 11,12) have found that liquid droplet erosion in high gas production systems
is very sensitive to the amount of entrained liquid. Experiments were conducted by impingement
of gas with liquid droplets on samples of 420 stainless steel, and compared to equations
addressing erosion by liquid droplets. An equation was developed and verified whereby the
erosion rate was determined:
h = 4.98 X 10-5 * Q *v 5.26 (mm/yr)

Where
h = erosion rate in mm/yr
Q = volume of liquid (m3) produced per volume of gas (m3) produced at system
temperature and pressure,
v = velocity of impinging droplets (m/s).
Another equation that gives the incubation period prior to the start of erosion supplements the
previous equation. In liquid droplet erosion, the area impinged suffers from fatigue as the liquid
droplets impinge on the surface. It takes time to fatigue the surface for actual erosion to occur.
The incubation period is given by:
t = (0.13 X 1014 rd 0.17 v –6.1 ) * Q –1 .

Where
t = time in sec
rd = radius of droplet in gas phase, m
v = velocity of droplet, m/s
Q = volume of liquid produced (m3) per volume of gas (m3) produced at system
temperature and pressure
But irrespective of the above equations, the following guidelines for wet gas, solids free, non-
corrosive production are in place:
NAM - 80 m/s (264 ft/s)
GoM - 38 m/s (125 ft.s)
Woodside - 13 Cr - 35 m/s (115 ft/s)
22 Cr - 50 m/s (165 ft/s)
Erosion by Solids AEA Technology Model

This model was developed in a joint industry project, “The Critical Flow Rates Working Party-
Stage 3” supported by seven operating companies. The work in the two years that it was
underway attempted to look at both erosion and erosion/corrosion. Hence, the model that they
have developed has two operations one that deals with only erosion effects and the other that
deals with the combined effect of erosion/corrosion due to CO2. Because of the complexity of
both erosion and CO2 corrosion, it is recommended to deal with each effect independently of

each other. For CO2 corrosion the Hydrocor model should be used. (Ref 23) For erosion, the
use of the AEA model is available.
The study by AEA found the following conclusions:

1) The limiting velocity of API RP 14E is very conservative in the absence of sand, with little
or no erosion observed in the either bubbly flow or annular flow under the conditions
tested at AEA.
2) If sand is present, then the erosion rate is proportional to the sand concentration and is
strongly dependent on the flow rate and flow regime.
3) Annular flow gives rise to greater erosion rates than bubbly flow.
4) In annular flow, the erosion characteristics of 90 bends were similar to elbows, both of
which experienced considerable greater erosion than rates than the straight runs of pipe.
A spread sheet and design procedure were produced to enable one of the following quantities to
be explored as a function of the other two:
• Erosion allowance,
• Component lifetime, and
• Permissible flow conditions.
The following table is the range of applicablity:
Table 8 Range of Applicability for AEA Technology Spreadsheet

Liquid superficial velocity, VL 0.1 – 15 m/s
Gas superficial velocity, VG 3-35 m/s
Sand Concentration, CS 5-500 ppm
Sand Density Unknown
Elbow R/D < 3
Bend 3 < R/D < 10
Expansion 0.85 < DR/D< 0.75
Alloys Plain carbon steels, 13Cr, 22Cr
Flow regimes Bubble, churn, & annular mist
Figure is a copy of the spread sheet used in the AEA Technology erosion model. The model
itself can be found in the accompanying CD or at the Sand Management AVF site.
Table 9 Input Data for AEA Technology Spreadsheet

Symbols Units
Component
Alloy
Liquid Flow rate L kg/s
Gas flow rate G scm/s
Operating pressure P bara
Pipe diameter D cm
Liquid density ρL kg/m3
Gas density at STP ρ oG kg/m3
Gas density @ operating ρG kg/m3
conditions
Sand concentration in liquid or SL g/kg
Sand concentration in gas Sg
Plant life Y Years
Erosion allowance T mm

Flow rates, density and viscosity at process conditions may be calculated using a multiphase flow
software like Hysis or PIPSIM. If flow rates, density and viscosity at standard temperature and
pressure are entered, the spread sheet calculates the process conditions from values at STP.
The spread sheet will calculate an erosion rate for the conditions entered. Figure is an example
of erosion rates plotted vs liquid velocity.

DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR EROSION-CORROSION
IN MULTIPHASE FLOW
Release 3.9 (STAGE 1, 2 & 3 results, SI units) Copyright AEA Technology Plc,
Jan 1998
Inputs Outputs
Material group 5 GLR at process conditions 30 m3/m3
1=A234 2=A106 3=L80 4=13Cr 5=Duplex Liquid velocity 1.00 m/s
Geometry (1=Bend 2=Constriction) 1 Gas velocity 30.00 m/s
Internal diameter, cm 5 Flow regime Annular
Bend radius (diameters eg 1.5) 1.5
Calculated loss rate 0.56 mm/year
Liquid flow (kg/s) 1.963 Erosion rate 0.56 mm/year
Gas flow (scm/s) 0.0589 Corrosion rate with scale 0.00 mm/year
Pressure (bara) 1 Corrosion rate without 0.00 mm/year
scale
Temperature (oC) 100
CO2 concentration (mole fractn) 0 Effect of liquid 0.334538

Dissolved Fe (0=Fresh 1=Saturated) 0 Process / Experimental 0.731702
Corrosion model 0
0=none,1=deWaard[1991],2.x=deWaard[1995],3=Stage2 PLANT LIFE CALCULATED
Corrosion: None
Particle diameter (microns) 150 Specified sand conc 0.010 g/kg
*Sand concentration (g/kg) 0.01 or 0.00 g/scm
or (g/scm) 0 Plant life 3.6 years
*Plant life (years) 0 Specified loss allowance 2.00 mm
*Loss (mm) 2
allowance
Applicability is ok Sand flowrate 1.70 kg/day
3
Liq density (kg/m ) 1000 0.896459 mm/tonne
Gas density (kg/m3) 1
Gas density at STP (kg/m3) 1
Liq viscosity (kg/m s)0.001
Gas viscosity (kg/m s)
0.0000
18
This sheet determines the maximum sand concentration, plant life or the required material loss
allowance for a given plant life.

An example of data needed for the spread sheet is in Figure
Table 10. Input data for AEA T model

Pipe ID 14.2 cm 5.6 in
Sand Size 150 microns 150 microns
Temperature 50 C 122 F
Pressure 39 bara 573.3 psia
Qgas 1,000,000 sm3/d 35.3 MMscft/d
Qliq 1250 m3/d 7,850 bbl/d
Gas Density 0.8 kg/m3 0.0496 lb/ft3
Gas Viscosity 1.80E-05 kg/m-s 0.0018 cp
Liq Density 860 kg/m3 53.664 lb/ft3
Liq Viscosity 1.00E-03 kg/m-s 1 cp
3
Sand 50 g/m of oil 0.016 lb/bbl of
Concentration oil
Model Output with Constant Liquid Velocity

8
6 AEA
Erosion Rate (mm/yr)
5
Tulsa
4
0
15 20 25 30 35 40
Gas Velocity (m/s)
Figure 10. Erosion rate results for the same conditions for the AEA model and Tulsa model.

Erosion by Solids by University of Tulsa Model
The University of Tulsa model has been developed over a number of years in a JIP with support
from Shell and a number of other major oil companies. There have been several software
developments that are in the CD found with this report.
1. The first model developed handled only single-phase flow. This model was developed using
theoretical and computational fluid dynamics and comparing the results to published
literature. Figure shows the input screen for this model. Double clicking at the indicated
area brings up additional information for the model. The range button allows the calculation
of erosion rate to be conducted for a range of a variable, such as fluid velocity, fluid density,
particle size, or particle concentration. The model is Windows based for either liquid or gas
and can calculate the following erosion cases:
1.1. Erosion of a pipe fitting such as a standard elbow, a long radius elbow (variable r/D), a
choke (reduction of 2:1), a tee, or erosion by direct impinging jet.
1.2. Erosion in a straight pipe.
1.3. The lifting or settling velocity of sand either in horizontal or inclined to the vertical pipe.
This section is limited to air and water. It does not calculate for a hydrocarbon fluid, but
it provides a notional indication of the problem of moving sand either up the well bore or
along a pipe length. (Ref 24-27)
1.4. The limiting velocity of a fluid for a specified erosion rate.
Of these calculations the one for limiting velocity should be disregarded. The model used is not
valid. A model developed by V.Dunayevski (2001) is replacing it. The other calculations are valid
and can be used to assess erosion effects.
This program uses windows based software. To enter values, the buttons on the left of the
screen are used. The “Edit” button allows changes in the input. In the input screens for velocity,
and fluid densities the values can be ranged to assess the effect of changing properties. The
“run” button is used when all the inputs are entered. Further choices provide plots of the values
that have been ranged. Output can be saved in excel format by using the file menu located at the
top of the output screen.
The input values for the windows based part of the software may be calculated from HYSIS or a
multiphase flow program. Such fluid values calculated in HYDROCOR can be used for in input.
It is possible to calculate sensitivity studies to determine the effect of particle size, fluid velocities,
fluid mix (liquid to gas ratios) that might present erosion effects. Flow maps may be generated to
determine safe operating windows.
Erosion effects can be assessed by the use of this model. It provides guidance to how operations
may proceed if solids are produced. It can help identify locations in the process stream where
erosion may be a problem. Most of these areas are usually located on the surface facilities
where pressure drops have occurred producing high velocities. Erosion assessment together
with an inspection program aimed at locations where high velocity and fluid direction changes
occur.
A caveat with the erosion calculations either by AEA or Tulsa is that they provide an indication of
a problem. Erosion is a multivariate effect and changes fluid velocity or in particle size or
concentration can result in a change in effect. More frequently the error in measurement of any
of the parameters is greater than that of the model. These models are used to attain an
understanding of the magnitude of an erosion effect if solids are produced in high velocity
streams.

References
1. Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping
Systems, API RP 14E, fifth edition, October 1, 1991.
2. “Sand Management Guide”, EP97-5250 Portfolio, SIEP, 1997.
3. G.S.Lester and D.A.Cole, “Sand Control Handbook” 1990, Technical Progress Report BRC
62-93, November 1993.
4. N. R. Collongues, “Summary of Sand Monitoring Techniques as Applicable to Shell

Deepwater Production Inc.” August 1997.
5. Z.I.Katib and R.J.Lesoon, “Sand Monitoring in Flowing Wells on Mars Platform”, TPR wtc 68-
97, September 1997.
6. A.S.Rotolo, “Chemical Team Summer Project: Field Evaluation of Sand Monitors and
General Operating Procedures,” Summer 1999.
7. T.J.Lockett, D.Vanstone, P.McCarthy,and H.Barrett, “Detection of Sand in High GLR

Multiphase Flows, AEAT-2554, A Report Produced by AEA Technology for Shell UK Expro,
January 1998.
8. T.J.Lockett and J. Worsley, “Assessment of Operating Envelopes for Non-Intrusive Sand

Detectors” AEAT-RHAD/RD01535003/12/2, A Report Produced by AEA Technology for BP
Amoco Exploration, May 2000.
9. S.A.Shirazi, B..S.McLaury, M.M.Ali, M.J.Sampson, and J.K.Edwards, 4th Advisory Board

Meeting of JIP on Sand Probes Evaluation for Multiphase Production Systems”, July 31,
2000.J.S.Smart, “The Meaning of the API RP 14 E Formula for Erosion Corrosion in Oil and
Gas Production,” NACE Annual Corrosion Conference, March 1991, paper number 468.
10. J.S.Smart, “The Meaning of the API RP 14E Formula for erosion Corrosion in Oil and Gas
Production, NACE Annual Corrosion Conference, March 1991, ppr. No. 468.
11. B.S.McLaury and S.A. Shirazi, “Generalization of API RP 14E for Erosive Service in
Multiphase Production,” SPE 1999 Annual Technical Conference, Houston, TX, October
1999, SPE 56812.
12. M.M.Salama, “An Alternative to API RP 14E Erosional Velocity Limits for Sand Laden
Fluids,” 1998 Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8898.
13. K.Jordan, “Erosion in Multiphase Production of Oil and Gas,” NACE Annual Corrosion
Conference, March 1998, paper number 58.
14. S.J.Svedman, “Experimental Study of the Erosional/Corrosion al Velocity Criterion for Sizing
Multiphase Flow Lines-Phase II-Experimental Results,” Final Report SwRI Proj No. 04-4008-
002, Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, Sep 1993.
15. B.F.M.Pots, E.M.van Loon, R.A.Connell, and P. Oudeman, “Sand Erosion Risk Assessment
for Oil & Gas Production Facilities”, Shell Global Solutions, OP.99.20022, 1999.
16. DnV Recommended Practice RP 0501, Erosive Wear in Piping Systems, 1996.
17. D.Teng, G.Nettleship, S.Hicking, K. Hindmarsh, “High Rate Gas Well Design: Issues and
Solutions –Goodwyn Gas Condensate, NWS Austrlia, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference, Perth, Australia October 1998, SPE 50081.

18. T.J.Lockett, D.Vanstone, P.McCarthy, and H.Barrett, Detection of Sand in High GLR
Multiphase Flows, AEA Technology AEAT-2554 v2, a report for Shell UK Expro, January
1998.
19. L.Van Bodegom, L. Van Raam, and M.K.F.Paksa, “Erosion of AISI 420 Stainless Steel by
Liquid Droplet Impingement”, AMTR.86.043, April 1986.
20. L.Van Bodegom,L.Van Ramm, and M.K.F. Paksa, “Resistance of AISI 420 Stainless Steel to
Liquid Droplet Impingement in N2 and CO2 Gas at Atmospheric Pressure at 60°C” SIPM
Production Technology Conf, Nov 10-14, 1986.
21. P.M.Birchnough, S.G.B.Dawson, T.J.Lockett and P. McCarthy, “Critical Flow Rates Working
Party Stage 2 Final Report,” AEA-TSD-0348, June 1995.
22. T.J.Lockett, P.M.Beech, P.M.Birchenough, P.McCarthy, S.G.B.Dawson, W.J.Worraker,

“Erosion/Corrosion in Multiphase Systems,” AEA Technology RPSD/O6998001/12/36, April
1997.
23. P.M.Birchenough and S.G.B.Dawson, “Design Procedure for Erosion in Multi-Pase Flow,”
AEA-APS-0303a, November 1997.
24. A.R.Taylor, LTR/2, “Guideline for Determining Erosional Velocities in NAM Production Gas
Facilities, Version 1.0, April 1998, NAM Report No. 199805000103
25. Woodside Energy Limited, “Offshore Engineering Standards, Manual: Materials Guideline for
Offshore Use” Doc No. A3000MQ001, January 2000.
26. B.F.M.Pots, “Manual for HYDROCOR 1999 Spreadsheet for the Prediction of CO2 Corrosion
in Multi-Phase Pipelines Transporting Wet Hydrocarbons”, OP.99.20636, December 1999.
27. University of Tulsa ECRC Report November 19994, “Critical Deposition Velocity and
Threshold Velocity Prediction in Sand Erosion”.
28. G.A.Wani, “Critical Velocity in Multisize Particle Transport Through Pipes”, Encyclopedia of
Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 5, 1986, p.181.
29. S.F.Chien, “

Sand Effects On Production Assets

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sand Effects On Production Assets

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sand Effects on Production Assets

Introduction – Review of existing guidelines through SIEP and OU’s

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

2.1 Composition, Shape, Density, and Size

Figure 2. Photo of proppant and formation sand. Figure 3. Photo of proppant.

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Table 2a. Common Gravel Pack Sand Sizes

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

2.2 Sand Measurement

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

2.2.1 Wellhead Shakeouts

2.2.2 Batch Sampling

2.2.3 Membrane or Millipore Filtration

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

2.2.4 Filtration Cartridge

2.2.5 Continuous Sampling

2.2.6 Desander or Separator

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

3.1 Intrusive Monitors

3.1.1 Pressure Trigger Probes

3.1.2 Electrical Resistance Probes

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

3.1.3 Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Intrusive Probes

Strengths of intrusive probes

Weaknesses of intrusive probes

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

3.2.1 Infrared Cameras

3.2.2 Acoustic Monitors

There are several manufacturers of acoustic sand detection equipment:

3.2.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Acoustic Devices

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

60000 Detected noise

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Figure 5. Acoustic device regime of applicability map (ref 8).

De te ction Lim it for Acoustic Monitor Sa nd size vs Viscosity

0.8 Sand Size =150 um

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Several factors play a part in erosion, these are:

Pressure = 200 psig

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Figure 8. Diagram of stagnation zone for elbow and tee.

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Figure 9. Comparison of erosion rate prediction of multiphase erosion models.

Solid Free Service -Erosion by Liquid Droplets

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

h = 4.98 X 10-5 * Q *v 5.26 (mm/yr)

t = (0.13 X 1014 rd 0.17 v –6.1 ) * Q –1 .

Erosion by Solids AEA Technology Model

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

The study by AEA found the following conclusions:

The following table is the range of applicablity:

Table 8 Range of Applicability for AEA Technology Spreadsheet

Table 9 Input Data for AEA Technology Spreadsheet

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

Sand Effects Guide_Skogsberg.doc

CO2 concentration (mole fractn) 0 Effect of liquid 0.334538