Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE)

Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) enables the quantitative

estimation of corrosion rates and the selection of materials
for oil and gas production systems and processing facilities.
At the heart of ECE is a new and improved model for
corrosion analysis and material selection, firmly based on
laboratory data, and field calibration studies both with
pipeline and with downhole tubing.
ECE is available as the Professional Edition (for a single
user) or the Enterprise Edition (for multiple users on a
network). Licensees receive regular updates, including
further functionality improvements and new materials data,
and have the benefit of expert Technical Support. See Also:
What's new in ECE

We welcome feedback, comments and suggestions on any aspect of the ECE.

The feedback we receive is vital for the future development of the software. Any
comments can be sent by email to [email protected].
About ECE
Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) enables the quantitative
estimation of corrosion rates and the selection of materials
for oil and gas production systems and processing facilities.
At the heart of ECE is a new and improved model for
corrosion analysis and material selection, firmly based on
laboratory data, and field calibration studies both with
pipeline and with downhole tubing.
Tubing Corrosion Prediction deals principally with the
vertical flow, although deviated tubing can also be
modelled. The Flowline tools deal predominately with
horizontal flow. The orientation has a significant influence
on the flow regime which impacts on some aspects of the
corrosion rate, such as the likelihood of having erosion of
corrosion product scales or separation of water from oil.
Each tool can be used independently so that the evaluation
of the carbon steel corrosion rate and the risk of carbon
steel failure can be carried out without any reference to the
evaluation of suitable CRA's, their sources and the LCC
comparison between the CRA and carbon steel options.
Similarly, the CRA evaluation or check on suppliers of a
given type of CRA can be done without first checking the
potential carbon steel corrosion rate. Parameters are not
carried over from one Tool to another and changing an input
value in one Tool does not change values elsewhere.
ECE can be used to estimate the corrosion rate in facilities
and top-side pipe work. ECE does not consider the impact of
tight bends and other flow disturbances typical of process
piping.

Corrosion Prediction: ECE is principally concerned with

material selection for two key capital expenditure items
in oil and gas developments: downhole production
tubing and flowlines. The aim is to propose a safe
material selection at minimum cost. The Predictions are
carried out independently using Tubing Corrosion
Predictor and Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
CRA Evaluation: Analysis of the potential corrosion rate
of carbon steel under the given conditions, together
with an evaluation of the risk of failure of carbon steel
based on the estimated corrosion rate and given
tubing/flowline wall thickness is completed using Tubing
CRA Evaluator and Flowline CRA Evaluator.
Life Cycle Evaluation: Evaluation of the suitability of
various CRA's for the given conditions; selecting those
that will not fail by either localized or general corrosion,
or by cracking is completed using Tubing Life Cycle
Calculator and Flowline Life Cycle Calculator.
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Evaluation: Use either the Tubing
CRA Manufacturers or the Flowline CRA Manufacturers
database to check on the possible sources of the
selected CRA.
What's New in ECE
ECE 5.4 contains the following new features.

Erosion Tool: a calculation tool for estimating particle

erosion is provided in the downhole Tubing module
Data Table output: raw data from the corrosion
calculation can be output as an Excel table showing
values as a function of distance or depth, in addition to
the existing graphical and tabular report formats. This
applies to both Flowline and Tubing modules.
The Bulk Calculation function introduced in ECE 5.3 has
been extended to allow inputs of API gravity, acetic
acid content and chemical inhibition information. This
applies to both Flowline and Tubing modules.
Corrosion resistant alloy selection tools now allow input
of organic acid content for calculation of the pH used in
the selection rules.
Licence Implementation has been improved.
Reactivation of the ECE Licence is required to use ECE
5.4.
ECE installer will install the required .NET Framework
version if necessary, removing the need for User to
install it separately.
Features and Enhancements from earlier versions of
ECE

The following features have been discontinued in version

5.4
Import of ECE 4.x files

Licence Transfer Wizard

Corrosion Prediction Tools
The Corrosion Prediction Tools can be opened from the Tools
menu which will be prefixed with either Tubing or Flowline
depending upon the project selected.

Corrosion Predictor: Opens the current Corrosion

Prediction Project window, either Flowline or Tubing
dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project
selected.
CRA Evaluator: Opens the Alloy Evaluator for the
current Corrosion Prediction Project, either Flowline or
Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project
selected.
CRA Manufacturers: Opens the Manufacturers for the
current Corrosion Prediction Project, either Flowline or
Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion Prediction Project
selected.
Life Cycle Cost Calculation: Opens the Life Cycle Cost
Calculator for the current Corrosion Prediction Project,
either Flowline or Tubing dependent upon the Corrosion
Prediction Project selected.
Corrosion Prediction Graphs
The Corrosion Prediction Graphs can be displayed in the
Corrosion Prediction Project.

Corrosion Rate Graph: The Corrosion Rate graph is

displayed by default on the Corrosion Rate tab when the
Corrosion Prediction Project is opened. The Corrosion
Rate Graph displays the Corrosion Rate (mm/year) over
Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline
Corrosion Prediction Project.
Risk Analysis Graph: The Risk Graph is displayed on the
Risk Analysis tab of the Corrosion Prediction Project.
The Risk Analysis Graph displays Risk of Failure (%)
over Time (year).
pH Graph: The pH graph can be selected from All
Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and displays
the pH value over Tubing Length (ft). This Graph cannot
be zoomed.
Water Flow Rate Graph: The Water Flow Rate graph can
be selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Water Rate (m3/d) over Tubing
Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion
Prediction Project.
Water Cut Graph: The Water Cut graph can be selected
from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and
displays the Water Cut (%) over Tubing Length (ft) or
Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion Prediction
Project.
Liquid HoldUp: The Liquid HoldUp graph can be selected
from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and
displays the Liquid HoldUp (% cross section) over
Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline
Corrosion Prediction Project.
Liquid Velocity: The Liquid Velocity graph can be
selected from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction
Project and displays the Liquid Velocity (m/s) over
Tubing Length (ft) or Distance (km) for a Flowline
Corrosion Prediction Project.
Gas Velocity: The Gas Velocity graph can be selected
from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and
displays the Gas Velocity (m/s) over Tubing Length (ft)
or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion Prediction
Project.
Pressure: The Pressure graph can be selected from All
Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and displays
the Pressure (bar) over Tubing Length (ft) or Distance
(km) for a Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project.
Temperature: The Temperature graph can be selected
from All Graphs in the Corrosion Prediction Project and
displays the Temperature (°C) over Tubing Length (ft)
or Distance (km) for a Flowline Corrosion Prediction
Project.
Life Cycle Prediction Graphs
The Life Cycle Cost Bar Charts can be displayed in the Life
Cycle Cost Calculator.

Net Present Value Bar Chart: Available in the Life Cycle

Calculator and displays the Net Present Value over Time
for Carbon Steel, CRA and Carbon Steel/Continuous
Inhibition. This chart is available for both Tubing and
Flowline Life Cycle Cost Calculation. This chart cannot
be zoomed.
Capital Bar Chart: Available in the Life Cycle Calculator
and displays the Material Cost and Construction Cost
values. This chart is only available when a Flowline
Corrosion Prediction Project is selected. This chart
cannot be zoomed.
Tooltip: The actual point values associated with the
graph line are displayed in a tooltip when the cursor is
held over that part of the graph line in the format (x-
axis, y-axis). When H2S is present, the risk of pitting
corrosion is displayed within the tooltip for the "isolated
pitting" line on the main Corrosion Rate Graph. This is
accessed by holding the cursor over the isolated pitting
line. Graphs may be saved in emf, jpg, tiff, BMP, png
and gif formats. Copied graphs may be pasted directly
into other documents.
Zoom: It is possible to zoom into areas on most graphs
using the mouse cursor. The selected area is indicated
by red lines and darker shading. You cannot use Zoom
for the pH Graph, the Net Present Value Graph or the
Capital Graph.
Actions: Any graphs displayed on the right-hand side of
the Corrosion Prediction Project and the LCC tools may
be copied, printed, or saved using the icons at the top
of the graph. Graphs may be saved in emf, jpg, tiff,
BMP, png and gif formats. Copied graphs may be pasted
directly into other documents.
Tubing Corrosion Prediction Tools
The Tubing Corrosion Prediction Tools available in ECE are:

Tubing Corrosion Predictor: Used to predict the internal

corrosion rate of carbon steel downhole tubing. The
corrosion model estimates the corrosion caused by the
presence of water with dissolved CO2, which is modified
by the presence of other chemicals like H2S and
carbonate/bicarbonate salts. The background to the
model is described in Corrosion Model Background.
Tubing Erosion Predictor: Used to predict the internal
erosion rate of carbon steel downhole tubing due to
solid particles, side by side with the corrosion model
prediction. The background to the model is described in
Corrosion Model Background.
Tubing CRA Evaluator:Used to evaluate Tubing
Conditions against technical acceptability. There are two
alternative evaluation schemes; evaluation based on
ISO 15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 and evaluation
based on selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE
Rules).
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator: Used to make an economic
comparison of various corrosion control options for
tubing, Carbon Steel, Corrosion Resistant Alloy, Carbon
Steel with Continuous Inhibition or Carbon Steel with
Squeeze Inhibition.
Tubing CRA Manufacturers: Used to select Tubing CRA
Manufacturers from a database of CRA pipe suppliers
(refers to primary international manufacturers).
Tubing CRA Manufacturers
The Tubing CRA Manufacturers can be selected from a
database of CRA pipe suppliers (refers to primary
international manufacturers). Details of stockists are not
included. The list of manufacturers, materials and sizes
offered is based on publicly available information and
believed to be correct at the release date of the software or
latest upgrade. Wood Group do not endorse suppliers
included in the listings or imply any criticism if a supplier is
omitted from the listings.

From the Tubing Tools menu, select CRA Manufacturers.

Select an alloy from the left-hand list by clicking with

the left mouse button.
Select a pipe diameter to display the list of companies
making pipe in that alloy and diameter.
Select the required supplier to display the contact
details for the selected supplier.
Tubing Corrosion Predictor Overview
The Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to predict the
internal corrosion rate of carbon steel downhole tubing. The
corrosion model estimates the corrosion caused by the
presence of water with dissolved CO2, which is modified by
the presence of other chemicals like H2S and
carbonate/bicarbonate salts. The background to the model
is described in Corrosion Model Background.

Data Input: Input Values are added to the Tubing

Corrosion Predictor using the tabs; Project, Conditions,
Throughput, Deviation Angles, Advanced and Steel.
Enter the required values to display the Output Results.
Project: Used to input Project specific information. The
Title and Details fields allow entry of a description and
identifying information for the current Project. This
information is saved with other data and exported with
Project outputs.
Conditions: Used to input Temperatures, Pressure, Gas
Composition and Water Chemistry.
Throughputs: Used to input Throughput information.

Deviation Angles: Used to input Deviation Angles.

Steel: Used to input Tubing parameters. Tapered Tubing

Settings can be defined here.
Advanced: Used to input Inhibition, Dissolved Fe at inlet
and Erosional Velocity of Gas information.
Data Output: Output Results are displayed in the tabs;
Corrosion Rate, Risk Analysis, All Graphs and Details.
The Output Results can also be exported as text Reports
and graphs can be copied, saved or printed.
Corrosion Rate Graph: Displays a graph of the corrosion
rate as a function of depth in the tubing.
Risk Analysis: Displays a graph of accumulated risk of
failure vs. time.
All Graphs: Used to select parameters to be displayed in
the graph over Tubing Length (ft).
Details: Used to view Output Details for the selected
Tubing Corrosion Prediction Project.
Tubing Corrosion Predictor Report
The Tubing Corrosion Predictor Report option is used to
display the Tubing Corrosion Prediction Results as either a
Full Report, Summary Report or as a Data Table.

With the Tubing Corrosion Predictor open, select File,

Tubing Corrosion Prediction Report to display the
shortcut menu.
Select the required option, Full, Summary or Data
Table.
Full Report: Displays the Tubing Corrosion Prediction as
a Full Report. Click Export to Excel to open Microsoft
Excel with the Full Report displayed.
Summary Report: Displays the Tubing Corrosion
Prediction as a Summary Report. Click Export to Excel
to open Microsoft Excel with the Summary Report
displayed.
Data Table: Displays the Tubing Corrosion Prediction in
Microsoft Excel as a Data Table.
Data Input
The Tubing Corrosion Predictor requires the input of various
operational parameters. If the conditions for a project are
outside the allowed ranges then you may still utilise the
Tubing CRA Evaluator for material selection. Enter the
required values to display the Output Results. Input values
can be entered in metric or customary engineering units, or
a mixture of units. ECE automatically converts and displays
the equivalent values as you enter the data. If required a
Range can be specified using the Ranges button.

Project: Input of identification details for the Project.

Conditions: Input of temperature, pressure, gas

composition and water bicarbonate content.
Throughput: Input of oil, gas and water production
rates, density of crude oil, liquid hold up and optional
variation in water cut at constant total liquid velocity.
Deviation Angles: Input of tubing angle from vertical for
deviated wells.
Advanced: Input of parameters related to inhibition,
selection of non-saturated or supersaturated iron
content and total acetic acid.
Steel: Input of tubing dimensions (with option for
tapered tubing), type of steel and carbon and (for
normalised steel only) chromium content.
Data Output
Output Results are displayed in the tabs; Corrosion Rate,
Risk Analysis, All Graphs and Details. The Output Results
can also be exported as text Reports and graphs can be
copied, saved or printed.

Corrosion Rate: Graphic representation of corrosion rate

vs measured depth of the tubing.
Risk Analysis: Risk of failure of tubing as a function of
time indicating the risk for upper and lower sections of
tapered tubing.
All Graphs: Graphs for pH, water flow rate, water cut,
liquid hold up, liquid velocity, gas velocity, temperature
and pressure vs distance along the tubing. Click pH to
display graphs.
Details: Additional information including fluid velocities,
composition data, expected flow pattern and sour
service requirements.
Project
The Project tab on the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to
input Project specific information. The Title and Details
fields allow entry of a description and identifying
information for the current Project. This information is
saved with other data and exported with Project outputs.
Conditions
The Conditions tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used
to input Temperatures, Pressure, Gas Composition and
Water Chemistry.

Temperatures: Temperatures at wellhead and at bottom

hole are entered directly into text boxes (as °C or °F) or
by the sliders.
Pressure: Pressure at the wellhead and at bottom hole
are entered directly into text boxes (as bar or psi) or by
the sliders. Pressures are absolute pressures, not gauge
pressures.
It should be noted that a change in flow rates (see
below) should be accompanied by a change of the
pressure and temperature gradient. This is NOT done
automatically, and you are responsible for making sure
that all parameters are in reasonable agreement with
each other. The mole percent of acid gases CO2 and
H2S are entered directly into text boxes or by the
sliders. The range buttons on the right-hand side of the
sliders allow selection of appropriate composition
ranges. The software does not allow entry of CO2 and
H2S beyond certain limiting partial pressures (mol% x
total pressure).
ECE assumes that the fluid bubble point coincides with
the bottom of the tubing. Fluid bubble point is sensitive
to the composition of the well fluids and estimates of
bubble point require full fluid composition data which is
often not available, or not of the necessary accuracy. In
many cases, it is reasonable to assume the bubble-point
is at the formation depth: when a well is flowing there is
typically a significant pressure drop in the tubing
(bottom hole flowing pressure is less than bottom hole
static pressure). This will generally be a conservative
assumption as it leads to the calculated dissolved CO2
and H2S values in the lower part of the well being
higher than if the bubble point were further up the
tubing.
Water Chemistry: The bicarbonate level influences the
pH, which can be observed on the output pages. The
unit here is mg/l of HCO3- ions. It relates to the
bicarbonate present, as soluble salts of any kind, for
example, sodium, potassium, iron, after any dissolved
gases are flashed off.
Acetic Acid: Enter the total Acetic Acid value in parts per
million by weight (ppmw).
Sodium Chloride: Affects hydrogen activity, solubility of
acid gases and the Risk Ranking for sour pitting. Other
neutral salts can be treated as if NaCl; the Total
Dissolved Solids value can be entered here.
Acetic Acid: Enter the total Acetic Acid value in parts per
million by weight (ppmw).
Organic Acid: Concentration can be entered with the
text box or using the slider. Entry is as ppmw (mg/l) of
total dissolved acetic acid (both associated and non-
dissociated). Other similar organic acids (for example.
formic) can be treated as equivalent to acetic acid and
added to the input value. Since this type of information
is relatively rare, the default setting is zero.
Throughput
The Throughput tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is
used to input Throughput information.

Flow rates: Flow rates for oil or gas condensate, gas

and water are entered directly or using the slider bars,
and the ranges can be changed using the Range buttons
on the right-hand end of the sliders. All values are
expressed in standard units, so are in effect mass flow
rates. The values for oil / condensate, water and gas
relate to the amounts at the wellhead, for example as
measured at a test separator.
Water Flowrate: The data input for water flow rate
relates to wellhead conditions. When water
condensation occurs, the water rate and water cut may
vary up the tubing, and this is calculated automatically
by ECE. The Details page displays the calculated water
flow rate at bottom hole and the Watercut at the
wellhead, and the Water Flow Rate and Watercut graphs
display the water rate and water cut through the well. A
minimum water rate of 0.001 m3/d is applied
throughout the depth of the well, even if the underlying
water condensation calculation predicts zero free water
along some length.
Hydrocarbon Density: The hydrocarbon density is
entered with the API Gravity text box or slider. A high
API gravity of 50 corresponds to a light gas condensate
oil. A low API density corresponds to a very heavy
crude. Conversion to specific gravity (density) g/cm3
@60degF is given (note that the density is very
temperature dependent). The SG and API gravity
inputs, and the conversion within ECE are for standard
conditions of both temperature and pressure. The API
gravity setting influences the effect of the water cut on
corrosion rates by altering the ability of the oil to
entrain water. Values of API gravity above 50 have no
further impact on the corrosion model, so for very light
oils / condensates with API gravity greater than 50, you
should input 50.
Liquid HoldUp Change: The liquid hold up (fraction of
cross-section occupied by liquids) is shown in the Liquid
Holdup Graph, and the maximum and minimum values
shown above that graph. Liquid hold up change provides
a means to manually alter the liquid hold up from the
values calculated by ECE.
When the liquid hold up change is set at 0% change the
velocities of liquid and gas are the same. The default
setting of 2% change in ECE means the gas is flowing
slightly faster than the liquid. This is the normal
situation, as the higher drag on the liquid will cause a
lower liquid velocity and an increase in liquid hold up
(the hold up change is greater than zero). This, in turn,
will increase the gas flow velocity and will tend to lower
the corrosion rate. These velocities can be seen on the
details tab for the wellhead or on the graphs of gas and
liquid velocities.
When input flow rates of liquids and gas are changed,
the absolute value of hold up of course changes. The
Liquid Holdup Change setting is maintained, however,
which means that the hold up is always adjusted to the
same percentage above the minimum possible.
In nearly all situations, we recommend that you leave
liquid hold up change at the default value.
One situation where it may be useful to alter the liquid
hold up change from the default is where values for the
hold up are available from other sources (either
modelling or field measurement). The maximum that
the liquid hold up change can be modified is up to 50%
of the available range (from the minimum hold up (gas
and liquid velocity equal) up to 100% hold up). In
practical situations, the realistic range of liquid hold up
change is normally much more restricted, probably no
more than 5-10%.
Watercut: When all the production flow rate values have
been entered, the water cut at the bottom of the tubing
will be shown by the Watercut (at bottom) value at the
bottom of the Throughput page. When the inputs for oil
or water flow rate are changed, the water cut changes
accordingly. This box and slider may also be altered to
investigate the effect of adjusting the water cut at
constant total liquid velocity. This can be useful when
the water cut is not known or likely to change, by
showing the sensitivity to this parameter, without
changing the liquid velocity at the same time.
Deviation Angles
The Deviation Angles tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor
is used to input Deviation Angles. The deviation is the angle
of the tubing to the vertical, an angle of zero corresponds to
perfectly vertical tubing. The angle of deviation influences
the corrosion rate because of the effect on the water
distribution onto the tubing wall. A higher deviation often
results in a higher corrosion rate. The effect is more
noticeable at lower water contents but may be negligible for
wells with a high water cut because water wetting is then
continuous.
The modelling of flow regime and tubing deviation effects in
ECE has been developed with the benefit of real-life
corrosion experience from many production wells. It should
be noted that the treatment of flow regimes within ECE for
tubing is different than for flowlines and so a horizontal
tubing will not necessarily give an identical output to the
ECE Flowline Corrosion Predictor.

All Angles Equal: All deviations can be set to the same

value by clicking the box All angles equal, and using the
vertical slider at the right of the page to set the
deviation angle.
Position Deviation Angles: Deviation angles at positions
down the well are entered using the slider bars or the
up/down arrows on the text boxes. The deviation
information can be taken from the well deviation survey,
if that information is known. Otherwise the angle of the
well at full depth can be entered and a suitable profile
judged to the surface.
Steel
The Steel tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to
input Tubing parameters.

Entire Well: The default setting is for one production

tubing size through the whole well from wellhead to
bottom hole. In this case, the measured depth of the
tubing and the tubing outside diameter and total wall
thickness are entered under the heading Dimensions.
Tapered Tubing: A well completion with two tubing sizes
can also be modelled. To do this, select Tapered Tubing.
Additional data entry fields now become available under
the heading lower tubing dimensions. The measured
depth from wellhead to the bottom of the upper tubing
section along with the upper tubing dimensions are
entered in the upper box under the heading Upper
tubing section dimensions as before. The total
measured depth of the well (i.e. the measured depth
from the wellhead to the bottom of the lower tubing
section) are entered under lower tubing section
dimensions.
Quenched and Tempered: Chromium content (up to
1.2% max., according to API 5CT) of the carbon steel is
entered for quenched and tempered tubing. If
normalised steel is selected then the carbon content can
also be entered (up to 0.50%max.). The chemical
composition of the steel has a slight influence on the
predicted CO2 corrosion rate.
Advanced
The Advanced tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used
to input Inhibition, Dissolved Fe at inlet and Erosional
Velocity of Gas information.

Inhibition: There are three options for inhibition: none

(the default), continuous or squeeze. Continuous
inhibition is modelled using the common accepted
efficiency – availability model to determine the mean
corrosion rate with inhibition treatment. The efficiency
and availability inputs both have maximum values of
99%.
For squeeze inhibition, the squeeze frequency is
entered. The inhibition effect inside the tubing is then
built up in about one month, and then reduces slowly in
about 2 months. The corrosion model adds the effect of
repeated squeezes for the calculation of the average
corrosion rate per year.
Dissolved Fe at Inlet: Dissolved Fe at inlet (i.e. bottom
hole) relates to the dissolved iron concentration in the
water at the inlet, which may be low in Fe, or may be
supersaturated with iron carbonate. There are two
options. The default setting is supersaturated.
Erosional Velocity of Gas: The value of the C-Constant
used in calculation of the Erosion Velocity can be
changed from the default values of =100 lbs/ft)^0.5/s
or c=122 (kg/m)^0.5/s. This allows you to work with
different C-values or erosional velocity limits depending
upon different User's policies. See "Erosion -Corrosion"
for more details.
Corrosion Rate Graph
The Corrosion Rate Graph displays a graph of the corrosion
rate as a function of depth in the tubing. When H2S is
present, an additional line indicates the potential pitting
corrosion rate that applies if the protective sulphide scale
breaks down. The Pitting Risk Rank is displayed as a tooltip
when the cursor is positioned over the isolated pitting line.
(the Pitting Risk Rank is also included in the Corrosion
Predictor Report, see Reporting) The mouse can be used to
select and zoom in on areas of the graph. Graphs may be
copied, printed, or saved, see Reporting and Printing for
details.
Risk Analysis
The Risk Analysis tab displays a graph of accumulated risk
of failure vs. time. For its construction, it is assumed that
the calculated corrosion rates have a normal distribution
with a standard deviation of 25% (see Risk of Failure for
details). In the presence of H2S, the arbitrary assumption
has been made that there is a 25% risk that the protective
sulphide layer fails.
When the tapered tubing option is selected in the input
pages, then risk curves can be chosen for the upper, lower
or for both tubing sections using the buttons at the top of
the risk graph. The risk graphs are calculated using the
maximum corrosion rate for the appropriate tubing section
(upper or lower).
All Graphs
The All Graphs tab is used to select parameters to be
displayed in the graph over Tubing Length (ft). The default
graph displayed is the Corrosion Rate (US) graph. The
maximum and minimum values are also reported at the
top-right of the selected graph. The mouse can be used to
select and zoom in on areas of the graph. Graphs may be
copied, printed, or saved, see Reporting and Printing for
details.

pH: Displays pH value over Tubing Length (ft).

Water Flow Rate: Displays Water Flow Rate (m3/d) over

Tubing Length (ft).
Water Cut: Displays Water Cut (%) over Tubing Length
(ft).
Liquid HoldUp: Displays Liquid HoldUp (% cross section)
over Tubing Length (ft).
Liquid Velocity: Displays Liquid Velocity (m/s) over
Tubing Length (ft).
Gas Velocity: Displays Gas Velocity (m/s) over Tubing
Length (ft).
Pressure: Displays Pressure (bar) over Tubing Length
(ft).
Temperature: Displays Temperature (°C) over Tubing
Length (ft).
Details
The Details tab of the Tubing Corrosion Predictor is used to
view Output Details for the selected Tubing Corrosion
Prediction Project.

At Wellhead: Gas to Oil ratio and water cut at the

wellhead are reported here, together with values for the
liquid and gas velocity at the wellhead. This allows a
quick check that the flowrates are reasonable, typically
a few m/s for liquid, and no more than about 20 m/s for
gas. The water in at bottom hole is reported: this value
was input data in ECE 4.x, but is a calculated value in
ECE.
Velocities at Wellhead: The erosional gas velocity at the
wellhead according to API RP 14E is also reported.
When this velocity is exceeded, the effects of protection
by carbonate layers, inhibitor films and sulphide layers
are set to zero. This only happens when the flow
pattern is reported to be Annular Mistflow. In other
cases it will report "N/A" ("not applicable").
Flow Pattern: The flow pattern evaluation is restricted to
Bubble/Slug Flow, Annular Mist flow and Liquid-full for
the purpose of corrosion rate calculations.
Sour Service: The sour service region applicable to
sulphide stress cracking according to ISO 15156 part 2
is reported: either "No" (i.e. Region 0), Region 1,
Region 2 or Region 3.
Partial Pressures at Wellhead: Partial pressures (not
fugacities) of CO2 and H2S at the outlet are reported in
metric and US customary units, along with the
concentration of H2S in ppm (vol).
Tubing Erosion Predictor Overview
The Tubing Erosion Predictor is based on the Tubing
Corrosion Prediction tool with additional inputs to allow
prediction of erosion due to particle loading.
The background to the erosion model is described in Erosion
Model Background. The corrosion model part is identical to
that in the Tubing Corrosion Predictor. Note that the erosion
and corrosion effects are not coupled: - there is no
synergistic erosion - corrosion recognised in the model.
Tubing Erosion Predictor Report
The Tubing Erosion Predictor Report option is used to
display the Tubing Erosion Prediction Results as either a Full
Report, Summary Report or as a Data Table.

With the Tubing Erosion Predictor open, select File,

Tubing Erosion Prediction Report to display the shortcut
menu.
Select the required option, Full, Summary or Data
Table.
Full Report: Displays the Tubing Erosion Prediction as a
Full Report. Click Export to Excel to open Microsoft Excel
with the Full Report displayed.
Summary Report: Displays the Tubing Erosion Prediction
as a Summary Report. Click Export to Excel to open
Microsoft Excel with the Summary Report displayed.
Data Table: Displays the Tubing Erosion Prediction in
Microsoft Excel as a Data Table.
Data Input
The Tubing Erosion Predictor requires the input of various
operational parameters. If the conditions for a project are
outside the allowed ranges then you may still utilise the
Tubing CRA Evaluator for material selection. Enter the
required values to display the Output Results. Input values
can be entered in metric or customary engineering units, or
a mixture of units. ECE automatically converts and displays
the equivalent values as you enter the data. If required a
Range can be specified using the Ranges button.

Project: Input of identification details for the Project.

Conditions: Input of temperature, pressure, gas

composition and water bicarbonate content.
Throughput: Input of oil, gas and water production
rates, density of crude oil, liquid hold up and optional
variation in water cut at constant total liquid velocity.
Deviation Angles: Input of tubing angle from vertical for
deviated wells.
Advanced: Input of parameters related to inhibition,
selection of non-saturated or supersaturated iron
content and total acetic acid.
Steel: Input of tubing dimensions (with option for
tapered tubing), type of steel and carbon and (for
normalised steel only) chromium content.
Data Output
Output Results are displayed in the tabs; Corrosion Rate,
Risk Analysis, All Graphs and Details. The Output Results
can also be exported as text Reports and graphs can be
copied, saved or printed.

Corrosion Rate: Graphic representation of corrosion rate

vs measured depth of the tubing.
All Graphs: Graphs for pH, water flow rate, water cut,
liquid hold up, liquid velocity, gas velocity, temperature
and pressure vs distance along the tubing. Click pH to
display graphs.
Details: Additional information including fluid velocities,
composition data, expected flow pattern and sour
service requirements.
Project
The Project tab on the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to
input Project specific information. The Title and Details
fields allow entry of a description and identifying
information for the current Project. This information is
saved with other data and exported with Project outputs.
Conditions
The Conditions tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to
input Temperatures, Pressure, Gas Composition and Water
Chemistry.

Temperatures: Temperatures at wellhead and at bottom

hole are entered directly into text boxes (as °C or °F) or
by the sliders.
Pressure: Pressure at the wellhead and at bottom hole
are entered directly into text boxes (as bar or psi) or by
the sliders. Pressures are absolute pressures, not gauge
pressures.
It should be noted that a change in flow rates (see
below) should be accompanied by a change of the
pressure and temperature gradient. This is NOT done
automatically, and you are responsible for making sure
that all parameters are in reasonable agreement with
each other. The mole percent of acid gases CO2 and
H2S are entered directly into text boxes or by the
sliders. The range buttons on the right-hand side of the
sliders allow selection of appropriate composition
ranges. The software does not allow entry of CO2 and
H2S beyond certain limiting partial pressures (mol% x
total pressure).
ECE assumes that the fluid bubble point coincides with
the bottom of the tubing. Fluid bubble point is sensitive
to the composition of the well fluids and estimates of
bubble point require full fluid composition data which is
often not available, or not of the necessary accuracy. In
many cases, it is reasonable to assume the bubble-point
is at the formation depth: when a well is flowing there is
typically a significant pressure drop in the tubing
(bottom hole flowing pressure is less than bottom hole
static pressure). This will generally be a conservative
assumption as it leads to the calculated dissolved CO2
and H2S values in the lower part of the well being
higher than if the bubble point were further up the
tubing.
Water Chemistry: The bicarbonate level influences the
pH, which can be observed on the output pages. The
unit here is mg/l of HCO3- ions. It relates to the
bicarbonate present, as soluble salts of any kind, for
example, sodium, potassium, iron, after any dissolved
gases are flashed off.
Acetic Acid: Enter the total Acetic Acid value in parts per
million by weight (ppmw).
Sodium Chloride: Affects hydrogen activity, solubility of
acid gases and the Risk Ranking for sour pitting. Other
neutral salts can be treated as if NaCl; the Total
Dissolved Solids value can be entered here.
Acetic Acid: Enter the total Acetic Acid value in parts per
million by weight (ppmw).
Organic Acid: Concentration can be entered with the
text box or using the slider. Entry is as ppmw (mg/l) of
total dissolved acetic acid (both associated and non-
dissociated). Other similar organic acids (for example.
formic) can be treated as equivalent to acetic acid and
added to the input value. Since this type of information
is relatively rare, the default setting is zero.
Throughput
The Throughput tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used
to input Throughput information.

Flow rates: Flow rates for oil or gas condensate, gas

and water are entered directly or using the slider bars,
and the ranges can be changed using the Range buttons
on the right-hand end of the sliders. All values are
expressed in standard units, so are in effect mass flow
rates. The values for oil / condensate, water and gas
relate to the amounts at the wellhead, for example as
measured at a test separator.
Water Flowrate: The data input for water flow rate
relates to wellhead conditions: this is a change from
ECE 4.x. When water condensation occurs, the water
rate and water cut may vary up the tubing, and this is
calculated automatically by ECE. The Details page
displays the calculated water flow rate at bottom hole
and the Watercut at the wellhead, and the Water Flow
Rate and Watercut graphs display the water rate and
water cut through the well. A minimum water rate of
0.001 m3/d is applied throughout the depth of the well,
even if the underlying water condensation calculation
predicts zero free water along some length.
Hydrocarbon Density: The hydrocarbon density is
entered with the API Gravity text box or slider. A high
API gravity of 50 corresponds to a light gas condensate
oil. A low API density corresponds to a very heavy
crude. Conversion to specific gravity (density) g/cm3
@60degF is given (note that the density is very
temperature dependent). The SG and API gravity
inputs, and the conversion within ECE are for standard
conditions of both temperature and pressure. The API
gravity setting influences the effect of the water cut on
corrosion rates by altering the ability of the oil to
entrain water. Values of API gravity above 50 have no
further impact on the corrosion model, so for very light
oils / condensates with API gravity greater than 50, you
should input 50.
Liquid HoldUp Change: The liquid hold up (fraction of
cross-section occupied by liquids) is shown in the Liquid
Holdup Graph, and the maximum and minimum values
shown above that graph. Liquid hold up change provides
a means to manually alter the liquid hold up from the
values calculated by ECE.
When the liquid hold up change is set at 0% change the
velocities of liquid and gas are the same. The default
setting of 2% change in ECE means the gas is flowing
slightly faster than the liquid. This is the normal
situation, as the higher drag on the liquid will cause a
lower liquid velocity and an increase in liquid hold up
(the hold up change is greater than zero). This, in turn,
will increase the gas flow velocity and will tend to lower
the corrosion rate. These velocities can be seen on the
details tab for the wellhead or on the graphs of gas and
liquid velocities.
When input flow rates of liquids and gas are changed,
the absolute value of hold up of course changes. The
Liquid Holdup Change setting is maintained, however,
which means that the hold up is always adjusted to the
same percentage above the minimum possible.
In nearly all situations, we recommend that you leave
liquid hold up change at the default value.
One situation where it may be useful to alter the liquid
hold up change from the default is where values for the
hold up are available from other sources (either
modelling or field measurement). The maximum that
the liquid hold up change can be modified is up to 50%
of the available range (from the minimum hold up (gas
and liquid velocity equal) up to 100% hold up). In
practical situations, the realistic range of liquid hold up
change is normally much more restricted, probably no
more than 5-10%.
Watercut: When all the production flow rate values have
been entered, the water cut at the bottom of the tubing
will be shown by the Watercut (at bottom) value at the
bottom of the Throughput page. When the inputs for oil
or water flow rate are changed, the water cut changes
accordingly. This box and slider may also be altered to
investigate the effect of adjusting the water cut at
constant total liquid velocity. This can be useful when
the water cut is not known or likely to change, by
showing the sensitivity to this parameter, without
changing the liquid velocity at the same time.
Deviation Angles
The Deviation Angles tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is
used to input Deviation Angles. The deviation is the angle of
the tubing to the vertical, an angle of zero corresponds to
perfectly vertical tubing. The angle of deviation influences
the corrosion rate because of the effect on the water
distribution onto the tubing wall. A higher deviation often
results in a higher corrosion rate. The effect is more
noticeable at lower water contents but may be negligible for
wells with a high water cut because water wetting is then
continuous.
The modelling of flow regime and tubing deviation effects in
ECE has been developed with the benefit of real-life
corrosion experience from many production wells. It should
be noted that the treatment of flow regimes within ECE for
tubing is different than for flowlines and so a horizontal
tubing will not necessarily give an identical output to the
ECE Flowline Corrosion Predictor.

All Angles Equal: All deviations can be set to the same

value by clicking the box All angles equal, and using the
vertical slider at the right of the page to set the
deviation angle.
Position Deviation Angles: Deviation angles at positions
down the well are entered using the slider bars or the
up/down arrows on the text boxes. The deviation
information can be taken from the well deviation survey,
if that information is known. Otherwise the angle of the
well at full depth can be entered and a suitable profile
judged to the surface.
Steel
The Steel tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to
input Tubing parameters.

Entire Well: The default setting is for one production

tubing size through the whole well from wellhead to
bottom hole. In this case, the measured depth of the
tubing and the tubing outside diameter and total wall
thickness are entered under the heading Dimensions.
Tapered Tubing: A well completion with two tubing sizes
can also be modelled. To do this, select Tapered Tubing.
Additional data entry fields now become available under
the heading lower tubing dimensions. The measured
depth from wellhead to the bottom of the upper tubing
section along with the upper tubing dimensions are
entered in the upper box under the heading Upper
tubing section dimensions as before. The total
measured depth of the well (i.e. the measured depth
from the wellhead to the bottom of the lower tubing
section) are entered under lower tubing section
dimensions.
Quenched and Tempered: Chromium content (up to
1.2% max., according to API 5CT) of the carbon steel is
entered for quenched and tempered tubing. If
normalised steel is selected then the carbon content can
also be entered (up to 0.50%max.). The chemical
composition of the steel has a slight influence on the
predicted CO2 corrosion rate.
Advanced
The Advanced tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to
input Inhibition, Dissolved Fe at inlet and Erosional Velocity
of Gas information.

Inhibition: There are three options for inhibition: none

(the default), continuous or squeeze. Continuous
inhibition is modelled using the common accepted
efficiency – availability model to determine the mean
corrosion rate with inhibition treatment. The efficiency
and availability inputs both have maximum values of
99%.
For squeeze inhibition, the squeeze frequency is
entered. The inhibition effect inside the tubing is then
built up in about one month, and then reduces slowly in
about 2 months. The corrosion model adds the effect of
repeated squeezes for the calculation of the average
corrosion rate per year.
Dissolved Fe at Inlet: Dissolved Fe at inlet (i.e. bottom
hole) relates to the dissolved iron concentration in the
water at the inlet, which may be low in Fe, or may be
supersaturated with iron carbonate. There are two
options. The default setting is supersaturated.
Erosional Velocity of Gas: The value of the C-Constant
used in calculation of the Erosion Velocity can be
changed from the default values of =100 lbs/ft)^0.5/s
or c=122 (kg/m)^0.5/s. This allows you to work with
different C-values or erosional velocity limits depending
upon different User's policies. See "Erosion -Corrosion"
for more details.
Corrosion Rate Graph
The Corrosion Rate Graph displays a graph of the Corrosion
Rate and the Erosion Rate as a function of depth in the
tubing. When H2S is present, an additional line indicates
the potential pitting corrosion rate that applies if the
protective sulphide scale breaks down. The Pitting Risk Rank
is displayed as a tooltip when the cursor is positioned over
the isolated pitting line. (the Pitting Risk Rank is also
included in the Corrosion Predictor Report, see Reporting)
The mouse can be used to select and zoom in on areas of
the graph. Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see
Reporting and Printing for details.
All Graphs
The All Graphs tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to
select parameters to be displayed in the graph over Tubing
Length (ft). The default graph displayed is the Corrosion
Rate (US) graph. The maximum and minimum values are
also reported at the top-right of the selected graph. The
mouse can be used to select and zoom in on areas of the
graph. Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see
Reporting and Printing for details.

pH: Displays pH value over Tubing Length (ft).

Water Flow Rate: Displays Water Flow Rate (m3/d) over

Tubing Length (ft).
Water Cut: Displays Water Cut (%) over Tubing Length
(ft).
Liquid HoldUp: Displays Liquid HoldUp (% cross section)
over Tubing Length (ft).
Liquid Velocity: Displays Liquid Velocity (m/s) over
Tubing Length (ft).
Gas Velocity: Displays Gas Velocity (m/s) over Tubing
Length (ft).
Pressure: Displays Pressure (bar) over Tubing Length
(ft).
Temperature: Displays Temperature (°C) over Tubing
Length (ft).
Details
The Details tab of the Tubing Erosion Predictor is used to
view Output Details for the selected Tubing Erosion
Prediction Project.

At Wellhead: Gas to Oil ratio and water cut at the

wellhead are reported here, together with values for the
liquid and gas velocity at the wellhead. This allows a
quick check that the flowrates are reasonable, typically
a few m/s for liquid, and no more than about 20 m/s for
gas. The water in at bottom hole is reported: this value
was input data in ECE 4.x, but is a calculated value in
ECE.
Velocities at Wellhead: The erosional gas velocity at the
wellhead according to API RP 14E is also reported.
When this velocity is exceeded, the effects of protection
by carbonate layers, inhibitor films and sulphide layers
are set to zero. This only happens when the flow
pattern is reported to be Annular Mistflow. In other
cases it will report "N/A" ("not applicable").
Flow Pattern: The flow pattern evaluation is restricted to
Bubble/Slug Flow, Annular Mist flow and Liquid-full for
the purpose of corrosion rate calculations.
Sour Service: The sour service region applicable to
sulphide stress cracking according to ISO 15156 part 2
is reported: either "No" (i.e. Region 0), Region 1,
Region 2 or Region 3.
Partial Pressures at Wellhead: Partial pressures (not
fugacities) of CO2 and H2S at the outlet are reported in
metric and US customary units, along with the
concentration of H2S in ppm (vol).
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator
The Tubing Life Cycle Calculator is used to make an
economic comparison of various corrosion control options
for tubing; Carbon Steel, Corrosion Resistant Alloy, Carbon
Steel with Continuous Inhibition and Carbon Steel with
Squeeze Inhibition.

Life Cycle Cost Calculation: The can be used to carry out

a cost comparison on completion of a corrosion analysis
and CRA material selection, or it can be used totally
independently by overwriting all the input field data with
new information for any case being investigated.
LCC Evaluation: The LCC evaluation is helpful to
compare the cost of certain options, but it is not a full
costing exercise and cannot be used for estimating the
actual costs of projects. Many significant costs which
are basically the same regardless of the corrosion
control option chosen are not included in the Tubing
LCC, because they do not affect the comparison
between the different options. All costs are indicated in
dollars ($). However, any other currency unit could be
used so long as the same currency is used for all inputs.
Data Input
Input Values are added to the Tubing LCC using the tabs on
the left; Production, Tubing Details, Financial and Inhibition.
Default Values are loaded when the Tubing LCC is launched.
Enter the required values to display the Output Results.
Input Values for the Tubing LCC are not derived from the
Tubing Corrosion Predictor, nor are they linked to the Tubing
Corrosion Predictor.

Production: Used to enter the Oil Production Rate, Gas

Production rate and Expected Life of Well into the LCC.
Tubing Details: Used to enter the Tubing Length,
Diameter, Wall Thickness and Corrosion Rate.
Financial: Used to enter Material and Workover Costs.

Inhibition: Used to enter the Inhibition or Glycol

Injection costs and the Squeeze Treatment. The LCC
considers the costs of inhibiting by either continuous
injection of chemicals or by squeeze inhibition. The
latter is normally considered only for oil wells and not
for gas wells.
Tubing Life Cycle Calculator Report
The Tubing Life Cycle Calculator Report option is used to
display the Tubing Life Cycle Calculation Results produced
by the Tubing Life Cycle Calculator.

With the Tubing Life Cycle Calculator open, select File,

Tubing Life Cycle Calculator Report.
Production
The Production tab is used to enter the Oil Production Rate,
Gas Production rate and Expected Life of Well into the LCC.
Tubing Details
The Tubing Details tab is used to enter the Tubing Length,
Diameter, Wall Thickness and Corrosion Rate.

Tubing Length: The Tubing Length is entered at the top

of the page.
Dimensions: Dimensions are entered for both Carbon
Steel and CRA options: different tubing outside
diameter and wall thickness can be entered for each
option.
Corrosion Rate: The Corrosion Rate (without inhibition)
can be entered in mm/yr or mils/yr using the boxes, or
with the slider bar. Conversion between mm and mils is
automatic.
Inhibition
The Inhibition tab is used to enter the Inhibition or Glycol
Injection costs and the Squeeze Treatment. The LCC
considers the costs of inhibiting by either continuous
injection of chemicals or by squeeze inhibition. The latter is
normally considered only for oil wells and not for gas wells.

Continuous Inhibition: Continuous inhibition requires

some capital expenditure to provide for inhibitor
injection equipment, topside and downhole, and tanks
for inhibitor storage. These costs are entered under
Injection Equipment Cost. The LCC model includes this
expenditure in the capital cost of installation in the
inhibited carbon steel cases.
Continuous inhibition also has associated annual
operating costs for the purchase of the chemicals and
solvents being injected and also the annual cost of the
labour to keep control of the system and ensure
inhibitor tanks are kept filled. These are entered against
Chemical Cost and Labour Cost.
These costs are added for each year of operation, with
future costs multiplied by the coefficient 1/(1+i)n which
actualizes the costs to their net present value.
Squeeze Inhibition: Squeeze inhibition does not have
any major capital expenditure but does have a cost
associated with each squeeze treatment. This has to
cover hire of the labour and equipment, cost of the
chemicals plus 24-48 hours lost production. These costs
are entered against Total Cost per squeeze. The cost of
a single squeeze treatment is often known for a specific
locality.
Initial values are provided for these input values, but
these should be overwritten with accurate information if
it is available.
Inhibited Corrosion Rate: The calculation of the LCC
associated with inhibition requires the inhibited
corrosion rate to be estimated to determine the time at
which tubing replacement may be required.
For this purpose, the uninhibited corrosion rate is
reduced to one tenth for the continuous inhibition case.
This implies quite a high level of availability (>90%)
and so the costs required for the inhibitor and solvent
and for the labour to maintain and operate such a
system would be quite high.
For the squeeze inhibitor case the frequency of
inhibition is taken to be 3 times per year and the
availability is taken to be 70%.
Financial
The Financial tab is used to enter Material and Workover
Costs. The LCC calculator calculates the net present value of
the future operating costs and workover costs. The discount
rate used will vary, not only for different companies, but
also potentially for different projects. The Real Discount
Rate, which is entered in the LCC Input, should be the
current discount (or interest rate) minus the inflation rate to
give the effective real discount rate. Costs are calculated up
to the anticipated end of life of the project so this project
life is a required input value.

Material Cost: Prices are required for the carbon steel

and for the selected alloy production tubing. The price
of production tubing is usually expressed in $/ft. This
means that the cost of tubing changes both with alloy
type and also with diameter and wall thickness. The
cost also depends upon the selected strength grade.
The program automatically gives the price of the CRA
tubing as 3X the price of the carbon steel as a starting
point. Prices are subject to change with time and
depend upon the demand for a given product. For these
reasons it is important to obtain up-to-date prices!
Workover Costs: In selecting material for production
tubing the option exists to use carbon steel (with or
without inhibitor) with planned replacement just before
the tubing leaks. This implies that there will be a
workover which has the following costs associated with
it:
Replacement Tubing Cost: Automatically calculated by
ECE from the length and $/ft cost value given on Tubing
Details and Financial Pages.
Hire Costs: The cost of hiring the team and equipment.
This is the ‘workover cost, $/day’. A value $150,000/day
is predefined for this input, but this can be overwritten
with accurate information if it is available.
Production Value: The value of production which is
deferred during a workover. This is calculated from the
workover duration and the product prices entered on
this page, and the production rates entered on the
Production Page. When the amount of gas production is
limited, the value of lost production can best be
calculated just from the oil price. Up to date prices
should be obtained for specific projects.
Net Present Value
The Net Present Value (NPV) is displayed on the right side
of the LCC and displays the changing cost of the CRA and
carbon steel options as a function of time, up to the given
life of the project. The graph shows the CRA option as a
straight line. This is because there are no operating costs
calculated for this material option, as there is no need for
inhibitor injection.
The carbon steel option has no annual operating cost, in
this model, so there is no increase in the costs on an annual
basis. Hence the graph is horizontal, unless a workover and
tubing replacement is required, which shows as a step in
the NPV graph. At this point the costs arise for the tubing
replacement, workover and deferred production. These
costs reduce for later years because of the time value of
money and so the jumps become progressively less large.
Note that with very high corrosion rate values the tubing
replacements may be so frequent that the graph may
appear to be a continuously rising line.
In practice there would be some annual costs arising from
operations, inspection and monitoring, but these are
assumes to be roughly equivalent for the different tubing
options.
The carbon steel + inhibitor lines show an annual increase
because of the operating costs. Costs later in the future are
less than costs today, so the slope of the lines gradually
becomes less steep in later years. Again, if tubing
replacement is expected there will be a jump in the graph
for the workover costs.
The most economic material option is the one that is lowest
in cost (the lowest line) at the end of the required project
life.
Life Cycle Cost Calculation
The Life Cycle Cost Calculation is the mathematical
definition of the Life Cycle Cost.
The usual economic method of dealing with inflation and the
time-cost of money is to make all the calculations in terms
of value in year zero. The coefficient 1/(1+i)n reduces the
actual cash value in year n to its net present value. It
should be noted that this coefficient is < 1 which accounts
for the time value of the money.
The discount rate, i, will vary, not only for different
companies, but potentially for different projects. Net
present values should always be quoted with the year of
starting and the discount rate used. The Real Discount Rate
which is entered in the LCC Input tabs should be the current
interest rate minus the inflation rate to give the real
effective discount rate.
The Life Cycle Cost symbols have the following meanings:

LCC: Life Cycle Cost

AC: Initial acquisition cost of materials

IC: Initial installation costs (including fabrication)

OC: Operating +/or maintenance costs

LP: Lost production costs during downtime

RC: Replacement materials costs

SC: Residual value of replaced materials

N: Desired life time (years)

i: Discount rate

n: Year of the event

Tubing CRA Evaluator
The Tubing CRA Evaluator is used to evaluate Tubing
Conditions against technical acceptability.

Alloys for Production Tubing: Describes Alloys for

Production Tubing. Includes a range of typical tubing
alloys suitable for a range of environmental conditions.
Composition of Tubing Alloys: Displays the Composition
of Tubing Alloys table.
MSS - Standard 13Cr: Describes MSS - Standard 13Cr
martensitic steel (typically AISI 410 or 420) which has
been widely applied in sweet wells internationally.
MSS - Low Carbon 13Cr: Describes MSS - Low Carbon
13Cr, MSS's are highly resistant to corrosion in sweet
environments. The standard 13Cr grades have been
widely applied for downhole tubing and their corrosion
characteristics are well characterized.
22Cr and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels: Describes 22Cr
and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels, these are highly
resistant to corrosion in sweet environments.
Alloy 28: Describes Alloy 28, which is used in the solid
form for production tubing.
Alloy 2550: Describes Alloy 2550 which is used in the
solid form for production tubing.
Alloy C276: Describes Alloy C276, which is used in the
solid form for production tubing.
Alloy 825: Describes Alloy 825, which is used in solid
form for downhole tubing.
Using the Tubing CRA Evaluator
The Tubing CRA Evaluator is used to evaluate Tubing
Conditions against technical acceptability. ECE offers two
alternative evaluation schemes; evaluation based on ISO
15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 and evaluation based on
selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE Rules). The
limits are assessed based upon the following input data;
Temperature (°C or °F), Pressure (psia or bara), CO2
(mol% in gas phase), H2S (mol% in gas phase), Chloride
Content ( mol% NaCl or ppmw Cl-) Bicarbonate content,
(ppmw) and organic acid content (ppmw).

Tubing Conditions: The Tubing Conditions are input on

the left-hand side of the CRA Evaluator. All the values
can be altered by moving the sliders, entering figures
directly into the boxes or using the up/down arrows on
the boxes.
Traffic Lights: The suitability of the alloys in a given
environment is indicated by Traffic Light indicators on
the right.
ECE Evaluation Rules: The limits of use of the different
alloys are defined in terms of their resistance to
corrosion in sweet conditions and Corrosion and
cracking in sour environments. There is no minimum
value partial pressure of H2S which has to be exceeded
for the environment to be referred to as Sour, the
performance of CRA's is checked against limits defined
for each alloy individually as soon as any level of H2S is
present. The basis of the ECE rules is explained on the
help pages for the individual alloys.
ISO 15156-3 Evaluation Rules: The limits of use of the
different alloys are defined only in terms of their
resistance to failure by stress corrosion cracking in sour
environments (containing both CO2 and H2S). Failure
by corrosion either in sweet conditions (containing CO2
but free of H2S) or in sour conditions is not necessarily
covered by the ISO 15156-3 rules.
Environmental Details: The CRA Evaluator reports the
partial pressures of CO2 and of H2S in bar and psi
based on the input pressure and mol% CO2 and H2S. It
also reports the pH value calculated either at room
temperature (20°C) or at the in-situ temperature and
pressure. These values are utilized for the evaluation of
the suitability of certain CRA's.
Metallurgical Condition: The Tubing CRA Evaluator
assumes that the alloy is in the normal product form
and metallurgical condition appropriate for tubing. This
includes the cold-worked conditions for those alloys
where this is the normal condition used for tubing. The
assessment results may not be applicable for alloys in
other metallurgical conditions or for other product forms
(for example, castings). The different CRA's have
different mechanical properties. You should be aware of
the need to consider the different strength of alloys,
which will affect the required wall thickness.
Reporting: To produce a Report chose menu item File -
Tubing Alloy Evaluation Report. The Report is produced
in a new window.
Note on pH calculation: ISO 15156-3 requires the
selection to be based on in-situ pH (at the service
pressure and temperature). This is nearly always a
calculated value, both in field data and in laboratory
data, due to the difficulties of making direct
measurements. Laboratory data often includes a
measured value for pH at ambient temperature, and
ECE also reports the calculated value at 20°C for
comparison.
Tubing Alloy Evaluator Report
The Tubing Alloy Evaluator Report option is used to display
the Tubing Alloy Results produced by the Tubing CRA
Evaluator.

With the Tubing CRA Evaluator open, select File, Tubing

Alloy Evaluator Report.
Alloys for Production Tubing
Alloys for Production Tubing includes a range of typical
tubing alloys suitable for a range of environmental
conditions.

Martensitic Stainless Steel: Two martensitic stainless

steels are included. The standard 13Cr grade (which is
typically AISI 410 or AISI 420) is widely applied
(typically as an L80 grade strength) for its resistance to
CO2 corrosion. The more highly alloyed, lower carbon
content Super-13Cr grades are typically used at a
higher strength level (for example, C95) and have been
promoted for wells that are experiencing some souring.
However, the limits of application of these materials in
environments containing H2S has been kept rather
limited in ECE.
Duplex Stainless Steel: Duplex stainless steels with
either 22Cr or 25Cr content are used for applications
where higher strength is required, potentially with
resistance to slightly higher levels of H2S.
Presence of H2S: When there is significant H2S present
then groups of more highly alloyed metals are used.
Composition of Tubing Alloys
The Composition of Tubing Alloys table describes the
composition for each of the Tubing Alloys.

C% Cr% Ni% Mo% N% Mn% Others%

MSS

11.5-
13Cr 0.15 - - -
13.5

S-13Cr
10.5- 0.012 1.30
(various 0.015 1.5-7.0 0-3.0 Cu
13.5 max. max.
ranges)

22CrDSS

21.0- 4.50- 2.50- 0.08- 2.00

S31803 0.030
23.0 6.50 3.50 0.20 max.

22.0- 4.50- 3.00- 0.14- 2.00

S32205 0.030
23.0 6.50 3.50 0.20 max.

25CrDSS

24.0- 4.50- 2.00- 0.10- 1.50 Cu 1.50-

S32550 0.040
27.0 6.50 4.00 0.25 max. 2.50

Cu 0.20-
24.0- 5.50- 2.50- 0.10- 1.0 0.80
S31260 0.030
26.0 7.50 3.50 0.30 max. W 0.10-
0.50

24.0- 5.50- 1.20- 0.14- 1.0

S31200 0.030
26.0 6.50 2.00 0.20 max.

S32520 0.030 24.0- 5.50- 3.0- 0.20- 1.5 Cu 0.50-

 26.0 8.0 5.0 0.35 max. 3.00

24.0- 3.0- 0.24- 1.2

S32750 0.030 6.0-8.0
26.0 5.0 0.32 max

Cu 0.5-
24.0- 3.0- 0.20- 1.0 1.0
S32760 0.030 6.0-8.0
26.0 4.0 0.30 max. W 0.5-
1.0

Cu 0.20-
24.0- 2.50- 0.24- 1.0 0.80
S39274 0.030 6.0-8.0
26.0 3.50 0.32 max. W 1.5-
2.5

Nickel-Base Alloys

N088028 26- 29.5- 2 Cu 0.6-

0.03 3-4 -
(28) 28 32.5 max. 1.4

N08825 19.5- 2.5- 1

0.05 38-46 -
(825) 23.5 3.5 max.

Cu 1
Alloy 20- 1 max.
0.02 50-52 9-11 -
2050 22 max. W1
max.

N06985 Fe 19.5
22 44 7.0
(G3) Cu 2.0

N06950 Fe 17
20 50 9
(G50) W 0.7

Fe4-7
N10276 14.5- 1 C0 2.5
0.02 Balance 15-17 -
(C276) 16 max. W 3.0-
4.5
* The composition given for the martensitic stainless steels
(MSS) is very broad as there is a wide range of
compositions available from different manufacturers.
MSS - Standard 13Cr
The MSS - Standard 13Cr martensitic steel (typically AISI
410 or 420) has been widely applied in sweet wells
internationally.

Standard 13Cr Limits: The limits of environmental

parameters for these materials were originally published
by B.D. Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and
Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073.
This figure defined the updated (2011, Smith) limits of
use of the 13Cr grades used for downhole tubing.
Sour Environments: In hydrogen sulfide containing
environments 13Cr tubing may crack by a sulfide stress
cracking mechanism. The resistance to sulfide stress
cracking has been evaluated as a function of pH and
partial pressure of H2S (M.B. Kermani et al, NACE
Corrosion 91, LM Smith, Martensitic Stainless Steel
Pipe, a report for sponsors, pub. by Intetech Ltd, Jan
2000). The latest consensus from laboratory work and
field data shows that standard API 13Cr L80 can
tolerate a little higher H2S than early publications
seemed to suggest. The transition region between the
non-cracking and cracking regions of the graph is
indicated by an amber light.
Limits for 13Cr MSS in Sour Service: The risk of
cracking by hydrogen embrittlement is highest at
ambient temperature. Even though wells operate at
higher temperatures the cracking risk is evaluated
based upon room temperature cracking criteria since
the tubing may be pulled out of the well and cool down
whilst still being saturated with hydrogen from its
exposure to corrosive conditions. This could cause the
tubing to crack, possibly during a workover. For
situations where tubing is already in the well (and
therefore at a higher temperature) and conditions are
gradually souring, it may be possible to use the tubing
at higher levels of H2S than this CRA Evaluator would
allow. This requires an analysis of test data at higher
temperatures or laboratory evaluation.
MSS - Low Carbon 13Cr
The MSS - Low Carbon 13Cr, MSS's are highly resistant to
corrosion in sweet environments. The standard 13Cr grades
have been widely applied for downhole tubing and their
corrosion characteristics are well characterized.
The Super-13Cr grades have much lower carbon content
which means that there is more chromium available in the
metal to provide corrosion resistance. Many of the Super
13Cr’s also have additional molybdenum alloying which
further enhances their corrosion resistance in sweet
conditions.
A comparison of the corrosion data in the literature, with
the limits established for shows that the corrosion rates for
steels with the composition of the Super 13Cr grades are
typically one order of magnitude lower (LM Smith,
Martensitic Stainless Steel Pipe, a report for sponsors, pub.
by Intetech Ltd, Jan 2000).
As a first approximation, it is estimated that adding 30°C to
the temperature limit for the standard 13Cr material can
represent the limit of use of the Super 13Cr grades in sweet
conditions. Thus, for the purposes of this program, the limit
of use of the Super 13Cr in sweet conditions is taken to be
the same as for the standard 13Cr grades, but with the
temperature increased by 30°C. This is believed to be quite
a conservative approach, and one which should be refined
as more data becomes available.

Sour Environments: Individual proprietary grades of

Super 13Cr MSS can show quite a wide range of
properties in sour conditions. In some cases superior
cracking resistance may be noted compared to standard
13Cr, but in many cases the cracking resistance is
poorer, one factor being the generally higher yield
strength of the Super 13Cr grades. The Sour
Environments figure indicates a safe range for cracking
resistance for the majority of alloys; individual alloys
may be qualified for more aggressive conditions by
testing or review of appropriate data.
22Cr and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels
22Cr and 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels's are highly resistant
to corrosion in sweet environments. The limits of
environmental parameters for 22Cr DSS were established
by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas
Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. These
alloys show little sensitivity to partial pressure of CO2 and a
simplified version of Craig’s proposal is used in this
program.
The higher alloyed 25Cr grade would be expected to show
even greater resistance to general corrosion in sweet
conditions and so the limits have been taken, arbitrarily, to
be 20°C higher than the limits of the 22Cr grade in the
Limits of Duplex Stainless Steels graph.
With H2S present consideration has to be given to the risk
of cracking. Duplex stainless steels are most sensitive to
cracking at 80-110°C and so test data at that temperature
has been checked to establish the safe environmental limits.
Cracking is also dependent on the pH and on the chloride
content. The pH value is taken at room temperature since
this is the value reported for the laboratory test data on
which the limits are based.
The degree of cold-work and strength level also has a
strong effect on resistance to cracking. The limits in ECE are
applicable to tubing with specified minium yield stress
(SMYS) no greater than 125 ksi.
The H2S Limits for 22Cr Duplex Stainless Steels graph
displays the limits of H2S as a function of pH and chloride
content are provided.
The Proposed Limits for 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels graph
displays limits that were established in a review of
laboratory test data on duplex stainless steels carried out
by Shell.
Alloy 28
Alloy 28 is used in the solid form for production tubing. The
limits of environmental parameters for Alloy 28 in terms of
partial pressure of H2S, partial pressure of CO2 and
temperature were established by Craig in Corrosion
Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry, NiDI Technical
Series Publication 10073. The Alloy 28 graph assumes that
there is a significant level (about 100g/l) of chloride
present.
Alloy 2550
Alloy 2550 is used in the solid form for production tubing.
The limits of environmental parameters for Alloy 2550 in
terms of partial pressure of H2S, partial pressure of CO2
and temperature were established by Craig in Corrosion
Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry NiDI Technical
Series Publication 10073. The Environment Limits for Alloy
2550 graph assumes that there is a significant level of
chloride present i.e. about 100g/l. Alloy 2550 is utilized in
the ECE Evaluator as being typical of the performance of a
group of alloys including Alloy G3.
Alloy C276
Alloy C276 is used in the solid form for production tubing.
The limits of environmental parameters for Alloy C276 in
terms of partial pressure of H2S, partial pressure of CO2
and temperature were established by Craig in Corrosion
Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry, NiDI Technical
Series Publication 10073. The Environmental Limits of Alloy
C276 graph assumes that there is a significant level of
chloride present i.e. about 100g/l.
Alloy C276 is utilized in the ECE Evaluator as being typical
of the performance of a group of alloys including Alloy C22
and Alloy G50. These alloys are also capable of withstanding
corrosion in conditions containing elemental sulfur.
Alloy 825
Alloy 825 is used in solid form for downhole tubing. The
limits of environmental parameters for Alloy 825 in terms of
partial pressure of H2S, partial pressure of CO2 and
temperature were established by Craig in Corrosion
Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry NiDI Technical
Series Publication 10073. A simplified version is used in the
ECE Evaluator since there is little dependence on CO2. The
Alloy 825 graph assumes that there is a significant level of
chloride present i.e. about 100g/l.
Flowline Corrosion Prediction Tools
The Flowline Corrosion Prediction Tools options are:

Flowline Corrosion Predictor: Used to predict the

internal corrosion rate of a carbon steel flowline. The
corrosion model estimates the corrosion caused by the
presence of water with dissolved CO2, which is modified
by the presence of other chemicals like H2S and
carbonate/bicarbonate salts. The background to the
model is described in Corrosion Model Background.
Flowline CRA Evaluator: Used to evaluate Flowline
Conditions against technical acceptability. ECE offers
two alternative evaluation schemes; Evaluation based
on ISO 15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 or Evaluation
based on selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE
Rules).
Flowline Life Cycle Calculator: Used to make an
economic comparison of various corrosion control
options for a flowline, Carbon Steel, Carbon Steel with
Chemical Inhibition and Corrosion Resistant Alloy.
Flowline CRA Manufacturers: Used to select Flowline
CRA Manufacturers from a database of tubing suppliers
(refers to primary international manufacturers).
Bulk Calculation: Used to load multiple flowline values
for calculation into ECE.
Flowline CRA Manufacturers
Flowline CRA Manufacturers can be selected from a
database of tubing suppliers (refers to primary international
manufacturers). Details of stockists are not included. The
list of manufacturers, contact details, materials and sizes
offered is based on public information and believed to be
correct at the release date of the software or latest
upgrade. Wood Group do not endorse suppliers included in
the listings or imply any criticism if a supplier is not present
in the listings.

From the Flowline Tools menu, select CRA

Manufacturers.
Select an alloy from the left-hand list by clicking with
the left mouse button.
Select a tubing diameter to display the list of companies
making tubing in that alloy and diameter.
Select the required supplier to display the contact
details for the selected supplier.
Flowline Corrosion Predictor Report
The Flowline Corrosion Predictor Report option is used to
display the Flowline Corrosion Prediction Results as either a
Full Report, Summary Report or as a Data Table.

With the Flowline Corrosion Predictor open, select File,

Flowline Corrosion Prediction Report to display the
shortcut menu.
Select the required option, Full, Summary or Data
Table.
Full Report: Displays the Flowline Corrosion Prediction
as a Full Report. Click Export to Excel to open Microsoft
Excel with the Full Report displayed.
Summary Report: Displays the Flowline Corrosion
Prediction as a Summary Report. Click Export to Excel
to open Microsoft Excel with the Summary Report
displayed.
Data Table: Displays the Flowline Corrosion Prediction in
Microsoft Excel as a Data Table.
Data Input
The Flowline Corrosion Predictor requires the input of
various operational parameters to display the output
results. Default Values are loaded when the Flowline
Corrosion Predictor is launched. The Input Values can be
entered in metric or customary engineering units, or a
mixture of units. ECE automatically converts and displays
the equivalent values as you enter the data. A Range can
be specified using the Ranges button. If the conditions for a
project are outside the allowed ranges then you may still
utilise the Flowline CRA Evaluator for material selection.

Sections: Allows the entry of flowline elevation, heat

transfer factor and ambient temperature as a function
of distance.
Project: Input of identification details, flowline
dimensions and steel carbon content.
Conditions: Input of temperature, pressure, gas
composition and water chemistry.
Throughput: Input of oil, gas and water production
rates, density of crude oil and optional variation in
water cut at constant total liquid velocity.
Advanced: Input of parameters related to inhibition,
glycol injection, selection of non-saturated or
supersaturated iron content.
Data Output
Output Results are displayed in the tabs; Corrosion Rate,
Risk Analysis, All Graphs and Details. The Output Results
can also be exported as text Reports and graphs can be
copied, saved or printed.

Corrosion Rate: Graphical representation of corrosion

rate vs distance along the flowline, giving the corrosion
rate at the bottom and the top of the line (when
applicable).
Risk Analysis: Risk of failure as function of time.

All Graphs: Graphs for pH, water flow rate, water cut,
liquid hold up, liquid velocity, gas velocity, glycol
concentration, temperature, pressure, corrosion rate &
flow regime, and heat transfer factors; all versus
distance along the pipeline.
Details: Additional information including velocities,
composition data, expected flow pattern and sour
service requirements.
Project
The Project tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to
input Project information into the Flowline Corrosion
Predictor.

Project Details: The Title and Details fields allow entry

of a description and identifying information for the
current Project. This information is saved with other
data and exported with Project outputs.
Pipe Dimensions: These may be typed directly into text
boxes or entered by the sliders. Input can be done in
metric or US customary units: conversion between
these is automatic. If data is entered on the Sections
tab, flowline length cannot be entered here, ECE will
display a confirmation message.
Steel: Carbon content of the steel can be entered.
Conditions
The Conditions tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is
used to input Temperature, Pressure, Gas Composition and
Water Chemistry information into the Flowline Corrosion
Predictor.

Temperature: There are two options for the flowline

temperature profile. If Use straight-line temperature
profile is chosen, the inlet and outlet temperatures
should be entered. Alternatively, the Calculate
Temperature Profile option can be chosen. The resulting
temperature profile can be seen on the All Graphs –
Temperature view. Inputs can be in °C or °F, and
conversion between these alternatives is automatic. If
data is entered on the Sections tab, temperature data
cannot be entered here, ECE will display a confirmation
message.
Calculate Temperature Profile: The Calculate
Temperature Profile option should be chosen in order to
model Top-of-Line corrosion rates. If the Calculate
Temperature Profile option is chosen, the software
calculates the temperature profile from the inlet
temperature, ambient temperature, the Heat Transfer
Factor and the data entered on the Throughput page.
Pressure: Pressure at in- and outlet of the flowline are
entered directly into text boxes (as bar or psi) or by the
sliders. Pressures are absolute pressures, not gauge
pressures.
Gas Composition: The molecular fraction of acid gases
CO2 and H2S are entered directly into text boxes or by
the sliders. The range buttons on the right-hand side of
the sliders allow selection of appropriate composition
ranges. The software does not allow entry of CO2 and
H2S beyond certain limiting partial pressures (for
example, mol% x total pressure).
Water Chemistry: The bicarbonate level influences the
pH, which can be observed on the output pages. The
unit here is mg/l of HCO3- ions. It relates to the
bicarbonate present, as soluble salts of any kind for
example, sodium, potassium or iron, after any dissolved
gases are flashed off.
Acetic Acid: Enter the total Acetic Acid value in parts per
million by weight (ppmw).
Sodium Chloride: Affects hydrogen activity, solubility of
acid gases and the Risk Ranking for sour pitting. Other
neutral salts can be treated as if NaCl (for example, the
Total Dissolved Solids value can be entered here).
Throughput
The Throughput tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is
used to input Crude Oil/Condensate, Gas, Water, Holdup
and Watercut information into the Flowline Corrosion
Predictor.

Flowrates: Mass flow rates for oil or gas condensate,

gas and water are entered directly or using the slider
bars, and the ranges can be changed using the Range
buttons on the right-hand end of the sliders. All values
relate to rates at the flowline inlet, and the water rate is
for liquid water only, not including any water in the
vapour phase. All values are expressed in standard
units, i.e. volumes that would be occupied at standard
conditions of pressure and temperature, NOT volumes
at the process condition. Where water condensation is
occurring, the water (liquid) rate may vary along the
flowline. The Details page displays the calculated water
flow rate at the flowline outlet, and the All Graphs –
Water Flow Rate displays the water rate along the line.
API Gravity: The hydrocarbon density is entered with
the API Gravity text box or slider. A high API gravity of
50 corresponds to a light gas condensate oil. A low API
density corresponds to a very heavy crude. Conversion
to specific gravity (density) in g/cm3 @60degF is given
(note that the density is very temperature dependent).
The SG and API gravity inputs, and the conversion
within ECE, are for standard conditions of both
temperature and pressure. The API gravity setting
influences the effect of the water cut on corrosion rates
by altering the ability of the oil to entrain water. Values
of API gravity above 50 have no further impact on the
corrosion model, so for very light oils / condensates
with API gravity greater than 50, you should input 50.
Liquid Holdup Change: The liquid hold up (fraction of
cross-section occupied by liquids) is shown in the Liquid
Holdup Graph, and the maximum and minimum values
shown above that graph. Liquid hold up change provides
a means to manually alter the liquid hold up from the
values calculated by ECE.
When the liquid hold up change is set at 0% Change the
velocities of liquid and gas are the same. The default
setting of 2% change in ECE means the gas is flowing
slightly faster than the liquid. This is the normal
situation, as the higher drag on the liquid will cause a
lower liquid velocity and an increase in liquid hold up
(the hold up change is greater than zero). This, in turn,
will increase the gas flow velocity and will tend to lower
the corrosion rate. These velocities can be seen on the
details tab for the wellhead or on the graphs of gas and
liquid velocities.
When input flow rates of liquids and gas are changed,
the absolute value of hold up of course changes. The
Liquid Holdup Change setting is maintained, however,
which means that the hold up is always adjusted to the
same percentage above the minimum possible. In
nearly all situations, it is recommended that you leave
liquid hold up change at the default value.
One situation where it may be useful to alter the liquid
hold up change from the default is where values for the
hold up are available from other sources (either
modelling or field measurement). The maximum that
the liquid hold up change can be modified is up to 50%
of the available range (from the minimum hold up (gas
and liquid velocity equal) up to 100% hold up). In
practical situations, the realistic range of liquid hold up
change is normally much more restricted, probably no
more than 5-10%.
Watercut: When all the production flow rate values have
been entered, thewater cut at inlet of the line will be
shown by the Watercut (at inlet) value at the bottom of
the Throughput page. When the inputs for oil or water
flow rate are changed, the water cut changes
accordingly. This box and slider may also be altered to
investigate the effect of adjusting the water cut at
constant total liquid velocity. This can be useful when
the water cut is not known or likely to change, by
showing the sensitivity to this parameter, without
changing the liquid velocity at the same time.
Details: Displays the water cut at the outlet and the
Watercut graph shows the water cut along the whole
line.
Low Spot Water Dropout: The button Low Spot Water
Dropout can be used when ECE predicts that water is
entrained in the oil phase, but you want to investigate
the impact of local water dropout. ECE evaluates
whether or not entrainment occurs on the basis of a
perfectly horizontal flowline, but in practice there can to
be low spots in a line which enhance the likelihood of
water separating from the oil. Clicking this button will
override ECE's prediction that the water is entrained, so
that the effect of a separate water phase can be seen
throughout the length of the line. As a warning that this
override is switched on, the button will become red, and
a warning is displayed under the corrosion graph on the
right-hand side of the window. This evaluation mode
can be switched off by clicking the button again.
If the water is not entrained in an oil/water system (low
velocity stratified flow), this option has no function and
the button is shaded.
Advanced
The Advanced tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is
used to input the Glycol Injection Rate, Inhibition, the
Dissolved FE at Inlet and the Erosional Velocity of Gas
information into the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.

Glycol Injection Rate: The Glycol injection rate

influences the concentration of the glycol in the water
carried by the pipeline. This concentration is calculated
along the length of the pipe while being diluted by water
condensing from the gas and can be seen on the Glycol
Concentration Graph. The injected glycol is
conservatively assumed to be DEG (diethylene glycol) of
95% purity. The effect of other glycols like MEG is
similar. The resulting concentration of the DEG at the
outlet is shown under the Details page.
Inhibition: The effect of an inhibitor is modelled using
the common accepted efficiency – availability model to
determine the mean corrosion rate with inhibition
treatment. The efficiency and availability inputs both
have maximum values of 99.
Dissolved Fe at inlet: Dissolved Fe at inlet relates to the
dissolved iron concentration in the water at the inlet,
which may be low in Fe, or may be supersaturated with
iron carbonate. There are two options. The default
setting is supersaturated, assuming that the water has
been flowing through carbon steel equipment for some
distance before entering the flowline: this would be
appropriate if the fluids come from a well completed
with carbon steel production tubing for example. When
most of the water comes from condensation from water
vapour in gas, this setting should be changed to none,
which can lead to increased corrosion rates for a short
distance at the inlet region. This would be appropriate
for a gas overhead line from a separator vessel for
example.
Erosional Velocity of Gas: The value of the C-Constant
used in calculation of the Erosion Velocity can be
changed from the default values of =100 lbs/ft)^0.5/s
or c=122 (kg/m)^0.5/s. This allows you to work with
different C-values or erosional velocity limits depending
upon different User's policies. See Erosion-Corrosion for
more details.
Corrosion Rate Graph
The Corrosion Rate Graph tab of the Flowline Corrosion
Predictor displays the Flowline Corrosion Rate Graph,
Corrosion Rate (mm/year) over Distance (km) along the
flowline.

Stratified Flow: In the case of stratified flow, with the

top of the line wetted by liquid condensing from the
gas, the corrosion rates at the bottom and the top of
the line are different, and two lines will be shown in the
corrosion graph. When the flow pattern is not stratified,
the line for the top-of-line corrosion will automatically
disappear. The highest estimated corrosion rate is
reported separately at the top of the graph.
Presence of H2S: When H2S is present, an additional
line indicates the potential pitting corrosion rate that
applies if the protective sulphide scale breaks down. The
Pitting Risk Rank is displayed as a tooltip when the
cursor is positioned over the isolated pitting line.
Zoom: The cursor can be used to select and zoom in on
areas of the graph.
Actions: Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see
Reporting and Printing for details.
Risk Analysis
The Risk Analysis tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor
displays a graph of accumulated risk of failure vs. time. For
its construction, it is assumed that the calculated corrosion
rates have a normal distribution with a standard deviation
of 25% (see Risk of Failure for details). In the presence of
H2S, the arbitrary assumption has been made that there is
a 25% risk that the protective sulphide layer fails.

Zoom: The mouse can be used to select and zoom in on

areas of the graph.
Actions: Graphs may be copied, printed, or saved, see
Printing for more details.
Details FL
The Details FL tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is
used to view Output Details for the selected Flowline
Corrosion Prediction Project.

At Outlet: Values of Gas to Oil ratio (GOR), water cut,

water rate and liquid and gas velocities at the flowline
outlet are reported at the top of the page. This allows a
quick check that the flowrates are reasonable, typically
a few m/s for liquid, and less than about 20 m/s for
gas. The difference between water flowrate at inlet
(Throughput tab) and that at the outlet is the amount of
water condensed from the gas.
Velocities at Outlet: The erosional gas velocity according
to API RP 14E is also reported. When this velocity is
exceeded, the effects of protection by carbonate layers,
inhibitor films and sulphide layers are set to zero. This
only happens when the flow pattern is Annular Mist
flow. For other flow patterns ECE will report N/A ("not
applicable")
Flow Pattern at Inlet: The flow pattern evaluation is
restricted to Stratified (nonsymmetrical), Slug/Bubble,
Liquid-full and Annular Mist (symmetrical) for corrosion
rate calculations.
Sour Service: The sour service region applicable to
sulphide stress cracking according to ISO 15156 part 2
is reported: either No (i.e. Region 0), Region 1, Region
2 or Region 3. The concentration of glycol at inlet and at
outlet is given, when injected, together with the
quantity injected in kg/d. These values will change
when the glycol injection rate is varied.
Partial Pressures at Outlet: Partial pressures (not
fugacities) of CO2 and H2S at the outlet are reported in
metric and US customary units, along with the
concentration of H2S in ppm (vol).
All Graphs
The All Graphs tab of the Flowline Corrosion Predictor is
used to select parameters to display as a graph over
distance along the flowline. The default graph displayed is
the Corrosion Rate (US) graph. The maximum and minimum
values are also reported at the top-right of the selected
graph. The mouse can be used to select and zoom in on
areas of the graph. Graphs may be copied, printed, or
saved, see Printing for details.

pH: Displays pH value over Distance (km).

Water Flow Rate: Displays Water Flow Rate (m3/d) over

Distance (km).
Water Cut: Displays Water Cut (%) over Distance (km).

Liquid HoldUp: Displays Liquid HoldUp (% cross section)

over Distance (km).
Liquid Velocity: Displays Liquid Velocity (m/s) over
Distance (km).
Gas Velocity: Displays Gas Velocity (m/s) over Distance
(km).
Pressure: Displays Pressure (bar) over Distance (km).

Temperature: Displays Temperature (°C) over Distance

(km).
Glycol Concentration: Displays Glycol Concentration (%)
over Distance (km).
Flowline CRA Evaluator
The Flowline CRA Evaluator is used to evaluate Flowline
Conditions against technical acceptability.

Alloys for Flowlines: Includes a range of corrosion

resistant alloys (CRA's) considered for flowlines has
been mainly restricted to those most commonly used in
the past 30 years.
Composition of Alloys: Displays the Composition of
Alloys table.
Martensitic Stainless Steel for Flowlines: MSS's are
highly resistant to corrosion in sweet environments.
Duplex Stainless Steel for Flowlines: DSS,s are highly
resistant to corrosion in sweet environments.
Alloy 316L - Cladding or Lining: Used as a Cladding or
Lining in pipe for flowlines.
Alloy 904L - Cladding or Lining: Used as a Cladding or
Lining in pipe for flowlines.
Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining: Used as a Cladding or
Lining in pipe for flowlines.
Alloy 625 - Cladding or Lining: Used as a Cladding or
Lining in pipe for flowlines.
Alloy 6Mo - Super Austenitic Stainless Steel: Used as
solid piping or pipeline material
Using the Flowline CRA Evaluator
The Flowline CRA Evaluator is used to evaluate Flowline
Conditions against technical acceptability. There are two
alternative evaluation schemes; Evaluation based on ISO
15156-3: 2015 / NACE MR0175 or Evaluation based on
selection rules developed by Wood Group (ECE Rules). The
limits are assessed based upon the following input data;
Temperature (°C or °F), Pressure (psia or bara), CO2
(mol% in gas phase), H2S (mol% in gas phase), Chloride
Content ( mol% NaCl or ppmw Cl-) and Bicarbonate
content, (ppmw).

Flowline Conditions: The environmental conditions are

input in the left hand side of the window. All the values
can be altered by moving the sliders, entering figures
directly into the boxes or using the up/down arrows on
the boxes. clicking at the end of the sliders.
When selecting a material it is important to consider
various conditions such as the extreme design
conditions or upset conditions as well as the operating
conditions. Other factors beyond those listed above
(such as presence of elemental sulphur or oxygen) are
not covered by the tools.
The assessment of the suitability of all CRA's is
considered for each set of input data entered. This
assessment of CRA's is independent of any data entered
in other tools within ECE, for example the Corrosion
Predictor. The range of conditions which can be
evaluated is wider than the Corrosion Predictor window
allows, since CRA's may be utilized in conditions where
carbon steels would not be applicable.
Traffic Lights: The suitability of the alloys in a given
environment is indicated by Traffic Light indicators on
the right.
ECE Evaluation Rules: The limits of use of the different
alloys are defined in terms of their resistance to
Corrosion in sweet conditions and Corrosion and
cracking in sour environments. There is no minimum
value partial pressure of H2S which has to be exceeded
for the environment to be referred to as ‘sour’, the
performance of CRA's is checked against limits defined
for each alloy individually as soon as any level of H2S is
present.
ISO 15156-3 Evaluation Rules: The limits of use of the
different alloys are defined only in terms of their
resistance to failure by stress corrosion cracking in sour
environments (containing both CO2 and H2S). Failure
by corrosion either in sweet conditions (containing CO2
but free of H2S) or in sour conditions is not necessarily
covered by the ISO 15156-3 rules.
Environmental Details: The CRA Evaluator reports the
partial pressures of CO2 and of H2S in bar and psi
based on the input pressure and mol% CO2 and H2S. It
also reports the pH value calculated at room
temperature (20°C) or at the in-situ temperature. These
values are utilized for the evaluation of the suitability of
certain CRA's.
Metallurgical Condition - Important: The evaluation
tools assume that the alloy is in the normal product
form and metallurgical condition appropriate for flowline
pipe. In sour service conditions, the material should
comply with any restrictions on processing or properties
defined for that alloy in ISO 15156-3. The assessment
results may not be applicable for alloys in other
metallurgical conditions (for example heavily cold-
worked) or for other product forms (for example
castings).
The different CRA's have different mechanical
properties. You should be aware of the need to consider
the different strength of alloys, which will affect the
required wall thickness. For flowlines this will have an
impact on the welding time and overall capital cost of
installation. CRAs show varying toughness as a function
of temperature and you should be aware of the need to
select a material which meets toughness requirements
at the minimum design temperature.
Reporting: To produce a Report chose menu item File -
Flowline Alloy Evaluation Report. The Report is produced
in a new window.
Flowline Alloy Evaluator Report
The Flowline Alloy Evaluator Report option is used to display
the Flowline Alloy Results produced by the Flowline CRA
Evaluator.

With the Flowline CRA Evaluator open, select File,

Flowline Alloy Evaluator Report.
Alloys for Flowlines
Alloys for Flowlines includes a range of corrosion resistant
alloys (CRA's) considered for flowlines has been mainly
restricted to those most commonly used in the past 30
years.
Amongst solid CRA's the most widely applied for flowlines
has been 22Cr duplex. There has also been some 25Cr
super-duplex used. From about 1997 there was increasing
use of low carbon content martensitic stainless steels (the
so-called weldable 13Cr steels). These are referred to by
the term MSS in this help file.
When more highly alloyed CRA's are required it is more
common for them to be manufactured as a Cladding or
Lining in a carbon steel pipe. All the different types of
manufacturing methods are referred to generally as ‘clad’.
Amongst alloys available for clad pipes the most commonly
applied are stainless steel AISI 316L (316L clad) and the
higher nickel content alloy 825 (825 clad). Whilst rarely
used so far, stainless steel AISI 904L has been considered
for clad flowlines and the environmental limits of that
material are included in too (904L clad). Nickel alloy 625 is
sometimes used as a cladding in parts of flowlines and may
be required for extremely aggressive conditions. In the rare
cases in which these alloys are considered in solid form (for
example for small diameter lines where clad pipe is
relatively less economic), the same limits can be assumed
to apply to the solid product as to the clad or lined product.
Other CRA's may be considered for flowlines at the
recommendation of manufacturers, or after carrying out
appropriate laboratory test programmes to prove the
performance in the expected production conditions.
In all cases it is assumed that the corrosion properties of
the weld and heat affected zone are equivalent to the
properties of the base material. This should be established
by appropriate testing during welding procedure
qualifications.
Composition of Flowline Alloys
The Composition of Flowline Alloys table describes the
composition for each of the Flowline Alloys.

C% Cr% Ni% Mo% N% Mn% Others%

MSS

10.5- 0.012 0.012

MSS 0.015 1.5-7.0 0-3.0 Cu
13.5 max. max.

22CrDSS

21.0- 4.50- 2.50- 0.08- 2.00

S31803 0.030
23.0 6.50 3.50 0.20 max.

22.0- 4.50- 3.00- 0.14- 2.00

S32205 0.030
23.0 6.50 3.50 0.20 max.

25CrDSS

24.0- 4.50- 2.00- 0.10- 1.50 Cu 1.50-

S32550 0.040
27.0 6.50 4.00 0.25 max. 2.50

Cu 0.20-
24.0- 5.50- 2.50- 0.10- 1.0 0.80
S31260 0.030
26.0 7.50 3.50 0.30 max. W 0.10-
0.50

24.0- 5.50- 1.20- 0.14- 1.0

S31200 0.030
26.0 6.50 2.00 0.20 max.

24.0- 5.50- 3.0- 0.20- 1.5 Cu 0.50-

S32520 0.030
26.0 8.0 5.0 0.35> max. 3.00

24.0- 3.0- 0.24- 1.2

S32750 0.030 6.0-8.0
26.0 5.0 0.32 max
S32760 0.030 24.0- 6.0-8.0 3.0- 0.20- 1.0 Cu 0.5-
26.0 4.0 0.30 max. 1.0
W 0.5-
1.0

Cu 0.20-
24.0- 2.50- 0.24- 1.0 0.80
S39274 0.030> 6.0-8.0
26.0 3.50 0.32 max. W 1.5-
2.5

Cladding or Lining Alloys

S31603 16- 0.1 2

0.03 10-14 2-3
(316L) 18 max. max.

N08904 19- 2
0.02 23-28 4-5 -
(904L) 23 max.

N08825 19.5- 2.5- 1

0.05 38-46 -
(825) 23.5 3.5 max.

Fe 5
max.
N06625 20- 0.5 Ti 0.4
0.01 Balance 8-10 -
(625) 23 max. max.
Nb 3.15-
4.15

6Mo Super-austenitic Stainless Steel

0.02 19.5- 17.5- 0.18- 1

S31254 6-6.6 Cu
max. 20.5 18.5 0.22 max.

0.02 19- 0.15- 2

N08926 24-26 6-7 Cu
max. 20 0.25 max.

0.03 20- 23.5- 0.18- 2

N08367 6-7 Cu
max. 22 25.5 0.25 max.
* The composition given for the martensitic stainless steels
(MSS) is very broad as there is a wide range of
compositions available from different manufacturers.
Martensitic Stainless Steels for Flowlines
Martensitic Stainless Steels for Flowlines, MSS's are highly
resistant to corrosion in sweet environments. The standard
13Cr MSS grades have been widely applied for downhole
tubing and their corrosion characteristics are well
characterized. The weldable grades used for flowlines are
comparable in chemistry to the Super-13Cr grades used
downhole. They have much lower carbon content, which
allows them to be welded without hardening too much in
the heat affected zone. This low carbon also means that
there is far more chromium available in the metal to provide
corrosion resistance. Many of the MSS's also have additional
molybdenum alloying which further enhances their corrosion
resistance in sweet conditions.
A comparison of the corrosion data in the literature, with
the limits established for standard 13Cr materials shows
that the corrosion rates are typically one order of magnitude
lower in the weldable MSS grades. It seems that the
weldable MSS grades show a lower sensitivity to the CO2
content than the standard 13Cr grades.
As a first approximation, it is estimated that adding 30°C to
the temperature limit for the standard 13Cr material can
represent the limit of use of the weldable MSS's in sweet
conditions. Thus, for the purposes of this, the limit of use of
the weldable MSS's are taken to be the same as those for
the standard 13Cr grades, but with the temperature
increased by 30°C. This is believed to be quite a
conservative approach, and one which may be refined based
on data for the specific MSS alloy being considered.
A detailed review of the performance of the MSS's in sour
conditions shows that the tendency for cracking of MSS's at
ambient temperature can be represented by a combination
of pH and partial pressure of H2S.
The Limits for Weldable MSS in Sour Service graph is based
principally on the results of test on welded samples, shows
that the sensitivity to cracking is very high, particularly
below pH=4. Thus, even though the material might have a
higher general corrosion resistance, the tendency to
cracking is very high if any hydrogen enters the
microstructure. The cracking resistance of these grades in
the welded condition is taken to be slightly worse than that
of the standard 13Cr grades in this ECE Evaluator. (It is,
therefore, also taken to be slightly worse than Super-13Cr
tubing, on the basis that flowlines have to be welded and
this introduces an increased risk of variable performance,
because of the influence of the heat affected zone.
Warning: Performance of weldable MSS is very much
influenced by the details of welding procedures and heat
treatment, and by details of installation. More recently,
developments in MSS alloys and welding procedures are
claimed to have overcome these problems. This issue is not
covered by the Flowline CRA Evaluator, anyone considering
welded MSS for flowline applications should satisfy
themselves that welded joints will have satisfactory
performance.
The transition region between the non-cracking and
cracking regions of the Limits for Weldable MSS in Sour
Service graph shown is indicated by an Amber traffic light
indicator.
Individual alloys from specific manufacturers may show
superior performance and could be used in more severe
conditions than indicated if individually qualified for an
application by laboratory testing in appropriate conditions.
References:
H Lange, T Rogne, Material selection of weldable super martensitic stainless
steels for line pipe material, SINTEF Report nr. STF22 A04222-Open, 2004.
LM Smith, Martensitic Stainless Steel Pipe, a Report for Sponsors, pub. by Wood
Group, Jan 2000.
Duplex Stainless Steel for Flowlines
Duplex Stainless Steel for Flowlines, DSS's are highly
resistant to corrosion in sweet environments. The limits of
environmental parameters for 22Cr DSS were established
by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas
Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073.
These alloys show little sensitivity to partial pressure of CO2
and a simplified version of Craig’s proposal is used in this
program. The higher alloyed 25Cr grade would be expected
to show even greater resistance to general corrosion in
sweet conditions and so the limits have been taken,
arbitrarily, to be 20°C higher than the limits of the 22Cr
grade in the Limits of Using the Duplex Stainless Steels
graph.
With H2S present consideration has to be given to the risk
of cracking. Duplex stainless steels are most sensitive to
cracking at about 80-110 °C and so test data at that
temperature range has been checked to establish the safe
environmental limits. Cracking is also dependent on the pH
and on the chloride content. The pH value is taken at room
temperature since this is the value reported for the
laboratory test data on which the limits are based.
The H2S Limits for 22Cr Duplex Stainless Steels graph
displays the limits of H2S as a function of pH and chloride
content are provided.
The Proposed Limits for 25Cr Duplex Stainless Steels graph
displays that limits were established in a review of
laboratory test data on duplex stainless steels carried out
by Shell. At chloride ion concentrations lower than 50ppm
this material is not sensitive to H2S content.
Alloy 316L - Cladding or Lining
The Alloy 316L - Cladding or Lining is used as a Cladding or
Lining in pipe for flowlines and is resistant to corrosion in
sweet environments. The limits of environmental
parameters for Alloy 316L in terms of NaCl%, partial
pressure of CO2 and temperature were established by Craig
in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry
NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. The Alloy 316L -
Cladding or Lining graph indicates a rather high sensitivity
to chloride contents when the partial pressure of CO2 is
very high and displays the 316L Application Limits in Sweet
Service.
The limits of use of Alloy 316L in environments containing
H2S are based on recent test data used to support the
limits in the 300 series austenitic stainless steels in
ISO15156. At operating temperatures below 200 °C for
chloride ion content up to 50ppm there are no limits on the
maximum partial pressure of H2S that AISI 316L can
tolerate. Above 50ppm chloride ion content the alloy may
suffer SSC at more than 15psi H2S.
Alloy 904L - Cladding or Lining
The Alloy 904L - Cladding or Lining is used as a Cladding or
Lining in pipe for flowlines. Alloy 904L is highly resistant to
corrosion in sweet environments. The ECE Evaluator
assumes that alloy 904L can be used up to about 260°C in
production environments that contain no H2S. At chloride
ion concentrations lower than 50ppm this material is not
sensitive to H2S content.
In sour environments there is limited data on the
performance of 904L. A review by TWI “Alloy Materials for
Sour Service Environments – A Critical Review” by T.G.
Gooch and R.N. Gunn, June 1992, indicated that 904L was
suitable for use with up to 0.9 bar H2S with up to 100g/l
chloride. It is expected that 904L could tolerate higher
partial pressures of H2S at lower chloride contents so a limit
of 1.2bar has been given for chloride contents lower than
10g/l. These limits are regarded as conservative.
Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining
The Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining is used as a Cladding or
Lining in pipe for flowlines. It is also used in solid form. At
chloride ion concentrations lower than 50ppm this material
is not sensitive to H2S content. The limits of environmental
parameters for Alloy 825 in terms of partial pressure of
H2S, partial pressure of CO2 and temperature were
established by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil
and Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073. A
simplified version is used in the ECE Evaluator since there is
little dependence on CO2. The Alloy 825 - Cladding or Lining
graph assumes that there is a significant level (about
100g/l) of chloride present.
Alloy 625 - Cladding or Lining
The Alloy 625 - Cladding or Lining is used as a Cladding or
Lining in pipe for flowlines. The limits of environmental
parameters for Alloy 625 in terms of partial pressure of
H2S, partial pressure of CO2 and temperature were
established by Craig in Corrosion Resistant Alloys in the Oil
and Gas Industry NiDI Technical Series Publication 10073.
The Alloy 625 - Cladding or Lining graph assumes that there
is a significant level (about 100g/l) of chloride present. At
chloride ion concentrations lower than 50ppm this material
is not sensitive to H2S content.
Alloy 6Mo - Super Austenitic Stainless Steel
This represents a group of high alloy stainless steels such as
UNS S31254, N08926 etc, They are used as solid piping or
pipeline material. In general, the corrosion resistance of
Alloy 6Mo is superior to that of 316L and 904L grades and it
can tolerate higher chloride and/or H2S contents. There is a
limited amount of documented field or test data. The limits
in ECE Evaluation Rules are based on a combination of
published and unpublished test data and field experience.
The limits are regarded as conservative. Hydrogen Sulphide
Resistance of Highly-Alloyed Austenitic Stainless Steels,
ACOM 1997 – vol. 2.
Flowline Life Cycle Calculator
The Flowline Life Cycle Calculator (LCC) for flowlines is used
to make an economic comparison of various corrosion
control options for a flowline; Carbon Steel, Carbon Steel
with Chemical Inhibition and Corrosion Resistant Alloy.
The Flowline Life Cycle Calculation can be used to carry out
a cost comparison on completion of a corrosion analysis and
CRA material selection, or it can be used totally
independently by overwriting all the input field data with
new information fora ny case being investigated. The LCC
evaluation is helpful to compare the cost of certain options,
but it is not a full costing exercise and cannot be used for
estimating the actual costs of projects. Many significant
costs which are basically the same regardless of the
corrosion control option chosen are, for simplicity, not
included in the Flowline Life Cycle Calculator, because they
do not affect the comparison between the different options.
All costs are indicated in dollars ($). However, any other
currency unit could be used so long as the same currency is
used for all inputs.

Data Input: Input Values are added to the Flowline LCC

using the tabs on the left; Flowline Details, Financial,
Welding Costs and Inhibition and Monitoring. Default
Values are loaded when the Flowline LCC is launched.
Enter the required values to display the Output Results.
Details: Used to enter the Pipe Dimensions, Carbon
Steel, Corrosion Resistant Alloy and Corrosion values to
the Flowline LCC.
Financial: Used to enter the Financial Conditions and
Cost of Materials.
Welding Costs: Used to enter the welding reference data
into the Flowline LCC.
Inhibition and Monitoring: Includes costs associated
specifically with corrosion inhibition of carbon steel
(through inhibitor injection) and inspection and
monitoring of corrosion in carbon steel.
Data Output: Output Results are displayed in the tabs;
Net Present Value and Capital. The Output Results can
also be exported as text Reports and graphs can be
copied, saved or printed.
Net Present Value (NPV) Graph: Displays the changing
cost of the CRA and carbon steel options as a function
of time, up to the given life of the project.
Capital Graph: Displays just the capital costs of
purchasing the two types of pipe and laying it initially.
Data Input
Input Values are added to the Flowline LCC using the tabs
on the left; Flowline Details, Financial, Welding Costs and
Inhibition and Monitoring. Default Values are loaded when
the Flowline LCC is launched. Enter the required values to
display the Output Results. Input Values to the Flowline LCC
are not derived from the Flowline Corrosion Predictor, nor
are they linked to the Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
Flowline Life Cycle Calculator Report
The Flowline Life Cycle Calculator Report option is used to
display the Flowline Life Cycle Calculation Results produced
by the Flowline Life Cycle Calculator.

With the Flowline Life Cycle Calculator open, select File,

Flowline Life Cycle Calculator Report.
Flowline Details
The Flowline Details tab is used to enter the Pipe
Dimensions, Carbon Steel, Corrosion Resistant Alloy and
Corrosion values to the Flowline LCC.

Pipe Dimensions: Flowline length and installation

method are entered in the top box. Three options are
given, S-Lay, Reel Lay and Onshore. The costs
associated with these can be entered in the Welding
Costs tab. The costs associated with other pipe lay
techniques, such as bundle –laying are too complex to
model in a simple way since this normally involves
laying several pipes at once.
Pipe dimensions may be typed directly into text boxes
or entered by the sliders. Input can be done in metric or
US customary units, conversion between these is
automatic. Different dimensions can be entered for
Carbon steel and CRA options, as these may differ due
to the corrosion allowance required for carbon steel and
possible differences in material strength.
Financial
The Financial tab is used to enter the Financial Conditions
and Cost of Materials. The page requires the CRA alloy to be
selected. This alloy selection automatically proposes an
example price for that CRA in the box underneath. It should
be noted that CRA prices can be relatively volatile and vary
a great deal over time, also they depend upon the
dimensions of the pipe. For these reasons it is important to
obtain up-to-date prices and to enter them, rather than
relying on the initial default values. The selection of a
particular CRA on the LCC input sheet sets the alloy density
for calculation of the required weight of CRA for the given
steel dimensions.

Conditions: The Project Life and the Real Discount Rate

are entered directly into the boxes or using the sliders.
Cost of Materials: The material cost of carbon steel
should be adjusted from the pre-set initial price to
reflect the current cost.
Inhibition and Monitoring
The Inhibition and Monitoring tab includes costs associated
specifically with corrosion inhibition of carbon steel (through
inhibitor injection) and inspection and monitoring of
corrosion in carbon steel.

Inhibition or Glycol Injection Costs: The use of inhibitors

requires some additional capital expenditure initially to
provide for inhibitor injection equipment and tanks for
inhibitor storage: these are entered as injection
equipment cost. It also has associated annual operating
costs for the purchase of the chemicals being injected
and also the cost of the labour to keep control of the
system and ensure inhibitor tanks are kept filled: these
costs are entered against chemical injection cost and
labour cost chemical application. Part of these annual
labour costs would also cover the costs of labour to
review the corrosion monitoring equipment output on a
regular basis.
Inspection Cost: Corroding pipe should be regularly
inspected. The inspection cost forms part of the
operating costs of the carbon steel pipe.
Inspection Interval: The inspection interval can be
altered and the typical inspection cost per km of pipe
can be set.
Monitoring Equipment Cost: Monitoring equipment is
normally purchased where carbon steel is being used
and corrosion is expected to be taking place. Monitoring
equipment can vary widely in sophistication and
therefore in cost. The monitoring equipment cost is
accounted for as an element of the capital cost of using
carbon steel.
Welding Costs
The Welding Costs tab is used to enter the welding
reference data into the Flowline LCC.

CRA Pipe Unit Length: The welding reference data

includes the length of the individual CRA pipes. The
standard pipe length is 12.2m but some CRA pipes can
be supplied in longer lengths in certain sizes from some
manufacturers, whilst in other cases the pipes are
shorter than 12.2m. The model assumes that carbon
steel pipes are always supplied in 12.2m lengths.
Cost for welding onshore: The cost for the welding
spread on land, or the lay barge for offshore S-laying is
entered on this page.
Lineup Time: The factors affecting the speed of
completing welding are given, all these preset values
can be altered as required. The lineup time for the weld
will depend upon the diameter, accuracy of the end
dimensions of the pipe and the criticality of the bevel
design. Generally CRA's require a little more time for
lineup than carbon steel because of the greater
criticality of fit-up.
Root Welding Rate: The root welding rate is important in
influencing the overall cost of fabrication. The rates of
welding given are 150mm/min (typical of GTAW, or TIG
welding) which has been frequently used in the past for
CRA root run welding, and 250mm/min (typical of
GMAW or MIG welding) which is typically used for
welding carbon steels. It is important to note that
GMAW welding has, however, been used with great
success for welding several CRA flowlines. As this is the
trend, there is an incentive to set the welding rate of
both materials to the same welding rate. Where the
actual welding rate is known then that can be entered in
place of the guideline figures.
Weld Repair Rate: The repair rate reflects the inevitable
need to repair some of the welds made. The time
required for a cut-out and re-weld will vary for different
materials depending upon the selected welding method
and pipe dimensions. Rather arbitrary values have been
preselected for weld repair rate and weld repair time
but these guideline figures can be altered when more
accurate estimates have been made.
Net Present Value
The Net Present Value (NPV) graph displays the changing
cost of the CRA and carbon steel options as a function of
time, up to the given life of the project. The graph shows
the CRA option as a straight line. This is because there are
no operating costs calculated for this material option, there
is no need for inhibitor injection, inspection or corrosion
monitoring with CRA's.
The carbon steel + inhibitor line shows an annual increase
because of these operating costs. Costs later in the future
are less than costs today, so the slope of the line gradually
becomes less steep in later years. The mathematical
explanation for the shape of the graph is given in the topic
Life Cycle Cost Calculation.
The carbon steel option has a lower annual operating cost,
just arising from inspection and monitoring, but with no
inhibitor injection.
The model does not include any costs associated with
insurance of the pipeline. Insurance costs reflect the
relatively high reliability of CRA pipelines in that the
probability of failure is so much lower (based upon past field
experience) than carbon steel lines that the annual
insurance premiums are lower. However, the inclusion of
this cost item would have a very small effect on the general
cost picture
The NPV graph will frequently show a jump in value at some
point in time because the pipe is estimated to require
replacement in that year. In reality it is highly unlikely that
a material would be chosen for a flowline when it is
anticipated that the line will require replacement before the
end of the project life. If there are such jumps in the carbon
steel line(s) it would be more typical to consider a greater
corrosion allowance on the pipe. This can be tested by
increasing the wall thickness of the carbon steel pipe on the
LCC Input sheet.
The program is preset to have minimum time for first
replacement of a line at one year. This generalization may
introduce some inaccuracy in the output graph when
corrosion rates are extremely high. In such circumstances it
will anyway be clear that the replacement frequency of the
carbon steel option is impractical.
The most economic material option is the one that is lowest
in cost (the lowest line) at the end of the required project
life.

Capital Graph: Displays just the capital costs of

purchasing the two types of pipe and laying it initially.
Installation
S-laying is the conventional offshore pipe-lay method
suitable for moderate water depths. The cost of laying
depends principally upon the time required to hire the
laybarge. This depends upon the speed of making the first
weld run in the case of carbon steel welding, since after the
first run is complete the barge can move forward to add in
the next piece of pipe whilst the rest of the weld is
completed in the other welding stations. Thus lining up the
weld and completing the first run are the critical steps for
which the time has to be estimated.
The line up time is taken from the value given on the
welding ref data sheet.
The approximate time to complete the root run is taken
from the circumference of the pipe (taken from the OD)
divided by the welding rate.
The model takes these times together and multiplies them
by the number of welds in the line (calculated from the
pipeline length divided by the length of individual pipes).
To this is added the time required to make the repairs. This
is the total number of welds X the repair rate (%) X the
time required for the complete weld repair.
These figures together give the total time the welding
operation will take. (Note that the working day is assumed
to be 24hours on a welding laybarge). This time, multiplied
by the cost of hiring the given barge of the correct diameter
capacity, gives the fabrication cost.
NB In the case of CRA pipes the model assumes that both
the root run and the second pass have to be completed
before the pipe can be moved. This is because all CRA's
require gas shielding of the root of the weld to prevent
excessive oxidation. It is generally assumed that the heat
flux from the third weld-bead onwards is not too great to
cause blackening of the weld region and so the shielding
gas device can be moved after the second pass. This means
that the model effectively doubles the number of welds for
the CRA pipe, compared to the carbon steel pipe. If the user
wishes to consider the case of moving onto the next weld
after just the root run is complete, then they may simply
double the welding rate. This will have the same effect as
welding just the root run at the normal speed.
For Onshore laying the costs can similarly be estimated
from the cost of completing the root run, since several
welding stations can be used for completing the weld once
the critical line-up and root weld is completed. The cost of
the welding spread on land is lower than offshore. The
welding day is taken to be just 12 hours on land.
For Reel laying, most of the time is spent welding pipe
onshore, preparing stalks of 6 pipes which are subsequently
welded together and ‘reeled’ onto reels to be ‘unreeled’ at
sea. Since this welding work is done on land, the costs are
taken to be the same as onshore welding costs. The welding
of the stalks and the reeling operation are taken to require
an extra one hour for every stalk (6 pipes). An additional
charge (at the same rate as the onshore welding rate per
day) is taken for the costs of the reeling operation itself
based on a barge time for unreeling of 10km/day. (Actual
reeling times varying with pipe length and diameter and
depending upon whether the barge has to return to shore to
collect another ‘reel’ of pipe. Such details are not
incorporated in this model).
NOTES:
1) This model does not include certain other costs in the calculation of the cost
of fabrication. No charge is included for welding consumables, such as filler
metals and gases or for pipe bevelling. These costs would increase the
fabrication costs, particularly of the more expensive CRA's, but the percentage
error on the total fabrication cost due to ignoring these items is not large.
2) No costs are taken for mobilizing the barge to the project location as these
costs will vary for every project. They are also the same for every type of pipe
material and so the costs cancel out in the LCC comparison. The same argument
applies to many other overhead costs which are essentially the same
irrespective of the material selected.
Life Cycle Cost Calculation
The Life Cycle Cost Calculation is the mathematical
definition of the Life Cycle Cost.
The usual economic method of dealing with inflation and the
time-cost of money is to make all the calculations in terms
of value in year zero. The coefficient 1/(1+i)n reduces the
actual cash value in year n to its net present value. It
should be noted that this coefficient is < 1 which accounts
for the time value of the money.
The discount rate, i, will vary, not only for different
companies, but potentially for different projects. Net
present values should always be quoted with the year of
starting and the discount rate used. The real discount rate
which is entered in the LCC Input sheet should be the
current interest rate minus the inflation rate to give the real
effective discount rate.
The Life Cycle Cost symbols have the following meanings:

LCC: Life Cycle Cost

AC: Initial acquisition cost of materials

IC: Initial installation costs (including fabrication)

OC: Operating +/or maintenance costs

LP: Lost production costs during downtime

RC: Replacement materials costs

SC: Residual value of replaced materials

N: Desired life time (years)

i: Discount rate
n: year of the event
Bulk Calculation
Bulk Calculation is used to load multiple flowline values for
calculation into ECE.

From the Flowline Tools menu, select Bulk Calculation to

display the Bulk Calculation dialog. Alternatively you can
also select the Bulk Calculation button on the Flowline
toolbar to display the Bulk Calculation dialog.
From the Bulk Calculation dialog, click Download to
Save the Bulk Calculation Template.
Complete, Save and Close the Template. Where
incorrect values have been entered the cell will be
shaded red. You can upload the template with errors,
however these values will not be included in the
calculation. The Template must be closed for the
calculation to run correctly.
Click Browse to select and upload the completed
Template.
Click Calculate to complete the calculations.

Save the results using Save. Results can then be viewed

in the Bulk Upload Results file.
CO2 Corrosion Rate Model
The CO2 Corrosion Rate Model recognises the occurrence of
two cathodic processes:

The first reaction is mainly controlled by the electrochemical

processes at the liquid/metal interface, while the second
reaction is controlled by the mass transfer of the carbonic
acid to the metal. The sum of the flow of electrons from
these reactions is balanced by the anodic dissolution reaction
of the metal, for example:

The basic CO2 corrosion rate is the combination of these two

processes:

For normalised steels the equation for the reaction controlled

part is:

and for the mass-transfer controlled part:

where t is the temperature (°C), fCO2 is the fugacity of the

CO2(bar), pHCO2 is the pH of pure water saturated with
CO2 at prevailing temperature and pressure.
pHactual is the pH resulting from the presence of dissolved
salts. These can be various dissolved carbonate and
bicarbonate salts; whose concentration is adjustable in ECE.
A very important bicarbonate is dissolved iron bicarbonate,
which is the primary corrosion product in the absence of
H2S. Because of its slow conversion to insoluble iron
carbonate, its presence can increase the pH considerably.
Further information is given under the topic "pH".
All units are expressed in the kg.m.sec system. The above
equations are normalised / as-rolled steels. For quenched
and tempered steels these equations are slightly different.
These equations represent a best fit to a large number of
flow-loop data measured at IFE (Institutt For Energiteknikk)
in Norway, where test conditions and environments were
strictly controlled. From a regression analysis with these
data, the error distribution obtained with this fit had a
standard deviation of 25%.
The results from the above equations are adjusted for the
presence of protective scale, H2S, crude oil or condensate,
glycol and inhibitor by means of multipliers on the basic CO2
corrosion rate:

The basic corrosion rate Vcor is adjusted by the use of a

number of multiplying factors to account for situations which
differ from the base case. While in wet gas systems the
corrosion takes the form of "mesa" type attack (pits with flat
bottoms), the corrosion normally experienced in oil systems
is also localised, but with rounded pits. The model actually
predicts the pit penetration rate.
The fugacity of CO2 is similar to its partial pressure, but
corrected for non-ideality of natural gas & CO2 at high
pressure and temperature. The same basic CO2 fugacity
correction is used as in previous versions of ECE:
The maximum pressure in this equation, P, is limited to 250
bar and the equation is adjusted slightly for temperatures
above 140°C to provide a better fit to curves of fugacity
against reduced pressure and reduced temperature.
Reference:
C. de Waard, U. Lotz and A. Dugstad, Influence of liquid velocity on CO2
corrosion: a semi-empirical model, NACE Corrosion 1995, Paper 128.
L. Smith, C de Waard, Corrosion Prediction and Materials Selection for Oil and
Gas Producing Environments, NACE Corrosion 2005, Paper 05648.
Influence of Carbonate Scales
Above certain temperatures which are CO2 partial pressure
dependent, the corrosion rate decreases with increasing
temperature through formation of a protective carbonate
scale on the steel's surface. This is expressed by means of a
multiplier on Vcor, the so-called scaling factor:

with Fscale < 1. A minimum value is applied at higher

temperatures and CO2 partial pressures.
Refer to Effect of H2S for the effect of sulphides formed in
the presence of H2S.
Effect of H2S
The effect of the presence of H2S on corrosion in the ECE
model is threefold:

Increasing the acidity of the water.

Scavenging the dissolved Fe ions by forming Fe- sulphide

precipitates, which decrease the pH and increase the
corrosion rate
Covering the steel with a protective iron sulphide layer.

Factors (1) and (2) can slightly increase the corrosion rate
under certain conditions, but, except at very low
concentrations of H2S, these effects are usually outweighed
by significant reductions in corrosion rate due to sulphide
scaling, factor (3).
The protectiveness of the sulphide layer is expressed in the
form of a multiplier on the CO2 corrosion rate:

where H2Saq and CO2aq are the concentrations of H2S and

CO2 dissolved in the water, f and f' are functions and a & b
are constants. This formula is a development of the formulae
in previous versions of ECE, in light of field experience of
corrosion in sour systems. The principal difference from ECE
4.x is that slightly lower corrosion rates are predicted for
CO2 / H2S ratios of around 200 and less and particularly
from ratios of 20 or less. This better reflects the common
experience of low corrosion rates in many highly sour
production environments.
 Warning: this formula is a proposal rather than an
established model! However, it describes many of the
trends often observed both in laboratory test work and
in actual field experience.

It will be observed that the presence of H2S can significantly

reduce the general corrosion rate. This is in line with field
experience of sour equipment which forms an adherent FeS
film on the surface. Successful operators of carbon steel in
sour service take operational steps to optimise and sustain
this sulfide film. Typically, equipment is commissioned for
service by flushing with a solution of inhibitor and/or
continuous inhibition is maintained throughout the service
life. Great effort is taken to prevent the entry of air into the
equipment as this can oxidise the FeS, releasing elemental
sulfur, which is very aggressive.

Pitting Corrosion: Although low corrosion rates due to

protective sulphide films are often the norm in
production conditions, very much higher corrosion rates
can occur if film breaks down. The form of corrosion
which takes place is pitting corrosion. Without the
protective film, the rate of attack is typically similar to
the rate of CO2 corrosion. When H2S is present, ECE re-
models the environment where the surface is completely
filmed. When the dissolved iron is precipitated as FeS,
this H2S-containing environment is more acid than
without the FeS film because there is no dissolved iron
carbonate. The corrosion rate in this environment is
taken as a possible rate of pitting corrosion, in case the
film breaks down locally, leading to isolated pitting.
When H2S is present, this potential pitting rate is also
reported in the Corrosion Rate Graph.
Likelihood of Pitting Corrosion: This is an area of active
research and satisfactory quantitative models have not
been fully developed, however the main trends are
known from laboratory studies and field experience.
Many of these parameters also impact the filming
corrosion rate, pH or pitting corrosion rate (as opposed
to the likelihood) calculated within ECE.
Flow velocity: This is the most important factor in field
experience. Pitting is expected in stagnant and low flow
conditions, possibly related to the velocity at which
deposits settle or are not moved. At very high velocities,
erosion can damage sulphide films: this effect is included
in ECE via the API 14E erosional velocity limit.
Flow Regime: Pitting is more commonly experienced in
low velocity, stratified flow. This can be viewed as an
alias for flow velocity, not an independent factor.
Dissolved Solids and Chlorides: Evidence is inconsistent.
Some laboratory studies suggest that the presence of
chloride is necessary or helpful in the film break-down
process. However, in field experience with produced
fluids where there is nearly always some level of
chloride, correlation between chloride concentration and
the occurrence of pitting attack is poor.
pH: Most iron sulphides are more soluble at low pH, so
there is a basis for film breakdown and higher corrosion
at lower pH, and this is seen in some laboratory
conditions. However, field experience is less clear and
very low corrosion rates are observed in some lower pH
environments, such as sour gas lines with condensed
water.
Temperature: Field and laboratory data is inconsistent,
with different ranges being found to be worse for sour
pitting attack. The weight of evidence is that lower
temperatures, below about 60°C, are most severe.
Water Cut: Effects of water cut, fluid velocity, oil-wetting
and chlorides are difficult to separate in field conditions.
ECE includes modelling of oil-water effects related to
water cut.
Sour Pitting Risk Ranking: ECE includes a qualitative
ranking scheme to describe the risk of sour pitting
corrosion based on the model inputs. Note that the
occurrence of pitting can be affected by operational
factors not in the scope of ECE, for example pigging,
stability of process conditions, contamination with trace
oxygen, presence of solids. These factors are NOT
included in the ranking model.
Pitting risk ranking is based on Flow Velocity (main
factor), modified by chloride content, pH and
temperature.
Main factor - Flow Velocity: High risk, liquid velocity < 1
m/s; Medium 1 -2 m/s; Low > 2 m/s, or superficial gas
velocity > 3 m/s.
Modifying Factors:

Chloride: high > 10,000ppm ; medium 1000 - 10,000

ppm ; low < 1000 ppm
pH: high < 3.2; medium 3.2-5; low > 5

Temperature: high, < 60°C; medium 60-90°C; low >

90°C
The overall Risk is described as Very High, High,
Moderate or Low based on the above factors.
Cracking in Sour Conditions: H2S also causes cracking in
carbon steels by various mechanisms. The severity of
the environment as regards of sulfide stress cracking of
carbon steels is assessed against the criteria defined in
 ISO 15156-2 and the result is reported on the Details
page in the Corrosion Predictor.
H2S can cause hydrogen induced cracking (HIC) (also
called step-wise cracking). No evaluation of this risk is
made since it is extremely sensitive to the material
properties and manufacturing processes. It is assumed
that HIC-sensitive materials (such as rolled carbon steel
products not specifically produced for sour service) may
suffer HIC even in the presence of traces of H2S.
The CRA Evaluation tools provide guidance on
appropriate CRA alloys in sour service.
Refer to other resources for further advice on the
avoidance of cracking risks in H2S, including EFC
Document nr 16, and NACE MR0175 / ISO 15156

Reference:
Michel Bonis (TOTAL E&P), Weight-loss corrosion with H2S: From facts to leading
parameters and mechanisms, NACE Corrosion 2009, Paper 09654.
Stephen N. Smith, Michael W. Joosten, Corrosion of Carbon Steel by H2S in CO2
- containing Oilfield Environments, NACE Corrosion 2006 Paper 06115.
pH and Water Chemistry
The pH is evaluated by calculating the concentration of the
following species:
CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, CO3--, H2S, HS-, S--, H+, OH-, H2O,
Fe++ , CH3COOH (acetic acid), CH3COO-.
The effective carbonic acid concentration is calculated from
the CO2 fugacity and Henry's constant, which is
temperature dependent. The concentrations of the
carbonate and bicarbonate species then follow from the
dissociation constants, which are also temperature
dependent. For the H2S derived species the calculations are
analogous.
The pH is finally obtained by changing the H+ concentration
until all ionic species are in equilibrium of charge.
An important role is played by dissolved iron bicarbonate,
which is the initial corrosion product formed. Although the
solubility of FeCO3 is quite low, the slow reaction:
Fe(HCO3)2 ---------> FeCO3 +H2CO3
causes a supersaturation with dissolved Fe++, which
increases the pH (=pHact) and reduces the corrosion rate.
The extent of supersaturation with Fe(HCO3)2 is
temperature dependent (more supersaturation at lower
temperature). The precipitation rate of FeCO3 (=removal
rate of Fe(HCO3)2 from solution) can be calculated from
van Hunnik's formula:

where Ksp is the solubility product of FeCO3, A/V is the

surface area/volume ratio and S is the supersaturation
level.
The iron bicarbonate concentration [Fe++] is calculated as
a function of distance into the pipe. This is done by dividing
the pipe into segments of equal size, and determining the
pH and ferrous ion mass balance for every segment. For a
stable, once-through system, like a pipeline the dissolved
iron carbonate concentration will become time independent,
and for every segment the fluxes of the concentration
(=change per time unit) brought about by corrosion,
precipitation of FeCO3, and flow into and out of the
segment should balance.
All chemical equilibria, pH and resulting Fe++ concentration
are recalculated in each segment, with the dissolved iron
from a previous segment acting as input for the next one.
Note that the pH calculated in this way for any location is
dependent on the flow velocity.
The model needs to know whether the inlet water is
supersaturated with iron carbonate , or whether this water
contains no iron at all (condensed water). The default
setting is for supersaturation with iron carbonate, but this
can be changed in Defaults. The possible cases are:

Unsaturated: Applicable to laboratory conditions or

condensing water straight from a gas phase (for
example, after a compressor and cooler).
Supersaturated: Applicable to the majority of flowing
systems where there is insufficient time to achieve
equilibration and therefore there is an over-saturation of
iron carbonate in the water.

In the presence of H2S, the effect of iron carbonate

supersaturation disappears because the dissolved iron is
converted to insoluble sulphides (and the corrosion rate is
lowered by the presence of H2S). The precipitation rate of
Fe-sulphides, once the solubility product has been
exceeded, is much faster than that of FeCO3, and can be
assumed to be instantaneous. This effect is also calculated
as function of pipe length from the solubility of FeS, which is
a function of temperature.
For systems which are producing a formation water that
contains alkali bicarbonates which are input on the
bicarbonate scroll bar, the effect of iron carbonate
supersaturation then vanishes. Note that when this input is
set to zero, there is still some bicarbonate corresponding to
the dissolved CO2. Adding more bicarbonate increases the
pH and lowers the corrosion rate.
Note that the CRA Evaluation tools also give pH values, both
at in-situ temperature and pressure and also in the given
environment but at 20ºC.

Impact of Dissolved Salts: Dissolved salts have two

main impacts on water chemistry, namely salting out
effect on gas solubility and impact on hydrogen ion
activity. Within ECE, dissolved salts are treated as being
NaCl. The overall impact on corrosion rates is for
reduced corrosion at very high ionic strength. This is
observed in laboratory studies.
Salting out: The general trend is that gas solubility
decreases with ionic strength, and to a first
approximation this is consistent over a wide range of
pressure and temperature. ECE bases salting-out on the
empirical formula derived by Enick and Klara.
Hydrogen Activity: Starting from pure water and
increasing ionic strength, the trend is initially for slightly
lower activity, then increasing activity in very
concentrated solutions. There are simple equations for
dilute solutions (Debye – Huckel equation for example).
Activity coefficient corrections in ECE are based on a
combination of values from dilute solution equations
and empirical data for higher strength solutions.
pH = -log (γ [H+] )

Where γ is the hydrogen activity coefficient, which is a

function of ionic strength.

Reference:
C. de Waard, U. Lotz and A. Dugstad, Influence of Liquid Velocity on CO2
Corrosion: a Semi-Empirical Model, NACE Corrosion 1995 Paper 128.
E.W.J. van Hunnik et al, The formation of protective FeCO3 corrosion product
layers in CO2 corrosion, NACE Corrosion 1996, Paper 6.
Fang et al, High salt concentration effects on CO2 corrosion and H2S corrosion,
NACE Corrosion 2010, Paper 10276.
L. Smith, C de Waard, Corrosion Prediction and Materials Selection for Oil and
Gas Producing Environments, NACE Corrosion 2005, Paper 05648.
R. Enick, S Klara, CO2 solubility in water and brine under reservoir conditions,
Chem Eng Comm 1990, Volume 90 pp 23-3.
Influence of Crude Oil
The presence of hydrocarbons may have an important effect
on corrosion rate. At higher velocities, the water may be
entrained in the oil, and the effect on corrosion than
depends on how well the water can wet the steel's surface.
The ECE model proposes that this wetting ability depends on
the amount of water which the oil can carry in the form of an
emulsion. The ability of an oil to form emulsions with water
can be expressed as the emulsion breakpoint, which is the
amount of water above which the emulsion will separate.
Water contents less than this breakpoint will cause less
water wetting of the steel, and give less corrosion since the
water is being carried as an emulsion in the oil. The
corrosion rate reduces as the water content reduces. Water
contents greater than the breakpoint will result in more
corrosion, as there is water separation. This results in water
wetting of the steel even if the water remains entrained in
the oil because of turbulent flow. The oil then still has an
inhibiting effect on the corrosion rate.
It has been found that there is a simple relationship between
the API gravity of the oil and the emulsion breakpoint. Data
were used from Craig (Corrosion Vol.54, 8, p.657) .

Where WBreak = the water cut in the oil at the emulsion

breakpoint, API = gravity of the oil in °API
A light oil with a very high API density can hardly carry any
water in emulsion, and the emulsion breakpoint will be
exceeded already with a very small water cut. This in line
with the accepted fact that gas condensate does not give
any protection at all,.
The oilfactor, Foil for production tubing is given by:
where W is the water cut (as fraction of total liquid volume),
Uliq = liquid velocity, and
alpha = angle of deviation (from vertical)
This formula extrapolates field experience for vertical flow
and deviated flow which showed that at low watercuts the
corrosion from oil/water mixtures is highly dependent on the
angle of tubing. Straight vertical oil wells have shown lower
tendency to corrode than deviated wells. This probably
reflects the tendency for the denser water phase to contact
the tubing wall when flowing at an angle. Furthermore, the
formula attempts to quantify the intuitive notion that heavier
crude oils are more protective against corrosion than light
crudes or condensates.
At high water cuts at some point there will be a change from
water-in-oil emulsion to an oil-in-water emulsion and that
there will always be wetting of the steel above a certain
water cut so that Foil = 1. ECE The program is set to give a
straight line transition between the oil factor equation and
Foil = 1 over a transition range. In ECE 4.x the transition
range was set at water cut of 70% to 80%. Experience with
oil wells at high water cuts has shown that in practice the
protective effect of oil extends to higher water cuts, even in
excess of 90%, and the transition range has therefore been
changed to 80-90% for the Tubing Corrosion Predictor only.
Based on field experience, this range is still conservative for
many wells. The transition range for Flowlines is 70-80%.

Warning: the stability of oil/water emulsions is

influenced strongly by the natural presence of surface
active chemicals, or by the presence of added chemicals
like "emulsion breakers". These are often used in
operations to facilitate the separation of water from
 crude oil and downstream of the separators, and they
may still be causing water to separate out more easily
than the API gravity and flow rate would predict.

For horizontal flow, when the flow regime is stratified,

the multiplier Foil=1 when the water separates from the
oil so that there is complete water wetting of the
surface. The velocity of water separation is dependent
upon pipe diameter, pipe angle, oil density etc . A lower
limit can be taken in general to occur at liquid velocities
< 1 m/s, and there is some dependence on pipeline
diameter. In ECE, a critical velocity of 1 m/s or 2.25 x
(pipe diameter)^0.5 is applied (whichever is greater).
This constraint for Foil is superimposed on the formula
for Foil given above.
Force Water Drop-out: In pipelines, which are never
perfectly horizontal, there may be pockets of water hold
up at low points even at flow velocities above the
general critical value. Pressing the Force Water Drop Out
button on the Throughput tab can check the corrosion
rate with forced water dropout for systems where the
bulk velocity is higher than the critical velocity. Force
Water Drop Out can also be selected for other situations
where oil-water separation is expected, for example if
demulsifier chemicals are present.

Reference:
B Craig, Predicting the Conductivity of Water-in-Oil Solutions, Corrosion Volume
54, 8, p. 657 1998.
C. de Waard, L. Smith, P. Bartlett and H. Cunningham, Modelling Corrosion Rates
in Oil Production Tubing, Eurocorr 2001, Paper 254.
C. de Waard, L. Smith and B. Craig, The Influence of Crude Oil on Well Tubing
Corrosion Rates, NACE Corrosion 2003, Paper 03629.
C. de Waard and U. Lotz, Prediction of CO2 Corrosion of Carbon Steel, Working
Party Report on Predicting CO2 corrosion in the oil and gas industry, European
Federation of Corrosion 1994.
J. Cai, S. Nesic and C de Waard, Modeling of Water Wetting in Oil-Water Pipe
Flow, NACE Corrosion 2004, Paper 4663.
Condensation of Water
The amount of water inside the pipe or tubing is
recalculated for every point along the length. Use is made
of a computerised graph from McKette and Wehe (Hydroc
Proc Aug 1958) of gas temperature vs. water content of
natural gas, with gas pressure as parameter. This changes
liquid hold up and liquid velocities and water cut along the
pipe length or up the height of the tubing. Gas temperature
and water content will not always be in equilibrium at high
flow-rates: this effect is outside the scope of ECE.
When glycol is added for hydrate or corrosion control in a
pipe, the amount of condensed water is modified as function
of the glycol injection rate.
ECE can be used to estimate the total amount of condensed
water from gas at the outlet by subtracting the water at
inlet rate (Throughput page ) from that at the outlet
(Details page).
Top of Line Corrosion
When there is a stratified flow pattern in a flowline, there is
the potential for Top-of-Line Corrosion. This is corrosion
attack on the upper part of the internal pipe surface in
contact with the gas phase, in contrast to attack on the
lower part in contact with the bulk liquid water phase. In
sweet conditions, severe Top-of-Line corrosion is typically
associated with high temperature gradients and high rates of
water condensation on the pipe walls. Note that Top-of-Line
Corrosion includes the whole surface in contact with the gas
phase, not just the 12 clock position.
The predicted Top-of-Line corrosion rate is proportional to
the rate of condensation of water from the gas (per unit area
of pipe wall) and the maximum Fe concentration in water at
the particular conditions of pressure, temperature and gas
composition. In physical terms, this expresses the maximum
rate at which water can remove iron ions from the pipe wall
as it condenses and then runs-off down to the bulk liquid
phase at the bottom of the pipe. This limits the potential rate
of corrosion of the pipe wall.

The iron concentration is the iron super-saturation limit, not

the equilibrium saturation limit, as the precipitation of iron
carbonate is a slow reaction and the water phase does not
reach equilibrium. The water condensation rate is calculated
from the temperature profile, pressure and gas rate. The
concept is similar to that proposed by Olsen & Dugstad, but
the details of the calculation of iron concentration differ.

Scale and Oil factors are not applied to the Top-of-Line

corrosion rate.
Chemical inhibition is not applied to Top-of-Line
corrosion rate
 Acetic acid is slightly volatile and has a significant
vapour pressure. Hence it is present in the gas phase
and can enter the condensed water phase at Top-of-Line.
Acetic acid is therefore included in the pH and Fe
solubility calculations at Top-of-Line. In contrast,
bicarbonate is not present in the condensed water at the
Top-of-Line. Organic acids have been associated with
several field examples of severe Top-of-Line corrosion.
Advice for Modelling Top-of-Line Corrosion: Because the
Top-of-Line corrosion rate depends on water
condensation rates, it is important to use a realistic
temperature profile. We recommend you use the option
to calculate temperature profile on the Flowline
Corrosion Predictor Conditions page. Alternatively, heat
transfer factors and ambient temperature can also be
entered as sectional data on the Sections tab.
Sour Conditions: Top-of-Line corrosion has occasionally
been reported in sour conditions, but it is not related to
high water condensation rates and appears to be a
different mechanism to that which applies in sweet
conditions. The ECE model will predict very low Top-of-
Line corrosion rates in sour conditions due to the low
solubility of iron sulphide. This is reflects the majority of
field experience. In at least some cases, the top of line
corrosion seen in sour conditions may be similar to the
pitting corrosion rate which is also displayed on the
Corrosion graph.

Reference:
Stein Olsen, Arne Dugstad, Corrosion under Dewing Conditions, NACE Corrosion
1992, Paper 472
Rolf Nyborg, Arne Dugstad, Top of Line Corrosion and Water Condensation Rates
in Wet Gas Pipelines, NACE Corrosion 2007, Paper 07555.
Corrosion Inhibition
Corrosion inhibitors, when carefully selected and
conscientiously applied, can give a significant reduction of
the corrosion rate. In ideal situations, well-chosen inhibitors
can achieve efficiencies of 99%.

In practice, the main factor for inhibitors to be less effective

is that the reliability (or availability) of the injection is
seldom 100% and frequently much lower. Availability is
defined as the percentage of operating time during which
inhibitor is injected at or above the minimum rate required
for effective protection.

The corrosion during the uninhibited periods of time may

quickly reaches uninhibited rates. In the model, the
corrosion rate is assumed to be the full uninhibited rate
during these periods. For continuous inhibition, ECE allows
you to alter both the availability and efficiency of the
corrosion inhibitor to test its effect on the overall corrosion
rate.
Note that in all cases, the inhibited corrosion rate per year
output by ECE is the overall corrosion rate taking into
account periods with and without inhibition.

Types of Inhibition: Two modes of inhibition are

considered. In the case of flowlines only continuous
inhibition is appropriate. For tubing there is also the
option of using squeeze inhibition. Here the inhibitor
solution is injected into the producing reservoir
formation, and then slowly released into the produced
oil. The inhibition effect inside the tubing is then built up
 in about one month, and then reduces slowly in about 2
months. The corrosion model adds the effect of
consecutive squeezes for the calculation of the average
corrosion rate per year.
Top-of-Line corrosion: In stratified gas-liquid multi-phase
systems, conventional inhibitors are generally unable to
reliably protect the top part of the pipeline where fresh
water may condenses. Inhibition is therefore not applied
to the Top-of-Line corrosion rate in ECE. It is possible
that the corrosion at the top of the line becomes decisive
for the life of the line (for example where the bottom of
the line rate is reduced by favourable oil protection) and
the addition of inhibitor cannot influence this. The
presence of crude oil also does not reduce the Top-of-
the-Line corrosion rate.
Inhibition in presence of H2S: Note that in the ECE
model, the inhibition only reduces the overall corrosion
rate, but the Isolated Pitting line with H2S present in the
Corrosion graph is not affected by the presence of
inhibitor. In practice, inhibition may have an effect on
the likelihood of pitting occurring, although perhaps not
on the pitting rate if or when it does occur.

References:
B.F.M. Pots and E.L.J.A. Hendriksen, CO2 corrosion under scaling conditions –
The special case of top-of-Line corrosion in wet gas pipelines, NACE Corrosion
2000.
Flow Patterns
Complete modelling of flow patterns in multi- phase flow is
an extremely complex problem, requiring knowledge of
many parameters which in practice are often not accurately
known, or which will in any case change over time or from
point to point in the tubing or flowline. Even in ideal
laboratory conditions, accurate prediction of flow patterns
has proved difficult. However, for the purpose of corrosion
modelling it is possible to group the possible patterns into
several broader classes: the fundamental distinctions are
between annular-mist flow, slug and bubble type flow
patterns, and (for flowlines) stratified, nonsymmetrical flow
patterns. ECE uses flow pattern regimes based on a
simplified version of the scheme of Petalas and Aziz.
Additionally, there is a Liquid Full regime.

Flow Pattern Types for Flowlines: Annular Mist Flow,

Intermittent Slug/Bubble Flow, Stratified Flow and
Liquid Full. This schematic diagram displays the flow
pattern regimes for horizontal flow in Flowlines. The
model does not allow the stratified regime for up-hill
flow above a very low angle (about 1-2 degrees).
Flow Pattern Types for Tubing: Annular Mist Flow,
Slug/Bubble Flow and Liquid Full. Click here to view a
schematic diagram of the flow pattern regimes for
vertical flow in Tubing. The evaluation of flow regime
has an impact upon the hold up calculations and actual
gas and liquid velocities which may influence the
corrosion rate. Note that in the Tubing Corrosion
Predictor, the calculation of oil-wetting effects on
corrosion rates is also influenced by the tubing deviation
angle. Top-of-Line corrosion only applies to stratified
flow in flowlines.
 Liquid Full Regime: In multi-phase flow, the dissolved
concentrations of CO2 or H2S along the flow-line can
change with temperature and pressure due to
equilibrium with the gas phase. In contrast, this cannot
occur where there is no gas phase present. This effect is
accounted for when the liquid full flow pattern applies.

Reference:
N. Petalas and K. Aziz, A Mechanistic Model for Multiphase Flow in Pipes,
Stanford University, 1998.
Glycol Injection
A special form of inhibition consists of the injection of
concentrated glycol in flowlines carrying wet natural gas
without formation water production. The glycol acts in two
ways:

As a drying agent, lowering the water dew point of the

gas and the condensation rate of pure water.
As a corrosion inhibitor.

The inhibitive action is a function of the water content of the

glycol: when it is diluted with too much water, the corrosion
reduction disappears. The effect of glycol is also treated as
a multiplier to the corrosion rate:

where A is a constant =1.6, which weakly depends on the

type of glycol, and Water% is the water content of the
glycol/water mixture. The concentration of the glycol is
recalculated at every point in the line from the water vapour
pressure in equilibrium with the concentration of the glycol.
At high temperatures of (for example, above 50ºC), the gas
carries too much water, which dilutes the glycol excessively.
For the same reason the technique is only practical when
most of the liquid water has been knocked out from the gas
before entering the line.
There are several types of glycol which can be used, the
most common one being diethylene glycol (DEG). ECE
assumes that any glycol which is injected is DEG of 95%
purity. At equal concentrations, the inhibitive action of the
various types of glycol (MEG, DEG, TEG) is quite similar.
Hence other glycol types can be treated as equivalent to
DEG for the purpose of corrosion modelling. Top-of-the-line
corrosion is also suppressed in (at least) the same
proportion by the injection of glycol.
Reference:
C.de Waard, U.Lotz and D.E. Milliams, Predictive model for CO2 corrosion
engineering in wet natural gas pipelines. NACE Corrosion 1991 Paper 577.
R. Nyborg, A. Dugstad and L. Lunde, NACE Corrosion 1993, Paper 77.
Erosion-Corrosion
The Corrosion Model incorporates the erosional effect of
high gas velocities in removing protective layers like iron-
carbonates and –sulphides, and inhibitor films. Their effect
is disabled in the model when a critical gas velocity is
exceeded, under the condition that the flow regime is
annular mist.
In the present model, this velocity is calculated from API RP
14E, for example, if the velocity is greater than API
erosional velocity, and the flow regime is annular mist, then
the protective layers are presumed to fail. The standard API
14RE critical velocity limit is likely to give conservative
results. It is calculated from the following formula:

Here "dens" stands for the gas/liquid mixture density at

flowing pressure and temperature, and c is an empirical
constant. For continuous solids-free service c=100 when
empirical units are used: c then has the dimension
(lb/ft)^0.5/s (Verosion in ft/s), or c=122 (kg/m)^0.5/s,
when metric units are used (Verosion in m/s).
The mixture density is calculated approximately from the
proportions of fluids flowing. A liquid density of 900 kg/m3
is assumed and the density of gas is taken to be 0.7 of that
of air (which is 1.226 kg/m3 at 1 bar and 15 °C), and
corrected for prevailing temperature and pressure according
to the ideal gas laws. Changes in these assumptions only
give changes in the decimal places of the calculated critical
velocity in most practical cases.
It should be appreciated that the critical velocity is also a
function of the smoothness of the bore of the pipe and that
the above velocity approach is an extrapolation of
experience with piping systems, and does not necessary
apply to pipelines or tubing. At the present, however, this
approach is used in industry.
The behaviour of protective layers is treated in the model as
a step-function: the layer is either on or off. The erosional
velocity is recalculated for every point in the line. This can
lead to a sharp jump in the graph of corrosion rate vs
distance when the erosional velocity is exceeded, where in
actual practice the loss of protection will be less sudden.
A separate model is provided to calculate particle erosion in
the Tubing module, see “Particle Erosion”.

Changing the C-constant: You can change the value of

the C-constant on the Advanced page. Alternative
values for different situations have been suggested by
some researchers. This option allows you to work with
different C-values or erosional velocity limits depending
upon User's policies for assessing the threat of erosion.
Also, entering a very high C value in effect allows you to
over-ride the erosional limit feature.

Reference:
Russell et al, Choosing Better API RP 14E C Factors for Practical Oilfield
Implementation, NACE Corrosion 2011, Paper 11248.
Particle Erosion
The Tubing Erosion Predictor model is a slightly simplified
implementation of the smooth straight pipe and bend
models from DNV-GL RP O501:2015 “Managing sand
production and erosion”. The tool is intended for a first –
pass assessment or exploratory modelling. For detailed
assessment, reference to the full DNV-GL Code is
recommended.
The substrate material properties are for Carbon Steel.
The particle correction factor is fixed at 1 (worst case
assumption). Accurate information on the particle size
distribution and density is needed to calculate this
parameter and this is very often not available. Fixing this
value gives an upper bound result in terms of the RP O501
model.
The erosion values are calculated with the smooth straight
pipe formula and also with the pipe bend formula using the
radius of curvature from the tubing deviation profile. The
largest of these two values is reported.
The other necessary data for erosion calculation including
pipe dimensions and fluid flow velocities are calculated from
the inputs in ECE such as pressure, temperature, flow rates
etc.
Note that there is no interaction between the particle
erosion model and corrosion model, and any synergistic
effects that might occur are not covered. The corrosion
model removes the protective effect of scale and sulphide
filming at velocities above the API 14E erosional limit (see
“Erosion –corrosion”) .
In practice, to produce significant particle erosion rates in
tubing (essentially straight, smooth pipe) requires rather
extreme conditions of flow velocity and particle loading.
Reference: DNV-GL RP O501:2015 “Managing sand production and erosion”
Risk of Failure
The corrosion prediction models used in ECE have a limited
accuracy. The formulas used for CO2 corrosion prediction
give a standard deviation of about 25% for the corrosion
rate over their validated ranges, which means that there is
a chance of almost 16% that the actual corrosion rate is
outside the range ± 25%, assuming the statistics for a
normal distribution apply. Anyone who has been involved in
practical corrosion rate measurements in the laboratory or
the field will also appreciate that actual measurements on
replicate coupons or at equivalent positions can sometimes
vary by at least this much, often without a clear reason.
ECE calculates a normal distribution curve around the
maximum corrosion rate (truncated at zero corrosion rate)
and converts this to an accumulated risk of failure by
dividing into the wall thickness and integrating over time.
This yields a curve for the accumulated risk of failure vs
time: the time to reach a 50% risk of failure corresponds to
the nominal value of the maximum corrosion rate. Longer
exposure of the pipe or tubing will increase the risk of
failure, until finally a point is reached where failure is
almost certain.
In the presence of H2S there is a risk that the protective
sulphide layer on the steel is disturbed, and that localised
pitting corrosion occurs. The rate of penetration at these
pits are often equal to the CO2 corrosion rate. This is
accounted for in the risk of failure prediction by adding an
arbitrary 25% chance that the corrosion rate is based
entirely upon the localised pitting corrosion rate. The
standard deviation for the resulting prediction is larger (=
less certain) and has been set to 30%. When H2S is
present, the risk of loss of protection of the sulphide layer
shows up as a plateau early in the life in the accumulated
risk curve, when, of course, the CO2 corrosion rate is high
enough to show the effect.
Acetic Acid
Natural gas can contain small amounts of vapour of organic
acids, notably acetic acid. In view of the high solubility in
water, this can lead to concentrations of dissolved acetic
acid in condensed water, which can be significant in
increasing the corrosion rates to higher values than with
CO2 only. This is particularly noticeable in increasing the top
of the line corrosion rates since in such condensing
conditions the local environment is not influenced by
alkaline constituents like dissolved carbonates.
It is customary to report the acetic acid or acetate
concentration dissolved in the water, rather than the partial
pressure (in contrast to the case of CO2). If dissolved acetic
acid is detected in the field, the effect on corrosion rate can
modelled by changing the default value for this acid from
zero.
The action of dissolved acetic acid has been shown to be
analogous to that of carbonic acid: the undissociated acetic
acid is directly reduced at the metal's surface in addition to
the reduction of the undissociated carbonic acid. This
modifies the Vm term in the corrosion rate formula , and
causes the larger part of the increase in corrosion rate.

This theory has been validated by laboratory tests.

The dissociated part of the acid can modify the Vr term in
the CO2 corrosion rate formula through a effect on pH.
Since the undissociated part of the acetic acid is the most
corrosive, an increase in pH will reduce the effect of the
acid, because this will cause the acid to dissociate to form
more acetate ions, which are relatively harmless. For this
reason the presence of dissolved iron at lower temperatures
can be very important for prediction of the effect of acetic
acid, especially when iron carbonate supersaturation can
occur.
With H2S present and acetic acid, the model can predict
high corrosion rates due to the impact of sulphide in
removing Fe from solution and in lowering the pH. It is
important to include any Bicarbonate present in the water
phase because this will also affect the pH and corrosion
rate.
Reference:
Keith George, Srdjan Nesic and C. de Waard, Electrochemical Investigation and
Modelling of CO2 corrosion in the presence of Acetic Acid, NACE Corrosion 2004,
Paper 04379.
Model Predictions

Guidance on Accuracy of
Prediction

The original de Waard corrosion model was largely based on

experimental data including flow loop data produced at IFE.
Wood Group have developed the ECE implementation of the
de Waard model and calibrated it with field corrosion data
over many years.
Generally, ECE is optimized for realistic production scenarios
with moderate corrosion rates (about 0.05 – 10 mm/yr),
where carbon steel (with or without inhibition) might be an
option. Output values in several 10s of mm/yr are not
necessarily accurate – but carbon steel is not a realistic
option in this situation. CO2 corrosion typically is not
uniform, but has regions of lower and higher corrosion
rates. The prediction in ECE is for the regions of maximum
corrosion.

Summary of Application
Limits

Sweet Service: Any mixture of Liquid Hydrocarbon, Gas

and Water. Any level of Bicarbonate. In oil production
where emulsion formation is significant, water
separation is a threshold effect as a function of fluid
velocity, which means that behaviour both in real
service and in the model can be variable at velocities
round the threshold value.
Sour Service: Corrosion in sour conditions is often very
low due to protective sulphide filming, but occasionally
very high where films are not protective. As yet, no fully
satisfactory model has been developed for sour
corrosion.
Filming Corrosion Rates: These are based on field data
for H2S partial pressures from nil to about 15 bar, and
only a few data points at higher H2S partial pressure.
Although filming corrosion rate predicted by ECE is often
lower than for other corrosion models in many cases
ECE still over-predicted the filming corrosion rates in
this range compared with field.
Potential Pitting Corrosion Rates: Prediction of the
potential pitting corrosion rates is subject to the same
trends as the sweet corrosion model: for example, tend
to under-predict at very low velocities; very large rates
>> 10 mm/yr are not necessarily accurate.
Pitting Corrosion in Sour Conditions: Typically, inhibition
has some impact in reducing the rate or frequency of
pitting corrosion in sour conditions. This is NOT included
in the ECE model and pitting corrosion rates are
uninhibited.
Presence of both H2S and Acetic Acid: If both H2S and
acetic acid are present, the ECE model typically predicts
high corrosion rates, often in 10s of mm/yr depending
on other inputs. This is based on laboratory data. We
lack the field data to bench-mark this situation and are
not able to state if ECE is correct or under / over-
predicting.
Acknowledgements
Wood Group extends its thanks to all who have contributed
towards ECE .

Corrosion Model: Liane Smith, Mike Billingham, C. de

Waard
ECE Team: Daniel Thomas, Michelle Wright, Huseyin
Ozyilmaz, Ged Lunt.
Contributors: Thank You to all ECE users for their
comments, feedback and suggestions.
Credits: Microsoft© Word, Microsoft© Excel and
Microsoft© Windows are either registered trademarks or
trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United
States and/or other countries.

For Support contact the ECE Development Team - Email:

[email protected] - Telephone: +44 (0) 1244 336386

© John Wood Group plc 2017

Disclaimer
Materials and Corrosion Engineering is (not yet) an exact
science. The information and model predictions contained in
this program is claimed to be state of the art,but no
responsibility is accepted for damages from or related to, its
use.
The Electronic Corrosion Engineer is a tool for the corrosion
or materials engineer to evaluate some important aspects of
corrosion control and materials selection. It is intended for
use by an engineer who understands the significance of the
input data and how to apply the output data. ECE is not an
expert system or a replacement for a corrosion engineer.
The technical background to this program has been
meticulously researched and it is believed to present the
state-of-the-art in terms of quantitative corrosion modelling
and materials selection for corrosive oil and gas production
environments. However, a full consideration of all issues
related to materials selection requires detailed knowledge of
the precise operating conditions, the external environment
and the intended mode of operation. This is beyond the
scope of the model. The writers, therefore, do not accept
any liability for any damage resulting from actions or
decisions based on the output of ECE.
Electronic Corrosion Engineer and ECE are
registered trademarks or trademarks of
John Wood Group plc in the United
Kingdom and other countries.
Electronic Corrosion Engineer is the
copyright of John Wood Group plc and is
protected by copyright laws and
international treaty provisions. It may not
be copied, modified or distributed in any
way. It is illegal to attempt to reverse
engineer, decompile or disassemble this
software for any purpose whatsoever.
Copyright © 2017 John Wood Group plc. Electronic Corrosion Engineer and ECE
are registered trademarks or trademarks of John Wood Group plc in the United
Kingdom and other countries.

© John Wood Group plc 2017

Flowline Corrosion Predictor
The Flowline Corrosion Predictor is used to predict the
internal corrosion rate of a carbon steel flowline.

Data Input: Input operational parameters to display the

output results.
Project: Used to input Project information into the
Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
Conditions: Used to input Temperature, Pressure, Gas
Composition and Water Chemistry information into the
Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
Throughput: Used to input Crude Oil/Condensate, Gas,
Water, Holdup and Watercut information into the
Flowline Corrosion Predictor.
Advanced: Used to input the Glycol Injection Rate,
Inhibition, the Dissolved FE at Inlet and the Erosional
Velocity of Gas information into the Flowline Corrosion
Predictor.
Data Output: Output Results are displayed in the tabs;
Corrosion Rate, Risk Analysis, All Graphs and Details.
Corrosion Rate Graph: Displays the Flowline Corrosion
Rate Graph, Corrosion Rate (mm/year) over Distance
(km) along the flowline.
Risk Analysis: Displays a graph of accumulated risk of
failure vs. time.
All Graphs: Used to select parameters to display as a
graph over distance along the flowline.
Details: Used to view Output Details for the selected
Flowline Corrosion Prediction Project.