×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Solids Erosion - Target T vs LR Elbow

Solids Erosion - Target T vs LR Elbow

Solids Erosion - Target T vs LR Elbow

(OP)
Mature oil & gas fields inevitably produce sand along with the hydrocarbons and water.  These sand particles result in a multitude of problems, one of which is erosion of 90° elbows.  Standard practice is to install "Target Tees" at these point.

The blind on the tee generally has a lead (or other soft metal) insert to "absorb the impact of the particles".  Over time the dead leg of the tee accumulates sand and this prevents erosion of the pipe fitting itself.

Recently I have heard extensive debate on the usefulnes of Target Tees and whether or not Long Radius Elbows should be employed instead.

Whilst LR elbows are subjected to the same amount of erosion as short radius elbows the depth of penetration is less due to the larger surface area [SPE 38842 - Solid Particle Erosion in LR Elbows and straight pipe, 1997, McLaury et al]

I have come across both LR and Target Tees in severe sand duty, but have neither has established itself over the other with the exception that LR Elbows are easier to monitor with UT.  

Obviously the flow regime will have a large effect upon the rate of erosion.  At the moment I am looking solely at single phase (erosion) pipework.

Does anybody out there have experience (old war stories) on this matter or comments?  

RE: Solids Erosion - Target T vs LR Elbow

Nosey,
Long Radius elbows have a bend radius (at the centerline)that is 1.5 times the pipe diameter.  Short radius elbows have a tighter bend.  I've never seen a short radius elbow in Oil & Gas field operations (I've heard that they are common in plants and refineries, but I've never worked in that environment)

Often times people try to control errosion with sweeps which have a bend radius on the order of 6-8 pipe diameters.  I've looked at a lot of data on the effectiveness of sweeps in controlling errosion, and it looks to me like once again we want "wishing to make it so".  They get eaten out nearly as often as target tees and are a whole bunch harder to replace.

The bull plug in a target tee can be replaced easily, often without taking the well down.  I like bull plugs instead of bushings because the fitting they screw into often stays intact while the energy of the sand is often expended inside the bull plug.  With a bushing, the wear point is the tee at the point where the bushing stopped.

David

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources