SPE 134347

A Pragmatic Approach to Frac-Pack Tool Erosion Qualification Testing

Nicholas J. Clem, SPE, Aaron C. Hammer, SPE, Maria M. O'Connell, SPE, and Anderson da S. Amaral, SPE, Baker
Hughes, Inc.

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 1922 September 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Frac packing tool erosion is a growing concern as more high-profile deepwater wells are completed using this technique.
Today many deepwater wells require frac pack pump rates of at least 40 barrels per minute (bbl/min) with proppant loads reaching
300,000 lbm. As zone lengths are increased and multizone operations are performed, jobs requiring 60 bbl/min pump rates with
proppant loads reaching 1,500,000 lbm are becoming more typical. The current frac packing tool designs must be optimized to
accommodate the higher pump rates and proppant volumes required to complete these deepwater wells.
Extensive research and development, including computational fluid dynamics analysis and scale-model erosion testing,
have led to the development of a new series of sand control tools that have been optimized for ultra-high-rate frac packing
applications. Analyzing various patterns such as velocity, fluid path, erosion, and sand concentration at high rates helps identify
critical areas within the system that require design optimization.
Results from full-scale erosion qualification testing of this new series of sand control tools are discussed. The
qualification tests are designed to simulate extreme applications for tools in terms of pump rate, treatment volumes, and proppant
properties, while testing conditions remain consistent with actual job specifications. The qualification test parameters were chosen
to emulate and, in some cases, exceed the parameters of frac pack treatments currently being planned for the deepwater Gulf of
Mexico. Erosion properties of the crossover, extension, and casing will be discussed, and depicted.
Introduction
Deepwater projects are large CAPEX projects with longer-term developments; therefore, this environment has higher
cost, higher risk, higher profile, and longer project cycles compared to shelf projects, which naturally demands more planning and
preparation for the completion phase.
When sand control is required in a deepwater well, the operation risks and rig time also increase. This is mainly due to
the more complex equipment installation sequence and high-rate pumping required for the well completion.
Some deepwater reservoirs are characterized by being layered and unconsolidated with high-permeability strata,
sometimes with different permeability or reservoir pressures per layer, requiring zonal isolation and individual frac pack
operations per zone. In addition, long intervals with clean high permeable sand often require higher pumping rates to maintain
fracture growth and also demand a higher volume of proppant to be pumped. Other reservoirs are characterized by a very long pay
interval with lower permeability than a typical unconsolidated formation and, because of the higher overburden strata, the
fracturing process conducted on this rock may differ from what is typical in unconsolidated formations.
The combination of these reservoir conditions, with a higher depth of the well and elevated rig costs to operate in
deepwater, creates a natural effort to optimize the completion and the time to execute it. When larger zones or layered zones are
fractured and packed with a single set of equipment, the number of trips in and out of the well are reduced, which could lead to
substantial savings in rig costs. This reduction in trips inherently requires a higher proppant volume to be pumped through the
equipment, and perhaps higher pumping rates to achieve a good fracture. In this case, one of the key parameters for a successful
completion is the ability of the sand control tools to resist erosion.
The potential process difference means that conventional frac pack tools may not be appropriate anymore, and a more
robust set of equipment is needed to minimize the completion risks and avoid extra costs in workover activities, ultimately helping

SPE 134347

to make the exploitation of the subsea hydrocarbons economically feasible. Failure with the completion equipment being installed
could lead to high expenses due to the elevated rig costs and ultimately could result in economic failure of the subsea development.
Therefore, the technology applied in deepwater wells usually requires a highly specialized set of equipment, creating a particular
demand on engineering, simulations, and equipment testing.
Statement of Theory and Definitions
Given the resource intensive nature of full-scale tool erosion tests, a development program was chartered that would not
only reduce the number of full-scale testing cycles, but also generate sufficient data to thoroughly understand and predict the
behavior of frac tools in a variety of different applications. Frac packing conditions pose several challenges to design and
predicttool behavior. Complex flow regimes coupled with complex tool geometries make prediction and replication of downhole
tool performance a challenging task. A three stage iterative program was developed beginning with computer aided simulation,
followed by scale-model testing, and ultimately full-scale tool qualification testing. Each stage has its unique challenges for
replicating actual tool performance; however, careful planning and consideration of modeling and testing limitations allow each
stage to output the proper data required to feed its successive stage in the development program.
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a critical element in successful tool erosion qualification testing. CFD modeling
was used to determine the best flow paths and qualitatively determine the amount of erosion various designs would have on the
impinging surfaces. The modeling presented several challenges from determining the proper mesh and mesh size, non-Newtonian
fracture fluid characteristics, entrance flow characteristics, high proppant concentration two-phase fluid flow, and the correlation
of the resultant contours to the scale-model testing. Once these parameters were understood and the CFD contours were deemed
reliable, the CFD modeling served as a useful tool to conduct design-of-experiment-style CFD runs to reduce the number of
configurations required for physical testing. Frac packing conditions present several challenges to accurate CFD modeling. The
first challenge is properly modeling the complex geometry of frac pack tools. Consideration should be made to provide a proper
mesh that allows for accurate replicaiton of the true flow dynamic in the tool without sacrificing the tools geometric character.
Secondly, proper modeling of the slurry flow regime is critical. Frac packing slurries generally contain a non-Newtonian carrier
fluid element and high mass and volume fractions of particulate. This complexity creates computationally intensive models which
can be difficult to converge on an accurate solution.
Scale-Model Erosion Testing
Scale-model testing can be used to predict and evaluate the behavior of a design prior to full-scale testing. Generating
useful data can be challenging in any scale-model testing program; however, with proper selection of critical variables and careful
application of scaling principles, scale-model testing can yield both qualitative and quantitative results. Scale-model testing is a
cost-effective and efficient method of screening suitable designs identified through CFD analysis. Multiple designs, materials, and
configurations can be evaluated in a single test without the large cost and time commitment inherent to full-scale testing.
Scale-model testing was used in the development of a new series of sand control completion tools. It was used
throughout the development process to evaluate geometry and material performance of conceptual designs. The scaled geometry
and test parameters were designed such that the erosion relative to the material thickness would be proportional between scalemodel and full-scale testing. The scale-model test data was also used to help identify critical parameters in CFD analysis that can
be used to more accurately evaluate tool performance before erosion testing. Validation and correlation of CFD analysis is
necessary for reduced design time and the evaluation of new designs for the testing of future concepts.
To produce accurate results in a scale model, the erosion rate in the scale model must be the same as in the full-scale tool.
Analyzing the equation that defines the erosion rate relevant for a given application similar to Eq. 1, constants and variables can be
identified to determine the most appropriate scaling principles that should be applied.

m C (dp ) f ( )v b ( v )
,(1)
A
p =1
N

Rerosion =

Scale factors may be determined by a variety of factors. They can be calculated by using a known ratio of full-scale to
scale-model flow rates or a known ratio of component diameters, for example. Using Equation 1 as an example, a scale factor is
calculated based on a flow rate ratio and applied to A, erodable surface area, to create the scale-model tool. If the remaining
variables are held constant between the scale-model and full-scale environment, such as velocity, particle diameter, and impact
angle, an additional scale factor needs to be applied to N, the total number of particles, to maintain equivalence between the fullscale and scale-model erosion rates, Rerosion. Aditional scale factors may need to be caculated and applied accordingly, depending

SPE 134347

on which variables are held constant between the scale-model and full-scale test environements.
Equally important to accurately modeling the erosion rate is an accurate replication of the full-scale flow regime in the
scale-model environment. The flow regime will determine the shape of the eroded profile that, when coupled with an accurate
replication of erosion rate, produces a quantitative measure of the tools performance. Depending on the application and the nature
of the flow regime, dimensional analysis techniques may need to be used to ensure Reynolds and/or Stokes Number similitude.
The flow regimes found in frac packing applications are often difficult to model for a variety of reasons. Non-Newtonian fluids,
variable particle concentrations, and highly turbulent flow all pose unique challenges to creating appropriate scale factors and
dynamic similitude.
Full-Scale Erosion Testing
The primary goal of full-scale testing is to accurately simulate actual fracturing conditions. To most accurately simulate
actual fracturing conditions, careful attention must be paid to the design of the pumping schedule. Prior full-scale and scale-model
tests suggest that lower proppant concentrations are more erosive than the higher proppant concentrations. Additionally, as stated
above, the proppant concentration also affects the shape of the eroded profile which is equally important as the magnitude of the
erosion. Frac packing pumping schedules generally contain both low concentration and high concentration volumes in varying
proportion depending on the desired fracture performance. Accurately capturing the erosive effect of the low concentration volume
in the full-scale test is critical to generating realistic results.
Due to the high costs of the full scale tools, testing facility, test set up, and proppant, an additional goal of a full-scale test
is to perform the test in a cost-efficient manner. One of the primary expenses of a high volume full-scale erosion test is the
proppant. A cost-effective method to perform a full-scale erosion test is with a circulating flow loop, which allows a reduced
volume of proppant to be circulated through the tools multiple times, effectively simulating the total volume that would be pumped
in application. This method is consistent with the small-scale testing method as well as previous full-scale erosion tests (Clarkson
et al. 2008; Li et al. 2005; Mullen et al. 2003).
A circulating test has unique challenges that must be addressed. The slurry experiences repeated shearing and increasing
temperatures as it cycles through the flow loop. Temperature is often managed by mixing gel in batches. Alternatively, a slurry
cooling system may be used that allows longer pumping durations before reaching the temperature limits of either the gel or the
pumping equipment. This extended pumping time has the potential to raise concerns about degradation of the proppant as a result
of an increased number of pumping cycles. Small-scale testing demonstrated through periodic slurry analysis that the proppant
could be circulated repeatedly without significant degradation of the size or shape. A post-test proppant analysis will be presented
verifying this is also true for full-scale testing.
Description and Application of Process
The analysis and testing program described above were implemented as the core development technique for the new
series of sand control tools mentioned earlier. As stated previously, the performance requirements of frac packing tool systems are
quickly outpacing the existing technology limits. Using this development process supports the quality and efficiency required by
the emerging frac packing markets; however, the inherent challenges identified earlier required a significant amount of research
and development effort to successfully implement the tool development and evaluation program. Modeling techniques were
analyzed and confirmed against physical test data, scale-modeling parameters were derived and validated, and full-scale erosion
testing was planned, executed, and correlated back to the simulation and scale-modeling methods used to create the final tool
design.
CFD Analysis
CFD modeling was used to evaluate flow behavior and the resultant effect of fluid dynamics on the tool designs. The
analysis was used to aid in the determination of the best flow path as well as correlation with physical test data for qualitative and
quantitative erosion prediction. The analysis and subsequent qualification of the CFD models began by obtaining CFD solutions
on prior physical test runs that had relatively simple geometries (Fig. 1). These runs were conducted to determine the best custom
field functions that would show the location and relative magnitude of the erosion. This existing data was used to help correlate the
CFD model before evaluating new tool designs. The model qualification started by the use of a proper cooper mesh with a mesh
size larger than the largest proppant diameter. Additional consideration was made for applying the appropriate modeling technique
to accurately capture the behavior of the high concentration slurry. The modeling methodology used was consistent with that
described by Li et al. (2005).

SPE 134347

Fig. 1: Tool geometry, corresponding CFD erosion prediction, and scale-model erosion result of existing tool design.

Upon convergence of the models, several contours were reviewed, without success, to correlate the relative erosion
location and magnitude in various designs. Further investigation of the observed erosion patterns revealed a discrepancy in the
entrance profile used in the prior CFD models. The modeling solution predicted a proppant concentration profile which had a
doghnut shape when observed in cross-section, however physical studies suggested that the concentration profile should have a
slug-type profile, with the highest concentration of proppant being carried in the center of the tubular flow (Figs. 2 and 3). When
the entrance profile was manipulated to reflect this pattern, the resulting erosion predictors showed good correlation to the physical
test results. Similar logic was applied to additional system variables where a physical result differed from the CFD modeling
solution.

Fig. 2: CFD prediction of entrance profile.

Fig. 3: Forced entrance profile based on physical data.

Many sources of literature focus on the velocity and angle of impact as two main inputs to the amount of erosion observed
(Finnie 1960; Finne 1972; Foley and Levy 1983). In the problem at hand, the high proppant concentrations did not allow the use
of a discrete particle model that would output an impact angle. Other factors were used to create a custom field function that was
correlated to a single erosion pattern found in testing (Figs. 4 and 5). This correlated custom field function was used to
quantitatively evaluate a variety of tool geometries to determine the best configuration to test in scale model (Figs. 6 and 7). The
output of the correlated custom field function quantitatively predicted the location and magnitude of the erosion found during
subsequent scale-model testing. The CFD studies reduced the number of physical tests, reduced cost, and decreased the time to
market of the subject tool.

SPE 134347

Fig. 4: CFD prediction of erosion profile

and magnitude of conceptual design.

Fig. 5: Physical erosion in scale model of

conceptual design.

Fig. 6: CFD prediction of erosion profile and

magnitude of alternate conceptual design.

Fig. 7: Physical erosion in scale model of

conceptual design.

Scale-Model Testing
Before evaluating new tool designs in a scale-model test, a validation test was conducted to confirm the scaling
parameters selected and to determine an appropriate set of test parameters which most closely replicated prior full-scale test data.
Of particular interest was properly replicating the effects due to a variable, or ramped, proppant concentration. The relatively short
duration of a scale-model test and desire to test multiple fixtures with one batch of slurry limit the ability to test with a variable
concentration in a scale-model environment. A fixed proppant concentration is more practical for scale-model testing; however,
the fixed concentration, which produced equivalent erosion to that of a variable or ramped concentration was unknown. Several
fixed concentrations were used to determine which particle concentration most closely replicated the erosion produced by the
ramped concentration from the prior full-scale test. A constant mass of proppant was pumped through multiple fixtures to identify
which concentration produced proportional levels of erosion, as well as identify the relationship between proppant concentration
and erosion potential. Each critical area of the tool system was evaluated against the full-scale erosion result to verify adequate
replication of both erosion magnitude and erosion profile. Based on the erosion observed with varying proppant concentrations, it
was determined that proppant concentration affects not only the total amount of material loss but also the profile of the erosion.
Proppant concentration plays a significant role in defining the flow regime, which becomes an important consideration when trying
to predict the erosion result based on a full-scale application that uses a variable proppant concentration. Figs. 8 and 9 depict the
variance in erosion as a function of proppant concentration, a comparison of the scale-model and full-scale tool, as well as a
quantitative comparison between the full-scale tool and scale-model prediction.

SPE 134347

Distance from Midline

Scale Model Validation Test

66
62
58
54
50
46
42
38
34
30
26
22
18
14
10
6
2
-2
-6
-10
-14
-18
-22
-26
-30
-34
-38
-42
-46
-50
-54
-58
-62
-66

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66

Distance from Datum

Fig. 8: Variance in erosion as a function of proppant concentration.

Scale M odel Validation Test
36
32
28
24
20
16

Distance from Midline

12
8
4
0
-4

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
Distance from Datum

Fig. 9: Full-scale variable concentration erosion result compared with the fixed concentration equivalent in
a scale-model environment.

For a given proppant schedule typically used for soft rock fracturing, as seen in Fig. 10, it was determined that the time
average concentration for that given schedule was a suitable test concentration for scale-model testing. Other types of
concentration schedules, especially those used for hard rock fracturing where a greater percentage of the schedule is pumped at
low concentrations, should be validated against actual full-scale data before making erosion predictions in a scale-model test
program.
Typ ical Pumping Schedule

1600000

14

1400000

12

1200000

8
ppa

Total Proppant [lbm]

10
1000000

800000
6
600000
4
400000
2

200000

140

135

130

125

120

115

110

105

95

100

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0

Time [min.]

Total

PPA

Fig. 10: Typical soft rock fracturing pumping schedule.

Using the appropriate scale factors and proppant concentration that represented the full-scale schedule required for design
qualification, multiple tool designs were tested and evaluated until a suitable design for full-scale testing was established. The
scale-model test program was used to evaluate geometric design, material selection, tool configurations, and feedback data for
CFD correlation.

SPE 134347

Full-Scale Erosion Testing

A schematic of the setup used for the full-scale erosion test is shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11: Full-scale test schematic.

A xanthan gel mixed in fresh water was used because of its ability to recover from repeated shearing and elevated
temperatures experienced during a circulation test. This is consistent with prior full-scale erosion tests (Li et al. 2005; Mullen et
al. 2003). Additionally, a commonly used and widely accepted intermediate strength 20/40 mesh proppant was used for both the
scale-model and full-scale tests.
The test was designed to simulate a typical high-rate, high-volume frac job for deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The target
pumping schedule contained a stair-step portion with holds at 0.5, 1, and 2 ppa for fracture inititation, followed by a ramp from 2
to 12 ppa for fracture growth. The targeted total proppant quantity pumped was 1,500,000 lbm at a slurry rate of 60 bbl/min. A
second tool was placed in series with the primary tool being qualified to increase the value of the test and collect as much data as
possible for scale model and CFD correlation. This tool was pumped to evaluate a tool for a performance tier of 600,000 lbm and
was bypassed for the second portion of the test
The instantaneous concentration changes in the stair-step portion of the schedule can be difficult to match in a circulating
test because of the time required to add the proppant needed to raise the concentration of the system. This could be overcome by
reducing rates through the tools or bypassing around the tools while adding proppant to the loop. Bypassing around the tools
requires rates reduction, which could lead to excessive proppant settling in the flow loop as well as to increased risk of valve
failure as a result of washing out or incomplete closing. Operating valves while testing also raises safety concerns due to
personnel exposure and it should be avoided as much as possible. To mitigate these concerns, a continuous ramp from 0 ppa to 2
ppa was proposed to simulate the instantaneous changes (Fig. 12). To ensure the low concentration erosion effects were
maintained, the slope of the ramp was elevated to increase the percentage of proppant pumped at low concentrations (2 ppa and
below).

SPE 134347

1,400,000

14

1,200,000

12

1,000,000

10

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

Proppant Concentration (ppa)

Proppant Total (lbm)

Comparison of Target and Planned Pumping Schedules

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Tim e Elapsed (m in)

Proppant total w/ low conc. steps

Proppant total w/ low conc. ramps

Schedule w/ low conc. steps

Schedule w/ low conc. ramps

Fig. 12: Target pumping schedule vs. planned testing schedule.

Fig. 13 shows a summary of the pumping data, comparing it to the proposed pumping schedule.

Planned vs. Actual Pumping Data @ 60 bbl/min

16.00

1,500,000

Proppant Total (lbm)

12.00

1,000,000

10.00
8.00
6.00

500,000
4.00

Proppant Concentration
(ppa)

14.00

2.00

0
100

80

60

40

20

0.00

Time Elapsed (minutes)

Proppant Total (lbm)

Designed Proppant Total (lbm)

Proppant Conc. (ppa)

Designed Proppant Conc. (ppa)

Fig. 13: Planned testing schedule vs. actual pumping schedule.

During the course of the test, pumping through the tools had to be suspended twice while addressing pumping equipment
issues. The circulation loop was designed to allow each tool to be bypassed independently for this exact scenario. When
absolutely necessary, bypassing the tools preserves the pumping schedule planned for each tool. Data from this portion of the test
have been removed from the graph. It should also be noted that the target final concentration of 12 ppa was not reached due to
settling in the slurry tank. The average final concentration reached was 10.6 ppa. The actual concentration schedule pumped was,
on average, at a lower proppant concentration than designed. This resulted in the actual test being more aggressive than planned.

SPE 134347

Presentation of Data and Results

Proppant Analysis
The cooling system used for this test allowed pumping of the slurry for an extended period of time without reaching the
gel or equipment temperature limits. With the increased slurry cycles, there was a concern of proppant degradation. To ensure the
structural integrity of the proppant and its erosive properties for the duration of the test, samples of the proppant were taken
periodically. Sieve analyses were performed and microphotographs were taken to compare the circulated proppant to the baseline.
The sieve analysis showed a slight, but not significant, change in particle size. See Figs. 14 and 15 for microphotographs of the
circulated proppant.

Fig. 14: Micrograph of proppant at the start of the test.

Fig. 15: Micrograph of proppant at the end of the test.

Comparison of Small-scale and Full-scale Testing Results

Depicted below are the results of the scale-model tools compared to their full-scale equivalents. The three key areas of
interest for evaluating tool performance were the frac port, the extension ports, and the casing. Excessive erosion of a frac port
could lead to failure of the crossover tool, which would have significant ramifications on the performance of the frac pack. Wear
of the extension ports could affect the performance of the closing sleeve, as well as accelerate the wear of the casing.
Figs. 16 and 17 show the correlation between scale-model and full-scale tests for the frac port. It should be noted
that scale-model testing can introduce nonrealistic effects as a resut of the scaling process due to the relative size of the
proppant to the flow space. This effect can be confirmed by comparing the results with full-scale data and these scaling
anomalies ignored in future development efforts. Figs. 18 and 19 show the correlation between scale-model and full-scale
tests for the extension ports. The erosion shape and magnitude correlated very well between the scale-model and full-scale
tools. Finally, Figs. 20 and 21 depict the erosion profile of the casing. The magnitude of erosion was relatively
insignificant and post-erosion test pressure testing confirmed full pressure rating after the full-scale qualification test. When
compared to the scale-model, there was good correlation in erosion magnitude and profile similar to what was observed in
the other two critical areas discussed earlier.

Fig. 16: Scale-model frac port tested at conditions

equivalent to 1.5 million lbm proppant at 60 bbl/min.

Fig. 17: Full-scale frac port tested to 1.5 million lbm

proppant at 60 bbl/min.

10

SPE 134347

Fig. 18: Scale-model extension port tested at

conditions equivalent to 1.5 million lbm proppant at 60
bbl/min.

Fig. 20: Scale-model casing tested at conditions

equivalent to 1.5 million lbm proppant at 60 bbl/min.

Fig. 19: Full-scale extension port tested to 1.5 million

lbm proppant at 60 bbl/min.

Fig. 21: Full-scale casing tested to 1.5 million lbm

proppant at 60 bbl/min

Conclusion
A multiple stage development program has been successfully implemented in the development of a new series of frac
packing tools. Through the course of developing and implementing this design and testing program, a few key parameters were
identified as critical for a successful qualification. The most critical parameter was establishing a pumping schedule at the
beginning of the program that sufficiently matched the application or qualification requirement. Scale-model testing confirmed the
sensitivity of tool performance to the proppant concentration. Scale-model testing also confirmed the proppant concentrations
effect on the slurry flow dymanic. This information is critical to both the CFD modeling and scale-model testing. Additionally,
proper replication of a pumping schedule in the full-scale test is critical to properly evaluate a tools performance. Simulating a
variable concentration schedule in a circulating test can be challenging and often requires additional equipment; however, this
additional effort is certainly warranted given the relationship identified between proppant concentration and tool erosion.

SPE 134347

11

The development program begins with a thorough understanding of the application followed by computer-aided
simulation, scale-model testing, and full-scale qualification testing. This approach allows for the iterative element of tool design
and validation to occur in a less resource-intensive environment. CFD analysis is used to understand the flow dynamics and
identify areas in the system that may require design optimization. If properly correlated with physical test data, the CFD model
can also provide qualitative and some quantitative information regarding the location, shape, and magnitude of the erosion.
Conceptual designs identified by the CFD modeling are then tested in a scale-model environment to further validate the design.
Scale-model testing provides physical insight into the performance of a particular design and can be used to further refine design
concepts before full-scale qualification testing. Scale-model testing also provides an econonmical and efficient method of data
collection to correlate back to the CFD prediction. Once a suitable concept is selected for full-scale qualification testing, resources
can be more comfortably allocated to the testing effort to ensure the highest-quality replication of downhole tool conditions.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of Baker Hughes Inc. for their support and permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
f ( ) = function of impact angle, degrees
m
= mass flow rate, m/t, lbm/min
b (v )

v
A
C ( dp )
N
Rerosion

= function of relative particle velocity, L/t, ft/sec

= area, L2, in2
= function of particle diameter, L, in
= dimensionless number
= erosion rate, m/L2-t, lbm/in2-sec

References
Clarkson, B., Grigsby, T., Ross, C., Sevadjian, E., and Techentien, B. 2008. Evolution of Single-Trip Multiple-Zone Completion
Technology: How State-of-the-Art New Developments Can Meet Todays Ultra Deepwater Needs. Paper SPE 116245 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September.
Finnie, I. 1960. Erosion of Surfaces by Solid Particles. Wear 3 (1960): 87-103.
Finnie, I. 1972. Some Observations on the Erosion of Ductile Materials. Wear 19 (1972): 81-90.
Foley, T. and Levy, A. 1983. The Erosion of Heat-Treated Steels. Wear 91 (1983): 45-64.
Li, J., Hamid, S., and Oneal, D. 2005. Prediction of Tool Erosion in Gravel-Pack and Frac-Pack Applications Using Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Simulation. Paper OTC 17452 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 25 May.
Mullen, M., Svatek, K., Sevadjian, E., Vitthal, S., and Grigsby, T. 2003. Deepwater Reservoirs Requiring High Rate/High-Volume
Frac Packing Continue to Stretch Downhole Tool Capabilities-Latest Tool Design and Qualification Testing Results. Paper
AADE-03-NTCE-18 presented at the AADE National Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1-3 April.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl
1.589873
E-01 =
lbm
4.535924
E-01 =
ft
3.048*
E-01 =
in
2.54*
E+00 =
6.4516*
E+00 =
in2
*conversion factor is exact.

m3
kg
m
cm
cm2