IBP1642_12 INFLUENCE OF MILD THERMAL TREATMENTS ON THE COLLAPSE RESISTANCE OF DEEPWATER UOE-SAWL PIPELINES.

EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL WORK. Luciano Mantovano, Marcos Ponciano2, Santiago Serebrinsky 3, Hugo Ernst 4, Teresa Pérez5, Martin Valdez 6, Luis Chad7
Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP
This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oi & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 17-20, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

Abstract:
Nowadays, large diameter UOE pipes are being increasingly used for the construction of offshore pipelines. Since oil discoveries are moving towards ultra deep water areas, collapse resistance is a key factor in the design of the pipelines. In many previous works, it has been demonstrated that the application of external coating increases the collapse resistance of the expanded pipes due to the strain aging effect [1-8]. During the last years Tenaris has developed its own research program on collapse enhancement of UOE pipes, working on experimental testing and finite element modeling [9-16]. In the present work, finite element simulations of the latest collapse and propagation tests performed by Tenaris, where the effect of typical coating thermal treatments was studied and significant increments in the collapse pressure of treated pipes were obtained, were performed and compared with the actual tests results. The numerical results show a good agreement with the experimental ones and could predict the increment produced in the collapse pressure by the effect of the thermal treatments. Comparison of the results with the predictions from DNV OS-F101 equations was also performed. The outcomes of this study will be employed to further optimize the collapse resistance of subsea linepipe in order to reduce material and offshore installation costs through the increment of the fabrication factor as stated in the DNV OS-F101 standard [17].

1. Introduction
Oil discoveries in offshore environments undergoe a sustained tendency towards increasing depths and harsher environmental conditions, placing increasingly stringent requirements on the pipelines for this kind of projects. Simultaneously with these more exigent demands, industry has been actively pursuing improvements in products, processes and technologies that allow for the more complex projects to be developed. Applicable standards (e.g., DNV OS-F101, 2010) have to be followed, and they evolve continuously to account for the expanding ranges of working conditions. Large diameter pipes for these offshore applications are most often manufactured by the UOE process and one of the key properties that have to be considered is the resistance to collapse pressure. Other relevant aspects for design include the collapse propagation pressure, bending deformations during installation, etc. The UOE pipe manufacturing process involves cold forming of long plates. During forming, the plates are first bent by an edge press, and then deformed with the “U” press and the “O” press. The formed plate is then welded by submerged arc welding (SAW) to produce the pipe. Finally, this welded pipe is expanded with a mechanical expander. This manufacturing process modifies the compressive behavior of material in the

______________________________
Senior Researcher – Tenaris Siderca R&D Welding Metallurgy & Technology Department Manager – Tenaris Confab R&D 3 Senior Researcher – Tenaris Siderca R&D 4 Applied Mechanics Department Head – Tenaris Siderca R&D 5 Principal Scientist – Tenaris Siderca R&D 6 Metallurgy Department Head – Tenaris Siderca R&D 7 Product Engineering Manager – Tenaris Confab
2

1

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012.

circumferential direction (i.e. rounding the stress strain response significantly and reducing the stress in the critical strain range for collapse of 0.1 to 0.5%), thereby deteriorating the collapse resistance of the pipe. It has been demonstrated in previous works that the mild thermal treatments involved in the application of typical coatings increase the collapse resistance of the pipes. To improve the understanding of this effect, Tenaris has embarked on a program of both, experimental testing and numerical modeling.

2. Experimental Program
Based on these previous works, an experimental program to assess the influence of different thermal cycle parameters on the collapse pressure of X70 and X80 UOE-SAWL pipes was developed by Tenaris. Four X80 18” x 0.75” and six X70 20” x 1.00” UOE-SAWL pipes were fabricated and thermally treated at Confab facilities with different light thermal cycles, which covered a range of maximum temperatures from 240°C to 300°C on the surface of the pipe and a range of soaking times (approx. 3 to 10 minutes) at maximum temperature. No coating was actually applied on the pipes. Cycle 1 represents the typical cycle applied during the coating process. Cycles 2 to 4 increased the maximum temperature and/or the cycle time with the aim of enhancing the collapse resistance of the pipes. Sample 10 was re-treated with the coating conditions (cycle 1) after applying cycle 4. In addition, one pipe of each grade was intentionally left untreated to be taken as a base case. The pipes were then delivered to C-FER Technologies lab in Canada for collapse and propagation testing. 2.1. Geometrical Characterization of the Tested Samples Prior to collapse test initiation, pipes were marked with a grid of eight circumferential locations and thirteen axial stations, resulting in 104 intersecting points. Wall thickness measurements were obtained using a hand-held ultrasonic gauge at these 104, points and OD measurements were acquired along each pipe using a micrometer at the same locations, giving 52 OD values. All the geometric measurements were recorded for each pipe. Table 1. Geometric Measurement Results
Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Grade X80 X80 X80 X80 X70 X70 X70 X70 X70 X70 Nominal OD (mm) 457.2 457.2 457.2 457.2 508.0 508.0 508.0 508.0 508.0 508.0 Average OD (mm) 456.9 456.5 456.5 457.0 508.5 508.3 507.6 508.5 508.0 508.3 Average Ovality* (%) 0.360 0.310 0.310 0.468 0.146 0.134 0.122 0.240 0.116 0.126 Maximum Ovality* (%) 0.518 0.540 0.368 0.578 0.234 0.234 0.180 0.400 0.166 0.300 Nominal wt (mm) 19.05 19.05 19.05 19.05 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 Average wt (mm) 19.21 19.14 19.07 19.16 25.56 25.48 25.69 25.65 25.52 25.48

* Ovality = (ODmax − ODmin ) × 100%
ODave

2.2. Mechanical Characterization of the Tested Samples For all the pipes, the following data were determined: • Yield strength in tension for axial and hoop directions. Basic coupon geometry is presented in Figure 1, for axial direction the coupon length was 110 mm whereas for hoop direction was 60 mm, the calibrated diameter was 4 mm for both type of coupons. Figure 2 shows the selected ID and OD positions for axial and hoop coupons. To be consistent, the same offset was used for both directions.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012.

2

M6

110 mm ∅4 60 mm

M6 ∅4

Figure 1. Coupons for tension test geometries

Figure 2. Hoop and axial coupon positions for tensile test. Figure 3 presents the obtained yield stress results for the different orientations and positions of X80 fig.3(a) and X70 samples fig. 3(b) after the thermal treatment, respectively. Note that yield strength for this paper is defined as the stress at 0.2% offset strain. A line with the averaged yield stress of the plates was added as a reference.
X80 ‐ Y.S.
900

Plate yield stress (average)
800 700 600 Sample 1 Sample 2 500 Sample 3 400 Sample 4 300 200 100 0 Long weld ext Long weld int Long 180 ext Long 180 int Trans 180 ext Trans 180 int

a)
800

Y.S. [MPa]

Position ‐ Orientation

X70 ‐ Y.S.
Plate yield stress (average)
700

600

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

500

Y.S. [MPa]

400

Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6

300

200

100

0 Long weld ext Long weld int Long 180 ext Long 180 int Trans 180 ext Trans 180 int

b)

Position ‐ Orientation

Figure 3. Yield stress in tension for a) X80 and b) X70 coupon tests In all the samples, the obtained yield stress in the weld was higher than the measured yield stress in the original plate. Moreover, the thermal treatment does not significantly affect the yield stress of the weld. The yield stress was also higher in the base material (180°), even for the untreated pipe, because of the work hardening of material due to the fabrication process. • True stress–true strain curves in compression for axial and hoop direction. Coupons were taken from all the samples at 180° from the weld. As in the case of tension tests, the coupons were extracted from locations as close as possible to the ID and OD of the pipe. Small compression cylinders (SC) that were 4mm in diameter and 8mm in length were used as coupons. Another coupon geometry, specifically designed to capture the compression behavior at low deformations and designed as gripped samples (GS), was also extracted from each of the X70 pipes.
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012. 3

The calibrated zone was 8mm in diameter and 30mm in length. Samples SC were tested in an Instron machine and samples GS were tested in a Gleeble 3500 machine. Figure 4(a) presents the obtained 0.2% offset yield stress results for the different orientations and positions of X80 and Fig. 4(b) presents the same for X70. A line with the averaged yield stress of the plates was added as a reference in all the graphs. Compression yield stress for cycle 2 (sample 7) in the transversal direction and external surface position could not be determined.
800 700 600

X80 ‐ Y.S. (0.2%)
Plate yield stress (average)

Y.S. (0.2 %) [MPa]

500 400

No Cycle

Cycle #1 300 200 100 0 Long 180 ext Long 180 int Trans 180 ext Position  ‐ Orientation Trans 180 int Cycle #2

Cycle #3

a)
700

X70 ‐ Y.S. (0.2%)
Plate yield stress (average)

600

500
Y.S. (0.2%) [MPa]

400

No Cycle Cycle #1

300 Cycle #2 200 Cycle #3 Cycle #4 100 Cycle #4 +#1 0 Long 180 ext Long 180 int Trans 180 ext Position ‐ Orientation Trans 180 int

b)

Figure 4. Yield stress in compression for a) X80 SC and b) X70 SC coupon tests. Compression stress vs. strain curves were determined and they were used as inputs for the hardening laws of numerical simulations of the collapse test. Curves were obtained for GS samples by data processing focusing on the low deformation range, and it is worth noting that differences in predictions from SC-data and GS-data stem from both the experimental setup and the data processing methodology. For X80 pipes, only SC samples were used due to the fact GS samples could not be obtained because of the lower thickness of the pipes. In a previous work, a different coupon geometry was used [14]. Figure 5 shows measured compression curves in the form stress vs. plastic strain, as used for input of the numerical model of the collapse test. The most remarkable features are the significant rounding of the curve for coupons taken from sample 5 (non heat treated) due to the Bauschinger effect, and the recovery after the aging treatment shown in coupons taken from sample 9. Coupon GS allows for the detection of a recovered Lüders elongation, which proves essential for an adequate prediction of Pc.
600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 0.0%

Sample 5-SC Sample 5-GS

0.1%

0.2% plastic strain

0.3%

0.4%

600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 0.0%

stress (MPa)

stress (MPa)

Sample 9-SC Sample 9-GS

0.1%

0.2% plastic strain

0.3%

0.4%

a)

b)

Figure 5. Stress–plastic strain hoop compression curves for material X70, with both coupon geometries: a) sample 5, b) sample 9.
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012. 4

2.3. Experimental facilities C-FER’s Deepwater Experimental Chamber (DEC) was used for the full-scale collapse tests. The instrumentation for the test consisted of two calibrated pressure transducers (hyperbaric chamber interior pressure and specimen interior pressure) and two water volume meters. All data was acquired via computer-controlled software and signal conditioning system. 2.4. Experimental results A differential pressure (external – internal) vs. volume variation curve was obtained as a result of the test. The peak in the curve represents the collapse pressure of the pipe and the plateau indicates the propagation pressure. Figure 6 illustrates the results of the collapse and propagation tests for sample 9 and Fig. 7 shows a picture of the same sample after the test. Table 2 summarizes the collapse and propagation test results.
60

Sample 9
50

Differential Pressure (MPa)

40
Test hold to empty output volume tank Extrapolated data due to saturated output volume scale

30

20 Propagation Pressure = 10.0 10

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Approximate Output Volume (l)

Figure 6. Sample 9 Collapse and Propagation Test Results

Figure 7. Sample 9 in its Collapsed and Propagated Shape Table 2. Test Results
Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OD (inch) 18 18 18 18 20 20 20 20 20 20 wt (inch) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 D/t 24 24 24 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 Grade X80 X80 X80 X80 X70 X70 X70 X70 X70 X70 Thermal Cycle N/A 1 2 3 N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Pc (MPa) 25.80 33.36 34.42 32.70 37.72 47.02 48.26 51.01 53.71 50.93 Pc Increase (%) − 29.3 33.4 26.7 − 24.7 27.9 35.2 42.4 35.0 Pp (MPa) 6.76 6.86 6.69 6.90 9.38 9.59 9.55 10.48 10.00 9.79 Pp Variation (%) − 1.48 -1.04 2.07 − 2.24 1.81 11.73 6.61 4.37

The thermally treated pipes were found to have significantly higher collapse resistance than their untreated counterparts. Increases of 25% to 42% and 26% to 33% were observed for X70 and X80 pipe grade, respectively. The results shown that the collapse pressure increased with applied temperature and thermal cycle duration.
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012. 5

The increase in propagation pressures was much lower (between 2 and 11% for the X70 pipes and minor for the X80 pipes).

3. Finite Element Model
3.1. Model main features For the numerical simulation of collapse and propagation test a finite element model using the MITC4 shell element in the ADINA general-purpose code [18-19] was developed. The numerical model was developed using a material and geometrical nonlinear formulation, taking into account large displacements/rotations but small strains and it incorporates the following features: • Geometry described by the OD, wall thickness and ovality average values as measured in the lab all along the sample actual length. Neither weld geometry nor differentiated material properties were considered. • Multi-linear material model with von Mises associated plasticity and isotropic hardening. The actual stress vs. strain curve obtained from transversal compression lab tests was used for each pipe. The material property was considered uniform throughout the pipe. • Circumferential residual stresses as measured in the lab. • The boundary conditions represented the actual collapse tests conditions at the lab using rigid links at both ends to simulate the welded end caps and allowing the pipe to move axially free. • The applied load was an hydrostatic pressure all along the pipe surface including the end caps. • Nonlinear equilibrium path tracing via the algorithm developed in Ref. [20]. 3.2. Simulation results Using the finite element model detailed in the previous section and the two sets of compression curves, a simulation of the collapse tests was performed for each sample. Table 3 summarizes the obtained results. Table 3. Collapse and Propagation Results Summary
Sample Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X80 X80 X80 X80 X70 X70 X70 X70 X70 X70 Pc GS Pc SC Pc test Pc test/ Pc test/ Pp test/ Pp test/ Pp SC Pc GS Pp_test Pc SC Thermal Pc _test Increase Increase Increase Pc SC Pc GS Pp SC Pp GS [Mpa] [Mpa] [Mpa] [Mpa] cycle [Mpa] [%] [%] [%] No 1 2 3 No 1 2 3 4 4+1 25.80 33.36 34.42 32.70 37.72 47.02 48.26 51.01 53.71 50.93 -29.29 33.40 26.73 -24.66 27.94 35.23 42.39 35.02 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.9 9.4 9.6 9.6 10.4 10.0 9.8 26.87 30.19 30.30 28.22 41.97 46.99 47.67 46.12 49.19 48.95 -12.35 12.76 5.02 -11.97 13.57 9.88 17.21 16.64 7.9 8.0 8.2 8.1 11.1 10.8 11.1 10.9 10.4 10.8 ----35.54 41.02 45.88 46.65 51.30 50.41 -----15.40 29.08 31.25 44.31 41.83 0.96 1.11 1.14 1.16 0.90 1.00 1.01 1.11 1.09 1.04 ----1.06 1.15 1.05 1.09 1.05 1.01 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.86 0.95 0.96 0.91 ----1.00 1.01 0.97 1.04 0.96 1.00

Figure 8 shows the comparison between the experimental and numerical curves of differential pressure vs. volume variation of the pipe, for samples 2 and 10. It can be seen that an overall agreement is obtained in all cases, with an apparent slight improvement when using GS-data as compared to that from SC-data.
35
60

Sample 2
30
50

Sample 10

Differential Pressure (MPa)

Differential Pressure (MPa)

25 FEA (SC) 20 Experimental

Experimental 40 FEA (SC) FEA (GS) 30

15
Propagation Pressure = 6.9 MPa

20

Propagation Pressure = 9.8 MPa

10
10

5

0 0 100 200 300 400 500

0 0 100 200 300 Approximate Output Volume (l) 400 500 600

a)

Approximate Output Volume (l)

b)

Figure 8. Numerical vs. Experimental results for samples 2(a) and 10(b)
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012. 6

Figure 9 shows the deformed mesh just after reaching the collapse load (Fig. 9(a)) and after the buckle propagated along the pipe length (Fig. 9(b)) with the corresponding map of the equivalent plastic strains. In both cases, it can be seen that the highest levels of plastic deformation are attained at the inner side of the 0° and 180° regions. After propagation most of the pipe is undergoing plastic deformation.
Pipe mesh just after reaching collapse load 

Pipe after propagation
0° Cut view 180°

Iso view

Front view

Iso view

a)

Cut view

b)

Figure 9. Pipe deformed mesh and effective plastic strains after collapse (a) and propagation (b) for sample 6. Figure 10(a) presents the comparison of the calculated vs. experimental values of collapse pressure increase (δPc) due to thermal cycling. The results show that the analysis performed with the set of compression curves obtained with the GS samples and the proposed methodology better captures the collapse pressure increase δPc with the applied thermal treatments, with values close to the 1-1 line. Figure 10(b) presents the corresponding values of collapse pressure, showing again a good agreement, along a significant scatter in data. An improved agreement may stem from refinements on a number of factors, including: 1) the compression curve characterization, 2) a more accurate representation of the geometry (for instance ovality is not constant along the pipe length, either in the magnitude or in the orientation), 3) inhomogeneous and anisotropic material behavior introduced by the forming process [9-10]. Sensitivity analyses shown in the following section give an indication of the influence of each factor on the collapse pressure.
50% 40% dPc,calc 30% 20%
6 3 4 2 9

55 50 Pc,calc 45 40 35 30 25
1 2 4 3 5

SC-X70 GS-X70 SC-X80

10 8

SC-X70 GS-X70 SC-X80
6

10

9 8

7

7

10% 0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

25

30

35

40 Pc,exp

45

50

55

a)

dPc,exp

b)

Figure 10. Calculated vs. experimental values of: (a) collapse pressure increase (δPc) due to thermal cycling for X70 and X80 Pipes, and (b) collapse pressure (Pc).

3.3. Sensitivity analysis It is important to realize that the laboratory determined geometrical description of the pipes OD and of the pipes wall thickness is subjected to the normal indeterminations of lab measurements. Also the mechanical characterization of the material properties, such as the compressive yield stress curve and the residual stresses, was taken as a constant value although they have a degree of variability inside the sample. Hence, we need to be able to evaluate the sensitivity of the numerical results to small changes in the data. The baseline calculations were performed considering the above-discussed geometrical and mechanical properties, without axial residual stresses. For exploring the sensitivity of the baseline results we consider a variation of ±10% in the values of the ovality and also the maximum ovality measured on the pipe, material stress vs. strain curve, ±10MPa in hoop residual stresses and – 5% in wall thickness.
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012. 7

The axial residual stresses were not measured and we consider the axial residual stresses, just for the sensitivity analysis, as having a linear distribution through the pipe wall thickness with a maximum value of the axial residual stresses equal to the hoop ones in absolute value when they are tensile on the outer fibers. We consider the minimum value of axial residual stresses equal to the hoop ones in absolute value when they are compressive on the outer fibers. Figure 11 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis for sample 5 calculated with the SC compression curves.
1.05

1.00
Experimental Pc / FEA Pc
‐5% ‐10%

Basecase
Max

Ovality  Thickness

0.95

+10%

+10%

0.90
Basecase ‐10% ‐10%

+10%

‐10%

Hoop Residual  Stress Axial Residual  Stress Material curve
+10%

0.85

0.80

Figure 11. Sensitivity analysis for sample 5 3.4. Comparison of the results with predictions from DNV OS-F101 standard The characteristic equation for collapse is

(Pc − Pe ) ⋅ (Pc 2 − Py 2 ) = Pc Pe Py f 0 ⋅ ⎛ OD ⎞ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ t ⎠
2⋅E ⎛ t ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ 1 − ν 2 ⎝ OD ⎠
3

(1) (2)

where
Pe =

Py = 2 ⋅ σ y ⋅ α

fab

⎛ t ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ OD ⎠

αfab = DNV fabrication factor (OD max − OD min ) × 100 % Ovality =
f0 =
OD nom

(3) (4) (5)

The characteristic equation for propagation collapse pressure is

pp = 35 ⋅
Where,

σy ⋅ α fab ⎛ t ⎞ 2.5 ⋅⎜ ⎟ γm ⋅ γSC ⎝ D ⎠

(6)

Material resistance factor, γm = 1; and Safety class resistance factor, γSC = 1. The comparison of test results with DNV code was performed considering nominal pipe dimensions, SMYS and the minimum allowable ovality of 0.5% for DNV. Note that a value of 0.85 for αfab was used in the DNV calculations for Samples 1 and 5 to account for the UOE manufacturing process. A value of 1.00 was substituted for the rest of the samples to account for the recovery of hoop compressive strength as a result of the full-scale thermal treatment. Table 4 displays the comparison of the test results with FEA and code predictions for the collapsed pipes, and Figs. 12 and 13 show bar graphs with the comparison for collapse pressure for the X80 and X70 samples, respectively. Table 4. FEA and Code Predictions Comparison
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012. 8

Sample Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X80 X80 X80 X80 X70 X70 X70 X70 X70 X70

Thermal Pc _test Pp_test Pc test/ Pc test/ Pc test/ Pp test/ Pp test/ Pp test/ cycle [Mpa] [Mpa] Pc DNV Pc SC Pc GS Pp DNV Pp SC Pp GS No 1 2 3 No 1 2 3 4 5 25.80 33.36 34.42 32.70 37.72 47.02 48.26 51.01 53.71 50.93 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.9 9.4 9.6 9.6 10.4 10.0 9.8 0.94 1.16 1.20 1.14 1.05 1.16 1.19 1.26 1.33 1.26 0.96 1.11 1.14 1.16 0.90 1.00 1.01 1.11 1.09 1.04 ----1.06 1.15 1.05 1.09 1.05 1.01 1.16 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.17 1.02 1.01 1.11 1.06 1.04 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.86 0.95 0.96 0.91 ----1.00 1.01 0.97 1.04 0.96 1.00

40
DNV Prediction

35

FEA Prediction (SC) Tests Results

Collapse Pressure [Mpa]

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Sample 1
No

Sample 2
1

Sample 3
2

Sample  4
3

Thermal Cycle

Figure 12. Comparison between FEA and DNV prediction with experimental results of collapse pressure for X80.
60
DNV Prediction FEA (SC)

50

FEA (GS) Tests Results

Collapse Pressure [Mpa]

40

30

20

10

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

0 No 1 2 3 4 5

Thermal Cycle

Figure 13. Comparison between FEA and DNV prediction with experimental results of collapse pressure for X70.

4. Conclusions
The mild thermal treatments that for this study were performed at the Confab facilities resulted in a collapse resistance increase ranging from 25% to 43% when compared to untreated pipe produced in the same condition. An adequate rating of pc for these pipes corresponds to using αfab≥1 in the DNV formula. The significant potential reduction in material and offshore installation costs could considerably enhance the feasibility of many challenging offshore projects (i.e. volume of steel, time of installation, etc). A 3D finite element model was developed in order to predict the behavior of UOE-SAWL pipes under external pressure. The model results were compared with experimental determinations of collapse and propagation pressure as well as the DNV code predictions. There was a good agreement between the finite element predictions and the laboratory test results for both collapse and propagation pressures. Methods for increasing the accuracy of the simulations are under study, through enhancements of the FE model and improving the determination of its input data, in particular the material constitutive behavior, which is a key factor for the collapse pressure prediction.

8. Acknowledgements
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012. 9

The support of Tenaris for this research program is gratefully acknowledged.

9. References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Al-Sharif, A.M. and Preston, R. 1996. “Improvements in UOE Pipe Collapse Resistance by Thermal Aging.” Offshore Technology Conference, OTC8211, pp. 579-588. DeGeer, D., Marewski, U., Hillenbrand, H.-G., Weber, B. and Crawford, M. 2004. “Collapse Testing of Thermally Treated Line Pipe for Ultra-deepwater Applications.” 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2004-51569, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 20-25. Fryer, M., Tait, P., Kyriakydes, S., Timms, C. and DeGeer, D. 2004. “The Prediction and Enhancement of UOE-DSAW Collapse Resistance for Deepwater Linepipe.” International Pipeline Conference, IPC04-0607, Calgary, Canada, October 4-8. DeGeer, D., Timms, C. and Lobanov, V. 2005. “Blue Stream Collapse Test Program.” 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2005-67260, Halkidiki, Greece, June 12-17. Shinohara, Y., Hara, T., Tsuru, E., Asahi, H., Tereda, Y. and Doi, N. 2005. “Change of Mechanical Properties of High Strength Line Pipe by Thermal Coating Treatment.” 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2005-67055, Halkidiki, Greece, June 12-17. DeGeer, D., Timms, C., Wolodko, J., Yarmuch, M., Preston, R. and MacKinnon, D. 2007. “Local Buckling Assessments for the Medgaz Pipeline.” 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2007-29493, San Diego, California, USA, June 10-15. O. Aamlid, L. Collberg and S. Slater: Collapse Capacity of UOE Deepwater Pipelines, OMAE2011-49570. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 2011. S. Slater, R. Devine, O. Aamlid, D. Hernandez and D. Swanek: Qualification of Enhanced collapse Capacity UOE Deepwater Pipelines, OMAE2011-49571. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 2011. Toscano, R., Raffo, J.L., Mantovano, L., Fritz, M. and Silva, R.C. 2007. “On the Influence of the UOE Process on Collapse and Collapse Propagation Pressure of Steel Deepwater Pipelines under External Pressure.” Offshore Technology Conference, OTC18978, Houston, Texas, USA, April 30-May 3. R. Toscano, J.L. Raffo, M. Fritz, R.C. Silva, Joshua Hines and Chris Timms, “Modeling the UOE manufacturing process”, 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanic and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2008-57605, Estoril, Portugal, June 2008. Timms, C., Mantovano, L., Ernst, H.A., Toscano, R., DeGeer, D., Swanek, D., de Souza, M. and Chad, L.C. 2009. “Influence of the UOE Forming Process on Material Properties and Collapse of Deepwater Linepipe.” 28th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2009-80179, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 31-June 5. Timms, C., Mantovano, L., Ernst, H.A., Toscano, R., DeGeer, D., Swanek, D., de Souza, M., and Chad, L.C., “On the Influence of the UOE Forming Process on Material Properties and Collapse Pressure of Deepwater Pipelines. Experimental Work”, in Proceedings of the Rio Pipeline conference and Exposition, IBP1382-09, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 2009. Mantovano, L.O., Chebaro, M. R., Ernst, H.A., De Souza, M., Timms, C.M., Chad, L.C., “The influence of the UOE-SAWL forming process on the collapse resistance of deepwater linepipe” (OMAE2011-49254), in Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE2011), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 2011 Serebrinsky, S., Pérez, T., Mantovano, L., Ernst, H., de Souza, M., and Chad, L. “Effect of thermal cycles on collapse resistance of cold-formed tubes” Proceedings of the Rio Pipeline conference and Exposition, IBP130711, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 2011. Serebrinsky, S., Mantovano, L., de Souza, M., Pérez, T., Ernst, H., Chad, L., “Effect of constitutive behavior on collapse resistance of cold-formed tubes”, 12th Pan American Congress of Applied Mechanics, Port of Spain, Trinidad, January 2012. Serebrinsky, S., Mantovano, L., de Souza, M., Valdez, M., Ernst, H., Chad, L., “Modeling the effect of material behavior and mild thermal treatments on collapse resistance of UOE pipes” (IPC2012-90696), in Proceedings of the 9th International Pipeline Conference (IPC2012), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 2012. DNV. 2010. “Submarine Pipeline Systems.” Det Norske Veritas, DNV OS-F101. The ADINA SYSTEM, ADINA R&D, Watertown, MA, U.S.A. K.J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1996. K.J. Bathe and E.N. Dvorkin, “On the automatic solution of nonlinear finite element equations”, Computers & Structures, 17, pp.871-879, 1983.

12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012.

10