Journal Paper

© All Rights Reserved

3 views

Journal Paper

© All Rights Reserved

- Strength of Lug
- Full Text
- GetTRDoc
- mode_I_and_III
- A Computer Algorithm for Determining the Tensile Strength of Float Glass by M. Overend & K. Zammit
- Fracture Control - Offshore Pipelines JIP Use of Abaqus_Explicit to Simulate Ductile Tearing in Pipes With Defects Loaded Beyond Yielding - OnePetro
- Safety Assessment and Remaining Life Estimation of Coke Drums
- Taylor D.pdf
- EUR 23510 EN
- Prasad_6_05_2014
- FRACTURE
- Mechanical Failure
- Failure
- Recent Innovations in Pipeline Seam Weld Integrity Assessment
- Failures
- Voo 2006-Shear Strength UHPC
- Crack Initiation and Defect Assessment
- (p)Hydrogen Influence on Fracture of Sheet Carbon Steel
- ESA - Modification - 06 - Copy
- EMD Autumn 2016 Exam-2 Prep-b

You are on page 1of 10

G. Stewart, Lloyd’s Register (formerly with Shell International E&P), and F.J. Klever, Shell International E&P

To fully realise the benefits of reliability based design for

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Applied Technology Workshop on Risk wells, accurate capacity prediction models for OCTG and

Based Design of Well Casing and Tubing held 7–8 May 1998 at The Woodlands, Texas,

U.S.A. realistic statistical data for the model parameters are required,

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

as opposed to the conservative heuristic models employed in

information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as traditional design. In the present paper, our primary focus is

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any on (a) the development of a predictive model for burst failure

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of

of OCTG pipes with naturally occurring crack-like flaws, and

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper (b) the development of a method to establish the probability

for commercial purposes 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 distribution of crack-like flaws1 based on estimated mill

words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous

acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.

rejection rates and inspection procedures.

Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. In a companion paper by Klever and Stewart [5],

analytical models for predicting burst loads in nominally

ABSTRACT perfect pipes or those with smooth wall loss are reviewed and

The quantification of risk using reliability based shown to produce accurate capacity predictions for both the

procedures offers significant safety-related and cost benefits. burst strength of defect free OCTG and for pipe with wire line

In order to progress this methodology for design of wells, or drill string wear. We discuss these developments briefly

accurate capacity prediction models for OCTG and associated as the model for burst of flawed pipe builds upon these: it

statistical data for the model parameters are required. In this involves consideration of both limit loads, as well as ductile

paper, we focus (a) on the development of a predictive model fracture mechanics techniques in the fully plastic range, to

for burst failure of OCTG with naturally occurring crack-like identify the governing mechanism of failure.

flaws and (b) on constructing probability distributions of It is believed that the development of this new burst model

crack depth based on estimated mill rejection rates and and the procedure to generate flaw probability distributions

inspection quality. will significantly contribute to the progress in establishing risk

Limit load models and ductile fracture mechanics based design procedures for casing and tubing.

techniques are employed to identify the governing failure

mechanism and a simple unified model is proposed for burst 2. LIMIT LOAD MODELS FOR PIPES

capacity. This model is supported by finite element (F.E.) Where fracture mechanisms are not prevalent, the burst

J-integral analyses and burst tests on P110 and Q125 tubes capacity a pipe, with or without a flaw, can be established

with artificial axial part-through cracks. using continuum mechanics models. The maximum pressure

achieved is called the limit load. We begin with a review of

1. INTRODUCTION analytical models for limit load predictions of pipes with and

The use of reliability based methods for well design offers without wall loss.

many potential benefits. Among these are: improved Analytical model for burst of pipe without flaws

understanding of risk and consequently enhanced safety;

reduced costs in areas where risks are low; and extension of Klever [6] developed an analytical model for the burst

design envelops to allow the development of technically strength of pipes based on isotropic hardening finite strain

challenging fields. Design factors based on reliability plasticity with von Mises’ yield criterion. This model was

methods have been adopted in other discipline areas, notably modified to include Tresca’s yield criterion by Stewart et al.

in pipelines [1] and in structures [2], where the approaches are [7] who also showed that the average of the Tresca and von

being positively embraced in codes of practice. Recently Mises burst capacity, based on minimum wall thickness, was

there have been a number of publications proposing such

techniques for casing and tubing design (see for example, 1

The statistics of the other variables in the model, such as the

Maes et al. [3], and Lewis et al. [4]). geometric parameters and the tensile properties, can be sourced in

other publications.

2 G. STEWART, F.J. KLEVER SPE 48330

an unbiased predictor of the mean strength of X-grade pipe, thickness, the model was verified against ring tests and shown

with a standard deviation of the error of 3%. to be mean value correct with a standard deviation of less than

Although any general stress-strain law can be employed 3% [7]. The two-zone model has recently been shown (see

for burst strength predictions, fitting a Lüdwik power law companion paper by Klever and Stewart [5] ) to be an

curve to the material uni-axial true-stress/logarithmic-strain accurate predictive tool for the burst capacity of worn casing.

curve leads to the simplest approach (Stewart et al. [7]). This For plane strain, the two-zone burst capacity of a pipe with

curve, which is intended to fit the material data in the large thin section t * and thick section t can be expressed as:

strain region of interest, takes the form

p 2*z = f wl p * , (5)

n

σ = Cε (1)

where p * is the burst pressure of a pipe with uniform reduced

where σ is the true Cauchy stress and ε is the logarithmic wall thickness t * , given by

strain. The constants n and C are given by

t* t*

e

n p * = f 1 σ uts = p . (6)

n = ln(1 + ε ult ) ; C = σ uts , (2) R t

n

The wall loss enhancement factor f wl associated with the

with ε ult being the engineering strain corresponding to the two-zone model in Equation (5), is equal to or greater than

engineering ultimate stress, σ uts . unity and accounts for the increased capacity over the burst

Taking the average of the Tresca and von Mises burst pressure of a pipe with uniform thickness t * . It depends on

strength [7] results in the following analytical expression for

the strain hardening index, n, and the ratio of the arc-lengths

burst capacity of a pipe with uniform thickness t:

of the thin and thick zones. The case when the arc length of

t the thin zone tends to zero (as for an axially cracked pipe), is

p = f 1 σ uts (3)

R shown in Fig. 1 for P110/Q125 pipe. For deep cracks, f wl

where has a limiting value of 2n.

n +1 n +1

1 1

f1 = + , (4) Table 1 Burst test database on as-received pipe

2 3

Test OD t-min UTS Strain P-burst P-burst

p is the internal pressure differential at burst, and R is the at UTS test model

mean radius.

no. [in] [in] [ksi] [%] [ksi] [ksi] ratio

Burst data for OCTG pipe without flaws 1 7.064 0.352 107 11.5 11.3 11.3 0.997

As part of a test programme to establish the burst capacity of 2 3.530 0.254 109 7.7 17.3 17.4 1.008

worn pipe and pipe with cracks, two burst tests were carried 3 7.805 0.575 144 6.5 25.2 23.7 0.942

out by TNO on as-delivered pipe of grades P110 and Q125 to

provide base-line information. Recently, Paslay et al. [8] 4 7.068 0.524 131 6.1 22.1 21.8 0.985

tested a number of OCTG pipes. Their data on pipes without 5 7.076 0.408 105 9.3 13.4 13.1 0.976

flaws, together with the TNO data is shown in Table 1. In the 6 7.076 0.407 133 7.0 17.2 16.8 0.975

last column of this table, the ratio of the model prediction to

10 9.724 0.388 104 10.2 8.9 8.7 0.983

the test burst pressure is provided. The model given by

Eq. (3) (using t = tmin) is unbiased and has a standard deviation 11 9.929 0.531 102 10.2 11.8 11.7 0.988

of 2.7%. It is concluded that the analytical model of Eq. (3) 12 3.502 0.567 106 11.5 42.7 41.2 0.965

is a good predictive tool for the burst capacity of OCTG pipe 14 2.649 0.154 121 6.5 16.4 15.5 0.944

without flaws.

20 7.070 0.473 130 6.8 19.4 19.3 0.993

Plastic limit model for pipe with local wall loss 21 7.805 0.577 144 6.5 24.9 23.8 0.957

In his paper on burst, Klever [6] also developed a ‘two-zone’ 22 7.089 0.585 144 6.5 25.9 26.8 1.037

membrane tension model to predict the burst capacity of pipes TNO1 13.47 0.524 142 5.0 11.7 12.0 1.026

with smooth flaws. He assumed that the wall loss is long in

TNO2 9.921 0.606 155 6.0 20.7 21.0 1.014

the axial direction and that the pipe can be represented by a

plane model represented by two arcs (zones), each having mean 1.00

different wall thickness. Uniform straining through the std. dev. 0.027

thickness was assumed in each zone. For the case where the

rc-length of the thinner zone is large compared to its

SPE 48830 ACCOUNTING FOR FLAWS IN THE BURST STRENGTH OF OCTG 3

1.050 ε / ε o = α (σ / σ o ) 1/ n , (7)

capacity of pipe with thickness t*

Enhancement factor over burst

1.040

π

J p = ασ o ε o a (1 − a / t ) ( P / Po ) 1+1/ n (8)

1.030 n

Q125 where a is the crack size, P is the applied load, and Po is the

1.020 P110 load at which the remaining ligament yields based on a yield

stress of σ o . For the case of cracked pipes, P ≡ p is the

1.010 internal pressure (differential), and the pressure po , is taken

to be that predicted from von Mises yield criterion such that

2 t−a

1.000

po = σo. (9)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 3 R

w all loss/original thickness

By comparing Equations (1) and (7), it is straightforward to

show that

Fig. 1 Factor f wl as a function of wall loss

n

α≡

eε o

(σ o / σ uts ) 1/ n . (10)

When the length of the thinner zone is of the order of the

wall thickness, such as would be the case with an axial part- This leads to the following expression for J p for the cracked

through crack, the assumption of uniform through-thickness

pipe:

straining leads to a two-zone limit load that is somewhat less

than that predicted by finite element models that account 1+1/ n

properly for shear banding. Therefore in the absence of a

1 p

fracture mechanism, where limit load behaviour governs, the J p = a (1 − a / t )π nσ uts . (11)

two-zone model provides a lower bound estimate to the burst e 2 t −a

σ uts

strength of an axially cracked pipe. 3 R

We will make use of this relationship later for the assessment

3. J-INTEGRALS FOR PIPES WITH

of burst tests on cracked pipes to determine whether the burst

CRACK-LIKE FLAWS

capacity is limit-load or fracture controlled.

Real pipes will always have small flaws, the size of which will

depend on the manufacturing process and the quality of

Comparison with F.E. results

inspection. For pipes with cracks, there are two competing

failure mechanisms. One is the plastic limit-load behaviour To assess the validity of using the Hutchinson infinitesimal

described above. The other is fracture, which we now solution for the plane strain crack for a pipe with an axial part-

consider. through external flaw, large strain J-integral F.E. calculations

The J-integral method (see Rice [9]) provides a single were undertaken for P110 and Q125 casing. These analyses

parameter for estimating the onset of ductile fracture in pipes were performed on behalf of Shell by MARC Research

containing flaws and we look to this approach to augment the Europe. The geometry and material properties of the casing

models developed above. The J-integral approach is not studied matched that of pipes tested by Mitsui-Babcock with

strictly valid when the remaining ligament strains in the artificial flaws, details of which are given in Table 2a below.

plastic range (loss of J-dominance); however in this case, the A von Mises yield criterion was employed in these analyses.

toughness can be considerably enhanced owing to loss of The results are shown in Figs. 2a and 2b.

constraint ahead of the crack tip, as discussed by Odow’d and It is clear that the Hutchinson formula performs very well

Shih [10, 11]. Consequently, the application of the J-integral for both material grades. The normalising pressure in these

assuming full constraint at the crack tip is conservative. figures is the von Mises two-zone limit load which is defined

as

The J-integral solution for a crack in plane strain t*

p 2*z _ vm = f vm f wl σ uts (12)

Hutchinson [12] has developed a small strain solution for the R

plastic component of J for a plane strain crack in an infinite

where t * is the remaining ligament thickness and

body. Ignoring the elastic contribution (which is small when

the ligament strains in the plastic range), and assuming a n n +1

1 2

power law fit to the material uni-axial stress/strain curve of f vm = . (13)

the form 2 3

4 G. STEWART, F.J. KLEVER SPE 48330

p FE = f FE p 2*z (14)

800

where p FE is the limit load calculated by F.E. analysis and

700 f FE is the increase over the two-zone model that results from

FE three dimensional effects.

600 Analytical Further details on F.E. comparisons with the two-zone

model can be found in Klever and Stewart [5].

500

4. BURST TESTS FOR OCTG PIPE WITH

J [KPa.m]

Burst test results and limit load predictions

300 To assess the consequences of crack-like flaws on burst

capacity, two pipe samples (P110 and Q125) with sparc-

200 eroded artificial part-through axial defects were pressurised to

failure. These tests were performed by Mitsui-Babcock

100 Energy Ltd. on behalf of Shell from the same tubulars that

were tested by TNO and reported above. The lengths of the

0 test specimens were four times the diameter and the defects in

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 both pipes were approximately 0.25 mm in width and 150 mm

in length. The defect depths were 1.7 mm (12.6% of average

P/P*_2z

wall) and 2.25 mm (14.3% of average wall) for the P110 and

Q125 pipes, respectively. The tensile tests were performed

Fig. 2a F.E. J-Integral for P110 pipe with external

at a constant strain rate of 10-4/sec and the hoop strain in the

crack compared to Hutchinson plane strain

burst tests was also kept to this strain rate to ensure

solution

consistency of results.

As well as tensile tests, fracture toughness J-R tests and

1000 Charpy impact tests were carried out. For each material, two

sets (3 samples per set) of J-R curves were generated using 3

900 point bend specimens. The first of these were the usual pre-

fatigued specimens to ASTM E813-89. The second set were

800 FE sparc-eroded cracks to investigate whether burst tests with

Analytical sparc-eroded notches were representative of casing with sharp

700

defects and, if not, to allow adjustment of the burst test results.

600 Full dimensional surveys of both pipes were carried out.

The geometry and tensile properties of the pipes are shown

J [KPa]

500

in Table 2a, while the test results are compared with limit load

400 predictions in Table 2b. In Table 2a, tmin is the thickness at

the location of the flaw before the flaw was inserted while t*

300 is the ligament thickness at the flaw location given by

t* = tmin - a.

200 In Table 2b, P*_2z is the limit capacity calculated from

100 Eq. (5). The F.E. correction factor corresponds to f FE in

Eq. (14). It is observed that the two-zone model underpredicts

0 the burst pressure recorded in the tests. When the prediction

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 is adjusted to account for the limit load predictions based on

P/P*_2z the F.E. analysis, the answers are within 4% of the recorded

test burst pressures. This is similar to the agreement found

Fig. 2b F.E. J-Integral for Q125 pipe with external between limit load models and tests on regular pipes.

crack compared to Hutchinson plane strain The burst pressures for these cracked pipe tests show only

solution a small reduction over those for the defect free pipes tested by

TNO given in Table 1 (for which the P110 pipe burst at

As mentioned previously, the two-zone model 80.6 MPa and the Q125 pipe at 142.9 Mpa). This confirms

underestimates the limit load, in this case by 6% for both that failure is by a plastic limit load phenomenon.

pipes, as may be seen from Figs. 2a and 2b. This can be

expressed as follows:

SPE 48830 ACCOUNTING FOR FLAWS IN THE BURST STRENGTH OF OCTG 5

500

[MPa] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] J_0.97*P-test

P110 980 0.049 340 13.50 13.3 1.70 11.60 400 R_sparc

R_f atigue

Q125 1070 0.058 253 15.73 15.4 2.25 13.15

J {KPa.m]

300

200

Table 2b Burst capacity of test pipes and

limit loads from models 100

0

[MPa] [MPa] P*_2z correction P_f.e.

1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7

P110 78.0 75.3 1.036 1.06 0.98 a [m m ]

Q125 141.2 128.2 1.101 1.06 1.04

Fig. 4 Tearing assessment of P110 test

It is concluded that limit load behaviour governs for both initial crack size is incremented. By calculating the J value

tests and that the capacity is not affected by fracture. This for each crack size, the applied J curve is obtained. If this

indicates that the material is extremely tough, which is curve intersects the resistance curve, the crack growth is

confirmed by the high Charpy values of around 100 Joules at stable; otherwise instability (fracture) occurs.

room temperature (see Fig. 3). Based on these analyses, fracture is not anticipated for the

P110 burst test with the sparc-eroded defect, and this is

120 consistent with the earlier finding that the limit load governs.

However, had the defect in the burst test been pre-fatigued, it

Charpy Energy (Joules)

100

is predicted that the burst pressure would have been 3% lower.

80

The picture for the Q125 test is somewhat different. In

60 this case, the fracture analysis (Fig. 5a) predicts that the pipe

40 with the sparc-eroded defect should burst at 93% of the

20 P110 Q125 maximum pressure recorded during the test. Indeed, to

sustain the test pressure, the resistance curve would need to be

0

scaled by about a factor of 3. There may be several reasons

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

why this increase in resistance can be justified. The most

Tem perature (C) credible is that for the edge cracked pipe, the constraint in the

Fig. 3 Charpy impact transition curve fracture process zone ahead of the crack is substantially less

than that in the small scale 3-point bend J-R specimen. This

In the next section, we investigate the crack driving force loss in constraint reduces the magnitude of the mean tri-axial

and compare this to the resistance measured from fracture test stress which leads to an increase in apparent fracture

specimens to determine whether the absence of fracture is toughness during stable tearing. This concept of two

indeed predicted and to assess the consequences of having parameter fracture criterion has received considerable

fatigue sharpened cracks as opposed to the sparc-eroded attention recently and is still evolving. Notable publications

notches used in the test pipes. in this area are those by Odow’d & Shih [10, 11], MacLennan

& Hancock [13] and Tvergaard & Hutchinson [14], to name

Fracture assessment of test pipes but a few. Increases in toughness (Jmat) by a factor of 4 have

Figure 4 shows the results from a ductile tearing assessment been reported in the literature [13].

for the P110 pipe where the applied J values have been As with the P110 material, the fracture resistance of the

calculated according to Eq. (11) and the (lowest of the pre-fatigued Q125 specimens is lower than the sparc-eroded

recorded) resistance curves for both sparc-eroded and pre- specimens (compare Figs. 5a & 5b).

fatigue cracked specimens are shown. It is observed that the

sparc-eroded specimen (R_sparc) has a significantly larger

resistance curve than the pre-fatigued crack specimen

(R_fatigue).

6 G. STEWART, F.J. KLEVER SPE 48330

1600 assumed that the crack is sharp (which is not always the case

J_P-test for manufacturing defects), and hence the resistance curves

1400 J_0.93*P-test

with the pre-fatgued crack are employed.

R_sparc

1200 R_sparc*3

The procedure followed was to take an initial crack size a,

and to increase the pressure until the applied J curve was

1000

tangential to the resistance curve. This pressure is denoted

J [KPa.m]

800 the fracture instability pressure. For all initial crack sizes,

this gave a crack extension of 0.2 mm for the P110 pipe and

600

0.3 mm for the Q125 pipe. Using the two zone model of

400 Eq. (5), the limit load was then calculated for the remaining

ligament thickness including crack extension. The lower of

200

the limit-load and the fracture instability pressure is taken to

0

be the burst capacity. In those cases where the limit-load

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 governs, this procedure yields a conservative two-zone

a [m m ] capacity prediction since the crack extension at the limit

pressure may be less than that associated with the fracture

Fig. 5a Tearing assessment of Q125 pipe

instability pressure. Note that the finite-element correction

with sparc-eroded defect

factor f FE is not used here as in general this factor will not be

1600

known. The procedure provides conservative estimates of

J_P-test

1400

J_0.91*P-test

failure capacity for both limit behaviour and ductile fracture.

J_0.97*P-test The results of this assessment are plotted in (Fig. 6). The

1200

R_f atigue horizontal axis is the initial crack depth to wall thickness ratio,

1000

R-f atigue*3

while the ratio on the vertical axis is the applied pressure to

the burst pressure of a uniform pipe with thickness t * = t - a,

J [KPa.m]

800

where a is the initial crack size. It may be seen that for the

600 P110/Q125 pipe samples considered, the pressure p *

corresponding to the limit load of a pipe of remaining

400

ligament thickness t * provides a good estimate of the burst

200 capacity envelop calculated from the fracture and limit-load

0

models. Note that the ratio of the limit-load to p * is less

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 than that shown in Fig. 1 because in this case it includes crack

a [m m ] extension. It is interesting to note that the fracture instability

curves for the two materials fall more or less on top of each

Fig. 5b Tearing assessment of Q125 pipe other.

with pre-fatigued notch

1.05

Q125-f rac

Q125-lim

crack (Fig. 5b) would suggest a failure pressure of 91% of the P110-f rac

1.03

actual pressure achieved. Scaling the resistance curve by a P110-lim

P_burst/P*

toughness of edge cracked pipes may be considerably higher

0.99

than that measured in 3 point bend specimens owing to the

loss of constraint that develops as the ligament becomes 0.98 Limit load governs Fracture governs

plastic. 0.97

0.96

5. FAILURE DIAGRAM FOR P110/Q125 PIPES 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300

The tests discussed above on P110/Q125 casing give an

indication of burst capacity for one defect size only. Fig. 6 Fracture and limit pressures

However, using the developed analysis approach, we can for P110 and Q125 pipes

investigate the limit-load/fracture capacity over a range of

initial crack depths. Conservatively, the toughness increase

associated with lack of constraint is omitted and moreover it

SPE 48830 ACCOUNTING FOR FLAWS IN THE BURST STRENGTH OF OCTG 7

WITHOUT CRACKS The QA system and control procedures in the mill have a large

We summarise these findings by stating that the capacity of influence on the quality of the final product and the inspection

casing with crack-like flaws can be established from an facilities play an important role in demonstrating that the

equation of the form: overall quality is to an acceptable standard.

Most modern steel mills producing OCTG in Europe and

t − a 1

n +1 n +1

1 Japan use automated ultrasonic testing for wall thickness

pbcrack = fc + σ uts (15a) measurement and to detect longitudinal and transverse defects

R 2 3

and laminations. 100% coverage is possible and is

recommended. This, however, does not guarantee that all

where the parameter f c has been introduced to account for

defects are detected.

the case where the fracture toughness is less than that required

for fracture stability at pressure p * , and t is the wall thickness Probability of detection (PoD) curve

at the location of the crack (excluding crack depth). For the

The UT measuring equipment is calibrated to a reference

P110/Q125 casing tests studied, f c is equal to unity. This is

notch sensitivity and below this threshold flaws are not

likely to be the case for all quenched and tempered casing,

detected. For flaws greater than the threshold size, the

which has high toughness, however additional tests are

probability of detection increases with flaw depth. In Europe,

recommended to justify this assertion and to correlate the J-R

an N5 (5% wall thickness) notch is typically used to set the

curves to Charpy impact values.

reference sensitivity for defects such as cracks and slivers.

For pipes without cracks, but with smooth wall loss (such Defects that emit echoes greater than the echo equivalent to an

as wear), the complementary burst equation to (15a) is N5 notch are deemed unacceptable. The probability of

1 n +1 1 n +1 detection of a defect depends upon its orientation, shape and

t min

pbwl = f wl + σ uts (15b) size. It is estimated that if an N5 reference notch is used, the

R 2 3 PoD of a defect having a depth of 5% of the wall is about

25%, while that of a 15% defect is about 95%.

where t min is the wall thickness of the thinnest part and f wl We construct a PoD curve as follows. A non-dimensional

accounts for the increase in strength provided by the crack parameter η (depth to nominal wall thickness ratio) is

surrounding thicker wall. For regular pipes f wl is unity. introduced and the PoD for the minimum detectable crack size

For pipes with wear, the reader is referred to the paper by ηmin is designated Pd1. For a larger crack of size m*ηmin it is

Klever and Stewart [5]. Pd2. For equipment calibrated to a reference notch of 5% of

For use in reliability based assessments, the lower of the wall, ηmin = 0.05. Assuming the PoD curve has a shifted

equations (15a) and (15b) provides the failure capacity. In exponential distribution with parameters α and β and cut-off

such probabilistic models, we suggest that the crack be at ηmin, then

considered to be embedded within a wall thickness taken from

the average wall thickness distribution as opposed to the POD(η) = 1 − α e − β η η > ηmin

minimum wall thickness distribution: the possibility of having (16)

a troublesome crack at the exact position of the minimum wall =0 otherwise

that escapes undetected is considered to have a negligible

probability of occurrence. The values Pd1 and Pd2 are selected based on judgement or

from calibration studies. As discussed above, a reasonable

7. ESTIMATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF estimate for the PoD for ηmin = 0.05 is Pd1 = 0.25, while for a

CRACK-LIKE FLAWS crack size of 3*ηmin = 0.15 it is estimated to be Pd2 = 0.95.

To make use of the above burst model for OCTG pipes with The parameters α and β are determined as follows:

axial flaws in a reliability assessment, it is necessary to know 1

the inherent probability distribution of the depth of crack-like 1 − Pd 1 m−1

flaws in manufactured OCTG. α = (1 − Pd 1 ) (17a)

1 − Pd 2

We develop a method to determine this probability

distribution based on mill inspection procedures. It is

assumed that prior to inspection, the size (depth) of the largest 1 1 − Pd 1

β= ln . (17b)

crack-like flaw in a single pipe has an exponential distribution η min (m − 1) 1 − Pd 2

with unknown parameter, λ. If the probability of detection of

cracks of a certain depth is known, and if the repair rate in the PoD curves for two quality levels of inspection are shown

mill can be estimated, then the distribution after inspection in Fig. 7 with Pd1 = 0.25 and Pd2 = 0.95 in both cases. Quality

can be established using Bayes’ Theorem. The methodology Level I is designated by m = 3 while Quality Level II is

is expanded upon below. designated by m = 4. Quality Level I provides a higher PoD

and is indicative of the currently available technology.

8 G. STEWART, F.J. KLEVER SPE 48330

1

Table 3 Parameter in exponential distribution

0.9 Reject/repair frequency (ν) Inspection λ

0.8 quality

Probability of detection

0.6

Level II (m=4) 44.6

0.5

1 in 50 pipes Level I (m=3) 63.3

0.4

Level II (m=4) 60.0

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Updated flaw probability distribution

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

After inspection, pipes found to have flaws are either repaired

Crack-size/wall-thickness

m=3

or discarded. The updated flaw pdf can be established using

m=4 Bayes' Theorem and is given by

Fig. 7 Probability of detection curves ~ 1 − POD(η)

f flaw (η) = f flaw (η) . (20a)

1−ν

Estimation of initial flaw probability distribution and the updated cdf is calculated from

We assume that the maximum flaw depth in a randomly η

selected joint of casing has an exponential distribution with ~ ~

(as yet) unknown parameter λ and that the flaws are

F flaw (η) = ∫ f flaw (η) dη . (20b)

0

sufficiently long in the axial direction such that the applied

driving force can be established from the models developed

above. The initial probability density function (pdf) and Summary of flaw probability distributions

cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the flaw depth are We can now develop inferred flaw distributions from a

respectively given by knowledge of inspection quality and reject/repair rates. The

results are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The benefit of inspection

λe − λη

f flaw (η) = 0 ≤ η ≤ 1, (18a) in reducing the severity of flaws is clearly seen, particularly at

1 − e −λ low recurrence frequencies associated with large flaw sizes.

It is believed that repair/rejection frequencies of around 1

(1 − e − λη ) in 20 pipes is quite common in mills (although this includes

F flaw (η) = 0≤η ≤1 . (18b)

1 − e −λ all types of defects). Therefore Figure 8 represents our

present best (but probably conservative) estimate of the

If all pipes are inspected, and those with identified defects distribution of crack-like flaws in OCTG. The accuracy of

are either repaired or rejected, then the repair frequency, ν, is this curve could be improved upon by monitoring mill repair

the chance of finding a flaw in a randomly chosen pipe and is rates and confirming the PoD curves.

given by:

1 6

η min

Probability of exceedance

(19) 4

1

λe − λη

∫ (1 − α e

−β η

= ) dη

η min

1 − e −λ 3

2

Equation (19) can be explicitly integrated, although it is

more convenient to perform numerical integration. If the 1

repair rate is known (or estimated) the parameter λ in the

initial flaw distribution can be established. Table 3 provides 0

0 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.2 0.22 0.25

values of λ for various repair rates and inspection qualities. Crack-size/wall-thickness

initial distrib.

updated distrib.

(y-axis is log10 scale)

SPE 48830 ACCOUNTING FOR FLAWS IN THE BURST STRENGTH OF OCTG 9

p burst pressure calculated using average of Tresca

5

and von Mises models

Probability of exceedance

and von Mises models)

3

p 2*z burst pressure of pipe with two wall thickness

2 zones (av. Tresca and von Mises models)

1 p 2*z _ vm burst pressure of pipe with two wall thickness

zones calculated using von Mises model

0

0 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.2 0.22 0.25 pbcrack burst pressure of pipe with crack

Crack-size/wall-thickness

POD probability of detection

initial distrib.

updated distrib. Pd1, Pd2 probability of detection values

R mean radius

Fig. 9 Level I inspection and repair rate of 1/50 t wall thickness

(y-axis is log10 scale)

t* ligament thickness

Greek

8. CONCLUSIONS α parameter in probability of detection curve;

An analytical equation for the burst capacity of OCTG pipes parameter in stress/strain fit

with crack-like flaws has been established and a procedure to β parameter in probability of detection curve

estimate the probability distribution of the depth of axial flaws ε logarithmic strain

put forward. The methods described are general in nature

η crack depth to nominal wall thickness ratio

and their application to any grade of OCTG is quite

λ parameter in exponential distribution

straightforward.

σ Cauchy stress

It is likely that all quenched and tempered casing will have

sufficient toughness to allow the burst capacity to be σ uts engineering ultimate tensile strength

calculated from the limit load of a pipe of thickness equal to ν repair frequency

the remaining ligament; however additional tests are

recommended to justify this assertion and to correlate the J-R Acknowledgement

curves to minimum requirement for Charpy impact values. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions

Improved flaw distributions could be obtained by made by Albert Holt and John Low of Mitsui-Babcock Energy

monitoring mill reject rates and by establishing accurate PoD Ltd, Technology Centre, Renfrew, Scotland, who carried out

curves. the burst tests on cracked casing with diligence and

The next step in this development is to derive safety professionalism.

factors for burst using probabilistic modelling techniques.

References

Nomenclature 1. Jiao, G., Sotberg, T., Bruschi, R., Verley, R., and Mork, K.,

Latin “The SUPERB project: Wall thickness design guideline for

a crack size pressure containment of offshore pipelines”, Offshore

Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) Conference,

e base of the natural logarithm

Florence, Italy, 1996.

f1 factor to account for use of average of Tresca and 2. Lloyd, J.R., and Karsan, D.I., “Development of a reliability

von Mises yield criteria based alternative to API RP2A”, Offshore Technology

f flaw probability density function (pdf) of flaw depth Conference, paper OTC 5882, Houston, Texas, May, 1988.

~ 3. Maes, M.A., Gulati, K.C., Brand, P.R., Lewis, D.B., McKenna,

f flaw updated pdf of flaw depth D.L., & Johnson, R.C., “Reliability-based tubing and casing

F flaw cumulative distribution function (cdf) of flaw depth design: principles and approach”, Offshore Mechanics and

~ Arctic Engineering (OMAE) Conference, Houston, Texas, USA,

F flaw updated cdf of flaw depth

1994.

f wl wall loss enhancement factor

4. Lewis, D.B., Brand. P.R., Whitney, W.S., Hood, M.G., & Maes,

f vm von Mises factor M.A., “Load and resistance factor design for oil country tubular

J J-integral goods”, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE)

Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1994.

Jp plastic contribution to J-integral

5. Klever, F.J., and Stewart, G. “Analytical burst strength

n strain hardening index prediction of OCTG with and without defects”, SPE Applied

OD outside diameter

10 G. STEWART, F.J. KLEVER SPE 48330

Technology Workshop on Risk Based Design of Well Casing Journal of App. Mech., Vol. 35, pp 379-386, 1968.

and Tubing, paper 48329, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, May, 10. Odow’d, P.N., and Shih, C.F., “Family of crack-tip fields

1998. characterised by a triaxiality parameter - I. Structure of fields”,

6. Klever, F.J., “Burst strength of corroded pipe: flow stress J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol 39, No. 8, pp 989-1015, 1991.

revisited”, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston, 11. Odow’d, P.N., and Shih, C.F., “Family of crack-tip fields

Texas, 1992. characterised by a triaxiality parameter - II. Fracture

7. Stewart, G., Klever, F. J., and Ritchie, D., “An analytical model applications”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 40, No. 5,

to predict the burst capacity of pipelines”, Offshore Mechanics pp 939-963, 1992.

and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) conference, Houston Texas, 12. Hutchinson, J.W., “Fundamentals of the phenomenological

1994. theory of nonlinear fracture mechanics”, J. App. Mech., 1042,

8. Paslay, P.R., Cernocky, E.P., and Wink, R., “Burst pressure Vol. 50, December, 1983.

prediction of thin-walled, ductile tubulars subjected to axial 13. MacLennan, I., and Hancock, J.W., “Constraint-based failure

load”, SPE Applied Technology Workshop on Risk Based assessment diagrams”, Int. J. Pressure Vess. & Piping, Vol. 64,

Design of Well Casing and Tubing, paper 48327, The pp 287-298, 1995.

Woodlands, Texas, USA, May, 1998. 14. Tvergaard, V., and Hutchinson, J.W., “Effect of T-stress on

9. Rice, J.R., “A path independent integral and the approximate mode I crack growth resistance in a ductile solid”, Int. J. Solids

analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks”, ASME Structs., Vol. 31, No. 6, pp 823-833, 1994.

- Strength of LugUploaded bynarenivi
- Full TextUploaded byshanmugam200554
- GetTRDocUploaded bypyman4407
- mode_I_and_IIIUploaded byGiulio Fioretto
- A Computer Algorithm for Determining the Tensile Strength of Float Glass by M. Overend & K. ZammitUploaded bygulilero_yo
- Fracture Control - Offshore Pipelines JIP Use of Abaqus_Explicit to Simulate Ductile Tearing in Pipes With Defects Loaded Beyond Yielding - OnePetroUploaded byarkan1976
- Safety Assessment and Remaining Life Estimation of Coke DrumsUploaded byash1968
- Taylor D.pdfUploaded byNima Rzv
- EUR 23510 ENUploaded byajra_bg
- Prasad_6_05_2014Uploaded byPunitharuban Thirugnanasammandamoorthi
- FRACTUREUploaded byDaniel Guz
- Mechanical FailureUploaded byDian Hapsari Safitri
- FailureUploaded byJhei Upload
- Recent Innovations in Pipeline Seam Weld Integrity AssessmentUploaded byMuhammad Shahzad
- FailuresUploaded byconmec.crpl
- Voo 2006-Shear Strength UHPCUploaded byHung Tran
- Crack Initiation and Defect AssessmentUploaded bymahmoud_allam3
- (p)Hydrogen Influence on Fracture of Sheet Carbon SteelUploaded byBabarSaleem
- ESA - Modification - 06 - CopyUploaded byNikhil Jayanth
- EMD Autumn 2016 Exam-2 Prep-bUploaded byMouhamadou yassine
- Brittle & Ductile Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Surface Damage in CMPUploaded byNest Necture
- materials-08-05418Uploaded byBryan Manalo
- IntroductionUploaded bykrishna
- 5. Comminution.pdfUploaded byKhana Rizki Maulana
- Lecture 10 - Frontiers of Fracture MechanicsUploaded byJorge Luis
- DCB_GSRUploaded bySreeram C Lal
- The_Tip_Region_of_a_Fluid-Driven_Fractur (2).pdfUploaded byVishal Awari
- Elastoplasticidade com AbaqusUploaded bySebastiao Silva
- Taylor Impact of Glass RodsUploaded byNagarjun Singh
- 1st DraftUploaded byMark D Lalduhawma

- Fire Warden Manual - OriginalUploaded bylisaustin9
- WeldingUploaded byArputharaj Maria Louis
- Combined Torsion and Bending in Reinforced and Pre Stressed Concrete Beams Using Simplified Method for Combined Stress-ResultantsUploaded byMuhammad Saqib Abrar
- Linear and Nonlinear Analysis of a Cantilever Beam using Marc MentatUploaded byKrysia Baker
- Frag i Liza Cao 5638Uploaded byrenatomico2
- Glossary ASTM D883Uploaded byLim Ypteru
- PCC wallUploaded bySomil Yadav
- Brouchre everlastUploaded byteniya
- 2019 COMFORTSTAR DUCTLESS CATALOG.pdfUploaded byoscar
- som UNIV Lab 2013(25.04.13)Uploaded byPrema Latha
- Floating Floor.pdfUploaded byQOBIT
- VCZZ3TECUploaded byktsnl
- DUCTO CUADRADO HOFFMAN COMPLETO.pdfUploaded byHugo Aburto Ramirez
- Storage Tank Data Sheet.xlsUploaded byhuangjl
- Concrete RheologyUploaded byGanesh.Rajan
- Series S8C Backflow Preventer for Tub and Shower Hand Spray Sets Specification SheetUploaded byWatts
- Book Rust Converter PdsUploaded byRavi
- Basements NBCUploaded byShalini Shanmugam
- Single-CAC-Outdoor-PDB-Feb-2013.pdfUploaded bykadir kaya
- Semi-hermetic Bock Compressors for Sub- And Transcritical CO2(R744) ApplicationsUploaded bytasysat
- DSC Basic TheoryUploaded byAna Onomusescu
- UE203030_E[1]sUploaded byUgur ASİT
- Abaqus Energy EquationsUploaded byarkan1976
- Framed StructureUploaded byanshul agrawal
- 81841 PreviewUploaded byFredel De Vera
- Minor Loss Coefficients in Pipes and Tubes ComponentsUploaded byHimanshu1712
- Dislocation Model for DeformationUploaded byP R SREENIVASAN
- TGAUploaded byibikgibik
- 007_IP_PracticeExam1Uploaded byhitm357
- 12-01-0192Uploaded byFernanda Sequera

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.