SPE 68418
Development of Collapse Ratings for High Temperature and Pressure Coiled
Tubing Applications
H. B. Luft and R. Wright, BJ Services, F. Lallemant Total Oil Marine and P. Kis, C-FER Technologies Inc.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in
Houston, Texas, 7–8 March 2001.
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, as
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
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
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
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
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.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In the spring of 1998, BJ Sevices and Total Oil Marine carried
out an “HP Intervention Feasibility Study” for the reliable
entry of a high pressure gas well using 1 ¾” 100 ksi Coiled
Tubing. The research was prompted by the requirement to use
Coiled Tubing to enter Triassic wells on the Alwyn North
platform in the North Sea for post frac cleanout operations
among other service requirements. Potential wellhead
pressures of 7,500 psi and operating depths of 6,000 metres
meant that a better understanding of Coiled Tubing collapse
mechanisms and an improved method of predicting collapse
would be vital to optimize operations on Triassic wells. The
first phase of this study was based on experimental fitness-for-
purpose investigations involving a 3060 ft long test string at
an on-shore test well in Aberdeen, Scotland. Recognising the
conservatism of collapse resistance predicted by existing
theoretical methods and appreciating that knowledge of actual
collapse limits is more critical in High Temperature and High
Pressure (HPHT) coiled tubing operations, this initiative
culminated in a joint research venture between the operator
and the coiled tubing service provider. The second phase of
this research involved a laboratory collapse-testing program
conducted in Edmonton, Alberta, that set out to obtain
extensive experimental data on CT collapse and to investigate
the effect of loading history on the residual collapse strength.
This paper is concerned primarily with the laboratory-
testing program. The testing protocol is described and the key
parameters that influence collapse resistance are identified and
discussed, as well as how each may be affected by plastic
cycling, high temperature and/or high pressure operations.
Some selected experimental results are presented. Although
actual factors of safety against collapse requires knowledge of
the individual test results, general trends for the degradation of
collapse resistance due to prior service loading and the range
in magnitude of the difference between actual and predicted
collapse strength, are identified. Theoretical predictions of
collapse resistance are based on existing formulations in
which the ovality and axial loading appear as explicit
parameters. Collapse predictions are also discussed in light of
a newly proposed methodology submitted to the API under RP
5C7 as recommended practise for determining allowable
collapse pressures on coiled tubing. A new methodology for
accurate prediction of CT collapse that is based on measured
stress-strain plots, is also discussed.
Introduction
To investigate the collapse integrity of high strength coiled
tubing, Total Oil Marine and BJ Services embarked on two
testing procedures, one involving field tests at a test well in
Aberdeen and the other an in-depth laboratory collapse testing
program. For the first phase of the study, a short 3,060 ft
tapered string was purchased by Total Oil Marine. The 1 ¾”
100 ksi coiled tubing was run into and retrieved from the test
well with 8,500 psi differential pressure applied to the coiled
tubing without additional weight added to the string. For
subsequent tests, drillpipe was used to load up the coiled
tubing to a maximum 80% of yield or 69,000 lbs tension. On
each run, the Coiled Tubing was cycled 10 times and readings
were taken manually and recorded on the Quality Tubing
monitoring system. Based on these field trials and a better
understanding of actual versus theoretical collapse strength,
BJ Services Aberden performed successful post frac
operations for Total Oil Marine on a Triassic well on the
Alwyn North in October 1999.
In addition to field testing, the experimental investigation
into the collapse strength of plastically cycled coiled tubing
required a laboratory collapse testing program since the
“fitness-for-purpose” evaluation performed on a full length
coiled tubing string in the field, did not result in any collapse
failures. Also, collapse testing of a full length tubing string
subjected to a prescribed number of fatigue cycles at varying
2 H. B. LUFT, R. WRIGHT, F. LALLEMANT, P. KIS
internal pressure, could not be performed economically under
test well conditions. As well, to the best of the authors’
knowledge, no laboratory collapse test data was available for
the relatively new grade of high strength coiled tubing.
The primary objectives of this joint venture were to evaluate
the loading history effects on residual collapse resistance as
well as perform a fitness-for-purpose evaluation of potential
HPHT well interventions based on experimental rather than on
theoretical predictions of collapse. For these new coiled tubing
applications, it is imperative that the ultimate collapse
resistance of CT strings be known as accurately as possible
and to be able to predict to what extent their collapse strength
is affected by plastic fatigue loading and higher pressure and
temperature environments. A secondary benefit of this major
undertaking was the generation of extensive test data that
could be compared with existing theoretical predictions.
High pressure and temperature conditions may be described
as any value for these parameters that introduces a non-
negligible effect on the material and/or performance of the
product. High temperature conditions for coiled tubing steels
may be lower than those typically associated with
conventional steels because of the extremely fine grain size
found in coiled tubing steels. For example, a fine-grained
microstructure is more susceptible to creep at lower
temperatures than those associated with conventional steels.
High pressures, for example, would be those for which the
maximum pressure differential applied during service would
results in the minimum allowable factor of safety against
collapse failure. High internal pressures might also be
considered as those for which ballooning of the tubing rather
than the initiation of a fatigue crack would govern the working
life of the tubing string.
The desire for a more accurate collapse prediction
methodology was the primary motivation for obtaining a
complete stress-strain curve for each of the numerous full-
body tensile tests performed on companion collapse test
specimens. Effects of cyclic strain softening, residual stresses
and elevated temperatures were expected to be captured by
changes in the shape of the stress-strain curve. Although
somewhat cumbersome and limited in practical applications
for on-site evaluation of residual collapse strength, obtaining a
stress-strain curve for a CT specimen subjected to a given
loading history and/or temperature environment would still be
more cost effective and could be expidited more quickly than
a full-sized collapse test. A more expedient approach would be
to develop a mechanistic and/or semi-empirical collapse
prediction model that could be calibrated against laboratory
measurements now that a substantial data base on CT collapse
pressures has been developed. Such a model may not provide
the same accuracy as would be obtained from a stress-strain
curve but would be acceptable for routine engineering design
calculations. A new mechanistic semi-empirical “Plastic
Hinge” model for predicting collapse pressures as a function
of loading history and service temperature has indeed been
derived as part of the final report for this investigation.
Unfortunately, because of its proprietary nature, this model
along with most of the experimental results, could not be
SPE 68418
included in the present paper. It is anticipated, however, that
this valuable information will be published in the near future.
Collapse Testing Program
For the development of CT collapse ratings for HPHT wells,
an accurate knowledge of ultimate collapse strength was
required. In particular, investigation of the potential
degradation of collapse strength with increasing loading
severity was essential. With this objective in mind, an
experimental collapse-testing program was designed that
considered the effects of loading history on the individual
parameters which determine the collapse strength of the
tubing. The primary material variables are yield strength, σy,
elastic modulus, E, and Poisson’s ratio, µ. The primary
geometric variables were considered to be wall thickness, D/t
ratio, ovality and eccentricity. The effects of residual stresses
were also considered. From previous experience with coiled
tubing steels at steam injection temperatures1, changes in
tensile properties at elevated temperatures were also expected
that might exhibit a measurable influence on the net collapse
resistance for CT exposed to high temperature wells.
Tensile tests with complete stress-strain plots were
performed on full body specimens that were pre-fatigued at
various internal pressures to different percentages of their safe
working life. The maximum internal pressure corresponded to
about 30% of the internal yield pressure. Companion
specimens were pre-fatigued to be used for the collapse tests
as well as duplicate tensile tests. Elevated temperature tensile
tests were performed up to 250 C on non-fatigued tubing
samples. Since the collapse strength is dependent upon the
compressive yield stress in the hoop direction, strip tensile
tests were performed on axial specimens removed from non-
cycled tubing samples and flattened specimens in the
circumferential direction. To assess any potential collapse
strength anomalies due to anisotropic material properties, strip
tensile tests were performed in both the longitudinal and
transverse directions on the flat stock prior to rolling into a
tubular product. Physical measurements on every tensile
specimen were taken at several locations to obtain average
tubing eccentricity, ovality and diametral growth (ballooning).
Collapse testing was performed with and without axial
tensile loading at room temperature and at elevated
temperature without axial stress. The radial displacement was
measured as a function of increasing external pressure. The
mode of collapse failure was observed and the location of the
formation of plastic hinges relative to the ERW weld seam
was recorded for every test specimen.
Testing Protocol. Collapse tests were performed on 1.75 inch
OD samples of 100 ksi yield strength grade coiled tubing.
Testing consisted of room temperature collapse tests with and
without axial load and elevated temperature collapse tests
without axial load. The following summarizes the test program
parameters:
• material strength grade 100 ksi – kept constant through
the test program;
SPE 68418 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLAPSE RATINGS FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE CT APPLICATIONS
• OD 1.75” – kept constant through the test program;
• wall thickness: 0.134” and 0.175”;
• bend cycles (% of predicted safe working life): 0, 40, 70
and 100 %;
• internal pressure during bend cycles: 0, 2000 and 4000 psi
for specimens with 0.134” wall thickness and 0, 3000 and
6000 psi for specimens with 0.175” wall thickness;
• axial load during collapse tests (% of yield load): 0, 40,
80 and 90%; and
• temperature during collapse tests: room temperature and
200°C.
To compliment the results of testing, theoretical collapse
pressure calculations were performed to substantiate the newly
derived “Plastic Hinge” prediction methodology. Test
parameters were also introduced into the collapse test program
to expand the current predictive capabilities. Coupon tests
were performed and detailed specimen initial geometry
measurements were taken to provide input into the prediction
methodology.
Laboratory Testing Procedure. Prior to laboratory testing,
specimens were pre-fatigued under plastic bending at varying
internal pressure using a standard Stewart-Stevenson bend
fatigue machine. One bend cycle consisted of cycling a coiled
tubing specimen from 0% to 1.2% strain, and back to 0%.
Collapse tests were performed using a high-pressure
experimental chamber rated at 25000 psi. A schematic
diagram of the collapse testing equipment is illustrated in Fig.
1. Specimens were cut to length, and end fittings (4, 6) were
welded to each end of the specimen. These end fittings were
designed with quick pin connections (5) to the end plug (2)
and the loading rod (7) inside the pressure vessel to allow for
quick specimen installation and removal. End plug (1) used a
double O-ring design to seal around the loading rod (7) and to
allow the rod to move freely during testing. The loading rod
was fabricated to the same diameter as the specimens to
eliminate the potential for axial loading from the pressure
environment. Two end caps (14) structurally secured the end
plugs in place. Axial load was applied to the coiled tubing
specimen using a 60-ton capacity hydraulic actuator.
Measurements taken during testing included:
• external pressure;
• specimen diametrical change at one location;
• axial load;
• axial elongation; and
• volume of fluid pumped into the vessel during
pressurization.
To keep the axial load constant during testing, an
electronically controlled servo-valve was used in the hydraulic
system. A high-pressure pump supplied the external pressure
to the specimen. The volume of fluid pumped into the
pressure vessel was measured by an electronic level
measurement system. The diameter of the specimen was
3
measured using two LVDT’s (Linear Variable Differential
Transformers) penetrating the walls of the pressure vessel.
For the room temperature tests, the pressurizing medium was
water.
The test configuration of the collapse test without axial
loading was similar to the above, except the hydraulic
actuator, load cell, axial elongation and the axial loading
hydraulic system were removed. The pressurizing medium
was also water. The test configuration of the elevated collapse
test without axial loading was similar to the room temperature
test set-up, except three temperature measurements were taken
on the outside surface of the pressure vessel. The pressurizing
medium for these tests was a high temperature hydraulic fluid.
A typical collapsed specimen is shown in Fig. 3 and cross
section in Fig. 2.
CT Material Properties
Standard ASTM A370 testing procedures were used to
obtain the tensile properties of pre-cycled coiled tubing
collapse specimens. This method employs the familiar 0.2%
offset to obtain the yield strength from the stress-strain curves.
The results of the various room temperature tensile tests are
summarised in Table 1. The difference in average strip tensile
yield strength for the transverse (hoop) direction was found to
be 3.9% below axial yield. On the other hand, the average
yield strength in the transverse direction of flat plate strip
material was 5% above that of the rolling direction or
longitudinal yield strength. Conversely, the hoop tensile yield
strength for the thicker (0.175”) walled tubing (not shown in
Table 1) was found to be somewhat higher than that in the
axial direction. Hence the coiled tubing milling and heat
treating process not only increases the strength to satisfy
SMYS specifications but also renders the CT material to be
virtually isotropic. Comparison of average strip tensile and full
body tensile properties also shows a close agreement among
yield, tensile and elastic modulus. Similar observations were
made by Luft et al1 between CT strip tensile and full body
specimens of 70 ksi and 80 ksi strength grades. These results
indicate that axial tensile tests can be used to determine the
effective yield strength for collapse calculations. For plastic
collapse calculations, this assumes that the flexure yield
strength in bending is equal to the yield strength under uni-
axial tension and that yield strengths in compression are
similar to those in tension.
Effect of Plastic Cycling on Tensile Properties. To predict
the loss of collapse strength at some arbitrary point in the life
of the tubing, it becomes necessary to know how the tubing
tensile properties vary as a function of plastic bend cycles,
wall thickness and internal pressure. Both the thinner and
heavier walled tubing generally showed a reduction in yield
strength with increasing cyclic plastic bending. The rate of
reduction is determined by the CT wall thickness and to some
extent by internal pressure during plastic bending. For cycling
without internal pressure, both the rate and magnitude of yield
strength reduction were considerably higher for the thinner
walled tubing. As well, a continuous reduction with increasing
4 H. B. LUFT, R. WRIGHT, F. LALLEMANT, P. KIS
fatigue was obtained for the thinner walled tubing whereas the
yield strength for the thicker walled tubing remained more or
less constant for a considerable portion of its life. The
maximum overall reduction in yield strength for the thinner
walled CT exceeded 10%. Increasing the internal pressure
during bend fatigue loading did not have a significant effect
on yield strength for pressures up to approximately 30% of
internal yield pressure. For higher pressures, some additional
loss of yield strength was indicated for the thinner walled
tubing.
Tensile strengths were less affected by cyclic bending
fatigue and only by the thinner walled tubing. At 100% of
fatigue life, the overall loss of tensile strength was between 3
and 4%. Young’s Modulus, E, is a measure of the stiffness of
the material and therefore plays a key role in the collapse
resistance at higher D/t ratios where elastic stability begins to
govern the collapse strength. A reduction in coiled tubing
yield strength and Young’s Modulus has been shown by
Tipton2 to occur after only a small finite number of plastic
bending events and not just after the string has been subjected
to a substantial amount of plastic fatigue cycling. Variations in
this modulus with increasing plastic fatigue were also
observed in the present investigations. However, since the
failure mode was plastic collapse in all laboratory tests
performed, these variations did not significantly effect the
collapse strength. The measured response of tensile properties
with increasing fatigue loading severity would therefore
indicate that heavier walled CT with low D/t ratios are highly
preferable for HPHT coiled tubing operations.
Effect of Temperature on Tensile Properties. To predict the
loss of collapse strength at elevated temperatures that can be
expected in HPHT wells, it also becomes necessary to know
how some of the tubing tensile properties vary with increasing
temperature. Tensile testing at elevated temperatures was
performed on non-cycled tubing only. These results are plotted
in Fig. 4. A linear regression of this data shows that both yield
and tensile strength decrease with increasing temperature. This
trend is similar for the thinner walled (Group I) and thicker
walled (Group II) specimens. The overall reductions in CT
yield strengths from 20 C to 250 C were 23.9% for Group I
and 16.9% for Group II. Corresponding values for tensile
strengths were 17.7% for Group I and 12.4% for Group II. For
the linear regression curves, the average combined rate of
decline of CT strength with increasing temperature for both
Group I and II specimens of 100 ksi SMYS material is 81.5
psi/C for yield strength and 60.9 psi/C for tensile strength. It
should be noted that the decrease in CT yield and tensile
strengths with increasing temperature should be taken into
consideration not just for CT pressure ratings but also for axial
load capacities in HPHT well interventions.
CT Geometric Properties
To predict the loss of collapse strength for a given fatigue
loading history, it becomes necessary to know how the tubing
geometric properties vary as a function of plastic bend cycles
at varying internal pressure. The geometric properties that
SPE 68418
influence the collapse strength of coiled tubing are the ovality
or out-of-roundness, D/t ratio, eccentricity (or differential wall
thinning) and growth of diameter (ballooning). Eccentricity
effects have been shown3 to have a negligible effect on
collapse and were therefore not considered in any detail for
the present investigation. Since D was constant for all test
specimens, the effects of the D/t ratio were essentially due to
changing wall thickness. Maximum internal pressures during
plastic bend cycling were limited to those that would not cause
an increase in outer diameter exceeding the practical limit of
0.050 inches. The primary geometric properties that were
investigated therefore, were ovality and wall thickness.
Effect of Plastic Cycling on CT Ovality. The tubing ovality
for the new, non-cycled CT samples was extremely low and in
the order of ¼%. When cycled with or without internal
pressure, ovality was found to vary sinusoidally with each
plastic bend reversal and on average, produced a net increase
with increasing number of fatigue cycles. For cycling at zero
internal pressure, thinner walled specimens suffered an overall
increase in ovality of 150%. Cycling at higher internal
pressure causes an increase in ovality growth by a factor of
approximately 1.5.
Effect of CT Wall Thickness. For plastic cycling without
internal pressure, the thicker walled tubing (ie. 0.175”)
produced a net increase in ovality that was less than 1/6th of
the amount suffered by the thinner tubing whose wall
thickness was reduced by only 23% (ie. 0.134”). This
comparison is also very dramatic in terms of D/t ratio. Tubing
with D/t = 13 ovalizes at an average rate that is approximately
6 times greater than one with D/t = 10. The relative ovality
response of thick and thin-walled tubing to cyclic plastic
bending and internal pressure is compared in Fig. 5. In
general, the ovality for thick-walled CT (Group II) is less than
that for thin-walled CT (Group I) for all states of fatigue
loading and internal pressure except at the highest pressures
used during the laboratory testing.
Collapse Measurements of Used CT
If it were possible to accurately calculate the pressure that
would cause collapse of coiled tubing whose material and
geometric properties can be determined as a function of
fatigue loading history, it would not be necessary to perform
actual collapse tests on used tubing. As illustrated in the
section below, theoretical predictions of collapse pressures can
grossly underestimate or even overestimate the actual collapse
strength. Little experimental data on CT collapse tests were
available in the literature. A large number of collapse tests on
high strength CT were therefore performed as part of this
investigation.
Collapse Without Axial Loading. To illustrate the effects of
plastic fatigue loading on collapse resistance, several test
results are presented in Table 2. Specimen No. 1 is the base
case measured collapse strength for a 1-3/4 X 0.134” non-
cycled CT. Specimen No. 2 is the same tubing cycled at 2000
psi to 70% of its fatigue life. The measured changes in
SPE 68418 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLAPSE RATINGS FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE CT APPLICATIONS
material and physical properties that are shown in Table 2
have resulted in a loss of collapse strength from 16978 psi
to14382 psi or a reduction of 15.3%. Specimen No. 3 is a
heavier walled 1-3/4 X 0.175” CT cycled to 100% of its
fatigue life at a pressure of 6000 psi or about 30% of its
internal yield pressure. The net collapse strength of 20595 psi
represents a loss of only 8.4% of the base case value for this
tubing. Hence, the loss of collapse strength of a 100 ksi yield
1-3/4” CT whose wall thickness has been increased by only
30% has been reduced to about one-half that of the thinner
walled CT. This reduction has been achieved in spite of a
more severe fatigue loading history of the heavier walled CT.
Collapse Under Combined Loading. Specimens No. 4 to 6
of Table 2, illustrate the effects of interaction between external
pressure and axial tension on collapse strength of used tubing.
Specimen No. 4 is non-cycled CT of 0.134” WT loaded in
tension of about 40% of SMYS. The collapse strength of
14226 psi is a reduction of 16.2% from the base case strength
due to interaction alone. Specimen No. 5 is the same tubing
loaded to the same axial stress but cycled to only 40% of its
fatigue life. The loss in collapse strength is seen to have
increased to 21.7% from its base case strength. Specimen No.
6 illustrates the benefits of the thicker-walled CT. This
specimen was cycled without internal pressure to 70% of its
fatigue life and collapsed with an axial load of 80% of SMYS.
The measured collapse pressure of 10551 psi compares to
10538 psi obtained for the same tubing and axial stress when it
was in a new condition. Hence, whereas cycling of the
thinner-walled CT caused a further reduction in collapse
strength under combined loading, the collapse strength of the
thicker-walled CT was unaffected by fatigue loading even
when the axial stress was twice that imposed on the thinner-
walled CT. The retention of combined loading collapse
strength of the heavier-walled tubing when cycled at low
internal pressure, concurs with the results obtained for its
collapse strength at zero axial stress.
Collapse at Elevated Temperatures. Collapse testing
performed at elevated temperatures, confirmed the reduction
in collapse strength anticipated from measurements of tensile
properties at elevated temperatures. Collapse tests at 200 C
showed the reduction in collapse strength to be approximately
of equal magnitude for the thinner and thicker-walled CT
specimens although the reduction for the latter was somewhat
less. The effect of elevated temperatures up to the maximum
of 250 C considered in this investigation, was to reduce the
collapse strength by a similar order of magnitude as that
resulting from high-pressure plastic fatigue loading to the end
of the tubing’s fatigue life. Hence, the maximum wellbore
temperature to which the tubing string will be exposed during
a HPHT operation must be factored into the evaluation of its
collapse strength.
Predictions of CT Collapse
Several theoretical formulations and finite element analyses
have been published for predicting the collapse strength of
5
coiled tubing. References 3 to 6 inclusive, provide some
examples. These methods have served the industry well but
few have been evaluated against a statistically significant
population of collapse tests on coiled tubing. In light of the
new experimental data obtained as a part of the engineering
preparation for HPHT well interventions, some examples are
presented below that will illustrate the degree of conservatism
of one existing prediction method and one proposed for
adoption as an API Recommended Practice.
Existing Methodologies. One method available for predicting
CT collapse strength is that presented by Avakov et al4. In the
equation for collapse strength, Pc, the yield strength, σy, elastic
modulus, E, ovality, Ov, and α = D/t ratio appear as explicit
parameters in the formulation. Pc is obtained from a solution
to the quadratic equation 1.
P2c – [σyKy/2M + (1 + 1.5αOv)Pcr]Pc + σyKyPcr/2M= 0…….(1)
where M = α2/4(α – 1) and Ky is a yield strength reduction
factor to account for combined axial and radial stresses due
the interaction of axial loading, Q, and internal pressures, Pi.
Ky can be computed from expression 2.
Ky = 2MPi/σy+[1–3/4(Q/Qy+Pi/σy)2]1/2 – 0.5(Q/Qy+Pi/σy)....(2)
where Q = axial load and Qy = tubing yield load. Ky = 1 for Q
= Pi = 0. The critical or “corrected” external pressure for round
tubing, Pcr = PoKEKL where KL = 1 for long tubing (L/D >10),
KE is an API7 average-to-minimum correction factor equal to
0.7125 and Po is the elastic collapse pressure differential given
by
Po = C/α(α – 1)2 + Pi ……………………………………….(3)
where C is a material constant equal to 2E/(1-µ2). All
experimental tests resulted in collapse pressures that were
appreciably higher than what would be predicted by equation
1. Examples of comparisons of the theoretical predictions with
collapse test results are seen in Table 2 to be conservative by a
considerable margin. Since this margin grows with increasing
CT ovality, use of equation 1 will underestimate the actual
collapse strength of plastically cycled tubing even more than it
does for non-cycled tubing. Inclusion of a factor of safety to
arrive at allowable external pressures, may result in an
effective factor of safety against collapse that is larger than
necessary. Evaluation of CT collapse strength based on this
method may dictate the use of heavier wall tubing with an
unnecessary weight and cost penalty.
Plastic Collapse. Since the experimental collapse data first
published in Table 2 was obtained with CT specimens of D/t =
10 and 13, they were within the range of D/t for which plastic
collapse occurs. A common estimate of the external pressure
causing plastic collapse is the pressure required to cause the
onset of yielding at the inner surface of the tubing or yield
pressure, Py, given by Py = 2σy(α – 1)/α2. Closer agreement
6 H. B. LUFT, R. WRIGHT, F. LALLEMANT, P. KIS
with experimental collapse pressures is obtained when the
external pressure is of sufficient magnitude to cause yielding
throughout the entire wall thickness. At this point, a plastic
hinge will form at a fully yielded section followed by a large
deflection or collapse of the tubing. Numerical FEA solutions
of plastic collapse performed by Tamano et al8 resulted in a
new empirical formula for plastic hinge collapse, PPH,
involving general yielding of the tubing wall given by
equation 4
PPH = [2σy(α – 1)/α2][1 + 1.47/(α – 1)]…………………….(4)
For interaction with axial loading, the plastic collapse
pressure, PPHa, was derived using the von Mises yield criterion
as is given by expression 5.
PPHa = PPH {[1 – ¾(σa/σy)2]1/2 – ½(σa/σy)}………………….(5)
The numerical FEA reported in Ref. 7 was performed for D/t
varying from 10 to 26. Hence the empirical formula derived
from these analyses can be compared to the test data. As
illustrated in Table 2 much closer agreement is obtained
between calculations derived from equations 4 or 5 and actual
collapse pressures. Note however, than the predictions based
on FEA can overestimate the plastic collapse strength at zero
axial stress. As well, equation 4 does not explicitly account for
the ovality that is known to be an important factor in
determining collapse resistance for coiled tubing.
Proposed API Recommended Practise. A new methodology
has recently been proposed by the API Committee (API RP
5C7) for a recommended practise for determining the
allowable external pressure on used coiled tubing. The method
is based to some extent on the prior work performed by
Avakov9 and entails an elegant mathematical formulation that
accounts for the degrading effects of internal pressure and
tubing utilisation. The latter defines a stress factor, SF, that
effectively reduces the allowable external pressure to a degree
governed by the percentage of fatigue life consumed and the
level of reliability desired by the operator. A reliability factor,
KR, is calculated from a selected percentage reliability, R,
using KR = 1.25(a - 1) where “a” = [ln(R)/ln(0.5)]1/3 for which
0<R<1 with maximum safety obtained for R = 1. The
maximum allowable stress factor is then calculated from a
given utilisation factor, UF, and reliability factor by SF = KR
0.8b where b = UF1.5. For example, for maximum reliability,
and tubing fatigued to 50% of its working life (UF = 0.5), b =
0.354, KR = 1.25(0-1) = 0.8 from which SF = 0.8*0.80.354 =
0.739. The maximum allowable external pressure for new
tubing and 100% reliability is determined by substituting SF =
0.8 into the collapse prediction equations.
For new tubing, the collapse pressure may be predicted by
using a value of SF = 1 for which the results will be similar to
those calculated from equation 1. As seen from Table 2, such
calculations underestimate the actual collapse strength by a
considerable amount that increases with increasing axial load.
For used CT, the stress factor decreases the allowable pressure
SPE 68418
even further as SF varies from 0.8 to 0.64 at the end of the
tubing working fatigue life. Hence, if the recommended
practise for CT collapse ratings is to be adopted by API, the
inherent high degree of conservatism should be taken into
consideration. It is therefore suggested that the API
recommended practise for allowable external pressures on CT
strings include a separate formulation for the lower range of
D/t for which the mode of failure will be one of plastic
collapse.
Reduced Modulus Method. The so-called “Reduced
Modulus” method of collapse prediction is an iterative
procedure involving the full body stress-strain curve obtained
from a sample of tubing for which the collapse strength is to
be predicted. It is based on the research and model developed
by DeGeer10 and DeGeer and Chen11. These developments
initiated with the use of the classical elastic ring buckling
equation given by, among others, Timoshenko and Gere12.
The prediction method enhances the applicability of the elastic
ring buckling equation by incorporating advanced plasticity
theory described by Gerard13 to account for the material
inelastic behavior and reduction factors to account for
geometric ovality and wall thickness eccentricity. Input to the
model includes geometric properties (diameter, thickness,
ovality, wall thickness eccentricity), material properties
(stress-strain curve) and loading conditions. Material property
variations like anisotropy, residual stresses and effects of
temperature are considered when developing the appropriate
effective stress strain curve, and are thus accounted for in the
prediction.
For the coiled tubing specimens, it was found that the
material full body stress strain curves adequately represented
the coiled tubing material properties, and was thus used in all
predictions. To fully automate the prediction iterative process,
14
a Ramberg and Osgood equation was used to provide a curve
fit to the existing stress-strain curve. Predictions were then
performed using the Ramberg and Osgood stress strain curve
fit and the other parameters.
Collapse Without Axial Load. Several points are worth
noting in the prediction results. The predictions are good and
properly account for the effect of specimen fatiguing and
internal pressure during fatigue cycling as illustrated by the
comparisons with test data in Table 2. In the case of elevated
temperature collapse tests, the method accurately predicted
these test results. Since elevated temperature collapse tests
were conducted only on non-cycled CT, the reduction in
collapse strength was primary due to the reduction in the
material strength from the thermal effect.
Collapse With Axial Load. Axial loading has a significant
influence on collapse resistance. Prediction results for this
loading condition were also fairly accurate as seen from Table
2. Some discrepancies were found to occur at high axial loads,
when the axial stresses were very close to the actual yield
stress of the coiled tubing.
Discussion on Collapse Predictions. Although the
predictions based on the Reduced Modulus method provided
SPE 68418 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLAPSE RATINGS FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE CT APPLICATIONS
good results, several comments can be made in regards to the
accuracy of material property input data:
• There is believed to have been some variation in material
properties between the actual collapse test specimens and
the companion full body tensile specimens.
• There is some uncertainty arising from the effect of the
pre-fatiguing process on material properties. Due to a
limitation of the fatigue-testing machine, the supplied
length of pre-fatigued tube was insufficient to obtain both
the collapse and tensile test specimens. Therefore, one
length of tube was prepared for collapse testing and
another was pre-fatigued for tensile tests. This may have
resulted in some material property discrepancies between
the companion test specimens.
• It was noticeable that the radius of a 3-foot pre-fatigued
tube was not the same along the length, implying that the
pre-fatiguing effect produced material property variations
along specimen length. Due to the existence of a so-called
“sweet spot” on the fatigue-testing machine, there is a
location on the CT specimen where plastic straining is a
maximum. It is conceivable that some of the collapse and
tensile specimens may not have been extracted from
exactly the same location within this “sweet spot”.
In addition, there are limitations in the ability to predict the
collapse strength of a coiled tubing string based only on the
full body axial tensile stress-strain curve. Firstly, loading is
not only in axial tension, but also in hoop compression, and
obtaining hoop compressive data is not possible. Secondly,
the effects of the pre-fatiguing under variations of internal
pressure alters the specimen material properties, and may
result in a coiled tubing string with somewhat different
strengths in the axial versus hoop directions. These effects
have not been accounted for in the stress strain curve used as
input to the prediction method.
As an example of the inaccuracy of using the full body
tension stress strain curve to represent effective material
behavior, some specimens were tested to an effective stress
level of about 10% higher than the ultimate strength of the full
body tension stress strain curve. This is physically impossible
unless the specimen is actually stronger than what is indicated
by the full-body stress-strain curve. Examples of these
inaccuracies were found for the tests involving high axial
tension. Using the full body tension stress-strain curves, the
prediction method actually under-predicts collapse strength by
a fair amount.
Summary of Collapse Test Observations
Collapse Without Axial Load. One common characteristic of
all room temperature collapse tests without axial loading is
that the specimens flattened into a dual-lobed “figure 8” cross-
sectional shape over the entire length, accompanied by a very
loud “bang”. Room temperature collapse tests without axial
load as a function of bend cycles and internal pressure during
fatigue cycling showed that reductions in collapse strength,
were influenced by internal pressure effects. For both the
thinner tubing, an internal pressure of 2000 psi was required to
7
initiate any significant reduction in collapse strength. This
pressure is in the order of 14% of the internal yield pressure.
For the thicker-walled tubing, a pressure of 6000 psi or about
30% of its internal yield pressure, was required before any
significant reduction in collapse strength occurred.
Collapse With Axial Load. Generally, specimen collapse can
be summarized as follows: After the application of the initial
axial load, increasing external pressure acts on the specimen to
produce circumferential compression. This compression acts
together with the axial tension to increase the net effective
stress in the material. Geometrically, the increasing external
pressure will amplify any cross sectional elliptical
imperfections. As loading continues, the specimen cross
section continues to ovalize and the material continues to
experience increased effective stress. At some point, the
combination of material and geometric resistance reaches a
limit; the specimen can no longer maintain stability, and
bifurcation buckling occurs. For this specimen geometry, the
post-buckling curve is unstable under constant load
conditions, and the cross section flattens into its lowest energy
mode shape – that of a “figure 8”. In some tests, this was
observed to occur instantly, while in other cases it was a slow,
gradual process. As soon as flattening occurred, buckle
propagation was initiated. In one instance, the specimen broke
in two pieces. To avoid sudden specimen tensile failure and
damage to the test equipment, testing was usually terminated
at the first sign of instability. Because this did not occur at the
same time for all tests, the specimens displayed some
differences in post-collapse shape.
In nine of the tests involving axial load, the specimens
collapsed quite suddenly and collapse was accompanied by a
very loud bang. The buckle, however, did not run through the
entire length of the specimen, although it did maintain the
figure 8 cross section. For these nine tests, the buckled length
ranged from 3” to 12”. This behavior was also noted to have
occurred for every test where the applied axial load was 40%
of the yield load. For half of the tests involving axial load, the
specimens collapsed rather quietly, but also in a figure 8
shape. Collapsed lengths for these specimens ranged from 1¾”
to 3”. In some of these experiments, testing was terminated
just when the elliptical cross section began to form.
In two of the tests involving axial load, the specimens did
not show the usual figure 8 cross section. One specimen
displayed uniform necking and the reduced cross sectional
shape was very close to round. In this case, the specimen was
determined to have attained its ultimate strength prior to the
initiation of cross sectional instability. The other specimen
displayed similar necking, but it was also apparent that the
necked region had also deformed in an elliptical shape. In both
of these cases, it is believed that the applied axial stress was
very close to the actual yield stress of the specimen, and the
ultimate strength of the specimen was attained rather than the
bifurcation buckling point.
For all cases of combined loading, the effect of axial tension
was quite noticable, reducing the collapse strength by as much
as 65% when the axial stress is at 90% of SMYS. The
maximum reduction due to plastic cycling, was therefore
8 H. B. LUFT, R. WRIGHT, F. LALLEMANT, P. KIS
about 1/3rd of the effect of axial tension for the thinner-walled
CT and about 1/6th for the thicker-walled CT.
Conclusions
1. The simultaneous growth of ovality with increasing
pressure and plastic fatigue cycling coupled with a
decreasing yield strength, is a primary measure of the
effect of loading history on CT collapse strength. Since
collapse strength is strongly dependent on the magnitude
of ovality, a CT characteristic that can minimise the
growth of ovality and decrease in yield strength with
increasing plastic fatigue is extremely desirable for HPHT
operations.
2. Based on measured collapse pressures, it is indicated that
the maximum overall reduction in collapse resistance due
to plastic cyclic bending at room temperature and high
internal pressures, is in the order of 10% for the thick-
walled CT (WT=0.175”, D/t=10). For thinner-walled CT
with WT=0.134”, D/t=13, the overall reduction is nearly
25%.
3. Elevated temperatures up to the maximum of 250 C
considered in this investigation, can reduce the collapse
strength for 100 ksi yield CT by the same order of
magnitude as that resulting from plastic fatigue loading to
the end of the tubing’s fatigue life.
4. Measured collapse pressures exceeded theoretical
predictions from equation 1 to the extent of 25 to 50% for
external pressure loading only and in the range of 30 to
100% for interaction with axial stresses when maximum
tensile loads do not exceed 80% SMYS.
5. Obtaining the actual or effective factor of safety against
CT collapse requires the knowledge of individual collapse
test results or a new and more accurate theoretical
collapse prediction model.
6. Large improvements in collapse resistance of cycled CT
can be achieved by relatively small increases in wall
thickness and/or decreases in D/t ratio provided the mode
of failure remains one of plastic collapse.
7. High strength CT to be used in HPHT well interventions
should be selected with maximum possible wall thickness
and minimum possible D/t ratio.
8. Many of the existing prediction methods of failure due to
collapse have been found to be conservative and therefore
the potential operational envelope of coiled tubing has
been severely restricted in HPHT applications as a result.
The experimental collapse pressures obtained in this
research, greatly improve the potential operating envelope
available for coiled tubing applications in HPHT wells
including the Triassic wells wells on Total’s Alwyn field.
SPE 68418
Acknowledgements
The authors are greatly indebted to the financial support
provided by Total Oil Marine, ELF Exploration UK and to
Quality Tubing Inc. for preparing the numerous pre-fatigued
tensile and collapse test specimens at no cost. We are also
grateful to the Management of BJ Services, Total Oil Marine
and ELF Exploration UK for permission to publish some of
the valuable experimental data presented in this paper.
References
1. Luft, H. B., Pelensky, P. J. and George, G. E.: “Development
and Operation of a New Insulated Concentric Coiled Tubing
String for Continuous Steam Injection in Heavy Oil
Production”, paper SPE 30322, presented at 1995 SPE
International Heavy Oil Symposium, Heavy Oil, Oil Sands,
Thermal Operations, Calgary, AB, June 19-21.
2. Tipton, S. M.: “The Varying Modulus of Elasticity for Coiled
Tubing”, paper SPE 54461, presented at 1999 SPE/ICoTA CT
Round Table, Houston, Texas, May 25-26.
3. Tokimasa, K. and Tanaka, K.: “FEM Analysis of the Collapse
Strength of a Tube”, Transactions of ASME, Vol. 108, (May
1986) 158-164.
4. Avakov, V. and Fowler, H.: “Computing Collapse Pressure for
Coiled Tubing”, paper SPE 36340, presented at 1996 1st
SPE/ICoTA North American CT Round Table, Montgomery,
Texas, Feb. 26-28.
5. Yang, Y. S.: “Collapse and Burst Pressure of Coiled Tubing
Under Axial Load and Bending Torque and Strain Energy in
Spooling CT”, paper SPE 36338, presented at 1996 1st
SPE/ICoTA North American Roundtable, Montgomery, TX,
Feb. 26-28.
6. Zheng, A. S.: “An Improved Model for Collapse Pressure of
Oval Coiled Tubing”, paper SPE 46003, presented at 1998
SPE/ICoTA CT Roundtable, Houston, Texas, April 15-16.
7. American Petroleum Institute: “Bulletin on Formulas and
Calculations for Casing, Tubing, Drill Pipe and Line Pipe
Properties”, API Bulleting 5C3, 6th Edition, (Oct. 1994) 47.
8. Tamano, T, Mimaki, T. and Yanagimoto, S.: “A New Empirical
Formula for Collapse Resistance of Commercial Casing”,
ASME Transactions, Energy Sources Technology Conferences
& Exhibition, Houston, TX, (Jan. 30– Feb. 3 1983) 489-495
9. Avakov, V.: “Collapse Data Analysis and Coiled Tubing
Limits”, paper SPE 46004, presented at 1998 3rd SPE/ICoTA CT
Round Table, Houston, Texas, April 15-16.
10. DeGeer, D.: Collapse Strength of Cylinders Subject to Axial
Tension and External Pressure, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada (1991).
11. DeGeer, D. and Chen, J.J.: “Predicting Pipeline Collapse
Resistance”, Paper to be presented at the International Pipeline
Conference (IPC 2000), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, (2000).
12. Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M.: Theory of Elastic Stability.
Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
13. Gerard, G.: Introduction to Structural Stability Theory.
McGraw-Hill Book Company (1961).
14. Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.B.: “Description of Stress-Strain
Curves by Three Parameters”, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics, Technical Note 902, (1943) 1-28.
SPE 68418 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLAPSE RATINGS FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE CT APPLICATIONS 9

TABLE 1 - TENSILE TESTS FOR STRIP TENSILE, FLAT PLATE AND FULL BODY CT
(1-3/4” X 0.134” 100 ksi SMYS)
3
Specimen Yield Stress, σy (psi) Tensile Stress, σu (psi) Modulus, E X 10 psi
Strip Tensile Axial Transverse Axial Transverse Axial Transverse
1 107700 101950 115943 110757 31314 23473
2 108140 102900 113242 111366 30437 25823
3 106860 102520 110939 109975 27904 24724
4 103480 102180 107762 108152 28384 30677
Avg. Strip Tensile 106545 102388 111972 110063 29510 26174
Full Body #1 108180 NA 113336 NA 32880 NA
Full Body #2 106630 NA 111917 NA 30930 NA
Avg. Full Body 107405 NA 112627 NA 31905 NA
Flat Plate #1 77560 80760 96644 98317 28145 29263
Flat Plate #2 75780 80320 93813 97817 25805 32993
Avg. Flat Plate 76670 80540 95229 98067 26975 31128

TABLE 2 -COMPARISON OF PREDICTED COLLAPSE PRESSURES WITH TEST RESULTS

1 4 5
Specimen Yield D/t Ovality Axial Stress Pc Plastic σ−ε Pc %Diff
2 3
(psi) (%) %SMYS (psi) Collapse Curve (psi)
1) 1.75X0.134 107405 13 0.23 0 13909 17091 16830 16978 22.1
2) 1.75X0.134 96480 12.9 1.0 0 10343 15443 14229 14382 39.1
3) 1.75X0.175 96730 9.8 1.63 0 13647 20661 21288 20595 50.9
4) 1.75X0.134 107405 12.8 0.28 40 10584 12935 NA 14226 34.4
5) 1.75X0.134 101150 12.8 0.97 40 8612 12265 11827 13293 54.4
6) 1.75X0.175 99540 9.7 0.53 80 5519 6993 7809 10551 91.2
1. Calculated from Equation 1
2. Calculated from Equation 5
3. Stress-Strain Curve (Reduced Modulus Method)
4. Laboratory test results
5. Equal to (Pc,test – Pc,theory)/Pc,theory X 100% using Equation 1 for theoretical predictions

Return

Servo
Valve Hydraulic Pump

Extend Retract
Pressure

7 12 13 14 3 4 or 6 4 or 6 2 14
Vent Port

Lino Pot
To measure axial elongation

Load Cell
To measure axial load.
Hydraulic Ram
To apply axial load.
1 5 5
Two LVDT's.
To measure diameter.
Water Pressure Transducer.
Reservoir To measure collapse pressure.
Pressurizing
Pump

Fig. 1-Schematic of collapse test equipment

10 H. B. LUFT, R. WRIGHT, F. LALLEMANT, P. KIS SPE 68418

Fig. 2 – Typical CT “figure 8” cross section of CT collapse failure

Fig. 3 –Typical CT collapse test specimen showing end caps for applying axial loads
SPE 68418 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLAPSE RATINGS FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE CT APPLICATIONS 11

120000

Yield: Group I

110000
Yield: Group II
Yield or Tensile Stress (psi)

Tensile: Group I
100000

Tensile: Group II

90000

Linear (Tensile: Group I)

80000
Linear (Tensile: Group II)

Linear (Yield: Group I)

70000

Linear (Yield: Group II)

60000
20 70 120 170 220 270
Temperature (C)

Fig. 4 – Effect of elevated temperatures on average full body yield and tensile strength

1.6

1.4
Group I: Pi = 0 psi

Group II: Pi = 0 psi

1.2
Group I: Pi =2000 psi

Group II: Pi =3000 psi

1
Group I: Pi =4000 psi
Ovality (%)

Group II: Pi =6000 psi

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 40 70 100
Percent of CT Working Life

Fig. 5 - Comparison of CT ovality for thinner wall (Group I) and thicker wall (Group II) collapse test specimens