OTC 23143

The Effects of Thermal Cycling on Offshore Pipeline/Flowline Repair Tool

Seal Systems
Ray R. Ayers, PhD, PE, Jack E. Miller, PE, Eric Gage, and Justin Hebert, Stress Engineering Services, Inc., and
Ian Wilson, Woodside Energy Ltd

Copyright 2012, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
This paper summarizes results from both coupon testing and full-scale testing directed at developing sealing systems to
retrofit in traditional pipeline repair connectors and clamps so that they can undergo cycles of thermal heating and cooling
without leakage. Significant findings from this effort are that elastomers extrude from seal cavities due to high thermally-
induced swelling pressures exhibited by most elastomers, and that packer seals leak due to the loss of seal material. Coupon
tests were conducted using elastomer discs to simulate the mechanics of full-scale packer seals of various grades used in
pipeline repair tools. Finally, the project demonstrated effective sealing without high pressures and extrusion by using PTFE
tape-wrapped die-cast graphite wedges to successfully seal against leaking and seeping of water and gas in annulus testing.

Background
Stress Engineering Services, Inc. was initially contracted by Woodside Energy Ltd. to develop a seal system design to retrofit
into a conventionally-sealed 20-inch double-ended repair connector grips and seals and a 20-inch structural repair clamp. The
initial project addressed specific requirements of Woodside to determine whether commercially available deepwater pipeline
repair tools can maintain full operating pressure and survive multiple thermal cycles from cold subsea ambient temperatures
to hot insulated flowline operating temperatures. The low temperature target was 5°C (41°F) and operating temperature was
95°C (203°F). The key concern was whether standard VitonTM (or FKM) elastomer packer seals used in these repair tools
will seal properly after experiencing multiple thermal cycles. DuPont cites the high-temperature capability of VitonTM as up
to 200°C (400°F), so the traditional view in the industry is that thermal cycling is not a concern for such elastomers.
A qualification test was undertaken to verify seal performance of a diverless clamp and a double-ended connector ehich
grips and seals, all in one pipe assembly. During the first test sequence, both tools held full differential at low temperature,
ambient temperature, and high temperature. However, both tools lost their pressure seals as they were being cooled down
after the first hold period at high temperature.
Post-test disassembly and inspection revealed that the seals had suffered significant material damage. Exposure to high
temperatures had degraded the performance of the elastomers. This break-down, coupled with the tools’ fixed geometry seal
glands, resulted in extrusion of the rubber material through even very small gaps in the tools and between the tools and the
pipe sample. The internal pressure of the rubber elements was greatly increased via thermal expansion, leading (as confirmed
later) to pipe yielding, which provided paths for elastomer extrusion from the packer seal cavity (Figure 1).
2 OTC 23143

Figure 1. Extruded FKM elastomer from Clamp (left) and Connector (right)

The project team did not expect these results. However, after the artifacts of elastomer extrusion were inspected, it was
clear that the heating/cooling cycles were causing extrusion of the packer seals, and that, to produce this type of extrusion, the
pressure in the packer seal cavity must be much higher than the preload. Tool leakage was the result of loss of material in the
packer cavity, which reduced the pressure in the packer sufficiently to cause leakage.
An Internet search was conducted for documentation of similar problems caused by thermal swelling. A paper by Decker
of HydroTech Systems [Ref 1] was found that outlined analysis techniques for sealing systems, accounting for the effects of
swelling of the elastomer packer seals due to thermal effects. He also provided advice for achieving thermal compensation to
avoid over-pressurizing the elastomer and the pipe, which is the weak link in the mechanical system. Further, a 1976 US
Patent [Ref 2] was found with the claim of an improved sealing means by achieving thermal compensation of seal swelling
due to increased temperatures. Thus, the problem encountered in 2011 was actually recognized in the industry and described
in public documents as early as 1976.
This paper reports the “rediscovery” of this problem and research toward achieving effective sealing under conditions of
thermal cycling found with high-temperature flowlines in oil and gas service.

Objectives
Objectives of this project were to:
 Develop a retrofit temperature-compensating seal system to replace conventional packer seal systems for connector
and clamp tools. The approach to achieve this goal was to first use less expensive and more efficient small-scale
coupon test results to model full-scale behavior. Temperatures applied ranged from 5°C to 95°C (42°F to 203°F).
 Qualify/verify the developed retrofit seal performance in a full-scale 20-inch test “jig” that simulates a traditional 20-
inch connector.

Traditional Seal System

Figure 2 shows a standard multiple packer seal system design with an annulus provided for an annulus test. The so-called
“lantern ring” is indicated. This has two functions: (1) provide an opening for annulus testing and (2) serve as a rigid spacer
between the packer seals when the packers are loaded by the packer pusher. Connectors typically include a gripping region
for gripping the pipe that is separate from a sealing region where the packer seals are located. (Gripping is excluded here for
clarity.)
OTC 23143 3

Figure 2. Standard connector packer stack

The initial concept considered was to convert the rigid lantern ring into a mechanical-spring/lantern-ring system. The
mechanical spring response would likely be non-linear, and the spring system would need to be matched with the packer
design and (likely) the type of elastomer (Viton, FKM, Buna) used for the packers. During the program, it was quickly
discovered that the cavities in a traditional connector are not large enough to place springs inside. Thus, that approach was
not chosen for the connector. However, it was possible to design stacks of externally-placed Belleville washers similar to
those mentioned by Wittman [Ref 2] and Decker [Ref 1] to support the existing elastomer packer seals in a traditional clamp
design.

Using Coupon Tests to Simulate Full-Scale Sealing Performance

A significant effort in mechanical systems analysis, design, and testing was required to design retrofit seal systems (RSS)
for the connector and clamp. Two scales of testing were undertaken to achieve the program goal of qualifying/verifying a
new temperature-compensated RSS.
The approach for small-scale testing was to develop a method for “coupon” testing of elastomer (and other) disks in a
small steel container as shown in Figure 3. One detail shown in the figure is a spring-based lantern ring, which was later
found to not be practical for traditional connector sealing cavities. These tests were relatively inexpensive and fast, so various
potential sealing systems could be tested rapidly and efficiently.

Temperature cycling
range: 35 to 200°F

Figure 3. Small-scale table-top coupon test system

4 OTC 23143

Once coupon test results were obtained, the more promising design ideas were then tested in a 20-inch full-scale jig
(Figure 4) that simulated the traditional full-scale connector cavity in which the RSS must operate. This approach avoided the
need to test the more complex actual connectors.

Figure 4. Full-scale 20-inch testing jig with a pipe inserted

Coupon Test Procedure. A coupon test procedure was developed to: (1) recreate seal failures witnessed on the prior
connector and clamp thermal testing, (2) characterize the primary features causing these failures, and (3) test different
concepts for solving the failures in an inexpensive testing environment. Then, based on the coupon test results, a RSS was
designed and tested in the 20-inch full-scale jig.
The general coupon test procedure included the following:
1. Assemble a stack of 1.75” OD x 0.75” thick elastomer discs of a given material (Viton, FKM, Buna) in the coupon
test assembly in which there is a predetermined gap between the piston OD and cylinder wall ID.
2. Load the packer disc system to the proper sealing pressure. At room temperature, set seal pressure to 1.2 times
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 3750 psi = 4500 psi. Pressurize the annulus and check for leaks to
simulate a connector factory acceptance test (FAT).
3. Release pressure and cool the assembly to 42°F. Reset seal pressure as above. Using a constant piston-displacement
method, apply annulus pressure and raise fluid temperature to 203°F over 8 hours. After a steady state is attained,
reduce temperature to room temperature over 24 hours while maintaining annulus pressure. (This cooling procedure
was later modified to allow the system to cool naturally overnight, and then completing the cooling to 42°F by
applying ice to the system.) Determine if there is any leakage, and if the seals remain competent.
4. Concurrently, repeat the test as above except while maintaining a constant seal pressure, that is, allowing the piston
displacement to vary. (This is the test depicted in Figure 3.)
5. Determine the percent of packer “swell” at maximum temperature, and visually determine the amount of extrusion in
the gap between the piston and cylinder.
6. Record the test data and inspect the discs. Check for leaks.
7. Change elastomers and revise the coupon test assembly as appropriate.

The methods and equipment described above are general, and various changes were made to the coupon test fixture and
test procedures to acquire various types of data for developing a full-scale design.
The 203°F thermal environment was produced by placing the coupon test rig in an electrically-induced heating chamber;
the seafloor temperature was achieved by a cold water bath. For heating and cooling cycles, a simplified version of subsea
thermal profiles was adopted for testing efficiency. The time rate of heating and cooling was designed to simulate that of a
20-inch flowline on the seafloor: heat-up time was about 8 hours, and 24 hours was allowed for cool-down.

Coupon Test Rig. Test set-ups were then designed and assembled for side-by-side coupon tests with the Fixed-Displacement
Test Rig (left side of Figure 5) and Constant-Force Test Rig (right side of Figure 5).
OTC 23143 5

Figure 5. Fixed-displacement and constant-force coupon test assemblies

After this coupon testing concept was developed and agreed upon, the testing equipment was assembled (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Coupon test set-ups—constant load (left) and constant displacement (right)

Coupon Test of FKM Elastomer with 0.10” Diametric Gap. As early test results were evaluated, the team decided to
implement a larger gap between the piston and wall. The original gap was 0.02”. The cylinder wall ID in the test set-up was
machined to enlarge the gap to 0.10”. Test results with a 0.10” diametric gap are presented in Figure 7.
6 OTC 23143

Figure 7. Coupon test results

Results in Figure 7 show that the annulus began leaking for the fixed-displacement test. This leaking is a result of greater
extrusion through the larger gap. By the end of the test, the FKM had extruded to the point that there was insufficient packing
pressure remaining to prevent the annulus from leaking.
Other observations from these tests include the following: For the constant-displacement test, after the cool down to 43°F,
displacement did not return to 0”, but rather to -0.103”. A post-test inspection of the FKM revealed major extrusion,
especially toward one side (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Extrusion of FKM in fixed-displacement test

Also, for the fixed-displacement test, after the cool down to 90°F, the sample developed a leak (the pump was set to
maintain pressure). The packing load fell to around 1400 psi. Then, after the sample was cooled to 42°F, the packing load
dropped to almost 0 psi.
Referring to Figure 9, the packer pressure response with temperature with the 0.10” gap test (blue trace) “rolls over” and
becomes nonlinear well before results for either FKM and Buna with a 0.02” diametric gap.
OTC 23143 7

Figure 9. Comparison of test results for 0.02” and 0.10” diametric gaps

This bending away from linear behavior is presumably due to the seal discs extruding out of the gap. An important
conclusion is that, if major rubber extrusion is to be avoided, swelling pressures will need to be maintained below 6000 psi.
A brief finite element analysis was completed of thermally induced packer pressure on the 20-in flowline. Results
indicated that the pipe yield pressure at the yield point is also 6000 psi.
Figure 10 shows that FKM, Buna, and Viton Extreme with a 0.02” gap show little or no difference in terms of swelling
pressure vs. temperature performance. Hence, the added cost of Viton Extreme is not warranted. (Viton Extreme is the
lavender trace on the plot.).

Figure 10. Pressure vs. temperature fixed-displacement results for various elastomers

However, the most important finding is that the swelling pressure at maximum temperature is perhaps three times
the setting pressure for the packers. Pipe yielding in the radial compression direction is certain, since a typical yield
pressure is 6000 psi, or only 33% higher than the setting pressure. It was clear at this point in the investigation that a solution
for an RSS for a traditional connector must incorporate a seal material with a swelling factor that is much lower than
elastomeric seals.
8 OTC 23143

Exploring Graphite Seals

Due to the complexity of the pressure-energized elastomer system described above, the project focus was shifted to graphite
seals, that is, to move away from traditional elastomer sealing systems. As shown in [Ref 3], graphite seals have been used
for decades on packer seals for valve stems and for various types of non-elastomeric sealing rings. One current pipeline
connector vendor, Morgrip, utilizes die-cast graphite packer seals rather than elastomer seals.
The major difference for graphite sealing systems is a requirement for doubling the axial preload pressure on the packer
seals over that required for typical elastomers to achieve the required radial pressure of 1.2 times the design pressure. Since
there is a fixed cavity available in conventionally sealed packers, a sleeve on the OD of the cavity was used here to amplify
(double) the applied hydraulic pressure of the conventional hydraulically actuated connector.
Other challenges were discovered in testing graphite seals in the project test fixtures as well. For the elastomers
previously tested, it was a straightforward task to mold discs to simulate packer rings for testing in the cylinder of the coupon
rig. When graphite discs were ordered, the supplier reported that it was necessary to build a new die-cast mold for the specific
size disc desired, increasing both delivery time and price. Alternatively, the supplier offered ring samples currently in stock.
The research team then chose to change the test design from discs to rings of graphite. The OD of the rings fit the test
cylinder IDs. However, a piston-shaped steel piece (Figure 11) had to be designed to fill the air gap in the center of the ring
(the donut hole).

Figure 11. Piston insert to fill the ID of graphite rings

Coupon Test – Graphite Rings. The procedure for coupon tests with graphite was essentially the same as that used
previously for elastomer packers. As mentioned above, the setting pressure was doubled for graphite. Rings of graphite
material with a specific gravity (SG) of 1.6 were used.
Results from the graphite coupon tests are summarized in Figure 12. The bold red trace shows that, as temperature
reached its maximum and then decayed, pressure loading on the fixed-displacement test remained nearly constant at the
maximum temperature and then decreased by only 2500 psi (20%) to a lower constant level. Thus, in general, there was no
major evidence of seal swelling in the test. This was very good news.
OTC 23143 9

Figure 12. Graphite coupon test results

These results provided good evidence that a graphite sealing element can be used instead of elastomer packer seals to
essentially remove the issue of thermal swelling. When the graphite seal is loaded axially, it (1) deflects downward into the
containing cylinder as the voids inside the 1.6 SG sample are closed and (2) expands outward to the cylinder wall to create a
packer-type seal.
The next question to be answered by testing was: “How much sealing pressure is exerted on the cylinder wall by the
packer seal?” This graphite material does not behave like an elastomer. It was known that, in general, twice the axial pressure
would need to be applied to achieve the same lateral pressure as for elastomer seals.
To address this issue, the coupon test cylinder was machined to be much thinner (0.075” wall thickness) than previous, so
that strain gages could be attached to measure the strain due to radial pressure. A thinner cylinder wall was required to obtain
reasonable strain gage measurements to convert into lateral pressures. Figure 13 shows the coupon test set-up with a thin-
walled cylinder in red.

Figure 13. Coupon tester with thin-walled cylinder for strain gages
10 OTC 23143

Coupon Test – 1.3 SG vs. 1.6 SG Graphite Rings at Room Temperature. Graphite tests were initially conducted using
coupons of 1.6 SG material. The team also tested a 1.3 SG material for comparison. The same procedure was used as
described previously. The sealing responses of the two materials are compared in Figure 14.

Axial Seal Pressure (ksi)

Figure 14. Sealing pressure vs. applied axial pressure for 1.3 SG (blue) and 1.6 SG (red) graphite

It is notable that, with an axial setting pressure of 10,000 psi required for the graphite, the applied pressure on the cylinder
wall (simulating the pipe wall) will be ~4500 psi for 1.6 SG material or ~5000 psi for 1.3 SG material. Recall that yield
pressure of the 20-inch pipe wall is ~6000 psi. These results indicate that this approach would yield an excellent sealing
solution.
Both specific gravities of graphite material tested would be expected to work well for this application. The team decided
to use the 1.6 SG material for performing the 20-inch full-scale jig tests (see below).

Full-Scale 20-inch Tests Based on Coupon Test Results

With the coupon tests concluded, the program focus was turned to full-scale verification of the concepts learned from coupon
testing. The team developed a test jig to simulate the sealing portion of a traditional connector.which grips and seals. For this
case, the jig that was designed and constructed fits on a 20-inch pipe similar to the pipeline of interest (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Sketch of Jig for 20-inch pipe (left) and photograph of Jig (right)
OTC 23143 11

The seal system shown in Figure 15 is based on using graphite rings with a rectangular cross-section. Five different Jig
Tests were conducted—each with graphite seal rings—to determine the final RSS design. The basic testing procedure was
essentially the same as that used for coupon testing. The Jig Tests are summarized as follows:
1. Jig Test #1 incorporated graphite seal rings with a rectangular cross-section that were installed in the Jig. On either
side of the graphite, 45° wedges with a tapered slit were used to close on the pipe OD and prevent an extrusion gap
from forming. During this test, the seal rings were found to absorb the water test medium. Additionally, the steel
wedges, due to the 45° angle, exerted too large of a pressure on the pipe, causing the pipe to yield. The test medium
was changed to gas, so that one could observe gas bubbles if the seal system began leaking or seeping through the
graphite. Although results indicated that the system held pressure, yielding of the test pipe occurred, which is
unacceptable. Thermal cycle testing was not necessary.
2. For Jig Test #2, the 45° steel wedge rings were modified to 20° slopes, which successfully reduced the stress on the
pipe to that exerted by the preloaded graphite rings. However, annulus pressure could not be maintained because of
seepage. This was not acceptable, and thermal cycling was not performed.
3. Two changes were incorporated prior to Jig Test #3: (1) the die-cast graphite rings were carefully machined on a lathe
to create a wedge set with a 45° split line (Figure 16). Additionally, the wedge of each set with the largest contact area
on the pipe was wrapped in PTFE tape to prevent seepage. The reason for the split was to “encourage” the graphite to
move across the tolerance gap toward the pipe OD more readily, therefore increasing the graphite pressure on the pipe
wall. This approach was successful. This seal system experienced three thermal cycles before the heating system
failed. This seal configuration sealed well in spite of the irregularities in the wedge surface exposed by the mechanical
cutting process. Strain gages mounted on the ID of the pipe under the seal sets showed an improvement in contact
pressure on the pipe. Testing was discontinued while the team waited on molded wedge sets that were available from
the graphite ring supplier.

Figure 16. Schematic of split in die-cast graphite rings

4. In Jig Test #4, molded wedge ring sets with no tape wrap were installed to verify whether the PTFE tape was needed
now that the wedging action increased sealing pressure on the pipe. Results showed that gas seeped through the
graphite seal rings. This indicated that a tape wrap was essential for blocking seepage.
5. In Jig Test #5, molded graphite wedge sets were installed with the same tape wrap as used in Jig Test #3. This final
test, which included six thermal cycles, revealed excellent sealing performance. The team believed that this design
represents a competent solution for the RSS.

Results for Jig Test #5. For the sake of brevity, only results from Jig Test #5 are presented in detail here. These test data are
summarized in Figure 17 through Figure 20. This design, employing graphite wedge rings and PTFE tape wrapping,
demonstrated competent sealing under six cycles of heating/cooling.
12 OTC 23143

Figure 17. Jig Test #5 – annulus pressure and temperature vs. time

Figure 18. Jig Test #5 – first heating cycle

OTC 23143 13

Figure 19. Jig Test #5 – second heating cycle

20" Connector Jig 5

Entire Test Duration 2011-10-26/2011-11-03
20° Tapered Steel Wedges, 45° Split Tapered Seals (Formed) from Flat Graphite Tape, Wrapped with Teflon Tape
Nitrogen as Test Media, Set at Ambient
18,000 1,800
Initial Setting with Stud
Tensioners
16,000 1,600

14,000 1,400

Temperature (°F) & Axial Displacement (mils)

Extended wait period to
repair thermal equipment.
12,000 1,200
Pressure (psi)

10,000 1,000

Applied tensioner
pressure of ~11,000 psi
8,000 800
Apply annulus gas
pressure successfully
6,000 and observe no bubbles. 600

Thermal cycles 3-6

Heat Sample to
204°F (95°C) Chill Sample to 41°F
4,000 (5°C) and set again 400

2,000 200

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Thermal cycles 1-2
Elapsed Time (hrs)

Annulus Pressure (psi) Applied Seal Axial Pressure (psi) Seal Equivalent Radial Pressure 1 (psi)
Seal Equivalent Radial Pressure 2 (psi) Average Axial Displacement (mils) Annulus Temp (°F)

Figure 20. Jig Test #5 – all six heating/cooling cycles

Figure 21 shows a photograph of the set of seal rings extracted following Jig Test #5.
14 OTC 23143

Figure 21. Photograph of sealing system extracted from jig after Jig Test #5
(PTFE tape is seen as white band)

RSS Final Design

The iterative process of designing a Retrofit Seal System (RSS) for a conventionally-sealed 20-inch double-ended repair
connector which grips and seals has been concluded with the success of Jig Test #5. Based on these results, the RSS will be
designed with graphite wedge seal rings as shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22. Final RSS design for a 20-inch connector

References
1. Decker, L.A., “Mechanically Energized Sealing Systems for Underwater Pipeline Applications,” OTC 6132, May
1989.
2. Wittman, R.H., “Pipe Coupling with Improved Seal Means,” US Patent 4,078,832, March 1978.
3. Flitney, R., Seals and Sealing Handbook, Fifth Edition, Elsevier Press, 2007.