SPE-184946-MS

Collapse Analysis of Perforated Pipes Under External Pressure

K. Beltrán and T. Netto, Ocean Engineering Department, COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Mature Fields Symposium held in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 15–16 March 2017.

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

Abstract
This work is a numerical, analytical and experimental study of collapse pressure of perforated pipes to
evaluate the effect of lateral perforations on the radial resistance of pipes under external pressure. These
types of pipes are a simple and economical technology widely used in our days as sand control meshes or
perforated liners. In this work was considered a variation of geometric configurations (relation diameter/
pipe thickness (OD/t)), distance between perforations, number of perforation on the circumferential and
longitudinal directions and hole diameter.
First, was evaluated the reduction of the radial resistance to the external pressure through the real collapse
of 12 pipes of 151 mm of diameter (8 with holes and 4 without). For the analytical part was calculated
the collapse pressures using the API equations (API 1999), DNV equation (DNV, 2010) and four-hinge
mechanism (ABBASSIAN & PARFITT 1998). For the numerical part was developed a tridimensional
model on finite elements using ABAQUS, to obtain the pipe collapse pressure and validate the numerical
model through the experimental results. The experimental and numerical results shows that the D/t
relationship, initial imperfections (like ovalization) and material properties have important influence on
the pipes resistance, although the perforation diameter and the axial space between them are the variables
with most influence on the collapse resistance of perforated tubes. In general terms, when we compared the
collapse pressures of pipes with holes and pipes without holes with similar properties was found a reduction
of collapse pressure close to 10%, but some geometrical parameters of holes could reduce or increase this
difference.

Introduction
Nowdays, the oil and gas exploration is developing in challenging regions in terms of technology, becoming
increasingly common new projects related to: mature fields with complex recovery process involved, wells
of high pressure and temperature (HPHT) and offshore wells in deeper and deeper waters. Currently, for
a well project to be viable not only must the representative variables be considered in the short term, for
example: the well construction cost and the production profit). But others aspects also must be evaluated
in the long term, among them: the equipments reliabilty, the intervention costs and the well integrity that
assures the useful life of each well for several years. These long-term conditions can have a decisive impact
on the viability of new hydrocarbon exploitation projects.
2 SPE-184946-MS

A priority to the oil industy is to have ample flow areas into the reservoir that allow a greater production
of hydrocarbons, but contrasting one of the most common problems during oil production to high flow rates
in mature field is the migration of sand to the well. This sand could cause several problems in the bottom
equipments as well as in the surface equipments. As an optimum condition, it is desired to have high rates
of oil production with the maximum sand retention, and to achieve this complex goal the perforated pipes
play a vital role, because they are a simple application and a cheap solution widely used in the oil industry
nowadays. Making the collapse of perforated pipes important, which usually occurs during installation,
operations of well intervention or due to the wear and tear of the passage of time. These failures are directly
related to the collapse resistance of a pipe weakened by the perforations and in general can occur due to the
plugging of holes or changes in diferential pressures such as in reverse circulation of mud, change of well
fluids or muds conditioned, among others. (Byrom 2015)
Some authors performed numerical studies or experimental analyzes of intact, perforated or slotted pipes
using the method of finite elements (Issa and Bcrawford 1993), (Pasqualino 2004), (Fonseca 2007), (Aguiar
2008), (França 2010), (Fuh et al. 2009) and (Neves 2014). There are also some analytical formulas proposed
for the collapse resistance calculation for intact pipes widely known (API 1999), (Kyriakides and Corona
2007) and (ISO/TR 2007). On the other hand, for the analytical study of perforated pipes it was only
found the four-hinger mechanism to obtain an approximation for the collapse pressure (Abbassian and
Parfitt 1998). The manuals of manufacturing companies and the ISO norm 17824 (API 2009) applicable
to perforated pipes was also consulted but it was found that they don't have specific information about the
reduction of collapse pressure, just are considered some general guidelines and procedures.
This work presents a study of collapse resistance for perforated tubes used as production liners or
base tubes for the fabrications of diverse meshes to sand control systems. Experimental tests, numerical
simulations and analytical approximations were studied to evaluate the behavior of the collapse pressures
of perforated pipes with different geometrical configurations as well as whole tubes in order to evaluate the
difference between the values obtained and estimate the reduction in the collapse pressure in the presense
of holes. This work will allow us to make future predictions of collapse pressures of perforated pipes that
could be determined without resorting to expensive real scale experiments.

Methodology Development
Geometrical properties
This work contain 4 intact and 8 perforated specimens as study bodies, all of them were obtained of 4 pipes
called T3,T4,T5 and T6. A special nomenclature was defined to identify each one of them using a sequence
of letters and numbers with a logical sense, the explaination of this nomenclature is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1—Nomenclature of specimens.

The geometric properties were obtained by means of a physical mapping, taking 10 measurements in
the longitudinal direction and 5 in the circumferential direction, in order to calculate the average thickness,
average diameter, the initial imperfections (Ovalization and eccentricity) of each specimen. The geometrical
properties and dimensions are shown Tables 1 and 2
SPE-184946-MS 3

Table 1—Geometric properties of pipe specimens.

Pipe specimen Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Ovalization Eccentricity D/t

T3SFI-02 151.708 6.489 0.00080 0.011 23.38

T3SFI-03 151.628 6.428 0.00070 0.016 23.59

T3CFI-04 151.673 6.439 0.00097 0.016 23.56

T3CFI-05 151.617 6.475 0.00076 0.015 23.42

T4SFI-02 151.708 6.489 0.00080 0.011 23.38

T4SFI-03 151.628 6.428 0.00070 0.016 23.59

T4CFI-01 151.673 6.439 0.00097 0.016 23.56

T4CFI-02 151.617 6.475 0.00076 0.015 23.42

T5CFI-01 152.623 6.464 0.00147 0.010 23.61

T5CFI-02 152.643 6.455 0.00082 0.010 23.65

T5CFI-03 152.644 6.470 0.00141 0.010 23.59

T6CFI-01 152.641 6.489 0.00148 0.010 23.52

Table 2—Aditional geometric properties of pipe specimen with holes.

Pipe specimen Circunferential Axial holes (#) Hole Diameter (mm) Distance between Length (mm)
holes (#) Holes (mm)

T3CFI-04 18 16 12,7 66,76 1500

T3CFI-05 18 16 12,7 66,76 1500

T4CFI-01 18 16 12,7 66,76 1500

T4CFI-02 18 16 12,7 66,76 1500

T5CFI-01 8 14 12,7 100 1700

T5CFI-02 8 27 12,7 50 1700

T5CFI-03 8 21 6,35 65 1695

T6CFI-01 8 21 19,05 65 1700

Material Properties
The mechanical properties of materials were also determined for each specimen, performing traction
tests on 18 proof bodies, including some in the longitudinal direction, see Apendix A, and others in the
circumferential direction, see Apendix B. After processing the results were defined the average curves and
values for the mechanicals propierties for each tube, the results of which for the longitudinal direction are
shown on Table 3. Due to the remarkable difference in shape and behavior of the curves, a pattern average
curve was calculated too, this have a young Modulus (E) of 203384 and a Poisson coefficient (v) of 0,3.
All the curves in the longitudinal direction are shown in Figure 2. The results of monotonical traction test
to the cincumferential direction is shown on the Table 4 and the curves are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The
anisotropy was obtained to the tubes T5 and T6, using the Equation 1, where σoφ is the circunferential yield
strength and σox is the longitudinal yield strength. The values of anisotropy are shown on the Table 5.

(Equation 1)
4 SPE-184946-MS

Table 3—Average values for the traction test in longitudinal specimens.

Pipe Number E σp (MPa) v Ultimate Strength (MPa) σo (MPa)

T3 203755 302 0,286 N/A 347

T4 195060 271 0,280 N/A 468

T5 197775 297 0,310 545,89 418

T6 198175 260 0,300 552,60 451

Figure 2—Average curves of material

Table 4—Average values for the traction test in circumfential specimens.

Pipe Number Acquisition Study Bodie E σp (MPa) σo (MPa)

medium number

T5 Strain Gage 1 217690 89,92 383,55

3 176,110 109,06 427,04

T6 Strain Gage 1 181090 103,59 444,38

2 207650 133,36 432,61

3 181,760 106,71 455,67

SPE-184946-MS 5

Figure 3—Circuferential curves T5

Figure 4—Circumferential curves T6

Table 5—Anisotropy values

Pipe Number Anisotropy (S)

T5 0,969

T6 0,985

Collapse test in real scale

The collapse test were performed at the Laboratorio de tecnologia submarina at Federal University of Rio
the Janeiro, the equipments used in these essays were the following:

• Horizontal hyperbaric chamber with capacity for 7500 psi.

• Hydraulic pump with pneumatic actuation for 30000 psi (Haskel).

• pressure transducer to 15000 psi WIKA (KTPP014) - calibration certificate RBC NO

PE-0330/2006 of 11/21/2006.
• Module of Signal conditioning SCXI-1001 (National Instruments)
6 SPE-184946-MS

• Micro-computer with analog-digital board

Initially, the tube to be tested is prepared by placing a metal tape with 10 mm of thickness and a rubber
blanket with 1 mm of thickness to cover the entire tube, see Figures 5 and 6. The tube is placed inside the
hyperbaric chamber (See Figure 7) which is filled with water at a rate of 200 psi/min until the entire interior
of the anular between the tube and the chamber is completely free of air, keeping in mind that the interior of
the tube will remain full of air. The assembly is then finally pressurized to collapse, which is characterized
by a strong noise followed by an abrupt drop in applied pressure.

Figure 5—Instalation of rubber blanket

Figure 6—Instalation of metal tape

SPE-184946-MS 7

Figure 7—Hyperbaric Chamber at Laboratorio de Technologia Submarina

Numerical Simulation
A tridimensional model in finite elements was developed using the commercial software ABAQUS. The
Figures 8 and 9 present typical meshes used in the numerical models for tubes intact and with holes. This
meshes was determined after of mesh sensibility in diferent directions: circumferential, axial and radial.
Also a special mesh sensitivity analysis was evaluated in the area around the holes. The models were
developed to simulate the results of the experimental tests with the objective of verifying their capacity to
reproduce the physical phenomenon of collapse. It was considered the radial and axial symmetry of the tube
in order to save computational time. Thus only half the length of the specimens was modeled (750 mm)
and the circumferential superior half obtaining only 1/4 of the tube. The finite element mesh was developed
using three-dimensional solids elements, which have twenty nodes and three degrees of freedom per node.
This element presents quadratic displacement functions and it is appropriate for irregular meshes. Each
model generally counted with approximately 60000 nodes and 9000 elements. The boundary and loading
conditions are shown on Figure 9.

Figure 8—Typical Mesh to intact pipe.

8 SPE-184946-MS

Figure 9—Typical Mesh of perforated pipe and boaundary and loading conditions

The initial geometric imperfections were considered using the maximum measured ovalization in each
tube and located in the center of the tube in order to simulate the real geometric conditions of each tube,
Calculated from Equation 2 and Figure 10. The material was modeled in the elastic case with a linear
isotropic behavior, with Modulus of elasticity (E), and Poisson's coefficient obtained from the tensile tests.
In the elasto-plastic case, a law of potential flow was adopted and associated with the function Plastic of
Von Mises, with a non-linear isotropic behavior. For the solution method of the modified algorithm of Risk,
where the load was evaluated to each increment of displacement, the collapse occur when the load drop,
see Figure 11.

(Equation 2)

Figure 10—Initial imperfection 600 times amplified.

SPE-184946-MS 9

Figure 11—Collapse Pressure Determination.

Analitical Aproximations for intact pipes

The American Petroleum Institute published standards 5C2 and 5C3 (API 1999), which can be used for
different types of pipes: casings, drill pipes, line pipes and tubings. According to this approximation there
are basically 4 types of failure modes: yield strength, plastic collapse, transition collapse and elastic collapse.
To define which type of collapse formulation that should be applied for a specific tube 5 constants must
be calculated and the intervals that limit the application of each one evaluated, the collapse pressure is
obtained replacing the values of each formularion. Otherwise the DNV Equation consider that the collapse
is function of 3 properties: elastic capacity, plastic capacity and ovalization. These functions are combined
in a polinomy of third grade that would resolve the collapse pressure.

Analitical Aproximations for perforated pipes

The mechanism of the four hingers was proposed more than 30 years ago (PALMER & HC 1975) and
assumes that during the collapse 4 sections that allow the collapse occur are formed, in general terms this
method consists in obtaining the collapse pressure by verifying the Cross-curves of elastic ovalization and
plastic collapse. A modification was proposed for this model later (ABBASSIAN & PARFITT 1998) to
determine the analytical collapse pressure of tubes with holes, including a geometric parameter Lambda in
the original equations related with the diameter of the hole and the spacing between them.

Results
Collapse pressure experimental test and numeric simulations
Figures 12 and 13 showed a real pipe collapsed after the ensays. In general terms the perforated pipes show
values of collapse pressures 10% inferior compared to the pressures of intact pipes, but this difference could
increase or decrease as function of other variables: Material data, geometrical holes distribution, initial
impefections, among others. The experimental and numerical results to all the specimens of Group A are
shown on Table 6 as well as the percentual of difference between them.
10 SPE-184946-MS

Figure 12—Real collapsed pipe 1

Figure 12—Real collapsed pipe 2

Table 6—Numerical and experimental results of collapse -Group A

Pipe specimen Experimental Collapse Numerical Collapse Difference (%)

Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPA)

T3SFI-02 30,854 28,85 -6,48

T3SFI-03 30,813 28,56 -7,30

T3CFI-04 28,206 24,11 -14,52

T3CFI-05 29,647 24,01 -19,01

T4SFI-02 30,850 30,90 0,18

T4SFI-03 30,810 30,44 -1,21

T4CFI-01 28,210 26,14 -7,32

T4CFI-02 29,650 26,58 -10,34

T5CFI-01 31,560 25,96 -17,73

T5CFI-02 27,020 24,60 -8,95

T5CFI-03 33,640 26,74 -20,52

T6CFI-01 28,670 24,58 -14,26

SPE-184946-MS 11

Apendix C showed the frontal and lateral views for the collapse progress for the specimen T3SFI-02 to
0,300 and 500 increments. The collapsed values obtained to the Group A material data (Using the material
curve obtained in each pipe), shows a difference between 1-20% between the experimental and the numerical
pressures, see Table 6. This variation could explain the differences in the material behavior between pipes
too, where material properties obtained in some test bodies could represent in sbetter way the structure
behavior, whereas others body pipes have important differences and could not represent the same. To avoid
this variation the most discordant curves were disregarded. That is, curve 3 because it has the most discordant
behavior above and T5 that has the curve most discordant behavior below. We elanorated an average curve
pattern with the maintain curve, and simulated the collapse pressure, one more time to all the pipes. This
second group of result was called Group B, see Table 7.

Table 7—Numerical and experimental results of collapse -Group B

Pipe specimen Experimental Collapse Numerical Collapse Difference (%)

Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPA)

T3SFI-02 30,854 31,01 0,50

T3SFI-03 30,813 30,88 0,22

T3CFI-04 28,206 25,82 -8,47

T3CFI-05 29,647 26,24 -11,51

T4SFI-02 30,850 30,95 0,32

T4SFI-03 30,810 30,82 0,02

T4CFI-01 28,210 25,83 -8,45

T4CFI-02 29,650 26,22 -11,58

T5CFI-01 31,560 28,45 -9,47

T5CFI-02 27,020 26,98 -0,15

T5CFI-03 33,640 29,58 -12,08

T6CFI-01 28,670 25,29 -11,78

Analitical collapse results and correlations

Tables 8 and 9 show the calculated values for the analytical pressure and the differences with the
experimental values. The results show the best correlations using the DNV equation with differences of
11% or less. The founger hings method shows results with representative differences between 4-15%, and
on the other hand, the API equation shows the worst correlation with strong differences showing values
close to 30% or more. The results to perforated pipes using the four hings mechanism could be a good to
obtain an approximation for the collapse pressure, although the high differences between 17 and 32% show
that using this tool could give us results with bad approximations.

Table 8—Analiticall and experimental results of collapse pressure – Intact Pipes

Pipe specimen Experimental DNV Collapse Four hingers API Collapse

Collapse Pressure (MPa) Collapse Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPa)

T3SFI-02 30,854 27,283 26,510 21,171

T3SFI-03 30,813 27,141 26,090 20,645

T4SFI-02 30,850 30,878 29,460 18,963

T4SFI-03 30,810 30,389 29,020 29,568

12 SPE-184946-MS

Table 9—Analiticall and experimental results of collapse pressure – Perforated Pipes

Pipe specimen Experimental Four hingers Collapse Difference (%)

Collapse Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa)

T3CFI-04 28,206 20,83 -26,2

T3CFI-05 29,647 21,52 -27,4

T4CFI-01 28,210 23,21 -17,7

T4CFI-02 29,650 24,07 -18,8

T5CFI-01 31,560 23,43 -25,8

T5CFI-02 27,020 21,10 -21,9

T5CFI-03 33,640 23,97 -28,7

T6CFI-01 28,670 19,49 -32,0

Conclusions
The mechanical material properties presented a wide variation in the behavior of stain-stress curve between
test bodies by the same tube, as well as between the average curves for each tube. One possible reason
for these variations may be the existence of residual stresses in the tubes from which the test bodies were
removed. This variation also demonstrated the importance of having various specimens from the same tube
to improve repeatability and reliability of material results. The results of the circumferential traction tests
presented similar behaviors for T5 and T6. Anisotropy also showed similar values and behaviors.
The numerical model proved to be a good tool to predict the values of collapse pressure of perforated
pipes for a vast rank of geometries: relations D/t of 23, hole diameters of 6.35, 12.70 and 19.5 mm. The
use of a pattern curve of material (Group B) show results with differences between 8-12%, improved the
results obtained for the Group A. On the other hand, the intact tubes had better adjustments when compared
to the perforated pipes. The group A show differences between 0.18 and −7%, in the case of Group B it
was between 0.02 and 0.5%.
The differences in the experimental collapse pressure values and the analytical approximations
considered in this work are quite considerable even in the case of intact tubes. The API equation presented
quite conservative results. The fact that it incorporates safety factors into the equations causes the sensitivity
of the results to be lost somewhat. The four-hinger model presented reasonable results and the DNV equation
showed an excellent fit (the safety factor was not considered into the calculations in this work).
For pipes with holes the four hinger mechanism shows to be a weak tool to approximate the collapse
pressure. In other words for this approximation we do not have results close to the experimental values.
One possible reason could be the calculated lambda parameter that considers only the longitudinal spacing
between holes and the diameter of the hole, disregarding other effects (for example circunferencial spacing)
can be disregarded and having as a result of pressure an unadjusted value. A readjust of lambda could be
consided in future researches.

Acknowledgments
The authors express sincere thanks to the Agencia Nacional do Petroleo (ANP) for the financial help and
wish to recognize the special contribution of all the staff of the Laboratorio de Tecnologia Submarina
envolved in the experimental tests during the developing of this research.
SPE-184946-MS 13

References
1. Abbassian, F. & Parfitt, S. (1998). ‘A simple model for collapse and post-collapse behavior of
tubulars with application to perforated and slotted', The Society of Petroleum Engineers Drilling
and Completion, 13(3), 190–196.
2. Aguiar, C. (2008). Analise estrutural de tubos expansiveis de petroleo, Tese de graduação,
Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro.
3. API (1999). Bulletin 5C3 Bulletin on Formulas and Calculations for Casing, Tubing, Drill Pipe
and LinePipe Properties, 6 edition, American Petroleum Institute.
4. API (2009), Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries, Downhole Equipments Sand Screens., 1
Edition, 38 p.
5. Byrom, T. G. (2015). Casing and Liner for Drilling and Completion, second edn, ELSEVIER.
6. Fonseca, C. (2007). Analise do comportamento estrutural sob pressao externa de tubos
expansíveis para poços de petroleo, Tese de mestrado, Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro.
7. França, M. (2010). Analise estrutural de diferentes concepçoes de tubo para contençao de areia,
Tese de graduação, Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro.
8. Fuh, G., Morita, N. & Furui, K. (2009). ‘Modeling analysis of sand-screen collapse resistance
under geotectonic load’, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
9. ISO/TR (2007). 10400 Petroleum and natural gas industries Equations and calculations for the
properties of casing, tubing, drill pipe and line pipe used as casing or tubing., 1st edn.
10. Issa, J. & Bcrawford, D. (1993). ‘An improved design equation for tubullar collapse’, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SPE 26317, Houston, Texas, USA, 3-6 Oct.
11. KYRIAKIDES, S. & CORONA, E. (2007), Mechanics of offshore pipelines, number 1st,
Elsevier.
12. MADENCIi, E. & GUVEN, I. (2006). The finite Element Method and Applications in
Engineeering Using ANSYS., Springer.
13. NEVES, H. G. (2014), Colapso de tubos de revestimiento submetidos a tração axial e pressão
externa. Master's thesis, UFRJ.
14. PALMER, A. & H.C., M. (1975), ‘Buckle propagation in submarine pipelines’, Nature.
15. PASQUALINO, I. (2004). Analise numerica de revestimentos rasgados (liners) sob carregamento
de compressão radial. Technical report, CENPES/ PETROBRAS, COPPE/UFRJ.
14 SPE-184946-MS

Apendix A
SPE-184946-MS 15

Apendix B
16 SPE-184946-MS

Apendix C