Failure Envelope - Meeting September 2021

Failure Envelope for
Downhole Composite
Casing-Tubing
Joint Industry Project
Ramin Moslemian and Andreas Echtermeyer

28 September 2021
JIP Status
• Started from October 2020 – 18 months project with 6 months left

• Design basis
• FMECA and threat assessment
• Structure and philosophy of the failure envelope
• Start writing the guideline
• Next 6 months: Completing the Guideline
• Test requirements: small, medium and large scale
• Modelling requirements: FEA and analytical
• Aging and environmental effects
• Fittings
2 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

Summary of Activities

Failure Envelop for Downhole Casing/Tubing
Pressure
• Relatively simple for Steel Connections
• Question of time is absent from the Burst Tension

envelope
• Corrosion and environmental Q2
Compression + Burst
Q1
Tension + Burst
embrittlement is dealt separately
Axial load
Q3 Q4
Compression + Collapse Tension + Compression
Collapse
Tubes

Challenge of Failure Envelope with Composite Pipes
Pressure
• Failure envelope of composite components:

• Load type
• Temperature Short term
• Environmental exposure
• Load Time/Cycles Long term with
Long term material effects
• Competition for failure:
• Fiber direction failure (tension/compression) Axial load
• Transverse to fiber direction (matrix cracking)
• In-plane shear (matrix cracking/axial elongation)
• Out-of-plane shear (delamination)
• Failure of liner/cover/RGD and others
A Complex Failure
Envelope!
5
DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021
Load Break-down
Medium-Term Loads Long-Term Loads

0.25h<time<4500h 4500h<time
• Manufacturing • Operation
Capacity
• Storage • End-of-life
• Installation
Short-term loads before operation Short-term loads during operation
Medium-Term Long-Term
6 Months
Log Time
6
Loads in Casings
• Various Short/Medium-term loads during CASING Short Term Medium-term Long-term

installation and drilling and have to be dealt with. Internal pressure
External pressure
• The most challenging loads are long-term loads: Axial tension
• Bending: strain-controlled over large radiuses and Axial compression
most likely to be fine. Bending
• Axial compression likely to be a buckling instability Torsion
issue and not material capacity matter. Point load
• Internal pressure/External pressure
• Point loads

Loads in Tubings
• Various Short/Medium-term loads during TUBING Short Term Medium-term Long-term

installation have to be dealt with. Internal pressure
External pressure
• The most challenging loads are long-term loads:
Axial tension
• Bending: strain-controlled over large radiuses and
Axial compression
most likely to be fine.
Bending
• Axial tension is strain controlled and likely to relax
Torsion
over time.
Point load
• Internal pressure/External pressure
• Point loads

Suggested Design Process of
Guideline

Design Process
Load Cases
Failure Evelope
Installation
Stress Analysis
Complex New pipe
Operation Dry Load effects
Less Complex Old pipe Stress/Strains
Wet/Aged Safety factors
Tube Design

New Pipe Dry Failure Envelope (±55 laminate)
Axial Stress
• Assumption: fitting stronger than pipe.
• Failure mechanisms to be verified:
1. Internal pressure
Burst
Collapse
Fiber compression
• Fiber tension (burst)
Hoop Stress
2. Axial tension
• Weepage for thermosets
Collapse
• Plastic deformation for thermoplastics
Burst
3. External pressure Missing points
• Collapse
• Fiber compressive failure
4. Axial compression Axial Buckling

• Buckling
• Fiber/matrix compressive failure Each line represents
a failure mechanism
±55° Soden (1992) Soden (1978)
±55°
ID=100 mm ID=45 mm
GRE GRE
Ellyin (2007)
ID=50 mm
GRE
±55° Mistry (1992)
ID=100-200 mm ±60°
GRE
Axial Stress
Hoop Stress
Key is to be able to predict

each of the failures associated
with various mechanisms
Modeling and Why We Need it!
• For dry, new pipe we may be safe with a failure envelope based on
full-scale tests covering storange to installation phases
• For thermoplastics, temperature-depenency makes this difficult.
• Operation is a different story.
• Reversible swelling of matrix
• Chemical damage New Pipe Models Aged Pipe
• matrix/sizing/fibers
• Long-term static loads • Full-scale • Small-scale • Aged small-
testing testing scale testing
• stress rupture
• FEA
• Not possible to age full-scale samples Validation
• Very long time and high cost
• Simpler load cases

Axial Stress
Verification of Envelope
• Key verification, is verification of the

failure modes which have to be
captured by modelling
• Each quarter
Q2 Q1 Hoop
Stress
• Minimum and maximum operating
temperature
• Quarters and associated failure modes:
• Q1 relatively well-known Q3 Q4
• Q4 relatively know
• Q2 and Q4 less-known

Axial Stress
Verification of Envelope
• 5 typical full-scale tests

• Closed-end burst
• Axial tension and compression Q2 Q1
• External pressure collapse Hoop Stress
• Burst under bending (likely to not be
relevant downhole)
• Have we missed anything?
• Phase 2
Q3 Q4
• Limited additional test to further verify the
models. (Probably 4 extra tests)

Wet Failure Envelope
Axial Stress
• Small-scale material testing in the
New Pipe - Dry

environment and long-term loads
• New failure envelope constructed by
verified models
Hoop Stress
• Checking is pipe still weaker than Old Pipe - Aged
fitting in the models of pipe+fitting
• Main quarters of interest:
• Quarters 3 and 4 for casing
• Quarters 1 and 2 for tubing

Life Cycle
Installation Operation
Dry Failure Short/Medium Aged Failure Long-term

Envelope Load Cases Envelope Load Cases
Full-Scale Small-scale Modied Dry

FE model Small-scale Verified FE
dry pipe aged/long- Failure
validation dry testing model
testing term testing Envelope

Key Elements of Design Methodology
New Pipe Failure Aged Pipe Failure

Envelope Envelope
Dry Coupon Testing
Fiber tension/compression, IPS and ILS Wet/aged coupon testing
Fiber tension/compression, IPS and ILS
Full-Scale Dry Pipe Testing
4 to 5 static test types
FEA with new properties for pipe/fittings

FE model development and validation

CONTENTS (1)
1 General
Initial Part
2 Design Philosophy
3 Design basis (discussed previously)
4 Materials
5 Analysis methodology
Development 6 Limit States
Part Failure mechanisms and design criteria
7 Design criteria pipe body
8 Design criteria end fittings
9 Performance Envelopes
CONTENTS (2)
Testing Part 10 Prototype test requirements

Safety factors 11 Safety factors
12 Operational phase: inspection,
maintenance, repair
Final Part 13 Production QA test requirements
14 Marking and Packaging
15 Documentation

Mechanical properties
Materials change with environment,
temperature and time
Fiber dominated failure

tension
Matrix failure
compression
tension

compression
Stress in ply coordinates.
The criterion is OK for fibers, too simple for the matrix.
Analysis methodology
CASING TUBING
Internal pressure Internal pressure
• How to get the loads (out of scope) External pressure External pressure
Axial tension Axial tension
• How to define the loads (characteristic loads, Axial compression Axial compression
Bending Bending
load factors, align with common practice) Torsion Torsion
• How to convert from loads to stresses

Point load Point load
• How to combine stresses and environment

Limit States
• Burst - Fiber dominate ply failure
• Tension • Axial strength of end fitting
• Compression • Delamiation
• Micro Matrix Cracking • End fitting
• Weepage • Point loads
• Macro Matrix Cracking • + all others
Burst - Laminate failure
• Tension
• Compression Good and proven failure criteria exist for
all failure mechanisms, except weeping
• Collapse Buckling
• Axial Buckling
• Liner or Cover Failure
General Method that always How to obtain a Performance Envelope
works.
It is calculation intensive,
“ ”.
+
Some points may be based on
assumptions that are hard to
justify, requiring subsequently
Axial load
a large test effort for
verification.
Note: the approach is as good
+
as the failure criteria used for
the addressed failure
mechanisms.
Pressure
Failure criteria dictate the

shape of the envelope. This
can be used to reduce the
calculation effort!
….
• Global Performance Envelope
• Laminate Coordinates (average stress over
thickness) in Hoop and Axial Direction.
• Show actual
hoop stress and
axial stress.
• Show
hoop stress and
externally applied axial stress
• Show
pressure and 𝑡
𝑃 = 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
externally applied axial load 𝑅
𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 𝜋 𝑡 2𝑅 + 𝑡 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
Performance Envelopes Axes
𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
Rotate 26.5
F
𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑅
𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = = 𝑃 2𝑡
2
𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 P 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
Pressurizing
Both approaches give failure
envelopes that predict exactly
𝑅 the same failures under all load
𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 𝑃
𝑡 combinations.
Materials – Simplified Ply Failure Envelope
tension
Matrix failure
compression
tension

compression
Stress in ply coordinates Mechanical properties

change with
environment and time
Performance Envelope Pipe with only Hoop 90o Fibers
𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
Fiber dominated failure and

Matrix cracking
E ≈ ±60 Pipe
Shape of the weeping

envelope is uncertain
Test.
30 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021 How does it change long-term?
E ≈ ±60 Pipe
Laminate strength
End fitting strength
Collapse
Laminate strength
Buckling

E ≈ ±60 Pipe without liner
Laminate strength
Collapse
Laminate strength
Buckling

E ≈ ±60 Pipe with liner
Laminate strength
Collapse
Laminate strength
Buckling

Performance Envelope ≈ ±60 Pipe with or without liner

For a pipe with liner or thermoplastic pipe with no cracking, weeping is not relevant
Liner failure envelope should be outside all others to ignore weeping
Performance Envelope 0/90 Pipe





𝜎
𝜎
±60
0/90

Testing Performance Envelope
• Each edge is one failure
mechanism. For each failmech.
• One test to confirm failure
Laminate strength
Collapse
mechanism.
• Two tests to confirm slope of
“ ”.
𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 • Three tests to establish shape of
“ ”
Laminate strength
Buckling • Number of tests will depend on
confidence in failure criterion and
relevance of loading case.
Statistics will require more parallel tests
Other loads
• Bending
Increase Axial Load (OK if bending is small)
• Torsion
Calculate for a few cases
• Point load
Show that the strength does not get reduced under a
defined point load

Medium and Long Term Performance
• Cyclic fatigue is not critical → show

• Static fatigue (stress rupture) – changes strength values in the
envelope
• How to exactly do that, needs to be described.

Static Design Criteria from F119
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 FIBRE DOMINATED PLY FAILURE
5.3 MATRIX CRACKING
5.4 DELAMINATION
5.5 LAMINATE FAILURE
5.6 FLUID TIGHTNESS – PERMEABILITY
5.7 POLYMER FRACTURE
5.8 PLASTIC DEFORMATION, YIELDING OF ISOTROPIC MATERIALS
5.9 MAXIMUM DEFORMATION
5.10 DEBONDING
5.11 CRAZING, CRACKING
5.12 IMPACT
5.13 PUNCTURING, SCRATCHES AND POINT LOADS
5.14 WEAR AND TEAR
5.15 CHEMICAL DEGRADATION
5.16 SWELLING OR SHRINKAGE
5.17 LEACHING OF ADDITIVES
5.18 RAPID GAS DECOMPRESSION - BLISTERING RESISTANCE
5.19 UV EXPOSURE
5.20 THERMAL SOFTENING OR HARDENING
44 DNV © 5.21
28 SEPTEMBER 2021 MORPHOLOGY CHANGE
Status
• Every item is addressed.
• Biggest challenge is weeping. Manufactureres need to find a modeling approach.
The guideline needs to check in a good way that it is right.
• Products with liner or thermoplastics that do not weep are easier to design.
• Adding long term properties to the performance envelopes is clear in principle, but it
still has to be described in detail.
• Performance envelopes will be very useful for the user. Some additional aspects
need checking, but that is relatively easily done.
• The manufacturer needs to do a thorough job to create the proper performance
envelopes. The required calculations are the same as for traditional designs, just
more extensive (more cases).
• The guideline needs to specify the right full-scale tests to check the validity of the
envelopes.
Ramin.Moslemian@dnv.com
www.dnv.com

Failure Envelope - Meeting September 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Failure Envelope - Meeting September 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure Envelope - Meeting September 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure Envelope for

Ramin Moslemian and Andreas Echtermeyer

• Started from October 2020 – 18 months project with 6 months left

2 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

3 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

• Question of time is absent from the Burst Tension

4 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

• Failure envelope of composite components:

Medium-Term Loads Long-Term Loads

Short-term loads before operation Short-term loads during operation

• Various Short/Medium-term loads during CASING Short Term Medium-term Long-term

7 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

• Various Short/Medium-term loads during TUBING Short Term Medium-term Long-term

8 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

9 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

10 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

4. Axial compression Axial Buckling

Key is to be able to predict

14 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

• Key verification, is verification of the

15 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

• 5 typical full-scale tests

16 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

• Small-scale material testing in the

New Pipe - Dry

17 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

Dry Failure Short/Medium Aged Failure Long-term

Full-Scale Small-scale Modied Dry

18 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

New Pipe Failure Aged Pipe Failure

FEA with new properties for pipe/fittings

19 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

Testing Part 10 Prototype test requirements

21 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

Fiber dominated failure

Fiber dominated failure

• How to convert from loads to stresses

• How to combine stresses and environment

23 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

Failure criteria dictate the

Fiber dominated failure

Stress in ply coordinates Mechanical properties

Fiber dominated failure and

Shape of the weeping

31 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

32 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

33 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

34 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

35 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

36 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

37 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

38 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

39 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

42 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

• Cyclic fatigue is not critical → show

43 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

46 DNV © 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

You might also like