See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241784847

97595 - Updated Design Methods for HPHT Equipment

Article · May 2005

DOI: 10.2118/97595-MS

CITATIONS READS
0 559

4 authors, including:

Chris Alexander Richard Biel

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Lord & Biel, LLC
56 PUBLICATIONS 314 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Biel on 07 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 97595

Updated Design Methods for HPHT Equipment

Kenneth Young, Chris Alexander, Richard Biel, Stress Engineering Services; Earl Shanks, DTC International

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Applied Technology Workshop on Introduction
High Pressure/High Temperature Sour Well Design held in Houston, TX, U.S.A., 17 – 19 May
2005. This paper originated from requests by major operators for
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
HPHT development and completion well equipment in ultra-
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico deep gas, 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 well as deep gas exploration on land, will require the
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
development of equipment rated for 25,000 and 30,000 psi in
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper sizes larger than existing API specifications. Along with these
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 higher pressures come increased temperatures, upwards of
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
450°F.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. Drilling for oil and gas in these new frontiers is
challenging the development of equipment. Along with the
Abstract promise of increased rewards, however, come increased risks
Drilling industry technology is advancing rapidly. Drillers associated with equipment failures.
are encountering downhole pressures over 20,000 psi and
temperatures over 450°F. These high pressure high Operational Impacts
temperature (HPHT) conditions require drilling and The need for higher working pressure equipment has
completion equipment that is beyond the scope of today’s API operational implications as well as design impacts. Equipment
specifications. with the same bore sizes, such as wellheads, valves, and
API specifications 6A1, 16A2, 16C3, and 17D4 address the BOP’s, will grow substantially in outside dimensions as well
design and design verification methods for drilling equipment. as total weight.
These specifications currently reference the ASME Boiler and For example, an 18 ¾”–20,000 psi BOP assembly could
Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 25 (ASME VIII- easily weight double that of a similar current design 18 ¾”–
2) as one of the primary design verification methodologies. 15,000 psi BOP assembly. Using conventional materials, the
API specifications first referenced ASME VIII-2 as a design assembled weight of an 18 ¾”–20,000 psi BOP is about
verification methodology nearly 20 years ago, because it was 1,500,000 lbs. This is based on the ability of the BOP
the best available at that time. This is called the "ASME manufacturer to qualify variable bore pipe rams for circulating
Method". temperatures at the BOP as high as 325°F to 350°F. It is
The ASME Section VIII, Division 36 (ASME VIII-3) was unlikely in the near term that BOP manufacturers will be able
developed to give the requirements for the construction of to qualify variable bore pipe rams for these HPHT
high pressure vessels. ASME VIII-3 was first issued in 1997 applications. A BOP outfitted for both drilling and completion
and is intended to be used in place of ASME VIII-2 for high operations may need six or more ram assemblies to cover the
pressure vessels, generally in excess of 10,000 psi. pipe sizes and the shear rams. This increases the weight of the
The design of drilling and completion equipment should be BOP assembly to about 2,000,000 lbs. Few, if any, drilling
done using first principles. The authors propose that the vessels in today’s offshore fleet can carry, handle, and run a
designs for 15,000 psi or higher service should be verified BOP assembly of this weight and size.
using the rules from ASME VIII-3. A significant difference 18 ¾”–20,000 psi wellheads will need outside diameters of
between the two design verification methods is that the user 30 inches or more using conventional sour service materials.
specifies the loading criteria for the performance-based ASME For existing wellhead connectors, only the largest sizes
VIII-3. ASME VIII-3 requires cyclic load (fatigue or fracture available in the industry today have the lower body locking
mechanics) analysis and has limitations in materials, mechanisms large enough to accommodate this size mandrel.
fabrication and inspections, and testing requirements that All well control equipment components are similarly
specifically apply to thick-walled pressure vessels. affected.
This paper discusses how the performance-based code Manufacturers need to design flex loops mounted on the
methods of ASME VIII-3 can be integrated into API lower riser package rated for these higher pressures. These
specifications for HPHT drilling and completion equipment. may be flexible pipes or steel loops that allow the riser to flex
at its design limit. The added wall thickness for the loops will
require larger bend radii to obtain the required flexibility.
 Choke and kill (C&K) lines on the riser joints will have vessels appear to fail in a fast fracture mode due to the thick
thicker walls and associated weights. There may be an walls that prevent the material from necking down.
incentive towards designs using alternative materials to reduce The ASME adopted rules for the design verification of
weight. The riser will need more buoyancy materials to offset high pressure vessels in 1997, specifically ASME VIII-3. This
the higher C&K line weights. The added steel and buoyancy code uses elastic-plastic analyses and fracture mechanics. The
weight will have significant impact on the vessel variable deck intent of this method is to verify that the design is fit for the
load (VDL) on board the drilling rig. specified service requirements as defined by the user.
The droop hoses in the moonpool, which connect the riser The resulting equipment will be lighter in weight, but will
to the vessel, will require flexible pipe that is not currently have a limited safe life since the materials will be more highly
available. The flexible pipe will require a working pressure stressed.
equal to the BOP and riser C&K system.
Vessel piping from the moonpool C&K lines to the User Design Specifications
manifold, the kill line from the cement unit to the manifold, A significant difference between current practice and
and the handling equipment will all increase weight and VDL. ASME VIII-3 rules is that the user defines the service
One alternative that some operators are reviewing is a two- requirements up front. The user provides a document that
stack approach. The BOP assembly will be changed out from describes the expected service life. An example of such a
an 18 ¾”–15,000 psi stack to a 13 5/8”–20,000 psi stack when document is Figure 5. This is the basis for the manufacturer to
the higher pressure rating is required. This will allow a 15,000 use in the designs and verification analyses. This is in contrast
psi rated rig to drill the majority of the well and then the to the current practice where manufacturers provide
20,000 psi rated equipment to finish the drilling operations standardized designs thought to be good for all applications.
and complete the well for production. This two-stack approach
will reduce the weight and size of the BOP, but will require Design Verification Methods
additional operations during the well construction process. Design methods that are appropriate for conventional
equipment are not suited for the requirements of HPHT. Using
Equipment Impacts appropriate design methods are important in the development
The design of existing drilling equipment is based upon and manufacture of HPHT equipment. This section of the
design verification methods established nearly two decades paper describes the contrast between the current ASME
ago. The strength analysis is based on classical strength of Method and the ASME VIII-3 rules as applied to the design of
materials equations or linear-elastic finite element analysis an example BOP. Our objective is to show the technical merits
(FEA). The equipment designs for lower pressures and for the adoption of ASME VIII-3 concepts in developing the
temperatures do not consider cyclic behavior, fatigue or next generation of API standards for HPHT design.
fracture mechanics. The analyses done for stress verification are only some of
The current standards for the design and manufacture of the factors that need to be considered in the design of HPHT
equipment for HPHT applications fall under the auspices of equipment. Other factors such as deflections, sealability, and
API 6A, 16A, 16C, or 17D. One of the design verification additional post-weld heat treatment (PWHT) cycles will also
methods used by these specifications was established in 1986 affect the final pressure rating of a component.
with the adoption of portions of ASME VIII-2 in the 15th
edition of API 6A. This “ASME Method” uses portions of API
ASME VIII-2. The ASME Method uses linear-elastic stress The current API design verification methods are based on
analyses and considers the primary failure mode to be elastic linear-elastic stress analysis. The listed API specifications
or plastic deformation resulting in leakage before fracture. The differ slightly in their allowable stress limits, but all follow the
current API specifications also do not require fatigue analysis same basic criterion. The maximum allowable general primary
as part of the design verification requirements. membrane stress intensity in the pressure wall at hydrostatic
Designs verified using the current methods are thought to test pressure is limited to either 83% (API 6A and 17D) or
be acceptable for all drilling applications and to have service 90% (API 16A and 16C) of the material specified minimum
lives of at least 30 years. In order to assure equipment safety yield strength.
when using these methods, large safety factors and high General primary membrane stress intensity is the average
hydrostatic proof test pressures are used. As a result, stress intensity in a section, away from discontinuities. The
equipment designed using current methods is usually heavy, stress intensity is twice the maximum shear stress or the
robust, and perhaps more costly than necessary. largest algebraic difference between the principal stresses.
A single design that will fit all applications is simply not All four current API specifications state that fatigue
possible when high pressures and high temperatures are analyses are beyond their scope. This is not appropriate for
involved. Today's HPHT equipment requires custom designs high pressure equipment, since the most likely failure mode is
for safe operation, which are built for specific service fracture due to cyclic loading.
requirements that consider all loading scenarios, failure
modes, and useful life of the equipment. The custom designs ASME VIII- 3
require a more detailed design verification analysis using The ASME VIII-3 rules go beyond a stress analysis based
advanced techniques. upon static loading conditions. The analysis verifies that the
Experience has shown that high pressure vessels usually equipment is designed to be fit-for-purpose. This requires the
have a failure mode based upon cyclic loading, crack user and the manufacturer to work together. The user defines
propagation, and eventual fracture. Often, high pressure the service requirements for the equipment. Then, the
manufacturer completes the design and the design verification
analysis to demonstrate the structural capacity of the crack growth is a function of stress level, cyclic operating
equipment to meet the specified service requirements. loads, and material toughness properties.
In addition to the linear-elastic methods used in ASME The calculated final crack size must be less than the
VIII-2 (and API), ASME VIII-3 uses elastic-plastic FEA and maximum allowable flaw size. ASME VIII-3 limits the flaw
linear-elastic fracture mechanics analyses. Figure 1 is a flow size to the smallest of 25% of the wall thickness or 25% of the
chart that shows the overall design verification process that is critical crack size.
proposed for the next generation of API codes for HPHT
equipment. The design verification analyses include the The steps used to determine the critical crack size are:
calculation of linear-elastic stresses for the fracture mechanics • From the elastic FEA stress results, find an equation for σ
calculations and an elastic-plastic load analysis. as a function of x/a [σ(x/a)] using the following relation:
The design verification process includes: 2 3
• Linear-elastic finite element modeling ⎛x⎞ ⎛ x⎞ ⎛x⎞ ⎛x⎞
σ ⎜ ⎟ = A0 + A1 ∗ ⎜ ⎟ + A2 ∗ ⎜ ⎟ + A3 ∗ ⎜ ⎟
• Fracture mechanics calculations including fatigue crack ⎝a⎠ ⎝a⎠ ⎝a⎠ ⎝a⎠
growth calculations
• Convert the CVN value to the fracture mechanics stress
• Limit analysis using an elastic-plastic material model intensity, KIC.
• Using an expression for K based on σ(x/a); calculate the
A fatigue analysis using elastic stresses and conventional
critical crack size, ac, using KIC.
S-N fatigue curves is not appropriate for thick-wall pressure
equipment. All mentions of cyclic behavior and fatigue in this
After the critical crack size is found, a fatigue analysis is
paper concern crack growth as a function of cyclic loads and
done to calculate the crack growth due to cyclic service. The
calculations based on linear elastic fracture mechanics, LEFM.
equation used to calculate crack growth, da, as a function of
cycle number, dN is known as the Paris Law10.
Linear-elastic Finite Element Modeling
In the ASME Method (and API), the stresses found in the
da
linear-elastic FEA are compared directly to specified stress = C ⋅ ∆K − m
dN
limits. In ASME VIII-3, the reason for doing the FEA is to get
the stress profile for the fracture mechanics calculations.
Linear-elastic FEA calculates the stress profile in a body where:
under load. The finite element analysis of high pressure BOP's da Crack growth (inches)
uses solid continuum elements because of the thick walls. dN Number of cycles
Figure 2 shows example geometry for a high pressure BOP ∆K Range of stress intensity (ksi)
body and the finite elements of the model. This example uses C, m Material constants
quarter-symmetry to reduce the calculation time. In this
model, elastic materials were used and pressure was applied to Figure 5 has a table that includes an example pressure
the internal surfaces and pressure end loads to the openings. service history.
When the FEA is complete, the analyst finds the location • Using ASME VIII-3, the maximum crack size, amax, is 25
of maximum stress. At this location, the analyst develops an percent of the critical crack size, ac.
equation for the fracture mechanics calculations from the • Solve for da/dN using C and m from ASME VIII-3 and
stress profile. the expression for K that is a function of internal pressure
Figure 3 shows the von Mises stress contours in the and crack size. The iteration starts by assuming an initial
example BOP body. The stresses are highest at the corner on flaw size based on the size of the maximum undetected
the inside of the BOP. The stress distribution equation was flaw using the actual inspection technique. In the
written for this location. example, a surface crack at the cross bore is assumed to
have an initial flaw that is the same size as the initial
Fracture Mechanics Calculations crack depth.
LEFM was selected as the basis for ASME VIII-3 fatigue • Calculate total crack growth, atot, by summing da for each
analysis because it was thought to best represent the behavior pressure and cycle number combination.
of high pressure vessels. Other fracture mechanics methods • The total crack growth, atot, must be less than the
may be used if they are based on sound engineering principles maximum crack size, amax, to ensure that the rules of
and consistent with the safe design practices for pressure ASME VIII-3 are satisfied. [Note: ASME VIII-3 has
vessels such as those embodied in ASME VIII-3. additional limits on cycles that should be considered and
For this discussion, there are two parts to the fracture assessed on each analysis.]
mechanics assessment. The first calculates the critical crack
size based on material toughness, crack geometry, and stress Based upon the ASME VIII-3 rules, the pressure rating of
level. The second is a fatigue analysis to follow crack growth a component is usually limited by the fatigue analysis. The
based on the number of cycles at the various stress levels. fatigue analysis considers all the cyclic loading in the user
Figure 4 is a flow chart that provides a list of the steps used in design specifications including hydrostatic pressure testing
the LEFM analysis. and thermal stresses. Any factor that influences the fatigue
LEFM uses material toughness, often in the form of life, such as more load cycles or reduction of material
Charpy V-notch (CVN) values. Crack growth is calculated toughness from added post weld heat treatment (PWHT)
starting from an initial flaw size. The initial flaw size is often cycles, may affect the final pressure rating of a product.
set by the sensitivity of the inspection method. The rate of
 Limit Load Analysis fracture mechanics calculations for all but a select few, thin-
A limit load analysis is a nonlinear elastic-plastic FEA. wall, when doing fatigue evaluations.
This section describes an example evaluation performed on a
BOP body design. Only the Young’s Modulus and the yield Materials
strength are used for material properties since ASME VIII-3 The primary difference in material property requirements
requires the use of an elastic, perfectly plastic material model between API and ASME VIII-3 is the fracture toughness. API
in elastic-plastic analyses. The typical high strength low alloy requires CVN values for three samples to exceed 15 ft-lb
steels used for BOP's behave much like the elastic, perfectly average at the minimum design temperature with no single
plastic material model. We used a small displacement sample falling below 10 ft-lb.
relationship, consistent with conventional analyses of ASME VIII-3 requires either CVN or CTOD fracture
structures using limit load methods. toughness per ASTM E-12908, JIC fracture toughness per
In this limit load analysis, you find the lower bound ASTM E-18209, or KIC fracture toughness per ASTM E-3997
collapse load. The internal pressure and pressure end loads for the primary forging. The objective is to obtain the KIC
were increased to the level that convergence was improbable. toughness value for the fracture mechanics evaluation. For
The load-deflection data from the analysis are plotted in CVN, ASME VIII-3 requires a minimum average value of 30
Figure 6. These data were obtained by monitoring the ft-lb transverse (50 ft-lb longitudinal) at the minimum design
deflection of a node located on the inner surface of the BOP temperature and no single value less than 24 ft-lb transverse
body. The instability of the model occurred at a pressure of (40 ft-lb longitudinal). ASME based these minimums on the
about 129,000 psi. This pressure is the lower bound collapse need for relatively high ductility for the materials of
load. construction. A particular set of user requirements and a
ASME VIII-3 rules say that the design margin against manufacturer’s design may need higher toughness minimums
collapse load may not be less than 1.732. Using the 129,000- to satisfy the fatigue analysis.
psi lower bound collapse load, the resulting design pressure is Detailed material requirements for HPHT components are
limited to 74,500 psi. the subject of other papers to be written.
As an additional check, ASME VIII-3 does not permit the
design pressure, Pd, to exceed the value set by the following Fabrication and Inspection Using ASME VIII-3
equation. Technically, this equation only applies to cylindrical A variety of welding processes are usable for fabrication of
shells and only at locations remote from discontinuities. HPHT equipment. However, only full penetration butt joints
However, it is appropriate as a calculation of a pressure made by double welding are permitted. Other joint designs are
limitation for the example BOP body along with the other permitted if they meet the requirement to assure that the
limits. deposited metals on both the inside and outside of the weld are
of the same quality.
2
Pdesign = ⋅ S yield ⋅ ln(Y ) Welding procedure qualifications include testing the base
3
metal, weld metal, and heat affected zones after all thermal
where "Y" is the ratio of the outer diameter to inner diameter treatments. The weld metal and heat affected zones are
of the pressure vessel required to meet all the mechanical test requirements of the
base metal including toughness testing,. This requirement
The maximum pressure from the limit load analysis and extends to production test coupons on each component built.
the design pressure limit from the equation above are clearly Post weld heat treatment after all welding will usually be
not the limiting factors in the final pressure rating. In most necessary in order to meet the material mechanical test
high pressure designs, pressures are limited based on requirements for the weld metal and heat affected zones. Both
requirements associated with the fatigue analysis. preheat and post weld heat treatment are usually required for
fabrication of the high strength low alloys thought to be
Comments on Design Verification Methods typical for this equipment.
Information is presented on the merits of API’s adoption of Examination of all welds is done by sensitive ultrasonic
design verification methods used in ASME VIII-3 in methods (UT) that are qualified to reliably identify flaws
developing the next generation of standards for HPHT down to a size that is consistent with the initial flaw size used
equipment. in the fracture mechanics assessment.
The basis of the current design verification methods are on All pressure containing components are required to be
linear-elastic material properties and analysis that has thin- examined throughout 100 percent of their volume after the
wall shell theory at its foundation. Linear-elastic methods limit quench and tempering phase of the heat treatment. This means
design pressures due to their inability to account for plasticity that each forging will be examined in detail in the semi-
and the stress redistributions that result. Thick wall vessels finished state before final machining. The examination shall
intended for high pressure service require an evaluation using be done using UT. If the component cannot be adequately
elastic-plastic material properties and, more importantly, inspected by UT, radiographic methods (RT) shall be used. In
fracture mechanics based fatigue calculations. addition, all external surfaces and accessible internal surfaces
ASME VIII-3 requires an elastic-plastic analysis and does shall be examined by either the magnetic particle method
not permit linear-elastic analysis when the Y ratio (OD/ID) (MT) or liquid penetrant method. Acoustic emission methods
exceeds 1.5. HPHT equipment rated for 15,000 psi or higher may be used to supplement the volumetric examination.
will have Y ratios greater than 1.5 unless the metallurgists can After all heat treatment and hydrostatic testing, ASME
find some miracle material. In addition, ASME VIII-3 requires VIII-3 requires an examination of all surfaces by either
magnetic particle methods or liquid penetrant methods. The
surface NDE acceptance requirements according to ASME 8. ASTM E-1290, Standard Test Method for Crack-Tip
VIII-3 are essentially the same as API Specification 16A. Opening Displacement (CTOD) Fracture Toughness
Measurement, 2002 edition, ASTM International, West
Testing Conshohocken, PA.
ASME VIII-3 requires a hydrostatic pressure test to a level 9. ASTM E-1820, Standard Test Methods for Measurement
of at least 1.25 times the design pressure rating of the vessel. of Fracture Toughness, 2001 edition, ASTM
The user may require a higher pressure. For a 20,000 psi International, West Conshohocken, PA.
design, the test pressure would be at least 25,000 psi. 10. Paris, P. and F. Erdogan, A critical analysis of crack
For single wall vessels, ASME VIII-3 places an upper propagation laws, Journal of Basic Engineering,
limit on hydrostatic test pressure according to the following Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical
equation: Engineers, December 1963, pp.528-534.
Ptest = S yield ⋅ ln(Y )

This pressure results in the outer fiber of a cylinder, remote

from discontinuities, reaching yield stress.

Conclusions
Today's drilling industry is encountering new challenges.
The HPHT environment of 20,000 psi and over and 350°F and
over will require the design of a new class of equipment to
meet these ratings.
Drilling equipment, such as wellheads, BOP's, valves, and
C&K systems, is designed and manufactured under the
auspices of API specifications. The design verification
methods in these API specifications was adopted nearly 20
years ago. They use portions of the ASME VIII-2 rules. Since
that time, ASME has adopted newer methods for the design
verification of high pressure vessels by issuing the ASME
VIII-3 rules.
ASME VIII-3 permits high stress levels but has a
mandatory fatigue analysis. This results in lighter weight
designs that have a limited safe life. The intent of the ASME
VIII-3 methods is to verify that the design is fit for the
specified service requirements as defined by the user.
API should integrate ASME VIII-3 rules into existing
specifications for equipment rated for 15,000 psi and higher
for improved performance with equivalent safety.

References
1. ANSI/API Specification 6A / ISO 10423, Specification
for Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment, Nineteenth
Edition, July 2004.
2. ANSI/API Specification 16A / ISO 13533, Specification
for Drill-through Equipment, Third Edition, June 2004.
3. API Specification 16C, Specification for Choke and Kill
Systems, First Edition, January 1993.
4. API Specification 17D, Specification for Subsea Wellhead
and Christmas Tree Equipment, First Edition, October
1992.
5. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 2, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels,
Alternative Rules, 2004 edition, ASME, New York, New
York.
6. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 3, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels,
Alternative Rules for the Construction of High Pressure
Vessels, 2004 edition, ASME, New York, New York.
7. ASTM E-399, Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain
Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials, 1990 edition
(1997 update), ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA.
 Obtain data on the vessel design
requirements including:
• Geometry for the vessel
• Expected cyclic operating conditions

Build finite element model

Perform Linear Elastic Perform Elastic-Plastic

Finite Element Analysis Finite Element Analysis

Develop stress third-

Plot load-deflection data
order polynomial
to obtain lower bound
through thickness
limit load value

Perform linear elastic Design pressure

fracture mechanics to established using a design
obtain: margin of 1.732 on the
• Critical crack size calculated lower bound
• Crack growth (da/dN) collapse load.

Establish Design Limits

The design limit for pressure (operating
and/or hydrostatic) is set based on the
lower bound values determined from the
fracture mechanics calculations or the
limit load analysis.

Figure 1 – Flow Chart for High Pressure Vessel Design Verification

 Z

X
Y

Figure 2 – Exemplar Geometry for a High Pressure BOP Model (Quarter-Symmetry)

Figure 3 – von Mises Contour Plot for the Exemplar BOP at 129,000 psi
 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
Develop third-order polynomial
expression for σ(x/a) using elastic
finite element stresses. The
variables A0, A1, A2, and A3 are
calculated.

From Table D-401.1 get G0, G1, G2,

and G3 using a/t=0.0 and a/l=0.5
(per D-402(a)) ratios associated
with the crack geometry.

Develop expression for K using

appropriate internal pressure, AP,
and crack depth, a.

πa
K I = [( A0 + AP )G0 + A1G1 + A2G2 + A3G3 ] ⋅
Q
1.65
⎛a⎞
Q = 1 + 4.593 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ − qy
⎝l⎠
2
1 ⎡ ( A0 + AP )G0 + G1 A1 + G2 A2 + G3 A3 ⎤
qy = ⋅⎢ ⎥
6 ⎣⎢ Sy ⎦⎥

Solve for critical cracks size, ac

Using maximum internal pressure ⎡ CVN ⎤
K C = 5σ y ⋅ ⎢
2
(e.g. 25 ksi hydro) and minimum − 0.05⎥
σ
⎣⎢ y ⎦⎥
CVN of 30 ft-lbs, calculate critical
crack size of 0.453 inches.

Solve for maximum flaw size

Per KD-412.1 the maximum flaw
size is limited to the lesser of 25%
of the wall thickness or 25% of the
critical crack size.

LEFM-based Fatigue Calculations

Using the operating conditions
(including load and frequency data), da
determine the growth of the initial crack = C ⋅ ∆K − m
size based upon material constants, C dN
and m. Final growth should be less than
maximum allowable flaw size (0.25ac).

Figure 4 – Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics Analysis Flowchart Based on ASME VIII-3

 BOP Pressure Testing History

Assumptions
1 Six ram stack (3 doubles) and 2 annulars
2 Upper ram is casing shear ram (non-sealing)
3 Four year cycle between major overhauls
4 Twelve weeks per well
5 Pressure cyles based upon Lower Pipe Ram (worst case)

Types of Tests
1 Factory hydro pressure test
2 Factory wellbore pressure test
3 Factory stack wellbore pressure test
4 Surface stack wellbore pressure test
5 Subsea stack wellbore pressure test after landing stack
6 Bi-weekly stack pressure test to casing pressure
7 Bi-weekly ABOP pressure test to casing pressure or 15 ksi

Years / Equipment Cycle 4

Days / year 365.25
Total days 1461
Days / well 84
Wells / equipment cycle 17.39
Wells / equipment cycle 17

Number of ABOP's 2
Number of Ram BOP's 5
LPR pressure cycles / stack test 7

Pressure Level (ksi) for Cycle Count

10 15 18 20 30
Factory Testing Cycles
Body hydro test 2
BOP wellbore test 2
Stack test 2 5

Rig Testing Cycles / well

Surface stack test 2 5
Land stack on wellhead 2 5
Week 2 7
Week 4 7
Week 6 2 5
Week 8 2 5
Week 10 2 5
Week 12 2 5

Pressure cycles / Equipment cycle 119 323 170 340 0

Factory pressure cycles 0 2 0 7 2

Total cycles 119 325 170 347 2 963

Figure 5 – Example of Equipment Service History

Lim it Load Analysis for 20 ksi BOP Design

(Deflection as a Function of Internal Pressure)
140000
Lower bound collapse load of 129,000 psi
Internal Pressure (ps

120000
100000
80000
74,500 psi with a design margin of 1.732 on the lower bound collapse load
60000
40000
20000
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Displacement (d /d m ax)

Figure 6 – Limit Load Analysis Results

View publication stats