Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Prop
=
Prop
/E, and a hardening parameter, n.
>
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
s =
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
Prop
n
Prop
Prop
Prop
Prop
Prop
n n
E
c c
c
c
o
c c c
c
c
o
o
1
1
(1)
The hardening parameters for the five stress-strain curves
were determined by forcing the Needleman curve through the
specified proportional limit point (
Prop
,
Prop
) and the yield
point (
Yld
,
Yld
). This resulted in five curves of various
roundness ranging from perfectly plastic (
Prop
=550 MPa, n=)
to very round (
Prop
=300 MPa, n=3.85) shown in Figure 10.
These stress-strain curves all satisfy the 550 MPa yield strength
requirement.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Stress
(MPa)
Strain (%)
550 MPa
500 MPa
450 MPa
400 MPa
300 MPa
Proportional Limit
Figure 10. Stress-strain curves all having 550 MPa yield
strength.
The collapse results in Figure 11 show that, although these
materials all have the same yield strength, there is considerable
variation in the collapse pressure. The collapse point is
controlled by the proportional limit and the initial hardening at
stresses just greater than the proportional limit. These results
emphasize that elastic-plastic collapse cannot be accurately
predicted only on the basis of yield strength or material grade
there must be consideration for the shape of the stress-strain
curve where it becomes non-linear.
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
0 10 20 30 40
Ovality
External Pressure (MPa)
550 MPa
500 MPa
450 MPa
400 MPa
300 MPa
Elastic
Proportional Limit
Figure 11. Variation of ovality responses resulting from
550 MPa yield strength materials.
The collapse stresses, defined by the point when the slope
of the ovality-external pressure curve exceeds 0.5%/MPa, are
listed in Table 4. The table highlights the reduction in collapse
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME
pressure with a decrease in proportional limit. The table does
not reveal the benefit of high strain hardening behavior
following the proportional limit, which reduces the sensitivity
of pipe ovality to the applied external pressure.
Table 4. Collapse pressures for materials all having
550 MPa yield strength.
Proportional Limit (MPa) Collapse Pressure (MPa)
300 26.89
400 29.79
450 31.19
500 32.39
550 33.30
Elastic 38.73
MEASURED AXIAL TENSILE AND CIRCUMFERENTIAL
STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
The examples in the previous section were based on stress-
strain curves generated for parametric assessment of yield
strength, post-yield hardening and roundness. The question
remains what is the impact of real measured differences
between axial tensile and circumferential compression stress-
strain curves?
The measured stress-strain curves shown in Figure 3 were
implemented within the collapse model to illustrate the impact
of variations in real material response on collapse prediction.
The measured stress-strain curves were input into the collapse
model via the multi-linear elastic-plastic material model.
Results of collapse analyses on 340 mm diameter casing with
12.2 mm wall thickness (D/t=27.9) are shown in Figure 12.
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ovality
External Pressure (MPa)
Circ. Comp.
Axial Tension
Elastic
Stress-Strain Source
Figure 12. Collapse behavior based on measure axial
tensile and circumferential compressive stress-strain
curves.
Collapse pressures, listed in Table 5, indicate a difference
of almost 20% between collapse pressures due to the variation
in measured axial tension and circumferential stress-strain
curves.
Table 5. Comparison of collapse pressures predicted using
axial tension and circumferential compression stress-strain
curves.
Stress-Strain Source Collapse Pressure (MPa)
Axial Tension 16.73
Circumferential Compression 19.97
Elastic 23.40
The large difference between collapse pressures predicted
based on measured axial tension and circumferential material
behaviors provides a compelling argument for performing
circumferential compressive testing since it is material
properties in the circumferential direction that control collapse
resistance.
CONCLUSIONS
In this investigation, yield and post-yield properties were
explored to determine what influence they have on performance
limits under active loading conditions of external pressure.
Unlike some strain-based, or passive loading scenarios, where
large and often counterintuitive sensitivities can be
demonstrated, in this application, the sensitivity is controlled
primarily by the stress where the material response departs from
elastic behavior. Given this strong correlation between collapse
limits and departure from elastic behavior in the circumferential
direction, the method for characterizing circumferential
compressive behavior demonstrated here, presents a significant
means for improving collapse predictions and explaining
differences that are often noted in collapse pressures between
design, test and analysis methodologies.
For the pipe geometry considered, the predicted collapse
pressure is most strongly influenced by the point of initial
yielding in the material. Use of elastic-perfectly plastic material
demonstrated that the collapse pressure becomes larger as the
yield strength is increased. The increase in collapse pressure is
not proportional to the increase in yield strength due to the
additional impact of pipe geometry. In these analyses it was
pipe ovality that initiated and drove collapse.
There was little impact on collapse when the material
behavior was changed from perfectly plastic to strain hardening
with a hardening modulus up to one tenth of the elastic
modulus. The results indicate that a larger strain hardening
moduli is required to have an impact that is comparable to that
of the pipe ovality. This lack of sensitivity to changes of the
bilinear hardening rate is a result of the selected pipe geometry.
Greater sensitivity is expected in pipe with low D/t ratio that
incurs greater plasticity during the initial stages of collapse.
The impact of a rounded stress-strain response, on the other
hand, has a very significant impact on the collapse behavior and
resulting collapse pressure. Such rounding of the stress-strain
curve can be the result of pipe fabrication methods, such as
expansion. The collapse behavior is dependent on both the
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME
proportional limit and the initial strain hardening modulus. The
low proportional limit of the rounded stress-strain curve leads to
early yielding, but the strong initial strain hardening leads to
maintained stability until at larger strains the tangent modulus
load and the stiffness decreases.
The pipe material must be properly characterized to
accurately predict collapse loads. The knowledge of only yield
strength is not adequate because of the strong sensitivity of
collapse resistance to stress-strain curve shape. Circumferential
tensile plastic strain in the pipe wall, due to the expansion
during fabrication, leads to low-yield strength, rounded
circumferential compressive behavior when external pressure is
applied. These characteristics have a detrimental impact on
collapse resistance. It follows that material characterization for
collapse analyses should consist of circumferential compression
to correspond to the deformation and stress applied during
collapse.
The constraints of the pipe wall geometry make it difficult
to fabricate a circumferential specimen, but it is essential that
the pipe wall is not straightened since straightening introduces
plastic deformations which impact subsequent measurements. A
method of testing a straight, but not straightened, specimen
circumferential specimen under compression has been
developed. Compression is applied at a constant strain rate to
reveal the stress-strain character during initial yield.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Noetic Engineering 2008
Inc. for providing the resources to complete this paper. The
authors would also like to express gratitude to the American
Petroleum Institute for allowing publication of test data
produced to support standards development.
REFERENCES
[1] Kara, F., Navarro, J. and Allwood, R.L., 2010, Effect of
Thickness Variation on Collapse Pressure of Seamless Pipes,
Ocean Engineering, 37 pp. 998-1006
[2] Van den Abeele, F., Bar, J. and Jakani, S., 2010, Buckling
and Unstable Collapse of Seamless Pipes and Tubes,
Proceedings of the 8
th
International Pipeline Conference,
Calgary, Canada, IPC2010-31189
[3] Huang, X., Mihsein, M., Kibble, K. and Hall, R., 2000,
Collapse Strength Analysis of Casing Design Using Finite
Element Method, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 77 pp. 359-
367
[4] Di Marcello, V., 2009, Influence of Imperfections on the
Collapse of Thick Tubes Subjected to External Pressure,
Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Division Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, PVP2009-77054
[5] Kaiser, T.M.V., Yung, V.Y.B. and Bacon, R.M., 2005,
Cyclic Mechanical and Fatigue Properties for OCTG
Materials, 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Canada, SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA
977775
[6] Thibaux, P. and Van den Abeele, F., 2010, Influence of the
Forming Operations on the Yield Stress Measured on Pipe,
Proceedings of the 8
th
International Pipeline Conference,
Calgary, Canada, IPC2010-31232
[7] ASTM E8-04 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of
Metallic Materials
[8] Klever, F.J., 2010, A Design Strength Equation for
Collapse of Expanded OCTG, SPE Drilling & Completion,
SPE 111742
[9] Herynk, M.D, Kyriakides, S., Onoufriou, A. and Yun, H.D.,
2007, Effects of the UOE/UOC Pipe Manufacturing Processes
on Pipe Collapse Pressure, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 49 pp. 533-553
[10] Reichel, T., Pavlyk, V., Beissel, J., Kyriakides, S. and Jang,
W-Y., 2010, Improved Collapse Resistance of Large Diameter
Pipe for Deepwater Applications Using a New Impander
Technology, Proceedings of the 8
th
International Pipeline
Conference, Calgary, Canada, IPC2010-31551
[11] Pattillo, P.D., Last, N.C., Asbill, W.T., 2004, Effect of
Non-uniform Loading on Conventional Casing Collapse
Resistance, SPE Drilling & Completion, SPE 79871
[12] Needleman, A., 1975, Post-Bifurcation Behavior and
Imperfection Sensitivity of Elastic-Plastic Circular Plates,
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 17 pp. 1-13