Proceedings of the 3rd International Offshore Pipeline Forum

IOPF 2008
October 29-30, 2008, Houston, Texas, USA

IOPF2008-922
DEEPWATER PIPE-IN-PIPE (PIP) QUALIFICATION TESTING FOR 350F SERVICE
Paul Jukes, PhD CEng.
J P Kenny, Inc.
Houston, Texas, USA.

Francois Delille
J P Kenny, Inc.
Houston, Texas, USA.
Gary Harrison
BP America, Inc.
Houston, Texas, USA.

ABSTRACT
Development of future deep water oil reservoirs in the Gulf of
Mexico (GoM), where the flowline product temperatures are
approaching 350F (177C), water depths approaching 10,000ft
(3050m), and tie-backs in the order of 40 miles (64.4km), requires the
appropriate material selection for key pipe-in-pipe (PIP) components.
These extreme flowline temperatures, water depths and distances,
restrict the choices in PIP component materials, and present real
challenges to the design of centralizers, waterstops seals, thermal
insulation and loadshares. These challenging conditions warrant
qualification testing to be undertaken on PIP components to ensure
structural integrity and long-term thermal and structural performance.
This paper describes a qualification testing programme for the
testing of PIP components for 350F (177C) service, and includes the
testing of centralizers, waterstop seals, thermal insulation and
loadshares. The following qualification tests are proposed: (i)
Centralizers tests: Slippage tests, creep tests, abrasion tests, bolt
relaxation and aging tests are undertaken. Structural integrity testing
under installation loads and in-service conditions is undertaken to
ensure no long-term creep or degradation of the material due to
temperature. (ii) Waterstop seal tests: Load test, hydrostatic pressure
test, elevated temperature tests and material aging tests are
undertaken. The material selection for the waterstop seals are
undertaken to examine the integrity of the seal at temperature. (iii)
Thermal insulations tests: A number of tests undertaken on aerogel
materials to evaluate the effect of prolonged exposure to temperature
on thermal conductivity and mechanical integrity. Tests include
checking thermal conductivity, compressive strain recovery, long-term
exposure to high-temperature and aging effects on thermal
conductivity and mechanical integrity. (iv) Load-share tests: A
mechanical radial clamp load-share is tested to ensure performance
under sustained installation loads.
Each test planned and performed, testing rationale and results are
presented within the paper. Conclusions are drawn on the suitability
of these qualification tests for high-temperature applications. The
successful qualification testing of the components extends the

boundaries of what is possible with PIP designs and opens up the

possibility of XHPHT field developments in the GOM.

KEY WORDS
Aerogel, Annulus, Centralizer, Deep Water, Extra High-Pressure
High-Temperature (XHPHT), Flowlines, Load-share, Nanogel,
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (OHTC), Pipe-in-Pipe (PIP),
Pipelines, Spacers, Thermal Insulation, Waterstop.

INTRODUCTION
Pipe-in-pipe (PIP) is increasingly being used for the transportation of
hydrocarbons. Pipe-in-pipe flowline systems are frequently used in
the GoM for subsea tie-backs where there is a requirement for high
thermal performance. A PIP system consists of the inner pipe carrying
the fluid encased within a larger diameter outer pipe. Figure 1 shows
a typical PIP system configuration.

Fig. 1: A typical PipeinPipe configuration

The outer pipe seals the annulus between the two pipes and the
annulus can be filled with a wide range of thermal insulating materials
incompatible with water exposure and hydrostatic pressure. A PIP
flowline has the advantage over traditional wet insulated pipelines of

Copyright 2008 by ASME

allowing a lower overall heat-transfer coefficient (OHTC) or U value

for the system. PIP is a common method of achieving low U values of
0.176 BTU/hr.ft2.F (1.0 W/m2K) or less, and has been used on a
number of projects in both the North Sea and in the GoM. For longer
subsea tie-backs, a lower OHTC allows the production temperatures of
the internal contents to remain above the wax allowable temperature
(WAT) and hydrate formation temperature. Low OHTC facilitates
longer cool-down times during a shut-down, to prevent hydrate
conditions. A shut-down time of at least 8 to 10 hours is considered to
be the minimum requirement, which can be a large challenge for long
tie-back distances.
Today, it is not uncommon for PIP designs to be considered in
water depths up to 10,000ft (3,050 meters) and flowline temperatures
up to 350F (177C) (1).
This paper is part of significant analysis works related to extra
high-pressure and high-temperature PIP designs sponsored by a major
operator (2, 3). The study targets the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), where
subsea production wells may be drilled at water depths (WD) to
10,000 feet (3,050m), with a flowing product temperature to 350F
(177C), and system shut-in pressure of 65ksi (64.8MPa). These
temperatures can present real challenges in the design, and failure
modes have to be addressed (4). Also high axial loads can lead to
lateral buckling, and mitigation methods are necessary, such as
thermal expansion management with the use of sleepers, which is
integrated into the design philosophy (5, 6).
As a result of the relatively high temperatures, it is important to
determine the effect of these temperatures on the components that
make up the PIP system. A PIP system consists of a number of
additional components, such as centralizers, waterstop seals and
loadshares. It is important to gain an understanding of the effects of
temperature on the material strength and durability, and to ensure that
there is no long-term degradation of the structural performance. These
issues are addressed within this paper.

PIP COMPONENTS
Centralizers, waterstops, thermal insulation and loadshares
make up a PIP system. The function of each component is briefly
described, and issues associated with high temperatures are addressed.
Centralizers
Depending on the thermal insulation type, centralizers are
placed between the inner and outer pipes at regular intervals. The
function of the centralizers in a PIP system are to support the inner
pipe centralized within the outer pipe, prevent possible damage to the
PIP thermal insulation between the inner and outer pipes, and to
transfer loads between the inner and outer pipes.
The distance between the spacers will depend on the loading to
which the section of the PIP will be subjected. This spacing may be
two meters for reeled pipelines, and four to six meters for S-lay and Jlay installation methods. The presence of centralizers provides heat
loss paths and can present cold spots, reducing the overall thermal
performance of the PIP system. For high-temperature flowlines, the
temperature can reduce the structural integrity of the centralizers, and
lead to deformations that could crush the thermal insulation.
Ability to undertake the functions of the centralizers
successfully at high temperatures requires the spacer material to
tolerate high temperatures without excessive deflections and maintain
structural integrity. Compression loads on centralizers are a key
aspect in their design.

Traditional lower temperature service centralizers are made of a

nylon material that exhibits good resistance to abrasive wear. Other
materials, such as injection-molded thermoplastic polypropylene, have
a temperature limitation of about 266F (130C).
The selection of an appropriate material for high-temperature
applications is difficult. Tests during this project on a proposed
centralizer material resulted in cracks in the centralizer due to the
material being too brittle. Other materials are presently being sourced.
Waterstops
The fundamental driver for waterstops is to avoid flooding the entire
annulus of a PIP due to a single defect in the outer pipe of the system.
To avoid this unlikely result, most designers have opted to include
waterstops capable of preventing flooding of the entire annulus by
isolating the breach in the outer pipe between adjacent waterstops.
The waterstops must reliably seal the annulus against the maximum
water pressure expected on the seabed.
The spacing of the waterstops can be arbitrary, but there are
some practical considerations to provide guidance. The first constraint
is the maximum tolerable temperature loss from a flooded section or
sections. It may be acceptable to tolerate one or two flooded segments
with a predicted temperature loss during steady state production of
perhaps 5-20F. Burial of the pipeline will mitigate temperature loss
over the flooded section, and may constrain waterstop spacing to the
amount of spare pipeline repair materials available. The acceptable
temperature loss is determined by a flow assurance specialist.
Waterstop spacing is also constrained by the amount of spare
materials (pipe, insulation, centralizers, etc) available for a single
repair. Assuming an accidental flooding of one segment during
construction, there should be enough spare material available for
repairs. It may be unacceptable to lose any reasonable length of
insulation, and in that case the spacing would be solely governed by
material constraint. The above waterstop spacing constraints should
be considered and evaluated in a project during the final design work
to determine final spacing. A spacing of 3,000 feet (914 m) is a
representative value.
Waterstops must be able to sustain the temperature effects from
the inner pipe for the life of the project. There is a waterstop seal on
the market that fits between the pipes and is activated by the
tightening of screws. High-temperature waterstop seals are presently
being developed and tested. The material of the seals is a highperformance plastic and has been demonstrated to tolerance
temperatures to 350F (177C), although the long-term service life
could not be guaranteed.
Thermal Insulation
The thermal insulation placed in the annulus of the PIP system
is a key component, and allows a low OHTC if the thermal
performance (k-factor) is good. There are various types of thermal
insulation on the market, such as polyurethane, rock-wool, fiberglass,
and aerogel.
The short-term loading during installation and the long-term
loading due to startup / shut down loading are important factors to
consider when choosing thermal insulation for the life of the project.
Also, no long-term thermal degradation of the insulation can occur
during the life of the project.
It is important that the thermal insulation demonstrate
acceptable performance for high temperatures, without degradation of
the thermal or structural performance due to aging. The k-factor for

Copyright 2008 by ASME

each proposed material should be checked, and aging of the materials

at elevated temperatures, should be investigated to ensure performance
and structural integrity.
Aerogel is a nanoporous solid, originally developed during the
1930s. This insulation is suitable for PIP applications, and is classed
as a high-tech material with excellent thermal properties compared to
PU foam.
Aerogel is a high-performance thermal insulation used in a
variety of forms and conditions, and is one of the worlds best
insulating solids. It has many advantages: it is lightweight, water
repellant, highly porous, has a unique microstructure, high surface
area, translucent or IR-opacified, and is available in a number of
grades. It achieves high levels of thermal insulation due to the
entrapped air in its micropore structure. It has extremely low thermal
conductivity, 0.008-0.013 BTU/hr.ft.F (14 - 22 mW/m.K) and is
stable from -321 to 662F (-196 to 350C). It is water resistant and
can be dried if there is water ingress.

Centralizer Tests
Centralizers are used to avoid the loading that could crush the
thermal insulation. Installation loads can be particularly large during
reeling, and the centralizers are tested in compression for the
maximum loads seen during the reeling process.
Operational conditions need to be considered, and degradation
of the material due to temperature, long-term creep, and structural
integrity are all issues related to the performance of the centralizer.
These high temperatures severely restrict the material selection
available for pipe-in-pipe centralizers. Based on the temperature, a
modified Polyphenylenesulphide (PPS) material was selected for
testing, based on its characteristics of having high thermal mechanical
strength, high hardness and rigidity, high creep strength and excellent
wear characteristics.
The type of tests undertaken when testing centralizers are as
follows:

Aerogel allows the design of pipelines with overall system 'U'

values significantly less than 0.176 BTU/hr.ft2.F (1.0 W/m2K)
without compromising the overall external dimensions of the PIP
system.
Loadshares
Load shares are necessary to redistribute gravity loads between
the inner and outer pipes of an un-bonded PIP. Without load shares,
the accumulated in-situ compression load in the inner pipe can reach
30% to 50% of yield strength (4). Upon startup, the added thermal
expansion compression can result in failure (axial collapse-rupture) of
the inner pipe due to combined axial compression and internal
pressure loads. Load shares combined with pre-tensioning of the inner
pipe prior to establishing the load share coupling redistributes the PIP
gravity loads to realize a much lower in situ axial compression load in
the inner pipe.

Slippage Tests;

Abrasion Test;

Creep Tests;

Bolt Relaxation Test;

Aging Test.

The test program that J P Kenny is presently undertaking is still

ongoing, however some of the preliminary findings are presented (9).
Slippage Tests. The aim of the slippage test is to ensure the
centralizer does not slip on the flowline under installation and inservice loads. A typical test set-up for the slippage test is shown in
Figure 2.

To be effective the pre-tension must be performed before

excessive friction between the inner and outer pipes prevent the
desired distribution of the pre-tension load. Practically, this implies
that the load share spacing should be something less than the water
depth, although it might approach or equal the water depth. Detailed
FEA is performed to validate the load re-distribution achieved for a
selected spacing by load shares and pre-tensioning (7, 8).
Mechanical loadshares seem to be the preferred method of
choice. This method employs a bi-radial clamp which mechanically
locks the inner and outer pipes together. Although these clamps are
relatively expensive, it is presently the only viable method. As these
components are steel, there are no long-term degradation issues.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) should be undertaken to avoid a global
collapse-rupture in a PIP flowline.

TESTING OF PIP COMPONENTS

J P Kenny recently undertook a series of tests for a major
operator in the Gulf of Mexico region. The objectives of the tests
were to qualify PIP components for extra high-temperature and extra
high-pressure conditions. In the following section, the different
components tested are described, and results from the tests are
presented.
The tests were undertaken for the base case of an 8 inner pipe,
12 outer pipe, with a maximum operating temperature of 350F
(177C).

Fig. 2: Centralizer slippage test setup

Both sets of centralizers tested suffered brittle failures prior to
reaching the weld bead, which meant that the test was abandoned and
the centralizer could not pass over the weld bead. Figure 3 shows a
failed centralizer from the slippage test.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Fig. 3: A failed specimen from slippage test

Fig. 4: Field proven waterstop seal

Abrasion Tests. The abrasion test consists of passing a centralizer

over a number of weld roots. A winch is used to pull the flowline
assembly along the length of an 80 ft (24m) trough. A total of 17 runs
were intended, equating to 119 weld beads passed. However, after
five complete passes (35 welds), the centralizer suffered brittle failure.

Pressure Tests. A further requirement of the seal is to provide leakfree sealing of the large pressures that occur in the PIP annulus if the
outer pipe is breached. The purpose of this test is to verify the
pressure and sealing capacity of the waterstop seal. The seal was
enclosed in a special pressure test rig consisting of bolted end flanges.
The seal was tested to 375bar (37.5MPa), which includes a safety
factor of 1.25. A pressure based on water-depth of 10,000ft (3050m)
was applied. The seal was examined after the test, and no permanent
seal damage was observed. Below is a picture of the pressure test
apparatus and setup.

As a result of the brittle failures, for both the slippage and

abrasion tests, the other tests were abandoned, and a search is still
continuing for an appropriate material suitable to 350F (177C) with
acceptable ductility.
Conclusions following the tests are that there is no single
thermoplastic capable of meeting the stringent demands covering both
insertion case and service conditions for a centralizer, and the solution
relies on a substrate, possibly such as a pultrusion being overlaid with
a cast polyamide material. Such configurations could offer the
temperature requirement local to the inner pipeline, and the necessary
creep and abrasion resistance to cater for insertion.
Waterstop Seal Tests
Testing of the waterstop seals is necessary to ensure the seal can
undertake the hydrostatic loads in the event of flooding. Due to the
high-temperature of the inner pipe, sealing tests at temperature are
also undertaken to ensure that material degradation of the seal does
not impact the integrity of the seal. A test is performed to examine the
integrity of the seal at temperatures of 350F (177C) and a waterdepth pressure equivalent to 4500ft. Figure 4 shows a typical
arrangement of the waterstop seal and clamp arrangement to be used
in a PIP. The following tests are undertaken for the testing of PIP
waterstop seals (10):

Load Tests

Hydrostatic Pressure Test

Elevated Temperature Test

Material Aging Test

Load Tests. Assuming a breach of the outer pipe, the hydrostatic

pressure will create an axial load on the waterstop seal and clamp. A
force based on water-depth pressure of 4500ft (1372m) was used. The
test load was 90.2Te (885kN), and this included a load factor of 1.1.
The load was applied for 5 minutes, and no slippage occurred. The
test was deemed successful.

Fig. 5: Waterstop seal pressure test in progress

Elevated Temperature Test. In the event that an outer pipe breach
occurs, the water in the annulus will be heated due to the temperature
of the inner pipe. Hence it was important to verify the temperature
resistance capacity of the waterstop seal. The seal was tested at 383F
(195C) with a test factor of 1.1. The applied pressure was 375 bar
(37.5MPa), and represents 10,000ft (3050m) water depth with a test
factor of 1.25. A range of different seal materials was investigated.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

The final seal type used a hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber

(HNBR) lip, and a thermoplastic body, as shown in Figure 6.

Material Aging Tests. The purpose of these tests was to investigate

the integrity of the seal due to thermal aging. The method of testing is
based on the Arrhenius principle, which artificially ages the material
by applying a temperature greater than its service condition to
accelerate the deterioration. A temperature of 554F (290C) for 6
days, which is equivalent to 30 years service at 350F (177C), was
applied.
As the inner pipe will be operating at 350F (177C) continuous
service there will be a considerable temperature drop to the outer pipe
wall at seabed ambient temperature (typically 37-41F (3-5C)) in the
actual service condition. It was assumed for test purposes that the
average temperature across the whole seal is approximately 194F
(90C) during its working life. Based on this, age testing was carried
out at and based against the actual 194F (90C) average. It was
decided that this would give a more accurate conclusion regarding the
actual material service life.
Tests undertaken at 554F (290C), and using the Arrhenius
principle, showed that the material would still be serviceable at 350F
(177C) for up to 30 years. For the test at 350F (177C) the material
was unaffected over a 42 day test period.

Fig. 6: A typical HNBR / plastic seal (10)

Hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) has an
intriguing combination of properties. Like other elastomers, the
HNBR material has high tensile strength, low permanent set, very
good abrasion resistance and high elasticity. But in HNBR, these are
complemented by good stability from thermal ageing and better
properties at low temperatures compared to other heat- and oilresistant elastomers. This combination of properties makes it
particularly suitable for a high-temperature waterstop seal.

Thermal Insulation Testing

The primary objectives of these tests are to evaluate the effect of
exposure to extreme operating temperatures of 350F (177C) and
compressive stresses (due to pipe laying and lateral buckles). The
compressive stresses are applied for prolonged periods of time to
determine the insulation performance and mechanical integrity of the
aerogel material.
Two different types of material tests were
undertaken to examine this effect.
The first test evaluates the thermal conductivity of the material
after aging at the maximum operating temperature, and the second
evaluates the mechanical integrity of the material after thermal aging
under installed conditions by unidirectional compression loading. The
compression loading deformation is limited by centralizers. Worst
case deformation is likely to occur in the pipe straightener during reellay; however this is prior to aging. Subsequent in-situ deformations
are probably less, but the material will be thermally aged.
The testing of the thermal insulation has a number of specific
objectives, as follows:

Fig. 7: Pressure / temperature versus time

Temperature and pressure was held at 375 bar (37.5MPa) and
383F (195C) respectively for 24 hours. Upon inspection of the seal
following removal from the rig, it was clear that the thermoplastic
body had tolerated the pressure and temperature combination loading.
There were no leaks past the seal during the test. The sealing lip
showed no visible signs of damage or deterioration.

To evaluate the thermal insulation of the XHPHT PIP

system;

Obtain thermal conductivity at different

compression and different mean temperatures;

Ensure no long-term degradation of the thermal properties of

the aerogel insulation, such as thermal conductivity;

Mechanical testing of the material to understand how it

behaves under compression;

Ensure that compressive loads are not detrimental to the

thermal performance;

Assess thermal aging effects on structural integrity of the

aerogel.

levels

of

The following tests were successfully undertaken on aerogel

materials:

Thermal conductivity;

Compressive strain recovery after static loading - resilience;

Hydrophobic threshold;

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Long-term exposure of high-temperature on shrinkage;

Aging effect of high-temperature on thermal conductivity

and mechanical integrity.

Nanogel Aerogel Thermal Insulation

Nanogel aerogel from Cabot Corporation is a particularly
thermally efficient insulation material. It is an extremely lightweight
and ultra-high performance insulation material that can be used in PIP
systems as a substitute for typical insulation materials, such as PUF.
Nanogel aerogel is produced by drying a gel to produce a solid
material that consists of a lattice structure of the gel material with
nanometer-sized pores dispersed throughout the material. The size of
the pores (~20-40 nm) is smaller than the mean free path of air (~60100 nm) and consequently gas phase conduction is greatly reduced as
a heat transfer mechanism. The thermal conductivity ranges from
0.008-0.013 BTU/hr.ft.F (14 - 22 mW/m.K).
The important salient features of aerogel are as follows:

Pure aerogel in granular form

Worlds best insulating solid

Lightweight

Hydrophobic (water repellant)

Highly porous

Unique microstructure (fractal)

Elastically compressible (springy)

thermal conductivity and mechanical property tests were undertaken

(11) as described in the following sections.
Thermal Conductivity Tests
The first step of the test method is aging of the opacified
aerogel. The most extreme operational thermal gradient that the
aerogel will experience in the XHPHT pipe-in-pipe system is 310F
(154C), based on 350F (177C) internal contents temperature, 40F
(4C) seawater on the outside of the carrier. The samples of aerogel
were conservatively aged at 350F (177C) in glass containers, under
0% compression, in an oven for 0, 1, 2 and 4 weeks to evaluate effects
of thermal aging.
The first set of thermal conductivity measurements was
undertaken at 0% material compression. Tests were undertaken in
accordance with ASTM C518. Conductivity measurements were
made over a range of mean sample temperatures of 14F, 55F, 100F,
145F, and 176F (-10C, 13C, 38C, 63C, and 80C) with the hot
and cold plate boundary temperatures.
The maximum mean testing temperature equipment was limited
to 176F (80C) whereas the mean temperature of the XHPHT system
is 195F (91C) (assuming seawater at 40F (4C) and product at
350F (177C)). This compromise is considered to have negligible
impact on the results.
Thermal conductivity tests were also undertaken at 15% and
30% compression, to represent the expected levels of installed
compression.
The results did show a downward trend for the tests aged for
four weeks, however the trend was not statistically significant. Figure
9 and 10 show typical set of results for thermal conductivity for 0%
and 30% compression respectively. The graphs also show the effect of
age and temperature on the thermal conductivity.

Fig. 9: Thermal Conductivity (mW/mK) for

0% Compression
The results of the thermal conductivity testing demonstrated;

Fig. 8: Lattice arrangement of Nanogel Aerogel

The lattice arrangement of Nanogel aerogel is shown in Figure 8.
The use of opacifiers, such as carbon black or titanium dioxide, are
introduced into the aerogel to minimize radiation effects. A number of

A very tight standard deviation in the test results.

Thermal conductivity increases with temperature

Thermal conductivity was not affected by aging.

Effect of compression on thermal conductivity

demonstrated some improvement in k-factor due to
pore-size reduction

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Fig. 10: Thermal Conductivity (mW/mK) for

30% Compression

Fig. 12: Aging setup for mechanical integrity test samples

Mechanical Integrity Tests

Ageing tests were undertaken at 0%, 15% and 30%
compression. Aging effects were investigated in material sample
holder with different compression levels. The material sample holder
consisted of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) cylinder, 1.52 inner
diameter, and two cylindrical, aluminum plates locked in place with
machine screws. By varying the quantities of aerogel material it was
possible to produce samples with different compression levels, as
shown in Figure 11.

Fig. 13: Youngs Modulus (MPa) for 0%, 15%, 30%

compression over four weeks aging
Results of mechanical testing of aerogel material showed the
following;

Youngs Modulus increased with the level of compression;

Aerogel aged up to four weeks at 350F (177C) does not

show any statistically significant aging effects on
mechanical stiffness;

Cabots Nanogel aerogel material does not thermally age

while operating continuously at temperatures up to 350F
(177C).

Fig. 11: Sample holders for mechanical integrity testing

The aging system consisted of placing the mechanical test

specimens in the cold/hot plate system. Thermocouples were used to
measure the temperature. Figure 12 shows a typical sketch of the
aging setup for mechanical integrity test samples.

The tests were successful and it can be concluded that Cabots

Nanogel aerogel is suitable as thermal insulation for XHPHT PIP
systems.

The Youngs Modulus for the test specimens was determined

using an Instron 5500R uniaxial mechanical testing machine. The
compressive testing consisted of ten, 5% strain compression cycles.
The 5% strain level represents the level of strain experienced by the
aerogel during laying and operation. Compression cycles for various
aged samples were 0, 1, 2 and 4 weeks at 0%, 15% and 30% precompression. The results are shown in Figure 13.

Mechanical Clamp Loadshare Tests

A mechanical radial clamp will be inserted in the annulus of the
PIP. The purpose of testing of a mechanical clamp loadshare is to
ensure performance as a loadshare component in the PIP system.
Load tests were successfully performed on the loadshare.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Centralizers. The test program was not successful. The

main challenge is finding a material suitable to 350F.
Materials tested to date have failed due to lack of ductility
(brittle behavior).

Waterstop Seals. Waterstop seals were tested for structural

loading and thermal testing, and the seal passed all aspects
of the testing.

Thermal Insulation. The Nanogel aerogel material tested

does not thermally age while operating continuously at
temperatures up to 350F (177C). The material is very well
suited for PIP insulation applications in XHPHT systems.

Loadshares. The tested design is suitable for accepting a

load of 176Te.

The qualification testing of the components presented within this

paper extends the boundaries of what is possible with PIP designs and
opens up the possibility of XHPHT field developments in the GOM.
Fig. 14: A typical arrangement of a load share clamp
Load Test. The maximum expected axial load for the loadshare was
determined using finite element analysis FEA (7, 8). For a water
depth of 4500ft (1372 m), the test load was 193.6Te (1900kN) and this
included a load factor of 1.1. The load was applied using a series of
four calibrated hydraulic pistons and a calibrated hydraulic hand
pump. The full test load was applied for one hour.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank all that have provided input into
this work, especially BP, Cabot Corporation, TEKMAR and Devol
Engineering Ltd.

REFERENCES
[1] Jukes, P and Harrison, G. An XHPHT Pipe-in-Pipe Design for
Installation By S-lay, J-lay and Reel-lay Methods, Proceedings
of IOPF2006-16, Houston, Texas, USA, October 24-25, 2006.
[2] J P Kenny Inc., Extra High-Pressure High-Temperature Pipe-InPipe Design Study, Internal Report, Rev. 0, July 2006.
[3] J P Kenny Inc., XHPHT Pipe-In-Pipe Design Study: sensitivity
for additional water depths (7,750ft and 10,000ft), Internal
Report, Rev. 0, July 2006.
[4] Harrison, G. and McCarron, W. Potential Failure Scenario for
High-Temperature, Deepwater Pipe-in-Pipe, Proceedings of
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC# 18063, May 2006.
[5] Jukes, P., A Design Philosophy for Lateral Buckling in
Deepwater, Proceeding of ASME International Petroleum
Technology Institute, IOPF# 2006-002, Oct. 2006.
[6] Jukes, P., Wang, J., Eltaher, A., and Harrison, G. A General
Flowline Thermal Expansion Design Philosophy Employing
Buckle Initiators and Piles, Proceeding of IOPF, Houston Texas,
USA, October 23-25, 2007.
[7] J P Kenny Inc., XHPHT Component Testing & Further FEA Local Loadshare FE Study, Internal Report, Rev. B, June 2007.

Figure 15 A loadshare clamp axial load versus

clamp activation chart
The results showed no slippage of the clamp. No further movement
occurred, as shown in Figure 15. No buckling of the inner pipe
occurred, and the test was successful.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes a qualification testing programme for the
testing of PIP components for 350F (177C) service, and includes the
testing of centralizers, waterstop seals, thermal insulation and
loadshares. Conclusions from the testing program are;

[8] Sun, J.J., Jukes, P and Eltaher, A., Finite Element Analysis of
Loadshare for the Installation of Pipe-in-Pipe Flowline by S-lay
and J-lay Methods, Oceans 07 MTS/IEEE Conference,
Vancouver, Canada, 29th Sept-4th Oct, 2007.
[9] Devol Engineering Ltd, HPHT Pipe-in-Pipe Centralizer
Evaluation, Document No. CDT 6676 CR, Feb. 2008
[10] TEKMAR, 8/12 pipe-in-pipe waterstop seal development
programme test report, 7th Issue, 6th Oct. 2008.
[11] Cabot Corporation, Nanogel Aerogel Material Qualification
Testing Report, June 2007.

Copyright 2008 by ASME