Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 30 April–3 May 2018.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.
Abstract
High pressure high temperature (HPHT) technology and field development have received much attention
in recent years. Materials for HPHT environments, including ultra-high strength alloys and soft polymer
compounds will in some cases be close to their capability limits. Materials testing and qualification have
therefore been challenging for HPHT equipment design and project execution. At the same time, lower
oil prices have put cost pressures on project developments. To overcome both technical and financial
challenges while ensuring satisfactory project safety and performance, holistic and systematic solutions
promoting materials standardization and innovation are necessary. In this paper, case studies and lessons
learned from several recent and widely recognized Joint Industry Projects on subsea materials are presented.
The philosophy of materials standardization and innovation behind these efforts will be discussed and their
positive impacts on HPHT materials qualification and testing will be summarized.
Introduction
After oil and gas prices slumped in 2014, cost reduction became important, and certainly more so for
HPHT project development. Conversely, as the HPHT environment become increasingly severe, materials
selection, qualification, and testing became more challenging. Therefore, the challenges facing HPHT
subsea projects are not only cost reduction, but also complex HPHT field developments, which involve
many technical issues not covered by current industry standards.
To solve the technical challenges, industry has been developing HPHT related design guidelines based
on years of R&D investment. First edition API 17TR8 technical report focusing on HPHT equipment
design methodology was released in 2015, and publication of its second edition is expected in early 2018.
Additional industry standards are in the process of integrating API 17TR8 philosophy, even though it is still
under continuous development. As described in API 17TR8 report, HPHT equipment design may require
advanced fatigue and fracture mechanics analysis, which depends on a reliable and environment specific
materials’ mechanical properties database. Building up such a materials properties database can involve
very extensive testing program, which is technically challenging, time consuming and costly. Although
much materials testing has been performed in recent years, a lack of commonly agreed materials properties
database and knowledge sharing exists across the industry. The lack of common standards and database
could adversely affect project cost control.
2 OTC-29053-MS
In addition to materials commonly used in production environments, a need exists for innovative
materials suitable for HPHT service. High pressure conditions push material strength requirements higher,
which creates higher potential for brittle fracture at both elevated temperature and low temperature corrosive
environments. Inovative design and materials development can help, but it needs to be constrained to the
current desire for cost-reduction.
To address the cost reduction challenge, joint industry projects (JIPs) have recently been initiated to
drive standardization in subsea producton. Benefits to standardization in materials and manufacturing can
both reduce cost andexpedite project execution, which in turn can further reduce cost. In this paper, the
philosophy behind a few examples of subsea JIPs will be described, for their immediate benefits, and long
term positive impact on both cost reduction and materials technologies innovation. Following that, the
application of the same philosophy is discussed in terms of HPHT materials qualification and R&D.
Some of the subsea standardization JIP initiatives have been running or were completed in the following
areas in recent years. A more detailed discussion on subsea forging, welding and HPHT materials
characterization will be found in the following sections.
• Subsea Welding
• Subsea Processing
The subsea steel forging JIP had participation from nine operators, five equipment OEM contractors, and
seven forging manufacturers. Phase one of the JIP was completed in early 2015, and the main deliverable
was DNVGL-RP-0034 recommended practice (RP) [2]. It specifies forging qualification and production
technical requirements for commonly used carbon and low alloy steels.
The second phase of the JIP continued development of standardized forging QA/QC requirements,
standardized inspection and test plans (ITP), and supported efficient implementation of the RP technical
requirements. The deliverable of phase two completed in early 2017 was DNVGL-RP-B202 [3],
which contains criteria, requirements and guidance on quality management of steel forgings for subsea
applications.
Both RP documents resulting from the steel forging JIP have been written for general, world-wide
application. In addition, both RPs comply with existing API industry codes for subsea equipment, such
as API 6A and API 17D, API 20B and 20C for open die and closed die forgings. The RPs provide a
common operator's standard to enable stocks of steel forgings, avoids redundant qualification for each client
or project, and provides competitive edge for high-quality forge masters under same rules. In general, the
JIP enabled knowledge sharing between contractors to improve equipment design for manufacturing. In the
long run, it will benefit all attending companies with improved efficiency, knowledge, and cost reduction.
Both RPs have been adopted within operators and contractors’ material specifications, QA/QC inspection
specifications, and equipment drawings. To provide further assistance, a steel forging advisory board has
been formed that includes industry forging experts from member companies who canrespond to questions
on RPs implementation, and collect feeback for RP revision. For example, the steel forging advisory
board created a FAQ list and some typical subsea steel forging component case studies. Through post-JIP
dialogue, operators have shown preference for assistance with qualifying forging suppliers and maintaining
a commonly trusted supply chain. Therefore, a qualification service standard of steel forging stocks and
manufactuers planned for publication in 2018 [4]. It is understood that full implementation of new RPs
has challenges, while operators and contactors streamline their specific project requirements. However,
standardized practices are expected to reduce cost, which is a core desire for new field development.
• Girth welds of dissimilar materials, including steels and alloy 625 buttering
The JIP guidline requirements are mostly intended for use in pressure-retainning welds exposed to
process fluids in the following subsea assemblies and equipment:
4 OTC-29053-MS
• Subsea wellhead and tree equipment as per ISO 13628-4 or API Specification 17D
Through the currently active JIP, welding best practices will be shared. Related workshops have been
conducted, including the topics of hydrogen induced stress cracking (HISC) due to alloy 625 buttering,
PWHT exemption in heavy wall welded components with proper engineering analysis and NDE inspection,
and the essential variables to be complied for duplex stainless steel piping components, and so on.
• Operators and suppliers all follow the same qualification principles (e.g. API 17TR8)
• Qualify materials with sufficiently wide operating range to accommodate different projects,
covering relatively wide HPHT envelope
• Encourage cooperation by JIPs
By implementing above activities, all stake holders are expected to align their basic materials
qualification requirements. It can bring the benefits of effective cost management, and enable increased and
rapid re-use of new materials and technology by multiple operators. The standardization process may not
reduce initial materials testing cost, but should enable re-use, and hence, reduce total qualification cost by
reducing re-qualification.
Summary
Effectively reducing HPHT materials costs and realizing other benefits of innovation requires that the subsea
oil and gas industry become more open and collaborative, especially through standardization. By embracing
standardization and collaboration approaches, HPHT materials development can bring industry-wide benefit
with transparent work process, cost reduction, confidence in materials quality, and reduced project risks.
In addition, the benefits of modern technologies and materials can be efficiently utilized through
implementation of similar approach. Standardization allows for flexibility to custom design and
manufacturing by using various standardized materials and processes, and removes the barriers for more
materials innovation.
Acknowledgement
The authors are very grateful for the valuable contribution and discussion from many colleagues in DNV
GL and companies in subsea industry.
References
1. Pam Boschee, Forging of Subsea Equipment, Oil and Gas Facilities, April 2015, p.28.
2. DNVGL-RP-0034, Steel Forgings for Subsea Applications, Edition February 2015.
3. DNVGL-RP-B202, Steel Forgings for Subsea Applications - Quality Management Requirements,
Edition March 2017.
4. DNVGL-SE-0241, Qualification of Steel Forgings for Subsea Applications, Edition April 2018 to
be published.
5. R. Thodla, C. Holtam, R. Saraswat, Development of a Novel Test Method to Characterize
Material Properties in Corrosive Environments for Subsea HPHT Design, Proceedings of the
ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2017-65772.
6. M. Shavandi, F. Tang, Load Monitoring and Condition Assessment of High Pressure – High
Temperature (HPHT) Subsea Facilities, Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and
Piping Conference, PVP2017-66243.
7. F. Tang, J. Ye, M. Mandeville, M. Brongers, Technology Qualification for Additive
Manufacturing of Metallic Pressure Components, the 9th International Symposium on Green
and Sustainable Technologies for Materials Manufacturing and Processing, Materials Science &
Technology 2017 Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 8 – 12, 2017.
8. M. Mandeville, M. Brongers, F. Tang, Quality Assurance and Technology Qualification for
Additive Manufacturing of Metallic Pressure Components, Proceedings of the ASME 2017
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2017-65827.
9. DNVGL-RP-A203, Technology Qualification, Edition June 2017.
10. Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME): Implementing ICME in the Aerospace,
Automotive, and Maritime Industries, A study organized by TMS, Warrendale, PA 15086,
www.tms.org.
11. Modeling Across Scales: A Roadmapping Study for Connecting Materials Models and
Simulations Across Length and Time Scales, A study organized by TMS and on behalf of the
NIST Material Measurement Laboratory, Warrendale, PA 15086, www.tms.org.