OTC-25163-MS

Subsea Wellhead System Verification Analysis and Validation Testing

Jim T. Kaculi, D.Eng., P.E., and Bruce J. Witwer, Dril-Quip Inc.

Copyright 2014, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 5– 8 May 2014.

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
As oil and gas drilling and production operations move into much deeper waters and harsher environ-
ments, there is ever increasing demand for development of the next generation of tools and technology to
meet these challenges. As a critical barrier between the wellbore fluid and the environment, subsea
wellhead systems are an important part of the drilling and production equipment and a proper under-
standing of their behavior under complex loading conditions is crucial.
Component and sub-system analysis and limited testing has been performed before but such analysis
and testing does not fully evaluate the system as a whole. This is mainly due to the lack of test machines
capable of accommodating the size of these systems while generating the sufficiently high loads needed
to simulate field conditions. System verification analysis and validation testing is very important to ensure
that the load transfer and interactions between the sub-systems and components are properly accounted for
during installation and field service of equipment and to provide a true understanding of the wellhead
system structural capabilities.
Following the recommendations of API-TR-1PER15K-1 with regards to system approach evaluation,
a complete wellhead system analysis and testing is performed. The system stack includes the wellhead
connector, the high and low pressure wellhead housings and the conductor string, and simulates various
load combinations. The objective is to verify the system performance envelopes using advanced finite
element analysis (FEA) and validate the system using physical testing.
Various load combinations (bending, tension/compression, pressure) are applied to generate the
wellhead system capacity envelopes providing operators a verified wellhead system window of operation.
A side by side comparison of testing and analysis results is presented, and proper model calibrations are
performed as needed.
The physical testing of the wellhead system has provided some invaluable insights to make proper
adjustments to the analysis techniques and the inputs required that are not obvious from a theoretical point
of view. This effort resulted in a better understanding of the wellhead system and connector interface, and
it will be very useful knowledge to be applied for future high pressure high temperature (HPHT)
development work of 20 ksi (or higher) wellhead systems.
With an established and reliable analysis methodology based on the best industry practices and proper
model calibration matching the test results, future system analysis can produce reliable results that
2 OTC-25163-MS

increase the probability of the successful first time validation testing for various wellhead system
configurations.

Introduction
The subsea wellhead forms a critical part of the overall drilling and production system as it provides both
the structural resistance and pressure-containing interface for the drilling and production equipment. The
wellhead system itself is fairly complex as it contains many interfacing sub-systems and components and
performs various functions during different phases of drilling and production operations. Some parts of
the subsea wellhead system serve as the only barrier between the wellbore fluid and the environment,
making it paramount for a robust and safe design. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the system
function and behavior under complex loading conditions is important especially for HPHT applications
where the equipment is expected to operate under much harsher conditions. System verification analysis
followed by validation testing should be performed to ensure the system is fit for service.
The wellhead system verification analysis is typically performed using FEA or other analytical tools.
Although it is a complex process and requires significant efforts when considering the large size of models
required, convergence issues encountered, post-processing of results, and lack of standards that clearly
define the analysis methodology and acceptance criteria, it is not as difficult as the validation testing.
Validation testing of the wellhead system has been a challenging task due to the lack of test machines
capable of producing the high load limits required and of handling the size and weight of the equipment
during testing. This task becomes even more complicated during the combined load testing scenarios
when considering pressure, bending, tension and compression. However, it is crucial that such testing is
done to validate the equipment design and establish confidence in the accuracy of the analysis method-
ology.
Current industry codes require testing to be performed on certain wellhead components and sub-
assemblies, but no full system testing is required. ISO-13679 and API- RP-5C5 require rigorous testing
for premium threaded connections at various assessment levels (CALs). Due to the high loads encountered
in deep water applications under HPHT environments, manufacturers are being asked by the industry to
perform similar testing for large diameter surface casing and conductor connections to ensure they are fit
for service. The casing and conductor connectors, varying in a range of diameters from 20 inch to 42 inch
or higher, are an extension of the wellhead system and are located directly below the wellhead which
transmits the external loads directly to them. In a worst case discharge, the threaded connectors are buried
below the mudline and likely covered by smaller casing strings and are not as critical as the wellhead and
wellhead connector when considering that in a case of failure of the wellhead connector oil and gas are
exposed directly to the environment. Because industry codes and some operators mandate that casing and
conductor connectors below the wellhead go through such rigorous testing, it is logical that such testing
should be performed on the wellhead system and more specifically the critical wellhead to the wellhead
connector interface. In our view such testing is more important on the wellhead system itself, failure of
which could have the same or potentially greater catastrophic consequences than failure of the threaded
connectors.
To meet the industry needs and challenges associated with HPHT environments and development of
safe, verified, and validated equipment designs analysis and testing is required. Dril-Quip has designed
and manufactured a test machine which is capable of producing static loads of over 20 million foot-pounds
bending moment and 13 million pounds axial loads under various internal and external pressures and
temperatures. The test machine is a horizontal-type that produces tension, compression, and uniform
bending from two end fixtures. It is believed to be the first of its kind in the industry when considering
the size of test specimen it can handle, magnitude of the loads it can produce, and the high levels of
combined loads that it can accommodate.
OTC-25163-MS 3

Following the recommendations of API-TR-1PER15K-1 with regards to system approach evaluation,

a complete wellhead system analysis and testing is performed. The system stack includes the wellhead
connector together with the high and low pressure wellhead housings and conductor string, and simulates
various load combinations including preload, internal pressure, external bending, and axial loads. The
objective is to verify the system performance capacity envelopes using advanced FEA, and validate them
with physical system testing. The system analysis verification and testing validation is important as it
ensures that the load transfer and interactions between the sub-systems and components are properly
accounted for during installation and field service of equipment, and provides a true understanding of the
wellhead system performance and structural capabilities.
The following sections provide detailed description of the wellhead system verification analysis, test
fixture, wellhead system test set-up, testing validation, and a comparison of the analysis and test results.
Wellhead System Overview
The wellhead system utilized for this effort is comprised of Dril-Quip subsea hardware similar to what is
currently installed in markets throughout the world. Modifications to the standard equipment have been
made to minimize the site-specific features that may otherwise limit the system capacities. The main
modification is the size of the simulated conductor string below the low pressure wellhead housing, where
a 41-½⬙ OD ⫻ 3⬙ wall forging is used to ensure adequate conductor capacity for a worst-case validation
of the wellhead system.
A partial view of the wellhead system 3-D model used for analysis and testing is shown in Figure 1.
Taking advantage of the inherent symmetry of geometry and loads, a half-symmetry model was used. The
3-D FEA model contained over one million elements. The analysis was completed using ABAQUS/
Standard, Version 6.13 analysis software. Details about modeling techniques, capacity determination, and
analysis results for both the wellhead connector and the wellhead housings assemblies are presented.
Wellhead Connector Assembly
The wellhead connector is hydraulically actuated and includes the High Pressure Housing, Latch
Segments, Gasket, Lower Body, Outer Body, Connector Body, Cam Ring, and Cover Plate. The connector
capacity is usually presented in a chart form similar to the API-TR-6AF2 flange capacity which gives a
relationship of the internal pressure versus bending moment at various tension/compression levels
including the makeup forces as shown in Figure 2. The wellhead connector assembly is shown in Figure
3. The capacities have been traditionally determined using engineering calculations or 2-D FEA which
requires conversion of bending moment to an equivalent tension or compression effect for a simple
axisymmetric member or pipe.
Equivalent tension or compression conversion as described in API-16R and other standards assumes
that the calculated stress at the outer diameter of the pipe wall caused by pure bending is treated the same
as the constant cross-section stress caused by pure tension or compression. This is generally a conservative
assumption because the peak stress, caused by the bending moment that is being used to determine the
equivalent tension or compression force, linearly varies from a peak value at the outer radius of the pipe
to zero at the neutral axis, and during the conversion it is assumed that this peak value acts over the whole
cross-section of the pipe. The concept of equivalent tension/compression works well and is generally
conservative for a straight round member. However, when this concept is applied to a wellhead connector
which contains several complex shaped components, there are some major concerns regarding the
assumptions made for the compression side of bending, the “critical radius” selection, and the assumptions
made for non-axisymmetric components.
For a wellhead connector, the equivalent tension/compression conversion assumes that the full hub
circumference supports the bending load. In the preloaded condition the connector hubs are initially
loaded in compression and the stresses due to preload, although not as severe as primary stresses, are
4 OTC-25163-MS

Figure 1—Wellhead System Model

significant and cannot be ignored. In reality, any external bending load creates additional compressive
stresses on the compression side of bending and reduces the preload compressive stress on the tension side
of bending. The use of the equivalent tension/compression method assumes that the equivalent compres-
sion load from bending is uniformly supported across the full circumference of the hub, which is not
realistic and could result in gross error of the connector capacity estimates. This fact is supported with the
3-D FEA results shown in Figure 4, which presents an example of stress distribution of the connector
under bending load. As expected, the stress patterns in the tension and compression side of bending are
significantly different.
When considering complex assemblies such as a wellhead connector the selection of the appropriate
“critical radius” for non-uniform component shapes, which is equivalent to the outer radius of a round
member, is critical. In the absence of any code or standard defining the critical radius, the selection
becomes a matter of user choice and interpretation and can result in a wide range of capacities depending
on the critical location selected. Middle of hub contact radius, middle of segment teeth radius, or the outer
connector radius are some locations that may be considered as an acceptable critical radius location. For
this particular connector case, that results in bending capacity variations of as much as 40% between the
different locations. This variation clearly shows how spread out the results could be and how much the
connector capacity can be under or over estimated by depending upon the critical radius of choice. The
OTC-25163-MS 5

Figure 2—Typical Connector Capacity Chart using Equivalent Tension/Compression

Figure 3—Wellhead Connector 3-D Model Mesh

connector capacity chart generated using equivalent tension/compression shown in Figure 2 assumed that
the “critical radius” is at the middle of the latch segment teeth.
In a 2-D model, there are simplifications made to non-axisymmetric components of the connector such
as the latch segments, holes, slots, etc., by treating them as axisymmetric components with reduced
6 OTC-25163-MS

Figure 4 —Wellhead Connector Stress Distribution Plot with applied Bending Moment

material properties to account for the material removed and the reduced stiffness. This is acceptable to a
certain extent to create proper interactions with other components, but it may not represent a true load
distribution and result in less accurate stress levels, especially when evaluating the non-axisymmetric
components themselves.
Use of equivalent tension/compression and 2-D modeling is useful for sizing purposes during the initial
design stage. However, use of 3-D FEA and validation by physical testing is the only reliable method to
properly deal with the concerns regarding “compression side of bending”, “critical radius”, non-
axisymmetric geometry and loading, crucial in accurately determining the connector capacity.
For the purpose of this study, a 3-D FEA model of the wellhead connector was created. Taking
advantage of symmetry, a half 3-D (180°) FEA model was used to analyze the major components of the
wellhead drilling connector assembly, as shown in Figure 3. Over a half-million eight-node linear brick
continuum (ABAQUS C3D8) elements were used to model the 3-D assembly. This provided a sufficient
mesh refinement in order to accurately capture the stresses and strains throughout the areas of concern in
the assembly.
The analysis consisted of several steps. In the first step, the connector was preloaded with the
appropriate makeup forces. In the subsequent steps, the connector was subjected to a combination of
bending moment, tension, and pressure as described in Table 1. Contact elements were included for all
interaction surfaces. The interaction surfaces were modeled with friction using ABAQUS surface-to-
surface interaction (hard contact) formulation. Nonlinear geometry (large displacement) behavior was
considered in the analysis. Ambient temperature was assumed for the analysis. Linear elastic behavior was
used for the materials. Use of linear elastic analysis for rated capacities is acceptable, however, if thin wall
theory cannot be applied or yielding is expected elastic-plastic analysis should be used. The elastic-plastic
OTC-25163-MS 7

Table 1—Combined Load Cases and Capacities

analysis methodology is described in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, Section VIII, Division
2 and 3. This paper presents results for only the elastic analysis method, but the same principles apply to
the elastic-plastic analysis.
Skin or strain gage higher order elements were applied in the model at the areas where strain gages
were used. The wellhead connector seal performance was evaluated by monitoring the contact loads/
stresses at the metal sealing gasket, and monitoring connector hub separation. Some partial hub separation
on the tension side of bending can be tolerated so long that seal design allows it and a metal-to-metal seal
is maintained.
In addition to the accuracy of modeling, use of the appropriate allowable stresses and design margins
is of equal importance. API specifications 17D and 6A require that the equipment is designed and rated
capacities based on normal working conditions are provided. However, sometimes the operator functional
specifications require the manufacturers to verify their wellhead system designs for normal, extreme, and
survival load conditions. This load format is presented in API-2RD and API-17G, where the loads
imparted in the wellhead from the drilling and workover risers are categorized as Normal, Extreme and
Survival, with each category having different design and safety margins. The allowable membrane
(average) stresses for normal, extreme, and survival conditions are typically limited to 66.67%, 80%, and
100% of yield, respectively. The membrane plus bending stress allowables are usually 1.5 times higher
than membrane stress allowables. Although the rating of the equipment currently is based on working
normal conditions, it is practical to provide the capacity of the wellhead system for normal, extreme, and
survival conditions as it gives the operators higher confidence and better understanding of equipment
capacity limits.
This study provides the connector capacity based on 3D FEA for normal, extreme, and survival load
conditions. For a given pressure and tension/compression load, the bending moment was increased
incrementally until the allowable stresses for each load case/category are reached. The bending capacities
determined from the connector analysis from various load combinations are summarized in Table 1.
Representative load cases determined from this analysis are used in the testing of the wellhead system.
The connector capacity chart determined with 3-D FEA is shown in Figure 5.
8 OTC-25163-MS

Figure 5—Wellhead Connector Capacity Chart

The limiting capacity location of the connector is dependent upon the combined load case applied. For
example, for bending loads with no internal pressure and no external tension/compression, the limit is
typically on the hub on the compression side of bending, or on the latching segment teeth interface on the
tension side of bending. For cases with high internal pressure and external tension/compression, the
limitation is usually on the teeth on the tension side of bending. Therefore, it is important for all load
combinations to be considered in the analysis.
Depending on the bore size, the internal pressure end-load effects could result in millions of pounds
of additional axial force, and have significant impact on the capacity of the connector and seal
performance. Therefore, it is crucial that the capacity charts clearly indicate the assumptions made for the
pressure end-load effects to ensure that the information is not misinterpreted, and an “apples-to-apples”
comparison of various connector capacities can be done.
Wellhead High and Low Pressure Housings Assembly
A typical subsea wellhead system assembly is shown in Figure 6 and is comprised of many components
and the number and size of the components varies depending on the specific applications used. The main
components that are present in every system are the high pressure housing, low pressure housing, landing
ring, bending reaction ring, rigid lock-down split ring, and the actuator sleeve, and are the main focus of
this work. It is a challenging task to determine the capacity of a wellhead system, because it is affected
by several factors that could change depending on the site-specific application. Some of the parameters
that have a direct impact on the capacity of the wellhead system are the system preload, the casing
program and weights, soil properties, cement levels, and external loads transmitted to the top of the
wellhead. A preloaded or rigidly-locked-down wellhead provides great benefits to the fatigue performance
of the system, and the preload magnitude affects the load sharing between the conductor and casing
strings. The magnitude of casing weight loads affects the system preload and the remaining capacity of
OTC-25163-MS 9

Figure 6 —Wellhead System Global FEA Model

10 OTC-25163-MS

the components in the load path. The soil properties and cement levels could significantly impact the load
distribution between the components and the fatigue performance. The external loads at the top of the
wellhead are typically determined via riser global analysis and account for the environmental loads,
currents, waves, VIV, vessel motions, etc., and combined with the casing weights have a significant
impact on the wellhead system preload, load sharing, and load distribution.
The 2-D modeling and equivalent tension/compression for a wellhead system have similar limitations
as described for the wellhead connector. To properly account for all the factors described above, a 3-D
model of the wellhead system is required. Taking advantage of symmetry, a half 3-D model is sufficient
to accurately capture the global response and component load transfer of the wellhead system by applying
the actual bending moment, tension/compression, shear, and pressure. The 3-D model gives a true
representation of the amount of load transfer and load sharing among the components of the wellhead
system. The tension and compression side of bending, component interactions and separations, non-
uniform loading of load shoulders and hubs, stress concentrations in geometric discontinuities (slots,
splits, holes, etc.), sealing performance and other factors which cannot be fully captured in the 2-D model,
are evaluated with higher accuracy in the 3-D model. The analysis model should include all the major
components of the system and should be carefully sequenced and preloaded in a method analogous to
real-world field installation. System preload, global external and internal loads, and casing loads should
be applied to the model. The model should extend about 200 feet below the mudline, a depth considered
sufficient for the wellhead system to be free of any boundary effects. It should be recognized that this is
a very challenging and time consuming task considering the large size of the analysis model, large number
of components and their interactions, cements, soils, convergence issues encountered, and post processing
of the results.
A typical example of the 3-D model of the wellhead system is shown in Figure 6. This particular
analysis model consisted of the High Pressure Housing (HPH), Rigid Lockdown Actuator Sleeve, Rigid
Lockdown Split Ring, Landing Ring, Bending Reaction Ring, Low Pressure Housing (LPH), Supple-
mental Adapter, 38⬙ Conductor String, 28⬙ Positive Stop Hanger, 28⬙ Casing String, 14⬙ Casing Hanger,
Casing Hanger Load Ring, Casing Hanger Load Ring Actuator Sleeve, 14⬙ Casing String, 22⬙ Casing
String, Lock Down Sleeve, Lockdown Sleeve Retainer Ring, Lockdown Sleeve Lock Ring, Lockdown
Sleeve Actuator Ring, and Cement and Soils. All components, including cements, are modeled with solid
elements. Soil properties are modeled as non-linear springs using the appropriate soil resistance data (P-y
curves). The sequence of installation and load steps required for proper modeling of the wellhead system
are presented in detail the Appendix A.
For the scope of this work, some simplifications were made to the wellhead system by focusing on the
main components of the wellhead and excluding the cements and soils from testing. These modifications
were driven by practical reasons relating to validation testing. However, creating a 3-D model of the
“as-tested” condition of equipment (Figure 7) is sufficient to validate the analysis methodology and
provide confidence in the results and accurately models the critical wellhead connector to wellhead
interface, which were the main goals of this work. A plot that shows the pattern of stress distribution of
the wellhead housings under a bending load is shown in Figure 8.
Test Fixture Design
To meet the challenges of applying loads on the scale of subsea wellhead system capacities in such a
manner that presented the worst-case scenario, the fixture was designed to apply uniform bending across
the entire specimen length. This is accomplished with loaded push/pull rods flanking a specimen in a
parallel axis. Attention was given to the sizing of the cylinders and push/pull rods to ensure that adequate
tension/compression loads could be transmitted. The size and weight of what was deemed necessary to
accomplish these tasks ultimately led to a horizontal fixture. Placed in the horizontal position, center of
gravity-related stability concerns were virtually eliminated. However, making use of the fixture in the
OTC-25163-MS 11

Figure 7—Wellhead Housings Model Mesh

Figure 8 —Wellhead Housings Stress Distribution Plot with Applied Bending Moment
12 OTC-25163-MS

Figure 9 —Horizontal Test Fixture without Specimen Installed

horizontal position was not without its challenges. The apparatus makes use of a fixed end where the
cylinders are securely mounted. The opposite end is free to move as a function of applied load, specimen
stiffness, and rolling resistance between it and the surface it rests on, among other friction forces. This
articulating end is supported on special flooring material and height-adjustable roller devices to ensure as
smooth and low friction movement as possible. Much of the load path within the fixture is preloaded to
minimize cyclical stress ranges, and therefore provide the fixture a longer length of time between
inspections, and overall increased lifespan. The test fixture without and with test specimen installed is
shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively.
Compression within the subsea system can be a limiting factor, most notably due to bending. Casing
weights within or below the high pressure wellhead housing may increase the amount of compression
within the system. To capture the effects of the casing weights in and/or below the high pressure housing,
a hydraulic ram was incorporated into the fixture design to simulate 6 million pounds of casing weight
within the wellhead. This ram also incorporates a spherical rod end to reduce added stiffness that would
otherwise benefit the system’s bending capacity, thereby providing a more conservative (i.e. increased)
load transfer between the high pressure and low pressure housings. The 6 million pound value was
targeted as a reasonably conservative amount of weight from casing strings within the wellhead housing,
pipe and supplemental casing strings below the wellhead housing. Due to time limitations, this feature was
not used in this test, but will be done in future testing.

Test Fixture Capacities

Designed to output the harshest static conditions of the offshore environment, the fixture utilizes twin 6.5
million pounds double acting cylinders. With equal piston areas, the total cylinder output in both tension
and compression is 13 million pounds. The total frame tension is a function of the cylinder output and
specimen size with internal specimen pressure. Spacing of the cylinders equates to uniform bending
capacities beyond 20 million foot-pounds.
Auxiliary systems include the hardware required to apply nitrogen or hydraulic pressure to the test
specimen, both of which are sized for 20 ksi applications. Pressure is applied via hydraulic intensifying
OTC-25163-MS 13

Figure 10 —Horizontal Test Fixture with Specimen Installed

and gas boosting pumps. Provisions were made

Table 2—Test Fixture Calibration Load Program
during the fixture design to be able to perform
equipment testing under various thermal conditions,
when necessary.
Control System
The control system of the fixture was designed with
the intent to meet, as a minimum, the validation
requirements of ISO 13679/API-RP-5C5. Because
these industry documents require loading close to
the specimen yield strength, both accuracy and pre-
cision were needed to reach and maintain target test
values. The brain which provides this accuracy and
precision of the control system lies in a multi-axis
position control CPU. This CPU, under the guid-
ance of custom-tuned proportional-integral-deriva-
tive (PID) controller algorithms, utilizes feedback
from strain gauges, magnetostrictive linear-position
sensors, thermocouples and pressure transducers.
User input to the fixture is recipe-based, whereby a data file with loads, bends, pressures, positions and
timing events is “fed” into the custom control software.

Test Fixture Calibration

Accuracy of the control system of the fixture was quantified with 36⬙ OD ⫻ 2⬙ wall API 5L X-80 pipe
with documented geometry and material properties. With two planes of strain gauges installed at 90° apart
14 OTC-25163-MS

Figure 11—Calibration Experiment Setup

(qty. 4), the pipe was loaded to the limits of the

wellhead system validation test. These combined
loads are presented in Table 2. Because the princi-
pal stress axes of the specimen were known, 90°
tee rosette gauges were used exclusively for their
ability to measure biaxial strain. The two planes,
labeled east and west array, are shown in Figure 11.
API 5C5/ISO 13679 requires an annual calibra-
tion with a national standards body-traceable load
cell at the required capacities, i.e. the scope of
loads used for testing. For a large number of subsea
systems, sub-systems and even many components,
Figure 12—Calibration Specimen in Test Fixture load cells of this size/magnitude are not commer-
cially available. Without the availability of a load
cell traceable to a national standards body, due-
diligence was employed to ensure that the test frame was properly calibrated. Comparisons of commanded
loads and test frame output ensure that the control system is designed to transmit accurate loads into the
test specimen, and live monitoring of strain gauge data throughout testing ensures that these loads are
being transmitted for all load cases. It is recommended that these requirements be used for all systems
lacking the ability to calibrate with such a load cell. For the calibration testing, API 5L pipe was used in
place of the load cell. The test fixture calibration specimen is shown in Figure 12.
Because the control system monitors exact averaged strains between the 2 gauge arrays of the pipe and
adjusts cylinder output to reach the desired strains, within a single microstrain before starting the hold
period, the output of the cylinders based on pressure and cylinder area can be reviewed to ensure adequate
correlation to the target values. The comparison of the control system output, based on real-time strain
gauge readings, and calculated system output, based on real-time cylinder pressures and areas, can be seen
in Figure 13.
Given the fact that all calculated outputs are larger or start larger than the control system outputs,
disparities in these values can be attributed to friction factors. Friction plays a role in the linkages of the
OTC-25163-MS 15

Figure 13—Comparison of Control System and Calculated Outputs

Figure 14 —Comparison of Measured and Theoretical Cylinder Relative Position

16 OTC-25163-MS

Figure 15—HPH & LPH Housing Test Preload

fixture and a major role in the articulating beam, especially in bending, where cylinder loads to induce a
bending moment are relatively small compared to the cylinder loads required to generate tension and
compression at the levels of this test. During bending, the relatively small cylinder loads are increased
until static friction has been overcome in the articulating beam. Once it has been overcome, a certain
amount of the bending overshoot is captured within the system and the applied bending is reduced
accordingly. Another review can be made on the difference in cylinder movement for the various bending
moments applied during the test. As shown in Figure 14, the measured relative cylinder movement (i.e.
the total difference of position in a single axis between the two loading cylinders of the fixture) is
compared to the theoretical cylinder movement at each bending step, based on specimen geometry and
material properties only. This assessment is not made for a direct comparison of values, because the
theoretical values do not account for fixture stiffness, mechanical slack within the system or hysteresis,
but merely to highlight proper trends in the cylinder movement and application of relative loads between
cylinders. The results of this calibration testing are in line with the ability of the control system to output
loads to reach defined strain values. Error in the calibration of this system can be found in the inherent
use of strain gauges, material testing and physical measurement devices.

Wellhead System and Connector Test Setup

The 18-¾⬙ high pressure wellhead housing, was installed and preloaded to the low pressure housing as it
would be in the field condition. The preloading of these housings calculated from test measurements is
shown in Figure 15. This calculation is based on uniform geometry of the two housings at the strain gage
locations. The comparison of measured strains versus analysis strains are presented in Table 3. The
OTC-25163-MS 17

Table 3—Analysis and Test Results Sample Comparison - Rated without PEL

reduction in preload over the installation time period is inherent to the wellhead preload and installation
device.
Two sub-systems, the pressure boundary plug and hydraulic ram for simulated casing weight, were
installed within the high pressure housing in order to facilitate a more accurate representation of subsea
loads and pressures. Pressure has a critical influence on a subsea system. To quantify this influence, a
pressure boundary plug was installed to facilitate 15 ksi or higher pressure applications within the
connector and wellhead bodies. The boundary plug was designed with a floating head and spherical rod
ends to virtually eliminate any stiffness it may have otherwise provided the system during the application
of external loads and/or internal pressure. The wellhead connector was designed for drilling environments
with high bending and tension loads. The annular piston/cam ring provides the preload needed to prevent
hub-face separation. With the use of linear displacement transducers and strain gauges located on the
connector locking segments, the preload between the connector and wellhead, as well as the hub-face
separation, were quantified throughout testing. Strain gauges were installed throughout the wellhead
system. Their locations are detailed Figure 1. The strain data were collected throughout testing and
compared to the analysis strains at respective locations.
Analysis and Test Results Comparison
The 3-D FEA verification was fully completed for the wellhead system that includes the connector and
HPH and LPH assemblies for normal, extreme, and survival conditions at various load combinations as
presented in Table 1. This resulted in a total of 72 analysis case runs, which required significant efforts
18 OTC-25163-MS

Table 4 —Analysis and Test Results Sample Comparison - Extreme without PEL

when considering running time, convergence issue, model calibration, and data post processing. Due to
the time constraints, testing validation was done for 36 load combinations, which is considered a sufficient
number of cases to validate the analysis methodology and shows that the wellhead system confirms to the
specified design limits. For the test cases involving pressure, no signs of leakage or loss of pressure were
observed throughout the testing. This confirmed that the seals performed as intended.
A comparison of analysis and test strain results was performed. Samples of this data comparison are
presented in Table 3 through Table 5. The results indicate that there is a good correlation of analysis and
test data with a match within 1% and with a maximum variation of 11%. These variations are attributed
to several factors assumed to be perfect in the analysis, but in reality are different. Some of the factors
include the strain gage error and orientation/alignment, component tolerances and out-of-roundness
effects, positioning of the non-axisymmetric with respect to the plane of bending, and material properties.
The hub contact which is important for the seal performance, was monitored during testing using linear
displacement transducers, and showed very good correlation with the analysis results.
The wellhead system test specimen was disassembled after testing was completed. An inspection of the
major components was performed and there were no signs of yielding or damage of the wellhead system
components. This is another indication that confirms the validity of the analysis methodology used. A
picture of the disassembled wellhead system is shown in Figure 16.
OTC-25163-MS 19

Table 5—Analysis and Test Results Sample Comparison - Rated with PEL

Figure 16 —Disassembled Wellhead at Connector Interface

20 OTC-25163-MS

Conclusions and Recommendations

A wellhead system evaluation, inclusive of the BOP stack connector, verification analysis and validation
testing has been successfully performed. The validation testing of the wellhead system has provided
critical information that is needed to make proper adjustments to the verification analysis methodology.
Testing has demonstrated that some theoretical assumptions need to be validated first with testing for
accuracy and adjusted accordingly before they can be applied to complex and large systems comprised of
many components and interactions such as a wellhead system. The analysis and test results correlate
closely and are a confirmation of the proper analysis methodology used. Based on the results presented,
it is concluded that the advanced 3-D FEA with appropriate adjustments resulting from testing is a viable
tool for evaluating a full wellhead system. It has been shown that the engineering calculations and 2-D
FEA modeling have their limitations when estimating wellhead system capacities. This effort has helped
to gain a better understanding of the wellhead system and connector interface, and it will be very
beneficial knowledge to be applied for future HPHT development work of 20 ksi (or higher) wellhead
systems.
Limitations
Although the modeling is described in full detail, it is recognized that not all the aspects of the model have
been validated with testing. Casing weights, seals, soils, temperature effects, and cements are excluded for
practical reasons relating to validation testing. Fatigue is not within the scope of this work.
Future Work
In order to gain a more thorough understanding of the wellhead systems, testing will be performed in the
future to address some of the design aspects not covered on this paper.

References
1 API TR 6AF2 Fourth Edition, October 2010: Technical Report on Capabilities of API Integral
Flanges Under Combination of Loading—Phase II
2 API Technical Report 1PER15K-1, First Edition, March 2013: Protocol for Verification and
Validation of High-pressure High-temperature Equipment
3 API Specification16R, First Edition, January 1997: Specification for Marine Drilling Riser
Couplings
4 ANSI/API Specification 17D, Second Edition, May 2011: Design and Operation of Subsea
Production Systems—SubseaWellhead and Tree Equipment
5 ANSI/API Specification 6A, Twentieth Edition, October 2010: Specification for Wellhead and
Christmas Tree Equipment
6 API Standard 2RD Second Edition, September 2013: Dynamic Risers for Floating Production
Systems
7 ANSI/API Recommended Practice 17G, Second Edition, July 2006: Recommended Practice for
Completion/Workover Risers
8 ANSI/API Recommended Practice 5C5, Third Edition, July 2003: Recommended Practice on
Procedures for Testing Casing and Tubing Connections
9 ISO 13679, 2002: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Procedures for Testing Casing and
Tubing Connections
10 2013 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 3
11 2013 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2
OTC-25163-MS 21

Appendix A
The installation and load step sequence appropriate for a wellhead system analysis is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17—Detailed Analysis Steps and Installation Sequence for Wellhead System Verification Analysis