API Subcommittee SC-6 Discussions Valves and Wellhead Equipment API 6A 21st Edition WG API Subcommittee SC-6 Discussions Valves and Wellhead Equipment

Progress Since January Meeting Several TG meetings with focus on comment ballot release Worked to clarify document approach to HPHT for BSEE HPHT presentation A draft document including ordered PDF (90 pages) changes has been generated and circulated for a “comment-only” ballot. The draft contains only proposed technical & editorial changes but no reorganization of content

Work Teams/Captains Documentation Specialist / Jill Bell Design / Jean Brunjes Materials, Welding and Cladding / Sterling Lewis Organization / Eric Wehner Qualification / Tom Lambert Quality / Mike Briggs Documentation Specialist / Jill Bell Co-Chairs / Eric Wehner & David Zollo

Key Items addressed Definition of a manufacturer requirements added Tied pressure / NACE limitations to PSL’s Annex M reworked to move requirements to main body of the document. Annex M is normative. PSL 4 requirements changed to align with potential HPHT requirements (no welding requirement removed) PSL 3 – heat lot traceability requirement added Welding hardness survey requirements removed to default to NACE Minimum clad thickness requirement added Better definition of design criteria when referring to clad thickness

Moved repair Annex J to 6AR Removed Annex H – Tools (TR needed) Key Items addressed Moved repair Annex J to 6AR Removed Annex H – Tools (TR needed) Design rules moved to 6X Defined performance and product testing for bleeder plugs Revised Annex L and added 4” HPVR Added language to reference 20 series specification requirements (castings, bolting-BSL-1 minimum requirement) Eliminated PR1 in Annex F Annex C stud length replaced by AWHEM TR

Clarified Tree Cap dimensions by modifying tables in Annex Key Items addressed Corrected valve bore metric conversion for one set of drifts (mtric/Imperial) Clarified Tree Cap dimensions by modifying tables in Annex

Plan forward Send current draft out as comment only ballot Start reorganization work / Annex Work Annex J replace by 6AR (Circulate Draft Prepared by Ed) Annex H replace with TR (Tools) Annex I & O - Eliminated Resolve comments Reorganize the entire document per Eric’s plan General Defined Equipment (Design excluded) Manufacturer designed equipment Address HPHT Have final document ready for ballot by June 2016

Thoughts on HPHT Approach API Subcommittee SC-6 Discussions Valves and Wellhead Equipment

Scope of 6A 20th Edition Document (Current Code) Includes 2,000 to 20,000 psi working pressure equipment PSL 1,2,3,3G & 4 All PSL’s available for all pressure ratings Sour and non-sour service classes for all pressure ratings Charpy V-notch impact requirements 20 joules (15 ft-lbf) for all PSL Levels Hydrostatic testing to 1.5 times working pressure for 5KSI thru 20KSI equipment & 2 times working pressure for 2&3K Design requirements – self contained: Per ASME BPVC Section VIII Div 2:2004 with some modifications External loading (bending/axial) not explicitly addressed but must be considered when designing casing/tubing heads, tubing-head adapters,OEC’s, tools for running,retrieving, clean-out and testing Current high temperature derating requirements contained in informative Annex G Use of QTC’s for material properties for production components Design validation by means of product testing is an informative requirement Let’s take a minute to review the current scope as it exists in the 20th Edition It includes 2,000 psi to 20,000 psi working pressure equipment There are five different Product Specification Levels. PSL 1 through 4 with increasing requirements and a PSL 3G which adds gas testing to the popular PSL 3. Over the years, PSL 3 has become the standard for critical equipment. PSL 4 is rarely used. Currently all PSL’s are available for all pressure ratings so you can have 20,000 psi working pressure equipment with PSL 1 requirements Sour and non-sour service classes are available for all working pressures, allowing for high pressure equipment to be rated for sweet service Impact requirements are 20 joules or 15 ft-lbf for all PSL Levels Hydrostatic testing to 1.5 times working pressure for 5KSI thru 20KSI equipment & 2 times working pressure for 2K & 3K equipment The design requirements are self contained in Clause 4 and follow the rules of ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII Div 2:2004 with some modifications External loading created by bending moments and axial forces are not explicitly addressed but must be considered when designing casing and tubing heads, tubing-head adapters, Other End Connectors, as well as for tools for running, retrieving, clean-out and testing Current high temperature derating requirements contained in informative Annex G including alternate material derating factors generated by AWHEM several years ago Use of QTC’s for material properties for production components Design validation by means of product testing is contained in Annex F which is an informative requirement

Existing Supporting Technical Reports Referenced in API 6A API TR 6AF, Technical Report on Capabilities of API Flanges Under Combinations of Load API Spec 6A API TR 6AF API TR 6AF2 API TR 6AF1 API TR 6AF1, Technical Report on Temperature Derating on API Flanges Under Combination of Loading API TR 6AF2, Technical Report on Capabilities of API Integral Flanges Under Combination of Loading —Phase II API 6A references these three technical reports to address combinations of loading and temperature deratings for the entire family of flange sizes. The 6AF technical report presents the results of analysis work with different load conditions: Makeup, Pressure, Tension, and Bending Moment to establish the load capacity of all flanges given in the April 1986 Editions of API 6A and API 6AB. API 6AB covered 1-13/16 through 7-1/16 30,000 psi flanges but has been withdrawn. API TR 6AF1 adds in 350F and 650F temperature derating considerations and drops the withdrawn 6AB flanges. API TR 6AF2 builds off API TR 6AF by adding a thermal component of 250F internal temperature and 30F external temperature and addresses all flanges sizes in API 6A 16th Edition. It also adds in the effects of lockscrews on flange loading capability.

API 6A 21st Edition Reorganization Proposal Annexes Stud Sizing Purchasing Heat Treat Qualification Elevated Temperature Unit Conversion Flange Bolt Torque Special Equipment Monogramming Validation General Requirements Manufacturer Design Equipment Legacy As soon as the draft ballot is circulated, we will start on reorganization of the document with hopes of reducing the overall size and making things easier to find The chart shows some current thoughts around a reorganization strategy to better accommodate HPHT while still maintaining legacy equipment. Some of the existing Annexes will be moved to separate documents such as tooling, Repair and Remanufacture and Design validation procedures for surface safety valves and underwater safety valves

API 21st Edition / HPHT Alignment Approach 6A HPHT Materials Design Validation QC With that overview in mind, let’s talk a little bit about HPHT alignment. We see the alignment with HPHT as a four pronged approach. The four elements we will need to address are: Materials Design Validation Quality Control

API 21st Edition / HPHT Alignment Approach 6A HPHT Materials Design Validation QC Let’s start with Materials and Quality Control

Materials & QC Changes Target PSL 4 for HPHT - Bodies and Bonnets (Pressure Containing Equipment) Remove weld repair restriction to make PSL 4 usable Require prolongation or sacrificial part for material property tests Test location shall be at T/4 of prolongation or thickest section of sacrificial part Testing per heat treat batch Separate quench loads not allowed with just single prolongation BSL 3 per 20E bolting requirement (Closure Bolting) Stud/nut hardness matching 20H HSL level 2 or 3 Furnace Calibration requirement 2 = tighter calibration and survey requirements 3 = full AMS 2750 compliance AWHEM material derating factors normative in the absence of actual test data High strength nickel alloy requirements in conformance with API 6A-CRA Sour service compliance per NACE MR0175 mandatory to eliminate fouling situations where a “sweet” service well sours beyond NACE limits Materials & QC Changes As I stated earlier PSL 4 has been relatively unused. This is mainly due in large part to its restriction for weld repair. We have decided to target PSL 4 for HPHT Bodies and Bonnets or Pressure Containing Equipment. Some of the changes that we have made are Remove weld repair restriction to make PSL 4 more usable Require prolongation or sacrificial part for material property tests Test location shall be at T/4 of prolongation or thickest section of sacrificial part Testing per heat treat batch would be required Separate quench loads not allowed with just single prolongation BSL 3 per 20E would be a requirement for closure bolting. One key aspect is that it drives higher NDE requirements on bolting raw material. Stud and nut hardness matching would be a requirement 20H HSL level 2 or 3 Furnace Calibration requirement is a consideration 2 = tighter calibration and survey requirements 3 = full AMS 2750 compliance which includes very detailed requirements for temperature sensors, instrumentation, furnaces, system accuracy tests, surveys, records, and quality assurance. 6 Furnace classes and 5 instrumentation types. Different requirements based on furnace class and instrumentation type AWHEM material derating factors will be normative in the absence of actual test data High strength nickel alloy requirements will be in conformance with API 6A-CRA Sour service compliance per NACE MR0175 will be mandatory to eliminate fouling situations where a “sweet” service well sours beyond NACE limits due to higher operating pressures

API 21st Edition / HPHT Alignment Approach 6A HPHT Materials Design Validation QC Let’s talk a little bit about our approach to design

Design (≤ 15K Per Current 17TR8) ASME Section VIII Div2 with API allowable stresses ASME Section VIII Div2 with API material properties Prior to work on the 6A 21st Edition, SC-6 moved forward with a joint task group from SC 6, SC 16, and SC 17 to create a Standard based on ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2, Appendix 4 (2004 edition with 2005 and 2006 addenda). It includes further limits established for oil and gas products as determined by API standardization committees. This is API Std 6X. Like the ASME code, it allows for three methods of analysis (Click)A linear elastic analysis (Click)A non-linear elastic perfectly plastic analysis method (Click)A true-stress true – true strain For select failure mode only (unusual) to address serviceability or functional problems caused by high strain – eg. Threads, sealing mechanisms 17TR8 was created and given to the various subcommittees to determine how best to incorporate the principles of 17TR8 into the various product specs This slide walks through the logic of 17TR8 for equipment less than or equal to 15K and as you can see it follows a path through API Standard 6X. For select failure mode only (unusual)

Design (>15K ≤20K Per Current 17TR8) If we follow 17TR8 for equipment greater than 15K and less than 20K, it takes us through the ASME Section VIII, Div 2 and would drive us to either linear elastic analysis with strain based limits on the amount of yielding through the thick wall sections or true-stress-true-strain analysis. This in fact eliminates a very valuable method of elastically-perfectly plastic analysis. 6X has a subset of this method called limit load analysis which incorporates small strain theory to predict collapse and has proven to be a reliable method for 6A components. Next Slide

Assess legacy 20K Flanges with newer methods Design Assess legacy 20K Flanges with newer methods Add Wall Thickness Caveat Statement to 6A/6X. Cannot Average Stresses in Thick Wall A path we would propose and is something we are working on in concert with the 17TR8 design and analysis committee as well as the authors of 6X. It would enable a single design method for 6A equipment It would also incorporate the fatigue screening methodology currently in 17TR8 We would also propose an assessment of the legacy 20K flanges with the newer design methods We would also propose some validation but we will talk about that in the next section PR2/PR3 PR4

Fatigue screening requirements per 17TR8? For fatigue screening, we have legacy designs that are justified based on documented field history and successful performance. This is permitted under ASME BPVC Section 8, Div. 2 Paragraph 5.5.2. “Provisions of paragraph 5.5.2.2, Experience with comparable equipment operating under similar conditions.”   For designs where equivalency to a legacy design cannot be established, a fatigue screening analysis would have to be performed for each application to determine the necessity as well as the method to be used for fatigue analysis. Using the SN method, a screening can be conducted on high stress concentration areas to assess fatigue life and necessity to do a more exhaustive fatigue analysis. For fatigue screening, we have legacy designs that are justified based on documented field history and successful performance. This is permitted under ASME BPVC Section 8, Div. 2 Paragraph 5.5.2. “Provisions of paragraph 5.5.2.2, Experience with comparable equipment operating under similar conditions.” For designs where equivalency to a legacy design cannot be established, a fatigue screening analysis would have to be performed for each application to determine the necessity as well as the method to be used for fatigue analysis. Using the SN method, a screening can be conducted on high stress concentration areas to assess fatigue life and necessity to do a more exhaustive fatigue analysis.

API 21st Edition / HPHT Alignment Approach 6A HPHT Materials Design Validation QC Let’s talk about validation

Validation Currently validation via prototype testing is not a normative requirement (Annex F is Informative) 17TR8 dictates that a FMEA (failure modes and effects analysis) be conducted in order to develop an appropriate validation program Guidance for PR3 & PR4 testing are included in 17TR8 Validation As I stated earlier, currently validation via prototype testing is not a normative requirement (Annex F is Informative) and will most likely remain that way 17TR8 dictates that a FMEA (failure modes and effects analysis) be conducted in order to develop an appropriate validation program Guidance for PR3 & PR4 testing are included in 17TR8 (see next slide)

expansion coefficient that may result in excessive relative movement); PR2 As described in API 6A Annex F PR3 The validation testing requirements of PR2 plus the addition of the appropriate tests below: Elevated Temperature Performance Testing Mating component validation Additional thermal cycling Endurance cycling testing PR4 The validation testing requirements of PR3 plus the additional procedures associated with validating the design verification process of with respect to fatigue sensitive components through one of the following methods: strain-gauging program of a representative specimen or component comparison (FEA) results Component fatigue testing The recommendation here would be to follow a program based on analysis to provide for functionality in light of HPHT conditions for the equipment For non-fatigue sensitive equipment one would follow the PR2 or PR3 path depending on functional requirements of the equipment or life expectations If you were to take the fatigue sensitive path in the design diagram than the more rigorous testing per PR4 would be required The challenge will be to ensure that analysis is thorough enough to consider all effects of the HPHT exposure additional performance validation testing at elevated operating temperature in an operating environment; 2) validation of interaction between mating parts that may have varying thermal properties (e.g. different thermal expansion coefficient that may result in excessive relative movement); 3) additional thermal cycles beyond a governing product specification; 4) validation of the equipment plastic shakedown behavior; 5) modification of the defined validation program that cites endurance cycling tests (such as opening or closing at rated working pressure of valves/chokes/actuators) could be conducted in three (3) groups at defined temperature parameters (e.g. elevated, room, and minimum).

API 21st Edition / HPHT Alignment Approach 6A HPHT Materials Design Validation QC

Global Plastic Collapse per API STD 6X Workgroup Proposal Analysis approach to 20K - Elastic Perfectly Plastic w/Large Strain Potential API TR “6AF3” This is (Limit analysis in 6X with large displacement) (Ref. API Std 6X Clause 6.2   We would take a different approach from the ASME methods and support our approach via some comparative analysis of existing 20K API flanges Leakage Criteria Separation threshold Flange Stresses 1.5 x Working Pressure Bolting Stresses 83% of yield w/temperature derating? OR Per 6X Limit Analysis Global Plastic Collapse per API STD 6X Tri-axial Stress (Div 2:5.3.2) Ratcheting (Div 2: 5.5.7) Proposal Per 5/11/15 meeting with Paul Bunch, John Fowler, Nigel McKie, David Zollo HPHT Design Flow-Chart From 17TR8 Figure 1