Joint Industry Project (JIP) : Report No.: 2022-0819, Rev. 01 Document No.: 1261742 Date: 2022-07-04

Joint Industry Project (JIP)
Report No.: 2022-0819, Rev. 01

Document No.: 1261742
Date: 2022-07-04
Project name: DNV AS Oil & Gas
Report title: Guideline for Design and Qualification of Composite Pipes Materials & Structural Integrity - Oslo
for Downhole casing and tubing (CDCT) Veritasveien 1
Customer: Joint Industry Project (JIP), 1363 Høvik
Veritasveien 1 Norway
1363 Høvik Tel:
Norway 945 748 931
Customer contact: JIP
Date of issue: 2022-07-04
Project No.: 10256264
Organization unit: Materials & Structural Integrity - Oslo
Report No.: 2022-0819, Rev. 01
Document No.: 1261742
Applicable contract(s) governing the provision of this Report:
Objective:
Objective of the Joint Industry Project (JIP) is to devise a design methodology and qualification rules for use of composites
pipes for downhole casing and tubing in the Oil and Gas, Geothermal, CCS and Hydrogen industry.
Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by:
Andreas Echtermeyer Ali Bahtui Gustav Heiberg

Senior Principal Engineer Principal Engineer Head of section - Structural Integrity Advisory
Ramin Moslemian Odd Sund

Principal Consultant Principal Engineer
Copyright © DNV 2022. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise agreed in writing: (i) This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in
any form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise; (ii) The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer; (iii) No third party may rely on
its contents; and (iv) DNV undertakes no duty of care toward any third party. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited.
DNV Distribution: Keywords:

☐ OPEN. Unrestricted distribution, internal and external. Composite pipes, Downhole, Casing, Tubing, Well,
☐ INTERNAL use only. Internal DNV document. Oil and gas, Geothermal, Hydrogen and CCS.
☒ CONFIDENTIAL. Distribution within DNV according to applicable
contract.*
☐ SECRET. Authorized access only.
*Specify distribution:
Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by
01 2022-07-04 First issue Andreas Echtermeyer Ali Bahtui Gustav Heiberg
Page 2 of 132
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION 12
1.1 Objectives 12
1.2 Scope 12
1.3 Definitions 13
1.3.1 Downhole casing 13
1.3.2 Downhole tubing 13
1.4 Referenced standards and codes 13

1.4.1 Relationship to other standards and codes 13
1.4.2 DNV standards 13
1.4.3 DNV classification notes 13
1.4.4 Other standards and codes 14
2 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 15
2.1 Downhole casing and tubing general design process 15
2.2 Safety philosophy 16

2.2.1 General philosophy 16
2.2.2 Safety classes 16
2.3 Design format 16

2.3.1 Design by the partial safety factor methodology 16
2.3.2 Structural reliability analysis 17
2.3.3 Limit states 17
2.4 Design methodology 17

2.4.1 Performance envelope 17
2.4.2 Format of performance envelope 20
2.4.3 Performance envelope of pipe-body and fittings/connections 20
2.4.4 Short-term performance envelope 21
2.4.5 Long-term performance envelope 21
2.4.6 Storage and transportation 22
2.5 CDCT classification 22
2.6 Limited CDCT qualification based on experience 22
3 DESIGN BASIS 24
3.1 Introduction 24
3.2 Product description 24

3.2.1 Thermoset polymer matrix CDCT 24
3.2.2 Thermoplastic polymer matrix CDCT 24
Page 3 of 132
3.3 Application 24
3.4 Phases 24
3.5 Safety classes 25
3.6 Functional and System Requirements 25

3.6.1 General 25
3.6.2 Specific requirements 25
3.7 Loads 28
3.7.1 General 28
3.7.2 Installation loads 29
3.7.2.1 Overview 29
3.7.2.2 Pressure 29
3.7.2.3 Axial load 29
3.7.2.4 Bending loads 30
3.7.2.5 Torsion loads 30
3.7.2.6 Point loads 30
3.7.2.7 Impact loads 30
3.7.3 Long-term loads 31
3.7.3.1 Overview 31
3.7.3.2 Pressure 31
3.7.3.3 Axial load 32
3.7.3.4 Bending loads 32
3.7.3.5 Torsional loads 32
3.7.3.6 Sustained point loads 32
3.7.4 CDCT after decommissioning and abandoning the well 32
3.8 Service/Environmental Conditions 32

3.8.1 Overview 32
3.8.2 Service conditions in transportation, storage, and installation 33
3.8.3 Service conditions in operation and decommissioning 33
4 MATERIALS 34
4.1 Introduction 34
4.2 Test specimens manufacturing 34
4.3 Conditioning and testing of specimens 35
4.4 Liner and cover 36

4.4.1 General 36
4.4.2 Static short-term properties of liner and cover 36
4.4.3 Long-term mechanical properties of liner and cover 37
4.5 Composite Laminate 38

4.5.1 General 38
4.5.2 Static short-term laminate and ply properties 39
4.5.3 Laminate with 2α ≥ 70o 41
4.5.4 Long-term laminate and ply properties 41
4.5.5 Test method for transverse fatigue 43
Page 4 of 132
4.6 Using representative data and similar materials 44
4.6.1 General 44
4.6.2 Physical similarity requirements for non-reinforced polymers 44
4.6.3 Physical similarity requirements for composite laminates 44
4.6.4 Requirements for similarity of mechanical static properties 44
4.6.5 Requirements for similarity of mechanical long-term properties 45
4.6.6 Similarity requirements - exposure conditions 45
4.7 Non-critical properties 45

4.7.1 Non-critical static properties 45
4.7.2 Non-critical long-term properties, static or cyclic fatigue 45
4.7.3 Obtaining noncritical properties 46
4.8 Effect of the environment on material properties 46

4.8.1 General 46
4.8.2 Environmental effects for oil and gas production 47
4.8.3 Environmental effects for CO2 storage in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) 47
4.8.4 Environmental effects for hydrogen storage 47
4.8.5 Environmental effects for geothermal applications 47
4.8.6 Thermal Fatigue 47
5 FAILURE MECHANISMS AND DESIGN CRITERIA 48
5.1 Introduction 48
5.2 Critical failure mechanisms 48
5.3 Fiber-dominated ply failure 49

5.3.1 General 49
5.3.2 Maximum strain and stress design criteria 49
5.3.3 Obtaining strength data 50
5.4 Micro matrix cracking 50

5.4.1 General 50
5.4.2 Simple stress design criterion for micro matrix cracking 51
5.4.3 Obtaining strength data 52
5.4.4 Yielding of the matrix in a ply 52
5.4.5 Puck criterion 52
5.4.6 Alternative design criteria 52
5.5 Delamination 52
5.5.1 General 52
5.5.2 Design criterion 52
5.5.3 Fracture mechanics-based design criterion 53
5.6 Macro matrix crack / Laminate failure 53

5.6.1 General 53
5.6.2 Maximum strain/stress criterion for macro matrix cracks / laminate failure. 53
5.7 Weeping and excessive permeation 54

5.7.1 General 54
5.7.2 CDCT with liner/cover 54
5.7.3 CDCT without liner/cover 54
Page 5 of 132
5.8 Polymer fracture for thermoplastic composite based CDTC 55
5.9 Plastic deformation, yielding of isotropic materials 56
5.10 Maximum deformation 57

5.10.1 General 57
5.10.2 Axial deformation 57
5.10.3 Ovalization 57
5.10.4 Accumulated deformation 58
5.11 Debonding of CDCT 58
5.12 Crazing, cracking 58
5.13 Buckling 59
5.13.1 General 59
5.13.2 Collapse 59
5.13.3 Axial buckling 59
5.14 Cyclic fatigue 59
5.15 Stress rupture 60

5.15.1 General 60
5.15.2 Fiber-dominated failure – stress rupture 61
5.15.3 Through-thickness delamination and debonding – stress rupture 61
5.15.4 Matrix cracking - stress rupture 61
5.15.5 Macro matrix cracking / Laminate failure - stress rupture 62
5.15.6 Polymer fracture of the liner or cover for thermoplastic composite based CDCT – in-plane stress rupture 62
5.15.7 Liner and cover through thickness shear stress rupture for thermoplastic composite based CDCT 62
5.16 Combination of cyclic fatigue and stress rupture 62
5.17 Stress relaxation 62
6 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PIPE BODY AND END FITTING 63
6.1 Introduction 63
6.2 General design criteria 63

6.2.1 Rupture - burst 63
6.2.2 Fluid tightness – permeability 63
6.2.3 Point loads 63
6.2.4 Impact 63
6.2.5 Puncturing, Scratches and Sharp points 64
6.2.6 Wear and tear 64
6.2.7 Rapid gas decompression - blistering resistance 64
6.2.8 Interaction with the environment - chemicals / fluids and temperature 64
6.2.9 Torsional balance 65
6.2.10 Corrosion protection 65
6.2.11 Recoverability and reusability 65
6.2.12 Exothermal chemical reaction cleaning 65
6.2.13 Splices in the laminate 65
6.2.14 Reeling 65
Page 6 of 132
6.2.15 Electrostatic charge build-up 65
6.2.16 Buoyancy and weights 65
6.2.17 Requirements for other design criteria 65
6.3 Design Criteria for pipe body 66

6.3.1 Introduction 66
6.3.2 Pipe body parts 66
6.3.2.1 Laminate 66
6.3.2.2 Liner in thermoplastic composite based CDCT 66
6.3.2.3 Cover in thermoplastic composite based CDCT 67
6.4 END FITTING DESIGN CRITERIA 68

6.4.1 Introduction 68
6.4.2 Failure mode evaluation analysis for end fittings 69
6.4.3 Metal components 69
6.4.4 Liner, laminate and cover - fluid tightness 69
6.4.5 Ballooning of the thermoplastic composite pipe 70
6.4.6 Welding of metallic components 70
6.4.7 Axial load and bending capacity 70
6.4.8 Galvanic protection 70
6.4.9 End fittings relying on friction 70
7 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 72
7.1 Introduction 72
7.1.1 General 72
7.1.2 Highly nonlinear systems 72
7.2 Local analysis 73

7.2.1 General 73
7.2.2 Input data 73
7.2.3 Analysis types 73
7.2.4 Local linear analysis with degraded properties 74
7.2.5 Local progressive failure analysis 74
7.2.6 Degraded elastic properties 74
7.2.7 Analytical methods 75
7.2.8 Local finite element analysis 75
7.3 Thermal strains and stresses 75
7.4 Swelling or shrinkage effects 76
7.5 Buckling 76
7.6 Partial load-model factor 77

7.6.1 General 77
7.6.2 Connection between partial load-model factor and analytical analysis 77
7.6.3 Connection between partial load-model factor and finite element analysis 77
7.7 Material properties 78
7.8 Geometric parameters 78
Page 7 of 132
7.9 Design temperatures – thermal conditions 78
7.10 Calculated design pressures 78
7.11 Point loads and Impact response 78
8 MEDIUM CONFIRMATION AND FULL-SCALE TESTING 79
8.1 General 79
8.2 Confirmation testing for CDCT product families 79

8.2.1 Overview 79
8.2.2 Product Family Description 79
8.3 Confirmation PFR testing for CDCT 79

8.3.1 Short-term PFR test types 79
8.3.1.1 Test program 79
8.3.1.2 Validation of short-term PFR tests for CDCT 80
8.3.1.3 Matrix behavior after initiation of damage 81
8.3.2 Long-term PFR test types for CDCT 81
8.3.2.2 Validation of long-term PFR tests for CDCT 82
8.3.2.3 Stepwise validation tests for long term properties 82
8.4 Full scale tests for product family variants (PV) including the PFR 83
8.4.1 General 83
8.4.1.1 Overview 83
8.4.1.2 Selection of specimens 83
8.4.1.3 Permitted modifications to actual end fittings for testing 84
8.4.1.4 Conditioning/reeling and combining of specimens 84
8.4.1.5 Pressurizing according to Factory Acceptance Test 84
8.4.2 Short-term Product Variant tests 84
8.4.2.2 Validation of short-term PV tests 84
8.4.3 Long-term PV test types 85
8.5 Point load test 85

8.5.1 General 85
8.5.2 Testing based on specified point loads 86
8.5.3 Testing based on defining point load limits 86
8.5.4 Testing for permanent service after exposure to a point load 86
9 PERFORMANCE ENVELOPES 86
9.1 Introduction 86
9.2 Loads and Axes of the performance envelopes 88
9.3 Principles for calculating partial performance envelopes for an individual failure mechanism of one component. 90
9.3.1 Overview 90
Page 8 of 132
9.3.2 Method to obtain a partial performance envelope for a single failure mechanism, at one temperature and
environment at a certain lifetime. 90
9.3.3 Bending moments and torsional moments in a partial performance envelope 91
9.3.3.1 Bending moments 91
9.3.3.2 Torsional moments 91
9.3.3.3 Bending and torsional moments 91
9.3.4 Point loads in a partial performance envelope 91
9.3.4.1 Minimal effect 91
9.3.4.2 Add to existing loads 91
9.4 Performance Envelope as combination of several partial envelopes 92
9.5 Simplified Performance Envelope 92
10 SAFETY FACTORS 94
10.1 Introduction 94
10.2 Partial load factors 94
10.3 Partial resistance factors 95
10.4 Load model factors 95
10.5 Resistance model factors 95
10.6 System effect factor 96
10.7 Static and cyclic fatigue safety factors 96
10.8 Safety factors for reeling 96
11 OPERATIONAL PHASE: INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS 98
11.1 Inspection 98
11.2 Maintenance 98
11.3 Repair 98
11.4 Decommissioning 98
12 PRODUCTION QA TEST REQUIREMENTS 99
12.2 Discontinuities and repairs in production 99
12.3 Changing pipe body or end fitting production equipment or assembly 99
12.4 Inspection 99
Page 9 of 132
12.5 Factory acceptance tests 99
12.5.1 Hydrostatic pressure test 99
12.5.2 Electrical conductivity and resistance test 100
12.5.3 Gas venting system test 100
12.5.4 Inner liner test requirements 100
12.5.5 Cover test requirements 100
12.5.6 Specimen geometry 100
12.5.7 Gauge test 100
12.6 Periodic destructive quality tests 100
12.7 QA of end fitting assembly 101
13 APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL 102
14 APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE 103

14.1.1 Overview 103
14.1.2 Geometry 103
14.1.3 Laminates [±10,±852] and [±55] 103
14.1.4 Performance Envelopes - Format 104
14.1.5 Structural analysis in this example 104
14.1.6 Failure criteria to consider 104
14.1.7 Safety class 105
14.2 Material Properties 105

14.2.1 Overview 105
14.2.2 Static short-term values 106
14.2.3 Temperature dependent properties 107
14.2.4 Effect from matrix cracks 107
14.2.5 Effect of fluids on the material properties 107
14.2.6 Stress rupture 108
14.2.7 Complete set of material properties 109
14.3 Performance envelope for matrix cracking (CDCT with no liner and cover) 109
14.3.1 Overview 109
14.3.2 Matrix cracking 110
14.3.2.1 Failure criteria and strength 110
14.3.3 Anchor points and minimal performance envelope 112
14.3.4 Other performance envelopes 112
14.4 Performance envelope for all failure mechanisms (CDCT with liner and cover) 112
14.4.1 Overview 112
14.4.2 Effect of matrix cracking on mechanical properties. 112
14.4.3 Fiber dominated static failure – short-term dry 113
14.4.4 Macro Matrix Cracking – Laminate failure 114
14.4.5 Buckling (axial) and Collapse (hoop) 115
14.4.6 Yielding of liner and cover 117
14.4.7 Long-term properties, 1 year stress rupture and no effect fluids 118
14.4.8 Effect of Torsion 119
14.4.9 Long-term properties, 50 years stress rupture and fluids 119
Page 10 of 132
14.4.10 Other aspects 120
14.4.10.1 Effect of temperature 120
14.4.10.2 Debonding of metal end fitting 120
14.4.10.3 Cyclic fatigue 120
14.4.10.4 Point loads 120
14.5 Inner performance envelopes 121

14.5.1 Overview 121
14.5.2 Inner performance envelopes with liner/cover 121
14.5.3 Inner performance envelopes without liner/cover 123
14.6 Test envelopes 124

14.6.1 Overview 124
14.6.2 Without torsion 125
14.6.3 With torsion 126
14.7 Matrix cracking – non-critical properties 126
14.8 Other formats for performance envelopes 128

14.8.1 Overview 128
14.8.2 Changing from effective axial stress to external axial stress 128
14.8.3 Changing hoop stress to pressure 129
14.8.4 Changing external axial stress to external axial force 130
14.8.5 Reversed axes 131
Page 11 of 132
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives
This guideline describes a design methodology and requirements for Composite Pipes for Downhole Casing and Tubing (CDCT).
The guideline is intended for:
1. Oil and gas applications, storage space for CO2 in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), natural gas, hydrogen and
geothermal heat which need pipe systems downhole in the well.
2. Suppliers of CDCT and suppliers of raw materials for CDCT (Composite Downhole Casing and Tubing).
3. Operators, contractors and others seeking acceptance for using CDCT in downhole applications.
4. Suppliers and purchasers of CDCTs who need a common technical basis for contractual reference.
This guideline is intended to build trust and confidence in CDCTs being safe and reliable for use in well design and utilization.
Further, it has the objective of promoting continued innovation and technology development reducing the risk, cost and
environmental footprint of downhole operations.
A performance-based qualification method is adopted in the guideline, and it has been tried to avoid descriptive technical solutions,
as they may hinder technology development and limit the opportunities for industry to find and implement cost-effective solutions.
Furthermore, in complex applications such as well construction, it will be challenging to devise descriptive rigid requirements
suitable for various conditions and technologies.
The guideline is written in the format of a typical DNV Recommended Practice (RP) with the intention of further developments and
eventually turning into a DNV Recommended Practice.
1.2 Scope
This guideline describes the design and qualification of CDCT. Short and long-term performance is covered. Two CDCT
technologies in terms of composite materials and manufacturing technologies are included in the scope of guideline:
1. Thermoset composites based CDCT: manufactured from thermoset resins such as epoxy and glass and/or carbon fibers.
2. Thermoplastic composites based CDCT: manufactured from thermoplastic resins and glass and/or carbon fibers.
The general configuration of each CDCT is described in Section 3.2.
The guideline describes the structural capacity and performance envelopes of CDCT against the loads and environments during
the entire life cycle of the CDCTs from manufacturing to decommissioning. The typical loads include the below loads and their
combinations:
• Pressure (internal and external).
• Axial load (tension and compression).
• Torsion.
• Bending.
• Point loads.
• This guideline is limited to no or minimal number of cycles from fatigue loading.
The main objective of the guideline is to establish the performance envelope of the CDCT until end-of-life condition. In a typical
well construction, designers have to estimate the load levels in various phases and compare them with the performance envelope
Page 12 of 132
of the CDCT. Methodologies for estimation of such loads are outside the scope of this guideline and conventional methods with
appropriate and specified modifications can be used for this purpose.
1.3 Definitions
1.3.1 Downhole casing
Wells which are drilled for petroleum production, underground injection and storage or geothermal energy harvesting, should be
cased to maintain well stability, prevent contamination and emission, isolate water from the reservoir, and control well pressures
during various phases of life cycle of wells. Blow out preventers (BOP), wellhead equipment, production packers, and production
tubing are installed on and in the casing.
1.3.2 Downhole tubing

Tubing is the fluid conduit from the reservoir to the surface for production wells and the opposite for storage wells and possibly
production intervention.
1.4 Referenced standards and codes
1.4.1 Relationship to other standards and codes

The following standards and codes include requirements which, by being referred to in the text, constitute requirements of this
document.
References are defined as either normative or informative. Normative references in this document are mandatory for the
document's application. Informative references provide additional information intended to assist the understanding or use of the
document.
Normative references are typically referred to as ‘testing shall be performed in accordance with a specified standard, while
informative references are typically referred to as ‘testing may be performed in accordance with a specified standard, or ‘for testing,
reference is given’ to a specified standard.
In the case of conflict between requirements of this document and a referenced DNV service document, the requirements of the
document with the latest revision date shall prevail. Any conflict is intended to be removed in the next revision of that document.
If a DNV document is referenced with a date, the version with that date shall be used.
Where reference is made to standards and codes other than DNV service documents, the referenced version should be
understood to be the version which was current at the date of issue of this standard.
1.4.2 DNV standards

Document code Title
DNV-ST-F119 Thermoplastic Composite Pipes
DNV-ST-C501 Composite Components
1.4.3 DNV classification notes
Document code Title
DNV Classification Note No. 30.6 Structural reliability analysis of marine structures
Page 13 of 132
1.4.4 Other standards and codes
Document code Title
ASTM D1044 Standard Test Method for Resistance of Transparent Plastics to Surface Abrasion
API 17 J / ISO 13628-2 Specification for Unbonded Flexible Pipe
ASTM C177 Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal
Transmission Properties by Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus
ASTM C518 Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the
Heat Flow Meter Apparatus
ASTM D1505 Standard Test Method for Density of plastics by the Density-gradient Technique
ASTM D256 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Izod Pendulum Impact Resistance of Plastics
ASTM D4060 Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser
ASTM D638 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics
ASTM E1269 Standard Test Method for Determining Specific Heat Capacity by Differential Scanning
Calorimetry
ASTM E831 Standard Test Method for Linear Thermal Expansion of Solid Materials by
Thermomechanical Analysis
ISO 11357-1 Plastics – Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) – Part 1: General principles
ISO 11357-4 Plastics – Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) – Part 4: Determination of specific heat
capacity
ISO 11359-2 Plastics – Thermo mechanical analysis (TMA) – Part 2: Determination of coefficient of
linear thermal expansion and glass transition temperature
ISO 1183 Plastics: Methods for determining the density of non-cellular plastics
ISO 175 Methods of test for the determination of the effects of immersion in liquid chemicals
ISO 179 Plastics- Determination of Charpy impact properties
ISO 2394 General principles on reliability for structures
ISO 527-1 Plastics- Determination of tensile properties - Part 1: General principles
ISO 527-2 Plastics- Determination of tensile properties - Part 2: Test conditions for molding and
extrusion plastics
14
2 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
2.1 Downhole casing and tubing general design process

The main function of casing pipes is to support the walls of wells to ensure the normal operation of the well after drilling and
completion. Tubing runs down into the well within the casing allowing fluid from the formation to flow to the surface. For storage
applications the fluid runs in the opposite direction.
In downhole casing and tubing design, there are typically two phases. The first one is a preliminary design and the second one is
a detailed design. After collection of the data describing the characteristics of the reservoir, well designers estimate the preliminary
design parameters such as casing set-up depth and number of strings, equipment selection and considerations for other various
aspects of construction.
In the detailed design phase, well designers perform detailed calculations in order to select casing and tubing (size, type,
connection, etc.) for various strings based on the preliminary design. Each string of pipe is selected by using the performance
envelope of the pipe and estimation of conditions the pipes will be exposed to from installation to operation and eventually plugging
and abandoning the well.
These conditions include for example:
• Geothermal conditions i.e., formation temperature along the well.
• Fluid characteristic i.e., fluid composition and temperature.
• Load cases such as internal/external pressure, axial load, bending, torsion and point loads.
• Service life and fluids.
The design process is schematically shown in Figure 2-1.
Preliminary
Well Design
Detailed Design
Fluid Geothermal Performance

Load Cases
Characteristics Conditions Envelope
Figure 2-1: Typical downhole casing and tubing design and selection process.
The selection of casing and tubing is typically done from an inventory of tubes with already established and qualified performance
envelopes divided into various family classes of tubes with different load ratings as well as well fluid and geothermal resistances.
This guideline is limited to design methodology and qualification of performance envelope for thermoset and thermoplastic based
fiber reinforced polymer pipes as indicated in Figure 2-1.
15
2.2 Safety philosophy
2.2.1 General philosophy
The general safety philosophy adopted in the guideline is as described in:
— DNV-ST-C501 for general applications of Thermoset Composites
— DNV-ST-F119 for Thermoplastic Composite Pipes (TCP)
An overall safety objective shall be established, planned and implemented covering all phases of life cycle from conceptual
development until the decommissioning of the well.
The guideline allows CDCT to be designed with different structural safety requirements, depending on the safety class to which
the structure or part of the structure belongs. Safety classes are based on the consequence of failures related to the ultimate limit
state (ULS) or long-term limit state.
The structural reliability of CDCT is ensured by using partial safety factors specified in the guideline. Partial safety factors are
calibrated to meet given target probabilities of failure and structural reliability levels.
This guideline´s safety philosophy requires that design and manufacturing errors and variations shall be defined and controlled
by requirements relating to the choice of manufacturing technology, organization of the work, competence of persons performing
the work, verification of the design, and quality assurance during all relevant phases.
Production control shall as a minimum meet the requirements of Section 12.
2.2.2 Safety classes

Safety classes are based on the consequences of failure. The safety classes are defined as (from DNV-ST-F201):
1. Safety class medium: for conditions where failure implies a risk of human injury, significant environmental pollution or
very high economic or political consequences.
2. Safety class high: for operating conditions where failure implies a high risk of human injury, significant environmental
pollution or very high economic or political consequences.
For CDCT applications the below categorization of safety classes in Table 2-1 is suggested. Otherwise, the safety adopted safety
classes should be agreed with operators.
Table 2-1: Suggested safety classes for CDCT applications.
Application and safety class Production Storage
Oil, Gas and Hydrogen High High
CO2 (Carbon Capture and Storage) - Medium
Geothermal Medium -
2.3 Design format

2.3.1 Design by the partial safety factor methodology
The partial safety factor method separates the influence of uncertainties and variability originating from different causes. Partial
safety factors are assigned to variables such as load effect and resistance variables. They are applied as factors on specified
characteristic values of these load and resistance variables, thereby defining design values of these variables for use in design
16
calculations, and thereby accounting for possible unfavourable deviations of the basic variables from their characteristic values.
The partial safety factors are given in Section 10.
The variables' characteristic values are selected representative values of the variables, usually specified as specific quantiles in
their respective probability distributions, e.g., an upper-tail quantile for load and a lower-tail quantile for resistance. The values of
the partial safety factors are calibrated, e.g., by means of a probabilistic analysis, such that the specified nominal reliability is
achieved whenever the partial safety factors are used for design. Note that characteristic values and their associated partial safety
factors are closely linked. If the characteristic values change, relative to the ones determined according to procedures described
in this document, then the partial safety factor requirements will also change in order to maintain the intended nominal reliability
level. More details can be found in DNV-ST-C501. The safety factors given in this document should be sufficient for most designs.
2.3.2 Structural reliability analysis

As an alternative to designing according to the partial safety factor format specified and used in this guideline, a design method
based on a recognized structural reliability analysis (SRA) and in compliance with Classification Note no. 30.6 Structural Reliability
Analysis of Marine Structures or ISO 2394 may be applied provided it can be documented that the approach provides adequate
safety for familiar cases as indicated in this guideline.
The structural reliability analysis shall be performed by suitably qualified personnel.
As far as possible, nominal target reliabilities shall be calibrated against identical or similar designs that are known to have
adequate safety levels. If this is not feasible, the nominal target reliability shall be based on the limit state category, the failure
type and the safety or service class given in the probabilities shown in Table 2-2Error! Reference source not found..
Table 2-2: Nominal annual target probabilities of failure for brittle failure and safety class medium or high.
Safety class Medium High
Nominal annual target probability of failure for 10-5 10-6

brittle fracture
2.3.3 Limit states

The basic approach of the limit state design method consists of identifying the failure modes related to each functional requirement
of CDCT and associating each failure mode with a specific limit state beyond which the structure no longer satisfies the functional
requirement.
Each failure mode is related to one or more failure mechanisms (i.e. the mechanisms at the material level). A design criterion is
defined for each failure mechanism, and the moment of failure becomes synonymous with the design criterion no longer being
satisfied. The design criteria are formulated in the so-called partial safety factor method format, according to which partial safety
factors (load factors and resistance factors) are applied to the load effects (characteristic load values) and resistance variables
(characteristic resistance values).
2.4 Design methodology

The design methodology adopted in this guideline is performance-based. It does not prescribe any particular design solutions with
prescribed recommendations for e.g., pipe wall thickness, but it does stipulate design requirements. The designer shall show by
calculations and testing that the requirements are met. The intention of design methodology is to establish the performance
envelope of CDCT against the loads and environmental exposures in all phases of their life cycle.
2.4.1 Performance envelope

The performance envelope of CDCT covers two main components of a CDCT which are the pipe body and connections/fittings
between pipe segments.
17
The full life cycle performance envelope of a CDCT is divided to two phases.
1. Short-term performance envelope represents the performance of a new pipe with no significant impact of downhole
environment. It covers the installation of a CDCT up to operation.
2. Long-term performance envelope represents the performance of an aged pipe with the impact of downhole environment
and potential performance degradation. It covers operation and decommissioning of a CDCT.
Most of the wells are installed and completed within 6 months and this should be the maximum time for the installation phase and
its performance envelope. This division is schematically shown in Figure 2-2. The maximum time for the validity of the installation
performance envelope shall be clearly stated.
Figure 2-2: Short and long-term performance envelope of a CDCT. Limited impact of environment in installation and
potential much larger impact in operation.
Environmental impacts are long processes consisting of two main phases i.e., diffusion of environment through the wall thickness
of CDCT and changes (often degradation) of material capacity due to physical effects and chemical reaction which follows the
diffusion, see Figure 2-3. While the short-term performance envelope of CDCT can potentially be determined by performing full-
scale pipe testing under various loading conditions and combinations, the same is not true for operation performance envelope
where testing of “aged” pipes may require years of testing due to large wall thickness and slow diffusion process. Furthermore,
the presence of long-term loads in operation makes full-scale testing more time-consuming, costly and eventually impractical.
Chemical/Phisical
Enviromental Exposure Changes
Diffusion
Figure 2-3: Environmental impact over many years of utilization of CDCT..
To overcome the challenges associated with determining the long-term performance envelope of CDCT, a multi-scale approach
(test pyramid) similar to the one in DNV-ST-F119 is used in this guideline. The multi-scale methodology is structured around the
development and validation of models of CDCT able to predict the performance limits of the pipe against limit states described in
this guideline as shown in Figure 2-4.
18
The main steps of the methodology include:
1. Development of models of CDCT
a. Short and long-term material testing to determine the inputs to the model with no environmental impact
(unconditioned).
b. Development of numerical models of the CDCT using material properties from step “a” and predicting the CDCT
capacity against relevant load cases.
c. Confirmation testing to check the validity of the material tests and models for simple pipe geometries.
2. Full-scale tests of CDCT pipes with end-fittings.
a. Determine the capacity of a new CDCT against several loads such as internal/external pressure, bending and
axial loads.
b. Verify and validate the accuracy of CDCT models in prediction of failure loads with survival tests and some
confirmation tests.
3. Performance of CDCT under environmental exposure
a. Short and long-term material testing to determine the material property inputs to the model of materials affected
by environmental exposure (conditioned).
b. Prediction of CDCT performance using the verified models
The main assumption of this methodology is that the long-term environmental impacts only lead to degradation of capacity in limit
states as well as elastic properties representing a number of failure mechanisms such as matrix cracking, fiber failure and
delamination. If no new failure mechanism is triggered due to environmental impact, models validated against the full-scale tests
of new unconditioned components can be used reliability to predict the performance of conditioned “aged” CDCT.
Models New Aged

of CDCT Pipe Pipe
•Small-scale material tests •Pipes for confirmation testing. •Small-scale testing

•No envirometnal effects •Full-scale tests for various failure •Envirometal effects
•Limit states modes •Performance prediction using
•Numerical models of CDCT •Validation of numberical models validated models
•No enviromental effects
Figure 2-4: Design methodology of CDCT.

As a general principle, material tests should only be done if the results of the test are needed and used in the design calculations.
If tests specified in this guideline are not done it should be justified why they are not needed and the possible restrictions on the
use and performance envelope of the CDCT should be stated. For example, if the CDCT is used in an application that never sees
compressive stresses, testing of compressive properties would not be required. However, the specifications for the CDCT and
19
the performance envelope would then exclude any compressive stresses. This would most likely also exclude bending, because
bending usually introduces compression at one side of the pipe.
2.4.2 Format of performance envelope

The performance envelope of CDCT is typically described in terms of its capacity against combination of axial load and net
pressure. Two main performance envelopes for short-term loads and effects up to operation and long-term loads and effects in
operation and decommissioning as discussed in Section 2.4.1 are considered, see Figure 2-5. The exact definitions of the axes
of the performance envelopes and how safety factors are included is described in Section 9.
While the estimation of performance envelope of CDCT is done based on design limits related to stress, strain and deformations,
those limits should eventually translate to load capacity for various classes of CDCT.
It should be noted that CDCT in installation and operation will most likely experience other loads such as bending, torsion,
compression and point loads. How the effect of these loads on the performance envelope shall be included is also described in
Section 9.
Figure 2-5: Schematic representation of CDCT performance envelope.
2.4.3 Performance envelope of pipe-body and fittings/connections

This guideline can be used whether the end fittings are stronger than the pipe or not. End fittings and connections are often
designed to be stronger than pipe-body. This is subsequently demonstrated through various full-scale testing of the pipes. In this
case the performance envelope of the fittings and connections is larger and include performance envelope of the pipe, see the
left side of Figure 2-6.
If due to practical design issues such as limitation in space downhole, the fittings/connections are designed to be weaker than
pipe-body, the reliability of models of CDCT in prediction of failure of fittings/connections should be shown in ways similar to pipe-
body, see the right side of Figure 2-6.
20
Figure 2-6: Example of two performance envelope scenarios: fittings always stronger than pipe and fittings weaker
than pipe in some quarters.
2.4.4 Short-term performance envelope

The short-term performance envelope covers the installation phase of the life cycle of CDCT. It has three main characteristics:
1. Exposure to downhole fluid and temperatures is limited in time.
2. Exposure to loads from installation is limited in time with no major degrading impact on the performance of CDCT.
3. The types of loads and chance of being subjected to multi-axial loading is more complex during installation than other
phases of life cycle.
The time in which the installation of CDCT in most wells will finish is considered to be 6 months which is the boundary of
assumption of limited impact of environment on capacity of CDCT. Extension of time beyond this, would require quantifying the
impact of environmental exposure of CDCT on performance capacity by a methodology similar to the one for obtaining the
performance envelope of CDCT in operation outlined in this guideline.
It shall be shown by calculations that the fluids will only penetrate the CDCT to a minimal extent during the installation period of 6
months. Other time lengths may be used if necessary.
The short-term performance envelope shall be estimated by a combination of failure points from full-scale tests of “new” pipes
and predictions by CDCT models validated against these full-scale tests.
2.4.5 Long-term performance envelope

The long-term performance envelope covers the operation and decommissioning phases of life cycle of CDCT. It has three main
characteristics:
• Exposure to downhole fluid and temperatures is extensive in time with the possibility of degradation of CDCT capacity
over time.
• Exposure to loads from operation is extensive in time, triggering long-term failure mechanisms of stress rupture and
possibly stress relaxation with major impact on the performance of CDCT.
• The types of loads tend to be more limited compared to loads during installation.
21
Long-term performance envelopes shall be obtained by predictions of CDCT models validated against these full-scale tests of
“new” pipes with input of material properties characterized by small-scale testing under environmental exposure.
2.4.6 Storage and transportation

For non-spoolable CDCT no significant loading is expected during storage and transportation. Nevertheless, the loads shall be
considered in the qualification process.
Impact loads, exposure to chemicals, UV and other agents may affect the capacity of CDCT. The permissible limits shall be
specified. If they get exceeded a re-evaluation of the qualifications shall be done.
For spoolable pipes, the loads on spools in storage should be considered in the design as per requirements of DNV-ST-F119.
Similar to non-spoolable CDCT, spoolable pipes should have limited exposures as defined in the paragraph before.
2.5 CDCT classification

CDCT are expected to be designed and manufactured under product families which are different groups of pipe products in a
range of sizes and ratings manufactured with the same material types, production process and process controls, and pipe
construction. Detailed requirements for being part of a family are given in Sections 8.2 and 8.4.
Each product family has a product family representative (PFR) which is a pipe variant selected for complete qualification and
determination of performance envelopes.
Each family has a number of product variants. The product variants require a limited qualification based on full scale testing only
to validate their performance envelopes, since most of the qualification was already done for the PFR. See also Figure 2-7.
Product Family
represetnative
• Group of • Family variant
similar CDCT • Product variant limited
for full qualification
qualification
Product Family
Product Family
Variants
Figure 2-7: Overview of classification of CDCT.
2.6 Limited CDCT qualification based on experience

Some CDCT products have been used successfully already for many years, without necessarily having followed the requirements
of this guideline. Credit can be given to this experience if it can be properly documented:
• The materials of the old and new product are the same.
• The actual loading conditions, temperatures and environments during the period of experience can be documented.
• The mechanical properties of the CDCT have not changed within the requirements for similar materials given in Section
4.6.
Experience is only valid for the mechanical properties measured at the end of the period of experience.
22
The experience is only valid for the documented combination of loads, environments and temperatures.
Results cannot be extrapolated to times beyond the period of experience.
Guidance note:
This approach is mainly useful for repeated applications of the old products. It may have limited value for new applications, since
conditions tend to change, and the experience data cannot be extrapolated.
End of guidance note.
23
3 DESIGN BASIS
3.1 Introduction
A design basis for CDCT shall be established in a document. As a minimum, the aspects in the subsections below should be
included and elaborated in the design basis. The information in design basis constitutes the borders of performance against which
the CDCT shall be verified. The borders also define the limits of validity for the performance envelopes.
Main inputs to design basis are typically provided by the operator who has the information of the reservoir. The manufacturer of
the CDCT may also define a design envelope. In that case the specified design basis shall be within that envelope.
Tolerances or upper and lower limits shall be given for all specifications, e.g., the temperature is 60 oC ± 3 oC.
3.2 Product description

3.2.1 Thermoset polymer matrix CDCT
Thermoset polymer matrix CDCT mainly consists of glass or carbon fibers embedded in a thermoset resin which is typically
epoxy. Inside may be a resin-rich layer with short fibers. They do not typically have cover.
Pipes are connected at the ends using various types of joints. The joints shall be specified in detail. Note that the failure
mechanisms shall be identified for each joint design by an FMEA as described in Section 6.4.2.
Guidance note:
Typical joints for thermoset CDCT are:
1. Threaded joints: strongest joint for sustaining large axial and torsional loads.
2. Seal and spigot locked joint: weaker joint than threaded joints but may be more practical for large diameter CDCT.
3.2.2 Thermoplastic polymer matrix CDCT

Thermoplastic polymer matrix CDCT consist of a thermoplastic inner liner, laminate with glass or carbon fibers embedded in a
thermoplastic matrix and an optional cover. The system is fully bonded and capable of sustaining external pressures.
Pipes are connected at the ends using various types of joints. The joints shall be specified in detail. Note that the failure
mechanisms shall be identified for each joint design by an FMEA, see Section 6.4.2.
Guidance note:
Typical joints for thermoset CDCT are:
1. Metallic fittings: working mainly based on friction.
2. Electrofusion: welding of tapes at the ends.
3.3 Application
The intended downhole service shall be specified, and it shall be within the scope defined in Section 1.2.
3.4 Phases
The life cycle of CDCT should be elaborated in the design basis. The following phases shall, as a minimum, be considered:
• manufacturing
24
• factory acceptance test (FAT)
• transport
• storage
• installation
• pre-commissioning/testing
• commissioning
• operation (normal)
• abnormal operation
• maintenance
• retrieval
• repair
• accidental conditions
• decommissioning.
The manufacturer and purchaser shall evaluate whether other phases may be relevant.
Conditions as described throughout this section shall be specified for all relevant phases by the manufacturer or purchaser.
3.5 Safety classes

The safety class of a CDCT is dependent on the application and is described in Table 2-1. The safety class of CDCT shall be
described in design basis.
3.6 Functional and System Requirements

3.6.1 General
Downhole casings are typically constructed as casing strings in a telescopic set-up and typically include conductor casing, surface
casing, intermediate casing, production casing and liners.
Casings major functions include maintaining well stability, preventing contamination and emission, isolating water from the
reservoir, and controlling well pressures during various phases of life cycle of wells. Furthermore, blow out preventers (BOP),
wellhead equipment, production packers, and production tubing are installed on and in the casing.
Casings are installed and are cemented to the walls of the wells over their entire length.
Tubing is the fluid conduit from or to the reservoir to or from the surface.
Both downhole casting and tubing shall resist the loads and conditions through the lifetime of wells as described here in Section
3.6 and in Section 3.7.
3.6.2 Specific requirements

Specific functional requirements are listed in Table 3-1 and the following sections. Some performance specifications may change
over time. Such changes may be specified. If no time dependence is specified, the CDCT shall meet the specifications over its
entire lifetime.
25
Table 3-1: Specific functional requirements for CDCT
Requirements Description
Lifetime The minimum lifetime for the following phases should be defined:
1. Storage
2. Installation
3. Operation
4. Decommissioning
Dimensions As a minimum the following dimensions shall be specified:
1. Total length including fittings and connections
2. Nominal inner diameter (unpressurized)
3. Outer diameter (unpressurized)
4. Outer diameter (pressurized)
5. Required torsional rotation balance under relevant loads.
All dimensions shall be given with tolerances.
Maximum deformations The maximum allowable deformations shall be specified.
As a minimum the following extreme values shall be specified:
1. Increase of outer diameter
2. Reduction of inner diameter
3. Ovalization
4. Torsional deformation
5. Axial elongation
6. Minimum bend radius
Note: Providing no limitation is also acceptable if this can be

justified.
Mass The mass of CDCT shall be specified with and without fittings and
connections.
The mass can be given as mass per length or total mass for the
pipe body.
The mass in air and water shall be specified.
Global stiffness The global stiffness shall be specified for empty (unpressurized)
and pressurized CDCT for:
1. axial stiffness
2. bending stiffness
26
3. torsional stiffness.
Minimum bending radius Minimum bending radius (MBR) shall be specified for all phases.
As a minimum transport, storage, installation and operation should
be included.
The MBR may depend on temperature, pressure and axial loads

and this dependency shall be reported.
Maximum permeation rate A maximum permeation rate shall be defined for internal and
external fluids of the CDCT while in operation.
The maximum permeation rate shall be specified over the entire

length of CDCT including fittings and connections.
Corrosion protection Any required corrosion protection for metallic components of

CDCT such as fittings, shall be specified.
Electrical conductivity Electrical conductivity of CDCT shall be specified against static

electricity build up.
Surface properties Espacially the quality of the inner surface to allow certain flow
characteristics.
Pigging and TFL Requirements to allow pigging and other intervention operations
going through the CDCT shall be specified. As a minimum the
following shall be specified:
1. Inner diameter of the pipe and fittings/connections
2. Minimum bend radius of CDCT
The surface properties and geometry of the pigs or any other

equipment going through the pipe shall be specified and the pigs
should not damage the liner or pipe.
Exothermal chemical reaction cleaning Temperatures, chemicals and loads caused by the cleaning shall
be defined if this procedure shall be applied.
Fire resistance Any fire resistance requirements shall be specified.
Metallic fittings The metallic fitting system shall be specified including:
1. Metallic fitting parts
2. Assembly information such as angles and tolerances
3. Required pre-tension of the assembly and bolts
4. Seal type and sizes
Any hot work, such as welding, shall be specified.
Non-metallic fittings The non-metallic fitting system shall be specified including:
1. Non-metallic fitting parts
27
2. Assembly information such as angles and tolerances
3. Required pre-tension for threaded connections
4. Seal type and sizes
CDCT interfaces and connections Interfaces of CDCT with other downhole and surface components
and connections shall be specified.
Installation requirements
Inspection and condition monitoring Requirements for pipe inspection, monitoring and condition
assessment systems and procedures shall be specified.
Reusability Recoverability or reusability requirements applicable during the

service life of CDCT shall be specified.
Decommissioning Decommissioning requirements for plugging and abandoning the

wells shall be specified.
3.7 Loads
3.7.1 General
The general loads effective on the performance envelope of CDCT are described here. CDCT performance envelope shall cover
all relevant loads for different phases of life cycle and as minimum include:
• Storage (bending on reel for thermoplastic composites based CDCT)
• Installation
• Operation
• Decommissioning
The following loads shall be considered:
• net pressure (internal and external)
• axial loads (tension and compression)
• bending loads
• torsion
• point loads
• Impact loads
The loads shall be obtained from a global system analysis of installation, operation and decommissioning phases of life cycle.
Loads shall be defined with sufficient statistical information so that extreme values can be calculated. This is typically achieved
by defining the annual probability of occurrence. Details can be found in DNV-ST-F119 Section 3.6.
28
3.7.2 Installation loads
3.7.2.1 Overview
Loads in the installation phase of CDCT may occur as quasi-static loads effective for a short-term duration and sustained static
or cyclic loads during the extended time of the entire installation typically for up to 6 months.
The typical main loads applied on casing and tubing during installation are listed in Table 3-2. Even though the performance
envelope of CDCT is expressed only in terms of axial loads and net pressure, effects of loads such as bending, torsion and point
loads on the performance envelope shall be considered.
It should be noted that CDCT may show viscoelastic response to loads and thus the loads may change with time depending on
the application.
Table 3-2: Casing and tubing loads and duration during installation.
CASING Short-term Extended TUBING Short-term Extended
Internal pressure Internal pressure
External pressure External pressure
Axial tension Axial tension
Axial compression Axial compression
Bending Bending
Torsion Torsion
Point load Point load
Impact Impact
Storage loads are typically limited to spool loads for spoolable CDCT, however the actual storing conditions shall be evaluated
for possible significant loads.
3.7.2.2 Pressure
The net internal and external pressure of CDCT during installation (up to the operational phase) shall be considered.
The following pressure load cases shall be considered as a minimum:
• Maximum temporary net internal and external pressure.
• Maximum sustained net internal and external pressure during installation.
• Cyclic pressure with number of pressure cycles and sequence of them during installation.
• Factory and field-pressure test of CDCT and overall system.
All specified pressures shall be given together with a temperature and loading rate.
Details to specify maximum pressure loads are given in DNV-ST-F119 Section 3.6.5.
3.7.2.3 Axial load

The net tension and compression load of the CDCT during installation (up to operational phase) shall be considered.
The following axial load cases shall be considered as a minimum:
29
• Maximum temporary tensile and compressive loads.
• Maximum sustained tensile and compressive loads during installation.
• Cyclic tensile and compressive loads with number of cycles and sequence of them during installation.
All specified loads shall be given together with a temperature and loading rate.
3.7.2.4 Bending loads

Minimum bending radius (MBR) of CDCT during installation (up to operational phase) and manufacturing and storage shall be
determined.
The bending load cases shall be considered as a minimum:
• Temporary and short (typically less than a few hours) bending of CDCT.
• Sustained bending of CDCT during installation.
• Cyclic bending loads with number of cycles and sequence of them during installation.
• For thermoplastic composite based CDCT, sustained bending on a spool in storage.
All specified loads shall be given together with a temperature. For sustained bending on the spool, the MBR for the maximum
storage time shall be determined.
3.7.2.5 Torsion loads

The torsional loads of CDCT during installation (up to operational phase) shall be considered.
The following axial load cases shall be considered as a minimum:
• Maximum temporary torsion of CDCT.
• Maximum sustained torsion of CDCT during installation.
• Cyclic torsional loads with number of cycles and sequence of them during installation.
All specified loads shall be given together with a temperature and loading rate.
3.7.2.6 Point loads

The point loads effective on CDCT during installation (up to operational phase) shall be considered.
The following cases shall be considered as a minimum:
• Maximum temporary point loads and the sharpness of the load introduction points.
• Maximum sustained point loads and the sharpness of the load introduction points.
• Cyclic point loads.
All specified loads shall be given together with a temperature.
Note: Point loads and sharp corners should generally be avoided.
3.7.2.7 Impact loads

Possible impact loads shall be considered. The impact requirement shall as a minimum define the impact energy and shape of
impactor and possibly the impact speed.
The number of impacts and the impact temperature should be defined.
30
3.7.3 Long-term loads
3.7.3.1 Overview
Loads after installation of CDCT shall be specified. They may occur as short-term loads, long-term sustained static or cyclic loads
during the entire operation of well and after its abandonment.
Short-term loads shall be specified in the same way as described in Section 3.7.2.
The operational lifetime of CDCT shall be specified. It covers operation and decommissioning phases of the life cycle of the CDCT.
For decommissioning it is assumed that the well is plugged and abandoned with CDCT remaining in the well. The condition of
abondonement of the CDCT should be specified.
Typical main loads applied on casing and tubing during operation are listed in Table 3-3. Even though the performance envelope
of CDCT is expressed only in terms of axial loads and net pressure, effects of loads such as bending and point loads on the
performance envelope shall be considered. Note that non-relevant loads as marked by an (x) in Table 3-3 still shall be considered
in a design analysis to make sure that they cause negligible stresses or strains to the CDCT.
It should be noted that CDCT show viscoelastic behavior and creep over time which may change the loading. For strain and
displacement-controlled load cases, with creep, the load levels are expected to fall with time (stress relaxation).
Table 3-3: Typical long-term casing and tubing loads in operation and after decommissioning.
CASING Long-term Tubing Long-term
Internal pressure Internal pressure
External pressure External pressure
Axial tension Axial tension
Axial compression Axial compression
Bending Bending
Torsion Torsion
Point load Point load
Impact Impact
3.7.3.2 Pressure
The net internal and external pressure of CDCT in operation and decommissioning shall be considered.
As a minimum the maximum sustained net internal and external pressure during operation and after abandoning the well shall be
defined. All specified pressures shall be given together with a temperature and effect of long-term environmental exposure.
Duration of the internal and external design pressure shall be defined.
Possible cyclic pressure shall be specified.
It should be noted that unlike steel pipes, the capacity of CDCT against internal and external pressure may drop over time.
The casing is cemented and connected to the well by a cement layer which limits the extent of internal and external pressure on
it. However, due to local cavities and potential degradation of the cement layer over the lifetime of the CDCT, the pressure load
case is relevant for the casing. The integrity of the casing against internal and external pressure in operation and during
abandonment shall be assessed. Note that the cement may debond.
31
3.7.3.3 Axial load
The net tension and compression load of the CDCT shall be considered. Typically, after installation, the casing is in compression
while the tubing is in tension.
As a minimum the maximum sustained tensile and compressive loads shall be considered. The duration of the loads shall be
defined.
Possible cyclic axial loads shall be specified.
All specified loads shall be given together with temperature and effect of long-term environmental exposure.
3.7.3.4 Bending loads

Sustained bending of CDCT shall be considered. All specified loads shall be given together with temperature and effect of long-
term environmental exposure. Bending may alternatively be specified as a minimum bending radius.
Possible cyclic bending loads shall be specified.
3.7.3.5 Torsional loads

Sustained torsion of CDCT should be considered. All specified loads shall be given together with temperature and effect of long-
term environmental exposure.
Possible cyclic torsional loads shall be specified.
3.7.3.6 Sustained point loads

Sustained point loads acting on CDCT shall be considered. All specified loads and the sharpness of the load introduction points
shall be given together with temperature and effect of long-term environmental exposure.
Possible cyclic point loads shall be specified.
It should be noted that CDCT show viscoelastic behavior and creep over time which may change the loading for point loads.
Note: Point loads and sharp corners should generally be avoided.
3.7.4 CDCT after decommissioning and abandoning the well

After decommissioning and abandoning the well, CDCT is expected to sustain the downhole condition to avoid contamination,
leakage and emissions. The loads shall be specified in the same way as the short and long-term loads described in the previous
sections.
3.8 Service/Environmental Conditions

3.8.1 Overview
Service/environmental conditions of the CDCT are divided into two phases, just like the loads. In both phases the exposure
temperature and environment shall be described. The following phases are considered.
1. Service conditions before operation including storage, transportation and installation.
2. Service conditions after installation during operation and decommissioning.
The following conditions shall be considered as a minimum:
1. Fluid composition inside and outside the CDCT.
2. Thermal exposure from inside and outside of the CDCT.
3. Ultraviolet exposure (UV).
32
3.8.2 Service conditions in transportation, storage, and installation
The CDCT may be exposed to various fluids and gases as well as temperatures during installation. The exposure time is typically
limited to 6 months for most wells.
The following conditions shall be specified:
1. Type of fluid and its various components such as cement, mud, water, hydrocarbon, acids and gases.
2. Duration and temperature of exposure.
3. Solid particles in the flow such as sand.
4. Ultraviolet exposure (UV)
It should be noted that unless very reactive chemicals with a high diffusivity in the CDCT are used, the CDCT will not go through
notable changes in physical or chemical properties and is expected to remain “dry”. For this assumption to hold, compatibility of
internal and external fluids with CDCT material should be evaluated for the installation (with a typical timescale of up to 6 months).
Thermal heat source in installation may be from various sources such as internal and external fluids and geothermal exposures.
The temperatures shall be specified for the surrounding environment and for the environment (fluids) inside the CDCT. The
resulting temperatures inside the liner, laminate and cover of the CDCT can subsequently be calculated as described in Section
7.9. This guideline states frequently that testing shall be done at maximum and minimum temperature. These temperatures would
be the calculated temperatures inside the material.
It should be noted that during cementing, a large amount heat may be generated as a result of cement curing which should be
considered.
Guidance note:
It is often desirable to restrict the exposure to UV and chemicals during storage and installation. Such restrictions should be
mentioned in the use and installation manual of the CDCT.
3.8.3 Service conditions in operation and decommissioning

During operation and decommissioning of CDCT, service/environmental conditions shall be considered.
CDCT may be exposed to various fluids and gases as well as temperatures.
The following conditions shall be specified:
1. Type of fluid and its various components such as cement, mud, water, hydrocarbon, acids and gases.
2. Duration and temperature of exposure. For the definition of temperatures see Section 3.8.2.
3. Solid particles in the flow such as sand.
4. Ultraviolet exposure (UV)
33
4 MATERIALS
4.1 Introduction
Material properties are needed for design as discussed in Section 2.4. Basic material properties which are essential for the design
of a CDCT and the ways they should be determined are described in this section. Other material properties than described in this
section may be needed, depending on the application. This would mean additional requirements and testing.
This section covers the elements of the structure of a CDCT: the fiber reinforced laminate and a possible non-reinforced polymeric
liner and cover. Most basic material level properties can be determined by small-scale material testing. However, for some more
challenging tests, it is also possible to back-calculate basic material properties from testing a more complex specimen.
Structural properties such as stiffnesses and strengths are input to model the behavior of the CDCT especially for conditions that
are not possible or practical to evaluate by full-scale testing. Properties before and after long-term exposure to the well
environment are needed and represent CDCT material performance through the entire life cycle of the product.
Testing is done using the pyramid principle, as shown in Figure 4-1. Most properties are tested on small specimens. Tests are
done on a fairly large number of specimens to obtain statistically relevant data. Larger scale representative pipe specimens are
used to confirm that the small-scale specimens are relevant for the application. Full scale specimens are tested to ensure validity
of data and modeling for the pipe section and end fitting. Large and full-scale testing is described in Section 8.
Ply properties can be measured by testing of laminates which have a complex lay-up for practical reasons e.g., due to difficulty of
testing of purely unidirectional specimens. In some cases, they can also be determined from testing of pipes with a specific lay-
up due to practical difficulties of testing small-scale flat coupon. Regardless of the test procedure chosen, it is important to get the
full set of basic material properties needed or the design analysis.
Full scale
CDCT
assembly
Representative
Pipes
Laminate level
Ply level
Figure 4-1: Test pyramid.
4.2 Test specimens manufacturing

Test specimens for material characterization shall be identical to the materials used in manufacturing of CDCT from the same
material suppliers. Test specimens should be manufactured using the same process as for the manufacturing of CDCT. If test
specimens are manufactured using a different process than that used for the real CDCT, it is important that their morphology as
well as other characteristics such as fiber volume fraction are comparable to that of the real materials.
34
It should be noted that manufacturing of the test specimens by a different production process which may affect the characteristic
and quality of the specimens compared to CDCT, may cause challenges in prediction of the response of CDCT using the
measured material properties.
The following constituents of a CDCT shall be tested:
1. Thermoset composite based CDCT:
a. Inner layer if different from the main laminate.
b. Fiber reinforced polymer layer of CDCT
c. Outer cover layer if different from the main laminate.
2. Thermoplastic composite based CDCT:
a. Thermoplastic inner liner
b. Fiber reinforced polymer layer of CDCT
c. Thermoplastic outer cover (if relevant)
4.3 Conditioning and testing of specimens

As discussed in Section 2.4.1, material properties before and after the effects of the environment in the well shall be measured.
The environmental effects to consider include:
1. Effect of internal and external fluids
2. Effect of temperature
3. Effect of Ultraviolet (UV) radiation
Properties of specimens before environmental exposure are simply tested on dry specimens.
The effect of fluids on the properties is measured by conditioning the test specimens with the fluid. First the samples are saturated
with the fluid. If the material may chemically interact with the fluid further conditioning is needed to bring the material in a state
representing end of life conditions. The detailed procedures for conditioning are given in Section 4.8.
The effect of temperature is measured by testing at the appropriate temperature. It shall be ensured that the entire sample has
reached the temperature before the test is started. Test temperatures are typically the maximum and minimum design temperature
and room temperature. Details are given in the tables specifying the test program. The relationship of maximum and minimum
test temperatures to the design temperatures is given in Section 3.8.
Effects of UV radiation shall be tested according to DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A8.
Loading rates for material testing shall be similar to actual conditions of the application of CDCT.
It shall be ensured that the conditions in terms of fluid concentrations obtained during conditioning remain constant during the test
process. When testing under the effect of environment, if the specimens have to be removed from the conditioning chamber for
testing, it shall be ensured that the environmental effects are present in the material and have not been lost due to changes in
temperature, pressure and possibility of desorption of fluids.
Long-term testing shall be performed with the specimen in an environment that maintains the specified environmental conditions.
During intermediate test periods (a few hours or days), it may be sufficient to wrap test specimens in plastic foil or similar, to keep
fluids inside the specimen. If this approach is chosen, justification for the validity of the test method shall be provided addressing
the materials and fluids.
35
Temperatures shall always be as specified for testing. Temperatures should be kept constant within ±2 °C. Other temperature
ranges can be agreed upon on a case-by-case basis.
Guidance note:
If the temperature is close to the glass transition temperature or the melting temperature or if the measured material property
shows a large temperature dependence, an accurate control of the test temperature is important.
4.4 Liner and cover

4.4.1 General
For some, especially thermoplastic composites based CDCT, non-reinforced thermoplastic liners are used both for manufacturing
reasons as well as keeping the pipe pressure tight. Such pipes may also come with a non-reinforced thermoplastic cover extruded
over the pipe laminate.
It should be noted, if the liner or cover has welds, properties with and without welds shall be obtained. It may be that both properties
can be tested using the same test samples.
Thermoset composites based CDCT typically do not have a dedicated liner similar to thermoplastic based CDCT. They typically
do not have a cover either. However, they have frequently an inner or outer layer that has different properties from the laminate.
If such layers are not reinforced with fibers, their properties may be tested the same way as the liner/cover described here. If the
layers are reinforced with fibers, they may be tested with the same methods as laminates in 4.5.
4.4.2 Static short-term properties of liner and cover

A summary of physical, chemical, thermal, and short-term static mechanical properties of liner and cover which shall be tested is
given in Table 4-1. At least three parallel tests for physical/chemical and thermal properties and five parallel tests for mechanical
properties shall be performed for each type of test. Characteristic and mean values shall be obtained for each test, as described
in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A3.
Table 4-1: Short-term tests for polymers used in the liner and the cover, with or without welds.
Test type Property Liner Cover Temperature Environmental Information

effect
Density D ISO 62, ISO 175, ISO 1183, ASTM

y Y R
D792, D1505
Hardness y Y H D Shore, ISO 868
Fluid absorption y Y H - ISO 175
Physical and Blistering resistance y n H EE

chemical
Abrasion and wear EE ISO 9352, ASTM D4060 or D
properties n y H
resistance1 10443
Erosion resistance1 EE ISO 9352, ASTM D4060 or D

y n E
10443
Coefficient of friction Against cement or other materials

n y
the CDCT interacts with.
36
UV resistance n y R -
Glass transition D/EE

y y -
temperature Tg
Melting temperature y y - -
Thermal Heat capacity y y - D/EE ISO 11357-1 or 4, ASTM E1269,

properties
Coefficient of thermal D/EE ISO 11359-2, ASTM E831
y y E2
expansion
Coefficient of thermal D/EE ASTM C177, C518

y y R
conductivity
Modulus of elasticity y y E D/EE ISO 527-1 or 527-2 ASTM D6384
Poisson's ratio y y E D/EE ISO 527-1 or 527-2 ASTM D6384
Mechanical Yield strength y y E D/EE ISO 527-1 or 527-2 ASTM D6384,5

properties
Ultimate tensile E D/EE ISO 527-1 or 527-2 ASTM D6384
y y
strength and strain
Charpy test y y E D/EE ISO 179, ASTM D256
y: yes, shall be tested
n: no, does not need to be tested
R: room temperature
H: highest design temperature
E: extreme temperatures with maximum and minimum design temperature, see also Section 7.9.
D: testing dry (unconditioned) with no effects of environment
EE: testing with the effects of environment
1: Should be tested if the internal fluid contains sand or solids that can be abrasive to the inner liner.
2: Coefficients of thermal expansion typically show little dependence on the temperature. If this property is critical for the design;
it should be measured at the extreme conditions. If the material is used below and above Tg, thermal expansion coefficients shall
be measured below and above Tg.
3: Specialized non-standardized equipment is typically best for testing. The validity of the test methods should be evaluated for
each special case.
4: Any suitable ISO or ASTM standard for mechanical properties of polymers.
5: The yield strength shall be determined as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A5.
4.4.3 Long-term mechanical properties of liner and cover

Long-term mechanical properties of liner and cover of a CDCT shall be measured and are listed in Table 4-2.
Static and cyclic fatigue is not relevant for the liner in a thermoplastic composite based CDCT as it is supported by the composite
laminate and do not take significant permanent load.
37
If thermoplastic covers or liners are extended into the fittings and connections, they will experience long-term static and cyclic
loading and are maybe prone to creep and stress rupture as the loads from the pipe are transferred to the fittings through the
cover. The liner of a casing may also be exposed to long-term loads when bonded to the cement.
Table 4-2: Long-term tests for polymers used in the liner and the cover, with or without welds.
Test type Property Liner Cover Temperature Environmental Information

effect
Mechanical Cyclic fatigue1,3 extends extends E D/EE Only if critical 3

properties cement
Mechanical Through thickness shear extends extends H D/EE

properties stress rupture / creep1,2 cement
Mechanical Through thickness stress extends extends H D/EE Only if critical 4

properties rupture or stress relaxation / cement
creep1,2
extends: shall be tested if the liner or cover extend into the end fitting
cement: shall be tested if the liner of the casing is bonded to cement
E: at the highest and lowest design temperature, see Section 7.9.
D: testing dry with no effects of environment
1: Test duration requirements are given in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A6 and A7.
2: Through-thickness shear testing can be replaced by in-plane shear testing if the polymer created by the actual production
process is isotropic.
3: Cyclic loading is typically small, and testing is not required if non-criticality can be shown, see Section 4.7.
4: Depends on the design of the end fitting.
4.5 Composite Laminate

4.5.1 General
Composite laminates with thermoset and thermoplastic matrix shall be tested to determine basic material properties on the ply
level of the laminate layer of CDCT. The tests include short-term and long-term tests including environmental effects.
Ply properties provide the basic input for analysis of CDCT. Obtaining ply properties is described in detail in DNV-ST-F119
Appendix A4.
In practice, typically the easiest and most cost-effective way of measuring ply level properties, is to test small coupons cut from
flat panels. Whether results taken from simple samples are relevant for the real application shall be checked in confirmation tests
elaborated in Section 8.
For materials showing nonlinear plastic behavior, the yield point (yield strength and yield strain) shall also be measured as
described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A5.
38
All properties shall be reported together with the fiber volume fraction vf. Characteristic and mean values shall be obtained for
each test, as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A3, A6 and A7. At least three parallel tests for physical/chemical and thermal
properties and five parallel tests for mechanical properties shall be performed for each type of test.
4.5.2 Static short-term laminate and ply properties

Ply properties shall be tested according to Table 4-3. Ply properties can be measured on specially made samples using the
same fibers and matrix as the actual CDCT. Samples may be flat panels or pipes. Guidance on selecting samples is given in
DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A4.1.
Table 4-3: Short-term laminate tests to obtain ply properties.
Test type Property Required Temperature Environmental Information

condition
Physical/ chemical Fiber volume fraction y R D

properties 8
Density and swelling y R D/EE ISO 62, ISO 175
β1, β2, β3 - 6
8
Hardness y R D/EE Shore, ISO 868, only for
reference
Fluid absorption y H - ISO 175
Fluid permeability y H D see [DNV-ST-F119 A.9]
Blistering resistance y H D/EE see [DNV-ST-F119 A.10]
Abrasion resistance y* H EE
Thermal properties Glass transition temp. y - D/EE see [DNV-ST-F119 A.1.10]
Melting temperature y - D see [DNV-ST-F119 A.1.10]
Heat capacity y - D Test only if needed for design

calculations
Coefficient of thermal expansion y E3 D Test only if needed for design

α1, α2, α3 calculations
Coefficient of thermal y R D Test only if needed for design

conductivity in through-thickness calculations
direction
Mechanical Modulus of elasticity E1T, E2T, y E D/EE 5, 6
properties E3T, E1C, E2C and E3C
Shear modulus G12, G13 and G23 y E D/EE 5, 6
Poisson´s ratio y E D/EE 5, 6

ν12, ν 13 and ν 23
Yield strength y E D/EE If the material deforms

plastically
5, 6, 7
39
Ultimate tensile strength XT, YT y E D/EE In fiber direction and
transverse to fibers
and ZT and strain. If relevant also
5, 6
yield point
Compressive strength y E D/EE In fiber direction and

transverse to fibers.
XC, YC and ZC and strain. If
Xc may be influenced by
relevant also yield point matrix cracking. If matrix
cracking occur, Xc shall be
measured in the presence
of matrix cracks. 5
In plane and through y E D/EE 5, 6
thickness shear strength
S12, S13 and S23 and strain. If
relevant also yield point.
Axial tension of a laminate yaplpha>70 E D/EE Resistance to macro matrix

or pipe cracking is required if the
angle between fibers is
larger than 70°,see Section
4.5.3.
5, 6
Axial compression of a yaplpha>70 E D/EE Resistance to macro matrix

laminate or pipe cracking is required if the
angle between fibers is
larger than 70°, see
Section 4.5.3
5, 6
Through thickness shear y E D/EE Test on samples cut from a

strength full scale CDCT including
liner and cover. Results are
e.g. needed for Section
5.13.2.
y*: only for thermoset matrix composites
R: room temperature.
H: highest design temperature.
E: extreme temperatures with maximum and minimum design temperature, see also Section 7.9.
1: The absorbed fluid influences this property if the property needs to be measured with high accuracy to determine the effect of
the fluid. Otherwise measuring dry may be sufficient.
3: Coefficients of thermal expansion typically show little dependence on the temperature. If this property is critical for the design,
it should be measured at the extreme conditions.
4: Specialized non-standardized equipment is typically best for testing.
5: Any suitable ISO or ASTM standard for mechanical properties of composites. For test materials, see Table DNV-ST-F119
Appendix A4. Obtaining fiber-dominated strength and stiffness usually requires some fibers to be oriented in the direction of the
test load.
40
6: If a ply property is not needed for analysis or can be obtained by the methods described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A4, it
does not need to be measured.
7: The yield strength shall be determined as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A5.
8: The test can be carried out dry at room temperature, immediately after conditioning.
If pipes or rings are used for testing, the properties listed in Table 4-3 shall be obtained. Test methods should be adopted to the
special specimen geometry.
Note: the through thickness tests on full sections of the pipe are strictly speaking not ply coupon tests, but they are included
here, because they give basic material properties.
4.5.3 Laminate with 2α ≥ 70o

If the CDCT laminate has a layup where the fiber directions are not evenly distributed, the maximum gap between fiber directions
o
shall be identified. If the gap is larger than 2α = 70 the laminate's static properties shall also be tested in the direction of the gap,
as listed in Table 4-3.
o
Figure 4-2 shows an example of a pipe laminate with a gap larger than 70 .
o
If fiber directions have a gap 2α of more than 70 degrees in a laminate, matrix cracking and reorientation of the fibers may
become critical for the load-bearing properties. This requires extra testing.
Figure 4-2: Laminate with a fiber-direction gap of 2α

Examples:
o o
The pipe has a layup [±85, ±60]. In this case, the gap angle 2α is: 2α = 2 x 60 = 120 .
[90/±60] laminate needs testing in the axial direction, as described in this section.
A [0/90/±45] laminate needs only unidirectional testing in a fiber direction.
4.5.4 Long-term laminate and ply properties

Long-term material level tests shall be performed to determine resistance of the laminate of CDCT to long-term loads. Details
about obtaining and analysing long-term data are given in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A6 and A7.
Unidirectional plies tested in the fiber direction may be used to establish the SN curve. In some cases, unidirectional specimens
are extremely difficult to test, and failure always happens in the grip area. In that case, 0/90 specimens may be used. The initial
fatigue and stress rupture strain shall be measured in the load-controlled test. The fatigue and stress rupture strength would then
be the initial strain times the Young’s modulus of the 0 plies. The 90 plies will be ignored.
o
Laminate testing shall be used if the gap between fibers is larger than 70 as described in Figure 4-2, in Section 4.5.3. In such a
case cyclic fatigue and stress rupture testing of a [±α] laminate shall be done. Alternatively, the full laminate layup may be tested
in the axial if [±α] > [±35] or in the hoop direction if [±α] < [±55].
41
If matrix cracking should be avoided for a CDCT laminate, fatigue resistance to matrix cracking shall be tested.
The long-term test requirements for CDCT laminates are given in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Long-term laminate tests to obtain ply properties.
Test type Property Required Temperature Environmental Information

condition
Mechanical Tensile stress rupture in fiber direction1 y H D/EE

properties
Compressive stress rupture in fiber y H D/EE
Stress rupture
direction
Stress rupture [±α] laminate yaplpha H D/EE Resistance to macro matrix

cracking is required if the
to be tested in tension and compression. angle between fibers is
larger than 70°
Through-thickness shear stress rupture y H D/EE This test is only needed if

through thickness shear is
critical in the load transfer from
the laminate to the end fitting.
Through- thickness stress relaxation See info H D/EE Only needed if relevant for the
design of the end fitting
Mechanical Tensile cyclic fatigue in fiber direction1 y E D These tests are not needed if
properties cyclic fatigue is limited, see
cyclic fatigue1 [5.14]
Tensile cyclic fatigue transverse to the y E D/EE This test is only needed if matrix
fiber direction cracking under fatigue is critical,
see 5.7.3. For test method, see
4.5.5
Cyclic fatigue [±α] laminate yaplpha E D Resistance to macro matrix

cracking is required if the angle
between fibers is larger than 70°
Through-thickness shear cyclic fatigue y E D/EE These tests are not needed if
cyclic fatigue is limited, see
[5.14]
y*: only for thermoset matrix composites
yaplpha : If the CDCT laminate has a layup where the fiber directions are not evenly distributed, the maximum gap between fiber
o
directions shall be identified. If the gap is larger than 2α = 70 in Section 4.5.3 the laminate's static and cyclic fatigue properties
shall also be tested in the direction of the gap, as listed in Table 4-4. For further explanations see the footnotes of Table 4-3.
R: room temperature.
H: highest design temperature.

42
E: extreme temperatures with maximum and minimum design temperature
Cyclic fatigue loads are mainly expected during installation of CDCT and are typically limited to up to 1000 cycles in total. Fatigue
tests shall be done at loading ratio of F max/Fmin = -1. (Possibility of using historic data and suggesting a prescriptive factor). It is
likely that cyclic fatigue data do not have to be measured, because they are non-critical. Non-criticality shall be checked according
to Section 4.7.
Testing shall be done to obtain characteristic long-term curves as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A6 and A7 for static
(stress rupture) and cyclic fatigue.
1
Special conditions for tensile cyclic and stress rupture testing of unidirectional plies in the fiber direction:
1. Tests can be waived if data exist for similar fibers, similar matrix, under similar environmental effects at the same
temperature,
2. The properties of carbon-fiber-reinforced plies in fiber direction are temperature independent provided the extreme
temperatures are 20°C below the melting temperature of the matrix and the operational or extreme conditions do not
come within ±20°C of the matrix's glass transition temperature. The fibers shall be continuous and the fiber volume
fraction shall be at least 50%. Further evidence shall be provided that the carbon fibers themselves are stable within the
range of the extreme temperatures.
3. It can be assumed that carbon fibers are inert to hydrocarbons and water, i.e., test results obtained in air can also be
used for saturated conditions for these fluids.
4. It can be assumed that glass fibers are inert to hydrocarbons, i.e., test results obtained in air can also be used for
saturated conditions in hydrocarbons (but not in water).
5. If the hydrocarbons or water are mixed with other components, e.g., H2S, the performance in these fluids needs to be
shown and the inertness of the fibers cannot be assumed.
6. If any compressive stresses are involved, the special conditions described here do not apply.
4.5.5 Test method for transverse fatigue

The purpose of transverse fatigue testing is to identify whether micro matrix cracks will develop when the laminate is loaded
transverse to the fibers.
It may not be possible to measure the fatigue properties of UD plies for the onset of matrix cracking. The testing may also be done
on laminates or pipes with reinforcements going in several directions. The onset of matrix cracking shall then be identified by
looking at the change in Young´s modulus.
The maximum stress/strain should not exceed the static stress/strain to cause matrix cracking, i.e., testing should happen in the
linear range.
The suggested test method is:
• A symmetric 0/90 laminate with approximately the same amount of fibers in the 0 and 90 direction should be made.
• The laminate should be fatigue tested in the 0 direction.
• The stiffness of the laminate should be monitored during testing.
• When the stiffness of the individual laminate drops by 20% matrix cracking has started. The number of cycles to reach
the 20% stiffness drop shall be taken as cycles to failure for the onset of matrix cracking.
43
• Otherwise, methods for obtaining and analysing long-term data are given in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A6 and A7.
4.6 Using representative data and similar materials

4.6.1 General
It is often desirable to evaluate and qualify more than one specific material for use in a CDCT. If the new material is similar to the
originally tested material, it may be possible to characterize and qualify the new material using a reduced test programme.
The similarity shall be demonstrated based on the requirements given in this Section. The comparison shall only be made against
well-characterized representative data.
In addition to the similarity evaluations given in this section, a general evaluation shall be conducted to justify similarity. This
evaluation shall concentrate on whether the similar materials would behave similarly for the actual use of the material in the CDCT.
4.6.2 Physical similarity requirements for non-reinforced polymers

A polymer should only be considered to be similar to the representative material if:
1. It is made of the same basic polymer material.
2. It can be substantiated that additives and fillers are of a similar nature to the representative material.
3. The glass transition temperature and melting temperature are the same within ±5 °C.
4. The Charpy impact strength is within ±15% at minimum and maximum use temperature.
5. The tensile stress strain curves are identical within ±5%.
6. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) tests give the same curve within ±5%.
7. Water and Xylene (or a similar solvent) absorption at saturation is the same within ±5%.
8. The static strength at minimum and maximum operating temperatures is similar according to Section 4.6.4.
The creep resistance is similar: the creep curves are similar within 10% in strain and time. All deviation limits are relative
percentages.
4.6.3 Physical similarity requirements for composite laminates

A composite laminate should only be considered similar to the representative material if:
1. The composite's matrix fulfils the similarity requirements given for polymers in Section 4.6.2.
2. The reinforcing fibers are of the same generic type as the ones in the representative material. Note: not all carbon fibers
are the same type, but for example all fibers with the same properties as TM 7000 can be seen as generically the same.
3. The sizing on the fibers is similar.
4. The fiber arrangement (layup, weave) is the same as the one in the representative material.
4.6.4 Requirements for similarity of mechanical static properties

Mechanical static properties can be assumed to be similar to the representative material if:
1. At least three measurements shall be made for each property to be compared. Not more than 50% of the data should lie
below the mean of the representative data.
2. Not more than 16% of the data should lie below the mean – 1 stdv of the representative data. Not more than 2.5% of the
data should lie below the mean – 2 stdv of the representative data.
44
3. If the testing shows that the above requirements are not fulfilled, the data is not similar to the representative material and
an independent test series needs to be carried out.
Alternatively, hypothesis testing may be used to determine similarity, as described in DNV-ST-C501 section 4.8.7 Confirmation
Testing for Static Data.
4.6.5 Requirements for similarity of mechanical long-term properties

Mechanical long-term properties can be assumed to be similar to the representative material if:
1. At least six measurements shall be made for each property to be compared.
2. The data points should be evenly distributed over the time scale or number of cycles scale.
3. At least two of the six specimens should be tested for so long that they fail within one standard deviation of the CDCT's
anticipated lifetime or anticipated number of cycles.
4. If the anticipated lifetime exceeds 1,000 hours, testing up to 1,000 hours is sufficient.
5. If the anticipated number of cycles exceeds 10 5 cycles, testing up to 105 cycles is sufficient. Not more than 2.5% of the
data should lie below the mean – 2 stdv of the reference curve.
6. Not more than 16% of the data should lie below the mean – 1 stdv of the reference curve. Not more than 50% of the data
should lie below the mean of the reference curve.
7. In addition, the slope fitted to the test data shall not deviate more than 10% from the reference curve.
If the testing shows that the above requirements are not fulfilled, the data is not similar to the representative material and an
independent test series needs to be carried out.
4.6.6 Similarity requirements - exposure conditions

If exposure of a polymer or composite to two different environments is expected to give the same mechanical properties, the
similarity evaluation in Sections 4.6.4 and 4.6.5 shall be applied to the exposure conditions.
4.7 Non-critical properties

4.7.1 Non-critical static properties
A static material property can be seen as non-critical:
— If design calculations show that a material property could have a twice as unfavourable value (typically lower) and still fulfil
the design criteria (when all safety factors are applied).
— If the material property is a strength or strain to failure, the above requirement shall be applied to both the strength and strain
to failure.
4.7.2 Non-critical long-term properties, static or cyclic fatigue

A time-dependent material property can be seen as non-critical if the component still fulfils the design criteria (when all safety
factors are applied) even if both the following conditions apply:
— The design calculations show that the design time or number of cycles can be multiplied by a factor of 20.
— The cyclic amplitude of the load effect can be increased by one standard deviation of the respective static strength or the
maximum load effect of permanent sustained loads can be increased by two standard deviations of the respective static
strength.
45
4.7.3 Obtaining noncritical properties
Non-critical properties can be obtained from the literature, provided it can be justified that they are applicable for the material in
question and their environmental exposures. Direct measurements according to safety class medium or high may always be done.
All strength and strain to failure parameters shall be determined as characteristic values given by the 2.5% quantile with 95%
confidence, as required by this RP.
If characteristic strengths and strains to failure cannot be found, a coefficient of variation (COV) of 10% for fiber-dominated
properties and 15% for matrix-dominated properties may be used. For long-term data such as SN curves and stress rupture
curves a standard deviation of 1.0 may be used for the logarithm of cycles or time (in minutes). It should be assumed that the data
were obtained by testing 5 static specimens or 15 long-term specimens. Characteristic curves can then be calculated based on
DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A3, A6 and A7.
Elastic constants shall be taken as the mean value.
4.8 Effect of the environment on material properties

4.8.1 General
As elaborated in the design methodology of CDCT in Section 2.4.1, the effects of environment on the performance envelope of
CDCT shall be determined. Environmental effects typically lead to a reduction in the performance of CDCT by reducing the
capacity of CDCT against various load cases it will experience through its lifetime. The effects typically become more critical as
CDCT ages with time and long-term exposure.
If the CDCT shows non-reversible degradation in properties after exposure to the environment, material properties at the end-of-
life of CDCT shall be measured. If only reversible one-off changes occur to properties, properties shall be measured once the
progress of changes have reached a plateau in an equilibrium with no further increase. This is schematically shown in Figure 4-3.
Enviromental
Effects
One-off Continious
Reversible Degradation
Long-term
Testing after
testing to
equilibrioum
end-of-life
Figure 4-3: Conditioning of the material test specimens to account for environmental effects.
46
A detailed procedure to determine whether a polymer or composite reacts reversibly to the environment or shows permanent
chemical interaction or mechanical interaction is described in the Appendix A “Guideline Effects of the Environment on Mechanical
Properties of Polymers and Composite Materials”. The guideline also specifies how the conditioning before the testing of the
samples should be done.
4.8.2 Environmental effects for oil and gas production

The main environment experienced by CDCT in oil and gas production is crude oil, gas and water. It may be a single phase or
multiphase fluid. In addition, various chemicals may be added to the fluid under production. Appendix A “Guideline Effects of the
Environment on Mechanical Properties of Polymers and Composite Materials” gives a general approach to the influence of the
environment that is fully applicable to oil and gas products.
If the fluids do not cause any permanent changes to the CDCT´s material, i.e., there is no chemical interaction, a representative
fluid may be used for testing and obtaining the material properties. The representative fluid should have a larger effect on the
viscoelastic properties of the polymer or composite than any other fluid it represents. This effect shall be quantified by measuring
the viscoelastic shift factor as described in Appendix A “Guideline Effects of the Environment on Mechanical Properties of
Polymers and Composite Materials”.
4.8.3 Environmental effects for CO2 storage in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
The effect of CO2 on the CDCT can be described in the same way as for oil and gas production in Section 4.8.2. A special aspect
to consider is that the CO2 gas can go through phase changes at high pressures. The approach in Appendix A “Guideline Effects
of the Environment on Mechanical Properties of Polymers and Composite Materials” is only valid when neither the fluid nor the
material goes through a phase change. This means the qualification effort increases as each combination of phases shall be
evaluated.
4.8.4 Environmental effects for hydrogen storage

When storing hydrogen, the fluid will be mainly hydrogen gas with possibly some other gases and additives. The effect of hydrogen
on the CDCT shall be addressed the same way as in the previous Sections 4.8.2 and 4.8.3.
Special attention shall be given to changes in permeability due to hydrogen,
4.8.5 Environmental effects for geothermal applications

The effect of environments in geothermal applications shall be done in the same way as in the previous Sections 4.8.2 and 4.8.3.
A challenge may be the varying and sometimes unknown nature of the fluids in the well.
4.8.6 Thermal Fatigue

If the maximum and minimum design temperature are above and below glass transition or if temperature cycles exceed a
temperature difference of 30o C a significant change in the material properties may be expected. The requirements from DNV-ST-
F119 Section 4.2.7 shall be applied in that case.
47
5 FAILURE MECHANISMS AND DESIGN CRITERIA
5.1 Introduction
This section describes the basic design criteria for individual failure mechanisms on the material level. These criteria are directly
used in the structural analysis of the CDCT.
Generally, only critical failure mechanisms need to be evaluated, see Sections 5.2 and 6.4.
Design criteria used in the performance envelopes shall be evaluated for the load combinations and environmental combinations
given in the performance envelope. The evaluation shall identify loads/environments where conditions are within the limits given
by the design criterion, including application of the safety factors.
5.2 Critical failure mechanisms

For each component of the CDCT the critical failure mechanisms shall be determined. Which failure mechanisms are critical
depends on how the CDCT is constructed, the design philosophy, the functional requirements and the loads and environment the
CDCT is exposed to handle. For each general design criterion listed in Section 6 an evaluation shall be made which of the failure
mechanisms in Table 5-1 would cause a violation of the design criterion. If a failure mechanism in Table 5-1 causes that any
single design criterion in Section 6 cannot be fulfilled, the failure mechanism is critical.
Table 5-1: Failure mechanisms and their criticality for pipe body
Failure Mechanisms Ref. Critical Comments

Section (to be evaluate
for each design)
Fiber dominated ply 5.3 Fiber dominated failure is always critical for the
failure composite laminate.
Micro matrix cracking – 5.4 If the liner and cover provide the required fluid tightness
initiation of cracks matrix cracking is non-critical for the laminate.
Delamination 5.5 Delamination is always critical.
Laminate failure / 5.6 Critical if fiber angles are more than 70o apart
Macro matrix cracking
Weeping 5.7 If the CDCT has a fluid tight liner and cover, weeping is
not relevant.
If the design considers initiation of micro matrix cracks

as critical, weeping is not critical.
Polymer fracture 5.8 Typical critical failure mechanism for liner or cover.
If yielding of the liner or cover is considered critical,

polymer fracture is non-critical.
Yielding isotropic 5.9 Often critical for thermoplastic composite laminates.
Typically, critical for liner and cover, exception could be

reeling.
48
Maximum deformation 5.10 Criticality depends on specific design requirements
related to deformation.
Debonding 5.11 Debonding is usually critical.
Crazing, cracking 5.12 Usually not critical.
Collapse 5.13.2 Buckling is always critical for the composite laminate.
Axial buckling 5.13.3 Buckling is always critical for the composite laminate.
Cyclic fatigue 5.14 Not critical if number of cycles < 1000
Stress rupture 5.15 Shall be investigated for all critical failure mechanisms.
5.3 Fiber-dominated ply failure

5.3.1 General
Fiber failure is seen here as the fiber-dominated failure of a ply. It is not the failure of an individual fiber.
Fiber failure is always a critical failure mechanism and shall be evaluated for all designs.
5.3.2 Maximum strain and stress design criteria

The maximum strain criterion and maximum stress criterion shall be satisfied.
The maximum strain design criterion is given as:

𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝜀̂𝑘
𝜀𝑛𝑘 <
𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑
and the maximum stress design criterion is given as:

𝜎
̂𝑘
𝜎𝑛𝑘 <
The load effect (stresses σnk or strains εnk) shall be obtained from the sum of the individual loads applied on CDCT multiplied by
the partial load factor γF , the load model factor γSd and the system factor γS as described in Section 10.
where:
𝜀𝑛𝑘 characteristic value of the local response of the structure (strain) in the fiber direction n.
𝜀̂𝑘 characteristic value of the time-dependent axial strain to fiber failure.
𝜎𝑛𝑘 characteristic value of the local response of the structure (stress) in the fiber direction n.
𝜎̂𝑘 characteristic value of the time-dependent axial strength in the fiber direction.
k index describing the plies in the laminates.
γM partial resistance factor.
γRd partial resistance-model factor, γRd = 1.0 for fiber direction properties.
The maximum strain and stress criteria shall be checked in all n directions parallel to the fibers in a laminate as well as for tensile
and compressive strains.
49
5.3.3 Obtaining strength data
The strength and strain to failure shall be measured according to Section 4.5.2. Fibers shall always be oriented in the load direction
to obtain fiber properties. If laminates with fibers oriented in different directions are tested, the test will obtain the properties of the
fibers in the load direction.
If the presence of matrix cracks is acceptable to the design and matrix cracks will develop, the compressive strength shall be
determined in the presence of matrix cracks, see Section 4.5.2. Compressive strength may be loading–rate-dependent due to the
viscoelastic matrix surrounding and supporting the fibers.
The fiber strength and strain to failure may also be obtained from laminate testing as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A4.
This approach only works for laminates and test set-ups where fiber-dominated ply properties can be calculated from the test
results without ambiguity, e.g., analytically for a cross-ply laminate or by using FE analysis of the test set-up.
If the CDCT has splices in the laminate, the effect of the splices on the strength shall be considered.
5.4 Micro matrix cracking

5.4.1 General
Micro matrix cracks are the small cracks that could develop parallel to the fibers or in the fiber matrix interface.
Matrix design criteria apply to the matrix in a ply where the deformation of the matrix is restrained by the fibers of the ply or the
surrounding plies. Micro matrix cracking is defined here as the onset of matrix cracking. The micro matrix cracking criteria
presented in this section do not cover the increase in the number of matrix cracks at higher stresses or strains.
Whether micro matrix cracks are critical or not critical for the design shall be evaluated and documented.
The presence of micro matrix cracks will reduce the stiffness of the component to some extent. The reduction of stiffness due to
micro matrix cracking shall be measured. If the drop in stiffness is acceptable for the CDCT system micro matrix cracking may be
seen as non-critical with respect to stiffness loss.
An accumulation of micro matrix cracks in several plies will lead to weepage (leakage of fluids) or increase in permeation for
gases. Note, if the CDCT has a liner or cover, an undamaged liner or cover can keep the CDCT system tight, even if the laminate
is filled with micro cracks.
To prevent weepage or excessive permeation of gases in the presence of accumulated micro matrix cracks from the inside to
outside of the CDCT, a liner is needed or the CDCT shall be designed against micro matrix cracking, see also the design criterion
for weeping in Section 5.7. To prevent the fluid from the outside to migrate into the CDCT an intact cover is needed or the CDCT
has to be designed against micro matrix cracking. If the design can demonstrate that liner and/or cover remain intact and tight
throughout the lifetime of the product, micro matrix cracking may be considered as noncritical.
Designing for no micro matrix cracking is an acceptable way to demonstrate that no weepage occurs. However, note that cyclic
fatigue can cause micro matrix cracking, see Section 5.14.
Note that permeation rates of gases may be influenced by the presence of micro matrix cracks.
Two alternative design criteria are given to evaluate the onset of micro matrix cracks in a ply:
1. The simple stress criterion in Section 5.4.2.
2. The Puck criterion in Section 5.4.5.
Alternative criteria may be used as indicated in Section 5.4.6.
50
5.4.2 Simple stress design criterion for micro matrix cracking
The following design criterion for micro matrix cracking should be used when the stress in one direction is dominating compared
to the stresses in all other directions.
𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
𝜎̂𝑛𝑘
𝜎𝑛𝑘 <
The load effects (stresses σnk) shall be obtained from the local loads multiplied by the partial load factor γF , the load model factor
γSd and the system factor γS as listed in Section 10. where:
n direction of the dominating stress.
𝜎𝑛𝑘 characteristic value of the local load effect of the structure (stress) in the direction n.
𝜎̂𝑛𝑘 characteristic value of the strength components causing matrix cracking in direction n.
γRd partial resistance-model factor, γRd = 1.0 for maximum stress criterion for micro matrix cracking.
The strength of the matrix (stress to initiate micro matrix cracking) is in general direction dependent. This is due to the presence
of fibers that concentrate the stresses such that the matrix stress to failure in the direction parallel to the fibers is generally larger
than in the perpendicular direction.
The stress in one direction is said to be dominating when the following condition is satisfied:
maxi
The ply co-ordinate system, where i and n refer to the directions 22, 33, 12, 13 and 23. The directions 22 and 33 are identical to
the more commonly used directions 2 and 3. They are used here to simplify the matrix-based equation.
When the combination of the stress components in several directions shall be taken into consideration, the design criterion for
matrix cracking is given by:
The load effects (stresses σnk) shall be obtained from the local loads multiplied by
the partial load factor γF , the load model factor γSd and the system factor γS as listed in Section 10, where:
n the ply co-ordinate system, where n refers to the directions 22, 33, 12, 13 and 23, The directions 22 and 33 are identical
to the more commonly used directions 2 and 3.
𝜎𝑛𝑘 characteristic value of the local load effect of the structure (stress) in the direction n for ply k.
𝜎̂𝑛𝑘 characteristic value of the strength components to matrix cracking in the direction n for ply k.
k index describing the plies in the laminates.
γRd partial resistance-model factor, γRd = 1.15 for micro matrix cracking.
A resistance-model factor γRd = 1.15 shall be used with this design criterion. The model factor shall ensure a conservative result
with respect to the simplifications made regarding the treatment of combined loads.
51
This design criterion is often unavailable in finite element codes or other commercial software. The Tsai-Wu criterion can be used
instead to check for micro matrix cracking if the following modifications are made to the strength parameters:
1. the ply strengths in the fiber direction may be chosen to be much (1,000 times) higher than the actual values.
2. the interaction parameter f12 of the Tsai Wu criterion shall be set to f12 = 0.
5.4.3 Obtaining strength data

The matrix-dominated ply strength shall be measured according to Section 4.5.2.
The micro matrix strength and strain to failure may also be obtained from laminate testing as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix
A.4.1. This approach only works for laminates and test set-ups where micro matrix-dominated ply properties can be calculated
from the test results without ambiguity, e.g., analytically for a cross-ply laminate or by using FE analysis of the test set-up.
Note that micro matrix cracks will form easily under fatigue.
The COV to be used as the basis for selecting the correct material factor in Section10 can be set as equal to the maximum COV
amongst the COVs for the strengths in various directions
COVcomb = maxn (COVn)
where COVcomb is an equivalent representative COV for the implied strength that results from combining the different strength
components within a ply as specified in the design criterion.
The partial safety factors γF and γM shall be chosen as described in Section 10, with COVs equal to COVcomb, as described here.
5.4.4 Yielding of the matrix in a ply

If the matrix of a ply shows yielding before failure, the matrix strength values shall be replaced by the matrix yield point in the
design criteria given above.
If yielding and related permanent plastic deformations can be accepted in the design, the nonlinear behaviour shall be considered
in the design calculations. If viscoelastic and related semi-permanent plastic deformations can be accepted in the design, the
nonlinear behaviour shall be considered in the design calculations.
5.4.5 Puck criterion

The Puck criterion (partially described in DNV-ST-C501) may be used.
5.4.6 Alternative design criteria

Other design criteria may be used if it can be shown that they are equal, or conservative compared to the criterion given here.
5.5 Delamination
5.5.1 General
A delamination is a crack that develops between plies about parallel to the surface of the laminate. For filament wound structures
the crack develops between layers of fiber tows.
Delaminations are generally critical failure mechanisms as they reduce resistance to buckling and bending.
5.5.2 Design criterion

Delamination shall be analysed based on the three-dimensional matrix failure criteria given in Section 5.4.2. The partial
resistance-model factor shall be set at γRd = 1.3.
The through-thickness ply strength shall be measured according to Section 4.5.2.
52
5.5.3 Fracture mechanics-based design criterion
Delamination can also be described by a fracture mechanics approach using a minimum defect size and calculating when the
defect will propagate. This approach may be used on a case-by-case basis, but it is not described in this document. Additional
testing would be needed to obtain the necessary fracture mechanics parameters, such as Mode 1 and 2 critical energy release
rates.
5.6 Macro matrix crack / Laminate failure

5.6.1 General
Laminate failure is due to a combination of macro matrix cracking, delamination and possibly fiber failure. Macro matrix cracks
penetrate the entire thickness of the laminate and will lead to leakage and rupture.
As an alternative to analysing laminate failure using the individual failure mechanism, laminate failure may be measured directly
on the actual laminate. When using this approach, the design shall define the laminate's critical failure mechanisms as matrix
cracking, yielding, delamination and fiber rotation or fiber failure.
This design criterion shall be used in addition to the other failure criteria if fibers in the pipes axial direction are oriented more than
70o apart in the axial direction. The criterion shall be used in the hoop direction if fibers in the hoop direction are oriented more
than 70o in the hoop direction. The criterion may also be used for other laminate layups.
The laminate criterion shall only be applied to strains and stresses in the axial or hoop direction. Other loading conditions shall be
covered by the other failure criteria.
5.6.2 Maximum strain/stress criterion for macro matrix cracks / laminate failure.
The design criterion shall prevent the onset of the critical failure mechanism in the laminate. The design criterion is given as:
𝜀̂ 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 ̂ 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝜎
𝜀 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 < and 𝜎 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 <
𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑 𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑
or
𝜀̂ ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 ̂ ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝜎
𝜀 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 < and 𝜎 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 <
The laminate stresses 𝜎̂ 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 and 𝜎̂ ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 are average stresses over the thickness of the entire laminate.
The load effects (strains 𝜀 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 or 𝜀 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 ) and stresses (𝜎 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 or 𝜎 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 ) shall be obtained from the local loads multiplied
by the partial load factor γF, the load model factor γSd and the system factor γS as listed in Section 10.
with
γRd = 1.05 if the failure mechanism is fiber dominated ply failure and
γRd = 1.15 if the failure mechanism is matrix-dominated ply failure.
where:
𝜀 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 , 𝜎 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 characteristic value of the local response of the structure (strain, stress) in the axial direction.
𝜀 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 , 𝜎 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 characteristic value of the local response of the structure (strain, stress) in the hoop direction.
𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜀̂𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 is the characteristic strain to yield or strain to failure of the CDCT laminate under axial loading.
ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
𝜀̂𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 is the characteristic strain to yield or strain to failure of the CDCT laminate under hoop loading.
𝜎̂𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 is the characteristic stress at yield or stress to failure of the CDCT laminate under axial loading.
53
ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
𝜎̂𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 is the characteristic stress at yield or stress to failure of the CDCT laminate under hoop loading.
γRd partial resistance-model factor.
This design criterion shall only be used for the load conditions measured, i.e., axial tension and compression, hoop tension and
compression.
𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟
For thermoplastic composites, if 𝜎̂𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 < 2 𝜎̂𝑇𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 , the yield criterion 5.9 and load-bearing polymer design criterion 5.8 shall be
𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟
applied in the design. 𝜎̂𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 is the measured characteristic strength of the ±α laminate and 𝜎̂𝑇𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 is the measured characteristic
ply strength transverse to the fibers. In this case, the strength of the ±α laminate is matrix-dominated, and the polymer design
criterion shall be applied even if matrix cracking was considered as non-critical.
If it can be shown that the ply failure criteria in Sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 give the same or conservative results as the laminate
failure criterion in this section, only ply failure criteria may be used.
5.7 Weeping and excessive permeation

5.7.1 General
Weeping is a failure mode that describes the migration of a fluid through a network of matrix cracks through the laminate. Weeping
is a slow form of leaking. It also limits the pressure a pipe can hold. Weeping does not happen when the first micro matrix crack
develops in a single ply of a laminate. It develops when several micro matrix cracks have developed throughout the thickness in
all plies and a path opens through which the fluid can migrate. Weepage can also be seen as excessive permeation.
Weepage needs to be evaluated differently whether the CDCT has a liner/cover or not.
5.7.2 CDCT with liner/cover

Weepage can be delayed or prevented by adding a liner to the inside of the pipe. As long as the liner is free of cracks the inner
fluid cannot weep out, even if the laminate has micro matrix cracks. The micro matrix cracks in the laminate become noncritical.
Note, an outer cover has the same effect to prevent fluids from the outside weeping into the pipe.
The liner or cover shall fulfil the following requirements:
The liner and cover shall not yield or fracture according to Sections 5.8 and 5.9. This shall be shown for short term quasi static
loads, for cyclic and stress rupture. All requirements from Sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.3 shall be fulfilled.
Note:
• A thermoplastic liner/cover typically fails after the structural failure of the laminate. The structural laminate properties
dominate the design.
• A thermoset liner/cover typically fails before structural failure of the laminate, The liner/cover properties dominate the
design. Note that liner failure would already be caused by the development of a micro matrix crack in the thermoset liner.
If the liner and cover are also fiber reinforced the micro matrix cracking of the liner/cover shall be investigated as described in
Section 5.7.3.
If the laminate develops micro matrix cracks, the micro matrix cracks may initiate cracks in the liner at the laminate to liner interface.
This shall not happen, and the liner shall be investigated for possible cracks during the full-scale testing described in Section 8.4.
5.7.3 CDCT without liner/cover

If no liner is present, the state of micro matrix cracks must be well controlled. It shall be shown that no micro matrix cracks develop
during service. This shall be achieved by designing against the onset of micro matrix cracking as described in Section 5.4.
54
Note: Even though thermoplastic laminates tend to develop less or even no micro matrix cracks, the requirements of this section
apply to both thermoplastic and thermoset laminates.
It is important that the strain or stress for the onset of micro matrix cracking is measured on unidirectional 90 o specimens. In these
tests the first micro matrix crack causes failure. In addition, the onset of cracking or yielding in shear needs to be measured. The
nonlinearity of the stress strain curve makes it difficult to determine the onset of failure. Yielding shall be defined as described in
DNV-ST-F119 A5. When these data are established the onset of micro matrix cracking can be predicted for all load combinations
using the given multiaxial failure criteria.
The influence of the environment shall be characterized by measuring the onset of micro matrix cracking (axial and shear) also at
different temperatures and environments.
If the CDCT is loaded in cyclic fatigue by more than 10000 cycles exceeding 70% of the static stress or strain to initiate micro
matrix cracking, then fatigue testing transverse to the fiber direction of the UD plies is required, see Table 4-4 and 4.5.4.
Designing for weeping at higher micro matrix crack densities and checking when weeping starts is not permitted.
(Note: It may be possible to define an extensive test program at many load combinations to determine the micro marix crack
density that causes weeping. This is outside the scope of this document.)
Note: Some thermoplastic laminates may only yield when loaded statically, but they do not develop micro matrix cracks. Yielding
is acceptable, as it does not cause weepage. However, under cyclic fatigue loading at high number of cycles, thermoplastic
laminates may also develop some micro matrix cracks.
5.8 Polymer fracture for thermoplastic composite based CDTC

Non-reinforced thermoplastic or thermoset polymers of CDCT may be load-bearing (typically in the cover or liner in the end fittings).
If the polymer is subjected to displacement–controlled loading, it shall be shown that the maximum principal strains do not exceed
the polymer’s capacity:
𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟
𝜀̂
𝜀𝑚𝑎𝑥 <
The load effects (principal strains 𝜀𝑚𝑎𝑥 shall be obtained from the local loads multiplied by the partial load factor γF , the
load model factor γSd and the system factor γS as described in Section 10.
where:
𝜀𝑚𝑎𝑥 characteristic value of the load effect (strain) in the maximum principal direction
𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟
𝜀̂ characteristic strain to failure of the polymer
γRd partial resistance-model factor, γRd = 1.0 for polymer fracture
If the polymer is subjected to load–controlled loading, polymer fracture shall be analysed using the ultimate strength design
criterion for orthotropic materials. In most cases, the polymer can be seen as an isotropic material, where the properties are the
same in all directions.
The load effects (stresses 𝜎𝑛𝑘 ) shall be obtained from the local loads multiplied by the partial load factor γF , the load model
factor γSd and the system factor γS as described in Section 10.
where:
55
n is the ply co-ordinate system and refers to the directions 11, 22, 33, 12, 13 and 23, The directions 11, 22 and 33 are
identical to the more commonly used directions 2 and 3.
𝜎𝑛𝑘 characteristic value of the local load effect of the structure (stress) in the direction n for ply k
𝜎̂𝑛𝑘 characteristic value of the strength (stress to failure for in direction n) for ply k
k index describing the plies in the laminates
γRd partial resistance-model factor, γRd = 1.25
For orthotropic materials, the directions shall be the material axes. For isotropic materials, the directions shall be along either the
principal normal stresses or the principal shear stresses.
This is a conservative design criterion. It has been chosen due to a lack of data for, and experience with, ultimate failure under
multiple stress conditions. Other design criteria may be used if experimental evidence for their validity can be given.
Guidance note:
A resistance-model factor γRd = 1.25 should be used with this design rule. The modelling factor should ensure a conservative result with respect to the
simplifications made regarding the treatment of combined loads.
---e-n-d---o-f---g-u-i-d-a-n-c-e---n-o-t-e---
The COV to be used as the basis for selecting the correct material factor in Section 10 can be set at the maximum COV of the
COVs for the strengths in various directions.
COVcomb = maxn (COVn )
where COVcomb is an equivalent representative COV for the implied strength that results from combining the different strength
components within a ply as specified in the design criterion.
The partial safety factors γF and γM shall be chosen as described in Section 10, with COVs equal to COVcomb, as described here.
The strain to failure used in this design criterion shall not exceed 15%.
Higher strains to failure may be used if experimental multiaxial load testing has shown that the design criterion described here is
still valid. The ultimate strength and ultimate strain shall be measured according to Table 4-1, for liners and covers.
If the strain limit of 15% is used in the design and the polymer fails at strains of more than three times the limit, the accuracy in
determining the strain to failure is not so critical. In such case, the COV can be set at 5%. The strength shall be taken as the
strength at the failure strain.
5.9 Plastic deformation, yielding of isotropic materials

The von Mises yield criterion shall be used to describe materials that yield. This criterion expressed in principal stresses is:
𝛾𝑀 ∙ 𝛾𝑅𝑑 ∙ √(𝜎1 − 𝜎2 )2 + (𝜎2 − 𝜎3 )2 + (𝜎3 − 𝜎1 )2 < 2𝜎𝑦
The load effects (stresses ) shall be obtained from the local loads multiplied by the partial load factor γF, the load model
factor γSd and the system factor γS as described in Section 10.
where:
σn characteristic principal stresses, n=1,2,3
σy characteristic value of the material's yield stress
γM partial resistance factor
56
γRd resistance-model factor, γRd = 1.0.
When two or more loads are combined, each stress component σ n in direction n may be the result of several combined loads. In
𝑗
such case, each stress component 𝜎𝑛 , the local response of the structure in direction n due to load j, shall be considered separately
as an individual stress component.
The choice of partial safety factors shall be based on the most conservative partial safety factors obtained
𝑗
when treating each stress component 𝜎𝑛 , the local response of the structure in direction n due to load j, as a single load. The
material's COV shall always be the COV of the yield strength.
The yield strength shall be measured according to Sections 4.4.2 or 4.5.2.
Testing of the results' rate dependence shall be considered. The strength used in the calculations shall be representative of the
application's actual loading rates. Note: If yielding is permitted in the design, the ultimate strength requirement stated in Section
5.8 still needs to be fulfilled.
5.10 Maximum deformation

5.10.1 General
CDCT deformations under all load cases shall be calculated. The deformations shall not exceed the limitations for axial elongation,
torsion, ovalization, etc., given in the design input in performance envelope basis in Section 3.
Possible creep and yielding shall be considered in all calculations, especially permanent deformations due to long-term reeling.
Yielding shall be addressed using the criteria in Section 5.9.
The deformation design requirement
shall be used.
The load effect (deformation ) shall be obtained from the local loads multiplied by the partial load factor γF, the load
model factor γSd and the system factor γS as described in Section 10.
Where:
𝑑𝑛 characteristic value of the structure's local response, here displacement
𝑑𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐 specified maximum displacement requirement
γM partial resistance factor
γRd resistance-model factor, γRd = 1.0.
5.10.2 Axial deformation

The CDCT will elongate due to axial forces. Pressure may cause axial elongation, compression or no length change depending
on the layup. All these effects shall be considered when calculating axial deformations.
Possible creep and yielding shall be considered in all calculations.
5.10.3 Ovalization
The CDCT shall not be subject to excessive ovalization. Maximum allowed ovalization after manufacturing shall be specified in
the design basis as required in Section 3. The residual flattening due to bending and point loads, long-term creep, together with
the out-of-roundness tolerance from the pipe's fabrication, is not to exceed 3%, defined as:
57
where:
D is the undeformed diameter of the pipe
Dmax and Dmin are the maximum and minimum diameters of the ovalized pipe respectively. The requirement may be relaxed if:
1. a corresponding reduction in moment resistance has been included
2. geometrical restrictions are met, such as pigging requirements
3. additional cyclic stresses caused by the ovalization have been considered
4. tolerances in the relevant repair system are met.
Ovalization shall be checked for at any point loads along the CDCT. Such point loads may arise at free- span shoulders, artificial
supports, support settlements, bend stiffeners and caterpillars.
Effects of ovalization on collapse and burst capacity of CDCT shall be considered.
Larger ovalization may be acceptable if the consequence of ovalization on collapse and axial buckling is calculated by nonlinear
analysis and the maximum ovalization is introduced into the test samples used for buckling and collapse testing during the full-
scale tests program.
5.10.4 Accumulated deformation

Accumulated plastic deformation of the CDCT caused by cyclic loads leading to an increased diameter or ovality (ratcheting) shall
be considered. If ratcheting causes increased ovality, special consideration shall be given to the effect on buckling resistance.
Accumulated longitudinal displacement of the CDCT (could e.g., be caused by pipeline walking) shall be considered. This may
occur during start-up/shutdown for:
1. pipelines shorter than two anchor lengths, (see DNV-ST-F101 for definition of anchor length).
2. pipeline parts with a virtual anchor,
3. pipeline laying on a seabed slope, or
4. pipelines connected to a pulling force (e.g., connected to SCR).
5.11 Debonding of CDCT

Debonding could happen between different components, e.g., the liner and the laminate, the cover and the laminate or the pipe
section and the end fitting.
Debonding between different components shall be analysed in the same way as delamination in Section 5.5. The through-
thickness ply strength shall be measured according to Section 4.5.2.
5.12 Crazing, cracking

Some polymers develop crazes before failure. Crazes are often an alternative failure mechanism to yielding. The presence of
crazes may reduce the polymer's strength and increase permeation rates.
Polymer materials that do not craze should preferably be chosen. If they show crazing, investigations shall be systematically
conducted after each burst test and material strength test.
The onset of crazing shall be addressed in the same way as matrix cracking, unless it can be shown that crazes have no influence
on the mechanical properties.
58
5.13 Buckling
5.13.1 General
A CDCT may buckle under compressive loads. Subgroups of buckling of a CDCT are
• Collapse due to hydrostatic pressure or an internal vacuum.
• Axial buckling due to compressive forces along the length of the CDCT.
• Bending buckling due to bending forces causing parts of the cylindrical part to deform in compression causing eventually
buckling.
• Torsional buckling due to torsional forces causing parts of the cylindrical part to deform leading eventually to buckling.
• Crushing due to local compressive loads, such as loads from caterpillars, clamps, storage, compression under reeling,
etc., see Section 3
Conditions of a new (start of life) CDCT and conditions involving relevant damage (end of life) in the CDCT shall be considered in
all buckling calculations. Buckling calculations shall consider stiffness reductions due to matrix cracking or softening after
environmental exposure, matrix yielding, delaminations and debonding if these failure mechanisms are permitted to happen in
the design.
Geometrical imperfections shall be quantified for the CDCT and taken account of in buckling calculations. Ovalization or squeezing,
especially from reeling, manufacturing, long-term deformations or bending, shall be included in the calculations, see Section
5.10.3.
5.13.2 Collapse
For CDCT with a liner or cover, if the liner and cover are less stiff than the laminate, it is sufficient to only consider the laminate
for collapse calculations.
Regarding hydrostatic pressure, it shall be made clear which surfaces the pressure is acting upon. If the design allows cracks in
or the puncturing of part of the CDCT, the surface may change.
Collapse shall be calculated according to DNV-RP-F202 Sec.5.
For thermoplastic composite based CDCT, the liner's bond to the laminate shall be as strong as or stronger than the laminate's
delamination resistance if resistance to hydrostatic pressure or an internal vacuum is relevant. Bond strengths shall be measured
according to Section 4.5.2, the last test in Table 4-3. If the bond between the liner and laminate is the weak link, it shall be shown
that the liner can withstand a vacuum by itself without buckling and that no fluid can accumulate in the weak interface over time.
See also Section 6.2.7 for rapid gas decompression and blistering resistance.
5.13.3 Axial buckling

Capacity of CDCT against axial loads in installation and operational phases shall be determined.
Free length of CDCT shall be determined.
The axial buckling calculations shall consider stiffness reductions due to matrix cracking or softening after environmental exposure,
matrix yielding, delaminations and debonding if these failure mechanisms are permitted to happen in the design.
5.14 Cyclic fatigue

CDCT is expected to experience a small number of cycles during the its lifetime as described in Sections 1.2, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 in
most applications. The limited numbers of cycles are expected to be mainly axial load and pressure cycles. For thermoplastic
composite based CDCT, a few bending cycles are expected from reeling and unreeling of CDCT which shall be accounted for.
59
Cyclic loading may be seen as limited if the maximum stresses under cyclic loading and the maximum stress range calculated
from the SN curves relevant for the material, environment and failure mechanisms fulfil:
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜎𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒 ≤ 10[log 𝜎1−𝛼𝜅𝑠−𝛼 log(20 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑁)] where the SN data are taken from the literature as non-critical data, see Section 4.7.
or
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜎𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒 ≤ 10[log 𝜎1−𝛼𝜅𝑠−𝛼 log(𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑁)] where the SN data are measured.
𝜎1 and 𝛼 are the parameters describing the relevant SN curve as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A6 for the failure
mechanism, material and environment under consideration. 𝑠 is the standard deviation of the SN curve on a logarithmic scale and
𝜅 is taken from DNV-ST-F119 Table A3. 𝑁 is the number of fatigue cycles regardless of the stress level. 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 is the fatigue safety
factor from Section 10.7.
Typical stress levels qualifying for limited cyclic loading based on non-critical data would be:
For carbon fiber reinforced laminates, the maximum cyclic fatigue stress would typically be 60% of the mean strength for 10
fatigue cycles and 48% of the mean strength for 10000 cycles.
For glass fiber reinforced laminates, the maximum cyclic fatigue stress would typically be 16% of the mean strength for 10 fatigue
cycles and 7% of the mean strength for 10000 cycles.
If the CDCT is exposed to more severe cyclic fatigue loading and the requirements for limited fatigue given above are not fulfilled,
a fatigue analysis shall be made for the specific loading conditions of the particular case according to DNV-ST-F119.
5.15 Stress rupture

5.15.1 General
All critical static failure mechanisms of CDCT, shall also be evaluated for stress rupture. They are identified in Section 5.2 (see
Table 5-1) for the pipe body, The critical failure mechanisms for the end fitting shall be identified according to Section 6.4. The
resistance to stress rupture of all CDCT components shall be calculated using characteristic stress rupture curves for the failure
mechanisms for any combination of loads/stresses and environments addressed by the performance envelopes.
The mean and characteristic stress rupture curve shall be measured as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A7 and are
described by:
log 𝜎 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽 log 𝑡

log 𝜎𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽𝜅𝑠 − 𝛽 log 𝑡
where 𝑡 is the time to failure at stress 𝜎. The fit parameters from the linear regression are log 𝜎1 and the slope 𝛽. The standard
deviation of log 𝑡 is 𝑠. The factor 𝜅 depends on the number of measurement points, as shown in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix Table
A-3.
For the stress rupture evaluation, the characteristic short-term strength of the critical failure mechanisms shall be replaced in the
𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡
relevant static short-term failure criteria in Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7, by the stress rupture design strength 𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑑𝑒𝑠 and
𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑑𝑒𝑠 for the installation and lifetime phase respectively:
𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡
𝜎̂𝑆𝑅−𝑑𝑒𝑠 = 10[log 𝜎1−𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡)]
𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝜎̂𝑆𝑅−𝑑𝑒𝑠 = 10[log 𝜎1−𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑡)]
where 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 is the fatigue safety factor.
60
𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
If stress rupture shall be considered a non-critical property, the non-critical stress rupture strengths 𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑁𝐶 and 𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑁𝐶 shall be
used in the static failure criteria for the installation and lifetime phase respectively:
𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡
𝜎̂𝑆𝑅−𝑁𝐶 = 10[log 𝜎1−𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(20 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡)]
𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝜎̂𝑆𝑅−𝑁𝐶 = 10[log 𝜎1−𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(20 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒)]
The partial load factor and the partial material factors shall be set to
𝛾𝐹 = 1.0 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝛾𝑀 = 1.0
In all failure criteria for the stress rupture evaluation, the applied loads/stresses are the maximum stresses applied for the entire
time under consideration, i.e. for the installation time and life time, see Section 3.
The stress rupture curves used in the calculations should be relevant for the failure mechanism investigated. They should also be
relevant for the environmental conditions experienced by the components.
The load effects (stresses) for the stress rupture analysis shall be obtained from the local loads multiplied by the load model factor
as given in Section 10.4. Details of the approach can also be found in DNV-ST-C501 section 6.10.4.
The maximum, minimum and operational temperatures shall be considered in the analysis, using the relevant stress rupture
curves and including thermal stresses in the calculations.
The saturation condition and plasticizer (environmental exposure) content shall be evaluated.
If several load levels shall be considered Miner sum calculations as described in DNV-ST-C501 or DNV-ST-F119 shall be done.
5.15.2 Fiber-dominated failure – stress rupture

Local stresses shall be measured in the fiber direction to analyse the fiber-dominated stress rupture of CDCT laminates. Each
fiber direction in the CDCT laminate shall be evaluated
Stress rupture curves shall be measured according to Section 4.5.4. The characteristic stress rupture strength shall be obtained
as described in Sections 4.4.3 and [4.5.4.
If the stresses and strains in the laminate are low, it may be possible that stress rupture becomes noncritical, see Section 4.7.
5.15.3 Through-thickness delamination and debonding – stress rupture

Local through-thickness stresses shall be obtained for analysing delamination and debonding, especially in the end fitting region.
Stress rupture curves shall be measured according to Section 4.5.4.
The characteristic stress rupture strength shall be obtained as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A7.
5.15.4 Matrix cracking - stress rupture

If the CDCT has an intact liner and cover throughout the design lifetime, micro matrix cracking does not need evaluation Section
5.4.
If the CDCT does not have a liner or cover that ensures fluid tightness in the presence of matrix cracks, stress rupture testing
shall show that no matrix cracks causing leakage to develop in the CDCT laminate during the lifetime. This can be demonstrated
by:
All stresses or strains stay always below the level of initiating matrix cracking, as described in Section [5.4]. Note, this approach
can only be used if the number of cycles for cyclic fatigue is less than 10000.
Guidance note:
61
If the stresses or strains exceed the level of initiating matrix cacking of if the number of fatigue cycles exceeds 10000, no long-
term matrix cracking can be demonstrated by generating a stress rupture curve on the pipe according to DNV-ST-F119 Appendix
A7. The specimen shall be exposed to the specified maximum axial load without internal pressure and to the specified maximum
axial load with internal pressure before running the survival test. This approach is outside the scope of this guideline and not
described further.
5.15.5 Macro matrix cracking / Laminate failure - stress rupture

Stress rupture curves shall be measured according to Section 4.5.4.
The characteristic stress rupture strength shall be obtained as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A7.
The through thickness failure shall be obtained by using the failure criteria from Section 5.6. The characteristic static strength
shall be replaced by the characteristic fatigue strength as given in Section 5.15.1. The materials factor shall be replaced by 1.0.
5.15.6 Polymer fracture of the liner or cover for thermoplastic composite based CDCT –
in-plane stress rupture
The in-plane stress rupture of liners and covers does not need to be calculated if the CDCT laminate is the load-bearing part and
the liner and cover follow the movements of the laminate.
as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A7.
The liner/cover failure shall be obtained by using the failure criteria from Section 5.9. The characteristics static strength shall be
replaced by the characteristic fatigue strength as given in 5.15.1. The materials factor shall be replaced by 1.0.
5.15.7 Liner and cover through thickness shear stress rupture for thermoplastic
composite based CDCT
The through thickness shear stress rupture of liners and covers shall be evaluated if loads get transferred through the liner or
cover into the laminate. This is the case for most end-fitting constructions.
as described in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix A7.
The liner/cover failure shall be obtained by using the failure criteria from Section 5.9. The characteristics static strength shall be
replaced by the characteristic fatigue strength as given in Section 5.15.1. The materials factor shall be replaced by 1.0.
5.16 Combination of cyclic fatigue and stress rupture

Cyclic fatigue and stress rupture should be evaluated independently of each other. However, the period of stresses related to
cyclic fatigue shall also be accounted for in the stress rupture calculations.
5.17 Stress relaxation

Stress relaxation is a viscoelastic phenomenon that described the reduction of the Young´s modulus with time under constant
displacement leading to a reduction in stress. Stress relaxation of the liner/ cover and laminate in the through-thickness direction
is a common phenomenon under squeeze loads between mechanical clamps in a caterpillar. It can also happen in the end fittings.
Stress relaxation is described in more detail in Appendix A and DNV-ST-302.
62
6 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PIPE BODY AND END FITTING
6.1 Introduction
This section provides qualitative design criteria for CDCT, describing aspects that shall be considered during the design
process. All general design criteria shall be linked to basic failure mechanisms, as described in Section 5.2.
General design criteria are given in Section 6.2. They are qualitative, and either should not occur or not have an impact on the
performance envelope of CDCT.
Section 6.3 describes overall design aspects for the pipe section of CDCT. Section 6.4 describes overall design aspects for the
end fittings of CDCT.
6.2 General design criteria

6.2.1 Rupture - burst
The CDCT shall not rupture or burst. The structural integrity of the pipe body the end fitting and all interfaces shall remain intact.
Fiber dominated failure (Section 5.3), Macro matrix cracking (Section 5.6) and Buckling (Section 5.13) will cause rupture. Other
failure mechanisms, such as delamination (Section 5.5), debonding (Section 5.11) and polymer failure (Section 5.8) may cause
rupture, depending on the design of the CDCT. Also, the other failure mechanisms from Section 5 may initiate rupture/burst
depending on the design and construction of the CDCT.
6.2.2 Fluid tightness – permeability

The CDCT shall not leak any fluids beyond the requirements stated according to 3.6. A maximum permeation rate shall be
calculated for each internal fluid given in Section 3.6.
Fluid tightness shall be demonstrated based on the permeability measurements stated in Table 4-1 and Table 4-3.
If thickness is reduced due to yielding or wear and tear, the permeability calculations shall be based on the reduced thickness.
If the material can have matrix cracks or crazes or is not designed to prevent crazing, permeabilities shall be measured with the
presence of matrix cracks or crazes.
Any through thickness cracks or puncturing shall be considered as a local leak (very high permeability).
6.2.3 Point loads

Point loads, as specified in Sections 3.7.2.6 and 3.7.3.6, may cause damage to the laminate, cover and liner and reduce the
apparent strength of the CDCT material. The acceptable damage shall be determined experimentally according to Section 8.5.
A point load may also cause a dent in the pipe section, thus reducing the cross-sectional area. The acceptable dent size shall
create a shape change that is less than that which is acceptable for ovalization, as described in Table 3-1. When allowing for
permanent dents, additional failure modes such as fatigue and collapse shall be taken into account and analysed. Any beneficial
effect of internal over-pressure, i.e., “pop-out” should not be included in the analysis. (Pop-out describes the effect of dents being
removed by the internal pressure. Permanent damage, such as micro cracks, tends to remain after pop-out).
The beneficial effects of protective coatings may be taken into account. The coating's effectiveness against impact damage shall
be documented.
6.2.4 Impact
Impact is not a typical load case for CDCT. If a design against impact is required according to Section 3.7.2.7, the same approach
as described in DNV-ST-F119 Section 5.12 shall be used. The approach is similar to the one for point loads 6.2.3 and also requires
its own full scale test program.
63
6.2.5 Puncturing, Scratches and Sharp points
Puncturing or scratching are processes that reduce the material’s thickness, create stress concentrations and may indirectly
reduce the material’s strength. If puncturing or scratching can happen, the effects on geometry and strength shall be considered
in all failure criteria. The reduction in strength may also be determined experimentally.
Scratching and especially puncturing may also increase permeability.
Temporary weakening of the cover or liner may be acceptable if a repair and inspection method can be specified. The maximum
duration of the damage shall also be specified and justified. It shall be shown that the temporary damage does not detrimentally
affect the remaining CDCT lifetime.
If the CDCT touches, crosses or rests on any supports, the sharpness of the contact points shall be specified and the contact
forces shall be calculated and used in the design.
Temporary contact with sharp points, especially during installation, shall be considered.
The design of a CDCT requires more attention to sharp points and point loads than a steel pipe would require.
6.2.6 Wear and tear

Wear and tear will reduce the material's thickness. The reduced thickness calculated according to DNV-ST-C501 section 6.13
shall be applied.
The wear or abrasion resistance shall be measured according to Table 4-1 for liners and covers.
If a CDCT has no liner or cover and wear/abrasion is relevant for the application, the wear abrasion tests for liners or covers
should be modified to be suitable for the laminate.
Temporary damage may be acceptable as described in Section 6.2.5.
6.2.7 Rapid gas decompression - blistering resistance

Fluids can diffuse into the material and may accumulate inside the molecular structure, inside voids or in material interfaces. When
the diffusion happens under pressure, the fluids are compressed inside the material. If the pressure is suddenly released, the
expansion of the fluids may lead to material damage, blistering or interface debonding.
The resistance to the phenomenon shall be shown by testing as described in Table 4-3 for composite laminates and in Table 4-1
for liners and covers.
If the through thickness strength of the liner-CDCT laminate interface or CDCT laminate-cover interface is less than the strength
of the base materials, the respective interface shall be tested for blistering resistance according to Table 4-1. The strength of the
interfaces can be demonstrated by through-thickness testing according to Table 4-3.
6.2.8 Interaction with the environment - chemicals / fluids and temperature

The materials of the CDCT will interact with the environment and these interactions may change the material properties.
Whether the CDCT has chemical interactions with the environment shall be investigated. If interactions take place material
properties shall be measured on samples that are conditioned to be in a state representing the end of life of the CDCT. If it can
be shown that the materials show no chemical interaction with the environment conditioning to saturation with the fluid is sufficient
before measuring material properties. Details on checking for chemical interaction and conditioning samples are given in the
Appendix A “Guideline Effects of the Environment on Mechanical Properties of Polymers and Composite Materials”. The appendix
also describes how some mechanical properties change with temperature and due to saturation.
Note that the influence of environment and chemicals changes the mechanical properties, such as strength and stiffness. The
design criteria themselves are not affected.
64
6.2.9 Torsional balance
The CDCT's torsional balance shall fulfil the dimension requirements stated in Section 3. Torsional balance shall be tested
according to Section 8.4.2.1.
6.2.10 Corrosion protection

It shall be demonstrated that corrosion protection requirements for the entire system, as given in Section 3.6.1, are fulfilled.
If the CDCT body does not contain any metal parts, corrosion protection of the CDCT body itself is not required. Chemical and
mechanical degradation shall be evaluated as described in Section 6.2.8.
If the CDCT body contains metal parts, their corrosion resistance shall be evaluated according to DNV-ST- F201 or API 17J.
6.2.11 Recoverability and reusability

The consequences of the recoverability and reusability requirements stated in Section 3.6.1 shall be evaluated with respect to
loads on and interactions with the CDCT.
6.2.12 Exothermal chemical reaction cleaning

It shall be shown that the CDCT is designed for the loads and environments caused by exothermal chemical reaction cleaning, if
such cleaning is specified in Section 3.6.2.
It shall be ensured that the maximum pressure and temperature and the chemical composition due to cleaning are within the limits
used for the general design of the CDCT.
6.2.13 Splices in the laminate

If the CDCT laminate has splices due to the manufacturing process, potential changes to the strength and thickness shall be
documented.
The local strength reduction in the laminate due to splicing should be obtained by conservative estimates or by testing. Testing
may be done according to Section 4.
Typically, splices will be placed far apart within a laminate to reduce the effect of local strength reduction on global strength. The
strength reduction shall be calculated and the distance between splices in a CDCT laminate shall be specified in the axial, radial
and thickness directions. The distance between splices shall be implemented in the production QA, see Section 12.
6.2.14 Reeling
Reeling shall be considered in the design for thermoplastic composite based CDCT.
Long-term loads and buckling shall be included in the calculations.
6.2.15 Electrostatic charge build-up

If the CDCT is used above water in a low humidity environment, static electricity may build up on the polymeric surfaces.
It may be necessary to make the surface of the CDCT conductive to prevent the build-up of static electricity and the related
fire/explosion hazard.
6.2.16 Buoyancy and weights

The CDCT may need weight elements to give it its desired configuration and behaviour in the well. The need for such elements
shall be investigated in the system analysis. Local loads and effects due to the elements shall be considered.
6.2.17 Requirements for other design criteria

If a structure or component shows a failure mechanism not properly described above, it may be necessary to describe a design
criterion for this failure mechanism.
All design criteria shall be verified against experimental evidence. The model factor assigned to the design criterion shall
compensate for the discrepancies between prediction and experiment. The model factor is a deterministic factor.
65
It shall be confirmed that the design criterion is of a general nature and does not just apply to one material or one load case,
unless the criterion is only used for that particular condition.
The partial safety factors in the criterion shall be calibrated by probabilistic methods to ensure a consistent level of safety with
respect to the rest of the standard.
6.3 Design Criteria for pipe body

6.3.1 Introduction
Design criteria are given for the main components of a CDCT:
• Laminate of the pipe section
• Liner of the pipe section
• Cover of the pipe section
• End fitting
6.3.2 Pipe body parts

6.3.2.1 Laminate
For pipe body laminate see the design criteria in chapter 5.
6.3.2.2 Liner in thermoplastic composite based CDCT

The liner and cover, if present, shall be designed not to rupture. Through-thickness cracks lead to reduced fluid tightness.
Sometime a resin rich outer layer or special surface ply takes the function of liner or cover.
The liner shall have sufficiently high strains to failure and yield strains that it can follow the CDCT movements without failure or
plastic deformation.
The liner should generally be kept in its elastic range. If the liner is designed to be exposed to yielding occasionally, for example
during reeling under transport, the consequences of the plastic deformation shall be considered in the design. When unloading,
the plastically deformed liner will go into compression. This may cause buckling of the liner.
It shall be evaluated if a reduction in the thickness of the liner due to yielding would increase permeability beyond the required
value.
The liner and CDCT laminate shall not debond.
Crazing may reduce strength and increase permeability.
The possible effect on permeability of any thickness changes or presence of matrix cracks shall be evaluated. If the liner has
welds, the liner and its welds shall fulfil the requirements of this section. Any mismatch in thermal properties between the liner
and laminate shall be considered in the design.
Damage due to impact may affect the strength of the liner or liner-laminate interface. Impact damage may also increase
permeability.
The liner shall keep its required load-bearing capacity and fluid tightness after degradation due to puncturing or scratches.
Equipment running through the CDCT may cause puncturing or scratching. This reduces the liner's thickness and may cause
failure under load control conditions or fatigue.
The liner shall keep its required load-bearing capacity and fluid tightness after degradation due to wear and tear from fluids, sand
and equipment running through the pipe.
66
Fluids, especially dissolved solids, may cause wear and tear. Wear and tear reduce the liner's thickness and may cause failure
under load control conditions or fatigue. Thickness may be added to the liner to compensate for the loss of material due to wear
and tear.
Chemical degradation may change elastic properties, strength and permeability. It shall be shown that no significant property
changes will happen during the lifetime, or the changes should be quantified and addressed in the design.
The changes in mechanical properties due to swelling or shrinkage shall be evaluated.
The changes in mechanical properties due to additive leaching shall be evaluated.
Gas accumulation may cause debonding. Once debonding exists, gas can accumulate in the interface and increase the debonding
area.
Blistering resistance/rapid decompression
Typically, the liner is not exposed to UV. Its resistance to UV shall only be evaluated in the case of UV exposure.
The effect of thermal exposure on mechanical properties shall be considered.
6.3.2.3 Cover in thermoplastic composite based CDCT

The cover provides protection against the outer environment.
The cover shall be watertight or at least have low permeation for water. If the cover is damaged, the CDCT laminate needs to
provide the water tightness.
The cover may also be designed not to be water or fluid tight, in which case the CDCT laminate needs to assume that function.
The cover shall be designed not to rupture.
The cover shall have sufficiently high strains to failure and yield strains that it can follow the CDCT movements without failure or
plastic deformation.
The cover shall be designed to prevent fracture. Through-thickness cracks lead to reduced fluid tightness.
Generally, the cover shall not yield under operation.
If the cover is designed to be exposed to yielding occasionally, for example during reeling under transport, the consequences of
the plastic deformation shall be considered in the design. When unloading, the plastically deformed cover may go into
compression. This may cause unacceptable debonding of the cover.
It shall be evaluated whether a reduction in the thickness of the cover due to yielding would increase permeability beyond the
required value.
The cover and CDCT laminate shall not debond. Debonding reduces the ability to carry shear loads from joints, clamps and
caterpillars, etc.
Crazing may reduce strength and increase permeability.
The possible influence of any thickness changes on permeability shall be evaluated.
Damage due to impact may influence the strength of the cover or cover/laminate interface. Impact damage may also increase
permeability.
The cover shall keep its required load-bearing capacity and fluid tightness after degradation due to puncturing or scratches.
The handling and operation of the CDCT may cause puncturing or scratching. This reduces the cover's thickness and may
cause failure under load control conditions or fatigue. Temporary damage may be acceptable.
67
The cover shall keep its required load-bearing capacity and fluid tightness after degradation due to wear and tear caused by
handling. Thickness may be added to the cover to compensate for any loss of material due to wear and tear. Temporary
damage may be acceptable.
Chemical degradation may change elastic properties, strength and permeability. It shall be shown that no significant property
changes will happen during the lifetime, or the changes should be quantified and addressed in the design.
The changes in mechanical properties due to swelling or shrinkage shall be evaluated. The changes in mechanical properties
due to additive leaching shall be evaluated.
Gas accumulation may cause debonding. Once debonding exists, gas can accumulate in the interface and increase the
debonding area.
Blistering resistance/rapid decompression
UV exposure shall be evaluated.
The influence of thermal exposure on mechanical properties shall be considered.
6.4 END FITTING DESIGN CRITERIA

6.4.1 Introduction
End fittings shall be designed to meet at least the same reliability requirements as the entire CDCT and the pipe section.
The end fitting design criteria are based on analysing the performance of the end fitting. The analysis is then checked by full-scale
testing as described in Section 8 for critical cases.
It shall be checked that the end fitting design fulfils all the specifications given in Section 3.
There are many possible ways to design an end fitting and various design aspects can be combined in different ways. This RP
allows a free choice of design solutions as long as the solution can be verified and passes the performance requirements. Figure
6-1 shows a schematic illustration of some fittings that might be used alone or in various combinations (this is not a real existing
solution for an end fitting). Many other solutions are possible.
leeve
eal eal re load
Wedge
over
aminate
iner
etal
over
aminate
oating
aminate
Thermoset resin rich iner
Threaded connection
Figure 6-1 Typical end fittings. Top: typically end-fittings for thermoplastic composite pipes. Bottom: typical threaded
connection fittings for thermoset resin-based pipes.
68
All end fittings and interfaces shall be evaluated against the same design criteria as described for the pipe in Section 6.3 and the
additional requirements given here. All the limit states stipulated in Section 5 shall be considered.
The three-dimensional stresses shall be addressed when designing the end fittings. Typically, a 3-D finite element analysis is
needed.
A large conservative bias may be necessary in the analysis to account for the many uncertainties in a joint design. This bias shall
nevertheless be estimated to obtain a reasonable prediction of the full-scale tests described in Section10. The full-scale tests may
also be used to update the design analysis, as for example described in DNV-ST-C501 Section 10.3.4 “Procedure for updating
the predicted resistance of a component”.
6.4.2 Failure mode evaluation analysis for end fittings

An FMEA shall be conducted for each end fitting solution. All critical failure mechanisms shall be evaluated for the design.
If the FMEA identifies failure modes or failure mechanisms that are not addressed in Section 5 of this document, these failure
mechanisms shall be carefully evaluated. Additional testing may be needed to obtain material properties in addition to those
specified in Section 4 and 8 to confirm calculations.
6.4.3 Metal components

Metal parts shall fulfil all the requirements given in DNV-ST-F201 Dynamic Risers, in particular Section 6 of that standard.
The inner steel part (stem) may be under high through thickness compressive (squeezing) forces. It shall be shown that ovalization
remains within the acceptable tolerances of the inner bore and that the system will not collapse.
Possible flow disturbances in the inner fluid due to the geometry of the inner stem shall be checked against the flow requirements
specified in Section 3.
It shall be checked whether the clamping forces may be reduced due to creep of the liner or laminate and, if so, what the
consequences for the end fitting´s functionality are.
6.4.4 Liner, laminate and cover - fluid tightness

The design shall show that fluid tightness is ensured in the end fitting region.
The liner typically provides fluid tightness in the CDCT's pipe section. The transition region from the pipe to the end fitting and
termination of the liner shall be checked for fluid tightness.
The cover typically provides tightness against external water and the environment in the CDCT's pipe section. The transition
region from the pipe to the end fitting and termination of the cover shall be checked for watertightness.
Any sealing system, such as O-rings, clamps, etc., shall be clearly described and its performance shall be documented.
The possible loss of pre-tensioning due to creep shall be evaluated for the fluid tightness of all sealing systems, such as the liner
and O-rings.
If a combination of laminate, liner and cover is a structural part of the end fitting system, the transfer of loads from the end fitting
to the laminate shall be described. The following aspects shall be considered as a minimum in addition to the requirements given
for the pipe section in Sections 5 and 8.
1. The characteristics of the metal-laminate, metal-liner and metal-cover interfaces. The materials may be bonded, in
which case the bond strength is required for the design. The interfaces may be unconnected, in which case, friction
coefficients need to be known. The interfaces may have mechanical interlocking so that interface properties may not be
important.
2. A description of the adhesive system used between the metal and the laminate, liner or cover (if present). The long-
term performance of an adhesive should be established with great care. The long-term performance is influenced not
only by properties of the substrate, adhesive and interface, but also by the surface preparation and application method.
69
3. The transfer of shear stresses from the metal part through the liner or cover into the laminate.
4. Possible effects of clamping forces on the laminate, liner or cover and their interfaces.
5. Excessive penetration of steel teeth into the liner, cover or laminate.
6. The effect of swelling or shrinkage of the polymeric materials.
7. The effect of thermal stresses.
8. The effect of loss of clamping forces between the end fitting and CDCT due to stress relaxation, creep, slippage, etc.
6.4.5 Ballooning of the thermoplastic composite pipe

The end fitting adds local ring stiffness to the CDCT system. The pipe section will expand more than the end fitting under internal
pressure and contract more under external pressure. This creates a ballooning effect at the transition between the end fitting and
pipe. The end fitting shall be designed such that the ballooning does not create stress concentrations that are too high for the pipe
or end fitting.
6.4.6 Welding of metallic components

If the end fitting's metallic components need to be welded, it shall be ensured that the heat transfer during the welding process
does not increase the polymer's local maximum temperature beyond the polymer's maximum service temperature.
Welding shall not influence the CDCT or any seals in the end fitting.
− If the temperature cannot be kept below the maximum service temperature, then the maximum service temperature for
the material qualification shall be the temperature due to welding. See also Section 3 for maximum temperatures.
− If welding causes temperature cycles around the glass transition temperature, possible recrystallization shall be
considered as described in Section 4.8.6.
or
− The properties of the area influenced by welding need to be established separately.
6.4.7 Axial load and bending capacity

The axial load capacity and bending capacity of the end fitting and pipe connection shall be designed for all cases. Short -term
and long-term static strength and cyclic fatigue resistance shall be considered.
Combinations of axial loads, bending and torsion shall also be analysed. If the end fitting is not exposed to some of these loading
conditions or the loads are very small, a reduced analysis is sufficient. It should be noted that some resistance to any of these
loads is required to create sufficient durability.
The predicted properties shall be confirmed by testing as described in Section 8.
If a bend restrictor is specified for the CDCT system, bending loads on the CDCT-end-fitting interface may be less than on the
pipe at the minimum bending radius, see Section 3.
6.4.8 Galvanic protection

Protection against galvanic corrosion shall be provided if CDCT fibers can electrically interact with the end fitting, e.g. carbon
fibers and metal.
6.4.9 End fittings relying on friction

Some end fittings may rely on friction between the metal and the CDCT. In such case, special attention shall be paid to the end
fitting's axial and bending load capacity.
It shall be shown whether the friction is influenced by internal pressure or thermal loads. If pressure may influence friction, the
load-bearing capacity shall be evaluated for the pressurized and unpressurized conditions and/or hot and cold conditions.
70
It shall be evaluated whether creep or stress relaxation may reduce the friction.
Ratcheting, where the CDCT moves slowly out of the end fitting, should be considered.
The current version of the document does not provide any test methods for determining friction performance. Additional testing
may be needed to obtain these properties. The holding forces due to friction preventing slippage can be seen as an interlaminar
or interface shear strength. Characteristic friction strength and fatigue performance values should be obtained, in the same way
as the interlaminar properties in Section 4.5.
Changes to the interface properties due to corrosion or erosion of the metal or lubrication by water or fluids shall be assessed.
71
7 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 General
The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the analysis methodology for CDCTs.
The performance of the CDCTs shall be given by performance envelopes as described in Section 9. Performance envelopes are
based on several structural analysis calculations. The structural analysis shall show whether critical failure mechanisms are
violated for a given load case and environment. Which failure mechanisms are critical is described in Section 6.3 (Table 5-1) and
Section 6.4. If design criteria are violated the load combination is outside the performance envelope, otherwise it is inside the
performance envelope. This section shows how the structural analysis shall be done.
The load cases are different combinations of pressure, axial load, bending, torsion and local point loads. All loads shall be
described as characteristic loads.
The characteristic loads serve as boundary conditions for the forthcoming local analysis. The local analysis leads to local load
effects (stresses and strains) in all parts of the component. Finally, the local load effects resulting from the local analysis are
applied to the local design criteria (or failure criteria) in order to predict possible failures in the CDCT components. The result for
each relevant failure criterion shall be reported. If loads exceed the limits for critical failure mechanisms the investigated load
combination is not permissible.
If the local investigations are performed by progressive failure analysis, it may be possible to detect a sequence of (acceptable)
failure mechanisms that may arise prior to the final (unacceptable) failure mechanism (often fiber failure).
Guidance note:
As an example, let us assume that the local analysis predicts the presence of matrix cracking, viscoelastic deformation or yielding
somewhere in the CDCT (and that matrix cracking viscoelastic deformation or yielding is acceptable), which in turn leads to
reduced CDCT stiffness or permanent deformation. This local reduction in stiffness may influence the overall behaviour of the
CDCT system.
End of guidance note
At any time during the structure's design life, it should be documented that the structure can fulfil its functional requirements for:
• all characteristic load effect values combined with all sustained environmental values,
• all sustained load effect values combined with all characteristic environmental values.
The structural stress analysis shall be undertaken in a professional and well-documented manner. There are many possible ways
to perform such an analysis.
Detailed local analysis shall be applied for end fittings/joints and other critical parts of the CDCT system.
As a default, nominal dimensions shall be used for all calculations related to FRP laminates or polymers. Other dimensions, such
as “as built”, may be used if it can be shown that the choice is more correct or conservative.
For metals, the dimensions as described in the related metal standards, such as DNV-ST-F201 for dynamic risers, shall be used.
7.1.2 Highly nonlinear systems

In certain cases, it may be necessary to repeat the global analysis with degraded material properties and plastic or viscoelastic
deformation where relevant, because the material property changes will change the global response. Subsequently, the
presence of additional failure mechanisms should be investigated through a new local analysis. This iterative procedure
(between global analysis (with degraded nonlinear/plastic material properties) and detailed local failure analysis) should be
72
performed until no new failure mechanism is observed (acceptable design) or a crucial failure mechanism is predicted
(unacceptable design).
Guidance note:
The change of axial stiffness due to local degradation mechanisms is usually small and does not influence the global loads on the CDCT system. In such
cases, the global (static and dynamic) analysis does not need to be repeated even if the local analysis demonstrates that (acceptable) failure mechanisms
occur. A conservative approach should be chosen for the simplified analysis.
7.2 Local analysis

7.2.1 General
High pressure CDCTs generally have thick walls and a 3-D analysis is required. The region at and near the end fittings also
requires a 3-D analysis. If a 2-D analysis is used, it shall be shown that through-thickness stresses and changes of in-plane
stresses through the thickness can be ignored.
The boundary conditions should be selected carefully to represent the nature of the problem in the most representative way. It
should be demonstrated that the chosen boundary conditions lead to a realistic or conservative analysis of the structure.
The structural analysis should be performed for all phases during the structure's entire lifetime. Initial and degraded material
properties should be considered if relevant.
7.2.2 Input data

Thermal stresses and residual stresses that result from the production process or in-service loading should be considered in all
analysis. Note that residual stresses may reduce with time due to stress relaxation.
Stresses due to swelling or shrinkage caused by absorbed fluids or depleted additives should be included if relevant.
The elastic properties of the materials constituting the structure should be obtained as described in Section 4. In particular, time-
dependent stiffness properties based on the expected degradation due to environmental and loading rate conditions should be
considered. Local variations of these conditions should also be considered.
aminates should be analysed on the ply level. Each ply should be described by four elastic constants (E1, E2, G12, ν12) for in-
plane 2-D analysis and by nine elastic constants (E1, E2, G12, ν12, E3, G13, G23, ν13, ν23) in 3-D analysis. A nomenclature for
the various elastic constants is defined in [DNV-ST-F119].
As an alternative to elastic constants, the stiffness matrix for orthotropic plies may be used.
It should be shown that the estimated stiffness gives conservative load-effect results. The choice of stiffness values may be
different for strength- and stiffness-limited designs. More details are given in the sections below.
If fibers are not oriented in the principal stress directions, they want to rotate to these directions. The matrix usually prevents this
rotation. If the matrix cracks or yields, the fibers may be free to rotate slightly. This rotation is usually not modelled. However, it
should be checked that ply stresses transverse to the fibers, and ply shear stresses are low in a ply with a degraded matrix.
Otherwise, a re-analysis using rotated fiber directions may be required.
If fibers are more than 70o apart, see Figure 4-2, the behaviour in the unreinforced direction shall be established by testing
representative pipes. The test results shall be implemented in the FE analysis.
7.2.3 Analysis types

Analytical and/or numerical calculations may be used in the structural analysis. The FE method is presently the most commonly
used numerical method for structural analysis, but other methods, such as finite difference or finite series methods, may also be
applied.
73
Guidance note:
While the FE method is applicable for a wide range of problems, analytical solutions and the finite series approach often put too many
restrictions on the laminate lay-up, geometry etc., and are thus insufficient for the design of most real-world composite structures.
Laminate analysis is an additional type of analysis that is applied to layered composites to derive the properties of a laminate from
the properties of its constituent plies.
7.2.4 Local linear analysis with degraded properties

In many CDCT applications (for example CDCTs with liners) several failure mechanisms (e.g. matrix cracking, yielding or
viscoelasticity in the CDCT laminate) may be accepted, while fiber failure is the mechanism of interest. The local analysis of such
CDCTs may be performed using a linear procedure with degraded properties.
In this case, due to matrix cracking, yielding or viscoelasticity in the component, the material properties are degraded in the entire
domain by setting certain elasticity parameters to zero (or close to zero for numerical reasons). This means that, for in-plane 2-D
analysis, the stiffness in the fiber direction (of each ply) remains unaltered, while the rest of the properties are assumed to be
changed to zero.
If 3-D analysis is required, the in-plane parameters are dealt with as in the 2-D analysis, while all through-thickness parameters
are changed if through-thickness stresses cause matrix cracking or nonlinear deformation of the matrix.
Other more detailed degradation methods for the elasticity parameters may be used if experimental justification can be provided,
e.g., keeping higher stiffness in compression or only small reductions in stiffness in the case of minor damage.
This method should be mainly used for statically determined problems, as is the case for a CDCT. Otherwise, this simplified
method, with the degradation of material properties in the entire domain, may offer considerably incorrect stress/strain distributions.
If the error cannot be analysed and included in the model factor, a more refined method shall be used.
7.2.5 Local progressive failure analysis

Local progressive analysis, which is presented herein, is capable of providing more accurate results than those obtained by using
the simplified method presented in Section 7.2.4. Instead of degrading almost all the parameters in the entire domain, this method
is based on stepwise degradation of a limited number of parameters in bounded regions.
All types of local failure mechanisms may be detected by the method. The method may be applied for both 2-D and 3-D cases.
Initially, non-degraded ply properties shall be used in the progressive failure analysis.
The boundary conditions (load effects from the global analysis) for the component are imposed in a stepwise manner, as a first
step, a small portion, e.g., 10%, of the load is applied. Based on this load level, laminate and ply stresses and strains are calculated
and analysed using the relevant failure criteria (for each ply). If a failure or degradation (such as yielding or viscoelastic deformation)
is detected somewhere in a ply, certain material properties of that ply shall be locally degraded, which means that the parameters
shall be reduced in locations (e.g., individual elements in a finite element analysis) where the failure is detected. Then the local
analysis shall be repeated with locally degraded parameters for the same load level. If no failure is observed, the load is increased
to e.g., 0.2 x load, and a similar failure analysis is performed.
If the analysis finds that the matrix is degraded, the properties should be changed locally in the same way as described in Section
7.2.4.
The stepwise increase in loads continues until a critical failure mechanism is observed (unacceptable design) or until the entire
load is applied and no critical failure mechanism is detected (acceptable design).
7.2.6 Degraded elastic properties

Progressive failure analysis in Section 7.2.5 or analysis with degraded properties in Section 7.2.4 require a reduction of the elastic
properties describing the effect of the damage. The confirmation tests in Section 8.3 may be used to determine the reduction
74
values. Once the reduction values are determined they shall be specified, and the same values shall be used to predict the
performance of all full-scale testing.
7.2.7 Analytical methods

Analytical methods can be divided into two classes: analytical solutions of (differential) equations or the use of handbook formulae.
Analytical methods shall not be used outside their assumptions and limitations.
Guidance note:
The main disadvantage of available analytical solutions is that simplifications often put too many restrictions on geometry, laminate build-up, etc., and
hence the solutions are insufficient for the design of more complex composite structures.
Handbook formulae are usually too simple to cover all the design issues and are also in general insufficient. Simplified isotropic calculation methods should
not be used unless it can be demonstrated that they give valid results.
Analytical solutions or handbook formulae used within their assumptions and limitations may be utilized to validate finite element
analysis results.
7.2.8 Local finite element analysis

Finite element calculations shall be done in a professional way using recognized methods.
Analysis results shall be presented concisely using appropriate post-processing options. The use of graphics is highly
recommended, i.e., contour plots, (amplified) displacement plots, time histories, stress and strain distributions, etc.
The results shall be documented in a way that helps the designer to assess the adequacy of the structure, identify weaknesses
and ways of correcting them and, where desired, optimize the structure.
FEA results shall be verified by comparing them to relevant analytical results, experimental data and/or the results of previous
similar analysis.
When changing the FEA software/program, the reference calculations shall be repeated to demonstrate that the new software
gives acceptable results.
Verification of the correct application of the many different relevant co-ordinate systems shall be considered.
More details on using FE calculations for composites can be found in DNV-ST-C501.
7.3 Thermal strains and stresses

Changes in the temperature from the environment resulting in thermal stresses and strains as well as dimensional changes to the
pipe body shall be taken into account.
The general thermal strains, ei, can be expressed as: , where αi are the thermal expansion coefficients and the
temperature is denoted by T.
Thermal expansion coefficients may depend on the temperature and environmental conditions. The relevant coefficients for the
actual temperatures shall be used.
Residual stresses shall be calculated based on the reference temperature for which αi was determined. For thermoplastic
materials, this is initially usually the processing temperature of welding the tapes. Due to stress relaxation, the reference
temperature tends to change towards the usual storage or use temperature.
Accordingly, the stress-strain relations shall be modified to account for the (stress-free) environmentally induced expansional
strains as follows: .
If the CDCT or a part of it is constrained, e.g., within a metal end fitting, the effect of stresses due to thermal effects shall be
considered.
75
7.4 Swelling or shrinkage effects
Changes in fluid absorption from the environment resulting in thermal stresses and strains as well as in dimensional changes to
the pipe body shall be taken into account. The general swelling strains, ei, can be expressed as: .
βi are the swelling expansion coefficients and is the swelling agent concentration inside the laminate. Accordingly, the stress-
strain relations shall be modified to account for the stress-free environmentally induced expansional strains as follows:
.
If the CDCT or a part of it is constrained, e.g. within a metal end fitting, the effect of stresses due to swelling shall be considered.
Similar to the absorption of fluids, fluids or additives may leach out. Effects of leaching shall be treated in an equivalent way to
swelling.
7.5 Buckling
All parts of the CDCT, such as the pipe body, liners and fittings, shall be evaluated for buckling. Details about buckling analysis
can be found in DNV-ST-C501 Section 9.11 Buckling.
A buckling analysis of the CDCT shall be carried out with the aid of well-established finite-element software or the equivalent.
The following aspects shall be considered in the analysis:
1. presence of axial compressive stresses in the pipe section
2. presence of circumferential compressive or shear stresses in the pipe section
3. presence of all compressive stresses in the area of the end fitting.
An assessment shall be made of the shape and size of initial, geometrical imperfections, such as ovality, that may influence the
buckling behaviour of the member. Normally, the most critical imperfection shape for a given buckling mode has a similar form to
the buckling mode itself. However, any geometrical feature (including eccentricity of loading) resulting in compressive forces that
are not coincident with the neutral axis of the member may require consideration. The assumed form and amplitude of the
imperfection shall be determined on the basis of the manufacturing process used, with due consideration of the relevant production
tolerances, see DNV-ST-C501.
Possible changes due to the shape of the CDCT over its lifetime shall be considered. Ovalization due to caterpillar squeezing,
reeling and the contact with hard spots shall be evaluated. The effects of bending shall also be considered.
In some cases, a geometrically nonlinear analysis may be avoided as follows. The elastic critical load (without imperfections) Pe
is calculated. In addition, an ultimate failure load Pf is estimated at which the entire cross-section would fail by compressive fiber
failure, in the absence of bending stresses at the section in question. If Pe > Pf the further assessment may be based on
geometrically linear analysis provided geometrical imperfections are included and the partial load effect modelling factor is
increased by multiplying it by the factor:
In cases where it is possible to establish the bending responses (stresses, strains or displacements) associated with in-plane
loading separately from the in-plane (axial) responses, a first estimate of the influence of geometrical nonlinearity combined with
the imperfection may be obtained by multiplying the relevant bending response parameter obtained from a geometrically linear
analysis by the following factor
and combining the modified bending responses with the (unmodified) in-plane responses.
76
The above procedures may be non-conservative for some cases where the post-buckling behaviour is unstable. Examples include
cylindrical shells and cylindrical panels under axial loading. Such cases shall be subject to special analysis and/or tests.
Initially, a natural frequency buckling analysis shall be performed assuming initial (non-degraded) elastic properties for the
laminates. This shall be repeated with alternative, finer meshes, until the lowest natural frequency and corresponding modes are
not significantly affected by further refinement. The main purposes of this analysis are to clarify the relevant buckling mode shapes
and to establish the required mesh density for subsequent analysis.
Careful attention shall be paid to the correct modelling of boundary conditions.
If the applied load exceeds, or is close to, the calculated elastic critical buckling load, the design should be modified to improve
the buckling strength before proceeding further.
A step-by-step analysis shall be carried out. Geometrical nonlinearity shall be included in the model. The failure criteria shall be
checked at each step. If partial failure, such as matrix cracking, yielding or delamination, is predicted, any analysis for higher loads
shall be performed with properties reduced as described in [DNV-ST-C501 Section 6.4.5].
Alternatively, a geometrically nonlinear analysis may be performed using entirely degraded properties throughout the structure.
This will normally provide conservative estimates of stresses and deformations. However, provided reinforcing fibers are present
in sufficient directions, so that the largest range of un-reinforced directions does not exceed 70º, such an estimate will not normally
be excessively conservative.
The calculated buckling load will be the load that causes the violation of any one of the design criteria given in Section 5.
7.6 Partial load-model factor

7.6.1 General
A deterministic factor shall be assigned to each structural analysis method. This is designated in this guideline as the partial load-
model factor γSd, see also Section 10.4.
The load-model factor accounts for uncertainties in the structural analysis method being used to accurately describe and quantify
the structure's response.
Model factors for the main structural analysis methods are given in the following subsections.
7.6.2 Connection between partial load-model factor and analytical analysis

When analytical methods are used within their assumptions and limitations, a model factor of 1.0 should be used.
If analytical methods are used outside their assumptions and limitations, it shall be documented that the magnitude of the model
factor ensures that all predicted stresses and strains are higher than in reality. If the choice of model factor cannot be documented,
the analytical method shall not be used.
7.6.3 Connection between partial load-model factor and finite element analysis
FE methods are generally very accurate when the structure is properly modelled. The use of these methods with unsatisfactory
models is much more uncertain.
When FE methods are used within their assumptions and limitations (and according to Section 7.2.8), a model factor of 1.0 may
be used.
If FE methods are used outside their assumptions and limitations, it shall be documented that the magnitude of the model factor
ensures that all predicted stresses and strains are higher than in reality. If the model factor cannot be documented, the analysis
method shall not be used.
If the boundary conditions do not exactly represent the real conditions or are clearly conservative, the effect on the load model
factor shall be evaluated. As a minimum, a factor of 1.1 shall be used.
77
If the load-model factor cannot be determined for calculations in a critical region, e.g. a critical joint or region of stress
concentrations, experimental qualification should be carried out.
7.7 Material properties

The origin of all material properties used in the analysis shall be documented and traceable.
The testing and documentation requirements stipulated in Section 4 shall be applied to all properties listed in that section.
7.8 Geometric parameters

The geometric parameters shall represent the dimensions of the actual CDCT and its components.
The geometric parameters used in the analysis shall be consistent with the specifications stated in Section 3 and the design
drawings.
Any geometrical simplifications made in the analysis compared to the real structure shall be explained and justified.
Geometric tolerances of the real CDCT shall be addressed by the analysis.
7.9 Design temperatures – thermal conditions

The temperatures of fluids and environments are given according to the design input requirements stated in Section 3. The
temperatures shall be calculated for each part or component of the CDCT. As a minimum, the maximum temperature ,
minimum temperature and typical operating temperature shall be calculated for each phase and component, see also
DNV-ST-F119 Section 3.7.
The temperatures may differ from one phase to the other and may change over the lifetime, leading to many more temperatures
that may be defined. Certain temperatures may also only be relevant in combination with specific fluids or environments. It may
be beneficial to establish temperature sequences over the lifetime to optimize the design and prototype testing.
If simplifications in the temperature calculations are made, it shall be documented that the choices are conservative.
Note that in some cases the choice of too high temperatures may be conservative, while in other cases too low temperatures may
be the conservative choice. e.g., creep is most severe at high temperatures, while fracture toughness is lowest at low temperatures.
Thermal stresses are most severe for high temperature gradients.
7.10 Calculated design pressures

A system evaluation shall be conducted to ensure that the stated pressures are the absolute maximum and cannot increase due
to temperature changes, pump failures, dynamic pulses (water hammer), etc.
7.11 Point loads and Impact response

The effect of point loads and impacts should be evaluated by testing as described in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 respectively.
78
8 MEDIUM CONFIRMATION AND FULL-SCALE TESTING
8.1 General
The aim of confirmation testing is to verify the reliability of the design methodology and the models used for structural analysis for
prediction of the response of CDCT to loads through its entire life cycle. With material properties from Section 4, failure
mechanisms and design criteria in Section 5 and models for structural analysis in Section 7, designers will be able to design
CDCT and predict its performance envelope for the conditions outlined in the design in Section 3.
However, to show that the predictions are accurate and reliable enough to reach the target probabilities of failure of this guideline,
a series of medium and full-scale tests are required to validate the predictions.
8.2 Confirmation testing for CDCT product families

8.2.1 Overview
As described in Section 2.5, different classes of CDCT will be grouped into product families. For each product family, a Product
Family Representative (PFR) shall be tested for the full scope of confirmation testing.
Each family could have a number of Product Variants (PV) which are members of the product family. The PV shall be tested
according to the limited scope of full-scale testing.
8.2.2 Product Family Description
A product family consisting of product family representative (PFR) and product variants (PV). The PFR shall have the largest
diameter and the largest thickness to diameter ratio. The relationship between PFR and PV should be described as follow:
1. The lay-up of CDCT is limited to the lay-up of PFR with less than 5 degrees difference of fiber orientations in each ply.
2. A product family size range extends in nominal diameter reduced by up to 50% of the diameter of PFR. Thickness of
the liner should not be included in the diameter.
3. Thickness to diameter ratio of a PV in a product family variant should fall within

𝑡 𝑡 𝑡
0.6 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑃𝐹𝑅 ≤ 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑃𝑉 ≤ 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑃𝐹𝑅
𝐷𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑃𝐹𝑅 𝐷𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑃𝑉 𝐷𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑃𝐹𝑅
where t is the thickness of CDCT laminate (excluding liner/cover) and D is the outer diameter of CDCT excluding the
liner. Thickness and diameter should be the measured as produced values.
4. CDCT production machinery, process and tolerance shall be identical across the PFR and PV in one product family.
8.3 Confirmation PFR testing for CDCT

8.3.1 Short-term PFR test types
8.3.1.1 Test program
Short-term static destructive tests shall be performed on the PFR for CDCT. Short-term tests for CDCT are listed in Table 8-1.
Any end fitting may be used for the testing. All experimental failure loads and failure strains should be the calculated loads
based on the mean material strength plus or minus one standard deviation. The standard deviation shall be taken from the
material data, not the pipe measurements. A more detailed probabilistic analysis as given in [DNV-ST-F119 Section 4.7.5] may
be made to confirm that the data belong to the same population.
Table 8-1: Short-term PFR confirmation testing for CDCT.
Test type Number of specimens Loading Temperature
Axial tension 3 Short-term static H
79
Axial compression 3 Short-term static H
Burst 6 Short-term static E
External pressure 6 Short-term static H
Hoop strength tests 3 Short-term static H
Crushing ring tests 3 Short-term static H
E: extreme temperatures with maximum and minimum design temperature
All tests shall be instrumented with strain gauges. For burst tests, three tests shall be performed at minimum and three tests at
maximum design temperature.
Burst tests shall be performed without supported ends. If the ends are supported in the actual application
testing may be performed with supported ends.
Test procedures for all tests are described in DNV-ST-F119.
8.3.1.2 Validation of short-term PFR tests for CDCT

Results of the tests in Section 8.3.1.1 shall be compared to the predictions of the models of CDCT. Upper and lower bound of the
performance of CDCT, should be modeled using the mean ± 1 standard deviation of the material properties measured in Section
4 without safety factors. Geometrical variations such as allowable variation in laminate thickness and ovality of CDCT shall be
included in the predicted upper and lower bound of performance of CDCT.
Material
properties
Scatter in
strength
CDCT
Upper/Lower
Bound
Performance
without safety
factors
Geometrical
Imperfection
Figure 8-1: Prediction of upper and lower bound of CDCT performance for validation against short-term confirmation
tests.
The following shall be verified to validate the predictions:
1. Axial tests
80
a. Test load vs. displacement curve shall fall within the upper and lower bound of the predicted performance of
CDCT.
b. Maximum load capacity of CDCT in tension shall fall within the upper and lower bound of the predicted
performance of CDCT.
2. Burst tests
a. Pressure vs. strain curve shall fall within the upper and lower bound of the predicted performance of CDCT.
b. Burst pressure of CDCT shall fall within the upper and lower bound of the predicted performance of CDCT.
3. External pressure tests
a. External collapse pressure of CDCT shall fall within the upper and lower bound of the predicted performance of
CDCT.
8.3.1.3 Matrix behavior after initiation of damage

The design criteria for matrix cracking or yielding are used to predict the onset of matrix damage. Subsequent failure mechanisms,
such as fiber failure, happen after matrix damage has developed. The confirmation tests from Table 8-1shall be used to confirm
and possibly adjust the assumptions made in the design analysis on how much the elastic properties change due to matrix damage,
see Section 7.2.6.
8.3.2 Long-term PFR test types for CDCT

Long-term static destructive tests shall be performed on PFR for CDCT.
Long-term tests for casing and tubing are listed in Table 8-2 and Table 8-3 respectively.
Any end fitting may be used for the testing. The tests are confirmation tests that should fail within an upper and lower limit
calculated from the material testing.
Table 8-2: Long-term PFR confirmation testing for casing.
Axial compression 3 Long-term 1000 hours H
Burst* 3 Long-term 1000 hours H
Table 8-3: Long-term PFR confirmation testing for tubing.
Axial tension 3 Long-term 1000 hours H
Burst* 3 Long-term 1000 hours H
*: Burst tests shall be performed without supported ends. If the CDCT has no liner or cover (i.e. matrix cracking is critical, see
Section 5.4 and 5.15.4), the specimen shall be exposed to the specified maximum axial load without internal pressure and to the
specified maximum axial load with internal pressure before running the survival test.
81
All tests shall be instrumented with strain gauges.
Test procedures for all tests are described in DNV-ST-F119.
8.3.2.2 Validation of long-term PFR tests for CDCT

Results of the tests in Section 8.3.2, shall be compared to the predictions of the models of CDCT. Upper and lower bound of the
performance of CDCT should be modeled using the mean ± 1 standard deviation of the long-term material properties measured
in Section 2 without safety factors. Geometrical imperfections such as allowable variation in laminate thickness and ovality of
CDCT shall be included in the predicted upper and lower bound of performance of CDCT.
All experimental failure times for tests in Section 8.3.2 should fall inside the CDCT Upper/Lower Bound Performance.
If actual testing times exceed 1000 hours the methods described in Section 8.3.2.3 may be used to limit the testing time.
Material
properties
Scatter in
time to
failure CDCT
Upper/Lower
Bound
Performance
without safety
factors
Geometrical
Imperfection
Figure 8-2: Prediction of upper and lower bound of CDCT performance for validation against long-term confirmation
tests.
8.3.2.3 Stepwise validation tests for long term properties

In some cases, the long-term validation tests do not fail within a reasonable time at the initial load level of the test. In that case a
stepwise approach may be used to achieve failure.
The initial stress level 𝜎1 is given by the mean curve:
log 𝜎1 = log 𝜎0 − 𝛽 log 𝑡1
where 𝑡1 is the planned test time (typically 1000 hours), 𝜎0 and 𝛽 are the parameters describing the mean stress rupture curve.
The test shall be run at the stress level 𝜎1 for at least the planned test time 𝑡1 . If the sample has not failed the loading may be
increased to a new level. The increase shall be less than 30% of the static strength. The sample shall remain at the new stress
82
𝜎2 for a time 𝑡2 . The time 𝑡2 shall be at least 24 hours. This procedure may be repeated for times 𝑡𝑖 at stress 𝜎𝑖 until the sample
fails.
The validation test is passed successfully if:

𝑡𝑖 𝑡𝑖
∑ log 𝜎0 +𝛽𝜎
̂𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 −log 𝜎𝑖
≤1≤∑ log 𝜎0 −𝛽𝜎
̂𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 −log 𝜎𝑖
( ) ( )
10 𝛽 10 𝛽
where 𝜎̂𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 is the standard deviation in log time of the stress rupture curve.
8.4 Full scale tests for product family variants (PV) including the PFR
8.4.1 General
8.4.1.1 Overview
The main purpose of the testing is twofold:
— verify performance under the main loading conditions
— verify the design analysis.
This section defines a minimum test program.
Additional testing shall be done if uncertainties in the design analysis cannot be resolved, and the test program described here
does not address these uncertainties. This aspect may especially be relevant if an FMECA, in particular of the end fitting design
see Section 6.4.2, identifies failure modes or mechanisms that are not covered in this guideline.
All tests given are acceptance tests. The acceptance criteria are based on design calculations, material test data and statistical
information.
The following steps shall be followed when defining and carrying out tests:
— The failure mode, failure mechanism and location of the failure, etc., shall be predicted before the test is carried out,
based on the design calculations.
— After the test: verify the failure mode, failure mechanism and location of the failure. If these are as predicted above, the
design assumptions are considered corroborated. If one or more of these are not as predicted above, the reason for the
discrepancy shall be investigated and the validity of design assumptions re-evaluated.
— The onset of leakage shall be predicted for all tests and all tests shall check for possible early leakages.
— If a critical failure mechanism is detected, the test should be stopped, and a failure analysis should possibly be carried
out. Testing to complete destruction usually gives less information and does not allow (or complicates) an analysis of the failure
mechanisms developing before ultimate failure.
8.4.1.2 Selection of specimens

All specimens shall be of the same type as the PV used in the real application. The diameter, thickness and laminate layup shall
be the same. The length may be shorter than the actual product, as described for the individual tests.
All prototype testing specimens shall be made using the same production machinery, process and tolerance as the actual
product.
Changing production equipment later on would require a separate evaluation of whether the process would change properties.
Retesting according to this section generally needed if the equivalence of the production method cannot be demonstrated.
If the CDCT may have repairs done during production, representative repairs shall be included in the test specimens.
83
8.4.1.3 Permitted modifications to actual end fittings for testing
Many of the tests specified in this section shall be done using actual production end fittings. The intention of this requirement is
to test the performance of the Composite Metal Interface CMI. The end fitting may be modified for test requirements or
simplified provided the performance of the CMI is not affected by these changes.
It shall be demonstrated that the end fitting modifications do not influence the performance of the CMI.
8.4.1.4 Conditioning/reeling and combining of specimens

If the CDCT spends a lot of time on a reel, creating permanent deformations or ovalization, test specimens should be
preconditioned to attain these deformations before the prototype testing described in this Section 8.4 is carried out, unless it can
be demonstrated that the reeling has a non-critical impact on the test results, or this can be demonstrated by design
calculations.
It shall also be evaluated whether stress rupture and fatigue testing as described in Section 8.4.3 shall be undertaken as further
pre-conditioning on the same specimens and in sequence in order to better represent the existing actual operating conditions.
8.4.1.5 Pressurizing according to Factory Acceptance Test

All full-scale specimens shall be exposed to the pressure described for the factory acceptance test before testing.
8.4.2 Short-term Product Variant tests

Short-term static destructive tests shall be performed on PV for CDCT. Short-term tests for CDCT are listed in Table 8-4.
Table 8-4: Short-term PV confirmation testing for CDCT.
Axial tension 3 Short-term static H
Axial compression 3 Short term static H
Burst 3 Short-term static H
Burst under bending 3 Short-term static H
External pressure 3 Short-term static H
Torsional balance 3 Short-term static RT
Torsional strength 3 Short-term static H
Point load test At least 3 Short-term static Extreme
H: highest design temperature, RT Room temperature
All tests shall be instrumented with strain gauges.
Detailed test procedures and acceptance criteria for the point load test are given in Section 8.5. All other tests are specified in
DNV-ST-F119 Section 10. The torsional strength test shall follow the same procedures as the axial tensile strength test, except
that the applied loads are torsional and not axial.
8.4.2.2 Validation of short-term PV tests

Results of the tests in Section 8.4.2 shall be compared to the predictions of the models of CDCT. Upper and lower bound of the
performance of CDCT, should be modeled using the mean ± 1 standard deviation of the material properties measured in Section
84
4 without safety factors. Geometrical imperfections such as allowable variation in laminate thickness and ovality of CDCT shall be
included in the predicted upper and lower bound of performance of CDCT.
8.4.3 Long-term PV test types

Long-term tests for casing and tubing are listed in Table 8-5 and Table 8-6 respectively. Unlike the PFR long-term confirmation
tests, PV long-term confirmation tests are test-to-survive to be finished with a burst. All tests shall be performed with actual end
fittings and connections of CDCT.
Table 8-5: Long-term PFR confirmation testing for casing. (Limited axial fatigue)
Axial compression 2 Survival 1000 hours H
Internal pressure* 2 Survival 1000 hours H
Table 8-6: Long-term PFR confirmation testing for tubing.
Axial tension 2 Survival 1000 hours H
Internal pressure* 2 Survival 1000 hours H

*: If the CDCT has no liner or cover (i.e. matrix cracking is critical according to Section 5.4), the specimen shall be exposed to
the specified maximum axial load without internal pressure and to the specified maximum axial load with internal pressure
before running the survival test.
Note: Cyclic fatigue testing is not needed if cyclic fatigue is limited, see Section 5.4. If cyclic fatigue is significant testing and
analysis according to DNV-ST-F119 shall be done.
Detailed test procedures for all tests, selection of load levels and acceptance criteria can be found in DNV-ST-F119 Section 10.
8.5 Point load test

8.5.1 General
If a point load requirement is specified for the application, see Section 3.7.2.6 and 3.7.3.6], the effect of the point load shall be
tested.
Tests shall be done at the minimum and maximum temperature.
Point load testing may be done in three ways:
• Section 8.5.2 describes testing based on a specified point load and geometry. The testing should demonstrate that the
CDCT can survive the point load. The CDCT should be taken out of service or be repaired after being exposed to the
point load. This case should be mainly relevant for point loads during the installation phase.
• Section 8.5.3 describes point load testing based on defining point load limits. The point load limits shall be determined.
Subsequently, the specified point loads shall be tested, and the damage checked. The CDCT should be taken out of
service or repaired after the impact event.
• If the CDCT shall be operated with the impact damage present, Section 8.5.4 shall be applied.
85
8.5.2 Testing based on specified point loads
Representative shapes and boundary conditions shall be chosen when applying the point load.
The CDCT shall be checked for possible denting due to the point load. The size of the dent shall not exceed the requirements in
[6.2.3].
A burst test according to Section 8.4.2 shall be carried out on the specimen with damage due to the specified point load. The
calculated mean burst pressure should include the calculated effect of the damage due to the specified point load.
If no reduction in strength due to the damage from to the specified point load was calculated, the burst strength should not be
reduced by more than 10% compared to the mean minus one standard deviation of the burst strength of undamaged CDCT
specimens.
This approach means that a CDCT which experiences impact would not fail instantly but must be taken out of service after the
event.
8.5.3 Testing based on defining point load limits

The CDCT shall be exposed to point loads with different force and shapes.
Subsequently, the exposed regions shall be cut from the pipe section and the material cross-section shall be investigated by
microscopy.
Point loads are not acceptable if they cause:
— Fiber damage in the load-bearing laminate.
— Thickness-penetrating cracks in the cover or liner.
— The debonding of the liner and CDCT laminate.
— Dents beyond the requirements in Section 6.2.3.
If the damage stated above is not caused by the point load the CDCT can be seen as acceptable for a limited period of service
time. For longer service times see Section 8.5.4.
If resistance to certain point loads is specified in Section 3.7.2.6 or Section 3.7.3.6, these point loads shall create less damage to
the CDCT than that which has been described in this subsection.
The point load test shall be tested as described in Section 8.5.2. However, instead of a pressure test after the point load as in
Section 8.5.2, the damage shall be investigated and compared to the acceptable limits established in this section.
8.5.4 Testing for permanent service after exposure to a point load

The long-term acceptance of a certain level of damage from point loads requires the burst, static and cyclic fatigue tests of this
section [8] to be performed with the specified damage to show that the CDCT can tolerate this damage.
9 PERFORMANCE ENVELOPES
9.1 Introduction
Once the requirements of Sections 5, 7 and 8 are fulfilled, and the effects of environments as required in Section 4.8 are
determined, performance envelopes of CDCT for a product family representative PFR and product variants PV (see Section 8)
86
can be established. The methodology for determination of performance envelopes and requirements are described in this
section.
A performance envelope establishes the load capacity of the CDCT for combinations of pressure and axial load. The envelope
will be valid for a range of defined environmental conditions, lifetimes and possible other loads, such as torsion or point loads.
Short-term and long-term performance envelopes as described in Section 2.4 shall be established.
Short and long-term performance envelopes are defined as:
1. The short-term performance envelope represents the performance of a new pipe with no significant exposure to the
downhole environment. It covers installation of CDCT up to operation.
2. The long-term performance envelope represents the performance of a pipe exposed to the downhole environment and
potential performance degradation. It covers operation and decommissioning of CDCT.
The performance envelopes described in this guideline have the factored effective internal pressure on the y-axis and factored
effective axial stress on the x-axis. An alternative way, also used in this guideline, is to plot the factored effective hoop stress on
the y-axis and the factored effective axial stress on the x-axis. An example of the two types of performance envelopes is shown
in Figure 9-1. The dotted line in the factored effective hoop vs. axial stress plot shows roughly the loading condition of pure
pressure, where the hoop stress is two times the axial stress.
Effect of other loads such as torsion, bending and point loads as described in Section 3, if they lead to a change in the shape of
the envelope described as effective internal pressure vs. effective axial stress, should be considered and determined. The effective
internal pressure is the net pressure internal or external. The effective axial or hoop stress is the stress due to the sum of loads
from the end cap effects from the pressure and the externally applied axial load, self-weight, buoyancy, shock loads and friction.
Axial stresses due to bending may also be added to the effective axial stress. The axial stress or hoop stress is the average stress
over the thickness of the pipe which can be translated to axial load. Factored stresses or pressure means that the load, model
and system factors are applied, as will be described in more detail later.
(Note: for composite laminates the stresses in individual plies can vary considerably from the average stress over the thickness
of the laminate.)
Figure 9-1: Schematic representations of two types of performance envelopes of CDCT.
In some cases, it may be preferrable to present the axes of the performance envelope as average hoop stress vs. average axial
stress. It may also be useful to show just the applied axial load independent of the axial loads caused by pressure´s end cap
effect. In this guideline effective pressure vs. effective axial stress and effective hoop stress vs. effective axial stress is used.
CDCT design can be assessed based on the following:

87
1. Any combination of effective pressure and effective axial stresses within the envelope gives acceptable performance
2. Any combination of effective pressure and effective axial stresses outside the envelope exceeds the limits of an
acceptable design.
This section describes first how a performance envelope is used to determine whether a CDCT is suitable for a certain loading
condition. The remaining sections describe how a performance envelope can be created.
Performance envelopes shall be created for each component of the CDCT in the pipe body (laminate) and fittings as described
in Section 3.2. The final performance envelope of CDCT is then the intersection of all the individual envelopes as shown in Figure
9-2.
ressure ressure
Fitting
iner
xial load xial load
aminate
Figure 9-2: Illustration of the intersection of performance envelope of various components of CDCT.
To determine the performance envelope of each component, the designer should consider all critical failure mechanisms listed in
Section 5 when creating the performance envelope. Critical failure mechanisms are clearly defined for the pipe section in Section
5.2. They need to be developed for the end fittings according to Section 6.4, but are usually similar to the failure mechanisms of
the pipe section with a few additions. Structural calculations shall be done according to Section 7. The special aspects for the
components of the CDCT described in Section 7 shall be considered in all design calculations.
9.2 Loads and Axes of the performance envelopes

All loads shall be taken as described in Section 3.
The y-axis of the performance envelope describes the factored effective pressure. Instead of the pressure the y axis may also
describe the factored effective hoop stress in the laminate of the CDCT. The x-axis describes the factored effective axial stress in
the laminate caused by the pressure due to end cap effects, by externally applied loads and possible bending of the CDCT.
Factored means the load factors are applied to the pressure or stress.
Effective means several things:
The pressure is the net pressure to which the CDCT is exposed to. Net pressure is the difference of internal and external pressure.
Internal pressure has a positive sign while external pressure has a negative sign.
Stresses are the average over the thickness of the CDCT´s laminate.
Axial stresses are caused by the pressure due to end cap effects, by externally applied loads and possible bending of the CDCT.
88
The loads used in the plots of the performance envelopes shall be factored, i.e. the relevant load and model factors from Section
10 shall be applied.
The factored, effective pressure 𝑃̅ is:
𝑃̃ = 𝛾𝑆 𝛾𝑆𝐷 𝛾𝑃 𝑃
where 𝑃 is the applied pressure, 𝛾𝑆 is the system factor, 𝛾𝑆𝐷 is the load model factor and 𝛾𝑃 is the load factor for pressure. The
values for all factors are given in Section 10 .
The average stresses over the thickness shall be calculated.
The average hoop stress over the thickness 𝜎

⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 is:
𝑅𝑖 𝐷𝑖
⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 𝑃
𝜎 = 𝑃
𝑡 2𝑡
where 𝑅𝑖 is the inner radius and 𝑡 is the thickness of the CDCT´s laminate respectively. (Note: the liner´s or cover´s dimensions
are not included in these calculations.)
The average axial stress over the thickness is a result of three components, the axial stress caused by the pressure due to end
𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
cap effects 𝜎
⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 , stresses caused by additional axial loads 𝜎
⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 and stresses caused by bending 𝜎
⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 .
The average axial stress due to pressure is:
𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑅𝑖2 𝐷𝑖2

⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜎 =𝑃 =𝑃
𝑡 [2𝑅𝑖 + 𝑡] 4𝑡 [𝐷𝑖 + 𝑡]
for small wall thickness 𝑡 this reduces to:
𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 ⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
𝜎 𝑅 𝐷
⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛−𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 =
𝜎 =𝑃 ==𝑃
2 2𝑡 4𝑡
𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
An additional axial load 𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 gives an average stress across the cross section
𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜎 =
𝜋 𝑡 [2𝑅 + 𝑡]
If the CDCT can be bent, the axial stress due to bending shall be considered:
𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅
𝜎 = ± 𝐸𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝑀𝐵𝑅
𝑀𝐵𝑅
𝑖𝑓 𝑡 ≤ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑅 < 𝑀𝐵𝑅/50
100
where 𝐸𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 is the axial Young´s modulus of the CDCT´s laminate and 𝑀𝐵𝑅 is the minimum bending radius measured to the
midline of the CDCT.
Note: Only bending with large radii is considered here, where the pipe bends but local bending of the laminate can be ignored.
⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 is the average hoop stress over the wall thickness. For an isotropic material the highest stress is on the inside of the wall
𝜎
and that stress is higher than 𝜎
⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 . For a composite laminate the stress will change throughout the thickness depending on the
layup. The local stresses through the thickness shall be calculated by appropriate models. A frequently used simplified way to
obtain the maximum hoop stress is:
𝐷𝑖 + 𝑡 𝐷𝑜 − 𝑡
𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝−𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑃 =𝑃
2𝑡 2𝑡
where 𝐷𝑜 is the outer diameter of the laminate.
The factored effective hoop stress 𝜎̅ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 as used in the performance envelope is:
𝜎̃ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 𝛾𝑆 𝛾𝑆𝐷 𝛾𝑃 𝜎
⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
89
The factored effective axial stress 𝜎̅𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 as used in the performance envelope is:
𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝜎̃𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 𝛾𝑆 (𝛾𝑆𝐷 ∙ 𝛾𝑃 𝜎
⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 + 𝛾𝑆𝐷 ∙ 𝛾𝐸∗ 𝜎
⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 )
where 𝛾𝐸∗ is the load factor for mechanical external axial loads given in Table 10-2.
9.3 Principles for calculating partial performance envelopes for an individual

failure mechanism of one component.
9.3.1 Overview
This section gives requirements for calculating a partial performance envelope for a CDCT component addressing only one
single failure mechanism. The complete performance envelope will be obtained from several partial envelopes as described in
Section 9.4.
9.3.2 Method to obtain a partial performance envelope for a single failure mechanism,
at one temperature and environment at a certain lifetime.
For all combinations of effective internal pressure or hoop stress and effective axial stress the local stresses in each ply of the
laminate shall be calculated according to Section 7. A three-dimensional stress field shall be calculated and used when applying
the design criteria if the shell of the CDCT is thick. The three-dimensional calculations are needed even though the performance
envelope displays only two-dimensional stresses.
It shall be checked whether the design criterion given in [5] for the single selected failure mechanisms is violated anywhere in the
component and/or in any ply for the combination of effective internal pressure or hoop stress and effective axial stress. If the
failure criterion is violated, the combination is outside the partial performance envelope, if the failure criterion is not violated the
combination is inside the envelope. A schematic example of the process is shown in Figure 9-3.
Figure 9-3 Schematic example of a performance envelope. Red points show a combination of stresses where the
design criterion is violated. Green points indicate a combination of stresses within the design criterion.
The elastic constants for the design calculations and the strength values used in the failure criterion shall be the proper values for
the material at the time, temperature and environment described by the performance envelope. How to obtain the material
properties is described in Section 4.
This process shall be repeated for all critical failure mechanisms, temperatures and environments.
Note: whether the loads are dependent on temperature and environment does not matter for the calculations of a performance
envelopes, because the loads are independent inputs.
90
The partial performance envelope shall be drawn conservatively between the investigated load combinations, i.e. the outermost
calculation with no failure defines a point on the line of the performance envelope.
When drawing the partial performance envelope, the failure mechanism to which the envelope is related to shall be identified.
It shall be ensured that the evaluation points are close enough to each other that the performance envelope can be drawn with
sufficient accuracy. If the points have a distance ≤ 50% of OV of the axial failure load or burst pressure respectively (x-y axis)
then the evaluation points are close enough without further evaluation.
Guidance note:
If a direct relationship between the curve describing the performance envelope for the specific failure mechanism and the effective
pressure and axial stress can be found, the line of the envelope can be put directly into the performance envelope diagram.
End of guidance note
9.3.3 Bending moments and torsional moments in a partial performance envelope

9.3.3.1 Bending moments
Bending moments are generally a result of the CDCT running through a bent/curved hole. The effect of bending stresses can be
added to the partial performance envelope in two ways.
1. The partial performance envelope can be shown as a 3-dimensional body with the effective internal pressure and axial
stress axis plus a third axis for the bending moment. The partial performance envelope shall then be calculated as
described in Section 9.3 for all combinations of effective internal pressure and effective average axial stress and bending
moments over the thickness the local stresses in each ply of the laminate. The material properties used, and the accuracy
requirements shall be the same as in Section 9.3 .
2. Alternatively, the partial performance envelope can be presented in a two-dimensional form for a specified maximum
bending moment. The calculation methods are the same as for the first method, but only the minimum envelope of the
3-dimensional body is shown for the envelope with the axes effective internal pressure and axial stress.
The bending moment shall always be specified as the extreme value as described in Section 3.
It should generally be assumed that the performance envelope was developed for the case of no bending. If bending is included
in the performance envelope it shall be clearly indicated when presenting the envelope.
9.3.3.2 Torsional moments

Torsional moments should be added to the partial performance envelope in the same way as described in method 2 or 3 for
bending moments in Section 9.3.3.1.
9.3.3.3 Bending and torsional moments

The combined effect of bending and torsional moments can be shown as described above. The calculations shall be made for
the moments being applied separately and simultaneously.
9.3.4 Point loads in a partial performance envelope

9.3.4.1 Minimal effect
This guideline addresses the effect of point loads experimentally, as described in Section 6.2.3 and 8.5. The experiments shall
show that a defined maximum point load does not detrimentally affect the properties of the CDCT.
9.3.4.2 Add to existing loads

An alternative approach to addressing point loads could be to model the point loads and evaluate their effect in the same way as
bending and torsional moments. If this approach is chosen special experimental testing shall be defined on a case-by-case basis
to qualify the validity of the modelling.
91
9.4 Performance Envelope as combination of several partial envelopes
The performance envelope of a CDCT is the intersection of several partial performance envelopes.
The partial envelopes shall be calculated for the relevant combinations of:
• All phases, short term, installation and operation/abandonment
• All components, such as minimum laminate, liner, cover and end fitting.
• All critical failure mechanisms, as determined in Section 6.3 and 6.4 (see also Table 5-1) for each component.
• All design temperatures in each phase, as described in Section 3.
• All environments in each phase, as described in Section 3.
• All bending and torsional moments in each phase, as described in Section 3.
The minimum combined performance envelope taken from the partial envelopes is the performance envelope of the CDCT.
Several performance envelopes may be defined for several phases or conditions. Examples would be:
• Performance envelope for installation without torsional loads
• Performance envelope for installation with a specified maximum torsional load
• Performance envelope during operation up to a specified maximum temperature
• Performance envelope during operation up to a specified maximum temperature in a specified environment under a
maximum bending condition.
A performance envelope for installation and an envelope for operation shall always be given.
9.5 Simplified Performance Envelope

A very simple way to create a performance envelope is described here. It is based on obtaining four anchor points:
• The strength under internal pressure, where 𝜎̃ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 2 𝜎̃𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
• The strength under external pressure, where 𝜎̃ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 2 𝜎̃𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
• The axial strength in tension, where 𝜎̃ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 0
• The axial strength in compression, where 𝜎̃ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 0
The performance envelope is simply the quadrilateral defined by the four anchor points as shown in Figure 9-4.
The four anchor points shall be obtained using the same approach as for the complete performance envelopes described in
Section 9.4 above. All failure mechanisms in all components, environment, phases, time etc. shall be evaluated. It shall be shown
which failure mechanism causes failure at the anchor points. The simplification is to perform these evaluations only for four points.
The disadvantage is that the actual performance of the CDCT at other load combinations may be significantly better than what is
described by the simplified performance envelope.
92
Figure 9-4 Schematic of a simplified performance envelope based on for anchor points.
93
10 SAFETY FACTORS
10.1 Introduction
This RP uses partial safety and model factors as described in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1: List of partial safety and model factors.
Symbol Designation Reference section Type
γF General partial load factor 10.2 safety factor
γFF Partial load factor for functional loads 10.2 safety factor
γΕ Partial load factor for environmental loads 10.2 safety factor
γP Partial load factor for pressure loads 10.2 safety factor
γM Partial resistance factor 10.3 safety factor
γSd Load model factor 10.4 model factor
γRd Resistance model factor 10.5 model factor
γS System factor 0 model factor
γfat Partial factor for cyclic and stress rupture 10.7 safety factor
Partial resistance safety factors depend on the material's coefficient of variation (COV). The COV is given by the standard
deviation divided by the mean value of the strength, as defined in DNV-ST-F119 Appendix [A.3].
If various strength values are combined in a failure calculation, the COV to be used for the safety factor selection shall be
calculated as described for the specific design criterion given in Sec.5 and DNV-ST-C501. The highest COV value may be chosen
as a simple conservative method.
10.2 Partial load factors

The partial load factors are given in Table 10-2. For the ultimate limit state (ULS), two sets of load factors shall be applied for all
CDCT designs. The set leading to the highest design load or design load effect shall be applied as the set governing the design
in the ULS. For the fatigue limit state (FLS) and accidental limit state (ALS), only one set of factors needs to be applied.
The partial load factors shall be used with the characteristic loads described in Section 3.7 and incidental pressure as defined in
DNV-ST-F119 Section 3.6.5.
There are two approaches to establishing the design load effect associated with a particular load. The more conservative of the
two approaches shall be used for the design.
1. The design load effect (local stress or strain) is obtained from a structural analysis of the design load, where the design
load is obtained by multiplying the characteristic load by a specified load factor γF.
2. The design load effect (local stress or strain) is obtained by multiplying the characteristic load effect by a specified load
factor γF where the characteristic load effect (local stress or strain) is determined by a structural analysis of the
characteristic load. The factors shall be applied to the design criteria given in Section 5.
The design criteria only state the general load factor γF. In both cases, the general load factor γF shall be substituted by γFF,
γE, or γP, as appropriate.
94
Table 10-2: Partial load factors.
Limit state Bending / Torsional Mechanical External Pressure load

loads axial load
4)
γFF 1) γΕ 2) γP
ULS 𝛾∗𝐹𝐹 = 1.1 𝛾∗𝐸 = 1.3 1.0
ULS 𝛾∗∗
𝐹𝐹 = 1.4 𝛾∗∗
𝐸 = 0.7 1.0
FLS 1.0 1.0 1.0
ALS 1.0 1.0 1.0

3)
Reeling 1.0 NA 1.0
NOTES
1)
If the bending/torsional load effect reduces the combined load effects, γFF shall be taken as 1/1.1 or 1/1.4 as
applicable.
2)
If the axial load effect reduces the combined load effects, γΕ shall be taken as 1/1.3 or 1/0.7 as
applicable.
3)
For the special case of reeling, see Section 10.8.
4)
The axial load is the component of the axial load in addition to the end-cap effects.
10.3 Partial resistance factors

The material safety factors are given in Table 10-3.
The factors shall be applied to the design criteria given in Section 5.

Table 10-3: Partial resistance factor γM.
COV of strength or strain to failure

Safety class
2% - 5% 5%-10% 10%-12.5%
Medium 1.45 1.4 1.5
High 1.6 1.55 1.75
For the special case of reeling see Section 10.8.
10.4 Load model factors

Load model factors 𝛾𝑆𝐷 account for inaccuracies, idealizations and biases in the engineering model used to represent the
structure's real response. The effects of geometric tolerances shall also be included in the load model factor. The factor is treated
here as a deterministic parameter.
10.5 Resistance model factors

Model factors shall be used for each failure criteria. The factors are given in DNV-ST-C501 Sec.6 Failure mechanisms and design
criteria. Detailed references are given in Table 10-4.
Table 10-4: Summary of resistance model factors
Design criterion Model factors γRd Reference in DNV-ST- Reference to design

C501 criterion in this guideline
Fiber failure 1.0 Sec.6 -3.2.2 5.3
95
Micro matrix cracking 1.0-1.15 Sec.6 – 4.1 and – 4.4 5.4
Delamination, debonding 1.3 or 1.0-2.0 Sec.6 – 5 5.5, 5.11

. .
Laminate failure 1.05-1.15 / 5.6
. .
Weeping, permeability 1.0 / 5.7
Yielding 1.0 Sec.6 – 6 5.9
Ultimate failure of orthotropic 1.0 or 1.25 Sec.6 – 7 5.8

homogenous materials
Buckling Same range as other Sec.6 - 8 7.5

criteria used in buckling
calculations.
Displacements 1.0 Sec.6 – 9 5.10
Stress rupture 0.1-1.0 Sec.6 – 10.4 5.15
Fatigue 0.1-1.0 Sec.6 – 11.3 5.14
The table often gives ranges of model factors. When to use which value is described in the individual design criteria.
10.6 System effect factor

The safety factors are given for the entire system. Depending on how the components are connected to form a system, the
nominal probability of failure of individual components may need to be lower than the entire system's nominal probability of failure.
In order to take this system effect into account, a system effect factor 𝛾𝑆 shall be introduced. If the system effect is not relevant,
𝛾𝑆 =1.0. Otherwise, a system factor shall be documented. A value of 𝛾𝑆 =1.1 can be used as a first approach.
For example, in the case of a casing, the failure of one section (i.e. plain pipe or end fitting) is equivalent to the failure of the entire
system. This is a chain effect in which any component in a chain arrangement can contribute. As a consequence, the nominal
safety of the individual section should be higher than the nominal safety of the entire system in order to achieve the overall nominal
safety.
In some cases, a system may consist of parallel components that support each other and provide redundancy even if one
component fails. In that case, a system factor of less than 1 may be used if it can be based on a thorough structural reliability
analysis.
10.7 Static and cyclic fatigue safety factors

The safety factors for static and cyclic fatigue calculations 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 are given in Table 10-5 and are applied to time or number of cycles.
Table 10-5: Safety factors for static and cyclic fatigue calculations.
Safety factors for static and cyclic fatigue
Medium High
30 50
10.8 Safety factors for reeling

For the special loading condition of thermoplastic composite based CDCT reeling, the bending strains and moment based on the
geometry of the reel are given with less uncertainty than for general loading conditions. For this loading condition, the functional
load factor is given in Table 10-2. The resistance factors are given in Table 10-6.
96
Table 10-6: Partial resistance factors γM related to fiber-dominated or matrix-dominated failure during reeling
COV of strength or strain to failure 2% 5% 10% 12.5%

Safety Class
Medium 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.7

High 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.9
For matrix-dominated failure, the resistance factors in Table 10-6 are valid if the diameter to thickness ratio of the CDCT D/t > 4
and the local ply stresses caused by internal pressure are not greater than the stresses caused by reeling.
Values may be interpolated for COVs other than those given in Table 10-6.
97
11 OPERATIONAL PHASE: INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS
11.1 Inspection
If the CDCT is designed according to this document and handled and operated within the limits described in Section 3 and in the
supplier's operation manual, it should not be necessary to inspect the CDCT.
11.2 Maintenance
The manufacturer shall state a maintenance procedure for each CDCT component. Appropriate cleaning agents should be
described.
Suitable pigs should be identified.
If the component is painted, suitable paints should be identified and methods for removing and applying the paint should be stated
if relevant.
11.3 Repair
A repair should restore a damaged CDCT to its original function. The repair shall be evaluated as a new design according to this
guideline.
If any functional requirement, such as fluid tightness, stiffness and/or strength, cannot be restored, the performance of the
component and total system under the new conditions shall be re-qualified.
A clearly defined and reproducible repair procedure shall be established.
When a repair is similar to a joint introduced into the CDCT, it shall be qualified in the same way as an end fitting in Section 6.4.
Evaluating the production aspects related to the repair shall be part of the qualification.
Suitable conditions for repair work shall be arranged and maintained during the repair. This is mandatory, irrespective of whether
the repair is carried out on site or elsewhere. If suitable conditions cannot be arranged and maintained on site, the component
should be moved to a suitable site.
If fully qualified repair solutions according to this RP are not available, repairs are not permitted.
11.4 Decommissioning
The decommissioning of all the CDCT's components shall be documented in accordance with the requirements stated in Section
3.6.
98
12 PRODUCTION QA TEST REQUIREMENTS
12.1 Introduction
The purpose of the production QA tests is to check the product's properties (dimensional, physical, mechanical) against
acceptance criteria, to monitor consistent production and to detect non-compliance issues.
12.2 Discontinuities and repairs in production

CDCTs are typically made in a continuous process involving the winding of tapes or fibers on a liner/mandrel.
Actions and remedies related to interruptions to the process, such as fiber breakages, tape breakages, machine stoppages,
exceeding process temperature tolerances and exceeding speed control tolerances, shall be planned. If necessary, repairs shall
be described.
Splices shall be characterized as described in Section 6.2.13.
Any incidents shall be recorded with respect to time and location along the length and thickness. The thickness position, number
of layer or tape, shall be recorded.
Tolerances shall be defined regarding how close neighboring incidents and repairs may be permitted. The design documentation
shall demonstrate that functionality is maintained with the given tolerances.
Prototype testing in [8] shall be done with representative incidents and repairs.
12.3 Changing pipe body or end fitting production equipment or assembly

Changing production equipment or procedures for assembling the end fitting may require re-testing, if the equivalence of the
production method cannot be demonstrated.
12.4 Inspection
The inspection of components during or right after manufacturing may be replaced by well documented production control
procedures.
12.5 Factory acceptance tests

12.5.1 Hydrostatic pressure test
All CDCTs used in the field shall be pressure tested before leaving the factory. This pressure test may be done on a reeled CDCT.
The CDCT shall have the actual end fittings fitted to it.
The FAT's minimum pressure is 1.3 times the design pressure.
If the CDCT contains non-composite parts that were designed according to a standard that requires a pressure test up to a higher
test pressure than 1.3 times the design pressure, the pressure test shall be carried out at that higher pressure.
The FAT test pressure shall also not be lower than any required system pressure tests or installation tests. A detailed test program
should be defined. The following should be stated as a minimum:
— rates of pressure increase
— stabilization and holding times
— time over which the pressure in the system shall not drop without actively applying pressure, i.e. a leakage test.
Strain gauge or displacement measurements shall be taken to check whether the stiffness of the CDCT is as expected and
deformations match calculations and prototype tests. The measured values shall be within ±10% of the predictions, otherwise the
99
CDCT needs to be rejected. The strain measurements may be done on additional specimens taken from a cut off from the
production run instead of the FAT test of the actual main production pipe.
A test schedule should be developed for each application. The testing should allow the detection of as many defects in the
structure as possible. As a general guide, the following schedules are recommended:
— the minimum time over which the maximum test pressure in the system should not drop without actively applying pressure
should be at least 8 hours for systems that do not creep. The pressure should stay constant within 5% of the value at the start of
the test. Pressure changes due to temperature changes may be compensated for. If the whole CDCT assembly is inspected for
leaks immediately after the pressure test, testing according to bullet point three may be used.
— if the test fluid could possibly migrate slowly through cracks, materials or interfaces, testing up to 24 hours may be
necessary to detect leaks.
— for systems that show creep, the maximum test pressure should be maintained for 1 hour by applying active pressure.
The pressure should be monitored for another hour without actively applying pressure. The pressure drop should be predicted
before the test and the test result should be within 10% of the prediction.
Note: Additional test requirements from governmental authorities may have to be followed.
The test procedure shall be agreed on between the manufacturer, purchaser and possibly a third party.
12.5.2 Electrical conductivity and resistance test

If any electrical conductivity requirements along the length of the CDCT are given, e.g., in Section 3.6, the conductivity shall be
measured and compared against the requirements.
12.5.3 Gas venting system test

Most CDCT designs will not have a gas venting system. If the CDCT has a gas venting system, the system's functionality shall
be tested according to the requirements of API 17J.
12.5.4 Inner liner test requirements

The liner's dimensions and ovality shall be measured before manufacturing of the CDCT and the results shall be within the
specifications. The liner shall also be inspected for defects.
12.5.5 Cover test requirements

Thickness and homogeneity around the circumference shall be investigated by spot checks during production.
12.5.6 Specimen geometry

The length of each CDCT shall be measured and checked against the specified tolerances. The length may be measured during
the production process.
The outer diameter shall be measured at one easily accessible end and checked against the specified tolerances.
12.5.7 Gauge test

If the dimensions of the inner diameter are critical, the size of the inner diameter shall be verified by sending a gauge plate pig
through the entire length of the CDCT with end fittings. The gauge measurement shall be within the specified tolerances.
12.6 Periodic destructive quality tests

A burst test according to Section 8.3, an external hydrostatic pressure test according to Section 8.3 and a hardness test on the
CDCT according to Table 4-1 and Table 4-3 shall be carried out in the time intervals described in Table 12-1.
100
Table 12-1 Destructive test requirements for production QA
Safety class Maximum time interval Maximum length interval *
Medium Every 1 year Every 1,000m
High Every ½ year Every 500m
* if the product is longer than the maximum length interval, a test after completing the product is sufficient
The burst pressure test and external hydrostatic pressure test shall fulfil the same requirements as the qualification testing.
The hydrostatic burst test should be performed at a constant pressure that gives a lifetime of about 10 hours. Acceptance criteria
shall be obtained in the way described in Section 8.4.2.
If a single production run produces a CDCT longer than the minimum length interval, only one test is needed.
For example, a continuous 4,000m-long CDCT of safety class high would need one burst test.
If no product was produced within the minimum time interval, the test can be postponed until a new product is produced.
12.7 QA of end fitting assembly

The procedure for assembling the end fitting and attaching it to the CDCT shall be described in detail. All parameters and
tolerances shall be specified.
All prototype testing shall be performed with end fittings attached in accordance with the procedures.
101
13 APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL
See the file attached to the email with the report. Due to some formatting issues Appendix A is sent separately until we solve
formatting problems.
102
14 APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE
14.1 Introduction
14.1.1 Overview
The purpose of this examples is to show how performance envelopes can be calculated for CDCT. It is based on calculating the
performance envelopes for individual failure mechanisms first. The final performance envelope is the inner envelope of all failure
mechanisms addressed in combination. Geometry and material properties are chosen to be reasonably related to real CDCT, but
they are mainly chosen to trigger design cases explaining the various aspects of this guideline. Geometry and material properties
should not be seen as representative or favouring one design option over another. The solutions coming out best for the material
chosen here may not be best for CDCTs with other properties.
In order to cover the main design concepts four examples are calculated:
• A thermoset material with a [±10/±852] laminate,
o with liner/cover and
o without liner/cover.
• A thermoplastic material with a [±55] laminate,
o with liner/cover and
o without liner/cover.
Both materials are glass fiber reinforced and have the same properties as virgin materials. Long term degradation of fiber
dominated properties are also the same. The strengths describing the onset of matrix cracking for the thermoset and matrix
weakening for the thermoplastic are also the same. However, the weakening of the matrix due to the onset of damage is higher
for the thermoset than the thermoplastic. Considering the available wide range of composite materials this approach does not
reflect the many design choices that can be made and this is not the purpose of this example. The purpose of the example is to
address as many design issues as possible.
The example addresses the pipe section and not the end fitting. The same approach can, in principle, be used for the end fitting.
Typically, the end fitting is stronger than the pipe body for all loading conditions with the possible exception of axial (especially
tensile) loading and torsion. The limits of the end fitting can simply be superimposed on the performance envelope of the CDCT´s
body.
The design calculations are based on two-dimensional linear laminate theory with simple progressive failure analysis to address
matrix damage. Most real designs will use finite element analysis to capture three-dimensional stress states and nonlinear
characteristics of the pipes. The principles for obtaining performance envelopes will remain the same though.
14.1.2 Geometry
The geometry for all CDCT in the example is:
The radius 𝑅 of the laminate is 75 mm

The laminate thickness 𝑡 is 20 mm.
Thickness and mechanical properties of the liner and cover are ignored for the structural calculations.
14.1.3 Laminates [±10,±852] and [±55]

Two types of laminates are used:
The thermoset laminate has a [±10, (±85)2 ]4 layup with twice as many plies (layers) in the 85° direction than in the 10 direction.
The thermoplastic laminate has a [+55, −55]6𝑠 layup.

103
Both laminates have 12 plies and each ply has the same thickness. They are symmetric and balanced. The [+55, −55]6𝑠 laminate
could, for example, be made by tape winding while the [±10, (±85)2 ]4 could be made by filament winding. For the modelling both
laminates are modeled as being made of unidirectional plies and the production process is not important for the example.
In the remaining part of the example the laminates will simply be called [±10,±85 2] and [±55].
14.1.4 Performance Envelopes - Format

Many of the performance envelopes presented in this example show factored effective hoop stress versus factored effective axial
stress. This format is well suited to show and intuitively understand the behaviour of the CDCT´s laminate, both axes have the
same units. It is also widely used in industry. If desired, it is straight forward to convert stress into pressure and axial force and to
present the envelopes in other formats, as will be shown at the end of the example.
14.1.5 Structural analysis in this example

A pipe with a radius of 75 mm and a laminate thickness of 20 mm is considered a thick-walled pipe and a three-dimensional stress
analysis would be needed for proper calculations of local stresses and strains. For the sake of simplicity and concentrating on
describing how performance envelopes are created, the structural analysis of this example is based on simple two-dimensional
laminate theory giving non-conservative results. But the observed trends and shape of the performance envelopes are similar in
both analysis types.
The performance envelopes are constructed by selecting many combinations of average axial and hoop stress. For each
combination of the average stresses acting on the laminate the stresses and strains in each ply of the laminate are calculated by
2D laminate theory. The ply stresses and strains are applied to the failure criteria. The ratio to failure is calculated for all plies and
all failure criteria. The performance envelope is at the point where the same ratio of axial and hoop stress causes failure for the
weakest ply. This simple scaling approach is only possible for linear materials, but it is sufficient to show how performance
envelopes can be developed. A 3D nonlinear analysis would typically be done by FE analysis.
Thermal stresses are not included in the analysis in this example, but they could be added following the usual procedures used
in laminate theory calculations or for finite element analysis.
The example also covers the effect of torsional loading of the CDCT. The applied torsional moment was arbitrarily chosen for all
examples as 1.275 Nm. This results in a stress resultant applied to the laminate of 0.1 N/mm.
14.1.6 Failure criteria to consider

Generally, all possible critical failure mechanisms shall be analysed for short and long-term performance. Critical failure
mechanisms are the ones that would cause rupture or leakage or would prevent some of the design requirements not being
fulfilled The guideline requires that Table 5-1 in Section 5 shall be filed out to identify the critical failure mechanisms. The evaluation
is given in Table 14-1 for the four design solutions of the example.
Table 14-1: Failure mechanisms and their criticality for pipe body
Failure Ref. Comments

[±10,±852]
[±10,±852]
Mechanisms Section
[±55]
[±55]
Liner/Cover yes no yes no CDCT has liner and cover
Fiber domin. 5.3 x x x x Always critical, as it leads to rupture.

failure
Micro matrix 5.4 x x (Laminate failure) Such cracks would eventually lead to leakage.
cracking They are only critical if no liner/cover is present.
104
Delamination 5.5 NC NC NC NC Delamination is seen as noncritical (NC) in the example. But it may
* reduce buckling resistance.
Macro Matrix 5.6 x x Macro matrix cracks or through thickness matrix cracks can lead to
Cracking rupture if the fiber angles exceed 70 degrees.
Weeping 5.7 x x An accumulation of matrix cracks will lead to weeping. Since the
amount of accumulation needed for weeping is hard to define the
effect is here conservatively covered by looking at the initiation of
matrix cracks.
Polymer 5.8 Polymer fracture applies to the liner/cover and would make it non-
fracture functional. It is covered conservatively by designing against yielding.
Yielding 5.9 x x Relevant failure mechanism, see above. (Yielding may be

isotropic acceptable during reeling).
Maximum 5.10 Not covered in this example. But a too large increase of the pipe´s
deformation diameter may cause problems in the hole.
Debonding* 5.11 EF EF EF EF The failure mechanisms can be critical for the end-fitting. Not
covered in the example.
Crazing, 5.12 Not relevant for the materials considered.

cracking
Axial 5.13.3 x x x x Buckling or collapse would lead to rupture and need to be

Buckling considered.
Collapse 5.13.2 x x x x
Cyclic 5.14 tbc tbc tbc tbc Resistance to infrequent and low fatigue loads must be checked
fatigue individually and cannot be described by a performance envelope.
Stress 5.15 x x x x Resistance to long-term static loads needs to be documented and

rupture designed for all critical failure mechanisms.
.* NC: non critical, EF: end fitting
14.1.7 Safety class

This example is given for safety class high.
The choice of the appropriate factors will be explained in the sections on materials and loads.
14.2 Material Properties

14.2.1 Overview
Material properties needed for the example are the typical properties used to describe orthotropic plies in a laminate. They should
be measured as described in Section 4 of the guideline. Here the properties are just chosen for the example, and they are not
related to any particular material.
105
14.2.2 Static short-term values
The material properties in this example are based on a typical 2D unidirectional glass fiber ply. Classical laminate theory is used
to calculate elastic properties of the [±10,±852] and [±55] laminates. Note that ply properties shall be measured according to
Section 4 and some laminate prosperities shall be confirmed experimentally according to Section 8.2.
The orthotropic ply properties are given in Table 14-2, Characteristic values are needed for design. They can be calculated from
the mean values as:
𝜎̂𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 𝜎̂𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 − 𝑘𝑚 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣
Where 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 is the standard deviation of the measurements. The factor 𝑘𝑚 depends on the number of measurements and is listed
in Table A1 in DNV-ST-F119. The standard deviation is also often expressed as the Coefficient of Variation 𝐶𝑂𝑉:
𝐶𝑂𝑉 = 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 / ̂𝜎𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛

𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
The strains to failure of the matrix dominated properties 𝜀̂2𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 , 𝜀̂2 and 𝛾̂12 are not directly needed for the design in this example.
But they can be easily calculated from Hook´s law, if needed.
In addition to the ply properties the strain and stress to failure in the axial direction of the [±55] laminate is needed, according to
Section 5.6. The assumed measured values are also given in Table 14-2.
The characteristic values need to be reduced further with the material and model factors of the failure criteria. These will be
discussed in the following sections. A complete set of all material properties used in this example is given in Table 14-5.
Note: characteristic values can only be properly calculated if all individual measurements are known or if the mean, standard
deviation and number of test specimens is given.
Table 14-2 Orthotropic ply properties for the example.
𝐸1 Young´s modulus in fiber direction

45000 MPa. Mean and characteristic values are the same.
𝐸2 Young´s modulus transverse to the fiber direction

𝐺12 In plane Shear Modulus

𝜈12 Poisson´s ratio

0.26
𝜎̂1𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 Tensile strength of the ply in fiber direction.

Mean 1035 MPa. COV 6%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 836 MPa
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜎̂1 Compressive strength of the ply in fiber direction.
Mean 810 MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 603 MPa
𝜎̂2𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 Tensile strength of the ply transverse to the fiber direction.

Mean 40. MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 29.8 MPa
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜎̂2 Compressive strength of the ply transverse to the fiber direction.
Mean 60 MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 44.6 MPa
106
𝜏̂12 Inplane hear strength of the ply.
Mean 25 MPa. COV 10%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 17.0 MPa
𝜀̂1𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 Tensile strain to failure of the ply in fiber direction.

Mean 0.023. COV 6%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 0.0186
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜀̂1 Compressive strain to failure of the ply in fiber direction.
𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝜀̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚 Tensile strain to failure of the [±55] laminate in the axial (0 degree) direction.
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜀̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚 Compressive strain to failure of the ply in fiber direction.
The material properties of the liner and cover need to be known. It is assumed in this example that the properties for the liner and
cover are the same with a Young´s modulus 𝐸 of 800 MPa, a Poisson´s ratio 𝜈 of 0.3 and a shear strength 𝜏 of 50 MPa. The
properties are listed in Table 14-3.
Table 14-3 Properties of liner and cover.
𝐸 Young´s modulus of liner and cover.

𝜈 Poisson´s ratio 0.3
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 Shear strength Mean 105 MPa. COV 4%, 6 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 4.0 → Characteristic value: 80 MPa
14.2.3 Temperature dependent properties

Composite properties are temperature dependent. This example does not consider effects of temperatures to keep the number
of material parameters used down. The guideline requires that material properties are measured on the coupon level for the
minimum and maximum temperature and room temperature for short-term and long-term properties. This means in a real
application the number of material parameters gets multiplied by three. Performance envelopes will have to be established for all
relevant temperatures for the application. Conservative minimum performance envelopes may be used to describe a range of
temperatures.
14.2.4 Effect from matrix cracks

When a composite laminate experiences matrix cracking, the elastic properties change. In this example a simple model is used
where the matrix dominated elastic properties 𝐸2 and 𝐺12 are reduced by 85% for the thermoset [±10, (±85)2 ] laminate. They are
reduced by 50% for the thermoplastic [±55] laminate. In this case the laminate shows more yielding than cracking. The reduced
properties relate to the laminate with accumulated matrix cracks up to the point of failure.
14.2.5 Effect of fluids on the material properties

Exposure to fluids will also change the material properties. In some cases, chemical reactions may happen that irreversibly and
gradually change properties. More frequently fluids diffuse into the material and change the properties until saturation is reached.
Both effects may act in combination. In this example a simple approach is taken. The fluids do not affect material properties during
the first year of service, because diffusion of the fluid into the material is so slow that only a minimal amount of the cross-sectional
area is affected by the fluid. For exposure times beyond one year up to 50 years, the effect of fluid on all mechanical properties
107
is modelled by a reduction of some properties by 10%, as shown in Table 14-5. These changes can be seen as typical, but they
need to be measured experimentally for the particular material and fluid used in the application, as described in Section 4.
14.2.6 Stress rupture

The CDCT will be exposed to permanent static loads, pressure and possible additional axial loads. The properties affected by
stress rupture will be the ply strength in fiber direction and the axial strength of the [±55] laminate. Both properties are needed in
tension and compression. They need to be measured. The mean and characteristic stress rupture curves can be described by:
log 𝜎 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽 log 𝑡
log 𝜎𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽𝜅𝑠 − 𝛽 log 𝑡
where 𝑡 is the time to failure at stress 𝜎. The fit parameters from the linear regression are log 𝜎1 and the slope 𝛽. The standard
deviation of log 𝑡 is 𝑠. The factor 𝜅 depends on the number of measurement points, as shown DNV-ST-F119, Appendix A, Table
A-3.
The stress rupture curve for fiber dominated ply strength in this example has a 𝛽 = 0.0423. The stress rupture curve is shown in
Figure 14-1 (left) in the common log-log presentation and in Figure 14-1(right) on a linear scale. The strength is normalized to
the static short-term strength. As can be seen the time to failure appears to increase gradually as the applied stress drops in the
logarithmic scale, but it increases slowly for significant stress reductions initially and increase fairly rapidly for small stress
reductions in the linear scale.
1
0
Normalized Strngth
0.9 sig mean sig char sig design sig noncrit

log (Normalized Strength)
-0.05
-0.1 0.8
-0.15 0.7
-0.2 0.6
-0.25
0.5
-0.3
log sig mean log sig char 0.4
-0.35
-0.4 log sig design log sig non crit 0.3
-0.45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08
Time (years)
log time (minutes)
Figure 14-1: Stress rupture curves. The dots indicate values at 6000 hours, 1 year, 25 years, 30 years and 50 years.
The data for the axial laminate strain to failure are obtained the same way, but 𝛽 = 0.03 was used.
The influence of the fluid for long-term exposure is described for this example by a 10% drop in properties as described in Section
14.2.5 and listed in Table 14-5. This effect needs to be measured as described in Section 4.
Note: in this example a linear relationship between laminate strength and strain to failure is assumed. If the two properties are
related in a nonlinear way, strength and strain to failure need to be both considered in the design. The same approach can be
used for designing with both properties.
The stress rupture data used in this example are summarized in Table 14-4:
Table 14-4 Stress rupture properties
Static Instant 50 years

Fiber dominated strength Units
ply failure mean char Mean-deg char.
𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝜎̂𝑆𝑅 MPa 1035 526 932 495
𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝜎̂𝑆𝑅 MPa 810 412 729 387
Axial laminate failure
𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝜀̂𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 0.053 0.0317 0.0282 0.0251
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜀̂𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 0.045 0.0269 0.0239 0.0213
108
14.2.7 Complete set of material properties
The complete set of material properties used in the example is given in Table 14-5. The set includes design values, which will
be explained in the following sections. Basically, the design values are characteristic values reduced by material and model
factors.
Table 14-5 Material properties used in the example
dry dry dry dry with fluid with fluid with fluid with fluid
Static
Static Static Fatigue
Charac- Design Fatigue Design Fatigue Non Critical Non Critical
Property Units Mean teristic 1 year 1 year 50 years 50 years 50 years 50 years
E1 MPa 45000 45000 45000 42000
E2 MPa 8500 8500 8500 8200
G12 MPa 3500 3500 3500 3200
v12 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
E2 deg TP MPa 4250 4250 4250 4100
G12 deg TP MPa 1750 1750 1750 1600
E2 deg TS MPa 1275 1275 1275 1230
G12 deg TS MPa 525 525 525 480
X1 tens MPa 1035 836 540 446 486 340 243 300
X1 comp MPa 810 603 389 349 350 266 175 235
X2 tens MPa 40.0 29.8 16.7 15.0
X2 comp MPa 60.0 44.6 25.0 22.5
X12 MPa 25.0 17.0 9.5 8.6
eps1 tens 0.0230 0.0186 0.0120 0.0099 0.0116 0.0081 0.0058 0.0071
eps1 comp 0.0180 0.0134 0.0086 0.0078 0.0083 0.0063 0.0042 0.0056
eps2 tens 0.0047 0.0035 0.0020 0.0018
eps2 comp 0.0071 0.0053 0.0029 0.0027
gam12 0.0071 0.0049 0.0027 0.0027
Lamstrain t 0.059 0.0439 0.0246 0.0314 0.0222 0.0251 0.0111 0.0230

Lamstrain c 0.071 0.0528 0.0296 0.0378 0.0267 0.0302 0.0133 0.0276
E liner MPa 800 800 800 800

v liner 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
S12 liner MPa 105 80 50 50
Note the grey boxes. Sometimes static short-term properties with safety factors drive the design, sometimes the stress rupture
properties drive the design.
14.3 Performance envelope for matrix cracking (CDCT with no liner and cover)
14.3.1 Overview
This section describes how performance envelopes for the onset of matrix cracking are developed.
Matrix cracking is typically the first failure mechanism that develops in a composite laminate. CDCT having no liner or cover are
typically designed against matrix cracking, because an accumulation of matrix cracks will lead to leakage. Since the level of
accumulation required for leakage is difficult to quantify a design against matrix crack initiation is a conservative approach.
109
14.3.2 Matrix cracking
14.3.2.1 Failure criteria and strength
The first failure mechanism to look at is matrix cracking. Matrix cracks are here micro matrix cracks that do not penetrate the
thickness of the laminate. They do not cause rupture. An accumulation of matrix cracks through the thickness of the laminate will
lead to leakage.
The simple quadratic failure criterion, as described in Section 5.4.2, is used.

2 2
𝜎2𝑘 𝜏12𝑘
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 ≥ 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑 √( 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥,𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
) +( 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
) <1
𝜎
̂2 𝜏̂ 12
2 2
𝜎2𝑘 𝜏12𝑘
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 < 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑 √( 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
) +( 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
) <1
𝜎
̂2 𝜏̂ 12
where:
𝛾𝑀 : Partial resistance factor for safety class high and COV 5%-10% → 𝛾𝑀 = 1.55
𝛾𝑅𝑑 : Resistance model factor. 𝛾𝑅𝑑 = 1.15
The load effects (stresses σnk or strains εnk) shall be obtained from the sum of the individual loads applied on CDCT multiplied
by the partial load factor 𝛾𝐹 , the load model factor 𝛾𝑆𝑑 and the system factor 𝛾𝑆 , see Section 10. For the performance envelope
the applied loads are the factored effective stresses 𝜎̃𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 and 𝜎̃ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 as described in Section 9.
𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥,𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
The characteristic strength 𝜎̂2 , 𝜎̂2 and 𝜏̂12 were already described in Section 14.2.2.
Setting the numbers into the design criterion for micro matrix cracking in Section 5.4.2 we obtain for the short term:
𝜎2𝑘 2 𝜏12𝑘 2
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 ≥ 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 1.7825 √( ) +( ) <1
29.8 𝑀𝑃𝑎 17 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜎2𝑘 2 𝜏12𝑘 2
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 < 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 1.7825 √( ) +( ) <1
44.6 𝑀𝑃𝑎 17 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜎2𝑘 2 𝜏12𝑘 2
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 ≥ 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 √( ) +( ) <1
16.7 𝑀𝑃𝑎 9.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜎2𝑘 2 𝜏12𝑘 2
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 < 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 √( ) +( ) <1
25.0 𝑀𝑃𝑎 9.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎
The values 16.7 MPa, 25 MPa and 9.5 MPa can be seen as the design strengths for the strength transverse to the fiber direction
in tension and compression and the shear strength respectively. For the long term (50 years) the strengths shall be reduced in a
simplified way, reduced by 10% in this example, as described in Section 14.2.5. The design strengths are also listed in Table 14-5.
Using structural analysis based on laminate calculations as described in Section 14.1.5 the performance envelope for matrix
cracking can be calculated. The envelope for short term performance is shown in Figure 14-2, envelopes for short and long-term
performance are shown in Figure 14-3. The [±10/±852] laminate shows a horizontal ellipse shaped envelope indicating the onset
of matrix cracks in the plies with ±85 fiber orientation. The vertical ellipse shaped envelope indicates the onset of matrix cracks in
the plies with ±10 fiber orientation. Preventing the onset of matrix cracking means the inner intersection of the envelopes shall not
be exceeded, as shown by the inner black envelope in the figure. The [±55] laminate having only one ply orientation has only one
110
performance envelope. The inner envelope in Figure 14-3 shows the minimum envelope for short-term and long-term
performance.
Figure 14-4 shows the performance envelopes for matrix cracking with and without an applied torsion on the pipe. The effect of
the moment is a reduction, rotation and stretch of the failure envelope. The inner performance envelope in Figure 14-4 covers
the worst combination of the cases short-term performance and long-term performance with and without torsion.
[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate
Figure 14-2 Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe.
Figure 14-3 Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking for a CDCT pipe with 1 and 50 years of service.
.
111
Figure 14-4 Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking for a CDCT pipe 1 and 50 years of service with
and without torsion.
14.3.3 Anchor points and minimal performance envelope

Figure 14-4 shows four anchor points as open blue circles. They are described in Section 9.5. The two points along the dotted
line describe the inner performance envelope for the case of internal and external pressure loading including axial loads/stresses
from the end-cap effect but no other loads. The two points along the x-axis show the inner performance envelope for the case of
tensile or compressive axial stresses without any pressure. These so-called anchor points are easy to confirm experimentally. It
is also possible to define a minimal performance envelope by simply connecting the four anchor points. This minimal performance
envelope may be used instead of the inner envelope, saving calculation effort but not utilizing the full potential of the CDCT.
14.3.4 Other performance envelopes

The inner envelopes shown in Figure 14-2, Figure 14-3 and Figure 14-4 show the minimum performance envelope which is
appropriate for describing the performance under all conditions considered. The designer or user may want to utilize the CDCT
more optimally. In that case several performance envelopes may be made describing the particular condition of use. Examples
could be a short-term performance envelope with torsion and a long-term performance envelop without torsion.
14.4 Performance envelope for all failure mechanisms (CDCT with liner and
cover)
14.4.1 Overview
The previous section showed how performance envelopes for matrix cracking are developed. When the CDCT laminate is
surrounded by a liner and cover, some matrix cracking can be accepted, because the liner and cover keep the CDCT fluid tight.
This section describes how performance envelopes for the other failure mechanisms can be developed. The approach is basically
the same as for matrix cracking, but different failure criteria have to be applied. Since the failure mechanisms happen after matrix
cracking, the effect of matrix cracking on the mechanical properties needs to be considered.
14.4.2 Effect of matrix cracking on mechanical properties.

The effect of matrix cracking on the mechanical properties is usually described by progressive failure analysis and needs to be
confirmed by testing laminates experimentally.
112
In this example the effect of matrix cracking for the thermoset [±10,±85 2] laminate is described by a reduced ply modulus
transverse to the fiber direction 𝐸2∗ and a reduced ply inplane shear modulus 𝐺12
∗
:
𝐸2∗ = 0.15 ∗ 𝐸2
∗
𝐺12 = 0.15 ∗ 𝐺12
The other elastic properties 𝐸1 and 𝜈12 remain unchanged.
The reduction of elastic properties due to matrix cracking or matrix yielding in the thermoplastic [±55] laminate is taken to be less
than for the thermoset material:
𝐸2∗ = 0.5 ∗ 𝐸2
∗
𝐺12 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐺12
The actual values used can be found in Table 14-5.
14.4.3 Fiber dominated static failure – short-term dry

Fiber dominated failure is described by the maximum stress and maximum strain criterion simultaneously, see Section 5.3. Strains
and stresses are local in the individual plies and change depending on the applied average axial and hoop stresses and the
laminate layup.
The maximum strain design criterion is given as:

𝜀̂𝑘
𝜀𝑛𝑘 <
and the maximum stress design criterion is given as:

𝜎̂𝑘
𝜎𝑛𝑘 <
where:
the partial load factor γF, the load model factor γSd and the system factor γS, as described in Section 10.
𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟
The characteristic strength 𝜎̂𝑘 and strain to failure 𝜀̂𝑘 were already described in Section 14.2.2.
Setting in the numbers we obtain for the short term:
−0.0086 < 𝜀𝑛𝑘 < 0.012. 𝑎𝑛𝑑 − 389 𝑀𝑃𝑎 < 𝜎𝑛𝑘 < 540 𝑀𝑃𝑎
The limiting values can be seen as the design strain to failures and strengths. They are also listed in Table 14-5.
Using structural analysis based on laminate calculations as described in Section 14.1.5 the performance envelopes for short-term
fiber dominated failure can be calculated. They are shown in Figure 14-5. The horizontal and vertical lines indicate failure of the
±85 fibers and ±10 fibers respectively (in tension and compression). The inner envelope of the [±10/±852] laminate shows a
trapezoid shape and describes fiber dominated failure in all fiber directions. The difference between the envelopes for the
maximum strain criterion (blue) and the maximum stress criterion (green) is minimal.
The [±55] laminate having only one ply orientation has only lines describing tensile and compressive fiber dominated failure. The
lines do not combine to a closed envelope. Loading the laminate in the axial direction does not cause fiber dominated failure, but
113
macro matrix cracking, as will be described in the next section. The difference between the lines describing failure due to the
maximum strain and stress criterion for the [±55] laminate is larger than for the [±10/±852] laminate.
Figure 14-5 also shows the curves describing the onset of matrix cracking, just for information. The inner envelope ignores the
matrix cracking.
Figure 14-5 Performance envelopes considering fiber failure for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover.
14.4.4 Macro Matrix Cracking – Laminate failure

Checking for macro matrix cracking (also called laminate failure in DNV-ST-F119) is required in the directions where fibers in the
hoop or axial direction are more than 70o apart. In that case rupture of the CDCT may happen due to the development of macro
matrix crack through the thickness of a ply and laminate without fiber failure.
For the [±10/±852] laminate the angle between fibers is 20 o in the axial direction and 10 o in the hoop direction, checking for macro
matrix cracking is not required.
For the [±55] laminate the angle between fibers is 110 o in the axial direction and 70 o in the hoop direction. Checking for macro
matrix cracking in the axial direction is required.
The maximum strain and stress design criterion for macro matrix cracking is given for tension and compression as (Section 5.6):
𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜀̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜀̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚
𝜀𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 < 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 <
and
𝜎̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜎̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚
𝜎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 < 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 <
where:
the partial load factor γF, the load model factor γSd and the system factor γS, as described in Section 10.
114
The characteristic strains to failure 𝜀̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚 and 𝜀̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚 were already described in Section 14.2.2.
Setting in the numbers and describing compressive strains as negative we obtain for the short term:
−0.0296 < 𝜀𝑛𝑘 < 0.0246. The limiting values can be seen as the design strain to failures and strengths. They are also listed in
Table 14-5. (Since the example is a simple linear system the stress calculations are omitted, they would give equivalent results.)
Using laminate analysis and checking for the strain in axial directions two lines are found that describe macro matrix failure in
tension and compression for the [±55] laminate, as shown in Figure 14-6. Combined with the fiber dominated failure a performance
envelope of nearly rectangular shape is found for rupture of the [±55] laminate.
The performance envelope for the [±10/±852] laminate is the same as before, because macro matrix cracking is not a relevant
failure mechanism for that type of laminate.
Figure 14-6 Performance envelopes considering fiber failure and macro matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe with
liner/cover.
14.4.5 Buckling (axial) and Collapse (hoop)

In addition to the strength criteria the structural aspect of the resistance against buckling or collapse needs to be calculated.
Usually, such calculations are done by FE analysis, taking account of ovality and manufacturing tolerances. In this example only
simple analytical formulas for global buckling are used combined with simple reduction factors. Local buckling of the laminate
shells is ignored in this example but would have to be analysed for thin laminates.
The average stress causing axial buckling can be given by:
𝑅2 𝑘𝐴 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝜋 2 𝐸𝑥
𝜎̂𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 =
𝐿2 2
where:
𝑅: Radius of the CDCT.
𝐿: Free length of the CDCT. This parameter is very much dependent on the application. In this example L=1m
was chosen.
𝑘𝐴 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 Knockdown factor for elastic axial buckling. 𝑘𝐴 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 = 0.67*.
115
𝐸𝑥 Young´s modulus of the laminate of the CDCT in the axial direction.
*The knockdown factors are taken from DNV-RP-F202 for composite risers. This RP is currently not supported by DNV.
The external pressure to cause collapse can be given by:
𝐵𝜃𝜃 2
3𝑘𝑝 (𝐷𝜃𝜃 − )
𝐴𝜃𝜃
𝑃̂𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 =
𝑅3
with 𝑘𝑝 = 0.75
further, the average hoop stress causing collapse is:
𝐵𝜃𝜃 2
3𝑘𝑝 (𝐷𝜃𝜃 − )
𝑅 𝐴𝜃𝜃
𝜎̂ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 = 𝑃̂𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 =
𝑡 𝑡 𝑅2
For simplicity we assume here that the collapse pressure is independent of the axial stresses.
where:
𝐴𝜃𝜃 , 𝐵𝜃𝜃 , 𝐷𝜃𝜃 : Components of the ABD matrix of the laminate in the hoop direction.
𝑘𝑝 Knockdown factor for elastic collapse. 𝑘𝑝 = 0.75*.
*The knockdown factors are taken from DNV-RP-F202 for composite risers. This RP is currently not supported by DNV.
Figure 14-7 shows the failure lines for buckling (axial buckling and collapse to external pressure) as orange lines for both types
of laminates. In this example the hoop compression behaviour of the [±10/±852] laminate is governed by collapse, while the axial
compressive behaviour is governed by the compressive strength. The black inner performance envelope is based on the weakest
failure mechanisms. The behaviour of the [±55] laminate is a bit more complex. Compressive hoop behaviour is governed by
collapse for small axial effective stresses and by macro matrix cracking for the other cases.
Figure 14-7 Performance envelopes considering fiber failure, macro matrix cracking and buckling for a new CDCT
pipe with liner/cover.
116
14.4.6 Yielding of liner and cover
The acceptance of micro matrix cracks requires an intact liner and cover to prevent fluids from leaking. Liners and covers are
typically chosen to be materials that have much higher strains to failure than the laminate they are connected to. In this example
the properties for the liner and cover are the same with a Young´s modulus 𝐸 of 800 MPa, a Poisson´s ratio 𝜈 of 0.3 and a
characteristic yield strength 𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 of 80 MPa. As a failure criterion the von Mises yield criterion from Section 5.9 is used. It is given
here in its two-dimensional form (for thick laminates the three-dimensional form would have to be used):
2 2 2
𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝐷 √𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 + 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 + 3𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙,ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 < 𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
where:
𝛾𝑀 : Partial resistance factor for safety class high and COV 4% → 𝛾𝑀 = 1.6
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 : Characteristic yield strength of 80 MPa from Table 14-3.
Putting in the numbers the yield criterion can be rewritten as:
2
√𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 2 2
− 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 + 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 + 3𝜎𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟−𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙,ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 < 50 𝑀𝑃𝑎
The value 50 MPa is written as the design yield strength in Table 14-5.
In the example´s structural calculations the contribution of liner and cover are not included. The laminate strains are used to
calculate the stress state in liner and cover.
Figure 14-8 shows also the performance envelopes of the liner/cover. The envelope is on the outer edge of the figure for the
[±10/±852] laminate, far away from the inner performance envelope critical for the design. The [±55] laminate has larger
deformations, and the yield envelope becomes part of the inner performance envelope in the upper right corner and the lower left
corner. It would probably be best to choose a different material for liner and cover to make them non-critical for the design. But
the example shows that liner and cover performance may become critical for the design and should not be ignored.
Figure 14-8 Performance envelopes considering fiber failure, macro matrix cracking, buckling and liner/cover/cover
yielding (all) for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover.
117
14.4.7 Long-term properties, 1 year stress rupture and no effect fluids
For all failure mechanisms the long-term properties shall be considered.
In this example it is assumed that the strength and elastic properties are not influenced by the surrounding fluid in the period of
one year. The fluid will take a long time to diffuse into the laminate and only a very thin surface layer will be affected by the fluid.
The validity of this assumption would have to be demonstrated for a particular application.
The effect of stress rupture needs to be considered. In this case fiber dominated failure and macro matrix cracking needs to be
considered. The matrix dominated failure mechanisms are here displacement controlled and do not need to be considered for
stress rupture. The same applies for liner and cover.
The time to failure at a certain stress level is given by the stress rupture curve and the characteristic curves were described in
Section 14.2.6. The design curve is obtained by adding the fatigue safety factor 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 :
log 𝜎𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽𝜅𝑠 − 𝛽 log(𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 𝑡)

The stress 𝜎𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 that should not be exceeded when the CDCT is loaded for one year can be calculated:
𝑜𝑛𝑒−𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝜎̂𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = 10[log 𝜎1−𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑒−𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)]
where the fatigue safety factor 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 = 50.
Setting in the numbers we obtain design values for one year due to stress rupture:
Fiber dominated failure (stress rupture): −𝟑𝟒𝟗 𝑴𝑷𝒂 < 𝝈𝒏𝒌 < 𝟒𝟒𝟔𝑴𝑷𝒂
Axial strain for macro matrix cracking (stress rupture): −0.0378 < 𝜀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 < 0.0314
The values need to be compared with the static design values (static strength or strain including safety factors):
Fiber dominated failure (static design): −389 𝑀𝑃𝑎 < 𝜎𝑛𝑘 < 540𝑀𝑃𝑎
Axial strain for macro matrix cracking (static design): −𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟗𝟔 < 𝜺𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒂𝒍 < 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟒𝟔
In this example stress rupture is critical for fiber dominated failure while factored static short-term strength is critical for macro
matrix cracking. The performance envelopes for one-year service are shown in Figure 14-9. The inner performance envelope is
slightly smaller than for the short term as shown in Figure 14-8.
Figure 14-9 Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1 year
of service (including stress rupture).
118
14.4.8 Effect of Torsion
If the CDCT is exposed to torsional loads the performance envelopes will change, as was already discussed for matrix cracking
in Section 14.3.2 and shown in Figure 14-4. Figure 14-10 shows the effect of torsion on all failure mechanisms for the case of 1
year service. The straight curves for fiber dominated failure are for no torsion. They are the same as shown in Figure 14-9. The
shifted bent curves are for the case of torsion. Buckling and macro matrix cracking are not affected by torsion based on the simple
models used here. An FE analysis may give slightly different characteristics.
The inner performance envelope is partially defined by the curved failure lines including the effect of torsion and partially by the
straight lines for no torsion. It presents the worst case for both conditions and should be used if the CDCT can be randomly
exposed to torsion or no torsion.
Figure 14-10 Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1
year of service with and without torsion.
14.4.9 Long-term properties, 50 years stress rupture and fluids

Performance envelopes for 50 years of service can be established in the same way as for the short term or one-year service. The
only difference is that the material properties relevant for 50 years of service shall be used in the structural design calculations.
In this example the strength and elastic properties were reduced by 10% due to the effect of the fluids being absorbed by the
material. The reduced properties are listed in Table 14-5. The resistance to buckling/collapse will be influenced by the change in
elastic properties. Similar to the case for one-year service stress rupture needs to be considered.
Figure 14-11 shows the performance envelopes for 50 years service with and without an applied torsional load. The figure is
similar to the one for one-year service, but the size of the performance envelopes has shrunk a bit.
119
Figure 14-11 Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 50
years of service with and without torsion.
14.4.10 Other aspects

14.4.10.1 Effect of temperature
The effect of temperature is not covered in this example. The guideline requires that material properties are obtained at maximum
and minimum operational temperature and at room temperature. Exact details can be found in Section 4. The performance
envelopes would have to be established for the temperature range of the application. The purpose of this example is to show how
performance envelopes are developed. By putting in more values for the material properties and creating more envelopes the
principals of the approach would get lost in the repetitive process of creating more performance envelopes. But in a real design
the entire set of performance envelopes needs to be calculated to find the proper inner performance envelopes that covers all
combinations of use.
14.4.10.2 Debonding of metal end fitting

The performance of the end fitting is not covered in the example. Typically, an end fitting is designed to be stronger than the body
of the tube. In that case some axial stress could debond the end fitting from the tube. The limit would be a vertical line in the
figures showing the performance envelopes. It would look like the axial buckling line, but it would be located on the tensile side.
Performance envelopes of the end fitting can, in principle, be established in the same way as was described here. But the
calculations would likely have to be made by FE calculations instead of the analytical approach used in this example.
14.4.10.3 Cyclic fatigue

Cyclic fatigue is not covered in the example. It would have to be evaluated for specific loading cases and cannot be shown in a
performance envelope.
14.4.10.4 Point loads

Point loads are not covered in this example.
120
14.5 Inner performance envelopes
14.5.1 Overview
The previous section described how performance envelopes are obtained based on analysing all critical failure mechanisms.
Once the inner performance envelopes are obtained, they can be used to evaluate the suitability of a CDCT for a certain mix of
axial and hoop stresses in an application at a specified environment and lifetime.
Figure 14-12, Figure 14-13 and Figure 14-14 show inner performance envelopes for a new CDCT, for one year service and for
50 years service respectively. The CDCTs have a liner and cover, micro matrix cracking is an acceptable failure mechanism.
Figure 14-15, Figure 14-16 and Figure 14-17 show inner performance envelopes for the same conditions, but for a CDCT without
liner and cover, so micro matrix cracking is a critical failure mechanism.
Performance envelopes can be developed for a wide variety of conditions. If the conditions for the validity are very specific, the
CDCT can be used in an optimal way for that condition, but other performance envelopes need to be looked at for other conditions.
If the validity conditions cover a wide range the performance envelope is less optimal for the CDCT, because it has to be the
minimum for all the conditions covered. The advantage is that one or a few performance envelopes are sufficient for evaluation.
This example calculated performance envelopes for a new CDCT, 1 year service and 50 years service with and without torsion.
The guideline puts no restrictions on what envelopes can be developed, as long as the envelopes are the minimum for the
conditions covered.
The performance envelopes show the four anchor points describing pressurizing (tension/compression) and axial loading without
pressure (tension/compression). These are some of the most relevant load cases. A very simple performance envelope can be
defined by simply connecting the four anchor points. The simple envelope is far from optimal, but it is conservative and can be
established with minimal calculation effort.
14.5.2 Inner performance envelopes with liner/cover

Figure 14-12 Inner performance envelope considering all failure mechanisms for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover
with and without torsion.
121
.
[±10/±852] laminate [±10/±852] laminate
Figure 14-13 Inner performance envelope for a [±10,±852] laminate considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT
pipe with liner/cover with 1 year of service (left) and 50 years of service (right) with and without torsion.
[±55] laminate [±55] laminate
Figure 14-14 Inner performance envelope for a [±55] laminate considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe
with liner/cover with 1 year of service (left) and 50 years of service (right) with and without torsion.
.
122
14.5.3 Inner performance envelopes without liner/cover
Figure 14-15 Inner performance envelope considering matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe without liner/cover with
and without torsion.
[±10/±852] laminate [±10/±852] laminate
Figure 14-16 Inner performance envelope for a [±10,±852] laminate considering matrix cracking for a CDCT pipe
without liner/cover with 1 year of service (left) and 50 years of service (right) with and without torsion.
123
[±55] laminate [±55] laminate
Figure 14-17 Inner performance envelope for a [±55] laminate considering matrix cracking for a CDCT pipe without
liner/cover with 1 year of service (left) and 50 years of service (right) with and without torsion.
14.6 Test envelopes
14.6.1 Overview
The accuracy of the performance envelopes needs to be confirmed by testing. The required test program is described in Section
8. This section describes how test envelopes can be developed that show which mean performance the CDCT should have for
combinations of axial and hoop stress. The envelopes can be created in the same way as the other envelopes described in the
previous sections. The only difference is that all safety factors should be removed, and strength values should be the mean values
shown in Table 14-5. The material properties are chosen here to be the mean values for a new material. The x and y axis are now
just effective stresses and not factored effective stresses anymore. Note, the guideline does not require that the entire shape of
the performance envelope shall be confirmed by testing, only a few points, such as the anchor points shall be confirmed.
Test envelopes are shown for the case of no torsion for burst and matrix cracking in Figure 14-18 and Figure 14-19 respectively.
Figure 14-20 and Figure 14-21show the same test envelopes for the case of additional torsion.
124
14.6.2 Without torsion
Figure 14-18 Test envelope considering all failure mechanisms for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover without torsion.
Figure 14-19 Test envelope considering matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover without torsion
125
14.6.3 With torsion
Figure 14-20 Test envelope considering all failure mechanisms for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover with torsion.
Figure 14-21 Test envelope considering matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover with torsion.
14.7 Matrix cracking – non-critical properties

CDCT having no liner and cover are designed against micro matrix cracking. A sufficient margin of safety against the other failure
mechanisms causing rupture shall be shown as well. This means in general the material properties for fiber dominated faiure,
macro matrix cracking etc. need to be known and measured. If the difference between onset of matrix cracking and the other
failure mechanisms is large, it may be possible that the other failure mechanisms can be treated as non-critical according to
Section 4.7. In that case the properties do not need to be measured but can be taken from the literature for “similar” materials.
126
Non-critical conditions are obtained when the failure criteria are still fulfilled when applying an extra safety factor of 2 to static
strength and multiplying the fatigue safety factor by 10. Some additional requirements apply, see Section 4.7.
Table 14-5 lists the non-critical strength values for the case of 50 years lifetime. Figure 14-22 shows the Performance envelope
for matrix cracking and all burst related failure mechanisms for 50 years service with and without torsion. It can be seen that the
inner failure envelope for matrix cracking is inside any of the bust related failure mechanisms calculated for non-critical material
values. For comparison, see Figure 14-23 showing the performance envelopes calculated for the usual design values. For the
properties used in this example a design based on matrix cracking would not need experimental test results for the other failure
mechanisms.
Figure 14-22 Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking and all other failure mechanisms based on “non-
critical properties” for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 50 years of service with and without torsion.
Figure 14-23 Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking and all failure mechanisms based on “regular
design properties” for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 50 years of service with and without torsion.
127
14.8 Other formats for performance envelopes
14.8.1 Overview
Performance envelopes can be displayed in different ways. It is important to be aware how the axes are defined, especially when
comparing envelopes presented in different publications. The example used performance envelopes where the x-axis was
“factored effective axial stress” and the y-axis was “factored effective hoop stress”. ome other ways to display performance
envelopes just scale the axes and keep the shape of the performance envelopes. But changes of the shape may also be the result
of changing the axes.
Switching the x-axis and y-axis can also be found resulting in an apparent change of shape of the performance envelope.
Any of these changes is just a change in presentation. All presentations are equivalent and show the performance envelope.
This section uses the performance envelope for 50 years of service with and without torsion as an example to demonstrate the
effect of different axes.
14.8.2 Changing from effective axial stress to external axial stress

The factored effective axial stress as used in all plots in this example includes the axial stress caused by the end cap effects
from pressurization. The performance envelope is shown in Figure 14-24. It is the same as shown previously in Figure 14-11.
When the x axis is defined as only showing the factored “externally” applied stress the performance envelope changes its shape
as shown in Figure 14-25. The relationship between the two axes is given by:
factored externally applied stress = factored effective axial stress – (factored effective hoop stress / 2)
Figure 14-24 Hoop Stress vs. Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT
pipe with liner/cover with 50 years of service with and without torsion.
128
Figure 14-25 Hoop Stress vs. External Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a
CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 50 years of service with and without torsion.
14.8.3 Changing hoop stress to pressure

Changing the y-axis from factored effective hoop stress to factored effective pressure is straight forward:
𝑅
𝜎̃ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 𝑃̃
𝑡
This change does not influence the shape of the performance envelopes. The example´s envelopes are shown in Figure 14-26
and Figure 14-27 for the x-axis being factored effective axial stress and factored external axial stress respectively.
l[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate
Figure 14-26 Pressure vs. Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe
with liner/cover with 50 years of service with and without torsion.
129
Figure 14-27 Pressure vs. External Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a
14.8.4 Changing external axial stress to external axial force

The factored external axial stress can be converted to external axial force:
𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜎̃𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 =
𝜋 𝑡 [2𝑅 + 𝑡]
This change is shown in Figure 14-28.
Figure 14-28 Pressure vs. External Axial Load: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a
130
14.8.5 Reversed axes
Reversing the axes changes the impression of the performance envelope, but not its shape. Figure 14-29 shows the reversal of
the typical axial stress vs. hoop stress plot. Figure 14-30 shows the reversed pressure vs. external force plot.
Figure 14-29 Reversed plot: Axial stress vs. hoop stress: Pressure vs. Axial Stress: Performance envelopes
considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 50 years of service with and
without torsion.
Figure 14-30 Reversed plot: external force vs. pressure: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms
for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 50 years of service with and without torsion.
131
About DNV
DNV is the independent expert in risk management and assurance, operating in more than 100 countries. Through its broad
experience and deep expertise DNV advances safety and sustainable performance, sets industry benchmarks, and inspires
and invents solutions.
Whether assessing a new ship design, optimizing the performance of a wind farm, analyzing sensor data from a gas pipeline
or certifying a food company’s supply chain, DNV enables its customers and their stakeholders to make critical decisions
with confidence.
Driven by its purpose, to safeguard life, property, and the environment, DNV helps tackle the challenges and global
transformations facing its customers and the world today and is a trusted voice for many of the world’s most successful and
forward-thinking companies.

Joint Industry Project (JIP) : Report No.: 2022-0819, Rev. 01 Document No.: 1261742 Date: 2022-07-04

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joint Industry Project (JIP) : Report No.: 2022-0819, Rev. 01 Document No.: 1261742 Date: 2022-07-04

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joint Industry Project (JIP) : Report No.: 2022-0819, Rev. 01 Document No.: 1261742 Date: 2022-07-04

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the objective of the Joint Industry Project?

What is the objective of the Joint Industry Project?

What standards and codes are referenced in the guideline?

What standards and codes are referenced in the guideline?

Joint Industry Project (JIP)

Report No.: 2022-0819, Rev. 01

Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by:

Andreas Echtermeyer Ali Bahtui Gustav Heiberg

Ramin Moslemian Odd Sund

DNV Distribution: Keywords:

Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by

01 2022-07-04 First issue Andreas Echtermeyer Ali Bahtui Gustav Heiberg

1.4 Referenced standards and codes 13

2.1 Downhole casing and tubing general design process 15

2.2 Safety philosophy 16

2.3 Design format 16

2.4 Design methodology 17

2.5 CDCT classification 22

2.6 Limited CDCT qualification based on experience 22

3.2 Product description 24

3.5 Safety classes 25

3.6 Functional and System Requirements 25

3.8 Service/Environmental Conditions 32

4.2 Test specimens manufacturing 34

4.3 Conditioning and testing of specimens 35

4.4 Liner and cover 36

4.5 Composite Laminate 38

4.7 Non-critical properties 45

4.8 Effect of the environment on material properties 46

5 FAILURE MECHANISMS AND DESIGN CRITERIA 48

5.2 Critical failure mechanisms 48

5.3 Fiber-dominated ply failure 49

5.4 Micro matrix cracking 50

5.6 Macro matrix crack / Laminate failure 53

5.7 Weeping and excessive permeation 54

5.9 Plastic deformation, yielding of isotropic materials 56

5.10 Maximum deformation 57

5.11 Debonding of CDCT 58

5.12 Crazing, cracking 58

5.14 Cyclic fatigue 59

5.15 Stress rupture 60

5.16 Combination of cyclic fatigue and stress rupture 62

5.17 Stress relaxation 62

6 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PIPE BODY AND END FITTING 63

6.2 General design criteria 63

6.3 Design Criteria for pipe body 66

6.4 END FITTING DESIGN CRITERIA 68

7.2 Local analysis 73

7.3 Thermal strains and stresses 75

7.4 Swelling or shrinkage effects 76

7.6 Partial load-model factor 77

7.7 Material properties 78

7.8 Geometric parameters 78

7.10 Calculated design pressures 78

7.11 Point loads and Impact response 78

8 MEDIUM CONFIRMATION AND FULL-SCALE TESTING 79

8.2 Confirmation testing for CDCT product families 79

8.3 Confirmation PFR testing for CDCT 79

8.5 Point load test 85