WHERE WE ARE WITH API JUNE 2015

Years ago, the API was asked to produce a document covering coiled tubing. A resource group was put
together, and in 1996 produce Recommended Practice 5C7 (Recommended Practice for Coiled Tubing
Operations in Oil and Gas Well Services). This document, which was re-approved twice at the end of each
of its 5-year runs, was eventually withdrawn as being obsolete, as other documents began to appear. It
contained information on manufacturing, testing and inspection for grades CT55, CT70, CT80 and CT90.
CT100 did not make it into that document. The grade of steel used was ASTM A606, a high strength low
allow grade that is stated in ASTM as resisting atmospheric corrosion. Chapters were written on corrosion
and collapse, with the balance of the document covering operational issues. Higher API committees had
advised that since that was to be the first API document for coiled tubing, it would be best to issue it as a
recommended practice rather than a specification.
The resource group for coiled tubing (RGCT) then received a request to write a specification for coiled
tubing, and this was accepted by API, so we began to document what the industry was doing. At the time,
there were 2 producers, one having absorbed a third. The decision had to be made as what would be in
the new document, i.e. where to stop. Thus, since the document would ultimately be a specification and
not a recommended practice, it was decided only to cover the manufacturing process. During the period
that the document was under construction, guidance was taken from the sections on electric welded pipe
from API Specifications 5CT (Casing and Tubing) and 5L (Line Pipe).
Specification 5LCP: As this process was starting, we received a request to produce an API Specification for
Coiled Line Pipe (CLP) because some companies were using coiled tubing in line pipe applications. The
document for coiled tubing would have to wait. CLP would be easier to produce, as it would have a
constant wall thickness. Thus we took the 41st edition of 5L, and removed everything involving
manufacturing methods other than the electric seam weld, jointers, the small hydrostatic times and
pressures, and added material on the skelp-end weld and the higher and longer hydrostatic test pressures
that were being used for coiled tubing. The weld radiography from 5L was converted to radiography
procedures for the skelp-end weld, and some small imperfections in the weld were permitted, as we did
not expect these welds to see many fatigue cycles. The minimum hydro-test time was raised to 15 minutes
at full pressure. In-line inspections remained the same as in 5L using electromagnetic or ultrasonic
techniques, and an off-line inspection of the seam weld (after the hydro-test) was included. From 5L, we
also took the tensile tests, the flattening and flaring tests, and impact tests, lifting text from 5L into 5LCP
as dimensions allow. The sizes of coiled line pipe, however, were those of coiled tubing, with a small size
added from 5L, an the larger sizes up to 6.625-in. diameter that could be produced by one mill.
For the grades of CLP, we had to turn coiled tubing grades into coiled line pipe grades, and make them
parallel the grades in 5L. Thus the mills 80-grade coiled tubing became X80C line pipe, the 70 grade CT
became a X70C line pipe, and could also make a X65C line pipe. These seemed to become the popular
grades for CLP. Lower grades such as X52C and X56C were added. No X42C grade was included, as tests
in reeling very low strength material resulted in excessive ovalization. When the document was taken to
its 2nd edition, an X90C grade was added, all of the named grades exhibiting hardnesses in all areas up to
HRC 22. The committee has not, at this point, included grades higher than X90C, which is made from the
same material as CT90. Voting at API requires constituting a voting group of persons from the Line Pipe
section of API.

Specification 5ST: Once 5LCP was produced, the resource group reverted to finishing the specification for
coiled tubing, which was assigned as API Specification 5ST. The original idea was to document what mills
were doing, but resource group meetings indicated that more was needed. This document therefore
covers all the manufacturing processes that are covered in 5LCP, but also makes some additions. An
important added requirement is that there is an upper limit on the yield strength of grades CT70, CT80
and CT90. This is to provide some separation of the grades that also have a maximum hardness throughout
(tube body and welds) of HRC22. Also added were some possible customer calls that they might find
useful. First, the skelp-end weld could be inspected by ultrasonics. (This turns out to be cheaper, and can
be quicker than radiography, and of course, does not need the nationally-mandated controls that are
applicable radiographic methods. It also has the ability to find tight cracks in a weld that radiography is
blind to). A second addition is for a full inspection of the finished tubing after the hydrostatic test. This
inspection includes the body and the seam weld. The seam weld is re-inspected to assure that no flaws,
such as penetrators and hook cracks have opened up enough in the hydro test to be detectable. The body
is inspected to detect any imperfections that may have been induced in the tube OD surface by processes
occurring after the mills in-line NDT system(s). (This inspection can be by ultrasonic or electromagnetic
methods, and various forms of inspection units have appeared for this purpose).
In API 5ST, the grades CT100 and CT110 were added over what had been in RP 5C7, and the grade CT55
was dropped.
What API Spec 5ST does not do is to provide information regarding the use of the various grades, their
performances in various corrosive fluids, and their performance under bending. At the time of writing, it
was through that the performance properties of coiled tubing could be documented by the API Resource
Group on Performance Properties, and a work item was sent to API to do this, but it has not yet been
attempted. There is, in fact much published literature (generally not peer-reviewed) on these subjects,
and it does need a qualified group to put it all together. Numerous papers have been given on the
performance of these grades, both when brand new, and when fatigued, in various NACE-like and other
solutions. Similarly, much work has been done on the fatigue of tubing, and models have been produced,
but are not covered in API Spec 5ST. The most recent research performed here is the fatigue of samples
of new pipe with machined imperfections in their outside diameters, and this had lead to a fatigue model
that contains results for both damaged and undamaged tubing.
Spec 5ST is being reviewed now for an upgrade. Interested parties have been asked to suggest what new
items need to be added into 5ST. Typical examples would (a) chemistries originally from 5C7, (b) higher
grades of coiled tubing than CT110, better inspection methods for the seam and bias welds, and of course
(d) removal of the errors in the first edition.
Recommended Practice RP 5C8: Concurrent with the request for a coiled line pipe specification, API
received a request to write a document called Care, Maintenance and Inspection of Coiled Tubing, which
API assigned as RP 5C8. A request had been received to transfer much of the original RP5C7 into RP 16ST
Coiled Tubing Well Control Equipment Systems, First Edition. This would include all of the operational
material from 5C7, which, when the material on manufacturing was also removed into Spec 5ST, would
leave very little text in 5C7. The original plan was to add more on coiled tubing maintenance, including
field welding as a maintenance issue, and also add inspection of used materials. The corrosion chapter
and the collapse chapter were listed into 5C8, and updated. The original collapse chapter was written by
Dr. Vladimir Avakov, and was taken from earlier API collapse data (Bull 5C3) with a correction added for

the form of collapse that might occur (which depends on the tubing D/t ratio) and then one added for the
usage of the string. This last calls for an assessment of age and use of the string, so can only be guessed,
and so is an approximation. The text was reviewed by the coiled tubing committee at the International
Association of Drilling Contractors, which helped greatly in revising and re-ordering the text, but during
the process, members asked for new chapter on fatigue to be written. Thus a new chapter was written
covering fatigue machines, and especially the one used by mills today. (Readers should be aware that
there is more than one fatigue model in use, and so it would not be possible to produce a specification
for this, but inclusion in a recommended practice might be more appropriate). Finally in May 2015, the
text was then sent to API for letter ballot.
In earlier text we had some pictures of problems associated with used coiled tubing. These pictures were
expanded until there are now over 40 of them (in colour), and they should provide readers with much
information about what would be found on their coil if they chose to have inspections performed.
The inspection section covers full length 100% body wall inspection, inspection of bias welds and seam
welds with shear wave ultrasound, wall thickness measurement with ultrasound, the use of radiography,
magnetic particle and liquid penetrant inspections. It also covers equipment recalibration intervals and
the qualifications of the inspectors.
What Does this Leave? The mechanical and corrosion performance properties of coiled tubing and line
pipe. To do this we need a discussion on what are the best procedures to use to determine both of these
sets of properties. One has to ask if the methods used on the larger diameter and thicker walled casing
are applicable to the thinner walled coiled tubulars, and in the cases of those that are definitely not, what
can be put in their place? We will keep the industry updated on how this.
Notes: 1. API meetings are open to all.
2. There are now 4 CT mills with the ability to monogram their coiled tubing.
RKS
June 2015