Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90559

A PARAMETRIC STUDY ON BUCKLING RESPONSE OF HIGH STRENGTH STEEL PIPES WITH ANISOTROPIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Ali Fathi WorleyParsons Canada Edmonton Sub-Region #120, 5008 - 86 St NW Edmonton, AB, Canada

J. J. Roger Cheng Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Alberta Edmonton, AB, Canada

Keywords: High Strength Steel Linepipes, Strain-based Design, Compressive Strain Limit, Local Buckling, Material Anisotropy

1. INTRODUCTION
Natural gas extraction and production have been started in many remote fields such as the sub-Arctic regions. The most efficient way of transporting the natural gas to urban regions is buried pipelines with high operating pressures [1]. High strength steel (HSS) linepipes facilitate applying higher operating pressures and enable larger quantities of transportations and less number of compressor stations. They also prevent radical increase in capital cost of the pipeline projects by reducing the construction costs in terms of diameter and wall thickness reduction as well as saving transportation, installation and welding costs. This is particularly important for pipeline projects since the construction in remote areas requires transportation and accommodation of large numbers of personnel, material and equipment far from established infrastructures. Consequently, using HSS pipes reduces the total construction time which is quite critical for the projects of this nature. The resistance of the pipe wall to the hoop stress caused by the internal operating pressure is usually the primary determinant of the required pipes grade and thickness. In addition, the adequacy of the designed pipeline should be checked for all ultimate and serviceability limit states. Local buckling is a serviceability limit state which is quite common among pipelines crossing harsh environments that impose excessive longitudinal strains. Longitudinal strain may be forced to a pipeline by ground motions due to seismic activities, slope instability, permafrost thaw subsidence, frost heave, etc. When external

ABSTRACT
Highly pressurized pipelines crossing harsh environments need to have two chief materials properties; they should have high strength in transverse direction to resist high operating pressers; and high deformability in the longitudinal direction to accommodate externally induced deformations. Pipeline producers try to deal with this dual demand in their high strength steel (HSS) linepipe products by enhancing the yield strength in the transverse direction and maintaining deformability in the longitudinal direction. This practice results in significant level of anisotropy in yielding and early plastic regions. The effects of material anisotropy on complex pipeline limit states such as local bucking is not fully understood. This paper presents the results of a numerical study on the effects of material anisotropy on the buckling response of HSS pipes. The effects of operating pressure, diameter-to-thickness ratio, material grade, strain hardening and the ratio of longitudinal-to-transversal yield strength were taken into account. Combined (isotropickinematic) hardening material modeling technique- previously introduced by the authors- was employed in this study. The results of this study are presented in several graphs showing the variation of the critical buckling strain versus the level of material anisotropy of HSS pipes with different geometry, material and operation conditions. These results provide an insight into the effects of material properties on the buckling resistance of pipes, especially when anisotropy is present.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

compressive deformations are imposed to a segment of a pipeline, internal axial load and/or bending moment develop in that segment. Under excessive compressive deformations, the internal load/moment increases up to a peak level. Subsequently, the resistance force decreases while deformation continues to accumulate. This phenomenon is referred to as wrinkling or local buckling. Although the beginning of a wrinkle development in the pipe wall does not highly affect the flow of products through the pipeline or allow a leak, it shows the onset of degraded capacity of the pipe to resist against excessive deformations. The maximum normal compressive strain a pipe can resist before buckling is known as critical buckling strain (CBS) which is usually expressed as a global strain with a gauge length equal to twice of the pipes diameter (2D). Placing limits on the strain at the design condition rather than stress is based on the strain-based design method which is an appropriate tool to deal with pipeline buckling. This method allows selected extensions to the stressbased design to take advantage of steels well-known ability to deform plastically while remaining stable. Strain-based design is applicable in existence of two conditions. First, the situation must be displacement controlled or at least partly displacementcontrolled. Second, plastic deformation must be part of the design condition. These two conditions exist in the case of displacements imposed to a pipeline from aforementioned environmental sources. While material strength is important for load control conditions, deformability is the desired material property for displacement control situations. The stress-based method of design is a suitable approach for load control conditions in which the structure should resist a certain level of applied loads. Based on this design method, the stress level in the structure should be less than the certain stress (with specified design margin below the yield strength). Figure 1 shows the concept of stress-based design method with respect to the material response and applied stress. Two types of material properties (i.e. material types A and B) are shown in this figure. While both types of material have similar elastic stiffness and ultimate strength, the material type A shows a higher strength in yielding region compared to material type B. Therefore, material type A can carry larger loads without any plastic deformations. In other words, the safety margin for material type A is larger under similar loads compared to material type B. In displacement control conditions, especially when the plastic deformation is part of the design condition, the allowable strain limit is defined to provide a safe margin to the ultimate strain limit. This approach which is the basis of the strain-based design method is illustrated in Figure 2. As this figure shows both material types underwent plastic deformations and have similar margin to the ultimate strain limit. But, the material type B develops lower stress level under the applied deformation compared to the material type A. Therefore, after applying similar deformations, a structure made of material type B has larger reserved strength which prevents the localization of the plastic strain and increases the stability of the structure. Consequently, any structure made of material type B has higher degree of deformability compared to material type A. In energy pipelines, the hoop stress due to the operating pressure has a load control nature. Therefore, the pipe materials should provide high yield strength in transverse direction to resist the pressures. On the other hand, axial loads and bending moments built up due to the operational/environmental deformations have displacement control nature; i.e. the development of internal loads stops when certain deformation is achieved [2].

Figure 1 Stress-based design concept

Figure 2 Strain-based design concept

A desirable material for pipelines should have high strength in transverse direction to resist against high operating pressures and high deformability in the longitudinal direction to accommodate externally induced strains from different sources. Pipeline producers have come up with linepipe products with different material responses in longitudinal and transverse directions to cope with this double demand. This difference indicates major material anisotropy which, more or less, exists in all new generations of HSS pipes (i.e. grade X80, X100 and X120 having 550, 690 and 825MPa specified minimum yield strengths). The anisotropy is more significant in HSS linepipes made through UOE pipe making process. In the expansion stage of this process, the entire thickness of pipes undergoes uniform tensile strain in the transverse direction in the range of 1.0%-1.5%. The work hardening associated with the plastic deformations in the expansion leaves considerable Bauschingers effects and enhances materials transversal strength in the yielding and early plastic regions [3]. As a result, the final products have higher proportional limit and yieldto-tensile strength ratio in the transverse direction compared to the longitudinal direction. Even though the anisotropy observed in HSS pipes material is essentially a consequence of pipe making process, it fits to the different demands (in both directions) on a pipeline in the field. This fittingness might explain why the majority of HSS pipe productions reported in the literature are UOE pipes. The current knowledge on the structural behaviour of energy linepipes including the local buckling response, have been

Copyright 2012 by ASME

generally developed based on the normal strength steel pipes in which the level of anisotropy was not significant enough to draw attention. Local buckling is one of the complex and yet challenging limit states of energy pipelines that is affected by different factors including the material properties. The unique anisotropic material properties of HSS pipes make their material properties substantially different from normal strength steel pipes. Therefore, current understanding of the buckling behaviour of steel linepipes should be updated considering the anisotropic material properties of HSS pipes.

2. ANISOTROPIC MATERIAL MODELING

Due to the lack of appropriate material modeling method, most of the numerical and analytical literatures on the buckling response of HSS pipes have used isotropic material properties for their studies ignoring the anisotropy. Meanwhile, there have been a few attempts to address the material anisotropy of the pipe when the CBS is being studied [4-6]. One of the anisotropic material modeling methods was introduced by the authors after studying a comprehensive material database of eight different steel linepipes of grade X80 and X100 produced by JFE Steel Corporation for a test program conducted by TransCanada Pipeline Ltd. This material model (hereafter called the combined hardening model) uses isotropic elasticity and combined (isotropic-kinematic) hardening plasticity [7]. The combined hardening material model was intended to accurately capture all major aspects of anisotropy important for the buckling response. The entire range of stress-strain response of a pipeline material can be divided into five major sections, i.e. linear elastic region, yielding region, strain hardening region, ultimate strength region, and the strain softening and fracture region. Not all these regions affect the CBS of HSS pipelines. Previous studies indicated that the amount of work hardening a material shows during yielding has a close relation with strain capacity of a linepipe [8-10]. Therefore, the material study and the development of the combined hardening model were focused on elastic and early plastic responses. Figure 3 shows a typical longitudinal and transversal material response of HSS pipes up to 3.0% total strain which includes the elastic, yielding and strain hardening regions. As this typical figure shows, the elastic and strain hardening responses are quite similar and the major difference in the longitudinal and transverse behaviour is in the yielding region [7].
Stress(MPa)

The above longitudinal and transverse responses of HSS pipes can be approximately represented by the response patterns depicted in Figure 4. According to this idealized pattern, the material has similar elastic stiffness in longitudinal and transverse directions. The transverse response continues the linear elastic behaviour up to the nominal yield stress, y and then starts the plastic response with linear strain hardening. The longitudinal elastic response ends at a comparatively low proportional limit where a smooth and curvilinear yielding region starts. After completion of the yielding (at 1.5% total strain), the longitudinal response continues similar linear strain hardening as transverse behaviour. This response pattern was simulated by the combined hardening material model.

Figure 4 Idealized stress-strain curves in the longitudinal and transverse directions of HSS pipes

The introduced combined hardening material model consists of linear isotropic and Armstrong-Frederick kinematic hardening components. In this model, five parameters are required to define the entire range of material response. These parameters include o modulus of elasticity (E), initial yield stress ( o ), strain hardening modulus (Esh) and Armstrong-Frederick kinematic hardening material constants (c and ). These parameters can be calibrated with longitudinal and transverse stress-strain data from a HSS pipes material tensile tests. The simulation results of combined hardening material model showed excellent agreement with actual behaviour of HSS pipes in longitudinal and transverse directions [7]. Figure 5 shows a sample comparison of the model results and experimental measurement of tensile material responses of a grade X100 pipe up to 3.0% total strain.
1000 900 800 700 600 Material Type (F)

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.0%

Material Type (F)

Stress(MPa)

Longitudinal Response Transversal Response

500 400 300 200 100

Material Model - Longitudinal Test Results - Longitudinal Material Model - Transverse Test Results - Transversel

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0% Strain

0 0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0% Strain

Figure 3 Typical longitudinal and transverse tension stress-strain curves of HSS pipes

Figure 5 Tension stress-strain data from the combined hardening model and test results of a grade X100 pipe

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The HSS pipes material responses not only are different in the longitudinal and transverse directions but also are different under tension and compression in the same direction. Longitudinal compressive response plays an important role in the buckling resistance of a pipe. Therefore, a reliable material model should also simulate the longitudinal compressive response accurately. Figure 6 shows the longitudinal compressive response of the above X100 pipe along with the results of the combined hardening model. The longitudinal tensile response is also shown in this figure to illustrate the difference between the longitudinal compressive and tensile responses.
Stress(MPa)
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% Strain Combined Hardening Model Average Compression Test Results Average Tension Test Results Material Type (F)

Moment (N.mm)

4.0E+09 3.5E+09 3.0E+09 2.5E+09 2.0E+09 1.5E+09 1.0E+09 5.0E+08 0.0E+00 0.0% -0.5% -1.0% -1.5% -2.0% -2.5% -3.0% -3.5%

Test Results Anisotropic Model Isotropic Model Elastic Theory

-4.0%

-4.5%

-5.0%

2D Average Compressive Strain (%)

Figure 8 Buckling test and analyses results of pressurized pipe made of X100 steel

In both pipes, the predicted buckling strengths by the models with isotropic and combined hardening materials are very close. This is expectable, since at the onset of buckling, the average compressive strains of both pipes are around 1.1%; and as Figure 5 and Figure 6 show, the difference between the longitudinal and transversal strengths of the material is much smaller at this level of strain compared to 0.5% strain which is used for defining the yield strength. However, the combined hardening models curves better fit to the experimental curves because (beside the strength) combined hardening model also simulates the stiffness of the pipe adequately. Therefore, the combined hardening material method is better capable of estimating the amount of compressive strain accumulated in the pipe before buckling. This capability makes it suitable for the strain-based design.

Figure 6 Compresive and tensile expermental stress-strain data and combined hardening model result in longitdinal compression for a grade X100 pipe

The combined hardening material model was used in finite element buckling analysis of 15 HSS pipes previously tested under different loading conditions. The results of buckling analysis showed that using the combined hardening model improves the simulation adequacy and the predicted critical buckling strain. Buckling analyses results of two pipes made of grade X100 steel (material responses depicted in Figure 5 and Figure 6) are shown here as an example. One pipe was buckled under pure bending and the other pipe under bending and internal pressure. The buckling analyses were performed with isotropic and combined hardening material models. The buckling responses are compared with the experimental measurement in Figure 7 and Figure 8 for the unpressurized and pressurized pipes, respectively. Detailed description of the finite element modeling and buckling analysis has been presented elsewhere [11]. These figures show the global moment versus 2D average compressive strain of buckling zone from tests and finite element simulations.
Moment (N.mm)
6.0E+09

3. PARAMETERS CONSIDERED IN THE PARAMETRIC STUDY

In order to investigate the effects of anisotropic material properties on the buckling response of HSS pipes, a parametric study was performed containing a sufficient number of cases with various combinations of affecting parameters, including the material anisotropy. Previous research on buckling response of steel pipelines have suggested that the CBS is a function of five major factors, i.e. pipe cross sectional dimensions (diameter and thickness), internal pressure, material properties, girth weld properties and initial imperfections [12]. In this study, only the first three factors are considered in the parametric study. Exclusion of girth weld properties and initial imperfection is due to the lack of sufficient experimental and numerical information on these two subjects in the area of HSS pipes. Therefore, the parametric study was limited to the effects of pipe cross sectional dimensions, internal pressure and material properties. The material parameters used in the parametric study were selected as such they could describe the material response in the elastic, yielding and early plastic regions. As discussed in the previous section, the elastic and strain hardening regions of longitudinal and transverse material responses of HSS pipes are quite similar and their major difference is the yielding region. Hence, the modulus of elasticity (E) and the linear strain hardening modulus (Esh) were selected to describe the elastic and early plastic responses of the material. Longitudinal yield strength ( y(L)) and transversal yield

5.0E+09

Test Results Anisotropic Model Isotropic Model Elastic Theory

4.0E+09

3.0E+09

2.0E+09

1.0E+09

0.0E+00 0.0% -0.5% -1.0% -1.5% -2.0% -2.5% -3.0% -3.5% -4.0% -4.5% -5.0%

2D Average Compressive Strain (%)

Figure 7 Buckling test and analyses results of unpressurized pipe made of X100 steel

Copyright 2012 by ASME

strength ( y(T)) were selected as the material parameters to describe the longitudinal and transversal yielding responses. Moreover, the pipe diameter (D) and thickness (t) as well as the hoop stress ( p) due to the internal pressures were added to the affecting parameters. Hence, the CBS ( cr) can be mathematically expressed as

cr = (E , y (T ) , y ( L ) , E sh , D, t , h )

(1)

Dimensional analysis can reduce the size of the parametric study based on the dimensions of the selected variables. The dimensional matrix of the above seven variables expressed in the fundamental units of mass (M), length (L) and time (T), takes the following form:
Table 1 Dimensional matrix of parameters

The industry tends to use the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) in the transverse direction to define the steel grade. There are two reasons behind this practice. First, the primary design determinant of pipeline thickness is the resistance against internal pressure. Second, the transversal yield strength is higher than the longitudinal one. For the purposes of this parametric study, the value of y(T) was equated to SMYS for grades X80, X100 and X120 (i.e. 550MPa, 690MPa and 825MPa, respectively) which provides a lower bound on y(T). It is acknowledged that this is not the case for actual steel pipeline materials; however, there is no widely accepted industry standard relating the value of SMYS to y(T). Furthermore, it is common practice in industry to use SMYS as y(T) when performing numerical calculations. The second non-dimensional variable defines the ratio of the plastic hardening to elastic stiffness in an ideal bilinear stress-strain curve. Higher plastic hardening of the material delays the localization of plastic strain and enlarges the range of stable plastic deformations. Since constant value is assigned to E, variations of 2 depend on the variations of the strain hardening modulus. The strain hardening modulus is a function of different parameters such as yield-totensile strength ratio, hardening pattern, ultimate strain, etc.; therefore, it is difficult (if not impossible) to set up a range for this variable from existing standards. Consequently, the material database of HSS pipes used for development of the combined hardening model is used to set up the variation range of 2 in the parametric study. Among all HSS material types available in database, the average value of Esh/E ratio was 0.0123 with minimum and maximum of 0.0078 and 0.0142, respectively. As a result, minimum, intermediate and maximum values of 0.0067, 0.0133 and 0.020 were considered for 2 (Esh/E), respectively; which cover this parameters variations range in the available database. The ratio of the longitudinal to transversal yield strength can be quite different from one HSS pipe to another and there is no study or report on the distribution of this ratio among HSS pipes available in the market. Therefore, the variation range of the third nondimensional variable was also defined using the same database of HSS pipe material. The variation of y(L)/ y(T) ranges between 0.76 to 0.89 in the aforementioned database. Therefore, the three levels of y(L)/ y(T) assigned for the parametric study were 0.71, 0.84 and 0.91. The combined hardening material parameters were adjusted to generate material properties with desired y(L)/ y(T) ratios. The longitudinal and transversal yield stress was defined as the tensile strength at 0.2% plastic strain. One of the well-known advantages of using HSS pipes is that for any specific designed diameter and internal pressure, using a HSS pipe results in smaller wall thickness. This somehow explains that a major proportion of HSS pipes available in the market and studied in the literature have D/t ratios higher than 50. Therefore, D/t ratios of 50, 70 and 90 were set for the fourth non-dimensional variable, 4. The fifth non-dimensional variable is defined using the current Canadian standard for energy pipelines. As defined in CAN/CSA Z662-07, under field operation conditions, the level of internal pressure can range from zero to full operating pressure that corresponds to tensile stress of 80% of SMYS in pipes hoop direction. The two extremes of zero internal pressure and full operating internal pressure were used to set the lower and upper limits. Third value of 0.40 was also considered for 5 in order to capture the pipes behaviour between these two limits.

E M L T 1 -1 -2

y(T)

y(L)

Esh 1 -1 -2

D 1 0 0

t 1 0 0

1 -1 -2

1 -1 -2

1 -1 -2

According to the Buckingham-Pi Theorem, the variables in Equation (1) can be reduced to five independent non-dimensional -terms; because the total number of variables is seven and the range of the dimensional matrix is two. Therefore, the CBS as a function of five non-dimensional variables derived from the Buckingham-Pi Theorem can be expressed as

cr = ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
The non-dimensional variables were selected as follow:
1 =
y (T )
E
E sh E

(2)

2 =

3 =

y(L) y (T )

4 =

D t

5 =

h y (T )

Each non-dimensional variable incorporates the effects of a certain pipe property on the CBS. 1 incorporated the effects of material grade (considering the fact that modulus of elasticity does not have significant variations), 2 incorporated the effects of material strain hardening, 3 incorporated the effects of material anisotropy, 4 incorporated the pipes geometry and 5 incorporated the effects of operating pressure. The next step is to define a reasonable variation range for each parameter. Initially, beside the maximum and minimum values of each parameters (defining the variation range), one intermediate value was used to capture any possible non-linearity in the response surface. Modulus of elasticity does not have significant variations in pipeline steels. A constant value of 207000MPa is assigned for E in the parametric study (similar to the value used by CAN/CSA Z66207). It is worth mentioning that in addition to the modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio, should be defined to complete the definition of the material elastic behavior. The accepted industry value for (i.e. 0.3) was used throughout the parametric study. According to the state-of-the-art literature, pipes made of steel grades X80, X100 and X120 fall under the category of HSS pipes.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

4. FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

Finite element models were developed using the commercial software ABAQUS (version 6.7) which supports the combined hardening material modeling. The specimens geometry and boundary conditions of the models were built similar to previous buckling test set up at the University of Alberta (i.e. with end plates and collars attached to both ends) [13]. Figure 9 shows the typical model and boundary conditions for each tested pipe.

different thicknesses associated with the selected D/t ratios were 15.2mm, 10.9mm and 8.5mm. The length of the model was defined as 3810mm; i.e. 5 times larger than the diameter to minimize the end effects on the buckling response [13]. Forty elements were used in the 180 circumference of the model and 130 rows of elements were used in the entire length of the pipes models. This meshing configuration resulted in an identical mesh scheme in all model geometries with uniform aspect ratio of pipe elements equal to 1.02. The combined hardening material modeling technique was used to define the material properties of the pipe and collar elements. The material constant describing this model, were defined to generate the values considered for the parametric study. The relative end stiffness of the pipe models was aimed to be uniform among all models in the parametric study. The end plates were modelled with thickness of six times larger than pipe thickness and as an elastic material with modulus of elasticity similar to pipe material. Six rows of elements located at both ends of the pipes model were assigned to collars with same material properties as the pipe elements. As the pipe models were loaded under pure bending condition, the distances to the pivot points did not change the longitudinal strain distribution. Nevertheless, the distance of the end plates centre to the pivot point was defined as 1220mm (equal to the moment arms previously used in the pipe testing at the University of Alberta [13]). Half ring ovality pattern was included in the models to trigger the pipe buckling. The average measured out-of-roundness ratio among all HSS pipe specimens used for the validation of the combined hardening model was around 0.25%D. This ovality was applied in a 0.75D gauge length at the middle section of each pipe, one element off the centreline. The Sine wave pattern was used for the longitudinal distribution of the imperfection with maximum amplitude equal to 0.25%D at the centre, and zero at both ends of the gauge length. This gauge length was selected after preliminary analyses, since it always caused buckling in the mid-length of all pipe models. This uniform buckling location among all models is necessary for the parametric study because it unifies the buckling shape of all models. This imperfection pattern which induces smooth ovality in a certain gauge length of the pipe is recommended for buckling analysis under bending moments [15].

Figure 9 Geometry and boundary conditions of pipe models

Half of the pipes, end palates and collars were modeled with a longitudinal plane of symmetry to save the analysis time. Fournode quadrilateral reduced-integration shell element, S4R (developed for large-strain formulation in ABAQUS element library) was used to model the pipes body and collars. Seven integration points were used through the thickness of these elements. The nodes placed on the symmetry plane were restrained to remain on the plane but free to move within the symmetry plane. End plates were modeled by three-node element, STRI3 which are appropriate for arbitrarily large rotations but only small strains. Centre of the end plates were connected with rigid beams (shown by dashed line in Figure 9) to the pivot points. Both the top and bottom pivot points were free to rotate in the symmetry plane and the top pivot point was also free to translate along the pipes axis. The collars were modeled by increasing pipe thickness (to double) at the top and bottom collar locations forcing the inelastic local buckling to develop away from the specimens ends. Previous studies have shown that pipe diameter has no effect on the CBS [14]. It is decided to use a uniform diameter of 762mm for all specimens (equivalent to 30" pipe diameter). Accordingly, three

5. BUCKLING ANALYSIS
Buckling analyses were performed by applying equal rotations at the pivot points to generate pure bending throughout the pipes length. For pressurized pipes, the internal pressure was applied as a distributed load on the internal surface of the shell elements forming the pipe, collars and end plates before applying the end rotations. Arc-length control technique (referred to as the modified Riks method) was used to carry out the buckling analysis. The variations of global moment with respect to average compressive strain were extracted from the analysis results. The global moment was the moment generated at the pivot points. The average compressive strain over a specified gauge length, c was calculated by Equation (3) at each load increment.

c = t KD

(3)

t is tensile strain of the extreme tension fiber located at the buckled cross-section and K is the curvature for the given gauge length. The

Copyright 2012 by ASME

gauge length used for above calculation was the 2D-long segment of the pipe centered at the buckling location. For each model, the CBS was defined as the average compressive strain associated with the maximum global moment. Having five parameters with three different levels, 35 (i.e. 243) combinations were possible for the parametric study. A pilot studynamed the screening study- was carried out on the parameters involved in the response function to get an insight into the shape of the response surface. Base on the results of the screening study, the parameters which have negligible influence on the response can be eliminated. Moreover, the intermediate variation levels of parameters which have linear relation with the response can be omitted. Eleven finite element models were used with the factor levels based on the classical one-factor-at-a-time method of experimental design. In this method, each factor varies through all of its levels while all other factors are remained constant [16]. The screening study showed that one material parameter, i.e. 2, had linear relationship with the CBS of HSS pipes. Therefore, its variation levels were reduced to the upper and lower limits. Based on the above discussion, the parametric study was eventually performed on 342 (i.e. 162) combinations of affecting variables. Table 2 shows all ranges of the non-dimensional variables used in the parametric study
Table 2 Ranges of non-dimensional parameters Parameters
y(T)/E

The y(L)/ y(T) ratio - as an indicator of the material anisotropy - has linear inverse relation with CBS of unpressurized and moderately pressurized HSS pipes of all grades and strain hardening rates. But, the linearity in the pattern is somehow weaker in HSS pipes with D/t=90 comparing with D/t=50 and D/t=70. As Figure 10 to Figure 15 show, for both unpressurized and moderately pressurized pipes the slopes of the curves belonging to the steel material with different material grades and strain hardening rates are almost similar. For these pipes, the average correlation factors (R) between the CBS and y(L)/ y(T) ratio were 99.7%. For the variation range of y(L)/ y(T), considered in the parametric study, the average change in the CBS were 21.2% and 19.9%, respectively, with 5.0% standard deviation in both above cases. Figure 16 to Figure 18 demonstrate that the effects of anisotropy on the CBS of highly pressurized HSS pipes are less consistent and less significant compared to same HSS pipes with no or moderate internal pressure. In highly pressurized pipes, the correlation factor between the CBS and y(L)/ y(T) ratio was 26.0% among all cases of highly pressurized pipes. For the variation range of y(L)/ y(T), considered in the parametric study, the average change in the CBS was 1.9% with 5.3% standard deviation. It can be concluded that in highly pressurized pipes with high strength in transverse direction, ductile yielding in longitudinal direction has minor effect on the CBS. These results show that the effect of material anisotropy on the buckling response of HSS pipes is dominated by the stress path that the material undergoes during the buckling process. This topic is under investigation by the authors.
-1.8%

Lower Limit 0.00226 0.0067 0.71 50 0.0

Intermediate Value 0.00333 0.84 70 0.4

Upper Limit
CBS

0.00399 0.020 0.91 90 0.8

Esh/E
y(L)/ y(T)

-1.6% -1.4% -1.2% -1.0% -0.8%

D/t
h/ y(T)

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the parametric study, depicted in Figure 10 through Figure 18, show how the anisotropic material of HSS pipes affects the buckling response. Each graph illustrates the effects of material grade, strain hardening and levels of anisotropy on the CBS of a HSS pipe with certain values of D/t ratio and internal pressure. Comparing Figure 10 through Figure 18 (each of which belongs to pipes with a certain D/t ratio and internal pressure), confirms that the CBS has direct relation with internal pressure and reverse relations with the D/t ratios. These relations were expected as they have been reported by previous studies. It is also evident that the strain hardening rate always has direct relation with CBS. However, lower internal pressure and higher D/t ratios diminish the effects of strain hardening. As Figure 12 shows, the effects of strain hardening rate becomes minimum in unpressurized HSS pipes with high D/t ratios. The results also show that HSS pipes made of higher steel grades have lower CBS under all combinations of other affecting parameters. However, this reverse association is more accentuated when the internal pressure and strain hardening rate are higher. Moreover, the effects of the material grade on the CBS become less significant in HSS pipes with higher D/t ratios.
CBS

-0.6%
y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa

-0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.5 0.55

y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa

0.6

0.65

0.7
y(L)/ y(T)

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

Figure 10 CBS Versus

-1.2%

for D/t=50 and

h/ y(T)=0.0

-1.0%

-0.8%

-0.6%

-0.4%
y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa

-0.2%

0.0% 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

y(L)/ y(T)

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

Figure 11 CBS Versus

for D/t=70,

h/ y(T)=0.0

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CBS

-0.8% -0.7% -0.6% -0.5% -0.4% -0.3%

y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa

CBS

-0.9%

-3.5% -3.0% -2.5% -2.0% -1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0%

y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa

-0.2% -0.1% 0.0% 0.5 0.55

y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

Figure 12 CBS Versus y(L)/ y(T) for D/t=90, h/ y(T)=0.0

CBS
-3.0%

Figure 16 CBS Versus y(L)/ y(T) for D/t=50, h/ y(T)=0.8

CBS
-3.0%

-2.5%

-2.5%
y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa

-2.0%

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.5%

y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa

-1.0%
y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa

-1.0%

-0.5%

-0.5%

0.0% 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

y(L)/ y(T)

0.0%

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7
y(L)/ y(T)

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

Figure 13 CBS Versus

CBS
-1.6%

for D/t=50,

h/ y(T)=0.4

Figure 17 CBS Versus

CBS
-2.0% -1.8% -1.6% -1.4% -1.2% -1.0% -0.8%
y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa

for D/t=70,

h/ y(T)=0.8

-1.4% -1.2% -1.0% -0.8% -0.6% -0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
y(L)/ y(T)
y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa

-0.6% -0.4% -0.2% 0.0%

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7
y(L)/ y(T)

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

Figure 14 CBS Versus

CBS
-1.0% -0.9% -0.8% -0.7% -0.6% -0.5% -0.4% -0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 0.0% 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

for D/t=70,

h/ y(T)=0.4

Figure 18 CBS Versus

for D/t=90,

h/ y(T)=0.8

7. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the effects of anisotropic material properties on the buckling response of HSS pipes were investigated. The effects of three material properties including material grade, strain hardening rate and level of anisotropy were studied in HSS pipes with different diameter to thickness ratio and internal pressures. Finite element models with different values of y(T)/E, Esh/E, y(L)/ y(T) D/t and h/ y(T), were developed and analyzed to calculate the CBS. The results show that the CBS has direct relationship with the strain hardening rate and inverse relationship with steel grade. Anisotropy as the specific property of HSS materials has unique relationship with the CBS. Although anisotropic HSS pipe materials show longitudinal ductility and high transversal strength in the material

y=550 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=1380 MPa

y=550 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=690 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa y=825 MPa - Esh=4140 MPa

0.7
y(L)/ y(T)

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9
y(L) /

0.95
y(T)

Figure 15 CBS Versus

for D/t=90,

h/ y(T)=0.4

Copyright 2012 by ASME

tests, their longitudinal ductility does not always contribute to the compressive deformability of the pipes. Specifically, the advantageous effect of the longitudinal ductility of HSS pipes is highly dependent on the level of internal pressure. While there is a strong association between the CBS and the material anisotropy among unpressurized and moderately pressurized pipes, this association is quite weak in case of highly pressurized pipes.

International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2008, September 29, 2008 - October 3, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Calgary, AB, Canada, 713-720. [11] Fathi A., Cheng J.J.R, Adeeb S., 2010, Effects of Material Anisotropy on the Buckling Behaviour of High Strength Steel Pipelines, Proceedings of USNCTAM2010, 16th US National Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, June 27 - July 2, 2010, State College, Pennsylvania, USA. [12] Dorey, A., Murray, D.W., and Cheng, J.J.R, 2006, Critical Buckling Strain Equations for Energy Pipelines A Parametric Study, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 128(3), pp. 248-255 [13] Dorrey A.B., Cheng, J.J.R., and Murray, D.W., 2001, CBS in Energy Pipelines, Structural Engineering Report No. 237, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. [14] DiBatista J.D., Cheng, J.J.R., and Murray, D.W., 2000, Behavior of Sleeper Supported Line Pipe, Structural Engineering Report No. 230, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. [15] Dorey A.B., Murray, D.W., and Cheng, J.J.R., 2006, Initial Imperfection Models for Segments of Line Pipe, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 128(4) pp. 322329. [16] Box, G. R. P., Hunter. W. G., and Hunter, J. S., 1978, Statistics for Experimenters, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

8. REFERENCES
[1] Corbett, K. T., Bowen, R. R., and Petersen, C. W., 2003, High Strength Steel Pipeline Economics, Proceedings of the Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, May 25, 2002 - May 30, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Honolulu, HI, United states, pp. 2355-2362. Macia M.L., Kibey S.A., Arslan H., 2011, Approaches to Qualify Strain-Based Designed Pipelines, ASME International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2010, September 21, 2010 - October 1, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Calgary, AB, Canada. Walsh W.J., Preston D., 2011, Yield Strength of Line Pipe Analysis Of Forming Operations and Flattened Straps., ASME International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2010, September 21, 2010 - October 1, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Calgary, AB, Canada. Liu, M., and Wang, Y., 2007, Modeling of Anisotropy of TMCP and UOE Linepipes, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 17(4) pp. 288-293. Tsuru, E., Agata, J., and Nagata, Y., 2010, Analytical Approach for Buckling Resistance of UOE Linepipe with Orthogonal Anisotropy under Combined Loading, Proceedings of the 8th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineering, Calgary, Alberta. Neupane S., Adeeb S., Cheng J.J.R, Zhou J., 2010, Modeling Approaches for Anisotropic Material Properties of High Strength Steel Pipelines and the Effect on Differential Settlement, ASME International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2010, September 21, 2010 - October 1, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Calgary, AB, Canada. Fathi A., Cheng J.J.R, Adeeb S., Zhou J., 2010, Critical Buckling Strain in High Strength Steel Pipes Using IsotropicKinematic Hardening, ASME International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2010, September 21, 2010 - October 1, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Calgary, AB, Canada. Hart, J. D., Powell, G. H., and N. Zulfigar, N., 1996, A Material Model for Pipeline Steels, International Pipeline Conference, IPC, ASME, 1996, Volume 2. Suzuki, N., Kondo, J., Muraoka, R., Okatsu, M, and Igi, S., 2008, Correlative Hardening Parameter to Strain Capacity of High Strength Linepipes, Proceedings of the 18th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Paper No. ISOPE2008-TPC-623 Vancouver, Canada, July 7-11.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] Ishikawa, N., Okatsu, M., Shimamura, J., Endo, S., Shikanai, N., Muraoka, R., Kondo, J., and Suzuki, N., 2008, Material development and strain capacity of grade X100 high strain linepipe produced by heat treatment online process ASME

Copyright 2012 by ASME