1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

INTEGRITY OF PIPELINE IN AREA OF MINE SUBSIDENCE

Fan Zhang
1
, Ming Liu, and Yong-Yi Wang
Center for Reliable Energy Systems
Dublin, OH, USA
1
Contact Author

Zhifeng Yu and Lei Tong
China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Corporation
Langfang, Hebei, China


KEYWORDS
Strain Based Design, Strain Capacity, Pipeline Integrity

ABSTRACT
Ground subsidence can threaten the integrity of buried
pipelines in areas with prior and on-going mining activities.
The integrity can be assessed by comparing the strain demand
and the strain capacity. The Tensile Strain Capacity (TSC) of
the pipeline is dominated by the girth welds due to their
relatively inferior property in comparison to the base pipe
materials. Parametric models developed at CRES for US
DOT and PRCI allow the evaluation of girth welds TSC based
on pipe dimensions, base material and weld properties and flaw
size. The local buckling of the pipeline under compressive or
bending loads determines the Compressive Strain Capacity
(CSC). Three existing standards are used to evaluate CSC,
including DNV OS-F101, CSA Z662 and API RP 1111. The
strain demand analysis of the pipeline under multiple
subsidence scenarios is presented in a companion paper. The
strain demand is compared with TSC and CSC separately to
evaluate the pipeline integrity. The use of CRES TSC models
for selecting a variety of design and material parameters to
improve TSC is illustrated.

INTRODUCTION
Ground subsidence is one of the major hazards for buried
pipelines. It induces mainly lateral bending in the pipelines
which in turn results in tensile loading on one side of the pipe
and compressive loading on the other side of the pipe. The
large deformation under the lateral bending may introduce
longitudinal stresses well in excess of the allowable stress
permitted by traditional stress-based designs. Recently
developed strain-based design methodology allows the
assessment of pipeline integrity under the large deformation.
Such methodology is useful for evaluating the safety of
pipelines under ground subsidence.
The planned Third China West-to-East pipeline goes
through regions with past and ongoing underground mining
activities. In a companion paper [1], the strain demand in the
pipeline along the longitudinal direction has been computed
under different subsidence scenarios. The integrity of pipeline
is evaluated by comparing these strain demands with the tensile
and compressive strain capacities of the pipelines in this paper.
Girth welds are the weak points of pipelines under
longitudinal tensile stress. They have relatively inferior
properties compared to the base pipe materials, such as low
toughness and the potential existence of small flaws. The
tensile strain capacity (TSC) of a pipeline is predominantly
controlled by that of the girth welds. TSC models have been
under development by a number of organizations, including
SINTEF [2-4], ExxonMobil [5-8], Osaka University and JFE
[9-11], and CRES [12,13]. The CRES TSC models are
developed for US DOT and PRCI and fully documented and
available to the public. The CRES models are selected as all
necessary input parameters are available for the application of
the models. .
Under compressive loading, local buckling of the pipe is a
main threat to pipeline. The local buckling distorts pipe cross
section and reduces the capacity of bending moment. The
strain corresponding to the initiation of the buckling (typically
coincide with the attainment of the maximum moment under
displacement-controlled loading) is the critical strain and used
as the compressive strain capacity (CSC). The initial work on
pipe buckling in the 1960s was based on elastic analysis on
plain pipes [14]. CSC was given as a function of pipe
diameter and wall thickness ratios without dependence on pipe
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90642
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
material property and internal pressure. The recent standards,
including DNV OS-F101 [15], CSA Z662 [16] and API RP
1111 [17], have enhanced CSC estimation equations by
including more input parameters, such the strain hardening
properties of the pipe materials, girth weld metal strength
mismatch, misalignment at girth welds, and internal and
external pressure. These equations are used to determine the
CSC of the pipelines in the current paper.
This paper is organized as follows. An introduction and
review is firstly provided on the information of pipelines under
investigation, the subsidence scenarios and the results of strain
demand analysis. The efforts are then focused on the tensile
strain design. The CRES TSC models are briefly introduced.
The predicted TSC is compared with the tensile strain demand
in the pipelines. Potential improvement of the pipeline TSC
through the change of key design parameters is discussed. For
compressive strain, three standard CSC equations are reviewed
and the predicted CSC is compared the compressive strain
demand in pipeline. Finally, the integrity of the pipelines
under mining subsidence hazard is examined from the above
comparisons between strain demand and strain capacities.
PIPELINE AND STRAIN DEMAND
Pipeline Information
The characteristics of four pipelines and the operating
pressure information are given in Table 1. Two gas pipelines
have an outside diameter, OD, of 1,016 mm and the other two
oil pipelines have an outside diameter of 813 mm. The wall
thicknesses, t, of the two gas pipelines are 17.5 mm and 21.0
mm. The wall thicknesses of the two oil pipelines are 14.7
mm and 17.2 mm. The radius of bends, whenexist is six times
of OD. The maximum allowable operating pressure, MAOP,
is 10 MPa for all pipelines.
Two potential girth welds types were investigated: (1) Gas
Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) and (2) Flux-Cored Arc Welding
(FCAW) or Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW). The welds
strength mismatch ratio is assumed at 1.10, (10% overmatch)
for GMAW welds and 1.00, (even match), for FCAW/SMAW.
The mismatch ratio is the ratio of ultimate tensile strength
(UTS) of the weld over the UTS of the base pipe material.
The high-low misalignment between two pipes at the girth weld
is assumed at 1.6 mm. The high-strain X70 and X80 steels are
the potential materials for the pipelines. The tensile stress-
strain curves fitted from the tests are presented in Figure 1.
The specimens were cut from UOE pipe and loaded along the
longitudinal direction. Isotropic material model was assumed.
TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PIPELINES
Wall
thickness
t
Pipe
content
Outside
diameter
OD
Bends
radius
R = 6 OD
Maximum allowable
operating pressure
MAOP
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa)
17.5
Gas 1016. 6096. 10.
21.0
14.7
Oil 813. 4878. 10.
17.2

FIGURE 1 STRESS VERSUS STRAIN CURVES UNDER
UNIAXIAL TENSION OF HIGH-STRAIN X70 AND
X80 PIPES
Strain Demand under Subsidence
The subsidence hazard due to underground mining is
characterized as pit and sag/trough subsidence as shown in
Figure 2. Sag or trough subsidence is typically a rectangular
ground depression with continuous boundaries as gently
sloping sidewalls and usually developed over room-and-pillar
or longwall-extraction mines of greater depth. Pit subsidence
is roughly a circular hole in the ground with discontinuous
boundaries as essentially vertical to belled-outward sidewalls
and occurs over shallow mines. The strain demand of two
pipelines patterns was investigated under sag/trough
subsidence. One passes the subsidence region straightly and
the other has a 90 bend in the subsidence region. Straight
pipelines crossing the pit subsidence was investigated. The
pipelines were suspended above the ground surface in the
subsidence hole after the hazard.
The tensile and compressive strain demands along the
longitudinal direction of the pipeline are listed in Table 2 to 4
for different pipelines and subsidence scenarios. Please refer
the accompanied paper [1] for details.

(a) Sag Subsidence (b) Pit Subsidence
FIGURE 2 TYPICAL TYPES OF SUBSIDENCE
ASSOCIATED WITH UNDERGROUND MINING [1]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Engineering strain (%)
X80
X70
Road
Original land surface
Subsided
earth
Coal
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
Water table
Subsided
earth
Bedrock
Underclay
Coal
Loess and
glacial material
Depth in
meters
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
TABLE 2 STRAIN DEMANDS IN STRAIGHT PIPELINES
CROSSING SAG/TROUGH SUBSIDENCE
Pipe
content
Outside
diameter OD
Wall
thickness
t
Steel
Strain demand
Tensile Compressive
(mm) (mm) (%) (%)
gas 1016.
17.5
X70 0.10 0.05
X80 0.10 0.05
21.0
X70 0.09 0.05
X80 0.09 0.05
oil 813.
14.7
X70 0.09 0.04
X80 0.09 0.04
17.2
X70 0.09 0.04
X80 0.09 0.04
TABLE 3 STRAIN DEMANDS IN PIPELINES WITH 90
BEND CROSSING SAG/TROUGH SUBSIDENCE
Pipe
content
Outside
diameter OD
Wall
thickness t Steel
Strain demand
Tensile Compressive
(mm) (mm) (%) (%)
gas 1016.
17.5
X70 0.14 0.15
X80 0.14 0.15
21.0
X70 0.13 0.14
X80 0.13 0.14
oil 813.
14.7
X70 0.17 0.18
X80 0.17 0.17
17.2
X70 0.16 0.16
X80 0.16 0.16
TABLE 4 STRAIN DEMANDS IN STRAIGHT PIPELINES
CROSSING PIT SUBSIDENCE
Pipe
content
Outside
diameter
OD
Wall
thickness t Steel
Loading
scenario
s
Strain demand
Tensile Compressive
(mm) (mm) (%) (%)
gas 1016.
17.5
X70
I 0.03 0.03
II 0.21 0.17
III 1.27 0.76
X80
I 0.03 0.03
II 0.20 0.16
III 0.93 0.58
21.0
X70
I 0.03 0.03
II 0.17 0.14
III 0.86 0.56
X80
I 0.03 0.03
II 0.17 0.14
III 0.60 0.37
oil 813.
14.7
X70
I 0.12 0.10
II 0.53 0.34
III 2.00 0.64
X80
I 0.12 0.10
II 0.36 0.24
III 1.63 0.58
17.2
X70
I 0.10 0.09
II 0.34 0.23
III 1.60 0.59
X80
I 0.10 0.09
II 0.28 0.20
III 1.15 0.50
Please note that the strain demands of pipelines in pit
subsidence were investigated under three potential loading
scenarios. In Scenario I, the pipes are left without soil above
them after the subsidence; in Scenario II, the pipes are left with
soil above them after and the subsidence, and in Scenario III,
the pipes are during the subsidence process. Please find the
details in the accompanied paper [1].
PIPELINE INTEGRITY UNDER TENSILE STRAIN
CRES TSC Models
The CRES TSC models predictive models contain two
main components, i.e., the predictive crack driving force
equations and the apparent toughness, CTOD
A
.
The CTOD
A
may be derived from various experimental
tests including Charpy V-Notch (CVN), standard deeply-
notched Single-Edge Notched Bending (SENB), shallow-
notched SENB, Single-Edge Notched Tension (SENT), Curved
Wide Plate tension (CWP) and Full Scale Pipe tension (FSP).
The CRES report to DOT/PRCI [13] shows the detailed process
of determining CTOD
A
.
The predictive equations considered the influence of flaw
sizes, pipe dimensions, pipe and weld material properties, and
internal pressures as listed in Table 5 with the normalized
variables.
TABLE 5 INPUT PARAMETERS FOR CRES TSC MODELS
Parameters Description
OD (mm) Pipe outside diameter
t (mm) Pipe wall thickness
a (mm) Initial flaw height
2c (mm) Initial flaw length
h (mm) Misalignment at girth weld
oY (MPa) Yield stress of base metal at 0.5% total elongation strain
os (MPa) Ultimate tensile strength of base metal
os
W
(MPa) Ultimate tensile strength of girth weld
oA (mm) Apparent toughness CTODA
p
i
(MPa) Internal pressure
q = a/t Normalized flaw depth
| = 2c/t Normalized flaw length
= h/t Normalized misalignment at girth weld
= oY

/ os Ratio of yield stress to tensile strength in base metal
| = os
W
/ os Weld metal tensile strength mismatch ratio
fp = oh

/ oY
Internal pressure factor as the ratio of resulting hoop
stress, oh = pi(OD-2t)/2t, to yield stress of base metal.


The TSC is predicted as

( )
( )
( )
( )

s s
+
< s
+
|
.
|

\
|

=
8 . 0 6 . 0 if
1
) (
6 . 0 0 if
1
) (
6
5
2
3
TSC
p
A
A
p
A
A
p
f
F
F
A t G
f
F
F
A t G f
o
o
o
o
, (1)
where
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME

( )
( )
229 . 1
503 . 1 1 8096 . 0
9 . 15
+
|
.
|

\
|
=
t
t G
, (2)
is a fitted function of the thickness correlation and

( ) ( )
D
A
B
A A
C F
o
o o =
. (3)
A, B, C and D in Equations (1) and (3) are fitted functions of
normalized geometry and material properties. CRES
developed two sets of the parameters for different welding
profiles of GMAW and FCAW/SMAW. The fitted functions
of A, B, C and D for GMAW are
( ) | |( )
4 1 3 1 1 1 10 8 6
/ 4
3 2
12 9 7 5
/
1
1 1
a a a a a a e a
a a a a e e a A
a
| q|
|
q| o |
+ + + + =
, (4)

| |
9 7 5
3
2 1
8 6 4
/
) (
b b b b b
b b b B
b
| | q |
q |
+ =
, (5)
( )( ) | |
| q q |
|
|
12 10 5 3
2
1
11 9 8 7 6 4
) 1 ( /
1
c c c c
c
c
c c c e c e c c e e C + + + + + =
+
, (6)

( )( )
10 8 6 4
3
2
9 7 5
1
1
1 1
d d d d
d
d
d d d d D | q |
|
|
+ + + =
+
. (7)
The coefficients are listed in Table 6. The fitted functions of
A, B, C and D for FCAW/SMAW are

( ) | |( )
2 1 1 1 9 8 6
/
4
3 2
10 7 5
/
1
1 1
a a a a a e a
a a a e e a A
a
| q|
|
q| o |
+ + + =
,(8)

| |
9 7 5
3
2 1
8 6 4
/
) (
b b b b b
b b b B
b
| | q |
q |
+ =
, (9)
( )( ) | |
| q q |
|
|
12 10 5 3
2
1
11 9 8 7 6 4
) 1 ( /
1
c c c c
c
c
c c c e c e c c e e C + + + + + =
+
, (10)
( )( )
10 8 5 3 2
9 7 6 4 1
1 1
d d d d d
d d d d d D | q| q | + + + + =
. (11)
The coefficients are listed in Table 7.
CRES TSC models were derived from FEA simulations
results and verified the tests database. The applicable range of
the models is listed in Table 8.
TABLE 6 COEFFICIENTS FOR GMAW
a1 2.084E+0 b1 -5.005E-2 c1 1.409E+0 d1 2.209E-2
a2 2.812E-1 b2 -5.139E-3 c2 2.345E-1 d2 1.156E+0
a3 -4.950E-1 b3 4.485E-1 c3 1.125E+0 d3 1.601E+0
a4 7.373E-1 b4 1.417E+0 c4 4.181E+0 d4 8.964E-1
a5 -5.005E+0 b5 2.217E+0 c5 1.201E+0 d5 1.383E+0
a6 1.186E+0 b6 1.029E+0 c6 -5.384E+0 d6 1.333E+0
a7 1.644E+0 b7 -2.598E+0 c7 2.406E+0 d7 9.313E-2
a8 7.374E-1 b8 -2.679E+0 c8 -2.154E-1 d8 -2.240E+0
a9 -9.829E-1 b9 1.694E+0 c9 -5.237E-3 d9 8.559E+0
a10 8.655E-2 c10 9.889E+0 d10 -3.719E+0
a11 -1.029E-1 c11 3.547E-1
a12 -1.500E-1 c12 -7.513E-1
a13 1.025E+0
a14 5.557E+0
TABLE 7 COEFFICIENTS FOR FCAW/SMAW
a1 9.281E-1 b1 -5.578E-2 c1 1.609E+0 d1 6.822E-3
a2 9.573E-2 b2 1.112E-2 c2 1.138E-1 d2 1.014E+0
a3 -5.053E-1 b3 -1.735E-1 c3 6.729E-1 d3 1.746E+0
a4 3.718E-1 b4 1.675E+0 c4 2.357E+0 d4 2.378E+0
a5 -2.023E+0 b5 2.603E-1 c5 1.057E+0 d5 9.434E-1
a6 7.585E-1 b6 1.106E+0 c6 -4.444E+0 d6 -1.243E+0
a7 6.299E-1 b7 -1.073E+0 c7 1.727E-2 d7 3.579E+1
a8 5.168E-1 b8 -1.519E+0 c8 -1.354E-2 d8 7.500E+0
a9 7.168E-1 b9 1.965E+0 c9 -1.224E-2 d9 6.294E+1
a10 -9.815E-1 c10 8.128E+0 d10 -6.930E+0
a11 2.909E-1 c11 2.007E-1
a12 -3.141E-1 c12 -1.594E+0
TABLE 8 APPLICABLE RAGNE OF PARAMETERS IN CRES
TSC MODELS
Parameters range Parameters Range
oA 0.2 (mm) 2.5 (mm) = h/t 0.0 0.2
f
p

0.0 0.8 = oY

/ os 0.75 0.94
q = a/t 0.05 0.5 | = os
W
/ os 1.0 1.3
| = 2c/t 1.0 20.0
Comparison of TSC with Tensile Strain Demands
The initiation toughness, alternatively termed apparent
toughness CTOD
A
values were set at 1.0 mm for GMAW and
0.6 mm for FCAW/SMAW. These values are the median
values in the CTOD
A
range observed from existing databases of
tests of similar materials with flaws in the weld metal. The
girth weld flaw was assumed to have 3.0 mm depth and 25.0
mm (1 inch) length. Other parameters are given in the section
Pipeline Information. Table 9 summarized all the input
parameters for CRES TSC models and Table 10 lists the TSC
prediction and related CTOD
A
for different welds for each
pipeline. Figure 3 (a) and (b) compare the TSC prediction
with the tensile strain demands listed in Table 2 to 4. The
following observation is evident.
(1) For pipelines with GMAW girth welds,
a. All pipelines are safe at tensile side under both
sag/trough and pit subsidence.
(2) For pipelines with FCAW/SMAW girth welds,
a. All pipelines are safe at tensile side under
sag/trough subsidence.
b. All pipelines are safe at tensile side under loading
Scenarios I and II.
c. All gas pipelines, except the X70 pipe with small
wall thickness of 17.5 mm, are safe at tensile side
under loading Scenarios III.
d. Among all oil pipelines, only the one with large
wall thickness of 17.2 mm and X80 steel is safe
under loading scenario III.
From Table 10 and Figure 3, it is also clear that
(1) The thicker pipes with higher grade steel provide more
capacity for tension, and
(2) GMAW girth welds provide much higher TSC than
FCAW/SMAW.
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME

(a) Pipeline Crossing Sag/Trough Subsidence

(b) Pipeline Crossing Pit Subsidence
FIGURE 3 COMPARISON OF TSC WITH TENSILE STRAIN
DEMANDS IN PIPELINES UNDER SUBSIDNECE
TABLE 9 INPUT PARAMETERS TO CRES TSC MODELS
P
i
p
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
i

P
i
p
e

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
,

O
D

P
i
p
e

w
a
l
l

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
,

t

S
t
e
e
l

g
r
a
d
e

Y
i
e
l
d

s
t
r
e
s
s

a
t

0
.
5
%

e
l
o
n
g
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

o
Y

U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

b
a
s
e

m
e
t
a
l
,

o
s

U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

g
i
r
t
h

w
e
l
d
,

o
s
W

F
l
a
w

d
e
p
t
h
,

a

F
l
a
w

l
e
n
g
t
h
,

2
c

M
i
s
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

a
t

g
i
r
t
h

w
e
l
d
,

h

Weld metal
tensile strength
mismatch ratio
GMAW
FCAW/
SMAW
(MPa)(mm)(mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(mm)(mm)(mm
)
O
i
l

10. 813.
14.7
X70 460. 534. 534. 3.0 25. 1.6 1.10 1.00
X80 530. 612. 612. 3.0 25. 1.6 1.10 1.00
17.2
X70 460. 534. 534. 3.0 25. 1.6 1.10 1.00
X80 530. 612. 612. 3.0 25. 1.6 1.10 1.00
G
a
s

10. 1016.
17.5
X70 460. 534. 534. 3.0 25. 1.6 1.10 1.00
X80 530. 612. 612. 3.0 25. 1.6 1.10 1.00
21.0
X70 460. 534. 534. 3.0 25. 1.6 1.10 1.00
X80 530. 612. 612. 3.0 25. 1.6 1.10 1.00
TABLE 10 TSC OF PIPELINES
P
i
p
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
i

P
i
p
e

O
u
t
s
i
d
e

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
,

O
D

P
i
p
e

w
a
l
l

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
,

t

S
t
e
e
l

g
r
a
d
e
GMAW FCAW/SMAW
CTODA TSC CTODA TSC
(MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (mm) (%)
O
i
l

10. 813.
14.7
X70 1.0 2.07 0.6 0.86
X80 1.0 2.21 0.6 0.91
17.2
X70 1.0 2.84 0.6 1.19
X80 1.0 2.98 0.6 1.23
G
a
s

10.
1016
.
17.5
X70 1.0 2.49 0.6 1.04
X80 1.0 2.68 0.6 1.10
21.0
X70 1.0 3.53 0.6 1.51
X80 1.0 3.75 0.6 1.58

Sensitivity Analysis of TSC
CRES TSC models provide useful tools to investigate the
key parameters in pipeline design. The following discussion
covers both GMAW and FCAW/SMAW girth welds. The
CTOD
A
of 1.0 mm and 0.6 mm were used for the two welds
respectively.
Figure 4 to 7 investigate the potential improvement of TSC
by increasing the weld metal strength for GMAW and
FCAW/SMAW girth welds respectively. The strength
mismatch ratio in the figures covers the entire applicable range
of CRES TSC models as shown in Table 8. The TSC
increases almost linearly until the mismatch ratio reaches
approximately 1.25 for both gas and oil pipelines. The TSC is
doubled by selecting the weld metal with 20% overmatching
strength compared to an even-matching strength.
Figures 8 to 11 show the dramatic influence of the high-
low misalignment at the girth weld on the TSC with GMAW
and FCAW/SMAW girth welds respectively. The weld may
lose more than 70% of TSC by a 3 mm misalignment. These
trends highlight the detrimental effect of high-low
misalignment to the TSC in pipelines. .
The influence of flaw size is examined by flaw depth and
length separately. Figures 12 to 15 show the impact of flaw
depth in the GMAW and FCAW/SMAW girth welds
respectively. Any reduction in the flaw depth will
significantly increase the TSC. Figures 16 to 19 show the
relatively weaker influence of flaw length. The TSC reduction
due to the increase of flaw length is only significant when the
flaw length is less than 25 mm or 1 inch.
Finally, Figures 20 and 21 show the potential TSC increase
by increasing the wall thickness of pipes while the magnitude
of the internal pressure is kept the same. The difference
among the curves is due to the internal pressure factor derived
from the same pressure with different pipe wall thickness.
Some of the curves are not extended to the smallest wall
thickness of 10 mm as the internal pressure factor would have
exceeded the customary design limit of 0.8. Using heavy
wall pipes would be one of the choices to increase the TSC for
pipelines in critical regions where options of optimizing other
design parameters may be limited.
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm,t = 17.2 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7mm, X70
Tensile strain demand and tensile strain capacity (%)
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e

p
i
p
e
s
SD, sag, straight
SD, sag, bend
TSC, GMAW
TSC, FCAW/SMAW
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm,t = 17.2 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7mm, X70
Tensiel strain demand and tensile strain capacity (%)
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e

p
i
p
e
s
SD, pit, LS I
SD, pit, LS II
SD, pit, LS III
TSC, GMAW
TSC, FCAW/SMAW
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 4 INFLUENCE OF GIRTH WELD METAL TENSILE
STREIGTH ON TSC IN OIL PIPELINES WITH
GMAW

FIGURE 5 INFLUENCE OF THE GIRTH WELD METAL
TENSILE STREIGTH ON TSC IN GAS PIPELINES
WITH GMAW

FIGURE 6 INFLUENCE OF THE GIRTH WELD METAL
TENSILE STREIGTH ON TSC IN OIL PIPELINES
WITH FCAW/SMAW

FIGURE 7 INFLUENCE OF THE GIRTH WELD METAL
TENSILE STREIGTH ON TSC IN GAS PIPELINES
WITH FCAW/SMAW

FIGURE 8 INFLUENCE OF MISALIGNMENT AT THE GIRTH
WELDS ON TSC IN OIL PIPELINES WITH GMAW

FIGURE 9 INFLUENCE OF MISALIGNMENT AT THE GIRTH
WELDS ON TSC IN GAS PIPELINES WITH
GMAW
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Weld metal tensile strength mismatch ratio, | = o
s
W
/o
s
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Weld metal tensile strength mismatch ratio, | = o
s
W
/o
s
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Weld metal tensile strength mismatch ratio, | = o
s
W
/o
s
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Weld metal tensile strength mismatch ratio, | = o
s
W
/o
s
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Misalignment, h (mm)
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
weld metal tensile strength
mismatch = 1.10
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Misalignment, h (mm)
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
weld metal tensile strength
mismatch= 1.10
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 10 INFLUENCE OF MISALIGNMENT AT THE GIRTH
WELDS ON TSC IN OIL PIPELINES WITH
FCAW/SMAW

FIGURE 11 INFLUENCE OF MISALIGNMENT AT THE GIRTH
WELDS ON TSC IN GAS PIPELINES WITH
FCAW/SMAW

FIGURE 12 INFLUENCE OF EXISTING FLAW DEPTH NEAR
THE GIRTH WELDS ON TSC IN OIL PIPELINES
WITH GMAW

FIGURE 13 INFLUENCE OF EXISTING FLAW DEPTH NEAR
THE GIRTH WELDS ON TSC IN GAS PIPELINES
WITH GMAW

FIGURE 14 INFLUENCE OF EXISTING FLAW DEPTH NEAR
THE GIRTH WELDS ON TSC IN OIL PIPELINES
WITH FCAW/SMAW

FIGURE 15 INFLUENCE OF EXISTING FLAW DEPTH NEAR
THE GIRTH WELDS ON TSC IN GAS PIPELINES
WITH FCAW/SMAW
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Misalignment, h (mm)
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
weld metal tensile strength even match
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Misalignment, h (mm)
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
weld metal tensile strength even match
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Flaw depth, a (mm)
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw length = 25 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength
mismatch = 1.10
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Flaw depth, a (mm)
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw length = 15 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength
mismatch = 1.10
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Flaw depth, a (mm)
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw length = 25 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength even match
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Flaw depth, a (mm)
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw length = 15 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength even match
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 16 INFLUENCE OF EXISTING FLAW LENGTH NEAR
THE GIRTH WELDS ON TSC IN OIL PIPELINES
WITH GMAW

FIGURE 17 INFLUENCE OF EXISTING FLAW LENGTH NEAR
THE GIRTH WELDS ON TSC IN GAS PIPELINES
WITH GMAW

FIGURE 18 INFLUENCE OF EXISTING FLAW LENGTH NEAR
THE GIRTH WELDS ON TSC IN OIL PIPELINES
WITH FCAW/SMAW

FIGURE 19 INFLUENCE OF EXISTING FLAW LENGTH NEAR
THE GIRTH WELDS ON TSC IN GAS PIPELINES
WITH FCAW/SMAW

FIGURE 20 INFLUENCE OF PIPE WALL THICKNESS ON
TSC IN PIPELINES WITH GMAW

FIGURE 21 INFLUENCE OF PIPE WALL THICKNESS ON
TSC IN PIPELINES WITH FCAW/SMAW
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Flaw length, 2c (mm)
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw depth = 3 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength
mismatch = 1.10
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Flaw length, 2c (mm)
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw depth = 3 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength
mismatch = 1.10
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Flaw length, 2c (mm)
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 14.7 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, t = 17.2 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw depth = 3 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength even match
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Flaw length, 2c (mm)
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 17.5 mm, X80
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, t = 21.0 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw depth = 3 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength even match
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
T
S
C

o
f

G
M
A
W

(
%
)
Pipe wall thickness, t (mm)
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength
mismatch = 1.10
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
T
S
C

o
f

F
C
A
W
/
S
M
A
W

(
%
)
Pipe wall thickness, t (mm)
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, X70
Gas, OD = 1016 mm, X80
Oil, OD = 813 mm, X70
Oil, OD = 813 mm, X80
Internal pressure = 10 MPa
flaw size = 3 mm x 25 mm
misalignment = 1.6 mm
weld metal tensile strength
even match
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME
PIPELINE INTEGRITY UNDER COMPRESSIVE STRAIN
The CSC of pipelines were derived from the existing
standards, including DNV OS-F101 [15], CSA Z662 [16], and
API RP 1111 [17].
DNV OS F101 CSC Standard
The Det Norske Veritas Offshore Standard (DNV OS-
F101) was mainly developed for offshore pipeline system.
The CSC equation includes the effects of pipe diameter to wall
thickness ratio, yield stress and tensile strength of pipe base
metal, internal/external pressure, and girth weld imperfection.
The equation is given as,

gw h
b
e i
p
p p
D
t
o o
5 . 1
75 . 5 1 01 . 0 78 . 0 CSC

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ |
.
|

\
|
=
. (12)
t and D represent the pipe wall thickness and outside diameter
respectively, p
i
and p
e
are the internal and external pressure.
p
b
is the bust pressure of the pipe evaluated by

|
.
|

\
|

=
15 . 1
, min
3
2 2
s
Y b
t D
t
p
o
o
, (13)
where o
Y
is the yield stress (defined as the stress at 0.5% total
elongation strain) and o
s
is the tensile strength of the base
metal. The o
h
in Equation (12) is the ratio of yield stress to
tensile strength as

s
Y
h
o
o
o =
. (14)
The o
gw
in Equation (12) is the girth weld factor accounting for
the reduction of CSC due to weld imperfections. For plain
pipe, o
gw
1.0. The girth weld factor can be established by
test and/or FEA. If neither test nor FEA data is available, a
linear interpolation equation is recommended by Ghodsi et al
[18] as

> |
.
|

\
|

s
=
20 / if 20 01 . 0 0 . 1
20 / if 0 . 1
t D
t
D
t D
gw
o
. (15)
CSA Z662 CSC Standard
The CSC in the Canadian Oil and Gas Pipeline System
standards (CAN/CSA Z662-03) is

( )
2
2
3000 0025 . 0 5 . 0 CSC
(

+ =
tE
D p p
D
t
e i
, (16)
where E represents the Youngs modulus and the other
parameters are the same as those in Equation (12). The CSA
Z662 standard includes the effects of pipe diameter to wall
thickness ratio and internal/external pressure. The only
material properties included is the Youngs modulus.
API RP 1111 Standard
The American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice
1111 (API RP 1111) provides the guide for design, construction,
operation and maintenance of offshore hydrocarbon pipelines.
It provides the buckling evaluation as

o c 20 1
1 CSC
+
s

+
b
i e
b
p
p p
, (17)
Where p
b
is the bust pressure as shown in Equation (13). The
standard considers the combined failure modes of buckling
under bending and collapse under external pressure. It is only
applicable when p
e
p
i
. However, the Equation (17) may be
used to estimate the CSC without external or internal pressure
as

o
c
20 1
CSC
+
s
b
, (18)
where c
b
is the buckling strain under pure bending as

D
t
b
2
= c
, (19)
and o is the ovality of pipe cross section as

min max
min max
_ D D
D D
+

= o
, (20)
where D
max
and D
min
are the maximum and minimum outside
diameters of the pipe measured at the same cross section. The
Equation (18) can give a conservative estimation of the CSC
under nonzero internal pressure.
Comparison of TSC with Tensile Strain Demands
Table 11 lists the CSC calculated from the three standards
with the input parameters, including internal pressure, material
properties and pipe dimensions. The presence of internal
pressure increases the CSC. Table 11 provides the CSC in
both pipelines under operation with 10 MPa internal pressure
and pipelines at rest with zero internal pressure. Figure 22 (a)
and (b) plot the CSC from different standards with and without
internal pressure respectively. The results for API RP 1111 in
the Figure 22 and Table 11 are from Equation 18 without
internal pressure.
Comparing the CSC from different standards shows that
(1) CSA and DNV predict similar CSC under zero internal
pressure while the prediction from DNV is a little
smaller.
(2) DNV standard is more sensitive to internal pressure
than CSA and predicts much higher CSC under 10
MPa internal pressure.
(3) API standard is only suitable to predict CSC under
zero internal pressure. The CSC depends on pipe
dimensions and ignores information of material. The
predicted CSC is much higher than those from the
DNV and CSA. From the conservative point of view,
API standard is not recommended for the particular
10 Copyright 2012 by ASME
work in current paper as the on-shore pipelines under
subsidence hazard.
The comparison between compressive strain demands in
Table 2 to 4 and the CSC in Table 11 reveals that
(1) All pipelines are safe at the compressive side under
sag/trough subsidence.
(2) All pipelines are safe at the compressive side after pit
subsidence under loading Scenarios I and II.
(3) The compressive strain demand during the pit
subsidence under loading Scenario III was derived
under internal pressure of 10 MPa. All of them are
below the CSC from both DNV and CSA with the
internal pressure.
(4) No strain demand analysis has been conducted without
internal pressure. However, as the internal pressure
tends to decrease the compressive yield stress along
the longitudinal direction of the pipe and result in
larger compressive strain, the compressive strain
demand with internal pressure can be used as
conservative approximation. DNV predicted CSC is
a little smaller than that from CSA and was used in the
comparison with strain demand. Four thinner
pipelines exceed the CSC, including
a. Gas pipe of outside diameter 1016 and wall
thickness as 17.5 mm with X70 steel,
b. Gas pipe of outside diameter 1016 and wall
thickness as 17.5 mm with X80 steel,
c. Oil pipe of oil diameter 813 and wall thickness as
14.7 mm with X70 steel,
d. Oil pipe of oil diameter 813 and wall thickness as
14.7 mm with X80 steel.
TABLE 11 CSC OF INVESTIGATED PIPELINES
P
i
p
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
i

Y
o
u
n
g

s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

E

P
i
p
e

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
,

D

P
i
p
e

w
a
l
l

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
,

t

S
t
e
e
l

g
r
a
d
e

Y
i
e
l
d

s
t
r
e
s
s

a
t

0
.
5
%

e
l
o
n
g
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

o
Y

U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,

o
s

C
S
C

f
r
o
m

D
N
V

O
S
-
F
1
0
1

C
S
C

f
r
o
m

C
S
A

Z
6
6
2

C
S
C

f
r
o
m

A
P
I

R
P

1
1
1
1

(MPa) (MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa) (MPa) (%) (%) (%)
G
a
s

10. 2.06E5 1016.
17.5
X70 460. 534. 1.79 1.21 0.86
X80 530. 612. 1.59 1.21 0.86
21.0
X70 460. 534. 2.66 1.20 1.03
X80 530. 612. 2.39 1.20 1.03
O
i
l

10. 2.06E5 813.
14.7
X70 460. 534. 2.01 1.19 0.90
X80 530. 612. 1.80 1.19 0.90
17.2
X70 460. 534. 2.78 1.20 1.06
X80 530. 612. 2.49 1.20 1.06
G
a
s

0. 2.06E5 1016.
17.5
X70 460. 534. 0.44 0.61 0.86
X80 530. 612. 0.43 0.61 0.86
21.0
X70 460. 534. 0.75 0.78 1.03
X80 530. 612. 0.74 0.78 1.03
O
i
l

0. 2.06E5 813.
14.7
X70 460. 534. 0.51 0.65 0.90
X80 530. 612. 0.51 0.65 0.90
17.2
X70 460. 534. 0.79 0.81 1.06
X80 530. 612. 0.79 0.81 1.06


(a) Pipelines under Operation with 10 MPa Internal Pressure

(b) Pipelines at Rest without Internal pressure
FIGURE 22 COMPARISON OF CSC FROM STANDARS OF
DNV OS-F101, CAS Z662 AND API RP 1111
CONCLUSIONS
The Third China West-to-East pipeline systems pass
regions with past and ongoing mining activities. The integrity
of the pipelines under potential subsidence hazard was
examined. In a companion, the strain demands in pipeline
under subsidence were estimated. In this paper, the tensile
strain capacity is estimated from CRES TSC models and the
compressive strain capacity is estimated from existing standard.
The integrity of pipelines is evaluated through the comparison
of strain demands with the strain capacities. The major
conclusions are as follows.
(1) All pipelines are safe under sag/trough subsidence.
(2) All pipelines are safe after the pit subsidence even if
the pipes are suspended above the ground surface in
the subsidence hole.
(3) The X70 and X80 gas pipelines with large wall
thickness of 21.0 mm are safe during the pit
subsidence process. If the pipelines are welded by
mechanized GMAW process, the X70 and X80 oil
pipelines with wall thickness of 17.2 mm are also safe.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Oil,OD=813mm,t=17.2mm,X80
Oil,OD=813mm,t=17.2mm,X70
Oil,OD=813mm,t=14.7mm,X80
Oil,OD=813mm,t=14.7mm,X70
Gas,OD=1016mm,t=21.0mm,X80
Gas,OD=1016mm,t=21.0mm,X70
Gas,OD=1016mm,t=17.5mm,X80
Gas,OD=1016mm,t=17.5mm,X70
Compressive strain capacity (%)
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e

p
i
p
e
s
DNV
CSA
API
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Oil,OD=813mm,t=17.2mm,X80
Oil,OD=813mm,t=17.2mm,X70
Oil,OD=813mm,t=14.7mm,X80
Oil,OD=813mm,t=14.7mm,X70
Gas,OD=1016mm,t=21.0mm,X80
Gas,OD=1016mm,t=21.0mm,X70
Gas,OD=1016mm,t=17.5mm,X80
Gas,OD=1016mm,t=17.5mm,X70
Compressive strain capacity (%)
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e

p
i
p
e
s
DNV
CSA
API
11 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Various options of increasing TSC are shown by applying
the CRES TSC models. The effective means to increase TSC
are increasing the pipe wall thickness, increase the weld
strength overmatching level, and limit the flaw height. It
should be noted that the CSC with zero internal pressure was
used in the integrity assessment. This approach is
conservative as internal pressure generally increases the CSC.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support of China Petroleum Pipeline
Engineering Corporation (CPPE) for this work is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] Zhang, F., Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., Yu, Z., and Tong, L.,
2012, Strain Demand in Areas of Mine Subsidence, Paper
No. IPC2012-90641, Proc. 9th International Pipeline
Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada.
[2] stby, E., 2005, New Strain-Based Fracture Mechanics
Equations including the Effects of Biaxial Loading, Mismatch
and Misalignment, Paper No. OMAE2005-67518, Proc 24th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Halkidiki, Greece.
[3] Sandivk, A., stby, E., Naess A., Sigurdsson G., and
Thaulow, C., 2005, Fracture Control Offshore Pipelines:
Probabilistic Fracture Assessment of Surface Cracked Ductile
Pipelines Using Analytical Equations, Paper No. OMAE2005-
67517, Proc 24th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Halkidiki, Greece.
[4] Nyhus, B., stby, E., Knagenhjelm, H.O., Black, S., and
Rstadsand, P.A., 2005, Fracture Control Offshore
Pipelines: Experimental Studies on the Effect of Crack Depth
and Asymmetric Geometries on the Ductile Tearing
Resistance, Paper No. OMAE2005-67532, Proc 24th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Halkidiki, Greece.
[5] Minnaar, K. Gioielli, P.C., Macia, M.L., Bardi, F., Biery,
N.E., and Kan, W.C., 2007, Predictive FEA Modeling of
Pressurized Full-Scale Tests, Proc 17th International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 4, pp.
3114-3120.
[6] Fairchild, D.P., Cheng, W., Ford, S.J., Minnaar, K., Biery,
N.E., Kumar, A., and Nissley, N.E., 2007, Recent Advances in
Curved Wide Plate Testing and Implications for Strain-Based
Design, Proc 17th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 4, pp. 3013-3022.
[7] Kibey, S.A., Minnaar, K., Cheng, W., and Wang, X., 2009,
Development of a Physics-Based approach for the Predictions
of Strain Capacity of Welded Pipelines, Proc 19th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Osaka, Japan, pp. 132-137.
[8] Kibey, S., Issa, J.A., Wang, X., and Minnaar, K., 2009, A
Simplified, Parametric Equation for Prediction of Tensile Strain
Capacity of Welded Pipelines, Paper No. PTC2009-039, Proc
5th Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, Belgium.
[9] Otsuka, A., Miyata, T., Nishimura, S., Kimura, M., and
Mabuchi, M., 1980, Effect of Stress Triaxiality on Ductile
Fracture Initiation of Low Strength Steels, J. Soc. Mater. Sci.
Jpn. 29, pp 717-723.
[10] Toyoda, M., Ohata, M., Yokota, M., Yasuda, O., and
Hirono, M., 2001, Criterion for Ductile Cracking for the
Evaluation of Steel Structure under Large Scale Cyclic
Loading, Paper No. OMAE2001/MAT-3103, Proc. 20th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
[11] Igi, S., and Suzuki, N., 2007, Tensile Strain Limits of
X80 High-Strain Pipelines, Proc 17th International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 4, pp.
3081.
[12] Wang, Y.-Y., Liu, M., Long, X., Stephens, M., Petersen,
R., and Gordon, R., 2011, Validation and Documentation of
Tensile Strain Limit Design Models for Pipelines, US DOT
Contract PR-ABD-1 Project 1, final report to US DOT and
PRCI.
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/PrjHome.rdm?prj=200.
[13] Wang, Y.-Y., Liu, M., Song, Y., Stephens, M., Petersen,
R., and Gordon, R., 2011, Second Generation Models for
Strain-Based Design, US DOT Contract PR-ABD-1 Project 2,
final report to US DOT and PRCI.
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/PrjHome.rdm?prj=201.
[14] Johnston, B.G., 1966, Column Research Council Guide
to Design Criteria for Metal Compression Members, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
[15] Det Norske Veritas , 2010, Offshore Standard, DNV-OS-
F101, Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas,
Norway.
[16] Canadian Standard Association, 2003, Canadian
Standard, Z662, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Etobicoke, ON
Canada.
[17] American Petroleum Institute, 1999, Design,
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Offshore
Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design), API
Recommended Practice 1111, 3rd edition, American Petroleum
Institute.
[18] Yoosef-Ghodsi N., Kulak G.L., Murray, D.W., 1994,
Behaviour of Girth Welded Line-Pipe, Structural Engineering
Report No. 23, University of Alberta, Department of Civil
Engineering.