Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Proceedings of OMAE99, 18 International Conference Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999 th On Offshore Mechanics and

Arctic Conference Engineering Proceedings of OMAE99, 18 International July On 1116, 1999, St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering July 1116, 1999, St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada


OMAE99/PIPE-5037 OMAE99/

Snrren Hauch and Yong Bai JP Kenny A/S, *) Stavanger University College Stavanger, Norway

ABSTRQCT In most modem pipeline design, the required minimum wall thickness is determined based on the maximum allowable hoop stressunder design pressure.This has shown an efficient way to come up with an initial wall thickness design under the assumptionthat pressurewill be the governing load. A pipeline may though be subjectedto additional loads due to installation, seabed contours and high-pressure/high-temperatureoperating conditions for which the bending moment capacity often will be the limiting parameter. If in-place analyses predict that the maximum allowable moment to a pipeline will be exceeded,it will be necessaryto either increasethe wall thickness or, as more normal, to perform seabedintervention to reduce the bending of the pipe. In this paper the bending moment capacity for metallic pipes has been investigated with the intention to optimise the cost effectiveness in the seabed intervention design without compromising the safety to the pipe. Ihe focus has been on how to account for the interaction betweenpressure,longitudinal force and bending in the bending moment capacity calculations. The study is basedon an analytical approachand the solution has been comparedagainstresults obtainedfrom finite elementanalyses. The result of the study is a set of equations for calculating the maximum allowable bending moment including proposed safety factors for different target safety levels. The maximum allowable moment is given as a function of initial out-of-roundness, longitudinal force and internal/external overpressure. The equations can be used for materials with isotropic as well as anisotropic stress/straincharacteristicsin the longitudinal and hoop direction. The analytical approachgiven herein may also be used for risers and pipes in structuresif the failure criteria and safety factors areredefined. Keywords: Local buckling, Collapse,Capacity,Bending, Pressure, Longitudinal force, Metallic pipelines and risers.

NOMENCLATURE Area A Average diameter D Youngs modulus E True longitudinal force F Limit true longitudinal force FI Initial out-of-roundness fo Moment M Moment capacity MC Pressure P Characteristic collapsepressure PC External pressure Pe Elastic buckling pressure Per Internal pressure Pi Limit pressure Pt Plastic bucklingpressure PP Yieldpressure PY Averagepipe radius r SMTS SpecifiedMinimum TensileStrength SMYS SpecifiedMinimum Yield Strength Nominal wall thickness t a r 1%
VR K V ah ahI 4 air w

Correctionfactor Distancefrom axis of bending to masscentre Condition loadfactor Strength usage factor Curvature Poissons ratio Hoop stress Limit hoop stress for pure pressure Longitudinal stress Limit longitudinal stressfor pure longitudinal force Angle porn bendingplane to plastic neutral axis

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME

OMAE99, PL-99-5033

Hauch & Bai

Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

INTRODUCTION The European design of risers and offshore pipelines are today mainly basedon a Limit State design. In a limit state design, all foreseeable failure scenarios are considered and the system is designedagainstthe failure modethat provides the lowest strength capacity. A pipe must sustain installation loads and operational loads. In addition external loads such as those induced by waves, current, uneven seabed,trawl-board impact, pullover, expansion due to temperaturechangesetc need to be considered.Experience has shown that the main load effect on offshore pipes is bending combined with longitudinal force while subjected to external hydrostatic pressureduring installation and internal pressurewhile in operation. A pipe subjectedto increasedbending may fail due to local buckling/collapse or fracture, but it is the local buckling/collapse Limit State that commonly dictates the design. The local buckling and collapse strength of metallic pipes has been the main subject for many studies in offshore and civil engineering and this paper should be seenas a supplementto the ongoing debate. See Murphey & Langner (1985), Winter et al (1985), Ellinas (1986), Winter et al (1988), Mohareb et al (1994), Bai et al (1993, 1997)etc. BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY The pipe cross sectional bending moment is directly proportional to the pipe curvature, see Figure 1. The example illustrates an initial straight pipe with low D/t (~60) subjectedto a load scenario where pressureand longitudinal force are kept constant while an increasing curvature is applied.

onset of local buckling has occurred, the global deformation will continue, but more and more of the applied bending energy will be accumulated in the local buckle which will continue until the LIMIT POINT is reached. At this point the maximum bending resistanceof the pipe is reached and a geometrical collapse will occur if the curvature is additional increased.Until the point of START OF CATASTROPHICALLY CAPACITY REDUCTION has been reached,the geometric collapse will be slow and the changes in cross sectional area negligible. After this point, material softening sets in and the pipe cross section will collapse until the upper and lower pipe wall is in contact. For pipes subjected to longitudinal force and/or pressure close to the maximum capacity, START OF CATASTROPHICALLY CAPACITY REDUCTION occurs immediately after the LIMIT POINT. The moment curvature relation for these load conditions will be closer to that presentedby the dashedline in Figure 1. The moment curvature relationship provides information necessaryfor design against failure due to bending. Depending on the function of the pipe, any of the above-described points can be used as design limit. If the pipe is a part of a carrying structure, the elastic limit may be an obvious choice as the design limit. For pipelines and risers where the global shapeis less important, this criterion will though be overly conservativedue to the significant resourcesin the elastic-plastic range. Higher design strength can therefore be obtained by using design criteria based on the stress/strainlevels reachedat the point of onset for local buckling or at the limit point. For displacement-controlledconfigurations, it can even be acceptableto allow the deformation of the pipe to continue into the softening region (not in design). The rationale of this is the knowledge of the carrying capacity with high deformations combined with a precise prediction of the deformation pattern and its amplitude. The limit bending moment for steel pipes is a function of many parameters.The main parametersare given below in arbitrary sequence: . . . . . . . . . . Diameter over wall thicknessratio Material stress-strainrelationship Material imperfections Welding (Longitudinal aswell ascircumferential) Initial out-of-roundness Reduction in wall thicknessdue to e.g. corrosion Cracks(in pipe and/or welding) Local stressconcentrationsdue to e.g. coating Additional loads and their amplitude Temperature

Figure I: Examplesof bending momentversuscurvature relation. Different significant points can be identified from the momentcurvature relationship. When applying/increasing curvature the pipe will first be subjected to global deformation inside the materials elastic range and no permanentdeformation is seen.By global deformation is here meant deformation that can be looked upon as uniform over a range larger than 3-4 times the pipe diameter.After the LINEAR LIMIT of the pipe material has been reached the pipe will no longer return to its initial shape after unloading, but the deformation will still be characterised as global. If the curvature is increased further, material or geometrical imperfections will initiate ONSET OF LOCAL BUCKLING. Pipe imperfections will have an influence on at which curvature and where along the pipe the onset of local buckling will occur, but will, as long as they are small, for all practical use not influence the limit moment capacity. After the

The criteria focused upon in this paper are the bending moment capacity at the limit point shown in Figure 1. The limit bending moment (moment capacity) is in this paper given as a function of initial out-of-roundness, longitudinal force and internal/external overpressurefor materials with either isotropic or an-isotropic characteristics in longitudinal and hoop direction. Solutions obtained from both analytical expressions and finite element models are described, covering a diameter over wall thickness ratios from 10 to 60. The remaining parametersgiven in the list will also be of importance in design of pipelines, but the main parameters will in generalbe thosethat are studiedin this paper.

OMAE99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME


Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999




As pointed out in the previous section the limit momentis highly dependenton the amount of longitudinal force and pressureloads and for cases with high external pressure also initial out-ofroundness.To clarify the approachused in the developmentof the analytical equations and to give a better understanding of the obtained results, characteristicsof the ultimate strength for pipes subjectedto single loads and combinedloads are discussed below. The cross sectional deformations just before failure of pipes subjectedto single loads are shown in Figure 2.

Theoretically, a circular pipe without imperfections should continue being circular when subjected to increasing uniform external pressure. Due to material and/or geometrical imperfections, there will though always be a flattening of the pipe, which with increased external pressure will end with a total collapse of the cross section. The change in out-of-roundness, causedby the external pressure,introduce circumferential bending stresses, where the highest stresses occurs at respective the top/bottom and two sides of the flattened cross-section.For low D/t ratios, material softening will occur at these points and the points will behave as a kind of hinge at collapse. The average hoop stressat failure due to external pressurechangewith the D/t ratio. For small D/t ratios, the failure is governed by yielding of the cross section, while it for larger D/t ratios is governed by elastic buckling. By elastic buckling is meant that the collapse occurs before the averagehoop stressover the cross section has reachedthe yield stress.At D/t ratios in-between, the failure is a combination of yielding and elastic buckling. Several formulations have been proposed for estimating the external collapse pressure,but in this paper, only Timoshenkos and Haagsmasequations are described.Timoshenkos equation, which gives the pressureat which yielding in the extreme fibres begins, will in general representa lower bound, while Haagsmas equation, using a fully plastic yielding conditions, will represent an upper bound for the collapse pressure.The collapsepressureof pipes is very dependenton geometrical imperfections and here in special initial out-off-roundness. Both Timoshenkos and Haagsmascollapseequation accountfor initial out-off-roundness. Timoshenkos equation giving the pressurecausing yield at the outer pipe fibre: P~-[P~+(l+l.5.y).P4PC+P,.P~,=0 where:

Pure bending

Pure pressure

Pure longitudinal force

Figure 2: Pipe cross sectional deformation of pipes subjectedto single loaak


A pipe subjectedto increasing pure bending will fail as a result of increasedovalisation of the cross section and reducedslope in the stress-strain curve. Up to a certain level of ovalisation, the decrease in moment of inertia will be counterbalanced by increasedpipe wall stressdue to strain hardening. When the lose in momentof inertia can no more be compensated for by the strain hardening, the moment capacity has been reached and catastrophically cross sectional collapse will occur if additional bending is applied. For low D/t, the failure will be initiated on the tensile side of the pipe due to stresses at the outer fibres exceeding the limiting longitudinal stress.For D/t higher than approximately 30-35, the hoop strength of the pipe will be so low comparedto the tensile strength that the failure mode will be an inward buckling on the compressiveside of the pipe. The geometrical imperfections (excluding corrosion) that are normally allowed in pipeline design will not significantly influence the moment capacity for pure bending, and the capacity can be calculated as, SUPERB (1996): M C(F=o.P=o) = 1.0%0.0015-+ .SMYS.D* .t


= Characteristiccollapse pressure (3)


= Initial out-of-roundness,(D--Dmi,)/D D = Average diameter t = Wall thickness SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strengthin hoop direction E = Youngs Module 2) = Poissonsratio It should be noted that the pressurepc determinedin accordance to Eq. (2) is lower than the actual collapsepressureof the pipe and it becomesequal to the latter only in the caseof a perfectly round pipe. Hence, by using pc calculated from Eq. (2) as the ultimate value of pressure,the results will normally be on the safe side, Timoshenko and Gere (1961).


where D is the averagepipe diameter, t the wall thickness and SMYS the Specified Minimum Yield Strength. (I .05- 0.0015. Dl t). SMYS represent the average longitudinal cross sectional stressat failure as a function of the diameterover wall thicknessratio.

OMAE99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME


Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

Haagsmasequation giving the pressure at which fully plastic yielding over the wall thicknessoccurs can be expressed as: P:-Pd.PcZP;+Pe,-P~&q c .Pc+Per.P:=o 1 (5)

maximum compressive force will be close to the tensile failure force. 6 =SMTS.A


and represent the theoretical upper bound for the collapse pressure.For low D/t, the collapse pressurewill be closer to the collapse pressure calculated by Haagsmas equation than that calculated by Timoshenkos equation, Haagsma and Schaap (1981). The use of Timoshenkos and Haagsmas eguation relates specifically to a pipe that has initially linear elastic material propertiesand where the elastic buckling pressureis derived from classicalanalysis. This would be appropriatefor seamless pipes or for pipes that has been subjected to an annealing process. However, for pipe fabricated using the UO or UOE method there are significant non-linearities in the material properties in the hoop direction, due to residual strains and the Bauschingereffect. These effects may be accounted for by introducing a strength reduction factor to the plastic buckling pressureterm given by Eq. (4). No effort has in this study been given to estimatethe size of this reduction factor, but according to DNV 1996 the plastic buckling pressureshall be reduced with 7.5% and 15% for pipes fabricatedby the UO and UOE processrespectively. For Pure internal pressure,the failure modewill be bursting of the cross-section.Due to the pressure,the pipe cross section expand and the pipe wall thickness decrease.The decreasein pipe wall thicknessis compensated for by an increasein the hoop stress.At a certain pressure,the material strain hardening can no longer compensatethe pipe wall thinning and the maximum internal pressure has been reached. The bursting pressure can in accordance with API (1999) be given as:

For pipes subjected to single loads, the failure is, as described above, dominated by either longitudinal or hoop stresses. For the combination of pressure,longitudinal force and bending the stress level at failure will be an interaction between longitudinal and hoop stresses.In accordancewith among others DNV (1995) classification notes for buckling strength analysis of plates, this interaction can, neglecting the radial stress component and the shearstresscomponents,be describedas:

where q is the applied longitudinal stress,ch the applied hoop stressand ou and ou the limit stressin their respectivedirection. The limit stress may differ depending on if the applied load is compressiveor tensile. a is a correction factor depending on the ratio between the limit stress in the longitudinal and hoop direction respectively. Basedon Eq. (9), Eq. (5), Eq. (6), Eq. (12) and finite element analyses, the following definition for the correction factor have been suggestedfor external and internal overpressure respectively: a=0.25P" 8 a=0.25$ I For pipes under combined pressureand longitudinal force, Eq. (9) may be used to find the pipe strengthcapacity. Alternatives to Eq. (9) are Von Mises, Trescas,Hills and T&Hills yield condition. Experimental tests have been performed by e.g. Corona and Kyriakides (1988). For combined pressureand longitudinal force, the failure mode will be very similar to the onesfor single loads. In general, the ultimate strength interaction between longitudinal force and bending may be expressed by the fully plastic interaction curve for tubular cross-sections.However, if D/t is higher than 35, local buckling may occur at the compressiveside, leading to a failure slightly inside the fully plastic interaction curve, Chen and Sohal (1988). When tension is dominating, the pipe capacity will be higher than the fully plastic condition due to tensile and strain-hardening effects. Based on finite element results, the maximum compressiveor tensile force related with bending has been found to: 5 =0.5@4YS+SMTS~ A (12)

where O.S(SMTS+SMYS)is the hoop stressat failure. PURE TENSION For pure tension, the failure of the pipe will be, as for bursting, results of pipe wall thinning. When the longitudinal tensile force are increased,the pipe cross section will narrow down and the pipe wall thickness decrease. At a certain tensile force, the cross sectional area of the pipe will be reduced so much that the maximum tensile stress for the pipe material is reached. An additional increasein tensile force will now causethe pipe to fail. The maximum tensile force can be calculatedas: 4 =SMTS. A (7)

where A is the cross sectional area and SMTS the longitudinal stressat failure.

where O.Sx(SMYS + SMTS) is longitudinal stressat failure. As indicated in Figure 2, pressureand bending both lead to a cross sectional failure. Bending will always lead to ovalisation and finally collapse, while the pipe fails in different modes for respectively external and internal overpressure.When bending is combined with external overpressure,both loads will tend to increase the ovalisation, which leads to a rapid decrease in

A pipe subjectedto increasingcompressiveforce will be subjected to Euler buckling. If the compressive force are additional increasedthe pipe will finally fail due to local buckling. If the pipe is restraint except from in the longitudinal direction, the

OMAE99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME


Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

capacity. For bending combined with internal overpressure,the two failure modes work against each other and thereby strengthen the pipe. For high internal overpressure, the collapse will always be initiated on the tensile side of the pipe due to stressesat the outer flbres exceeding the material limit tensile stress. On the compressive side of the pipe, the high internal pressure will tend to initiate an outward buckle, which will increase the pipe diameter locally and thereby increase the moment of inertia and the bending moment capacity to the pipe. The moment capacity will therefore be expectedto be higher for internal overpressure compared with a corresponding external pressure.

a,, is now defined asthe limit longitudinal compressivestressin the pipe wall and thereby equal to 01as determinedabovewith the negative sign before the squareroot. The limit tensile stressa;, is accordingly equal to q with the positive sign in front of the square root.


In addition to the failure modes described above, fracture is a possible failure mode for all the described load conditions. In particular for the combination of tension, high internal pressure and bending, it is important to check against fracture becauseof the high stresslevel at the limit bending moment. The fracture criteria are not included in this paper, but shall be addressed in design.

The bending momentcapacity of a pipe with an elastic- perfectly plastic material behaviour can, assumed that the entire cross section has reachedthe limit stress,be calculatedas:

where Acomp and&.,, are respectively the cross sectional areain

compression and tension, v their mass centres distance to the pipe centreand o the stresslevel, seeFigure 3. ! Planof bending

In the following, the limit moment for pipes subjected to combinedloads is derived. To keep the complexity of the bending momentLimit Stateequationson a reasonable level, the following assumptions have been made: Geometrical perfect pipe except from initial out-offroundness Elastic- perfectly plastic material Entire crosssection has reachedthe limit stress No changein cross section geometrybefore the limit stress is reached The limit stresssurface can be describedin accordanceto Eq. (9)

The pipe wall stresscondition for the bending momentLimit State can be consideredas that of a material under biaxial loads. It is assumed that the pipe wall limit stresssurfacecan be describedin accordance to Eq. (13). The limit stresssurfaceis here, neglecting the radial stress component and the shear stress components, described as a function of the longitudinal stress or, the hoop stress oh and the limit stress Q and 2~~ in their respective direction.

Figure 3: Pipe cross section with stress distribution diagram (dashed line) and idealised stress diagram for plastified cross section fill line). For a geometrical perfect circular pipe, the area in compression and tension can approximately be calculated as: A-p =2yrt A,e, =2(n-y)rt (18) (19)

where a is a correction factor dependingon the ou/ohlratio. Solving the second-degree equation for the longitudinal stressq gives: (14)

The distancefrom the masscentre to the pipe cross section centre is given by:


Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME

OMAE99, PL-99-5033

Hauch & Bai

Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

where r is the averagepipe wall radius and vthe angle from the bending plan to the plastic neutral axis. The plastic neutral axis is defined as the axis at which the longitudinal pipe wall stresses changefrom tensile to compressive,seeFigure 3. Inserting Eq. (18) to (21) in Eq. (17) gives the bending moment capacity as: M c(u,,.u,) = -2tr * sin(y) + 2tr sin&)a,~~~ (22) where

= = = = = = Bending momentcapacity Plastic moment Pressureacting on the pipe Limit pressure True longitudinal force acting on the pipe Limit longitudinal force


To calculate the angle to the fully plastic neutral axis from the plan of bending, it is necessaryto start with looking at the true longitudinal pipe wall force, which approximately can be expressed as: F = -%cwn,o mp + &so tens where the areain compression&O,,,p is calculatedas: Amp=2y,rt and the areain tension &, A,, = 2(x - y)r t Giving: F=2rt~omp+(~-~)o,) Solving Eq. (26) for w gives:
( 27 1


( 23 >


To avoid complex solutions when solving Eq. (31), the expressionsunder the squareroot must be positive, which gives the theoretical range for the pressureto: -~s~5~

(24) as; ( 25 1

where the limit load p1dependon the load condition and a on the ratio betweenthe limit force and the limit pressure. Since the wall thicknessdesign is basedon the operating pressure to the pipeline, this range should not give any problems in the design. Given by the physical limitation that the angle to the plastic neutral axis must be between 0 and 180 degree,the equation is valid for the following rangeof longitudinal force:




Substituting the expression for the plastic neutral axis, Eq. (28), into the equation for the momentcapacity, Eq. (22) gives:

where the limit loads Fi and pI dependson the load condition and a on the ratio betweenthe limit force Fi and the limit pressurepi. For the design of pipelines, this range is normally not going to give any problems,but again, the range may be reduceddue to the question of fracture.

( 29 1 and substituting the expressionfor tensile and compressivestress, Eq. (15) and (16) into Eq. (29) gives the final expression for the bending momentcapacity:

or alternatively and moreuseful in design situations:

This section describeshow a pipe section is modelled using the finite element method. The finite element method is a method where a physical system, such as an engineering component or structure,is divided into small sub regions/elements. Each element is an essentialsimple unit in spacefor which the behaviour can be calculated by a shapefunction interpolated from the nodal values of the element. This in such a way that inter-element continuity tends to be maintained in the assemblage. Connecting the shape functions for each elementnow forms an approximating function for the entire physical system.In the finite element formulation, the principle of virtual work, together with the establishedshape functions are used to transform the differential equations of

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME


OMAE99, PL-99-5033

Hauch & Bai

Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

equilibrium into algebraic equations. In a few words, the finite element method can be defined as a Rayleigh-Ritz method in which the approximating field is interpolated in piece wise fashion from the degreeof freedom that are nodal values of the field. The modelled pipe section is subjectto pressure,longitudinal force and bending with the purposeto provoke structural failure of the pipe. The deformation pattern at failure will introduce both geometrical and material non-linearity. The non-linearity of the buckling/collapse phenomenon makes finite element analyses superior to analytical expressions for estimating the strength capacity. In order to get a reliable finite element prediction of the buckling/collapse deformation behaviour the following factors must be taken into account:

thick shell theory when the shell thickness increasesand discrete Kirchoff thin shell theory asthe thicknessdecreases. For a further discussion and verification of the used finite element model, seeBai et al (1993), Mohareb et al (1994), Bruschi et al (1995) and Hauch & Bai (1998).

In the following, the above-presentedequations are compared with results obtained from finite element analyses.First are the capacity equations for pipes subjectedto single loads compared with finite elementresults for a D/t ratio from 10 to 60. Secondly the moment capacity equation for combined longitudinal force, pressureand bending are comparedagainstfinite elementresults.

l l l

A proper representationof the constitutive law of the pipe material A proper representationof the boundary conditions A proper application of the load sequence The ability to addresslarge deformations,large rotations, and finite strains The ability to model/describeall relevant failure modes

The material definition included in the finite elementmodel is of high importance, since the model is subjected to deformations long into the elasto-plastic range. In the post buckling phase, strain levels between 10% and 20% is usual and the material definition should thereforeat least be governing up to this level. In the presentanalyses,a Ramberg-Osgood stress-strainrelationship has been used. For this, two points on the stress-straincurve are required along with the material Youngs modules.The two points can be anywhere along the curve, and for the present model, specified minimum yield strength(SMYS) associated with a strain of 0.5% and the specified minimum tensile strength (SMTS) corresponding to approximately 20% strain has been used. The material yield limit has been defined as approximately 80% of SMYS. The advantagein using SMYS and SMTS insteadof a stress-strain curve obtained from a specific test is that the statistical uncertainty in the material stress-strainrelation is accountedfor. It is thereby ensured that the stress-strain curve used in a finite element analysis in general will be more conservative than that from a specific laboratory test. To reduce computing time, symmetry of the problem has been used to reduce the finite element model to one-quarterof a pipe section. The length of the model is two times the pipe diameter, which in general will be sufficient to catch all buckling/collapse failure modes. The general-purposeshell element used iu the present model, account for finite membranestrains and allows for changes in thickness, which makes it suitable for large-strain analysis. The elementdefinition allows for transverse sheardeformationand uses

As a verification of the finite element model, the strength capacities for single loads obtained from finite element analyses are comparedagainst the verified analytical expressionsdescribed in the previous sections of this paper. The strength capacity has been comparedfor a large range of diameter over wall thickness to demonstratethe finite element models capability to catch the right failure mode independently of the D/t ratio. For all the analyses,the averagediameteris 0.5088m,SMYS = 450 MPa and SMTS = 530 MPa. In Figure 4 the bending moment capacity found from finite element analysis has been comparedagainst the bending moment capacity equation, Bq. (1). In Figure 5 the limit tensile longitudinal force Bq. (7), in Figure 6 the collapsepressure Bq. (2, 5) and in Figure 7 the bursting pressure Bq. (6) are compared against finite element results. The good agreement between the finite element results and analytical solutions presentedin figure 4-7 give good reasonsto expect that the finite element model also will give reliable predictions for combined loads.


= FE results = Analytical

0 10


40 30 Diameter Over Wall Thickness


I 60

Figure 4: Moment capacity as a function of diameter over wall thickness for a pipe subjectedto pure bending.

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME

OMAE99. PL-99-5033

Hauch & Bai

Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11- 16, 1999



= FE results = Analytical

For the results presented in Figures 8-13 the following pipe dimensionshas beenused: D/t = 35 SMYS = 450MPa SMTS = 530MPa a = l/5 for external overpressure and 2/3 for internal overpressure Figures 8 and 9 shows the moment capacity surface given by Eq. (31). In Figure 8 the moment capacity surface is seen from the external pressure, compressive longitudinal force side and in Figure 9 it is seenfrom above. Figures 4 to 7 have demonstrated that for single loads, the failure surface agrees well with finite element analyses for a large D/t range. To demonstratethat Eq. (31) also agreeswith finite element analysesfor combined loads, the failure surface has been cut for different fixed values of longitudinal force and pressure respectively as demonstratedin Figure 9 by the black lines. The cuts and respectivefinite element results are shown in Figures 10 to 13. In Figure 10 the moment capacity is plotted as a function of pressure.The limit pressurefor external overpressure is here given by Haagsmas collapse equation Eq. (5) and the limit pressurefor internal overpressure by the bursting pressure Bq. (6). For the non-pressurisedpipe, the moment capacity is given by Bq. (1). In Figure 11, the moment capacity is plotted as a function of longitudinal force. The limit force has been given by Bq. (12) for both compression and tension. For a given water depth, the external pressure will be approximately constant,while the axial force may vary. Figure 12 shows the moment capacity as a function of longitudinal force for an external overpressureequal to 0.8 times the collapse pressure calculated by Haagsmas collapse equation Bq. (5). Figure 13 again shows the moment capacity as a function of longitudinal force, but this time for an internal overpressureequal to 0.9 times the plastic buckling pressuregiven by Bq. (4). Basedon the results presentedin Figures 10 to 13, it is concluded that the analytical deducedmoment capacity and finite element results are in good agreementfor the entire range of longitudinal force and pressure. The equations though tent to be a little non-conservative for external pressure very close to the collapse pressure.This is in agreementwith the previous discussion about Timoshenkos and Haagsmascollapse equation.
fc = 1.5 %

1.5l< 0.5 10 20 30 40 Diameter Over Wal Ttddumss 50 60

Figure 5: Limit longitudinal force as a function of diameter over wall thickness for a pipe subjectedto pure tensileforce.

X = FE results = Haagsma ___ = Timoshenko

2l01 10 * 60





Figure 6: Collapsepressure as a function of diameter over wall thicknessfor a pipe subjected to pure external overpressure. Initial out-of-roundness fO equal to 1.5%.



30 Diameter Over Wall





Figure 7: Bursting pressure as a junction of diameter over wall thickness for a pipe subjectedto pure internal overpressure.

Figure 8: Limit bending momentSt&ace as a function ofpressure and longitudinal force.

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME

OMAE99, PL-99-5033

Hauch & Bai

Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

0.6 x x x

$0 x t (

X -=

= FE results Analytical

-0.6 -1 4.6

-0.6 -0.4 Longitudinal


0.2 0.4 limit force 0.6 6

-0.2 0 force I Longitudinal

Figure 9: Limit bending momentsur$aceas a finction ofpressure and longitudinal force including cross sectionsfor which comparisonbetweenanalytical solution and resultsporn finite elementanalyseshas beenperformed.

Figure 12: Normalised bending momentcapacity as afunction of longitudinal force. Pressureequal to 0.8 timesHaagsmas collapsepressure Eq. (5).

lh i! = FE results

0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2-

: ob l -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.6 -

= FE results

x -1.51 -0.4 -0.2 0 02 0.4 0.6 0.6 Pressue I PfastiC Bucknrg Pmssue 1 I 12 -0.4 -02 0 02 Longitiinal

x 0.6 1 Umit force 1.2 1.4

0.4 0.6 force I Longitudinal

Figure 10: Normalised bending momentcapacity as afunction of pressure.No longitudinalforce is applied.

Figure 13: Normalised bending momentcapacity as ajimction of longitudinalforce. Pressureequal to 0.9 times theplastic buckling pressure Eq. (4).

X -

= FE results = halytic6l

-1.5 -1

-0.5 Lorrgitdinal

0 force I Lorgitdnal

0.5 limit force

I 1

Figure 1I: Normalised bending momentcapacity as afunction of longitudinal force. Pressureequal to zero.

The local buckling check can be separatedinto a check for load controlled situations (bending moment) and one for displacement controlled situations (strain level). When no usage/safetyfactors are applied in the buckling check calculations, the two checks ought to result in the same bending capacity. In design, usage/safety factors are though introduced to account for modelling and input uncertainties. The reduction in bending capacity introduced by the usagefactors will not be the samefor load and displacement controlled situation. Due to the pipe momentversus strain relationship, a higher allowable strengthcan be achieved for a given target safety level by using a strain-based criterion than by a moment criterion. III this paper only the allowable bending momentcriterion is given. This criterion can be used for both load and displacementcontrolled situations,but may as mentioned be overly conservative for displacementcontrolled situations.

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME

OMAE99, PL-99-5033

Hauch & Bai

Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

The usage factor approach presentedin this paper is based on shrinking the failure surfaceshown in Figures 8 and 9. Instead of representingthe bending momentcapacity,the surfaceis scaledto represent the maximum allowable bending moment associated with a given target safety level. The shapeof the failure surface given Eq. (31) is dictated by four parameters; the plastic moment M,, the limit longitudinal force Fi, the limit pressurePi and the correction factor (shape parameter) a. To shrink the failure surface usage factors are applied to the plastic moment, longitudinal limit force and the limit pressurerespectively. The usagefactors are functions of modelling, geometrical and material uncertainties and will therefore vary for the three capacity parameters. In general, the variation will be small and for simplification purposes,the most conservative usage factor may be applied to all capacity loads. The correction factor a is a function of the longitudinal limit force and the limit pressureand no usage factor is applied to this parameter. The modelling uncertainty is highly connectedto the use of the equation. In the SLJPEBB(1996) project, the use of the moment criteria is divided into four unlike scenarios; 1) pipelines resting on uneven seabed, 2) pressuretest condition, 3) continues stiff supportedpipe and 4) all other scenarios. To account for the variation in modelling uncertainty, a condition load factor 2 is applied to the plastic moment and the limit longitudinal force. The pressure,which is a function of internal pressureand waterdepth,will not be subjected to the samemodel uncertainty and the condition load factor will be close to one and can be neglected. Based on the above discussion, the maximum allowable bending moment may be expressed as:

side of the pipe. The criteria given in this guideline may be used to calculate the maximum allowable bending moment for a given scenario. It shall be noted that the maximum allowable bending moment given in this guideline does not take fracture into account and that fracture criteria therefore may reduce the bending capacity to the pipe. This particularly applies for hightension/high-pressure load conditions.


The local buckling check can be separated into a check for load controlled situations (bending moment) and one for displacement controlled situations (strain level). Due to the relation between applied bending moment and maximum strain in a pipe, a higher allowable strength for a given target safety level can be achieved by using a strain-basedcriterion than the bending moment criterion. The bending moment criterion can due to this, conservatively be used for both load and displacement controlled situations. In this guideline only the bending momentcriterion is given.


Increased out-of-roundness due to installation and cyclic operating loads may aggravate local buckling and is to be considered. It is recommendedthat out-of-roundness, due to through life loads,be simulatedusing finite elementanalysis.



The allowable bending momentfor local buckling under load controlled situations can be expressedas:

(34) where
~AIkmnbk = Allowable bending moment


= Condition load factor = Strengthusagefactors

The usage/safetyfactor methodologyused in Eq. (34) ensuresthat the safety levels are uniformly maintained for all load combinations. In the following guideline for bending strength calculations, the suggestedcondition load factor is in accordancewith the results presentedin the SUPERB (1996) report, later usedin DNV (1996) and in the new DNV (1999) rules for submarinepipeline systems. The strength usage factors qm, qm and qW are based on comparisonwith existing codesand the engineering experienceof the authors.

where MAlmk 4 PI P Fl F a 1%

i = Allowable bending moment = Plastic moment = Limit pressure = Pressureacting on the pipe = Limit longitudinal force = Longitudinal force acting on the pipe = Correction factor = Condition load factor = Strengthusagefactor


a = 0.25P, for external overpressure 4 a = 0.25fi for internal overpressure 4 If possible, the correction factor should be verified by finite elementanalyses.



For pipelines subjectedto combinedpressure,longitudinal force and bending, local buckling may occur. The failure mode may be yielding of the cross section or buckling on the compressive


The limit momentmay be given as:

OMAE99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME


Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

M C(F=O,W) where SMYS D t


- 1.05-0.0015.~



= Specified Minimum Yield Strengthin longitudinal direction = Average diameter = Wall thickness


The limit longitudinal force may be estimatedas: 4 =05(sMYs+SMTs)~A A SMYS SMTS = Cross sectional area,which may be calculatedas rtXDxt. = Specified Minimum Yield Strengthin longitudinal direction = Specified Minimum Tensile Strengthin longitudinal direction

Guidancenotes: - Load Condition Factors may be combined e.g. Load Condition Factor for pressure test of pipelines resting on uneven seabed,1.07x0.93 = 1.OO - Safety class is low for temporary phases.For the operating phase,safety class is normal and high for area classified as zone 1 and zone 2 respectively.


The limit external pressurepL(is to be calculatedbasedon:

PC1 = -

2E t3 (1-v) 0 D


2t 1) = qJdsMYsD



= Initial out-of-roundness*), (D--D,,)/D = Specified Minimum Yield Strengthin hoop direction = Youngs Module = Poissonsratio

The momentcapacity equationsin the existing codesare for some load conditions overly conservative and for others nonconservative. This paper presentsa new set of design equations that are accurate and simple. The derived analytical equations have been based on the mechanism of failure modes and have been extensively comparedwith finite element results. The use of safety factors has been simplified comparedwith existing codes and the target safety levels are in accordancewith DNV (1996), IS0 (1998) and API (1998). The applied safety factor methodology ensures that the target safety levels are uniformly maintained for all load combinations.It is the hope of the authors that this paper will help engineersin their aim at designing safer and more cost-effective pipes. It is recommended that the alpha correction factor and fabrication processreduction factor are investigatedin more details.

Guidancenote: ) ntit, is 0.925 for pipes fabricatedby the UO precess, 0.85 for pipes fabricated by the UOE processand 1 for seemless or annealedpipes. ) Gut-of-roundnesscausedduring the construction phaseis to be included, but not flattening due to external water pressure or bending in as-laid position.

API (1998) Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of OffshoreHydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit StateDesign).
Bai, Y., Igland, R. and Moan, T. (1993) Tube Collapse under


CombinedPressure,Tensionand Bending, International Journal of OffshoreandPolar Engineering,Vol. 3(2), pp. 121-129. Bai, Y., Igland, R. and Moan, T. (1997) Tube Collapse under Combined External Pressure, Tension and Bending, Journal of Marine Structures, Vol. 10,No.5, pp.389-410. Bruschi, R., Monti, P., Bolzoni, G., Tagliafeni, R. (1995), Finite ElementMethod as Numerical Laboratoryfor Analysing Pipeline Response under Internal Pressure,Axial Load, Bending Moment OMAE95. Chen, W. F., and Sohal, I. S. (1988), Cylindrical MembersIn OffshoreStructures Thin-Walled Structure,Vol. 6 1988.Special Issue on Offshore Structures,Elsevier Applied Science.

The limit pressurewill be equal to the bursting pressuregiven by: p, = O.J(SMTS+SMY&S~ where SMYS SMTS = Specified Minimum Yield Strengthin hoop direction = Specified Minimum Tensile Strengthin hoop direction


Load factor yc and usagefactor na are listed in Table 1.

Hauch & Bai

Copyright (C) 1999 by ASME


OMAE99, PL-99-5033