EFFECT OF TAPER ANGLE ON PLASTIC COLLAPSE OF PIPE JOINT WITH

DIFFERENT WALL THICKNESS AND STRENGTH

Jong-hyun Baek

, Young-pyo Kim

, Woo-sik Kim




R&D Division, KOGAS, Ansan, 426-790, Korea


ABSTRACT
The plastic collapse behavior oI the pipelines with the
diIIerent wall thickness and diIIerent strength was evaluated by
using the Iinite element analyses. Joint designs oI the API X65-
API X80, API X42-API X65 and API X42-API X80 were
employed to investigate the plastic collapse under tensile,
internal pressure or bending load.
The wall thickness ratios oI the pipe joint combinations
with an outer diameter oI 762 mm (30 inch) were 1.22, 1.54
and 1.89. End Iace oI the pie joint with the diIIerent wall
thickness was machined with a taper angle between 4
o
~ 45
o

along the longitudinal direction oI the lower strength and
thicker pipe.
A parametric study was shown that the tensile strength and
moment oI the pipe joint with the wall thickness ratio less than
1.5 were not inIluenced by the wall thickness ratio and taper
angle; however those oI the pipe joint with the wall thickness
ratio more than 1.5 considerably decreased at the low taper
angle. The Iailure pressure oI the pipe joint with the diIIerent
wall thickness was not inIluenced by the wall thickness ratio
and taper angle.

INTRODUCTION
Pipes oI various diameters and thicknesses as a medium Ior
energy transportation have been used extensively in the
industry. Pipes with the diIIerent diameter or the wall thickness
are Irequently welded in addition to pipes oI the same diameter
and thickness |1~3|.
Pipe joint between low strength thick pipe and high
strength thick pipe is constructed by the girth welding with a
design oI the butt joint. The wall thickness oI the pipe is
determined by the pipe design thickness oI the ASME B31.8
|4|.
Cross-section oI the low strength pipe with a thicker wall
thickness compared to high strength pipe with a thinner wall
thickness is machined to minimize the stress such as bending
stresses due to the diIIerential settlement oI soil or longitudinal
tensile stress caused by temperature change as shown in Fig. 1.
End Iace oI the low strength pipe with a thicker wall thickness
was produced through a taper bore on the inside diameter (ID),
sometimes on outside diameter (OD) or shared between ID and
OD oI the thicker pipe.

Fig. 1. Pipe joint with diIIerent wall thickness in codes.

Taper angle oI the low strength pipe is speciIied as the

range oI 14
o
~ 30
o
according to industrial codes Ior piping
design rules such as ASME B31.8, CSA Z662, AS 2885.2 and
GB 50251, however, SP 42-102 is 20
o
~ 30
o
|4~8|

. Taper angle
oI the longitudinal direction oI the low strength pipe having
heavier wall thickness is speciIied less than , but some codes
do not provide the lowest limit |9~11|.
The design wall thickness oI the low strength pipe in codes
is speciIied less than 1.5 times oI the high-strength pipe, but
there is no limit on the strength mismatch. The wall thickness
ratios oI the pipe joint combinations with the diIIerent strength
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90129
1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

are given in Table 1 and the wall thickness ratios exceeding 1.5
are indicated in bold letter.

Table 1. Thickness ratio Ior various pipe joint combinations.
High strength (thin pipe)
Low strength
(thick pipe)
X100 X80 X70 X65 X56 X42
Gr.B 2.82 2.25 1.97 1.83 1.58 1.18
X42 2.38 1.89 1.67 1.54 1.33
X56 1.79 1.43 1.25 1.16
X65 1.54 1.22 1.08
X70 1.43 1.14
X80 1.25

When the speciIied minimum yield strengths oI the pipes
to be joined are diIIerent, the deposited weld metal shall have
mechanical properties at least equal to those oI the pipe having
the higher strength |4, 5|.
George and Rodabaugh reported the burst pressure
between the high strength API X52 (14 "OD x 0.5") pipe and
the low strength A106 Gr.B (14 "OD x 0.75") pipe. The rupture
occurred in API X52 (14 "OD x 0.5") having high strength thin
pipe. They suggested the concept oI the 'bridging eIIect,
where the stronger or thicker material on either side oI the taper
supports the taper in pipe having low strength thick pipe |1|.
Zhu and Leis investigated the plastic collapse Iailure
behavior and considered the eIIect oI the thickness mismatch
and strength mismatch on such Iailure Ior the diIIerent wall
joints in pipeline transitions through detailed FEA numerical
calculations |2|. A simple method, i.e., plastic collapse
assessment diagram (PCAD) was developed Ior predicting the
plastic collapse Iailure. There still lack in numerical results
assessing the tensile behavior, pressure response and bending
behavior oI the pipe joints having diIIerent the wall thickness
and the strength.
The load bearing capacity oI the pipe joints with diIIerent
wall thickness and strength was evaluated by using a Iinite
element analyses. Pipe joints with the wall thickness ratio
values between 1.22 ~ 1.89 were adopted to investigate the
plastic collapse under tensile, internal pressure or bending
stress.

PIPE 1OINTS DESIGN
API X42 (t27mm), API X65 (t17.5mm) and API X80
(t14.3mm) were used to perIorm the Iinite element analyses
which were an outer diameter oI 30 inches (762mm) although
they have diIIerent wall thickness.
API 5L, which is the speciIication Ior line pipe, prescribed
the speciIied minimum yield strengths (SMYS) and the
speciIied minimum tensile strength (SMTS) Ior line pipe |12|.
Combinations oI the pipe joints with the diIIerent wall
thickness and the strength are X65-X80, X42-X65 and X42-
X80, respectively. The pipe wall thickness ratios oI each
combination are 1.22, 1.54 and 1.89. Thickness ratios are ratio
oI each pipe wall thickness calculated by internal pressure,
outer diameter and design Iactor, which are identical with the
ratio oI yield strength between the two pipes.
Tensile properties oI the E9016G were used Ior the X42-
X65 pipe joint and those oI the E10018M were applied Ior the
X42-X65 pipe joint and the X65-X80 pipe joint. Tensile
strengths, wall thickness ratio and joint design oI the each pipe
are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Pipe joint combinations with outer diameter oI 30"
(762mm).
API
Pipe
SMYS
oI
pipe
SMTS
oI
pipe
Joint
design
(thickness
ratio)
Electrode
type
SMTS
oI
electrode
API
X80
(14.3t)
555MPa
(80ksi)
625MPa
(90ksi)
X65-X80
(1.22)
E10018M
690MPa
(100ksi)
API
X65
(17.5t)
450MPa
(65ksi)
535MPa
(77ksi)
X42-X65
(1.54)
E9016G
620MPa
(90ksi)
API
X42
(27t)
290MPa
(42ksi)
415MPa
(60ksi)
X42-X80
(1.89)
E10018M
690MPa
(100ksi)

SMYS and SMTS deIined in API 5L were used in elastic-
plastic Iinite element analyses. As there is no inIormation about
the yield strength oI the electrodes in AWS code, tensile
properties Ior weld joints were obtained Irom tensile test |13|.
The nominal strain (
e
c ) which is assumed to be 0.1 at
nominal tensile strength is converted to the true stress (
t
o ) and
true strain (
t
c )by using Eqs. (1) and (2).

( )
e e t
c o o + = 1 (1)
( )
e t
c c + = 1 ln (2)

Tensile properties on the weld metal oI pipe joints with
E10018M or E9016 electrodes are obtained Irom the round bar
tensile specimen with reduced diameter oI 6 mm in accordance
with ASTM E8M. Those tensile properties are applied in the
FE analyses. The constitutive equations on the true stress-strain
curves are expressed by using Holloman Eq. (3) |14| and the
results are given in Eqs. (4) ~ (8).

n
t t
Kc o = (3)

K: strength coeIIicient
n: strain hardening exponent
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
CJ, = 592.88&,11563 forAPlX42 (4)
CJ, = 680.77 &,006733
forAPlX65 (5)
CJ/ = 776.50&/05520 forAPlX80 (6)
CJ{ =896.11&/12055
for E9016G (7)
CJ/ = 940.74&,05917
for EIOO18M (8)
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES
Taper angles of the longitudinal direction of the low
strength and thick pipe in Fig. 2 and Table 3 are changed from
1:1 (45) to 1:16 (4). FE analyses were executed on the tensile
behavior, internal pressure response and bending reaction on
the pipe joints with the different wall thickness by using a
general purpose finite element program, ABAQUS/Standard
Ver. 6.10 [15] .
High Strength Pipe
(thinner pipe)
Low Strength Pipe
(thicker pipe)
Fig. 2. Weld joint of pipe with different wall thickness.
Table 3. Preparation of pipe end face at low strength pipe.
Taper ratio Taper angle Taper ratio Taper angle
(a:b) (c) (a:b) (c)
1:1 45 1:6 9
1:2 27 1:8 7
1 :3 18 1 :12 5
1:4 14 1 :16 4
Total length of the pipe joint with the different wall
thickness was set to 2m. Refined meshes with 4 elements
through the thickness and 100 elements in the longitudinal
direction of the pipe were assigned by a CAX4R axi-symmetry
solid element [2, 3]. Weld joint was divided into 4 elements in
the thickness and width, respectively. The bevel angle of 60,
external reinforcement height of 3mrn, internal reinforcement
height of Imm and root gap of 3mm were set in a weld joint
modeling. Residual stresses that occur during the welding job
were excluded from consideration in FE analyses [2].
Load bearing capacity on the tensile load was evaluated
from the failure position in the course of displacing of the end
face of the high strength thin pipe under condition fixed against
displacement and rotation on the end face of the low strength
and thick pipe under without internal pressure. Tensile strength
was evaluated from the initial cross sectional area at failure
position and the reaction force at the fixed point of the low
strength pipe.
Load bearing capacity on the internal pressure was
evaluated from the maximum pressure while the internal
pressure was applied to the inner surface of the pipe by Static-
Riks option in FE analyses [16].
Load bearing capacity on the bending stress was evaluated
from the bending moment which is the maximum moment
generated while the rotation was applied to the end faces of the
pipe by Static-Riks option in FE analyses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Load bearing capacity on the tensile stress, internal
pressure and bending loads with variation of the taper angle and
the wall thickness ratio of the longitudinal direction of the low
strength thi ck pipe was evaluated by performing FE analyses.
Effect of the tensile stress on load bearing capacity
Tensile strength properties with variation of the taper angle
of the longitudinal direction of the low strength thick pipe on
the pipe joints of X65-X80, X42-X65, and X42-X80 with
different wall thickness and strength are presented in Fig. 3.
[D 0 0 o o o o
1 1
Taper angle = 4
Taper angle = 45-
Failure Position : All X80
IAPI X80 (OD:30inch, Wf:14.3mm)

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Taper angle (deg.)
(a) API X65-X80 (thickness ratio=1.22)
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
450
500
550
600
650
AP X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm)
AP X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm)
Failure Position
Open : X65, Close : X42
Taper angIe = 4
Taper angIe = 45


T
e
n
s
i
I
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Taper angIe (deg.)

(b) API X42-X65 (thickness ratio1.54)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
450
500
550
600
650
AP X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)
AP X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm)
Failure Position
Open : X80, Close : X42
Taper angIe = 4
Taper angIe = 45


T
e
n
s
i
I
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Taper angIe (deg.)

(c) API X42-X80 (thickness ratio1.89)

Fig. 3. Tensile strength oI pipe with diIIerent wall
thickness.

Open symbol is a Iailure position at the high strength pipe
and close symbol indicates a Iailure position at the low strength
pipe in Figures 3~5. Failure position was obtained Irom the
point where the maximum plastic strain took place under tensile
displacement oI the pipe end. All the Iailures in pipe joints
were occurred in high strength thin API X80 pipe regardless oI
the taper angle along the longitudinal direction oI the low
strength thick pipe in X65-X80 pipe joint with the wall
thickness ratio oI 1.22.
Failures were occurred in API X65 pipe in case oI X42-
X65 pipe joint with the wall thickness ratio oI 1.54 and the
taper angle oI the range Irom 7
o
(1:8) to 45
o
(1:1) in the
longitudinal direction oI the low strength thick pipe. But
Iailures were occurred at the tapering part oI API 42 pipe in the
case oI taper angle less than 7
o
(1:8) in the end Iace oI the low
strength pipe.
Failures were occurred in API X80 pipe in case oI X42-
X80 pipe joint with the wall thickness ratio oI 1.54 and the
taper angle oI the range Irom 27
o
(1:2) to 45
o
(1:1) in the
longitudinal direction oI the low strength thick pipe. But
Iailures were occurred at the tapering part oI API 42 pipe in the
case oI taper angle less than 27
o
(1:2) in the end Iace oI the low
strength pipe.
Tensile strength was similar to the nominal tensile strength
oI the high strength pipe in case oI Iailure occurred in high
strength pipe while the low strength pipe broke at higher
strength compared to the nominal tensile strength oI the low
strength pipe due to the "bridging eIIect" in case oI Iailure
occurred in low strength pipe |1|.
Zhu and Leis reported that the pipe joints with diIIerent
wall thickness and strength satisIy the conditions oI the Eq. (9)
so that Iracture occurs in a high strength thin pipe |2|. Predicted
Iailure positions oI the pipe joints calculated Irom the Eq. (9)
are represented in Table 4.

2
1
2
1
t
t
UTS
UTS
( (9)

UTS
1
: ultimate tensile strength oI high strength
UTS
2
: ultimate tensile strength oI low strength
t
1
: wall thickness oI low strength
t
2
: wall thickness oI high strength

Table 4. Predicted Iailure position Ior pipe joint with the
diIIerent wall thickness and strength.
Joint design UTS
1
/UTS
2
t
1
/t
2

Predicted Iailure
position
X65-X80 1.17 1.22 X80
X42-X65 1.29 1.54 X65
X42-X80 1.51 1.89 X80

X65-X80 pipe joints with the wall thickness ratio less than
1.5 in Fig. 3-a) satisIy the Eq. (9) while X42-X65 and X42-X80
pipe joints with the thickness ratio greater than 1.5 do not
Iollow the Eq. (9) with variation oI the taper angle in the
longitudinal direction oI the low strength thick pipe.
The Iracture strengths oI the pipe joints with the wall
thickness ratio less than 1.5 are not inIluenced by the taper
angle in a range Irom 4
o
(1:16) to 45
o
(1:1) while the Iracture
strengths oI the pipe joints tend to decrease as increasing the
ratio oI the wall thickness and decreasing oI the taper angle.
The wall thickness ratio oI the pipe joint is set to less than
1.5 is appropriate when the pipes with the diIIerent wall
thickness and diIIerent strength are welded.
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME

Longitudinal displacements oI X65-X80, X42-X65 and
X42-X80 pipe joints with the diIIerent wall thickness and the
diIIerent strength at tensile Iailure are presented in Fig. 4.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
AP X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)
AP X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm)
Failure Position : All X80
Taper angIe = 4 Taper angIe = 45


D
i
s
p
I
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
t

m
a
x

I
o
a
d

(
m
m
)
Taper angIe (deg.)

(a) API X65-X80 (thickness ratio1.22)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
AP X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm)
AP X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm)
Failure Position
Open : X65, Close : X42
Taper angIe = 4
Taper angIe = 45


D
i
s
p
I
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
t

m
a
x

I
o
a
d

(
m
m
)
Taper angIe (deg.)

(b) API X42-X65 (thickness ratio1.54)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
20
40
60
80
100
AP X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)
AP X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm)
Failure Position
Open : X80, Close : X42
Taper angIe = 4
Taper angIe = 45


D
i
s
p
I
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
t

m
a
x

I
o
a
d

(
m
m
)
Taper angIe (deg.)

(c) API X42-X80 (thickness ratio1.89)

Fig. 4. Displacement oI pipe with diIIerent wall thickness at
tensile Iailure.
Longitudinal displacements at tensile Iailure decreased
with increasing the wall thickness ratio. Longitudinal
displacements is not aIIected by the wall thickness ratio oI 1.22
regardless oI the taper angle in the longitudinal direction oI the
low strength thick pipe while the longitudinal displacements oI
the X42-X80 pipe joint with the wall thickness oI 1.89
continuatively decreased with increasing the taper angle.
It can be seen that the wall thickness ratio excessively
more than 1.5 decreased load bearing capacity on the tensile
load in weld joint with the diIIerent strength and diIIerent wall
thickness.

Effect of the internal pressure on load bearing capacity
Figure 5 shows the Iailure pressures with variation oI the
taper angle in the longitudinal direction oI the low strength
thick pipe. Failure pressures were not inIluenced by the change
oI the taper angle.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
API X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)
API X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm)
FaiIure Position : AII X80
Taper angIe = 4 Taper angIe = 45


F
a
i
I
u
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
M
P
a
)
Taper angIe (deg.)

(a) API X65-X80 (thickness ratio1.22)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
API X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm)
API X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm)
FaiIure Position : AII X65
Taper angIe = 4
Taper angIe = 45


F
a
i
I
u
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
M
P
a
)
Taper angIe (deg.)

(b) API X42-X65 (thickness ratio1.54)
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
API X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)
API X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm)
FaiIure Position
Open : X80
CIose : X42
Taper angIe = 4
Taper angIe = 45


F
a
i
I
u
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
M
P
a
)
Taper angIe (deg.)

(c) API X42-X80 (thickness ratio1.89)

Fig. 5. Failure pressure oI pipe with diIIerent wall thickness.

All the Iailures took place at the side oI the high strength
thick pipe except Ior the taper angle oI 4
o
(1:16) at the X42-
X80 pipe joint with the wall thickness ratio oI 1.89. Average
Iailure pressures oI the X65-X80, X42-X65 and X42-X80 pipe
joints are 23.52 MPa, 24.43 MPa and 23.51 MPa respectively.
Failure position can be estimated through the Eq. (9) in a
condition oI taper angle oI 5
o
(1:12) ~ 45
o
(1:1) up to the wall
thickness ratio oI 1.89 under the internal pressure.
Ratios oI the hoop stress to the ultimate tensile strength at
Iailure pressure in case oI the taper angle oI 14
o
(Joint
design1:4) are presented in Fig.6. Stress ratio (o
hoop
/o
uts
) at the
side oI the high strength pipe is higher than that oI the low
strength thick pipe. In case oI internal pressure, Iailures
occurred at the side oI the high strength thin pipe because stress
ratio (o
hoop
/o
uts
) at the side oI the low strength pipe is low
compared to the high strength pipe as increasing the wall
thickness ratio.
Failure pressure based on an outer diameter oI the pipe can
be estimated through the Eq. (10) |2|.

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
OD
uts
n
OD
D
t
P
o 2
3
2
(10)
n: strain hardening exponent
uts
o : ultimate tensile strength

Strain hardening exponent (n) in the Eq. (10) can be
adopted by using the Eqs. (4) ~ (6) or the Eq. (11) presented in
API 579 code to estimate a Iailure pressure |17|.

2
3 2
746 . 11 0097 . 11 1249 . 1
9643 . 2 3117 . 5 3495 . 1 1
| |
| | |
+
+ +
=
API
n (11)

n
API
: strain hardening exponent in API 579
: ratio oI yield strength to tensile strength

Failure pressures estimated through the Eq. (10) with the
strain hardening exponent oI the equations (4) ~ (6) or the Eq.
(11) are given in Table 5 |18|. Failure pressures predicted
through the equation (12) by applying the internal diameter oI
the pipe instead oI the outer diameter oI the pipe are also
presented in Table 5. As there were no Iailures at the side oI
API X42 pipe in FE analyses except Ior the taper angle oI 4
o

(1:16) at the X42-X80 pipe joint, predicted Iailure pressure oI
the X42 pipe in FE analyses did not provided in Table 5.

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
AP X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm) AP X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)


H
o
o
p

s
t
r
e
s
s

/

U
T
S
Distance from weId center (mm)
Joint design = 1:4
Taper angIe : 14
0
API X80
API X65

(a) API X65-X80 (thickness ratio1.22)
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
AP X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm) AP X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm)


H
o
o
p

s
t
r
e
s
s

/

U
T
S
Distance from weId center (mm)
Joint design = 1:4
Taper angIe : 14
0
API X65
API X42

(b) API X42-X65 (thickness ratio1.54)
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
AP X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm) AP X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)


H
o
o
p

s
t
r
e
s
s

/

U
T
S
Distance from weId center (mm)
Joint design = 1:4
Taper angIe : 14
0
API X80
API X42

(c) API X42-X80 (thickness ratio1.89)

Fig. 6. Ratio oI hoop stress to ultimate tensile strength at Iailure
pressure.

Table 5. Predicted Iailure pressure Ior pipe joint with outer
diameter oI 30" (762mm).

Pipe
ID
(mm)
n
(test)
n
(API)
P
(FEA)
P
ID
P
OD

n
(test)
n
(API)
n
(test)
n
(API)
X42
(27t)
708 0.1156 0.1167 29.17 30.04 30.06 27.92 27.93
X65
(17.5t)
727 0.0673 0.0666 24.43 24.84 24.83 23.70 23.69
X80
(14.3t)
733.4 0.0552 0.0519 23.52 23.67 23.64 22.79 22.76

There is a diIIerence within 0.13 in Iailure pressure estimated
the through Eq. (12) by using strain hardening exponent (n
test
)
obtained Irom the tensile test and strain hardening exponent
(n
API
) predicted Irom the Eq. (11).
Failure pressures in FE analyses are consistent with the Eq.
(12) based on internal diameter oI the pipe compared to Eq.
(10) based on outer diameter oI the pipe. Failure pressures can
be predicted more accurately by using the Eq. (12) based on
internal diameter oI the pipe.


|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
ID
uts
n
ID
D
t
P
o 2
3
2
(12)

Effect of the bending moment on load bearing capacity
Moment in the pipes is inIluenced by the curvature, ratio oI
the diameter to thickness, roundness, ovality, yield strength,
tensile strength, material inhomogeneous, localized stress
concentration and temperature, etc |19~21|.
II bending load applied to the pipe, then local shape
variations in the pipe will continue and bending moment
represents the maximum value, Iinally the load bearing capacity
oI the pipe will be lost aIter maximum moment.
ReIerence point was assigned at the center oI the pipe end
to apply bending load which is constrained with the end Iace oI
the pipe using the multi-point constraint option within
constraint module oI ABAQUS. The bending moment is
determined Irom reaction moment in output variables within
ABAQUS.
There are several deIinitions to identiIy the plastic
collapse load oI the pressurized piping systems. Firstly, the
plastic instability moment is a structural instability load that
depends on the yield strength oI the material and the inIluence
oI signiIicant changes in shape oI the structure. The plastic
instability load is characterized by the zero angle oI the load vs.
deIlection curve, which means the maximum load in the
monotonic load vs. deIlection curve.
Secondly, the tangent intersection method (TIM) deIines
the plastic collapse load as the point oI intersection oI tangents
drawn to the initial elastic and Iinal plastic responses oI the
moment vs. bending angle curve.
Another criterion is the twice elastic angle (TES) which is
speciIied in The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
Section Div 2. The plastic collapse load in TES criterion is
deIined by plotting a straight line Irom the origin with twice the
angle oI the initial elastic response: that is tan42tan0. The
plastic load corresponds to the intersection point oI the curves.
The plastic instability moment, maximum moment, was
adopted among the above criteria to deIine load bearing
capacity on the diIIerent wall thickness pipe in the present
investigation.
Figure 7 shows the variation oI maximum moment with
respect to the taper angle in the longitudinal direction oI the
low strength thick pipe. Maximum moments Ior API X42, API
X65 and API X80 plain pipes without taper machining are
presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Maximum moment oI plain pipes Ior API X42, API
X65 and API X80 with outer diameter oI 30" (762mm).
Pipe
Thickness
(mm)
ID
(mm)
Maximum moment
(kNm)
API X42 27.0 708.0 4,380
API X65 17.5 727.0 4,561
API X80 14.3 733.4 4,429

Bending responses oI the pipe joints with the diIIerent wall
thickness and strength show a similar tendency to those oI
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME

tensile load in section 4. Maximum moment in the X65-X80
pipe joints with the wall thickness ratio oI 1.22 represent a little
change with respect to the taper angle in a longitudinal
direction oI the low strength thick pipe. Maximum moment
decreased with increasing the wall thickness ratio and the taper
angle. Maximum moments in the X42-X65 pipe joints with the
wall thickness ratio oI 1.54 and the taper angle oI 9
o
(1:6) to
45
o
(1:1) did not represent a major change while maximum
moment decreased with decreasing the taper angle Irom 9
o
(1:6).
Maximum moments in the X42-X80 pipe joints with wall
thickness ratio oI 1.89 and the taper angle having Irom 14
o
(1:4)
to 45
o
(1:1) did not show a considerable variation while
maximum moment suddenly decreased with decreasing taper
angle Irom 14
o
(1:4).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2,800
3,000
3,200
3,400
3,600


Taper angIe = 45
Taper angIe = 4
M
a
x

M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
)
Taper angIe (deg.)
AP X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)
AP X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm)

(a) API X65-X80 (thickness ratio1.22)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2,800
3,000
3,200
3,400
3,600


Taper angIe = 45
Taper angIe = 4
M
a
x

M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
)
Taper angIe (deg.)
AP X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm)
AP X65 (OD:30inch, WT:17.5mm)

(b) API X42-X65 (thickness ratio1.54)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2,800
3,000
3,200
3,400
3,600


Taper angIe = 45
Taper angIe = 4
M
a
x

M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
)
Taper angIe (deg.)
AP X80 (OD:30inch, WT:14.3mm)
AP X42 (OD:30inch, WT:27.0mm)

(c) API X42-X80 (thickness ratio1.89)

Fig. 7. Maximum moment oI pipes with diIIerent wall
thickness.

CONCLUSIONS
The present paper provided an elastic-plastic behavior on
the pipe joints with diIIerent wall thickness and strength.
Detailed elastic-plastic, large strain Iinite element analyses
were perIormed to estimate the load bearing capacity on the
pipe joints with the wall thickness ratio values between 1.22 ~
1.89 under tensile load, internal pressure or bending stress. The
Iollowing conclusions were drawn as Iollows.

(1) The maximum tensile load was largely unaIIected with
variation oI the taper angle in the wall thickness ratio less
than 1.5.

(2) The tensile strength was considerably aIIected with respect
to the taper angle in the wall thickness ratio more than 1.5.

(3) Failure pressures due to hoop stress caused by internal
pressures acting on the pipeline wall were not inIluenced
by the change oI the taper angle.

(4) The maximum moment is not aIIected by the case oI the
wall thickness less than 1.5, however, maximum moment
reduced with decreasing the taper angle when the wall
thickness ratio has excessively greater than 1.5.

(5) Load bearing capacity oI pipe joints with taper angle oI 4
o

(1:16) ~ 45
o
(1:1) was not aIIected by the tensile load,
pressure and bending load when the wall thickness ratio
has less than or equal to 1.5.

8 Copyright 2012 by ASME


REFERENCES
(1) George, H. H. and Rodabaugh, E. C., 1959, "Tests oI Pups
Support "Bridging EIIect", Pipe Line Industrv, Oct., pp.
218~223.
(2) Xian-Kui, Z. and Brian N. L., 2005, "Plastic Collapse
Assessment Method For DiIIerent Wall Transition Joints in
Transmission Pipelines" Journal of Pressure Jessel Technologv,
Vol. 127, No. 4, pp. 449~456.
(3) Michael, L., Peter, T. and Phillip, V., 2010, "Thickness
Limit Ior Welded Joints between Pipes oI DiIIerent Yield
Strengths", Journal of Pipeline Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
99~105.
(4) ASME B31.8, 2010, Gas Transmission and Distribution
Piping Svstems, The American Society oI Mechanical
Engineers.
(5) CSA Z662, 2007, Oil and Gas Pipeline Svstems, Canadian
Standards Association.
(6) AS 2885.2, 2007, Pipelines-Gas and liquid Petroleum, Part
2. Welding, Australian Standard.
(7) GB 50251, 2003, Code for Design of Gas Transmission
Pipeline Engineering, Chinese Standard.
(8) SP 42-102, 2004, Design and Construction of Gas Pipeline
from Metal Pipes, Russian Standard.
(9) KS B6733, 2003, Pressure Jessel (General Standard),
Korean Standard.
(10) KGS GC205, 2009, Code for Welding and Nondestructive
Test of Gas Facilities, Korea Gas SaIety Code.
(11) KGS FS 451, 2009, Facilitv/Technical/Inspection/Safetv
Diagnosis Code for Outside of Producing and Supplving Places
of Wholesale Gas Business, Korea Gas SaIety Code.
(12) API 5L, 2007, Specification for Line Pipe, 44th ed.,
American Petroleum Institute.
(13) AWS A5.5, 2005, Specification for Low-Allov Steel
Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding. American Welding
Society.
(14) Holloman, J. H., 1949, "Tensile DeIormation",
Transactions of the American Institute Metallurgical and
Petroleum Engineers, Vol. 16, pp. 268~290.
(15) ABAQUS Version 6.10, 2010, Analvsis Users Manual,
ABAQUS Inc., Rhode Island, USA.
(16) Riks, E., 1987, "Progress in Collapse Analysis", Journal of
Pressure Jessel Technologv, Vol. 109, No. 1, pp. 33~41.
(17) API 579, 2007, Fitness-for-Service, 2nd ed., American
Petroleum Institute.
(18) Brabin, T. A., Christopher, T. and Rao, B. N., 2011,
"Bursting pressure oI mild steel cylindrical vessels",
International Journal of Pressure Jessels and Piping , Vol. 88,
No. 2-3, pp. 119~122.
(19) Chattopadhyay, J., Kushwaha, H. S. and Roos E., 2006,
"Some recent developments on integrity assessment oI pipes
and elbows. Part I: Theoretical investigations", International
Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 43, No. 10, pp.
2904~2931







(20) Bai, Y., Igland, R. and Moan, T., 1993, "Tube collapse
under combined pressure, tension and bending", International
Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.
121~129.
(21) Hauch, S. and Bai, Y., 2000, "Bending moment capacity oI
groove corroded pipes", Proceedings of the 10th International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2000-
YB003),Seattle,USA.

9 Copyright 2012 by ASME