This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1, JUNE 2009
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED TO BUCKLING
Luiz Bortolan Neto, Roberto Dalledone Machado, Mildred Ballin Hecke firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Federal University of Paraná Numerical Methods in Engineering Graduation Program Cx.Postal 19011, CEP 82531-990, Centro Politécnico, Curitiba, Brazil
Abstract. Pipelines are being widely employed worldwide as means of conveyance of crude oil and its derivatives. Many environmental disasters have been happening related to pipelines due to its weakness and susceptibleness to the surrounding environment. To avoid these undesirable situations, computational models are playing an important role as they are able to predict the behaviour of pipelines in several ways. This essay presents a finite element formulation for both material and kinematic (geometric) nonlinear analysis of pipelines. Furthermore, the finite element formulation presented here simulates the soil behaviour throughout the employment of springs. Three examples are presented to show the numerical implementation efficiency Keywords: Pipeline, Finite Element Method, Buckling, Nonlinear Analysis 1 - INTRODUCTION The motivation for this study lies on the fact that pipes are being widely employed worldwide as means of conveyance of crude oil and its derivatives. Especially in the south and in the southeast of Brazil many pipelines connect oil fields to oil refineries. Nevertheless, a considerable distance is covered crossing hills, in which landslides could change not only the pipelines alignment but also the stresses. Besides, landslides may cause cracks in the pipes. Furthermore, both the close contact with soil and the action of weather can provide the corrosion of the pipes, which will reduce the cross section area, allowing the formation of disturbed flow areas, and also will develop stress concentrated regions on the pipe wall. The Finite Element (FE) formulation here applied was originally presented by Zhou and Murray (1996). Other authors also adopted this formulation in their works (see, for instance, Mejia (2003) and Souza et al. (2005)). Here, an improved formulation of the one presented by Zhou and Murray (1996), developed by Souza (2005), was adopted. In this FE formulation a beam formulation was employed to perform the pipe and a spring formulation to perform the soil. This FE has three nodes and five degrees of freedom (DOF) in each node and takes into account the following basic assumptions:
Bernoulli Beam Hypothesis: consists in the analysis of beam bending, excluding shear strains. Tangent and Radial Stresses: there are tangent and radial stresses in a pipe loaded only with the internal pressure. According to the Lame solution for thin walled cylinders, the maximum stress is the tangential stress (Moser, 2001). Therefore, in the present formulation, the radial stress is despised due to its small value when confronted with the longitudinal stress and tangential stress values. Soil Formulation: the soil is modelled through elastic perfectly plastic springs connected on the pipe walls both transversally and longitudinally. In addition, the present FE formulation is able to carry out both linear and nonlinear analysis. The nonlinear analysis type comprises the material nonlinear effects as well as the kinematic (geometric) nonlinear effects. 2 - REVIEW OF LITERATURE A pipeline is subjected to several kinds of loads both internal and external. The main ones are soil weight, for buried pipelines; internal pressure; temperature variation; and external water pressure, for offshore pipelines. In addition, fatigue and defects on the surface of a pipe ought to decrease its strength and some pipelines are over loaded leading them to work in a plastic mode. Thus, this is why so many researches are being made focusing pipelines. The following brief review of literature discusses the main subjects in research. 2.1 - Pipelines under Buckling Conditions Double-piping systems, also known as pipe-in-pipe systems, were studied by Vaz and Patel (1999) and by Zaras (2008). Vaz and Patel work presented an analytical formulation of the coupled buckling instability of a pipe-in-pipe system typical of that considered for high-temperature products in the oil and gas industry. Zaras’ work presented some results of an extensive investigation on the failure of pressurized pipe-in-pipe system. This investigation included survey of the failed piping, checking
A wide spread method in finite element analysis for modelling corrosion is the local wall thinning which allows the stress concentration in a local area. in addition. As corrosion is known to be one of the major factors that cause pipeline failure many authors deal with this subject in their works. The material nonlinear effects assume that the pipe material has elastic-plastic behaviour and that the soil has elastic perfectly plastic behaviour. theoretical analysis employing the results of works carried out on buckling propagation. Therefore. the service performance of tubular steel products used in oil industry. In addition. who simulated the structure large displacement and plastic straining response throughout geometrically and materially nonlinear finite element analysis. The kinematic effects includes large displacements. Besides the assessment and the predictiveness for undamaged loaded structures. as an alternative to steel. the authors focused on the analysis of threaded connections for oil country tubular goods and on the analysis of pipe bodies collapse pressure. It is based in the Total Lagrangian (TL) formulation. where the left handed term is the internal virtual work and the right handed term is the external virtual work. JUNE 2009 of design and manufacturing against standards of various types. Two pressure vessel problems were presented by Şanal (2000). the relation between these phenomena. while the variation of temperature was studied by Fonseca et al. Choi et al. once the direct application of those formulas in titanium pipes is rather uncertain. aiming the conditions under which the classic strength criteria are appropriate for predicting failure pressure. but small strains. This technique was employed by Kim and Son (2004) and the resulting values of stress concentration factors were tabulated for practical use and the effects of relevant parameters such as pipe and defect geometries on stress concentration factors were discussed. it is also important to measure the limit loading for defective structures due to the stress concentration that may happen in the damaged area. which was carried out over a period of approximately six years. (2003) discuss the use of a supplementary numerical approach. (1998) presented a numerical solution method for radial loading while Benjamin and Andrade (2003) proposed a method to predict the failure pressure for both short and long corrosion defects. According to Bathe (1996). NO.24 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY. Robertson et al. In this work. large rotations. The author’s survey work. strain localization and wrinkling that characterize the behaviour of pipeline structures. Following this research line Chen et al. Furthermore.2 . and. length and pipeline geometry. the virtual work principle in the TL formulation is given by Eq. VOL. a technique for determining stiffness coefficients from these properties is described. failure-assessment diagram. The serviceability of damaged pipelines was assessed by Ahammed (1996) and Pluvinage (2006). The former developed a deterministic model to evaluate the remaining strength of a corroded steel pipeline over time while the latter analysed the serviceability throughout three methods: limit analysis. moreover. 3. Ravet et al. Zhou and Murray (1995) presented a method to incorporate local buckling behaviour of pipelines from 3D large deformational elastic-plastic shell analysis into an interactive soil-structure beam model of a pipeline. and the softening. and sub critical crack growth. Bjørset et al.Pipelines Behaviour and Lifespan A finite element analysis was carried out by Lázaro (2004) to simulate the interaction between pipes and the surrounding soil for hillside pipelines subjected to landslides.1. (1) . Murray (1997) worked on the prediction of the behaviour of buried pipelines when they are considered as shell structures and subjected to curvatures that exceed their limit points. Applying elastic-plastic finite element analysis. Dvorkin and Toscano (2003) simulated. (2004) investigated the plastic collapse of pipe bends with attached straight pipes under combined internal pressure and in-plane closing moment. Zhang et al.VARIATIONAL FORMULATION The formulation employed in this work includes the material nonlinear effects and the kinematic nonlinear effects. Zhu and Leis (2004) investigated analytically the failure pressure of pipelines either with or without corrosion defects. (1). several kinds of materials are being considered in pipes manufacturing. such as titanium and fibre reinforced polymers. By using the broadening factor of Brillouin spectrum width. 3 . prior their visual detection in laboratory. 2. (2008) were able to predict the location and progression sequence of buckling patterns. (2003) proposed a fitness-for-purpose (FFP) type limit load solution for corroded gas pipelines made of steel and carried out finite element simulations to derive an appropriate failure criterion and to obtain the FFP type limit solution for corroded gas pipelines as a function of defect depth. considered the development of local buckling. The results of finite element analyses were compared with two series of tests on full-sized industrial pipes. to steel capacity formulas for both local buckling and collapse. throughout finite element models. those authors described a method for extracting the pipe stiffness properties from the buckling analysis of various load combinations that were examined and. based on finite element analysis. (2006) conducted a strain characterization experiment to monitor steel pipe and column buckling using a distributed Brillouin sensor system. (2005) who presented a finite element algorithm developed to perform the thermal and mechanical analysis of structural steel piping systems subjected to high temperatures. The use of a Brillouin sensor system has been employed both for monitoring and for predicting buckling in pipes and columns.
BORTOLAN et al. In these equations 0A is the initial cross section area.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED… 25 In Eq. The right hand of Eq. the incremental stresses and strains are the ones in Eq. Here. On The left hand of this equation the first two terms represent the pipe stresses’ virtual work and the remaining three terms represent the springs’ virtual work. are the surface tractions applied externally per surface unity in the time t + ∆t. Each area band has an inner force fitting its position and area. As usually the pipe internal pressure is considered steady. (5) to (8). (3). The pipe cross section is divided into equal bands (Fig. By assumption. respectively. (2) (3) The Reduced Modulus Direct Integration (RMDI) technique states that the virtual work can be obtained taking into account the stress and strain components from the finite element. where Sx1 is the longitudinal stress. with the current levels of plastic strains. the stress is assessed along the section in every Gauss sampling point in the numerical integration.2 . the superscripts L and NL denote the incremental longitudinal strain linear and nonlinear components. (5) (6) (7) (8) 4 . according the von Mises criteria. In addition. 1). 1996). (2) and in Eq. and Cθx1 is the ratio between the circumferential strain and the longitudinal strain. The yielding criteria take place according von Mises with isotropic hardening.Pipeline Stress-Strain Relation and Inner Forces The stiffness coefficients for the pipe cross section are the following ones in Eq. εθ is the strain in the circumferential direction. and δuiS is δui determined over the surface 0Sf.PIPELINE CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS The pipe material is considered as having elasticplastic behaviour. the longitudinal stress is determined throughout the constitutive material law by means of strain increments evaluated on the pipe plain cross section. 1996). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (4) For the incremental stresses and strains. 4. (4). (4) is the external virtual work introduced by the load application.Pipeline Stress Increments Assessment According to the RMDI technique. (9) to (14). (1) are the forces components applied externally per volume unity in the time t + ∆t. and x2 and x3 are the local Cartesian coordinates.1 . The longitudinal stress increments are determined in the integration points along the pipe cross section circumference in a consistent manner with the biaxial stress state. Sθ is the steady circumferential stress. as presented by Eq. Hence. Ix3 is the moment of inertia related to the x3 axis. for the biaxial stress state the yielding will happen when the effective stress (obtained through longitudinal and circumferential stresses) reaches the yield stress established dA15 2 dA15 2 Figure 1 – Pipe Cross Section Divided into Bands 4. and with the effective stress and the effective plastic strains associated to each integration point (Zhou and Murray. the stress-strain relation for the element is uniaxial in the local coordinates system. the radial stress is supposed null due its value is much smaller when compared with the other stresses. Ix2 is the moment of inertia related to the x2 axis. The constant circumferential stress introduced by the internal pressure must have been taken into account in the stress-strain relation (Zhou and Murray. For each band. (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) y 15 . tCEP is the elastic-plastic modulus in time t. the related equations are the ones given by Eq.
upper spring (US index). the stress-strain matrix for the pipe material is given by Eq. JUNE 2009 (14) For isotropic materials. where E is the Young’s modulus. where t∆AS is the spring’s strain for shortening or elongation. (16) The equivalent inner forces in time t are the ones given by Eq. (17) (18) (19) (20) In addition. The pipe walls are connected to five series of springs along the pipe axis. (28). t∆BS. respectively.SOIL CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS A model of pipe-soil interaction is showed by Fig. and right lateral spring (RLS index). left lateral spring (LLS index). the stressstrain matrix for the pipe material will be as presented by Eq. Those forces are taken up as negative in the transversal springs. are the longitudinal. upper. tKLLS. 2. (30) to (33). (21) to (23) (21) Figure 2 – Model of soil-pipe interaction The pipe relative position determines the strains in the springs. and right lateral springs’ stiffness. for elastic linear materials. and t∆RLS are the shortening spring’s strains for bottom. (20). tKUS. 5. three inner forces matrices are presented in Eq. (24) to (27). t∆US.Soil Stress-Strain Relation and Compression Forces The stress-strain matrix for the soil springs is presented by Eq. The transversal springs’ incremental strain assessed in the local coordinate system is determined according the displacement vector as follows: (24) (25) (26) (27) In Eq. (17) to (19). This vector is presented by Eq. (29) where tKAS. NO. These forces are the vector Fint components. t∆LLS. The unknowns related to those springs are referred as longitudinal spring (AS index). left lateral. (28) (22) (23) The incremental compression forces in the transversal springs are represented by Eq. (29) (30) (31) (32) 5 . upper. left lateral and right lateral. and tKRLS. (15) Particularly. 3. (16). bottom. tKBS. (15) in its generalized form.26 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY.1. VOL.1 . . bottom spring (BS index). The incremental longitudinal strain is given by Eq.
t FYUS. (34). and tθy3. and right lateral springs are represented by tFYBS. tθz2. (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) Figure 3 – Isoparametric Finite Element (41) (49) (50) 6. (42) to (50). tv2. (35) 6 . Here the subscript denotes the node. tθy2.FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION The finite element presented in this essay is a linear element and stands traction. tθy1. This vector is presented by Eq. the incremental force defined in the local coordinate system in the current strained configuration is represented by Eq. tu2. (35). second order lagragian finite element is used. upper. the degrees of freedom of the reference element are tu1. The others degrees of freedom are discretized by fifth order lagragian elements. tw3. t u3. In this equation –tFYAS and tFYAS are the longitudinal springs yielding forces for traction and compression. and tFYRLS. (51) for the incremental and for the incremental linear curvatures linear axial strain and .BORTOLAN et al. tFYLLS. For axial displacement. (41). (36) presents the displacement nodal vector. Therefore an N-segment mesh has 10 N + 5 degrees of freedom. It has three nodes and fifteen degrees of freedom. tv3. Figure 3 shows a scheme of the element and Eq. tw1. tθz3. tw2.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED… 27 The compression yielding forces for bottom. (34) The forces above are the vector FKS components. The interpolation functions are the ones listed in Eq. tv1. tθz1. In the longitudinal springs. (51) Being (52) And (36) The displacement nodal vector components are interpolated by the following equations: (37) (38) (39) Equation (40) represents the displacement nodal vector in the matrix form.Strain-Displacement Matrices The pipe strains are related to nodal displacements and shape functions derivatives according Eq. The interpolation functions matrix is presented by Eq. respectively. compression and bending. respectively.1 . left lateral. Thus. (40) .
(54) (55) (56) Being (61) (62) 6. (58).Rotation Matrix Equation (63) presents the relation between the nodal displacements in the local coordinate system (ue) and in the global coordinate system ( ). (63) (57) (64) Being . JUNE 2009 The soil strains relation to nodal displacements and shape functions derivatives is presented by Eq. 3.2 . (62) the parameters η and β are defined according the transversal displacements as follows: (60) Equations (54) to (56) bring the relation between the nodal displacements and the incremental nonlinear axial strain and between the nodal displacements and the incremental nonlinear curvatures and . (58) Being (53) (59) In Eq. NO.1.28 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY. VOL.
25 6. the equilibrium equation is the following: (76) NUMERICAL SIMULATION This section brings three numerical simulations applying the formulation presented in this essay.3 .25mm =1. (74) for the soil springs. 6. above.0m Figure 4 – Hillside pipeline model . (66) to (68). (69) brings the elastic-plastic stiffness matrix.2586416 10-3 32.0 420.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED… 29 (74) Including the external forces vector (tPe) and applying the rotation matrix.Equilibrium Equations Applying the Total Lagrangian formulation in the static analysis.8 kN/m 3 1.Tangent modulus Sy – Yield stress υ . (72). and Eq. the element stiffness matrices will be ones below. tLxy is the element length projection over the plain X1-X2 and txki and txkj are the coordinates in the elements nodes i and j.5m Unit GPa GPa MPa - Value 205. respectively. The first example presents a pipeline buried in a hillside with the purpose of checking the reliability of numerical implementation.5m 32.Pipe Wall Thickness Unit m4 m2 cm cm mm Value 7.9516531 10-5 6. Pipe Geometric Properties Property I .5m 1. The main objective is to compare the results obtained by using the present model with the results given by Souza (2005).25 1. (75) Finally. where Eq. The last simulation deals with the prediction of the critical load for buckling for a pipeline in a hillside.5cm 5. Eq.Cross section Area de . 4. the final element stiffness matrix (tKe) will be the one presented in Eq.50 31. The second example has the goal of comparison between the analytical critical load and the critical load returned by the numerical implementation.Moment of Inertia A . Hillside Buried Pipeline This example shows the behaviour of a pipeline taking into account the soil distributed load and an external one.0 0. (72) The equivalent force vectors in the element nodal points are presented in Eq. (73) for the pipe and in Eq.5m 5. The geometric and material properties are given by Tables 1 and 2 and by Fig.25 (65) (66) (67) (68) In Eq.Pipe Internal diameter t . (71) brings the soil springs stiffness matrix. (75).BORTOLAN et al.0m 1. (73) Table 2. (69) (70) (70) With the rotation matrix application. Pipe Material Properties Property E .0 75.Young’s modulus ET . Table 1.Pipe External diameter di .Poisson’s ratio 10 kN/m 6. the final element force vector (tRe) will be the one given by Eq. (70) brings the geometric (kinetic nonlinear) stiffness matrix.
sometimes what really matters is whether one structure can bear a certain load. the results of a simulation carried out employing the commercial finite element software known as ANSYS are also presented in the comparison. the pipe was modelled with a four elements mesh. Therefore. the external loads over the pipeline are the ones presented by Table 3.0015 -0.0 m 8.9% of P). Figure 5 shows the values of the vertical displacement achieved by Souza (2005) and by the present work.0 Pint (MPa) 9.0 75.Moment of Inertia A .1.662 MN (75. which stiffness coefficients per length unit are the following: . External loads over the pipeline Buckling Critical Load Although the prediction of structures behaviour is very important.75 1.Pipe Wall Thickness Unit GPa GPa MPa cm Value 205.25 5.0 420.Pipe Wall Thickness Unit m4 m2 m m cm Value 1.4922565 10-1 1.0 m t .Pipe Internal diameter t .5 m 6. The problem data is given by Tables 4 and 5.6881152 10-2 1. (78).0 m 1. 25 Souza (2005) Present w ork Ansys 0 5 10 N ode 15 20 Figure 5 – Vertical Displacement Results Comparison These results outline the good agreement between the values of the vertical displacements obtained by the present work and the values obtained by Souza (2005).90 5. . .5 to 8.00 The pipe-soil interaction is simulated by the bottom. Besides that.0 0. The inner forces were determined due the division of the pipe cross section into 50 area bands.Young’s modulus ET .0 to 13.0 10.00cm L=100. The pipeline was discretized by a mesh of 11 elements and 10 load steps were applied in the iterative incremental process. (77) Thus. a steady internal pressure of 9 MPa over the pipeline is also considered.Poisson’s ratio t . VOL.0 9.0 to 6.30 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY. Geometric properties Property I . Table 3.002 -0.0 9. the centrally applied compressive critical load (Pcr) for a straight column of length L clamped at both ends is the one given by Eq. as shown by Fig.75 1. upper and longitudinal springs. this example deals with the critical load prediction for a pipe clamped at both ends.0025 According to Brush and Almroth (1975).0 9. and . (78) The total applied load P was equal to 18.125 2275 – 284. 6.Tangent modulus Sy – Yield stress .001 -0. Material properties Property E . The kind of analysis employed was both material and kinematic nonlinear.0 10.80 1. Here.00 Vertical displacement -0.Pipe External diameter di . Those loads are not enough to plastify the pipe material.75 Psoil (N/m) 877. P 5.0 0.0 m 5. 0. (77). 4 and due the pipe external diameter.0 Figure 6 – Pipe Geometric Properties Table 4. while the analytical critical load Pcr is 13. NO.00m x 0.38x 0. 3.0005 -0.0 q (kN/m) 10.0005 0 Table 5.0 MN.500 853. was determined due the soil depth in Fig.Cross section Area de . JUNE 2009 The soil pressure over the pipeline.Pipe Wall Thickness (kN/m3) 1.0 to 5.00 0. γ is the soil specific weight and h is the soil depth. In this equation Psoil is the soil pressure. as given by Eq. In addition. Figure 7 brings the amount of load steps needed to achieve a good precision in the critical load estimative and Table 6 presents the errors among the results achieved and the analytical one. because of an embankment.
KUS = 970 kN/m/m.7% 0.100 14.0 B Lack of Support B (a) (b) Figure 8 – Hillside pipeline subjected to landslides For the fully enclosed pipeline.2586416 10-3 32. the present example simulates the buckling critical load for a situation like that in three ways: firstly. fully revealed pipeline. the large number of load steps might lead to a heavy computational effort depending on the finite element mesh.014 13. Table 9. The kind of analysis employed was both material and kinematic nonlinear. Critical Load for a Hillside Pipeline In hillsides is rather common to happen slowly moving landslides.0 to 130.80 877.1% 2.838 13. Pipe Geometric Properties Table 8. 10 with an internal pressure of 9 MPa and a temperature variation of 30 ºC.25 1.6% Property I .6% 0. 7 and Table 6 it is possible to conclude that the greater the amount of load steps the more accurate the numerical model will be.6% 1. 140 160 Critical Load (kN) 0 20 40 60 80 Load steps 100 120 Figure 7 – Critical Load Assessment Amount of load steps 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Pcr (MN) 15.2% 3. The geometric and material properties are given by Tables 7 and 8. External loads over the pipeline A Landslide Slip Plane A x 0. Figure 8 brings an example of such phenomenon. secondly. Buried Pipeline Direction of Landslide Movement Buried Pipeline Revealed Pipeline The pipe-soil interaction is simulated by the bottom.Poisson’s ratio α .Pipe External diameter di .: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED… 31 20000 Finite elem ent solution A nalytical solution 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 Thus.2% 1.0% 8.740 Error 12.25 Figure 9.Pipe Wall Thickness Unit m4 m2 cm cm mm Value 7. The critical load P obtained for this situation was equal to 4172 .3% 1.776 13.850 14. and KAS = 130 kN/m/m.Cross section Area de .0 0.8% 1.175 13.Pipe Internal diameter t .770 13. thirdly. These landslides could lead to the supporting soil removal and to axial compression forces over the pipeline. 9) in these simulations uses 11 elements and 100 load steps were applied in the iterative incremental process.BORTOLAN et al.300 14.9516531 10-5 6. The finite element mesh employed (Fig.0 m γ (kN/m3) Psoil (N/m) 1.827 13. The inner forces were determined due the division of the pipe cross section into 70 area bands.0 75.8% 0. Finite Element Mesh Employed Table 7.Moment of Inertia A .875 13.2% 0. The external loads over the pipeline are the ones presented by Table 9.Tangent modulus Sy – Yield stress υ .Young’s modulus ET . upper and longitudinal springs.Coefficient of thermal expansion Unit GPa GPa MPa ºC-1 Value 205. respectively. which stiffness coefficients per length unit are the following: KBS = 1295 kN/m/m.4% 2. However.7% 3. fully enclosed pipeline with a change on the boundary conditions.5 q (kN/m) 1. the simulation was carried out as presented by Fig.8% 1. and.692 13.50 31. at last.950 14.860 13. half enclosed pipeline.901 13. fully enclosed pipeline.25 6. Pipe Material Properties Property E .2 × 10-6 Analysing the chart in Fig.0 420.
25mm P 15. O.0 kN/m =1.0m 15. pp.. 81.. 1. J.25mm kN /m 3 =1... Brush.8 kN /m 3 =1.0m Figure 13 – Case 4: Fully enclosed pipeline with a change in the boundary conditions . Liu.1. vol. n. Y. B..0m 15.25mm 15.0 kN/m =1. the more uncovered the pipeline is. E. which is 73% lower than the critical load for the fully enclosed pipeline.0m 15. Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition (IBP413_03). 71.8 kN/m 3 15..8 kN/m 3 32.. Bathe. Kim.0m 6. 2691–2704.0m 50. A. 6. the lower the critical load P will be.8 Table 10 summarizes the results obtained from the three different cases. New York. 32.0m 50. & Kim.8 kN/m 3 32.5cm 6. 213–217. NO. Y. In this case the fixed supports in the middle of the pipeline were removed. 1.0m 15. This case is much alike the first one but with a change on the boundary conditions. C.32 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY.0m =1. Benjamin. CONCLUSIONS The finite element formulation presented in this essay proved to be worthful for the assessment of pipelines with material nonlinear effects subjected to load cases where the kinematic nonlinear effects play an important role. vol. B. Prediction of remaining strength of corroded pressurised pipelines.0m 15.25mm 3 2 3 4 4172 1138 841 460 27% 20% 11% P =1 .0m As expected..0m Figure 10 – Case 1: Fully enclosed pipeline For the half enclosed pipeline situation (Fig.8 kN/m 1. J. S. 1998.5m 15. O. Q. pp. & B. Goo.8 kN/m 3 1..0m 50. K. Critical Loads Comparison Case 1 Pcr (kN) Case 1 Critical Load Percentage 15. M. Int. 12) leads to a critical load P of 841 kN. & Xu. 50. 1996. the critical load P of 460 kN is 89% lower than the critical load of the first case. Computers and Structures. K. Larsen. 3. VOL.. C. n. B.8 kN/m 1. Inc. J. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. S.0m 3 P =1 . 1. JUNE 2009 1.0m 50.Z.5cm 50. Buckling of Bars. This load is 80% lower than the critical load for the fully enclosed but only 26% lower than the critical load for the half enclosed pipeline... F.8 kN/m 3 32..0m Figure 12 – Case 3: Fully revealed pipeline A fourth case was considered. pp 1–13. This example also highlights the need of a good knowledge concerning the maximum load that one structure can stand even in situations that were not predicted to happen. J. & Almroth. 2003. Y. & Andrade. Bjørset..0m 15. Leira.8 kN/m 3 1. the lack of support in some structures in similar situations could lead to buckling due to its own weight. Besides that.0m Figure 11 – Case 2: Half enclosed pipeline The situation for the fully revealed pipeline (Fig. and Shells. B.. H. REFERENCES Ahammed M.0m P =1 . A. McGraw-Hill.5cm Table 10. Remseth. D. 13.0 kN/m =1.0m N k .0m 15. 1997. 11) the critical load P obtained was equal to 1138 kN. 3. Titanium pipes subjected to bending moment and external pressute. C.5m 15. Modified Method for the Assessment of the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. W. New Jersey. Kim.5m 15. J. Z. Plates. pp.0m 6. H.. Prentice-Hall Inc.5cm 50. 75. 1975.0m 50. Here.0 kN/m =1. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. Choi. Int. 2003. Cen. such as buckling. Chen.5m 15. 105–114.. Numerical analysis of limit load and reference stress of defective pipelines under multi-loading systems.8 kN /m 3 =1. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping.0m 15. as showed by Fig.
R. M. vol. 2004. H. Ravet.. Analysis of postbuckling behaviour of line pipe subjected to combined loads. 14. 12.. Zaras. Ravet. Dissertation. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. Proceedings… Curitiba. Souza. n. MSc. W. M. pp. Robertson. Murray. pp. Y. O. L. Brazil: PUC-RIO – Departamento de Engenharia Civil. Development of Limit Load Solutions for Corroded Gas Pipelines. Brazil: UFPR – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Métodos Numéricos em Engenharia. N. Z. F. Hecke. K. M. F. 855–859. A. D. D. 80. F.BORTOLAN et al. n. .. Analysis of an industrial piping installation under buckling propagation. 77.. 20. wrinkling and postbuckling response of line pipe. 2005... MSc. 164– 172. Fonseca. Brazil. pp. Análise não-linear da interação soloduto em escostas empregando elementos de interface. pp. CIL04-0208. A. X.. 2004. I. 2006. D. 2005.. Curitiba. 575–594. vol. Buried Pipe Design. de Melo. R. strain localization.. A. 2001. E.. 705–709. 119–127. And Subcritical Crack Growth.. G. Brazil.. vol. 1995.. M. 14. pp. Local buckling. B. Análise não linear via elementos finitos de um modelo de vigas para dutos enterrados. 121–128. Computers and Structures. 32. pp. Kim. & Machado. Int. pp. C.. vol. Zou. vol.. 1. ASCE. 2. W. & Mackenzie. G. vol.. Dissertation... The thermal and mechanical behaviour of structural steel piping systems... Chen. pp. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. J. & Khoo. D. Nonlinear analysis of pressure vessels: some examples. D. Universidade Federal do Paraná. Int. Journal of Transportation Engineering. Bao. M. Zhou. H. Plastic collapse of pipe bends under combined internal pressure and in-plane bending. Zhang. L. Lázaro. A. 46. n. Zhou.. X. New York. MEng.. 360–371. Zhu. pp. & Son. & Murray.. vol. Brazil. Rio de Janeiro. Part II: Analyses of tubular products performance. Finite element models in the steel industry. vol. & Oliveira. M. F. 2. Thin-Walled Structures. I. pp. 5. Roehl. D. 1996. 2003. Fizyko-Khimichna Mekhanika Materialiv. Z. B. Inc. Li. 2005. & DiGiovanni. McGraw-Hill. 122. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. Bao. vol. 109–113.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED… 33 2003. Curitiba. 2006. vol. M. Failure-Assessment Diagram. n. Vaz. L. D. C. & Leis. vol.... 82. Pontifícia Universidade Católica. Universidade Federal do Paraná. Mohared. Int. 12. Du. vol. Modelo numérico para o estudo do comportamento de dutos enterrados. Souza. vol. A.. E. P. M. 1999. & Patel. Z. Mejía. 407–416. A.. Pipeline Beam Models Using Stiffness Property Deformation Relations. 82. Pluvinage. 2004.. A. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. 3015–3036. J. Strength criteria and analytic predictions of failure pressure in line pipes. Şanal. 2003. 2000. Dissertation. Huang. 897–906. n.. 42. N. Int. Ozkan. M. 2008. Rio de Janeiro. 81.. Int. B.. Detection of buckling in steel pipeline and column by the distributed Brillouin sensor. Prediction of the pipe buckling using broadening factor with distributed Brillouin fiber sensors.. Optical Fiber Technology. H. Engineering Structures. Int. Dvorkin.. 19. J. 2nd ed. Optical Fiber Technology. 145–153. X. pp. 2004. Q. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. G. Lateral buckling of bundled pipe systems. Journal of Solid Structures. M. F.. 81. pp. Int. Brazil. Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering.. In: XXVI Iberian Latin-American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering – CILAMCE.. F. n. Finite Element Based Stress Concentration Factors for Pipes with Local Wall Thinning. P. & Murray. 1997. 2008. Guarapari. L. Moser. E. Toscano. W. vol. 21–40... 305–311. 2004. 2005 Análise não-linear via elementos finitos de um modelo de vigas para dutos enterrados. Pipe-defect Assessment Based on the Limit Analysis. pp. F. F. R. pp. Marine Structures.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.