You are on page 1of 10

MAT TOC

Proceedings of OMAE’03
22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 8-13, 2003, Cancun, MEXICO

OMAE2003-37145

LOCAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF X100 LINEPIPES

Nobuhisa Suzuki and Ryuji Muraoka Alan Glover and Joe Zhou
JFE/NKK Corporation, Tokyo, Japan TransCanada Pipelines LTD., Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Masao Toyoda
Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan

ABSTRACT determine longitudinal compressive strain limit, particularly in


Local buckling behavior of API 5L X100 grade linepipes the context of high strength linepipes for application in high
subjected to axial compression and/or bending moment is pressure gas pipelines. High strength linepipes tend to have
discussed in this paper based on results obtained by finite high value of Y/T ratios compare with those of low strength
element analyses. Yield-to-tensile strength (Y/T) ratio and linepipes, and consequently their local buckling capacity may
design factor were taken into account in the finite element be reduced. However, it has been demonstrated by Suzuki and
analyses in order to discuss their effects on the local buckling Toyoda (2002) that the local buckling capacity or deformability
behavior. The local bucking behavior of such lower strength of linepipes is dependent on, among other factors, the strain-
linepipes as X60 and X80 grade linepipes is also discussed for hardening characteristics of the pipe material. Therefore it is
comparison. Two-dimensional solid elements and four-node recognized that deformability of high strength linepipes can be
shell elements were used for the finite element modeling of the improved and adequate local buckling capacity can be
linepipes subjected to axial compression and bending moment, maintained by controlling the stress-strain characteristics of the
respectively. The study has improved the understanding of local pipe materials. This paper focuses on local buckling behavior
buckling behavior of the X100 grade linepipes and observed of high strength pipe and the relationship between the local
the following trends. When a linepipe is subjected to axial buckling and the stress-strain behavior of the materials.
compression, the critical axial stress decreases with increasing Several empirical and semi-empirical equations have been
design factor and Y/T ratio.. However, the nominal critical proposed for the pipeline design in order to predict the critical
strain increases with increasing design factor and decreasing longitudinal strain of the linepipes and they were based on
Y/T ratio. When a linepipe is subjected to bending moment, experimental data and/or finite element solutions for pipes of
the critical bending moment decreases with increasing design relatively low strength. Most of the equations are expressed in
factor and Y/T ratio. Similarly, the nominal critical strain terms of a D/t ratio without taking into account strain hardening
increases with increasing design factor. However, the nominal parameters. Gresnigt (1986) conducted experiments on
critical strain increases with decreasing Y/T ratio when the deformability of linepipes subjected to bending moment to
design factor is less than and equal to 0.6 and decreases with establish plastic design of buried pipeline. Zimmerman et al.
decreasing Y/T ratio when the design factor is equal to 0.8. (1995) made comparison of the calculated critical longitudinal
strains and the corresponding experimental data. Zhou and
Murray (1995) discussed post-buckling deformation of
INTRODUCTION linepipes under combined loads. Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. (1995)
The necessity of strain-based design for onshore pipelines investigated the effects of butt welds on the deformability of
has been emphasized in order to ensure pipeline integrity in linepipes.
such hostile environments as seismic regions and permafrost Besides the above-mentioned studies regarding the local
regions where significant effects of lateral spread, fault buckling behavior of the linepipes, key issues still remain for
displacement, frost heave and thaw settlement on the pipelines the high-strength and the high-pressure pipelines that require
may be anticipated (Glover, 2002). One of the key issues further study. One of the key issues is to clarify the effect of
regarding the strain-based design of buried pipelines is to internal pressure and strain hardening parameters or Y/T ratio

1 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


on the buckling behavior of linepipes in compression and 1999) was used to conduct the deformation analyses in this
bending. The local buckling behavior of the X100 grade paper. Material parameters of the linepipes used in the finite
linepipes will be discussed based on the results obtained by element analyses are listed in Table 1, where the three
finite element analyses in which design factors up to 0.8 and parameters of the Ramberg-Osgood formula (Ramberg and
Y/T ranging from 0.75 to 0.93 are taken into account. The Osgood, 1943) are also represented. The R-O formula is
local buckling behavior is discussed referring critical stress or consistent with a Round-House type stress-strain curve as
critical bending moment and nominal critical strain. The shown in Fig. 1.
nominal critical strain is defined as the mean strain over a
gauge length of two times of pipe diameter. The relationships Finite Element Modeling of Linepipe
between the nominal critical strain and local critical strain or The finite element models employed for deformation
peak strain will be discussed as well. analysis are presented in Figs. 2 and 3 where solid elements
and four-node shell elements were used. A two-step loading
procedure was applied to the finite element analyses and in
ANALYSIS OF LINEPIPE SUBJECTED TO general the linepipe was first pressurized and then subjected to
AXIAL COMPRESSION AND/OR BENDING MOMENT axial compression force or bending moment with moment
Finite element analysis was used as the basic approach to arms.
establish a database for the purpose to demonstrate the local
buckling behavior and benchmark predictive formulas. In this
section, the assumptions and the finite element models used for End cap
analysis of local buckling behavior or deformability are briefly
described below.

Assumptions for Finite Element Analyses


Three different grades of linepipes, API 5L X60, X80 and
X100, were selected for deformation analysis in order to
compare their local buckling behavior. ADINA (System7.5- L=2.5D

Table 1 Parameters represent stress-stress curves of


API 5L linepipes used for calculation
YS TS Ue R-O parameter
API 5L Y/T
(MPa) (MPa) (%) α N
X60 413 503 12 0.82 1.48 18.63
X80 551 612 8 0.90 0.86 33.39
X100* 689 741 6 0.93 0.49 48.63
Fig. 2 Compression model
*note: Parameters were tentatively defined as the
corresponding values have not been specified

800
L=3.5D

600
Stress (MPa)

400

X100
200 Moment arm
X80
X60
Loading line
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Strain (%)
Fig. 3 Bending model
Fig. 1 Stress-strain relationships of API 5L linepipes

2 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


In the compression model as shown in Fig. 2, plane strain Figure 5 shows the predicted critical strain based on finite
condition was assumed such that both ends of the pipe were element analysis and it decreases with increasing D/t ratio. It is
restrained for axial displacements but free for radial noticed that the critical strains decreases as the pipe grade
displacements and rotations. Because of the plane strain increases. It is suggested that the above observation reflects the
condition, axial tensile stress was introduced when the pipe was effect of Y/T ratio, or loosely the strain hardening
pressurized that would partially offset the subsequently applied characteristics.
axial compressive load.
In the bending model as shown in Fig. 3, plane strain 2.0
condition was also assumed when the pipe was pressurized and X60
the bending moment was applied through a pair of forces at the
X80

Critical strain : εcr (%)


loading line such that the bending moment is proportional to 1.5
the applied force and moment arm length. For the cases with X100
internal pressure, the pipe specimens were subjected to, in
addition to bending moment, either net tensile or compressive 1.0
axial loads dependent on the relative magnitudes of the end
force and the applied axial force. In both models, no initial
imperfection, both material and geometric, was included,
0.5
therefore, the predicted critical stress and strain were expected
to be the upper bound of actual critical stress and strain. The
nominal strain and local strain reported in this paper represent
0.0
the strain at the center of pipe wall.
35 40 45 50
55 60 65 70 75
D/t
LOCAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF LINEPIPE Fig. 5 Critical strain of linepipes (24-in OD, fd =0.0)
SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION
Compression of Linepipes With Pressure
Compression of Linepipe without Pressure Figure 6 presents nominal stress-strain responses of a
Figure 4 plots the critical compressive stress without pressurized X100 grade linepipe under axial compression. Pipe
internal pressure based on results of finite element analysis. diameter of 24-in and the D/t ratio of 50 were used for all
The outside diameter of the pipe is 24-in for all cases. As cases. The horizontal axis in the figure represents the nominal
shown in the figure, the critical stress linearly decreases with longitudinal strain calculated with a gauge length of two times
increasing D/t ratio and the range of the variation is narrow of the pipe diameter. Figure 6 illustrates the effect of design
because the critical stress is close to the yield stress when the factor, fd, where the critical longitudinal stress decreases and
pipe buckles in the elastic-plastic region. Therefore the critical the critical longitudinal strain increases with increasing design
stress is dependent on the yield stress and the critical stresses of factor. Compare with the case without pressure, fd =0.0, the
the linepipes are presented in order of yield stress.
800
800 fd=0.0
700
0.4
Critical stress : σcr (MPa)

600
0.6
Stress (MPa)

600
500 0.8

400
400
300

X100 200
200
X80 100
X60 0
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Nominal strain (%)
D/t Fig. 6 Nominal stress-strain responses of X100 grade
Fig. 4 Critical compressive stress of linepipes linepipe with different design factors
(24-in OD, fd =0.0) (24-in OD, D/t=50, Gauge length L=2D)

3 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


critical stress and the critical strain of the case with design Figure 9 compares the shape of the wrinkles of the X100
factor of 0.8 become about 60% and 200%, respectively, grade linepipe at nominal strains of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0%
Figure 7 presents the effect of the design factor on the between the cases with design factors of 0.0 and 0.6. The
critical stress of the X100 grade linepipe. The variation of the length of the wrinkle of the case with design factor of 0.6 is
critical stress is also small and the trend is similar to those longer than that of 0.0. The wrinkle with the design factor of
shown in Fig.4, however, the critical stress with the design 0.0 tends to close its shape with increasing axial deformation,
factor of 0.8 is reduced to about 60% of that without internal however, the wrinkle does not develop to close its shape in the
pressure. The reduction of the critical stress needs to be case of the design factor of 0.6.
properly considered in the pipeline design, particularly under a
load-controlled condition.

800
Critical stress : σcr (MPa)

600

400
f d=0.0
f d=0.4
200
f d=0.6
f d=0.8
0 fd =0.0 fd =0.6
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
D/t Fig. 9 Local deformation of X100 grade linepipe subjected
Fig. 7 Critical stress of X100 grade linepipe with to axial compression (24-in OD, D/t=50, Nominal
different design factors (24-in OD) strains of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4%)

Figure 8 presents the effects on the nominal critical strain


of the X100 grade linepipe. As shown in the figure, the
nominal critical strain decreases with increasing D/t ratio and LOCAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF LINEPIPE
increases with increasing design factor. The nominal critical SUBJECTED TO BENDING MOMENT
strain with the design factor of 0.8 is approximately two times
larger than that of without internal pressure. Critical Bending Moment and Strain
Figure 10 compares critical bending moments of the three
grade linepipes obtained by assuming the pipe diameter to be
2.0
24-in and no internal pressure. The critical bending moments
f d=0.8
decrease with increasing D/t ratio. The ratios of the critical
f d=0.6 bending moments are similar to those of the corresponding
εcr (%)

1.5 f d=0.4 yield stress. However, the curves showing the critical bending
f d=0.0 moments tend to cave in which is different from the critical
Critical strain :

stress shown in Fig. 4. The critical bending moments with the


1.0 D/t ratio of 70 are 50% to 60% of the values with the D/t ratio
of 40.
Figure 11 shows the relationship between the nominal
0.5 critical strain under bending without pressure and D/t ratio. As
shown in the figure, the shape of the curves is similar to those
under axial compression as shown in Fig. 5. However, it is
0.0 noticed that the critical strains shown in Fig. 11 are
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 approximately two times as large as those represented in Fig. 5.
D/t The ratio of the critical stresses due to axial compression and
Fig. 8 Nominal critical strain of X100 grade linepipe bending moment will be discussed later.
with different design factors (24-in OD, L=2D)

4 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


5 3.5
X100
Critical moment : M cr (MN-m)

3.0 fd=0.0 0.4

Bending moment (kN-m)


4 X80 0.6
0.8
X60 2.5
3
2.0

2 1.5

1.0
1
0.5

0 0.0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 1 2 3 4 5
D/t Nominal strain (%)
Fig. 10 Critical bending moment of linepipes Fig. 12 Local buckling behavior of X100 grade linepipe
(24-in OD, fd =0.0) subjected to bending moment with different
design factors (24-in OD, D/t=50)
2.0
X60 Figure 13 presents the relationship between critical
X80 bending moment and D/t ratio of the X100 grade linepipe with
εcr (%)

1.5 24-in OD. The figure also shows the effect of design factor on
X100 the critical bending moment. As shown in the figure, the
critical bending moment tends to decrease with increasing
Critical strain :

1.0 design factor, and the maximum reduction is approximately


15%. In addition the difference between the cases with the
design factors of 0.0 and 0.4 is negligibly small.
0.5 Comparing to Fig. 7, it is concluded that the effect of
design factor on the critical bending moment is less significant
than that on the critical compressive stress. However the
0.0 reduction in the critical bending moment with increasing D/t
ratio is more significant than the critical compressive stress
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
D/t represented in Fig. 7.
Fig. 11 Nominal critical strain subjected to bending moment
5.0
(24-in OD, fd =0.0, L=2D)
f d=0.0
Critical moment : M cr (MN-m)

4.0 f d=0.4
Effect of Design Factor on the Critical Bending f d=0.6
Moment and Strain f d=0.8
3.0
Figure 12 plots the relationship between the critical
bending moment and the nominal critical strain for X100 grade
linepipes with the outside diameter and the D/t ratio to be 24-in 2.0
and 50, respectively. The nominal critical strain is measured
over a gauge length of two times as large as pipe diameter. As 1.0
shown in the figure, the critical bending moment decreases and
the nominal critical strain increases with increasing design
factor. The critical bending moment decreases by 25% when 0.0
the design factor increases from 0 to 0.8. The nominal critical 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
strain, however, increased up to about four times when the D/t
design factor increase from 0 to 0.8. The trend of decreasing in Fig. 13 Critical bending moment of X100 grade linepipes
the resistance and increasing in the deformation is similar to with different design factors (24-in OD)
those under axial compression as shown in Fig. 6.

5 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


Figure 14 presents the effect of design factor on the
nominal critical longitudinal strain. As mentioned above, the
critical bending moment decreases with increasing design
factor, however, the nominal critical strain increases with
increasing design factor. The nominal critical strain of the
cases with the design factor of 0.8 is 3.5 to 4.0 times larger than
the cases of 0.0. The factors of amplification based on the
design factor are significantly higher than the cases of the axial
compression of pipe shown in Fig. 8. Original shape

6
f d=0.8
5 f d=0.6
εcr (%)

f d=0.4
4 f d=0.0
Critical strain :

2 fd =0.0, Nominal strain=2%

0
35 40 45 50
55 60 65 70 75
D/t
Fig. 14 Nominal critical strain of X100 grade linepipes
subjected to bending moment (24-in OD)
fd =0.0, Nominal strain=4%
Figure 15 compares buckling behavior of the linepipe
under the effect of design factor. The wrinkle develops
gradually with increasing nominal longitudinal strain, which is
defined using the gauge length with two times as large as pipe
diameter. Two pairs of illustrations at nominal strains of 2%
and 4% are shown for the cases with the design factors of 0.0
and 0.6. The wrinkle develops inward when the design factor
is 0.0, however, that develops outward when the design factor
is 0.6. That is the most significant difference of the shape of
the wrinkles.
fd =0.6, Nominal strain=2%

APPLICATION OF LOCAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR


TO STRAIN-BASED DESIGN OF PIPELINES

Local Buckling Behavior of X100 Linepipe


Deformation due to axial compression
Figure 16 illustrates the effects of the design factor and the
Y/T ratio on the critical compressive stress and the nominal
critical longitudinal strain of the linepipe. The figure is fd =0.6, Nominal strain=4%
applicable to the linepipes with the D/t ratio of 50. As shown
in the figure, the critical stress decreases and the critical
nominal strain increases with increasing design factor. Fig. 15 Comparison of local deformation of X100
However, the critical compressive stress and the nominal grade linepipe with different design factors
critical strain increase with decreasing Y/T ratio. Therefore, (24-in OD, D/t=50)
providing the design factor to be constant, both the critical

6 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


compressive stress and the nominal critical strain can be and equal to 0.6, however, the nominal critical strain decreases
improved by choosing low Y/T ratio. with decreasing Y/T ratio when the design factor is 0.8.

1.2 Comparison of nominal critical strains


Figure 18 compares the nominal critical strains of the
X100 grade linepipes between axial compression and bending
f d=0.0 moment. The nominal critical values plotted in the figure are
1.0
associated with the Y/T ratio from 0.80 to 0.93, the D/t ratios of
50 and 60, and the design factors of 0.4 and 0.8. It is observed
σcr / σ0

0.4
0.8 0.75 that the data with the design factor of 0.8 are plotted at higher
0.80 position than the data with that of 0.4. Similar trend exist for
0.6
0.85
0.8 Y/T=0.90
the data with the D/t ratio of 50 compared to the data with that
0.6 of 60. And the data with larger Y/T ratios are also plotted at
higher position.
However it is observed in the figure that there are different
0.4
trends between the data with the design factors of 0.4 and 0.8.
In the cases with the design factor of 0.4, the nominal critical
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 strains of the linepipes subjected to axial compression and
εcr (%) bending moment increase with decreasing Y/T ratio as shown
Fig. 16 Critical compressive stress vs. critical strain of in Figs. 16 and 17. And in the cases with the design factor of
X100 grade linepipes (24-in OD, D/t=50) 0.8, the nominal critical strains of the linepipes subjected to
axial compression show the same trend as the cases with the
Deformation due to bending moment design factor of 0.4 as shown in Fig. 16. However, the nominal
Figure 17 shows an example of the relationships between critical strains of the linepipes subjected to bending moment
the critical bending moment and the nominal critical strain of with the design factor of 0.8 present a different trend, which
the X100 grade linepipe. The diameter and the D/t ratio used in strains decrease with decreasing Y/T ratio as shown in Fig. 17.
the figure were 24-in and 50, respectively. These trends give us useful information regarding the local
When we observe the curve having a constant Y/T ratio, buckling behavior of the X100 grade linepipes.
the critical bending moment increases between the design As shown in the figure, the nominal critical bending strain
factors of 0.0 and 0.4 and decreases with increasing design is larger than the nominal critical compressive strain and the
factor between those of 0.4 and 0.8. On the other hand, the ratios are estimated to be about 2.0 to 2.5 in the cases with the
nominal critical strain always increases with increasing design design factor of 0.4, and 2.5 to 3.5 in the cases with the design
factor. As for the effect of Y/T ratio, the critical bending factor of 0.8. In addition the ratios of the nominal critical
moment increases with decreasing Y/T ratio in terms of all strains for the cases with the design factor of 0.0, which are not
design factors. The critical nominal strain slightly increases plotted in the figure, are estimated to be 1.75 to 2.0.
with decreasing Y/T ratio when the design factor is less than
5
1.6
4
εcr (%) (Bending)

1.4
3 f d=0.8
0.75
Mcr / M0

1.2 f d=0.0 0.4 0.80 2 f d=0.4


0.6 0.85 Y/T
Y/T=0.90 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.93
1.0
0.8 1
50
D/t
60
0
0.8 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 εcr (%) (Compression)
εcr (%) Fig. 18 Comparison of nominal critical strains of X100
Fig. 17 Critical bending moment vs. nominal critical strain grade linepipes between axial compression
of X100 grade linepipes (24-in OD, D/t=50) and bending moment (24-in OD)

7 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


Comparison of Nominal Strain and Local Strain Figure 20 compares the nominal critical strain and the
(Deformation due to Axial Compression) corresponding local strain in terms of their own trace up to the
Figure 19 presents distribution of the longitudinal strain at critical points. The critical strain and the local strain of the
the center of the pipe wall and the nominal critical strain of the lower grade linepipes reach to larger value compare with those
X100 linepipes assuming the outside diameter to be 24-in and of the high-grade linepipes. The traces with the design factor
the D/t ratio of 50 and the design factors of 0.0 and 0.6. The of 0.0 develop along the centerline when the strain is less than
strain distributions plotted in the figure were obtained at the 0.4%, and they move away from the centerline. On the other
maximum compressive stress. hand, the traces with the design factor of 0.8 develop along
The maximum local strain in the case with the design with the centerline at the beginning of deformation and they
factor of 0.0 is 0.82% and the nominal critical strain becomes deviate gradually from the centerline. This is the difference of
0.53%. And the values in the cases with the design factor of the effect of the design factor on the local buckling behavior of
0.6 are 1.26% and 0.76%, respectively. Furthermore, the linepipes.
distances between the two points showing the minimum Figures 21 and 22 show more detail comparisons of the
longitudinal strain are approximately 0.4D and 0.8D for the nominal strain and the local strain of the linepipes. Figure 21
two cases and the difference represent the effect of pressure on gives another comparison of the strains with the design factor
the wavelength of wrinkles. of 0.0 taking different parameter regarding the D/t ratio and
Fig. 22 expresses the effects of other design factors. The dotted
1.4
1.26%
3
1.2

1.0 0.76% 0.82%

εcr (%) (FEA Local)


Strain (%)

0.8 2

0.6

0.4 D/t
1 40 50 60
0.53% f d=0.6
0.2 X60
f d=0.0 X80
0.0 X100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0
L/D 0 1 2 3
Fig. 19 Longitudinal strain distribution and nominal critical εcr (%) (FEA Nominal)
strain of X100 linepipe (24-in OD, D/t=50) Fig. 21 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain
(24-in OD, fd =0.0)
3
3
Local strain (%)

(FEA Local)

2
2

1 fd
εcr (%)

X60 X80 X100


1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0 X60
fd X80
0.8
X100
0
0
1 20 3
0 1 2 3
Nominal strain (%)
εcr (%) (FEA Nominal)
Fig. 20 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain of linepipes
(24-in OD, D/t=50) Fig. 22 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain
(24-in OD, D/t=50)

8 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


lines in the figures indicate the ratio of the strains and that was 8
estimated to be 1.45, which is conservative and common to the
figures.
Ue
6
Comparison of Nominal Strain and Local Strain

εcr (%) (Local)


(Deformation due to Bending Moment)
Figure 23 shows the local compressive strain distribution
4
of the X100 grade linepipe with 24-in outside diameter and D/t
ratio of 50 in the longitudinal direction induced by bending
Y/T
moment. Two design cases with the design factors of 0.0 and 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.93
2
0.6 are presented. The maximum and the nominal strains are
0.0
1.27% and 1.02% in the case with the design factor of 0.0 and fd
0.8
3.19% and 1.99% in the case with that of 0.6, respectively. The
differences in longitudinal strain distributions between the 0
cases with the design factors of 0.0 and 0.6 are because of the 4 0 6 2 8
difference modes of the wrinkles. The longitudinal strain εcr (%) (Nominal)
distribution of the case with the design factor of 0.6 is similar Fig. 24 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain of
to those represented in Fig. 19 which gives a comparison of the X100 grade linepipe (24-in OD, D/t=50)
effect of the design factor on the strain distribution under
compressive deformation.
8

4.0
f d=0.6 Ue
3.19% 6
f d=0.0
3.0 εcr (%) (Local)
4
Strain (%)

1.99%
fd
2.0
0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.27%
1.02% 2 X60
X80
1.0 X100
0
0 2 4 6 8
0.0
εcr (%) (Nominal)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fig. 25 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain
L/D of linepipes (24-in OD, D/t=50)
Fig. 23 Local strain distribution and nominal strain of
X100 line pipe (24-in OD, D/t=50) 2.0

Figure 24 shows the traces of the local and the nominal


strains of the X100 linepipes subjected to bending moment. 1.5
εcr(Local) / εcr(Nominal)

The lines in the cases with the design factor of 0.0 present
similar tendency to those of the same design factor in Fig. 20, y= 0.571x + 1.235
however, the lines with that of 0.8 present similar behavior to
1.0
the same cases shown in Fig. 20 up to a nominal strain at 2.5%
and behave like the cases without internal pressure shown in
Fig. 20 when the nominal strain is larger then 2.5%. It is
0.5
noticed that the strains in Fig. 24 are 2.0 to 2.5 times larger
than the strains in Fig. 20, which should be recognized to be a
feature of the bending deformation. Another point to be
mentioned in the figure is that the plots of the common design 0.0
factor are close to each other compare with the plots in Fig. 20. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
And the local strains in the cases with the design factor of 0.8 fd
exceed the horizontal line in the figure, which represents the Fig. 26 Nominal-to-local strain ratio (24-in OD, D/t=50)

9 Copyright © 2003 by ASME


uniform elongation of the X100 grade linepipes assumed in 2) Critical nominal longitudinal strain of a linepipe
Table 1. The bending deformation consistent with such large without internal pressure is dependent on Y/T ratio,
longitudinal strain should be investigated more carefully to however, the critical strain decreases in increasing
ensure pipeline integrity. linepipe grade or yield stress.
Figure 25 compares the nominal strains and the local 3) Critical bending moment of a linepipe can be reduced
strains of pipes with D/t ratio of 50, four design factors and the due to the effect of design factor, while critical
three pipe grades. It is obvious that the data plotted in the longitudinal strain may be increased.
figure are classified into four groups based on design factors. 4) An inward bulge develops when a design factor is
Based on the data, the local-to-nominal strain ratios for each small and an outward bulge develops when a design
group can be obtained by regression analysis and the ratio can factor is large.
be represented in terms of design factor. The horizontal line in • Nominal critical strain and local critical strain;
Fig. 25 also indicates the assumed uniform elongation of the 1) Nominal critical strain is smaller than local critical
X100 grade linepipe. As shown in Fig. 26, the ratio is strain and critical nominal-to-local critical strain ratio
dependent upon design factor and increases gradually with was estimated to be 1.45 for the cases of compressive
increasing design factor. The ratio varies from about 1.22 at deformation, which is independent of design factor.
the design factor of 0.0 to 1.69 at that of 0.8, which values 2) On the other hand, nominal-to-local critical strain ratio
cover the ratio of 1.45 of compressive deformation expressed in was estimated to be between 1.2 and 1.7 for the cases
Figs. 21 and 22 where the ratio is found to be approximately of bending deformation, which is dependent of design
independent of design factor. factor.

CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Local buckling behavior of X100 grade linepipe subjected This work has been carried out in collaboration among
to axial compression and/or bending moment were discussed TransCanada PipeLines Limited, Osaka University and
and results of finite element analysis were presented for design JFE/NKK Corporation. The authors would like to thank Mr.
cases with design factor up to 0.8, Y/T ratio from 0.8 to 0.93 David Horsley and Dr. Shigeru Endo for their invaluable
and D/t ratio from 40 to 70. The linepipes were pressurized comments and advices.
and initial axial tension was introduced in the linepipes before
compressed or bent, which axial tension was generated by
assuming the plane strain state condition. The conventional REFERENCES
grade linepipes, X60 and X80, were also discussed to compare Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.R. (1943): Description of Stress-
their local buckling behaviors. The local buckling behaviors Strain Curves by Three Parameters, NACA, TN.902.
were discussed based on nominal critical stress and nominal Gresnigt (1986): Plastic Design of Buried Steel Pipelines in
critical strain. A relationship was established between the Settlement Areas, Heron, Volume 31, No.4.
nominal critical strain and the local critical strain. The nominal Zimmerman, T.J.E., Stephens, M.J., DeGeer, D.D. and Chen, C.
values are intended to be used with the solutions obtained by (1995): Compressive Strain Limits for Buried Pipelines,
beam elements or pipe elements, while the local values should 1995 OMAE, Vol.V, Pipeline Technology, 365-378.
be used when shell elements or three-dimensional solid Yoosef-Ghodsi, N., Kulak, G.L. and Murray, D.W. (1995):
elements are applied to the pipeline design. Some Test Results for wrinkling Of Girth-Welded Line
The results of our study are summarized as follows: Pipe, Proc. of 14th OMAE Conference, Vol. V.
• Behavior under axial compression; Zhou, Z.J. and Murray, D.W. (1995): Analysis of Post-Buckling
1) Nominal critical longitudinal stress of a linepipe Behavior of Line Pipe Subjected to Combined Loads,
without internal pressure is dependent on yield stress. Int. J. of Solids and Structures, Vol. 32, No.20.
2) Nominal critical longitudinal strain of a linepipe ADINA R&D, Inc. (1999): ADINA User Interface – Users
without internal pressure is dependent on Y/T ratio. Guide – Report ARD 99-1.
3) Critical longitudinal stress of a linepipe decreases and Glover, A. (2002): Application of Gade 550 (X80) and Grade
critical longitudinal strain increases due to the effect of 690 (X100) in Arctic Climates, Proc. of Application and
design factor. Evaluation of High-Grade Linepipes in Hostile
4) An outward bulge or a wrinkle develops during post Environments.
buckling deformation and the length can be increased Suzuki, N. and Toyoda, M. (2002): Critical Compressive Strain
by the effect of design factor. of Linepipes Related to Workhardening Parameters,
• Behavior under bending moment; ASME OMAE2002-28253.
1) Critical bending moment of a linepipe without internal
pressure depends upon yield stress.

10 Copyright © 2003 by ASME