DESIGN OF HIGH PRESSURE/HIGH

TEMPERATURE (HP/HT) PIPELINES AGAINST

LATERAL BUCKLING USING VERTICAL
UPSET METHOD
A. Nikkhaah1, Dr. M. Baghernejad1, Shaifuzzaman B. Isa2,
B. Baghernejad1, C. Y. Chun2

ABSTRACT

Design of HP/HT pipelines differs significantly from traditional pipeline design. In

HP/HT pipelines, phenomena such as lateral buckling, low cycle fatigue, and
ratcheting is accounted for in addition to addressing the traditional pipeline design
requirements.
In this paper lateral buckling of HP/HT pipelines is discussed by presenting a real case
study, the gas pipeline between PC04 and B11 platforms in Malaysian waters.
To accommodate thermal expansion of the pipeline and to overcome the available soil
uncertainties, a design strategy using strain-based design was adopted; incorporating
mitigation techniques such as a pipeline lay over vertical buckle triggers (sleepers).
The pipeline is designed to buckle laterally on sleepers. Locations of the sleepers are
selected with due consideration for total strain in the pipe wall, pipeline route, and
uncertainties in design input data.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, demand for high pressure/ temperature pipelines is increasing continuously.
In parallel, some joint industry projects have been developed to address safe design of
HP/HT pipelines.
SLT-Engineering developed a simplified methodology based on requirements of DNV-OS-
F101 code [1], using available published information [2 to 12]. Figure 1 shows the analysis
methodology developed for lateral buckling analysis of the pipeline.

1
SLT-Engineering Sdn Bhd, Asia Pacific Region Office, Kuala Lumpur
2
Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur

1
 .
Figure 1: Design Methodology for Lateral Buckling Analysis.

2
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The following design requirements are set for lateral buckling of the pipeline:
1. The buckling force (maximum pipeline axial force capacity) should be considered
equal to minimum of Hobbs mode infinity [2, 3] and out of straightness model.
2. Design feed-in-length (FIL) of each buckle shall be equal to maximum feed-in-
length into the buckle which will not cause pipeline failure under all limiting states.
3. The probability of maximum feed-in-length exceeding the design feed-in-length
shall be less than 10-4 [1].

LATERAL BUCKLING ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Pipe-Soil Interaction Model

The soil resistance against pipeline movement is divided into two main sections, breakout,
and residual sections. The lateral resistance model of soil is developed based on the model
and recommendations presented in OTC 17944 [10]. The initial embedment of pipeline is
calculated using Equation (1) [10].

2
z St ⎛ V ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟⎟ (1)
D 45 ⎜⎝ DS u ⎠

Where, z is the initial penetration of pipe, D the pipe outside diameter, St the soil sensitivity,
V vertical load on the pipeline inclusive of dynamic load during pipeline installation, and Su
the undrained shear strength at bottom of the pipe.
The lateral breakout and residual resistances of soil then may be calculated using Equations
(2) and (3), respectively [10].

H breakout 3 z
= 0.2v + (2)
Su D S u / γD D

H residual ⎡ ⎛ 1 S u _ 1D ⎞ ⎤
= 1 − 0.65⎢1 − exp⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟⎥ (3)
v ⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 γD ⎠⎦⎥

Where, γ is the submerged soil unit weight, v the vertical load on pipe, and Su_1D the
undrained shear strength of soil at one pipe diameter below seabed.
The mobilization of breakout resistance is assumed within a pipe movement of less than
half of a diameter, while residual resistance occurs within 3 to 5 diameters [10].

3
 For axial resistance of the pipeline the soil model presented in OTC 6846 [20] is used.
According to this model maximum and residual axial resistance of soil may be calculated
using Equations (4) and (5), below.

H breakout = 1.05 Ac S u (4)

H residual = 0.34 Ac S u (5)

The mobilization of axial breakout resistance is within a pipe movement of less than 0.05 of
a pipe diameter, while residual resistance occurs at 1.2 times the diameter of pipe [20].
The uncertainty of the soil model is treated based on recommendations of OTC 17944 [10].

Screening Criteria for Buckling

Lower bound axial capacity of the pipeline to withstand against lateral buckling is
calculated using Equation (6).

S = min (SH∞, SOOS) (6)

Where,
E .I
S H ∞ = 2.29 0.25
(7)
⎛ (E.I )3 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
(
⎝ L )
⎜ f LB 2 .E. A
s
⎟
⎠
S OOS = (μ (W − FL ) − FD )R (8)

Where, E is the elastic modulus of the pipeline material, W the submerged weight per unit
length of the pipeline, μ the lateral friction coefficient, I the pipeline moment of inertia, As
the pipeline cross section area, FD the drag force per unit length on the pipeline, FL the lift
force per unit length on the pipeline, and fLLB the lower bound lateral soil resistance.
The pipeline may buckle if maximum axial effective force in the pipeline is higher than
axial capacity of the pipeline.

Calculation of Design Limiting Criteria and Feed-In-Length

To calculate maximum allowable strain in the pipeline the following key failure modes
(except pressure containment and external pressure collapse that were fulfilled during early
stage of pipeline design) are considered:
1. Local buckling

4
 2. Fatigue
3. Weld fracture

Local Buckling

As most applied loadings on the pipeline are displacement-controlled, strain based design
criteria based on requirements of DNV-OS-F101 [1] is used for local buckling analysis of
the pipeline, considering the following assumptions [13].
1. Hoop component of stress and resultant strain are kept within the allowable limit
obtained from load controlled criteria
2. Environmental loads are applied to the buckle free span in the zones around the
buckle triggers. Effects of these loads on the resultant strain should be insignificant.

Fatigue

High pressure/ high temperature pipelines generally may be subjected to two main
categories of cyclic loadings, as follows:
1. Low cycle / high amplitude loading, mainly due to pipeline installation and startup-
shutdown of the line
2. High cycle / low amplitude loading, mainly due to environmental load and vortex
induced vibration
For low cycle fatigue analysis of the pipeline, the methodology presented in guidelines of
American Bureau of Shipping [15] may be used. According to this guideline, Equation (9)
may be used for assessment of the fatigue life of the welded structures when the plastic
strain range is significant.

Δε = 0.055 N −0.4 for Δε ≥ 0.002 (9)

Δε = 0.016 N −0.25 for Δε < 0.002

Where, Δε is the strain range in pipeline.

Investigations [13] show that at least a safety factor of 7.0 is included in Equation (9).
The high cycle fatigue analysis of the pipeline spans aside the buckle triggers is performed
in accordance with DNV-OS-F101 [1] and DNV-RP-C203 [14] under the assumption that
the weld line is in region with highest stress conditions.

5
Fracture

Engineering critically assessment is performed based on BS 7910 [16] using

recommendations of DNV-OS-F101 [1]. Based on accuracy of available examination
methods, an undetectable circumferential crack with 25 mm length and 2.5 mm depth may
be considered for fracture analysis.

Design Feed-In-Length

Design feed-in-length of each section of the pipeline is calculated using virtual anchor
model by finite element method considering abovementioned limiting parameters.

Acceptability of Single Buckle in Non-Mitigated Pipeline

In some cases even in pipelines susceptible to lateral buckling, limit state parameters of the
buckled section may be acceptable. In order to assess the acceptability of a non-mitigated
pipeline a single buckle between two virtual anchor points on the pipeline shall be
considered, where the feed-in into the buckle is maximum. The buckle may be triggered by
initial lateral or vertical imperfection, or by trawling load.

Calculation of the Distance between Buckle Triggers

To calculate distance between buckle triggers the following approach may be followed:
1. Maximum allowable expansion of end sections of pipeline shall be calculated based
on expansion spool design capacity and lower bound axial soil resistance. The first
buckle trigger from each side of the pipeline shall be positioned to achieve
maximum allowable expansion at each end of the pipeline.
2. Buckle triggers are positioned in such a way to limit maximum feed-in into the
buckles below the design feed-in-length.
3. If the probability of buckle formation failure at a specific buckle trigger is more than
10-4, the consequences of formation of a buckle at vicinity of the buckle trigger shall
be evaluated.

Calculation of Buckle Formation Probability

In lateral buckling analysis of HP/HT pipelines the key uncertainty is buckle formation at
the expected sites. To calculate the buckle formation probability a simplified version of the
reliability model presented in Carr, et al [5] is used. According to this model, the probability
of buckling can be defined as:

6
 p f = Probability[Z ≤ 0] (10)

Where, Z is the limit state function describes the buckle formation, which is obtained by
recasting the buckling formation criteria. Equation (11) denotes the buckling limit state
function.

Z = Rlat − μ a .W .x − E (11)

Where, Rlat is lateral resistance against pipeline buckling, μa axial friction factor of soil, W
pipeline weight per unit length, x sleeper distance to the end of line or previous sleeper, and
E is axial force of the pipeline due to spool resistance or residual axial force in previous
buckle.

Acceptability of Mitigated Pipeline

After positioning the buckle triggers along the pipeline route, the mitigated pipeline is
analyzed to check whether the mitigation scheme works appropriately under pipeline heat
up and cool down transients. Under certain circumstances walking of the pipeline section
between two adjacent buckle trigger (towards the cold end of the pipeline) may increase
feed-in into the initiated buckle. This phenomenon cannot be captured by virtual anchor
spacing model; the whole pipeline shall be modeled for finite element analysis.

CASE STUDY
Design Parameters
Pipeline

The pipeline was constructed using 12” API 5L-X65 line pipe, as shown in Table 1. High
density concrete coating was used for achieving adequate stability for the pipeline, and its
effects on strength of the pipeline was ignored.
Design pressure, and temperature distribution along the pipeline were used for analysis.
o
Design pressure and maximum design temperature were 201.4 barg, and 120 C,
respectively. Temperature profile along the pipeline, which was used for analysis, is
presented in Figure 2. This temperature profile was calculated based on 50% pipeline
seabed embedment.

7
 Table 1: Pipeline General Specifications.

Length OD WT Corrosion
KP Zone
(km) (mm) (mm) Allowance (mm)
0.0 -0.5 Zone II (B11) 0.5 304.8 23.8 6
0.5 – 19.3 Zone I 18.0 304.8 19.5 6
19.3 – 21.8 Zone I 3.0 304.8 23.8 9
21.8 – 22.3 Zone II (PC04) 0.5 304.8 23.8 9

The design life of the pipelines was 6 years. Total number of startups and shutdowns during
lifetime of the pipeline was 24 cycles.
Physical and elastic mechanical properties of the pipeline steel were as given in Table 2.

Table 2: Pipeline Steel Properties.

Property Value

Density [kg/m3] 7850

Young’s Modulus [MPa] 207 x 103
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
SMYS [MPa] 448
SMTS [MPa] 535
CTOD (Weld at Minimum Temperature) [mm] 0.2 [2]

For global buckling analysis and ratcheting analysis of the pipeline, isotropic strain
nonlinear hardening and simplified linear kinematics strain hardening behavior of X65 were
used, respectively. Figure 3 shows the isotropic and kinematics elastic-plastic models of
X65 at different temperatures.
Seabed profile used for analysis is presented in Figure 4.

120

100

80
Temperature (C)

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20

KP

Figure 2: Temperature Distribution along the Pipeline Considering 50% Pipeline Embedment.

8
 550 550

500 500
450 450
400 400
True Stress (MPa))

True Stress (MPa))

350 350
300
300
250 250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%
True Strain True Strain
X65, 25 C X65, 50 C X65, 120 C X65, 25 C X65, 50 C X65, 120 C

Figure 3: Nonlinear Isotropic Elastic-Plastic (Left) and Bilinear Kinematics Elastic-Plastic (Right)
Behaviors of API-X65.

-76 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
DISTANCE (m)
-78
PC4
PLATFROM
-80

-82
DEPTH BELOW MSL

-84

-86

-88

-90

-92

-94
B11 PLATFORM
-96

Figure 4: Seabed Profile along the Pipeline Route.

Pipeline-Soil Interaction

Due to insufficient soil data the following procedure was followed to estimate upper bound,
median, and lower bound soil properties.
1. Investigations were performed on the available soil data in existing routes near the
pipeline proposed route. According to these investigations it was understood that the
undrained shear strength of the soil along the route changed linearly with respect to
the pipeline penetration, for penetration depths less than 1.0 m.
2. Three linear functions were fitted to the available soil data along the pipeline and
defined as upper bound, median, and lower bound undrained shear strength profile
of the soil, as shown in Figure 5.
3. Soil axial and lateral resistances were calculated based on the estimated soil
properties, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.

9
 Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0

0.2
GC/03
GC/01
GC/07
0.4 GC/06
GC/04
GC/02
0.6 GC/08

Depth (m) 0.8 GC/09

1.2

1.4

GC/05
1.6
Lower Bound Median Upper Bound

Figure 5: Undrained Shear Strength Profile of Soil.

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1
Lateral Friction Factor
Axial Friction Factor

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Axial Displacement (m) Larteral Displacement (m)
Median Upper Bound Lower Bound Median Upper Bound Lower Bound

Figure 6: Equivalent Axial (Left) and Lateral (Right) Friction Coefficients of Zone I.

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1
Lateral Friction Factor
Axial Friction Factor

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Axial Displacement (m) Larteral Displacement (m)
Median Upper Bound Lower Bound Median Upper Bound Lower Bound

Figure 7: Equivalent Axial (Left) and Lateral (Right) Friction Coefficients of Zone II.

Description of Finite Element Method

Three types of Abaqus [17] finite element models were used for analysis follows:

10
 1. Full finite element model of the pipeline on uneven seabed
This model was used in the first and last stages of pipeline lateral buckling
analysis. In the first stage, this model was used to evaluate if the strain in an
unwanted buckle triggered by the seabed imperfection, lateral imperfection or
trawling was within allowable limit under worst case loading and pipe-soil
interaction conditions. In the last stage of the analysis, this model was used to
check strain increase in the initiated buckles due to hydrodynamic loads and
pipeline walking.
The full finite element model of the pipeline was constructed using full route
geometry of the pipeline and seabed profile. It incorporated both Zone I and
Zone II of the pipeline properties.
Figure 8 (left) shows the full finite element model of the pipeline on uneven
seabed.
2. Virtual anchor spacing model
Two virtual anchor spacing models were used in this analysis, first one, on flat
seabed and second, on flat seabed with effects of sleepers. Figure 8 (right)
shows the second virtual anchor spacing model.
The first model was used for the following purposes:
• Calculation of the feed-in into a buckle rested on seabed for different
pipe-soil interaction conditions
• Calculation of relationship between the feed-in and strain level in
pipeline rested on seabed for different pipe-soil interaction conditions
The second model was used for the following purposes:
• Checking the span length on each side of the sleeper
• Calculation of maximum axial load capacity of the pipeline rested on
sleeper
• Calculation of the natural frequency of the pipeline span due to sleeper
for VIV analysis
3. Three dimensional solid model
This model was used for ratcheting analysis, and obtaining actual stress
distribution in the pipeline for fracture analysis.
An Abaqus UFRIC FORTRAN subroutine was developed to model the cohesive and break
out behaviors of pipe-soil interaction model.

11
 For full finite element model of the pipeline on uneven seabed and virtual anchor spacing
models, the pipeline was split into two sections “around imperfection” and “away from
imperfection”, with different element size to achieve reasonable accuracy . Element length
for each section is listed in Table 3 below.

Figure 8: Finite Element Model of the Pipeline on Uneven Seabed (Left), and Virtual Anchor Spacing
Model Rested on Buckle Trigger (Right).
Table 3: Element Length in Line Models.

Virtual Anchor Spacing Model

Model Section Full Model [m]
[m]
Around Imperfection 0.2 0.1
Away from Imperfection 4 1

Screening Criteria

For out of straightness (OOS) model lay imperfections bend radius of 2500 m along the
Zone I, and 2000 m along the Zone II route profile were assumed. These magnitudes of
imperfections were set as limiting criteria for pipeline laying. Table 4 gives lower bound
axial capacity of different sections of the pipeline.

Table 4: Axial Force Capacity of the Pipeline.

Axial Force Capacity (kN)

KP Zone
Hobbs Infinite
OOS Model Minimum
Mode
0.0 -0.5 Zone II – B11 1235 1651 1235
0.5 – 19.3 Zone I 920 1151 920
19.3 – 21.8 Zone I 1164 1567 1164
21.8 – 22.3 Zone II – PC04 1164 1567 1164

12
 Figure 9 shows effective axial force in the pipeline at different operating temperature. As
this figure shows, maximum introduced axial force in the pipeline is about 4250 kN. So, the
pipeline was susceptible to buckle and local buckling limit states should be checked.

-4500
Design Pressure
Tmax = 39.1
-4000 Tmax=59.1
Tmax = 79.1
Tmax = 99.1
-3500 Tmax = 119.1
Allowable Value

-3000
Effective Axial Force (kN)

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5
KP
B11 PC04

Figure 9: Effective Axial Force in the Pipeline (Before Mitigation).

Calculation of Allowable Strain in Buckle Apex

Allowable strain of the pipeline was calculated using DNV-OS-F101 [1], and presented in
Table 5. To calculate strain limit of the pipeline, axial force and internal pressure of the
pipeline were set to maximum value obtained from finite element analysis, and 201.4 barg
(design pressure of the pipeline), respectively.
As Table 5 shows, minimum allowable total strain in the pipeline was 2.8% from local
buckling point of view.

Table 5: Pipeline Local Buckling Strain Limit.

Corrosion Allowance Allowable Strain

Zone Tempe (oC)
(mm) (%)
100 0 3.75
100 6 2.85
Zone I
50 0 3.65
50 6 2.80
110 0 4.30
110 9 3.12
Zone II
50 0 4.18
50 6 3.45

13
 Using Equation (9), maximum allowable strain range for the pipeline was 1.50%.

Calculation of Maximum Strain in an Isolated Buckle

In the absence of mitigation technique, a single buckle between pipeline virtual anchor
points was considered with the following assumptions:
1. An isolated buckle is formed at the early stage of buckling
2. All possible feed-in resulting from soil with upper bound axial friction is fed into the
buckle considering upper bound lateral friction.
3. Buckle can be triggered by both vertical and horizontal imperfections3

Using these assumptions, total strain in the buckle was 2.85%, see Table 6, which was not
acceptable from low cycle fatigue point of view. So, it was decided to mitigate the pipeline
using a reliable buckle initiation strategy.

Table 6: Summary of Results for One Isolated Buckle.

Analysis Limiting Parameter Value Limit

Local Buckling Total Strain [%] 1.90 2.85

Fatigue Damage Ratio 1.75 1.0

Mitigation Method

To overcome the high level of uncertainty in provided soil data, it was decided to use
sleepers to impose vertical out of straightness to the pipeline. Furthermore calculations
showed that applying a vertical out of straightness might not be sufficient in special
circumstances. So, it was decided to add an in-plane imperfection to control lateral
resistance on the pipeline and direction of buckling. Figure 10 shows two different methods
to apply in-plane imperfection to the pipeline.

Figure 10: Methods of Imposing In-Plane Imperfection, Changing in Route Direction (Left), and Post
Pipe Lay Displacement (Right).

3
Buckle initiation by trawling was not considered as the probability of trawling around the pipeline
route was very low.

14
Relationship between Feed-in-Length and Pipeline Axial Strain

Relationship between feed-in into a buckle and pipeline axial strain was calculated using
finite element method. Figure 11 shows the introduced plastic strain in a buckle versus
thermal feed-in. As this figure shows maximum strain in a buckle corresponds to maximum
lateral seabed friction coefficient. Figure 12 shows change in buckle shape due to axial
feed-in.
Table 7 gives maximum allowable feed-in into a buckle in different lateral friction
coefficient based on 1.5% total strain range obtained from low cycle fatigue analysis of the
pipeline. As this table shows material property changes due to temperature has minor effect
on the obtained results.

4.00%

3.50%

3.00%

2.50%
Plastic Strain

2.00%

1.5% Total Strain Limit

1.50%

1.00%

0.50%

0.00%
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Feed-In (m)
MuL=0.25BO, T=100C MuL=0.75BO, T=100C
MuL=1.25BO, T=100C MUL=1.25BO, T=60C

Figure 11: Plastic Strain in Buckle due to Thermal Feed-In.

Table 7: Design Feed-in Length in a Buckle.

Lateral Residual Friction Coefficient Temperature [oC] Design Feed-In (m)

0.25 100 5.10

0.75 100 2.16
1.25 100 1.44
1.25 60 1.56

15
 16
FIL = 1.8 m

FIL = 3.5 m
14
FIL = 5.5 m

FIL = 7.5 m
12
FIL = 9.5 m

FIL = 10 m
10

8
Amplitude (m)

0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

-2

-4
X (m)

Figure 12: Buckle Shape due to Axial Feed-In.

Calculation of Distance between Buckle Triggers

Distance between two adjacent sleepers was calculated using an iterative process to satisfy
following criteria:
1. Distance of the first and last sleeper to the end points of the pipeline (PC04 and
B11) should be in such a way to maintain maximum end expansion of the pipeline.
These expansions were obtained from pipeline riser design report, and were 0.8 m,
and 1.2 m for PC04 and B11 side of the pipeline, respectively. Besides, maximum
feed-in into the first and last buckles triggered by the sleepers shall be less than
design feed-in length. Considering these criteria maximum distance of the first
sleeper to the end point of the pipeline (PC04 side) was obtained 1.40 m.
2. Other buckle triggers were positioned to maintain maximum feed-in in each buckle
less than design feed-in length presented in Table 7. In order to assist the controlled
buckle formation, the pipeline concrete coating around the buckle triggers was
removed.
Considering the pipeline routing criteria, final positions of the sleepers were calculated and
are given in Table 8.

Buckle Formation Reliability

Important parameters that affect lateral resistance of buckle trigger on the pipeline (axial
force capacity of a pipeline) were as follows:
1. Sleeper height (imperfection in vertical plane)

16
 2. Friction coefficient between pipeline and sleeper
3. Friction coefficient between pipeline and seabed
4. Pipeline span length aside buckle triggers
5. Initial imperfection in horizontal plane
6. Submerged weight per unit length of pipeline

Table 8: Buckle Apex Strain due to Thermal Feed-In.

Sleeper No. KP Feed-In (m) Strain (%)

#1 5.927 2.9 1.0

#2 10.427 3.10 0.9
#3 12.927 2.16 0.9
#4 15.127 2.00 0.85
#5 17.127 1.96 0.85
#6 19.127 2.12 0.9
#7 20.927 1.6 0.8

A parametric study was performed to evaluate the effects of above parameters on the axial
force capacity of the pipeline. Obtained results were formulated in such a way to be used in
Equation (10).
The probability analysis was performed based on the limit state condition prescribed in
Equation (10), and by using 108 Monte Carlo simulations. The results indicated in the 7th
buckle trigger (worst case from buckle initiation point of view), the probability of buckle
initiation failure was less than 10-4.

Selecting Sleepers Height

Considering flat rigid seabed, maximum estimated span length at vicinity of the pipeline of
the buckle triggers was estimated using Equation (12).

72 EIδ
l=4 (12)
w

Where, E is the pipeline elastic modulus, I the pipeline section moment of inertia, δ sleeper
vertical movement, and w the submerged weight per unit length of the pipeline

17
 This estimation was used as a conservative value for vortex induced vibration analysis of
the pipeline.
To calculate the appropriate pipeline span length, the following criteria were used:
1. To obtain appropriate sleeper behavior, minimum span length of the pipeline aside
the buckle triggers considered being at least equal to buckle length aside the sleeper.
2. Pipeline span length aside the buckle trigger shall not cause fatigue damage due to
vortex induced vibration. Vortex induced vibration calculation for this pipeline was
performed based on DNV-RP-F105 [18] using SLTFATFREE in-house software.
Obtained results showed that the sleeper height shall be between 0.3 m and 0.6 m. This limit
was considered for sleeper design.

Analysis of Mitigated Pipeline

Lateral buckling of the mitigated pipeline was performed to check the final condition of the
buckles initiated by the sleepers. To obtain cyclic behavior of the pipeline (pipeline
walking), two startup-shutdown cycles of the pipeline was modeled including the pipeline
heat up and cool down transients, and effects of hydrodynamic forces. Results showed that
changes in pipeline strain due to pipeline walking and hydrodynamic loads were
insignificant.
From finite element analysis, maximum strain in the pipeline after mitigation was about 1%,
which was less 1.5% limit set by low cycle fatigue analysis. Figure 13 shows the effective
axial force in the pipeline after mitigation.

-2250 Tmax = 50.8

Tmax = 58
Tmax = 65
-2000
Tmax = 72.1
Tmax = 79.2
-1750 Tmax = 86.3
Tmax = 93.4
Tmax = 100.5
Effective Axial Force (kN)

-1500 Tmax = 107.6

Tmax = 114.7
Tmax = 119.1
-1250 Allowable Value

-1000

-750

-500

-250

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
B11 KP B11

Figure 13: Effective Axial Force in the Pipeline After Mitigation.

18
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a methodology that was successfully used for the design of a high
pressure high temperature pipeline allowing controlled buckles at designated locations
along the pipeline route, using vertical upset method.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to PETRONAS for supporting this
work and permission to use the project data, as its first HP/HT pipeline in the region.

REFERENCES
[1]. Submarine Pipeline Systems, DNV-OS-F101, 2006.
[2]. In-Service Buckling of Heated Pipelines, Hobbs. E., International Journal of
Transportation Engineering, vol 110, No. 2, 1984.
[3]. HOTPIPE JIP, Design Guidelines for HP/HT Pipelines, L. Collberg et al.
Proceeding of OMAE 2005.
[4]. Design Guidelines for HP/HT Pipelines, S. Goplen et al.
[5]. Load and Resistance Modeling of the Penguins Pipe-In-Pipe Flowline Under Lateral
Buckling, M. Carr, et al., Proceeding OMAE 2004.
[6]. Penguins Flow Line Lateral Buckling Formation Analysis and Verification, I.
Matheson, et al., Proceeding OMAE 2004.
[7]. Design Strategies for Controlling Lateral Buckling and Axial Creep of HP/HT
Subsea Pipelines Installed on a Flat Seabed, K. Torens, N. Kristiansen, Petromin
Pipeliner, May 2005.
[8]. HT/HP Pipe-in-Pipe Snaked Lay Technology, Industry Challenges, J. Hooper, et al.,
proceeding of OTC 2004.
[9]. Design of High Temperature/High Pressure (HT/HP) Pipeline against Lateral
Buckling, L. Kien, et al.
[10]. Pipe-Soil Interaction Behavior during Lateral Buckling, Including Large Amplitude
Cyclic Displacement Tests by the SAFEBUCK JIP, D. Burton, et al., Proceeding of
OTC 2006.
[11]. Lateral Buckling and Walking, a Challenges for Hot Pipelines, Carr M., et al,
Offshore Pipeline Technology, 2003, Amsterdam.

19
[12]. The Safe Design of Hot On-Bottom Pipelines with Lateral Buckling Using the
Design Guideline Developed by the SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Project, Bruton D., et
al, Deep Offshore Technology Conference, 2005, Brazil.
[13]. Strain Based Design of Pipeline, 45892GTH, EWI.
[14]. Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures, DNV-RP-C203, 2006.
[15]. ABS Guide for Building and Classing Subsea Pipeline Systems and Risers,
American Bureau of Shipping, 2001.
[16]. Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures – BS
7910:1999.
[17]. ABAQUS 6.6-5 User Manual.
[18]. Free Spanning of Pipelines, DNV-RP-F105, 2006.
[19]. Weld Crack Assessment in API X65 Pipeline: Failure Assessment Diagrams with
Variations in Representative Mechanical Properties, Lee J. S. et al, Material Science
and Engineering, A 373, pp. 122-130, 2004.
[20]. Time-Dependent Pipe-Soil Resistance for Soft Clay, Brennodden H., et al,
Proceeding of OTC 1992.

20