March, 2011 Vol.10, No.

Journal of
Pipeline Engineering
incorporating
The Journal of Pipeline Integrity

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa

Great Southern Press Clarion Technical Publishers

 Journal of Pipeline Engineering

Editorial Board - 2011

Obiechina Akpachiogu, Cost Engineering Coordinator, Addax Petroleum

Development Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria
Dr Husain Al-Muslim, Pipeline Engineer, Consulting Services Department, Saudi
Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Mohd Nazmi Ali Napiah, Pipeline Engineer, Petronas Gas, Segamat, Malaysia
Dr Michael Beller, NDT Systems & Services AG, Stutensee, Germany
Jorge Bonnetto, Operations Director TGS (retired), TGS, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Dr Andrew Cosham, Atkins Boreas, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Dr Sreekanta Das, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Windsor, ON, Canada
Prof. Rudi Denys, Universiteit Gent – Laboratory Soete, Gent, Belgium
Leigh Fletcher, Welding and Pipeline Integrity, Bright, Australia

n
Roger Gomez Boland, Sub-Gerente Control, Transierra SA,

io
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia
st y
Daniel Hamburger, Pipeline Maintenance Manager, El Paso Eastern Pipelines,
ut
di op

Birmingham, AL, USA

rib
Prof. Phil Hopkins, Executive Director, Penspen Ltd, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
or c

Michael Istre, Engineering Supervisor, Project Consulting Services,

Houston, TX, USA
t f ple

Dr Shawn Kenny, Memorial University of Newfoundland – Faculty of Engineering

and Applied Science, St John’s, Canada
no m

Dr Gerhard Knauf, Salzgitter Mannesmann Forschung GmbH, Duisburg, Germany

Prof. Andrew Palmer, Dept of Civil Engineering – National University of Singapore,
Sa

Singapore
Prof. Dimitri Pavlou, Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
Technological Institute of Halkida , Halkida, Greece
Dr Julia Race, School of Marine Sciences – University of Newcastle,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Dr John Smart, John Smart & Associates, Houston, TX, USA
Jan Spiekhout, Kema Gas Consulting & Services, Groningen, Netherlands
Dr Nobuhisa Suzuki, JFE R&D Corporation, Kawasaki, Japan
Prof. Sviatoslav Timashev, Russian Academy of Sciences – Science
& Engineering Centre, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Patrick Vieth, Senior Pipeline Engineer - Pipelines & Civil Engineering, BP America,
Houston, TX, USA
Dr Joe Zhou, Technology Leader, TransCanada PipeLines Ltd, Calgary, Canada
Dr Xian-Kui Zhu, Senior Research Scientist, Battelle Pipeline Technology Center,
Columbus, OH, USA

❖❖❖
1st Quarter, 2011 1

The Journal of
Pipeline Engineering
incorporating
The Journal of Pipeline Integrity

Volume 10, No 1 • First Quarter, 2011

Contents

n
Dr Jane Haswell and Peter Boothby ............................................................................................................................ 5

io
Pipeline design: are current pipe standards adequate?
st y
ut
di op

Chad Bunch, Glenn Cameron, and Rafael G Mora . ................................................................................................19

rib
Guidelines to conducting threat susceptibility and identification assessments of pipelines prior to reactivation
or c

B D Newbury, M W Hukle, D B Lillig, and J McHaney ..........................................................................................31

t f ple

The influence of linepipe base material on pipeline girth weld metal CTOD toughness

Luigino Vitali, Lorenzo Marchionni, Roberto Bruschi, and Lorenzo Bartolini......................................................41

no m

The role of internal pressure in the deformation capacity of pipelines

Sa

Dr Filip Van den Abeele and Tomas Skocovsky........................................................................................................ 57

Enhanced failure criteria for composite crack arrestors

❖❖❖

OUR COVER PICTURE shows 42-in diameter concrete-coated pipes for the Nord Stream pipeline, weighing about 25
tonnes each, being transported by a reach stacker in the stockyard at Mukran, Germany. Each pipe is fitted with some of
the 200,000 end caps supplied to the project by Roplast, the design and development of which is described in detail in a
paper in our next issue. (Photo courtesy Nord Stream.)
2 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

T HE Journal of Pipeline Engineering (incorporating the Journal of Pipeline Integrity) is an independent, international,
quarterly journal, devoted to the subject of promoting the science of pipeline engineering – and maintaining and
improving pipeline integrity – for oil, gas, and products pipelines. The editorial content is original papers on all aspects
of the subject. Papers sent to the Journal should not be submitted elsewhere while under editorial consideration.

Authors wishing to submit papers should send them to the Editor, The Journal of Pipeline Engineering, PO Box 21,
Beaconsfield, HP9 1NS, UK or to Clarion Technical Publishers, 3401 Louisiana, Suite 255, Houston, TX 77002, USA.

Instructions for authors are available on request: please contact the Editor at the address given below. All contributions
will be reviewed for technical content and general presentation.

The Journal of Pipeline Engineering aims to publish papers of quality within six months of manuscript acceptance.

Notes

1. Disclaimer: While every effort is made to check the 4. Back issues: Single issues from current and past volumes
accuracy of the contributions published in The Journal of are available for US$87.50 per copy.
Pipeline Engineering, Great Southern Press Ltd and Clarion

n
Technical Publishers do not accept responsibility for the
views expressed which, although made in good faith, are 5. Publisher: The Journal of Pipeline Engineering is

io
those of the authors alone. published by Great Southern Press Ltd (UK and Australia)
st y
ut and Clarion Technical Publishers (USA):
di op
rib
2. Copyright and photocopying: © 2011 Great Southern Great Southern Press, PO Box 21, Beaconsfield
or c

Press Ltd and Clarion Technical Publishers. All rights HP9 1NS, UK
reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, tel: +44 (0)1494 675139
t f ple

stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without fax: +44 (0)1494 670155
the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. email: jtiratsoo@gs-press.com
Authorization to photocopy items for internal and personal web: www.j-pipe-eng.com
no m

use is granted by the copyright holder for libraries and www.pipelinesinternational.com

other users registered with their local reproduction rights
Sa

organization. This consent does not extend to other kinds Editor: John Tiratsoo
of copying such as copying for general distribution, for email: jtiratsoo@gs-press.com
advertising and promotional purposes, for creating new
collective works, or for resale. Special requests should Clarion Technical Publishers, 3401 Louisiana,
be addressed to Great Southern Press Ltd, PO Box 21, Suite 255, Houston TX 77002, USA
Beaconsfield HP9 1NS, UK, or to the editor. tel: +1 713 521 5929
fax: +1 713 521 9255
web: www.clarion.org
3. Information for subscribers: The Journal of Pipeline
Engineering (incorporating the Journal of Pipeline Integrity) Associate publisher: BJ Lowe
is published four times each year. The subscription price for email: bjlowe@clarion.org
2011 is US$350 per year (inc. airmail postage). Members of
the Professional Institute of Pipeline Engineers can subscribe
for the special rate of US$175/year (inc. airmail postage). 6. ISSN 1753 2116
Subscribers receive free on-line access to all issues of the
Journal during the period of their subscription.

v v v

www.j-pipe-eng.com
is available for subscribers
1st Quarter, 2011
Editorial
Pertinent questions (1): are current pipeline design standards adequate?
T WO CURRENTLY RELEVANT QUESTIONS are
posed by the authors of the first two papers in this
issue: are gas pipeline design standards adequate, and when
is a hazard a threat (or a threat a hazard)? The answers to
both clearly have an increasing importance to all involved
with pipeline operations. Although there are few recorded
instances up to now of a pipeline failure due to poor
n
design, in this era of cost-consciousness typified by the
frequent and almost-automatic acceptance for the lowest
io
bid for materials and services, today’s designs may well be
st y
ut
found lacking in two or three decades’ time in if the correct
di op
decisions are not made using the best available science.
rib
Distinguishing between a threat and a hazard, however,
or c
has a more-immediate application, particularly in terms of
the increasing problems of third-party encroachments into
t f ple
pipeline rights-of-way.
Dr Jane Haswell and Peter Boothby start their paper on design
no m
standards by looking at the basic pipeline design criteria for
onshore gas transmission pipelines with reference to the UK
Sa
Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers’ (IGEM) TD/1
code Steel pipelines and associated installations for high
pressure gas transmission. Amendments incorporated into
the recently updated fifth edition of this important document
are highlighted, together with appropriate justifications for
the adopted changes. The paper goes on to summarise current
status of pipe standards and specifications (seen as the practical
interpretation of pipeline design criteria), and specific gaps and
anomalies that raise cause for concern are highlighted. The
issues specific to different pipe types and grades are covered,
raising the question: do current pipe standards adequately
address the necessary technical requirements, bearing in mind
the intended pipeline service application? Areas of concern
discussed in detail by reference to specific examples include
intrinsic weld geometry concerns in high-frequency welded
(HFW) pipe, the absence of a reduction of area requirement
for transverse-weld tensile tests, pipeline construction and
operation concerns associated with poor weld-bead geometry
in spiral pipe, variable flattening test behaviour in HFWpipe,
and the supply of multiple alloy types within a single pipe
order. Examples of these issues are illustrated in the paper
– where appropriate – by photographs taken at the time of
pipe production and testing.
3
As the authors point out, the material, hydrotest, and
fatigue requirements for the TD/1 pipeline standard
have been developed to reflect improvements in material
technology, improvements in material and construction,
and increased understanding of defect behaviour and
fatigue. Continuing developments mean that TD/1 is a
mature pipeline standard which provides practical rules
based on UK and international operational experience of
the gas pipeline industry. The requirements of TD/1 are
provided for the safe design, construction, and operation
of pipelines and associated equipment in accordance with
current knowledge, and will be subject to periodic review,
revision, and updating to ensure that this aim continues
to be realised.
Pipeline design standards have undergone continual
development and improvement over the years and the recent
harmonization of API 5L and ISO 3183 is considered to
herald a significant step forward in this respect. However, in
order to further ensure the integrity of future high-pressure
gas transmission pipelines, the authors consider that the
requirements of pipe standards would benefit from the
following further restrictions:
The tendency in HFW pipe for hoop strain to be concentrated
at the weld seam during (over) pressurization as a result of
the absence of weld-metal overmatching, coupled with the
localized reduced wall thickness at the weld seam, needs to
be carefully monitored.
The acceptance requirement for the cross weld tensile test
should include some measure of ductility (for example,
minimum percentage reduction of area, or minimum
percentage tensile strain), in order to prevent acceptance of
tests that simply match the parent pipe grade’s minimum
UTS level, but show minimal ductility.
The inclusion of a weld-bead profile requirement for
submerged-arc-welded pipe (specifically restricting the
minimum permitted weld contact angle at the weld toe)
is considered important for high-pressure gas pipelines,
particularly where significant pressure cycling during
operation may arise, such as for storage pipelines.
4 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
The acceptance requirement for flattening tests in the
production of HFW pipe should be further tightened to
restrict the occurrence of weld-seam breaks.
To prevent alloy variants with multiple chemical compositions
being supplied to pipeline project orders, pipe standards for
high-pressure gas transmission pipeline applications should
include a requirement that – for each pipe size and grade in
a given project order – pipe from a single target chemical
composition should be used unless agreed in advance.
Pertinent questions (2): when is a hazard a threat?
Guidelines for identifying threats and assessing a pipeline’s
susceptibility to those threats in order to select appropriate
and effective mitigation, monitoring, and prevention
measures – prior to being reactivated – are set out in the
second paper. The intention of the authors, from Canada’s
National Energy Board, is to provide a generic threat-
assessment approach that can be customized to a pipeline’s
specific characteristics and conditions, as well as to the
regulatory requirements of its own jurisdiction.
n
A literature review and authors’ experiences across the
io
pipeline industry have identified the need for a generic, yet
st y
ut
complete, approach that guides pipeline integrity engineers
di op
in the methodologies that adequately and effectively assess
rib
threats prior to reactivation, and that can be validated during
or c
the operation. This process is becoming more frequent as
pipelines face the challenges of ageing, changes in operational
t f ple
conditions, lack of maintenance, and inconsistent integrity
practices. Constraints from increasing population density,
the higher pressures and flow throughput requirements of
no m
a competitive marketplace, and regulatory requirements
insisting on higher levels of safety and protection of the
Sa
environment, are similarly of increasing significance.
The paper considers the following areas, intended to assist
in conducting threat assessments:
• current regulations and recognized industry
standards with respect to reactivating pipelines;
• the definition of, and differentiation between,
hazard and threat;
• hazard-identification analysis for the known and
potential situations, events and conditions; and
• threat susceptibility and identification analysis
process for the known categories derived from the
hazard identification process.
As is pointed out, the results from a threat-susceptibility
and identification assessment process can help operators,
consultants, and regulators to determine the effective
inspection, mitigation, prevention. and monitoring measures.
By noting the difference between the words ‘hazard’ and
‘threat’, a process can be used to facilitate flow between the
hazard-identification and threat-identification processes, and
this is known as threat-susceptibility assessment. During the
hazard-identification process, an operator can benefit from
procedures such as HAZOPs or ‘what-if’ techniques which
can be used to assist in identifying a comprehensive list of
possible hazards to a pipeline. During the threat-susceptibility
process, the operator can then review each known industry
threat and determine whether it has the hazards that give
that threat the capability to do harm to the pipeline’s
integrity. If a pipeline is – or has been – susceptible to a
threat, the operator must conduct a threat-identification
process to determine whether the threat actually exists
and, if it does, to determine its extent and severity. Further
assessment must also be conducted to identify threats and the
consequent likelihood of failure, their growth mechanism,
and appropriate mitigation.
As the authors emphasize, by determining the susceptibility
of its pipeline to a comprehensive list of threats prior to
reactivation, the operator stands to gain confidence in itself,
as well as in stakeholders and authorities. This is a proactive
approach which gives the operator the advantage of foresight
which can help to reduce the likelihood of cost-intensive
and risky failures.
ScholarOne comes to the Journal
W
E ARE PLEASED to announce that the Journal
of Pipeline Engineering will shortly implement
the widely-respected ScholarOne manuscript-management
process for all the papers we publish. As many will know,
this is an online system through which authors can upload
their manuscripts, and through which the manuscripts
and be rapidly and efficiently circulated to our reviewers.
Reviewers are able rapidly and straightforwardly to send
their comments both to the author and to the editor. The
integrity of the system will provide authors with the assurance
that their papers are being professionally refereed by a peer
group from their own industry. Where necessary, comments
and suggestions are sent directly to the author, who can then
choose to modify the manuscript accordingly.
Through the use of this system we will achieve our aim of
becoming publisher in the Journal of fully-refereed papers,
which will provide benefits both to our readers and to our
authors, and more widely to the high-pressure transmission
pipeline industry as a whole. The Journal, founded ten years
ago as the Journal of Pipeline Integrity and reformatted
with its current title in 2007, will maintain its position as
the only publication for this industry that publishes peer-
reviewed papers; we hope that the addition of Thompson
Reuter’s ScholarOne system will enhance and improve its
reputation and influence.
It is our intention that, by 1 May, prospective authors will
be able to submit their manuscripts to us using this system,
a link and instructions for which will be found on our site
at www.j-pipe-eng.com.
1st Quarter, 2011 5

Pipeline design: are current pipe

standards adequate?
by Dr Jane Haswell1 and Peter Boothby2

1 Pipeline Integrity Engineers Ltd, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

2 MACAW Engineering Ltd, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

T he paper commences by identifying the basic pipeline design criteria for onshore gas transmission
pipelines by reference to the UK Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers (IGEM) TD/1 code ‘Steel
pipelines and associated installations for high pressure gas transmission’.Amendments incorporated into the
recently updated Edition 5 of that document are then highlighted together with appropriate justification for
the adopted changes.The current status of pipe standards and specifications (i.e. the practical interpretation
of pipeline design criteria) is then summarised, highlighting specific gaps and anomalies that raise cause for
concern. Issues specific to different pipe types and grades are covered, raising the question: do current pipe
standards adequately address the necessary technical requirements, bearing in mind the intended pipeline
service application? Areas of concern discussed in detail by reference to specific examples include intrinsic
weld geometry concerns in high-frequency welded pipe, the absence of a reduction of area requirement for

n
transverse weld tensile tests, pipeline construction and operation concerns associated with poor weld bead
geometry in spiral pipe, variable flattening test behaviour in high-frequency welded pipe, and the supply of

io
multiple alloy types within a single pipe order. The above examples are illustrated graphically in the paper
st y
ut
where appropriate by photographs taken at the time of pipe production and testing.
di op
rib

T
or c

he UK pipeline code IGEM/TD/1 [1] was originally Institution of Gas Engineers in 1965, as Communication
based on a detailed study of the design and operating 674 [3]. Recommendations, superseding Communication
t f ple

experience in a large number of countries, particularly 674 [4-7], were published as Edition 1 in 1970. This was
America and Europe. Code principles and experience were developed progressively between 1970 and 1977 [4-7], and
used to develop unique features which would ensure the consolidated in IGE/TD/1 Edition 1 1977 [8].
no m

safe operation of high-pressure gas transmission pipelines in

the UK, taking account of the restrictions placed by the way Later in 1977, the design section was further revised and
Sa

cities and towns have developed and the resulting patterns
of population density [2]. The IGEM/TD/1 pipeline code
has been developed and updated to take into account new
technology and operational experience. The review and
assessment of operating experience includes assessment
of the historical performance of pipelines, and learning
obtaining from incidents which have occurred.
Overview of IGEM/TD/1
Development
TD/1, published by the Institution of Gas Engineers and
Managers, is a mature pipeline standard which has developed
to meet the requirements of the UK gas industry and has been
published as a series of communications by the Institution.
Recommendations on the installation of steel pipelines for
high-pressure gas transmission were first published by the
This paper was first presented at the 8th International Pipeline Conference held in
Calgary, Canada, in September 2010, and organized by ASME.
*Author’s contact details:
tel: +44 (0)191 216 4930
email: peter.boothby@macawengineering.com
issued as Edition 2 [9]. A further revision, IGE/TD/1 Complete
Edition 2, was published in 1984 [10], extending the maximum
permissible design pressure from 70 bar to 100 bar. Edition
3 was published in 1993 [11]. This introduced guidance for
risk analysis and provided more comprehensive guidance for
testing, commissioning and condition monitoring. Three
supplements to IGE/TD/1 Edition 3 were published in
1999 and 2000 on handling, transport, and storage of steel
pipe, bends, and fittings (Supplement 1) [12], 1219-mm (48-
in) pipelines (Supplement 2) [13], and uprating the design
factor to 0.8 (Supplement 3) [14]. Edition 4 was published in
2001 [15], and this included supplements 2 and 3 to Edition
3; Supplement 1 became a supplement to Edition 4. This
revision provided comprehensive guidance on the uprating
of pipelines to design factors greater than 0.72. Edition 5 was
published in 2008 [1]: a number of significant changes are
covered in this edition, including removal of the upper limit
to the maximum operating pressure (formerly limited to 100
bar), inclusion of advice on the relevant safety evaluation for
a maximum operating pressure (MOP) exceeding 100 bar,
and the addition of requirements for associated installations.
Supplement 1 to IGE/TD/1 Edition 4 is now a Supplement
1 to IGEM/TD/1 Edition 5.
 n
io
st y
ut 22-23 June 2011
di op
rib
Hilton Hotel, Newcastle, UK
or c
t f ple

Join the industry in Newcastle, UK, to take the challenges of CO2

transportation by pipeline head on.
no m

As governments around the world search for answers to mitigate climate change through carbon
Sa

capture and storage, the pipeline industry will be meeting in Newcastle, UK, to develop the missing
link: CO2 pipelines.
Forum programme
Over two days industry experts will meet to address the challenges presented by the transportation of
CO2 by pipeline including:
» The economics of pipeline transportation;
» The materials to be used;
» Regulations and risk assessment;
» Hydraulic modelling; and,
» Operations and maintenance.
Know where the pipeline market is heading – make sure you register for the International Forum
on the Transportation of CO2 for CCS.

ORGANIZERS

For more information visit www.clarion.org

1st Quarter, 2011
Scope
The pipeline standard TD/1 covers the design,
construction, inspection, testing, operation, and
maintenance of steel pipelines and associated installations
for the transmission of dry natural gas (predominantly
methane), with or without odorisation, at an MOP
exceeding 16 bar and at operating temperatures between
–25°C and +120°C. The standard applies directly to MOPs
up to 100 bar, and MOPs greater than 100 bar with a fully
justified and documented safety evaluation. The safety
evaluation involves a systematic study of the major hazard
potential of a pipeline and its associated installations,
covering design, construction, and operation. The
purpose is to demonstrate that all necessary measures
to prevent a major accident, and limit its consequences,
have been taken. It includes the requirement for a full,
quantified, risk assessment, specific consideration of
material requirements, pressure boundaries and the
control regime, and additional maintenance and risk
management requirements. Where TD/1 is applied to
pipelines transporting other gases, the characteristics
of the gas and the consequential effects upon design,
n
materials, operations, and maintenance of the pipeline
have to be taken into account.
io
st y
The main sections of TD/1 are:
ut
di op
rib
• M anagement systems, including quality assurance
or c
and control, safety management, integrity
management, and environmental management.
t f ple
• Planning and legal, including detailed requirements
and guidance for the route selection process, land
rights and access, production of construction
no m
plans and legal considerations, with specific
consideration of legal compliance requirements
Sa
in the UK.
• M aterials, including recommended standards
and specifications for linepipe, fittings and
components, and material testing and weldability
requirements.
• Design, including gas quality requirements, pipeline
sizing, wall thickness requirements (for pressure
containment and handling), assessment of additional
loads (calculation of stresses and stress acceptance
criteria), fatigue design, classification of area types
(rural (R), suburban (S), town (T)) according to
population density and infrastructure development,
the procedure for estimating population criteria and
the design of pipelines in R and S areas (the design
of pipelines in T areas is covered in IGE/TD/3
[2]) and design requirements for construction and
operation and maintenance.
• Construction, including safety and environmental
requirements and controls, receiving of materials,
welding, non-destructive examination (NDE),
depth of cover, inspection of coating, lowering-
into the trench, bedding, covering and backfilling,
construction of crossings (including sleeved and
7
tunnel crossings), reinstatement and marking
and tie-ins after testing, and the requirement for
installation of temporary cathodic protection (CP).
• Testing, including detailed guidance for high level
(105% SMYS) and standard (1.5 x MOP) testing of
pipelines and the associated acceptance criteria,
testing of installations, and repair of test failures.
• Commissioning, including detailed requirements
for pigging, drying, purging and gassing-up.
• P rotection against corrosion, including
identification of hazards (stray direct currents
(DC), alternating currents (AC), stress-corrosion
cracking (SCC)), coating requirements, cathodic
protection design.
• Associated installations, including site selection
and layout, pipework design and stress analysis,
materials and construction.
• O per ation and maintenance, including
management, sur veillance, inspection and
maintenance frequencies, setting operational
pressure levels procedure for the affirmation of
MOP (including the TD/1 route audit), uprating
of MOP, and reassessment of design life.
IGEM/TD/1 material, hydrotest,
and fatigue requirements
The primary material requirements for qualification relate
to strength, fracture toughness, and weldability. Adequate
strength allows high-pressure operation within designed
safety margins, minimum fracture toughness requirements
ensure pipelines can be operated within design limits
without risk of propagating brittle or ductile fractures,
and weldability requirements ensure the maximum
opportunity for high-quality construction under field-
welding conditions. IGEM/TD/1 specifies that steel pipes
should be seamless, longitudinally welded or spirally welded
in accordance with the relevant API specification and the
gas industry supplements to these specifications which
cover more stringent requirements for fracture toughness,
dimensional tolerances, and field weldability.
Fracture toughness
IGEM/TD/1 is unique in that it has always specified
that fracture-toughness requirements are mandatory. The
fracture-control philosophy for IGEM/TD/1, which is
based on prevention of fracture initiation and propagation,
and the fracture-arrest requirements for pipeline design
to limit the extent of damage and facilitate replacement,
was developed from a programme of gas industry research
carried out at the British Gas Engineering Research
Station [16-19] that expanded upon work undertaken
at the Battelle Memorial Institute. The requirement to
consider propagation as well as initiation is essential in
pipelines due to the long lengths involved and the finite
probability of external interference, which mean that
fracture initiation is possible. The work was conducted
on the basis that extensive propagating fractures cannot
8 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
Fig.1. DWTT specimens tested at different test temperatures.
be tolerated for safety, economic, and security of supply
requirements.
n
Fracture propagation is a problem in high-pressure gas
pipelines as the energy released by the decompressing gas
io
provides a driving force for the fracture propagation. Brittle
st y
ut
fracture occurs by a cleavage process involving minimal
di op
deformation, and consequently little energy is required to
rib
propagate this mode of fracture. Ductile fracture occurs
or c
by a shear process on the micro, and often macro, scale
and is consequently accompanied by large amounts of
t f ple
deformation. Both brittle and ductile fracture behaviour
are heavily dependent upon the metallurgical properties
of the steel.
no m
Development of fracture-toughness requirements
Sa
Fracture toughness is a measure of the resistance of pipe
material to fracture in either a brittle or ductile manner. The
requirements for fracture toughness to avoid propagating
brittle fractures are achieved by using suitable impact testing
procedures. Edition 2 requires that for line pipe of diameter
323.8mm diameter and above, a full-wall drop-weight-tear test
(DWTT) is performed. For diameters less than this, extraction
of the required specimen for this test is not possible, and
fracture-appearance testing using Charpy impact testing at
a reduced test temperature is substituted. The criterion for
acceptance on the basis of fracture appearance relates the
amount of brittle appearance to a given test temperature. For
design factors up to 0.72, a minimum DWTT shear area of
75% (i.e. less than 25% brittle fracture) was required at 0°C
for new linepipe (Fig.1).
Edition 2 states that safe operation of existing pipelines for
which the 75% shear area is obtained only at temperatures
higher than 0°C is possible only at reduced pressures. Edition 2
provides the relationship between design factor and transition
temperature, but states that the curve may only be used when
detailed knowledge of the fracture-toughness properties of the
individual pipe lengths making up the pipeline is available;
Fig.2. Charpy specimens tested at different test temperatures.
where only sample data is available, expert advice must be
sought. Edition 2 states that there are no DWTT requirements
for pipelines operating at design factors below 0.3.
For pipelines operating at design factors greater than 0.3,
the possibility of propagating ductile fractures must also be
eliminated by ensuring that the material possesses an adequate
ductile-fracture resistance. This is measured by Charpy impact
testing. The required Charpy energy level depends upon
the dimensions of the specimen and the material grade.
Safe operation of pipelines for which the specified values
of Charpy energy levels are not satisfied is possible if the
operating pressure is restricted. A curve giving the relationship
between Charpy impact energy and a reduction factor for
operating pressure is provided. Use of this curve also requires
that detailed knowledge of the fracture-toughness properties
of the individual pipes making up the pipeline is available,
and when assessing existing pipelines on a small number of
samples, expert advice should be obtained in interpreting the
data. Expert advice is required for the operation of pipelines
where the material Charpy energy levels are below 20J.
Development of DWTT for specification purposes
Early research into fracture propagation in pipelines showed
that shear cracks propagated (in the ductile mode) slowly,
while brittle cleavage cracks travelled at speeds which
exceeded the gas decompression speed. In addition the
research showed that a transition temperature could be
obtained from the change in fracture appearance of a drop-
weight-tear test specimen, and that this correlated with a
transition in fracture speed measured in full-scale fracture
propagation tests. This research resulted in the adoption
of DWTT requirements in purchase specifications; the
75% shear area criterion originally adopted in National
Grid (formerly Transco and British Gas) specifications
corresponds with a high probability that fracture speeds
would be lower than the gas-decompression speed, which
implies that brittle fracture propagation would not occur
in a material satisfying this criterion.
1st Quarter, 2011 9

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple

Fig.3. Charpy impact test transition curve (schematic).

no m

Development of Charpy impact requirements

Sa

and an analysis of British Gas full-scale test data showed that

The Charpy impact test provides a reasonable indication
of steel quality, but cannot be used to predict brittle-crack
propagation or arrest with any precision. This is because the
specimen has a blunt notch and is small in size.
Inadequate levels of ductile-fracture resistance can result
in extensive fracture propagation in the ductile mode, and
examples of this type of pipeline failure were experienced
in the USA in 1969. Research involving full-scale testing
was used to define the level of ductile-fracture resistance
necessary to effect fracture arrest, and for pipe specification
purposes the Charpy upper-shelf energy is used as a measure
of fracture resistance, see Figs 2 and 3.
Full-scale tests are used to simulate as closely as possible
the conditions experienced by an operational pipeline. An
artificially induced fracture is introduced, and the test may
show arrest or fracture propagation, in which the fracture
occurs at constant velocity and could propagate indefinitely.
The Charpy upper-shelf energy shown in Fig.3 has been
successful in characterising pipe material for full-scale tests,
the majority of full-scale tests are successfully classified using
the Charpy upper-shelf energy as a measure of toughness.
The Charpy test is limited by the restricted size of the
specimen, and the relationship between Charpy energy and
fracture-propagation resistance is known to break down for
high-strength steels (i.e. ≥ X100) where a high upper-shelf
energy does not guarantee adequate fracture resistance.
Fracture-control requirements
Fracture control requires consideration of fracture-initiation
and propagation behaviour, and the TD/1 pipeline code
requires that adequate fracture-control measures are in place
for all high-pressure gas pipelines, as gas decompression (of
any fluid) can provide a fracture-driving force which can lead
to propagating fractures if the pipe toughness specification
is not adequate.
In simple terms the key requirements are:
• Ensuring that the material toughness is adequate
to tolerate small flaws (specifically material
manufacturing f laws acceptable to material
10
quality assurance (QA) standards and fabrication
workmanship flaws acceptable to workmanship
standards). This involves ensuring that the transition
temperature of the pipe and component material
is known and is below the design and operational
requirements.
• In the event of a rupture, the fracture propagation is
ductile. This involves ensuring that, in the event of a
rupture, operation will be at a temperature above the
brittle-ductile transition temperature of the material.
• The steel has sufficient energy-absorption capacity
(toughness) to arrest a ductile fracture. This involves
ensuring the pipe material toughness is sufficient to
arrest a running ductile fracture.
• Having in place an efficient and effective inspection,
maintenance, and repair strategy which will identify
and repair damage before it results in initiation and
propagation.
This involves understanding the defect size associated
with different damage mechanisms which may initiate and
propagate as a fracture. In general this relates to sharp,
n
crack-like defects, but other defects, such as corrosion,
may result in initiation and propagation if they are large
io
enough or may be associated with a cracking mechanism.
st y
ut
It is essential that such defects are recognized, identified by
di op
inspection, assessed, and repaired before they may become
rib
an initiation or propagation threat.
or c
Fracture initiation is associated with the critical (axial) length
t f ple
of a defect which will result in a rupture, and is dependent
upon the pipe geometry, material properties, and operating
stress. Fracture propagation occurs when the energy released
no m
by the decompressing gas drives the fracture.
Sa
A fracture-control plan is required as part of the design
strategy of pipelines and generally involves specifying design
requirements in terms of:
• The minimum ductile-brittle transition temperature
(DBTT) of the material, which is confirmed by
specifying appropriate drop-weight-tear test (DWTT)
requirements (i.e. minimum 75% shear area at 0oC).
• The minimum toughness requirements to avoid
brittle initiation and ensure ductile propagation
arrest.
• Definition of limiting tolerable defect sizes for all
potential damage mechanisms.
• Specification of the inspection strategy to identify
defects before the limiting size is reached, and
development of defect-assessment procedures and
defect repair plans.
Hydrotest requirements
TD/1 specifies that high-level strength testing is applied to
pipelines operating at design factors up to 0.72 and greater
than 0.3 to ensure freedom from defects which may reach
a critical size in service. The philosophy for the high-level
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
hydrotest is that if there are defects in a pipeline, then the
higher the pressure to which a pipe is subjected, the more
likely it is that such defects will fail. The high-level test
pressure is specified to generate a hoop stress of 105% of
the specified minimum yield stress (SMYS) for seam-welded
pipe, and 90% SMYS for seamless pipe. A lower test pressure
– equal to 1.5 x MOP – is specified for pipelines operating
at design factors up to 0.3. In both cases the test pressure
must be held for 24 hours.
In developing the practical requirements for this philosophy,
research was carried out to investigate the impact of the
pressure/stress level and the period over which this should
be held. The potential that the high-level pressure test could
result in damage by causing existing defects to grow but
survive the test and fail during service was investigated.
From the results it was concluded that provided the test
pressure is restricted to a level that will reasonably ensure
that the maximum plastic strain in any pipe in the section
under test does not exceed 1%, then the high-level test will
have no adverse effects on the sound parts of the pipeline.
The test-hold period was derived from an assessment of the
time at which test failures due to defect growth occurred
in test data recorded in the USA. These data indicated
that 50% of the defects found will become evident on
pressurisation, 16% in the first hour of the ‘hold’ period,
18% in the next four hours, and the remaining 16% in
the final 19 hours of a 24-hour test. Based on this, TD/1
specifies that the test pressure should be held for a period
of not less than 24 hours.
TD/1 Edition 5 states that prior to the use of any high-
pressure pipeline or its associated installations, a hydrostatic
strength test has to be carried out. For pipelines designed
for operation at design factors exceeding 0.3, a high-level
hydrotest is required. This requirement may be relaxed to
a pressure of 1.5 x MOP if the pipeline is not significantly
line packed, i.e. the daily variation in hoop stress does not
exceed 35N/mm2, or if a detailed fracture-mechanics’ fatigue
assessment of the expected pressure cycling shows that the
required design life is achieved. It is emphasised that the
TD/1 design fatigue assessment of the pipeline is based on
the benefits of high-level testing in limiting the size of defects
entering service, as well as the introduction of beneficial
residual compressive stresses on the remaining defects.
Fatigue requirements
The strategy and research work for the development of
fatigue recommendations for inclusion in the pipeline
code TD/1 commenced in the 1970s [3]. At that time, the
requirement was for a simple approach which ‘designed
out’ fatigue for pipelines subjected to a high-level hydrotest
(ie 105% SMYS) and subsequently operated at a maximum
stress of 72% SMYS.
Research work carried out to develop the TD/1 fatigue design
rules focused on addressing worst-case material quality and
1st Quarter, 2011 11

manufacture standards, i.e. SAW pipe of poor geometry (roof

topping, plate offset, and ovality), as a number of hydrotest
failures from long defects at the internal (SAW) weld toes
had occurred in pipes with these characteristics (see Fig.4).
The operational life of a transmission pipeline required by
the industry at that time was considered to be 40 years. It
was therefore assumed that pipes entered service with defects
typical of SAW pipes with poor geometry and defects of the
maximum size that could survive the 105% SMYS hydrotest.
The size of defect which would fail at 72% SMYS was then
determined, and the fatigue life of the pipeline was judged
in terms of the number of cycles (or time) to propagate by Fig.4. Fatigue crack at SAW pipe weld toe.
fatigue from the size which would survive the hydrotest to
the size which could fail at 72% SMYS. In determining the above defect sizes, the flow stress
was derived as σ =1.315 × σSMYS. This flow stress value
Determination of the daily stress range which would ensure reflected the fact that the yield stress for pipe material
no fatigue failure in 40 years was therefore identified as the manufactured in the 1960s was confirmed in full-scale
key outcome of the work. This corresponds to the number tests [10] to be at least a grade higher than the specified
of cycles of 1 x 365 x 40 = 14,600, so a simple fatigue minimum.
requirement of 15,000 cycles was defined.
In summary, the first TD/1 fatigue requirement was
An extensive programme of full-scale tests (generally deliberately simple as it was intended to be a conservative

n
involving SAW pipe of poor geometry (roof topping, ‘rule of thumb’ which could be easily applied by the
plate offset and ovality) and analysis was conducted. In industry without resorting to complex fatigue analysis.

io
summary the results of the work identified that: A pipeline that survived a 105% SMYS hydrotest could
st y
ut operate at 72% SMYS for 40 years provided the daily
di op

• The maximum depth of an infinitely long surface- stress cycle did not exceed 125N/mm2. If this was the
rib
breaking defect typical of poor quality SAW pipe case at the design stage then, for example, thicker-walled
or c

which could survive the 105% hydrotest was 20% pipe was to be considered in order to reduce the daily
of the pipe wall thickness. cycle to 125N/mm2.
t f ple

• The maximum depth of an infinitely long surface-

breaking defect that would fail at a stress of 72% The results of the original work were introduced into
SMYS was 40% of the pipe wall thickness. TD/1 Edition 2. Since the original work was carried
no m

• The stress range which would cause propagation out, TD/1 has been progressively updated to become
of an infinitely long defect of 20% depth to 40% more accurate (and correspondingly more complex) to
Sa

depth over 15,000 cycles is 125N/mm2. meet the changing needs of the business. The need to

Fig.5. Comparison of fatigue guidance given in TD/1 Editions 3 and 4.

12
Fig.6. HFW pipe seam weld.
address different stress ranges different to 125N/mm2
was addressed by introducing simple, conservative stress
range counting rules in Edition 3. These counting rules
were replaced in Edition 4 by the equation:
S3N = 2.93 x 1010
where:
S = constant amplitude stress range (Nmm-2)
N = number of cycles
n
In the above equation, the cubic exponent is consistent
with other industry codes such as BS7608 [11] and PD
io
5500 [12], and the upper and lower stress cycle limits of
st y
ut
165N/mm2 and 35N/mm2 are retained, as shown in Fig.5.
di op
Edition 4 also introduced guidance on and allowed the
rib
reduction of real-world complex-stress cycling to equivalent
or c
cycles using cycle-counting techniques such as rainflow or
reservoir methods, and provided guidance on the use of
t f ple
fracture-mechanics’ analysis. Editions 4 and 5 allow the
application of fracture mechanics and structural-reliability
analysis (SRA) to evaluate pipelines which have been
no m
hydrotested to levels other than 105% SMYS and which
operate at stress levels other than 72% SMYS.
Sa
The fundamental basis of TD/1 has remained constant
throughout the development of the fatigue rules: the
fatigue life of a pipeline should be judged in terms of the
largest defect that can survive the pre-service hydrotest.
This means that for low hydrotest levels the (theoretical)
remaining defect is ‘large’ and the consequential fatigue
life is ‘low’. In this situation TD/1 permits (if necessary)
the use of SRA, which takes into account the probability
that the pipeline will actually contain a defect of this
theoretical size.
The 40-year life represents an arbitrary fatigue design limit
based on one daily pressure cycle of an equivalent stress
range of 125N/mm2. In reality, operations’ experience
confirms that, in general, gas pipelines are not subject to
this daily stress range, and in most cases do not contain
defects which would fail after 15,000 cycles at 125N/
mm2. The design life of a gas pipeline which has been
operated and maintained in accordance with TD/1 is
generally in excess of 80 years, and is limited by issues such
as coating degradation, deterioration of the CP system,
and equipment obsolescence in addition to fatigue. TD/1
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
Edition 5 includes a procedure for the reassessment and
extension of pipeline design life, and includes a detailed
review of design, operational, and maintenance history
and assessment of the integrity status.
Summary of IGEM/TD/1
development
The material, hydrotest, and fatigue requirements of
the TD/1 pipeline standard have been developed and
extended in the various editions as materials’ manufacture
and construction methods have improved and as fatigue
modelling techniques have developed. The requirements
are interrelated and are specified taking account of this. The
material properties define the failure mode of the pipeline
and are specified to prevent brittle fracture, and ensure any
propagating fracture is ductile and will be arrested. The
quality of material and construction defines the distribution
of defects which may be present, the high-level hydrotest
removes defects of a given size and type by causing these
to fail, and the fatigue design life of the pipeline is then
defined by assuming that the theoretical distribution of
worst-case defects which could survive the hydrotest exists.
The development of the material, hydrotest, and fatigue
requirements of TD/1 is summarized in Table 1.
Current status of pipe standards
A major milestone was achieved with the publication of
ISO 3183:2007 and the harmonized 44th edition of API
5L, the latter being effective from October 2008. Since
that time Addendum 1 and an errata document to API 5L
have been issued in February 2009, and further Addenda
are in preparation. Joint-working-group meetings of ISO
TC67/SC2-WG16 and API WG 4210 continue to review
comments and interpretation requests on the harmonized
standard. One major area currently under discussion is the
issue of satisfactorily addressing the requirements of the
European onshore gas industry which currently uses the
EN 10208-2 pipe standard. A recently completed EPRG-
funded study [21] has produced a detailed comparison of
the requirements of the two standards and will form the
basis of a proposal to extend the scope of application of
the harmonized API 5L / ISO 3183 standard to include
the European onshore gas industry in a future revision of
the harmonized international standard.
1st Quarter, 2011 13

YP (0.5%) (MPa) TS (MPa) Elongation (%) Y/T Ratio Weld TS (MPa)

450 – 570 535 min 18% min 0.87 max 535 min
546 632 20 0.80 617
544 636 21 0.80 610
Table 1. Development of TD/1 material, hydrotest, and fatigue requirements.

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c

Fig.7.Transweld tensile specimens.

t f ple

It is recognized that the detailed technical content of pipe

standards has increased progressively over many years and this
no m

has provided a significant contribution to improved pipeline

integrity. By way of example the current API 5L / ISO 3183
Sa

harmonized standard contains 153 pages. This compares with

only 87 pages in the API 5L 33rd Edition published in 1983
which was the first combined version of the standard (i.e.
incorporating API 5L, 5LX and 5LS). Nevertheless, the case
study examples given in the following section demonstrate
that there is a continuing need to challenge the adequacy
of requirements in current pipe standards.
Case studies
High-frequency welded pipe
intrinsic weld geometry
Figure 6 shows a typical transverse profile of a HFW pipe
seam weld. The specific example is of a 610-mm outside
diameter x 9.52-mm L360MB (X52) pipe. Annotated on
the macro photograph are wall thickness dimensions in the
region of the weld seam. Several features can be observed
in the figure as follows:
• The weld is autogenous, hence the opportunity to
achieve weld metal overmatching by consumable
selection is unavailable.
Fig.8.Transweld tensile: load vs tensile strain curves.
• The wall thickness at weld seam is reduced
compared with the actual pipe thickness remote
from the weld due to internal and external trim
removal.
• The wall thickness in parent material either side of
the weld is enhanced compared with the actual pipe
thickness remote from the weld due to forging of
coil strip edges during welding.
As a consequence, any pipe strain occurring in the hoop
direction, for example during high-level hydrotesting, will be
concentrated at the weld seam and hence defects present on
the weld line due to non optimization of welding parameters
may lead to pipeline failure.
The weld geometry shown meets the requirements of pipe
standards which place restrictions on the degree of weld trim
permitted. Typically, wall thickness not less than minimum
specified and 0.05t maximum groove depth for the 9.5-mm
thickness pipe shown.
14 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

By contrast, basic welding engineering design concepts

dictate that weld procedures for SAW pipe seam welding
or girth welding of pipelines employ overmatching welding
consumables. In addition, the cross-sectional thickness
at the weld is generally greater than that of the parent
pipe due to excess metal at the cap. The combination of
overmatching weld metal strength and increased cross-
sectional thickness at the weld ensures that any strain
arising occurs away from the weld where welding defects
may be present.

In this manner the HFW pipe weld seam could be described

Fig.9. SAWH pipe weld profile. as being of a non-‘fail safe’ design, therefore placing great
emphasis on the importance of weld seam quality and the
online NDT testing to identify the presence of any defects
that may lead to premature failure.

Transverse weld tensile test reduction of area

Figure 7 shows two pairs of transweld tensile specimens taken
during production testing for a 610-mm OD x 19.1-mm wall
thickness L450MB (X65) HFW pipe order. Two different
types of behaviour are evident, with one pair showing

n
moderate ductility with notable reduction of specimen cross
section evident at the fracture surfaces, whereas the second

io
pair shows minimal reduction of area and very flat fracture
st y
ut surface appearance. Load versus tensile strain curves for the
di op

two types of failure, generated for information purposes

rib
only, confirm a difference in tensile strain associated with
or c

the different fracture behaviour (Fig.8). Interestingly, there

is very little difference in measured tensile strength between
t f ple

the two types of specimen, with the minimum requirement

of the specification (i.e. 535MPa) being comfortably achieved
in both cases (Table2). Table 2 also includes parent material
no m

tensile test data for both casts, indicating that parent material
tensile properties are consistent and not the cause of the
Sa

different x-weld test behaviour.

For x-weld tensile testing, pipe standards require only that

the specified minimum tensile strength for the pipe grade
is achieved, and consequently this observed variation in test
behaviour would normally go unreported. It is therefore
suggested that some measure of ductility (such as % tensile
strain or reduction of area) should be considered for inclusion
as an additional requirement in standards for pipe intended
for high-pressure gas transmission service.

Spiral pipe weld bead geometry

Fig.10. Flattening test specimens.
Pipe standards place restrictions on weld profiles, with
weld-bead height, interpenetration, weld-bead offset,
and undercut being common parameters referenced.
However, in terms of fatigue performance, the weld-toe
profile has an important influence. Submerged-arc-welded
helical-seam (SAWH) – alternatively named spiral pipe –
is at a disadvantage compared to submerged-arc-welded
longitudinal-seam (SAWL) pipe with regard to weld
profile due to the influence of pipe rotation during pipe
forming and seam welding. As a consequence, unlike
for SAWL pipe, the solidifying weld is continually being
1st Quarter, 2011 15

TD/1 Edition 1 Edition 1 Edition 2 Edition 3 Edition 4 Edition 5

Requirement 1970 1977 1984 1993 2001 2008
Pressure (bar) 69 69 100 100 100 No limit
Diameter
914 914 1067 1067 1219 1219
(mm)
Material
X60 X60 X65 X80 X80 X100
Grade

Material API 5L BS EN 10208-2 BS EN 10208-2

API 5L API 5L API 5L
Specification BS EN 10208-2 ISO 3183-2 ISO 3183-2

Dia. ≥ Dia. ≥ 32.8mm Clarification

323.8mm: of test
DWTT DF ≥ 0.3: requirements
DWTT
P≥ 24bar, dia ≥
Fracture 610mm Shear area
Toughness ≥75% at 0°C
Hoop stress
restricted to Charpy ≥ 20J
0.65 SMYS
DF < 0.3 – no

n
requirements

io
P≥ 24 bar: DF ≥ 0.3:
st y
seam – 105%
ut seam – 105%
di op

SMYS SMYS
rib
seamless – 90% seamless – 90%
or c

SMYS SMYS
Hydrotest
t f ple

P< 24bar, DF < 0.3: 1.5 x

lower of 2x MOP
MOP or 75%
SMYS 24hr
no m

test
Sa

Significant 15000 cycles As Edition 2, Table of factors Guidance on

linepack: of 125N/mm2 table of factors replaced by reassessment
seek specialist following high for stress ranges SN equation, of design life
advice level hydrotest. up to 165N/mm2 guidance on added.
Fatigue application
Table of factors of fracture
for stress ranges mechanics and
up to 105N/mm2 cycle-counting
methods
Table 2. HFW pipe tensile test results

rotated out of the flat (i.e. 1G / PA) position, resulting
in an adverse effect on the weld profile. An example of
the weld profile that can arise when SAWH pipe welding
parameters have not been optimised is given in Fig.9,
which shows a transverse weld macro section taken during
production of 914-mm OD x 12.7-mm wall thickness
L485 (X70) SAWH pipe.
The inclusion of a weld-bead profile requirement in pipe
standards may drive an improvement in SAWH pipe weld
profile which could be beneficial for pipelines designed for
significant pressure cycling applications, such as storage
pipelines.
Very few company specifications appear to place an
additional restriction on weld-bead profile. One exception
is National Grid in the UK which requires 130° angle at the
weld toe for SAWL pipe, and for SAWH pipe 120° (external
weld) and 100° (internal weld), the different requirement
between the two pipe types reflecting in part for SAWH
16
pipe the more favourable weld-seam angle relative to the
principal hoop stress.
High-frequency welded pipe
flattening-test behaviour
The acceptance requirement for the flattening test specified
in the API 5L / ISO 3183:2007 pipe standard for EW pipe
in grades ≥ L210 or A is as follows:
• For grades ≥ L415 or X60 with t ≥ 12.7mm (0.500
in), there shall be no opening of the weld before the
distance between the plates is less than 66% of the
original outside diameter. For all other combinations
of pipe grade and specified wall thickness, there
shall be no opening of the weld before the distance
between the plates is less than 50% of the original
outside diameter.
• For pipe with a D/t > 10, there shall be no cracks
or breaks other than in the weld before the distance
between the plates is less than 33% of the original
outside diameter.
n
The acceptance requirement for the flattening test specified
in the European pipe standard EN 10208-2 closely matches
io
the requirement that was in API 5L prior to the issue of the
st y
ut
43rd Edition in 2004, and is as follows:
di op
rib
The flattening test shall be carried out in three steps with
or c
the following acceptance criteria:
t f ple
• Flatten to 2/3rds of the original outside diameter,
no weld opening shall occur.
• Flatten to 1/3rd of the original outside diameter, no
no m
crack or break shall occur other than in the weld.
• Flatten until opposite sides of the pipe meet. The
Sa
presence of laminar imperfections or burnt metal
shall not become apparent during the entire test.
The API 5L / ISO 3183:2007 pipe standard and EN 10208-2
standards allow weld seam opening or even a break on the weld
seam to occur at any time after the pipe has been flattened
to beyond either 2/3rds or 1/2 of its original diameter.
Examples of weld-seam cracking and of a weld-seam break
relating to flattening tests performed during the production
of 610-mm x 19.1-mm L450MB HFW pipe are shown in
Fig.10. From the figure it is clear that there is a significant
difference in material behaviour between the flattening
test examples shown. However, all meet the requirements
of both the API 5L / ISO 3183 and the EN 10208-2 pipe
standards, and are therefore considered equally acceptable.
Consequently there would be no record made of the different
behaviour occurring during production testing. However,
from both a metallurgical and structural perspective, weld-
seam breaks are considered undesirable and efforts should
therefore be focused on optimizing production parameters
to ensure that this latter mode of flattening test behaviour
is eliminated.
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
Multiple alloy types within a single pipe order
This example concerns 1219-mm OD x 14.3-22.9-mm wall
thickness L555MB (X80) grade SAWL pipe. This pipe
had traditionally been supplied over a number of years to
a CMnMoNbTi alloy design. Some time ago, due to the
escalating price of ferro-molybdenum, several alternative
alloy designs and steel source routes were used by the pipe
supplier to fulfil the requirements of the client’s pipe order.
In the event, in addition to the original Mo-bearing steel
referred to above, three alternative alloy compositions were
substituted for Mo:
• Cr, V
• Cu, Cr, Ni
• Cu, Ni, V
All of these different variants met the broad chemical
compositional requirements of the parent pipe standard,
and consequently the pipe supplier did not consider it
necessary to advise the client of the differences. However
this led to a need to conduct weldability testing and an
increased number of weld-procedure-qualification tests to
ensure that any potential influence of the different pipe
chemical compositions on pipe weldability were evaluated
prior to commissioning the pipelines.
It is suggested that for high-pressure gas transmission pipeline
applications consideration should be given to including a
requirement that for each pipe size and grade in a given
project order, pipe from a single target chemical composition
should be used unless agreed in advance.
Concluding remarks
The material, hydrotest, and fatigue requirements for the
TD/1 pipeline standard have been developed to reflect
improvements in material technology, improvements in
material and construction, and increased understanding of
defect behaviour and fatigue. The ongoing developments
mean that TD/1 is a mature pipeline standard which provides
practical rules based on UK and international operational
experience of the gas pipeline industry. The requirements
of TD/1 are provided for the safe design, construction,
and operation of pipelines and associated equipment in
accordance with current knowledge, and will be subject to
periodic review, revision, and updating to ensure that this
aim continues to be realised.
Pipe standards have undergone continual development and
improvement over the years and the recent harmonization of
API 5L and ISO 3183 is considered to herald a significant step
forward in this regard. However, in order to further ensure the
integrity of future high-pressure gas transmission pipelines it
is considered that the requirements of pipe standards would
benefit from the following further restrictions:
• The tendency in HFW pipe for hoop strain to
be concentrated at the weld seam during (over)
1st Quarter, 2011
pressurization as a result of the absence of weld-metal
overmatching, coupled with the localized reduced
wall thickness at the weld seam, needs to be carefully
monitored.
• The acceptance requirement for the cross weld tensile
test should include some measure of ductility (for
example, minimum % reduction of area, or minimum
% tensile strain), in order to prevent acceptance
of tests that simply match the parent pipe grade
minimum UTS level, but shown minimal ductility.
• The inclusion of a weld bead profile requirement
for submerged-arc-welded pipe (specifically restricting
the minimum permitted weld contact angle at the
weld toe) is considered important for high-pressure
gas pipelines, particularly where significant pressure
cycling during operation may arise, such as for
storage pipelines.
• The acceptance requirement for flattening tests in the
production of HFW pipe should be further tightened
to restrict the occurrence of weld seam breaks.
• To prevent multiple chemical composition alloy
variants being supplied to pipeline project orders,
n
pipe standards for high-pressure gas transmission
pipeline applications should include a requirement
io
that for each pipe size and grade in a given project
st y
ut
order, pipe from a single target chemical composition
di op
should be used unless agreed in advance.
rib
or c
Acknowledgments
t f ple
The authors wish to thank the Institution of Gas Engineers
and Mangers for help in preparing this paper.
References
no m
Sa
1. IGEM/TD/1 Edition 5, 2008. Steel pipelines and
associated installations for high pressure gas transmission.
Communication 1735.
2. Knowles, A.E., Tweedle, F., Van Der Post, J.L., 1977.
The background and implications of IGE/TD1 Edition
2. IGE Communication 1044, presented at the 43rd
Autumn Meeting London, November.
3. IGE Communication 674, 1967. Recommendations
concerning the installation of steel pipelines for high-
pressure gas transmission. The Institution of Gas
Engineers. Reprint with corrections.
4. IGE Communication 674A, 1970. Recommendations on
transmission and distribution practice. The Institution
of Gas Engineers IGE/TD/1 Steel pipelines for high-
pressure gas transmission (Sections I to IV and parts of
Sections V, IX and XII).
5. IGE Communication 674B, 1972-76. Recommendations
on transmission and distribution practice. The
17
Institution of Gas Engineers, IGE/TD/1 Steel pipelines
for high pressure gas transmission (Section S pipeline
sleeving).
6. IGE Communication 674C, 1974. Recommendations on
transmission and distribution practice. The Institution
of Gas Engineers, IGE/TD/1 Steel pipelines for high
pressure gas transmission (Amendments and further
sections).
7. IGE Communication 674D. Recommendations on
transmission and distribution practice. The Institution
of Gas Engineers,
8. IGE/TD/1: Edition 1: 1977. Steel pipelines for high
pressure gas transmission, Communication 674 ABCD.
The Institution of Gas Engineers.
9. IGE/TD/1: Edition 2: 1977. Steel pipelines for
high pressure gas transmission, Section 5: Design,
Communication 1017. The Institution of Gas Engineers.
10. IGE/TD/1: Complete Edition 2: 1984. Steel pipelines
for high pressure gas transmission, Communication
1234. The Institution of Gas Engineers.
11. IGE/TD/1: Edition 3: 1993. Steel pipelines for high
pressure gas transmission, Communication 1530. The
Institution of Gas Engineers.
12. IGE/TD/1: Edition 3: 1993. 1999. Supplement 1:
Handling, transport and storage of steel pipe, bends
and fittings. IGasE Communication 1657.
13. IGE/TD/1: Edition 3: 1993, 1999. Supplement 2: Steel
pipelines for high pressure gas transmission: 1219.2mm
(48-in) pipelines. IGasE Communication 1658.
14. IGE/TD/1: Edition 3: 1993, 2000. Supplement 3: Steel
pipelines for high pressure gas transmission: uprating
of pipelines to a design factor of up to 0.8. Institution
of Gas Engineers Communication 1668.
15. IGE/TD/1 Edition 4, 2001. Steel pipelines for high
pressure gas transmission. IGE Communication 1670.
16. Fearnehough, G.D., Jude, D., and Weiner, R., 1971. The
arrest of brittle fracture in Pipelines. Practical application
of fracture mechanics in pressure vessel technology
conference, London. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engr. C33.
17. Fearnehough, G.D., 1974. Fracture control in gas
pipelines. Int.J. of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2, October.
18. Fearnehough, G.D. and Jones, D.G., 1980. Toughness
specification for shear fracture arrest in pipelines. Int.
Conf. on Fracture Mechanics, Rome, 24-27 June.
19. Poynton, W.A., Shannon, R.W.E., and Fearnehough,
G.D., 1974. The design and application of shear fracture
propagation studies. Trans of ASME J. Eng. Mat. and
Tech., October.
20. AGA, 1969. Fourth Symposium on Line Pipe Research,
American Gas Association Dallas.
21. Review and comparison of line pipe standards EN 10208-
2:2009 and ISO 3183:2007 CEN / TC12 Document
No. N793 December, 2009.
18 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa
1st Quarter, 2011 19

Guidelines to conducting threat

susceptibility and identification
assessments of pipelines prior to
reactivation
by Chad Bunch, Glenn Cameron*, and Rafael G Mora

National Energy Board, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

T his paper provides guidelines to identify all threats and assess a pipeline’s susceptibility to those threats
in order to select appropriate and effective mitigation, monitoring, and prevention measures prior to
being reactivated. The intent of this paper is to provide pipeline operators, consultants, and regulatory
agencies with a generic threat-assessment approach that has to be customized to the pipeline-specific
characteristics and conditions, and the regulatory requirements of its own jurisdiction.

A literature review and authors’ experiences across the pipeline industry have identified the need for a

n
generic, yet complete, approach that guides pipeline integrity engineers in the methodologies that adequately
and effectively assess threats prior to reactivation, and that can be validated in a timely manner during the

io
operations.
st y
ut
di op

Pipeline operators may be called on to reactivate pipelines that are facing challenges such as ageing, changes
rib
in operational conditions, lack of maintenance, and inconsistent integrity practices, while facing constraints
or c

from increasing population density, higher pressure and flow throughput requirements of a competitive
marketplace,and regulatory requirements insisting on higher levels of safety and protection of the environment.
t f ple

This paper is structured with the following components to assist the reader in conducting threat assessments:
• current regulations and recognized industry standards with respect to reactivating pipelines;
no m

• definition of and differentiation between hazard and threat;

• hazard identification analysis for the known and potential situations, events and conditions; and
Sa

• threat susceptibility and identification analysis process for the known categories derived from the hazard
identification process.

A case study is described as an example of applying the guidelines to conduct threat susceptibility and
identification assessments of a pipeline prior to its reactivation
The results from the threat susceptibility and identification assessment process can help operators,consultants,
and regulators in determining effective inspection, mitigation, prevention and monitoring measures.

T hreat assessments are used to determine the

capability of a threat to cause a failure of a pipeline,
and therefore it is essential that the susceptibility to, and
identification of, all threats is assessed and derived from
existing and potential hazards.
The pipeline industry has yet to establish a formal, consistent,
and complete methodology to determine whether a pipeline
The views, judgments, opinions, and recommendations expressed in this paper do
not necessarily reflect those of the National Energy Board, its Chairman or members,
nor is the Board obligated to adopt any of them.
*Author’s contact details:
tel: +1 403 299 3624
email: glenn.cameron@neb-one.gc.ca
is susceptible to a threat or whether the threat has been
identified as active. Some operators rely only on their own
past pipeline failure history to identify their threats without
realizing that a pipeline could have become susceptible to
other threats over time or that changes in conditions could
have initiated or activated threats.
The operator should ensure that the threat assessment is
formally conducted as part of the engineering assessment
prior to reactivating a pipeline. The method for conducting
a threat assessment starts from the hazard identification,
up to threat susceptibility, threat identification, and finally
a likelihood of failure estimation, enabling the operator
or consultant to effectively select the appropriate integrity-
20
assessment methods and mitigation strategies. A very
important – and usually mandatory time – to conduct a threat
assessment is when a pipeline is planned to be reactivated.
In the Canadian federal jurisdiction, a pipeline is considered
deactivated after it has been taken out of service for 12
months or more, and during that time it may or may not be
filled with product, monitored, or cathodically protected.
Deactivated pipelines may experience an unknown level of
integrity degradation that would be required to be properly
assessed prior to any reactivation.
During the stage of deactivation, hazards can still affect a
pipeline. If not adequately assessed and mitigated, those
hazards – either by themselves or in conjunction with
another hazard – can create a threat or cause an existing
threat to grow. If an operator is unaware that it is or has
been susceptible to these threats, it is unlikely that it will try
to determine the extent and severity of that threat via any
integrity-assessment method (for example, in-line inspection,
hydrostatic testing, or direct assessment).
A literature review was conducted to determine whether
n
standardized methodology was available for conducting
threat assessments that included a threat-susceptibility
io
process prior to reactivation.
st y
ut
di op
Nomenclature
rib
or c
• Abandon: to permanently cease operation such
that the cessation results in the discontinuance of
t f ple
service [1]
• AEUB: Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (now
the ERCB)
no m
• API: American Petroleum Institute
• ASME: American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Sa
• CAPP: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
• CEPA: Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
• CDN$: Canadian dollar
• CFR: Code of Federal Regulations, USA
• Danger: exposure to harm or loss [2]
• Deactivate: to remove temporarily from service [1]
(i.e. 12 months or longer) or discontinue
• Decommission: to permanently cease operation
such that the cessation does not result in the
discontinuance of service [1]
• EPA: Environmental Protection Agency, USA
• ERCB (formerly AEUB): Alberta Energy Resources
Conservation Board
• FERC: USA Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
• Hazard, pipeline integrity: any situation, event and/
or condition that has the potential to cause a failure
of a pipeline
• Idled: see deactivate
• ILI: in-line inspection
• IMP: integrity management programme
• MOP: maximum operating pressure
• MM: monitoring and mitigation
• NACE: National Association of Corrosion Engineers
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
• NEB: National Energy Board of Canada
• PHMSA: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, USA
• Pipeline: those items through which oil or gas
industry fluids are conveyed, including pipe,
components, and any appurtenances attached
thereto, up to and including the first flange at stations
and other facilities
• Reactivate: return to service of a deactivated pipeline
• Susceptible: capable of submitting to an action,
process, or operation [2]; an indication that a threat
may or may not be present
• Threat, pipeline integrity: an abnormal state of the
pipe that can be created and grown by one or more
pipeline hazards
Literature review
Reactivation of pipelines has not been covered in many
publications; furthermore, the threat assessment prior
to it being reactivated has not been described. However,
reactivation is referenced within integrity-management
programmes (IMPs) including the legal and regulatory
issues, risk assessment and abandoned pipelines, and the
regulatory requirements and industry standards, which
provided background and context during the literature
review.
Integrity-management programmes
With respect to IMPs, it is generally acknowledged that
they are key to protecting pipelines from corrosion [3, 4]
and require a management-system approach to ensure that
the programs are robust, comprehensive, and enduring
[5]. IMPs must include risk assessment at the heart of the
process which allows threats to a pipeline system to be
identified and mitigated [6]. The integrity-management
strategies identified for operating pipelines [7] apply equally
to deactivated pipelines that are about to be reactivated,
that is:
• define the integrity requirement
• identify the threats to integrity
• identify rehabilitation strategy; and
• verify the applicability of these strategies
Legal and regulatory issues within IMP
There are also publications that highlight the potential legal
issues with a company’s IMP. While these publications refer
to operating pipelines, they can be equally applicable to
pipelines being reactivated since they will gain the status
of in-service. Paul [8] outlines some of the legal issues in
the context of the USA integrity-management rule, with
respect to civil liability brought by the government seeking
financial penalties for non-compliance by the operator
and criminal exposure for corporate officers. A proposed
solution to these issues is enactment of corporate policies
and practices through an integrated programme that reduces
the likelihood that problems will arise and that rapidly
handles problems that are discovered.
1st Quarter, 2011
Johnson [9] refers to regulatory and legislative changes in
the USA over the last ten years and concludes that with
the changes in regulations, new standards, and increased
legislative interest, awareness of pipeline corrosion and
integrity has increased and requires that industry respond
by taking action to reduce the impact of pipeline failures.
Little [10] provides an overview of the USA pipeline
infrastructure and the governing agencies (PHMSA, FERC,
EPA) and industry standards (ASME, API, NACE) and
their requirements for IMPs. Finally, Nidd [11] refers to
the requirements of CFR Part 192 and 195 and defines
best practices are “those documented, accessible, effective,
appropriate, and widely accepted strategies, plans, tactics,
processes, methodologies, activities and approaches that
have been shown over time through research, evaluation,
and practice to be effective at providing reasonable assurance
of desired outcomes, and which are continually reviewed
and improved upon as circumstances dictate”, and that “it
can be stated that a commitment to using best practices in
the pipeline industry is a commitment to using all of the
knowledge and technology at one’s disposal to reduce risk
and ensure continued safe pipeline operation”.
n
Risk assessment
io
Pipeline risk-assessment models, algorithms, and
st y
ut
methodologies are well documented and extensively
di op
discussed in the referenced literature [12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
rib
17]. Threat assessment of a specific pipeline, whether it is
or c
in-service or being reactivated, is an essential component of
the risk assessment for determining the failure frequency and
t f ple
probability, which can be used to identify and prioritize the
integrity assessment, mitigation, prevention, and monitoring
strategies before and after the reactivation.
no m
Deactivation and reactivation
Sa
Hallihan [18] has provided a comprehensive overview
with respect to the issues of pipeline deactivation and
reactivation. The historical perspective of the oil and gas
industry during the economic downturn in the 1990s led to
poor deactivation practices that later hampered the efforts
to reactivate those pipelines. Of the 350,000 km of pipeline
in Alberta in 2006, 11% were licensed as discontinued (i.e.
deactivated) or abandoned, representing a potential asset base
of CDN$500 - $700 million. Reactivation of these pipelines
requires that the future operational integrity be predicted
or assessed. The operational integrity is dependent on such
factors as: in-service condition; maintenance programmes
and records; and changes to substance, MOP, temperature,
or flow direction. Most importantly, it was stated that an
engineering assessment may be required to address potential
threats to a pipeline and selective integrity verification would
be required for those threats unique to the pipeline. Hallihan
also provided a summary of the reactivation requirements
of the Canadian provincial regulator (ERCB), but not of
the Canadian national pipeline regulator (NEB). Thus, this
reference constituted a starting point in understanding the
issues and guidelines for companies to meet jurisdictional
regulatory application for pipeline reactivation.
21
There are three publications of note that speak to the issues
of pipeline abandonment that seem to be relevant in this
context. Howell [19] describes issues with long abandoned
pipelines and distinguishes abandoned (give up entirely)
or “permanently removed from service” to the industry
term of being “idled” (expected to be reactivated), but
does not touch on the issue of reactivating idled pipelines.
Roblin [20] provides a Canadian regulator’s perspective
and an overview of environmental issues pertaining to
abandonment of an NEB-regulated pipeline using a case
study of the Yukon Pipelines Ltd abandonment. Finally,
the Pipeline Abandonment Steering Committee, whose
members are CAPP, CEPA, ERCB (formerly AEUB),
and NEB has published a discussion paper [21] on
pipeline abandonment. This paper reviews the technical
and environmental issues associated with pipeline
abandonment with an extensive glossary of industry terms
such as: deactivation, discontinued, orphaned, suspended,
and abandoned. It also includes a table with federal and
provincial requirements for pipeline abandonment and
a pipeline abandonment checklist.
Canadian regulatory requirements
and industry standards
Onshore Pipeline Regulation 1999
In the Canadian federal regulatory framework, the
initial point of focus for a company planning a pipeline
deactivation or reactivation is in the Onshore Pipeline
Regulation 1999 (OPR-99) Part 6 “Operations and
Maintenance” sections 44 and 45 titled “Deactivation
and Reactivation”. OPR-99 section 44 (1) states: If a
company proposes to deactivate a pipeline or part of
one for 12 months or more, has maintained a pipeline
or part of one in a deactivated mode for 12 months
or more, or has not operated a pipeline or part of one
for 12 months or more, the company shall submit an
application for deactivation to the Board. Section 44
(2) further stipulates that: The company shall include
in the application the reasons, and the procedures that
were or are to be used, for the activity that is the subject
of the application.
With respect to pipeline reactivation, Section 45 states:
If a company proposes to reactivate the pipeline or a
section of it that has been deactivated for 12 months or
more, the company shall submit an application for the
reactivation to the Board. Section 45 (2) further stipulates
that: The application shall include the rationale for the
reactivation and the measures to be employed for the
reactivation.
Essentially, the regulatory expectations are to minimize the
current and future threats to integrity by ensuring adequate
and effective pipeline deactivation methodologies are
employed, that records are kept from the IMP including
the deactivation process, and that an adequate threat
assessment is done as part of the reactivation process.
22
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) for Oil
and Gas Systems Z662
Another consideration for deactivation or reactivation of
pipelines under the Canadian federal and some provincial
jurisdictions is the adherence to the latest version of CSA
Standard for Oil and Gas Systems Z662. This is usually
adopted by regulations in these jurisdictions and therefore
has the force of law.
CSA Z662-07 Clause 10.16 stipulates the requirements for
deactivation and reactivation of piping. Specifically, clause
10.16.1.1 requires that operating companies isolate the
piping, using blind flanges, weld caps or blanking plates;
where required, fill the piping with a suitable medium,
having regard for the intended duration of the deactivation,
the effects of the medium on the integrity of the piping,
the potential consequences of a leak; and finally the need
for pressure-relief.
Clause 10.16.1.2 states that for deactivated piping,
operating companies shall maintain external and internal
corrosion-control as specified in Clause 9; where considered
n
appropriate, perform other maintenance activities as
specified in Clause 10; maintain records as specified in
io
Clauses 9.11 and 10.4; and for piping that is deactivated
st y
ut
for more than 18 months, annually confirm the suitability
di op
of the deactivation methods used, the corrosion-control,
rib
and other maintenance activities.
or c
CSA Z662-07 Clause 10.16.2 specifies the requirements for
t f ple
reactivation of piping. Specifically, clause 10.16.2.1 states
that prior to reactivating piping, the operating company
shall conduct an engineering assessment (see Clause 10.14.6)
no m
to determine whether the piping would be suitable for its
intended service. In addition, Clause 10.16.2.2 states that
Sa
where the engineering assessment indicates that the piping
would not be suitable for its intended service, the operating
company shall implement the corrective measures necessary
to make it suitable before reactivating the piping.
Clause 10.14.6 (Engineering Assessments) contains
reference to the qualification of the individuals performing
the engineering assessment and their “demonstrated
understanding and experience in the application of
engineering and risk management principles”. This clause
also requires that engineering assessments “shall include
consideration of their design, material, construction, and
operating and maintenance history”. It also details the
variables to be considered when conducting an engineering
assessment and that if the information is not available
(records) then the operating company “shall conduct such
inspection and testing as necessary”. Finally, Clause 10.14.6.5
contains a list of the topics that should be addressed in an
engineering assessment.
API 1160 and ASME B31.8S
API 1160 (Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines) is a common standard upon which pipeline
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
operator’s base their IMPs. API 1160 provides “a process that
an operator of a pipeline system can use to assess risks and
make decisions about risks in operating a hazardous liquid
pipeline” and it also describes an “integrity management
framework that forms the basis” of that standard. However
API 1160 does not provide an explicit process for assessing
susceptibility to threats.
ASME B31.8S (Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines)
is another standard that is commonly referenced by the
pipeline industry for IMPs. ASME B31.8S provides “a
process that an operator of a pipeline system can use to assess
and mitigate risks in order to reduce both the likelihood
and consequences of incidents.” Both prescriptive and
performance-based methods are outlined in the standard
but, similarly to API 1160, there is not an explicit process
for assessing susceptibility to threats.
Hazards and threats
Definition of and differentiation
between hazard and threat
In the pipeline industry the terms hazard and threat
are either used interchangeably to represent the same
meaning, or independently of each other to represent
different meanings, depending on the industry standard.
However, the term hazard has been extensively defined
in other disciplines (for example, safety) even prior to
the birth of the IMPs; and the use of the term threat has
been further developed in recent years (such as security).
For consistency, this paper differentiates both terms –
hazard and threat – by aligning the validated knowledge
of other disciplines with pipeline integrity knowledge. By
differentiating between hazard and threat, the integrity
personnel can be confident that a thorough process is
available to identify all hazards and to subsequently assess
all the threats to which a pipeline is or has been susceptible.
Hazard is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “a source
of danger” [2] and danger is explained as the exposure
or liability to harm or loss. From this definition, hazards
within the pipeline integrity context could be defined as
a source of harm or loss to a pipeline. A hazard is not
necessarily a threat. Rather hazards are those situations,
events, and/or conditions that have the potential to cause
harm to a pipeline, but in which this capacity has not
yet been proven.
Furthermore, threat is defined by Webster’s dictionary
as both “an expression of intention to inflict … damage”
and “an indication of something impending” [2]. Thus,
a threat could be defined as an abnormal state affecting a
pipeline, that is created, made active, or grown by one or
more hazards, and that has the effect of inflicting damage
on a pipeline’s integrity. These abnormal states, or threats,
are considered inactive until the necessary permutations
1st Quarter, 2011
of hazards exist making the threat active, meaning it has
the capacity to cause damage to the pipeline’s integrity.
In summary, threats are derived from hazards, which have
individually or combined the capacity to create an active
abnormal state that threatens damage to a pipeline’s integrity.
Hazard classification
In other disciplines, hazards have been categorized by the
potential effect or consequence to people, environment, or
property. However in this context, the hazards are limited
to only those that can affect the pipe by facilitating or
inducing initiation or growth of an integrity threat. No
individual hazards to the environment or people are herein
discussed, and therefore in this context it is not useful
to use this type of classification system. Likewise many
other classification systems do not seem to fit perfectly
with pipeline-integrity hazards.
A pipeline-integrity hazard may facilitate or induce
multiple threats by providing conditions that could
contribute to their severity. For example, hazards such
n
as poor, damaged, or disbonded coating could make a
pipeline susceptible to threats such as external corrosion,
io
selective (preferential) seam-weld corrosion, or stress-
st y
ut
corrosion cracking. Hazards may be able to initiate threats
di op
individually or may require additional hazards before the
rib
threat can be initiated.
or c
The important concept with hazard classification then is
t f ple
that an operator develops its own comprehensive database
of hazards and classifies it in such a way that hazards are not
missed in the hazard-identification process. This database
no m
should be based on the operator’s own history, that of
industry, and that of regulators. Combining some of the
Sa
elements found in Clause H.5.2 of CSA Z662 with the load
cases in Table O.1 of CSA Z662 and the operator’s own history
might provide a good starting point for a list of hazards.
The list below is just a small percentage of those hazards
that might actually exist, but provides a useful illustration
of what might be considered a hazard to pipeline integrity:
• overpressure
• high operating temperature
• shallow depth of cover
• construction work near pipeline
• corrosive substance being conveyed
• lightning
• frost heave
• imperfections (accepted anomalies)
• disbonded coating
• inadequate corrosion inhibitor
• poor cathodic protection
• low-frequency electric resistance welded pipe
• low-toughness pipe
• wash-out erosion
• sabotage or vandalism
23
Threat classification
A pipeline-integrity threat in the context of this paper is
considered an abnormal state of the pipe initiated or grown
by a hazard or by a combination of them, and acquiring
the capacity to cause damage to the pipeline’s integrity.
Although threats can be assessed to be acceptable while
the pipeline is being constructed or while the pipeline is
in-service, growth rates can increase, slow down, or stop,
and therefore it is critical that the threats be continually
monitored. These threats can also be reactivated by changes
in the operation, environment, or from the normal ageing
process which causes degradation.
Pipeline segments with active threats should be considered
as segments with identified threats, and mitigation should
be applied. However, pipe segments with confirmed inactive
or dormant threats should be considered as segments with
susceptible threats and continuous monitoring (such as ILI,
laboratory analysis, field investigation) is required.
Threats are often further categorized to help facilitate
reporting, to ensure that threats are not missed in threat
assessments, and for ease of reference (among other reasons).
However since the hazard and threat terms are typically
not differentiated in standards, the methods of threat
categorization typically incorporate both hazards and threats
within the titles. Therefore it is not productive to try and
make the existing classification systems work here, even
though in practice those classification systems may still be
useful for other reasons. Rather, it is important to note that
a comprehensive database of threats should be developed by
the operator which should be classified in such a way that
it is clear which hazards contribute to each threat.
The list below includes some threats that might be considered
in a threat-susceptibility assessment process:
• external corrosion
• selective ERW seam corrosion
• stress corrosion
• cracking (SCC)
• plain dents
• dents with cracks
• buckles
• internal corrosion
• microbiologically-influenced corrosion (MIC)
• defects (as opposed to imperfections)
• gouges
• wrinkles
Threat assessment process
Figure 1 describes the process and elements recommended
for conducting a threat assessment, which could be applied
for a pipeline already in-service or one that is about to
be reactivated. The purpose of a threat assessment is to
identify, classify, analyze, and evaluate the susceptibility to
and the capacity of threats (i.e. likelihood) causing a failure
24 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa

Fig.1 Threat-assessment process.

in a pipeline. A threat assessment can be part of either an
IMP or an engineering assessment. Threat assessments
within the IMP contribute to the overall prioritization of
mitigation and preventive measures to reduce the risk to
people, environment, and business.
Threat assessments within an engineering assessment
might address specific issues such as a change of service
(for example, type of product being transported), class
location or consequence (i.e. population, environment),
and operating conditions (such as pressure, temperature).
CSA-Z662 describes the minimum elements of an
engineering assessment, which can also be used within the
IMP framework.
A threat-assessment plan is recommended, which could
include:
(a) a review of the available information from before a
pipeline was ever placed into service such as design and
material characteristics, manufacturing and construction
records, hydrostatic testing parameters, methods and results;
(b) a review of the information from the operation of a
pipeline such as leaks and rupture history (such as root-cause),
integrity assessments (such as ILI, ‘in-service’ hydrostatic
testing), mitigation (for example digs, repairs), monitoring
(such as cathodic protection and leak-detection effectiveness),
prevention (such as damage prevention, surveillance) and
any operational changes (including pressure, temperature,
flow, cycling);
(c) a review of the current regulatory and industry standard
framework including the lessons learned about hazards and
threats; and
1st Quarter, 2011 25

(d) conducting the threat-assessment process, which is

comprised of the following four processes:
• hazard-identification process
• threat-susceptibility process
• threat-identification process
• likelihood-of-failure estimation process

Hazard-identification process
The objective of the hazard-identification process is to
identify all situations, events, and conditions (i.e. hazards)
including mechanisms or changes (such as poorly-installed
tape coating, pressure increase) that have the potential to
cause a failure.
1400

Other disciplines such as safety, health, security, emergency, 1200

and the chemical industry have advanced in developing

1000
various methodologies, techniques, and guides for

Pressure (psi)
conducting hazard evaluations. These guides can provide 800

useful processes with elements that can be adopted or 600

modified to fit this process. For example, hazard and

400
operability (HAZOP), ‘what-if’, and other hazard-evaluation
techniques have elements that could be very beneficial in 200

n
the identification, mitigation and prevention of hazards for 0

in-service pipelines [22].

io
23 Aug 05 2 Sep 05 12 Sep 05 22 Sep 05 2 Oct 05 12 Oct 05 22 Oct 05 1 Nov 05 11 Nov 05 21 Nov 05
st y
ut
Furthermore pipeline-integrity hazards can also be classified Fig.2. Pressure cycles on a pipeline.
di op

in meaningful ways. These classification systems can help

rib
make the hazard-identification process more comprehensive current pipeline-integrity threats, or on making a pipeline
or c

by illustrating the relationship between the hazards and susceptible to them.

threats. One such way to classify pipeline integrity hazards
t f ple

is as natural, technological, and human-caused. Hazards and threats can also be classified as to when
they first appear in a given location within a pipeline’s
For example, natural-caused hazards such as slope instability, lifecycle: design, manufacturing, construction, in-service,
no m

raining seasons, flooding areas, seismic faults, or subsidence deactivation/reactivation, and abandonment.
could have the potential to initiate or grow a dent and/or
Sa

crack, or cause geotechnical-related wrinkling. Technological-
caused hazards such as ineffective monitoring or control
equipment can also contribute to growth of these same
threats. Furthermore, human-caused hazards such as
personnel error, lack of adherence to procedures, inadequate
work shifts, and fatigue, can all contribute to threats leading
to a failure of a pipeline.
Classifying pipeline-integrity hazards by their origin can also
be useful in ensuring the hazard-identification process is
comprehensive. For example, the pipeline may experience
hazards that originate in the pipeline, or alternatively may
experience hazards that originate from the facilities (i.e. pump
compressor and metering stations, pig traps, mainline valves,
etc). Figure 2 provides an example of hazardous pressure
cycles on a pipeline originating from the cyclic operation
of an upstream pump.
It is important to note that companies should not consider
operational hazards as only those originating from the
compressors or pumps (such as overpressures and pressure
cycling). Hazards such as inadequate valve maintenance
and surge-tank capacity can also have a potential effect on
It is also imperative that the operator gathers comprehensive
asset information such as pipeline characteristics (including
location, material, coating), operational conditions (such
as pressure, temperature), history (such as failures), and
areas of interest (for example, flooding, earthquakes, or
geotechnical) prior to conducting the hazard identification.
Every in-service or deactivated pipeline is a special case when
it comes to conducting the hazard-identification process.
Pipeline-integrity professionals should gather information
from records as well as long-exposed company personnel or
communities in the surrounding areas that could provide
information about situations, events, and conditions
experienced in the past, are currently existing, or that are
being planned. Thus, the hazards prior to (actual) and after
(expected) the reactivation should be included in the hazard-
identification process. Subsequently, lists of hazard templates
provided by industry standards such as API 1160, ASME
B31.8S, and AGA [23] could be used to avoid overlooking
the actual case-specific hazards and their significance.
Hazards can range from conditions like high or near-neutral
pH of the soil, or tape-coated pipe, to cyclic operating
26
n
io
st y
ut
Fig.3. Multiple hazard identification.
di op
rib
conditions, and therefore the information will come from
or c
various sources, and can be difficult to obtain. This is
usually because of issues such as lack of information or
t f ple
record transfer during change of ownership, poor record
keeping by the operator, corporate knowledge amnesia as
personnel retire, and possibly not actively monitoring the
no m
right-of-way to determine potential for external interference.
Regardless, the onus is on the current operator to identify
Sa
all possible hazards, and if an operator is to disregard a
hazard it must provide a sound and reasonable rationale
as to why it has done so.
In summary, the operator should be able to demonstrate
to itself, stakeholders, and authorities that the hazard-
identification process has been conducted with a technically
sound methodology and representative information to
effectively conduct the threat susceptibility or identification
processes. Otherwise additional data (such as in-line
inspections, investigative digs, laboratory analysis, mapping,
etc.) should be gathered.
Threat-susceptibility process
The objective of the threat-susceptibility process is to classify,
analyze, and evaluate the identified hazards (see above),
either by themselves or in conjunction with each other
(for instance, coating damage, pipe material, and stress
levels might be considered in conjunction), to determine
whether a pipeline is susceptible to a given threat (such as
potential stress-corrosion cracking – SCC) even if the threat
has not been identified either by in-line inspection tools,
investigative digs, or laboratory testing.
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
A threat-susceptibility process involves considering various
permutations of hazard to determine whether they have the
capacity to create a threat to a pipeline. Therefore, for every
threat, a list of hazards that give that threat the capability
to do harm to a pipeline can be created.
During the threat-susceptibility process, each threat (i.e.
CSA-Z662 Annex H, ASME B31.8S, API 1160) is analyzed
regardless of whether it has been previously identified
or reported as having made a pipeline previously fail to
determine whether the hazards identified in the previous
process gives that threat the capacity to do harm. If a
threat has been identified before (for example, excavation,
failure), a pipeline can be susceptible to that threat, but
this information is not sufficient alone to determine
whether that threat is active and capable of causing a
failure to a pipeline. This determination cannot be made
until additional representative information (such as in-line
inspection, investigative digs, patrolling, etc.) is collected.
The threat-susceptibility process also looks for changes
in operation, maintenance practices, ownership, or
infrastructure to determine whether an inactive threat
might have become active, making a pipeline susceptible to
failure. For instance, liquid pipelines exposed to dormant
internal corrosion in the past because of conditions such
as continuous flow or effective cleaning (pigging) practices
may allow internal corrosion to become active when a hazard
such as a change of product is introduced.
It is also important to note that a single operational change
can have the effect of creating multiple coincidental hazards,
such as stress levels, pressure cycling, and high flow rates.
If these new hazards are combined with existing ones such
as ineffective cathodic protection, existing anomalies/
imperfections previously assessed as acceptable could
become a threat. New threats could also be created such as
corrosion attacking acceptable dents or places with lack of
fusion; pressure cycling can also cause cracks within dents.
The role of data integration can also provide great value
in the determination of susceptibility to a given threat. As
illustrated in Fig.3, correlation of pipeline inertial data (i.e.
strains), geotechnical surveys, and line-walk patrolling may
indicate areas with hazards such as potential for displacement,
settlement, or geometric damage resulting in threats such
as ovalization, denting or wrinkling.
In summary, operators should be able to demonstrate
to themselves, stakeholders, and authorities that the
threat-susceptibility process has been conducted with a
comprehensive methodology to determine whether or not
potential hazards actually exist for a pipeline. If an operator
determines that a pipeline segment is susceptible to a threat,
it must conduct a threat-identification process to determine
the exact location, extent, and severity of the threat. In the
interim, the susceptibility can be reduced if the hazards that
triggered the threat can be eliminated or mitigated.
1st Quarter, 2011
Threat-identification process
The objective of the threat-identification process is to
identify and classify those threats that the pipeline has been
found to be susceptible to in terms of extent and severity
(e.g. found active SCC). Subsequently that information
can be used to determine the likelihood for a threat to
cause a failure. Results from in-line inspection, excavations,
incident investigations, and failure history and analysis, can
be sources of information for the identification process.
The threat identification also includes determining
whether the threat is active (growing) or dormant.
Pipeline segments deemed as having acceptable threats
may become unacceptable as a consequence of the new
deactivated condition. A deactivation status introduces
operational changes (no operation) and reduction of in-
service monitoring. This change could increase growth
of threats such as internal corrosion due to deposit
settlement, inhibitor ineffectiveness, and/or inability to
detect threats such as third-party damage in populated or
construction activity areas via regular maintenance (such
as through using pigs).
n
In addition, when a pipeline is deactivated and plans are
in place to reactivate the pipeline, the threat-identification
io
process will trigger the need for additional information such
st y
ut
as inspections and excavations to determine the extent and
di op
severity of the threat prior to reactivation.
rib
or c
Currently, there are several inspection techniques that can
be used to gather this information which are complemented
t f ple
by software tools for overlaying and analyzing data to assist in
assessing the criticality of multiple and coincidental threats.
However, operators should also take into consideration the
no m
uncertainty associated with the data, and must understand
the limitations of the chosen technique in detecting the
Sa
various threats that a pipeline may be experiencing. For
example, good progress has been made to detect and size
dents with magnetic-flux leakage (MFL) tri-axial technology;
however, limitations still exist in identifying and sizing
wrinkles and kinks with these tools.
Likelihood-of-failure estimation process
The objective of the likelihood-of-failure estimation process is
to analyze and evaluate the severity of a threat and determine
the likelihood for it to cause a failure to a pipeline. Once
a pipeline segment is considered either susceptible to, or
confirmed as actually having, a threat, the assessment of the
threat in terms of likelihood of failure can be qualitatively
or quantitatively determined.
The determination of the likelihood of failure needs to
be conducted with the appropriate criticality assessment
method ensuring that accurate input is provided to the
risk-assessment and -mitigation processes. For example,
use of flow strength-based methods (such as RStreng) on
preferential seam-weld corrosion will provide inaccurate
predictions of burst pressure and, consequently, unsafe
decisions.
27
The threat-likelihood estimation process may use
representative data and an appropriate method. However,
uncertainty and confidence associated with the assessment
method can be a factor in determining whether a reliable
likelihood of failure can be determined. The threat-
assessment process should be part of the iterative process
within the IMP, such that all hazards and threats are
regularly updated. The reactivation of a pipeline requires
the review and/or adjustment of the IMP to account for
the results from the threat assessment.
Case study
A case study has been prepared by merging several similar
observed situations together and creating a common
example that illustrates the trend.
A pipeline operator that primarily ships heavy crude
oil applies to reactivate a 44 year-old, NPS 24, electric-
resistance welded (ERW), tape-coated pipeline section that
is located in a densely populated region of a major city.
Prior to placing the pipeline in a deactivated state, the
operator notes it had purged the pipeline with nitrogen,
left it with a nitrogen blanket, and applied cathodic
protection. The operator also notes that it hydrotested
to a factor of 1.4 over the maximum operating pressure
when the pipeline was first installed. The pipeline
runs near an overpass where construction has been
noted to have occurred intermittently over the last 44
years. The operator has recently conducted an in-line
inspection using a high-resolution (HR) MFL tool, and
has subsequently repaired any large defects found, based
on the tool. Is it safe to reactivate?
The first step is to identify all hazards to pipeline integrity
that could be present and to determine whether they exist,
or have been removed or mitigated. The list of hazards
includes, but may not be limited to, the following:
• The pipe is at least 44 years old and the seam is
ERW. Since it is prior to 1970 it is very likely a
low-frequency weld.
• Operator is shipping heavy crude oil and therefore
the pipeline will likely be experiencing pressure
cycles.
• The pipeline is coated with tape coating which is
known to disbond over time.
• It is unknown whether pressure was checked on
the nitrogen blanket (nitrogen may have leaked and
mitigation may have been minimized).
• Third-party damage is possible from construction
activities.
The next step is to review to which threats the pipeline
could be susceptible. By reviewing a list of threats as
in the example below, it can be seen that – assuming a
worst-case scenario – the pipeline could be susceptible to
external corrosion, internal corrosion, microbially-induced
28 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

corrosion (MIC), preferential corrosion, hook (toe) cracks in
the seam weld, lack of fusion in the seam weld, and gouges.
Threat: external corrosion
Contributing hazards:
• disbondment of tape coating
• shielding of cathodic protection
• pipe is old
Threat: internal corrosion
Contributing hazards:
• pipe is old
• nitrogen blanket may have leaked (no reference was
made to ensuring that the pressure was monitored)
• external interference may have damaged pipe allowing
place for water and debris to enter
• no indication of chemical treatment
Threat: MIC
Contributing hazards:
• disbondment of tape coating
• no information provided about soil properties to
determine level of susceptibility
API 1160 also notes a caveat on corrosion detection and
sizing, and states it is limited “by the minimum detectable
metal loss”. MIC is quite small and can be smaller than
the minimum detectable threshold of an HR MFL tool.
Therefore it is unlikely that it would have been detected
by this tool.
The operator has been able to confirm and remove the
presence of internal and external corrosion and gouges,
but the HR MFL tool is not appropriate to confirm the
presence of hook cracks, lack of fusion, or MIC, and therefore
pipeline mitigation may not have been sufficient. Before this
application could be assessed, further information would
be required about the state of those threats. The operator
should conduct a suitable threat-identification process again
for hook cracks, lack of fusion, and MIC to determine the
extent and severity of those threats.
Conclusions
By noting the difference between the words ‘hazard’ and
‘threat’, a process can be used to facilitate flow between the

n
hazard-identification and threat-identification processes.
Threat: preferential corrosion This connecting process is called the threat-susceptibility

io
Contributing hazards: assessment.
st y
ut
• published warnings on this era of pipe
di op

• disbondment of tape coating During the hazard-identification process an operator can

rib
• shielding of cathodic protection benefit from conducting elements of hazard-evaluation
or c

processes such as HAZOPs or what-if techniques, which

Threat: hook cracks can be used to assist in identifying a comprehensive list of
t f ple

Contributing hazards: possible hazards to a pipeline. During the threat-susceptibility

• published warnings on this era of pipe process, the operator can then review each known industry
threat and determine whether it has the hazards that give
no m

Threat: lack of fusion in seam weld that threat the capability to do harm to the pipeline’s
Contributing hazards: integrity. If a pipeline is – or has been – susceptible to a
Sa

• published warnings on this era of pipe
Threat: gouges
Contributing hazards:
• external interference from construction activities
Because the pipeline is susceptible to some threats, the
operator must conduct a threat-identification process
to identify the extent and severity of these threats. The
operator has noted it has done an HR MFL tool run, and
repaired any large defects. API 1160, Table 9.1, indicates
that an HR MFL tool can detect and size internal and
external corrosion, and gouges. Therefore it is likely that
the presence of those threats could be adequately confirmed
by running the tool.
However, API 1160 also indicates that the HR MFL tool
has no detection capabilities for longitudinal seam weld
imperfections, incomplete fusion, or toe-cracks. Therefore
the tool would not be able to confirm with certainty the
presence or absence of any hook cracks or lack of fusion
that might exist in the weld.
threat, the operator must conduct a threat-identification
process to determine whether the threat actually exists,
and if it does, to determine the extent and severity. Further
assessment must also be conducted on identified threats to
determine the likelihood of failure, growth mechanism, and
appropriate mitigation.
By determining the susceptibility of its pipeline to a
comprehensive list of threats prior to reactivation, operators
stand to gain confidence in themselves, as well as in stakeholders
and authorities. This is a proactive approach which gives the
operator the advantage of foresight which can help to reduce
the likelihood of cost-intensive and risky failures.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the Operations
Business Unit (Anne-Marie Bourassa, Michael Zhou, Chris
Finley, Kyle Sherwin, Alan Murray, and Sandy Lapointe) of
the National Energy Board of Canada, and the University
of Calgary Pipeline Engineering Center (Dr William Shaw)
in developing the guidelines herein published.
1st Quarter, 2011
References
1. Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999. National Energy
Board.
2. Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary. [Online]
Merriam-Webster. [Cited: March 3, 2010.] http://www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary .
3. Kean, 2008. Integrity programs key to protecting today’s
pipelines from corrosion. Pipeline and Gas Journal, March.
4. Bal, 2008. What do we mean by integrity management.
Pipeline and Gas Journal, June.
5. Colquhoun, et al., 2006. Management system approach
to pipeline integrity. International Pipeline Conference,
IPC 2006-10531.
6. Hopkins, 2008. Learnings from pipeline failures. The
Journal of Pipeline Engineering, 2nd Quarter.
7. Coates, 1996. Many factors important in developing
rehab strategy. Pipeline and Gas Journal, January.
8. Paul, 2007. Legal issues in pipeline integrity programs.
Pipeline and Gas Journal, October.
9. Johnson, 2008. The changing landscape of pipeline
integrity. Pipeline and Gas Journal, April.
10. Little, 2008. Regulation of oil and natural gas pipelines:
n
a legal primer for the layman. Pipeline and Gas Journal,
March.
io
11. Nidd, 2007. Litigation implications of pipeline integrity
st y
ut
management practices. Pipeline and Gas Journal, 2007.
di op
12. Palmer-Jones, et al., 2006. A new approach to risk based
rib
pipeline integrity management. International Pipeline
or c
Conference, IPC 2006-10535.
13. Rothwell, et al., 2006. Risk analysis of sweet natural
t f ple
gas transmission pipelines - benchmarking simple
consequence models. International Pipeline Conference,
IPC 2006-10059.
no m
Sa
29
14. Muhlbauer, et al., 2006. A new generation of pipeline
risk algorithms. International Pipeline Conference, IPC
2006-10178.
15. Kale, et al., 2004. A probabilistic model for internal
corrosion of gas pipelines. International Pipeline
Conference, IPC04-0483.
16. Hicks and Ward, 2004. Development of a risk ranking tool
based on quantitative methods. International Pipeline
Conference, IPC04-0549.
17. Wickenhauser and Playdon, 2004. Quantitative
pipeline risk assessment and maintenance optimization.
International Pipeline Conference, IPC04-0451.
18. Hallihan, 2006. Re-engineering existing pipelines in
Western Canada. International Pipeline Conference,
IPC 2006-10072.
19. Howell, 2009. Who owns abandoned pipelines. Pipeline
and Gas Journal, October.
20. Roblin, 2006. An overview of envrionmental issues
pertaining to abandonment of an NEB-regulated pipeline:
a case study of the Yukon Pipelines Ltd abandonment.
International Pipeline Conference, IPC2006-10444.
21. Pipeline Abandonment Steering Committee. Pipeline
abandonment: a discussion paper on technical and
environmental issues. [Online] http://www.ercb.ca/
docs/documents/reports/PLAbandDiscPaper_199611.
htm.
22. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICHE),
1992. Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures.
23. American Gas Association (AGA), 2009. Distribution
integrity management program. Guide for gas
transmission and distribution piping systems, Appendix
G – 192 – 8.
 Isn’t it time you were in the

Pipeloop is the global directory of pipeline professionals. Getting into the

Pipeloop is the quickest and most effective way of promoting your presence,
your skills, your product, your service in the pipeline sector.
Like other networking sites, users create an account and build a profile
outlining their skills as well as their experience. They can also search for other
users using over 160 combinations of specialties and materials. The chief
benefit of Pipeloop is its unique focus on the pipeline sector.
Launched on Valentine’s Day this year, Pipeloop will bring the pipeline

n
community together like never before.

io
st y
So, if you’re looking for expert welding in Wyoming, want to sell inspection
ut
di op

tools in India, need a recruiter in Rio, or might be hiring graduates in Gabon –

rib
it’s time you got in the Pipeloop, the global directory of pipeline professionals.
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa

SIGN UP TODAY FOR A FEE LISTING AT

WWW.PIPELOOP.COM

Pipeloop, brought to you by

1st Quarter, 2011 31

The influence of linepipe base

material on pipeline girth weld
metal CTOD toughness
by B D Newbury*1, M W Hukle2, D B Lillig1, and J McHaney3

1 ExxonMobil Development Co, Houston, TX, USA

2 Trendsetter Engineering, Inc., Spring, TX, USA
3 Microalloying International, Inc., Houston, TX, USA

A ll internationally recognized pipeline welding codes and standards (‘codes’) consider the linepipe base
material to be an essential variable. Potentially, any change to this essential variable will require the
qualification of a new welding procedure. In order to reduce the number of unique welding procedures
that must be qualified for a given pipeline project, the different codes recognize the need for base material

n
grouping(s) and each code identifies specific criteria to define each base material group. Grouping strategies
identify base material characteristics such as grade, manufacturer, manufacturing process, and basic change

io
in chemistry (to name just a few), to define a base material group. The criticality of a given girth weld may
st y
ut
influence the limits of a base material group. The application of alternative defect-acceptance standards
di op

based on engineering critical assessment (ECA) is one example for which more restrictive base material
rib
grouping may be appropriate.
or c

The present work investigates the influence of base material on weld metal toughness as measured by crack-
t f ple

tip-opening displacement (CTOD), a primary input parameter for the determination of ECA-based defect-
acceptance standards. Weld metal CTOD toughness is measured for different base material combinations
and the effects of changing base materials are evaluated. Of particular interest in this study is the fact that
no m

pipeline welding codes define base material groups differently. A suggested procedure qualification testing
protocol for weld metal toughness, considering the effects of changes in base material, is offered.
Sa

C ost-effective transportation of petroleum

products has presented – and continues to provide – a
significant challenge to the oil and gas industry. Welded steel
plate or strip from multiple plate mills, and those plate mills
may source slabs from multiple sources.

pipelines, which are the industry standard for long-distance
onshore oil and gas transportation, have experienced
significant growth in the last 80 years. Long-distance, large-
diameter pipelines are now common and major pipeline
construction projects continue to play a major role in the
industry. The size and scope of many pipeline projects has
had a direct effect on materials’-acquisition strategies for
critical raw materials, such as linepipe. For smaller pipeline
projects, sourcing linepipe from one or two mills may be
sufficient to mitigate schedule risks. However, as project
sizes increase, sourcing linepipe from as many as five or six
pipe mills may be deemed prudent to protect the project
schedule. Furthermore, independent pipe mills may source
This paper was first presented at the Pipeline Technology Conference held in Ostend,
Belgium, in October 2009, and organized by the University of Gent, Belgium.
*Author’s contact details:
tel: +1 281 654 6679
email: brian.d.newbury@exxonmobil.com
This work examines the effect of base material chemistry
on weld metal properties, specifically, on weld metal
toughness. The focus of this effort is on developing a logical
and streamlined mechanical testing protocol to handle the
potential scenario of having to qualify girth weld procedures
involving linepipe from multiple pipe sources. The present
report reviews base material as an essential variable for several
major pipeline welding codes; this work then provides some
guidance in developing a qualification testing protocol based
on the use of multiple base material sources.
Base material as an essential variable
All international pipeline welding codes recognize ‘base
material’ as an essential variable for weld-procedure
qualification. The magnitude of allowable base material
variation within one qualified weld procedure may depend
on the inspection standards specified within the governing
32 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

Defect acceptance
Code Base material limitations
standards
1. SMYS ≤ 42 ksi
Workmanship 2. 42 ksi < SMYS < 65 ksi
3. Each grade when SYMS ≥ 65 ksi
API 1104
19th edition 1. Each grade
ECA based 2. Manufacturer of pipe material
(Appendix A) 3. Basic change in chemical composition or processing
by a single manufacturer
1. SMYS ≤ 42 ksi
Workmanship 2. 42 ksi < SMYS < 65 ksi
API 1104 3. Each grade when SYMS ≥ 65 ksi
20th edition 1. Each grade
ECA based
2. Manufacturing process
(Appendix A)
3. Basic change in chemical composition or processing
Workmanship 1. SMYS ≤ 42 ksi
2. Each grade when SMYS > 42 ksi
ISO 13847:2000 ECA based1 3. Chemical composition with defined CE (≤ 0.03)
(Section 9.8) and Pcm (≤ 0.02) maximum parameter increase
4. Supply condition (e.g., TMCP, Q&T, etc.)

n
Workmanship

io
Increase in carbon equivalent exceeding 0.05 percent-
st y
CSA Z662-03 ut ECA based age point for pipe or components having a specified
minimum yield strength higher than 386 MPa.
di op

(Annex K)
1. C hange of material grade between < X70 and ≥ X70
rib
Workmanship
or from X70 to a higher grade
or c

2. Where material grade ≥ X70, material manufacturer

t f ple

(combinations between different material manufac-

turers do not require separate qualification)
AS 2885.2-2007 ECA based2 3. For actual CE values of < 0.35, an increase of
carbon equivalent of > 0.05 above that used for the
no m

(Section 22.4)
procedure test weld
4. For actual CE values of ≥ 0.35, an increase of
Sa

carbon equivalent of > 0.03 above that used for the

procedure test weld
Workmanship 1. A change from a lower to a higher strength grade
but not vice-versa
2. A change in the supply condition (TMCP, Q&T, or
normalized)
DNV OS F101 ECA based 3. A change between the processes rolled, forged
(Appx. D, E200) or cast
4. Change limits in Pcm, CE and carbon content
5. A change in base material origin (steel mill) for
welds with SMYS above 425 MPa
Note 1: ISO 13847 references BS 7910 and API 1104 for ECA methodology but does not specify additional restrictions or limita-
tions relative to essential variables for use with alternative defect-acceptance standards.
Note 2: AS 2885.2 - 2007 references BS 7910 and the ‘Pipesafe’ proprietary software package for ECA methodology but does not
specify additional restrictions or limitations relative to essential variables for use with alternative defect-acceptance standards.

Table 1. Base material related essential variable limitations as specified in various codes.
1st Quarter, 2011 33

Pipe mill Material grade Process Pcm

‘J’ X70 TMCP 0.19
‘K’ X70 TMCP 0.17
Table 2. Hypothetical base materials for girth weld procedure qualification using ECA-based defect-acceptance standards.

Qualified WPS combinations

PQR
combination API 1104 API 1104
ISO 13847 CSA 662 AS 2885.2 DNV OS F101
19th ed. 20th ed.
J to J J to J All2 All All J to J J to J
J to K
J to K J to J1 All All All All J to K
K to K1
K to K K to K All All All K to K K to K
J to J
J to J and J to J
K to K All All All All
K to K K to K
J to K1
Note 1: Pending resolution by representative code committee.
Note 2: All = J to J, J to K, and K to K.

n
Table 3. Hypothetical weld procedure qualification range for ECA-based defect-acceptance standards based on referenced

io
welding codes.
st y
ut
code. In other words, the allowable base material variation to the welding of base material ‘K.’ An extension to this
di op

for girth welds inspected to workmanship standards may be question concerns the qualification of a weld procedure
rib
different from the allowable base material variation for girth between base material ‘J’ and base material ‘K’ and the
or c

welds inspected to alternative defect-acceptance standards suitability of the same procedure to weld base material
developed by fracture-mechanics’-based engineering-critical ‘J’ to itself and base material ‘K’ to itself.
t f ple

assessments (ECA). In general, girth welds inspected to

workmanship standards may allow base material to be The following hypothetical example is provided as an
grouped into a broader range than base material whose illustration. Table 2 provides hypothetical base materials
no m

girth welds are to be subjected to ECA-based inspection to be welded in production and Table 3 provides the
standards. The ECA-based inspection standards are generally hypothetical range of base material combinations
Sa

dependent on factors that affect weld metal and heat-affected
zone (HAZ) toughness. Consequently, tighter restrictions
may be applied to essential variable ranges applicable to
ECA-based inspection standards when compared to ranges
allowed for girth welds inspected to workmanship standards.
The resulting base material group limitations for ECA-based
inspection standards may be tighter than those of the base
material group limitations used for workmanship-based
inspection standards.
Table 1 identifies relevant base material essential variable
limitations as specified in API 1104 (19th and 20th
editions), ISO 13847:2000, CSA Z662-03, AS 2885.2
– 2007 and DNV OS F101 - 2007 [1-6]. All five of the
international standards referenced in Table 1 allow the
use of ECA-developed alternative defect-acceptance
standards; however, only API 1104 adds restrictions to
base material variation when alternative defect-acceptance
standards are applied to the inspection of girth welds.
The relevant question arising from this base material
essential variable discussion concerns the applicability
of a weld procedure qualified on a given base material ‘J’
allowable by the referenced welding codes.
The hypothetical situation given above suggests that:
1. There is no general consensus among code-
generating bodies as to the effect of base material
on weld metal toughness.
2. ‘Pipe mill’ is the one base material variable that
most distinguishes the procedure-qualification
record (PQR) ranges between the different welding
codes.
3. DNV OS F101 appears to be the most restrictive
in terms of allowable base material variation, and
ISO and CSA appear to be the least restrictive.
The current programme investigates the effects of base
material on weld-metal performance. In particular, the
programme looks at weld-metal toughness relative to
minor changes in base material chemistry. Weld-metal
toughness is a significant input parameter affecting
ECA-based defect-acceptance standards, and the current
programme is focused entirely on CTOD performance and
the effects of changing base material on such performance.
34
Factors that influence
weld-metal toughness
The mechanical properties of a weld-metal deposit are
a function of the microstructure of the as-cast (primary
weld-metal microstructure) and subsequently re-heated
(secondary) weld-metal microstructure (for multi-pass
welds). The characteristics of the weld-metal microstructure
depend on the final deposit chemistry (filler metal plus
base metal dilution), solidification structure, and solid-state
transformation product(s).
A review of weld-metal solidification structures will be
presented, followed by a description of the subsequent solid-
state transformation product(s). This section will finish with
a brief discussion concerning the influence of weld-metal
chemistry on weld toughness.
The size, shape, and orientation of solidified weld metal
are influenced by the thermal gradient established by the
welding process and the characteristics of the base material
grain structure adjacent to the fusion boundary. Macro- and
micro-segregation are also influenced by the thermal gradient
n
established by the welding process. Numerous non-metallic
or inter-metallic inclusions are developed in the molten
io
weld metal, and many particles subsequently become part
st y
ut
of the solidified structure (most are agitated out of the weld
di op
pool prior to solidification, but many are trapped in the
rib
solidified weld metal). Many of these remaining particles are
or c
preferentially located within the primary grain boundaries,
but many small particles become trapped within the actual
t f ple
grain structure. The particles of most interest for this
discussion consist of complex oxides which will be revisited
in more detail later in this section.
no m
Weld-metal solidification near the centre of the weld deposit
Sa
occurs predominately with a cellular or dendritic grain
structure. For weld metals having a chemical composition
relatively similar to the base material (in this case C-Mn
steels), the primary grains will develop through epitaxial
growth along the fusion boundary adopting the orientation
and size of the adjacent base metal grain structure. The
initial growth of the solidifying weld structure will be planar
and quickly transitions into cellular followed by columnar
dendritic growth. The direction of grain growth tends to be
along the maximum thermal gradient towards the centre
of the weld deposit. For weld processes incorporating
high travel speeds, such as mechanized GMA welding,
the final dendrites will be oriented normal to the moving
solidification front which forms a tear-drop shape when
viewed from above. Most C-Mn steel weld metals solidify
as (δ) ferrite in the temperature range of approximately
1400ºC to 1500ºC.
The first important solid-state transformation reaction
occurring after solidification is the transformation from
(δ) ferrite to (λ) austenite. The austenite grain size which
develops from (δ) ferrite is very important because it
strongly influences further transformation behaviour to (α)
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
ferrite. Factors that influence the (λ) austenite to (α) ferrite
transformation include the nature and distribution of oxide
particles and the size and shape of the columnar austenite
grains. For C-Mn steel weld metals, three ferritic constituent
formation products are most likely allotriomorphic ferrite,
Widmanstatten ferrite, and acicular ferrite. For the present
discussion, the acicular ferrite product is the most significant
since it provides an optimum combination of strength and
toughness [7, 8]. It may be noted here that acicular ferrite
is generally not observed in the absence of grain boundary
(i.e. allotriomorphic and Widmanstatten) ferrite [9, 10].
Acicular ferrite nucleates on inclusions (typically complex
oxides) within the austenite grains, and additional acicular
plates will nucleate autocatalytically within the grain. The
autocatalytic nature of the reaction results in a structure
for which the correspondence of ferrite plates significantly
outnumbers the available amount of nucleating oxide
particles [11, 12]. It should be noted that numerous articles
on the subject of acicular ferrite have been written and
additional references are provided at the end of this text
for the interested reader [13-27].
Certain weld-metal design philosophies targeting higher-
strength applications (550 MPa and above) may rely on alloy
additions designed to suppress the growth of allotriomorphic
ferrite plates and Widmanstatten side plates. It was noted
earlier that acicular ferrite tends to be observed in the
presence of grain-boundary ferrite, and therefore these
additional ‘hardening elements’ tend to suppress the
formation of allotriomorphic ferrite allowing the nucleation
and growth of conventional bainitic structures (ferrite
sheaves with inter- or intragranular carbides). For filler
metals intended to be used in low heat input applications
(such as gas-metal arc (GMA) welds), and which are designed
for use in the conventional strength ranges (345-550 MPa),
additional hardening elements (such as Cr-Mo) are not
required and generally not employed.
It is very important that a minimum number of oxide
particles be available to initiate sufficient acicular ferrite
plates. For this reason the size, quantity, and distribution
of oxide particles are important. Oxide particles formed in
low heat input GMA welds using metal-cored wires would
typically be around 0.1-0.4μm diameter, and this oxide
particle diameter has been shown to be a function of the
Mn to Si ratio within the weld metal [28]. For solid-wire
gas-shielded applications (for example GMAW), it has been
shown that weld metal oxygen contents of around 150ppm
provide good toughnesses. Lower oxygen values result in
insufficient acicular ferrite formation, whereas excess oxygen
provides too many weld metal oxide particles [29]. It should
also be noted that higher volume fractions of acicular ferrite
are generally observed in weld metals which have a coarse
prior-austenite grain size compared to weld metals with a
fine prior-austenite grain size [30-34].
Other elements of interest within the weld metal include
deoxidizers such as Si for solid-wire filler metal and Al for
1st Quarter, 2011 35

cored wires. Additionally, emphasis on low impurity levels, Element Material Grade
such as S and P, are important to maintain reasonable C 0.16 max.
toughness levels. Microalloying additions such as Nb and
Ti may be added to help suppress growth of secondary (re- Mn 1.70 max.
heated) weld-metal microstructures. S 0.010 max.

Programme methodology P 0.020 max.

Ca 0.006 max.
The current programme looks at weld metal CTOD
values taken from welds produced as part of a pipeline Si 0.15 to 0.35
girth weld procedure-qualification program. The base Ti 0.025 max.
material making up the current programme are in the
form of linepipe, fabricated to API 5L, Grade X70, PSL Cr + Mo + Ni + Cu 0.5 max.
2. The pipe for the current programme is 42in diameter N 0.009 max.
by 0.617inh (15.67mm) wall thickness. All pipe was
manufactured by the same pipe mill using source plate B* 0.0005 max.
from three different rolling mills. For the purposes of Pcm (Ito-Bessyo) 0.20 max.
this programme and for the current discussion, each
unique plate source constitutes a different base material CE (IIW) 0.40 max.
(base pipe A, B, and C). All pipe was manufactured to Nb + V + Ti 0.15 max.
the same manufacturing procedure specification (MPS),
and the nominal chemistry of the plate material is given *No intentional addition allowed
in Table 4. Table 4. Nominal source plate material chemistry.

n
io
Element Base pipe A Base pipe B Base Pipe C
st y
C ut 0.07 0.10 0.04
di op

Mn 1.60 1.58 1.61

rib
or c

P 0.013 0.012 0.008

S 0.004 0.003 0.001
t f ple

Si 0.29 0.28 0.34

Cr 0.32 0.04 0.21
no m

Mo 0.01 0.01 0.008

Sa

Ni 0.02 0.05 0.12

Cu 0.01 0.01 0.17
Nb 0.084 0.032 0.058
V 0.004 0.060 0.006
Ti 0.012 0.002 0.018
B 0.0004 < 0.0002 0.0001

Table 5.Typical chemical composition (wt%) for base pipes A, B, and C.

A to A A to B B to B C to C
0.33 0.41 0.36 0.46
0.53 0.36 0.33 0.33
0.33 0.41 0.53 0.36
0.31 0.53 0.51 0.41
0.33 0.46 0.38 0.48
0.25 0.43 0.43 0.43

Table 6. Girth weld CTOD (mm) results tested at 0°C.

36
n
io
Girth welds for the current study were produced using a
st y
ut
semi-automatic gas-metal-arc welding (GMAW) process
di op
with surface-tension transfer (STT) for the root pass and
rib
mechanized flux-cored arc welding (FCAW) process for
or c
the fill and cap passes. The filler metal for the root pass
was AWS Specification A5.28, classification ER80S-G,
t f ple
and for the fill and cap passes A5.29, classification E91T-
1. Shielding gas for all passes was 75% Ar – 25% CO2.
Heat inputs for the root, hot, and cap-fill passes were
no m
approximately 0.3-0.8kJ/mm, 0.8-2kJ/mm, and 1.5-2.5kJ/
mm, respectively.
Sa
Test joints were produced and tested according to API
Standard 1104, Appendix A, 19th Edition, which requires
a test joint with high-heat input (HHI) and another
with low-heat input (LHI). Appendix A requires CTOD
specimens from three locations (12:00, 3:00 or 9:00,
and 6:00) for each test joint. The combination of three
locations for HHI and LHI results in six weld metal
centreline CTOD specimens for each base metal.
Girth welds produced for this study included four base
pipe combinations: A to A, A to B, B to B, and C to C.
Four base pipe combinations with six CTOD specimens
each resulted in 24 CTOD samples prepared with through-
thickness notches using B x 2B sample dimensions. CTOD
testing was performed according to API Standard 1104,
Appendix A at 0°C.
Results and discussion
Typical plate material chemistries for the pipe manufactured
for this test programme are shown for base pipe A, base pipe
B, and base pipe C in Table 5. CTOD test results are provided
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
Fig.1. CTOD (mm)
results grouped
together for
comparison from
lowest to highest
value.
in Table 6 and are shown in bar chart format in Fig.1. A
statistical comparison of CTOD results was performed by
application of Students’ t-test, assuming unequal variance,
an example of which is shown in Fig.2. A summary of
statistical t-test results is provided in Table 7.
This limited example illustrates that slight variations in base-
material chemistry have no statistically significant influence
on weld-metal CTOD results. This result is further illustrated
in Fig.3 showing a Shewhart process-control chart indicating
that CTOD toughness is stable and predictable across all
sampled base-material combinations. A closer look at the
results, however, does suggest one potential trend that may
be worth noting: the weld-metal CTOD results from base-
material combination A to A tend to be consistently lower
than any of the other combinations tested (albeit slightly,
as shown in Fig.1). A review of the base-material chemistries
indicate that base material A utilizes a medium-carbon,
Nb - Ti microalloyed design with Cr additions. Compared
with base materials B and C, the alloy design of A is more
dependent on Nb and Cr, and compared to base material
B, base material A is more dependent on Ti (as shown in
Table 5).
The general influence of small amounts of Nb, Ti, and Cr
in the base material on weld-metal structure and properties
will now be discussed. Nb and Ti additions tend to suppress
HAZ grain growth in the base material during welding and,
by limited dilution into the weld metal, may help retard
austenite grain growth in the secondary (re-heated) weld
metal. The reduced grain growth in the HAZ will tend to
form smaller epitaxial grains along the fusion boundary.
This effect, coupled with the potential for reduced grain
growth within the re-heated weld metal, may result in a
1st Quarter, 2011 37

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

B to B C to C
Mean 0.423333 0.411667
Variance 0.006707 0.003337
Observations 6 6
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 9
t Stat 0.285157
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.390989
Fig.2. Example t-test
for CTOD values t Critical one-tail 1.833113
from girth welds P(T<=t) two-tail 0.781978
between plate
source combinations t Critical two-tail 2.262157
B to B and C to C.

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa

Note 1: All CTOD test results are within ±3σ control limits (indicated by solid red lines), therefore the process is stable and consist-
ent, with no significant difference between CTOD values.
Note 2: Control charts indicate how a process changes over time. A control chart calculates control limits: by comparing current
data to the limits, one can conclude that the process variation is consistent (stable, in control) or is unpredictable (out of control,
affected by special causes of variation).
Fig.3. Shewhart control chart for all CTOD test results.

PQG combination A to A A to B B to B C to C
A to A - 1.91 < 2.31 1.50 < 2.23 1.43 < 2.31
A to B - - 0.24 < 2.26 0.65 < 2.23
B to B - - - 0.29 < 2.26
C to C - - - -
Table 7. Summary of statistical t-test results for CTOD values from all possible combinations of girth welds (t-Stat vs t-Crit).
Note that t-Stat < t-Critical indicates no statistical difference.
38 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

Base material
J K L M N P
J J to J J to K J to L J to M J to N J to P
K - K to K K to L K to M K to N K to P
L - - L to L L to M L to N L to P
M - - - M to M M to N M to P
N - - - - N to N N to P
P - - - - - P to P

Table 8.Weld-procedure qualification combinations involving six base materials.

HAZ toughness WM toughness

Factor
Not significant Significant Not significant Significant
Plate composition X X
Plate composition
X X
opposite side
Filler metal X X

n
Heat input X X

io
Transfer mode X
st y
X
ut
di op

Shielding gas X X
rib
Bead characteristics X X
or c

Interpass cleanliness X X
t f ple

Table 9. Factors that influence HAZ and weld-metal toughness (CTOD).

net reduction in overall grain size in weld metal between executing a properly designed narrow-focus programme.
no m

base material A as compared to weld metals between the This current discussion is limited to the characteristics
other base material combinations. Smaller prior austenite and methodology used to develop the present test data,
Sa

grains tend to suppress acicular ferrite formation within
the weld metal, and an expected drop in measured
toughness would result. In addition, the presence of Cr
in the weld metal associated with base material A may
tend to suppress grain-boundary ferrite formation in the
weld-metal microstructure. Reduced grain-boundary ferrite
tends to promote the formation of bainitic ferrite, again,
with anticipated lower overall toughness. It should be
noted that these are purely theoretical observations and
the very-detailed microstructural studies that would be
required to substantiate these results are beyond the scope
of the present work.
Returning now to the observation that “a slight variation
in base-material chemistry” has no statistically significant
effect on weld-metal toughness, the relevant question
becomes “what is the most efficient means available to
qualify weld-metal toughness?” given the scenario where
two, three, or perhaps even six base material combinations
are present. Mechanical testing of all possible base-plate
combinations can become an overwhelming activity given
the possibility of six base materials and, in most cases,
probably would not result in any added benefit than
i.e. low-heat-input, low-dilution welds on base materials
manufactured to the same MPS.
Strictly in terms of weld-metal toughness, testing any one of
the combinations would have yielded essentially the same
statistical result as testing all four of the combinations listed
in Table 7. In order to reduce the number of combinations
tested and streamline the overall qualification process, a
logical and meaningful qualification philosophy should be
developed. For simplicity, we begin this discussion with two
base materials (returning to the hypothetical base materials
discussed earlier, ‘J’ and ‘K’). If the base materials are
essentially similar (i.e. the same manufacturing process, the
same supply condition, and similar nominal chemistry),
taking weld-metal samples from welded combination J
to K would likely yield results consistent with all three
possible combinations (J to J, J to K, and K to K). This
approach would be allowed by most relevant pipeline
welding codes, with DNV OS F101 being one notable
exception (assuming base material SMYS > 425 MPa and
different origins for the materials J and K). If any doubt
exists as to the effect of base-material chemistry on weld-
metal properties, then testing combinations J to J and K to
1st Quarter, 2011
K should be sufficient for all possible combinations. The
logic for welding each base material to itself is that if one
of the base materials has a potentially negative influence
on weld-metal performance, then the noted effect should
be worst case when that base material is welded to itself
and this negative effect should become better when welded
to a material that ‘improves’ material performance.
The logic of this approach (welding each base material
to itself) becomes more apparent when the required
qualification programme is expanded to cover six
hypothetical base materials, as an example. Table 8 shows
the possible qualification combinations associated with
six base materials: from the table, the number of different
possible combinations to be welded is 21. By testing only
the same base materials welded to themselves (represented
in bold italics in the table) the possible combinations are
reduced to six. The logic, again, being that the ‘worst’ base
material welded to itself should represent the lower-bound
condition of all possible combinations.
A qualitative review of several factors, many of which
are essential variables typical of most pipeline welding
n
codes, and their likely effect on HAZ and weld-metal
toughness, is summarized in Table 9. Table 9 suggests
io
that for low-heat-input, low-dilution weld processes, the
st y
ut
filler metal and other factors directly affecting the weld
di op
deposit (including heat input, transfer mode characteristics,
rib
etc.) have a primary influence on weld-metal toughness,
or c
while base-metal composition may have only a secondary
influence on weld-metal toughness.
t f ple
Conclusions
no m
For low-heat-input, low-dilution welds on base materials
of nominally similar chemistry, the weld-metal toughness
Sa
is not statistically different for all of the different possible
combinations currently studied. This observation would
suggest that streamlined weld-procedure qualification
programmes can be developed with mechanical testing
on targeted combinations.
The allowance for limiting mechanical testing of base-
material combinations, within certain variable limits, is
recognized by most pipeline welding codes. The extent
of variation recognized as ‘essential’ varies significantly
among the different welding codes.
For qualification programmes involving multiple base-
material suppliers, a qualification strategy targeting base
materials welded to themselves, to cover all possible base-
material combinations, may represent a rational approach.
References
1. API Standard 1104, 1999. Welding of pipelines and
related facilities. 19th Edn, September.
2. API Standard 1104, 2005. Welding of pipelines and
related facilities. 20th Edn, November.
39
3. ISO 13847-2000, 2001. Petroleum and natural gas
industries – pipeline transportation systems – welding
of pipelines.
4. CSA Z662-03, 2003. Oil and gas pipeline systems. June.
5. Australian Standard AS 2885.2, 2007. Pipelines – gas
and liquid petroleum, Part 2 welding.
6. Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101, 2007. Submarine
pipeline systems. October.
7. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., and Svensson, L.-E., 1989. Effect of
alloying additions on the microstructure and properties of
vertical up MMA welds. Joining and Materials, pp182-187.
8. Taylor, L.G., and Farrar, R.A., 1975. Metallurgical aspects
of the mechanical properties of submerged arc weld metal.
Welding and Metal Fabrication, May, pp305-310.
9. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., Svensson, L.-E., and Gretoft, B.,
1985. A model for the development of microstructure
in low alloy steel weld deposit. Acta Metallurgica, 33, 7,
pp1271-1283.
10. Babu, S.S., and Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 1990. Transition
from bainite to acicular ferrite in re-heated Fe-Cr-C weld
deposits. Materials Science and Technology, pp1005-1020.
11. Ricks, R.A., Howell, P.R., and Barritte, G.S., 1982. The
nature of acicular ferrite in HSLA steel weld metals. J.
Materials Science, pp732-740.
12. Mills, A.R., Thewlis, G., and Whiteman, J.A., 1987. Nature
of inclusions in steel weld metals and their influence
on formation of acicular ferrite. Materials Science and
Technology, pp1051-1061.
13. Fleck, N.A., Grong, O., Edwards, G.R., and Matlock,
D.K., 1986. Filler metal wire and flux effects in SMA weld
metal transformation kinetics. Welding Journal Research
Supplement, pp113s-121s.
14. Thewlis, G. 1994. Transformation kinetics of ferrous weld
metals. Materials Science and Technology, Feb., pp110-125.
15. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., Svensson, L.-E., and Gretoft, B.,
1986. The austenite grain structure of low alloy steel weld
deposits. J.Materials Science, pp3947-3951.
16. Dowling, J.H., Corbett, J.H., and Kerr, H.W., 1986.
Inclusion phases and the nucleation of acicular ferrite
in submerged arc welds in high strength low alloy steels.
Metallurgical Transactions, pp1611-1623.
17. Farrar, R.A., and Harrison, P.L., 1987. Acicular ferrite
in carbon manganese weld metals. J.Materials Science,
pp3812-3820.
18. Thewlis, G., 1989. Pipeline welds – effect of pipe material
and consumable composition. Joining and Materials, pp25-31.
19. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., Svensson, L.-E., and Gretoft, B.,
1985. The influence of alloying elements on the formation
of allotriomorphic ferrite in low alloy steel weld deposits.
J.Materials Science, pp305-308
20. Thewlis, G., 2004. Classification and quantification of
microstructures in steels. Materials Science and Technology,
pp143-160.
21. Yang, J.R., and Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 1985. Orientation
relationships between adjacent plates of acicular ferrite
in steel weld deposits. Materials Science and Technology,
pp93-97.
22. Strangewood, M., and Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 1987.
40
The mechanism of acicular ferrite transformation in
steel weld deposits. Proc. Advances in Welding Science
and Technology, David, S.A., ed., ASM International,
pp187-191.
23. Yang, J.R., and Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 1991. Acicular
ferrite transformations in alloy steel weld metals.
J.Materials Science, pp839-845.
24. Zhang, Z., and Farrar, R.A., 1996. Role of non-metallic
inclusions in formation of acicular ferrite in low alloy steel
weld metals. Materials Science and Technology, pp237-260.
25. Barbaro, F.J., Krauklis, P., and Easterling, K.E., 1989.
Formation of acicular ferrite at oxide particles in steels.
Materials Science and Technology, pp1057-1068.
26. Sugden, A.A.B., and Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 1989. Lower
acicular ferrite. Metallurgical Transactions, 20A, pp1811-
1818, Sept.
27. Babu, S.S., and Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 2002. Inclusion
formation and microstructure evolution in low alloy steel
welds. ISIJ International, pp1344-1353.
28. Grong, O., Siewart, T.A., Martins, G.P. and Olson, D.L.,
1986. A model for the Si-Mn deoxidation of steel weld
metal. Metallurgical Transactions A, 17A, pp1797-1806.
n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
29. Svensson, L.-E., 1994. Control of microstructures and
properties in steel arc welds. CRC-Press, p190.
30. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 1990. Control of weld metal
microstructure and properties. Proc.Int.Conf. Metallurgy,
Welding, and Qualification of Microalloyed (HSLA) Steel
Weldments, Hickey, J.T., Howden, D.G., and Randall,
M.D., eds., pp34-69.
31. Liu, S., and Olson, D.L., 1986. The role of inclusions
in controlling HSLA steel weld microstructures. Welding
Journal Research Supplement, June, pp139s-149s.
32. Harrison, P.L., and Farrar, R.A., 1981. Influence of oxygen
rich inclusions on the γ to α phase transformation in high
strength low alloy (HSLA) steel weld metals. J.Materials
Science, 16, pp2218-2226.
33. Rees, G.I., and Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 1994.
Thermodynamics of acicular ferrite nucleation. Materials
Science and Technology, May, pp353-358.
34. Yang, J.R., and Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 1986.
Thermodynamics of acicular ferrite transformation in
alloy-steel weld deposits. Advances in Welding Science and
Technology, ASM International., pp187-191.
1st Quarter, 2011 41

The role of internal pressure

in the deformation capacity
of pipelines
by Luigino Vitali*, Lorenzo Marchionni, Roberto Bruschi,
and Lorenzo Bartolini

Saipem Energy Services SpA, Fano, Italy

T he minimum requirements for pressure containment determine the wall thickness of land pipelines
and, in many circumstances, of offshore pipelines. Land pipelines are generally thinner than offshore
pipelines, because natural gas is transported on land at pressures lower than offshore. For offshore pipelines,
the steel wall thickness is often dictated by installation loads, external hydrostatic pressure, and bottom
roughness. Further, offshore pipelines are designed to withstand significant bending in operation, which is

n
considered as a secondary load effect on land pipelines. Then, the diameter-to-wall-thickness ratio (D/t)
for land pipelines is definitely higher than for offshore pipelines, and the deformation capacity in bending

io
decreases for increasing D/t.
st y
ut
di op

Introduction of high-strength steels to reduce the steel quantity needed for long-distance gas transportation
rib
on land is an additional factor that affects the desirable values of D/t. Crossing harsh environments requires
or c

good deformation capacity in bending of the linepipe; high pressure, from optimization studies aiming at
minimizing transportation costs of large volumes of natural gas, implies thicker walls. Further, high pressure
t f ple

provides resistance against pipe section instability. Both effects significantly contribute to improving the
deformation capacity of a pipeline in bending.
no m

The scope of this paper is to introduce the effect of internal pressure on the local buckling limit state of
buried pipelines under environmental bending loads. Findings from the application of finite-element models
Sa

are presented. The internal pressure contributes to render the linepipe resistant to large strains in the
sector in compression, without developing wrinkling, so not compromising the carrying and/or containment
capacity of the pipeline. On the contrary, large tensile strains that may develop on the opposite sector in
presence of steel axial forces may activate tearing instability of the pipe wall, in case of low uniform elongation
properties of the linepipe material, and a pipeline response that contributes to develop axial stretching.

T HE PRINCIPAL of working stress design (WSD)

has been used by pipeline industry over six decades
with minor changes, despite significant improvement
of material and fabrication technology, installation
equipment, and design tools over the years [1]. This
practice was proven to be safe, and failure statistics
of 106 km of operating pipelines in 30 years [2] is
definitely satisfactory. In the late 1990s a series of new
R&D initiatives started with the aim of reviewing design
codes for land pipelines, and introducing limit-state-
based design (LSBD) and partial safety factors (PSF).
This paper was first presented at the 5th Pipeline Technology Conference held in
Ostend, Belgium, in October 2009, and organized by the University of Gent, Belgium.
*Author’s contact details:
tel: +39 0721 168 2447
email: luigino.vitali@saipem.eni.it
PSF have been calibrated, using structural-reliability
methods [3] to prepare new load and resistance-factor
design (LRFD) guidelines. These initiatives got strength
from the international pipeline industry after a series
of public debates on the outcomes of a similar and
successful initiative undertaken in the early 1990s that
addressed offshore pipelines [3].
In LSBD the structural performance of the pipeline refers
to a set of design checks that cover the relevant failure
modes. The pipeline is a pressure vessel containing and
carrying a product, so failure means loss of containment
and/or of the carrying capacity [4, 5, 6]. Each limit-state
equation divides the pipeline into two states: the safe and
the failed state. A design check means making a choice
for the relevant design variables (wall thickness, service
42
conditions, burial depth, cover, etc.) in order to stay on
the safe side. It should be mentioned that the wording
‘LSBD’ is sometimes confused with strain-based design
(SBD). Actually, a limit state can be suitably described
by a format invoking working stresses. This is the case
for the allowance criteria for hoop stresses with respect
to the bursting limit state, as can be found in the WSD
codes. On the contrary, a design check on longitudinal
or equivalent working stresses may give rise to a weak
correlation with the actual failure mode. Pipelines under
bending loads may fail because of local buckling at the
sector in compression and at stresses even lower than
yielding for high (greater than 100) D/t. For thicker walls
(with D/t less than 60), failure occurs at strains far greater
than yielding. So, limiting the equivalent stress in the
case of pipe bending is not appropriate, and this can be
a limit of traditional WSD. Nevertheless, in WSD the
longitudinal load effects from normal load conditions
are usually considered as secondary with respect to the
circumferential ones, classified as primary. A reason
for this classification is that the global longitudinal
load effects for traditional land pipelines are assumed
n
as satisfactorily resolved during construction, with only
exceptional or minor additional contributions during
io
operation.
st y
ut
di op
Modern (or recent editions of old) design codes provide
rib
indications for the applicability of SBD in relation to the
or c
longitudinal effects of applied loads. Project experience
shows that for traditional linepipe material and thin
t f ple
walls, it is the longitudinal compression stresses that
drive failure. For new high-strength steels and thicker
walls because of higher pressures, the permissible strains
no m
in compression can be sustained beyond yielding. The
stability of the sector in tension, manifesting not in
Sa
shape but in pipe-wall thinning, may become critical
at yielding. The tearing of the linepipe material might
drive the failure in the case of low uniform elongation
properties. There is a strict correlation between a design
check and new steel properties, as well as new load
conditions. This aspect is currently of major concern
for the international pipeline industry, engaged in
new pipeline ventures in harsh environments, where
secondary loads are actually principal ones.
The oil and gas industry, over the last two decades,
has discussed and sometimes agreed upon applicable
safety targets in the four categories of limit state usually
considered in structural design:
• Serviceability limit state (SLS), beyond which the
structure does not meet established functional
requirements.
• Ultimate limit state (ULS), beyond which the
structure may experience loss of containment.
• Fatigue limit state (FLS), an ULS developing over
time due to cyclic lifetime loading.
• Accidental limit state (ALS), an ULS condition
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
due to abnormal load under extreme conditions
or high return periods.
The consequences of a leak are related to the product:
an oil leak in a remote region is far more severe than a
gas leak, so the safety target for an oil pipeline in remote
environments is more stringent than for a gas pipeline.
Starting from this and from the location where a loss
of product may occur, the classification must consider
a series of additional issues:
• The pipeline is a pressure vessel during operation.
However a misfit or failure is also relevant during
installation and testing (acceptance criteria for
damage on the pipe body or defects in girth welds,
residual capacity after permanent deformation
such as cold bending, etc.), as it may affect the
operating performance.
• The limit-state equation must include both load
effects and the relevant activated strength capacity,
the latter formally accounting for the actual
material performance that the limit state refers
to (leak or bursting due to metal loss depends
on yielding – Y, tensile strength – T, uniform
elongation– UE, and toughness).
• A limit-state design format regards load conditions
and resistance relevant to the pipeline’s global
configuration (exposure due to floatation or
global buckling, etc.), and load effects that must
be compared with linepipe and steel resistance
(bursting or local buckling limit states, etc.).
Sometimes the limit-state equations currently in force do
not satisfactorily cover all the issues mentioned above,
and in these circumstances finite-element methods and
testing are mandatory. The scope of this paper is to
discuss the effect of internal pressure on the deformation
capacity of land pipelines, particularly under bending:
• The contribution of the internal pressure to
increase the compressive longitudinal strain
capacity of the pipeline. Relevant parameters
affecting local buckling failure mode, are analyzed:
diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/t), shape of the
stress-strain curve, and yield-to-tensile-strength
ratio (Y/T).
• The effect of the internal pressure on the steel wall
thinning up to tearing instability, at longitudinal
fibres under tension. Relevant parameters
affecting tearing instability failure mode are
analyzed: D/t, shape of the stress-strain curve, Y/T
ratio, uniform elongation, and steel axial force.
The effect of the relevant parameters is discussed through
specific finite-element model (FEM) analyses, evidencing
different performances at different pressures, particularly
when high-strength steels (X80, X100) are used instead
of standard steel (X65) [7].
1st Quarter, 2011
n
io
st y
ut
di op
Fig.1. Development of plastic strains for pressurised pipes according to the von Mises’ yielding criteria and associated
rib
plastic flow rule [12].
or c
The effect of internal pressure on
t f ple
strength capacity in pipe bending
– background
no m
Pipeline installation and operation experiences show
Sa
that failure modes may develop in the presence of a
longitudinal defect (notch, cut, or embedded), which
causes the reduction of the strength capacity for containing
the internal pressure. Also, circumferential failure
modes are the consequence of longitudinal over-stress,
caused by a combination of permanent, operational, and
environmental loads. These may develop into localized
deformations followed by a reduction of the hydraulic
section and/or longitudinal or circumferential pipe wall
tearing and rupture.
Longitudinal (developing into longitudinal rupture of the
pipe wall) failure modes, when sustained by the internal
pressure, are marginally influenced by the longitudinal
state of stress [4, 8, 9]. Longitudinal failures may result as
a consequence of internal pressure exceeding the current
resistance capacity of the linepipe material across the pipe
wall. It is common practice that the containment capacity
of the linepipe, and the strength of the seam weld, are
tested at the pipe mill at a pressure dependent on the
wall thickness and on the specified minimum yield stress
(SMYS). Before commissioning, the system pressure test
provides a guarantee against bad handling or damage during
43
pipe transportation and installation, as well as against and
unsatisfactory field girth welding. The system pressure test
is generally performed at pressures giving hoop stresses
of 1.25 to 1.50 times the maximum operating pressure.
During severe system pressure tests of high-strength steels,
it can happen that failure may occur in the pipe body at a
point not necessarily where damage has occurred. Failure
can originate at the weakest sector of the circumference
(which could be at the heat-affected zone – HAZ – of the
seam weld which is sometimes weaker than the weld and
linepipe material), due to the worst combination of wall
thickness and local strength. The failure can be driven by
a sustained load condition close to yielding, superimposed
on which are longitudinal tensile stresses from the pipe’s
interaction with the soil, which can possibly develop
into local strains that exceed the uniform elongation of
the linepipe material. This can give rise to a condition of
localization, thinning, and tearing rupture of the pipe wall.
In operation, corrosion or external damage may reduce the
initial containment capacity of the linepipe. Design codes
generally account for a margin against metal loss of 10%,
and an incidental pressure exceeding the design pressure
of 5 to 10%. When the pipe wall’s resistance is exceeded
locally, and not necessarily globally, the circumferential
stresses may give rise to the development of longitudinal
failure in the pipe body or in the seam weld, starting
44
from the region where corrosion has caused a loss of
material, whether very localized or extended. Other sites
of failure can be where there is a notch in the pipe wall
caused, for example, by external interference, such as a
dent or a small sub-surface crack, or where circumferential
stress intensification is caused by out-of-roundness due to
over-bending during construction. All these cases can be
exacerbated by the chemistry of the trench environment,
and the sustained pressure loading and/or even small
cyclic variations, and failure is manifested with through-
wall propagation/coalescence of micro-cracks and/or
tearing (under sustained load) of the residual resisting
wall resulting in rupture.
Circumferential failure (developing into circumferential
failure of the pipe wall), is driven by longitudinal stresses
that are significantly influenced by hoop stresses due to the
internal pressure. Circumferential failures may occur on
pipelines crossing harsh environments, when excessive axial
compression or tension and over-bending are of concern.
The development of excessive longitudinal stresses causes
the circumferential failure of a pipe as follows:
n
• At a girth weld, starting from a partial wall defect,
io
accepted or undetected during inspection, and
st y
ut
driven by a single overstress condition or by a
di op
sequence of cyclic tensile stresses, propagating up to
rib
through-thickness, giving rise to a condition of leak
or c
and, at worst, instability across the circumference,
leading to full-bore rupture [10].
t f ple
• In the pipe body, or in proximity to a girth weld,
where stiffness or geometric discontinuity and
material heterogeneity or residual stresses may
no m
be relevant. Failure is activated in a sector in
compression and driven by compressive stresses
Sa
causing pipe-wall instability, and is manifested
as kinking or external bulging in the presence
of internal pressure, with wall thinning and
circumferential tearing, up to bursting [11].
• In the pipe body or in the proximity of a girth weld,
in the former linked to a poor uniform elongation
of linepipe steel, and in the latter enhanced by
stress concentration or reduced strength capacity of
the HAZ. Failure in this circumstance is activated
in the sector in tension and driven by sustained
longitudinal tensile stresses in association with
internal pressure, developing as pipe wall thinning
up to tearing [13, 14, 15].
In general, failure is preceded by localization of deformation
in the weakest pipe section or circumferential sector, and
strictly depends on the state of equilibrium achieved
between the external loads and the internal actions.
External boundaries to the pipe can restrain or allow the
development of the localization of the deformations. In
particular, pipe bending may be either unbounded or
limited by external boundaries, which affects the potential
of localization at any one pipe section. Strain-hardening
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
linepipe material works by delaying strain localization in
terms of its shell structure and the wall thickness; D/t also
works with strain hardening in terms of the beam and shell
structure. In order to discriminate between bounded and
unbounded conditions for global bending, it is necessary
to differentiate between the following cases:
• For a pipe bounded by a surrounding medium that
prevents it from developing additional bending,
other than that imposed by the boundaries,
additional global strains are fully controlled by
the fixed geometry of the external boundaries.
This condition is usually classified as strain- or
displacement-controlled (DC) and is typical, for
example, of buried pipelines covered by a stable
backfill, or of a pipeline in a conduit or casing.
• For a pipe free to bend under the action of external
loads, the development of bending strictly depends
on the capacity of internal stresses to balance the
external loads, and is controlled when internal
actions are in the elastic domain of the material.
External loads causing internal bending exceeding
the elastic limit might cause unbounded deformation
and uncontrolled failure. This condition is classified
as stress- or load-controlled (LC), and is typical,
for example, of free-spanning pipelines that are
resting on the piles of an above-ground crossing
in a permafrost region.
Relevant limit states, in both the LC and DC conditions,
may be different. Strain-based design (SNBD) is applicable
only when the pipeline cannot develop unbounded
bending, notably the DC condition. In land pipeline
technology, DC conditions often apply, as the soil around
a buried pipeline is at the same time the load and the
boundary of the pipeline’s response [4]. But, when strains
localize in one section, and wall thinning develops in a
limited sector, it is difficult to maintain the discrimination
between LC and DC, which are only applicable in terms of
global conditions and in the presence of work-hardening
materials. Under sustained load from internal pressure,
even when longitudinal strains develop under global DC
conditions, the local response of pipe sectors where strain
localization occurs cannot be defined as DC.
The local buckling failure mode, as activated by compressive
strains when a pipe is bent, is now discussed. The local
buckling mechanisms are generally classified as follows:
Diamond buckling mode
At the point in compression the pipe exhibits a series of
ripples resembling the facets of a diamond, at elastic strains.
As the pipe continues to bend, a kink develops (D/t greater
than 100, limit strains affected by concomitant axial load
and, weakly, internal pressure).
Wrinkling buckling mode
At the point in compression the pipe exhibits a series of
1st Quarter, 2011
wrinkles, perpendicular to its axis, at strains exceeding
yielding. As the pipe continues to bend, localization causes
an outward bulging, with two small depressions adjacent
to it (D/t in the range 60-100, limit strains affected by
simultaneous axial load and internal pressure).
Outward bulge buckling mode
At the point in compression the pipe exhibits a series of
wrinkles, perpendicular to its axis, at strains exceeding
yielding. As the pipe continues to bend, the inelastic
deformation localizes in one central wrinkle, which develops
outwards causing circumferential tearing at the crest (D/t
less than 60, limit strains affected by internal pressure).
The development of different local buckling mechanisms
depends on several parameters, including:
• pipe diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/t);
• stress-strain relationship (yield and ultimate stress,
yield elongation, and uniform elongation);
• axial loading ratio N/Ny, where Ny is the axial force
giving full circumference yielding;
n
• internal pressure ratio p/py, where py is the internal
pressure corresponding to a hoop stress equal to
io
yielding;
st y
ut
• pipe initial imperfections as out-of-roundness or
di op
residual curvature.
rib
or c
In addition, girth weld properties such as overmatching,
residual stresses, pipe misalignment at pipe ends due
t f ple
to geometric imperfection or bad coupling, material
properties in the HAZ, and pinching deformation from
thermal contraction, all contribute to initial imperfections,
no m
which potentially anticipate localized bending deformation
at the girth welds, so reducing the pipe bending capacity.
Sa
Should the internal pressure effect be minor, sectional
ovalization due to bending develops at a rate mainly
dependant on D/t. As the internal pressure increases,
ovalization is counteracted. According to the von
Mises’ criteria and associated flow rule, Fig.1, tensile
hoop strains develop in association with longitudinal
ones. This favours the development of an outward
bulge, under increasing bending, at the section in
compression. This outward bulge buckling mode may
occur at high compressive strains, particularly for D/t
values of less than 60 and under significant internal
pressure [12]. In these circumstances, large tensile strains
may develop under increasing bending before reaching
the shape instability of the sector in compression. This
can cause wall thinning of the sector in tension, which is
particularly critical in the case of linepipe materials with
low uniform deformation properties [11].
A series of both theoretical and experimental studies
have been carried out on this subject, starting from those
undertaken to qualify the strength of the Trans-Alaska oil
pipeline in the mid-1970s, and continuing to the most
45
recent ones carried out in Canada from the early 1990s
and in Japan, after the Kobe earthquake in 1995.
Elasto-plastic buckling solutions, using the incremental
deformation plasticity theory, are available; see, for
example Refs 18 and 22. These provide critical compressive
stresses and strains for uniformly-compressed pipes in the
axial direction, assuming that the buckling mode is axi-
symmetric. Critical strains and stresses at the onset depend
on the D/t ratio, internal pressure, and the shape of the
stress-strain curve.
Experimental tests have been carried out to understand
the buckling and post-buckling behaviour of full-scale
pipes subject to bending and axial loading:
• In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a few full-scale
tests were carried out to investigate the buckling
mechanisms of thin-walled (land applications pipes
subject to internal pressure, axial force, and bending
moment [12, 23, 24]. Findings confirmed the effect
of D/t ratio, stress-strain relation, axial load, and
internal pressure.
• In the 1990s new experimental tests on full-scale
pipes were carried out in laboratory conditions
[25-28]. The findings prompted certification bodies
to introduce new design check equations. Detailed
material characterization and test instrumentation
were included in the information required for
calibration of the rational limit state equation.
• Recently, a series of tests [29-32] has been performed
with the aim of assessing deformation capacity under
both monotonic and cyclic loading conditions.
Finite-element-based structural computer programs such
as ABAQUS, ANSYS, and ADINA have been used as a
‘numerical laboratory’ in the last five years to simulate and
extend the findings of a limited number of experiment
tests and to address specific full-scale tests and relevant
instrumentation [13-15, 25, 27, 33-36]. Model validation
shows that purpose-developed and advanced FEM
computer programs provide good predictions, comparable
with experimental test results (c.f. the shape of the buckling
mode and the bending/axial compression load – pipe
deformation) [14].
The combined outcome of new experimental tests
and theoretical work has been, and is currently, used
to calibrate new design equations: see, for example,
the new formula recently implemented in DNV
OS F101 [37]. Laboratory and full-scale tests and
numerical simulations confirm that the main parameters
affecting the deformation capacity of pressurized pipes
are the working factor in the hoop direction, along
with the diameter-to-thickness ratio, geometric imperfections
in shape, thickness and joint misalignment, shape of the
stress-strain curve (i.e. with and without the Luder’s
plateau), and uniform elongation in the axial direction.
46
Finite-element modelling of the
internal pressure effect on the
pipe bending deformability
The results of a series of parametric FEM (finite-element
method) analyses including standard (X65) and high-
strength (X80, X100) steels, as may be used for currently-
planned pipelines crossing harsh environments, are
now discussed in relation to the effect of their material
properties. The effect of the internal pressure on the
bending deformability is analyzed, and details of the
FE model are given in Refs. 13, 14, 38, and 39. In the
simulation performed, bending develops in the presence
of internal pressure (giving hoop-to-yield-stress ratios
of 0.0, 0.4, and 0.8 – see the red dots in Fig.1) and
negligible axial stress. The results of FE simulations
have been post-processed in order to obtain the relevant
parameters at local buckling, including bending moment,
global curvature, local and global longitudinal and hoop
strains, etc. The occurrence of local buckling originates
(or is originated) by the localization of the deformation
[13]. Reference material properties are given in Table
n
1 and Fig.2, which shows the engineering and true
stress strain curve up to uniform elongation (from
io
there, true stress used in the FEM analyses does not
st y
ut
increase). The (isotropic) plasticity model, the effects of
di op
anisotropy (transversal vs longitudinal), and a systematic
rib
analysis at tensile strains close to uniform elongation
or c
(both circumferential and longitudinal), require FEM
refinement.
t f ple
The effect of the relevant parameters on the local
buckling, and particularly internal pressure, on a
no m
1320.8-mm (52-in) OD pipeline has been analyzed with
a design pressure of 17.0 MPa and minor axial force.
Sa
The following conditions were considered:
• steel wall thickness equal to 30.6 (D/t = 43), 25.6
(D/t = 52), and 20.6mm (D/t = 64);
• API X65, X80, and X100, see Fig.2 and Table 1;
• steel axial force equal to 0kN;
• hoop stress usage factor equal to 0%, 40%, and
80%.
The FEM results are shown in the following figures:
• Figures 4 and 5 summarize the results of the
FEM analyses for the X65 and X100 steel grades,
respectively, for a hoop usage factors equal to 0%,
40%, and 80%.
• Figures 6 and 7 describe in detail the FEM results
of the sensitivity performed on the steel grades
with a hoop usage factor equal to 80%.
Local buckling capacity (i.e. the limit bending and
curvature) are mainly related to D/t – see Table 2. For
wall thicknesses based on high pressure containment
and high-strength linepipe (X100), the deformation
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
capacity is significantly affected by the relevant stress-
strain curve. An external diameter-to-thickness ratio
of about 50 provides a good bending deformation
capacity of the pipeline. For X100, large plastic strains
develop at the crest of the largest buckle. In the case
of X100 high-pressure pipelines, with D/t less than 60
and large axial loads, the local thinning at the sector
in tension may anticipate the sectional instability and
there may be formation of wrinkles at the sector in
compression. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results of the
FEM analyses in terms of limit bending moment from
FEM (M FEM), compressive axial strain (ε MIN) and tensile
axial strain (ε MAX) at the FEM limit bending moment.
The bending moment at first yielding (M yielding), and
the plastic flow bending moment (M plastic), are given
D − t2
2
M yielding = π ⋅  D − t  ⋅ t ⋅ β ⋅σ y
for comparison.
M yielding = π ⋅  2  2 ⋅ t ⋅ β ⋅σ y
 D2− t  2
M yielding = π ⋅  D − t  ⋅ t ⋅ β ⋅σ y (1)
M yielding = π ⋅  2  ⋅ t ⋅ β ⋅σ y
 2 
D − t2
2
M plastic = 4 ⋅  D − t  ⋅ t ⋅ β ⋅σ F (2)
M plastic = 4 ⋅  2  2 ⋅ t ⋅ β ⋅σ F
 D2− t  2
M plastic = 4 ⋅  D − t  ⋅ t ⋅ β ⋅σ F
where
M plastic = 4 ⋅  2  2 ⋅ t ⋅ β ⋅σ F
 2  2
σ
β = 1 − 0.75 ⋅  σ hh 
β = 1 − 0.75 ⋅  σ y  2
(3)
 σ y  2
β = 1 − 0.75 ⋅  σ hh 
β = 1 − 0.75 ⋅  σ y 
σh is the hoop stress,  σy 
σy + σustress,
σyFis=theσyyield
σ + σu
σFFis=the flow
σ 2 stress,
σy +2 σu
σ F = σy + σu
σF = 2 (4)
2
σu is the tensile strength.
In the cases analyzed with 80% usage factor, the limit
bending moment is larger than the first-yield bending
moment (for thick-walled pipe). As the steel grade
increases, the limit bending moment decreases with
respect to the plastic bending moment (Fig.6), mainly
due to the stress-strain curve and relevant uniform
elongation. In the analyses performed, the bending
moment effect starts at the red dots of Fig.1, so plasticity
development starts at the sector in compression, while
in the sector in tension the state of stress is still elastic.
As the bending moment increases, development of
plastic strains in the tensile fibre also occurs, and Fig.3
shows the development of the plastic strain in the
tensile and in the compressive fibres according to the
associated plastic flow theory for different applied hoop
stresses. In particular, Fig.3 in combination with Fig.1
show that –for the cases analyzed with a working factor
equal to 80% – the angles between the normal and the
horizontal axis are 53° and 18° for the compressive and
tensile fibres, respectively. Therefore, the hoop and axial
plastic strains on the two sides will develop as the sine
and cosine of these angles, respectively. In particular:
1st Quarter, 2011 47

Hardening
Steel Grade σy σu Y/T εu
exponent, n
L450 – X65 450 562 0.80 12% 11
L555 – X80 555 653 0.85 8% 15
L690 – X100 690 780 0.90 4% 21
Table 1. Summary of linepipe material parameters.

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa

Fig.2.True stress-strain curves used as input in the parametric FEM analyses.

Hoop Usage Myielding Mplastic MFEM εMIN εMAX

Steel Grade
Factor kN·m (%)
L450 – X65 80% 12982 18586 19213 -4.36 1.35
L555 – X80 80% 13499 18705 17593 -3.01 0.86
L690 – X100 80% 13609 18458 15946 -1.89 0.52
Table 2. Summary of FEM results: sensitivity of the steel grade.

Hoop Usage Myielding Mplastic MFEM εMIN εMAX

Steel Grade
Factor kN·m (%)
L690 – X100 0% 18872 25596 23809 -1.13 0.84
L690 – X100 40% 17704 24011 23131 -1.37 0.83
L690 – X100 80% 13609 18458 15946 -1.89 0.52
Table 3. Summary of FEM results for X100 grade: sensitivity to internal pressure.
48 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

Fig.3.Von Mises’ yield surface and

plastic strain development direction.

n
io
st y
30000 ut
di op
rib
25000
or c
BENDING MOMENT (kNm)

20000
t f ple

15000
no m

10000
Sa

L450 - Pint = 0% Py

5000 L450 - Pint = 40% Py

L450 - Pint = 80% Py

Maximum or Limit Bending Moment

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
AVERAGE CURVATURE (1/m)

30000

25000
BENDING MOMENT (kNm)

20000

15000

10000

L450 - Pint = 0% Py

5000 L450 - Pint = 40% Py

L450 - Pint = 80% Py

Maximum or Limit Bending Moment

Fig.4. X65: sensitivity to internal
0
pressure: (a - top) bending moment
-5.0% -4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0%
TENSILE AND COMPRESSIVE LONGITUDINAL STRAIN (%)
2.0% 3.0% 4.0% vs curvature; (b - bottom) bending
moment vs tensile and compressive
axial strain.
1st Quarter, 2011 49

BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP

25000

20000

BENDING MOMENT (kNm)

15000

10000

L690 - Wf = 0% - Ns = 0kN

L690 - Wf = 40% - Ns = 0kN

5000
L690 - Wf = 80% - Ns = 0kN

L690 - Wf = 80% - Ns = PiAi

Maximum or Limit Bending Moment

0
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04
AVERAGE CURVATURE (1/m)

BENDING MOMENT - TENSILE AND COMPRESSIVE LONGITUDINAL STRAIN RELATIONSHIP

25000

20000

n
BENDING MOMENT (kNm)

io
15000
st y
ut
di op

10000
rib
or c

L690 - Wf = 0% - Ns = 0kN

5000 L690 - Wf = 40% - Ns = 0kN

Fig.5. X100: sensitivity to internal L690 - Wf = 80% - Ns = 0kN

t f ple

L690 - Wf = 80% - Ns = PiAi

pressure: (a - top) bending moment Maximum or Limit Bending Moment

vs curvature; (b - bottom) bending 0

-3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%
moment vs tensile and compressive TENSILE AND COMPRESSIVE LONGITUDINAL STRAIN (%)
no m

axial strain.
Sa

• As the steel grade increases, the limit bending
moment decreases, see Fig.6a, as do the curvature
and associated strains at the limit/maximum bending
moment (see Fig.6b).
• Figure 7a shows the curvature as function of the global
compressive and tensile longitudinal strain. In this
context ‘global’ means that the strains are averaged
over a length of one diameter. The figure shows
that, for a given curvature, the strains developed at
the compressive fibre are much larger (in this case,
about four times) than the strains at the tensile fibre.
This means that by increasing the bending load, the
overall strain developed in the pipe body is much
more localized in the compressive sector rather than
in the tensile sector.
• Figure 7b shows the local hoop as a function
of local longitudinal strain both at the tensile
and compressive fibres. It is evident that, as the
bending moment increases, the slope of the strain
development (hoop vs axial) is in good agreement
with the angle predicted using the Von Mises’ yield
criterion and associated plastic flow (see Fig.1).
• Figure 7c shows the curvature as function of the local
axial and hoop strain at the compressive fibre. The
figure shows that, as the compressive sector starts to
develop an outward bulge, the strains developed at
the apex of the bulge in the axial and in the hoop
direction are very close. Moreover, the strains are very
large, at about 6-7%; 4-5%, and 3-4% for the three
cases analyzed. The large axial compressive strains
coupled with the large tensile hoop strains may give
rise to the wall thinning up to the development of
tearing instability at the apex of the bulge.
• Figure 7d shows the curvature as function of the
local axial and hoop strains at the tensile fibre. When
the limit bending moment is reached (see the red
dot in the figure) and the compressive sector starts
to wrinkle under the increasing bending load, the
axial strains at the tensile sector are of the order of
1-2%. The hoop strains are lower with respect to the
axial strains (0.5%), due to the zero steel axial force
considered in the FEM analyses.
Figure 8 shows the buckling mechanism of a pressurized pipe
and the resulting outward bulge, where the colours indicate
plastic strains. For low D/t and high working factors in the
50
n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa
hoop direction, local buckling occurs at large compressive
strains. During the development of bending, when local
buckling is delayed, tensile plastic strains may develop in the
longitudinal direction at the sector in tension, as opposed to
compressive strains at the sector in compression. Assuming
the flow rule and normality principle, hoop strains also
develop (Fig.1). In the sector in tension, equivalent plastic
strains may cause local thinning of the steel up to tearing
instability, when the internal pressure is combined with
high axial loads. Tearing instability is expected to be more
critical for high-strength steel with low uniform elongation.
In general, the failure mode develops at the sector in
compression through the development of wrinkling and,
in the presence of internal pressure, an outward bulge
develops where large hoop tensile strains develop (see
Fig.3). Axial strain localization at the sector in compression
contributes to moving the neutral axis towards the tensile
sector and limits the development of tensile axial strains
in the sector in tension. This is not true when the pipe
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
Fig.6. Sensitivity of steel grade –
80% usage factor: (a - top) bending
moment vs curvature; (b - bottom)
bending moment vs tensile and
compressive axial strain.
response to the external loads results in the development
of axial stretching (a second-order effect, due to large lateral
pipeline displacement). In this case, localization at the
sector in compression is delayed, and tearing instability
may develop at the sector in tension. This situation may
be relevant for buried land pipelines subject to landslides,
permanent soil displacement at the crossing of active
faults, or differential settlement due to frost heave, etc.
[40]. As regards offshore pipelines exposed on the seabed,
large bending strains may be activated during the lateral
snaking induced by high-pressure and high-temperature
conditions, or following anchor hooking. For offshore
buried pipelines in arctic environments, large bending
may develop under ice ridge gouging; in these situations,
bending moments and deformations may develop in the
presence of significant steel axial forces (> 20-25% of the
steel axial force at yield, Ny).
In order to simulate this load condition, a 52-in (1320.8-
1st Quarter, 2011 51

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple

Fig.7. Sensitivity of steel grade: 80% usage factor – development of longitudinal and hoop strains at the tensile and
compressive fibres as bending moment / curvature increases: (a - top,left) curvature vs compressive and tensile global
longitudinal strain; (b - top, right) local hoop vs local longitudinal strain at the tensile and compressive fibre; (c - bottom, left)
no m

curvature vs longitudinal and hoop local strain at the compressive fibre; (d - bottom, right) curvature vs longitudinal and hoop
local strain at the tensile fibre.
Sa

mm) OD pipeline with a design pressure 17.0MPa and the
following properties was analyzed:
• API X100 steel (see Fig.2 and Table 1);
• steel wall thickness equal to 20.6mm, corresponding
to a maximum utilization factor of 80% with respect
to SMYS (see Table 1);
• operating pressures equal to 0, 8.5, and 17.0MPa;
• uniform elongation equal to 1%, 2%, 4%, and 8%;
• steel axial force equal to the end-cap effect.
The results of the FEM analyses were as follows:
• The maximum (limit) bending moment was slightly
affected by the uniform elongation (see Fig.9a).
• The curvature and the axial strains associated
with the maximum bending moment decrease
significantly as the uniform elongation decreases
(see Figs 9a and 9b).
• Longitudinal strains developed at the tensile and
compressive fibres are comparable (see Fig.10a) due
to the steel axial force giving rise to the development
of plastic deformation at the same curvature level
for the tensile and compressive axial fibres.
• Hoop strains developed at the tensile and
compressive fibres are consistent with the Von
Mises’ criterion and associated plastic flow (see
Fig.10b). The hoop strains developed at the tensile
fibre are much smaller than those developed at the
compressive fibre.
• Figures 10c and 10d show, respectively, the curvature
as a function of the local axial and hoop strain
at the compressive and tensile fibres, and can be
compared with the FEM results given in Figs 7c and
7d referring to the same internal pressure condition,
but zero steel axial force. From the comparison, the
following is evident:
• As the outward bulge starts to develop at the
compressive sector, the hoop and axial strains in the
compressive sector (2.0-4.0% in Fig.10c) are not as
large as the hoop and axial strains shown in Fig.7c
(3.5-7.0%). In the tensile sector, the axial strains
(2.0-3.0%, in Fig.10d) are comparable to the axial
strains shown in Fig.7d (2.0-2.5%), while the hoop
52 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

Fig.8. Local thinning at the tensile

fibres during bending of a pressurized
pipe as from FEM prediction.

BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP

25000

n
io
st y
20000
ut
di op
BENDING MOMENT (kNm)

15000
rib
or c

10000
t f ple

L690 -Ns = PiAi -eu = 1%

5000 L690 -Ns = PiAi -eu = 2%
no m

L690 -Ns = PiAi -eu = 4%

L690 -Ns = PiAi -eu = 8%

Maximum or Limit Bending Moment

Sa

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
AVERAGE CURVATURE (1/m)

BENDING MOMENT - TENSILE AND COMPRESSIVE LONGITUDINAL STRAIN RELATIONSHIP

25000

20000
BENDING MOMENT (kNm)

15000

10000

L690 -Ns = PiAi -eu = 1%

5000 L690 -Ns = PiAi -eu = 2%

L690 -Ns = PiAi -eu = 4%

L690 -Ns = PiAi -eu = 8%

Maximum or Limit Bending Moment

0 Fig.9. X100: sensitivity of uniform

-5.0% -4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
TENSILE AND COMPRESSIVE LONGITUDINAL STRAIN (%)
3.0% 4.0% 5.0% elongation: (a - top) bending moment
vs curvature; (b - bottom) bending
moment vs tensile and compressive
axial strain.
1st Quarter, 2011 53

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple

Fig.10. X100: sensitivity of uniform elongation. Development of longitudinal and hoop strains at the tensile and compressive
no m

fibres as bending moment / curvature increase: (a - top, left) curvature vs compressive and tensile global longitudinal strain;
(b - top, right) local hoop vs local longitudinal strain at the tensile and compressive fibre; (c - bottom, left) curvature vs
Sa

longitudinal and hoop local strain at the compressive fibre; (d - bottom, right) curvature vs longitudinal and hoop local strain
at the tensile fibre.
strains are always less than 1.0% (see Figs 10c and 7c).
The steel axial force contributes to the development
of comparable axial and total deformations in the
tensile and compressive sectors.
• As the maximum (limit) bending moment is reached,
the development rate of the local tensile axial strain
starts to become very steep as the pipe curvature
increases (see Fig.10d). This is due to the fact that,
as the axial strain reaches the value of the uniform
elongation, the fibre at the tensile sector starts to
tear, causing thinning of the steel wall thickness.
This is shown in Figs 11a and 11b which plot the wall
thickness in the tensile fibre at the wrinkle section as
a function of the thickness distant from the wrinkle
section as the bending moment increases. At the
beginning of bending loading, pipe thinning is the
same at the two points considered; when localization
occurs, the point inside the localization sector shows
a pipe wall thinning rate that is very steep compared
with that at a point outside this sector.
Conclusions
New land pipelines projects are frequently over long distances
and across harsh environments, and the introduction of
high-strength steels, and the adoption of rational criteria
for minimum wall thickness requirements, are currently
analyzed by the pipeline industry. In particular, pipeline
operators’ effort are addressed to developing limit-state-based
design (LSBD) by reviewing available limit-state formats
and developing new ones, as well as through performing
full-scale experiments in combination with theoretical work,
and introducing reliability methods to calibrate partial
safety factors that are suitable for pipeline construction and
operation in sensitive environments and remote regions [2,
3, 37, 41, and 42].
The development of land pipeline projects in regions affected
by environmental hazards (such as landslides, differential
settlement due to frost heave, fault crossings, etc.) must
include careful selection of the steel wall thickness (D/t)
and specific requirements for the linepipe’s mechanical
54
n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa
properties as well as those of the girth welds. In these areas,
the strength and deformation capacity of the pipeline system
to withstand secondary loads in operation is relevant.
In this paper, a series of FEM analyses have been performed
with the aim of quantifying the effect of internal pressure
on the local buckling limit state of buried pipelines under
environmental bending loads. From these FEM analyses,
the following can be concluded:
• The main parameter for the local buckling failure
mode remains the diameter-to-thickness ratio, D/t.
• The main parameter characterizing the deformation
capacity of pressurized pipeline under bending loads
is the pipe curvature.
• The analyzed pipes (with the D/t values ranging from
43, for X65, to 64, for X100 that are necessary to
withstand the high pressures needed for competitive
transportation of large volumes of gas over long
distances), show good performances in bending,
expressed as the ratio between the limit bending
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
Fig.11. X100: sensitivity of uniform
elongation – tensile fibre.Wall
thickness reduction in the wrinkle
vs wall thickness reduction outside
the wrinkle (a) in mm, and (b) in
percentage: (a - top) wall thickness
in the wrinkle vs wall thickness
outside the wrinkle; (b - bottom) wall
thickness reduction in the wrinkle
(as a percentage) vs wall thickness
reduction outside the wrinkle (as a
percentage).
moment from FE analysis and the theoretical
bending moment at plastic flow (from 1.03 for X65
to 0.86 for X100). The X100 linepipe was affected
by anticipated localization of wrinkling due to low
uniform elongation.
• The effect of internal pressure on the deformation
capacity in bending is evident, both for the X65 and
X100 linepipe. For the X65 linepipe, the global (over
one diameter) curvature at the bending limit is four
times the one for empty pipe. This effect is less evident
for the X100 linepipe, due to the stress-strain curve.
• In the case of internal pressure combined with
steel axial force (20-25% with respect to Ny), the
deformation capacity in terms of bending curvature
increases due to the retardation of the outward
bulge in the pipe sector subject to compressive
axial stress caused by the applied steel axial force. In
this case, as the outward bulge develops, large and
comparable axial tensile and compressive strains
develop in the pipe section close to the bulge. As
the maximum bending moment is reached, the
1st Quarter, 2011
bending deformation localizes into the pipe sector
in tension giving rise to the tearing instability of the
steel wall thickness anticipating the outward bulge
localization. This effect is particularly relevant for
high-grade steels, which generally have a low uniform
elongation (less than 4.0-5.0%).
From the analyses performed, the following can be
concluded:
• Notwithstanding the low UE, a high-grade land
pipeline with D/t less than 60, operating at high
pressure, is characterized by a large deformation
capacity in bending.
• FE model improvements, validated through full-scale
testing, are necessary to fully understand the actual
performance of high-strength steels, particularly in
relation to the ability of suitably modelling properties
such as material anisotropy, high-strain plasticity, etc.
References
n
1. Bruschi, R. and Vitali, L., 1994. Recent advances in
offshore pipeline technology. Proc. 3rd Int. Offshore
io
Mechanics and Polar Eng. Conf., Osaka.
st y
ut
2. Sotberg, T., Moan, T., Bruschi, R., Jiao, G., and Mørk,
di op
K., 1997. The SUPERB project: recommended target
rib
safety levels for limit state based design of offshore
or c
pipelines. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Yokohama.
t f ple
3. Sotberg, T., and Bruschi, R., 1992. Future pipeline
design philosophy – framework. Int. Conf. on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME – OMAE,
no m
Calgary.
4. Vitali, L., Torselletti, E., and Bruschi, R., 2006. Strain
Sa
based design for land high grade pipelines in harsh
environments. 1st Int. Conf. on Super High Strength
Steel, November 2-4, Rome.
5. Bruschi, R., et al., 2009. Do high Y/T and/or low UE
impact on limit state design of high grade linepipes?
Proc. 5th Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend,
12-14 October.
6. Idem., 2009. Long distance gas pipelines: adopting
high grade linepipe, cost benefit versus reliability. Ibid.
7. R. Bruschi, 2006. Base material and welded joints
deformability requirements for a reliability based limit
state design of X100 long distance pipelines. X100 CSM
Forum, Pula, Sardinia, 6-7 April.
8. Stewart, G., 1994. An analytical model to predict the
burst capacity of pipelines. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.
9. Gresnigt, A.M., Van Foeken, R.J., and Chen, S.L., 1996.
Effect of local buckling on burst pressure. Proc. 6th Int.
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf., Los Angeles.
10. Denys, R., and Glover, A.G., 1993. Fracture assessment
of overmatched and undermatched weld metal yield
strength. PRC/EPRG Biennial Joint Technical Meeting
on Linepipe Research, Houston, May.
55
11. Bruschi, R., Curti, G., Dumitrescu, A., and Vitali, L.,
1994. Strength criteria for hot pipelines susceptible to
Euler-bar buckling. 3rd Int. Offshore Mechanics and
Polar Eng. Conf., Osaka.
12. Gresnigt, A.M., 1986. Plastic design of buried steel
pipelines in settlement areas. Heron, 31, 4, Ed. Stevin-
Laboratory and TNO-Institute for Building Materials
and Structures.
13. Vitali, L., et al., 1999. HotPipe JI project: capacity
of pipes subject to internal pressure, axial force, and
bending moment. Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference.
14. Vitali, L., et al., 2005. HotPipe JI project: experimental
tests and FE analyses. OMAE Paper No. 67526, Proc.
24th OMAE Conference, Halkidiki, 12-17 June.
15. Bruschi, R., Bartolini, L.M., Spinazzè, M., Torselletti,
E., Vitali, L., 2005. A numerical lab. to predict the
strength capacity of offshore pipelines. OMAE Paper
No. 67482, ibid.
16. Zhou, J., et al., 2006. Application of high grade steels
to onshore natural gas pipelines using reliability based
design methods. Proc. 6th IPC Conference, Calgary.
17. Torselletti, E., Vitali, L., and Bruschi, R., 2005. Bending
capacity of girth welded pipes. OMAE Paper No. 67487
,Proc. 24th OMAE Conference, Halkidiki.
18. Timoshenko, S.P., and Gere, J.M., 1963. Theory of elastic
stability. 2nd Edn, McGraw Hill Book Co.
19. Batterman, S., 1964. Plastic buckling of axially
compressed cylindrical shells. AIAA Journal, 3, 2,
pp316-325.
20. Batterman, S.C., 1967. Tangent modulus theory for
cylindrical shells: buckling under increasing load. Int.
J. Solids Struct., 3, p501.
21. Idem., 1969. Plastic stability of spherical shells. J. Engng
Mech., ASCE, EM2, pp433-446.
22. Kim, H.O., 1992. Plastic buckling of pipes under bending
and internal pressure. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Houston.
23. Bouwkamp, J.G., and Stephen, R.M., 1973. Large
diameter pipe under combined loading. J. Transportation
Engineering, 99, TE3, August, pp521-536.
24. Sherman, D.R., 1976. Tests of circular steel tubes in
bending. J. Structural Division, 102, ST11, November,
pp2181-2195.
25. Mohareb, M., et al., 1994. Deformational behavior
of linepipe. Structural Engineering Report No. 202,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton.
26. Yoosef-Ghodsi, N., et al., 1994. Behavior of girth-welded
linepipe. Structural Engineering Report No. 203, ibid.
27. Zimmerman, T.J.E., et al., 1995. Compressive strain limits
for buried pipelines. OMAE, V, Pipeline Technology,
pp365-378.
28. Hohl, G.A., and Vogt, G.H., 1992. Allowable strains
for high strength linepipe. 3R International, pp696-700.
29. Suzuki, M., and Toyoda, M., 2002. Seismic loadings
on buried pipelines and deformability of high strength
linepipes. Proc. Pipe Dreamer’s Conference, Yokohama.
56
30. Sreekanta, D., et al., 2001. Wrinkle behavior under
cyclic strain reversal in NPS12 pipe. Proc. 20th OMAE
Conference, June 3-8, Rio de Janeiro.
31. idem., 2000. Laboratory study of local buckling, wrinkle
development, and strains for NPS12 linepipe. Proc.
2000 International Pipeline Conference, ASME 2000,
2, pp909-915.
32. Chitoshi, M., et al., 2000. Deformation and fracture
properties of steel pipe bend with internal pressure
subjected to in-plane bending. Proc. 12th WCEE.
33. Zhou, Z., and Murray, D. W., 1993. Numeric structural
analysis of buried pipelines. Structural Engineering
Report No. 181, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton.
34. Souza, L.T., and Murray, D.W., 1994. Prediction of
wrinkling behavior of girth-welded linepipe. Structural
Engineering Report No.197, ibid.
35. Bruschi, R., et al., 1995. Finite element method as
numerical laboratory for analyzing pipeline response
n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
under internal pressure, axial load, bending moment.
OMAE Conference, V, Pipeline Technology, pp389-401.
36. Hauch, S., and Bai, Y., 1998. Use of finite element analysis
for local buckling design of pipelines. OMAE, Lisbon.
37. DNV, 1996, 2000. Rules for submarine pipeline
systems (1996), and Offshore standard OS-F101 (2000):
Submarine pipeline systems. Det Norske Veritas, Høvik.
38. Hibbit, H.D., Karlson, B.I., and Sorensen, P., 2001.
Abaqus - user manual – v.6.1. Hibbit, Karlson and
Sorensen Inc., Pawtucket, RI, USA.
39. Idem., 2001. Abaqus - theory manual – v.6.1. Ibid.
40. Bruschi, R., et al., 2009. The role of FEM in operation
of pipelines interfering with unstable soils. Proc. 5th
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October.
41. ISO 13623, 2002. Petroleum and natural gas industries:
pipeline transportation. January.
42. ISO/DIS 16708, 2005. Petroleum and natural gas
industries: pipeline transportation system – reliability
based limit state methods.
1st Quarter, 2011 57

Enhanced failure criteria for

composite crack arrestors
by Dr Filip Van den Abeele*1 and Tomas Skocovsky2

1 ArcelorMittal Research and Development Industry Gent, Zelzate, Belgium

2 Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic

O ne of the major challenges in the design of ultra high grade (> X100) high-pressure gas pipelines is
the identification of a reliable crack-propagation strategy. Indeed, despite excellent toughness values
at laboratory scale (Charpy upper-shelf energy and Battelle shear-fracture area), pipe body arrest can no
longer be relied upon for very high linepipe grades such as X100. As a result, additional mechanical devices
have to be mounted on the pipeline in order to stop a running ductile crack. Recently, composite crack
arrestors have gained the interest of the industry as a straightforward solution to stop running ductile cracks
in pipeline systems. In this paper, enhanced failure criteria for composite crack arrestors are presented. First,
the micromechanics of fibre-reinforced plastics are addressed. Subsequently, failure measures for orthotropic

n
materials under plane stress conditions are reviewed. At the end, a numerical model is developed that can
be used as a simulation tool for the safe design of composite crack arrestors.

io
st y
ut
di op

D
rib
uctile fracture propagation is a
or c

(sometimes diabolic) event that involves the whole

pipeline and all its components, including valves, fittings,
t f ple

flanges, and bends. Recent research results [1-3] have shown

that the newly developed high-strength (> X100) large-
diameter gas pipelines, when operated at severe conditions
no m

(rich gas, low temperatures, high pressure), may not be able

to arrest a running ductile crack through intrinsic properties.
Sa

Hence, the use of crack arrestors is required in the design

of safe and reliable pipeline systems.

A conventional crack arrestor can be a high-toughness pipe

insert, or a local joint with higher wall thickness. Steel wire
wrappings, cast iron clamps, or steel sleeves are commonly
used non-integral solutions. Recently, composite crack
arrestors have enjoyed increasing interest from the industry
as a straightforward solution to stop running ductile cracks.
A composite crack arrestor is made of (glass) fibres, dipped
in a resin bath and wound onto the pipe wall in a variety of
orientations. A schematic lay-out of this filament-winding
process [4] is shown on Fig.1.
In this paper, enhanced failure criteria for composite
crack arrestors are presented. First, the micromechanics of
fibre-reinforced plastics is addressed. Subsequently, failure
measures for orthotropic materials under plane stress
This paper was first presented at the Pipeline Technology Conference held in Ostend,
Belgium, in October 2009, and organized by the University of Gent, Belgium.
*Author’s contact details:
tel: +32 9 345 12 49
email: filip.vandenabeele@arcelormittal.com
Fig.1. Filament winding of composite crack arrestors [4].
conditions are reviewed. At the end, a numerical model is
developed that can be used as a simulation tool for the safe
design of composite crack arrestors.
Micromechanics of fibre-
reinforced plastics
The mechanical properties of fibre-reinforced plastics depend
on the fibre orientation. Therefore, the most commonly
used composites are orthotropic materials, requiring nine
independent elastic constants to define the compliance
matrix [5]. In the investigation at hand, unidirectional
(UD) glass-fibre-reinforced epoxy was identified as the most
appropriate composite material to arrest a running crack.
For such unidirectional reinforced laminates with adequate
thickness, the constitutive law reduces to transverse isotropy,
 The new online information service
that unlocks the secrets of the global
pipeline industry

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple

Pipelines International Premium is the international

oil and gas pipeline industry’s foremost in-depth
source of information, comprising a digest of
no m

high-quality papers covering the latest technology

Sa

and reviews of the pipeline industry worldwide, and

a comprehensive project database.

It is comprised of:
Pipelines International Digest which provides a month-
ly update of papers covering all areas of the
industry – from key projects, and engineering and
construction issues, to environmental, regulatory,
legal and financial issues.

Pipelines International Projects which allows subscribers

to access a searchable database of completed and
current projects.

Subscribe or get a free 14 day trial now at

www.pipelinesinternational.com/premium
1st Quarter, 2011 59

E-glass fibre Epoxy matrix

Stiffness Ef = 74,000 MPa Em = 3,500 MPa

Poisson coefficient νf = 0.3 νm = 0.35

Density ρf = 2 555 kg/m³ ρm = 1,175 kg/m³

Tensile strength Xf = 3,450 MPa Xm = 60 MPa

Table 1. Properties of fibre and matrix. Volume fraction Vf = 0.6 Vm = 0.4

n
( )
E1 = Vf E f + Vm E m = Vf E f + 1 − Vf E f = 45 800 MPa

io
Fig.2. Unidirectional reinforced
st y
laminate is transversely isotropic.
E = V E + V E = V E + 1 − V ) E = 45 800 MPa
ν = V ν + ( 1 − V ) ν = 0.32 (
ut
di op

1 f f m m f f f f
12 f f f f
as shown in Fig.2, where five constants are to be determined and the density:
( )
rib
to build the stiffness matrix. ν12= Vf νf + 1 − Vf νf = 0.32
( )
ρE= =V fVρ fE+ +1V− VEf ρ
( )
or c

=mV=f 2E 003 1 − Vf E f = 45 800 MPa (3)

+ kg/m
3
1 f f m m f
The unknown elastic constants for each individual layer
ρ + (1 The ) ρ = 2 003
t f ple

= Vmaterial.
ρ the − V apparent kg/m modulus in transverse
− V ) ν = 0.32
can be measured from static tensile tests and shear tests, of Young’s
V ν +1(−1 V
3

1ν = V f
f
f
f
f⇒ E
f m
or calculated by means of micromechanical mixture rules. direction
= f +
12 fcan be assessed f =as8 a170 serial
MPa model:
The stiffness matrix of the entire laminate is obtained by E2 E f Em 2

1 Vf 1 − Vf
(
=V ρ ++ 1 − V ⇒ρ E2 = 8 170 MPa
)
no m

applying Classical Laminate Theory [6], taking into account ρ = (4)

Em f m = 2 003 kg/m
3
E2 E f f
the fibre orientations of the different layers. 1 Vf 1 − Vf
f
= + a Reuss⇒ G12 = 3[7], 033which
MPa constitutes a lower
Sa

resulting
G12 G in GV material
In this section, several micromechanical mixture rules are 11 VV
bound off 1− −
f the1elastic
m
V f modulus.
f ⇒ E = 8 170 MPa The in-plane shear modulus
== f ++ ⇒ G212 =that 3 033 MPa
proposed to calculate the elastic constants, based on the E
can be
G122 Gf f E found E
by
Gmm assuming the shear stress acting on

)
properties of the (glass) fibre and the (epoxy) matrix. The the fibres and the matrix is equal, giving rise to:
properties of the constituents, and their volume fraction, E= = V0f E f +1 V
E21= EmV f 1 − V f
1
+ 0.85
m
2

0
(
E m =Vf Vf E f + 1 − Vf E f = 45 800 MPa
= 14 864 MPa
5 4 ⇒ G E = 3 033 MPa
are listed in Table 1. In order to evaluate the performance
of the different micromechanical models, a comparison with
G12= G
=
Eν212== E
( ( ) )
+
1 − 1VG + 0.85
Vmf νf + 1 − Vf νf =E0.32
0 f f m
+ VVff
212 m

= 14 864 MPa
(5)

Efm0 [7] that the Voigt model agrees

( )
5 4
experimental data is provided in the next section. It is known1from − Vf
experience
+ Vf
well with experiments, E
whereas the Reuss model shows very
Micromechanical mixture rules:Voigt and Reuss ρ
poor =
= V E ρ
agreement,
0
EEm02== Ef m mf 2
+ ( )1
1 +− 0.85
V
especially
f
Vf 2 = 2f for
ρ m
0
003 kg/m
=unidirectional
14 864 MPa composites.
3

E
For a unidirectional reinforced material, the average modulus Several other
1− νm
( )micromechanical models have been published
5 4
Emthe 1 − Vf + Vf m
in fibre direction according to the rule of mixtures is given by: toEpredict
0 stiffness matrix Ef for unidirectional composites.
1m = V f 2 1 − V f
(1) = 1 − ν + ⇒ E2 = 8 170 MPa
E2 E f m Em
1 f f m m f f (
E = V E + V E = V E + 1 − V E = 45 800 MPa f ) f Puck and E1m +Foye 0.6 formulas Vf
GE12m0== = 5 497 MPa
G m the Voigt formulas (Eqns 1 and 2)
( 11V−− 1−V
)
2 5 4
This approximation is based on a parallel model, and the The 1 Puck νmodel [8]fVuses
result (
ν12= Vfisνaf +Voigt
1−V ) νf = 0.32
material
f [7], which constitutes an upper for
G G12the
=
f 1V
= stiffness
Gf
m+ 0.6+ V
+f in fibre
G
f ⇒
Gf G
f = 3 033and
direction
12 = 5 497
MPa
MPa the in-plane Poisson
G m but propose another equation for
( )
12 5 4m
bound for the elastic modulus in fibre direction. A similar coefficient, 1 − Vf respectively,
+ Vf
G
ρ
E (
==VVf ρEf f++ V
coefficient: )
1m−EVmf =ρVmf =E2f 003( )
approximation can be used for the3 Poisson contraction
− Vf E f = 45 800 MPa
+ 1kg/m the
G Gm==
transverse stiffness:
1E+m 0.6 V f f

(( ) )
1
2 = 5 497 MPa
E == E201 1−+EVν1m ++0.85
12 5 4 GVmf
V = 14 864 MPa (6)
( )
ν112= VVf νf f + 11−−VVff νf = 0.32
= + ⇒ E2 = 8 170 MPa
(2)  G 2
= m

( ))
 G m= 2 (1E1+f −νmVf
fm
5 4
f
G
+ Vf m
f E 0

E2 E f Em  f 2 1 + ν
 ( EEmf f
) Ef

( )
ρ = V f ρ f + 1 − V f ρm = 2 003 kg/m 3 G =
 Gmf = 2 (1 + ν ( )
1 Vf 1 − Vf  0 Em mf ν
= + ⇒ G12 = 3 033 MPa E = 1 + νm− Em 12
E E1
( () )
G112 VGf f 1 −G Vmf m
 G =1 − ν m 2 f

= + ⇒ E2 = 8 170 MPa  ν 23f= V2f ν1f ++ ν1 − Vf νm ν12 = 0.38944

E2 E f Em 1 +2 νm− Em ν12
 f
1 − νm + νm Em E1
 ρ1= V f V (
ρ ff + 11−−VVf f ρm = 2 003 kg/m
⇒ G = 3 033 MPa
) G
E120 ==
Em 2  E
1=−5fν497+Eν0mmE
π m MPa +m+2 2 π E fE −f −
12 f f
E m0E m

(( ))
= + E1 π    V
( ) π m Gm
=( f )

( )
m 5 4
11−−νVm2 
G
1 ρE11=12=VVffVfρVE
G f 1+ −1V−GVm ρ = 12
f =mV 2 E003 + kg/m E2 =  Vf  V
+ Vf
Vf   0 
1 − 1 −
3
E 1 − Vf E f = 45 800 MPa +
+ 1 − V
( ( ( ) ) (() ( ) ) )
f E GV +
1= = f+f f 1+ − Vmf ⇒mf E
f
 0  E f+ 2 0 0−  νf −EE m− ν 0 E20
0
E m− E
f f
 
2 0 2
= 8 170 MPa
f
E2
E + EEm G ⇒ ⇒ E22 =G812170
f
= 3MPa
033 MPa V f  π  EVmVπ +f 2 EEmπf− −EEE π
2 2
E260 = G23 = V π− ν E − ν E
f f m m  
E212 fEG
G ( )
f
2 122+1Eν+m230.6 The Journal of
m mPipeline m mEngineering
f
V
  1 − 2 
 f f
 + 1
( )
f f
f f m m 1
 f
V − 2    + 1
V 1−V GE
f
+ E 1 −
)
0

( m=2 =
1 =V E2 G
= = +  1 −2
Vf f f0νEf+f ++ V11m−+EfV0.85 ππ  π MPa 0
Eν112=== νfV=2E 0.32  12 2 (V1 + νm5)4  G mV  E − E 0
= 5π E2m0E mE fE f 0 2
( () ( ) ( ) )
497
f = V + 1 − Vf E f = 45 800 MPa
m⇒ E f2f = f8 170 MPa
2
 0 π  m
( Ef ff ) 1 −f 2f G f  f f m f mm f f m m f + 1 f m − ν E − ν E
0
E E =VEE 1 − E V = 14 864 MPa  1 − V V + V V E − E − ν E − ν E 
1 212 fVfmf 1 − mVf f 5 4 0  G 2= 2  1 f − 2  + 1
=2=E
= = ++
( (( ) ) ) ⇒⇒ G12 33m033
033MPa
MPa π  π V   π 0
E m E f
G12ρ G
νGE1212====V
VE G
f ν
ρ 0f ++ 1G−G1V
11 −
m−
+ 0.85
m fV
V ν
+ Vf
ρ
12
= =0.32
2 003 kg/m
E f0 = 14 864 3
MPa
 f

2 1 + νf ( )
π V
f  E 0 + 2 f E − E 0  E Em
0
f
( )
 Em
1 2 Vmf 1 − V f 5 4
f ff f f f m m f m
π 00 π  
  E =V13,119MPa
 Vf  10 − 0 V f  E 0
E  
G ( G )
where +1 − V ⇒+ G
 mG
E 2With
=
the V
2 1 +dataV (
νmff of Table 1,GmamG
G Gf fν
)
transverse stiffness
= V12 = m3 033 MPa =G = = 1 ν E + + 1−1 − 22 f +
 G G
G ) ( )
12

(
+ − 2
 m m π  m
f
E f
V )V
ρ1==V VρE+1(11+−+−0.85
 12  0 Emodulus
νfE+fπ
and 12anV fin-plane
π1−− 2Vf νVshear − E m E1 −Gν12m = − ν f Em πare
E f5,960MPa π found.
)
m m0 0
12 f
V0.85
m 2
ρV = 2 003 kg/m
2
f 3  νG232==Vf V 1
fG G V
G + 22 2 G
m m ( f V
f
f f 0 0 0 = 0.38944 V
GG −G
 0+ 1 
 Gtom Eqn (( ))
Vf 11 is
f f
GThe 2ππ1 + νfVf Gf fπ+1shear ) +0 G
ν− 1−
⇒ E ( νmmEG
f
E =
=E =
= E
0 0 +
f 0 f
m f= f
8=170
m MPa
14 864 MPa (7) 12 =f out-of-plane modulus, mm 12E faccording
E
EE E E =
f 20
E = 14 864 MPa − νm +ππ m f
f
+π 1 −
V
)
 G = 0
G(
2 m
E
( ( ))
2 2m m f− 2 1 ν
5 4
G23 =124,750MPa. 0 E1
m
f
1 m− Vf m5 4 + Vf mm0 E Gπf + 2
f
Gm − Gf π  m
1E V 1 1V1− V 0.85VV
E E1 ν 1 − V ⇒ E E
E1 EV
m= m− 2
E 2E
=0== 0f +m− f + f + f f =f 8 170 MPa
2 f 0
E
= 14 864 MPa G23 =
E2
2 (V1V+νν23+)(1 − V )G
π
Gf + 12+ νm− Em Gm − Gf
Vf ν 0
12

π E1  = 0.38944
( 
)
Vf  0
0
2
E νmm Gf
( )
f m 5 f4 ν 23=
2
= f +− m 1 + f 12 =
m
V 3 033 MPa ⇒ V G G Hashin= ff f
equations
G
f
for UD +νcomposites
 1− G
and
G forGthe in-plane shear E stiffness π Gm
2
Efm 1 + 0.6 G 1 ν ν E 12
f 12 − + π  m
Gm − Gf )
Vf 0 Vf
2 π ( equations
E120 = m f G 0 =
Gm = Gderived
m m 2
Gf + 2 a set of
m
0
m m
E1
Gm =E1V− ν 2 1 − V m 2ν
(
= 5 497 MPa
1 − Vf ) E f = 45 800 MPa Gm0Hashin 2 2νV
thatare specifically suited to
EmE011==12V=f Emf f+2 V+mm E m =5 V4 ff E⇒ +G = 1 − m 
( )
V
E − E )
f G E
G12 G f m f Gm 1 − ν 1 −1 V+ 0.6 + V V m = 3 033 MPa (8) calculating G23 = 1 − 1m−
10 −
2ν 2 the
G
ν231) − mνπm 
ν
m 
properties E
f
+2 0
of ( unidirectional f
fibre-reinforced0

(11+[12].
12 m f m
2= π   V 
G =ν E
f f
G2f = 5 497 MPa G
plastics − ν He m2 proposed a slight modification +  1 −of Eqn  E1
E12m ==f f 0 ( 2 f ) 5f 4= 0.32 Gf m 1 0.85 V
f 0
+ E = m
ν 0=12 V + m 1 − V ν m
2ν
( )  ( E − E ) − (ν E − ν E )
m
2 2
 π  2

E2 = E 1 m−1ν1−m+V0.6 +
V V 0
= 14 864 MPa 0for the GV modulus
1

−f
Vm in the f fibre fdirection:
0
m m
f f
0
m
5 4f f G E
( )
Gm = 2 π 21 −12− νπ 

( ( ()( )()()
+1
))
f m
2
G = f= 5 m 497 MPa
ρ= 12 −E 5)
0

V f ρ f + (1 1 V− V4ρf m0.85 + V2kg/m 2νm V m

E E
V f 1 −Vf νf 2− νm 2 (15)
( (( ) ) )
= 2G V
E2== mEm0(12−(1Vf+) ν + Vff G f =0 f5 =
1 V
m f

+ 1 − EVf +E2 f V+πf 41( E−VV − E 1)ν− −

003
G f + 1 −
3
m
= 1 + 0.6 V f
E Vν ν − ν = 45
)
=  f f
E =1V−f νE
0 0
m
with 14MPa 864 MPa E1 =E1V= E +m f1 − πVf −E V +4
m
ff  f f m f = 45m803
f m
 803 MPa
G12 f Vff E f + 1 f f E f + 4 1 − Vf Vf
497 V MPa
 E 1 = E45 803 MPa
( )
m5 4
V V
f
− VEf m 1
0
E 1
1 − V⇒f+EV2 =V+G
f = + −
− 
( () ) GV0 G E − E ) − (νf 1 − fVf+ 1V +  1 2π 
1
1 V f 1 1
( )( )
5 4
8V )m +f ν1 +G−m ν 
G12 = 2 f  1 − 2 m  f (
m 2 m

2 =GEmf1=+− VEf m+E0.6

2 2
VV 
κ+EVf fκf −1 νG−
m
+0 EV
0 0
170 f MPa
E f = 5 497 MPa + 1 − V m2 +
κ
( )
E f f (9)
( κ
) ( ) G
f f f m m f f m
G G = = E 2 1 + f
ν G f Eν κ f
κ m f Gmm
( ( ) )
 12 E π
E1 = VGf f +E2f + 1(G−m V π
−fGf fE ) +f4 f f m
π  V
π  V 1 − V
 − ν
m m 0
= 45 803 MPa
)
E

Gm
(
0 f m f
EmG=mV=112−2(1−ν1−1+V
m m 5 4 0

2 + νf + V Ewith
f
V V 803 MPa
m f

fν )
= V E + 1 − V E + 4 f
1 − = 45
1f + f + 1
π
1 = f + mVE 1 − Vf Vf
1 f f f f
f ⇒ G = 3G033
f
fm
 G120GGf = MPa + +

( ( ( )) )
EmEGE 12
f
  Em G E0mG κ f  κ m κG κ m Gm (16)
G E
 mG f =1 − ν 2 = f
2 1
mmf
+ ν ν κ  κ=m= = f V V  fm

= 2=(1 (21Gνm++)ν2(1m −V(2ν E
)
1m −m0)2νm  )
f G m f
1 G 0
2 21 1+mE+νmν
f
+ −
  1 + νm− Em 12
 Gm0 κ
m 12 Gπ2 m+ π  m

( Gm − Gf )
G =ν
=
() ) mf

2 (f1f+f νm 1f − V0 ff =ν14
m 0 = VE1ν+ + 1 + 0.85 0.6 V m
V 2
E1
νν12 = 0.38944
 
  1−
m 2ν 2 m 1 ( f+ ν
EE m π
f
1 −)( 2ν )
mfκ== 2=11 +− ννm m1f− E2νfEm
m
 GE2 = E23
G12==the 864 MPa
= 15 +497 ν+mν− MPa E ν  κ
κ
For
(( )) ( )
remaining Emunknown 2Poisson coefficient , the ( ) (
( ( ( ) ( ) ()() ) ) )
m
ν
2(11−+Vfν ) Foye 1 ν E κ
12
−    f 2m 1 + νm 1 −E2ν
5 4
 f + Vf
5 4 G m 1+ ν m − E m 12 m E
m 23 =
 

n
 expression ν 23== 1V1f−E+ νofVfff0.6
+ 1+−V EVV[9] ν be mused:m E1 E11 = 0.38944
can 2 1 f+ ν 1mf −f 2ν
 κ f =G 2 E1f +f νm 1 − f2νm
G ( ) )( )
(
fff
fG m  ( 1 − Vf ) (νf − νm )
(( ) )
G12ν=f23= V ν + 1 − V ν f = 5 497
f
ν
2
2 MPa =120.38944  κG 0== 2m 21 + νf 1 −V f2ν

io
+ ( 1 −1Vf−) 2ν
− f νmf ) (model f) f
2f 1 f+ ν5f 4 f Gmm 1 − ν + ν ν E   E1 = 2V(f 1E+2ν
fm
Ef E +4 f
 0 E 1 −E Vf2 + Vf 1 − νm2 + mνm Emm ν12 m E (10)  The  κ1parallel for 1the − Vf in-plane Vf
= 45 803 MPa
1Poisson coefficient Eqn
st y
EG =
(( )) ( ( ) ( )( )( ) )
= =m2 E112 1
 1 − ν2m(1 +Eνm23 ) G 1 ν E f 1 − νm
+ − + +
2ν  Vff way: 1 −κ V Gνm f − ν m  1 
m 23
f ut 2 1 +inνa similar 1 −κ2ν νf − ν m −  11 = 0.31715
Eν1 is=extended
)
m m

( ) f V f1 − V
1
di op

ν G=m V
( )
m
= ν + Vf νf + 1 − Vff νm +
f 2 (E f1E
1 − V ν
( )( )
f f
2ν 1 ν E 12 = 0.38944 12
ν V ν 1 V ν 1 V V κ κ
()ν−(+fνf −Vf 1−νm−ν)+mV)Vf=f 451ν803f−−1MPa
+ −
V (11 −−VV )V
2+ f m
ν = + − +− 1    −(17)  = 0.31715
ν E==VV νE ++(1E1m−− V ))Eν ++4 ff ( κ f f1
G2323=G 23
= 2
1νm  κm 1 κ f 1 
( () ) E12
m m f f f m f f

( )
12 m f
Emν m
V(+1f 1+0.6 + V) 1 − Vf νm1 − νm + νm Em 1
2 V
rib
 Gνm23=212 ν+νE = 0.38944 κ12mν 1= f = f fV νf +ff 1 fm− Vf 11−ν−VmV+f VV κf m11+ G mκ + κ  = 0.31715 − = 0.3171
2 (1 + νf m )G = 5 497 MPa 2 E κff −f++Vf κmVfm Gmf 1  κ m κ f 
f 23 23 
ν112 2 (1 + νm ) (1 − 2νm )
f

G G + 1
f

( )( )
f 12
or c

= ff
=
( ) 1 − ν + ν E  
(1 −2V )1E++ νV f G shear Vf mV f m κmmVf G1 Gmm−+Vf ν+f − ν m  1 1
12

 f out-of-plane
( ) ( ( ))
5 4

) κκf f κ
The m
(
E1 − E 0  
m

 E0 + 2
modulus E Ef
 E2 f  κ =ν 1 =−VV ν + +1 −1V ν + κf κ m Gm 
f f
− = 0.317
κ m κ f 
 G + V G
( ) ( f)

( ( ) ) ( () )
m f m
π  π
f
 2that 1 − 2ν ν
t f ple

G23G =f =  Note 12
1 + νVf the
f f f m
141−436 Vf MPa Vf do not
( ( ))
f
V f  0   G = G
f m
values of f
both f
= E and 1 
change
=Gm πVf )fmcompared −f )V
Vf
+  1 m−(11−+V1 E−GV Ef+m +(G 1 + Vf G f
(VEf 2 −12E m0 )− E 0  (11)
 + G
 E 2 = 2 12E+m1ν E23 + νf Vf E + 02 12 f 0
m1V +
12
+
)
1+
)((
G G f 1 and
π −E 0E f ν−E  G12G=
GG23 π V mE 1
( ) considerably
κ mG=
(( )) ( (
tof fEqns = 4 436κMPa = 42.436 The κ mMPa
))
in-plane Gm shear
2 2 m m
m= + ν2− m 2 (1 + ν ) (1 − 2ν )
 E = 2( (1 +m ν )
= 
)f 23  f (1 +0 G 1m1f12)+− f+f (1 m −mVf ) Gas:
0
2 1 + νV π f  m E + m mπ m
fν m
E m − ν E V
12  VV VmVobtained
Gis mG ++ 11
G −+VV GG f
 f m + + modulus
Gνmm+ 1Ef−f V Eν 0 + Vf (1 − Vf )(νf − ν m )  1= −4 436
f f
E
( )
2  1 − 2   0 2 1 −
1   E f f f f f
 2
= = VEfVf νπf + 1 − VfV νπm ( E − E 0 ) − (νν212EE  G+ π==
(π1 +1−fV)2νmm G1 −+Vf 1 −Vf V 1G  κ m κ1f  =MPa

1f + ν2 mm− Em0 mνm f E− fν f E m ) (( )) (( ))
Eν 10
1V−
2
= 0.38944
no m

G 2 ν
κ12 0.31715 (18)

( ) ( ) ( f )1 ( f) G
2 =23
 f 22(1 + νVf )  1 − 2 f  12f
 f f
V V G
0
E E E ν E ν E 1  2 1 ν  1
) V  − − − +
(
+ − + +
can then π be f determined  1
f as G23− ν + ν
f =V5349MPa. E 12
   G G + f
β m +  + f f
β − β G Gm 
− 3 Vf (12 − V f ) β m2
f
V π  E 0
E
ν 23=2Vf νf + 11−−V2f f νm 0
( )
m 1 m f f m f m κm f f m 2
m m m
E = 00.38944 + 1 G =GG G + β f m κ
+ βf m Vf m  1 +mβVf − β= G G 3
4 436 f
MPa
f

( ) ( )
f
E + 2 m
E ν
f
− 01 E G  
Sa

m f )
π  π  ν2 Vf f (1 G
m
ν 12+ νπV E f 12E m Emf 
12
πV1f+ν1−m−  G fG1G +mG −V1 ++G ββ V+  1  1−+ V Vff3 G  1 + 3β β G G−m3G
f m f− β  β m2
f m m m f f m
−V
E 2Greszczuck
= = V ν +V E( 1f2− Vfand ) νm Norris
 m0EE0 m +mE 2 m f m EE − E 0  
π Gm Gf 1 =0 π0.38944
m ( f )m Vf
G 23= G m  1VG
G+G23=ν1=G− ( − 
fV
 +G(f1f G
f
) −EGVfmfm) ν G(
GGfm −0+1 1mf + VVmmGm1f−+
) (
+ +β−mf 1 f =4 436 MPa
Vfβ)m(νV −f ν )
11
 +f +β fVG f G
1
β −−β f G f 1 
1 +
m 
βGfm G
f

 G 
− 3 Vf 1 − V f (
f f (1 m− 2V f ) β m
1 m f f m
GνG G=mmVf νV   3  m 
) ( )
2

(
=
f 0.31715
23 ==
+ ν EE ν−12 E  −+ ν1 V
2
−E  −ν G 0 2
 = G(1 +π
whereas the 
GfVf )out-of-plane
G Gmf 0++ (β1 m G − Vf1)−
+ β shear stiffness   Gfκ23f 3Gtakes β − theβ
 f−moreG G 
E 223=12 2V(1V ) GVV   Vf1 + V  3V 2

(
f f
 0  12 f
G m m β − κ β mf G f m

f )
12

f (
+π ν VG 2G
π E 0
m + G 1 − f Em
 fmf f + + 3 1fm m m
2
V V m − 3V
m
1 ν G G 1 V β V 11 β G G V V 1−
f  + +
1 3 1 β
) (
G fE − fm V m m
m f
 G 0
 23 
m
   − −   +
f    +  −  −
 
1
)
f m m f f m

( G G G G
f f
The β β β
G23122=work of2 1Greszczuck
−G2+ 2  0f[10] Gfm0is−1 an extension of the Norris elaborate form  G of− 1Eqnκ19: κ G1 + β f G3 f Gm m 1 +f β f G m G
= +  − + −
νf E m0 + 1 
E m m
 πG
23

)
2 2

(
f f f m
VπV VG G E GE mf0  E−0 νEmπ Ef − m
f G mff Gmm − 1f m  − Vmf  m1 + V
m f f
V
f

(12 +the 1)f +

V
model
G
G122=2for
=
E
π
π π
ff


f
ν 23Ganisotropic
− 22
π
π π
f
(
fπ
 Gproperties
m

m
0 f
− Gf ) of wood +m0 1 −
E E
f [11]. According

π
f
 G m + 1 G 23 = G 1Gm− VG GG
0

(  )
GG ff Gmm − 1 m
β (
G
G
+
+ ) 
β
β  + β β
V − β G 1 G
 
f
+ V β
β
1 +3 β fmG f Gf (19)
− β
− f
β
G
f
G
m 
G
f
 −
m
G

3
m


f
−
1
3
−
V
V f
1 (
)
V G
Vf
(
+ 1
2 (1 + ν23 )  the approximation
(
to Greszczuck, of the transverse  f stiffness + +
(1 −βf Vf G )f βf G
2

 −G1 f +G
m f f f
βm fV− 1f m m 1+
23 f f mf m m m f f m
m V436 3 m 2
1=+4−  − 3V
+ β 1G+ V m − 3 V
3
G 2 G 0
G G12 = Gm  Vf1MPa 1−
1(G f ) G ( G m1f )−1f1
can be written as (Eq. +  −  G+ V G m m f
 Gf f
 f f m
f V f 12): π 0 m Vf
f
G G =G =
 1 G + 1 − V G  
   G  1 + β f G f Gm  
f

( ) ββmm == 23 1  Gm ;G; β+G

f m f f m
m

0  Em + 2 E f − E m0  23 m
β β= =G  +
f
 β β − β G β m − β f G f Gm
G G  (12)
+ Vf 3− 3 V (1 − V ) β (
2
f ff
VfGGm V πf m  f 0  V fπ V    3
3 −− 4ν4ν mG G
f m
3 −3 m− 4ν
4ν m
 f f − V
m 3 m f f m 2

 − 3 Vf 1 −
V 1 V
1 +f β G 1 G
mV − +
( )
0 f G 0 
0
GG G V  1
f f f f m
0==  + − −0 1
Gmf +( E2 − E )  2Ef − E mπVf  m0
V
E12m2m== πVf 2ν2 2  E +G2m E
  
G f G m − 1 1 β − β G G  1 + β f G f G m 
+  1 −  G1 G E
m f 0
0 f 0 f f m f f m

G = 1 − 2ν m mπ  πVf π 0 E − E
( ( ) ) ( β m = V π ; β = 1+V
π 0 + 1 − + β
 G V 0 
) 4ν f 1 + β G G  − 3 V (1 − V ) β
m 2

 f 4ν 
m f m 2
VVf Gm −f Gf m − ν m E+πf 1−−ν fm E m E + where
f m m 3 m f f m 2

EE =12 = 1 − 1π VGf Gf + 2 f
1 − 3 − G0 − 1 + βf V 3 −
)) (
 G Em
((
0 m f f f f m
1− − ν ν π  
Gm = 2V Vπ G m1mV − 2 ( E −E G )Em−f −(−νGEEfm0 − ν− EEν0)m EE+ 1f − ν f E m0  + 1  )
m f m f f m
2
20 2
0 2
 π  G G
+2 π 1 G + β 1
m f 2 2 = m

− m3V)Vm κ
1 =κ m κ f +βGm−(βV f G
0 0

 1f − 2 2f  V π
( )
23 m

fπ 
1 G G 
ββm m= = ; β κVm κ f + GmκVf +f κVfm κ+ (1m− V ) (20)
f f f m m f f m

2 1π − 2ν
2 2

 E E
f m m m f f m
 ; β f = 4− G
3 2
Vf   1 + β
 1m−π 2 m f
+ 1
0
m f 3 −34ν−m 4ν G G − 13 − 4ν 4 G  3 − 4ν
f
1+ β G G  f f f m

π1 − ν π  0
Em E f 2 m f m 23
f V κ + f V κ + G f f m

( ( )( )( ) ) 1 V1 κ f f+ V κ mm+ Gm
2 23 m f m
E =
m Vf V 1−V − Vνffbe νm − ν =βκm = ( ; Table βκf )=1, themout-of-plane (V ff κ+stiffness+ V κ ) ν2 
)
1fcan −ν
(( ) ) (
f
E22With
while
Gm0 G= = 1 Vf fG
EE1 = G
=theV E in-plane+ 1 − V shear
Vf m Ef f + G10 −Gf Vf f E0 f + 41 − V V V E + modulus
4
Gm Gf+  1 −1f− +Vf Gf m +Vf
f


calculated
f
1
=m 45 803


as:
= 45 803 MPaκ m κ 3
V1f 2 0 (13) according
MPa m
κ the
f
+G
+− G
V1m κ f to
values 4ν
m

+ VHashin
V
m
κ of
( + V
V f κ f + Vm κ m+3G−23 4ν
f f

κ m + G1m κis κfound

m m

4 +GG+23 G
κ κ
1 m+f 4 f
κ
)+
m
κ G
asκ 1G++23V4Vκ=m κ5,027MPa.
+ Gshear
κf mm κVfmf+κG
+ V f κ m + GThe
f V κ
V fmκm fm+m Vm12κm ν 2  ( )
Vf 2 (V23 )
f m m
m f f 0
E1  12

π 2νm
( )( ) m V κ V κ G
012
GmG = = π κ++ 1 G − +  G βm = V κ ;+ V
f
βf = κ + G  + f
V κ +
+ V κ
m
+ G E 1 
V
( ) κ
( )
m f f f m m

(
 V 1 V  ν ν  transverse m stiffness 4 EG is mwritten inEqn 21 as m a function m of m
1 − Vπ m
G 0
G − − 
) (
m f f m m
V
(
12 G2ν + 22 f
G 0
− G f κ f κ f G
πm  0 m
E2 = 3 − 4ν f f 3
m − 4ν f f

) 1+π −2 Vf V
f m m 2

) )
23
Vm κ f + V f κ m + Gm
Ef f +G40 − G f +  1 − m f mG 2 1, ν12
( κ mκ f + Gm V f κ f + Vm κ m
m m f f
G12E=11=−1Vf−fEνfmm+
f m f

G m = 45 803 E MPa
E =
κ, and κ G G : V κ V κ  κ κ G V κ V κ
π
1 − νm f 1 −f Vf  Vf π 1 κ m κ fm+ Gf m (V f κmf + Vfm κ mf)
+ 23 + 4mG m κ m κ f + Gm (V f κ f +mVm κf m ) ν12 m f f
 +  +
( ) Vπf m 2 m m
+ 4 + GV κ1 ++4V κ + G
( )
Gf + 2 Gm0 − Gf + + E2 + G23  1 23 (21) 
ν 23 =
=E232Vm κVf m+ κV f fκ+
 Em − 1 = 0.34256 m V f mκ m + Gm
+G κ Vκ 23
m 
κm f + +fVG κ m +V f GV κ κ+E V
m m V
+ κ κ + Gm
π κf κ m G2 m E2 2G V κ fm+ Vfmκ m ) m
m( f
 fm mf f 1  m f m m
( ) (
f
 κ = G

( ( ) ) ) ) ( ( ))(( ))
Gm0 =κm = 2m(12 + ν ) (E
κ m κ f +4GG
 m 2ν m m 1 − 2νm ) V f 1 − Vf νf − νm 2
ν = − 1 = 0.34256
G V V 
κ κ + 4 G κ + κ Vmm κ f + V f κm m +f Gm m V f κ f + Vm κ
κ κ + G
m 23
23
2G23m f
where
E
 1 =1 V − E 2 ( 1+ + 1 ν − V ( 1 E
− 2ν + 4 V 1 − V ν − ν = 45 803 MPa E 2E E
= = V κ + V κ + G
m f 23 f V κ m + V
m f
m κ +G
f +
m G 1 + 4
Emfm+ E1 f− fV (V ff κ f + Vfm κ mm)
( m (V f κ f + Vκm κmV ) κ)mfν12+f Gm V
κ2  + V f κ m + Gm
(
23
 0κE1 == V
f1 − ν Gf m m
Ef f + 4 1 − Vf
f f
Vf
f
1
m
= 45(14) 803 MPa ν 23 = κ m2κκ
2 +G m κ κ m κ f + G
G m f Em f− 1 κ
m ν f+ (1 − V
=mm0.34256 + G m )( ν
V κ V
G23)1m+ 4 m
+ κ f + Vm
=
( )( ) 1 − Vf + Vf + 1 ∆ 23VE
f f m
2 E E2 = 2 2G
0κ =2 G
1 2− f − +f ν
 1 2ν
+ ν 1 f 2ν
− κ f V κ + G V
+ G
κ V 1 κ + 4 G E
f
Gmκ=mf = κ κ G ν 
= m f − 1f =m 0.34256 + m  + + 1 

(( ))(( ) )
f f
m
+ +  
( )( )
f f m m f f m m
1 −2 2ν  123− V ν mf +κ f1+− V V f κ νm +−G 23
Vm κ f + V f κ m + Gm
f ( m f )( f
1 − V ν −κ νm )
m
2 11 ++ ννm 11 −−V2ν 2ν E2 = 2 ∆2G 
23
 f
κmm Gmm
2
ν mm 
2
E1 = V1f −Ef +1( 1−−mνVfm)f E f + 4 1 −f V V f = 45 803 MPa  f f 
1 − νm E f 1 E2 = 2 ∆E E 1 − ν f + (1 − Vf ) ( ν f − ν m )
κ =
f f

) + (δ m − δ f ) Gm Vm
( ( ) ( ) ) ( ( )( )( ) )
+ +
κ f V 1κ − V Gm ν − ν   νν 23 == 2δ−2 1( 2δ =−0.342561+ =Gm0.34256
  E
f 1 2 1
(
23 2G23 f
)
m
 ν V 2 ν1 + ν1 m− V1 −
E ν 2ν f f f m
∆ = 1 − c 2G m

 κmκ =12= f f 12) (− δ − δ )V

( ( )( ) )
= + + − = 0.31715
( )(() ) ) ) (( ))(( ) V ν1νf−−ννκmm2  κ f  2 ∆δE2δ
f m f m f 23
1 − 2νm 1 −VVVf ff 1+1−− 
  Eν m 2 1 + νm
( ) (
VV
1  MPa Eν2 = = ( mm−−++mν1GG+fmm=+)G+−m0.34256
212δ + mVδf −f νδf m−GνmmVm
( ) 1= 45 803 f2δ δ m − δ mf ) Gm Vmf
f f
= V2 1 E + ν
+ 1 1
− V
− 2ν E + 4 V 1 − V f+
ν f
− ν m
( ) f ( (
( ) 1 − c2δ +νG+f )1+−(Vδ m −νδ −f )νG f Vm
 +E2c=( 2f ∆( ) 1m −2δ23
 = V νE m+ m 1−V ν + − = 0.31715 δ
  mE 12= V Ef +f 1 − V fE +m 4 1f − κ κ G  ∆ 1 23
− c 2G
( )
m
1− V Vfm V Vmf
κ 1 f f f f f f f m
∆= δ
(G+m G−fm2)((−δ mf2− δδ mmf ))V−m δ f Vm
=
1 =κ45 803
 1 2 (1f+ νmf ) (1E Ef f m )f f
κ fMPa
κ − 2ν
1 − Vff + +Vff + +11  m 2δ
2δ + G − 2 (δ − δ )V
f +
m m
 f = κ κ G
E
  f m m
Ef E
(((( ) ())) )((( )
κ = ν 23 = 2 − 1 = 0.34256
 f 2 111+−−νVV f 1G Gm + 1 + Vf G f
G12 = Gm 1 − Vf f G−m2ν++f 11 ++ V
G12Quarter, ( )
= Gm 1 + Vf Gm + 1 − V
Vf G G f = 4 436 MPa
κfm κ=f 4+436 GmMPa
(
V f κ f + Vm κ m )) ) 2G23
(
δ m ν m 2δ f + Gm Vm + δ f ν f 2δ m + Gm V f ) ( )
) ) ( () ) ( (
(( )) (( ))
G
1st = G 2011 4V
f
G23f G f G = 4 436 MPa ν = 1 −Ec2 δ m ν m 2δ f + Gm Vm + δ f ν f 2δ m + Gm V f 61
12 m 1 + V f G m+ 1 −
1 + V ff Gmm + 1 − Vff G ff Vm κ f + V f κ m + Gm νν1223 == 1 − c − 1 δ=f 0.34256
12
2δ m + Gm + Gm δ m − δ f Vm ( ) ) ( ) (
E2 =
( ) )(
2G23 δ 2δ + G + Gm δ m − δ f Vm
) ( ) () ( ( ( ) ( )
( () ( )
VVf 1κ− Vf νf − ν m  1κ κ1 + G V κ +δVν κ2δ + G2 fV +mδ ν m2δ + G
κ m
κ f

VmG
+ G
ν12 = Vf νf + 1 − Vf νm +
Gκf G
m

+GV
V f
κ f
+
+κ β + G 1
m
− V
m
+V
 and
G 23 1
 f 19),
 1 + 4κ − κ  = 0.31715
m f

Gff GκfG
β m−mtransverse
β βV
−  +GV
m f
E
κ +can
2
f m mm

Gδ m be
m
νδ m 2δ
f ν
=c2 ∆  1 − ν f 12+f 1 m− Vf f fν f −mν m f f
V
2δEf+2+GG2 f+ GVasm +νδ 12δ−f=δν0.31294.
2δ + GFor
fV m
V the (( ) ) )( )( ) )
After substitution of
m +(Eqns 15, 17,  3βthe which evaluated in-plane
( )
f
f βmmm + β
f f
β m + βκm mVVf+κ1 1+++VGV33 f β mm − β ff Gmff G
(( )) ( ( ) ( ( ) )
 ff f G f m m f −m 3 c V1f −m1V−f V22 fβ m 1 f
2 βm f m f m
stiffness is G
m +
calculated as E 2β m=fV13,499MPa.
f  1 m + V f m The Poisson  
−
shear3 V f modulus,
G G
m
 G f f G mm− 1 − 1 + m f 
1 β G G
  f 1 + β f Gf f fG m m  E =f 2 ∆  1fδ−fν 2δ
+ m
− 3 V 1 − V f β +m 1+−GVff +νGf −f νδmm − δ f Vm
2
m
G
G23 =GG m ν23
coefficient
= G, f atGlast,
m
− 1is found as the  inversion 1 +of β fEqnG f 11: Gm  2  f m  (27)
G 23 = G m  G
(
G f GG m ++ββ m
)
  
( )
β − −β βGf G fG Gm 
(((( ( )) )) ( ) ( ) ( ) )
23 m
3β m m
( )
2
1 − V G + 1 + V G
E G f f Gmm + β m −f −VVf ff = 14 1+ +VV3 f β m − β f G f G m  − 3−V3 V1f −1V−δV2 2G
2 2
β m2f β− m+VmGG f −+ Gδm − δ G G f V+ Gm − Vm G f − Gm
1 − V ff f fβ2δ
f m m 3 f f m 2

ν 23G12== Gm2 − f   1 +436 Vff MPa 

+ 1
GG=f 0.34256
(GGm+m −1−1−1V− VG
) ( 1 +β βGf G f(22)
) G mG m − 3G∆V f= 1 − c G
m m m + c Gf m m
f
1+ 1 − c
2δ + G( − 2 (δ)−−Gδ ) )V ( )
1 V G
2G23  Gf f Gm m − 1 f f     1 + β f G f Gm  = m

) δ ( 2δ2G+ G− V) +(G − V (G
f f f 12 m f
2G + V G − G G +G +V G −G
(δ −δ G V G +G − Gm
m m f m f m m f m

∆ ==(1(−1 −c )c ) G
m f m m fm mf m f m m f
G +c G
+ V (G − G ) δ ( 2δ 2δ + G2G+) G δ− 2(−Gδδ −)−GGδ V) V
++(V
f m m m f m m
Elasticity approach with contiguity – Tsai
( )
12 m f
f m
G +G f m m ff fm m f m m f m
1 =−=+Vβ )V1( ν placed,
 1 − ν;; +ββ(randomly  1−+νV )rather than being
 G G +ofβ filamentary
In the fabrication   composites, 
β − β GtheGfibres is + c
found, which leads to G = 7,956MPa. For the modulus
1 1
 − 3 V (in1−V ) β
G ) )−+2((δδ −−δδ ))GV V
m m m f m
1  1 
2

βE == 2 ∆1somewhat
12
= k (Vdirection,
f m m 3 m f f m 2

δ E(2δ
2δ+ V++EG
are
β =often
m2  G ;G −β 1 = 33−−4ν
f
1+ β G G  ff Efibre fm f Tsai modified the rule of mixtures (Eqn
f mf f f m
m 4ν
3 − 4ν
G =3G−in4νa regular array.
4ν

3 − Hence,
mm 4ν
f m f f f
f f m 1 f
f
f m m
m
mf
f m
m
f
f m
f m
packed the analysis for the 1) to+ accountc for imperfections in fibre alignment:
( )
23 m m f
G G +β  β −β G G 
( )
2
moduli of unidirectional − reinforced
V 1
f
+ V composites
m
should
− 3 V 1
m
− V β 2δ + G − 2 δ − δ V 3 m f f m 2

E +V E )
E = 1k+(Vξ( p)ηV
   m f m f m
account forthe G fact
G that
− 1 fibres 1 + β G i.e.
  are contiguous, G fibres

f f f f m

)
(28)
( ) (
f m f f m
δ 2δ + G + δ − δ G V p 1 f f m m

( )
) (( ( )) )
touch each other rather than being entirely surrounded
f m m m where the misalignment factor
f m m f
∆ = 1− c κκm κκf ++Gpoint V f κofκ VmVκamκ p = 1 − ηV Em
(
G
m mV V
++
by matrix materials. 2δ m +From Gm 4−4an 2
GG23 m δ κ κ
analytical
−m δf + f V G κ f ff + f Vm
view, κmm m mδ = k typically varies from 0.9 to 1,

( )
m m f f

linear combination of: 4 G2323 V

m
VV f
mκ κ
m
κ f + +V V κ mκ + +GmG so  Eqn 28 2 1
does− ν not represent a significant departure from
== δ 12δ +; Gβ =+ δ 1 − δ G mVm f +f V f κf m +m Gm m
( ) ( )  rule of mixtures. Em
f m
Eβ2 =
)))) ( )) ))
E
((( ( (( (
E =
+m+ G V κκf3 +−+V  the δ
G V f Vκpf κ+m V+m V =1 + ξ( p)ηV 
cκκ
κ3ammm−κκsolution Vmmmκfκfibres κ mκκ κ κ mEκ ν 2 f 2 
2
2 m
+•
f
κ4ν
m
GGmmmin
f f
VVffwhich
m
4ν f
κmm m + G
f m

are isolated
++
GmmGV
2
fκ f f+ V 1 1+ +4 κ κm ff +fone m f κff δ+= p fm2κp1mmm−−m1νmνm12
V 12 ν
f + all from f= 
( )
ff
V2δ κ + G V −
κ 2 δ G − δ V
+ +G G 23  1 + 4 4 m
V κ V The
κ  p mHalpin-Tsai
G 1 − ηV E  12 
f 1  equations
another; +
VVmmmκκfff +and
m f +
+VVff fκκmmm++GGmmm m f m  mV
+ fV η = + m2 1 − ν
fκ+ V mκ+ G
p + ξ( p)m1 E1 
G
23
23
  V κ + κ
f 
m
+ E
• a solution in which all fibres contact  each mother
mf f
The f m m mEm
fm δ mppreceding micromechanical approaches give rise to
=
provides the correct modulus, with c the degree of complicated
κ m κ f + Gm V f κ f + Vm κ m
 m 2 1 −calculations,
 ( ν m
) and sometimes extremely elaborate ( )
contiguity.
E2 4 G23 equations. Moreover, the formulas are generally restricted
ν 23 = EE22 E−m1 = 0.34256 Vm κ f + V f κ m + Gm p p small − 1 portion of the full design space. Thus,
) ( ) (

n
η = = 12 −f c m δ m ν m 2δ f + Gm Vm + δ f ν f 2δ m + Gm V f
ν 23
Eδ ===2G23 −−11 ==0.34256
to a relatively
)( )
 0.34256
232m 2G
2G ( )(  ) ν (
) ) (( ) )
For
 the κ 2m κ 1 − ν m Vapproach
elasticity κ f + Vm κ min which this κ mcontiguity
κ f + Gm V f κis f + Vthere κ is a tangible need for simpler results to be used in the
m 12m pνf12 pm + ξ( p)

io
23f + Gm
((
23

considered,
f
Tsai [13] obtains for + Gthe 1 + 4
23 modulus transverse design of composite δ ν δ2δ 2δ+ G+ GV in
structures, Gfmν δf m2δ
++ δparticular Vmm V f
− mδ +funidirectional
G
st y
 VmEκm f + V f κ m + Gm  Vm κ f + V f κ m + Gmν = E11− c m m f f m m mm
( )
( ( ) ) ( ( ))
toδthe=fibres
ut reinforced crack arrestors.
di op

( ) (
12
δ m ν m 2δ fδ+f G2δf mV+m G+mδ f+νGf m2δδ m −+ δGf f VVmf
))(()( )) )
 m 2 1 − ν 
E2 = 2 ∆  1 − ν
E m + 1−V
(
E22 == 22 ∆∆ 11 −−ννf f++ 11−−VVf f ννf f−−ν νm m 
ν
(
− ν m 
− X <
C c 11
σ < XT
(( ) ) (( ) )
f f f
rib
(23) Halpin and Tsai [14] developed an interpolation − mδ +f VGmf V f procedure
E   − Y < σ 22δ <m νYTmδ 2δ 2δ + G+ GV + δGf f ν δf m2δ
or c

ν 23 = 2 − 1 = 0.34256 thatC yields c anf approximate

f m f fm representation of more
with 2G23
( ) () ( )
δ m ν m 2δ f + Gm Vm + δ f ν f 2δ m + Gm V f procedure is twofold:
− S < σ 12 < S micromechanical
complicated δ f 2δ m + G f + G f results. δ m − δ f The ( ) ( )
Vm strength of the
ν12 = 1 − cδδ f ((2δ )) )(
t f ple

( ))
( ( ) ) ((( )
2δ m + Gm + δ m − δ f Gm Vm
∆ = (1 − c δf 2δmδ++G2δ + δ m − δ f Gm Vm
)
)
∆ = (1 − c f 2δ m+f GGm− ++ Gδ −+ δG G
)() )
δ V− δ Vm − X C < σ 11 − ν12 σ 22 < X T
( ) ( )
m

( ) ( )( ( ( )
∆ E= =12−∆c  1 − ν2δ+m + −G V
m 2 δ mm− δ fmV m m f
m −ν 2 δ− ν − δ f V m (24) −Y• XC =<C σ<it122σ−is−11cνsimple
2G f − Vcan
X11T < YTand
<21 σG
G f − Gm be used Ginf the
m readily
( )
+ Gmdesign
− Vm G f − Gm
) ) )
1
(
m
−G + c G
δ mν m 2δ 2δ G − 2 δ − δ V
(( )) (( ))
m m  f
+
)) ((
f m mf m

((
2 f
+ G V + δ ν 2δ + G V
no m

12 process; 2G − V G − G m f

) Gfmf + fδm m − 2Gfm + Vmm Gf f − Gmm GGf f++GGm m−+VVm mGGf f−−GGm m
m δ mfG fV f mm
cδ f 2δ m ++ G
f f
+ c δδ f 2δ
( ( ) (( ) ) )(
+ δ m − δ ff G ff Vmm
)
−− SY•
G C= 12 1 −22 c< YGT m the
< σ<itσ<enables S generalization ( )
+ cofG f usually limited
2δ δm f+ 2δ G fm ++ Gδfm −+ δGf f G δ mf V−mδ f Vm
( ) ( )
m f
+ c f 2δ
(( ( ) ))
12
+G − 2 δ −δ V < S 2G + Vexact) G f results.
− Gm G f + Gm + Vm G f − Gm
Sa

+c 2δ mm + G ff − 2 δ mm − δ ff Vmm − S < σ(although more

2δ mf (+2δGm f+ −Gm2) +δ mδ m− −δδf f VGmm Vm
12 m m
δ
∆ = (1 − c )
and 2δ m + Gm − 2 δ m − δ f Vm ( ) F (σ 11 − and
Halpin σ 33 ) Tsai
2
+ G (σapply )
− σ 33the
2
+ mixture )
H (σ 11 − σ 22rules
2
+ 2 Eqns
Lσ 232 +1Mand
σ 132 +2Nfor
σ 122 < 1 ( )
() )
− Xstiffness < σ −inν fibre X
σ <direction
( ( ) )
22
the E1 and the in-plane Poisson
2G − V G − G G f + Gm − VmE1G=Cf k−VGf11mE f +12Vm22Em T
 = 1 ( ( )
δ f− 2δ Em G ) (
+ G f + f δ m −mδ f Gf f Vm m + c G (25) coefficient ν12 respectively, and propose an approximation
G
 12δ + =c
 δ mm = 2 (2δ
c
1E
Em m
−mmν+mG f2G
)) (
+ V G − Gm () f
G f + Gm + Vfor )
−E Y=C <k σV22 E− ν+21Vσ 11E< YT
Gthe −property Gf m f p: ( ( ) )
 δ m = 2 (1 − ν m
− 2m δ −mδ Vf m 1 f m m

−σ 11S < σ 12σ 11<σS22  σ 22   σ 12 

m f m 2 2 2


 δδ m ==
(
2 1E−m ν m
Em
)   − +  +   <1 (29)
 pX  1 +Xξ( Xp)ηV fY   S 
 m 22((11 E
 δ m =
− νm
− mν m )) =
ppm 1 +1ξ(− p)ηV ηV f f
E = k V 2 (( 1 E−m ν+ V E
E ) )
)
=
  δ =
Withm the2contiguity
1
 (
f
1 − ν m ) factor c = 0.4, a value that is commonly
f m m m 2 2
(
2
Fpm σ 112 − 1σ−33ηV+f G σ 222 − σ 33 2 + H σ 11 − σ 22 + 2 Lσ 232 + M σ 132 + N σ 122 < 1 ) ( ) ( ) (
(( ))
used for unidirectional reinforced composites [13], the
ν f ( 2δ m + GFor
))
+G V Vthe  σ 11  σ 11 σ 22  σ 22   σ 12 
Emδ m ν mis2δ +δ
(
))
ν12 =m (1 − c m m
 δ = stiffness
transverse δ ν 2δ f + Gm V
calculated as mE + =
δ f14,658MPa.
ν 2δ + G m V f 
with  − +  +   <1
( ( ) X X2 Y S
(( ( )) )
2

( ( )))
f m m f f m m f

=
νPoisson 1 −
2 c
1 −
coefficient νδmm ν mδδf νf122δ ,2δTsai +obtains
Gmm Vm+ +Gmδ fδνm f − 2δ δ f mV+m Gm V f p f pm − 1   
f (
p 1 + ξ( p)ηV m++G
12
ν12 == 1 − c ( ) 2δ f G + G δ − δ V (26) η= 2 (30)
(( ( )) ) (( ( )) )
m m m m f m
p p −1
 σ=11 p f f pσm11m+ σξ(22p)  σ 22   σ 12 
2 2
pm δ1m−ν mηV2δ δ+ G 2δ V + + G δ ν + G2δ δ+ G− δ V V
δ ν 2δf f
+ fG f V mm + δmf ν f 2δ m m +m G f V f f m η
c m m 6 p f − p6 m +6 ξ( p)+   +   < 1
( (( ( ) ))) (( ( )) )
f f m f f m f f

m ) fV
c
δ m ν mδδ mf2δ ν m2δ2δ +f G+GGf V +V+ G+f δδfννm f −(2δ
m δ
δ fm +V+mGG
2δ V ∑  XFi σi + ∑X∑ FXij σ i σ j<Y1   S 
ν12 =c(1 − c ) f 2δf m + Gf f m+ G f fδ mf − δ f m Vm f f
m+ m

( ) (( )) δ f ( 2δ m + Gm ) + Gm δ m − δ f Vm
i =1 i =1 j =1

p f pm −f 1 m δ 2δ + G f
+ G f
δ m
− δ f
V m
η= ( ) ( )
δ m ν m 2δ f + Gf Vm + δ f ν f 2δ m + G f V f where pf is the corresponding fibre property, pm is the
p fc pm + ξ( p)
( (
) ( ( )) ) 2G f − Vm G f − Gm G f + Gm − VmcorrespondingFG −+2G matrix property 2and
(( ))
ξ(p) is a measure of
))
G12 = (1 − c δGf m2δ2G + G−f Vm+ GGf f δ−m G − mδ f + Vmc G G f + Gm − Vmfibre G
2
 GF2mmσσ2211+σF2211 σ 11 + σthat
1σσff1111−reinforcement F22 σ222depends
+ Fσ σ 2+ 2 F σ 11 σ fibre
66 12 on12the
< 1 geometry,
G12 = (1 − c Gm 2G + V G − G + c G f G + G + V G
))
(( (( ( )) )
m f 22
f
− 22 12
< 1
( )
G12 = 1 − c Gm
( ) 2G2Gmmf +−VVmmm GGff f−−GG m
mm
+ c Gf
GG f + G
f f
+ mmG+m V Gm
 fG−− G
packing,
−mmV  Xf f −and
Gm loading
m m
GX2
+  conditions.

  
Y  S 
+

(
2G − V ( G − G ) ) G + G − V (G
2Gm + Vm G f − Gm G f + Gm + VFm− =XGC1f <−+σG 1< X
11 m ; T F =
1 1
+ −G ) X X )
1
( 2
YT YC
G = (1 − c ) G − X <σ < X
f m f m f m m f m
+c G −Y <σ <Y T C

E = k (V E + V2GE +)V ( G − G ) G + G + V (G −G )
12 m f C 11 T
C 22 T
E = k (V E + V E ) −Y <σ <Y
m m f m f m m f m6 6 6

∑
− SF<σσ +1 <∑S∑ F σ σ
1 f f m m
1 f f m m
C
i
22
i 12
T
ij i j
<1 1 1
F− S= <− σ < S ; F = −
i 11
=1 12 i =1 j =1 22
; F66 = 2
62 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

E1 E2 = E3 ν12 = ν13 ν23 G12 = G13 G23

[MPa] [MPa] [-] [-] [MPa] [MPa]

Voigt-Reuss 45,800 8,170 0.32 3,033

Puck-Foye 45,800 14,864 0.32 0.38944 5,497 5,349

Greszczuck 45,800 13,199 0.32 0.38944 5,960 4,750

Hashin 45,803 13,499 0.31715 0.34256 4,436 5,027

Tsain 45,800 14,658 0.31294 0.38944 7,956 5,274

Halpin-Tsai 45,800 14,977 0.32 0.31899 4,436 5,677

Table 2. Micromechanics of unidirectional reinforced laminates.

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m

Fig.3. Schematic of the resonalyser test

set-up [15].
Sa

With ξ(E2) = 2, the transverse modulus is found as E2 = Experimental validation of

14,977MPa. The in-plane shear stiffness is estimated as
G12 = 4,436MPa, with ξ (G12) = 1. With a value of ξ(ν23) =
0.75, the out-of-plane Poisson coefficient is calculated as
ν23 = 0.31899. The out-of-plane shear stiffness is obtained
through Eqn 11 as G23 = 5,677MPa.
Micromechanics overview
micromechanical modelling
Due to the orthotropic nature of unidirectional reinforced
epoxy, the elastic properties of this composite material are not
straightforward to measure. An extensive testing programme
has been completed to characterize the composite material
by means of different techniques:

A summary of the micromechanical calculations is
presented in Table 2. While the Voigt rules of mixtures
are generally accepted as a good approximation of the
longitudinal stiffness E1 and the Poisson coefficient ν12,
the Reuss series model provides merely a lower bound for
the transverse modulus E2 and the shear modulus G12.
For a contiguity factor c = 0.4, Tsai predicts a very high
value for the shear modulus G12. In order to evaluate the
performance of the different micro-mechanical models,
a comparison with experimental data is provided in the
next section.
• Static tensile tests in fibre direction to determine
the longitudinal Young’s modulus and the tensile
strength XT, as well as the Poisson coefficient ν12.
• Static tensile tests in transverse direction to determine
the stiffness E2 and the transverse tensile strength
YT, as well as the Poisson coefficient ν21.
• Static tensile tests on +/-45° laminates to obtain
values for the in-plane shear modulus G12 and the
corresponding strength S.
• Compression tests in fibre direction to determine
the longitudinal compressive strength Xc.
1st Quarter, 2011 63

mechanical resonalyser

E1 [MPa] 36,400 44,200

E2 [MPa] 8,500 11,400

G12 [MPa] 3,335 4,420

ν12 [-] 0.356

XT [MPa] 700

XC [MPa] 588

YT [MPa] 7.2

YC [MPa] 42
Table 3. Orthotropic properties of UD
glass fibre / epoxy. S [MPa] 30.1

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa

Fig.4. Comparison between the different micromechanical models.

• Compression tests in transverse direction to
determine the compressive strength Yc.
• Three-rail shear tests (both in fibre direction and in
opposite direction) to obtain values for the in-plane
shear stiffness G12 and the corresponding strength S.
As well as this dedicated experimental programme,
the in-plane elastic properties E1, E2, ν12, and G12 were
validated by means of a dynamic modulus identification
using resonant frequencies. This non-destructive testing
technique can determine both the real part (elastic
constants) and the imaginary part (damping behaviour)
of the stiffness matrix. The method is based on the
measurement of the vibrational response of a rectangular
test plate submitted to a controlled excitation [15-17], as
shown in Fig.3.
The measured frequencies were compared with computed
resonant frequencies of a numerical parameter model of the
test plate. The parameters in the model were the unknown
elastic properties. Starting from an initial guess, provided by
the micro-mechanical models (see Table 2), the parameters
of the numerical model were tuned until the computed
resonant frequencies matched the measured ones. This
tuning technique is a Bayesian parameter estimation method,
based on the sensitivities of the resonant frequencies for
parameter changes. The obtained elastic material properties
were homogenised over the surface of the plate, and hence
 2δ m + G f − 2 δ m − δ f Vm ( )
( )
∆ = 1− c
(
δ f 2δ m + Gm + δ m − δ f Gm Vm ) ( )
64 Gm −Journal
2δ m +The 2 δ m −of Vm
δ f Pipeline Engineering ( )
 δ 2δ
 δ+m c= f m (
Em + G + δ − δ G V
) ( )
( )
f m f f m


2 1 − νm
2δ m + G f − 2 δ m − δ f Vm ( )
 δ = Em
 m 2 1−ν
 m( )
 Em
 δm =
 ( )(
2 1 −δνmmν m 2δ f + Gm Vm + δ f ν f ( 2δ m + Gm )V f )
ν12 = (1 − c )
 δ = Em δ f ( 2δ m + Gm ) + Gm δ m − δ f Vm ( )
Fig.5. Notation and convention for
strength values in fibre-reinforced
 m 2 1−ν
 ( ( )
δ m ν m 2δm f + Gf Vm + δ f ν f 2δ m + G f V f ) ( )
c
) ( )
composites.
(
δ f 2δ m + G f + G f δ m − δ f Vm

suitable as averaged input values in finite-element models δ ν ( 2δ + G )V + δ ν ( 2δ + G )V

= (1 − c )
m m f m m f f m m f
ν12
δ 2δ + G + G δ − δ )V
2G (− V (G −)G ) (
for composite structures such as crack arrestors.

= (1 − c ) G
G + G − V (G
f m m m m f m
)
− Gm
+ V)V( G+ −δ Gν )( 2δ + GG )V+ G + V ( G
f m f m f m m f

δ ν ( 2δ2G+ G
G12 +c G
−G )
The results of the mechanical characterization of glass-fibre- m f
reinforced epoxy are summarized in Table 3, and compared m m f m f m m f f mf m ff f m
c m f m
with the resonalyser (non-destructive) test results. δ ( 2δ + G ) + G (δ − δ )V
f m f f m f m

The tensile test results yield stiffness values which are

considerably lower than the resonalyser test and the E1Tsai-Hill (
= k V f Eversus
+ Vm Emaximum )
( ) ( )

n
micromechanical predictions, and the rail-shear test also gives Fig.6. f m stress-failure envelope.
2G f − Vm G f − Gm G f + Gm − Vm G f − Gm
a rather low value for the shear modulus. As the resonalyser ( )

io
G12 = 1 − c Gm + c Gf
gives average values for the whole plate, accounting for the Important to note here 2Gm +is VthatGthe−G G f +(defined
strength values (
Gm + Vm G f − Gm ) ( )
st y
ut m f m
effects of local inhomogeneity, these stiffness values are in Fig.5)1 areξ( required
p)ηV to calculate the material response
di op

p + f
used for the finite-element simulations presented in the under =multi-axial loading.
pm 1 − ηV f
rib
next section.
or c

In this section, the different orthotropic failure measures

Figure 4 compares the different micromechanical models are presented. (
E1 = k V f ETheir
f
+ Vm ability
Em to describe failure for composite )
t f ple

with the experimental results. The Voigt parallel model crack arrestors is evaluated in the following section.
(Eqns 1 and 2) provides an excellent approximation for the p f pm − 1
η=
Maximum
longitudinal stiffness E1, and a good one for the Poisson p p stress
+ ξ( p) and maximum strain theory
f m
coefficient ν12. The Reuss mixture rules provide a lower + ξ( p)ηV f layer with known strength values {XT,
p a 1composite
no m

When
bound for E2 and G12, but do not correspond well with the XC, Y T,=YC, S} is subjected to a combined in-plane loading
p 1 − ηV f
{σ11, σm 22, σ12}, the integrity
Sa

experimental data. Only Greszczuck (Eqn 12) and Hashin of the material can be described
(Eqn 21) give a reasonable estimation for the transverse with an appropriate failure criterion. In the maximum stress
modulus E2, and the shear stiffness G12 is predicted very well theory [5], the stresses in the principal material directions
by both Hashin (Eqn 18) and Halpin-Tsai (Eqn 29). The other must be less than the respective strengths
authors overestimate the shear stiffness considerably. The p p −1
η= f m
Hashin model, which has been derived for unidirectional p p + ξ( p) (31)
composites, shows the best agreement with the resonalyser − X C <f σ 11m< X T
results. Hence, the out-of-plane properties (Eqns 19 and − YC < σ 22 < YT
22) according to Hashin are used.
− S < σ 12 < S
Orthotropic failure measures
otherwise
− X < σfracture
− ν12 σis22 said
< X T to have occurred. Note that this
Orthotropic (plane-stress) failure measures are indications theory Cdoes11not account for coupling between the different
of composite material degradation, where a sound material − Ycomponents.
stress C
< σ 22
− ν σ
21 11
< YT
has an index IF = 0.0 and a failed material has an index IF = − SX< σ<12σ< S< X
C 11 T
1.0. The orthotropic linear elastic behaviour can be extended The maximum strain theory is quite similar to the maximum
with a failure envelope, according to different criteria: − Ytheory.
stress C
< σ 22
< Y
Here,
T strains are limited rather than stresses.
Assuming linear
− S < σ 12 < S elastic behaviour until fracture, the criterion
•
•
maximum stress theory
maximum strain theory
(
(Eqn 31) can be
)
2 rewritten as 2
(
2
)
F σ 11 − σ 33 + G σ 22 − σ 33 + H σ 11 − σ 22 + 2 Lσ 232 + M σ 132 + N σ 122 < 1 ( ) ( )
• Tsai-Hill − X C < σ 11 − ν12 σ 22 < X T (32)
• Tsai-Wu
• Azzi-Tsai-Wu − YC < σ 22 − ν 21 σ 11 < YT
2 2 2
−σS11 < σ σ<11Sσ 22  σ 22   σ 12 
  −12 +  +   <1
X X X Y  S 

( ) 2
( )
F σ 11 − σ 33 + G σ 22 − σ 33 + H σ 11 − σ 22 + 2 Lσ 232 + M σ 132 + N σ 122
2 2
2

2
( ) 2
( )
 δ m = Em
 δm = 2 1 − νm ( ) (
E1 = k V f E f + Vm Em
2G f − Vm G f − Gm ) (
G f + Gm − Vm G f − Gm ) ( )
( ) ( )
(( ) ) ( )
 2 1 − νm G12 = 1 − c Gm 2G − V G − G+ c G f
 δ = Em
E ( ) ( )2G +f V G
G12 = 1 − c Gm m m f m
m −f G m G +GGf ++ GV m −G Vm− GG f − Gm
+ c Gf f m m f 65m ( )
( ) ( )
 mQuarter,
 δ m = 2 1 − νmm 2011
1st

 (
2 1 − νm ) p 1 + ξ( p)ηV 2Gm + Vm G f − Gm f
G f + Gm + Vm G f − Gm
=
pm 1 − ηV f

( )
(
δ m ν m 2δ f + Gm Vm + δ f ν f 2δ m + Gm V f ) ( ) (
E1 = k V f E f + Vm Em )
ν12 = 1 − c
(
2δ mf ++ GGmm) V
δ m νδmf (2δ ) (
+ mG+m δδ mf ν− fδ f2δVmm + Gm V f () )
ν12 = 1 − c ( )
( )( ( ) ) ()
Vmm ++δGf mν f +2δGmm+δGm f−Vδf f Vm
δ m ν m 2δ f +δGf f 2δ
(
E = kp f Vpf mE−f 1+ Vm Em
η 1=
)
c p f pm + ξ( p)
2δ ++ G ) V+ G+ (δδ ν− δ( 2δ)V + G )V
δ νδ ((2δ p 1 + ξ( p)ηV f
m mf fm ff m f fm f f mm f f
c =
(
δ f 2δ m + G f + G f δ m − δ f Vm ) ( ) pm 1 − ηV f
p 1 + ξ( p)ηV f
− c) G
2G f − Vm G f − Gm
G = (1Azzi-Tsai-Hill
Fig.7. versus Tsai-Hill (
G f + Gm − Vm G f − Gm )
+ c G stress-failure envelope.
( ) Fig.8.=Tsai-Wu versus Tsai-Hill stress-failure envelope.
pm 1 − ηV f
2G + V (G − G ) + G + V (G − G )
12 m f

2G − V (G − G ) G + G − V (G − G )
Gf
m m f m m m f m
p f pm − 1
G12 = 1 − c Gm ( ) f m f m
+ c Gf
f m m f m
η=
2Gm + Vm G f − Gm ( ) G f + Gm + Vm G f − Gm ( ) − X Cp<f σ 11pm<+Xξ(
T
p)
p p −1
(
E1 = k V f E f + Vm Em ) η− Y=C < σ 22f < YTm
− S < pσf12 <pSm + ξ( p)

(
E1 = k V f E f + Vm Em )
p 1 + ξ( p)ηV f − X C < σ 11 − ν12 σ 22 < X T
=
pm 1 − ηV f − YC < σ 22 − ν 21 σ 11 < YT
p 1 + ξ( p)ηV f − S < σ 12 < S
= − X C < σ 11 < X T
pm 1 − ηV f
p f pm − 1 − YC < σ 22 < YT
η=
p f pm + ξ( p) −F Sσ < σ− 12σ < 2S+ G σ − σ 2 + H σ − σ 2 + 2 Lσ 2 + M σ 2 + N σ 2 < 1
( 11 33 ) ( 22 33 ) ( 11 22 )
− X C < σ 11 < X T ( )

n
23 13 12

Fig.9. pStress-strain
p −1 curve for the X100 steel grade pipe. Fig.10. Boundary conditions for the static finite-element

io
η= f m −− YXCC << σσ 1122 −<νY12T σ 22 < X T
p f pm + ξ( p) model.
st y
−σYSC << σ 1222
σ< −σνS21 σ 11 σ< YT2  σ  2
ut 2
Azzi-Tsai-Hill theory
di op

Although the principal directions of orthotropy are now

11
− 11 22 + 22 +
− S < σ < S     <1
12

 X  12 X X Y  S 
rib
coupled, the agreement with experimental data is not as good Azzi [20] modified the Tsai-Hill criterion (Eqn 33) by using
− Xwith < Xmaximum − Xabsolute σ < X T cross product term:
< σ 11 − νvalue
or c

as C
< σ 11the T stress theory [5]. As a result, such an the C 12 22 of the
approach cannot
− YC < σ 22 < YT reflect the actual behaviour of composite − YC < σ 22 − ν 21 σ 11 < YT
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
t f ple

2 2 2 2 2 2
crack arrestors
− S < σ 12 < S accurately. In the next subsections, three other Fσ 11σ11 − σσ3311 σ 22+ G σσ2222− σ 33σ 12 + H σ 11 − σ 22 + 2 Lσ 232 + M σ 13(34)
2
+ N σ 122 < 1
stress-based envelopes are presented with a more promising − S < −σ 12 < 2S +   +   < 1
− X C < σ 11 <toXpredicting
potential T failure of composite crack arrestors. X X Y  S 
− X C < σ 11 − ν12 σ 22 < X T
− YC < σ 22 < YT
no m

− YC < σ 22 − ν 21 σ 11 < YT
− S <σ < S Hence, 2 the subtle difference 2 between
2 both2 failure criteria
Tsai-Hill
− S < σ 1212< S theory
6σ 11  σ6 11 6σ2 22  σ 22   σ 122 
(
F Fσi σ11i −−+ ∑ )σ σ ( )
Lσ 232Thus,
σ 33∑ F+σ+Gσ σ<221−11+σ33 + 22<H1σ 11 − σ 22 + 2signs. (
+ M σ 132 + N σ 122 < 1 ) ( )
Sa

shows up only when and have opposite

Hill [18] proposed the yield criterion of:
∑i =1X Azzi-Tsai-Hill
the  i =1X j =1X surface,
ij i j Y   shown S  in Fig.7, differs from the
− X C < σ 11 − ν12 σ 22 < X T Tsai-Hill surface only in the second and fourth quadrants,
−F YσC <−σσ22 −2 ν+21Gσ 11σ < −YTσ
( 11 33 ) ( 22 33 ) 2
( ) 2
(
+ H σ 11 − σ 22 + 2 Lσ 232 + M σ 132 + N σ 122 < 1 ) where it is the outside bounding surface.
− S < σ 12 < S 2 2 22
F σ +2 F σ + σF11 σ 11 + σF222σ22 + F66σσ2 12+ 2 F12 σ 11 σ 22 < 1 2 2
σ1σ 1111 2 σσ2211theory
Tsai-Wu 11σ 22 22  σ 22  σ  12
 −− 2 [21]
 X and + +   + +   <1 < 1 11 22 12
as a generalization
2
of the 2Von Mises’ (distortional energy) Tsai
2  X  WuXX X  postulated
Y Y   S that
S  a failure surface in stress
 σ 11  σ 11yield
isotropic σ 22   σ 12for
σ 22 criterion  anisotropic materials. Tsai [19] space1 exists in the form:
1 1 1
  −
adopted
+  +  2  <1
)2X+ Gcriterion
F X(σ11 − σX33this (σY22 − σ 33 )Sas+ aH (yield 22 )
σ 11 − σand
2
2 Lσ 232 measure
+failure σ 122 < 1F1 = X + X ; F2 = Y + Y
+ M σ 132 + Nfor
T C T C
( )
laminated composites: (35)
6 6 6

(33) ∑ σ 11Fi σ i +1∑

σ 11∑σ F22ij σ i σ σj <2211
2 2
 σ 12  1
2
2
σ 11  2 σ 11 σ 22  σ22   2  σ 12   2
2 2
Fi =111 = − − i =1 j =12; F+22 
=−  + ; F66= < 21
 σ 11 −− σ 11 2 σ 22+ + σ 22 + + σ12< 1< 1  X  XT XC X  YYTYC S  S
 XX  Y  S 
XX X  Y  S
     
in which Fi and Fij are strength tensors of the second
F1 σ 11 fourth
and + F2 σ 22 +rank,F11 σ 112 respectively.
+ F22 σ 222 + F66 σThe
2
12
+ 2 Flinear
σ σ terms
12 11 22
< 1 allow
1  
6 6 1 between 1 1 tensile1   1 1  strength 
by6 relating 6 6
the unknown parameters {F, G, H, L, M, N} to the 6
discriminating and compressive
∑ Fi σ2i + ∑ ∑ Fij σ i σ j < 1 2
i =1σ 11  iσ=111j =1σ 22 {X,
failure strengths
2
∑
F12 =
Fi2σ
1 − 
σ iwhilst
2
+  the
+
∑∑
X TFijhigher
+ +  σ bi + 
σXiCσ j Y<Torder
1 YC  terms
+
X c Xthe
 Xreflect
 σ bi2 
X cinteraction
 
σ 22Y,
 S}. σFigure 6 shows the Tsai-Hill failure values, bi  T T

  − in the < 1 for a given value of in-plane

12

X 2 (σ11Y– σ 22) stress

+   +   space i =1 i =1 j =1
envelope between 1 the 1 corresponding 1 1 stress components. In plane stress
X S  F1 = + the; Tsai-Wu F2 = +criterion requires that
shear stress σ12. The Tsai-Hill surface (Eqn 33) is a piecewise conditions,
XT XC YT YC
continuous
F1 σ 11 + F2 σ 22 +elliptical
F11 σ 112 + F22surface
σ 222 + F66with
σ 122 +each
2 F12 σquadrant
σ < 1 of the surface * (36)
11 22 F12 = f F11 F22
defined by an ellipse centred at the origin. The parallelogram
6
in Fig.6
6 6 F1 σ 11 + F21σ 22 + F11 σ 112 + F221 σ 222 + F66 σ 1221+ 2 F12 σ 11 σ 22 < 1
∑ F σ +defines
i i
F σthe σ maximum
∑∑ <1 ij
stress surface (Eqn 31).
i j F11 = − ; F22 = − ; F66 =
1 i =1
1 j =1 1 1 XT XC YT YC
Fi =11 = + ; F2 = + S2
XT XC YT YC
1 1 1 1
F1 = + ; F2 = +
F σ + F1σ + F σ 2
+ F221 σ 2
+ F σ 2
1+ 2 F12 σ 11 σ 22 < 1 XT XC YT YC
F111 =11− 2 22 ; 11F22 =− 22 ; F66 =12
1   1 
11
XT XC YT YC 66
S2 1 1 1  1 1 
F = 1 − + + + σ + + σ2 
66 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

E1 E2 = E3 ν12 = ν13 ν23 G12 = G13 G23

44,200 MPa 11,400 MPa 0.356 0.343 4,420 MPa 5,027 MPa

XT YT XC YC R S
700 MPa 7.2 MPa 588 MPa 42 MPa 30.1 MPa 30.1 MPa

Table 4. Stiffness and strength values for UD glass-fibre-reinforced epoxy.

Reference – benchmark Short and thick Long and thin

n
LCA = 2 Dp = 150 mm LCA = Dp = 75 mm LCA = 3 Dp = 225 mm

io
st y
tCA = 1.5 tp = 2.25 mm
ut tCA = 2.5 tp = 3.75 mm tCA = tp = 1.5 mm
di op

Table 5. Different crack arrestor designs.

rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa

Fig.11.Tsai-Hill orthotropic failure measure for the different designs.

−− YYC << σσ22 −−νν221 σσ11 <<YYT
( ) (
2
) (
2
) (
F σC 11 − σ22 33 21+ G11 σ 22 T− σ 33 + H σ 11 − σ 22 + 2 Lσ 232 + M σ 132 + N σ 122 < 1
− S < σ 12 < S
)
− S < σ 12 < S
1st
 σ 11Quarter,
 σ 11 σ2011
2 2
 σ 22   σ 12 
2 67
 2 − +  2 +  2 < 1
22

FσXσ11  − σσX1122σ+X22G σ σY−22σ 2 2+σSH12 σ − σ 2 +2 2 Lσ 2 + M σ 2 + N σ 2 < 1

(( )) (( )) ( (
F σ11 −− σ33 + G+ σ22 −σ33+  + H σ11< 1 − σ22 + 2 Lσ 23 2 )) ((
+ M13σ 132 + N12σ 122 < 1
))
 X 11 33X X  22Y  33  S  11 22 23

2 2 2
 2 σ σ  2  2
 σσ1111  2 − σ 1111σ 2222 +σσ2222 2 + σ σ1212  2 < 1
 σX  2 − σσ Xσσ2 +  σY  2+   σS <2 1
 σX1111  −− X1111 X2222 ++ σY 2222 ++ Sσ 1212  << 11
 X  XX 2X  YY   SS 
X    
6 6 6

∑
 σ 11Fiσ i +σ∑
2
11 ∑
2
σ 22 Fij σ σi σ22 j < 1  σ 12 
2

i =1σ  σi =1 σ2j =1  σ    σ  <2 1

6 2− 6 6 + 2+

∑
 X11Fiσ −i + ∑11X ∑22Fij+σiYσ22j< 1+ S 12  < 1 Fig.12. Running shear fracture entering
i =1X  Y  S 
2
i =1X j =1
the composite crack arrestor.

F61 σ 11 + F2 σ6 226 + F11 σ 112 + F22 σ 222 + F66 σ 122 + 2 F12 σ 11 σ 22 < 1
∑
with F σi + ∑
Fi =161 σ 11i the
+ F2i σ 6∑
first Fij σ i σ2Tsai-Wu
6+order
<1
F11 σ 11j + F22 σ 222 coefficients defined as:
+ F66 σ 122 + 2 F12 σ 11 σ 22 < 1
tp = 1.5mm. For the X100 steel grade, an elastoplastic
∑ Fi σ i + ∑ ∑ Fij σ i σ j < 1
=1 22j =1
constitutive law with isotropic hardening was used. The
i =1 1 i =11 j =1 1 1 (37) corresponding (engineering) stress-strain curve is shown
F1 = + ; F2 = + in Fig.9.
X1T X1C Y1T Y1C
F11 σ=11 + F+2 σ 22 + F;11 σF1122 += F22 σ+222 + F66 σ 122 + 2 F12 σ 11 σ 22 < 1
XT XC YT YC The crack arrestor is made of unidirectional reinforced-
2
F1 σ 11the
and + Fhigherσ
2 1 22
+ F σ
order + F22 σ 222 +as:F66 σ 122 + 2 F12 σ 11 σ 22 < 1
factors glass-fibre epoxy, with the material properties listed
11 11 1 1
F11 = − ; F22 = − ; F66 = 2 in Table 4. As the out-of-plane shear strength R is
1 X T X1 C 1 Y 1Y S1

n
F1 = +1 ; F = + T1 C (38) unknown, we have assumed symmetry to obtain a realistic
F11 = X− X ; F2 22 =Y − Y ; F66 = 2
1 X T X1C 1 Y Y1 S approximation.

io
T C T C
F1 = + ; F2 = +T C
st y
XT XC YT YC ut Three different crack-arrestor designs are compared: the
di op

IfFF11the 1 1 ; 1F stress
== − equibiaxial 1 1 1 ; 1 F σ= 1is known, 1 1  2
1 −  22+ = − +at failure + 66σ bibi+ 2 + the cross
 σ bi 
reference (benchmark) case, a ‘short and thick’ design,
2σ1XbiTcoefficient
X
1 C  X1T isX1found
Y YYC as:Y  S  X X
1 T1 c X T1X c  2 
12 2
rib
product C T 1 1T 1C  and a ‘long and thin’ alternative. The dimensions,
F1112 = − 2 1 −  ; F+22 = − + + ; Fσ66bi =+  2 + σ 
or c

(39) geometry, and mesh for the different designs are shown
2σXbiT X C  X T X C YTYYT C YC  S X T X c X T X c  bi 
in Table 5.
t f ple

1*   1 1 1 1  1 1  2
FF1212 == f 2 F111−F22 + + +  σ bi +  + σ  For the reference case, the crack-arrestor length LCA = 150mm,
2σ bi   X T X C YT YC   X T X c X T X c  bi  and the thickness tCA = 2.25mm. The length of the pipe is
F12 = f *1 F 11 F22 1 1 1 1  1 1  2
no m

F12 = 1 −  + +  σ bi +  chosen as Lp = 3LCA = 450mm.

+
2σ bi   X T X C YT YC 
+  σ bi 
 X T X c X T X c  
2

If the equibiaxial stress at failure σbi is unknown, the cross

Sa

F12 = f * coefficient
product F11 F22 is written as
F12 = f * F11 F22
where -1.0 < f* < 1.0. For our analysis, the default value of
f* = 0 is chosen.
In Fig.8, the Tsai-Wu surface appears as an ellipse. Since all
the stress-based failure theories (Eqns 31, 33, 34, and 36) are
calibrated by tensile and compressive tests under uniaxial
stress, they all give the same values on the stress axes.
Finite-element modelling of
composite crack arrestors
To study the different orthotropic failure criteria, a static
finite-element model of an X100 pipe with a composite
crack arrestor under internal pressure was implemented.
The pipe has a diameter Dp = 100mm and a wall thickness
Both the pipe body and the crack arrestor can be modelled as
axisymmetric deformable bodies. The pipe is constrained in
the axial direction, and a static internal pressure p is applied
(40) on the inner surface. A penalty contact condition between
the surfaces of the pipe and the crack arrestor is imposed.
Figure 10 schematically shows the boundary conditions of
the finite-element model.
The results for the Tsai-Hill failure measure for the different
designs are shown in Fig.11. Obviously, the thick crack
arrestor is the optimum design to withstand internal
pressure. According to Tsai-Hill (Eqn 33), the long-and-thin
crack arrestor will fail for an internal pressure p = 18MPa,
whereas the short-and-thick design can cope with pressures
up to p = 24MPa. The reference (benchmark) design fails
at an internal pressure of p = 20MPa.
As already indicated in Fig.8, there is little or no difference
between the Tsai-Hill (Eqn 33) and the Tsai-Wu (Eqn 36)
failure measures in the first quadrant, where both σ11 > 0
and σ22 > 0. In this analysis, the curves, shown on Fig.11,
coincide for both failure measures.
68
Conclusions and outlook
When selecting composite materials for crack arrestors,
glass-fibre-reinforced epoxy provides the best balance between
mechanical properties and economic reasons. In this paper,
several micromechanical mixture rules were evaluated to
calculate the elastic constants of the UD laminates, based
on the properties of the (glass) fibre and the (epoxy) matrix.
The in-plane elastic properties were determined by a non-
destructive technique to identify the dynamic modulus
using resonant frequencies. Traditional mechanical
characterization was performed as well: both tensile tests,
three-rail shear tests, and compression tests were reported
in the fibre and in the transverse directions. The results of
the mechanical tests were compared with the non-destructive
(resonalyser) evaluation. This experimental data allowed
assessment of the different micromechanical models. The
Hashin model, which has been derived for unidirectional
reinforced composites, shows the best agreement with the
experimental data.
In this paper, different orthotropic failure measures were
n
compared for UD glass-fibre-reinforced epoxy under plane
conditions. For composite crack arrestors, subjected to an
io
internal gas pressure, the Tsai-Wu, Tsai-Hill and Azzi-Tsai-
st y
ut
Hill criteria coincide. Obviously, a thick design is preferred
di op
to withstand internal pressure.
rib
or c
The presented finite-element model is currently being
extended with the Hashin progressive-damage model,
t f ple
in order to predict crack initiation and subsequent
propagation. The initiation criteria distinguish between
fibre rupture in tension, fibre buckling in compression,
no m
matrix cracking under transverse tension, and matrix
crushing under transverse compression. Once damage
Sa
occurs, the response of the material is reflected in a
damaged elasticity matrix.
When applying cohesive-zone modelling to simulate
ductile-crack propagation in high-pressure gas pipelines,
the ability of composite crack arrestors to stop a running
shear fracture can be assessed. Figure 12 shows some
preliminary research results of a running crack entering
a composite crack arrestor.
Acknowledgements
The research results, presented in this paper, were
obtained in the scope of the LINESPEC project on
special components and strain-based requirements for
high-strength high-pressure pipeline applications. This
project is funded by the Research Fund for Coal and
Steel (RFCS).
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the
project partners BP, SZMF, CSM, Corus, ISQ, RWTH, and
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
the Soete Lab (UGent). The fruitful discussions with the
dedicated team on composite crack arrestor design proved
to be very valuable input for the work at hand.
References
1. Mannucci, G., Di Biagio, M., Demofonti, G., Fonzo, A.,
Salvini, P., and Edwards, A., 2004. Crack arrestor design
by finite element analysis for X100 gas transportation
pipelines. 4th Int.Conf.on Pipeline Technology, 9-13
May, Ostend, Belgium
2. Demofonti, G., et. al., 2004. Fracture propagation
resistance evaluation of X100 TMCP steel pipes for high
pressure gas transportation pipelines using full-scale
burst tests. Idem.
3. Rivalin, F., Pineau, A., Di Fant, M., and Besson, J., 2001.
Ductile tearing of pipeline steel wide plates: dynamic and
quasi-static experiments. Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
38, pp329-345.
4. Shen, F.C., 1995. A filament wound structure technology
overview. Materials Chemistry and Physics, 42, pp96-100.
5. Jones, R.M., 1975. Mechanics of composite materials.
Scripta Book Co, 352 pp.
6. Pister, K.S., and Dong, S.B., 1959. Elastic bending of
layered plates. J. Engineering Mechanics, pp1-10.
7. Ashton, J.E., Halpin, J.C., and Petit, P.H., 1969. Primer
on composite materials: analysis. Progress in Materials
Science, 3.
8. Puck, A., and Schneider, W., 1969. On failure
mechanisms and failure criteria of filament wound glass
fibre resin composites. Plastics and Polymers, pp33-44.
9. Foye, R., 1966. An evaluation of various engineering
estimates on the transverse properties of unidirectional
composites. Proc. 10th Nat. Symp. of the Society for
Aerospace Material Processing Engineers, San Diego,
California, ppG.31-G.42.
10. Greszczuck, L.B., 1982. Damage in composite materials
due to low velocity impact. Impact Dynamics, J.A. Zukas,
J. Wiley & Sons.
11. Norris, C.B., 1950. Strength of orthotropic materials
subjected to combined stress. US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Report No 1816.
12. Hashin, Z., 1980. Failure criteria for unidirectional fibre
composites. J. Applied Mechanics, 47, pp329-334.
13. Tsai, S.W.., 1964. Structural behaviour of composite
materials. NASA CR-71.
14. Halpin, J.C., and Tsai, S.W., 1969. Effects of
environmental factors on composite materials. AFML-
TR 67-423.
15. Sol, H., 1986. Determination of the anisotropic plate
rigidities by free vibration analysis. PhD Dissertation,
VUB.
16. Sol, H., and De Wilde, W.P., 1988. Identification of
elastic properties of composite materials using resonant
frequencies. Computer aided design in composite
material technology.
17. Sol, H., Hua, H., De Visscher, J., Vantomme, J., and De Wilde,
W.P., 1997. A mixed numerical-experimental technique for
the non-destructive identification of the stiffness properties of
fibre-reinforced composite materials. J. NDT&E International,
30, 2, pp85-91.
18. Hill, R., 1950. Mathematical theory of plasticity. Oxford
University Press, London.
19. Tsai, S.W., 1968. Strength theories of filamentary structures.
In: Fundamental aspects of fibre reinforced plastic compos-
ites, Eds. Schwartz, R.T., and Schwartz, H.S. pp3-11, Wiley
Interscience, New York.
20. Azzi, V.D., and Tsai, S.W., 1965. Elastic moduli of laminated
anisotropic composites. Experimental Mechanics, pp177-185.
21. Tsai, S.W., and Wu, E.M., 1971. General theory of strength
for anisotropic materials. J. Composite Materials, pp58-80.

n
io
st y
ut
di op
rib
or c
t f ple
no m
Sa
 Sa
no m
t f ple
or c
di op
st y
rib
ut
io
n