See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283291323

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure

Conference Paper · February 2001

CITATIONS READS

0 1,328

3 authors, including:

David Bruton
Crondall Energy
31 PUBLICATIONS   386 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SAFEBUCK JIP View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Bruton on 28 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse
Under External Pressure

Kevin Williams
Andrew Palmer and Associates (formerly)

David Bruton
Andrew Palmer and Associates

Norman Rodda
BP Exploration

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the findings of a study on design of pipelines for collapse,
undertaken as part of the Norwegian Deepwater Programme (NDP).

In deep water, collapse under external hydrostatic pressure replaces internal

pressure as the dominating load case for pipeline design. This paper presents a
detailed review of the state of knowledge of failure modes and design formulations
for pipelines to be installed in deep water, where collapse is the dominating load
case. These collapse failure modes include buckle propagation; external pressure
collapse and combined loads, including external pressure with bending and axial
tension. The aims of the NDP study, summarised in this paper were to:
™ Evaluate current design formulations taken from BS 8010, API 1111, DnV 96
and DnV OS-F101 (2000) design codes.
™ Establish code limitations by comparison with all available collapse and
combined load test results, with parametric studies to evaluate actual cases for
proposed deepwater developments.
™ Recommend preferred formulae.
™ Identify gaps in knowledge and recommend future development work to
improve formulae and design methods.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 1 of 24
1. INTRODUCTION

This paper is based on a study of the design of deepwater pipelines against

collapse, performed by Andrew Palmer and Associates (APA) for BP Exploration, on
behalf of the Norwegian Deepwater Programme (NDP). The work formed part of
the NDP Subsea Project, one of the five NDP collaborative work programmes,
undertaken in 1997-1999 by licensees of the 15th Round Deepwater Norwegian
Exploration Blocks. The paper also refers to subsequent case studies undertaken
for BP to highlight the crucial parameters for design of pipelines in deep water.

2. LOAD CASES

The following load cases for design of pipelines susceptible to collapse are referred
to throughout this paper:

™ Buckle propagation

¾ A propagating buckle is an individual load case that occurs when the external
hydrostatic pressure load, on a pipeline with an existing localised damage
feature such as a buckle, leads to the collapse of a long pipeline section as
the buckle propagates along the pipe length.

™ External pressure collapse

¾ Collapse is an individual load case that occurs when external hydrostatic

pressure causes a pipe to become unstable and buckle locally. The collapse
pressure is the lowest external pressure at which a buckle occurs.

™ External pressure and axial tension

¾ Is a combined (interaction) load case where external hydrostatic pressure is

combined with axial tension, which can reduce the external pressure collapse
strength.

™ External pressure and bending.

¾ Is a combined (interaction) load case where external hydrostatic pressure is

combined with bending. Although extreme bending alone can cause
collapse, when bending is combined with external pressure, the two load

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 2 of 24
 cases interact. Because bending increases ovalisation in the pipeline it
reduces resistance to external pressure. This combined load case is
subdivided into:
ƒ load controlled ‘bending moment’ and
ƒ displacement controlled ‘bending strain or curvature’.

™ External pressure, axial tension and bending

¾ Is a three load combination (interaction) load case where axial tension and
bending can reduce the external pressure collapse strength.

3. REVIEW OF TEST DATA AND DESIGN METHODS

3.1 Methodology

The methodology followed in the study was to:

™ Perform literature search and hold discussions with key European and US
specialists and companies, in order to:
— Assemble and compile all available test results
— Assemble available design formulations
™ Assess available code equations and formulations:
— Basis and validation of formulation
— Range of applicability (from comparison with tests)
— Safety factors achieved
™ Provide conclusions and recommendations

3.2 Assessment of Test Data

The initial phase of the work was to collate the test results for pipeline collapse
involving external pressure. Six hundred test results were found. The key finding
was that there are significant gaps in these test data:
™ All tests were performed at laboratory ambient temperature;
™ Interaction (combined load) cases were mostly based on small scale tests;
™ No combined axial force, bending and external pressure results were found.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 3 of 24
While the individual load cases can be verified against available test data, there is
less data to give confidence in the combined load cases. As collapse pressure can
be reduced significantly by tension and bending, the load combinations that occur
are significant when designing against collapse. The implications of this are
discussed throughout this paper.

3.3 Assessment of Available Design Formulations

The available formulations for design of pipelines susceptible to collapse were

identified from research papers and design codes. The main codes considered
were:
— DnV 1996[1] and DnV OS-F101[2]
— BS8010 (1993)[3]
— API RP 1111 (1999) [4]

The recommended formulations were chosen by comparing, graphically and

statistically, the test results with theoretical predications (excluding safety factors).
The preferred formulations were those which most closely reflected the trends in the
experimental data, giving:
— a similar mean for the D/t ranges considered,
— the best statistical fit between the experimentally observed failure load
and the failure load predicted by the formulations.

The key finding was that individual load cases are well understood but there is less
certainty under combined loads. This is reflected in the similar wall thickness
predicted by the two most recent codes API 1111 and DnV OS-F101 (which is
similar to DnV 96 for external pressure collapse and propagation buckling). This
can be seen in Figure 3.1, which summarises code requirements relating to external
pressure collapse and propagation buckling.

This figure also shows that D/t ratio is the critical design parameter, and the
relationship between D/t ratio and water depth for collapse and propagation buckling
is effectively independent of diameter.

For large diameter UOE pipe there is a loss of collapse strength due to the
manufacturing process. As a result DnV require that the compressive yield stress
for UOE pipe to be taken as 0.85 SMYS. The effect of this can also be seen in this
figure by comparing D/t ratio required for UOE and seamless pipe. This reduction

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 4 of 24
may not be applicable if the compressive hoop strength is specified or can be
demonstrated.

Figure 3.1 Summary of Code Requirements for External Pressure Loading

35.00

30.00

25.00
Required D/t Ratio

External Pressure Collapse

20.00

15.00

API 1111 - Seamless - Collapse

Propagation Buckling
10.00 DnV 96 - Seamless - Collapse
BS 8010 - Collapse
API 1111 - UOE - Collapse
DnV 96 - UOE - Collapse
5.00
API 1111 - Propagation
DnV 96 - Propagation
BS 8010 - Propagation
0.00
750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

Water Depth (m)

Other findings were:

™ Propagation buckling
— API 1111 and DnV equations are similar
— Safety factors are similar
— Probability of failure is 1 to 4%
™ Collapse under External Pressure alone
— API fit to the test data is slightly better than the De Winter formulation
(used in DnV and BS 8010)
— DnV modification (specifying minimum ovalisation) improves the fit
compared to API
— Calculated seamless pipe normal (operating) condition wall thickness is
similar for DnV and API

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 5 of 24
 — Calculated UOE pipe operating condition wall thickness is similar at D/t
<20-25 for DnV and API
— UOE is best modelled using the hoop compressive yield stress as
recommended in DnV
— DnV safety factor approach is more rational for UOE pipe
— Pipe ovality is a critical factor

Pipe failure under external pressure can be likened to columns. Under axial
compression, short columns fail when the plastic load is reached, while slender
columns fail at the Euler buckling load. Loading is most critical when the plastic
collapse and Euler buckling loads are similar. The same is true of pipes.

At small D/t ratios a pipeline loaded under external pressure will fail plastically, when
the hoop stress equals the yield stress. For large D/t ratios the pipeline will fail in an
elastic buckling mode, akin to the Euler Buckling load for columns. Obviously, the
most critical condition arises when these two modes interact. This occurs at a D/t
ratio of 22.5, associated with a water depth of about 2000m, for grade X65 pipe.
There is significant scatter in the test results in this interaction region, suggesting
that the pipe is more sensitive to imperfections.
™ For individual load cases the experimental data showed trends that varied with
D/t ratio
— Each code formulation uses a constant safety factor across the entire D/t
range
— The dominating failure mechanism (elastic or plastic) varies across the
D/t range, and thus the safety factor is not constant
— Therefore there is a variable level of safety, dependant on D/t ratio

There is less confidence in the approach for design against combined loads, mostly
due to the lack of test data. For the same reason it is hard to determine safety
margins. Indeed, API state that their safety factors are provided for guidance only
and the formulae provided should not be applied without due consideration of safety
factor (Ref. Appendix D4 of API 1111).

In the main, the DnV interaction (combined load) approach is preferred, but the key
issues that must be considered are:
™ The determination of allowable moment or bending strain for a pipe operating
near to the code allowable external pressure. An example of the difference

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 6 of 24
 between loads can be seen in Figure 3.2 (DnV) and Figure 3.3 (API) which
show the code allowable bending strain compared to test results. API appear
to allow a greater bending strain at the critical pressure (about 0.7 Pc) but this
is not the case, as discussed below.
™ The effect of tension, bending and external pressure acting in combination,
which is a common operational design case.
™ The influence of axial force. The change in safety factor application means
that although the formula is the same without factors, there are significant
differences between DnV 96 and OS-F101 when axial force is present.

Other findings for combined load cases were:

™ Collapse under tension
— Tension can reduce collapse strength
— This load case is not considered in DnV 96, nor API (as it is believed to
be a small effect for installation case)
— Now addressed by DnV in OS-F101
— Can also be modelled by a reduction in effective yield stress using von
Mises equivalent stress criterion.
™ Collapse under bending
— Only DnV considers load control (moment and external pressure)
— Displacement (curvature) control results are plotted in Figure 3.3
— API suggested factors need consideration (suggested factor of 2.0 is
used in Figure 3.3 but 3.3 may be more appropriate)
— DnV more consistent for complete range
— Formulae are inconsistent when pipe is close to allowable external
pressure
™ Collapse under bending and axial load
— Only DnV provides guidance
— Without safety factors DnV 96 and OS-F101 are similar but codes differ in
safety factor application
— No test results are available to verify code equations

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 7 of 24
Figure 3.2 DnV 96 Allowable Code Values - Low Safety Class

1.2 D/t = 24.2

Normalised Collapse Pressure (DnV 96)

D/t = 21
D/t = 16
1 D/t = 24-32
D/t = 25-29
D/t = 24
0.8 D/t = 35
D/t = 25.7
D/t = 19.2
P/Pc

DnV 96 - No Safety Margin

0.6
DnV 96 - Safety Margin

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Normalised Collapse Strain (DnV 96) e/ec

Figure 3.3 API 1111 Allowable Code Values

1.2
D/t = 24.2
Normalised Collapse Pressure (API 1111) P/Pc

D/t = 21
D/t = 16
1 D/t = 24-32
D/t = 25-29
D/t = 24
0.8 D/t = 35
D/t = 25.7
D/t = 19.2
0.6 API - No Safety Margin
API - Safety Margin

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Normalised Collapse Bending Strain (API 1111) e/ec

Note [1] These figures show the code allowable bending strain compared to test results for the DnV and
API codes. Vertical axis is the collapse pressure normalised by the critical external pressure.
Horizontal axis is the collapse bending strain normalised by the critical bending strain.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 8 of 24
Figure 3.4 presents the allowable bending strain determined to DnV 96, for a
pipeline with D/t = 30, considering both load control and displacement control
conditions, and illustrates the problem with the design equations. The horizontal
(cut-off) line in Figure 3.4, on the normalised pressure axis at 0.67, represents the
limiting allowable external pressure, considering system effects according to the
code. It can be seen, for the example shown, that if the pipe is sized such that the
external pressure is 0.67 of the critical pressure then the allowable bending is less
under displacement control than load control (the cut-off line meets displacement
control line to the left of load control curve). The cause of the problem can be
readily identified from Figure 3.2. It can be seen that the interaction curve is
calibrated over the complete interaction range and not just over the range of interest
for deepwater pipelines (close to the design collapse pressure), where it may be
conservative. This is discussed further in the case studies.

Figure 3.4 Example Interaction Diagram

DnV Interaction : Design - Installation : D/t 30 : X80

0.9
Normalised Allowable Collapse Pressure

0.8 Cut-off
0.7
0.6
Displacement
0.5 control
0.4
Load control
0.3
M/My
0.2 e/ey
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalised Allowable Bending Strain (e/ey)

In response DnV have indicated that load control is always valid, while larger strains
can be considered if the pipeline is displacement controlled.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 9 of 24
4. DESIGN APPROACH FOR DEEPWATER PIPELINES

4.1 Design Overview

The objective of pipeline design is to ensure that a safe, reliable and cost effective
asset is obtained. In order to ensure this, the design process should ensure that
there is a uniform factor of safety with respect to all critical limit states. This
obviously requires a consistent series of design equations covering burst and
collapse independent of diameter, thickness and material properties; ideally with
factors relating to understood physical parameters and adequate guidance as to
their use.

Much effort has been expended upon formulations for burst or internal pressure
containment due to the obvious savings that can be made if the pipeline wall
thickness can be safely reduced. However, for recent and planned deepwater
developments the dominant condition is often collapse due to the external
overpressure. BP had APA review the state of the art for collapse as part of the
NDP Subsea Project. It was found that the state of knowledge is less advanced for
this case, and that there are gaps in knowledge. This work was summarised in
section 3.3.

The NDP work undertaken for BP identified the recent API and DnV pipeline codes
as being the best available for the external pressure and collapse load case
applicable to deepwater pipelines. A comparison of the formulations contained in
these codes for some critical limit states for deepwater pipelines presented in Table
4.3 highlights the position with regards state of the art. Indeed, it can be seen that
until the release of DnV OS-F101 there were no recognised design equations that
covered all the required limit states; and even now there are no test results to verify
the new equations, or FE models used to develop them across their complete
range.

The importance of this is that the burst pressure is not significantly affected by the
presence of other loads whereas the collapse pressure can be greatly reduced by
tension and bending. Thus a detailed knowledge of pipe geometry and load
combinations that will occur, is far more significant for pipelines where design is
dominated by collapse, compared to a traditional design dominated by burst.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 10 of 24
4.2 Load Cases for Design

The key individual and combined collapse load cases, defined in section 2, are:
™ Buckle propagation
™ External pressure collapse
™ External pressure and axial tension
™ External pressure and bending, subdivided into:
ƒ load controlled ‘bending moment’ and
ƒ displacement controlled ‘bending strain or curvature’.
™ External pressure, axial load and bending.

4.3 Load Control Versus Displacement Control

There is some confusion within the industry, in the choice between application of
load controlled bending moment or displacement controlled bending strain. It is
clear that the choice depends upon the load condition. If displacement is controlled,
as on the overbend of a lay-vessel stinger or at a span where seabed clearance
limits displacement, then the displacement control limit state applies. If there is no
physical limit to a potential displacement then the moment control limit state is more
appropriate. As a rule of thumb: load control approach is always acceptable, while
displacement control can be applied if the pipeline shape would not change if a
‘hinge’ or weak section in the pipe would not alter the displaced shape.

4.3.1 Load Case Combinations

The application of load-cases, listed in Section 4.2, to installation, hydrotest,

operation and shut-down/start-up phases of a pipeline, and are given in Table 4.1:

Table 4.1 Load cases for life-phases of pipeline

Load Buckle Collapse Bending Axial Axial Tension
Case Propagation Compression
Installation Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hydro-test Yes Yes Yes

Operation Yes Yes Yes Yes

Shut-down Possibly Yes Yes Yes

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 11 of 24
Table 4.2 Design considerations applicable to load cases
Failure Design Considerations
Case

Buckle Generally only considered as an installation load case, as there is no internal pressure
Propagation and potential exists for localised damage in the sag-bend which is under full hydrostatic
pressure.

Could be considered an operational case where pipe is designed to withstand

propagation in operation, given for example high levels of fishing activity, or if pipe has to
be depressurised following damage. This may also require a higher safety margin

External Case applies to all phases of installation and operation. A pipeline is most susceptible to
pressure collapse when internal pressure is low, during pipe-lay and following a shut-down.
collapse

External This is usually associated with operation when thermal expansion and external pressure
pressure and act together. As compression is likely to increase resistance to external pressure, this
axial would not normally be considered as a design case.
compression

External This case is usually associated with installation. However it is probably more critical to
pressure and shut-down and start-up, when thermal contraction can cause locally high tension at pipe-
axial tension ends, combined with hydrostatic external pressure and low internal pressure.

External Bending is normally associated with the lay process, occurring in the sag bend. However
pressure and bending also occurs in operation due to thermal expansion (lateral or vertical buckling) or
bending due to pipe configuration (spans)

External This combined load case is probably most critical at shut-down and start-up.
pressure
bending and
tension

4.4 Selection of Design Formulations and Factors of Safety

Table 4.3 compares the available design code formulations for the above load
cases. It can be seen that DnV OS-F101 is the most complete. For system
collapse and propagation buckling all three codes give similar results and so it is
recommended that, at this time, OS-F101 be used as the basis for design of
deepwater pipelines.

However, any conservatism in combined pressure bending and axial force modelling
could not be determined, due to lack of test results.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 12 of 24
Table 4.3 Completeness of Codes for Load Cases
Load Case / Limit State API 1111 DnV 96 DnV OS-F101

Wall Thickness Design

- Burst, Pressure Containment √ √ √

- System Collapse (External Pressure) √ √ √

- Propagation Buckling √ √ √

- Combined Loading ΔP (Pi-Pe), Teff See local buckling formulations below

Installation

- Overbend (εb, T) ? No T [1] √ √

- Sagbend (εb, Teff, Pe) ? No Teff [1] ? √

No recommended if εb=0 then no Teff
safety factors adjustment

Hydrotest

- Internal Pressure, bending, axial load ΔP (Pi-Pe), Teff or ? √

ΔP (Pi-Pe), εb if εb=0 then no Teff
adjustment

Operating (some bending)

- Start up (εb, Teff, Pe>Pi) ? No Teff [2] ? [2] √

no Teff adjustment
for Pc

- Steady State (εb, Teff, ΔP (Pi-Pe)) ? No Teff, √ √

- Start up and shut down Pi>Pe uncertain validity of
(εb, ΔP (Pi-Pe))

- Shut down (εb, Teff, Pe>Pi) ? No Teff [2] ? [2] √

no Teff adjustment
for Pc

Note [1] The effect of tension or compression is believed to be small for these cases

Note [2] The significance of ignoring the effect of tension or compression for this case is not as
understood as for installation and should be confirmed.

4.5 Key Issues for Design

Although DnV OS-F101 is recommended, it is emphasised that it cannot be applied

without thought. From the review in Section 3.3 it can be seen that the main issues
that need to be resolved are:

1. The determination of the allowable moment or bending strain for a pipe

operating near the code allowable external pressure.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 13 of 24
2. The effect of tension, bending and external pressure acting in combination.

It may only be possible to resolve these by testing or FE, until the experience base
becomes larger.

It is also recognised that the use of API 1111 may be specified. It is important to
recognise that the API 1111 code allows limit state design, based on experience,
whereas limit state design to the DnV code is reliability based. For example, the
safety factor that needs to be used with the API Code for combined bending and
external pressure must be reviewed, as stated in Appendix D4 of the code. Since
API does not cover all load cases it is recommended that DnV be used as a check
on the factors of safety being used.

The D/t ratio which results from applying the codes to design of collapse dominated
pipelines means that pipelines may be less safe than the code calibration targets
(these were derived from statistical analysis of test results over the entire D/t
range). Therefore, at low D/t ratios, wall thickness may need to be increased to
give the desired factor of safety. The scatter of results varies across the D/t range
as shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Large pipe collapse test data, plotted by D/t ratio

70.00
Collapse pressure, Pco (Mpa)

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

D/t

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 14 of 24
It should also be noted that the collapse design formulations require some
additional information about a pipeline, not normally required for a burst design. As
a minimum the following data should be known or accurately specified for
deepwater pipelines:
— pipe diameter and wall thickness variations;
— ovality (throughout lifetime, potentially including damage);
— expected corrosion pattern;
— yield behaviour, including the hoop compressive yield and post yield
strain hardening;
— applied moment and curvature and any axial load;
— clear understanding of the sequence of combined load application (e.g.
will the pipeline see external pressure loading only during installation or
at any other time during life)

These data should also be collected in any testing undertaken as part of a

deepwater project.

5. 14-INCH PIPELINE CASE STUDIES

5.1 Design Basis

A number of case studies were run for BP. This section highlights the concerns for a
hot 14-inch pipeline, where different load conditions interact. The design basis for
the 14-inch pipeline is given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 14-inch pipeline case study – design basis

Design Design API Corrosion Negative wall Ovality Depth
Pressure Temperature Grade allowance tolerance (DnV Definition) (m)

5000 psi 99 °C X65 0 mm 12.5% 1.0% 1800

3000 psi

At a temperature of 99°C there may be the need to de-rate the X65 steel properties
for the operating condition. The guidelines in DnV OS-F101 suggest that the yield
becomes 419 MPa at 99°C.

It is important to realise that designing for 99°C means there is the potential for
collapse and for high temperature loading effects to interact. This is outside the

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 15 of 24
range of guidance given in the codes or for any of the experiments used to assess
design formulations in the NDP work. Thus there may be limit states or load cases
that are not addressed in the codes, such as external pressure applied to a pipeline
at temperature when derating has occurred, or ratcheting. Bending close to yield in
the operating condition, such as often occurs in HTHP pipes, at out-of-straightness
features or in lateral buckles, may cause growth of ovalisation. This could be a
gradual ‘ratcheting’ process that eventually leads to collapse. Obviously the failure
mode is not of concern for burst dominated pipelines.

In order to highlight the effects, cases were run at an internal pressure of 5000 psi
and 3000 psi at LAT and a temperature of 99°C. With a contents density of
800 kg/m3 it is an internal pressure dominated design for 5000 psi. An increased
wall thickness example was also run.

5.2 Thickness Required for Burst and System Collapse

For a 5000 psi pipeline designed to DnV 96, using API tolerances and no de-rating
of X65 properties, the thickness required for internal pressure is 17.2 mm. If the
steel yield is de-rated as per DnV OS F-101 recommendations, then the thickness
required for internal pressure becomes 18.36 mm. Using DnV OS F-101 the
thickness required to resist pressure is higher at 18.57 mm with de-rating.

At 1800 m the operating external pressure system collapse thickness to DnV 96 is

15.67 mm for full yield (seamless) pipe. The dominant collapse mode is elastic
buckling and so the required wall thickness is not increased much if the derated
yield stress is considered, reaching 15.98 mm. The corresponding thickness
required to resist collapse for seamless pipe to DnV OS F101 is 15.51 mm for no
derating and 15.84 mm for derating.

The choice, as to whether to consider the derated properties or not, depends upon
the expected load conditions. As described above, for collapse dominated pipelines
an accurate understanding of all potential load conditions is required since collapse
resistance reduces with any applied tension or bending.

For a 3000 psi design pressure and considering derated material properties the wall
thickness becomes external pressure dominated. The thickness required for
internal pressure to DnV 96 becomes 10.27 mm. Using DnV OS F101 the thickness
required to resist pressure is higher at 10.48 mm

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 16 of 24
These wall thickness requirements are summarised in Table 5.2 for seamless pipe
with API tolerances.

Table 5.2 14-inch pipeline in 1800m – wall thickness requirements

Design Code Load case Derated yield Required Wall Thickness (mm)

DnV 96 Burst at 3000psi Yes 10.27

DnV OS-F101 Burst at 3000psi Yes 10.48

DnV 96 Burst at 5000psi No 17.20

Yes 18.36

DnV OS-F101 Burst at 5000psi Yes 18.57

DnV 96 System Collapse No 15.67

Yes 15.98

DnV OS-F101 System Collapse No 15.51

Yes 15.84

5.3 Installation Condition

The allowable bending strain for installation case for the minimum required collapse
wall thicknesses are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 14-inch pipeline in 1800 m – allowable bending for minimum

required collapse wall thickness
Allowable Moment (Installation Condition)

Load Control Displacement Control

Code Thickness Eq. Stress B-Strain Eq. Stress B-Strain

(mm) (%SMYS) % (%SMYS) %

DnV 96 15.673 86.3% 0.120% 101.1% 0.155%

DnV OS F101 15.84 89.1% 0.124% 0.167%

Figure 5.1 shows how the allowable bending increases with wall thickness
according to OS-F101.

The selected design points were plotted on the experimental comparison curves
(Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3). The design point lies below the horizontal due to the
effect of derating of the yield stress for the chosen design system collapse check.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 17 of 24
Figure 5.1 14-inch pipe in 1800m - Allowable Installation Bending Strain

21.00

20.00
Wall Thickness (mm)

19.00

18.00

DnV-LC
17.00 DnV-DC

16.00

15.00
0.000% 0.100% 0.200% 0.300% 0.400% 0.500% 0.600% 0.700% 0.800%
Allowable Bending Strain

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 18 of 24
Figure 5.2 DnV 96 Allowable Code Values - Low Safety Class

1.4 D/t = 24.2

D/t = 21
D/t = 16
1.2 D/t = 24-32
D/t = 25-29
D/t = 24
1 D/t = 35
D/t = 25.7
D/t = 19.2
0.8 DnV 96 - No Safety Margin
P/Pc

DnV 96 - Safety Margin

14" x 15.83 mm in 1800m
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
e/ec

Figure 5.3 DnV 96 Allowable Code Values - Low Safety Class – Pressure
Load First

1.4

1.2

0.8
P/Pc

0.6
D/t = 24, AGA - P
D/t = 19, KY - P
0.4 D/t = 26, KY - P
DnV 96 no factors
DnV 96 - Resistance Factors
0.2 14" x 15.83mm in 1800m

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
M/Mc

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 19 of 24
5.4 Operating Condition

The operating condition as analysed using DnV OS F101 highlights the potential
concern for this pipeline, namely the low allowable bending according to elastic
design theory but the potential design problems if the pipe is allowed to locally yield,
as is the case for HPHT pipelines designed for burst.

The 18.54 mm thick pipeline at 5000 psi and 99°C has an equivalent stress very
close to the ISO specified 90%. The allowable bending strain that would mean the
90% equivalent stress limit is reached, is only 0.003%. The DnV OS F-101 collapse
check indicates that the pipeline can take an equivalent stress of yield before failing
the collapse check – which gives a bending strain of 0.028%. However, if yield
occurs then there is the potential for a change in pipeline geometry that could affect
collapse under external pressure.

By reducing the internal design pressure to 3000 psi, external pressure dominates
the design. The 15.84 mm required for collapse is acceptable for internal pressure
and collapse. However, this still gives an equivalent stress close to the ISO
specified 90%. The allowable bending strain that would mean the 90% equivalent
stress limit is reached is 0.037% and the pipeline can only take an equivalent stress
of 96% before failing the collapse check, which gives a bending strain of 0.051%.

In order to assess the potential benefit of increasing the wall thickness a 20.6 mm
pipe operating at 3000 psi has been considered. This pipe wall is thicker than that
required for collapse and, it may be thought, should give some increase in bending
capacity. Unfortunately, increasing the wall thickness will also increase the axial
compression force in the pipe.

The equivalent stress for a straight pipeline is obviously less than the ISO specified
90%. The allowable bending stress that would mean the 90% equivalent stress limit
is reached is then calculated, giving a bending strain of 0.049%. Using
DnV OS -101 it appears that the pipeline can take an equivalent stress of 100% of
yield before failing the collapse check – which gives a bending strain of 0.072%.
However, again, if yield occurs then there is the potential for a change in pipeline
geometry that could affect collapse under external pressure.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 20 of 24
5.5 Shut Down Case

When the pipeline is shut-in tension can be induced in the pipeline as it cools. An
illustrative effective force profile, towards the end of the pipeline, is shown (positive
tensile) in Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4 Illustrative Effective Force Profile for 14-inch Pipeline

3.00E+06

2.00E+06

1.00E+06

0.00E+00
Effective Force (N)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-1.00E+06
Expand
Cooldown
-2.00E+06

-3.00E+06

-4.00E+06

-5.00E+06

-6.00E+06
Distance (m)

The effect of this tension on the allowable bending strain is shown in Table 5.4. It
can be seen by comparison with the results above that, for this case, the bending
strain that will limit design comes from the operating case. Of potential concern is
that the displacement control case is not affected by tension, although it is known
from tests that tension will reduce collapse resistance. The lack of test results
means that it is not possible to confirm the effect predicted in the load control
equation. This highlights the concern with the available combined load formulations.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 21 of 24
Table 5.4 14-inch pipeline case study in 1800 m – allowable bending
Allowable Moment (Operating Condition)

Load Control Displacement Control

DnV OS F101 Thickness Eq. Stress B-Strain Eq. Stress B-Strain

Effective Tension (mm) (%SMYS) % (%SMYS) %

0 15.84 75.9% 0.091% 101.1% 0.094%

Shut-in 15.84 67.5% 0.070% 0.094%

6. CONCLUSIONS

Much effort has been expended upon formulations for burst or internal pressure
containment due to the obvious savings that can be made if the pipeline wall
thickness can be safely reduced. However, for the recent and planned deepwater
developments the dominant condition is often collapse due to the external
overpressure. In 1999 BP had APA review the state of the art for collapse for the
NDP Subsea Project. It was found that the state of knowledge is less advanced for
this case and that there are gaps in knowledge.

The recently released DnV OS-F101 is the most complete available code for
deepwater pipelines. For system collapse and propagation buckling it will give
similar results to DnV 96 and API 1111 and so it is recommended that, at this time,
OS-F101 be used as the basis for design of deepwater pipelines.

However, there are problems with the equations in the code, notably:
— The determination of the allowable moment or bending strain for a pipe
operating near the code allowable external pressure.
— The effect of tension, bending and external pressure acting in
combination. Of potential concern is that the displacement controlled
case is not affected by tension, although it is known from tests that
tension will reduce collapse resistance. Also, the absence of test results
for tension + bending + external pressure means that it is not even
possible to confirm the effect predicted in the load control equation,
although it is confirmed adequate where test results do exist (pressure +
tension, and pressure + bending).

These issues may only be able to be resolved by testing or FE until the experience
base becomes larger.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 22 of 24
The importance of this is that the burst pressure is not significantly affected by the
presence of other loads whereas collapse pressure can be greatly reduced by
tension and bending. Thus there is robustness in a traditionally designed burst
controlled pipeline that does not exist in a deepwater collapse controlled pipeline.
This issue is expanded in the case study. However, in summary, a detailed
knowledge of the pipe geometry and load combinations anticipated over the life of
the pipeline is far more significant when collapse is the dominant design criterion
compared to traditional design.

As an example, if a burst controlled pipeline upheaves or is dented it is possible to

depressure to repair. However, for a collapse controlled line it is most likely that the
buckle will propagate if the line is depressurised.

There is no code guidance for collapse of corroded pipe.

The D/t ratio which results from applying the codes to design of collapse dominated
pipelines mean that pipelines may be less safe than the code calibration targets
(these were derived from statistical analysis of test results over the entire D/t range).
Therefore, at low D/t ratios, wall thickness may need to be increased to give the
desired factor of safety.

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 23 of 24
 7. NOMENCLATURE AND ABBREVIATIONS

7.1 Nomenclature

εb Bending strain
εc Critical buckling strain (ec)
Pc Critical collapse pressure
Pe External pressure
Pi Internal pressure
Teff Effective tension

7.2 Abbreviations
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide (datum for water depth)
UOE Pipe manufacture that shapes rolled plate into ‘U’ then ‘O’
shape, followed by cold expansion
SAW Submerged Arc Welded - pipe manufacture method involving
longitudinal welding, sometimes referred to as DSAW.

8. REFERENCES

1 [DnV96] Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Submarine

Pipelines and Pipeline Risers, Det Norske Veritas, 1996

2 DNV Offshore Standard OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems.

3 BS 8010, Code of Practice for Pipelines, Part 3, Pipelines subsea: design,

construction and installation, 1993.

4 API Recommended Practice 1111 Third Edition July 1999

Deepwater Pipeline Design Against Collapse Under External Pressure OPT 2001
Page 24 of 24

View publication stats