Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
In most modern pipeline design, the required minimum wall A Area
thickness is determined based on a maximum allowable hoop D Average diameter
stress under design pressure. This is an efficient way to come up
E Young’s modulus
with an initial wall thickness design, based on the assumption that
pressure will be the governing load. However, a pipeline may be F True longitudinal force
subjected to additional loads due to installation, seabed contours, Fl Ultimate true longitudinal force
impacts and high-pressure/high-temperature operating conditions f0 Initial out-of-roundness
for which the bending moment capacity is often the limiting M Moment
parameter. If in-place analyses for the optimal route predict that MC Bending moment capacity
the maximum allowable moment to a pipeline is going to be Mp Ultimate (plastic) moment
exceeded, it will be necessary to either increase the wall thickness
or, more conventionally, to perform seabed intervention to reduce p Pressure
the bending of the pipe. pc Characteristic collapse pressure
pe External pressure
In this paper the bending moment capacity for metallic pipes has pel Elastic collapse pressure
been investigated with the intention of optimising the cost pi Internal pressure
effectiveness in the seabed intervention design without pl Ultimate pressure
compromising the safety of the pipe. The focus has been on the pp Plastic collapse pressure
derivation of an analytical solution for the ultimate load carrying py Yield pressure
capacity of pipes subjected to combined pressure, longitudinal
r Average pipe radius
force and bending. The derived analytical solution has been
thoroughly compared against results obtained by the finite element SMTS Specified Minimum Tensile Strength
method. SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
t Nominal wall thickness
The result of the study is a set of equations for calculating the Strength anisotropy factor
maximum allowable bending moment including proposed safety y Distance to cross sectional mass centre
factors for different target safety levels. The maximum allowable
C Condition load factor
moment is given as a function of initial out-of-roundness, true
longitudinal force and internal/external overpressure. The R Strength utilisation factor
equations can be used for materials with isotropic as well as an- Curvature
isotropic stress/strain characteristics in the longitudinal and hoop Poisson’s ratio
direction. The analytical approach given herein may also be used h Hoop stress
for risers and piping if safety factors are calibrated in accordance hl Limit hoop stress for pure pressure
with appropriate target safety levels. l Longitudinal stress
ll Limit longitudinal stress for pure longitudinal force
Keywords: Local buckling, Collapse, Capacity, Bending,
Angle from bending plane to plastic neutral axis
Pressure, Longitudinal force, Metallic pipelines and risers.
INTRODUCTION onset of local buckling has occurred, the global deformation will
Nowadays design of risers and offshore pipelines is often based on continue, but more and more of the applied bending energy will be
a Limit State design approach. In a Limit State design, all accumulated in the local buckle which will continue until the
foreseeable failure scenarios are considered and the system is ultimate moment capacity is reached. At this point, the maximum
designed against the failure mode that is most critical to structural bending resistance of the pipe is reached and a geometrical
safety. A pipe must sustain installation loads and operational collapse will occur if the curvature is additionally increased. Until
loads. In addition external loads such as those induced by waves, the point of START OF CATASTROPHIC CAPACITY
current, uneven seabed, trawl-board impact, pullover, expansion REDUCTION has been reached, the geometric collapse will be
due to temperature changes etc need to be considered. Experience “slow” and the changes in cross sectional area negligible. After
has shown that the main load effect on offshore pipes is bending this point, material softening sets in and the pipe cross section will
combined with longitudinal force while subjected to external collapse. For pipes that in addition to bending is subjected to
hydrostatic pressure during installation and internal pressure while longitudinal force and/or pressure close to the ultimate capacity,
in operation. A pipe subjected to increased bending may fail due start of catastrophic capacity reduction occurs immediately after
to local buckling/collapse or fracture, but it is the local the ultimate moment capacity has been reached. The moment
buckling/collapse Limit State that commonly dictates the design. curvature relationship for these load conditions will be closer to
The local buckling and collapse strength of metallic pipes has that presented by the dashed line in Figure 1.
been the main subject for many studies in offshore and civil
engineering and this paper should be seen as a supplement to the The moment curvature relationship provides information
ongoing debate. See Murphey & Langner (1985), Winter et al necessary for design against failure due to bending. Depending on
(1985), Ellinas (1986), Mohareb et al (1994), Bai et al (1993, the function of the pipe, any of the points described above can be
1997) etc. used as design limit. If the pipe is part of a carrying structure, the
elastic limit may be an obvious choice as the design limit.
However, for pipelines and risers where the global shape is less
BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY
important, this criterion will be overly conservative due to the
The pipe cross sectional bending moment is directly proportional significant resources in the elastic-plastic range. Higher design
to the pipe curvature, see Figure 1. The example illustrates an strength can therefore be obtained by using design criteria based
initial straight pipe with low D/t (<60) subjected to a load scenario on the stress/strain levels reached at the point of onset for local
where pressure and longitudinal force are kept constant while an buckling or at the ultimate moment capacity. For displacement-
increasing curvature is applied. controlled configurations, it can even be acceptable to allow the
deformation of the pipe to continue into the softening region (not
in design). The rationale of this is the knowledge of the carrying
M
capacity with high deformations combined with a precise
UltimateL moment
i m i t p o i n tcapacity
prediction of the deformation pattern and its amplitude.
S ta rt o f c a ta s tr o p h ic a lly
O n s e t o f b u c k lin g c a p a c ity r e d u c tio n
FAILURE MODES conservatively used in here while SUPERB used the outer
As pointed out in the previous section the ultimate moment diameter.
capacity is highly dependent on the amount of longitudinal force
and pressure loads and for cases with high external pressure also PURE EXTERNAL PRESSURE
initial out-of-roundness. To clarify the approach used in the Theoretically, a circular pipe without imperfections should
development of the analytical equations and to give a better continue being circular when subjected to increasing uniform
understanding of the obtained results, characteristics of the external pressure. However, due to material and/or geometrical
ultimate strength for pipes subjected to single loads and combined imperfections, there will always be a flattening of the pipe, which
loads are discussed below. with increased external pressure will end with a total collapse of
the cross section. The change in out-of-roundness, caused by the
The cross sectional deformations just before failure of pipes external pressure, introduces circumferential bending stresses,
subjected to single loads are shown in Figure 2. where the highest stresses occur respectively at the top/bottom and
two sides of the flattened cross-section. For low D/t ratios,
material softening will occur at these points and the points will
behave as a kind of hinge at collapse. The average hoop stress at
failure due to external pressure changes with the D/t ratio. For
small D/t ratios, the failure is governed by yielding of the cross
section, while for larger D/t ratios it is governed by elastic
buckling. By elastic buckling is meant that the collapse occurs
before the average hoop stress over the cross section has reached
the yield stress. At D/t ratios in-between, the failure is a
combination of yielding and elastic collapse.
it becomes equal to the latter only in the case of a perfectly round where A is the cross sectional area and
pipe. Hence, by using ‘pc’ calculated from Eq. (2) as the ultimate 0.5 SMYS SMTS the longitudinal tensile stress at
value of pressure, the results will normally be on the safe side failure.
(Timoshenko and Gere, 1961).
PURE COMPRESSION
Haagsma’s equation giving the pressure at which fully plastic A pipe subjected to increasing compressive force will be subjected
yielding over the wall thickness occurs can be expressed as: to Euler buckling. If the compressive force is further increased,
D the pipe will finally fail due to local buckling. If the pipe is
pc3 pel pc2 p 2p pel p p f 0 pc pel p 2p 0 restrained except for in the longitudinal direction, the maximum
t
compressive force may be taken as:
(0)
and represent the theoretical upper bound for the collapse Fl 0.5 SMYS SMTS A (0)
pressure. For low D/t, the collapse pressure will be closer to the
where A is the cross sectional area and
collapse pressure calculated by Haagsma’s equation than that
calculated by Timoshenko’s equation (Haagsma and Schaap, 0.5 SMYS SMTS the longitudinal compressive stress at
1981). failure.
and internal overpressure. When bending is combined with Solving the second-degree equation for the longitudinal stress ‘l’
external overpressure, both loads will tend to increase the gives:
ovalisation, which leads to a rapid decrease in capacity. For
bending combined with internal overpressure, the two failure 2
h
modes work against each other and thereby “strengthen” the pipe. l ll ll 1 1 2 h
(0)
For high internal overpressure, the collapse will always be hl hl
initiated on the tensile side of the pipe due to stresses at the outer
fibres exceeding the material limit tensile stress. On the comp is now defined as the limit longitudinal compressive stress in
compressive side of the pipe, the high internal pressure will tend the pipe wall and thereby equal to l as determined above with the
to initiate an outward buckle, which will increase the pipe negative sign before the square root. The limit tensile stress tens is
diameter locally and thereby increase the moment of inertia and accordingly equal to l with the positive sign in front of the square
the bending moment capacity of the pipe. The moment capacity root.
will therefore be expected to be higher for internal overpressure
2
compared with a corresponding external pressure. h
comp ll ll 1 1 2 h
(0)
ADDITIONAL FAILURE MODE hl hl
In addition to the failure modes described above, fracture is a
2
possible failure mode for all the described load conditions. In h
particular for the combination of tension, high internal pressure tens ll ll 1 1 2 h
(0)
and bending, it is important to check against fracture because of hl hl
the high tensile stress level at the limit bending moment. The
fracture criteria are not included in this paper, but shall be THE BENDING MOMENT
addressed in design. The bending moment capacity of a pipe can by idealising the cross
sectional stress distribution at failure in accordance with Figure 3.,
EXPRESSION FOR ULTIMATE MOMENT CAPACITY be calculated as:
In the following section, an analytical solution to the ultimate
moment capacity for pipes subjected to combined loads is derived. M C , Acomp ycomp comp Atens ytens tens (
l h
To keep the complexity of the equations on a reasonable level, the
following assumptions have been made: 0)
Where Acomp and Atens are respectively the cross sectional area in
The pipe is geometrically perfect except for initial out-of-
roundness compression and tension, y their mass centres distance to the
The cross sectional geometry does not change before the pipe mass centre and the idealised stress level.
ultimate moment is reached
The cross sectional stress distribution at failure can be P la n o f b e n d in g te n s
idealised in accordance with Figure 3. A te n s
The interaction between limit longitudinal and hoop stress can t
be described in accordance with Eq. (9)
rav
FAILURE LIMIT STRESS
The pipe wall stress condition for the bending moment Limit State y te n s
can be considered as that of a material under bi-axial loads. It is in P la s tic
n e u tra l
here assumed that the interaction between average cross sectional axes
y com p
longitudinal and hoop stress at pipe failure can be described by
Eq. (12). The failure limit stresses are here, neglecting the radial
stress component and the shear stress components, described as a
A com p
function of the longitudinal stress ‘l’, the hoop stress ‘h’ and the
failure limit stresses under uni-axial load ‘ll’ and ‘hl’ in their
respective direction. The absolute value of the uni-axial limit
com p
stresses, which should not mistakenly be taken as the yield stress, Figure 3: Pipe cross section with stress distribution diagram
are to be used, while the actual stresses are to be taken as positive (dashed line) and idealised stress diagram for plastified cross
when in tension and negative when in compression. section (full line).
The distance from the mass centre to the pipe cross section centre l tens l tens
can be taken as: M C , h 2tr 2 sin 2tr 2 sin
l comp tens comp comp ten
sin
y comp r (0) (0)
and substituting the expression for tensile and compressive stress,
Eq. (14) and (15) into Eq. (28) gives the final expression for the
sin bending moment capacity:
y tens r (0)
l
where r is the average pipe wall radius and the angle from the 2 h
ll hl
bending plan to the plastic neutral axis. The plastic neutral axis is M C , h 4tr 2 ll
1 1 2 h
cos
defined as the axis at which the longitudinal pipe wall stresses hl 2
l
change from tensile to compressive, see Figure 3.
1 1 2 h
hl
Inserting Eq. (17) to (20) in Eq. (16) gives the bending moment
capacity as: (0)
or alternatively and more useful in design situations:
2tr 2 sin comp 2tr 2 sin tens
F p
M C , h 2
p Fl pl
cos
l
(0) M C F , p M p 1 1 2
pl
2
p
2
LOCATION OF FULLY PLASTIC NEUTRAL AXIS
1 1 2
p
l
The angle to the fully plastic neutral axis from the plane of
bending can be deduced from the following simplified expression
for the true longitudinal pipe wall force: (0)
where
F Acomp comp Atens tens (0) MC = Ultimate bending moment capacity
Mp = Plastic moment
where the area in compression Acomp is calculated as: p = Pressure acting on the pipe
pl = Ultimate pressure capacity
Acomp 2 r t (0) F = True longitudinal force acting on the pipe
Fl = True longitudinal ultimate force
and the area in tension Atens as;
Atens 2 r t (0) When the uni-axial limit stress in the circumferential and
longitudinal direction are taken as the material yield stress and
Giving: set to ½, Eq. (29) and (30) specialises to that presented by among
others Winter et al (1985) and Mohareb et al (1994).
F 2r t comp tens (0)
APPLICABLE RANGE FOR MOMENT CAPACITY EQUATION
Solving Eq. (25) for gives: To avoid complex solutions when solving Eq. (30), the
expressions under the square root must be positive, which gives
F 2 r t tens the theoretical range for the pressure to:
2r t comp tens (0)
1
p
1
(0)
1 2 pl 1 2
or
l tens
where the ultimate pressure pl depends on the load condition and
, F 2 r t l (0) on the ratio between the limit force and the limit pressure.
comp tens
Since the wall thickness design is based on the operating pressure
of the pipeline, this range should not give any problems in the
FINAL EXPRESSION FOR MOMENT CAPACITY design.
Substituting the expression for the plastic neutral axis, Eq. (27),
into the equation for the moment capacity, Eq. (21) gives: Given the physical limitation that the angle to the plastic neutral
axis must be between 0 and 180 degrees, the equation is valid for
the following range of longitudinal force:
p
pl
1 1 2 pp
F
Fl
p
pl
1 1 2 pp (SMTS) corresponding to approximately 20% strain has been
used. The material yield limit has been defined as approximately
l l 80% of SMYS.
(0)
where the ultimate loads Fl and pl depend on the load condition The advantage in using SMYS and SMTS instead of a stress-strain
and on the ratio between the ultimate true longitudinal force F l curve obtained from a specific test is that the statistical uncertainty
and the ultimate pressure pl. in the material stress-strain relation is accounted for. It is thereby
ensured that the stress-strain curve used in a finite element
For the design of pipelines, this range is normally not going to analysis in general will be more conservative than that from a
give any problems, but again, the range may be reduced due to the specific laboratory test.
question of fracture.
To reduce computing time, symmetry of the problem has been
used to reduce the finite element model to one-quarter of a pipe
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
section, see Figure 4. The length of the model is two times the
This section describes how a pipe section is modelled using the pipe diameter, which in general will be sufficient to catch all
finite element method. The finite element method is a method buckling/collapse failure modes.
where a physical system, such as an engineering component or
structure, is divided into small sub regions/elements. Each element The general-purpose shell element used in the present model
is an essential simple unit in space for which the behaviour can be accounts for finite membrane strains and allows for changes in shell
calculated by a shape function interpolated from the nodal values thickness, which makes it suitable for large-strain analysis. The
of the element. This in such a way that inter-element continuity element definition allows for transverse shear deformation and uses
tends to be maintained in the assemblage. Connecting the shape thick shell theory when the shell thickness increases and discrete
functions for each element now forms an approximating function Kirchoff thin shell theory as the thickness decreases.
for the entire physical system. In the finite element formulation,
the principles of virtual work together with the established shape Figure 4 shows an example of a buckled/collapsed finite element
functions are used to transform the differential equations of model representing an initial perfect pipe subjected to pure bending.
equilibrium into algebraic equations. In a few words, the finite
element method can be defined as a Rayleigh-Ritz method in
which the approximating field is interpolated in piece wise fashion
from the degree of freedom that are nodal values of the field. The
modelled pipe section is subject to pressure, longitudinal force and
bending with the purpose of provoking structural failure of the
pipe. The deformation pattern at failure will introduce both
geometrical and material non-linearity. The non-linearity of the
buckling/collapse phenomenon makes finite element analyses
superior to analytical expressions for estimating the strength
capacity.
A proper representation of the constitutive law of the For a further discussion and verification of the used finite element
pipe material model, see Bai et al (1993), Mohareb et al (1994), Bruschi et al
A proper representation of the boundary conditions (1995) and Hauch & Bai (1998).
A proper application of the load sequence
The ability to address large deformations, large ANALYTICAL SOLUTION VERSUS FINITE ELEMENT
rotations, and finite strains RESULTS
The ability to model/describe all relevant failure modes In the following, the above-presented equations are compared
with results obtained from finite element analyses. First are the
The material definition included in the finite element model is of capacity equations for pipes subjected to single loads compared
high importance, since the model is subjected to deformations with finite element results for a D/t ratio from 10 to 60. Secondly
long into the elasto-plastic range. In the post-buckling phase, the moment capacity equations for combined longitudinal force,
strain levels between 10% and 20% are usual and the material pressure and bending are compared against finite element results.
definition should therefore at least be governing up to this level. In
the present analyses, a Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relationship STRENGTH CAPACITY OF PIPES SUBJECTED TO SINGLE LOADS
has been used. For this, two points on the stress-strain curve are As a verification of the finite element model, the strength
required along with the material Young’s modules. The two points capacities for single loads obtained from finite element analyses
can be anywhere along the curve, and for the present model, are compared against the verified analytical expressions described
Collapse Pressure
For all analyses presented in this paper, the average pipe diameter 6
is 0.5088m, SMYS = 450 MPa and SMTS = 530 MPa. In Figure 5
5
the bending moment capacity found from finite element analysis
has been compared against the bending moment capacity 4
equation, Eq. (1). In Figure 6 the limit tensile longitudinal force 3
Eq. (7), in Figure 7 the collapse pressure Eq. (2, 5) and in Figure 8
the bursting pressure Eq. (6) are compared against finite element 2
results. The good agreement presented in figure 5-8 between finite 1
element results and analytical solutions generally accepted by the
industry, gives good reasons to expect that the finite element 0
10 20 30 40 50 60
model also give reliable predictions for combined loads. Diameter Over Wall Thickness
6
7
x 10 Figure 7: Collapse pressure as a function of diameter over wall
thickness for a pipe subjected to pure external overpressure.
6 X = FE results Initial out-of-roundness f0 equal to 1.5%.
___ = Analytical 7
Ultimate Moment Capacity
x 10
10
5
9
X = FE results
4
8 ___ = Analytical
3 Burst Pressure 7
6
2
5
1
4
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 3
4.5
x 10 Figure 8: Bursting pressure as a function of diameter over wall
thickness for a pipe subjected to pure internal overpressure.
4 = FE results
Ultimate True Longitudinal Force
pressure given by Eq. (4). Based on the results presented in Pressure / Plastic Collapse Pressure
Figures 11 to 14, it is concluded that the analytically deduced
moment capacity and finite element results are in good agreement Figure 11: Normalised bending moment capacity as a function of
for the entire range of longitudinal force and pressure. However, pressure. No longitudinal force is applied.
the equations tend to be a slightly non-conservative for external
pressure very close to the collapse pressure. This is in agreement 1
with the previous discussion about Timoshenko’s and Haagsma’s
collapse equations.
X = FE results
0 ___ = Analytical
-0.5
-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
True Longitudinal Force / Ultimate True Longitudinal Force
0.5
0 X = FE results
___ = Analytical
-0.5
-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
True Longitudinal Force / Ultimate True Longitudinal Force
be expressed as:
X = FE results
0 ___ = Analytical
cF
2
RM p RF F
-0.5 M Allowable F , p M p 1 1 2
p
cos
c RP l 2
1 1
-1
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
True Longitudinal Force / Ultimate True Longitudinal Force (0)
where
Figure 14: Normalised bending moment capacity as a function of MAllowable = Allowable bending moment
longitudinal force. Pressure equal to 0.9 times the plastic C = Condition load factor
buckling pressure Eq. (4). R = Strength usage factors
USAGE/SAFETY FACTORS The usage/safety factor methodology used in Eq. (33) ensures that
The local buckling check can be separated into a check for load the safety levels are uniformly maintained for all load
controlled situations (bending moment) and one for displacement combinations.
controlled situations (strain level). When no usage/safety factors
are applied in the buckling check calculations, the two checks In the following guideline for bending strength calculations, the
ought to result in the same bending capacity. In design though, suggested condition load factor is in accordance with the results
usage/safety factors are introduced to account for modelling and presented in the SUPERB (1996) report, later used in DNV
input uncertainties. The reduction in bending capacity introduced (2000). The strength usage factors RM, RF and RP are based on
by the usage factors will not be the same for load and comparison with existing codes and the engineering experience of
displacement controlled situations. Due to the pipe moment versus the authors.
strain relationship, a higher allowable strength can be achieved for
a given target safety level by using a strain-based criterion than by GUIDELINE FOR BENDING STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
a moment criterion. In this paper only the allowable bending
moment criterion is given. This criterion can be used for both load LOCAL BUCKLING:
and displacement controlled situations, but may as mentioned be For pipelines subjected to combined pressure, longitudinal force
overly conservative for displacement controlled situations. and bending, local buckling may occur. The failure mode may
be yielding of the cross section or buckling on the compressive
The usage factor approach presented in this paper is based on side of the pipe. The criteria given in this guideline may be used
shrinking the failure surface shown in Figures 9 and 10. Instead of to calculate the maximum allowable bending moment for a
representing the bending moment capacity, the surface is scaled to given scenario. It shall be noted that the maximum allowable
represent the maximum allowable bending moment associated bending moment given in this guideline does not take fracture
with a given target safety level. The shape of the failure surface into account and that fracture criteria therefore may reduce the
given Eq. (30) is dictated by four parameters; the plastic moment bending capacity of the pipe. This particularly applies for high-
Mp, the limit longitudinal force F l, the limit pressure Pl and the tension / high internal pressure load conditions.
strength anisotropy factor . To shrink the failure surface usage
factors are applied to the plastic moment, longitudinal limit force LOAD VERSUS DISPLACEMENT CONTROLLED SITUATIONS:
and the limit pressure respectively. The usage factors are functions The local buckling check can be separated into a check for load
of modelling, geometrical and material uncertainties and will controlled situations (bending moment) and one for
therefore vary for the three capacity parameters. In general, the displacement controlled situations (strain level). Due to the
variation will be small and for simplification purposes, the most relation between applied bending moment and maximum strain
conservative usage factor may be applied to all capacity loads. in pipes, a higher allowable strength for a given target safety
The strength anisotropy factor is a function of the longitudinal level can be achieved by using a strain-based criterion rather
limit force and the limit pressure, but for simplicity, no usage than a bending moment criterion. The bending moment criterion
factor has been applied to this parameter. The modelling can due to this, conservatively be used for both load and
uncertainty is highly connected to the use of the equation. In the displacement controlled situations. In this guideline only the
SUPERB (1996) project, the use of the moment criteria is divided bending moment criterion is given.
into four unlike scenarios; 1) pipelines resting on uneven seabed,
2) pressure test condition, 3) continuous stiff supported pipe and
4) all other scenarios. To account for the variation in modelling
uncertainty, a condition load factor C is applied to the plastic
RM Moment 0.80 0.73 0.65 Corona, E. and Kyriakides, S. (1988), “On the Collapse of
Inelastic Tubes under Combined Bending and Pressure”, Int. J.
Solids Structures Vol. 24 No. 5. pp. 505-535. 1998.
Guidance notes:
- Load Condition Factors may be combined e.g. Load DNV (2000) Offshore Standard OS-F101 “Submarine Pipeline
Condition Factor for pressure test of pipelines resting on Systems” Det Norske Veritas, Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Hövik,
uneven seabed, 1.070.93 = 1.00 Norway, January 2000.
- Safety class is low for temporary phases. For the operating
phase, safety class is normal and high for area classified as Ellinas, C. P., Raven, P.W.J., Walker, A.C. and Davies, P (1986).
zone 1 and zone 2 respectively. “Limit State Philosophy in Pipeline Design”, Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, Transactions of ASME, January 1986.
CONCLUSIONS
The moment capacity equations in the existing codes are for some Haagsma, S. C., Schaap D. (1981) “Collapse Resistance of
load conditions overly conservative and for others non- Submarine Lines Studied” Oil & Gas Journal, February 1981.
conservative. This paper presents a new set of design equations
that are accurate and simple. The derived analytical equations
have been based on the mechanism of failure modes and have
been extensively compared with finite element results. The use of
safety factors has been simplified compared with existing codes
and the target safety levels are in accordance with DNV (2000),
ISO (1998) and API (1998). The applied safety factor
methodology ensures that the target safety levels are uniformly
maintained for all load combinations. It is the hope of the authors
that this paper will help engineers in their aim to design safer and
more cost-effective pipes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge their earlier employer formerly J P
Kenny A/S now ABB Pipeline and Riser Section for their support
and understanding without which this paper would not have been
possible.
REFERENCES
API (1998) “Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance
of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design)”.