Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY OF PIPES

Søren Hauch and Yong Bai

American Bureau of Shipping

Offshore Technology Department
Houston, Texas
USA

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 α 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
γ C Condition load factor
moment is given as a function of initial out-of-roundness, true
longitudinal force and internal/external overpressure. The η R Strength utilisation factor
equations can be used for materials with isotropic as well as an- κ Curvature
isotropic stress/strain characteristics in the longitudinal and hoop υ Poisson’s ratio
direction. The analytical approach given herein may also be used σ h Hoop stress
for risers and piping if safety factors are calibrated in accordance σ hl Limit hoop stress for pure pressure
with appropriate target safety levels. σ l Longitudinal stress
σ ll Limit longitudinal stress for pure longitudinal force
Keywords: Local buckling, Collapse, Capacity, Bending,
Pressure, Longitudinal force, Metallic pipelines and risers. ψ Angle from bending plane to plastic neutral axis

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 1

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays design of risers and offshore pipelines is often based on
a Limit State design approach. In a Limit State design, all
foreseeable failure scenarios are considered and the system is
designed against the failure mode that is most critical to structural
safety. A pipe must sustain installation loads and operational
loads. In addition external loads such as those induced by waves,
current, uneven seabed, trawl-board impact, pullover, expansion
due to temperature changes etc need to be considered. Experience
has shown that the main load effect on offshore pipes is bending
combined with longitudinal force while subjected to external
hydrostatic pressure during installation and internal pressure while
in operation. A pipe subjected to increased bending may fail due
to local buckling/collapse or fracture, but it is the local
buckling/collapse Limit State that commonly dictates the design.
The local buckling and collapse strength of metallic pipes has
been the main subject for many studies in offshore and civil
engineering and this paper should be seen as a supplement to the
ongoing debate. See Murphey & Langner (1985), Winter et al
(1985), Ellinas (1986), Mohareb et al (1994), Bai et al (1993,
1997) etc.
BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY
The pipe cross sectional bending moment is directly proportional
to the pipe curvature, see Figure 1. The example illustrates an
initial straight pipe with low D/t (<60) subjected to a load scenario
where pressure and longitudinal force are kept constant while an
increasing curvature is applied.
M
UltimateL moment
i t capacity
i m p o i n
S t a r t o f c a t a s t r o p h i c a l l y
O n s e t o f b u c k l i n g c a p a c i t y r e d u c t i o n
S o
L i n e a r l i m i t
Figure 1: Examples of bending moment versus curvature relation.
Different significant points can be identified from the moment-
curvature relationship. When applying curvature to a pipe, it will
first be subjected to global deformation inside the material’s
elastic range and no permanent change in shape is seen. By global
deformation is here meant a deformation that can be looked upon
as uniform over a range larger than 3-4 times the pipe diameter.
After the LINEAR LIMIT of the pipe material has been reached
the pipe will no longer return to its initial shape after unloading,
but the deformation will still be characterised as global. If the
curvature is increased further, material or geometrical
imperfections will initiate ONSET OF LOCAL BUCKLING.
Imperfections in geometry and/or material may influence where
and at which curvature the onset of local buckling occurs, but will
for all practical use, as long as they are small, not influence the
ULTIMATE MOMENT CAPACITY significantly. After the
OMAE’99, PL-99-5033
onset of local buckling has occurred, the global deformation will
continue, but more and more of the applied bending energy will be
accumulated in the local buckle which will continue until the
ultimate moment capacity is reached. At this point, the maximum
bending resistance of the pipe is reached and a geometrical
collapse will occur if the curvature is additionally increased. Until
the point of START OF CATASTROPHIC CAPACITY
REDUCTION has been reached, the geometric collapse will be
“slow” and the changes in cross sectional area negligible. After
this point, material softening sets in and the pipe cross section will
collapse. For pipes that in addition to bending is subjected to
longitudinal force and/or pressure close to the ultimate capacity,
start of catastrophic capacity reduction occurs immediately after
the ultimate moment capacity has been reached. The moment
curvature relationship for these load conditions will be closer to
that presented by the dashed line in Figure 1.
The moment curvature relationship provides information
necessary for design against failure due to bending. Depending on
the function of the pipe, any of the points described above can be
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
important, this criterion will be overly conservative due to the
significant resources in the elastic-plastic range. Higher design
strength can therefore be obtained by using design criteria based
on the stress/strain levels reached at the point of onset for local
buckling or at the ultimate moment capacity. For displacement-
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
capacity with high deformations combined with a precise
t
prediction of the deformation pattern and its amplitude.
The moment capacity for metallic pipes is a function of many
f t e n i n g r e g i o n
parameters and the most common are listed below in arbitrary
sequence:
• Diameter over wall thickness ratio
• Material stress-strain relationship
• Material imperfections
κ • Welding (Longitudinal as well as
circumferential)
• Initial out-of-roundness
• Reduction in wall thickness due to e.g.
corrosion
• Cracks (in pipe and/or welding)
• Local stress concentrations due to e.g. coating
• Additional loads and their amplitude
• Temperature
The focus of this study has been the development of an equation
to prediction the ultimate moment capacity of pipes. The equation
is to account for initial out-of-roundness, longitudinal force and
internal/external overpressure for materials with either isotropic or
an-isotropic characteristics in longitudinal and hoop direction.
Solutions obtained from both analytical expressions and by the
finite element method are described in this paper and the results
covers a diameter over wall thickness ratio from 10 to 60. The
remaining parameters given in the list may also be of some
Hauch & Bai 2
 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

importance in the design of pipelines, but the main parameters
will generally be those that are studied in this paper.
FAILURE MODES
As pointed out in the previous section the ultimate moment
capacity is highly dependent on the amount of longitudinal force
and pressure loads and for cases with high external pressure also
initial out-of-roundness. To clarify the approach used in the
development of the analytical equations and to give a better
understanding of the obtained results, characteristics of the
ultimate strength for pipes subjected to single loads and combined
loads are discussed below.
The cross sectional deformations just before failure of pipes
subjected to single loads are shown in Figure 2.
longitudinal cross sectional stress at failure as a function of the
diameter over wall thickness ratio. The average pipe diameter is
conservatively used in here while SUPERB used the outer
diameter.
PURE EXTERNAL PRESSURE
Theoretically, a circular pipe without imperfections should
continue being circular when subjected to increasing uniform
external pressure. However, due to material and/or geometrical
imperfections, there will always be a flattening of the pipe, which
with increased external pressure will end with a total collapse of
the cross section. The change in out-of-roundness, caused by the
external pressure, introduces circumferential bending stresses,
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.

Several formulations have been proposed for estimating the

external collapse pressure, but in this paper, only Timoshenko’s
and Haagsma’s equations are described. Timoshenko’s equation,
which gives the pressure at beginning yield in the extreme fibres,
P u r e b e n Pd iu n r g e p r e P s us ur e r e l o n g i t u d in a will
l f o inr cgeneral
e represent a lower bound, while Haagsma’s
equation, using a fully plastic yielding condition, will represent an
upper bound for the collapse pressure. The collapse pressure of
Figure 2: Pipe cross sectional deformation of pipes subjected to pipes is very dependent on geometrical imperfections and here in
single loads. special initial out-of-roundness. Both Timoshenko’s and
Haagsma’s collapse equation account for initial out-of-roundness
PURE BENDING inside the range that is normally allowed in pipeline design.
A pipe subjected to increasing pure bending will fail as a result of
increased ovalisation of the cross section and reduced slope in the Timoshenko’s equation giving the pressure causing yield at the
stress-strain curve. Up to a certain level of ovalisation, the extreme pipe fibre:
decrease in moment of inertia will be counterbalanced by
increased pipe wall stresses due to strain hardening. When the loss  
 f ⋅D
in moment of inertia can no longer be compensated for by the pc2 −  p p + 1 + 1.5 ⋅ 0  ⋅ pel  ⋅ pc + p p ⋅ pel = 0
strain hardening, the moment capacity has been reached and   t  
catastrophic cross sectional collapse will occur if additional
(0)
bending is applied. For low D/t, the failure will be initiated on the
tensile side of the pipe due to stresses at the outer fibres exceeding where:
the limiting longitudinal stress. For D/t higher than approximately 3
30-35, the hoop strength of the pipe will be so low compared to 2⋅E  t 
pel = ⋅  (0)
the tensile strength that the failure mode will be an inward (1 −ν 2 )  D 
buckling on the compressive side of the pipe. The geometrical
imperfections (excluding corrosion) that are normally allowed in t
pp = 2 ⋅ SMYS ⋅ (0)
pipeline design will not significantly influence the moment D
capacity for pure bending, and the capacity can be calculated as,
SUPERB (1996): and:
 D pc = Characteristic collapse pressure
Mp = 1.05 − 0.0015 ⋅  ⋅ SMYS ⋅ D 2 ⋅ t (0) f0 = Initial out-of-roundness, (Dmax-Dmin)/D
 t  D = Average diameter
t = Wall thickness
where D is the average pipe diameter, t the wall thickness and
SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength, hoop direction
SMYS the Specified Minimum Yield Strength.
E = Young’s Module
(1.05 − 0.0015 ⋅ D / t ) ⋅ SMYS represents the average υ = Poisson’s ratio

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 3

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999
It should be noted that the pressure ‘pc’ determined in accordance
to Eq. (2) is lower than the actual collapse pressure of the pipe and
it becomes equal to the latter only in the case of a perfectly round
pipe. Hence, by using ‘pc’ calculated from Eq. (2) as the ultimate
value of pressure, the results will normally be on the safe side
(Timoshenko and Gere, 1961).
Haagsma’s equation giving the pressure at which fully plastic
yielding over the wall thickness occurs can be expressed as:
 D
pc3 − pel ⋅ pc2 −  p 2p + pel ⋅ p p ⋅ f 0 ⋅  ⋅ pc + pel ⋅ p 2p = 0
 t 
(0)
and represent the theoretical upper bound for the collapse
pressure. For low D/t, the collapse pressure will be closer to the
collapse pressure calculated by Haagsma’s equation than that
calculated by Timoshenko’s equation (Haagsma and Schaap,
1981).
The use of Timoshenko’s and Haagsma’s equations relates
specifically to pipes with initially linear elastic material properties
where the elastic collapse pressure can be derived from classical
analysis. This would be appropriate for seamless pipes or for pipes
that have been subjected to an annealing process. However, for
pipes fabricated using the UO, TRB or UOE method there are
significant non-linearity’s in the material properties in the hoop
direction, due to residual strains and the Bauschinger effect. These
effects may be accounted for by introducing a strength reduction
factor to the plastic collapse pressure term given by Eq. (4). In this
study no attempt has been given to this reduction factor, but
according to DNV 2000 the plastic collapse pressure is to be
reduced with 7% for UO and TRB pipes and with 15% for UOE
pipes.
PURE INTERNAL PRESSURE
For Pure internal pressure, the failure mode will be bursting of the
cross-section. Due to the pressure, the pipe cross section expands
and the pipe wall thickness decreases. The decrease in pipe wall
thickness is compensated for by an increase in the hoop stress. At
a certain pressure, the material strain hardening can no longer
compensate for the pipe wall thinning and the maximum internal
pressure has been reached. The bursting pressure can in
accordance with API (1998) be given as:
2 ⋅t
p burst = 0.5 ⋅ ( SMYS + SMTS ) ⋅
(0)
D may be used to find the pipe strength capacity. Alternatives to Eq.
where 0.5 ⋅ ( SMYS + SMTS ) is the hoop stress at failure.
PURE TENSION
For pure tension, the failure of the pipe, as for bursting, will be a
result of pipe wall thinning. When the longitudinal tensile force is
increased, the pipe cross section will narrow down and the pipe
wall thickness decrease. At a certain tensile force, the cross
sectional area of the pipe will be reduced so much that the
maximum tensile stress for the pipe material is reached. An
OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai
additional increase in tensile force will now cause the pipe to fail.
The ultimate tensile force can be calculated as:
Fl = 0.5 ⋅ ( SMYS + SMTS ) ⋅ A (0)
where A is the cross sectional area and
0.5 ⋅ ( SMYS + SMTS ) the longitudinal tensile stress at
failure.
PURE COMPRESSION
A pipe subjected to increasing compressive force will be subjected
to Euler buckling. If the compressive force is further increased,
the pipe will finally fail due to local buckling. If the pipe is
restrained except for in the longitudinal direction, the maximum
compressive force may be taken as:
Fl = 0.5 ⋅ ( SMYS + SMTS ) ⋅ A (0)
where A is the cross sectional area and
0.5 ⋅ ( SMYS + SMTS ) the longitudinal compressive stress
at failure.
COMBINED LOADS
For pipes subjected to single loads, the failure is, as described
above, dominated by either longitudinal or hoop stresses. This
interaction can, neglecting the radial stress component and the
shear stress components, be described as:
σ l2 σ lσ h σ h2
− 2α + =1 (0)
σ ll2 σ ll σ hl σ hl2
where σ l is the applied longitudinal stress, σ h the applied hoop
stress and σ ll and σ hl the limit stress in their respective direction.
The limit stress may differ depending on whether the applied load
is compressive or tensile. α is a strength anisotropy factor
depending on the ratio between the limit stress in the longitudinal
and hoop direction respectively. The following definition for the
strength anisotropy factor has been suggested by the authors of
this paper for external and internal overpressure respectively:
π ⋅ D 2 pc
α= ⋅ (0)
4 Fl
π ⋅ D 2 pb
α= ⋅ (0)
4 Fl
For pipes under combined pressure and longitudinal force, Eq. (9)
(9) are Von Mises, Tresca’s, Hill’s and Tsai-Hill’s yield condition.
Experimental tests have been performed by e.g. Corona and
Kyriakides (1988). For combined pressure and longitudinal force,
the failure mode will be similar to the ones for single loads.
In general, the ultimate strength interaction between longitudinal
force and bending may be expressed by the fully plastic
interaction curve for tubular cross-sections. However, if D/t is
higher than 35, local buckling may occur at the compressive side,
leading to a failure slightly inside the fully plastic interaction
curve, Chen and Sohal (1988). When tension is dominating, the
4
 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

pipe capacity will be higher than the fully plastic condition due to
σ l2 σ lσ h σ h2
tensile and strain-hardening effects. − 2α + =1 (0)
σ ll2 σ ll σ hl σ hl2
As indicated in Figure 2, pressure and bending both lead to a cross
sectional failure. Bending will always lead to ovalisation and where α is a strength anisotropy factor depending on the σ hl/σ ll
finally collapse, while pipes fails in different modes for external ratio.
and internal overpressure. When bending is combined with
external overpressure, both loads will tend to increase the Solving the second-degree equation for the longitudinal stress
ovalisation, which leads to a rapid decrease in capacity. For ‘σ l’ gives:
bending combined with internal overpressure, the two failure
modes work against each other and thereby “strengthen” the pipe. 2
σh σ 
± σ ll 1 − (1 − α 2 ) h
For high internal overpressure, the collapse will always be
σ l = α σ ll  (0)
initiated on the tensile side of the pipe due to stresses at the outer 
fibres exceeding the material limit tensile stress. On the
σ hl  σ hl 
compressive side of the pipe, the high internal pressure will tend
to initiate an outward buckle, which will increase the pipe σ comp is now defined as the limit longitudinal compressive stress
diameter locally and thereby increase the moment of inertia and in the pipe wall and thereby equal to σ l as determined above with
the bending moment capacity of the pipe. The moment capacity the negative sign before the square root. The limit tensile stress
will therefore be expected to be higher for internal overpressure σ tens is accordingly equal to σ l with the positive sign in front of
compared with a corresponding external pressure. the square root.
2
σh σ 
− σ ll 1 − (1 − α 2 ) h
ADDITIONAL FAILURE MODE
σ comp = α σ ll  (0)

 σ hl
In addition to the failure modes described above, fracture is a σ hl
possible failure mode for all the described load conditions. In 
particular for the combination of tension, high internal pressure 2
σh σ 
+ σ ll 1 − (1 − α 2 ) h
and bending, it is important to check against fracture because of
σ tens = α σ ll  (0)
the high tensile stress level at the limit bending moment. The 
fracture criteria are not included in this paper, but shall be
σ hl  σ hl 
addressed in design.
THE BENDING MOMENT
EXPRESSION FOR ULTIMATE MOMENT CAPACITY The bending moment capacity of a pipe can by idealising the cross
sectional stress distribution at failure in accordance with Figure 3.,
In the following section, an analytical solution to the ultimate
be calculated as:
moment capacity for pipes subjected to combined loads is derived.
To keep the complexity of the equations on a reasonable level, the
following assumptions have been made: M C ( σ ,σ ) = − Acomp ycomp σ comp + Atens ytens σ tens
l h

(0)
• The pipe is geometrically perfect except for initial out-of-
roundness Where Acomp and Atens are respectively the cross sectional area in
• The cross sectional geometry does not change before the compression and tension, y their mass centres distance to the
ultimate moment is reached
pipe mass centre and σ the idealised stress level.
• The cross sectional stress distribution at failure can be
idealised in accordance with Figure 3. P l a n o f b e n d i n g σt e n s
• The interaction between limit longitudinal and hoop stress
can be described in accordance with Eq. (9) A t e n s
t
FAILURE LIMIT STRESS
The pipe wall stress condition for the bending moment Limit State ra v
can be considered as that of a material under bi-axial loads. It is in
here assumed that the interaction between average cross sectional yt e n s
P l a s t i c
longitudinal and hoop stress at pipe failure can be described by n e u t r a l
Eq. (12). The failure limit stresses are here, neglecting the radial a x e s
y c o m p
stress component and the shear stress components, described as a ψ
function of the longitudinal stress ‘σ l’, the hoop stress ‘σ h’ and
the failure limit stresses under uni-axial load ‘σ ll’ and ‘σ hl’ in A c o m p
their respective direction. The absolute value of the uni-axial limit
stresses, which should not mistakenly be taken as the yield stress, σc o m p
are to be used, while the actual stresses are to be taken as positive
Figure 3: Pipe cross section with stress distribution diagram
when in tension and negative when in compression.
(dashed line) and idealised stress diagram for plastified cross
section (full line).

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 5

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

FINAL EXPRESSION FOR MOMENT CAPACITY

For a geometrical perfect circular pipe, the area in compression Substituting the expression for the plastic neutral axis, Eq. (27),
and tension can approximately be calculated as: into the equation for the moment capacity, Eq. (21) gives:
Acomp = 2ψ r t  π (σ l − σ tens ) 
 σ comp + 2tr 2 sin  π (σ l − σ ten
(0) 
M C (σ ,σh ) = −2tr 2 sin 
l
 σ comp − σ tens   σ comp − σ te
Atens = 2 (π −ψ ) r t   
(0)
(0)
The distance from the mass centre to the pipe cross section centre and substituting the expression for tensile and compressive stress,
can be taken as: Eq. (14) and (15) into Eq. (28) gives the final expression for the
bending moment capacity:
sin (ψ )
y comp = r (0) 
ψ  σl σ
2  −α h
σ  π σ ll σ hl
=r
sin (ψ ) M C (σ ,σh ) = 4tr 2 σ ll ( )
1 − 1 −α 2  h 
 cos 
y tens (0)  σ hl  2
l

π −ψ  σ
 ( )
1 − 1 −α 2  h
where r is the average pipe wall radius and ψ the angle from the   σ hl
bending plan to the plastic neutral axis. The plastic neutral axis is (0)
defined as the axis at which the longitudinal pipe wall stresses or alternatively and more useful in design situations:
change from tensile to compressive, see Figure 3.  
 F p 
Inserting Eq. (17) to (20) in Eq. (16) gives the bending moment 2  −α 
 p  π Fl pl
capacity as: M C ( F, p) = M p (
1 − 1 −α 
p 
2
) cos 
2


 l    p 
2

 (
1 − 1 −α 2 
p 
 ) 
M C (σ l ,σh ) = −2tr 2 sin (ψ ) σ comp + 2tr 2 sin (ψ ) σ tens 
  l  

(0)
(0)
where
LOCATION OF FULLY PLASTIC NEUTRAL AXIS
MC = Ultimate bending moment capacity
The angle to the fully plastic neutral axis from the plane of Mp = Plastic moment
bending can be deduced from the following simplified expression p = Pressure acting on the pipe
for the true longitudinal pipe wall force: pl = Ultimate pressure capacity
F = Acomp σcomp + Atens σtens (0) F = True longitudinal force acting on the pipe
Fl = True longitudinal ultimate force
where the area in compression Acomp is calculated as:
When the uni-axial limit stress in the circumferential and
Acomp = 2ψ r t (0) longitudinal direction are taken as the material yield stress and α
set to ½, Eq. (29) and (30) specialises to that presented by among
and the area in tension Atens as; others Winter et al (1985) and Mohareb et al (1994).
Atens = 2(π −ψ ) r t (0) APPLICABLE RANGE FOR MOMENT CAPACITY EQUATION
To avoid complex solutions when solving Eq. (30), the
Giving: expressions under the square root must be positive, which gives
(
F = 2r t ψ σ comp + (π −ψ ) σ tens ) (0)
the theoretical range for the pressure to:

1 p 1
Solving Eq. (25) for ψ gives: − ≤ ≤ (0)
1 −α 2 pl 1 −α 2
F − 2π r t σ tens
ψ= where the ultimate pressure pl depends on the load condition and
(
2r t σ comp − σ tens ) (0)
α on the ratio between the limit force and the limit pressure.

or Since the wall thickness design is based on the operating pressure

of the pipeline, this range should not give any problems in the
π ( σ l − σ te n s ) design.
ψ = , F = 2π r t σ l (0)
σ co m p − σ te n s

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 6

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

Given the physical limitation that the angle to the plastic neutral definition should therefore at least be governing up to this level. In
axis must be between 0 and 180 degrees, the equation is valid for the present analyses, a Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relationship
the following range of longitudinal force: has been used. For this, two points on the stress-strain curve are
required along with the material Young’s modules. The two points
can be anywhere along the curve, and for the present model,
Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) associated with a
2 2
 p   p strain of 0.5% and the Specified Minimum Tensile Strength
α
p
(
− 1 − 1 −α  2
)p 
 ≤
F
≤ α
p
+ 1 − 1 (
− α 2
)
 (SMTS) corresponding to approximately 20% strain has been
p 
pl  l Fl pl  l used. The material yield limit has been defined as approximately
(0) 80% of SMYS.
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 α on the ratio between the ultimate true longitudinal force Fl
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
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL used to reduce the finite element model to one-quarter of a pipe
This section describes how a pipe section is modelled using the section, see Figure 4. The length of the model is two times the
finite element method. The finite element method is a method pipe diameter, which in general will be sufficient to catch all
where a physical system, such as an engineering component or buckling/collapse failure modes.
structure, is divided into small sub regions/elements. Each element
is an essential simple unit in space for which the behaviour can be The general-purpose shell element used in the present model
calculated by a shape function interpolated from the nodal values accounts for finite membrane strains and allows for changes in shell
of the element. This in such a way that inter-element continuity thickness, which makes it suitable for large-strain analysis. The
tends to be maintained in the assemblage. Connecting the shape element definition allows for transverse shear deformation and uses
functions for each element now forms an approximating function thick shell theory when the shell thickness increases and discrete
for the entire physical system. In the finite element formulation, Kirchoff thin shell theory as the thickness decreases.
the principles of virtual work together with the established shape
functions are used to transform the differential equations of Figure 4 shows an example of a buckled/collapsed finite element
equilibrium into algebraic equations. In a few words, the finite model representing an initial perfect pipe subjected to pure bending.
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.

In order to get a reliable finite element prediction of the

buckling/collapse deformation behaviour the following factors
must be taken into account:
• A proper representation of the constitutive law of the pipe
material
• A proper representation of the boundary conditions
• A proper application of the load sequence
• The ability to address large deformations, large rotations, and
finite strains
• The ability to model/describe all relevant failure modes
The material definition included in the finite element model is of
high importance, since the model is subjected to deformations
long into the elasto-plastic range. In the post-buckling phase,
strain levels between 10% and 20% are usual and the material
Figure 4: Model example of buckled/collapsed pipe section.
For a further discussion and verification of the used finite element
model, see Bai et al (1993), Mohareb et al (1994), Bruschi et al
(1995) and Hauch & Bai (1998).
ANALYTICAL SOLUTION VERSUS FINITE ELEMENT
RESULTS
In the following, the above-presented equations are compared
with results obtained from finite element analyses. First are the
capacity equations for pipes subjected to single loads compared
with finite element results for a D/t ratio from 10 to 60. Secondly
the moment capacity equations for combined longitudinal force,
pressure and bending are compared against finite element results.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 7

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

STRENGTH CAPACITY OF PIPES SUBJECTED TO SINGLE LOADS

7
As a verification of the finite element model, the strength 9
x 10
capacities for single loads obtained from finite element analyses
are compared against the verified analytical expressions described 8
X = FE results
in the previous sections of this paper. The strength capacity has 7
___ = Haagsma
been compared for a large range of diameter over wall thickness - - - = Timoshenko

Collapse Pressure
to demonstrate the finite element model’s capability to catch the 6

right failure mode independently of the D/t ratio. 5

For all analyses presented in this paper, the average pipe diameter 4

is 0.5088m, SMYS = 450 MPa and SMTS = 530 MPa. In Figure 5 3

the bending moment capacity found from finite element analysis
2
has been compared against the bending moment capacity
equation, Eq. (1). In Figure 6 the limit tensile longitudinal force 1
Eq. (7), in Figure 7 the collapse pressure Eq. (2, 5) and in Figure 8
0
the bursting pressure Eq. (6) are compared against finite element 10 20 30 40 50 60
results. The good agreement presented in figure 5-8 between finite Diameter Over Wall Thickness
element results and analytical solutions generally accepted by the
industry, gives good reasons to expect that the finite element Figure 7: Collapse pressure as a function of diameter over wall
model also give reliable predictions for combined loads. thickness for a pipe subjected to pure external overpressure.
Initial out-of-roundness f0 equal to 1.5%.
6 7
x 10 x 10
7 10

9
6 X = FE results X = FE results
___ = Analytical ___ = Analytical
Ultimate Moment Capacity

8
5
7
Burst Pressure

4
6

3 5

4
2
3
1
2

0 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
Diameter Over Wall Thickness Diameter Over Wall Thickness

Figure 5: Moment capacity as a function of diameter over wall Figure 8: Bursting pressure as a function of diameter over wall
thickness for a pipe subjected to pure bending. thickness for a pipe subjected to pure internal overpressure.
X
x 10
7
STRENGTH CAPACITY FOR COMBINED LOADS
4.5
For the results presented in Figures 9-14 the following pipe
= FE results dimensions have been used:
Ultimate True Longitudinal Force

4
___ = Analytical D/t = 35
3.5
fo = 1.5 %
3
SMYS = 450 MPa
SMTS = 530 MPa
2.5 α = 1/5 for external overpressure and 2/3 for
internal overpressure
2

1.5 Figures 9 and 10 show the moment capacity surface given by Eq.
(31). In Figure 9, the moment capacity surface is seen from the
1 external pressure, compressive longitudinal force side and in
Figure 10 it is seen from above. Figures 5 to 8 have demonstrated
0.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 that for single loads, the failure surface agrees well with finite
Diameter Over Wall Thickness element analyses for a large D/t range. To demonstrate that Eq.
(31) also agrees with finite element analyses for combined loads,
Figure 6: Limit longitudinal force as a function of diameter over the failure surface has been cut for different fixed values of
wall thickness for a pipe subjected to pure tensile force. longitudinal force and pressure respectively as demonstrated in

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 8

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

Figure 10 by the full straight lines. The cuts and respective finite
element results are shown in Figures 11 to 14. In Figure 11 the
moment capacity is plotted as a function of pressure. The limit
1
pressure for external overpressure is given by Haagsma’s collapse
equation Eq. (5) and the limit pressure for internal overpressure by

Moment / Plastic Moment

the bursting pressure Eq. (6). For the non-pressurised pipe, the 0.5
moment capacity is given by Eq. (1). In Figure 12, the moment
capacity is plotted as a function of longitudinal force. The limit X = FE results
force has been given by Eq. (7) and (8). For a given water depth, 0 ___ = Analytical
the external pressure will be approximately constant, while the
axial force may vary along the pipe. Figure 13 shows the moment -0.5
capacity as a function of longitudinal force for an external
overpressure equal to 0.8 times the collapse pressure calculated by
Haagsma’s collapse equation Eq. (5). Figure 14 again shows the -1
moment capacity as a function of longitudinal force, but this time
for an internal overpressure equal to 0.9 times the plastic buckling -0.5 0 0.5 1
Pressure / Plastic Collapse Pressure
pressure given by Eq. (4). Based on the results presented in
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.
Moment / Plastic Moment
0.5

X = FE results
0 ___ = Analytical

-0.5

-1

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
True Longitudinal Force / Ultimate True Longitudinal Force

Figure 12: Normalised bending moment capacity as a function of

longitudinal force. Pressure equal to zero.
Figure 9: Limit bending moment surface as a function of pressure
and longitudinal force.
1
Moment / Plastic Moment

0.5

0
X = FE results
___ = Analytical

-0.5

-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
True Longitudinal Force / Ultimate True Longitudinal Force

Figure 13: Normalised bending moment capacity as a function of

Figure 10: Limit bending moment surface as a function of longitudinal force. Pressure equal to 0.8 times Haagsma’s
pressure and longitudinal force including cross sections for which collapse pressure Eq. (5).
comparison between analytical solution and results from finite
element analyses has been performed.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 9

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

1
moment and the limit longitudinal force. The pressure, which is a
function of internal pressure and water depth, will not be
subjected to the same model uncertainty and the condition load
factor will be close to one and is presently ignored. Based on the
0.5
above discussion, the maximum allowable bending moment may
Moment / Plastic Moment

be expressed as:
X = FE results
0 ___ = Analytical 
 γcF
2 
ηRM  p  π ηRF
-0.5
M Allowable (F, p) = M p 1 − (1 −α2 ) 
η p

 cos 
2
γc  RP l  


(
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 γ C = Condition load factor
buckling pressure Eq. (4). ηR = Strength usage factors

USAGE/SAFETY FACTORS
The local buckling check can be separated into a check for load
controlled situations (bending moment) and one for displacement
controlled situations (strain level). When no usage/safety factors
are applied in the buckling check calculations, the two checks
ought to result in the same bending capacity. In design though,
usage/safety factors are introduced to account for modelling and
input uncertainties. The reduction in bending capacity introduced
by the usage factors will not be the same for load and
displacement controlled situations. Due to the pipe moment versus
strain relationship, a higher allowable strength can be achieved for
a given target safety level by using a strain-based criterion than by
a moment criterion. In this paper only the allowable bending
moment criterion is given. This criterion can be used for both load
and displacement controlled situations, but may as mentioned be
overly conservative for displacement controlled situations.
The usage factor approach presented in this paper is based on
shrinking the failure surface shown in Figures 9 and 10. Instead of
representing the bending moment capacity, the surface is scaled to
represent the maximum allowable bending moment associated
with a given target safety level. The shape of the failure surface
given Eq. (30) is dictated by four parameters; the plastic moment
Mp, the limit longitudinal force Fl, the limit pressure Pl and the
strength anisotropy factor α . To shrink the failure surface usage
factors are applied to the plastic moment, longitudinal limit force
and the limit pressure respectively. The usage factors are functions
of modelling, geometrical and material uncertainties and will
therefore vary for the three capacity parameters. In general, the
variation will be small and for simplification purposes, the most
conservative usage factor may be applied to all capacity loads.
The strength anisotropy factor α is a function of the longitudinal
limit force and the limit pressure, but for simplicity, no usage
factor has been applied to this parameter. The modelling
uncertainty is highly connected to the use of the equation. In the
SUPERB (1996) project, the use of the moment criteria is divided
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 γ C is applied to the plastic
The usage/safety factor methodology used in Eq. (33) ensures that
the safety levels are uniformly maintained for all load
combinations.
In the following guideline for bending strength calculations, the
suggested condition load factor is in accordance with the results
presented in the SUPERB (1996) report, later used in DNV
(2000). The strength usage factors η RM, η RF and η RP are based
on comparison with existing codes and the engineering experience
of the authors.
GUIDELINE FOR BENDING STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
• LOCAL BUCKLING:
For pipelines subjected to combined pressure, longitudinal force
and bending, local buckling may occur. The failure mode may
be yielding of the cross section or buckling on the compressive
side of the pipe. The criteria given in this guideline may be used
to calculate the maximum allowable bending moment for a
given scenario. It shall be noted that the maximum allowable
bending moment given in this guideline does not take fracture
into account and that fracture criteria therefore may reduce the
bending capacity of the pipe. This particularly applies for high-
tension / high internal pressure load conditions.
• LOAD VERSUS DISPLACEMENT CONTROLLED SITUATIONS:
The local buckling check can be separated into a check for load
controlled situations (bending moment) and one for
displacement controlled situations (strain level). Due to the
relation between applied bending moment and maximum strain
in pipes, a higher allowable strength for a given target safety
level can be achieved by using a strain-based criterion rather
than a bending moment criterion. The bending moment criterion
can due to this, conservatively be used for both load and
displacement controlled situations. In this guideline only the
bending moment criterion is given.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 10

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

• LOCAL BUCKLING AND ACCUMULATED OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS: SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength in
Increased out-of-roundness due to installation and cyclic longitudinal direction
operating loads may aggravate local buckling and is to be SMTS = Specified Minimum Tensile Strength in
considered. It is recommended that out-of-roundness, due to longitudinal direction
through life loads, be simulated using e.g. finite element
analysis. • LIMIT PRESSURE FOR EXTERNAL OVERPRESSURE CONDITION:
The limit external pressure ‘pl’ is to be calculated based on:
• MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BENDING MOMENT:
The allowable bending moment for local buckling under load
 D
controlled situations can be expressed as: p l3 − p el p l2 −  p 2p + p el p p f 0  p l + p el p 2p = 0
 t 
 where 
 γcF p  3
2  − α 2 E  t 
ηRM  p  π η pelRF Fl = ηRP 2pl  
M Allowable (F, p) = M p 1 − (1 −α2 ) 
η p

 cos 
2 (1 −ν ) 2D
γc  RP l   p  2 t



1pp− 1 −α( 2
= η  SMYS
fab )   1)
pl 
  η RP   D
where f0 = Initial out-of-roundness 2), (Dmax-Dmin)/D
MAllowable = Allowable bending moment SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength in hoop
Mp = Plastic moment direction
pl = Limit pressure E = Young’s Module
p = Pressure acting on the pipe υ = Poisson’s ratio
Fl = Limit longitudinal force
F = Longitudinal force acting on the pipe Guidance note:
α = Strength anisotropy factor
1)
η fab is 0.925 for pipes fabricated by the UO precess, 0.85
γ C = Condition load factor for pipes fabricated by the UOE process and 1 for seamless
ηR = Strength usage factor or annealed pipes.
2)
Out-of-roundness caused during the construction phase and
• STRENGTH ANISOTROPY FACTOR: due to cyclic loading is to be included, but not flattening due
to external water pressure or bending in as-laid position.
π ⋅ D 2 pc
α= ⋅ for external overpressure • LIMIT PRESSURE FOR INTERNAL OVERPRESSURE CONDITION:
4 Fl The limit pressure will be equal to the bursting pressure and
may be taken as:
π ⋅ D 2 pb
α= ⋅
4 Fl
for internal overpressure
p l = 0.5( SMTS + SMYS ) 2t
D
If possible, the strength anisotropy factor should be verified by where
finite element analyses.
SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength in hoop
• PLASTIC (LIMIT) MOMENT: direction
The limit moment may be given as: SMTS = Specified Minimum Tensile Strength in hoop
direction
 D
•
M C ( F =0 , P =0 ) = 1.05 − 0.0015 ⋅  ⋅ SMYS ⋅ D 2 ⋅ t LOAD AND USAGE FACTORS:
 t  Load factor γ C and usage factor η R are listed in Table 1.
where
SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength in
longitudinal direction Table 1: Load and usage factors.
D = Average diameter Safety Classes Low Normal High
t = Wall thickness Safety factors
Uneven seabed 1.07 1.07 1.07
• LIMIT LONGITUDINAL FORCE FOR COMPRESSION AND TENSION: Pressure test 0.93 0.93 0.93
γ C
Stiff supported 0.82 0.82 0.82
The limit longitudinal force may be estimated as:
Fl = 0.5 ⋅ ( SMYS + SMTS ) ⋅ A
Otherwise 1.00 1.00 1.00
η RP Pressure 0.95 0.93 0.90
where η RF Longitudinal force 0.90 0.85 0.80
A = Cross sectional area, which may be η RM Moment 0.80 0.73 0.65
calculated as π × D× t.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 11

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

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, 1.07× 0.93 = 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
Haagsma, S. C., Schaap D. (1981) “Collapse Resistance of
The moment capacity equations in the existing codes are for some
Submarine Lines Studied” Oil & Gas Journal, February 1981.
load conditions overly conservative and for others non-
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.

It is recommended that the strength anisotropy factor α be

investigated in more detail.

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)”.

Bai, Y., Igland, R. and Moan, T. (1993) “Tube Collapse under

Combined Pressure, Tension and Bending”, International Journal of
Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 3(2), pp. 121-129.

Bai, Y., Igland, R. and Moan, T. (1997) “Tube Collapse under

Combined External Pressure, Tension and Bending”, Journal of
Marine Structures, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 389-410.

Bruschi, R., Monti, P., Bolzoni, G., Tagliaferri, R. (1995), “Finite

Element Method as Numerical Laboratory for Analysing Pipeline
Response under Internal Pressure, Axial Load, Bending Moment”
OMAE’95.

Chen, W. F., and Sohal, I. S. (1988), “Cylindrical Members In

Offshore Structures” Thin-Walled Structure, Vol. 6 1988. Special
Issue on Offshore Structures, Elsevier Applied Science.

Galambos, T.V. (1998), “Guide to Stability Design Criteria for

Metal Structures” John Wiley & Sons.

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.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 12

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

Hauch, S. and Bai, Y. (1998), “Use of Finite Element Analysis for

Local Buckling Design of Pipelines” OMAE’98

Hill, R. (1950), “The mathematical theory of plasticity” Oxford

University Press, New York, ISBN 0 19 856162 8.

ISO/DIS 13623 (1998) “Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries –

Pipelines Transportation Systems”.

Kyriakides, S and Yeh, M. K. (1985), “Factors Affecting Pipe

Collapse” Engineering Mechanics Research Laboratory, EMRL
Report No 85/1, A.G.A Catalogue No. L51479 Department of
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The
University of Texas at Austin.

Kyriakides, S and Yeh, M. K. (1988), “Plastic Anisotropy in

Drawn Metal Tubes” Journal of Engineering for Industry, August
1988, Vol. 110/303.

Kyriakides, S. and Ju, G. T. (1992), “Bifurcation and Localization

Instabilities in Cylindrical Shells Under Bending-I-Experiments”
Int. J Solids and Structures, Vol. 29, No 9, pp 1117-1142.

Mohareb, M. E., Elwi, A. E., Kulak, G. L. and Murray D. W.

(1994), Deformational Behaviour of Line Pipe” Structural
Engineering Report No. 202, University of Alberta

Murphey C.E. and Langner C.G. (1985), “Ultimate Pipe Strength

Under Bending, Collapse and Fatigue”, OMAE’85.

SUPERB (1996), “Buckling and Collapse Limit State”, December

1996.

Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. (1961), “Theory of Elastic

Stability”, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill International Book Company.

Winter, P.E., Stark J.W.B. and Witteveen, J. (1985), “Collapse

Behaviour of Submarine Pipelines”, Chapter 7 of “Shell
Structures Stability and Strength” Published by Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers, 1985.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 13