Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1471 – 1478

11th International Symposium on Plasticity and Impact Mechanics, Implast 2016

On the Effect of Defect Thickness of ERW Pipe

on the Acceptability for Piling Structure
Muhammad A. Kariem a,*, Hafizhul Aziz a, I.W. Puja a
a
Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology,
Ganesha Street no. 10, Bandung, West Java 40132, Indonesia

Abstract
A pile is a fundamental part of fixed type platform which commonly used to support superstructure rig in the offshore area. A
seamless pipe is usually used as the pile structure. However, this seamless pipe is a high-priced pipe and scarce to find in Indonesia.
ERW (Electric Resistant Welded) pipe can be used for an alternative selection of the seamless pipe for piling structure. However,
ERW pipe production may have a defect in the form of a cold weld and a hook crack. This paper studies the possibility of ERW
pipe utilization as the piling structure. A case study was conducted for ERW pipe NPS 24 and length of 6 m. This research conducted
by using eta-FEMB and LS-DYNA software to examine the effective stress of the pile structure during installation. Numerical
simulations were carried out on the pile structure with crack modelling and withstand multiple impact loading. The result was
compared with failure criterion based on API RP 2A WSD. Those criteria include Axial Allowable Tensile Stress (AATS), Axial
Allowable Compressive Stress (AACS) and Critical Hoop Buckling Stress (CHBS). Based on this preliminary analysis, we
hypothesize that the ERW pipe with defect length up to 5 mm can be used for the piling structure. However, this analysis need
further investigation in order to be a recommendation for substituting seamless pipe for piling structure.

©
© 2017
2016TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by by
Published Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
Keywords: ERW, Fixed Type Platform, Cold weld, Hook Crack, API RP 2A.

1. Introduction
Indonesia still depends on gas and petroleum based fuel as the primary energy source. However, the production of
natural gas and crude oil has decreased significantly in the recent years. In order to increase the production, a new
reserve should be explored and exploited. One of the potential regions for the reserve is offshore where a fixed type
platform is commonly used due to a shallow depth of Indonesian marine.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-22-2500979; fax: +62-22-2506361.

E-mail address: kariem@edc.ms.itb.ac.id

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.219
1472 Muhammad A. Kariem et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1471 – 1478

Nomenclature
AIB Cross-sectional area of the input bar, Ft Tension Stress
ASB Cross-sectional area of the striker bar, Fy Yield strength of the material
Ch Critical hoop buckling coefficient, K Effective length factor,
C0 Strain wave velocity. l Unbraced length
D Outside diameter, and t is a wall thickness. r Radius of gyration.
Fa Axial Allowable Compressive Stress V Velocity of striker bar,

One of the main components of fixed type platform is a pile structure. The pile is a fundamental part of a fixed type
platform which commonly used to support a superstructure rig in the offshore area. They formed by a long, slender,
columnar elements, typically a cylinder and made from steel. A seamless pipe is usually used as the pile structure.
However, this seamless pipe is a high-priced pipe and scarce to find in Indonesia. On the other hand, ERW (Electric
Resistant Welded) pipe can be used for an alternative selection of the seamless pipe for the piling structure. However,
the ERW pipe production may have a defect in the form of a cold weld [1] and a hook crack [1, 2]. The cold weld has
resulted from a lack of fusion due to an insufficient heat and pressure, while the hook crack has resulted from a non-
metallic inclusions at the weld interface. This paper studies the possibility of ERW pipe utilization as the piling
structure.
The use of seamless pipe for piling structure has been regulated in API RP 2A WSD; meanwhile, the use of ERW
pipe for piling structure has not been regulated in any standards or codes. Selection of the diameter of the pile depends
on the depth of the sea, and the total weight of the supported components above the pile structure.
The pile structure is installed by using a hammer which is repeatedly impacted at the end of the pipe until the target
depth is reached [3]. Any defects in the piling structure may lead to structure collapse. This paper uses a numerical
simulation to identify the structural integrity of the piling structure which assumed to have a defect. The results of
simulation were then compared with the allowable value recommended by API RP 2A WSD [4].
In the simulations, the defects were assumed to have a geometry as shown in Fig. 1. Four cases were simulated
which varied in the defect length, l; meanwhile, the defect width, w, was assumed to be constant as 0.3 mm.

Case defect length, l

1 No defect
2 5 mm
3 10 mm
4 15 mm

Fig. 1. Schematic of defects dimension.

2. Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria are determined by following the recommendation made by API RP 2A WSD [4]. Four
criteria are considered:
• Plastic Deformation. Total plastic deformation is essential to determine the structure integrity as the area that
undergoes plastic deformation should be cut. This process is called as re-heading. By removing the plastically
deformed area of the structure, the integrity of structure will be maintained. API recommend the re-heading in
the range of 0.5 – 1.5 m [4].
• Axial Allowable Tension Stress (AATS). This criterion states that axial tension stress that occurred shall not
exceed axial allowable tension stress, accordingly to equation:
Ft = 0.6 Fy (1)
• Axial Allowable Compressive Stress (AACS). This criterion states that axial compressive stress that occurred
on structure shall not exceed allowable stress according to equation:
 Muhammad A. Kariem et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1471 – 1478 1473

ª § Kl · 2 º
« ¨ ¸ »
«1 − © r ¹ » F 12
y
« 2Cc »
2
ª12π 2 E º (2)
« » Cc = « »
AACS( Fa ) = ¬ ¼ ¬« Fy ¼»
3
§ Kl · § Kl ·
3¨ ¸ ¨ ¸
5 © r ¹ © r ¹
+ − 3
3 8Cc 8Cc

• Critical Hoop Buckling Stress (CHBS). This criterion state that circumferential stress on structure shall not
exceed allowable stress on radial direction, accordingly to equation:
Fhc = Fhe = 2Ch Et / D (3)
3. Piling Mechanism

Hammer The piling structure is installed by using a hammer

V which repeatedly impacted at the end of the pipe until the
target of depth is reached [3]. A cushion component is
Cushion
temporarily placed between hammer and pile structure
during installation in order to minimize the plastic
Piling Structure deformation at the end of the pipe. A schematic of piling
mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 2.
4. Numerical Simulations
Sea Level
4.1. Numerical Simulation Parameters
Due to the presence of crack, the numerical simulation
was conducted using a 3D solid element. The length of
piling structure was assumed to be 6 m. In the simulation,
Seabed all component: piling structure, cushion and hammer
were modeled. The dimension of each component is
described in Table 1.
Fig. 2. Schematic piling mechanism. The hammer used in this simulation was assumed to be
a diesel pile hammer with a mass of 8,000 kg. Based on
Ref. [4], for a pile thickness exceeding 1 in, ASTM A36 material should be used; meanwhile, the material of cushion
and hammer was assumed to be made of same steel. The mechanical properties of piling structure, cushion and
hammer are given in Table 2.
In the numerical simulation, the cushion and the hammer were assumed to experience an elastic deformation; thus,
MAT # 1 - Elastic was used. Meanwhile, the piling structure was assumed to experience elastic-plastic deformation;
thus, MAT # 98 – Simplified Johnson-Cook was used as a constitutive material model. The material constants for
ASTM A36 was taken from Ref. [5].
Table 1. Dimension of each component
Components Length (mm) Outside Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm)
Piling Pipe 6000 600 15
Cushion 662 700 Solid
Hammer 2700 600 Solid
Table 2. Mechanical properties of piling structure, cushion, and hammer
Mechanical Properties Value
Density, ȡ 7850 kg/m3
Modulus Young, E 200 GPa
Poisson's Ratio, Ȟ 0.3
1474 Muhammad A. Kariem et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1471 – 1478

Table 3. Johnson Cook material constants for pile structure [5]

Johnson Cook Material Constants Value

A 286.1325 MPa
B 500.173 MPa
n 0.2282
C 0.022

4.2. Contact, Boundary and Initial Conditions

In the numerical simulation, there were two parts which directly in contact to each other, i.e. hammer to cushion,
and cushion to piling structure. An automatic surface-to-surface contact was used for the contact definition. This
means the surface area of a part (master part) would be interacted with the surface area of another part (slave part).
The boundary condition used in the simulation was a fixed support on a base point of the piling structure. This
condition was assumed to be occurred when the piling structure encountered an un-penetrable rock; thus, all impact
energy would be fully accepted by the piling structure.
Hammer was simulated to move with an initial velocity of 4.18 m/s. The hammer was then impacting the cushion
which then transfer all of energy to the piling structure. The amount of energy based on Ref. [4] was approximately
70 kN-m for each blow. In this study, five blows were simulated for each case, which then the results was used to
predict the defect characteristic of the piling structure for the maximum blow.
4.3. Validation
The validation was conducted by using a well-known dynamic testing of a split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB)
technique. The SHPB consists of a striker bar, pressure bars: input and output, and a specimen [6]. The piling
mechanism have a similar method with the SHPB where a striker bar is impacted on the input bar only, which then a
strain waves are propagated along the pressure bar. The schematic of validation model is shown in Fig. 3. In the
validation step, the input bar was assumed to be the hollow bar (similar to the piling structure).
V
ε

Striker bar: solid Input bar: hollow cylinder

Fig. 3. Schematic of validation model.

The amplitude of the strain wave, ε, propagated in the input

bar due to a solid bar impact was then calculated using Eq. (4)
V (4)
ε=
§ AIB ·
¨¨1 + ¸¸C0
© ASB ¹
For a simple simulation, the diameter and length of the striker
bar were assumed to be 14.5 mm and 300 mm, respectively;
while for the input bar, the outside diameter, inside diameter
and length were 14.5 mm, 10.5 mm and 1200 mm,
respectively. The mechanical properties of the bar are as given
in Table 3. Based on a calculation using Eq. 4, the theoretical
amplitude of strain wave was 2202 με. The numerical
simulation of the strain wave is shown in Fig. 4. The amplitude Fig. 4. Strain wave from numerical simulation.
of the numerical simulation results was 2195 με; thus, the
percentage of error was 0.3 %. Based on these results, the numerical simulation model and parameter were valid and
they can be extended to simulate the piling mechanism, including the piling structure with defect.
 Muhammad A. Kariem et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1471 – 1478 1475

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Plastic Deformation
In the numerical simulation, the piling structure
experienced five strikes of hammer (five blows). The
plastic strain value was directly generated from the
simulation for each blow. The value was then
calculated to determine the total plastic deformation.
Figure 5 shows the curve of plastic deformation vs.
the number of blow. These curves was then used to
predict the characteristic of defect piling structure for
the maximum blow. API RP 2A WSD recommends
that in the case of pile driving refusal, the blow count
shall not exceed 800 blows for six inches (152 mm)
of penetration [4].
By using a linear regression, a formula could be
extracted from the graph for four studied cases, i.e. Fig. 5. Plastic deformation vs. number of blow.
no defect, defect lengths of 5 mm, 10 mm, and 15 mm
where the gradients were as follows: 0.022, 1.181, 1.621, and 3.650, respectively. These formulas were then used to
predict the plastic deformation for 800 blows, which resulted in: 18, 945, 1297, and 2688 mm of plastic deformation.
The end piling structure shall be re-headed due to this plastic deformation. In Case 4, the plastic deformation were
exceeding a recommendation made by API RP 2A WSD [4] where re-heading in the range of 0.5 – 1.5 m. Thus, based
on the plastic deformation criteria, the ERW pipe of 24” with defect length of more than 15 mm were not recommended
to be used for the piling structure.
5.2. Stresses Criteria
Three stresses criteria were examined, i.e. axial allowable
tension stress (AATS), axial allowable compressive stress
(AACS), and critical hoop buckling stress (CHBS). The allowable
value for AATS, AACS and CHBS were 150 MPa, –147.6 MPa,
and 110 MPa, respectively, which were calculated using Eq. (1) – Crack
(3). The AATS and AACS criteria use longitudinal stress along along the
the length of piling structure, while the CHBS uses the hoop stress. length of
An example of the longitudinal stress contour are shown in Fig. pipe
6. As can be seen in the figure, a stress concentration was occurred
at the defect location. This stress concentration could initiate a
crack propagation which increase a risk of the structural collapse.
The end piling structure which has direct contact with the
cushion was the most severe part of the piling structure during the
strike of hammer. Therefore, the stresses of element at the end
piling structure were plotted, and then compared with the criteria.
Selected element in the study are shown in Fig. 7.
The longitudinal stress for Case 1 (no defect) at selected
element are shown in Fig. 8. The vertical axis was the magnitude
of the longitudinal stress. Negative value means compressive Fig. 6. Example of longitudinal stress contour.
stress, while positive value means tensile stress. If we have a
closer look at the 1st blow stress (insert in Fig. 8), elements along the cross section receives different magnitude from
–350 MPa to –65 MPa. Outside elements receive higher stress (−350 MPa for EL#125267 & EL#125272 and −120
MPa for EL#125269 & EL#125270) than inside elements (only –65 MPa for EL#125268 & EL#125271). Based on
this figure, outer elements experience a plastic deformation since the value exceeding the Yield strength of the piling
structure (made from ASTM A36). Even though there were a local plastic deformation; in the real application, these
elements will be cut at re-heading process. Thus, the integrity of structure still be fulfilled.
1476 Muhammad A. Kariem et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1471 – 1478

Defect
EL#125267
EL#125268
EL#125269
EL#125270
EL#125271
EL#125272

Fig. 7. Element number and position.

The next step was to study

the effect of defect length onto
the magnitude of longitudinal
stress. Figure 9 shows the
longitudinal stress at
EL#125268 for all cases. As can
be seen from this figure, the
present of defect influences the
magnitude of longitudinal
stress. The longitudinal stress
for Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 are –65
MPa, – 135 MPa, –300 MPa
and –330 MPa, respectively.
Based on these results, it can be
concluded that a longer defect
results in higher magnitude of
the longitudinal stress.
The longitudinal stress at all
Fig. 8. Longitudinal stress vs. time for Case 1 at selected element. elements were then taken
average to be compared with
the allowable value. The unity check was then defined as the ratio of working stress to the allowable value. The
structure was safe if the unity check was less than 1.0. The results of analysis is tabulated as follows.
Table 4. Results of analysis based on AATS and AACS
Cases Defect length AATS U.C. (Remarks) AACS U.C. (Remarks)
1 0 mm 0 MPa n.a. (OK) − 176 MPa 1.19 (Not OK)
2 5 mm 33 MPa 0.22 (OK) − 270 MPa 1.83 (Not OK)
3 10 mm 53 MPa 0.35 (OK) − 330 MPa 2.24 (Not OK)
4 15 mm 46 MPa 0.31 (OK) − 335 MPa 2.27 (Not OK)
This result shows that AATS criterion was satisfied on all cases (defect length of 0, 5, 10 and 15 mm); however,
the AACS criterion was not satisfied on all cases, even on the case without any defect where the value was just above
1.0. But, if we compare the value of compressive stress to the Yield strength of material, the unity check value was
less than 1.0 for case 1 (no defect) and case 2 (5 mm defect length); thus, the working stress was still acceptable.
 Muhammad A. Kariem et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1471 – 1478 1477

The effect of defect on

the hoop stress was then
compared for evaluation.
The hoop stress could
initiate the piling structure
to tear. An initial tear
would occurred at the outer
element (EL#125267) due
to the hoop stress in tensile
direction. Thus, the stresses
at this direction were
extracted. The unity check
for CHBS criteria are
described in Table 5. Based
on the CHBS criteria,
defect lengths of 10 and 15
mm were not acceptable
Fig. 9. Longitudinal stress @EL#125268 Cases 1 - 4. due to the UC values were
higher than 1.0.
Additional criterion (von Mises) was added into analysis. The von Mises value generated from the simulation was
compared with the Yield strength of material. The unity check for von Mises criteria are described in Table 5. Based
on the von Mises criteria, defect lengths of 10 and 15 mm were also not acceptable due to the UC values were higher
than 1.0.

Table 5. Results of analysis based on CHBS and von Mises

Cases Defect length CHBS U.C. (Remarks) von Mises U.C. (Remarks)
1 0 mm 75 MPa 0.68 (OK) 212 MPa 0.74 (OK)
2 5 mm 97 MPa 0.88 (OK) 280 MPa 0.98 (OK)
3 10 mm 244 MPa 2.22 (Not OK) 360 MPa 1.26 (Not OK)
4 15 mm 289 MPa 2.63 (Not OK) 356 MPa 1.24 (Not OK)

6. Conclusions
The numerical simulation of piling mechanism on the ERW pipe has been successfully conducted. The study was
conducted for the ERW pipe with NPS 24” and length of 6 m. There were four case studies, i.e. Case 1: without defect,
Case 2: with defect length of 5 mm, Case 3: with defect length of 10 mm, and Case 4: with defect length of 15 mm.
The analysis was conducted into two categories, i.e. plastic deformation and working stress. As for plastic
deformation category, it was predicted that the plastic deformation for 800 blows were 18 mm (Case 1), 945 mm (Case
2), 1297 mm (Case 3), and 2688 mm (Case 4).
Three stresses criteria were examined, i.e. axial allowable tension stress (AATS), axial allowable compressive
stress (AACS), and critical hoop buckling stress (CHBS). The end piling structure which has direct contact with the
cushion was the most severe part of the piling structure during the strikes of hammer. Therefore, the stresses of element
at the end piling structure were plotted, and then compared with the criteria. Based on the AATS criterion, the unity
check for Case 1, 2, 3, and 4 were n.a., 0.22, 0.35, and 0.31, respectively. Based on the AACS criterion, the unity
check for Case 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 1.19, 1.83, 2.24, and 2.27, respectively. Based on the CHBS criterion, the unity
check for Case 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0.68, 0.88, 2.22, and 2.67, respectively. Additional criterion (von Mises) was added
in the analysis. Based on the von Mises criterion, the unity check for Case 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0.74, 0.98, 1.26, and
1.24, respectively.
Based on this preliminary analysis, we hypothesize that the ERW pipe with a defect length up to 5 mm may be
used for the pilling structure. However, this analysis need further investigation in order to be a recommendation for
1478 Muhammad A. Kariem et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1471 – 1478

substituting seamless pipe for piling structure. The analysis only examines the end piling structure which has direct
contact with the cushion. In the real piling procedure, the end piling structure shall be re-headed in the range of 0.5 –
1.5 m as recommended by API RP 2A WSD. The working stress at other location will be examine in the near future.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by Bandung Institute of Technology under Research and Innovation Program ITB
2015 (Contract no. 692.2/I1.C08/PL-KK/2015). The authors also would like to thank to LSTC for providing an
academic license of LS-DYNA

References

1. Haga, H., K. Aoki, and T. Sato, The Mechanisms of Formation of Weld Defects in High-Frequency Electric
Resistance Welding. WELDING JOURNAL, 1981. 60(6): p. 104s-109s.
2. Aminorroaya-Yamini, S., H. Idris, and M. Fatahi, Hook Crack in Electric Resistance Welding Line Pipe Steel, in
South East Asia Iron & Steel Institute Conference and Exhibition. 2003, South Easr Asia Iron & Steel Institute:
Malaysia. p. 1-9.
3. Ben C. Gerwick Jr., Construction of Marine and Offshore Structures. 2007, California: CRC Press.
4. API RP 2A WSD, Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Working Stress Design.
2014, American Petroleum Institute.
5. Seidt, J., et al. High Strain Rate, High Temperature Constitutive and Failure Models for EOD Impact Scenarios.
in Proceedings of the SEM Annual Conference & Exposition on Experimental and Applied Mechanics. 2007:
Society for Experimental Mechanics.
6. Kariem, M.A., Reliable Materials Performance Data from Impact Testing, in Faculty of Engineering and
Industrial Sciences. 2012, Swinburne University of Technology: Melbourne.