Burst and gross plastic deformation limit state equations for pipes:

Part 1 - Theory
Finn Kirkemo
SeaFlex a.s
P.O.Box 451
1373 Asker Norway

ABSTRACT LIMIT STATE CONSIDERATIONS

Design of pipes in the offshore industry require use of design
equations to predict the resistance against structural failures or
limit states such as burst and gross (excessive) plastic deformation.
In this paper analytical based limit state equations for pipe burst
and yielding resistances for load-controlled conditions are derived
and compared. Plastic (ultimate) and limit load based candidate
equations for high strength ductile and tough materials are
proposed for potential use in design codes.
Load carrying capacity design or ultimate limit state design is
intended to guard pipes against failure for single extreme loading. Only
burst and gross (excessive) plastic deformation structural failure modes
are considered. These failure modes are characterised by wall thinning
and ductile rupture, i.e. leakage or inadmissible large deformations that
restrict further use.
Plasticity-based design equations may be classified into the
following four limit states, see Figure 1:

KEYWORDS: Pipe, limit state, capacity, burst, excessive yielding 1. Plastic deformation (collapse) load or just plastic load Fp which is
related to the actual plastic deformation capability of the cross
section including effects of strain hardening and small or large
INTRODUCTION deformation theory as required.
Risers, pipelines and piping in the oil and gas industry have to be 2. Cross section limit load F0 which is related to the limit load of the
designed to have adequate mechanical strength against loading cross section. Limit load analysis is based on elastic-perfectly
appropriate for its intended use. Determination of minimum required plastic (or rigid-perfectly plastic) material model and small
wall thickness to resist these loads is of major importance in design to deformation theory (ignore changes in geometry due to
achieve the required safety margin against the relevant structural deformations).
failure modes. This is of special importance for deep-water risers and
pipelines and high-pressure systems made of modern ductile and tough 3. Through thickness limit load or elastic plastic load Fe0, that is
metals, in order to save weight without jeopardising the structural related to the limit load of the pipe wall thickness.
safety. Several design codes used for design against burst and gross 4. First yield load or elastic load Fy which is related to strength
plastic deformation use plasticity based design equations. When corresponding to the onset of yielding.
comparing these equations, there is a wide variation in factor of safety
from code to code. Such a large variation in safety factors indicates the
need for better understanding of pipe behaviour and applied design
equations.
The purpose of this article is to derive, see Appendix A, and
compare candidate design equations for design of straight long pipes
against burst and gross (excessive) plastic deformation in load-
controlled conditions. The equations are for pipes subjected to internal
pressure, external pressure, effective axial force and bending moment
and are valid for both thin-walled and thick-walled pipes.

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 1 of 10

 16 certain pressure shortly after full yielding of the wall, the expansion
Plastic load, Fp becomes unstable, i.e. the material strain hardening can no longer
Limit load, F0
14
compensate for the increased pressure area and wall thinning.
Capacity
12 a Subsequently, the expansion is more localised leading to 'ballooning'
c
b and pipe rupture (failure), see Figure 2.
Generalised load, F

10
Elastic load, Fy This maximum or ultimate pressure is frequently referred to as the
Elastic plastic load, Fe0
8 Local buckling burst pressure. For less ductile materials the pipe may burst on rising
M pe M
Te Te pressure/expansion curve before the onset of ballooning. These pipes
6

pi
have not the ductility and fracture toughness normally required for
4
offshore piping, risers and pipelines.
Rupture
Rupture

2
Ductility limit
Pressure plastic capacities
0
Figure 3 illustrates a characteristic pressure vs. hoop strain at pipe ID
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
relationship. Theoretical formulas have been developed to predict
Displacement
elastic (initial yield) pressure, limit pressure which causes yield
through wall pressure, and plastic (ultimate or rupture) pressure, see
Figure 1: Generalised force versus displacement relationship. Table 1 and Table 2.
Fp is the only "true" (or close to) limit state or failure load, while the Theoretically, three end conditions are relevant for a pipe subjected
three others are approximate capacities of the actual failure load. to internal pressure: closed ends, open ends, and zero axial strain or
Ultimate load or failure may occur before Fp due to local buckling, see restrained ends. This paper, however, is mainly concerned with the two
the dashed lines a, b and c in Figure 1. The term generalised load in first cases, which are probably of most practical value; see Figure 4
Figure 1 refers to net internal pressure, effective axial force and and Figure 5. Plain strain (zero axial strain) closed ends, and restrained
bending moment or any combination of these loads. Annex A provides ends give identical limit and plastic pressure capacities as the axial
the derivation of the limit state equations for the four limit states strain is zero for all these conditions in the fully plastic condition (no
above. volume change allowed).
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between load and displacement
of a pipe loaded into the plastic range. At small loads, the pipe behaves
elastically and the stress at any point and the displacement varies
linearly with the load. When the load exceeds the level of first yield,
i.e. Fy, plastic deformation of the material will begin. A further
increase in load towards Fe0 produces through thickness yielding.
As the load increases towards the limit load F0, cross-section
yielding is developed, i.e. generation of a plastic hinge. Plastic hinge is
an idealised concept used in limit analysis. A plastic hinge is formed at
the point where the moment, effective axial force and pressure lie on
the yield interaction surface, see Figure 9. For normal strain hardening
material, only small cross section deformations occur up to this load.
For loads between F0 and Fp, the resistance will increase due to
strain hardening. Pipes cross section subject to combined loading may
exhibit geometrical weakening e.g. ovalisation and wall thinning due to
bending or geometric strengthening e.g. increase in diameter due to net
internal pressure. Geometric strengthening may also occur for
structural configurations, e.g. bending of an axially restrained beam.
Beyond Fp the pipe fails by exceeding the ductility limit, i.e. rupture. In
this case, Fp is equal to the ultimate or maximum load. Figure 2: Typical ductile burst.
Sufficient ductility to attain limit and plastic loads are normally
achieved by setting requirements to maximum yield stress to ultimate
stress, minimum strain at failure and minimum impact energy at test
temperature. The term ductility limit in Figure 1 refers to physical
tearing capacity of the material and may be measured by strain limits.
This will be influenced by the actual material, cracks, welds, residual
stresses, stress or strain concentrations etc. Geometric notches are
introduced in pipes when they are welded together, but overmatch weld
material generally shields the defect regions.

INTERNAL PRESSURE CAPACITY

Burst failure characteristics

When subjected to increasing internal pressure, the pipe cross
section expands (hoop strains) and the wall thickness decreases (radial
strains). Yielding starts at the inside diameter and gradually extends
through the wall. The pipe expands uniformly along its length. At a

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 2 of 10

 1.2
Table 1: Equations for internal pressure limit states – open ends
Plastic
Limit state Pressure capacity
1.0
Limit
D2 − d 2
Internal pressure, p i/p0,c

Elastic
0.8 Elastic p y,o = σ y
3D 4 + d 4
0.6
2
æT ö
0.4
Limit p0,o = p0, c ⋅ 1 − çç e ÷÷
è T0 ø
0.2
2
æT ö
Plastic p p,o = p p,c ⋅ 1 − ç e ÷
0.0
ç Tp ÷
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 è ø
Hoop strain ID, e/e0.005

Table 2: Equations for internal pressure limit states – closed ends

Figure 3: Typical pressure versus hoop strain for closed end pipe.
The pressure capacity predicting given by the equations in Table 1 Limit state Pressure capacity
and Table 2 are illustrated in Figure 6. For internal pressure, the open 1 D2 − d 2
pipe with the elastic limit state yields first. The plastic pressure is for Elastic p y,c = σy
L555 ISO 3183-3 (API 5L X80) material. An iterative solver in a 3 D2
spreadsheet may be used to find the limit and the plastic pressure
4 t
capacities for open-ended pipe. The elastic limit state load carrying Limit p0, c = σy
capacity is much lower than the limit and plastic pressure, both for an 3 D−t
open ended and an closed ended pipe, especially for thick-walled pipes.
4 σ y + σu t
Note that the closed elastic and closed limit pressure capacities Plastic p p,c = ⋅ ⋅
asymptotically approach the same value for large D/t ratios. 3 2.075 D − t
Furthermore, the open elastic and open limit pressure capacities are
equal in case of large D/t ratios.
In case of closed end pipes with D/t=5 and 15, the plastic reserve to
the limit pressure, i.e. the possibility of pressure increase in excess of π
the elastic limit state is 56 % and 15 % respectively, see Figure 6. The σ z,w = 0 Te = − pi d 2
plastic pressure is 2.5 % higher than the limit pressure for L555 ISO 4
3183 (API 5L X80) material grade for closed pipes. It is further seen
π
that applying elastic limit state as a failure mode gives a safety margin =− pi d 2
against burst, which depend on the D/t ratio for ductile materials. The 4 pi
plastic pressure predict rather accurately experimental burst pressure,
see Kirkemo and Holden (2001). Te Te

Figure 4: Pipe with open ends

pi ⋅ d 2
σ z,w =
D2 − d 2

pi
Te= 0 Te= 0

Figure 5: Pipe with closed (capped) ends

The symbols in Table 1 and Table 2 are as follows:

D is pipe outside diameter
d is pipe inside diameter, d = D − 2 ⋅ t
t is pipe wall thickness
σy is yield engineering stress at total elongation of 0.5 %

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 3 of 10

σu is ultimate tensile engineering stress dashed lines in Figure 1. Experiments performed of typical pipeline
materials (X52-X65) indicate that the limit or plastic load is reached
before local buckling starts for D/t ratio in the range 30 to 40.
1.1
Su/Sy = 1.13 A pipe ovalises when subjected to bending. Ovalisation tends to
Plastic - closed decrease the moment capacity. Ovalisation is caused by the curvature
1.0
Limit - closed
in bending, which creates components of the axial bending stress that
Internal pressure, P/Po-c

Plastic - open act perpendicular to the neutral axis (pinching forces). These stress
0.9
components creates circumferential bending stresses, i.e. a biaxial
Limit - open
stress condition in the pipe wall. The perpendicular stress becomes
Elastic - closed greater as the bending radius grows smaller. When the circumferential
0.8 bending stress in combination with the axial bending stress exceeds
Elastic - open yielding, the rate of ovalisation increases dramatically. Depending on
0.7 the cross section slenderness, gradual ovalisation occurs or gradual
local buckle(s) forms which control the load decay. The reduction in
the section modulus due to flattening is typically 1 or 2 % at the
0.6
ultimate moment.
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Diamter to thickness ratio, D/t

1.2
Figure 6: Internal pressure capacities
Mp
1.0 Local buckling
Effective axial forces reduce the internal pressure capacity as seen M0

Bending moment, M/M 0

from the equations in Table 1. For a capped end pipe, the effective
0.8
axial force Te equals 0, as illustrated in Figure 5. Me0
My
Capped end pipes may withstand substantially higher limit and 0.6 Rupture
plastic pressures as their length decreases. Long-pipe equations for
limit and plastic pressure which are derived here provide a 0.4

conservative estimate when the pipe length L ≤ 5 Rm ⋅ t , where Rm is

0.2
the mean radius of the pipe and t is the wall thickness, see Kalnins and
Upike (2000). 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Outer fibre bending strain, e/e0.005
AXIAL FORCE CAPACITY
When the axial tensile force is increased, the pipe cross section will
Figure 7: Bending moment versus bending strain in outer fibre.
narrow down and the pipe wall thickness decrease until tension-tearing
rupture of the cross section occurs. Table 3 gives the axial force
capacity equations given the limit state. The pipe cross section area Ac Table 4: Bending moment capacity equations

is Ac = (π 4 ) ⋅ D 2 − d 2 . ( ) Limit state Bending moment capacity

Elastic M y = σ y ⋅W
Table 3: Axial force capacity equations
π
Limit state Axial force capacity Elastic plastic M e0 = σ y ⋅ ⋅Z
4
Elastic
T0 = σ y ⋅ Ac Limit M0 = σ y ⋅ Z
Elastic plastic
Limit æ σ ö
Plastic M p = ç 0.7 + 0.3 ⋅ u ÷ ⋅σ y ⋅ Z
æ ö ç σ ÷
σ è y ø
Plastic Tp = ç 0.6 + 0.4 ⋅ u ÷ ⋅ σ y ⋅ Ac
ç σ ÷
è y ø
The bending moment capacity of pipes is obtained by the equations
given in Table 4 with the following symbols:
The ultimate load bearing capacity of a pipe section under axial load,
evaluated in accordance with the equations in Table 3 is valid for Z is plastic section modulus, Z = (1 6 ) ⋅ D 3 − d 3( )
tension. For grade L555 (X80) material, the plastic tension capacity is W is elastic section modulus, W = π 32 ⋅ D 4 − d 4 D ( )
1.05 times the limit tension capacity.

BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY The ultimate limit state occurs either due to a maximum moment
reached because of the combined effects of ovalisation and strain
Bending moment failure characteristics hardening, or due to local buckling on the compression side, see the
dashed lines in Figure 1. The plastic deformation at the limit load is
Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between bending moment and small for thick walled pipes, causing little ovalisation or change in
bending strain in a pipe bent into the plastic range. Initiation of local cross section shape and thickness. Limit load and plastic limit states
buckling (wrinkling) may occur before the plastic load is reached, see without any effects of local buckling and ovalisation may evaluate

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 4 of 10

ductile sections and compact sections (low D/t ratios or cross section Table 5: Net internal pressure, effective axial force and bending
slenderness). This is the basic assumption for the capacity equations moment interaction equations
given in Table 4.
Limit
From Figure 8 it is seen that elastic based moment resistance under- Combined loading capacity
state
estimates the limit moment. The reserve between elastic and limit
bending resistance depends on the D/t ratio. For a D/t=15 the reserve is 2 2
æ pi − po ö æ Te M æ d ö ö÷
36 % from start yielding to limit resistance. The limit bending capacity ç ÷ +ç + ç ÷ =1 at pipe ID
is 27 % higher than the elastic plastic moment capacity. The plastic ç p y , c ÷ ç T0 My è Dø ÷
è ø è ø
capacity is 3.7 % higher than the limit load capacity for L555 (X80) Elastic
material. 2 2
æ p − p æ d ö2 ö æ T M ö÷
ç i o
ç ÷ ÷ +ç e + = 1 at pipe OD
ç p y , c è D ø ÷ ç T0 My ÷
è ø è ø
1.1 Su/Sy = 1.13
2 2
Plastic Elastic æ pi − po ö æ Te 4 M ö÷
ç ÷ +ç + =1
1.0 plastic ç p0,c ÷ ç T0 π M 0 ÷
Limit è ø è ø
Bending moment, M/M 0

0.9 2 2 2
æ Te ö æ p − po ö æ ö
÷ + ç pi − po
M
Limit ç ÷ +
çT ÷ 1− ç i ÷ =1
M0 ç p0 , c ÷ ç p 0, c ÷
Elastic plastic è 0ø è ø è ø
0.8

2 2 2
æ Te ö æ p − po ö æ ö
÷ + ç pi − po
M
0.7 Plastic ç ÷ + 1− ç i ÷ =1
Elastic
ç Tp ÷ M ç p p,c ÷ ç p p,c ÷
è ø p è ø è ø
0.6
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Diameter to thickness ratio, D/t

Yield surface envelope - cross section limit load

Figure 8: Bending moment capacities as function of D/t ratio.

1.00
COMBINED LOADING CAPACITY
0.90
Capacity equations for combined loading are given in Table 5. See 0.80
Appendix A for the derivation of the equations. It may be noted that
0.70
the combined limit state equations include the single load limit state
0.60
equations discussed above. This can be seen by inserting
3 ⋅ σ y ⋅ t (D − t ) and Te = σ y ⋅ Ac , M = 0 ; and when
M/M0 0.50

pi − po = 4 0.40

p i − p o = 0 and Te = 0 , M = M 0 in the limit load limit state equation. 0.30

0.20
By introducing cross-section forces instead of individual stress 0.10
0.75
0.40

components, the expressions become much simpler. The cross section 0.00
0.05
(Pi-Po)/P0,c
-0.30
limit load equation or yield surface envelope is shown in Figure 9.
-1.00
-0.85
-0.70

-0.65
-0.55

-0.40

-0.25

-0.10

0.05

0.20

0.35

-1.00
0.50

0.65
Figure 10 compares the moment vs. effective axial force interaction 0.80

0.95
Te/T0

capacities for zero pressure. For an effective axial force equal to

0.3 ⋅ Te T0 , the elastic and elastic plastic moment capacity is 73 % and
62 % lower than the limit moment capacity, respectively. The plastic
moment capacity is 6 % higher than the limit moment capacity.
The limit state equation for combined pressure and effective axial
force with zero bending is illustrated in Figure 11. The elastic plastic
and limit capacity equals for this case. For an effective axial force
equal to 0.3 ⋅ Te T0 , the elastic is 15 % lower than the limit pressure
capacity. The plastic moment capacity is 3 % higher than the limit
pressure capacity.
The capacities for combined net internal pressure and bending
moment with zero effective axial force is shown in Figure 12. For an
internal pressure equal to 0.6 ⋅ pi p0 ,c the elastic and elastic plastic
moment capacity is 69 % and 27 % lower than the limit moment
capacity, respectively. The plastic moment capacity is 8 % higher than
the limit moment capacity.
Figure 9: Yield surface envelope for cross section yield equation
As seen from Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12, the use of elastic
and elastic plastic based limit states equations predicts much lower
capacities than plastic and limit load based capacities, especially for
moment loading. The conservatism depends on the D/t ratio and
reduces for higher D/t ratios.
Failure mode or limit state design implies that each failure mode is
designed for explicitly and not taken into account, indirectly, by other
failure modes. When using limit state design methods, it is advisable to
perform accurate calculations and to use explicit safety factors to
provide the necessary safety margin. The inherent structural safety
level in the elastic and elastic plastic limit state equation is very
important to consider when selecting limit state equations in codes.

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 5 of 10

 1.2
resulting stresses such as hoop, radial and axial stress. The member
D/t = 15 load formulation provides designers the information regarding the
Su/Sy = 1.13
1.0
reserves against the cross section ultimate or limit load capacity.
Plastic
The plastic and limit load design equations provide consistent levels
Bending moment, M/M 0

0.8 Elastic of safety against failure and gives the designer a clear picture of the
plastic load carrying limits of ductile pipes. Compared to traditional elastic
Limit
0.6 based design equations, the proposed design equations provides a cost
Elastic
effective and reliable design in addition to providing a uniform factor
0.4 of safety independent of pipe size, wall thickness and material grade.

0.2
REFERENCES
0.0 API Spec. 5L (2000), Specification of line pipe.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Effective axial tension, Te/T0
API Spec. 5CT (1998), Specification for casing and tubing.
Hauch, S. and Bai, Y. (1999), Bending moment capacity of pipes,
Figure 10: Bending moment vs. effective axial force interaction curves. ISOPE.
ISO 3183-3 (1999), Petroleum and natural gas industries – Steel pipes
for pipelines – Technical delivery conditions – Part 3.
1.2 ISO 10400/WDc (2000), Petroleum and natural gas industries –
D/t = 15 Formulas and templates for establishing casing, tubing, drill pipe and
Su/Sy = 1.13 line pipe properties – Bulletin.
1.0
Plastic ISO 11960 (1996), Petroleum and natural gas industries – Steel pipes
Internal pressure, P i/P0-c

0.8 for use as casing and tubing for wells.

Elastic Elastic plastic
Limit Kalnins, A. and Updike, D.P. (2000), Limit pressure of cylindrical and
0.6 sherical shells, ASME Bound Volume of PVP Conference in Seattle,
July 23-27.
0.4 Kirkemo, F. and Holden, H. (2001), Burst and gross plastic
deformation limit state equations for pipes: Part 2 – Application.
0.2
Mohareb, M. and Murray, D.W. (1999), “Mobilization of fully plastic
moment capacity for pressurized pipe”, Journal of Offshore
0.0 Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Transactions to ASME, Vol.121,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
November 1999, pp. 237-241.
Effective axial tension, Te/T0
Sparks, C.P. (1980), “Mechanical behaviour of marine risers mode of
influence of principal parameters’, Journal of Energy Resources
Figure 11: Pressure vs. effective axial tension interaction curves. Technology, Vol.102, December 1980, pp.-214-222.

1.2
Vitali, L., Bruschi, R., Mørk, K.J., Levold, E. and Verley, R. (1999),
D/t = 15 Hotpipe projcet: Capacity of pipes subjected to internal pressure,
Su/Sy = 1.13
axial force and bending moment, ISOPE.
1.0 Plastic
Limit deWinter, P.E. et.al. (1985), Collapse behaviour of submarine
Bending moment, M/M 0

pipelines, Section 7 of "Shell Structures Stability and Strength",

0.8 Elastic plastic
Elsevier Applied Science.
0.6 Elastic - OD
APPENDIX A. LIMIT STATE EQUATIONS FOR STRAIGHT
PIPES
0.4
Elastic - ID Introduction
0.2
Plasticity based limit state equations for long pipes of are derived in
this Appendix. The equations are valid for pipes of any wall thickness
0.0
subjected to internal pressure, external pressure, effective axial force
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
and bending moment. The following limit states are considered:
Internal pressure, Pi/P0-c
1. Elastic load - onset of yielding within the pipe body;
Figure 12: Bending moment vs. internal pressure interaction curves.
2. Wall thickness limit load – yielding (ideal plastic) through pipe
wall;
CONCLUSIONS
3. Cross-section limit load – limit load for pipe cross section.
Simple equations are derived for burst and gross (excessive) plastic
4. Cross section plastic load – yielding through pipe cross section
deformations failure modes. The proposed formulation provides a
including material strain hardening and no geometry effects.
convenient term for design purposes. The resulting force formulations,
such as pressure, axial loads and bending moments, provide more A long straight pipe is idealised as a long cylindrical shell with exact
informative values for the designers in the design process then the circular cross section and with a constant wall thickness. The material

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 6 of 10

is idealised as being homogeneous and isotropic. There are no "flaws"
τ=
( pi − po )Ai Ao = ( pi − po )d 2 D 2 1
(A.9)
in the pipe, or more precisely (since all materials contain flaws at some
level of observations) the flaws in the material are essentially
( Ao − Ai )Ar D2 − d 2 4r 2
represented by the material tensile tests to determine the yield and
where
ultimate tensile stress. The general assumptions for the first three
proposed limit state equations are as follows: von Mises yield criterion, σ z ,e is effective axial stress
( )
no strain hardening and linear geometry and small strains. Linear
geometry and small strain imply that effects from diameter change, Ac is area of pipe cross section, Ac = (π 4 ) D 2 − d 2
is area of internal pipe cross section, Ai = (π 4)d 2
thickness change, pipe ovalisation or potential local buckling
Ai
(wrinkling) are not accounted for.
Ao is area of external pipe cross section, Ao = (π 4)D 2
Elastic limit state
Ar is area of pipe cross section to actual position r , Ar = πr 2
Given a pipe exposed to internal and external pressure, the radial and
hoop or circumferential stresses in the pipe wall are given by: σp is the axial stress for a unrestrained capped end pipe, "end
effect stress" or pressure induced axial stress
pi d 2 − p o D 2 ( pi − po )d 2 D 2 1 τ is a pressure induced "shear stress"
σr = − (A.1)
D2 − d 2 D2 − d 2 4r 2
Multiplying Eq. (A.7) by the pipe cross section area, the effective

σh =
pi d − p o D
2 2
+
( pi − po )d 2
D 2
1
(A.2)
axial force in the pipe becomes, see Sparks (1980),

D2 − d 2 D2 − d 2 4r 2
Te = Tw −
π
4
(
pi d 2 − po Do2 ) (A.10)
where
pi is internal pressure where Te is the effective axial force, i.e. the true axial force adjusted
for the contribution from internal and external pressure.
po is external pressure
In the case of pressure only and a pipe with closed ends, the effective
is pipe outside diameter
D axial stress or force becomes equal to zero, i.e. σ z , w = σ p . Initial
d is pipe inside diameter, d = D − 2 ⋅ t yielding is a special case of Eq. (A.6), and the pressure causing start of
r is radial coordinate, d 2 ≤ r ≤ D 2 yielding at inside diameter becomes

The hoop and radial stresses and strains varies on the cross section, σ y D2 − d 2
while axial strains and stresses are constant on the entire cross section p y ,c = 2
(A.11)
3 D
if no bending stress is present.
A true axial force Tw gives rise to a uniform true axial stress across The axial stress due to pure bending is given by
the cross section Mr
σb = ± (A.12)
T I
σ z,w = w (A.3)
Ac where I is the is moment of inertia of the pipe cross section and M is
the bending moment. The true (total) pipe wall axial stress when
Given the internal and external pressure and axial stress, the subjected to pressure, effective axial force and bending moment is
equivalent stress is defined as
σ z ,w = σ p + σ z ,e + σ b (A.13)
σ eq = σ h2 + σ r2 + σ z2 − σ hσ r − σ rσ z − σ zσ h (A.4)
Substituting Eqs. (A.13), (A.12) and (A.10) into Eq. (A.7) and using
The onset of yielding is defined as the yield criterion Eq. (A.6), the initial yield condition occurs when
2
σ eq = σ y
2
(A.5) æ pi − po ö æ Te M æ d ö ö÷
ç ÷ +ç + ç ÷ =1 at pipe ID (A.14)
ç p y ,c ÷ ç T0 My è Dø ÷
Substituting Eqs. (A.1) and (A.2) into (A.4), and using the yield è ø è ø
criterion (A.5),
2 2
æ p − p æ d ö2 ö æ T M ö÷
σ y2 = σ z2,e + 3τ 2 (A.6) ç i o
ç ÷ ÷ +ç e + =1 at pipe OD (A.15)
ç p y ,c è D ø ÷ ç T0 My ÷
è ø è ø
where
where T0 and M y are found in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.
σ z ,e = σ z , w − σ p (A.7)
Consider two pipes subjected to internal pressure only. One pipe is
with closed ends, while the other is with open ends (no axial stress).
pi Ai − po Ao pi d 2 − po D 2 The pipe with closed ends is subjected to a lower von Mises equivalent
σp = = (A.8)
Ac D2 − d 2 stress than the pipe without "end effects" and it resists a higher

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 7 of 10

pressure. Note that the effective tension in an open pipe is not zero. It 2
æ pi − po ö æ Te
2
4 M ö÷
(
is equal to − π 4 pi d 2 − po D 2 . ) ç
ç p
÷ +ç
÷ çT
+
π M 0 ÷ø
=1 (A.25)
è 0 ,c ø è 0
Wall thickness limit load
where T0 and M 0 are given in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.
The membrane (average) hoop and radial stress components across
the pipe wall thickness becomes Cross section limit load

1
D2
( p d + po D ) = σ − τ
σ r (r )dr = − i
For a pipe cross section, the membrane hoop and radial stress is
σ rm = ò
td2 D+d
p m (A.16) uniform around the pipe wall. The axial stress, which is required to
cause first yield at the mean diameter in compression, is different than
that required causing first yield at mean diameter in tension. As
D 2 curvature is increased beyond first yield at mean diameter, the
p d − po D
σ h (r )dr = i
1
t dò2
σ hm = = σ p +τm (A.17) plasticity penetrates from each side of the cross section until the fully
D−d plastic stress distribution illustrated in Figure A.1 is achieved. The
magnitude of the maximum membrane axial tension stress σ z ,t and
where
compressive stress σ z ,c a pressurised pipe subjected to effective axial

τm =
( pi − po )dD = ( p − po )
D − t æç æ t ö ÷
1− ç
2ö force and bending moment can withstand depends on the the
÷ (A.18) magnitude of the hoop and the radial stress to which it is subjected.
4t ç è D − t ø ÷
i
D −d 2 2
è ø According to von Mises yield criterion these stresses are given by

D −t σ z ,t = σ p + σ 2y − 3τ m2 (A.26)
τ m ≈ ( pi − po ) (A.19)
4t

The membrane (average) axial stress in the pipe wall due to a σ z , c = σ p − σ y2 − 3τ m2 (A.27)
bending moment (linear stress distribution across the pipe wall) is
equal to the pipe wall bending stress in the pipe mid wall where σ p and τ m is given by Eq. (A.8) and Eq. (A.19),
M (D + d ) respectively. Figure A.1 illustrates the stress distribution when the fully
σ bm = ± (A.20) plastic stress distribution or plastic hinge is achieved.
4I

The true (total) membrane axial stress the becomes

Te Te
σ zm = σ p + σ z ,em + σ bm (A.21) ppi
M po M
The yielding through the wall thickness occurs when the von Mises
equivalent membrane stress equals the yield stress σ z,c
σ y2 = σ z2,em + 3τ m
2
(A.22) Ac t

For pressure only and capped end condition, i.e. Te = 0 , the pressure yc
required to develop through the thickness yield becomes:

γ
4 t
p0,c = σy (A.23) yt
3 D−t

The "exact" von Mises limit pressure for a sufficiently long pipe on At
any thickness, see plasticity textbooks, is given by

2 æDö Dm σ z ,t
p0 = σ y lnç ÷ (A.24)
3 èdø

For D/t > 10, the limit pressure predicted by Eq. (A.23) becomes
identical to Eq. (A.24). The difference is less than 1 % for D/t ratio
equal to 7 and less than 2 % for D/t equal to 5 and always on the
conservative side. Hence, Eq. (A.23) can be applied with sufficient
accuracy for pipes with D/t > 5.
By inserting resulting cross section forces into the yield criterion,
through pipe wall yielding condition occur when
Figure A.1 — Pipe cross section with idealised stress distribution
for plastified cross section.
In the case where the entire cross section has reached the limit stress
in tension and compression, the true wall tension Tw is given by, see
Figure A.1,

Tw = At ⋅ σ z ,t + Ac ⋅ σ z ,c (A.28)

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 8 of 10

where Ac = (π − γ )Dm ⋅ t is the area of the cross section in The Ramberg and Osgood power-law stress-strain curve are applied
compression, At = γ ⋅ Dm ⋅ t is the area of the cross section in tension, to represent the uni-axial tension material test. The formulae is given
by
γ is the plastic neutral axis and Dm is the average pipe wall diameter.
n
The plastic neutral axis is defined as the axis at which the axial pipe σ α ⋅σ y æσ
ç
ö
÷
ε= + (A.33)
wall stresses changes from tensile to compressive, and the location of E E çσ y ÷
the neutral axis then becomes è ø
where
π ⋅ Dm tσ z ,c −T W ε is total engineering strain
γ=
(
D m t σ z , c − σ z ,t ) (A.29)
σ is total engineering stress
E is Young's modulus
The applied bending moment M are α is Ramberg-Osgood constant
σy is engineering yield stress at a total elongation of 0.5 %
M = Atσ z ,t yt − Acσ z ,c yc (A.30) n is a hardening index used to obtain the curve fit and
characterising the degree of hardening of the curve
where yt = (Dm 2 ) ⋅ sin γ γ is the distance between the centroid of the The parameters in the Ramberg and Osgood relation are expressed by:
tension area of the pipe cross section and the pipe cross section centre,
yc = (Dm 2 ) ⋅ sin (π − γ ) (π − γ ) is the distance between the centroid of E ⋅ ε 0. 5
α= −1 (A.34)
the compression area of the pipe cross section and the pipe cross σy
section centre.
After appropriate substitutions have been made to Eq. (A.30), the æ E ⋅ εu ö æ E ⋅ ε 0.5 ö
logçç − 1÷÷ − logç − 1÷
interaction equation for ideal plastic capacity of the pipe cross section ç σy ÷
è σu ø è ø
due to pressure, effective axial force and bending moment can be n= (A.35)
expressed as follows æ σu ö
logç ÷
çσy ÷
é ù è ø
ê π Te ú
æM ö æ p − po ö
2
ê ú For burst, the failure is pipe rupture (true failure). Only strain
2 T0
1 + çç ÷ m 1− ç i
÷
÷ cos ê ú =1 (A.31) hardening is considered, while
M ç p ÷ ê ú
è 0ø
2
è 0 ,c ø ê 1 − æç pi − po ö÷ ú Burst failure is assumed to occur at the flow stress for pressure
ê ç p ÷ ú instability found by solving Eq.(A.33) for the tensile instability point,.
ë è 0 ,c ø û The flow stress for pressure instability can be computed using the
following equation:
The range of variables for which Eq. (A.31) is valid is
− 1 ≤ (( pi − po ) p0,c ) ≤ 1 , −1 ≤ M M 0 ≤ 1 and −1 ≤ Te T0 ≤ 1 . Similar æ 1
ö
ç æ 1 ön ÷
equations have been derived for thin walled pipes where the effect ç ÷
σ ç 0.002 ⋅ n ø ÷
from radial stress is neglected, see deWinter et.al. (1985), Hauch and σ fl ,n = y ⋅ ç1 + è ÷ (A.36)
Bai (1999), Mohareb and Murray (1999). 2 ç æ1ö ÷
çç expç ÷ ÷÷
The cross section limit load expression, Eq. (A.31) can be ènø
è ø
approximated by a more convenient design format as follows
The strain at ultimate tensile strain ε u may be determined by, ISO
2 2 2
æ Te ö M æ pi − po ö æ pi − po ö 10400/WDc (2000),
ç ÷ + ç ÷ +ç ÷ =1
ç T ÷ M 1− ç p ÷ ç p ÷
(A.32)
è 0ø 0 è 0 ,c ø è 0 ,c ø ε u = 0.17 − 0.000128 ⋅ σ y (A.37)

The % difference in moment capacity between Eq. (A.31) and Eq.
(A.32) is in the range of 2-5 % for Te/T0 in the range of 0-0.5, which
are the most important range of application.
Cross section plastic load
The flow stress, σ f , can be thought of as the effective yield stress
of a work hardening material. The use of the flow stress concept
permits the real material to be treated as if it were an elastic plastic
material which can be characterised by a single parameter. The flow
stress can be thought as the effective yield strength in limit load Eq.
(A.32). The flow stress can then be used as the stress level in the
material that controls the resistance of a pipe to failure by gross
(excessive) plastic deformation. Note that non-linear geometry effects
like diameter increase, local thinning, ovalisation and local buckling
effects are neglected here.
The following simplified relation may be used to calculate the flow
stress or plastic stress for burst pressure:
σ y +σu
σ p, p = (A.38)
2.075
Eq. (A.38) fits within 0.5 % the flow stresses predicted by (A.36) for
all the materials given in ISO 3183 (API 5L) pipeline materials and
ISO 11960 (API 5CT) tubing and casing materials. Stress-strain
characteristics of L555 (X80) material are illustrated in Figure A.4.
The pressure flow stress corresponds to approximately 1 % total strain
in Figure A.2.

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 9 of 10

 Ramberg Osgood Elastic-ideal plastic
Pressure plastic stress Tenison plastic stress
700

600
Engineering stress, MPa

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Total strain, %

Figure A.2 Engineering stress-strain curve for ISO 3183 L555 (API 5L
X80) with σ y = 555 MPa and σ u = 625 MPa .

By replacing the yield stress in Eq. (A.23) by the pressure flow stress,
the plastic pressure capacity for a closed end pipe becomes:

4 σ y + σu t
p p,c = ⋅ ⋅ (A.39)
3 2.075 D − t

Failure due to gross plastic deformation due to effective axial force

and bending moment is assumed to occur at 2 % total surface strain
(linear membrane strain). The corresponding flow stress for axial force
σ p,T using the Ramberg-Osgood equation is approximated as

æ σ ö
σ p ,T = ç 0.6 + 0.4 u ÷ ⋅ σ y (A.40)
ç σ y ÷ø
è

The plastic tension and moment capacities then becomes:

æ σ ö
T p = ç 0.6 + 0.4 ⋅ u ÷ ⋅ σ y ⋅ Ac (A.41)
ç σ y ÷ø
è

æ σ ö
ç
( σ y ÷ø
)
M p = σ y ⋅ Z + σ p ,T − σ y ⋅ W ≈ ç 0.7 + 0.3 ⋅ u ÷ ⋅ σ y ⋅ Z (A.42)
è

where Z and W is the plastic and elastic bending section modulus,

respectively. Eqs. (A.38), (A.41) and (A.42) can then be used to
replace the limit capacities in Eq. (A.32), and hence obtain the plastic
capacity equation in Table 5.
The use of the proposed plastic or flow stress utilise the elbow of the
stress-strain curve without including strain hardening effects which
needs very large deformations, i.e. it does increase the risk for brittle
failure significantly for ductile materials. Furthermore, the plastic
design equations apply material properties found on standard material
certificates, i.e. yield tensile stress and ultimate tensile stress.
Based on elastic plastic finite element analysis, for tensile axial force
and bending moment only, Vitali et.al (1999) suggest almost similar
equations as proposed above. Vitali et. al (1999) also included
correction terms for pipe ovalisation/local buckling, which have not
been considered here.

ISOPE-2001-JSC-249A Finn Kirkemo Page 10 of 10