Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2014
June 8-13, 2014, San Francisco, California, USA
HYDROSTATIC COLLAPSE PRESSURE AND RADIAL COLLAPSE FORCE
COMPARISONS FOR ULTRA-DEEPWATER PIPELINES
Marco A. P. Rosas
DNV GL, Surf & Pipelines
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Marcos V. Rodrigues
DNV GL, Surf & Pipelines
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
ABSTRACT
In this paper the behavior and the relationship between
hydrostatic collapse pressure and diametrically opposed radial
compressive force for pipelines were analyzed. This study
presents an introduction of a research work aimed to assess the
pipeline collapse pressure based on the radial collapse force.
Initially the hydrostatic collapse pressure is analyzed, for
pipes with different diameter to wall thickness ratio (D/t) and
ovalities, using classical assessment (DNV method) and
numerical models (FE). Then, the compressive radial force is
also analyzed using numerical models validated by a small-
scale ring specimen test. After that, the relationship between
hydrostatic collapse pressure and compressive radial force is
discussed. These first results show that the radial force is a
quadratic function of the collapse pressure.
INTRODUCTION
Large diameter and thick wall linepipes are increasingly
being used in offshore oil and gas exploration. That brings a
technological bottleneck regarding to the requirements to
perform hydrostatic tests to assess the collapse external
pressure in such pipes. Tests of large diameter and thick wall
linepipes requires specialized hyperbaric chambers, which are
very few in the world, and have a substantial cost related to the
specimens construction and transportation. Those points make
hydrostatic tests expensive and also results in schedule issues
since there are not many high capacity chambers available (the
construction of such chambers are very expensive and it would
be virtually impossible to build as many chambers as necessary
to satisfy an increasing demand).
This paper presents an introduction to a study aimed to
develop an alternative test procedure for assessing the
OMAE2014-24081
Ana Paula F. Souza
DNV GL, Surf & Pipelines
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Danilo Machado L. da Silva
DNV GL, Surf & Pipelines
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
hydrostatic collapse pressure of pipelines based on the
compressive radial force measured in thin rings. The proposed
procedure intents to make it possible to assess the hydrostatic
collapse for pipelines with any diameter to wall thickness ratio
(D/t) and ovality, reducing the necessity of a hyperbaric
chamber. Therefore, it could provide several advantages: (1)
much less expensive than conventional tests; (2) no limitations
regarding to the pipeline wall thickness and diameter; (3)
simple and fast to be performed and (4) can be performed in
many places since there is no need for especial equipment.
The study presented here starts by assessing the hydrostatic
collapse pressure using the classical assessment, as presented in
DNV-OS-F101 [1], as well as numerical models (FE) for pipes
with different diameter to wall thickness ratio (D/t) and
ovalities. Then, such results are compared to results for
compressive radial force based on numerical models and a
small-scale ring test and the relationship between them is
discussed.
COLLAPSE PRESSURE: CLASSICAL ASSESSMENT
The DNV method (see DNV-OS-F101 [1]) was used in
order to assess the hydrostatic collapse pressure. This method is
worldwide accepted and it is the most used in offshore pipeline
projects.
2 2
− . −
= . . . . / (1)
where:
1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 3
2. . / used in the numerical analysis in this section. The geometric
= (2) nonlinearity, stress stiffening and large displacements, were
1− 2
considered. The elastic perfectly plastic material model was
2. used for the purpose of comparison with the analytical results.
= . (3)
The material model is shown in Figure 2. The external pressure
was applied in small increments. The arc-length method was
− used to follow the post-buckle behavior.
= (4)

This equation considers the influence of initial

imperfections as the ovality (fo) and the fabrication factor (αfab).
The evaluation of fabrication factor influence is not scope of
this study therefore a αfab=1 was considered. Two ovalities were
analyzed, 1% and 3%. Table 1 presents the material and
geometric data. The collapse pressure calculated using the DNV
method are presented in the Table 2

Table 1 – Geometric and material data

Pipe t (mm) D/t
EP-09 22,2 9,86
EP-11 19,05 11,50 Figure 1 – FE mesh of the pipe EP-11
EP-15 14,27 15,35
EP-19 11,13 19,68 500

EP-25 8,74 25,07 400

External diameter = 219,08 mm
Stress (MPa)

Sy = 450 MPa 300

E = 200 GPa
200
υ = 0,3
100
Table 2 – Collapse pressure using the DNV method
0
Collapse pressure (MPa)
Tube D/t 0 0,01 0,02 0,03
Ovality = 1% Ovality = 3%
Strain (m/m)
EP-09 9,86 86,1 76,5
Figure 2 – Elastic plastic perfectly plastic model
EP-11 11,50 72,6 62,9
EP-15 15,35 51,3 41,5 Results:
EP-19 19,68 35,5 26,9 Figure 3 shows the contour plot of Von Mises stress on the
EP-25 25,07 21,4 16,1 collapse pressure in the pipe EP-11. Figure 4 shows the pipe
behavior when the external pressure is increased

COLLAPSE PRESSURE: NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

Numerical analysis of pipes subjected to external pressure
The external pressure behavior was studied for pipes with
different D/t ratios. It should be noted that this condition, empty
and under external over-pressure, is a condition which all
subsea pipelines are subject to, at some stage of their operating
lives.
Model:
The ANSYS program was used to perform the numerical
analysis. The element used was the PLANE42, this element is
composed by four node and was set up with a plane stress
behavior. Due to the symmetry of the pipe, only one quarter of Figure 3 – Von Mises stress results of the pipe EP-11 on the
the geometry was modeled as shown in Figure 1. An initial collapse pressure. External pressure = 71,9MPa
ovality of 1% was considered. Table 1 shows the geometries

2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 100
D/t=9,86
Model:
D/t=11,50 The numerical models used in this section follow the
90 D/t=15,35
D/t=19,69
procedure shown in previous sections. The element used was
80 D/t=25,07 the PLANE42, one quarter of the geometry was modeled. A
initial ovalization equal to 1% was considered. Table 1 shows
70 the geometries used. The material was elastic perfectly plastic
and the geometric nonlinearity (stress stiffening and large
Pressure (MPa)

60
displacements) were considered. The compressive external
50 force was applied in small increments. Again, the arc-length
method was used to follow the post-buckle behavior.
40

30

20

10

0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4 – Pressure versus displacement curves for the
pipes in the table 1 with ovality of 1%

COLLAPSE PRESSURE: CLASSICAL ASSESSMENT

VS. NUMERICAL RESULTS:
In Table 3, the classical assessment (DNV) and numerical
(FE) results of collapse pressure are compared for pipes with
ovality of 1% as presented in Table 1.

Table 3 – Numerical and analytical comparisons Figure 5 – FE mesh of the pipe EP-11 for the compressive
Collapse pressure (MPa) Error* radial force analysis
Tube D/t
Analytical Numerical (%)
Results:
EP-09 9,86 86,1 87,0 1,0 Figure 6 shows the contour plot of von Mises stress on the
EP-11 11,50 72,6 71,9 0,9 collapse radial force in the pipe EP-11. Figure 7 shows the pipe
EP-15 15,35 51,3 48,5 5,5 behavior when the compressive radial force is increased
EP-19 19,68 35,5 32,0 9,9
EP-25 25,07 21,4 19,1 10,7
(*) Error = |100%.(Numerical - Analytical) / Analytical|

Based on results presented in Table 3 is possible to see

some differences between both methods when the D/t ratio
increase, with a difference of 10,7% for the pipe EP-25.
It is important to point out that differences are found if
plane stress or plane strain behavior is considered in the
numerical analysis. Considering the plane strain behavior the
results obtained were very similar of the numerical results
found in the references [2] and [3]. In this paper the plane stress
is considered because this behavior has more conservative
results. This discrepancy needs to be better analyzed in the
further course of this work.

COMPRESSIVE RADIAL FORCE: NUMERICAL

ANALYSIS
The collapse behavior of pipes subject to diametrically
Figure 6 – Von Mises stress results of the pipe EP-11 on the
opposed radial compressive force was studied for different D/t
collapse radial force. Force=828N.mm
ratios and pipe ovalities.

3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 1.600
D/t=9,86
1.200
D/t=11,50
1.400 D/t=15,35
d/t=19,69
D/t=25,07
1.000
1.200
800
Force (N/mm)

Force (N/mm)
1.000

600
800

600 400
Ovality=1% (D/t=9,86)
400 200 Ovality=3% (D/t=9,86)
Ovality=1% (D/t=15,35)
Ovality=3% (D/t=15,35)
200 0
0 2 4 6 8
0 Displacement (mm)
0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm) Figure 9 – Ovality’s influence in the compressive radial
Total force = 2.(Force).(ring width) force
Figure 7 – Compressive radial force versus displacement for
COMPRESSIVE RADIAL FORCE: EXPERIMENTAL
the pipes in the table 1 with ovality of 1%
APPROACH
Compression radial test were performed in small-scale ring
specimens using a servo-hydraulic machine. One purpose of the
Figure 7 shows that, in some cases, the radial force does
test is validating the numerical analysis made in the previous
not decrease even when the yield stress is reached. Based on
section.
that, the following procedure is proposed: a line parallel to the
One specimen (Figure 10), made of low carbon steel plate,
initial linear part of the force-displacement curve is made
was tested. Uniaxial test was made following the standard
(dashed line in Figure 8), this line start in a value equal to 1,5%
ASTM E8 in order to known the mechanical properties and
De in the displacement axis, and the intersection point with the
obtain the stress-strain material curve. The dimensional
force-displacement curve represents the compressive radial
measuring made in the small-scale specimens are shown in
force to be used.
Table 4.
1.400
Table 4 - Specimen dimensions
1.200
Specimen
1.000
Measuring point (°)
De (mm) t (mm)
Force (N.mm)

800 0 4,60
70,10
600 180 4,60

400
45 4,60
70,20
225 4,50
200
90 4,60
0 70,15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 270 4,50
0,015.De Displacement (mm)
135 4,30
Figure 8 – Procedure to find the radial collapse force 70,10
315 4,75
Ovality’s influence in the compressive radial force: Ring width = 9,1mm
Numerical results showed that the ovality has little
influence in the compressive radial force. The maximum In order to reduce the influence of the thickness variations,
difference in collapse force is 0.9%, as illustrated in Figure 9. It the compressive load was applied in the points located in 0° and
is because the bending moment generated by the line load 180°, in this way, the points with greatest stress are located in
dominates the pipe's displacement response, the extra influence the positions 0°, 90°, 180° and 270°; in these sectors the
from a small ovality is relatively unimportant. thickness is 4,60mm.

4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 In the results comparison shown in Figure 14 is possible to
see some differences between displacements obtained
experimentally and numerically, it need to be better analyzed.
On the other hand, forces obtained presents similar values for
both methods, with a difference around 1,5%

500

400

Stress (MPa)
Figure 10 – Small-scale ring specimen 300

200

100

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3
Strain (m/m)
Figure 13 – True stress-strain multilinear curve used in the
numerical analysis

1600

1400

Figure 11 – Ring specimen being tested in the servo- 1200

hydraulic machine
1000
Force (N)

800
1600
600
1400
400
1200
Experimental
200
Force (N)

1000
Numerical
800 0
600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)
400
Figure 14 –Experimental Test vs the Numerical Analysis
200

0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLAPSE PRESSURE

0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 12 – Force vs Displacement from experimental test
COMPRESSIVE RADIAL FORCE: EXPERIMENTAL
TEST VS. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Numerical analyses were performed in order to compare
the experimental results shown in Figure 12. The numerical
model used in this section follow the procedure shown in
previous sections with some differences. A true stress-strain
multilinear curve material was used and the external diameter,
the thickness ring and the width ring were 70,14mm, 4,55mm
and 9,1mm respectively.
25 AND COMPRESSIVE RADIAL FORCE
An introduction of the relationship between collapse
pressure and compressive radial force is made in this section.
It is important to point out that some equations for assess
the collapse compressive force for rings can be found in
technical literature, including a method called “ring squash
test” – RST for assess the propagating collapse in pipes. These
need to be better analyzed in further course of this work.
In Figure 15, it is possible to see some differences in both
behaviors. In Figure 16 the results comparisons is made
between squared collapse pressure squared and compressive
radial force, in this way, the behavior of both curves is quite
similar. Figure 17 shows that the relation between the squared

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

collapse pressure and the compressive radial force is linear with 8000
R-squared of 0,9996. y = 3,5041x - 589,33
7000 R² = 0,9996
&
! # = [ % ] 6000

5000

(Colapse pressure )2
100
Collapse pressure (ovality=1%) 4000
90 Collapse pressure (ovality=3%) 3600
Compressive radial force 3000
80
3100

Compressive radial force (N/mm)

2000
70
2600
1000
Colapse pressure (MPa)

60

50 2100 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
40 1600 Compressive radial force (N.mm)
Total force = 2.(Force).(ring width)
30
1100 Figure 17 – Collapse pressure squared versus the
20 compressive radial force
600
10
CONCLUSIONS
0 100 In this paper the behavior and the relationship between the
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
D/t
hydrostatic collapse pressure and the diametrically opposed
Total force = 2.(Force).(ring width) radial compressive force for pipelines were analyzed.
The behavior of the hydrostatic collapse pressure was
Figure 15 – Comparison of the collapse pressure and the
analyzed, and the comparison between the classical assessment
compressive radial force
(DNV method) and the numerical models (FE) was done.
8000
The behavior of the compressive radial force was analyzed.
Collapse pressure (ovality=1%) For this, numerical models were developed and a small-scale
7000 Compressive radial force 2180 ring specimen was tested in order to validating the numerical
results.
6000 Finally the relationship between the hydrostatic collapse
pressure and the compressive radial force was studied. These
Compressive radial force (N/mm)

1680
5000
first results show that the radial force is a quadratic function of
Colapse pressure^2

4000
the collapse pressure.
1180 It is important to point out that these are preliminary
3000 results, more detailed analysis will be performed in further
course of this work.
2000
680

1000 NOMENCLATURE
0 180
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 D Nominal outside diameter
D/t Dmax Greatest measured inside or outside diameter
Total force = 2.(Force).(ring width)
Dmin Smallest measured inside or outside diameter
Figure 16 – Comparison of the collapse pressure squared De Pipe external diameter
and the compressive radial force E Young's Modulus
Dmax – Dmin
f0 Ovality
D
fy Yield stress to be used in design
pc Characteristic collapse pressure
pel Elastic collapse pressure
pp Plastic collapse pressure
Sy Yield strength
t Nominal wall thickness of pipe

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 αfab Fabrication factor
ν Poisson’s ratio

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank DNV GL for permission to
publish this paper and to the revisers of this paper for their
comments and suggestion.

REFERENCES

[1] DNV-OS-F101, “Offshore Standard for Submarine

Pipeline Systems”, Det Norske Veritas, October 2013.
[2] Benjamin, A. C. and Cunha, D. J. S., “Assessment of
Hydrostatic Collapse of Submarine Pipelines: The
Classical Approach Revisited”, paper OMAE2012-83833,
31st OMAE, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012.
[3] Bastola, A., “Predicting Hydrostatic Collapse of
Deepwater Pipelines”, MSc Thesis, Cranfield University,
2013
[4] Aamlid, O., Collberg, L., Slater, S., “Collapse Capacity of
UOE Deepwater Linepipe”, paper OMAE2011-49570,
30th OMAE, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 2011.
[5] Kyriakides, S. and Corona, E., “Mechanics of Offshore
Pipelines – Volume 1: Buckling and Collapse”, 1st Edition,
Elsevier B.V., UK, 2007.
[6] Rankine, W. J. M., “A Manual of Applied Mechanics”,
University of Glasgow, article 271, page 289, 1858.
[7] Bryan, G. H. “Application of the Energy Test to the
Collapse of a Long Thin Pipe Under External Pressure”,
Proc. Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 6, pp. 287-
292, 1888.
[8] ANSYS, “ANSYS Software and User Manual, Version
11.0”, ANSYS Inc., 2011.

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME