Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90495

EVALUATION OF ANISOTROPIC PIPE STEEL STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS INFLUENCE ON STRAIN DEMAND

James D. Hart President & Technical Director SSD, Inc. Reno, Nevada, USA Nasir Zulfiqar Senior Project Engineer SSD, Inc. Reno, Nevada, USA

Joe Zhou Pipeline Engineering Manager Alaska Pipeline Project TransCanada Pipeline, Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada ABSTRACT Buried pipelines can be exposed to displacement-controlled environmental loadings (such as landslides, earthquake fault movements, etc.) which impose deformation demands on the pipeline. When analyzing pipelines for these load scenarios, the deformation demands are typically characterized based on the curvature and/or the longitudinal tension and compression strain response of the pipe. The term strain demand is used herein to characterize the calculated longitudinal strain response of a pipeline subject to environmentally-induced deformation demands. The shape of the pipe steel stress-strain relationship can have a significant effect on the pipe strain demands computed using pipeline deformation analyses for displacement-controlled loading conditions. In general, with sufficient levels of imposed deformation demand, a pipe steel stress-strain curve with a relatively abrupt or sharp elastic-toplastic transition will tend to lead to larger strain demands than a stress-strain curve with a relatively rounded elastic-to-plastic transition. Similarly, a stress-strain curve with relatively low strain hardening modulus characteristics will tend to lead to larger strain demands than a stress-strain curve with relatively high strain hardening modulus characteristics. High strength UOE pipe can exhibit significant levels of anisotropy (i.e., the shapes of the stress-strain relationships in the longitudinal tension/compression and hoop tension/compression directions can be significantly different). To the extent that the stress-strain curves in the different directions can have unfavorable shape characteristics, it follows that anisotropy can also play an important role in pipeline strain demand evaluations. This paper summarizes a pipeline industry research project aimed at evaluation of the effects of anisotropy and the shape of pipe steel stress-strain relationships on pipeline strain demand for X80 and X100 UOE pipe. The research included: a review of pipeline industry literature on the subject matter; a discussion of pipe steel plasticity concepts for UOE pipe; characterization of the anisotropy and stress-strain curve shapes for both conventional and high strain pipe steels; development of representative analytical X80 and X100 stress-strain relationships; and evaluation of a large matrix of ground-movement induced pipeline deformation scenarios to evaluate key pipe stress-strain relationship shape and anisotropy parameters. The main conclusion from this work is that pipe steel specifications for high strength UOE pipe for strain-based design applications should be supplemented to consider shape-characterizing parameters such as the plastic complementary energy. INTRODUCTION Pipeline deformation analyses are frequently based on the assumption of isotropic pipe steel stress-strain relationships, usually based on curves developed from tension tests on longitudinally oriented pipe coupons. Isotropic means that the pipe stress-strain curves in the longitudinal tension (LT), hoop tension (HT), longitudinal compression (LC) and hoop compression (HC) directions are all identical. However, the shape of stress-strain curves can be significantly different for pipe tests performed in the LT, HT, LC and HC directions, especially for higher grade UOE pipe. In other words, these materials are anisotropic. Based on previous experiences with UOE pipe test results, it is typically observed that over the strain range from about 0.2% to 0.8% strain (i.e., in the socalled knee region), the stress-strain curves tend to have the following relative strength ranking: HT > LC LT > HC and that the HT curve usually tends to be the sharpest of the four

Copyright 2012 by ASME

curves. These anisotropy features are consistent with kinematic strain hardening in the HT direction due to the hoop expansion process for UOE pipe. While stress-strain testing in the LT and HT directions is fairly common, LC test results are not usually considered. Observations regarding the influence of the relative sharpness and strain hardening characteristics of stressstrain curves on strain demand apply for anisotropic steels, but the behavior is much more complex since the individual curves (e.g., LT, HT and LC) can have different degrees of sharpness and different strain hardening characteristics. This paper describes a PRCI research project aimed at evaluating and characterizing anisotropic pipe steel stress-strain relationships and investigating the influence of anisotropy and stress-strain curve shape on pipe strain demands computed under displacement-controlled loading conditions [1]. The strain demand analyses presented herein were performed using the PIPLIN [2] computer program. OVERVIEW OF 8-PARAMETER MODEL As described in Reference [3], an 8-parameter model can be used to generate PIPLIN input pipe material properties over the strain range of interest for strain demand analysis (i.e., up to strain levels in the range of 2% to 4%). The 8-parameters are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The strain range of interest can be divided into 3 regions, namely a linear elastic region, a curved transition or knee region, and an essentially linear fully plastic region. The model requires that the HT and LT curves have the same elastic modulus and the same plastic strain hardening modulus. However, the shape of the HT and LT curves in the yield transition region can be different, i.e., the curves can have different proportional limits and different degrees of sharpness or roundedness through the transition from elastic to plastic conditions. The strength levels of the curves in the strain hardening region need not be the same. The 8-parameters illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 are described as follows: (1) Estart = Initial Elastic Modulus. Typical values of this parameter are in the range of 28,000 to 30,000 ksi. (2) Eend = Strain Hardening Modulus out to 2% strain. (3) YL = Nominal Yield Stress on LT curve. This is the point where the elastic slope (Estart) and strain hardening slope (Eend) intersect on the backbone (dashed) curve. (4) L = Factor defining the proportional limit stress on LT curve relative to the nominal LT yield stress. (5) L = Factor defining the strain at which the fully plastic state (i.e., the point where the tangent slope becomes equal to Eend on the LT curve is reached). (6) = factor defining the shape of the stress-strain relationship between the proportional limit and the fully plastic state.

(7) H = Factor defining the proportional limit stress on HT curve relative to the nominal HT yield stress. (8) DSY = stress difference between the HT and LT curves at high strains. Usually positive but can be negative. The PIPLIN steel input parameters, which consist of up to 10 stress-strain coordinates and the corresponding axial and hoop direction elliptical yield function shifts, can be developed to closely match a given set of target stress-strain curves. In the typical case when only the LT and HT target curves are available, a 2-root, 8 parameter model fit [3] is utilized, while for cases when the LT, HT and LC target curves are available, a 3-root, 10 parameter model fit can be utilized [4]. Output analytical stress-strain relationships are then computed for the LT, HT and LC directions based on uni-axial loading analyses. The output stress-strain curves provide a close match to each of the corresponding target stress-strain curves based on least-squares goodness of fit measures. Given the 8-parameters (e.g., Estart, Eend, YL, L, L, , H and DSY) from a 2-root fit, the discrete analytical LT and HT curves are generated by developing the LT and HT backbone curves, proportional limits and fully-plastic points with a grid of points across the knee regions based purely on geometric relationships. The result of the generation is a set of LT and HT stress-strain coordinates, (LT, LT) and (HT, HT). The corresponding von Mises yield function amplitude (Fy) and hoop tension shift (Hshift) for each point on the stress-strain curves are computed as:

2 LT 2 LT HT Fy HT LT 2 HT

HT 2 LT 2 Hshift LT 2 HT

REVIEW OF STRESS-STRAIN DATA A key aspect of this project was the assembly and processing of a database of steel stress-strain test results for large diameter ( NPS30), high strength ( X80) UOE pipe. The data included twelve LT-HT stress-strain curve pairs from X80 steel from NPS 30 pipe and nine LT-HT stress-strain pairs from X100 steel from NPS30 and NPS36 pipe. The X80 data included six pairs from conventional X80 pipe and six pairs from Hiper (High Performance) X80 pipe. All of the X80 data were from as-received (not aged) pipe. The X100 data were all from Hiper (High Performance) X100 pipe. Two of the X100 data pairs were from pipe aged at 250oC, the remaining pairs were from as-received pipe. The pipe steel stress-strain data were processed in detail. The data processing included calculations of the following quantities: The LT and HT yield strength at 0.5% strain (Y). The LT and HT Y/SMYS ratios. The LT and HT strength at 2% strain (S2).

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The LT and HT ultimate tensile strength (T). The LT and HT Y/T ratio and Y/S2 ratio. The LT and HT plastic complementary energies at 2% strain. For a given stress-strain curve, the complementary energy is the area that is: bounded on the left by an upward sloping line with a slope equal to the steel elastic modulus; bounded from above by a horizontal line that intersects the upward sloping elastic modulus line and the stress-strain curve at a strain corresponding to a selected plastic offset strain (e.g., =2%); and bounded from below by the stressstrain curve. The plastic complementary energy is zero for an elastic-perfectly plastic stress-strain relationship and increases with the degree of roundedness of the stressstrain curve (see Reference [5] for more information). Various anisotropy measures (YHT/YLT, S2HT/S2LT, etc.)

Conversely, the relatively high levels of plastic complementary energy for the Hiper steels indicate that they are significantly more well-rounded than the conventional steels. The rightmost two sets of bars show that strain aging tends to reduce the complementary energy. In addition to processing of the available stress-strain data as described above, 2-root model fits were developed based on the previously described 8-parameter model. Figure 6 presents a plot of one of the key model parameters Eend for the same steels portrayed in Figures 3 through 5. This plot confirms one trend observed based on the processing results from the raw curve datathat the conventional steels have significantly lower strain hardening moduli (characterized by the parameter Eend) than the Hiper steels. It also shows the expected trend toward reduction in strain hardening moduli associated with strain aging. ANALYSIS OF KEY STRESS-STRAIN PARAMETERS A detailed review of the trends observed in the available stress-strain data, as well as observations regarding the signatures of the model fits to the data, were used as a basis for characterizing the observed anisotropy and variations in the shapes of the stress-strain curves. The result of this synthesis was development of a postulated set of analytical stress-strain relationships including isotropic, moderately anisotropic and highly anisotropic representation of conventional and Hiper X80 and X100 steels. A summary of the bulk of the pipeline deformation analyses cases is beyond the scope of this paper. However, a summary of an investigation of the effect of key stress-strain modeling parameters on the pipe strain demand is presented for a single permanent ground displacement (PGD) scenario considering X80 Hiper steel. A review of the overall strain demand analysis results and the statistics of key steel model fit parameters indicated that the most important model parameters relate to the sharpness of the HT curve (H), the strength of the HT curve relative to the LT curve (DSY), and the strain hardening modulus after the knee region (Eend). By varying each of these parameters over a range of approximately 2 standard deviations centered on the mean value in pipeline deformation analyses wherein all other parameters are held constant, it is possible to develop a sense of the relative strength of the parameters influence on strain demand. For X80 Hiper steels, the statistical properties were as follows: H (dimensionless): Mean = 0.164, STD = 0.070 DSY (ksi): Mean = 1.581, STD = 3.482 Eend (ksi/%): Mean = 4.726, STD = 1.277 H (dimensionless): 0.018, 0.088, 0.158, 0.228, 0.298 DSY (ksi): -4.995, -2.04, 0.9152, 3.870, 6.826 Eend (ksi/%): 7.043, 4.488, 1.933

Figure 3 presents a bar chart of the ratio of the yield strength at 0.5% strain for the LT and HT curves to the pipe SMYS. The first six pairs of bars correspond to conventional X80 steels, the next six pairs correspond to Hiper (highperformance) X80 steels, and the remaining nine pairs correspond to the X100 Hiper steels (the final two pairs correspond to X100 Hiper steel pipe aged at 250oC). For all of the conventional X80 steels, the yield strength in both the LT and HT directions exceeds the SMYS value by at least 10%, indicating a significant degree of over-strength. For the X80 Hiper steels, the HT strength for all samples exceeds SMYS, but the LT strength is on the order of 10% lower than SMYS for five of the six samples and about 5% higher than SMYS for the sixth sample. The seven as-received X100 Hiper steel samples have Y/SMYS ratios that are similar to the X80 Hiper steels. For the aged X100 Hiper steels, the Y/SMYS ratios in the LT direction are elevated up above 1.0. This plot indicates that at the yield strain level of 0.5%, Hiper steel is significantly more anisotropic than conventional steel. It also shows the expected trend toward elevation of yield strength associated with strain aging. Figure 4 presents a bar chart of the ratio of the yield strength at 0.5% strain to the ultimate tensile strength or UTS (i.e., the Y/T ratio) for the LT and HT curves. For all of the conventional X80 steels, the Y/T ratios in the HT direction are above 0.95, indicating a trend toward a relatively low HT strain hardening modulus. The corresponding conventional X80 steel Y/T ratios in the LT direction range from about 0.86 to 0.91. The Y/T ratios for the X80 Hiper and as-received X100 Hiper steels are significantly lower with most of the HT values in the range of 0.84 to 0.91 and LT values in the range from 0.70 to 0.75. For the aged X100 steels, the Y/T ratios in the LT direction are elevated up to about 0.84. Figure 5 presents the plastic complementary energy computed out to 2% strain for the LT and HT curves. The relatively low level of plastic complementary energy for the conventional steels indicates that they are much sharper and closer to elastic-perfectly plastic than the Hiper steels.

The following grid of values was used for analysis:

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Note that the above grid is not perfectly centered on the mean values so that it could be aligned with one of the previously developed steel models (with H = 0.018, DSY = 3.87 and Eend = 7.043ksi/%). This grid results in a total of 75 steel cases (i.e., 5 H values x 5 DSY values x 3 Eend values = 75 cases). For each steel in the grid, the 8-parameter model was used to generate a PIPLIN input steel. For each set of 25 cases with the same value of Eend, the reference isotropic case is the same and is based on the other parameters from the LT curve from the previously developed isotropic X80 Hiper steel. This matrix of steel cases was used in a series of buried pipe deformation analyses considering a 48-inch diameter pipeline with a wall thickness of 0.562 inches crossing a right lateral strike-slip fault at an angle of =87.5o. A pipeline crossing a right lateral, strike-slip fault is illustrated schematically in Figure 7. Although the selected value of =87.5o results in a slightly compressive/shortening component of along-pipe displacement, as the transverse displacements become significant, the compression is offset by cable tension in the pipe resulting in a relatively even balance between the maximum tension and compression strain demand levels. The abruptness of the imposed fault profile was characterized by 100% of the ground movement occurring over a distance of 1 foot. The pipeline is assumed to be buried with a uniform cover depth of 5 feet in a cohesionless sand material with an insitu density of 120 pcf and a soil friction angle of 35o. The pipe is assumed to have a coal tar external coating. Bilinear (elastic-perfectly plastic) pipe-soil springs were developed for these models based on industry standard procedures (e.g., see References [6] and [7]). In each analysis, the pipeline is first pressurized (an internal pressure corresponding to 80% SMYS was considered for each case) and then subjected to the PGD profile, which is imposed through the base of the pipe-soil springs using PIPLINs settlement profile option. The results of these simulations were reviewed using plots of maximum strain vs. amplitude of imposed ground displacement. Figures 8 through 10 present various bar charts developed to characterize the response of these 75 simulations. Note that in these bar charts, the horizontal axis labels provide a shorthand notation with reference to the corresponding values of H (dimensionless), DSY (ksi) and Eend (ksi/%). In each plot, the green, blue and red bars correspond to 48, 72 and 96 inches of imposed fault movement, respectively. Figure 8 presents an overview bar chart of the maximum tension strain demand for all 75 cases where the results have been sorted based on increasing levels of plastic complementary energy for the HT stress-strain curve. As indicated by the horizontal axis labels, lower values of H and Eend lead to lower complementary energy values (the HT complementary energy is independent of DSY). As shown, there is a clear overall trend toward increasing strain demand with decreasing complementary energy.

Figure 9 presents a bar chart of the normalized maximum tension strain (maximum strain relative to the isotropic reference case) for the 25 individual steel cases developed for the five H values and five DSY values with results shown for Eend values of 7.043, 4.488 and 1.933 ksi/% in the top, middle and bottom panels, respectively. As shown by the horizontal axis labels, the five groups of five sets of bars across the plot correspond to DSY values of -4.995, -2.04, 0.9152, 3.870 and 6.826 ksi so that the ramp shown across each of the given five sets of bars illustrates the effect of progressively increasing H over values of 0.018, 0.088, 0.158, 0.228 and 0.298. Figure 10 presents a bar chart of the normalized maximum tension strain (maximum strain relative to the isotropic reference case) for the 25 individual steel cases developed for the five H values and five DSY values with results shown for Eend values of 7.043, 4.488 and 1.933 ksi/% in the top, middle and bottom panels, respectively. As shown by the horizontal axis labels, the five groups of five sets of bars across the plot correspond to H values of 0.018, 0.088, 0.158, 0.228 and 0.298 so that that the ramp shown across each of the given five sets of bars illustrates the effect of progressively increasing DSY over values of -4.995, -2.04, 0.9152, 3.870 and 6.826 ksi. Based on a review of the results developed for H, DSY and Eend ranges corresponding to approximately 2 standard deviations, the following observations are put forward: (1) There is a very clear overall trend toward increasing strain demand with decreasing complementary energy. (2) The results indicate that the knee sharpness parameter H has the most significant influence on strain demand with increasing strain demands for smaller H values (i.e., for sharper knees). The influence of H on strain demand is seen to be more pronounced for lower values of Eend. (3) The parameter Eend has the second most significant influence on strain demand with smaller Eend values resulting in higher strain demands. (4) The parameter DSY had the least influence on strain demand. Negative DSY values indicate that the HT stressstrain curve is below the LT stress-strain curve at high strains, while positive DSY values indicate the HT stressstrain curve is above the LT stress-strain curve at high strains. Based on kinematic hardening theory, steels with HT strengths that are significantly larger than the LT strength will also tend to have LC strengths that are larger than the LT strengths. The increased strength of the HT and LC curves tends to result in stronger pressurized moment-curvature relationships with increased resistance to bending deformations under pressure. Hence, although the effect is subtle, increasing DSY values result in decreasing pipe strain demands.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CONCLUSION The shape of the pipe steel stress-strain relationship can have a significant effect on the pipe strains computed using pipeline deformation analyses. A pipe steel stress-strain curve with a relatively abrupt or sharp elastic-to-plastic transition will lead to larger strain demands than a stress-strain curve with a relatively rounded elastic-to-plastic transition. Similarly, a stress-strain curve with relatively low strain hardening modulus characteristics (including curves with a flat Lders plateau) will lead to larger strain demands than a stress-strain curve with relatively high strain hardening modulus characteristics. For high strength UOE pipe material, the shape and strength levels of the stress-strain curves for material tests in the longitudinal tension (LT), hoop tension (HT), longitudinal compression (LC) and hoop compression (HC) directions are known to be significantly different, i.e., the material is anisotropic. The anisotropy results from the hoop expansion phase of the UOE manufacturing process that engages work hardening and Bauschinger effects. The trends and observations regarding the influence of the relative sharpness and strain hardening characteristics of stress-strain curves on strain demand also apply for anisotropic steels, but the relationships are more complex since the individual curves (e.g., LT, HT and LC) can have different degrees of sharpness and different strain hardening characteristics. Processing and review of set of X80 and X100 UOE pipe stress-strain curves lead to analytical characterizations of these pipe materials representing observed anisotropy and curve shape properties. A large matrix of buried pipe deformation analyses was used to investigate the strain demand response of pipelines with diameters ranging from 24 to 52 inches subjected to a wide range of displacement-controlled, permanent ground displacement scenarios. Based on these analyses, one of the main findings was that anisotropy alone does not have a negative impact on strain demand. In the analysis cases that considered the response of conventional and Hiper steels, it was clear that the Hiper steels were much more anisotropic than the conventional steels, yet they consistently generated lower levels of strain demand. It is the shape rather than the degree of anisotropy of the stress-strain curves that is the most important factor influencing pipe strain demands. The key parameters and their influence are: The sharpness of the knee region of the stress-strain curve. The sharper the knee region, the higher the strain demand. A high degree of sharpness on any of the stressstrain curves (i.e., HT, LT or LC) is associated with bunching of the yield functions and a tendency for significant plastic flow (straining) under biaxial stress conditions. The strain hardening modulus in the region of interest. Lower strain hardening moduli lead to higher levels of strain demand. A low strain hardening modulus on any of

the stress-strain curves (i.e., HT, LT or LC) can have an unfavorable influence on strain demand. Increased HT strength relative to the LT strength. Steels with higher HT strengths tend to generate lower strain demands.

One goal of this research was to provide guidance for supplemental pipe material specifications aimed at minimizing undesirable effects of anisotropy and stress-strain curve shape on pipe deformations under displacement-controlled loads. Based on this work, it is advisable to avoid excessive sharpness in the knee region of curves in any direction (e.g., LT or HT) and also to avoid shallow strain hardening slopes (e.g., a Lders plateau) since these characteristics can significantly increase the pipe strain demand. When planning for the purchase of pipe for strain-based design applications, consideration should be given to obtaining representative digital stress-strain curves from the LT and HT directions to compute various measures of anisotropy (e.g., ratio of HT/LT strengths at selected strain levels), as well as various measures of the curve sharpness. One of the most useful curve shape characterizing measures considered herein is the plastic complementary energy, which is a scalar quantity that captures both the sharpness of the stress-strain curve and the strain hardening behavior across the knee out to selected levels of strain. The deformation analyses presented herein showed a clear trend of decreasing strain demand with increasing plastic complementary energy. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work described in this paper is based on a project undertaken by SSD, Inc. for the Design, Materials & Construction Technical Committee of PRCI. The valuable contributions, feedback and direction from the PRCI project team are most gratefully acknowledged. PRCIs support for this work and permission to publish this paper is appreciated and thankfully acknowledged. REFERENCES [1] Hart, J.D. and Zulfiqar, N., Evaluation and Characterization of Anisotropic Pipe Steel Stress-Strain Relationships Influence on Strain Demand, Report to PRCI, Contract Number: PR-269-074505, Project Reference: MAT-4-2, November 29, 2011. [2] SSD, Inc., "PIPLIN: Computer Program for Stress and Deformation Analysis of Pipelines", Version 4.58, User Reference and Theoretical Manual, Reno, Nevada, May, 2012. [3] Hart, J.D., Powell, G.H., and Zulfiqar, N., "A Material Model for Pipeline Steels, ASME International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 1996.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

[4] Hart, J.D., Zulfiqar, N., Zhou, J. and Adams, K., Extension of a Material Model for Pipeline Steels, Paper IPC2012-90489, Proceedings of IPC 2012, September 2428, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [5] Yatabe, H., Fukuda, N., Masuda, T., and Toyoda, M., Effect of Material Stress-Strain Behavior and Pipe Geometry on the Deformability of High-Grade Pipelines, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 126, February 2004. [6] ASCE, Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines, 1984. [7] ASCE-ALA, Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe, Published by the ASCE American Lifelines Alliance, www.americanlifelinesalliance.org, July 2001.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Stress

Nominal Yield

Fully Plastic

LY

Shape in knee region is defined by parameter

Slope = Eend

YL Proportional Limit

Slope = Estart

Strain YL/Estart LYL/Estart

Figure 1: Illustration of 6 Parameters Used to Define LT Curve Slope = Eend

Stress

Hoop

HY Slope = Eend Strength Difference = DSY = YH - YL

Longitudinal YH Slope = Estart

Strain YH/Estart HYH/Estart Figure 2: Illustration of Additional 2 Parameters Used to Define HT Curve

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Ratio
0.65
0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

Ratio

X80_Conv_01
X80_Conv_01 X80_Conv_02 X80_Conv_03 X80_Conv_04 X80_Conv_05 X80_Conv_06 X80_Hiper_01 X80_Hiper_02 X80_Hiper_03 X80_Hiper_04 X80_Hiper_05 X80_Hiper_06 X100_Hiper_01 X100_Hiper_02 X100__Hiper_03 X100_Hiper_04 X100_Hiper_05 X100_Hiper_06 X100_Hiper_07 X100_AgedHiper_08 X100_AgedHiper_09
LT HT

X80_Conv_02

X80_Conv_03

X80_Conv_04

X80_Conv_05

X80_Conv_06

0.60

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

X80_Hiper_01

X80_Hiper_02

X80_Hiper_03

X80_Hiper_04

LT and HT: Y/SMYS Ratio (Ratio of Stress at 0.5% Strain to SMYS)

Figure 3: LT and HT Ratio of Yield Strength at 0.5% Strain to SMYS (Y/SMYS)

Figure 4: LT and HT Ratios of Yield to Tensile Strength (Y/T Ratios)

LT and HT: Y/T Ratio (Ratio of Stress at 0.5% Strain and Ultimate Tensile Stress)

8
LT HT

X80_Hiper_05

X80_Hiper_06

X100_Hiper_01

X100_Hiper_02

X100__Hiper_03

X100_Hiper_04

X100_Hiper_05

X100_Hiper_06

X100_Hiper_07

X100_AgedHiper_08

Copyright 2012 by ASME

X100_AgedHiper_09

Eend (ksi/%)
Complementary Energy (ksi%)
10 15 20 25 0 5

10.0

0.0
X80_Conv_01 X80_Conv_02 X80_Conv_03

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

X80_Conv_01

X80_Conv_02

X80_Conv_03
X80_Conv_04 X80_Conv_05 X80_Conv_06 X80_Hiper_01 X80_Hiper_02 X80_Hiper_03 X80_Hiper_04 X80_Hiper_05 X80_Hiper_06 X100_Hiper_01 X100_Hiper_02 X100__Hiper_03 X100_Hiper_04 X100_Hiper_05 X100_Hiper_06 X100_Hiper_07 X100_AgedHiper_08 X100_AgedHiper_09

LT

HT

X80_Conv_04

X80_Conv_05

X80_Conv_06

X80_Hiper_01

X80_Hiper_02

X80_Hiper_03

X80_Hiper_04

Model Fit Values of Eend (ksi/%)

LT and HT: Plastic Complementary Energy to 2% Strain

Figure 5: LT and HT Plastic Complementary Energy to 2% Strain

Figure 6: Model Fit Parameter Eend

X80_Hiper_05

X80_Hiper_06

X100_Hiper_01

X100_Hiper_02

X100__Hiper_03

X100_Hiper_04

X100_Hiper_05

X100_Hiper_06

X100_Hiper_07

X100_AgedHiper_08

Copyright 2012 by ASME

X100_AgedHiper_09

Strain(%)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Ground Displacement Profile

Fault with Right Lateral Strike-Slip Motion

TensionStrains

Figure 7: Plan View of Pipeline Crossing a Right Lateral, Strike-Slip Fault at Angle

Figure 8: Maximum Tension Strains at Various Displacements for 75 Steels Sorted Based on HT Complementary Energy

10
At48" At72" At96"

sin

cos Pipeline with Compressive Fault Crossing Angle

Fault Offset = Transverse-to-Pipe Component = sin Along-Pipe Component = cos

< 90o

E_end=1.933,_H=0.018,DSY=3.870 E_end=1.933,_H=0.018,DSY=4.995 E_end=1.933,_H=0.018,DSY=0.915 E_end=1.933,_H=0.018,DSY=6.826 E_end=1.933,_H=0.018,DSY=2.040 E_end=1.933,_H=0.088,DSY=4.995 E_end=1.933,_H=0.088,DSY=3.870 E_end=1.933,_H=0.088,DSY=0.915 E_end=1.933,_H=0.088,DSY=2.040 E_end=1.933,_H=0.088,DSY=6.826 E_end=1.933,_H=0.158,DSY=4.995 E_end=1.933,_H=0.158,DSY=0.915 E_end=1.933,_H=0.158,DSY=3.870 E_end=1.933,_H=0.158,DSY=2.040 E_end=1.933,_H=0.158,DSY=6.826 E_end=1.933,_H=0.228,DSY=4.995 E_end=1.933,_H=0.228,DSY=2.040 E_end=1.933,_H=0.228,DSY=0.915 E_end=1.933,_H=0.228,DSY=3.870 E_end=1.933,_H=0.228,DSY=6.826 E_end=1.933,_H=0.298,DSY=4.995 E_end=1.933,_H=0.298,DSY=2.040 E_end=1.933,_H=0.298,DSY=0.915 E_end=1.933,_H=0.298,DSY=3.870 E_end=1.933,_H=0.298,DSY=6.826 E_end=4.488,_H=0.018,DSY=3.870 E_end=4.488,_H=0.018,DSY=6.826 E_end=4.488,_H=0.018,DSY=0.915 E_end=4.488,_H=0.018,DSY=2.040 E_end=4.488,_H=0.018,DSY=4.995 E_end=4.488,_H=0.088,DSY=3.870 E_end=4.488,_H=0.088,DSY=6.826 E_end=4.488,_H=0.088,DSY=0.915 E_end=4.488,_H=0.088,DSY=2.040 E_end=4.488,_H=0.088,DSY=4.995 E_end=4.488,_H=0.158,DSY=0.915 E_end=4.488,_H=0.158,DSY=2.040 E_end=4.488,_H=0.158,DSY=4.995 E_end=4.488,_H=0.158,DSY=6.826 E_end=4.488,_H=0.158,DSY=3.870 E_end=4.488,_H=0.228,DSY=4.995 E_end=4.488,_H=0.228,DSY=2.040 E_end=4.488,_H=0.228,DSY=0.915 E_end=4.488,_H=0.228,DSY=3.870 E_end=4.488,_H=0.228,DSY=6.826 E_end=4.488,_H=0.298,DSY=4.995 E_end=4.488,_H=0.298,DSY=2.040 E_end=4.488,_H=0.298,DSY=0.915 E_end=4.488,_H=0.298,DSY=3.870 E_end=4.488,_H=0.298,DSY=6.826 E_end=7.043,_H=0.018,DSY=6.826 E_end=7.043,_H=0.088,DSY=6.826 E_end=7.043,_H=0.018,DSY=3.870 E_end=7.043,_H=0.018,DSY=0.915 E_end=7.043,_H=0.018,DSY=2.040 E_end=7.043,_H=0.018,DSY=4.995 E_end=7.043,_H=0.088,DSY=3.870 E_end=7.043,_H=0.088,DSY=0.915 E_end=7.043,_H=0.088,DSY=2.040 E_end=7.043,_H=0.088,DSY=4.995 E_end=7.043,_H=0.158,DSY=6.826 E_end=7.043,_H=0.158,DSY=3.870 E_end=7.043,_H=0.158,DSY=0.915 E_end=7.043,_H=0.158,DSY=2.040 E_end=7.043,_H=0.158,DSY=4.995 E_end=7.043,_H=0.228,DSY=6.826 E_end=7.043,_H=0.228,DSY=4.995 E_end=7.043,_H=0.228,DSY=2.040 E_end=7.043,_H=0.228,DSY=0.915 E_end=7.043,_H=0.228,DSY=3.870 E_end=7.043,_H=0.298,DSY=4.995 E_end=7.043,_H=0.298,DSY=2.040 E_end=7.043,_H=0.298,DSY=0.915 E_end=7.043,_H=0.298,DSY=6.826 E_end=7.043,_H=0.298,DSY=3.870

Copyright 2012 by ASME

E_end=7.043ksi/%,Effectof_HVariationonTensionStrains
1.6

1.5

At48"

At72"

At96"

StrainRatioAnisotropic/Isotropic

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

E_end=4.488ksi/%,Effectof_HVariationonTensionStrains
1.6

1.5

At48"

At72"

At96"

StrainRatioAnisotropic/Isotropic

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

E_end=1.933ksi/%,Effectof_HVariationonTensionStrains
1.6

1.5

StrainRatioAnisotropic/Isotropic

At48"

At72"

At96"

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

Figure 9: Effect of H Variation on Tension Strain Demand

11

Copyright 2012 by ASME

E_end=7.043ksi/%,EffectofDSYVariationonTensionStrains
1.6

1.5

At48"

At72"

At96"

StrainRatioAnisotropic/Isotropic

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

E_end=4.488ksi/%,EffectofDSYVariationonTensionStrains
1.6

1.5

At48"

At72"

At96"

StrainRatioAnisotropic/Isotropic

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

E_end=1.933ksi/%,EffectofDSYVariationonTensionStrains
1.6

1.5

StrainRatioAnisotropic/Isotropic

At48"

At72"

At96"

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

Figure 10: Effect of DSY Variation on Tension Strain Demand

12

Copyright 2012 by ASME