Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Theoretical and Numerical

Predictions of Burst Pressure


of Pipelines
Xian-Kui Zhu
Mem. ASME
e-mail: zhux@battelle.org

Brian N. Leis
Mem. ASME
Battelle Memorial Institute,
505 King Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43221

To accurately characterize plastic yield behavior of metals in multiaxial stress states, a


new yield theory, i.e., the average shear stress yield (ASSY) theory, is proposed in reference to the classical Tresca and von Mises yield theories for isotropic hardening materials. Based on the ASSY theory, a theoretical solution for predicting the burst pressure of
pipelines is obtained as a function of pipe diameter, wall thickness, material hardening
exponent, and ultimate tensile strength. This solution is then validated by experimental
data for various pipeline steels. According to the ASSY yield theory, four failure criteria
are developed for predicting the burst pressure of pipes by the use of commercial finite
element softwares such as ABAQUS and ANSYS, where the von Mises yield theory and the
associated flow rule are adopted as the classical metal plasticity model for isotropic
hardening materials. These failure criteria include the von Mises equivalent stress criterion, the maximum principal stress criterion, the von Mises equivalent strain criterion,
and the maximum tensile strain criterion. Applications demonstrate that the proposed
failure criteria in conjunction with the ABAQUS or ANSYS numerical analysis can effectively
predict the burst pressure of end-capped line pipes. DOI: 10.1115/1.2767352
Keywords: von Mises theory, Tresca theory, ASSY theory, ABAQUS, ANSYS, burst pressure,
pipeline

Introduction
An accurate prediction of the burst pressure of pipelines is very
important in the engineering design and integrity assessment of oil
and gas transmission pipelines. Experimental results showed that
analytical, numerical, and empirical predictions available are generally inconsistent and inaccurate, and have limited applications.
Stewart and Klever 1 pointed out that the theoretical solutions of
burst pressure depend on the yield theory adopted. The Tresca
yield theory generally predicts a lower bound of experimental data
of burst pressure, whereas the von Mises yield theory predicts an
upper bound of burst pressure for end-capped pipes or cylindrical
pressure vessels, as reviewed in Refs. 2,3. This stimulates the
present work to develop a better solution to predict the burst pressure of line pipes.
The application of the finite element analysis FEA to the burst
failure prediction of pipelines with or without corrosion defects
potentially offers greater accuracy, but it requires an appropriate
failure criterion. Such failure criteria available are often related to
the ultimate tensile stress UTS, but inconsistent with each other.
For instance, a pipeline can be considered as a burst failure when
the von Mises equivalent stress on the defect ligament in FEA
simulations reaches the true UTS. This failure criterion was utilized by Fu and Kirkwood 4 for X46 and X60 pipeline steels and
by Karstensen et al. 5 for an X52 pipeline steel in their FEA
predictions of burst pressure. However, Choi et al. 6 predicted
the burst pressure for X65 corroded pipelines using a different
failure criterion in the FEA calculations. They assumed that burst
failure occurs when the von Mises equivalent stress in a defect
reaches 90% of the true UTS for a rectangular defect and 80% of
the true UTS for an elliptical defect. Therefore, further investigaContributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 6,
2006; final manuscript received February 22, 2007. Review conducted by G. E. Otto
Widera. Paper presented at the 2006 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2327, 2006.

644 / Vol. 129, NOVEMBER 2007

tions are needed to develop a consistent and valid failure criterion


for the burst pressure prediction of line pipes using the FEA calculations.
As is well known, the commercial finite element software
ABAQUS 22 provides a modified RIKS method for a plastic instability analysis, which can be used to determine global failure
loads for engineering structures. Most commercial FEA packages,
including ABAQUS and ANSYS 23, adopt the classical metal plasticity model, i.e., the von Mises yield theory and the associated
flow rule as its default plasticity model for isotropic hardening
materials. Accordingly, the RIKS method that was built in ABAQUS
can only determine a von Misesbased upper bound solution for
the burst pressure of pipelines, as demonstrated in our recent work
7 for a defect-free pipe. Likewise, Lam et al. 8 showed that the
FEA results of burst pressure determined using ABAQUS and the
RIKS method overestimate the experimental data for thin-wall
cylindrical pressure vessels. This indicates that ABAQUS with the
RIKS method may determine an unreliable FEA result of burst
pressure for end-capped pipes or cylindrical shells.
To effectively predict the actual burst pressure, theoretical and
numerical investigations are carried out for defect-free endcapped pipes in this paper. Based on the proposed average shear
stress yield ASSY theory, a new theoretical solution for the burst
pressure of pipes is obtained and validated by extensive experimental data. Four failure criteria are proposed for the burst pressure prediction in the von Misesbased FEA simulations. These
failure criteria are the von Mises equivalent stress criterion, the
maximum principal stress criterion, the von Mises equivalent
strain criterion, and the maximum tensile strain criterion. Applications of these failure criteria to a numerical analysis for endcapped pipes using ABAQUS and ANSYS are discussed.

A New Multiaxial Yield Theory


In the plasticity analysis of metallic materials, the classical
Tresca and von Mises theories are commonly used. Many experimental investigations have indicated that the test data for initial
yielding and postyielding lie between the Tresca and von Mises
predictions. To more effectively describe the plastic yield behav-

Copyright 2007 by ASME

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 1 Three yield theoretical loci and initial yielding experimental data of
Lode 10, Ros and Eichinger 11, Lessels and MacGregor 12, Davis 13,
Marin and Hu 14, and Maxey 15

ior, the present authors 9 recently developed a new multiaxial


yield theory, i.e., the ASSY theory for isotropic hardening materials. In the following sections, the ASSY theory is first introduced, and its validations for both initial and subsequent yieldings
are then demonstrated with extensive experimental results.
Average Shear Stress Yield Theory. An average shear stress
A is defined as the average of the maximum shear stress max
and the von Mises equivalent shear stress M . Since the von
Mises shear stress is related to the octahedral shear stress by M
= 3 / 2oct, the average shear stress is a weighted average of the
maximum shear stress and the octahedral shear stress. It is assumed that plastic yielding will occur if the average shear stress of
a material reaches a critical value, namely,

1
A = max +
2

3
oct = Ac
2

For convenience, this yield theory is referred to as the ASSY


theory hereafter. In reference to the uniaxial tension test, the maximum shear stress and the octahedral shear stress at initial yielding
are 0 / 2 and 20 / 3, respectively. Therefore, the critical average
shear stress at yielding is Ac = 2 + 30 / 43, where 0 is the
yield strength of the material in tension.
In the principal stress space 1 , 2 , 3 with an assumption of
1 2 3, from Eq. 1, the ASSY equivalent stress A can be
expressed as

A =

2 + 3

3T + 2 M

where the Tresca equivalent stress T and the von Mises equivalent stress M are defined, respectively, by

T = 2max = 1 3
and

M =

2 oct =

1
1 22 + 2 32 + 3 12 4
2

Equation 2 indicates that the ASSY equivalent stress is a


weighted average of the Tresca equivalent stress and the von
Mises equivalent stress. For the simple tension, from Eq. 2, the
ASSY yield theory can be simplified as A = 0.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

Experimental Validation for Initial Yielding. Under the plane


stress condition 3 = 0 and in the principal stress plane 1 , 2,
three yield loci for the Tresca, von Mises, and ASSY theories are
compared with extensive experimental data for tube or pipe specimens in biaxial stress states, as plotted in Fig. 1. In this figure, the
experimental data for initial plastic yielding are taken from the
well-known classical experiments by Lode 10, Ros and Eichinger 11, Lessels and MacGregor 12, Davis 13, and Marin
and Hu 14 for different structural steels and the mill experiment
by Maxey 15 for X52 and X60 pipeline steels. The comparisons
indicate that the ASSY yield locus lies between the Tresca and
von Mises yield loci and provides the best correlation to the average experimental data for all ductile metals considered.
Experimental Validation for Subsequent Yielding. To analyze the subsequent plastic yielding of multiaxial stress states for
isotropic hardening materials, an equivalent strain must be defined
in accordance with its corresponding equivalent stress for a yield
theory. According to the definition of the average shear stress, an
ASSY equivalent strain is defined as the average of the Tresca
equivalent strain and the von Mises equivalent strain,

1
1 1
1
A = T + M =
max + oct
2
2
2 2

where the maximum shear strain max and the octahedral shear
strain oct are expressed, respectively, by

max = 1 3

and

oct =

2
1 22 + 2 32 + 3 12
3

Marin and Hu 14 developed useful experimental data of biaxial stress-strain relations for a mild SAE1020 steel. All test specimens were tubes with a wall thickness of 1.27 mm and an inside
diameter of 25.40 mm, and loaded by the internal pressure and an
axial tension for different constant stress ratios. The experimental
stress-strain curves up to the maximum load were reported in Fig.
1 of their paper in both axial and hoop directions for five loading
cases of S2 / S1 = 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and , where S1 is the hoop
stress and S2 is the axial stress. From these experimental data, the
maximum shear stress max and the maximum shear strain max
NOVEMBER 2007, Vol. 129 / 645

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

relations. Therefore, it is concluded that the ASSY yield theory


can effectively characterize the initial and subsequent plastic
yielding at the multiaxial stress states for isotropic ductile materials.

Theoretical Solution of Pipeline Burst Pressure


ASSY-Based Burst Pressure. Consider a long thin-wall pipe or
pipeline with end caps and subjected to internal pressure. For pure
power-law hardening materials, using the Tresca, von Mises, and
ASSY yield theories, Zhu and Leis 7,9,16 obtained three different theoretical solutions for the burst pressure Pb of the pipe,
which are expressed in the general form of
Pb =

C
2

n+1

4t0

D0 UTS

where t0 is the original thickness, D0 is the original average diameter of the pipe, C is a yield theory-dependent constant with
values as
C=

for the Tresca theory

2/3

for the von Mises theory

1/2 + 1/3 for the ASSY theory

UTS
is the engineering UTS, and n is the strain hardening exponent and usually ranges from 0 to 0.3 for most pipeline steels. Our
recent work 17 indicated that for a given yield-to-tensile stress
Y / T ratio, n can be solved from

ey
Y
=
T
n

10a

where e = 2.7183 and y is the engineering yield strain. For the


yield stress defined at the 0.5% total strain, y = 0.005. For the
yield stress defined at the 0.2% offset strain, y = 0.002+ Y / E, with
E being the elastic modulus. Alternatively, n can be approximated
by

n=

0.239T/Y 10.596 for the yeild stress defined


at the 0.5 % total strain
0.224T/Y 1

0.604

for the yield stress defined


at the 0.2 % offset strain

10b

At the burst pressure, the equivalent stress, hoop stress, equivalent strain, and hoop strain for the three yield theories were obtained as
eqb =
Fig. 2 Experimental results of biaxial plastic stress-strain relations for five loading cases: a maximum shear stress versus
maximum shear strain; b octahedral shear stress versus octahedral shear strain; c equivalent average shear stress versus equivalent average strain

during loading are calculated from Eqs. 3 and 6 and plotted in


Fig. 2a; the octahedral shear stress oct and the octahedral shear
strain oct are calculated from Eqs. 4 and 7 and displayed in
Fig. 2b; and the equivalent average shear stress A and the
equivalent average strain A are obtained from Eqs. 1 and 5
and shown in Fig. 2c. These figures show that a the maximum
shear stress-strain curve or the Tresca yield theory can only reasonably correlate the biaxial stress-strain relations, b the octahedral shear stress-strain curve or the von Mises yield theory provides a better correlation for the biaxial stress-strain relations, and
c the equivalent shear stress-strain curve or the ASSY yield
theory provides the best correlation for the biaxial stress-strain
646 / Vol. 129, NOVEMBER 2007

b = 2

C
2

C
2

n+1

eqb =

UTS
UTS

11
12

nC
2

13

n
2

14

b =

where UTS is the true UTS and the correlation between the true
UTS and the engineering UTS is UTS = enUTS
. Note that the true
strain at the UTS in the tension test is similar to the strain hardening exponent for power-law hardening materials. It is interesting that for all three yield theories, the hoop strain of the pipe at
the plastic collapse has the same value of n / 2, which is independent of the yield theory. Therefore, Eq. 14 could be used as a
maximum tensile strain criterion to monitor the maximum pressure in the hydrostatic testing of a pipeline.
Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 3 Comparisons of ASSY-predicted burst pressure and experimental


data of Kiefner et al. 18, Amano et al. 19, Maxey 20, and Netto et al. 21
for different pipeline steels

Full-Scale Experimental Validation. Extensive full-scale experimental data for the burst pressure of defect-free pipes were
collected and compared with theoretical solutions in Fig. 3. The
experimental results involve 40 burst tests by Kiefner et al. 18
for pipeline steels with grades ranging from grade B to X65, 12
tests by Amano et al. 19 for X65 and X70 pipeline steels, 3 tests
by Maxey 20 for an X70 pipeline steel, and 1 test by Netto et al.
21 for an AISI 1020 mild steel. Table 1 compares the three
theoretical solutions with the average experimental data of normalized burst pressure for two typical strain hardening exponents:
n = 0.08 0.004 and n = 0.12 0.004. The percentages of errors of
the three predictions with respect to the test data are given in the
table.
Both Fig. 3 and Table 1 demonstrate the excellent agreement
between the proposed ASSY solution and the average experimental data of burst pressure for all pipeline steels considered, including low and high strength grades. It also shows that the von Mises
solution serves as an upper bound and that the Tresca solution
serves as a lower bound of experimental data. Therefore, it is
anticipated that the ASSY yield theory can be used as an effective
tool to predict the actual burst pressure of line pipes in the engineering design and integrity assessment of pipelines.

Elastic and Plastic Deformation Behaviors. For the endcapped pipe, the equivalent stress, hoop stress, equivalent strain,
and hoop strain can be generally expressed for the three yield
theories 9,16 as

eq =

1
D0
=
Pd
C
2t0C

eq = C =

16

where C is defined in Eq. 9 and d = D / t / D0 / t0 denotes a


normalized dimension ratio, with D being the current average diameter and t being the current wall thickness of the pipe. For the
elastic deformation, the pipe geometry change is small, and thus
d 1. From Eq. 15 and the elastic Hooks law, one obtains the
stress-load and strain-load relations,
1 P
eq
=
C P0

UTS

17

P
UTS
CE P0

18

eq =

Failure Criteria for Burst Pressure Prediction


As demonstrated above, the ASSY-based solution is an effective
prediction of the burst pressure of pipelines. The following sections investigate failure criteria for the ASSY burst prediction
through the use of the FEA calculations and the von Mises yield
theory for isotropic hardening materials. Four important field
variablesvon Mises equivalent stress, hoop stress, von Mises
equivalent strain, and hoop strainare discussed to develop the
failure criteria for the burst prediction.

C
ln d
2

15

where E is the Youngs modulus and P0 is a reference load defined


as P0 = 2t0UTS
/ D 0.
For the plastic deformation that is characterized by the powerlaw stress-strain relation, from Eqs. 15 and 16, the stress-load
and strain-load relations can be written as
d P
eq
=
C P0

UTS

19

Table 1 Comparison of theoretical solutions and normalized experimental data Pb / P0


Tresca

von Mises

ASSY

Hardening
exponent n

Test data

Solution

Error

Solution

Error

Solution

Error

0.08 0.004
0.12 0.004

1.0333
0.9869

0.9461
0.9202

8.44%
6.76%

1.1051
1.0810

6.95%
9.54%

1.0253
1.0003

0.77%
1.35%

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

NOVEMBER 2007, Vol. 129 / 647

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 4 Variation of internal pressure with dimension ratio at n = 0.15 for


three yield theories

eq =

n d
e C

1/n

P
P0

1/n

20

where e = 2.7183. When the total deformation is small, d 1, Eq.


19 reduces to Eq. 17, but Eq. 20 does not reduce to Eq. 18.
This indicates that the stress-load relation in Eq. 19 is satisfied
for both elastic and plastic deformations, but the strain-load relation in Eq. 20 holds only for the plastic deformation. The above
equations are the basis for the following analysis.
Critical D / t Ratio. From Eqs. 16 and 20, one obtains a
relationship between the internal pressure P and the dimension
ratio D / t or d during loading for the three yield theories as follows:


n+1

P 2 C
=
P0 d 2

e
ln d
n

21

Figure 4 shows the variation of the internal pressure with the


dimension ratio d for the von Mises, ASSY, and Tresca theories
according to Eq. 21 for a strain hardening exponent n = 0.15. It is
evident from this figure that when d = e0.15 1.162, the applied
pressure reaches the peak value, and the pipeline burst is initiated
for all three yield theories. Again, the Tresca theory predicts the
lowest burst pressure, the von Mises theory predicts the highest
one, and the ASSY theory predicts an intermediate value. As
shown in Fig. 4, the von Misesbased dimension ratio reaches a
critical value dcM 1.044 at the ASSY burst pressure. If the von
Mises theory is used and its dimension ratio reaches the critical
value, a critical von Mises load that will be equal to the ASSY
burst pressure can be determined, i.e., PcM = PAb at d M = dcM . From
Eqs. 8, 9, and 21, the critical von Mises dimension ratio can
be solved from the following equation:
1
dcM

e
ln dcM
n

2+ 3
4

von Mises Equivalent Stress Criterion. From Eqs. 19 and


21, the equivalent stress for the three yield theories is generally
expressed as a function of d,

e
eq
= Cn
ln d
2n

UTS

24

For a given pressure, d is determined from Eq. 21, the equivalent stress is determined from Eq. 24, and the equivalent stress
versus the internal pressure is thus established and shown in Fig.
6 for n = 0.15. In this figure, UTS denotes the engineering UTS. It
is seen that for the von Mises, ASSY, and Tresca yield theories,
the corresponding burst pressures are different significantly, but
the three equivalent stresses are very close to each other at the
burst pressure. From Eq. 11, the von Mises and ASSY equivalent
M
b = 1.070UTS
stresses at the burst failure are eq
and Aeqb
= 1.059UTS
, respectively, for n = 0.15. At the ASSY burst pressure, we can determine a critical von Mises equivalent stress. It is
assumed here that if the von Mises equivalent stress reaches its
critical value during loading, a pipeline burst will be initiated and
the corresponding critical load will be the ASSY burst pressure,
M
M
i.e., PcM = PAb at eq
= eq
c. From Eqs. 2224, the critical von
Mises equivalent stress is obtained as

n+1

22

From the above equation, the variation of dcM with n is illustrated as the square symbols in Fig. 5. Using the least squares
regression to fit the calculated points, an explicit expression of dcM
is obtained as
dcM = 1 + 0.882n1.585

23

For n = 0.15, one yields the critical Mises dimension ratio dcM
1.044 from Eq. 23, which is the same as that graphically determined in Fig. 4. Apparently, the critical Mises dimension ratio
is less than the burst value of the Mises dimension ratio.
648 / Vol. 129, NOVEMBER 2007

Fig. 5 Variation of critical von Mises dimension ratio dc with


strain hardening exponent n

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 6 Variation of normalized equivalent stress versus normalized load at


n = 0.15 for three yield theories

M
eq
c = 31 + 0.882n1.585


2+ 3
4 3

n+1

UTS

25

As shown in Fig. 7, Eq. 25 can be well approximated by the


following quadratic polynomial:
M

c = 0.797n2 0.417n + 0.932UTS


eq

26

M
From this equation, one obtains eq
c = 0.887UTS
for n = 0.15.
This critical von Mises equivalent stress is less than the von Mises
equivalent stress at the burst failure of about 17%, as illustrated in
Fig. 6. If the true UTS is used, as shown in Fig. 7, Eq. 26
becomes
M
eq
c = 1.259n2 1.308n + 0.932UTS

27

Our companion work 16 has indicated that the ratio of the true
equivalent stress to the true UTS is equal to the ratio of the nominal equivalent stress to the engineering UTS. Therefore, Eq. 27
can be used to define a critical nominal von Mises equivalent
stress in reference to the engineering UTS.

Maximum Principal Stress Criterion. For a pressurized pipeline, the hoop stress is the maximum principal stress. From Eqs.
15 and 21, the hoop stress for the three yield theories is expressed as a function of d,

e
= Cn+1
ln d
2n

UTS

28

From Eqs. 21 and 28, the variations of the hoop stress with
the internal pressure during loading are determined and shown in
Fig. 8 for n = 0.15. It is observed that the three hoop stress versus
internal pressure curves are linear and identical to each other for
loading up to 80% of P0, where the elastic deformation dominates. From Eqs. 15 and 17, one has the linear relationship
/ UTS
= P / P0 for all yield theories. However, the hoop stresses
at the burst failure are significantly different for the three theories.
From Eq. 12, the von Mises and ASSY hoop stresses at the burst
M
are
b = 1.236UTS
and Ab = 1.141UTS
, respectively, for n
= 0.15. At the ASSY burst pressure, one can determine a critical

Fig. 7 Variation of critical von Mises equivalent stress versus hardening


exponent

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

NOVEMBER 2007, Vol. 129 / 649

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 8 Variation of normalized hoop stress versus normalized load at n


= 0.15 for the three yield criteria

von Mises hoop stress. It is assumed that if the von Mises hoop
stress reaches its critical value during loading, a pipeline burst
will occur and the corresponding critical load will be the ASSY
M
M
burst pressure, i.e., PcM = PAb at
=
c. From Eqs. 22, 23,
and 28, the critical von Mises hoop stress is determined and has
M
c = 2 / 3eM c
an equation similar to Eq. 25. Moreover,
holds. From Eq. 26, an approximate explicit equation for the
critical von Mises hoop stress is obtained as
M

c = 0.920n2 0.481n + 1.076UTS

29

Using this equation, the critical von Mises hoop stress is obM
tained as
c = 1.025UTS
for n = 0.15. This critical hoop stress
is about 83% of the von Mises burst hoop stress. The big difference is clearly shown in Fig. 8. If the true UTS is used, Eq. 29
becomes
M
c = 1.454n2 1.510n + 1.076UTS

30

Due to the similar reason for the use of Eq. 27, Eq. 30 can
be used to define a critical nominal von Mises hoop stress in
reference to the engineering UTS.
von Mises Equivalent Strain Criterion. Similar to the von
Mises equivalent stress criterion, one can assume that if the von
Mises equivalent strain reaches its critical value, a pipeline burst
will occur and the corresponding critical load will be the ASSY
M
M
burst pressure, i.e., PcM = PAb at eq
= eq
c. From Eqs. 16 and
23, the critical von Mises equivalent strain is obtained as
M
eq
c =

3 ln1 + 0.882n

1.585

31

Through curve fitting, the above equation can be further approximated as


M
eq
c = 0.443n1.524

32

Maximum Tensile Strain Criterion. For a pressurized pipeline, the maximum tensile strain is the hoop strain. Similarly, one
can assume that if the von Mises hoop strain reaches its critical
value, a pipeline burst will be initiated and the corresponding
critical load will be equal to the ASSY burst pressure, i.e., PcM
M
M
M
= PAb at
=
c. From
c = 3 / 2eM c and Eq. 32, the
critical von Mises hoop strain can be approximated as
M
c = 0.384n1.524

650 / Vol. 129, NOVEMBER 2007

33

Theoretically, the four failure criteria proposed above can be


equally used to determine the burst pressure of pipes using the
FEA calculations and the von Mises yield theory. Actually, our
experience indicated that the two strain criteria are not as efficient
as the two stress criteria because a small load increase can cause a
large plastic strain increase near the pipe burst. Therefore, only
applications of the two stress failure criteria to the numerical burst
prediction are demonstrated in the next sections.

Numerical Prediction of Pipe Burst Pressure


Finite Element Calculations and Results by ABAQUS. Detailed FEA calculations were performed using the commercial
package ABAQUS Standard 22 for a defect-free pipeline with an
outside diameter of 762 mm and a thickness of 17.53 mm, i.e.,
D / t = 43.5. Due to the negligible axial strain, the long pipe was
simplified as a plane strain problem note that this plane strain
model is equivalent to the axisymmetric model for the pipeline.
Only one quarter of the circular section was modeled because of
symmetry. The uniform FEA mesh has four elements in thickness
and 90 elements in circumferential direction, which lead to 360
elements and 1269 nodes in total. The eight-node quadratic parametric element with reduced integration was used in the numerical
simulation. The applied load was internal pressure only, and the
symmetric displacement boundary conditions were employed in
the FEA model. The elastic-plastic finite strain formulation and
the modified RIKS method built in ABAQUS have been adopted in
the FEA simulation. Since ABAQUS adopts the classical metal plasticity model, i.e., the von Mises yield theory and the associated
flow rule, as its default plasticity model, all calculated results are
the von Misesbased numerical solutions.
The material considered is an X65 pipeline steel. Experimental
data of true stresstrue plastic strain curve for the X65 is shown in
Fig. 9, where the input data of material properties used in the FEA
calculations are also marked. The yield stress defined at the 0.5%
total strain is 508 MPa, the UTS is 645 MPa, and thus Y / T
= 0.788. From Eq. 10a, the strain hardening exponent is estimated as n = 0.113, and the measured value is n = 0.112. In the
FEA calculation, the elastic modulus E = 207 GPa and the Poissons ratio = 0.3. From Eq. 8, the von Mises solution and the
ASSY solution for the burst pressure of this pipe are determined
as PbM = 32.96 MPa and PAb = 30.51 MPa, respectively.
Figure 10 shows the variation of the von Mises equivalent
stress with internal pressure obtained from the FEA calculations
Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 9 True stress versus true plastic strain curve for the X65
pipeline steel

and the theoretical formula in Eq. 24, respectively. It is found


that an excellent agreement exists between the numerical results
and theoretical solutions for a full-range loading from elastic deformation to plastic instability. At plastic instability, the numerical
result of the von Mises pressure is 32.84 MPa, which is almost
identical to its theoretical value of 32.96 MPa. This indicates that
ABAQUS can well predict the von Misesbased stress-load relation
and the burst pressure for defect-free pipelines. From Eq. 26,
M
c
one has the critical von Mises equivalent stress eq
= 0.895UTS
= 577.13 MPa for this X65 pipeline steel. When this
critical von Mises equivalent stress is reached in the FEA simulation, a corresponding critical pressure is obtained as PcM
= 30.85 MPa, which is nearly equal to the ASSY burst pressure of
30.51 MPa. Similarly, the same critical pressure can be determined by the use of the maximum principal stress failure criterion. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed stress failure
criteria can be effectively used to determine the burst pressure of
pipes in the FEA simulations by ABAQUS, and the burst pressure
for the X65 pipeline is 30.85 MPa.
Finite Element Calculations and Results by ANSYS. Recently,
Xue et al. 24 performed detailed FEA calculations for static and
dynamic burst analyses of a cylindrical shell using the commercial

FEA codes ANSYS 23 and LS-DYNA, respectively. Note that these


two FEA codes adopted the von Mises yield theory and the associated flow rule as the classical metal plasticity model. The cylindrical shell is a thin-wall end-capped pipe with a mean diameter
of 606 mm, a wall thickness of 6 mm, and a length of 2400 mm.
The material of the cylinder is a low carbon steel, Q235-A. The
yield stress defined at the 0.2% offset strain is 339.4 MPa, the
UTS is 472 MPa, and Y / T = 0.719. From Eq. 10b, the strain
hardening exponent for this material is estimated as n = 0.127.
From Eq. 8, the theoretical result of the von Mises burst pressure
for this cylinder is determined as 10.06 MPa, and the ASSY burst
pressure for this cylinder is 9.31 MPa. The FEA result of the burst
pressure for this pipe determined in Ref. 24 is 10.0 MPa in the
static analysis using ANSYS and 9.6 MPa in the dynamic analysis
using LS-DYNA. Apparently, these two numerical predictions coincide with the theoretical result of the von Mises burst pressure.
Accordingly, both ANSYS and LS-DYNA can numerically determine
the von Mises burst pressure. Similar to ABAQUS, when the von
Mises equivalent stress criterion or the maximum principal stress
criterion developed previously is used in the FEA simulations, the
actual burst pressure for this cylinder can be similar to the ASSY
burst pressure of 9.31 MPa.

Concluding Remarks
This paper investigated the theoretical and numerical predictions of the accurate burst pressure of pipes or pipelines. Since the
Tresca yield theory predicts a lower bound of burst pressure and
the von Mises yield theory provides an upper bound of burst pressure for pipelines, a new multiaxial yield theory, i.e., the ASSY
theory, was developed for isotropic hardening materials so as to
improve the prediction of burst pressure. The comparisons with
classical experimental data showed that the ASSY yield theory
can much better correlate the stress-strain relations for both initial
yielding and subsequent yielding than the Tresca or von Mises
yield theory can. A theoretical solution of burst pressure based on
the ASSY yield theory was obtained as a function of pipe diameter, wall thickness, material hardening exponent, and ultimate
tensile strength for defect-free pipelines. This solution was validated by extensive experimental data of burst pressure for different pipeline sizes and grades. Therefore, the proposed ASSYbased solution for the burst pressure can be considered as an
effective prediction of burst pressure for pressurized pipes and
pipelines.

Fig. 10 Variation of normalized von Mises equivalent stress with normalized load
for an X65 steel

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

NOVEMBER 2007, Vol. 129 / 651

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Since the commercial finite element codes, ABAQUS and ANSYS,


adopt the von Mises yield criterion and the associated flow rule as
the default plasticity model for isotropic hardening metals, only
the von Misesbased burst pressure of pipes can be determined
using these FEA codes, as shown in the examples. To effectively
predict the actual or ASSY burst pressure using these FEA codes,
four burst failure criteria: the von Mises equivalent stress criterion, the maximum principal stress criterion, the von Mises
equivalent strain criterion, and the maximum tensile strain criterion were developed in reference to the UTS and the strain hardening exponent. The applications showed that the proposed failure
criteria are simple and effective, and can be used to determine the
actual burst pressure of pipelines using ABAQUS or ANSYS. It is
expected that the proposed ASSY theory and the four failure criteria for burst prediction can provide reliable and useful results of
burst pressure for pipes, pipelines, and cylindrical pressure vessels.

Acknowledgment
The support of the U.S. Department of Transportation through
the Broad-Agency Announcement funding is gratefully acknowledged. One of the authors X.K.Z. sincerely thanks Professor
Otto Widera at Marquette University for his useful discussions.

References
1 Stewart, G., and Klever, F. J., 1994, An Analytical Model to Predict the Burst
Capacity of Pipelines, Proceedings of the International Conference of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Vol. 5, Houston, TX, February 27March 3, pp. 177188.
2 Law, M., Bowie, G., and Fletcher, L., 2004, Burst Pressure and Failure Strain
in PipelinePart 2: Comparisons of Burst-Pressure and Failure-Strain Formulas, Journal of Pipeline Integrity, 3, pp. 102106.
3 Christopher, T., Sarma, B. R., Potti, P. K. G., Rao, B. N., and Sankaranarayanasamy, K., 2002, A Comparative Study on Failure Pressure Estimations of
Unflawed Cylindrical Vessels, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 79, pp. 5366.
4 Fu, B., and Kirkwood, M. G., 1995, Determination of Failure Pressure of
Corroded Linepipes Using the Nonlinear Finite Element Method, Proceedings of the Second International Pipeline Technology Conference, Vol. II, Ostend, Belgium, September 11-14, pp. 19.
5 Karstensen, A., Smith, A., and Smith, S., 2001, Corrosion Damage Assessment and Burst Test Validation of 8in X52 Linepipe, Proceedings of ASME
Pressure Velssel and Piping Conference, PVP, Vol. 430, Pressure Vessel and
Piping Design Analysis, Atlanta, GA, July 22-26, , pp. 189194.
6 Choi, J. B., Goo, B. K., Kim, J. C., Kim, Y. J., and Kim, W. S., 2003, Development of Limit Load Solutions for Corroded Gas Pipelines, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 80, pp. 121128.
7 Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2004, Strength Criteria and Analytic Predictions

652 / Vol. 129, NOVEMBER 2007

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24

of Failure Pressures in Line Pipes, Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 14, pp. 125
131.
Lam, P. S., Morgan, M. J., Imrich, K. J., and Chapman, G. K., 2006. Predicting Tritium and Decay Helium Effects on Burst Properties of Pressure Vessels, Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel Piping Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2327, Paper No. PVP2006-ICPVT11-93274.
Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2006, Average Shear Stress Yield Criterion and
Its Application to Plastic Collapse Analysis of Pipelines, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 83, pp. 663671.
Lode, W., 1926, Versuche eber den Einfluss der mittleren Hauptspannung
auf das Fliessen der Metalle Eisen, Kupfer, und Nickel, Z. Phys., 36, pp.
913939.
Ros, M., and Eichinger, A., 1929, Versuche Zur Klaerung der Frage der
Bruchefahr III, Mettalle, Eidgenoss, Material pruf. und Versuchsantalt Industriell Bauwerk und Geerbe, Diskussionsbericht No. 34, Zurich, pp. 359.
Lessels, J. M., and MacGregor, C. W., 1940, Combined Stress Experiments
on a Nickel-Chrome-Molybdenum Steel, J. Franklin Inst., 230, pp. 163180.
Davis, E. A., 1945, Yielding and Fracture of Medium-Carbon Steels under
Combined Stresses, ASME Trans. J. Appl. Mech., 67, pp. A13A24.
Marin, J., and Hu, L. W., 1956, Biaxial Plastic Stress-Strain Relations of a
Mild Steel for Variable Stress Ratios, ASME Trans. J. Appl. Mech., 78, pp.
499509.
Maxey, W. A., 1974, Measurement of Yield Strength in the Mill Expander,
Proceedings of the fifth Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, TX, Nov.
2022, pp. N1N32.
Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2005, Analytic Prediction of Plastic Collapse
Failure Pressure of Line Pipes, Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel
Piping Conference, Denver, CO, July 1721, Paper No. PVP2005-71204.
Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2005, Influence of Yield-to-Tensile Strength
Ratio on Failure Assessment of Corroded Pipelines, ASME J. Pressure Vessel
Technol., 127, pp. 436442.
Kiefner, J. F., Maxey, W. A., and Duffy, A. R., 1971, The Significance of the
Yield-to-Ultimate Strength Ratio of Line Pipe Materials, Pipeline Research
Committee, American Gas Association, NG18 Report No. 26.
Amano, K., Matsuoka, M., Ishihara, T., Tanaka, K., Inoue, T., Kawaguchi, Y.,
and Tsukanoto, M., 1986, Significance of Yield Ratio Limitation to Plastic
Deformation of Pipeline in High Pressure Proof Test, Proceedings of the
Seventh Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, TX, Oct. 1416, pp.
81821.
Maxey, W. A., 1986, Y / T Significance in Line Pipe, Proceedings of the
Seventh Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, TX, Oct. 1416, pp.
91918.
Netto, T. A., Ferraz, U. S., and Estefen, S. F., 2005, The Effect of Corrosion
Defects in the Burst Pressure of Pipelines, J. Constr. Steel Res., 61, pp.
11851204.
Anon, 2005, ABAQUS Standard Users Manual, Version 6.5, ABAQUS, Inc.,
Pawtucket, RI.
Anon, 2005, ANSYS Users Manual, Revision 10.0, ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Xue, L., Cheng, C., Widera, G. E. O., and Sang, Z., 2006. Static and Dynamic
Burst Analysis of Cylindrical Shells, Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel Piping Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2327, Paper No.
PVP2006-ICPVT11-93247 .

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms