Local Buckling Behavior of Round Steel Tubes Subjected to Compressive Loads

Joseph Moore, Benjamin Fell1(PI)

1Department of Civil Engineering, California State University, Sacramento

Introduction Experimental Design Results/Acknowledgements

This project will investigate the local buckling induced fracture behavior of round
steel tubes subjected to axial compressive loads, representative of observed
1) Capabilities: Ancillary Testing
failures in buried pipelines during seismic events. The investigation will be The initial step in designing
planned and conducted in the Sacramento State structural engineering the experiment in this study
laboratory, investigating compressive wrinkling fracture behavior across a range of was to determine what pipe Specimen
Load Cell

pipe lengths and diameter-to-thickness (D/t) ratios of the pipe cross-sections. specimens we would be
12.0000

Specimen
Ancillary tensile coupon tests will be extracted from the steel pipes to obtain able to test with the given
fundamental material properties. The experimental results will be used to inform equipment that we have.
300 Kip
Screw Jack Base metal Weld metal
a physics-based fracture model utilizing stress and plastic strain demands from Using the principle that the 55 Kip Actuator
finite element analyses. maximum force divided by
Specimen sY (ksi) eY (%) sUTS (ksi) eF (%) 
the buckling capacity must
Objectives: be equal to the area of
OD 4-1
OD 4-2
OD 4-3
52.657
56.730
60.428
0.476
0.376
0.396
57.350
61.901
64.174
15.345
22.863
19.888
32.246
60.770
50.235
cross section, we were able OD 4 - AVG 56.605 0.416 61.142 19.365 47.750
Determine how much force is required to reach each pipe’s critical to determine test OD 4 - Median
OD 4 - COV
56.730
6.867
0.376
12.687
61.901
5.683
19.888
19.551
60.770
30.206
strain capacity and compare it to the predicted force derived from the candidates. OD 6-1 56.626 0.389 70.305 20.575 52.906
empirical equations of past studies. OD 6-2 60.580 0.409 74.683 23.687 57.900

Determine how the D/t ratio affects the amount of force required to Empirical Equations Used From Literary Findings:
OD 6-3
OD 6 - AVG
58.153
58.453
0.468
0.422
72.643
72.544
21.398
21.887
45.771
52.192
OD 6 - Median 58.153 0.409 72.643 21.398 52.904
reach each pipe’s critical strain capacity.
Determine how the length of the pipe affects the amount of force
OD 6 - COV 3.411 9.676 3.020 7.368 11.680
OD 12-1 62.805 0.453 75.331 20.136 44.450
OD 12-2 61.382 0.389 75.459 23.786 61.194
required to reach each pipe’s critical strain capacity.
Determine if a pipe can reach a point of fracture prior to cyclic loading.
OD 12-3 63.640 0.416 76.722 20.191 48.548
OD 12 - AVG 62.609 0.419 75.837 21.371 51.397

Inform a physics-based fracture model utilizing stress and plastic strain OD 12 - Median
OD 12 - COV
62.805
1.824
0.416
7.700
75.459
1.014
20.191
9.787
48.548
16.981
demands from finite element analyses 2) Maximum Capacity Candidates 3) Nominal Pipe Sizes
CL
2.25"
max-thickness max-thickness Pipe Testing
O.D. (Fmax = 50 kip) D/t (Fmax = 250 kip) D/t O.D. Length Wall Thickness D/t 50 Wall Fmax
OD
Thickness
D/t Length scr (kips) εcr
CL
2.25"
4 0.051 79 0.093 43 4” 8” 40 OD 4 - 8 (kips)
8” 46.3 46 0.00332125

Stress (kips)
Ø0.625" (Typ.)
6 0.057 105 0.102 59 4” 12” .083” – Sch 5 48 12” 38.5 30 0.00200325
30 4 .078” 51
8 0.063 128 0.110 73 4” 24” Average 42.4 38 0.00266225
20 COV 13.0081 29.77 35.00673256
7" X 7" X " PLATE 1
2 10 0.068 147 0.117 86 6” 8”
8” 58.25 31 0.003375875
(QTY: 6) 10
Background Information: 12 0.073 164 0.123 97
6”
6”
12”
24”
.083” – GA 14 72
0
6 .078” 77
12” **
Average -
-
**
-
-
0.005195833
0.004285854
14 0.078 179 0.129 108 COV 30.02680047
• In general, for pipes fitting into the range of D/t ratios used in the field, 12” 8” 0 0.1 0.2
Displacement (in)
0.3 0.4
8” 128.75 80 0.0047275
30 – 100, compressive loading is not enough to cause fracture in the 16 0.083 192 0.135 118 12” 12” .109” – GA 12 110 12” 161.5 160 0.0066425
Test Data (L=8") 12 .098” 122
Average 145.125 120 0.005685
pipe (Sreekanta 2001). 18 0.088 205 0.141 128 12” 24”
0.012 Test Data (L=12") COV 15.9571 47.14 23.81898832
• Compressive loading tends to cause bifurcation in several areas along 20 0.092 216 0.146 137 **The data for this section was not collected in the same manner as the other tests and was omitted.
2.42(t/D)^1.59
0.01
22 0.097 226 0.152 145 0.5(t/D) - 0.0025
the pipe followed by several lobes, usually 2 – 3. As compressive force is

Critical Strain
0.008 15(t/D)^2
continued to be monotonically increased on the specimen one of the 24 0.102 236 0.157 153 0.006
lobes becomes more pronounced while the others smooth out (Bardi 0.004
2001). 4) Experimentation 0.002
• Tests on unpressurised specimens determined for D/t ratios ranging 0
from 20 -60 that buckling could be induced from ~95 – 110 Ksi (Paquette Ancillary testing 0 50 100
D/t
150 200

2006). • 14 Coupons were taken from the specimens to determine mechanical

properties of materials based on ASTM E8/8M – 09. Hardness was also
Future Work:
References: determined using the Rockwell scale.
This research is the introduction to a much larger project which will continue
BAO, Xiaoyi, and CHEN, Liang. “Recent progress in optical fiber sensors based on brillouin scattering at University of Ottawa.” Photonic Sensors 1.2 (2011): 102 – 117.
Bardi, F. C. and Kyriakides, S. “Plastic Buckling of circular tubes under axial compression Part 1: Experiments & Part 2: Analysis” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 48 (2006): 830 – 854.
on at the Sacramento State structural engineering laboratory. Further studies
Das, Sreekanta, et al. "Wrinkle behavior under cyclic strain reversal in NPS12 pipe." 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. 2001.
Gresnigt, A. M., and R. J. Van Foeken. "Local buckling of UOE and seamless steel pipes." Proc. Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE), Stavanger. 2001.
Hutchinson, John W. Advances in Applied Mathematics: Plastic Buckling. New York: Academic Press Inc., 1974. Article. Pipe Testing will include compressive testing of 15 additional specimens and following
Mahdavi, Hiva, et al. "Significance Of Geotechnical Loads On Local Buckling Response Of Buried Pipelines With Respect To Conventional Practice." Canadian Geotechnical Journal 50.1 (2013): 68-80. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 17 June 2014.
• 6 specimens were taken from 10 feet long A135B steel pipes and welded these tests, all 21 specimens will be cyclic tested for fracture strength.
Mohareb, M., Kulak, G.L., Elwi, A., and Murray, D.W. “Testing and analysis of steel pipe segments.” Journal of Transportation Engineering 127 (2001): 408 – 417.
Murray, David W. "Local buckling, strain localization, wrinkling and postbuckling response of line pipe." Engineering Structures 19.5 (1997): 360-371.
Paquett, J. A. and Kyriakides, S. “Plastic buckling of tubes under axial compression and inernal pressure” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 48.8 (2006) 855 – 867.
Ravet, Fabien, et al. "Distributed Brillouin Sensor For Structural Health Monitoring." Canadian Journal Of Civil Engineering 34.3 (2007): 291-297. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 June 2014. onto ½” end plates. The specimens were loaded into the 300 kip screw jack
Sheinman, I. and Simitses, G. J. “Buckling and postbuckling of imperfect cylindrical shells under axial compression” Computers and Structures 17.2 (1983): 277 – 285.
Sohal, I. and Chen, W. “Local Buckling and Sectional Behavior of Fabricated Tubes” Journal of Structural Engineering 113.3 (1987) 519 – 533.
Teng, J. G. and Hu, Y. M. “Behavior of FRP – jacketed circular steel tubes and cylindrical shells under axial compression” Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007): 827 – 838.
and compressed to an average axial strain of 4.2%. Special thanks to Jim Ster & Mike Newton from the CSUS Machine Shop
This material is based upon work supported by the Chevron Corporation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, National Science Foundation, S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation and the California State University Sacramento Office of Research Affairs. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders.
The STAR program is administered by the Cal Poly Center for Excellence in STEM Education (CESAME) on behalf of the California State University.