Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY OF PIPES

Søren Hauch and Yong Bai

American Bureau of Shipping

Offshore Technology Department
Houston, Texas
USA

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
In most modern pipeline design, the required minimum wall A Area
thickness is determined based on a maximum allowable hoop D Average diameter
stress under design pressure. This is an efficient way to come up
E Young’s modulus
with an initial wall thickness design, based on the assumption that
pressure will be the governing load. However, a pipeline may be F True longitudinal force
subjected to additional loads due to installation, seabed contours, Fl Ultimate true longitudinal force
impacts and high-pressure/high-temperature operating conditions f0 Initial out-of-roundness
for which the bending moment capacity is often the limiting M Moment
parameter. If in-place analyses for the optimal route predict that MC Bending moment capacity
the maximum allowable moment to a pipeline is going to be
Mp Ultimate (plastic) moment
exceeded, it will be necessary to either increase the wall thickness
or, more conventionally, to perform seabed intervention to reduce p Pressure
the bending of the pipe. pc Characteristic collapse pressure
pe External pressure
In this paper the bending moment capacity for metallic pipes has pel Elastic collapse pressure
been investigated with the intention of optimising the cost pi Internal pressure
effectiveness in the seabed intervention design without pl Ultimate pressure
compromising the safety of the pipe. The focus has been on the pp Plastic collapse pressure
derivation of an analytical solution for the ultimate load carrying py Yield pressure
capacity of pipes subjected to combined pressure, longitudinal
r Average pipe radius
force and bending. The derived analytical solution has been
thoroughly compared against results obtained by the finite element SMTS Specified Minimum Tensile Strength
method. SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
t Nominal wall thickness
The result of the study is a set of equations for calculating the α Strength anisotropy factor
maximum allowable bending moment including proposed safety y Distance to cross sectional mass centre
factors for different target safety levels. The maximum allowable
moment is given as a function of initial out-of-roundness, true γC Condition load factor
longitudinal force and internal/external overpressure. The ηR Strength utilisation factor
equations can be used for materials with isotropic as well as an- κ Curvature
isotropic stress/strain characteristics in the longitudinal and hoop υ Poisson’s ratio
direction. The analytical approach given herein may also be used σh Hoop stress
for risers and piping if safety factors are calibrated in accordance σhl Limit hoop stress for pure pressure
with appropriate target safety levels. σl Longitudinal stress
σll Limit longitudinal stress for pure longitudinal force
Keywords: Local buckling, Collapse, Capacity, Bending,
Pressure, Longitudinal force, Metallic pipelines and risers. ψ Angle from bending plane to plastic neutral axis

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 1

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays design of risers and offshore pipelines is often based on
a Limit State design approach. In a Limit State design, all
foreseeable failure scenarios are considered and the system is
designed against the failure mode that is most critical to structural
safety. A pipe must sustain installation loads and operational
loads. In addition external loads such as those induced by waves,
current, uneven seabed, trawl-board impact, pullover, expansion
due to temperature changes etc need to be considered. Experience
has shown that the main load effect on offshore pipes is bending
combined with longitudinal force while subjected to external
hydrostatic pressure during installation and internal pressure while
in operation. A pipe subjected to increased bending may fail due
to local buckling/collapse or fracture, but it is the local
buckling/collapse Limit State that commonly dictates the design.
The local buckling and collapse strength of metallic pipes has
been the main subject for many studies in offshore and civil
engineering and this paper should be seen as a supplement to the
ongoing debate. See Murphey & Langner (1985), Winter et al
(1985), Ellinas (1986), Mohareb et al (1994), Bai et al (1993,
1997) etc.
BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY
The pipe cross sectional bending moment is directly proportional
to the pipe curvature, see Figure 1. The example illustrates an
initial straight pipe with low D/t (<60) subjected to a load scenario
where pressure and longitudinal force are kept constant while an
increasing curvature is applied.
M
UltimateLimit
moment
pointcapacity
Start of catastrophically
Onset of buckling capacity reduction
Softening region
Linear limit
Figure 1: Examples of bending moment versus curvature relation.
Different significant points can be identified from the moment-
curvature relationship. When applying curvature to a pipe, it will
first be subjected to global deformation inside the material’s
elastic range and no permanent change in shape is seen. By global
deformation is here meant a deformation that can be looked upon
as uniform over a range larger than 3-4 times the pipe diameter.
After the LINEAR LIMIT of the pipe material has been reached
the pipe will no longer return to its initial shape after unloading,
but the deformation will still be characterised as global. If the
curvature is increased further, material or geometrical
imperfections will initiate ONSET OF LOCAL BUCKLING.
Imperfections in geometry and/or material may influence where
and at which curvature the onset of local buckling occurs, but will
for all practical use, as long as they are small, not influence the
ULTIMATE MOMENT CAPACITY significantly. After the
OMAE’99, PL-99-5033
onset of local buckling has occurred, the global deformation will
continue, but more and more of the applied bending energy will be
accumulated in the local buckle which will continue until the
ultimate moment capacity is reached. At this point, the maximum
bending resistance of the pipe is reached and a geometrical
collapse will occur if the curvature is additionally increased. Until
the point of START OF CATASTROPHIC CAPACITY
REDUCTION has been reached, the geometric collapse will be
“slow” and the changes in cross sectional area negligible. After
this point, material softening sets in and the pipe cross section will
collapse. For pipes that in addition to bending is subjected to
longitudinal force and/or pressure close to the ultimate capacity,
start of catastrophic capacity reduction occurs immediately after
the ultimate moment capacity has been reached. The moment
curvature relationship for these load conditions will be closer to
that presented by the dashed line in Figure 1.
The moment curvature relationship provides information
necessary for design against failure due to bending. Depending on
the function of the pipe, any of the points described above can be
used as design limit. If the pipe is part of a carrying structure, the
elastic limit may be an obvious choice as the design limit.
However, for pipelines and risers where the global shape is less
important, this criterion will be overly conservative due to the
significant resources in the elastic-plastic range. Higher design
strength can therefore be obtained by using design criteria based
on the stress/strain levels reached at the point of onset for local
buckling or at the ultimate moment capacity. For displacement-
controlled configurations, it can even be acceptable to allow the
deformation of the pipe to continue into the softening region (not
in design). The rationale of this is the knowledge of the carrying
capacity with high deformations combined with a precise
prediction of the deformation pattern and its amplitude.
The moment capacity for metallic pipes is a function of many
parameters and the most common are listed below in arbitrary
sequence:
• Diameter over wall thickness ratio
• Material stress-strain relationship
• Material imperfections
κ • Welding (Longitudinal as well as circumferential)
• Initial out-of-roundness
• Reduction in wall thickness due to e.g. corrosion
• Cracks (in pipe and/or welding)
• Local stress concentrations due to e.g. coating
• Additional loads and their amplitude
• Temperature
The focus of this study has been the development of an equation
to prediction the ultimate moment capacity of pipes. The equation
is to account for initial out-of-roundness, longitudinal force and
internal/external overpressure for materials with either isotropic or
an-isotropic characteristics in longitudinal and hoop direction.
Solutions obtained from both analytical expressions and by the
finite element method are described in this paper and the results
covers a diameter over wall thickness ratio from 10 to 60. The
remaining parameters given in the list may also be of some
importance in the design of pipelines, but the main parameters
will generally be those that are studied in this paper.
Hauch & Bai 2
 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999
FAILURE MODES
As pointed out in the previous section the ultimate moment
capacity is highly dependent on the amount of longitudinal force
and pressure loads and for cases with high external pressure also
initial out-of-roundness. To clarify the approach used in the
development of the analytical equations and to give a better
understanding of the obtained results, characteristics of the
ultimate strength for pipes subjected to single loads and combined
loads are discussed below.
The cross sectional deformations just before failure of pipes
subjected to single loads are shown in Figure 2.
Pure bending Pure pressure Pure longitudinal force
Figure 2: Pipe cross sectional deformation of pipes subjected to
single loads.
PURE BENDING
A pipe subjected to increasing pure bending will fail as a result of
increased ovalisation of the cross section and reduced slope in the
stress-strain curve. Up to a certain level of ovalisation, the
decrease in moment of inertia will be counterbalanced by
increased pipe wall stresses due to strain hardening. When the loss
in moment of inertia can no longer be compensated for by the
strain hardening, the moment capacity has been reached and
catastrophic cross sectional collapse will occur if additional
bending is applied. For low D/t, the failure will be initiated on the
tensile side of the pipe due to stresses at the outer fibres exceeding
the limiting longitudinal stress. For D/t higher than approximately
30-35, the hoop strength of the pipe will be so low compared to
the tensile strength that the failure mode will be an inward
buckling on the compressive side of the pipe. The geometrical
imperfections (excluding corrosion) that are normally allowed in
pipeline design will not significantly influence the moment
capacity for pure bending, and the capacity can be calculated as,
SUPERB (1996):
 D
M p = 1.05 − 0.0015 ⋅  ⋅ SMYS ⋅ D 2 ⋅ t (1)
 t 
where D is the average pipe diameter, t the wall thickness and
SMYS the Specified Minimum Yield Strength.
(1.05 − 0.0015 ⋅ D / t ) ⋅ SMYS represents the average longitudinal
cross sectional stress at failure as a function of the diameter over
wall thickness ratio. The average pipe diameter is conservatively
used in here while SUPERB used the outer diameter.
OMAE’99, PL-99-5033
PURE EXTERNAL PRESSURE
Theoretically, a circular pipe without imperfections should
continue being circular when subjected to increasing uniform
external pressure. However, due to material and/or geometrical
imperfections, there will always be a flattening of the pipe, which
with increased external pressure will end with a total collapse of
the cross section. The change in out-of-roundness, caused by the
external pressure, introduces circumferential bending stresses,
where the highest stresses occur respectively at the top/bottom and
two sides of the flattened cross-section. For low D/t ratios,
material softening will occur at these points and the points will
behave as a kind of hinge at collapse. The average hoop stress at
failure due to external pressure changes with the D/t ratio. For
small D/t ratios, the failure is governed by yielding of the cross
section, while for larger D/t ratios it is governed by elastic
buckling. By elastic buckling is meant that the collapse occurs
before the average hoop stress over the cross section has reached
the yield stress. At D/t ratios in-between, the failure is a
combination of yielding and elastic collapse.
Several formulations have been proposed for estimating the
external collapse pressure, but in this paper, only Timoshenko’s
and Haagsma’s equations are described. Timoshenko’s equation,
which gives the pressure at beginning yield in the extreme fibres,
will in general represent a lower bound, while Haagsma’s
equation, using a fully plastic yielding condition, will represent an
upper bound for the collapse pressure. The collapse pressure of
pipes is very dependent on geometrical imperfections and here in
special initial out-of-roundness. Both Timoshenko’s and
Haagsma’s collapse equation account for initial out-of-roundness
inside the range that is normally allowed in pipeline design.
Timoshenko’s equation giving the pressure causing yield at the
extreme pipe fibre:
 
 f ⋅D
pc2 −  p p + 1 + 1.5 ⋅ 0  ⋅ pel  ⋅ pc + p p ⋅ pel = 0 (2)
  t  
where:
3
2⋅E  t 
pel = ⋅  (3)
(1 − ν 2 )  D 
t
pp = 2 ⋅ SMYS ⋅ (4)
D
and:
pc = Characteristic collapse pressure
f0 = Initial out-of-roundness, (Dmax-Dmin)/D
D = Average diameter
t = Wall thickness
SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength, hoop direction
E = Young’s Module
υ = Poisson’s ratio
It should be noted that the pressure ‘pc’ determined in accordance
to Eq. (2) is lower than the actual collapse pressure of the pipe and
it becomes equal to the latter only in the case of a perfectly round
pipe. Hence, by using ‘pc’ calculated from Eq. (2) as the ultimate
value of pressure, the results will normally be on the safe side
(Timoshenko and Gere, 1961).
Hauch & Bai 3
 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999
Haagsma’s equation giving the pressure at which fully plastic
yielding over the wall thickness occurs can be expressed as:
 D
pc3 − pel ⋅ pc2 −  p 2p + pel ⋅ p p ⋅ f 0 ⋅  ⋅ pc + pel ⋅ p 2p = 0 ( 5 )
 t 
and represent the theoretical upper bound for the collapse
pressure. For low D/t, the collapse pressure will be closer to the
collapse pressure calculated by Haagsma’s equation than that
calculated by Timoshenko’s equation (Haagsma and Schaap,
1981).
The use of Timoshenko’s and Haagsma’s equations relates
specifically to pipes with initially linear elastic material properties
where the elastic collapse pressure can be derived from classical
analysis. This would be appropriate for seamless pipes or for pipes
that have been subjected to an annealing process. However, for
pipes fabricated using the UO, TRB or UOE method there are
significant non-linearity’s in the material properties in the hoop
direction, due to residual strains and the Bauschinger effect. These
effects may be accounted for by introducing a strength reduction
factor to the plastic collapse pressure term given by Eq. (4). In this
study no attempt has been given to this reduction factor, but
according to DNV 2000 the plastic collapse pressure is to be
reduced with 7% for UO and TRB pipes and with 15% for UOE
pipes.
PURE INTERNAL PRESSURE
For Pure internal pressure, the failure mode will be bursting of the
cross-section. Due to the pressure, the pipe cross section expands
and the pipe wall thickness decreases. The decrease in pipe wall
thickness is compensated for by an increase in the hoop stress. At
a certain pressure, the material strain hardening can no longer
compensate for the pipe wall thinning and the maximum internal
pressure has been reached. The bursting pressure can in
accordance with API (1998) be given as:
2⋅t
p burst = 0.5 ⋅ (SMYS + SMTS ) ⋅ (6)
D
where 0.5 ⋅ (SMYS + SMTS ) is the hoop stress at failure.
PURE TENSION
For pure tension, the failure of the pipe, as for bursting, will be a
result of pipe wall thinning. When the longitudinal tensile force is
increased, the pipe cross section will narrow down and the pipe
wall thickness decrease. At a certain tensile force, the cross
sectional area of the pipe will be reduced so much that the
maximum tensile stress for the pipe material is reached. An
additional increase in tensile force will now cause the pipe to fail.
The ultimate tensile force can be calculated as:
Fl = 0.5 ⋅ (SMYS + SMTS ) ⋅ A (7)
where A is the cross sectional area and 0.5 ⋅ (SMYS + SMTS ) the
longitudinal tensile stress at failure.
PURE COMPRESSION
A pipe subjected to increasing compressive force will be subjected
to Euler buckling. If the compressive force is further increased,
the pipe will finally fail due to local buckling. If the pipe is
OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai
restrained except for in the longitudinal direction, the maximum
compressive force may be taken as:
Fl = 0.5 ⋅ (SMYS + SMTS ) ⋅ A (8)
where A is the cross sectional area and 0.5 ⋅ (SMYS + SMTS ) the
longitudinal compressive stress at failure.
COMBINED LOADS
For pipes subjected to single loads, the failure is, as described
above, dominated by either longitudinal or hoop stresses. This
interaction can, neglecting the radial stress component and the
shear stress components, be described as:
σ l2 σ lσ h σ2
− 2α + h2 = 1 (9)
σ ll
2
σ ll σ hl σ hl
where σl is the applied longitudinal stress, σh the applied hoop
stress and σll and σhl the limit stress in their respective direction.
The limit stress may differ depending on whether the applied load
is compressive or tensile. α is a strength anisotropy factor
depending on the ratio between the limit stress in the longitudinal
and hoop direction respectively. The following definition for the
strength anisotropy factor has been suggested by the authors of
this paper for external and internal overpressure respectively:
π ⋅ D 2 pc
α= ⋅ ( 10 )
4 Fl
π ⋅ D 2 pb
α= ⋅ ( 11 )
4 Fl
For pipes under combined pressure and longitudinal force, Eq. (9)
may be used to find the pipe strength capacity. Alternatives to Eq.
(9) are Von Mises, Tresca’s, Hill’s and Tsai-Hill’s yield condition.
Experimental tests have been performed by e.g. Corona and
Kyriakides (1988). For combined pressure and longitudinal force,
the failure mode will be similar to the ones for single loads.
In general, the ultimate strength interaction between longitudinal
force and bending may be expressed by the fully plastic
interaction curve for tubular cross-sections. However, if D/t is
higher than 35, local buckling may occur at the compressive side,
leading to a failure slightly inside the fully plastic interaction
curve, Chen and Sohal (1988). When tension is dominating, the
pipe capacity will be higher than the fully plastic condition due to
tensile and strain-hardening effects.
As indicated in Figure 2, pressure and bending both lead to a cross
sectional failure. Bending will always lead to ovalisation and
finally collapse, while pipes fails in different modes for external
and internal overpressure. When bending is combined with
external overpressure, both loads will tend to increase the
ovalisation, which leads to a rapid decrease in capacity. For
bending combined with internal overpressure, the two failure
modes work against each other and thereby “strengthen” the pipe.
For high internal overpressure, the collapse will always be
initiated on the tensile side of the pipe due to stresses at the outer
fibres exceeding the material limit tensile stress. On the
compressive side of the pipe, the high internal pressure will tend
to initiate an outward buckle, which will increase the pipe
diameter locally and thereby increase the moment of inertia and
4
 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

the bending moment capacity of the pipe. The moment capacity 2

σh σ 
will therefore be expected to be higher for internal overpressure σ comp = α σ ll − σ ll 1 − (1 − α 2 ) h 
 ( 14 )
compared with a corresponding external pressure. σ hl  σ hl 
2
ADDITIONAL FAILURE MODE σh σ 
In addition to the failure modes described above, fracture is a σ tens = α σ ll + σ ll 1 − (1 − α 2 ) h 
 ( 15 )
possible failure mode for all the described load conditions. In
σ hl  σ hl 
particular for the combination of tension, high internal pressure
and bending, it is important to check against fracture because of THE BENDING MOMENT
the high tensile stress level at the limit bending moment. The The bending moment capacity of a pipe can by idealising the cross
fracture criteria are not included in this paper, but shall be sectional stress distribution at failure in accordance with Figure 3.,
addressed in design. be calculated as:

EXPRESSION FOR ULTIMATE MOMENT CAPACITY M C (σ ,σ ) = − Acomp ycomp σ comp + Atens ytensσ tens
l h
( 16 )
In the following section, an analytical solution to the ultimate
moment capacity for pipes subjected to combined loads is derived. Where Acomp and Atens are respectively the cross sectional area in
To keep the complexity of the equations on a reasonable level, the compression and tension, y their mass centres distance to the
following assumptions have been made: pipe mass centre and σ the idealised stress level.
• The pipe is geometrically perfect except for initial out-of- Plan of bending σtens
roundness
• The cross sectional geometry does not change before the Atens
ultimate moment is reached
t
• The cross sectional stress distribution at failure can be rav
idealised in accordance with Figure 3.
• The interaction between limit longitudinal and hoop stress ytens
can be described in accordance with Eq. (9) Plastic
neutral
axes
FAILURE LIMIT STRESS ycomp
The pipe wall stress condition for the bending moment Limit State
ψ
can be considered as that of a material under bi-axial loads. It is in
here assumed that the interaction between average cross sectional Acomp
longitudinal and hoop stress at pipe failure can be described by
Eq. (12). The failure limit stresses are here, neglecting the radial σcomp
stress component and the shear stress components, described as a Figure 3: Pipe cross section with stress distribution diagram
function of the longitudinal stress ‘σl’, the hoop stress ‘σh’ and the (dashed line) and idealised stress diagram for plastified cross
failure limit stresses under uni-axial load ‘σll’ and ‘σhl’ in their section (full line).
respective direction. The absolute value of the uni-axial limit
stresses, which should not mistakenly be taken as the yield stress, For a geometrical perfect circular pipe, the area in compression
are to be used, while the actual stresses are to be taken as positive and tension can approximately be calculated as:
when in tension and negative when in compression.
Acomp = 2ψ r t ( 17 )
σ l2 σ lσ h σ2
− 2α + h2 = 1 ( 12 )
σ ll
2
σ ll σ hl σ hl Atens = 2 (π − ψ ) r t ( 18 )
where α is a strength anisotropy factor depending on the σhl/σll The distance from the mass centre to the pipe cross section centre
ratio. can be taken as:

Solving the second-degree equation for the longitudinal stress ‘σl’ sin (ψ )
y comp = r ( 19 )
gives: ψ
2
σh σ  sin (ψ )
σ l = α σ ll ± σ ll 1 − (1 − α 2 ) h 
 ( 13 ) y tens = r ( 20 )
σ hl  σ hl  π −ψ

σcomp is now defined as the limit longitudinal compressive stress in
the pipe wall and thereby equal to σl as determined above with the
negative sign before the square root. The limit tensile stress σtens is
accordingly equal to σl with the positive sign in front of the square
root.
where r is the average pipe wall radius and ψ the angle from the
bending plan to the plastic neutral axis. The plastic neutral axis is
defined as the axis at which the longitudinal pipe wall stresses
change from tensile to compressive, see Figure 3.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 5

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

Inserting Eq. (17) to (20) in Eq. (16) gives the bending moment ( 30 )
capacity as: where
MC = Ultimate bending moment capacity
M C (σ l ,σ h ) = −2tr 2 sin (ψ )σ comp + 2tr 2 sin (ψ ) σ tens ( 21 ) Mp = Plastic moment
p = Pressure acting on the pipe
pl = Ultimate pressure capacity
LOCATION OF FULLY PLASTIC NEUTRAL AXIS F = True longitudinal force acting on the pipe
The angle to the fully plastic neutral axis from the plane of Fl = True longitudinal ultimate force
bending can be deduced from the following simplified expression
for the true longitudinal pipe wall force: When the uni-axial limit stress in the circumferential and
F = Acomp σ comp + Atensσ tens ( 22 ) longitudinal direction are taken as the material yield stress and α
set to ½, Eq. (29) and (30) specialises to that presented by among
where the area in compression Acomp is calculated as: others Winter et al (1985) and Mohareb et al (1994).

Acomp = 2ψ r t ( 23 ) APPLICABLE RANGE FOR MOMENT CAPACITY EQUATION

To avoid complex solutions when solving Eq. (30), the
and the area in tension Atens as; expressions under the square root must be positive, which gives
Atens = 2(π −ψ ) r t
the theoretical range for the pressure to:
( 24 )
1 p 1
Giving: − ≤ ≤ ( 31 )
1−α 2 pl 1−α 2
(
F = 2r t ψ σ comp + (π − ψ )σ tens ) ( 25 )
where the ultimate pressure pl depends on the load condition and
Solving Eq. (25) for ψ gives: α on the ratio between the limit force and the limit pressure.

F − 2π r t σ tens Since the wall thickness design is based on the operating pressure
ψ=
(
2r t σ comp − σ tens ) ( 26 )
of the pipeline, this range should not give any problems in the
design.
or
Given the physical limitation that the angle to the plastic neutral
π (σ l − σ tens ) axis must be between 0 and 180 degrees, the equation is valid for
ψ = , F = 2π r t σ l ( 27 )
σ comp − σ tens the following range of longitudinal force:

2 2
FINAL EXPRESSION FOR MOMENT CAPACITY α
p
(
− 1− 1−α 2 )
p 
 ≤

F
≤α
p
(
+ 1− 1−α 2
p

 )
Substituting the expression for the plastic neutral axis, Eq. (27), pl  l
p  Fl p l  l
p
into the equation for the moment capacity, Eq. (21) gives:
( 32 )
 π (σ l − σ tens )   π (σ l − σ tens )  where the ultimate loads Fl and pl depend on the load condition
M C (σ , σ ) = −2tr 2 sin σ + 2tr 2 sin σ
and α on the ratio between the ultimate true longitudinal force Fl
l h
 σ comp − σ tens  comp  σ comp − σ tens  tens
    and the ultimate pressure pl.
( 28 )
and substituting the expression for tensile and compressive stress, For the design of pipelines, this range is normally not going to
Eq. (14) and (15) into Eq. (28) gives the final expression for the give any problems, but again, the range may be reduced due to the
bending moment capacity: question of fracture.
 
 σl σ  FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
 −α h 
σ σ
2
 σ  π This section describes how a pipe section is modelled using the
(
M C (σ , σ ) = 4tr 2 σ ll 1 − 1 − α 2  h  cos ) ll hl 
 finite element method. The finite element method is a method
 σ hl  2
l h
2
 σh  
 1 − 1−α  2
 
 ( ) 
where a physical system, such as an engineering component or
structure, is divided into small sub regions/elements. Each element
  σ hl   is an essential simple unit in space for which the behaviour can be
( 29 ) calculated by a shape function interpolated from the nodal values
or alternatively and more useful in design situations: of the element. This in such a way that inter-element continuity
  tends to be maintained in the assemblage. Connecting the shape
 F p  functions for each element now forms an approximating function
2  − α 
  π
( )
for the entire physical system. In the finite element formulation,
M C ( F , p ) = M p 1 − 1 − α 2   cos 
p F l p l

2 
the principles of virtual work together with the established shape
 pl  
2
 p 
 1 − 1 − α 2    ( ) functions are used to transform the differential equations of
 p l  
equilibrium into algebraic equations. In a few words, the finite


OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 6

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

element method can be defined as a Rayleigh-Ritz method in

which the approximating field is interpolated in piece wise fashion
from the degree of freedom that are nodal values of the field. The
modelled pipe section is subject to pressure, longitudinal force and
bending with the purpose of provoking structural failure of the
pipe. The deformation pattern at failure will introduce both
geometrical and material non-linearity. The non-linearity of the
buckling/collapse phenomenon makes finite element analyses
superior to analytical expressions for estimating the strength
capacity.

In order to get a reliable finite element prediction of the

buckling/collapse deformation behaviour the following factors
must be taken into account:
• A proper representation of the constitutive law of the pipe
material
• A proper representation of the boundary conditions
• A proper application of the load sequence
• The ability to address large deformations, large rotations, and
finite strains
• The ability to model/describe all relevant failure modes
The material definition included in the finite element model is of
high importance, since the model is subjected to deformations
long into the elasto-plastic range. In the post-buckling phase,
strain levels between 10% and 20% are usual and the material
definition should therefore at least be governing up to this level. In
the present analyses, a Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relationship
has been used. For this, two points on the stress-strain curve are
required along with the material Young’s modules. The two points
can be anywhere along the curve, and for the present model,
Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) associated with a
strain of 0.5% and the Specified Minimum Tensile Strength
(SMTS) corresponding to approximately 20% strain has been
used. The material yield limit has been defined as approximately
80% of SMYS.
Figure 4: Model example of buckled/collapsed pipe section.
For a further discussion and verification of the used finite element
model, see Bai et al (1993), Mohareb et al (1994), Bruschi et al
(1995) and Hauch & Bai (1998).
ANALYTICAL SOLUTION VERSUS FINITE ELEMENT
RESULTS
In the following, the above-presented equations are compared
with results obtained from finite element analyses. First are the
capacity equations for pipes subjected to single loads compared
with finite element results for a D/t ratio from 10 to 60. Secondly
the moment capacity equations for combined longitudinal force,
pressure and bending are compared against finite element results.
STRENGTH CAPACITY OF PIPES SUBJECTED TO SINGLE LOADS
As a verification of the finite element model, the strength
capacities for single loads obtained from finite element analyses
are compared against the verified analytical expressions described
in the previous sections of this paper. The strength capacity has
been compared for a large range of diameter over wall thickness
to demonstrate the finite element model’s capability to catch the
right failure mode independently of the D/t ratio.

The advantage in using SMYS and SMTS instead of a stress-
strain curve obtained from a specific test is that the statistical
uncertainty in the material stress-strain relation is accounted for. It
is thereby ensured that the stress-strain curve used in a finite
element analysis in general will be more conservative than that
from a specific laboratory test.
To reduce computing time, symmetry of the problem has been
used to reduce the finite element model to one-quarter of a pipe
section, see Figure 4. The length of the model is two times the
pipe diameter, which in general will be sufficient to catch all
buckling/collapse failure modes.
For all analyses presented in this paper, the average pipe diameter
is 0.5088m, SMYS = 450 MPa and SMTS = 530 MPa. In Figure 5
the bending moment capacity found from finite element analysis
has been compared against the bending moment capacity
equation, Eq. (1). In Figure 6 the limit tensile longitudinal force
Eq. (7), in Figure 7 the collapse pressure Eq. (2, 5) and in Figure 8
the bursting pressure Eq. (6) are compared against finite element
results. The good agreement presented in figure 5-8 between finite
element results and analytical solutions generally accepted by the
industry, gives good reasons to expect that the finite element
model also give reliable predictions for combined loads.

The general-purpose shell element used in the present model

accounts for finite membrane strains and allows for changes in shell
thickness, which makes it suitable for large-strain analysis. The
element definition allows for transverse shear deformation and uses
thick shell theory when the shell thickness increases and discrete
Kirchoff thin shell theory as the thickness decreases.

Figure 4 shows an example of a buckled/collapsed finite element

model representing an initial perfect pipe subjected to pure bending.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 7

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

6 7
x 10 x 10
7 10

9
6 X = FE results X = FE results
___ = Analytical ___ = Analytical
Ultimate Moment Capacity

8
5
7

Burst Pressure
4 6

3 5

4
2
3
1
2

0 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
Diameter Over Wall Thickness Diameter Over Wall Thickness

Figure 5: Moment capacity as a function of diameter over wall Figure 8: Bursting pressure as a function of diameter over wall
thickness for a pipe subjected to pure bending. thickness for a pipe subjected to pure internal overpressure.
X
7
x 10 STRENGTH CAPACITY FOR COMBINED LOADS
4.5
For the results presented in Figures 9-14 the following pipe
= FE results dimensions have been used:
Ultimate True Longitudinal Force

4
___ = Analytical D/t = 35
3.5 fo = 1.5 %
SMYS = 450 MPa
3
SMTS = 530 MPa
2.5 α = 1/5 for external overpressure and 2/3 for
internal overpressure
2

1.5
Figures 9 and 10 show the moment capacity surface given by Eq.
(31). In Figure 9, the moment capacity surface is seen from the
1 external pressure, compressive longitudinal force side and in
Figure 10 it is seen from above. Figures 5 to 8 have demonstrated
0.5 that for single loads, the failure surface agrees well with finite
10 20 30 40 50 60
Diameter Over Wall Thickness element analyses for a large D/t range. To demonstrate that Eq.
(31) also agrees with finite element analyses for combined loads,
Figure 6: Limit longitudinal force as a function of diameter over the failure surface has been cut for different fixed values of
wall thickness for a pipe subjected to pure tensile force. longitudinal force and pressure respectively as demonstrated in
Figure 10 by the full straight lines. The cuts and respective finite
7
x 10 element results are shown in Figures 11 to 14. In Figure 11 the
9 moment capacity is plotted as a function of pressure. The limit
8 pressure for external overpressure is given by Haagsma’s collapse
X = FE results equation Eq. (5) and the limit pressure for internal overpressure by
7
___ = Haagsma
the bursting pressure Eq. (6). For the non-pressurised pipe, the
- - - = Timoshenko
Collapse Pressure

6 moment capacity is given by Eq. (1). In Figure 12, the moment

capacity is plotted as a function of longitudinal force. The limit
5
force has been given by Eq. (7) and (8). For a given water depth,
4 the external pressure will be approximately constant, while the
axial force may vary along the pipe. Figure 13 shows the moment
3
capacity as a function of longitudinal force for an external
2 overpressure equal to 0.8 times the collapse pressure calculated by
Haagsma’s collapse equation Eq. (5). Figure 14 again shows the
1
moment capacity as a function of longitudinal force, but this time
0 for an internal overpressure equal to 0.9 times the plastic buckling
10 20 30 40 50 60
pressure given by Eq. (4). Based on the results presented in
Diameter Over Wall Thickness
Figures 11 to 14, it is concluded that the analytically deduced
Figure 7: Collapse pressure as a function of diameter over wall moment capacity and finite element results are in good agreement
thickness for a pipe subjected to pure external overpressure. for the entire range of longitudinal force and pressure. However,
Initial out-of-roundness f0 equal to 1.5%. the equations tend to be a slightly non-conservative for external

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 8

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

pressure very close to the collapse pressure. This is in agreement

with the previous discussion about Timoshenko’s and Haagsma’s
1
collapse equations.

Moment / Plastic Moment

0.5

X = FE results
0 ___ = Analytical

-0.5

-1

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
True Longitudinal Force / Ultimate True Longitudinal Force

Figure 12: Normalised bending moment capacity as a function of

Figure 9: Limit bending moment surface as a function of pressure longitudinal force. Pressure equal to zero.
and longitudinal force.

Moment / Plastic Moment

0.5

0 X = FE results
___ = Analytical

-0.5

-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
True Longitudinal Force / Ultimate True Longitudinal Force

Figure 10: Limit bending moment surface as a function of Figure 13: Normalised bending moment capacity as a function of
pressure and longitudinal force including cross sections for which longitudinal force. Pressure equal to 0.8 times Haagsma’s
comparison between analytical solution and results from finite collapse pressure Eq. (5).
element analyses has been performed.
1

1
Moment / Plastic Moment

0.5
Moment / Plastic Moment

0.5
X = FE results
0 ___ = Analytical
X = FE results
0 ___ = Analytical
-0.5
-0.5

-1 -1
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
True Longitudinal Force / Ultimate True Longitudinal Force
-0.5 0 0.5 1
Pressure / Plastic Collapse Pressure
Figure 14: Normalised bending moment capacity as a function of
Figure 11: Normalised bending moment capacity as a function of longitudinal force. Pressure equal to 0.9 times the plastic buckling
pressure. No longitudinal force is applied. pressure Eq. (4).

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 9

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

USAGE/SAFETY FACTORS The usage/safety factor methodology used in Eq. (33) ensures that
The local buckling check can be separated into a check for load the safety levels are uniformly maintained for all load
controlled situations (bending moment) and one for displacement combinations.
controlled situations (strain level). When no usage/safety factors
are applied in the buckling check calculations, the two checks In the following guideline for bending strength calculations, the
ought to result in the same bending capacity. In design though, suggested condition load factor is in accordance with the results
usage/safety factors are introduced to account for modelling and presented in the SUPERB (1996) report, later used in DNV
input uncertainties. The reduction in bending capacity introduced (2000). The strength usage factors ηRM, ηRF and ηRP are based on
by the usage factors will not be the same for load and comparison with existing codes and the engineering experience of
displacement controlled situations. Due to the pipe moment versus the authors.
strain relationship, a higher allowable strength can be achieved for
a given target safety level by using a strain-based criterion than by GUIDELINE FOR BENDING STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
a moment criterion. In this paper only the allowable bending
moment criterion is given. This criterion can be used for both load • LOCAL BUCKLING:
and displacement controlled situations, but may as mentioned be For pipelines subjected to combined pressure, longitudinal force
overly conservative for displacement controlled situations. and bending, local buckling may occur. The failure mode may
be yielding of the cross section or buckling on the compressive
The usage factor approach presented in this paper is based on side of the pipe. The criteria given in this guideline may be used
shrinking the failure surface shown in Figures 9 and 10. Instead of to calculate the maximum allowable bending moment for a
representing the bending moment capacity, the surface is scaled to given scenario. It shall be noted that the maximum allowable
represent the maximum allowable bending moment associated bending moment given in this guideline does not take fracture
with a given target safety level. The shape of the failure surface into account and that fracture criteria therefore may reduce the
given Eq. (30) is dictated by four parameters; the plastic moment bending capacity of the pipe. This particularly applies for high-
Mp, the limit longitudinal force Fl, the limit pressure Pl and the tension / high internal pressure load conditions.
strength anisotropy factor α. To shrink the failure surface usage
factors are applied to the plastic moment, longitudinal limit force • LOAD VERSUS DISPLACEMENT CONTROLLED SITUATIONS:
and the limit pressure respectively. The usage factors are functions The local buckling check can be separated into a check for load
of modelling, geometrical and material uncertainties and will controlled situations (bending moment) and one for
therefore vary for the three capacity parameters. In general, the displacement controlled situations (strain level). Due to the
variation will be small and for simplification purposes, the most relation between applied bending moment and maximum strain
conservative usage factor may be applied to all capacity loads. in pipes, a higher allowable strength for a given target safety
The strength anisotropy factor α is a function of the longitudinal level can be achieved by using a strain-based criterion rather
limit force and the limit pressure, but for simplicity, no usage than a bending moment criterion. The bending moment criterion
factor has been applied to this parameter. The modelling can due to this, conservatively be used for both load and
uncertainty is highly connected to the use of the equation. In the displacement controlled situations. In this guideline only the
SUPERB (1996) project, the use of the moment criteria is divided bending moment criterion is given.
into four unlike scenarios; 1) pipelines resting on uneven seabed,
2) pressure test condition, 3) continuous stiff supported pipe and • LOCAL BUCKLING AND ACCUMULATED OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS:
4) all other scenarios. To account for the variation in modelling Increased out-of-roundness due to installation and cyclic
uncertainty, a condition load factor γC is applied to the plastic operating loads may aggravate local buckling and is to be
moment and the limit longitudinal force. The pressure, which is a considered. It is recommended that out-of-roundness, due to
function of internal pressure and water depth, will not be through life loads, be simulated using e.g. finite element
subjected to the same model uncertainty and the condition load analysis.
factor will be close to one and is presently ignored. Based on the
above discussion, the maximum allowable bending moment may • MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BENDING MOMENT:
be expressed as: The allowable bending moment for local buckling under load
controlled situations can be expressed as:
 
 γ cF p 
2  −α   
η RM  p  π η RF Fl η RP pl  γ cF 
M p 1 − (1 − α 2 )   p
M Allowable ( F , p ) =  cos  −α 
γc   2
 η RP pl  2 η RM  p
M p 1 − (1 − α 2 )
  π η RF Fl η RP pl 
2
 p 


1 − (
1 − α 2
)

η p 
 

M Allowable ( F , p ) =
γc  η RP pl



cos
2 2 
 p 
  RP l   

1 − (
1 − α 2
)

η p 
 

( 33 )   RP l  
where where
MAllowable = Allowable bending moment MAllowable = Allowable bending moment
γC = Condition load factor Mp = Plastic moment
ηR = Strength usage factors pl = Limit pressure
p = Pressure acting on the pipe
Fl = Limit longitudinal force
F = Longitudinal force acting on the pipe

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 10

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999

α = Strength anisotropy factor • LIMIT PRESSURE FOR INTERNAL OVERPRESSURE CONDITION:

γC = Condition load factor The limit pressure will be equal to the bursting pressure and
ηR = Strength usage factor may be taken as:
p l = 0.5(SMTS + SMYS )
2t
• STRENGTH ANISOTROPY FACTOR: D
where
π ⋅ D 2 pc
α= ⋅ for external overpressure
4 Fl SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength in hoop
π ⋅ D pb
2 direction
α= ⋅ for internal overpressure SMTS = Specified Minimum Tensile Strength in hoop
4 Fl direction
If possible, the strength anisotropy factor should be verified by
finite element analyses. • LOAD AND USAGE FACTORS:
Load factor γC and usage factor ηR are listed in Table 1.
• PLASTIC (LIMIT) MOMENT:
The limit moment may be given as:
 D Table 1: Load and usage factors.
M C ( F =0 , P =0 ) = 1.05 − 0.0015 ⋅  ⋅ SMYS ⋅ D 2 ⋅ t Safety Classes Low Normal High
 t 
Safety factors
where Uneven seabed 1.07 1.07 1.07
SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength in Pressure test 0.93 0.93 0.93
longitudinal direction γC Stiff supported 0.82 0.82 0.82
D = Average diameter Otherwise 1.00 1.00 1.00
t = Wall thickness ηRP Pressure 0.95 0.93 0.90
ηRF Longitudinal force 0.90 0.85 0.80
• LIMIT LONGITUDINAL FORCE FOR COMPRESSION AND TENSION:
ηRM Moment 0.80 0.73 0.65
The limit longitudinal force may be estimated as:
Fl = 0.5 ⋅ (SMYS + SMTS ) ⋅ A
where Guidance notes:
A = Cross sectional area, which may be - Load Condition Factors may be combined e.g. Load
calculated as π×D×t. Condition Factor for pressure test of pipelines resting on
SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength in uneven seabed, 1.07×0.93 = 1.00
longitudinal direction - Safety class is low for temporary phases. For the operating
SMTS = Specified Minimum Tensile Strength in phase, safety class is normal and high for area classified as
longitudinal direction zone 1 and zone 2 respectively.

• LIMIT PRESSURE FOR EXTERNAL OVERPRESSURE CONDITION: CONCLUSIONS

The limit external pressure ‘pl’ is to be calculated based on: The moment capacity equations in the existing codes are for some
 D load conditions overly conservative and for others non-
p l3 − p el p l2 −  p 2p + p el p p f 0  p l + p el p 2p = 0 conservative. This paper presents a new set of design equations
 t 
that are accurate and simple. The derived analytical equations
where have been based on the mechanism of failure modes and have
3
2E  t  been extensively compared with finite element results. The use of
pel =  
(1 − ν 2 )  D  safety factors has been simplified compared with existing codes
and the target safety levels are in accordance with DNV (2000),
2 t 1)
pp = η fab SMYS ISO (1998) and API (1998). The applied safety factor
D methodology ensures that the target safety levels are uniformly
f0 = Initial out-of-roundness 2), (Dmax-Dmin)/D maintained for all load combinations. It is the hope of the authors
SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength in hoop that this paper will help engineers in their aim to design safer and
direction more cost-effective pipes.
E = Young’s Module
υ = Poisson’s ratio It is recommended that the strength anisotropy factor α be
investigated in more detail.
Guidance note:
1) ηfab is 0.925 for pipes fabricated by the UO precess, 0.85 for
pipes fabricated by the UOE process and 1 for seamless or
annealed pipes.
2) Out-of-roundness caused during the construction phase and
due to cyclic loading is to be included, but not flattening due
to external water pressure or bending in as-laid position.

OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai 11

 Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering, July 11-16, 1999
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge their earlier employer formerly J P
Kenny A/S now ABB Pipeline and Riser Section for their support
and understanding without which this paper would not have been
possible.
REFERENCES
API (1998) “Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of
Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design)”.
Bai, Y., Igland, R. and Moan, T. (1993) “Tube Collapse under
Combined Pressure, Tension and Bending”, International Journal of
Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 3(2), pp. 121-129.
Bai, Y., Igland, R. and Moan, T. (1997) “Tube Collapse under
Combined External Pressure, Tension and Bending”, Journal of
Marine Structures, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 389-410.
Bruschi, R., Monti, P., Bolzoni, G., Tagliaferri, R. (1995), “Finite
Element Method as Numerical Laboratory for Analysing Pipeline
Response under Internal Pressure, Axial Load, Bending Moment”
OMAE’95.
Chen, W. F., and Sohal, I. S. (1988), “Cylindrical Members In
Offshore Structures” Thin-Walled Structure, Vol. 6 1988. Special
Issue on Offshore Structures, Elsevier Applied Science.
Galambos, T.V. (1998), “Guide to Stability Design Criteria for
Metal Structures” John Wiley & Sons.
Corona, E. and Kyriakides, S. (1988), “On the Collapse of
Inelastic Tubes under Combined Bending and Pressure”, Int. J.
Solids Structures Vol. 24 No. 5. pp. 505-535. 1998.
DNV (2000) Offshore Standard OS-F101 “Submarine Pipeline
Systems” Det Norske Veritas, Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Hövik,
Norway, January 2000.
Ellinas, C. P., Raven, P.W.J., Walker, A.C. and Davies, P (1986).
“Limit State Philosophy in Pipeline Design”, Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, Transactions of ASME, January 1986.
Haagsma, S. C., Schaap D. (1981) “Collapse Resistance of
Submarine Lines Studied” Oil & Gas Journal, February 1981.
OMAE’99, PL-99-5033 Hauch & Bai
Hauch, S. and Bai, Y. (1998), “Use of Finite Element Analysis for
Local Buckling Design of Pipelines” OMAE’98
Hill, R. (1950), “The mathematical theory of plasticity” Oxford
University Press, New York, ISBN 0 19 856162 8.
ISO/DIS 13623 (1998) “Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries –
Pipelines Transportation Systems”.
Kyriakides, S and Yeh, M. K. (1985), “Factors Affecting Pipe
Collapse” Engineering Mechanics Research Laboratory, EMRL
Report No 85/1, A.G.A Catalogue No. L51479 Department of
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The
University of Texas at Austin.
Kyriakides, S and Yeh, M. K. (1988), “Plastic Anisotropy in
Drawn Metal Tubes” Journal of Engineering for Industry, August
1988, Vol. 110/303.
Kyriakides, S. and Ju, G. T. (1992), “Bifurcation and Localization
Instabilities in Cylindrical Shells Under Bending-I-Experiments”
Int. J Solids and Structures, Vol. 29, No 9, pp 1117-1142.
Mohareb, M. E., Elwi, A. E., Kulak, G. L. and Murray D. W.
(1994), Deformational Behaviour of Line Pipe” Structural
Engineering Report No. 202, University of Alberta
Murphey C.E. and Langner C.G. (1985), “Ultimate Pipe Strength
Under Bending, Collapse and Fatigue”, OMAE’85.
SUPERB (1996), “Buckling and Collapse Limit State”, December
1996.
Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. (1961), “Theory of Elastic
Stability”, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill International Book Company.
Winter, P.E., Stark J.W.B. and Witteveen, J. (1985), “Collapse
Behaviour of Submarine Pipelines”, Chapter 7 of “Shell
Structures Stability and Strength” Published by Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers, 1985.
12