International Pipeline Conference — Volum e II

ASME 1998

IPC1998-2089
STRAIN-BASED PIPELINE DESIGN CRITERIA REVIEW

Aaron S. Dinovitzer Dr. Raymond J. Smith

Fleet Technology Limited National Energy Board
311 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, K2K1Z8 311-6th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P3H2
phone (613) 592-2830 ext 203, fax (613) 592-4950 phone (403) 299-2794, fax (403) 292-5876
e-mail adinovit@fleetech.com e-mail smitray@NEB.gc.ca

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC1998/40238/763/2507197/763_1.pdf by guest on 16 January 2024

ABSTRACT strength. The behavior of these steels could be
The new Canadian limit states pipeline design reasonably modeled as an elastic-perfectly plastic
standard (CSA Z662-96, Appendix C - Limit States material, similar to that shown in Figure 1(a).
Design) incorporates deformation or strain-based Pipeline design criteria and material
design criteria to prevent pipe rupture and or buckling specifications based almost solely on steel yield
and limit ovality due to bending. These criteria are strength drove the steel production industry to
different and in some instances, much more develop alloying and or controlled rolling processes
conservative than those contained in the Canadian capable of supplying higher yield strength steels. As
offshore pipeline design standard (chapter 11 of CSA a result, modem steels display stress-strain behaviors
Z662-96) and similar standards used in other similar to those shown in Figure 1(b), which are
countries. This study was completed to review the markedly different than their predecessors (Figure
ovality, buckling (including wrinkling) and rupture 1(a)). The mechanical behavior feature which
criteria included in current Canadian pipeline design differentiates the modem steels from their
standards (CSA Z662-96) and define its basic predecessors is the lack of a well defmed yield point.
differences with respect to other standards. The lack of a yield point has necessitated the use of
The deformation or strain based design criteria fictitious yield point measures (i.e. 0.2% offset or
formulations in Z662 are compared with those 0.5% strain under load).
contained in design standards, industry association
recommendations and classification society rules
from Norway, Britain, Germany, Australia and the
USA to illustrate their differences and relative levels
of conservatism. In addition, current and on-going
research efforts were reviewed to identify the state-of-
the-art in pipeline strain-based design, since this
research could form the basis for future amendments
to existing pipeline design standards.
Based on the findings of this review,
recommended changes to the limit states pipeline Fig u re 1(a): Y ield F ig u re 1(b): M odem
design formulation are given to better reflect the P oint D efin itio n S teel B ehavior
strain-based (non-linear or post-yield) design and A drive towards more economic designs and a
assessment approaches included in the Canadian better understanding of the pipe materials led to the
offshore or foreign pipeline design approaches. In development of design criteria based on inelastic
addition, an analytical basis for pipeline ovality and (post yield) failure. The implementation of post yield
buckling design criteria are recommended. stress design approaches has been accomplished in
the form of a delayed yield type criteria. While this
INTRODUCTION
design approach accounts for the observed difference
Existing design standards, including the between a pipe’s actual failure stress and the
Canadian Standards Association Oil and Gas Pipeline material’s yield strength, it does not acknowledge the
Systems standard (CSA Z662-96), perform structural
difference between material ductilities.
design based primarily on yield strength based The two materials, whose stress strain behaviors
criteria. This approach to design was considered are shown in Figure 1(b), both have the same yield
acceptable for steels with a well defined yield point and ultimate strengths and thus flow stresses,
and a significant amount of post yield ductility and although they display quite different post-yield

Copyright © 1998 by ASME

behaviors. The difference between these two pipelines, strain based design criteria research and the
materials is their ductility which can be represented design standards listed in Table 1 were reviewed.
by their uniform strains (strain at the maximum load,
Strain or deformation based design criteria are
UTS) or their work hardening characteristics (load
generally presented in terms o f design requirements
canying capacity increase per unit plastic strain).
which are intended to preclude the following three
An acknowledgment o f the need to ensure
limit states: (1) ovality, (2) buckling and, (3) rupture.
ductility and to better distinguish between steels with
Pipe wrinkling is viewed as a form o f buckling caused
differing work hardening behaviors, has led to the
by pipe flexural deformation in this review.
inclusion o f additional design and material
The review reported here is limited to the
specification requirements which consider a
application o f these design limit states based on the
material’s ductility expressed in terms o f minimum
assumption o f a defect-free homogeneous pipe
material tensile strain at failure (total elongation),

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC1998/40238/763/2507197/763_1.pdf by guest on 16 January 2024

material. It should be noted that although most o f the
maximum yield to tensile ratio and or maximum
current pipeline design standards are moving towards
allowable design strain.
a limit states format, which would deal explicitly
A variety o f strain or ductility based design
with each o f the above limit states. Current
criteria have been developed by researchers and
workmanship requirements simply restrict the
incorporated into design standards. For example, the
physical manifestations o f these limit states.
current draft o f the CSA Oil and Gas Pipeline
Systems design standard - limit states design
CSA-Z662 STRAIN-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA
requirements (CSA-Z662, Appendix C) and the
Norwegian, Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Rules for CSA-Z662
Submarine Pipelines-1981, both incorporate different The current oil and gas pipeline design criteria
strain-based design criteria. In the DNV rules the (Z662-96) only allows elastic pipeline design. Pipe
allowable tensile strain is limited to a maximum o f wall stresses must remain below the minimum
2%, while, Appendix C o f CSA-Z662 limits the specified yield stress o f the pipe material. Since
tensile strain to 0.5%. The DNV strain limitation is a elastic strains are generally treated as being directly
function o f the pipe geometry (diameter and proportional to elastic stresses, the stress criteria
thickness) and strain history, whereas, the Z662 outlined in this standard could be rewritten in terms
requirement is essentially an arbitrary and o f strain. The only direct references to strain or
conservative value which is constant for all pipe deformation limits are given in clause 6.2.3 dealing
configurations. with maximum allowable cold bend deflection and
clause 6.3.3 which limits the maximum allowable
Review Scope
dent depth.
The objective o f this paper is to review strain-
The 1.5° maximum allowable cold bend
based design limits applicable to pipelines, current
deflection within an axial distance equal to the pipe
research efforts in this area and compare these with
outside diameter, for pipes with outside diameters
the requirements included in the current edition o f the
greater than 323.9mm, is intended to prevent
Canadian Oil and Gas Pipeline System limit states
compressive failures (e.g., buckling, wrinkling or
design requirements (CSA-Z662, Appendix C). In
ovality) and implies a maximum allowable nominal
order to evaluate and compare the appropriateness o f
strain o f 1.31%.
the strain-based design criteria applied to Canadian

Table 1: Scope of Design Standard Review

Origin Pipeline O ffshore Pipelines M aterials
Canada CSA Z662-96 CSA Z662-96 Section 11 CSA Z245.1-93
CSA Z662-96 App. C CSA Z662-96
Norway DNV -1982* D N V -1982*
Britain BS 8010: Part 1: 1993 BS 8010: Part 3: 1993 BS 8010: Part 2: 1993
Germany G L -C ode III/4- 1995*
Australia AS 2885-1987 AS 1958-1981 AS 2018-1981
USA ASME PD Voi. 55* API RP 1111-1993*
ASME PD Vol. 69*
API 5L: 1991*
* Note: These are rules o f practice produced by industry associations and classification societies.
 o f the pipe structure should be recognized in the
CSA-Z662 Section 11-Offshore Pipelines
application o f subsequent structural analysis.
In an effort to harmonize the offshore and
onshore pipeline design standards, the previously
CSA-Z662 Appendix C - Draft Version
stand alone offshore pipeline design standard was
included as Section 11 o f CSA-Z662-I994.
Rupture. The limit states formulation o f the
The construction and installation requirements
Canadian pipeline design standard, Appendix C,
(cl. 11.2.4.2.1.1.2) limit the permissible installation
allows both elastic (cl. C5.2) and plastic (cl. C5.3)
strain (elastic plus plastic) in the pipe wall, in any
analysis techniques to be used in the design or
plane o f orientation, to a maximum o f 0.025 (2.5%).
analysis o f pipeline systems. Although both elastic
This strain criteria, stated in terms o f a principal
and plastic design are allowed, no material resistance
strain which considers all o f die strain components
factors are proposed for limit states other than those

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC1998/40238/763/2507197/763_1.pdf by guest on 16 January 2024

(hoop, longitudinal, shear), is included to permit reel
associated with material yielding. The non-linear
barge pipe laying and considers the extra restraint
stress-strain behavior o f pipeline steels are
against buckling afforded by the tension on the line
represented by Ramberg-Osgood or a bi-linear
when it is being placed. It is implicit in this
material models including temperature de-rating
requirement that the base material and weld metal are
factors.
homogeneous and free o f any significant flaws. Even
The limit states formulation precludes pipeline
though a maximum total strain o f 2.5% is permitted,
rupture with a strain-based criteria (cl. C6.3.1)
the notes attached to this design criteria clearly
limiting the tensile stress due to primary or secondary
indicate that other limit states such as buckling or
loads to 70% o f a pipe wall or weldment critical
ovality may control the design o f the pipe. In
tensile strain. The critical tensile strain is taken as
addition, the appropriateness o f the pipe base or weld
0.75% unless fracture mechanics approaches or
materials for this relatively high strain application
physical testing are used to establish a higher critical
must be demonstrated, and the mechanical and
strain limit taking into account flaws and
geometric effects o f the installation process must be
metallurgical damage in the welds and heat-affected
considered in the design and analysis o f the pipe for
zones. The nominal critical strain limit o f 0.75%
other installation and operational limit states.
ensures that the design o f pipeline systems remain
For typical operational or design loads the design
elastic, unless more detailed means o f justifying a
strength criteria are based on an effective stress
higher critical strain are used, by virtue o f the fact
formulation (cl. 11.2.4.2.3.1) which must be less than
that a strain limit o f 0.0075 x 0.7 (<t>E e,“") equals
an elastic allowable stress (cl. 11.2.4.2.3.3). This
0.005, the nominal yield strain generally used by
effective stress formulation (Hilber, Von Mises and
industry. Unfortunately, no guidance is given on the
Hencky yield criterion) provides the designer with a
extent or size o f physical or metallurgical damage
rational and effective criterion for evaluating the
which must be considered in what amounts to a
complex multi-axial stress states associated with
damage tolerant design approach. It is not specified
pipeline design.
whether the critical strain derived from fracture
The effects o f infrequent, strain controlled
mechanics based analyses is the local (crack tip) or
loading due to frost heave, subsidence, or
nominal critical strain.
earthquake are compared against a 2.5% strain limit
This limit state fails to properly differentiate
(cl. 11,2.4.2.2.4), in any plane o f orientation in the
between longitudinal, hoop and principal strains. For
pipe wall, less any strain residual from installation.
instance the strain limits, based on some preliminary
This deformation allowance for infrequent and
work by FTL and Graville Associates [11] towards
potentially severe load events allows plasticity when
the development o f a strain-based ligament extension
other limit states are not violated and includes die
model indicated that the longitudinal or hoop failure
residual strains associated with the installation
strains at defects would be very different and thus
process. If this design condition is used in an ECA
should not be assumed to be the same. Therefore, it
(Engineering Critical Assessment) situation, care
is suggested that the note indicating that experience
should be taken here to include the residual strains
gained from reel barge operation (e,"1“ < e,cm = 2.5%)
from similar previous events which induced plastic
should only be applied to the longitudinal
deformations. This requirement is necessary since the
deformation o f “defect-free” pipe systems.
total permanent deformation a material may sustain is
limited and cumulative over the life o f the pipe Buckling. The limit state used in Appendix C to
structure. In addition, the effects o f repeated high preclude local buckling (cl. C6.3.3.2) is a strain-
strain loads on the material and geometric properties based limit on the longitudinal or hoop compressive
strain to 80% o f the critical buckling strain. The experimentally, such that unhindered passage of
critical compressive strain capacity o f the pipe wall, internal inspection devices is still assured.
e," 11 , may be determined through analytic methods
and or physical tests, taking into account internal and COMPARISON OF STRAIN-BASED DESIGN
external pressure, the effect o f line depressurization, CRITERIA
initial imperfections, residual stresses and the shape A review o f pipeline design standards from
o f the material stress-strain curve. When primary various countries and on-going technical
loads dominate the behavior, the ultimate longitudinal investigations, which may serve as the basis for
compressive strain is taken as the strain coincident further code developments, is used to demonstrate
with the attainment o f peak load capacity o f the the application o f strain based failure criteria and
member or may be estimated using the following highlight areas for improvement in the Canadian
empirical formula: pipeline limit states design standard. The discussion

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC1998/40238/763/2507197/763_1.pdf by guest on 16 January 2024

is presented in terms o f the three primary limit states:
ecc rit= 0.5— -0 .0 0 2 5 + 3000 ( P i —P e ) D Y ovality, rupture and buckling. It should be noted that
C D \ 2tE , while the general trend in code development is
towards limit states design, not all o f the reviewed
Ovality. The limit state equation used to limit standards have been updated to a limit states format
ovality due to bending, A«, (cl C6.3.3.3) where: and thus will not explicitly handle each limit state.
fD -D • ^
Aq = 2 ‘-'m ax ‘-'m in S A 0 crit Ovalitv
Pfnax + Pm in J When all o f the strain-based ovality criteria are
compared, see Table 2, it is noted that design
is a characterization o f the greatest acceptable pipe
standards limit ovality using one or more o f the
deformation. The critical or limit ovality may be
following three general approaches:
taken as 0.03 or determined through detailed analysis
and or physical testing which take into account * A general requirement that ovality should not
internal and external pressure, initial imperfections, promote structural failure or affect pipeline
residual stresses and the shape o f the material stress- operation including maintenance and inspection
strain curve. When it can be shown that premature * Limit the maximum ovality to a fixed percentage
collapse will not occur as a result o f excessive * Provide a means o f calculating ovality and
deformation, the critical ovality deformation may be relating its effects to other ultimate limit states
increased up to 0.06 or a value derive analytically or (i.e. buckling, yielding) or serviceability limit
states (i.e. inspectability or flow restriction).

Table 2: Pipe Ovality Limit Comparison (in percent)

Pipe OD [mm]
Source Ref. 323.8 | 353.6 | 406.4 | 457 | 507
CSA Z662 [1] General Integrity / Operational Requirement
CSA Z662 - Sec 11 [1] General Integrity / Operational Requirement
CSA Z662 - App. C * [1] 3.0 (6.0)
DNV [3] 2.0
BSi [4] General Integrity / Operational Requirement
GL [5] General Integrity / Operational Requirement
sa a t [6,7] 2.5
API* [8] 6.2 5.5 5.8 5.9 6.1
Murray et. al.* [10] 4.3 4.7 5.3 5.9 6.5
* Number in brackets indicates upper bound o f behavior if it can be demonstrated that the behavior does not
affect pipeline operation or maintenance or promote failure.
1 Also refers to API Limits
: Inferred from minimum cold bend radius using a 10mm wall thickness and the BSi ovality formulation.
* Ovality which produces the yield level hoop stresses in the pipe, assuming a yield strength o f 480MPa
(70ksi) and a wall thickness o f 10mm.
 Most standards, including Z662, incorporate the compare with the 2.5% allowable principal strain
general requirement that the designer ensure that requirement presented in Appendix C of CSA Z662.
ovality does not cause operational problems or In addition, the degree to which ovality affects
promote failure. This approach is acceptable in that it other limit states (i.e., buckling, yielding, etc.) should
leaves the means of evaluating the extent and effects be considered. Based on Walker’s [9] work, 30% of
of ovality up to the user. the total ovality should be expected to remain after
Design requirements which limit ovality to a the flexural load is removed from the pipe.
single fixed percentage for all pipes are more Approaches like those presented above enable
conservative for pipes with lower D/t ratios (smaller the inclusion of ovality as a strength and or stability
diameter or thicker walled) or higher strength. Those limit state, but its inclusion would not alleviate the
design standards which currently provide a range of necessity to also incorporate a statement which
ovality limits consider only pipe diameter as a requires the designer to ensure that pipeline

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC1998/40238/763/2507197/763_1.pdf by guest on 16 January 2024

significant factor influencing ovality and thus do not maintenance (internal inspection) is not affected by
allow users to optimize their design in terms of wall the degree of pipe ovality.
thickness or material strength.
Rupture.
Only BS8010 includes a means of estimating
When all of the strain-based rupture criteria are
ovality, but does not indicate the maximum allowable
compared, see Table 3, it is noted that design
limit. This formulation may be used to relate die
standard rupture limits, with the exception of CSA
minimum bend radius and pipe D/t ratio to the
Z662-Appendix C, take one of the following three
resulting ovality as shown in Figure 2. This figure
general forms:
describes the relationship between pipe geometry,
bend radius and the degree of ovality which is • No explicit strain limit since the design approach
produced, but does not help in predicting the is strictly elastic, therefore, stresses and strains
interaction between the degree of ovality and the are directly proportional
stresses it creates. • Limit the maximum effective or principal strain to
a fixed percentage
• Provide individual limits for strains in the hoop
and longitudinal directions.
In a general design situation, there is no
significant benefit or operational reason for gross
section pipe strains in the hoop direction to exceed
the yield strain. In comparison, longitudinal strains
due to pipe bending either due to installation or in-
service events (i.e., unexpected soil movement) may
warrant the use of the post yield capacity of the pipe
material. Based on this reasoning design standards
which permit non-linear design practice imply either
an effective or principal strain approach or set
Figure 2: Ovality as a function of individual limits on strains in the hoop and
Pipe Minimum Bend Radius and D/t Ratio longitudinal directions. When individual limits are
set for the hoop and longitudinal strains, the hoop
The formulation presented by Murray et al.[10] strain is limited to the yield strain, prior to the
identifies a means of assessing the hoop stress application of the material partial safety factor, while
associated with the ovality process (a,) which may be plasticity is allowed in the longitudinal direction to
compared to the yield stress (ay) to develop a limit allow relatively large bending deformations.
state equation of the form: When the relatively high bending strains in the
longitudinal direction are permitted, attention should
X (J o ^ (}) ( T y
be paid to the resulting secondary effects including:
where X and <|> are the appropriate partial safety ovality, material property changes, promotion of
factors. Alternatively, the longitudinal bending buckling, girth weld deformation leading to ductility
strain and hoop ovality strain may be combined to concerns and the other affected limit states should
consider these effects.
 Ta b le 3: P ip e R u p tu re S tra in Lim it C o m p a riso n
Source Ref. Strain Limit
CSA Z662 [1] No Explicit Limit (Elastic Analysis)
CSA Z662 - Sec 11 * [1] 2.5% Principal Strain
CSA Z662 - App. C T [1] 0.53% (2.5%)
DNV1 [3] 0.2% (2.0%) Plastic Longitudinal Strains
BSi ** [4] 0.1% Plastic Equivalent Strain
G L TT [5] D/t Dependent Longitudinal Strains < 1.0%
or < 1.5% for controlled deformation
or < 2.0% for local discontinuities
SAA [6.7] No Explicit Limit (Elastic Analysis)

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC1998/40238/763/2507197/763_1.pdf by guest on 16 January 2024

API [8] No Explicit Limit (Elastic Analysis)
Graville et. al. [11] ehm" = 0.1838 - 0.1783 CTy/au
* Applies to installation and or infrequent loads
t Value in brackets is a suggested maximum based on observed pipe behavior which may be used if it is
shown that it will not promote failure or interfere with pipeline operation.
* 0.2% residual longitudinal strains but allows 2.0% local longitudinal strains.
** reference zero strain level does not include any residual strains from construction, installation or
pressure testing. This strain limit is strictly for operating pressures and thermal strains.
tf allows higher longitudinal strain levels for displacement controlled deformations and local strain
concentrations.
** Instability hoop strain due to pipe internal pressure.

Buckling. consideration in a buckling formulation is of

When all o f the strain-based buckling criteria are significance if the pipe has previously experienced a
compared, see Table 4, it is noted that design flexural load resulting in permanent deformations
standard buckling or wrinkling formulations are whether due to installation or an infrequent
expressed in one o f the following three general (unforeseen) load scenario. The residual ovality will
formats: reduce the residual compressive strength o f the pipe
• No explicit strain limit since the design approach section. The buckling limit state in the British
is strictly elastic, therefore, stresses and strains standard includes a minimum initial ovality, to
are directly proportional. account for pipe out o f roundness which corresponds
• Limit the maximum effective or principal strain to to industry fabrication tolerances.
a fixed percentage
• Provide individual limits for strains in the hoop CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
and longitudinal directions.
Ovality
Since there are so many analytical models Ovality is considered to be primarily a
predicting the local and beam like buckling behavior serviceability limit state in that it may restrict the
o f pipe sections, most design standards allow the operation and/or inspection (pigging) o f the pipeline.
designer the freedom to select the most appropriate A secondary effect o f ovality is its potential to
approach. In addition, buckling is a pipe failure promote buckling and or pipe rupture, thus degrading
mode which is primarily governed by the geometry o f the structural integrity o f the pipe.
the pipe (i.e. D/t ratio) and occurs in the elastic It is felt that with the understanding o f the pipe
behavior range o f the pipe material. For this reason, ovality process afforded by analytical and
with the exception o f those pipe sections which have experimental studies which have produced predictive
low D/t ratios, buckling will be an elastic failure models, ovality criteria expressed in terms o f a fixed
mode which could be modeled with equal validity in percentage for all pipes should be revised. This
terms o f the material stress or strain. revision is necessary to acknowledge the influences o f
Two buckling limit state features which should pipe geometry, flexural loads or deformations, pipe
be o f interest are the consideration o f initial pipe mechanical properties and initial ovality (out o f
ovality and direct means o f estimating the strain roundness) on the ovality o f a pipe section.
which will initiate wrinkling. The initial ovality
 fable 4: Buckling Strain Limit Comparison
Source Ref. S train Limit
CSA Z662 [1] No explicit limit (elastic analysis)
CSA Z662 • Sec 11 [1] No explicit limit (elastic analysis)
CSA Z662 - App. H * [1] Local buckling & wrinkling
DNVt [31 No explicit limit (elastic analysis)
BSi [4] Flexural & axial load buckling including ovality
GL [5] Same limit as rupture criteria
SAA [6,7] No explicit limit (elastic analysis)
API [8] No explicit limit (elastic analysis)

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC1998/40238/763/2507197/763_1.pdf by guest on 16 January 2024

Walker [9] Analytical function o f D/t and initial ovality
Murray et. al. [10] Wrinkling strain limit to prevent coating loss
Langner [12] Empirical strain formulation in terms o f D/t
* Analytical formulation for local buckling and a requirement to preclude wrinkling. M ay exceed buckling
limit with sufficient proof that pipe integrity and serviceability will not be affected.
f Includes interaction formula to consider combined buckling modes. Buckling formulations are included in
an appendix as recommended limit states.

The revised ovality criteria could take the form strain is assumed to be zero. It is recommended that
o f a limit state equation governing the response o f the the baseline for plastic strain accumulation be
pipe to various load scenarios. An alternative identified as the condition o f the pipe prior to
approach would be to formulate a limit state in terms installation. This assumption makes the material
o f flexural strain by assuming a yield strain o f 0.5% properties used in the design approach consistent with
and an initial out o f roundness consistent with pipe the pipe mechanical properties which are measured
fabrication tolerances. The resulting permanent immediately prior to installation.
ovality limit state would be expressed in terms o f the Pipeline standards which allow post yield design,
applied flexural strain and pipe geometry. The should require the pipe material properties (Y/T,
formulations presented by M unay e t al. or BS8010 elongation and toughness) after plastic deformation to
would be a suitable basis for the development o f this remain in compliance with minimum specified levels
new ovality criteria. and not promote failure. The ability o f pipe materials
If an ovality limit state formulation is to meet this requirement should be investigated.
undesirable, the current workmanship criteria should
Buckling
be reviewed to consider pipe geometry.
In the design o f pipeline systems a variety o f
Rupture buckling modes (e.g., column (Euler) buckling, local
The CSA Z662 Section 11 strain-based design buckling, wrinkling, etc.) should be considered,
rupture criteria, allows a similar amount o f strain as depending on the pipe loading and initial geometry.
other design approaches formulated in a similar Many buckling failure criteria are available to ensure
fashion (i.e. effective or principal stress criteria). If these modes o f failure do not manifest themselves.
the limit states appendix is to adopt this limit on Individual limit state equations will consider some or
principal strain, the current wording o f the strain- all o f the following effects, depending on the
based rupture criteria should be revised. application for which they were developed:
Consideration should be given to the alternative • axial deformations and or loads,
design approach which limits the hoop stress or strain • initial pipe deformations (e.g. ovality),
to the yield level but allows 2 to 2.5% total strain in • flexural deformations and or loads,
the longitudinal direction. The application o f a • pipe longitudinal curvature,
design criteria such as this might be limited to • internal pressure,
installation and to infrequent load or deformation • external pipe pressure, and
events. • material properties (e.g. SMYS, work hardened
In addition, care should be taken to identify the properties).
point in a pipe’s life-cycle at which the reference
 It would be desirable to have a variety o f [3] “Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems”, 1982
buckling limit state equations available to incorporate edition (to appear), Det Norske Veritas (DNV),
varying levels o f detail and conservatism in the Hovik, Norway.
design process. Since it may not be realistic to expect [4] “Code o f Practice for Pipelines”, BS8010: 1993,
a design standard to include a selection o f criteria for British Standards Institute, London, England.
an individual limit state, the designer should be [5] “Rules for Classification and Construction
required to consider all forms o f buckling and be Offshore Technology, Code III/4 - Subsea
referred to sources o f information on a variety o f Pipelines and Risers”, 1995 edition,
buckling criteria. Germanischer Lloyd, Hamburg, Germany.
The offshore pipeline design requirements should [6] “Pipeline Design Standard - AS 2885 - 1987”,
be merged with the onshore limit states pipeline Standards Association o f Australia (SAA).
design requirements to ensure a consistent design [7] “Offshore Pipeline Design Standard - AS 1958 -

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IPC/proceedings-pdf/IPC1998/40238/763/2507197/763_1.pdf by guest on 16 January 2024

approach. 1981”, Standards Association o f Australia
(SAA).
[8] “Design, Construction, Operation and
Defect Acceptance or ECA
Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon
The design o f pipeline systems assumes that the
Pipelines”, second editions, American
pipelines are homogenous and defect-free and
Petroleum Institute, R P I 11, Nov. 1993.
therefore may only consider average strain levels.
[9] Walker,A.C., “Bending o f Pipelines to High
Once defects or material inhomogeneities (e.g., under
Levels o f Strain”, SUT Conf. proc.,
or over-matching welds) are recognized, failure
ASPECT’94, 1994.
criteria may no longer be based on average strains,
[10] Murray,N.W., Bilston.P., “Rational Acceptance
they must consider local strains or strain
Limits for Field Bends in Oil or Gas Pipelines”,
concentrations. The strain-based assessment o f pipe
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary,
material and geometric discontinuities deserve further
Alberta, 1992.
attention to ensure a consistent approach to their
[11] Graville,B.A., Dinovitzer,A.S., Malik,L.,
assessment.
“Development o f a Rational Criteria For Strain
Limits in Pipeline Welds”, report to Nova
REFERENCES
Corporation, 1993.
[1] “Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems”, CSA Z662-96,
[12] Langner.C.G., “Design o f Deep Water
including draft version o f Appendix C,
Pipelines”, Proceedings, TNO-IWECO 30th
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale,
Symposium on Underwater Technology, May
Ontario, Canada.
1984.
[2] “Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems”, 1996
edition (to appear), Det Norske Veritas (DNV),
Hevik, Norway.