See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267598877

An Upheaval Buckling Limit State Function for Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines

Conference Paper · January 2008

DOI: 10.1115/IPC2008-64687

CITATIONS READS
2 894

4 authors, including:

Ian Matheson Wenxing Zhou

Atkins Global The University of Western Ontario
6 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS    93 PUBLICATIONS   1,215 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joe Zhou
TransCanada PipeLines Limited
83 PUBLICATIONS   387 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geotechnical and Structural Health Monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wenxing Zhou on 26 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 7th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2008
September 29 - October 3, 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Draft

IPC2008-64687

AN UPHEAVAL BUCKLING LIMIT STATE FUNCTION FOR ONSHORE NATURAL

GAS PIPELINES

Ian Matheson Wenxing Zhou

Atkins Boreas C-FER Technologies Inc.
Aberdeen, UK Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Joe Zhou Rick Gailing

TransCanada Pipeline Limited Southern California Gas Company
Calgary, Alberta, Canada Los Angeles, California, USA

ABSTRACT
The reliability-based design and assessment (RBDA) INTRODUCTION
methodology has gained increasing acceptance in the pipeline Trenching and backfilling of pipelines which operate at
industry, largely due to a multi-year PRCI program aimed at elevated temperatures induces large compressive axial forces.
establishing RBDA as a viable alternative for the design and The axial forces cause Euler buckling susceptibility. The
assessment of onshore natural gas pipelines. A key limit state susceptibility is increased at vertical overbend imperfections
of buried pipelines that operate at elevated temperatures is which may result from either the topography of the pipeline
upheaval buckling. The elevated temperatures generate large route or the trenching operation. If the weight of the pipeline
compressive axial forces that can cause Euler buckling combined with the resistance of the trench backfill are
susceptibility. The tendency to buckle is increased at vertical insufficient to hold the pipeline in place then the pipeline tends
imperfections (i.e. a series of cold formed bends) that primarily to displace vertically, resulting in upheaval buckling. Upheaval
occur due to topography. Upheaval buckling in itself is not an buckling has occurred in a number of land pipelines[1].
ultimate limit state but can lead to high strains, local buckling, Upheaval buckling may also interact with frost heave
high cycle fatigue, expensive remediation measures, and even within Artic land pipelines[1,2]]; this phenomenon is excluded
loss of pressure integrity. from the current work.
The critical forces at which upheaval buckling occurs for Upheaval buckling has also occurred in a number of
typical hill-crest type imperfections present in onshore elevated temperature subsea pipelines[3,4]. A major research
pipelines cannot be readily predicted using analytical methods. program was undertaken to develop design methodologies to
A parametric study is therefore undertaken using non-linear prevent upheaval buckling of subsea pipelines[5]. Significant
finite element analyses to generate a matrix of upheaval design and construction effort is expended to mitigate upheaval
buckling responses. The critical force for the onset of upheaval buckling of buried, elevated temperature subsea pipelines.
buckling is then developed using a series of empirical Although, upheaval buckling in itself is not an ultimate
relationships to capture the influences of all key parameters. limit state, it can lead to high strains, local buckling, high cycle
An upheaval buckling limit state function is subsequently fatigue, expensive remediation measures, and even loss of
developed by comparing the critical buckling force with pressure integrity. Hence upheaval buckling must be included
applied compressive force, which is a function of operating in any reliability-based design and assessment methodology.
pressure and temperature differential between the operating and
tie-in conditions. The limit state function can be readily
implemented in a reliability analysis framework to calculate the
pipeline failure probability due to upheaval buckling.

1 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING Soil Download
The soil download is modeled using static and dynamic
Model Geometry components. The dynamic component is only mobilized by
The analysis is undertaken using the commercial FE package upward movement of the pipe. The peak dynamic component
ABAQUS. The analysis considers a symmetrical hill type is reached at the vertical mobilization displacement, and a
imperfection as shown in shown in Figure 1. linear uplift force-displacement is assumed for lower values of
the uplift displacement. At pipe displacements greater than the
dynamic mobilization the total vertical soil download decreases
linearly to zero at the point at which the pipe breaks through
R the surface of the soil. The download–uplift response is
θ/ illustrated in Figure 2.
2
5 Mobilisation
displacement

4
Figure 1 Idealisation of a Buried Pipeline Passing
Over a Hill Crest (exaggerated vertical scale)
3

Download
The pipe passing over the hill crest is idealised to be an arc Dynamic
download
of radius R subtending an angle θ. The side slopes are
2
therefore at an angle of θ/2 to the horizontal. The analysis is
performed for angle θ of 3°, 6° and 12°. It is assumed that the
1
bends would be fabricated using cold formed bends such that Static
the as- installed pipeline (except the bends themselves) would download
be stress-free. The FE model is therefore defined as stress-free 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
with residual stresses in the bends neglected. Vertical Displacement
Following a sensitivity analyses, the length of the straight
pipe between the bend at the imperfection crown and concave Figure 2 Download Response
curve is set at 50 m to avoid interaction between the two bends. The static download or overburden is simply the weight of
The model extends for 100 m beyond the lower bend. soil directly above the pipe:
The pipeline is modeled using ABAQUS elastic-plastic
Ws = γ H Dc (1)
pipe elements PIPE31. Symmetry boundary conditions are
applied to the model at the crest location. The element length where γ =
bulk unit weight of backfill;
is 0.1 m within 20 m of the hill crest and within the lower bend. H =
cover height TOP;
The element length is increased to 0.25 m between these two Dc =
outside diameter of pipe (including
zones and for 20 m beyond the bottom bend. The remaining 80 coatings).
m of pipeline is modeled with elements of 2 .0 m length. The static soil download is normalized to pipe diameter i.e.
To allow the short model to incorporate axial pipeline the static download is expressed by γH. Two values of γH are
feed-in to the buckle, a spring is attached to the end of the modeled – 12 and 5 kN/m2
model to represent the axial stiffness and resistance of the The dynamic component is modeled using the pipe-soil
pipeline. The spring modeling is presented in Annex A. An response models taken from the American Lifelines Alliance
end force is applied to the end of the model to balance the force “Guideline for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe”[6]. The uplift
generated by the application of internal pressure and force is given by:
temperature.
Qu = N cv c Dc + N qv γ H Dc (2)
Pipeline Material
Three linepipe steel grades, X52, X65 and X80, are used to where Ncv = vertical uplift factor for clay (0 for c = 0);
determine the effects of the yield strength on the upheaval Nqv = vertical uplift factor for sand (0 for φ = 0°);
buckling behaviour. The yield strength is defined by the API c = backfill soil shear strength.
specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). The stress-strain
curves are modeled using Ramberg-Osgood parameters for the Ncv is given by:
plastic response and standard elastic parameters for the elastic
H
response. The effect of hardening is examined by modifying N cv = 2* ≤ 10 (3)
the post-yield response of the X65 curve. Dc
Nqv is given by:

2 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 φH Loading
N qv = ≤ Nq (4) The loading to the pipeline is applied in three load steps:
44 Dc 1. Application of gravity loading
where φ = backfill friction angle. 2. Application of internal pressure combined with the
corresponding end force P0
Nq is given by: 3. Application of temperature to 100 °C combined with
corresponding increase in the end force
Nq = exp( π tan φ ) tan 2 ( 45 + φ ) (5) In a small number of cases the applied temperature needs
2 to be increased to ensure that buckling occurs.
Substituting equations (3) and (4) into (2) yields:
DEFINITION OF CRITICAL BUCKLING POINT
φ The critical buckling point is defined as the point at which
Qu = 2c H + γ H2 (6) the effective force in the buckle crown reaches a maximum
44 compressive level. The force remote from the imperfection is
The first term in the dynamic force equation represent the defined as the applied force and is proportional to the applied
cohesive component and the second term the non-cohesive pressure and temperature. Both effective and applied forces are
component. Qu is normally independent of D for both cohesive total section forces. The effective and applied force versus
and non-cohesive components. crown uplift response is illustrated in Figure 3 for a typical 24”
The base case dynamic download is taken as 6 kN/m with OD pipeline case for imperfection angles of 3°, 6° and 12°.
a lower sensitivity case of 2 kN/m and an upper sensitivity case -6000
of 9 kN/m. These values can be used to represent either
cohesive or non-cohesive backfill behaviour. -5000

The base case mobilization displacement is 10 mm with a

sensitivity case of 40 mm. -4000

The pipe-soil response is modeled within the FE analysis

Force (kN)

-3000
using the ABAQUS pipe-soil interaction element PSI34.
-2000
Analysis Matrix
The analysis considers a matrix of 252 cases. The pipe -1000
parameters are given in Table 1. For the sensitivity analyses,
only the parameter of interest is varied. 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Parameter Base Case Sensitivities Crown uplift (m)

3° - effective force 6° - effective force

Outside Diameter 24” 16”, 42” 12° - effective force critical effective force
3° - applied force 6° - applied force
Do /t Ratio 60 40, 80 12° - applied force critical applied force

Grade X65 X52, X80 Figure 3 Typical Effective and Applied Forces vs.
Uplift Response
Hardening Good Low
As the model is initially loaded the force throughout the
Hoop Stress 60% of SMYS 80% of SMYS model is constant i.e. the effective force is equal to the applied
force. However, as the crown of the buckle begins to lift,
Bend Radius 38D 50D, 20D
Figure 3 indicates that the effective force does not increase at
Table 1 Summary of Pipe Parameter for Analysis the same rate as the remote applied force. This difference
Matrix between the two forces is due to axial feed-in to the developing
For each pipe parameter case a set of 18 analyses is buckle. The figure indicates that the effective force reaches a
performed given by: critical point at which the force is a maximum compressive
• Three bend angles θ of 3°, 6° and 12° value. The corresponding applied force at the critical point is
(corresponding to slope angles of 1.5°, 3° and 6°) also indicated in Figure 3. From the critical point the uplift
• Two static soil downloads (γH) of 12 and 5 kN/m3 increases fairly rapidly with increasing temperature or applied
• Three dynamic soil downloads of 6, 2 and 9 kN/m3 force, especially for the lower imperfection angles.
• Soil mobilisation displacement of 10 mm Large vertical movements do not necessarily lead to an
In addition a number of cases are also repeated with the ultimate limit state. Ultimate limit states are likely to include
increased soil mobilization displacement of 40 mm. local buckling, fatigue and weld fracture. A preliminary check
on local buckling is undertaken by comparing the compressive

3 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

mechanical axial strain1 against the critical buckling strain Figure 4 indicates that, for the 3°and 6° imperfection
given by the Murphy-Langner formulation[7]: angles, a small increase in applied force (or temperature) above
the previously defined critical point leads to fairly rapid
t increase in compressive mechanical axial strain. The OS-F101
ε c = 0.5 ⋅ (7)
D0 buckling strain with no pressure correction is soon exceeded.
For the lowest imperfection angle (i.e. 3°), the Murphy-
where t = nominal wall thickness; Langner buckling strain and OS-F101 buckle strain which
Do = outside diameter of steel pipe. accounts for half the normal operating pressure are also
exceeded with no further increase in applied force or
The effect of internal pressure and the yield to tensile ratio temperature. This confirms that the previous definition of
of the pipeline steel can be accounted for by employing the critical point is both robust and appropriate.
DNV OS-F101 formulation for critical strain[8]. The OS-F101 A further check is also made on tensile total axial strain
local buckling strain (without safety factors) is given by: which could lead to girth weld fracture. For older pipelines,
which may have been constructed with less rigorous quality
t  σ  −1.5 control procedures, a tensile strain limit of 0.5% is considered
εc = 0.78  2 − 0.01 1 + 5 h  α h α gw (8)
 Do  fy  as a broadly accepted criterion[9]. Welds with small defects and
 good toughness would be expected to survive much greater
where t2 = corroded wall thickness (taken as the strains. The applied force is plotted against the tensile total
nominal wall thickness); axial strain in Figure 5.
σh = hoop stress;
fy = yield strength to be used in design (yield -6000

strength reduced by a factor of 0.96);

αh = maximum yield to tensile strength ratio -5000

(assumed to be 0.90);
-4000
αgw = girth weld factor (taken as 0.60 for D/t =
Force (kN)

60). 3° - applied force

-3000
6° - applied force
The applied force is plotted against the compressive -2000 12° - applied force
mechanical axial strain in Figure 4. The figure also gives the
critical applied force
buckling strains given by Murphy-Langner, and by OS-F101 -1000
for no internal pressure in the pipeline and half the operational tensile strain limit

pressure i.e. corresponding to a hoop stress of 30% of yield. 0

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0%
-6000
Peak Total Axial Strain

-5000 Figure 5 Typical Applied Force vs. Tensile Axial Strain

Response
-4000
Figure 5 indicates that, for the 3°and 6° imperfection
Force (kN)

-3000
angles, a small increase in applied force (or temperature) above
the previously defined critical point leads to a fairly rapid
-2000 increase in tensile total axial strain. Once more this confirms
that the previous definition of critical point is both robust and
-1000
appropriate.
0
0.0% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% INFLUENCE OF KEY PARAMETERS AND
Peak Mechanical Axial Strain (%)
DEVELOPMENT OF EMPIRICAL MODEL
3° - applied force 6° - applied force
12° - applied force critical applied force
Murphy-Langner buckling strain OS-F101 buckling strain - no pressure
Methodology
OS-F101 buckling strain - ½ pressure An initial attempt has been made to develop an analytical
Figure 4 Typical Applied Force vs. Compressive Axial solution for the upheaval buckling response of the stress-free
Strain Response pipe overlying a hill shaped imperfection, as such a solution
would greatly assist the development of the limit state function.
However, the problem proved to be intractable.
1
The mechanical strain is given by the total axial strain minus the thermal Hence, the approach taken is to develop best fit prediction
strain. The difference is small: at 100 °C the absolute increase in strain from equations to the FE results for critical effective and applied
total to mechanical strain is 0.117%.

4 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

forces whilst attempting to closely model the likely physical 0.42 % and 2.58 %, respectively. Similar plots were obtained
behavior. In addition the empirical model is kept as simple as for the three bend radii and two levels of dynamic soil
possible without allowing errors to become too great. The mobilization.
curve fitting is undertaking using Oakdale Engineering DataFit
software. Hoop Stress Correction Factor
The empirical model is summarized below. Forces are Increasing the hoop stress reduces the critical effective
expressed as compression negative. force.
For hoop stresses other than 0.6 of yield stress, a hoop
Base Equation for Critical Effective Force stress correction factor should be applied to the effective force.
The FE analyses indicate that radius of the formed bend The calculated correction factors from the FE analyses are
(e.g. 20D, 38D and 50D) has no significant effect on the critical plotted in Figure 7 for a hoop stress of 80% of yield. The
effective force. However, increasing the bend angle does figure also includes the best fit equation for the hoop stress
reduce the critical effective force. correction factor which is a function of the base case (X65)
The critical effective force increases with total soil effective force and of the hoop stress, and is of the form:
download and is independent of the relative proportion of static 2
and dynamic download components. However, increasing the σ h − 0.6  Peff _ base 
static download component leads to higher applied forces as it Fhs = 1−   (10)
increases the axial pipe-soil friction in the feed-in to the buckle.
0.6  8633 
Increasing the mobilization displacement from 10 to 40
mm is found to affect both effective and applied forces by less where σh = ratio of hoop stress to yield stress.
than 2%. If the hoop stress is 0.6 of yield, the hoop stress correction
The critical effective force at the buckle location, for base factor defaults to 1.0.
values of hoop stress (60% of yield stress), material grade
1.02
(X65), D/t ratio (60) and steel pipe outside diameter (24 inch) Effective Force Ratio - hs = 80 / hs = 60
is found to be expressed by the following best fit equation: 1.00

0.6285 0.98
 1 
Peff _ base = − 99.89 ⋅  − 3.297  ⋅W 0.5771

 sin (θ / 2)
0.96
tot
 0.94
(9)
0.92
FE Data
where Peff_base =
critical effective force (kN);
0.90 Best Fit
θ =
total imperfection angle;
total download (pipe weight + soil
Wtot = 0.88
0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000 -5000
download) (kN/m).
Effective Force (kN) - hs = 60
The critical effective forces from the FE results for three
bend angles and six combinations of static and dynamic Figure 7 Hoop Stress Correction Factor – Best Fit
download are plotted in Figure 6 as individual marker points, Curve
along with predictions from the best fit equation which are
plotted as traces. Material Yield Strength Correction Factor
-5000
Increasing the material grade increases the critical effective
-4500
force, although the level of increase is less for
-4000

-3500
imperfection/download combinations which generally have a
Effective Force (kN)

-3000
lower critical effective force
-2500
A yield strength correction factor should be applied to the
-2000 s1d3, - 16.3 kN/m
effective force for pipeline yield strengths other than 448 MPa
-1500
s1d1, - 13.3 kN/m (grade X65). The calculated correction factors from the FE
s1d2, - 9.3 kN/m
-1000 s2d3 - 12.0 kN/m
analyses are plotted in Figure 8 for yield strengths
-500 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
s2d1 - 9.0 kN/m
40 45 corresponding to X52 and X80 material grades. The figure
s2d2 - 5.0 kN/m
0 also includes the best fit equation for the yield strength
1/ SIN(Bend Angle /2) correction factor which is a function of the base case effective
Figure 6 Comparison of FE and Predicted Critical force and of the yield strength, and takes the form:
Applied Forces
The mean and the standard deviation of the errors between
the eighteen FE results and the best fit equation predictions are

5 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 2.631⋅
σy Diameter Correction Factor
 σ y − 448   Peff _ base  448 The critical effective force increases with increasing pipe
F ys = 1+  ⋅ 
 448   − 4094 − 4.681 ⋅ σ  diameter and therefore a correction factor should be applied to
   y  the effective force for steel pipe outside diameters other than 24
(11) inches.
where σy = yield stress (MPa). The calculated correction factors from the FE analyses are
plotted in Figure 10 for diameters of 24 and 42 inches. The
1.10
figure also includes the best fit equation for the diameter
correction factor which is purely a function of the diameter, and
1.05 is of the form:
1.335
=  o 
D
Eff. Force Ratio

X52 - data
1.00 Fdia  (13)
X80 - data  24 
X52 - best fit
0.95 where Do is in inches.
X80 - best fit

0.90 2.5 Calculated Factor - D = 16 inch

Calculated Factor - D = 24 inch
2.0 Calculated Factor - D = 42 inch
0.85
(D/24)^1.335
0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000 -5000 -6000
1.5
Effective Force (kN) - X65
F(D)
1.0
Figure 8 Material Yield Strength Correction Factor–
Best Fit Curve 0.5

D/t Correction Factor 0.0

The critical effective force decreases with increasing Do/t 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

ratio and therefore a correction factor should be applied to the Diameter (inch)

effective force for Do /t ratios other than Do /t = 60. Figure 10 Diameter Correction Factor– Best Fit Curve
The calculated correction factors from the FE analyses are
plotted in Figure 9 for Do /t of 40 and 90. The figure also Final Effective Force
includes the best fit equation for the D/t correction factor which The final value of the critical effective force is then given by:
is purely a function of the D/t ratio and is of the form:
Peff = Peff _ base ⋅ Fhs ⋅ F ys ⋅ FDt ⋅ Fdia (14)
= 1 − 0.3710 ⋅ ln  o
D /t 
FDt
60 
(12)

Applied Force
where Do = pipe outside diameter; The ratio of critical applied to critical effective forces is a
t = pipe wall thickness. function of the effective force, diameter and D/t ratio. The
critical applied force is given by:
1.3 Calculated Factor - D/t = 40  
Calculated Factor - D/t = 60
 
1.2
Calculated Factor - D/t = 90
 − 661.4 − 53.71⋅ f 
1.1 1 - 0.3710*ln(D/t/60)
Papp = 0.8593 ⋅ exp  0.55 1 .33
 ⋅ Peff
  Do / t   24  
⋅  ⋅   
F(D/t)

1.0  Peff
  60   Do  
0.9

0.8 (15)
0.7 where f = pipe-soil axial resistance (kN/m).
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A number of formulations exist for determining pipe-soil
D/t Ratio
axial resistance and any of these can be used in combination
Figure 9 D/t Correction Factor– Best Fit Curve with Equation (15). For example, the pipe-soil axial resistance
can be calculated using the following equation:

6 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

  π   where g = limit state function with g<0 representing
D   π
f = µ  γ  H + o  Do (1 + (sin φ )) + w p − γ Do2  failure
 2  2   4  B = model error associated with Papp predicted
(16) from Equation (15)
S = applied force due to pressure and
where = wp
unit weight of pipe (kN/m); temperature (compressive as negative)
= µcoefficient of axial friction. The applied force S can be calculated using the following
The error summary for applied force presented in the next equations:
section is based on the use of Equation (16) for the pipe-soil
axial resistance. Use of an alternative model for pipe-soil axial S = ST + S p (18)
friction may yield different error levels for the applied force.

Error Summary
ST = − Eα T (T2 − T1 )π (D0 − t ) t (19)
The error bands between the FE results and the empirical
equation predictions are summarized in Figure 11. Error bands π (D0 − 2t )2
are given for both critical effective force at the buckle and S P = −(1 − 2v ) p (20)
applied force remote from the buckle, for the base forces and 4
for the resulting forces when each of the correction factors is where ST = temperature-induced force;
applied in isolation. The mean errors are indicated by the Sp = pressure-induced force;
square markers and the error bands show the ±2s.d. limits. The E = Young’s modulus;
maximum actual positive and negative errors are plotted as aT = thermal coefficient of expansion for steel;
diamonds. T2 = operating temperature;
T1 = tie-in temperature;
14
12
Effective Forces v = Poisson’s ratio;
10
Applied Forces
p = operating pressure.
8 The model error B associated with Equation (15) is
6
characterized by comparing the buckling forces predicted from
4
Error (%)

2
FEA (considered as “true” buckling force) and the equation for
0 the 252 parametric cases considered in the study. The model
-2 error is characterzied by the ratios between the predictions from
-4
FEA and Equation (15). Statistical analyses indicate that the
-6
-8
model follows a normal distribution with a mean of 1.0 and a
-10 standard deviation of 0.04. Note that the model error is
Base Hoop Stress Grade D/t Diameter
predicated on the fact that Equation (16) is used to calculate the
pipe-soil axial resistance with a fixed set of values.for µ (0.5),
Figure 11 Buckling Force Function Error Summary H (0.7 m), and φ (30 degrees). Using a different set of values
for µ, H, and φ in Equation (16) or an alternative method to
A further check on the robustness of the empirical model calculate the pipe-soil axial resistance will likely result in
would be to determine the error between FE and predicted different model error characteristics.
critical forces for a reasonably large number of cases where
more than one parameter is simultaneously varied from the CONCLUSIONS
base values. Unfortunately this exercise was not carried out Generating an analytical model of the upheaval buckling
during the course of the work due to time and resource response of an offshore pipeline which is installed stress free
constraints. over a hill shaped imperfection appears to be intractable and
hence FE analysis is required.
UPHEAVAL BUCKLING LIMIT STATE FUNCTION A limit state function to describe upheaval buckling has
Once the empirical equation for predicting the critical been developed by comparing the critical buckling force with
buckling force is developed, the upheaval buckling limit state applied compressive force. The critical buckling force is
function is established by comparing the critical force with the calculated using a set of empirical equations best fit to a matrix
applied compressive force due to pressure and temperature. of FE results. The applicability of the limit state model is
The limit state function is expressed as follows: limited to the range of variables considered in the FE matrix.
g = −( BPapp − S ) (17) More specifically, the limit state function is applicable to
pipeline diameters between 406.4 and 1066.8 mm (16 to 42
inches), diameter-over-wall thickness ratios between 40 and 80,
steel grades between 358 and 551 MPa (X52 to X80), hoop

7 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

stress levels between 60% and 80% of steel grade, soil The authors would likely to recognize the contributions of
download forces between 5.1 and 21.8 kN/m (29.1 and 124.5 Spencer Wilmshurst (Atkins Boreas) who developed the FE
lb/in), and imperfection angles between 3 and 12 degrees. models and Malcolm Carr (Atkins Boreas) who provided
The upheaval buckling limit state function can be readily technical guidance to the work.
implemented in a reliability analysis framework to facilitate the
reliability based design and assessment. Furthermore, the REFERENCES
critical buckling force equations presented in this paper can be 1. Palmer, A.C. and Williams, P.J. Frost heave and
used in preliminary deterministic design for upheaval buckling pipeline upheaval buckling. Canadian Geotechnical
but would require the inclusion of a safety factor. The Journal, 40: 1033-1038 (2003).
derivation of such a safety factor is beyond the scope of the 2. Nixon, J.F. and Burgess, M. Norman Wells pipeline
current study. settlement and uplift movements. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 36: 119-135 (1999).
NOMENCLATURE 3. Neilsen, N.-J.R., Lyngberg, B and Pedersen, P.T.
B Model error Upheaval buckling failures of insulated flowlines: a
c Backfill shear strength case story. OTC6488. OTC. Richardson, Texas. 7-
Dc Outside Diameter of Pipe including coatings 10 May 1990.
Do Outside Diameter of Steel Pipe 4. Breivik, J, Ferdinandsen, J. and Hansen, H.B.
E Young’s modulus Tomeleiten flowlines: stabilization of the upheaval
Fhs Hoop stress correction factor buckle. Society for Underwater Technology
Fys Material yield strength correction factor Conference on Advances in Subsea Pipeline
FDt Do/t ratio correction factor Engineering and Technology. London 30-31 May
Fdia Diameter correction factor 1990.
f Pipe-soil axial resistance 5. Palmer A.C., Ellinas, C.P., Richards, D.M. and Guijt,
fy Yield strength to be used in design J. Design of submarine pipelines against upheaval
H Cover height (top of pipe) buckling. OTC6635. OTC. Richardson, Texas. 7-10
Ncv Vertical uplift factor for clay May 1990.
Nqv Vertical uplift factor for sand 6. American Lifelines Alliance, “Guidelines for the
Papp Critical applied axial force (remote from buckle) Design of Buried Steel Pipe”, July 2001.
Peff Critical effective axial force (at crown of buckle) 7. Murphy, C and Langner C. Ultimate pipe strength
Peff_base Critical effective axial force given by the base under bending collapse and fatigue. 4th International
equation Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
p Operating pressure Engineering. 1985
Qu Soil Dynamic Download 8. Det Norske Vertias, Offshore Standard OS-F101,
S Applied force Submarine Pipeline Systems, January 2000 (reprint
ST Temperature-induced force with amendments and corrections as of January 2003).
Sp Pressure-induced force 9. Knauf, G., Hopkins, P., 1996. The EPRG Guidelines
T1 Tie-in temperature on the Assessment of Defects in Transmission Pipeline
T2 Operating temperature Girth Welds. 3R International, 35, Jahrgang, Heft, 10-
t Nominal wall thickness 11, p. 620-624.
t2 Corroded wall thickness
Ws Soil Static Download
Wtot Total soil download
αgw Girth weld factor
αh Maximum yield to tensile strength ratio
αT Thermal coefficient of expansion for steel
γ Bulk unit weight of backfill
θ Total imperfection angle
σh Hoop stress
φ Backfill friction angle

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Pipeline Research Council
International (PRCI) for sponsoring the work and permitting
publication of this paper.

8 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 ANNEX A

END SPRING MODELING

To allow the pipeline axial feed-in to the buckle to be

modeled correctly within a shorter model an end spring is used. 0 0
fx
The method assumes that the FE model represents an isolated ∆ 0 = ∫ ε x dx = ∫ dx (A3)
buckle in the middle of a long pipeline, and imposes Ls Ls
EA
compatibility conditions between the shorter model and what
would be the remainder of the pipeline via a spring and a force. which gives:
Once bucking has initiated the axial force profile along the
pipeline will be similar to that shown in Figure A1.
fL2s
∆0 = − (A4)
2 EA
P

The negative sign in Equation A3 implies a movement

towards the buckle.
The length, Ls, between the end of the model and where
P0 the virtual anchor would occur is defined by:

P0 − PM
Ls = (A5)
PM f
PB
Combining Equations A4 and A5 yields the spring
displacement in terms of the spring force:
X

Extent of FEA model Ls (P0 − PM )2 ∆P 2

∆0 = = (A5)
2 EAf 2 EAf
Figure A1 Axial Force Profile (Buckle at the Centre)
In Figure A1, P0 is the fully constrained force remote from The spring is attached to the end of the model as shown in
the buckle, PB is the force in the buckle and PM is the force at Figure A2. A balancing force equal to the fully constrained
the end of the FE model. force P0, which would be induced in a straight pipeline by the
The axial force within the feed-in length is: induced pressure and temperature loading, must be applied to
the end of the model as pressure and temperature are increased.
P = P0 − fx (A1)

Pipe elements End spring

where f = pipe-soil axial resistance

Therefore the axial strain is:

∆T P0
P −P f x
εx = 0 = (A2)
EA EA
Figure A2 End Spring and Balancing Force
where f = pipe-soil axial resistance
A typical force-displacement relationship for the end-
EA = pipe axial stiffness
spring is shown in Figure A3.
The axial displacement at the end of the feed-in zone is
then:

9 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 8000

6000
Axial Force in Spring [kN]

4000

2000

0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000
End Displacement [m]

Figure A3 End-Spring Force vs. Displacement

Relationship

10 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

View publication stats