Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22 (2009) 884888

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Strain-based design criteria of pipelines

Bing Liu a, *, X.J. Liu b, Hong Zhang b
a b

PetroChina Pipeline R&D Center, 51 Road Jinguang, Langfang, Hebei Province 065000, PR China China University of Petroleum (Beijing), 18 Fuxue Road, Changping, Beijing 102249, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 9 August 2007 Received in revised form 21 July 2009 Accepted 22 July 2009 Keywords: Pipeline Strain-based Limit states Design criteria Strain limit

a b s t r a c t
Traditional pipeline design analysis methods presented in various codes are usually based on limit stress criteria. However, these methods may be inapposite to modern steels, especially for displacement controlled loads such as ground displacement load. Strain limits, including ovalization limit, tensile strain limit and compression strain limit, are compared in this paper based upon various codes and recommendations. In addition, most factors of strain limits are also reviewed respectively. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction With the rapid development of oil and gas pipeline industry, much more new trend is showing, including long-distance, largediameter and high-operating-pressure. This requires corresponding pipeline design guidelines and criteria should continue to adapt to the new situation. From the design step, not only the safety and reliable of pipeline but also its economic and efcient operation should be ensured. Most of the existing pipeline design codes are based on limiting stress criteria, which is considered acceptable for steel with a well dened yield point and a well dened yield ductility and strength. But the stress in pipelines may exceed the limit under some loads, such as earthquakes, landslides, and the laying of submarine pipelines and other displacement control loads, and the strength design criteria based on stress is no longer valid (Pan, 2005). 2. Background Stress-based design criteria are based on the minimum yield stress for the pipeline, while strain-based design criteria are based on limit state design and displacement control load. If the safe operation can be ensured under displacement load, the pipeline strain is allowed to be more than the specied yield strain. Although some plastic deformation occurred in the pipeline here,

the pipeline has been able to meet the operation requirements, and can play more capacity. Stress-based design method supplemented with strain-based design method, can utilize this deformation capability, and make the pipeline fully play its role under security and economic design. 2.1. Limit state design Limit state is a state beyond which the structure no longer satises the requirements. Both DNV (Det Norske Veritas, 2000) and CSA (Canadian Standards Association, 2003) use limit state method for pipeline design. But there are slightly different in state limit classication between codes, and in DNV-OS-F101, four kinds state limits are recognized, including serviceability limit state, ultimate limit state, fatigue limit state, accidental limit state. Limit state method is applied to the pipeline design, and appropriate design criteria are presented in order to make the conservative less with more exibility to the designers. 2.2. Load control and displacement control There are many different classications to loads upon the pipeline. Displacement control loading can be dened more specically as a loading that can be reduced to nothing by a change in the shape of the part of interest. By contrast a load control loading cannot be reduced to zero by a simple change in shape. Bigger strain may be allowed to displace control loading. The loading on a pipeline may generally be a combination of load and

* Corresponding author. Tel: 86 316 2170702; fax: 86 316 2170240. E-mail address: kjliubing@petrochina.com.cn (B. Liu). 0950-4230/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2009.07.010

B. Liu et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22 (2009) 884888

885

displacement controlled. The pressure loading will be load controlled, but the soil motion around a pipeline will usually cause displacement control moment loading. 3. The strain-based design methodology and the state of art The main principles of limit states design included in the strainbased design are the following (Zhou & Glover, 2005):  Identication of all applicable limit states;  Classication of limit states into ultimate limit states and serviceability limit states dependent on the consequence if the limit states are violated;  Development of limit state functions; and  Establishment of design criteria to ensure safe and effective design. Specically, limit state functions (or design criteria), in terms of tensile and compressive strains, can be expressed as follows:  Maximum tensile strain demand  Factored tensile strain capacity.  Maximum compressive strain demand  Factored compressive strain capacity. Therefore, the key components of applying strain-based design to a project are the processes and models used to determine both the strain demands and strain capacities. 3.1. The code provisions development The general framework for the application of strain-based design has been the subject of considerable research during the past twenty years (AME, 1997; Det Norske Veritas, 1982). This work has been achieved through the publication of limit state design Rules for submarine pipelines. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) in 1982 proposed the use of combined stress-based design criteria and strain-based design criteria together. And in 1996 Det Norske Veritas published a subsea pipelines limit state design criteria (Det Norske Veritas, 1996) in which there are many analytical methods based on a variety of load conditions. In the same year, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) published CSA Z662-96 (Canadian Standards Association, 1996) which comprises strain-based design criteria for submarine pipeline design and the limit state design. In 2007, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) published CSA Z662-2007. Several codes have provisions that apply to strain-based design of pipelines, including DNV-OS-F101, CSA-Z662, API RP 1111-1999, ASCE, ASME B31.8., API 1104 and ABS 2006. These codes can be placed in three general categories: those that provide a comprehensive overall pipeline standard that includes requirements both for stress-and strain-based design (DNV, 2000; CSA-Z662), those that specically allow strain-based design but do not provide extensive provisions related to strain-based design (B31.8, API 1104), and those that provide information on strain-based design related to a specic subgroup of pipelines (ABS, 2006; API RP 1111, 1999). 3.2. The recent years research projects Several organizations have current research projects that will be released to the public domain after their completion in areas that directly or indirectly impact strain-based design of pipelines. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the Ofce of Pipeline Safety (OPS) of USA co-funded EWI to provide a general guidance

on strain-based design for pipelines both for the on-and off-shore environment. DNV and other organizations also have some research projects about it (American Petroleum Institute Publishing Services, 1999; Chiou, 1996; Ellinas, 1999; Graville & Dinovitzer, 1993; Wang, Denys, Rudland, & Horseley, 2002; Wang, Cheng, & Horsley, 2004).

3.3. The theoretical and nite-element analysis development Extensive research has been conducted on the subject of local buckling, wrinkling and post-buckling behavior of pipe in the last ten years (Das, Cheng, Murray, & Zhou, 2000; Dorey, Murray, Cheng, Grondin, & Zhou, 1999; Fatemi et al., 2008; Liu, Liu, & Zhang, 2008a). The experimental and nite-element Analysis have led to in-depth understanding on the initiation and development of local buckling and wrinkling. In general for common modern steel pipes, the initiation of local buckling was found to be primarily dependent on the D/t (pipe diameter to thickness) ratio, the internal pressure, pipe material properties and initial geometric imperfection. The initiation of local buckling is also dependent, to a lesser degree, on other factors including applied load combination, soil restraints, and residual stresses. The tensile strain limit is determined by the behavior of girth weld aws in response to applied strain. The approach to tensile strain capacity of pipelines has been the hot spot (Dinovitzer, Brian, & Graville, 1996; Graville & Dinovitzer, 1993; Liu, Liu, & Zhang, 2008b; Wang et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2004). The basic approach is based on the inter-relationship between the longitudinal pipe stress-strain properties, the toughness and stress-strain properties of the weld and HAZ, aw size and location, and the applied loads.

3.4. The experiment development Wide plate test is widely viewed as one of the closest representations of pipeline girth weld stress state under construction and service loading conditions. Much of the early tests focused on achieving plastic collapse of the girth welds, dened as achieving a measured failure strain of 0.5% or above. In recent years, wide plate test is being increasingly used to determine tensile failure strains beyond yield, i.e., greater than 0.5% (Wang, Liu, Chen, & Horsley, 2006). Such tests are also being used as a tool for welding procedure qualication for high strain applications (Denys, De Waele, Lefevre, & De Baets, 2004). In such applications, the wide plate test is more than a tool to assure plastic collapse on a pass/fail basis. The test becomes much more inuential as the measured failure strains affect the selection of materials, welding processes, defect acceptance criteria, and ultimately inuence the economics of pipeline projects in environmentally sensitive areas.

4. Comparison of strain-based design criteria In this paper Strain limits, including ovalization limit, tensile strain limit and compression strain limit, are compared based upon various codes and recommendations (Dinovitzer & Smith, 1998).

4.1. Ovalization limit Ovalization limit criteria on strain-based are compared shown in Table 1. Ovalization limit criteria generally used to limit the maximum ovality to a xed percent or meet a general requirement that ovality should not promote structural failure or affect pipeline operation including maintenance and inspection.

886 Table 1 Pipeline ovalization limit comparison. Criteria CSA-Z662-07 App.C DNV-OS-F101 (2000) API 1111-1999 Murray et al. (Murray, & Bilston, 1992)

B. Liu et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22 (2009) 884888

5.1. Factors of ovalization strain limit

Ovalization Limit/% 3.0(6.0)a 3.0 5.5 w 6.2 4.3 w 6.5b

a Number in brackets indicates upper bound of behavior if it can be demonstrated that the behavior does not affect pipeline operation or maintenance or promote failure. b Ovality which produces the yield level hoop stresses in the pipe, assuming a yield strength of 480 MPa and a wall thickness of 10 mm.

The key factors of ovalization limit are as follows: D/t ratio, bending strain, etc. Ovalization limit may decrease with the change of D/t ratio, on the other hand, generally speaking there is a trend of increase with bending strain. BS 8010 (1993) includes a means of estimating ovality, but does not indicate the maximum allowable limit. The ovalization limit can be calculated by Equation (3):

 2  D D0 3b f 0:06 1 0 120t t

(3)

4.2. Tensile strain limit Tensile criteria on strain-based are compared, see Table 2. Tensile limit is often given by not only elastic but also plastic method. DNV-OS-F101 (2000) rules that Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) is needed if the accumulated plastic strain is more than 0.3%. To the accumulated plastic strain is more than 2.0%, both ECA and other additional requirements of materials are needed. In CSA, DNV and ASCE, the application of these tensile limits are based on the assumption of a defect-free homogeneous pipe material. 4.3. Compression strain limit The compression strain limit may be estimated using the following empirical formula in CSA Z662:

where f is the ovalization, and D0 is the outside diameter, and t is the pipe wall thickness, and 3b is the bending strain. This formulation may be used to relate the minimum bending strain and pipe D/t ratio to the resulting ovality as shown in Fig. 1. This gure describes the relationship between pipe geometry, bending strain and the degree of ovality which is produced. 5.2. Factors of tensile strain limit The tensile limit can be determined to some extent by the girth weld defects under applied strain. Usually pipelines can take greater strain if the defects in welds are smaller and the weld metal with a high strength match and appropriate fracture toughness. The key factors of tensile strain limit are as follows:  Girth Weld a) Crack: Crack size, crack location, etc. b) Geometry Size: Weld cap height, Bevel angle, etc. c) Weld strength mismatch: High strength match is needed generally. d) CTOD toughness: With the increase of CTOD the tensile strain limit also increases generally.  Y/T For the base material whose accumulated plastic strain may be more than 2%, DNV (2000) recommends that Y/T (Yield strength to Tensile Strength) is a lower level: 0.85. For the base materials whose minimum yield stress are 415 MPa or more, DNV (2000) recommends that Y/T in transverse is 0.92; while for less than 415 MPa, DNV (2000) recommends 0.90. The tensile strain limit may decrease with the increase of Y/T, just as shown in Fig. 2.  Elongation-to-Failure Limits for Pipe Material The minimum elongation (e) for pipe to API 5L (2000) are given by an equation based on the specied minimum ultimate tensile strength (U) and the cross-sectional area (A) of the tensile test specimen. The minimum elongation in 2 in. is given in percent to the nearest 0.5%. In SI unit, the equations is e 1944(A)0.2/(U)0.9. DNV (2000) provides a recommendation that pipe for service at accumulated plastic strain of 2% or more have elongation of 25%. The minimum requirement is 18% for steels with SMYS (Specied Minimum Yield Strength) 415 MPa and 20 to 22% for steels of lower strength. 5.3. Factors of compression strain limit The key factors of compression strain limit are as follows:  D/t Geometry, especially including D/t, has a big effect upon compressive strain limit. Generally speaking, with the increase of

3crit c

2  t Pi Pe D 0:5 0:0025 3000 D 2tEs

(1)

where 3crit is the ultimate compressive strain capacity of the pipe c wall, and t is the pipe wall thickness, and D is the outside pipe diameter, and pi is the maximum internal design pressure, and pe is the minimum external hydrostatic pressure, and Es 207 000 MPa. The compression strain limit for pipe members subjected to longitudinal compressive strain (bending moment and axial force) and internal over pressure may be estimated using the following empirical formula in DNV-OS-F101:

!   sh 1:5 t2 D 3c 0:78 ah agw  45; pi  pe 0:01 15 D fy t (2)

where 3c is the compression strain limit, and sh is the hoop stress, t2 t tcorr, and fy is the yield stress to be used in design, ah is the maximum allowed yield to tensile ratio, and agw is the girth weld factor. 5. Factors of strain limit Strain-based design criteria are depended on the strain limits which are inuenced by a large number of factors.
Table 2 Pipeline tensile limit comparison. Criteria CSA-Z662-07 App.C DNV-OS-F101 (2000) ASCE (2005)
a b

Tensile Limit/% 2.5a Accumulated Plastic Strain 2.0b 2.0c

Applies to installation and or infrequent loads of subsea pipelines. Installation and materials for different circumstances need to meet additional requirements. c Longitudinal strain from ground movement due to earthquake, landslide, or mine subsidence.

B. Liu et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22 (2009) 884888

887

Fig. 1. Ovalization strain limit by BS 8010.

D/t the compressive strain limit decreases generally, from DNV and CSA, as shown in Fig. 3. And strain limit without pressure correction is well in line with the trend. However, to CSA with pressure correction, maximum compressive strain had rebounded.  Y/T As shown in Fig. 3, strain limit without pressure correction decreases with the increase of Y/T.  Internal Pressure Internal pressure increases resistance to local buckling because the tensile hoop stress it helps the pipe resist the diametrical changes that occur locally at the buckle. The quantitative relationship between pressure and the critical strain of the different viewers is not unanimous. DNV (2000) uses a factor of (1 5sh/fy), and it is more applicable to large-diameter pipeline and the pipeline whose ratio of hoop stress to yield strength is between 0.2 and 0.5. CSA 2000 uses a factor of Equation (4):

2  Pi Pe D 3000 2tEs

(4)

As shown in Fig. 3, strain limit with internal pressure correction is bigger than the one without internal pressure correction factor, and strain limit increases with the increase of internal pressure.  External Pressure On the contrary with the internal pressure, external pressure can reduce the resistance of local buckling and may also spread buckling along the collapse. For external pressure, DNV (2000) uses another factor with similar parameters to internal pressure: (1(ape/pc)1.25), where a is safety factor of between 1.2 and 1.5, pe is external pressure, pc is the external pressure coefcient. API 1111-1999 uses the composite parameters: (gpe/pc), where g is the correction factor for the initial ovalization. The factor from API 1111 is conservative for pipeline with a higher external pressure or lower internal pressure.

Fig. 2. Comparison of tensile strain limit.

Fig. 3. Comparison of compression strain limit from CSA and DNV.

888

B. Liu et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22 (2009) 884888 BS 8010. (1993). Code of practice for pipeline-part 3. Pipeline subsea: Design, construction and installation. British. Chiou, Y.-J., & Chi, S. Y. (1996). Numerical modeling for buckling of buried pipelines induced by compressive ground failure. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 19(3), 321332. CSA-Z662-1996. (1996). Canadian standards association oil and gas pipeline systems. exdale, Ontario, Canada. CSA-Z662-03. (2003). Canadian standards association. Oil and gas pipeline systems. exdale, Ontario, Canada. CSA-Z662-2007. (2007). Canadian standards association. Oil and gas pipeline systems. exdale, Ontario, Canada. Das, S., Cheng, J. J., Murray, D. W., & Zhou, Z. J., (2000), Laboratory Study of Local Buckling, Wrinkling Development, and Strain for NPS12 Line Pipe Proceedings: International Pipeline Conference, October. Denys, R., De Waele, W., Lefevre, A., & De Baets, P. (2004). Plastic straining capacity of axially-loaded pipelines: experimental facts and critical considerations, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pipeline Technology, In Rudi Denys, Ostend, (Eds.), Belgium, pp. 183207. Dinovitzer, A. S., Brian, A., & Graville. (1996). Strain-based failure criteria for sharp part-wall defects in pipes[C]. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology. ASME. Dinovitzer, A. S., & Smith, R. J. (1998). Strain-based pipeline design criteria review. Proceedings of the 2nd International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. DNV-OS-F101. (1982). Submarine Pipeline Systems[S]. Hvik Norway. DNV-OS-F101. (1996). Submarine Pipeline Systems[S]. Hvik Norway. DNV-OS-F101. (2000). Submarine Pipeline Systems[S]. Hvik Norway. Dorey, A. B., Murray, D. W., Cheng, J. J. R., Grondin, G. Y., & Zhou, Z. J. (1999), Testing and experimental results for NPS 30 line pipe under combined loads, Proceedings: 18th OMAE Conference, Paper No. OMAE99/PIPE-5022. Ellinas, C. P. (1999). Pipeline design based on strain criteria. Chemical Business, 13(5), 131135. Fatemi, A., Kenny, S., Sen, M., Zhou, J., Taheri, F., & Paulin, M. (2008). Investigations on the local buckling response of high strength linepipe. In Proceedings of the 7th International Pipeline Conference. Calgary, Canada: ASME. Graville, B. A., & Dinovitzer, A. S. (1993). Development of rational criteria for strain limits in pipeline welds. Report to Nova Corporation. Liu, B., Liu, X. J., & Zhang, H. (2008a). Compressive strain capacity of pipelines for strain-based design. 7th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Liu B., Liu, X. J., & Zhang, H. (2008b). Tensile strain capacity of pipelines for strain-based design. 7th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Murray, N. A., & Bilston, P. (1992). Rational acceptance limit for eld bends in oil or gas pipelines. International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada. Pan, J.-h. (2005). Several concernment task under development of high strength pipeline steel. Welded Pipe and Tube, 28(4), 12. Wang, Y.-Y., Liu, M., Chen, Y., & Horsley, D. (2006). Effects of geometry, temperature, and test procedure on reported failure strains from simulated wide plate tests. In Proceedings of the 6th International Pipeline Conference. Calgary, Canada: ASME. Wang, Y.-Y., Denys, R., Rudland, D., & Horseley, D. (2002). A preliminary strain-based design criterion for pipeline girth welds. In Proceedings of the 4th International Pipeline Conference. Calgary, Canada: ASME. Wang, Y.-Y., Cheng, W., & Horsley, D. (2004). Tensile strain limits of buried defects in pipeline girth welds. In Proceedings of the 5th International Pipeline Conference. Calgary, Canada: ASME. Zhou, Joe, & Glover, Alan (2005). Strain-based design of pipelines - the path. Rio Pipeline 2005 Conference & Exhibition.

Fig. 4. Girth weld factor from DNV.

 Girth Weld Girth weld may reduce the compressive strain limit of pipelines. Welding residual stresses, differences in material strength across the weld, and misalignment of the pipe wall across the weld are all considered to affect the buckle location and the girth weld. DNV (2000) provided a girth weld factor to correct the compressive strain limit, as shown in Fig. 4. 6. Conclusion remark This paper has presented an overview of the strain-based design methodology. In recent years, strain-based design of pipeline has become a hot spot. Although some workable strain-based design methodology and the supporting engineering processes and models have been achieved and validated, some improvements and enhancements are needed, especially as we move to high pressure, high strength pipe and large-diameter pipelines. Acknowledgement This work was supported by China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). We would like thank all colleagues from mechanics laboratory of CUPB for their discussions and advice regarding this work. References
AME. (1997). Establishment of Strain-Based Criteria and Analysis for the Assessment of Sub-sea Pipelines. Final Report AME/ 26563/R/04. American Bureau of Shipping (2006). ABS Guide for Building and Classing Subsea Pipeline Systems, Houston: May, 2006. API 1111. (1999). Design, construction, operation, and maintenance of offshore hydrocarbon pipelines. Washington, DC, USA. API 5L. (2000). American petroleum institute publishing services, specication 5L for line pipe. Washington, DC,USA. ASCE. (2005). Guidelines for the design of buried steel pipe (with addenda through February 2005). USA.

Further reading
Joe, Z., & Alan, G. (2005). Strain-based design of pipelines the path. Rio Pipeline 2005 Conference & Exhibition.