Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90410

COMPRESSIVE AND TENSILE STRAIN CAPACITIES OF 48 X80 LINE PIPES


Hisakazu Tajika, Satoshi Igi and Takahiro Sakimoto Steel Research Laboratory, JFE Steel Corporation, Chiba, Japan Ryuji Muraoka West Japan Works, JFE Steel Corporation, Fukuyama, Japan Shigeru Endo and Seishi Tsuyama Steel Research Laboratory, JFE Steel Corporation, Fukuyama, Japan Nobuhisa Suzuki JFE Techno Research Corporation, Kawasaki, Japan

Takekazu Arakawa JFE Steel Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT This paper presents the results of experimental studies focused on the strain capacity of X80 linepipe. A full-scale bending tests of X80 grade, 48" high-strain linepipes pressurized to 60% SMYS were conducted to investigate the compressive strain limit and tensile strain limit. The tensile properties Y/T ratios and uniform elongation of the pipes had variety. Three of four pipes are high strain pipes and these Y/T ratios are intentionally low with manufacturing method. One of these high-strain pipe was girth welded in its longitudinal center to investigate the effect of girth weld to strain capacity. The other was set as a conventional pipe that have higher Y/T ratio to make comparative study. The compressive strain limit focused on the critical strain at the formation of local buckling on the compression side of bending. After pipe reaches its endurable maximum moment, one large developed wrinkle and some small wrinkles on the pipe surface during bending deformation were captured relatively well from observation and strain distribution measurement. The tensile strain limit is discussed from the viewpoint of competition of two fracture phenomena: ductile crack initiation/propagation from an artificial notch at the HAZ of the girth weld, and strain concentration and rupture in the base material at the tension (opposite) side of the local buckling position. 1. INTRODUCTION There has recently been growing demand for higher-grade linepipe that can help reducing the total cost of long-distance gas pipelines. As a result, use of high-strength linepipe such as API X70 and X80 grades has been increasing in recent years [10, 26]. API X100 and X120 linepipes have been the object of

continuing development [5, 6, 12] and development projects have been carried out around the world. On the other hand, pipeline projects have expanded into environmentally severe regions such as permafrost and seismic regions. In particular, East Asia, North and South America are regions where large ground displacement can be induced by earthquake or permafrost movements. Linepipes constructed in those regions must have sufficient resistance against failures caused by bending or compressive deformation of pipes, such as local buckling or weld fractures. Because the conventional stressbased design method cannot be applied when strain greatly exceeds the yield stress of the material, applications of strainbased design (SBD) are under active study. Assuming bending deformation of the pipeline, the key parameters for SBD of pipelines are local buckling of the pipe itself on the compression side of bending, and the critical strain for fracture on the tension side of bending. To ensure the bending capacity of linepipe, experimental and numerical studies have been carried out. Bending tests of 20-inch UOE pipes and a seamless pipe were conducted [7]. Progressive study on tubes for pipelines and steel structures [8] reveals that there have significant scatter comparing test results because of material behavior, fabrication process, geometric imperfections, etc. In these years, full-scale bending tests for large diameter pipes such as 48 pipes performed to investigate local buckling and tensile fracture [4, 9, 23, 24]. On the other hand, bending test results and validation of finite element analysis (Hereinafter referred to FEA) for the pipe diameters up to 36 were reported in the past literature therefore the geometric properties of the 48 pipes should be collected for FEA [19, 20, 22, 23, 25]. FEA is versatile and effective to demonstrate the deformation of line pipe and estimate the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

compressive strain capacity of line pipes under various loading conditions. Therefore validation of FEA should be done in order to clarify the relationships between the compressive strain capacity and tensile properties. FEA based studies reveals the effect of mechanical characteristics of linepipe. Y/T have been considered widely as a factor that effect strongly on the bending capacity. FEA based studies reveals the effect of Y/T ratio to compressive and tensile capacity [1, 21]. Against this background, this paper presents the results of experimental studies focused on the strain capacity of X80 linepipes. Three of four pipes (No. 1, 2 and 4) are high-strain pipes, which have Y/T ratio of 80-84 %. Only No. 4 test pipe has girth weld in its longitudinal center. The other pipe (No. 3) is conventional pipe that has Y/T of 91 %. Specimens are bent at least until local buckling captured at maximum bending moment, furthermore No. 3 and 4 pipe are bent until their break at its tensile side. Compression and tensile strain capacities are argued using these experimental results. 2. FULL-SCALE BENDING TEST OF 48 PIPES 2.1 Bending Test Apparatus for the 48 Pipes Figure 1 shows the schematic plane views of the full-scale bending test apparatus for the large diameter and high-strength pipes, where the upper and lower figures present the shapes before and during the bending test, respectively. Figure 2 shows the bending test apparatus and buckled steel pipe after bending. Main parts of this equipment are (a) two bending arms, (b) pipe for bending, (c) jack for pushing arm, and (d) guide to restrict the moving direction of the bending arm. The pipe is welded to between two arms. The pin is inserted and connected to the guides. One arm (hereinafter call mobile arm) can move longitudinally along with the rail, but the other arm (hereinafter call fixed arm) cannot move longitudinally so work just a pivot. In table 1, specifications of the equipment are shown. The X80 UOE pipes for bending are cut almost 8.0m lengths each, then fixed between these arms with its ends welded to the arm. Water is full-filled inside the pipes and during the bending tests, a hydraulic pump is used to generate water pressure as internal pressure. After generating internal pressure, by loading their pivot end by jack, bending moment (Max 35 MNm) occurs to the pipe. This moment can be calculated below.

(b) test pipe (a)mobile arm

(a) fixed arm

Larm (d) guide


y

(c) jack y x

Mpipe Larm Fjack


x

Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the full-scale bending test apparatus for large diameter pipes Table 1 Specifications of bending test equipment for 48 pipes Specifications Capacity Pipe Diameter Pipe Length Load Capacity Moment Capacity Max. Water Pressure 1220 mm (48 inch) 8 m (About 6.5 L/D) 6000 kN 35 MNm 30 MPa

Table 2 Longitudinal tensile properties of the test pipes YS TS Y/T uEL No. [MPa] [MPa] [%] [%] No. 1 585 701 84 8.0 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 600 596 563 725 658 708 83 91 80 7.6 6.4 6.7

M pipe =F jack ( Larm + y )

(1)

Herein, Mpipe is nominal bending moment worked on the center of the pipe, Fjack is the force powered by jack, Larm is the distance of the pipe from the center of the pivot in Y-direction (const. 6m). y is the displacement of the longitudinal center of the pipe to Y-direction.

2.2 Test Pipes Four API X80 grade 48-inched and 22mm wall thickness line pipes are prepared for the full-scale bending tests. The lengths of the pipes are 8 m and 6.5 times as long as pipe diameter. All specimen are pressurized to 12 MPa that is equivalent to the hoop stress of 60 % SMYS. Longitudinal tensile properties of the four test pipes are presented in Table 2. Pipe No. 1, 2 and 4 are high-strain pipes. No. 3 pipe is set as conventional pipe. No. 4 pipe has girth weld in its longitudinal center and an elliptical artificial notch is introduced in its HAZ. All the stress-strain curves of the base material show roundhouse type work hardening characteristics.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

2.2 Pipe Settings In all cases, pipe is set with the longitudinally weld seam on the bottom side. Arm, pipe and jack movement are parallel to the floor. This means UOE weld seam is set in neither compressive nor tensile side. Objective of this study is to investigate the characteristics of pipe body, and girth weld, so seam is set to non-effective zone.

3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 3.1 Deformation of the pipes The outline of the pipe behavior is shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 (a) shows the initial condition of the tested pipe. Straight pipe is set between the two arms and its in parallel with frames. As bending moment works to the pipe, whole length of pipe uniformly bends like Fig. 2(b) then Fig. 2(c). With supplement load, the pipe buckles at some cross section in the specimen. This loading step is assumed to be compressive critical state (Local buckling) of the pipe. After local buckling, pipe deformation concentrates to the maximum curvature and finally large buckling wrinkle is observed at this cross section. Fig. 2(d) shows the curvature of the pipe concentrate at near the center of the pipe. Pipes are bent at least up to buckling (define bending moment and inclination as Mmax and Mmax, respectively) or rupture occurs (define bending moment and inclination as Mr and r, respectively). In this series of bending test, No. 3 and 4 pipe ruptures on tension side after buckling.
3.5 3.0 Load P (MN) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 1000 2000 3000 Displacement x (mm) 4000 No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4

a) Initial condition

b) Pipe yield

Fig. 3 Load - displacement relationships of No. 1 4 test


c) At maximum moment d) Post buckling

25 Moment M (MNm) 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 End rotation (deg. ) 25

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4

Fig. 2 Photograph of the tested pipe No. 2 under bending 2.3 Measurement Displacement of the pipe to Y-direction is measured at the center of the pipe. In this test, as the pipe bent pipe center moves in also x and y direction. So two displacement gauges are set to make triangular surveying to specify y. The inclinations of the arms are measured with also using displacement gauges to survey the location of arm head to evaluate the arm rotation. The strain gauges are put on the pipe surface to check the strain distribution. The strain gauges are put on both compression and tension side of the pipe and concentrated to the longitudinally center of the pipe, with 50 mm of intervals. The water pressure is measured by waterpressure gauge to keep 12 MPa of internal pressure during bending test.

30

Fig. 4 Moment End rotation relationships of No. 1 4 test

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figures 3 and 4 show the load displacement relationship and moment end rotation relationship of all tests. In No. 1 and 2 tests, pipes are bent with 2000mm of jack stroke and after then the force by jack released. In No. 3 and 4 tests, pipes are bent until it breaks. Points x in Fig. 3 and 4 mean the ruptures occur in No. 3 and 4 test pipe. These lines show difference in the moment and rotation of buckling (No. 1-4) and rupture (No. 3, 4). Table 3 Moment and end rotation of each test Buckle (Max moment) Rupture Mr Mmax Mmax r No. [MNm] [MNm] [deg. ] [deg. ] No. 1 17.9 14.1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 19.1 17.3 18.4 13.0 8.2 9.3 12.3 11.6 19.8 25.6

In test 4, maximum compressive strain at Mmax is observed at +0.4m (Fig. 8) and the value is 1.9%. Compressive strains at girth weld are relatively smaller than those of the other area. Strain range is almost 0.7% to 1.0% at near girth weld, although that of the other area is about 1.0% to 1.9%. Two peaks are observed beside the girth weld (L = 0.0m). These peaks can be seen in early loading step, even in 2/4Mmax of end rotation. Peak at +0.4m finally get larger than the other peak (0.5m).
0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 -3 -2

1/4 Mmax 2/4 Mmax 3/4 Mmax Small peaks Max. strain
-1 0 L (m) 1

(%)

Mmax
2 3

Fig. 5 Compression strain distribution of No. 1 test Bending moment and pipe end rotation of four bending tests are shown in Table 3. End rotations at maximum moments (Mmax) largely differ individually. No. 1 and 2 test pipe endure buckling until 14.1 and 13.0 degrees of pipe end rotation. Test pipe No. 3 buckles at 8.2 of pipe end rotation and it is the lowest among those No. 4 test pipe buckles 9.3 degrees of pipe end rotation. Pipes No. 3 and 4 finally rupture at tension side. Pipe end rotations at break (r) of No. 3 and 4 are 19.8 and 25.6 degree, respectively. 3.2 Compressive Strain Distributions to Buckling Figures 5 to 8 show the compressive strain (c) distributions at end rotations of 1/4Mmax, 2/4Mmax , 3/4Mmax Mmax of test No. 1 4, respectively. The X-axis L shows the longitudinal location and 0 is set as center of the pipe. These graphs show how the buckling occurs during pipe bending. Latitudinal compressive strain distribute uniformly at the end rotation of 1/4 Mmax. The strains begin to fluctuate and some peaks appear as end rotations increase. At Mmax, significant large strain peak appears. From Fig. 5, maximum compressive strain (-2.0%) is observed at 1.2 m far from pipes center in the fixed arm side. The peaks seem to have some longitudinal periodicity. Near the largest buckling wrinkle, several small wrinkles on pipe surface are observed at about 500 mm of interval. In test 2, maximum compressive strain is observed at -0.4 m (Fig. 6). Although the strain levels are almost similar (peak strain 2.0%, and 1.3% to 1.6% of range in other area) in No. 1 and No.2 tests, the strain distributions show difference. In test 3, maximum compressive strain at Mmax is observed at 1.0m (Fig. 7). The strain level at Mmax is relatively smaller than those of the other cases. Peak strain is 1.4% and range in other area is about -0.6% to 1.2%.
0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 -3 -2 -1

(%)

1/4 Mmax 2/4 Mmax 3/4 Mmax Mmax Max. strain


0 L (m) 1 2 3

Fig. 6 Compression strain distribution of No. 2 test


0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0

1/4 Mmax 2/4 Mmax Mmax 3/4 Mmax

(%)

Max. strain

-3

-2

-1

0 L (m)

Fig. 7 Compression strain distribution of No. 3 test


0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 -3

1/4 Mmax Mmax

2/4 Mmax 3/4 Mmax Max. strain

( %)

Other peak

-2

-1

0 L (m)

Fig. 8 Compression strain distribution of No. 4 test

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Center -0.4m

0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 -3 -2 -1

No. 1 No. 3

No. 2 No. 4

c (%)

2D

(a) At maximum bending moment


-0.4m Center

Location ( c maximum peak as center) (m)

Fig.11 Comparison of compressive strain distribution at Mmax Table 4 Summary of strains and buckling locations Pipe Max Strain Location av2D No. (%) (m) (%) No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 -1.7 % -1.5 % -0.9 % -1.2% -2.0 % -2.0 % -1.4 % -1.9 % -1.2 m -0.4 m +1.0 m +0.4m

(b) At final loading condition Fig. 9 Appearance of deformation and shell wrinkle near pipe center (No. 2)

No. 4

2.0% 2dav [%] 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 75 80

No. 1-3 (w/o GW) No. 4 (With GW)

Girth weld

Local buckling

85

90

95

Y/T [%] Fig. 12 Relationship between averaged strain and Y/T ratio.
Figure 11 shows comparison of compressive strain distributions at max moment of each test case. Table 4 shows the summary of the compressive strains. Average strains at max moment are calculated as the mean of measured strain in 2D (2 times of OD) range with a strain peak as a center (hereinafter av2D). This average strain indicates the bending capacity of the pipe. Fig. 12 shows the relationships between averaged strain and Y/T ratio. No. 1 and No. 2 have higher bending capacity. No. 3 is the lowest. No. 4 is among them. Focus on the difference of high-strain pipe and conventional pipe, the difference of pipe material effect on the compressive strain capacity. No. 4 pipe buckled earlier than other high-strained pipes. From strain distributions in Figure 8, compressive strain concentrates mainly to the +0.4m and compressive strain on girth weld (+0.0m) is relatively small. It is supposed that this is caused by the difference of stiffness and mechanical characteristics between girth weld and pipe body.

Fig. 10 Appearance of post-buckling deformation and shell wrinkle near pipe center (No. 4) Fig. 9 shows the appearance of the compressive side and development of buckling wrinkle. Fig. 9(a) is that of at maximum moment. Small wave is observed at 0.4m on the pipe surface. Fig. 6 shows maximum compressive strain peak is significant at this moment. Fig. 9(b) is that of at final loading condition. Buckling wrinkle at 0.4m has developed and this corresponds with the strain distribution of Fig. 6. Fig. 10 shows the appearance of the compressive side of test No. 4. No. 4 test pipe have girth weld in its center. From Fig. 8, the maximum compressive strain is obtained at +0.4m. In this case, compressive strain distribution and location of local buckling wrinkle have correspondence too.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

3.3 Tensile Strain Distributions to Rupture The longitudinal tensile strain of No. 3 and 4 plotted in Fig. 13 and 14, respectively. They present the following tendencies. After buckling, although the compressive strain tends to increase around the largest developed wrinkle, the tensile strain shows a uniform distribution on the opposite side of the largest buckling wrinkle. The development of small wrinkles cannot be recognized from the distribution of the tensile strain, which is different from that of the compressive strain shown in Fig. 7 and 8. The difference between No. 3 and 4 is the effect of the girth weld and mechanical characteristics of the pipe body. No. 3 test pipe finally brake at +2.9m from pipe center after tensile strain distribution uniformly increases. On the other hand, tensile strain distribution of No. 4 test shows particularity near girth welds. It is supposed that this is caused by the girth-welds stiffness and mechanical overmatch toward pipe body.
15 10 5 0 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 Location (mm) 3.3 3.6 1500mm 1750mm 1900mm 2050mm

Fig. 15 Rupture at tension side of No. 3 test pipe


Shea

Girth Local Raptu Artifici defec


Norma fractur

t (%)

Shear

Fig. 16 Fracture appearance of No. 4 test pipe


Before the test
After the test

Fig. 13 Distribution of tensile strain of No. 3


15 10 5 0 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 Location (m) 0.6 0.9 1.2 500mm 1000mm 1500mm 2000mm 2500mm

t (%)

(a) Initial notch (80 x 4.5 mm)

(b) After test (81.8 x 8.8 mm)

Fig. 17 Appearance of artificial defect introduced at HAZ of girth weld In No. 4 test pipe, buckling occurs at the base material 400 mm from the girth weld. The rupture occurs on the opposite side of the largest buckling wrinkle that occurs on compression side as the same as No.3 test pipe. The longitudinal tensile strain is concentrated where the rupture can be observed in Fig. 8, especially after local buckling occurs around =1000 mm. From these longitudinal tensile strain tendencies, the following deformation behaviors are clearly observed. After a large wrinkle formed on the compression side of bending, the wrinkle works precisely likes a plastic hinge, and longitudinal tensile strain develops only in the exactly opposite portion from the large winkle on the compression side of bending.

Fig.14 Distribution of tensile strain of No. 4 Figure 15 and 16 shows the fracture appearance of the leakage portion on the tension side. In No. 3 test pipe, final rupture to leakage occurs at +2.9m from pipe center. Fig. e 15 shows the pipe surface of just before and after the break. In middle photograph, there can be seen the necking (recognized as thin white line) occurs circumferentially at just before the break. This phenomenon indicates that the rupture at tensile side go with the necking of pipe body.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

From detailed observations of the fracture surfaces, it can be classified into two fracture surface morphologies. One is a fibrous fracture surface that is formed in the first stage of failure. Here, the fracture surface is normal to the direction of bending stress, and a decrease in thickness is observed due to necking. The other fracture surface is a shear fracture surface that is formed on both sides of the fibrous fracture surface, and is recognized as a propagating fracture surface that occurs in the following stage of failure. Figure 17 shows the appearance of the artificial notch (initially 80 mm in total length, 4.5 mm in depth) before and after the bending test. A large notch mouth opening can be seen, and ductile crack growth to the circumferential and thickness directions along the weld is also observed. The propagated crack size is measured as 81.8 mm in total surface length and 8.8 mm in depth by the silicon rubber casting method. Accordingly, although ductile crack initiation from an artificial notch is observed, ductile crack propagation is up to 40% of wall thickness. And eventually the final rupture occurred in the base material portion where no initial defect had existed. However, if a larger crack exists, the final rupture may occur by ductile crack propagation from an initial flaw. The moment and pipe end rotation relationship is plotted in Fig. 18. As shown in Table 3, local buckling takes place at the peak moment Mmax at 8.2 and 9.3 degrees of pipe end rotation, and final failure occurs at 19.8 and 25.6 degrees in No. 3 and 4, respectively. High-strain pipe with girth weld shows better deformability in buckling and also post-buckling break. r /Mmax that indicates the post-buckling deformability are 2.4 and 2.7 times, respectively. Figure 19 shows the comparison between each specimen types, conventional X80 and high-strain pipe w/o and with girth weld. These results indicated that high-strain pipe have higher strain capacity in local buckling although girth weld decrease deformability toward buckling. Joint of high-strain X80 pipe had sufficient post-buckling deformability.
25 Moment M (MNm) 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 End rotation (deg. ) 25 30

Pipe end rotation [deg. ] _

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Break in tension
Post-buckling deformation

Local buck
Conventional High-strain (GW) High-strain

Fig. 19 Compressive and tensile strain capacity of tested pipes 4. CONCLUSIONS Full-scale bending tests of X80 grade, 48 plain linepipes and girth welded 48" linepipe pressurized to 60% SMYS are conducted to investigate the compressive strain limit and tensile strain limit. 1. From comparative study of four bending tests, compressive strain capacity that indicates the deformability has clear relationship with the mechanical characteristics like Y/T. Although a girth weld of the pipe decreases deformability towards buckling, it is still higher than that of conventional pipe. 2. From two test cases (No. 3 and 4), final rupture to leakage occurs in the base material at almost the opposite side from the developed buckling wrinkle on the compression side. From these results, it is considered that break of pressurized linepipe under bending occur in post-buckling process. After wall thickness at maximum tensile strain locally decreases, pipe break at its necking area. 3. The girth welded joint of X80 high-strain pipe showed good deformability not only toward buckling but also in the post-buckling region. This joint displayed approximately 2.7 times larger rotation at final rupture compared to displacement at local buckling. REFERENCES [1] Igi, S. and Suzuki, N. (2007); Tensile Strain Limits of X80 High-strain Pipelines, Proc. of 17th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. [2] Igi, S., Sadasue, T., and Suzuki, N. (2009) Compressive and Tensile Strain Limit and Integrity of X80 High Strain Pipelines, Proc. of 19th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. [3] Igi, S., Sakimoto, T., Suzuki, N., Muraoka, R. and Arakawa, T. (2010); Tensile Strain Capacity of X80 Pipeline under Tensile Loading with Internal Pressure, Proc. of 8th International Pipeline Conference, IPC2010-31281.

Buckling Buckling Failure Failure Deformability in Post-buckling

No. 3 No. 4

Fig. 18 Load and displacement relationship until failure

Copyright 2012 by ASME

[4] Igi, S., Sakimoto, T., Tajika, H., Endo, S., Muraoka, R., and Suzuki, N., (2011): Strain Capacity of 48 OD X80 Pipeline in Pressurized Full-scale Bending Test, Proc. of ISOPE-2011, pp. 646-652. [5] Glover, A., Zhou, J., Horsley, D., Suzuki, N., Endo, E., and Takehara, J. (2003); Design, Application and Installation of an X100 Pipeline, Proc. of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE200337429. [6] Glover, A., Horsley, D., Dorling, D., and Takehara, J. (2004); Construction and Installation of X100 Pipelines, Proceedings of 5th International Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IPC04-0328. [7] Gresnigt, A. M. and Van Foeken, R. J., (2001): Local Buckling of UOE and Seamless Steel Pipes, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference ISOPE. Stavanger, 2001, Vol. II. pp. 131-142. [8] Gresnigt, A. M. and Karamanos, S. A., (2008), Local Buckling and Deformation Capacity of Tubes in Steel Structures, Proceedings of the International conference on structures and granular solids: from scientific principles to engineering applications, London, 2008, pp. 199-217. [9] Mannucci, G., Lucci, A., Spinelli, C. M., Baldi, A., and Mascia, G., (2011): Full Scale Bend Testing of Strain Based Desigined High Grade Buried Gas Pipeline, Proc. of ISOPE2011, pp. 630-636. [10] Masuda, T., Watanabe, T., Hagiwara, N., Yatabe, H., Kawaguchi, S., Motohashi, H. and Fukuda, N. (2004); Application of X80 in Japan, Proceedings of the International Pipeline Technology Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 31-40. [11] Minnaar, K., Gioielli, P.C., Macia, M., Bardi, F., Biery, N.E. (2007); Predictive FEA Modeling Full-scale Tests, Proceedings of 17th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. [12] Petersen, C.W., Corbett, K. T., Fairchild, D. P., Papka, S. and Macia, M. L. (2004); Improving long distance gas transmission economics, Proceedings of the International Pipeline Technology Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30. [13] Sadasue, T., Igi, S., and Kubo, T. (2004); Ductile Cracking Evaluation of X80 High Strength Linepipes, Proc. of 5th International Pipeline Conference, IPC04-0249. [14] Sakimoto, T., Igi, S., Kubo, T., Ohata, M., and Minami, F. (2009); The Influence of Internal Pressure on Ductile Fracture Behavior from a Surface Defect on a Pipe, Proc. of 19th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. [15] Suzuki, N, Endo, S, Yoshikawa, M, and Toyoda, M (2001): Effects of Strainhardening Exponent on Inelastic Local Buckling Strength and Mechanical Properties of Linepipes, OMAE2001/MAT3104. [16] Suzuki, N., and Toyoda, M. (2002): Critical Compressive Strain of Linepipes Related to Workhardening Parameters, ASME OMAE 2002-28253.

[17] Suzuki, N., Muraoka, R., Glover, A., Zhou, J., and Toyoda, M. (2003): Local Buckling Behavior of X100 Linepipes, ASME OMAE 2003-37145. [18] Suzuki, N., Glover, A., Zhou, J., and Toyoda, M. (2004): Bending Capacity of High Strength Line Pipe, Pipeline Technology Conference 2004. [19] Suzuki, N, Kondo, J, Endo, S, Ishikawa, N, Okatsu, M, and Shimamura, J (2006): Effects of Geometric Imperfection on Bending Capacity of X80 Linepipe, ASME IPC 200610070. [20] Suzuki, N., Kondo, J., Ishikawa, N., Okatsu, M. and Shimamura J. (2007): Strain Capacity of X80 High-Strain Line Pipes, OMAE2007-29505. [21] Suzuki, N. and Igi, S. (2007): Compressive Strain Limit of X80 High-Strain Line Pipes, ISOPE-2007-SBD-20. [22] Suzuki, N., and Masamura, K. (2009): Stress-Strain Curve Control Requirements for High-Strength Line Pipes with Luders Elongation Type Tensile Properties, PTC2009-088. [23] Suzuki, N., Tajika, H., Igi, S., Okatsu, M., Kondo, J., and Arakawa, T. (2010): Local buckling behavior of 48, X80 High-strain line pipes, Proc. Of 8th International Pipeline Conference, IPC2010-31637. [24] Tajika, H., Igi, S., Sakimoto, T., Tsuyama, S., Muraoka, R., Arakawa, T., and Suzuki, N., (2011): Full-Scale Bending Test of 48 X80 Linepipes, Proc. of ISOPE-2011, pp. 653-659. [25] Tsuru, E, Shinohara, Y, Agata, J, and Asahi, H (2009): Dominant Factors for Buckling Resistance of UOE Linepipes Used in Strain-Based Design, PTC2009-023. [26] Wang, Y. and Pan, J. (2004); The situation of advanced grade pipe steel in China, Proceedings of the International Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, Belgium, Vol. 1, pp. 41-54, 2004. [27] Zimmerman, T., Stephen, J., DeGeer, D., and Chen, C. (1995): Compressive Strain limits for Buried Pipelines, OMAE, Vol. V, Pipeline Technology, pp. 365-378.

Copyright 2012 by ASME