1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

COMBINED LOADING CAPACITY OF PIPELINES - APPROACHES TOWARDS THE

COMPRESSIVE STRAIN LIMIT


Hossein Karbasian
Salzgitter Mannesmann Forschung GmbH
Duisburg, Germany
Steffen Zimmermann
Salzgitter Mannesmann Forschung GmbH
Duisburg, Germany


Ulrich Marewski
Open Grid Europe
Essen, Germany
Michael Steiner
Open Grid Europe
Essen, Germany


ABSTRACT
This paper presents details on the load bearing capacity of
pipelines subjected to combined loading (internal pressure,
axial and bending load) based on the findings of a recent
research project of the European Pipeline Research Group
(EPRG). Firstly, the failure mechanisms of line pipe under
combined loading, which depend on local geometry, material
characteristics as well as local and global applied loading, are
characterized. Afterwards, differences between laboratory
testing and the real-life situation of pipelines subjected to
combined loading are described. Here, optimal boundary
conditions for realistic testing are defined. Finally, a large
variety of modelling approaches, specifically dedicated to
combined loading experimental data from 59 full-scale tests on
line pipe joints have been analysed. The relevant parameters in
the analysis of buckling behavior of the pipes were: actual
material properties, boundary conditions, failure phenomena
and strain at failure, with the final aim to issue
recommendations with regard to the selection of modelling
approaches, sensitivity towards input parameters as well as
strain threshold values. For the prediction of the limit pipe
deformation a large selection of equations suggested by various
authors in terms of critical bending moment, critical strain and
critical stress for various loading conditions were considered.
The methods differ in solution methodology (analytical vs.
numerical), in the definition of material behavior (elastic,
elastic-plastic) and in the definition of critical conditions and
critical points. Then, the different types of buckling as a
function of pipe geometry were characterized. Finally, the
buckling behavior of an actual bending test was simulated using
measured input data.
INTRODUCTION
The failure mechanism of line pipe subjected to
combined loading is dependent predominantly on local
geometry, the specific material characteristics and local and
global applied loading on the structure. Here, the induced
stresses and strains may cause local necking and buckling or
full elastic-plastic instability. In this context, a failure criterion
defines a critical stress or strain in terms of a load limit of line
pipe for a set of certain conditions (see Figure 1).

Line pipe behavior
Material Characteristics
- Elastic modulus
- Yield strength
- Hardening
- Ultimate tensile strength
Applied loads
- Internal pressure
- Bending moment
- Axial load
Induced stress-strain
Geometry
- Pipe dimensions
- Pipe defects
( ) M N p n t D
UTS y
, , , , , , , , =

Figure 1: Influencing variables on the line pipe behavior
For the prediction of limit pipe deformation different equations
are suggested by different authors in terms of critical bending
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90615
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
moment, critical strain and critical stress for various loading
conditions. The equations differ in solution methodologies
(analytical vs. numerical), in the definition of material behavior
(elastic, elastic-plastic) and in the definition of critical
conditions and critical points. Often, as reference, experimental
tests were carried out and process parameters measured. On the
basis of the associated experimental data numerical or analytical
solutions were developed in order to predict the load bearing
capacity and the allowable level of deformation.
Pipelines are subjected to internal pressure caused by the
pressure of the fluid being conveyed. The maximum internal
pressure is a pipe specific parameter, which is dependent on the
specific steel grade and the dimensions of pipe.
The axial load that needs to be applied to a pipe joint in the
laboratory in the absence of an external axial force is evaluated
by superposition of possible thermal loading (T) and the
longitudinal load caused by the Poisson's effect. Changes in the
temperature of a pipeline lead to thermal strain arising by
reason of the thermal expansion coefficient of the underlying
pipe material. Furthermore, when internal pressure is applied to
a pipe section, it will attempt to shorten longitudinally because
of the Poisson's ratio effect arising from the predominant
circumferential stresses. Most often, none of these effects is
prevented for on laboratory scale. Instead, in laboratory tests,
the internal pressure acting on the half-spherical end caps of the
pipe joint leads to an axial tensile stress (see Figure 2). In the
case of an infinitely long pipeline string in the field the axial
stress is somewhat different. In order to properly simulate field
conditions, it would be necessary to apply a compensating
compressive axial force to the ends of the test pipe. The sum of
the axial force components would then be required to represent
the same axial loading of line pipe in the field. In addition to
internal pressure and axial stress bending moments might lead
to local buckling of the pipeline section, which is the prime
focus of this study.

ext p tot
N N N + =
( )p D N
p
4
2
=
h
A N

=
T AE N
T
=

N
ext
p
M M N
ext
p
M M N

N
T
N
T
N
p
N
p
Laboratory test
Real line pipe
T tot
N N N

+ =

Figure 2: Loading condition at laboratory test and at real
line pipe
Today, the quantity of energy derived from renewable resources
still is very small and several decades will pass before reliance
on fossil fuels will diminish significantly. For the time being,
oil, coal and natural gas will remain the main source of energy.
In particular, a 100% increase is projected for natural gas
representing 25 % of the world energy supply by the year 2030
[1]. Because rich deposits of oil and gas have been proven to be
finite, several attempts are being made to tap alternative
resources. In the meantime, advances in various technologies
for exploration and production have allowed previously
uneconomic reserves to be accessed. However, these new
reserves tend to be in regions where difficult ground and
climate prevails, for instance in the artic and sub-arctic regions
[2], [3]. That is to say, more and more pipelines will be prone to
large differential ground movements.
Differential ground movements may have many causes such as
soil subsidence, frost heave, thaw settlement, landslides and
tectonic faults, to name a few. A phenomenon, which is common
to such load scenarios, is that these may evoke large plastic
axial strains. This is very much different to the case of bare
pressure containment where, mainly, circumferential and radial
components of strain tensor will undergo plastic deformation
while the axial co-ordinate direction does not. Since
longitudinal strains may be tensile or compressive complex
multi-axial stress-strain states may accrue with plastic
deformation developing in more than two co-ordinate
directions, which, within a cross section, are not uniform any
more [4]. Thus, ground and climate may potentially induce
tensile and compressive strains in axial direction that are much
more significant as compared to stresses and strains in
conventional pipelines. Since the profession of any pipeline is
to transport fossil media from one point to another the first
design step is to size the pipe wall for pressure containment
purposes. Any other load effect, like bending or axial straining,
is due to unintended interference by nature. Therefore, it is
rational to deal with these unintended effects in the framework
of a strain-driven concept. In so doing, it is ensured that the
pipeline will accommodate as much strain local geology or
climate dictate without any loss of integrity. However, it is not
the intention of pipeline designers to cater for maximum normal
forces or maximum bending moments. On the contrary, these
shall be minimized by delivering as much strain as needed.
Main limit states of line pipe intended for applications with
significant strain demand are the resistance against buckling
(compressive fiber), the tensile tearing capacity of field girth
welds (tensile fiber) [5] and the ability of the base material to
effectively shield off girth welds from large remote strain, see
Figure 3.
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
resistance against
girth weld failure
resistance against
local buckling
EA =

EA = adequate
resistance against
girth weld failure
resistance against
local buckling
EA =

EA =

EA = adequate

Figure 3: Strain Based Design failure phenomena

NUMERICAL MODELS OF ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE
DESIGN
Strain-based-design is a specific approach of limit state design.
Instead of applying a stress limit, the capacity of the pipeline to
withstand longitudinal strain without failure is quantified and
compared to the strain expected in service under displacement-
controlled conditions. Hence it is more suitable to use a strain-
based-design rather than an allowable stress design for pipelines
under these challenging environmental and operating conditions
[6].
Current investigations show that strains should be limited to that
value of strain, which would cause local buckling of the
pipeline. This strain is associated with the peak bending
strength of the pipe. The buckling criteria by Brggemann et al.
(2005), Bruschi et al. (1995), Gresnigt (1986), Mohareb et al.
(1994), Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. (1994), Zimmerman et al. (1995)
and the buckling criterion of DNV based on large-scale tests
and Finite Element analyses were selected for this present paper
(see Annex A). In the case of the DNV model, all partial safety
factors were put to 1.0 in order to remove any influence not
related to the underlying mechanical model.
The availability of different buckling criteria was validated by
comparing the predicted buckling moment with the results of an
experimental data base that comprises recent full-scale tests on
pipes subjected to internal pressure, axial force and bending.
The test pipes considered herein have diameters of more than
300 mm (up to 1,200 mm) with diameter to thickness ratios D/t
between 17 and 102. The range of pipe material ranges from
grade X42 up to grade X80. The main factor for the
classification of analyzed pipes in literature was diameter to
thickness ratio D/t. The different reasons of failure dependent
on increasing D/t and pressure level can be local necking and
buckling or elastic-plastic instability, respectively. The prime
focus of this study was the discussion of prediction models for
assessment of pipe failure, which are applied in the gas and oil
industry. Therefore, only pipes with an outer diameter D of
more than 300 mm came into consideration.

In the present investigation, the verification and classification of
the selected buckling criteria is based on the computation of
maximum bending moments according to the underlying test
conditions given by the experimental data base. The critical
strain values of the most experiments within the selected data
base are not documented. Therefore, the measured bending
moment of all experiments is compared to the numerically
determined bending moment using critical strain criteria and
von Mises yield criterion (see Annex A).
In order to study the characteristic behavior of each model, the
ratio of predicted bending moment to the bending moment
measured in the associated test M
num
/M
exp
was calculated for all
experiments compiled in the data base. Consequently, a value of
M
num
/M
exp
greater than one represents an overestimation of the
actual bending moment at buckling, values smaller than one
correspond to conservative predictions of maximum bending
moment.
Figure 4 shows the parameter M
num
/M
exp
plotted against the
diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t for the 59 data sets of the data
base representing combined loading scenarios. Because of the
various experimental set-ups, different types of pipes and
loading conditions partly outside the admissible loading range
of the used criterion, the dispersion of determined values is
significant. But the trend lines of the models indicate that, on
average, all models predict the maximum bending moment
relatively well. The selection of models was ranked resorting to
the following parameters: (i) standard deviation of the ratio
M
num
/M
exp
, (ii) slope of trend line of individual M
num
/M
exp
- D/t
diagrams and (iii) mean value of the M
num
/M
exp
- ratio. The
importance of parameters (i) to (iii) was in the sequence they
were mentioned. The trend lines are calculated line functions
with the least square error.

4 Copyright 2012 by ASME
N N M M
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 30 60 90 120
D/t [-]
M
n
u
m

/

M
e
x
p
[
-
]
Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. (1994)
Mohareb et al. (1994)
Zimmerman et al. (1995)
Bruschi et al. (1995)
DNV OS F101 (2000)
Gresnigt (1986)
Brggemann et al. (2005)
Mean
Stand.
dev.
Trend line
gradient
Buckling criterion
0.990 0.198 -0.0007
1.001 0.204 -0.0014
1.016 0.206 -0.0014
1.004 0.201 -0.0011
1.041 0.177 -0.0003
1.054 0.232 -0.0018
0.987 0.239 -0.0021
p

Figure 4: Predicted bending moment of different buckling
criteria against diameter to thickness ratio D/t under
internal pressure and axial load
It appeared that the model according to DNV-OS-F101 is the
best model. The predictions associated with Brggemann and
Gresnigt model return the maximum limit bending moments.
This behavior is attributed to the fact that these equations
neglect the possible presence of axial forces. Considering data
sets where there was no axial force involved makes clear that
the Brggemann and Gresnigt models provide most accurate
estimates for the maximum bending moment for internal
pressure and bending moment only (see Figure 5).

Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. (1994)
Mohareb et al. (1994)
Zimmerman et al. (1995)
Bruschi et al. (1995)
DNV OS F101 (2000)
Gresnigt (1986)
Brggemann et al. (2005)
Mean
Stand.
dev.
Trend line
gradient
Buckling criterion
0.956 0.243 -0.0014
0.980 0.258 -0.0016
0.979 0.257 -0.0023
0.962 0.238 -0.0022
1.025 0.177 -0.0003
1.064 0.143 -0.0004
1.016 0.164 -0.0003
M M
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 30 60 90 120
D/t [-]
M
n
u
m

/

M
e
x
p
[
-
]
p

Figure 5: Predicted bending moment of different buckling
criteria against diameter to thickness ratio D/t under
internal pressure, without axial load
In summary, for buckling prediction of pipes subjected to
internal pressure and axial load the best models are DNV,
Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. and Bruschi et al. model (see Figure 6).
For buckling prediction of pipes subjected to internal pressure
the best models are DNV, Brggemann and Gresnigt model (see
Figure 7).

Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. (1994)
Bruschi et al. (1995)
DNV OS F101 (2000)
Best buckling criteria ( p
i
+ N + )
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 30 60 90 120
D/t [-]
M
n
u
m

/

M
e
x
p
[
-
]
Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. (1994)
Bruschi et al. (1995)
DNV OS F101 (2000)
Best buckling criteria ( p
i
+ N + )
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 30 60 90 120
D/t [-]
M
n
u
m

/

M
e
x
p
[
-
]

Figure 6: Predicted bending moment of the best buckling
criteria against diameter to thickness ratio D/t under
internal pressure and axial load
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 30 60 90 120
D/t [-]
M
n
u
m

/

M
e
x
p
[
-
]
Gresnigt (1986)
Brggemann et al. (2005)
DNV OS F101 (2000)
Best buckling criteria ( p
i
+ )

Figure 7: Predicted bending moment of the best buckling
criteria against diameter to thickness ratio D/t under
internal pressure
FAILURE MODES
Basically, pipelines can be subject to two failure phenomena,
namely elastic instability and plastic instability. In what follows,
it will be discussed how these two failure phenomena can be
distinguished. Central to this discussion is the bending moment
that defines the beginning of yielding, the so-called plastic
bending moment M
y
(see Figure 8). In the elastic region, the
axial stress will increase as the bending moment augments. At a
certain moment the stress at the extreme fiber of the pipe will be
equal to the yield stress of the material. Generally the acting
stresses can be calculated from the sum of the pipe loads
(internal pressure, axial force and bending moment).

( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) [ ]( )
2 . 1 2
2
44 . 4 962 . 0 0 . 1
21 . 1 456 . 0 63 . 1

+
+ + =
t D N N N N
y y
y h y h c
M
y
M
y
Y
Y
D
t
0 30 60 90 120
M
max.
< M
y
M
max.
> M
y
D/t 70 D/t 70
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
D/t [-]
M
y
/

M
e
x
p
.
[
-
]
2.0

Figure 8: Specific bending moment dependent on
diameter to wall thickness D/t
The relationship of the maximum bending moment at buckling
to the plastic bending moment is essential for the classification
and prediction of failure type at the beginning of buckling. If
the maximum bending moment at buckling is higher than the
plastic bending moment, the buckling process will be ruled by
local plastic deformation of pipe. In contrast, if at the beginning
of buckling the maximum bending moment is lower than the
plastic bending moment, the basic cause of buckling is an
elastic instability of the cross section of pipe under loading.
Figure 8 shows that for line pipe with D/t < 70 the measured
buckling moment is higher than the plastic bending moment.
Consequently, for such D/t-ratios buckling is governed by local
plastic deformation. For the pipes with D/t > 70 the measured
buckling moment will be lower than the plastic bending
moment. In this case, elastic instability leads to buckling.
Therefore, the diameter-to-wall thickness ratio identifies the
type of buckling on the pipe under combined loading. Here, the
critical value of D/t was found to be approximately 70.

FE SIMULATION

In order to model combined loading of line pipe up to the
moment of buckling a Finite Element simulation was carried
out. The pipe joint and the load characteristics were the same as
at test number 31 by Dorey 2001 (see Annex A). The pipe joint
under investigation had a diameter of 762 mm and a wall
thickness of 8.3 mm and the steel grade was X60. Similar to the
actual experiment, the numerical pipe model was subjected to
internal pressure (p
i
= 0.8p
y
) and axial load (N = 0.2N
y
). After
pressurization and application of the axial force contribution the
external bending moment was increased until the maximum
moment value was reached. The calculation war carried out
using the commercial FE-code ABAQUS, Version 6.10. Non-
linear elastic-plastic FE-analyses are widely used for modeling
elastic-plastic behavior and damage behavior of steels. The pipe
was discretized using hexahedra elements. The mesh consists of
50 elements around half of the circumference, 50 elements in
the longitudinal direction and 5 elements on the wall thickness.
Von Mises yield criterion and an associated flow rule were used
in the non-linear analysis. All relevant FE-model parameters are
summarized in Figure 9. The FE-model consists of three main
parts: the pipe, which was modeled by solid elements, the
symmetry planes, representing the symmetry properties of the
pipe, and the loading conditions, given by the internal pressure,
axial and bending load.
The FE simulation started with an eigenvalue analysis for
determination of buckling shape at first eigenvalue of the pipe
under loading. After that, the deformation process was
simulated by means of the Riks method up to the beginning of
pipe buckling with an initial imperfection (ovality 0.2% of the
pipe diameter). Finally, using the path finder algorithm the
moment distribution after the maximum point of the bending
moment-curvature curve was determined.

6 Copyright 2012 by ASME
E = 210 GPa
t = 8.3 mm

y
= 500 MPa
D = 762 mm
= 0.3
p = 97 bar
N = 1900 kN
Symmetry planes
p
Y
X Z
M
N

Figure 9: Pipe characteristics and boundary conditions of
FE-model
In simpler cases, linear eigenvalue analysis may be sufficient
for design evaluation. But if there is concern about material
nonlinearity, geometric nonlinearity prior to buckling, or
unstable postbuckling response, a load-deflection (e. g. Riks)
analysis must be performed to investigate the problem further.
The Riks method uses the load magnitude as an additional
unknown; it solves simultaneously for loads and displacements.
Within the present project, this approach was used in the FE
computation to solve for bending moment and associated axial
strain.
The simulated moment-curvature diagram (Figure 10) shows a
maximum bending moment (moment of buckling) of
approximately 1,850 kNm, which is in excellent agreement with
the measured bending moment in the test (1,920 kNm).
The numerical investigation by Fatemi et al. (2006) [3] has
shown that internal pressure significantly affected the formation
mode and amplitude of the buckle(s). Figure 10 shows the same
tendency and in this case, for higher internal pressures
(p
i
> 0.35p
y
), an outward bulge-shaped deformation was found.

650
500
350
200
50

von Mises
[MPa]
M
max
= 1850 kNm
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
M
o
m
e
n
t

M
[
k
N
m
]
Curvature [1/m]
0.04

Figure 10: von Mises stress and simulated moment-
curvature diagram of the pipe subjected to internal
pressure, axial and bending load
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of the theoretical modeling approaches has shown
that the DNV criterion leads to best predictions of buckling
when axial force and bending moment are present in addition to
internal pressure. In the absence of axial force, Gresnigt's and
Brggemann's models as well as the DNV criterion were
identified as the most accurate models. Furthermore, comparing
the plastic bending moment (moment at which extreme fiber
begins to yield in the absence of any other load) with the
maximum bending moment revealed that up to a diameter-to-
thickness ratio of 70 local plastic deformation is the main
reason for buckling. Otherwise, that is for diameter-to-thickness
ratios greater than 70, buckling will occur due to elastic
instability of the pipe. Finally, the effect of additional bending
action was simulated on a selected line pipe joint subjected to
internal pressure and axial force. The results of the FE analysis
were in excellent agreement with the experimental data.

NOMENCLATURE
A cross sectional area of end cap
A
pw
cross sectional area of pipe
D pipe diameter
E elastic modulus
EA axial rigidity
M bending moment
M
exp
experimental measured bending moment
M
num
numerical determined bending moment
M
y
plastic bending moment
n strain hardening exponent
N axial force
N
ext
external (compensating) axial force
N
tot
total axial force
N
y
axial force causing the cross section to yield (p = 0)
N
T
axial force caused by the thermal effects
N

axial force caused by the Poissons Ratio effect

p internal pressure
p
y
internal pressure at yield of inner fiber of pipe
r
m
average pipe radius
t wall thickness
T temperature
W
el
elastic section modulus
coefficient of thermal expansion

c
flow stress parameter

m
material resistance factor

SC
class resistance factor

c
critical strain

y
yield strain
curvature
Poisson's ratio

h
hoop stress

UTS
ultimate tensile strength

y
yield strength

7 Copyright 2012 by ASME
REFERENCES
[1] Martin, R.: Investment in oil and gas field materials
technology the key to a secure energy supply. Energy
Materials 1 (2006), 11-13.
[2] Zhou, J., Horsley, D., Rothwell, B.: Applications of
Strain Based Design for pipelines in permafrost areas.
In: Proceedings of the International Pipeline Conference
(IPC), Calgary, Canada, 2006, Paper 10054.
[3] Fatemi, A., Kenny, S., Cheraghi, N., Taheri, F.: A
parametric study on the local buckling response of
pipelines under combined-loading conditions. The
Journal of Pipeline Integrity 5 (2006), pp. 197-212.
[4] Mohr, W.: Strain Based Design for materials with HAZ
softening. In: Proceedings of the International Pipeline
Conference (IPC), Calgary, Canada, 2006, Paper 10424.
[5] Canadian Standards Association: CSA Z662-03 Oil and
gas pipeline systems, 2003.
[6] Kan W.C., Weir M., Zhang M.M., Lilling D.B., Barbas
S.T., Macia M.L, Biery N.E.: Strain-based pipelines:
Design consideration overview, The Eighteenth
International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, 2008, Vancouver, Canada.
[7] Prion H., Birkemoe P.: Experimental behavior of un-
stiffened fabricated tubular steel beam-columns.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Publication No. 88-03, 1988.
[8] Mohareb M., Elwi A., Kulak G.L., Murray D.W.:
Deformational behavior of line pipe. Structural
Engineering Report No. 202, 1994, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada.
[9] Yoosef-Ghodsi N., Kulak G.L., Murray D.W.: Some tests
results on wrinkling of girth-welded line pipe. In:
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
OMAE 1995. Pipeline Technology, vol. V, Copenhagen,
ASME 1995, pp. 379-388.
[10] Zimmerman T.J.E., Stephens M.J., DeGeer D.D., Chen
Q.: Compressive strain limits for buried pipelines.
Pipeline Technology, ASME 1995, Vol. V, pp. 365-378.
[11] Dorey A.B.: Prediction of wrinkling behaviour of girth
welded line pipe. Structural engineering Report No. 197.
University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering,
2001.
[12] Ozkan I.F.: Experimental and numerical analysis of steel
pipes subjected to combined loads. Ph. D. thesis in
structural engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Ottawa, 2008.
[13] Bouwkamp J., Stephen R.M.: Large diameter pipe under
combined loading. Transportation Engineering Journal,
August 1973, pp. 521-536.
[14] Stoppler W., Schiedermaier J., Hippelein K., Sturm D.,
Shen S.: Crack behavior of pipes under internal pressure
and simultaneous external bending moment. Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Volume 112, March 1989, pp.
173-182.
[15] Jirsa J.O., Lee F.H., Wilhoit J.C., Merwin J.E.: Ovaling
of pipelines under pure bending. Offshore Technology
Conference 1972, OTC 1569, pp. 573-578.
[16] Gresnigt A.M.: Plastic design of buried steel pipelines in
settlement areas, Heron, Vol. 31, 1986, No. 4.
[17] Yoosef-Ghodsi N. et al.: Behavior of girth welded line
pipe. Structural Engineering Report No. 203,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G7.
[18] Bruschi R., Monti P., Bolzoni G., Tagliaferri R.: Finite
element method as numerical laboratory for analyzing
pipeline response under internal pressure, axial load,
bending moment. OMAE 1995, Vol. V, Pipeline
Technology, pp. 389-401.
[19] DNV: Det Norske Veritas DNV OS-F101: Submarine
pipeline systems, 1999.
[20] Brggemann H., Schermann P., Kleindorf C.: Elasto-
plastisches Tragverhalten von Stahlrohren unter
Innendruck und Biegung. 3R International (44) Heft
7/2005, pp. 148-422.

8 Copyright 2012 by ASME
ANNEX A

Verification of critical strain criteria by means of numerical determined and experimental measured bending moment

100 51
t
D
60 =
t
D
61 54
t
D
( ) ( ) ( )
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
1 2
2 4
1
1
2 2
1
1
2
|
|

\
|
+ +
|
|

\
|
+
(

+ |

\
|
+
(
(

+ + |

\
|
+ + |

\
|
=
pw el pw el
c
A
N
W
M
A
N
W
M
t
D
p
t
D
t
D
p von Mises criterion
M
num
Maximal bending
moment
N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
( )
y i c
p p 78 . 2 =
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )
2 . 1 2 2
44 . 4 962 . 0 0 . 1 21 . 1 456 . 0 63 . 1

+ + + = t D N N N N
y y y h y h c

2 2
2
4 . 13 2 . 56 8 . 5 2 . 13 3 . 11 0 . 6
|
|

\
|

|
|

\
|
+ + =
y y y
y c
N
N
N
N
p p
N
N
p
Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. 1994 [17]
Mohareb et al. 1994 [8]
Zimmerman et al. 1995 [10]
Bruschi et al. 1995 [18]
( ) ( )( ) 0021 . 0 120 34 5 . 8
2 2
+ + = E t D D t
h c
( ) t t D p
i h
2 2 =
1 1
2

|
|

\
|
+
|
|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
+
|
|

\
|
t p
p
t p
p
M
M
N
N
y c y c y c
m SC
y c
m SC

DNV OS F101 2000 [19]
Gresnigt 1986 [16]
p
p
Et
pr
r
t
c
2
3000 0025 . 0 25 . 0 |

\
|
+

=
Brggemann et al. 2005 [20]
|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
+ =
3
1
20
016 . 0 124 . 0
1
p
a
m m
c
tY
pD
r
t

E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

t
e
s
t
s
Gresnigt 1986 [16] n y 1.6 - 6.4 153 - 610 95 - 98 58 - 59
Jirsa 1972 [15] n n 5.9 - 6.6 273 - 508 46 - 78 55 - 58
Stoppler et al. 1989 [14] n y 47.5 800 17 47 - 54
Bouwkamp and Stephen 1973 [13] y y 11.9 - 14.9 1219 97 - 102 39 - 46
Ozkan 2008 [12] y y 6.4 508 80 33 - 38
Dorey 2001 [11] y y 8.3 762 92 22 - 32
Zimmerman et al. 1995 [10] y y 7 - 14.9 610 41 - 87 17 - 21
Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. 1995 [9] y y 6.5 - 8 324 - 508 50 - 63 10 - 16
Mohareb et al. 1994 [8] y y 6.4 - 7.9 324 - 508 51 - 64 3 - 9
Prion and Birkemoe 1988 [7] y n 4.5 - 6.5 450 70 - 100 1 - 2
Reference N p
i
t in mm D in mm D/t No.
M
exp
Maximal bending
moment
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

t
e
s
t
s
Gresnigt 1986 [16] n y 1.6 - 6.4 153 - 610 95 - 98 58 - 59
Jirsa 1972 [15] n n 5.9 - 6.6 273 - 508 46 - 78 55 - 58
Stoppler et al. 1989 [14] n y 47.5 800 17 47 - 54
Bouwkamp and Stephen 1973 [13] y y 11.9 - 14.9 1219 97 - 102 39 - 46
Ozkan 2008 [12] y y 6.4 508 80 33 - 38
Dorey 2001 [11] y y 8.3 762 92 22 - 32
Zimmerman et al. 1995 [10] y y 7 - 14.9 610 41 - 87 17 - 21
Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. 1995 [9] y y 6.5 - 8 324 - 508 50 - 63 10 - 16
Mohareb et al. 1994 [8] y y 6.4 - 7.9 324 - 508 51 - 64 3 - 9
Prion and Birkemoe 1988 [7] y n 4.5 - 6.5 450 70 - 100 1 - 2
Reference N p
i
t in mm D in mm D/t No.
M
exp
Maximal bending
moment
( ) 20 . 1 1 + =
UTS
y
c

60 for 0 >
t
D
3
2
b
p
p
q =
p
p
Et
pr
r
t
c
2
3000 10 . 0 |

\
|
+

=
100 30
t
D
r
a
r
r
3
1
=
( ) 60 15 for 45 60 4 0 |

\
|
+
t
D
/
t
D
q .
15 for 4 0 < +
t
D
q .

60
1
>
r
t
60
1
<
r
t
H
n
c H c
C = Hollomon model