MAT TOC
Proceedings of OMAE’03
22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
LOCAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF X100 LINEPIPES
Nobuhisa Suzuki and Ryuji Muraoka
JFE/NKK Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
Masao Toyoda
Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
ABSTRACT
Local buckling behavior of API 5L X100 grade linepipes
subjected to axial compression and/or bending moment is
discussed in this paper based on results obtained by finite
element analyses. Yield-to-tensile strength (Y/T) ratio and
design factor were taken into account in the finite element
analyses in order to discuss their effects on the local buckling
behavior. The local bucking behavior of such lower strength
linepipes as X60 and X80 grade linepipes is also discussed for
comparison. Two-dimensional solid elements and four-node
shell elements were used for the finite element modeling of the
linepipes subjected to axial compression and bending moment,
respectively. The study has improved the understanding of local
buckling behavior of the X100 grade linepipes and observed
the following trends. When a linepipe is subjected to axial
compression, the critical axial stress decreases with increasing
design factor and Y/T ratio.. However, the nominal critical
strain increases with increasing design factor and decreasing
Y/T ratio. When a linepipe is subjected to bending moment,
the critical bending moment decreases with increasing design
factor and Y/T ratio. Similarly, the nominal critical strain
increases with increasing design factor. However, the nominal
critical strain increases with decreasing Y/T ratio when the
design factor is less than and equal to 0.6 and decreases with
decreasing Y/T ratio when the design factor is equal to 0.8.
INTRODUCTION
The necessity of strain-based design for onshore pipelines
has been emphasized in order to ensure pipeline integrity in
such hostile environments as seismic regions and permafrost
regions where significant effects of lateral spread, fault
displacement, frost heave and thaw settlement on the pipelines
may be anticipated (Glover, 2002). One of the key issues
regarding the strain-based design of buried pipelines is to
June 8-13, 2003, Cancun, MEXICO
OMAE2003-37145
Alan Glover and Joe Zhou
TransCanada Pipelines LTD., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
determine longitudinal compressive strain limit, particularly in
the context of high strength linepipes for application in high
pressure gas pipelines. High strength linepipes tend to have
high value of Y/T ratios compare with those of low strength
linepipes, and consequently their local buckling capacity may
be reduced. However, it has been demonstrated by Suzuki and
Toyoda (2002) that the local buckling capacity or deformability
of linepipes is dependent on, among other factors, the strain-
hardening characteristics of the pipe material. Therefore it is
recognized that deformability of high strength linepipes can be
improved and adequate local buckling capacity can be
maintained by controlling the stress-strain characteristics of the
pipe materials. This paper focuses on local buckling behavior
of high strength pipe and the relationship between the local
buckling and the stress-strain behavior of the materials.
Several empirical and semi-empirical equations have been
proposed for the pipeline design in order to predict the critical
longitudinal strain of the linepipes and they were based on
experimental data and/or finite element solutions for pipes of
relatively low strength. Most of the equations are expressed in
terms of a D/t ratio without taking into account strain hardening
parameters. Gresnigt (1986) conducted experiments on
deformability of linepipes subjected to bending moment to
establish plastic design of buried pipeline. Zimmerman et al.
(1995) made comparison of the calculated critical longitudinal
strains and the corresponding experimental data. Zhou and
Murray (1995) discussed post-buckling deformation of
linepipes under combined loads. Yoosef-Ghodsi et al. (1995)
investigated the effects of butt welds on the deformability of
linepipes.
Besides the above-mentioned studies regarding the local
buckling behavior of the linepipes, key issues still remain for
the high-strength and the high-pressure pipelines that require
further study. One of the key issues is to clarify the effect of
internal pressure and strain hardening parameters or Y/T ratio
1 Copyright © 2003 by ASME
on the buckling behavior of linepipes in compression and
bending. The local buckling behavior of the X100 grade
linepipes will be discussed based on the results obtained by
finite element analyses in which design factors up to 0.8 and
Y/T ranging from 0.75 to 0.93 are taken into account. The
local buckling behavior is discussed referring critical stress or
critical bending moment and nominal critical strain. The
nominal critical strain is defined as the mean strain over a
gauge length of two times of pipe diameter. The relationships
between the nominal critical strain and local critical strain or
peak strain will be discussed as well.
ANALYSIS OF LINEPIPE SUBJECTED TO
AXIAL COMPRESSION AND/OR BENDING MOMENT
Finite element analysis was used as the basic approach to
establish a database for the purpose to demonstrate the local
buckling behavior and benchmark predictive formulas. In this
section, the assumptions and the finite element models used for
analysis of local buckling behavior or deformability are briefly
described below.
1999) was used to conduct the deformation analyses in this
paper. Material parameters of the linepipes used in the finite
element analyses are listed in Table 1, where the three
parameters of the Ramberg-Osgood formula (Ramberg and
Osgood, 1943) are also represented. The R-O formula is
consistent with a Round-House type stress-strain curve as
shown in Fig. 1.
Finite Element Modeling of Linepipe
The finite element models employed for deformation
analysis are presented in Figs. 2 and 3 where solid elements
and four-node shell elements were used. A two-step loading
procedure was applied to the finite element analyses and in
general the linepipe was first pressurized and then subjected to
axial compression force or bending moment with moment
arms.
End cap

Assumptions for Finite Element Analyses

Three different grades of linepipes, API 5L X60, X80 and
X100, were selected for deformation analysis in order to
compare their local buckling behavior. ADINA (System7.5- L=2.5D

Table 1 Parameters represent stress-stress curves of

API 5L linepipes used for calculation
YS TS Ue R-O parameter
API 5L Y/T
(MPa) (MPa) (%) α N
X60 413 503 12 0.82 1.48 18.63
X80 551 612 8 0.90 0.86 33.39
X100* 689 741 6 0.93 0.49 48.63
Fig. 2 Compression model
*note: Parameters were tentatively defined as the
corresponding values have not been specified

800
L=3.5D

600
Stress (MPa)

400

X100
200 Moment arm
X80
X60
Loading line
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Strain (%)
Fig. 3 Bending model
Fig. 1 Stress-strain relationships of API 5L linepipes

2 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 In the compression model as shown in Fig. 2, plane strain
condition was assumed such that both ends of the pipe were
restrained for axial displacements but free for radial
displacements and rotations. Because of the plane strain
condition, axial tensile stress was introduced when the pipe was
pressurized that would partially offset the subsequently applied
axial compressive load.
In the bending model as shown in Fig. 3, plane strain
condition was also assumed when the pipe was pressurized and
the bending moment was applied through a pair of forces at the
Figure 5 shows the predicted critical strain based on finite
element analysis and it decreases with increasing D/t ratio. It is
noticed that the critical strains decreases as the pipe grade
increases. It is suggested that the above observation reflects the
effect of Y/T ratio, or loosely the strain hardening
characteristics.
2.0
X60
X80

Critical strain : εcr (%)

loading line such that the bending moment is proportional to 1.5
the applied force and moment arm length. For the cases with X100
internal pressure, the pipe specimens were subjected to, in
addition to bending moment, either net tensile or compressive 1.0
axial loads dependent on the relative magnitudes of the end
force and the applied axial force. In both models, no initial
imperfection, both material and geometric, was included,
0.5
therefore, the predicted critical stress and strain were expected
to be the upper bound of actual critical stress and strain. The
nominal strain and local strain reported in this paper represent
0.0
the strain at the center of pipe wall.
35 40 45 50
55 60 65 70 75
D/t
LOCAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF LINEPIPE Fig. 5 Critical strain of linepipes (24-in OD, fd =0.0)
SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION
Compression of Linepipes With Pressure
Compression of Linepipe without Pressure Figure 6 presents nominal stress-strain responses of a
Figure 4 plots the critical compressive stress without pressurized X100 grade linepipe under axial compression. Pipe
internal pressure based on results of finite element analysis. diameter of 24-in and the D/t ratio of 50 were used for all
The outside diameter of the pipe is 24-in for all cases. As cases. The horizontal axis in the figure represents the nominal
shown in the figure, the critical stress linearly decreases with longitudinal strain calculated with a gauge length of two times
increasing D/t ratio and the range of the variation is narrow of the pipe diameter. Figure 6 illustrates the effect of design
because the critical stress is close to the yield stress when the factor, fd, where the critical longitudinal stress decreases and
pipe buckles in the elastic-plastic region. Therefore the critical the critical longitudinal strain increases with increasing design
stress is dependent on the yield stress and the critical stresses of factor. Compare with the case without pressure, fd =0.0, the
the linepipes are presented in order of yield stress.
800
800 fd=0.0
700
0.4
Critical stress : σcr (MPa)

600
0.6
Stress (MPa)

600
500 0.8

400
400
300

X100 200
200
X80 100
X60 0
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Nominal strain (%)
D/t Fig. 6 Nominal stress-strain responses of X100 grade
Fig. 4 Critical compressive stress of linepipes linepipe with different design factors
(24-in OD, fd =0.0) (24-in OD, D/t=50, Gauge length L=2D)

3 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

critical stress and the critical strain of the case with design
factor of 0.8 become about 60% and 200%, respectively,
Figure 7 presents the effect of the design factor on the
critical stress of the X100 grade linepipe. The variation of the
critical stress is also small and the trend is similar to those
shown in Fig.4, however, the critical stress with the design
factor of 0.8 is reduced to about 60% of that without internal
pressure. The reduction of the critical stress needs to be
properly considered in the pipeline design, particularly under a
load-controlled condition.
Figure 9 compares the shape of the wrinkles of the X100
grade linepipe at nominal strains of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0%
between the cases with design factors of 0.0 and 0.6. The
length of the wrinkle of the case with design factor of 0.6 is
longer than that of 0.0. The wrinkle with the design factor of
0.0 tends to close its shape with increasing axial deformation,
however, the wrinkle does not develop to close its shape in the
case of the design factor of 0.6.

800
Critical stress : σcr (MPa)

600

400
f d=0.0
f d=0.4
200
f d=0.6
f d=0.8
0 fd =0.0 fd =0.6
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
D/t Fig. 9 Local deformation of X100 grade linepipe subjected
Fig. 7 Critical stress of X100 grade linepipe with to axial compression (24-in OD, D/t=50, Nominal
different design factors (24-in OD) strains of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4%)

Figure 8 presents the effects on the nominal critical strain

of the X100 grade linepipe. As shown in the figure, the
nominal critical strain decreases with increasing D/t ratio and
increases with increasing design factor. The nominal critical
strain with the design factor of 0.8 is approximately two times
larger than that of without internal pressure.
2.0
f d=0.8
f d=0.6
εcr (%)
LOCAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF LINEPIPE
SUBJECTED TO BENDING MOMENT
Critical Bending Moment and Strain
Figure 10 compares critical bending moments of the three
grade linepipes obtained by assuming the pipe diameter to be
24-in and no internal pressure. The critical bending moments
decrease with increasing D/t ratio. The ratios of the critical
bending moments are similar to those of the corresponding

1.5 f d=0.4 yield stress. However, the curves showing the critical bending
f d=0.0 moments tend to cave in which is different from the critical
Critical strain :

stress shown in Fig. 4. The critical bending moments with the

1.0 D/t ratio of 70 are 50% to 60% of the values with the D/t ratio
of 40.
Figure 11 shows the relationship between the nominal
0.5 critical strain under bending without pressure and D/t ratio. As
shown in the figure, the shape of the curves is similar to those
under axial compression as shown in Fig. 5. However, it is
0.0 noticed that the critical strains shown in Fig. 11 are
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 approximately two times as large as those represented in Fig. 5.
D/t The ratio of the critical stresses due to axial compression and
Fig. 8 Nominal critical strain of X100 grade linepipe bending moment will be discussed later.
with different design factors (24-in OD, L=2D)

4 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 5 3.5
X100
Critical moment : M cr (MN-m)

3.0 fd=0.0 0.4

Bending moment (kN-m)

4 X80 0.6
0.8
X60 2.5
3
2.0

2 1.5

1.0
1
0.5

0 0.0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 1 2 3 4 5
D/t Nominal strain (%)
Fig. 10 Critical bending moment of linepipes Fig. 12 Local buckling behavior of X100 grade linepipe
(24-in OD, fd =0.0) subjected to bending moment with different
design factors (24-in OD, D/t=50)
2.0
X60 Figure 13 presents the relationship between critical
X80 bending moment and D/t ratio of the X100 grade linepipe with
εcr (%)

1.5 24-in OD. The figure also shows the effect of design factor on
X100 the critical bending moment. As shown in the figure, the
critical bending moment tends to decrease with increasing
Critical strain :

1.0 design factor, and the maximum reduction is approximately

15%. In addition the difference between the cases with the
design factors of 0.0 and 0.4 is negligibly small.
0.5 Comparing to Fig. 7, it is concluded that the effect of
design factor on the critical bending moment is less significant
than that on the critical compressive stress. However the
0.0 reduction in the critical bending moment with increasing D/t
ratio is more significant than the critical compressive stress
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
D/t represented in Fig. 7.
Fig. 11 Nominal critical strain subjected to bending moment
5.0
(24-in OD, fd =0.0, L=2D)
f d=0.0
Critical moment : M cr (MN-m)

4.0 f d=0.4
Effect of Design Factor on the Critical Bending f d=0.6
Moment and Strain f d=0.8
3.0
Figure 12 plots the relationship between the critical
bending moment and the nominal critical strain for X100 grade
linepipes with the outside diameter and the D/t ratio to be 24-in 2.0
and 50, respectively. The nominal critical strain is measured
over a gauge length of two times as large as pipe diameter. As 1.0
shown in the figure, the critical bending moment decreases and
the nominal critical strain increases with increasing design
factor. The critical bending moment decreases by 25% when 0.0
the design factor increases from 0 to 0.8. The nominal critical 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
strain, however, increased up to about four times when the D/t
design factor increase from 0 to 0.8. The trend of decreasing in Fig. 13 Critical bending moment of X100 grade linepipes
the resistance and increasing in the deformation is similar to with different design factors (24-in OD)
those under axial compression as shown in Fig. 6.

5 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 Figure 14 presents the effect of design factor on the
nominal critical longitudinal strain. As mentioned above, the
critical bending moment decreases with increasing design
factor, however, the nominal critical strain increases with
increasing design factor. The nominal critical strain of the
cases with the design factor of 0.8 is 3.5 to 4.0 times larger than
the cases of 0.0. The factors of amplification based on the
design factor are significantly higher than the cases of the axial
compression of pipe shown in Fig. 8. Original shape

6
f d=0.8
5 f d=0.6
εcr (%)

f d=0.4
4 f d=0.0
Critical strain :

2 fd =0.0, Nominal strain=2%

0
35 40 45 50
55 60 65 70 75
D/t
Fig. 14 Nominal critical strain of X100 grade linepipes
subjected to bending moment (24-in OD)
fd =0.0, Nominal strain=4%
Figure 15 compares buckling behavior of the linepipe
under the effect of design factor. The wrinkle develops
gradually with increasing nominal longitudinal strain, which is
defined using the gauge length with two times as large as pipe
diameter. Two pairs of illustrations at nominal strains of 2%
and 4% are shown for the cases with the design factors of 0.0
and 0.6. The wrinkle develops inward when the design factor
is 0.0, however, that develops outward when the design factor
is 0.6. That is the most significant difference of the shape of
the wrinkles.
fd =0.6, Nominal strain=2%

APPLICATION OF LOCAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR

TO STRAIN-BASED DESIGN OF PIPELINES

Local Buckling Behavior of X100 Linepipe

Deformation due to axial compression
Figure 16 illustrates the effects of the design factor and the
Y/T ratio on the critical compressive stress and the nominal
critical longitudinal strain of the linepipe. The figure is fd =0.6, Nominal strain=4%
applicable to the linepipes with the D/t ratio of 50. As shown
in the figure, the critical stress decreases and the critical
nominal strain increases with increasing design factor. Fig. 15 Comparison of local deformation of X100
However, the critical compressive stress and the nominal grade linepipe with different design factors
critical strain increase with decreasing Y/T ratio. Therefore, (24-in OD, D/t=50)
providing the design factor to be constant, both the critical

6 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

compressive stress and the nominal critical strain can be and equal to 0.6, however, the nominal critical strain decreases
improved by choosing low Y/T ratio. with decreasing Y/T ratio when the design factor is 0.8.

1.2 Comparison of nominal critical strains

Figure 18 compares the nominal critical strains of the
X100 grade linepipes between axial compression and bending
f d=0.0 moment. The nominal critical values plotted in the figure are
1.0
associated with the Y/T ratio from 0.80 to 0.93, the D/t ratios of
50 and 60, and the design factors of 0.4 and 0.8. It is observed
σcr / σ0

0.4
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.0 0.5 1.0
εcr (%)
Fig. 16 Critical compressive stress vs. critical strain of
X100 grade linepipes (24-in OD, D/t=50)
Deformation due to bending moment
Figure 17 shows an example of the relationships between
the critical bending moment and the nominal critical strain of
the X100 grade linepipe. The diameter and the D/t ratio used in
the figure were 24-in and 50, respectively.
When we observe the curve having a constant Y/T ratio,
the critical bending moment increases between the design
factors of 0.0 and 0.4 and decreases with increasing design
factor between those of 0.4 and 0.8. On the other hand, the
nominal critical strain always increases with increasing design
factor. As for the effect of Y/T ratio, the critical bending
moment increases with decreasing Y/T ratio in terms of all
design factors. The critical nominal strain slightly increases
with decreasing Y/T ratio when the design factor is less than
1.6
0.75 that the data with the design factor of 0.8 are plotted at higher
0.80 position than the data with that of 0.4. Similar trend exist for
0.85
Y/T=0.90
the data with the D/t ratio of 50 compared to the data with that
of 60. And the data with larger Y/T ratios are also plotted at
higher position.
However it is observed in the figure that there are different
trends between the data with the design factors of 0.4 and 0.8.
In the cases with the design factor of 0.4, the nominal critical
1.5 2.0 strains of the linepipes subjected to axial compression and
bending moment increase with decreasing Y/T ratio as shown
in Figs. 16 and 17. And in the cases with the design factor of
0.8, the nominal critical strains of the linepipes subjected to
axial compression show the same trend as the cases with the
design factor of 0.4 as shown in Fig. 16. However, the nominal
critical strains of the linepipes subjected to bending moment
with the design factor of 0.8 present a different trend, which
strains decrease with decreasing Y/T ratio as shown in Fig. 17.
These trends give us useful information regarding the local
buckling behavior of the X100 grade linepipes.
As shown in the figure, the nominal critical bending strain
is larger than the nominal critical compressive strain and the
ratios are estimated to be about 2.0 to 2.5 in the cases with the
design factor of 0.4, and 2.5 to 3.5 in the cases with the design
factor of 0.8. In addition the ratios of the nominal critical
strains for the cases with the design factor of 0.0, which are not
plotted in the figure, are estimated to be 1.75 to 2.0.
5
4
εcr (%) (Bending)

1.4
3 f d=0.8
0.75
Mcr / M0

1.2 f d=0.0 0.4 0.80 2 f d=0.4

0.6 0.85 Y/T
Y/T=0.90 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.93
1.0
0.8 1
50
D/t
60
0
0.8 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 εcr (%) (Compression)
εcr (%) Fig. 18 Comparison of nominal critical strains of X100
Fig. 17 Critical bending moment vs. nominal critical strain grade linepipes between axial compression
of X100 grade linepipes (24-in OD, D/t=50) and bending moment (24-in OD)

7 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

Comparison of Nominal Strain and Local Strain
(Deformation due to Axial Compression)
Figure 19 presents distribution of the longitudinal strain at
the center of the pipe wall and the nominal critical strain of the
X100 linepipes assuming the outside diameter to be 24-in and
the D/t ratio of 50 and the design factors of 0.0 and 0.6. The
strain distributions plotted in the figure were obtained at the
maximum compressive stress.
The maximum local strain in the case with the design
factor of 0.0 is 0.82% and the nominal critical strain becomes
0.53%. And the values in the cases with the design factor of
0.6 are 1.26% and 0.76%, respectively. Furthermore, the
distances between the two points showing the minimum
longitudinal strain are approximately 0.4D and 0.8D for the
two cases and the difference represent the effect of pressure on
the wavelength of wrinkles.
1.4
1.26%
1.2
Figure 20 compares the nominal critical strain and the
corresponding local strain in terms of their own trace up to the
critical points. The critical strain and the local strain of the
lower grade linepipes reach to larger value compare with those
of the high-grade linepipes. The traces with the design factor
of 0.0 develop along the centerline when the strain is less than
0.4%, and they move away from the centerline. On the other
hand, the traces with the design factor of 0.8 develop along
with the centerline at the beginning of deformation and they
deviate gradually from the centerline. This is the difference of
the effect of the design factor on the local buckling behavior of
linepipes.
Figures 21 and 22 show more detail comparisons of the
nominal strain and the local strain of the linepipes. Figure 21
gives another comparison of the strains with the design factor
of 0.0 taking different parameter regarding the D/t ratio and
Fig. 22 expresses the effects of other design factors. The dotted
3

1.0 0.76% 0.82%

εcr (%) (FEA Local)

Strain (%)

0.8 2

0.6

0.4 D/t
1 40 50 60
0.53% f d=0.6
0.2 X60
f d=0.0 X80
0.0 X100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0
L/D 0 1 2 3
Fig. 19 Longitudinal strain distribution and nominal critical εcr (%) (FEA Nominal)
strain of X100 linepipe (24-in OD, D/t=50) Fig. 21 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain
(24-in OD, fd =0.0)
3
3
Local strain (%)

(FEA Local)

2
2

1 fd
εcr (%)

X60 X80 X100

1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0 X60
fd X80
0.8
X100
0
0
1 20 3
0 1 2 3
Nominal strain (%)
εcr (%) (FEA Nominal)
Fig. 20 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain of linepipes
(24-in OD, D/t=50) Fig. 22 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain
(24-in OD, D/t=50)

8 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

lines in the figures indicate the ratio of the strains and that was 8
estimated to be 1.45, which is conservative and common to the
figures.
Ue
6
Comparison of Nominal Strain and Local Strain

εcr (%) (Local)

(Deformation due to Bending Moment)
Figure 23 shows the local compressive strain distribution
4
of the X100 grade linepipe with 24-in outside diameter and D/t
ratio of 50 in the longitudinal direction induced by bending
Y/T
moment. Two design cases with the design factors of 0.0 and 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.93
2
0.6 are presented. The maximum and the nominal strains are
0.0
1.27% and 1.02% in the case with the design factor of 0.0 and fd
0.8
3.19% and 1.99% in the case with that of 0.6, respectively. The
differences in longitudinal strain distributions between the 0
cases with the design factors of 0.0 and 0.6 are because of the 4 0 6 2 8
difference modes of the wrinkles. The longitudinal strain εcr (%) (Nominal)
distribution of the case with the design factor of 0.6 is similar Fig. 24 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain of
to those represented in Fig. 19 which gives a comparison of the X100 grade linepipe (24-in OD, D/t=50)
effect of the design factor on the strain distribution under
compressive deformation.
8

4.0
f d=0.6 Ue
3.19% 6
f d=0.0
3.0 εcr (%) (Local)
4
Strain (%)

1.99%
fd
2.0
0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.27%
1.02% 2 X60
X80
1.0 X100
0
0 2 4 6 8
0.0
εcr (%) (Nominal)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fig. 25 Nominal critical strain vs. local strain
L/D of linepipes (24-in OD, D/t=50)
Fig. 23 Local strain distribution and nominal strain of
X100 line pipe (24-in OD, D/t=50) 2.0

Figure 24 shows the traces of the local and the nominal

strains of the X100 linepipes subjected to bending moment. 1.5
εcr(Local) / εcr(Nominal)

The lines in the cases with the design factor of 0.0 present
similar tendency to those of the same design factor in Fig. 20, y= 0.571x + 1.235
however, the lines with that of 0.8 present similar behavior to
1.0
the same cases shown in Fig. 20 up to a nominal strain at 2.5%
and behave like the cases without internal pressure shown in
Fig. 20 when the nominal strain is larger then 2.5%. It is
0.5
noticed that the strains in Fig. 24 are 2.0 to 2.5 times larger
than the strains in Fig. 20, which should be recognized to be a
feature of the bending deformation. Another point to be
mentioned in the figure is that the plots of the common design 0.0
factor are close to each other compare with the plots in Fig. 20. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
And the local strains in the cases with the design factor of 0.8 fd
exceed the horizontal line in the figure, which represents the Fig. 26 Nominal-to-local strain ratio (24-in OD, D/t=50)

9 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

uniform elongation of the X100 grade linepipes assumed in
Table 1. The bending deformation consistent with such large
longitudinal strain should be investigated more carefully to
ensure pipeline integrity.
Figure 25 compares the nominal strains and the local
strains of pipes with D/t ratio of 50, four design factors and the
three pipe grades. It is obvious that the data plotted in the
figure are classified into four groups based on design factors.
Based on the data, the local-to-nominal strain ratios for each
group can be obtained by regression analysis and the ratio can
be represented in terms of design factor. The horizontal line in
Fig. 25 also indicates the assumed uniform elongation of the
X100 grade linepipe. As shown in Fig. 26, the ratio is
dependent upon design factor and increases gradually with
increasing design factor. The ratio varies from about 1.22 at
the design factor of 0.0 to 1.69 at that of 0.8, which values
cover the ratio of 1.45 of compressive deformation expressed in
Figs. 21 and 22 where the ratio is found to be approximately
independent of design factor.
CONCLUSIONS
Local buckling behavior of X100 grade linepipe subjected
to axial compression and/or bending moment were discussed
and results of finite element analysis were presented for design
cases with design factor up to 0.8, Y/T ratio from 0.8 to 0.93
and D/t ratio from 40 to 70. The linepipes were pressurized
and initial axial tension was introduced in the linepipes before
compressed or bent, which axial tension was generated by
assuming the plane strain state condition. The conventional
grade linepipes, X60 and X80, were also discussed to compare
their local buckling behaviors. The local buckling behaviors
were discussed based on nominal critical stress and nominal
critical strain. A relationship was established between the
nominal critical strain and the local critical strain. The nominal
values are intended to be used with the solutions obtained by
beam elements or pipe elements, while the local values should
be used when shell elements or three-dimensional solid
elements are applied to the pipeline design.
The results of our study are summarized as follows:
• Behavior under axial compression;
1) Nominal critical longitudinal stress of a linepipe
without internal pressure is dependent on yield stress.
2) Nominal critical longitudinal strain of a linepipe
without internal pressure is dependent on Y/T ratio.
3) Critical longitudinal stress of a linepipe decreases and
critical longitudinal strain increases due to the effect of
design factor.
4) An outward bulge or a wrinkle develops during post
buckling deformation and the length can be increased
by the effect of design factor.
• Behavior under bending moment;
1) Critical bending moment of a linepipe without internal
pressure depends upon yield stress.
2) Critical nominal longitudinal strain of a linepipe
without internal pressure is dependent on Y/T ratio,
however, the critical strain decreases in increasing
linepipe grade or yield stress.
3) Critical bending moment of a linepipe can be reduced
due to the effect of design factor, while critical
longitudinal strain may be increased.
4) An inward bulge develops when a design factor is
small and an outward bulge develops when a design
factor is large.
• Nominal critical strain and local critical strain;
1) Nominal critical strain is smaller than local critical
strain and critical nominal-to-local critical strain ratio
was estimated to be 1.45 for the cases of compressive
deformation, which is independent of design factor.
2) On the other hand, nominal-to-local critical strain ratio
was estimated to be between 1.2 and 1.7 for the cases
of bending deformation, which is dependent of design
factor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been carried out in collaboration among
TransCanada PipeLines Limited, Osaka University and
JFE/NKK Corporation. The authors would like to thank Mr.
David Horsley and Dr. Shigeru Endo for their invaluable
comments and advices.
REFERENCES
Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.R. (1943): Description of Stress-
Strain Curves by Three Parameters, NACA, TN.902.
Gresnigt (1986): Plastic Design of Buried Steel Pipelines in
Settlement Areas, Heron, Volume 31, No.4.
Zimmerman, T.J.E., Stephens, M.J., DeGeer, D.D. and Chen, C.
(1995): Compressive Strain Limits for Buried Pipelines,
1995 OMAE, Vol.V, Pipeline Technology, 365-378.
Yoosef-Ghodsi, N., Kulak, G.L. and Murray, D.W. (1995):
Some Test Results for wrinkling Of Girth-Welded Line
Pipe, Proc. of 14th OMAE Conference, Vol. V.
Zhou, Z.J. and Murray, D.W. (1995): Analysis of Post-Buckling
Behavior of Line Pipe Subjected to Combined Loads,
Int. J. of Solids and Structures, Vol. 32, No.20.
ADINA R&D, Inc. (1999): ADINA User Interface – Users
Guide – Report ARD 99-1.
Glover, A. (2002): Application of Gade 550 (X80) and Grade
690 (X100) in Arctic Climates, Proc. of Application and
Evaluation of High-Grade Linepipes in Hostile
Environments.
Suzuki, N. and Toyoda, M. (2002): Critical Compressive Strain
of Linepipes Related to Workhardening Parameters,
ASME OMAE2002-28253.
10 Copyright © 2003 by ASME