Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

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

IPC2012-90617
ASSESSMENT OF HYDROSTATIC COLLAPSE OF SUBMARINE PIPELINES: HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE CLASSIC METHODS
Adilson C. Benjamin PETROBRAS R&D Center Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Divino J. S. Cunha PETROBRAS R&D Center Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

ABSTRACT In this paper the assessment of the hydrostatic collapse of submarine pipelines is addressed. Initially an overview of the classical approach is presented. Then a historical review of the classic methods is carried out. Seven assessment methods are reviewed: six well-known classic methods (the Southwell method, the Timoshenko method, the Shell method, the Murphey method, the Haagsma-Schaap method and the DNV method) and one newly developed classic method (the RCA method). Finally the collapse pressures previously calculated using Finite Element (FE) models are compared with those predicted by the seven methods. INTRODUCTION From a structural point of view an empty pipeline resting on the seabed is a long circular tube subjected to an external hydrostatic pressure. Depending on its external diameter to thickness ratio (De / t) the pipeline is classified as a thick tube (De / t < 20) or as a thin tube (De / t 20). Ideally the hydrostatic collapse pressure (phc) of a very thick tube is equal to the full yielding pressure (pfy) while the collapse pressure (phc) of a very thin tube is equal to the elastic buckling pressure (peb). In the intermediate range of De / t ratio (moderately thick tubes and moderately thin tubes) plasticity and geometric nonlinearity interact and the hydrostatic collapse pressure is smaller than the smallest among the full yielding pressure (pfy) and the elastic buckling pressure (peb). The failure behavior of long circular tubes subjected to external pressure is sensitive to initial imperfections introduced by the manufacturing process, as for example: out-of-roundness of the tube cross section, reduction of the tube compressive yield stress in the hoop direction and residual stresses. Due to the complexity of the problem, the Nonlinear Finite Element Method is the best method to calculate the collapse pressure of a tube subjected to an external hydrostatic pressure.

However a method composed of closed form equations is more adequate to perform the collapse check recommended by a design code. The literature on the failure behavior of long circular tubes subjected to external pressure is extensive. Since the 19th century until the present day many documents on this subject (conference papers, original articles, review articles, reports, and book chapters) have been published. Besides the scientific interest the main motivations for these works were: the design of submarine pipelines, the design of pipe casings and in more recent times the design of steam generators tubes of nuclear power plants. In this paper the assessment of the hydrostatic collapse of submarine pipelines is addressed. Initially an overview of the classical approach is presented. Then a historical review of the classic methods is carried out. Seven assessment methods are reviewed: six well-known classic methods (the Southwell method, the Timoshenko method, the Shell method, the Murphey method, the Haagsma-Schaap method and the DNV method) and one newly developed classic method (the RCA method). Finally the collapse pressures previously calculated using Finite Element (FE) models are compared with those predicted by the seven methods. Assuming that the collapse pressures calculated in the FE analyses are the most accurate, the performance of the assessment methods is evaluated. The best performance is achieved by the RCA method. These results, however, are not conclusive, and further work over a much larger number of parameters will be necessary before definite conclusions can be reached. CLASSIC METHODS The classic methods for the check of the hydrostatic collapse of long circular tubes are composed of the following equations: An equation for the prediction of the full yielding pressure (pfy) of perfect circular tubes, relevant for very thick tubes;

Copyright 2012 by ASME

An equation for the prediction of the elastic buckling pressure (peb) of perfect circular tubes, relevant for very thin tubes; An equation for the prediction of the hydrostatic collapse pressure (phc) of nominal circular tubes, which in the limit of thick-walled tubes converges to the full yielding pressure (pfy) of perfect circular tubes and in the limit of thin-walled tubes converges to the elastic buckling pressure (peb) of perfect circular tubes. Besides the features listed above a classic method may also incorporate empirical factors to take into account the effect of imperfections such as ovality of the cross section, reduction of the tube compressive yield strength and residual stresses. In order to illustrate the basic characteristics of the classic methods and the relationship of these characteristics with the failure behavior of a long tube subjected to an external pressure the pressures pfy, peb and phc were plotted against the tube De / t ratio in Figure 1. These curves were generated using the equations of the Southwell method (presented ahead), which is the most simple of the classic methods. Underlying this illustration it is the assumption that the application of the classic methods addressed herein is limited to the tubes with De / t ratios equal to or greater than 5 and equal to or smaller than 50 (5 De / t 50). This assumption does not represent a real limitation because submarine pipelines usually have De / t ratios smaller than 30 and deepwater pipelines have De / t ratios smaller than 20.

the distance between them increases as the De / t ratio decreases. This graphical representation illustrates the fact that in this range of De / t ratio (De / t < 23.15) the influence of plasticity in the failure behavior of the tube increases as the De / t ratio decreases. For De / t ratios greater than 23.15 the curve of the pressure peb is below the curve of the pressure pfy (peb < pfy) and the distance between them increases as the De / t ratio increases. This graphical representation illustrates the fact that in this range of De / t ratio (De / t > 23.15) the influence of geometric nonlinearity in the failure behavior of the tube increases as the De / t ratio increases. The curve of the pressure phc is always below the curves of the pressures pfy and peb. CLASSIC EQUATIONS The equation for the calculation of the hoop stress () in a thin-walled perfect circular tube subjected to internal pressure (pi) was published in the 19th century by Barlow [1] and Rankine [2], among others scientists. D = p i i (1) 2t where, Di internal diameter of the tube (Di = De 2t) De external diameter of the tube t wall thickness of the tube Equation 1, which is adequately accurate for very thin tubes, becomes increasingly unconservative as the De / t ratio diminishes. Some time after the publication of Equation 1 it was realized that its range of application could be extended by the substitution of the internal diameter Di by the average diameter Dave or by the external diameter De. = pi D ave (2) 2t = p i D e (3) 2t where Dave average diameter of the tube (Dave = De t) In an ideal situation in which the geometric nonlinearity is not active, Equation 2 or Equation 3 can be used to calculate the hoop stress in a thin-walled perfect circular tube subjected to an external pressure (pe). = pe D ave (4) 2t = p e D e (5) 2t The most disseminated equations for the prediction of the full yielding pressure (pfy) of a perfect circular tube are based on Equations 4 and 5.

240 220 200 180 160 140 P (MPa) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 De / t 30 35 40 45 50 pfy peb phc

Figure 1 Curves of the pressures pfy, peb and phc The curves of the pressures pfy and peb cross each other at the point correspondent to a De / t ratio of approximately 23.15. For De / t ratios smaller than 23.15 the curve of the pressure pfy is below the curve of the pressure peb (pfy < peb) and

Copyright 2012 by ASME

pfy = yield pfy = yield

2t Dave 2t De

(6) (7)

fo =

( Dave ) max ( Dave ) min Dave

(16)

where yield yield stress of the material An equation for the calculation of the elastic buckling pressure of a perfect circular ring was published by Bresse in 1859 [3] and by Levy in 1884 [4].

fo ovality parameter (Dave)max maximum value of the tube average diameter (Dave)min minimum value of the tube average diameter SHELL METHOD AND MURPHEY METHOD The Shell method and the Murphey method were originally developed as part of a research project, named Deepwater Pipeline Feasibility Study, which was conducted by Shell Development Company in the seventies (from September 1974 to April 1977) and was sponsored by thirty nine companies worldwide. For a general overview of this project see Langner and Ayers [8]. The Shell method and the Murphey method are composed of the following equations [9]: p fy peb g (17) phc = 2 2 ( p fy + peb )1/ 2 where, pfy = yield

t (peb)ring = 2 E D ave where, E Youngs modulus of the material

(8)

The most disseminated equation for the prediction of the elastic buckling pressure (peb) of a perfect circular tube was published by Bryan in 1888 [5]. peb =

2E (1 2 )

t D ave

(9)

where, E Youngs modulus of the material Poissons ratio of the material SOUTHWELL METHOD In 1915 Southwell [6] published a method composed of the following equations: p fy peb (10) phc = p fy + peb where, pfy = yield peb =

2t De
3

(18)

t 2E peb = (19) 2 (1 ) De g correction factor by Murphey (for the Shell method g=1)
The only difference between the Shell method and the Murphey method is the value of the parameter g. For the Shell method the parameter g is equal to the unity. The equations of the Shell method were published by Murphey and Langner in 1985 [10]. For the Murphey method the value of the parameter g is calculated using the following equations [9]: (1 + 2 )1/ 2 (20a) (g)calc = 1/ 2 1 2 2 + g = min((g)calc,1) (20b) where, p = fy peb

2t Dave
t D ave
3

(11)

2E (1 2 )

(12)

TIMOSHENKO METHOD In 1936 Timoshenko [7] published a method composed of the following equations: D ( p hc peb ) ( phc p fy ) = 1.5 phc peb fo ave (13) t where, 2t pfy = yield (14) Dave peb

(21)
1/ 2

t 2E = 2 (1 ) Dave

(15)

D 2 D o e = 1 + o e t t ( De ) max ( De ) min 1 ( De ) max ( De ) min o = = ( De ) max + ( De ) min 2 De

(22) (23)

Due to the similarities between these two methods, the Murphey method is sometimes called Shell method in the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

literature. Herein the nomenclature proposed by van Foeken and Gresnigt is adopted [11,12]. In 1999 the Shell method was introduced in the pipeline design code of the American Petroleum Institute [13]. HAAGSMA-SCHAAP METHOD In 1981 Haagsma and Schaap [14] published a method composed of the following equations: D 2 ( p hc peb ) ( phc p 2 ) = phc peb pfy fo e (24) fy t where, 2t pfy = yield (25) De

fo = max((fo)calc,0.005)

(32b)

De De 1 t t ( De ) max ( De ) min fo = De

peb =

2E (1 2 )

1
2

(26)

The DNV method is world wide accepted and to a certain extent is considered the standard in offshore engineering. Equations 29 to 32 constitute the basic form of the DNV method. They differ from the ones presented in DNV OSF101 [19] in that the following empirical factors were excluded: fab, fy,temp and U. The factor fab is used to take into account the effect of the tube fabrication process in the compressive yield stress in the hoop direction. The factor fy,temp takes into account the effect of temperatures above 50oC in the value of the yield stress. The factor U considers the different material qualification levels allowed in DNV OS-F101 [19]. The reason for the exclusion of the factors fab, fy,temp and U was the necessity of reducing the variables affecting the tube collapse. In the next phases of this research the variables that were excluded will be gradually introduced. RCA METHOD The RCA (Renewed Classical Approach) method is a newly developed classic method [20]. This method is composed of the following equations: 2 ( p hc peb ) ( phc p 2 ) = fy phc peb pfy fK fo where, pfy = yield

(27)

(De)max maximum value of the tube external diameter (De)min minimum value of the tube external diameter In 1993 the British Standards Institute (BSI) introduced in its pipeline design code [15,16] a modified version of the Haagsma-Schaap method, called herein the BSI method. The difference between the BSI method and the Haagsma-Schaap method is the equation adopted to calculate the pressure peb, presented below. peb

Dave t

for fo 0.04 and 5

De 45 t

(33)

2t Dave
3

(34)

t 2E = (1 2 ) De

(28)

DNV METHOD In an appraisal of the available methods for the assessment of the hydrostatic collapse of submarine pipelines, carried out in the SUPERB JIP [17], the BSI method has been considered the most adequate method. Based on this appraisal DNV introduced the BSI method in its pipeline design code [18] in 1996. The DNV method, which is in its essence equal to the BSI method, is composed of the following equations: D 2 ( p hc peb ) ( phc p 2 ) = phc peb pfy fo e (29) fy t where, 2t (30) pfy = yield De peb = (fo)calc

t peb D ave ( De ) max ( De ) min (fo)calc = De fo = max((fo)calc,0.005) fK = (fI)0.5% (fK)0.5% + (fI)4.0% (fK)4.0% (fI)0.5% = 1.1429 28.571 fo (fK)0.5% = (310 K2 600 K3 + 1750 K4) e 9.2 K (fI)4.0% = 28.571 fo 0.1429 (fK)4.0% = 1.28 (1 e 27 K 0.12 K ) Dave = De t Dave D K = 0.01 ave 4 for 4 t t 2E = (1 2 )

(35) (36a) (36b) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43)

t 2E 2 (1 ) De ( De ) max ( De ) min = De

(31) (32a)

The RCA method was developed in 2012 by Benjamin and Cunha [20] with the objective of improving the assessment of the hydrostatic collapse of deepwater pipelines. The RCA method is a modified version of the DNV method. The main differences between these two methods are: the use of the average diameter Dave instead of the external diameter De in Equations 33 to 35 and the introduction of the factor fK in Equation 33.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The development of the RCA method was based on the results of several nonlinear Finite Element (FE) analyses. In these analyses the cross section of the tube had an initial out-ofroundness (ovalization), the material was elastic perfectly plastic and the geometric nonlinearity (stress stiffening and large displacements) was considered. Thirteen tubes with De / t ratios ranging from 4 to 45.2 were analyzed while four values of ovality were considered for each tube (0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0% and 4.0%). The expression for the calculation of the factor fK was established by means of a trial-and-error process in which the collapse pressures (phc)method, predicted by Equation 33, were compared with the collapse pressures (phc)FE, calculated in the FE analyses. Several candidate expressions were tested until the collapse pressures (phc)method were considered sufficiently accurate when compared with the collapse pressures (phc)FE. More details about the development of the RCA method were published elsewhere [20]. SUBMARINE PIPELINES MAIN CHARACTERISTICS Submarine pipelines usually have De / t ratios smaller than 30 and deepwater pipelines have De / t ratios smaller than 20. The use of large-diameter linepipe for deepwater applications is a trend in the offshore industry. For large diameter, heavy walled linepipe, the UOE pipe manufacturing process is the general method applied by pipe mills [21]. The name UOE stems from the initials of three mechanical steps which are carried out during the process (U for U-ing cold forming from the plate, O for O-ing cold forming from the Ushape, E for cold expansion to meet the geometric tolerances). Out-of-roundness (ovality) of the pipe cross section is one of the imperfections introduced during the UOE pipe manufacturing process. Typical deep water pipelines can have an ovality fo of at most 1%. Another side effect of the UOE process is the reduction of the tube compressive yield stress in the hoop direction. As a result of the cold deformation caused by forming operation, the transverse compressive yield strength measured on the pipe may be lower than that measured on the plate. However extensive research [22] has showed that the derating of the compressive yield strength can be compensated for by a heat treatment at a moderately elevated temperature (about 200C to 220C). This heat treatment is analogous to what the linepipe experiences during the application of the anticorrosive coating (polyethylene or polypropylene).

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES A detailed description of several nonlinear Finite Element (FE) analyses of nominal circular infinitely long tubes that were carried out by Benjamin and Cunha was published elsewhere [20]. Herein only a brief description of thirteen of these analyses will be presented. Table 1 presents the geometric and material data of the tubes that were discretized by the Finite Element (FE) models. In the last column of Table 1 it is presented the number of elements through thickness (noel) used in the FE models. The dimension of the finite elements in the circumferential direction was established pursuing an aspect ratio approximately equal to the unity. The choice of the tube material (API 5L X65 steel), the tube external diameter (De = 457 mm) and the value of the ovalization of the tube cross section (fo = 1.0%) was made considering the current status of the offshore engineering. In the analyses whose results will be used herein the material was elastic perfectly plastic and the geometric nonlinearity (stress stiffening and large displacements) was considered. The von Mises yield criterion was used. Figure 2 presents the stress-strain curve used the FE analyses. Figure 3 presents the FE mesh of the tube LT15.0 with an initial ovalization equal to 1.0% Figure 4 presents the contour plot of von Mises stress for the tube LT15.0 subjected to the collapse pressure.

Table 1 Geometric and material data of the tubes noel Tube t (mm) De / t LT05.0 91.4 5.0 32 LT07.5 60.9 7.5 24 LT10.0 45.7 10.0 16 LT12.5 36.5 12.5 16 LT15.0 30.4 15.0 16 LT17.5 26.1 17.5 16 LT20.0 22.8 20.0 8 LT22.5 20.3 22.5 8 LT25.0 18.3 25.0 8 LT30.0 15.2 30.1 8 LT35.0 13.0 35.2 8 LT40.0 11.4 40.1 4 LT45.0 10.1 45.2 4 De = 457 mm API 5L X65 steel SMYS = 448 MPa E = 200000 MPa = 0.3

Copyright 2012 by ASME

700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100

API 5L X65 steel

E = 200000 MPa yield = 448 MPa

50 0 0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

strain (mm/mm)

Figure 4 Stress-strain curve used in the FE analyses

Figure 5 FE mesh of the tube LT15.0 with initial ovalization equal to 1.0% (out of scale to be perceived)

PREDICTED COLLAPSE PRESSURES In this item the performance of the assessment methods is evaluated assuming that the collapse pressures calculated in the FE analyses are the most accurate. Table 2 presents the collapse pressures predicted by the assessment methods along with those calculated in the FE analyses. Table 3 and Figure 7 present the ratios of the collapse pressure predicted by the assessment method ((phc)method) to the collapse pressure calculated in the FE analysis ((phc)FE). The maximum of accuracy that one method could achieve would be a ratio (phc)method / (phc)FE equal to the unity. A prediction whose ratio (phc)method / (phc)FE is smaller than the unity is conservative and a prediction whose ratio (phc)method / (phc)FE is greater than the unity is unconservative. However a method can be considered quite accurate when the ratios (phc)method / (phc)FE of a set of its predictions are between 0.95 and 1.05. The RCA method was the method that came closer to the ideal performance. Except for the tubes LT05.0 and LT07.5 all the collapse pressures predicted by the RCA method are between 95% and 105% of the pressures calculated in the FE analyses. Even being outside the interval [0.95 (phc)FE, 1.05 (phc)FE] the collapse pressures predicted for the tubes LT05.0 and LT07.5 can be considered adequately accurate because they are at most 0.12% smaller than the pressure (phc)FE. Table 4 presents the relative differences of the collapse pressure predictions. The RCA method was the method that predicted the collapse pressures closest to the collapse pressures calculated in the FE analyses. The RCA method presented the smallest mean difference (mean difference of 2.6%), followed by the methods DNV and Shell (mean difference of 8.3%), the HaagsmaSchaap method (mean difference of 8.7%), the Murphey method (mean difference of 10.1%), the Timoshenko method (mean difference of 11.5%) and the Southwell method (mean difference of 16.7%). The predictions of the methods RCA, DNV, Shell and Haagsma-Schaap (the methods that have had the best performances) become increasingly conservative for De / t ratios smaller than 20. However the increase of conservatism of the methods DNV, Shell and Haagsma-Schaap is much greater than the increase of conservatism of the RCA method. It is important to highlight that the excellent performance of the RCA method in the range of De / t ratios smaller than 20 was already expected because this method has been developed with the objective of improving the assessment of the hydrostatic collapse of deepwater pipelines.

Figure 6 Contour plot of von Mises stress of the tube LT15.0 with an ovalization equal to 1.0%

stress (MPa)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Tube LT05.0 LT07.5 LT10.0 LT12.5 LT15.0 LT17.5 LT20.0 LT22.5 LT25.0 LT30.0 LT35.0 LT40.0 LT45.0

Table 2 Hydrostatic collapse pressures phc (MPa) HaagsmaShell Murphey Southwell Timoshenko DNV Schaap 216.89 210.94 178.95 174.54 174.63 174.55 126.82 124.58 118.62 114.31 114.62 114.47 85.45 86.01 87.79 83.67 84.45 84.23 61.21 63.65 68.17 64.38 65.85 65.51 45.56 48.96 54.13 50.84 53.04 52.54 34.89 38.52 43.39 40.69 43.40 42.67 27.05 30.41 34.58 32.50 35.24 34.26 21.43 24.27 27.68 26.14 28.39 27.30 17.21 19.45 22.18 21.07 22.62 21.58 11.32 12.55 14.21 13.68 14.12 13.43 7.77 8.38 9.40 9.15 9.16 8.74 5.57 5.87 6.53 6.39 6.30 6.03 4.06 4.19 4.61 4.55 4.43 4.26

RCA 224.00 136.71 96.82 72.98 56.74 44.68 34.91 27.34 21.46 13.38 8.79 6.12 4.37

FE 253.48 147.28 101.60 75.13 57.59 44.92 34.98 27.45 21.58 13.55 8.99 6.15 4.36

Table 3 Ratios of the assessment methods collapse pressure to the FE analyses collapse pressure (phc)method / (phc)FE HaagsmaSouthwell Timoshenko Shell Murphey DNV RCA Schaap LT05.0 0.86 0.83 0.71 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.88 LT07.5 0.86 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.93 LT10.0 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.95 LT12.5 0.81 0.85 0.91 0.86 0.88 0.87 0.97 LT15.0 0.79 0.85 0.94 0.88 0.92 0.91 0.99 LT17.5 0.78 0.86 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.99 LT20.0 0.77 0.87 0.99 0.93 1.01 0.98 1.00 LT22.5 0.78 0.88 1.01 0.95 1.03 0.99 1.00 LT25.0 0.80 0.90 1.03 0.98 1.05 1.00 0.99 LT30.0 0.84 0.93 1.05 1.01 1.04 0.99 0.99 LT35.0 0.86 0.93 1.05 1.02 1.02 0.97 0.98 LT40.0 0.91 0.96 1.06 1.04 1.02 0.98 1.00 LT45.0 0.93 0.96 1.06 1.04 1.02 0.98 1.00

Copyright 2012 by ASME

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95 (phc)method / (phc)FE

0.90

0.85

0.80 Southwell 0.75 Timoshenko Shell 0.70 Murphey Haagsma-Schaap 0.65 DNV RCA

0.60 LT05.0 LT07.5 LT10.0 LT12.5 LT15.0 LT17.5 LT20.0 LT22.5 LT25.0 LT30.0 LT35.0 LT40.0 LT45.0

Figure 7 Ratios of the collapse pressure predicted by the assessment method to the collapse pressure calculated in the FE analysis

Table 4 Relative difference of the hydrostatic collapse pressures predictions relative difference (%) Tube HaagsmaSouthwell Timoshenko Shell Murphey DNV Schaap LT05.0 -14.4 -16.8 -29.4 -31.1 -31.1 -31.1 LT07.5 -13.9 -15.4 -19.5 -22.4 -22.2 -22.3 LT10.0 -15.9 -15.3 -13.6 -17.6 -16.9 -17.1 LT12.5 -18.5 -15.3 -9.3 -14.3 -12.4 -12.8 LT15.0 -20.9 -15.0 -6.0 -11.7 -7.9 -8.8 LT17.5 -22.3 -14.2 -3.4 -9.4 -3.4 -5.0 LT20.0 -22.7 -13.1 -1.1 -7.1 0.7 -2.1 LT22.5 -21.9 -11.6 0.8 -4.8 3.4 -0.6 LT25.0 -20.2 -9.9 2.8 -2.3 4.8 0.0 LT30.0 -16.4 -7.4 4.9 1.0 4.2 -0.9 LT35.0 -13.6 -6.8 4.6 1.7 1.9 -2.8 LT40.0 -9.4 -4.5 6.1 4.0 2.4 -2.0 LT45.0 -6.9 -3.8 5.8 4.2 1.7 -2.3 mean 16.7 11.5 8.3 10.1 8.7 8.3 standard 4.8 4.3 7.9 8.7 9.0 9.4 deviation Note 1: relative difference (%) = ( ( (phc)method (phc)FE ) / (phc)FE ) 100% Note 2: mean relative difference (%) = |relative difference|/13

RCA -11.6 -7.2 -4.7 -2.9 -1.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -1.2 -2.2 -0.4 0.3 2.6 3.3

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CONCLUSIONS In this paper a historical review of seven classic methods for the assessment of the collapse of submarine pipelines was carried out. The following methods were addressed: the Southwell method, the Timoshenko method, the Shell method, the Murphey method, the Haagsma-Schaap method, the DNV method and the RCA method. The RCA method is a modified version of the DNV method, which was developed in 2012 with the objective of improving the assessment of the hydrostatic collapse of deepwater pipelines. In order to evaluate the performance of the addressed methods the collapse pressures previously calculated using Finite Element models were compared with those predicted by the classic methods. The best performance was achieved by the RCA method. Except for the tubes LT05.0 and LT07.5 all the collapse pressures predicted by the RCA method are between 95% and 105% of the pressures calculated in the FE analyses. Even being outside the interval [0.95 (phc)FE, 1.05 (phc)FE] the collapse pressures predicted for the tubes LT05.0 and LT07.5 can be considered adequately accurate because they are at most 0.12% smaller than the pressure (phc)FE. The RCA method was the method that predicted the collapse pressures closest to the collapse pressures calculated in the FE analyses. The RCA method presented the smallest mean relative difference (mean difference of 2.6%), followed by the methods DNV and Shell (mean difference of 8.3%), the Haagsma-Schaap method (mean difference of 8.7%), the Murphey method (mean difference of 10.1%), the Timoshenko method (mean difference of 11.5%) and the Southwell method (mean difference of 16.7%). The predictions of the methods RCA, DNV, Shell and Haagsma-Schaap (the methods that have had the best performances) become increasingly conservative for De / t ratios smaller than 20. However the increase of conservatism of the methods DNV, Shell and Haagsma-Schaap is much greater than the increase of conservatism of the RCA method. The above conclusions are for a specific set of FE results and must be confirmed for a large number of numerical and experimental results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank PETROBRAS for permission to publish this paper. REFERENCES 1. Barlow, P., On the force excited by hydraulic pressure in a Bramah Press; the resisting power of the cylinder, and rules for computing the thickness of metal for presses of various powers and dimensions, Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain), pp.133-140, (1842).

2. Rankine, W. J. M., A Manual of Applied Mechanics, 1858, University of Glasgow, article 271, page 289, 3. Bresse, M. Cours de Mcanique Appllique, (1859), Paris, pp. 306-318. 4. Levy, M., Mmemoire sur un nouveau cas intgrable du problme de llastique et lune de ses applications, (1884), J. Math Pure et Appl. (Liouville), Journal de mathmatiques pures et appliques, Srie 3, Vol. 10, pp. 5-42. 5. Bryan, G. H. "Application of the Energy Test to the Collapse of a Long Thin Pipe Under External Pressure," (1888), Proc. Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 6, pp. 287-292. 6. Southwell, R. V., On the collapse of tubes by external pressure, Philosophical Magazine Vol. 25, Issue 149, May 1913 pp. 687-698; Philosophical Magazine, Vol 26, Sept 1913 pp. 502-511; Philosophical Magazine Vol 29, Jan. 1915, pp. 66-67 7. Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M., Theory of elastic stability, McGraw-Hill, 1rst Edition 1936, 2nd Edition1961. 8. Langner, C. G. and Ayers, R. R., Feasibility of laying pipelines in deep waters, Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 85), 1985. 9. Murphey, C. E., Ultimate pipe strength under bending, collapse and fatigue, Report 21-1, Shell Development Company, Deepwater Pipeline Feasibility Study, April 1975. 10. Murphey, C. E., Langner, C. G., Ultimate Pipe Strength under Bending, Collapse and Fatigue, Proc. of the 4th International Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference (OMAE 85), 1985. 11. Foeken, R. J. van, and Gresnigt, A. M., Buckling and collapse of UOE manufactured stee1 pipes, Report prepared for the Offshore and Onshore Design Applications Supervisory Committee of PRCI, PRCI Catalog No. L51809e, TNO report 96-CON-R0500, 1998. 12. Gresnigt, A. M., van Foeken, R. J. and Chen, S., Collapse of UOE manufactured steel pipes, Proc. of the 10th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2000), 2000. 13. American Petroleum Institute, API RP 1111: Design Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design), 3rd Edition, July 1999. 14. Haagsma, S. C. and Schaap, D., Collapse resistance of submarine lines studied, Oil and Gas Journal, 1981, Vol 79, No 5, February 2, pp. 86-90,95. 15. British Standards Institute: BS 8010 :Part 3, 1993 - Code of Practice for Pipelines Part 3. Pipelines Subsea: Design, Construction and Installation". 16. British Standards Institute: "PD 8010-2:2004 - Code of practice for pipelines. Subsea pipelines, July 2004 17. Mork, K. J., Spiten, J., Torselletti, E., Ness, O. B. and Verley, R., SUPERB Project & DNV'96: Buckling and Collapse Limit State, Proc. of the 16th International

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 97), 1997. 18. DNV, Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems DNV-96, Det Norske Veritas, 1996 19. DNV, DNV-OS-F101: Offshore Standard for Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas, 2007. 20. Benjamin, A. C. and Cunha, D. J. S., Assessment of Hydrostatic Collapse of Submarine Pipelines: The Classical Approach Revisited, Proc. 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2012), 2012.

21. Kyriakides, S. and Corona, E., Mechanics of Offshore Pipelines - Volume 1 Buckling and Collapse, 1rst Edition, Elsevier, 2007. 22. Bruschi, R., Torselletti, E., Vitali, L. and Santicchia, A., UOE Pipes for Ultra Deep Water Application: Collapse Strength Capacity vs. Material Characteristics State of the Art, Proc. 17th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2007), 2007.

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen