1 Copyright 2003 by ASME

Proceedings of OMAE03
22
nd
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 8-13, 2003, Cancun, Mexico
OMAE2003-37220
BUCKLE PROPAGATION AND ITS ARREST: BUCKLE ARRESTOR DESIGN
VERSUS NUMERICAL ANALYSES AND EXPERIMENTS
Enrico Torselletti
Snamprogetti
Via Toniolo 1, 61032 Fano, Italy
e-mail: enrico.torselletti@snamprogetti.eni.it
Roberto Bruschi
Snamprogetti
Via Toniolo 1, 61032 Fano, Italy
e-mail: roberto.bruschi@snamprogetti.eni.it
Furio Marchesani
Snamprogetti
Via Toniolo 1, 61032 Fano, Italy
e-mail: furio.marchesani@snamprogetti.eni.it
Luigino Vitali
Snamprogetti
Via Toniolo 1, 61032 Fano, Italy
e-mail: luigino.vitali@snamprogetti.eni.it
ABSTRACT
Buckle propagation under external pressure is a potential
hazard during offshore pipeline laying in deep waters. It is
normal design practice to install thicker pipe sections which, in
case of buckle initiation and consequent propagation, can stop
it so avoiding the lost of long pipe sections as well as threats to
the installation equipment and dedicated personnel.
There is still a series of questions the designer needs to
answer when a new trunkline for very deep water applications
is conceived:
- What are the implications of the actual production
technology (U-ing, O-ing and Expansion or Compression
e.g. UO, UOE and UOC) on the propagation and arrest
capacity of the line pipe,
- How formulations for buckle arrestors design can be linked
to a safety objective as required in modern submarine
pipeline applications.
The answers influence any decision on thickness, length,
material and spacing of buckle arrestors.
This paper gives an overview of buckle propagation and
arrest phenomena and proposes a new design equation,
applicable for both short and long buckle arrestors, based on
available literature information and independent numerical
analyses.
Partial safety factors are recommended, based on a
calibration process performed using structural reliability
methods. Calibration aimed at fulfilling the safety objectives
defined in DNV Offshore Standards OS-F101 and OS-F201.
INTRODUCTION
An offshore pipeline installed in deep waters is often
collapse-critical due to the ambient external pressure.
Designing against collapse involves selecting the appropriate
wall thickness for a given pipe diameter and line pipe material,
as well as specifying appropriate geometric fabrication
tolerances. Unfortunately incidental dents induced by impacting
objects, ovalisation induced by excessive bending during
installation, wall thickness reduction due incidental corrosion
etc., may locally reduce the collapse strength of the pipeline.
If the pipe is not sized against propagation when collapse
or sectional ovalisation buckling occurs in the depths, the
buckle propagates and stops at a depth the required work for
sectional plastification is larger than the one the external
pressure can do.
The buckle propagation phenomenon can be considered to
occur in three phases (see Figure 1):
- Buckle initiation,
- Buckle propagation,
- Buckle arrest at the arrestor or crossover of the arrestor.
The buckle propagation pressure has been extensively
studied in the last decades and design approaches have been
developed and experienced in a number of projects. Research
activities, both experimental and analytical, have been
dedicated to the development of the most suitable buckle
arrestors shape for deep water applications: integral, external or
internal rings, spiral, etc. In this paper integral buckle arrestors
(BA) are considered and analysed, as classified into two main
categories:
- long arrestors are those for which the buckle crossover
the arrestor after it has collapsed for its whole length, e.g.
PIPE TOC
2 Copyright 2003 by ASME
the capacity to arrest propagation is ensured by suitably
sized wall thickness, in accordance with the propagation
pressure formula.
- short arrestors, where the buckle crossover the arrestor
that remains integer in shape i.e. the arrestor capacity is
ensured by wall thickness far thicker than for long
arrestors.
As far as the transition between long and short buckle
arrestor behaviour is considered, it can be affirmed that long
arrestors are longer than about 4 to 6 pipe diameters. In design
guidelines for offshore pipelines [1], there is no indication on
how to size short buckle arrestors while long arrestors are
covered. For both cases, it does not appear that a rational
calibration of partial safety factors has been carried out.
Figure 1 How Kyriakides describes the different load phases
to which a pipeline is subjected during a buckle
initiation, propagation and crossover [18].
According to the limit state based approach drawn in [1]
the buckle arrestor must be sized in order to fulfill the specified
safety targets. In particular, the failure probability of a buckle
arrestor can be expressed as:
(1)
Stop F opagation F Initiation F F
P P P P
, Pr , ,

P
F
is the total failure probability that has to be compared
with the specified target (see [1] for reference values to be used
for offshore pipeline systems), P
F,Initiation
is the probability to
have a buckle, P
F,Propagation
is the probability that a given buckle
will propagate, P
F,Stop
is the probability that a given propagating
buckle will crossover the buckle arrestor length, so continuing
propagation (the capacity of the buckle arrestor is exceeded).
When pipes are sized to avoid propagation, the product of
the probability of initiation by the probability of propagation
gives the total failure probability (P
F
). For a pipeline system
with buckle arrestors P
F
is given by the product of P
F,initiation
by
P
F,Stop
, and P
F,propagation
is equal to 1.
Scope of this paper is to introduce a new design formula
including partial safety factors that meet the safety objective of
DNV-OS-F101.
PROPAGATION PRESSURE
The problem of propagating buckles was recognized in the
early 1970s [2]. Palmer and Martin made the first theoretical
analysis in 1975 [3]. They recognized that the work done by the
external pressure, as the buckle moves forward by unit distance
is mainly absorbed by plastic deformation associated to the
change in shape of unit length of pipe, from its original circular
form to final "dog bone" conformation. Assuming a simple
mechanism of plane strain collapse for the ring, involving four
concentrated "plastic hinges" (Figure 2), the following energy
balance equation for unit length of pipe, was defined:
(2)
M
2 = A p
p
e

Here p
e
is the external pressure, A is the change in
cross-sectional area and M
p
is the full plastic moment per unit
length of the pipe wall.
Figure 2 Sequence of collapse configurations of a long tube
under external pressure.
Being the above formulas considered as lower bound,
researchers tried to introduce new buckle propagation equations
that give a better prediction of the critical propagation pressure
than the formula from Palmer, see Kamalarasa and Calladine in
1987 [4].
While it has never been contested that the shortcomings of
equation (2) lies in its neglect of both surface stretching and
strain hardening, most researchers have chosen to overlook the
stretching effects and concentrate entirely on "ring-bending"
investigations.The concentrated plastic hinges, which are an
important feature of the analysis of Palmer and Martin, are only
legitimate in the context of a perfectly plastic, non-hardening
material. In the presence of strain hardening, we must expect to
find hinges of finite length which can travel around the
Undeformed pipe
Buckle initiation
Buckle propagation
Buckle arrestor
engagement
Buckle arrestor
crossover
3 Copyright 2003 by ASME
circumference of the ring. Several attempts to improve the
analysis of Palmer and Martin, by including strain hardening in
the study of the irreversible circumferential bending of rings,
have been made. Wierzbicki and Bhat [5], Steel and Spence [6],
Croll [7] and Kyriakides et al. [8] have analysed the bending of
strain-hardening rings using different schemes, and proposed
different expressions for the critical pressure.
In recent years, several tests were performed to evaluate
the formulation of the propagation pressure design format, and
are reported in literature (Kyriakides et al. [2], Langner et al.
[9] and Estefen et al. [10]).
In 1996 a tentative reliability based calibration of design
equations available in literature, for the evaluation of the
propagation pressure, was performed in the framework of the
SUPERB project [11]. The equation reported in DNV 96 [12]
reads:
(3)
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

D
t
SMYS 26 =
P
est
nom
2.5
c p,
This equation is based on a conditional target failure
probability P
F,Stop
of 10
-2
per pipe joint.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
10 15 20 25 30 35
D/t
P
p

*

1
0
0
0

/

S
M
Y
S
Experiments X65
Experiments X42
Experiments Estefen [10]
DNV96 [12], SUPERB [11]
BS80110 [13]
Langner [9]
Battelle [14]
Palmer [3]
Kyriakides [15]
Kyriakides [16]
Kyriakides [16]
AGA Fowler
Figure 3 Propagation pressure formulas versus D/t and
experimental values [11].
Figure 3 compares the propagation pressure calculated with
equation (3) with the experiments by Kyriakides [2] and by
Estefen et al. [10], respectively. Both BS8010 [13] and Langner
approach [9] are considered conservative, while Battelle [14]
and Kyriakides [2, 15, 16] are considered good mean value
predictors. The formulation from DNV96 was a step forward
in terms of reducing excessive conservatism, fulfilling in a way
pre-defined safety requirements.
DNV-OS-F101 modified the above approach, in order to
better introduce a flexible safety target, through the so-called
Safety Classes:
(4)
5 . 2 ; 35 ;
,

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

k
D
t
SMYS k P
est
nom
U fab C P
Where SMYS is the minimum yield strength of the steel
material,
fab
is the fabrication factor, t
nom
is the nominal steel
wall thickness (less the corrosion allowance if present), D
est
is
the nominal outer diameter of the pipe.
The design criterion reads:
(5)
SC m
C P
c e,
P
P

,
where P
e,c
is the external pressure,
m
is the material
resistance factor (1.15),
SC
is the safety class resistance factor
(1.04 for safety class LOW, 1.14 for safety class NORMAL and
1.26 for safety class HIGH, corresponding to a target failure
rate of 10
-2
, 10
-3
and 10
-4
, respectively). This design equation,
when a safety class NORMAL is adopted, is almost coincident
with the design equation of DNV 96 [12], see Figure 4.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
15 17 19 21 23 25
Diameter to thickness ratio, D/t
P
P
*
1
0
0
0
/

Y
Superb DNV96
Safety Class LOW
Safety Class NORMAL
Safety Class HIGH
Figure 4 Comparison between DNV OS-F101 [1], DNV 96
[12] and SUPERB [11] formulations.
MORE ON CROSSOVER PRESSURE
While the propagation front is far from the buckle arrestor
section, the relevant propagation pressure is the one of the
pipeline cross section. As soon as the propagation front
approaches the buckle arrestor, the propagation pressure rises
up to a maximum value (the crossover pressure P
X
), see
Figure 5. The crossover pressure is a function of:
- Geometrical characteristics of the pipeline (thickness and
diameter),
- Geometrical characteristics of the buckle arrestor
(thickness, length and diameter),
- Mechanical characteristics of both pipeline and buckle
arrestor (yield strength, ultimate strength).
In relation to crossover, buckle arrestors can be classified
according to length, namely short versus long buckle arrestors.
The simplest design formula is for long buckle arrestor, i.e.
when arrestor length L
BA
long compared with the propagating
buckle wavelength.
In order to define the transition between short and long
buckle arrestors, the crossover pressure has been measured in
experiments and has been calculated with FE analyses:
4 Copyright 2003 by ASME
- For buckle arrestor length longer than a limiting value
(L
BA,T
), the crossover pressure P
X
is, at least, the
propagation pressure of the buckle arrestor, independently
of how long is the arrestor.
- For buckle arrestor lower than the same limiting value
(L
BA,T
), the crossover pressure P
X
is lower than the
propagation pressure of the long buckle arrestor.
The designer has to select the limiting length L
BA,T
for a
given thickness, such that the crossover pressure is at least
equal to the propagation pressure including a certain margin of
safety (Figure 5).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25
TIME
P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E
Long Arrestor
Short Arrestor
L
BA,T
Figure 5 Definition of the buckle arrestor length at the
transition between long and short arrestor types.
The definition of the limiting value of the buckle arrestor
length, L
BA,T
, has been the subject of several investigations over
the last 20 years. Being the use of short buckle arrestor very
limited, a conclusive approach on the matter is still pending.
In the following the design approaches developed over the
last years by some authors are reviewed ([9, 17, 20]). All the
approaches presented are based on the crossover pressure P
X
.
Langner Approach 1975 [9]
An early study from Langner [9] provided the first insight
on the subject. In particular Langner proposed an analytical
expression for the crossover pressure, P
X,L75
(L76 stands for
Langner 1975), that includes also the buckle arrestor effective
length:
(6)
( ) 60 ; 1
2 75 , , 75 , , 75 , , 75 ,

]
]
]
]
,
,

,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
+
est
BA T
L T P L BA P L T P L X
D
L t
EXP P P P P
Where P
P
stands for the propagation pressure, suffices BA
and T stand for buckle arrestor and nominal pipe, t is the
pipeline steel wall thickness, D
est
is the outer diameter of the
pipe, L
BA
is the effective length of the buckle arrestor, e.g. the
length of the buckle arrestor section with constant thickness.
The above equation refers to the following definitions for
the propagation pressures of both pipe and buckle arrestor:
(7)
2
, 75 , ,
4
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

est
T
T Y L T P
D
t
P
(8)
2
, 75 , ,
4
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

est
BA
BA Y L BA P
D
t
P
Where
Y,T
and
Y,BA
are the yield strength of the pipe and
buckle arrestor steel materials, t
T
and t
BA
are the pipeline and
buckle arrestor steel wall thickness, D
est
is the outer diameter of
the pipe. To be noticed the use of the pipe external diameter
also for equation (8).
The crossover pressure P
X,L75
has to be compared with the
external pressure to be applied on the buckle arrestor P
est,
according to the following design criterion:
(9)
75 ,
75 ,
L X
L X
est
P
P

X,L75
is the safety factor accounted for in design.
Equations (6) to (8) are quite conservative, compared with
recent experimental data and relevant design approaches.
Nevertheless, it is very attractive for a design approach, as it is
simple and gets some important aspects:
- the crossover pressure approaches the propagation pressure
formula of a long buckle arrestor,
- for short buckle arrestors, the steel wall thickness is higher
than the one defined for long buckle arrestors, where the
thickness is defined using the propagation pressure
formula.
Langner 1975
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
B
u
c
k
l
e

A
r
r
e
s
t
o
r

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
m
]
Water depth 2150m
P
X
= P
est
D/t = 19
Figure 6 Buckle arrestor thickness versus buckle arrestor
length to pipe diameter ratio according to Langner
1975 [9].
Figure 6 shows the relation between the buckle arrestor
thickness and length for a safety factor
X,L75
equal to 1 and a
pipe D
est
/t
T
ratio equal to 19.
Langner approach [9] gives the static crossover pressure
for an integral buckle arrestor. In addition to the net hydrostatic
pressure at the design depth, a pipeline can be exposed to
pressure surges due to storm conditions and to a dynamic over-
pressure generated when a propagating buckle is suddenly
stopped at the buckle arrestor. Langner [9] recommends a value
5 Copyright 2003 by ASME
for
X
ranging from 1.3 to 1.5 to include dynamic effects.
Langner [9] also recommends a safety target related to the
avoidance of buckle arrestor crossover that should not be higher
than the one related to the avoidance of collapse of the pipeline
sections.
Kyriakides Approach 1998 [18]
Kyriakides et al. developed an approach [18] based on both
experimental and numerical results. They use a measure of the
effectiveness of the buckle arrestor: the so-called arresting
efficiency, , defined as:
(10)
1 0 ;
,
,

T P CO
T P X
P P
P P
P
CO
is the collapse pressure of the pipe. The higher is the
effectiveness ( > 1) the higher is the crossover pressure ( 1
implies P
X
= P
CO
). Value of effectiveness greater than 1 is not
considered. The authors suggest that the crossover pressure will
depend on the following variables:
(11) ) , , , , , , , (
, , 98 , , 98 , BA BA T est BA Y T Y K T P K X
t L t D E P f P
The experimental data were found to exhibit a bimodal
trend with = 0.7 as the boundary. In order to produce the best
correlation between the available data the following efficiency
is to be used, with equation (11) to size the buckle arrestor:
(12)
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

1
98 , ,
2 / 5 8 . 0 4 / 5 2 / 1
,
2 / 1
,
1
K T P
CO
T
BA
T
BA
est
T BA Y T Y
P
P
t
t
t
L
D
t
E E
A

All the data used by the authors are plotted together with
equation (12) in Figure 7.
Kyriakides Chart [18, 19]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Empirical Function

=
(
P
x
-
P
p
)
/
(
P
c
o
-
P
p
)
Kyrialides Experimental Tests Ref./19/
Shell Small Scale Tests [17]
Shell Full Scale Tests Ref./17/
Shell-Kyriakides Small Scale Tests Ref./17/
Beptico Numerical Tests Ref./19/
Kyriakides Mean
Kyriakides Design Ref./18/
Figure 7 Comparison between design approach from
Kyriakides et al. [18] and experimental data.
The data for < 0.7 has coalesced to produce a nearly
linear relationship between and equation (12). The numerator
in equation (12) is called empirical function in the following
sections. The choice of A
1
= 667.6 made by the authors, drawn
in the figure, produces a best fit for < 0.7. For higher values
of t
BA
, where a different behaviour is experienced (flattening
versus flipping mode, [18]), this expression is not as effective
and a lower bound envelope is proposed (curve labelled
Kyriakides Design in Figure 7). Nevertheless, to compare
this approach with other approaches also a less conservative
assumption is made (curve labelled Kyriakides Mean in
Figure 7).
Authors define a minimum steel thickness for the arrestor,
t
BA,M
, as the one that yields efficiency of 1.0, and the following
relations apply:
(13)
CO M BA K BA P
P t P ) (
, 98 , ,
where
(14)

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
+
BA est
BA
BA Y
BA Y K BA P
D
t E
B A P
, ,

, 98 , ,
The propagation pressure of the pipe is:
(15)

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
+
T est
TA
T Y
T Y K T P
D
t E
B A P
, ,

, 98 , ,
The coefficient A, B and b are constants determined
empirically, E is the post-yield modulus in a bilinear
stress-strain relationship. Because of lack of information, both
equations (14) and (15) are substituted with equation (4) with

fab
=
U
=1.0.
Kyriakides showed also that arrestors shorter than 0.25 D
est
could not achieve the efficiency of 1.0, irrespective of the
arrestor thickness. For this reason the minimum arrestor length
is L
BA,M
= 0.25 '
est
. In summary, the following procedure is
recommended [18]:
- Calculate the collapse pressure and propagation pressure of
the pipeline;
- Select a steel grade of the arrestor;
- Calculate the value of the arrestor minimum thickness
using equation (13);
- Select either the length of the arrestor such that
L
BA
> 0.25 '
est
, or an arrestor thickness such that
t
BA
> t
BA,M
;
- Use the problem variables in equation (12) to evaluate
either the arrestor thickness or its length for the desired
efficiency.
An appropriate safety factor should be applied in the
choice of either P
X
or arrestor thickness (or length). From
Figure 7, the design equation adopted by Kyriakides is a lower
bound for arrestor efficiency higher than 0.7. Consequently, the
related design thickness of the arrestor is expected to be higher
than the experimental findings. A value > 0.7 is often the case
if an extra safety factor
X
according to equation (9) on the
propagation pressure P
X
is considered. An application of this
approach for a 24, pipe with an outer diameter to thickness
ratio of 19, is shown in Figure 8.
6 Copyright 2003 by ASME
Kyriakides 1998
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
B
u
c
k
l
e

A
r
r
e
s
t
o
r

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
m
]
Water depth 2150m
P
X
= P
est
D/t = 19
Figure 8 Buckle arrestor thickness versus buckle arrestor
length to pipe diameter ratio according to
Kyriakides et al. 1998 [18].
Langner Approach 1999 [17]
Langner in 1999 [17] presented an approach based on old
experimental data from Kyriakides as well as new data. The
approach is very similar to the one presented by Kyriakides in
[18]. The same definition of arrestor efficiency as given in
equation (10), is here used together with the following
parameters:
(16)
4 . 2
, 99 , ,
24
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

est
T
T Y L T P
D
t
P
(17)
4 . 2
, 99 , ,
24
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

est
BA
BA Y L BA P
D
t
P
(18)
2 2
99 ,
E Y
E Y
L CO
P P
P P
P
+

(19)
3
,
1
2
; 2
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

est
T
E
est
T
Y Y Y
D
t E
P
D
t
P

Where is the coefficient of Poisson. All the other

variables are defined previously. Langner proposes the
following formulas for the design of the buckle arrestor
thickness versus length:
(20)

>

k if
k if
k

1
0
where
(21)

>

) ( 2 8
) ( 2 5 . 0 5
arrestor wide
t
L
for
arrestor narrow
t
L
for
k
BA
BA
BA
BA
and
(22)
99 , ,
99 , ,
L T P
L BA P
est
BA
P
P
D
L

is the arrestor strength factor, which depends on the
arrestor length L
BA
, thickness t
BA
, yield strength
Y,BA
and
characteristics propagation pressure P
P,BA
. The distinction
between narrow and wide arrestors refers to short arrestor
types, as defined in the beginning i.e. do not affect the long
arrestors sized with the propagation formula. The design factor
k = 5 is recommended for a narrow arrestor, and k = 8 is
recommended for a wide arrestor. This because the experiments
in [17] showed that narrow arrestors are more efficient that
wide arrestors. According to our classification of buckle
arrestor given above (short versus long), both narrow and wide
arrestors are relevant for short buckle arrestors. For design
applications, Langner assumes that the formula of the arrestor
efficiency can be used to size the arrestor thickness considering
the crossover pressure, P
X,L99
, defined according the following
design formula:
(23)
99 ,
99 ,
L X
L X
est
P
P

The safety factor

X,L99
is proposed as 1.35 by the author.
All the data used by the authors are plotted against
equations (16) to (22) in Figure 9.
Langner Chart [17]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Strength factor

=
(
P
x
-
P
p
)
/
(
P
c
o
-
P
p
)
Kyrialides Small Scale Experimental Tests Ref./19/
Shell Small Scale Tests Ref./17/
Shell Full Scale Tests Ref./17/
Shell-Kyriakides Small Scale Tests Ref./17/
Beptico Numerical Tests Ref./19/
Langner design k=5 Ref./17/
Langner design k=8 Ref./17/
Figure 9 Comparison between design approach from
Langner [17] and experimental data.
The following procedure is recommended in [17]:
- Calculate the collapse, equation (18), and the propagation
pressure, equation (16), of the pipeline, as well as the
minimum crossover pressure with equation (23).
- Calculate the arrestor thickness and length according to
equations (10), (20), (21) and (22).
- The adopted thickness should not be less than the thickness
of a long arrestor sized according to equation (23) where
P
X,L99
= P
P,BA,L99
is used.
An application of this approach for a pipe D/t of 19,
nominal diameter equal to 24 and water depth of 2150 m is
shown in Figure 10. In the figure three curves are plotted. The
horizontal line is the minimum buckle arrestor thickness to be
used independently of the buckle arrestor length. The design
curve for k = 8 is representative for buckle arrestor length over
7 Copyright 2003 by ASME
thickness ratio greater than 2. For the subject case the safety
factor
X,L99
is set equal to 1.0.
Langner 1999
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
B
u
c
k
l
e

A
r
r
e
s
t
o
r

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
m
]
Water depth
2150m
P
X
= P
est
D/t = 19
k=5
k=8
Figure 10 Buckle arrestor thickness versus buckle arrestor
length to pipe diameter ratio according to Langner
1999 [17].
RECOMMENDED DESIGN APPROACH
The available design approaches from literature are
compared with experimental data ([17,18,19,20]) as well as
between them. The objective is twofold:
- To evaluate the robustness of the proposed approach with
respect to a design application,
- To estimate the uncertainty of the different models with
respect to the experimental data set.
In addition finite element modeling has been performed on
available experimental data to better understand the
experimental findings and to qualify in details the effects of
different parameters.
Figure 7 and Figure 9 show the experimental data reported
in [19] together with the design approaches proposed by
Kyriakides [18] and Langner [17], respectively. The two figures
have the same y-axis (the arresting efficiency ) but different
x-axis. In fact, Figure 7 uses the empirical function defined by
Kyriakides in the numerator of equation (12) while Figure 9
uses the strength factor defined by Langner in equation (22).
The horizontal line, for = 1.0, represents the upper bound for
the definition of the arrestor efficiency of both design
approaches.
The continuous line drawn in the figures represent the
design approaches of both authors (see previous section). All
the data from Kyriakides [19] are lower bounded by the lines
drawn in Figure 7. In particular, the data having < 0.7 lies
over the relevant line, so allowing to conclude that the
dispersion of the data is negligible for that region. On the other
hand, a few small-scale test data from Langner [17] lie under
the design lines, meaning that the previous conclusions drawn
by Kyriakides are not always applicable.
The same dispersion of the experimental data with respect
to the design lines of Langner, is evidenced in Figure 9.
The analytical approaches from both Kyriakides and
Langner are directly compared in Figure 11 and Figure 12, for
D/t ratio of the pipeline equal to 20 and 30, respectively. These
figures show that both approaches are equivalent, while the
former approach from Langner-1975 [9] is conservative.
Kyriakides is more conservative than Langner for pipelines
with High D/t ratio.
Due to the dispersion of the data set, two approaches can
be followed to calibrate a design equation:
- Assume an absolute lower bound. This can result in a
different safety margin for different design cases and can
be conservative for some applications. This is also what
has been done by Kyriakides for > 0.7 [20].
- Fit an analytical equation to the mean value of the
experimental data (RMS or other similar methods can be
used) and then calibrate a safety factor using reliability
methods to fulfill a given safety target.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
B
u
c
k
l
e

A
r
r
e
s
t
o
r

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
m
]
Langner 1975
Kyriakides 1998
Langner 1999 k=8
Langner 1999 k=5
Water depth
2000m
P
X
= 1.0*P
est
D/t = 20
Figure 11 Comparison between design approaches proposed
by Langner, [17] and [9], and Kyriakides, [18].
Water depth 2000 m, pipe D/t = 20.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
B
u
c
k
l
e

A
r
r
e
s
t
o
r

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
m
]
Langner 1975
Kyriakides 1998
Langner 1999 k=8
Langner 1999 k=5
Water depth 2000m
P
X
= 1.0*P
est
D/t = 30
Figure 12 Comparison between design approaches proposed
by Langner, [17] and [9], and Kyriakides, [18].
Water depth 2000 m, pipe D/t = 30.
8 Copyright 2003 by ASME
Proposed Design Equations
In this paper the second approach is followed and a new
design equation for the crossover pressure is fitted to the
experimental data set reported in [19], namely:
(24)
( ) 20 ; 1
2
,
, , ,

]
]
]
]
,
,

,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

+
T est
BA T
T P BA P T P X
D
L t
EXP P P P P
where P
P,T
and P
P,BA
are the propagation pressures of a pipe
with the wall thickness of the pipeline and of the buckle
arrestor, respectively. L
BA
is the length of the arrestor (tapering
terminations not included).
The propagation pressure formula for the pipe and for the
buckle arrestor is taken from DNV OS-F101, to maintain the
compliance with the mentioned international standard:
(25)
5 . 2
,
,
35
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

T est
T
Y T P
D
t
P
(26)
5 . 2
,
, ,
35
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

BA es
BA
BA Y BA P
D
t
P
where
Y,P
and
Y,BA
are the actual yield strength of the
steel materials. The above formulations are to be applied
through the following design equation:
(27)
X
X
est
P
P

where
X
is a safety factor that has to be calibrated against
a predefined safety target.
The coefficient = 20 has been chosen as an optimal
solution for:
- Reducing as much as possible the standard deviation of the
ratio between the experimental data and the calculated
crossover pressure. In particular, for the measured
crossover pressures normalised with equation (24), X
Px
, a
mean value of 1.20 and Coefficient of Variation, CoV, of
16% was obtained.
- The propagation wavelength obtained from dedicated
ABAQUS FE simulations with the one obtained from
equation (24). In particular, as explained in the following,
the analytical value is about two times the values from the
FE simulation.
A series of FE static analyses have been performed
modeling both pipe and buckle arrestors using the commercial
FE package ABAQUS [22]. The simulations were made to
evaluate the propagation wave length (both in the pipe and in
the buckle arrestor) and the propagation and crossover
pressures. In the simulations, different material characteristics
(pipe and arrestor, tensile and compressive) were considered.
Figure 13a show an example of the FE results where the
ovality along the pipe axis, f
0,d
, is plotted as a function of the
applied external pressure. The figure shows also the position of
the buckle arrestor. Figure 13b shows the applied external
pressure. The figures show how the pipe deformation patterns
are related to the applied external pressure at equilibrium. In
this case the B.A. is 4m long and the maximum external
pressure is attained for a deformed shape which involves half
buckle length. In addition, at the maximum pressure, the pipe
section following the arrestor is not deformed, i.e. the pipe
cross section ovality is not affected by the arrestor
deformations.
Long buckle arrestor, i.e. sized using the propagation
pressure formulas, usually has an actual crossover pressure
higher than the propagation pressure (see Figure 13b which
gives P
X
=36 MPa and P
P
,
BA
=28 MPa). This is also evidenced
(but conservatively neglected) by the approaches from
Kyriakides (Figure 8) and Langner (Figure 10). The approach
proposed in this paper neglect this effect too.
Ovality Distribution During Propagation
Pipe: ID 21.5", D/T=19
Arrestor: ID=21.5", D/t=12
0
50
100
150
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Pipe length (m)
O
v
a
l
i
t
y

(
%
)
Inc= 200 ; 27.9 MPa
Inc= 180 ; 25.4 MPa
Inc= 140 ; 35.4 MPa
Inc= 120 ; 32.2 MPa
Inc= 100 ; 22.0 MPa
Inc= 50 ; 10.6 MPa
Inc= 30 ; 9.7 MPa
Figure 13a FE results: ovality along the pipe axis, f
0,d
, is
plotted as a function of the applied external
pressure.
Pressure Distribution During Propagation
Pipe: ID 21.5", D/T=19
Arrestor: ID=21.5", D/t=12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200 250
Increment Number
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
M
P
a
)
Figure 13b FE results: applied external pressure as a function
of the increment number in the FE analysis.
Equation (24) is quite simple and gives a unique design
approach for both short and long buckle arrestors. The
transition between them is conservatively represented by the
point of tangency between the horizontal line and the
exponential curve (see Figure 14 where the transition of the
analysed case is ca 3-4 pipe diameters).
9 Copyright 2003 by ASME
PROPOSED APPROACH
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
B
u
c
k
l
e

A
r
r
e
s
t
o
r

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
m
]
Water depth 2000m
P
X
= 1.0*P
est
D/t = 19
Dest = 24"
Figure 14 Buckle arrestor thickness versus length using the
equation calibrated in this note, equation (27).
Proposed Equation vs. Experiments
To better quantify the ability of the analytical equations to
fit experiments the following bias for the crossover pressure is
defined:
(28)
value Analytical
value Measured
BIAS
Figure 15 shows the bias as a function of the arrestor
length to pipe diameter ratio. This bias is statistically analyzed
to calculate mean, standard deviation and coefficient of
variation (ratio between standard deviation and mean) values.
The goodness of the analytical formulation is a function of:
- The mean value, the nearer to 1.0 the better;
- The standard deviation, the lower the better.
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
B.A. Length / Pipe OD ratio
B
I
A
S

=

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

/

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
Langner 1975
Langner 1999
Proposed Approach
Kyryakides_mean - Pp_DNV
Beptico
Figure 15 Bias of the crossover pressure versus buckle
arrestor length to pipe diameter ratio.
In particular, the following mean and standard deviation
(std) values are found:
- Langner 1975: mean equal to 2.04 and std equal to 18.1%;
- Langner 1999: mean equal to 1.08 and std equal to 18.2%;
- Kyriakides_Mean: mean equal to 1.13 and std equal to
29.9%;
- Kyriakides_Design: mean equal to 1.20 and std equal to
26.5%;
- Proposed approach, equations (24)-(27): mean equal to
1.19 and std equal to 16.6%;
- BEPTICO [19]: mean equal to 1.0 and std equal to 2.0%;
The calculations with BEPTICO [19] give the best
prediction of the experimental tests. The recommended
equation gives reasonable mean and standard deviation values.
Moreover, from Figure 16 and Figure 17, it is evident that
the approach developed here is in line with the approaches from
Kyriakides [18] and Langner [17]. In addition, when varying
the safety factor
X
from 1.0 to 1.5 the approach from
Kyriakides becomes quite conservative (this because for

X
= 1.0 being <0.7, the relevant design curve is a lower
bound, not a best fit of the experiments as it is for
X
= 1.5
where >0.7).
For
X
= 1.0, the approach from Kyriakides (named design in
the figures) and the modified one (named mean because fits
better the mean value of the experiments, see Figure 7) are
coincident (see Figure 17), because < 0.7 and the same design
curve applies for both.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
B
u
c
k
l
e

A
r
r
e
s
t
o
r

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
m
]
Langner 1975
Kyriakides Design 1998
Kyriakides Mean 1998
Langner 1999 k=8
Langner 1999 k=5
Proposed Approach
Water depth = 2000m
P
X
= 1.5*P
est
D/t = 20
Figure 16 Comparison between developed design equation
and design approaches proposed by Langner, [17]
and [9], and Kyriakides, [18]. Water depth 2000 m,
pipe D/t = 20, safety factor of
X
= 1.5.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
B
u
c
k
l
e

A
r
r
e
s
t
o
r

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
m
]
Langner 1975
Kyriakides Design 1998
Kyriakides Mean 1998
Langner 1999 k=8
Langner 1999 k=5
Proposed Approach
Water depth = 2000m
P
X
= 1.0*P
est
D/t = 20
Figure 17 Comparison between developed design equation
and design approaches proposed by Langner, [17]
and [9], and Kyriakides, [18]. Water depth 2000 m,
pipe D/t = 20, safety factor of
X
= 1.0.
10 Copyright 2003 by ASME
Safety Factor Calibration
The conditional (given the propagation) probability to have
a buckle arrestor that does not stop a propagating buckle is
evaluated as the probability that the actual crossover pressure is
less than the applied external hydrostatic pressure. This
procedure is in line with the one used in SUPERB [11] and
DNV96 [12].
The limit state function for the calibration is:
(29)
X est BA BA T BA Y T Y C X
est BA BA T T BA Y T Y Y X
P
D L t t p
D L t t X X p
X x g
X

1
) , , , , , (
) , , , , , , , (
) (
, , ,
, ,

Where X
Px
is the crossover pressure model uncertainty
(normal distribution with a mean value of 1.20 and Coefficient
of Variation, CoV, of 16%), X
T
is the steel wall thickness
uncertainty (normal distribution [21] with a mean value of 1.0
and Coefficient of Variation, CoV, of 2%), X
Y
is the yield stress
uncertainty (normal distribution [21] with a mean value of 1.08
and Coefficient of Variation, CoV, of 4%).
Failure probability vs. Safety factor
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Safety Factor
X
DNV OS-F101
Safety Class
NORMAL
Figure 18 Unconditional failure probability P
F,STOP
versus the
safety factor
X
. L
BA
/D
est
= 6.
For the evaluation of the failure probability, a Second
Order Reliability Method has been used (SORM). Figure 18
shows the the unconditional failure probability P
F,Stop
for the
given limit state function versus the safety factor
X
. For the
calculations, a buckle arrestor length over pipe diameter ratio of
6 has been used.
A sensitivity analysis has been performed on the relevant
variables: diameter, thickness, yield strength, buckle arrestor
length and water depth. The main variables affecting the results
are the model uncertainty and the yield stress uncertainty. All
the other variables do not change significantly the failure
probability.
Figure 19 shows a sensitivity on the buckle arrestor length
for a fixed
X
= 1.311. This value is taken from DNV rule [1]
and is relevant to the propagation pressure design criteria,
where the safety class NORMAL is applied. The failure
probability does not change with the buckle arrestor length.
Failure probability vs. Buckle arrestor length
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
LBA/Dest
Figure 19 Failure probability versus buckle arrestor length.
X
= 1.14*1.15 = 1.311.
In section 12-F1000 of OS-F101 [1], it is said that the
failure probability for propagation i.e. the probability to have a
propagating buckle, is 1-2 decades higher than the probability
of other ULS limit states. Comparing DNV '96 [12] approach
with the new approach of OS-F101, the former is equivalent to
the latter, when a safety class NORMAL is adopted (actually in
the former there is no mention of any safety class), see
Figure 4. Therefore, a pipeline can be sized against propagation
using a safety class NORMAL in [1] or the approach of
DNV96.
Relating to the calibration results for the crossover pressure
formula (see Figure 18, where the vertical line indicates the
safety factor correspondent to a safety class Normal), the
adopted design equation is in line with OS-F101 safety class
approach (i.e.
SC
= 1.04, 1.14 and 1.26 for safety class Low,
Normal and High, respectively).
Design Format
The design criterion is:
(30)
Dyn SC m
X
X
X
ext
P P
P


where P
ext
is the external pressure,
Dyn
is the dynamic load
effect factor (1.1),
m
is the material resistance factor (1.15),
SC
is the safety class resistance factor (1.04 for safety class LOW,
1.14 for safety class NORMAL and 1.26 for safety class
HIGH). Equation (24) is used for evaluating the crossover
pressure, P
X
. The propagation pressure formula for the pipe and
for the buckle arrestor is taken from DNV OS-F101, to
maintain the compliance with the mentioned international
standard:
(31)
5 . 2 ; 35 ;
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

k
D
t
SMYS k =
P
est
nom
U fab p
Where SMYS is the minimum yield strength of the steel
material,
fab
fabrication factor (1.0 for seamless pipes, 0.93 for
UO&TRB pipes, 0.85 for UOE pipes),
U
is the material
strength factor (1.0 for steel material that satisfies the additional
11 Copyright 2003 by ASME
requirements of [1], 0.96 the other cases), t
nom
is the nominal
steel wall thickness (less the corrosion allowance, if any), D
0
is
the nominal outer diameter.
In section 12-F1000 of OS-F101 [1], relevant for the
evaluation of the propagation pressure, static versus dynamic
effects at the propagation front are discussed. In principle, the
dynamic overpressure is relevant for a running buckle suddenly
stopped at a thicker pipe section (buckle arrestor). This aspect,
being studied by Langner (Ref./10/), was evaluated as 5 to 15%
the external hydrostatic pressure, and described by introducing
a dynamic overpressure coefficient
Dyn
as follows:
(32)

+
BA
S
Dyn
t A
L
1
where L
S
is the propagation wave length, t
BA
is the buckle
arrestor thickness, A is a constant that depends on geometry,
material, etc. (quoted by Langner equal to 36).
Netto and Kyriakides [20] showed through experiments
that, during propagation, the material is subject to high strain
rates, meaning that, at the propagation front, the steel material
behaves as mechanically stronger than it is statically. Therefore
the dynamic crossover pressure is resulting higher than the
static one (experiments).
On the basis of this discussion, it is suggested that, only for
short buckle arrestors e.g. when equation (24) gives rise to a
buckle arrestor thickness higher than the one coming from
equation (26), a safety factor
Dyn
equal to 1.1 should be added
to the standard safety factors applied in DNV OS-F101 for the
propagation pressure design formula.
MATERIAL AND FABRICATION IMPLICATIONS
The manufacturing process (cold bending applied in the
Uing-Oing and Three Roll Bending processes) can give rise to
a degradation of the material capacity to resist collapse and
propagation. DNV [1] and equation (31) addressed this effect
introducing a fabrication factor
fab
. This factor is specific for
the collapse resistance of the pipeline and its applicability to the
buckle arrestor design has to be addressed, particularly:
- When dealing with the propagation buckle and its arrest by
a buckle arrestor, is the mentioned safety factor
fab
still to
be considered?
- Which is the most relevant yield stress to be considered for
the material strength qualification, the minimum measured
yield stress on the wall thickness or the yield stress
averaged on the wall thickness?
In the following we refer only to long buckle arrestor type
because the short ones are generally produced by forging which
gives
fab
=1.
The use of the minimum yield stress on the wall thickness
ensures a larger capacity to the B.A. than the use of the average
yield stress (if the minimum value is larger than SMYS, the
averaged value is larger than minimum and quite larger than
SMYS). Therefore analyses were addressed to investigate the
differences in the B.A. capacity considering two different
materials:
- the first with yield stresses decreasing moving on the wall
thickness from the inner to the outer surface, as a result of
the UO and TRB forming processes,
- the second made by a homogeneous material with yield
stress equal to the average on the wall thickness of the
yield stress of the first one.
The first step of the analyses consisted in the simulation of
the UO forming process using an analytical-numerical model,
starting from a straight plate with homogeneous material (yield
stress equal to SMYS and tensile stress equal to SMTS) and
bending it up to reach the nominal B.A. circular cross section.
The simulation of the UO process has been performed
considering a material characterized by bilinear kinematic
hardening. Sensitivity has been carried out on the non-linear
material characteristics considering a steeper second linear
region (see Figure 20). The yield stress value averaged on the
wall thickness has been calculated, resulting equal to that of the
starting plate (see Figure 21).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0%
strain
s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Base Case
Material Type 2
Figure 20 Bi-linear stress-strain relationship for base case
material and material type 2.
-0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
Figure 21 Non linear material behavior in compression for
the plate material and for the inner and outer fibers
on the wall thickness after the forming process
(base case material). The outer and inner fibers of
Strain (-)
Stress
(MPa)
12 Copyright 2003 by ASME
the wall thickness are given by the lowest and
highest yield stress, respectively.
Then the pressure-ovalisation and the collapse pressure
relationships of a ring (i.e. a cross section) of the B.A have been
evaluated using a four-hinge model (see Figure 2). A material
that has previously experienced the UO process and an
averaged homogeneous (plate) material have been used. In
the four-hinge model, the deformation of the cross section is
concentrated on the hinges, where a bending is developed
following a rotation. Therefore, bending moment-curvatures
relationships have been calculated for plate and UO
experienced materials (see Figure 22a and Figure 22b,
respectively.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Figure 22a Bending moment curvature relationships for plate
material. Dashed line for increasing curvature.
The pressure-ovalisation curves calculated with this approach
resulted in an overall decrease in the collapse
capacity of the B.A. cross section. In particular, the
reduction depends on both initial ovality and
material strain hardening behaviour (see
Table 1), and ranges from 12% to 17%.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Figure 22b Bending moment curvature relationships for
material after UO process. Dashed line for increasing
curvature.
Table 1 Calculated reduction in the B.A. collapse pressure.
Initial Ovality Base case material Material type 2
0.5% 14.0% 17.6%
1% 9.6% 13.2%
2% 8.6% 12.1%
A finite element analysis using a model developed in
ABAQUS [22] has been performed to qualify the above
models. The UO forming process has been simulated on a strip
of plate (using shell S4R elements [23, 24]), followed by the
application of the external pressure up to the collapse. On the
same geometry arising from the UO process simulation, but
considering the plate material i.e. the base case material, the
external pressure has been applied up to collapse. The collapse
pressure has shown a reduction of about 10%.
To analyse the propagation pressure of the B.A., a model
based on the allowable pressure at equilibrium is used i.e. the
collapse pressure for a given cross-section ovality. The ovality
has been distributed along the propagating buckle wavelength
taking as a reference the buckle shape calculated through the
finite element analysis simulating the propagatimg
phenomenon (Figure 23). The performed analyses have shown
that considering the UO forming process the propagation
pressure is about 7-10% lower than the one calculated
considering a circular B.A. with homogeneous (plate) material
(Table 2). This is in line with the decreased collapse capacity
showed by UO pipes (Table 1). Nevertheless, this simulation
did not consider the fact that the cold forming does not affect
the stress-strain curve when high strains are considered (as
those experienced during propagation in the pipe hoop
direction).
Table 2 Estimation of the effects due to B.A. formation
process.
Calculated propagation pressure (MPa) and reduction due to
UO process
Plate Base case material
25.85l
Material type 2
26.02
UO Formed 24.30 23.41
Reduction 6% 10%
Therefore, finite element analyses [22], simulating the
forming process and the propagation over a long section of the
pipe, have been performed. Results showed a lower reduction
in the propagation pressure (about 2% with respect to the
propagation pressure of a pipe not subject to cold forming
process). This can be explained considering that part of the
M dec
External
Pressure
M inc
M dec
External
Pressure
M inc
Curvature (1/m)
Curvature (1/m)
Moment
(MNm)
Moment
(MNm)
13 Copyright 2003 by ASME
external work is absorbed in plastic deformations, that are well
above the ones modified by the UO process.
The collapse pressure resistance gives a clear indication of
the capacity of the B.A. to sustain the external pressure and,
then, of the B.A. capacity to stop a propagating buckle.
However, in arresting a propagating buckle, a long arrestor has
many sections working in the post-buckle region and which
could affect the differences between plate and UO formed
materials.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Distance from Collapsed Sections (m)
O
v
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Figure 23 Ovalisation vs. distance from the collapsed B.A.
sections (FE results).
On this basis, the propagation pressure of the UO formed
buckle arrestors may be up to10% lower than the one calculated
using the yield stress averaged on the wall thickness. A lower
reduction may be considered for long arrestors i.e. arrestors that
will experience applied high strains.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper gives an overview of the technical issues related
to the buckle propagation and arrest, and proposes a new design
equation, applicable for both short and long buckle arrestors,
based on available literature information and numerical
analyses.
Partial safety factors applicable to the new design equation
are calibrated using structural reliability techniques, in order to
fulfil the safety objectives in compliance with DNV Offshore
Standards OS-F101 and OS-F201.
The implications of the technology used for buckle arrestor
fabrication (UO/UOE) on its capacity to arrest a propagating
buckle have been analysed using numerical models.
FE simulation of the forming process and of the buckle
propagation following the collapse due to external pressure,
showed a reduction of about 2% in the propagation pressure
due to cold forming during the manufacturing process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Snamprogetti for the permission
to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. OS-F101-2000: Submarine Pipelines Rules by Det
Norske Veritas, Hvik, January 2000.
2. Kyriakides, S. and Yeh, M. K.: "Propagating Buckle and
the Propagating Pressure", Factors Affecting Pipe
Collapse - Phase I, 1985.
3. Palmer A. C. and Martin J. H.: "Buckling Propagation in
Submarine Pipelines", Nature, 254, 46-48, 1975.
4. Kalamarasa S. and Calladine C. R.: "Buckle Propagation
in Submarine Pipelines", CRC/Pipeline/4, 1987.
5. Wierzbicki T. and Bhat S. U.: "On the Transition Zone in
Unconfined Buckle Propagation", J. Energy Resources
Technology, 1986.
6. Steel W. J. M. and Spence J.: "On Propagating Buckles
and their Arrest in Subsea Pipelines", Proc. of the
Institution of the Mechanical Engineers, 187A, 139-147,
1983.
7. Croll J. G. A. : "Analysis of Buckle Propagation in Marine
Pipelines", J. of Construction Steel Research, 5, 103-122,
1985
8. Kyriakides, S., Babcock, C.D. and Elyada, D.: "Initiation
of Propagating Buckles from Local Pipeline Damage",
Proceedings of the Energy Resources Technology
Conference, ASME, 1983.
9. Langner, C. G.: "Arrest of Propagating Collapse Failures
in Offshore Pipelines", in Deepwater Pipeline Feasibility
Study, October 1975.
10. Estefen S. F., Aguiar L. A. D. and Alves T. M. J.:
"Correlation Between Analytical and Experimental
Results for Propagating Buckling", OMAE, Florence-
Italy, 1996.
11. SUPERB Project: Propagating Buckle: State of the Art
and Design Criteria Calibration, Doc. No. STF22
F96750, Snamprogetti, Sintef and DNV, 1996.
12. DNV 96: Submarine Pipelines Rules by Det Norske
Veritas, Hvik, December 1996.
13. BS8010 Part 3 (1993):"Pipelines Subsea: Design,
Construction and Installation", British Standards
Institution.
14. Johns, T. G., Melosh, R. E. and Sorensen, J. E.:
"Propagation Buckle Arrestors for Offshore Pipelines",
OTC 2680, Offshore Technology Conference, 1976.
15. Kyriakides, S. and Babcock, C.D.: "Experimental
Determination of the Propagation Pressure of Circular
Pipes", Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
Transactions of ASME, Vol. 103, 1981.
16. Kyriakides, S, Yeh, M. K. and Roach, D.: "On the
Determination of the Propagation Pressure of Long
Circular Tubes", Journal of Pressure Technology,
Transactions of ASME, Vol. 106., 1984.
17. Langner C. G.: Buckle Arrestors for Deepwater
Pipelines, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 10711, Houston, TX, 1999.
18. Kyriakides S., Park T. D. and Netto T. A.: On the Design
of Integral Buckle Arrestors for Offshore Pipelines, Int.
J. of Applied Ocean Research, Vol.20 pp.95-104, 1998.
19. Park T. D. and Kyriakides S.: On the Performance of
Integral Buckle Arrestors for Offshore Pipelines, Int. J.
Mech. Sc., Vol.39 pp.643-669, 1997
14 Copyright 2003 by ASME
20. Netto T. A. and Kyriakides S.: Dynamic Performance of
Integral Buckle Arrestors for Offshore Pipelines, 17th
Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
1998.
21. SUPERB Project: Statistical Data: Basic Uncertainty
Measures for Reliability Analysis of Offshore Pipelines,
Doc. No. STF70 F95212, Snamprogetti, Sintef and DNV,
1995.
22. Hibbit H. D., Karlson B. I. and Sorensen P. (2000):
ABAQUS - User Manual - version 6.1, Hibbit, Karlson
and Sorensen Inc., Pawtucket, RI 02860-4847.
23. Vitali L., Bruschi R., Mork K.J., Levold E. and Verley R.
(1999): HOTPIPE Project: Capacity of Pipes Subject to
Internal pressure, Axial Force and Bending Moment,
Proc. 9
th
Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Brest, France.
24. Torselletti E., Vitali L., Bruschi R and Collberg L. (2003):
Minimum Wall Thickness Requirements for Ultra Deep-
Water Pipelines, OMAE2003, Cancun, Mexico.