J. Cent. South Univ.

(2013) 20: 20542065

DOI: 10.1007/s11771-013-1707-4

Global buckling behavior of submarine unburied pipelines under

thermal stress
GUO Lin-ping(), LIU Run(), YAN Shu-wang()
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety (Tianjin University), Tianjin 300072, China
Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract: Buckling of submarine pipelines under thermal stress is one of the most important problems to be considered in pipeline
design. And pipeline with initial imperfections will easily undergo failure due to global buckling under thermal stress and internal
pressure. Therefore, it is vitally important to study the global buckling of the submarine pipeline with initial imperfections. On the
basis of the characteristics of the initial imperfections, the global lateral buckling of submarine pipelines was analyzed. Based on the
deduced analytical solutions for the global lateral buckling, effects of temperature difference and properties of foundation soil on
pipeline buckling were analyzed. The results show that the snap buckling is predominantly governed by the amplitude value of initial
imperfection; the triggering temperature difference of Mode I for pipelines with initial imperfections is higher than that of Mode II; a
pipeline with a larger friction coefficient is safer than that with a smaller one; pipelines with larger initial imperfections are safer than
those with smaller ones.
Key words: submarine pipeline; lateral buckling; analytical solution; initial imperfection; subsoil friction resistance

1 Introduction
Since 1970s, submarine pipelines gradually
become the main way in the offshore engineering to
transport gas and oil all over the world. In-service
hydrocarbons must be transported at high temperature
and high pressure to ease the flow and prevent
solidification of the wax fraction. Thermal stress together
with Poisson effect will cause the steel pipe to expand
longitudinally. If such expansion is resisted, for example,
by friction effects of the foundation soil over a kilometer
or so of pipeline, compressive axial stress will be set up
in the pipe-wall. Once the value exceeds the constraint of
foundation soil on the pipeline, sudden deformation will
occur to release internal stress, which is similar to the
sudden deformation of strut due to stability problems,
and lateral or vertical global buckling may occur. Studies
show that lateral modes will be dominant in pipelines
unless the line is trenched or buried [1]. Since the pipe
holds a great deal of hydrocarbon, once the pipeline
buckles or even yields, the hydrocarbon will leak out. This
will not only waste resources but also endanger the living
conditions of halobios and human beings. Therefore,
study on global buckling of submarine pipelines under
thermal stress has a great practical significance.

There is an early start on study of global lateral

buckling of unburied or semi-buried submarine pipelines.
LYONS [2] discovered that traditional Coulomb friction
model can be used to represent the force of sand to the
pipeline, while it cant be applied to soft clay when the
pipeline buckles in the lateral plane, which is obtained
from tests and numerical simulations. Based on
achievements of KERR on lateral global buckling of
continuously welded track, HOBBS [1] gave the
analytical solutions to lateral and vertical global buckling
of ideal submarine pipelines; TALOR and GAN [3]
provided analytical solutions to ideal submarine
pipelines based on the lateral soil resistance changes with
its displacement. SCHOTMAN [4] presented the
relationship of soil resistance versus pipeline
displacement by theoretical analysis and numerical
simulations; TAYLOR and GAN [5] studied effects of
initial imperfection on pipeline global buckling, and
pointed out limitations of the relationship between
temperature difference and buckling length proposed by
HOBBS [1]. PRESTON et al [6] presented a method to
control global lateral buckling by FEM, which applied
feed length on pipeline; PEEK and YUN [7] showed the
effects of flotation on lateral global buckling of
submarine pipelines. DUAN et al [8], ZHAO [9], and
LIU [10] did research on pipeline global buckling under

Foundation item: Project(51021004) supported by Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China; Project(NCET-110370) supported by Program for New Century Excellent Talents in Universities of China; Project(40776055) supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China; Project(1002) supported by State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering Foundation, China
Received date: 20120910; Accepted date: 20130410
Corresponding author: LIU Run, Professor, PhD; Tel: +862227404286; E-mail: liurun@tju.edu.cn

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2055

thermal stress. LIU et al [11], and GAO et al [12] studied

global buckling modes of submarine pipeline combining
practical engineering.
On the basis of the characteristics of the initial
imperfections, the global lateral buckling of submarine
pipelines is analyzed. Based on the deduced analytical
solutions, mode I and mode II, for global lateral buckling,
effects of temperature difference and properties of
foundation soil on pipeline buckling are investigated in
great details.

2 Analytical solutions of global lateral

buckling
2.1 Global lateral buckling modes
The straight pipeline, with uniform cross section
and without initial imperfection, is the ideal pipeline.
Probable global lateral buckling modes of ideal pipelines,
according to Ref. [2], are shown in Fig. 1. In practice,
lateral mode I is the most significant symmetrical lateral
mode, lateral mode II is the most significant
skew-symmetrical lateral mode, and lateral mode III and
VI are subordinate forms of lateral modes I and II,
respectively. Approximately, all four modes can be
considered to be a part of lateral mode . Therefore, in
this work, mode I and mode II are mainly analyzed by
employing small deformation theory, and assuming that
the stress strain relationship obeys Hooks law.
2.2 Analysis of pipeline on lateral mode I
2.2.1 Ideal pipeline
Global lateral buckling of submarine pipelines
under different temperature and pressure conditions is an
analogy with stability problem of strut. Figure 2
describes the topology and axial force distribution of the
global lateral mode I.
The lateral bending moment equilibrium equation
for the idealized pipelines is given by

q(4 x 2 L2 )
d 2v
EI 2 Pv L
0
8
dx

(1)

Fig. 1 Lateral buckling modes: (a) Mode I; (b) Mode II;

(c) Mode III; (d) Mode VI; (e) Mode V

where EI denotes flexural rigidity, m4; v is the lateral

deformation of the buckling region, m; q is the
submerged weight of pipeline per unit length, kN; P is
the axial force in the buckling region, kN; L is the
buckling length, m; L is the fully mobilized lateral
friction coefficient of foundation soil to pipeline [13].

n2

P
EI

(2)

Equation (1) has the solution of

v A cos nx B sin nx

L q
2P

x2

L q n 2 L2 8
P

8n 2

According to boundary conditions: v'x

v xL/ 2 0, v'x x L 2 0, we may write

Fig. 2 Deformation and force distribution for first lateral buckling mode

(3)

x 0

0,

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2056

is the Poisson ratio, which is taken as 0.3 generally; t is

the pipe wall thickness, m.
Using Eq. (8), the relationship of (T T ) versus L
can be obtained as

vm v

x 0

1
n 2 L2
4

1
8

n EI cos nL

L q

2.407 10 3

L qL4

(4)
EI
is the buckling amplitude of the buckling

where vm
region, m.
Using Eqs. (2) and (4), the relationship of P versus
vm in the buckling region can be obtained by
12

EIL q
EI

P 80.76 2 3.962
L
vm

(5)

A qL
2

A qLs

A qL2s
2 AE

A qL
2

1/ 2

(10)

v EI
L 4.514 7 m
L q

( P0 P ) L
q
7.988 3 10 6 L L7
2 AE
EI

(11)

Thus, the relationship of vm versus (T T ) is

AE (T T )
1/ 2

EI L q

3.962
vm

1/ 4

v EI
2.257 4 A q m
L q

1/ 2

(7)

5/ 4
2

AEq L vm EI
0.119 9

A EI L q

And the relationship of L versus P can be rewritten

as
P0 P

With Eq. (7), the relationship of vm versus L can be

obtained:

AEqL5 L
6.390 6 10 5
1
A EI

(6)

where Ls is the slip length of the buckling region, m, and

the relationship of Ls versus P can be obtained as

EI

1/ 4

The reduction in axial force in the pipeline equals

friction force in axial direction of the buckling region:
P0 P

AE (T T ) 80.76

(12)

The bending moment M reaches the maximum at

A qL
2

2
AEq L 5
6.390 6 10 5
L 1
A EI

x=0:

1/ 2

(8)

The axial force P0, caused by temperature and

internal pressure, is the reason for buckling. To
conveniently analyze this problem, internal pressure is
converted to temperature difference, which is: T =
[ p( D 2t )(0.5 )] /( 2 Et ); therefore, the relationship
of P0 versus temperature difference is
P0 AE (T T )

(9)

where D is the outer diameter of the pipeline, m; E is the

elastic modulus, kPa; is the coefficient of linear
thermal expansion, C1; (T T ) is the temperature
difference; p is the positive pressure difference, kPa;

Fig. 3 Deformation and load analysis for first lateral buckling mode

M m EIvxx 0.069 37L qL2

(13)

And the maximum total stress m in the buckling

region can be obtained as

P M mD

A
2I

(14)

Comparing this bending plus axial stress with the

yield stress, it can be known whether the pipeline yields.
2.2.2 Pipeline with initial imperfection
Pipeline with imperfection will keep on deforming
from the imperfection position [14]. Topology and axial
load distribution of a buckling pipeline with single-arch
imperfection are shown in Fig. 3.

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2057

The global buckling of pipelines is induced by

external forces. According to the virtual work principle,
the work done by the external forces equals the strain
energy (V) developing inside the loaded material.
According to the method to calculate the strain
energy, for members with length of l, when pure bend
occurs, the strain energy is
V

M ( x) 2
dx
0 2 EI
l

(15)

where I is the inertia; E denotes the elastic modulus; M(x)

is the bending moment of the member.
The strain energy can also be expressed by the
tension force F:
V

F2
dx
0 2 EA
l

(16)

where F denotes the axial force of the member; A is its

section area.
Strain in the pipeline is a function of the bending
moment, the axial friction force and the axial force in the
buckling region. Therefore, the strain energy in the
pipeline can be obtained by [4]
V

EI
2

L0 / 2

L0 / 2

L0 / 2

(v' xx v0'xx ) 2 dx

A q (v v0 )dx

EI
2

L/ 2

L / 2 (v'xx )

L/ 2
qvdx
L0 / 2 A

EI
L2

R L
1 1 0
75.6 L

(18)

where
R1 4.603 1sin(4.493 4 L0 /L) 2.301 6
sin 4.493 4(1 L0 /L) sin 4.493 4(1 L0 /L)

L / L0 1
L/L0 1

Based on the force analysis of the slipping part, the

relation between P and P0 can be
P0 P

A qL
2

A qLs

(19)

The relationship between the axial load P and

temperature difference T can be obtained from features
of slipping parts [16]. And the relationship between
temperature difference and the buckling length L is
AET 80.76

2
R1 L0
EI

L2 75.60 L

q 2 A 7 7 A qL
( L L0 )
1.597 66 10 5 A L

I
2

1/ 2

(20)

Since L is associated with vm, based on the

relationship of temperature difference and buckling
length, the relationship of temperature difference and
buckling amplitude can be obtained.

dx

L/2 P
P
(v'x ) 2 (v0 'x ) 2 dx
( v ' x ) 2 dx
L
0/ 2 2
2

P 80.76

(17)

where L0 is the length of the imperfection; vx is the

first-order derivative of the deformation; v0x is the
first-order derivative of the imperfection; vxx is the
second-order derivative of the deformation; v0xx is the
second-order derivative of the imperfection.
To determine the trigger temperature difference of
the global buckling, the minimum strain energy should
be determined first [15]. Solve the equation: dV/dvm=0,
and the relationship between buckling length and the
axial load in the buckling region is

2.3 Analysis on lateral mode II

2.3.1 Ideal pipeline
Since the lateral mode II is an antisymmetric mode,
a half of the buckled region is analyzed for simplification.
Figure 4 details the topology and axial force distribution
of lateral mode II [2].
The bending moment equation is the same as the
lateral mode I, therefore, the solution can be written as
q
(21)
v A1 cos nx A2 sin nx L2 x 2 A3 x A4
2n EI
Taking boundary conditions:

Fig. 4 Deformation and force distribution for second lateral buckling mode

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2058

x 0

0 , v'xx

x 0

0, v

x L

0 , v' x

x L

1/ 2

qEI

P 2.936 2 L
vm

into Eq. (21), the constants A1 to A4 can be obtained:

L q

A1 4
n EI

(nL) 2
nL sin nL (1 cos nL)

q
2
A2 4L
nL sin nL nL cos nL

n EI

nL

nL cos nL sin nL (1 cos nL)

L q
2

A3 3
cos
sin

nL
nL
nL
n
EI

L q
A4 4
n EI

The axial deformation at x=L is

(22)

(23)

Use Eqs. (21), (22) and (23), and the buckling

deformation v can be obtained as
2

2 x
2x
2 x x
1
cos

sin
2

L
L
L
L
16 4 EI

0xL
(24)

L qL4

x=0.346 4L, where the buckling amplitude occurs,

can be obtained from boundary condition v' x 0 (x (0,
L)). Take the value of x into Eq. (24):
vm 5.531 5 10 3

L qL4
EI

(25)

Introduce Eq. (23) into P=n2EI, and the axial force

in the buckling region is
P 39.478

EI
L2

L qL2s
2 AE

( P0 P ) L
q
8.715 10 6 L L7
AE
EI

(28)

The equilibrium of axial force is

P0 P A qL A qLs

(29)

With Eqs. (28) and (29), the relationship of P0

versus P can be obtained:

Introduce Eq. (22) into Eq. (21), employ the

antisymmetric condition [1718]: v'xx xL 0 into
Eq. (21), and it can be obtained that,
nL 2

(27)

(26)

Use Eqs. (25) and (26), and the relationship of P

versus vm can be obtained:

1
P0 P A qL 1.743 10 4 qAE L L5
EI

1/ 2
A2
A
A

2
2
L
L
L

(30)

The relationship of (T T ) versus L can be

obtained:
AE (T T ) 39.478

EI
L2

A qL

1 5
4

1
.
743
10
qAE
L 1 1 A

L
EI

L

1/ 2

(31)

The maximum bending moment Mm can be obtained

with the boundary condition v'xxx 0 :
A
1
L

M m EIv'xx 0.108 8L qL2

(32)

2.3.2 Pipeline with initial imperfection

Topology and axial load distribution of a buckling
pipeline, with a double-arch imperfection, are shown in
Fig. 5 [19].

Fig. 5 Deformation and force analysis for second lateral buckling mode

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2059

The strain energy in the pipeline can be obtained:

V

EI
2
L0

L0

EI
2

3 Case study

(v'xx ) 2 dx

3.1 Case introduction

The outer diameter of the concerned pipeline is
355.6 mm, and the thickness of the pipe wall is 12.7 mm.
The designed internal pressure and temperature
difference are 7.6 MPa and 48 C, respectively. With
equation T [ pD(0.5 ) / 2 Et ], the equivalent
temperature difference can be determined as 57 C. The
length of the analyzed part is 500 m, and the initial
imperfection amplitude is 300 mm. Design parameters of
pipeline and properties of foundation soil are presented
in Table 1 and Table 2.

A q(v v0 )dx A qvdx

L0

(v'xx v0'xx ) 2 dx
L0

L P
P
( v ' x ) 2 ( v 0 ' x ) 2 dx
(v'x ) 2 dx
L0 2
2

(33)

To determine the trigger temperature difference of

pipeline global buckling, the minimum strain energy
should be determined first [2021]. Solve the equation,
dV/dvm=0, and the relationship between buckling length
and the axial load in the buckling region can be deduced:
P

2
4 2 EI 3 R2 L0

L2 5 3 3 L

(34)
3.2 Analysis results
The analytic method mentioned above is employed
to predict the global lateral buckling of pipelines in this
case. The friction factor between the pipeline and subsoil
is 0.3 according to the geology condition. Figure 6 shows
the shape and values of the pipeline deformation. The
x-coordinate denotes the horizontal distance from
midpoint of pipeline. The analysis results show that with
the bending plus axial stress reaching the material yield
strength, the corresponding temperature differences are
57.8 C and 65.4 C for Mode I and Mode II,
respectively.
It can be known from Fig. 6 that, with the increase
of temperature difference, when temperature difference
is less than 20 C, the buckling amplitude increases
slowly. Once the temperature difference is larger than 20
C, the buckling amplitude will increase obviously. The
triggering temperature differences of Mode I and Mode
II are 20.89 C and 20.75 C, respectively. And its
obvious in Fig. 6 that, the increase of amplitude is not
uniform with the same increase interval of temperature
difference.

where
R2 sin( 2 L0 /L)

( L/L0 )( 2 L/L0 )
1 ( L/L0 ) 2

2 L0 /L

1 cos(2L0 /L) L /( L L0 )

Based on the force analysis of the slipping part, the

relation between P and P0 can be obtained:
P0 P A qL A qLs

(35)

The relationship between the axial load P and

temperature difference T can be obtained from the force
analysis of slipping parts [2225]. And the relationship
between temperature difference and the buckling length
L can be obtained:
4 4 EI
L2

AET

2
3 R
L0
2
1

3
5 3 L

A A L 3 7
7
2
1.743 10 4
q ( L L0 ) ( A qL)
E I

1/ 2

(36)

Table 1 Properties of pipeline

Elastic
modulus,
E/kPa
2.0710

11

Poisson
ratio,

External
radius,
r/m

Wall
thickness,
t/m

Thermal
expansion coefficient,
/(mC1)

Bulk
density/
(kNm3)

Yield stress of
steel/MPa

Seawater
density/
(kgm3)

0.3

0.177 8

0.012 7

1.17105

7 850

448

1 025

Table 2 Physic-mechanical properties of soils

Number
of soil

Soil

Clay

Ip

IL

Consolidated
quick shear test
c/kPa

/()

Compression test
a12/MPa1 Es/MPa

Cv/
(104cm2s1)

Coefficient
Thickness
of permeability,
of soil/m
7
1
100 kPa 200 kPa k/(10 cms )

1.747 25.91

1.55

11.10

9.90

1.52

1.86

2.90

2.71

2.760

3.09.5

Mucky
1.149 17.10
clay

1.25

15.82

13.8

0.83

2.99

10.33

14.47

29.540

1.04.0

Mucky
1.225 20.43
clay

1.15

16.92

12.2

0.94

2.45

12.9

11.62

0.390

4.36.2

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2060

Figure 7 presents the characteristics of the pipeline

global buckling with the friction coefficient of 0.3 and
the initial imperfection amplitude of 300 mm in the case.
The temperature difference corresponding to the
point, as marked in Fig. 7(a), is defined as the safe
temperature difference or triggering temperature
difference. Once the temperature difference is higher
than this value, the global buckling will happen
continuously until the stress in the pipe wall reaches the
yield stress. And the pipeline would not suffer the global
buckling failure if the design temperature difference is
lower than the triggering temperature difference.
It can be known from Fig. 7(a) that the triggering
temperature difference of Mode I is higher than that of
Mode II, which means that, Mode II is easier to occur
than Mode I. The two ending points in Fig. 7(b) imply
that the maximum bending plus axial stresses under the
designed temperature difference and pressure are
444 MPa and 334 MPa for Mode I and Mode II,
respectively. This also verifies that Mode II is easier to
occur than Mode I and Mode II is much safer than Mode
I while the global buckling occurs.
In order to investigate more detailed regularity of
pipeline global buckling, the influencing factors, such as

the soil friction resistance and the initial imperfection,

are analyzed in following section.

4 Influencing factors on pipeline global

buckling
4.1 Influence of subsoil friction resistance
4.1.1 Impact on triggering temperature difference
In order to analyze the effect of the subsoil friction
resistance on pipeline global buckling, temperature
difference of pipelines with imperfection amplitude of
300 mm, which is common in practice and different
pipe-subsoil friction coefficient of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5
are applied in pipeline global buckling analysis. Figure 8
shows the main results. It can be seen that, as to pipeline
with the same initial imperfection amplitude and
different friction coefficients, the larger the friction
coefficient, the larger the triggering temperature
difference. This indicates that with large subsoil
resistance, the pipeline will not be easy to occur global
buckling.
4.1.2 Impact on buckling shape
In order to investigate the effect of the subsoil
friction resistance on the shape of the pipeline global

Fig. 6 Horizontal distance from midpoint of pipeline: (a) Mode I; (b) Mode II

Fig. 7 Buckling characteristics of pipeline: (a) vm vs T; (b) vm vs m

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

buckling, the same imperfection amplitude and different

temperature differences are used in the analysis. A half of
analyzed model of the pipeline with the global buckling
is drawn in Fig. 9 with the temperature difference of
30 C.
It can be seen that, as to pipeline with the same
initial imperfection amplitude under the same
temperature difference conditions, the larger the
pipe-subsoil friction resistance is, the smaller the
buckling amplitude and buckling length of the pipeline
are. This suggests that if the pipe-subsoil friction
resistance is large enough, the length of the pipeline
global buckling segment will be very small. On the
contrary, with the small friction resistance, the pipeline
global buckling segment will be quite long under the
same temperature difference conditions.
4.1.3 Impact on maximum compressive stress
In order to investigate the effect of the subsoil
friction resistance on the maximum compressive stress in
the pipe wall, the same imperfection amplitude and
different temperature differences are used in the analysis.
The analyzed results with temperature difference of
50 C are shown in Fig. 10.
It can be seen from Fig. 10 that, as to pipeline with

2061

the same initial imperfection and different pipe-subsoil

friction coefficients under the same temperature
difference condition, the larger the friction coefficient is,
the lower the maximum compressive stress is. This
indicates that pipeline with larger pipe-subsoil friction
resistance is safer than the pipeline with the smaller one.
All the above analysis results are tabulated in Table
3. Table 3 shows that with the increase of pipe-subsoil
friction resistance, the triggering temperature difference
increases, and the buckling length, amplitude and
bending plus axial stress all decrease, which indicates
that the large subsoil friction resistance will make the
pipeline safer.
4.2 Influence of initial imperfection
4.2.1 Impact on temperature difference
To analyze the impact of initial imperfection on
temperature difference, temperature difference of
pipelines with different initial imperfections amplitudes,
100 mm, 200 mm, 300 mm, 500 mm, are introduced in
the analysis. Figure 11 shows the analyzing results. In
the analysis, the friction coefficient between the pipeline
and subsoil is 0.3, which is commonly used in practice.
It can be seen from Fig. 11 that the snap buckling

Fig. 8 Comparison of temperature difference: (a) Mode I; (b) Mode II

Fig. 9 Horizontal distance from midpoint of pipeline: (a) Mode I; (b) Mode II

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2062

stage. When the curve coincides with the right branch of

the curve, the global buckling regulation of the pipeline
is equivalent to the second kind of stability problem of
Euler buckling for a slender column. This means that
with the increase of temperature difference, the
amplitude increases or is even damaged. This kind of
buckling also indicates that the increase of global
buckling segment length is the only way to increase the
friction resistance between the subsoil and pipeline for
unburied condition. However, once the imperfection
exceeds some value, such as 200 mm in Mode I and 100
mm in Mode II, the snap buckling phenomenon will
disappear, and the stable post-buckling only takes place.
Figure 11 indicates that the triggering temperature
difference of ideal pipeline is larger than that of pipeline
with imperfection. There is also an interesting
phenomenon that once the temperature difference
exceeds some value, such as 30 C in this analysis,
buckling amplitudes of pipeline with different initial
imperfections are nearly the same under the same
temperature difference.
4.2.2 Impact on buckling shape
To analyze the regularity of impact of initial
imperfection on buckling shape, half of buckling shape
of pipelines with pipe-subsoil friction factor of 0.3 and
different initial imperfections of 100 mm, 200 mm,
300 mm, 500 mm under temperature difference of 25 C
are analyzed. Figure 12 shows the analyzing results.
As to the impact of initial imperfection on buckling

Fig. 10 Comparison of bending plus axial stress

phenomenon is predominantly governed by vom. Only the

ideal pipeline or pipelines with relatively small
imperfections, such as 100 mm of Mode I, display the
maximum temperature difference together with the
associated snap buckling phenomenon [1]. When the
curve coincides with the left branch, the buckling shape
of the pipeline is equivalent to the first kind of stability
problem. This kind of global buckling can occur only if
the foundation soil can provide enough restraint to the
pipeline.
For the unburied pipeline, the restraint of
foundation soil comes from friction force only, therefore,
the global buckling shape of pipeline corresponding to
the left branch cannot occur or its an unstable buckling

Table 3 Buckling characteristics of pipeline under same temperature difference

Friction
coefficient

Triggering temperature difference/C

Length/m

Amplitude/m

Mode I

Mode II

Mode I

Mode II

Mode I

Mode II

0.1

12.56

11.59

192

137

11.69

6.90

263.07

198.46

0.2

17.63

16.73

140

99

11.09

3.79

265.00

195.33

0.3

20.89

20.75

114

81

4.32

2.54

254.75

185.67

0.5

27.84

27.22

85

60

2.25

1.26

220.60

152.14

Fig. 11 Comparison of temperature difference: (a) Mode I; (b) Mode II

Mode I Mode II

Bending plus axial stress/MPa

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2063

and the temperature difference of 30 C are shown in

Fig. 13.

Fig. 13 Comparison of maximum compressive stress

It can be seen from Fig. 13 that, the larger the initial

imperfection amplitude is, the lower the maximum
compressive stress is. This means that the pipeline with
larger initial imperfection amplitude is safer than the
pipeline with smaller one.
All the above analysis results are tabulated in Table
4.
Fig. 12 Horizontal distance from midpoint of pipeline:
(a) Mode I; (b) Mode II

shape, with the increase of initial imperfection amplitude

under the same temperature difference, there are
increases in buckling amplitudes, however, it is not large
at all. And the higher the temperature difference is, the
smaller the difference of global buckling amplitude will
be.
4.2.3 Impact on maximum compressive stress
To analyze the regularity of impact of initial
imperfection on the maximum compressive stress in the
pipe wall, the maximum compressive stresses with the
pipe-subsoil friction factor of 0.3, the different initial
imperfections of 100 mm, 200 mm, 300 mm and 500 mm

4.3 Comprehension influence analysis

The combined effects of vom and the pipe-subsoil
friction coefficient on thermal buckling for an unburied
pipeline are shown in Fig. 14. It presents comparison
results among the pipelines with different imperfection
amplitudes and different pipe-subsoil friction coefficients
for Mode I and Mode II.
Figure 14 shows that the curves of pipeline with the
same pipe-subsoil friction coefficient will reach a same
certain point, that is to say, pipelines with the same
friction coefficient and different initial imperfections will
have the same buckling amplitude while the temperature
difference exceeds a certain value. It can also be seen
that the larger the friction coefficient is, the higher the
merging point is, which means that the larger the friction

Table 4 Buckling characteristics of pipeline corresponding to different initial imperfections

Condition of pipeline

Buckling characteristics under temperature difference of 30 C

Length/m

Amplitude/m

Bending plus axial stress/MPa

Mode I

Mode II

Mode I

Mode II

Mode I

Mode II

Mode I

Mode II

22.55

21.71

113

81

4.20

2.49

389.84

325.08

100 mm

21.25

20.66

113

81

4.22

2.52

287.70

224.50

200 mm

20.01

19.12

114

81

4.26

2.56

268.52

201.99

300 mm

20.89

20.75

114

82

4.32

2.61

254.75

187.77

500 mm

19.10

18.26

115

82

4.43

2.72

233.29

166.41

Ideal pipeline
Pipeline
with initial
imperfection

Triggering temperature
difference/C

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

2064

coefficient on pipeline global buckling, the larger the

friction coefficient is, the smaller the buckling amplitude
and buckling length of the pipeline for both global
buckling modes are. The triggering temperature
difference increases and the bending plus axial stress in
the pipe wall decreases with the friction between the
pipeline and subsoil increasing. This means that a
pipeline with larger pipe-subsoil friction coefficient is
safer than that with small one.
3) As to analysis on impact of initial imperfection
on pipeline global buckling, the snap buckling is
predominantly governed by the amplitude value of initial
imperfection. The snap buckling phenomenon only exists
on pipeline with small initial imperfection. For the same
temperature difference, the global buckling amplitude
increases with the initial imperfection amplitude of the
pipeline. However, this kind of increase will be
eliminated with the temperature difference rising.
Meanwhile, the larger the initial imperfection amplitude
is, the smaller the bending plus axial stress is, which
indicates that actively creating larger initial
imperfections can effectively prevent submarine
pipelines from global buckling failure.

References
[1]

Fig. 14 Comparison of buckling curves: (a) Mode I; (b) Mode

II

coefficient is, the higher the triggering temperature

difference is.

5 Conclusions
1) For two global buckling modes, with the increase
of the temperature difference, both the buckling
amplitude and length increase. However, this kind of
increase is not uniform: buckling amplitude and length
increase slowly when the temperature difference is less
than a certain value. Once the temperature difference
exceeds this value, there will be a series of intense
increase in the buckling amplitude and length. This
value of temperature difference is defined as the
triggering temperature difference. The triggering
temperature difference of Mode I is higher than that of
Mode II, which indicates the lateral buckling is easier to
occur for Mode II than Mode I. The bending plus axial
stress will increase with the increase of temperature
difference, and bending plus axial stress of Mode I is
much higher than that of Mode II under the design
temperature difference, which indicates that Mode I is
more dangerous compared with Mode II once it occurs.
2) As to the impact of the pipe-subsoil friction

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]
[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

HOBBS R E. In service buckling of heated pipelines [J]. Journal of

Transportation Engineering, 1984, 110(2): 175189.
LYONS C G. Soil resistance to lateral sliding of marine
pipelines[C]// OTC 1876. Offshore Technology Conference. Dellas,
Texas, USA, 1973: 479482.
TALOR N, GAN A B. Refined modeling for the lateral buckling of
submarine pipeline [J]. Journal of Construct Steel Research, 1986,
6(2): 143162.
SCHOTMAN G J M. Pile-soil interaction: A model for laterally
loaded pipelines in clay [C]// OTC5588. Offshore Technology
Conference. Houston, Texas, USA, 1987: 317324.
TALOR N, GAN A B. Submarine pipeline buckling-imperfection
studies [J]. Thin-Walled Structures, 1986, 4(4): 295323.
PRESTON R, DRENNAN F, CAMERON C. Controlled lateral
buckling of large diameter pipeline by snaked lay [C]// The
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers. Proceedings
of the Ninth (1999) International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. Brest, France, 1999: 5863.
PEEK R, YUN H. Flotation to trigger lateral buckles in pipelines on
a flat seabed [J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2007, 133(4):
442451.
DUAN M L, YUE Z Y, CUI Y J, JIA X, SUN Z C. Design method
for subsea spools against earthquake waves [J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica,
2008, 29(1): 143148. (in Chinese)
ZHAO T F. Research on thermal stress and buckling of HT
submarine pipelines [D]. Dalian: School of Shipbuilding Engineering,
Dalian University of Technology, 2008. (in Chinese)
LIU Y X. Studies of HT/HP subsea pipelines on lateral buckling
mechanism and controlling measurements [D]. Dalian: School of
Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, 2010. (in
Chinese)
LIU R, YAN S W, WU X L. Model test studies on soil restraint to
pipeline buried in Bohai soft clay [J]. ASCE Journal of Pipeline

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 20542065

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

Systems Engineering and Practice, 2013. 4(1): 4956.

GAO X F, LIU R, YAN S W. Model test based soil spring model and
application in pipeline thermal buckling analysis [J]. China Ocean
Engineering, 2011, 25(3): 507518.
YANG X L, WANG J M. Ground movement prediction for tunnels
using simplified procedure [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 2011, 26(3): 462471.
LIU Run, WANG Wu-gang, YAN Shu-wang, WANG Hong-bo,
ZHANG Jun, XU Yu. Model tests on soil restraint to pipelines buried
in sand [J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2011, 33(4):
559565. (in Chinese)
YANG X L, ZOU J F. Cavity expansion analysis with non-linear
failure criterion [J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering, 2011, 164(1): 4149.
LIU R, WANG W G, YAN S W. Finite element analysis on thermal
upheaval buckling of submarine burial pipelines with initial
imperfection [J]. Journal of Central South University, 2013, 20(1):
236245.
YANG X L, JIN Q Y, MA J Q. Pressure from surrounding rock of
three shallow tunnels with large section and small spacing [J].
Journal of Central South University, 2012, 19(8): 23802385.
YANG X L, YIN J H. Slope stability analysis with nonlinear failure
criterion [J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2004, 130(3):
267273.
LIU R, WANG W G, YAN S W. Engineering measures for preventing

2065

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

upheaval buckling of buried submarine pipelines [J]. Applied

Mathematics and Mechanics, 2012, 33(6): 781796.
YANG X L, HUANG F. Three-dimensional failure mechanism of a
rectangular cavity in a HoekBrown rock medium [J]. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2013, 61:
189195.
YANG X L, HUANG F. Collapse mechanism of shallow tunnel
based on nonlinear Hoek-Brown failure criterion [J]. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 2011, 26(6): 686691.
GUO L P, LIU R, YAN S W. Low-order lateral buckling analysis of
submarine pipeline under thermal stress [C]// Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Coastal Engineering Geology. Shanghai,
China, 2012: 191194.
YANG X L. Seismic passive pressures of earth structures by
nonlinear optimization [J]. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 2011,
81(9): 11951202.
LIU W B, LIU R, SUN G M, YAN S W. A simplified analysis
method for the validity of pipeline rock armour berm protection
design [J]. Advanced Materials Research, 2012, 594/597:
18881891.
GUO L P, LIU R. High-order lateral buckling analysis of submarine
pipeline under thermal stress [J]. Transactions of Tianjin University,
2012, 18(6): 411418.
(Edited by YANG Bing)