J. Construct.

Steel Research32 (1995)107-121

© 1994ElsevierScienceLimited
Printed in Malta. All fights reserved
O143-974X(94)00012-3 0143-974X/95/$9.50
ELSEVIER

Limit State Formulations for TLP Tendon and

Steel Riser Bodies

S. F. Estefen, a T. Moan, ~ S. Saevik c & R. A. Zimmer ~

°Ocean Engineering Department, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
bDivision of Marine Structures, NTH, Trondheim, Norway
cReinertsen Engineering, Trondheim, Norway
dConoco, Houston, Texas, USA

(Received 25 October 1993; revised version received 25 March 1994;

accepted 20 April 1994)

ABSTRACT

Existin 0 limit state formulations for tendon and steel riser bodies used in tension leg
platforms have been reviewed. These include AP1 Bull. 5C3 (for casinos ), API RP
2A LP, FD, BSI Sub-sea Pipeline, Danish Pipeline Code, DnV Submarine Pipeline
Standard and NPD Offshore Structures Regulations, as well as formulations
proposed by Johns and McConnell (Battelle), Jensen and Pedersen (Technical
University of Denmark), Loh (Exxon), Murphey and Lanoner (Shell), Tamano et
al. (Nippon Steel) and Winter et al. (TNO).
Ultimate strength formulations for tension, bending and pressure actin O singly or
in pairs of loads are compared. There are significant differences in the strength
formulae for pressure load, mainly due to the treatment of initial ovality; and for
bending capacity depending upon whether plastic or first yield bending capacity is
utilized. Some formulae for interaction between pressure and bending, as well as
pressure and tension, imply little mode interaction, while others, specially for low
diameter-to-thickness ratio, indicate strong interaction, i.e. almost a linear re-
lation.~rhip as in all formulae for tension combined with bending.

NOTATION

A Pipe cross-sectional area

D Pipe outer diameter
Dmax Pipe maximum diameter
Drain Pipe minimum diameter

107
108 S. F. Estefen, T. Moan, S. Sa,vik, R. A. Zimmer

E Young's modulus
K Pipe longitudinal curvature
n Tvergaard hardening parameter
P External pressure
T Effective (applied) axial tension load
t Pipe thickness

~o Pipe initial ovality

/3 Acting longitudinal strain
O'p Proportionality limit stress
O"0 Uniaxial yield stress

INTRODUCTION

Tubular structural members with geometries and material properties

typical of tendon and riser bodies of tension leg platforms (TLP) can be
designed according to different formulations. Acting loads represented by
external/internal pressure, axial tension and longitudinal bending, acting
alone or in combination, are usually considered in the design recommen-
dations.
Existing formulations for ultimate limit state are compared by assessing
strengths for the parameter ranges of interest. Typical diameters of tendon
and riser bodies vary from 0.6 to 1.5 m and 0.2 to 0-76 m, respectively, with
diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/t) from 12 to 35. The yield strength varies
beteween 300 and 800N/mm 2 and the water depth is assumed from 150
to 1500 m.
In order to perform the proposed study several design formulations
have been selected from both design codes and relevant papers. The codes
considered are API Bul. 5C3,1 API RP 2A LRFD, 2 BSI Sub-Sea Pipe-
lines, 3 Danish Pipeline Code, 4 DnV Submarine Pipelines s and N P D Steel
Section. 6 In addition, other design formulations described in papers have
been considered, including Johns and McConnell 7 (Battelle), Jensen and
Pedersen 8 (Technical University of Denmark--Univ.DK), Loh 9 (Exxon),
Murphey and Langner 1° (Shell), Tamano et al. ~ (Nippon Steel), de
Winter et al. 12 (TNO).
Most of the formulations from the codes and papers mentioned above
were originally proposed for either pipelines or casing tubes design. In the
case of pipelines, some recommendations adopt a strain criterion for
bending associated with the strain-controlled installation requirements.
Therefore, the respective design equations are referred to longitudinal
strain or curvature, instead of bending moment or longitudinal stress
 Limit state formulations for TLP tendon and steel riser bodies 109

normally appearing in load-controlled criteria used in the design of

platform structural members. In order to perform the comparative study
of the design formulations the bending response has been evaluated in
terms of longitudinal stress based on a stress-strain uniaxial material law
as proposed by Tvergaard. 13
As far as initial ovality is concerned two basic approaches are assumed
in the formulations. The ovality can be either explicitly considered in the
equation,s or implicitly considered through the specification of the
maximum allowed value. Different relations combining maximum and
minimum diameters are used to define the initial maximum ovality in
tubulars. In this paper a unified definition of initial ovality, as indicated
by expression (1), is employed.

~0 -- [)max -- Drain
/)max "~-Drain (1)

Although circumferential residual stresses due to the fabrication process

can have a detrimental effect on the ultimate strength of tubes under
external pressure, only one of the formulations mentioned above has tried
to take it explicitly into account, ix This formulation uses an empirical
approach based on an experimental research program for casings, which
needs further investigation in order to be extended to other fabrication
methods.
The comparative study of the proposed formulations is presented in the
following sections for load conditions representing isolated and combined
modes. In some cases, the limit state equations are obtained from the
respective design equations by assuming the safety/resistance factors equal
to one.
The comparative study considered diameter-to-thickness ratios (D/t) of
15, 25 and 35, material properties of API steel grades X-52 and X-77
and initial ovality of 0-5%.

EXTERNAL PRESSURE

Ten equations for predicting collapse pressure of tubulars have been

selected. These equations are proposed in the context of interaction
formulae for combined external pressure, longitudinal bending and axial
tension, aimed at casing tubes (API-5C3 and Nippon Steel), submarine
pipelines (Battelle, BSI, DnV, Shell, TNO and Univ. DK) and platform
structural members (API-LRFD and NPD). Except for DnV, which allows
110 S. F. Estefen, T. Moan, S. Scevik, R. A. Zimmer

ovality caused by fabrication process and bending up to 1%, there is a

common restriction of 0"5% for the initial ovality due to the fabrication
process.
Some of the proposed equations can explicitly take into account the
initial ovality. These equations are from Battelle and Univ. DK, which
are based on Timoshenko's equation, t* BSI and TNO which are based
on Haagsma's equation x5 and Shell and Nippon Steel which are empiri-
cally based on pipeline models and casing tubes respectively. Apart from
minor differences in expressing Timoshenko's equation, Battelle and
Univ. D K generate the same results for the collapse pressure. As far as
BSI and TNO are concerned, the basic difference is due to the BSI
assumption of a minimum initial ovality of 0.25%. Therefore, for ovalities
smaller than 0.25%, BSI presents conservative results compared with the
TNO approach, but they generate identical results for ovalities beyond
0.25%.
API-5C3 does not account explicitly for the initial ovality and it is
supposed to generate lower bound values of collapse pressures obtained
from a large number of easing experimental tests. 16 The others which also
do not consider explicitly the initial ovality are N P D and API-LRFD.
Both are mainly concerned with structural tubular members of offshore
platforms, usually with diameter-to-thickness ratios higher than those
found in TLP tendon and riser bodies. N P D is able to account for the
different interactions between elastic and plastic behaviour as a function of
both geometry and material properties. API-LRFD relies mainly on
experimental data obtained from tubulars representative of fixed platform
members) 7 Knockdown factors are applied to elastic-based formulae to
account for the effect of both plasticity and initial geometric imperfection.
The ten formulations mentioned above have been used to predict the
ultimate hoop stress capacities for tubulars with D / t = 15, 25 and 35 and
initial ovality of 0.5%. Two steel grades have been assumed, X-52 and
X-77, with yield stresses of 358.53 N/ram 2 and 530.90 N/mm 2, respectively,
and uniaxial tensile stress-strain curves as indicated by Pedersen and
Michelsen. ~s An outer diameter of 609.6 mm (24 in) has been considered.
The results are presented in Table 1.
A considerable scatter can be observed among the results obtained from
the different formulations. The variation between maximum and minimum
hoop stress values ranged from 21% for D / t = 3 5 and X-77, to 55% for
D / t = 25 and X-52. The highest values were obtained from DnV and the
smallest values from Battelle/Univ. D K (Timoshenko's equationt*). As
expected the average value for each example approaches the respective
yield stress as far as the D/t ratio decreases. In general, the predictions
 Limit state formulations for TLP tendon and steel riser bodies 111

TABLE 1
Ultimate Strength Predictions for Tubulars Under External Pressure (Initial Ovality 0.5%)

F ormulatior,t Maximum hoop stress (N/mm 2)

Steel grade X-52 Steel oracle X-77

D/t=15 D/t=25 D/t=35 D/t=15 D/t=25 D/t=35

API-5C3 334"63 202"80 137"18 456"31 247"19 140-06

API-LRFD 346"29 230.09 147"31 438"26 288-55 147-31
Battelle 273.78 196.54 129.49 388.28 244.87 147-10
BSI 321.12 244.92 151.00 462.08 290-12 162-26
DnV 352.29 304.59 177-40 510-64 355-77 177.40
Nippon 327.96 269"93 165-95 472-42 315-24 171-80
NPD 333"63 241.96 151-68 458-71 278-97 159.65
Shell 315.68 237"79 157-00 441.98 285.65 170.06
TNO 321.12 244.92 151.00 462.08 290.12 162-26
Univ. D K 273.76 196.47 129.42 388-23 244-74 146-99

from BsI, rI'NO (Haagsma's equation Is) and Shell were close to the mean
predicted hoop stress values.

LONGITUDINAL BENDING

Apart from API-5C3 and Nippon Steel, which are aimed at casing tubes,
all other formulations mentioned are able to evaluate the bending capacity
of tubula~rs. However, there are two different approaches for treating the
ultimate bending strength depending on the tubular use as either platform
structural member or submarine pipeline. In the former, typically a
load-controlled resistance, the bending strength is defined in terms of
ultimate longitudinal stress, while in the latter, mainly due to the pipeline
installation, the definition is made based either on longitudinal strain or
curvature.
In the case of TLP tendon and riser bodies, the installation phase does
not necessarily imply longitudinal strain beyond the elastic regime. In
addition, environmental loads caused mainly by waves and currents can
precipitate low cycle fatigue in tubulars presenting elasto-plastic behav-
iour. Therefore, it is desirable in both tendon and riser applications to
avoid a design formulation which allows an ultimate plastic bending
behaviour. In the comparative study of the different limit state formula-
tions, an attempt is made to represent the bending strength as a function of
the ultimate longitudinal bending stress.
112 s. F. Estefen, T. Moan, S. Scevik, R. A. Zimmer

In API-LRFD, DnV and N P D the bending strength is referred to stress,

in Shell and Battelle referred to strain and in Univ. D K and TNO referred
to curvature. BSI has expressions for both ultimate moment and strain,
but only the former will be considered in this paper. It is based on a lower
bound expression of the fully plastic moment capacity of the pipe cross-
section. The BSI strain expression is very similar to that proposed by
Battelle, with the maximum strain values given by 15(t/D) 2 and 16(t/D) 2,
respectively. Shell also suggests a simple expression for the maximum
allowable strain given by t/(2D). TNO suggests a curvature expression
based on the pipe geometric characteristics which allows an equivalent
limit strain substantially higher than those proposed by Battelle and Shell.
The TNO expression was aimed at predicting longitudinal curvature
under external pressure and the authors admit it to be nonconservative for
the case of pure bending. Univ. D K also proposes a curvature expression
which is based on both geometric and material properties. Finally,
API-LRFD, DnV and N P D propose expressions for the bending strength
based on longitudinal stress. API-LRFD and DnV explore the plastic
capability of the section, with predicted stresses beyond the yield stress,
but N P D assumes a maximum allowable stress equal to the yield stress.
In order to perform the comparative study of the predictions, the
longitudinal bending stress will be assumed as the reference parameter.
Therefore, strain and curvature will be referred to equivalent longitudinal
stress through expressions relating curvature to strain, and then strain to
stress. The Tvergaard formulation is employed to convert strain into stress
in the plastic regime. These expressions are indicated below:

KD
e= 2 (2)

ff
=tr P~fnEe
ff p
+ l--n} for a>ao (3)
/

The hardening parameter n is adopted according to the values associated

with the stress-strain curves. These values are 9.05 and 10-0 for API steel
grades X-52 and X-77 respectively.
Results from the different formulations for predicting ultimate bending
strength are presented in Table 2. Apart from the Shell formulation, the
predicted ultimate longitudinal bending stresses are not influenced by
initial ovality. In the case of Shell, for all the geometry and material
properties considered, the variation of initial ovality from 0.1% to 0-5%
implied less than a 1% decrease in the respective ultimate stress. Therefore,
 Limit state formulations for TLP tendon and steel riser bodies 113

TABLE 2
Ultirnate Strength Predictions for Tubulars Under Longitudinal Bending
(Initial Ovality 0.5%)

Formulatio:~ Longitudinal bending stress (N/mm2)

Steel grade X-52 Steel grade X-77

D/t=15 D/t=25 D/t=35 D/t=15 D/t=25 D/t=35

API-LRFI'} 486-93 474.75 456.44 721-03 676-94 623.10

Battelle 491-81 437.96 404-70 735-80 661.19 613.56
BSI 371.66 360.96 351.52 557.77 544.32 534.41
DnV 459.81 443-67 427.56 680.88 656.98 633" 11
NPD 358.19 357"56 356.61 529.78 527"76 524.71
Shell 448.00 422.31 407.03 675.81 640.67 618.36
TNO 519.21 490.37 472.16 773.12 733.82 708.81
Univ. D K 467.01 441.03 424.61 698.78 663.11 640.35

it can be assumed that practicall~¢ all bending strength predictions are not
affected by the tubular initial ovality.
In all examples considered the maximum stress values were obtained
from TNO predictions and the minimum from either N P D or BSI. The
differences between maximum and minimum values were of the order of
45%, 40'% and 35% for D/t= 15, 25 and 35, respectively. In all examples
the Shell predictions were very close to the mean values.

AXIAL TENSION

All the formulations which take into account axial tension effects on
tubulars recommend the first yield to be assumed as the maximum value
for the axial tension stress. The only exception is for the DnV which
proposes a reduction factor to be applied to the yield stress for pipes with
D/t greanter than 20. For the geometrical range of interest of this study
(D/t= 12-35), it means a maximum reduction of less than 2%. As far as
limit state equations are concerned, it would be desirable to assume the
axial tension limit strength beyond the yield stress, but there is a
significant lack of experimental data on tubulars representative of casings
and pipelines to support a less conservative approach. Although several
experimental tests have been performed for casings under axial tension
loads, often they were interrupted when the respective longitudinal strain
reached the equivalent yield strain.
In case of formulations aimed at pipelines, the axial tension acting on
the pipe is normally considered as the applied axial tension less the
114 S. F. Estefen, T. Moan, S. St~vik, R. A. Zimmer

external pressure end cap effect. In this particular case the restriction in
terms of yield stress is related to the actual stress acting on the pipe wall.

EXTERNAL PRESSURE C O M B I N E D WITH

LONGITUDINAL BENDING

Eight formulations for interaction between external pressure and longi-

tudinal bending have been considered, API-LRFD, Battelle, BSI, DnV,
NPD, Shell, TNO and Univ. DK. These formulations propose different
equations combining external pressure or hoop stress with longitudinal
strain/curvature or longitudinal bending stress. Different exponents are
also employed to define the interaction equation shapes.
All the proposed interaction equations have been reformulated in terms
of hoop and longitudinal stresses in order to allow a comparative analysis
to be performed. As already mentioned for the isolated loading conditions,
three slendernesses ( D / t = 15, 25 and 35), two material properties (X-52 and
X-77) and ovality of 0-5% have been considered. Longitudinal curvature
and strain have been referred to stress through the strain-curvature
relationship and the Tvergaard expression indicated in (2) and (3).
Interaction curves for steel grade X-77 are presented in Figs 1-3. For
the sake of clarity neither Univ. DK nor NPD curves are included in these
figures. The former is similar in shape to Battelle and the latter is usually
applied to large diameter shells used in offshore platforms. Only API-

0.9-
0.8-

g 0.7"
0.6-

'w~ 0.5 -
0.4-
............' ':re:i::,,
o 0.3- [ BATTELLE
0.2"
0.1"

0 -- i " ,£',..
o ola 0;4 o'.6 o'.a ~ 11a 1;,= l e
Long.bend.stress/yield stress
Fig. 1. Limit state formulations for external pressure combined with longitudinal bending
(D/t= 15, X-77, 6o =0.5%).
 Limit state formulations for TLP tendon and steel riser bodies 115

0.7"

O.6~- ~ .."...-.! ~

~ 0.4- -"

~ 0.3-
a.
0

° 0.2
I- 1
0.1'

"~ u

0 012014 016 OiS i 112 1.4

Long.bend.stress/yieldslTess
Fig. 2. Limit state formulations for external pressure combined with longitudinal bending
(D/t=25, X-77, 60 =ff5%).

0.35-

0.25' "--...,,.~ "'~'ii "" "" """

0.15

n i\ \ ":"...-:.-.ii_'..../\
IA~''"F° I ~(,"-? i

0 ~
0 0,2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4
Long,bend.stress/yieldstress
Fig. 3. Lirait state formulations for external pressure combined with longitudinal bending
(D/t=35, X-77, ~o =0.5%).

LRFD, DnV and N P D are not influenced by the initial ovality. However,
for a particular geometry, the respective shapes are practically unaffected.
The curve configurations are mostly affected by the effect of ovality on the
ultimate hoop stress under isolated external pressure. For D/t = 15 it can
be realized that API-LRFD proposes a significantly stronger interaction
between external pressure and longitudinal bending than the others. A
116 S. F. Estefen, T. Moan, S. Scevik, R. A. Ziramer

unified procedure for designing tubular members based on API-LRFD as

proposed by Loh 9 has been used for this load combination. It should be
noted that if the BSI bending strain criteria had been adopted its curve
configuration would be close to DnV in the bending-dominated regime. It
could avoid the possible overconservatism of the BSI curve in this region
as far as limit state equation is concerned.

E X T E R N A L P R E S S U R E C O M B I N E D WITH
AXIAL TENSION

Eight formulations for external pressure combined with axial tension have
been analysed, API-5C3, API-LRFD, BSI, DnV, Nippon Steel, NPD,
Shell and TNO.
API-5C3 and Nippon Steel were based on empirical data for casings.
Collapse pressure expressions for API-5C3 were obtained from statistical
regression analysis of approximately 3000 experimental tests. The collapse
resistance in the presence of axial stress is calculated by modifying the
yield stress to an axial stress equivalent grade. However, API-5C3 for-
mulae are not valid for the yield strength of axial stress equivalent grades
less than 165 N/mm 2 (24000psi). Nippon Steel employed a similar ap-
proach based on 261 test data from commercial casings. An attempt was
made to include both ovality and residual stress in the collapse resistance
expressions.
Shell accounts for the axial tension loads by using the Von Mises yield
criterion to adjust the yield stress to be used in the collapse pressure
expression. N P D also takes advantage of Von Mises yield criterion
explicitly included in the interaction equation to treat this load combina-
tion. API-LRFD and TNO define pressure and hoop stress capacities,
respectively, in the presence of axial loads. BSI and DnV assume the
respective equations for pressure combined with axial tension in a similar
way to the previous proposition for pressure combined with longitudinal
bending.
As the formulations are aimed at either sub-sea pipelines or casings,
different effects due to external pressure should be taken into account. In
the case of pipelines, it is expected that during installation the pipe would
have an end cap which allows the effect of a compressive pressure loading.
Some collapse tests are performed in vessels which do not allow this end
cap effect to be considered. Axial tension equal to the end compressive
pressure load has to be applied to obtain a loading condition equivalent to
that simulated in this type of test. Therefore, the axial tension stress acting
 Limit state formulations for TLP tendon and steel riser bodies 117

"o 0.6" ~,~ "" ;

0.3.
, , ~ f",, ", f',~
0.2" : '. x ~

OA" i
0
0 0.'1 0.'2 0'.O 0'.4 O'.S 0'.6 0.7 0.'8 0.'9
A.)dal ten$.slress/yield stress
Fig. 4. Limit state formulations for external pressure c o m b i n e d with axial tension
(D/t= 15, X-77, 6o =0.5%).
on the pipe is obtained by deducting the end cap pressure effect from the
effective (applied) axial tension stress, as indicated in the following express-
ion:
T pD
o~=-7.a -- 4--t (4)

The different limit state equations for external pressure combined with
axial tension are shown in Figs 4-6 for tubulars with D/t = 15, 25 and 35,
steel grade X-77 and initial ovality of 0.5%. N P D and TNO are not
represented in these figures• TNO is similar in shape to DnV, which
predicts small mode interaction. The strongest interaction is given by the
casing-oriented formulations, API-5C3 and Nippon Steel. API-LRFD and
Shell curves present a intermediate behaviour as far as the interaction
between external pressure and axial tension modes is concerned. The
API-5C3 curve is interrupted before reaching the axial tension-dominated
region duie to its recommended range of validity, as mentioned above.

AXIAL TENSION COMBINED WITH

LONGITUDINAL BENDING

Four formulations are able to treat explicitly the combined effects of axial
tension and longitudinal bending, API-LRFD, BSI, DnV and NPD. All of
118 S. F. Estefen, T. Moan, S. Scevik, R. A. Zimmer

0.7

-'..:." ,,, " ,,

- 0.* "-"-/-----._ #:>:.'-. ""',A',,
/ ~-'---~c... ".,..?,, ~,~,,.
03 I'P''~F° '/I / // - ~ , . ",?.,.",.
'- // '~~,
~o
0 0.2"
~
I "rl-~ J J !""":~1"1"
;
-.,,

"-A ~'
~'~

o o:1 0:2 o'.3 o'.~ o'.5 o'.6 0:7 o:8 o:9

Axialtens.stress/yieldstress
F i g . 5. Limit state formulations for external pressure combined with axial tension
(D/t=25, X-77, bo =0-5%).

0.35

= 0.25-"-'-"-'~==''""~""'~-~'~.~ """~',, "'",

~ 0.2-

~ 0.15-

~ 0.1"

0.05'

0
o o11 o12 o'.a o'.4 0'.5 0:6 o'.7 o.a o~9
Axialtens.stress/yieldstress
Fig. 6. Limit state formulations for external pressure combined with axial tension
(D/t =35, X-77, 6o=0"5%).

them consider a linear interaction defined by the respective isolated

resistance modes.
An interaction curve for D/t = 25, steel grade X-77 and initial ovality of
0-5% is shown in Fig. 7. None of the considered formulations can
explicitly account for initial ovality variations. The differences are due to
the respective predictions for the longitudinal bending resistances. API-
 Limit state formulations for TLP tendon and steel riser bodies 119

0.8
0.7" ", •

0.6
05

-~ 0.3 "",, "",,

0.2
0.1 ,,,,~ : %
0 '"
0 0'.2 014 016 018 i 112 1.4
Long.bend.sVess/yield stress

Fig. 7. Limit state formulations for axial tension combined with longitudinal bending
(D/t=25, X-77, (~o=ff5%).

LRFD and DnV are considerable less conservative than BSI and NPD.
The former formulations allow substantial plastic behaviour in the bend-
ing mode. For the axial tension mode, the DnV formula assumes a axial
tension resistance slightly smaller than the yield stress for the examples
with D/t= 25 and 35.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Limit stalte equations able to treat tubulars with geometry and material
properties typical of TLP tendon and steel riser bodies have been
reviewed. They were obtained from design codes and published papers
aimed at design recommendations for casing tubes, submarine pipelines
and platform structural members. Loading conditions represented by
external pressure, longitudinal bending and axial tension, acting alone or
combined in pairs, have been considered.
Experimental results for tubulars with relevant material, geometrical
properties; and load conditions have been reviewed in order to evaluate the
reliability of the formulations. Correlation between strength predictions
and test data is presented elsewhere.19
Owing to the different approaches associated with the respective formu-
lations as far as bending strength was concerned, both strain and curva-
ture at collapse were transformed to longitudinal stress by using the
Tvergaard expression in the plastic range.
120 S. F. Estefen, T. Moan, S. Scevik, R. A. Zimmer

In order to compare the results from the different formulations, a

parametric study was performed for D/t= 15, 25 and 35, with steel grades
X-52 and X-77, and initial ovality of 0.5%.
Considerable scatter has been observed for the strength capacities under
either isolated external pressure or longitudinal bending. Variations be-
tween maximum and minimum predicted values reached 5 5 0 for external
pressure (D/t=25, X-52) and 46% for longitudinal bending (D/t=15,
X-77). Maximum recommended axial tension stress is equal to the material
uniaxial yield stress.
Comparison of the predictions for external pressure combined with
longitudinal bending indicated little mode interaction for either BSI or
DnV. However, API-LRFD for D/t= 15 had a strong mode interaction.
The conservatism of BSI in the bending-dominated region is associated
with the adoption of bending moment to define the respective mode
strength. If the strain criteria were adopted the BSI prediction in the
bending region would be very similar to the Battelle prediction. Although
in terms of design equations for TLP tendon and riser bodies it would not
be recommended to have a plastic behaviour, it should be noted that a
load-controlled criterion for limit state equations can lead to inappropri-
ate conservative predictions.
Among the formulations for interaction between external pressure and
axial tension are API-5C3 and Nippon Steel which were based on a
significant number of experimental tests for casing tubes. Due to the small
initial ovalities, as well as the seamless fabrication process, these predic-
tions cannot be directly extended to tendon and riser bodies. However,
their strong mode interaction, especially for low D/t ratios, should be
considered. BSI and DnV predict little interaction. API-LRFD and Shell
present an intermediate behaviour.
Finally, axial tension combined with longitudinal bending has been
analysed. The available formulations treat this loading condition as a linear
interaction limited by the respective isolated strength capacities. API-
LRFD and DnV are considerably less conservative than BSI and N P D on
the bending-dominated region. BSI conservatism has been influenced by
the adoption of load-controlled criteria instead of strain-controlled. No
prediction exceeds yield stress for the axial tension strength.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank C O N O C O Inc. and the participants of

the Joint Industry Program on the Model Code (Phase 1) for their
support.
 Limit state formulations for TLP tendon and steel riser bodies 121

REFERENCES

1. American Petroleum Institute (API), Bulletin (5C3) on formulas and calcula-

tions for casing, tubing, drill pipe and line pipe properties. Production Depart-
ment, Dallas, USA, 1989.
2. American Petroleum Institute (API), RP 2A-LRFD: Planning, designing and
constructing fixed offshore platforms--Load and resistance factor design. Draft,
Production Department, Dallas, USA, 1989.
3. British Standard Institution (BSI), Subsea pipelines--Annex C: Buckling. BS
8010, Part 3, 1993.
4. Danish Energy Ministry, Danish submarine pipeline guidelines. Draft, July
1985.
5. Det norske Veritas (DnV), Submarine Pipelines. Hovik, Norway, 1982.
6. Norwel~an Petroleum Directorate, Guidelines on design and analysis of steel
structures in the petroleum activity. Norway, 1990.
7. Johns, T. G. & McConnell, D. P., Pipeline design resists buckling in deep
water. Oil and Gas J., 23 July (1984) 62-5.
8. Jensen, J. J. & Pedersen, P. T., The buckling of submarine pipelines. Confer-
ence on Offshore Oil and Gas Pipeline Technology, London, 1985, pp. 41-60.
9. Loh, J. T., A unified design procedure for tubular members. Offshore Techno-
logy Conference, OTC Paper 6310, Houston, 1990, pp. 365-79.
10. Murphcy, C. E. & Langner, C. G., Ultimate pipe strength under bending,
collapse and fatigue. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium,
New Orleans, 1985, pp. 467-77.
11. Tamano, T., Mimaki, T. & Yanagimoto, S., A new empirical formula for
collapse resistance of commercial casing. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering Symposium, Houston, 1983, pp. 489-95.
12. Winter. P. E. de, Stark, J. W. B. & Witteveen, J., Collapse behaviour of
submarine pipelines. In Shell Structures: Stability and Strength, ed. R.
Narayan. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London & New York, 1985, pp.
22146.
13. Tvergaard, V., Plastic buckling of axially compressed circular cylindrical
shells. Thin Walled Structures, 1 (1983) 139-63.
14. Timoshenko, S. P., Theory of Elastic Stability. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1961.
15. Haagsma, S. C. & Schaap, D., Collapse resistance of submarine lines studied.
Oil and Gas J., 2 February 1981, pp. 86-95.
16. Clinedi:nst, W. O., Development of API Collapse Pressure Formulas. American
Petroleum Institute, December 1963.
17. Cox, J. W., Tubular Member Strength Equations for LRFD. API PRAC Project
86-55, American Petroleum Institute, February 1987.
18. Pedersen, P. T. & Michelsen, J., Large deflection upheaval buckling of marine
pipelines. Proc. International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Structures,
Trondheim, 1988, pp. 965-80.
19. Moan, T., Estefen, S. F., S~evik, S. & Zimmer, R. A., Limit states for the
ultimate strength of tubulars subjected to pressure, bending and tension loads.
J. Marine Structures, 7 (1994).