Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

1st International Conference on Integrity and Lifetime in Extreme Environment (ILEE-2019)

Strength of Trunk Pipelines with Critical Damages

Nikolay A. Makhutov(a), Vladimir N.Permyakov(b)*, Dmitry O.Reznikov(a)
a
Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, RAS. 4 Maly Kharitonievsky lane, Moscow,101990, Russia
b
Tyumen Industrial University, 47 Respubliki str, Tumen, 625000, Russia

Abstract

High internal pressure combined with external loading (bending/tension) and aggressive environment, along with the potential
presence of local damages makes the assessment of strength and structural integrity of long-distance pipelines a formidable
challenge. The paper considers the influence of local buckling (hereafter referred to as crimp) on the reduction of the static
strength of pipelines. The reduction of plasticity and the increase of yield limit due to aging; decrease of the operation
temperature; residual tensile stresses acting in the inner part of the pipe at the crimp top during plastic crimp formation; and
residual tensile stresses caused by welding are assessed. The account of the influence of these damaging factors allows one to
evaluate the reduction of the load carrying capacity of damaged pipelines. Threat of occurrence of damages in the form of crimps
is either ignored or only partially taken into account by the existing procedures for pipeline strength analysis. The paper is aimed
at filling this gap by analyzing strength of pipelines with crimps. Changes of the pipeline geometry, mechanical properties of the
material, and stress concentration due to crimp formation are considered; results of calculations and tests are presented.

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the ILEE-2019 organizers

Keywords: pipeline, strength, local damage, local buckling, crimp, fracture

1. Introduction

Ensuring strength and structural integrity of long-distance pipelines (LDP) is one of the critical problems in the
process of production, transportation and processing of hydrocarbons. At the end of the 20th and the beginning of
the 21st century this problem became critical for ensuring not only of industrial and power engineering safety but
also for national security in Russia and other oil/gas producing and transporting countries; Makhutov (2002),

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-3452-390-343;

E-mail address: v.n.permyakov@mail.ru.

2452-3216 © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the ILEE-2019 organizers
2 N.Makhutov/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Makhutov and Permyakov (2005), Makhutov (2017). High internal pressure combined with external loading and
aggressive environment, along with the potential presence of local damages make assessment of strength and
integrity of long-distance pipelines a formidable challenge.

Nomenclature

σmax maximum local stress in crimp zone

emax maximum local strain in crimp zone
σi intensity of true stresses
ei intensity of true strains
E elasticity modulus
ey the yield strain
σy the yield stress
m strain hardening exponent
{σ1, σ2, σ3} principle stresses
{e1, e2, e3} principle strains
μ Poisson's ratio
Sc stress at fracture in the neck region
ec true strain at fracture in the neck region
ψc relative narrowing in the specimen neck at fracture (reduction of area)
σu ultimate strength
eu strain at ultimate strength
p pressure in the pipeline
pc critical value of the pipeline pressure
σi0 intensity of engineering stresses
D0 inner diameter of the pipe
δ is the thickness of the pipe
h eccentricity
ny safety factor against yielding
nu ultimate safety factor
F0 cross sectional area of a smooth standard specimen
F cross sectional area of a pipeline
ˆ j   j /  1 , j  1, 2, 3 relative principle stresses
   / y normalized stress
e  e / ey normalized strain
emax cr maximal normalized secondary elasto-plastic strain in the crimp
en normalized nominal strain in the smooth part of the pipeline
Den reduction of ultimate plasticity due to multiaxiality of the stress state
emax cr maximal local elasto-plastic strain in the crimp zone
σn cr nominal fracturing stress in the crimp zone
σm membrane stress
σθ circumferential stress
Kt theoretical stress concentration factor
Kσ stress concentration factor
Ke strain concentration factor

Significant number of accidents at LDP is caused either by violation of technology of pipeline construction and
operation or by unauthorized branch cutting-in that are associated with large plastic deformations and substantial
 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

changes of the pipeline geometry. Various local damages of LDP leading to drastic decrease of their strength and
lifetime will be analyzed below.
Potentially dangerous in terms of crimp formation are heated and fixed zones of the pipelines, arches, floating up
zones. For example, on the northern gas pipelines of the Russian Federation one could observe arches that are 80-
150 meters long, deflections whose length is up to 500 meters, floating up sections on the length of up to 10,000
meters.
Crimp formation can occur in the process of LDP component fabrication and transportation or during LDP
construction, operation, maintenance and repair. The size of crimps can be compared with the thickness of the
pipeline wall and its diameter. Symmetrical and asymmetrical crimps located within the zones of welded joints as
well as combination of crimps and welded joins are a specific threat since they change the geometrical form of the
pipeline and mechanical properties of its material, and can trigger the pipeline fracture.
Height h, external radius Rex, internal radius Rin, the difference between them ΔR= Rex- Rin, and the fold opening l
are the main geometrical characteristics of crimps (Fig. 1). In operating pipelines the crimp characteristic l/h is
relatively constant and depends on the relation δ/R0 (where R0 is an internal radius of the pipeline, δ is the wall
thickness) and the extent of crimp development ΔR/ R0. The maximal (statistical) value of l/h when the fracture of
the pipelines goes on is in the range of 2.5 - 4. This value does not depend much on the pipeline diameter D0=2R0.
A crimp on the straight or elastically bent part of the pipeline may occur in the constraint places or in the zones of
heterogeneity of the physical and mechanical properties of the pipe material. A circular weld joint is also a zone of
such heterogeneity. A reinforced weld joint has a higher rigidity and usually (if it is free from macro defects) proves
to be stronger than the base metal.

Fig.1. Geometrical characteristics of crimps Fig. 2. Deformation curve in true coordinates and its parameters

Crimp formation is possible in the bent segments as well. Geometrical nonlinearity of the pipe shape, nominal
and local plastic deformations of the wall and residual stresses appear after a cold bending. The combination of
those factors as well as local damages that can occur during manufacturing, construction or operation can result in
the crimp formation in this part of the pipe.
A symmetrical circular crimp is a comparatively rear phenomenon. Its formation is usually caused by
temperature drop and axial compression that may result from pipeline constraint. In this case the main displacement
of the pipeline occurs along its axis only.
The widely occurred semicircular crimp is formed due to the combined action of longitudinal forces and bending
moments with the possibility of the in-plane and out of plane displacement of the pipeline. The deformation then
develops in the weakest zones and is localized as asymmetric crimps. The crimp is formed in the compressed zone
of the pipe on the inner radius of the bent.
Fracture of pipelines in the zones of crimps can be caused by both static and cyclic loads. The pipe wall in the
crimp zone is subjected to significant local plastic deformations under the action of all force factors, which results in
4 N.Makhutov/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

the change of physical and mechanical properties of the pipe metal that are commonly neglected in traditional
pipeline strength assessments.
Local strains emax that are measured experimentally using the technique of grids and tensometry may essentially
exceed ultimate elastic strains. Fracture may occur at the top of the crimp and at the place where the crimp slope is
connected with the cylindrical part of the pipe.
The threat of crimp formation consists in the fact that when the inner pressure is rising, stresses in the crimp zone
increase more intensively than stresses in the smooth part of the pipeline, and either partially ductile fracture or
completely brittle one becomes possible due to plasticity exhaustion in the crimp zone.

2. Analytical and experimental assessment of load carrying capacity

The above considered changes of the geometry and mechanical properties in the crimp zone in general case is
characterized by the processes of ultimate plasticity exhaustion and by the increase of local yield limit in the crimp
zone. As the service time τ of pipelines with crimps goes by and the working temperatures t increase the effects of
aging are becoming more intensive, while the residual local plasticity of the metal in crimp zones is decreasing.
ec cr  ec  emax сr Kage ,
where Kage is the aging factor, increasing from 1 to 1.6 with the growth of τ and t.
To assess strength of the undamaged and damaged pipelines one can use the constitutive equations that determine
the relationships between the intensity of true stresses σi and strains ei in the form of linear and power laws for the
elastic and elastoplastic regions:

 i  Eei for i   y , (1)

m
e 
i   y  i
e  for  i   Y , (2)
 y 
where ey is the yield strain, ey=σy/E; m is a strain hardening exponent in elastoplastic region (for the steels
0≤m≤0.2). The intensities of stresses σi and strains ei are expressed through principle stresses {σ1, σ2, σ3} and strains
{e1, e2, e3} that are determined either by calculations or by experiment:
1
i  (1   2 )2  ( 2   3 )2  ( 3  1 )2 ; (3)
2
2(1   )
ei  (e1  e2 )2  (e2  e3 )2  (e3  e1 ) 2 ; (4)
3
where μ is the Poisson's ratio (μ =0.3 for elastic strains, and μ = 0.5 for developed plastic ones).
Expressions (1) and (2) hold until the moment of the metal fracture in the neck during tension tests conducted on
a smooth specimen (0≥ σi ≥Sc) where Sc is fracture resistance in the neck region; 0≤ ei ≤ec where ec is the true
fracture strain in the neck region. According to Makhutov (2008) for structural pipeline steels it is possible to
assume:
Sc   u (1  0.4 c ), 

1 . (5)
ec  ln , 
1  c 
where ψc is a relative narrowing in the specimen neck during static fracture. For low alloy pipe steels σy=280-
350MPa, σu=460-580MPa and ψc = 0.55-0.65. According to Makhutov (2005) the strain hardening exponent m can
be defined using the expression:
 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

 1 
m  lg( Sc /  y ) / lg 1/ ey  ln . (6)
 1  c 
With the above-shown standard characteristics of pipe steels m=0.18-0.22. Using equations (2)–(6), one can
calculate the intensity of true fracture stresses σic or strains eic taking into consideration the reduction of the cross
sectional area due to local strains. Then according to strain-based or stress-based fracture criterion one can get:
1/m
  ic 
eic  ey   ec ,
  
(7)
 y
m
e 
 ic   y  c   Sc . (8)
e 
 y
As pressure p in the pipeline grows tending to its critical value (p→pc) and accounting for the reduction of the
wall thickness, the fracturing (critical) pressure pc will be defined according to the moment of reaching the state of
instability of plastic strains characterized as:
d i 0 / dei  0 , (9)

where σi0 is the intensity of engineering stresses, that are calculated without taking into account the changes of the
original dimensions in the process of deformation.
Condition (9) corresponds to the finite uniform strain at the level of the pipeline strength limit:

ei 0  eu  m . (10)

Then using equations (7) and (10):

m
e 
 ic   y  iu  . (11)
e
 y 
If the pipeline (D0=1200 mm and δ=18mm) is made of steel whose characteristics are: σy=320 MPa, ψc=0.6,
E=2·106 MPa, then according to (6) m=0.178, and to (10) eu=m=0.178. With the increase of cross sectional area F
from the cross sectional area of a smooth standard specimen F0=80mm2 up to the pipeline cross sectional area
F=πD0δ=6.78·104mm2 design yield stress σyF and ultimate stress σuF as well as the relative narrowing ψcF will be
reduced according to scaling laws:
 yF   y ( F0 / F ) ,
mY

 u F   u ( F0 / F )m , u
(12)

 cF   c ( F0 / F )  ,
m

where my, mu and mψ are scaling law exponents that are assumed to be material constants.
For the considered pipe steel according to Makhutov (2008), my= mu=0.013, mψ=0.03. According to expressions
(12) and (5), σyF =293MPa, σuF =494MPa, ψcF=49%, ScF=832MPa, mF=eiuF= 0.17.
As was shown in Makhutov (2008) the decrease of plasticity euF due to multiaxiality of the stress state of the
pipeline with the components of relative principle stresses ˆ1   /  , ˆ 2   /  , ˆ 3   /   0 is estimated
1 1 2 1 3 1

using the value of Den that characterize the reduction of ultimate plasticity due to multiaxiality of the stress state:
6 N.Makhutov/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1  ˆ 2   ˆ 2  ˆ 3   ˆ 3  1
2 2 2

Den  K D , (13)
2 1  ˆ 2  ˆ 3 
where KD the material constant lies in the range KD=0.8-1.3. Let KD =1 than Den=0.577 and
v
eiuF  eiuF Den  0.098 , (14)

where superscript “ν” designates a volumetric strain.

On the basis of the given above design data and according to (11) the intensity of nominal fracture stresses is
σvicF=598MPa.
For an undamaged pipeline if σ3<< σ1 and μ=0.5.
 i  0.85 1 ,
(15)
ei  0.89e1 ,
The first true principle stress will amount to σ1F=σθF =598/0.85=703MPa. Taking into account the reduction of
ψuF and the wall thickness at fracture:
1c   c  1F (1  uF ) . (16)

Here ψuF is defined by the relationship:

1
ln  ei u F , (17)
1  u F
with eiuF=0.17, ψuF =0.156, σθc=593MPa. The fracturing pressure will be defined by the expression:

pc  2  c . (18)
D0
Then for the considered undamaged pipeline pc=17.8MPa. The allowable pressure [p] can be estimated as:
  y  
  
[ p ]  2[ ]  2 , u  . (19)
D0  n y nu 
 min D0
For ny=1.25 and nu=1.7 one will get [p]=7.68MPa.
Pressure [p] is lower than fracturing pressure pc for an undamaged pipeline and the safety factor for limit pressure
equals to 2.32.
If in the process of pipeline operation, an asymmetric crimp occurs, then according to experimental data the
maximal local elasto-plastic strain in the crimp will be emax cr=27%.
For Kage=1.3 one can estimate the residual plasticity of metal in the crimp zone (Fig. 2):
1
ec cr  Den ln  K age  emax cr . (20)
1  c F
The plasticity of metal defined by relation (20) equals 0.037, which is essentially (24.7 times) lower than the
initial one ec that was obtained using formula (5) and 4.6 times lower than fracture strain eiuc of the undamaged pipe
calculated using relation (14).
The formed crimp creates a high concentration of tensile membrane stresses σm=σ2. The theoretical stress
concentration factor for these stresses can be estimated according to the layout of eccentric tension of the unit bar
with eccentricity h that creates bending and tensile stresses in the inner surface at the crimp top. Thus the total
 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7

maximal elastic stresses caused by tension and bending are:

 h
 max
*
  m 1  6  . (21)
 
According to Makhutov (2008) in the crimp zone (Fig. 2) one can define the changes of the metal properties
through formulas (2) and (6):
mF
e 
 y cr   y F  max  . (22)
 ey F
 
If σy=293MPa, emax cr=0.27, mF=0.17 and σyF=711 MPa then the strain hardening exponent mcr of the damaged
metal in crimp zone can be estimated taking into account the equation (6):

lg( Sc /  y c r )
mcr  . (23)
lg(ec cr / ey cr )
For the given design case according to expression (23) mcr =0.067.
If the pipeline with crimp is loaded by inner pressure, some secondary plastic deformations will take place in its
inner side at the crimp top. The strain concentration factor Ke will exceed the theoretical stress concentration factor
Kt (Ke>Kt). Then according to Makhutov (2008) normalized secondary local elasto-plastic strains can be determined
by the following expression:

emax cr   en K t 
2/(1 mcr )
, (24)

where en is normalized nominal strain in the smooth part of the pipeline ( en  enF /ey ; en cr  enF /ey cr ; e y cr   y cr /E ).
The nominal fracture strain can be derived from expression (24) using the strain-based fracture criterion:
1
 ec cr 
(1 mcr )/2
en cr  . (25)
Kt

a)

b)

Fig. 3 Pipeline failure in crimp zone

8 N.Makhutov/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

For the considered case en cr 0.316 . Nominal fracturing stress in the crimp zone  n cr   n cr   y cr  224 MPa as for
elastic deformation of the pipeline en cr   n cr  0.316 . This stress is less than the yield stress limits for steel σy, σy cr,
and the fracture membrane stress σm=σ2=σθc/2. In the pipeline damaged by crimp the nominal fracture stress σn cr
corresponds to fracture pressure pc cr:
4 (1  2R / R0 )
pc cr   n cr . (26)
D(1  R / R0 )
For the considered pipeline with crimp pc cr=12.1 MPa. This value is significantly (1,47 times) lower than fracture
pressure pc calculated using expression (18) for an undamaged pipeline, but it exceeds the allowable pressure [p]
calculated through expression (7) by 1.57 times.
The presented calculated and experimental data shows that crimp formation can significantly (up to 50%) reduce
the static strength of pipelines. The strength tests of pipelines of diameters 720-1020mm damaged by crimps showed
that first cracks appear at relatively low nominal stresses σi=σc cr<σy. This coincides with the calculations on the
basis of equation (26). The initial cracks appear and develop in a circular direction at the top of the crimp at the
inner side of it (Fig. 3a). The fracture caused by crimp at stresses close to yield stress σ y, or higher, is also possible
in the longitudinal direction along the weld joint (Fig. 3b) when the crimp height is relatively small, and it is located
in the heat-affected zone of the weld.
3. Conclusions
Crimps that can be inflicted during the construction, operation and repair of pipelines may significantly (up to
50%) reduce their static strength, mostly due to high stress concentration and plasticity exhaustion. The account of
the influence of those damaging factors allows one to evaluate the reduction of the load carrying capacity of
damaged pipelines. The threat of crimp formation should be considered even more severe if the reduction of
plasticity and the increase of yield limit due to (i) aging, (ii) decrease of the operation temperature, (iii) residual
tensile stresses acting in the inner part of the pipe at the crimp top during plastic crimp formation and (iv) residual
tensile stresses caused by welding are also taken into account. Cyclicity of loading (especially for oil pipelines) is
also an important factor contributing to the increase of risk of fracture of pipelines damaged by crimps.
Unfortunately the reduction of load carrying and strain capacity of pipelines damaged by crimps is either ignored
or only partially taken into account in the current regulatory and normative basis. This requires that broad efforts be
implemented to fill the gap and develop solid design procedures.

Acknowledgements
This work is financially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 16-58-48008 IND_omi).

References
Makhutov, N. at al. 2002. Safety of Russia. Legal, Social, Economic, Scientific and Engineering Aspects. Safety of Pipeline Transportation.
Moscow, Znanie Publishers. pp. 752 (in Russian).
Makhutov, N., Permyakov, V., 2005. Safe Lifetime of Pressure Vessels and Pipelines. Novosibirsk. Nauka Publishers. pp.516 (in Russian).
Makhutov, N., 2008. Strength and Safety. Basic and Applied Research. Novosibirsk. Nauka Publishers. pp.528 (in Russian).
Makhutov, N., 2017. Safety and Risks: Systemic Research and Developments. Novosibirsk. Nauka Publishers. pp.724 (in Russian).