INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 3, NO.

1, JUNE 2009

23

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED TO BUCKLING

Luiz Bortolan Neto, Roberto Dalledone Machado, Mildred Ballin Hecke luiz.bortolan@uol.com.br, rdm@ufpr.br, mildred@ufpr.br Federal University of Paran Numerical Methods in Engineering Graduation Program Cx.Postal 19011, CEP 82531-990, Centro Politcnico, Curitiba, Brazil

Abstract. Pipelines are being widely employed worldwide as means of conveyance of crude oil and its derivatives. Many environmental disasters have been happening related to pipelines due to its weakness and susceptibleness to the surrounding environment. To avoid these undesirable situations, computational models are playing an important role as they are able to predict the behaviour of pipelines in several ways. This essay presents a finite element formulation for both material and kinematic (geometric) nonlinear analysis of pipelines. Furthermore, the finite element formulation presented here simulates the soil behaviour throughout the employment of springs. Three examples are presented to show the numerical implementation efficiency Keywords: Pipeline, Finite Element Method, Buckling, Nonlinear Analysis 1 - INTRODUCTION The motivation for this study lies on the fact that pipes are being widely employed worldwide as means of conveyance of crude oil and its derivatives. Especially in the south and in the southeast of Brazil many pipelines connect oil fields to oil refineries. Nevertheless, a considerable distance is covered crossing hills, in which landslides could change not only the pipelines alignment but also the stresses. Besides, landslides may cause cracks in the pipes. Furthermore, both the close contact with soil and the action of weather can provide the corrosion of the pipes, which will reduce the cross section area, allowing the formation of disturbed flow areas, and also will develop stress concentrated regions on the pipe wall. The Finite Element (FE) formulation here applied was originally presented by Zhou and Murray (1996). Other authors also adopted this formulation in their works (see, for instance, Mejia (2003) and Souza et al. (2005)). Here, an improved formulation of the one presented by Zhou and Murray (1996), developed by Souza (2005), was adopted. In this FE formulation a beam formulation was employed to perform the pipe and a spring formulation to perform the soil. This FE has three nodes and five degrees of freedom (DOF) in each node and takes into account the following basic assumptions:

Bernoulli Beam Hypothesis: consists in the analysis of beam bending, excluding shear strains. Tangent and Radial Stresses: there are tangent and radial stresses in a pipe loaded only with the internal pressure. According to the Lame solution for thin walled cylinders, the maximum stress is the tangential stress (Moser, 2001). Therefore, in the present formulation, the radial stress is despised due to its small value when confronted with the longitudinal stress and tangential stress values. Soil Formulation: the soil is modelled through elastic perfectly plastic springs connected on the pipe walls both transversally and longitudinally. In addition, the present FE formulation is able to carry out both linear and nonlinear analysis. The nonlinear analysis type comprises the material nonlinear effects as well as the kinematic (geometric) nonlinear effects. 2 - REVIEW OF LITERATURE A pipeline is subjected to several kinds of loads both internal and external. The main ones are soil weight, for buried pipelines; internal pressure; temperature variation; and external water pressure, for offshore pipelines. In addition, fatigue and defects on the surface of a pipe ought to decrease its strength and some pipelines are over loaded leading them to work in a plastic mode. Thus, this is why so many researches are being made focusing pipelines. The following brief review of literature discusses the main subjects in research. 2.1 - Pipelines under Buckling Conditions Double-piping systems, also known as pipe-in-pipe systems, were studied by Vaz and Patel (1999) and by Zaras (2008). Vaz and Patel work presented an analytical formulation of the coupled buckling instability of a pipe-in-pipe system typical of that considered for high-temperature products in the oil and gas industry. Zaras work presented some results of an extensive investigation on the failure of pressurized pipe-in-pipe system. This investigation included survey of the failed piping, checking

24

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 3, NO.1, JUNE 2009

of design and manufacturing against standards of various types, theoretical analysis employing the results of works carried out on buckling propagation. The use of a Brillouin sensor system has been employed both for monitoring and for predicting buckling in pipes and columns. Ravet et al. (2006) conducted a strain characterization experiment to monitor steel pipe and column buckling using a distributed Brillouin sensor system. By using the broadening factor of Brillouin spectrum width, Zhang et al. (2008) were able to predict the location and progression sequence of buckling patterns, prior their visual detection in laboratory. Zhou and Murray (1995) presented a method to incorporate local buckling behaviour of pipelines from 3D large deformational elastic-plastic shell analysis into an interactive soil-structure beam model of a pipeline. In addition, those authors described a method for extracting the pipe stiffness properties from the buckling analysis of various load combinations that were examined and, moreover, a technique for determining stiffness coefficients from these properties is described. Murray (1997) worked on the prediction of the behaviour of buried pipelines when they are considered as shell structures and subjected to curvatures that exceed their limit points. The authors survey work, which was carried out over a period of approximately six years, considered the development of local buckling, and the softening, strain localization and wrinkling that characterize the behaviour of pipeline structures, and, in addition, the relation between these phenomena. The results of finite element analyses were compared with two series of tests on full-sized industrial pipes. 2.2 - Pipelines Behaviour and Lifespan A finite element analysis was carried out by Lzaro (2004) to simulate the interaction between pipes and the surrounding soil for hillside pipelines subjected to landslides. Dvorkin and Toscano (2003) simulated, throughout finite element models, the service performance of tubular steel products used in oil industry. In this work, the authors focused on the analysis of threaded connections for oil country tubular goods and on the analysis of pipe bodies collapse pressure. Two pressure vessel problems were presented by anal (2000), who simulated the structure large displacement and plastic straining response throughout geometrically and materially nonlinear finite element analysis. Applying elastic-plastic finite element analysis, Robertson et al. (2004) investigated the plastic collapse of pipe bends with attached straight pipes under combined internal pressure and in-plane closing moment. Zhu and Leis (2004) investigated analytically the failure pressure of pipelines either with or without corrosion defects, aiming the conditions under which the classic strength criteria are appropriate for predicting failure pressure; while the variation of temperature was studied by Fonseca et al.

(2005) who presented a finite element algorithm developed to perform the thermal and mechanical analysis of structural steel piping systems subjected to high temperatures. Furthermore, as an alternative to steel, several kinds of materials are being considered in pipes manufacturing, such as titanium and fibre reinforced polymers. Therefore, Bjrset et al. (2003) discuss the use of a supplementary numerical approach, based on finite element analysis, to steel capacity formulas for both local buckling and collapse, once the direct application of those formulas in titanium pipes is rather uncertain. Besides the assessment and the predictiveness for undamaged loaded structures, it is also important to measure the limit loading for defective structures due to the stress concentration that may happen in the damaged area. Following this research line Chen et al. (1998) presented a numerical solution method for radial loading while Benjamin and Andrade (2003) proposed a method to predict the failure pressure for both short and long corrosion defects. The serviceability of damaged pipelines was assessed by Ahammed (1996) and Pluvinage (2006). The former developed a deterministic model to evaluate the remaining strength of a corroded steel pipeline over time while the latter analysed the serviceability throughout three methods: limit analysis, failure-assessment diagram, and sub critical crack growth. As corrosion is known to be one of the major factors that cause pipeline failure many authors deal with this subject in their works. Choi et al. (2003) proposed a fitness-for-purpose (FFP) type limit load solution for corroded gas pipelines made of steel and carried out finite element simulations to derive an appropriate failure criterion and to obtain the FFP type limit solution for corroded gas pipelines as a function of defect depth, length and pipeline geometry. A wide spread method in finite element analysis for modelling corrosion is the local wall thinning which allows the stress concentration in a local area. This technique was employed by Kim and Son (2004) and the resulting values of stress concentration factors were tabulated for practical use and the effects of relevant parameters such as pipe and defect geometries on stress concentration factors were discussed. 3 - VARIATIONAL FORMULATION The formulation employed in this work includes the material nonlinear effects and the kinematic nonlinear effects. The kinematic effects includes large displacements, large rotations, but small strains. It is based in the Total Lagrangian (TL) formulation. The material nonlinear effects assume that the pipe material has elastic-plastic behaviour and that the soil has elastic perfectly plastic behaviour. According to Bathe (1996), the virtual work principle in the TL formulation is given by Eq. (1), where the left handed term is the internal virtual work and the right handed term is the external virtual work. (1)

BORTOLAN et al.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED

25

In Eq. (1) are the forces components applied externally per volume unity in the time t + t, are the surface tractions applied externally per surface unity in the time t + t, and uiS is ui determined over the surface 0Sf. In addition, the incremental stresses and strains are the ones in Eq. (2) and in Eq. (3), respectively. (2) (3) The Reduced Modulus Direct Integration (RMDI) technique states that the virtual work can be obtained taking into account the stress and strain components from the finite element, as presented by Eq. (4). On The left hand of this equation the first two terms represent the pipe stresses virtual work and the remaining three terms represent the springs virtual work. The right hand of Eq. (4) is the external virtual work introduced by the load application.

according the von Mises criteria. By assumption, the radial stress is supposed null due its value is much smaller when compared with the other stresses. 4.1 - Pipeline Stress Increments Assessment According to the RMDI technique, the longitudinal stress is determined throughout the constitutive material law by means of strain increments evaluated on the pipe plain cross section. The longitudinal stress increments are determined in the integration points along the pipe cross section circumference in a consistent manner with the biaxial stress state, with the current levels of plastic strains, and with the effective stress and the effective plastic strains associated to each integration point (Zhou and Murray, 1996). The pipe cross section is divided into equal bands (Fig. 1). For each band, the stress is assessed along the section in every Gauss sampling point in the numerical integration. Each area band has an inner force fitting its position and area.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

(4) For the incremental stresses and strains, the related equations are the ones given by Eq. (5) to (8), where Sx1 is the longitudinal stress, S is the steady circumferential stress, is the strain in the circumferential direction, and Cx1 is the ratio between the circumferential strain and the longitudinal strain. Here, the superscripts L and NL denote the incremental longitudinal strain linear and nonlinear components. (5) (6) (7) (8) 4 - PIPELINE CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS The pipe material is considered as having elasticplastic behaviour. The yielding criteria take place according von Mises with isotropic hardening. As usually the pipe internal pressure is considered steady, the stress-strain relation for the element is uniaxial in the local coordinates system. The constant circumferential stress introduced by the internal pressure must have been taken into account in the stress-strain relation (Zhou and Murray, 1996). Hence, for the biaxial stress state the yielding will happen when the effective stress (obtained through longitudinal and circumferential stresses) reaches the yield stress established

dA15 2

dA15 2

Figure 1 Pipe Cross Section Divided into Bands

4.2 - Pipeline Stress-Strain Relation and Inner Forces The stiffness coefficients for the pipe cross section are the following ones in Eq. (9) to (14). In these equations 0A is the initial cross section area, tCEP is the elastic-plastic modulus in time t, Ix2 is the moment of inertia related to the x2 axis, Ix3 is the moment of inertia related to the x3 axis, and x2 and x3 are the local Cartesian coordinates. (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

y 15

26

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 3, NO.1, JUNE 2009

(14) For isotropic materials, the stress-strain matrix for the pipe material is given by Eq. (15) in its generalized form. (15)

Particularly, for elastic linear materials, the stressstrain matrix for the pipe material will be as presented by Eq. (16), where E is the Youngs modulus. (16) The equivalent inner forces in time t are the ones given by Eq. (17) to (19). These forces are the vector Fint components. This vector is presented by Eq. (20). (17) (18) (19) (20) In addition, three inner forces matrices are presented in Eq. (21) to (23) (21)

Figure 2 Model of soil-pipe interaction

The pipe relative position determines the strains in the springs. The transversal springs incremental strain assessed in the local coordinate system is determined according the displacement vector as follows: (24) (25) (26) (27) In Eq. (24) to (27), tBS, tUS, tLLS, and tRLS are the shortening springs strains for bottom, upper, left lateral and right lateral. The incremental longitudinal strain is given by Eq. (28), where tAS is the springs strain for shortening or elongation. 5.1 - Soil Stress-Strain Relation and Compression Forces The stress-strain matrix for the soil springs is presented by Eq. (29) where tKAS, tKBS, tKUS, tKLLS, and tKRLS, are the longitudinal, bottom, upper, left lateral, and right lateral springs stiffness, respectively. (28)

(22)

(23)

The incremental compression forces in the transversal springs are represented by Eq. (30) to (33). Those forces are taken up as negative in the transversal springs. (29) (30) (31) (32)

5 - SOIL CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS A model of pipe-soil interaction is showed by Fig. 2. The pipe walls are connected to five series of springs along the pipe axis. The unknowns related to those springs are referred as longitudinal spring (AS index), bottom spring (BS index), upper spring (US index), left lateral spring (LLS index), and right lateral spring (RLS index).

BORTOLAN et al.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED

27

The compression yielding forces for bottom, upper, left lateral, and right lateral springs are represented by tFYBS, t FYUS, tFYLLS, and tFYRLS, respectively. In the longitudinal springs, the incremental force defined in the local coordinate system in the current strained configuration is represented by Eq. (34). In this equation tFYAS and tFYAS are the longitudinal springs yielding forces for traction and compression, respectively. (34) The forces above are the vector FKS components. This vector is presented by Eq. (35). (35) 6 - FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION The finite element presented in this essay is a linear element and stands traction, compression and bending. It has three nodes and fifteen degrees of freedom. For axial displacement, second order lagragian finite element is used. The others degrees of freedom are discretized by fifth order lagragian elements. Thus, the degrees of freedom of the reference element are tu1, tv1, tw1, tz1, ty1, tu2, tv2, tw2, tz2, ty2, t u3, tv3, tw3, tz3, and ty3. Here the subscript denotes the node. Therefore an N-segment mesh has 10 N + 5 degrees of freedom. Figure 3 shows a scheme of the element and Eq. (36) presents the displacement nodal vector. The interpolation functions are the ones listed in Eq. (42) to (50). (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48)
Figure 3 Isoparametric Finite Element

(41)

(49) (50) 6.1 - Strain-Displacement Matrices The pipe strains are related to nodal displacements and shape functions derivatives according Eq. (51) for the incremental and for the incremental linear curvatures linear axial strain and . (51) Being (52) And

(36) The displacement nodal vector components are interpolated by the following equations: (37) (38) (39)

Equation (40) represents the displacement nodal vector in the matrix form. The interpolation functions matrix is presented by Eq. (41). (40)

28

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 3, NO.1, JUNE 2009

The soil strains relation to nodal displacements and shape functions derivatives is presented by Eq. (58). (58) Being (53) (59) In Eq. (62) the parameters and are defined according the transversal displacements as follows: (60) Equations (54) to (56) bring the relation between the nodal displacements and the incremental nonlinear axial strain and between the nodal displacements and the incremental nonlinear curvatures and . (54) (55) (56) Being

(61)

(62)

6.2 - Rotation Matrix Equation (63) presents the relation between the nodal displacements in the local coordinate system (ue) and in the global coordinate system ( ). (63)
(57)

(64)

Being

BORTOLAN et al.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED

29

(74) Including the external forces vector (tPe) and applying the rotation matrix, the final element force vector (tRe) will be the one given by Eq. (75). (75) Finally, the equilibrium equation is the following: (76) NUMERICAL SIMULATION This section brings three numerical simulations applying the formulation presented in this essay. The first example presents a pipeline buried in a hillside with the purpose of checking the reliability of numerical implementation. The second example has the goal of comparison between the analytical critical load and the critical load returned by the numerical implementation. The last simulation deals with the prediction of the critical load for buckling for a pipeline in a hillside. Hillside Buried Pipeline This example shows the behaviour of a pipeline taking into account the soil distributed load and an external one. The main objective is to compare the results obtained by using the present model with the results given by Souza (2005). The geometric and material properties are given by Tables 1 and 2 and by Fig. 4. Table 1. Pipe Geometric Properties
Property I - Moment of Inertia A - Cross section Area de - Pipe External diameter di - Pipe Internal diameter t - Pipe Wall Thickness Unit m4 m2 cm cm mm Value 7.9516531 10-5 6.2586416 10-3 32.50 31.25 6.25

(65)

(66)

(67) (68) In Eq. (66) to (68), above, tLxy is the element length projection over the plain X1-X2 and txki and txkj are the coordinates in the elements nodes i and j, respectively. 6.3 - Equilibrium Equations Applying the Total Lagrangian formulation in the static analysis, the element stiffness matrices will be ones below, where Eq. (69) brings the elastic-plastic stiffness matrix, Eq. (70) brings the geometric (kinetic nonlinear) stiffness matrix, and Eq. (71) brings the soil springs stiffness matrix.
(69) (70) (70) With the rotation matrix application, the final element stiffness matrix (tKe) will be the one presented in Eq. (72). (72) The equivalent force vectors in the element nodal points are presented in Eq. (73) for the pipe and in Eq. (74) for the soil springs. (73)

Table 2. Pipe Material Properties

Property E - Youngs modulus ET - Tangent modulus Sy Yield stress - Poissons ratio
10 kN/m 6.25mm =1.8 kN/m 3 1.5m

Unit GPa GPa MPa -

Value 205.0 75.0 420.0 0.25

1.5m

32.5cm

5.0m

1.5m

1.5m

5.0m

Figure 4 Hillside pipeline model

30

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 3, NO.1, JUNE 2009

The soil pressure over the pipeline, because of an embankment, was determined due the soil depth in Fig. 4 and due the pipe external diameter, as given by Eq. (77). In this equation Psoil is the soil pressure, is the soil specific weight and h is the soil depth. (77) Thus, the external loads over the pipeline are the ones presented by Table 3. Besides that, a steady internal pressure of 9 MPa over the pipeline is also considered. Table 3. External loads over the pipeline

Buckling Critical Load Although the prediction of structures behaviour is very important, sometimes what really matters is whether one structure can bear a certain load. Therefore, this example deals with the critical load prediction for a pipe clamped at both ends, as shown by Fig. 6. The problem data is given by Tables 4 and 5. Here, the pipe was modelled with a four elements mesh.

5.00cm

L=100.0 m

1.00m

x 0.0 to 5.0 m 5.0 to 6.5 m 6.5 to 8.0 m 8.0 to 13.0 m t - Pipe Wall Thickness

(kN/m3) 1.80 1.75 1.75 1.75

Psoil (N/m) 877.500 853.125 2275 284.38x 0.0

q (kN/m) 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

Pint (MPa) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 Figure 6 Pipe Geometric Properties

Table 4. Geometric properties

Property I - Moment of Inertia A - Cross section Area de - Pipe External diameter di - Pipe Internal diameter t - Pipe Wall Thickness Unit m4 m2 m m cm Value 1.6881152 10-2 1.4922565 10-1 1.00 0.90 5.00

The pipe-soil interaction is simulated by the bottom, upper and longitudinal springs, which stiffness coefficients per length unit are the following: , , and . The kind of analysis employed was both material and kinematic nonlinear. The pipeline was discretized by a mesh of 11 elements and 10 load steps were applied in the iterative incremental process. The inner forces were determined due the division of the pipe cross section into 50 area bands. Figure 5 shows the values of the vertical displacement achieved by Souza (2005) and by the present work. In addition, the results of a simulation carried out employing the commercial finite element software known as ANSYS are also presented in the comparison.
0.0005 0

Table 5. Material properties

Property E - Youngs modulus ET - Tangent modulus Sy Yield stress - Poissons ratio t - Pipe Wall Thickness Unit GPa GPa MPa cm Value 205.0 75.0 420.0 0.25 5.00

Vertical displacement

-0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 -0.002 -0.0025

According to Brush and Almroth (1975), the centrally applied compressive critical load (Pcr) for a straight column of length L clamped at both ends is the one given by Eq. (78). (78) The total applied load P was equal to 18.0 MN, while the analytical critical load Pcr is 13.662 MN (75.9% of P). Those loads are not enough to plastify the pipe material.
25

Souza (2005) Present w ork Ansys 0 5 10 N ode 15 20

Figure 5 Vertical Displacement Results Comparison

These results outline the good agreement between the values of the vertical displacements obtained by the present work and the values obtained by Souza (2005).

Figure 7 brings the amount of load steps needed to achieve a good precision in the critical load estimative and Table 6 presents the errors among the results achieved and the analytical one.

BORTOLAN et al.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED

31

20000

Finite elem ent solution A nalytical solution

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

Thus, the present example simulates the buckling critical load for a situation like that in three ways: firstly, fully enclosed pipeline, secondly, half enclosed pipeline, thirdly, fully revealed pipeline, and, at last, fully enclosed pipeline with a change on the boundary conditions. The finite element mesh employed (Fig. 9) in these simulations uses 11 elements and 100 load steps were applied in the iterative incremental process. The inner forces were determined due the division of the pipe cross section into 70 area bands. The kind of analysis employed was both material and kinematic nonlinear. The geometric and material properties are given by Tables 7 and 8, respectively.
140 160

Critical Load (kN)

20

40

60

80 Load steps

100

120

Figure 7 Critical Load Assessment Amount of load steps 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Pcr (MN) 15.300 14.850 14.100 14.175 13.860 13.950 14.014 13.838 13.901 13.770 13.827 13.875 13.776 13.692 13.740 Error 12.0% 8.7% 3.2% 3.8% 1.4% 2.1% 2.6% 1.3% 1.7% 0.8% 1.2% 1.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.6% Property I - Moment of Inertia A - Cross section Area de - Pipe External diameter di - Pipe Internal diameter t - Pipe Wall Thickness Unit m4 m2 cm cm mm Value 7.9516531 10-5 6.2586416 10-3 32.50 31.25 6.25 Figure 9. Finite Element Mesh Employed

Table 7. Pipe Geometric Properties

Table 8. Pipe Material Properties

Property E - Youngs modulus ET - Tangent modulus Sy Yield stress - Poissons ratio - Coefficient of thermal expansion Unit GPa GPa MPa C-1 Value 205.0 75.0 420.0 0.25 1.2 10-6

Analysing the chart in Fig. 7 and Table 6 it is possible to conclude that the greater the amount of load steps the more accurate the numerical model will be. However, the large number of load steps might lead to a heavy computational effort depending on the finite element mesh. Critical Load for a Hillside Pipeline In hillsides is rather common to happen slowly moving landslides. These landslides could lead to the supporting soil removal and to axial compression forces over the pipeline. Figure 8 brings an example of such phenomenon.
Buried Pipeline Direction of Landslide Movement Buried Pipeline Revealed Pipeline

The pipe-soil interaction is simulated by the bottom, upper and longitudinal springs, which stiffness coefficients per length unit are the following: KBS = 1295 kN/m/m, KUS = 970 kN/m/m, and KAS = 130 kN/m/m. The external loads over the pipeline are the ones presented by Table 9. Table 9. External loads over the pipeline

A Landslide Slip Plane

x 0.0 to 130.0 m

(kN/m3)

Psoil (N/m)

1.80

877.5

q (kN/m) 1.0

Lack of Support

(a)

(b)

Figure 8 Hillside pipeline subjected to landslides

For the fully enclosed pipeline, the simulation was carried out as presented by Fig. 10 with an internal pressure of 9 MPa and a temperature variation of 30 C. The critical load P obtained for this situation was equal to 4172

32

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 3, NO.1, JUNE 2009

1.0 kN/m =1.8 kN/m 3 1.5m 15.0m

P
=1 .8

Table 10 summarizes the results obtained from the three different cases.
6.25mm

kN /m 3
=1.8 kN/m 3 32.5cm

Table 10. Critical Loads Comparison

Case 1 Pcr (kN) Case 1 Critical Load Percentage

15.0m

N k .

50.0m

15.0m

15.0m

50.0m

Figure 10 Case 1: Fully enclosed pipeline

For the half enclosed pipeline situation (Fig. 11) the critical load P obtained was equal to 1138 kN, which is 73% lower than the critical load for the fully enclosed pipeline.
1.0 kN/m =1.8 kN/m 1.5m 15.0m 6.25mm
3

2 3 4

4172 1138 841 460

27% 20% 11%

=1 .8

kN /m 3
=1.8 kN/m
3

15.0m

As expected, the more uncovered the pipeline is, the lower the critical load P will be. This example also highlights the need of a good knowledge concerning the maximum load that one structure can stand even in situations that were not predicted to happen. Besides that, the lack of support in some structures in similar situations could lead to buckling due to its own weight. CONCLUSIONS The finite element formulation presented in this essay proved to be worthful for the assessment of pipelines with material nonlinear effects subjected to load cases where the kinematic nonlinear effects play an important role, such as buckling. REFERENCES Ahammed M., 1997. Prediction of remaining strength of corroded pressurised pipelines. Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. vol. 71, n. 3, pp. 213217. Bathe, K. J., 1996. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey. Benjamin, A. C. & Andrade, E. Q., 2003. Modified Method for the Assessment of the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition (IBP413_03). pp 113. Bjrset, A., Remseth, S., Leira, & B. J., Larsen, C. M., 2003. Titanium pipes subjected to bending moment and external pressute. Computers and Structures. vol. 81, pp. 26912704. Brush, D. O. & Almroth, B. O., 1975. Buckling of Bars, Plates, and Shells. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Chen, H. F., Liu, Y. H., Cen, Z.Z. & Xu, B. Y., 1998. Numerical analysis of limit load and reference stress of defective pipelines under multi-loading systems. Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. n. 75, pp. 105114. Choi, J. B., Goo, B. K., Kim, J. C., Kim, Y. J. & Kim, W. S.,

32.5cm 50.0m 15.0m 15.0m 50.0m

Figure 11 Case 2: Half enclosed pipeline

The situation for the fully revealed pipeline (Fig. 12) leads to a critical load P of 841 kN. This load is 80% lower than the critical load for the fully enclosed but only 26% lower than the critical load for the half enclosed pipeline.
1.0 kN/m =1.8 kN/m 3 1.5m 15.0m 6.25mm

15.0m

=1.8 kN/m

32.5cm 50.0m 15.0m 15.0m 50.0m

Figure 12 Case 3: Fully revealed pipeline

A fourth case was considered. This case is much alike the first one but with a change on the boundary conditions. In this case the fixed supports in the middle of the pipeline were removed, as showed by Fig. 13. Here, the critical load P of 460 kN is 89% lower than the critical load of the first case.
1.0 kN/m =1.8 kN/m 1.5m 15.0m
3

P
=1 .8

kN /m 3
=1.8 kN/m 3 32.5cm

6.25mm

15.0m

50.0m

15.0m

15.0m

50.0m

Figure 13 Case 4: Fully enclosed pipeline with a change in the boundary conditions

BORTOLAN et al.: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES SUBJECTED

33

2003. Development of Limit Load Solutions for Corroded Gas Pipelines. Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. n. 80, pp. 121128. Dvorkin, E. N., Toscano, R. G., 2003. Finite element models in the steel industry. Part II: Analyses of tubular products performance. Computers and Structures. vol. 81, pp. 575594. Fonseca, E. M. M., de Melo, F. J. M. Q., & Oliveira, C. A. M., 2005. The thermal and mechanical behaviour of structural steel piping systems. Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. vol. 82, pp. 145153. Kim, Y. J. & Son, B. G., 2004. Finite Element Based Stress Concentration Factors for Pipes with Local Wall Thinning. Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. vol. 81, pp. 897906. Lzaro, F. P., 2004. Anlise no-linear da interao soloduto em escostas empregando elementos de interface. MSc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Paran, Curitiba, Brazil. Meja, I. E. O., 2003. Modelo numrico para o estudo do comportamento de dutos enterrados. MEng. Dissertation, Pontifcia Universidade Catlica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Moser, A. P., 2001. Buried Pipe Design. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Murray, D. W., 1997. Local buckling, strain localization, wrinkling and postbuckling response of line pipe. Engineering Structures. vol. 19, n. 5, pp. 360371. Pluvinage, G., 2006. Pipe-defect Assessment Based on the Limit Analysis, Failure-Assessment Diagram, And Subcritical Crack Growth. Fizyko-Khimichna Mekhanika Materialiv. vol. 42, n. 1, pp. 119127. Ravet, F., Zou, L., Bao, X., Chen, L., Huang, R. F., & Khoo, H. A., 2006. Detection of buckling in steel pipeline and column by the distributed Brillouin sensor. Optical Fiber Technology. vol. 12, pp. 305311. Robertson, A., Li, H., & Mackenzie, D., 2004. Plastic collapse of pipe bends under combined internal pressure and in-plane bending. Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. vol. 82, pp. 407416. anal, Z., 2000. Nonlinear analysis of pressure vessels: some examples. Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. vol. 77, pp. 705709. Souza, L. A. F., 2005 Anlise no-linear via elementos finitos de um modelo de vigas para dutos enterrados. MSc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Paran, Curitiba, Brazil. Souza, L. A. F., Roehl, D. M., Hecke, M. B. & Machado, R. D., 2005. Anlise no linear via elementos finitos de um modelo de vigas para dutos enterrados. In: XXVI Iberian Latin-American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering CILAMCE, Guarapari, Brazil. Proceedings Curitiba, Brazil:

UFPR Programa de Ps-Graduao em Mtodos Numricos em Engenharia, 2005. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: PUC-RIO Departamento de Engenharia Civil, 2004. CIL04-0208. Vaz, M. A. & Patel, M. H., 1999. Lateral buckling of bundled pipe systems. Marine Structures. vol. 12, pp. 2140. Zaras, J., 2008. Analysis of an industrial piping installation under buckling propagation. Thin-Walled Structures. vol. 46, pp. 855859. Zhang, C., Bao, X., Ozkan, I. F., Mohared, M., Ravet, F., Du, M. & DiGiovanni, D., 2008. Prediction of the pipe buckling using broadening factor with distributed Brillouin fiber sensors. Optical Fiber Technology. vol. 14, pp. 109113. Zhou, Z. & Murray, D. W., 1995. Analysis of postbuckling behaviour of line pipe subjected to combined loads. Int. Journal of Solid Structures. vol. 32, n. 20, pp. 30153036. Zhou, Z., & Murray, D. W., 1996. Pipeline Beam Models Using Stiffness Property Deformation Relations. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE. vol. 122, n. 2, pp. 164 172. Zhu, X. K., & Leis, B. N., 2004. Strength criteria and analytic predictions of failure pressure in line pipes. Int. Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering. vol. 14, n. 2,