OTe 6333

A Dedicated Finite-Element Model for Analyzing Upheaval

Buckling Response of Submarine Pipelines
F.J. Klever, L.C. van Helvoirt, and A.C. Sluyterman, Shell Research B.V.
Copyright 1990, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 22nd Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 7-10, 1990.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented. have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.
- - - -
- - --= -==--------=------=---=------=--- ----==------===--- -- ~ -
ABSTRACT
Offshore developments, for example, in the North
Sea, are showing a clear trend towards the use of
satellite technology, associated with an increasing
number of small-diameter pipelines and flowlines
transporting multiphase fluids at high temperatures
and pressures.
Upheaval buckling of a pipeline at a critical
foundation undulation may occur when thermal
expansion is axially restrained and lateral movement
is restricted (burial).
Classical design of protective covers is often
over-conservative. More recently, models have been
developed that take realistic imperfections and the
actual, non-linear response of the cover into
account. However, only idealised, symmetric
foundation imperfections were considered, thus
rendering these models unsuitable for fitness-for-
purpose assessments of actual cases.
Therefore, a computer model has been developed
that takes all the relevant non-linear parameters
into account, such as elastic/plastic material
behaviour, axial friction and sand/clay/rock cover
uplift resistance. Furthermore, both idealised
imperfections and arbitrary foundation profiles are
possible.
In the paper the theoretical formulation will be
described and results will be shown of the analysis
of a characteristic North Sea pipeline using both the
conventional design method and the newly developed
numerical model. The effects of the most important
parameters will be demonstrated and the potential
benefits of using such an advanced tool illustrated.
This new PC-based computer program enables the
engineer to analyse the buckling response of a
pipeline accurately and fairly quickly. Various
design options can be assessed at different levels of
complexity, as can be the analysis of fitness-for-
purpose and integrity during service using condition
assessment techniques.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
1- - -
INTRODUCTION
Offshore developments, for example, in the North
Sea, are showing a clear trend towards the use of
subsea completion technology and minimum facilities
concepts. This trend is associated with an increasing
number of small-diameter pipelines and flowlines
transporting untreated hydrocarbons from deep wells
into adjacent facilities. These lines may operate at
high temperatures (even beyond lOOC) and pressures.
Recently, several upheaval buckling failures of
small-diameter flowlines that were designed for high
temperatures have occurred in the North Sea, this
amplifying the need for research into this phenomenon
and the development of effective protective measures
against it.
When a pipeline, after its installation, is
operated at higher than ambient temperatures and
pressures, it will try to expand. If the line is not
free to expand, but axially restrained by friction,
the pipe will be subjected to an axial compressive
load. When in such a case, at a critical foundation
undulation, the force exerted by the pipe on the soil
cover exceeds the vertical uplift restraint created
by the pipe's submerged weight, its bending stiffness
and the soil cover, the pipe will tend to move in the
vertical plane (or along the trench side slope when
the pipe is not covered), and considerable vertical
displacements may result. This phenomenon is called
upheaval buckling (offshore) or overbend instability
(onshore) and shown in Fig. 1. The pipeline response
(see, for example, Fig. 8) might then be unacceptable
in terms of vertical displacements (the pipe
protruding through the cover or moving out of the
trench), excessive yielding of the pipe material, or
local buckling. Upheaval buckling is hence a failure
mode that has to be taken into account for the design
and in-service assessment of trenched and buried
pipelines.
TO facilitate safe and economic design,
installation and protection of high-temperature
pipelines, and to enable an accurate assessment of
529
(9 )
(7)
(8 )
(10)
OTC 6333
dv
ds
Ij\ - /3 so
- /(R sine

du
+
1: (dv)2
ds 2 ds
/(
d
2
v
ds
2

/(
X s + U R sine sinlj\
y
V + R sine coslj\
Z R cose (3)
y(l+2) coslj\ 1 +
dU
ds
y(l+2) sinlj\
dV
ds
1: [(1
2

ds
Introducing (4)-(7) into (9) yields:
s + U
sl
+ U
I
+ (S-sl+u) cos/3 - v sin/3
( 4)
V
VI + (S-sl+U) sin/3 + v cos/3
where
/3
V
2
-V
I
arctan( U U ) (5 )
s2+ 2-
s
l- 1
where the axial strain and the bending strain /( are
functions of s only:
since, obviously, the above properties (7) can always
be ensured by taking P
I
P
2
short enough.
Compatibility
For the non-linear analysis of slender beams the
Lagrangian strain is used, defined by
Here (x). denotes the value of (x) at s = s . To
ensure c6mpatibility of the u and v fields it points
PI and P
2
' we put
Although the above transformation may look
artificial, the crux is that we may put
I I 1
I Ij\ - /3 11
This two-dimensional deformation of the pipe is
governed by the displacements U and V of the centre
line in the x- and y-directions, respectively, and
these can also be defined in terms of the axial
strain and the tangent angle Ij\ with respect to the
x-axis.
Without loss of generality we may assume that for
points P in between arbitrary points PI and P the
pipe axis deforms only a little further away trom the
chord P
I
P
2
Hence, the displacements U and V can be
expressed in terms of u and v with respect to a local
coordinate system x' and y' based upon the chord P
I
P
2
as shown in Fig. 2:
530
(2 )
(1)

+ R cose i
z

+ Z i
z

+ Y i
y

+ R sine i
y
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR ANALYSING UPHEAVAL BUCKLING RESPONSE OF SUBMARINE PIPELINES

X i
x

s i
x

r
where
2
on the unit base vectors along the x, y and z axes.
The pipe, when deforming, is assumed to behave as a
slender beam which may undergo finite displacements
and rotations, but the elastic/plastic strains remain
small. The deformed position of point P is then
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Kinematics
The reference position vector r of a material
point P of the pipe wall middle surface (at mean
radius R) can be expressed in terms of the convected
coordinates sand e (see Fig. 2) as
In the following sections of this paper the main
aspects of the mathematical problem formUlation are
described in some detail and the solution strategy
briefly discussed. Thereafter, sample calculations
are presented to demonstrate the effects of the more
important parameters, followed by the conclusions.
In a separate paper [11], a design method is
presented based on the application of the UPBUCK
computer program. The alternative concept of
intermittently dumping rock onto a trenched pipeline
is discussed in another paper [12].
the safety against upheaval buckling of existing
pipelines, a comprehensive research programme was
started early 1987 and has recently been completed
[1]. This paper is one of a series describing the
results of that programme, and is concerned with the
development of a dedicated model for analysing the
upheaval response of submarine pipelines.
Analytical/numerical modelling of the upheaval
buckling response of offshore pipelines has
progressed rapidly over the last few years, broadly
from the 'classical' analysis [2,3], to one covering
initial imperfections [4,5], to one additionally
covering material non-linearity [6,7], to one
additionally including large pipe displacement and
associated cover non-linearity [8]. An application of
the more advanced models was presented at a recent
conference [9], and case histories are reported as
well [10]. However, only idealised, symmetric
foundation imperfections were considered, thus
rendering all these models unsuitable for fitness-
for-purpose assessments of actual cases.
This paper describes a numerical model that, in
addition to the features mentioned above, can handle
highly irregular cover and pipe profiles (for
evaluating in-situ conditions and using survey data),
non-uniform finite foundation stiffness and different
cover response formulations (representing axial and
uplift resistance of cohesive and cohesionless cover
materialS such as sand, rock or clay). Furthermore,
the model deals with inClined buckling along a trench
slope as well as vertical buckling, this option being
useful for analysing the 'alternative' concept of
trenching and dumping rock at intervals instead of
continuous cover.
The model is implemented in the form of a PC-
based computer program, called UPBUCK, the results of
which are processed by an program (REPORT)
to give detailed information in an interactive
manner.
- - -
- - - - --= -==--------=------=---=------=--- ----==------===--- ---
OTe 6333 KLEVER, VAN HELVOIRT AND SLUVTERMAN 3
Constitutive relationships
The pipeline, responding to its loading, may
develop both axial stress and circumferential (hoop)
stress. The hoop stress a is determined solely by
the pressure differentialhp of the line, which is
assumed to be constant over the model length. The
axial stress a is determined by the residual lay
tension NO' temperature differential T and the
pipe deformations.
In the pipe material a plane stress state will
develop, and its elastic/plastic deformations are
taken to be based on J -flow theory of plasticity
[13]. Thus, the strain
2
rate is expressed as
where the internal axial force N and the internal
moment Mare:
Equilibrium
The equilibrium equations are expressed in the
form of the following virtual work equation:
where 11 is to be seen as a function of the
displacements in taking variations. The second term
in (16) denotes the virtual work done by the external
loading, to be defined later. Introducing (8) into
(16) gives:
(16)
(17)
o
o
bW
ext
I I R t 0a dB ds
L B
I [N bE + M bK] ds
L
(11)
Cli a + C
l2
0h + a T
where a superimposed dot denotes a rate or an
increment, where
+ -Y3
E
E
t
(A11 - a AT) - Ao (1 -
..-!.)
h
*
a 2 E
2v'3 0h
Ao
* arctan(
a
2
) 0 (15)
30
h
+ (20
a
-O
h
+2Ao
a
) (20
a
-O
h
)
Here, can be used to account for the stress-free
pipe imperfections, and a can be used to account
for initial stresses due tg, for example, a residual
lay tension NO'
The stress/strain curve is taken to be tri-linear
as shown in Fig. 3. For each part of constant E ,
equation (11) can be integrated in the plastic ?ange
to give. for constant 0h'
In these equations a is the thermal expansion
coefficient, E is Young's modulus, E is the tangent
modulus of the uniaxial curve at stress
level a, a is the von Mises' equivalent stress, a is
the current yield stress, v is Poisson's ratio, RYis
the mean steel pipe radius and t is the pipe wall
thickness. For straining beyond yield, the yield
surface is assumed to expand according to the
isotropic hardening rule.
In the elastic range, equation (11) can be
integrated to give:
(18)
21T
21T 2
I [f Rto dB] bE + [- I R to sinB dB] bK +
L
o a
0
a
b[N (E -
du
1. (dv)2)]
+
ds 2 ds
2
b[M (K -
!LY)] } ds bw 0 (19)
ds
2 ext
21T
N + I R t a dB
0
a
21T
R
2
t M I a sinB dB
0
a
where a is to be seen as a function of E and K, and
where are taken with respect to u, v, E,
K, Nand M. In the derivation of a finite element,
this principle (19) allows functions to be chosen for
u, v, E, K, Nand M independently. In addition, (19)
allows functions for E, K, Nand M that may be
discontinuous over elements and this property will be
used to eliminate the parameters of these four
funcions at element level, thus rendering essentially
an element with only displacement unknowns. This
procedure will be called the hybrid approach.
The superiority of the hybrid approach over the
full displacement approach will be demonstrated later
for the case of the post-buckling behaviour of an
axially compressed beam.
The common way to proceed is to introduce (11)
into (18) and both (10) and (18) into (17), this
resulting in a set of equations for the unknown
displacements u and v. This procedure will be called
the full displacement approach.
However, a finite element that is much more
effective in terms of post-buckling behaviour can be
derived by means of an extended variational
principle [14]. In this extended principle the
compatibility equations (10) are added to (17) by
means of a 'Lagrange multiplier' method, for which
the multipliers can be as Nand M. The
resulting equation, which replaces (10), (17) and
(18), is then
(14) o
R
h
P - (12)
t
and where the compliance moduli
Cll
and C
12
are:
Cll
+
1.
+
(L 1:)
[1

0h 2
E E
t
E 4
]
(L 1:)
[1 _
a a
C
12
E.
- (--Lh) ]
E E
t
E 2 4 2
a
2
(a )2
2
a - a
a h
+
(Oh)
(13)
a
0 if a = a and a < 0 or a < a

y y
1 if a = a and a 0
y
for finite AO
a
from a given
stress state (Oa,Oh) at the yield surface for which
a = a
y
Pipe weight loading
The virtual work done by the submerged weight
loading of the pipe is
bW
w
I - W sina
t
bv ds
L sub
(20)
531
4 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR ANALVSING UPHEAVAL BUCKLING RESPONSE OF SUBMARINE PIPELINES
OTC 6333
where a
t
is the angle of the xy-plane with the
YHDOC for jSO
horizon al, i.e. 90 for vertical uplift or equal to
the trench angle for uplift along the trench wall.
P= = { ~HDoc
[l-~] +~Pm(Hm) for O<jSV
m
Pressure loading
m m
(26)
The pressure differential p (taken as positive
Pm(Hm) for ~ > Vm
for internal pressure) haB two effects on the pipe.
Firstly, it induces an axial strain and has its
while P vanishes for ~ ~ H. In (26) ~ is the
influence on the yielding of the steel. This is
specifi~ submerged weight of the soil, H the distance
accounted for via the constitutive relationships
between the top of the pipe in its reference position
(11). Secondly, the pressure exerts a distributed
and the top of the cover, and D is the outer
load on the pipe wall that is deformation-dependent.
diameter of the pipe including %y coating. The
For the situation analysed here this pressure loading
maximum shear strength is mobilised at a displacement
is conservative [15]. For the deformation defined by
Vm, and P as a function of Hm denotes the maximum
(3) the resulting force is a lateral, line load which
uplift fo?ce.
is proportional to the curvature of the pipe axis.
The virtual work done by the pressure is then
In (26) H = H-v for ~ ~ v , w hi l e H . Hj for
~ > Vm.
6W
For c~ay cov~rs the mod~l (26) ismused with
= f mR2 p K (sin~ 6U - COS(36V) ds
P
(21) its submerged weight term neglected (y u O).
L
The maximum force Pm is dependent on the current
Foundation
embedment ratio H /D and vanishes for H ~ O. For
The pipeline is laid on the seabed or on the
cohesionless coversm(s%d, gravel or rock) The
bottom of a trench that usually is not perfectly
following model is used:
straight. Three different types of imperfection are
H H
considered.
~HmDoc [1 + fl ;] for 0<#Sf31
The first option is a sinusoidal shape, according ~
to
={
Oc Oc
m H H
(27)
~HmDoc [1 + fl~l + f2(#- ~1)] for +> f31
~)+1] for -L~x~L y = A $ [COS(U
(22) Oc Oc
where A and L are the imperfection height and half-
enabling the use of a hilinear curve; or a linear
length, respectively. The second option is a prop
one when f = f
2 1
In the case of rock covers
shape, defined by ff
.
= O and only the weight term is retained.
y= A[4(~)3-3(~)4] for -LSXSL (23)
E&uati~n (27) is shown in Fig. 4a.
For cohesive covers such as clay the maximum
force is defined in terms of the undrained shear
The third option is an arbitrary profile, to be strength Cu a~d the dimensionless maximum uplift
defined by a series of (x,y) points, such as survey resistance! P
cm:
data.
Furthermore, these imperfection types can be H H P*
positioned anywhere in the analysis model, since uocf#- CD for O<fi<y
asymmetrical problems can also be analysed.
Pm={
Oc Oc
When the pipe tries to penetrate the foundation,
(28)
P*
the latters resistance is modelled as a spring. If
H
CUDOC P;m for ~>~
the penetration perpendicular to the pipe/foundation
interface is denoted by ~, the normal foundation
Oc
force per unit length is and this equation is shown in Fig. 4b.
Finally, the virtual work done by the cover
for
;<0 loading (apart from friction) is then
{
Cf Y
f u o
(24)
for ;>0
&w = f - Pc sinat fIVds
c
(29)
L
The virtual work done by the foundation (apart from
friction) is then
Frictional loading
($Wf =
f p (- sinp NJ + COSB tiv) ds
Displacements of the pipe also mobilise
L
(25)
frictional forces. The model acounts for axial
friction forces on the pipe due to the foundation,
the trench wall (if present) and the cover. In
Cover loading
addition, uplifting along a trench wall generates
If the pipeline is (partly) covered, this may
lateral friction forces. All these four friction
involve sand, gravel, clay or rock. When the pipe is
force components are defined on the basis of
uplifted, the cover uplift resistance P
varies with
Coulombs model, relating the interface shear force F
the uplift displacement as shown in Fig? 4a for sand,
per unit length and the relative slip ~ as follows:
gravel or rock and in Fig. 4b for clay. Details of
F
this behaviour are reported in a separate paper [16].
; . -=; for
lFl<Fmor lFl=FmandF~>O
Here the uplift with respect to a reference position
u
is denoted by ~. The uplift resistance model
m
comprises three branches
F= - sgn(;) Fm for IFI = Fm and F ~ ~(~o)
---
5$L
OTC 6333 KLEVER , VAN HELVOIRT ANO SLUYTERMAN 5
where a superimposed dot denotes a rate or increment SOLUTION STSATEGY
and sgn( ) denotes the sign function.
The positive quantity Fm is dependent on the The equations of the model described in the
force normal to the interface and on the friction preceding section are solved through a finite element
angle or friction coefficient, both functions of the method. In this section the discretisation is
embedment ratio. For the frictional forces at the described, after which how the resulting non-linear
foundation and the trench wall the effect of the equations are solved with an arc-length method is
(trench) angle a is accounted for appropriately. briefly discussed.
In the follo;ing, the virtual work done by all
the distributed friction force contributions will be Finite element discretisation
denoted by bWfr. With principle (19) as the basis for the finite
element formulation, a linear field for u and a cubic
End loading field for v is assumed within each element between
The horizontal pipe sections adjacent to the nodes i and i+l. If the discretisation proposed by
characteristic part modelled are assumed to be Besseling [17] is followed and the necessary
effectively straight. The axial behaviour of these restrictions (6) accounted for, u and v take the form
sections, including axial friction, is then solved in
closed form, resulting in a non-linear axial force/ u = $(LL-L)
displacement relationship. If the relative axial
(36)
~isplacement of the end point at s = L is denoted by
v=
[(i-2~2+i3)(di-~) + (-t2+:3)(@i+@)l L
u, the result is:
where
NO-EAaT+vAoh-;~[EAFm/um] for IGI < u
Fx= { (31?
s-s.
NO-EAaT+vAoh-sgn(~)~[EAFm(2l~l-um)] for 1~1 ~ urn
t =+
where ~ is the end force in the xdirection, N is
L = Si+l - Si (37)
the res~dual lay tension and A is the steel cro~s-
sectional area.
LL = ~[ (Si+l+Ui+l-Si-Ui)2 + (vi+l-vi)z ]
For symmetric problems ~ = O at s = O, but for
asymmetric problems an analogue condition such as
and in this way the deformed position, i.e. equations
(31) is set. The two additional boundary conditions
(2)-(6), is now fully defined in terms of the
at each model end point are:
horizontal (U,) and vertical (V.) displacements and
the rotation &ngle @i of each n~de i:
F =ii=o
Y
(32)
+
a= {ui, vi,@i} (38)
stating that the shear force and the moment should
vanish.
Implementation of (36) in (17) would lead to the full
displacement approach. However, here the hybrid
The solution (31) is derived for infinitely long
approach is adopted~ in which principle (19) is used
pipe sections adjacent to the part modelled. It also
and c, K, N and M are taken as
assumes the cover height to be constant, leading to a
constant maximum frictional force F .
e
. ~1
The computer program, however, !lSO features the
(39)
option of analysing a part of a pipeline between
u= (1-E)~2+~y3
intermittently spaced rock dumps (see Fig. 5). In
this case, the part between x = O and x = L is
and
modelled with finite elements, while the behaviour of
the adjacent sections is solved analytically in
N=
PI
~losed :orm. This results in a relationship between
(40)
Fx and u that is much more elaborate than (31) and
M= (1 - Z) P2+$(33
takes the effect of a rock dump with a finite length
Ld and a height Hd fully into account.
For elastic materials, choosing the strain components
in the form (39) would effectively lead to internal
For both options the virtual work done by the end
loads exactly in the form (40). However, for
loading can be denoted by
elastic/plastic materials, defining (39) and (40)
independently is relevant.
8W = Fx fiu (33)
Equation (39) assumes the axial strain e to be
e
s=L
constant over the element, whereas in the full
under the condition u = O for symmetric problems, or
displacement approach (in which (36) is used in (10)
o directly) e would appear as a quartic function in g.
6W = 5X &u + Gx w S=L (34)
The dramatic difference in performance between these
e
S=o.
two approaches is demonstrated for the post-buckling
for asymmetric problems.
behaviour of an axially compressed Euler beam (see
Fig. 6). The response of the beam as given by the
Total external virtual work
exact elastica solution [18] is followed very well
In terms of the notations defined in this
using only two hybrid elements, whereas even eight
section, the virtual work of the external loading to
full displacement elements respond much too stiffly.
be used in (19) is:
The strain functions (39) and the internal force
functions (40) are chosen independently for each
8W = 8WW+ bwp+ hwf + 8WC4 6wfr + 8W (35)
element. Implementing these into prin~iple [19)
ext e enables sol~ing for ~. and ~. in terms of the nodal
parameters ai at elemknt lev$l, and in this way an
---
-
6 FINITE ELEMENT MOOEL FOR ANALVSING UPHEAVAL BUCKLING RESPONSE OF SUBMARINE PIPELINES OTC 6333
element is derived with only the displacement
parameters (38) as unknowns.
Automatic load stepping
The principle (19), after the above finite
element discretisation has been implemented, leads to
a set of non-line$r equations for the total number of
nodal parameters a. These equations are dependent on
the temperature differential T as well (see eq.
(11)), so the problem is to solve
+*
F(a,T) = O (41)
to find the temperature/displacement response of the
pipeline.
+
An arc-length method is used [191, in which both
a and T are treated as unknowns and an additional
equation is required to define the solution path in
terms of an arc-length parameter, called s. The
process is shown in Fig. 7: given the solution points
up to number n, a next solution point n+l is to be
found. The following equation is used:
l:l-l:nl+~in$ T-Tn
H(;,T) = COS$n
Y
nT
max max
where the norm of ~, denoted as 1~1,
maximum vertical nodal displacement.
S-sriis set such that the angle $0+1
between point n and the new solutlon
(S-sn) = o (42)
is chosen as the
The step length
of the chord
point n+l is not
too much different from @ (see Fig. 7). If
necessary, the step length ?s iteratively reduced so
that very sharp bends in the solution temperature/
uplift curve are also followed closely.
Equations (41) and (42) are, for each step,
solved following a full Newton-Raphson scheme: a
trial solution is iteratively improved until
convergence criteria are met, using
(43)
where superimposed dots denote iteration differences.
SAMPLE RESULTS
A number of calculations have been performed with
UPBUCK to investigate the effect of various model
assumptions. For actual design examples the reader is
referred to a separate paper [11].
The results presented in this paper concern an 8
in. pipeline of X-52 steel covered by one metre of
medium dense sand. All the relevant data are found in
Table 1. Figures 8-12 show resulte for a pipe on an
assumed prop imperfection, while Fig. 13 shows the
behaviour of the same pipe on an irregular survey
profile. Finally, the alternative of preventing
upheaval buckling by intermittent rock dumps instead
of deep burial is shown in Fig. 14.
In the effective weight approach, the maximum
uplift force of the cover is added to the submerged
weight of the pipe and thus an analysis is performed
of a heavy beam on a foundation without separate
cover loading. In Fig. 8 it is shown that
incorporating realistic non-linear cover behaviour
may give significantly different results, and this is
:onsistent with earlier findings [8]. In general, the
effective weight method is not conservative. Local
?hanges in the shape of the,pipe at the crown of the
imperfection before the uplift mobilisation
~isplacement v is reached seem to play a major role,
since additional calculations in which v was
5ecreased to almost zero reeulted in a t~mperature/
~plift response much closer to the response found
#ith the effective weightl model. Only in the far
post-buckling range does the non-linear soil model
give, as expected, lower temperatures.
For higher temperatures and pressures, yielding
(locally) of the pipe under bending will be
inevitable, although this does not usually threaten
the integrity of the pipeline. The effect of
plasticity on the pipe response (see Fig. 9) depends
on a number of factors, but it is clear that an
elastic approach generally is not conservative.
Internal pressure acts as much as an upheaval
driving force as thermal expansion does. In
addition, the pressure affects the plastic behaviour
of the pipe. The effect of pressure on the
temperature/uplift response is given in Fig. 10 for
an elastic/plastic pipe.
Stress-free pipe imperfections commonly occur,
although these are very small under normal
circumstances. However, if the pipe is lowered onto a
rock, plastic bending deformation can result in
substantial residual strains. For the extreme case of
pipe imperfections as large as the foundation
imperfection the effect is important: see Fig. 11.
This figure also shows the results from the
effective weight model, both with and without
stress-free pipe imperfection. Again, it is
demonstrated that it is essential to incorporate
realistic, non-linear uplift resistance behaviour of
the soil cover: the effective weight approach is
not reliable.
Axial friction can most conveniently be
attributed to those pipe sections adjacent to the
part modelled: this is done by means of the boundary
conditions (31). UPBUCK has the option of including
axial friction along the finite element model, and
the effect of this is shown in Fig. 12.: neglecting
friction along the finite element model is a
conservative approach.
The capability of UPBUCK to analyse the pipe
behaviour on an arbitrary survey profile is
demonstrated in Fig. 13, in which the uplifted shape
for increasing temperature loading is given. For an
asymmetric problem such as this, a non-zero value for
the axial friction should be taken to make the
problem well-posed!!
Finally, if a design against upheaval buckling is
based on intermittently spaced rock dumps in a trench
rather than continuous covering, UPBUCK can be used
to design the size of the rock dumps. The same pipe
on the same imperfection is now situated in a open
trench with an assumed trench angle of 30 degrees.
For these situations the temperature/uplift curve
does not usually show a sharply defined maximum, so a
different criterion has to be used. Two possible
criteria to use are (1) axial feed-in slip should not
reach the centre of the rock dump, or (2) the pipe
should not move out of the trench as it slides
upwards along the trench wall. Results are presented
in Fig. 14 for both criteria. It can be seen that for
a given distance between the dumps (Lbd) of 100 m.,
the length Ld of the rock dumps has a significant
impact on the critical temperature.
OTC 6333 KLEVER, VAN HELVOIRT ANO SLUYTERMAN 7
CONCLUSIONS 3. Boer, S., Hulsbergen, C.H., Richards, D.M., Klok,
A. and Biaggi, J.P.:
,,Bu~klingconsiderations in
Upheaval buckling is a phenomenon that is the design of the gravel cover for a high-
Joverned by a complex interaction of the - temperature oil line, paper 0TC5294 presented at
essentially non-linear - mechanics of the pipeline, the 1986 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
~he underlying foundation and the covering material. Texas, USA, 1986.
In this paper a model is presented that takes all 4. Richards, D.F!.and Andronicou, A.: Seabed
:he relevant non-linear parameters into account, such irregularity effects on the buckling of heated
IS elastic/plastic material behaviour, axial friction submarine pipelines, Holland Offshore, 1986.
md sand/clay/rock cover uplift resistance. 5. Taylor, N. and Gan, A.B.: Submarine pipeline
furthermore, both idealised imperfections and buckling - imperfection studies, Thin-Walled
irbitrary foundation profiles are possible. The Structures, Vol. 4, 1986, pp. 295-323.
;ituation of a pipeline that is trenched and 6. Ju, G.T. and Kyriakides, S.: Thermal Buckling of
intermittently rock-dumped can also be analysed. The Offshore Pipelines, J. Offshore Mech. and Arctic
nodel makes, where possible, use of analytical Eng., Vol. 110, 1988, pp. 355-364.
:losed-form solutions, for instance, for the 7. Pedersen, P.T. and Jens&, J.J.: Upheaval creep
:onstitutive equations and the boundary conditions. of buried heated pipelines with initial
[n addition, the finite beam element that is imperfectionsi,Marine Structures, Design,
incorporated is shown to be very efficient. Finally, Construction and Safety, Elsevier Applied Science
~ dedicated arclength method is used to find the Publishers, 1988.
temperature/uplift reponse of the pipeline 8. Pedersen, P.T. and Michelsen, J.; !Large
automatically and quickly. deflection upheaval buckling of marine
It is shown that elastic/plastic material pipelines, paper presented at BOSS 1988.
~ehaviour and realistic non-linear uplift resistance 9. Nielsen, N.J.R., Pedersen, P.T., Grundy, A.K. and
~ehaviour of the cover are essential for a reliable Lyngberg, B.S., New design Criteria for upheaval
nodel. The effective weight approach, in which the creep of buried subsea pipelines, paper 0MAE-88-
naximum uplift force of the cover is added to the 861 presented at the 1988 Offshore Mechanics and
;ubmerged weight of the pipe, is not conservative. Arctic Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas,
Inclusion of stress-free pipe imperfections leads to USA, 1988.
nore conservative results, but the effect is only 10. Nielsen, N.J.R., Lyngberg, B.S. and Pedersen,
relevant for excessive imperfection levels. P.T.:
ItUpheavalbuckling failures of insulated
buried pipelines - case stories, paper 0TC6488
The computer model can be used for assessing the presented at the 1990 Offshore Technology
risk of upheaval buckling of pipelines and flowlines Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1990.
that are (to be) operated at high temperature and 11. Palmer, A.C., Ellinas, C.P., Richards, D.M. and
pressure. It thus forms an essential tool for Guijt, J.:
Design of submarine pipelines a9ainst
~esigning safe, cost-effective and non-conservative upheaval buckling, paper 0TC6335 presented at
protective measures, and also for investigating the the 1990 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
relative merits of different concepts, for example, Texas, USA, 1990.
continuous sand\clay covers or intermittent rock 12. Ellinas, C.P., Supple, W.J. and Vastenholt, H.:
dumps. Furthermore, it forms an equally valuable Prevention of upheaval buckling of hot submarine
basis for assessing actual pipe fitness-for-purpose/ pipelines by means of intermittent rock-dumping,
integrity after installation, using survey data and paper 0TC6332 presented at the 1990 Offshore
condition assessment techniques. Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1990.
This new PC-based computer program, called 13. Hill, R.: The Mathematical Theory of
UPBUCK, enables the engineer to analyse the buckling Plasticity, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950.
response of a pipeline accurately and fairly quickly. 14. Washizu, K.:VariationalMethods in Elasticity
and Plasticity, Pergamon Press, 1975.
15. Sewell, M.J.:On the calculation of potential
Acknowledgement functions defined on curved boundaries, Proc.
Roy. SOC. A., Vol. 286, 1965, pp. 402-411.
The authors wish to thank Shell Internationale 16. Schaminee, P.E.L., Zorn, N.F. and Schotman,
Research Maatschappij BV for their permission to G.J.M. :Soil response for pipeline upheaval
publish this paper and the project sponsors Maersk buckling analysis: full~scale laboratory tests
Oil og Gas A/S, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV, and modeling, paper 0TC6486 presented at the
Shell UK Exploration and Production, A/S Norske 1990 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Shell, BP Exploration, UK Department of Energy, Texas, USA, 1990.
Marathon Oil UK Ltd, Elf/Petroland BV, Occidental 17. Besseling, J.F.,
,,Non-lineartheory for elaStiC
Petroleum (Caledonia), Saga Petroleum A/S, Sun Oil beams and rods and its finite element
Britain Ltd and Total Oil Marine Plc for their representation, Comp. Meth. Applied Mech. and
cooperation and permission to publish this paper. Eng., Vol. 31, 1982, pp. 205-220.
18. Frisch-Fay, R., Flexible bars, Butterworth,
London, 1962.
REFERENCES 19. Duffett, G.A. and Reddy, B.D., The solution of
multi-parameter systems of equations with
1. Guijt, J.: Upheaval buckling of offshore application to problems in nonlinear elasticity,
pipelines, overview and introduction, paper Comp. Meth. Applied Mech. and Eng., Vol. 59,
0TC6487 presented at the 1990 Offshore Technology 1986, pp. 179-213.
Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1990.
2. Hobbs, R.E.:
,,In-servicebuckling of heated
pipelines, J. Transp. Eng., Vol. 110, No. 2,
1984, pp. 175-189.
---
TASLE 1 PIPI3,FOUNDATIONAND COVER DATA
Pipe parameters
Pipe steel OD (m)
------------------
Pipe outer OD (m)
------------------
Steel wall thickness (m)
-----------
Submerged weight (kN/m)
------------
Poissons ratio (-)
----------------
Thermal expansion coefficient (-) --
Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
--------
(API) yield stress (MPa)
-----------
Yield strain (-)
-------------------
Hardening coefficient (-)
----------
Foundation parameters
Foundation geometry prop shape
Height (m)
-----------------------
(Half) length (m)
--------------_-
Linear foundation stiffness (MN/m2)-
Axial friction coefficient (-)
-----
Axial frict. mobil. displ (m)
------
Cover parameters
Cover height above x-axis (m)-------
Cohesionless, linear cover model
Load factor f (-)
------------------
Submerged spec. weight (kN/m3) -----
Mobil. displ./peak uplift (m)
------
Friction angle pipe/cover (deg) ----
Loading conditions
Residual lay tension (kN)
----------
Pressure difference (MPa)
----------
Rock dump parameters
Trench angle (deg)
-----------------
Axial friction coefficient (-)
-----
Axial frict. mobil. displ (m)
------
Lateral friction coefficient (-) ---
Lateral frict. mobil. displ (m) ----
Rock dump interval (m) -------------
Rock dump length (m)
---------------
Rock dump height (m)
---------------
Submerged spec. weight (kN/m3)-----
Friction angle (deg) ---------------
0.219
0.231
0.0120
0.265
0.300
0.000011
207
358
0.0015
0.100
0.300
28.979
10
0.500
0.005
1.300
0.400
8
0.010
20
0
20
30
1.000
0.005
1.000
0.005
100
150
1.500
10
30
.
J!!Jk
(a) Cohesionless materials(sand,gravel,rock)

Buckle
~~
7/////
%&a
Fig.1 Upheaval buckling phenomenon
v, y
=##P-x
q
L
Fig.2 Undeformedpipe and
deformed centreline
A
~
o
b
&y &Apl
Strain Z
Fig.3 Uniaxial stressktraincurve
Hm
G
(b) Cohesive material (clay)
Fig.4 Cover uplift resistance Pc andmaximum upliftforce Pm
536
I
Fig. 7 Arc-length method with iterations
on a normal Plane
-.
0 0:5 i
Dimensionless axial (~) and lateral (~) chplacement
Fig. 6 Buckling of an Euler beam:
Hybrid element, full displacement
element and exact elastica solution.
120
I Elastic
j 60-
s- ~hy-ti-e-yjqh~ --..--
[do
#
Non-linear soil
20-
-,
0 0.25 0.50 0.;5 I.bo 1.25 1.50
Uplift (m)
Rg. 8 Difference between non-linear soil model
and effective weight model
537
Uplift (m)
Fig. 9 Effect of plasticity

120.
Eiastic/Plastic
?\
l\
L
\
\
\
\\p.o
--ti,_ -l-
\
p =20 MPa
-~. --
p =30 MPa
0.25 0.50 0.75 l.ilo 1.25 1.
Uplift (m)
Fig. 10 Effect of pressure
120
I Elastidpfestic
L
Adjaumt sedons w-II]
-o 0.25 0.50 0.75 I.& 1.% 1,
Uplift (m)
Fig. 12 Effect of full friction along the model
lZV
100
Gso
$
~w
!! 40
P
2U
o
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Uplift (m)
Fig. 11 Effect of pipe imperfection
as large as foundation imperfection
0.6
] ElastiI.Yplastic
o.5-
A
0.4-
~ 03-
g
$0.2-
0.1-
O.o-
-o.1~
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 1
Fig. 13 Response from arbitrary foundation
10
0 o~
2(
Ftockdump length (m)
)
Fig. 14 Effect of rock-dump length Ld
on allowable tempe rature
538