1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

ANISOTROPY BENEFITS FOR UOE LINE PIPE

Oliver Hilgert
Salzgitter Mannesmann Forschung GmbH
Duisburg, Germany

Steffen Zimmermann
Salzgitter Mannesmann Forschung GmbH
Duisburg, Germany
Christoph Kalwa
Europipe GmbH
Mlheim a. d. Ruhr, Germany


ABSTRACT
Plastic anisotropic material behavior of UOE line pipe is
investigated in view of its structural response. Common load
cases are considered and their resultant strain capacity con-
cerning Strain Based Design demands are discussed. Hills
yield function is used to analyze steel line pipe under internal
pressure and bending moment. Here, a three-dimensional ani-
sotropic plastic strain evolution is considered. It was shown,
that underlying anisotropic material behavior can be benefi-
cial for the structural response of line pipe, although it de-
pends on the load case and the directional anisotropy. That is
in some way contrary to the demands in specifications, where
isotropic material behavior is desired.
Keywords: anisotropy, structural behavior, plastic de-
formations, Strain Based Design, limit state, internal pres-
sure, combined loads, multi-axial stresses, Hill anisotropy, fi-
nite element simulation
INTRODUCTION
In recent years Strain Based Design (SBD) and strain
capacity demands were investigated to meet the challenging
conditions for pipelines connecting major population areas
with remote areas where exploration is carried out. To comp-
ly with unexpected bending effects of line pipe in those areas
supplementary to internal pressure additional mechanical
properties are demanded in specifications for UOE-pipes.
Many efforts were made to achieve improved material prop-
erties to meet these challenges. The stress-strain behavior,
yield-to-tensile ratio, work hardening exponent and uniform
elongation in transverse and especially in longitudinal direc-
tion were focused on. Nevertheless, the radial direction was
neglected, assuming isotropic material behavior.
It was shown in (Hilgert, et al. 2010), that the mechanical
properties in radial direction have a high impact on the struc-
tural behavior of line pipe, especially for anisotropic mate-
rials. The authors presented that longitudinal plastic strains
are zero for isotropic pipes under internal pressure as already
stated in (Hu 1956) and mathematically proven in (Stewart,
Klever and Ritchie 1994). But for anisotropic materials plastic
strain in longitudinal direction are to be expected.
(Christopher, et al. 2002) also observed plastic deformations
in axial pipe direction in experiments. Finally, (Liu and Wang,
2006) and (Liu and Wang, 2007) showed, that due to pipe
forming and processing anisotropy exists in line pipe.
In the framework of burst pressure prediction models
several authors mentioned anisotropy of the underlying pipe
material, e. g. (Hu 1956), (Marin and Sharma 1958), (Stewart,
Klever and Ritchie 1994), (Gven 2007), (Tanguy, et al.
2008) but neglected the radial plastic strains in their consider-
ations.
In this paper an extensive parametric study on the effect
of different anisotropies on the structural behavior of line pipe
will be done. (Tsuru, et al. 2008), (Vitali, Torselletti, et al.
2005) and (Bruschi, et al. 2005) investigated the effects of an
anisotropic material on the structural response of line pipe.
Therein the main focus was laid on Strain Based Design con-
ditions. However, only anisotropy in circumferential and lon-
gitudinal direction was considered and the radial direction
neglected.
In this contribution the full, that is, the three-dimensional
anisotropic plastic behavior of a line pipe under Strain Based
Design conditions is investigated. Based on a general von
Mises (J2) plasticity, anisotropic behavior is assumed using
Hills theory, where different yield strengths in the preferred
directions are considered. As will be shown by a simple hy-
dro-test, the stress-strain behavior in radial direction highly
impacts the structural behavior of UOE pipelines. Further it is
demonstrated, that a lower yield strength in longitudinal di-
rection leads to higher burst pressures. Thus, plastic flow in a
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90063
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
three-dimensional strain state is mainly depending on the var-
ious yield strengths in three co-ordinate directions. Finally,
bending of pipes with internal pressure and for isotropic as
well as anisotropic material is investigated.
Generally, high-grade UOE pipes show more pronounced
anisotropy than moderate steel grades, which based upon
the findings of the aforementioned investigations must not
be detrimental. At least it is shown that if yield strengths
could be adjusted in all relevant pipe co-ordinate directions
an improved SBD-optimized pipeline could be produced.
HILL ANISOTROPY
In this paper, a parametric study on the effect of varying
anisotropic material properties on the structural behavior of a
UOE line pipe is presented. To describe the anisotropy in
terms of different yield strength in circumferential, longitu-
dinal and radial direction Hills theory is used. Some basics
of Hills theory are recalled in the following. A more detailed
description of the whole numerical procedure is given in
(Hilgert, et al. 2010) and the references therein. Hill defines
the equivalent stress as an extension of the von Mises stress,
see (Hill 1950). In a pressurized pipeline, a principal stress
state exists which leads to the following expression
o
H
= _F(o
x
o

)
2
+ 0(o

o
q
)
2
+ E(o
q
o
x
)
2
(1)
The Hill parameters F, u, B, are simply defined by the Hill
factors R

which represent the ratio of yield strength S

in
the direction considered i = , r, x to the reference yield
strength S
0
. The Hill parameters and the Hill factors are re-
spectively
F =
1
2
_
1
R
x
2
+
1
R

1
R
q
2
_ , 0 =
1
2
_
1
R

2
+
1
R
q
2

1
R
x
2
_
E =
1
2
_
1
R
q
2
+
1
R
x
2

1
R

2
_ , with R

=
S

S
0

(2)
In pipeline industry, the reference yield strength S
0
is
mainly the circumferential direction, thus R
q
= 1. The other
factors depend on the directional yield strength.
In the following sections, the yield strength in reference
direction as well as in the other directions is varied to eva-
luate the effect of anisotropy on the structural behavior of
UOE line pipe.
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF ANISOTROPIC MA-
TERIAL - CASE I: INTERNAL PRESSURE
An extensive parametric study was performed for a line
pipe with end caps as sketched in Figure 1. Therefore a nu-
merical model, based on a J2 von Mises plasticity, as pre-
sented in (Hilgert, et al. 2010) was extended with the above
Hill equations. An internal pressure was applied to a line pipe
with end caps and the resulting stresses and strains in all
three co-ordinate directions were investigated.

Figure 1: structural response in terms of transverse, longitu-
dinal and radial deformation due to internal pressure.
Geometry and material parameters
In relation to common yield strengths in UOE line pipe,
the values of different combinations of Hill factors were tried
out based upon a cylindrical vessel to show the effect of di-
rectional yielding and its effect on overall structural perfor-
mance. Within the study, any direction was used as a refer-
ence whereas the other directions were varied. Hence, a
variety of possibilities was investigated:

o R
q
> R
x
> R

and R
q
> R

> R
x

o R
x
> R
q
> R

and R
x
> R

> R
q

o R

> R
q
> R
x
and R

> R
x
> R
q

where R

is the directional yield strength in i = , r, x direc-

tion with respect to the reference direction. R

= 1 means
100% yield strength in i direction. For better understanding
of the complete analytical investigation, it is assumed that cir-
cumferential yield strength is considered to be the reference
yield strength (R
q
= 1) while the axial yield strength corres-
ponds to 80% (R
x
= u.8) and radial yield strength to 90%
(R

= u.9) of the reference yield strength. Now this means

that if the value of the reference yield strength is, say 532
MPa, then the axial yield strength and the radial yield strength
will be 426 MPa and 479 MPa respectively. So, this approach
is used below to investigate the structural behavior of steel
line pipe. The Hill factors were varied within the specific
range i. e. u.8 < R

< 1.u.
The input parameters which were not changed in the
study were the dimensions, OD x t =1206.6mm x 26.8mm and
the mechanical properties of the material. Here an X70 grade
with a designated stress-strain curve as shown in Figure 2 -
was assumed. The computational (Hollomon) yield strength,
which deviates slightly from the real one, as can be seen in
Figure 2, is S = 489 HPo. The Hollomon Parameters are
C
H
= 78S.6 HPo, n
H
= u.u78.
TV
LG
RAD
p
i

Figure 2: X70 stress-strain curve used for parametric
Herein this stress-strain-curve is always used for the re
erence direction. The Hill factors are varied and their infl
ence on the structural behavior of steel pipe has been studied.
The analytical results are then compared with the experime
tal results and anisotropic behavior of steel pipe is invest
gated. The results obtained from the study of Hill
presented in the form of pressure-strain and stress
curves and discussed in the following sections.
Results for circumferential yield strength as refe
ence
For the first case study of investigating the influence of
Hill factors on the structural behavior, the circumferential
yield strength was taken to be the reference yield strength
it is common in line pipe industry. This means that
cumferential Hill factor was R
q
= 1 . All other yield
strengths or Hill factors are then lower than
yield strength. Identifying circumferential direction
ence yield strength, the characteristics of plastic flow of the
other two directions were studied.
The very first investigation was done by hav
erence yield strength in circumferential direction i.
and the Hill factor in radial direction was fixed to
This means, the Hill factors R
q
and R

were maintained co
stant whereas the Hill factor in axial direction was subjected
to variation. Here the radial yield strength made up
the reference yield strength (circumference). The variation of
the axial Hill factors R
x
is shown in Table 1. It appears that
the axial yield strength is greater than or equal to
yield strength. The internal pressure was increased till
of the circumferential strain was achieved that
the experimental circumferential failure strain
This gives an impression of the behavior of steel
under the influence of internal pressure and compare
the experimental result.
3

strain curve used for parametric study.
curve is always used for the ref-
are varied and their influ-
ence on the structural behavior of steel pipe has been studied.
The analytical results are then compared with the experimen-
behavior of steel pipe is investi-
gated. The results obtained from the study of Hill factors are
and stress-strain
ircumferential yield strength as refer-
case study of investigating the influence of
behavior, the circumferential
s taken to be the reference yield strength as
means that the cir-
All other yield
lower than the reference
circumferential direction as refer-
the characteristics of plastic flow of the
having the ref-
erence yield strength in circumferential direction i. e. R
q
= 1
Hill factor in radial direction was fixed to R

= u.8.
were maintained con-
was subjected
made up 80% of
he variation of
It appears that
or equal to the radial
s increased till a value
s achieved that was equal to
circumferential failure strain (e
q
= S.4%).
behavior of steel line pipe
under the influence of internal pressure and compare it with
Table 1: variation of axial Hill factor
R
q
R
1.0

Results obtained from the analysis
factors are shown in Figure 3 represented as pressure
cumferential strain curves.
Figure 3: pressure vs. circumferential
cumferential direction as reference, variation of axial Hill fa
tors.
The strains shown in this figure are the circumferential
strains compared to their corresponding experimental values.
The red line shows the value of maximum axial Hill factor for
this case of study. The red, blue and green line correspond to
axial Hill factors in descending order.
pressure increases if the axial yield strength
vice versa. Therefore, it is concluded that the variation of
yield strength in longitudinal direction is inversely propo
tional to higher yield and burst pressure. The higher the ma
nitude of the axial Hill factor (R
burst pressure.
For Strain-Based-Design application the deformation in
longitudinal direction is of utmost importance. Thus, in
ure 4 the longitudinal stress-strain curve is presented.
known from previous investigations, see
in an isotropic structure there exist no
pressure vessel case. In the above example total longitudinal
strains > 3% occur. Depending on the Hill factors with the
conditions R
q
> R
x
> R
r
it seems that a variation of Hill fa
tor in longitudinal direction is inversely pr
tudinal deformation capacity. That means with increasing lo
gitudinal yield strength the longitudinal deformation at burst
will be lower. For a certain longitudinal strain the associated
longitudinal stress is lower for higher longitudin
strength.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
b
a
r
]
True circumferential strain [ %]
R

Experiment
Copyright 2012 by ASME
variation of axial Hill factor R
q
> R
x
> R
r

R
x
R
r

0.9
0.8
0.85
0.80
analysis for the first set of Hill
represented as pressure vs. cir-

circumferential strain graph with cir-
cumferential direction as reference, variation of axial Hill fac-
The strains shown in this figure are the circumferential
strains compared to their corresponding experimental values.
The red line shows the value of maximum axial Hill factor for
his case of study. The red, blue and green line correspond to
axial Hill factors in descending order. That means that burst
yield strength is decreased and
herefore, it is concluded that the variation of
in longitudinal direction is inversely propor-
tional to higher yield and burst pressure. The higher the mag-
R
x
), the lower is the yield and
Design application the deformation in
is of utmost importance. Thus, in Fig-
strain curve is presented. As it is
known from previous investigations, see (Hilgert, et al. 2010)
exist no plastic strains in the
pressure vessel case. In the above example total longitudinal
strains > 3% occur. Depending on the Hill factors with the
it seems that a variation of Hill fac-
tor in longitudinal direction is inversely proportional to longi-
tudinal deformation capacity. That means with increasing lon-
gitudinal yield strength the longitudinal deformation at burst
will be lower. For a certain longitudinal strain the associated
longitudinal stress is lower for higher longitudinal yield
3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
True circumferential strain [ %]
> R
x
> R
r
R

=1.00,R
r
=0.80
R
x
0.90
0.85
0.80
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 4: longitudinal true stress vs. true strain graph with
circumferential direction as reference, variation of axial Hill
factors.
In the next case the reference yield strength was the
same as in the previous case study i.e. R
q
= 1.u. The axial
hill factor was assigned a value of R
x
= u.8S. So the refer-
ence and the axial Hill factors were fixed to the above men-
tioned values, whereas the radial Hill factor R

was varied as
shown in Table 2. The internal pressure was increased till the
circumferential failure strain was achieved, that had been
found in the associated experiment (e
q
= S.4%).
Table 3: Variation of radial Hill factor R
q
> R
r
> R
x

R
q
R
r
R
x

1.0
0.95
0.85
0.9
0.85
0.8

Figure 5 shows the variation of radial Hill factors and its
influence on structural performance of steel line pipe. Differ-
ent colors in the Figure 5 represent the various radial Hill fac-
tors for the fixed values of reference and axial Hill factor
along with the pressure vs. strain response

Figure 5: pressure vs. circumferential true strain graph with
circumferential direction as reference, variation of radial Hill
factor

Red color identifies the maximum value and the light
blue minimum value of radial yield strength and thus radial
Hill factor. The results of the variation of radial yield strength
show that the pressure vs. circumferential strain graph lies on
higher levels if the value of the radial yield strength is in-
creased and vice versa. Therefore, one can say that the varia-
tion of Hill factor in radial direction is directly proportional to
the maximum pressure (burst pressure). It is therefore con-
cluded that yielding takes place at higher levels for higher
values of radial yield strength and so does the burst pressure.
In Figure 6, longitudinal stresses are plotted against total
strains. An increase of the radial yield strength with condi-
tions R
q
> R

> R
x
shows a decrease of longitudinal strain
capacity at burst. Thus the longitudinal strain capacity is in-
versely proportional to the radial yield strength. The longitu-
dinal stress for a certain strain is directly proportional to the
radial yield strength.

Figure 6: longitudinal true stress vs. true strain graph with
circumferential direction as reference, variation of radial Hill
factors.
Results for axial yield strength as reference
In the second case study, the axial yield strength was se-
lected as reference yield strength. Consequently, R
x
= 1.u.
Considering axial direction as the reference yield strength,
variation in circumferential and radial direction was per-
formed and the pressure vs. strain response analyzed in order
to reveal the influence on the structural behavior of steel line
pipe, such as done in the first case study.
Here a variation of circumferential Hill factor with
R
x
> R
q
> R

was investigated. Axial yield strength was tak-

en as reference yield strength i.e. R
x
= 1.u whereas the value
of radial yield strength was fixed to be R

= u.9. Having axial

and radial Hill factors to be defined as constant, the circumfe-
rential Hill factors R
q
had been varied, such as shown in Ta-
ble 4.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

t
r
u
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Longitudinal true strain [ %]
R

> R
x
> R
r
R

=1.00, R
r
=0.80
R
x
0.90
0.85
0.80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
b
a
r
]
Circumferential true strain [ %]
Experiment
R

> R
r
> R
x
R

=1.00,R
x
=0.85
R
r
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

t
r
u
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Longitudinal true strain [ %]
R

> R
r
> R
x
R

=1.00,R
x
=0.85
R
r
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Table 4: Variation of circumferential Hill factor R
x
>
R
q
> R
r

R
x
R
q
R
r

1.0
0. 8
0.9 0.95
0.90

Figure 7 shows the results of the parameter analysis. The
results obtained are shown as pressure vs. strain curve with
the variation of circumferential Hill factors.

Figure 7: pressure vs. circumferential true strain graph with
axial direction as reference, variation of circumferential Hill
factors
.
The variation of the circumferential Hill factors shows
that the burst pressure increases as the circumferential Hill
factor augments and decreases for low values of Hill factors
in this direction. Therefore, one can say that variation in cir-
cumferential direction is directly proportional to the burst
pressure. Naturally, the yield pressure is high for higher val-
ues of circumferential Hill factors.
The effect of a variation of circumferential Hill factor
on longitudinal strain is displayed in Figure 8.


Figure 8: longitudinal stress-strain graph with axial direc-
tion as reference, variation of circumferential Hill factors
Here it is interesting that no plastic strains occur for a
circumferential Hill factor of R

= u.9. It is striking for

R
x
> R
q
> R

, that longitudinal strains are lower than in the

examples before and lie below 1%. In the present configura-
tion an increase in circumferential yield strength leads to a
better longitudinal strain capacity, lower longitudinal stresses.
A variation of radial Hill factor with R
x
> R

> R
q
was
further analyzed. With axial yield strength as reference yield
strength and the circumferential Hill factor fixed to R
q
=
u.9S the radial Hill factor was subjected to variation. This is
shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Variation of radial Hill factor R
x
> R
r
> R
q

R
x


R
r


R
q

1.0
1.0
0.95
0.98
0.95
0.9

It can be seen in Figure 9, that the lower the magnitude
of radial Hill factor, the lower is the yield pressure and the
lower is the corresponding burst pressure.
Hence, variation in radial Hill factor gives critical in-
formation about the behavior of the steel line pipe i. e. yield
and burst pressure are directly proportional to the radial Hill
factor, irrespective of the reference yield strength. Whether
the reference is the circumferential or the longitudinal direc-
tion, the variation of the radial Hill factor shows similar beha-
vior, irrespective of the reference direction selected.

Figure 9: pressure- circumferential strain graph with axial
direction as reference, variation of radial Hill factor
R
x
> R
q
> R
r

For the underlying conditions with R
x
> R

> R
q
some
interesting findings can be made as shown in Figure 10. With
increasing radial yield strength the longitudinal strain capacity
decreases. With a value of R

= u.9S no plastic strains will

develop and with even higher values the plastic and finally to-
tal strains gradually become negative.
This behavior is remarkable due to the different directions
of deformation in the elastic and plastic response of the pipe.
It is caused by the material being isotropic and compressible
in the elastic part and anisotropic and almost incompressible
in the plastic part. Hookes law is valid within the elastic de-
formation. While the pipe deforms plastically, the incompres-
sibility condition has to be maintained. Consequently, the sum
of the deformations has to be equal to zero. This is also con-
firmed by evaluating the flow rule, see (Hilgert, et al. 2010).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
b
a
r
]
Circumferential true strain [ %]
R
x
> R

> R
r
R
x
=1.00,R
r
=0.90
R

0.98
0.95
0.9
Experiment
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

t
r
u
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Longitudinal true strain [ %]
R
x
> R

> R
r
R
X
=1.00,R
r
=0.90
R

0.98
0.95
0.9
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
b
a
r
]
Circumferential true strain [ %]
R
x
> R
r
> R

R
x
=1.0,R

=0.95
R
r
1.0
0.98
0.95
0.90
Experiment
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME
There it is shown for the isotropic case, that a general plastic
deformation of e.g. e
q
p
= 1.u results in e

p
= 1.u and
e
x
p
= u.u. In the present case (e.g. R
x
= 1.u, R

= u.98, R
q
=
u.9S) the underlying stress state with the current anisotropy,
results in negative plastic axial deformations. Then the flow
rule leads to plastic strains of e
q
p
= 1.u, e

p
= u.9SS and
e
x
p
= u.u6S.

Figure 10: longitudinal stress vs. strain graph with axial di-
rection as reference, variation of radial Hill factor R
x
>
R
r
> R
q

Results for radial yield strength as reference
This was the third case study for possible variation of
Hill factors. The radial yield strength was now taken to be the
reference yield strength. Considering R

= 1.u, the structural

behavior of steel line pipe was studied with variation of cir-
cumferential and axial Hill factor respectively. The procedure
of analyzing the Hill factors was just the same as done in the
previous sections.
At first a variation of circumferential Hill factor R

>
R
q
> R
x
was accomplished. Radial yield strength and thus
radial Hill factor was the reference yield strength and the axi-
al direction was defined by R
x
= u.8S. A combination of
different values of Hill factors in circumferential direction
was studied and its effects investigated. Table 6 shows vari-
ous values and combinations of radial, circumferential and
the axial Hill factors used in this section.
Table 6: Variation of circumferential Hill factor R
r
>
R
q
> R
x

R
r
R
q


R
x

1 00
0.95
0. 5 0.90
0.85

The variation of circumferential Hill factor shows the
same behavior as investigated before, where the axial Hill
factor was taken as reference. The pressure vs. strain curve is
plotted in Figure 11.
The analytical results show, that the higher the value of
the circumferential Hill factor R
q
, the higher is the yield and
burst pressure. The variation of circumferential direction
shows similar behavior for all cases analyzed, irrespective of
the reference direction. That reveals a direct proportionality of
circumferential Hill factor and burst pressure.

Figure 11: pressure vs. circumferential strain graph with radi-
al yield strength as reference, variation of circumferential Hill
factor
Figure 12 presents the longitudinal strains for a varia-
tion of circumferential yield strength with R

> R
q
> R
x
. The
longitudinal strains increase as the circumferential yield
strength increases, although the plastic strains are negative for
all variations selected. In the same way, the absolute values of
longitudinal stresses increase.

Figure 12: longitudinal stress vs. strain graph with radial yield
strength as reference, variation of circumferential Hill factor
In the frame work of radial yield strength as reference a
variation of axial Hill factor R

> R
x
> R
q
is analyzed in the
following. Here the reference yield strength was R

= 1.u as
in the last case and, in this case, the value of R
q
was defined
as u.8S. So the axial Hill factors R
x
were varied as can be
seen in Table 7.
Table 7: variation of axial Hill factor R
r
> R
x
> R
q

R
r
R
x
R
q

1.0
0.95
0.85 0.90
0.85

Figure 13 shows the analytical results obtained from the
consideration of various Hill factors as shown in Table 7 and
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
-0,50 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

t
r
u
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Longitudinal true strain [ %]
R
x
> R
r
> R

R
x
=1.0,R

=0.95
R
r
1.0
0.98
0.95
0.90
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
b
a
r
]
Circumferential true strain [ %]
R
r
=1.0, R
x
=0.85
R

95%
90%
85%
Experiment
R
r
> R

> R
x
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
-1,50 -1,00 -0,50 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

t
r
u
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Longitudinal true strain [ %]
R
r
=1.0, R
x
=0.85
R

0.95
0.90
0.85
R
r
> R

> R
x
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME
their effects on structural performance. The variation in the
axial Hill factors is associated with an increase of maximum
pressure if the value of axial Hill factors is decreased, and
vice versa. Therefore, one can say that variation in axial di-
rection is inversely proportional to the onset of yielding and
maximum pressure. It is concluded that the moment of yield-
ing and burst pressure are at higher levels for lower values of
axial Hill factors. This is similar to the structural response
seen above.

Figure 13: pressure vs. circumferential strain graph with
radial direction as reference, variation of axial Hill factor
R
r
> R
x
> R
q

Irrespective of the reference direction the variation in
axial Hill factor is inversely proportional to the burst pres-
sure. In Figure 14 the longitudinal stresses are plotted
against the longitudinal strains. With increasing longitudinal
yield strength the strain capacity increases. The stress is
higher with decreasing radial yield strength, although the
plastic strains are negative for every set of parameters.

Figure 14: longitudinal stress vs. strain graph with radial
direction as reference, variation of axial Hill factor
R
r
> R
x
> R
q

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF ANISOTROPIC MA-
TERIAL - CASE II: INTERNAL PRESSURE PLUS
BENDING MOMENT
Bending moments are expected when differential ground
movements prevail due to soil subsidence landslides, etc., see
(Karbasian, et al. 2011),(Vitali, Bruschi, et al. 1999), (Vitali,
Torselletti, et al. 2005) and the references therein for more
details. Thus internal pressure plus a bending moment act on
the pipe string. Here, the effect of anisotropy on pipes under
internal pressure plus bending moment will be investigated.
Post-buckling behavior after reaching the maximum bending
moment is not considered. The focus lies on the structural be-
havior of a pipeline under the aforementioned load conditions
up to the instability point. This is the point where the maxi-
mum load is achieved and at which local instability will be
witnessed.

Figure 15: schematic moment-curvature curve with distin-
guished points
Geometry and material parameters
The same geometry as in the previous analyses was used,
solely the length of the pipe was changed, see Table 8. Also
the same material behavior was used as shown in Figure 2.
Table 8: geometry of pipe under internal pressure and bend-
ing moment
OD t L
[mm] [mm] [mm]
1206.6 26.8 6000

In Figure 16 the geometry, boundary conditions and the
applied loads are sketched for the finite element model. Due
to the (axial) symmetry conditions only half of the bending
moment has to be used.

Figure 16: sketch of geometry, boundary conditions and load
Here, a pressure of p

= u.66 p

= 168.S bor was ap-

plied in a first load step. The bending moment in the second
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
b
a
r
]
Circumferential strain[%]
Rr =1.0, R=0.85
Rx
0.95
0.90
0.85
R
r
> R
x
> R

Experiment
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
-1,50 -1,00 -0,50 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Longitudinal strain[%]
R
r
=1.0, R

=0.85
R
x
0.95
0.90
0.85
R
r
> R
x
> R

M

[
M
N
m
]
[1/m]
elastic limit point
ultimate Moment capacity/
instability point
global failure
z x
y
M
x
/2
M
x
/2
symmetry plane
rigid body
p
i

step was varied incrementally for each variation of anisotr
py so as to ensure to identify the ultimate bending moment
capacity. Three cases were investigated to gain a first impre
sion of the effect of an anisotropic material with preferred d
rections on the structural behavior of a pipeline, see
Table 9: variations of Hill factors for pipe under internal
pressure and moment
No. R
q
R
x

1 1.0 1.0
2 1.0 0.9
3 1.0 1.0

Results of isotropic and anisotropic analysis
In order to demonstrate the behavior of a structure under
bending influence a moment-curvature diagram is most sui
able. It has, in some way, the same footprint as a stress
or load-deflection curve. In Figure 17, the moment
graph for the aforementioned cases is depicted.
Figure 17: moment vs. curvature curve for isotropic and
anisotropic materials
The study for the isotropic material behavior (black)
shows that the steel pipe remains withtin the elastic limits b
low N = S NNm for the fixed value of internal pressure i.
168.3 MPa. The ultimate bending moment for the isotro
case is Nult = 7.S NNm. In case of a reduced longitudinal
Hill factor (red) yielding starts at nearly 5 MNm but the
strain hardening capacity is lower than before. A maximum
bending moment of 6.6 MNm is reached. On the other hand
with radial variation (blue) yielding starts at 4 MNm but has
the same strain hardening behavior as in the isotropic case.
Thus, a maximum value of bending moment is
the combined loading: bending moment and internal pre
sure.
In terms of Strain-Based-Design once more an anis
tropic structure seems to be much more beneficial for the
structural response. For a given curvature e. g.
bending moment has a lower value e. g. 6.0, 5.8 and
5.25 MNm for the isotropic, longitudinal and radial anisotr
py, respectively. This correlates directly to the longitudinal
stress in the pipe string which reduces or increases the load
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0,002 0,004 0,006 0,008 0,01 0,012
Rj=1.0, Rx=0.9,Rr=1.0
Radial variation Rr=90%
Isotropic
Kappa [1/m]
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
[
M
N
m
]
ultimate Moment capacity
instability point
R

=1.0, R
x
=1.0,
R

=1.0, R
x
=0.9,
R

=1.0, R
x
=1.0,
8
varied incrementally for each variation of anisotro-
py so as to ensure to identify the ultimate bending moment
capacity. Three cases were investigated to gain a first impres-
sion of the effect of an anisotropic material with preferred di-
tural behavior of a pipeline, see Table 9.
: variations of Hill factors for pipe under internal
R
r

1.0
1.0
0.9
Results of isotropic and anisotropic analysis
In order to demonstrate the behavior of a structure under
curvature diagram is most suit-
able. It has, in some way, the same footprint as a stress-strain
, the moment-curvature


curvature curve for isotropic and
The study for the isotropic material behavior (black)
shows that the steel pipe remains withtin the elastic limits be-
for the fixed value of internal pressure i. e.
moment for the isotro-pic
. In case of a reduced longitudinal
MNm but the
ty is lower than before. A maximum
MNm is reached. On the other hand
MNm but has
hardening behavior as in the isotropic case.
6.7 MNm for
the combined loading: bending moment and internal pres-
Design once more an aniso-
more beneficial for the
= u.uu4 the
g. 6.0, 5.8 and
MNm for the isotropic, longitudinal and radial anisotro-
directly to the longitudinal
or increases the load
action on the girth weld. Considering a constant moment e. g.
6 MNm, the curvature is higher for anisotropic material than
for isotropic. This is directly correlated to axial strain capac
ty.
In Figure 18 two images
the maximum moment and the other after global failure
presented for the isotropic line pipe. In
ward buckle, that is expected in the load case internal pressure
and bending moment, can be seen.
a)
b)
Figure 18: structural response
bending moment a) after limit point b) after global failure
The above investigations give only a small impression of
the effect of directional anisotropy in the pressure plus ben
ing moment loading. Thus this effect has to be evaluated as it
was done in the previous section for various sets of anisotropy
parameters but for the combined loading scenario.
be in the focus of a future research and development project.
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
It becomes clear from the variation of yield strength in
hydro testing that it is hard to draw some gener
The structural behavior is prone
tinct parameters. Nevertheless,
behavior in terms of pressure, strains and stresses
crease of Hill factors and thus of yield strength
10.
This means at least that lower yield strength in longit
dinal direction increases the burs
ings from this study are:

0,014 0,016
Rj=1.0, Rx=0.9,Rr=1.0
Radial variation Rr=90%
Isotropic
capacity/
=1.0, R
r
=1.0
=0.9, R
r
=1.0
=1.0, R
r
=0.9
Copyright 2012 by ASME
dering a constant moment e. g.
MNm, the curvature is higher for anisotropic material than
for isotropic. This is directly correlated to axial strain capaci-
one directly after reaching
the maximum moment and the other after global failure are
presented for the isotropic line pipe. In Figure 18 a) the out-
ward buckle, that is expected in the load case internal pressure
and bending moment, can be seen.


case: internal pressure and
a) after limit point b) after global failure
investigations give only a small impression of
the effect of directional anisotropy in the pressure plus bend-
this effect has to be evaluated as it
ection for various sets of anisotropy
parameters but for the combined loading scenario. This will
research and development project.

It becomes clear from the variation of yield strength in
to draw some generic conclusions.
to differ for every set of dis-
a summary of the structural
in terms of pressure, strains and stresses due to in-
and thus of yield strength is given Table
This means at least that lower yield strength in longitu-
dinal direction increases the burst pressure. Further main find-
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME
o R
q
> R
x
> R
r
and R
q
> R
r
> R
x
allow for longitu-
dinal plastic strain which would be beneficial for
Strain Based Design applications. Where the first one
is even more beneficial than the second one
o R
r
> R
q
> R
x
and R
r
> R
x
> R
q
show negative
strains in longitudinal direction which should be
avoided in any case especially for Strain Based De-
sign applications. It is most likely that a further longitu-
dinal deformation is not beneficial for structural beha-
vior.
Table 10: effect of increasing yield strength on structural
response
Effect of yield
strength on
YS
q


YS
x


YS
r


p






x







x



Focusing on Strain-Based-Design applications a first
investigation on the structural behavior of anisotropic UOE
pipes under simultaneous action of internal pressure and
bending moment was accomplished. Three cases were inves-
tigated for a first impression. Namely, one isotropic and two
simple anisotropic configurations. For a given structural cur-
vature the bending moment showed lower values for aniso-
tropic than for isotropic pipe. As the longitudinal stresses are
directly correlated to the moment, this results also in lower
load action on the girth weld, which is highly recommended
in SBD applications. Further, it was shown that anisotropic
line pipe allows for higher axial strain capacity than isotrop-
ic.
The main outcome of this research work is: the demand
of a special one-dimensional longitudinal stress-strain beha-
vior often referred to in specifications is not reasonable. Uni-
axial material stress-strain behavior in longitudinal direction
is not solely responsible for the structural longitudinal strain
capacity. Considering plastic deformations every stress-
strain-behavior of the three co-ordinate directions and espe-
cially the ratios of yield strengths to each other are important.
Future investigations should be detailed analyses of the
effect of directional anisotropy on the structural behavior of
UOE line pipe taking into account more complex situations
like simultaneous action of internal pressure and bending
moment.
It is obvious that directional anisotropy depends on the
underlying microstructure. It is a task of future research work
to correlate the information of heterogeneous microstructures
by a homogenization methods - as e. g. presented in
(Zimmermann, Kleinman und Hordijk 2005) - to the macros-
copic anisotropic structural behavior.
NOMENCLATURE
R
q
, R
x
, R

Hill factor in circumferential,

longitudinal and radial direc-
tion
S
0,
S
q
, S
x
, S

reference, circumferential,
longitudinal and radial yield
strength
o
H
effective Hill stress
F, 0, E
Hill parameter
o
q
, o
x
, o

circumferential, longitudinal
and radial Cauchy stress
H H
n , C
Hollomon parameter and ex-
ponent
p

, p

internal, yield pressure

H bending moment
curvature
REFERENCES
Bruschi, R., L. Bartolini, M. Spinazz, E. Torselletti, and L.
Vitali. "A Numerical Lab to Predict the Strength Capacity of
Offshore Pipelines." Proceedings of the 24th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2005-67482 (2005): 597-607.
Christopher, T., B.S.V. Rama Sarma, P.K. Govindan Potti, B.
Nageswara Rao, and K. Sankarnarayanasamy. "A comparative
study on failure pressure estimations of unflawed cylindrical
vessels." International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
79 (2002): 53-66.
Gven, U. "A comparison on failure pressure of cylindrical
pressure vessels." Mechanics Research Communications 34
(2007): 466-471.
Hilgert, O., S. Hhler, S. Zimmermann, and C. Kalwa.
"Analytical and numerical modeling of plastic deformations
in UOE line pipe." Proceedings of the 8th International
Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, 2010.
Hill, R. The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Oxford
University Press, 1950.
Hu, L. W. "Studies on plastic flow of anisotropic metals."
Journal of Applied Mechanics 23, no. 03 (1956): 444-450.
Karbasian, H., S. Zimmerman, U. Marewski, and M. Steiner.
"Model of Ultimate Limit State Design to Predict Combined
Loading Capacity of Pipelines." 3R 1 (2011): 27-33.
Liu, M., and C. Wang. "Modeling of anisotropy of TMCP and
UOE linepipes." Proceedings of the 16th International
10 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, San Francisco,
USA, 2006: 221-227.
Liu, M., and Y.-Y. Wang. "Advanced Modeling of Plasticity
of Linepipe Steels with Anisotropic Texture and Complex
Loading History." Proceedings of the Seventeenth
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Lisbon, Portugal, 2007: 3093-3100.
Marin, Joseph, and M. G. Sharma. "Design of a thin-walled
cylindrical pressure vessel based upon the plastic range and
considering anisotropy." Welding Research Council Bulletin
Series 40, no. 40 (1958): 1-13.
Stewart, G., F.J. Klever, and D. Ritchie. "An analytical model
to predict the burst capacity of pipelines." Proceedings of the
13th Intenational Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Houston, USA 4 (1994): 177-188.
Tanguy, B., T.T. Luu, G. Perrin, A. Pineau, and J. Besson.
"Plastic and damage behaviour of a high strength X100
pipeline steel: Experiments and modelling." International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008): 322-335.
Tsuru, E., K. Yoshida, S. Shirakami, and T. Kuwabara.
"Numerical Simulation of Buckling Resistance for UOE Line
Pipes with Orthogonal Anisotropic Hardening Behavior."
Proceedings of the 18. International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, 2008.
Vitali, L., E. Torselletti, F. Marchesani, and R. Bruschi.
"Strain based design for land high grade pipelines in harsh
environments." Proceedings of Super-High Strength Steels,
Rome, Italy, 2005.
Vitali, L., R. Bruschi, K.J. Mork, E. Levold, and R. Verley.
"HOTPIPE project: capacity of pipes subject to internal
pressure, axial force and bending moment." Proceedings of
the 9th International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Brest, France 2 (1999): 22-33.
Zimmermann, S., C. S. Kleinman, and D. A. Hordijk.
"Gefgebasierte Stoffbeziehungen fr zementgebundene
Partikelwerkstoffe - Homogenisierung heterogener
Stoffsysteme." Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 100, no. 8 (2005):
705-719.