PIPE TOC
Proceedings of OMAE03
nd
22 International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
BUCKLE PROPAGATION AND ITS ARREST: BUCKLE ARRESTOR DESIGN
VERSUS NUMERICAL ANALYSES AND EXPERIMENTS
Enrico Torselletti
Snamprogetti
Via Toniolo 1, 61032 Fano, Italy
e-mail: enrico.torselletti@snamprogetti.eni.it
Furio Marchesani
Snamprogetti
Via Toniolo 1, 61032 Fano, Italy
e-mail: furio.marchesani@snamprogetti.eni.it
ABSTRACT
Buckle propagation under external pressure is a potential
hazard during offshore pipeline laying in deep waters. It is
normal design practice to install thicker pipe sections which, in
case of buckle initiation and consequent propagation, can stop
it so avoiding the lost of long pipe sections as well as threats to
the installation equipment and dedicated personnel.
There is still a series of questions the designer needs to
answer when a new trunkline for very deep water applications
is conceived:
- What are the implications of the actual production
technology (U-ing, O-ing and Expansion or Compression
e.g. UO, UOE and UOC) on the propagation and arrest
capacity of the line pipe,
- How formulations for buckle arrestors design can be linked
to a safety objective as required in modern submarine
pipeline applications.
The answers influence any decision on thickness, length,
material and spacing of buckle arrestors.
This paper gives an overview of buckle propagation and
arrest phenomena and proposes a new design equation,
applicable for both short and long buckle arrestors, based on
available literature information and independent numerical
analyses.
Partial safety factors are recommended, based on a
calibration process performed using structural reliability
methods. Calibration aimed at fulfilling the safety objectives
defined in DNV Offshore Standards OS-F101 and OS-F201.
June 8-13, 2003, Cancun, Mexico
OMAE2003-37220
Roberto Bruschi
Snamprogetti
Via Toniolo 1, 61032 Fano, Italy
e-mail: roberto.bruschi@snamprogetti.eni.it
Luigino Vitali
Snamprogetti
Via Toniolo 1, 61032 Fano, Italy
e-mail: luigino.vitali@snamprogetti.eni.it
INTRODUCTION
An offshore pipeline installed in deep waters is often
collapse-critical due to the ambient external pressure.
Designing against collapse involves selecting the appropriate
wall thickness for a given pipe diameter and line pipe material,
as well as specifying appropriate geometric fabrication
tolerances. Unfortunately incidental dents induced by impacting
objects, ovalisation induced by excessive bending during
installation, wall thickness reduction due incidental corrosion
etc., may locally reduce the collapse strength of the pipeline.
If the pipe is not sized against propagation when collapse
or sectional ovalisation buckling occurs in the depths, the
buckle propagates and stops at a depth the required work for
sectional plastification is larger than the one the external
pressure can do.
The buckle propagation phenomenon can be considered to
occur in three phases (see Figure 1):
- Buckle initiation,
- Buckle propagation,
- Buckle arrest at the arrestor or crossover of the arrestor.
The buckle propagation pressure has been extensively
studied in the last decades and design approaches have been
developed and experienced in a number of projects. Research
activities, both experimental and analytical, have been
dedicated to the development of the most suitable buckle
arrestors shape for deep water applications: integral, external or
internal rings, spiral, etc. In this paper integral buckle arrestors
(BA) are considered and analysed, as classified into two main
categories:
- “long” arrestors are those for which the buckle crossover
the arrestor after it has collapsed for its whole length, e.g.
1 Copyright © 2003 by ASME
 the capacity to arrest propagation is ensured by suitably
sized wall thickness, in accordance with the propagation
pressure formula.
- “short” arrestors, where the buckle crossover the arrestor
that remains integer in shape i.e. the arrestor capacity is
ensured by wall thickness far thicker than for “long”
arrestors.
As far as the transition between long and short buckle
arrestor behaviour is considered, it can be affirmed that long
arrestors are longer than about 4 to 6 pipe diameters. In design
guidelines for offshore pipelines [1], there is no indication on
how to size short buckle arrestors while long arrestors are
covered. For both cases, it does not appear that a rational
calibration of partial safety factors has been carried out.
Undeformed pipe
Buckle initiation
Buckle propagation
Buckle arrestor
engagement
Buckle arrestor
crossover
Figure 1 How Kyriakides describes the different load phases
to which a pipeline is subjected during a buckle
initiation, propagation and crossover [18].
According to the limit state based approach drawn in [1]
the buckle arrestor must be sized in order to fulfill the specified
safety targets. In particular, the failure probability of a buckle
arrestor can be expressed as:
(1) PF = PF , Initiation ⋅ PF ,Pr opagation ⋅ PF , Stop
PF is the total failure probability that has to be compared
with the specified target (see [1] for reference values to be used
for offshore pipeline systems), PF,Initiation is the probability to
have a buckle, PF,Propagation is the probability that a given buckle
will propagate, PF,Stop is the probability that a given propagating
buckle will crossover the buckle arrestor length, so continuing
propagation (the capacity of the buckle arrestor is exceeded).
When pipes are sized to avoid propagation, the product of
the probability of initiation by the probability of propagation
gives the total failure probability (PF). For a pipeline system
with buckle arrestors PF is given by the product of PF,initiation by
PF,Stop, and PF,propagation is equal to 1.
Scope of this paper is to introduce a new design formula
including partial safety factors that meet the safety objective of
DNV-OS-F101.
PROPAGATION PRESSURE
The problem of propagating buckles was recognized in the
early 1970s [2]. Palmer and Martin made the first theoretical
analysis in 1975 [3]. They recognized that the work done by the
external pressure, as the buckle moves forward by unit distance
is mainly absorbed by plastic deformation associated to the
change in shape of unit length of pipe, from its original circular
form to final "dog bone" conformation. Assuming a simple
mechanism of plane strain collapse for the ring, involving four
concentrated "plastic hinges" (Figure 2), the following energy
balance equation for unit length of pipe, was defined:
(2) pe ∆A = 2π M p
Here pe is the external pressure, ∆A is the change in
cross-sectional area and Mp is the full plastic moment per unit
length of the pipe wall.
Figure 2 Sequence of collapse configurations of a long tube
under external pressure.
Being the above formulas considered as lower bound,
researchers tried to introduce new buckle propagation equations
that give a better prediction of the critical propagation pressure
than the formula from Palmer, see Kamalarasa and Calladine in
1987 [4].
While it has never been contested that the shortcomings of
equation (2) lies in its neglect of both surface stretching and
strain hardening, most researchers have chosen to overlook the
stretching effects and concentrate entirely on "ring-bending"
investigations.The concentrated plastic hinges, which are an
important feature of the analysis of Palmer and Martin, are only
legitimate in the context of a perfectly plastic, non-hardening
material. In the presence of strain hardening, we must expect to
find hinges of finite length which can travel around the
2 Copyright © 2003 by ASME
circumference of the ring. Several attempts to improve the wall thickness (less the corrosion allowance if present), Dest is
analysis of Palmer and Martin, by including strain hardening in the nominal outer diameter of the pipe.
the study of the irreversible circumferential bending of rings, The design criterion reads:
have been made. Wierzbicki and Bhat [5], Steel and Spence [6],
PP ,C
Croll [7] and Kyriakides et al. [8] have analysed the bending of (5) Pe,c ≤
strain-hardening rings using different schemes, and proposed γ m ⋅ γ SC
different expressions for the critical pressure.
where Pe,c is the external pressure, γm is the material
In recent years, several tests were performed to evaluate
resistance factor (1.15), γSC is the safety class resistance factor
the formulation of the propagation pressure design format, and
(1.04 for safety class LOW, 1.14 for safety class NORMAL and
are reported in literature (Kyriakides et al. [2], Langner et al.
1.26 for safety class HIGH, corresponding to a target failure
[9] and Estefen et al. [10]).
rate of 10-2, 10-3 and 10-4, respectively). This design equation,
In 1996 a tentative reliability based calibration of design when a safety class NORMAL is adopted, is almost coincident
equations available in literature, for the evaluation of the with the design equation of DNV ’96 [12], see Figure 4.
propagation pressure, was performed in the framework of the
35
SUPERB project [11]. The equation reported in DNV ’96 [12]
reads: Superb DNV’96
30
2.5
 t nom  Safety Class LOW
(3) P p,c = 26 ⋅ SMYS   25

 Dest  PP*1000/σY
Safety Class NORMAL

20 Safety Class HIGH

This equation is based on a conditional target failure
probability PF,Stop of 10-2 per pipe joint. 15

120 Experiments X65

10
Experiments X42
100 Experiments Estefen [10]
DNV’96 [12], SUPERB [11] 5
15 17 19 21 23 25
Pp * 1000 / SMYS

80 BS80110 [13]
Diameter to thickness ratio, D/t
Langner [9]
60 Battelle [14] Figure 4 Comparison between DNV OS-F101 [1], DNV ’96
Palmer [3]
[12] and SUPERB [11] formulations.
40
Kyriakides [15]
Kyriakides [16]
Kyriakides [16]
20
AGA Fowler MORE ON CROSSOVER PRESSURE
0 While the propagation front is far from the buckle arrestor
10 15 20 25 30 35
section, the relevant propagation pressure is the one of the
D/t
pipeline cross section. As soon as the propagation front
Figure 3 Propagation pressure formulas versus D/t and approaches the buckle arrestor, the propagation pressure rises
experimental values [11]. up to a maximum value (the crossover pressure PX), see
Figure 5. The crossover pressure is a function of:
Figure 3 compares the propagation pressure calculated with - Geometrical characteristics of the pipeline (thickness and
equation (3) with the experiments by Kyriakides [2] and by diameter),
Estefen et al. [10], respectively. Both BS8010 [13] and Langner - Geometrical characteristics of the buckle arrestor
approach [9] are considered conservative, while Battelle [14] (thickness, length and diameter),
and Kyriakides [2, 15, 16] are considered good mean value - Mechanical characteristics of both pipeline and buckle
predictors. The formulation from DNV’96 was a step forward arrestor (yield strength, ultimate strength).
in terms of reducing excessive conservatism, fulfilling in a way
pre-defined safety requirements. In relation to crossover, buckle arrestors can be classified
DNV-OS-F101 modified the above approach, in order to according to length, namely short versus long buckle arrestors.
better introduce a flexible safety target, through the so-called The simplest design formula is for long buckle arrestor, i.e.
Safety Classes: when arrestor length LBA long compared with the propagating
α buckle wavelength.
t 
(4) PP ,C = k ⋅ SMYS ⋅ α fab ⋅ α U ⋅  nom  ; k = 35 ; α = 2.5 In order to define the transition between short and long
D 
 est  buckle arrestors, the crossover pressure has been measured in
Where SMYS is the minimum yield strength of the steel experiments and has been calculated with FE analyses:
material, αfab is the fabrication factor, tnom is the nominal steel

3 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 2
- For buckle arrestor length longer than a limiting value  t 
(7) PP ,T , L 75 = 4 ⋅ σ Y ,T ⋅  T 
(LBA,T), the crossover pressure PX is, at least, the
propagation pressure of the buckle arrestor, independently  Dest 
2
of how long is the arrestor. (8) t 
PP , BA, L 75 = 4 ⋅ σ Y , BA ⋅  BA 
- For buckle arrestor lower than the same limiting value  Dest 
(LBA,T), the crossover pressure PX is lower than the Where σY,T and σY,BA are the yield strength of the pipe and
propagation pressure of the long buckle arrestor. buckle arrestor steel materials, tT and tBA are the pipeline and
buckle arrestor steel wall thickness, Dest is the outer diameter of
The designer has to select the limiting length LBA,T for a the pipe. To be noticed the use of the pipe external diameter
given thickness, such that the crossover pressure is at least also for equation (8).
equal to the propagation pressure including a certain margin of The crossover pressure PX,L75 has to be compared with the
safety (Figure 5). external pressure to be applied on the buckle arrestor Pest,
LBA,T according to the following design criterion:
40
PX ,L 75
(9) Pest ≤
35
γ X ,L 75
30

γX,L75 is the safety factor accounted for in design.

PRESSURE

25
Equations (6) to (8) are quite conservative, compared with
20
recent experimental data and relevant design approaches.
15 Nevertheless, it is very attractive for a design approach, as it is
10
simple and gets some important aspects:
Long Arrestor - the crossover pressure approaches the propagation pressure
5 Short Arrestor
formula of a long buckle arrestor,
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
- for short buckle arrestors, the steel wall thickness is higher
TIME
than the one defined for long buckle arrestors, where the
Figure 5 Definition of the buckle arrestor length at the thickness is defined using the propagation pressure
transition between long and short arrestor types. formula.
Langner 1975

The definition of the limiting value of the buckle arrestor 0.12

length, LBA,T, has been the subject of several investigations over

0.11
the last 20 years. Being the use of short buckle arrestor very
Buckle Arrestor Thickness [m]

limited, a conclusive approach on the matter is still pending. 0.1

Water depth 2150m
In the following the design approaches developed over the 0.09 PX = Pest
D/t = 19
last years by some authors are reviewed ([9, 17, 20]). All the 0.08
approaches presented are based on the crossover pressure PX.
0.07

0.06
Langner Approach 1975 [9]
An early study from Langner [9] provided the first insight 0.05
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
on the subject. In particular Langner proposed an analytical Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
expression for the crossover pressure, PX,L75 (L76 stands for
Langner 1975), that includes also the buckle arrestor effective Figure 6 Buckle arrestor thickness versus buckle arrestor
length: length to pipe diameter ratio according to Langner

1975 [9].
(6)  tT ⋅ LBA 
PX , L 75 = PP ,T , L 75 + (PP , BA, L 75 − PP,T , L 75 ) ⋅ 1 − EXP  − α
  2  ;α = 60
  Dest 
Figure 6 shows the relation between the buckle arrestor
Where PP stands for the propagation pressure, suffices BA thickness and length for a safety factor γX,L75 equal to 1 and a
and T stand for buckle arrestor and nominal pipe, t is the pipe Dest/tT ratio equal to 19.
pipeline steel wall thickness, Dest is the outer diameter of the
Langner approach [9] gives the static crossover pressure
pipe, LBA is the effective length of the buckle arrestor, e.g. the
for an integral buckle arrestor. In addition to the net hydrostatic
length of the buckle arrestor section with constant thickness.
pressure at the design depth, a pipeline can be exposed to
The above equation refers to the following definitions for pressure surges due to storm conditions and to a dynamic over-
the propagation pressures of both pipe and buckle arrestor: pressure generated when a propagating buckle is suddenly
stopped at the buckle arrestor. Langner [9] recommends a value

4 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

for γX ranging from 1.3 to 1.5 to include dynamic effects. in the figure, produces a best fit for η < 0.7. For higher values
Langner [9] also recommends a safety target related to the of tBA, where a different behaviour is experienced (flattening
avoidance of buckle arrestor crossover that should not be higher versus flipping mode, [18]), this expression is not as effective
than the one related to the avoidance of collapse of the pipeline and a lower bound envelope is proposed (curve labelled
sections. “Kyriakides Design” in Figure 7). Nevertheless, to compare
this approach with other approaches also a less conservative
Kyriakides Approach 1998 [18] assumption is made (curve labelled “Kyriakides Mean” in
Figure 7).
Kyriakides et al. developed an approach [18] based on both
experimental and numerical results. They use a measure of the Authors define a minimum steel thickness for the arrestor,
effectiveness of the buckle arrestor: the so-called “arresting tBA,M, as the one that yields efficiency of 1.0, and the following
efficiency”, η, defined as: relations apply:

(10) PX − PP ,T (13) PP , BA, K 98 (t BA,M ) ≥ PCO

η≤ ; 0 ≤η ≤1
PCO − PP ,T where
PCO is the collapse pressure of the pipe. The higher is the β
(14)  E ’  t BA 
effectiveness (η > 1) the higher is the crossover pressure (η = 1 PP ,BA,K 98 = σ Y ,BA ⋅  A + B  
 σ Y , BA  Dest ,BA 
implies PX = PCO). Value of effectiveness greater than 1 is not
considered. The authors suggest that the crossover pressure will The propagation pressure of the pipe is:
depend on the following variables: β
 E’  tTA 
(11) PX ,K 98 = f ( PP,T ,K 98 , E, σ Y ,T , σ Y ,BA , Dest , tT , LBA , t BA )
(15) PP ,T , K 98 = σ Y ,T ⋅  A + B 
 D


 σ Y ,T  est ,T 
The experimental data were found to exhibit a bimodal The coefficient A, B and b are constants determined
trend with η = 0.7 as the boundary. In order to produce the best empirically, E’ is the post-yield modulus in a bilinear
correlation between the available data the following efficiency stress-strain relationship. Because of lack of information, both
is to be used, with equation (11) to size the buckle arrestor: equations (14) and (15) are substituted with equation (4) with
αfab=αU=1.0.
1/ 2 1/ 2 5/ 4 0 .8 5/ 2
 σ Y ,T   σ Y ,BA   tT   LBA   t BA 
(12)  E   E   D   t   
Kyriakides showed also that arrestors shorter than 0.25 Dest
η = A1      est   T   tT 
could not achieve the efficiency of 1.0, irrespective of the
 PCO 
 − 1 arrestor thickness. For this reason the minimum arrestor length
P
 P ,T ,K 98  is LBA,M = 0.25 'est. In summary, the following procedure is
All the data used by the authors are plotted together with recommended [18]:
equation (12) in Figure 7. - Calculate the collapse pressure and propagation pressure of
the pipeline;
Kyriakides Chart [18, 19]
- Select a steel grade of the arrestor;
- Calculate the value of the arrestor minimum thickness
1.4
using equation (13);
1.2 - Select either the length of the arrestor such that
LBA > 0.25 'est, or an arrestor thickness such that
η=(Px-Pp)/(Pco-Pp)

1
tBA > tBA,M;
0.8
- Use the problem variables in equation (12) to evaluate
Kyrialides Experimental Tests Ref./19/
0.6 Shell Small Scale Tests [17]
either the arrestor thickness or its length for the desired
Shell Full Scale Tests Ref./17/ efficiency.
0.4 Shell-Kyriakides Small Scale Tests Ref./17/
Beptico Numerical Tests Ref./19/
0.2 Kyriakides Mean
Kyriakides Design Ref./18/
An appropriate safety factor should be applied in the
0 choice of either PX or arrestor thickness (or length). From
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Figure 7, the design equation adopted by Kyriakides is a lower
Empirical Function
bound for arrestor efficiency higher than 0.7. Consequently, the
Figure 7 Comparison between design approach from related design thickness of the arrestor is expected to be higher
Kyriakides et al. [18] and experimental data. than the experimental findings. A value η > 0.7 is often the case
if an extra safety factor γX according to equation (9) on the
The data for η < 0.7 has coalesced to produce a nearly propagation pressure PX is considered. An application of this
linear relationship between η and equation (12). The numerator approach for a 24”, pipe with an outer diameter to thickness
in equation (12) is called empirical function in the following ratio of 19, is shown in Figure 8.
sections. The choice of A1 = 667.6 made by the authors, drawn

5 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 Kyriakides 1998 λ is the arrestor strength factor, which depends on the
arrestor length LBA, thickness tBA, yield strength σY,BA and
0.14 characteristics propagation pressure PP,BA. The distinction
between narrow and wide arrestors refers to short arrestor
Buckle Arrestor Thickness [m]

0.12
Water depth 2150m
PX = Pest
types, as defined in the beginning i.e. do not affect the long
0.1
D/t = 19 arrestors sized with the propagation formula. The design factor
0.08
k = 5 is recommended for a narrow arrestor, and k = 8 is
0.06 recommended for a wide arrestor. This because the experiments
0.04
in [17] showed that narrow arrestors are more efficient that
wide arrestors. According to our classification of buckle
0.02
arrestor given above (short versus long), both narrow and wide
0 arrestors are relevant for short buckle arrestors. For design
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter applications, Langner assumes that the formula of the arrestor
efficiency can be used to size the arrestor thickness considering
Figure 8 Buckle arrestor thickness versus buckle arrestor the crossover pressure, PX,L99, defined according the following
length to pipe diameter ratio according to design formula:
Kyriakides et al. 1998 [18].
PX ,L 99
(23) Pest ≤
Langner Approach 1999 [17] γ X ,L 99
Langner in 1999 [17] presented an approach based on old The safety factor γX,L99 is proposed as 1.35 by the author.
experimental data from Kyriakides as well as new data. The All the data used by the authors are plotted against
approach is very similar to the one presented by Kyriakides in equations (16) to (22) in Figure 9.
[18]. The same definition of arrestor efficiency as given in Langner Chart [17]

equation (10), is here used together with the following 1.4

parameters:
1.2
2.4
 t 
(16) PP,T , L99 = 24 ⋅ σ Y ,T ⋅  T  1
η=(Px-Pp)/(Pco-Pp)

 Dest  0.8
2.4
t 
= 24 ⋅ σ Y , BA ⋅  BA 
0.6
(17) PP , BA, L99 Kyrialides Small Scale Experimental Tests Ref./19/
Shell Small Scale Tests Ref./17/
 Dest  0.4 Shell Full Scale Tests Ref./17/
Shell-Kyriakides Small Scale Tests Ref./17/

PY ⋅ PE 0.2 Beptico Numerical Tests Ref./19/

(18) PCO ,L 99 = Langner design k=5 Ref./17/
Langner design k=8 Ref./17/
P +P
Y
2
E
2 0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Strength factor
3
(19) tT 2⋅ E  tT 
PY = 2 ⋅ σ Y ,Y ⋅ ; PE =   Figure 9 Comparison between design approach from
Dest 1 −ν  Dest  Langner [17] and experimental data.
Where ν is the coefficient of Poisson. All the other
variables are defined previously. Langner proposes the The following procedure is recommended in [17]:
following formulas for the design of the buckle arrestor - Calculate the collapse, equation (18), and the propagation
thickness versus length: pressure, equation (16), of the pipeline, as well as the
(20) λ if 0 ≤ λ ≤ k minimum crossover pressure with equation (23).
η≥ k - Calculate the arrestor thickness and length according to
 1 if λ > k
equations (10), (20), (21) and (22).
where - The adopted thickness should not be less than the thickness
 LBA of a long arrestor sized according to equation (23) where
(21) 5 for 0.5 ≤ t ≤ 2 (narrow arrestor ) PX,L99 = PP,BA,L99 is used.
k= BA
LBA
 8 for >2 ( wide arrestor )
 t BA An application of this approach for a pipe D/t of 19,
and nominal diameter equal to 24” and water depth of 2150 m is
shown in Figure 10. In the figure three curves are plotted. The
LBA PP , BA, L 99 horizontal line is the minimum buckle arrestor thickness to be
(22) λ= ⋅ used independently of the buckle arrestor length. The design
Dest PP ,T , L 99
curve for k = 8 is representative for buckle arrestor length over

6 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

thickness ratio greater than 2. For the subject case the safety The analytical approaches from both Kyriakides and
factor γX,L99 is set equal to 1.0. Langner are directly compared in Figure 11 and Figure 12, for
Langner 1999
D/t ratio of the pipeline equal to 20 and 30, respectively. These
figures show that both approaches are equivalent, while the
0.14 former approach from Langner-1975 [9] is conservative.
Water depth Kyriakides is more conservative than Langner for pipelines
Buckle Arrestor Thickness [m]

0.12 2150m
PX = Pest with High D/t ratio.
0.1 D/t = 19
k=8 Due to the dispersion of the data set, two approaches can
0.08
be followed to calibrate a design equation:
0.06 - Assume an absolute lower bound. This can result in a
0.04 different safety margin for different design cases and can
0.02
k=5
be conservative for some applications. This is also what
0
has been done by Kyriakides for η > 0.7 [20].
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 - Fit an analytical equation to the mean value of the
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
experimental data (RMS or other similar methods can be
Figure 10 Buckle arrestor thickness versus buckle arrestor used) and then calibrate a safety factor using reliability
length to pipe diameter ratio according to Langner methods to fulfill a given safety target.
1999 [17].
0.14

RECOMMENDED DESIGN APPROACH Langner 1975 Water depth

Kyriakides 1998 2000m
The available design approaches from literature are 0.12
Buckle Arrestor Thickness [m]

PX = 1.0*Pest
Langner 1999 k=8
compared with experimental data ([17,18,19,20]) as well as Langner 1999 k=5
D/t = 20
0.1
between them. The objective is twofold:
- To evaluate the robustness of the proposed approach with
0.08
respect to a design application,
- To estimate the uncertainty of the different models with 0.06
respect to the experimental data set.
0.04

In addition finite element modeling has been performed on

0.02
available experimental data to better understand the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
experimental findings and to qualify in details the effects of Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
different parameters.
Figure 11 Comparison between design approaches proposed
Figure 7 and Figure 9 show the experimental data reported by Langner, [17] and [9], and Kyriakides, [18].
in [19] together with the design approaches proposed by Water depth 2000 m, pipe D/t = 20.
Kyriakides [18] and Langner [17], respectively. The two figures
have the same y-axis (the arresting efficiency η) but different
0.14
x-axis. In fact, Figure 7 uses the empirical function defined by
Langner 1975 Water depth 2000m
Kyriakides in the numerator of equation (12) while Figure 9 0.12 Kyriakides 1998 PX = 1.0*Pest
Buckle Arrestor Thickness [m]

uses the strength factor λ defined by Langner in equation (22). Langner 1999 k=8
D/t = 30

The horizontal line, for η = 1.0, represents the upper bound for 0.1
Langner 1999 k=5

the definition of the arrestor efficiency of both design

approaches. 0.08

The continuous line drawn in the figures represent the

0.06
design approaches of both authors (see previous section). All
the data from Kyriakides [19] are lower bounded by the lines 0.04
drawn in Figure 7. In particular, the data having η < 0.7 lies
over the relevant line, so allowing to conclude that the 0.02

dispersion of the data is negligible for that region. On the other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
hand, a few small-scale test data from Langner [17] lie under
the design lines, meaning that the previous conclusions drawn Figure 12 Comparison between design approaches proposed
by Kyriakides are not always applicable. by Langner, [17] and [9], and Kyriakides, [18].
The same dispersion of the experimental data with respect Water depth 2000 m, pipe D/t = 30.
to the design lines of Langner, is evidenced in Figure 9.

7 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 Proposed Design Equations are related to the applied external pressure at equilibrium. In
In this paper the second approach is followed and a new this case the B.A. is 4m long and the maximum external
design equation for the crossover pressure is fitted to the pressure is attained for a deformed shape which involves half
experimental data set reported in [19], namely: buckle length. In addition, at the maximum pressure, the pipe
section following the arrestor is not deformed, i.e. the pipe
(24) P = P + (P − P ) ⋅ 1 − EXP − α tT ⋅ LBA  ; α = 20 cross section ovality is not affected by the arrestor
X P ,T P , BA P ,T   2 
  Dest ,T   deformations.
where PP,T and PP,BA are the propagation pressures of a pipe Long buckle arrestor, i.e. sized using the propagation
with the wall thickness of the pipeline and of the buckle pressure formulas, usually has an actual crossover pressure
arrestor, respectively. LBA is the length of the arrestor (tapering higher than the propagation pressure (see Figure 13b which
terminations not included). gives PX=36 MPa and PP,BA=28 MPa). This is also evidenced
The propagation pressure formula for the pipe and for the (but conservatively neglected) by the approaches from
buckle arrestor is taken from DNV OS-F101, to maintain the Kyriakides (Figure 8) and Langner (Figure 10). The approach
compliance with the mentioned international standard: proposed in this paper neglect this effect too.
2.5 Ovality Distribution During Propagation
 t  Pipe: ID 21.5", D/T=19 Inc= 200 ; 27.9 MPa
(25) PP ,T = 35 ⋅ σ Y  T 
 Arrestor: ID=21.5", D/t=12 Inc= 180 ; 25.4 MPa
 Dest ,T  200
Inc= 140 ; 35.4 MPa
2.5 Inc= 120 ; 32.2 MPa
 t 
(26) PP ,BA = 35 ⋅ σ Y ,BA  BA  150 Inc= 100 ; 22.0 MPa

 Des ,BA 
Ovality (%)
Inc= 50 ; 10.6 MPa
100 Inc= 30 ; 9.7 MPa
where σY,P and σY,BA are the actual yield strength of the
steel materials. The above formulations are to be applied
through the following design equation: 50

P
(27) Pest ≤ X
γX 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
where γX is a safety factor that has to be calibrated against Pipe length (m)

a predefined safety target. Figure 13a FE results: ovality along the pipe axis, f0,d, is
The coefficient α = 20 has been chosen as an optimal plotted as a function of the applied external
solution for: pressure.
- Reducing as much as possible the standard deviation of the
ratio between the experimental data and the calculated Pressure Distribution During Propagation
crossover pressure. In particular, for the measured Pipe: ID 21.5", D/T=19
Arrestor: ID=21.5", D/t=12
crossover pressures normalised with equation (24), XPx, a
mean value of 1.20 and Coefficient of Variation, CoV, of 35

16% was obtained. 30

- The propagation wavelength obtained from dedicated
Pressure (MPa)

25
ABAQUS FE simulations with the one obtained from 20
equation (24). In particular, as explained in the following,
15
the analytical value is about two times the values from the
10
FE simulation.
5

A series of FE static analyses have been performed
modeling both pipe and buckle arrestors using the commercial
FE package ABAQUS [22]. The simulations were made to
evaluate the propagation wave length (both in the pipe and in
the buckle arrestor) and the propagation and crossover
pressures. In the simulations, different material characteristics
(pipe and arrestor, tensile and compressive) were considered.
Figure 13a show an example of the FE results where the
ovality along the pipe axis, f0,d, is plotted as a function of the
applied external pressure. The figure shows also the position of
the buckle arrestor. Figure 13b shows the applied external
pressure. The figures show how the pipe deformation patterns
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Increment Number
Figure 13b FE results: applied external pressure as a function
of the increment number in the FE analysis.
Equation (24) is quite simple and gives a unique design
approach for both short and long buckle arrestors. The
transition between them is conservatively represented by the
point of tangency between the horizontal line and the
exponential curve (see Figure 14 where the transition of the
analysed case is ca 3-4 pipe diameters).

8 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 PROPOSED APPROACH - Proposed approach, equations (24)-(27): mean equal to
0.1
1.19 and std equal to 16.6%;
0.09 Water depth 2000m - BEPTICO [19]: mean equal to 1.0 and std equal to 2.0%;
Buckle Arrestor Thickness [m]

PX = 1.0*Pest
0.08
D/t = 19
0.07 Dest = 24" The calculations with BEPTICO [19] give the best
0.06 prediction of the experimental tests. The recommended
0.05 equation gives reasonable mean and standard deviation values.
0.04
Moreover, from Figure 16 and Figure 17, it is evident that
0.03
the approach developed here is in line with the approaches from
0.02

0.01
Kyriakides [18] and Langner [17]. In addition, when varying
0 the safety factor γX from 1.0 to 1.5 the approach from
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kyriakides becomes quite conservative (this because for
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
γX = 1.0 being η<0.7, the relevant design curve is a lower
Figure 14 Buckle arrestor thickness versus length using the bound, not a best fit of the experiments as it is for γX = 1.5
equation calibrated in this note, equation (27). where η>0.7).
For γX = 1.0, the approach from Kyriakides (named “design” in
Proposed Equation vs. Experiments the figures) and the modified one (named “mean” because fits
To better quantify the ability of the analytical equations to better the mean value of the experiments, see Figure 7) are
fit experiments the following bias for the crossover pressure is coincident (see Figure 17), because η < 0.7 and the same design
defined: curve applies for both.
Measured value 0.2

(28) BIAS = 0.18

Langner 1975
Kyriakides Design 1998
Water depth = 2000m
Analytical value 0.16 Kyriakides Mean 1998
PX = 1.5*Pest
D/t = 20
Langner 1999 k=8
Buckle Arrestor Thickness [m]

Figure 15 shows the bias as a function of the arrestor 0.14

Langner 1999 k=5
length to pipe diameter ratio. This bias is statistically analyzed 0.12 Proposed Approach
to calculate mean, standard deviation and coefficient of 0.1

variation (ratio between standard deviation and mean) values. 0.08

The goodness of the analytical formulation is a function of: 0.06

- The mean value, the nearer to 1.0 the better; 0.04

- The standard deviation, the lower the better. 0.02

3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
2.5
BIAS = measured / predicted

Figure 16 Comparison between developed design equation

2
Langner 1975 and design approaches proposed by Langner, [17]
Langner 1999 and [9], and Kyriakides, [18]. Water depth 2000 m,
Proposed Approach
pipe D/t = 20, safety factor of γX = 1.5.
1.5 Kyryakides_mean - Pp_DNV
Beptico
0.2
1
Langner 1975
0.18 Kyriakides Design 1998 Water depth = 2000m
PX = 1.0*Pest
Kyriakides Mean 1998
Buckle Arrestor Thickness [m]

0.16 D/t = 20
0.5 Langner 1999 k=8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 0.14 Langner 1999 k=5
B.A. Length / Pipe OD ratio Proposed Approach
0.12

Figure 15 Bias of the crossover pressure versus buckle 0.1

arrestor length to pipe diameter ratio. 0.08

0.06

In particular, the following mean and standard deviation 0.04

(std) values are found: 0.02

- Langner 1975: mean equal to 2.04 and std equal to 18.1%; 0

- Langner 1999: mean equal to 1.08 and std equal to 18.2%; 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Buckle Arrestor Length / Pipe Diameter
- Kyriakides_Mean: mean equal to 1.13 and std equal to
29.9%; Figure 17 Comparison between developed design equation
- Kyriakides_Design: mean equal to 1.20 and std equal to and design approaches proposed by Langner, [17]
26.5%; and [9], and Kyriakides, [18]. Water depth 2000 m,
pipe D/t = 20, safety factor of γX = 1.0.

9 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 Safety Factor Calibration Failure probability vs. Buckle arrestor length

The conditional (given the propagation) probability to have 1

a buckle arrestor that does not stop a propagating buckle is

evaluated as the probability that the actual crossover pressure is
less than the applied external hydrostatic pressure. This 0.1

procedure is in line with the one used in SUPERB [11] and

DNV’96 [12].
The limit state function for the calibration is: 0.01

(29) g ( x ) = X ⋅ p X ( X Y , σ Y ,T , σ Y ,BA , X T , tT , t BA , LBA , Dest ) − 1

p X ,C (σ Y ,T , σ Y ,BA , tT , t BA , LBA , Dest ) γX
PX

0.001
Where XPx is the crossover pressure model uncertainty 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
LBA/Dest
(normal distribution with a mean value of 1.20 and Coefficient
of Variation, CoV, of 16%), XT is the steel wall thickness Figure 19 Failure probability versus buckle arrestor length. γX
uncertainty (normal distribution [21] with a mean value of 1.0 = 1.14*1.15 = 1.311.
and Coefficient of Variation, CoV, of 2%), XY is the yield stress
uncertainty (normal distribution [21] with a mean value of 1.08 In section 12-F1000 of OS-F101 [1], it is said that the
and Coefficient of Variation, CoV, of 4%). failure probability for propagation i.e. the probability to have a
Failure probability vs. Safety factor propagating buckle, is 1-2 decades higher than the probability
1 of other ULS limit states. Comparing DNV '96 [12] approach
with the new approach of OS-F101, the former is equivalent to
DNV OS-F101
Safety Class the latter, when a safety class NORMAL is adopted (actually in
0.1 NORMAL
the former there is no mention of any safety class), see
Figure 4. Therefore, a pipeline can be sized against propagation
0.01 using a safety class NORMAL in [1] or the approach of
DNV’96.
0.001 Relating to the calibration results for the crossover pressure
formula (see Figure 18, where the vertical line indicates the
safety factor correspondent to a safety class Normal), the
0.0001
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 adopted design equation is in line with OS-F101 safety class
Safety Factor γX

approach (i.e. γSC = 1.04, 1.14 and 1.26 for safety class Low,
Figure 18 Unconditional failure probability PF,STOP versus the Normal and High, respectively).
safety factor γX. LBA/Dest = 6.
Design Format
For the evaluation of the failure probability, a Second The design criterion is:
Order Reliability Method has been used (SORM). Figure 18
PX PX
shows the the unconditional failure probability PF,Stop for the (30) Pext ≤ =
given limit state function versus the safety factor γX. For the γ X γ m ⋅ γ SC ⋅ γ Dyn
calculations, a buckle arrestor length over pipe diameter ratio of where Pext is the external pressure, γDyn is the dynamic load
6 has been used.
effect factor (1.1), γm is the material resistance factor (1.15), γSC
A sensitivity analysis has been performed on the relevant is the safety class resistance factor (1.04 for safety class LOW,
variables: diameter, thickness, yield strength, buckle arrestor 1.14 for safety class NORMAL and 1.26 for safety class
length and water depth. The main variables affecting the results HIGH). Equation (24) is used for evaluating the crossover
are the model uncertainty and the yield stress uncertainty. All pressure, PX. The propagation pressure formula for the pipe and
the other variables do not change significantly the failure for the buckle arrestor is taken from DNV OS-F101, to
probability. maintain the compliance with the mentioned international
Figure 19 shows a sensitivity on the buckle arrestor length standard:
for a fixed γX = 1.311. This value is taken from DNV rule [1] α
 t nom 
and is relevant to the propagation pressure design criteria, (31) P p = k ⋅ SMYS ⋅ α fab ⋅ α U ⋅   ; k = 35 ; α = 2.5
where the safety class NORMAL is applied. The failure  Dest 
probability does not change with the buckle arrestor length. Where SMYS is the minimum yield strength of the steel
material, αfab fabrication factor (1.0 for seamless pipes, 0.93 for
UO&TRB pipes, 0.85 for UOE pipes), αU is the material
strength factor (1.0 for steel material that satisfies the additional

10 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

requirements of [1], 0.96 the other cases), tnom is the nominal
steel wall thickness (less the corrosion allowance, if any), D0 is
the nominal outer diameter.
In section 12-F1000 of OS-F101 [1], relevant for the
evaluation of the propagation pressure, static versus dynamic
effects at the propagation front are discussed. In principle, the
dynamic overpressure is relevant for a running buckle suddenly
stopped at a thicker pipe section (buckle arrestor). This aspect,
being studied by Langner (Ref./10/), was evaluated as 5 to 15%
the external hydrostatic pressure, and described by introducing
a dynamic overpressure coefficient γDyn as follows:
LS
(32) γ Dyn = 1 +
A ⋅ t BA⋅
where LS is the propagation wave length, tBA is the buckle
arrestor thickness, A is a constant that depends on geometry,
material, etc. (quoted by Langner equal to 36).
Netto and Kyriakides [20] showed through experiments
that, during propagation, the material is subject to high strain
rates, meaning that, at the propagation front, the steel material
behaves as mechanically stronger than it is statically. Therefore
the dynamic crossover pressure is resulting higher than the
static one (experiments).
On the basis of this discussion, it is suggested that, only for
short buckle arrestors e.g. when equation (24) gives rise to a
differences in the B.A. capacity considering two different
materials:
- the first with yield stresses decreasing moving on the wall
thickness from the inner to the outer surface, as a result of
the UO and TRB forming processes,
- the second made by a homogeneous material with yield
stress equal to the average on the wall thickness of the
yield stress of the first one.
The first step of the analyses consisted in the simulation of
the UO forming process using an analytical-numerical model,
starting from a straight plate with homogeneous material (yield
stress equal to SMYS and tensile stress equal to SMTS) and
bending it up to reach the nominal B.A. circular cross section.
The simulation of the UO process has been performed
considering a material characterized by bilinear kinematic
hardening. Sensitivity has been carried out on the non-linear
material characteristics considering a steeper second linear
region (see Figure 20). The yield stress value averaged on the
wall thickness has been calculated, resulting equal to that of the
starting plate (see Figure 21).
600
500
400
stress (MPa)

buckle arrestor thickness higher than the one coming from

equation (26), a safety factor γDyn equal to 1.1 should be added 300
Base Case
to the standard safety factors applied in DNV OS-F101 for the 200
Material Type 2
propagation pressure design formula.
100

MATERIAL AND FABRICATION IMPLICATIONS 0

The manufacturing process (cold bending applied in the 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0%
strain
Uing-Oing and Three Roll Bending processes) can give rise to
a degradation of the material capacity to resist collapse and Figure 20 Bi-linear stress-strain relationship for base case
propagation. DNV [1] and equation (31) addressed this effect material and material type 2.
introducing a fabrication factor αfab. This factor is specific for
the collapse resistance of the pipeline and its applicability to the
0
buckle arrestor design has to be addressed, particularly:
- When dealing with the propagation buckle and its arrest by -100

a buckle arrestor, is the mentioned safety factor αfab still to Stress

be considered? (MPa) -200

- Which is the most relevant yield stress to be considered for

the material strength qualification, the minimum measured -300

yield stress on the wall thickness or the yield stress

-400
averaged on the wall thickness?
-500

In the following we refer only to long buckle arrestor type

because the short ones are generally produced by forging which -600
-0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0

gives αfab=1. Strain (-)

The use of the minimum yield stress on the wall thickness
ensures a larger capacity to the B.A. than the use of the average
yield stress (if the minimum value is larger than SMYS, the
averaged value is larger than minimum and quite larger than
SMYS). Therefore analyses were addressed to investigate the
Figure 21 Non linear material behavior in compression for
the plate material and for the inner and outer fibers
on the wall thickness after the forming process
(base case material). The outer and inner fibers of

11 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

 the wall thickness are given by the lowest and Figure 22b Bending moment curvature relationships for
highest yield stress, respectively. material after UO process. Dashed line for increasing
curvature.
Then the pressure-ovalisation and the collapse pressure
relationships of a ring (i.e. a cross section) of the B.A have been
evaluated using a four-hinge model (see Figure 2). A material Table 1 Calculated reduction in the B.A. collapse pressure.
that has previously experienced the UO process and an Initial Ovality Base case material Material type 2
“averaged” homogeneous (plate) material have been used. In
0.5% 14.0% 17.6%
the four-hinge model, the deformation of the cross section is
1% 9.6% 13.2%
concentrated on the hinges, where a bending is developed
2% 8.6% 12.1%
following a rotation. Therefore, bending moment-curvatures
relationships have been calculated for plate and UO
experienced materials (see Figure 22a and Figure 22b, A finite element analysis using a model developed in
respectively. ABAQUS [22] has been performed to qualify the above
models. The UO forming process has been simulated on a strip
0.25
of plate (using shell S4R elements [23, 24]), followed by the
application of the external pressure up to the collapse. On the
0.2
same geometry arising from the UO process simulation, but
M dec considering the plate material i.e. the base case material, the
Moment
(MNm)
0.15 External external pressure has been applied up to collapse. The collapse
Pressure pressure has shown a reduction of about 10%.
0.1

To analyse the propagation pressure of the B.A., a model

0.05 based on the allowable pressure at equilibrium is used i.e. the
M inc collapse pressure for a given cross-section ovality. The ovality
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
has been distributed along the propagating buckle wavelength
taking as a reference the buckle shape calculated through the
Curvature (1/m) finite element analysis simulating the propagatimg
Figure 22a Bending moment curvature relationships for plate
material. Dashed line for increasing curvature. phenomenon (Figure 23). The performed analyses have shown
that considering the UO forming process the propagation
pressure is about 7-10% lower than the one calculated
The pressure-ovalisation curves calculated with this approach considering a circular B.A. with homogeneous (plate) material
resulted in an overall decrease in the collapse (Table 2). This is in line with the decreased collapse capacity
capacity of the B.A. cross section. In particular, the showed by UO pipes (Table 1). Nevertheless, this simulation
reduction depends on both initial ovality and did not consider the fact that the cold forming does not affect
material strain hardening behaviour (see the stress-strain curve when high strains are considered (as
those experienced during propagation in the pipe hoop
direction).
Table 1), and ranges from 12% to 17%.
Table 2 Estimation of the effects due to B.A. formation
process.
0.25
Calculated propagation pressure (MPa) and reduction due to
UO process
0.2
Plate Base case material Material type 2
25.85l 26.02
Moment UO Formed 24.30 23.41
(MNm)
0.15
M dec
External Reduction 6% 10%
0.1 Pressure
Therefore, finite element analyses [22], simulating the
0.05
forming process and the propagation over a long section of the
pipe, have been performed. Results showed a lower reduction
M inc in the propagation pressure (about 2% with respect to the
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 propagation pressure of a pipe not subject to cold forming
Curvature (1/m) process). This can be explained considering that part of the

12 Copyright © 2003 by ASME

external work is absorbed in plastic deformations, that are well
above the ones modified by the UO process.
The collapse pressure resistance gives a clear indication of
the capacity of the B.A. to sustain the external pressure and,
then, of the B.A. capacity to stop a propagating buckle.
However, in arresting a propagating buckle, a long arrestor has
many sections working in the post-buckle region and which
could affect the differences between plate and UO formed
materials.
200
180
160
140
Ovalisation (%)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Distance from Collapsed Sections (m)
Figure 23 Ovalisation vs. distance from the collapsed B.A.
sections (FE results).
On this basis, the propagation pressure of the UO formed
buckle arrestors may be up to10% lower than the one calculated
using the yield stress averaged on the wall thickness. A lower
reduction may be considered for long arrestors i.e. arrestors that
will experience applied high strains.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper gives an overview of the technical issues related
to the buckle propagation and arrest, and proposes a new design
equation, applicable for both short and long buckle arrestors,
based on available literature information and numerical
analyses.
Partial safety factors applicable to the new design equation
are calibrated using structural reliability techniques, in order to
fulfil the safety objectives in compliance with DNV Offshore
Standards OS-F101 and OS-F201.
The implications of the technology used for buckle arrestor
fabrication (UO/UOE) on its capacity to arrest a propagating
buckle have been analysed using numerical models.
FE simulation of the forming process and of the buckle
propagation following the collapse due to external pressure,
showed a reduction of about 2% in the propagation pressure
due to cold forming during the manufacturing process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Snamprogetti for the permission
to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. OS-F101-2000: “Submarine Pipelines Rules” by Det
Norske Veritas, Høvik, January 2000.
2. Kyriakides, S. and Yeh, M. K.: "Propagating Buckle and
the Propagating Pressure", Factors Affecting Pipe
Collapse - Phase I, 1985.
3. Palmer A. C. and Martin J. H.: "Buckling Propagation in
Submarine Pipelines", Nature, 254, 46-48, 1975.
4. Kalamarasa S. and Calladine C. R.: "Buckle Propagation
in Submarine Pipelines", CRC/Pipeline/4, 1987.
5. Wierzbicki T. and Bhat S. U.: "On the Transition Zone in
Unconfined Buckle Propagation", J. Energy Resources
Technology, 1986.
6. Steel W. J. M. and Spence J.: "On Propagating Buckles
and their Arrest in Subsea Pipelines", Proc. of the
Institution of the Mechanical Engineers, 187A, 139-147,
1983.
7. Croll J. G. A. : "Analysis of Buckle Propagation in Marine
Pipelines", J. of Construction Steel Research, 5, 103-122,
1985
8. Kyriakides, S., Babcock, C.D. and Elyada, D.: "Initiation
of Propagating Buckles from Local Pipeline Damage",
2.50 3.00
Proceedings of the Energy Resources Technology
Conference, ASME, 1983.
9. Langner, C. G.: "Arrest of Propagating Collapse Failures
in Offshore Pipelines", in Deepwater Pipeline Feasibility
Study, October 1975.
10. Estefen S. F., Aguiar L. A. D. and Alves T. M. J.:
"Correlation Between Analytical and Experimental
Results for Propagating Buckling", OMAE, Florence-
Italy, 1996.
11. SUPERB Project: “Propagating Buckle: State of the Art
and Design Criteria Calibration”, Doc. No. STF22
F96750, Snamprogetti, Sintef and DNV, 1996.
12. DNV ‘96: “Submarine Pipelines Rules” by Det Norske
Veritas, Høvik, December 1996.
13. BS8010 Part 3 (1993):"Pipelines Subsea: Design,
Construction and Installation", British Standards
Institution.
14. Johns, T. G., Melosh, R. E. and Sorensen, J. E.:
"Propagation Buckle Arrestors for Offshore Pipelines",
OTC 2680, Offshore Technology Conference, 1976.
15. Kyriakides, S. and Babcock, C.D.: "Experimental
Determination of the Propagation Pressure of Circular
Pipes", Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
Transactions of ASME, Vol. 103, 1981.
16. Kyriakides, S, Yeh, M. K. and Roach, D.: "On the
Determination of the Propagation Pressure of Long
Circular Tubes", Journal of Pressure Technology,
Transactions of ASME, Vol. 106., 1984.
17. Langner C. G.: “Buckle Arrestors for Deepwater
Pipelines”, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 10711, Houston, TX, 1999.
18. Kyriakides S., Park T. D. and Netto T. A.: “On the Design
of Integral Buckle Arrestors for Offshore Pipelines”, Int.
J. of Applied Ocean Research, Vol.20 pp.95-104, 1998.
19. Park T. D. and Kyriakides S.: “On the Performance of
Integral Buckle Arrestors for Offshore Pipelines”, Int. J.
Mech. Sc., Vol.39 pp.643-669, 1997
13 Copyright © 2003 by ASME
20. Netto T. A. and Kyriakides S.: “Dynamic Performance of
Integral Buckle Arrestors for Offshore Pipelines”, 17th
Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
1998.
21. SUPERB Project: “Statistical Data: Basic Uncertainty
Measures for Reliability Analysis of Offshore Pipelines”,
Doc. No. STF70 F95212, Snamprogetti, Sintef and DNV,
1995.
22. Hibbit H. D., Karlson B. I. and Sorensen P. (2000):
“ABAQUS - User Manual - version 6.1”, Hibbit, Karlson
and Sorensen Inc., Pawtucket, RI 02860-4847.
23. Vitali L., Bruschi R., Mork K.J., Levold E. and Verley R.
(1999): “HOTPIPE Project: Capacity of Pipes Subject to
Internal pressure, Axial Force and Bending Moment”,
Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Brest, France.
24. Torselletti E., Vitali L., Bruschi R and Collberg L. (2003):
“Minimum Wall Thickness Requirements for Ultra Deep-
Water Pipelines”, OMAE2003, Cancun, Mexico.
14 Copyright © 2003 by ASME