IBP1092_09 THERMAL BUCKLING COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS USING DIFFERENT FE TOOLS Waldemar R.

Banasiak, Pedro Labouriau 2, Christopher Burnett3, Hendrik Falepin4

Copyright 2009, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exposition 2009, held between September, 22-24, 2009, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of the Technical Paper, as presented, were not reviewed by IBP. The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline Conference Proceedings.

Abstract
High operational temperature and pressure in offshore pipelines may lead to unexpected buckling, which can have serious consequences for the integrity of the pipeline. The phenomenon of the buckling in the offshore pipelines needs to be analyzed in the design phase using FEM. The analysis should take into account many parameters like operational temperature and pressure, fluid characteristic, seabed profile, soil parameters, coatings of the pipe, free spans etc. The buckling initiation force is sensitive to small changes of any initial geometric out-of-straightness, thus the modeling is important part of the analysis. Recently a few dedicated finite elements programs have been created making modeling of offshore environment easier than it has place in general purpose finite element software. The present paper aims to compare thermal buckling analysis of subsea pipeline performed using different finite elements tools, general purpose (ANSYS, ABAQUS) and dedicated (SAGE Profile 3D) for a single pipeline resting on an uneven seabed. The analyses considered the pipeline rested on flat seabed with initial imperfection causing the lateral buckling. The results show the quite good agreement of results of buckling in elastic range and in the conclusions next comparative analyses with sensitivity cases are recommended.

1. Introduction
The susceptibility to buckling of a pipeline is very important problem in pipelines transporting high temperature and high pressure contents. There are a few methods to mitigate against pipeline buckling, however the experience of design and research offices confirms that the most cost effective solution for such pipeline is controlled buckling. There are some published simplified methods to determine the critical buckling loads. The most common and widely accepted analytical method used to determine the critical buckling force, length and deformation in the buckle is the method presented by Hobbs et al. (1989). Hobbs presents empirical equations to determine the parameters in the buckle for pipeline close to restraints without imperfection. The most recent SAFEBUCK JIP (2005) project presents the analytical method of buckling calculations in the elastic-plastic range taking into account cycling loading of the pipeline. The model was validated against nonlinear FE calculations. The analytical methods are very useful in the preliminary stage of design, however in the detailed design nonlinear FE analysis is required. SAFEBUCK JIP (2004) presents also the design guideline for preliminary and detailed buckling analysis. Recently a few dedicated finite elements programs have been created, which offer professional tools for modeling pipelines on the seabed. Modeling pipelines using general purpose finite element programs requires additional subroutines to simulate the underwater environment. This paper presents the comparison of thermal buckling analysis executed by dedicated program SAGE Profile 3D (SP3D) and general purpose finite elements programs ANSYS and ABAQUS. SP3D is the explicit finite element program developed for offshore pipeline analysis for simulation of pipeline laydown on the seabed, simulations of different pipeline phases like: flooded, hydrotest or operational and more advanced analyses like buckling. The interface of the program allows easily modeling the pipeline in the subsea environment. Moreover SP3D provides the automatic check of the results against requirements of the several codes.

2. Pipeline Modeling for Buckling Analysis ______________________________

CEng RINA MSc, Naval Architect - INTECSEA do Brasil BSc, Mechanical Engineer INTECSEA do Brasil 3 CEng CMarEng MIMarEST MSc BEng INTECSEA UK 4 MSc Fugro Engineers SA/NV
2

Rio Pipeline Conference and Exposition 2009 In the preliminary design of lateral buckling the susceptibility to buckling of the pipeline is checked. In the most common analytical method (Hobbs et al. (1989)) the buckling initiation force is determined and the design process can be continued in two ways: - avoiding the buckling behavior in the pipeline using techniques to reduce the effective force in the pipeline using spool pieces or to increase the buckling initiation force by burying, trenching or rock dumping. - working with buckling by controlled formations of lateral buckles along the pipeline. The example of the effective force distribution in the pipeline where the controlled buckles are formed is presented in the Figure 1.
6 5

(-1) x Force (MN)

4 3 2 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Virtual Anchor

Virtual Anchor Spacing

0.8 Buckle

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.2

KP (km)
Critical Buckling Force Post Buckling Ef fective Force

Effective Force

Figure 1. Post Buckling Effective Force in the Pipeline The SAFEBUCK project provides detailed guideline (SAFEBUCK JIP (2004)) for building models of the pipeline to analyze the lateral buckling. According to this guideline the program used for buckling analysis must be capable of modeling the snap-through buckling and appropriate non-linearitys including the non-linear geometry response (large displacements and large rotations), material non-linearity and non-linear pipe-soil interaction forces. The following recommendations for finite element model were presented: - The stresses associated with the as-laid condition. - The elements length in the crown of the buckle should be less than two diameters of the modeled pipe. - The model should incorporate a weak joint at the buckle crown. - If the field joint introduces a significant stiffness discontinuity this should be taken into account in the FE model. - Temperature dependant material properties should be employed. - The elastic-perfectly plastic material can be used (at least up to 2% of mechanical strain). - The pipe-soil interaction can be represented by Coulomb friction in the preliminary design. The combination of lower bound of axial and upper bound of lateral friction should be used as the worst scenario. To form the buckle in determined place along the pipeline one of the proposed technique should be used: inherent imperfection, snake lay of the pipeline, distributed additional buoyancy or vertical upset of the pipeline using sleepers.

3. Comparative Analysis
To compare the results of analyses performed by different tools the model of the pipeline with 2km virtual anchor space was built. The parameters of the model are typical for the deep water pipeline; however the operational data were selected to retain elasticity. The pipeline has outside diameter of 12.75inch, wall thickness of 23.825mm and anti-corrosion coating thickness of 5.3mm. The pipeline was laid down on the water depth of 1727m on the flat seabed; the residual lay tension was not taken into account in the analysis. The considered soil has lateral friction coefficient of 0.36 and axial friction coefficient of 0.69. The operational content with density of 766kg/m 3, constant pressure of 0.937MPa and constant operational temperature of 90C with ambient temperature of 4C has been applied. The applied material is an elastic-perfectly plastic with yield stress equal to 414MPa. To initiate the buckling, a lateral imperfection of 2.5m has been introduced by displacement load applied in one node in the middle of the pipeline. The Abaqus model uses 2-noded linear element, PIPE31, with 32 integration points along the circumference of cross section to accurately capture the strains. The Hoop stress calculation is according to thick walled theory. The 2

Rio Pipeline Conference and Exposition 2009 element length was specified to be less than one meter near the buckling crown and gradually increase from the buckle location. The pipe-soil interaction considers the pipeline resting on a flat analytical surface and the pipeline movement was assumed to be resisted by Coulomb friction. The friction is assigned to resist the pipe movement along its length (axial friction) and another to resist the pipe movement perpendicular to the pipeline route (lateral friction). The pipeline ends are fully restrained during loading by pressure and temperature. The model is capable of modeling the material yield stress variation according to operational temperature. The thermal expansion coefficient was considered constant. The Ansys model uses 2-noded linear element, PIPE20, with 8 integration points along the circumference. The seabed is modeled using CONTA177 contact element, which simulates the pipe-soil interaction with orthotropic stiffness. The Ansys and Abaqus models are quite similar. The finite element in Ansys uses the thin walled theory and has fixed numbers of integration points along the circumference. The element length varies along the pipeline length to have bigger accuracy in the buckling as in the Abaqus model. SP3D uses a 2-noded beam element without integration points. The pipeline stresses and strains are not computed in pre-defined integration points, instead SP3D outputs the maximum/minimum value and the location on the cross section where they occur. All stress/strain calculation are based on two assumptions: the hoop stress is constant over the pipe wall (i.e. thin walled pipe) and the stress state in the pipeline is bi-axial (i.e. radial stress is ignored). Contact with the seabed is modeled by discrete springs at each node. Three springs are required to define the pipeline-soil interaction: one axial, one lateral and one vertical. Each spring characteristic defines the corresponding soil interaction. The element length in the SP3D model is constant and taken as 4m. As opposed to Ansys and Abaqus Standard, SP3D uses an explicit integration scheme. Explicit finite element codes are typically used for analyzing large non-linear problems. The analyses performed in all FE programs consist of several steps. The first step is the laydown of the pipeline. After the laydown an imperfection is created in the middle of the pipe length and the pipe ends are fully restrained. Later the pipeline is analyzed in the empty phase, product filled, operational phase with pressure and temperature, cool down and depressurization. The buckle occurs in the operational phase and the presented results are related to this phase only. SP3D models the laydown phase in quite a different way as compared to Abaqus and Ansys. SP3D requires the specification of a lay angle, as is the case in a real laydown procedure. The subroutine built in Ansys and Abaqus considers laying pipe using temporary plane parallel to sea surface lowered down in the seabed direction. The comparative results of the analyses are shown in Figure 3 and Table 1.

8.0 6.0

6.0E+05 4.0E+05 2.0E+05 0.0E+00 1000 -2.0E+05 -4.0E+05 -6.0E+05

Lateral Displacement (m)

4.0 2.0 0.0 1000 -2.0 -4.0

Bending Moment (Nm)

1050

1100

1150

1200

1050

1100

1150

1200

Abaqus

Ansys

SP3D

Abaqus

Ansys

SP3D

4.0E+08 3.5E+08

0.00% 1000 -0.03% -0.05% Compression Strain -0.08% -0.10% -0.13% -0.15% -0.18% -0.20% -0.23%

1050

1100

1150

1200

VonMises Stress (Pa)

3.0E+08 2.5E+08 2.0E+08 1.5E+08 1.0E+08 5.0E+07 0.0E+00 1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

-0.25%

Abaqus

Ansys

SP3D

Abaqus

Ansys

SP3D

Figure 3. Results comparison Table 1. Results in the Buckle 3

Rio Pipeline Conference and Exposition 2009 Description Lateral Displacement (m) Effective Force (N) Bending Moment (Nm) Von Misses Stress (MPa) Compressive Strain (%) Tensile Strain (%) Abaqus 6.883 -159781 -505266 327.0 -0.162 0.128 Ansys 6.542 -166950 -508500 322.3 -0.161 0.130 SP3D 6.733 -170104 -526991 361.4 -0.195 0.129 Error SP3D to Abaqus (%) -2.18 6.46 4.30 10.51 20.55 0.66 Error SP3D to Ansys (%) 2.92 1.89 3.64 12.12 21.30 -0.89

The applied imperfection caused the same shape of the third mode of the buckling in all the analyses. The maximum lateral displacement in the buckle achieved by SP3D is not significantly different than results from Ansys and Abaqus although the element length used in this model is 4m. There are also not significant differences in effective force and bending moment in the buckle and along entire route obtained by all the programs. The maximum error for this parameters calculated by SP3D is about 5%. The biggest differences we can see in the results of Von Mises stress and compressive strain. The formula for Von Mises stress for pipeline contains Hoop stress and longitudinal stress. The Hoop stress in all analyses is the same, thus the way of calculation of longitudinal stress is different. The maximum disagreement in Von Mises stress can be seen in the extreme values of bending moment. The difference in the results of compressive strain seems to confirm places of maximum disagreement, however there are some differences in strains far from the buckle, where the bending moment is equal zero.

4. Conclusions
The main purpose of the analysis was to compare the results in the buckle of a pipeline initiated by lateral imperfection performed with different finite elements programs: general purpose like Ansys or Abaqus and dedicated, in this case SP3D. The results show good agreement for lateral displacement, effective force and bending moment. In stresses and strains the error exceeds 10% but the results are always conservative. This paper confirms that SP3D can give results of buckling analysis in elastic range of the pipeline on flat seabed with initial imperfection close to results achieved by commercial general purpose programs like Ansys and Abaqus. Explicit formulation allows analyzing the pipeline with geometrical and material nonlinearities and the time of analysis is independent on the number of introduced non-linearities to the model. Should be noticed that the model built in SP3D is using the elements with length of 4m and the results are still acceptable and describe the global buckling behavior of the pipeline. To estimate the effectiveness of SP3D in buckling analysis of the offshore pipelines, further analyses with sensitivity cases are required. A recommended subject for next research would be the comparative analysis of pipeline laid on the real 3D seabed surface with imperfections in elastic-plastic range. The general purpose programs like Ansys or Abaqus have still more advantages in term of building more detailed and more complex models with possibility of introducing different materials, friction models, loading etc., however SP3D is a kind of tool which can be considered as more complex than analytical methods and maybe could be used in detailed design.

5. Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper would like to express thanks to Dr. Wei Jian Wu for performing the buckling analysis of the pipeline using Abaqus. All the results from the analysis are placed in this paper. Moreover we would like to thank Prof. Alastair Walker for technical reviewing of the paper.

6. References
HOBBS, R. E., LIANG, F. Thermal Buckling of Pipelines Close to Restraints. Proc. Of the OMAE, v. V, p. 121-127, 1989. SAFEBUCK JIP. Safe Design of Pipelines with Lateral Buckling, Response within a Buckled Pipeline. Boreas Consultants Ltd., August 2005. SAFEBUCK JIP. Safe Design of Pipelines with Lateral Buckling, Design Guideline. Boreas Consultants Ltd., August 2004. ANSYS, Release 11.0 Documentation for Ansys, 2000. ABAQUS 6.8 -2 August 8, 2008. FUGRO ENGINEERS, SAGE Profile 3D User Manual, 2007. 4