ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 1058 1064

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Integral buckle arrestors for offshore pipelines: Enhanced design criteria

L.-H. Lee a, S. Kyriakides a,, T.A. Netto b
a b

Research Center for Mechanics of Solids, Structures & Materials, The University of Texas at Austin, WRW 110, Austin, TX 78712, USA COPPE-Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 91945-970, Brazil

a r t i c l e in f o
Article history: Received 19 October 2007 Received in revised form 11 February 2008 Accepted 16 February 2008 Available online 29 February 2008 Keywords: Buckle arrestors Propagating buckles Offshore pipelines

a b s t r a c t
Integral buckle arrestors are relatively thick wall rings periodically welded in an offshore pipeline at intervals of several hundred meters in order to safeguard the line in case a propagating buckle initiates. They provide additional circumferential rigidity and thus impede downstream propagation of collapse, limiting the damage to the length of pipe separating the two arrestors. The effectiveness of such devices was studied parametrically through experiments and numerical simulations in Park and Kyriakides [On the design of integral buckle arrestors for offshore pipelines. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1997;39(6):64369]. The experiments involved quasi-static propagation of collapse towards an arrestor, engagement of the arrestor, temporary arrest, and the eventual crossing of collapse to the downstream pipe at a higher pressure. The same processes were simulated with nite element models that included nite deformation plasticity and contact. The experimental crossover pressures enriched with numerically generated values were used to develop an empirical design formula for the arresting efciency of such devices. A recent experimental extension of this work revealed that for some combinations of arrestor and pipe yield stresses, the design formula was overly conservative. Motivated by this nding, a new broader parametric study of the problem was undertaken, which demonstrated that the difference between the pipe and the arrestor yield stress affects signicantly the arrestor performance. The original arrestor design formula was then modied to include the new experimental and numerical results producing an expression with a much wider applicability. & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Offshore pipelines are usually protected from a potential initiation and propagation of collapse (propagating buckle) by the installation of buckle arrestors at regular intervals along the line. Buckle arrestors are circumferential stiffeners that are designed to stop an incoming propagating buckle and in this manner limit the extent of damage suffered by the line to the section between two adjacent arrestors. The integral buckle arrestor is a device commonly used in deepwater applications. It consists of a ring that has the same internal diameter but is thicker than the pipe (see Fig. 1). The rings are welded between two adjacent pipe lengths at intervals of several hundred meters. The effectiveness of integral buckle arrestors was rst evaluated experimentally by Johns et al. [1]. The concept was further analyzed through a set of 15 full-scale experiments on 4.5-in seamless pipes with D/t of approximately 22 by Park and Kyriakides [2] (henceforth referred to as PK). A numerical model capable of simulating accurately the buckle propagation, arrest,

and arrestor crossover was developed in the same study. Kyriakides et al. [3] used the experimental results enriched with a set of numerically generated crossover pressures to develop the following empirical design formula for arrestor efciency (Z) in terms of the major geometric and material parameters of the pipe and the arrestor: A1 s 0:5 s 0:5  t 1:25 L0:8 h2:5
o oa

PX PP Z PCO P P

D   P CO 1 PP

(1)

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 512 471 5963; fax: +1 512 471 5500.

E-mail address: skk@mail.utexas.edu (S. Kyriakides). 0020-7403/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2008.02.008

Here, PX, known as the crossover pressure, is the pressure at which a propagating buckle that engages an arrestor quasi-statically crosses it; PCO is the collapse pressure of the intact pipe, and PP is its propagation pressure. D is the diameter of the pipe, t its wall thickness while E and so are the elastic modulus and yield stress of the pipe material. L and h are, respectively, the length and thickness of the arrestor and soa the yield stress of its material. A procedure for using this formula to design integral buckle arrestors is given in [3]. A somewhat different design formula based on a set of tests on 4.5, 12.75, and 18 in pipes appears in [4]. Similar design formulae for other types of arrestors appear in [5] (internal ring) and [6] (slip-on). In the present extension of this

ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 10581064 1059

work new experimental results coupled with results from a broader parametric study conducted numerically are used to enhance the design formula (1).

2. Experiments and motivation J-lay is a method for installing pipelines to the sea oor in a nearly vertical conguration that is preferred for deepwater applications. For several of the existing J-lay installation vessels the pipe is hung from stiff collars welded at intervals of 160240 ft (4973 m). The collars are designed to also serve as buckle arrestors (see [7], Chapter 2) but tend to be shorter than integral buckle arrestors used on S-lay installed pipelines. This difference motivated a recent study involving 18 tests on buckle arrestors with lengths of 0.5D. The tests were performed on 2-in stainless steel (SS) 304 seamless tubes with D/ts of approximately 24 and 21. The arrestors were machined out of SS-304 solid stock and welded between sections of tubes 13D (upstream) and 11D (downstream) long (see Fig. 1). The effectiveness of the arrestors was measured in the manner described in [2]. A dent was

Fig. 1. Schematic of an integral arrestor welded between two pipe strings.

introduced to the upstream tube in order to initiate collapse. The specimen was pressurized in a stiff pressure vessel under volume control. Local collapse initiated and subsequently propagated quasi-statically towards the arrestor. Collapse was arrested, leading to a gradual increase of the pressure in the system. At a pressure PX (crossover pressure), the buckle crossed the arrestor and continued propagating in the downstream tube. Nine experiments were conducted for each D/t. The pipe and arrestor parameters are listed in Table 1 together with the measured propagation and crossover pressures. The collapse pressures of the downstream tubes, used to estimate the arrestor ^ CO ). The results span efciencies, were calculated using BEPTICO (P efciency values from approximately 0.2 to 1.0. Twelve of the arrestors were crossed by the attening mode ( , see Fig. 2a) and six by the ipping mode ( , Fig. 2b). Fig. 3 shows the PK data plotted against Eq. (1). For Zp0.7 the data fall along a linear trajectory with a slope (A1) of 6.676. For Z40.7 the data exhibit signicant scatter and so a linear lower bound was constructed for use in the design as shown in the gure [3]. Interestingly, the value of Z 0.7 separated the arrestors that were crossed by the attening mode (lower than 0.7) and those crossed by the ipping mode (larger than 0.7). The gure includes 18 new data points. The data with Zp0.7 fall nicely along a linear trajectory with a slope of 13.04 (R2 0.9146); in other words, the new arrestors are stiffer than the ones in PK. Furthermore, data with Z40.7 are also in reasonable agreement with this linear t albeit with somewhat larger scatter. The six cases with a ipping mode, marked in the gure with , are all above Z40.7 but now this efciency level is no longer the boundary separating the two modes. Comparing the PK experimental and numerical data with the present ones, the following trends can be observed. In the PK data, most of the arrestors had yield stresses that were comparable to or were the same as those of the pipes, while in some cases the arrestor yield stress was signicantly lower than that of the pipe. On the contrary, in the present results the arrestor material had a yield stress of 95.5 ksi (659 MPa) while the pipe yield stresses

Table 1 Summary of integral arrestor experimental results. Included are tube and arrestor geometric and material parameters, and measured collapse, propagation, and crossover pressures Exp no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
a b c

t (in)a 0.0951 0.0951 0.0962 0.0962 0.0958 0.0966 0.1020 0.1017 0.1019 0.0867 0.0866 0.0863 0.0868 0.0860 0.0861 0.0864 0.0865 0.0867

D/t 21.01 21.01 20.76 20.75 20.83 20.02 19.60 19.65 19.66 23.10 23.09 23.19 23.03 23.24 23.25 23.13 23.11 23.06

Do (%) 0.045 0.034 0.093 0.033 0.050 0.053 0.145 0.228 0.083 0.223 0.253 0.260 0.347 0.288 0.178 0.243 0.373 0.160

h/t 2.731 2.411 2.210 2.052 1.898 1.723 1.571 1.424 1.308 1.837 1.708 1.576 1.982 1.436 2.111 1.279 2.214 2.324

L/D 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

so (ksi)b 44.33 44.33 48.92 48.92 48.92 48.92 40.27 40.27 40.27 43.47 43.47 43.47 43.47 42.55 42.55 42.55 42.55 41.56

PP (psi)c 812 820 870 880 885 885 895 887 902 608 614 612 605 594 587 612 615 612

PX (psi)c 3287 3144 3089 3264 2682 2488 2243 1940 1689 2069 1677 1367 2383 1194 2419 1045 2481 2273

Mode

^ CO (psi)c P 3729 3763 3612 3750 3683 3726 3482 3360 3574 2595 2569 2543 2498 2507 2607 2568 2463 2751

Z 0.8485 0.7897 0.8093 0.8307 0.6422 0.5642 0.5211 0.4258 0.2945 0.7353 0.5437 0.3910 0.9392 0.3136 0.9069 0.2214 1.0097 0.7765

1 in 25.4 mm. 1 ksi 6.897 MPa. 14.5 psi 1 bar.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1060 L.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 10581064

Fig. 2. Photographs of (a) the attening and (b) the ipping modes of arrestor crossover.

ranged between about 40 and 48 ksi (276331 MPa, see Table 1). Thus, the apparent stiffer performance of the new data is at least partly due to the arrestors having twice the yield stress of the pipes. Such a large difference between the arrestor and pipe yield stresses was not considered previously. Kyriakides et al. [3] nished their recommended design procedures by pointing out that ylike all empirical expressions of results of complex phenomena, Eq. (1) (present number) can be a dependable tool provided that the parameters of the arrestor and pipe being designed do not deviate signicantly from the range of data used to generate it. If the problem parameters deviate signicantly from those of the present database, new dependable data must be added to it and a new t should be attemptedy. Clearly, the new results fall outside the range of applicability of Eq. (1). Motivated by this, a new parametric study is undertaken that will be used together with the new experimental data to extend the design formula.

Fit 1

0.8

Lower Bound Envelope

0.6

0.4 Fit 0.2

KPN-1997

Present Results (D/t) 23 20 0.5 0.6

3. Parametric study of arrestor efciency A FE model for simulating the quasi-static buckle propagation, its arrest by an integral arrestor and its eventual crossing of the arrestor at a higher pressure was rst developed by Park and Kyriakides [2]. This framework as modied in [8] was adopted in the present study (same symmetries, slightly different mesh, use of hydrostatic uid elements to pressurize the system). Typical lengths of the upstream and downstream sections of pipe were 7.5D and 5D, respectively. Results from two sample simulations of two experiments in Table 1 are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. They correspond to Exp. 5 and 2, respectively, and are based on the parameters given in Table 1. Fig. 4a shows the calculated pressurechange in volume (Pdu) response for the parameters of Exp. 5 while Fig. 4b displays the initial and six deformed congurations corresponding to the numbered bullets marked on the response. The rst pressure maximum corresponds to the initiation of collapse caused by a local imperfection in the neighborhood of the plane of symmetry on the LHS. The collapse is seen in

0.1

0.2
0.5 0.5

0.3
0.8

0.4
1.25 2.5

o E

oa E

L t

t D

h t

PCO - 1 x 100 PP

Fig. 3. Arrestor efciency plotted against empirical function of pipe and arrestor parameters from [3]. Included are new experimental results that show a higher performance.

conguration A to localize, leading to rst contact of the walls in conguration B. Subsequently, collapse propagates at the pipe propagation pressure as illustrated in conguration C. Eventually the arrestor is engaged, collapse is halted (see D) and the pressure in the system increases, reaching a maximum value of 2752 psi (189.8 bar). This represents the crossover pressure of this arrestor. In the corresponding experiment the crossover pressure was 2682 psi (185.0 bar) which is 2.6% lower. The arrestor attened, allowing some ovality to be passed on to the downstream pipe causing it to collapse as illustrated in conguration F.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 10581064 1061

0.8 P PCO 0.6 D t = 20.83 = 0.05% 4 0.4 1 2 0.2 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 PP SS 304 Exp. 5 0.4 / o 0.5 3 6
0.2

0.8

D t

= 21.01 = 0.034%

PX

PCO 0.6

0.4

1 2 3

4 6

0 0 0 0.1

PP 0.2 0.3

SS 304 Exp. 2 0.4 / o 0.5

Fig. 4. (a) Calculated pressure-change in volume response for Exp. 5 and (b) corresponding sequence of deformed congurations that illustrate the attening mode of crossover.

Fig. 5. (a) Calculated pressure-change in volume response for Exp. 2 and (b) corresponding sequence of deformed congurations that illustrate the ipping mode of crossover.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1062 L.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 10581064

Figs. 5a and b show corresponding results for a thicker arrestor with higher crossover pressure (simulation of Exp. 2). The basic events are very similar but the crossover pressure is now 3214 psi (226.6 bar), which is very close to the experimental value of 3144 psi (216.8 bar). The main difference is that, in concert with the experiment, this arrestor was crossed by the ipping mode that is clearly illustrated in conguration F of Fig. 5b. Thicker arrestors are more difcult to atten; instead their walls deform in a manner that causes the opposite ends to ovalize at 901 to each other. In this manner, stretching of the ring generators is minimized [2,9]. Some reverse ovalization is passed on to the downstream tube, causing the 901 switch in its collapse mode. This high level of performance by the model was repeated in a total of nine one-to-one simulations of the experiments in Table 1 (as indeed was the case for all simulations of experiments performed in [2,8]). The model was then used to extend the parametric study of the problem. The parametric study of PK involved X65 pipes with D/ts of 17, 22.5, and 34 (PK, Figs. 12 and 19) and arrestors of the same material with various lengths and thicknesses. In the current extension the pipes analyzed had D/t 22.5, the arrestor length was kept at L 0.5D, while the yield stresses of the pipe and arrestors were varied independently. In the new calculations, the hardening characteristics of the stressstrain responses used were kept the same as those of the X65 material of PK (RambergOsgood hardening exponent (n) of 10.7 up to a strain of 8%); the elastic limit was however varied to achieve various values of yield stress (so and soa). In this manner, results for several combinations of pipe and arrestor yield stresses were generated that are listed in Table 2. For each (so,soa) combination several arrestor thicknesses were considered that are listed in the same table. Each calculation provides the pipe propagation [12] and the arrestor crossover pressures, which are listed in Table 2. The collapse pressure of the downstream pipe of each model was evaluated separately using the custom numerical model BEPTICO ^ CO in Table 2). Using these [10] and an initial ovality (Do) of 0.1% (P three pressures arrestor efciencies are evaluated using the rst part of Eq. (1). The resultant efciencies are plotted in Fig. 6 against the following parameter:  1:25  0:8  2:5 ,  t L h PCO 1 . D t t PP (2)

with higher slope than the equal yield stresses results, the (65:9522.5) data have an even higher slope, and the (52:9522.5) data have the highest slope exhibited by the numerical results. Clearly, the results demonstrate that the ratio of the two yield stresses inuences signicantly the performance of the arrestor. Indeed, the performance is seen to increase if the arrestor yield stress is higher than that of the pipe, with the increase being more signicant as the difference between the arrestor and pipe yield stresses becomes larger. The experimental data of Table 1 had an even larger difference between the two yield stresses than those of the parametric study and consequently they fall along a stiffer trajectory than the numerical results.

4. Updated design equation The new experimental and numerical results are now used together with the ones of PK to update the empirical design formula of Kyriakides et al. [3] for integral arrestors. The procedure used is based on dimensional analysis, is similar to that in [3] and will not be repeated here. The much broader variation of parameters conducted and the much larger data set developed (145 sets of data) make the approximation of the efciency with a product of powers of the major non-dimensional parameters more difcult. Once again, the tting will be based on results that produced efciencies Zp0.7. The expression that yielded the best t of the data is as follows:      2:5  0:65   E soa 0:95 t 1:25 L 0:8 h A1 so D t t E   Z . (3) P CO 1 Pp In other words, the powers of the two material parameter variables are different from those of the original formula (Eq. (1)). The efciency plotted against the function on the RHS of Eq. (3) is shown in Fig. 7. The data for Zp0.7 is seen to fall along a nearly linear path while for Z40.7 the data exhibit the wide scatter seen in the original t. The plot includes a best linear t of the data for Zp0.7, which has a slope of 9.541 (A1) with a correlation coefcient of R2 0.941. Because the data exhibit some scatter, a conservative design could be based on a lower bound linear t instead in which case the slope is reduced to A1 7.96. For Z40.7 in both cases we recommend that a lower bound of the data in Fig. 7 be used such as the one drawn in the gure. Finally, the integral arrestor data of [4] plotted according to Eq. (3) fall somewhat above the linear t for Zp0.7. Because of the age of this data, nding a reason for this higher performance is difcult. However, the present t remains a conservative option with regard to that set of data. The reader is reminded that the practically relevant issue of the performance of integral arrestors under dynamic buckle propagation was addressed in [8,11], where it was shown that dynamics enhances the arresting performance of such devices. Consequently, design based on quasi-static results, such as the one presented here, tends to be conservative. The procedure for using this formula to design integral arrestors, including limits on arrestor length and choice of safety factors, remains the same as in [3]. Once again, we reiterate that despite the much wider parametric study on which the updated formula of efciency Eq. (3) depends, the user should be aware that the formula is dependable provided the parameters of the pipe and arrestor fall within the ranges of the parameters of the data used in this study. Finally, as we have always recommend for such complex problems, once the formula is used to design an arrestor for a particular pipeline, the design should be proven by a numerical arrestor crossover simulation and/or by a full-scale test.

This expression includes the three geometric non-dimensional variables of Eq. (1) but excludes the two material ones. For clarity, the results of each material combination are plotted with a different symbol and are identied by three numbers that represent the following (s0o : s0oa D=t ) (yield stresses are in ksi; s0o is the stress at a strain of 0.5% and consequently is slightly different from so, the stress at a strain offset of 0.2%, in Table 2). Included are all the numerical results of PK identied as (65:65-XX) as well as the new experimental results from Table 1 plotted with open circles and squares (J, &). Results for efciency levels higher than 0.8 are excluded and consequently the data for each yield stress combination are seen to fall along a nearly linear trajectory (a linear t of each set is included). The (65:65-XX) data fall along a nearly linear path with an intermediate slope (linear t drawn in red). Interestingly, the new results for (52:5222.5) and (75:7522.5) fall in line with this set of data. We now let the yield stress of the pipe stay constant at 75 ksi and consider arrestors with progressively lower yield stresses such as (75:6522.5), (75:5222.5), and (75:4222.5). Each set of data falls on a nearly linear trajectory with a progressively decreasing slope. Next we consider several cases where the arrestor yield stress is progressively higher than that of the pipe. Thus for (75:9522.5), the data fall along a linear path

ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 10581064 1063

Table 2 Calculated propagation, crossover, and collapse pressures, and arrestor efciencies (D/t 22.5, L/D 0.5) h/t so (ksi )
a

Table 2 (continued ) h/t 2.75 3.00 2.00 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50
a b

so (ksia) 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 1 ksi 6.897 MPa. 14.5 psi 1 bar.

soa (ksia) 62.90 62.90 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 39.18 39.18 39.18 39.18 39.18

^ X (psib) P 3528 4173 1952 2571 3059 3592 4121 2272 2678 3096 3575 4047

Mode

^ Z 0.6151 0.7771 0.2191 0.3746 0.4972 0.6312 0.7641 0.2995 0.4015 0.5065 0.6269 0.7455

soa (ksi )

^ X (psib) P

Mode

^ Z

^ P 1080 psi; (a) P 1.25 74.84 1.50 74.84 1.75 74.84 2.00 74.84 2.25 74.84 2.50 74.84 2.75 74.84 3.00 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84

^ CO 5060 psi P 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.45 94.45 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84 74.84

1472 1776 2118 2501 3173 3901 4121 4012 2255 2705 3319 3994 4117

0.0985 0.1749 0.2608 0.3570 0.5259 0.7088 0.7641 0.7367 0.2952 0.4083 0.5626 0.7322 0.7631

^ P 881 psi; P ^ CO 5289 psi (b) P 1.50 67.06 94.04 1.75 67.06 94.04 2.00 67.06 94.04 2.25 67.06 94.04 2.50 67.06 94.04 2.75 67.06 94.04 3.00 67.06 94.04 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 67.06 67.06 67.06 67.06 67.06 67.06 67.06 67.06 67.06 67.06

1549 1892 2488 3163 3811 4398 4378 1868 2396 2941 3459 3952

0.1515 0.2294 0.3646 0.5177 0.6647 0.7979 0.7933 0.2239 0.3437 0.4673 0.5848 0.6967

0.8

'o: 'oa -D/t

42:95-23 44:95-20 52:52-22.5 52:95-22.5 65:65-17 65:95-22.5 75:65-22.5 75:52-22.5 75:75-22.5 75:95-22.5 65:65-22.5 65:65-34 75:42-22.5

0.6

0.4

^ P 839 psi; P ^ CO 3257 psi (c) P 1.25 49.03 94.45 1.50 49.03 94.45 1.75 49.03 94.45 1.88 49.03 94.45 2.00 49.03 94.45 2.25 49.03 94.45 2.50 2.75 3.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 94.45 94.45 94.45 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03

0.2
1332 1620 2013 2295 2628 3104 2870 2936 3023 1077 1288 1503 1734 2133 2566 3070 2918 0.1998 0.3230 0.4855 0.6022 0.7399 0.9367 0.8400 0.8672 0.9032 0.0984 0.1857 0.2746 0.3701 0.5352 0.7142 0.9227 0.8598

0.2 L t

0.4
0.8 1.25 2.5

0.6 h t PCO -1 PP

0.8

t D

Fig. 6. Arrestor efciency as a function of problem geometric parameters for various combinations of pipe and arrestor yield stresses.

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 Fit Lower Bound Envelope

42:95-23 44:95-20 E-PK-22 52:52-22.5 52:95-22.5 65:65-22.5 65:95-22.5 68:68-22.5 68:94-22.5 75:75-22.5 75:95-22.5 65:65-17 65:65-34 75:65-22.5 75:52-22.5 75:42-22.5

^ P 977 psi; P ^ CO 4314 psi (d) P 1.25 62.90 94.45 1.50 62.90 94.45 1.75 62.90 94.45 2.00 62.90 94.45 2.25 62.90 94.45 2.50 62.90 94.45 2.75 62.90 94.45 3.00 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 62.90 62.90 62.90 62.90 62.90 62.90 94.45 62.90 62.90 62.90 62.90 62.90 ^ CO 5060 psi P 62.90 62.90 62.90

1407 1706 2044 2559 3212 3963 3488 3534 2023 2449 2977 3555 3656

0.1289 0.2185 0.3197 0.4741 0.6698 0.8948 0.7525 0.7663 0.3135 0.4411 0.5993 0.7726 0.8028

R2 = 0.9409 ( < 0.7) A1 = 9.5411 0.1 0.2

0.65

0.3
0.95 oa 0.8

0.4
1.25 2.5

0.5 h t

0.6

E
o

^ P 1080 psi; (e) P 2.00 74.84 2.25 74.84 2.50 74.84

L t

t D

PCO -1 PP

2111 2423 2960

0.2590 0.3374 0.4724

Fig. 7. Arrestor efciency vs. empirical function of parameters and ts recommended for design.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1064 L.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 10581064

5. Summary and conclusions The problem of arrest of a propagating buckle in a long pipeline by a relatively short thicker wall ring welded into the line (integral buckle arrestor) was studied through experiment and analysis by Park and Kyriakides [2]. The experimental crossover pressures enriched with numerically generated values were used to develop a formula for the arresting efciency of such devices. The present paper presents experimental results that show that for some combinations of arrestor and pipe yield stresses the formula generated was overly conservative. Motivated by this nding, a new broader parametric study of the problem was undertaken using large-scale numerical simulations of the process. The results demonstrated that the difference between the pipe and arrestor yield stress affects signicantly the arrestor performance. The new experimental and numerical results were then combined with the original results to generate a new expression for arresting efciency with a much wider applicability.

References
[1] Johns TG, Mesloh RE, Sorenson JE. Propagating buckle arrestors for offshore pipelines. ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 1978;100: 20614. [2] Park T-D, Kyriakides S. On the design of integral buckle arrestors for offshore pipelines. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1997;39(6): 64369. [3] Kyriakides S, Park T-D, Netto TA. On the design of integral buckle arrestors for offshore pipelines. In: Vugts JH, editor. Proceedings of the BOSS97, vol. 1. Pergamon: Elsevier Sciences; 1997. p. 27789 Also, Applied Ocean Research 1998;20:95114. [4] Langner CG. Buckle arrestors for deepwater pipelines. In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 10711, vol. 3, 1999.p. 1728. [5] Olso E, Kyriakides S. Internal ring buckle arrestors for pipe-in-pipe systems. International Journal of Nonlinear Mechanics 2003;38:26784. [6] Lee L-H, Kyriakides S. On the arresting efciency of slip-on buckle arrestors for offshore pipelines. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2004;46: 103555. [7] Kyriakides S, Corona E. Mechanics of Offshore Pipelines: Volume 1 Buckling and Collapse. Oxford, UK and Burlington, MA: Elsevier; 2007. [8] Netto TA, Kyriakides S. Dynamic performance of integral buckle arrestors for offshore pipelines. Part II analysis. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2000;42:142552. [9] Reid SR, Johnson W, Watson AR. Large deformations of thin-walled circular tubes under transverse loading: I, II, III. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1976;18:325. 387, 501. [10] Kyriakides S, Dyau J-Y, Corona E. Pipe collapse under bending, tension and external pressure (BEPTICO). Computer Program Manual, Engineering Mechanics Research Laboratory report no. 94/4, 1994. [11] Netto TA, Kyriakides S. Dynamic performance of integral buckle arrestors for offshore pipelines. Part I experiments. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2000;42:140523. [12] Dyau J-Y, Kyriakides S. On the propagation pressure of long cylindrical shells under external pressure. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1993; 35:675713.

Acknowledgments The work reported was conducted with nancial support from a consortium of industrial sponsors under the project Structural Integrity of Offshore Pipelines, while the work of TAN was also sponsored by Brazils CNPq. The nancial support is acknowledged with thanks. The authors are also grateful to Petrobras for sponsoring the new experiments.