DESIGN OF HIGH PRESSURE/HIGH TEMPERATURE (HP/HT) PIPELINES AGAINST LATERAL BUCKLING USING VERTICAL UPSET METHOD

A. Nikkhaah1, Dr. M. Baghernejad1, Shaifuzzaman B. Isa2, B. Baghernejad1, C. Y. Chun2

ABSTRACT
Design of HP/HT pipelines differs significantly from traditional pipeline design. In HP/HT pipelines, phenomena such as lateral buckling, low cycle fatigue, and ratcheting is accounted for in addition to addressing the traditional pipeline design requirements. In this paper lateral buckling of HP/HT pipelines is discussed by presenting a real case study, the gas pipeline between PC04 and B11 platforms in Malaysian waters. To accommodate thermal expansion of the pipeline and to overcome the available soil uncertainties, a design strategy using strain-based design was adopted; incorporating mitigation techniques such as a pipeline lay over vertical buckle triggers (sleepers). The pipeline is designed to buckle laterally on sleepers. Locations of the sleepers are selected with due consideration for total strain in the pipe wall, pipeline route, and uncertainties in design input data.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, demand for high pressure/ temperature pipelines is increasing continuously. In parallel, some joint industry projects have been developed to address safe design of HP/HT pipelines. SLT-Engineering developed a simplified methodology based on requirements of DNV-OSF101 code [1], using available published information [2 to 12]. Figure 1 shows the analysis methodology developed for lateral buckling analysis of the pipeline.

1 2

SLT-Engineering Sdn Bhd, Asia Pacific Region Office, Kuala Lumpur Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur

.
Figure 1: Design Methodology for Lateral Buckling Analysis.

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The following design requirements are set for lateral buckling of the pipeline: 1. The buckling force (maximum pipeline axial force capacity) should be considered equal to minimum of Hobbs mode infinity [2, 3] and out of straightness model. 2. Design feed-in-length (FIL) of each buckle shall be equal to maximum feed-inlength into the buckle which will not cause pipeline failure under all limiting states. 3. The probability of maximum feed-in-length exceeding the design feed-in-length shall be less than 10-4 [1].

LATERAL BUCKLING ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Pipe-Soil Interaction Model The soil resistance against pipeline movement is divided into two main sections, breakout, and residual sections. The lateral resistance model of soil is developed based on the model and recommendations presented in OTC 17944 [10]. The initial embedment of pipeline is calculated using Equation (1) [10].

z St V = D 45 DS u

(1)

Where, z is the initial penetration of pipe, D the pipe outside diameter, St the soil sensitivity,
V vertical load on the pipeline inclusive of dynamic load during pipeline installation, and Su

the undrained shear strength at bottom of the pipe. The lateral breakout and residual resistances of soil then may be calculated using Equations (2) and (3), respectively [10].
H breakout z 3 = 0.2v + Su D S u / D D
1 S u _ 1D H residual = 1 0.651 exp 2 D v

(2)

(3)

Where, is the submerged soil unit weight, v the vertical load on pipe, and Su_1D the undrained shear strength of soil at one pipe diameter below seabed. The mobilization of breakout resistance is assumed within a pipe movement of less than half of a diameter, while residual resistance occurs within 3 to 5 diameters [10].
3

For axial resistance of the pipeline the soil model presented in OTC 6846 [20] is used. According to this model maximum and residual axial resistance of soil may be calculated using Equations (4) and (5), below. H breakout = 1.05 Ac S u H residual = 0.34 Ac S u (4) (5)

The mobilization of axial breakout resistance is within a pipe movement of less than 0.05 of a pipe diameter, while residual resistance occurs at 1.2 times the diameter of pipe [20]. The uncertainty of the soil model is treated based on recommendations of OTC 17944 [10].
Screening Criteria for Buckling

Lower bound axial capacity of the pipeline to withstand against lateral buckling is calculated using Equation (6). S = min (SH, SOOS) Where,
S H = 2.29 E .I (E.I )3 f LB 2 .E. A s L
0.25

(6)

(7)

S OOS = ( (W FL ) FD )R

(8)

Where, E is the elastic modulus of the pipeline material, W the submerged weight per unit length of the pipeline, the lateral friction coefficient, I the pipeline moment of inertia, As the pipeline cross section area, FD the drag force per unit length on the pipeline, FL the lift force per unit length on the pipeline, and fLLB the lower bound lateral soil resistance. The pipeline may buckle if maximum axial effective force in the pipeline is higher than axial capacity of the pipeline.
Calculation of Design Limiting Criteria and Feed-In-Length

To calculate maximum allowable strain in the pipeline the following key failure modes (except pressure containment and external pressure collapse that were fulfilled during early stage of pipeline design) are considered: 1. Local buckling
4

2. Fatigue 3. Weld fracture

Local Buckling

As most applied loadings on the pipeline are displacement-controlled, strain based design criteria based on requirements of DNV-OS-F101 [1] is used for local buckling analysis of the pipeline, considering the following assumptions [13]. 1. Hoop component of stress and resultant strain are kept within the allowable limit obtained from load controlled criteria 2. Environmental loads are applied to the buckle free span in the zones around the buckle triggers. Effects of these loads on the resultant strain should be insignificant.
Fatigue

High pressure/ high temperature pipelines generally may be subjected to two main categories of cyclic loadings, as follows: 1. Low cycle / high amplitude loading, mainly due to pipeline installation and startupshutdown of the line 2. High cycle / low amplitude loading, mainly due to environmental load and vortex induced vibration For low cycle fatigue analysis of the pipeline, the methodology presented in guidelines of American Bureau of Shipping [15] may be used. According to this guideline, Equation (9) may be used for assessment of the fatigue life of the welded structures when the plastic strain range is significant.
= 0.055 N 0.4 for 0.002 = 0.016 N 0.25 for < 0.002

(9)

Where, is the strain range in pipeline. Investigations [13] show that at least a safety factor of 7.0 is included in Equation (9). The high cycle fatigue analysis of the pipeline spans aside the buckle triggers is performed in accordance with DNV-OS-F101 [1] and DNV-RP-C203 [14] under the assumption that the weld line is in region with highest stress conditions.

Fracture

Engineering critically assessment is performed based on BS 7910 [16] using recommendations of DNV-OS-F101 [1]. Based on accuracy of available examination methods, an undetectable circumferential crack with 25 mm length and 2.5 mm depth may be considered for fracture analysis.
Design Feed-In-Length

Design feed-in-length of each section of the pipeline is calculated using virtual anchor model by finite element method considering abovementioned limiting parameters.
Acceptability of Single Buckle in Non-Mitigated Pipeline

In some cases even in pipelines susceptible to lateral buckling, limit state parameters of the buckled section may be acceptable. In order to assess the acceptability of a non-mitigated pipeline a single buckle between two virtual anchor points on the pipeline shall be considered, where the feed-in into the buckle is maximum. The buckle may be triggered by initial lateral or vertical imperfection, or by trawling load.
Calculation of the Distance between Buckle Triggers

To calculate distance between buckle triggers the following approach may be followed: 1. Maximum allowable expansion of end sections of pipeline shall be calculated based on expansion spool design capacity and lower bound axial soil resistance. The first buckle trigger from each side of the pipeline shall be positioned to achieve maximum allowable expansion at each end of the pipeline. 2. Buckle triggers are positioned in such a way to limit maximum feed-in into the buckles below the design feed-in-length. 3. If the probability of buckle formation failure at a specific buckle trigger is more than 10-4, the consequences of formation of a buckle at vicinity of the buckle trigger shall be evaluated.
Calculation of Buckle Formation Probability

In lateral buckling analysis of HP/HT pipelines the key uncertainty is buckle formation at the expected sites. To calculate the buckle formation probability a simplified version of the reliability model presented in Carr, et al [5] is used. According to this model, the probability of buckling can be defined as:

p f = Probability[Z 0]

(10)

Where, Z is the limit state function describes the buckle formation, which is obtained by recasting the buckling formation criteria. Equation (11) denotes the buckling limit state function.

Z = Rlat a .W .x E

(11)

Where, Rlat is lateral resistance against pipeline buckling, a axial friction factor of soil, W pipeline weight per unit length, x sleeper distance to the end of line or previous sleeper, and E is axial force of the pipeline due to spool resistance or residual axial force in previous buckle.
Acceptability of Mitigated Pipeline

After positioning the buckle triggers along the pipeline route, the mitigated pipeline is analyzed to check whether the mitigation scheme works appropriately under pipeline heat up and cool down transients. Under certain circumstances walking of the pipeline section between two adjacent buckle trigger (towards the cold end of the pipeline) may increase feed-in into the initiated buckle. This phenomenon cannot be captured by virtual anchor spacing model; the whole pipeline shall be modeled for finite element analysis.

CASE STUDY
Design Parameters
Pipeline

The pipeline was constructed using 12 API 5L-X65 line pipe, as shown in Table 1. High density concrete coating was used for achieving adequate stability for the pipeline, and its effects on strength of the pipeline was ignored. Design pressure, and temperature distribution along the pipeline were used for analysis. Design pressure and maximum design temperature were 201.4 barg, and 120
o

C,

respectively. Temperature profile along the pipeline, which was used for analysis, is presented in Figure 2. This temperature profile was calculated based on 50% pipeline seabed embedment.

Table 1: Pipeline General Specifications.

KP

Zone

0.0 -0.5 0.5 19.3 19.3 21.8 21.8 22.3

Zone II (B11) Zone I Zone I Zone II (PC04)

Length (km) 0.5 18.0 3.0 0.5

OD (mm) 304.8 304.8 304.8 304.8

WT (mm) 23.8 19.5 23.8 23.8

Corrosion Allowance (mm) 6 6 9 9

The design life of the pipelines was 6 years. Total number of startups and shutdowns during lifetime of the pipeline was 24 cycles. Physical and elastic mechanical properties of the pipeline steel were as given in Table 2.
Table 2: Pipeline Steel Properties.

Property

Value

Density [kg/m3] Youngs Modulus [MPa] Poissons Ratio SMYS [MPa] SMTS [MPa] CTOD (Weld at Minimum Temperature) [mm]

7850 207 x 103 0.3 448 535 0.2 [2]

For global buckling analysis and ratcheting analysis of the pipeline, isotropic strain nonlinear hardening and simplified linear kinematics strain hardening behavior of X65 were used, respectively. Figure 3 shows the isotropic and kinematics elastic-plastic models of X65 at different temperatures. Seabed profile used for analysis is presented in Figure 4.
120

100

80

Temperature (C)

60

40

20

0 0 5 10 15 20

KP

Figure 2: Temperature Distribution along the Pipeline Considering 50% Pipeline Embedment.

550 500 450

550 500 450 400

True Stress (MPa))

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.0%

True Stress (MPa))

1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

True Strain
X65, 25 C X65, 50 C X65, 120 C
X65, 25 C

True Strain
X65, 50 C X65, 120 C

Figure 3: Nonlinear Isotropic Elastic-Plastic (Left) and Bilinear Kinematics Elastic-Plastic (Right) Behaviors of API-X65.
-76 0 -78 -80
PC4 PLATFROM

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

DISTANCE (m)

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

DEPTH BELOW MSL

-82 -84 -86 -88 -90 -92 -94

B11 PLATFORM

-96

Figure 4: Seabed Profile along the Pipeline Route.

Pipeline-Soil Interaction

Due to insufficient soil data the following procedure was followed to estimate upper bound, median, and lower bound soil properties. 1. Investigations were performed on the available soil data in existing routes near the pipeline proposed route. According to these investigations it was understood that the undrained shear strength of the soil along the route changed linearly with respect to the pipeline penetration, for penetration depths less than 1.0 m. 2. Three linear functions were fitted to the available soil data along the pipeline and defined as upper bound, median, and lower bound undrained shear strength profile of the soil, as shown in Figure 5. 3. Soil axial and lateral resistances were calculated based on the estimated soil properties, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

0 0 0.2
GC/01

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

GC/03 GC/07 GC/04 GC/08

0.4 0.6

GC/06 GC/02

Depth (m)

0.8 1 1.2 1.4

GC/05

GC/09

1.6 Lower Bound Median Upper Bound

Figure 5: Undrained Shear Strength Profile of Soil.

1.4 1.4

1.2

1.2

0.8

Lateral Friction Factor

0 0.1
Median

Axial Friction Factor

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0 0.2 0.3 0.4

Upper Bound

0 0.5 0.6 0.7

Lower Bound

0.8

Axial Displacement (m)

0.2
Median

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Larteral Displacement (m)

Upper Bound Lower Bound

Figure 6: Equivalent Axial (Left) and Lateral (Right) Friction Coefficients of Zone I.
1.4
1.4

1.2

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0
Median

Lateral Friction Factor

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Lower Bound

Axial Friction Factor

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Axial Displacement (m)

Upper Bound

0
Median

0.5

Larteral Displacement (m)

Upper Bound

1.5

2
Lower Bound

Figure 7: Equivalent Axial (Left) and Lateral (Right) Friction Coefficients of Zone II.

Description of Finite Element Method

Three types of Abaqus [17] finite element models were used for analysis follows:

10

1. Full finite element model of the pipeline on uneven seabed This model was used in the first and last stages of pipeline lateral buckling analysis. In the first stage, this model was used to evaluate if the strain in an unwanted buckle triggered by the seabed imperfection, lateral imperfection or trawling was within allowable limit under worst case loading and pipe-soil interaction conditions. In the last stage of the analysis, this model was used to check strain increase in the initiated buckles due to hydrodynamic loads and pipeline walking. The full finite element model of the pipeline was constructed using full route geometry of the pipeline and seabed profile. It incorporated both Zone I and Zone II of the pipeline properties. Figure 8 (left) shows the full finite element model of the pipeline on uneven seabed. 2. Virtual anchor spacing model Two virtual anchor spacing models were used in this analysis, first one, on flat seabed and second, on flat seabed with effects of sleepers. Figure 8 (right) shows the second virtual anchor spacing model. The first model was used for the following purposes:

Calculation of the feed-in into a buckle rested on seabed for different pipe-soil interaction conditions Calculation of relationship between the feed-in and strain level in pipeline rested on seabed for different pipe-soil interaction conditions

The second model was used for the following purposes:

Checking the span length on each side of the sleeper Calculation of maximum axial load capacity of the pipeline rested on sleeper Calculation of the natural frequency of the pipeline span due to sleeper for VIV analysis

3. Three dimensional solid model This model was used for ratcheting analysis, and obtaining actual stress distribution in the pipeline for fracture analysis. An Abaqus UFRIC FORTRAN subroutine was developed to model the cohesive and break out behaviors of pipe-soil interaction model.

11

For full finite element model of the pipeline on uneven seabed and virtual anchor spacing models, the pipeline was split into two sections around imperfection and away from imperfection, with different element size to achieve reasonable accuracy . Element length for each section is listed in Table 3 below.

Figure 8: Finite Element Model of the Pipeline on Uneven Seabed (Left), and Virtual Anchor Spacing Model Rested on Buckle Trigger (Right). Table 3: Element Length in Line Models.

Model Section

Full Model [m]

Virtual Anchor Spacing Model [m]

Around Imperfection Away from Imperfection

Screening Criteria

0.2 4

0.1 1

For out of straightness (OOS) model lay imperfections bend radius of 2500 m along the Zone I, and 2000 m along the Zone II route profile were assumed. These magnitudes of imperfections were set as limiting criteria for pipeline laying. Table 4 gives lower bound axial capacity of different sections of the pipeline.
Table 4: Axial Force Capacity of the Pipeline.

Axial Force Capacity (kN) KP Zone Hobbs Infinite Mode OOS Model Minimum

0.0 -0.5 0.5 19.3 19.3 21.8

Zone II B11 Zone I Zone I

1235 920 1164 1164

1651 1151 1567 1567

1235 920 1164 1164

21.8 22.3 Zone II PC04

12

Figure 9 shows effective axial force in the pipeline at different operating temperature. As this figure shows, maximum introduced axial force in the pipeline is about 4250 kN. So, the pipeline was susceptible to buckle and local buckling limit states should be checked.
-4500 -4000 -3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 0 B11 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5
KP Design Pressure Tmax = 39.1 Tmax=59.1 Tmax = 79.1 Tmax = 99.1 Tmax = 119.1 Allowable Value

Effective Axial Force (kN)

15

17.5

20

22.5 PC04

Figure 9: Effective Axial Force in the Pipeline (Before Mitigation).

Calculation of Allowable Strain in Buckle Apex

Allowable strain of the pipeline was calculated using DNV-OS-F101 [1], and presented in Table 5. To calculate strain limit of the pipeline, axial force and internal pressure of the pipeline were set to maximum value obtained from finite element analysis, and 201.4 barg (design pressure of the pipeline), respectively. As Table 5 shows, minimum allowable total strain in the pipeline was 2.8% from local buckling point of view.
Table 5: Pipeline Local Buckling Strain Limit.

Zone

Tempe (oC)

Corrosion Allowance (mm)

Allowable Strain (%)

100 Zone I 100 50 50 110 Zone II 110 50 50

0 6 0 6 0 9 0 6

3.75 2.85 3.65 2.80 4.30 3.12 4.18 3.45

13

Using Equation (9), maximum allowable strain range for the pipeline was 1.50%.
Calculation of Maximum Strain in an Isolated Buckle

In the absence of mitigation technique, a single buckle between pipeline virtual anchor points was considered with the following assumptions: 1. An isolated buckle is formed at the early stage of buckling 2. All possible feed-in resulting from soil with upper bound axial friction is fed into the buckle considering upper bound lateral friction. 3. Buckle can be triggered by both vertical and horizontal imperfections3 Using these assumptions, total strain in the buckle was 2.85%, see Table 6, which was not acceptable from low cycle fatigue point of view. So, it was decided to mitigate the pipeline using a reliable buckle initiation strategy.
Table 6: Summary of Results for One Isolated Buckle.

Analysis

Limiting Parameter Value Limit

Local Buckling Fatigue

Mitigation Method

Total Strain [%] Damage Ratio

1.90 1.75

2.85 1.0

To overcome the high level of uncertainty in provided soil data, it was decided to use sleepers to impose vertical out of straightness to the pipeline. Furthermore calculations showed that applying a vertical out of straightness might not be sufficient in special circumstances. So, it was decided to add an in-plane imperfection to control lateral resistance on the pipeline and direction of buckling. Figure 10 shows two different methods to apply in-plane imperfection to the pipeline.

Figure 10: Methods of Imposing In-Plane Imperfection, Changing in Route Direction (Left), and Post Pipe Lay Displacement (Right).

Buckle initiation by trawling was not considered as the probability of trawling around the pipeline route was very low. 14

Relationship between Feed-in-Length and Pipeline Axial Strain

Relationship between feed-in into a buckle and pipeline axial strain was calculated using finite element method. Figure 11 shows the introduced plastic strain in a buckle versus thermal feed-in. As this figure shows maximum strain in a buckle corresponds to maximum lateral seabed friction coefficient. Figure 12 shows change in buckle shape due to axial feed-in. Table 7 gives maximum allowable feed-in into a buckle in different lateral friction coefficient based on 1.5% total strain range obtained from low cycle fatigue analysis of the pipeline. As this table shows material property changes due to temperature has minor effect on the obtained results.

4.00% 3.50% 3.00%

Plastic Strain

2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00

1.5% Total Strain Limit

1.00

2.00
MuL=0.25BO, T=100C MuL=1.25BO, T=100C

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Feed-In (m)
MuL=0.75BO, T=100C MUL=1.25BO, T=60C

Figure 11: Plastic Strain in Buckle due to Thermal Feed-In. Table 7: Design Feed-in Length in a Buckle.

Lateral Residual Friction Coefficient Temperature [oC] Design Feed-In (m)

0.25 0.75 1.25 1.25

100 100 100 60

5.10 2.16 1.44 1.56

15

16

FIL = 1.8 m FIL = 3.5 m FIL = 5.5 m FIL = 7.5 m FIL = 9.5 m FIL = 10 m

14

12

10

8 Amplitude (m)

0 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 -2 0 20 40 60 80 100

-4 X (m)

Figure 12: Buckle Shape due to Axial Feed-In.

Calculation of Distance between Buckle Triggers

Distance between two adjacent sleepers was calculated using an iterative process to satisfy following criteria: 1. Distance of the first and last sleeper to the end points of the pipeline (PC04 and B11) should be in such a way to maintain maximum end expansion of the pipeline. These expansions were obtained from pipeline riser design report, and were 0.8 m, and 1.2 m for PC04 and B11 side of the pipeline, respectively. Besides, maximum feed-in into the first and last buckles triggered by the sleepers shall be less than design feed-in length. Considering these criteria maximum distance of the first sleeper to the end point of the pipeline (PC04 side) was obtained 1.40 m. 2. Other buckle triggers were positioned to maintain maximum feed-in in each buckle less than design feed-in length presented in Table 7. In order to assist the controlled buckle formation, the pipeline concrete coating around the buckle triggers was removed. Considering the pipeline routing criteria, final positions of the sleepers were calculated and are given in Table 8.
Buckle Formation Reliability

Important parameters that affect lateral resistance of buckle trigger on the pipeline (axial force capacity of a pipeline) were as follows: 1. Sleeper height (imperfection in vertical plane)

16

2. Friction coefficient between pipeline and sleeper 3. Friction coefficient between pipeline and seabed 4. Pipeline span length aside buckle triggers 5. Initial imperfection in horizontal plane 6. Submerged weight per unit length of pipeline
Table 8: Buckle Apex Strain due to Thermal Feed-In.

Sleeper No.

KP

Feed-In (m)

Strain (%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7

5.927 10.427 12.927 15.127 17.127 19.127 20.927

2.9 3.10 2.16 2.00 1.96 2.12 1.6

1.0 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.85 0.9 0.8

A parametric study was performed to evaluate the effects of above parameters on the axial force capacity of the pipeline. Obtained results were formulated in such a way to be used in Equation (10). The probability analysis was performed based on the limit state condition prescribed in Equation (10), and by using 108 Monte Carlo simulations. The results indicated in the 7th buckle trigger (worst case from buckle initiation point of view), the probability of buckle initiation failure was less than 10-4.
Selecting Sleepers Height

Considering flat rigid seabed, maximum estimated span length at vicinity of the pipeline of the buckle triggers was estimated using Equation (12).

l=4

72 EI w

(12)

Where, E is the pipeline elastic modulus, I the pipeline section moment of inertia, sleeper vertical movement, and w the submerged weight per unit length of the pipeline

17

This estimation was used as a conservative value for vortex induced vibration analysis of the pipeline. To calculate the appropriate pipeline span length, the following criteria were used: 1. To obtain appropriate sleeper behavior, minimum span length of the pipeline aside the buckle triggers considered being at least equal to buckle length aside the sleeper. 2. Pipeline span length aside the buckle trigger shall not cause fatigue damage due to vortex induced vibration. Vortex induced vibration calculation for this pipeline was performed based on DNV-RP-F105 [18] using SLTFATFREE in-house software. Obtained results showed that the sleeper height shall be between 0.3 m and 0.6 m. This limit was considered for sleeper design.
Analysis of Mitigated Pipeline

Lateral buckling of the mitigated pipeline was performed to check the final condition of the buckles initiated by the sleepers. To obtain cyclic behavior of the pipeline (pipeline walking), two startup-shutdown cycles of the pipeline was modeled including the pipeline heat up and cool down transients, and effects of hydrodynamic forces. Results showed that changes in pipeline strain due to pipeline walking and hydrodynamic loads were insignificant. From finite element analysis, maximum strain in the pipeline after mitigation was about 1%, which was less 1.5% limit set by low cycle fatigue analysis. Figure 13 shows the effective axial force in the pipeline after mitigation.

-2250 -2000 -1750 Effective Axial Force (kN) -1500 -1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 0 B11 2 4 6 8 10 12 KP 14 16 18

Tmax = 50.8 Tmax = 58 Tmax = 65 Tmax = 72.1 Tmax = 79.2 Tmax = 86.3 Tmax = 93.4 Tmax = 100.5 Tmax = 107.6 Tmax = 114.7 Tmax = 119.1 Allowable Value

20

22 B11

Figure 13: Effective Axial Force in the Pipeline After Mitigation.

18

CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a methodology that was successfully used for the design of a high pressure high temperature pipeline allowing controlled buckles at designated locations along the pipeline route, using vertical upset method.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to PETRONAS for supporting this work and permission to use the project data, as its first HP/HT pipeline in the region.

REFERENCES
[1]. Submarine Pipeline Systems, DNV-OS-F101, 2006. [2]. In-Service Buckling of Heated Pipelines, Hobbs. E., International Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol 110, No. 2, 1984. [3]. HOTPIPE JIP, Design Guidelines for HP/HT Pipelines, L. Collberg et al. Proceeding of OMAE 2005. [4]. Design Guidelines for HP/HT Pipelines, S. Goplen et al. [5]. Load and Resistance Modeling of the Penguins Pipe-In-Pipe Flowline Under Lateral Buckling, M. Carr, et al., Proceeding OMAE 2004. [6]. Penguins Flow Line Lateral Buckling Formation Analysis and Verification, I. Matheson, et al., Proceeding OMAE 2004. [7]. Design Strategies for Controlling Lateral Buckling and Axial Creep of HP/HT Subsea Pipelines Installed on a Flat Seabed, K. Torens, N. Kristiansen, Petromin Pipeliner, May 2005. [8]. HT/HP Pipe-in-Pipe Snaked Lay Technology, Industry Challenges, J. Hooper, et al., proceeding of OTC 2004. [9]. Design of High Temperature/High Pressure (HT/HP) Pipeline against Lateral Buckling, L. Kien, et al. [10]. Pipe-Soil Interaction Behavior during Lateral Buckling, Including Large Amplitude Cyclic Displacement Tests by the SAFEBUCK JIP, D. Burton, et al., Proceeding of OTC 2006. [11]. Lateral Buckling and Walking, a Challenges for Hot Pipelines, Carr M., et al, Offshore Pipeline Technology, 2003, Amsterdam.

19

[12]. The Safe Design of Hot On-Bottom Pipelines with Lateral Buckling Using the Design Guideline Developed by the SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Project, Bruton D., et al, Deep Offshore Technology Conference, 2005, Brazil. [13]. Strain Based Design of Pipeline, 45892GTH, EWI. [14]. Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures, DNV-RP-C203, 2006. [15]. ABS Guide for Building and Classing Subsea Pipeline Systems and Risers, American Bureau of Shipping, 2001. [16]. Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures BS 7910:1999. [17]. ABAQUS 6.6-5 User Manual. [18]. Free Spanning of Pipelines, DNV-RP-F105, 2006. [19]. Weld Crack Assessment in API X65 Pipeline: Failure Assessment Diagrams with Variations in Representative Mechanical Properties, Lee J. S. et al, Material Science and Engineering, A 373, pp. 122-130, 2004. [20]. Time-Dependent Pipe-Soil Resistance for Soft Clay, Brennodden H., et al, Proceeding of OTC 1992.

20