UPBK 5.

2
UPHEAVAL BUCKLING ANALYSIS - UPBK

VALIDATION MANUAL

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Copyright © Penspen Limited 1987-2001

This document refers to proprietary computer software which is protected by

copyright. All rights are reserved. Copying or other reproduction of this manual
or the related module is prohibited without prior written consent of Andrew
Palmer and Associates, Penspen Limited, Darpen House, Citadel Place, Tinworth
Street, London SE11 5EF.
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...................................................................... 1

2. Validation Method............................................................. 2

3. Validation Analysis............................................................ 3
3.1. Validation Example 1...........................................................................3
3.1.1. Base Data...................................................................................3
3.1.2. Preliminary Calculations ...............................................................4
3.1.3. Effective Axial Force Calculation ...................................................6
3.1.4. Required Downward Force ...........................................................6
3.1.5. Actual Resistance to Movement and Final Cover Determination .......7
3.1.6. Equivalent Stress Calculation........................................................7
3.2. Validation Example 2...........................................................................9
3.2.1. Base Data...................................................................................9
3.2.2. Preliminary Calculations ............................................................. 10
3.2.3. Effective Axial Force Calculation ................................................. 11
3.2.4. Required Downward Force ......................................................... 11
3.2.5. Actual Resistance to Movement .................................................. 12
3.2.6. Calculation of Safety Factor ....................................................... 12
3.2.7. Equivalent Stress Calculation...................................................... 13
3.3. Validation Example 3......................................................................... 14
3.3.1. Base Data................................................................................. 14
3.3.2. UPBK Calculations ..................................................................... 15

Appendix A. PLUS•ONE OUTPUT .......................................... 16

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

 Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1. Introduction

This document presents the validation documentation for the PLUS•ONE pipeline
upheaval buckling analysis module UPBK. The validation of UPBK has been
demonstrated here using three cases which call on different features within the
module.

This document presents the validation method in section 2, and the detailed
validation cases and a printed output are presented in Appendix A.

The validation cases are also helpful tutorial examples for the new user to
PLUS•ONE and will aid understanding of how UPBK works. The user wanting
further technical detail on UPBK is directed to the theoretical manual.

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

2 Chapter 2 Validation Method

2. Validation Method

For the three cases outlined below, hand calculations are given which replicate
and validate the computations performed within the UPBK module. Complete
input data for the validations are given prior to each set of calculations.

Case 1:

Determine the depth of cover required for an 8 inch pipe with concrete
buried under non-cohesive cover given a specified upheaval buckling
safety factor of 2.1 and an initial imperfection height of 0.3 metres.

Case 2:

Determine the upheaval buckling safety factor for an 8 inch pipe buried
in cohesive soil to a depth of 0.6 metres over an imperfection of 0.3
metres height.

Case 3:

Determine if cover is required to prevent upheaval buckling for an 8

inch pipe laid in an open trench with an initial imperfection height of
0.3 metres.

The three cases for which validation calculations have been performed are for
similar pipelines under different conditions. Where a calculation has been shown
in a preceding case, the value is given and the calculation is referenced. Not all
the calculations shown in the validations are given as PLUS•ONE output but are
nevertheless necessary for the determination of the output. When a number is
calculated that is given in the UPBK output, it is highlighted in bold text.

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis 3

3. Validation Analysis

3.1. Validation Example 1

3.1.1. Base Data

Input Symbol Unit #1

External Diameter Dsteel mm 219.075
Wall Thickness t mm 9.5
Contents Type Oil
3
Density ρcontents kg/m 820
Extra Weight Wextra N/m 100
3
Density of pipe material ρsteel kg/m 7850
Young’s modulus E N/m2 2.07 E+11
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
Thermal expansion coefficient α 1/c 1.16 E-05
Specified minimum yield stress N/m2 4.481592 E+08
Polythene coating thickness tc mm 2
3
Coating density ρc kg/m 965
Concrete coating thickness tconc mm 100
3
Concrete density ρconc kg/m 3050
Water depth hwater m 85
Water density ρwater kg/m3 1025
Ambient sea temperature °C 4
Safety Factor SF 2.1
Pipe lay condition Buried
Type of cover Non-cohesive
3
Cover density ρcover kg/m 2020
Uplift coefficient 0.5
Imperfection height ∆h m 0.3
Maximum operating
°C 95
temperature
Design minimum internal
Pe bar 49.64225
pressure
Residual lay tension N 0

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

4 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis

3.1.2. Preliminary Calculations

Cover submerged unit weight :

γ = ( ρcov r − ρwater ) × g
( 2020 − 1025 ) × 9.80665 …(3.1.1)
= 9758.1 N/m 3

Steel area :
2 2
A = π / 4 ( D steel − Di )
π / 4 × (.219075 2 − (.219075 − 2 × .0095 ) 2 ) …(3.1.2)
2
= 6.2548 m

Second moment :
4
I = π / 64 × ( D steel − Di4 )
π / 64 × (.219075 4 − (.219075 − 2 × .0095 ) 4 ) …(3.1.3)
−5 4
= 3.4411 × 10 m

Maximum temperature difference :

95 oC − 4 oC = 91 oC

Minimum external pressure :

pe = ρwater × g × hwater
1025 × 9.80665 × 85 …(3.1.4)
= 8.5441 × 10 5 N/m 2

Maximum pressure difference :

∆p = pe − p i
49.64225 × 10 5 − 8.5441 × 10 5 …(3.1.5)
= 4.1098 × 10 6 N/m 2

Overall outside diameter :

Deff = D steel + 2 t c + 2 t conc

.219075 + ( 2 × .002 ) + ( 2 × .1 ) …(3.1.6)
= 0.42308 m

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis 5

Dry weight of pipe :

w p = A × ρsteel
6.2548 × 10 − 2 × 7850 …(3.1.7)
= 49.100 kgf/m ( 481.508 N/m)

Dry weight of polythene coating :

π 2
wc = (( D steel + 2 t c ) 2 − D steel ) × ρc
4
π
× ((.219075 + 2 × .002 ) 2 − .219075 2 ) × 965 …(3.1.8)
4
= 1.3404 kgf/m ( 13 .145 N/m)

Dry weight of concrete coating :

π 2
w conc = (( Dcoating + 2 t conc ) 2 − Dcoating ) × ρconc
4
π
× ((.22308 + 2 × .1 ) 2 − .22308 2 ) × 3050 …(3.1.9)
4
= 309.576 kgf/m ( 3035 .9 N/m)

Buoyancy Force :

π
FB = × Deff × ρwater
4
π
× .42308 2 × 1025 …(3.1.10)
4
= 144.098 kgf/m ( 1413 .1 N/m)

Dry weight of contents :

π 2 2
w contents = ( D i − Di ) × ρcontents
4
π
× (.219075 − 2 × .0095 ) 2 × 820 …(3.1.11)
4
= 25.781 kgf/m ( 252 .82 N/m)

Submerged installation weight :

Winst = w p + w c + w conc + ( w extra × g ) − FB

49.1 + 1.3404 + 309.576 + ( 100 × 9.80665 ) − 144.098 …(3.1.12)
= 226.115 kgf/m ( 2217 .5 N/m)

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

6 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis

Submerged operational weight :

Wop = Winst + w contents

226.115 + 25.781 …(3.1.13)
= 251.896 kgf/m ( 2470 .3 N/m)

3.1.3. Effective Axial Force Calculation

Axial force due to temperature difference :

P4 = EAα ( T m − T i )
2.07 × 10 11 × 6.2548 × 10 −3 × 1.16 × 10 −5 × 91 …(3.1.14)
= 1.3667 × 10 6 N

Axial force due to pressure component :

P4 = −2 Rπtσ L + πR 2 ( Pi − Pe )
π
× (.219075 − 2 × .0095 ) 2 × ( 1 − 2 × .3 ) × ( 4964225 − 854410 ) …(3.1.15)
4
= 51684 N

Total effectual axial force :

Ptotal = P1 + P3 + P4
0 + 51684 + 1.3667 × 10 6 …(3.1.16)
= 1.4184 × 10 6 N

3.1.4. Required Downward Force

Using the following formula the required downward force is calculated:

  4.76  EIWinst   ∆hW inst 

Wreq = 1.16 −   ×  × Ptotal × 
  Ptotal  ∆h   EI 
  4.76  ( 7.1231 × 10 6 ) × 2217.5 
Wreq = 1.16 −   × ×
 …(3.1.17)
6
  1.4184 × 10  0.3
 6 0.3 × 2217.5 
1.4184 × 10 × 
 7.1231 × 10 9 
= 5345.2

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis 7

3.1.5. Actual Resistance to Movement and Final Cover

Determination

For a pipeline buried in non-cohesive soil, UPBK determines cover through an

iteration routine using cover increments of 0.01 metres until the specified safety
factor is achieved. For this validation example, UPBK has determined that a cover
of 0.99 metres will achieve a 2.1 safety factor. Using 0.99 metres in the
calculations below validates the UPBK method.

For non-cohesive cover the resistance to movement is given by:

u = W sub + q nc …(3.1.18)

where

qnc is the uplift resistance of the overburden for non-cohesive cover

q nc = γDeff H ( 1 + Fh / Deff )
 .5 × .99 
= 9758.1 × .42308 × .99 × 1 + 
 .42308 
= 8869.1 N/m …(3.1.19)
u= 8869 .1 + 2470 .3
=11339 N/m

Safety Factor Check:

11339
Safety Factor =
5345 .2
= 2.1213

Note: This number is slightly greater than the specified safety factor of 2.1 due
to the iteration method of the calculation. This is typical for UPBK cover
determination for pipes buried in non-cohesive cover.

3.1.6. Equivalent Stress Calculation

The thin wall formula for hoop stress in operation is used since Dsteel : t > 20:

σ h = ∆p × D steel /( 2 t )
.219075
= 4.1098 × 10 6 × …(3.1.20)
( 2 × .0095 )
= 47.387 × 10 6 N/m 2

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

8 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis

The longitudinal stress in operation is:

 π 2 
 Ptotal − 4 Di ∆p  0.231 Ptotal ∆fD steel 
σ a = − ± 
 A   2I 
 
[
= − 1.4184 × 10 6 − π / 4 × (.219075 − 2 × .0095 ) 2 × 4.1098 × 10 6 ] …(3.1.21)

 .3 × .219075 
/ 6.2548 × 10 −3 ± 0.231 × 1.4184 × 10 6 ×
 2 × 3.4411 × 10 −5 
= 1.0576 × 10 8 N/m 2 and - 5.20 × 10 8 N/m 2

Maximum equivalent stress is:

2 2 1
σ eq = ( σ h + σ a − σ h σ a ) 2

[ 2
= ( 47.387 × 10 6 ) + ( −5.20 × 10 8 ) 2 − ( 47.387 × 10 8 ) ×
…(3.1.22)
8
( −5.20 × 10 )
1
2
]
= 5.4524 × 10 8 N/m 2

Stress Ratio Calculation:

Stress Ratio = σ eq / SMYS

…(3.1.23)
= 1.2166

Since the stress ratio is greater than one, there is a possibility of plastic
deformation in the pipeline as specified.

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis 9

3.2. Validation Example 2

3.2.1. Base Data

Input Symbol Unit #2

External Diameter Dsteel mm 219.075
Wall Thickness t mm 9.5
Contents Type Oil
3
Density ρcontents kg/m 820
Extra Weight Wextra N/m 100
Density of pipe material ρsteel kg/m3 7850
Young’s modulus E N/m2 2.07 E+11
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
Thermal expansion coefficient α 1/c 1.16 E-05
2
Specified minimum yield stress N/m 4.481592 E+08
Polythene coating thickness tc mm 2
3
Coating density ρc kg/m 965
Concrete coating thickness tconc mm 40
Concrete density ρconc kg/m3 3050
Water depth hwater m 85
Water density ρwater kg/m3 1025
Ambient sea temperature °C 4
Pipe lay condition Buried
Type of cover Cohesive
Depth of cover m 0.6
2
Cohesive shear strength c N/m 10000
Imperfection height ∆h m 0.3
Maximum operating
°C 75
temperature
Design minimum internal
Pi bar 49.64225
pressure
Residual lay tension N 0

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

10 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis

3.2.2. Preliminary Calculations

Steel area: see Validation Example 1 = 6.2548m2

Second moment: see Validation Example 1 = 3.4411 x10-5m4

Maximum temperature difference:

75°C - 4°C = 71°C

Minimum external pressure: see Validation Example 1 = 8.5441 x105 N/m2

Maximum pressure difference: see Validation Example 1 = 4.1098 x106 N/m2

Overall outside diameter:

.219075 + ( 2 × .002 ) + ( 2 × 0.04 ) = 0.30308m

Dry weight of pipe: see Validation Example 1 = 49.100kgf/m (481.508 N/m)

Dry weight of polythene coating: see Validation Example 1

= 1.3404 kgf/m (13.145 N/m)

Dry weight of concrete coating:

π
× ((.22308 + 2 × .04 ) 2 − .22308 2 ) × 3050 kg/m 3
4
= 100.83 kgf/m ( 988 .803 N/m)

Buoyancy Force:

π
× .30308 2 × 1025 kg/m 3
4
= 73.948 kgf/m ( 725 .1853 N/m)

Dry weight of contents: see Validation Example 1

= 25.781 kgf/m (252.82 N/m)

Submerged installation weight:

49.1 + 1.3404 + 100.83 + 100 / 9.80665 − 73.948

= 87.5197 kgf/m ( 858 .275 N/m)

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis 11

Submerged operational weight:

87.5197 kgf/m + 25 .781 kgf/m

= 113.301 kgf/m ( 1111.1 N/m)

3.2.3. Effective Axial Force Calculation

Axial force due to temperature difference :

P4 = EAα ( T m − T i )
…(3.2.1)
2.07 × 10 11 × 6.2548 × 10 −3 × 1.16 × 10 −5 × 71 = 1.06635 × 10 6 N

Axial force due to pressure component (P3): see Validation Example 1= 51684 N

Total effectual axial force :

Ptotal = P1 + P3 + P4
0 + 51684 + 1.06635 × 10 6 …(3.2.2)
= 1.11803 × 10 6 N

3.2.4. Required Downward Force

Using the following formula the required downward force is calculated:

  4.76  EIWinst   ∆hWinst 

Wreq = 1.16 −   ×  × Ptotal × 
  Ptotal  ∆h   EI 

Wreq
 
= 1.16 − 
4.76 
×
(7.1231 × 10 ) × 858.3731  ×
6

6 
 1.11803 × 10  0.3 …(3.2.3)
 
 6 0.3 × 858.3731 
1.11803 × 10 × 
 7.1231 × 10 6 
= 3712.01 N/m

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

12 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis

3.2.5. Actual Resistance to Movement

For cohesive cover the resistance to movement is given by:

u = W sub + q c

where

q c = Cd eff min{ 3 , H / d }

where min indicates that the smaller of the two values should be used,
and:

c is the cover shear strength

.6
q c = 10000 × .30308 ×
.30308
= 6000 N/m
= 611.83 kgf/m
u = 6000 +1111.193
= 7111.19 N/m
= 725.14 kgf/m

3.2.6. Calculation of Safety Factor

Safety Factor :

7111.19
Safety Factor =
3712 .0
= 1.91573

This hand-calculated safety factor equals the UPBK output and thus the validation
example validates UPBK.

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis 13

3.2.7. Equivalent Stress Calculation

The hoop stress in operation is : (see Validation Example 1)

σ h = 47.387 × 10 6 N/m 2

The longitudinal stress in operation is:

 π 2 
 Ptotal − 4 Di ∆p  0.231Ptotal ∆fDsteel 
σ a = − ± 
 A   2I 
 
[
= − 1.1180 × 10 6 − π / 4 × (.219075 − 2 × .0095 ) 2 ×
]
4.1098 × 10 6 / 6.2548 × 10 −3
 .3 × .219075 
± 0.231 × 1.1180 × 10 6 ×
 2 × 3.4411 × 10 −5 
= 8.8539 × 10 7 N/m 2 and - 4.04729 × 10 8 N/m 2

Maximum equivalent stress is:

( 2 2
σ eq = σ h + σ a − σ h σ a )
1
2

[(
= 47.387 × 10 6 ) + (− 4.047 × 10 ) − (47.387 × 10 )
2 8 2 6

× (− 4.047 × 10 )]
1
8 2

= 4.3039 × 10 8 N/m 2

Stress Ratio Calculation:

Stress Ratio = σ eq / SMYS

4.3039 × 10 8
=
4.481592 × 10 8
= 0.9603

which is within the plastic limit of the material selected.

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

14 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis

3.3. Validation Example 3

3.3.1. Base Data

Input Symbol Unit #3

External Diameter Dsteel mm 219.075
Wall Thickness t mm 9.5
Contents Type Oil
3
Density ρcontents kg/m 820
Extra Weight Wextra N/m 100
Density of pipe material ρsteel kg/m3 7850
Young’s modulus E N/m2 2.07 E+11
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
Thermal expansion coefficient α 1/c 1.16 E-05
2
Specified minimum yield stress N/m 4.481592 E+08
Polythene coating thickness tc mm 2
3
Coating density ρc kg/m 965
Concrete coating thickness tconc mm 40
Concrete density ρconc kg/m3 3050
Water depth hwater m 85
Water density ρwater kg/m3 1025
Ambient sea temperature °C 4
Specified Safety Factor SF 1.4
Pipe lay condition Trenched
Depth of cover m 0
Trench side inclination ° 25
Trench lateral resistance
0.7
coefficient
Imperfection height ∆h m 0.3
Maximum operating
°C 75
temperature
Design minimum internal
Pi bar 49.64225
pressure
Residual lay tension N 0

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

 Chapter 3 Validation Analysis 15

3.3.2. UPBK Calculations

The calculations for Case 3 are identical for Case 2 except for the actual
resistance to movement calculation.

Actual resistance to movement to calculated as follows:

u = W sub (sin φ + µ cos φ )

= 111.19 × (sin 25 o + 0.7 × cos 25 o ) …(3.3.1)
= 1174.57 N/m

1174 .57
Safety Factor =
3712 .0
= 0.31643
This safety factor is less than the specified safety factor of 1.4 and thus cover
would be required to achieve this factor. To find out the depth of cover, UPBK
could be rerun specifying a buried trenched with a 1.4 safety factor.

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

16 Appendix A PLUS•ONE Output

Appendix A. PLUS•ONE OUTPUT

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

PLUS·ONE/Upbk Rev 5.2 © Penspen Limited 1987-2000
Project : Validation
Title : Case1
By : DT
Signature : Checked : Time : 14:44:20 Date : 08/12/00

Input

Pipe
Nominal external diameter mm 219.075 ( 8.625-inch) U
Nominal wall thickness mm 9.5 U

Pipe Contents
Pipe contents Oil U
Pipe contents density kg/m³ 820 U
Pipe extra contents weight N/m 100 U

Pipe Material
Steel density kg/m³ 7850 U
Young's modulus N/m² 2.07E+11 (Carbon steel) U
Poisson's ratio 0.3 (Carbon steel) U
Thermal expansion coefficient 1/øC 0.0000116 (Carbon steel) U
Specified min yield stress N/m² 4.481592E+08 U

Coatings
Coating layer 1 Polythene U
Coating thickness m 0.002 U
Coating density kg/m³ 965 U
Coating layer 2 U
Coating thickness mm 0 U
Coating density kg/m³ U
Coating layer 3 U
Coating thickness mm 0 U
Coating density kg/m³ U
Coating layer 4
Coating thickness m U
Coating density kg/m³ U

Concrete
Concrete weight coating High density concrete U
Concrete thickness mm 100 U
Concrete density kg/m³ 3050 U

Environmental
Upheaval Safety Factor 2.1 U
Pipe burial depth to top of pipe m .9899994 C
Seawater density kg/m³ 1025 U
Water depth m 85 U
Upheaval buried or trenched pipe Buried U
Cohesive or non-cohesive cover Non-cohesive U
Cover density in air kg/m³ 2020 (Gravel/sand) U
Cover shear strength N/m² U
Uplift coefficient 0.5 U
Trench side slope ø U
Lateral coeff of friction U
Imperfection height m 0.3 (Recommended Min) U

Operating Conditions
Maximum internal temperature øC 95 U
Ambient temperature øC 4 U
Maximum internal pressure bar 49.64225 U
Tension on bottom N 0 U

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

PLUS·ONE/Upbk Rev 5.2 © Penspen Limited 1987-2000
Project : Validation
Title : Case1
By : DT
Signature : Checked : Time : 14:44:20 Date : 08/12/00

Output

Dry weight of contents (kgf/m) 25.780

Dry weight of pipe (kgf/m) 49.100
Dry weight of coatings (kgf/m) 1.340
Dry weight of concrete (kgf/m) 309.566
Extra contents weight (kgf/m) 10.194

Effective outside diameter (m) 0.423

Buoyancy (kgf/m) 144.095

Dry weight empty (kgf/m) 370.200

Submerged weight empty (+ down) (kgf/m) 226.105

Total submerged weight (+ down) (kgf/m) 251.886

Cover Determination Analysis

Pipe buried in non-cohesive soil.

Imperfection height (m) 0.300

Effective axial force (kN) 1418.411
Required downward force (kgf/m) 544.838
Specified safety factor 2.100
Depth of cover (m) 0.990

Comparison of imperfection heights and depth of cover

Imperfection Height (m) Cover Depth (m)

0.10 0.00
0.15 0.00
0.20 0.43
0.25 0.76
0.30 0.99
0.35 1.17
0.40 1.32
0.45 1.46
0.50 1.57

Equivalent Stresses

Hoop stress (N/mm²) 47.384

Longitudinal stress (maximum) (N/mm²) 106.784
Longitudinal stress (minimum) (N/mm²) -519.015
Maximum equivalent stress (N/mm²) 544.256
Ratio of maximum equivalent stress/SMYS 1.214

************** WARNING **************

Plastic deformation may occur

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

PLUS·ONE/Upbk Rev 5.2 © Penspen Limited 1987-2000
Project : Validation
Title : Case2
By : DT
Signature : Checked : Time : 10:49:02 Date : 12/12/00

Input

Pipe
Nominal external diameter mm 219.075 ( 8.625-inch) D
Nominal wall thickness mm 9.5 U

Pipe Contents
Pipe contents Oil U
Pipe contents density kg/m³ 820 U
Pipe extra contents weight N/m 100 U

Pipe Material
Steel density kg/m³ 7850 U
Young's modulus N/m² 2.07E+11 (Carbon steel) D
Poisson's ratio 0.3 (Carbon steel) U
Thermal expansion coefficient 1/øC 0.0000116 (Carbon steel) U
Specified min yield stress N/m² 4.481592E+08 U

Coatings
Coating layer 1 Polythene D
Coating thickness m 0.002 U
Coating density kg/m³ 965 U
Coating layer 2 U
Coating thickness mm U
Coating density kg/m³ U
Coating layer 3 U
Coating thickness mm U
Coating density kg/m³ U
Coating layer 4
Coating thickness
Coating density

Concrete
Concrete weight coating High density concrete D
Concrete thickness mm 40 U
Concrete density kg/m³ 3050 U

Environmental
Upheaval Safety Factor 1.915793 U
Pipe burial depth to top of pipe m .5999999 C
Seawater density kg/m³ 1025 U
Water depth m 85 U
Upheaval buried or trenched pipe Buried U
Cohesive or non-cohesive cover Cohesive U
Cover density in air kg/m³ 2020 U
Cover shear strength N/m² 10000 U
Uplift coefficient 0.5 U
Trench side slope ° U
Lateral coeff of friction U
Imperfection height m 0.3 (Recommended Min) D

Operating Conditions
Maximum internal temperature °C 75 U
Ambient temperature °C 4 U
Maximum internal pressure bar 49.64225 U
Tension on bottom N U

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

PLUS·ONE/Upbk Rev 5.2 © Penspen Limited 1987-2000
Project : Validation
Title : Case2
By : DT
Signature : Checked : Time : 10:49:02 Date : 12/12/00

Output

Dry weight of contents (kgf/m) 25.780

Dry weight of pipe (kgf/m) 49.100
Dry weight of coatings (kgf/m) 1.340
Dry weight of concrete (kgf/m) 100.830
Extra contents weight (kgf/m) 10.194

Effective outside diameter (m) 0.303

Buoyancy (kgf/m) 73.946

Dry weight empty (kgf/m) 161.464

Submerged weight empty (+ down) (kgf/m) 87.518

Total submerged weight (+ down) (kgf/m) 113.299

Cover Determination Analysis

Pipeline buried

Imperfection height (m) 0.300

Effective axial force (kN) 1118.030
Required downward force (kgf/m) 378.391
Specified safety factor 1.916
Depth of cover (m) 0.600

Comparison of imperfection heights and depth of cover

Imperfection Height (m) Cover Depth (m)

0.10 0.00
0.15 0.16
0.20 0.33
0.25 0.47
0.30 0.60
0.35 0.72
0.40 0.83
0.45 0.91
0.50 0.91

Equivalent Stresses

Hoop stress (N/mm²) 47.384

Longitudinal stress (maximum) (N/mm²) 88.545
Longitudinal stress (minimum) (N/mm²) -404.727
Maximum equivalent stress (N/mm²) 430.380
Ratio of maximum equivalent stress/SMYS 0.960

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

PLUS·ONE/Upbk Rev 5.2 © Penspen Limited 1987-2000
Project : Validation
Title : Case3
By : DT
Signature : Checked : Time : 09:55:22 Date : 11/12/00

Input

Pipe
Nominal external diameter mm 219.075 ( 8.625-inch) U
Nominal wall thickness mm 9.5 U

Pipe Contents
Pipe contents Oil U
Pipe contents density kg/m³ 820 (Oil) D
Pipe extra contents weight N/m 100 U

Pipe Material
Steel density kg/m³ 7850 U
Young's modulus N/m² 2.07E+11 (Carbon steel) D
Poisson's ratio 0.3 (Carbon steel) D
Thermal expansion coefficient 1/°C 0.0000116 (Carbon steel) U
Specified min yield stress N/m² 4.481592E+8 U

Coatings
Coating layer 1 Polythene D
Coating thickness m 0.002 (Polythene) D
Coating density kg/m³ 965 U
Coating layer 2 U
Coating thickness mm U
Coating density kg/m³ U
Coating layer 3 U
Coating thickness mm U
Coating density kg/m³ U
Coating layer 4
Coating thickness
Coating density

Concrete
Concrete weight coating High density concrete D
Concrete thickness mm 40 U
Concrete density kg/m³ 3050 (High density concrete) D

Environmental
Upheaval Safety Factor 1.4 U
Pipe burial depth to top of pipe m 0 C
Seawater density kg/m³ 1025 U
Water depth m 85 U
Upheaval buried or trenched pipe Trenched U
Cohesive or non-cohesive cover Non-cohesive U
Cover density in air kg/m³ 0 U
Cover shear strength N/m² U
Uplift coefficient U
Trench side slope ° 25 U
Lateral coeff of friction 0.7 U
Imperfection height m 0.3 (Recommended Min) U

Operating Conditions
Maximum internal temperature °C 75 U
Ambient temperature °C 4 U
Maximum internal pressure bar 49.64225 U
Tension on bottom N U

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2

PLUS·ONE/Upbk Rev 5.2 © Penspen Limited 1987-2000
Project : Validation
Title : Case3
By : DT
Signature : Checked : Time : 09:55:22 Date : 11/12/00

Output

Dry weight of contents (kgf/m) 25.780

Dry weight of pipe (kgf/m) 49.100
Dry weight of coatings (kgf/m) 1.340
Dry weight of concrete (kgf/m) 100.830
Extra contents weight (kgf/m) 10.194

Effective outside diameter (m) 0.303

Buoyancy (kgf/m) 73.946

Dry weight empty (kgf/m) 161.464

Submerged weight empty (+ down) (kgf/m) 87.518

Total submerged weight (+ down) (kgf/m) 113.299

Cover Determination Analysis

Pipeline in open trench

Imperfection height (m) 0.300

Effective axial force (kN) 1118.030
Required downward force (kgf/m) 378.391
Specified safety factor 1.400
Safety factor for open trench 0.316

Pipeline will require cover to achieve specified safety factor

Equivalent Stresses

Hoop stress (N/mm²) 47.384

Longitudinal stress (maximum) (N/mm²) 88.545
Longitudinal stress (minimum) (N/mm²) -404.727
Maximum equivalent stress (N/mm²) 430.380
Ratio of maximum equivalent stress/SMYS 0.960

Penspen Andrew Palmers PLUS•ONE UPBK 5.2