See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265905556

Limit States for Pipes under Combined Loads

Conference Paper · October 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 145

3 authors:

Paulo Pedro Kenedi Lavinia Alves Borges

Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca (CEFET/RJ) Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
57 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   578 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Murilo Augusto Vaz

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
104 PUBLICATIONS   675 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Damage Identification View project

Foinaven Umbilical VIV monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paulo Pedro Kenedi on 22 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

LIMIT STATES FOR PIPES UDER COMBIED LOADS

Paulo Pedro Kenedi1, [email protected]

Lavínia Maria Sanábio Alves Borges2, [email protected]
Murilo Augusto Vaz3, [email protected]
1
PPEMM - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Mecânica e Tecnologia dos Materiais - CEFET/RJ - Av.
Maracanã, 229 - Maracanã - RJ - CEP 20271-110 - Brasil
2
PEM - Programa de Engenharia Mecânica - COPPE/UFRJ - Av. Brigadeiro Trompowsky, s/n, Ilha do Fundão - RJ -
CEP 21940-900 - Brasil
3
PEnO - Programa de Engenharia Oceânica - COPPE/UFRJ - Av. Brigadeiro Trompowsky, s/n, Ilha do Fundão - RJ -
CEP 21940-900 - Brasil

Abstract. Pressurized pipes submitted to combined loads can fail by bursting, excessive ovalization, ratcheting, local
and/or global buckling, unstable fracture, plastic collapse and impact. In this work onshore pipes are submitted to
axial, in-plane bending and internal pressure loads. The effect of several loads combinations are analyzed through the
utilization of a series of yield locus patterns. They are used to avoid combinations of loads that could cause plastic
collapse or global buckling.

Keywords: yield locus, limit states, plastic collapse, global buckling

1. ITRODUCTIO

Limit analysis theory can be used to predict plastic collapse of structures submitted to any loading combination.
On the contrary of incremental plasticity approach, the limit analysis theory allows the determination of incipient
collapse load without considering strain history or any kind of material behavior evolution. An incipient plastic collapse
could occur if an equilibrated and plastically admissible stress field coexists with a field of unbounded pure plastic
strain. The load that equilibrates a collapse stress field is denoted Collapse Load or Plastic Limit Load.
The application of limit analysis theory in several structures has been studied, as in Kim (2007). He did finite
element limit analysis for pipes submitted to bend and internal pressure. Paquette (2006) analyzed pipe buckling under
internal pressure and axial compression, conducing tests at an experimental setup as well as by developing an analytic
approach. Bardi and Kyriakides (2006) analyzed pipe plastic buckling under axial compression with experimental and
analytic results. Robertson et al. (2005) stated that there are three main types of failure that must be considered for the
design of pipes: gross plastic deformation, ratcheting and fatigue. Chattopadhyay (2002) studied the effect of internal
pressure for in-plane collapse bending moment of pipes. Mohareb (2001) through the utilization of yield locus curves
studied the interaction of several loads as axial and shear forces, bending and twisting moments and internal pressure, at
fully plastic failure of pipes. Kim and Oh (2006b) and Hauch and Bai (1998) made finite element analysis, obtained
experimental results and proposed analytic solutions to analyze local buckling and plastic collapse of pipes. Wierzbicki
and Sinmao (1997) analyzed the Brazier effect for plastic bending of pipes using analytic and finite element approaches.
In this work is done an organized review of main models of yield locus of pipes available in technical literature.
It is organized by type of loading: axial, internal and external pressures and bending moment. The combination of
several loadings is also presented. For compression load a simple global buckling model is presented. The differences of
performance caused by pipe's ends, open or closed, are accessed as well as, the influence of internal pressure to a pipe
loaded by axial force and bending moment. A model is proposed and its results are compared with Hauch and Bai
(1999) model, used as reference.

2. REVIEW

A review of representative yield locus models is done for pipes submitted to different loadings. The yield locus
models are used, in constitutive part of limit analysis theory, to calculate the plastic collapse failure. Kyriakides and
Corona (2007), Bai (2001), Borges (1991), Lubliner (1990) and Hodge (1959) can be used to assess a more complete
approach about theory and applications of limit analysis. In this work the original expressions collected from referenced
literature are adapted to generate dimensionless expressions. The dimensionless bending moment M, axial load # and
internal pressure Pi are represented, respectively, by m, n and p. Also the load that yields entirely the pipe cross section
submitted to M, # and Pi are represented, respectively, by M0 , #0 and P0.
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

The dimensionless expressions used in this work are:

M # Pi
m= n= p= (01)
M0 #0 P0
t
M 0 = 4rm2 t σ y # 0 = 2 π rm tσ y P0 = σ y (open-ended) (02)
rm
Where, rm is the average radius, t is the wall thickness and σy is the yield strength.

In sequence several representative yield locus models are shown. Each loading mode are shown as axial, internal
pressure, external pressure and bending moment. The combination of two or more loading modes are also presented.

For pure axial load:

Hauch and Bai (1999) states:

# = SMTS A or n =1 (03)

For this particular case # 0 = SMTS A , where A is the cross sectional area. Note that 2 π rm t of expression (02.b) is a
good approximation of A for pipes with small t / rm ratio. SMTS is the specified minimum tensile strength, which is the
longitudinal stress at failure.

For pure internal pressure:

A pipe can fails by internal pressure. (API, 1999 apud Hauch and Bai, 1999, p.4) states that:
t
Pi = [0.5(SMTS + SMYS )] or p =1 (04)
rm
For this particular case, P0 = t [0.5(SMTS + SMYS )] , where 0.5(SMTS + SMYS ) is the hoop stress at failure. SMYS is
rm
the specified minimum yield strength.

For pure external pressure:

(Timoshenko, 1961 apud Hauch and Bai, 1999, p.3) uses a lower bound model to estimate the pressure that yields a
pipe external fibers:

  f D  
Pc2 −  Pp + 1 + 1.5 0 m  Pel  Pc + Pp Pel = 0 (05)
  t  
2
2E  t   t  Dmax − Dmin
Pel =   , Pp = 2 SMYS   and f0 =
( )
(06)
1 −ν 2  Dm   Dm  Dm

Where, Pc is the characteristic collapse pressure, Pp is the plastic buckling pressure, Pel is the elastic buckling pressure,
f0 is the initial out of roundness, E is the Young Modulus, ν is the Poisson ratio, Dmin and Dmax are, respectively, the
minimum and the maximum diameters.
(Haagsma, 1981 apud Hauch and Bai, 1999, p.4) estimate, by using an upper bound model, the pressure that causes
fully plastic yielding for external collapse pressure:

 D
Pc3 − Pel Pc2 −  Pp2 + Pel Pp f 0  Pc + Pel Pp2 = 0 (07)
 t 

The utilization of (06) and (07) expressions is granted for pipes whose material is initially linear elastic and for elastic
buckling pressures derived from classical analysis.
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

For pure bending moment:

(SUPERB, 1996 apud Hauch and Bai, 1999, p.3) shows that as bending moment increase the cross section ovalization
increase as well. The result is a decrease of moment of inertia which could be compensated, in some extent, by the pipe
material strain hardening:

 2r   2r 
M = 1.05 − 0.0015 m 4 SMYS rm2 t or m = 1.05 − 0.0015 m  (08)
 t   t 
For this particular case, M 0 = 4 SMYS rm2 t . Also the term 1.05 − 0.0015 m  represent the average longitudinal cross
2r
 t 
sectional stress in function of radius and wall thickness of pipe.
For small displacement analysis and ideal plastic material, (Calladine, 1974 apud Chattopadhyay, 2002, p.134) state, for
a lower bound model, the bending moment of a thin curved pipe, using elastic shell analysis and limit theorems of
plasticity:

M = 0.935λ 3 4rm2 t σ y
2
( ) for λ < 0 .5 or m = 0.935λ 3
2
for λ < 0.5 (09)
Rt
λ= (10)
rm2

Where R is the bend radius and λ is the pipe bend characteristic (a non-dimensional variable). For small displacement
analysis and ideal plastic material, (Spence and Findlay, 1973 apud Chattopadhyay, 2002, p.134) utilized previous
analyses and limit theorems of perfect plasticity to estimate approximate bounds of limit bending moments:

 0.8λ
M =
0. 6
(4r 2
m t σy ) for λ < 1.45
or
0.8λ0.6
m=
for λ < 1.45
(11)
 4rm2 t σy for λ ≥ 1.45  1 for λ ≥ 1.45

For large displacement analysis (Goodall, 1978 apud Chattopadhyay, 2002, p.134) estimate, for closing mode, the limit
bending moments for thin elbows:

1.04λ 3
2
1.04λ 3
( )
2

M= 4rm2 t σ y or m= (12)
1+ β 1+ β


β = 2 +
(3λ ) 3
2


( )
 4 3 1 −ν 2 σ y rm 
(13)
3  π E t 
  

Where, β is a correction factor. (Touboul el al., 1989 apud Chattopadhyay, 2002, p.135) shows, based in an
experimental study at CEA DEMT:

M = 0.715λ 3 4rm2 t σ y
2
( ) or m = 0.715λ 3
2
for closing mode (14.a)

M = 0.722λ 3
1
(4r 2
m tσ y ) or m = 0.722λ 3
1
for opening mode (14.b)

Where closing and opening modes are related with the direction of bending of curved pipes, as in Kim and Oh (2006a).
(Drubay el al., 1995 apud Chattopadhyay, 2002, p.135) stated:

M = 0.769λ
2
3
(4r 2
m tσ y ) or m = 0.769λ
2
3
for closing mode (15)

Also, (Chattopadhyay, 2002 apud Kim and Oh, 2006a, p.1445, 1447) shows:

m = 1.075λ 3
2
for closing mode (16.a)
m = 1.048λ 3 − 0.0617
1
for opening mode (16.b)
The range of m for the models of pure bending locus, for typical values of λ of 0.2 and 0.5, can be estimated to the
following ranges: λ = 0.2 → 0.24 < m < 0.55 and λ = 0.5 → 0.45 < m < 0.77.
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

For combined load:

Authors as Bardi and Kyriakides (2006), Chattopadhyay (2000) and Bai and Moan (1997) have already published
combined load results. Also Hauch and Bai (1999) show the interaction between M, # and P in the capacity of pipes to
resist plastic collapse, generating the following yield locus expression:

 
 # P 
−α π n −α p 
M
( ) P 
2 
cos 
π #0 P0

 or (
m = 1 − 1 − α 2 p 2 cos )  (17)
M0
= 1− 1−α 2 
 P0

 2
 P 
2   2 1 − 1 − α 2 p2 
  ( )

 (
1 − 1 − α 2  )  

  P0  
Pc P0
α = 0.25 (for external overpressure) or α = 0.25 (for internal overpressure) (18)
#0 #0
Where, α is a correction factor obtained through the utilization of finite element analysis, as in Hauch and Bai (1999).
Another yield locus for combined loading for allowable bending moment and local buckling under load controlled
mode was proposed by Hauch and Bai (1999):

 
 γC # P 
2  −α 
M η RM  P  π η RF # 0 η RP P0
=
γC
1 − 1 − α  (  2
) cos
2


(19)
M0  η RP P0  2  P 
2


1 − 1 − α  (  ) 

  η RP P0  

Where, η RM , η RP and η RF are strength usage factors and are based in standards as DNV and the engineering
experience of Seren Hauch and Yong Bai. γ C is the condition load factor.

Finally there are shown two models which combine M and P but not #. Using small displacement analysis (Goodall.,
1978 apud Kim and Oh, 2006a, p.1444), proposed a yield locus expression for open-ended elbows under combined
loading of internal pressure and in-plane bending:

1
 r 
( )
3

M = 4 t σ y 1.04λ 1 − P m  m = (1 − p )
2 1
rm2 3
or 3
(20)
 t σ y 

For this particular case, M 0 = 4 t rm σ y 1.04λ 3 .
2 2
( )
Another yield locus model for combined loads was proposed by Chattopadhyay (2002) for opening and closing in-plane
bending for 0.24 ≤ λ ≤ 0.6 and 0.0 ≤ p ≤ 1.0 :

p
m = 1.122λ 3 + 0.175
2
− 0.508 p 2 for closing mode (21.a)
λ
p
m = 1.047λ 3 + 0.124
1
− 0.568 p 2 for opening mode (21.b)
λ 1.2

The Hauch and Bai (1999) combined load model for plastic collapse, expression (17.b), will be used, in this work, as
reference model.
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

3. PROPOSED MODEL

At Kenedi et al. (2009) and Kenedi (2008) present the main aspects of limit analysis theory, which include
equations of equilibrium, kinematics and constitutive relations for straight and curved pipes submitted to concentrated
or distributed loads. The proposition of a yielding function that includes internal pressure (as a dead load) is done as
well. The material is considered elastic-perfectly plastic and it is supposed that the loading generates small deformation.
A pipe segment submitted to a combination of tensile axial load #, positive bending moment M and internal
pressure P is shown at Figure 1, as well the cross section area and the geometrical variables of a thin-walled pipe.

(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a) Pipe segment submitted to load combination and (b) cross section area of a thin-walled pipe for tensile
axial load and positive bending moment.

Where, CA and #A are respectively centroidal and neutral axis, yn is the distance from CA to #A. The transversal area A
is divided in two areas by #A, the superior area As (shaded at Fig.1.b) and the inferior area Ai. y s is the distance
between centroid of area A (shown with a 0) and the centroid of As and y i is the distance between centroid of area A
and the centroid of Ai. γ is an angle ranging from − π
2 to π
2 rad. The minor area is approximated by (π − 2γ )t rm and
the major area is approximated by (π + 2γ )t rm . At fig. 1.b the minor area is As and corresponds to the shaded area. The

minor distance is  2 cos(γ )  rm and the major distance is  2 cos(γ )  rm .

 π + 2γ   π − 2γ 
   
The pipe segment equilibrium, submitted to tensile axial force, positive bending moment and internal pressure, shown at
Figure 1.a, with the utilization of von Mises criterion, is used to obtain the yielding function expressions.

2 2
 σ1   
  − σ1 σ 2 +  σ 2  =1 and
r
σ 1 = pP0 m (22)
σ y  
σ y σ y σ y   t
 
t 2 t
P0 = σ y (open-ended) or P0 = σ y (closed-ended) (23)
rm 3 rm

For open-ended pipes, applying (22.a), (22.b), (01.c) and (23.a), σ 2 σ y can be cast as:

σ2 p 3 σ p 3 σ p 3
= ± 1 − p 2 or t = + 1 − p 2 , c = − 1 − p 2 for p≤1 (24)
σy 2 4 σy 2 4 σy 2 4

For closed-ended pipes, applying (22.a), (22.b), (01.c) and (23.b), σ 2 σ y can be cast as:

σ2 p σ p σ p
= ± 1 − p 2 or t = + 1− p2 , c = − 1− p2 for p≤1 (25)
σy 3 σy 3 σy 3
Where σ 1 and σ 2 are principal stresses, σ t and σ c are, respectively, the stresses at tensile and compressive areas.
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of expressions (24.b), (24.c), (25.b) and (25.c):

Figure 2. Locus of normalized principal stresses, σ 2 σ y , function of p.

Figure 2 shows the maximum values of σ 2 σ y for various levels of normalized internal pressure, for two ends
patterns: closed and open. For p = 0 both curves has the same performance and they are limited at p = 1 .
For p ≠ 0 the behavior of the two patterns differentiates, with open-ended pipe (continuous red curves) reaching
higher levels of σ 2 σ y and p, than pipes with closed-ended (dashed blue curve). The equilibrium expressions for
open-ended pipe can be cast, using (24.b) and (24.c). For σs = σc and σi = σt:

 σ s As + σ i Ai = #
 (26)
− σ s As y s + σ i Ai y i = M

The equilibrium expressions for closed-ended pipe can be cast, using (25.b) and (25.c), as:

σ s As + σ i Ai = # + π rm2 P
 (27)
 − σ s As y s + σ i Ai y i = M

Solving (26), the yield locus of open-ended pressurized pipe submitted to axial and in-plane bending loads is obtained:
  p 
 n −  
3 π  2
m = ± 1 − p 2 cos   (open-ended) (28)
4 2 3 
 1− p2 
 4 

Similarly, solving (27) for closed-ended pipe:

π n 
m = ± 1 − p 2 cos   (closed-ended) (29)
 2 1− p2 
 

For a particular case of null axial load (n = 0) expressions (28) and (29), can be rewritten respectively, as:
 p 
 
3 π 2
m = ± 1 − p 2 cos   (open-ended) (30)
4 2 3 2
 1− p 
 4 
m = ± 1− p2 (closed-ended) (31)
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

Figure 3 shows a graphical representation of expressions (30) and (31):

Figure 3. Proposed model with different endings yield locus graphic m versus p, for n = 0.

Figure 3 shows the yield locus of the proposed model, for n = 0, with different endings. For p = -1, p = 0 and
for p = 1 both curves have the same performance. For − 1 < p < 1 the closed-ended (dashed blue curve) permits higher
combinations of m and p than open-ended (continuous red curve). For a particular case of null internal pressure, p = 0,
the expressions (28) and (29) can be cast as:

π 
m = ± cos  n  (32)
2 

To analyze the influence of termination of pipes Figure 4 was generated. It shows the yield locus curves,
respectively for open and closed-ended pipes, calculated from the application of expressions (28) and (29), submitted to
a combination of bending moment M, axial load # and internal pressure P:

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Limiting yielding surfaces for pipes with: (a) open-ended and (b) closed-ended.

Figure 4 presents two graphics for values of m versus n, for normalized pressures 0 ≤ p ≤ 0.8 , with increments of
0.2p. Note that the arrows shows direction that p increases. At Figures 4.a and 4.b, for p = 0 the limiting yielding
surfaces are the large ones (blue curves). As p increases the limiting yielding surfaces become smaller. For open-ended
pipes the limiting yielding surfaces moves to the right side of the graph, while for closed-ended pipes the limiting
yielding surfaces maintain concentric.
Although the determination of a combined load yield locus is fundamental to estimation of plastic collapse of a
pipe, the global buckling failure is also very important. There are two types of global buckling: the load-controlled, that
can induce a catastrophic failure and the displacement-controlled, that usually is not so dangerous. Plastic collapse and
global buckling are concurrent failure modes, so it is possible, if there are compressive axial load, that a pipe can fails
by global buckling before failing by plastic collapse.
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

The Euler’s formula, as in Crandall et al. (1978), can be applied to estimate the dimensionless axial load pipe
global buckling nB, in load-controlled condition. It is supposed that both ends are pivoted.

d2y # M
2
+ y=− (33)
dx EI EI

Where I is the moment of inertia. At L/2, where L is the length of pipe, the transversal displacement is maximum, ymax:

M   # L 
ymax =  sec  − 1 (34)
#   EI 2  
   

When the secant argument is π/2, the displacement is infinite, generating the critical axial load # crit :
π 2 EI
# crit = (35)
L2

Note that if the pipe ends is not modeled as pivoted, then (35) has to be multiplied by end-condition constant as in
Crandall et al. (1978). Also note that although (34), the displacement expression, depends on M and #, the critical axial
load not depends of M. Using (02.a), (02.b) and (35), the normalized axial load, nB, which the pipe buckles can be
estimated:

# crit π EI
nB = = (36)
#0 2rm t L2σ y

Figure 5 shows a classical example of yield locus of plastic collapse for p = 0. At same figure the global buckling locus
is represented by blue vertical lines (dashed or continuous). The geometric characteristics used to generate this figure
were obtained from Hauch and Bai (1999). Several multiples of lengths L were used, with L = 12 m.

Figure 5. Plastic collapse (for p = 0) and global buckling yield locus for open-ended pipe.

Figure 5 shows several critical normalized axial loads nB, represented by vertical lines, for multiple pipes
lengths. Note that dashed blue lines have insufficient length to buckle the pipe. For this example 1.3L is the maximum
pipe length that the failure occur first by plastic collapse. The vertical blue line, marked as 2L, limits the yield locus to
the region at the right side of it. As expected, as the pipe’s length L becomes larger the vertical blue line dislocate to the
right, with an obvious limit for n = 0.
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

At Figure 6 are shown two yield locus, for p = 0 and p = 0.8, for open-ended pipe.

Figure 5. Plastic collapse (for p = 0) and global buckling yield locus for a pipe.

Figure 6. Plastic collapse, for p = 0 and p = 0.8, and global buckling yield locus for 2L open-ended pipe length.

Comparing the yield locus curves for p = 0 and p = 0.8, for a pipe with 2L length, is interesting to note that for
p = 0 there is a region that buckle before fails by plastic collapse, while for p = 0.8, the pipe only fails by plastic
collapse.

4. COMPARISO

The proposed model for open-ended (28) was compared with the Hauch and Bai model (17.b), used in this work
as reference. The results is shown graphically at Figure 7.

Figure 7. Comparative yield locus of Hauch and Bai and proposed models.

For p = 0, the bigger yield locus, the two models have a perfect match, where the Hauch and Bai model is
represented by a continuous red line and the proposed model is represented by a dashed blue line. Also for compressive
n they are close. For tensile n, for p ≠ 0, there are significant differences between models, that increase as p increases.
Nevertheless, both models the yield locus curves moves to the right side of the graph and become smaller as p
increases. Note that, at this figure, the global buckling limitations not are shown.
 Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering
Copyright © 2011 by ABCM October 24-28, 2011, Natal, RN, Brazil

5. COCLUSIOS

A review of yield locus models for different load combinations was assessed. A model to determine the yield
locus of pressurized pipes, for open and closed-ended, submitted to combined loadings of axial force, bending moment
and internal pressure was presented. Especial cases of no internal pressure or no axial force were analyzed. The effect of
global buckling was also added. Finally the proposed model with open-ended pipe was compared with a reference
model with reasonable agreement, mainly for n compressive. The results shows that the yield locus of combined loading
for open-ended pipes for both models, proposed and reference, dislocates to the right side of yield locus figure as
internal pressure became higher. This phenomena affects directly the capacity of pipe, submitted to n < 0, to resist to
global buckling, increasing its capacity as the internal pressure increases.

6. REFERECES

Bai, Y., Igland, R.T. and Moan, T., 1997, "Tube Collapse Under Combined External Pressure, Tension and Bending",
Marine Structures, Vol. 10, pp. 389-410.
Bai, Y., 2001, "Pipelines and Risers", Volume 3, Elsevier Ocean Engineering Book Series.
Bardi, F.C. and Kyriakides, S., 2006, "Plastic buckling of circular tubes under axial compression - part I: Experiments",
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 48, pp. 830-841.
Bardi, F.C., Kyriakides, S. and Yun, H.D., 2006, "Plastic buckling of circular tubes under axial compression - part II:
Analysis", International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 48, pp. 842-854.
Borges, L.M.S.A., 1991, "Formulação e solução para análise limite com superfícies de escoamento não linear", Tese de
Doutorado, PUC - Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Chattopadhyay, J., 2000, "Closed-form collapse moment equations of elbows under combined internal pressure and in-
plane bending moment", Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 122, pp. 431-436.
Chattopadhyay, J., 2002, "The effect of internal pressure on in-plane collapse moment of elbows", Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Vol. 212, pp. 133-144.
Crandall, S.H., Dahl, N. C. and Lardner, T.J., 1978, “An Introduction to the Mechanics of Solids”, Mc Graw-Hill
International Editions, 2nd edition with SI Units.
Hauch, S. and Bai, Y., 1998, "Use of finite element analysis for local buckling design of pipelines", Proceedings of 17th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE98-3907.
Hauch, S. and Bai, Y., 1999, "Bending moment capacity of pipes", Proceedings of 18th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE99/PIPE-5037.
Hodge, P.G., 1959, "Plastic analysis of structures", Mc Graw Hill.
Lubliner, J., 1990, "Plasticity theory", McMillan Publishing Company.
Kenedi, P.P., 2008, "Análise limite em dutos", Tese de Doutorado, COPPE-UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Kenedi, P.P., Borges, L.M.S.A. and Vaz, M.A., 2009, "Plastic Collapse of Pressurized Pipes", Proceedings of 30º
Cilamce, Armação dos Búzios, Brasil.
Kim, Y. and Oh, C., 2006a, "Closed-form plastic collapse loads of pipe bends under combined pressure and in-plane
bending", Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 73, pp. 1437-1454.
Kim, Y. and Oh, C., 2006b, "Limit loads for pipe bends under combined pressure and in-plane bending based on finite
element limit analysis", International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 83, pp. 148-153.
Kim, Y. and Oh, C., 2007, " Effects of attached straight pipes on finite element limit analysis for pipe bends",
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 84, pp. 177-184.
Kyriakides, S. and Corona, E., 2007, "Mechanics of Offshore Pipelines", volume1: buckling and collapse, Elsevier.
Mohareb, M., 2001, "Exact yield hyper-surface for thin pipes", International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,
Vol. 78, pp. 507-514.
Paquette, J.A. and Kyriakides, S., 2006, "Plastic buckling of tubes under axial compression and internal pressure",
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 48, pp. 855-867.
Robertson, A., Li, H. and Mackenzie, D., 2005, "Plastic collapse of pipe bends under combined internal pressure and in-
plane bending", International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 82, pp. 407-416.
Wierzbicki, T. and Sinmao, M.V., 1997, "A simplified model of brazier effect in plastic bending of cylindrical tubes",
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 71, pp.19-28.

7. RESPOSIBILITY OTICE

The authors are the only responsible for the printed material included in this paper.

View publication stats