Marine Systems & Ocean Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 34–41 | Cite as

Ultimate bending capacity of perforated pipe cross sections

  • Andressa Baptista KnuppEmail author
  • Murilo Augusto Vaz
  • Julio Cesar Ramalho Cyrino


The aim of this work is to derive analytical solutions for the remaining capacity of perforated tubular structures, which are subjected to combined loading of bending and tensile or compressive stresses. Effects of internal pressure and loads of thermal origin are not considered. Parametric study addresses the increase in the cross section ultimate bending capacity when considering strain hardening effects compared to the assumption of elastic-perfectly plastic material. The need for operation extension for longer periods than initially foreseen, the possibility of relocation and reuse of these structures, for example, has motivated studies related to the structural integrity of these members and their subcomponents. It is sought to present formulations that help the decision-making to repair or replace deteriorated elements identified in inspections, in view of the economic impact coming from offshore works and, mainly, from possible production losses.


Remaining capacity Perforated structures Combined loading Strain hardening 



Half-angle corresponding to the cross section remaining area


Ratio between yield and ultimate strengths




Hardening coefficient


Half-angle corresponding to the area subjected to tensile stress

\(\sigma _{\text{max}}\)

Ultimate strength

\(\sigma _{\text{y}}\)

Yield strength


Pipe cross section area


Area subjected to compressive stress


Area subjected to tensile stress


Young’s modulus




Compressive force


Tensile force


Yield force


Bending moment


Compressive moment


Fully plastic moment


Tensile moment


Pipe cross section radius


Pipe cross section thickness


Distance between centroid of compressive area and centroid of whole pipe cross section


Distance between centroid of tensile area and centroid of whole pipe cross section


Plastic section modulus



The authors would like to thank the Human Resources Program of the National Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels Agency (ANP), in particular PRH-03, and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for their support in the development of this research and financial support. The funding was received by Petrobras.


  1. 1.
    W. Chen, I. Sohal, Cylindrical members in offshore structures. Thin-Walled Struct. 6(3), 153–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Mohareb, D. Murray, Mobilization of fully plastic moment capacity for pressurized pipes. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 121(4), 237–241 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Veritas, Rules for submarine pipelines (Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, 1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Hauch, Y. Bai, Bending moment capacity of pipes. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 122(4), 243–252 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y. Chen, J. Zhang, H. Zhang, X. Li, J. Zhou, J. Cao, Ultimate bending capacity of strain hardening steel pipes. China Ocean Eng. 30(2), 231–241 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Gresnigt, R.V. Foeken, Local buckling of UOE and seamless steel pipes, in The Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Norway (2001).
  7. 7.
    I. Ozkan, M. Mohareb, Moment resistance of steel pipes subjected to combined loads. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 86(4), 252–264 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Mohareb, G. Kulak, A. Elwi, D. Murray, Testing and analysis of steel pipe segments. J. Ttransp. Eng. 127(5), 408–417 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Wang, X. Li, J. Zhou, Ultimate bending capacities of steel pipelines under combined loadings. Adv. Struct. Eng. 19(4), 642–659 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Okada, K. Masaoka, Y. Murotsu, I. Jusoh, A simplified method for estimating deterioration of collapse strength of damaged jacket structures, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 2 (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2001), pp. 359–366Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Okada, K. Masaoka, S. Katsura, T. Matsui, A study on deterioration of strength and reliability of aged jacket structures. In: Ocean. 04. MTTS/IEEE Techno-Ocean 04, IEEE, vol 1, pp 186–192 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Y. Abdel-Nasser, K. Masaoka, H. Okada, Ultimate strength of dented tubular members subjected to compression and bending. Alex. Eng. J. 45(1), 37–46 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Lutes, T. Kohutek, B. Ellison, K. Konen, Assessing the compressive strength of corroded tubular members. Appl. Ocean Res. 23, 263–268 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Y. Chen, L. Xin, Y. Chai, J. Zhou, Assessment of the flexural capacity of corroded steel pipes. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 87(2), 100–110 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Cho, J. Kwon, D. Kwak, Structural characteristics of damaged offshore tubular members. J. Ocean Eng. Technol. 24(4), 1–7 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Yao, J. Taby, T. Moan, Ultimate strength and post-ultimate strength behavior of damaged tubular members in offshore structures. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 110(3), 254–262 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. Fontes, Capacidade compressiva remanescente de elementos tubulares esbeltos com corroso externa. Master’s thesis, UFRJ (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y. Ueda, S. Rashed, Behavior of damaged tubular structural members. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 107(3), 342–349 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Jirasekand, Z. Bazant, Inelastic analysis of structures (Wiley, Hoboken, 2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y. Bai, Q. Bai, Subsea pipelines and risers (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedade Brasileira de Engenharia Naval 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ocean Engineering ProgramFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations