Flexible riser pipes" problems and unknowns

C. J. MacFarlane
University of Strathclyde, Marine Technology Centre, 100 Montrose Street, Glasgow, G40LZ, UK

A personal viewpoint is presented of the problems and unknowns relating to the materials aspects of flexible riser pipes, and possible solutions/indications for future research given. Through a brief description of the functions, materials and construction of flexible risers, the pipe terminations are highlighted as the major problem. A discussion of safety, testing and inspection reveals the major unknowns to be the performance of polymeric materials under extreme service conditions, the effects of long-term erosion/corrosion and the performance of pipes under compression. Three types of termination are then considered in detail.

Keywords: flexible pipe, materials, offshore systems, pipe terminations

Presentation of a paper with the very wide title of 'Problems and unknowns' is an opportunity to air one's opinions, naivety and ignorance. Without a doubt the ' problems' will have been solved by someone, somewhere, and the 'unknowns' will turn out to be the subjects of complete series of symposia attended by hundreds of specialists. This paper should be seen, therefore, as an expression of personal views rather than any comprehensive attempt to review literature or make reasoned predictions about the future: it is very difficult for one person to cover all the important aspects of any offshore component and this is especially so for flexible pipes. To place my involvement in perspective, I was fortunate enough to be asked by the U K Department of Energy ( D E n ) to review the performance of flexible risers and submitted a report 1 to them early in 1987. The intention was to provide a research strategy for the D En in support of their need to be assured of the relative safety of systems using such risers. It should be stressed that there was no commitment by the Department to place funds into specific items of research, rather the report was to provide a framework within which proposals in this field could be placed and their relative value to the Department assessed. The remit provided a great deal of freedom to express opinion and provide a personal interpretation of the subject. The report was circulated to U K O O A in 1987 and hence has had some limited exposure and critical comment: it is my understanding that it will be available to interested parties on request to the Department - - but not, of course, free of charge. If one reads that report one should bear in mind the needs of the client - - the Department of Energy. Table 1 provides a comparison of the ultimate goal, resources and objectives of regulatory bodies (such as the D E n ) with those of the design contractors and field operators This paper was originally presented at a meeting on 'Flexible risers' held 9 January 1989 at UniversityCollege London, UK. 0141-0296/89/040281-09/$03.00 1989 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd in order to demonstrate that the criticality of problems will differ with perspective and that there are a number of different possible solutions. A regulator might, for example, impose absolute change-out periods, while an operator would prefer to change-out based on condition monitoring: in theory the end result of safe, efficient operation would be the same. In this paper the viewpoint is more general and seeks to encompass both safety and cost-effectiveness as end goals. In so doing it is necessary to restrict the scope of the review and this has been done by differentiating between 'system analysis' and 'material aspects'. The former, taken to include numerical predictions of riser system deflections, the definition and variability of external loads and the optimization of riser systems, is neglected. The latter, looking at risers as pipes made from diverse materials, forms the main theme of this paper. Having restricted the scope, I immediately wish to widen it! It is my view that the technologies, and many of the technological problems, associated with flexible riser pipe design, construction and operation are common to other related engineering components - - umbilicals, tethers and ropes - - where these are made from combinations of metals and polymers. It seems logical and efficient to me to place basic research into flexible riser material problems in a more general and generic background, so that the results are transferred from one manufacturing sector to the other. My first problem is that such coordination and cross-fertilization does not yet exist !

Functions, materials and construction of flexible risers

Functions

To differentiate between studies which are specific to flexible risers and those with more general interest, it is Eng. Struct. 1 989, Vol. 1 1, October 281

Flexible riser pipes. problems and unknowns. C.J. MacFarlane

Table 1 Comparison of the goal, resources and objectives of operators, contractors and regulatory bodies

Regulatory authority Range of

experience

Contractor

Operator

Widest (1) Safety Limited (2)

Wide Capital cost Unlimited (3)

Limited Field profit Unlimited

Goal
Resources

Personnel Objectives

High grade (?) Standard grade Highest grade limited numbers Balance between interference &
risk

Project profit

Balance between capital costs and

revenue costs

Notes (1) The regulatory body will review the widest range of possible designs and the contractor will see the ideas of a number of operators, but the operator can be trapped by his own experience and existing equipment. (2) But regulatory authorities have the biggest resource of all - the potential to coordinate information, write and (perhaps) enforce rules. (3) Present economic circumstances and the resulting attitudes/ postures have, however, the effect of reducing the resources available to the contractor.

In future we shall no doubt see the introduction of aramids (such as Du Pont's Kevlar) and other advanced polymers where the properties are obtained both by the incorporation of additives and also by treatments other than heat irradiation, for example. Drawings of the different forms of construction of such pipes are not given here - these may be found in almost every other paper on the subject (see, for example, References 2 and 3) - and, indeed, the drawings show a marked family lineage? It is considered sufficient to note the wide disparity in performance of the various materials under mechanical strain, thermal loads, chemical attack and the long-term effects of loads (creep or relaxation). Table 2 provides values for the generic materials used rather than for the specifics of any construction. In part this is because not all information on materials is freely available, but also because it is not necessary to provide precision in a rapidly changing field to make the main point on the disparity between materials.

Safety of flexible riser systems

My first (naive) opinion is that these products are very robust engineering structures, provided they are constructed correctly and used within their design limits. An immediate difficulty arises, however, in knowing their design limits and, more importantly, knowing the loads to which they will be subjected in service. I am reminded that there is much more experience in the manufacture of high-pressure hoses for drilling BOP use and yet there are currently pressure limits on the use of these following service failures. Should there be limits on the use of flexible pipe? My answer would be no, if the system of which they are a part is constructed with adequate safeguards. At the worst, failure of such a pipe should deposit a limited amount of crude into the sea; it should not endanger life or lead to a major spill. The latter - - the risk of a serious oil spill - seems easily and best met by ancilliary safety systems such as automatic shut-off valves (or a quick disconnect system) at each end of the riser. A safety analysis of the overall flow system operation would describe and define the methods to achieve this. In principle, protection of life might also seem relatively
Table 2

useful to define the functions of a flexible riser: to transport hot, corrosive, high-pressure mixtures of hydrocarbon liquids/gases, water and solids for a significant period of time (hopefully in tens of years) under varying internal, external and end-applied load actions; to join up at the ends. Now, .although it may be a difficult task to design and construct a flexible pipe to carry certain fluids in certain conditions, it is implicit in the pipe's use that the problems are seen to be solved. It is less easy to envisage complete solution of the second function as it contains within it a basic dichotomy: that of maintaining continuity of the first function while, at the same time, disrupting that continuity. Although flexible pipes have been widely used, there is, I would suggest, wide recognition that the termination is a basic weak spot. This is considered in more detail below.
Materials and construction

Comparison of material properties* Steel wire

Nylon

Rubber

It is also worthwhile considering at this stage the range of materials which are used in one or other of the types of manufacture: polyamides (nylons) fluorinated polymers cold-formed steel strip resins (terminations) weld metal (stainless steel) reinforced rubbers stainless steel strip and wires rayon/polymer composites steel forgings (terminations)

Elasticity, E (G Pa) Shear modulus, G (GPa) Poisson's ratio Ultimate tensile stress (MPa) Thermal expansion coefficient (10 6/'C) /

200 80 0.3 ~ 1200

2.5 0.06 0.4 ~ 40

0.006 0.002 ~ 0.5 15 ~ 20

~17

~90

~150

*Source mainly Gere, J. M. and Timoshenko, S. P. Mechanics of Materials, 2nd Edn., Van Nostrand Reinhdd (UK) Ltd, Appendix H Tensile and shear moduli are simplified values and are for temperatures around 50"C

282

Eng. Struct. 1989, Vol. 11, October

Flexible riser pipes: problems and unknowns: C.J. MacFarlane

easy to engineer - - or rather, there appears at first sight to be little risk to life from failure of a flexible riser. This, I suggest, would be true if it were not for the need for terminations and the (necessary) location of these near sensitive control and other equipment, and, at the surface, where people might be working. If one accepts the premise that the terminations of flexible pipes are the weak link, then one must also accept that they pose the most serious risk to life, either directly or by the consequences of damage to other equipment. The onus is then on the operator to take all practicable steps to minimize the consequences of failure, both by providing isolation systems for the riser and also by siting the terminations clear of sensitive equipment and areas of normal human access. This implies some form of hazard analysis to identify and minimize the potential to cause harm. It must be noted that I am not discussing here the probability of occurrence; that is a secondary step. If the harmful consequence is sufficiently large, then it matters little what probability there is of occurrence provided the probability is within the realms of the possible (say p > 10-7). Can all the users state with confidence that their systems have been designed in this way? Have they performed hazard analyses where the riser system is considered as part of the whole plant to assess the consequences of failure and have they considered the dynamics of end termination failure? If not, why not? It is interesting to note that the Norwegian authorities propose that load factors (a measure of system safety) are based at least in part on the consequences of failure: this must increase the pressure on operators to think through systems in a coherent manner. It is interesting at this point to return to the failures of hoses used in drilling and to consider where else on drilling and production systems flexible pipes are used to contain relatively high pressure (and temperature) fluids/gases. The following list is not exhaustive: choke and kill lines fuel pipes to gas turbines injection lines jumper hoses oil/gas risers hydraulic lines rather than fatalities or serious pollution, the pressure must be to produce information on which the pipe's service lifetime can be predicted. The need is for information on the loads to be experienced and the performance of the materials and components under load - - where the latter might conventionally be by prototype testing and the former by measurement or postulation of a service load environment. I would suggest that there are some deficiencies with respect to both these aspects. I do not wish to go into detail on the service load environment. It is sufficient to say (again in my opinion only) that neither internal or external loadings can be assessed with complete confidence and, in particular, the cyclic loadings - - mechanical, pressure and thermal - remain in doubt. The other side of the coin is testing. First let me set out my understanding of the nature and purpose of testing, and then it can be judged how far the manufacturers of flexible pipe have met that overall scheme. There are three possible routes to safe operations with any engineering system. These are as follows. (1) 'Blanket' change-out or replacement intervals which allow no re-use and are set at conservative intervals. This might be seen as a panic route, but it is available to either the regulators or to an operator after an unexplained failure. It serves to concentrate the mind wonderfully as the invoices for the replacement materials and installation costs roll in. (2) Fitness for purpose assessments, which imply both efficient inspection and a knowledge and choice of critical sites. (3) Calculation of endurance such that there is very high confidence in the life value predicted. I believe approach (1) above is possible, but not perhaps acceptable to other than the suppliers of flexible pipe. It might even upset the delicate economic balance between the use of this product and that of conventional steel pipe. I would also suggest that the state-of-the-art in analysis of strain, the behaviour of materials under thermal and pressure loads and the prediction of 'fatigue' failure (where this is defined to include wear) in flexible pipes is not sufficiently advanced (or perhaps I mean documented) to allow complete confidence in endurance and, hence, that approach (3) cannot be taken with confidence, ifI am wrong and a manufacturer has presented a comprehensive paper or series of papers which relate material and specimen testing to predicted service loadings with due account for all uncertainties, then I would be pleased to have a copy. My impression, however, is that anysuch information has in the past been given grudgingly as 'commercially sensitive', leaving the impression of, at worst, ignorance or else some deficiency which is best left unpublished or, at best, an incoherent approach. I wish, however, to qualify that last statement in view of events over the past two years. Increasingly there has been a more open and coherent approach by the manufacturers and, in fairness, I would accept it has not all been forced on them by the market. In part I suppose one could point to the time required to perform tests and analyses and to assimilate the results, but probably more critical is the effort to prepare technical papers when there is still 'work' to be done. It should, however, be clear that the presentation of information (with easily obtain-

Following my suggestion that all the hose forms used are generically linked in use of materials and form of construction, and since they all carry hydrocarbons of some form at pressure and at various temperatures, one would expect a unified regulatory approach. Perhaps this will come, but it does not exist. In all probability it will not be brought about because of clear vision or coherent thought; rather it will be the usual pressure following a failure and a fatality. There seems to be too much compartmentation of regulations by discipline (drilling, production, marine, etc.) and too little attention to the underlying product and technology. This is difficult to address because it confronts human nature, but at least it should be recognized and regular efforts (audits) made to highlight areas of mismatch.
Testing

Given, therefore, that flexible pipe failure causes (or should cause) damage only to the operations budget

Eng. Struct. 1989, Vol. 11, October

2113

Flexible riser pipes." problems and unknowns. C.J. MacFarlane

able supporting references) is a major plank in marketing and establishing a reputation for quality and knowledge; at the least it would serve to dissolve any doubts about the product. If we now consider testing in general, it is useful to place it within the whole framework of design, manufacture and use of the product. Figure 1 is an attempt to show the interlinking of various functions in the overall scheme. In this figure, I would suggest that design (which includes re-assessment) is a net user of information, although it will feed out actions to the other functions. Testing is a provider of information, and in both construction and operation there should be a balance between the flow of information in and the feedback out. Taking a very general view of engineering, the most common deficiencies are in that feedback and in the purpose, type and specification of testing. Continuing with generalities, 1 offer Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 sets out a possible categorization of tests and Table 4 presents where such test categories might be applied. I have some difficulty in defining the type of test that would be performed post-service to identify the residual capacity of the component. Obviously it must be an endurance test of some kind, but less obvious is the means to tie the results back to the service life. Perhaps all that is lacking is the correct definition of the service environment and the reaction of the system to it, rather than any deficiency in test capability. To have complete confidence in a product, all of these tests must be performed so that the product can be designed to fulfil its function, constructed within tolerances, and then inspected in service to provide the reassurance that the predicted environment and performance hold true. With flexible risers there has in the past been a lack of information on component material test results, particularly the polymers. This is being resolved, but in a somewhat piecemeal fashion because the presentation is so diffuse -some papers at 'offshore' conferences, others in the plastics and rubbers journals, others at specialist flexible riser events and, in the case of Coflexip at least, also confused by presentations from IFP (who developed the original Coflexip pipe) and Atochem (who manufacture their base polyamide). It would be helpful to users and, ! suggest, to the manufacturers themselves if the relevant information (or even just a set of references) was presented in some sort of order and an indication given of where in the scheme of things they felt they had sufficient information. It is also, I believe, essential to perform a major, independent series of tests supported by studies of component materials and by numerical analysis to provide a counterpoint and basic reference to the manufacturers' claims.
System Ancillaries Pipe Design Testing Construction Operation Row materi01s Manufacture Product test
Table 3

Basic forms of test Purpose To obtain constitutive relationships so that the component performance can be predicted To confirm the quality of the materials used in manufacture To measure absolute load capacities To identify modes of failure N o t to obtain residual capacity To quantify dimensions and flaw sizes and to confirm tolerances To obtain values of service life under component and combined loads To identify modes of failure under service loads To obtain properties of completed components such as stiffnesses, elongations, fire resistance, etc.

Test Raw material

Proof

NDE

Endurance

Characterization

Table 4

Applications of different forms of test Tests applied Materials; proof; endurance; characterization Proof; endurance; character Limited proof test; N DE Materials; proof; NDE; endurance ? Purpose To decide where to use and utility To define a product range To confirm acceptance To identify and define flaws related to failure To identify residual utility or cause of failure

Purpose Prototype

Type Product acceptance Inspection selection Postservice

Inspection
The alternative to blanket change-outs or to prediction of endurance is inspection and, since life should not be at risk and the environmental damage potential should be limited, I would suggest that the basis of service inspection of flexible risers can be less rigorous than might be the case for other structural elements. This is not true for manufacturing inspection and this distinction must be clearly made. Service inspection Let us consider first inspection of the pipe incorporated in a system. I suggest that gross failure of these pipes will be signalled well in advance by deformation of the metal components and that inspection should concentrate on this. I would justify this by pointing out that polymer (fatigue) ageing should result only in progressive leakage which could be detected by regular, external n O V sensor scans or, if the leak were sufficiently large, by pressure variations in the riser. A good IFP/Coflexip pape r2

Materia Is Prototype Generic type

Installation I nspection

Inspection calibration Post service/failure

Figure 1

Replacement

Design, construction and use of flexible pipe

284

Eng. Struct. 1989, Vol. 11, October

Flexible riser pipes: problems and unknowns: C.J. MacFarlane

suggests that there is no abrupt variation in the mechanical properties of their materials, and I would consider this also to be true for the other manufacturers' products. It is then hard to envisage breakdown of the polymers leading to major loss of containment without, firstly, some indication of leakage to the operator and, secondly, distortion of metallic components of the pipe. The consideration would not be of small cracks in the steel or the failure of individual strength wires, but quite large displacement or significant deformation of the metal inner liner or the strength members. The verity of this assumption on failure modes requires proving, but this is rather less complex than complete classification of all possible failure modes or detection of small breaks or cracks in stainless steel. From previous involvement in electro-magnetic inspection of wire ropes, I consider that this form of i n s p e c t i o n ~ o m b i n e d with a mechanical system of determining ovality--is eminently suitable for deployment of a relatively simple (i.e., intelligent, but not too clever)'pig'. A flexible pipe is generally characterized by a separation of functions: one layer resists permeation, one prevents radial collapse, one provides axial strength, etc. In some cases, as in the Dunlop pipe where the Duralon layer is retained and constrained between the Duratite/ Rayon plies and the inner interlocked tube, layers will act together to meet the requirements, but there is still a significant functional separation between layers. At some stage, however, these functions have to be recombined so that connection can be made at a simple flange. This is where the problem lies: although continuity of axial strength can be achieved by techniques which mirror wire rope terminations or which rely on friction, it is less easy to provide a comprehensive sealing system both radially and axially and to achieve both sealing and continuity of load appears to ask the impossible. Finally, the termination, if it meets the pipeline functions, must also be able to resist any forces applied to it by the pipe or other structure (bending, torsion, axial forces) and be resistant to corrosion. The problem is essentially one of disparate materials--steels and polymers/resins--operating in an evironment where their different thermal rates of expansion and different strain moduli are exercised repeatedly and where 'creep' with time will be much greater for the polymers than the metals. Let us see how the manufacturers have approached the problem. Figure 2 shows simplified versions of the Coflexip standard resin-bonded termination, the Dunlop preferred 'crimped' termination (noting that Dunlop also has a resin-bonded termination not shown here) and the Pag-O-Flex 'ebonite' termination (again noting that Pag-O-Flex has another form of termination, the 'shell' type, which is not considered further here). The Coflexip arrangement is taken from Reference 3, the Dunlop from Reference 5 and the Pag-O-Flex from Reference 8, in each case with the company's own terminology applied as labels. Bearing in mind the basic functions--to maintain load bearing continuity and to provide a seal equivalent to the pipe capacity--the spread of type is remarkable and it is interesting to consider each in turn.

Manufacturing inspection
The second area where inspection is important is of course during manufacture, but this is a large subject in itself which I wish to cover only briefly. The most important point to make is that output quality depends as much on testing of incoming raw materials as on control of processes and final measurement of the product, and yet I understand it is unusual for a pipe buyer to put much effort into this aspect. I would consider it critical to obtain and keep records of raw materials and of sampling of the processed materials who knows, it might be useful in post-failure analysis. ! would also suggest it to be good value to have a knowledgable presence at the manufacturing site, certainly when the termination is formed. Particular attention must be paid to the termination, as here a discontinuity is being built into the system (see below). Difficulties arise because of the thickness and mass of metal and the relative transparency of the polymers to conventional NDE (ultrasonic or X-ray). Much, however, can be made of three-dimensional imaging, using ultra-sound or X-rays as a means of maximizing return of information and obtaining both the internal dimensions of the various materials and any gaps within the polymers.

Coflexip resin termination

The Coflexip termination (Figure 2a) uses essentially wire rope technology to finish the axial load-carrying members (the 'tensile armours' in Coflexip parlance) by spreading these and bedding them in resin. One would then expect such a technique to suffer from the known deficiencies of similar terminations of wire ropes: the need for absolute precision in aligning the terminating 'cone', where the steel tapes are bedded, with the axis of the pipe; the need to ensure complete filling and curing of the resin; and the related need to avoid any entry of water or gas into the resin/steel contacts during service. Not knowing the type of resin used, it is not possible to say whether there might be problems with the setting reaction impacting on the other polymers used in the pipe, but this is certainly a problem to be borne in mind. The termination seal is produced by forcing up flanges to compress 'crimping' rings into the polymer layers and against metal surfaces, These 'crimps' (presumably, but not necessarily, of metal--see below) act against the metallic layers--either the interlocked carcass/termination vault or the steel armour/termination cap--and

Terminations
In all this discussion of robustness and simplicity of inspection, I wish to exempt the terminations of the pipes. It is unfortunate that all pipes have to end somewhere! In conversation with a retired senior engineer from BICC, a company that claims to have first engineered strengthened hoses in the 1960s but did not develop them as a product, it was clear that one of the reasons for not proceeding was the ability to make a good terminat i o n - o r rather the lack of that ability. (As an aside, a paper by Atochem 4, the makers of Coflexip's raw materials, suggests that IFP foresaw the use of flexibles in or around 1958 and instituted a development programme from that date. This appears to differ from the BICC position, but since IFP and Coflexip have persevered and survived, then perhaps it is correct that their view persists.)

Eng. Struct. 1989, Vol. 11, October

285

Flexible riser pipes." problems and unknowns. C.J. MacFarlane

Rear crimp flange and ring

Cap

Epoxyresin

Flexible pipe./]

....... Nylon[ _ Front _cri flange_ mP end___ring__

Inner sleeveor insert (unyielded) Outercover Wires ~ ~

-Outer sleeve( plastically yielded) ~

.~[

//

Flexible pipe

'Ouralon' seal area

Wire clamp area

b
Cm Steel wire Ic
Pipe elastomer 'shaded'

into ebonite

Ebonite fill
/

:el

C
Figure 2

(a) Coflexip termination; (b) Dunlop termination; (c) Pag-O-Flextermination

produce both internal and external resistance to flow. The inner (front) seal which holds the product is in effect axial and, if passed, there is no further resistance to flow radially through the termination unless the 'outer' surface of the crimp ring is designed as a further seal; this is not clear. The manufacturing process would appear to be: (1) to strip the pipe to expose sequential layers, fitting the spiral locking ring; (2) to make up the first crimping flange; (3)

to prepare the tensile armours around the termination body; (4) to slide up the cap and, presumably, connect it to the vault; (5) to inject and set the resin; and (6) to make up the final crimping flange. It may be that these last two are reversed, but I know of no published information on the construction of these terminations beyond the brief functional description of Reference 3. Difficulties with this form of termination arise from the

286

Eng. Struct. 1989, Vol. 11, October

Flexible riser pipes: problems and unknowns: C.J. MacFarlane

rigidity of the resin block, the disparate thermal expansion of the materials and the long-term creep behaviour of the polymers. Taking each in turn, the rigidity of the end connection is at odds with the flexibility of the pipe itself and we would expect to see the same problems of enhanced mechanical degradation of the pipe just outside the termihation end as we find with wire ropes. The term rigidity is, of course, relative and the resin has sufficient 'give' in it to allow efficient load transfer, but this highlights a contradiction--to achieve a good permanent seal we need fixity and yet a number of factors work against this. The differential thermal expansion will tend to cause relative displacement of materials and, perhaps, release of seal pressure. Long-term load will also cause relaxation of the seal pressure as the polymer creeps. There may, however, be some mitigation if (and here I have no information) the crimping rings driven up by flanges are themselves formed of a polymeric material of different properties to the Rilsan (polyamide 11) sheaves. If this is the case, then these blocks could in theory form reservoirs of expansion capability to act against relaxation of the seals. There remains the question of whether the wedges form seals on both the outer and the inner faces, but even if they do then any displacement will affect both faces and greater integrity is not provided. In summary, I would expect problems in the Coflexip termination from internal breakdown of the steel/resin bonds, fatigue-like failure just outside the termination in the pipe and loss of seal allowing progressive leakage from the termination. One would not wish to make up such a termination in other than closely controlled conditions--therefore probably never on site.
Dunlop 'crimped' termination

load-carrying steel wires, one would expect any fatiguelike effects to show just outside the termination proper. The seal area presents a problem similar to Coflexip in that it is axial only and it also has less constraint on it in the axial direction (applied by Coflexip through their driven-up flanges). It may be, however, that the shaped surfaces of the sealing face are sufficient to provide this restraint. Thermal expansion differentials are probably of similar magnitude, but because of the bonding of the pipe could show up as shear tears between layers as well as differential movement on sealing surfaces. Intrusion of water to the strand crimping area is possible, as with Coflexip, but I judge it to be less damaging as any minor corrosion will not reduce the hold on the strands.
Pag- 0 - Flex 'ebon ite ' fi t t ing

Dunlop offer as their main form of termination the 'crimped' fitting shown in Figure 2b. They have a resin-bonded fitting, but I understand that this, although providing a good termination when successfully made, suffers from the exothermic setting reaction of the resin affecting the Duralon anti-permeation layer. The crimped fitting is formed by plastically yielding an external steel sleeve over the sequentially stripped pipe materials and against a steel insert of higher yield than the external sleeve. The steel wires which take axial load are held in a different pocket from the polymeric materials, which are made up against a 'wavy' surface to enhance the seal pressure at the crests and also, perhaps, to minimize creep of polymer along the face. Here the continuity of load capability is obtained by a mixture of friction and clamping with no bonding process and the seal is similar to Coflexip in that the polymer is restrained between metal faces, but a wider sandwich of polymer is enclosed. A special flexible insert closes off the interlocked inner steel liner and bonds it to the main 'forming' insert piece. In theory there is potential to make such a termination in service as the technique is robustly mechanical and forgiving of small alignment errors. There might also be potential to remake the fitting by a further crimp process--rather like a giant 'jubilee' clip. This cannot be carried too far, however, because the external plastically-yielded material will harden after each yielding and the ability to make a seal depends on the differential between the yields of the inner and outer steel sleeves. Again, because of the rigidity of the hold on the

The Pag-O-Flex pipe is rather different from the first two as it has an impermeable corrugated metal liner (of ostensibly any ductile material, but generally of AISI 316 stainless steel). This eases the problem of sealing as this can be welded to the termination 'nipple', but some difficulties remain. From Figure 2c we see that the key to the treatment of the polymers and the steel loadcarrying members is the gradual tailing off of the soft (polychloroprene rubber, CR ?) elastomer into a hard ebonite material. This, when vulcanized with the pipe, shrinks and hardens so that it grips both the strength wires and also the serrated face of the termination nipple. In principle, the hardness of the ebonite is such as to limit differential strain movement between materials. It is not clear, however, what effect high thermal loads might have and, specifically, whether relative displacement of the metals and the polymers might increase the stress in the critical sealing weld between the inner corrugated liner and the nipple. This pipe and the ebonite termination depend very much on the integrity of welds in the stainless steel--both a longitudinal seam weld in the corrugated liner and the radial welds between sections and between pipe and termination. I have yet to see an adequate functional description of a termination design which systematically addresses these problem areas and notes conflicts and resolutions. Considering only the Coflexip and Dunlop terminations, in principle I feel there should be more effort made to produce additional seals to trap any passage of product through the primary axial seals. To counter the problem of differential expansion, one could either use a semiactive rubber seal (held tight by a spring as in valve design) or make use of varying polymer material properties to ensure there is no reduction in seal pressure. Without a doubt a polymer-to-metal seal is to be preferred to polymer-to-polymer and there might therefore be room for inclusion of metal formers, but this argues for a redesign of the termination and would undoubtably cause manufacturing problems. I understand that there is research effort into seal design by at least one of the major manufacturers, and I look forward to a rational discussion of their final products. Finally, the sensitivity of terminations to variations in design loads should be highlighted. It seems eminently possible that it is not static loads which are damaging, nor even cyclic mechanical loads, but that transient pressure effects and thermal cycles will have most impact. Eng. Struct. 1989, Vol. 11, October 287

Flexible riser pipes. problems and unknowns. C.J. MacFarlane

I doubt very much if the oil company petroleum engineers who provide the target design parameters are really aware of the variance of flow, phase and temperature that will come through their lines at first-oil, never mind after a few years. There are no design values or standards published for terminations, there is no range of flow variables existing which they have to meet, just an unhappy silence punctuated by sporadic, unexplained failures. Here, more than anywhere else, the flexible pipe is suspect and there is a real need for a structured programme of study into the loads and performance of pipe terminations. permeability over their own 'Duralon' material (apparently by a factor of 20 or so). In practice, with suitable precautions, that increased permeation does not appear to have caused too many problems (neglecting one serious accident with pipe removal), but the period of use is probably still too short and poorly documented to allow firm conclusions on the effect on service life or safety. It is fair comment that the nylon cannot handle high temperatures and Coflexip have experimented with a range of products before apparently settling on a fluorinated elastomer (type not given) for higher temperature
use 3.

Materials
Discussion of thermal and mechanical strain leads naturally to consideration of the performance of the various non-metal materials--on the assumption that the behaviour of the metals is reasonably well understood! The fluid environment is basically aggressive: we are concerned with hydrocarbon mixes combined with water, contaminant gases (HzS or COz), perhaps corrosive chemicals and abrasive materials at high flow rates, and high temperatures and/or pressures. The flow rates themselves may not be constant and the phase behaviour of the hydrocarbons may, therefore, be complex. In this paper the aspects of abrasion, variable flow rates and fluid phase behaviour cannot be discussed--this does not mean they are not real problems, rather that they are complex and field-dependent, and worthy of papers in themselves. Briefly, let us consider the materials used by various manufacturers. Coflexip generally use nylon (polyamide 112.4) and are now moving towards fluorinated polymers for higher temperature service. Dunlop state they use a modified polyolefin elastomer 5, which I understand to be a chlorinated polyethylene rubber (CPE) and which allows higher temperature use than the basic polyolefins. I have found no published details of the main polymer used by Pag-O-Flex, but suspect it to be a polychloroprene rubber (CR). The form of polymer used by Pag-OFlex is not, however, relevant to this discussion as it will always be protected (in theory at least) from the fluid environment by the impermeable stainless steel liner used in that pipe: the critical material problem for that pipe must be corrosion fatigue in the crevices and on the weld of the corrugated stainless steel. Selecting a range of papers 2-6, one gets a flavour of some disagreement on the performance of the various contender materials. For example, Coflexip/IFP/Atochem write-off the polyolefins claiming they either lack performance at higher temperatures (above 60C, Reference 4) or because they exhibit too much swelling when in contact with hydrocarbons z. Dunlop would, no doubt, counter these comments by noting that they have modified their basic polymer for higher temperature service so that it is stable up to 130C and that they make a virtue of the swelling of their material by constraining it and thus increasing the osmotic permeation resistance 5 as well as, perhaps, increasing the resistance to explosive decompression 7. Dunlop themselves have criticized nylons--and implicitly, therefore, Coflexip--because of their lower temperature capability and the increased

Neglecting these attempts at market assassination by the various manufacturers, there is still some confusion about the performance of the materials. A degree of commercial sensitivity must, of course, be allowed, but it seems to me that none of the materials used can meet all possible fluid flow environments, which is not unexpected. More alarming, perhaps, it is not clear to me that any material presently used can completely meet even the range of fluid environments which are likely from a single, typical, deepish well over its life. There must, therefore, be some system of checking future performance whenever there is a significant (slow or discrete) change in fluid makeup, additives, temperature or pressure. Thus, most polymers used for resistance to hot hydrocarbons will degrade when exposed to steam, and more so if the water is in any way corrosive or contains inhibitors. There appear to be basic trade-offs between resistance to hot hydrocarbons, mechanical performance, permeability, sensitivity to hydrolysis and to well additives which, because it is not adequately explained by the manufacturers, could produce potentially dangerous situations arising from (perhaps unintentional) misuse of the products. What does happen inside a pipe as a pressure transient passes through? Will the 'bonded' pipe remain bonded everywhere? Will the unbonded portion remain undeformed and what reduction has been irretrievably made in ultimate capacity? It seems to me that increased effort in the design of polymers is the route to take- if only to define present limits on use--and that the fluorinated polymers are the prime contenders for higher temperature service. But the question must be asked, which fluoroelastomer? A pertinent discussion can be found in Reference 8. As these new ingredients are added to the pipes, the customer runs the risk of stepping even further into the dark as far as material performance is concerned. The pressure on the manufacturer is, first, to provide a product to meet a market and, second, to utilize uncomplicated manufacturing processes. Simple manufacture must also be seen as a benefit to the user and regulator, as it minimizes construction errors and variance, but the urge to get a product onto an eager market is a destructive one and any user must be aware of and accept their share (with the supplier) of the risk. On a slightly different tack: if conventional pipes are suffering from enhanced erosion/corrosion, what will happen to the relatively thin stainless steel interlock or corrugated liners in common use? Pag-O-Flex might seem to be the most exposed on this, but the problem must also be addressed for long-term flowline service by all manufacturers as this form of degradation is proving greater than predicted for conventional, rigid-wall oil pipes.

288

Eng. Struct. 1989, Vol. 11, October

Flexible riser pipes: problems and unknowns: C.J. MacFarlane

Compression
The final subject I wish to air is that of compression. Not hydrostatic pressure loading, nor the compressions experienced by the materials on the inner surfaces of a bend, but axial compressive loads on the pipe sufficient to cause lock-up leading to the pipe acting as if rigid over a certain length. This is a complex area. Even if the riser layout meets the criterion of minimum bend radius, it is possible in analysis to predict compressive loads of significant magnitude at the top end and near the mid-span arches. Flexible pipes are not designed for these and their performance must be seen as uncertain. How real are the predictions and what will happen internally? There appears to be two schools of thought: one that the prediction of overall compressive loads is a figment of the analytical tools and can be made to disappear by careful selection of analytical element spacing and solution intervals; the second that these loads are functions of configuration, can occur in practice and could have very severe effects. There is a need for testing of analysis techniques to identify where and when results are spurious, but I believe (and suggest there is some limited experience from small umbilical cables) that there is real potential for lock-up in service. With small umbilicals the effect is to cause 'birdcaging' of the helically wound, wire-reinforcing strands and ultimately loss of containment and strength. With a large diameter flexible pipe I can envisage something similar and suggest this is a mode of loading which needs urgent review both for cause and effect.

materials under extreme service conditions, the effects of long-term erosion/corrosion and the performance of pipes in compression. Users of these pipes have to take a wide view of the safety aspects, where the consequences of pipe and especially termination failure must not have fatal consequences, and a long view so that all the variations of well flow environment in time are predicted for initial design. I take a wide view of flexible pipes and class them generically with umbilicals and ropes/tethers. I believe that a generic numerical model (incorporating wherever possible analytical solutions) can be built now to define the mechanical (static and dynamic), and thermal and electrical performance of these ligaments and perhaps, later, to take into account chemical degradation. The future problem is to design complex multi-function pipes and cables from first principles and predict the performance before building the prototype.

References
1 MacFarlane, C. J. 'The performance of flexible risers', Dept. o/" Energy Rep. OTN 87-130 & OTN 87-130A (Appendices) 2 Dawns, F. A., Jarrin, J., Lefevre, T. O. and Pelisson, M. 'Improved thermoplastic materials for offshore flexible pipes', OTC 5231, 1986 3 Mallen, J., Estrier, P. and Amilhau, S. 'The quality and reliability of flexible steel pipes', Institute of Marine Engineers, 1989 4 Raveau, G. and Simon, J. P. 'Polyamide 11 for use in collecting pipes and submarine operating umbilicals', PRI Conf. on 'Polymers in Offshore Engng', Plastics & Rubber Institute, London, 1988 5 Griffiths, A. D. 'Elastomeric high pressure flexible pipes for high temperature applications', ibid. 6 Seregely, Z. I., Nagy, T. T. and Pfisztner, N. 'Ageing of elastomers under simulated offshore conditions', ibid. 7 Campion, R. P. 'Failure mechanisms in elastomers in high pressure oil and gas conditions', ibid. 8 Weston, R. J. 'A comparison of perfluoroelastomers and other elastomers tested in oilfield media', PRI Con/~ on Polymers in Offshore Eng, op. cir.

Summary
To summarize the problems and unknowns as I see them, I would state the biggest problem as having to end the pipe: without this, these are robust engineering devices. The unknowns (to me) are the performance of polymeric

Eng. Struct. 1989, Vol. 11, October

289