Sie sind auf Seite 1von 92

Impact analysis of flexible riser

Masters Thesis in the International Masters Programme Naval Architecture and


Ocean Engineering

ULRIKKE BRANDT
Department of Shipping and Marine Technology
Division of Marine Design, Research Group Marine Structures
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gteborg, Sweden 2014

MASTERS THESIS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MASTERS PROGRAMME IN


NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND OCEAN ENGINEERING

Impact analysis of flexible riser

ULRIKKE BRANDT

Department of Shipping and Marine Technology


Division of Marine Design
Research Group Marine Structures
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gteborg, Sweden 2014

Abstract
Research shows 35 % of damage to flexible pipes occurs within the first year, [1]. A minimum of these
failures are from poor design or manufacturing problems, since factories conduct Factory Acceptance
Tests (FAT). Additionally, the installation phase is a critical stage of the service life. For instance, in
the installation phase the flexible pipe can be exposed for impact from dropped tools. In worst case an
impact of flexible pipes result in an environmental pollution. Hence it is important to assess the impact
resistance of flexible pipes.
The thesis work is devised for NOV Flexibles in Denmark, which produces flexible pipes. An experiment performed by NOV Flexibles shows the current simplified analytical method utilized by NOV
Flexibles is significantly conservative. Hence NOV Flexibles has requested a less conservative method to
estimate the impact resistance of their flexible pipes.
Through the thesis work three different approaches have been utilized to assess the impact capacity of the 16" Production Jumper manufactured by NOV Flexibles. All the analyses are a part of the
accidental limit state design. First a simplified analytical analysis is utilized. The analysis is based on the
theory for dented tubular members. A diamond shaped yield line model is utilized in the analysis.
The experiment performed by NOV Flexibles is regenerated by finite element models. Two commercial programs are utilized for the simulations; BFLEX2010 and LS-DYNA. The model in LS-DYNA
is more detailed compared to the model conducted in BLFEX2010. All the layers except the tapes
are included in the LS-DYNA model. The carcass and the pressure armour are simplified. They are
modeled as a shell structure and special orthotropic material is utilized for these layers. The BFLEX2010
model is modeled with beam elements. In this model the layers are assembled in three layers; two tensile layers and the core. In both models the indenter, the 6" Multi Purpose Riser, is modeled as a rigid pipe.
In harsh weather accidents to the whole semi-submersible may occur. As a result of harsh weather
the semi-submersible may get an inclination. With an inclination of the semi-submersible and forces from
the waves and current, the flexible riser can clash into the pontoon. This impact scenario is analyzed and
is referred to as "platform impact scenario" in the thesis. A beam model in BFLEX2010 is utilized for the
analysis. The principle of the model is similar to the BFLEX2010 model of the experiment.

vii

Resume
En undersgelse viser at 35 % af skaderne p fleksible rr sker i lbet af det frste r, [1]. En begrnset
del af disse skader er grundet drlig design eller produktionsfejl, da fabrikkerne udfrer "Factory Acceptance Tests" (FAT-test). Installationsperioden er en kritisk periode af de fleksible rrs levetid. Under
installationen af fleksible rr, kan rrene blive udsat for std grundet tabte redskaber. I vrste tilflde
kan et std p de fleksible rr medfre forurening af miljet. For at forhindre forurening er det derfor
vigtigt at kunne eftervise stdskapaciteten af de fleksible rr.
Dette speciale er udarbejdet i samarbejde med NOV Flexibles. NOV Flexibles er lokaliseret i Brndby,
Danmark, og producerer primrt fleksible rr til olieindustrien. I dag benytter NOV Flexibles en forsimplet
analytisk metode til at eftervise stdskapaciteten af de fleksible rr. Et forsg udfrt af NOV Flexibles
viser dog at den nuvrende analytiske metode er meget konservativ. Derfor nsker NOV Flexibles en ny
mindre konservativ metode.
I dette speciale er tre forskellige analyser benyttet til at analysere stdskapaciteten af en 16" Production Jumper som er produceret af NOV Flexibles. Frst er en simpel analytisk analyse benyttet.
Denne analyse er baseret p teorien fra et bulet stl rr. En diamantformet brudlinje model er benyttet
til analysen.
Efterflgende er to finite element modeller benyttet til at eftervise resultaterne fra forsget udfrt
af NOV Flexibles. To forskellige kommercielle programmer er benyttet til disse simuleringer: BFLEX2010
og LS-DYNA. Modellen benyttet til analysen i LS-DYNA er mere detaljeret i forhold til modellen i
BFLEX2010. I LS-DYNA modellen er alle lagene, undtagen tape-lagene, inkluderet. Opbygningen af
trykarmeringen og carcassen er forsimplet i modellen. De er opbygget af skal elementer og den speciel
ortotropisk materiale model. BFLEX2010 modellen er derimod opbygget af bjlke elementer. Derudover
er de forskellige materialer lag samlet til tre lag; to strk armeringslag og et ydrelag. I begge modeller er
det 6" Multi Purpose Riser modeleret som et ubjeligt rr.
Voldsomme vejrforhold kan medfre at stabiliteten af flydende platforme svigter og dermed fr platformene
en hldning. I det tilflde kan krfterne fra blgerne og strmmen resultere i at det fleksible stigerr
svinger ind i pontonen. Et speciale tilflde af denne situation er analyseret i rapporten. I rapporten
er situationen refereret til "platform impact scenario". En bjlke model i BFLEX2010 er benyttet til
analysen. Denne model er baseret p samme koncept som BFLEX2010-modellen af forsget udfrt af
NOV Flexibles.

ix

NTNU Trondheim
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet
Institutt for marin teknikk

MASTER THESIS SPRING 2014


for

Stud. tech. Ulrikke Brandt


Impact analysis of flexible riser
Sttanalyse av fleksible stigerr

The flexible pipe represents a vital part of many oil and gas production systems. During
operation of such pipes, several failure incidents may take place e.g. caused by denting and
corrosion. One critical load scenario is the Accidental Limit State of a floating production
system where the floater is tilted and the riser may get in contact with the pontoon during the
storm condition.
1) Literature study, including flexible pipe technology, relevant standards, failure modes,
design criteria, test procedures and computational methods with focus on impact loads.
2) Establish the basis of the study in terms of pipe geometry, mechanical characteristics,
NOV impact test data, floater data and environmental data/riser displacement/velocity
data.
3) Familiarize with existing analytical tools for flexible pipe impact load response analysis,
identify the amount of conservatism found in this model as compared to the test data and
its possible explanation.
4) Establish a FE model in LS-DYNA of the NOV test set up, using the principles outlined
in the literature and analytical considerations of each layer.
5) Demonstrate the performance of the model.
6) Perform numerical analysis of the tests performed NOV and if necessary tune the model
parameters to get a best fit of the test data.
7) Establish a beam contact dynamics model for the platform impact scenario, use the
defined force-indentation relationships and compare the determined impact energies to
existing LS-DYNA results.
8) Perform parametric studies to identify the amount of damage as a function of sea state
using the simplified procedure.
9) Conclusions and recommendations for further work
All input necessary input data are assumed to be provided by NOV.
The work scope may prove to be larger than initially anticipated. Subject to approval from the
supervisors, topics may be deleted from the list above or reduced in extent.
In the thesis the candidate shall present his personal contribution to the resolution of problems
within the scope of the thesis work.
Theories and conclusions should be based on mathematical derivations and/or logic reasoning
identifying the various steps in the deduction.

xi

NTNU
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet

Fakultet for ingenirvitenskap og teknologi


Institutt for marin teknikk

The candidate should utilize the existing possibilities for obtaining relevant literature.
Thesis format
The thesis should be organized in a rational manner to give a clear exposition of results,
assessments, and conclusions. The text should be brief and to the point, with a clear language.
Telegraphic language should be avoided.
The thesis shall contain the following elements: A text defining the scope, preface, list of
contents, summary, main body of thesis, conclusions with recommendations for further work, list
of symbols and acronyms, references and (optional) appendices. All figures, tables and
equations shall be numerated.
The supervisors may require that the candidate, in an early stage of the work, presents a written
plan for the completion of the work.
The original contribution of the candidate and material taken from other sources shall be clearly
defined. Work from other sources shall be properly referenced using an acknowledged
referencing system.
The report shall be submitted in two copies:
- Signed by the candidate
- The text defining the scope included
- In bound volume(s)
- Drawings and/or computer prints which cannot be bound should be organized in a separate
folder.
Ownership
NTNU has according to the present rules the ownership of the thesis. Any use of the thesis has to be
approved by NTNU (or external partner when this applies). The department has the right to use the
thesis as if the work was carried out by a NTNU employee, if nothing else has been agreed in
advance.
Thesis supervisors
Prof. Svein Svik, NTNU.
Prof. Jonas Ringsberg, Chalmers
Bogi Laksafoss, NOV
Deadline: June 10th, 2014
Trondheim, January, 2014

Svein Svik

xii

Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Flexible riser technology .
1.2 Motivation for thesis work
1.3 Scope of work . . . . . . .
1.4 Limitations . . . . . . . .
1.5 Methodology . . . . . . .
1.6 Literature review . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

1
1
9
10
10
10
12

2 Analytical analysis
2.1 Introduction to impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Method utilized by NOV Flexibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Dented tubular member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15
15
16
17

3 The
3.1
3.2
3.3

platform impact scenario


Applied theory in BFLEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BFLEX2010 model of platform impact scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BFLEX2010 model of experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21
21
24
27

4 LS-DYNA analysis
4.1 Applied theory in LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 LS-DYNA model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31
31
32

5 Results
5.1 Analytical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 BFLEX2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37
37
39
48

6 Discussion
6.1 Analytical analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 BFLEX2010 model of the experiment
6.3 The platform impact scenario . . . . .
6.4 LS-DYNA model of the experiment . .
6.5 Comparison of the three analyses . . .

.
.
.
.
.

53
53
54
55
56
59

7 Conclusion
7.1 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61
62

Bibliography

63

A Matlab code for indentation and impact energy relationship

65

B NOV Flexibles experiment results

69

C Actual cross sections

71

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

xiii

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

List of Figures
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8

Riser configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Example of rough bore structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Example of smooth bore structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sketch of bending behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illustration of spring back effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chart showing the most significant cause of damage to flexible pipes in 2002 and 2007 . . . .
Chart showing the number of years before damage occurs within the flexible pipe population
Flowchart of analyses utilized in the thesis work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3
4
5
6
6
8
8
11

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

Energy dissipation for strength, ductile and shared-energy design


Dissipation of strain energy in dropped object and installation .
Load versus indentation curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deformation of simply supported beam subjected to indentation
Dent geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

15
16
17
18
18

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11

Possible clashing between riser and pontoon . . .


Roller contact element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Updated Newton-Raphson iteration . . . . . . .
Engineering stress-strain curve for mild steel . .
Example of non-linear boundary condition effect
Concept of simple beam model . . . . . . . . . .
Structure of carcass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structure of the pressure armour . . . . . . . . .
EPCURVE for CONT164 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Experiment set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BFLEX model of NOV Flexibless experiment . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

21
22
23
24
24
25
25
25
26
28
29

4.1
4.2
4.3

The time integration loop in LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Detailed (a) and resultant based shell model (b) of one winding of the interlocking carcass . .
LS-DYNA model of the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32
33
35

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13

Force-indentation relationship for the 16"PJ, analytical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Relationship between impact energy and dent depth for the 16"PJ, analytical analysis . . . .
Two suggested connection between the square tube and a tubular tube . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of utilized input parameters to the platform impact scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of utilized input parameters to regeneration of the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity of the middle node of the 16"PJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force in the contact element as a function of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force-indentation curve for the platform impact scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Influence of epcurve on the element force (3dof) in the contact element . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Influence of the epcurve on the element force (3dof) in middle element of the 16"PJ . . . . .
Influence of mesh size on the element force (3dof) in the contact element . . . . . . . . . . . .
Influence of mesh size on the element force (3dof) in the middle element of 16"PJ . . . . . . .
Influence of mesh size on the element force (3dof) in the middle element of 16"PJ in time
period 10 seconds to 20 seconds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Influence of the radius of the contact element on the element force (3dof) in the contact force
Influence of the radius of the contact element on the element force (3dof) in the middle element
of the 16"PJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Time step influence on force-indentation relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force-indentation relationship based on Ellinas and Walker, BFLEX2010 . . . . . . . . . . .

38
38
39
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
45

5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17

xv

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

45
46
46
47
47

List of Figures
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28

Indentation of the 16"PJ as a function of impact energy, BFLEX2010 . . .


Overview of the sensitivity study of LS-DYNA model . . . . . . . . . . . .
Energies in the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deformation of carcass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deformation of point with maximum deformation in each layer . . . . . . .
Friction coefficients effect on the indentation of carcass . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convergence study of mesh size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Boundary condition effect on the indentation of carcass, high impact energy
Boundary condition effect on the indentation of carcass, low impact energy
Indentation of the 16"PJ as a function of impact energy, LS-DYNA . . . . .
Linear parts of the permanent indentation-energy curve, LS-DYNA . . . . .

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9

Comparison of indentation-impact energy relationship, analytical analysis


Comparison of indentation-impact energy relationship, BFLEX2010 . . .
Comparison of the platform impact scenario and the experimental model
Comparison of the indentation-impact energy relationship, LS-DYNA . .
Comparison of the indentation-impact energy relationship at small impact
Influence of interlock function on the indentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Influence of interlock function on indentation of carcass . . . . . . . . . .
Orthotropic LS-DYNA model including the interlock function of carcass .
Comparison of the three impact analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B.1 Deformation of the


Test 1 . . . . . . .
B.2 Deformation of the
Test 2 . . . . . . .

xvi

16"PJ as a function of the


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16"PJ as a function of the
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

impact energy absorbed


. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
impact energy absorbed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
energies, LS-DYNA
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .

by the
. . . .
by the
. . . .

16"PJ,
. . . .
16"PJ,
. . . .

Impact
. . . . .
Impact
. . . . .

48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
52
54
55
55
56
57
58
58
59
60
69
70

List of Tables
1.1
1.2

Failure modes of unbonded flexible pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Degradation for unbonded pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

16"PJ components . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Linear elastic materials . . . . . . . . . . .
Utilized forces in the sensitivity study . . .
Utilized forces in the final analysis . . . . .
Material parameters utilized to the 6"MPR

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

Modeled 16"PJ in LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Material properties for the carcass, the pressure armour and
Material properties for inner liner and outer sheath (10 C)
Utilized friction coefficients in LS-DYNA model . . . . . . .

5.1

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

25
26
27
27
28

. . . . . . . . . .
the tensile layers
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

33
33
34
34

Epcurves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

C.1 Actual cross section of the 16"PJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


C.2 Actual cross section of the 6"MPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71
72

xvii

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

7
9

Nomenclature
Greek letters

e
y

Lay angle
Constant
Indentation
Slope of the load-curve
Poisson ratio
Volume of the element
Yield stress

Roman letters
Acarcass
As
Ae,max
b
c
CE
Cys
d
dd
D
E
Eb
Ep
Ei
Es
F
Ff
F1y
F2y
h
I
k
K
ld
Ls
Li
Mp
n
Q
r
R
t
te
w
x
Zp

Area of a s-shaped carcass profile


Area
Area of the largest side
Width
Sound speed
Youngs modulus factor
Yield stress factor
Radial deformation
Dent depth
Outer diameter
Youngs modulus
Youngs modulus in the hoop direction under bending
Youngs modulus in the hoop direction under axial loading
Impact energy
Strain Energy
Impact force
Fill factor
Two point load at start yield in carcass
Two point load at start yield in pressure armour without support from carcass
Height
Moment of inertia
Time interval
Constant
Length of dent region
Characteristic length
Length of the sides defining the shell elements
Plastic moment
Number of tendons
Function of the bulk viscosity coefficients
Resistance
Mean radius
Thickness
Critical time step size
Deformation
Distance from the point of application of the impact load
Plastic section modulus

xix

List of Tables
Matrices and vectors
ak
CI
Fk
Hk
KI
M
MI
Pk
r
RD
RI
RE
RS
v
u

xx

Acceleration
Incremental damping matrix
Stress divergence vector
Hourglass resistance
Incremental stiffness matrix
Diagonal mass matrix
Incremental mass matrix
External and body force loads
Displacement vector
Damping force vector
Inertia force vector
External load vector
Internal structural reaction force vector
Global nodal velocity
Global nodal displacement

Chapter 1

Introduction
Modern society is dependent on energy and a lot of this energy is based on oil. Every day more than
80 million barrels of fossil fuels are consumed, [2]. It is not only industry but also the common citizen
who is the consumer. The fossil fuels are for instance used for petrol and diesel for cars and trucks or for
heating of buildings. Even though renewable energy is coming more and more into modern society the oil
business is still the main business in the world.
In the past oil production has been developed in order to become more efficient. The riser, which
is the connection between the platform and the wellhead, is an important piece of equipment for production. It is important that the riser is designed correctly so no collapse, and thereby no environmental
pollution, occurs. In the beginning the risers were simple tubes, but for deeper water flexible risers are an
advantage. The first unbonded flexible riser was developed in the early seventies, while the boned type
was developed even earlier, [3]. The cross section of both types of flexible riser has a complex structure
since the cross section consists of many layers with different material properties. The cross section consists
of steel layers, polymer sheath and tapes. The combination of these layers gives a unique behavior when
the flexible riser is exposed to loading, especially bending.
At the locations of the platforms and thereby the location of the flexible risers, harsh weather occurs. Under these weather conditions accidents can occur and it may happen that the platform gets
an inclination. In that case the riser may clash into the pontoon. Hence the riser must have enough
capacity to withstand the impact load so environmental pollution is prevented. Another impact scenario
of the riser is during the installation phase where an object is dropped on the riser. Due to these possible
scenarios an impact analysis of two flexible pipelines is made in this thesis. Since all the different impact
scenarios happen by accident the analyses are a part of the accidental limit state design. The ultimate
limit state design is not included in the thesis work.
In the next sections an introduction to the flexible riser technology is given to make the report easier to
understand. At the end of the chapter the scope of work and a literature review is presented.

1.1

Flexible riser technology

The concept of flexible pipes has been known for decades. The first developed type was the bounded type,
which is described more in detail in section 1.1.2. The design of this pipe was primarily governed by the
ratio of burst to design pressure. The development of the unbonded flexible pipe started in the early
seventies where large resources were put into development. At this time the confidence in the flexible
riser increased and many options for applications of the risers were found. Since no general industry
standard was available, the use of the flexible pipes was still limited. In 1987 Veritec developed a general
design standard for flexible pipes. It was based on the design methods applied by the manufacturers
and the offshore design codes. After the development of the standard the use of flexible pipes was still
moderate during this period with the exception of Brazil. However, there was a growth in the demand
and requirements to flexible pipes. These requirements were temperature, pressure and diameter. The
industry faced problems since many oil companies developed their own specifications for the flexible pipes.
As a consequence, a specification was accepted in 1995 by API as the general design specification for
flexible pipes. Today the standard is named API Spec 17J corresponding to ISO 13628-2, [3].
1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1

Riser systems

This section about the riser system is based on [3]. There are several different designs of the riser system.
The riser system connects the floaters to the wellheads at the seabed. The design of the configuration
must be chosen so it meets the production requirement and the site-specifications. The basis listed below
can be taken into account when the configuration is chosen for a given riser system:
Global behavior and geometry
Structural integrity, rigidity and continuity
Cross sectional properties
Means of support
Material
Costs
It is also important the riser system is arranged so the external loading is kept within the acceptable
limits with regards to tension, bending, torsion, compression and interference.
The riser system does not only consist of the riser. A considerable amount of auxiliary equipment
is utilized in the riser system. These items could turn out to be critical areas from the design point of
view and must be well-designed. They must be designed so they can withstand high tension and bending
moments and be flexible so they can resist fatigue. An important component in the riser system is the
end fitting. The function of the end fitting is to ensure the tension, bending and torsion in the riser are
satisfactorily resisted whilst ensuring that a comprehensive sealing system is attached both axially and
radially. Another component in the riser system is the bending stiffener. The function of the bending
stiffener is to provide additional resistance to over-bending of the riser at the critical points. The critical
points are at the ends of the pipe where the stiffness is increased to infinity. Below a short description of
six different configurations of the riser system is given. The configurations are shown in figure 1.1.
Catenary
The Catenary configuration is widely used when the oil field is in deep water. The riser is free hanging
and the distance between the supports is long. Consequently, the top tension is large. Buoyancy modules
may be clamped to the top end of the riser to reduce the magnitude of the top tension. When the floater
moves due to the current and the waves the riser will follow this motion up and down and no heave
compensation equipment is needed. The riser is simply lifted or lowered down on the seabed. The failure
mode for this configuration could be overbending or compression at the Touch Down Point (TDP), since
the surface motion is directly transferred to this point. The most critical motion for Catenary is heave
from first order vessel motion.
Lazy S and Steep S
In the Lazy S and Steep S a support at the riser is added. The support is a subsea buoy and can either
be a fixed buoy or a buoyant buoy. The fixed buoy is fixed to a structure at the seabed. The buoyant
buoy is positioned for instance with chains. The aim of these configurations is to reduce the top tension.
Additionally, the buoy ensures that over bending or compression problems at the TDP will not occur since
the buoy absorbs the tension variation induced by the floater. Hence the TPD only has small variation in
tension if any.
Lazy Wave and Steep Wave
Lazy S, Steep S, Lazy Wave and Steep Wave are almost the same configurations. For the last two
mentioned the subsea buoy is replaced with buoyancy and weight along a longer length of the riser where
it is beneficial. The reason for these designs is that it is easier to make the riser shape as desired.
Pliant Wave
The Pliant Wave configuration is an expansion of the Steep Wave configuration. Here an anchor is added
so the tension in the riser is transformed to the anchor and not to the TDP. Additionally, the Pliant Wave
configuration has the benefit that the riser is tied back to the well located below the floater. This makes
well intervention possible without an additional vessel.
2

1.1. FLEXIBLE RISER TECHNOLOGY

Figure 1.1: Riser configurations

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.2

Flexible riser design

The cross section of a flexible riser is complex since it consists of many different layers of steel, polymer
sheaths and tapes. All the layers have different properties. When the structure of the flexible risers is
analyzed it is common to divide them into two categories. The two types of flexible risers are the bonded
and unbonded, respectively. In a bonded riser each layer has been bonded together by adhesives or by
the application of heat together with pressure. Hence the cross section is a single construction. This
processing of the layers has not been done with an unbonded riser. Thus, each steel and plastic layer can
move freely relative to each other. The unbonded type of riser is the most common in the oil and gas
industry, [4]. The unbonded riser can be divided into two subcategories; the rough bore and the smooth
bore. Below a short description of both types is given.
Rough bore structures
The rough bore is common in the oil and gas industry and is often used when gas may be present in
the transported fluid. An example of rough bore structure is shown in figure 1.2. The inner layer is an
interlocked steel carcass. The function of this layer is to prevent collapse of the pressure plastic sheath,
which is the next layer. A collapse can occur due to hydrostatic pressure or under depressurization of
the flexible riser structure where diffused gases may occur in the annulus between the plastic layers. The
function of the intermediate
pressure
Outer
sheath plastic sheath is to ensure that the pipe remains leak proof. The
pressure armour is the next layer, which
is a spiraled tape
steel layer. The function of the pressure armour is
Anti-birdcaging
to sustain the radial loads generated by the internal pressure.
Anti wearThis layer can be reinforced to increase the
A
Pressure
armour
capacity. After the pressure armour an additional thermoplastic layer
comes.
It is applicable to dynamic
structures only. The additional thermoplastic layer is like an anti-friction layer between the two steel
layers. The next sections of the structure are two tensile layers. The tensile layers are cross wound armour
layers. These layers give the riser a good resistance to tensile loads and torque. Around the second armour
layer an adhesive tape is wound to maintain the armours during the manufacture. The final layer is a
plastic sheath whose function is to protect the steel layer against corrosion and abrasion, [4].
Smooth bore structures
The smooth bore design has fewer layers than the rough bore design, see figure 1.3. In this design the
inner layer is a plastic tube whose function is to make the riser leak proof. The next layer is the pressure
armour, which makes the riserDiolen
able to sustain the radial loads generated by the internal pressure. Again
this layer can be reinforced if necessary.
After the pressure armour an anti collapse thermoplastic sheath
Anti wear
Tensile armour
comes. The function of this layer is to transfer the external pressure onto the pressure armour. As for the
rough bore the next layer is the double cross wound armours. The finalInner
layerliner
is a thermoplastic sheath.

Pressure armour

Isolation

Carcass

Inner liner
Tensile armour
Outer sheath
Figure 1.2: Example
of rough
structure.serve
The
presented
pipe
cross-sections
serve
examples that do not
The above
presentedbore
pipe cross-sections
as examples
that do
not necessarily
include the
correctas
layer
and layers
also have beenand
included
/ excluded
the have
purposebeen
of illustration.
necessarily include dimensions
the correct
layermay
dimensions
layers
may for
also
included / excluded for the purpose
of illustration

1.1. FLEXIBLE RISER TECHNOLOGY

Outer sheath
Anti-birdcaging tape
Anti wear
A

Pressure armour

Diolen
Anti wear Tensile armour
Inner liner
Figure 1.3: Example of smooth bore structure. The presented pipe cross-sections serve as examples that do not
necessarily include the correct layer dimensions and layers may also have been included / excluded for the purpose
Isolation
of illustration
Pressure armour

Carcass

The two last mentioned layers have the same function as for the rough bore. The smooth bores as opposed
to rough bores are used in applications which do not involve gas diffusion, [4].

1.1.3

Properties of flexible risers

As for all structures, beams, pipes, shell etc. the behavior under loading depends on the cross section. The
bonded risers behavior is simpler compared to the unbonded. The behavior is linear within the relevant
range of loadings. If an unbonded riser is exposed to torsion or tension the physical behavior of the riser
is also linear. The difference occurs when the riser is exposed to bending. As indicated in figure 1.4 the
behavior will be a non-linear moment-curvature relationship. The physical behavior of the flexible riser
which is exposed to bendingInner
can liner
be divided into three regions. In the first region the Kirchhoff-Navier
hypothesis is valid. This hypothesis statesTensile
a straight
line which is normal to the midsurface before loading
armour
is assumed to remain straight and normal to the midsurface after loading. Consequently, the transverse
Outer sheath
shear deformation is assumed to be zero. Thus, in the first region, no slip between the armouring and
The above presented pipe cross-sections serve as examples that do not necessarily include the correct layer
the supporting riser
structure occurs. Due to no slip the bending stiffness can be compared to a steel
dimensions and layers may also have been included / excluded for the purpose of illustration.
pipe with the same dimensions. In the next region the moment is increased. Due to the shear stresses
developed between the armouring element and the supporting pipe structures slip will occur. The slip will
lead to a significant reduction of the bending stiffness. The reduction of the stiffness makes the riser more
flexible. Within this region the riser becomes a flexible riser. The moment where the bending stiffness is
reduced is called the friction moment. In the last region the bending stiffness increases again. The increase
of the bending stiffness occurs since the riser is bent significantly and the initial small gaps between each
layer disappear. This occurs when the curvature reaches a critical value, which should not be exceeded
under normal operation, [5].
One beneficial property of flexible risers is the cross section, which allows significant elastic deformation before plasticity occurs. Hence large local elastic deformation may occur before permanent plastic
deformation occurs. Due to this property a likewise elastic unloading effect after plastic deformation is
implied. This effect is called the elastic spring back and is illustrated in figure 1.5, [6].

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 1.4: Sketch of bending behavior

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Force

Elastic deformation

Unloading

Measured spring back


Displacement
Plastic deformation

Figure 1.5: Illustration of spring back effect


PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

1.1.4

Failure modes

Both during installation and operation the flexible risers are exposed to different loads. These loads
contribute to different failure modes and must be considered in the design phase in order to avoid
environmental pollution. The different failure modes can be divided into two main groups, [7]:
Leakage
Reduction of internal cross section
The different failure modes and the potential failure mechanisms for the components of structure are
shown in table 1.1.
Due to increased use of flexible pipelines in the last decades, many pipelines reach the end of the
intended service life. Hence some investigation of the statistical failure mode is done. Figure 1.6 presents
the distribution of the main failure modes in 2002 and 2007. The figure is based on a sample consisting of
worldwide operating flexible pipes, [1]. Another interesting investigation is when the failure modes occur.
The failure of a flexible pipe can either be time dependent, where the damage occurs slowly with time, or
instantaneous. From figure 1.7 it can be seen that 35 % of the damage incidents occur during the first
year. A minimum of these failures are due to poor design or manufacturing problems, since factories make
6

1.1. FLEXIBLE RISER TECHNOLOGY

Table 1.1: Failure modes of unbonded flexible pipes, [8]

Pipe global failure


mode

Potential failure mechanisms

Collapse

1) Collapse of carcass and/or pressure armour due to excessive tension


2) Collapse of carcass and/or pressure armour due to excess external pressure
3) Collapse of carcass and/or pressure armour due to installation loads or ovalisation
due to installation loads
4) Collapse of internal pressure sheath in smooth-bore pipe
1) Rupture of pressure armours because of excess internal pressure
2) Rupture of tensile armours due to excess internal pressure
1) Rupture of tensile armours due to excess tension
2) Collapse of carcass and/or pressure armours and/or internal pressure sheath due
to excess tension
3) Snagging by fishing trawl board or anchor, causing overbending or tensile failure
1) Bird-caging of tensile-armour wires
2) Compression leading to upheaval buckling and excess bending
1) Collapse of carcass and/or pressure armour or internal pressure sheath
2) Rupture of internal pressure sheath
3) Unlocking of interlocked pressure or tensile-armour layer
4) Crack in outer sheath
1) Failure of tensile-armour wires
2) Collapse of carcass and/or internal pressure sheath
3) Bird-caging of tensile-armour wires
1) Tensile-armour-wire fatigue
2) Pressure-amour-wire fatigue
1) Of internal carcass
1) Of internal carcass
2) Of pressure- or tensile-armour exposed to seawater, if applicable
3) Of pressure- or tensile-armour exposed to diffused product

Burst
Tensile failure

Compressive failure
Overbending

Torsional failure
Fatigue failure
Erosion
Corrosion

Factory Acceptance Tests (FAT). Additionally, the installation phase is a critical stage of the service life.
For instance, during installation the flexible pipe can be exposed to impact from dropped tools. Figure
1.7 illustrates the importance of a correct impact analysis.

1.1.5

Design criteria

In the previous section the failure modes and the potential failure mechanisms were introduced. To
minimize accidents different standards are made. Each standard has different design criteria which may
be fulfilled in the design phase. This section is based on the relevant standard from the International
Organization for Standardization, ISO-13628-11 [8]. For the unbonded flexible pipes design criteria are
given within the following terms:
Strain
Creep
Stress
Hydrostatic collapse
Mechanical collapse
Torsion
Crushing collapse and ovalisation
Compression
Service-life factors
7

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.6: Chart showing the most significant cause of damage to flexible pipes in 2002 and 2007, [1]

Figure 1.7: Chart showing the number of years before damage occurs within the flexible pipe population, [1]

The terms in the list are critical for different layers in the cross section of flexible risers. Each term will
be described briefly below. Table 1.2 illustrates the relevance of the design criteria.
The strain is a critical parameter for the design of the internal pressure and outer sheath. Allowable strains have been verified by tests of the material. These tests have been performed under relevant
service and ageing conditions. Under the service condition the riser is exposed to large pressure and
temperature difference. Consequently, the internal pressure sheath creeps into gaps in the pressure
or tensile armour layer. If the internal pressure sheath is wrongly designed it creeps until failure and
leakage will occur. Hence it is important the gap is not too large or the sheath is too thin. The stresses
are mentioned due to the metallic layers and the end fitting. The hydrostatic collapse occurs if the
buckling load exceeds the loading capacity of the internal carcass. The capacity of the internal carcass is
a function of the water-depth. In the standard, ISO 13628-11, a smaller safety factor is allowable for the
deep-water applications compared with shallow water. Collapse of the internal carcass can also occur if
the riser is exposed to excessive tension and therefore the mechanical collapse is on the list. The safety factors related to the mechanical collapse are identical to the safety factors for the tensile and pressure armours.
Flexible risers should be able to withstand torsional loads induced during installation and service
condition. The outer tensile layer is turned inward and presses against the internal layer. The inner
tensile layer is turned outward and pressures against the outer layers. Hence under torsion either a gap
between the two tensile armour layers will occur or the two layers will press against each other depending
8

1.2. MOTIVATION FOR THESIS WORK

Table 1.2: Degradation for unbonded pipes, [8]

Component

Degradation mode

Carcass

1)
2)
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)

Internal pressure sheath


Pressure and tensile armours
Anti-wear
Intermediate sheath
Thermal insulation
Outer sheath
End fitting and carcass/sheath interface

Corrosion
Erosion
Creep
Thermal/chemical degradation
Cracking
Corrosion
Disorganization or locking of armouring wires
Fatigue and wear
Wear
Thermal degradation
Thermal degradation
Thermal degradation
Thermal degradation

on the direction of the torsion load. Hence it is important the riser is designed to resist torsion.
During installation the tension in flexible risers must be controlled in order to avoid sudden significant
ovalisation of the cross section. Another risk with the tension in the installation process is overstressing of
the metallic layers. The design criteria due to compression cover two types of compression; the effective
compression and the axial compression. Effective compression is the negative effective torsion. It is a
result of increased deformation of the riser. The axial compression is also known as true wall compression.
Axial compression may induce bird-caging in the tensile armour layer. The last term on the list is the
service-life factors, which are design criteria that include fatigue calculations.

1.2

Motivation for thesis work

The study behind figure 1.7 on page 8 indicates 35 % of the damage happens during the first year after
installation. These failures should not be attributed to poor manufacturing and design since factories
conduct Factory Acceptance Tests (FAT). Hence the failure during the first year must occur during the
installation phase, e.g. dropped tools.
NOV Flexibles a company located in Denmark, which produces flexible pipes. The companys main
focus is production for offshore oil and gas fields. NOV Flexibles customers, e.g. Petrobras and Statoil,
demand documentation of the impact resistance of the flexible risers. Today NOV Flexibles employs a
simplified analytical method to evaluate the impact capacity of the flexible risers. The method assumes
all energy is absorbed by ovalisation of the riser. Hence no energy will be absorbed by vibration or global
bending of the riser. NOV Flexibles have performed an experimental impact test of the 16" Production
Jumper (16"PJ) and the 6" Multi Purpose Riser (6"MPR). The experiment shows the existing analytical
approach deployed by NOV Flexibles significantly underestimates the impact resistance. Thus, in order to
satisfy the customers demand an experiment is performed. To perform an experiment is time consuming,
the experiment setting needs to be available and an experiment is expensive. Hence NOV Flexibles has
requested a new and more accurate method to determine the impact resistance of the flexible risers. On
this basis this masters thesis is devised for NOV Flexibles.
In the thesis work two methods are utilized to analyze the impact capacity of flexible pipes; an analytical analysis and a non-linear finite element analysis. The analytical analysis is simple and based on a
yield line model for a tubular steel member. Different non-linear analyses are carried out with different
levels of simplicity. E.g. the global bending regarding the impact is included in one model. The non-linear
finite element models require many inputs and errors may occur due to wrong input. Thus, verification of
the finite element models is needed and a sensitivity study is conducted.
9

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.3

Scope of work

The masters thesis is devised for NOV Flexibles, a company located in Denmark which produces flexible
pipes. The existing analytical approach deployed by NOV Flexibles is too conservative regarding the
impact resistance. Based on the background given in Section 1.2 the thesis has three aims:
1. To develop a simple analytical method to determine the impact capacity of flexible risers
2. To utilize a beam model in BFLEX2010 to analyze the platform impact scenario
3. To demonstrate the results from the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles with a finite element
model in LS-DYNA

1.4

Limitations

An impact analysis can be conducted with different levels of details. Because of the limited time of this
thesis work limitations of the analyses have been set. The three analyses are all based on specific flexible
risers. Thus, only the impact capacity of the 16" Production Jumper manufactured by NOV Flexibles
is analyzed. In the finite element models of the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles the 6" Multi
Purpose Riser is utilized as indenter. The analytical analysis is a quasi-static analysis and only the
first state of the damage process is analyzed. Thus, the global bending is not included in the analysis.
Additionally, fracture mechanics is not included in the analysis.
The platform impact scenario is limited to one specific load case. The sensitivity study of the model is
conducted with a time varying increased load. However, the final analysis is exposed to a harmonic load.
Both the numerical simulations in BFLEX2010 and LS-DYNA are dynamic simulations.

1.5

Methodology

As seen in section 1.3 the thesis work has three aims. In order to achieve the aims two computer programs
and one analytical method are utilized. The computer programs are BFLEX2010 and LS-DYNA, respectively. Both programs are finite element programs. The numerical simulations conducted in BFLEX2010
and the analytical analysis are coupled together. Figure 1.8 gives an overview of the work process of
thesis work and how the different analyses are coupled together.
First an analytical study is conducted to see if an analytical analysis is sufficient to assess an impact of flexible risers. The analysis is based on the theory for tubular members. From the literature
study two pertinent analytical approaches were found. In the analytical analyses first a force-indentation
relationship is established and afterwards the energy-indentation relationship is determined.
The next part of the thesis work is the BFLEX2010 analyses. In the numerical simulations conducted
in BFLEX2010 contact element CONT164 is utilized. This contact element is similar to a spring with
a given stiffness. The force-indentation curves from the analytical analyses define the utilized spring
stiffness. Two impact analyses are conducted in BFLEX2010; one includes global bending and one neglects
global bending. The model without global bending is a regeneration of the experiment performed by
NOV Flexibles. The results from the two impact analyses are compared in order to assess the influence of
global bending.
The last part of the thesis work is a model of the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles conducted in
LS-DYNA. This analysis is not connected to any of the other analyses. The results from the analytical
analyses and the two numerical simulations of the experiment are compared with the experimental results.
The comparison shows the LS-DYNA model is too conservative. Hence the model is further developed.
The shape of the carcass-profiles gives the carcass an interlock function. Hitherto this function was not
included in the models. The interlock function is included in the model and the influence is studied.
Additionally, the influence of the membrane effect is studied.

10

1.5. METHODOLOGY

Figure 1.8: Flowchart of analyses utilized in the thesis work

11

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.6

Literature review

A literature study has been done to gain information about previous studies with similar aims. Some of
the studies can be useful in the development of the analyses.
During a collision between a flexible riser and an indentation object, e.g. a pontoon or another riser, energy
dissipation occurs. Depending of the magnitude of the impact energy, elastic and plastic deformation of
the flexible riser may be developed. The plastic deformation can both be local and global. In previous
studies the local dent displacement has not been studied for flexible risers, but for tubular steel members.
Taby et al., [9], have presented an analytical approach to analyze the dent displacement of a tubular
steel member. The simplified model is based on a simple supported tubular member with a local denting
and no global bending. The member is subjected to axial compression. After deformation the load has
an eccentricity, since the center of gravity is changed in the dented region. The dent region is assumed
diamond shaped and the dent consists of a flattened part in the middle of the span.
Skallerud and Amdahl, [10], have studied a collision between a ship and a tubular steel member. The
procedure to describe the resistance of the tubular member to deform is based on an idealized yield
line mechanism similar to Taby et al., [9]. However, the contact area is assumed to be flattened in the
yield line model and in the adjacent triangular regions the flattening decreases gradually. By the virtual
work principle taking into account the contribution from plastic rotation along the yield lines, changes of
curvature in circumferential direction and elongation of the tube generators the resistance to deform is
analyzed.
In a Recommended Practice from Det Norske Veritas, [11], both a force-deformation relationship for
denting of tubular members and for beams are given. The procedure for tubular members is similar to
Skallerud and Amdahl, [10]. The beam model for tubular members includes the elastic axial flexibility
from the adjacent structure. Hence the boundary condition is modeled by springs. Under large lateral
deformation relatively small axial displacements will have a significant influence on the development of
tensions forces. Consequently, the beam model includes the axial flexibility.
A newer study from Gresnigt et al., [12], presents an analytical method of pressurized steel pipes
exposed to a quasi-static lateral load. The method includes an elastic phase, plastic phase and a membrane
phase. The plastic response is based on four plastic hinges which are equally spaced. The following
membrane analysis represents the stretching of pipe medians and is based on the same plastic mechanism.
All the above mentioned analytical methods are based on tubular members and not specific flexible
risers. A flexible riser is a complex tubular member due to the different layers in the cross section. Thereby,
none of the previous studies can be applied directly, but need to be modified.
It is time-consuming to build and analyze a finite element model of a collision with flexible risers.
In the past various studies relating to simplified finite element models have been made. Alsos et al., [13],
has analyzed a collision between a flexible riser and a pontoon in LS-DYNA. In the study two models
are presented. First an analysis of a flexible riser where global bending is neglected. The analysis gives
information about the local crushing capacity. The second model is a free spanning riser analysis. Here
the riser is allowed to deflect globally under the impact. Further of interest, the study includes a simplified
method to model the carcass and the pressure armour. The carcass and the pressure armour are composed
by steel profiles wound with a short pitch length to form the pipe structure. This results in different
mechanical properties in different directions. In the study these difficulties are overcome by modeling the
components with shell elements with elastic-plastic orthotropic properties. Thereby the carcass and the
pressure armour can be modeled as cylindrical shell structures.
Nogueira and Netto, [14], have established a simplified finite element model in ANSYS of a flexible
riser exposed to pressure. Only the carcass and pressure armour are included in the model. Linear beam
elements are applied. The geometry of the carcass and pressure armours is simplified so the cross section
of the wires does not consist of rounded off edges. Because of the missing polymeric layer between the
carcass and pressure armour a direct node-to-node contact was assumed through beam element with
relatively high bending and axial stiffness.
In previous studies flexible pipes have been analyzed in the finite element program BFLEX2010. None of
the found studies are utilized for impact analysis. However, the studies are still useful inspiration. In
12

1.6. LITERATURE REVIEW


[15] and [16] a fatigue analysis of the pressure armour is carried out. The important interlock effect is
included in the analyses.
The North Sea has a large network of pipelines located on the seabed. Additionally, the North Sea is an
operational area for fishing vessels. Thus, interaction between fishing gear and subsea pipelines is not
uncommon. The impact between trawl gear and the pipe can be divided into three phases, [17]. The first
phase focuses on the initial impact load. Consequently, the energy absorption and denting of the cross
section occur. This phase is similar to the case with dropped tools. Thereby the interaction between the
trawl gear and the pipelines may be useful inspiration.

13

Chapter 2

Analytical analysis
An analysis can either be conducted analytically or numerically. For numerical simulations finite element
models are analyzed. For instance the commercial program LS-DYNA can be utilized. To set-up a
finite element model and afterwards run it is time consuming and therefore it would be beneficial if a
simple analytical method could give reasonable results. Hence the aim of this chapter is to describe an
analytical method utilized to analyze the effect of an impact. An introduction to impact is first presented.
Afterwards the existing method utilized by NOV Flexibles is described and finally other analytical methods
are mentioned.

2.1

Introduction to impacts

As mentioned earlier different impact scenarios occur for flexible riser, e.g. a collision with a dropped object
or a pontoon. In general a collision is characterized by kinetic energy. The mass and the velocity of the
impact object determines the kinetic energy and consequently, the amount of damage. The hydrodynamic
added mass needs to be taken into account in the collision case between a riser and a falling object in
water. In a collision the kinetic energy will dissipate as strain energy in the riser and the impact object
or just one of the elements. The strain energy will involve large plastic strains and damage. Depending
on the energy dissipation three different design principles can be applied, see figure 2.1. The three
principles described below are taken from a collision with a jacket and a ship. However, the theory can
be utilized for the collision case with a riser and an impact object as well. The first design principle
is the strength design where the installation is strong enough to resist the impact energy with minor
deformation. Hence the main part of the impact energy is dissipated in the ship and the ship will get large
deformations. The second design is the ductility design, which is the opposite case. Here the stiffness of
the installation is less than the stiffness of the ship. The major part of the impact energy will dissipate
in the installation and it will have large plastic deformations. The last design is the shared energy design. In this design both the installation and the ship contribute significantly to the energy dissipation [11].
The energy transfer of an impact between a riser and a dropped object is short. Consequently, the
impact will mostly cause local damage. However, for smaller pipeline diameters some energy is absorbed
by global deformation of the pipe, [18]. The structural response can either be determined from a nonlinear dynamic finite element analysis or by energy considerations combined with a simple elastic-plastic

Figure 2.1: Energy dissipation for strength, ductile and shared-energy design, [11]

15

CHAPTER 2. ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 2.2: Dissipation of strain energy in dropped object and installation. Index o is the dropped object. Index
i is the installation, [11]

method. In the simplified method a load-deformation relationship is often employed. The area under the
load-deformation curves is equal to the part of impact energy dissipated as strain energy. See equation
(2.1) and figure 2.2.
Z
Z
wo,max

Es = Es,0 + Es,i =

wi,max

ro dwo +

ri dwi

(2.1)

where Es is the strain energy, w is the deformation and r is the resistance. The index o is for the dropped
object and index i is for the installation.

2.2

Method utilized by NOV Flexibles

NOV Flexibles utilizes a simplified and conservative analytical method to calculate the allowable impact
energy for a given flexible riser. The following summary of the method is based on [19]. The method
covers the following two impact scenarios:
Dropped object
Clashing e.g. of two risers
The impact energy from either the dropped object or the clashing will be absorbed by the pipe. If
the impact energy is sufficient the absorption of the energy will result in an ovalisation of the pipe.
Consequently, no energy will be absorbed by vibration or global bending of the pipe. A two point crushing
analysis is used to describe the relationship between the load and the indentation in the pipe. The
indentation is defined as the ovalisation times the mean diameter of the carcass. The two points in the
analysis correspond to the point of impact and the contact point with the seabed. The relationship
between the load and the indentation is assumed to be piecewise linear. See figure 2.3. The first region
follows the elastic theory. In this region the slope is identical to the stiffness of the pipe. The limit of the
first region is the point where the load is increased sufficiently and yield of the carcass starts. Hence the
slope of the second region is equal to the stiffness of the pipe without support from the carcass. The slope
will continue until yield of the pressure armour is obtained. The last region has a constant load reflecting
a situation with yield in both carcass and pressure armour.
The impact energy can be obtained from the load versus indentation diagram, since the energy is
equal to the area below the curve. The allowable impact energy, Ei , is expressed as following:
1 2
1 1
2


1
1
Ei = F1y 1 + F1y + 2 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) > 1 < 2
2
2
1
1
Ei = F1y 1 + (F1y + F2y )(2 1 )F2y ( 2 ) > 2
2
2
Ei =

(2.2)
(2.3)
(2.4)

where is the slope, is the indentation, F1y is the two point load at start yield in carcass and F2y is the
two point load at start yield in pressure armour without support from the carcass.
16

2.3. DENTED TUBULAR MEMBER

110

Load curve
Elastic unloading

100
90

Force [kN/m]

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

5
10
Indentation [mm]

15

Figure 2.3: Load versus indentation curve

2.3

Dented tubular member

A flexible riser is a complex tubular member. Hence theory from tubular members is utilized for the
analytical method. When a collision occurs either by dropped objects, clashing between two risers or a
semi-submersible in damaged condition, damage may occur. The type of damage depends on the impact
energy, the geometry of the tubular member and the impact object. Three types of damage can be
developed when the tubular member is subjected to a lateral load [20]:
Pure denting
Denting combined with global bending
Structural collapse
The three types of damage are illustrated in figure 2.4. Pure denting will be the result in case of small
impact energy and the collision being close to the ends of the tubular member. Pure denting can also
happen if the tubular member is shot and has a high diameter-thickness ratio, [9]. If the tubular member
is longer and the collision has the same impact energy, the collision may result in global bending together
with the local dent. However, the magnitude of global bending is influenced of the diameter-thickness
ratio. By experiments it is shown first the local denting is developed. Afterwards, if the impact energy is
sufficient, the global bending and some additionally denting deformation will be established. Finally a
structural collapse may occur, [21]. Hence the analytical methods determining the response of the tubular
member can be separated into two; one method describing the denting deformation and another describing
the overall bending of the tubular member.
The impact energy is equal to the area below the force-indentation curve. Hence it is of interest
to determine the relationship between the impact force and the indentation. The relationship can be
established by using a yield line model. In [21] a diamond shaped yield line model is utilized for a simple
supported tubular member subjected to a lateral impact load. It is assumed that the cross section at the
middle of the dented region consists of a flattened part. See figure 2.5. The length of the dented region
influences the response of the flexible riser. The radial displacement, d, as a function of the distance from
the point of application of the impact load, x, can be expressed as follows, [21]:
x

d = dd e1.3 D

(2.5)

where dd is the dent depth and D is the outer diameter. When x/D > 3.5 the radial displacement is less
than 1 %. Therefore the total length of the dented region, 2ld , is assumed to be:
2ld = 7D

(2.6)
17

CHAPTER 2. ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS

(a)

(b)

(c)
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 2.4: Deformation of simply supported beam subjected to indentation: (a) Pure denting (b) Denting
combined with global bending (c) Structural collapse

Figure 2.5: Dent geometry: (a) Dent region (b) Dent geometry

18

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

2.3. DENTED TUBULAR MEMBER


When the yield line model shown in figure 2.5 is applied the relationship between the impact force, F ,
and the indentation can be expressed as given in equation (2.7). Additionally, the response is assumed to
be rigid perfect plastic, meaning the strain hardening and the material elasticity are neglected.
r
dd
F = KMp
(2.7)
D
where K is a constant, approximately K 150. Mp is the plastic moment of the tube, Mp = 14 y t2 , y is
the yield stress and t is the thickness of the tube. In a quasi-static case the inertia effect is not significant
and therefore a quasi-static case corresponds to a static case, [22]. Assuming the impact force to be
quasi-static the impact energy, needed to establish the dent with a given dent depth can be determined
by equation (2.8).
r
Z
d3d
Ei = F dd = 100MP
(2.8)
D
Equation (2.5) to equation (2.8) are all taken from [21] and are based on a tubular steel member. The
force-indentation relationship given in equation (2.7) is compared with the force-indentation relationship
given in equation (2.9), [23]. The details of the method behind equation (2.9) are not published but the
initial denting phase is developed using an analogy with the behavior of square tubes, [22].
r
r
dd
D
2
F 7
y t
(2.9)
D
t
As mentioned in section 1.1.2 flexible risers consist of several layers with different material properties.
Calculation for each layer is necessary followed by a summation to determine the relationship between
the force and the dent depth for a flexible riser. The contribution from the plastic layers is significantly
smaller compared to the steel layers. Hence only the contribution of the carcass, the pressure armour and
the two tensile layers are included in the calculations. Thereby the relationship given in equation (2.7)
and equation (2.9), is for a flexible riser respectively defined as following:
4
X

r
1
dd
2
F =
150 y t
4
D
i=1
r
r
4
X
dd
D
y t 2
F
7
D
t
i=1

(2.10)
(2.11)

Equation (2.10) and equation (2.11) are utilized to the two analytical analyses in the thesis work. Subsequently equation (2.10) is referred to as Ellinas and Walkers and equation (2.10) is referred to as Oliverira.
The bending stiffness of the tube will decrease with increasing dent depth due to change of cross
section under development of the dent. At a sudden dent depth the bending stiffness has been reduced
sufficiently and the tube will start to deform globally. This second state is not a part of the thesis and
therefore not further described.

19

Chapter 3

The platform impact scenario


As mentioned in the introduction the platform impact scenario is an example where a flexible riser is
subjected to impact loads. The scenario is illustrated in figure 3.1. The semi-submersible is in damaged
condition and has an inclination. According to the classification rules the angle of inclination after damage
must be less than 17 , [24]. With an inclination to the semi-submersible and forces from the waves and
current, the flexible riser risks clashing into the pontoon. Hence the impact resistance of the flexible riser
needs to be demonstrated. The computer program BFLEX2010 is applied to the analysis. BFLEX2010
is a new version of BFLEX which was developed by SINTEF Civil and Environmental Engineering. In
2001 the first version of BFLEX was released, [25]. BFLEX is well suited for an analysis of flexible pipes.
Following studies are examples where BFLEX is utilized: [26], [27] and [28]. The relevant theory behind
BFLEX2010 is presented in the next section. Subsequently the applied analysis model and its assumptions
are described. The results from the analysis are shown in section 5.2.

3.1

Applied theory in BFLEX

In BFLEX2010 - Theory Manual and BFLEX2010 - User Manual, [29] and [25], more detailed theory
is written. Here extracts from the theory manual and user manual are given. BFLEX2010 is a finite
element program and is based on the principle of virtual displacements, kinematics description, material
law and displacement interpolation. The program utilizes the Co-rotational formulation, which is a
variation of the Total Lagrangian. The Total Lagrangian and the Updated Lagrangian formulations
are the two widely used formulations in a finite element analysis of large deformation problems. In the
Co-rotational formulation, the current strains adequately describe the last obtained reference configuration.
As in other finite element programs BFLEX2010 utilizes both a global coordinate system and a local coordinate system. The global coordinate system describes the orientation and motion of the beam
node, while the local coordinate system is applied to describe the motion of the tendon nodes. Thus,
BFLEX2010 utilizes a ghost reference formulation where rigid body deformations are eliminated when
calculating deformations.

Figure 3.1: Possible clashing between riser and pontoon, [13]

21

CHAPTER 3. THE PLATFORM IMPACT SCENARIO

Figure 3.2: Roller contact element, [29]

In BFLEX2010 the tensile armour is assumed to follow a Loxodromic surface curve. Thus, the transverse
slip of the tensile armour is neglected. Consequently, the number of degrees of freedom is reduced and the
simulation time is minimized. The shear stresses between the armour tendons and the supporting layers
occur as a result of bending corresponding to the classical beam theory. Consequently, the axisymmetric
strains and bending strains are assumed to be uncoupled. In BFLEX2010 three bending formulations
are possible; ITCODE0, ITCODE21 and ITCODE31. ITCODE0 is a sandwich beam formulation and
considers equilibrium of each individual tendon. Shear interaction with the core pipe is taken into account.
ITCODE21 is based on a moment model considering the friction moment contribution from all layers.
However, only the moment-curvature curve from the inner layer is applied. The inner layer is of interest
in fatigue analysis. ITCODE31 is also a moment based model but the proper moment-curvature curve is
applied for each layer.
In the thesis BFLEX2010 is applied to conduct an impact analysis. Hence the contact formulation
is of great interest. Different contact elements are defined in BFLEX2010. For the following analysis
the roller contact element, CONT164, is applied. Within this element the normal vector is scaled by a
parameter in order to keep track of the direction of contact. In the calculation of the gap between the
roller and the pipe, the coordinates of the first roller end and the first pipe end point are updated. Figure
3.2 illustrates the principles of the contact element.
In BFLEX2010 the solution algorithm is based on the Full Newton-Raphson method and is generalized to
solve the static differential equilibrium equation by the iteration formulation:
E
S
ri+1 ri = ri+1 = K1
I (ri )(R R (ri ))

(3.1)

where r is the displacement vector, KI is the incremental stiffness matrix, RE is the external load
vector and RS is the internal structural reaction force vector. The Updated Newton-Raphson method is
illustrated in figure 3.3. The dynamic analysis is obtained by utilizing the energy or work considerations
and takes into account the inertia and damping forces. In the dynamic analysis the external load may be
a function of the displacements and their time derivatives. The dynamic incremental equilibrium equation
over time interval k is given in equation (3.2), where the external load is assumed only to be dependent
on the time.
RkI + RkD + RkS = RkE
(3.2)
where RI is the inertia force vector and RD is the damping force vector. By introducing the incremental
mass matrix, MI , the damping matrix, CI , and the stiffness matrix at the start of the incremental the
nonlinear incremental equation, equation (3.2), is linearized to:
MI
rk + CI rk + KI rk = RkE
22

(3.3)

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

3.1. APPLIED THEORY IN BFLEX

RS
S

RE - R (r1)

RE1
r1

r2
r1

r3
r2

r3

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 3.3: Updated Newton-Raphson iteration

For each time step a new incremental mass matrix, damping matrix and stiffness matrix have to be applied.
BFLEX2010 is a finite element program and general finite element theory is also applied. A finite
element analysis can both be linear and non-linear. Both the linear and the non-linear structural analysis
are based the following principles:
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Equilibrium
Kinematic compatibility
Stress-strain relationship
The equilibrium is expressed by terms of stresses. The kinematic compatibility is expressed by strains
which are obtained from continuous displacements. In a linear structural analysis the displacement is
assumed to be small and the material is linear elastic. In a non-linear structural analysis the displacement
is no longer small and the non-linear effect needs to be taken into account. The non-linear effect is as
follows, [30]:
Nonlinear material behavior
Nonlinear boundary condition
Nonlinear geometry
Metals are an elastic-plastic material. When the stress in the metal exceeds the yield strength, the material
behavior is no longer linear. After the linear material behavior the elastro-plastic behavior starts, see
figure 3.4. Metals will follow the initial linear stress-strain relationship, Youngs modulus, under unloading
in the non-linear range. Other material groups, e.g. polymerics will have non-linear behavior from the
beginning. The flexible pipes follow an elastic-plastic material curve. However, the elastic spring back
effect occurs under the unloading as described in section 1.1.3.
The boundary non-linearity occurs in the case where two bodies have contact. Here the relationship
between the displacements and the load is non-linear. Even if the material of the two bodies is linear
and the displacement is infinitesimal, the non-linear boundary effect occurs since the contact area is
not linearly dependent on the applied load. The slick-slip behavior is an additional non-linearity and
is a consequence of the friction between the two bodies, [30]. In [31] the slick-slip behavior is further
described. The aim of this project is to analyze the impacts of a flexible riser. Hence the non-linear
boundary condition is extremely important. Figure 3.5 shows an example of the non-linear boundary
behavior with a cylindrical roller on a flat plane.
23

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

CHAPTER 3. THE PLATFORM IMPACT SCENARIO

Necking
Ultimate strength

Fracture
Yield strength
Young's modulus
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Strain
Figure 3.4: Engineering stress-strain curve for mild steel
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Contact pressure

F
Centre of
contact

Contact pressure distribution


at load = F
Contact pressure distribution
at load = 2F

Distance from centre of contact

Figure 3.5: Example of nonlinear boundary condition effect

The nonlinear geometry can either be based on the theory with large strain, large deformation/rotation or a combination of both. Since fracture mechanics is not included within the impact analysis the
nonlinear geometry is based on large rotations.

3.2

BFLEX2010 model of platform impact scenario

In order to analyse the platform impact scenario a simple beam model is established in BFLEX2010. The
concept of the model is a beam clashing into a spring. See figure 3.6. The length of the 16"PJ is 30 meter
and the spring is located in the middle. Sixteen integration points around the cross section are applied.
The riser is divided into 199 PIPE52 elements. The element is specific for a 3D flexible pipe. The bending
formulation in the model is moment based, ITCODE21.
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

The cross section applied for the analysis is shown in table 3.1. The actual cross section of the 16"PJ is
present in Appendix C. The lay angle of the intermediate layer and the anti wear layer has been neglected
in the utilized cross section. The lay angle for these layers has no structural influence, which is the reason
for neglecting the lay angles. The input function CROSSGEOM is utilized to define the actual profile
of the carcass, pressure armours and the tensile armours. The carcass is a helix consisting of S-shaped
profiles as illustrated in figure 3.7. The pressure armour consists of C3-LiNKT profiles. The C3-LiNKT
profiles are reversed horizontally in the two pressure armour layers, see figure 3.8. The tensile armour is
modeled by 5 mm x 17.5 mm rectangles. The first and second tensile armour layer consists of 65 and 67
rectangles, respectively.
24

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Strain
hardening

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Stress

3.2. BFLEX2010 MODEL OF PLATFORMPRODUCED


IMPACT
SCENARIO
BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 3.6: Concept of simple beam model


PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Table 3.1: 16"PJ components

No

Layer

Material

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Pipe inner diameter


Carcass
Intermediate layer
Inner liner
C-liNKT pressure armour
C-liNKT pressure armour
Intermediate layer
Anti wear layer
1st tensile armour
Anti wear layer
2nd tensile armour
Intermediate layer
Outer sheath

Duplex 2101
Diolen
PA11
Sour grade
Sour grade
Diolen
AW PA11
Sour 800 grade
AW PA11
Sour 800 grade
Matrix
PA11

Layer thickness [mm]

Outer diameter [mm]

Lay angle [ ]

10.8
0.8
10.0
2.2
3.8
0.3
0.9
5.0
0.9
5.0
1.4
10.0

406.4
428.0
429.6
449.6
455.0
461.6
462.1
463.9
473.9
475.5
485.6
488.4
508.4

88.71
0.00
0.00
89.57
89.57
0.00
0.00
32.99
0.00
-32.80
0.00
0.00

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 3.8: Structure of the pressure armour

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 3.7: Structure of carcass

25

CHAPTER 3. THE PLATFORM IMPACT SCENARIO

Table 3.2: Linear elastic materials

Material

Duplex 2101
Diolen
PA11
Sour grade
AW PA11
Sour 800 grade
Matrix

Poissons
ratio
[-]
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4

Density

Youngs modulus

Shear modulus

[kg/m3 ]

[M P a]

[M P a]

Transverse Youngs
modulus
[M P a]

7.70 10
8.00 104
1.05 103
7.86 103
1.05 103
7.86 103
2.98 104

205000.00
280.66
280.66
210000.00
280.66
210000.00
280.66

1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00

205000.00
280.66
280.66
210000.00
280.66
210000.00
280.66

0.9
0.8
0.7

Force [MN]

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

Indentation [m]
Figure 3.9: EPCURVE for CONT164

The material behavior for the pressure armour is modeled as elastic-plastic. Thus, both the ELASTIC and the HYPERELASTIC material type are applied. The former is a linear elastic material while
HYPERELASTIC is a non-linear elastic strain-stress material behavior. The rest of the layers are modeled
with linear elastic material behavior. Table 3.2 shows the linear elastic material parameters utilized in the
analysis.
The pontoon is included in the model as a stinger with a radius of 0.51 meter. Thus, a single point
describes the position of the pontoon. The initial distance between the centre of the pontoon and the
16"PJ is one meter. The master-slave principle is applied in the contact search. The master element
group is the stinger and the slave element group is the core. The contact search is within all 199 core
elements. The material type utilized for the stinger is CONTACT. In this type a friction curve may be
defined for both the x-direction and y-direction. However, in the model the friction in the x-direction
and the y-direction is not activated. Only the force-displacement curve is defined in the z-direction. The
EPCURVE is utilized to describe the force-displacement relationship in the z-direction. Three points are
specified to simplify the force-indentation curve found in the analytical analysis, figure 5.1 on page 38.
Linear interpolation is applied between the specified points. Extrapolation will be applied outside the
specified range. The material curve for the CONT164 element in the z-direction is shown in figure 3.9.
In BFLEX2010 it is not possible to have a node which only has connection to a contact element,
e.g. CONT164. Hence a help beam is included in the model. The element type for the beam is PIPE31
and the material for the beam is linear elastic. The beam is fixed in both ends. The help beam does not
26

3.3. BFLEX2010 MODEL OF EXPERIMENT

Table 3.3: Utilized forces in the sensitivity study

Force

Initial value

Final value

Force x-direction
Force z-direction
Internal pressure
External pressure
External pressure

0 kN
0 kN
10 MPa
1 MPa
0.1 MPa

582 kN
145 kN
10 MPa
1 MPa
0.1 MPa

Table 3.4: Utilized forces in the final analysis

Force

Magnitude

Longitudinal force
Horizontal force

229.3 kN
67.5 sin(0.45t) kN

have any influence on the 16"PJ or the contact element.


The following forces are utilized in the model. In the cantilevered end two time dependent forces
act; one in the longitudinal direction and one horizontal. Additionally, an internal pressure and an external
pressure are utilized. The magnitudes of the forces are shown in table 3.3. The time dependent forces are
gradually increased to the final magnitude.
During the thesis work some improvement on the model was made. Hence the model described above is
only utilized for the sensitivity study. The ocean consists of irregular waves. Thus, the actual motion of
the riser will be affected by irregular waves. In order to simplify the actual situation a harmonic force in
the horizontal direction is utilized for the further analysis. The analysis is conducted for one specific load
case: The magnitude of the force is 237 kN with an angle of attack on 15 . The period is assumed to 14
seconds. The utilized forces in the final analysis can be seen in table 3.4. Further, the applied EPCURVE
is not simplified. The detailed force-displacement curve determined in the analytical analysis, see figure
5.1 on page 38, was utilized in the analysis. The initial distance between the platform and the 16"PJ is
adjusted to two meters.

3.3

BFLEX2010 model of experiment

No experimental data is available of the platform impact scenario. Hence the results from the BFLEX2010
model of the platform impact scenario cannot be verified with experimental data. A BFLEX2010 model
of the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles is established. The results from this model are compared
with the experimental results. If the results are consistent, the platform model will give reasonable results.
Consequently, the model is verified. Additionally, the results from the two BLFEX2010 models can be
utilized to assessment the influence of global bending.
The experiment performed by NOV Flexibles is an impact test of the 16"PJ and the 6" Multi Purpose Riser (6"MPR). Both risers are manufactured by NOV Flexibles. The 6"MPR is lifted up in a hook
while the 16"PJ is located on an iron plate. When the hook is released the 6"MPR slides almost frictionless
downward and hits the 16"PJ perpendicularly. See figure 3.10. The vertical displacement is measured by
installing a two point extensometer inside the 16"PJ and a four point extensometer inside the 6"MPR.
In the established BFLEX2010 model the 16"PJ is two meter long and divided into 49 elements. The cross
section of the 16"PJ is modeled as in the BFLEX2010 model for platform impact scenario, see section 3.2
and table 3.1. It is fixed in the ends and supported in the vertical direction in all nodes along the riser.
The 6"MPR is modeled as a regular tube by the element type PIPE31. Thereby, the 6"MPR only consists
of one layer with one linear material. The actual axial stiffness, torsional stiffness and bending stiffness
for the 6"MPR are applied, see table 3.5. The applied Youngs modulus and shear modulus are standard
values. The 6"MPR is divided into 100 elements.

27

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

6"MPR

16"PJ

Iron plate

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

CHAPTER 3. THE PLATFORM IMPACT SCENARIO

Figure 3.10: Experiment set-up


PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Table 3.5: Material parameters utilized to the 6"MPR

Axial stiffness
Torsinal stiffness
Bending stiffness
Youngs modulus
Shear modulus

853.28 MN
40.27 kNm2 /deg
46.12 kNm2
200 GPa
80 GPa

When the model is run the 6"MPR falls downwards and hits the 16"PJ. The 6"MPR cannot rotate
during the fall. The actual mass of the 6"MPR is 131.15 kg/m and is utilized in the model. However, the
mass is variable in order to reach different impact energies. The contact element CONT164 is also utilized
in this model. Similar to the platform model the master group is the stringer and the slave element group
is the core of the 16"PJ. The contact search is within all 49 core elements. The stringer has a radius equal
to the 6"MPR. First the material parameters for the contact element is the simplified EPCURVE shown
in figure 3.9 on page 26. During the analysis it was found that the location of the slope change has a
significant effect on the output. Hence, subsequently the detailed force-displacement curves found in the
analytical analysis, see figure 5.1 on page 38, were utilized in the model. The model is shown in figure
3.11.

28

3.3. BFLEX2010 MODEL OF EXPERIMENT

Figure 3.11: BFLEX model of NOV Flexibless experiment

29

Chapter 4

LS-DYNA analysis
LS-DYNA is a commercial finite element program often utilized to analyze collisions. The first version
of LS-DYNA dates back to the public domain software, DYNA3D, which was released in 1976. The
company behind DYNA3D was Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The first version contained
trusses, membrane and a choice of solid elements. Through the decades many new versions have been
released and today LS-DYNA has a large database with a large amount of different elements and material
models, [32].
The advantage of LS-DYNA is the good estimation of the time depending deformation. The disadvantages are the long simulation time and the complexity of the program. However, the experiment
performed by NOV Flexibles is regenerated in LS-DYNA. In this chapter first the theory behind LS-DYNA
is shortly given and afterwards the model employed to the analysis is described.

4.1

Applied theory in LS-DYNA

LS-DYNA is a finite element program. Hence the general finite element theory given in section 3.1 is
also valid in LS-DYNA. The following summary of the theory utilized in LS-DYNA is based on [32]. In
LS-DYNA the general equation of motion is integrated by the explicit central difference scheme. The
semi-discrete equation of motion at time k can be described as following:
Mak = Pk Fk + Hk

(4.1)

where M is the diagonal mass matrix, ak is the acceleration, Pk account for the external and body force
loads, Fk is the stress divergence vector and Hk is the hourglass resistance. The central difference time
integration is employed to advance to time tk+1 :
ak = M1 (Pk Fk + Hk )
v

k+ 21

=v

k+1

=u +v

k 21
k

+ ak tk
k+ 12

k+ 12

(4.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)

t + t
(4.5)
2
In equation (4.4) and equation (4.5) v is the global nodal velocity and u is the global nodal displacement.
The geometry is updated by adding the displacement increments to the initial geometry. The time
integration loop utilized in LS-DYNA is shown in figure 4.1.
where

tk+ 2 =

k+1

The time step size utilized in an explicit dynamic finite element analysis has a significant influence
on the solution and stability. The utilized time step has to be smaller than the critical time step size in
order to ensure stability. The critical time step is variable for different element types. The critical time
step size, te , for shell elements are given by:
Ls
(4.6)
c
where Ls is the characteristic length and c is the sound speed defined in equation (4.7). The characteristic
length can be chosen between three definitions. However, equation (4.8) is the default definition.
s
E
(4.7)
c=
(1 v 2 )
te =

31

CHAPTER 4. LS-DYNA ANALYSIS

Figure 4.1: The time integration loop in LS-DYNA

where E is Youngs modulus, is the density and is Poisson ratio.


Ls =

(1 + )As
max(L1 , L2 , L3 , (1 )L4 )

(4.8)

where is equal to 0 for quadrilateral shell element and equal to 1 for triangular shell elements, As is
the area and Li is the length of the sides defining the shell elements. The critical time step size for solid
elements is given by:
Le
te =
(4.9)
[Q + (Q2 + c2 )1/2 ]
where Q is a function of the bulk viscosity coefficients. The characteristic length for an 8-node solid
element is defined as following:
e
Le =
(4.10)
Ae,max
where e is the volume of the element and Ae,max is the area of the largest side.

4.2

LS-DYNA model

The experiment performed by NOV Flexibles is regenerated in LS-DYNA. With LS-DYNA it is possible to
conduct very detailed finite elements models. The simulation time is significantly influenced by the detail
level. In order to reduce the simulation time the cross section of the risers is simplified in the model. The
largest deformation of the 6"MPR in the experiment was below the tolerance of the applied extensometer.
Thus, the deformation of the 6"MPR was assumed to be zero, [33]. On the basis of this assumption,
the 6"MPR is modeled as a rigid pipe in the LS-DYNA model. Also the cross section of the 16"PJ is
simplified. The intermediate layers are included in the inner liner and the outer sheath, respectively.
Additionally, the two anti wear layers and the intermediate layer between the first tensile layer and the
pressure armour are neglected. This entails the diameter of the outer sheath and both tensile layers are
modeled 4.1 mm smaller than the actual size. The cross section of the modeled 16"PJ is shown in table 4.1.
32

4.2. LS-DYNA MODEL

Table 4.1: Modeled 16"PJ in LS-DYNA

No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Layer

Material

Pipe inner diameter


Carcass
Inner liner
C-liNKT pressure armour
C-liNKT pressure armour
1st tensile armour
2nd tensile armour
Outer sheath

Duplex 2101
PA11
Sour grade
Sour grade
Sour 800 grade
Sour 800 grade
PA11

Layer thickness [mm]

Outer diameter [mm]

10.8
10.8
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
11.4

406.4
428.0
449.6
455.6
461.6
471.6
481.6
504.3

Figure 4.2: Detailed (a) and resultant based shell model (b) of one winding of the interlocking carcass [13]

Table 4.2: Material properties for the carcass, the pressure armour and the tensile layers

Young modulus [GPa]


Yield strength 0.2% offset [MPa]
Tensile strength [MPa]
Elongation [%]

Carcass

Pressure armour

Tensile layers

205
580
700
-

210
640
730
5

210
800
850
5

Due to the profile shapes, the carcass and the pressure armour are the two most complex components in flexible pipes. The carcass and the pressure armour have different mechanical properties in
different directions. For instance the ring stiffness is significant but the axial stiffness is low. Thus, they
are orthotropic components. In order to reduce the simulation time the carcass and pressure armour
are simplified in the utilized LS-DYNA model. The orthotropic properties is modeled with the special
orthotropic material model, *MAT_ 130, defined in LS-DYNA. The material model makes it possible to
model the carcass and pressure armour as cylindrical shell structure instead of applying a wound beam
model, [6]. Figure 4.2 illustrates the simplified and detailed structure of the carcass. The Belytschko-Tsay
shell elements are utilized to model the carcass and the pressure armour. In the actual cross section of
the 16"PJ the lay angle of the pressure armour is 89.1 . When the special orthotropic material model is
utilized it is not possible to define a lay angle. Thus, the lay angle is neglected in the LS-DYNA model.
The utilized material properties for the carcass and the pressure armour are given in table 4.2.
The tensile layers are modeled by S/R Hughes-Liu shell elements. For the first tensile layer the elements are winding with 33.0 degrees pitch angle. The pitch angle for the second tensile layer is -32.8
degrees. The first and second tensile layer consists of 65 and 67 tendons, respectively. To simplify the
model it is assumed both layers consist of 66 tendons. Hence, 66 shell elements are utilized in each layer.
Contact within the tensile layer is not considered due to the small gaps between each of the tendons.
This is conservative since each tendon slides without internal friction along neighboring tendons in the
same layer. It is important to point out that the friction between the layers is considered. The piecewise
33

CHAPTER 4. LS-DYNA ANALYSIS

Table 4.3: Material properties for inner liner and outer sheath (10 C)

Youngs modulus @ 10 C [MPa]


Tensile strength [MPa]
Elongation at break [%]
Poisson ratio

480.9
44
250
0.40

Table 4.4: Utilized friction coefficients in LS-DYNA model

Connection

Standard [-]

Low [-]

High [-]

Adjust metal coefficient [-]

0.10
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10

0.12
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20

0.10
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

Carcass - Inner liner


Inner liner - 1st pressure armour
1st pressure armour - 2nd pressure armour
2nd pressure armour - 1st tensile layer
1st tensile layer - 2nd tensile layer
2nd tensile layer - Outer sheath
Outer sheath - Outer sheath

linear plasticity material model, *MAT_ 024, is utilized to model the tensile layers. This material model
is an elasto-plastic material model with an arbitrary stress versus strain curve. The employed material
parameters for the tensile layers are given in table 4.2.
The inner liner and the outer sheath are modeled with solid elements. Four elements are employed
through the thickness and 66 elements in the circumferential direction. Reduced integration is applied to
avoid shear locking. The plastic kinematic material model, *MAT_ 003, is applied to the two plastic
layers. The hardening parameter is equal to zero. Thus, kinematic hardening is utilized. The utilized
material parameters for the outer sheath and the inner liner are shown in table 4.3.
The actual pressure armour and carcass consist of small non-rectangular profiles. Thus, the model
has a wrong axial and bending stiffness when shell elements are utilized. This is corrected by multiplying
the Youngs modulus and the yield strengths with a factor. The factor multiplied on the yield strength,
Cys , is defined by the relation between the actual plastic section modulus, for instance for the carcass,
and the plastic momentum for the utilized element. See equation (4.11). The factor multiplied on Youngs
modulus, CE , is defined by the relation between the two moment of inertia. See equation (4.12).
2Mpcarcas
8Zp
= 2
Mpelement
bh
2EIcarcass
2Icarcass
CE =
= 1 3
EIelement
12 bh

Cys =

(4.11)
(4.12)

where Zp is the plastic section modulus, b is the width of the element, h is the height of the element and
I is the moment of inertia. In the carcass two profiles are linked as indicated in figure 3.7 on page 25,
which is the reason for multiplying by two. Equation (4.11) and equation (4.12) are given for the carcass
but same procedure is utilized for the pressure armours. The gaps in the tensile layers are included in the
model by introducing the fill factor, Ff , of the tensile layers. The fill factor is defined as following:
Ff =

nb
2R cos

(4.13)

where n is the number of tendons in the layer, b is the width of each tendon, R is the mean layer radius
and is the lay angle.
The magnitude of friction coefficients can depend on many factors such as interaction area, load, speed of
movement, environmental condition, elasticity, surface chemistry and surface roughness. Hence friction
coefficients are often given in intervals. The sensitivity of friction coefficients is therefore studied. The
utilized friction coefficients can be seen in table 4.4. Figure 4.3 shows the LS-DYNA model of the
experiment performed by NOV Flexibles.

34

4.2. LS-DYNA MODEL

Figure 4.3: LS-DYNA model of the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles

35

Chapter 5

Results
This chapter presents results from the four analyses devised in the thesis. First the results from the
analytical method are demonstrated. The analytical method is based on the yield line method. Afterwards
the results from the two BFLEX2010 models are demonstrated; the platform impact scenario and the
experiment performed by NOV Flexibles. The LS-DYNA model of the experiment is present at the end of
the chapter. Both models of the experiment and the analytical analysis are carried out to document the
results from the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles.
The results from the analytical analyses and the BFLEX2010 model of the experiment is referred
to as Ellinas and Walker and Oliverira, respectively. The results referred to as Ellinas and Walker is
based on the study by Ellinas and Walker in [21]. The results referred to as Oliverira is based on the
study given by Jones and Shen in [22]. In Chapter 6 on page 53 a discussion of the results is given.

5.1

Analytical analysis

The development of a dent in the 16"PJ, manufactured by NOV Flexibles, is analyzed by an analytical
simplified method. The method is based on a yield line model. Figure 5.1 illustrates the force-indentation
relationship. The figure illustrates an initial small elastic phase. After the elastic phase the curves are
parabolic. Thus, a smaller increase of force is needed to increase the indentation. The tendency of the
parabolic curves is similar to theory with yield of the materials. However, yield effect is not as visible in
the current method employed by NOV Flexibles, see figure 2.3 on page 17. As mentioned in section 2.3
the method is only valid for the first phase of denting. The function does not have any horizontal asymptote.
Figure 5.1 is utilized to determine the relationship between the impact energy and indentation, see
figure 5.2. Since the energy is given by the integral of force, the same limitations are valid for figure
5.2 as figure 5.1. From figure 5.2 it can be seen higher impact energy is needed in Oliverira to give an
indentation equal to Ellinas and Walker. Since the details of Oliverira, [22], is not published it is difficult
to determine if it is reasonable. Oliverira is developed using an analogy with square tubes. The plastic
section modulus of a tubular member can both by larger and smaller compared to a square profile with
equal thickness. It depends on how the tubular member and the squared tube are connected. If the square
is inscribed in the circle, case (a) in figure 5.3, the square has a smaller plastic section modulus. In the
other case, case (b) in figure 5.3, the section modulus of the square is larger. If case (a) is utilized in the
method by Oliverira it is reasonable higher impact energy is needed to get the same indentation as in
Ellinas and Walker. The Matlab code utilized to the calculations is shown in appendix A on page 65.

37

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS

1400

Ellinas and Walker


Oliverira

1200

Force [kN]

1000

800

600

400

200

10

Indentation [mm]
Figure 5.1: Force-indentation relationship for the 16"PJ, analytical analysis

10

Ellinas and Walker


Oliverira

9
8

Indentation [mm]

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

10

Energy [kJ]
Figure 5.2: Relationship between impact energy and dent depth for the 16"PJ, analytical analysis

38

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.3: Two suggested connection between the square tube and a tubular tube

5.2

BFLEX2010

In the following the results from the platform impact scenario will be presented. A sensitivity study of
the BFLEX2010 model has been carried out in order to verify the model. The sensitivity study is also
presented. Afterwards the results from the model of the experiment are present. Figure 5.4 and figure 5.5
give an overview of which input parameters are utilized in the different BFLEX2010 models.
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

5.2. BFLEX2010

5.2.1

The impact platform scenario

The analysis of the platform impact scenario with a harmonic load was run for 20 seconds. Figure 5.6 on
page 41 illustrates the velocity in the middle node of the 16"PJ. Two impacts occur during the analysis.
The two impact are distinct on figure 5.7 on page 42, which illustrates the force in the contact element.
The initial distance between the contact element and the 16"PJ is two meters. During return from the
first impact the riser will pass the initial position. Thus, the distance between the contact element and
the 16"PJ is larger than two meters for the second impact. Hence the velocity of the middle node and
the force in the contact element is increased in the second impact. The force-indentation relationship is
shown in figure 5.8 on page 42. Figure 5.8 shows both impacts. The first impact has an impact energy
approximately equal to 3.6 kJ. This energy results in 6.2 mm plastic indentation. Due to the increased
velocity, the second impact energy is increased. The second impact energy is approximately 23.2 kJ which
entailed 22.4 mm indentation. The ovalisation in the two impacts is 1.45 % and 5.23 %, respectively. Thus,
the second impact exceeds the acceptable ovalisation which is 3 %.
During the analysis the time step was adjusted. The time step at the first impact was 0.0001 seconds,
while it was 0.001 seconds at the second impact. The reason for increasing the time step is to reduce the
simulation time and computer capacity. With increased time step no data is saved from the exact moment
where the impact begins. Hence the peak of the second impact in figure 5.6 is rounded off and the second
impact in figure 5.8 does not pass the origin.
As mentioned in the description of the model, the friction in the x-direction and y-direction is not
included. However, the influence of the friction in the x-direction and y-direction was studied. A simplified
force-displacement curve was utilized. The analysis showed no significant influence of the friction in the
two directions. The only visible difference is in the beginning of the second impact. The deviation is due
to the coarse time step utilized in the second impact.

5.2.2

Sensitivity study of the platform impact scenario model

The results from finite element simulations are dependent on the mesh size. Hence it is important to
study the convergence of the results. In general all the results depend on the input data. Hence it is
important to ensure that input data is correct. On these grounds a sensitivity study of the BFLEX2010
model utilized for the platform impact scenario is carried out. The time dependent forces given in table
3.3 on page 27 and the simplified force-indentation curve shown in figure 3.9 on page 26 are utilized for
the sensitivity study. Additionally, the analyses in the sensitivity study are run for 60 seconds instead of
39

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS

Figure 5.4: Overview of utilized input parameters to the platform impact scenario

20 seconds. First the influence of the epcurve and the mesh size is studied. Afterwards the effect of the
chosen radius of the contact element is analyzed.
An epcurve is applied to define the stiffness of the spring utilized in the contact material. In order
to study the influence of the epcurve three different curves are applied. The first epcurve is based on
the analytical force-indentation curve, see figure 5.1 on page 38. The two other curves are a factor 100
higher and lower, respectively. All utilized curves are presented in table 5.1. Figure 5.9 and figure 5.10 on
page 43 illustrate the element forces (3dof) in the contact element and the middle element of the 16"PJ,
respectively. From both figures it can be seen that the epcurve has an effect in the beginning of the
impact. With the high epcurve the element force in the middle element is significantly larger in the first
impact compared to the two other models. In the contact element the main deviation is after 12 seconds.
Both figure 5.9 and figure 5.10 illustrate the difference reduces during the simulation. After 15 seconds
the difference in the element force in the contact element is almost zero. A deviation is visible in the time
interval when analyzing the element force in the middle element of 16"PJ. However, the deviation is only
significant in the first impact for the middle element.
The number of elements along the 16"PJ has been adjusted in order to study the convergence. The riser
has been divided into 199, 399 and 599 element, respectively. The elements are evenly distributed. Figure
5.11 illustrates the variation of the element force (3dof) in the contact element. Figure 5.12 illustrates the
force in the middle element of the 16"PJ. Analyzing the influence of the utilized number of elements on
the contact element the following is found. The magnitude of the element force in the impact after 8.08
40

5.2. BFLEX2010

Figure 5.5: Overview of utilized input parameters to regeneration of the experiment

4
3
2

Velocity [m/s]

1
0
1
2
3
4
5

10

15

20

Time [s]
Figure 5.6: Velocity of the middle node of the 16"PJ

Table 5.1: Epcurves

Simplified analytical curve

Low curve

High curve

Force [MN]

Displacement [m]

Force [MN]

Displacement [m]

Force [MN]

Displacement [m]

0.0
0.001
0.01

0.0
280.6 103
887.4 103

0.0
0.001
0.01

0.0
280.6 105
887.4 105

0.0
0.001
0.01

0.0
280.6 101
887.4 101

41

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS

200
0
200

Force [kN]

400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800

10

15

20

Time [s]
Figure 5.7: Force in the contact element as a function of time

1800
1600
1400

Force [kN]

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

10

15

20

25

Indentation [mm]
Figure 5.8: Force-indentation curve for the platform impact scenario

42

5.2. BFLEX2010

200

High EPCURVE
Simplified analytical
Low EPCURVE

180

Element Force [kN]

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

20
40
Time [s]

60

Figure 5.9: Influence of epcurve on the element force (3dof) in the contact element

15

High EPCURVE
Simplified analytical
Low EPCURVE

Element Force [kN]

10

10
0

20
40
Time [s]

60

Figure 5.10: Influence of the epcurve on the element force (3dof) in middle element of the 16"PJ

43

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS

180

199 elements
599 elements
399 elements

160

Element Force [kN]

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

20

40

60

Time [s]
Figure 5.11: Influence of mesh size on the element force (3dof) in the contact element

seconds changes with the adjusted number of elements. The result from the analysis with 599 elements
is between the analysis with 199 elements and 399 elements. Thus, the analysis with 599 elements has
started to converge. The element force after 11.48 seconds is also of interest when comparing the three
analyses. Here the analysis with 599 elements gives the largest element force and the analysis with 399
elements gives the smallest force. Hence at this time step the analysis has not converged. In the rest of
the time steps no difference occurs between the three analyses. The influence of the mesh size is expected
to be larger on the element force in the 16"PJ. This expectation is documented in figure 5.12. The figure
shows the element force in the time interval from 12 seconds to 17 seconds has not converged, see figure
5.13. In this time interval the peaks of the element force increases with the increased number of elements.
However, the increase is not significant. The rest of the time the element force from the analysis with 599
elements is in between the two other analyses. Hence the analysis has started to converge in this time
interval. Overall the difference between the analysis with 399 elements and 599 elements is not significant.
Taken into account the computer capacity it is assumed the analysis with 599 elements has converged.
Hence 599 elements should be utilized in further analyses.
In all the presented analyses the radius of the contact element has been 0.51 meter. The contact
element is similar to a spring. Hence the radius should not influence the results. A sensitivity study is
performed to document the statement. The radius has been reduced to one fourth; 0.13 m. Figure 5.14
illustrates the difference in the element force (3dof) in the contact element. Figure 5.15 shows the force in
the middle element of the 16"PJ. From figure 5.14 it can be seen when the radius of the contact element
is reduced a phase difference occurs. The phase different is due to the increased distance between the
contact element and the 16"PJ. Since the distance is increased the impact velocity is increased. This
is the reason for the increased first peak in the element force. Figure 5.15 illustrates a phase difference
similar to figure 5.14. The absolute vertical element force in the middle element of the 16"PJ is increased
when the radius of the contact element is reduced. After 35 seconds an error occurs, since the forces
oscillate close to zero. It seems to be a singularity. From this small study the statement is demonstrated.
The found deviation is due to the changed velocity.

5.2.3

BFLEX2010 model of experiment

The experiment with impact tests of 16"PJ and 6"MPR performed by NOV Flexibles is regenerated in
BFLEX2010. The simulation time for these analyses is one second. As a result from the analysis the
force-indentation relationship is determined. The time steps in the analysis are important since the elastic
and plastic deformation of the riser happens in less than one second. Figure 5.16 illustrates the time
steps influence on the force-indentation relationship. In the analysis with the coarse time step the elastic
deformation is already ended within the first time step. Thus, the elastic deformation is not illustrated.
44

5.2. BFLEX2010

599 elements
399 elements
199 elements

Element Force [kN]

0
2
4
6
8
10
0

20

40

60

Time [s]
Figure 5.12: Influence of mesh size on the element force (3dof) in the middle element of 16"PJ

599 elements
399 elements
199 elements

Element Force [kN]

2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
10

15
Time [s]

20

Figure 5.13: Influence of mesh size on the element force (3dof) in the middle element of 16"PJ in time period
10 seconds to 20 seconds

45

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS

200

Radius 0.51m
Radius 0.13m

180

Element Force [kN]

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

20

40

60

Time [s]
Figure 5.14: Influence of the radius of the contact element on the element force (3dof) in the contact force

Element Force [kN]

Radius 0.51m
Radius 0.13m

10
0

20

40

60

Time [s]
Figure 5.15: Influence of the radius of the contact element on the element force (3dof) in the middle element of
the 16"PJ

46

5.2. BFLEX2010

700

0.001 seconds
0.0001 seconds
0.00001 seconds

600

Force [kN]

500
400
300
200
100
0
2

2
4
6
Indentation [mm]

Figure 5.16: Time step influence on force-indentation relationship. Impact weight: 3 131.5 kg/m

1200

15 x weight
10 x weight
5 x weight
3 x weight
2 x weight
1.5 x weight
1 x weight
0.5 x weight
0.25 x weight

1000

Force [kN]

800

600

400

200

0
0

5
10
Indentation [mm]

15

Figure 5.17: Force-indentation relationship based on Ellinas and Walker, BFLEX2010

The two finer time steps illustrate the elastic deformation. For the coarse time step kinematic hardening
was chosen, but isotropic hardening is a more correct unloading in this case. Hence isotropic hardening
was utilized in the two models with finer time step. The chosen hardening is the reason for the deviation
in the unloading. From figure 5.16 it can be seen the maximum plastic deformation is 6.6 mm. When this
deformation is reached the springback effect starts and the permanent deformation is 4.2 mm. During the
analyses the weight of the 6"MPR was changed. Figure 5.17 illustrates how the indentation is increased
with increased impact weight.
The impact energy is the area below the force-indentation curve. Thus, figure 5.17 is utilized to establish
the indentation-impact energy diagram. Figure 5.18 shows the relationship between the indentation
and the impact energy. The two curves in the diagram are based on the force-indentation relationships
calculated in the analytical analysis, see figure 5.1 on page 38.
47

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS

14

Ellinas and Walker


Oliverira

12

Indentation [mm]

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

5
Energy [kJ]

10

Figure 5.18: Indentation of the 16"PJ as a function of impact energy, BFLEX2010

Figure 5.19: Overview of the sensitivity study of LS-DYNA model

5.3

LS-DYNA

The experiment performed by NOV Flexibles was also regenerated in LS-DYNA. The detail level of the
cross sections is higher in the LS-DYNA model compared to the model conducted in BFLEX2010. A
small sensitivity study of the LS-DYNA model was conducted. Figure 5.19 gives an overview of the
sensitivity study. The energies in the system are illustrated in figure 5.20. The impact weight in the
illustrated case is 1800 kg. The figure shows the total energy is almost constant, which follows the
theory. During the simulation the energy may be transformed, but no energy should disappear in the
system. Numerical errors are the reasons for the small changes in the total energy. As it can be seen
from the figure the kinetic energy is reduced during the collision. The lost kinetic energy is transformed
into internal energy, hourglass energy and sliding energy. After 0.042 s the minimum kinetic energy is
reached. At this time the maximum deformation is achieved. Subsequently the 6"MPR changes direction
and the kinetic energy is increased due to the spring back effect. After 0.8 seconds the kinetic energy
is stable. The internal energy has the opposite tendency of the kinematic energy. The sliding energy
is the friction energy between the layers. Through the deformation of the 16"PJ the sliding energy is
increased. Afterwards it is constant. The hourglass energy is of great interest since it gives an indication
of correctness of the model. The hourglass energy defines the energy utilized to prevent the elements
to get an hourglass shape. The hourglass energy should be small compared to the other energies in the
system. From figure 5.20 it can be seen the hourglass energy is significantly smaller than the other energies.
The damages of the 16"PJ is of interest within the thesis. Thus, the deformation of the carcass is
shown in figure 5.21. The size and shape of the damage zone change with the time. Also the impact
weight influences the shape of the damage zone. The shape of the damage zone is mainly a mix of a
48

5.3. LS-DYNA

7000

Total energy
Kinetic energy
Internal energy
Hourglass energy
Sliding energy

6000

Energy [J]

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Time [s]
Figure 5.20: Energies in the system. Impact weight: 1800 kg, Impact velocity: 2.73 m/s

Figure 5.21: Deformation of carcass after 0.51 seconds. Impact weight: 1800 kg, Impact velocity: 2.73 m/s

diamond shape and a square with triangles at the ends. Figure 5.21 indicates the carcass has a tendency
for ovalisation; it gets wider and the height is reduced. The curves in figure 5.22 illustrate the point which
reaches the maximum deformation for each layer. The diagram shows a small phase difference between
the 6"MPR and the 16"PJ. Until the permanent indentation the motion of the layers follows the motion of
the 6"MPR. From figure 5.22 it can be seen that all layers, except the outer sheath, are in the same range
of permanent indentation. The smaller indentation of the outer sheath is due to the large elongation. The
inner liner has the same elongation property, but since it is located between the metals the shrinkage is
reduced.
In LS-DYNA different opportunities can be utilized to treat interaction between disjoint parts. The
contact formulation can have significant influence on the results. Hence two other contact formulates were
analyzed; contact surface to surface smooth and contact automatic nodes to surface. Additionally, the
utilized contact automatic surface to surface smooth was adjusted to segment based instead of part based.
No difference occurs when changing from part based to segment based. In both cases the deformation
shape from the analyses was realistic. The contact surface to surface smooth and the contact automatic
nodes to surface did not give reasonable results.
Friction coefficients are often given in intervals and it is difficult to determine the correct coefficients without an experiment. Hence the sensitivity of friction coefficients is studied. The utilized friction coefficients
are given in table 4.4 on page 34. Figure 5.23 illustrates the effect of adjusted friction coefficients. In the
reduced cases, the PA11-PA11 friction coefficient is reduced from 0.1 to 0.08 and 0.1 is utilized instead
of 0.15 for the rest of the layers. Thus, the coefficients are reduced 20 % and 33.3 %, respectively. The
adjustments result in 3.3 % decreased permanent indentation of the 16"PJ. The maximum indentation,
on the other hand, is increased with 1.4 %. In the increased case the friction coefficients are increased
with 20 % and 33.3 %. It results in 0.7 % decreased maximum indentation. The permanent indention is
49

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS

0.15

Carcass
Inner liner
1st pressure armour
2nd pressure armour
1st tensile layer
2nd tensile layer
Outer sheath
6"MPR

Displacement [m]

0.1

0.05

0.05

0.1
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Time [s]
Figure 5.22: Deformation of point with maximum deformation in each layer. Impact weight: 1800 kg, Impact
velocity: 2.73 m/s

Standard friction
Reduced friction
Increased friction
Adjust steel friction

Indentation [m]

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time [s]
Figure 5.23: Friction coefficients effect on the indentation of carcass. Impact weight: 805 kg, Impact velocity:
2.73 m/s, Friction coefficients given in table 4.4

reduced with 3.2 % compared to the standard friction coefficients. In the last case the friction coefficient
for the contact between the two pressure armours has been adjusted. The friction coefficient has been
increased from 0.15 to 0.20. The adjustment has no significant influence on the maximum indentation.
The permanent indentation is, on the contrary, effected. The magnitude is similar to the increased and
reduced case.
The mesh size may have a significant influence on the results. Hence adjustments of the mesh have been
done in order to analyze the convergence. Only the number of elements in the longitudinal direction and
the radial direction has been modified. The number of elements in the ring direction is determined by
the number of tensile tendons. When analyzing the permanent indentation it can be seen from figure
5.24 that the standard mesh is between the fine and the extra fine mesh. The maximum indentation is
increased equally with the fine and extra fine mesh. The changes are not significant. Thus, it is assumed
the standard mesh gives reasonable results.
It is difficult to model the exact same boundary conditions as in the experiment. Hence the influence of the boundary conditions is studied. In the model the components in the ends are restrained
to each other. Thus, Kirchhoff-Navier hypothesis is utilized. In order to study the influence of the
boundary condition the 16"PJ is extend to four meters. The number of elements in the longitudinal
50

5.3. LS-DYNA

Standard mesh
Fine mesh
Extra fine mesh

Indentation [m]

0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Time [s]
Figure 5.24: Convergence study of mesh size. Impact weight: 1309 kg Impact velocity: 2.73 m/s

2m long 16"PJ
4m long 16"PJ

0.01

Indentation [m]

0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Time [s]
Figure 5.25: Boundary condition effect on the indentation of carcass. Impact weight: 1800 kg, Impact velocity:
2.73 m/s

direction is increased. Thus, the mesh size is the same in both analyses. From figure 5.25 it can be seen
that the boundary condition has an influence on the indentation. Figure 5.25 illustrates the case with
1800 kg impact weight. The maximum indentation is increased by 6.9 % and the permanent indentation
is increased by 3.7 %. The figure only indicates that the boundary condition influences the indentation.
It cannot document the correctness of the chosen boundary condition. The influence of the boundary
condition is expected to depend on the magnitude of indentation. Hence the study has been repeated
with a smaller impact weight. Figure 5.26 illustrates the influence when the impact weight is reduced to
427 kg. In this case also the permanent indentation is affected significantly.
The weight of the 6"MPR was adjusted in order to assess the relationship between the impact energy and the indentation. Figure 5.27 illustrates the indentation as a function of the impact energy. The
maximum indentation follows an arc, while the permanent indentation is piecewise linear. The permanent
indentation curve can be divided into three linear curves. The slope of the first and third curve is similar.
Figure 5.28 illustrates the three linear parts.

51

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS

2m long 16"PJ
4m long 16"PJ

Indentation [m]

0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

Time [s]
Figure 5.26: Boundary condition effect on the indentation of carcass. Impact weight: 427 kg, Impact velocity:
2.73 m/s

120

Permanent indentation
Maximum indentation

Indentation [mm]

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

10

12

14

Energy [kJ]
Figure 5.27: Indentation of the 16"PJ as a function of impact energy, LS-DYNA

80

1st part
2nd part
3rd part
Trendline 1st part, R2=0.9908
Trendline 2nd part, R2=0.9995
2
Trendline 3rd part, R =0.9970

Indentation [mm]

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

Energy [kJ]
Figure 5.28: Linear parts of the permanent indentation-energy curve, LS-DYNA

52

Chapter 6

Discussion
Within the thesis work impact analyses are conducted of the Production Jumper (16"PJ) and the 6"
Multi Purpose Riser (6"MPR). Both flexible pipes are manufactured by NOV Flexibles. Additionally,
an analysis of the platform impact scenario is carried out. In this case a semi-submersible platform is
in damaged condition with an inclination and the 16"PJ is clashing into the pontoon. The results from
the analyses and utilized assumptions will be discussed in this chapter. Additionally, the results from
the two finite element models of the experiment and the analytical analyses will be compared with the
experimental results supplied by NOV Flexibles.

6.1

Analytical analysis

It is time-consuming to build and run a detailed finite element model for impact scenarios. Hence a
simplified analytical method has been applied to document the results from the experiment performed
by NOV Flexibles. Two analytical methods were deployed. The method from Ellinas and Walker, [21],
is based on a diamond shaped yield line model for a simple supported tubular member subjected to a
lateral impact load. The diamond shaped damage zone is a reasonable assumption, since the analysis
in LS-DYNA indicates a similar damages zone. The material behavior is assumed to be rigid perfect
plastic. Thus, strain hardening and the material elasticity is thereby neglected. By assuming perfect
plastic material behavior the method is simplified since no non-linear material behavior is taken into
account. In reality the material will not follow the perfect plastic stress-strain curve and non-linear effects
will occur. The non-linear effects are included in the finite element analyses.
The details behind the method from Oliverira, [23], have not been published but the initial denting phase
is developed using an analogy with the behavior of square tubes, [22]. The force-indentation function is
similar to the function developed by Ellinas and Walker, [21]. Hence Oliverira was still utilized in the
analysis. However, the results from the analysis based on Oliverira must be assessed critically.
The impact force in the analysis based on Ellinas and Walker, [21], is assumed to be quasi-static.
Thus, the analysis corresponds to a static analysis. A collision is a dynamic process. When a static
analysis is utilized the additional kinetic energy activated under the development of the dent is not
included. Hence a static analysis is conservative.
The results from the analytical method are compared with the experimental results supplied by NOV
Flexibles. The experimental results are included in appendix B on page 69. The experimental results and
the analytical results are illustrated in figure 6.1. The difference between the two impact tests is as follows:
In Impact Test 1 it is not possible to determine if the deformation is caused by pure plastic deformation
or by settling of the different layers or a combination of both. In Impact Test 2 the impact energy was
kept at a constant level until the increase in deformation between two consecutive impacts was zero. By
this method only settling of the different layers occurs, [33]. If each impact test is fitted to two linear
lines a significant change of slope is visible. In Impact Test 1 the slope changes at 2 mm indentation. For
Impact Test 2 the change occur at 1.4 mm. After the change of slope the flexible riser acts as a tubular
member with one layer. All the layers are pressed together and the total stiffness is increased.
In the two analytical methods no significant change of slope takes place. Impact Test 1 follows the
analytical method from Ellinas and Walker up to the change of the slope. Subsequent, the slope of the
experimental results is less than the slope in Ellinas and Walkers method. Between 2 mm and 3.5 mm
53

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION

Ellinas and Walker


Oliverira
Impact Test 1
Impact Test 2

Indentation [mm]

10

0
0

10

Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.1: Comparison of indentation-impact energy relationship, analytical analysis

indentation the experimental results get closer to the analytical method from Oliverira. However, in Impact
Test 1 a visually observed indentation on approximately 10 mm was observed with 116.25 kJ/m impact
energy, [33]. No experimental results are available between 3.5 mm and 10 mm indentation. Hence, either
the slope of the experiment results shall change again to fit the measurement with 10 mm indentation or
the measurement should be neglected because of uncertainties. If the measurement is neglected Ellinas and
Walkers method give conservative results when the indentation is larger than 2.5 mm compared to Impact
Test 1. Comparing the results from Impact Test 2 with the analytical methods, the indentation needs
to be larger than 1.5 mm before both Ellinas and Walkers method and Oliveriras method are conservative.
In Impact Test 2 higher impact energies are needed to give the same deformation as in Impact Test 1. No
explanation for the difference is convincing. Hence the difference indicates uncertainty in the experiment.
All the registered measurements from the experiments are small and e.g. inaccuracy location of the
extensometer could affect the measurement.

6.2

BFLEX2010 model of the experiment

No experimental data is accessible of the platform scenario. Hence the principle of the simple beam
model is verified with a BFLEX2010 model of the experiment. The same concept is utilized in both
BFLEX2010 models. The relationship between the indentation and the impact energy, determined from
the BFLEX2010 model of the experiment, is compared with the experimental results. See figure 6.2. In
general the results from BFLEX2010 and the experimental results are in the same range. The BFLEX2010
curve based on Oliverira, [23], is non-conservative compared to Impact Test 1. If the slope of Impact
Test 2 is assumed to continue and the indentation is larger than 2.3 mm, the BFLEX2010 result based on
Oliverira fits the experimental data. The curve based on Ellinas and Walker, [21], is conservative to both
impact tests when the indentation is larger than 3.0 mm and when the visual measurement is neglected.
The 16"PJ is fixed supported in the numerical simulation. In the experiment the 16"PJ was secured with
strings. Hence it is an assumption to model the 16"PJ fixed supported. The fixed support will have
a significant influence on the global bending, but since the 16"PJ is located on an iron plate no global
bending occurs. Additionally, the support will have an influence on the local denting. The influence of
boundary condition was studied in LS-DYNA. With large impact energies only the maximum indentation
was significantly influenced. With smaller impact energy both the maximum and permanent indentations
were influenced. However, the permanent indentation was larger with the shorter beam.
The model is based on the force-indentation curve determined in the analytical analysis. Thus, the
assumptions made in the calculations of the force-indentation curve will also affect the results from
BFLEX2010. The sensitivity study of the similar model utilized for the platform impact scenario indicates
the importance of the chosen force-indentation curve. If the analytical force-indentation included the
change of slope, the change of slope would also be included in BFLEX2010. Hence a more correct
54

6.3. THE PLATFORM IMPACT SCENARIO

14

Ellinas and Walker


Oliverira
Impact Test 1
Impact Test 2

Indentation [mm]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.2: Comparison of indentation-impact energy relationship, BFLEX2010

1800

The platform impact scenario


Experimental model 4.68m/s
Experimental model 1.90m/s

1600

Force [kN]

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

10

15

20

25

Indentation [mm]
Figure 6.3: Comparison of the platform impact scenario and the experimental model

force-indentation curve will result in more accurate results.

6.3

The platform impact scenario

A simple beam model in BFLEX2010 has been utilized to analyze the platform impact scenario. The
30 meter long 16"PJ was fixed supported in one end and free in the other end. In the cantilevered end two
concentrated loads acted; one harmonic and one constant. Thus, the riser had a pendulous motion. The
platform was modeled by one single point. The contact element CONT164 was utilized for the pontoon.
This element is similar to a spring. During the simulation two impacts occurred. The impact velocity
in the contact point was 1.90 m/s and 4.68 m/s, respectively. In order to study the influence of global
bending, two BFLEX2010 models of the experiment are conducted with equal impact velocities. The
force-indentation curves are compared in figure 6.3.
From the figure it can be seen that both the force and the indentation range are significantly larger in the
platform impact scenario. The explanation for the deviation is the weight difference. The ratio of the
impact weight is 59.2. The permanent indentation is 0.14 mm and 1.34 mm, respectively in the experiment
models. If the indentations are multiplied with the weight-ratio, the indentations are 8.3 mm and 79.3 mm,
respectively. These indentations are larger than 6.2 mm and 22.4 mm, which are the results from the
platform impact scenario.
55

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION

30

LSDYNA orthotropic
Impact Test 1
Impact test 2

Indentation [mm]

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.4: Comparison of the indentation-impact energy relationship, LS-DYNA

The global bending is included in the model of the platform impact scenario. In the experiment model
the global bending is neglected. Thus, it is assumed the difference of the indentations is due to the effect
of global bending. When global bending is neglected all the impact energy has to be transformed to local
indentation of the pipe. When the global bending is included, on the contrary, a part of the impact energy
will be transformed to oscillation and global bending of the pipe. Hence the local indentation is expected
to be smaller when global bending is included. This theory is consistent with the lower indentations found
in the platform impact scenario. If the experiment performed by NOV Flexible should have included the
influence of global bending the 6"MPR should have been approximately 16 meters long.
In the analysis the pontoon is modeled as one single point and a spring. The stiffness of the spring is
equal to the force-indention curve of the 16"PJ. Hence the radius of the contact element does not have
any influence on the result of the analysis. In the sensitivity study the influence of the radius was studied.
The study showed the element force, both in the contact element and in the middle element of the 16"PJ,
was only affected by the adjusted velocity when the radius was changed. Thus, the study confirmed the
radius of the contact element does not have any influence.

6.4

LS-DYNA model of the experiment

In figure 6.4 the finite element model of the experiment conducted in LS-DYNA is compared with the
experimental results. Figure 6.5 is an extract of the small energies in figure 6.4. At small impact energies,
the indentation is not due to plastic deformation. Instead the indentation is due to possible flexibility of
flexible pipes. Each layer can move before plastic deformation occurs. Hence the model was not expected
to be consistent with the experiment at small indentations. When the initial movement of the layers is
passed the model was expected to follow the experimental results. Figure 6.4 and figure 6.5 indicate the
opposite. The result from LS-DYNA is consistent with the experimental result until 700 J impact energy.
Subsequently increased impact energies result in an overestimated indentation in LS-DYNA. Plastic strain
of the carcass is measured already when the impact energy is 137.8 J. Thus, it is only the model with 70.3 J
impact energy where the carcass does not enter the plastic range and where the permanent indentation is
due to subsidence of the layers. This explains why the model is consistent with the experimental results
at small impact energies.
The same 16"PJ was utilized for the entire impact test in the experiment. Both in LS-DYNA and
in BFLEX2010 the simulations were restarted when the weight of the 6"MPR was adjusted. Hence no
existing damage was included in the model. With no exiting damage one single point will be the initial
contact. With exiting damage, on the contrary, the initial contact will be the surface area of the exiting
indentation. Thus, the contact area is larger in the experiment. The larger area results in a smaller
pressure and thereby a smaller indentation. This effect is increased with larger exiting indentations. The
exiting damage of the 16"PJ may explain the conservatism of the model. However, the deviation is too
56

6.4. LS-DYNA MODEL OF THE EXPERIMENT

LSDYNA orthotropic
Impact Test 1
Impact test 2

Indentation [mm]

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.5: Comparison of the indentation-impact energy relationship at small impact energies, LS-DYNA

large for the exiting damage to be the only explanation.


From the study it is shown that the boundary condition affects the damage zone. The boundary
condition utilized in the model is not exactly the same as in the experiment. The Kichhoff-Navier
hypothesis is valid for an infinity long beam. The length of the pipe is two meters. Hence, some of the
deviation between the experimental results and the results from the model may be caused by the chosen
boundary condition.
The carcass and the pressure armours consist of s-shaped and C3-LiNKT profiles, respectively. These
profiles are designed with an interlock function. During deformation of a flexible pipe the initial gaps
between the profiles are vanished. Thus, the stiffness of the pressure armour and the carcass will increase.
In the LS-DYNA model the carcass and pressure armours are simplified. Shell elements are utilized and
hence the interlock function is not included. By changing the utilized factor multiplied on the yield
strength of the carcass, the interlock function of the carcass is included. The calculation of the new
plastic section modulus of the carcass with the interlock function is simplified. Based on Kichhoff-Navier
hypothesis it is assumed that a hollow rectangle can be utilized. The length and the height of the hollow
rectangle are similar to the length and the section depth of the s-profile. The effective thickness is assumed
to be between 1.5 and 2.0 times the actual thickness. The factor multiplied on the yield strength of the
carcass is increased from 0.55 to 0.83, when the average effective thickness is utilized. Additionally, the
Youngs modulus factor for the carcass is split in two:
2Acarcass
Eb
Aelement
2Icarcass
Ep
=
Ielement

Eb,model =

(6.1)

Ep,model

(6.2)

where Eb is Youngs modulus in the hoop direction under bending, Acarcass is the areal of a carcass profile
and Ep is Youngs modulus in the hoop direction under axial loading. The aim of the carcass is to prevent
collapse of the flexible pipe. Hence in the new model the interlock function is only included for the carcass.
An axial membrane effect will be activated when a tubular member is exposed to an impact load.
Since the carcass consists of interlocked s-profiles the membrane effect may not be significant in flexible
pipes. However, the influence of the membrane effect has been studied. A simple way to include axial
membrane effect it to change the material behavior. Hence the material of the carcass and pressure armour
is modeled as isotropic instead of orthotropic. The axial stiffness and the hoop stiffness are similar.
Figure 6.6 illustrates the indentation over time from the two new models. The illustrated case is
with 1073 kg impact weight. The figure indicates the maximal indentation is reduced when the axial
membrane effect is included. Thus, the stiffness of the 16"PJ is increased with the axial membrane effect.
Additionally, the permanent indentation is reduced. Analyzing the orthotropic models, it can be seen that
57

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION

ISOTROPIC* CYS=0.55
ISOTROPIC* CYS=0.83

Indetation [m]

0.01

ISOTROPIC** CYS=0.55

0.02

ORTHOTROPIC* CYS=0.55

0.03

ORTHOTROPIC* CYS=0.83
ORTHTROPIC** CYS=0.55

0.04
0.05
0.06
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time [s]
Figure 6.6: Influence of interlock function on the indentation. Impact weight = 1073 kg, Impact velocity =
2.73 m/s, Youngs modulus factor is divided in two, Youngs modulus factor is the same in bending and axial
loading.

30

LSDYNA orthotropic
LSDYNA isotropic
LSDYNA orthotropic with interlock function
LSDYNA isotropic with interlock function
Impact Test 1
Impact Test 2

Indentation [mm]

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.7: Influence of interlock function on indentation of carcass

the permanent indentation is significantly reduced when the interlock function is included.
Figure 6.7 shows the results from the four LS-DYNA models together with the experimental results.
The figure illustrates that the conservatism of the models are reduced, when the interlock function of
the carcass is included. The isotropic model which includes the interlock function and the orthotropic
model with interlock function are similar. Thus, figure 6.7 indicates the membrane effect does not have a
significant influence on the impact resistance. It is more reasonable that the interlock function of the
carcass significantly increases the impact resistance of the flexible riser.
Figure 6.8 illustrates the orthotropic model with interlock function of the carcass and the experimental
results at small energies. The figure illustrates the slope of the numerical simulation changes similar
to the experiments. However, a small phase difference is between the model and the experiments. The
orthotropic model with the interlock function is the only model which strongly shows the slope change.
Figure 6.6, figure 6.7 and figure 6.8 illustrates the interlock function of the carcass have a significant
influence on the indentation.
The lasting conservatism is an effect of non-existing damage of the 16"PJ. Additionally, the yield
strength of materials is based on a lower bond. The actual yield strength will be higher. Thus, when
58

6.5. COMPARISON OF THE THREE ANALYSES

LSDYNA orthotropic with interlock function


Impact Test 1
Impact Test 2

Indentation [mm]

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.8: Orthotropic LS-DYNA model including the interlock function of carcass

lower bond yield strength is utilized the model will be conservative. Another explanation for the conservative results is the manufacturing of flexible pipes. During the manufacturing the risers are exposed
to tension. Hence the layers are pressed against each other, which results in increased friction between
layers as well as increased resistance towards cross sectional ovalisation. In LS-DYNA the tensioning is not included. Alsos et al. presents in [13] a LS-DYNA model which included the tensioning of
the riser. The model shows the stiffness of the flexible pipe is increased when the pipe is exposed to tension.
The measured indentations of the 6"MPR was below the tolerance of the utilized extensometer, [33].
Hence the 6"MPR is modeled as a rigid pipe and no impact energy will be transformed into the 6"MPR.
The elastic deformation is not measured in the experiment. However, elastic deformation of the 6"MPR is
expected. By utilizing a rigid pipe all energy transformation will be in the 16"PJ. Thus, the energy in the
16"PJ and the indentation will be conservative.
The cross section of the utilized 16"PJ is simplified in the LS-DYNA model. The intermediate layer and
the anti wear layer between the pressure armour and the 1st tensile layer are neglected. Additionally,
the anti wear layer between the tensile layers are neglected. Thus, metal contacts are included in the
model which do not exist in the actual cross section. Since the same friction coefficient is utilized to all
connection in the 16"PJ this simplification should not have a significant influence on the results. Further
the tapes do not have a structural influence.

6.5

Comparison of the three analyses

Three analyses of the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles have been conducted in the thesis work; a
simplified analytical analysis, a simple beam model in BFLEX2010, and a detailed finite element model
in LS-DYNA. The time utilized to get the wished relationship between the indentation and the impact
energy varies significantly. Hence it is of interest to see the deviation of exactness in the three analyses.
Figure 6.9 shows the relationship between the indentation and the impact energy from the three analyses.
The analytical analyses are consistent with the analyses in BFLEX2010. It was expected since the
analytical force-indentation curve is utilized in BFLEX2010. When the impact energy is approximately
2 kJ the orthotropic LS-DYNA model with the interlock function starts to be conservative compared to
BFLEX2010 and the analytical analyses. The same is valid for the isotropic LS-DYNA model which
includes the interlock function. However, the orthotropic LS-DYNA model with the interlock function
is the only model which strongly illustrates an increase of stiffness similar to the experiments. See figure 6.8.
The deviation between LS-DYNA and the other analyses are due to the simplification of the carcass and
the pressure armour. In LS-DYNA the carcass and pressure armour are modeled with shell elements. The
shell element has another geometry than the actual carcass profile and pressure armour. Hence factors
were multiplied on the utilized material parameters. This methodology is a simplification and gives small
deviations. The study with LS-DYNA illustrates it is difficult to model the carcass and the pressure
59

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION

25

Analytical Ellinas and Walker


Analytical Oliverira
BFLEX2010 Ellinas and Walker
BFLEX2010 Oliverira
LSDYNA orthotropic with interlock function
LSDYNA isotropic with interlock function

Indentation [mm]

20

15

10

0
0

10

Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.9: Comparison of the three impact analyses

armour with correct properties.

60

Chapter 7

Conclusion
Today NOV Flexibles utilized an analytical method to assess the impact resistance of their flexible
pipes. An experiment performed by NOV Flexibles illustrates the current analytical method is conservative. Therefore NOV Flexibles request a new accurate method to assess the impact resistance.
Hence four impact analyses are conducted in the thesis work; one analytical analysis, two numerical
simulations of the experiment performed by NOV Flexibles and an analysis of the platform impact scenario.
From the discussion of the two analytical methods it can be concluded that the analytical method
based on Ellinas and Walker, [21], is conservative compared with both impact tests when the indentation
is larger than 2.5 mm. In the conclusion the measured 10 mm indentation is neglected. Additionally,
the slope of the experimental result is assumed to continue. Taking into account the magnitude of the
indentations, the amount of conservatism in the method is not significant. The method based on Oliverira,
[23], is more accurate compared to Impact Test 1 when the indentation is larger than 3.5 mm. However,
the method is non-conservative when the indentation is larger than 7 mm. Thus, it can be concluded that
the method based on Ellinas and Walkers, [21], can be utilized to assess the damage of a flexible riser
exposed to a lateral impact load.
Further it can be concluded that the concept of a simple beam model with a spring is applicable
for an impact analysis. The stiffness of the spring is equal to the force-indentation curve of the pipe
which is analyzed. The utilized spring stiffness was taken from the analytical analysis. The analysis of
the experiment was consistent with the analytical analysis. Thus, stiffness of the spring has a significant
influence of the result.
Two models were conducted with the spring concept; one model includes the global bending and one model
neglects the global bending. From the results it can be concluded that the global bending has a significant
influence on the indentation. With global bending the indentation was reduced with approximately 30 %.
However, this conclusion is only valid for the specific case analyzed.
Until 700 J impact energy the LS-DYNA model without membrane effects and the interlock function of
the carcass is consistent with the experimental results. With increased impact energy the model is not
consistent with the experimental results. The model is more accurate when the membrane effect or the
interlock function is included. The study demonstrates that the permanent indentation from the model
with membrane effect is similar to the permanent indentation from the model with interlocking of the
carcass. Hence, in this case the membrane effect is assumed to have a smaller influence. Due to the
s-shaped carcass-profiles it is more reasonable that the impact capacity increases because of the interlock
function. Additionally, the experiments performed by NOV Flexibles illustrate a significant change of
stiffness when the impact energy is approximately 315 J. The LS-DYNA model with the interlock function
is the only model which strongly illustrates the increased stiffness of the 16"PJ. Thus, it can be concluded
that the interlock function have a significant influence on the impact resistance.
The small conservatism of the LS-DYNA model at large impact energies is due to the simplification of
the carcass and the pressure armour. Shell elements were utilized to model the carcass and pressure
armour. In order to correct the wrong geometry factors was multiplied on the material parameters. This
methodology is a simplification and gives deviations at large impact energies.

61

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION
The research by Botto et al., [1], indicates 35 % of damage to flexible pipes occurs within the first
year. These failures occur mainly within the instillation phase. The research also illustrates that ovalisation is 4 % of the damages to flexible pipes in 2007 and 2.5 % in 2007. Hence the analyses conducted
in the thesis work will not reduce the 35 % significantly. However, the analyses will improve the design
methods for impacts.

7.1

Future work

The experiment performed by NOV Flexibles illustrates a significant change of stiffness when the impact
energy is approximately 315 J. The increase of stiffness happens since the layers are pressed together and
behave as one material instead of a composite material. This phenomenon has not been documented in the
analytical analysis or in the BFLEX2010 model. The increased stiffness was illustrated in the LS-DYNA
model when the interlock function of the carcass was included. In future work the change of stiffness
should be studied further and included in both the analytical analysis and the model in BFLEX2010.
Additionally, it should be improved in LS-DYNA so the phase difference is minimized.
The study of the LS-DYNA model illustrates difficulties with the modeling of carcass and pressure
armour. In the future the simplification with shell elements should be further investigated in order to
minimize the deviation.
The analytical analysis utilized only describes the first phase of the impact. Thus, the global bending is
not included. The analysis of the platform impact scenario indicates the influence of global bending. In
future studies the global bending should be included in the analytical analysis. Additionally, the model in
LS-DYNA illustrates the shape function of the damage zone varies with the time. Hence other yield line
models should be utilized in order to clarify if the results can be improved.
The platform impact scenario is only analyzed for one specific load case. Several load cases should
be studied in order to assess the magnitude of the effect of the global bending. Further, the entire analysis
is based on the 16"PJ and the 6"MPR. In order to establish a general conclusion impacts with other
flexible pipes need to be analyzed.

62

Bibliography
[1] Adriana Botto, Cline Banti, and Enda OSullivan. MANAGING AGEING FLEXIBLE PIPE
ASSETS. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Estoril, Portugal, 2008.
[2] Robert Lamb. How offshore drilling works. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/
energy/offshore-drilling.htm, 2013. [Online; accessed 8-November-2013].
[3]

Yong Bai. PIPELINES AND RISERS. Elsevier, 2001.

[4] Fraser Moore. Materials for flexible riser systems: problems and solutions. Butterworth & Co, 1989.
[5] Svein Svik. On Stresses and Fatigue in Flexible Pipes. NTH, Department of Marine Structures,
Faculty of Marine Technology, Norwegian Institute of Technology, 1992.
[6] Analysis of 8-inch flexible riser impact. Reinertsen, 2009.
[7] Stig Berg and Arnt Olufsen. Handbook on design and operation of flixble pipes. Trondheim : SINTEF,
Structural Engineering, 1992.
[8] ISO 13628-11 Petroleums- og naturgassindustri, Konstruksjon og drif av produksjonssystemer under
vand, Del 10: Spesifikasjon for fleksible rr med bundet armering. Standard Norge, 2007.
[9] J. Taby, T. Moan, and S. M. H. Rashed. Theoretical and experimental study of the behaviour of
damaged tubular members in offshore structures. In Norwegian Maritime Research, 1981.
[10] Bjrn Skallerud and Jrgen Amdahl. Nonlinear Analysis of Offshore Structures. Baldock : Research
Studies Press, 2002.
[11] DNV-RP-C204 DESIGN AGAINST ACCIDENTAL LOADS. Det Norske Veritas, 2010.
[12] Arnold M. Gresnigt, Spyros A. Karamanos, and Kyros P. Andreadakis. Lateral loading of internally
pressurized steel pipes. In Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Transactions of the ASME, 2007.
[13] Hagbart S. Alsos, Bogi Laksfoss, Per D. Rasmussen, Claus Kristensen, and Gunnar Paulsen. Finite
element analysis of flexible riser impact. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai, China, 2010.
[14] Victor Pinheiro Pupo Nogueira and Theodoro Antoun Netto. A simple alternative method to estimate
the collapse pressure of flexible pipes. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai, China, 2010.
[15] Svein Saevik and Naiguan Ye. Armour layer fatigue design challenges for flexible risers in ultra-deep
water depth. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2009.
[16] Naiguan Ye and Svein Svik. Multiple axial fatigue of pressure armors in flexible risers. In Proceedings
of the 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 2011.
[17] Vegard Longva, Svein Svik, Erik Levold, and Hvar Ilstad. Dynamic simulation of subsea pipeline
and trawl board pull-over interaction. Marine structures, 2013.
[18] DNV-RP-F111 Interference between trawl gear and pipelines. Det Norske Veritas, 2010.
[19] NKT Flexibles I/S. Technical note, calculation of allowable impact energy. 2008.
63

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[20] Claudio Ruggieri and Jos Alfredo Ferrari Jr. Structural behavior of dented tubular members under
lateral loads. In Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Transactions of the ASME,
2004.
[21] Charles P. Ellinas and Alastair C. Walker. Damage on offshore tubular bracing members. In IABSE,
Copenhagen, 1983.
[22] N. Jones and W. Q. Shen. A theoretical study of the lateral impact of fully clamped pipelines.
IMechE, 1992.
[23] Tore Mellem, Joern Spiten, Richard Verley, and Hermann Moshagen. Trawl board impacts on pipelines.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE,
1996.
[24] DNV-OS-C301 Stability and Watertight Integrity. Det Norske Veritas, 2013.
[25] S. Svik, O. D. kland, G. S. Baarholm, and J. Gjsteen. BFLEX2010 Version 3.0.9 User Manaual.
MARINTEK, 2013.
[26] S. Svik and H. Li. Shear interaction and transverse buckling of tensile armours in flexible pipes. In
Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Nantes,
France, 2013.
[27] S. Svik and M. J. Thorsen. Techniques for predicting tensile armour buckling and fatigue in deep
water flexible risers. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012.
[28] S. Svik. Comparison between theoretical and experimental flexible pipe bending stresses. In
Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai,
China, 2010.
[29] S. Svik. BFLEX2010 - Theory Manaual. MARINTEK, 2010.
[30] Torgeir Moan. Finite Element Modelling and Analysis of Marine Structures. Trondheim : Department
of Marine Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2003.
[31] S. Svik and R. T. Igland. Calibration of a flexible pipe armour stress model. In Proceedings of the
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Oslo, Norway, 2002.
[32] LS-DYNA Theory manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2006.
[33] Impact test report. NKT Flexibles, 2009.

64

Appendix A

Matlab code for indentation and impact


energy relationship

%
%
ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS Mellem
%
%
Carcass, pressure armour, 1. tensile, 2. tensile
%
clc
clear all
%Input parameters: 16"PJ:
d_out=[0.4856;
%Outer diameter [m],
1. tensile
0.4739;
%
2. tensile
0.4616;
%
Presurre armour
0.4280];
%
Carcass
R_0=d_out/2;
%Orginal radius [m]
t=[ 5;
5;
6
10.8]*10^3;

%Thickness of each layer [m],


%
%
%

1. tensile
2. tensile
Presurre armour
Carcass

A=pi/4*(d_out(1)^2d_out(4)^2); %Cross section area [m^2]


T=sum(t);

%Full thickness [m]

E=[210;
210;
210;
205]*10^9;

% Young's modulus [Pa], 1. tensile


%
2. tensile
%
Presurre armour
%
Carcass

sigma=[700;
730;
800;
800]*10^6;
ny=0.3;
I=t.^3/12*(1ny^2);

%Yield stress [Pa], 1. tensile


%
2. tensile
%
Pressure armour
%
Carcass
%Piossons ratio elastic
%Moment of inertia

% Indencation parameters: 6"MPR


R_6=0.2563/2;
%Outer radius of 6"MPR [m]
b=d_out(1);
%Indencation length [m]
delta=0:0.5*10^3:10*10^3; %Denting denpth
% Ellinas and Walker
F1=[];
for i=1:length(delta)
f1=150*(d_out./t).^(0.5).*(delta(i)./d_out).^0.5.*(1/4).*sigma.*t.^2.*(d_out./t).^0.5;
F1=[F1 sum(f1)];
end
%Oliverira
F2=[];
for i=1:length(delta)
f2=28*(delta(i)./d_out).^0.5.*(1/4).*sigma.*t.^2.*(d_out./t).^0.5;
F2=[F2 sum(f2)];

65

APPENDIX A. MATLAB CODE FOR INDENTATION AND IMPACT ENERGY RELATIONSHIP


end
F3=[];
for i=1:length(delta)
f3=230*(d_out./t).^(0.5).*(delta(i)./d_out).^0.5.*(1/4).*sigma.*t.^2.*(d_out./t).^0.5;
F3=[F3 sum(f3)];
end
figure(2)
plot(delta*1000,F1/1000,'r')
hold on
plot(delta*1000,F2/1000,'g')
ylabel('Force [kN]')
xlabel('Indentation [mm]')
hleg1 = legend('Ellinas and Walker', 'Oliverira')
set(hleg1,'Location','NorthEastOutside')
figureHandle = gcf;
set(findall(figureHandle,'type','text'),'fontSize',12)
%Energies:
E1=[];
for i=1:length(delta)
e1=25*delta(i)*sqrt(delta(i)./d_out).*t.^2.*sigma/(2*T);
% [J/m]
E1=[E1 sum(e1)];
% [J/m]
end
E2=[];
for i=1:length(delta)
e2=14/3*delta(i)*sqrt(delta(i)./d_out).*sqrt(d_out./t).*t.^2.*sigma/(2*T); % [J/m]
E2=[E2 sum(e2)];
% [J/m]
end
%
%
Energies i J
%
E12=[];
for i=1:length(delta)
e12=25*delta(i)*sqrt(delta(i)./d_out).*t.^2.*sigma;
% [J]
E12=[E12 sum(e12)];
% [J]
end
E22=[];
for i=1:length(delta)
e22=14/3*delta(i)*sqrt(delta(i)./d_out).*sqrt(d_out./t).*t.^2.*sigma; % [J]
E22=[E22 sum(e22)];
% [J]
end
figure(3)
plot(E12/1000, delta*1000,'r')
hold on
plot(E22/1000, delta*1000,'g')
ylabel('Indentation [mm]')
xlabel('Energy [kJ]')
hleg1 = legend('Ellinas and Walker', 'Oliverira')
set(hleg1,'Location','NorthEastOutside')
figureHandle = gcf;
set(findall(figureHandle,'type','text'),'fontSize',12)

%%
%
%
Plot to the discussion
%
delta_NOV1=[0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 10];
%[mm]
E_NOV1=[0 1.7 3.33 5.4 7.5 16.67 27.5 37.92 116.2];
%[kJ/m]
delta_NOV2=[0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5];
%[mm]
E_NOV2=[0 2.3 4.09 7.27 19.09 30.68];
E_NOV12=[0 1.7 3.33 5.4 7.5 16.67 27.5 37.92 116.2]*42*10^3;
E_NOV22=[0 2.3 4.09 7.27 19.09 30.68]*42*10^3;
figure(6)
plot(E1/1000,delta*1000,'r')
hold on
plot(E2/1000,delta*1000,'g')
plot(E_NOV1,delta_NOV1, '*')
plot(E_NOV2,delta_NOV2,'m*')

66

%[kJ]
%[kJ]

hold off
xlabel('Energy [kJ/m]')
ylabel('Displacment [mm]')
hleg1 = legend('Ellinas and Walker', 'Oliverira', 'Impact Test 1', 'Impact Test 2');
set(hleg1,'Location','NorthEastOutside')
figure(7)
plot(E12/1000,delta*1000,'r')
hold on
plot(E22/1000,delta*1000,'g')
plot(E_NOV12,delta_NOV1, '*')
plot(E_NOV22,delta_NOV2,'m*')
hold off
axis([0 10 0 11])
xlabel('Energy [kJ]')
ylabel('Indentation [mm]')
hleg1 = legend('Ellinas and Walker', 'Oliverira', 'Impact Test 1', 'Impact Test 2');
set(hleg1,'Location','NorthEastOutside')
figureHandle = gcf;
set(findall(figureHandle,'type','text'),'fontSize',30)
set(gca,'fontsize',24)

67

Appendix B

NOV Flexibles experiment results


The relationship between the deformation and the impact energy for the 16"PJ found by the experiments
performed by NOV Flexibles are shown in figure B.1 and B.2.

Figure B.1: Deformation of the 16"PJ as a function of the impact energy absorbed by the 16"PJ, Impact Test 1
[33]

69

APPENDIX B. NOV FLEXIBLES EXPERIMENT RESULTS

Figure B.2: Deformation of the 16"PJ as a function of the impact energy absorbed by the 16"PJ, Impact Test 2
[33]

70

Appendix C

Actual cross sections

Table C.1: Actual cross section of the 16"PJ

No

Layer

Material

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Bore
Carcass
Intermediate layer
Intermediate layer
Inner liner
C-liNKT pressure armour
C-liNKT pressure armour
Intermediate layer
Anti wear layer
1st tensile armour
Anti wear layer
2nd tensile armour
Intermediate layer
Intermediate layer
Intermediate layer
Intermediate layer
Outer sheath

Duplex 2101
Diolen
Diolen
PA11
Sour grade
Sour grade
Diolen
AW PA11
Sour 800 grade
AW PA11
Sour 800 grade
Diolen
Diolen
Matrix
Matrix
PA11

71

Thickness [mm]

Outer diameter [mm]

Lay angle [ ]

10.8
0.4
0.4
10.0
2.2
3.8
0.3
0.9
5.0
0.9
5.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
10.0

406.4
428.0
428.8
429.6
449.6
455.0
461.6
462.1
463.9
473.9
475.5
485.6
486.2
486.8
487.6
488.4
508.4

88.71
-83.5
-83.5
0.00
89.57
89.57
-81.1
84.7
32.99
84.8
-32.80
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
0.00

Table C.2: Actual cross section of the 6"MPR

No

Layer

Material

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
15
16

Bore
Carcass
Intermediate layer
Intermediate layer
Inner liner
C-liNKT pressure armour
C-liNKT pressure armour
Intermediate layer
Anti wear layer
1st tensile armour
Anti wear layer
Intermediate layer
2nd tensile armour
Intermediate layer
Intermediate layer
Intermediate layer
Outer sheath
Intermediate layer
Outer sheath

Duplex 2101
Diolen
Diolen
PVDF
Sour 800 grade
Sour 800 grade
Diolen
AW PA11
Sour 800 grade
AW PA11
Diolen
Sour 800 grade
Diolen
Diolen
Diolen
PA11
Diolen
PA11

Thickness [mm]

Outer diameter [mm]

6.0
0.6
0.6
6.5

152.4
164.4
165.6
166.8
179.8

12.0
0.3
0.9
5.0
0.9
0.2
5.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
6.0
0.4
6.5

203.8
204.3
206.2
216.2
218.1
218.5
228.5
229.1
229.7
230.5
242.5
243.3
256.3

Lay angle [ ]
88.1
-82.6
-82.6
-69.5
-70.9
25.2
71.9
-74.1
-25.5
79.3
-79.4
-81.8
-82.5
-

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen