ULRIKKE BRANDT
Department of Shipping and Marine Technology
Division of Marine Design, Research Group Marine Structures
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Göteborg, Sweden 2014
MASTER’S THESIS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MASTER’S PROGRAMME IN
NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND OCEAN ENGINEERING
ULRIKKE BRANDT
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 ex-
periment 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 capac-
ity 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 commer-
cial 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 ten-
sile 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 undersøgelse viser at 35 % af skaderne på fleksible rør sker i løbet af det første år, [1]. En begrænset
del af disse skader er grundet dårlig design eller produktionsfejl, da fabrikkerne udfører "Factory Accep-
tance Tests" (FAT-test). Installationsperioden er en kritisk periode af de fleksible rørs levetid. Under
installationen af fleksible rør, kan rørene blive udsat for stød grundet tabte redskaber. I værste tilfælde
kan et stød på de fleksible rør medføre forurening af miljøet. For at forhindre forurening er det derfor
vigtigt at kunne eftervise stødskapaciteten af de fleksible rør.
Dette speciale er udarbejdet i samarbejde med NOV Flexibles. NOV Flexibles er lokaliseret i Brøndby,
Danmark, og producerer primært fleksible rør til olieindustrien. I dag benytter NOV Flexibles en forsimplet
analytisk metode til at eftervise stødskapaciteten af de fleksible rør. Et forsøg udført af NOV Flexibles
viser dog at den nuværende analytiske metode er meget konservativ. Derfor ønsker NOV Flexibles en ny
mindre konservativ metode.
I dette speciale er tre forskellige analyser benyttet til at analysere stødskapaciteten af en 16" Pro-
duction Jumper som er produceret af NOV Flexibles. Først er en simpel analytisk analyse benyttet.
Denne analyse er baseret på teorien fra et bulet stål rør. En diamantformet brudlinje model er benyttet
til analysen.
Efterfølgende er to finite element modeller benyttet til at eftervise resultaterne fra forsøget udført
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 carcass’en er forsimplet i modellen. De er opbygget af skal elementer og den speciel
ortotropisk materiale model. BFLEX2010 modellen er derimod opbygget af bjælke elementer. Derudover
er de forskellige materialer lag samlet til tre lag; to stræk armeringslag og et ydrelag. I begge modeller er
det 6" Multi Purpose Riser modeleret som et ubøjeligt rør.
Voldsomme vejrforhold kan medføre at stabiliteten af flydende platforme svigter og dermed får platformene
en hældning. I det tilfælde kan kræfterne fra bølgerne og strømmen resultere i at det fleksible stigerør
svinger ind i pontonen. Et speciale tilfælde af denne situation er analyseret i rapporten. I rapporten
er situationen refereret til "platform impact scenario". En bjælke model i BFLEX2010 er benyttet til
analysen. Denne model er baseret på samme koncept som BFLEX2010-modellen af forsøget udført af
NOV Flexibles.
ix
NTNU Trondheim
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet
Institutt for marin teknikk
for
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
it’s 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
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 Fakultet for ingeniørvitenskap og teknologi
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet 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.
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
Svein Sævik
xii
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Flexible riser technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Motivation for thesis work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Scope of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.6 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Analytical analysis 15
2.1 Introduction to impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Method utilized by NOV Flexibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Dented tubular member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4 LS-DYNA analysis 31
4.1 Applied theory in LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 LS-DYNA model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5 Results 37
5.1 Analytical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2 BFLEX2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.3 LS-DYNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6 Discussion 53
6.1 Analytical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.2 BFLEX2010 model of the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.3 The platform impact scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.4 LS-DYNA model of the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.5 Comparison of the three analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7 Conclusion 61
7.1 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Bibliography 63
xiii
List of Figures
xv
List of Figures
B.1 Deformation of the 16"PJ as a function of the impact energy absorbed by the 16"PJ, Impact
Test 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
B.2 Deformation of the 16"PJ as a function of the impact energy absorbed by the 16"PJ, Impact
Test 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
xvi
List of Tables
5.1 Epcurves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
xvii
Nomenclature
Greek letters
α Lay angle
β Constant
δ Indentation
ζ Slope of the load-curve
ν Poisson ratio
νe Volume of the element
σy Yield stress
Roman letters
xix
List of Tables
ak Acceleration
CI Incremental damping matrix
Fk Stress divergence vector
Hk Hourglass resistance
KI Incremental stiffness matrix
M Diagonal mass matrix
MI Incremental mass matrix
Pk External and body force loads
r Displacement vector
RD Damping force vector
RI Inertia force vector
RE External load vector
RS Internal structural reaction force vector
v Global nodal velocity
u Global nodal displacement
xx
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 produc-
tion. 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 oc-
curs. 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.
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
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.
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
3
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Isolation
Pressure armour
Carcass
Inner liner
Tensile armour
Outer sheath
Figure 1.2: Example of rough
The above presentedbore structure.serve
pipe cross-sections The presented
as examples pipe
that do cross-sections
not necessarily serve
include the correctas examples that do not
layer
necessarily include dimensions
the correctand layers
layermay also have beenand
dimensions included / excluded
layers may for the have
also purposebeen
of illustration.
included / excluded for the purpose
of illustration
4
1.1. FLEXIBLE RISER TECHNOLOGY
Outer sheath
Anti-birdcaging tape
A Anti wear
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].
One beneficial property of flexible risers is the cross section, which allows significant elastic defor-
mation 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].
5
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Force
Elastic deformation
Unloading
Plastic deformation
Figure 1.5: Illustration of spring back effect
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
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
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.
• Strain
• Creep
• Stress
• Hydrostatic collapse
• Mechanical collapse
• Torsion
• 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. Allow-
able 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 fac-
tors 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
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.
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 company’s 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 master’s thesis is devised for NOV Flexibles.
In the thesis work two methods are utilized to analyze the impact capacity of flexible pipes; an an-
alytical 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. 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, respec-
tively. 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 im-
pact 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
11
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
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.
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 non-
linear 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 wo,maxZ wi,max
Es = Es,0 + Es,i = ro dwo + ri dwi (2.1)
0 0
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.
• Dropped object
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
Ei = ζ1 δ δ ≤ δ 1 (2.2)
2
1 1
Ei = F1y δ1 + F1y + ζ2 (δ − δ1 ) (δ − δ1 ) δ > δ1 ∧ δ < δ2 (2.3)
2 2
1 1
Ei = F1y δ1 + (F1y + F2y )(δ2 − δ1 )F2y (δ − δ2 ) δ > δ2 (2.4)
2 2
where ζ is the slope, δ 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
100 Elastic unloading
90
80
70
Force [kN/m]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15
Indentation [mm]
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 e−1.3 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
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
Equation (2.10) and equation (2.11) are utilized to the two analytical analyses in the thesis work. Sub-
sequently 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
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.
As in other finite element programs BFLEX2010 utilizes both a global coordinate system and a lo-
cal 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.
21
CHAPTER 3. THE PLATFORM IMPACT SCENARIO
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:
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:
22
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
3.1. APPLIED THEORY IN BFLEX
RS
S
RE - R (r1)
RE1
r1 r2 r3
r
r1 r2 r3 r
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
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
element analysis can both be linear and non-linear. Both the linear and the non-linear structural analysis
are based the following principles:
• 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, Young’s 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
Stress
Ultimate strength
Fracture
Yield strength
Young's modulus
Strain
The nonlinear geometry can either be based on the theory with large strain, large deformation/ro-
tation or a combination of both. Since fracture mechanics is not included within the impact analysis the
nonlinear geometry is based on large rotations.
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
3.2. BFLEX2010 MODEL OF PLATFORMPRODUCED
IMPACT SCENARIO
BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
No Layer Material Layer thickness [mm] Outer diameter [mm] Lay angle [◦ ]
Pipe inner diameter 406.4
1 Carcass Duplex 2101 10.8 428.0 88.71
2 Intermediate layer Diolen 0.8 429.6 0.00
3 Inner liner PA11 10.0 449.6 0.00
4 C-liNKT pressure armour Sour grade 2.2 455.0 89.57
5 C-liNKT pressure armour Sour grade 3.8 461.6 89.57
6 Intermediate layer Diolen 0.3 462.1 0.00
7 Anti wear layer AW PA11 0.9 463.9 0.00
8 1st tensile armour Sour 800 grade 5.0 473.9 32.99
9 Anti wear layer AW PA11 0.9 475.5 0.00
10 2nd tensile armour Sour 800 grade 5.0 485.6 -32.80
11 Intermediate layer Matrix 1.4 488.4 0.00
12 Outer sheath PA11 10.0 508.4 0.00
25
CHAPTER 3. THE PLATFORM IMPACT SCENARIO
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Force [MN]
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Indentation [m]
The material behavior for the pressure armour is modeled as elastic-plastic. Thus, both the ELAS-
TIC 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
Force Magnitude
Longitudinal force 229.3 kN
Horizontal force −67.5 sin(0.45t) kN
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.
The experiment performed by NOV Flexibles is an impact test of the 16"PJ and the 6" Multi Pur-
pose 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 Young’s modulus and shear modulus are standard
values. The 6"MPR is divided into 100 elements.
27
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
CHAPTER 3. THE PLATFORM IMPACT SCENARIO
16"PJ
Iron plate
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
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 disad-
vantages 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.
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
∆te = (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
c= (4.7)
ρ(1 − v 2 )
31
CHAPTER 4. LS-DYNA ANALYSIS
(1 + β)As
Ls = (4.8)
max(L1 , L2 , L3 , (1 − β)L4 )
where β 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:
νe
Le = (4.10)
Ae,max
where νe is the volume of the element and Ae,max is the area of the largest side.
32
4.2. LS-DYNA MODEL
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
Due to the profile shapes, the carcass and the pressure armour are the two most complex compo-
nents 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 el-
ements 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)
Connection Standard [-] Low [-] High [-] Adjust metal coefficient [-]
Carcass - Inner liner 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.10
Inner liner - 1st pressure armour 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.15
1st pressure armour - 2nd pressure armour 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.20
2nd pressure armour - 1st tensile layer 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.15
1st tensile layer - 2nd tensile layer 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.15
2nd tensile layer - Outer sheath 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.15
Outer sheath - Outer sheath 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.15
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 Young’s 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 Young’s
modulus, CE , is defined by the relation between the two moment of inertia. See equation (4.12).
2Mpcarcas 8Zp
Cys = = 2 (4.11)
Mpelement bh
2EIcarcass 2Icarcass
CE = = 1 3 (4.12)
EIelement 12 bh
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:
nb
Ff = (4.13)
2πR cos α
where n is the number of tendons in the layer, b is the width of each tendon, R is the mean layer radius
and α 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
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.
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
1000
Force [kN]
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Indentation [mm]
10
Ellinas and Walker
9 Oliverira
7
Indentation [mm]
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Energy [kJ]
Figure 5.2: Relationship between impact energy and dent depth for the 16"PJ, analytical analysis
38
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
5.2. BFLEX2010
(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
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.
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
1
Velocity [m/s]
−1
−2
−3
−4
−5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [s]
41
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS
200
−200
−400
−600
Force [kN]
−800
−1000
−1200
−1400
−1600
−1800
0 5 10 15 20
Time [s]
1800
1600
1400
1200
Force [kN]
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Indentation [mm]
42
5.2. BFLEX2010
200
High EPCURVE
180 Simplified analytical
Low EPCURVE
160
140
Element Force [kN]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60
Time [s]
Figure 5.9: Influence of epcurve on the element force (3dof) in the contact element
15
High EPCURVE
Simplified analytical
Low EPCURVE
10
Element Force [kN]
−5
−10
0 20 40 60
Time [s]
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
160 599 elements
399 elements
140
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.
44
5.2. BFLEX2010
4
599 elements
399 elements
2 199 elements
0
Element Force [kN]
−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
4
599 elements
3 399 elements
199 elements
2
Element Force [kN]
−1
−2
−3
−4
−5
10 15 20
Time [s]
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
180 Radius 0.13m
160
140
Element Force [kN]
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
5
Radius 0.51m
Radius 0.13m
Element Force [kN]
−5
−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
600 0.00001 seconds
500
Force [kN]
400
300
200
100
0
−2 0 2 4 6 8
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
1000 5 x weight
3 x weight
2 x weight
800 1.5 x weight
1 x weight
Force [kN]
0.5 x weight
600 0.25 x weight
400
200
0
0 5 10 15
Indentation [mm]
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
10
Indentation [mm]
8
0
0 5 10
Energy [kJ]
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
6000
Kinetic energy
Internal energy
5000 Hourglass energy
Sliding energy
Energy [J]
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 with-
out 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
0.1 1st pressure armour
2nd pressure armour
Displacement [m]
1st tensile layer
0.05 2nd tensile layer
Outer sheath
6"MPR
0
−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
0
Standard friction
Reduced friction
−0.01 Increased friction
Adjust steel friction
Indentation [m]
−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 influ-
ence 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
0
Standard mesh
−0.01
Fine mesh
Extra fine mesh
−0.02
Indentation [m]
−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
0
2m long 16"PJ
−0.01 4m long 16"PJ
−0.02
Indentation [m]
−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 en-
ergy 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
0
2m long 16"PJ
−0.005
4m long 16"PJ
−0.01
Indentation [m]
−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
100
Indentation [mm]
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Energy [kJ]
Figure 5.27: Indentation of the 16"PJ as a function of impact energy, LS-DYNA
80
1st part
70 2nd part
3rd part
60
Trendline 1st part, R2=0.9908
Indentation [mm]
30
20
10
0
0 5 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.
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 Walker’s method. Between 2 mm and 3.5 mm
53
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION
Indentation [mm] 6
0
0 2 4 6 8 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
Walker’s 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 Walker’s method and Oliverira’s 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.
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
12
Oliverira
Impact Test 1
Indentation [mm] 10 Impact Test 2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.2: Comparison of indentation-impact energy relationship, BFLEX2010
1800
The platform impact scenario
1600 Experimental model 4.68m/s
1400
Experimental model 1.90m/s
1200
Force [kN]
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Indentation [mm]
Figure 6.3: Comparison of the platform impact scenario and the experimental model
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
LS−DYNA orthotropic
Impact Test 1
25 Impact test 2
Indentation [mm]
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
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.
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
3
LS−DYNA orthotropic
Impact Test 1
2.5 Impact test 2
Indentation [mm]
2
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.5: Comparison of the indentation-impact energy relationship at small impact energies, LS-DYNA
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
Young’s modulus factor for the carcass is split in two:
2Acarcass
Eb,model = Eb (6.1)
Aelement
2Icarcass
Ep,model = Ep (6.2)
Ielement
where Eb is Young’s modulus in the hoop direction under bending, Acarcass is the areal of a carcass profile
and Ep is Young’s 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
0
ISOTROPIC* CYS=0.55
−0.01 ISOTROPIC* CYS=0.83
ISOTROPIC** CYS=0.55
Indetation [m]
−0.02
ORTHOTROPIC* CYS=0.55
−0.03
ORTHOTROPIC* CYS=0.83
−0.04 ORTHTROPIC** CYS=0.55
−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, ∗ Young’s modulus factor is divided in two, ∗∗ Young’s modulus factor is the same in bending and axial
loading.
30
LS−DYNA orthotropic
LS−DYNA isotropic
25 LS−DYNA orthotropic with interlock function
LS−DYNA isotropic with interlock function
Indentation [mm]
20 Impact Test 1
Impact Test 2
15
10
0
0 2 4 6
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
4
LS−DYNA orthotropic with interlock function
3.5 Impact Test 1
Impact Test 2
Indentation [mm] 3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2
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 con-
servative 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 tension-
ing 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.
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
20 BFLEX2010 Ellinas and Walker
BFLEX2010 Oliverira
Indentation [mm]
LS−DYNA orthotropic with interlock function
15 LS−DYNA isotropic with interlock function
10
0
0 5 10
Energy [kJ]
Figure 6.9: Comparison of the three impact analyses
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 con-
servative. 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 ovali-
sation 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.
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, Céline Banti, and Enda O’Sullivan. MANAGING AGEING FLEXIBLE PIPE
ASSETS. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Estoril, Portugal, 2008.
[4] Fraser Moore. Materials for flexible riser systems: problems and solutions. Butterworth & Co, 1989.
[5] Svein Sævik. On Stresses and Fatigue in Flexible Pipes. NTH, Department of Marine Structures,
Faculty of Marine Technology, Norwegian Institute of Technology, 1992.
[7] Stig Berg and Arnt Olufsen. Handbook on design and operation of flixble pipes. Trondheim : SINTEF,
Structural Engineering, 1992.
[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] Bjørn Skallerud and Jørgen 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 Laksáfoss, 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 Sævik. 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 Sævik, Erik Levold, and Håvar 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 José 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. Sævik, O. D. Økland, G. S. Baarholm, and J. Gjøsteen. BFLEX2010 Version 3.0.9 User Manaual.
MARINTEK, 2013.
[26] S. Sævik 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. Sævik 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. Sævik. 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. Sævik. 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. Sævik 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
%−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
% 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]
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; %[kJ]
E_NOV22=[0 2.3 4.09 7.27 19.09 30.68]*42*10^−3; %[kJ]
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
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
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
71
Table C.2: Actual cross section of the 6"MPR