0
Research Papers: Piper and Riser Technology

Finite Element Analysis of Flexible Pipes Under Axial Compression: Influence of the Sample Length

[+] Author and Article Information
Eduardo Ribeiro Malta

Department of Naval Engineering,
University of São Paulo,
São Paulo 05539-080, Brazil

Clóvis de Arruda Martins

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of São Paulo,
São Paulo 05508-010, Brazil

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received October 28, 2015; final manuscript received July 25, 2016; published online September 21, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Myung Hyun Kim.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 139(1), 011701 (Sep 21, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: OMAE-15-1114; doi: 10.1115/1.4034379 History: Received October 28, 2015; Revised July 25, 2016

In order to study the axial compressive behavior of flexible pipes, a nonlinear tridimensional finite element model was developed. This model recreates a five layer flexible pipe with two tensile armor layers, an external polymeric sheath, an orthotropic high strength tape, and a rigid inner core. Using this model, several studies were conducted to verify the influence of key parameters on the wire instability phenomenon. The pipe sample length can be considered as one of these parameters. This paper includes a detailed description of the finite element model itself and a case study where the length of the pipe is varied. The procedure of this analysis is here described and a case study is presented which shows that the sample length itself has no practical effect on the prebuckling response of the samples and a small effect on the limit force value. The postbuckling response, however, presented high sensitivity to the changes, but its erratic behavior has made impossible to establish a pattern.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Novistky, A. , and Sertã, S. , 2002, “ Flexible Pipe in Brazilian Ultra-Deepwater Fields—A Proven Solution,” Proceedings of the 14th Deep Offshore Technology, New Orleans, LA.
Braga, M. P. , and Kaleff, P. , 2004, “ Flexible Pipe Sensitivity to Birdcaging and Armor Wire Lateral Buckling,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2004-51090.
Custodio, A. B. , Lemos, C. A. , Troina, L. M. , and Almeida, M. C. , 2007, “ Recent Researches on the Instability of Flexible Pipe's Armours,” Proceedings of The 17th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, ISOPE, Lisbon, Paper No. ISOPE-I-07-373.
Troina, L. M. B. , Mourelle, M. M. , Brack, M. , Sousa, J. R. , and Siqueira, M. Q. , 2002, “ A Strategy for Flexible Risers Analysis Focused on Compressive Failure Mode,” Proceedings of the 14th Deep Offshore Technology, New Orleans, LA.
Brack, M. , Troina, L. M. B. , and Sousa, J. R. M. , 2005, “ Flexible Riser Resistance Against Combined Axial Compression, Bending and Torsion in Ultra-Deep Water Depths,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2005-67404.
Perdizet, T. , Leroy, J. M. , Barbin, N. , Le-Corre, V. , Charliac, D. , and Estrier, P. , 2011, “ Stresses in Armour Layers of Flexible Pipes: Comparison of Abaqus Models,” SIMULIA Customer Conference, Barcelona, Spain, May 17–19, pp. 1–14.
Sertã, O. , Fumis, R. , Connaire, A. , Smith, J. , Tanaka, R. , Barbosa, T. , and Godinho, C. , 2012, “ Predictions of Armour Wire Buckling for a Flexible Pipe Under Compression, Bending and External Pressure Loading,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2012-83482.
Connaire, A. , Smyth, J. , Nestor, R. , Tanaka, R. , and Albuquerque, E. , 2013, “ Validation of Solid Modelling and Analysis Techniques for Response Prediction of Deepwater Flexible Pipe,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2013-10750.
Vaz, M. A. , and Rizzo, N. A. S. , 2011, “ A Finite Element Model for Flexible Pipe Armor Wire Instability,” J. Mar. Struct., 24(3), pp. 275–291. [CrossRef]
Sousa, J. R. M. , Viero, P. F. , Magluta, C. , and Roitman, N. , 2012, “ An Experimental and Numerical Study on the Axial Compression Response of Flexible Pipes,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 134(3), p. 031703. [CrossRef]
Malta, E. R. , and Martins, C. A. , 2014, “ Finite Element Analysis of Flexible Pipes Under Compression,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2014-23192.
Burgoyne, C. J. , and Brown, I. F. , 1997, “ Transverse Properties of Bulk Aramid Fibers,” 3rd International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Vol. 2, pp. 35–42.
Zhu, D. , Mobasher, B. , and Rajan, S. D. , 2011, “ Dynamic Tensile Testing of Kevlar 49 Fabrics,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., 23(3), pp. 230–239. [CrossRef]
API, R., 2008, 17B Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The multilayered structure of a flexible pipe. Courtesy of Fernando Toni.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Lateral tensile armor buckling (Braga and Kaleff [2])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Radial tensile armor buckling (Braga and Kaleff [2])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

General aspect of the mesh (with shell thickness)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

One side of the model was clamped (external layers removed for tensile armor visualization)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

A displacement was applied on the axial direction, while the other degrees-of-freedom were constrained

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Side view of the polymeric layer showing the “sleeves”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Stress versus strain curve for high density polyethilene

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Stress versus strain curve for high strength tape

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Two pitches long sample, the moment before instability. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Two pitches long sample, after instability. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Two pitches long sample. Force reaction versus axial relative deformation for each layer.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Two pitches long sample. Resultant reaction versus axial relative deformation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

2.5 pitches long sample, the moment before instability. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

2.5 pitches long sample, after instability. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

2.5 pitches long sample. Force reaction versus axial relative deformation for each layer.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

2.5 pitches long sample. Resultant reaction versus axial relative deformation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Three pitches long sample. Lateral instability on the outer tensile armor. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Three pitches long sample. Lateral instability on the inner tensile armor. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Three pitches long sample. Force reaction versus axial relative deformation for each layer.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Three pitches long sample. Resultant reaction versus axial relative deformation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

3.5 pitches long sample. Lateral instability on the inner tensile armor. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

3.5 pitches long sample, outer tensile armor on the frame prior to instability. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

3.5 pitches long sample. Both armor layers during instability. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

3.5 pitches long sample. Force reaction versus axial relative deformation for each layer.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

3.5 pitches long sample. Resultant reaction versus axial relative deformation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Four pitches long sample. Lateral instability on the outer tensile armor. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Four pitches long sample. Lateral instability on the inner tensile armor. Stresses in MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Four pitches long sample. Force reaction versus axial relative deformation for each layer.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Four pitches long sample. Total force reaction versus axial relative deformation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Comparison between yielding times for each layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Reaction force x axial relative deformation curve for all five model variants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 33

Comparison between different machines

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In