I~UTTERWQRTH

"~IE I N E M A N N

Engineering Structures, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 240-253, 1995

0141-0296(95)00023-2

Copyright 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 01414)296/95 $10.00 + 0.00

Mechanical behaviour of the metallic elements of submarine cables as a function of cable loading
G. Feld and D. G. Owen
Department of Civil and Offshore Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

R. L. R e u b e n
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
A. E. C r o c k e t t

Pirelli General plc, Eastleigh, Hants, UK

Submarine power cables are widely used for local and national distribution and it is of interest to know their mechanical limitations particularly with regard to the loads experienced during the installation process where static or low-cycle fatigue failures are possible. A detailed understanding of the global and internal mechanics of such cables is therefore of interest in order to achieve the required performance at reasonable weight. This paper addresses the relationship between applied loads and the responses of the metallic elements within typical subsea configurations. The existing theory on mechanics of cables of this type is extended to take into account strain distributions within helical elements and to model the interactions between loading modes as well as including nonlinear effects associated with plasticity in the metallic elements and compliance of the polymeric material within the composite constructiort. The results of a number of material tests are incorporated into the new analysis and the predictions of the model are also compared with measurements on the conductors of cables under conditions of axial and bending loading.

Keywords: submarine cables, cable loading, mechanical limitations

Subsea power cables probably experience their most severe loading during laying where static or alternating stresses can be sufficient to cause immediate or low cycle fatigue failure in all or, more likely, part of the composite section. To maximize the design efficiency with regard to such loading it is necessary to have a detailed knowledge of the stresses or strains in the components of the cable as a function of the globally applied load. A typical cable cross-section might be as shown in Figure 1 where the main metallic elements are the armour wires and the conductors which are usually wound in concentric helices about the axis of the cable. The presence of a number of polymeric materials and also the possible magnitude of some of the stresses means that deformation is not necessarily always linear elastic and the considerable differences in elastic moduli between components means that slip between different materials is also possible. The work reported here concerns the strains in the helically wound conductors and armour wires in subsea cables and the approach develops from the work of Knapp t-3 and Lutchansky 4. A. brief summary of the literature on the deformation of helical elements of flexible composite cylinders under tension and bending is given below.
Tension and torsion

The approach of Knapp 1 has been to consider the way in which a helix will deform when the imaginary reference cylinder around which it is wrapped suffers a global tension

240

Mechanics of subma~dne cables: G. Feld et al.

241

Steel a r m o u wi r re

the helix and the diameter of the wires themselves are small. It is assumed that any asymmetries in cable structure are not large enough to disrupt the helical form of the wires either before or after deformation. For the more compliant matrices involved in cables, as opposed to ropes, changes in pitch circle radius can become more significant and, for an incompressible filler, Knapp has given the linear helix relations shown in Table 2 assuming that the deformations are small and linear elastic. Further, the overall cable loadings can be expressed as a linear combination of the deformations of the various helix reference cylinders via a matrix equation [N] = IkH k~2/ [An] (1)

Figure 1 Typical cable cross-section

tk21 k22J A~b where kll are the submatrices of the stiffness matrix formed

Table 1 N o n l i n e a r helix cleformation relations a c c o r d i n g to Knapp ~

Helix strain Change in helix lay angle relations ,i = [(1 + c) 2 cos 2 a i + (1 - er;) 2 (1 + 7~i) 2 sin 2 (~i] v2 - 1 (1 + c)

cosa; = costa (1 + c~)

sina'i = sinai tana'~ = tana~

( 1 + %i) ( 1 - e,i)
(1 + c~i) (1 + %;) (1 - ~i) (1 +c~)

or torsional deformation. Table 1 summarizes the relationships derived by Knapp for the axial strain of the helix and for the change in helix hty angle for an overall cable tensile strain, ~, and an over~dl cable rotation per pitch length 27r%~. The initial and de:formed helix parameters are shown schematically in Figure 2 and this analysis has been used for wire ropes where changes in the pitch circle radius of

by successive substitutions of the strain and deformation equations into the basic cable equilibria.
Bending around a sheave In this work, developments for conductor strains under global bending have been based on the model by Lutchansky4 which describes the effects of toroidal bending on helically wound thin wires. An important aspect of Lutchansky's model concerns friction between layers in the cable construction and its effect on the distribution along the helix length of any changes in path length occasioned by the bending. The two limiting cases of zero and infinite friction correspond to an evening out of any net changes in path length over the helix length and the 'freezing' of local strains, respectively, the latter leading to a sinusoidal variation of axial strain along each lay length. For cases of intermediate friction (not covered by Knapp's model, although based on the same fundamental
Table 2
Linear helix relations for calculation of stiffness m a t r i x Ni = n.,AiE,~i

=i l~ (=%)
pi f =

p, (=%)

Helix constitutive equations

Mti =
Mbi =

Helix strain relations

Ca~= ecCOS2(Xi+ 7c#in2ai - e,~sin2ai Y; 2 [ sinz<x; 1 1]

~'bi = "~/s,n

y~ i E~I~ -~'bl Yl

a,~/~,

z.(t+7.],R I =
2 w(l 7d) R;(I-~ ) Figure2
Helix p a r a m e t e r s

Change in helix lay angle relations

r~ . I'sin(i cosa'j 1 sin c~/cosaA - - : - - - ~ " = & L s m m costa/3j c o s ~ = cosa,O + e~ - t:.i) tana~ = tan~,~ 1 + %i - ec)~]~ sina~ = sina,~l + 7c;- eoJ)/31

242

Mechanics of submarine cables: G. Feld

et al.

T------J
K (u - Up)dsc

k----

T +dT

Modelling of deformation of cable elements

The developments to the two above approaches addressed in this work are Empirical determination of the magnitude of the intercomponent friction Measurement of the effective compressibility of the polymeric layers Combination of the components of strain due to bending, tension and torsional loads Development to allow nonuniform strain distributions across the metallic cross-sections These developments are discussed below for each of the cases of axial, bending and combined loading.

Figure3 Lutchansky helical element equilibrium

ds,

Insulation
Conductor

/
t / di

u t~
d, ::

r~,LInsulation

ds
Cable centre-line

Axial loading
Based on the axial loading model described above, but employing a modified equilibrium equation, a nonlinear model has been developed encompassing nonlinear load deformation characteristics of the materials, large cable rotations, large reduction in pitch circle radius and changes in lay angle. The following assumptions have been made (1) (2) (3) (4) Helices have circular cross-section Wire diameter is much less than helix pitch Wires are homogeneous and isotropic Helical wires are equally spaced around their pitch circle (5) All layers are concentric (6) The tensile modulus of any polymeric material is negligible compared with the metallic materials For a cable undergoing tensile or torsional loading the axial helix equilibrium can be summarized by a generalization of the top equation in Table 2 to

Figure 4 Lutchansky element before and after deformation

assumptions), quantified by the interaction shear constant, K, illustrated in Figure 3, Lutchansky derived the axial helix strain from the corresponding stress o'o =

A(K)[a(K)[ 1___~ [Ie~'~"-'/J

cos0o + sin0] (2)

where A(K) and a(K) are functions of the shear stiffness and the cable dimensions and geometry at manufacture and 0 and 0o (final and initial positions) are measured around the cable circumference from the cable neutral axis (different from the original formulation of Lntchansky). Since then, a number of authors 5,6 have allowed for slippage when interfacial shear reaches a critical level with the inevitable result of hysteresis in the loading/unloading process.
=

N= ~
i=l

niAiEicai7
COSO/i

(3)

or, with a central core

N = AdEcec + ~
i=1

niAiEicai
COStal

(4)

The torsional equilibrium for a cable with a core can be summarized as

GcJ~ ~ n i GiJi = -Tc + T,cosa~ rc i=1 L ~ - / + - - ebi sinai + AiEiRjeai sinai

i i
Figure 5 Test sample for investigating conductor/insulation interaction

EiIi
Yi

(5)

Insertion of the relationships given in Table 2 into equations (3), (4) and (5) gives the stiffness matrix described in equation (1). Material nonlinearity in the metallic materials can be introduced by means of a secant modulus.

Mechanics of submatqne cables: G. Feld et al.

243

Bending loading
The imposition of a bend radius results in the following elements of deformation of the helical components An axial strain due to the local change in path length A bending strain due to the local change in radius of curvature A torsional strain due to the local change in radius of torsion Using the assumptions

Axial strain
A typical conductor surrounded by EPR will deform as shown in Figure 4 and the exact behaviour will depend on the shear modulus of the EPR (which in turn will be partly dependent upon radial pressure) and the maximum sustainable interfacial shear force between the EPR and the insulation (also partly dependent upon radial pressure). Assuming there to be no slippage and that the insulation is fixed, the Lutchansky K-factor can be expressed in measurable physical terms as

K=Gi.zr dl
(1) Wires are round (2) The geometry of deformation of a wire can be described by its cenlLroidal axis (3) Wire deformation is linear, homogeneous and isotropic these three components can be evaluated as follows tin

(6)

where G~. is the shear modulus of the insulation material of thickness ti. (Figure 4) and the Lutchansky4 equation can be used to calculate the axial strain away from fixed ends

~ START 3 f
m,,aold=dM= f~m mr-dmlM fik

]CABDAT [
Tl~

OUTCAB
Idl= mlde ,~, i=

=t~t rd=

y2DA T.
AXSU~L
liumlind

A X S U M N

L O A D D A T

m.-lhu~ ita-tti~ *ml mlutim

~CAI~

I"
00r s L
m'ite teummllly mgt~ tomtput ~le /

STOP

-+.
i __.. II

im,-4~md 1rod fih

Figure 6 Computer model flow diagram

244 UaK A I+AE ] UaG~r di tin

sinO

Mechanics of submarine cables: G. Feld et al.

a = [R 2 + (p/27r)2] 1/2

U = [R(p/27r)2]/[pa]
and R is the pitch circle radius (pcr) of the helix, the angle 0 again being taken as zero on the cable neutral axis in contrast to Lutchansky's original formulation.

a2 / sinO=)t sinO

(7)

+ AEJ
where

Bending strain
Following the approach of Knapp L-3 the bending strain for thin helical wires under global bending loading can be cal-

YES
p.

P O S D A T
read next 0 studmKiated Cs f r ~ pmtiou file

AXCIR N o
~culate beadiagdrain dw

OUTFOS
write rmults to output file for uch ~ c m ~ s t i m

B I ~ N D A X L
calculate am] strain due t~ beading st vummt 0 NO

B E N D T O R
it a m m t 8

B E N D B E N D ~,],te fmdi u g, tnin ~totmlq for m~

1,d currmt 0

bniml slam ,=a add drdu =0

@.

Figure 6

Continued

Mechanics o f subm~,rine cables: G. Feld

et al.

245

culated. The present treatment uses an altered transformation matrix which it is felt more correctly calculates the angle through which the radius vector of a section of helix rotates when the cable :is bent. Also, in view of the large diameter of the wires of interest here, the formulation recognizes that the bending strain will vary around the surface of a helical element7. The total longitudinal strain (measurable using strain gauges) can therefore be given by A(K) sin0 E,

lation. If a test specimen is loaded as in F i g u r e 5, then the shear modulus, Gi,, can be expressed as
r
Gin --

L(~d~)
--

~ltl,

= ~

\Trdi]

(11)

Experimental results, discussed later, give

Et

-- ~ a + bAr

psrwsin~b - (sinth costo - cos~b sinto)prw prw(sin4~ costo - cos~b sinto) + pps

6ts (8)

(12)

T o r s i o n a l strain

The torsional strain 2 is given by

e,i = y

(9)

where, Ar is the decrease in sample radius due to a radially applied compression force, i.e. the shear modulus will not remain constant when surrounding cable material compresses the insulation under axial cable loading. Substituting equation (12) into equations (6) and (11), therefore, gives an expression for the Lutchansky K-constant as
K = a + bar

(13)

where ~" and z' are the radii of torsion of the helix in the deformed and undeformed states, respectively, and y is the distance from the neutral axis. The radius of torsion of a space curve is given by Lipshutz 8
1

This can be measured experimentally with a sample such as that shown in F i g u r e 5. Thus, equation (7) can be used to calculate axial strain due to cable bending where slippage has not occurred. The total longitudinal strain under combined loading can therefore be found by adding the four components
E t = Eat + E b t + E a b + E b b

X' Y'Z" + X'Y"Z' + X~"Y'Z ' - X' Y"Z' - )g'Y'Z" - X"Y'Z'

(14)

A 2 + B2 + C2 (10) Once again, however, the compliance of the insulating material drastically reduces the maximum possible shear strain due to twisting. Witz and Tan 6 have suggested that torsional slippage is possible as well as axial[ slippage and the experimental evidence is consistent wida either this interpretation and/or attributing large (but not irreversible) deformations to the polymer material.

and this strain can be measured using gauges ,to test the predictions of the model. The calculation of the total longitudinal strain is an iterative procedure whose overall structure is shown in F i g u r e 6. A program based on this procedure was written to calculate cable strain and torque and layer load sharing under tension with the ends rotationaUy free or rotationally fixed. Also, longitudinal and shear strains can be calculated in the helical components for combined tension and axial loading again in the rotationally free or rotationally fixed condition.

Experimental work Combined bending and axial loading

Whereas the bending sl~:ain in wires due to applied bending is determined solely by the geometry of the cable and of the imposed bend radius, the axial or torsional strains are dependent upon conduc, tor-insulation interaction which is, in turn, influenced by any global axial loading. It is therefore necessary to consider this interaction if there is combined global bending and axial loading. Thus, the effects from tensile loading which need to be carried over to the bending analysis are (1) Radial pressure exerted by external layers (2) Change in helical per due to tension (3) Change in lay ang]Le due to tension As indicated in equation (6), the Lutchansky K-constant can be expressed in terms of the shear modulus of the insuTwo types of experiment have been carried out in support of the model described above. The first of these are experiments designed to assess fundamental material properties

steel

3 O O
stress

(Nlmm2)
200

/,/
Y
1000
20OO 3OOO strain (rnicrostraln) 4O00

100

Figure 7 Representative material R a m b e r g - O s g o o d curves

246

Mechanics o f submarine cables: G. r e i d

Test r e g i m e f o r cables w i t h 70 m m 2 c o n d u c t o r c r o s s - s e c t i o n s Cable t y p e 70 m m 2 70 m m 2 n o a r m o u r Test r e g i m e

et al.

Table 3

S a m p l e no. I

Tension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T : rot. fixed : rot. free

T e n s i o n 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 T : rot. f i x e d : rot. free

II

70 m m 2 70 m m 2 n o a r m o u r

Bending 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.35, 2 metres radii Bending 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.35, 2 metres radii

for input into the model and the second are tests on complete cables or subassemblies designed to validate the model output. The first category included tension tests carded out on samples of the metallic materials involved in cable construction to obtain a Ramberg-Osgood description of the material deformation characteristics. Representative stressstrain curves for the copper conductors and steel armour wire are given in Figure 7. In addition, experiments were carded out to determine the shear and compression moduli of the insulation material and also to determine the maximum sustainable interfacial shear. Figure 8 illustrates the dependence of the Lutchansky K-constant on the decrease in sample radius due to a radially applied compression force. Cable tests were carried out on 7 m length samples under tension in both rotationally fixed and rotationally free conditions and under pure bending and combined bending and tension in the rotationally fixed condition. Some secondary
250

tests were also performed on cables from which the armour had been removed and on an assemblage of three conductors from one of the cable samples. The cable tests were designed to ascertain The overall cable deformations under axial tension in the rotationally fixed and rotationally free conditions The strains suffered by helical components under axial loading and bending The movements of helical conductors within cables under axial loading and bending The effects of repeated loadings on the behaviour of both the cable and its internal metallic elements In all, four cable samples were tested, two involving 70 mm 2 conductors and two involving 80 mm 2 conductors. The cross-sections of the two types of cable were very similar, both consisting of three helically wound conductors and a contra-helically wound armour layer. The structure is

200

O O O I , J O o

150

o/ U
]

X
0 o

100

o//

50

J
0.25

J
0
E q u e L t o n of l t n e o f b e e t fit: r= 2 3 + l i P 9 x

0.00

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

DELTA R (ram) Figure 8 Variation of Lutchansky K-constant with radial compression of sample. ( sample 5; (FI) sample 6; ( ~ ) sample 7; (A) sample 8
) line of best fit; (A) samples 1-4 mean; (O)

Mechanics of submarine cables: G. /reid e t al. Table 4 Test regime for cables with 80 m m 2 conductor cross-sections
Sample no. III Cable type 80 m m 2 Test regime Tension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T: rot. fixed 9 cycles 1-6T: rot. fixed Tension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T: rot. fixed Flexed t o 6 m b . r . @ : 1 T r o t . fixed : 2T rot. fixed : 3T rot. fixed : 4T rot. fixed : 5T rot. fixed : 6T rot. fixed

247

IV

80 m m 2

Tension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T: rot. fixed Flexed to 6 m b.r. @ : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T: rot. fixed 4 m b.r. @ : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T: rot. fixed 3 m b.r. @ : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T: rot. fixed 2 m b.r. @ : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T: rot. fixed Tension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6T: rot. fixed 7500 cycles flexed to 2 m b.r. @ : 6T rot. fixed Tension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: rot fixed 20 cycles 1-10T: rot. fixed 650 cycles flexed to 2 m b.r. @ : 2T rot. fixed 5 m b.r. @ : 2T rot. fixed 8 m b.r. @ : 2T rot. fixed 9 m b.r. @ : 2T rot. fixed Tension 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: rot. fixed 2 cycles 1-15T: rot. fixed
or o.f.

IV

80 mm 2 no armour 80 mm 2 no armour

80 m m 2 one cond.

Tension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5T: rot. fixed Tension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5"I": rot. fixed Tension 1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6T: rot. fixed : rot. free

almost symmetrical, the only disruption to this being a small bundle of optical fibres as shown in Figure 1. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the test regimes for each of the four samples. Numerous single leg strain gauges (active grid length 3.18 mm and width 2.54 mm) and 45 rosette gauges (active grid length 2 mrn and 0.9 mm wide) were attached around the cable and individual wire sections. An example of the coverage is given in Figure 9. As mentioned above, a number of tests were carried out with the armouring removed for the purpose of assessing the relative effects of the two polymeric layers, Layer 1 being that material inside the conductor helices and Layer 2 being that between the armour helices and the conductor helices. Bending tests were generally carried out in a number of different circumfe~rential orientations the object being to observe the symmetry of the measurement system and hence the accuracy with which gauge positioning was known. The combined bending and axial loading tests were carded out using the test rig illustrated in Figure 10. The test rig was moved laterally to deform the cable's central section to conform to its own bend radius. The ends of the cable were able to swivel as indicated in the figure, and an oil reservoir enabled the axial hydraulic ram to maintain a constant axial load during the loading process. The cable results were recorded as total longitudinal strain as a function of loading condition and position in the cable. Figure 11 shows a typical set of results for two of the gauge positions in Sample IV when bent to 2 m bend radius for various levels of tension. The (relatively small) hysteretic effect is illustrated in Figure 12 for the same cable flexed repeatedly to a 2 m bend radius with an applied tension of 9 t.

Discussion
A number of interesting points regarding the suitability of the model and also some issues which might impinge upon the design of submarine cables arise from the above experiments. Only a few of these will be raised here to illustrate the desirability of an analytical, rather than a numerical, solution to the stress analysis problem. Figure 13 shows some conductor strains for tensile loading of cable samples with 80 mm 2 conductors along with the calculated strains for a range of values of the compressibility of polymer Layer 2 as identified above (on the assumption that the compressibility of Layer 1 is unaltered by the removal of the armour). One immediately apparent feature is that the cable behaviour changes with the number of tensile cycles which have been applied and also that this is different between the two samples of the same type of cable. There is nevertheless a consistent trend towards a low value of Layer 2 compressibility and this trend appears to be cycle-dependent rather than time dependent. This type of behaviour is consistent with the suggestion that voids inherent in the cable structure at manufacture are gradually filled with polymeric material in an irreversible fashion so that the cable eventually becomes mechanically 'conditioned'. As this process occurs, the Api values tend towards a value of 0.5 (corresponding to an incompressible material) from the higher, more arbitrary, values which reflect the presence of an indeterminate number of voids in the initial structure. Although not illustrated in Figure 13, the strains measured on the conductors themselves decrease with time, the implication being that the load-sharing between the armour and the conductors also varies as the cable 'settles in'. In this particular case, the armour takes

248

Mechanics of submarine cables: G. Feld et al.

Viewtow=~ re= e=l

Figure9 Circumferential gauge measurement positions for Sample IV. (@) single gauges; (41~) gauge rosettes

Cable termlncrtlon

Axial hydraulic ram

~,
[,4}
I/-

Test speclmen~

Longitudinal hyclraullc ram

Frame ~ """

<

)"

Former

Figure 10 Axial/bending test rig

Mechanics of submarine cables: G. Feld et al.

2000 1750 1500 1~
GAUGE E8

249 ing the flexing operation is shown plotted against the axial load. Although gauges at different positions record different strains, the increments due to flexing remain fairly constant with axial loads up to 9 t and bend radii down to 2 m. The theoretical values of such increments are calculated to be no more than 150/ze, again highlighting the relative unimportance of the axial component with regard to the bending component of the conductor strain due to cable bending, even in cases where a substantial axial load is present. The theoretical range of values for the 6 m bend radius is ___850/xc and 2300/.~c for the 2 m bend radius. The strains recorded are within the theoretical units as reference to Figure 15 reveals. Figure 11 also shows combined bending and tension during flexure cycles with different axial tensions. The absence of any sudden changes which might be indicative of slippage implies that the maximum shear interaction force has not been overcome during these experiments and hence hysteresis of the nature described previously is not evident.
Conclusions

.V-W-W-T-~ "/
-\

f*-V-V-V i t ~

'

1000

" ' ~/

=o

N ?,,__/
I
0 5 10 15 20 25
0

.o

TIMi:" (SEES)

1250

GAUGE GI2

750
500
=50

"~

]L/~t'~=~7"~-

z
o

91

-1000

10

15

20

25

TIME (SI:'CS)

Figure 11 Variation in strain for two of the gauges on Sample IV during flexing to 2 m with different axial tensions. (O) 2 t; (e) 5t; (A) 8t; (V) 9t

a greater percentage of the load as the cable ages but the effect of this on conductor strains is rather less than the 'conditioning' effect described above. Figure 14 shows the measured total strains in the samples with 70 mm 2 conductors under pure bending, strain being recorded in the conductor which is oriented at the 90 position (outside the bend). The dotted lines show the calculated bending component of the strain. Despite some scatter (due principally to the difficulty of accurately identifying the location of the gauges in the complicated threedimensional geometry), the overall pattern of measured strain around a section of the conductor circumference is very similar to that calculated for the bending component. The vertical difference between the two sets of curves can be attributed to the actual axial strain due to bending experienced by the conductor at the outside of the cable bend. The magnitude of this displacement indicates that the bending strain is of considerably more significance than the axial strain with this type of cable and loading condition. Theoretical values vary from about 30/~E at 6 m bend radius to about 90/xc at 2 m and these are certainly of the same order as those indicated in Figure 14. Figure 15 illustrates ~ae effect of superimposing bending onto an axially loaded cable and the increase in strain dur-

An analytical (although iterative) method has been presented for the calculation of strains in the helical elements of submarine cables which takes into account material and cable nonlinearities and incorporates a measured parameter for interfacial effects between conductors and insulation. This model has been validated against measurements on whole cables under tension, bending and combined bending and tension. Useful predictions can be made over the cable loading range 0 - i 0 t and down to 2 m bend radius although 'the model as it stands does not adequately cater for axial strains due to bending for external elements, cables with substantially asymmetric cross-sections or cables with cylindrical elements. The presence of voids within the cable resulting from the manufacturing process is thought to be responsible for significant and unpredictable changes in cable behaviour and load sharing. The presence of such voids can be catered for in the design of cables by independent variation of the two polymer layer compressibilities and the extremes which any given cable is likely to experience can be calculated. Changes in the compliance of the insulation material are also likely to affect cable behaviour, primarily during bending. In cables of the type tested here, the low shear modulus of EPR causes a considerable reduction in the strains experienced by conductors compared with those which might be expected for a conductor 'frozen' into position during cable flexing.
Notation
a

ai

A b

intercept of load-displacement graph of axially-loaded insulation/conductor sample (R~ + (pi/27r)2) in wire cross-sectional area slope of load--displacement graph of axiallyloaded insulation/conductor sample intercept of maximum sustainable shear stress graph for insulation/conductor interface slope o f maximum sustainable shear stress graph for insulation/conductor interface diameter

250
800

Mechanics of submarine cables: G. Feld

et al.

'

,.

I \\ ~ ..., =~ ~'
~
~
, ,

I i ' I
t
j

I l

.', i;,
400
"' 200 !;
,

/ /

I
i
t

~L

z n," 1-03 -200

':~
,

'

!'

~,

,
I "0, a

ii

',
,

i
t ~ I

'
,

-400

~ I

'.

i I
I

:,

~,

~
I
~

t I
I

-600

"' :' ' , ~'~,i' V " 0 5 10 15

'".,'

i;
~

~ : ,~
,

~
'-~

' ~. ,.~ ' ,',.i

~'
20 25 30 35

-800

40

45

READING NO.
F i g u r e 12 T i m e history of strain m e a s u r e d at g a u g e AI on S a m p l e IV o v e r f o u r cycles of fl e xu re to 2 m b e n d radius w i t h a p p l i e d t e n s i o n of 9 t. ( ) 0 - 4 5 s; ( - - - ) 1 8 0 - 2 2 4 s; ( .... ) 7 7 9 - 8 2 3 s; ( ...... ) 1978-2022 s

OSc
dT
e

E F

Fr
G G' H I J
kii

K K l

l,
L

Lc
Ls m M n n N N' NF P

Pc
r

incremental path length incremental change in wire tension Ramberg-Osgood strain wire modulus of elasticity force applied to helix/cable/compression sample total radial compression force per unit length of helix radial compression force exerted by a helix shear modulus flexural couple torsional couple wire second moment of area wire polar moment of area stiffness matrix elements Lutchansky interaction shear stiffness Ramberg-Osgood shape parameter length of wire in one pitch length sample length test load cable sample length material specimen sample length number of helical layers in cable wire twisting or bending moment Ramberg-Osgood shape parameter number of wires in a layer axial load shearing force axial load function pitch length radial pressure on core radius of wire

R Rc Rcc s t T TF u
up

U x,y
X,Y,Z X',Y',Z'

X", etc. X", etc. y

wire pitch circle radius (per) radius of polymer core radius of rigid core Ramberg-Osgood stress thickness axial torque axial torque function local displacement of a helical wire along its path core displacement due to plane section bending [R(p/2 ~r)2]pa Cartesian co-ordinates of a point within a wire Cartesian co-ordinates of a point within a cable first differential of X,Y,Z w.r.t, angular position second differential of X,Y,Z w.r.t, angular position third differential of X,Y,Z w.r.t, angular position radius of wire

Greek symbols a wire lay angle measured from longitudinal axis /3 ratio of final wire per to initial wire per 7 wire rotational strain 7 interface shear strain %; cable rotation per pitch length of helix i 6 test sample end displacement

Mechanics of submarine cab/es: G. Fe/d et al.

CABLlg 8TR&IN8

251
K

1750 1500 1250 1000

Z

R/(R= t a n a )
mean compression coefficient radial strain coefficient Poisson's ratio wire radius of curvature stress shear stress wire radius o f torsion angle around wire circumference angle of rotation of wire radius of curvature vector

)t A
1)

P
Or

<=

/ /Y

750 500

6
o0

Subscripts
a b c
0 2 4
6 8

10

12

14

16

LOAD(TONNES)
C0NDUCTOR STRAIN tq

i,k in
p r s t w

lo0o
,oo

~/

/' -

axial bending core, cable wire number insulation polymer radial straight cable torsional wire

Superscripts

o. "

400

s ' ' " " '

secant modulus d i m e n s i o n after deformation first differential second differential third differential after loading

200

References
1 2 Knapp, R. H. 'Derivation of a new stiffness matrix for helically armored cables', Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng 1979, 14, 515-529 Knapp, R. H. 'Simple bending models for helically armored cables',

,t

10

12

14

16

Proc. Second Int. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symp.

ASME, New York, 360-364, 1983 Knapp, R. H. 'Helical wire stresses in bent cables', ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Engng 1988, 110, 571-577 4 Lutchansky, M. 'Axial stresses in armour wires of bent submarine cables'. ASME J. Engng for Industry 1969, 91, 687-693 5 Hale, A. L. 'The inelastica - the effect of internal friction on the shape and tension of a bent cable', Proc. 33rd Int. Wire and Cable Symp. Electronics Command, RenD, Nevada, 1984, pp 237-243 6 Witz, J. A. and Tan, Z. 'On the flexural structural behaviour of flexible pipes, umbilicals and marine cables' Marine Struct. 1992, 5 (2 and 3), 229-249 7 Feld, G., Reuben, R. L., Owen, D. G. and Crockett, A. E. 'Power cable and umbilicals - conductor strains under pure bending' Proc. First Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf. Edinburgh, Vol. 2 1991, pp 228-235 8 Lipshutz, M. M. Differential geometry McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969 3

LOAD (TONNES)

Figure 13 Measured and calculated strains for Samples III and

IV in rotationally fixed condition using a range of values for compressibility of outer polymer layer. Theoretical )tp=: (O) 0.5; (r-I) 5.0; ( ~ ) 10.0; (V) 15.(3; (A) 20.0. Experimental: (&) Sample III first pull (0 min); (11) Sample III 11th pull (0 min); (O) Sample IV first pull (0 mins); (V) Sample IV final pull (0 min)

Au

Aq~
U

/9

cable extension cable rotation strain angle around cable circumference compression modulus o f insulation material

252
3000

Mechanics of submarine cables: G. Feld et al.

2500

2000

1500
ivI-0"t

II I

o n-

o
Z m

1000

~E

,Y
1-03

500

4
0

-500

-1000 -50 0 50 100 150 200

PHI (DEGREES) Figure 14 Strain distribution around conductor at outside of bend for different cable bend radii (Samples I and II). Bend radius: (0) 6 m; ( ~ ) 5 m; (A) 4 m; (I-1) 3 m; (V) 2.35 m; (O) 2 m; ( - - - ) predicted bending strains

a
800
600

i
() E).....----C).----_.._. p__~--.( )----.----(

G3
A1

00

200

<
p-

~
-200 -400 -600

,1./

'
~,~,

AX E
.~ n l R

u~

-800 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

AXIAL LOAD(TONNES)

Figure 15 Measured increment in strain brought about by flexure imposed on various axial loads. (a) Flexure in Sample III to 6 m
bend radius

Mechanics of submarine cables: G. Feld et al.

1000

253

~ '-------'--- ~-----V

~
500

A3 B5

( ]AMPLE I' ,)
:~L ~,=,,

-500
tic I-O~

~ID-------

-1000 --v----- / -1500

~....-V B4

~ m
i-0

At
FIO

-2000 0 2 + 6 8 10

LOAD (TONNES)

Figure 15 Measuredincrement in strain brought about by flexure superimposed on various axial loads. (b) Flexure in Sample IV to 2 m bend radius