OTC 7858

CONCRETE COATED SUBMARINE PIPELINES:

FURTHER ADVANCES IN STRAIN CONCENTRATION AT FIELD JOINTS
AND RELEVANT IMPLICATIONS ON STRAIN BASED DESIGN
R. Bruschi, L. Ercoli Malacari, E. Torsel.letti and L. Vitali - Snamprogetti S.p.A. Italy

Copyright 1995, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 27th A“mIaI OTC i“ Houston, Texas, U.S.A., I-4 I&y 1995

This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained In an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been rev[ewed by the OHshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, dcts not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not morethan 3C0 words. Illustrations may not be copied, The abstract
should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper Is presented,

ABSTRACT
Recent projects in the North Sea stress the importance of the
rationalization of &sign criteria for oil and gas submarine
pipelines. From the revien of relevant literature it appears that a
key issue in this process is the introduction of strain based
criteria, which have sometimes been advocated in the engineering
practice. In particular, this is relevant to pipelay conditions
which are a topical issue of the coming project scenarios. In fact,
in some devebpment projects the allowance for higher strains on
the overbend or high usage factors on the sagbend of an “S” lay
span, is in discussion these days. In these circumstances, the
effect of the concrete coating, in terms of additional bending
sttfjkess and strain concentration at jield joints, may become very
important.
The scope of this paper is to investigate the flexural behaviour of
concrete coated pipes outside the linear elastic range. New
advances in modelling the mechanical behaviour of concrete
coated joints are discussed. They account for the effect of the non
linear stress-strain relationship of the steel at kzrge usage
factorslcurvatures on the strain concentration at the field joint,
An approach for the simulation of pipe string during laying and,
hence, for the assessment of peak strains at jield joint, is finally
proposed.
INTRODUCTION
In the early 90’s submarine pipeline technology has focused on the
formrdation of new criteria for pipe installation, Bruschi et al.
(1994). ‘Tlis interest was triggered by new projects of large
diameter submarine pipelines which are envisaged as being ready
for operation in the second half of this decade, Ansebni and
Bruschi (1993). The installation requires the employment of the
most advanced laying equipment, sometimes even beyond the
claimed or experienced target capacity.
During the late 80’s laying operatora were interested in extending
the operability of their laybarges with minor upgrading works,
while pipeline operators were at the beginning mncerned about
the pipeline integrity. Then the need to rationalize lay criteria
became a must for both parties. In fact, in some circumstances lay
criteria were relaxed on the basis of mere engineering judgement
and project experience. These objectives find scope in Joint
Indushy Research projects performed during these recent years.
These projects aim at reviewing the design criteria established in
the late seventies by introducing limit state methods and
reliability analyses, Sotberg and Bnrschi (1992).
Further from study activities which were backing the discussions
about the most appropriate criteria applicable to speciilc projeck,
it came out that upgrading of the laybarges was however
necessary. A relevant example is the extension of the ramp and
the increase of the pulfing capacity of the tensioner system of the
C!ASTORO SEI laybarge in order to face projects like the crossing
of the Strait of Gibraltar, Baker (1995), and other projects irr the
North Sea, Breivik et al. (1995) and Hauskcn (1995).
Irr the meantime new laybarges and lay equipment have been
proposed in the offshore market, often claimed by lay Con@actors
as being capable to lay pipes safely even in ultra deep waters. In
some cases it is declared that higher level of strain on the
overbend with respect to the ones in force irr the current practice,
are applicable, Vermeulen (1994).
The allowance for higher strains on the overbend or usage factors
on the sagbend of a “S” lay span is therefore a topical issue of
current debates irr International Seminars and Conferences.
Irr the case of extreme utilization of deformation capacity of
pipelines, the effect of the concrete coating has therefore to be
taken into account, as strain concentration can be considerable at
field joints. On this subject, largely discussed since the beginning
of the submarine pipeline technology, severaf studies were

491
 . ..< c~lm OTC7858

proposed, e.g. Mousselli (1981), in order to rationalize an
appro~h that is not Yet mentioned in any design guideline, BSI
8010 (1993) and DNV (1981).
Experimental investigations regarding reinforced concrete mating
of adequate strength, Palmer (1982), entailing additional bending
stiffness and strain concentration at the field joints, were
extensively carried out, see Jirsa et al. (1969) and Mogbo et al.
(1971). The experimental activities mainly focused on the
integrity of concrete jacket in bending, and were mainly carried
out irr the framework of qualification of concrete coating
contractors from pipeline operators.
was investigated up to a maximum strain equal to 0.2Y0. The
bending behaviour of bare steel and coated steel sections, was
developed as based on the following assumptions, Gaylord and
Gaylord (1968):
- the presence of the corrosion coating is neglected,
rmnml-plane sections of steel pipe remain as such after
deformation,
- the steel has a linear behaviour,
- the tensile strength of the concrete is neglected, and
- the characteristic curve of the concrete (in compression)
follows a parabolic trend up to a maximum strain of 0.2%.

Lund et al. (1993) developed an approach to account for strain
concentration at field joints in pipelay calculations, showing
through examples the implications of this on the relaxation of
laying criteria proposed in some projects by the offshore industry,
e.g. Sriskandarajah and Mahendran (1992). Lund showed that the
strain concentration at field joint of a concrete coated pipe, in
presence of high impos~d curvature at the stinger or higher
utilization factors on the sagbend, can jeopwdize the structural
integrity of the field joint.
In these circumstances slotting of concrete would be beneficial for
the thickest concrete jackets. However, as confiied by
For a detailed description of the basic equations governing the
sectional behaviour, see Lund et al. (1993).
The present work extends the analysis to higher strain levels, i.e.
beyond 0.2% as implied irr a potential relaxation of laying criteria
actually in force. Therefore:
the non-linear stress-strain relationship for the steel outside
the linear elastic range, is accountcxl for (Ramberg-Osgood
relation):
“-l

experience and accepted by most offshore operators, Akten et al.

(1985), slotting clashes with the need to guarantee the integrity of
the concrete coating against the external impact loads (Jensen,
1976) in the long run and therefore clashes with the requirements
E=;
[
l+A —
CJ
Csy
1 (1)

of ensuring suitable weight for the on-bottom stability purposes where

during the overall pipeline life span, The increasing interest of the
offshore industry in this topic is priming the development of A = 0.005 ~- 1
experimental and theoretical activities in a more scientific way, W
which aim to satis~ the need of a better knowledge in this field,
r
Endal ( 1994) and Ness and Verley (1995 a and b), in the view of
In I EM 1
an overaIl rationalization.

The scope of the present work is the formulation of a design

approach which is consistent with the applicability of strain
criteria to the installation of submarine pipelines, in the presence the compressive stress on the concrete is taken constant for
of thick concrete coated jackets. In particular the behavioral applied strain exceeding 0.29.:
model of the concrete-steel composed section is described,
including the non linear behaviorrr of the steel and considering the
C+lo.(4.10 -’-&)E if E <0.270
coupling between axial and hoop stress, in the circumstance of in- (2)
service conditions. The latter is, in particular, actual in the a.~ if e > 0.2%
presence of a concrete jacket which mairrtains integrity after
laying operations, as required when the concrete jacket plays an
A cwr-qmsite steel concrete section of the pipe is represented in
important role in pipe protection against trawling gear impact
Fig. 2.
loads. On the basis of detailed laying simulations, it is pointed out
If &m is the modulus of the maximum deformation in the
the different impact of the strain concentration whether the pipe
laying configuration is controlled by the stinger curvature or, as it concrete, the strain,s, in a fibre at distance “Z’ from the centre of
occurs irr the sagbend, is controlled by the lay pull. the .~iDe.
. will be:
8=&m(z-zn)/(zn-I?c) (3)
COMPOSITE SECTION
where Z=rsin Q
During pipelaying, when the pipeline is severely benL i.e. on the
overbend and on the sagbend, the presence of concrete coated
The concrete will contibute to s~ength only on the compression
segments alternating with mastic fried pipe segments (field
sector while the reinforcing cage-s will contribute in both tension
joints), results both in an overall irrcrease of the stiffness of the
and impression sides. For a given curvature and axial load the
pipe string and in the intensification of the pipe curvature at the
equilibrium stresses on steel and concrete are determined. This
weakest sextion i.e. at field joint, see Fig. 1. These effects are
does not necessarily imply that sectionrd deformation of concrete
more marked the more the concrete thickness is.
jacket follows the deformation of the steel.
These effects have been investigated during a previous study,
Figs. 3 to 6 show the results-of calculations of the moment-
Lund et al. (1993), and from this the present study has moved. In
curvatrrre relationship for both the compmite srxtion and the bare
that study the behaviour of the composite concrete-steeI section
 OTC 7858 ..+ (“
R. ~. L, VITAIS

pipe, which express the limit bounds of the actual pipe joint
behaviour.
Tab. 1 summarizes basic parameters used for calculations.
Jn some circumstances it can be required to describe the sectionaf
behaviour of the composite section in presence of a biaxial state of
stress, i.e. hoop stress. This behaviour under the action of
longitudinal and hoop stresses in the steel pipe can be represented
by a yield surface according to Von Mises.
From Fig. 7 is evidenced that two loading paths giving different
strain vectors are possible:
the shift of the neutral axis in the direction of increasing the
section of concrete in compression,
The evaluation o~ the bending moment-curvature curves for the
coated section implies the total collaboration between pipe and
concrete. In reality the concrete will gradually be involved as the
distance from the beginning of the concrete at the field joint
increases.
BENDING BEHAVIOUR OF A CONCRETE COATED PIPE

- High internal pressure, increase of vertical diameter due to
positive strains in the circumferential direction.
- Negligible differential pressure, reduction of vertical diameter
due to dominant ovalization forces with respect to
circumferential strain effects.
An approximation of the non-linear relationship between the
bending moment and the curvature in the presence of a hi-axial
state of stress, can be based on the following assumptions:
- during the deformation, the steel pipe sections remain planar
and circular ovalization is neglected,
the concrete jacket gives no contribution to hoop stiffness,
the material is isotropic, and there is conformity between the
biaxial stress-strain relationship and the uniaxial one.
the stress 08 (circumferential) is constant across the
thickness, and of (radial) is neglected,
- the yield criterion of Huber-von Mises and the associated flow
rule according to Prandtl-Reuss are adopted, Mendelson
(1968).
For a given axial force applied to the section and a given internal
pressure the following approach is adopted to calculate the
moment - curvature relationship:
Fig. 8 shows the considered pipe element. The external loads are
substained by the steel pipe at field joint and by the composite
pipe in the remaining part of the joint. According to most authors,
internal forces in the steel will be transferred to the concrete by
means of shear forces between pipe and concrete and, inside the
concrete, from a fibre to the adjacent one. Shear stresses can be
assumed constant along the pipe length and varying across the
circumference. The redistribution of stresses will be completed
after a certain distance L, from the beginning of the coating (see
Fig. 8). This distance can be evaluated imposing that the full
collaboration of concrete is reached from there.
Considering that the concrete does not collaborate in tension, the
equilibrium condition will be between Nc, the impression on the
concrete thickness, and the shear forces acting on the surface of
the steel pipe in the compressed area. Nc can be expressed as:
(4)
where L 1 is the txansfer length to be determined and ~ is the shear
force between steel pipe and concrete jacket; for other variables
see Figs. 2 and 8.
Shear ixansfer is assumed to occur as follows:

a certain overrdl curvature, i.e. maximum longitudinal strain, 4 - T (y)= cmnstant along L1
E~m , for the concrete is fried; ‘T ((p)= linear across the compressed pipe steel
the position of the neutral axis, Zn is fiied, ranging from the section,
centre of the pipe up to the steel pipe radius and the strain
distribution in all section components is calculated; i.e.
the stress dishibution in the mncrete and in the reinforcement
cage are calculated using the non linear stress-strain (Rp.sirq-z”) ~,,
relationship of each component
the stress distribution in the steel pipe section is calculated ‘(’)=’”7E=T
considering the presence of the internal pressure through the
approach discussed by Bruschi et al. (1994); b) - T (y)= mnstant along L,
the axial load on the section is calculated considering all the T (q)= across the compressed pipe
constant (~m)
components (mncrete, steel pipe and reinforcement ca~es) and
steel section
compared with the acting axial force.
T(q) = ‘T= (6)
If they are not equal the neutral axis position is changed and steps
from 2 to 5 are repeated until convergence is achieved.
The bending moment and related curvature are calculated and i.e. the following expressions for the transfer length L1 are
steps are repeated to cover all required range of curvature. obtained, respectively for options a) and b):

Figs. 3 and 4 also show the crdculated moment curvature

relationship for both the composite and the bare pipe sections, for
the cases cm-responding to the 20’ pipe. It is evident that the role
of the hoop stress is that of anticipating the plastic flow in the
“=% ~,[z:($”;ji/pc
‘7)
steel; this fact increases the gap between the limit moment of the
bare steel section and that of the composite section, due to the Nc (8)
L, =
assumption of rigid-plastic behaviorrr of the concrete for strains
2RP T_ ;–qm
higher than 0.2%. Further the role of concrete in bending is
()
increasingly important for high hoop usage factor and this through

493

—- ———. .—=—_. __a— .—_— -

—.—_ _.__—_.. .
—— —a—=—.. —
-- .. =.= ._
Options (a) and (b) are consistent with the assumption of no
contribution of mncrete strength on the sector in tension. Further,
Lund et SL (1993) claimed that some experimental evidences
might induce to consider a shear transfer constant across the
entire circumference. This gives a lower bound for the transition
length based on such shear transfer model as:
L, = Nc/(2nRP~m) (9)
The above considerations are irr fine with the state-of-art model.
However there are some indications which are noticeable:
- Some experiences made with FE code, which are still in
progress, show a certain diftlculty to model the Ioads which are
exchanged at the interface between the concrete jacket and the
steel pipe. Others found similar ditllculties, Endal (1994),
using the FE code DIANA.
- In the. past, pipeline engineers called to include strain
concentration at field joint, proposed a simple model based on a
shear transfer length in the order of two to three pipe diameters.
This was in line with the concept of pipe-in-pipe behaviour in
bending: the longer the pipe-in-pipe interference, the less the
differential bending between the two pipes.
- At extremum of pipe-in-pipe bending mechanics, if it is
assumed that no friction or shear transfer occurs between the
internal and external pipes, it will result that any differential
bending is opposed only by the normal pressure exchange
between the outer waif of the inner pipe and the inner wall of
the outer pipe, see Fig. 10.
From the above , it appears difficult to state that the implemented
shear force model is the unique responsible of the participation of
the cmcrete jacket in bending . This is an interesting field of
investigation and, possibly, new resuks wilI be presented quite
soon, Ness and Verley (1995a and b).
It is authors’ opinion that, considering as well the results of Lund
(showing that at higher curvatures even for high shear transfer
capacity the transfer length is quite often longer than mid-joint),
the assumtion of shear transfer completed at mid joint section,
muld not be an upper bound of the increase of bending stiffness
due to concrete jacket. An upper bound can be assumed as for a
shear transfer completed for irrstance after three pipe diameters!
This conclusion at the moment supported by mere engineering
judgement, gives some critical implications of the normalization
process of pipday criteria and, therefore, necessitates accurate
theoretical and experimental verifications.
Nevertheless, it shouId be stressed that applied loads during
pipelaying are mainly in dynamic regime, and there are aspect as
eycfic behaviour of the protecting coating (as a consequence of
differential deformations between steel and concrete) and shear
transfer capacity of the surface of concrete (Archer et rd., 1983,
and Korruk, 1983), which induce to consider that, once the pipe
has left the stinger, after having been subjected to nominal strains
larger than 0.2’-%,the residual shear transfer capacity is quite low
and only the ring stiffness of the almost independent collars of the
cracked concrete jacket, still intact, should contribute to make the
concrete to participate to the bending of the joint.
For both options, shear transfer and differential bending, the
equivalent bending stiffness EJ* (see Fig. 9) is crdculated
considering the pipe loaded with pure bending moment and
equating the total energy to that of an equivalent pipe loaded irr
the same way. A Iinear variation of the curvature of the pipe
inside the transition length can be assumed. The equivalent
bending stiffness results to be:
hY. (2 A+2L1+ Lo)
~*= (lo)
[
~(Lo+2L,
El.
)+2A+
(
l-~
0 )1
L,
It is obvious that EJ, EJo and EJ* in the above equation can be
considered variable as a function of the non finear bending
moment-cwature relationship applicable to each pipe section
along the pipe joint, from the field joint to the mid joint section.
STRAIN CONCENTRATION AT FIELD JOINT
The strain concentration at the field joint can be expressed, as a
fwst approximation, as the stiffness ratio between the equivalent
bending stiffness of the pipe joint and the bending stiffness of the
bae pipe at the fieId joint:
c= EJ*/EJ
It is obvious that C depends on the state of stress/strrrirs imposed
on the pipe joint, therefore is a function of the location of the pipe
joint irr the deformed shape of the lay span.
Irr the “S” mode laying, two loading conditions are relevant
a) on the overbend, the pipe deformation is in generaf controlled
by the stinger curvature, which imposes a limit to bending
deformations;
b) on the sagbend, the pipe sag is controlled by the applied loads,
both bending and axial.
For case a), the stiffness ratio can be defiied as a function of a
given curvature; for case b), as a thnction of the applied bending
moment. For basic data of Table 1 and bending curvature
relationship shown in Figs. 3 to 6, Figs. 11 and 12 show Ck,
stiffness ratio in deformation controlled conditions, as a thction
of increasing curvatures. Basically findings are in agreement with
the ones presented by Lund, further they are extendrd in the non
linear region of response of the steel. The stiffness ratio under
displacement controlled conditions shows a monotonic deereasing
behaviour and, at large curvatures it asymptotically reaches a
minimum. ShouId the concrete behaviour at strains higher than
0.2% be considered as softening, the strain intensification would
show a constant decreasing behavioor till unity.
Fig. 13 and 14 show CM, stiffness ratio in [oad controfkd
conditions, as a function of increasing bending moment. The
behaviour shown is quite surprising: for increasing bending
moments, CM t%st reaches a minimum then begins to rise
increasingly rapidly. Again, for a steel strained irr the plastic field
thus showing that, due to the steel strain hardening for irrereaaing
strains, the role of the compression capacity of concrete is
increasingly important.
Fig. 15 shows CM in the presence of a hoop stress. The trend
shown in Figs. 13 and 14 is here enhanced by the reduced
capacity of steel to marrtain an elastic behaviour at high moments.
This means that, in case of high strength concrete jacket capable
to substain laying loads without loosing the capacity to participate
to the bending stiffness of the concrete coated joint, high usage
factors in service conditions which we load controlled, may be a
serioos concern!
With respect to this, it is important to consider that the response
of steel at field joint is influenced by the presence of girth weld,
OTC 7858 R. ~.
which is in general a ring stiffer than the adjacent heat affected
zone and parent material (Denys, 1990), as well as affected by the
state of strain resulting from the load transfer of the Iocalized (in
the order of the diameter or less for large diameter pipelines)
shear force exchanged between the steel and the concrete jacket at
the boundary of the latter, see Fig. 10. This may have possible
implications in the development of plastic strains at the field joint
as the response to excessive curvature may show unpredictable
patterns, strongly affected by residuaf stresses from welding
process. Further from this it is obvious the importance of basic
assumption mncerning the participation of concrete to overaIl
bendirrg.
APPLICATION TO DETAILED PIPELAY ANALYSIS
In the real world the participation of the concrete jacket to each
pipe joint bending is more complex than the one envisaged by the
simple interpretative models based on a definition of stiffening
ratio. As an example, still being in principle correct that on the
stinger the deformation is controlled by the overall curvature, it
should be considered that different states of strain at tleld joint
can be predictable in different locations, e.g. on a roller or in the
middle span between two adjacent rollers (see Fig. 10). As well
as load controlled condition in the middle of the lay span is
controlled by the lay pull which in turn influence the extent of the
suspended part, more signi.flcatively than by the submerged
weight. There is an indirect relation between the applied Ioad and
the failure mechrmism. Due to this a full simulation of a precisely
described pipelay (in terms of a series of segments of different
non linear stiffness for each pipe joint) is recommended. The
strains at field joint so calculated could be therefore processed
more preferably as peak strains than nominal strain multiplied by
a strain intensi~lcation factor, expressed by the stiffness ratio.
A series of pipelay simulations have been carried out to have a
measure of the relevance of strain intensification at field joint in
the overall state of deformation of the lay span. As a reference two
lay scenarios have been assumed for the application:
pipe lay in shallow waters;
the severest strains are mainly located in the sagbend, for a
pipe which has not been subjected to severe bending in the
overbend.
pipelay in deep waters;
the severest strains are mainly located in the overbend, for a
pipe which will be less severely bent in the opposite direction
irr the sagbend.
The pipe characteristics for 20 and 40” pipes are in Tab. 1; the
thickest concrete jackets are applied to shallow water conditions
and, viceversa, the lowest to deep water conditions. As a reference
a freed ramp laybarge has been selected, which can be considered
consistent with EMC CASTORO SEJ equipment.
Tab. 2 gives main parameters of lay simulation of pipe. Figs. 16a
and 16b show the state of strain variation of the pipe over the
stinger as results of deep water simulation for the 20” and the 40,
respectively. The strain profife can be viewed in two ways:
- the situation at a certain point in time of the pipe lay, when one
field joint is just on the last roIIer of the stinger.
- the time history of the strain at field joint when it passes
through dtiferent locations on the stinger.
From Figs. 16a and 16b, it can be drawn a new mncep for a pipe
s~ing characterized by a series of segments of dtiferent stiffness
495
L. WTALI
and non linear behaviour, it is not straightforward that peak
strains on static condition occurs at the tip roller.
Figs. 17a and 17b show as wefl the variation of the state of strain
in the sagbend as a result of shrdlow water simulations for the 20”
and 4W, respectively. The same considerations apply. For both
cases the reference ]ay criteria is the traditional one for stwl X65
based on bare steel pipe lay simulations, considering ccmcrete
coating as overweight maximum 0.290 overbend and 0.15%
sagbend, see Bruschi et aL (1994). Figs. 17a and 17b should be
obviousIy seen with the premise of an abnost intact pipe joint
leaving the stinger.
Figs. 18 and 19 show the variation of the peak strains in the
overbend and in the sagbend, respectively, as a function of
different lay settlings, complying with different lay cnteriq a) and
b) are referred to 20 and 40’, respectively.
Each pipe joint has been described using four sections having
different bending stiffness: the field joirrt with bare pipe stiffness,
the central part of the pipe joint, 6.5m long, with composite
section stiffness and, at both ends of the coated section the
transition lengths, 2.5m long, with an equivalent stiffness defined
assuming linear transition of curvafure between the field joint and
the composite section.
On this basis it results a peak strain of 0.25% in the overbend
with respect to a lay nominal settling ensuring a nominal strain of
the bare pipe of 0.2% (deep water laying) and of 0.3% in the
sagbend with respect to a lay settling ensuring a nominal strain of
the bare pipe of 0.2% (shallow water laying).
As a generaI commen~
In the overbend, the increase of stinger curvature moves the
response in strain of the pipe joint definitely into the region of
plasticity. At the field joint, this fact is obviously felt in a
severe way as shown by Lund in his papers. Here, a more
comprehensive non linear anafysis shows more serious crmcems
than in the previous work.
In the sagbend, the increase of the usage factor quite
dramatically moves the response irr peak strain at field joint to
increasingly severe conditions with respect to what has been
shown in the overbend. This is due to the condition of
equilibrium, load controlled. The concentration of strain is
uncontrolled by any Iimiting boundary and the deeper the
penetration into the non linear field the less uncontrollable the
strain concentration. This is also reflected by the CM curves
previously given, which show how the non linear response
makes the participation of concrete jacket to bending stiffness
increasingly important.
Fig. 20 shows the variation of peak strains in the overbend section
for the 20” pipe using an equivalent bare pipe modelled by four
section having dtiferent steel wall thickness (referred to an
applied bending strain of 0.2%] a non linew steel material
behavior has been considered. Comparing Figs. 20 and 18a it is
evidenced that for nominal strain up to 0.2Y70 the two approaches
are almost equivalent in term of calculated peak strains, while for
nominal strain higher than 0.2YF0 the approach based on the
equivalent steel waU thickness is more conservative, i.e. it gives
rise to high peak strain values. This result is affected by the
choice of the 0.2% reference bending strain .
Moreover, considering the results of the laying analyses using an
equivalent pipe steel wall thickness, it is suggested that the use of
an equivalent hending stiffiress relationship for afl the pipe joints
combined with a detailed pipe joint description for the critical
locations (stinger tip or sagbend section) could be a reasonable
approach.
The results of these analyses stress the importance of strain
intensitlcation irr the deftition of permissible strains in laying
conditions. Further stilf admitting that laying criteria currently in
force seem sometimes quite far from the rerd limit states of the
pipe, there are aspects as strain intensitlcation which, though
known, are not taken into due account in the modelling.
CONCLUSIONS
The participation of the concrete jacket to pipe joint bending is
growing irrcreasingly topicaf since offshore pipeline industry
requests heavy and strong concrete jackets for stability and
anticipated seff-Iowering purposes irr shalfow waters (Bryndum et
rd., 1993) and for pipe protection in area affeded by extensive
fishing activity.
This paper moves fmm the findings by a previous paper by Lund
et al. (1993), and extends a simple model of composite pipe
bending to the non linear field of the sectional response. The
definition of strain intensification is reviewed and a new concept
linked to the condition of pipe deformability, whether load or
displacement controlled, is introduced.
A series of theoretical laying simulations have been performed on
full-non-linear-characterized pipe joint to show the implications of
a new procedure to account for the actrraf distribution of stiffness
within a concrete coated pipe joint , Lower and upper bounds of
peak strains for a range of laying criteria - acceptable strains and
stresses on the overberrd and on the sagbend, respectively - are
given: their relevance is such as to motivate a further deepening of
the subject matter in the perspective of normalization of pipe lay
criteria.
frr particular the findings of these simulations stress that the
relaxation of lay criteria currently in force could create serious
concerns due to the achievable strains at field joint.
Moving safetywise in the plastic region of the steel requires fwst
more sophisticated calculation procedures of the assessment of the
achievable strains and, at the same level of priority, a more
comprehensive assessment of the actual capacity of the field joint.
Potentiaf strain ratcheting (Hassan and Kyriakides, 1992) in a
narrow area where steel characteristics vary i.e. from the generafly
overmatched weld material tfuough the’ heat affected zone to the
parent material may be a major wrncem. Final conclusions
relevant to the entity of peak strains at field joints are however
strictly linked to the interpretative model for the transition length
between the field joirrt and the fufly utilized concrete section, On
this cmcept it is based the participation of the mncrete jacket to
overall pipe joint bending,
It is therefore recommended to reconsider these aspects even in
the view of slotting requirements for the concrete jacket,
abandoned in the early 1980s, which on one hand reduce the
irnportancz of strain intenshlcation and on the other hand appear
to clash with the need for the strong concrete jacket capable of
tackling impact loads from fishing gez, in the long mn.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The arguments described in this papers are authors’ opinions
based on continuous development work from different projects
496
these last years. We wish to acknowledge Sverre Lund, Richard
Verley and Odd Bjom Ness of STATOIL for the enriching
discussion about the subject topic.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Alden H.T, Lund and MilIer D,M: “On Design and Construction
of Statpipe Pipeline Systems”; Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC Paper No. 4922,1985
Ansehni, A.. and Bnrschi, R. : “North Sea Pipe Lines: Meeting the
Engineering Challenges”; Pipe Lme Industry, January 1993
(Part 2)
Archer G.L. and Adams, A.J. : “The Behaviorrr of Cmrcrete Over
Thin Fihn Epoxy Coatings on Offshore Fipefines”; Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC Paper No. 4453, 1983
Baker D.: “Pipefines Across the Strait of Gibraltar’’;Offshore
Pipeline Technology Seminar, Copenhagen, Febr. 1995
Breivik J., Bruschi R. and Leopardi G.: “Troll Oljer@ - A Unique
Challenge”; Offshore Meditemanean Conference, Ravema, March
1995
British Standards Institution (BSI): “British Standard 8010 code
of Practice for Pipelines, Part 3: Pipelines Subsea: Design,
Construction and Installation”, 1993
Bruschi R., Dumitrescu A., Sintini L., Tura F. : “Laying Large
Diameter Pipefines”; ASME, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Vol. V, 1994.
Bryndum M., Bonde C., Hansen E. A. and Bruschi R.: “Pipeline
Irr-Place Stability on Emdible Seabeds”; ASME-OMAE
Conference, Glasgow 1993.
Denys, R.: “The Implications of the Overmatching/lJndermatching
of Weld Metal Yield Strength”. AWS Microahmyirrg Conference,
Houston Nov. 6-81990.
Det norske Veritas: “Rules for Submarine Pipeline System”, 1981.
Endal G. “Extreme Bending of Concrete Coated Offshore
Pipefirres”; in DIANA Computational Mechanics, G.M.A. Lusters
and M.A.N. Hendrits eds., 1994 Klewer Academic Press,
Gaylord, E.H. and Gaylord, C.N.: “Structural Engineering
Handbook”; Sdion 11, McGraw Hifl, 1968.
Haasan, T. and Kyriakides, S.: “Ratcheting in Cycfic Plasticity,
Part I-Uniaxial Behavior, Part JI-Multiaxird Behavior”;
International Journal of Plasticity, Vol. 8,1992.
Hausken, K. B.: “Technicaf Progressive Pipeline Design and
Construction”; Gas Transportation Symposium organized by
Norwigian Petroleum Directorate, Haugesund 1995.
Jensen, J.J. : “Jmpact Strength of Concrete Coating on Pipelines”;
Behaviour of Offshore Structures (BOSS), 1976.
Jrsa, J.O. Wilhoit J.C.Aguire M, and Mogbo N.C. et ak “Effect of
Concrete Coating on the Rigidity of 12 3/4-JN Line Phe”;
(Offshore Technology conference) OTC Paper No. 1074.
Kontrk, I. :“Some Considerations on the Effect of Concrete
Coating on the Pipeline Design”; ASME-OM Cotierence, New
Orleans 1984.

Lund S., Bruschi R., Montesi M., and Sintini L., : “hykg
Criteria Versus Strain Concentration at Field Joints for Heavily 5EF
Coated pipelines “Mechanics and Artic Engineering, Vol. V,
1993.
-
Wall Thickness (m) 0.0149 0.0242
Mendefson A; “Plasticity: Theory and Applications”; Mac Millan Corrosion Coating Thickness (mm) 6 6
Series in Applied Mechanics, 1968 Corrosion Coating Density (kg/m3) 1300 1300
Concrete Coating Thickness (mm) 40-80 50-100
Mogbo, N.C. Jirsa, J.O. and Wilhoit, c. et af : “Effective Stiffness
Concrete Coating Density (kg/m3) 30Q0 3C00
of Concrete Coated Line Pipe”; ASME Paper No. 71,1971.
Steel Grade API X65 API X65
Mouselli, A.H. : “Offshore Pipeline Design, Anafysis and Nomirraf Pipe Length (m) 12.2 12.2
Methods”; PennWell Books, 1981. Field Joint Length (m) 0.7 0.7
Concrete Strength (MPa) 40 40
Ness, O.B. and Verley, R. : “Strain Concentrations in Pipelines Shear Strength (MPa) 0.4 0.4
with Concrete coating “ - Full Scale Bending Tests and AnafyticaI Hoop Nress (internal pressore) 0.5 SMYS ).5 SMY!
Calculations”; Abstract submitted to OMAE ’95- Copenhagen.

Ness, O.B. and Verley, R. : “Static Concentrations in Pipelines Tab. 1 - Summary of data for bending moment-curvature.
with Concrete Coating - An Analytical Modef”; Abstract
submitted to OMAE ’95- Copenhagen.

Palmer, A.C.: “Concrete Coating for Submarine Pipelines”;

Magazine of concrete Research, VO1. 40, No. 120, September
1982.
1 I OD= 20” OD= 40”
Sriskandarajah, S. and Mehendran, I.K, : “Critique of Offshure
hse2 %el hse;
Pipclay Criteria and Its Effect on Pipeline Design”; OTC Paper
No. 6847,1992. Water Depth (m) lCO x -7 76
Sotberg T.and Bruschi R. : “Future Pipeline Design Philosophy - Concrete Coat. Thickness (mm) 80 40 lWI 50
Framework’; ASME-OMAE Conference, Calgmy 1992. Mass (kg/m) 400 630 1140 1710
Stinger Length (m) 110 110 110 110
Vermeulen, E.:”A New Approach to P@elaying in Deep Waters”;
Stinger Radius (m) 140 230 3C0 265
ASME, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 5, 1994.
Nominaf Strain Overbend (%) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
NomirraI Strain Sagbend (%) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
3365 1795 1373

Tab.2 - Summary of the main parameters assumed in the Iay

simulation of the bare pipe.

‘i”” Reinforcing csge

—
Global curvature s“”.
(stinger) Mc (concrete mated pipe) Neutral axis
Mf (bare steel pipe)
xJy = L&

[. ----———-———
xv
R, 1+,
& = concrete coated pipe curvature +--- FF .-. —. —.r. =— -

K, = bare steel pipe curvature

& = global curfature

Concr
K .E
&K. K, Pipe J Zone in tension, a< = O
curvature

Fig. 1 - Curvature distribution between field joint and coated Flg.2 - Representation of the composite steel-concrete section.
pipe relationship.

497
 :: ,. -:.-..,-..,,
.
12000.:’,
1“ ‘. ,,:>
,, -,.,=,., ,, . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
i

,,, I
403’.8
I ./ /
- ~~~ ;. .mmo,,~=c,,m. . .’. <

2000!
~Y ? ,
——

—-
aquwalent pipe
,,
COnlpowe Swt,m
.. . ..’

y,, :,,,, :,
“o 0002 0.M4 0.006 0,00s 0.01 0.012 0.014 0,016 onta 002
0
0 0002 n.m4 0006 0008 001 0012 0014 0,016 0018 002
Curvature (Ilm) Curvature (l/m)

Fig.3 - Bendirrg moment-curvature relationship for the 20” pipe Flg.6 - Bending moment-cuwature relationship for the 40” pipe
with 40mm of concrete coating with and without with lCOmm of concrete coating without presence of
presence of hoop stress, hoop stress.

,.

Ov I
o 0002 0,004 0.006 0,000 0,01 0.012 0.014 0016 0.018 002
Cunature (I:m)

Fig.4 - Bending moment-curvature relationship for the 20’ pipe

with 80mm of concrete mating with and wi~o-ut
presence of hoop stress.

14000
,,
::” ,.,
,. [
12000 : ~~~ ... ,., , ,, .,,., .,, ,,. . . ___
.. . .
t _-- .-’-”. ‘1

. . . ... .

1
,, .-l
I
I
o
0 0,002 0,004 0006 0,008 0,01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0,02
Cuwature (l/m)

Fig.5 - Bending moment-curvature relationship for the 40” pipe Fig.7 - Yield surface according to von Mises for the stresses in the
with 50mm of concrete coating without presence of hoop pipe wall. Loading paths (1) and (2) give different failure
stress. modes.

I 498

__—

—=
_—

—— —
9T~ 7858 R. ~ L, BRCOLI~. VITALI

1,55
.. .... .—. 20” concrete thckness 40 mm
_ Part in tension F = O 1.5 -. :.,.. _ 20-: concrete thickmass 80 mm -
\ ➤ “,” force \:
i, \ ......

\ ......
A----... ---”---”-” - ...
,.,. . .... ..

.(,/-
M
.. ....... ...
N

“:““””’
Q;_’”j
I
,..
!
115/ ~~~~ ~~~
Pari m compression - ‘<
*1
o 0.5 1 15 2 2,5 3
Curvature Curvature (O 2% strain)

Fig.8 - Schematization of the bending transfer from the steel F@ 11- Stiffening ratio, C~ in deformation controlled condition
pipe to the concrete jacket. for the 20” pipe with 40mm and 80mm of concrete
coating.

---.&
. El, - E.i: - E.1
---------- 4LT mncrete thckness 50 mm
Q
w 40-: concrete Ihmkness $00 mm

+———’—
,j “ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
‘-...
-.\. -.-. _._: _.-. _:-..G... --–-::_ \

y--’ ~-pti ,.,~ j..... . . . .. . . . . .. :..,,..

6
,25,

H ,.,

\\
. ,,,

:
,. .,.

15, t ~~ ~\\ . . ..’ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

:::~ . . . . . . . . . . . .
,1, ,,
—-— ___ __

!
EJ = Stiffness of steel pipe only 1 ,.
EJO = Max stiffness of he mmposite section 05’
0 0,5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 -n
EJ, = Variable stiffness behveen EJ and EJO curvature I curvature (0.2% stmm)
EJ’ . Equivalent s.tjffws.s

Fig. 9 - Equivalent stiffness of the pipe. Fig. 12 Stiffening ratio, Ck, in deformation controll~ condition
for the 40” pipe with 50mm and 100mm of concrete
coating.

7
—-— 20”: concrete thkkness 40 mm
!“
_20”: concrete thickness 80 mm -

.................... .. 4

~,%!d,oi.t
Conud.
4 l’-

-- _-,- I
1 z:~
0.4 0.6 0.s 1 1,2 - 14 1.6
Sending Momnnt / Bending Moment (O2 $&strain)

Fig. 10- Pipe-irr-pipe bending mechanics. Fig. 13- Stiffening ratio, CM, iQ load controfl~ ~rf~ltiofr for the
20 pipe with 40mm and 80mm of concrete coating.

499
 x 1 0“’
2,6,

“~
--——- 41T: concrete lhidmcms 60 mm ; , ,, I
,, 2,4 . . . . . .
145 .:.-. _40”:mncrote thickness Ioomm .. . . . . . . ;

t !, 1 22 -.. .

gz .

1.8 -’
I
1.6
.120 .100 .80 .60 .40 .20 0

I “. \ : /,/’

I
,, L------ ----- ---
o 02 04 06 0.8 1 12 1,4 16
Bending Moment aemjmg Moment (O z % S,ra,n)
Absc,ssa (m)

Fig, 14- Stiffening ratio, CM, in load controlled condition for the Fig. 16b - Longitudinal strain along the 40” pipe (case 2) over the
40” pipe with 50mm and 100 mm of concrete coating, stinger (maximum nominal strain 0.270).
2,4
---=20” ooncrete Ouckness 40 mm

I _ 2V concretethcknezs 80 mm : :/

t
/
.!$70 .300 +50 .200 .150 .100 +0

,
.120’
0,2 04 06 0s 1 12 1,4 .300 .250 .200 .150 .100 .s0
.350
Bending Moment I Bending Moment (0.2% strain) AOsassa (ml

l%g. 15- Stiffening ratio, CM, in load controlled condition for the Fig. 17a - Longitudinal strain along the 20 pipe (case 1) in the
20” pipe with 40mm and 80 mm of concrete coating in sagbend section (maximum nominal strain ().ls~o).
presence of hoop stress,
~x lo’
.

2,5 -,, ...--:--....-.’........:.. . ..; . ., .; . . . . . . .

% 2 “’””’””;”” “’”! .“””’ ““”: ““””” !“”” “’”

d
I ,5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;. . . . . . .

- %% 1
-01 I
./20 -Ioa .80 .350 .300 +?s0 .200 .150 .100

~ 0 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;. . . . .

~~””

.40
.120
.mL ~
.100 .80 -60 .40 .20 0 350 +50 ,200 .150 .100
Absassa (m) Absussa (m)

Fig. 16a - Longitudinal strain along the 20 pipe (case 2) over the Fig. 17 b - Imngitudmal strain along the 40” pipe (case 1) in the
stinger (maximum nominal strain 0.2%). sagbend section (maximum nominal strain O.15Yo).
9Tc 7858 R ~ L, VfTAL1 z

X1O’ Xlo’
5 5[ !
[

.-
Lo
OK ~;--’-:; .....-.------i..-...; ....I’......J....
.90 .80 .70 .60 .50 .40 30 .20 .10 0 -26o .240 +?20 .200 .180 .160 .140 .120 .100

,. ,.
~’ i
4=1
,3 . . . . . . . . . . . ... ,, ,, _ . . .
~ # +*Z.=” : 1
.>-/.y: .:... ., — O“2D%
=.20’
% ,.= ,3.’
9 . --- 025?.
.40+ ~-’ -
---030% ““ ‘-
0’

:Too .90 .80 .70 60 .50 .40 30 .20 .10 0 .240 .200 .180 .160 .140 .120 .100
.260 .220
Absussa Iml Absc[ssa (m]

Fig. 18a - fmngitudimd spain afong the 20’ pipe (case 2) over the Fig. 19b - Longitudinal strain along the 40” pipe (case 1) in the
stinger for different nominal strains: 0.2Y0, 0.25Y0,0.3570. sagbend section for different nominal strains: O.15Y0,
0.2%, 0.25%, 0.3%.
Xlo’
6
,.
y . . ..i . . . ......... .

g3} ,
ml

.100 .90 ..30 .70 60 .50 .40 30 20 .10 0

1
.s01
.100 .90
-.”

.80 .70 60 .50 .40 30 20 .10 0 .100 .90 .80 .70 .60 .50 .40 .30 .20 .10 0
AbscEsa (m) Absassa (m)

Fig. 18 b - Longitudinal strain along the 40’ pipe (case 2) over the Fig. 20- Longitudinal s~ain along the 20 pipe (case 2) over the
stinger for different nominrd strains: 0.2%, 0.2Y70, stinger using equivalent pipe steel wafl thicknesses for
0.3%. different nominal strains: 0.2%, 0.25%, 0.3%

,:=,
-. ...’,:
.,oo~-—--.-c::::c::::
/,,

:..l .....L...... .....

.260 .240 .220 +?00 .180 .160 .140 .120 .Iw .s0
Atscssa (m)

Fig. 19a - fmngitudmal sham afong the 20” pipe (case 1) m the
sagbend section for different nominrd strains: O.15%,
0.2%, 0.25%, 0.3%.