This paper was presented at the 27th A“mIaI OTC i“ Houston, Texas, U.S.A., I4 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 During the late 80’s laying operatora were interested in extending
the operability of their laybarges with minor upgrading works,
Recent projects in the North Sea stress the importance of the while pipeline operators were at the beginning mncerned about
rationalization of &sign criteria for oil and gas submarine the pipeline integrity. Then the need to rationalize lay criteria
pipelines. From the revien of relevant literature it appears that a became a must for both parties. In fact, in some circumstances lay
key issue in this process is the introduction of strain based criteria were relaxed on the basis of mere engineering judgement
criteria, which have sometimes been advocated in the engineering and project experience. These objectives find scope in Joint
practice. In particular, this is relevant to pipelay conditions Indushy Research projects performed during these recent years.
which are a topical issue of the coming project scenarios. In fact, These projects aim at reviewing the design criteria established in
in some devebpment projects the allowance for higher strains on the late seventies by introducing limit state methods and
the overbend or high usage factors on the sagbend of an “S” lay reliability analyses, Sotberg and Bnrschi (1992).
span, is in discussion these days. In these circumstances, the
effect of the concrete coating, in terms of additional bending Further from study activities which were backing the discussions
sttfjkess and strain concentration at jield joints, may become very about the most appropriate criteria applicable to speciilc projeck,
important. it came out that upgrading of the laybarges was however
The scope of this paper is to investigate the flexural behaviour of necessary. A relevant example is the extension of the ramp and
the increase of the pulfing capacity of the tensioner system of the
concrete coated pipes outside the linear elastic range. New
C!ASTORO SEI laybarge in order to face projects like the crossing
advances in modelling the mechanical behaviour of concrete
of the Strait of Gibraltar, Baker (1995), and other projects irr the
coated joints are discussed. They account for the effect of the non
North Sea, Breivik et al. (1995) and Hauskcn (1995).
linear stressstrain relationship of the steel at kzrge usage
factorslcurvatures on the strain concentration at the field joint,
Irr the meantime new laybarges and lay equipment have been
An approach for the simulation of pipe string during laying and,
proposed in the offshore market, often claimed by lay Con@actors
hence, for the assessment of peak strains at jield joint, is finally
as being capable to lay pipes safely even in ultra deep waters. In
proposed.
some cases it is declared that higher level of strain on the
overbend with respect to the ones in force irr the current practice,
INTRODUCTION
are applicable, Vermeulen (1994).
The allowance for higher strains on the overbend or usage factors
In the early 90’s submarine pipeline technology has focused on the
on the sagbend of a “S” lay span is therefore a topical issue of
formrdation of new criteria for pipe installation, Bruschi et al.
current debates irr International Seminars and Conferences.
(1994). ‘Tlis interest was triggered by new projects of large
diameter submarine pipelines which are envisaged as being ready
Irr the case of extreme utilization of deformation capacity of
for operation in the second half of this decade, Ansebni and
pipelines, the effect of the concrete coating has therefore to be
Bruschi (1993). The installation requires the employment of the
taken into account, as strain concentration can be considerable at
most advanced laying equipment, sometimes even beyond the
field joints. On this subject, largely discussed since the beginning
claimed or experienced target capacity.
of the submarine pipeline technology, severaf studies were
491
. ..< c~lm OTC7858
proposed, e.g. Mousselli (1981), in order to rationalize an was investigated up to a maximum strain equal to 0.2Y0. The
appro~h that is not Yet mentioned in any design guideline, BSI bending behaviour of bare steel and coated steel sections, was
8010 (1993) and DNV (1981). developed as based on the following assumptions, Gaylord and
Gaylord (1968):
Experimental investigations regarding reinforced concrete mating
of adequate strength, Palmer (1982), entailing additional bending  the presence of the corrosion coating is neglected,
stiffness and strain concentration at the field joints, were rmnmlplane sections of steel pipe remain as such after
extensively carried out, see Jirsa et al. (1969) and Mogbo et al. deformation,
(1971). The experimental activities mainly focused on the  the steel has a linear behaviour,
integrity of concrete jacket in bending, and were mainly carried  the tensile strength of the concrete is neglected, and
out irr the framework of qualification of concrete coating  the characteristic curve of the concrete (in compression)
contractors from pipeline operators. follows a parabolic trend up to a maximum strain of 0.2%.
Lund et al. (1993) developed an approach to account for strain For a detailed description of the basic equations governing the
concentration at field joints in pipelay calculations, showing sectional behaviour, see Lund et al. (1993).
through examples the implications of this on the relaxation of
laying criteria proposed in some projects by the offshore industry, The present work extends the analysis to higher strain levels, i.e.
e.g. Sriskandarajah and Mahendran (1992). Lund showed that the beyond 0.2% as implied irr a potential relaxation of laying criteria
strain concentration at field joint of a concrete coated pipe, in actually in force. Therefore:
presence of high impos~d curvature at the stinger or higher
utilization factors on the sagbend, can jeopwdize the structural the nonlinear stressstrain relationship for the steel outside
integrity of the field joint. the linear elastic range, is accountcxl for (RambergOsgood
relation):
In these circumstances slotting of concrete would be beneficial for
the thickest concrete jackets. However, as confiied by “l
pipe, which express the limit bounds of the actual pipe joint the shift of the neutral axis in the direction of increasing the
behaviour. section of concrete in compression,
Tab. 1 summarizes basic parameters used for calculations.
Jn some circumstances it can be required to describe the sectionaf The evaluation o~ the bending momentcurvature curves for the
behaviour of the composite section in presence of a biaxial state of coated section implies the total collaboration between pipe and
stress, i.e. hoop stress. This behaviour under the action of concrete. In reality the concrete will gradually be involved as the
longitudinal and hoop stresses in the steel pipe can be represented distance from the beginning of the concrete at the field joint
by a yield surface according to Von Mises. increases.
From Fig. 7 is evidenced that two loading paths giving different
strain vectors are possible: BENDING BEHAVIOUR OF A CONCRETE COATED PIPE
 High internal pressure, increase of vertical diameter due to Fig. 8 shows the considered pipe element. The external loads are
positive strains in the circumferential direction. substained by the steel pipe at field joint and by the composite
 Negligible differential pressure, reduction of vertical diameter pipe in the remaining part of the joint. According to most authors,
due to dominant ovalization forces with respect to internal forces in the steel will be transferred to the concrete by
circumferential strain effects. means of shear forces between pipe and concrete and, inside the
concrete, from a fibre to the adjacent one. Shear stresses can be
An approximation of the nonlinear relationship between the assumed constant along the pipe length and varying across the
bending moment and the curvature in the presence of a hiaxial circumference. The redistribution of stresses will be completed
state of stress, can be based on the following assumptions: after a certain distance L, from the beginning of the coating (see
Fig. 8). This distance can be evaluated imposing that the full
 during the deformation, the steel pipe sections remain planar collaboration of concrete is reached from there.
and circular ovalization is neglected, Considering that the concrete does not collaborate in tension, the
the concrete jacket gives no contribution to hoop stiffness, equilibrium condition will be between Nc, the impression on the
the material is isotropic, and there is conformity between the concrete thickness, and the shear forces acting on the surface of
biaxial stressstrain relationship and the uniaxial one. the steel pipe in the compressed area. Nc can be expressed as:
the stress 08 (circumferential) is constant across the
thickness, and of (radial) is neglected, (4)
 the yield criterion of Hubervon Mises and the associated flow
rule according to PrandtlReuss are adopted, Mendelson
(1968). where L 1 is the txansfer length to be determined and ~ is the shear
force between steel pipe and concrete jacket; for other variables
For a given axial force applied to the section and a given internal see Figs. 2 and 8.
pressure the following approach is adopted to calculate the
moment  curvature relationship: 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 stressstrain (Rp.sirqz”) ~,,
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):
493
It is obvious that EJ, EJo and EJ* in the above equation can be
L, = Nc/(2nRP~m) (9)
considered variable as a function of the non finear bending
momentcwature relationship applicable to each pipe section
The above considerations are irr fine with the stateofart model. along the pipe joint, from the field joint to the mid joint section.
However there are some indications which are noticeable:
STRAIN CONCENTRATION AT FIELD JOINT
 Some experiences made with FE code, which are still in
progress, show a certain diftlculty to model the Ioads which are The strain concentration at the field joint can be expressed, as a
exchanged at the interface between the concrete jacket and the fwst approximation, as the stiffness ratio between the equivalent
steel pipe. Others found similar ditllculties, Endal (1994), bending stiffness of the pipe joint and the bending stiffness of the
using the FE code DIANA. bae pipe at the fieId joint:
 In the. past, pipeline engineers called to include strain
concentration at field joint, proposed a simple model based on a c= EJ*/EJ
shear transfer length in the order of two to three pipe diameters.
This was in line with the concept of pipeinpipe behaviour in It is obvious that C depends on the state of stress/strrrirs imposed
bending: the longer the pipeinpipe interference, the less the on the pipe joint, therefore is a function of the location of the pipe
differential bending between the two pipes. joint irr the deformed shape of the lay span.
 At extremum of pipeinpipe bending mechanics, if it is
assumed that no friction or shear transfer occurs between the Irr the “S” mode laying, two loading conditions are relevant
internal and external pipes, it will result that any differential
bending is opposed only by the normal pressure exchange a) on the overbend, the pipe deformation is in generaf controlled
between the outer waif of the inner pipe and the inner wall of by the stinger curvature, which imposes a limit to bending
the outer pipe, see Fig. 10. deformations;
b) on the sagbend, the pipe sag is controlled by the applied loads,
From the above , it appears difficult to state that the implemented both bending and axial.
shear force model is the unique responsible of the participation of
the cmcrete jacket in bending . This is an interesting field of For case a), the stiffness ratio can be defiied as a function of a
investigation and, possibly, new resuks wilI be presented quite given curvature; for case b), as a thnction of the applied bending
soon, Ness and Verley (1995a and b). moment. For basic data of Table 1 and bending curvature
relationship shown in Figs. 3 to 6, Figs. 11 and 12 show Ck,
It is authors’ opinion that, considering as well the results of Lund stiffness ratio in deformation controlled conditions, as a thction
(showing that at higher curvatures even for high shear transfer of increasing curvatures. Basically findings are in agreement with
capacity the transfer length is quite often longer than midjoint), the ones presented by Lund, further they are extendrd in the non
the assumtion of shear transfer completed at mid joint section, linear region of response of the steel. The stiffness ratio under
muld not be an upper bound of the increase of bending stiffness displacement controlled conditions shows a monotonic deereasing
due to concrete jacket. An upper bound can be assumed as for a behaviour and, at large curvatures it asymptotically reaches a
shear transfer completed for irrstance after three pipe diameters! minimum. ShouId the concrete behaviour at strains higher than
This conclusion at the moment supported by mere engineering 0.2% be considered as softening, the strain intensification would
judgement, gives some critical implications of the normalization show a constant decreasing behavioor till unity.
process of pipday criteria and, therefore, necessitates accurate
theoretical and experimental verifications. Fig. 13 and 14 show CM, stiffness ratio in [oad controfkd
conditions, as a function of increasing bending moment. The
Nevertheless, it shouId be stressed that applied loads during behaviour shown is quite surprising: for increasing bending
pipelaying are mainly in dynamic regime, and there are aspect as moments, CM t%st reaches a minimum then begins to rise
eycfic behaviour of the protecting coating (as a consequence of increasingly rapidly. Again, for a steel strained irr the plastic field
differential deformations between steel and concrete) and shear thus showing that, due to the steel strain hardening for irrereaaing
transfer capacity of the surface of concrete (Archer et rd., 1983, strains, the role of the compression capacity of concrete is
and Korruk, 1983), which induce to consider that, once the pipe increasingly important.
has left the stinger, after having been subjected to nominal strains
larger than 0.2’%,the residual shear transfer capacity is quite low Fig. 15 shows CM in the presence of a hoop stress. The trend
and only the ring stiffness of the almost independent collars of the shown in Figs. 13 and 14 is here enhanced by the reduced
cracked concrete jacket, still intact, should contribute to make the capacity of steel to marrtain an elastic behaviour at high moments.
concrete to participate to the bending of the joint. This means that, in case of high strength concrete jacket capable
For both options, shear transfer and differential bending, the to substain laying loads without loosing the capacity to participate
equivalent bending stiffness EJ* (see Fig. 9) is crdculated to the bending stiffness of the concrete coated joint, high usage
considering the pipe loaded with pure bending moment and factors in service conditions which we load controlled, may be a
equating the total energy to that of an equivalent pipe loaded irr serioos concern!
the same way. A Iinear variation of the curvature of the pipe With respect to this, it is important to consider that the response
inside the transition length can be assumed. The equivalent of steel at field joint is influenced by the presence of girth weld,
bending stiffness results to be:
OTC 7858 R. ~. L. WTALI
which is in general a ring stiffer than the adjacent heat affected and non linear behaviour, it is not straightforward that peak
zone and parent material (Denys, 1990), as well as affected by the strains on static condition occurs at the tip roller.
state of strain resulting from the load transfer of the Iocalized (in
the order of the diameter or less for large diameter pipelines) Figs. 17a and 17b show as wefl the variation of the state of strain
shear force exchanged between the steel and the concrete jacket at in the sagbend as a result of shrdlow water simulations for the 20”
the boundary of the latter, see Fig. 10. This may have possible and 4W, respectively. The same considerations apply. For both
implications in the development of plastic strains at the field joint cases the reference ]ay criteria is the traditional one for stwl X65
as the response to excessive curvature may show unpredictable based on bare steel pipe lay simulations, considering ccmcrete
patterns, strongly affected by residuaf stresses from welding coating as overweight maximum 0.290 overbend and 0.15%
process. Further from this it is obvious the importance of basic sagbend, see Bruschi et aL (1994). Figs. 17a and 17b should be
assumption mncerning the participation of concrete to overaIl obviousIy seen with the premise of an abnost intact pipe joint
bendirrg. leaving the stinger.
APPLICATION TO DETAILED PIPELAY ANALYSIS Figs. 18 and 19 show the variation of the peak strains in the
overbend and in the sagbend, respectively, as a function of
In the real world the participation of the concrete jacket to each different lay settlings, complying with different lay cnteriq a) and
pipe joint bending is more complex than the one envisaged by the b) are referred to 20 and 40’, respectively.
simple interpretative models based on a definition of stiffening
ratio. As an example, still being in principle correct that on the Each pipe joint has been described using four sections having
stinger the deformation is controlled by the overall curvature, it different bending stiffness: the field joirrt with bare pipe stiffness,
should be considered that different states of strain at tleld joint the central part of the pipe joint, 6.5m long, with composite
can be predictable in different locations, e.g. on a roller or in the section stiffness and, at both ends of the coated section the
middle span between two adjacent rollers (see Fig. 10). As well transition lengths, 2.5m long, with an equivalent stiffness defined
as load controlled condition in the middle of the lay span is assuming linear transition of curvafure between the field joint and
controlled by the lay pull which in turn influence the extent of the the composite section.
suspended part, more signi.flcatively than by the submerged
weight. There is an indirect relation between the applied Ioad and On this basis it results a peak strain of 0.25% in the overbend
the failure mechrmism. Due to this a full simulation of a precisely with respect to a lay nominal settling ensuring a nominal strain of
described pipelay (in terms of a series of segments of different the bare pipe of 0.2% (deep water laying) and of 0.3% in the
non linear stiffness for each pipe joint) is recommended. The sagbend with respect to a lay settling ensuring a nominal strain of
strains at field joint so calculated could be therefore processed the bare pipe of 0.2% (shallow water laying).
more preferably as peak strains than nominal strain multiplied by
a strain intensi~lcation factor, expressed by the stiffness ratio. As a generaI commen~
In the overbend, the increase of stinger curvature moves the
A series of pipelay simulations have been carried out to have a response in strain of the pipe joint definitely into the region of
measure of the relevance of strain intensification at field joint in plasticity. At the field joint, this fact is obviously felt in a
the overall state of deformation of the lay span. As a reference two severe way as shown by Lund in his papers. Here, a more
lay scenarios have been assumed for the application: comprehensive non linear anafysis shows more serious crmcems
than in the previous work.
pipe lay in shallow waters; In the sagbend, the increase of the usage factor quite
the severest strains are mainly located in the sagbend, for a dramatically moves the response irr peak strain at field joint to
pipe which has not been subjected to severe bending in the increasingly severe conditions with respect to what has been
overbend. shown in the overbend. This is due to the condition of
pipelay in deep waters; equilibrium, load controlled. The concentration of strain is
the severest strains are mainly located in the overbend, for a uncontrolled by any Iimiting boundary and the deeper the
pipe which will be less severely bent in the opposite direction penetration into the non linear field the less uncontrollable the
irr the sagbend. strain concentration. This is also reflected by the CM curves
previously given, which show how the non linear response
The pipe characteristics for 20 and 40” pipes are in Tab. 1; the makes the participation of concrete jacket to bending stiffness
thickest concrete jackets are applied to shallow water conditions increasingly important.
and, viceversa, the lowest to deep water conditions. As a reference
a freed ramp laybarge has been selected, which can be considered Fig. 20 shows the variation of peak strains in the overbend section
consistent with EMC CASTORO SEJ equipment. for the 20” pipe using an equivalent bare pipe modelled by four
Tab. 2 gives main parameters of lay simulation of pipe. Figs. 16a section having dtiferent steel wall thickness (referred to an
and 16b show the state of strain variation of the pipe over the applied bending strain of 0.2%] a non linew steel material
stinger as results of deep water simulation for the 20” and the 40, behavior has been considered. Comparing Figs. 20 and 18a it is
respectively. The strain profife can be viewed in two ways: evidenced that for nominal strain up to 0.2Y70 the two approaches
are almost equivalent in term of calculated peak strains, while for
 the situation at a certain point in time of the pipe lay, when one nominal strain higher than 0.2YF0 the approach based on the
field joint is just on the last roIIer of the stinger. equivalent steel waU thickness is more conservative, i.e. it gives
 the time history of the strain at field joint when it passes rise to high peak strain values. This result is affected by the
through dtiferent locations on the stinger. choice of the 0.2% reference bending strain .
From Figs. 16a and 16b, it can be drawn a new mncep for a pipe Moreover, considering the results of the laying analyses using an
s~ing characterized by a series of segments of dtiferent stiffness equivalent pipe steel wall thickness, it is suggested that the use of
an equivalent hending stiffiress relationship for afl the pipe joints
495
combined with a detailed pipe joint description for the critical these last years. We wish to acknowledge Sverre Lund, Richard
locations (stinger tip or sagbend section) could be a reasonable Verley and Odd Bjom Ness of STATOIL for the enriching
approach. discussion about the subject topic.
This paper moves fmm the findings by a previous paper by Lund Baker D.: “Pipefines Across the Strait of Gibraltar’’;Offshore
et al. (1993), and extends a simple model of composite pipe Pipeline Technology Seminar, Copenhagen, Febr. 1995
bending to the non linear field of the sectional response. The
definition of strain intensification is reviewed and a new concept Breivik J., Bruschi R. and Leopardi G.: “Troll Oljer@  A Unique
linked to the condition of pipe deformability, whether load or Challenge”; Offshore Meditemanean Conference, Ravema, March
displacement controlled, is introduced. 1995
A series of theoretical laying simulations have been performed on British Standards Institution (BSI): “British Standard 8010 code
fullnonlinearcharacterized pipe joint to show the implications of of Practice for Pipelines, Part 3: Pipelines Subsea: Design,
a new procedure to account for the actrraf distribution of stiffness Construction and Installation”, 1993
within a concrete coated pipe joint , Lower and upper bounds of
peak strains for a range of laying criteria  acceptable strains and Bruschi R., Dumitrescu A., Sintini L., Tura F. : “Laying Large
stresses on the overberrd and on the sagbend, respectively  are Diameter Pipefines”; ASME, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
given: their relevance is such as to motivate a further deepening of Engineering, Vol. V, 1994.
the subject matter in the perspective of normalization of pipe lay
criteria. Bryndum M., Bonde C., Hansen E. A. and Bruschi R.: “Pipeline
IrrPlace Stability on Emdible Seabeds”; ASMEOMAE
frr particular the findings of these simulations stress that the Conference, Glasgow 1993.
relaxation of lay criteria currently in force could create serious
concerns due to the achievable strains at field joint. Denys, R.: “The Implications of the Overmatching/lJndermatching
of Weld Metal Yield Strength”. AWS Microahmyirrg Conference,
Moving safetywise in the plastic region of the steel requires fwst Houston Nov. 681990.
more sophisticated calculation procedures of the assessment of the
achievable strains and, at the same level of priority, a more Det norske Veritas: “Rules for Submarine Pipeline System”, 1981.
comprehensive assessment of the actual capacity of the field joint.
Potentiaf strain ratcheting (Hassan and Kyriakides, 1992) in a Endal G. “Extreme Bending of Concrete Coated Offshore
narrow area where steel characteristics vary i.e. from the generafly Pipefirres”; in DIANA Computational Mechanics, G.M.A. Lusters
overmatched weld material tfuough the’ heat affected zone to the and M.A.N. Hendrits eds., 1994 Klewer Academic Press,
parent material may be a major wrncem. Final conclusions
relevant to the entity of peak strains at field joints are however Gaylord, E.H. and Gaylord, C.N.: “Structural Engineering
strictly linked to the interpretative model for the transition length Handbook”; Sdion 11, McGraw Hifl, 1968.
between the field joirrt and the fufly utilized concrete section, On
this cmcept it is based the participation of the mncrete jacket to Haasan, T. and Kyriakides, S.: “Ratcheting in Cycfic Plasticity,
overall pipe joint bending, Part IUniaxial Behavior, Part JIMultiaxird Behavior”;
International Journal of Plasticity, Vol. 8,1992.
It is therefore recommended to reconsider these aspects even in
the view of slotting requirements for the concrete jacket, Hausken, K. B.: “Technicaf Progressive Pipeline Design and
abandoned in the early 1980s, which on one hand reduce the Construction”; Gas Transportation Symposium organized by
irnportancz of strain intenshlcation and on the other hand appear Norwigian Petroleum Directorate, Haugesund 1995.
to clash with the need for the strong concrete jacket capable of
tackling impact loads from fishing gez, in the long mn. Jensen, J.J. : “Jmpact Strength of Concrete Coating on Pipelines”;
Behaviour of Offshore Structures (BOSS), 1976.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Jrsa, J.O. Wilhoit J.C.Aguire M, and Mogbo N.C. et ak “Effect of
The arguments described in this papers are authors’ opinions Concrete Coating on the Rigidity of 12 3/4JN Line Phe”;
based on continuous development work from different projects (Offshore Technology conference) OTC Paper No. 1074.
496
Kontrk, I. :“Some Considerations on the Effect of Concrete
Coating on the Pipeline Design”; ASMEOM 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) 4080 50100
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 momentcurvature.
with Concrete Coating  An Analytical Modef”; Abstract
submitted to OMAE ’95 Copenhagen.
[. ——————
xv
R, 1+,
& = concrete coated pipe curvature + FF .. —. —.r. =— 
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 steelconcrete 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 momentcurvature relationship for the 20” pipe Flg.6  Bending momentcuwature 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)
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 momentcurvature 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... –::_ \
6
,25,
H ,.,
\\
. ,,,
:
,. .,.
:::~ . . . . . . . . . . . .
,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 Pipeirrpipe 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’
.
 %% 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
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::::
/,,
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%.