Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Analysis of flexural behaviour of reinforced thermoplastic pipes

considering material nonlinearity
Kuang Yu a, E.V. Morozov a,⇑, M.A. Ashraf a,b, K. Shankar a
a
School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
b
Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced Composite Structures, 1/320 Lorimer Street, Port Melbourne, Victoria 3207, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reinforced thermoplastic pipes (RTPs) are considered as prospective alternatives to traditional steel pipes
Available online 16 September 2014 in different offshore oil and gas applications due to their attractive properties. The spoolable versions of
these pipes can be efficiently installed by the reel-lay method with relative ease. Nonlinear flexural
Keywords: behaviour of RTPs composed of a liner made of pipe grade polyethylene (PE), aramid fibre reinforced
Reinforced thermoplastic pipe PE layers and a PE outer cover is modelled and analysed using finite-element analysis (FEA) considering
Bending the material nonlinearity. The pipe is modelled as a cylindrical shell in Abaqus/Standard. Numerical
Material nonlinearity
algorithms reflecting strain-dependent mechanical characteristics of PE are employed to perform
Two angle-ply reinforcing layer system
Spoolability
simulations. Advantages of the proposed modelling approach are demonstrated with numerical
examples. The minimum allowable bend radii of RTPs with different ply angles are determined. The
effects of diameter-to-thickness ratios and the material nonlinearity on the spoolability of RTPs have
been investigated. It is shown that the spoolability of RTPs can be improved by employing a certain
two angle-ply reinforcing layer system, which could reduce the installation costs.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Various thermoplastics such as polyethylene (PE), cross-linked

With the rapid development of industries, the energy consump-
tion has expanded in today’s world. In 2008, the world’s energy
consumption grew to approximately 3. 5  1011 GJ, and more than
70% of the total energy consumption was supplied by consuming
the fuel from the oil and gas industry [1]. As an increasing number
of offshore hydrocarbon reserves have been found, the offshore oil
and gas production will play a significant role in the world’s energy
supply in the future. Offshore pipelines have been considered to be
one of the most economical means of large scale oil and gas trans-
portation. Among various types of offshore pipelines, reinforced
thermoplastic pipes (RTPs) are now being widely considered as
possible alternatives to traditional steel pipes due to their better
corrosion resistance, high stiffness to weight ratio, and low main-
tenance costs. Recently, more than 500 km of RTPs have been
installed in the Middle East and Southeast Asia [2]. The typical
structure of an RTP consists of an inner liner, several structural
reinforcing layers and an outer cover.
The liner and the cover, which are made from neat thermoplas-
tic, protect the reinforcing layers from corroding due to the internal
transported product and the external environment, respectively.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: e.morozov@adfa.edu.au (E.V. Morozov).
polyethylene (PEX), polyamide (PA) and polyvinylidene fluoride
(PVDF) can be used to manufacture the liner and the cover. Among
different kinds of thermoplastics, it is common to employ PE for off-
shore applications as it is an established material in oil and gas pro-
duction [3]. The use of other thermoplastics for more specialised
fluid services is currently under development. Normally, the struc-
tural reinforcing layers consist of several angle-ply layers with
winding angles of ±54.7°. Reinforcements in the reinforcing layers,
which are the principle load-bearing components of an RTP, can be
provided by using either high strength fibres (e.g. aramid or glass)
or metallic (e.g. steel) wires or tapes. The current RTP products,
which can be used as either flowlines or risers, are available in
diameters ranging from 50 to 150 mm with a working pressure of
up to 35 MPa [4]. Pipe grade PE (PE 80 or PE 100) and the aramid
fibre reinforcements are currently utilised to manufacture commer-
cial RTPs for the offshore oil and gas applications (e.g. RTPs made by
Airborne and Pipelife) [5,6].
RTPs are also commonly considered as spoolable pipes which
can be installed by the reel-lay method. The reel-lay method allows
an RTP product to be manufactured onshore, packaged on a road
transportable reel in a long continuous form and transported to
the site of the pipeline. The installation is achieved by continuously
unwinding the pipe from the reel and laying it on the seabed. The
reel-lay method reduces labour costs during the installation phase

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.09.015
0263-8223/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
386 K. Yu et al. / Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393
because most of the welding, coating and testing are accomplished
onshore [7]. In addition, it is the fastest installation method com-
pared to other conventional installation techniques such as S-lay
and J-lay methods. Consequently, in comparison to other conven-
tional installation procedures, the reel-lay method provides con-
siderable cost and schedule advantages including low installation
costs, ease of storage and handling. The minimum allowable bend
radius of a flexible pipe is an important design parameter when
employing the reel-lay method. A better spoolability is desirable
as the transportation and material costs during installation phase
can be significantly reduced by spooling a pipe onto a smaller size
reel [8]. However, it should be noted that overestimating the spo-
olability of a pipe may cause substantial damage to its material. At
present, when packaging the pipe on the reel, it is common prac-
tice to define the minimum allowable bend radii of RTP products
using an empirical approach [3]. The design of RTPs could be
improved if more advanced analysis of their flexural behaviour is
implemented. Based on this analysis, the minimum allowable bend
radii of RTPs can be estimated more accurately.
Research on the flexural behaviour of long metallic and com-
posite cylinders has been undertaken actively. As the reel-lay
method is widely employed for installing traditional metallic pipes,
a number of studies on the reeling of metallic pipes have been
reported in the literature [9–11]. It has been shown that the min-
imum allowable bend radius of a metallic pipe could be limited by
the elastic strain limit of the metallic material as the pipe may
bend into the plastic range during the winding and unwinding pro-
cess. Brazier [12] studied the flexural behaviour of a long metallic
pipe subjected to pure bending. Due to the induced bending
moment, an ovalisation occurs in the cross-section of the pipe
resulting in a progressive reduction in its flexural stiffness, which
is known as the Brazier effect. The pipe then buckles when the
induced bending moment becomes larger than the critical
moment. Kedward [13] extended Brazier’s approach to thin-walled
orthotropic cylinders and presented theoretical solutions which
enable calculation of the critical moment for the pipes made from
orthotropic materials. Chan and Demirhan [14] created a closed-
form solution to determine the bending stiffness of laminated
composite pipes. However, their work was shown to be appropri-
ate to only small diameter pipes.
Rodriguez and Ochoa [15] conducted numerical studies to ana-
lyse the flexural behaviour of carbon fibre/epoxy and glass fibre/
epoxy pipes. In their study, the failure of the pipes was character-
ised by the damage initiation in the composite layers and the pro-
gressive damage development was analysed. Their analysis
indicated that, as expected, the epoxy-based composite pipes can-
not be used as spoolable pipes as they fail easily in the brittle mode
under bending. Xia et al. [16] developed analytical solutions to
study the stress–strain response and deflection of filament-wound
fibre-reinforced sandwich pipes subjected to pure bending. Yet, no
failure modelling was performed in their study. Most recently,
Ashraf et al. [17] presented numerical studies investigating the
spoolability of RTPs made from Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and
AS4-carbon fibre-reinforced PEEK composites. Similarly to findings
of Rodriguez and Ochoa’s analysis, the spoolability of this RTP was
rather limited. It failed at a large radius due to a matrix failure in
the transverse direction in the fibre-reinforced layers.
Although the aforementioned studies provided effective meth-
ods to evaluate the minimum allowable bend radii of pipes, it
should be noted that the mechanical behaviour of material has
been assumed to be linear elastic. The mechanical behaviour of
PE, which is now being widely used to manufacture RTPs, is nonlin-
ear. As a result, the overall response of fibre-reinforced PE compos-
ites to loading could be also nonlinear [18]. Therefore, it is
reasonable to presume that the spoolability assessment of current
RTP products could be affected by the consideration of the nonlin-
ear mechanical behaviour of PE. However, the effect of this mate-
rial nonlinearity on the spoolability estimate of RTPs has not
been discussed in the literature.
The ply angles of ±54.7° are commonly used to manufacture
RTPs for offshore oil and gas applications in order to fully utilise
the strength properties of fibre reinforcements in the reinforcing
layers [3]. This ply angle is chosen based on the ‘‘netting analysis’’,
which is valid when the hoop to axial stress resultant ratio is 2:1 in
thin-walled composite vessels when they are subjected to internal
pressure [19,20]. The two angle-ply reinforcement layer systems
with different angles of the reinforcement orientation can also be
successfully employed due to the balanced nature of this type of
composite structure [17].
One objective of the current paper is to study the flexural behav-
iour of RTPs, which are considered to be made from PE and fibre-rein-
forced PE plies, using FEA modelling. The effect of the material
nonlinearity of PE on the spoolability assessment of an RTP is inves-
tigated. The spoolability of RTPs with different diameter-to-thick-
ness (D/t) ratios and ply angles (single angle-ply reinforcing layer
systems and two angle-ply reinforcing layer systems) is also
analysed.
2. Numerical model
In the present work, flexural behaviour of an RTP composed of
an inner thermoplastic liner, aramid fibre-reinforced thermoplastic
reinforcing layers and an outer thermoplastic cover is investigated.
An FEA model of the RTP subjected to pure bending is developed to
simulate its structural response. In this model, one end of the RTP
is kept fixed while the other end is free to rotate. At the free end,
kinematic coupling is used to link the degrees of freedom of the
nodes of the cross-section to a reference point located at the neu-
tral axis. The loading scenario of the pipe being rolled onto a reel is
modelled by applying rotation ‘h’ at the reference point. The
induced moment is determined by calculating the reactive
moment at the reference point. The bend radius, R of the RTP is
determined as L/h, where L is the length of the pipe. The geometry,
boundary conditions and the applied rotation are shown in Fig. 1.
For FEA simulation in Abaqus/Standard, the 4-noded doubly
curved general-purpose shell element S4 is used to model the
RTP. This element is based on the first-order transverse shear the-
ory of flexible shells and considered appropriate for studying cases
with arbitrarily large rotations and displacements [21]. The shell
middle surface is selected as a reference surface. A mesh
Fig. 1. Geometry, boundary conditions and applied rotation of the pipe.
 K. Yu et al. / Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393
dependency study is conducted by comparing the critical moments
predicted by FEA models with different numbers of elements. It
follows from this study that 20 elements around the circumferen-
tial direction and 40 elements along the pipe axis are sufficient to
enable the convergence of simulation results and efficiency of the
calculation. The pipe is expected to experience large displacements
when it is spooled onto a reel. Hence, the geometrical nonlinearity
in the analysis of the pipe is taken into account using the Nlgeom
option available in Abaqus/Standard [21].
In order to illustrate the effects of the material nonlinearity, the
FEA model with the linear material characteristics and that with
the nonlinear material parameters are developed and analysed.
For the FEA model with the linear material characteristics, the Lam-
ina function in Abaqus/Standard is used to define the mechanical
behaviour of the unidirectional ply in the RTP. The elastic parame-
ters of the unidirectional ply can be calculated based on the
mechanical properties of fibres and matrix material: Ef, E0, mm, mf,
Vm and Vf using micromechanical equations, where Ef, E0, mm, mf,
Vm and Vf are the elastic modulus of fibres, the initial elastic mod-
ulus of matrix material, Poisson’s ratios of matrix material and
fibres, and the volume fractions of the matrix and fibres, respec-
tively [22]. The structural reinforcing layers are then modelled
using the Composite Layup function. The Isotropic function is used
to define the mechanical behaviour of the liner and the cover. It
should be noted that the initial elastic modulus E0 is taken as the
elastic modulus of PE material in defining the mechanical behav-
iour of the liner, the cover and the reinforcing layers.
For material modelling in the FEA model with the nonlinear
material parameters, the stress–strain relationship of PE subjected
to uniaxial loading can be modelled as follows [18]:
E0
r¼ ½1  expðkeÞ
k process, a constant damping factor is prescribed; viscous forces
where r and e are the stress and strain, respectively. The dimen-
sionless constant, ‘k’ can be determined by experiments.
Eq. (1) is used to define the stress–strain relationship of the
liner and the cover. The elastic modulus of PE for a particular strain
level is then calculated as follows:
 
1 identify the failure of the fibre-reinforced ply. The failure of the
EPE ¼ E0 ½1  expðkeÞ
ke
The material nonlinearity of the fibre-reinforced PE ply is modelled
by considering the nonlinear mechanical behaviour of PE matrix
material in defining the mechanical behaviour of the unidirectional
ply. Since matrix material in the unidirectional ply is commonly
subjected to biaxial loading, the elastic modulus of matrix material
Em in the unidirectional fibre-reinforced PE ply is calculated using
the concept of ‘equivalent strain’ e as follows:
 
1 plastic and the reinforced plies in UMAT using Eqs. (2)-(7), as
Em ¼ E0 ½1  exp ðkeÞ
ke
The equivalent strain e is determined in the following form [23]:
 h i1=2
12
e ¼ ðe2m Þ2 þ ðe1m Þ2 þ e1m e2m
9
where e1m and e2m are the strains of matrix material in the fibre and
transverse directions, respectively.
In order to calculate e1m and e2m, the first-order micromechani-
cal model is adopted [22]:
e1 ¼ e1f ¼ e1m
where e1 and ef1 are the strains of the ply and fibres in the fibre
direction, respectively. Using constitutive equations for fibres and
matrix material, the following equation can be derived to calculate
em2 :
387
 
r2
e2m ¼ e2  ð1  m2f Þ  mf e1 V f ð6Þ
Ef
where e2 and r2 are the strain and stress of the ply in transverse
direction, respectively.
The elastic constants of composite materials can be calculated
using micromechanics equations [22]. It should be noted that the
transverse and shear properties of fibre-reinforced PE composites
are dominated by properties of matrix material [24]. Therefore,
the transverse and shear moduli of the fibre-reinforced PE ply
are considered to be equal to the corresponding values of PE matrix
material [24–26]. The elastic parameters of the fibre-reinforced PE
ply are determined as follows:
E1 ¼ Ef V f þ Em V m ð7aÞ
E2 ¼ Em ð7bÞ
m12 ¼ mf V f þ mm V m ð7cÞ
E m
m21 ¼ 2 12 ð7dÞ
E1
G21 ¼ Gm ð7eÞ
where the shear modulus of matrix material Gm is calculated as
Em/2(1 + mm).
3. Computational process
The applied rotation is ramped linearly over the analysis step
using automatic incrementation. The full Newton’s method is
used to iteratively solve the nonlinear equilibrium equations. In
order to capture the buckling and post buckling response of the
RTP, automatic stabilisation is used to facilitate the convergence
of Newton’s method during the computational process. In this
ð1Þ
based on the specified damping factor are included in the global
nonlinear equilibrium equations in the FEA model [21]. In pres-
ent study, both buckling and strength analyses have been per-
formed. During the large displacement nonlinear analysis,
stresses in the fibre-reinforced ply caused by the applied rotation
are calculated and compared with its strength characteristics to
ð2Þ
liner and the cover are determined by the maximum allowable
strain of PE [27].
For the FEA model with the nonlinear material parameters, the
algorithms related to the proposed nonlinear material models have
been coded using the FORTRAN programming language [28] and
implemented in Abaqus/Standard via user-subroutines UMAT
[29]. In each time step, based on the applied rotation, the strain
state is obtained from the FEA solution. The strain components
are then used to update the material characteristics of the thermo-
ð3Þ explained in the previous section. The updated material character-
istics are then used to update the stress and strain state for the RTP
model. The updated stresses and strains are stored at the end of
this time step and passed onto the user-defined subroutines UMAT
ð4Þ at the beginning of the next time step. This whole process is
repeated until the strength failure limit has been reached in any
of the layers of the RTP or the buckling of the pipe occurs.
4. Numerical analysis
ð5Þ In order to illustrate the applicability and effectiveness of the
proposed FEA model, the FEA model is first verified by simulating
the buckling of an unreinforced PE pipe and a multi-layered com-
posite pipe made of fibre-reinforced PE. Subsequently, the flexural
behaviour of an RTP is analysed using the FEA model with different
material characteristics to address the effect of the material
388 K. Yu et al. / Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393
nonlinearity of PE on its spoolability assessment. Based on this
analysis, the minimum allowable bend radii of RTPs with different
D/t ratios and ply angles are determined.
4.1. Verification of the FEA model
The unreinforced PE pipe is assumed to be made of pipe grade
high density polyethylene, HDPE (PE 80) with the wall thickness
tnet of 7.2 mm. The multi-layered composite pipe consists of two
equal thickness Twaron fibre-reinforced PE 80 angle-plies with a
layup of [±54.7°]2. The pipe wall thickness tcomp of the multi-
layered composite pipe is 1.2 mm. The length L and the inside
diameter D of the unreinforced PE pipe and the multi-layered
composite pipe are the same, which are 2000 and 100 mm, respec-
tively. The properties of PE 80 and Twaron fibres are shown in
Table 1.
When a long pipe is subjected to pure bending, it buckles after
the induced moment reaches its critical value. The critical moment
of a long, isotropic cylinder subjected to pure bending can be cal-
culated using the following equation [12]:
pffiffiffi
2 2 EpRt2
M cr ðisotropicÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
9 1  m2
where Mcr is the critical moment.
The corresponding expression for an orthotropic cylinder is
given by [13]:
sffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffi
2 2 Ex pRt 2 Ey
M cr ðorthotropicÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
9 1  mxy myx Ex
where Ex, Ey, mxy and myx are the effective moduli and Poisson’s ratios
of the laminate, which are calculated for given composite structure
using macro-mechanical equations [30].
It should be noted that the formulas given by Eqs. (8) and (9)
have been derived based on the linear elastic material models
[12–13]. For the purpose of comparison, the material nonlinearity
of PE and the fibre-reinforced PE ply has not been considered in the
FEA model for these two examples either. The moment-rotation
curves of the unreinforced PE pipe and the multi-layered fibre-
reinforced PE pipe obtained from the FEA are shown in Fig. 2. It fol-
lows from these graphs that the induced moment increases when
the pipe is subjected to an increasing rotation until some critical
value is reached. On further increment in rotation, the pipe loses
its load-bearing capacity which is indicated by a sudden drop in
the moment-rotation curve. It is also the indication that the pipe
has buckled. The moment at which buckling occurs is considered
to be the critical moment.
The critical moments of the multi-layered fibre-reinforced PE
pipe and the unreinforced PE pipe predicted by the FEA model
are 2.66  106 and 0.31  106 N mm, respectively. These results
agree consistently with the theoretical values calculated using
Eqs. (8) and (9), which provide 2.69  106 and 0.31  106 N mm.
The above analyses show the capacity of the proposed FEA model
of simulating the mechanical behaviour of a pipe subjected to
pure bending and reflecting the key features of buckling of the
pipe.
Table 1
Properties of PE 80 and the Twaron fibre [25].
Mechanical properties Twaron fibre HDPE (PE 80)
Ef (MPa) 80,000 –
E0 (MPa) – 953
mf 0.38 – E0 (MPa)
mm – 0.42
Fig. 2. Moment-rotation curves of unreinforced PE 80 pipe and fibre-reinforced PE
80 pipe.
ð8Þ
4.2. Investigation of effect of the material nonlinearity on the
spoolability assessment of an RTP
The RTP under consideration consists of an inner PE liner, ara-
mid fibre-reinforced PE reinforcing layers and an outer PE cover.
The liner and cover of the RTP are made of neat PE and have the
ð9Þ same thickness, 3 mm. The reinforcing layers are consisted of 2
angle-ply layers of equal thickness with a layup of [±54.7°]2.
Three different FEA models namely A, B and C are developed to
investigate effect of the material nonlinearity on the spoolability of
RTPs. Models A, B and C consider the linear material characteristics,
the nonlinear material characteristics of HDPE, and the nonlinear
properties of MDPE (PC2040), respectively. For model B, the fibre
volume fraction in the reinforcing layer is considered to be 0.6.
Based on the available test data for this material, the fibre volume
fraction in the reinforcing layer in model C is 0.32. The material
properties of HDPE and MDPE used in different FEA models are
shown in Table 2.
For model A, the elastic parameters of the unidirectional fibre-
reinforced PE ply are calculated using the mechanical properties
of HDPE and Twaron fibres shown in Table 1 and are presented
in Table 3. The initial elastic modulus E0 and the Poisson’s ratio
mm are used to define the mechanical properties of the liner and
cover.
For models B and C, the mechanical properties of Twaron fibres,
HDPE and MDPE are used as initial values for the nonlinear mate-
rial parameters. In order to determine the constant ‘k’ in Eqs. (2)
and (3), the stress–strain curve obtained from Eq. (1) is compared
to the data from a uniaxial tensile test for the relevant tape [24,25].
The parameters of nonlinear material in model B and model C are
presented in Table 4.
For the strength analysis, the tensile strength along the fibre
ðþÞ ðþÞ
direction (SL ) and the transverse tensile strength (ST ) of the ara-
mid fibre reinforced MDPE composite are 605 and 15.2 MPa,
Table 2
Properties of PE 80 and PC2040 [18,25].
Mechanical properties HDPE(PE 80) MDPE (PC2040)
953 783
mm 0.42 0.33
 K. Yu et al. / Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393 389

Table 3
Mechanical properties of the unidirectional fibre reinforced ply.

Mechanical properties E1 (MPa) E2 (MPa) m12 G12 (MPa)

Twaron fibre-reinforced PE 48380 953.0 0.396 335.6

Table 4
Nonlinear material parameters for models B and C.

FEA model Ef (MPa) E0 (MPa) Vf Vm mf mm k

Model B 80,000 953 0.6 0.4 0.38 0.42 43
Model C 86,000 783 0.32 0.68 0.38 0.33 45.8

ðþÞ
respectively [24]; SL of the aramid fibre-reinforced HDPE compos-
ites is approximately assessed based on the strengths of fibres and
matrix material and is taken as 1809 MPa. The experimental test-
ðþÞ
ing shown that ST of the aramid fibre-reinforced PE composites
is close to the ultimate strength of matrix material because the
transverse properties of the fibre-reinforced PE composites are
ðþÞ
dominated by the properties of matrix material [24]. Hence, ST
of the aramid fibre-reinforced HDPE composites is considered to
be 22.5 MPa [31,32]. The values of shear strength (SLT) for aramid
fibre reinforced MDPE and HDPE are considered as 7.6 and
11.5 MPa, respectively. In addition, the compression strengths
ðÞ ðÞ
(SL and ST ) are considered to be the same as the corresponding
tensile strengths. The maximum allowable strain of PE is taken
as 5.5% [3].
The moment-rotation curves calculated by the FEA using mod-
els A, B and C, are shown in Fig. 3. As expected, models B and C pre-
dict smaller values of critical moment compared to model A due to
the material nonlinearity of PE. The value of critical moment pre-
dicted by model C is lower than that delivered by model B. This
can be explained by the smaller elastic modulus of MDPE and
lower fibre volume fraction in reinforcing layers in model C. The
deformed shapes predicted by model B are shown in Fig. 4. The
progressive ovalisation of the RTP’s cross-section is observed as
the applied rotation is increased. When the applied rotation is kept
increasing, the flattening of the cross-section starts to occur at the
compression side of the pipe, and finally causes the pipe wall to
collapse. It follows from the analyses that the value of critical
moment, at which the RTP buckles, could be overestimated if the
material nonlinearity of the PE is not taken into account.
Fig. 4. Deformed shapes of RTP subjected to pure bending.
The stresses in the inner reinforcing layer and strains in the
liner and the cover, caused by the applied rotation in the different
FEA models, are shown in Figs. 5–9. It follows from these figures
that the applied rotation causes considerable stresses in the trans-
verse direction in matrix material of reinforcing layers and longitu-
dinal strains in the cover. For model A, a first-ply failure occurs in
the transverse direction when the rotation reaches 2.11 rad
(120.96°) followed by a material failure in the cover occurring at
the value of rotation of 2.40 rad (137.58°). However, as shown in
Fig. 3, the buckling occurs when the rotation reaches 2.92 rad
(167.39°). Therefore, the first-ply failure occurs before buckling
of the pipe or a material failure in the cover. For model C, no
first-ply failure in reinforcing layers or a material failure in the
cover occurs before the pipe buckles at the value of rotation of
2.39 rad (137.01°). This can be attributed to the effect of material
nonlinearity of PE. In this case, the matrix material in the fibre-
reinforced PE ply can deform extensively during loading [33]. This
material nonlinearity enables the matrix material in reinforcing
layers to avoid the brittle failure mode (e.g. cracking) which is
commonly observed in the fibre-reinforced thermosetting compos-
ites (e.g. carbon-fibre reinforced epoxy resin composites) [34]. The

Fig. 3. Moment-rotation curves of FEA models with different material Fig. 5. Stresses in the fibre direction in reinforcing layer resulting from applied
characteristics. rotation.
390 K. Yu et al. / Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393
Fig. 6. Stresses in the transverse direction in reinforcing layer resulting from
applied rotation.
Fig. 7. Shear stresses in reinforcing layer resulting from applied rotation.
mechanical response of model B is similar to model C. However,
the buckling occurs at a larger value of rotation of 2.55 rad
(146.18°) in model B. Thus, buckling of the pipe is the dominant
failure mode of the RTP under consideration when it is subjected
to bending.
Based on the above analysis, it is evident that the first-ply fail-
ure occurs at a bend radius of 1052.34 mm in model A, whereas,
models B and C can be bent to the radii of 787.41 and
837.21 mm without any damage incurred, respectively. Currently,
manufacturers in industry determine the storage minimum bend
radius (SMBR) of an RTP based on the maximum allowable strain
of the cover using the following empirical equation [3]:
D0
SMBR ¼
2e
where D0 is the diameter of the cover and e is the maximum allow-
able strain of 5.5%. Originally, Eq. (10) has been proposed to assess
the minimum coiling radius of PE pipes [35]. It was also noted that
buckling might be a critical limiting factor affecting the coiling
radius of PE pipes, particularly for thin-walled PE pipes. This shows
Fig. 8. Strains in the liner resulting from applied rotation.
Fig. 9. Strains in the cover resulting from applied rotation.
a necessity to consider buckling as a possible dominant failure
mode during spooling of RTPs as discussed earlier in this section.
The minimum allowable bend radii of the RTP predicted by
models A, B and C are compared with the SMBR in Fig. 10. It follows
from these figures that model A predicts the largest minimum
allowable bend radius. Models B and C predict much smaller bend
radii than the SMBR calculated using empirical relation. The mini-
mum bend radii predicted by models B and C are 24.29% and 19.5%
lower than SMBR calculated using proposed empirical relation,
respectively. This highlights the need for considering the material
nonlinearity of PE while modelling the flexural behaviour of RTPs.
Furthermore, the difference between the bend radii predicted by
models B and C is due to the difference in stiffness of the different
ð10Þ grades of PE considered in these models. Model B delivers a smaller
value of the minimum allowable bend radius than model C, sug-
gesting that the spoolability of RTPs can be increased by increasing
the fibre volume faction and employing HDPE. These results sug-
gest that the design of spoolable RTPs can be substantially
improved by taking into account the material nonlinearity of PE
based on the modelling approach developed in this work. The
 K. Yu et al. / Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393
Fig. 10. Prediction of the minimum bend radius of an RTP.
reduction in the bend radius leads to the reduction in the reel
diameters. Consequently, the transportation and equipment costs
of RTPs for offshore oil and gas applications can be significantly
reduced.
4.3. Minimum allowable bend radii of RTPs with different diameter-to-
thickness (D/t) ratios
In order to investigate the effect of different D/t ratios on the
flexural behaviour of RTPs, the FEA models of RTPs made from
HDPE (models A and B) are analysed in this section. The thickness
of the pipe wall is kept constant at 7.2 mm and D/t ratios ranging
from 10 to 40 are considered. Similar approach to the failure anal-
ysis described in Section 4.2 is used to determine the minimum
bend radii of these RTPs.
The minimum allowable bend radii and failure mechanisms of
RTPs having different D/t ratios are predicted by FEA and compared
to the SMBR calculated by Eq. (10) as shown in Fig. 11. In model A,
the first-ply failure in the transverse direction is observed in rein-
forcing layers before buckling of the pipe in the RTP with D/t ratio
of 10. RTPs with other D/t ratios (20–40) buckle first. FEA simula-
tion using model B shows that the dominant failure mode for
RTP with D/t of 10 is the material failure in the cover. RTPs having
D/t ratios ranging from 20 to 40 fail due to buckling of the pipe. The
corresponding buckling mode is shown in Fig. 12, which is similar
to that shown in Fig. 4. Thus, the material failure in the cover is
Fig. 11. Minimum bend radii of RTPs with different ratios.
391
Fig. 12. Buckling of RTP with a D/t ratio of 40.
only critical when the D/t ratio of an RTP is rather small (610)
and the buckling is the dominant failure mode of RTPs with rela-
tively large D/t ratios (>10). Besides, it follows from these curves
that the deviations between the SMBR and the values predicted
by FEA models become larger with the increasing D/t ratios. As
the diameter of the RTP is increased, the buckling of the pipe
becomes more critical for RTPs during the reeling process. Conse-
quently, FEA models predict failures at large bend radii more accu-
rately. However, Eq. (10) does not consider buckling or strength of
the pipe. This suggests that adopting the proposed empirical equa-
tion may result in significantly inaccurate prediction of the mini-
mum allowable bend radii of RTPs with large D/t ratios.
4.4. Minimum allowable bend radii of RTPs with different ply angles
The effect of different ply angles on the spoolability of RTPs is
assessed using FEA models A and B. For RTPs under consideration,
the thickness of the pipe wall t and the inside diameters D are kept
constant as 7.2 and 100 mm, respectively. RTPs with single angle-
ply reinforcing layer systems and two angle-ply reinforcing layer
systems are studied. The layup of reinforcing layers of RTPs with
single angle-ply reinforcing layer systems is [±/]2, where / is the
ply angle; ply angles of ±15°, ±30°, ±50°, ±65° and ±75° are consid-
ered. The two angle-ply reinforcing layer systems under consider-
ation are: [±15°/±30°], [±15°/±50°], [±15°/±65°], [±15°/±75°], [±30°/
±50°], [±30°/±65°], [±30°/±75°], [±50°/±65°], [±50°/±75°], [±65°/
±75°]. Also RTPs with the same layups but different stacking
sequences are analysed. The failure analysis is performed for RTPs
discussed above to determine their minimum allowable bend radii.
The minimum bend radii and corresponding failure mecha-
nisms of single angle-ply RTPs under consideration are shown in
Fig. 13. For RTPs with single angle-ply reinforcing layer systems,
two types of failures are observed. The spoolability of RTPs with
the ply angle of ±75° is limited by the first-ply failure in the trans-
verse direction in reinforcing layers at the bend radius of
Fig. 13. Minimum bend radii and failure mechanism of RTPs with single angle-ply
reinforcing layer systems.
392 K. Yu et al. / Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393
Fig. 14. Minimum bend radii of RTPs with two angle-ply reinforcing layer systems.
Fig. 15. Buckling of RTPs with layups of [±30°/±50°] and [±50°/±30°].
865.8 mm. RTPs with other single ply angles buckle before other
failures. The buckling modes of these RTPs are similar to those
for the RTPs discussed in Section 4.2. Therefore, the buckling of
the pipe is critical for RTPs with most of the ply angles. Besides,
the pipe’s resistance to buckling is improved when larger ply
angles are used. It should be noted that the RTP with ply angles
of ±65° has a smaller minimum allowable bend radius
(R = 762.7 mm) than the RTP with ply angles of ±54.7°, for which
it is equal to 787.4 mm (i.e. the spoolability of an RTP can be
improved by approximately 3.2% by selecting ply angles of ±65°
compared to ±54.7°). As discussed in section 1, the ply angles of
±54.7° are normally adopted as the optimum ply angle for RTPs
based on the ‘‘netting analysis’’, which is valid when the hoop to
axial stress ratio is 2:1 in thin-walled pressure vessels [3]. Clearly,
the ply angles which enable the RTP to have better spoolability
may differ from ±54.7°.
The minimum allowable bend radii of RTPs with the aforemen-
tioned two angle-ply reinforcing layer systems and with the same
layups but different stacking sequences are shown in Fig. 14. Buck-
ling of the pipe is the dominant failure mode of RTPs with two
angle-ply reinforcing layer systems under consideration. The pipe
resistance to buckling of these RTPs is improved when the large
ply angles are employed and this results in better spoolability of
RTPs. Besides, the minimum allowable bend radii of RTPs with
the same layups but different stacking sequences are somewhat
similar. The deformed shapes of RTPs with layups of [±30°/±50°]
and [±50°/±30°] are shown in Fig. 15. Therefore, the stacking
sequence has negligible effects on the spoolability of RTPs with
two angle-ply reinforcement systems.
It should be noted that the spoolability of RTPs with layups of
[±65°/±75°] and [±75°/±65°], the minimum allowable bend radii
of which are 740.2 and 736.7 mm, respectively, is better than that
of the RTP with the layup of [±54.7°]2. This shows that the spoolability
of RTPs can be improved by employing two angle-ply reinforcing
layer systems. In addition to spoolability, RTPs are required to with-
stand the internal pressure and axial tension [36,37]. Under these
loading cases, in both single and two angle-ply reinforcing layer
systems, the loads are predominantly taken by the fibres due to
the balanced structure of their layup based on the ‘‘netting analysis’’
[19]. Thus, these two configurations will have the similar load
carrying capacity.
5. Conclusion
FEA models have been developed to simulate RTPs subjected to
bending during installation. Numerical procedures considering the
nonlinear mechanical behaviour of PE and the fibre-reinforced PE
ply have been developed and implemented into the FEA models.
Advantages of the proposed modelling approach are demonstrated
with numerical examples. The effects of the material nonlinearity
of PE, D/t ratios and ply angles on the spoolability of RTPs are
analysed.
Analyses conducted in this study show that the failure mecha-
nism of an RTP subjected to bending is strongly dependent on
the ply angles in reinforcing layers and its D/t ratios. Attributing
to the material nonlinearity, an RTP made from PE and the fibre-
reinforced PE ply with certain ply angles and D/t ratios can be bent
to a smaller radius until buckling. The failure of the cover is only
critical when the D/t ratio of an RTP is rather small. The buckling
of the pipe becomes more critical for RTPs with larger D/t ratios.
Thus, adopting the empirical equation which is based on the max-
imum allowable strain of the cover used in industry to predict the
minimum allowable bend radii of RTPs with relatively large D/t
ratios could lead to inaccurate results. It is found that the estima-
tion of the minimum allowable bend radius of the RTP can be
improved by using the FEA approach presented in this work.
The spoolability assessment of RTPs can be improved by devel-
oping designs based on the proposed modelling approach. It was
shown that the spoolability of an RTP could be increased by
approximately 3.2% by using ply angles of ±65° in comparison to
the RTP with ply angles of ±54.7°. In addition, it was demonstrated
that the improvement of spoolability of RTPs can also be achieved
by employing two angle-ply reinforcing layer systems instead of
single angle-ply reinforcing layer systems. The minimum allowable
bend radii of RTPs with layups of [±65°/±75°] and [±75°/±50°] are
about 6.1% smaller than the RTP with the layup of [±54.7°]2 for
the pipe considered in this work. This will result in the lower han-
dling and transportation costs of employing RTPs for offshore oil
and gas applications by allowing the RTPs to be spooled onto smal-
ler size reels during installation.
Acknowledgments
One of the authors (K. Yu) acknowledges the financial support
provided by University of New South Wales (UNSW) to enable this
research to be conducted. The authors also acknowledge the sup-
port provided by the Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced
Composite Structures (CRC-ACS) research program, established
and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative
Research Centres Program.
 K. Yu et al. / Composite Structures 119 (2015) 385–393 393

References [19] Hull D, Clyne TW. An introduction to composite materials. UK: Cambridge
University Press; 1982.
[20] Spencer B, Hull D. Effect of winding angle on the failure of filament wound
[1] Key world energy statistics 2010. International Energy Agency; 2010.
pipe. Composites 1978;9(4):263–71.
[2] Dalmolen LGP, Kruyer M, Cloos PJ. Offshore application of ‘‘reinforced
[21] Abaqus user’s and theory manuals. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corporation,
thermoplastic pipe’’ (RTP). In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian conference &
6.10 ed. Providence, RI; USA; 2010.
exhibition. Kuala Lumpur; 2009. p. 14–18.
[22] Vasiliev VV, Morozov EV. Advanced mechanics of composite
[3] Chapman B, Tuohy J, Bulmer G, Bolam G, Kalman M, Sheldrake T, Soens C. Pipe
materials. UK: Elsevier; 2007.
and coupling design methodology for reinforced thermoplastic pipe (RTP)
[23] Ward IM, Sweeney J. An introduction to the mechanical properties of solid
products. In: Proceedings of the 3rd composite materials for offshore
polymers. USA: Wiley; 2005.
operations. Houston; October 31–November 2 2010. p. 231–46.
[24] Benjamin JC. Continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic pipes [Ph.D thesis].
[4] API RP 15S Qualification of spoolable reinforced plastic line pipe. American
Mechanical Materials and Manufacturing Engineering. UK: University of
Petroleum Institute (API), USA; 2006.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne; 1999.
[5] ‘‘Reinforced thermoplastic pipe’’ Airborne Composite Tubular
[25] Bai Y, Xu F, Cheng P, Badaruddin MF, Ashri M. Burst capacity of reinforced
<www.airbornetubulars.com> Last accessed on 1-05-2014.
Ò thermoplastic pipe (RTP) under internal pressure. In: Proceedings of the ASME
[6] ‘‘Pipelife soluforce RTP (Reinforced Plastic Pipe)’’ Soluforce Offshore.
conference proceedings. Rotterdam; June 19–24 2011. p. 281–88.
<www.soluforce.net> Last accessed on 1-05-2014.
[26] Bai Y, Xu F, Cheng P. Investigation on the mechanical properties of the
[7] Guo BY, Song SH, Chacko J, Ghalambor A. Offshore pipelines. Saeid Mokhatab,
reinforced thermoplastic pipe (RTP) under internal pressure. In: Proceedings of
UK: Elsevier; 2005.
the twenty-second international offshore and polar engineering conference.
[8] Feechan M, Makselon C, Nolet S. Field experience with composite coiled
Rhodes; June 17–22, 2012. p. 109–16.
tubing. In: Proceedings of the SPE/ICoTA coiled tubing conference and
[27] API 17J Specification for unbonded flexible pipe. American Petroleum Institute
exhibition. Houston; 8–9 April 2003. p. 159–255.
(API), USA; 2010.
[9] Suschitz L. Advanced pipe reeling FE analysis for deepwater pipelay vessel
[28] Graves D, Hogue C. Fortran 77 language reference manual. USA: Silicon
development. In: Proceedings of the Abaqus users’ conference, Newport, May
Graphics, Inc (SGI); 1994.
31–June 2; 2000. p. 687–702.
[29] Abaqus user subroutines reference manual. Dassault Systèmes Simulia
[10] Crome T. Reeling of pipelines with thick insulation coating, Finite-element
Corporation, 6.10 ed. Providence, RI, USA; 2010.
analysis of local buckling. In: Proceedings of the offshore technology
[30] Gibson RF. Principles of composite material mechanics. USA: CRC Press; 2002.
conference, vol. 3. Houston; 1999. p. 45–77.
[31] Hartmann B, Lee GF, Cole RF. Tensile yield in polyethylene. Polym Eng Sci
[11] Jukes P, Wang S, Wang J. The sequential reeling and lateral buckling simulation
1986;26(8):554–9.
of pipe-in-pipe flowlines using finite element analysis for deepwater
[32] Gaucher-Miri V, Roland S. Tensile yield of polyethylene and related
applications. In: Proceedings of the 18th international offshore and polar
copolymers: mechanical and structural evidences of two thermally activated
engineering conference. Vancouver; 6–11 July 2008. p. 181–88.
processes. Macromolecules 1997;30(4):1158–67.
[12] Brazier LG. On the flexure of thin cylindrical shells and other ‘‘thin’’ sections.
[33] Evans JT, Gibson AG. Composite angle ply laminates and netting analysis. Proc
Proc R Soc London. Ser A: Math Phys Eng Sci 1927;116(773):104–44.
R Soc London Ser A: Math Phys Eng Sci 2002;458(2028):3079–88.
[13] Kedward KT. Nonlinear collapse of thin-walled composite cylinders under
[34] Sato N, Kurauchi T, Kamigaito O. Fracture mechanism of unidirectional carbon-
flexural loading. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on
fibre reinforced epoxy resin composite. J Mater Sci 1986;21(3):1005–10.
composite materials (ICCM/2). Toronto; 1978. p. 353–65.
[35] API 15LE. Specification for polyethylene line pipe (PE). American Petroleum
[14] Chan WS, Demirhan KC. A simple closed-form solution of bending stiffness for
Institute (API); 1995.
laminated composite tubes. J Reinf Plastics Compos 2000;19(4):278–91.
[36] Chapman BJ, Evans JT, Frost SR, Gibson AG. Reinforced thermoplastic pipework
[15] Rodriguez DE, Ochoa OO. Flexural response of spoolable composite tubulars:
for applications in the petrochemical industry. In: Proceedings of the 7th
an integrated experimental and computational assessment. Compos Sci
international conference on fibre reinforced composites (FRC’98). Cambridge;
Technol 2004;64(13–14):2075–88.
15–17th April 1998. p. 35–44.
[16] Xia M, Takayanagi H, Kemmochi K. Bending behavior of filament-wound fiber-
[37] Dodds DN, Southern A, Tuohy J, Sheldrake A. Design approach for a reinforced
reinforced sandwich pipes. Compos Struct 2002;56(2):201–10.
thermoplastic pipe and coupling system. In: Proceedings of the 5th
[17] Ashraf MA, Morozov EV, Shankar K. Flexure analysis of spoolable reinforced
international conference. pipeline rehabilitation & maintenance. Bahrain;
thermoplastic pipes for offshore oil and gas applications. J Reinf Plastics
January 19–23 2002. p. 20–26.
Compos 2013;33(6):533–42.
[18] Gibson AG, Hicks C, Wright PNH, Fahrer A. Development of glass fibre
reinforced polyethylene pipes for pressure applications. Plastics Rubber
Compos 2000;29(10):509–19.