Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2015
May 31-June 5, 2015, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL STUDY OF THE BENDING BEHAVIOR OF A
FLEXIBLE RISER MODEL
MT Rahmati
Department of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Civil Engineering
Brunel University London
Uxbridge
UB8 3PH, UK
H. Bahai
Department of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Civil Engineering
Brunel University London
Uxbridge
UB8 3PH, UK
ABSTRACT
Unbonded flexible risers have become the main means of
extracting hydro carbonates from deep waters. So,
understanding the complex structural integrity of flexible risers
has become a crucial issue for the offshore industry. In this
paper, an experimental test and a detailed finite element
analyses were carried out on a scaled down model of a flexible
riser pipe in order to understand its bending behavior. The
model used consists of four layers which include two
cylindrical polycarbonate tubes and two steel helical layers.
One helical layer, wounded around the pipe assembly,
represents the carcass layer in an actual flexible riser whilst the
other represents the riser tendon armour layers. The model was
subjected to a three point bending load in order to study its
bending-curvature behavior. The test data was then compared
with the FE numerical results which predicted a similar non-
linear trend but under predicts the strain at tendon layers.
INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, as global oil demand has been rising, oil
exploration and production has been progressing into deeper
water. As a result, industrial competition for designing efficient
and reliable facilities to reach the hydro-carbonates in ultra-
1 Copyright 2015 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86132/ on 01/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term
OMAE2015-41816
S. Norouzi
Department of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Civil Engineering
Brunel University London
Uxbridge
UB8 3PH, UK
G. Alfano
Department of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Civil Engineering
Brunel University London
Uxbridge
UB8 3PH, UK
deep waters in areas such as Gulf of Mexico, southern shores of
Caspian Sea, Norwegian Sea and Greenland waters has become
inevitable. This competition has led to the rapid development of
flexible risers capable of functioning in a harsh environment in
deeper waters often exceeding 3km below sea level. Flexible
risers consist of several polymer and steel layers that are, to a
certain extent, free to move internally relative to each other.
This gives low bending stiffness and makes them highly
valuable tools for subsea oil and gas companies. Their ability of
withstanding both horizontal and vertical large displacements
made them ideal for floating platforms.
Although the importance of using flexible risers for subsea
technology in offshore oil and gas production is well known,
the complex structural behavior of flexible risers is not
sufficiently understood for many design and development
purposes. On the one hand flexible risers must be reliable
enough to safeguard the environment. On the other hand, they
must make the exploitation of the subsea hydrocarbons
economically feasible. Despite the fact that many attempts have
been made to develop highly reliable and economical flexible
risers, they are not meeting their recommended service life.
This is because the basic technology compared to steel pipes, is
relatively new. It has not been evolved yet to support more
 challenging application for deeper waters and harsher
environment [1].
Due to the complex geometry of flexible risers, the
conventional stress prediction and fatigue analysis tools based
on analytical formulations and linear methods are not adequate.
Instead, detailed non-linear finite element methods and
experimental methods are required to take into account the
contact and friction between the layers, radial contraction and
interlayer detachment. One of the first FE methods for
analysing flexible risers was presented by Felippa and Chung
[2]. They described the formulation and algorithmic
implementation of a geometrically nonlinear beam model.
Leroy et al. [3] used an explicit FE model to predict the stress
in flexible pipe layers. The model dealt with stress and
displacement calculation in dynamically bent unbounded
flexible pipes. The movements and stresses of all helical layers
were coupled. The model was cross validated on a dedicated
case study that consisted of a pressurized pipe cyclically bent
with constant curvature.
Svik [4] compared stresses of bending FE models with
experimental data for a flexible pipe. In this multi-layer
method all components were modelled independently. Good
agreement between the FE models and experiment in terms of
the curvatures were obtained. Svik [5] also presented a finite
element model to predict stresses under axisymmetric loading
as well as two equations to predict bending stresses in tendon
layers in unbonded flexible risers. An experiment was also
carried out to compare the bending stresses. The axisymmetric
model was used to analyze the boundary conditions with
regards to initial contact pressure in both formulations.
Many commercial software are now available for analyzing
flexible pipes, such as ABAQUS Adina, ALGORA, ANSA,
ANSYS, LS DYNA, LUSAS, and NASTRAN. It is essential to
determine the degree to which these numerical codes represent
the physical reality of the riser model by conducting an
experiment. In this paper an experimental study on a simplified
prototype of a flexible pipe with only four layers under bending
moment is described. A simplified model is chosen to better
understand the bending behavior and, in particular, the
frictional contact between the layers. Then, the capability of a
finite element model developed in ANSYS for prediction of the
structural behavior of this model is examined.
NOMENCLATURE
E Module of elasticity
I Area moment inertia
L Length of beam
2 Copyright 2015 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86132/ on 01/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term
M Bending moment
P Bending load
Ri Inner radius
Ro Outer radius
t Thickness
x Horizontal direction at bending
k Bending curvature
y Vertical direction at bending
Strain
Stress
y Yield stress
EXPERIMENT
A prototype of flexible pipe was tested by applying
variable bending loads to check the nonlinear behaviour of the
specimen under bending. The prototype consists of one carcass,
one helical tendon layer, and two tubes as outer sheath and anti-
wear layers. A schematic view of the model is shown in figure
1. Details of the material, dimensions and arrangement of
constituent layers are given in Tables 1 and 2. The outer tube
was designed similar to the outer sheath layer in real flexible
risers and covered all other layers of the prototype. The inner
tube was designed in such a way to seal the pressurized oil
inside it. This layer was placed inside the tendon and covered
the carcass layer. A single helical armour (or tendon) was
designed which wounded around the inner cylinder. The helical
carcass layer is similar to the tendon layer but with a very short
pitch length.
Several other components have been designed in order to
keep the layers in right place, to seal the prototype and to apply
the external load. These additional components have listed
below:
End-caps: were designed to keep the layers of the test
specimen in a fixed position and to apply load; they
were installed at each end of the specimen.
Threaded rod: was designed to keep the end-caps in a
fixed position.
Load component: It was designed to apply the external
load. It was installed at the middle of outer sheath.
Bending bed: was designed to keep the end-caps in a
fixed position.
 Table 2 Material data for each layer

Layer Material E (GPa) y (MPa) (kg/m3)

Carcass Steel AISI1018 200 0.3 740 7860
Inner
Polycarbonate 2 0.37 65 1500
tube
Tendon Steel AISI1018 200 0.3 740 7860
Outer
Polycarbonate 2 0.37 65 1500
tube

Figure 1 schematic assembly of prototype layers

Table 1 Prototype dimensions

Layer Ri Rm t (mm) No. of Length
(mm) (mm) Pitches (mm)
Carcass 44 45.5 3 15 651
Inner
47 49.5 3 - 667.8
tube
Tendon 50 52.5 5 6 651
Outer Figure 3 specimen for bending test
55 57.5 5 - 681
tube

The rig used to investigate the non-linear behaviour caused

by interlayer slip during the bending test is shown in Figures 2
and 3. Five strain gauges were used at the positions shown in
Figure 4. All of the strain gauges were calibrated before each
test.

Figure 4 strain gauge positions

The yield load corresponding to first yield in the

Figure 2 schematic assembly of bending rig specimen was calculated. This is to ensure that during the
(dimension in mm) experiment the materials of flexible riser remain elastic with no
plastic deformation. The yield load was found to be 16.88kN
so, in order to study the inter-layer non-linear effects without
reaching yield point, the maximum load used for bending test

3 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86132/ on 01/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term

 was chosen as 13KN. The value of curvature at various
bending moment is calculated from:
2 the material are the same is the experimental model shown in
2
K=
3 (1)
[1+( )2 ]2
grid are shown in figure 6.
In order to use equation 1 for measuring curvature at each load
increment, seven displacement transducers were placed under
the specimen, each with accuracy of one hundredth of
millimetre. The spacing between the displacement transducers
was 65.1 mm (Figure 5). The bending load was increased (for
unloading decreased) in 100 steps with the load increment of
250N.
The results of the experiments are plotted in bending-
moment curvature diagrams.
Figure 5 displacement transducers positions
The calculation of curvature for each load is carried out in
four steps:
First, for each load, the seven deflection values shown
by displacement transducers were measured and
plotted.
Then, their approximate second order polynomial
trend-line curve of the plotted data is estimated.
The first and second derivation of the displacement
curve were calculated,
Finally equation 1 is used to calculate the curvature in
the middle of specimen.
The results for bending are compared with numerical
models in the next section.
4 Copyright 2015 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86132/ on 01/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term
NUMERICAL SETUP
The dimension of the model, the components and details of
figure 1 and table 1 and 2. The numerical model used and the
Figure 6 Mesh of the model (6500 elements)
An eight-noded structural element, SOLID185, for solid
load component was used. The element has three degrees of
freedom at each node [6]. For the riser layers, a four-node shell
element SHELL181 with full integration was used. In this
element there are two assumptions:
The normal vectors to the centre-plane remain straight after
deformation, yet they do not have to remain perpendicular
to centre-plane.
Every integration points set of any layer in radial direction
are similar in terms of element (or material) orientation.
To keep the load component in a vertical direction for
either loading or unloading tests a frictionless support was
required. So, SURF154 element [6], a three dimensional
structural surface with four nodes were used. In total, 6500
elements were used in the meshing process for the riser model
in ANSYS.
A three dimensional surface-to-surface contact algorithm
was used both between layers and between the outer tube and
loading part. So, a contact modelling technique is required to
take into account the contact effects. A penalty method with
Gauss integration points was used to model contact in ANSYS
Workbench [6]. Coefficient of friction between layers is
assumed as 0.2. For contact modelling two types of elements
have to be defined contact and target. These elements, which
are defined automatically by ANSYS, are CONTA174 and
TARGET 170. As shown in Figure 7, deformable solid
materials are normally defined as contact whereas rigid bodies
are defined as targets. In the riser model, tubes were considered
as contact, while helical carcass, helical tendon, and load part
modelled as target.

Figure 7 Contact detection point at Gauss point [6]
For the analysing of the riser, a loading force was applied
at the support which is increased by 250N increment value to
reach 13000N (Figure 8). For unloading test analysis this value
decreased to zero with the same increment. To keep the loaded
part in its position, a frictionless support was modelled through
four surfaces surrounding the load component (blue surfaces in
figure 8). As for the boundary conditions, one side of the riser
was modelled as fixed support whilst the other side is allowed
to slide slightly in axial direction (see D, E, F, and G signs in
Figure 8). The nonlinear solution scheme was fully implicit.
Figure 8 ANSYS modelled load, frictionless support,
and boundary conditions
RESULTS
The displacement contour plot predicted by the numerical
model is shown in Figure 9. The moment-curvature diagram is
shown in Figure 10. When the bending moment is small (less
than 200 N.m) a linear behaviour is predicted by the
experimental model because there is no slip between specimen.
The same linear relationship is shown in the numerical model
5 Copyright 2015 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86132/ on 01/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term
during loading. However, the trend is not captured well during
unloading. By increasing the load, friction is overcome and
inter-layer slip occurs, resulting in the non-linear behaviour in
bending-moment curvature. There is no material non-linearity
as the maximum load used is less than the first yield load. So,
the non-linear trend shown in Figure 10 is only caused by inter-
layer frictional slipping. The numerical model over predicts the
bending moment during loading but under predicts it during
unloading. However, the trend captured by the numerical model
is very close to the experimental results. The numerical and
experimental local strain in axial direction and transverse
direction at three strain gauges on the tendon is shown in
Figures 11 and 12. There is a very good agreement between the
numerical and experimental axial strain. There is a difference in
transverse strain although the trend is well captured by the
numerical model. This could be due to the numerical
inaccuracies related to the contact modelling used in this study.
The strain-load relationship show that at some points when
loads surpass some values, the strains decrease. Also, when the
loads reduce to zero, there is a non-zero residual strain. This
phenomenon observed in both experimental and numerical
results could be due to the frictional slipping between the
layers.
Figure 9 Deformed prototype (m)
Numerical Experiment
1100
880
Moment (N.m)
660
440
220
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Curvature (1/m)
Figure 10 Moment Curvature [Bending]
 Numerical Experiment Numerical Experiment
80 80

26
Micro strain

Micro strain
-20
-28

-82
-120

-136

-190
-220
0 3250 6500 9750 13000
0 3250 6500 9750 13000

Load (N) Load (N)

a) a)

Numerical Experiment Numerical Experiment

200
100

-100 -200

Micro strain
Micro strain

-300 -600

-500 -1000

-700 -1400
0 3250 6500 9750 13000 0 3250 6500 9750 13000

Load (N) Load (N)

b) b)

Numerical Experiment Numerical Experiment

115 100

50
Micro strain

67
Micro strain

19 0

-29 -50

-77 -100

-125 -150
0 3250 6500 9750 13000 0 3250 6500 9750 13000

Load (N) Load (N)

c) c)

Figure 11 Strain-Load (axial) curves at: a)SG1 b) SG2 c) SG3 Figure 12 Strain-Load (transvers) curves at: a)SG1 b) SG2 c) SG3

6 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86132/ on 01/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term

 CONCLUSIONS

A simplified prototype of a flexible pipe was tested both

numerically and experimentally by applying loading and
unloading bending loads. The bending moment-curvature
relation predicted by the numerical model captures several
aspects of the experimentally measured one both qualitatively
and, to a certain extent, quantitatively. On the other hand, the
amount of hysteresis predicted by the numerical model is
somewhat lower than the measured one. Good agreement was
found between the numerically determined axial strains and the
measured ones at most locations. For the transversal strains
measured at the same locations, while good agreement is found
in some parts of the curves some discrepancy is found in others.
This may be attributable to some inaccuracy in the modelling
contact in the present model and suggests that further work is
needed. Finally, it should be noted that the current calculations
and experiments were carried out on a simplified riser
prototype with only four layers with a few strain sensors. For
future work, extra strain sensors on different locations would be
useful to better understand the non-linear effects of slip
between the layers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Mr. Keith Withers,
whose guidance and ideas helped to improve the experiments.

REFERENCES
[1] PSA, 2013, Unbounded Flexible Risers - Recent Field
Experience and Actions for Increased Robustness, Norway
PSA report.

[2] Felippa, C.A., Chung, J.S., 1981, Nonlinear static

analysis of deep ocean mining pipe Part I, Modeling and
Formulation, Journal of Energy Resources technology, Vol.
103, pp. 11-16.

[3] Leroy, J.M., Estrier, P., et al, T.P., 2010, Stress

assessment in armour layers of flexible risers, Proceedings of
the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Offshore,
Ocean and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2010-20932.

[4] Svik, S., 2010, Comparison between theoretical and

experimental flexible pipe bending stresses, Proceedings of
the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Offshore,
Ocean and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2010-20352.

[5] Svik, S., 2011, Theoretical and experimental studies

of stresses in flexible pipes, Computers and Structures, 89, pp.
2273-2291.

[6] [6] ANSYS Academic Research, Release 13.0, help

viewer, Static structural, ANSYS, Inc. 2012.

7 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86132/ on 01/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term