Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2014
June 8-13, 2014, San Francisco, California, USA

OMAE2014-23192

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF FLEXIBLE PIPES UNDER COMPRESSION

Eduardo Ribeiro Malta Clóvis de Arruda Martins

Dept. of Naval Engineering Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
São Paulo, SP, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brazil

ABSTRACT testing, several research facilities are investing in numerical

Axial compressive loads can appear in several situations models that can predict this kind of wire behavior.
during the service life of a flexible pipe, due to pressure These numerical models vary from the simplest single
variations during installation or due to surface vessel heave. wired ones to the most complex multi-layered pipe models.
The tensile armor withstands well tension loads, but under Besides their differences, the aim of these models is the same:
compression, instability may occur. A Finite Element model is to accurately represent the tensile armor buckling with a
constructed using Abaqus in order to study a flexible pipe minimum computational cost.
compound by external sheath, two layers of tensile armor, a
high strength tape and a rigid nucleus. This model is fully
tridimensional and takes into account all kinds of nonlinearities
involved in this phenomenon, including contacts, gaps, friction,
plasticity and large displacements. It also has no symmetry or
periodical limitations, thus permitting each individual wire of
the tensile armor do displace in any direction. Case studies
were performed and their results discussed.

INTRODUCTION
The multi layered structure of a flexible pipe is designed
to withstand different types of loads. The pressure layers and
the interlocked carcass resist to radial loads, like the difference
of pressure between the annulus and the external environment.
The polymeric layers provide sealing and pressure distribution
among the metallic layers. The tensile armor, on the other hand,
resists to axial loads, in particular, the high tension present in
the hanging part due to self-weight.
According to Braga and Kaleff [3] in 1997, during the
completion of the Marlin 3 well, Petrobras technicians and
engineers were introduced to non-conventional compressive
modes of failure. Both radial and lateral tensile armor buckling
were reported (Figure 1). Until that time, flexible pipes were
not designed to resist that kind of failure modes. Since then, an
effort is been made in order to fully understand the failure
mechanism. A few improvements were developed trying to
avoid the occurrence of that instability, like the anti-birdcaging
tape. However, if the compression is high enough, tensile armor Figure 1 - Compressive failure modes: a) Radial buckling b)
instability continues to appear in lab tests, sometimes ripping Lateral buckling. (Braga & Kaleff [3])
the tape that was designed to protect the armor. Besides lab
PREVIOUS STUDIES

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 Custodio et al. [2], describe the first impressions on the external layers of the flexible pipe, including two layers of
1997 buckling in the Marlin 3 well. The first approach to the tensile armor, anti-birdcaging tape and the external polymeric
investigation of the failure mode was to perform a series of layer (Figure 3). The structural nucleus was modeled using a
Deepwater Immersion Performance test (DIP, for short). These combination of shell and beam elements (similar to Perdizet et
tests are performed offshore, with long pipe samples requiring a al. [5]).
huge logistical effort and are highly expensive. In order to
reduce those costs, a new testing rig was proposed for lab tests.
That rig required smaller samples and could be used in lab
environment.
The numerical models began to appear in the early 2000s.
Since memory was an issue, the models were as simple as they
could be. Troina et al. [4] and Brack et al. [1] use a similar
finite element model composed by beam and spring elements.
More precisely, one single tendon is modeled using beam
elements while the other layers are represented by a non-linear
set of springs. This model works on the assumption that each
wire doesn’t influence the behavior of his neighbors. Also, the
frictional behavior is neglected. In that case, the model was
made using a FORTRAN subroutine and the commercial FE
software ANSYS.
With the increasing computational capacity and new
software features, the models were able to feature more Figure 3 - Mesh detail of the FE model. (Serta et al. [11])
complex geometries and physics. Perdizet et al. [5] brings a full
The model was built using Abaqus and the simulations
representation of two helical tensile armor layers and a shell
were performed using both implicit and explicit solvers. The
region, representing the structural nucleus of the flexible pipe.
authors explain some techniques used to perform a quasi-static
Both armor layers were modeled using solid elements while the
simulation using an explicit solver. At the end, the results are
structural nucleus was represented by a combination of shell
compared with a series of lab tests and apparently, the results
and beam elements (Figure 2). This approach tends to create an
have a good correspondence. Unfortunately, a lot of critical
orthotropic shell.
information is kept away from the article, like the type of
elements used, contact techniques, meshing details and load
application.
In 2013, the same model was used in Connaire et al [10].
This time, besides evaluating the instability of the tensile armor
layers in compression, the authors used the numerical model to
assess the extreme loading of the wires inside an end fitting.
The results were compared to experiments and, according to the
authors, showed a good agreement. One more time, critical
information regarding the modeling techniques was omitted.
Opposing to the last two articles mentioned, Vaz & Rizzo
[6] propose another way to deal with the tensile wire instability.
The authors use Abaqus to build a “single wire” model. More
specifically, one wire representing the entire layer. However,
the rest of the tube was also modeled using non-linear springs.
Basically, the general aspect of the model is two helical wires,
each attached to a cylindrical surface, which is used to simulate
Figure 2 - General aspect of the mesh using Abaqus. (Perdizet et al the contact between the layers of the tube (Figure 4).
[5]) Despite its ingenuity, this model has a few limitations,
like the assumption that each wire has an independent behavior
and does not affect its neighbors. But the strongest assumption
Another important aspect of this model resides in the fact is that the wires respond “axisymmetrically” to the loads
that all contacts were modeled using the general contact Abaqus imposed. The axial and torsional properties of the tube are
algorithm. Both implicit and explicit solvers were used and given by a beam located at the axis of the cylinder.
compared in that article.
The model presented by Serta et al. [11], very similarly to
the previous example, has a high degree of complexity. It was
built to predict birdcaging effects, so it focuses on the most

2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME


Figure 4 - Details of the FE model. (Adapted from: Vaz & Rizzo
[6])
The numerical model was compared to several analytical
approaches by several authors. This validation was performed
in terms of axial stiffness and torsional response. After that, a
series of parametric studies were conducted in order to assess
the influence of the friction on the instability mode and general
response of the model.
Sousa et al. [9] associated the radial instability with the
wet annulus condition. Since the water breached the outer
sheath, there is no external pressure to act against the radial
expansion. The authors addressed to the birdcaging problem in
a complete flexible pipe ANSYS model, which is fully
tridimensional and comprises all layers. This model was first
reported in 1996 and was used for several other applications. It
has been fitted with several improvements and modifications
since then.
The FE mesh can be seen at Figure 5. For the structural
nucleus, orthotropic shells are used for the interlocked carcass
and pressure layer. For the polymeric layers like the internal
liner and the outer sheath, isotropic shells were used. The
tensile armors were built using nonlinear beams with Euler-
Bernoulli formulation. The contact was considered between the
layers with the Augmented Lagrange formulation, but no
further explanation is given on how it is implemented on beam
elements. The model is capable of dealing with axisymmetric
loads such as tension, compression and pressure. The loads
were applied using a reference node rigidly connected to the
end nodes for each layer, simulating an end cap effect.
Figure 5 - The complete flexible pipe model. (Sousa et al. [9])
In order to validate the model, the authors conducted a
series of experiments. Long flexible pipe samples (at least four
pitches of tensile armour) were compressed by actuators and
the radial displacement was measured. A four inch pipe sample
was used for both numerical simulations and experiments. The
compression was applied linearly and the general behaviour of
the samples was monitored until the beginning of the buckling.
According to the authors, the FE results were very close
to the experiments, thus validating the model. However, the
predicted failure load was smaller, in comparison with the
experiments. Lateral buckling was not obtained in both
numerical and experimental models.
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
In this work, a numerical model was built in order to
investigate the tensile wire instability mechanisms. The
commercial finite element software Abaqus was used for that
purpose. The model is fully tridimensional (Figure 6) and takes
into account the response of each wire independently.
Nevertheless, a few assumptions were made in order to make it
possible to build this flexible pipe numerical model:
 The length of the sample is two pitches of the internal
tensile armor (this length was based on the referenced
articles);
 The structural nucleus (interlocked carcass, internal
polymeric layer and pressure armor) was replaced by a
rigid core;
Figure 6 - General aspect of the mesh (with shell thickness)
3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 The model itself is composed by five layers, from the
innermost to the outermost:
1. Rigid internal core – Innermost layer made by a rigid
surface;
2. Internal tensile armor – This helical layer was built
using solid 8 node hexahedral elements (Abaqus
C3D8R) with second order accuracy integration and
default hourglass control;
3. External tensile armor – Same as previous layer, but
with more wires and different lay angle;
4. Structural tape – This layers function is to reinforce
the tube against radial expansion of the tensile layers.
Shell elements were used in that case (Abaqus S4 shell
elements with second order accuracy integration);
5. External polymeric layer – The outermost layer of the
model. The function of the outer sheath is to protect
the pipe from the external environment, providing
sealing and absorbing small impacts. Like the previous
layer, this one is also modeled with shell elements.
This finite element model is still work in progress.
Furthermore, the rigid nucleus is going to be replaced by a
flexible one with all of the structural nucleus layers or an
equivalent one.
LOADS, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND CONTACTS
The failure mode that is the object of study here tends to
occur both on full length pipes and lab samples. In that context,
two boundary layer options are possible, one simulating the
entire pipe, using couplings and displacement restrictions and
another representing a testing sample, only with displacement
restrictions. For this work, the second option was implemented.
Figure 7 - One side of the model was clamped (external layers
removed for tensile armor visualization)
In terms of boundary conditions, all nodes in both ends
are restricted in all degrees of freedom (Figure 7). This is made
for each node, but in the future, these nodes are to be connected
with a reference node at the center of the tube. As for the loads,
a controlled displacement (Figure 8) was applied in the axial
direction in one end of the tube. This displacement was applied
to all nodes of all layers except the rigid nucleus, for obvious
reasons.
Figure 8 – A displacement was applied on the axial direction, while
the other degrees of freedom were constrained
The contacts were all taken into account for this model.
For that, the Abaqus general contact algorithm was employed
using the Penalty method. The friction between the layers was
modelled using Coulomb’s friction law and the friction
coefficient was changed for different study cases. The initial
interferences and gaps were adjusted in the beginning of every
simulation. These adjustments occur during the accommodation
phase of the simulation and were properly treated by a contact
initialization algorithm.
One last important detail of the model is the different
section assignment for the extremities of the structural tape and
the external sheath. The first tests with the model showed large
radial displacement near the end of the tube, where high
stresses created a plastic hinge that caused a “false instability”.
This unwanted phenomenon was clearly a consequence of the
boundary conditions. In order to avoid that, the tube was sliced
100 mm far from each end (Figure 9) and these regions were
given new material properties.
Figure 9 - Side view of the polymeric layer showing the "sleeves"
Those material properties were the same as the rest of the
layer, but, the plasticity was removed from the material model.
That way, the end regions would never yield, thus eliminating
the hinge caused by the boundary conditions proximity. Those
regions were called “sleeves”.
FLEXIBLE PIPE DATA
A hypothetical 6” flexible pipe was developed for the
analysis. The basic geometric properties for all the layers can
be found on Table 1 and Table 2. The number of wires was
reduced when compared to a real pipe in order to increase the
simulation efficiency. The lay angle was calculated to guarantee
the torque balance of the tube.
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 Table 1 - Geometric properties of the tube (part 1)

Layer Material Dimensions (mm) Thickness (mm)

Rigid Nucleus - - -
Tensile armor 1 Carbon Steel 8x 4 -
Tensile armor 2 Carbon Steel 8x 4 -
Structural tape Kevlar 49 - 0.2
Outer sheath HDPE - 7

Table 2 - Geometric properties of the tube (part 2)

Layer Number of wires Lay angle (o) Pipe OD (mm)

Figure 10 – Stress x Strain curve for HDPE
Rigid Nucleus - - 198.5
Tensile armor 1 16 36 206.5
Tensile armor 2 18 -38 214.5
Structural tape - - 214.9
Outer sheath - - 228.9

Three different material models (Table 3) were adopted

for this flexible pipe. The metallic material model is bilinear
with isotropic hardening while the polymeric material model is
considered multilinear elastic/plastic (Figure 10). The DuPont
Kevlar 49 properties were extracted from Zhu et al [7] and can
be illustrated by the graph in Figure 11. It is important to
emphasize that the Kevlar curve was implemented until the
maximum stress point. Beyond that point, the behavior is
considered to be perfectly plastic.
Figure 11 - Stress x Strain curve for Kevlar
Table 3 - General material properties
In order to verify the consistency of the model, a few tests
Young modulus Poisson Yield Strength Tangent Modulus were performed. It was compared with other two in-house
Layer
(GPa) ratio (MPa) (MPa) software that use linear analytical approaches. This comparison
Tensile armor 207 0.3 650 1172.58
was only in the terms of basic section properties, like the axial
Structural tape 120 0.36 1310 -
stiffness.
Outer sheath 0.571 0.45 20.74 -

Table 4 - Axial stiffness comparison

The Abaqus model was built using a Python macro. This
is a convenient way to keep record of every operation executed
Software Tension (MN) Compression (MN)
and, most important, allows the parameterization of the model.
In that context, all geometric properties like the diameter, layer Abaqus 82.485 3.9318
properties, number of wires and material properties can be UtilFlex 117.317 2.5845
easily changed.
PipeDesign - 2.4542

The tube used for the tests in Table 4 had no structural

Kevlar tape. It had to be removed since it was not implemented
on the analytical models. Another aspect to be commented is
the fact that tension results weren’t available for PipeDesign,
since this software does not have a rigid nucleus in its
formulation, so it is only capable of giving compression results
for this pipe.
Given all the assumptions of the analytical models and the
high level of non-linearity involved in the Abaqus model, some
differences were to be expected. In terms of order of
magnitude, the results were consistent. The general expectation

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

is that the addition of more layers will make this difference to
become smaller. Experimental data validation of the model was
not yet made.
ANALISYS METODOLOGY
Abaqus Explicit was used to perform the analysis. This
means that the simulations were dynamic. Nevertheless, some
measures were taken in order to avoid dynamic effects:
 Time step was fixed on a small value to “slow down”
the displacement loading rate;
 The kinetic energy was kept far below the internal
energy for all simulations;
 The speed of the displacement application was
calculated to stay far below the axial elastic wave
propagation speed of the pipe.
The axial elastic wave propagation speed at the model
was calculated using the following formula (Braun et al. [8]):
𝐸 sheath and structural tape (when available). Besides the
𝑐=√ (1)
𝜌 equivalent stresses (Von Mises) and radial displacement, the
where 𝐸 is the equivalent elastic or Young modulus for the
model and 𝜌 is the density. If the density was replaced by its
definition (𝜌 = 𝑚⁄𝑉 ) and, if both upper and lower hand were
divided by the length of the sample, equation 1 will become:
𝐸𝐴
𝑐=√ (2)
𝛾
where 𝐸𝐴 is the axial stiffness of the flexible pipe model and 𝛾
is the weight per unit of length. Using equation (2), the wave
propagation speed was obtained for two different
circumstances: with and without the Kevlar structural tape
(Table 5).
Table 5 - Compression axial elastic wave propagation velocity
Model Wave Speed (m/s)
With the tape 1535.69
Without the tape 542.92
The compression loads were applied in the form of a
controlled displacement of 400 mm/s. Comparing to Table 5,
this value is much smaller than the wave propagation speed
calculated, so no interference of dynamic effects were expected
in the results.
For this work, four different simulation cases were
constructed and can be seen at Table 6:
Table 6 - Simulation cases
Friction
Case name Structural tape
Coefficient
A1 no 0,2
A2 no 0,0
B1 yes 0,2
B2 yes 0,0
The primary objectives are to investigate the mechanics of
tensile wire instability, test the influence of friction and verify
the influence of the structural tape on the phenomenon.
During the simulations, the displacement loads were applied
linearly from zero to 0.4 seconds, to a maximum of 160 mm.
GENERAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The simulations of all four cases reached 160 mm
maximum displacement and were post processed using both
Abaqus tools and Excel. Firstly, a cylindrical coordinate system
was created in order to make a better visualization. So, all the
results will be given in terms of cylindrical coordinates.
The results were evaluated for the tensile armor, outer
support reactions at one end of the tube were measured for each
layer individually and several combinations.
The first case to be evaluated was the one without
structural tape and with friction coefficient 𝜇 = 0.2 (A1). In the
early stages of compression, both polymeric and metallic layers
suffered a minor radial displacement. Just before the instability
occurrence, the external sheath assumed a shape (Figure 12)
that resembled a shell instability mode, with radial
displacements reaching 30 mm.
Figure 12 – Radial displacement of the outer sheath, moments
before the limit load was reached
Underneath the outer sheath, both the tensile armors
assumed a similar shape. It is interesting to notice that the
stresses at the tensile armor were above the yield limit (Figure
13), so it was plasticized before its shape suddenly changed.
The outer sheath was also already plasticized in some regions
before the instability occurrence.
6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Figure 13 - Von Mises stress for the tensile layers, moments before
the limit load was reached.

After a certain limit load was reached, the tensile armor
suddenly changed its shape to the one usually reported in
birdcaging scenarios (Figure 14). It can be described as a large
radial displacement of the armor confined to a small region of
the pipe. One can notice that no initial imperfections or
perturbations were added to this model. Because of this choice,
the fact that it happened almost at the middle of the sample was
due probably to a certain numerical disturbance.
Figure 15 – Compressive force reaction x axial strain curve for the
A1 case
The friction is completely removed for the A2 case study.
This drastically changes the behavior of the structure, which is
completely elastic, until the armor tendons began to rearrange.
Figures 15 to 17 show the sequence of forms assumed by the
tensile layer tendons.

Figure 14 - Radial displacement of tensile armors after the limit

load was reached.
Figure 16 - Stresses on the armor layers before the rearrangement

In terms of stresses, a general relief was observed on both

tensile armor layers, with exception of the instability region
which suffered high amounts of plastic deformation. The outer
sheath followed the tensile armor on the birdcage shape and
showed the same behavior in terms of stress accumulation and
relief. The reaction force was measured at the boundary region
and the results can be seen at Figure 15. The data label numbers
attached to the highlighted points in the curve mark the yielding
occurrence beginning in each layer. Number 1 is the outer
sheath, number 2 is the inner tensile armor and number 3 is the
outer tensile armor yielding point. One must notice that the
axial strain on Figure 15Figure 19Figure 26Figure 28 does not Figure 17 - Stresses on the armor layers just after the limit load
correspond to the strain in any of the layers. It is merely a
progress marker of the applied displacement divided by the
length of the sample.

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME


Figure 18 - Stresses on the armor layers in their final form
One can notice by looking at Figure 16 that both tensile
armor layers were in the elastic regime. Just after the tendons
suddenly increased their rate of lateral slippage, both tensile
armor layers began to yield. They are soon followed by the
outer sheath, which shows a quite small deformation during the
tendon displacement. After the structure assumed its new
equilibrium configuration, the tendons started to radially
displace (Figure 18 shows a large gap between the tendons and
the rigid nucleus).
Naturally, this case study does not replicate exactly any
situation in real life, since a complete frictionless situation is
impossible, even with friction tapes between the metallic
layers. Also, if there were more tendons in both internal and
external armors, there would be not so much space to
rearrangement. Nevertheless, this case shows that the effect of
the friction on the model is very important for the general
behavior of the tensile armor layers.
Similarly to the previous case, the reaction force was
measured and plotted in a curve. Figure 19 shows the axial
force reaction versus the axial strain of the tube. In that case
there are only two highlighted points. Number 1 shows the
moment when both inner and outer tensile armor layers begin
to yield. A few moments later, number 2 shows the moment
when the outer sheath starts yielding. It can be noticed that
when the maximum force is reached all the layers are in the
elastic regime.
Figure 19 – Compressive force reaction x axial strain curve for the
A2 case
For the third case study, a structural tape is added to the
flexible pipe and the friction coefficient is reinstated to 0.2.
That tape was built involving the external tensile armor and
introduced some initial hoop stresses.
Shortly before the appearance of the large radial
displacements that resemble a birdcaging scenario, all layers
were already in plastic strain state. The outer sheath was the last
layer to yield, just before the sudden radial displacement.
Figure 20 shows that the stresses on the structural tape were
very high, but with a homogeneous distribution, with exception
of the border between the elastic-plastic region and the sleeve.
Figure 20 - Stress distribution on the structural tape, shortly
before the limit load
On the tensile armor layers (Figure 21), the stress
distribution was homogeneous as well. However, at the region
below the sleeve border on the Kevlar tape, the stresses were on
their lowest levels. The sudden radial displacement occurred
right at that spot. This can be seen on Figure 22.
Figure 21 - Stress distribution on the tensile armor, moments
before the limit load
Differently of the first case, the appearance of the
birdcaging shape near the end of the tube was not purely
coincidental. The border between the elastic plastic region and
the sleeve may have some influence on that. The wrinkles on
the Kevlar layer compressed the tensile layers in two places,
causing the disturbance needed for the appearance of the large
radial displacement. Nevertheless, it can be noted that the Von
Mises stresses are beyond the elastic limit for the whole
structural type.
8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Figure 22 - Stress distribution on the tensile armor right after the
limit load
The force reaction versus axial strain curve on Figure 23
summarizes this study case. The highlighted point 1 marks the
beginning of the yielding of the structural tape. Numbers 2 and
3 are the beginning of the yielding for the inner and outer
tensile layers, respectively. Finally, number 4 marks the
yielding for the outer sheath.
Figure 23 – Compressive force reaction x axial strain curve for the
B1 case
The last case study is the one where the friction was
removed and the high strength structural tape was kept. The
behavior in the beginning of the curve is very similar to the A2
case. All layers are still in elastic regime just before the tendons
increased their rate of slippage (Figure 24). The frictionless
contacts allow the tendons to displace. The large space
available contributes to their motion, remarking again, that in a
real cable there would be lesser space.
Figure 24 - Stresses on the armor layers a moment before
rearranging
A first force reaction peak is reached just before the
tendons start slipping in a larger scale. After that, there is a
general stress relief for the armor layers. However, the
structural tape is under a high level of hoop stress and starts to
yield. Again, it is the first layer to fail. Figure 25 shows the
tendons just after the first peak, during their translation.
Figure 25 - Tensile armors stress state, just after the first peak
During the tendons translation, the internal tensile armor
begins its yielding followed by the external tensile armor and
the outer sheath. Figure 26 shows the end stage of the
rearrangement, when all layers are already in plastic behavior.
At that moment, with the structural tape, the newly organized
tendons cannot displace in the radial direction, like in the A2
case.
Figure 26 - Stress state of the rearranged tendons
Unable to move radially, the grouped tendons start to
buckle, assuming the particular shape of armor lateral
instability (Figure 1). That kind of behavior can be expected
from a flexible pipe with more tendons than this one, since it is
9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
independent of the distance between them. However, it is still
an unreal scenario for a typical pipe, since the friction
coefficient is null. Figure 27 shows the final shape of the
grouped tendons.
Figure 27 - Stress state of the buckled tendons
The behavior of the model is summarized in Figure 28.
The first peak (Point 0) can be seen right at the beginning of the
curve and it is followed by highlighted point 1, where the high
strength tape starts yielding. Points 2 and 3 mark the beginning
of the yielding for the inner and outer tensile layers,
respectively. Again, the last layer to begin yielding is the outer
sheath, marked by point 4.
At point 4, the tendons are all organized into their new
equilibrium state, as seen in Figure 26. The reaction force
reaches a plateau until there is a sudden drop, when the grouped
tendons buckle into their final shape (Figure 27).
Figure 28 – Compressive force reaction x axial strain curve for the
B2 case
FINAL REMARKS
Some lessons were learned from the critical observation of
the results and comments presented in the previous section. In
order to make comparisons between those four different model
variants two criteria were chosen: the maximum load that each
variant supported and the axial behavior versus force reaction
for each one. By comparing the maximum loads, a table was
constructed.
Table 7 - Results comparison
First Yielding
Case Maximun Load (kN) First Layer to Yield
Strain (%)
A1 162,241 2,60 Outer Sheath
A2 81,811 2,13 Both tensile armors
B1 399,616 0,95 High strength tape
B2 132,114 0,71 High strength tape
Table 7 shows the difference between maximum loads
supported by each model variant. The first thing to be noticed is
that the addition of the structural tape increases the maximum
load. The friction coefficient also increases the supported load
comparatively to the ones with zero friction and similar
structural tape condition. The table also shows the first layer to
begin yielding and the axial strain of the tube at that given
moment. From that, it is interesting to notice that the nonzero
friction makes the first yielding among the layers occur with a
smaller applied load. Even a change in the failure layer can be
attributed to the friction coefficient (compare A1 and A2 cases).
Regarding the general behavior of the structure, it was
drastically changed with the friction coefficient. Without the
friction to limit the lateral movement of the tendons, they
rearranged themselves into a new equilibrium state. Only then,
the high strength structural tape dictated their movement.
Model A2 tendons, having no impediments to the radial
movement, presented a large radial displacement after the
rearrangement. On the other hand, the addition of the structural
tape restrained B2 tendons in such a way that they buckled in
the lateral direction, resembling a tensile armor lateral
instability. Also, the model variants A1 and B1 with 0.2 friction
coefficient presented a large radial displacement of the wire
tendons. The final shape resembled a birdcaging scenario for
both cases.
The location of the sudden radial displacement changed
for these two situations. Since there was not any kind of initial
imperfection or disturbance, the location of the phenomenon
depended only on numerical factors, such as small truncations
on the force balance calculations.
Figure 29 was constructed by plotting all the reaction force
curves for the four models on the same scale. A careful
observation of the beginning of each curve shows that the pairs
A1/A2 and B1/B2 have the same linear behavior at the very
beginning of the analysis. The moment of separation between
the curves is the moment where the tendons drastically increase
their slippage velocity on the frictionless cases.
10 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Figure 29 - Reaction force x strain curve for all four model
variants
Regarding the model itself, there is one final observation.
It was built on Abaqus explicit as a tool to improve the
understanding of the mechanisms that govern the instability of
tensile armor layers. Until now, these were the first results and
there is, certainly, room for improvements. In that context, the
rigid nucleus will be replaced by a functional structural nucleus
or equivalent, to make possible the introduction of curvature
and study its effects on the tensile armor behavior. Also, more
tendons will be added, so the model can be compared to real
flexible pipes and gain more reliability as a riser analysis tool
and the non-isotropy of the structural tape will be considered.
[6] Vaz, M. A. e Rizzo, N.A. S. A Finite Element Model for
Flexible Pipe Armor Wire Instability. Journal of Marine
Structures. Julho de 2011, pp. 275-291.
[7] Zhu, D., Mobasher, B. e Rajan, S. D. Dynamic Tensile
Testing of Kevlar 49 Fabrics. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering. 01, 2011, Vol. 23, 03.
[8]. Braun, S. G., Ewins, D. G. e Rao, S. S. Encyclopedia of
Vibration. s.l. : Elsevier, 2002.
[9] Sousa, J. R. M., et al. An Experimental and Numerical
Study on the Axial Compression Response of Flexible
Pipes. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering. 2012, Vol. 134.
[10] Connaire, A., et al. Validation of Solid Modelling and
Analysis Techniques for Response Prediction of Deepwater
Flexible Pipe. Proceedings of the 32nd International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering :
s.n., 2013.
[11] Serta, O., et al. Predictions of Armour Wire Buckling for a
Flexible Pipe Under Compression, Bending and External
Pressure Loading. Proceedings of the 31st International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering :
s.n., 2012.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Petrobras/ANP for
funding the PhD studies of the first author and CNPQ, for the
research grant of the second author (310329/2012-4).

REFERENCES
[1] Brack, M., Troina, L.M. B. e Sousa, J.R. M. Flexible
Riser Resistance Against Combined Axial Compression,
Bending and Torsion in Ultra-Deep Water Depths.
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering : s.n., 2005.
[2] Custodio, A. B., et al. Recent Researches on the Instability
of Flexible Pipe's Armours. Proceedings of The 17th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference :
s.n., 2007.
[3] Braga, M. P. e Kaleff, P. Flexible Pipe Sensitivity to
Birdcaging and Armor Wire Lateral Buckling. Proceedings
of the 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering : s.n., 2004.
[4]. Troina, L. M. B., et al. A Strategy for Flexible Risers
Analysis Focused on Compressive Failure Mode. Deep
Offshore Technology (DOT 2002) : s.n., 2002.
[5] Perdizet, T., et al. Stresses in armour layers of flexible
pipes: comparison of Abaqus models. 2011 SIMULIA
Customer Conference : s.n., 2011.

11 Copyright © 2014 by ASME