Research Papers

Overtrawlability and Mechanical Damage of Pipe-in-Pipe

[+] Author and Article Information
Zheng Jiexin

e-mail: Zhengjiexin@nus.edu.sg

Andrew Palmer

Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
National University of Singapore,
Singapore 117576

Paul Brunning

460 Alexandra Road,
#09-01 PSA Building,
119963 Singapore

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received March 7, 2013; final manuscript received June 15, 2013; accepted manuscript posted June 24, 2013; published online September 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Weinong Chen.

J. Appl. Mech 81(3), 031006 (Sep 18, 2013) (11 pages) Paper No: JAM-13-1109; doi: 10.1115/1.4024877 History: Received March 07, 2013; Revised June 15, 2013; Accepted June 24, 2013

A pipeline on the seabed may be struck by moving trawl gear, and that may damage the pipeline. Trenching can be a useful but expensive way to protect the pipeline. Pipe-in-pipe and bundled pipeline systems are widely used in the offshore industry recently because of their high level of thermal insulation and because they lend themselves to rapid and economical installation. However, there is no clearly specified standard method to analyze the overtrawlability of pipe-in-pipe systems. If we apply the same method as for the single wall pipe, it is likely to result in a conservative design for the pipe-in-pipe. The objective of this paper is to investigate the overtrawlability of pipe-in-pipe, especially in the impact phase, and to fill this gap. In this study, the authors demonstrate that a quasi-static analysis can replace a dynamic analysis to some extent because the overall response does not show a big difference. The demonstration is based on both quasi-static indentation tests and impact tests for single wall pipe and pipe-in-pipe, as well as the corresponding finite element (FE) models. The FE models not only help to compare the responses but also offer a way to analyze the overtrawlability of the pipe-in-pipe. The quasi-static FE models are used for a further comparison between a pipe-in-pipe and a 406.4 mm (16 in.) single wall pipe to illustrate the overtrawlability of the pipe-in-pipe.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Det Norske Veritas, 2010, “Interference Between Trawl Gear and Pipelines,” Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October.
Trevor Jee Associates, 1999, “Guidelines for Trenching Design of Submarine Pipelines,” Health and Safety Executive, Offshore Technology Report No. OTH561, available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/othhtm/500-599/oth561.htm
Thomas, S. G., Reid, S. R., and Johnson, W., 1976, “Large Deformations of Thin-Walled Circular Tubes Under Transverse Loading—I: An Experimental Survey of the Bending of Simply Supported Tubes Under a Central Load,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 18(6), pp. 325–333. [CrossRef]
Ellinas, C. P., and Walker, A. C., 1983, “Damage on Offshore Tubular Bracing Members,” IABSE Colloquium on Ship Collisions With Bridges and Offshore Structures, Copenhagen, May 30–June 2, pp. 253–261.
Soreide, T., and Amdahl, J., 1982, “Deformation Characteristics of Tubular Members With Reference to Impact Loads From Collision and Dropped Objects,” Norw. Maritime Res., 2, pp. 3–12.
Alexander, C., 2007, “Assessing the Effects of Impact Forces on Subsea Flowlines and Pipelines,” ASME 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, San Diego, CA, June 10–15, ASME Paper No. OMAE2007-29450, pp. 417–427. [CrossRef]
Jones, N., Birch, S. E., Birch, R. S., Zhu, L., and Brown, M., 1992, “An Experimental Study on the Lateral Impact of Fully Clamped Mild Steel Pipes,” IMechE J. Process Mech. Eng., 206(25), pp. 111–127. [CrossRef]
Zheng, J., Palmer, A. C., Lipski, W., and Brunning, P., 2012, “Impact Damage on Pipe-in-Pipe Systems,” Proc. Twenty-Second International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece, June 17–22.
Calladine, C., 1983, “An Investigation of Impact Scaling Theory,” Structural Crashworthiness: 1st International Symposium held at University of Liverpool, N. Jones and T. Wierzbicki, eds., Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp. 169–174.
Palmer, A., Touhey, M., Holder, S., Anderson, M., and Booth, S., 2006, “Full-Scale Impact Tests on Pipelines,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 32(8), pp. 1267–1283. [CrossRef]
Jones, N., and Birch, R. S., 2010, “Low-Velocity Impact of Pressurised Pipelines,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 37(2), pp. 207–219. [CrossRef]
Jones, N., and Birch, R. S., 1996, “Influence of Internal Pressure on the Impact Behavior of Steel Pipelines,” ASME J. Press. Vessel Tech., 118(4), pp. 464–471. [CrossRef]
Ng, C., and Shen, W., 2006, “Effect of Lateral Impact Loads on Failure of Pressurized Pipelines Supported by Foundation,” IMechE J. Process Mech. Eng., 220(4), pp. 193–206. [CrossRef]
Arabzadeh, H., and Zeinoddini, M., 2011, “Dynamic Response of Pressurized Submarine Pipelines Subjected to Transverse Impact Loads,” Proc. Eng., 14(0), pp. 648–655. [CrossRef]
Yang, J. L., Lu, G. Y., Yu, T. X., and Reid, S. R., 2009, “Experimental Study and Numerical Simulation of Pipe-on-Pipe Impact,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 36(10–11), pp. 1259–1268. [CrossRef]
Jones, N., 2012, Structural Impact, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Malvar, L. J., 1998, “Review of Static and Dynamic Properties of Steel Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Mater. J., 95(5), pp. 609–616.
Shen, W. Q., and Jones, N., 1991, “A Comment on the Low Speed Impact of a Clamped Beam by a Heavy Striker,” Mechan. Struct. Mach., 19(4), pp. 527–549. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Test result of SPS and PPS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

FE model of SPS and PPS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

SPS and PPS tensile test results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of experiment and FE results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparisons of deformed shapes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Pipe supporting system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Impact force time history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Displacement time histories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Impact FE model of single wall pipe and PIP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Strain rate sensitivities according to different models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Impact force time history I-SPS and I-PPS from experiment and FE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Impact displacement time history I-SPS and I-PPS from experiment and FE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) Boundary condition of quasi-static indentation test; (b) boundary condition of impact test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of the quasi-static response and impact response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of strains on the top and bottom for SPS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of strains on the middle cross section for SPS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Strain measurements of I-SPS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Bottom strain—deflection comparison between impact and quasi-static experiment data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Strain time history from the I-SPS FE result

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Maximum principal strain of SPS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Relationships among dent depth (d), indenter displacement (u) and bottom deflection (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Indentation force–indenter displacement relationships of PIP and BM




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In