Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2013
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS FORMULATION OF CONCRETE
COATED RIGID PIPELINE
Joe-Joe Chellakat Satyaraj
McDermott Middle East, Inc.
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Vinod Puthiyaparambath
McDermott Middle East, Inc.
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
ABSTRACT
Application of concrete coating on rigid pipelines alters the
stiffness of the pipeline. Estimation of the effective stiffness of
the concrete coated pipe is challenging as it depends on the
diameter and thickness of the pipeline, thickness of the
concrete coating, the corrosion coating and the cut back
lengths.
Realistic estimation of the stiffness is essential in order to
define the pipelay profile and for the estimation of pipeline
stresses, which in turn governs the limiting weather window for
the installation. This paper describes the effect of concrete
stiffness of the rigid pipeline using three different methods of
stiffness calculation, namely Mogbo, Lund and DNV methods.
Comparison of results from each of the method is presented
with the aim of choosing the appropriate method for
installation. The objective of this paper is to provide a better
insight into the significant operational and economic influences
these alternative approaches can have during the installation
campaign.
1 INTRODUCTION
Utilization of oil and gas continues to rise unabated, resulting
in a growing demand for the installation of larger and heavier
pipelines. To comply with this requirement, unexplored ocean
neighborhoods with complex and challenging geology are often
being looked upon as viable solutions. With challenges aplenty
the requirement for adequate stability forms one of the main
aspects of subsea pipeline design.
Application of concrete coating is one of the traditional
methods whereby it nourishes the bare pipe with the much
June 9-14, 2013, Nantes, France
OMAE2013-10523
Manoj John
McDermott Middle East, Inc.
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Senthilkumar Durairaj
McDermott Middle East, Inc.
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
required stability and protection from mechanical damage.
Besides stability, the addition of reinforced concrete to the steel
pipe alters certain key properties of the line pipe the major
contribution being evident through the supplementary stiffness
of the concrete coating. From a general outlook, realistic
estimation of effective stiffness of the concrete coated pipeline
forms a critical part of the installation analysis.
In an installation analysis standpoint, calculation of effective
stiffness assumes a factor of importance since arriving at
appropriate realization of stiffness may lead to different
predictions of the installation weather window, which would
also produce tangible effects in terms of timely execution of
planned operations.
This paper presents a dynamic case study of a 20 rigid
pipeline from one of McDermotts past projects. Concrete
coatings of 40 mm, 100 mm and 140 mm are considered for the
study. Effective stiffness of the coated pipeline is derived using
three methods, namely Mogbo, Lund and DNV methods. Each
of these methods employs ideas different to one another
resulting in different realizations of effective stiffness.
The case study presented in this paper could serve as reference
for future projects as it captures many influential factors in the
analysis including barge motions, environmental loadings,
pipelay profile variations etc. Results obtained through this
case study forms the main topic of discussion in this paper. The
analysis outputs predicted by these methods are compared and
their associated impacts in the installation campaign are
discussed. Results are plotted against the actual data that were
recorded on-site. Key findings of which are presented under
relevant sections of this paper.
1 Copyright 2013 by ASME
2 NOMENCLATURE stiffness in the conducted experiments was observed to be 75%
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers to 85% of the computed concrete stiffness, Kc.
CC Corrosion Coating
CWC Concrete Weight Coating The effective stiffness in particular was predicted based on
DNV Det Norske Veritas conditional equations that took into account the length of pipe
FBE Fusion Bonded Epoxy influenced by the field joint (transition length). Key equations
JONSWAP Joint North Sea Wave Energy Project are as follows:
MOI Moment of Inertia
OD Outer Diameter 2 L j K j K c Lc
OMAE Ocean, Mechanics & Arctic Engineering for Lj < L/2; K e . 1
L
RP Recommended Practice
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
Kb Kc
WT Wall Thickness for Lj = L/2; K e . 2
2
3 ESTIMATION OF EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS
The evaluation of effective stiffness has been well documented K b K c'
in literature and the associated inherent issues are explored at for Lj > L/2; K e . 3
2
great lengths in numerous publications by engineers, professors
and various research teams. However, the findings by each
Where:
method do not stand in unison to one another when it comes to
L Total length of pipe (i.e. L = 2Lj + Lc)
the assessment of the final effective stiffness formulation, thus
leaving the analysts the need to conduct sensitivity studies. Lj Pipe length influenced by field joints
Lc Effective length of pipe over which no slip occurs
Succinct descriptions of three such methods by Mogbo, Lund Ke Effective stiffness of coated pipe
and DNV are presented below to aid in the completeness of this Kj Pipe stiffness at the field joint
paper. Each of which has a well balanced consideration by the Kc Computed initial stiffness of coated pipe
pipeline industry experts. It is of interest to note the difference K`c Reduced stiffness due to concrete slippage
in approach these methods hold which in turn results in some Kb Initial stiffness of bare pipe
interesting findings in the case study as presented in the later
part of this paper.

Below-mentioned methods are referenced based on the original

works by the respective author(s) with special emphasis on the
key equations relevant to the case study.

3.1 Mogbo method (1972):

Initiating the effort in the estimation of effective stiffness of the
concrete coated pipe, Mogbo et al. compiled and published the
results of their experimental studies in a comprehensive
research paper [1].

Mogbos paper initially notes that the flexural stiffness of the

bare (steel) pipe increases significantly with the application of a
high density coating of reinforced concrete. However, the paper
goes on to indicate that the slip between concrete coating and
the interface material wrapped over the steel pipe would
actually result in reduction of the concrete-induced additional
stiffness.
Full-scale bending tests of eight coated pipes along with
theoretical studies of pipe bending formed part of Mogbos
experimental studies. The increase in bare pipe stiffness due to
concrete coating was measured. Comparison of experimental
results for pipes with and without field joints was discussed
toward the end. From the results, the measured increase in
Figure 1: Distribution of stiffness along the pipe [1]
Since our present case study satisfies the criterion set by
equation (1) (as shown in Table 2, Section 5.2), equations (2)
and (3) will be ignored in upcoming discussions.
In equation (1) Kj was obtained by averaging the stiffness of
the bare pipe, Kb, and the coated pipe, Kc, whereas Kc was
computed as a weighting function of steel and concrete cross-
sections for the stiffness distribution as shown in Figure 1. It
could be noticed that Lj is representative of the transition length
and the cutback length both.

2 Copyright 2013 by ASME

3.2 Lund method (1993): Lc Effective length of pipe over which no slip occurs
This alternative method of evaluating the effective stiffness was Ratio of steel pipe stiffness to the maximum
introduced by S. Lund et al. in 1993 [2]. stiffness of the composite section

In order to identify the parameters responsible for affecting 3.3 DNV method (2006):
additional stiffness and strain concentration at field joints, Lund DNV-RP-F105 provides yet a different approach for calculating
developed an experimental model to interpret the flexible the stiffness of concrete coating. As per section 6.2.5 in DNV
behavior of concrete coated pipes for 20 and 40 pipelines, [3], the expression for the calculation of CSF takes the
simulating the laying conditions. The obtained results were following form:
then modeled in a finite element tool for the purpose of
verification. EI
0.75

CSF k c conc . 5
According to Lund [2], the assumption of full bondage between EI steel
pipe and concrete on the compression side led to conservative
values for the bending stiffness of the coated pipeline, and the Where:
strain concentration at field joints. Experimental evidences CSF Concrete stiffness factor
such as concrete cracking and slipping due to the shear kc Empirical constant for slippage / deformation
transformation were pointed as possible causes resulting in EIconc Bending stiffness of concrete
significant reductions of the calculated stiffness of the EIsteel Bending stiffness of steel
composite section.
The empirical constant, kc was assumed as 0.25 for the Fusion
Bonded Epoxy (FBE) coating. DNV, in its description, also
points out that the equation (5) is valid only when the following
criteria hold true:

- Pipe joint length exceeds 12 m;

- Field joint length in the range of 0.5-1.0 m;
- Concrete coating thickness does not exceed 150 mm.

Upon satisfying the criteria as stated, the effective moment of

inertia of the concrete coated pipe is calculated using the
expression below:

I eff I st SCF . 6

Where:
Ieff Effective moment of inertia
Figure 2: Distribution of stiffness along the pipe [2]
Ist Steel moment of inertia
SCF Stress concentration factor (SCF = 1 + CSF)
The elaborate discussions outlaid in Lunds paper are cut short
by the parent equation hereunder for the calculation of effective
However, DNV code does not provide adequate guidance notes
stiffness:
on the consideration of bond strength between concrete and the
interface layer.
EI st L p
EI eff
L 2 Lcb 2 Lcb 1 L j
. 4
p 4 CASE STUDY
The theory of added stiffness of reinforced concrete to the bare
Where: pipe is backed unequivocally by all three methods as discussed
E Youngs modulus of elasticity in Section 3.
Icomp Composite moment of inertia
Ieff Effective moment of inertia While noting that, however, each of the above-mentioned
Ist Steel moment of inertia approach gives rise to different realization of the effective
L Total length of pipe (i.e. L = 2Lj + 2Lcb + Lc) stiffness owing to subtle theoretical variations based on
apprehensions from a number of experimental tests. The details
Lcb Bare pipe length
of which will be discussed toward the end.
Lj Pipe length influenced by field joints

3 Copyright 2013 by ASME

To better illustrate the variation in effective stiffness, a case
study was performed using a 20 pipeline to analyze the
influence of each concept. Below table details the material
properties of the 20 pipeline considered for the case study:
Table 1: Properties of Coated Pipe
Pipe OD (mm) 508
Pipe WT (mm) 15.9 22.2
CWC Thickness (mm) 40 / 100 140
CWC Density (kg.m-3) 3045 3400
CC thickness (mm) 0.75 (FBE coating)
CC density (kg.m-3) 1400
Steel Grade X65
Steel density (kg.m-3) 7850
Design properties described above form part of a project that
was undertaken by McDermott in the past. For the purpose of
our analytical comparison, concrete thicknesses of 40 mm, 100
mm and 140 mm were considered.
The effective moment of inertia of the concrete coated pipeline
was estimated using MathCAD for all three methods based on
the foregoing methodologies in Section 3. Prior to running the
analysis, a graph outlining the effective MOI for concrete
thicknesses up to 140 mm was plotted. The idea behind this
check was to provide us with a panoramic view over the
influence each discussed method had in the estimation of
effective stiffness. This supplementary check was in fact useful
in understanding the trend line of calculated MOIs as shown in
Figure 3.
Figure 3: Comparison of MOIs
Figure 3 shows the behavior of the effective moment of inertia
for each of the methods as discussed earlier. For smaller
thickness of concrete (30-40 mm), the formulation of MOI by
Lund and DNV appeared to be in good agreement.
However, the MOI predicted by Mogbo was higher by 8%.
Halfway through the graph, the uniformity in comparison
collapsed amongst the three methods demonstrating noticeable
gap in the predicted moment of inertia. For instance, at 140 mm
thickness the MOI predicted by the Lund method appeared to
be lesser than DNV and Mogbo methods by a substantial
margin of 16% and 33% respectively.
5 ANALYSIS
5.1 Methodology and Results
During installation where the pipeline catenary (in the sagbend
region) is constantly exposed to the combination of
hydrodynamic loads (under the combined effect of axial
tension and bending moment) and the coupled barge-stinger
induced motions, sensitivity checks for the dynamic conditions
appeared reasonable for our study rather than general static
checks.
Full-fledged dynamic analyses (with duration of 3 hours) were
performed using OFFPIPE software. S-lay method of
installation was considered for this project and investigations
both. The pipelay was setup with McDermotts Derrick Barge
and a few sections of articulated floating stinger. Analyses in
this case study were performed in water depths whose ranges
varied between 15 m and 200 m. Jonswap spectrum was used
for simulating the on-site environmental conditions in line to
the metocean data.
Figure 4: Comparison of Seastates (Hs)
Keeping the pipe stress levels within the allowable limits of
SMYS, the pipeline profile was optimized to determine the
maximum significant wave height, Hs. Figure 4 shows the
graphical comparison of limiting seastates obtained using all
three methods.
5.2 Discussions
Generally strain based analysis offers relaxed installation
criteria as opposed to stress based analysis. However, the case
study in this paper follows the stress based analysis. The
decision to adopt the load controlled criteria (LCC) in place of
the displacement controlled criteria (DCC) is chiefly attributed
4 Copyright 2013 by ASME
to the use of articulated floating stinger sections where the pipe Table 2
overbend profile is frequently subjected to adjustments caused Length Distribution
by ballasting / deballasting resulting in instantaneous loss of CWC Thickness
Parameters (m)
contact with the rollers. (mm)
Mogbo Lund
Lj 0.859 1.223
Above-mentioned factors along with an uncertain approach for 40
Lc 10.482 9.014
deriving effective stiffness would curtail further the level of
allowable margin in stress based analysis resulting in an overly Lj 1.963 2.866
100
conservative estimate of pipe stresses. Lc 8.274 5.728
Lj 2.603 4.082
In Figure 3, nonuniformity in the estimation of effective 140
Lc 6.994 3.296
moment of inertia was observed between each method. The
reasons for this could be due to the following:

- For computing the length of pipe influenced by field joint,

Lj, Mogbo considered the design curve approach. As the
first step toward the calculation of Lj, the product, ULj, of
bond stress, U, and field joint length, Lj, for concrete with
design compressive strength of 5000-psi was determined.
Following which the product, ULj, was modified by the
ratio of specified concrete strength, Fc, to 5000-psi
concrete. The obtained value of Lj was then substituted in
equation (1) to estimate the effective stiffness of the
concrete coated pipe. The stated description is given below
in the form of an equation:
Figure 5: Distribution of Lc for 40 mm, 100 mm and 140 mm
Fc
U L j U L j . 7 CWC Thickness
5000 psi
Figure 5 shows the length influenced by stiffness
contribution for 40 mm, 100 mm and 140 mm. Looking at
- In Lunds approach, however, the method of application of
the figure, it can be noticed that the calculated lengths of Lj
bond stress differs. Here, the shear transition length, Lj
are directly proportional to the effective length of coated
between steel and concrete is a function of axial force
pipe, Lc, i.e. length over which no slip occurs. It can
contributed by concrete, Nc, and bond stress, U, acting
readily be inferred that lesser the Lj, greater the Lc; in other
over the steel tube circumference. Corresponding equation
words, Mogbos method estimates relatively lesser values
is as given below:
for Lj as compared to that in Lund as shown above,
highlighting the most likely reason for the contrasting
Nc
Lj . 8 levels of effective MOI between them (Figure 3).
2Rs U
It is worth noting at this point that Mogbos experiments
To better understand the demarcations between Mogbo and considered concrete coating over somastic whose
Lund methods, the lengths that go into the calculations of coefficient of friction is higher than that of concrete
Effective MOI based on equations of each method are coating over 3-Layer Polypropylene/Polyethylene. This in
shown in Table 2 for the concrete thicknesses of interest. turn explains the higher stiffness contribution length, Lc in
The parameters Lcb and L remain constant for both the Mogbos method as compared to Lund method.
methods whose values are 0.370 m and 12.2 m
respectively. - Contrary to Mogbo and Lund methods, the DNV method
does not adequately explain a distinct role for the bond
Supporting the earlier part of the discussion, the values of stress / length distribution as is evident from equation (5).
Lj and Lc in Table 2 give a clear indication on the different
levels of stiffness distribution estimated by either method. It could be apprehended from the detailed analysis findings
(Section 5.1) and the above discussions that the effective
stiffness value does play a pivotal role in the determination of
limiting seastates.

5 Copyright 2013 by ASME

6 SITE DATA COMPARISON
Determining reasonable values of effective stiffness for the
installation analysis carry some level of importance. This is
especially true when undertaking projects in locations that are
frequently driven by weather downtime.
By making use of available site data measurements (e.g.
touchdown distance), we can extricate the actual moment of
inertia of the pipeline to a fair degree of accuracy. As we will
see under this section, performing post-installation checks
could serve as a key element in validating the applicability of
each method.
Figure 6: Effective MOI - Site Data Comparison
Figure 6 plots the graphical comparison of calculated MOIs
estimated by all three methods against the backdrop of the
actual MOI which is derived based on the touchdown distances
recorded during the pipeline installation. Focusing on the site
data, it can be noticed that the degree of accuracy is prominent
for MOI values calculated using DNV and Lund methods. The
same is illustrated numerically as follows:
Table 3
CWC thickness Effective MOI (% Difference)
(mm)
Mogbo DNV Lund
40 -8.26 -1.34 0.40
100 -11.12 2.47 11.78
140 -23.37 -7.73 7.49
Negative sign in the above table indicates the percentage
increase in calculated value compared to the actual value from
site, and positive sign the vice versa. Looking at the 40 mm
curves, DNV and Lund methods share a good correlation. For
the 100 mm thick CWC, the values predicted by DNV curve
come close to the actual data, whereas the predictions by Lund
and Mogbo are offset by approximately 11% on either extreme.
In the case of 140 mm CWC, the site data find acceptable
levels of agreement with DNV and Lund methods, whereas the
estimation from Mogbo method is offset by 23%.
During pipelay in dynamic conditions, instantaneous variations
to the recorded touchdown distance owing to factors, namely
tensioner deadband, changes in tidal elevation, seabed slope
etc. are inevitable. To account for these tolerances, up to 2%
deviation in the actual data was considered to set up a range of
MOI values as shown in dotted ellipse in Figure 6.
7 CONCLUSION
This case study examined the influence of effective stiffness by
incorporating the underlying principles of each method to the
installation analyses. The outcomes from each method
contributed different realizations of limiting seastates resulting
in stringent as well as relaxed installation window.
To assess the accuracy level of each method, a site data
comparison was undertaken which helped in identifying the
theoretical method(s) that exhibited maximum correlation with
the data captured during installation.
Considering the site measurements, it can be observed that
Mogbos equation in particular appear to overestimate the
effective stiffness of the coated pipe as compared to other
methods due to reasons discussed in Section 5.2. It could be
concluded that for concrete thicknesses in the range of 40-100
mm, the DNV method can be looked into as the optimal option
for stiffness estimation. The Lund method, however, exhibits
signs of improving realization of effective stiffness for
thicknesses beyond 120 mm.
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank McDermott for permission to
publish.
9 REFERENCES
[1] Mogbo, Nathan C., Jirsa, James O., and Wilhoit J.C.,
1972. Effective Stiffness of Concrete Coated Line Pipe,
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper
No. 71.
[2] Lund, S., Bruschi, R., Montesi, M., and Sintini, L., 1993.
Laying Criteria versus Strain Concentration at Field
Joints for Heavily Coated Pipeline, OMAE, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Volume V, Pipeline
Technology.
[3] Det Norske Veritas. 2006. Free Spanning Pipelines,
Recommended Practice, DNV-RP-F105. Det Norske
Veritas, Hvik, Norway.
*** ***
6 Copyright 2013 by ASME