polymers

Article
Simulation Analysis of Limit Operating Specifications for
Onshore Spoolable Reinforced Thermoplastic Pipes
Houbu Li 1, *, Xuemin Zhang 2 , Haohan Huang 2 , Teng Zhou 2 , Guoquan Qi 1 and Han Ding 1

1 State Key Laboratory for Performance and Structure Safety of Petroleum Tubular Goods and Equipment
Materials, CNPC Tubular Goods Research Institute, Xi’an 710077, China; [email protected] (G.Q.);
[email protected] (H.D.)
2 School of Materials Science and Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China;
[email protected] (X.Z.); [email protected] (H.H.); [email protected] (T.Z.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-29-8188-7680

Abstract: Spoolable reinforced plastic line pipes (RTPs), exhibiting a series of advantages such as
good flexibility, few joints, long single length, light weight, easy installation, etc., have been widely
used in the onshore oil and gas industry such as oil and gas gathering and transportation, high
pressure alcohol injection, water injection, sewage treatment, and other fields. However, due to the
lack of clear standard specificationof the limit operating properties for RTPs, three typical failure
modes, i.e., tensile, flexure, and torsion, frequently occur in terrain changes, construction operation,
and subsequent application, which seriously affects the promotion and use of RTPs. In this paper, the
stress distribution of a non-bonded polyester fiber reinforced high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe
(DN 150, PN 2.5 MPa) was systematically studied by the finite element method (FEM), and then the





 limit operating values under the axial tensile, coiled bending, and torsion load were determined. The
Citation: Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Huang,
corresponding experiments were conducted to validate the reliability and accuracy of the FEM model.
H.; Zhou, T.; Qi, G.; Ding, H. The FEM results showed that the critical strain for axial tensile was 3%, the minimum respooling
Simulation Analysis of Limit bend radius was 1016.286 mm, and the limit torsion angle of this RTP was 58.77◦ , which are very
Operating Specifications for Onshore close to the experimental results. These limit values will be useful to establish normative guidelines
Spoolable Reinforced Thermoplastic for field construction and failure prevention of onshore RTP.
Pipes. Polymers 2021, 13, 3480.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ Keywords: reinforced thermoplastic pipe; onshore; limit operating specification; finite element method
polym13203480

Academic Editor: Luigi Sorrentino

1. Introduction
Received: 1 September 2021
Accepted: 28 September 2021
Carbon steels and low alloy steels are the most widely used in ground gathering and
Published: 11 October 2021
transportation system of onshore oilfields. However, in recent years, with the increasingly
harsh environment of oilfields, the water content and temperature have gradually increased.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
On the other hand, the content of corrosive media such as Cl− and CO2 has increased,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and H2 S has even appeared in oil and gas wells in some areas, which has brought great
published maps and institutional affil- risks to the application of steel pipe [1]. Non-metallic and composite pipes have a series
iations. of advantages such as corrosion resistance (without internal and external anti-corrosion),
smooth inner walls, anti-scaling and waxing, low fluid resistance, anti-wear and anti-
erosion, electrical insulation, light weight, easy transportation and construction, and low
maintenance costs, etc., whichhave become one of the most important solutions for anti-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
corrosion of the onshore gathering pipelines [2–7].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Currently, the non-metallic and composite pipes used in China’s onshore oilfield
This article is an open access article
systems mainly include glass fiber reinforced thermosettingpipes (GRP), anticorrosion
distributed under the terms and plastic alloy composite pipes, steel skeletonreinforced polyethylene composite pipes, and
conditions of the Creative Commons spoolable reinforced plastic pipes (RTPs) [8]. Among them, RTPs have been widely used in
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// oil and gas fields due to theirgood flexibility, excellent impact resistance, few joints, light
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ weight, low transportation cost, quick and easy installation, etc. Recently, it has become the
4.0/). fastest growing non-metallic composite pipe in China. RTPs are mainly used for oil and

Polymers 2021, 13, 3480. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13203480 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

 light weight, low transportation cost, quick and easy installation, etc. Recently, it h
comethe fastest growing non-metallic composite pipe in China. RTPs are mainly us
oil and gas gathering and transportation, high-pressure alcohol injection, oilfield
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 injection, and sewage treatment, etc. [9]. Since 2011, RTPs have been tested 2 of 13 in gas

portation (mixed oil and gas transportation), downhole water injection, and other
[10–15]. Therefore, application of the RTP products in China is developing toward
gas gathering and transportation, high-pressure alcohol injection, oilfield water injection,
alization and diversification.
and sewage treatment, etc. [9]. Since 2011, RTPs have been tested in gas transportation
RTPs
(mixed oil used
and gas in transportation),
onshore oil fields mainly
downhole waterconsist ofand
injection, a multi-layer structure: in
other fields [10–15].
thermoplastic liner, reinforcement
Therefore, application layer,
of the RTP products and outer
in China thermoplastic
is developing layer. The typical
towards serialization
and diversification.
structure of an RTP is shown in Figure 1. For liners, various grades of high-density
ethylene RTPs used in are
(HDPE) onshore
beingoil used
fields for
mainly consisttemperature
product of a multi-layer sup structure:
to 65 °C.internal
If required,
thermoplastic liner, reinforcement layer, and outer thermoplastic layer. The typical layer
can be designed forhigher operating temperatures by using other appropriateth
structure of an RTP is shown in Figure 1. For liners, various grades of high-density
plastic materials
polyethylene (HDPE) suchare as cross-linked
being polyethylene
used for product (PEX),
temperature sup to 65polyamides
◦ C. If required,(PA),
RTPs and p
nylidene fluoride
can be designed (PVDF).
forhigher The reinforcement
operating temperatures by layer is usually
using other made
appropriate of continuous fib
thermoplastic
materials such as cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), polyamides (PA), and polyvinylidene
tape) and steel wire (or tape); the fiber materials can be polyester fiber, glass fiber, c
fluoride (PVDF). The reinforcement layer is usually made of continuous fiber (or tape) and
fiber, and aramid fiber. The outer protective layer is usually high-density polyeth
steel wire (or tape); the fiber materials can be polyester fiber, glass fiber, carbon fiber, and
(HDPE).
aramid fiber. The outer protective layer is usually high-density polyethylene (HDPE).

Figure 1. Typical structure of RTP.

Figure 1. Typical structure of RTP.
RTPs can be constructedas bonded or non-bonded structures based on the manufac-
turing
RTPs process.
can be In bonded construction,
constructedas the reinforcement
bonded or non-bondedfiber tape is fused to the
structures linerand
based on the man
the outer cover to form a solid wall. RTPs withbonded construction offer greater resistance
turing process. In bonded construction, the reinforcement fiber tape is fused to th
to linercollapse on depressurization or cover blow-off due todiffused gases. However, in
erand the outer
non-bonded cover todifferent
construction, form a layers
solid are
wall. RTPsindependent
mutually withbonded andconstruction
relativemove- offer g
resistance to linercollapseRTPs
ment is allowed.Un-bonded on have
depressurization
the advantages ofora simple
cover manufacturing
blow-off due todiffused
process,
high manufacture efficiency, and good flexibility. Therefore,
However, in non-bonded construction, different layers are mutually independent based on consideration of an
manufacturing efficiency, product cost, and application conditions, the most used RTP
ativemovement is allowed.Un-bonded RTPs have the advantages of a simple manuf
in onshore oil fields is the non-bonded polyester fiber reinforced HDPE composite pipe,
ing process,
especially in high
China.manufacture efficiency, and good flexibility. Therefore, based on
sideration of manufacturing
As mentioned efficiency,
above, the non-bonded product
polyester cost,
fiber and application
reinforced HDPE composite conditions,
pipe the
used
has RTP in onshoreand
been popularized oil applied
fields is in the non-bonded
various polyester
fields of onshore fiber
oil fields reinforced
in China. HDPE co
The total
use exceeds 40,000 km,
site pipe, especially in China. and the annual growth rate is higher than 10%. However, with the
increasing quantity, three typical failure modes are gradually exposed, as shown in Figure 2,
As mentioned above, the non-bonded polyester fiber reinforced HDPE com
which seriously affect the product promotion and the user’s confidence. One is that the end
pipe has been
fittingor popularized
pipe body of the RTPand applied indue
failsfrequently various fieldsoverload
to the tensile of onshore duringoilthe
fields
dragin Chin
total use exceeds
construction 40,000 ground
or subsequent km, and the annual
subsidence (Figure growth
2a). Therate
otheris higher than
is buckling failure10%.
of How
the the
with RTP increasing
caused by bending overload
quantity, three under the condition
typical of coiling
failure modes aretransportation, laying
gradually exposed, as s
or service with a small bending radius such as sand dunes and hillsides, as shown in
in Figure 2, which seriously affect the product promotion and the user’s confidenc
Figure 2b.The third is that the pipe body fails due to torsional overload when the RTP rolls
is along
that the in theend fittingor
process pipe
of desert body of movement
or mountain the RTP failsfrequently
(Figure 2c). due to the tensile ove
duringExisting
the drag construction
standards or subsequent
and manufacturers have notground
provided subsidence
clear specific(Figure 2a). The oth
requirements
buckling failure of the RTP caused by bending overloadunderthe condition of c
for the limit operating performance of RTPs such as tensile, bending, and torsion, so there
is no useful guideline
transportation, layingforor oilfield
serviceusers to effectively
with a small control
bending the above
radiusfailure
suchrisks and dune
as sand
prevent them.The effective method to determine the limitoperating performance of RTPs is
hillsides,as shown in Figure 2b.The third is that the pipe body fails due to torsional
to conduct a large number of full-scale laboratory tests. However, due to a variety of the
load
RTPwhen the RTP
specifications rolls along
(diameter rangein ofthe process
50–150 of desert
mm, normal or mountain
pressure range of 1.6–32movement(Figu
MPa),
various material types (various thermoplastics and reinforcement materials and types),
and different manufacturing processes (number of winding layers, angles, tension, etc.),
 Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 3 of 13

Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

this method of testing is time-consuming and expensive, and it is difficult to give specific
data quickly and accurately.

Figure 2. Three typical failure modes of RTP: (a) tensile failure; (b) buckling failure; (c) torsional failure.
Figure 2. Three typical failure modes of RTP: (a) tensile failure; (b)buckling failure; (c)torsionalfail-
ure. In order to establish normative guidelines for field construction operation and failure
prevention of RTPs, a fast and accurate method to obtain the limit tensile displacement, the
Existingrespooling
minimum standards and manufacturers
bendradius, and thehave
limitnot providedclear
torsional radian ofspecific
the RTP requirements
was explored
forinthe limit
this operating
paper. Polyesterperformance of RTPs
fiber reinforced suchpipe,
HDPE as tensile,
whichbending,
is the most andwidely
torsion, so there
used RTP in
is onshore
no usefuloilguideline for oilfield
fields in China usersastothe
was taken effectively
research control
object. Athe above
pipe bodyfailure
modelrisks
of theand
RTP
prevent them.The effective method to determine the limitoperating
(DN 150, PN 2.5 MPa) was established by the finite element method, and thereliability performance of of
RTPsisto conduct a large number of full-scale laboratory tests. However, due
this model was verified by a burst pressure test. On this basis, the stress distributions of the to a variety
of RTP
the RTP
under specifications
axial tension, (diameter range ofand
coiled bending, 50–150 mm,load
torsion normal
werepressure range of
systematically 1.6–32by
studied
MPa), various
the finite material
element typesFurthermore,
method. (various thermoplastics
based on theand yield reinforcement
strength of the materials and
RTP materials
types),
such and different
as the manufacturing
thermoplastic liner andprocesses
reinforced (number
fiber, the oflimit
winding layers,performance
operating angles, tension,
of the
etc.),
RTPthis
wasmethod of testing
calculated is time-consuming
and analyzed and further and expensive,
verified and it is difficult
by the corresponding to give
experiments.
specific data quickly and accurately.
2. Numerical Simulations
In order to establish normative guidelines for field construction operation and failure
prevention of RTPs,
A finite element a fast
(FE)and accurate
model method to obtain
was established by using theABAQUS
limit tensile displacement,
software (ABAQUS
thesoftware
minimum respooling
Ctd., Providence, bendradius,
RI, USA), and the limit
as shown torsional
in Figure radian
3. The of the RTP
geometrical was ex- of
parameters
plored
the FE inmodel
this paper.Polyester
were in accordance fiber with
reinforced
the ones HDPE
listedpipe, which
in Table isthe
1. To most widely
eliminate the endusedeffect
of the
RTPin
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW pipeline
onshore oilsubject
fieldsintoChina
a fixedwas
constraint
taken asortheconnection, a pipeAlength
research object. of 2000
pipe body mm of
model was
theadopted,
RTP (DN which is 102.5
150, PN to MPa)
20 times
wasofestablished
the outsideby diameter
the finiteof the RTP (DN
element 150, and
method, PN 2.5 MPa)
there-
used in
liability ofthis study. The
thismodel wasproperties
verified byofthe HDPE
a burst and polyester
pressure test. On thisfiberbasis,
are shown in Table
the stress 2.
distri-
butions of the RTP under axial tension, coiled bending, and torsion load were systemati-
cally studied by the finite element method. Furthermore, based on the yield strength of
the RTP materials such as the thermoplastic liner and reinforced fiber, the limit operating
performance of the RTP was calculated and analyzedand further verified by the corre-
sponding experiments.

2. Numerical Simulations
A finite element (FE) model was established by using ABAQUS software (ABAQUS
software Ctd., Providence, RI, USA), as shown in Figure 3. The geometrical parameters of
the FE model were in accordance with the ones listed in Table 1. To eliminate the end
effect of the pipeline subject to a fixed constraint or connection, a pipe length of 2000 mm
was adopted, which is 10 to 20 times of the outside diameter of the RTP (DN 150, PN 2.5
MPa) used
Figure in this
3. FEM study.
model The properties ofthe HDPE and polyester fiber are shown in
of RTP.
Figure
Table 2. 3. FEM model of RTP.
2.1. The Reinforced Layers Model and Element
Table 1. The geometrical parameters of RTP.
Considering the anisotropy of reinforced polyester fiber, the composite material ho-
mogenization Halpin-Tsai model [16] was used to simulate the reinforced layer.The whole
Parameter Value
reinforced layer was regarded as a kind of orthogonal anisotropic homogeneous mate-
rial that was interlaced,Inner radius
and four (mm)
layers 148
of polyester fibers were radially stacked from
Outer radius (mm) 180
Thickness of inner PE pipe(mm) 10
Thickness of outer PE pipe(mm) 4
Winding angle of polyester fiber (o) +55/−55
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 4 of 13

inside to outside at a winding angle of ±55◦ , as shown in Figure 4. The solid element
C3D8R was chosen to model each layer and to complete the mesh division; 14,364 elements,
19,298 nodes, and 6 degrees of freedom for each node were assigned for the HDFE model.
One layer of solid elements across a layer of material was used because the increase inlayers
and finite element number had little effect on the numerical result [17].

Table 1. The geometrical parameters of RTP.

Parameter Value
Inner radius (mm) 148
Outer radius (mm) 180
Thickness of inner PE pipe(mm) 10
Thickness of outer PE pipe(mm) 4
Winding angle of polyester fiber (◦ ) +55/−55
Reinforced layer Number 4

Table 2. Parameters of materials used in the RTP.

Layer Parameter Value

Elastic modulus (MPa) 403.1
Inner HDPE
Yield strength (MPa) 17.33
Elastic modulus (MPa) 300.8
Outer HDPE
Yield strength (MPa) 8.66
Linear density (Dtex) 20,370
Breaking force (N) 1650
Polyester fiber
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Breaking strength (MPa) 525.2 5 of 14

Elongation at break (%) 15.2

Figure 4.
Figure Polyesterfiber
4. Polyester fiberlayup
layupmodel
model (4
(4 layers).
layers).

2.2. Interaction
2.2. Interaction
Surface-to-surface contact was used to simulate the interactions between each layer.
Surface-to-surface
The surface of the HDPEcontact wasspecified
pipe was used to as
simulate thesurface
the slave interactionsbetween
due to its softereach layer.
properties
The surface of the HDPE pipewasspecified as the slave surface due to its softer
compared with thoseof the polyester fiber for the reinforced layer. The normal mechan- properties
compared withwas
ical behavior thoseof the polyester
defined fiber for the
as“Hard Contact” withreinforced layer. The normal
“Allow separation mechanical
after contact”, and
behavior was defined as“Hard Contact” with ‘‘Allow separation after contact”,
the Penalty was taken as the friction formulation for tangential behavior. Thefriction and the
Penalty waswere
coefficients takenselected
as the friction formulation
as 0.2 for the fiber-HDPEfor tangential behavior. Thefriction coeffi-
surface contact.
cients were selected as 0.2 for the fiber-HDPE surface contact.
2.3. Boundary Conditions and Load
2.3. Boundary
The rightConditions
end of theand Load
pipe was fixed, while the other was coupled to a reference point
Theatright
located end ofof
the center the pipe
the was
cross fixed, All
section. while other
of the six was coupled
degrees to awere
of freedom reference point
coupled to
located at the
this point center the
to ensure of the cross section.
deformation Allsection
of the of the six
wasdegrees of freedom
consistent were
and rigid. Thecoupled
load of
to thispressure,
inner point to ensure
bending,thetorsion,
deformation of the was
and tension section was consistent
applied on the RTP,and rigid. The
as shown load of5.
in Figure
inner pressure, bending, torsion, and tension was applied on the RTP, as shown in Figure 5.
 2.3. Boundary Conditions and Load
The right end of the pipe was fixed, while the other was coupled to a reference point
located at the center of the cross section. All of the six degrees of freedom were coupled
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 5 of 13
to this point to ensure the deformation of the section was consistent and rigid. The load of
inner pressure, bending, torsion, and tension was applied on the RTP, as shown in Figure 5.

Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

consistency of the simulation and experimental resultspreliminarily showed that the es-
tablished RTP model is reliable.
The stress distributions of each layer of the RTP are presented in Figure 6. All layers
exhibited a similar homogeneous state of stress, and the stresses of reinforced layers were
much higher than those of the inner and outerHDPE layer. It can be considered that the
fiber reinforced layer is the main load bearing partof the RTP when subjected to the inter-
nal pressure. Moreover, the stress of the innermost fiber layer (the first reinforced layer in
Figure 6b) wasthe largest one among thefourreinforced layers. Thismeans that the first
Schematicdiagramofofthe
Figure5.5.Schematicdiagram
Figure theloading
loadingofofthe
theRTP:
RTP:(a)(a)inner
innerpressure;
pressure;(b)
(b)tension;
tension;(c) (c)bending;
bending;
reinforced fiber layer next to the inner HDPE pipe is the most liable part to fail. As a result,
(d)
(d)torsion.
torsion.
the stress of the innermost fiber layer wastaken as the criterion to estimate the failure of
the
2.4.pipe.
2.4. VerificationofofFEM
Verification FEMSimulation
Simulation
InBased
orderontothedetermine
RTPmodel the established
model burst pressure of the
above, theRTP, the maximum
mechanical behavior stress criterion
Based on the RTP established above, the mechanical behavior ofofthe
the DNDN150 150
was used
polyester as the failure
fiber-reinforcedcriterion
HDPE of the innermost
composite pipe polyester
under fiber.
internal That
pressure is, when
was any
simulated of theby
polyester fiber-reinforced HDPE composite pipe under internal pressure was simulated
stress
the components
finite element in the main
method. The direction
stress of polyester
distribution of fiberlayer
each reaches
of itsRTP
the ultimate
under strength,
3.75 MPa
by the finite element method. The stress distribution of each layer of the RTP under 3.75
the
(1.5fiber would
times be broken,
the the
nominal and the
pressure of corresponding
2.5 MPa) waswas internal pressure
obtained, as shown isinthe burst6.pressure
Figure It6.It
can be
MPa(1.5 times nominal pressure of 2.5 MPa) obtained, as shown in Figure can
ofseen
the that
pipe.theAscross-section
shown in Figure 7, thecircular
remained stress of thebeing
after polyester fiber to
subjected increased
the withpressure,
internal the in-
be seen that the cross-section remained circular after being subjected to the internal pres-
ternal
and the pressure. When the stress value ofofthe
polyester fiber reached itsmm. breaking strength of
sure, and simulated
the simulated outer diameter
outer diameter of theRTP increased
RTP increasedbyby3.17 3.17 mm. After After the actual
the actual
525.2 MPa, the corresponding internal pressure (i.e., burst pressure) of
hydrostatic test (holding pressure of 3.75 MPa for 4 h) according to standard SY/T 6662.2- the RTP was11.105
hydrostatic test (holding pressure of 3.75 MPa for 4 h) according to standard SY/T 6662.2-
MPa.
2012 The[18],simulated
the measured burst pressure
outside of 11.11
diameter MPa
of the RTP is increased
basically consistent
by 3.24 mm. with
Thethe experi-
consistency
2012 [18], the measured outside diameter of the RTP increased by 3.24 mm. The
mental measured average value of 10.75 MPa, and the relative error
of the simulation and experimental results preliminarily showed that the established was only 3.3%, which
RTP
further
modelconfirms
is reliable.the availability and accuracy of the established model of the RTP.

Stress
Figure6.6.Stress
Figure distributions
distributions of of each
each layer
layer of the
of the RTPRTP at the
at the inner
inner pressure
pressure of 3.75
of 3.75 MPa:MPa: (a) liner;
(a) liner; (b)
(b) the first reinforced layer; (c) the second reinforced layer; (d) the third reinforced layer; (e) the
the first reinforced layer; (c) the second reinforced layer; (d) the third reinforced layer; (e) the fourth
reinforced layer; (f)layer;
fourth reinforced outer(f)
cover.
outer cover.
 Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 6 of 13

The stress distributions of each layer of the RTP are presented in Figure 6. All layers
exhibited a similar homogeneous state of stress, and the stresses of reinforced layers were
much higher than those of the inner and outerHDPE layer. It can be considered that the
fiber reinforced layer is the main load bearing part of the RTP when subjected to the internal
pressure. Moreover, the stress of the innermost fiber layer (the first reinforced layer in
Figure 6b) wasthe largest one among the four reinforced layers. Thismeans that the first
reinforced fiber layer next to the inner HDPE pipe is the most liable part to fail. As a result,
the stress of the innermost fiber layer wastaken as the criterion to estimate the failure of
the pipe.
In order to determine the burst pressure of the RTP, the maximum stress criterion
was used as the failure criterion of the innermost polyester fiber. That is, when any of the
stress components in the main direction of polyester fiber reaches its ultimate strength,
the fiber would be broken, and the corresponding internal pressure is the burst pressure
of the pipe. As shown in Figure 7, the stress of the polyester fiber increased with the
internal pressure. When the stress value of polyester fiber reached its breaking strength
of 525.2 MPa, the corresponding internal pressure (i.e., burst pressure) of the RTP was
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
11.105 MPa. The simulated burst pressure of 11.11 MPa is basically consistent with the
experimental measured average value of 10.75 MPa, and the relative error was only 3.3%,
which further confirms the availability and accuracy of the established model of the RTP.

Figure
Figure 7.7.Stress-internal
Stress-internal pressure
pressure curve
curve for for the innermost
the innermost polyester
polyester fiber fiber
layer of the layer of the RTP.
RTP.

3. Limit Operating Performance Analysis of RTPs

3.
3.1.LimitOperating Performance
Tensile Analysis of the RTP Analysis of RTPs
3.1. Tensile
The axialAnalysis of thetension
displacement RTP was used to study the tensile behavior of the RTP
in which the incremental step of the axial displacement was 10 mm. Figure 8 shows the
The axial displacement tension was used to study the tensile behavior of the
stress distributions of each layer of the RTP at the axial tensile displacement with 100 mm.
which
It can bethe incrementalstep
seen of the
that the cross-section axiallayer
of each displacement was10
tended to shrink mm.
under theFigure
tension8of
shows th
distributions of eachstresses
the RTP. The maximum layer of theinner
of the RTPliner
at the
andaxial tensile
the outer displacement
coverwere 17.69 MPawithand 100mm
10.15 MPa, respectively. There were both higher than the yield strength value
be seen that the cross-section of each layer tended to shrinkunderthe tension of t 17.33 MPa
and 8.66 MPa of their corresponding materials. However, the stresses of the polyester fiber
The maximum stresses of the inner liner and the outer coverwere17.69 MPa and 10
in the innermost and outermost layer were 33.42 MPa and 34.52 MPa, respectively, which
respectively.
were much lower There
than wereboth
their breakinghigher thanofthe
strength yield
525.2 MPa.strength
Therefore,value 17.33ofMPa
the stress the and 8
of
HDPEtheir corresponding
used in the inner linermaterials. However,
and the outer cover wasthe stresses
taken of the polyester
as the criterion fiber in th
to estimate the
most
tensionand outermost
failure layer were33.42 MPa and 34.52 MPa, respectively, which wer
of the pipe.
lower than their breaking strength of 525.2 MPa. Therefore, the stress of the HDP
in the inner liner and the outer cover was taken as the criterion to estimate the
failure of the pipe.
 The maximum stresses of the inner liner and the outer coverwere17.69 MPa and 10.15 MPa,
respectively. There wereboth higher than the yield strength value 17.33 MPa and 8.66 MPa
of their corresponding materials. However, the stresses of the polyester fiber in the inner-
most and outermost layer were33.42 MPa and 34.52 MPa, respectively, which were much
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 lower than their breaking strength of 525.2 MPa. Therefore, the stress of the HDPE used 7 of 13
in the inner liner and the outer cover was taken as the criterion to estimate the tension
failure of the pipe.

Stressdistributions
Figure8.8.Stress
Figure distributionsofof each
each layer
layer of of
thethe
RTPRTP at the
at the axial
axial tensile
tensile displacement
displacement of 100 mm:
of 100mm: (a)
liner; (b) the
(a) liner; (b) first reinforced
the first layer;
reinforced (c) the
layer; (c) fourth reinforced
the fourth layer;
reinforced (d) outer
layer; cover.
(d) outer cover.

InInorder
ordertotodetermine
determinethe thecriticalstrain
criticalstrainfortension,
fortension,the
thestresses
stressesofofthe
theinner
innerliner
linerand
and
the outer cover with tensile displacementwerecalculated and are shown in Figure 9. It canIt
the outer cover with tensile displacement were calculated and are shown in Figure 9.
can
be be seen
seen that both
that both of theofstresses
the stresses
for thefortwo
the layers
two layers increased
increased with with the displacement.
the displacement. Be-
Because the tensile strength of the HDPE used for outer cover
cause the tensile strength of the HDPE used for outer cover waslower than was lower thanthat
thatofofthe
the
innerliner,
inner liner, the
the plastic
plastic deformation
deformation first
firstoccurred
occurredatatthe
theouter
outercover. Accordingly, the
cover.Accordingly, critical
the crit-
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
axial
ical displacement forfor
axialdisplacement thetheRTP
RTPwith
withaalength
lengthof
of2000
2000 mm
mm was determined by
was determined by the
theouter
outer
covertotobe
cover be60 60mm(Figure
mm(Figure9b), 9b),and
anditsitscorresponding
correspondingcritical
criticalstrain
strainwas
was3%. 3%.

Figure 9. Curves of stress

Figure 9. stress with
with axial
axial tensile
tensile displacement:
displacement: (a)
(a) inner
inner liner;
liner; (b)
(b) outer
outer cover.
cover.

3.2.
3.2. Flexure
Flexure Analysis
Analysis of
of RTP
RTP
The RTP being reeled onto a spool experiences large deformations. The geometrically
The RTP being reeled onto a spool experiences large deformations. The geometrically
non-linear approach was employed to simulate the mechanical behavior of the RTP under
non-linear approachwas employed to simulate the mechanical behavior of the RTP under
coiled bending. The Nlgeom option was chosen in the general static solution procedure
coiled bending. The Nlgeom option was chosen in the general static solution procedure of
of the ABAQUS/Standard to solvethe non-linear problem. Riks analysis step was used
the ABAQUS/Standardto solvethe non-linear problem. Riks analysis step was used to sim-
to simulate the bending process. It uses the load magnitude as an additional unknown
ulate the bending process.It uses the load magnitude as an additional unknown and solves
and solves for loads and displacements simultaneously. The Riks method follows an eigen
for loads and displacements simultaneously. The Riks method follows an eigen value
value buckling analysis to provide complete information about a structure’s failure.
buckling analysis to provide complete information about a structure’s failure.
At the eigen value calculated by Riks, the stress distributions of each layer of the RTP
At the eigen value calculated by Riks, the stress distributions of each layer of the RTP
are shown in Figure 10. An obvious stress concentration and buckling were observed in the
are shown in Figure 10. An obvious stress concentration and buckling were observed in
middle of each layer due to bending action. The maximum stress value of the reinforced
the middle of each layer due to bending action. The maximum stress value of the rein-
fiber layer was 209.4 MPa (Figure 10a), which was much lower than its breaking strength
forced
of 525.2fiber
MPa.layer was 209.4
Therefore, MPa (Figure
it is difficult 10a),
for the fiberwhich
layer was much
to break evenlower
if it than its breaking
is dented during
strength
the of 525.2
bending MPa.
process. Therefore,
However, it is difficult
the maximum forvalues
stress the fiber layer
of the innerto liner
breakandeven
theifouter
it is
dented during the bending process.However, the maximum stress values
cover HDPE layers were 20.2 MPa and 13.47 MPa respectively, both of which werehigher of the inner liner
and the
than the outer cover HDPE
yield strength layers
of their were 20.2 MPa
corresponding and 13.47
material. Hence, MPatherespectively, both of
plastic deformation
which werehigher than the yield strength of their corresponding material. Hence,
occurred at the inner liner and the outer cover layers, forming an unrecoverable depression, the plas-
tic deformationoccurred at the inner liner and the outer cover layers, forming an unrecov-
erable depression, which led to the instability failure of the RTP. In a word, the failure
criterion of bending was whether the pipe hadbuckling or not.
 the middle of each layer due to bending action. The maximum stress value of the rein-
forced fiber layer was 209.4 MPa (Figure 10a), which was much lower than its breaking
strength of 525.2 MPa. Therefore, it is difficult for the fiber layer to break even if it is
dented during the bending process.However, the maximum stress values of the inner liner
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 and the outer cover HDPE layers were 20.2 MPa and 13.47 MPa respectively, both of
8 of 13
which werehigher than the yield strength of their corresponding material. Hence, the plas-
tic deformationoccurred at the inner liner and the outer cover layers, forming an unrecov-
erable depression, which led to the instability failure of the RTP. In a word, the failure
which led to the instability failure of the RTP. In a word, the failure criterion of bending
criterion of bending was whether the pipe hadbuckling or not.
was whether the pipe had buckling or not.

Polymers 2021, 13, x10.FOR

Figure PEER
Stress REVIEW of each layer of the RTP at the bending load: (a) the innermost reinforced layer; (b) inner
distributions
Figure 10. Stress distributions of each layer of the RTP at the bending load: (a) the innermost reinforced layer; (b) inner
liner; (c) outer cover.
liner; (c) outer cover.
The minimum respooling bend radius R isone of the key parameters of the RTP in
transportation
The minimumand storage process,
respooling bendwhich
radiusRcan isone
be calculated by Equation (1):of the RTP in
The critical bending radian θc of the RTPofcanthe key parameters
be obtained by FEM simulation
transportation and storageprocess, which can be calculated by Equation (1):
ing to above-mentioned failure criterion.In
R = L/θ this study, the critical bending (1) radian
R = L/θ
RTP (DN 150, PN 2.5 MPa) was calculated to be 1.97 rad, and the minimum (1) resp
where L is the length of the RTP (mm), θ c is the critical bending radian (rad), as shown in
bend
where radius was calculated to be 1016.29 mm accordingly.
L is
Figure 11.
the length of the RTP (mm), θ c is the critical bending radian (rad), as shown in
Figure 11.

Figure 11.Schematicdiagram
Figure 11. Schematicdiagramof theof the bending
bending radius ofradius
the RTP.of the RTP.

The critical bending radian θ c of the RTP can be obtained by FEM simulation according
3.3. Torsion Analysis
to above-mentioned of the
failure RTP In this study, the critical bending radian of the RTP
criterion.
(DN 150,
ThePN 2.5 MPa)
static was calculated
analysis step wastoused
be 1.97
to rad, and theand
simulate minimum respooling
analyze bend proces
the torsion
radius was calculated to be 1016.29 mm accordingly.
RTP in which the torsional radian can be increased uniformly from zeroto the crit
sional load.
3.3. Torsion As shown
Analysis in Figure 5d,the left end of the RTP was rotated counterclo
of the RTP
withThe thestatic
z-axis, andstep
analysis thewas
torsional load was
used to simulate andloaded
analyzeintheincrements
torsion process ofof0.1
therad.
RTP
Thethe
in which stress distributions
torsional radian can be ofincreased
the RTPuniformly
under afrom torsion
zerotoload of 0.2 torsional
the critical rad as represe
load. As12.
Figure shown
Theinstress
Figure value
5d, the of
leftthe
end outermost
of the RTP was rotated
fiber wascounter
+102.4clockwise
MPa, whichwith was
the z-axis, and the torsional load was loaded in increments of 0.1 rad.
higher than that of the innermost fiber of −101.3 MPa (the positive and negative s
The stress distributions of the RTP under a torsion load of 0.2 rad as represented in
the fiber
Figure 12. stress value
The stress corresponding
value of the outermost tofiber
the was
wound
+102.4 angle
MPa, of ±55°).
which wasAt the same ti
slightly
stress
higher ofthanthe
thatinner
of theliner and fiber
innermost the of outer
−101.3cover
MPa was much smaller
(the positive and negativethansigns
that of th
of the fiber ◦
of ±55 the
strength ofstress value corresponding
the corresponding HDPE to the wound angle
material. Therefore, ). At the same fiber
polyester time, layer w
the stress of the inner liner and the outer cover was much smaller than
the main bearing part of the pipe during the torsion process, and the stress of the that of the yield
strength of the corresponding HDPE material. Therefore, the polyester fiber layer was still
most
the mainfiber layer
bearing was
part taken
of the pipe as the the
during criterion to estimate
torsion process, and thethe failure
stress of the of the pipe. As
outermost
sional radian
fiber layer increased,
was taken the stress
as the criterion of the outermost
to estimate the failure offiber increased
the pipe. linearly, as sh
As the torsional
Figure 13. When the stress of the outermost fiber reached its breaking strength o
MPa, the corresponding critical torsional radian of the RTP was 1.03 rad, and th
sponding torsional angle was 58.77°.
 The stress distributions of the RTP under a torsion load of 0.2 rad as represented in
Figure 12. The stress value of the outermost fiber was +102.4 MPa, which was slightly
higher than that of the innermost fiber of −101.3 MPa (the positive and negative signs of
the fiber stress value corresponding to the wound angle of ±55°). At the same time, the
stress of the inner liner and the outer cover was much smaller than that of the yield
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 9 of 13
strength of the corresponding HDPE material. Therefore, the polyester fiber layer was still
the main bearing part of the pipe during the torsion process, and the stress of the outer-
most fiber layer was taken as the criterion to estimate the failure of the pipe. As the tor-
sional
radian radian increased,
increased, theofstress
the stress of the outermost
the outermost fiber increased
fiber increased linearly,
linearly, as shown as shown 13.
in Figure in
Figure the
When 13. stress
When of thethe
stress of the outermost
outermost fiberitsreached
fiber reached breaking itsstrength
breakingofstrength of 525.2
525.2 MPa, the
MPa, the corresponding
corresponding critical torsional
critical torsional radian ofradian
the RTP of was
the RTP
1.03 was
rad, 1.03
and rad, and the corre-
the corresponding
sponding torsional
torsional angle 58.77◦was
was angle . 58.77°.

s 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 12. Stress distributions of each layer of the RTP at the torsion load of 0.2 rad: (a) liner; (b) the first reinforced layer;
Figure 12. Stress distributions of each layer of the RTP at the torsion load of 0.2 rad: (a) liner; (b) the first reinforced layer;
(c) the fourth reinforced layer; (d) outer cover.
(c) the fourth reinforced layer; (d) outer cover.

Figure 13. Curve of fiber stress with increasing torsional radians.

Figure 13. Curve of fiber stress with increasing torsional radians.
4. Experimental Verification
4.1. Tensile Tests
4. Experimental
The tensile propertyofVerification
the RTP was determined according to ASTM D2105-01(2019) [19]
by using a hydraulic universal testing machine (WAW-500D-JG, SHENZHEN SUNS TECH-
4.1. Tensile
NOLOGY STOCKTests
CO., LTD., Shenzhen, China) with a tensile velocity of 10 mm/min, as
shown in Figure 14. The length of the sample with two end fittings was 2000 mm. The
The tensile propertyof the RTP was determined accordin
comparison between the load-strain curves from the experiment and FEM is given in Figure 15.
It can be seen that the curves shared the same trend in general. The maximum error of loads
[19] by using a hydraulic universal testing machine (WAW-50
at the same strain between the simulation results and the experimental results was basically
TECHNOLOGY STOCK CO., LTD., Shenzhen, China) wit
within 10%. Considering the simplification of the FEM model, the simulation results can be
considered to be within an acceptable range.
mm/min, as shown in Figure 14. The length of the sample wit
mm. The comparison between the load-strain curves from t
given in Figure 15. It can be seen that the curves shared the
maximum error of loads at the same strain between the simul
imental results was basically within 10%. Considering the
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 10 of 13
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

Figure14.
Figure 14.Tensile
Tensiletest
testofofthe
theRTP
RTPsample.
sample.
Figure 14. Tensile test of the RTP sample.

Figure 15. Load-strain curves obtained from the experiment and FEM.
Figure15.
Figure 15.Load-strain
Load-straincurves
curvesobtained
obtainedfrom
fromthe
theexperiment
experimentand
andFEM.
FEM.
4.2. Flexure Tests
In practical
4.2. Flexure Testsengineering, when the tensile strain of an RTP is more than a certain value,
The flexure
it is considered to test
havewas conducted
failed onal.
[12]. Bai et the Bending
reported Tester
that (CHENGDE
the strain PRECISION
of the HDPE layers
TESTINGThe flexure test was conducted on the Bending Tester (CHENGDE PRECISION
should not MACHINE
exceed 7.7%CO. LTD., (metallic
for MSFP Chengde,stripChina). Thepipes)
flexible bending [20].properties
Generally, ofonce
the RTP
the
TESTING
were of tested MACHINE CO.a LTD., Chengde, of China). The(Figure
bending properties of the RTP
stress any starting
layer of thewith RTPbending
is higherradius 2000 mm
than its yield stress, 16a)and
it might carry then tested
a safety riskatasa
were testedinterval
decreasing startingofwith a bending
100 mm. radius of
Appearance of the
2000 mm
RTP (Figure
was 16a)and
observed then tested
byItvisual at a
inspection
the pipe would lose some proportion of its stiffness during the usage. can be noticed
decreasing
after Figure interval
conditioning of 100
for four mm. Appearance
hours according of the RTP was observed by visual inspection
from 15 thatthe tensile process of the to RTPISO(DN
291:2008
150, PN[21]2.5atMPa)
each consisted
interval. There
of a
after conditioning for four hours according to in
ISO 291:2008 [21] attheeach interval. There
linear elastic stage and a plastic elongation stage.The critical strain is the turning radius
was an obvious morphology change (as shown Figure 16b) when bending point of of
was an
the RTP obvious morphology change (as shown in Figure 16b) when the bending radius of
these twodecreased
stages.Thetodetermined
1100 mm. Continued
strain valuesbending of the RTP
of simulation andto a bending radius
experimental resultsofwere
1000
the
mmandRTP decreased
yielded to 1100 mm. Continued bending of the RTP to a bending radius of 1000
3% 3.28%,anrespectively.
obvious bucklingThese twophenomenonthat
critical strainscan be observed
are very as shown
close, further in Figure
implying the
mm
16c. It
accuracyyielded
veryan
is and obvious
similar
reliability buckling
toofthe FEM phenomenonthat
thesimulation
model results
used in thiscan
shown inbe observed
Figure
study. as shown
10. Based on thein experi-
Figure
16c.
mentalIt isresults,
very similar
it can be to concluded
the simulation
that results shown inbuckling
the irreversible Figure 10. Based
failure on the
occurs experi-
when the
mental
4.2. results,
Flexure
bending Tests is less than 1100 mm. Therefore, the minimum respooling bend radiusthe
radius it can be concluded that the irreversible buckling failure occurs when of
bending
the RTP radius
(DN 150,
The flexure is less
testPNwas than 1100
2.5conducted mm.
MPa) is 1100 Therefore,
mm,
on the the minimum
which Tester
Bending is basically respooling
the same
(CHENGDE bend radius
as the simulated
PRECISION TEST- of
the RTP
valueMACHINE
ING (DN 150,
of 1016.29 mm. PN 2.5 MPa) is 1100 mm, which is basically the
CO. LTD., Chengde, China). The bending properties of the RTP were same as the simulated
value starting
tested of 1016.29 withmm. a bending radius of 2000 mm (Figure 16a) and then tested at a decreas-
ing interval of 100 mm. Appearance of the RTP was observed by visual inspection after
 Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 11 of 13

conditioning for four hours according to ISO 291:2008 [21] at each interval. There was an
obvious morphology change (as shown in Figure 16b) when the bending radius of the RTP
decreased to 1100 mm. Continued bending of the RTP to a bending radius of 1000 mm
yielded an obvious buckling phenomenon that can be observed as shown in Figure 16c.
It is very similar to the simulation results shown in Figure 10. Based on the experimental
results, it can be concluded that the irreversible buckling failure occurs when the bending
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 14
Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEWradius is less than 1100 mm. Therefore, the minimum respooling bend radius of12the of RTP
14
(DN 150, PN 2.5 MPa) is 1100 mm, which is basically the same as the simulated value
of 1016.29 mm.
(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 16.Bending test of the RTP sample. (a): bending radius of 2000 mm; (b): bending radius of
Figure 16. Bending test of the RTP sample. (a): bending radius of 2000 mm; (b): bending radius of
Figure 16.Bending
1100 mm; test ofradius
(c) bending the RTP sample.
of 1000 mm.(a): bending radius of 2000 mm; (b): bending radius of
1100 mm;
1100 mm; (c)(c) bending
bending radius
radius of of 1000
1000 mm.
mm.
4.3.
4.3. Torsion
Torsion Tests
Tests
4.3. Torsion Tests
The
The torsion
torsion propertyof
propertyof the the RTP
RTP was was determined
determined by by using
using aa Torsion
Torsion Tester
Tester (Jinan
The torsion
Bangwei
Bangwei propertyof
Mechanical
Mechanical & the RTPEquipment
& Electrical
Electrical was determined
Equipment Co., by Jinan,
Co., Ltd.,
Ltd., using China)
Jinan, a Torsion
China) with
with Tester (Jinanof
aa velocity
velocity
Bangwei Mechanical
10◦ /min,asasshown
10°/min, shown &
in inElectrical
Figure
Figure Equipment
17. 17.
The The
torsional Co., Ltd.,
behavior
torsional Jinan,
of theof
behavior China)
RTP theisRTP with
shown a velocity by of
by the torque-
is shown the
10°/min,
torsion as shown
angle
torque-torsion in Figure
curves
angle curves17.
given The in
ingiven
Figuretorsional
18. The18.
Figure behavior
torque of theincreased
increased
The torque RTP is shown
linearly as the
linearlyby torsion
thethe
as torque-
angle
torsion
torsion
angleangle
increased. curvesaWhen
When
increased. given ainsignificant
significantFigure 18. torque
torque The torque
decline wasincreased
declineobserved linearly
was observedon the as the
test
on the torsion
curve, itsangle
test curve, corre-
its
increased.
sponding When
corresponding a significant
torsiontorsion
angle was
angle torque
thewas
limit decline
thetorsion was
limit angle. observed
torsionAsangle.
shownAson the test
in Figure
shown 18,curve,
in the its corre-
simulation
Figure 18, the
sponding
curve torsion
curveangle
exhibited
simulation similarwas the limitcharacteristics
characteristics
exhibited similar torsion
to theangle. Asthe
shown
experimental
to in Figure
result.
experimental 18,
Theresult. theThe
simulated simulation
limit tor-
simulated
curve exhibited
limitangle
sion torsion similar
angle
of the characteristics
RTPof(DN
the 150,
RTPPN (DN to
2.5150,the
MPa) PNexperimental
was2.556.17°, result.
MPa) which
was 56.17 The◦ simulated
, which
is close limit to
to theisexperimental
close tor-
the
sion angle of theresult
experimental
result of 58.77°. RTP (DN 150, .PN 2.5 MPa) was 56.17°, which is close to the experimental
of 58.77 ◦
result of 58.77°.

Figure
Figure 17.
17. Torsion
Torsion test
test of
of the
the RTP
RTP sample.
sample.
Figure 17. Torsion test of the RTP sample.
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 12 of 13

Figure 17. Torsion test of the RTP sample.

Figure
Figure18.
18.Torque–torsion
Torque–torsion angle
angle response
response for
for the
the RTP.
RTP.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, the finite element model of a non-bonded RTP (polyester fiber rein-
forced HDPE pipe, DN 150, PN 2.5 MPa) subjected to inner pressure, axial tensile, coiled
bending, and torsion load was established and verified by experiments. FEM simulation
determined the limit operating performances of the RTP under these different loads quickly
and accurately.
The burst pressure of the RTP obtained by simulation was 11.11 MPa, which is basically
consistent with the experimental test of 10.75 MPa in the laboratory. The limit axial tensile
displacement of the RTP (DN 150, PN 2.5 MPa) with a length of 2000 mm was determined
to be 60 mm by simulation, and the corresponding critical strain was 3%. The critical strain
obtained by the tensile test was 3.28%, indicating the accuracy and reliability of the FEM
model used in this study. The minimum respooling bend radius of the RTP (DN 150, PN
2.5 MPa) was considered to be 1100 mm from the flexure test, which is basically the same
as the simulated value of 1016.29 mm. The critical torsion angle of the RTP was 58.77◦ ,
similar to the experimental result of 56.17◦ .
For the operating performances analyzed in this study, it is concluded that FEM is
a reliable method toestablish specifications of the RTP forfield construction operation
and failure prevention. However, in practical engineering, the RTP is often subjected to
complicated loads such as inner pressure-tensile, inner pressure-bending, tensile-torsion,
and bending-torsion, etc. The limit operating performances of the RTP will be changed
and should be systemically studied further.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.Z. and X.Z.; methodology, X.Z.; validation, H.L., G.Q.
and H.D.; formal analysis, G.Q.; investigation, H.H. and T.Z.; data curation, H.H.; writing—original
draft preparation, X.Z.; writing—review and editing, H.L.; visualization, X.Z.; supervision, H.L.;
project administration, H.L.; funding acquisition, X.Z. and H.L. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant num-
ber 51304236, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Chang’an University,
grant number CHD 300102310201 and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Engineering Mechanics, Southeast
University the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, grant number LEM21A02.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the Northwestern Polytechnical University High
Performance Computing Center for the allocation of computing time on their machines.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Polymers 2021, 13, 3480 13 of 13

References
1. Houbu, L.; Helin, L.; Dongtao, Q.; Nan, D.; Xuehua, C.; Bin, W.; Guoquan, Q. Analysis on non-metallic pipes used for oil and gas
gathering and transportation. Pet. Instrum. 2014, 28, 4–8.
2. Conley, J.; Weller, B.; Sakr, A. Recent Innovations in Reinforced Thermoplastic Pipe. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Science,
Engineering and Management: 7th International Conference, KSEM 2014, Sibiu, Romania, 16–18 October 2014.
3. Yu, K.; Morozov, E.V.; Ashraf, M.A.; Shankar, K. Analysis of flexural behavior of reinforced thermoplastic pipes considering
material nonlinearity. Compos. Struct. 2015, 119, 385–393. [CrossRef]
4. Bai, Y.; Liu, S.; Han, P.; Ruan, W.; Tang, G.; Cao, Y. Behaviour of steel wire-reinforced thermoplastic pipe under combined bending
and internal pressure. Ships Offshore Struct. 2018, 13, 696–704. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, X.; Li, H.; Qi, D.; Li, Q.; Ding, N.; Cai, X. Failure analysis of anticorrosion plastic alloy composite pipe used for oilfield
gathering and transportation. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 32, 35–43. [CrossRef]
6. Toh, W.; Bin Tan, L.; Tse, K.M.; Giam, A.; Raju, K.; Lee, H.P.; Tan, V.B.C. Material characterization of filament-wound composite
pipes. Compos. Struct. 2018, 206, 474–483. [CrossRef]
7. Liu, W.; Wang, S. An elastic stability-based method to predict the homogenized hoop elastic moduli of reinforced thermoplastic
pipes (RTPs). Compos. Struct. 2019, 230, 111560. [CrossRef]
8. Li, H.; Yan, M.; Qi, D.; Ding, N.; Cai, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, Q.; Zhang, X.; Deng, J. Failure analysis of steel wire reinforced thermoplastics
composite pipe. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2012, 20, 88–96. [CrossRef]
9. Qi, D.; Yan, M.L.; Ding, N.; Cai, X.H.; Li, H.B.; Zhang, S.H. Application of polymer composite pipes in oilfield in China. In
Proceedings of the 7th International MERL Oilfield Engineering with Polymers Conference, London, UK, 21–22 September 2010.
10. Yue, Q.; Lu, Q.; Yan, J.; Zheng, J.; Palmer, A. Tension behavior prediction of flexible pipelines in shallow water. Ocean Eng. 2013,
58, 201–207. [CrossRef]
11. Xia, M.; Kemmochi, K.; Takayanagi, H. Analysis of filament-wound fiber-reinforced sandwich pipe under combined internal
pressure and thermomechanical loading. Compos. Struct. 2001, 51, 273–283. [CrossRef]
12. Lou, M.; Wang, Y.; Tong, B.; Wang, S. Effect of temperature on tensile properties of reinforced thermoplastic pipes. Compos. Struct.
2020, 241, 112119. [CrossRef]
13. Bai, Y.; Chen, W.; Xiong, H.; Qiao, H.; Yan, H. Analysis of steel strip reinforced thermoplastic pipe under internal pressure.
Ships Offshore Struct. 2016, 11, 766–773. [CrossRef]
14. Bai, Y.; Liu, T.; Cheng, P.; Yuan, S.; Yao, D.; Tang, G. Buckling stability of steel strip reinforced thermoplastic pipe subjected to
external pressure. Compos. Struct. 2016, 152, 528–537. [CrossRef]
15. Ashraf, M.A.; Morozov, E.V.; Shankar, K. Krishnakumar. Flexure analysis of spoolable reinforced thermoplastic pipes for offshore
oil and gas applications. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2014, 33, 533–542. [CrossRef]
16. Meng, X.J.; Wang, S.Q.; Yao, L. Research on equivalent simplification model of glass fiber-reinforced flexible pipes. Ocean. Eng.
2017, 35, 71–83.
17. Gao, L.; Liu, T.; Shao, Q.; Fantuzzi, N.; Chen, W. Burst pressure of steel reinforced flexible pipe. Mar. Struct. 2020, 71,
102704. [CrossRef]
18. SY/T 6662.2-2012. Non-Metallic Composite Pipe for Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Part 2: Flexible Composite Pipe for High
Pressure Transmission; National Energy Board: Beijing, China, 2012.
19. ASTM D2105-01. Standard Test Method for Longitudinal Tensile Properties of “Fiberglass” (Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting-Resin)
Pipe and Tube; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
20. Bai, Y.; Liu, T.; Ruan, W.; Chen, W. Mechanical behavior of metallic strip flexible pipe subjected to tension. Compos. Struct. 2017,
170, 1–10. [CrossRef]
21. ISO 291:2008. Plastics—Standard Atmospheres for Conditioning and Testing; International Standard; The International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.