Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
A Simplified Approach for Predicting Bend Radius in HDPE
Pipelines during Offshore Installation
Muhammad Zahid Jiwa 1,2 , Young Tae Kim 3 , Zahiraniza Mustaffa 2 , Seungjun Kim 4, * and Do Kyun Kim 3,5, *

1 McDermott Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur 50250, Malaysia; [email protected]

2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,
Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia; [email protected]
3 Ocean and Shore Technology (OST) Research Group, Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea; [email protected]
4 School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Korea University,
Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
5 Research Institute of Marine Systems Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected] (S.K.); [email protected] (D.K.K.)

Abstract: Traditionally, subsea pipelines designed for the transportation of oil, gas, and water are
constructed using carbon steel due to its strength, toughness, and ability to operate at temperatures
up to 427 ◦ C. However, polyethylene (PE), especially its high-density variant (HDPE), presents
advantages such as reduced installation costs, diminished water leakage, and superior corrosion
resistance. As research endeavours to enhance PE properties, its adoption for subsea applications
is anticipated to rise. This study first delineates the mechanical behaviour of HDPE pipelines for
offshore installation, identifying pulling tension, dimension ratio, water depth, and air fill ratio as
the paramount lay parameters. Subsequently, a theoretical bend radius equation was derived from
pipelaying mechanics using a purely geometric approach. Within this equation, two determinants,
parameter X and parameter Y, dictate the sagbend bend radius. Regression analysis elucidated the
relationships of lay parameters with both X and Y, yielding a general equation for X in terms of
pull tension, water depth, and air fill ratio and another for Y as a function of water depth. Together,
Citation: Jiwa, M.Z.; Kim, Y.T.; these geometric determinants underpin the sagbend bend radius estimation model. For overbend
Mustaffa, Z.; Kim, S.; Kim, D.K. A bend radius prediction, a lay index (IL ) was fashioned from the aforementioned three parameters.
Simplified Approach for Predicting
Correlation assessments between the lay index and overbend bend radius revealed R2 values of 0.940,
Bend Radius in HDPE Pipelines
0.836, and 0.712 for pipes with diameters of 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 metres, respectively. This underscores
during Offshore Installation. J. Mar.
the model’s proficiency in predicting the bend radius, albeit with decreasing precision for larger-
Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032.
diameter pipelines.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse11102032
Keywords: ocean and shore technology (OST); HDPE; offshore installation; pipeline; bend radius; subsea
Academic Editor: Mohamed
Benbouzid

Received: 9 September 2023

Revised: 11 October 2023 1. Introduction
Accepted: 13 October 2023 In recent times, non-metallic pipes have gained precedence in offshore project devel-
Published: 23 October 2023 opment. A multitude of research has delved into understanding the behaviour of such
pipelines [1–3]. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) often finds use as an internal lining for
steel pipes in marine environments and forms part of composite pipe material. Regarding
the HDPE, limited studies have been conducted recently, as follows.
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Kuliczkowska and Gierczak [4] examined the buckling failure mechanisms of HDPE
This article is an open access article
rehabilitation pipes and assessed various design strategies against this issue. Their research
distributed under the terms and revealed notable discrepancies in different calculation methods and highlighted key factors
conditions of the Creative Commons in buckling evaluation. Yang et al. [5] investigated the abnormal leakage effect of a buried
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// HDPE pipe. They concluded that most of the failures may be caused by erosion–corrosion
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and mechanical damage and have investigated the biological degradation. Wu et al. [6]
4.0/). conducted field explosion tests on buried HDPE pipelines, analysing factors influencing

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11102032 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 2 of 23

dynamic responses. Based on their findings, they established explosive charge standards
and devised damage prediction models for different damage levels. Majid and Elghorba [7]
conducted HDPE pipe failure analysis by a static test and proposed simplified approaches to
assess the damage. Guidara et al. [8] performed a structural integrity assessment of defected
HPDE pipes. They focused on the burst test and FE-based ECA by a J-integral technique.
Guidara et al. [9] continuously proposed a semi-empirical model for structural integrity
assessment for HDPE pipes. However, studies related to subsea pipeline installation using
HDPE pipes are limited.
Other frequent linings include polyvinyl chloride (PVC), fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE),
and corrosion-resistant alloy (CRA) [10,11]. Conversely, pure HDPE pipes dominate the
construction of seawater intake and discharge systems in coastal processing facilities.
Extensive research has been conducted on the installation of offshore carbon steel pipelines
and pipe-in-pipe systems [12–14]. However, offshore HDPE pipeline installations diverge
from carbon steel installations, primarily because of HDPE’s lightweight properties. Carbon
steel pipes predominantly employ the S-lay and J-lay installation methods. The S-lay
process sees the pipeline transition from a horizontal vessel position, curving downwards
to the seabed in an emblematic S-shape. In contrast, the J-lay method, preferred for deeper
waters, deploys the pipeline from a vertical lay system (VLS) tower, assuming a J-shape [15].
Pipelines during offshore installations endure external pressure, bending, and axial
load from various environmental forces [16,17], impacting their fatigue life over operational
phases [18–21]. Hence, ensuring pipelines perform as designed without compromising
integrity is paramount. Analytical optimization of the design is vital for effective real-world
operation, underlining the importance of a profound understanding of installation analysis
modelling techniques. HDPE pipes in marine applications, predominantly for water intake
or discharge, are favoured due to their high corrosion resistance, low surface roughness
(enhancing hydraulic behaviour), and exceptional resilience against environmental forces.
Roberts et al. [22] indicated that outfall diffuser depths typically range from 20 m to 40 m.
Pipelines situated in water depths beyond 60 m are classified as deep water. Notably, in
2012, Makai Ocean Engineering undertook a repair study on a 40” diameter HDPE intake
pipeline located at a depth of 670 m. Utilising the Orcaflex software (ver 9.6), Rocheleau
and Jensen [23] crafted a finite element (FE) model to emulate a large-diameter catenary
HDPE pipeline and its anchoring system, enhancing the repair methodologies through a
better understanding of design behaviour.
Several authors, including Johansen et al. [24] and Ravlic et al. [25], have illuminated
the challenges of subsea pipeline installations. In brief, the challenges including the
research gap and the technical reviews on HDPE pipeline studies and guidelines are
concisely illustrated in Figure 1a,b. More recently, Kim et al. [26] detailed the design and
installation of an ultra-large HDPE intake pipeline in Algeria, boasting a diameter of 2.5 m
and dimension ratios of 26 and 30. The pipe dimension ratio (DR) is defined as the ratio of
a pipe’s outer diameter to its wall thickness. Intriguingly, as the DR increases, indicating a
larger diameter, the wall thickness proportionally decreases.
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng. 2023,11,
Eng.2023, 11,2032
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 23
25

Construction of large 1.0m diameter HDPE Lesson learn from design of

pipeline ( > 630mm) shows cost reduction 3000mm diameter HDPE pipe
& flexible Jackson Pita
2000mm OD
Requirement to design Requirement to design
1.0m diameter pipeline 3.0m diameter pipeline
PipeLife Technical
Guide (2002)

1966 1984 2004 2006 2010

Conceptual study. Proposed an improve AWWA-M55

Lay pipe with little cost – plastic operator role in the HDPE developed
pipe (HDPE) was chosen construction project
PPI Guide
Stentiford & Woley Johansen et al. developed

OTEC conceptual study Operator lack of practical knowledge

(a) Before 2010

(b) After 2010

Figure1.1.Technical
Figure Technicalreviews
reviewson
onHDPE-pipeline-related
HDPE-pipeline-relatedstudies
studiesincluding
includingguidelines
guidelines[23,24,26–32].
[23,24,26–32].

AA critical
critical observation
observation was was that
that the
the pipe’s
pipe’s simplified
simplified minimum
minimum yield
yield stress
stress (SMYS)
(SMYS)
stoodat
stood ataasignificant
significant92%,92%,especially
especiallywhenwhenconsidering
consideringaa70 70kN
kNpulling
pullingforce.
force.The
TheHDPE
HDPE
pipeline isis typically
pipeline typically installed
installed viavia the
the float-and-sink
float-and-sink method,
method, as illustrated
illustrated in Figure 2a.
Enhancedmodelling
Enhanced modellingtechniques
techniquesduring
duringthethesinking
sinkingphase
phasecancanpotentially
potentiallyyield
yieldimproved
improved
analysisresults.
analysis results.Since
Sincethethe introduction
introduction of pipes
of PE PE pipes for marine
for marine installations
installations in the in
latethe late
1950s,
1950s, the S-lay sinking method has predominantly been employed.
the S-lay sinking method has predominantly been employed. As presented by Andtbacka As presented by
Andtbacka
et al. [33], theet essential
al. [33], the essential
premise premise
of this of this
method methodthe
involves involves the pipe
pipe initially initially
floating onfloat-
the
ing on the seawater’s
seawater’s surface, by
surface, followed followed
water by water
being being
filled filled
from from
one endone endpull
while while pull ten-
tension is
exerted at the opposite
sion is exerted end. end.
at the opposite
However, a novel conceptual study by Stentiford and Wooley [27] proposed three
distinct installation methods for PE pipelines for depths of up to 1000 m. The first, known
as the ocean surface floating tow method, requires buoyancy modules to be fixed at
specific intervals. These modules ensure the pipeline’s top breaches the seawater’s surface.
Following this, the pipeline is towed to its designated location by a tugboat. Once in
position, buoys are gradually released, causing the pipeline to descend onto the seabed.
The second method, termed the buoyant catenary, employs a clump weight attached at
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 4 of 23

both the inshore and offshore ends of the pipeline. Installation is orchestrated so that both
weights descend to their respective positions. Due to its low-density nature, the buoyancy
of the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, PE pipeline
x FOR makes it assume an inverted catenary shape. Lastly, the ocean floor
PEER REVIEW 4
tow method allows the pipeline to be towed out to sea, hovering just above the seabed to
minimise current impacts.

(a) S-lay example

(b) HDPE pipeline during sinking

Figure
Figure 2. Schematic view2.ofSchematic view
the offshore of the offshore
pipeline pipeline
float-and-sink float-and-sink
installation installation method.
method.

Historically, theHowever,
definitionaof “large
novel diameter”
conceptual for PE
study by pipes has evolved.
Stentiford and Wooley In 1982, a
[27] proposed
pipe with a 1.0 m diameter
distinct and a dimension
installation methods for ratio of 23 wasfor
PE pipelines deemed
depthslarge
of up [28]. Bym.
to 1000 2009,
The first, kn
as the pipelines
marine cooling water ocean surface floating
for the Tergatow method,
power plantrequires
were beingbuoyancy modules
constructed withto be
a fixed at
diameter of 2.0 mcific
andintervals.
a dimensionTheseratio
modules
of 26 ensure the pipeline’s
[34]. Presently, top breaches
PE pipes the seawater’s sur
are manufactured
in sizes reachingFollowing
up to 3260 this,
mm theinpipeline is towed
diameter, to its designated
with dimension ratioslocation
rangingby a tugboat.
from 17 to Once in
sition, buoys are gradually released, causing the pipeline to
41 [35]. Consequently, it is plausible to infer that mechanical properties consistent with descend onto the seabed
second
pipes smaller than 3.0 mmethod,
can be termed the given
achieved, buoyant thecatenary,
similarity employs a clumpratios.
in dimension weight attached at
This
the inshore
research endeavours and offshore
to provide insights ends of the
into the pipeline. Installation
characteristics is orchestrated
and behaviour of large- so that
diameter HDPEweights descend toatheir
and to introduce respectivemodel
streamlined positions. Due tothe
to predict its low-density
bend radiusnature,
of the the buoy
of the PEinstallation.
pipeline during offshore pipeline makes Thisitstudy
assume an inverted
specifically catenarypipes
examines shape.of Lastly, them,
2.0 m, 2.5 ocean floo
methodspanning
and 3.0 m in diameter, allows the pipeline toratios
dimension be towed
of 17,out
21,to26,
sea,
33,hovering
and 41. just above the seabed to
imise current impacts.
2. Sinking Process Mechanism
Historically, the definition of “large diameter” for PE pipes has evolved. In 19
Earlier research with
pipe a 1.0 m
primarily diameter
relied and aanalysis
on static dimension ratio of 23
of pipeline was deemed
issues. large
Initially, the [28]. By
marine cooling water pipelines for the Terga power plant
pipeline profile, often assumed to adopt an S-shape during the sinking operation, was an were being constructed w
unknown variable.diameter
The mostof 2.0 m and
critical a dimension
stage ratio process,
is the sinking of 26 [34]. Presently,
depicted PE pipes
in Figure 2b.areFormanufact
in sizes reaching
a successful installation, up to 3260
it is imperative mm inadiameter,
to strike with dimension
balance between ratios ranging
the downward forces from 17
[35]. Consequently, it is plausible to infer that mechanical properties consistent with p
smaller than 3.0 m can be achieved, given the similarity in dimension ratios. This rese
endeavours to provide insights into the characteristics and behaviour of large-diam
HDPE and to introduce a streamlined model to predict the bend radius of the pip
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 5 of 23

(q1) and upward forces (q2). Downward forces primarily stem from the concrete weights
attached to the pipeline, while the buoyancy of the air-filled pipeline section generates the
upward forces.
For the sinking process to commence and progress, the downward forces must slightly
outweigh the upward forces. However, maintaining this delicate balance remains a central
challenge. It is crucial to prevent the acceleration of downward forces; this can be managed
by monitoring the sinking speed and adjusting the internal air pressure accordingly. If
sinking speed escalates, air pressure can be increased, and the reverse is also true. Tools
like valves and compressors play a vital role in regulating this pressure. A primary concern
for the pipeline is potential damage due to buckling at the sea’s surface or bottom, caused
by bending. As illustrated in Figure 2b, key factors influencing the sinking process include
upward and downward forces, pulling force (P), air pressure, and sinking velocity (V).
Notably, this study specifically focuses on the upward, downward, and pulling forces.

3. Study of Interest
To develop a simplified method for predicting the bend radius of large-diameter HDPE
pipelines, we delved into the following research domains:
• Analysing the impact of depth variation on the pipeline’s total stress and curvature.
• Investigating the influence of applied tension variations on total stress and curvature.
• Evaluating the effect of the pipe’s dimension ratio (DR) on total stress and curvature.
• Comparing results for pipe diameters of 2.0 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m.
• Conducting a regression analysis on the primary parameters for pipeline installation.
• This study presents analysis results obtained from static modelling. In this initial
study, static analysis is adequate to obtain the effect of water depth, pull tension, pipe
DR and AFR on pipe curvature or bend radius for the formulation of bend radius
prediction. Hence, dynamic analysis, which takes into account the vessel and pipeline
hydrodynamic behaviour, has not been analysed.

3.1. Sinking Model

This research explored various modelling techniques to simulate the structural re-
sponse of HDPE pipeline sinking operations, as depicted in Figures 3 and 4. The pros and
cons of each sinking method are detailed in Tables 1 and 2. Three modelling techniques
were compared to assess the stress load distribution on the pipeline. The decision matrix
method facilitated the identification of the most suitable technique among the three, con-
sidering criteria such as load distribution, model complexity, and sagbend and overbend
stress ratios. Load distribution pertains to the load imposed on the pipe due to arbitrary
buoys, clumps, or weights in the model, with techniques A and B demonstrating high
values. Model complexity reflects the intricacy of each technique, gauged by the number
of objects involved. The stress ratio gauges the analysis loading stress against the PE’s
minimum yield strength in the sagbend and overbend regions. Preliminary findings identi-
fied the equivalent weight method as the superior approach for modelling HDPE pipeline
sinking (see Table 3). Consequently, Model C, representing this method, was chosen for the
parametric study analysis.

Table 1. Comparison of the advantages of different modelling techniques.

Methods Advantages
Buoy  Able to run in time domain.
Clump  Quick to model and run.
 Quick to model and run.
Equivalent weight
 Better load distribution.
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng. 2023,11,
Eng.2023, 11,2032
x FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of
of2325
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 25

Figure3.3.
Figure
Figure 3.HDPE
HDPEpipe
HDPE pipesinking
pipe sinkingmodel.
sinking model.
model.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Finite
Finite element
element (FE)
(FE) model
model of
of the
the sinking
sinking process.
process.
Figure 4. Finite element (FE) model of the sinking process.
Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison
Comparison of
of the
the advantages
advantages of
of different
different modelling
modelling techniques.
techniques.
Table 2. Comparison of the disadvantages of different modelling techniques.
Methods
Methods Advantages
Advantages
Methods Disadvantages
Buoy
Buoy  Able to run in time domain.
Able to run in time domain.
Buoy is the model as a point load.
Clump
Clump  Quick to
Quick
Requires
to model
model and
many model
and run.
run.
objects (3D buoy and links).
Buoy  Quick to model and run.
weight 
Equivalent weight
Equivalent
Difficult
Quick totomodel
refine model.
and run.
 Better load
Floating
Better load distribution.
profile is not accurate.
distribution.
 Clump is the model as a point load.
Clump
Table 2.
2. Comparison of
of the
the disadvantages
disadvantages of different
Limited to static different modelling
modelling techniques.
calculation. techniques.
Table Comparison of
Methods  Limited to static calculation.
Disadvantages
Methods
Equivalent weight Disadvantages
Requires performing hand calculation of the equivalent weight.


Buoy is
Buoy is the
the model
model asas aa point
point load.
load.
 Requires many model
Requires many model objects (3Dobjects (3D buoy
buoy and
and links).
links).
Buoy
Buoy
Table 3. Final

decision matrix table for modelling
Difficult to refine selection.
model.
Difficult to refine model.
 Floating profile
profile is not accurate.
Criteria  FloatingWeightageis not accurate.
Buoy Clump Equivalent
 Clump
Clump is
is the model
the model asas aa point
point load.
load.
LoadClump
distribution (kN)
Clump 9 −0.483 −0.518 1
 Limited to
Limited to static
static calculation.
calculation.
Model complexity −2
 Limited to
Limited to7static
static calculation.
calculation. 1 1
Sagbendweight
stress ratio Requires performing
6 −2 calculation of0 the equivalent
1
Equivalent
Equivalent weight  Requires performing hand hand calculation of the equivalent
weight.
Overbend stress ratio
weight. 6 1 −0.5 0
Total Score - −24.347 −0.662 22
Table 3.
Table 3. Final
Final decision
decision matrix
matrix table
table for
for modelling
modelling selection.
selection.

3.2. Effect of Depth Variation

Criteria Weightage Buoy Clump Equivalent
Criteria Weightage Buoy Clump Equivalent
Load
For distribution
thisdistribution
Load (kN)
investigation,
(kN) 99 software
the finite element −0.483 −0.518 9.6) was chosen
OrcaFlex (version
−0.483 −0.518 11
to analyse the impact
Model of various parameters
complexity 7 on the resulting
−2 stresses
1 and strains. The
Model complexity 7 −2 1 11
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 7 of 23

properties of the pipe utilised in this study are detailed in Tables 4–6. An initial pull tension
of 153 kN, calculated using Equation (1), was applied to assess the influence of varying
depth values on the pipelay’s shape, as well as its stress and strain responses.

T = wsub × w.d. (1)

Here, T is the tension (kN), wsub is the pipeline’s submerged weight, and w.d. (mm) is
water depth.

Table 4. Pipe data.

Description Unit Pipe

Outer diameter mm 2000
Wall thickness mm 77

Table 5. Material data.

Property Unit Value

Density kg/m3 960
Yield strength MPa 23
Tensile modulus (short) MPa 950
Poisson’s ratio - 0.4
Minimum required strength (MRS) MPa 10

Table 6. Concrete collar data.

Description Unit Value

Span m 6
Air fill rate % 20

While maintaining a constant tension, the water depth was varied in increments of
10 m to observe its effects on the pipeline until it reached a point of overstress or buckling.
As observed, with an increase in water depth, the pipeline profile tends to become steeper.
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the stress and curvature variations in the pipeline throughout
the sinking process. Notably, as the water depth rises, there is a corresponding increase in
both stress and curvature when tension remains unchanged. It is crucial to highlight that,
depending on the chosen design criteria for installation, the results can vary significantly.
For instance, under stress limit criteria, the pipeline can sustain depths up to 27 m before
failure, as depicted in Figure 5. In contrast, if considering the local buckling limit, this
threshold extends up to 60 m before observing a failure.

w.d. = 12 OD (2)

In line with Pipelife’s guidelines, water depths greater than 24 m qualify as the
“deepwater” region, as formulated in Equation (2) [36]. Due to the unique challenges and
conditions present in deepwater installations, the pulling tension needs to be adapted. To
accommodate for these depths, the pull tension was adjusted to double its previous value,
increasing it to 300 kN. This study further examined increasing water depths, beginning
from a 30 m depth and incremented in 20 m intervals. The results of this approach, including
the impact on stress, curvature, and any observed buckling or failure points, are discussed
in the subsequent sections.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25

from a 30 m depth and incremented in 20 m intervals. The results of this approach, includ-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032
ing the impact on stress, curvature, and any observed buckling or failure points, are8 dis-
of 23

cussed in the subsequent sections.

Figure 5.
Figure Stress diagrams
5. Stress diagrams of
of the
the HDPE
HDPE pipeline
pipeline laid
laid at
at different
different water depths at
water depths at 150
150 kN
kN of
of tension.
tension.

Figure 6. Curvature diagrams

diagramsof
ofthe
theHDPE
HDPEpipeline
pipelinelaid atat
laid different water
different depths
water at 150
depths kN kN
at 150 of tension.
of ten-
sion.
In evaluating the stress design parameters, it was discerned that the pipeline reached
an overstressed
In evaluating condition
the stressat design
a relatively shallowitdepth
parameters, of 27 m. When
was discerned thepipeline
that the pullingreached
tension
wasoverstressed
an strategicallycondition
augmented at ato account shallow
relatively for challenges inherent
depth of to deepwater
27 m. When the pulling operations,
tension
therestrategically
was was a modest reductiontoinaccount
augmented pipelinefor
stress, bringing
challenges it down
inherent to to 14.3 MPa.operations,
deepwater Yet, upon
there was a modest reduction in pipeline stress, bringing it down to 14.3 MPa. Yet,thresh-
incrementally increasing the water depth, the pipeline swiftly approached its stress upon
old again at a depth
incrementally of 30 m,
increasing thea water
phenomenon
depth, illustrated
the pipeline in Figure
swiftly7.approached
Parallel observations
its stress
made on pipe
threshold againcurvature,
at a depth as of demonstrated in Figure
30 m, a phenomenon 8, offer in
illustrated insight
Figureinto its behaviour
7. Parallel obser-
vations made on pipe curvature, as demonstrated in Figure 8, offer insight into itsbuckling
across a spectrum of water depths, ranging from 30 m up to a critical point where behav-
transpired
iour acrossat a 90 m. A pivotal
spectrum of waterobservation from this
depths, ranging analysis
from 30 misup thetopredominant
a critical point influence
where
of pulling tension adjustments on the pipeline’s curvature (or bend radius)
buckling transpired at 90 m. A pivotal observation from this analysis is the predominant in contrast to
the impact it has on the pipeline stress.
influence of pulling tension adjustments on the pipeline’s curvature (or bend radius) in
contrast
3.3. Effecttoofthe impact
Tension it has on the pipeline stress.
Variation
The integrity and profile of a pipeline are significantly influenced by the pulling tension
applied. To delve deeper into the effects of varying tension parameters, we systematically
increased the pull tension in increments of 150 kN, culminating at 450 kN. Figure 9 vividly
captures the subsequent transformations in the sagbend curvature as the tension escalates.
J.
J. Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2023,
2023, 11,
11, x2032
x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 999of
of 25
of 23
25

Figure
Figure 7. Stress diagrams
7. Stress
Stress diagrams of
of HDPE
HDPE pipeline
pipeline laid
laid at different
different water
at different depths at
water depths at 300
300 kN
kN of
of tension.
tension.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 25

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Curvature
Curvature diagrams
diagrams of
of HDPE
HDPE pipeline
pipeline laid
laid at
at different
different water
different water depths
depths at
at 300 kN of tension.

3.3. Effect of Tension Variation

The integrity and profile of a pipeline are significantly influenced by the pulling ten-
sion applied. To delve deeper into the effects of varying tension parameters, we system-
atically increased the pull tension in increments of 150 kN, culminating at 450 kN. Figure
9 vividly captures the subsequent transformations in the sagbend curvature as the tension
escalates.

Figure9.9. Sagbend
Figure Sagbend curvature
curvature profile
profile due
due to
to tension
tension variation.
variation.

Therepercussions
The repercussionsofofheightened
heightenedpulling
pullingonon the
the pipeline’s
pipeline’s stress
stress andand curvature
curvature dy-
dynam-
namics
ics are comprehensively
are comprehensively depicted
depicted in Figures
in Figures 10 and1011.
and 11. Notably,
Notably, escalating
escalating the pullthe pull
tension
tensioninresults
results in a marked
a marked declinedecline in the maximum
in the maximum stressstress and curvature,
and curvature, bothboth in the
in the over-
overbend
bend and sagbend zones. However, this diminishing effect is considerably
and sagbend zones. However, this diminishing effect is considerably more pronounced more pro-in
nounced in the sagbend region compared to its counterpart. To quantify, tension enhance-
ment from 153 kN to 450 kN triggers a 13.5% reduction in curvature in the overbend zone,
while the sagbend region experiences a more substantial drop of 26.7%, as corroborated
by Table 7.
 ment from 153 kN to 450 kN triggers a 13.5% reduction in curvature in the overbend zone,
while the sagbend region experiences a more substantial drop of 26.7%, as corroborated
by Table 7.

Table 7. Curvature reduction percentage.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 10 of 23
Curvature at Region
Pulling Tension199803(kN)
Overbend Sagbend
153 0.0163 0.0105
the sagbend region compared to its counterpart. To quantify, tension enhancement from
153 kN to 450450 0.0141
kN triggers a 13.5% reduction 0.00778
in curvature in the overbend zone, while the
sagbendReduction
region experiences
(%) a more substantial
13.5 drop of 26.7%, as corroborated
26.7 by Table 7.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 25

Stress diagram of the pipeline under different

Figure 10. Stress different tension values.

Curvature diagram of the pipeline under different

Figure 11. Curvature different tension values.

3.4.
TableEffect of Pipe Dimension
7. Curvature Ratio
reduction percentage.
The pipe’s dimension ratio (DR) is defined as the ratio of a pipe’s outer diameter to
Pulling Tension Curvature at Region
its wall thickness. Intriguingly, as the DR increases, indicating a thicker diameter, the wall
(kN) Overbend Sagbendpipeline
thickness proportionally decreases. For the scope of this analysis, our reference
spotlights a DR of 26.153 This section critically assesses0.0163 0.0105 pipe DRs
the ramifications of varying
on integral aspects450 of the pipe—notably its stress 0.0141
and curvature. A deliberate selection of
0.00778
five DR values, which are
Reduction (%)
prominently utilised in manufacturing,
13.5
forms the foundation
26.7
of
this study. These chosen DRs are 17, 21, 26, 33, and 41. In our numerical simulation, a pipe
with a 2.0 m diameter saw its wall thickness methodically reduced across the specified
3.4. Effect of Pipe Dimension Ratio
DRs: from 117 mm, progressing to 95 mm, 77 mm, 60 mm, and finally reaching 49 mm.
The pipe’s
The profounddimension
influenceratio (DR)onisthe
of DR defined
bendas the ratio
radius, of a pipe’s
specifically in outer diameter
the sagbend to
and
its wall thickness. Intriguingly, as the DR increases, indicating a thicker diameter,
overbend regions, is meticulously explored. Figures 12 and 13 encapsulate the tangible the wall
thickness
effects proportionally
of stress decreases.
and curvature on theFor the scope
pipeline of this
across the analysis,
spectrumour reference
of the five DR pipeline
varia-
spotlights
tions. a DR of
Of these, the26. Thiswith
pipe section
a DR critically assesses thethe
of 41 manifested ramifications of varying
most pronounced pipe DRs
stresses and
curvatures. In stark contrast, the pipe characterised by a DR of 17 showcased the least
stress and curvature. Synthesising these observations, it is discernible that a pipe with a
lower DR is advantageous. Not only does it boast a more expansive cross-sectional area
conducive to stress mitigation, but its robustness also empowers it with enhanced re-
 Figure 11. Curvature diagram of the pipeline under different tension values.

3.4. Effect of Pipe Dimension Ratio

The pipe’s dimension ratio (DR) is defined as the ratio of a pipe’s outer diameter to
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 its wall thickness. Intriguingly, as the DR increases, indicating a thicker diameter, the11wall of 23
thickness proportionally decreases. For the scope of this analysis, our reference pipeline
spotlights a DR of 26. This section critically assesses the ramifications of varying pipe DRs
on
on integral
integral aspects
aspects of the pipe—notably its stress and curvature. A A deliberate
deliberate selection
selection ofof
five
five DR
DR values,
values, which
which are
are prominently
prominently utilised
utilised in
in manufacturing,
manufacturing, formsforms thethe foundation
foundation of of
this
this study.
study. These chosen DRs are 17, 21, 26, 33, and 41. In In our
our numerical
numerical simulation,
simulation, aa pipe
pipe
with a 2.0
2.0mmdiameter
diametersawsawitsits wall
wall thickness
thickness methodically
methodically reduced
reduced across
across the specified
the specified DRs:
DRs:
from from 117 progressing
117 mm, mm, progressing
to 95 tomm, 95 77
mm,mm, 77 60
mm, 60 and
mm, mm,finally
and finally reaching
reaching 49 mm. 49 mm.
The
The profound
profound influence
influence of of DR
DR on on the bend radius,
radius, specifically
specifically inin the
the sagbend
sagbend andand
overbend regions,
overbend regions, is
is meticulously
meticulously explored.
explored. Figures
Figures 1212 and
and 13 13 encapsulate
encapsulate the the tangible
tangible
effects of stress
effects stress and
andcurvature
curvatureon onthethepipeline
pipelineacross thethe
across spectrum
spectrum of the fivefive
of the DR DRvariations.
varia-
Of these,
tions. Of the pipe
these, thewith
pipea DR
withof a41DR
manifested the most pronounced
of 41 manifested stresses and
the most pronounced curvatures.
stresses and
In stark contrast,
curvatures. thecontrast,
In stark pipe characterised by a DR ofby
the pipe characterised 17ashowcased the least stress
DR of 17 showcased and
the least
curvature.
stress Synthesising
and curvature. these observations,
Synthesising it is discernible
these observations, that a pipethat
it is discernible with a lower
a pipe withDR a
is advantageous. Not only does it boast a more expansive cross-sectional
lower DR is advantageous. Not only does it boast a more expansive cross-sectional area area conducive
to stress mitigation,
conducive but its robustness
to stress mitigation, also empowers
but its robustness it with enhanced
also empowers resistancere-
it with enhanced to
bendingto
sistance loads.
bending loads.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

Figure 12.
Figure Stress diagram
12. Stress diagram of
of the
the pipeline
pipeline under
under different
different pipe
pipe dimension
dimension ratios.
ratios.

Figure 13.
Figure Curvature diagram
13. Curvature diagram of
of the
the pipeline
pipeline under
under different
different pipe dimension ratios.

3.5. Effect of Pipe Diameter

3.5. Effect of Pipe Diameter
The focal point of this study is on large-diameter, high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
The focal point of this study is on large-diameter, high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
pipes. An essential parameter under investigation is the interplay between the pipe di-
pipes. An essential parameter under investigation is the interplay between the pipe diam-
ameter and its consequential effects on both pipe stress and curvature. Throughout this
eter and its consequential effects on both pipe stress and curvature. Throughout this ex-
ploration, the pipe’s dimension ratio (DR) was held constant at a value of 26. A compre-
hensive analysis was executed on pipes with diameters spanning 2.0 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m.
As depicted in Figure 14, intriguingly, the diameter does not exert a pronounced influence
on the pipeline stress, particularly in the overbend region. The stress variations here are
 pipes. An essential parameter under investigation is the interplay between the pipe diam-
eter and its consequential effects on both pipe stress and curvature. Throughout this ex-
ploration, the pipe’s dimension ratio (DR) was held constant at a value of 26. A compre-
hensive analysis was executed on pipes with diameters spanning 2.0 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m.
As depicted in Figure 14, intriguingly, the diameter does not exert a pronounced influence
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 on the pipeline stress, particularly in the overbend region. The stress variations here 12 ofare
23

negligible, illustrating a near-uniform stress distribution irrespective of the diameter.

Conversely, in the sagbend region, a marginal escalation in stress is discernible with in-
exploration,
creasing the pipe’s dimension ratio (DR) was held constant at a value of 26. A com-
diameter.
prehensive
Figure analysis
15 provideswasa executed on pipes
more nuanced with diameters
understanding of thespanning
curvature2.0 m, 2.5 m,
dynamics. and
There
3.0am.
is As depicted
marked in Figure
amplification 14, intriguingly,
in pipe the diameter
curvature, evident in bothdoes
the not exert aand
overbend pronounced
sagbend
influencedirectly
regions, on the pipeline stress,
attributable particularly
to diameter in the overbend
augmentation. This region. The stress
observation variations
underscores the
here are negligible, illustrating a near-uniform stress distribution irrespective of
criticality of meticulous design considerations for large-diameter pipelines. Their height-the diame-
ter. Conversely,
ened in the
susceptibility sagbend
to local region,
buckling, a marginal
especially escalation
under bending inloads,
stress mandates
is discernible with
rigorous
increasing
design anddiameter.
evaluation protocols.

Figure 14. Stress diagram of the pipeline under different

different pipe diameters.

Figure 15 provides a more nuanced understanding of the curvature dynamics. There

is a marked amplification in pipe curvature, evident in both the overbend and sagbend
regions, directly attributable to diameter augmentation. This observation underscores
the criticality of meticulous design considerations for large-diameter pipelines. Their
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 25
heightened susceptibility to local buckling, especially under bending loads, mandates
rigorous design and evaluation protocols.

Curvature diagram of the pipeline under different

Figure 15. Curvature different pipe diameters.

3.6. Effect of Pipe Air Fill Ratio (AFR)

3.6. Effect of Pipe Air Fill Ratio (AFR)
As indicated in Figure 16, the float-and-sink profile of a floating HDPE pipeline varies
As indicated in Figure 16, the float-and-sink profile of a floating HDPE pipeline varies
with the air fill ratio (AFR) property, a widely recognised parameter in the industry to
with the air fill ratio (AFR) property, a widely recognised parameter in the industry to
characterise the loading degree during the sinking phase. The AFR represents the fraction
characterise the loading degree during the sinking phase. The AFR represents the fraction
of the internal volume of the pipe that must be air-filled to achieve balance with the ballast
weights attached [22]. Additionally, AFR correlates with the water level elevation inside
the HDPE pipeline beneath the sea surface, as illustrated in Figure 2.
 Figure 15. Curvature diagram of the pipeline under different pipe diameters.

3.6. Effect of Pipe Air Fill Ratio (AFR)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 13 of 23
As indicated in Figure 16, the float-and-sink profile of a floating HDPE pipeline varies
with the air fill ratio (AFR) property, a widely recognised parameter in the industry to
characterise the loading degree during the sinking phase. The AFR represents the fraction
of the internal volume of the pipe that must be air-filled to achieve balance with the ballast
of the internal volume of the pipe that must be air-filled to achieve balance with the ballast
weights attached [22]. Additionally, AFR correlates with the water level elevation inside
weights attached [22]. Additionally, AFR correlates with the water level elevation inside
the
theHDPE
HDPE pipeline
pipeline beneath the sea
beneath the seasurface,
surface,as
asillustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure2.2.

Figure16.
Figure 16. Effect
Effect of
of AFR
AFR on
on the
the pipe
pipeprofile.
profile.

Analysis of aa 2.0
Analysis 2.0mmdiameter
diameterpipe
pipesubmerged
submerged at aat30a m
30water
m waterdepth withwith
depth a tension of
a tension
200 kN showcased the influence of AFR on the pipe’s peak stress and bend
of 200 kN showcased the influence of AFR on the pipe’s peak stress and bend radius, as radius, as
depicted in
depicted in Figures
Figures 17 and
and 18.
18.Notably,
Notably,the
themaximal
maximalstress
stressisisminimised
minimised at at
anan
AFR of 10%
AFR of 10%
and escalates to
and escalates to itsits peak within the 30–35% AFR spectrum. Beyond an AFR
within the 30–35% AFR spectrum. Beyond an AFR of 40%, of 40%, its its
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER influence
REVIEW on pipe stress becomes negligible. In terms of both structural integrity and 14 of 25
cost
influence on pipe stress becomes negligible. In terms of both structural integrity and cost
efficiency,aalower
efficiency, lower AFR
AFR isis preferable.
preferable.

Figure 17.
Figure Effect of
17. Effect of AFR
AFR on
on maximum
maximum stress.
stress.

Furthermore, the bend radius’s relationship with AFR is evident in Figure 18, indicat-
ing a reduction in the bend radius as the AFR climbs. This reduction effect is particularly
pronounced in the sagbend region compared to the overbend. A decreased AFR facilitates
the use of lighter ballast weights on the pipeline, ensuring the stability of the anchored
pipeline remains paramount. Employed weights must sufficiently anchor the pipeline,
guaranteeing vertical and horizontal stability, be it within a trench or directly on the
seabed [29].
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 14 of 23

Figure 17. Effect of AFR on maximum stress.

Figure 18. Effect

Figure 18. Effect of
of AFR
AFR on
on bend
bend radius.
radius.
4. Geometric Formulation of S-Lay Bend Radius
Furthermore, the bend radius’s relationship with AFR is evident in Figure 18, indi-
During the float-and-sink operation, the pipeline’s static configuration is primarily
cating a reduction in the bend radius as the AFR climbs. This reduction effect is particu-
influenced by two factors: the pulling tension and the internal air pressure. Of these,
larly pronounced in the sagbend region compared to the overbend. A decreased AFR fa-
only the pulling tension can be actively controlled during the sinking process, given that
cilitates
the bendthe use of
radius lighter ballast
inherently weights
depends on tension.
on this the pipeline,
Thisensuring the stability
axial tension of the an-
in the pipeline is
chored pipeline remains paramount. Employed weights
characterised by both vertical and horizontal components. must sufficiently anchor the pipe-
line, The
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWguaranteeing vertical and
vertical component horizontal
arises from thestability, be it of
combination within a trench
the water or and
depth directly on
of the
the15weight
25
seabed [29].
of the flooded pipe. In contrast, the horizontal pull tension serves a crucial role in managing
the characteristic “S” configuration of the pipeline as it transitions from the water’s surface
4. Geometric
to Formulation
the seabed.provided
This transition of S-Lay
can19,beBend Radiusgeometrically into two distinct sections:
configuration in Figure asegmented
relationship between R, X, and Y is derived, with
the During the
thePythagoras
overbend and float-and-sink
sagbend,
theorem offering operation,
visualised the pipeline’s
in Figure
the foundational 19. forstatic
From
basis configuration
therelationship,
the configuration is primarily
asprovided
articulated in
influenced
Figure 19, by
a
in Equation (3): two factors:
relationship the pulling
between R, tension
X, and Yand
is the internal
derived, with air pressure.
the Of
Pythagoras these, only
theorem
the pulling
offering the tension
foundationalcan bebasis
actively
for thecontrolled
relationship,during the sinkinginprocess,
as articulated Equation given
(3): that the
2 2
bend radius inherently depends on this tension. X2 + Y2 This axial tension in the pipeline is char-
acterised by both vertical and horizontal components. R = X + Y (3)
R= 2Y
The vertical component arises from the2Ycombination of the water depth and the
(3)

weight ofrepresents
where the flooded
where RR represents thepipe.
the pipe’s
In contrast,
pipe’s bending
the
bending radius
horizontal
radius in in the
pull tension
the sagbend
sagbend region.
serves
region. The
a crucial
Theparameter
role in
parameterXX
managing
denotes the the characteristic
horizontal distance “S” configuration
between the of the
inflexion pipeline
point and
denotes the horizontal distance between the inflexion point and the touchdown point (TDP),as it
the transitions
touchdown frompointthe
water’s
(TDP), surface
while Y to the
signifies seabed.
the This
vertical transition
distance fromcan thebe segmented
inflexion point
while Y signifies the vertical distance from the inflexion point to the seabed. Additionally,geometrically
to the seabed. into two
Addi-
distinctrefers
tionally,
“w.d.” sections:
“w.d.” to refers the
the water overbend
to the waterand
depth, and
depth,
AFRand sagbend,
AFRfor
stands visualised
stands forfill
the air in
theratio.Figure
air fill ratio.19. From
Interestingly,
Interestingly, a designthe
awith
design with a 50% air fill ratio results in comparable pipe curvature
a 50% air fill ratio results in comparable pipe curvature in both the overbend and in both the overbend
and sagbend
sagbend regions.
regions.

Figure
Figure19.
19.S-lay
S-laybend
bendradius
radiusgeometry
geometryconfiguration.
configuration.

Inpractical
In practicalscenarios,
scenarios,the
thegeneral
general understanding
understanding is that
is that thethe
bendbend radius
radius along
along a ca-a
catenary
tenary continuously
continuously decreases,
decreases, reaching
reaching its minimum
its minimum value value in the touchdown
in the touchdown zone
zone (TDZ).
However, this study’s focus is on large-diameter pipes, characterised by their heightened
bending stiffness. As a result, the influence of the bend radius on the catenary’s shape
becomes less pronounced.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 15 of 23

(TDZ). However, this study’s focus is on large-diameter pipes, characterised by their

heightened bending stiffness. As a result, the influence of the bend radius on the catenary’s
shape becomes less pronounced.

5. Identification of Parameters X and Y

The geometry of parameter (Xh ) also depends on the water depth, tension, and
AFR [29]. The general equation derived for this parameter is:

Xh = K · ( T − 200) + Xi (4)

−6D2 + (14 − w.d.) D + 4w.d. + 7

K= (5)
5000
In the equation, the factor “K” stands as the slope of the regression line when com-
paring tension to the parameter—Xh . This slope, represented by factor K, conveys the rate
of change in parameter X with respect to the pull tension, T. Furthermore, the term Xi
designates the initial horizontal distance. Given that both the water depth and the pipe
diameter influence the parameter X, the factor K is adjusted to encompass effects from
these variables, making it a function of both water depth and pipe diameter.
To shed light on this relationship, a correlation analysis was conducted. This analysis
assessed the water depth—acting as the predictor—across all three pipe sizes in relation
to factor “K”. Figure 20 captures this relationship, showcasing a positive linear regression
for pipes with diameters of 2.0 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m. Stemming from these observed
relationships, a more comprehensive equation, Equation (5), was crafted. This equation
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
positions factor K as a function of water depth and pipe diameter, and it is grounded16inofthe
25

principles of linear regression analysis.

Figure 20. Correlation results for factor K.K .

Since X
Since Xii is
is the
the initial
initialhorizontal
horizontaldistance
distance(pipeline
(pipelinewithout
withoutpull
pulltension), it is
tension), dependent
it is depend-
on the water depth and AFR property. Figure 21 shows
ent on the water depth and AFR property. Figure 21 shows that that X i and AFR
and have
AFR a have
powera
Xi
relationship with constants A and n as Equation (6). This diagram also demonstrates that
power relationship with constants A and n as Equation (6). This diagram also demon-
these constants are dependent on water depth. As water depth increases, the constant A
strates that these constants are dependent on water depth. As water depth increases, the
and n increase as well. Hence, the correlation of constant A and n as a function of water
constant A and n increase as well. Hence, the correlation of constant A and n as a
depth and pipe diameter was established. From a simple correlation study, both constants
function of water depth and pipe diameter was established. From a simple correlation
A and n have quadratic correlation, and the general equation for these constants can be
study, both constants A and n have quadratic correlation, and the general equation for
derived as shown in Equations (7) and (8).
these constants can be derived as shown in Equations (7) and (8).
A
Xi = (6)
AFRn
 Figure 20. Correlation results for factor K .

Since Xi is the initial horizontal distance (pipeline without pull tension), it is depend-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 16 of 23
ent on the water depth and AFR property. Figure 21 shows that X i and AFR have a
power relationship with constants A and n as Equation (6). This diagram also demon-
strates that these constants are dependent on water depth. As water depth increases, the
constant A and n increase as well. Hence, the correlation of constant A and n as a
function of water depth and −0.005
A = pipe w.d.2 +was
diameter 0.7 w.d. + 5D + 12From a simple correlation
established. (7)
study, both constants A and n have2quadratic correlation, and the general equation for
n = 0.00005 w.d. − 0.0004 w.d. + 0.4 + 0.015D (8)
these constants can be derived as shown in Equations (7) and (8).

Figure 21.
Figure Effect of
21. Effect AFRonon
of AFR initial Xi for
initial 2.0 m OD pipe.
X i for 2.0 m OD pipe.

Thus, combining all of these functions, the general equation for parameter Xh is
proposed as below: A
Xi = n 
(6)
 2 AFR
−6D + (14 + w.d.) D + 4w.d. + 7
( T − 200) + A AFR−n


Xh = (9)
5000 2
A = −0.005 wd
. . + 0.7 wd
. . + 5D +12 (7)
water depth
Factor =
2 (10)
n = 0.00005 wd
. . −constant
0.0004 wd . + 0.4 + 0.015D
.term (8)
 
w.d. the general
Thus, combining all of theseYfunctions, w.d.
v = AFR + equation for parameter Xh is pro-
(11)
posed as below: 4 2.86
The relationship developed between AFR and Y is a linear regression line with linear
term m and constant term C. Constant (m) is the slope, and (C) is the y-intercept where
both of these values are functions of water depth. Based on the parameter Yv profile in
Figure 22, there is a positive linear correlation observed between (m) and (C) and the water
depth. As water depth increases, these two constant terms increase as well. Thus, from
observation, factors (m) and (C) can be obtained from Equation (10). Table 8 summarises this
correlation and the recommended factor values. The recommended values were selected by
averaging the factor for each water depth linear profile. Then, these two-factor values were
substituted into a linear equation to form a general equation for estimating the inflexion
point location or lay vertical parameter Y. Hence, the recommended general equation
derived for parameter Yv proposed is as Equation (11).

Table 8. Summary of the constant m and c with water depth based on regression line of Figure 22.

Vertical Y Water Depth Linear Term, m Factor (m) Constant Term, c Factor (c)
Y20 20 5.4 3.7 6.7 2.96
Y40 40 9.8 4.1 14.1 2.84
Y60 60 15.1 4.0 21.1 2.84
Recommended factors value - 4.0 - 2.86
 depth. As water depth increases, these two constant terms increase as well. Thus, from
observation, factors (m) and (C) can be obtained from Equation (10). Table 8 summarises
this correlation and the recommended factor values. The recommended values were se-
lected by averaging the factor for each water depth linear profile. Then, these two-factor
values were substituted into a linear equation to form a general equation for estimating
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 17 of 23
the inflexion point location or lay vertical parameter Y. Hence, the recommended general
equation derived for parameter Y v proposed is as Equation (11).

Figure 22.
Figure Effect of
22. Effect of AFR
AFR on
on the
the vertical
vertical distance
distance of
of inflexion
inflexion point.
point.

6. Simplified Bend Radius Prediction Method

Table 8. Summary of the constant m and c with water depth based on regression line of Figure 22.
6.1. Sagbend Bend Radius
Vertical Y Water discussed
The previously Depth Linear Term,
section m Factor
introduced (m) Constant
a geometrically Term,equation
driven c Factorto(c)
ap-
Y20 the pipelay
proximate 20 bend radius.5.4 3.7 employed to6.7
This equation was 2.96
deduce the theoretical
bend radius
Y40 with the40analysis being9.8
executed at a 20%4.1 AFR for each14.1
test case. The outcomes
2.84
of these
Y60studies are tabulated
60 in Table
15.1 9. A perusal of
4.0 this table reveals
21.1 that the bend
2.84radii
calculated using the
Recommended factorsgeometry-based approach are significantly (and conservatively) larger
-
than those obtained using OrcaFlex (version 4.0When considering
9.6) [37]. - the variance 2.86in the
value
DR across pipe diameters of 2.0 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m, the average discrepancies between the
computational method and the analytical bend radius are 18%, 16%, and 12%, respectively.

Table 9. Result analysis for comparison of bend radius at 20% AFR.

Outer Diameter (OD)—m

Parameter Unit
2.0 2.5 3.0
Dimension
- 17 21 26 33 41 17 21 26 33 41 17 21 26 33 41
Ratio (DR)
Water Depth
m 30
(w.d.)
Tension kN 200
X m 14.30 14.45 14.50 14.60 14.66 14.30 14.42 14.48 14.57 14.57 14.20 14.35 14.38 14.46 14.49
Y m 51 48 45 43 41 55 52 49 46 43 60 56 53 49 46
Equation 95 84 75 68 62 109 99 88 78 69 126 111 99 89 78
Radius
Orcaflex 77 69 63 56 51 91 82 73 65 59 107 96 86 76 68
Difference % 18.95 24.16 20.68 23.13 18.95 16.64 17.58 17.01 16.41 14.64 15.04 13.3 13.88 14.12 12.56

Further structural analysis revealed that the AFR directly impacts the pipe’s bend radius
in both the sagbend and overbend domains. To accommodate this observation, Equation (12)
was adjusted to incorporate this difference factor, which is presented as follows:

Xh 2 + Yv 2
Rsb = −ε (12)
2Yv
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 18 of 23

where Rsb is the sagbend radius, Xh is the horizontal lay distance (parameter X) and Yv is
the vertical lay distance (parameter Y), and ε is the difference factor. The difference factor
or residual is the difference in analytical calculation to the numerical. Theoretically, the
bend radius in the overbend region for AFR 0.5 is equal to that in the sagbend region.
The primary aim was to discern the disparity in bend radius predictions between the
analytical method and the outcomes from OrcaFlex. An extensive analysis was undertaken
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
for 36 distinct scenarios, incorporating diverse tension levels, water depths, and 19 of 25
AFRs.
For every individual scenario, the bend radius calculated analytically was juxtaposed
against the OrcaFlex software’s outputs. This comparative analysis is vividly depicted
inlatter
Figure 23, which
domain, plots
while the analytically
a positive predictedpersists,
linear correlation bend radius against
the data themore
appear actualscattered
values
derived
and lessfrom OrcaFlex.
concentrated.

Figure23.
Figure 23.Predicted
Predictedvs.
vs.actual
actualvalue
valuefor
for2.0
2.0mmpipe
pipewith
withAFRs
AFRsofof0.2,
0.2,0.3,
0.3,0.4
0.4and
and0.5.
0.5.

AAglance
noteworthy observation
at this graph revealsfrom the graph
a scatter plot ofisanalytical
that a preponderance of datafor
vs. OrcaFlex results points
the
within the
sagbend second
region’s zone
bend is associated
radius. with an AFR
The correlation of 0.2.
between theThis is symbolised
analytical model’sby the orange
prognostica-
triangle
tions and icon. Such a manifestation
the OrcaFlex implies
results is notably a potential
robust, 2 value of of
with an Rlimitation thesuggesting
0.89, model: it exhibits
a high
diminished
degree precision for AFRs falling below 0.3.
of linearity.
To address inconsistencies
Nonetheless, it is imperativeintoEquation
highlight (12) evident
that from the
the model’s zone 2 datacan
performance in be
Figure
bi-
furcated into two distinct realms. The initial realm encompasses actual
23, a coefficient was introduced. Initially, we derived the optimal coefficient for every in- values spanning
from 50 toload
dividual 150. case
Within this precinct,
to decode the modeldata
the underlying exhibits an These
trends. emphatic linear relationship.
coefficients were subse-
Conversely, the subsequent
quently categorised based realm envelopes
on three actual AFR,
determinants: valuestension,
rangingand from 150 to
water 250. A
depth. In com-
this
latter domain,
parative while aanalysis
regression positivewaslinear correlation
executed, persists,
pitting the data appear more
each parameter-centric model scattered
against
and
the less concentrated.
actual MBR model. The reliability of these models was assessed using their R2 values.
A noteworthy
Notably, our findings observation
indicated from the graph
the superior is thatofa the
accuracy preponderance
tension-basedofcoefficient.
data points
withinDrawing
the second zone is associated with an AFR of 0.2. This is
on insights from the pipe structural behaviour segment, it wassymbolised by theobserved
orange
triangle icon. Such a manifestation implies a potential limitation of
that an uptick in DR corresponded to a diminishing pipe bend radius. As such, tensionthe model: it exhibits
diminished
was utilised precision
to factorfor
in AFRs falling below
the influence of DR,0.3.
culminating in the development of a coeffi-
Todenoted
cient, address inconsistencies
as C sb , poised into Equation
refine the(12)
bend evident
radiusfrom the zone
geometry 2 data inFigure
equation. Figure24 23,vis-
a
coefficient was introduced. Initially, we derived the optimal coefficient for every individual
ualises the process of deriving the C sb value. With the integration of this coefficient, we
load case to decode the underlying data trends. These coefficients were subsequently
have revamped the bend radius equation, enabling a more precise estimation of the
categorised based on three determinants: AFR, tension, and water depth. A comparative
sagbend’s bend radius.
regression analysis was executed, pitting each parameter-centric model against the actual
MBR model. The reliability of these models was assessed using their R2 values. Notably,
our findings indicated the superior accuracy of the tension-based coefficient.
Drawing on insights from the pipe structural behaviour segment, it was observed that
an uptick in DR corresponded to a diminishing pipe bend radius. As such, tension was
utilised to factor in the influence of DR, culminating in the development of a coefficient,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 19 of 23
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 25

denoted as Csb , poised to refine the bend radius geometry equation. Figure 24 visualises
the process of deriving the Csb value. With the integration of this coefficient, we have
revamped the bend radius equation, enabling a more precise estimation of the sagbend’s
bend radius.  2
Xh + Yv 2

Rsb = Csb (13)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2Yv 20 of 25

Here, Csb is the sagbend parameter coefficient, which can be determined by Figure 24.

Figure 24. Sagbend dimension ratio coefficient value ( C sb ).

 X 2 + Yv 2 
Rsb = Csb  h  (13)
 2Yv 
Here, C sb is the sagbend parameter coefficient, which can be determined by Figure
24. 24.
Figure
Figure Sagbend dimension
24. Sagbend dimension ratio
ratio coefficient
coefficient value Csbsb).).
value ((C

6.2. Overbend
6.2. Overbend Bend
Bend Radius
Radius
An investigation
investigation was conducted  X 2the 2

+ Yrelationship
An conducted Rsbto
to=discern
Csb  hthe
discern vrelationshipbetween

betweenthe
thebend
bendradii at
radii
(13)
sagbend
at sagbend and
andoverbend
overbendfor forHDPE
HDPEpipes
pipeswith 
with 2 Y
diameters
diameters
v  of
of 2.0
2.0 m,
m, 2.5 m, and
and 3.0
3.0 m.
m. This
This
relationship was
relationship was visually
visually represented
represented in in Figure
Figure 25,
25,which
whichplots
plotsthethesagbend
sagbendbend
bendradius
radius
Here,
against its C is
overbend the sagbend parameter
counterpart. From coefficient,
the scatter which
plot, an can be determined
unmistakable
against its overbend counterpart. From the scatter plot, an unmistakable positive linear
sb by
positiveFigure
linear
24.
correlationbetween
correlation betweenthe thetwo
tworadii
radiiemerges.
emerges.This Thiscorrelation
correlationis is quantitatively
quantitatively captured
captured byby
a
correlation
a correlationcoefficient
coefficient (r) (r)
value of 0.53,
value underscoring
of 0.53, underscoring a moderate
a moderateuphill linear
uphill relationship
linear relation-
6.2.
shipOverbend
betweenbetween Bend
the sagbend Radius
and overbend
the sagbend bend bend
and overbend radii. radii.
An investigation was conducted to discern the relationship between the bend radii at
sagbend and overbend for HDPE pipes with diameters of 2.0 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m. This
relationship was visually represented in Figure 25, which plots the sagbend bend radius
against its overbend counterpart. From the scatter plot, an unmistakable positive linear
correlation between the two radii emerges. This correlation is quantitatively captured by
a correlation coefficient (r) value of 0.53, underscoring a moderate uphill linear relation-
ship between the sagbend and overbend bend radii.

Figure 25.Scatter
Figure25. Scatter plot
plotof
ofsagbend
sagbendand
andoverbend.
overbend.

However, the regression analysis yielded an R2 2value of 0.28. As per Moore et al. [38],
However, the regression analysis yielded an R value of 0.28. As per Moore et al. [38],
R2
an 2 value surpassing 0.7 is indicative of a strong relationship between variables, sug-
an R value surpassing 0.7 is indicative of a strong relationship between variables, sug-
gesting that our analysis might fall short of this benchmark. Such an outcome hints at the

Figure 25. Scatter plot of sagbend and overbend.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 20 of 23

gesting that our analysis might fall short of this benchmark. Such an outcome hints at the
influence of multiple factors, like water depth, tension, and AFR, on the overbend radius.
Despite this, the sagbend and overbend bend radius do share a pronounced significant
positive correlation, a conclusion supported by a p-value that is less than 0.01.
To address the limitation posed by the R2 value being less than 0.7, a strategic decision
was made to formulate an index that consolidates the critical parameters affecting the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 25
pipeline installation: tension, water depth, and AFR. This unified measure, named the lay
index (IL ), encapsulates these three variables into a singular composite value.
To construct the IL , various combinations of the three parameters were averaged
influenceemploying
together of multiplea factors, like water
trial-and-error depth, tension,
methodology. and AFR,
A robust set ofon108
thedistinct
overbendcasesradius.
was
Despite this,
examined andthe sagbend andillustrated
subsequently overbend on bend radiusplot.
a scatter do shareThe alay pronounced
index (IL ) significant
spans the
positive correlation,
horizontal axis in thisa graphical
conclusionrepresentation,
supported by while a p-valuethe that
bendisradius
less than 0.01. vertically.
stretches
To in
As seen address
Figurethe
26, limitation
the overallposed
trend by the Rthe
within 2 value being less than 0.7, a strategic deci-
IL scatter plot can be best described by a
sion was
power made to
function formulateAan
correlation. index that
rigorous consolidates
evaluation the critical
of different parameters
IL variations wasaffecting
undertaken the
installation: tension, water depth, and AFR. 2
to pinpoint the formulation yielding the highest R value across all pipe diameters. Aslay
pipeline This unified measure, named the a
result ( I Lthis
index of ), encapsulates
scrutiny, the these three
finalised layvariables
index (ILinto a singular
) crafted composite
for predicting value.
the overbend bend
radiusToisconstruct
defined as:the I L , various combinations  of the three  parameters were averaged
100 w.d.3
together employing a trial-and-error − AFR)
IL = (1.0methodology. A robust set of 108 distinct cases (14) was
T2
examined and subsequently illustrated on a scatter plot. The lay index ( I L ) spans the hor-
izontalw.d.
where axisisinwater depth, T isrepresentation,
this graphical lay tension, and AFR the
while is air
bendfill ratio.
radiusThis lay index
stretches (IL ) value
vertically. As
is used in the estimation of the bend radius in the overbend region. The
seen in Figure 26, the overall trend within the I L scatter plot can be best described by a models proposed
for estimation on the bend radius according to the pipe size diameter were presented as
power function correlation. A rigorous evaluation of different I L variations was under-
Equations (15)–(17).
taken to pinpoint the formulation Robyielding the highest −0.12R2 value across all pipe diameters.
(2.0) = Cob 117 · IL (15)
As a result of this scrutiny, the finalised lay index ( I L ) crafted for predicting the overbend
bend radius is defined as:
Rob(2.5) = Cob 124 · IL −0.11 (16)
 100 w.d . 3
I L = (1.0 − AFR )  2  (14)
R ob(3.0)= C 139 · I T
ob
−0.1 
L (17)
where w.dC. obisiswater
Here, depth,
the DR T is lay
coefficient fortension, andand
overbend, AFRILisisair filllay
the ratio. ThisSimilar
index. lay index IL
to (the
sagbend model, an increase in the pipe’s DR would cause a reduction in
) value is used in the estimation of the bend radius in the overbend region. The models the pipe’s bend
radius.
proposedTheforDR effect is adjusted
estimation on the bendintoradius
a parameter coefficient
according to the pipe(Cobsize
) todiameter
improve were
the bend
pre-
radius result. The coefficient
sented as Equations (15)–(17). values are presented in Table 10.

Figure 26. Lay

Figure 26. Lay index ( LI )L vs.
index (I overbend
) versus MBR. MBR .
overbend

Rob (2.0) = Cob 117 ⋅ I L −0.12 (15)

Rob(2.5) = Cob124 ⋅ I L−0.11 (16)

Rob(3.0) = Cob139 ⋅ I L −0.1 (17)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 21 of 23

Table 10. Coefficient for overbend value.

Dimension Ratio
17 21 26 33 41
(DR)
Cob 1 0.956 0.922 0.895 0.878

7. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

In light of these findings, the outcomes presented in this research are best suited for
the Pre-FEED stage of HDPE structural design. This implies that they hold considerable
potential for early-phase considerations, aiding in preliminary evaluations without the need
for exhaustive data or analysis. However, as with any scientific endeavour, it is essential to
recognise the boundaries of its applicability. While this study has made significant strides,
there are specific limitations that have been underscored:
• Diameter Constraints: The reliability of the design equation may diminish for pipes
with a diameter of less than 2.0 m or those that exceed 3.0 m.
• Water Depth Considerations: The model’s efficiency might be compromised in loca-
tions where water depths extend beyond 60 m.
• DR Spectrum: The equation is finely tuned to a particular DR (dimension ratio) range,
specifically between 17 and 41. Results outside this domain need to be interpreted
with caution.
Given these constraints, it is pivotal for stakeholders to treat this equation as a pre-
liminary tool, avoiding its application for conclusive design decisions. In closing, while
the research has bridged some gaps, the journey towards a comprehensive and universally
applicable design equation is ongoing. To fortify the findings and expand the horizons of
the proposed model, further research is advocated. Such endeavours would aim to refine
the model, addressing its present limitations, and ensuring it is adaptable to a broader
spectrum of marine HDPE pipeline installations.
The influence of pipelay parameters on the dynamic behaviour of HDPE pipeline
offshore installation is an essential aspect for broader understanding. Therefore, it is
recommended to carry out further study on the hydrodynamic behaviour of offshore HDPE
pipeline installation in the future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.Z.J. and D.K.K.; methodology, M.Z.J., Y.T.K. and D.K.K.;
software, M.Z.J. and Y.T.K.; validation, M.Z.J., Y.T.K. and S.K.; formal analysis, Z.M. and S.K.;
investigation, M.Z.J., Y.T.K. and D.K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.Z.J., Y.T.K. and D.K.K.;
writing—review and editing, S.K. and D.K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the New Faculty Startup Fund from Seoul National University
and the Brain Pool program funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT through the National Research
Foundation of Korea (2021H1D3A2A02094658).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate the kind support from Seoul National University (Repub-
lic of Korea), Korea University (Republic of Korea), and Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (Malaysia).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 22 of 23

Abbreviations and Symbols

AFR Air fill ratio/air fill rate
Cob Overbend parameter coefficient
Csb Sagbend parameter coefficient
CRA Corrosion-resistant alloy
DR Dimension ratio
FBE Fusion-bonded epoxy
FE Finite element
FEED Front-end engineering design
HDPE High-density polyethene pipe
IL Lay index (overbend)
J-lay Pipelaying in J-shape configuration
K Slope of the regression line between T and Xh
MBR Minimum bend radius
PE Polyethene
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
Rob Maximum bend radius in overbend region
Rsb Maximum bend radius in sagbend region
S-lay Pipelaying in S-shape configuration
SMYS Specified mean yield strength
T Tension
TDP Touchdown point
TDZ Touchdown zone
VLS Vertical lay system
w.d. Water depth
wsub Submerged weight of the pipeline
Xh Horizontal distance from the inflexion point
Xi Initial horizontal distance
Yv Vertical distance from the inflexion point

References
1. Bai, Y.; Tang, J.D.; Xu, W.P.; Cao, Y.; Wang, R.S. Collapse of reinforced thermoplastic pipe (RTP) under combined external pressure
and bending moment. Ocean Eng. 2015, 94, 10–18. [CrossRef]
2. Ruan, W.D.; Bai, Y.; Yuan, S. Dynamic analysis of unbonded flexible pipe with bend stiffener constraint and bending hysteretic
behavior. Ocean Eng. 2017, 130, 583–596. [CrossRef]
3. Yue, Q.J.; Lu, Q.Z.; Yan, J.; Zheng, J.X.; Palmer, A. Tension behavior prediction of flexible pipelines in shallow water. Ocean Eng.
2013, 58, 201–207. [CrossRef]
4. Kuliczkowska, E.; Gierczak, M. Buckling failure numerical analysis of HDPE pipes used for the trenchless rehabilitation of a
reinforced concrete sewer. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 32, 106–112. [CrossRef]
5. Yang, X.-L.; Wang, S.-H.; Gong, Y.; Yang, Z.-G. Effect of biological degradation by termites on the abnormal leakage of buried
HDPE pipes. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2021, 124, 105367. [CrossRef]
6. Wu, T.; Jiang, N.; Zhou, C.; Luo, X.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y. Experimental and numerical investigations on damage assessment of
high-density polyethylene pipe subjected to blast loads. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 131, 105856. [CrossRef]
7. Majid, F.; Elghorba, M. HDPE pipes failure analysis and damage modeling. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 71, 157–165. [CrossRef]
8. Guidara, M.A.; Bouaziz, M.A.; Schmitt, C.; Capelle, J.; Haj Taïeb, E.; Azari, Z.; Hariri, S. Structural integrity assessment of defected
high density poly-ethylene pipe: Burst test and finite element analysis based on J-integral criterion. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2015, 57,
282–295. [CrossRef]
9. Guidara, M.A.; Bouaziz, M.A.; Schmitt, C.; Azari, Z.; Hadj-Taieb, E. A semi-empirical model for structural integrity assessment of
defected high density polyethylene pipes. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 100, 273–287. [CrossRef]
10. Gavriilidis, I.; Karamanos, S.A. Bending and buckling of internally-pressurized steel lined pipes. Ocean Eng. 2019, 171, 540–553.
[CrossRef]
11. Yu, S.Y.; Choi, H.S.; Lee, S.K.; Kim, D.K. Trend and review of corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) for offshore pipeline engineering. J.
Ocean Eng. Technol. 2014, 28, 85–92. [CrossRef]
12. Jiwa, M.Z.; Kim, D.K.; Mustaffa, Z.; Choi, H.S. A systematic approach to pipe-in-pipe installation analysis. Ocean Eng. 2017, 142,
478–490. [CrossRef]
13. Yu, S.Y.; Choi, H.S.; Lee, S.K.; Park, K.S.; Kim, D.K. Nonlinear soil parameter effects on dynamic embedment of offshore pipeline
on soft clay. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 2015, 7, 227–243. [CrossRef]
14. Yu, S.Y.; Choi, H.S.; Park, K.S.; Kim, Y.T.; Kim, D.K. Advanced procedure for estimation of pipeline embedment on soft clay
seabed. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2017, 62, 381–389. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2032 23 of 23

15. Kyriakides, S.; Corona, E. Mechanics of Offshore Pipelines, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2023; Volume 1.
16. Kim, D.K.; Incecik, A.; Choi, H.S.; Wong, E.W.C.; Yu, S.Y.; Park, K.S. A simplified method to predict fatigue damage of offshore
riser subjected to vortex-induced vibration by adopting current index concept. Ocean Eng. 2018, 157, 401–411. [CrossRef]
17. Kim, D.K.; Wong, E.W.C.; Lee, E.B.; Yu, S.Y.; Kim, Y.T. A method for the empirical formulation of current profile. Ships Offshore
Struct. 2019, 14, 176–192. [CrossRef]
18. Kim, D.K.; Wong, E.W.C.; Lekkala, M.K.R. A parametric study on fatigue of a top-tensioned riser subjected to vortex-induced
vibrations. Struct. Monit. Maint. 2019, 6, 365–387. [CrossRef]
19. Kim, Y.T.; Kim, D.K.; Choi, H.S.; Yu, S.Y.; Park, K.S. Fatigue performance of deepwater steel catenary riser considering nonlinear
soil. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2017, 61, 737–746. [CrossRef]
20. Lekkala, M.R.; Latheef, M.; Jung, J.H.; Kim, Y.T.; Kim, D.K. Fatigue damage assessment of offshore riser subjected to vortex-
induced vibrations by SHEAR7. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 2022, 14, 100464. [CrossRef]
21. Sivaprasad, H.; Lekkala, M.R.; Latheef, M.; Seo, J.; Yoo, K.; Jin, C.; Kim, D.K. Fatigue damage prediction of top tensioned riser
subjected to vortex-induced vibrations using artificial neural networks. Ocean Eng. 2023, 268, 113393. [CrossRef]
22. Roberts, P.J.W.; Salas, H.J.; Reiff, F.M.; Libhaber, M.; Labbe, A.; Thomson, J.C. Marine Wastewater Outfalls and Treatment Systems;
IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2010.
23. Rocheleau, G.; Jensen, D. Finite element modelling, design and repair of a deep seawater HDPE intake pipeline. In Proceedings
of the 25th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2015), Kona, HI, USA, 21–26 June 2015.
24. Johansen, O.; Ravlic, N.; Langgard, T.; Larsen, I.; Musulin, N.; Ivancic, A.A. Sibenik outfall project—An attempt to change
final user’s role in outfall projects. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Marine Waste Water Discharges and
Environment (MWWD 2004), Catania, Italy, 27 September–2 October 2004.
25. Ravlic, N.; Barbalic, I.; Musulin, N.; Ivancic, A.A.; Langgard, T.; Catlak, Z. Stobrec outfall—Successful application of long length
HDPE pipe concept. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Marine Water Waste Discharges and Environment
(MWWD 2004), Catania, Italy, 27 September–2 October 2004.
26. Kim, Y.T.; Park, K.S.; Choi, H.S.; Yu, S.Y.; Kim, D.K. Method for installation of marine HDPE pipeline. In Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Civil, Offshore, Environmental Engineering (ICCOEE 2016), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 15–17
August 2016.
27. Stentiford, R.D.J.; Wooley, K.J. Conceptual design of a plastic pipeline in 1000m water depth. In Proceedings of the Advances in
Subsea Pipeline Engineering and Technology (ASPECT 1996), Aberdeen, UK, 27–28 November 1996.
28. Jackson, L.A. LARGE DIAMETER POLYETHYLENE SUBMARINE OUTFALLS. Coast. Eng. Proc. 1984, 1, 210. [CrossRef]
29. Pipelife. Technical Catalogue for Submarine Installation of Polyethylene Pipes; Pipelife Norge AS: Stathelle, Norway, 2002.
30. Pita, E. PE Pipes for Sea Outfalls and Water Intakes: A Comparison between Solid Wall and Helicoidally Welded Pipe; International
Perspective on Water Resources & the Environment: Izmir, Turkey, 2013.
31. Shiri, H.; Banae, M.; Arabi, V. A Novel Installation Methodology for Ultra-Large Diameter Sea Water Intake Pipelines. In
Proceedings of the ISOPE International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Busan, Republic of Korea, 15–20 June 2014.
32. Rogez, F. Deep large seawater intakes: A common solution for Floating LNG in oil & gas industry and OTEC in marine renewable
energy. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Ocean Energy (ICOE 2012), Dublin, Ireland, 17–19 October 2012.
33. Andtbacka, A.; Masar, I.; Bjorklund, I. 50 years supply of PE pipes for marine applications. Experience gained and technical
developments in half a century. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Marine Waste Water Discharges and
Environment (MWWD 2006), Antalya, Turkey, 6–10 November 2006.
34. Pipelife. Benefit from PE Pipe’s Unique Design and Unrivalled Benefits Wherever Your Project Is; Pipelife Norge AS: Stathelle,
Norway, 2012.
35. AGRU. AGRULINE Large Diameter Piping System: The Durable PE Piping System for High Volume Flow; AGRU Company: Bad Hall,
Austria, 2017.
36. PPI. Marine Installations. Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe, 2nd ed.; The Plastics Pipe Institute: Irving, TX, USA, 2012.
37. OrcaFlex. User’s Manual Version 9.6; Orcina Ltd.: Cumbria, UK, 2012.
38. Moore, D.S.; Notz, W.I.; Fligner, M.A. The Basic Practice of Statistics, 6th ed.; W.H. Freeman Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2013.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.