IBP1101_19

CATENARY ROLL DURING S-LAY – FINITE

ELEMENT SIMULATIONS AND OFFSHORE
OBSERVATIONS
Dr T. Sriskandarajah , Graeme Roberts 2, Alan Roy3,
1

Dr P. Ragupathy4, Jean-Baptiste Rougeot5

Copyright 2019, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019, held
between 03 and 05 of September, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the
Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the
author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is
presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its
Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline
Conference and Exhibition 2019.

Abstract

A finite element analysis method has been devised and used to predict the onset of catenary roll
during S-lay. The finite element method includes simulations of both single static catenaries
and continuous normal lay in the offshore field water depths and can be complemented by
industry-standard screening calculations. The method is general but was applied specifically
to a 10 km long 24” pipeline, laid in water of increasing depth, from 190 metres to 390 metres.
The finite element simulations of single catenaries indicated that catenary roll on-set depended
on the imperfection seeded into the catenary in combination with a consideration about the
length of laid pipe that was required to give effective torsional fixity to the laid pipe. If there
was very little torsional fixity at the touch down point, significant catenary roll rotation could
be predicted in water depth equal to or greater than 290 metres. Simulating normal lay, catenary
roll was predicted to be up to 65 degrees in 290 metres water depth, depending on the magnitude
of the catenary destabilizing parameters. Screening indicated catenary roll was border-line
likely in 290 metres water depth and definite for pipe-lay in deeper water. Catenary roll onset
was confirmed by offshore observations during pipe-lay.

Keywords: Catenary. S-lay. Roll. Finite element.

1. Introduction

S-lay is a method of laying pipe in which individual pipe joints, each of approximate
length 12 m, are girth-welded in sequence on a vessel and pushed to the seabed over a stinger.
The pipe hanging from the vessel takes up a catenary shape through the water column. It is
quite likely that the pipe will be strained slightly beyond the elastic limit at the over-bend on
the stinger tip and at the sag-bend as the pipe approaches the seabed. As a result of the over-
bend plasticity, the pipe transiting the catenary will contain residual strain.
A concern to offshore installation contractors and clients is the potential for the pipe at
the touch-down point to roll in torsion during S-lay. The primary concern is that in-line items,
______________________________
1
Pipeline Technical Authority - SUBSEA 7
2
Engineering Specialist – SUBSEA 7
3
Senior Engineer – SUBSEA 7
4
Principal Engineer – SUBSEA 7
5
Lead Engineer – SUBSEA 7
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

e.g. pipe end termination structures or attachments such as control or monitoring systems, could
roll beyond their operating limits. It could be impossible, or at best very costly, to remedy any
situations where unexpected catenary roll has occurred. Screening calculations are routinely
carried out at design and analysis stage to predict the onset of catenary roll.
Screening calculations are based on the industry-standard Endal formula which was the
outcome of an analytical theoretical approach and finite element simulations. Input parameters
to the Endal formula include pipe geometry, water depth, submerged weight per metre, and
bottom tension. The outcome of the Endal formula is the residual strain in the catenary that
should be satisfactory to prevent catenary roll – if the project specific installation analysis
predicts a higher residual strain that this, then catenary roll would be expected.
Offshore contractors may sometimes require more fidelity than is offered by the Endal
formula per se. A finite element method has been devised and implemented in the Abaqus
finite element program to predict the onset and magnitude of catenary roll. The finite element
method takes account of additional parameters like current velocity, pipe-soil interaction, vessel
drift and the potential for circumferential mismatch of individual pipe joints. The method has
been applied to single, static catenaries and to a continuous normal lay simulation.
The test-bed for the finite element method was a set-up involving S-lay of a 10 km long
24” pipeline in water of increasing depth, from 190 metres to 390 metres. Three evaluations
were done:
• Screening calculations using the Endal formula;
• Finite element analysis of single, static catenaries in water depth 290 m and 340 m;
• Finite element simulation of 10 km pipe in continuous, normal lay from water depth
190 m to 390 m.

Analysis of 24” pipe-lay initiated in 410 m water depth was also carried out and the
results of this analysis were compared to offshore observations.

2. Input Data

2.1. Structural

Pipeline data are given in Table 1. The material stress-strain curve had a Ramberg-
Osgood roundhouse behavior.
Table 1. Pipeline data

Parameter Value Unit

Outside diameter, 24” pipe 609.6 mm
Wall thickness 29.3 mm
Empty weight submerged 1175 N/m
Elastic modulus 207E3 MPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 n/a
Stress at static total strain 0.277% 416 MPa
Stress at dynamic total strain 0.317% 426 MPa
Pull-in cable stiffness 900 N/mm

2
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

2.2. Catenary

Catenary data are given in Table 2. The static and dynamic total strains were supplied
from an installation analysis and are the maximum strain values at the stinger tip; these strain
values were required for comparison to the Endal calculations and as targets to be attained
during the finite element simulations when pipe departs the vessel stinger.
Table 2. Catenary data

Parameter Water depth (m)

290 340 390
Top tension (tonnes) 65 75 90
Bottom tension (tonnes) 27 32 48
Static total strain (%) 0.277 0.279 0.290
Dynamic total strain (%) 0.317 0.317 0.317

2.2. Pipe-Soil Interaction

Pipe-soil interaction data were needed for the finite element normal lay analysis. The
data assumed are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Pipe-soil interaction

Parameter Value Unit

Embedment stiffness 0.02 N/mm per mm
Axial friction 0.4 n/a
Lateral friction 1.0 n/a
Torsion resistance for 1 m pipe length 130E3 Nmm
Torsion mobilization rotation 1 degree

2.2. Environmental Data

Cross-currents were applied in some of the finite element analysis scenarios. The cross-
current profiles are given in Table 4.
Table 4. Cross-current profiles

290 m water depth 340 m water depth 390 m water depth

Elev. Velocity Elev. Velocity Elev. Velocity
above above above
seabed seabed seabed
(m) (m/s) (m) (m/s) (m) (m/s)
290 0.5 340 0.5 390 0.5
115 0.5 135 0.5 155 0.5
20 0.4 25 0.4 30 0.4
0 0 0 0 0 0

3
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

3. Endal Calculations

The Endal formula is a screening formula that is conventionally used in the industry to
assess the likelihood of pipe roll during S-lay. The formula is used to calculate the residual
strain at which pipe roll would be anticipated, for the given input parameters. The calculated
strain would be compared to the maximum residual strain from the project installation analysis.
Input to the Endal formula includes: pipe diameter, thickness, elastic modulus, the total
strain and the stress corresponding to the total strain value, residual strain following the pipe’s
transit over the stinger, submerged weight and bottom tension. Residual strain is equal to the
total strain during the transit over the stinger minus the elastic rebound. The elastic rebound is
equal to the stress corresponding to the total strain divided by the elastic modulus.
Endal calculations for the different water depths are given in Table 5. The calculations
indicate significant pipe roll for nearly all scenarios in water depths greater or equal to 290 m.
The only condition which is border-line is the static condition in water depth equal to or less
than 290 m. The safety factor in Table 5 and used throughout this article is the ratio of Endal
strain (catenary roll onset) to the residual strain from analysis. But a superior measure of the
safety margin would be the ratio of total strain, stinger radius or water depth for catenary roll
onset compared to the project requirement. This is because the driving effects strongly
influence the residual strain value which tends to zero for S-lay.
Table 5. Endal screening calculations

Stress at
total Residual Endal Safety
Scenario Pipe roll?
strain strain (%) strain (%) factor
(MPa
290 m water depth
Static 416 0.076 0.074 0.97 Borderline
Dynamic 426 0.111 0.67 Yes
340 m water depth
Static 416 0.077 0.063 0.82 Yes
Dynamic 426 0.111 0.57 Yes
390 m water depth
Static 420 0.087 0.056 0.64 Yes
Dynamic 426 0.111 0.50 Yes

2. Single Catenary Finite Element Analysis

2.1. Method and Analysis Scenarios

Single catenaries were analyzed in water depths 290 m, 340 m and 390 m, using the
Abaqus finite element program. The pipe in the catenary was meshed in the vertical Z direction,
using PIPE31 elements with 1 m node spacing, and then each node was rotated such that the
pipe formed a circle with the target total bending strain. The strained pipe was then released so
that a residual plastic deformation occurred and it was then, finally, translated to establish the
catenary in the XZ plane (Figure 1).
Springs-to-ground, stiff and aligned with the model global directions, were used to
restrain the catenary at the tensioners and roller boxes. Finite stiffness springs at the catenary
4
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

touch-down point had the properties given in Table 6. The base case torsion spring assumes
full torsion fixity when 1 km of pipe has been laid and sensitivity studies were analyzed
assuming 2 km (scenario SC1) and 5 km (scenario SC2) laid pipe before full torsion fixity. The
rationale for these length selections is discussed later. A final scenario had a limit of only 5
kNm torsion before the resistance was overcome. This scenario was analyzed in 290 m water
depth (scenario SC3) and also 340 m water depth (scenario SC4) and 390 m water depth
(scenario SC5). A control case with zero strain (elastic pipe material) was considered for SC5.

Figure 1. Fully formed single catenary

Table 6. Single static catenary scenarios and associate touch-down point stiffness

Scenario Translation Bending Torsion

stiffness stiffness stiffness
(N/mm) (Nmm/rad) (Nmm/rad)
Base case 250 1E11 (moment 3.6E8
SC1 limited to 1 1.8E8
SC2 kNm) Torsion limited
SC3 to 5 kNm
SC4
SC5

Each 12 m pipe joint was independent but rigidly connected to the preceding joint by
translation and rotation connectors. Kinematic (displacement) constraints were applied to the
connectors to impose relative motions between each pipe joint.
A dummy element was used as a marker post at the laydown head location. The nodes
of the marker post elements were used to calculate the pipeline rotation.
The single catenary was set up as described previously and then an imperfection was
seeded into the catenary using one of the following separate mechanisms:

5
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

• Independent, random pipe joint rotations about the pipe’s torsional axis with amplitude
in the range
± 0.1 degree (base case)
± 0.5 degree
± 1.0 degree
• Cross-current profile.

The effect of the imperfection on the catenary is to initiate pipe roll, if the catenary is
prone to it and the destabilizing mechanism is significant enough.
The independent, random pipe joint rotations were a mechanism intended to model the
potential for torsional creep as a pipe joint is over-boarded through the S-lay vessel’s welding
stations and tensioner tracks. The magnitude and/or pattern of any such creep potential have
not been established in practice but it seems reasonable to assume that each pipe joint cannot
be perfectly aligned with the preceding one. The independent pipe joint rotations are small
perturbations. Base case 0.1 degree rotation amounts to 0.5 mm relative circumferential
displacement per pipe joint, for the 24” pipe in the catenary. A random rotation value was
calculated for each pipe joint relative to the preceding one. 10 realizations (i.e. random
selections) were analyzed for each of the amplitudes of independent, random pipe joint rotation.

2.2. Results

The pipe roll for the single catenary analyses is summarized in Table 7, which has the
outcome of the most onerous realization for each single catenary scenario. Pipe roll is most
sensitive to independent pipe joint rotation, then to cross-current profile and vessel motion.

Table 7. Catenary roll predictions from single catenary realizations

Current
Pipe joint
surface Water
Scenario Strain (%) rotation Pipe roll (deg.)
velocity depth (m)
(deg.)
(m/s)
Base case 0.317 None 0.5 290 5.3
±0.5 None 3.9
SC1 0.317 None 0.5 290 9.6
±0.5 None 8.9
SC2 0.317 None 0.5 290 17.2
±0.5 None 28.9
SC3 0.317 None 0.5 290 26.7
±0.5 None 40.2
SC4 0.317 None 0.5 340 71.3
±0.5 None 76.5
0.290 None 0.5 340 5.9
±0.5 None 11.5
SC5 0.317 None 0.5 390 74.9
±0.5 None 80.0
0.290 None 0.5 390 19.6
±0.5 None 30.6
Zero None 0.5 390 0.0
(control) ±0.5 None 4.2

6
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

3. Normal Lay Finite Element Analysis

3.1. Method and Analysis Scenarios

10 km of pipeline was meshed in the horizontal plane using PIPE31 elements with 2 m
node spacing. The pipeline was supported on a rigid surface that represented the deck of the S-
lay vessel. The pipeline was then pulled around the stinger, which was also a rigid surface, by
means of a connector element that was fixed to the seabed at a representative offset from the
touch down point (offset 250 m). This replicates the real-world situation where a wire is used
to initiate the pipeline from the vessel to the touch-down point. The model is illustrated in
Figure 2, which shows the progress of initiation.

Figure 2. Initiation with cable in water depth 190 m

Pipe-lay was carried out in a number of discrete load steps in each of which 100 m pipe
was laid. Pipe-soil torsion springs were added to the model sections that had been laid (there
are other methods of incorporating torsional friction, and to make the torsion friction response
dissipative too, but this was deemed the most practicable at this stage).
Sensitivity studies investigated a sinusoidal varying lateral displacement of the pipe-lay
vessel that represented its slow drift, sinusoidal varying independent pipe joint rotation and
cross-current profiles (Table 8). The wavelength of slow drift and/or independent pipe joint
rotation was 1 km, if they were applied. It should be noted that S-lay vessels are stable pipe-
lay platforms and 2.5 m slow drift is overly cautious. The simulation procedure is illustrated
in Figure 3. The base case for the normal lay analysis had the following parameters:
• Total strain
Average of static and dynamic, 0.297 %
• Independent pipe joint rotation
Sinusoidal variation, amplitude ± 0.1 degree
1 km wavelength
• Cross-current
7
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

50% values in Table 4

250 mm/s surface current
• Vessel motion
Sinusoidal variation, amplitude ± 2.5 m
1 km wavelength.

Figure 3. Normal lay from 190 m to 390 m water depth over 10 km laid pipe length (magnified lateral
displacement)

3.2. Results

The normal lay base case and sensitivity scenario parameters are presented in Table 8
along with the catenary roll at the touch-down point from the normal lay simulations. The
history of the catenary roll at the touch-down point is shown graphically in Figure 4, for all the
normal-lay analysis scenarios. The pipe roll along the whole laid pipe length for sensitivity
case NL3 is presented in Figure 5.

Table 8. Normal pipe-lay scenarios and catenary roll results

Current
Pipe joint Vessel
surface Pipe roll at -290
Scenario Strain (%) rotation motion
velocity m (deg.)
(deg.) (m)
(m/s)
Base case 0.297 ± 0.1 0.25 ± 2.5 1.7
NL1 0.317 None 0.25 ± 2.5 2.6
NL2 0.317 None 0.5 None 11
NL3 0.317 ± 0.5 None ± 2.5 65

8
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Figure 4. Pipe roll along whole pipe length – catenary roll at touch-down point

Figure 5. Pipe roll along whole pipe length through lay process– sensitivity case NL3

4. Discussion

4.1. Modelling Method

Catenary roll during S-lay was investigated for a 10 km long 24” pipeline, as it was laid
in water depths that varied with constant gradient from 190 m to 390 m. The investigations
included the use of the industry-standard Endal formula and finite element simulations. The
finite element simulations were of two types – firstly, single static catenaries formed in target
water depths and, secondly, assessments of normal lay from a pipe-lay vessel. Within each of
the finite element simulations, mechanisms were deployed to seed an imperfection into the
catenary which might lead to destabilization. The destabilizing mechanisms were:
• Cross-current profiles;
• Vessel motion, representing slow drift;
• Independent pipe joint rotation, applied at model nodes that were separated by 12 m,
which represented the potential for pipe joints to be circumferentially misaligned during
the fabrication and pipe-lay process.

9
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

The independent pipe joint rotations were applied randomly per joint in the single static
catenary analyses, and as a sinusoid in the normal-lay analyses. But perhaps in practice, the
pipe joint rotations could be constant per pipe joint and give rise to a cork-screw along the
catenary. A corkscrew pattern would be more onerous than a random selection – the 24” pipe
catenary in 290 m water depth would be destabilized if the corkscrew were even 0.5 degree
uniform rotation per joint (Figure 6). The expected roll angle for the 48 joints in the catenary,
if there were no instability, would be 24 degrees for a uniform pipe joint rotation of 0.5 degrees
per joint whereas 90 degree rotation was observed from the corkscrew assessment.

Figure 6. Catenary response to uniform pipe joint rotation (corkscrew of 48 joints)

4.1. Single Catenary Analysis

From single catenary analyses, pipe roll magnitude depended on the imperfection
mechanism destabilizing the catenary. With the base case with dynamic strain and assumed
torsional fixity after 1 km laid pipe length, catenary roll was predicted to be 5.3 to 8.9 degrees
dependent on the destabilizing mechanism in 290 m water depth.
If there was 5 km of laid pipe before full torsional fixity could be assured then catenary
roll was predicted to be between 17.2 and 28.9 degrees with dynamic strain.
If there is very little torsional fixity at the touch down point, pipe roll was predicted to
be up to 40 degrees in 290 m water depth or up to 80 degrees in water depths 340 m to 390 m
with dynamic strain.

4.2. Normal Lay Analysis

The on-set and magnitude of catenary roll observed during normal-lay finite element
analysis depended on the destabilizing mechanism. The normal-lay base case had pipe residual
strain equal to the average of the static and dynamic values (0.297%), independent pipe joint
rotation ± 0.1 degree, vessel drift ± 2.5 m and half the current values given in Table 4; the values
of these parameters were judged to be “fair” to the installation process. Catenary roll at 290 m
water depth was only 1.7 degrees for the normal lay base case.

10
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

From sensitivity studies with dynamic pipe strain 0.317%, catenary roll could be
between 2.6 degrees and 65 degrees in 290 m water depth. The small 2.6 degrees roll value
resulted from zero independent pipe joint rotation, vessel slow drift motion ± 2.5 m and half
the specified current profile whereas 65 degrees occurs if the vessel motion was in the range ±
2.5 m but independent pipe joint rotation was increased to ± 0.5 degrees.

4. Resisting Catenary Roll

The propensity of a catenary to roll would be diminished by the presence of end

structures, buoyancy, local torsional pipe-soil friction around the pipe circumference and the
self-weight of the previously laid pipe.
Assuming that initiation is in shallow water where catenary roll is not predicted, as-laid
pipe would gradually build up frictional torsion resistance. Also, the as-laid pipe self-weight
would resist catenary roll because the laid pipe will not be dead-straight. The lay corridor could
be specified with a tolerance of a couple of metres and the offshore operations team will ensure
this is attained. Were the laid pipe be made to twist, by torsion in the catenary, then its weight
acting through an effective lever arm would be resistive.
Monte Carlo realizations to generate random as-laid pipe horizontal profiles can be done
with rules invoked that limit the pipe lateral displacement and point-to-point curvature (i.e. the
pipeline must not go outside the lay corridor nor must it be allowed to go plastic during pipe-
lay). The indications from such Monte Carlo realizations, specific to the investigated 24” pipe,
were that 1 km to 2 km laid pipe length could be the effective torsion anchor length, assuming
that pipe-lay was initiated in shallow water and that sequential pipe joints were fabricated and
over-boarded with less than 1 degree circumferential misalignment (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Laid pipe length to resist uniform independent pipe joint rotation

5. Practical Application

The finite element analysis method that has been developed was used to assess a
historical event in which catenary roll was observed offshore. The circumstance was a 24”
pipeline initiated in 410 m water with total strain 0.28% on the stinger.
Single, static catenary realizations were carried out, for the catenary at different stages
of initiation, with individual pipe joint rotation randomly selected in ranges up to ± 5 degrees.
Significant catenary roll was predicted during initiation when the lay-down head reached 75%
of the fully developed catenary length (water depth ≥ 350 m, Table 9).
11
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Table 9. Probability of exceedance (%) of laydown head roll > 45 degrees

50% 75% 85%

Pipe joint
catenary catenary catenary 100% catenary
rotation
(220 m (350 m (400 m (410 m water
range
water water water depth)
(deg)
depth) depth) depth)
± 0.05 0 0 0 0
± 0.5 0 0 0 20
±1 0 0 70 100
±5 10 50 90 100

The normal lay finite element simulation predicted catenary roll with magnitude in the
order of 150 degrees during initiation in 410 m water depth. The simulation also indicated
that, as pipe-lay continued into shallow water, the catenary would stabilize and the catenary
would tend to be upright at the touch-down point in water depth approximately 220 m.
These results were in agreement with the offshore observations (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Comparison between normal-lay FE simulation and offshore observation

6. In the Event of Catenary Roll

Should analysis predict catenary roll during S-lay then the on-shore project team would
need to make a thorough assessment of all the practical aspects and suggest a suitable mitigation
or control.
Laying down the pipeline should relieve torsion that would otherwise be locked into
both the catenary and the previously laid pipe and it is possible that abandonment and
subsequent recovery with a wire or cable could be used to continue in S-lay mode. However,
the pipe that follows down the catenary would transit the stinger, develop residual strain and be
prone to roll. The previously laid pipe could be expected to provide some torsion resistance
but it would be difficult to quantify how much. Given the overall situation, pipeline torsion
release, recovery and continuation in S-lay mode is probably not a feasible option.
The options of swivels or inclusion of a dummy spool piece could be considered if it is
required to fit an in-line structure to a catenary that is expected to roll. However, swivels are
forged pieces that have a long lead time and both swivels and the flanges of a dummy spool
12
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

introduce additional leak paths into the pipeline system, which would be undesirable.
Buoyancy modules attached to the catenary with a clamp and yoke mechanism could be
considered to control catenary roll in the vicinity of an in-line structure. But a catenary’s
propensity to roll is an inherent instability relating to the pipe geometry and pipe-lay
characteristics, and buoyancy would not mitigate these factors – catenary roll would still be
expected albeit at a reduced level because of the buoyancy. Furthermore once the buoyancy is
removed with the pipe on the seabed then there would be a release of the previously locked-in
rotational strain. The yoke and clamp would be costly to fabricate and a difficult configuration
to transit along the stinger and in-line clamps could be stress raisers that need to be considered
in the in-place analysis during detail design. In-line structures, swivels and buoyancy can all
be readily incorporated into the finite element analysis method presented in this article.
Realistically, and assuming catenary roll needs to be controlled, for the large diameter
pipelines that can be installed using S-lay the only practicable recourse would be to lay down
the pipe prior to the critical water depth and pick it up with a J-lay vessel and then continue the
pipe-lay in J-lay mode. J-lay has a single curvature catenary compared to the double curvature
that is characteristic of S-lay, and this works against any propensity for destabilization.

7. Conclusion

A finite element method has been developed to assess the potential for catenary roll
during S-lay. The method involves meshing an initially perfectly planar catenary and then
seeding an imperfection that might cause destabilization, if the catenary is prone to roll and the
seeded imperfection is strong enough. The imperfection could be from the environment, vessel
motion, or be a mechanically induced fabrication and fit-up tolerance.
The method can be applied to single, static catenaries or a normal-lay assessment and
complements the industry-standard Endal calculation.
The method has been used to assess in design stage the potential for catenary roll of a
10 km long 24” diameter pipeline, initiated in 190 m water depth and laid over 10 km to 390 m
water depth. The method has also been used in a simulation that was compared to offshore
observations from a 24” pipeline, initiated in 410 m water depth and laid into shallow water.
Further comparisons will be made when project pipelines are monitored during S-lay
operations.

8. Acknowledgement

The authors express their gratitude to Subsea 7 management for allowing this paper to be
published. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not represent the
opinion of Subsea 7.

9. References

ENDAL, G., NESS, O.B., VERLEY, R., HOLTE, K., REMSETH, S., Behavior of offshore
pipelines subjected to residual curvature during laying. ASME International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE, 1995.
ENDAL, G., VERLEY, R., Cyclic roll of large diameter pipeline during laying. ASME
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE, 2000.
SIMULIA. Abaqus User’s Manual, 2013.
13