MULTI-LAYERED PIPE BEAM FORMULATION WITH INTERFACE

BINDING-SLIP CONDITIONS
Ludimar L. de Aguiara,b, Carlos A. Almeidab
a

Petrobras, CENPES Research and Development Center, Av. Horcio Macedo, 950 Cidade
Universitria Ilha do Fundo, Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brasil, http://www.petrobras.com.br

PUC-Rio, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Rua Marqus de So Vicente 225 Gvea, 22453-900, Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brasil,
http://www.mec.puc-rio.br

Abstract. This paper deals with the finite element model representation of straight beams
having material multilayered cross-section, under in plane action. The model approach is
based on an overall and rather simplified representation of the complexity in a riser pipe
cross-section structure, considering a set of homogeneous pipe cross-section beams bounded
together by thin adhesive layers. Timoshenkos beam kinematics is employed in a three node
pipe beam numerical model representation for axial, transverse shear and bending
displacements, all varying along the length by using appropriate Lagranges polynomials.
Continuous binding conditions between layers at the cross section are modeled by assuming
the interface material under a constant shear state of stress, caused by the relative
displacements of adjoining layers. The resulting linear elastic formulation has been recently
presented, implemented and verified for the analytical solutions of various straight beams
under general loading and boundary conditions. In this paper, this model is extended to
include nonlinear slip conditions between layers, assuming the interlayer material under pure
shear elastic-plastic behavior. The approach is intended to model rupture of interlayer
adhesive material as result of enlarged slip conditions. The contact conditions between layers
including static or kinetic friction - are obtained by adjusting the constitutive law
parameters, accordingly. The nonlinear incremental formulation is then evaluated in some
testing examples presented, for solutions of bi-layered beams submitted to various loading
and boundary conditions.
Keywords: finite element model, Timoshenkos beam kinematics, material multi-layered
pipe, interlayer material rupture and slip conditions.

INTRODUCTION

Solutions for multi-layered beams in a simplified analytical form has been proposed in the
literature as early as in the 50s in a paper by Newmark et al. (1951), where a two-layered
beam analysis was considered, using the Euler-Bernoulli associated model, restricted to linear
assumptions for displacements, material constitutive law and constraints. More recently
however, some other attempts for more general analytical solutions have been proposed by
Girhammar and Gopu (1991,1993), Girhammar and Pan (2007) and Girhammar (2008) that
presented analysis solutions considering interlayer slip conditions from specific to a
generalized approximate second order analysis procedure, that allowed estimations for the
magnitude of the deformations and the internal actions between layers. The occurrence of
partial shear interactions in beam-columns has been numerically investigated as well. In Chen
et al (2007) the combined action of arbitrary transverse and constant axial loadings under
static conditions are considered in a non-uniform slip stiffness model. This work has been
extended by Xu et al. (2007) to include dynamics and buckling behaviors of partialinteraction composite members, accounting for transverse shear deformations and crosssection rotary inertia. In a further work (Wu et al., 2007), these authors have proposed the
extension of their results by using an approximate simple expression of the beam-column
fundamental frequency, but under axial loadings. In the same line of investigation, but using
the finite element method approach, a formulation that takes into account the partial
interaction behavior of concrete-steel composite members was developed by Jeong et
al.(2005). In this case finite elements were employed in the interface idealization, based on
push-out test results of composite members. In Zona et al.(2011), a three-model study
compares finite element solutions provided by using extended Euler-Bernoullis formulation
and Timoshenkos beam model for various loadings, the shear deformability of steel slab
components, the collapse loadings, and the internal forces in each model. They show that
displacement and stress results in composite members are controlled by the interaction
between bending and shear, i.e. short or long beams, in each case study. Using a similar
approach, the behavior of a general multi-stacked composite beam with interlayer slip is
considered in Sousa Jr. et al. (2010), where curvature locking difficulties are identified. The
proposed model represents composite beam as an association of beams and interface
elements, providing an efficient solution for the multilayered beam problem.
In this work the numerical formulation of a multilayered pipe-beam model, under
Timoshenkos beam model assumptions, presented in Aguiar et al. (2011) for the analysis of
risers is extended to consider the rupture and slip conditions at the interface material. The
model accounts for axial and bending degrees-of-freedom in a single element model that
includes classical beam modes of deformation and nonlinear interlayer shear deformation
conditions, assumed constant through the thickness, for all loading conditions. Damage at the
interface is accounted by considering the elastic-plastic material behavior in a nonlinear
fashion of analysis.
In the next section extensions to the formulation are presented in order to accomplish with
the nonlinear behavior of the interface material, as proposed in this work. Derivations of the
required nonlinear procedure are shown in order to accomplish numerical solution
convergence for the equilibrium equations. In what follows some test results are presented in
order to evaluate the accuracy of the model assumptions and the extension of its use in
approximate analysis procedures. Finally, conclusions and some recommendations from the
work are drawn.
2. TWO-LAYER PIPE MODEL FORMULATION

Before following the derivations in this section the reader is advised to get acquainted of
finite element model solutions presented in Aguiar et al. (2011), for the linear analysis of a
two-layer pipe under in-plane displacements. It shows that longitudinal straining in each layer
causes axial shear stresses in the adhesive material thin layer, assumed constant through the
thickness, as shown in Fig. 1. In the model each layer is assumed under axial straining due to
axial and flexure loading conditions and an adhesive material layer, of very small thickness h,
is considered between layers, as shown in Fig. 1 for a two-layer pipe section.
Layer b

Adhesive
Material

Layer a

F
u

Figure 1: Details of possible damage progress at two-layer pipe wall segment under axial straining.

Thus, shear strain and stress at interface layer are evaluated using the following linear
approximations adhesive layer thickness h is much smaller than layers a or b radius resulting in

G
u
and = G = u = k
h
h

(1)

G
is the overall contact stiffness;
h
= u is the interlayer relative displacement.

where, k =

1.1 Contact Conditions

The idea behind this proposal is to employ material constitutive relations that may
represent the overall physical meaning of contact conditions at the interface material
including certain damage conditions. These attempts are as described bellow:
A. Linear Elastic Slip
In this case the adhesive material behaves such that its constitutive relation is as shown in
Fig. 2: shear stress is proportional to the layers relative displacement. This is the constitutive
relation used throughout derivations in Aguiar et al. (2011) and is represented by the linear
model solution where total strain energy in the adhesive follows the conservation law.

= k
F

Figure 2: Adhesive linear elastic constitutive relation - slip model representation.

B. Material Rupture And Slip With Static Friction

In this case rupture occurs after shear stress in adhesive material reaches a limit value Lim.
Thereafter, contact condition between layers remains through friction (static) forces and the
material law follows the elastic-ideal plastic constitutive relation shown in Fig. 3. In a cycle
loading process, total strain energy at interface material is not preserved.

= k ep

Lim

F
= e +

Figure 3: Layer contact with static friction - equivalent to elastic-ideal plastic model.

C. Material Rupture And Slip With Kinetic Friction

In this case a multi-linear elastic-plastic model is required to represent material rupture but
with kinetic friction between layers. After reaching a limit value, shear stress drops to a lower
value keeping it constant as in kinetic friction force fashion. Again, as in the previous case,
total potential energy in the adhesive is partially preserved, only.

Lim

= k ep

F
= e +

or

Lim

Figure 4: Layer contact with kinetic friction equivalent to multi-linear elastic-ideal plastic model.

D. True Rupture
In this last case a multi-linear elastic-plastic model is employed to represent material
rupture with no friction between layers. Thus, after reaching a limit value, shear stress at
interface vanishes. By this model, in a cycling loading process total strain energy stored
during the adhesive linear behavior is completely lost.


Lim

=k
ep

F
= e +

or

Lim

Figure 5: True rupture multi-linear elastic-perfect plastic model.

1.2 Interface Constitutive Model

In this section, the equivalent elastoplastic constitutive relations shown in Figs. 3 to 5 for
the adhesive material, is presented in detail. For all contact conditions discussed, stress state
at the interface material must remain within the following domain
D = { R | f ( , ) 0}

(2)

where f(,) is the associated yielding function, expressed in terms of the shear stress and
hardening parameter .
The choice of an appropriate yield function defines the slip condition model. Table 1
presents the corresponding yield function used to represent each of the contact conditions
studied in this work, as discussed in session 1.1.
Table 1: Slip Models Considered in the Formulation

Slip Model
A. Linear Elastic Slip
B. Material Rupture with Slip in Static
Friction (elasticideal plastic slip)
C. Material Rupture with Slip in Kinetic
Friction (multi-linear)
D. True Rupture (multi-linear)

Yielding Function
not applicable

H()
-

f ( ) = Lim

f ( , ) = Lim ( )

num. evaluated
according to
hardening law
used (Figs 4 and 5)

According to Simo (1998), the equivalent elastic-plastic model used to represent these slip
models can be characterized by means of the following set of equations

= e +

= k e = k (

d p = sign ( ), 0
d =

(3)

where , e and p are the total, elastic and plastic slip measures obtained from relative
longitudinal displacements between layers, is the contact shear stress, is the hardening

parameter and is a plastic multiplier to be determined.

Thus, the associated mathematical problem consists in: given n , np , n , n and n+1 - as a

trial solution -, obtain:

p
n +1

, n+1 and n+1 satisfying the following conditions

d p = sign ( )

d =
f ( , ) = ( ) 0
Lim

(4)

This problem is solved in two steps. First, an elastic increment is assumed to obtain the
following trial state

p
ntrial
+1 = k n +1 n
p trial
p
n +1 = n
trial
n +1 = n
f trial = trial trial
n +1
Lim
n +1
n +1

(5)

By applying the backward-Euler scheme, one obtain

n+1 = ntrial
+1 k sign ( n +1 )
p
p
n+1 = n + sign ( n+1 )
= +
n
n+1

(6)

Equation (6) for the stresses can be rewritten as

trial
n+1 sign ( n+1 ) = ntrial
+1 sign ( n+1 ) k sign ( n+1 )

(7)

That, after rearranging, results in

n+1

trial
+ k )sign ( n+1 ) = ntrial
+1 sign n+1

(8)

Since the elastic contact stiffness and the plastic multiplier are always positive (k 0 and
0), then
sign ( n+1 ) = sign ( ntrial
+1 )

(9)

n+1 + k = ntrial
or n+1 = ntrial
+1
+1 k .

(10)

Thus, Eq. (8) furnishes

Assuming plastic increments

f n+1 = n+1 Lim ( n+1 ) = ntrial
+1 k Lim ( n +1 ) = 0

(11)

Depending on the hardening law Lim(n+1) , Eq. (11) can be nonlinear and must be
numerically solved for . The elastic-plastic constitutive relation is then obtained from the
consistency condition (df = 0), as described in Simo (1998). If > 0, then
df ( , ) =

df
df
d +
d = 0
d
d

(12)

Computing derivatives and substituting values for d and d, Eq. (12) results in
sign( )k (d sign( )) H ( ) = 0

(13)

df
is set for each hardening law, as shown in Table 1 .
d
Solving Eq. (13) for gives

where H ( ) =

sign ( )k
d
k + H ( )

(14)

that substituting into Eq. (3), shear stress increment results in

d =

kH ( )
d .
k + H ( )

(15)

Therefore,

d = k ep d
(16)
where
k

ep

k
if

kH ( )
=
if
k + H ( )

=0
>0

(17)

The implementation of elastic-plastic slip conditions, as described above, follows the same
derivations presented in Aguiar et al. (2011) by simple replacing constant material modulus k
in the strain energy equations for the adhesive layer by the non-linear kep(x,) derived in Eq.
(17), numerically obtained, using a suitable elastic-plastic algorithm. Thus, the interlayer
material strain energy

=
i

1
2
k ep r (ub ua r ( b a ) cos ) ddx

2 x

(18)

is employed applying the principle of virtual work, as described in Bathe (1996), which
requires the use of numerical integration throughout the element cross-section and in the
beam longitudinal coordinate.
2

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

To demonstrate the efficiency of the element formulation, two numerical examples are
presented for a two-layered pipe beam, considering different interlayer slip conditions. In the
first example, axial loading is applied to a beam having linear elastic slip conditions at the
interface material. Obtained numerical results are compared to the analytical solutions
discussed in previous publication. The same sample problem is extended to a numerical
analysis that includes adhesive material rupture with static slip friction conditions. Nonlinear
solution procedure presented in this paper is evaluated by the obtained numerical results. In
the second numerical sample analysis a true rupture adhesive material case is considered for a
cantilever beam under pure bending. Contact stress propagation and adhesive delamination
progress along the length of the beam are both verified in the numerical obtained solutions.

2.1 Pipe Beam Under Axial Loading

In this first example a straight beam, restrained at one end at inner layer a, is loaded by an
axial force Fb applied at the free end of outer layer b. Beam material and cross section
geometrical properties are as presented in Fig. 9. These property values are set such EaAa =
EbAb so that interlayer shear stress distributions along the beam are symmetric with respect to
the beam mid-section. Solutions of two slip models for various interlayer stiffness k are
presented in this study. In the numerical analyses twenty equally spaced quadratic finite
element were required.
y

Properties
Ea (KPa):
Eb (KPa):
Aa (m2):
Ab (m2):
r (m):
L (m):

Fb
x
L

Values
1.557E+09
2.070E+08
0.003044
0.022893
0.163
5.00

Figure 9: Pipe Beam Under Axial Loading

Linear Elastic Slip:

In this analysis an axial force Fb=1000kN is considered and a uniform twenty finite
element mesh was employed. Figures 10, 11 and 12 show obtained numerical results for the
axial displacements, axial stresses at both materials and shear stresses at the adhesive
material, respectively, as compared to analytical solutions presented by Aguiar et al. (2011).
A very good agreement between numerical and analytical solution results is observed.
9.0
8.0

u (x ), 10-4 m

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0

Ua (FEM)

3.0

Ua (Analytical)

2.0

Ub (FEM)

1.0

Ub (Analytical)

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

x (m)

Figure 10: Axial displacements (k = 1000000) Linear Elastic Slip Condition.

3.5

(FEM)

5
(x ), 10 kPa

3.0

(Analytical)
(FEM)

2.5

(Analytical)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

x (m)

Figure 11: Axial stresses (k = 1000000) Linear Elastic Slip Condition.

4.0
3.5

2
(x ), 10 kPa

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

0.5

(FEM)

(Analytical)

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

x (m)

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Figure 12: Shear stresses at the interface (k = 1000000) Linear Elastic Slip Condition.

Figure 13 presents a sensitivity study considering solutions for various contact stiffness
parameter magnitudes. As shown, interlayer shear stress distributions along the pipe approach
to zero, for increasing values of k, with stress concentrations at the beam both ends. These
stress patterns suggest, as expected, occurrence of layer delamination at these two ending
positions, for practical k values.

Shear Stresses At Interlayer Material

1.2
max (kPa)

(x )/ max

1.0

10029.59

0.8

3171.63
0.6

1003.03
342.80

0.4

212.16

0.2

197.00
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

x (m)
k = 1.0E04

k = 1.0E05

k = 1.0E06

k = 1.0E07

k = 1.0E08

k = 1.0E09

Figure 13: Sensitivity analysis results Linear Elastic Slip.

Material Rupture with Slip in Static Friction:

In this analysis a material model with contact stiffness k=106 kN/m3 and limit shear stress
Lim=100 kPa is considered, as in the bi-linear slip model presented in Fig. 3. The
corresponding theoretical limit value for the axial load is FLim = 2L Lim = 512.08kN . This
total loading was applied in 11 steps according to the load history shown in Fig. 14. The
number of equilibrium iterations required for convergence in each load step is also displayed.
In order to assure numerical convergence, load increments are applied in a judicious manner.
A maximum of six numerical iterations was required in the convergence scheme used.
550.0

500.0
6

450.0
400.0
350.0

300.0
250.0

200.0
2

Load Value

Iterations

150.0
100.0

50.0
0

0.0
0

Iterations

Loading

10

11

Increment

Figure 14: Axial Loading History and Number of Iterations Required in Each Load Step.

In Fig. 15, along the length shear stress distribution at interface material is presented for
the axial loading varying from the material elastic limit (F= 290kN) to maximum admissible
loading (F = 512.08kN), at four representative values. From these results it is noticed the
adhesive material rupture propagation, starting from the beam both ends, preserving
symmetry. The nonlinear nature of the numerical response is observed in the load-end
displacement plots for both layers, as presented in Fig. 16.

120.0
100.0

(x )

80.0
60.0
40.0

F = 290.00
F = 390.00

20.0

F = 490.00
F = 512.08

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

x (m)

Figure 15: Shear stresses at interface material Rupture with Slip in Static Friction.

600.0

500.0

F (kN)

400.0

300.0

200.0

Ua, inner layer

100.0

Ub, outer layer

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

u (10 -4 m)

Figure 16: Axial displacements at the free end or each layer Rupture with Slip in Static Friction.

2.2 Cantilever Pipe Beam On Bending

In this example a two-layered straight cantilever beam was considered for bending
analysis. At clamped end layer-a is kept fixed while layer-b is set free at both ends. A bending
moment (Ma) is applied at the free end of layer-a, as indicated in Fig. 17. Physical and
geometric properties of the pipe beam are also presented in the figure and a uniform thirty
finite element mesh was used in this numerical analysis.

Properties
Ea (KPa):
Eb (KPa):
Aa (m2):
Ab (m2):
r (m):
L (m):

Ma
x
L

Values
2.00E+08
2.07E+08
0.003044
0.022893
0.163
5.00

Figure 17: Double Layer Pipe Beam Submitted to Constant Bending Moment.

In the analysis, a multi-linear stress-strain curve is employed to model the true rupture
condition in adhesive material, as presented in Fig. 18. The initial contact stiffness and limit
stress are k=106 kN/m3 and Lim=100 kPa, respectively.
120.0

(kPa)

100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0E+00

2.0E-04

4.0E-04

6.0E-04

8.0E-04

1.0E-03

(m)

Figure 18: True rupture constitutive relation used.

Numerical results for the contact stresses and delamination angles at the top of the beam
are presented in Figs. 19 and 20, respectively. From these results, expected slip conditions at
both ends of the beam are well reproduced - by stress concentrations, as in previous example and delamination occurrence, as the contact shear stresses drop to zero. Progress of adhesive
material delamination angles along the length of the beam as per increasing applied bending
moment s presented in Fig. 20.

100.0
80.0
60.0

(x ), kPa

40.0

20.0
z

0.0
-20.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

-40.0

Cross Section

-60.0
-80.0
-100.0

x (m)
M = 50.00

M = 550.0

M = 1500.0

M = 3500.0

Figure 19: Maximum shear stress longitudinal distribution at the adhesive material for various moment loadings.

1.6
1.4

Delamination
Region

(x ), rad

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

Cross Section

0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

x (m)
M = 50.00

M = 550.0

M = 1500.0

M = 3500.0

Figure 20: Angles of delamination top region in the beam cross section.

CONCLUSIONS

This work has been focused on representing the behavior of layered straight beams with
interlayer slip, under in-plane loading. Contact conditions are numerically represented as an
extra layer under the assumption of constant shear deformations through the thickness,
assumed small as compared to other cross section dimensions. Numerical obtained results
have been evaluated and compared with analytical solutions presented by Aguiar et. al (2011),
and a very good agreement was obtained. Stick-slip friction conditions are also included in
the analyses using equivalent elastoplastic models for the interlayer material behavior
representation.
The finite element formulation presents a combination of beam and interface elements,
providing a simple yet robust and reliable tool for multilayered piping analyses, as shown in
the obtained solution results.

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks the financial support provided by PUC-Rio and Petrobras during
his doctoral studies.
REFERENCES

Aguiar, L. L. and Almeida,C. A., On Multi-Layered Pipe Analyses Considering Interface

Binding Conditions .21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering (COBEM 2011),
Oct. 24-28, Natal/RN.
Simo, J. C. and Hughes, T. J. R., Computational Inelasticity, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
1998
Bathe,K.J., Finite Element Procedures, Prentice-Hall. 1996.
Chen WQ, Wu Y-F, Xu RQ, State space formulation for composite beam-columns with
partial interaction. Composites Science and Technology 67(11-12) (2007) 2500-2512.
Newmark NM, Siess CP, Viest IM, Tests and analysis of composite beams with incomplete
interactions. Proc. Soc Exp Stress Anal, 9(1) (1951) 75-92.
Girhammar UA, Gopu VKA, Analysis of P-A effect in composite concrete/timber beamcolumns. Proc. Of the Instit. Of Civil Engineers Research and Theory, 91 (1991) 39-54.
Girhammar UA, Gopu VKA, Composite beam-columns with interlayer slip exact analysis.
ASCE J. of Structural Enging. 119(4) (1993) 1265-1282.
Girhammar UA, Pan D, Exact static analysis of partially composite beams and beamcolumns. Int. J. of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 239-255.
Girhammar UA, Composite beam-columns with interlayer slip approximated analysis Int. J.
of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 1636-1649.
Jeong Y-J, Kim H-Y, Kim S-H Partial-interaction analysis with push-out tests, J. of Constr.
Steel Research 61 (2005) 1318-1331.
Sousa Jr. JBM, Silva AR, Analytical and numerical analysis of multilayered beams with
interlayer slip, Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1671-1680.
Wu, Y-F, Xu R, Chen W, Free vibrations of the partial-interaction composite members with
axial force. J. of Sound and Vibration 299 (2007) 1074-1093.
Xu R, Wu R, Chen W, Static, dynamic and buckling analysis of partial interaction composite
members using Timoshenkos beam theory. Int. J. of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 11391155.
Zona A, Ranzi, G, Finite element models for nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite
beams with partial interaction in combined bending and shear, Finite Elements in Analysis
and Design, 47 (2011) 98-118.