COMPOSITE PIPES FOR DOWNHOLE CASING AND TUBING (CDCT)

Joint Industry Project (JIP)

Report No.: , Rev.

Document No.: 1261742
Date: 2021-08-23
Project name: Composite Pipes for Downhole casing and tubing (CDCT) DNV AS Oil & Gas
Report title: Guideline for Design and Qualification Materials & Structural Integrity - Oslo
APPENDIX Veritasveien 1
Example of Performance Envelopes
Customer: Joint Industry Project (JIP), Veritasveien 1

1363 Høvik
Norway
1363 Høvik Tel:
Norway 945 748 931
Customer contact: JIP
Date of issue: 2021-08-23
Project No.: 10256264
Organization unit: Materials & Structural Integrity - Oslo
Report No.: , Rev.
Document No.: 1261742
Applicable contract(s) governing the provision of this Report:

Objective:
Objective of the Joint Industry Project (JIP) is to devise a design methodology and qualification rules for use of composites
pipes for downhole casing and tubing in the Oil and Gas, Geothermal, CCS and Hydrogen industry.

Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by:

Andreas Echtermeyer Philippe Noury Gustav Heiberg

Senior Principal Engineer Principal Engineer Head of section - Structural Integrity Advisory

Ramin Moslemian Odd Sund

Principal Consultant Principal Engineer

Copyright © DNV 2022. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise agreed in writing: (i) This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form,
or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise; (ii) The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer; (iii) No third party may rely on its contents; and
(iv) DNV undertakes no duty of care toward any third party. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited.

DNV Distribution: Keywords:

☐ OPEN. Unrestricted distribution, internal and external. Composite pipes, Downhole, Casing, Tubing, Well,
☐ INTERNAL use only. Internal DNV document. Oil and gas, Geothermal, Hydrogen and CCS.
☒ CONFIDENTIAL. Distribution within DNV according to applicable
contract.*
☐ SECRET. Authorized access only.
*Specify distribution:
Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by

0 First issue
Table of contents

1 INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 Definitions 5

2 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 5

3 OPERATIONAL PHASE: INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS 5

4 PRODUCTION QA TEST REQUIREMENTS 5

5 MARKING PACKAGING 5

6 DOCUMENTATION 5

7 YYY 5

8 YYY 5

9 YYY 5

10 YYY 5

11 YYY 5

12 YYY 5

13 YYY 5

14 YYY 5

15 APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES 6

15.1 Introduction 6
15.1.1 Overview 6
15.1.2 Geometry 7
15.1.3 Laminates [±10,±852] and [±55] 7
15.1.4 Performance Envelopes - Format 7
15.1.5 Structural analysis in this example 7
15.1.6 Failure criteria to consider 8
 15.1.7 Safety class 10

15.2 Material Properties 11

15.2.1 Overview 11
15.2.2 Static short-term values 11
15.2.3 Fiber dominated static failure – instant dry 13
15.2.4 Static Fatigue 14
15.2.5 Complete set of material properties 17

15.3 Create a performance envelope for a [±10/±852] and a [±55]laminate 18

15.3.1 Overview 18
15.3.2 Matrix cracking 18

15.4 Create a performance envelope for all failure mechanisms 23

15.4.1 Overview 23
15.4.2 Fibre failure 23
15.4.3 Macro Matrix Cracking – Laminate failure 24
15.4.4 Buckling (axial) and Collapse (hoop) 25
[Link] Axial 25
[Link] Collapse 25
[Link] Buckling Envelopes 26
15.4.5 Yielding of liner and cover 27
15.4.6 Debonding of metal end fitting 27
15.4.7 Cyclic fatigue 27
15.4.8 Static fatigue 28
15.4.9 Effect of Torsion 30
15.4.10 50 years 31

15.5 Inner performance envelopes 32

15.5.1 Inner performance envelopes with liner/cover 32
15.5.2 Inner performance envelopes without liner/cover 34

15.6 Test envelopes 36

15.6.1 Without torsion 36
15.6.2 With torsion 37

15.7 Matrix cracking – non-critical properties 38

15.8 Other formats 50 years + torsion 39

15.8.1 Changing from effective axial stress to external axial stress 39
15.8.2 Changing hoop stress to pressure 40
15.8.3 Changing external axial stress to external axial force 41

15.9 REVERSED AXES 42

15.9.1 Stress vs. stress plot 42
15.9.2 Pressure vs. force and force vs. pressure plot 43

15.10 Old stuff 46

15.11 Performance envelope format 49

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Definitions

2 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
3 OPERATIONAL PHASE: INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

4 PRODUCTION QA TEST REQUIREMENTS

5 MARKING PACKAGING

6 DOCUMENTATION

7 YYY
8 YYY
9 YYY
10 YYY
11 YYY
12 YYY
13 YYY
14 YYY
15 APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES

15.1 Introduction

15.1.1 Overview
The purpose of this examples is to show how performance envelopes can be calculated for CDCT. It is based on calculating
the performance envelopes for individual failure mechanisms first. The final performance envelope is the inner envelope of
all failure mechanisms addressed in combination. Geometry and material properties are chosen to be reasonably related to
real CDCT, but they are mainly chosen to trigger design cases explaining the various aspects of this guideline. Geometry
and material properties should not be seen as representative or favoring one design option over another. The solutions
coming out best for the material chosen here may not be best for materials with other properties.

In order to cover the main design concepts four examples are calculated:

• A thermoset material with a close to cross plied laminate layup

o with liner/cover and

o without liner/cover.

• A thermoplastic material with a ±55 layup

o with liner/cover and

o without liner/cover.

Both materials are glass fiber reinforced and have the same properties as virgin materials. Long term degradation of fiber
dominated properties are also the same. The strengths describing the onset of matrix cracking for the thermoset and matrix
weakening for the thermoplastic are also the same. However, the weakening of the matrix due to the onset of damage is
higher for the thermoset than the thermoplastic. Considering the available wide range of composite materials this approach
does not reflect the many design choices that can be made and this is not the purpose of this example. The purpose of the
example is to address as many design issues as possible.

The example addresses the pipe section and not the end fitting. The same approach can, in principle, be used for the end
fitting. Typically, the end fitting is stronger than the pipe body for all loading conditions with the possible exception of axial
(especially tensile) loading and torsion. The limits of the end fitting can simply be superimposed on the performance
envelope of the CDCT´s body, as will be explained.

The design calculations are based on two-dimensional linear laminate theory with simple progressive failure analysis to
address matrix damage. Most real designs will use finite element analysis to capture three-dimensional stress states and
nonlinear characteristics of the pipes. The principles for obtaining performance envelopes will remain the same though.
15.1.2 Geometry
The geometry for all CDCT in the example is:

The radius of the laminate is 75 mm

The laminate thickness is 20 mm.

Thickness and mechanical properties of the liner and cover are ignored for the structural calculations.

15.1.3 Laminates [±10,±852] and [±55]

Two types of laminates are used:

The thermoset laminate has a [±10, (±85)2 ]4 layup with twice as many plies (layers) in the 85 direction than in the 10
direction.

The thermoplastic laminate has [+55, −55]6𝑠 layup.

Both laminates have 12 plies and each ply has the same thickness. They are symmetric and balanced. The [+85, −85]6𝑠
laminate could be made by tape winding while the [±10, (±85)2 ]4 could be made by filament winding. For the modelling both
laminates are modeled as being made of unidirectional plies and the production process is not important for the example.

In the remaining part of the example the laminates will simply be called [±10,±85 2] and [±55].

15.1.4 Performance Envelopes - Format

Many of the performance envelopes presented in this example show factored effective hoop stress versus factored effective
axial stress. This format is well suited to show and intuitively understand the behavior of the CDCT´s laminate, both axes
have the same units. It is also widely used in industry. If desired, it is straight forward to convert stress into pressure and
axial force and to present the envelopes in other formats will be shown at the end of the example.

15.1.5 Structural analysis in this example

A pipe with a radius of 75 mm and a laminate thickness of 20 mm is considered a thick-walled pipe and a three-dimensional
stress analysis would be needed for proper calculations of local stresses and strains. For the sake of simplicity and
concentrating on describing how performance envelopes are created, the structural analysis of this example is based on
simple two-dimensional laminate theory giving non-conservative results. But the observed trends and shape of the
performance envelopes are similar in both analysis types.

The performance envelopes are constructed by selecting many combinations of average axial and hoop stress. For each
combination of the average stresses acting on the laminate the stresses and strains in each ply of the laminate calculated by
2D laminate theory. The ply stresses and strains are applied to the failure criteria. The ratio to failure is calculated for all
plies and all failure criteria. The performance envelope is at the point where the same ratio of axial and hoop stress causes
failure for the weakest ply. This simple scaling approach is only possible for linear materials, but it is sufficient to show how
performance envelopes can be developed. A 3D nonlinear analysis would typically be done by FE analysis.
15.1.6 Failure criteria to consider

Generally all possible critical failure mechanisms shall be analyzed for short and long-term performance. Critical failure
mechanisms are the ones that would cause rupture or leakage or would prevent some of the design requirements not being
fulfilled The guideline requires that Table yyy in Section yyy shall be filed out to identify the critical failure mechanisms. The
evaluation is given in Table 15-1 for the four design solutions of the example.
 Table 15-1: Failure mechanisms and their criticality for pipe body

Failure Ref. Comments

[±10,±852]

[±10,±852]
Mechanisms Sec

[±55]
[±55]
tion

Line no Line no
r/co Line r/co Line
ver r/co ver r/co
ver ver

Fibre dominated 5.2 x x x x Always critical, as it leads to rupture.

failure

Micro matrix 5.3 x x Such cracks would eventually lead to leakage.

cracking They are only critical if no liner/cover is present.

Delamination 5.4 NC NC NC NC Delamination is seen as noncritical in the

example. But it may reduce buckling resistance.

Macro Matrix 5.5 x x Macro matrix cracks or through thickness matrix

Cracking/ cracks can lead to rupture if the fiber angles
Laminate failure exceed 70 degrees.

Weeping 5.6 x x An accumulation of matrix cracks will lead to

weeping reducing the pressure capacity and
possibly create severe leakage. Since the amount
of accumulation needed for weeping is hard to
define the effect is here conservatively covered by
looking at the initiation of matrix cracks.

Polymer fracture 5.7 Polymer fracture applies to the liner/cover and

would make it non-functional. It is covered
conservatively by designing against yielding.

Yielding isotropic 5.8 x x Relevant failure mechanism, see above. (Yielding

may be accaptale during reeling).

Maximum 5.9 Not covered in this example. But a too large

deformation increase of the pipe´s diameter may cause
problems in the hole.

Debonding 5.10 EF EF EF EF Thie failure mechanisms can be critical for the

end-fitting. Not covered in the example.
 Crazing, cracking 5.11 Not relevant for the materials considered.

Buckling 5.12 x x x x Buckling or collapse would lead to rupture and

need to be considered.
Collapse 5.13 x x x x

Cyclic fatigue 5.14 tbc tbc tbc tbc Resistance to infrequent and low fatigue loads
must be checked individually and cannot be
described by a performance envelope.

Static fatigue 5.15 x x x x Resistance to long-term static loads needs to be

documented and designed for all critical failure
mechanisms.

15.1.7 Safety class

This example is given for safety class high.

The choice of the appropriate factors will be explained in the sections on materials and loads.
15.2 Material Properties
Sections needs to be shortened and rearranged.
The Table with the complete set of properties is right!
15.2.1 Overview
Material properties needed for the example are the typical properties used to describe orthotropic plies in a laminate. They
should be measured as described in Section yyy of the guideline. Here the properties are just chosen for the example and
they are not related to any particular material.

15.2.2 Static short-term values

The material properties in this example are based on a typical 2D unidirectional glass fiber ply. Classical laminate theory is
used to calculate elastic properties of the [±10,±85 2] and [±55] laminates. Note that ply properties shall be measured
according to Sction yyy and some laminate prosperities shall be confirmed experimentally according to Section yyy.

The orthotropic ply properties are given by a set of 14 parameters as shown in Table yyy, Characteristic values are needed
for design. They can be calculated from the mean values as:

𝜎̂𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 𝜎̂𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 − 𝑘𝑚 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣

Where 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 is the standard deviation of the measurements. The factor 𝑘𝑚 depends on the number of
measurements and is listed in yyy and Table A1 in DNV-ST-F119. The standard deviation is also often expressed
as the Coefficient of Variation 𝐶𝑂𝑉:

𝐶𝑂𝑉 = 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 / ̂𝜎𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛

The strains to failure of the matrix dominated properties 𝜀̂2𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 , 𝜀̂2𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 and 𝛾̂12 are not directly needed for the design
in this example. But they can be easily calculated from Hook´s law, if needed.

In addition to the ply properties the strain and stress to failure in the axial direction of the [±55] laminate is needed,
according to Section yyy. The assumed measured values are also given in Table yyy.

The characteristic values need to be reduced further with the material and model factors of the failure criteria.
These will be discussed in the following sections. A complete set of material properties is given in Table yyy.
 Table yyy: Orthotropic ply properties for the example.

𝐸1 Young´s modulus in fiber direction

45000 MPa. Mean and characteristic values are the same.

𝐸2 Young´s modulus transverse to the fiber direction

8500 MPa. Mean and characteristic values are the same.

𝐺12 In plane Shear Modulus

3500 MPa. Mean and characteristic values are the same.

𝜈12 Poisson´s ratio

0.26

𝜎̂1𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 Tensile strength of the ply in fibre direction.

Mean 1035 MPa. COV 6%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 836 MPa

𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜎̂1 Compressive strength of the ply in fibre direction.
Mean 810 MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 603 MPa

𝜎̂2𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 Tensile strength of the ply transverse to the fibre direction.

Mean 40. MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 29.8 MPa

𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜎̂2 Compressive strength of the ply transverse to the fibre direction.
Mean 60 MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 44.6 MPa

𝜏̂12 Inplane hear strength of the ply.

Mean 25 MPa. COV 10%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 17.0 MPa

𝜀̂1𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 Tensile strain to failure of the ply in fibre direction.

Mean 0.023. COV 6%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 0.0186

𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜀̂1 Compressive strain to failure of the ply in fibre direction.
Mean 0.018. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 0.0134

𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝜀̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚 Tensile strain to failure of the [±55] laminate in the axial (0 degree) direction.
Mean 0.031. COV 6%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 0.025

𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝜀̂𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑚 Compressive strain to failure of the ply in fibre direction.
Mean 0.044. COV 10%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 0.030
15.2.3 Fiber dominated static failure – instant dry

Failure criterion maximum stress and maximum strain simultaneously. Strains and stresses are local in the individual plies
and change depending on the applied average axial and hoop stresses and the laminate layup.

The maximum strain design criterion is given as:

𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝜀̂𝑘
𝜀𝑛𝑘 <
𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑

and the maximum stress design criterion is given as:

𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝜎̂𝑘
𝜎𝑛𝑘 <
𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑

The load effect (stresses σnk or strains εnk) shall be obtained from the sum of the individual loads applied on CDCT multiplied
by the partial load factor γF [11.2], the load model factor γSd [11.4.1] and the system factor γS [11.5],

where:

𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝜀̂𝑘 Characteristic tensile strain to failure of the ply in fibre direction.

Mean 0.0023. COV 6%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 0.0186

Characteristic compressive strain to failure of the ply in fibre direction.

Mean 0.0018. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 0.0134

𝑓𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝜎̂𝑘 Characteristic tensile strength of the ply in fibre direction.

Mean 1035 MPa. COV 6%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 836 MPa

Characteristic compressive strength of the ply in fibre direction.

Mean 810 MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 603 MPa

𝑘𝑚 Coefficient for calculating characteristic values, Table A1 in DNV-ST-F119.

𝛾𝑀 Partial resistance factor for safety class high and COV 5%-10% → 𝛾𝑀 = 1.55

𝛾𝑅𝑑 Resistance model factor. 𝛾𝑅𝑑 = 1.0

𝜀𝑛𝑘 Characteristic value of the local response of the structure (strain) in the fibre direction n in ply k.
 𝜎𝑛𝑘 Characteristic value of the local response of the structure (stress) in the fibre direction n in ply k.

Setting in the numbers we obtain:

−0.0086 < 𝜀𝑛𝑘 < 0.012. 𝑎𝑛𝑑 − 389 𝑀𝑃𝑎 < 𝜎𝑛𝑘 < 540 𝑀𝑃𝑎

15.2.4 Static Fatigue

The CDCT will be exposed to permanent static loads, pressure and possible additional axial loads. The properties affected
by stress rupture will be the ply strength in fiber direction and the axial strength of the [±55] laminate. Both properties are
needed in tension and compression. They need to be measured. The mean and characteristic static fatigue curves can be
described by:

log 𝜎 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽 log 𝑡

log 𝜎𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽𝜅𝑠 − 𝛽 log 𝑡

where 𝑡 is the time to failure at stress 𝜎. The fit parameters from the linear regression are log 𝜎1 and the slope 𝛽. The
standard deviation of log 𝑡 is 𝑠. The factor 𝜅 depends on the number of measurement points, as shown in [yyy].

The static fatigue curve for fiber dominated ply strength in this example has a 𝛽 = 0.0423. The static fatigue curve is shown
in Figure yyy in the common log-log presentation and in Figure yyy on a linear scale. The strength is normalized to the static
short term strength. As can be seen the strength is reduced gradually in the logarithmic scale, but it reduces quite rapidly
within the first months on a linear scale.
 0
log (Normalized Strength)

-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
log sig mean log sig char
-0.35
-0.4 log sig design log sig non crit
-0.45
1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08
log time (minutes)

1
Normalized Strngth

0.9 sig mean sig char sig design sig noncrit

0.8
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Time (years)

Figure yyy: Static fatigue curves. The dots indicate values at 6000 hours, 1 year, 25 years, 30 years and 50 years.

The design curve and the ‘non-critical’ curve are obtained by adding the fatigue safety factor 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 :

log 𝜎𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽𝜅𝑠 − 𝛽 log(𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 𝑡)

log 𝜎𝑛𝑜𝑛−𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 = log 𝜎1 − 𝛽𝜅𝑠 − 𝛽 log(20 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 𝑡)

The design strengths used in this example are taken for 1 year and for 50 years.

The static strength was reduced by 10% in this example to account for the influence of the fluid on the long-term properties
of the material. In a real case the long term properties in the relevant environment need to ne measured experimentally!

The data for the axial laminate strain to failure are obtained the same way, but 𝛽 = 0.03 was used.

Note: in this example a linear relationship between laminate strength and strain to failure is assumed and only the strain to
failure is used in the design calculations. If the two properties are related in a nonlinear way, strength and strain to failure
need to be both considered in the design. The same approach can be used for designing with both properties.

The static fatigue data used in this example are summarized in Table yyy:
 Fiber dominated ply Static 1 year Instant 50 years
Units
failure mean char design Mean-deg char. design
sig 1 tens MPa 1035 526 446 932 495 340
sig 1 comp MPa 810 412 349 729 387 344
Axial laminate failure
eps l x tens 0.053 0.0317 0.0282 0.0282 0.0251
eps l x comp 0.045 0.0269 0.0239 0.0239 0.0213

@@@@@

@@@

The
15.2.5 Complete set of material properties

Table yyy: Material properties used in the example

dry dry dry dry with fluid with fluid with fluid with fluid
Static
Static Static Fatigue
Charac- Design Fatigue Design Fatigue Non Critical Non Critical
Property Units Mean teristic 1 year 1 year 50 years 50 years 50 years 50 years
E1 MPa 45000 45000 45000 42000
E2 MPa 8500 8500 8500 8200
G12 MPa 3500 3500 3500 3200
v12 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
E2 deg TP MPa 4250 4250 4250 4100
G12 deg TP MPa 1750 1750 1750 1600
E2 deg TS MPa 1275 1275 1275 1230
G12 deg TS MPa 525 525 525 480
X1 tens MPa 1035 836 540 446 486 340 243 300
X1 comp MPa 810 603 389 349 350 266 175 235
X2 tens MPa 40.0 29.8 16.7 15.0
X2 comp MPa 60.0 44.6 25.0 22.5
X12 MPa 25.0 17.0 9.5 8.6
eps1 tens 0.0230 0.0186 0.0120 0.0099 0.0116 0.0081 0.0058 0.0071
eps1 comp 0.0180 0.0134 0.0086 0.0078 0.0083 0.0063 0.0042 0.0056
eps2 tens 0.0047 0.0035 0.0020 0.0018
eps2 comp 0.0071 0.0053 0.0029 0.0027
gam12 0.0071 0.0049 0.0027 0.0027

Lamstrain t 0.059 0.0439 0.0246 0.0314 0.0222 0.0251 0.0111 0.0230

Lamstrain c 0.071 0.0528 0.0296 0.0378 0.0267 0.0302 0.0133 0.0276

E liner MPa 800 800 800 800

v liner 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
S12 liner MPa 50 50 50 50

Note the grey boxes. Sometimes static short term properties with safety factors drive the design,
sometimes the static fatigue properties drive the design.
15.3 Create a performance envelope for a [±10/±852] and a [±55]laminate
15.3.1 Overview
Stress format. Other formats later, conversion is simple

Obtain the performance envelope for each failure mechanism for each of the two laminate types.

Compare

The first failure mechanism to look it is matrix cracking. It is a specuíal failure mechanisms in the sense that matrix cracks
cause leakage but not failure. Matrix cracking special, since it can be acceptaed in some cases. Ca

15.3.2 Matrix cracking

The first failure mechanism to look it is matrix cracking. It is a specuíal failure mechanisms in the sense that matrix cracks
cause leakage but not failure. Initial matr

According to F119 the simple quadratic criterion can be used.

2 2
𝜎2𝑘 𝜏12𝑘
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 ≥ 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑 √( 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥,𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
) +( 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
) <1
𝜎
̂2 𝜏̂ 12

2 2
𝜎2𝑘 𝜏12𝑘
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 < 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝛾𝑀 𝛾𝑅𝑑 √( 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
) +( 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
) <1
𝜎
̂2 𝜏̂ 12

The load effects (stresses σnk or strains εnk) shall be obtained from the sum of the individual loads applied on CDCT multiplied
by the partial load factor γF [11.2], the load model factor γSd [11.4.1] and the system factor γS [11.5], For the performance
envelope the applied loads are the factored effective stresses sig axial and sig hoop as described in Section
yyyPerformanceenvelopes.

where:

𝜎̂2𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥,𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 Characteristic tensile strength of the ply transverse to the fibre direction.

Mean 40. MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 29.8 MPa

Characteristic compressive strength of the ply transverse to the fibre direction.

Mean 60 MPa. COV 8%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 44.6 MPa

𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
𝜏̂12 Characteristic tensile strength of the ply in fibre direction.

Mean 25 MPa. COV 10%, 10 tests: 𝑘𝑚 = 3.2 → Characteristic value: 17.0 MPa

𝑘𝑚 Coefficient for calculating characteristic values, Table A1 in DNV-ST-F119.

 𝛾𝑀 Partial resistance factor for safety class high and COV 5%-10% → 𝛾𝑀 = 1.55

𝛾𝑅𝑑 Resistance model factor. 𝛾𝑅𝑑 = 1.15

𝜀𝑛𝑘 Characteristic value of the local response of the structure (strain) in the fibre direction n in ply k.

𝜎𝑛𝑘 Characteristic value of the local response of the structure (stress) in the fibre direction n in ply k.

Setting in the numbers we obtain:

𝜎2𝑘 2 𝜏12𝑘 2
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 ≥ 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 1.7825 √( ) +( ) <1
29.8 𝑀𝑃𝑎 17 𝑀𝑃𝑎

𝜎2𝑘 2 𝜏12𝑘 2
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 < 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 1.7825 √( ) +( ) <1
44.6 𝑀𝑃𝑎 17 𝑀𝑃𝑎

𝜎2𝑘 2 𝜏12𝑘 2
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 ≥ 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 √( ) +( ) <1
16.7 𝑀𝑃𝑎 9.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎

𝜎2𝑘 2 𝜏12𝑘 2
𝑖𝑓 𝜎2𝑘 < 0 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 √( ) +( ) <1
25.0 𝑀𝑃𝑎 9.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎

Using laminate calculations and calculatimng the performance envelope for matrix cracking we get:
Yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE1: Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe.
Yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE2: Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking for a CDCT pipe with 1 and 50 years of service.
Yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE3: Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking for a CDCT pipe 1 and 50 years of service with and
without torsion.
15.4 Create a performance envelope for all failure mechanisms
15.4.1 Overview

Cannot have fiber failure without matrix cracking. → degraded properties

Thermoset =0/90 multioply by 0.15

Thermoplastic multiply by 0.5

Just for this example

15.4.2 Fibre failure

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE4: Performance envelopes considering fibre failure for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover.

yyy
15.4.3 Macro Matrix Cracking – Laminate failure

Close gap in 55 laminate

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE5: Performance envelopes considering fibre failure and macro matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe with
liner/cover.
15.4.4 Buckling (axial) and Collapse (hoop)
Yy

[Link] Axial
Yyy

𝑅2 𝑘𝐴 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝜋 2 𝐸𝑥
𝜎̂𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 =
𝐿2 2

jjj
𝑡 𝑘𝐴 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑥 𝐾1
𝜎̂𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 =
𝑅 [3(1 − 𝜈𝑥𝜃 𝜈𝜃𝑥 )]1/2

1/2
𝐸𝜃 1/2 𝐸𝜃 1/2 𝐺𝑥𝜃 1/2
𝐾1 = {2 [1 + 𝜈𝑥𝜃 ( ) ] ( ) ( ) }
𝐸𝑥 𝐸𝑥 𝐸𝑥

with 𝑘𝐴 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 = 0.67 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑘𝐴 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 0.5

[Link] Collapse
Yyy

𝐵𝜃𝜃 2
3𝑘𝑝 (𝐷𝜃𝜃 − )
𝐴𝜃𝜃
𝑃̂𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 =
𝑅3

with 𝑘𝑝 = 0.75

further

𝐵𝜃𝜃 2
3𝑘𝑝 (𝐷𝜃𝜃 − )
𝑅 𝐴𝜃𝜃
𝜎̂ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 = 𝑃̂𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 =
𝑡 𝑡 𝑅2

For simplicity we assume here that the collapse pressure is independent of the axial stresses.
[Link] Buckling Envelopes
Yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE6: Performance envelopes considering fibre failure, macro matrix cracking and buckling for a new CDCT pipe
with liner/cover.
15.4.5 Yielding of liner and cover

Yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE7: Performance envelopes considering fibre failure, macro matrix cracking, buckling and liner/cover/cover
yielding (all) for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover.

Yyy

15.4.6 Debonding of metal end fitting

Not explicitly coverd. Would be like buckling

Yyy

15.4.7 Cyclic fatigue

On individual loads
15.4.8 Static fatigue

log sig vs. log time (minutes)

0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
log sig mean log sig char log mean
log char log sig design log sig non crit

sig vs. time (years)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

sig mean sig char mean char sig design sig noncrit

Strength goes down to

−296 𝑀𝑃𝑎 < 𝜎𝑛𝑘 < 378 𝑀𝑃𝑎

Fibre failure is static fatigue dominated

Macro matrix cracking is static value dominated (only this example)
 [±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE8: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1 year of
service (including static fatigue).
15.4.9 Effect of Torsion
Yyy

Yyyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE9: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1 year of
service with and without torsion.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
15.4.10 50 years

yyy

MatrixCrack_new
Liner/cover
Prop Laminate P # Plots Mat cros Nxy cross Mat alpha Nxy alpha
800 0.0222 1 M6 0 M5 0
0.3 -0.0267 2 M4 0 M4 0
50 3
3
Yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE10: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 50 years of
service with and without torsion.

yyy
15.5 Inner performance envelopes
15.5.1 Inner performance envelopes with liner/cover

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE11: Inner performance envelope considering all failure mechanisms for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover with
and without torsion.

y
F
[±10/±852] laminate [±10/±852] laminate

Figure PE12: Inner performance envelope for a [±10,±852] laminate considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe
with liner/cover with 1 year of service (left) and 50 years of service (right) with and without torsion.

[±55] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE13: Inner performance envelope for a [±55] laminate considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with
liner/cover with 1 year of service (left) and 50 years of service (right) with and without torsion.

Yyy
15.5.2 Inner performance envelopes without liner/cover
yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE14: Inner performance envelope considering matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe without liner/cover with and
without torsion.

Yyy
 [±10/±852] laminate [±10/±852] laminate

Figure PE15: Inner performance envelope for a [±10,±852] laminate considering matrix cracking for a CDCT pipe without
liner/cover with 1 year of service (left) and 50 years of service (right) with and without torsion.

yyy

[±55] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE16: Inner performance envelope for a [±55] laminate considering matrix cracking for a CDCT pipe without
liner/cover with 1 year of service (left) and 50 years of service (right) with and without torsion.
15.6 Test envelopes

15.6.1 Without torsion

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE17: Test envelope considering all failure mechanisms for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover without torsion.

yyy
[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE18: Test envelope considering matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover without torsion
15.6.2 With torsion

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE19: Test envelope considering all failure mechanisms for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover with torsion.

yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE20: Test envelope considering matrix cracking for a new CDCT pipe with liner/cover with torsion.
15.7 Matrix cracking – non-critical properties

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE21: Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking and all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with
liner/cover with 50 years of service with torsion.

nnn
[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE22: Performance envelopes considering matrix cracking and all other failure mechanisms based on “non-
critical properties” for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 50 years of service with torsion.

jjj
15.8 Other formats 50 years + torsion
15.8.1 Changing from effective axial stress to external axial stress

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE23: Hoop Stress vs. Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe
with liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE24: Hoop Stress vs. External Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a
CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.
15.8.2 Changing hoop stress to pressure

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE25: Pressure vs. Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with
liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.

Jj

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE26: Pressure vs. External Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT
pipe with liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.
15.8.3 Changing external axial stress to external axial force
jjjjj kkjyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure 27: Pressure vs. Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with
liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.

hh

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE28: Pressure vs. External Axial Load: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a CDCT
pipe with liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.
15.9 REVERSED AXES
15.9.1 Stress vs. stress plot

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE29: Usual hoop stress vs. axial stress plot: Pressure vs. Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering all
failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.

lll

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE30: Reversed plot: Axial stress vs. hoop stress: Pressure vs. Axial Stress: Performance envelopes considering
all failure mechanisms for a CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.
15.9.2 Pressure vs. force and force vs. pressure plot

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE31: Usual pressure vs. external force plot: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a
CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.

Yyy

[±10/±852] laminate [±55] laminate

Figure PE32: Reversed plot: external force vs. pressure: Performance envelopes considering all failure mechanisms for a
CDCT pipe with liner/cover with 1 and 50 years of service with and without torsion.
Yyy

About DNV
DNV is the independent expert in risk management and assurance, operating in more than 100
countries. Through its broad experience and deep expertise DNV advances safety and sustainable
performance, sets industry benchmarks, and inspires and invents solutions.
Whether assessing a new ship design, optimizing the performance of a wind farm, analyzing sensor
data from a gas pipeline or certifying a food company’s supply chain, DNV enables its customers and
their stakeholders to make critical decisions with confidence.
Driven by its purpose, to safeguard life, property, and the environment, DNV helps tackle the
challenges and global transformations facing its customers and the world today and is a trusted voice
for many of the world’s most successful and forward-thinking companies.
15.10 Old stuff

@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@ all the rest of this section will be removed, just here to make sure all factors are selected properly

The following tables are copied from the guideline and will be deleted when the writing of the example is finished.
Table 15-2: Partial load factors.

Limit state Bending / Torsional External axial load

4) Pressure load
loads

γFF 1) γΕ 2) γP
ULS 1.1 1.3 1.0

ULS 1.4 0.7 1.0

FLS 1.0 1.0 1.0

ALS 1.0 1.0 1.0

3)
Reeling 1.0 NA 1.0

Table 15-3: Partial resistance factor γM.

COV of strength or strain to failure

Safety class
2% - 5% 5%-10% 10%-12.5%

Medium 1.45 1.4 1.5

High 1.6 1.55 1.75

Load model factors γSd account for inaccuracies, idealizations and biases in the engineering model used to represent the

1.05

Table 15-4: Summary of resistance model factors

Design criterion Model factors γRd Reference in DNVGL-ST- Reference in this guideline
C501

Fibre failure 1.0 Sec.6 -3.2.2 [5.2]

Matrix cracking 1.0-1.15 Sec.6 – 4.1 and – 4.4 [5.3]

Delamination, debonding 1.3 or 1.0-2.0 Sec.6 – 5 [5.4], [5.10]

. .
Laminate failure 1.05-1.15 / [5.5]
. .
Fluid tightness, permeability 1.0 / [5.6]

Yielding 1.0 Sec.6 – 6 [5.8]

Ultimate failure of orthotropic 1.0 or 1.25 Sec.6 – 7 [5.7]

homogenous materials

Buckling Same range as all other Sec.6 - 8 and [7.4]

criteria* DNVGL-RP-F202 Sec.5

Displacements 1.0 Sec.6 – 9 [5.9]

Stress rupture 0.1-1.0 Sec.6 – 10.4 [5.23]

Fatigue 0.1-1.0 Sec.6 – 11.3 [5.22]

* The other design criteria are used in the buckling calculations.

The safety factors are given for the entire system. Depending on how the components are connected to form a system, the
nominal probability of failure of individual components may need to be lower than the entire system's nominal probability of
failure.

In order to take this system effect into account, a system effect factor γS shall be introduced. If the system effect is not relevant,
γS = 1.0. Otherwise, a system factor shall be documented. A value of γS = 1.10 can be used as a first approach.
Hoop stress Axial stress

Under pressure:
𝑅
𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 𝑃 𝑡

𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑅
𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = = 𝑃 2𝑡
2

𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 + 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙

𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 2

𝑡
𝑃 = 𝑅 𝜎ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝

𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝜋 [(𝑅 + 𝑡)2 − 𝑅 2 ]

𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝜋 [𝑅 2 + 2𝑅𝑡 + 𝑡 2 − 𝑅 2 ]

𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 𝜋 𝑡 [2𝑅 + 𝑡] 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙

𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝜎𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙

@@@@@@@@

For the static fatigue evaluation, the characteristic short-term strength of the critical failure mechanisms shall be replaced in
the relevant static short-term failure criteria in Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found.,
REF _Ref87863331 \r \h \* MERGEFORMAT Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found.
𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
and Error! Reference source not found., by the static fatigue design strength 𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑑𝑒𝑠 and 𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑑𝑒𝑠 for the installation and
lifetime phase respectively:

𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡
𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑑𝑒𝑠 = 10[log 𝜎1−𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 )]
 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑑𝑒𝑠 = 10[log 𝜎1−𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑡 )]

where 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 is the fatigue safety factor.

𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
If static fatigue shall be considered a non-critical property, the non-critical static fatigue strengths 𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑁𝐶 and 𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑁𝐶 shall be
used in the failure criteria for the installation and lifetime phase respectively:

𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡
𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑁𝐶 = 10[log 𝜎1 −𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(20 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡)]

𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝜎̂𝑆𝐹−𝑁𝐶 = 10[log 𝜎1−𝛽𝜅𝑠−𝛽 log(20 𝛾𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 )]

log 𝜎𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = log 𝜎0 − 𝛽 log 𝑡

log 𝜎𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 = log 𝜎0 − 𝜅𝛽 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 − 𝛽 log 𝑡

@@@@@@

15.11 Performance envelope format

Pipe is pressurized to pressure P and an axial load F is applied:

The pressure gives an average stress across the cross section

𝑅
⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 𝑃
𝜎
𝑡

P = 69 MPa
Ri = 76.2 mm
Liner/cover 5 mm
Ri effective 81.2 mm
Sig hoop 0= 540 MPa
Sig hoop long term = 490 MPa with safety factors

But matrix degraded strength 350

 𝑃𝑅
𝑡=
⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
𝜎

t = 16 mm

𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 ⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
𝜎 𝑅
⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜎 = =𝑃
2 2𝑡

An additional axial load gives an average stress across the cross section

𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜎 =
𝜋 𝑡 [2𝑅 + 𝑡]

If the CDCT can be bent, the axial stress due to bending shall be considered:

𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅
⏞
𝜎 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = ± 𝐸𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝑀𝐵𝑅
𝑀𝐵𝑅
𝑖𝑓 𝑡 ≤
100

where 𝑀𝐵𝑅 is the minimum bending radius. 𝐸𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 is modulus of the CDCT´s laminate in the axial
direction measured or calculated by laminate theory.

To obtain the factored effective average stresses across the cross section are used in the performance
envelope:

⏞ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝
𝜎̅ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 1.05 𝜎

𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜎̅𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 1.1 (1.05 ∙ 1.0 𝜎 ⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
+ 1.05 ∙ 1.3 𝜎 ⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
± 1.05 ∙ 1.1 𝜎 )

𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝜎̅𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 1.1 (1.05 ∙ 1.0 𝜎 ⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
+ 1.05 ∙ 0.7 𝜎 ⏞𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙
± 1.05 ∙ 1.4 𝜎 )

The maximum and minimum 𝜎̅𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 from the two equations shall be checked in the performance
envelope.