Knapstad Bjarte
Knapstad Bjarte
MASTER'S THESIS
Study programme/specialisation:
Spring semester, 2017
Offshore Technology /
Marine and Subsea Technology
Open/Confidential
Author:
Bjarte Knapstad …………………………………………
(signature of author)
Programme coordinator:
Supervisor:
Credits (ECTS): 30
Keywords:
Steel Lazy Wave Riser, Optimisation, Number of pages: 74
DNV-OS-F201, Extreme Response Analysis, + enclosure: 19
Wave Induced Fatigue, Ultra-Deep Water
Master Thesis
Offshore Technology
Bjarte Knapstad
Spring 2017
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to optimise the performance of an initial Steel Lazy Wave Riser
(SLWR) configuration with regards to the combined loading criteria in the Offshore Standard
DNV-OS-F201: Dynamic Risers. This is done by conducting large scale parameter variations
for the configuration using the programming interface in the OrcaFlex analysis software. The
study considers the implementation of SLWRs in ultra-deep waters, in conjunction with a
Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel.
Being connected to a spread moored FPSO in a water depth of 2800 meters, the riser
configurations are analysed for typical extreme environmental conditions found in the Santos
basin off the coast of Brazil. By analysing the vessel response for different 100-year waves, the
worst conditions are determined in terms of the largest downward velocities experienced at
hang-off point. These parameters are used in combination with a 10-year current to study the
extreme response behaviour for the different configurations analysed.
From the design basis, an initial SLWR configuration is established and it is verified that it
meets the stated design criteria for combined loading and the wave induced fatigue. This
configuration is then subjected to parameter variations by altering the hang-off angle, total net
buoyancy force and length of buoyancy section. A total of 75 different configurations are
created and analysed under extreme environmental conditions to determine a better
configuration in terms of the combined loading utilisation. The findings are presented and a
comparison of selected configurations are given to better understand the effect of the parameter
variations.
The optimisation results show that all the configurations meet the Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
design criteria, and that the maximum utilisation experienced in the different cases varies
significantly. With tension being the main contributor for the combined loading in these water
depths, it is found that a combination of reduced hang-off angle and increased net buoyancy
force will improve the performance of the configuration. From the optimisation study, the best
configuration is determined and assessed for wave induced fatigue life. The fatigue results show
an increase in fatigue life, which also reflects the importance of reducing the top tension.
The work presented in this thesis provides information on how different parameters for a SLWR
in ultra-deep water affects the combined loading utilisation, and it is proven that this concept is
feasible for use in conjunction with a FPSO in these water depths.
i
Acknowledgment
First, I would like to thank Professor Daniel Karunakaran for the opportunity to write this thesis
under his guidance. He has always been available for any enquiry and been a very supportive
mentor through this whole period. His positive attitude and constructive feedback has been vital
for the progress and finalisation of this thesis.
Subsea7 for making me feel welcome and giving me a desk space in their office at Forus, this
gave me an opportunity to be close to the needed expertise on the many subjects and access to
analysis programs needed for this thesis.
Øystein Døskeland, Senior Engineer at Subsea7, the OrcaFlex and Python guru who time and
time again helped with programming and theoretical understanding to help with the progress of
this thesis.
Yuri Vladimirovic Novoseltsev for giving a basic introduction to the OrcaFlex-Python interface
and programming.
I would like to thank Professor Ove Tobias Gudmestad for helping me with defining the project
scope in the Marine Operations course, which led me to the topic for this Master thesis.
Adekunle Peter Orimolade, fellow at the University of Stavanger, for providing me with
answers for any questions regarding the topic and the use of the OrcaFlex software.
Abraham Aimuth Tewolde, my fellow student from UiS, I could not ask for a more supportive
and helpful desk mate. Thanks for all the good discussions and for increasing my skills in table
soccer.
A big thank you to Svein Erik Nuland for taking the time to proofread and give feedback on
my work, and for helping me with the finalising of the thesis setup.
And to all my fellow students and lecturers at the University of Stavanger, thanks for the many
good memories over the past two years.
ii
Table of contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................I
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................................................................. II
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... VIII
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... IX
iii
4.3 DESIGN BASIS AND ANALYSES......................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ........................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.1.1 Waves and Current ................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.1.2 Wave Spectrum ........................................................................................................................ 24
4.3.1.3 Soil Stiffness.............................................................................................................................. 25
4.3.2 VESSEL DATA ......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2.1 Vessel Motion ........................................................................................................................... 26
4.3.2.2 Vessel Response Analysis ......................................................................................................... 28
4.3.2.3 Extreme Response Methodology ............................................................................................. 29
4.3.3 DESIGN DATA......................................................................................................................................... 30
4.3.3.1 Riser Properties and Design Life ............................................................................................... 30
4.3.3.2 Flex Joint ................................................................................................................................... 31
4.3.3.3 Internal Fluid Data .................................................................................................................... 32
4.3.3.4 Buoyancy Elements .................................................................................................................. 32
4.3.3.5 Hydrodynamic Coefficients ...................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Wall Thickness Sizing.......................................................................................................................... 34
4.4.1 RISER FATIGUE ........................................................................................................................................ 34
4.4.1.1 Fatigue Calculation ................................................................................................................... 38
4.5 DESIGN AND STUDY CASES ............................................................................................................................ 40
4.5.1 Initial Configuration....................................................................................................................... 40
4.5.2 Sensitivity and Optimisation study ................................................................................................ 41
4.6 SOFTWARE AND PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE..................................................................................................... 42
4.7 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................. 44
iv
CHAPTER 6 SENSITIVITY AND OPTIMISATION ............................................................................................ 60
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 73
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................A-1
v
List of figures
Figure 1: Different deep-water platforms and production concepts (Offshore Magazine, 2015)
.................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Multilayer Flexible Pipe (NOV, 2017). ...................................................................... 7
Figure 3: SCR configuration (Subsea7, 2017) ........................................................................... 9
Figure 4: SLWR Configuration (Hoffman et al., 2010) ........................................................... 10
Figure 5: Hybrid riser principle (Sworn, 2005)........................................................................ 11
Figure 6: Buoyancy Supported Risers (Subsea7 for Petrobras, 2015) ..................................... 12
Figure 7: Design approach (DNV, 2010a) ............................................................................... 15
Figure 8: 10-year current profile .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 9: Local vessel and global coordinate system in reference to the four cardinal directions
.................................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 10: Illustration of the far, nominal and near offset position for the operational condition
.................................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 11: Linearized cumulative Gumbel distribution of downward velocities maxima at hang-
off point. From these results, the associated seed number and time of occurrence for the worst
sea state was determined. ......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 12: Flex joint (Hutchinson oil & gas, 2017) ................................................................. 32
Figure 13: Blocked sea states ................................................................................................... 36
Figure 14: S-N curves in seawater with cathodic protection (DNV, 2010c). .......................... 38
Figure 15: Optimisation process using Python ........................................................................ 43
Figure 16: Sag-hog bend in static state .................................................................................... 46
Figure 17: Helical strakes (Bardot Group, 2017). .................................................................... 48
Figure 18: Range graph: Effective tension - ULS .................................................................... 49
Figure 19: Range graph: Bending moment - ULS ................................................................... 50
Figure 20: Range graph: LRFD utilisation - ULS .................................................................... 50
Figure 21: Range graph: Effective tension - ALS .................................................................... 52
Figure 22: Range graph: Bending moment - ALS ................................................................... 52
Figure 23: Range graph: LRFD utilisation - ALS .................................................................... 53
Figure 24: Extreme response summary (Orimolade et al., 2015). ........................................... 53
Figure 25: Range graph: Fatigue life - wave induced fatigue .................................................. 56
Figure 26: Range graph: Fatigue life for the upper 600 m of the riser with 30 mm wall thickness.
.................................................................................................................................................. 56
vi
Figure 27: Wave induced fatigue for SLWR in a water depth of 1100 m (Orimolade et al., 2015).
.................................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 28: Vortex induced motions (Bai and Bai, 2005). ........................................................ 59
Figure 29: Optimisation results for all far offset cases ............................................................ 61
Figure 30: Detailed image of the utilisation for the 6 degrees static hang-off angle ............... 62
Figure 31: Comparison of the different shape configurations .................................................. 65
Figure 32: Utilisation for buoyancy length vs. buoyancy force and hang-off angle ................ 66
Figure 33: Fatigue life for initial and improved configuration over the entire arc length ....... 68
*Remark: Figures without references are made by the author.
vii
List of tables
viii
Abbreviations
ix
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background
In the offshore oil and gas industry, the evolution has gone from a well being drilled off a pier
on the coast of California, to steel-jacket platforms and large gravity based structures in water
depths of several hundred meters (SPE International, 2015). These fixed platforms have an
economic and structural limit in which they are feasible (Odland, 2015), which has resulted in
the development of floating solutions for use in deeper waters. Since floating production units
(FPU) are to some extent able to move in all six Degrees of Freedom (DoF), there are challenges
related to the dynamic forces on connected equipment. Thus, the wellhead and valve-tree is
often moved from the topside and onto the seabed, known as a subsea solution, and from there
the well-stream is transported topside using a suitable pipe, called a riser.
Being the link between topside facilities and the subsea equipment, the riser is a key component
in the offshore oil and gas industry. From the early stage of exploration through to the
production, import and export of hydrocarbons, the riser plays a vital part. Therefore, it is paid
a lot of attention to ensure high availability while meeting all the stringent safety requirements
set for offshore oil and gas production (Kirkemo et al., 1999).
As the demand for energy has increased (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2016), the
search for new hydrocarbon reservoir has pushed the frontier of oil and gas production into
deeper water in harsher environment. This has led to new riser solutions, and adaptation of
conventional riser technology to cope with the forces associated with floater motion and the
increased depth.
In Figure 1, different production concepts are shown, ranging from fixed platforms in shallow
waters through to FPUs in deep and ultradeep waters. In this thesis, shallow water will be
referred to as being below 500 m, deep waters in the range of 500 m to 2000 m and ultradeep
is more than 2000 m deep.
When going in to water depths greater than 450 m the choice of platform, as a rule of thumb, is
a FPU of some sort. The selection of type of platform depends on a range of factors such as net-
present-value (NPV) of development, motion characteristics, loadbearing and storage abilities
and many more considerations (Odland, 2015). Selection of production riser, is in turn based
on the type of host platform, water depth, environmental conditions, design pressure and
temperature, with the dynamic behaviour of the FPU as the main design driver.
1
Chapter 1:
Introduction
Figure 1: Different deep-water platforms and production concepts (Offshore Magazine, 2015)
Production risers can be divided into two categories, rigid and flexible risers, and a combination
of these two is called a hybrid riser solution (Bai and Bai, 2012). Traditionally the flexible riser
solution has been the preferred solution for FPUs in shallow to deep-water field development,
whereas the rigid steel risers has been used for fixed platforms or as a top-tensioned riser
solution (TTR) for floating platforms with desirable motion characteristics, such as a Spar or
Tension-Leg Platform (TLP). Flexible risers can be laid in a wide range of configurations which
decouples the motion induced forces of the surface facility from affecting the touchdown region
by geometrical changes in the configuration, known as a compliant configuration. Even though
the flexible riser offers a range of beneficial properties and easy instalment, it has limitations
regarding large diameter bore in deeper waters and is much more expensive per meter than a
rigid steel solution (Phifer et al., 1994).
Targeting these issues, the use of compliant rigid steel risers has gained popularity lately and
become an attractive solution. One such being the steel catenary riser (SCR) concept, which in
its simplest form is a steel pipe suspended by its own weight in a near vertically direction from
a platform and then curves out into the horizontal plane at the seabed. These risers offer larger
production diameter at a lower cost, and has proven to be a good solution in combination with
low motion platforms. The first SCR was installed on the Auger TLP in the Gulf of Mexico
(GoM) in 1994 (Carter and Ronalds, 1998), and have since been applied in harsher
environments in combination with platforms with favourable motion characteristics. The
limitation of the SCR, is its ability to withstand vertical motions causing compression and
fatigue damages in the touchdown region, especially in combination with floaters in harsh
environments. A study conducted by (Karunakaran et al., 2002) targeted this problem by
varying the weight along the riser, using different types of coating with different densities,
which improved the dynamic performance of the concept. Still, the use of SCRs in combination
with large motion vessels in harsh environments poses a great challenge (Legras et al., 2013).
2
Chapter 1:
Introduction
For application in harsh environments in conjunction with large motion vessels, the SCR
concept can be further modified by increasing its length and adding buoyancy elements over a
section of the riser, creating a wave configuration known as a Steel Lazy Wave Riser (SLWR).
This significantly improves its dynamic performance by allowing the wave section of the
configuration to comply with the motion of the topside vessel, thus absorbing a large part of the
forces and keeping them from reaching the touchdown area. By combining good dynamic
behaviour with the desired material properties needed for deep and ultradeep field development,
the use of the SLWR concept has been gaining popularity around the world.
As for all types of riser solutions, they must meet project requirements set by the oil company
and follow the design criteria specified in all relevant standards before realisation. This involves
studies where the design and configuration is analysed to verify the feasibility of different
solutions. In this process, many simulations and trials are executed to determine the best
possible configuration for each riser, which can be a time-consuming process if done manually,
but it doesn’t necessarily lead to an optimum solution. Consequently, there have lately been an
increased focus on optimising the SLWR configuration to obtain a best possible solution by use
of more automated solutions (Andrade et al., 2010). One such solution is to use programming
interfaces in the analysis software, which allows for programmed scripts to create files, change
parameters within the analysis software and collect the results in a systematic way.
The scope includes a brief presentation of different deep-water riser concepts with proven
merits currently in operation. An introduction to the reference standard, DNV-OS-F201:
Dynamic Risers, is given together with a presentation of the limit state design criteria used in
this study. A detailed description of each limit state is given along with the parameters used in
the analyses.
From listed material and field specific parameters, an initial SLWR configuration is determined
and extreme response and fatigue analyses are conducted based on given environmental
conditions. Methodology for determining the environmental parameters to be used for the
3
Chapter 1:
Introduction
extreme response behaviour analyses are presented in detail. The environmental data selected
based on typical 100-year sea states in combination with a 10-year current found in this region.
The extreme response and fatigue results are presented and discussed to better understand the
dynamics of the system, and it is verified that the configuration meets the design criteria stated.
The end result will be a presentation of the findings done in the optimisation study. These design
cases are conducted by varying buoyancy length, buoyancy force and hang-off angle to
determine a more optimum configuration in terms of the combined loading utilisation for the
ULS design criteria. Discussion and conclusions will be done based on these results to better
understand the driving design factors in determining a best possible configuration for SLWRs
in ultra-deep waters.
1.3 Justification
With decreasing oil prices, the demand for more cost saving and optimised solutions in the oil
and gas industry has been in focus the last couple of years. This approach can be applied for
riser engineering by using more automated procedures in the engineering analyses.
The traditional way of analysing the global behaviour of a riser configuration has been to make
individual cases manually for all the different parameter changes, and then run simulation for
each case and manually do the post processing and comparison of the obtained results.
An emerging approach for large batch processing, is the use of programming interfaces which
allows for an easy and fast way of doing analysis. By use of a programming language, a script
can be made to create new files in the analysis software, change parameters and do post-
processing by collecting the results. This saves a lot of time in engineering hours and is a
convenient way of sorting out all undesired configurations, thus making it easy to focus on the
ones that gives the most promising results. This thesis will not address the optimisation in terms
of cost, installation and dimensioning of buoyancy modules, but rather focus on increasing the
performance of the SLWR based on the ULS criteria given in the reference standard.
4
Chapter 2 Deepwater Riser Systems
2.1 Introduction
The riser plays a part in the entire lifecycle of an offshore field development and can be divided
into the following concepts:
• Drilling riser
• Production riser
• Export riser
• Injection riser
The drilling riser is a rigid steel riser involved in exploration, completion, workover and
plugging operations and play a crucial role in the development and service of a well. This riser
is only in use for temporarily operations, whereas the remaining three concepts are installed on
a more permanent basis. The production, export and injection risers are in principle the same,
but serve different purposes in the field development and they are either made up of rigid steel
risers, flexible risers or a combination of the two, called a hybrid riser. For a field development,
the selection of riser concept depends on several factors, like cost, topside facility, water depth
and environmental conditions. In deep- and ultra-deep waters, where the topside facility
consists of a FPU, the main design driver will be the floater motions.
The riser arrangement is subjected to both internal and external loads, and must be design such
that it has a sufficient safety margin to withstand all subjected loads, such as:
• Platform/Vessel motions
• Pressure
• Weight
• Current
• Wave forces and fatigue
• Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV)
• Interference with auxiliary equipment and other risers
5
Chapter 2:
Deepwater Riser Systems
Due to its low bending stiffness and high axial strength, the flexible riser can be installed in
many different configurations and is able to take large motions and withstand the wave induced
motions from an FPU over time, ensuring good fatigue resistance (DNV, 2010b). It also offers
other benefits such as easy instalment, and it can be relocated and used again after
decommissioning. In recent years, composite materials have been introduced in the production
of flexibles to reduce weight, save cost and improve corrosion protection (Kalman et al., 2014).
Even though the flexible riser provides many desired properties and has an extensive track
record, it has its limitations when it comes to deep waters. Due to the increased external
pressure, the production bore is limited in these depths (Carter and Ronalds, 1998). This needs
to be taken into consideration in concept selection, together with the cost of construction, which
is much higher than compared to rigid steel risers.
6
Chapter 2:
Deepwater Riser Systems
7
Chapter 2:
Deepwater Riser Systems
This riser concept is categorised as a compliant riser, meaning that any floater motion is
absorbed by geometrical changes in the riser configuration without any motion compensation
equipment such as heave compensators (Voie and Sødahl, 2013).
For deep-water wet tree solutions, the SCR concept is a preferred solution since it can offer
large production bore at a low cost (Bai and Bai, 2005). The riser consists of steel segments
that are welded together and the steel quality and wall thickness is selected based on these
specifications:
• Weldability
• External pressure
• Reservoir properties: pressure, temperature and corrosive well fluid
• Cost and installation methods
• Fatigue performance
• Topside weight budget
The riser is connected to the host platform by a flex joint at the top and can either be terminated
by a subsea termination module at the bottom, or be welded directly to the subsea flowline.
This concept has been gaining popularity since its first installation at the Auger field in the
GoM in 1994, and have later been installed in other regions such as Brazil, Indonesia and West
of Africa. It has proven merits in combination with various low motion floaters, such as TLP
and Spars, in these areas.
However, the use of SCRs in harsher environment has been challenging due to large floater
motions from waves and increased vessel offsets (Legras et al., 2013). Large heave, surge and
sway motions induce increased bending forces and poses great buckling issues in the
touchdown area and fatigue challenges resulting from riser-soil interactions. These design
challenges can be addressed by varying the weight along the riser using different density for
the applied coating. A study conducted by (Karunakaran et al., 2005) showed that increasing
weight in the upper section of the riser and having a light as possible cross-sectional weight in
the touch down area significantly improved dynamic behaviour of the SCR. Still there is a limit
in which the floater motions are to large and the SCR concept no longer will be a feasible
solution. Another design challenge is high hang-off tension in deep and ultra-deep waters.
8
Chapter 2:
Deepwater Riser Systems
A schematic description of the SLWR is shown in Figure 4, and the length of the configuration
can be divided into four sections:
9
Chapter 2:
Deepwater Riser Systems
The upper section is mainly supported by the host vessel and is terminated at the hang-off point
with a desired angle in its static state, this section usually constitutes most of the riser length.
The buoyancy section is the part that provides lift force by attaching buoyancy modules along
a given length. The lower catenary section is the short section from the end of the buoyant part
to the touchdown point (TDP) on the seabed. Along the seabed, from the TDP to connection
point or riser-flowline transition point, lies the bottom section (Hoffman et al., 2010). The
height between the highest point on the hog bend and the lowest point on the sag bend is
described as the wave height of the riser.
This concept offers the many beneficial properties of the SCR while significantly improving its
dynamic behaviour, and is considered a suitable configuration for implementation in deep
waters and harsh environments in conjunction with large motion floaters. Compared to a SCR,
which normally has a horizontal spread of around 1-1.5 times the water depth, the SLWR will
consequently demand a larger spreading area due to its buoyant section. Having a longer spread
means that the increase in length will give larger fabrication and installation cost, and also the
added buoyancy elements contributes to a more complex and expensive design.
10
Chapter 2:
Deepwater Riser Systems
The principle for all hybrid riser concepts are the same, where a steel riser section is kept in
tension by use of a buoyancy tank at the top. And a flexible pipe links the FPU to the steel riser,
this decouples the dynamics of the vessel from affecting the steel riser. The basic principle of
this concept is shown in Figure 5, and consists of a suction anchor or gravity base, flexible joint,
steel riser tower, buoyancy section and a flexible pipe/umbilical connection at the top.
Benefits of using hybrid riser solutions are that they significantly reduce the payload on the
FPU, offer a small subsea footprint ensuring a good seabed layout, and they can be installed
before the topside facility is in place. The system can be assembled onshore where it is possible
to ensure better quality inspection, but onshore construction involves a tow-out of the riser,
which can affect the fatigue life significantly and also represent a risk of damage or loss of the
11
Chapter 2:
Deepwater Riser Systems
riser. Hybrid solutions are also very complicated systems that consists of many individual parts
and components, which adds to the cost. Typically, the overall cost of hybrid solutions tends
to be between the choice of the SCR/SLWR and Flexible risers, where the SCR usually is the
cheapest solution (Sworn, 2005).
• Buoyancy Supported Riser (BSR), combines several SCRs with flexibles by use of a
large buoyancy module tethered to the seabed, see Figure 6. This concept has been
installed by Subsea7 in a water depth of 2200 meters for the Guara Lula project off the
coast of Brazil.
• Grouped Single Line Offset Riser (SLOR), groups several SHR together at a fixed
distance by use of a buoyant frame on top.
• Catenary Offset Buoyant Riser Assembly (COBRA), which consists of a SCR supported
by a buoyancy tank that is tethered to the seabed. This concept provides the advantages
of the SCR while removing the need for complicated bottom assemblies usually needed
for hybrid solutions.
12
Chapter 3 Design Code
3.1 Introduction
In standard industry practice, the structural safety of risers in combination with floating
production systems has been designed to meet the Working Stress Design (WSD) criteria
according to standards, such as API RP 2RD, by using a single safety factor. This approach
accounts for all uncertainties by use of one single factor applied to the nominal yield strength,
thus the reliability and safety margin will rely on the selected factor applied (Kavanagh et al.,
2003). This design approach is accepted for well-known riser concepts and have long been the
practice, but the safety level of the design will vary a lot depending on the load condition. And
as new riser concepts came into operation while moving into deeper waters, a standard for more
specific design criteria and analysis procedures for all riser systems was needed.
As a result, the DNV-OS-F201 standard was developed from a Joint Industry Project (JIP)
between DNV, Sintef, several major oil and industry companies to make a standard that can be
applied to all riser concepts. It is also applicable for modifications, operation and upgrading of
existing risers, and is intended to serve as a common reference for designers, manufacturers and
end-users (Katla et al., 2001). This standard includes both a Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) approach and a more conservative WSD format. The partial safety factors for loads
and strength in the LRFD approach are established by reliability analyses and are calibrated to
give a high reliability without compromising the safety of the system (Kavanagh et al., 2003).
In this chapter, the different limit states will be described and the design basis for a dynamic
riser with reference to the DNV-OS-F201 standard is presented.
3.2 DNV-OS-F201
“This standard gives criteria, requirements and guidance on structural design and analysis of
riser systems exposed to static and dynamic loading for use in the offshore petroleum and
natural gas industries.” [DNV-OS-F201: Dynamic Risers]
Design according to this standard provide a state-of-the-art limit state design for the riser that
is based on accepted practice with consensus in the industry. Figure 7 shows the design
approach for risers according to the reference standard. The Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) is a reliability-based design format with partial safety factors used to ensure that the
effects of the factorised design loads do not exceed the factored design resistance for the
considered limit states.
13
Chapter 3:
Design Code
• Serviceability Limit State (SLS): Requiring the riser to remain in service and operate as
intended.
Limit state:
➢ Clearance
➢ Excessive angular response
➢ Mechanical function
• Ultimate Limit State (ULS): Requiring that the riser must remain intact and avoid
rupture, but not necessary be able to operate. In operational condition, this corresponds
to the maximum resistance against applied loads with an annual exceedance probability
of 10−2.
Limit state:
➢ Burst
➢ Hoop buckling (collapse)
➢ Propagating buckling
➢ Gross plastic deformation and local buckling
➢ Gross plastic deformation, local buckling and hoop buckling
➢ Unstable fracture and gross plastic deformation
➢ Liquid tightness
➢ Global buckling
• Accidental Limit State (ALS): Same as for ULS, but for accidental loads.
Limit state:
➢ Same as SLS and ULS
• Fatigue Limit State (FLS): An ultimate limit state due to damage from cyclic loading or
excessive fatigue crack growth.
Limit state:
➢ Fatigue failure
14
Chapter 3:
Design Code
15
Chapter 3:
Design Code
16
Chapter 3:
Design Code
regarding human life, environmental and economic consequences inn range of Low, Medium
or High. Safety class and material resistance factors are listed in Table 3.
17
Chapter 3:
Design Code
𝑝𝑏 (𝑡1 )
(𝑝𝑙𝑖 − 𝑝𝑒 ) ≤ Eq. 2
𝛾𝑚 ∗ 𝛾𝑆𝐶
Where:
= 𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑐 + 𝜌𝑖 ∗ 𝑔 ∗ ℎ
= 1.1 ∗ 𝑝𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛
𝑝𝑒 = External pressure
2 2∗𝑡 𝑓
= ∗ 𝐷−𝑡1 min (𝑓𝑦 ; 1.15
𝑢
)
√3 1
= 𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 − 𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑏
𝑝𝑐 (𝑡1 )
(𝑝𝑒 − 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) ≤ Eq. 3
𝛾𝑚 ∗ 𝛾𝑆𝐶
Where:
𝐷
(𝑝𝑐 (𝑡) − (𝑝𝑒𝑙 (𝑡)) ∗ (𝑝𝑐2 (𝑡) − 𝑝𝑝2 (𝑡)) = 𝑝𝑐 (𝑡) ∗ 𝑝𝑒𝑙 (𝑡) ∗ 𝑝𝑝 (𝑡) ∗ 𝑓0 ∗
𝑡
18
Chapter 3:
Design Code
Where:
𝑡 2
2∗𝐸∗( )
𝐷
= 1−𝑣 2
𝐸 = Elastic modulus
𝐷 = Pipe diameter
𝑣 = Poisson ratio
𝑡
=2 ∗ 𝐷 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝛼𝑓𝑎𝑏
𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛
= 𝐷
Where:
= 𝛾𝐹 𝑀𝐹 + 𝛾𝐸 𝑀𝐸 +𝛾𝐴 𝑀𝐴
19
Chapter 3:
Design Code
= 𝑀𝑘 = 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝛼𝑐 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ (𝐷 − 𝑡2 )2 ∗ 𝑡2
= 𝑀𝑘 = 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝛼𝑐 ∗ (𝐷 − 𝑡2 )2 ∗ 𝑡2
𝐷 = Outer diameter
2 2∗𝑡 𝑓
= ∗ 𝐷−𝑡2 min (𝑓𝑦 ; 1.15
𝑢
)
√3 2
𝑡2 = 𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 − 𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟
20
Chapter 3:
Design Code
In the case of combined loading where the pipe is subjected to net over pressure, bending
moment and effective tension, the following equation applies:
2
2
|𝑀𝑑 | 𝑇𝑒𝑑 2 2
𝑝𝑙𝑑 − 𝑝𝑒 2 Eq. 5
{𝛾𝑆𝐶 ∗ 𝛾𝑚 } { + [ ] } + {𝛾𝑆𝐶 ∗ 𝛾𝑚 } ( ) ≤1
𝑀𝑘 𝑇𝑘 𝑝𝑐 (𝑡2 )
Where:
The standard lists two types of fatigue assessments that can be conducted to verify sufficient
fatigue resistance, these are:
• S-N curves:
Where:
𝑁𝑡𝑜𝑡
∗ 𝐷𝐹𝐹 ≤ 1 Eq. 7
𝑁𝑐𝑔
Where:
𝑁𝑡𝑜𝑡 = Total number of applied stress cycles during service or to in-service inspection
𝑁𝑐𝑔 = Number of stress cycles necessary to increase the defect from initial to the
critical size
21
Chapter 3:
Design Code
22
Chapter 4 Methodology and Design Premise
4.1 Introduction
Methodology and design parameters presented in this chapter will serve as the basis for
establishing an initial SLWR configuration in conjunction with an FPSO in the ultra-deep
waters off the coast of Brazil. Environmental data for typical extreme weather conditions found
in this area are presented, and the procedure for determining the worst sea state based on vessel
response is described. The data and methodology for calculating the fatigue life due to wave
induced fatigue is given, and the design cases to be conducted in the thesis are listed. Based on
the provided data in this chapter, the initial configuration will be modelled in OrcaFlex and all
environmental data are implemented in the analyses to verify that the design meets the stated
acceptance criteria. Thus, the design premise will be the verification of a safe design in
accordance with the reference standard, based on parameters and methodology given in this
chapter. This initial configuration will then be subjected an optimisation process with the aim
of improving the overall riser performance for the combined loading utilisation within the ULS
design criteria.
In addition to the reference standard, the following standards and technical specifications are
used:
For this thesis, a water depth of 2800 meters is chosen to study the behaviour of a SLWR in
ultra-deep waters. And being a field development located in ultra-deep waters far from shore,
the topside facility will be a spread moored Floating Production, Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) vessel with riser termination points along the sides.
23
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Current profile
Current speed (m/s)
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4
-300
-800
Water depth
-1300
-1800
-2300
-2800
24
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Figure 9 depicts the riser hang-off point and vessel heading, where the direction of the bow is
set to a South-SouthWest direction at 195° in clockwise direction from North. The local
coordinate system for the FPSO is located midship and the axis directions are listed in Table 6,
along with riser hang-off point with reference to the local coordinate system.
25
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Table 6: Local coordinate system for the FPSO and riser hang-off point
Axis Description Riser hang-off (m)
X Bow direction 0
Y Portside direction 31
Z Upward direction 11.6
Figure 9: Local vessel and global coordinate system in reference to the four cardinal directions
1. Static offset:
For station keeping, the vessel is moored in place by catenary mooring lines at each corner of
the ship. These lines ensure that the vessel will not drift off, but it allows for some movement
from its nominal position, this is known as vessel offset and is caused by the combination of
wave loads, current and wind.
For accidental situations, where there is failure in one or more of the mooring lines, the offset
can be larger and these offsets need to be considered when analysing the riser to ensure safe
operation at all times. For a riser, the most critical situations are when the vessel is subjected to
wind, waves and current that moves in the same direction as the riser length, either away or
towards the subsea connection, known as far or near offset respectively. Figure 10 shows the
26
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
nominal position of the FPSO in comparison with the near and far offsets for the intact mooring
condition.
The mean static offsets used in this study for the intact and accidental mooring condition is set
to 5.5% and 6.6% of the water depth, as presented in Table 7. Where the accidental case is
considered as complete loss of one mooring line.
27
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Figure 10: Illustration of the far, nominal and near offset position for the operational condition
To determine under which sea states this occurs, the 100-year wave contour for all directions
must be assessed against the vessels RAOs. This is important to accurately capture which
combination of sea state and wave heading results in the largest downward velocity for the
hang-off point in question. Consequently, a set of typical 100-year wave parameters were
studied to determine under which conditions the riser hang-off point experienced the largest
downward velocity. The results presented in Table 8 were found for the Near and Far offset
position in accordance with the wave directions provided by Subsea7.
Table 8: Worst sea state for the different offsets based on RAOs
Hs (m) Tp (s) Wave direction
Near 6.6 11.5 East-SouthEast
Far 6.5 12.5 West-NorthWest
28
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
The wave generator in OrcaFlex creates a time history of wave heights. This wave spectrum is
divided into several sine waves of constant amplitude and pseudo-random phases that are
generated by a random number generator and a seed number. This means that for a given seed
number, the wave will always have the same phase and result in the same wave-train in the
software. Consequently, several seed numbers are assigned to determine the worst combination
for the two sea states. For this study, it was done by running 3 hours simulations with increments
of 5 for the seed numbers between 200 and 600. With 80 different realisations, the results were
studied and the largest downward velocity at hang-off point was registered. According to
NORSOK N-003:2017, at least 30 simulations should be conducted to provide adequate
statistical confidence when fitting the observed extremes to a probabilistic model.
By fitting the observed maxima to a Gumbel distribution, the target extreme value was
estimated for a 90% percentile of the fitted distribution. This approach is in accordance with
NORSOK-N003:2017 for sea states with an annual exceedance probability of 10−2. The graphs
in Figure 11 shows the linearized cumulative Gumbel distribution of the downward velocity
maxima for the two sea states in question. The associated seed number for the closest maxima
above the target value was determined and the time of occurrence in the simulation was
registered for both cases. These results will be used for running short-term simulations over the
worst sea-states found, thus saving time in analyses. This approach is in accordance with the
reference standard and provides an adequate statistical confidence in the extreme response
analyses.
29
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Figure 11: Linearized cumulative Gumbel distribution of downward velocities maxima at hang-off point. From
these results, the associated seed number and time of occurrence for the worst sea state was determined.
In this field development, the presence of 𝐻2 𝑆- and 𝐶𝑂2-gas is assumed in the well-stream,
which are chemical compositions known to react to regular carbon steel, thus the riser must be
designed for sour service by using internal cladding, known as Corrosion Resistant Alloy
(CRA) cladding. In the analyses, the cladding will be modelled with applicable material
properties, but not given any structural strength.
30
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
In the analyses, the flex joint will be modelled as a pinned joint with no rotational stiffness in
the global analysis of the riser, since it will not influence the riser response in extreme loading
conditions. Whereas for the fatigue analysis, the rotational stiffness will influence the fatigue
response and will be implemented (Legras et al., 2013). For this analysis, the rotational stiffness
is set to 20 kN*m/degree and is considered to be good representation of the actual stiffness in
a conventional flex joint.
31
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
For the initial case, a total net buoyancy force of 150 tonnes is used and the dimensions of the
modules are listed in Table 10. In the Orcaflex model, the buoyant section is modelled as an
equivalent line with the same total buoyancy force as exerted by the total number of buoyancy
modules. The optimum number and dimensions of the buoyancy modules will not be addressed
in this thesis, and the pitch will be fixed at 6 meters for all cases. For the optimisations studies,
the length of each module is also fixed and the outer diameter is adjusted for the total buoyancy
force needed in each case.
32
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
In the standard used for this study, the approximation of steady flow over a bare circular pipe
recommends a drag coefficient between 0.7 and 1.0 and 1.0 for added mass. The inertia, or
mass, coefficient is taken as 𝐶𝐼𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎 = 𝐶𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑 + 1 in accordance with DNV-OS-F201.
The conservative approach is selected for this study and it is assumed that the coefficients used
accounts for any marine growth on the riser. Added mass and drag coefficients used, for both
riser and buoyancy modules, are given in Table 11. To account for the installation of strakes in
the top section of the riser, a higher drag coefficient is implemented for a length of 1950 meters
for the initial configuration.
33
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
The results were obtained by implementing the material inputs from and the design and test
pressures set for this thesis, see Table 12. Calculated wall thickness determines the minimum
required wall thickness with respect to propagation buckling, burst and collapse pressure.
Table 12: Design and test pressure for wall thickness sizing
Description Input (MPa) Ref. from sea-level (m) Content density (kg/m3)
Design Pressure 50 -2800 800
Test pressure 57.77 -2800 1000
Being a production riser, the safety class is set to high and the required wall thickness calculated
for the different failure modes are shown in Table 13. From these results, the propagating
buckling yields the highest required minimum wall thickness. Usually this is not taken into
consideration, since it can be controlled using buckle arrestors fitted along the length of the
riser. This means that a wall thickness of 25 mm will be sufficient, in terms pressure loads.
Complete reports for pressure containment, collapse and propagating buckling assessment is
given in Appendix A – Wall Thickness Calculation.
34
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Since the wave induced fatigue is mainly caused by the vessels motion in response to the sea
state, typical wave data from the Santos basin are implemented in the fatigue analysis. The
distribution of total significant wave heights and primary spectral peak periods are based on
data tabulated at 3 hours interval of a total of 227136 hours. The data is confidential and is not
shown in its entirety in this work.
The wave scatter diagram arranges the number of occurrences with regards to Hs and Tp
intervals, ranging from 0-11m and 3-21s respectively. For the wave directions, the 13 most
prevailing ones are used. The occurrence frequency and directions used, are listed in Table 14,
where the direction of the wave is in reference to the global coordinate system in Orcaflex as
stated in Section 4.5.
The wave scatter diagram is grouped into 21 blocks, where the highest occurring sea state in
each block is selected to represent all sea states within its block and is marked by a red X, as
shown in Figure 13.The lumped probability of occurrence for each block is calculated and
implemented in the fatigue analysis, in accordance with procedure in the reference standard,
where the fatigue damage from each blocked sea state is calculated for all directions in .
35
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
The fatigue capacity will be estimated by use of S-N curves, which expresses how many stress
cycles it takes until failure under a constant stress range, and is expressed as followed:
𝑁 = 𝑎̅ ∗ 𝑆 −𝑚 Eq. 8
Or equivalently as:
Where:
𝑆 = Stress range
The stress range is determined by use of stress concentration factor and thickness correction
factor to the nominal stress range:
𝑘
𝑡3 Eq. 10
𝑆 = 𝑆0 ∗ 𝑆𝐶𝐹 ∗ ( )
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑓
36
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Where:
𝑘
𝑡3
(𝑡 ) = Thickness correction factor
𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝑘 = Thickness exponent
The Stress concentration factor is implemented to account for any geometrical imperfections
that may cause stress magnification in two adjacent joints. This factor can be calculated using
finite element analysis or alternatively by a closed form expression, like the following for
welded riser joints:
3𝑒 𝐷 −0.5
𝑆𝐶𝐹 = 1 + ∗ exp (− ( ) ) Eq. 11
𝑡3 𝑡3
Where:
The total fatigue damage will be determined by counting the stress cycles in the simulation
period by the Rain Flow Counting (RFC) method.
To accumulate the fatigue damage caused by the stress cycles, the Palmer-Miner rule is used:
𝑛(𝑆𝑖 )
𝐷=∑ Eq. 12
𝑁(𝑆𝑖 )
𝑖
Where:
37
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Figure 14 shows the highlighted curves that will be used in this study. The assessment of the
C2-, D and E-curves, for S-N curves in seawater with cathodic protection, are selected. From
the analysis, it is expected that the fatigue life for the C2-curve will yield the best performance,
followed by the D- and E-curve respectively. Emphasis will be given for the D-curve by
assuming that a sufficient weld quality for the cladded pipe is obtained (Legras et al., 2013).
The fatigue calculation will be conducted by the built-in fatigue analysis program in OrcaFlex,
where 1 hour simulation for all 273 load cases will be implemented to provide adequately data.
The total occurrence of each sea state and direction is weighted by the combined occurrence of
the two, and are calculated for the total number of hours present annually. The fatigue damage
is then calculated by the rainflow counting method and the cumulative fatigue is calculated for
16 circumferential points along the entire riser length. The applied parameters for the different
S-N curves are given in Table 15.
Figure 14: S-N curves in seawater with cathodic protection (DNV, 2010c).
38
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
Table 15: Stress Concentration Factor and S-N curve parameters used in the wave induced fatigue analysis
SCF 1.2
C2-Curve
Thickness correction factor – 25 mm 1
Thickness correction factor – 28 mm 1.0059
Thickness correction factor – 30 mm 1.011
𝑵 ≤ 𝟏𝟎𝟔 𝑚1 = 3
loga̅1= 11.901
𝑵 ≥ 𝟏𝟎𝟔 m2 = 5
loga̅2 = 15.835
D-Curve
Thickness correction factor – 25 mm 1
Thickness correction factor – 28 mm 1.008
Thickness correction factor – 30 mm 1.023
𝑵 ≤ 𝟏𝟎𝟔 𝑚1 = 3
loga̅1= 11.764
𝑵 ≥ 𝟏𝟎𝟔 m2 = 5
loga̅2 = 15.606
E-Curve
Thickness correction factor – 25 mm 1
Thickness correction factor – 28 mm 1.008
Thickness correction factor – 30 mm 1.023
𝑵 ≤ 𝟏𝟎𝟔 𝑚1 = 3
loga̅1= 11.610
𝑵 ≥ 𝟏𝟎𝟔 m2 = 5
loga̅2 = 15.350
39
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
40
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
General observations made for these cases are presented, and the following results will be
presented for the worst and best configuration, in comparison with the initial one:
41
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
For this thesis, the Python programming language was chosen. This open-source programming
language is free-for-all to use and there are several compatible code editors available for
download online. The syntax is made to be simple, easy to learn and comes with built in
functions and modules for a vast range of applications. And since OrcaFlex is provided with a
Dynamic Link Library (DLL), named OrcFxAPI, it can be imported in to the Python script to
access some of the many functions within OrcaFlex. This makes it possible for a programmed
script to both write to and read from a OrcaFlex file.
The process of making a script that performs the desired operations in an automated process is
quite extensive, and requires good knowledge about programming and functional use of
OrcaFlex. Consequently, a lot of work and many weeks were spent on understanding and
learning the basics of Python programming language before an optimisation process could be
started. By gradually learning the basic commands needed, several scripts were made to change
individual parameters within a base file for OrcaFlex. These were then integrated in to one
single programmed script that created all the files needed to do the optimisation study for the
225 cases listed. With very good help and instructions from in-house competence at Subsea7
the final script was made together with a second script that collects the desired results from
each load case and write it to an Excel file. Figure 15 shows a very simplified flowchart for
how the two scripts where used in the optimisation process, parts of the main script is given in
Appendix B – Python Script.
42
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
43
Chapter 4:
Methodology and Design Premise
The acceptance criteria for all cases studied in this thesis will be the combined loading criteria,
which considers correlation between moment, tension and pressure differences along the entire
length of the riser and is described by the following generic equation (Katla et al., 2001, DNV,
2010a):
𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 1
Where:
By using this approach, it will automatically account for the correlation between effective
tension and bending moment, such that an optimal design can be determined that allows for a
higher utilisation compared to a WSD approach.
Fatigue:
Being a production riser, the safety class is set to High with a corresponding design safety factor
of 10 for the wave induced fatigue calculation. Having a design life of 25 years, this results in
a minimum fatigue life of 250-years for the acceptance criteria. VIV induced fatigue is not
assessed in this thesis due to time restriction.
Compression:
To avoid overall column buckling of the riser due to axial compression, the occurrence of
excessive negative effective tension must be limited.
44
Chapter 5 Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the initial static configuration based on the data provided in Chapter 4 is
presented and extreme response analyses conducted. All modelling, simulations and analyses
were conducted in OrcaFlex and the results are presented for critical sections.
Based on all given parameters, the initial configuration was determined with emphasis on the
following design philosophy:
• Low sag and hog bend curvature to reduce excessive bending forces.
• Height between seabed and sag bend must be sufficient to avoid impact loads and
excessive compressive forces in all sea states, especially for the near offset case.
• Total net buoyancy force to obtain desired configuration.
45
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
46
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
Table 20: Offsets, sea states and load factors used in ULS and ALS code-checks
ULS
Offset Hs Tp Wave + Current Load factors:
Position: (m) (m) (s) heading γF / γE / γA
Nominal 0 6.5 12.5 270° 1.1 / 1.3 / -
Far -154 6.5 12.5 270° 1.1 / 1.3 / -
Near 154 6.6 11.5 90° 1.1 / 1.3 / -
ALS
Offset Hs Tp Wave + Current Load factors:
Position: (m) (m) (s) heading γF / γE / γA
Nominal 0 6.5 m 12.5 s 270° 1.0 / 1.0 / 1.0
Far -184.8 6.5 m 12.5 s 270° 1.0 / 1.0 / 1.0
Near 184.8 6.6 m 11.5 s 90° 1.0 / 1.0 / 1.0
47
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
5.3.1 Results
In this section, the results from the analyses are presented in terms of range graphs of the entire
riser length and tabulated results for critical parts of the riser configuration.
5.3.1.1 ULS
Table 21 lists the results obtained for critical sections of the configuration and the complete
results in terms of effective tension, bending moment and LRFD utilisation are presented in the
range graphs in Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 20.
48
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
8000
7000
6000
Tension (kN)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Far Near
49
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
250
200
Moment (kN*m)
150
100
50
Far Near
0,7
0,6
0,5
Utilisation
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Arc length (m)
Far Near
50
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
5.3.1.2 ALS
Table 22 lists the results obtained for critical sections of the configuration and the complete
results in terms of effective tension, bending moment and LRFD utilisation is presented in the
range graphs in Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23.
51
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
8000
7000
6000
Tension (kN)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Far Near
300
250
Moment (kN*m)
200
150
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
52
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
0,6
0,5
Utilisation
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Arc length (m)
Far Near
53
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
Based on the extreme response analyses, it is evident that the configuration meets all acceptance
criteria for both ULS and ALS, as stated in the premise.
54
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
For SLWRs in more shallow waters, the bending moment is usually the main contributor for
the combined loading. As a comparison, the results from a study conducted by (Orimolade et
al., 2015) is presented in
Figure 24. This table lists the extreme response results for the intact and accidental mooring
condition for a similar SLWR in conjunction with a turret moored FPSO. The configuration is
subjected to typical harsh environmental conditions found in the North Sea, in a water depth of
1100 meters. The intact and accidental mooring conditions for this study are 10% and 12% of
the water depth, respectively.
From these results, the maximum effective tension is also experienced at hang-off in the far
offset position, but are relatively small compared to the scenario in this thesis. On the contrary,
the bending moments are larger for the sag-, hog-bend and TDP in the referred study. This is a
result of the larger offset conditions used, but it is evident that the bending moment is the main
contributor for the combined loading utilisation. Based on these observations, it can be seen
that the top tension becomes the driving factor for the combined loading when moving into
ultra-deep waters.
5.4.1 Results
Table 23: Results from the wave induced fatigue analysis
Fatigue life (years)
C2-Curve D-Curve E-Curve
15 m below flex joint 414 253 155
Sag bend 310 064 183 281 101 496
Hog bend 26 730 15 810 8 812
TDP 1 427 169 843 611 467 170
55
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
Fatigue life
100000000000
10000000000
1000000000
100000000
10000000
Life (years)
1000000
100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Arc length (m)
1000
800
Life (years)
600
400
200
Figure 26: Range graph: Fatigue life for the upper 600 m of the riser with 30 mm wall thickness.
56
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
The largest contributor to the poor fatigue performance, was the large axial forces experienced
in the upper region of the riser, due to the weight of the riser and its content. The amount of top
tension affects the stiffness and natural frequencies of the riser, which in turn governs the
behaviour of the configuration in relation to the vessel motions, this can be compared to the
pre-tensioning of SCRs. A study conducted by (Martins et al., 2000) shows that an increase in
applied top-tension for a SCR increases the accumulated fatigue damage in this region.
Consequently, the wall thickness of the riser had to be increased to 30 mm for the top 600
metres and 28 mm for the following 1400 metres of the upper catenary to improve fatigue life.
By doing so, the top tension increases because of the added weight of the increased wall
thickness, but it provided sufficient fatigue performance in the case of the C2-curve and D-
curve at 15 metres below the top termination point, as seen in Table 23. Usually the top 5 to 15
metres of the top section will be installed with a tapered pipe length to improve fatigue
performance in this region, but still the upper section should be further analysed with an
additional increase in wall thickness to provide sufficient fatigue life.
From the results presented in Figure 25, it is found that the sag-, hog-bend and TDP provides
satisfactory fatigue life in this analysis and is well above the limit set by the acceptance criteria
given in Section 4.7. For SLWRs in more shallow waters, these parts of the riser usually exhibit
lower fatigue performance compared to its upper section and is more sensitive to the load
transfer caused by the vessel motions. In the work conducted by (Orimolade et al., 2015), the
TDP was the most sensitive region in terms of the wave induced fatigue. This fatigue study was
performed for a 10" SLWR with a wall thickness of 25 mm in a water depth of 1100 metres. It
is analysed in conjunction with a turret moored FPSO using typical harsh environmental
conditions found in the North Sea, West of Scotland. Figure 27 shows the calculated fatigue
life for that riser, where the first 1240 metres is the upper catenary section of the configuration.
Comparing the two results, it is evident that the increased axial force in the upper catenary
section for the ultra-deep water configuration is a large contributor to the fatigue damage in this
57
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
region. But it should be noted that the increased stiffness of the upper section also seems to
dampen the cyclic stresses experienced in the sag-, hog-bend and TDP.
Figure 27: Wave induced fatigue for SLWR in a water depth of 1100 m (Orimolade et al., 2015).
A riser suspended in deep waters will be more susceptible to VIV induced fatigue, because of
(Bai and Bai, 2005):
58
Chapter 5:
Extreme Response and Fatigue Analysis
• Determine the eigenfrequencies and modes of the riser, for different current directions.
• Find the most dominating frequencies among the eigenfrequencies.
• Analyse the response of the frequencies when the riser is subjected to different current
profiles.
• Calculate the accumulated fatigue damage from VIV using applicable methods, such as
S-N curves.
• Verify if the riser configuration meets the design criteria, usually a fatigue life of more
than 20 times its intended service life, or if VIV-suppressive measures needs to be
implemented.
• If measures need to be taken, redo the analysis with VIV-suppressors included.
The two most common ways of suppressing VIV, is to install fairings or helical strakes for
critical sections of the riser. These works by disrupting the fluid flow over the riser, and a
typical helical strake is seen in Figure 17. The helical strakes are fixed in position, whereas the
fairings are free to rotate depending on the direction of the current.
59
Chapter 6 Sensitivity and Optimisation
6.1 Introduction
In this Chapter, the results from the optimisation study is presented and discussed. The
optimisation is based on the initial configuration with the aim of improving the overall
performance within the ULS design criteria for combined loading. The procedure follows the
same methodology as the initial one, apart from the increased drag coefficient, thus neglecting
the presence of strakes fitted in the upper catenary section since these were not modelled in the
simulations. Consequently, the dynamic response results will vary somewhat compared to the
ULS results previously presented. All the files were created by use of a programmed script for
the 75 configurations given in Table 17 and resulted in a total of 225 load cases. The obtained
results for all load cases can be seen in its entirety in Appendix C – Optimisation Results.
When considering the different hang-off angles, in terms of combined loading utilisation, it is
evident that the 6 degrees static hang-off resulted in the best performance in all cases. The two
outer edges for this hang-off angle are highlighted in Figure 30, for the best and worst case.
These are compared to the initial configuration in Table 24 to study the difference in extreme
response behaviour between the three cases.
60
Chapter 6:
Sensitivity and Optimisation
0,800
0,780
0,760
Utilisation
0,740
0,720
0,700
0,680
0,660
6 7 8
Static hang-off angle
61
Chapter 6:
Sensitivity and Optimisation
Figure 30: Detailed image of the utilisation for the 6 degrees static hang-off angle
62
Chapter 6:
Sensitivity and Optimisation
Table 24: Performance comparison of the initial configuration versus the worst and best configuration found for
the 6 degrees static hang-off angle
Design case: 6° 6°
D- Initial T-configuration Units:
configuration
Net buoyancy force 135 150 165 Tonnes
Buoyancy length 440 400 360 m
Hang-off angle static 6 7 6 Degrees
NEAR Offset position
Hang-off angle static 6,89 7,74 7,10 Degrees
Hang-off angle max 12.08 12.97 12.31 Degrees
Hang-off angle min 3.55 4.40 3.77 Degrees
Hang-off angle range 8.54 8.57 8.54 Degrees
Top tension max 6702 6631 6510 kN
Top tension static 5019 4977 4878 kN
Top tension min 3288 3295 3276 kN
Bending moment max 196 234 340 kN ∗ m
Bending moment min 142 178 280 kN ∗ m
Utilization max 0.52 0.51 0.55 N/A
Utilization static 0.30 0.29 0.48 N/A
Utilization min 0.19 0.18 0.46 N/A
FAR Offset position
Hang-off angle static 8.01 9.20 7.86 Degrees
Hang-off angle max 12.56 13.71 12.39 Degrees
Hang-off angle min 2.12 3.26 1.98 Degrees
Hang-off angle range 10.44 10.46 10.45 Degrees
Top tension max 7912 7939 7515 kN
Top tension static 5217 5215 5060 kN
Top tension min 1858 1880 2081 kN
Bending moment max 281 279 291 kN ∗ m
Bending moment min 27 43 88 kN ∗ m
Utilization max 0.732 0.738 0.667 N/A
Utilization static 0.33 0.33 0.31 N/A
Utilization min 0.12 0.12 0.13 N/A
• Reducing the static hang-off angle reduces the maximum utilisation for all
configurations. This is in accordance with the observations made in Section 5.3 and
shows that decreasing the applied top tension reduces the maximum utilisation factor.
• Among all configurations, the D-configuration combined with an 8° hang-off angle
resulted in the worst utilisation. This is a consequence of applied top tension, low net
63
Chapter 6:
Sensitivity and Optimisation
buoyancy force in combination with the longest buoyancy section, causing the centre of
buoyancy to be further away from the upper catenary section than for the shorter lengths.
• When reducing the buoyancy length for a fixed buoyancy force, the utilisation factor
reduces in most cases. This is a result of the way this optimisation study is conducted,
where the upper section has a fixed length. Such that when reducing the buoyancy
length, the centre of buoyancy moves towards the upper catenary section, thus exerting
more lift for this section. Though this is not the case for all configurations as seen for
the top line in Figure 32. This indicates that there more factors come into play, such as
bending moment becoming more prevailing for some configurations.
• An increase in buoyancy force decreases the utilisation factor for all combinations of
buoyancy length and hang-off angle, again this is a result of the high tension being the
main contributor in the combined loading.
• Comparing the O-configuration with the W-configuration, it is seen that the maximum
utilisation is equal for the 6° hang-off case and for the 7° case, the O-configuration
performs better than in the case of the W-configuration. Considering the 8° case, the
opposite happens. These observations are made for other comparisons as well. And this
indicates that at a certain point, the performance obtained for a large buoyancy force
spread over a longer section, can be achieved by less buoyancy force spread over a
shorter section. This can be seen more clearly in Figure 32, where the different
combinations of static hang-off angle and buoyancy force are plotted in terms buoyancy
length on the x-axis and utilisation on the y-axis.
• There are no compressive forces found in any of the configurations.
• The top angle variation for all cases are within the limitations for the flex joint.
• The largest hang-off angle in both near and far offset position is experienced by the
initial configuration, and the smallest angle is found in the far offset position for the T-
configuration. The hang-off angle range variation is within the acceptable limit and is
found to be the approximately the same for all configuration for the different offset
positions.
• The highest tension is found at the top of the initial configuration in the far offset
position, and is a consequence of this configuration having a larger static hang-off angle
resulting in higher applied top tension. The maximum tension experienced is slightly
higher for the initial, compared to the D-configuration for the same offset position.
64
Chapter 6:
Sensitivity and Optimisation
• The ratio between the maximum tension and the static tension for the initial
configuration in far offset position is 1.52, whereas for the T-configuration it is
decreased to 1.48, indicating an important improvement in the configuration.
• The T-configuration results in the highest utilisation factor for the near offset position,
this is a result of the large buoyancy force applied in combination with the shortest
buoyancy length. As a result, this configuration experiences a lower curvature in the
hog-bend and increased bending moment in this region, see Figure 31. Still the
utilisation is within good margins at 0.55.
• The highest utilisation factor found in the comparison is 0.738, and is for the initial
configuration in the far offset position. This is a result of the applied top tension,
buoyancy force and buoyancy length as described earlier.
From these results, it is seen that by reducing the static hang-off angle, increasing the total net
buoyancy force or moving the centre of buoyancy towards the upper catenary will all result in
a lower utilisation factor. And that a combination of all these provided the best solution for the
framework set for this study. For SLWRs in more shallow waters (Orimolade et al., 2015), this
might not be the case since bending moments will be more dominating. Thus, the use of
increased buoyancy force over a shorter section may contribute to larger bending moments,
resulting in a higher utilisation factor.
Shape configuration
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-300
-800
Water depth (m)
6° D-configuration
-1300
6° T-configuration
Initial configuration
-1800 Buoyancy
-2300
-2800
Horisontal distance (m)
65
Chapter 6:
Sensitivity and Optimisation
0,800
0,780
0,760
0,740
0,720
0,700
0,680
0,660
360 380 400 420 440
Figure 32: Utilisation for buoyancy length vs. buoyancy force and hang-off angle
66
Chapter 6:
Sensitivity and Optimisation
Observations made when comparing the wave induced fatigue life of the 6° T-configuration
with results for the initial configuration:
• The fatigue life is improved over the entire arc length for all S-N curves in comparison
to the initial configuration.
• At 15 meters below hang-off point, the calculated fatigue life is 290 years for the T-
configuration following the D-curve, this is a 37-year increase compared to the initial
configuration.
• The decrease in top tension results in better fatigue performance for the wave induced
fatigue and the findings are in accordance with the observations and remarks made in
Chapter 5.
67
Chapter 6:
Sensitivity and Optimisation
100000000
10000000
1000000
Fatigue life (years)
100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Arc length (m)
Figure 33: Fatigue life for initial and improved configuration over the entire arc length
68
Chapter 7 Conclusion and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusion
This thesis has presented an initial 10" production SLWR configuration that were subjected to
several parameter adjustments to improve the LRFD utilisation of the configuration. All
configurations were considered for deployment in the ultra-deep waters off the coast of Brazil,
in conjunction with a high-motion vessel. Riser modelling and analyses have been performed
by use of OrcaFlex and its programming interface.
The vessel used in the studies, is a typical spread moored FPSO with associated RAOs. As the
vessel motions is the main design driver for dynamic risers, a detailed vessel response analysis
is conducted for typical 100-year waves to determine the worst response. With the combination
of the 100-year waves and a 10-year current, several analyses are presented to verify the
integrity of the riser in extreme sea states, and the wave induced fatigue is calculated for two of
the configurations.
The riser met both the ULS and ALS design criteria, and the highest utilisation factor was found
at the top of the riser in the operational far offset position. The maximum utilisation in this case
was 74%, and the main contributor is the resulting top tension due to the weight of the riser. A
maximum top tension of 8127 kN was registered in the accidental far offset position. Maximum
bending moment was also observed in the accidental far offset position, and was located in the
hog-bend. Even though the riser were subjected to larger forces for the accidental mooring
condition, the combined loading utilisation is less than for the ULS due to lower load factors
being applied for the ALS design criteria.
Following the S-N curve approach in the reference standard DNV-OS-F201, the wave induced
fatigue life was calculated for a total of 273 load cases. This was done by blocking the wave
scatter diagram into 21 blocks with lumped probability of occurrence and calculating the total
damage for the 13 most prevailing wave directions. The analysis showed that the most critical
69
Chapter 7:
Conclusion and Recommendations
area was the top section, which resulted in increased wall thickness for the upper catenary
section of the riser.
With a design life of 25 years, the calculated fatigue life must be more than 250 years. This was
not achieved for the top 15 meters, and it is assumed that this will be covered by a tapered
section. The fatigue life at 15 meters was found to be 254 years for the D-curve and 414 years
for the C2-curve. The rest of the riser length showed very good fatigue performance against the
wave induced fatigue. The VIV induced fatigue was not assessed in this study due to time
constraints, and is listed as recommendation for further work.
The analyses showed that all configurations met the ULS design criteria. It was evident that by
decreasing the static hang-off angle and shortening the buoyancy section, while increasing the
total net buoyancy force, lowered the utilisation factor in nearly all cases. These results are in
accordance with the observations made in the extreme response analyses, where it was
concluded that the top tension was the main contributor for the combined loading utilisation.
By decreasing the static hang-off angle, the applied top tension is decreased. The way the
optimisation procedure was conducted in this study, the reduction in buoyancy length caused
the centre of buoyancy force to be shifted toward the upper catenary section, thus reducing the
top tension. Combining a shorter buoyancy length with increased buoyancy force further
reduced the utilisation factor, even though this increased the maximum bending moment
experienced in the hog-bend.
A comparison study between the initial configuration and the best and worst of the 6° static
hang-off configuration showed how the parameter variations affected the performance of the
configuration. And it was concluded that the 6° configuration with the shortest buoyancy
section and largest net buoyancy force yielded the best results in terms of the objective stated
70
Chapter 7:
Conclusion and Recommendations
in this thesis. This configuration was analysed for wave induced fatigue, which resulted in a
calculated fatigue life of 290 years at 15 meters below hang-off point.
Summary
From the extreme response and wave induced fatigue analyses it is shown that the SLWR
concept can be implemented in ultra-deep waters in conjunction with a spread moored FPSO.
It is found that the tension experienced in these depths is the main contributor for the combined
loading, whereas for more shallow waters, the bending moment tends to be more prevailing.
High tension also affects the SLWRs performance for the wave induced fatigue, resulting in
increased wall thickness in the upper section.
Analyses show how parameter changes can improve the utilisation factor for a SLWR within
the ULS design criteria given in the offshore standard DNV-OS-F201: Dynamic Risers. And
from a total of 75 different configurations created in the optimisation study, it is established
which one performs best in terms of the combined loading criteria.
Conclusive remarks made for SLWR configurations in these water depths, is that a small static
hang-off angle seems to be desirable to reduce the applied top tension. A large net buoyancy
force spread over a suitable section will also relieve the tension felt at the top, thus improving
both the utilisation factor and the wave induced fatigue performance.
7.2 Recommendations
Based on the analyses and results presented in this thesis, a good insight in the implementation
of SLWRs in ultra-deep waters is given and its integrity in extreme sea states is verified. By
adjusting different parameters for the initial configuration, it is shown that the performance of
the riser is affected and that there are many considerations to take when designing a SLWR in
these water depths. Even though this thesis covers the main aspects of designing and analysing
a SLWR, still there are more analyses and further studies that should be conducted. And the
following recommendations are made:
• Perform VIV-induced fatigue analysis for SLWRs in these water depths and asses the
need of VIV suppressive devices to verify sufficient fatigue life.
• Wall thickness sizing in the upper catenary section. Do analyses with varying wall
thicknesses and section length to improve fatigue life, and to determining a better
sectioning of the upper catenary.
71
Chapter 7:
Conclusion and Recommendations
• Increase the number of parameter variables in the optimisation study. Further work
should be conducted by altering the height of the upper catenary and including more
design parameters in the optimisation study.
• Perform analyses with varying water depth to determine when the effective tension
becomes the main contributor in the combined loading criteria.
• Do optimisation study where cost, installation and riser performance are all included.
72
References
ANDRADE, E. Q. D., AGUIAR, L. L. D., SENRA, S. F., SIQUEIRA, E. F. N., TORRES, A.
L. F. L. & MOURELLE, M. M. 2010. Optimization procedures of steel lazy wave riser
configuration for spread moored FPSOs in deepwater offshore Brazil. Offshore
technology conference. Houston, Texas, USA.
BAI, Y. & BAI, Q. 2005. Subsea Pipelines and Risers, Jordan Hill, UNKNOWN, Elsevier
Science.
BAI, Y. & BAI, Q. 2012. Subsea engineering handbook, Oxford, UK, Elsevier.
BARDOT GROUP. 2017. Helical strakes [Picture] [Online]. Available:
http://www.bardotgroup.com/fr/solutions-surf/stabilisationlde-lignes/viv-strakes
[Accessed 5.5.2017].
CARTER, B. A. & RONALDS, B. F. 1998. Deepwater Riser Technology. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
CHAKRABARTI, S. 2005. Handbook of Offshore Engineering (2-volume set), St. Louis,
UNKNOWN, Elsevier Science.
DNV 2010a. DNV-OS-F201: Dynamic Risers.
DNV 2010b. DNV-OSS-302: Offshore Riser Systems.
DNV 2010c. DNV-RP-C203: Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures.
FELISITA, A. 2016. On the Application of Steel Lazy Wave Riser for Deepwater Locations
with Harsh Environments. Philosophiae Doctor, Faculty of Science and Technology,
University of Stavanger.
FISHER, E. A. & BERNER, P. C. 1988. Non-Integral Production Riser For Green Canyon
Block 29 Development. Offshore Technology Conference.
GEMILANG, G. M. 2015. Feasibility study of selected riser concepts in deep water and harsh
environment [Master thesis]. University of Stavanger.
GREALISH, F., KAVANAGH, K., CONNAIRE, A. & BATTY, P. 2007. Advanced Nonlinear
Analysis Methodologies for SCRs. Offshore Technology Conference.
HOFFMAN, J., YUN, H., MODI, A. & PEARCE, R. 2010. Parque das Conchas Pipeline,
Flowline and Riser System Design, Installation and Challenges. Offshore Technology
Conference.
HUTCHINSON OIL & GAS. 2017. Flex Joint [Picture] [Online]. Available: http://oil-
gas.hutchinsonworldwide.com/applications/riser-connection [Accessed 31.5.2017].
KALMAN, M., YU, L., DURR, C. & SUAREZ, J. 2014. Qualification of Unbonded Flexible
Pipe to API and DNV Standards. Offshore Technology Conference.
KARUNAKARAN, D., DUTTA, A., CLAUSEN, T. & LUND, K. M. 2002. Steel Catenary
Riser Configurations for Large Motion Semi Submersibles with Lightweight Coating.
Deep Offshore Technology Conference New Orleans.
KARUNAKARAN, D. & FRØNSDAL, M. 2016. Steel Lazy Wave Riser with Tether for FPSO
with Dis-Connectable Turret for Iceberg Conditions. Offshore Technology Conference.
KARUNAKARAN, D., MELING, T. S., KRISTOFFERSEN, S. & LUND, K. M. 2005.
Weight-Optimized SCRs For Deepwater Harsh Environments. Offshore Technology
Conference.
KARUNAKARAN, D., NORDSVE, N. T. & OLUFSEN, A. 1996. An Efficient Metal Riser
Configuration For Ship And Semi Based Production Systems. International Society of
Offshore and Polar Engineers.
KATLA, E., MORK, K. & HANSEN, V. 2001. Dynamic Risers: Introduction and Background
to the New DNV Offshore Standard (OS-F201). Offshore Technology Conference.
73
KAVANAGH, W. K., LOU, J. & HAYS, P. K. 2003. Design of Steel Risers in Ultra Deep
Water-The Influence of Recent Code Requirements on Wall Thickness Design for
10,000ft Water Depth. Offshore Technology Conference.
KIM, S. & KIM, M.-H. 2015. Dynamic behaviors of conventional SCR and lazy-wave SCR for
FPSOs in deepwater. Ocean Engineering, 106, 396-414.
KIRKEMO, F., MØRK, K. J., SØDAHL, N. & LEIRA, B. 1999. Design of Deepwater Metallic
Risers. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
LEGRAS, J.-L., KARUNAKARAN, D. N. & JONES, R. L. 2013. Fatigue Enhancement of
SCRs: Design Applying Weight Distribution and Optimized Fabrication. Offshore
Technology Conference.
LUPPI, A., COUSIN, G. & O'SULLIVAN, R. 2014. Deepwater Hybrid Riser Systems.
Offshore Technology Conference.
MARTINS, C. A., HIGASHI, E. & SILVA, R. M. C. 2000. A Parametric Analysis of Steel
Catenary Risers: Fatigue Behavior Near the Top. International Society of Offshore and
Polar Engineers.
NOV. 2017. Multilayer Flexible Pipe [Picture] [Online]. Available:
http://www.nov.com/Segments/Completion_and_Production_Solutions/Subsea_Produ
ction_Systems/Flexible_Pipe_Systems/Designing_Flexible_Pipes/Materials_and_Prof
iles/Materials_and_Profiles.aspx [Accessed 12.6.2017].
ODLAND, J. 2015. Platform design issues. Offshore field development. Stavanger: Universitet
i Stavanger.
OFFSHORE MAGAZINE. 2015. Deepwater solutions & records for concept selection [PDF]
[Online]. Offshore magazine. Available: http://www.offshore-
mag.com/content/dam/offshore/print-articles/volume-75/05/0515-
DeepwaterPoster040815ADS.pdf [Accessed 2.3.2017].
ORIMOLADE, A. P. 2014. Steel lazy wave risers from turret moored FPSO [Master thesis].
University of Stavanger.
ORIMOLADE, A. P., KARUNAKARAN, D. & MELING, T. S. 2015. Steel lazy wave risers
from turret moored FPSO for deepwater harsh environment. International conferance
on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
PHIFER, E. H., KOPP, F., SWANSON, R. C., ALLEN, D. W. & LANGNER, C. G. 1994.
Design And Installation Of Auger Steel Catenary Risers. Offshore Technology
Conference.
SPE INTERNATIONAL. 2015. History of offshore drilling units [Online]. Available:
http://petrowiki.org/History_of_offshore_drilling_units [Accessed 4.4.2017].
SUBSEA7 FOR PETROBRAS. 2015. Buoy-Supported Riser [Picture] [Online]. Available:
http://offshore.worleyparsons.com/project/subsea-7-riser-buoys/ [Accessed 9.5.2017].
SWORN, A. 2005. Hybrid Riser Towers from an Operator's Perspective. Offshore Technology
Conference.
U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 2016. International Energy Outlook
2016 In: ENERGY, U. S. D. O. (ed.). Washington, DC 20585: Office of Energy
Analysis.
VOIE, P. E. & SØDAHL, N. 2013. Optimisation of Steel Catenary Risers. International
Conference on Ocean, Offshoreand Arctic Engineering. Nantes, France.
74
Appendices
A-1
Appendix A
A-2
Appendix A
A-3
Appendix B
def setBuoyancyProperties(m):
global normPip,buoyPip,riserName
#
# INPUT
#
pipMass = m[normPip].MassPerUnitLength
pipSteelOD = m[normPip].OD
pipID = m[normPip].ID - 2*m[normPip].LiningThickness #SJEKK ENDRING
pipCD = m[normPip].Cdx
pipCDa = m[normPip].Cdz
pipAM = m[normPip].Cax
coatingT = m[normPip].CoatingThickness
pipOD = pipSteelOD + 2.*coatingT
#
# Buoyancy modules fixed properties
#
buyMassHdw = 0.025 #Buoy hardware mass
buyMassDens = 0.395 #Buoy material density
buyLen = 3.0 #Buoyant Length
#
# Calculate the pitch of the buoyancy modules
#
#Find length of buoyancy section
lenBuySection = 0.
for i in range(len(m[riserName].Length)):
if m[riserName].LineType[i] == buoyPip:
lenBuySection += m[riserName].Length[i]
nBuoys = netBuoyancy/netBuoyancyPerBuoy
buyPitch = lenBuySection/nBuoys
A-4
Appendix B
eqvAM = (buyAM*buyVol + pipAM*pipVol) / (buyVol+pipVol)
eqvAMa = buyAMa*buyVol/(buyVol+pipVol)
eqvM = pipMass + (buyMassHdw + buyLen*buyArea*buyMassDens)*nBuyModules
return m
def setNetBuoyancy(m,newNetBuoyancy):
#Find the difference in volume between normal pipe and buoyancy section
dV0 = pi*(typB.OD**2 - (typ0.OD + 2*typ0.CoatingThickness)**2)/4.
#Find the difference in mass between normal pipe and buoyancy section
dM0 = (typB.MassPerUnitLength - typ0.MassPerUnitLength)
A-5
Appendix B
#Return updated model
return m
def calcNetBuoyancy(m,content=0.):
global normPip,buoyPip,riserName
def getWeight(typ,m,content):
return dmW
wgt0 = getWeight(m[normPip],m,content)
wgt1 = getWeight(m[buoyPip],m,content)
LB = 0.
for i in range(len(m[riserName].LineType)):
if m[riserName].LineType[i] == buoyPip:
LB += m[riserName].Length[i]
return LB*(wgt0 - wgt1)
def getBuoyantLength(m):
global buoyPip,riserName
Ltot = 0.
for i in range(len(m[riserName].LineType)):
if m[riserName].LineType[i] == buoyPip:
Ltot += m[riserName].Length[i]
return Ltot
def getTopLength(m):
global buoyPip,riserName
Ltot = 0.
for i in range(len(m[riserName].LineType)):
if m[riserName].LineType[i] == buoyPip:
break
Ltot += m[riserName].Length[i]
return Ltot
def changeBuoyantLength(m,newTopLength,newBuoyantLength):
#Calculate the ratio of the new length and the old length
r = newBuoyantLength/oldBuoyantLength
#--------------------------------------------------
# Adjust the properties of the buoyant section pipe
#--------------------------------------------------
#Id the types
A-6
Appendix B
typ0 = m[normPip]
typB = m[buoyPip]
#Find the difference in volume between the buoyant and non-buoyant type
dV0 = pi*(typB.OD**2 - (typ0.OD + 2*typ0.CoatingThickness)**2)/4.
#Find the difference in weight between the buoyant and non-buoyant type
dM0 = (typB.MassPerUnitLength - typ0.MassPerUnitLength)
#Calculate the updated differential volume and mass, based on new length
dV1 = dV0/r
dM1 = dM0/r
#Calculate the updated outer diameter and mass, with the same density as before
typB.OD = sqrt((4.*dV1/pi) + (typ0.OD + 2*typ0.CoatingThickness)**2)
typB.MassPerUnitLength = dM1 + typ0.MassPerUnitLength
def setOffsetAndEnvironment(m,offset,envIn):
global vesselName
#-----------------------------------------------------
# INPUT - MODEL DEFINITIONS
#-----------------------------------------------------
m = Model("BaseFile.dat")
normPip = 'Line Type1'
buoyPip = 'Line Type2'
vesselName = "Cidade de Sao Paulo"
riserName = "Riser"
A-7
Appendix B
#Horizontal distance from vessel center to hangoff point
hangoffPoint = (0., 31.)
#-----------------------------------------------------
# INPUT - Parameter variations
#-----------------------------------------------------
#Target declination
targetDeclinationVariaton = [
("LA8deg",172.),
("LA7deg",173.),
("LA6deg",174.),
]
#-----------------------------------------------------
# INPUT - ENVIRONMENT
#-----------------------------------------------------
currentTab = [
(0 ,1 ),
(50 ,1 ),
(100 ,0.875 ),
(150 ,0.7426),
(200 ,0.6323),
(250 ,0.5735),
(300 ,0.5073),
(350 ,0.4338),
(375 ,0.4117),
(800 ,0.2867),
(1200,0.2279),
(1600,0.2205),
(2000,0.2353),
(2200,0.2353),
]
env = {"Hs":6.5,"Tp":12.5,"Gamma":1.851813124,"seed":415,"time":5013.,
"CurrentSpeed":1.36,"CurrentTab":currentTab}
A-8
Appendix B
#-----------------------------------------------------
# INPUT - FINISHED
#-----------------------------------------------------
caseName = "C%003i_%s_%s_%s_%s_%s"%(iCase,off[0],cont[0],buoy[0],bLen[0],ola[0])
funcNameID =
"%s_%s_%s_%s_%s"%(offsetVariation[0][0],cont[0],buoy[0],bLen[0],ola[0])
nomNameID =
"%s_%s_%s_%s_%s"%(offsetVariation[0][0],contentVariation[0][0],buoy[0],bLen[0],ola[0])
if funcNameID not in caseName:
for case in cases:
if funcNameID in case['name']:
funcName = case['name']
break
else:
funcName = caseName
cases.append({
"name": caseName,
"funcName": funcName,
"nomNameID": nomNameID,
"content":cont,
"offset":off,
"buoyancy":buoy,
"buoyantLength":bLen,
"declinationTarget":ola,
}
)
iCase += 1
#Print
print case['name']
#Iterate the hangoff angle for the nominal case, else; adapt nominal bottom length
if case['nomNameID'] in case['name']:
print "Running line setup wizard..."
#m.general.LineSetupCalculationMode = 'Calculate Anchor Positions'
m.general.LineSetupCalculationMode = 'Calculate Line Lengths'
m[riserName].LineSetupIncluded = 'Yes'
m[riserName].LineSetupTargetVariable = 'Declination'
m[riserName].LineSetupTargetValue = case['declinationTarget'][1]
A-9
Appendix B
m[riserName].LineSetupLineEnd = "End A"
m[riserName].LineSetupArclength = 0.
m[riserName].LineSetupSectionToBeModified = len(m[riserName].Length)
m.InvokeLineSetupWizard()
case['bottomSegmentLength'] = m[riserName].Length[-1]
print "...done"
else:
for caseNom in cases:
if case['nomNameID'] in caseNom['name']:
m[riserName].Length[-1] = caseNom['bottomSegmentLength']
break
A-10
Appendix C
A-11
Appendix C
A-12
Appendix C
A-13
Appendix C
A-14
Appendix C
A-15
Appendix C
A-16
Appendix C
A-17
Appendix C
A-18
Appendix C
A-19