Subsea Pipelines

Prepared for Directed Studies CIVL 7006

Nikzad Nourpanah Under supervision of: Dr. Farid Taheri

Winter 2008/2009

Scope
The scope of this document is to give a general introduction on the subject of subsea pipelines, with reference to design codes as used by the industry. The document covers most important aspects of analysis and design of subsea pipelines, but it should be noted that some less important topics are left out. Where applicable, the theory and/or experimental data behind code provisions is discussed with reference to available technical literature. The main topics are Mechanical design, on-bottom stability, free spanning and installation of subsea pipelines.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 1

Contents
1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction Material Grade Selection Diameter Selection Wall Thickness Selection 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 6. 6.1. 6.2. 7. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. References Internal Pressure Containment (Burst) Collapse Due to External Pressure Local Buckling Due to Bending and External Pressure Buckle Propagation Soil Friction Factor Hydrodynamic Force Calculation Hydrodynamic Coefficient Selection Stability Criteria Static condition VIV J-lay S-lay Reel lay Towed Pipelines Shore Approach Wet vs Dry Pipeline Installation 9 11 12 13 13 19 22 27 35 37 37 39 44 45 47 50 63 68 72 73 74 75 77 80

On-Bottom Stability

Free Span (Bottom Roughness) Analysis

Installation of Subsea Pipelines

Subsea Pipelines

Page 2

List of Figures
Figure 1 - US crude oil production trends (S. Chakrabarti, 2005) ................................................................9 Figure 2 - Number of ultra deepwater (>5000 ft) wells drilled in Gulf of Mexico (S. Chakrabarti, 2005) ...... 10 Figure 3 - Roles of pipelines in an offshore hydrocarbon field (Bai, 2000) ................................................. 10 Figure 4 - Free body diagram of a pipe section under internal and external pressure ................................ 13 Figure 5 Burst pressure (Pb) according to API-RP-1111 (1999) using Equations 4 and 5 for X65 grade steel, SY = 65 ksi, U = 77 ksi and E = 29000 ksi ....................................................................................15 Figure 6 Pressure level relations (API-RP-1111, 1999) .......................................................................... 16 Figure 7 Ductile burst sample (API-RP-1111, 1999) .............................................................................. 17 Figure 8 Brittle burst sample (API-RP-1111, 1999) ............................................................................... 17 Figure 9 Concept of effective axial force (Fyrileiv et al, 2005) ............................................................... 19 Figure 10 Collapse pressures of 2900 specimen normalized with collapse pressures calculated by Equation (15) (Murphey and Langner, 1985) ........................................................................................................ 21 Figure 11 - Collapse pressure vs. D/t per API 1111 (1999) and DNV OS-F101 (2000), (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) .................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 12 Mechanical behavior of pipe subjected to pure bending, (Murphey and Langner, 1985) ........... 23 Figure 13 Moment vs. strain curves for constant diameter and yield stress but variable wall thickness (Murphey and Langner, 1985) ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 14 Pipe bending tests in air curvatures at buckling (Murphey and Langner, 1985)..................... 24 Figure 15 Pipe collapse due to combined bending and external pressure; comparison of experimental results with (18) for a perfectly circular pipe (Murphey and Langner, 1985) ............................................. 25 Figure 16 - Rational model prediction of collapse pressure vs. initial ovality, compared to experimental results for pipe with D/t = 35 (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ................................................................... 26 Figure 17 - Pressure vs. bending strain predicted by rational model and experiments (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 18 - Pressures vs. bending strain; comparison between empirical formulations of API, DNV and the rational model (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ......................................................................................... 27 Figure 19 Elastic, plastic, collapse and buckle propagation pressures for an X65 grade pipeline based on API RP 1111 (1999) and Timoshenko (1961) formulations, E = 29000 ksi ............................................... 28 Figure 20 Hoop stress associated with elastic, plastic and collapse pressure for an X65 grade pipeline based on API-RP-1111 (1999) and Timoshenko (1961) formulations, E = 29000 ksi ................................. 28 Figure 21 Grouted Sleeve arrestor (Langner, 1999) .............................................................................. 29 Figure 22 Integral Ring arrestor, which also serves as J-Lay Collar, (Langner, 1999) .............................. 30 Figure 23 - Tested sample of a pipeline with Sleeve type buckle arrestors and the numerical model .......... 30 Subsea Pipelines Page 3

Figure 24 U mode buckling of a pipeline; the collapse wave passes through a sleeve type arrestor (Kyriakides, 2005)................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 25 Comparison of integral ring buckle arrestor design formula with available test data (Langner, 1999) ................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 26 - Regions of applicability of different wave theories (API RP 2A, 2000) ...................................... 36 Figure 27 Relative importance of inertia, drag and diffraction wave forces (DNV-OS-J101, 2004) ............ 38 Figure 28 Current profile due to tides and wind (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991) ................................................... 39 Figure 29 CD as a function of Reynolds number and roughness for a cylinder in steady current (DNV-CN30.5, 1991) .......................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 30 Added mass coefficient Ca as a function of gap ratio H/D (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991) ...................... 40 Figure 31 CD as a function of KC and roughness (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991) .................................................. 41 Figure 32 Influence of seabed proximity on CD for current+wave situation (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991) ............ 41 Figure 33 Hydrodynamic force coefficients CD, CM and CL for regular waves, effect of pipe roughness (a) and seabed roughness (b) (Bryndum, 1992) ...........................................................................................42 Figure 34 Hydrodynamic coefficients versus current ratio for wave plus steady current (Bryndum, 1992) 43 Figure 35 Free body diagram of pipeline for on-bottom stability analysis (Bai, 2000) .............................. 44 Figure 36 Free spanning pipeline on seabed ........................................................................................ 45 Figure 37 Continental shelf and continental slope................................................................................. 45 Figure 38 Subsea pipelines, Ormen Lange field, Norway (Source: Internet) ........................................... 46 Figure 39 - Typical free span distributions and pipeline profile (Soreide, 2001) ......................................... 46 Figure 40 Static stresses and deformations in a free spanning pipeline (Mousselli, 1981) ........................ 48 Figure 41 Static stress and span for pipeline passing obstruction (Mousselli, 1981) ................................ 49 Figure 42 Vortex shedding due to steady flow at different Reynolds numbers and fluctuating pressures on pipe resulting in oscillating lift and drag forces (Blevins, 1977) ................................................................ 50 Figure 43 Classification of free spans (DNV-RP-F105, 2006) ................................................................. 51 Figure 44 CFD simulation of piggyback pipeline ................................................................................... 53 Figure 45 Effective length vs. soil stiffness (DNV-RP-F105) ................................................................... 54 Figure 46 Illustration of the in-line VIV Response Amplitude versus VR and KS (DNV-RP-F105, 2006)....... 57 Figure 47 Illustration of the cross-flow VIV Response Amplitude versus VR (DNV-RP-F105) ..................... 58 Figure 48 Typical two-slope S-N curve (DNV-RP-F105, 2006) ................................................................ 59 Figure 49 Schematic diagram of free span pipelines with additional local stiffness and damping (Fernes and Bertsen, 2003) ............................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 50 - Motions due to a prescribed second mode inline deflection. (C) Time series of ry/D close to an antinode. (D) Time series of rz/D close to an antinode. (Bottom panels) Countours of time evolution of ry/D and rz/D. (Fernes and Berntsen, 2003) ................................................................................................... 62 Subsea Pipelines Page 4

Figure 51 - Combined in-line and cross flow motion of a pipeline section (Fernes and Berntsen, 2003) ...... 62 Figure 52 Schematic of S-lay method for pipelaying (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ................................ 63 Figure 53 Schematic of J-lay method for pipelaying (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ................................ 64 Figure 54 Taut mooring system .......................................................................................................... 65 Figure 55 Catenary mooring system .................................................................................................... 65 Figure 56 Combined station-keeping method for intermediate water depths (Langner, 1973) ................. 66 Figure 57 Location of stress concentration in sleeve connection, Top: J-lay, Bottom: S-lay (Dixon et al. 2003) ................................................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 58 Heerema's balder in J-lay mode (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) .............................................. 69 Figure 59 Dynamics of pipelines during laying: motion, dynamic stresses and tension for different wave periods (Clauss et al. 1991) ................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 60 A typical S-lay Vessel (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ............................................................. 72 Figure 61 A reel vessel (Guo et al. 2005) ............................................................................................. 73 Figure 62 Schematic of towed pipeline (Bai, 2000) ............................................................................... 74 Figure 63 Float and sink method used for shore approach installation ................................................... 75 Figure 64 Bottom pull method used for pipeline shore approach ........................................................... 75 Figure 65 - Bottom pull method; launching roller track ............................................................................ 75 Figure 66 Directional drilling method for pipeline shore approach .......................................................... 76 Figure 67 Comparison of design strategies for 660.4 mm (26 inch) pipeline: wall thickness as a function of depth (Palmer, 1998) ............................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 68 Comparison of design strategies for 660.4 mm (26 inch) pipeline: submerged weight in laying condition as a function of depth (Palmer, 1998)...................................................................................... 78

Subsea Pipelines

Page 5

List of Tables
Table 1 - Tensile strength properties (API 5L, 2000) ............................................................................... 11 Table 2 - Crude oil sizing guidance (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ........................................................... 12 Table 3 - Diameters for selected offshore projects (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ..................................... 12 Table 4 - Temperature de-rating factor, T, for steel pipe according to ASME B31.8 (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 5 Return period for environmental phenomena ...........................................................................35 Table 6 Allowable pipeline stresses (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) ........................................................ 47 Table 7 Response Behavior of free span (DNV-RP-F105, 2006) ............................................................. 52 Table 8 Different flow regimes (DNV-RP-F105, 2006) ........................................................................... 52 Table 9 Boundary conditions coefficients (DNV-RP-F105, 2006) ............................................................ 55 Table 10 Advantages and disadvantages of J-lay (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) .................................... 68 Table 11 Advantages and disadvantages of S-lay (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) .................................... 72 Table 12 Advantages and disadvantages of Reel-lay (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) & (Guo et al. 2005) .. 73

Subsea Pipelines

Page 6

Nomenclature
A = Pipeline steel cross section
A0 = Pipeline outer cross section ACF = Stress amplitude due to a unit diameter cross-flow
mode shape deflection

Ai = Pipeline inner cross section

AIL = Stress amplitude due to a unit diameter in-line
mode shape deflection AY = In-line VIV amplitude

I = Moment of inertia ID = Pipeline inner diameter k = Burst coefficient 4m e T Ks = = Stability parameter D 2

KC = Uc = Keulegan-Carpenter number fwD

Az = Cross-flow VIV amplitude

L = Wave length L = buckle arrestor length

Lm = Length of pipeline in Miles me = Effective (modal) mass
m(s) = mass per unit length of pipeline including
structural mass, coating mass and added mass

C1 ~ C 6 = Boundary condition coefficients

C a = Added mass coefficient C D = Drag coefficient

C m = C a + 1= Inertia coefficient

C L = Lift Coefficient

M = Moment
n i = Number of cycles at stress range Si N i = Number of cycles to failure at stress range Si
P(i) = Probability of occurrence for the ith stress cycle
(ith sea state)

CSF =Coating Stiffness Factor d = Water depth D = Pipeline nominal outside diameter
D fat = Accumulated fatigue damage

E = Modulus of elasticity E = Longitudinal joint factor

f 0 = Collapse factor f 1 = 1st eigen-frequency of free span in still water f d = Design factor f e = Weld joint factor f n = nth eigen-frequency of free span in still water
f p = Buckle propagation safety factor

P0 = External pressure P1 = psia at start point of pipeline P2 = psia at end point of pipeline Pa = Incidental overpressure Pactual = Actual measured burst pressure Pb = Burst pressure Pc = Collapse pressure Pcr = Free span critical buckling load Pe = Elastic collapse pressure Pi = Internal pressure Pid = Internal design pressure Pm = Minimum cross-over pressure
Pmax Hyd = Maximum hyrotest pressure Pp = Buckle propagation pressure
Pt = Hydrostatic test pressure

f t = Temperature de-rating factor for steel

f v ,i = vibration frequency of pipeline due to ith sea
state

f w = Wave frequency

F = Construction design factor

FD = Drag force FI = Inertia force

FL = Lift force

h = Buckle arrestor thickness H = Wave height

Subsea Pipelines

Px = Buckle arrestor cross-over pressure

Py = Plastic collapse pressure

Q = Cubic ft of gas per 24 hr

Page 7

Re =

UcD

= Reynolds number
th

= ( Dmax Dmin ) /( Dmax + Dmin ) = ovality

= Pipeline sagging at mid span

= Efficiency parameter for buckle arrestor
fat = Fatigue safety factor

S i = Stress range due to i seastate S u = Soil undrained shear strength S Y = Specified minimum yield stress
S Y , a = Specified minimum yield stress of buckle arrestor S Y , actual = Average measured yield strength of pipe

= Curvature

= Soil friction factor = Seabed slope = Internal friction angle of soil

= mode shape

SF = Safety factor t = Pipeline nominal wall thickness

t min = Minimum measured wall thickness

T T

= Wave period = Temperature de-rating factor for steel

Ta = True wall axial force T d = Design life

Teff =Effective axial force (true wall force including
pressure corrections)

Tlife = Fatigue life capacity

U = Steel ultimate tensile strength U actual = average measured ultimate tensile strength
U c = Current velocity Um = Uc +Uw U w = Particle maximum horizontal velocity due to wave & U w = Particle maximum horizontal acceleration due to
wave

U wind = Current velocity due to wind U tide = Current velocity due to tide
VR = Uc +Uw = Reduced velocity fn D

Ws = Pipeline submerged weight

= Poissons ratio, 0.3 for steel = Kinematic viscosity, 1*10-6 for seawater = critical strain
T =
Damping, including structural, soil and hydrodynamic damping = Mass density

= Weight density

Uc = Current flow velocity ratio Uc +Uw

Subsea Pipelines

Page 8

1. Introduction
In order to understand the importance of subsea pipelines, the importance of offshore oil and gas is first mentioned. Figure 1 shows the US crude oil production trends from onshore and offshore resources.

Figure 1 - US crude oil production trends (S. Chakrabarti, 2005)

It is seen in Figure 1 that offshore production is increasing and onshore portion is decreasing. This is due to the fact that most onshore hydrocarbon fields are discovered and under production and some of them are no longer economic. Also it is seen that production from shallow waters is nearly constant while production in deepwater (>1000 ft) is increasing. This is due to the fact that almost all resources in shallow waters are found and being utilized, therefore exploration is active in deep and ultra deep (>5000 ft) waters. Figure 2 shows this fact: the number of wells in ultra deep waters is increasing very fast.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 9

Figure 2 - Number of ultra deepwater (>5000 ft) wells drilled in Gulf of Mexico (S. Chakrabarti, 2005)

In an offshore hydrocarbon production system, pipelines have a connecting role between the facilities. Figure 3 shows a typical offshore hydro carbon field and the role of pipelines.

Figure 3 - Roles of pipelines in an offshore hydrocarbon field (Bai, 2000)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 10

2. Material Grade Selection

Generally carbon steels are used for subsea pipelines. API-5L "Specification for Line Pipe" (2000) is used for standard specifications. API-5L covers Grade B to Grade X80 steels with Outside Diameters (OD) ranging from 4.5 to 80 inch. Table 1 shows tensile strength properties according to API-5L. Generally the most common steel grade used for deepwater subsea pipelines is X65, regarding its cost-effectiveness and adequate welding technology. For buried offshore pipeline in the Arctic, the more ductile X52 has been proven the best choice for limit state design and the need for a high toughness material that could sustain the high strain based design.
Table 1 - Tensile strength properties (API 5L, 2000)

Generally, higher grades of steel (e.g. X70, X80, Duplex) cost more per unit volume. Welding higher grades is harder, therefore each joint requires more time so the overall operation time of the lay barge is higher. On the other hand by using higher grade steels the required wall thickness is reduced. Therefore although higher grades cost more per unit volume, the cost of pipeline per meter is slightly reduced. Higher grade steels result in a lighter pipeline, therefore the required tension is lower. This factor is very important in deep waters, where required tension can be a limiting factor.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 11

3. Diameter Selection
The process for selecting a pipeline diameter involves a detailed hydraulic analysis, especially for multi phase flows. However, there exist some empirical formulas that produce reasonable accuracy. For example Equation 1 can be used for sizing single phase gas lines and Table 2 for crude oil pipelines (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005). Also, diameters of some selected offshore projects are presented in Table 3.

Q=

500 ID3 P 2 P22 1 Lm

(1)

Table 2 - Crude oil sizing guidance (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Table 3 - Diameters for selected offshore projects (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 12

4. Wall Thickness Selection

To calculate the required wall thickness for an offshore pipeline, four different failure modes must be assessed: 1. Internal pressure containment (burst) during operation and hydro-test. 2. Collapse due to external pressure. 3. Local buckling due to bending and external pressure. 4. Buckle propagation and its arrest.

4.1. Internal Pressure Containment (Burst)

The burst pressure of the pipeline is basically calculated by the hoop stress formula for thin walled pressure vessels. Thin wall theory is valid for D/t > 20 and t < 0.1 inner pipe radius. It assumes uniform wall stress and gives mean circumferential stress. The burst pressure is calculated by setting the hoop stress equal to pipeline yield stress and incorporating safety factors. Thin wall equation can be used for D/t < 20 but it gives slightly higher estimates of stress than thick wall theory. The principal difference between the thin and thick wall formulations is that for thick wall conditions, the variation in stress between inner and outer surfaces becomes significant.

Figure 4 - Free body diagram of a pipe section under internal and external pressure

All the major codes (i.e. API, DNV, ASME, ABS and CSA) use the same philosophy. Here the formulation according to US regulations (CFR, Code of Federal Regulation), which uses allowable stress design is given.

Pid is internal design pressure (CFR, 2002):

Pid =

2 SY t FET D
(2)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 13

F = construction design factor of 0.72 for submerged component and 0.60 for the riser component, T =
temperature de-rating factor (See Table 4), E = longitudinal joint factor (for API-5L steels E is 1.0 for seamless, electric resistance welded, electric flash welded, submerged arc welded, and 0.6 for furnace but welded).
Table 4 - Temperature de-rating factor, T, for steel pipe according to ASME B31.8 (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

According to 30 CFR 250 (CFR, 2002), all pipelines should be hydrostatically tested with water at a stabilized pressure of at least 1.25 times the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for at least 8 h. Equation (3) can be used where F, construction design factor is 0.95 for hydro test:

Pmax hyd =

2 SY t FET D
(3)

API-RP-1111 (1999) which is a limit state code and uses LRFD method uses the following logic for internal pressure check: A burst pressure, Pb, is defined for the pipeline:

Pb = 0.45(S Y + U )Ln

D D 2t
(4)

Pb = 0.90(S Y + U )

t Dt
(5)

Any of the Equations (4) and (5) can be used, but API recommends use of Equation (4) for D/t<15. Regarding geometrical properties, Equations (4) and (5) are only functions of D/t. A plot of the two equations is given in Figure 5 and it is seen that the two equations give the same results. Subsea Pipelines Page 14

35

30

25 Burst Pressure, Pb (ksi)

20

15

10

10

20

30

40 D/t

50

60

70

80

Figure 5 Burst pressure (Pb) according to API-RP-1111 (1999) using Equations 4 and 5 for X65 grade steel, SY = 65 ksi, U = 77 ksi and E = 29000 ksi

The hydrostatic test pressure should satisfy the following:

Pt f d f e f t Pb
(6)

Where:

fd is design factor equal to 0.90 for pipelines and 0.75 for risers fe is weld joint factor and the same as E in Equation (2), originally defined by ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8.
API-RP-1111 only accepts pipelines with fe equal to one.

ft is temperature de-rating factor and is the same as T in Equation (2) which is given in Table 4.
The Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) should not exceed 0.80 of the hydro-test pressure:

Pd 0.80 Pt
(7)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 15

Incidental overpressure (Pa) includes the situation where the pipeline is subject to surge pressure, unintended shut-in pressure, or any temporary incidental condition. The incidental overpressure should not exceed 90% of the hydro-test pressure. The incidental pressure may exceed MOP temporarily; but the normal shut-in pressure condition should not be allowed to exceed MOP.

Pa 0.90 Pt
(8)

The relation between maximum operating pressure, maximum incidental over pressure, hydro-test pressure and burst pressure are shown graphically in Figure 6, with fe and ft equal to 1.

Figure 6 Pressure level relations (API-RP-1111, 1999)

API-RP-1111 (1999) provides Appendix-A as a procedure for testing and qualification of material other than carbon steel. This code only allows use of ductile material. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show typical failure pattern of ductile and brittle material respectively. A ductile burst failure has a distinct bulge at the burst location. A longitudinal fracture extends over the length of the bulge and terminates near the end of the bulge. The end of fracture turns at roughly 45 degrees from the pipe axis at each end.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 16

Figure 7 Ductile burst sample (API-RP-1111, 1999)

Figure 8 Brittle burst sample (API-RP-1111, 1999)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 17

The burst coefficient, k, is defined as:

k= ( SY , actual

Pactual D t min + U actual ) ln D 2t t

(9)

Having obtained the burst factor, the burst pressure, Pb, can be written as Equation (10). Note that Equation (10) is the general form of Equation (4), in which k was set to 0.45.

Pb = k (SY + U )Ln

D D 2t
(10)

The value of k is determined from the burst test data as:

0.875kaverage k = min0.9kmin 0.45

It is expected that the computed k values will all significantly exceed 0.45. The effective tension due to static primary longitudinal loads should not exceed the allowable value:

Teff 0.60T y
(11)

Where

Teff = Ta Pi Ai + P0 A0
Ta = A A

Ty = S y A

Effective axial force is a concept introduced to simplify the treatment of internal and external pressures. By arbitrarily considering a segment of pipeline as end-capped, the summation of external and internal pressures result in buoyancy and weight of internal liquid respectively. (Fyrileiv et al, 2005). In order to justify the end cap assumption, opposite forces are applied and summed with true axial force, Ta, (as seen in Equation 10). If this simplifying method is not used, the external and internal pressures have to be integrated over the outer and inner volume surface respectively, which is much more complex than the effective axial force method. The effective axial force concept is illustrated in Figure 9.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 18

Figure 9 Concept of effective axial force (Fyrileiv et al, 2005)

Also for the combination of axial force and pressures, API-RP-1111 (1999) suggests the following interaction equation to be satisfied:

Pi Po P b

T + eff T y
2

2 0.90 for operational loads 0.96 for extreme loads 0.96 for hydrotest loads

(12)

4.2. Collapse Due to External Pressure

During installation, subsea pipelines are typically subjected to conditions where external pressure exceeds the internal pressure. The differential pressure may cause collapse of pipe. Generally, the collapse pressure is between the elastic and plastic collapse pressures. The elastic collapse pressure, Pe , is found by examining the stability of a pipe section under hydrostatic load. The plastic collapse pressure, Py , is found by equating the hoop stress to the yield stress.

Pe =

2E t 1 2 D
t D

(13)

Py = 2 S y

(14)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 19

Each of the major codes gives a transition formula between Pe and Py for calculating the collapse pressure

Pc . DNV (2000) and ABS (2000) give a complicated third order equation. Timoshenko and Gere (1961)
propose a bi-linear transition. API-RP-1111 (1999) gives a very simple formula for Pc, which is the lowerbound prediction for collapse pressure:

Pc =

Pe Py Pe2 + Py2
(15)

Timoshenko and Gere (1961), propose the following design equation collapse pressure:

Pc =

2S y S y (1 2 ) D 3 1+ E t
(16)

Both Equations (15) and (16) are interpolation formulas between Pe and Py. A graphical presentation of Equations (13), (14), (15) and (16) is given in Figure 19 and the associated hoop stresses (calculated by assuming thin-wall theory) is given in Figure 20. It is seen in Figure 20 that the collapse hoop stress of the pipeline has the same typical pattern for column critical stress. Equation (15) gives nearly the same results as DNV as seen in Figure 11. Equation was originally introduced by Shell in 1975 (Murphey and Langner, 1985). Comparison of results of Equation (15) with 2900 pipe collapse tests is shown in Figure 10, and shows that 97% of the collapse data lie above the predictions of Equation (15). The design equation according to API-RP-1111 (1999) for external pressure is:

P0 Pi < f 0 Pc
(17)

Where:

f 0 = Collapse factor, 0.7 for seamless ERW pipe, 0.6 for cold expanded pipe, such as DSAW pipe

Subsea Pipelines

Page 20

Figure 10 Collapse pressures of 2900 specimen normalized with collapse pressures calculated by Equation (15) (Murphey and Langner, 1985)

Figure 11 - Collapse pressure vs. D/t per API 1111 (1999) and DNV OS-F101 (2000), (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 21

4.3. Local Buckling Due to Bending and External Pressure

During installation with a lay barge, the pipeline is subject to severe bending and external pressure, however in other situations this might happen, namely in free spans and during depressurization. Most of the codes have addressed this failure mode and proposed relevant formulations. These formulations are based entirely on empirical data fitting. API-RP-1111(1999) proposes Equation (18) which can be used for D/t < 50. DNV and ABS also suggest the same formula except that the strain term is to the power of 0.8.

( P0 Pi ) + g ( ) b Pc
(18)

Where:

b =

t =buckling strain under pure bending 2D

g ( ) = (1 + 20 ) 1 = collapse reduction factor which is maximum 1 for a perfectly circular pipe

The safety factor for bending strain is 2.0. The buckling strain for a cylindrical shell under the action of uniform axial compression is 1.2 t/D. This strain is determined by eigenvalue analysis based on the small strain elastic theory, without any account of imperfections and residual stresses (Fatemi, 2007). The general equation is (Timoshenko and Gere, 1961):

b =

t 3(1 2 ) D

= 0.3 b = 1.2

t D

In order to understand the physical meaning of critical strain, pure bending of a pipeline is discussed here. As bending moment is applied to the pipe, curvature is developed, which is defined as reciprocal of radius of curvature. A convenient measure of curvature is strain of the material farthest from neutral bending plane:

D
2

For small bending strains, less than the proportional limit strain, the stress at any point and the bending moment vary linearly with bending strain. With further increase in the bending strain to just beyond the proportional limit (Point A on the stress-strain curve in Figure 12 (a)), plastic deformation of the pipe material begins. At this point both the stress-strain curve and the moment-curvature curve move off the initial straight lines, and the stress distribution, Figure 12 (d), becomes nonlinear. A further increase in strain, to point B, produces a further departure from the initial linear behavior, including residual curvature of the pipe centerline. The plastic deformation at this degree of bending is stable, causing little ovaling or change in cross sectional shape, as indicated in Figure 12 (c), and the pipe itself is not weakened or in any danger of imminent failure. Subsea Pipelines Page 22

(a) Stress-strain curve

(b) Moment vs strain

(c) (c) Ovaling due to bending

(d) Stress distributions

Figure 12 Mechanical behavior of pipe subjected to pure bending, (Murphey and Langner, 1985)

Figure 13 Moment vs. strain curves for constant diameter and yield stress but variable wall thickness (Murphey and Langner, 1985)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 23

As bending strain increase toward point C, ovaling increases rapidly and the slope of the bending moment vs strain curve tends toward zero. This slope of of the moment-strain curve between points B and C is determined by two competing effects. Moment is increased as a result of strain hardening and because an increasing fraction of the cross section reaches yield. At the same time, ovaling of the cross section reduces the section modulus and the hoop stresses interact with the axial stresses through the plasticity relationships, which tends to decrease the bending moment. At point C the bending strain reaches a critical value b where the ovaling effect just overcomes the strain hardening characteristics of the pipe material. The bending moment Mb is maximum at this bending strain, and after this point the pipe would buckle (Murphey and Langner, 1985). Figure 13 shows moment-strain curves for three D/t ratios, where the diameter is kept constant and wall thickness varies. For undamaged pipeline it has been observed that the bending strength Mb is approximately equal to fully plastic moment, and the critical bending strain is b = t/2D, which is the value used in Equation (18) and is used by most major design codes (API, DNV, ABS). Figure 14 shows how this value fits the experimental data. Figure 14 also provides some indication of the detrimental effects of flat stress-strain curves and/or inhomogeneous pipe. Note that all the lowest buckling points on this graph fall into one or both of these categories. Flat stress-strain is one that the slope of the curve goes to zero or becomes negative at any point during the initial yielding process. Premature buckling is expected for pipes with flat stress-strain curve.

Figure 14 Pipe bending tests in air curvatures at buckling (Murphey and Langner, 1985)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 24

Equation (18) for a perfectly circular pipe (where the collapse reduction factor is 1) is a straight line which intersects both axes at 1. For this case, Figure 15 shows experimental results and predictions of Equation (18) and a good fit is observed.

Figure 15 Pipe collapse due to combined bending and external pressure; comparison of experimental results with (18) for a perfectly circular pipe (Murphey and Langner, 1985)

In lieu of the mentioned empirical formulation, Nogueira and Lanan (2001) have developed a rational model from first principles, and the predictions have been shown to correlate very well with test results. In this model it is recognized that as a pipe bends, components of the longitudinal bending stresses act into the cross-section. This, in turn, generates a transverse moment, which ovalises the pipe cross section, or ring, until it collapses. A pipe under bending will collapse when its cross section (or ring) loses stiffness due to plastic hinges mechanism formation at the onset of local buckling. Therefore, when rings of the pipe lose their stiffness, the ovalisation (initially uniform along the pipe length) will concentrate at the weakest point along the pipe (e.g. a thinner ring) and a local buckle will form. If in addition to bending, external pressure is applied, its effects are taken into account by noticing that it contributes to reduce the ring capacity to resist bending. This is due to the effects of the compressive hoop stress. The resulting is an interaction equation (between pressure and bending strain), which is too long and complicated to be presented here. Figure 16 shows comparison of collapse pressure predicted by model with those by the experiments which are in good agreement. Subsea Pipelines Page 25

Figure 16 - Rational model prediction of collapse pressure vs. initial ovality, compared to experimental results for pipe with D/t = 35 (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Figure 17 shows the collapse pressure vs. bending strain predicted by the rational model and experiments. A good match is observed.

Figure 17 - Pressure vs. bending strain predicted by rational model and experiments (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 26

Finally the results from empirical formulations of codes (API and DNV) are compared with results of the rational model in Figure 18.

Figure 18 - Pressures vs. bending strain; comparison between empirical formulations of API, DNV and the rational model (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

4.4. Buckle Propagation

If a local buckle is present in a section of a pipeline, for example resulting from excessive bending, the external pressure may cause the buckle to propagate (travel) along the pipeline. As long as the external pressure is less than the propagation pressure threshold, the buckle cannot propagate. Codes present different empirical formulations for buckle propagation pressure which mainly depend on diameter, wall thickness and steel grade. The equation given by API-RP-1111 (1999) is presented.

t Pp = 24 S y D

2.4

(19)

It is noted that propagation pressure Pp is smaller than collapse pressure Pc (collapse pressure is the pressure required to buckle a pipeline section). Figure 19 is a plot of Pe, Py, Pc, Pp for an X65 pipeline. Figure 20 shows the hoop stress associated with the mentioned levels.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 27

10 9 8 7 Pressure (ksi) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Buckle Propagation Pressure, Pp Elastic Collapse Pressure, Pe API Collapse Pressure, Pc Timoshenko Collapse Pressure, Pc Plastic Collapse Pressure, Py

10

20

30

40 D/t

50

60

70

80

Figure 19 Elastic, plastic, collapse and buckle propagation pressures for an X65 grade pipeline based on API RP 1111 (1999) and Timoshenko (1961) formulations, E = 29000 ksi
80
Plastic Collapse Hoop Stress

70

60
Elastic Collapse Hoop Stress

50 Stress (ksi)

40
API Collapse Hoop Stress

30

20
Timoshenko Collapse Hoop Stress

10

10

20

30

40 D/t

50

60

70

80

Figure 20 Hoop stress associated with elastic, plastic and collapse pressure for an X65 grade pipeline based on APIRP-1111 (1999) and Timoshenko (1961) formulations, E = 29000 ksi

Subsea Pipelines

Page 28

In order to avoid buckle propagation, the following equation with safety factor fp = 0.8 should be satisfied:

P0 Pi f p Pp
(20)

In order to satisfy Equation (20) in deep waters, very large thickness is required which is not economical. Buckle arrestors can be used to mitigate the risk of buckle propagation. In general, the distance between buckle arrestors should be selected to enable repair of the flattened section of pipeline between two adjacent arrestors, at reasonable cost. For pipelines installed by J-Lay, the buckle arrestors also serve as pipe support collars. In this case the distance between arrestors is simply the length of each J-Lay joint. Three types of buckle arrestors are in common use, namely Grouted Sleeve arrestors, Integral Ring arrestors, and Thick Wall Pipe Joints (Langner, 1999). Grouted Sleeve arrestors are steel sleeves that are slid over the ends of selected pipe joints and are grouted in place, as shown in Figure 21, before being installed offshore. Grouted Sleeve arrestors are preferred, where feasible, because of their low cost. However, this type of arrestor has limited usefulness in deep water because, as external pressure increases, a collapsed pipe will transform from its normal flat dogbone cross section into a C-shaped cross section which then passes through the arrestor. Hence, for sufficiently deep water, even an infinitely rigid Grouted Sleeve arrestor is ineffective.

Figure 21 Grouted Sleeve arrestor (Langner, 1999)

Integral Ring arrestors are thick-wall rings that are welded into selected pipe joints, as illustrated in Figure 22, before being installed offshore. Integral Ring arrestors are used for pipelines in which the strength of sleeve type arrestors is not adequate, and for J-Lay applications that require a support collar on each pipe joint. These arrestors are very efficient in terms of strength for a given amount of steel, but are more expensive than sleeve arrestors because of the additional welding required. Thick Wall Pipe Joint arrestors Subsea Pipelines Page 29

are special pipe sections (each designed to prevent collapse propagation), that are welded into a pipeline at intervals. A Thick Wall Pipe Joint is essentially a very long integral ring arrestor, but is much less efficient in the amount of steel used.

Figure 22 Integral Ring arrestor, which also serves as J-Lay Collar, (Langner, 1999)

Figure 23 - Tested sample of a pipeline with Sleeve type buckle arrestors and the numerical model

Due to the complexities of the buckle propagation phenomenon, design relationships are empirical. The strength of a buckle arrestor is expressed by its crossover pressure, Px, which is the minimum pressure that can force a buckled section of pipe to cross over the arrestor and start buckling the undamaged pipe on the other side. Obviously, the minimum crossover pressure for a weak arrestor is the propagation pressure Pp (Equation (19)) and the maximum crossover pressure for a strong pipe is the collapse pressure Pc (Equation (15)). An efficiency parameter that varies between 0 and 1 is defined which depends on the arrestor strength: Subsea Pipelines Page 30

Px Pp Pc Pp
(21)

Providing a safety factor of 1.35 for any buckle arrestor the minimum crossover pressure Pm is defined as:

Pm = 1.35d max
(22)

Design formulas for each of the three mentioned types of buckle arrestors are given here from Langner (1999) which is the reference as stated by API-RP-1111 (1999). Thick Wall Pipe Joint. Thick Wall Pipe Joints have been used as buckle arrestors in situations where suitable thick-wall joints are readily available and where the weight of the suspended pipeline during laying is not a critical issue. The design of a thick wall pipe joint arrestor is obtained by equating the minimum crossover pressure Pm with the design crossover pressure Px which is the same as the propagation pressure

Pp, and solving for the thickness of the Thick Wall Pipe Joint:
0.4167

t Pm = D 24S Y

(23)

Integral Ring Arrestors. Integral Ring arrestors are forged and/or machined weld-neck rings that are butt-welded into a pipe joint. A less expensive version slides over the pipe and is fillet welded both sides onto the outside of the pipe joint. For this technique stress concentration issues must be accounted for. Integral arrestors are categorized into two types, based on their geometry. Narrow arrestors, in which the length-to thickness ratio varies between L/h = 0.5 2.0, are used primarily for pipelines installed by J-Lay; here the arrestor doubles as a collar for supporting the suspended pipe span. Wide integral arrestors, where L/h > 2, are used primarily for pipelines installed by S-Lay, because of the easier passage of this type of arrestor through the tensioners and over the stinger rollers. The efficiency parameter of the arrestor is given by:

Subsea Pipelines

Page 31

and

1
(24)

Where:

5 k = 8

for for

0.5 < L / h < 2 L/h>2

(narrow) ( wide)

LPa DPp
2.4

(arrestor strength factor)

h Pa = 24SY ,a D

The buckle arrestor should be dimensioned such that the crossover pressure Px which is calculated from Equation (21) is greater than minimum crossover pressure Pm (Equation (22)). As an example, the following case is examined:

D = 457 mm E = 199938 MPa

t = 15.9 mm Y = 448 MPa ( X 65) H = 500 m

3

= 10104 N / m

Using the given formulas we have:

Pe = 18.53 Mpa Pp = 3.40 MPa P0 0.80 Pp

Py = 31.17 MPa Pc = 15.93 MPa P0 = H = 5.05 MPa Buckle arrestors are required

The integral ring buckle arrestor design is as follows:

Pm = 6.97 MPa L = 75 mm L/h < 2 Pa = 31.09 MPa h = 40 mm Ya = 448 MPa narrow buckle arrestor , k = 5

= 1.5
Px = 7.16 MPa Buckle arrestor is adequate

= 0.30
Px > Pm

Subsea Pipelines

Page 32

Grouted Sleeve Arrestor. Grouted Sleeve arrestors are forged or fabricated steel cylinders, typically with dimensions of L/D = 0.5 2.0, that are slid over the end of a pipe joint, and grouted in place near the middle of the joint. Typical grout materials that have been used are portland cement, sand-filled epoxy, and two-part polyurethane. Sleeve arrestors generally are the lowest cost type of buckle arrestor, but may not be suitable in deep water due to their limited arrestor strength. At the crossover limit, the cross section of a buckled pipeline can change from the dogbone shape typical of free buckle propagation, to a U mode that enables the collapse wave to pass through a sleeve-type arrestor, as seen in Figure 24

Figure 24 U mode buckling of a pipeline; the collapse wave passes through a sleeve type arrestor (Kyriakides, 2005)

Design formulas for rigid sleeve type arrestors are as follows:

3
Where

and

L / D 0 .5

Px min( P , P2 ) 1
Pc Pp 3

P1 = 2.4 Pp ,

P2 = Pp +

Choosing the spacing between buckle arrestors is an optimization problem. An approach is given in Bai (2001). Figure 25 shows the fitting of design formulas for integral ring buckle arrestors with test data.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 33

Figure 25 Comparison of integral ring buckle arrestor design formula with available test data (Langner, 1999)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 34

5. On-Bottom Stability
A pipeline laid on seabed is subject to current and/or wave forces. The pipeline withstands these forces by friction; which is relative to submerged weight of pipeline. It should be noted that in a complete 3D analysis, the strain energy of the pipeline is also taken into account. The goal of this analysis is to determine required submerged weight of pipe. If pipeline self-weight is insufficient, additional concrete coating would be required. Pipeline stability is checked for both operation and installation (pipeline empty) cases. Return period of environmental phenomena for on-bottom stability analysis is given in Table 5.
Table 5 Return period for environmental phenomena

Condition

Installation* (Less than 3 days) Based on weather forecast

Installation* (Longer than 3 days) 1 year (no threat to human lives) 100 year (threat to human lives)

Operation** 100 year wave + 10 year current 10 year wave + 100 year current

Return Period

*The installation time is usually short in comparison with operational lifetime of the pipeline. During installation the pipeline might be empty. Regarding the rather short period, less severe design environmental phenomenon are selected (shorter return periods). **Operation lifetime of pipeline might be several decades. The pipeline is usually filled during operation lifetime. Therefore more severe design environmental phenomenon are selected (longer return periods).

Additionally, a minimum pipeline specific gravity of 1.20 during installation is desired. The on-bottom stability analysis is performed by the following steps: 1. Definition of environmental condition for different return periods, including: Water depth (d) Significant wave height (H), wave period (T) and angle of attack Steady current velocity (Uc) and angle of attack Wave only particle velocity (Uw), maximum water particle velocity due to wave and current (Um) and steady current ratio (UR = Uc/Um) Soil submerged weight ( ), soil friction factor or undrained shear strength (Su) Seabed slope ( ) measured positive in downward loading

2. Determination of hydrodynamic coefficients: drag (CD), lift (CL), Inertia (Cm). These coefficients should be adjusted for Reynolds number, Keulegan-Carpenter Number, ratio of wave to steady current and embedment depth of pipeline. 3. Calculation of hydrodynamic forces drag (FD), lift (FL) , inertia (FI)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 35

4. The last step is to perform a static force balance; the hydrodynamic loads are opposed by friction of pipe over seabed. Hydrodynamic forces on the pipeline (wave and current) are related to velocity and acceleration of flow at the pipeline level. Current velocity (Uc) is steady while particle velocity due to a passing wave (Uw) is oscillatory. Uw is dependent upon wave height, period and water depth. By knowing these parameters a suitable wave theory can be used to calculate Uw. For most situations linear theory is adequate, because the particle velocities and accelerations do not vary significantly between theories. As wave height to water depth ratio increases, Stoke's fifth order theory becomes more appropriate. For shallow water or very high wave heights, solitary theory is best suited. For breaking waves, a large diameter might affect the flow regime and other methods may be appropriate, but in general pipelines should be trenched within the breaking wave (surf) zone. Figure 26 shows the validity of different wave theories for different wave and depth characteristics.

Figure 26 - Regions of applicability of different wave theories (API RP 2A, 2000)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 36

5.1. Soil Friction Factor

Friction factor is defined as the ratio between the force required to move a section of pipe and the vertical contact force applied by the pipe on the seabed. The friction factor is dependent upon soil type, pipe roughness, seabed slope and burial depth. In the absence of site specific data, the following can be used: Loose sand: = tan , Compact sand: = tan , Soft clay: = 0.7 Stiff clay: = 0.4 Rock and gravel: = 0.7

= 30 o
= 35 o

The starting friction factor in sand is about 30% less than the maximum value, which occurs after a very small displacement of the pipe builds a wedge of soil.

5.2. Hydrodynamic Force Calculation

The drag, lift and inertia force can be calculated by the Morrison equation. The general assumption for Morrison's equation is that the body (pipeline) is small enough not to disturb the flow pattern caused by the wave. The condition in which Morrison's equation is valid is when the ratio of wave length to pipeline diameter is greater than 5, and therefore the pipeline is considered as slender. If the ratio is less than 5, the body diffracts the waves and a diffraction theory should be used. For typical ocean waves and subsea pipelines the slender body assumption is true. The Morrison equation states that wave loading is summation of drag and inertia forces. The backbone of the equation can be derived using the momentum conservation for a control volume containing the pipeline:

r r d ( mv ) F = dt = t

c .v

v dV + v v dA = C1 (Volume ) Accelerati on + C2 ( Area ) Velocity 2

c.s

rr

(25)

C1 and C2 are constants for inertia and drag, dV is volume element, dA is area element and v is velocity. The
first integration is over a control volume and the second one is over a control surface. Morrison's formula is usually written as:

Subsea Pipelines

Page 37

FD = FL =

1 C D DU m U m 2 1 2 C L DU m 2

D 2 1 FI = C M 4 2

& U m
(26)

Only velocity and acceleration perpendicular to pipeline axis is considered in Morrison's equation. Figure 27 shows relative importance of inertia, drag and diffraction wave forces. It is seen that as slenderness (L/D) increases, drag forces are dominant. Although Figure 27 is for a vertical pile, it can be used for a subsea pipeline if the water depth is not more than half the wave length.

Figure 27 Relative importance of inertia, drag and diffraction wave forces (DNV-OS-J101, 2004)

The magnitude of particle horizontal velocity and acceleration due to waves according to linear (Airy) theory are as follows (L is wave length and z origin is at water surface and negative downward):

Uw =

H gT cosh[ 2 ( z + d ) / L ] 2 L cosh[ 2d / L ]

(Horizontal particle velocity at elevation z) (Horizontal particle acceleration at elevation z)

gH cosh[ 2 ( z + d ) / L ] & Uw = L cosh[ 2d / L ] L= gT 2 2d tanh( ) 2 L

(27)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 38

Currents have different sources but the most important ones are due to tides and wind. Tidal currents have a 1/7 power law profile in depth. Wind driven currents have a linear profile and affect a limited depth (50 m). The combined current profile is shown in Figure 28. In the absence of site specific data the profile given below can be used (z is distance from free surface and positive downwards):

d z U c = UTide d

1/ 7

50 z + UWind 50
(28)

UWind is wind-driven current velocity at surface and can be approximated as 0.015 x wind velocity at 10 m
elevation. Velocities of tidal currents depend strongly on the location and no approximate formulas are established.

Figure 28 Current profile due to tides and wind (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991)

5.3. Hydrodynamic Coefficient Selection

CD, CL and CI are dependent on one of the following situations:
Steady current only Steady current and waves For steady current conditions acting on a pipeline resting on seabed, CD ~ 0.7 and CL ~ 0.9. CD is generally dependent upon Reynolds number (Re) and roughness, but for post critical state it is constant. Figure 29 can be used to evaluate these effects on CD for steady current.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 39

CD

Figure 29 CD as a function of Reynolds number and roughness for a cylinder in steady current (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991)

In the case of steady current and waves, the coefficients are dependent on Keulegan-Carpenter KC number, roughness and steady current ratio. The added mass coefficient (Ca = Cm-1) is given in Figure 30 as a function of gap ratio. Physically KC is the amplitude of fluid particle displacement in each period normalized by pipeline diameter, and is interpreted as measure of drag to inertia ratio.

Ca

Figure 30 Added mass coefficient Ca as a function of gap ratio H/D (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 40

If Uc is large with respect to Uw, the situation is similar to steady current alone (If Uc/Uw is greater than 0.4 this is true). For situation where the ratio is << 0.4, Figure 32 can be used for CD. The influence of seabed proximity can be seen by using correction factors obtained from Figure 35.

Figure 31 CD as a function of KC and roughness (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991)

Figure 32 Influence of seabed proximity on CD for current+wave situation (DNV-CN-30.5, 1991)

Extensive experimental studies by Bryndum et al. (1983 and 1992) have led to hydrodynamic coefficients graphs, as seen in Figure 33 and Figure 34.These experiments cover a wide range of flow conditions. Tests for wave only have been done for 0<KC<160. Also effect of superposition of a steady current on the waves is investigated for current ratios of 0<Uc/Uw<2. They have also concluded that increasing the current ratio decreases all hydrodynamic coefficients, as seen in Figure 34. These studies are used in the comprehensive on-bottom stability program by American Gas Association (AGA 1993). Subsea Pipelines Page 41

Figure 33 Hydrodynamic force coefficients CD, CM and CL for re i egular waves, effect of pipe roughness ( and seabe e (a) ed roughne (b) (Brynd ess dum, 1992)

elines Subsea Pipe

Page 42

Figure 34 Hydrodynamic coefficients CD, CM and CL versus cu n d urrent ratio for wave plus steady curren (Bryndum, o nt 1992)

elines Subsea Pipe

Page 43

5.4. Stability Criteria

The last step of the simplified on-bottom stability analysis consists in assessing stability using a simple lateral force equilibrium equation. Figure 35 shows a free body diagram of the problem.

Figure 35 Free body diagram of pipeline for on-bottom stability analysis (Bai, 2000)

The following formula assumes a coulomb friction model and is over-conservative if the pipe is embedded. A safety factor (SF) is included to account for actual values of soil friction, environmental data, particle velocity and acceleration and hydrodynamic coefficients. Recommended SF is 1.05 and 1.1 for installation and operation conditions respectively. The rather low safety factors are due to the very conservative nature of this simplified 2D method. Ws is pipeline submerged weight.

(Ws cos F ) SF ( FD + FM + WS sin )

(29)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 44

6. Free Span (Bottom Roughness) Analysis

The goal of this analysis is to identify possible free spans that exceed the maximum allowable span length. Figure 36 shows a schematic of a pipeline laid on a rough seabed in which free spans are possible.

Figure 36 Free spanning pipeline on seabed

The irregular seabed profile is seen on the continental slope; a steep slope where the mild slope continental shelf reaches ultra deep waters as seen in Figure 37. Figure 38 shows visualizations of a rough seabed topography and subsea pipelines of the Ormen Lange field (Norway) passing a rough seabed.

Figure 37 Continental shelf and continental slope

Subsea Pipelines

Page 45

Figure 38 Subsea pipelines, Ormen Lange field, Norway (Source: Internet)

The length and height of the span have a random distribution and lengths as long as 300-400 m is possible. A typical distribution of free span length vs height and also the resulting profile of the pipeline is shown in Figure 39.

Figure 39 - Typical free span distributions and pipeline profile (Soreide, 2001)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 46

6.1. Static condition

The pipe span is checked for stresses under static conditions. Both Von-Mises and longitudinal stresses should be checked and limited to the values given in Table 6.
Table 6 Allowable pipeline stresses (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

A typical pipeline span free body diagram is shown in Figure 40, along with dimensionless diagrams for calculation of stress at mid-span and span shoulders, and also mid-span deflection and induced pipe span. The stresses depend on span length and pipeline tension.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 47

Figure 40 Static stresses and deformations in a free spanning pipeline (Mousselli, 1981) w is submerged weight of pipeline per unit length

Subsea Pipelines

Page 48

Another scenario is that the pipeline passes over an obstruction. A schematic of the pipeline is given in Figure 41, along with dimensionless diagrams for pipeline span and maximum stress at mid-span. For this situation the span is a function of obstruction height and pipeline tension, while mid-span stresses do not depend on tension.

Figure 41 Static stress and span for pipeline passing obstruction (Mousselli, 1981)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 49

6.2. VIV
The T free spa should also be assess for VIV. Regarding V an sed VIV, the free spans mus be such th in-line and e st hat cross-low VI do not occur. Recen IV o ntly codes ha added a option w ave an which VIV is allowed to occur but t the fatigue damage has to be assessed and shown to be allowa f b able. When free s W spans occur due to seab irregula bed arities the pr resence of b bottom curre (and wav in shallo ent ves ow water) may cause dyn w y namic effects The fluid interaction with the p s. d n pipeline can cause the free span to n oscillate due to vortex shedding. Tw forms of oscillation a observed namely ine s wo f are d -line and cro oss-flow whi ich are caused by symmetr and asym ric mmetric vortex shedding as seen in Figure 42. Drag forces cause in-line g, n s VIV V and lift forces cause cross-flo VIV. As can be seen in Figure 42, for eve one cycl of pressu t ow n ery le ure oscillation n normal to th flow, tw cycles of pressure o he wo f oscillation p parallel to th flow occ he cur. Therefo ore frequency of inline VIV is approxima f f ately twice c cross-flow VI IV.

Figure 42 Vortex she edding due to steady flow a different R at Reynolds numb bers and fluct tuating pressu ures on pipe g g g vins, 1977) resulting in oscillating lift and drag forces (Blev

Subsea Pipe elines

Page 50

Generally the following tasks have to be performed in the assessment of free spans for VIV: Structural modeling Load modeling A static analysis to obtain the static configuration of the pipeline An eigen-value analysis which provides natural frequencies and corresponding modal shapes for inline and cross-flow vibrations A response analysis using a response model or force model in order to obtain the stress ranges from environmental actions It is necessary to predict if a free span is isolated or affected from adjacent spans. Generally if the shoulder length between two spans are relatively short, and also length of two adjacent spans are comparable, the two spans interact, as seen in Figure 43.

Figure 43 Classification of free spans (DNV-RP-F105, 2006)

A pipe over a short span behave like a beam (bending mode is dominant), while a pipe over a long span behaves like a cable (axial mode is dominant). Table 7 shows this classification, where L is free span length and D is pipeline diameter.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 51

Table 7 Response behavior of free span (DNV-RP-F105, 2006)

Another important parameter is the current flow velocity ratio which distinguishes between current and wave dominated flow regimes and is defined by Equation (30). Table 8 shows different regimes.

Uc Uc + Uw
(30) Table 8 Different flow regimes (DNV-RP-F105, 2006)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 52

The state of the art code for free spanning pipelines is DNV-RP-F105. This code recognizes three methods for VIV assessment, and the first one is the most commonly used: 1. Response Models approach to predict the vibration amplitudes due to vortex shedding. These response models are empirical relations between reduced velocity response amplitudes. Hence the stress response is derived from an assumed vibration mode with an empirical amplitude response. Reduced velocity is a function of still-water natural frequency and flow velocity. 2. Semi-empirical lift coefficients, or generally Force Model (Larsen, 2002). If the loading is defined, the response can be achieved from solution of governing equations. The main disadvantage is that appropriate formulations for loading especially for cross-flow VIV- do not exist. 3. As a third option, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation of the turbulent fluid flow around one or several pipes can in principle be applied for VIV assessment to overcome the inherent limitations of the state-of-practice engineering approach. The application of CFD for VIV assessment is at present severely limited by the computational effort required. In addition, documented work is lacking which shows that the estimated fatigue damage based on CFD for realistic free span scenarios gives better and satisfactory response than the methods described above. Figure 44 shows results of a CFD simulation for the case of a pipeline with a piggyback pipe.

Figure 44 CFD simulation of piggyback pipeline

Subsea Pipelines

Page 53

Natural Frequency
Natural frequencies of the span can be found using FEM including pipe-soil interaction effects, geometric non-linearities and static equilibrium conditions. Also approximate formulations are available (DNV-RPF105). The formulas are valid for single span on relatively flat seabed (almost horizontal spans), L/D is less than 140 and sagging deflection/D is less than 2.5. Also compressive axial force should be less than half the buckling load. The static deflection can be estimated as:

= C6

qL4 eff EI (1 + CSF ) 1+

1 Teff Pcr
(31)

C6 is boundary condition coefficient and is given in Table 9, and CSF is a factor accounting for stiffness of
coating. Teff is effective axial force (true axial force with consideration of in external and internal pressure effects) and Pcr is the critical buckling load. The formulations are based on fixed-fixed boundary conditions and Leff account for this. Boundary conditions are a function of shoulder soil stiffness. As this stiffness increases the conditions are more like fixed, as seen in Figure 45 ( represents soil stiffness).

Figure 45 Effective length vs. soil stiffness (DNV-RP-F105)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 54

The first eigen-frequency can be approximated by (32). For a (geometrically) linear structure, natural frequencies are a function of stiffness and mass only. For a geometrically nonlinear structure natural frequencies are dependent also upon deflection (sagging of pipe span), as can be seen in Equation (32).

EI f 1 C1 1 + CSF me L4 eff

2 Teff 1 + + C3 Pcr D

(32)

Where C1 C3 are boundary condition coefficients given in Table 9, E is Youngs modulus, I is moment of inertia and me is effective (modal) mass. Effective modal mass is defined as:

me =

m(s)
L

( s )ds

( s )ds
(33)

Where m(s) is mass per unit length of pipeline including steel and concrete coating mass, content mass and added mass, and is assumed mode shape (i.e. half wave cosine for first mode). Equation (32) predicts the eigen-frequency with 30% accuracy (DNV-G14, 1998). In this Equation, the three terms in the parentheses represent bending, axial and sagging effects respectively (Bruschi & Vitali, 1991).
Table 9 Boundary conditions coefficients (DNV-RP-F105, 2006)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 55

Important Parameters for VIV

VIV response depends on these parameters (Blevins, 1977): Reduced velocity: as a structure vibrates in a flow, it traces out a path. For steady vibrations the path length normalized by diameter is termed reduced velocity:

VR =

Uc + U w fn D
(34)

Reynolds number:

Re =

UcD

(35)

Kinematic viscosity () is defined as ratio of viscosity to density. Keulegan-Carpenter Number:

KC =

Uw fwD
(36)

Damping factor: dependant on ratio of energy dissipated by the structure per cycle over total energy of structure. A non-dimensional parameter named reduced damping or stability parameter is used instead:

Ks =

4m e T

D 2
(37)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 56

Response Models
Amplitude response models are empirical models providing the maximum steady state VIV amplitude response as a function of basic hydrodynamic and structural parameters mentioned above. The response models are based on experimental laboratory test data and full-scale tests. Figure 46 shows a curve relating reduced velocity (Equation 19) to maximum in-line VIV amplitude. As with an SDOF system, increasing the damping (which increases stability parameter Ks (Equation 22)) reduces the vibration amplitude.

Figure 46 Illustration of the in-line VIV Response Amplitude versus VR and KS (DNV-RP-F105, 2006)

The effect of flow regime (Table 8) is included with a correction factor applied to stress range. In-line VIV stress range is calculated as:

A S IL = 2 AIL Y , IL D

(38)

Where the correction factor for current flow ratio is defined as:
< 0.5
0.5 < < 0.8

, IL = ( 0.5) / 0.3
1.0

0.0

for for for

> 0.8
(39)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 57

Equation (39) shows that for wave dominant flow regimes (according to Table 8), in-line VIV is negligible or does not occur. For cross-flow VIV, Figure 47 can be used to relate reduced velocity VR to maximum vibration amplitude.

Figure 47 Illustration of the cross-flow VIV Response Amplitude versus VR (DNV-RP-F105)

Cross-flow VIV stress range can be calculated as:

A S CF = 2 ACF Z R k D

(40)

The effect of damping is included via the amplitude reduction factor Rk:
1 0 .15 K s Rk = 1.5 3 . 2 K s Ks 4 Ks > 4

(41)

Fatigue Criteria
Having calculated the stress for each sea state (for example by using the above mentioned Response model), the fatigue damage can be calculated by using S-N curves. An S-N curve gives the number of cycles required for failure of a structure (N) for a given stress range (S). Three methods are available for generating an S-N curve: 1. Dedicated laboratory test data 2. Accepted fracture mechanics theory 3. Use of codes

Subsea Pipelines

Page 58

DNV-RP-F105 (2006) gives the following formulation for S-N curves:

a1 S m1 N = a 2 S m2

S > S SW S S SW
(42)

a1 and a2 are characteristic fatigue strength constant defined as the mean minus two standard deviation
curve. SSW is stress at intersection of the two S-N curves, defined by:
log a1 log N SW m1

S SW = 10

Where NSW is the number of cycles for which change in slope appear. Log NSW is typically 6-7. By plotting Equation (42) in a logarithmic plane, a bi-linear curve is obtained in which m1 and m2 are the slopes of each segment. Figure 48 shows a typical two-slope S-N curve. Log NSW is typically 6-7.

Figure 48 Typical two-slope S-N curve (DNV-RP-F105, 2006)

For a given sea state number i, the stress range, number of cycles (ni) and number of cycles to failure (Ni, from S-N curve) are known. The accumulated fatigue damage of different sea states during the pipelines life can be evaluated using the Palmgren-Miner law (DNV-RP-F105, 2006) with Equation (43), which states that fatigue damage due to each individual stress range can be summed up to give the total damage D. the value D = 1 is equivalent to fatigue failure:

Subsea Pipelines

Page 59

D fat =

ni Ni
(43)

Where:

ni = Pi Tlife f v , i N i = aS i m
By equating Equation (43) equal to unity, the fatigue life capacity, Tlife, is formally expressed as (DNV-RPF105):

Tlife =

f v ,i

1 S im P (i ) a
(44)

The fatigue life is the minimum of the in-line and cross-flow fatigue lives. The design life, Td, should be less than Fatigue life. Various codes give safety factors. The general equation is as follows:

Td fat Tlife
(45)

DNV-RP-F105 (2006) defines the safety factor fat as 1.0, 0.5 and 0.25 for Low, Normal and High safety classes respectively. On the other hand API-RP-1111 (1999) defines the safety factor as 0.1. The difference between the numbers is because DNV uses partial safety factors for VIV.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 60

On-going Research
Recently, it has been shown that in-line and cross-flow vibrations are not independent (Fernes and Berntsen, 2003). Excitation in a cross flow mode shape might lead to in line excitations and vice versa. Fernes and Berntsen (2003) have approached by a Force Model technique. A general geometricallynonlinear beam-cable with additional local damping and stiffness (which can be used to model shoulder soil) is formulated, as seen in Figure 49. The governing equation of motion is given in Equation (46)

Figure 49 Schematic diagram of free span pipelines with additional local stiffness and damping (Fernes and Berntsen, 2003)

r r 4 r r r + EI 4 T ( x a ) kr ( x a ) M + R1 = F + Gi R 2 t t t x x t x
(46)

Where:

M is mass, r is deflection vector (y and z components, r = ry + irz), T is tension, F is hydrodynamic forces

calculated by Morrisons equation, G is submerged weight per unit length, i is imaginary unit, R1 and R2 are global and local damping respectively, k is local stiffness and is Kronecker delta function. The above partial differential equation has two sources of non-linearity: time dependency of tension and hydrodynamic forces. At any instant, tension can be calculated as:

T = T0 + EA
Where:

SL L

T0 is the residual lay tension, L is initial length and S is elongated length, calculated from:

ds dr = 1+ dx dx

Equation (46) is solved using the Fourier Sine Transform technique (Fernes and Berntsen, 2003), (Kreyszig, 1993). Coupling of cross-flow and in-line mode shapes can be investigated using this model. As an example, Subsea Pipelines Page 61

a unit diameter in-line second mode shape is imposed as initial condition (ry). The coupling of cross-flow mode shape (rz) is observed, as seen in Figure 50.

Figure 50 - Motions due to a prescribed second mode inline deflection. (C) Time series of ry/D close to an antinode. (D) Time series of rz/D close to an antinode. (Bottom panels) Countours of time evolution of ry/D and rz/D. (Fernes and Berntsen, 2003)

An example trajectory of a point on a pipeline free span is generally 8 shaped; as seen in Figure 51.

Figure 51 - Combined in-line and cross flow motion of a pipeline section (Fernes and Berntsen, 2003)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 62

7. Installation of Subsea Pipelines

There are four methods for installing pipelines on the seabed, namely S-lay, J-lay, Reel-lay and Tow. J-lay and S-lay methods are schematically shown in Figure 52 and Figure 53 respectively. The shape of the suspended pipeline from lay barge to seabed justifies the corresponding name. In the reel-lay method, the pipeline is spooled around one or more spools and un-spooled during offshore works. The unspoiled pipeline departs the vessel in an S-lay or J-lay shape depending on the vessel method employed. In the J-lay method the pipeline departure angle is large. This geometrical condition results in a single curvature for the pipeline, or J-shape. On the other hand, the departure angle in the S-lay method is smaller and therefore the pipeline has a double curvature, or S-shape.

Figure 52 Schematic of S-lay method for pipelaying (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 63

Figure 53 Schematic of J-lay method for pipelaying (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Apart from the tow method, the three other ones require a lay-barge that can store line-pipe onboard, and also additional supply barges as required. The lay-barge needs to be positioned in a specific position for some time during the laying operation. Generally two methods exist for station-keeping: Mooring and anchoring Dynamic Positioning System (DPS)

There are two mooring types, namely taut and catenary which are shown in Figure 54 and Figure 55 respectively. The taut system withstands the environmental forces acting on lay-barge with its axial stiffness. Taut mooring can be made of steel cables or nylon ropes. Taut mooring is suitable for shallow waters. The catenary mooring withstands forces by its weight. Catenary moorings can be made of chains, and are mainly used in deep waters but by using intermediate buoys they can be used in shallow waters too. Moorings are not effective regarding angular motions of the vessel, namely roll, pitch and heave.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 64

Figure 54 Taut mooring system

Figure 55 Catenary mooring system

A DPS vessel has thrusters in every direction. It has sensors which sense the environmental forces acting on the vessel. Based upon the magnitude of environmental forces sensed, the thrusters are activated and exert a force opposite that of environmental ones, and thus the vessel achieves relative positioning. It should be noted that accuracy of DPS is generally less than mooring, but for ultra deep waters, DPS is the only option.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 65

Any unexpected movement away from the planned laying route may severely bend the pipeline either in a sag-bend or in an over-bend and the pipe may buckle or kink, therefore station-keeping is very important during pipelaying. A DPS lay-barge has substantial advantages in deepwater (e.g. 100 ft and deeper). At shallower depths, a DPS lay-barge has disadvantages which are uncompensated. In shallow water any motion of the vessel other than the prescribed forward motion, if unrestrained, can damage the pipe. It is apparent that engines of substantial size are required to limit the control vessel motions with this high accuracy. At greater depths the pipe assumes a nearly vertical attitude as it sags to bottom. Consequently, the lay-barge has greater freedom of movement before the pipe is endangered. A combined station-keeping method was patented in 1973 (Langner, 1973) which utilizes both DPS and anchoring: lateral positioning is done via moorings and longitudinal positioning is achieved via thrusters, as seen in Figure 56.

Figure 56 Combined station-keeping method for intermediate water depths (Langner, 1973)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 66

Regarding the new strain based design method of pipelines, strain and stress concentrations during offshore installations have to be carefully considered. For example a new (and faster) installation method for pipe-inpipe welding is as follows: Typically two offshore welds are required for connecting two pipe-in-pipe joints together (i.e. one for inner and one for outer pipe). In the new technique the outer pipe is swaged and fillet welded to inner pipe onshore, and only one offshore weld is required for welding two inner pipes together. A sleeve is slided over the connection area. These types of innovative techniques have to be carefully examined regarding stress and strain concentrations. Dixon et al. (2003) performed a FEM analysis of the mentioned connections. They have found different locations of stress concentration for J-lay and S-lay, as seen in Figure 57.

Figure 57 Location of stress concentration in sleeve connection, Top: J-lay, Bottom: S-lay (Dixon et al. 2003)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 67

7.1. J-lay
The J-lay installation method is a relatively new type of installation method specifically aimed at deepwater and ultra-deepwater projects. This method is characterized by a steep ramp, typically 65 deg or higher departure angle, therefore the pipeline has a suspended J-shape. Figure 58 shows a J-lay vessel laying pipe with the aid of a side tower. During J-lay, the stresses and strains close to the top and the horizontal tension component and also the horizontal tension at the seabed are minimized. The advantages and disadvantages of the J-lay method are described in Table 10.
Table 10 Advantages and disadvantages of J-lay (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Adv. Adv. Adv. Adv. Adv. Disadv. Disadv. Disadv.

Best suited for ultra deepwater pipeline installation. Suited for all diameters. Smallest bottom tension of all methods, which leads to the smallest route radius, and allows more flexibility for route layout. This may be important in congested areas. Touchdown point is relatively closer to vessel, thus easier to monitor and position. Can typically handle in-line appurtenances with relative ease, with respect to landing on the seabed, but within the constraints of the J-lay tower. Regarding the near vertical ramp, fewer welding stations are available, typically one or two. Therefore the laying rate is generally less than S-lay. Some vessels require the use of J-lay collars to hold the pipe (as mentioned in section 4.4. Buckle Propagation, these collars may be used as buckle arrestors too). If shallower water pipeline installation is required in the same route, the J-lay must be lowered to a less steep angle. Even then, depending on the water depth, it may be not feasible to J-lay the shallow end with a particular vessel and a dual (J-lay/S-lay) installation may be required.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 68

Figure 58 Heerema's balder in J-lay mode (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

In order to assess the pipeline structural integrity during any installation method where the pipeline is suspended from the vessel to the seabed, a structural analysis by FEM method has to be performed. A FEM package has to be used. Depending on the degree of accuracy required, several aspects have to be modeled namely: Geometrical nonlinearity Material nonlinearity: the pipeline in the sagbend and overbend usually undergoes plastic deformations Material anisotropy: the new higher grade carbon steels which are being developed (e.g. X80 and above and Duplex) are anisotropic; the yield stress and modulus of elasticity may be different in hoop and longitudinal directions Seabed soil: the seabed soil serves as an elastic foundation for the pipeline. Also the seabed resists horizontal and longitudinal pipeline movement with friction. The seabed also damps the vibrations of the suspended span Effect of wave and current forces on the suspended pipeline Effect of wave, current and wind forces on lay-barge which induce movement of top of suspended pipeline. Some researchers in the early 90s have addressed this topic namely Vlahpoulos et al. (1990), Clauss et al. (1991) and Clauss et al. (1992). All these researches neglect the Material nonlinearity and material anisotropy. It should be noted that these researches are basically two uncoupled analyses: Subsea Pipelines Page 69

First, analysis of the vessel motions from a seaway neglecting effect of pipeline on vessel motions which can be done using standard packages (e.g. WAMIT, ANSYS AQUA, MOSES, etc). Result is the time history of stinger motions, which is used as input boundary condition for the second analysis. Second, analysis of a geometrically non-linear beam-column moving in fluid (which is subjected to boundary condition derived from first analysis The results of an analysis of this kind, including motions of the suspended pipeline, dynamic stresses and dynamic tension range are shown in Figure 59.

Figure 59 Dynamics of pipelines during laying: motion, dynamic stresses and tension for different wave periods (Clauss et al. 1991)

Subsea Pipelines

Page 70

General FEM packages such as ABAQUS and ANSYS can be used for this means. Other packages are also available which are specifically aimed at subsea pipelines, the oldest and most common one being OFFPIPE (www.offpipe.com). The goal of the installation analysis is to check the wall thickness of the pipeline, the top tension required during installation and seabed tension. The top tension has to be checked with capacity of lay-barge tensioners. The tensioner force is equal to the submerged weight of the suspended span minus seabed tension. Some modeling features of OFFPIPE are as follows: Dynamic analysis capability, lay-barge RAOs (Response Amplitude Operators) and regular wave or wave spectrum can be specified, the resulting vessel motions are incorporated in the analysis. The finite element method considers both geometric (large displacement) and material (nonlinear stress-strain curve) non-linearities. Provides a detailed model of the lay-barge and a simplified structural model of the stinger which includes the effects of the ballast schedule and hinges between stinger sections. Includes detailed pipe support models, which can include angled horizontal and vertical rollers, overhead restraints and finite length roller beds. The seabed is modeled as a continuous elastic-plastic foundation (not a series of point supports). The lateral soil resistance is bilinear, elastic for small horizontal displacements and frictional for large displacements. OFFPIPE uses the Ramberg-Osgood material model, expressed as:

M M = + A M Ky My y

Where:

Ky = My =

2S y ED 2 IS y D

A = Ramberg-Osgood equation coefficient B = Ramberg-Osgood equation exponent

In lieu of the detailed analysis mentioned above which is required for the detail design stage of a projectpreliminary analysis using the stiffened catenary equations can be used. The original catenary equations consider only tension in the line. By modifying the original catenary equations to include the effect of bending stiffness, the stiffened catenary equations result. These equations yield very accurate for the J-lay configuration (Langner, 1984) and the output is top and bottom tension and pipeline stresses and strains, therefore a preliminary check of wall thickness and vessel tensioner can be done.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 71

7.2. S-lay
The majority of offshore pipelines are installed using S-lay. For shallow waters the stinger and departure angle are near horizontal. Recently S-lay vessels configuration is modified such that the stinger can reach very steep angles of departure, which enables it to operate in deeper waters. This method is termed steep S-lay. An S-lay vessel is seen in Figure 60.

Figure 60 A typical S-lay Vessel (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

All offshore welding is done with the pipe in a horizontal position; therefore S-lay is very efficient compared to J-lay. The main advantages and disadvantages of S-lay are given in Table 11.
Table 11 Advantages and disadvantages of S-lay (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005)

Adv. Adv. Adv/Disadv. Disadv. Disadv. Disadv.

All welds are done in horizontal position, making for efficient productivity of multiple welding stations (typically 5-6). Suited for all diameters. Can typically handle smaller, more compact in-line appurtenances with ease, but larger inline structures may be too large to go through the stinger. Buckle arrestors will induce concentrated higher strains in their vicinity within the stinger Typically, pipeline will twist (rotate axially) during installation. Bai (2000) describe this phenomenon as a result of plastic strains. Requires a very high component of horizontal tension.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 72

7.3. Reel lay

Reel-lay is a method of installing pipelines from a giant reel mounted on the lay-barge. Pipelines are assembled at an offshore spool-base facility and spooled onto a reel which is mounted on the deck of a laybarge, as seen in Figure 61. Reel-lay was first patented in USA in 1968.

Figure 61 A reel vessel (Guo et al. 2005)

Reeled pipelines can be installed up to 10 times faster than conventional pipelay. The greater speed allows pipelines to be laid during shorter weather windows. Reel-lay can be used for pipelines up to 18 inches in diameter. The reel can be either horizontal or vertical. Horizontal reel vessels lay pipelines in shallow to intermediate water depths using a stinger and S-lay. The vertical reel-lay vessel is used for intermediate to deep waters. The main advantages and disadvantages of real-lay are given in Table 12.
Table 12 Advantages and disadvantages of Reel-lay (Nogueira & Mckeehan, 2005) & (Guo et al. 2005)

Adv. Adv/Disadv. Adv. Disadv.

Almost all welds are done onshore, minimizing offshore welding. Well suited for smaller diameter lines and smaller D/t ratios. Maximum diameter is 18 inches. If all pipeline can be stored on-board, a very fast installation campaign is achieved, making this method very cost effective. If the route is too long or the diameter is too large, all the pipes may not be able to be stored on-board and a number of recharging trips to the spooling base may be necessary to reload, thus offsetting the high lay rate.

Disadv.

Very high pipeline strains (3-5%) are applied to the pipeline. also the pipeline is plastically deformed and then straightened. Some thinning of the wall and loss of yield strength of the material in localized areas can occur (Bauschinger effect)

Disadv. Disadv. Disadv. Disadv. Disadv.

Due to high strains, welding methods and acceptance criteria are more stringent. Pipeline will rotate during installation and may coil on the seafloor Inline structures are typically more difficult to handle and install. Concrete coated pipelines cannot be reeled. Only specifically designed pipe-in-pipe pipelines can be reealed. Page 73

Subsea Pipelines

7.4. Towed Pipelines

In this installation method, the pipeline is constructed onshore and towed into place, as illustrated in Figure 62. There are different ways to tow the pipeline string to site: surface tow, mid-depth tow or bottom tow. In the surface tow the pipe is positively buoyant, towed to location on the surface, and sunk in position by flooding. Wave action is a factor; therefore this method is used typically where rough seas are not likely. In the mid-depth tow typically the pipe or pipe bundle is negatively buoyant, suspended above the seabed and towed by a lead tug with a tail tug at the end of the pipe string. If the pipe is positively buoyant, mid-depth tow may be achieved by incorporating the use of drag chains at specified intervals along the pipe string, so that the pipe string assumes an equilibrium position above the seabed. For the bottom tow method, the pipeline rests on the seabed, and a tug pulls it.

Figure 62 Schematic of towed pipeline (Bai, 2000)

The length of the towed string is limited to about ten miles in the most favorable conditions. The tow methods are challenging due to the effects of the environment such as waves action, oscillations during pull or abrasive effects of the seabed during bottom tow. However, the onshore construction may significantly reduce cost when compared to the installation methods described in the previous sections. Several failures of pipe bundles during tow attest to the precautions that the offshore pipeline engineer must take when using the tow method of installation.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 74

7.5. Shore Approach

The methods mentioned above may not be able to install the subsea pipeline as it approaches very shallow waters and the shore. Three methods exist: Float and sink, illustrated in Figure 63:

Figure 63 Float and sink method used for shore approach installation

Bottom pull method: the pipeline is pulled from shore to sea, illustrated in Figure 64. The required roller tracks installed onshore are seen in Figure 65:

Figure 64 Bottom pull method used for pipeline shore approach

Figure 65 - Bottom pull method; launching roller track

Subsea Pipelines

Page 75

Directional drilling method: the pipeline is drilled from shore under the seabed to a point where water depth is sufficient, as illustrated in Figure 66:

Figure 66 Directional drilling method for pipeline shore approach

Subsea Pipelines

Page 76

7.6. Wet vs Dry Pipeline Installation

Conventional design in deep water requires the pipeline to withstand hydrostatic pressure of the sea, because the pipeline is normally installed air-filled (dry). Collapse under external pressure usually governs the establishment of wall thickness, and the calculated wall thickness is very large. In the design studies of Oman-to-India pipeline in maximum depths of 3000 m, for example, experimental and analytical studies indicate that the required minimum wall thickness is well over 30 mm even for modest diameters of 20 and 26 inches (Palmer, 1998). These wall thicknesses burden the economic feasibility of projects attractive on other grounds. Once the pipeline is in service, the internal pressure during operation is almost invariably higher than the external pressure. 2000 m of seawater corresponds to 20 MPa: most flowlines operate at higher pressure than this, because if the internal pressure were less than the external hydrostatic pressure the produced fluid would normally go back down the hole. The conclusion is that:

Most of the wall thickness of a conventionally designed pipeline is only required while the pipe is being laid. In a real sense, the additional steel required to resist external pressure during laying is wasted.
Generally, two methods are available for installing the pipeline: Air filled (dry) Liquid filled (wet)

The advantage of air-filled installation is reduced submerged weight which results in lower force required by vessel tensioner, and as mentioned above the biggest disadvantage is large wall thickness required to withstand external pressure. On the other hand in the liquid filled technique, the submerged weight is higher, but internal and external pressure counter act and wall required thickness is not governed by external pressure. In shallow water this is true. In ultra deep water it is no longer true, if we take advantage of the reduced wall thickness that wet installation grants. Also wet laying enhances on-bottom stability immediately after installation. Alternative liquids might have advantages for wet installation. A lighter liquid fill reduces the submerged weight. Pentane (626.2 kg/cu.m), Methanol (791 kg/cu.m), Gasoline and water have been used for installation. If the pipeline is filled with lighter liquids the external and internal pressures dont counter act completely, and the pipeline has to be designed for the pressure difference. The advantage of wet installation in ultra deep waters is illustrated in the following example: An X65 steel pipeline with D = 660.4 (26 inch) is designed for the worst of the following two cases: The pipeline must withstand an operating gauge pressure of 20 MPa The pipeline must withstand the difference between external and internal pressure The required wall thickness for different depths is shown in Figure 67. It is seen that liquid filling reduces the required wall thickness substantially.

Subsea Pipelines

Page 77

Figure 67 Comparison of design strategies for 660.4 mm (26 inch) pipeline: wall thickness as a function of depth (Palmer, 1998)

The pipeline submerged weight (which has to be in the range of vessels tensioner capacity) is shown in Figure 68. In water depths up to about 1000 m, the pipeline designed and constructed air filled is lighter during construction than the liquid filled one, as would be expected. However if the depth exceeds 2700 m, the pentane filled procedure gives a submerged weight during construction smaller than air filled. At these ultra deep waters, a liquid filled installation allows large reductions in wall thickness without any penalty in submerged weight.

Figure 68 Comparison of design strategies for 660.4 mm (26 inch) pipeline: submerged weight in laying condition as a function of depth (Palmer, 1998)

The liquid filled strategy clearly allows huge reductions in the cost of steel. In the above example and a maximum depth of 3000 m, air filled installation has a steel weight of 566 kg/m, whereas pentane filled requires 367 kg/m and water filled requires 216 kg/m. for a 1000 km pipeline the reduction in tonnage of steel with Pentane fill is therefore 200000 tonnes, which at a round figure of $1000/tonne corresponds to a saving of 200 M$. Subsea Pipelines Page 78

References
1. ABS (2006), Guide for Building and Classing Subsea Pipeline Systems, American Bureau of Shipping 2. AGA (1993), Submarine Pipeline On-bottom Stability, American Gas Asociation 3. API-5L (2000), Specification for Line Pipe, 42nd Edition, American Petroleum Institute 4. API-RP-1111 (1999), Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design), 3rd Edition, American Petroleum Institute 5. API-RP-2A (2000), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Working Stress Design, 21st Edition, American Petroleum Institute 6. Bai, Y. (2001), Pipelines and Risers, 1st Edition, Elsevier Ltd 7. Blevins, R.D. (1977), Flow-Induced Vibration, 1st Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company 8. Bruschi and Vitali (1991), Large-Amplitude Oscillations of Geometrically Nonlinear Elastic Beams Subjected to Hydrodynamic Excitation, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 113 9. Bryndum, M.B. et al. (1983), Hydrodynamic Forces from Wave and Current Loads on Marine Pipelines, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 4454 10. Bryndum, M.B. et al. (1992), Hydrodynamic Forces on Pipelines: Model Tests, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 114 11. Chakrabarti, S. et al. (2005), Historical Developments of Offshore Structures, Chapter 1 in Handbook of Offshore Engineering, S. Chakrabarti (Ed.), Elsevier Ltd 12. Clauss et al. (1991), Offshore Pipe Laying Significance of Dynamic Stresses and Motions During Laying Operations, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6760 13. Clauss et al. (1992), Offshore Pipe Laying Operations Interaction of Vessel Motions & Pipeline Dynamic Stresses, Applied Ocean Research, Vol 14, No 3 14. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Part 250, Subpart J (2002). Part 250 - oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf, subpart J - pipelines and pipeline rights-of-way. 7-01-02 Ed., U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 15. Dixon et al. (2003), Deepwater Installation Techniques for Pipe-in-Pipe Systems Incorporating Plastic Strains, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 15373 16. DNV-CN-30.5 (1991), Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads, Det Norske Veritas 17. DNV-G14 (1998), Guideline No.14, Free Spanning Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas 18. DNV-OS-F101 (2000), Offshore Standard, Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas 19. DNV-OS-J101 (2004), Offshore Standard, Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures, Det Norske Veritas

Subsea Pipelines

Page 79

20. DNV-RP-F105 (2006), Recommended Practice, Free Spanning Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas 21. Fatemi, A. (2007), Computational Parametric study of Energy Pipes Subject to Combined State of Loading, Masters Thesis, Dalhousie University 22. Fernes and Berntsen (2003), On the Response of a Free Span Pipeline Subjected to Ocean Currents, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 30, pp.1553-1577 23. Fyrileiv, O. et al. (2005), influence of Pressure in Pipeline Design Effective Axial Force, Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2005-67502 24. Guo et al. (2005), Offshore Pipelines, 1st Edition, Elsevier Ltd 25. Kenny, S. (2007), Subsea Pipeline Engineering, Lecture Notes 26. Kreyszig, E. (1993), Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 7th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 27. Kyriakides, S. and Lee, L.H. (2005), Buckle Propagation in Confined Steel Tubes, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 47 (2005) 603620 28. Langner, G. C. (1973), Mooring System for Pipelaying Barges, United State Patent 3715890 29. Langner, G. C. (1984), Relationships for Deepwater Suspended Pipe Spans Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 30. Langner, G.C. (1999), Buckle Arrestors for Deepwater Pipelines, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 10711 31. Larsen et al. (2002), Frequency and Time Domain Analysis of Vortex Induced Vibrations for Free Span Pipelines, Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2002-28064 32. Mousselli, A. (1981), Offshore Pipeline Design, Analysis and Methods, ISBN 0-87814-156-1 33. Murphey and Langner (1985), Ultimate Pipe Strength Under Bending, Collapse, and Fatigue, Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 34. Nielsen et al. (1978), Some Aspects of Marine Pipeline Analysis, Ch.17 of book Numerical Methods in Offshore Engineering, Editors Zienkiewicz, Lewis, Stag 35. Nogueira, A. C. and Mckeehan, D. S. (2005), Design and Construction of Offshore Pipelines, Chapter 11 in Handbook of Offshore Engineering, S. Chakrabarti (Ed.), Elsevier Ltd 36. Palmer, A. (1998), A Radical Alternative Approach to Design and Construction of Pipelines in Deep Water, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8670 37. Soreide et al. (2001), Parameter Study of Long Free Spans, Proceedings of ISOPE 2001 38. Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. (1961), Theory of Elastic Stability, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill International Book Company 39. Vlahpoulos et al. (1990), Three Dimensional Nonlinear Dynamics of Pipe Laying, Applied Ocean Research, Vol 12, No 3 Subsea Pipelines Page 80