Proceedings of the Eleventh (2001) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Stavanger, Norway, June 17-22, 2001

Copyright 2001 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1-880653-51-6 (Set); ISBN 1-880653-53-2 (Vol. 11); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Dynamic Versus Static Lateral Buckling of Subsea Pipelines

T. Sriskandarajah, P. Ragupathy and R. Wilkins Halliburton Brown and Root / Granheme Ltd. Leatherhead, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT The current demand for hydrocarbon products has led to the development of High Pressure / High Temperature (HP/HT) reservoirs previously thought to be uneconomical. These marginal fields are usually developed via satellite wells tied back to existing processing facilities. For long tiebacks to HP/HT wells, where HIPPS are not employed, pipeline systems needs to be designed for full wellhead shutin pressures. Pipelines left un-trenched on the seabed surface are susceptible to lateral buckling under operating conditions. Lateral buckling (or snaking) of subsea pipelines represents a stability problem that is amenable to solution by numerical methods, such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Two different approaches have been adopted in the application of FEA to lateral buckling of subsea pipelines: non-linear static and implicit dynamic analysis. An overview of lateral buckling is presented, including the merits and limitation of analytical and numerical methods. The cause and effect of initial imperfections is examined as well as methods of including imperfections within an analysis. Numerical methods are investigated in terms of local and global modelling techniques and the effects of 'feedin' to a buckle location are discussed. Static and dynamic solutions to FEA are investigated in terms of solution accuracy and numerical stability. An example of a typical pipeline section subjected to functional loading and prone to lateral buckling is included. The results from static and dynamic solutions, including the effects of fishing gear interaction, are compared in terms of lateral displacements due to temperature and pressure loading. The merits of the different solution techniques are examined in terms of accuracy and numerical stability. The effects of initial imperfections due to pipelay on the type of analysis adopted for lateral buckling are also discussed. Keywords: Subsea Pipelines; Lateral Buckling; Finite Element Analysis, Fishing Gear Interaction, Pullover INTRODUCTION The current demand for hydrocarbon products and the recent advances in technology have meant that reservoirs previously thought to be 185

uneconomical are now being considered for development. The exploitation and recovery of hydrocarbons from high pressure / high temperature (HP/HT) reservoirs require special consideration in the design of pipeline systems. In the past decade the world economic situation has lead to an increasing drive to reduce the cost of oil production. The CRINE (Cost Reduction in the New Era) and the LOGIC (Leading Oil and Gas Industry Co-operation) initiatives were instigated by industry in a continuing effort to bring down costs of oil production. In the North Sea it has been the practice to trench or bury subsea pipelines less than 16" diameter to afford protection from the effects of third party activities. The emergence of recent guidelines for fishing interaction has lead to the possibility of pipelines below 16" diameter being left un-trenched on the seabed surface. These surfacelaid pipelines are susceptible to the combined effects of lateral buckling and fishing gear interaction under operating conditions of temperature and pressure. Lateral buckling (or snaking) of subsea pipelines represents a stability problem where it is necessary to pass a limit point under load control. These type of bifurcation problems are amenable to solution by numerical methods, such as the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) as they enable the systematic modelling of variations in temperature profile, non-linear material properties, large displacement theory and non-linear pipe/soil interaction. The lateral stability of a pipeline resting on the seabed depends on the soil friction, the pipeline submerged weight, the presence of initial imperfections and any additional stability provided by rockdump or other protection. The two commonly used approaches to lateral buckling analysis are: (i) Static Analysis

(ii) Dynamic Analysis The first, more widely used, is that of non-linear static analysis whereby a predictor-corrector method is used to determine the equilibrium configuration of the pipeline. The effective axial driving force due to thermal and pressure loading is applied to a pipeline with an initial out-of-straightness. The advantage of this method is that the effect of pipeline breakout due to realistic initial imperfections may be

modelled. The disadvantage lies in the numerical difficulties associated with guiding the solution past a bifurcation or limit point. The second approach is that of dynamic analysis where functional loads due to temperature and pressure are applied over a short time interval. An initial out-of-straightness may be included to initiate buckling, or buckling may be initiated by modelling the effects of fishing gear interaction with the pipeline. The advantages of the this approach are that it is numerically far easier to obtain a solution from a dynamic analysis than in the case of a static analysis as inertia and damping effects help to control the solution. This paper examines the merits and limitations of static and dynamic lateral buckling, including fishing gear interaction effects in terms of solution accuracy and numerical stability. The effects of initial imperfections due to pipelay on the type of analysis adopted for lateral buckling are also discussed. ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING The term lateral buckling refers to the snaking or sideways movement of a pipeline resting on the seabed as thermal and pressure effects are mobilised. The effective axial compressive driving force, Pee~ of a pipeline under full axial constraint, given by: Peff=EAs~AT where: E As t~ AT v Pl A~ Pe A~ t RT D represents the modulus of elasticity is cross sectional area of the pipe wall is the coefficient of linear expansion is the temperature increase is Poisson's ratio is the internal pressure is the area based on inside pipe diameter is the internal pressure is the area based on outside pipe diameter is the wall thickness is the residual lay tension is the nominal outer diameter vPiDAs +PiAi-PeAe-RT 2t (1)

The amplitude and wavelength of initial imperfections together with the functional loading and soil parameters are key factors in the prediction of the onset of lateral buckling. Initial imperfections may be introduced into an analysis in the following ways:

1.

Initial Displacements: imperfections are introduced by means of

prescribed displacements. These may be used to model imperfections due to uneven seabed. Imperfections due to pipelay barge motion may be modelled this way, but require an initial dynamic pipelay analysis to determine the amplitude and wavelength of the imperfection (Sriskandarajah, 1999).

2.

Laterally Applied Forces: initial imperfections may also be

introduced by means of a lateral force applied at the location of the buckle. The value of the applied lateral force needs to be significantly less than force driving the buckling so as not to have any effect on the results of the buckling load.

3.

Third Party Activity: modelling of fishing gear interaction or anchor activity by application of a dynamic applied force. In this case, the lateral buckling is implicitly included within the analysis.

In combining the effects of fishing gear interaction with those of lateral buckling it is necessary to consider the release of thermal energy due to temperature and pressure on the feed-in to the buckle location. DnV (1997) provides guidance on the methods combining the effects and presents the following scenarios: 1. A pipeline with negligible axial force. This represents the case where thermal and pressure strain energy has been released. Typically, this occurs where lateral buckling has taken place prior to fishing interaction. A pipeline in which some of the effective axial force has been released prior to the fishing interaction. There is, however, still some thermal energy available within the pipeline that will be released during the fishing interaction event. A pipeline in which all of the compressive thermal energy remains locked-in prior to the fishing gear interaction event. This represents the most onerous case when considering lateral buckling. All of the thermal and pressure energy is considered available for contributing to the potential feed-in as the lateral buckling takes place.

2.

3.

A pipeline in an initially straight configuration will show no tendency to buckle, either laterally or vertically. If an axial load is applied to a perfectly straight pipeline then the failure mode will be by material yielding. This phenomenon is in fact a consequence of the numerical modelling adopted in the solution, and a perfectly straight pipeline represents an idealised case that does not actually occur. In practice, a pipeline resting on the seabed will have small imperfections (both vertical and lateral) which arise from a number of sources. The most common causes of initial imperfections are:

From the idealised studies on lateral buckling (Hobbs, 1984) mode 3 is considered to be the most critical mode in terms of safe temperature, Tml .. Taylor (1986b) has noted that mode 1 generates the highest stress, and in practical terms may be considered to be the most significant symmetrical lateral mode with respect to imperfection studies. It does not necessarily follow that the form of the initial imperfection is the same as that of the final buckled shape. Observations of the deformed shape during FEA studies indicate that a mode 1 initial imperfection shows a tendency to change into the mode 3 shape at the instigation of buckling. As the loading is increased into the post-buckle region then additional buckle waves form on each side on the initial buckle and the mode shape tends towards the infinity mode. ANALYTICAL METHODS Several methods of lateral buckling have been developed in order to study the effects of lateral buckling. The method of Hobbs (1984) and Hobbs and Liang (1989), which traces the equilibrium path in terms of buckle length and fully restrained axial force is considered to be the most complete, and is the most widely used. The theory is based on force equilibrium and displacement compatibility after an isolated lateral buckle has formed in a initially straight pipe. The pipeline is treated as a beam-column under axial load and the linear differential equation of the buckled portion is solved for the deflected shape. Other
186

1.

Uneven Seabed: undulations in the seabed and the presence of rock outcrops or boulders can cause Out-Of-Straightness (OOS) in pipelines. Barge Motions During Pipelay: both the lateral sway motion of
the barge during pipelay, and anchor handling/slip can result in OOS occurring in the pipeline.

2.

3.

Third Party Activity: interference from on-bottom trawl gear, Le. pullover of trawl beams and doors or anchor hooking or anchor dragging can give rise to initial lateral imperfections in a pipeline.

assumptions and restrictions are that the pipe material remains elastic and that initial imperfections are not considered. The method is also restricted to small rotations. The analytical solutions incorporate simplifying assumptions, and consequently there are certain limitations that need to be considered, mainly: The analytical solution is based on a pipeline having sufficient length to develop full axial constraint either side of the buckle location, such that axial feed-in can take place over the full slip length. The model does not, therefore, adequately model the behaviour of pipelines operating within the end expansion zones. The formulation assumes an idealised straight pipe, and takes no account of any initial imperfections that may be present in the pipeline. The theory assumes a single buckle forming in an otherwise straight pipe. In practice, multiple buckles can develop such that feed-in will not be concentrated at one location. The method is based on linear pipeline material properties, and so cannot represent the softening behaviour due to material yielding.

where: E ,% Ae ANft

represents the modulus of elasticity is the area of steel pipe is the incremental strain is the incremental change in effective axial force

Figure 1 shows a typical effective axial driving force variation along a pipeline with an exponential drop in temperature from the end expansion spool. The dotted line indicates the reduction in the effective axial force from the fully constrained value that occurs at a spool location. The slope of this line is proportional to the submerged weight and the coefficient of axial soil friction. The lower friction coefficients tend to depress this line indicating an increase in potential feed-in. Typical potential feed-in to a lateral buckle, obtained from integrating equation 2, is shown in Figure 2. As can be seen, for the example the maximum potential feed-in is located approximately 6km from the end expansion spool. The curve was obtained on the assumption that the post-buckle effective axial driving force at the buckle location reduces to zero, which is conservative. The Global Beam Model has the advantage that the feed-in effects are modelled correctly, and that the effects of shutdown and creep may be incorporated into the analysis. This has to be weighed against the disadvantage of the increased size of the analysis to be performed. The Local Beam model represents a compromise in that a solution may be obtained in a much shorter time. As it is assumed that all of the potential feed-in is mobilised then the results may be somewhat conservative.

Resort to FEA can overcome the above limitations. Non-linear material modelling, together with geometric non-linearity, initial imperfections, realistic seabed friction and temperature profiles along the pipeline can all be readily incorporated into an FEA. NUMERICAL METHODS There are several modelling approaches, based on FEA that may be adopted for the analysis of pipelines susceptible to lateral buckling.
Local Beam Model: A commonly used strategy is to adopt a local

Analysis Methods
Within the Finite Element Method itself, several approaches may be taken towards the analysis, which include static, dynamic, implicit and explicit schemes. Explicit dynamic time stepping schemes are intended for high velocity impact problems and are not suitable for lateral buckling analysis. Therefore, static and implicit dynamic solution schemes will be examined. Static Analysis A typical solution algorithm would Use an incremental/iterative Newton-Raphson solution scheme. The load is applied in increments, as the response is history dependent. However, lateral buckling represents a problem with an unstable response. Typically, there is a tendency for a pipeline to snap from the pre-buckled configuration to a stable post-buckled configuration. In a non-linear solution using the Newton-Raphson method, this represents the passing of a limit point under load control. In this case advancing the solution by incrementing the load would result in failure to obtain a solution. One way of the passing limit points that occur under lateral buckling is to use the 'arclength' method (after Crisfield, 1981 and 1983). Prior to the introduction of arc-length methods, a solution could only be obtained by either introducing some artificial damping or by switching from load to displacement control. Dynamic Analysis A non-linear dynamic analysis using implicit time integration may be used to calculate the transient response of a pipeline subjected to temperature and pressure loading. Implicit, direct time integration methods are based on satisfying the equilibrium equations at discrete time intervals, At apart. Variation of displacements, velocities and accelerations are assumed within the time interval of integration. The form of the assumption on the variation of the variables within each time interval determines the accuracy, stability and cost of the solution scheme. Integration schemes such as the Central Difference in which

modelling approach, whereby a simplified model of the complete pipeline is used to determine the generalised forces or displacements acting on the boundaries of the location of interest (i.e. the buckle area). These loads are then applied at the boundaries of a detailed model of the buckle area. A local model of the pipeline sufficient to encompass the buckle length (typically 300 - 500m) is modelled with beam elements. The effects of the compressive axial driving force are applied by prescribing the axial feed-in at the end remote from the buckle.
Global Beam Model: A s an alternative to the method described above a

global model of the complete pipeline may be constructed. Realistic boundary conditions may be simulated by including the end expansion spoolpieces and seabed friction within the model. The pipe/seabed friction is handled either via a rigid surface model using Coulomb friction or by non-linear spring elements. The effective axial force develops due to the application of temperature and pressure applied to the pipeline elements. For both models described above, it is necessary to initiate buckling by introducing an initial imperfection. Symmetry may be used in the modelling, although it should be noted that the use of symmetry boundary conditions precludes the formation of anti-symmetric buckles. The potential feed-in at any location along the pipeline is Computed as proportional to the drop in effective axial force from the fully constrained to the post-buckled value. At the apex of a buckle, the post-buckled effective axial force is conservatively assumed to drop to zero. The feed-in to a buckle (after Fyrileiv, 1996) is given by:

187

the variables at time t + At are obtained based on equilibrium at time t do not require factorisation of the stiffness matrix, and are termed explicit methods. Integration schemes such as the Houbolt and Newmark's method that are based on equilibrium at time t are termed implicit. These methods and require factorisation of the overall stiffness matrix and are therefore more computationally more expensive than the explicit methods but are unconditionally stable and therefore avoid the problems associated with explicit methods of choosing stable time steps. The basic equations for the displacement based finite element analysis may be written as: S x . 8s dV = I t T " 6v dS + IF.~Sv d V - S p i i - 5 v
V S V V

variation of mid-plane hoop strain around the pipe section. The formulation includes ovalisation modes that model collapse (or Brazier) buckling that occurs when a circular pipe section is subjected to a bending moment. These elements are considerably more complicated than comparable stress-resultant pipe elements based on constant hoop strain, which when subjected to pure bending can develop spurious hoop stress that can introduce significant errors into the results. For large displacement analysis, the non-linear contribution to the load stiffness due to internal overpressure is included, as is the end cap force that develops at the spool locations. Internal pressure is specified as acting on the inside diameter of the pipe, so as to give the correct average hoop stress across the wall thickness, and the correct effective axial force. The constitutive equations are evaluated at several stations around the pipe circumference and at locations through the wall thickness to model the spread of plasticity across the pipe section. The pipe-to-seabed interface was modelled via the ABAQUS contact algorithm. The 'softened' contact facility was used, which gives the seabed some 'flexibility', by allowing the contact between the pipe and the seabed to build up gradually. The classical Coulomb friction law was used for the pipe-seabed contact, with different friction factors in the both the axial and lateral direction. Linear elastic and post-yield plastic material properties were modelled by way of a Ramberg-Osgood
curve.

dV

(4)

where:
1:,

represents conjugate stress and strain measures represents virtual velocity represents volume represents surface represents traction force represents body force represents material density represents acceleration

8v V S t F P ii

The input data used for in the comparison analyses is given below: Pipeline OD: 406.4 mm Wall thickness: Submerged Weight: Operating Temperature: Operating Pressure: Water Depth: Pipe/Soil Friction: Pipe Material: 12.7 mm 1.32 kN/m 45 C 175barg 340m Axial: 0.6, Lateral: 0.7 AP1 5L X65

The inertia terms present in the dynamic equations, but absent in the corresponding static equations help to provide stability to the solution procedure. Friction effects may be handled via 'Dry Friction' or Coulomb damping, where the frictional force, R is proportional to the normal pressure, i.e. R = laNsign(fl) where: g N /1 represents the coefficient of friction represents the normal pressure represents velocity (5)

The choice of static or dynamic analysis is dependent on the analysis requirements in terms of accuracy and numerical stability. Non-linear static analysis of structures that exhibit 'snap through' buckling behaviour are known to be difficult to solve using a standard load controlled Newton-Raphson solution scheme. The only way to overcome the limit points under load control is to augment the solution with an additional control such as the cylindrical arc-length constraint. A dynamic analysis includes the effects of inertia and hydrodynamic damping and added mass. The question arises as to whether the additional effort in performing a dynamic analysis is warranted in terms of solution accuracy. The use of dynamic solution technique can certainly improve the overall convergence of the solution, but it can increase the solution times considerably. The example below considers a non-linear static and dynamic analysis of a typical pipeline section. EXAMPLE In order to quantify the effects of the analysis method on the lateral buckling analysis, analyses were performed on a typical pipeline section. Both the static and dynamic FEA was performed using the ABAQUS general purpose FE software (ABAQUS, 1998). The analyses were carded out using three-dimensional ELBOW31B elements. These elements, based on degenerate shell theory, permit
188

A length of 4km was modelled which, considering the symmetry boundary condition applied at the centre of the imperfection, represents a total length of 8 km of pipeline. This represents sufficient length of pipeline to allow for potential feed-in to the buckled area. For the purposes of this analysis, a constant temperature was assumed along the pipeline. Symmetry boundary conditions were applied at the centre point of the imperfection. The following analyses were performed: A. Non-linear Static with initial imperfection introduced via prescribed displacements. Load control using Riks arc-length constraint (Crisfield, 1981 and 1983). Dynamic analysis with functional loads (temperature and pressure) applied over time. Initial imperfection introduced by prescribed displacements. Dynamic analysis of trawl gear pullover with laterally applied force-time history to model the trawl gear loads via an implicit non-linear solution algorithm. The pullover loads were applied over a time step of is.

B.

C.

AnalTtical Solution: The equilibrium curve for the above example based on the analytical solution of Hobbs (1984) is shown in Figure 3. The curve shows that lateral buckling is not a problem below an effective axial force of 1150kN, which corresponds to a temperature increase of approximately 16C. Above this temperature, the curve predicts the buckle length that will form for a given effective axial driving force.

Solution A: non-linear Static Analysis based on Riks Method: The results of the non-linear static analysis with initial imperfection introduced via prescribed displacements are shown in Figure 4. Three different initial imperfections were used in the analysis in order to obtain the equilibrium curves, with imperfection ratios ranging from 0.005 to 0.01. The analysis was performed using the Riks arc-length solution control, with a reference temperature of 45C. As can be seen from the figure, the initial imperfection ratio has a marked affect on the temperature at which the lateral buckling is initiated, but has far less effect on final equilibrium position. Solution B: non-linear Dynamic Analysis based on Implicit Integration The results of the non-linear dynamic analysis with initial imperfection ratio of 0.0075 are shown in Figure 5. The temperature loading of 45C was input over a time interval of 10s. The figure shows the lateral displacements for damping ratios of 0.05, 0.010 and 0.015. It is evident from the graph that the viscous damping introduced to stabilise the solution by damping out spurious oscillations has little effect on the final lateral displacements. A change in viscous damper from 0.05 to 0. i 0 N/mm/s resulted in a reduction of lateral displacement of only 3% of the total displacement. Solution C: non-linear Dynamic Analysis with Fishing Gear Interaction A sensitivity study was performed on the size of the fishing gear modelled in the analysis. Forces were applied n the form of a timehistory to represent typical large trawl boards/doors to small beam trawls. The peak horizontal forces applied to the pipeline for the three cases analysed are shown in Table 1. Case No 1 2 3 Load (kN) 78 117 156

to break out at a significantly lower temperature but the final displaced shape showed little difference. A change in the initial imperfection ratio from 0.005 to 0.010 resulted in a change of amplitude of only 8%. The analytical solution of Hobbs indicates that an effective axial driving force of 1! 50kN corresponds to a mode 3 buckle length of 85m (Figure 3). This solution is based on the fourth order differential equation of a beam and assumes linear material behaviour. The static and dynamic Finite Element analyses are based on non-linear material behaviour and ovalisation of the cross section. This can significantly reduce the stiffness of the section, leading to increased displacement amplitudes. The lateral displacements derived from the analyses with fishing gear pullover are significantly in excess of those arising from the effects of lateral buckling alone. This is because the laterally applied forces arising from the trawl gear interaction are substantial in relation to other loads applied to the pipeline. When combined with the feed-in to a buckle location due to release of the locked-in thermal energy pipeline deflections show a marked increase. It may be noted that the stresses peak at approximately 480 N/mm2 after Is, i.e. the duration of the pullover loading. After the pullover loads have passed (>2s) there is some reduction in equivalent stress down to 375N/mm 2. The post pullover deflected shape is shown in Figure 8, with an exaggerated lateral scale. The shape of the imperfection after pullover indicate the classical mode 3 buckle shape with a tight curvature at the impact location caused by pipe material yielding and going into the plastic region. The loading applied during the pullover event should be high enough to initiate buckling. Analyses have indicated that forces derived from pullover of very light trawl doors, may in certain cases be insufficient to initiate lateral buckling. In such cases initial imperfection should be introduced in order to obtain a solution. The effects of initial imperfections and damping ratios etc. are to a large extent problem dependent. It would be prudent, therefore, to perform a sensitivity analysis to investigate the effects of these parameters on any particular analysis. CONCLUSIONS The merits and limitations of static and dynamic lateral buckling, including fishing gear interaction effects have been examined in terms of solution accuracy and numerical stability. From the results of the analysis, the following conclusions may be drawn: a). The choice of static or dynamic analysis where inertia and damping terms are included in the analysis must be decided based on engineering judgement. Neglecting the effects of the velocity and acceleration terms within the integration scheme must be justified, otherwise the results are meaningless.

Table 1: Horizontal Load Applied during Pullover The results of the non-linear dynamic analysis with the lateral buckling induced by the effects of fishing gear pullover for the cases listed in Table 1 are shown in Figure 6. These loads represent pullover of typical trawl gear ranging from heavy boards or doors (2000kg) through to small trawl beams. As can be seen the lateral displacements range from slightly in excess of 10m for the trawl boards / doors to 15m for the small beam trawls. Figure 7 shows the variation of equivalent stress at four section points around the pipe circumference during pullover. These results include the hydrodynamic force effects of damping and inertia, including added mass, by means of Morison's equation. DISUSSlON The non-linear static and dynamic analysis performed for lateral buckling indicate broad agreement in terms of lateral displacements at the buckle location. At the design temperature of 45C the amplitude of the lateral displacement reached a value of 7.1m for the static analysis, with a corresponding amplitude of 7.8m for the dynamic analysis. The difference between the two is due to the inertia effects induced in the dynamic analysis. In the dynamic analysis, the inertia force that develops as the pipeline 'snaps' from one equilibrium position to another to carry the pipeline past the static equilibrium position. It should be noted that these effects are somewhat independent of the time scale chosen to apply the thermal loading within the analysis. The sensitivity on the initial imperfection ratio within the non-linear static analysis shows that the tighter initial curvature causes the pipeline

b). Based on the above work performed on a typical 16" concrete coated gas pipeline, in the case of lateral buckling due to thermal and pressure effects, there is little to choose between the results from static or dynamic solution analyses. c). Non-linear static analysis may be used to predict the effects of lateral buckling but solution stability may be a problem under load control. In this case Riks 'arc-length' constraint may be used to control the solution in passing limits points under load control. Implicit dynamic analysis gives results that are comparable to those obtained from static analysis, and avoids the numerical difficulties associated with passing limit points due to the stability included via inertia effects.

d).

189

e).

Conventional a n a l y t i c a l solutions may not be suitable for predicting lateral buckling in high pressure / high temperature pipelines where yielding of the material is possible. For these cases, it would be advisable to resort to FEA where non-linear material behaviour may be modelled. Conventional Analytical methods may prove to be useful for initial calculations and screening purposes. The instigation of lateral buckling is dependent on the out-ofstraightness present in the pipeline after installation. The higher the imperfection ratio then the lower the effective axial driving force required to initiate lateral buckling. Realistic initial imperfections required for the analysis may be determined from a pipelay simulation analysis.

7000 600O A
z 6ooo to ,,o 4oo0 zooo

J I
// i

f).

~ 20OO
1000
0 0

// ,//

/ / //

g). The effects of fishing gear interaction can significantly alter the behaviour of a pipeline in terms of lateral buckling. These effects may be determined via a dynamic analysis whereby the effects of the pullover loads are applied as a time-history loading. Performing a combined lateral buckling / fishing gear pullover analysis also alleviates the need to determine initial out-ofstraightness. h). The traditional approach to lateral buckling of determining a safe temperature for all buckle lengths from the equilibrium diagram can result in overly conservative designs, leading to unnecessary CAPEX being incurred in mitigation measures. The use of FE analysis in conjunction with a limit-state method can lead to significant cost savings. REFERENCES ABAQUS (1998) Users Manual, Version 5.8, Hibbett, Karlsson and Sorensen Crisfield MA (1981) 'A Fast Incremental/Iterative Solution Procedure that Handles "Snap Through"', Comp Struct, vol. 13, pp 55-62 Crisfield MA (1983) 'An Arc-Length Method Including Line Searches and Accelerations', IJNME, vol. 19, pp 1269-1289 DnV (1997), 'Interference Between Trawl Gear and Pipelines', Guidelines No 13. Fyriteiv, O et al (1996), 'Analysis of Expansion Curves for Subsea Pipelines', Proc Sixth Int. Offshore Polar Eng. Conf., (ISOPE), Los Angeles. Hobbs, RE (1984) 'In-Service Buckling of Heated Pipelines', Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, voi. 110, pp 175-189 Hobbs, RE and Liang, F (1989) 'Thermal Buckling of Pipelines Close to Restraints', Proc 8'h Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, OMAE Hague Sriskandarajah, T et al (1999) 'Effect of Initial Imperfections on the Lateral Buckling of Subsea Pipelines', Proc 9~hInternational Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Brest, ISOPE 99 Taylor N and Gan AB (1986a) 'Experimental and Theoretical Studies in Subsea Pipeline Buckling', Marine Struct, vol. 9, pp 211-257 Taylor N and Gan AB (1986b) 'Submarine Pipeline Buckling Imperfection Studies', J Thin Walled Structures, vol. 4, pp 29

6 KPalongPipe

10

12

Figure 1: Effective Axial Force Variation at Hot End

1.6

1.4 ~ 1.2

,8
0.6
o., . . . .

0.2
O

~ .................
I t l = 8

........... !
i i 12

; r 10

6 KP along Route

Figure 2: Typical Potential Feed-in Along Length of Pipeline

020

40

60
eeckte Leat~h(m)

eO

I I

100

Figure 3: Equilibrium Curve Based on Hobbs Theory 190

eoo

.......................................

i ...........................................

~ ........................................

' ................................................................................

SO0

|=

Io
l(e o,o J.-. o I ; 1,5 3 4.S 7.S

Ttlr4 (It)

Figure 4: EquUibrium Curve from Static Analysis

Figure 7: Equivalent Stress from Fishing Gear Pullover Loads

i
4000

200

1 i

i I i
I
10

~ l m D R,,.o o o~ - o - l m p R ~ o l o

t-m !
q
fl BW (me*)

t
i
12 15

Figure 5: Lateral Displacement from Dynamically Applied Functional Loads

Figure 8: Lateral Deflection after Dynamically Applied Pullover Loads

leoo

14.00

12,0c

10,00

..... Cu*l --cal* 2 Ca~3

Figure 6: Lateral Displacement from Fishing Gear Pullover Loads

191