Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OTC 14182 Optimized Design of Pipe-In-Pipe Systems 1
OTC 14182 Optimized Design of Pipe-In-Pipe Systems 1
OTC 14182
Optimized Design of Pipe-in-Pipe Systems
Abstract
Deepwater subsea developments must address the flow
assurance issues and increasingly these are forming a more
critical part of the design. Pipe-in-pipe systems are one of the
options available in the designers toolbox for overcoming these
problems and are recognized as a thermally efficient, reliable
and proven technology for insulated subsea transportation of
well bore fluids.
Although extremely low U-values are
achievable pipe-in-pipe systems come at a cost and have their
increased weight as a penalty for use in deepwater
developments.
By applying an inside-out optimization process for the
design of pipe-in-pipe systems the top tension loading on the
surface vessel (installation or production) can be significantly
reduced whilst also minimizing procurement expenditure on raw
materials.
Specifically the design optimization of each
component reduces steel volumes and the overall outer diameter
of the system.
This paper presents the methodology for optimized design of
pipe-in-pipe systems and illustrates the potential cost savings in
terms of raw materials and installation cost through a case study
for a typical large West African field. In addition commercial
savings relating to surface platform hull costs are presented for a
case where the development employs pipe-in-pipe risers.
Introduction
At present the pipe-in-pipe (PIP) market is dynamic with
numerous projects requiring pipe-in-pipe solutions and many
more examining pipe-in-pipe as a development option.
The objective of this paper is to present an optimization
M. HAUSNER, M. DIXON
OTC 14182
are limited and may not justify the additional design and
procurement complexity. For deepwater project significant cost
benefits are obtainable.
Flow diagram 1 below represents the design methodology for
designing a pipe-in-pipe system using standard API pipe sizes.
Insulation
Group
Compatible
Field Joints
Installation
Methods
System
Usage
Injected PUF
Sprayed PUF
Granular
material (e.g.
microspheres)
Microporous
material
Vacuum (full or
assisted)
Phase change
material
Half shells
Carrier to carrier
butt weld
Threaded
Flowline weld
only (wet field
joint)
Reel
S-lay
J-lay
Flowlines
Risers
Sliding
Fixed
Restrained
!
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
(")
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
"
"
"
!
(")
"
"
"
!
Input Data
Calculate U-value
Project
U-value
met?
No
Yes
Pipe-in-pipe design
Flow Diagram 1
Flow diagram 2 below represents the design methodology for an
optimized pipe-in-pipe system. There is a certain amount of
iteration required in this design process as the contribution of the
carrier pipe wall thickness to the overall heat transfer coefficient
changes with variation in its diameter and wall thickness. This
change in contribution affects the amount of insulation required
to achieve the desired U-value, which then necessitates
recalculation of the carrier diameter and wall thickness. The
iteration continues until the optimized combination is achieved.
OTC 14182
Ao = " ! Do ! L
(2)
where :
Do = Overall outside diameter of the pipe including
Uo =
OD " RF + ! RLayers + RS
(3)
where :
OD = Outermost diameter of the pipe (ft or m)
Project
U-value
met?
Iterative
Loop
!R
(ft.F.hr/BTU or m.K/W)
R S = Surroundings resistance to heat transfer
No
(ft.F.hr/BTU or m.K/W)
The resistance to heat transfer of the product and
surroundings is not considered in the design calculations
performed in this paper as their contribution to the overall heat
transfer coefficient are small.
Yes
Result of optimised
pipe-in-pipe design
Flow Diagram 2
Explanation of Heat Transfer Theory
The average rate at which heat is lost from the fluid flowing
through a section of pipe, due to steady state heat transfer
between the fluid and the pipe surroundings, is generally
calculated using the following equation:
Layers
(1)
where :
Q = Average heat transfer rate (BTU/hr or KJ/hr)
U o = Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient based on the
area A o (BTU/hr.ft?.F or W/m?.K)
A0 = Area of heat transfer surface (ft? or m?)
T F = Temperature of fluid flowing in pipe (F or C)
TS = Temperature of pipe surroundings (F or C)
Equation 1 and all subsequent theory are based on onedimensional conduction only. For a particular length of pipe, L,
RLayer =
& ODLayer
1
' ln$
2 ' k $% IDLayer
#
!
!
"
(4)
where :
k = Thermal conductivity of specific layer material
(BTU/hr.ft.F or W/m.K)
OD = Outer diamater of specific layer (ft or m)
ID = Inner diameter of specific layer (ft or m)
Generally the thermal conductivity of insulating materials
increases with increasing temperature and this dependence on
temperature must be included in the evaluation of equation (4).
Calculating the OHTC Referenced to the Inner or Outer
Diameter. As part of the supplied project information the
required OHTC will be specified with reference to either the
inner or outer diameter of the pipe. As a rule of thumb Gulf of
M. HAUSNER, M. DIXON
Mexico projects reference the outer diameter and the rest of the
world reference the OHTC to the inner diameter. Equation 3
calculates the OHTC at the outer diameter of the pipe i.e.:
U0 =
where :
ID = Inside diameter of the pipe (ft or m)
Rearranged, equation 5 provides the OHTC referenced to the
inner diameter:
U o ! OD
ID
(6)
t
D!t
(7)
where :
! y = Yield strength of pipe (MPa)
Pb =
Py ! Pe
2
(9c)
where :
PC = Collapse Pressure (MPa)
Py = Plastic collapse pressure (MPa)
Pe = Elastic collapse pressure (MPa)
PC =
Po
0.7
(10)
and
Po = " ! g ! h
(11)
where :
Po = design hydrostatic pressure (MPa)
h = water depth (m)
Parametric Study
Case descriptions. Five cases have been selected to illustrate
the cost benefits that the Inside-out design optimization
methodology offers. It has been assumed that the hydraulic
design calculations indicate the flowline ID must be no less than
8.825 inch. This results in selection of a 10.75 inch OD flowline
from the API range for an unoptimised flowline case. Table 3
provides the main dimensions and components of the five cases
illustrating those with API and non-API flowline and carrier
pipe:
(8)
Py + Pe
Pd
0.72
where :
Pd = Design pressure (MPa)
PC =
(9b)
E = Young' s Modulus
! = Poisson' s ratio
Ui =
&t #
Py = 2 ' ( y ' $ !
%D"
(t %
& #
'D$
Pe = 2 ) E )
1 "! 2
1
OD " R F + ! R Layers + R S
OTC 14182
(9a)
2
Case Number
1
Flowline OD (inch)
10.75
14.11
Insulation material
Carrier size
10.75
9.84
9.84
10.75
14.11
12.92
12.92
14.11
PUF
PUF
PUF
MP
MP
API
NonAPI
NonAPI
NonAPI
NonAPI
OTC 14182
insulation material.
Case 2
Case 2 comprises standard API pipe sizes for the flowline
with an optimized carrier pipe. The insulation material for Case
2 is PUF.
Case 3
Case 3 comprises an optimized flowline and an optimized carrier
pipe with PUF insulation material.
Case 4
Case 4 comprises an optimized flowline and an optimized
carrier pipe with MP insulation material.
Case 5
Case 5 is similar to Case 2 comprising a standard API pipe
size for the flowline and an optimized carrier pipe. The main
difference is that the insulation material used is MP. Table 4
summarises the relevant comparison cases:
Table 4: Comparison of Cases
Comparison
Reference
Compared
Cases
A
B
1 vs. 2
1 vs. 3
1 vs. 4
D
E
F
1 vs. 5
2 vs. 5
3 vs. 4
the carrier inner diameter is filled with foam leaving no air gaps.
The microporous insulation (MP) is wrapped onto the
flowline and the system contains a minimum radial gap of 10mm
between the outside of the insulation and the inner diameter of
the carrier pipe. This is to account for tolerances during
insertion of the flowline into the carrier.
Cost Breakdown. A cost model has been developed that
includes the procurement, onshore fabrication and installation of
the pipe-in-pipe systems for all combinations. Some of the key
cost assumptions are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Summary of Costing Assumptions Employed
Cost Centre
Linepipe
Re-tooling for nonAPI size pipe
Insulation
PUF
MP
J-lay vessel day rate
Host hull cost
Value
1000
100,000
Units
$/tonne
$ per size
150
1700
250,000
3
$/m3
$/m3
$/day
$/kg buoyancy
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1234
1857
2479
3102
3725
M. HAUSNER, M. DIXON
18.7
17.4
16.3
17.0
18.2
Difference ($M)
1.3
2.5
1.8
0.5
% difference
14
11
OTC 14182
OTC 14182
where the water depth is 2000m or less. After this depth the
Base Case requires a jump to the next API size for the carrier.
This reinforces the benefits of optimizing pipe diameter.
Steel Costs
For U = 1.0 W/m2K there is a cross-over from the Base Case
steel cost being cheaper to the carrier optimized cases (Cases 2
and 5) being less sexpensive. This happens at a water depth of
2000m or for flowline lengths greater than 10 km.
For all U-values greater than this steel costs are lower for
Cases 2 and 5.
Water Depth
Generally speaking as water depth increases so the cost
savings achieved from pipe-in-pipe optimized design increase
over the Base Case. Depending on the various parameters
(water depth, U-value, lie length, insulation type) these savings
range from zero to 35% at the extremes.
Conclusions
(1)
(2)
(3)
References
1.
OTC 14182
PIP
Classification
Pros
Cons
Sliding
Fixed
Restrained
20000
15000
Host hullform
Cost ($ k)
Installation
Onshore Fab
Re-tooling
Insulation
Linepipe
10000
5000
0
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
OTC 14182
Steel Cost ($ k)
11500
11000
Case 1
10500
Case 2
Case 3
10000
Case 4
9500
Case 5
9000
8500
8000
7500
7000
6500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
15500
Onshore Cost ($ k)
14500
13500
Case 1
Case 2
12500
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
11500
10500
9500
8500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Total Cost ($ k)
24000
23000
Case 1
22000
Case 2
Case 3
21000
Case 4
20000
Case 5
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
10
M. HAUSNER, M. DIXON
OTC 14182
1200
1000
800
600
400
Diference to Case 1
200
0
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
80%
60%
40%
Diference to Case 1
20%
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Total Cost ($ k)
5500
5000
4500
4000
Case 1
3500
Case 2
Case 3
3000
Case 4
Case 5
2500
2000
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
OTC 14182
11
Total Cost ($ k)
37000
35000
33000
31000
Case 1
29000
Case 2
Case 3
27000
Case 4
25000
Case 5
23000
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
6000
5500
5000
Total Cost ($ k)
4500
4000
3500
Case 1
Case 2
3000
Case 3
Case 4
2500
Case 5
2000
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Total Cost ($ k)
35000
33000
31000
29000
Case 1
27000
Case 2
25000
Case 3
Case 4
23000
Case 5
21000
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
OTC 14182
12
Restrained
The restrained structural category of pipe-in-pipe systems
consists of the flowline concentrically located inside the carrier
by spacers in the main body of the joint and by some form of
non-metallic bulkhead at either end, typically of rubber/EDPM
material. The term Restraied is used as the bulkheads provide
an amount of axial and lateral compliance between the flowline
and carrier, prinaily during installation, but differenctial axial
movement of the flowline and carrier may occur during
operation.
The insulation material is either pre-attached to the flowline
prior to insertion into the carrier or the annulus is filled once the
flow line has been inserted.
The purpose of the bulkheads is as follows:
1. To prevent relative axial movement of the flowline
and carrier during fabrication, transportation and
handling
2. To contain the insulation when filling the assembled
joint (flowline already inserted in carrier)
3. Concentric alignment of the flowline in the carrier
The field joint arrangement offshore usually utilises steel
half shells to close the gap between consecutive joints of carrier
pipe, requiring two circumferential and two longitudinal welds.
The field joint insulation may be of foam half shells or
rockwool.
Installation of restrined pipe-in-pipe systems is relatively
independent of S-lay and J-lay vessel setup and current wok is
ongoing to prove this type of system for reeling.
Insulation Material Categories
Polyurethane Foam (PUF)
A common and cheap material that can be sprayed onto the
flowline prior to insertion in the carrier pipe or injected into the
OTC 14182
13