AN INVESTIGATION ON THE EFFECT OF CURRENT DIRECTIONALITY

ON RISER VORTEX-INDUCED VIBRATION

S. Manayankath, Lloyds Register, UK
S. Huang, University of Strathclyde, UK
ABSTRACT
The paper presents the results from a preliminary study on the influence of current direction on
deepwater riser VIV. The theoretical investigation was carried out using SHEAR7 and the VIV analysis
codes within Orcaflex. It was observed that compared to a unidirectional current over the full riser length,
in a multidirectional inflow the fatigue damage reduced significantly. The reduction in fatigue damage
was noted over the complete riser length though the current direction was varied only in the lower half of
the riser. Based upon the results, it appears that we can conclude that using a unidirectional current in
VIV analysis would lead to results which are likely to be highly conservative and this needs to be
considered and studied further in future VIV modeling and prediction.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue damage due to vortex-induced vibration

(VIV) is an important issue in deepwater riser
design. The mechanism of VIV is complex and not
fully understood. Apart from risers, other offshore
installations like tethers, pipelines, members of
jacketed structures and even deepwater pile
installations are affected by problems arising from
alternating vortex shedding. VIV suppression
devices such as helical strakes are used to suppress
VIV. Though these devices do improve the VIV
performance to some extent, it comes at additional
penalties such as drag increase and costs in
fabrication and handling.
Notwithstanding its complexity, progress has been
made both numerically and experimentally in
understanding the fundamentals of marine riser
VIV. Numerous papers have been published on
this topic in the last decade as the offshore
engineering industry relentlessly pushes into ever
deeper waters. A number of papers such as
Sarpkaya (2004), Vandiver (1993), Pantazopoulos
(1994), and Gabbai & Benaroya (2005) are
excellent sources of information that trace the
developments in this field over the years and
provide a comprehensive review.
Along with numerous efforts to investigate various
aspects of marine riser VIV, a great deal of work
has been carried out to synthesise these results to
yield theoretical VIV prediction models and codes.
SHEAR7 (Vandiver and Li, 2005) is an example

of these models and codes and is probably the

most commonly used design tool in the industry
for riser VIV analysis at the moment.
In the recent years, as the riser monitoring devices
become better understood and more and more
reliable, efforts have been made to calibrate the
riser field-monitoring data with the SHEAR7
predictions (Tognarelli et al, 2009). Many
technical issues and fundamental questions
however arise in this calibration effort. For
example, SHEAR7 is based upon some empirical
input data which are derived in low Reynolds
number model tests. These data are not necessarily
applicable to full-scale risers (Huang and Kitney,
2009).
Another issue relates to the key assumption used
in SHEAR7, i.e. the current profile is
unidirectional across the water column. In the real
ocean environment, particularly in deepwater,
however, a riser will be subjected to multi
directional currents along its length. In calibrating
SHEAR7 by the use of riser field-monitoring data,
this issue of discrepancy between the modeling
assumption and the reality has yet to be addressed
and its effects quantified.
Most of the model tests on VIV are carried out
with rigid or flexible cylinders placed in a
unidirectional flow due to practical limitations.
There is very little published data on the effect of
current directionality on VIV. It is generally
considered that a unidirectional inflow would lead
to conservative results, but with further research

on VIV in multidirectional currents it is hoped that

the design conservatism could be reduced in the
future.
The paper presents the preliminary results from a
theoretical investigation into the effect of current
direction on riser VIV. The currently popular
theoretical models were used for the investigation.
It was believed that such a study would provide
some insight, however limited it may be, on the
riser VIV response in a multi directional current
environment. It was also felt that such a theoretical
study would draw attention and R&D efforts to
this so-far largely ignored issue.

2.

INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

A top tensioned riser was analysed using Orcaflex

with its associated VIV analysis tools and
SHEAR7 programs in different flow conditions as
described below with a view to make a qualitative
assessment of the influence of current direction on
riser VIV. The inflow conditions were as given
below.

Uniform flow over the full length of the

riser.
Flow direction in the riser lower half at
different angles of incidence with respect
to the uniform flow on the upper half.

SHEAR7 is a program widely used in the industry

for VIV analysis which uses a modal analysis
technique and iteratively calculates the lift and
damping coefficients to attain a balance of power
input from lift force and power output through
damping (Vandiver and Li, 2005).
The Orcaflex VIV toolbox had two wake oscillator
models, i.e. the Milan model and Iwan & Blevins
model. The Milan model is a wake oscillator
model proposed by a group in Italy and described
in the paper by Falco, Fossati and Resta (1999). In
this model, the effects of VIV are simulated using
a series of equivalent oscillators that are connected

to the structural model nodes. The equivalent

oscillator is a non-linear one degree of freedom
system which transmits to the structure forces
equivalent to vortex shedding mechanisms. The
Iwan & Blevins wake oscillator model uses a Van
der Pol type equation with a flow variable to
describe the effects of vortex shedding. Model
parameters are determined by curve-fitting
experimental results for stationary and forced
cylinders in the Reynolds number range between
103 and 105 (Blevins, 2001).
A top tensioned drilling riser subjected to a
uniform flow of 1.0 m/s over its full length was
selected as the base case. This base case was
analysed using SHEAR7, a frequency domain
model. The same riser was then analyzed using the
Orcaflex VIV tool box with its wake oscillator
models which are time domain methods.
With the differences in modelling techniques and
assumptions, as well as the amount of empiricism
in place, close matching of the results from
different models was not expected. It was hoped
that, in the absence of riser field-monitoring data,
a comparison of the base case in SHEAR7 and
Orcaflex would give a qualitative indication on the
conservativeness of the results, assuming
SHEAR7 results to be the reference case.
The cases with multidirectional current inflows
were analyzed using Orcaflex only, as SHEAR7
can only deal with unidirectional current profiles.
The current speed was again 1.0 m/s, as in the base
case. But the angle of attack in the lower half was
varied with respect to the flow direction in the
upper half. The angles analysed were 30, 45, 60,
75 and 90 degrees.
A schematic diagram of the riser model used for
the study is shown in Figure 1. The riser details
are given in Table 1.

Figure 1 Riser Model

Table 1 Main Particulars of the Riser

ID
[m]

Submerg
ed wt/m
[kN/m]

Ca

CD

0.603

0.529

-7.467

1.596

1.516

769.4

0.603

0.529

-4.732

1.596

1.516

18.29

769.4

0.603

0.529

-4.605

1.596

1.516

Riser
(Buoyant)

310.99

1042.8

1.107

0.529

-0.561

1.176

1.301

Pup

7.92

769.4

0.603

0.529

-4.532

1.596

1.516

Name

Height
[m]

Mass/m
[kg/m]

OD
[m]

Pup in air

19.00

769.4

Pup in
water

4.33

Slick

D
E

Density of sea water

1.025 tons/m3

Density of contents

1.138 tons/m3

3.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

SHEAR7 is based on frequency domain solution

and the program outputs rms values of
displacement, acceleration, stress and fatigue life,
all in the cross-flow direction. Orcaflex is a time
domain based program and the results in both the
cross-flow and in-line directions are given. At
every node, the minimum, maximum, mean and
standard deviations of different parameters such as
displacement and acceleration are calculated by
the program along with time histories.
In comparing the results from SHEAR7 and the
wake-oscillator models, only the cross-flow
displacements and accelerations were used.
Standard deviation data from Orcaflex was
compared with SHEAR7 rms data as the mean
value was close to zero in the cases compared.
In comparing the fatigue damage rate, a simplified
procedure was used to analyse the data. In the
following equations M is the mass per unit length,
T is the tension in the riser, E is the Youngs
modulus, I is the moment of inertia and r is the
radius of the extreme fibre.

s = y

MEr
T

The stress range S is then given by

S = 2 2 ystd

MEr
T

where subscript std denotes standard deviation.

Using the stress range and applying a simplified SN curve approach the annual fatigue damage and
fatigue life was estimated with a view to obtain a
qualitative comparison of the different empirical
model results.
The number of cycles to failure N is given by

N=

A
Sm

where A = 1.04x1012 and m = 3 were used in the

calculations. The number of stress cycles n in a
year is determined from the frequency of vibration
and the damage rate is calculated as n/N [1/year].

The dynamic equation of the riser in tension for

free vibration is given by
4.
y
y
y
T 2 + M 2 = 0
4
z
z
t
4

EI

Considering the riser as a string in tension, i.e.

ignoring the bending stiffness, the dynamic
equation can be simplified to

y =

UNIFORM CURRENT

T
y
M

where double dots represent differentiation with

respect to time and double dashes represent
differentiation with respect to distance z along the
riser.
Assuming sinusoidal modal shape and applying
simple bending theory, the bending stress may be
approximated as

The top tensioned riser was subjected to a uniform

current of 1.0 m/s and the analysis was carried out
using both SHEAR7 and Orcaflex Milan and Iwan
& Blevins wake oscillator models. As SHEAR7
only models the transverse response, the
comparisons are only for the transverse (Y)
components and the in-line (X) effects were not
considered for the study. As can be seen from
Figure 2 the transverse displacements estimated
using both Orcaflex Wake Oscillator models and
SHEAR7 were closely comparable. Both programs
indicated a single mode response though the mode
numbers were different. For the two wakeoscillator models the results were closely
comparable except for the slightly higher peak in
the Iwan & Blevins model.

S h e a r 7 - Y - d is p - 0 d e g
M ila n - Y - d is p - 0 d e g
B le v in s - Y - d is p - 0 d e g
1 .2 0
1 .0 0

Y [m]

0 .8 0
0 .6 0
0 .4 0
0 .2 0
0 .0 0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

R is e r le n g th [m ]

Figure 2 Transverse displacements in uniform current

S h e a r7 -Y -a c c -0 d e g
M ila n - Y - a c c - 0 d e g
B le v in s - Y - A c c - 0 d e g
2 .0
1 .8
1 .6
Y-Acc [m/sq.s]

1 .4
1 .2
1 .0
0 .8
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
0 .0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

35 0

R is e r le n g th [m ]

Figure 3 Transverse accelerations in uniform current

Max Fatigue Damage (Uniform Current)

Milan

Blevins

Shear7

50

100

150

200

250

Damage [1/year]

Figure 4 Maximum fatigue damage in uniform current

The accelerations using the two programs are

compared in Figure 3. It may be seen that the
accelerations estimated by SHEAR7 was almost
twice that determined using both models of
Orcaflex. This implies that, the bending stress,
which is directly proportional to acceleration

would have a similar distribution, which in turn

would affect the fatigue damage calculations.
Once again the results from Milan and Blevins
models were closely matching except for the peak
magnitude estimated by Blevins model being
slightly higher than that by Milan model.

The maximum fatigue damage anywhere on the

riser estimated from SHEAR7 and Orcaflex data
are presented in Figure 4. As fatigue damage
depends on both frequency and stress range,
SHEAR7 predicted the peak damage to be almost
four times that estimated by the Blevins model and
eight times as estimated by the Milan model.

5.

MULTIDIRECTIONAL CURRENTS

For the multidirectional current case the analysis

was carried out using Orcaflex wake oscillator
models, with the angle of attack on the riser lower
half varying from 0 to 90 degrees with respect to
the current direction on the upper half. The angles
considered were 0 (i.e. entire riser subjected to
unidirectional current), 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90
degrees. The flow speed was 1.0 m/s throughout.
The results presented here are for the direction
perpendicular to the current direction on the riser
upper half.
The results from the Milan wake oscillator model
are plotted in Figures 5 to 7. It may be seen from
the displacements given in Figure 5 that the
displacements over the full riser length
progressively decreased as the angle of attack in
the riser lower half increased from 0 to 90. This
decrease was seen over the full length of the riser.
The transverse accelerations are plotted in Figure
6. The trends shown in displacements were
repeated here. The calculated fatigue damage over
the riser length is plotted in Figure 7. As expected
the maximum damage in the Y direction is for the
case of fully unidirectional flow. As the angle of
attack in the lower half increased, the damage in
the Y direction decreased all along the riser.

The riser in multidirectional current analysed in

the foregoing was further analysed using Iwan &
Blevins wake oscillator model implemented in
Orcaflex. The transverse displacements and
accelerations from the Blevins model are plotted
in Figures 8 and 9 respectively. It can be seen that
the trends seen from Milan model results repeated
here as well. Consistent trends were shown for all
of the angles analysed.
It was felt that it would be interesting to have a
comparison of the two wake oscillator models and
so the acceleration results from the two models are
compared as shown in Figure 10. In general it can
be said that the displacements and accelerations
computed by the two models at different angles of
attack are reasonably close except when the angle
of attack was 90 deg.
The maximum fatigue damage anywhere on the
riser length at different angles of attack predicted
by the two models is given in Figure 11. As
discussed earlier the damage progressively
reduced with increase in the angle of attack. It may
be noted that a current direction of 45 degrees in
the lower half reduced the annual fatigue damage
by more than half, relative to the fully
unidirectional inflow case. In the cases considered
here the riser fatigue damage reduced over the
complete length though the attack angle was
varied in the lower half only.
The results indicate that the current direction does
influence the overall riser response and so it needs
to be taken into account during the design stage.
The results also seem to suggest that assuming a
unidirectional current in the riser design may
result in highly conservative designs.

1.2
Y-disp-0deg

Y-disp-30deg

Y [m]

0.8

Y-disp-45deg

0.6

Y-disp-60deg
Y-disp-75deg

0.4

Y-disp-90deg

0.2
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Riser length [m]

Y-Acc [m/sq.s]

Figure 5 Transverse displacements at different angles of attack

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Y-acc-0deg
Y-acc-30deg
Y-acc-45deg
Y-acc-60deg
Y-acc-75deg
Y-acc-90deg

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Riser length [m]

Figure 6 Transverse accelerations at different angles of attack

30

Damage [1/year]

25

Y-damage-0deg

20

Y-damage-30deg

15

Y-damage-45deg
Y-damage-60deg

10

Y-damage-75deg

Y-damage-90deg

0
-5

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Riser length [m]

Figure 7 Fatigue damage at different angles of attack

1.2

Y [m]

Y-disp-0deg

0.8

Y-disp-45deg

0.6

Y-disp-60deg
Y-disp-75deg

0.4

Y-disp-90deg

0.2
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Riser length [m]

Figure 8 Transverse displacements at different angles of attack (I & B model)

1.2

Y-Acc [m/sq.s]

1
Y-acc-0deg
0.8

Y-acc-45deg
Y-acc-60deg

0.6

Y-acc-75deg
0.4

Y-acc-90deg

0.2
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Riser length [m]

Y-Acc [m/sq.s]

Figure 9 Transverse accelerations at different angle of attack (I & B Model)

Milan-Y-acc-45deg
Milan-Y-acc-90deg
Blevins-Y-acc-45deg
Blevins-Y-acc-90deg

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Riser length [m]

Figure 10 Transverse accelerations (Milan vs. I&B)

350

Max Fatigue Dam age( Diff angles of attack on riser low er

half)
90 deg
75 deg
60 deg

Blevins

45 deg

Milan

30 deg
0 deg
0

20

40

60

80

100

Dam age [1/year]

Figure 11 Maximum fatigue damage at different angles of attack

6.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the preliminary results presented in

this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn.

For the unidirectional current, all models

predicted a single mode response for the
uniform flow condition. However there
were differences in the mode number and
magnitude of the accelerations. The fatigue
damage calculated from SHEAR7 outputs
by assuming a sinusoidal modal response
of the riser was four to eight times larger
than that calculated from Orcaflex wake
oscillator models results.
The investigation revealed that compared
to the case of unidirectional current inflow
over the full riser length, in a
multidirectional inflow the fatigue damage
was significantly reduced. It was found
from the study that a current direction of
45 degrees in the lower half reduced the
annual fatigue damage by a factor of two to
five relative to the fully unidirectional
inflow case. The reduction in fatigue
damage was observed over the complete
riser length even though the angle of attack
was varied only in the riser lower half.
The study appears to indicate that using a
unidirectional current in VIV analysis

would lead to results which are likely to be

highly conservative. Future VIV model
developments and calibrations need to
consider this issue.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the support from
Dr. Dave Thomas and Mr. David Heffernan of
Orcina and Dr. Richard James of BP Exploration.
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this paper are those of the
authors alone.
REFERENCES
Blevins, R.D., 2001. Flow induced vibration.
Second Edition, Krieger Publishing Company,
Florida, USA.
Falco, M., Fossati, F.,Resta, F., 1999. On the
vortex-induced vibration on submarine cables:
design optimization of wrapped cables for
controlling
vibrations.
3rd
international
Symposium on Cable Dynamcs, Trondheim,
Norway.
Gabbai,R.D., Benaroya, H., 2005. An overview of
modeling and experiments of vortex-induced

vibration of circular cylinders. Journal of Sound

and Vibration, 282, pp. 575-616.
Huang, S and Kitney, N, 2009. Dependence of Lift
Coefficient Clv on Reynolds Number and Surface
Roughness and its Possible Impact on SHEAR7
Prediction. OMAE2009-79610, Hawaii, USA.
Pantazopoulos, M.S., 1994.
Vortex-induced
vibration parameters: Critical review. Offshore
Technology ASME OMAE, Vol I, pp. 199-255.
Roveri, F.E., Vandiver, J.K., 2001. Slenderex:
Using SHEAR7 for assessment of fatigue damage
caused by current induced vibrations. Proceedings
of 20th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.

Sarpkaya, T., 2004. A critical review of the

intrinsic nature of vortex-induced vibrations.
Journal of Fluids and Structures, 19, pp. 389-447.
Tognarelli, M. et al, 2009. Benchmarking of
SHEAR7V4.5: Comparisons to Full-Scale Drilling
Riser VIV Data and Legacy Analysis. OMAE
2009-79442. Hawaii, USA.
Vandiver, J.K., 1993. Dimensionless parameters
important to the prediction of vortex-induced
vibration of long flexible cylinders in ocean
currents. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 7, pp.
423-455.
Vandiver, J.K. and Li, L., 2005. SHEAR7
Program Theoretical Manual. MIT.