H8 SSP 00 066 N01 68585 - 0 - 006 PDF

ConocoPhillips
BayuUndan Phase 3 Project

Level 3, 53 Ord street
West Perth
PO Box 1102, West Perth WA 68721
Business 61 (0) 8 9423 6666
Facsimile 61 (0)8 6363 2042
DOCUMENT COVER SHEET

Total number of pages of this document
37
DOCUMENT TITLE:
Flexible Flowline and Static Umbilical Installation
Analysis - Campaign 2
DOCUMENT STATUS:
INFORMATION
FOR REVIEW
AS BUILT (AB)
OTHER
COMPANYS DOCUMENT No:

H8-SSP-00-066-N01-68585
REV:
0
SUPPLIERS DOCUMENT No:

AA0016-ENG-20008
REV:
0
PO/CONTRACT No. :
262163-01-BUP3
APPROVAL
EQUIPMENT TAG No:
NOTES:
EQUIPMENT DATA
SHEET No:
DOCUMENT STATUS AS REVIEWED BY CONOCOPHILLIPS
1.
Accepted/Proceed
2.
Revise & Resubmit. Work May

Proceed. Incorporate all changes
indicated.
3.
Revise & Resubmit. Work May Not

Proceed.
Review Not Required. Work May
Proceed / Information Only
4.
Reviewed By:
Date:
REVISIONS TO COMPANYS DOCUMENT No.

Rev
Date
Description
Signature
10.10.2014
Issued for Client Review
JPE
28.11.2014
Approved for Construction
JPE
DOC/CMP/TEM/0004 Rev 1
Supplier shall resubmit document in accordance with

instructions accompanying returned document. This review
and comments, if any, do not alter any of the terms and
conditions of the Contract, nor does it relieve the Supplier from
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy and completeness
of the document, nor shall it be interpreted so as to imply
approval of such document, nor shall it be interpreted as an
assumption by or imposition on ConocoPhillips of any liability
or responsibility as a result of such review
www.subsea7.com
ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Bayu Undan Phase 3 Project
262163-01-BUP3
Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis

Campaign 2
AA0016-ENG-20008
Originator:
Amirhossein GHANIZADEH
Analysis Engineer
Checker:
Julien CAPUL
Senior Analysis Engineer
Approver:
Stephan EYSSAUTIER
Approved for Construction
28.11.2014
Rev.
Reason for Issue
Issue Date
Project Engineering Manager

Digitally signed by
amirhossein.ghaniz
adeh@subsea7.com
DN:
cn=amirhossein.gh
anizadeh@subsea7.
com
Date: 2014.11.27
18:19:26 +01'00'
amirhosse
in.ghaniza
AGH
deh@subs
ea7.com
Prepared
by
Digitally signed by
Julien Capul
DN: cn=Julien
Capul, o=Subsea 7,
ou=Engineering,
email=julien.capul@
subsea7.com, c=FR
Date: 2014.11.27
18:23:58 +01'00'
Julien
JCA
Capul
Checked
by
stephan.
eyssauti
SEY
er@subs
ea7.com
Digitally signed by
stephan.eyssautier@s
ubsea7.com
DN:
cn=stephan.eyssautie
r@subsea7.com
Date: 2014.11.28
09:13:05 +08'00'
Approved
by
Client
Approval
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2
Page 2 of 36
This document is the property of Subsea 7 and its affiliates and subsidiaries and copying and/or disclosure of the
information it contains is prohibited without the permission of Subsea 7. It has been reviewed and approved in
accordance with management system requirements and where applicable an audit trail is available within the
relevant document management system. The most recently approved version is regarded as the controlled copy
with all other copies being for information only. It is the holders responsibility to ensure that they hold the latest
approved version. Subsea 7
REVISION RECORD SHEET

Revision
Issue
Date
0.1
01.08.2014
Issued for IDC
10.10.2014
Issue for Client

Review
Purpose
Description of
Updated/Modified Sections (if any)
Implemented IDC comments
28.11.2014
Approved for
Construction
Implemented IFCR comments

Static umbilical scope removed
Analysis for Riser EF
abandonment/ recovery added
(section 5.3)
Analysis for Flowline-Flowline
intermediate connection laydown
added (section 5.4)
Dynamic analysis updated
throughout the document
Sensitivity with max and min
WD added
Sensitivity with current added
Crossing analysis updated with
sensitivity on layback and point
loading calculations (section 5.5)
DISTRIBUTION
Recipient
Company
E-Mail Address
Qty
HOLDS
Section
Copyright Subsea 7
Reason for HOLD
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 3 of 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 4
1.1 OVERALL PROJECT ..................................................................................... 4
1.2 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT................................................................................ 5
1.3 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................ 6
1.4 ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 6
1.5 HOLD LIST ................................................................................................ 6
1.6 REFERENCES............................................................................................. 6
2.
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 8
3.
ANALYSIS BASIS .......................................................................................... 10

3.1 PRODUCT AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION ................................. 10
3.2 VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................... 12
3.3 ENVIRONMENT INPUT DATA ...................................................................... 14
3.4 LAY ROUTE DATA..................................................................................... 14
3.5 SOIL FRICTION COEFFICIENTS .................................................................. 14
3.6 LIMITING CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS ........................................................... 15
4.
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 16
4.1 SOFTWARE ............................................................................................. 16
4.2 WAVE DATA SELECTION AND DIRECTONALITY ............................................ 16
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY............................................................. 18
4.4 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 18
5.
ANALYSES RESULTS ...................................................................................... 21

5.1 NORMAL LAY AND CURVE LAY ................................................................... 21
5.2 FLEXIBLE FLOWLINE TERMINATION ABANDONMENT / RECOVERY .................. 24
5.3 FLEXIBLE RISER TERMINATION ABANDONMENT / RECOVERY ........................ 27
5.4 FLOWLINE-FLOWLINE INTERMEDIATE CONNECTION LAY-DOWN ................... 29
5.5 CROSSING ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 34
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 4 of 36
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
OVERALL PROJECT
Bayu-Undan consists of two gas and condensate fields located offshore
approximately 500km north-west of Darwin in the Timor Sea, and 250km south
east of East Timor. The fields are located in approximately 80m water depth.
Figure 1-1: Field Location
Commercial production began in April 2004, delivering 115,000bpd of condensate

and LPG through a gas recycle scheme. The next phase of development, the gas
phase, began production in February 2006. This involved the extraction of lean gas
from the reservoir and transportation to Darwin on Australias northern coast via a
500km, 26in pipeline where it is liquefied at a single-train processing plant located
at Wickham Point near Darwin then shipped as LNG to customers Tokyo Electric
Power Company and Tokyo Gas in Japan.
The field will require approximately 26 wells over its lifetime to produce the
reserves. Since production start-up, most of the necessary wells to exploit the core
area have been drilled from either the Drilling Production and Processing Platform
(DPP) or the existing satellite Wellhead Platform (WP1). The field remaining life is
estimated to be around 13 to 15 years. However in order to sustain gas and
condensate production, access to peripheral areas of the field will be necessary by
2015.
For Phase 3 development, two new subsea wells, BU-DS01 and BU-DS02, have
been identified and will be tied back to existing Drilling Production and Processing
Platform (DPP) through individual subsea flowlines and risers. An umbilical riser
shall be routed from DPP topsides to a Subsea Umbilical Distribution Unit (SUDU)
near to the base of the platform, but outside of the flare radiation zone, from where
two umbilicals shall route one each to BU-DS01 and BU-DS02 running roughly
parallel with the flowlines.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 5 of 36
Figure 1-2: Field Schematic
Contractor is responsible for all project management, project services, coordination

with Company and Companys other contractors, design development, detailed
engineering, procurement, construction, onshore testing, load-out, transportation,
installation, offshore hook-up, pre-commissioning, commissioning support and
other activities as pertinent to the Scope of Work.
The Scope of Work is for subsea hardware design, flowlines, umbilical and riser
system installation engineering, supply (excluding Company Provided Items),
Installation and Pre-Commissioning / Commissioning for the Bayu-Undan Phase 3
Field Development:
29km of Umbilicals with a Subsea Distribution Unit and 29km of 10 Flexible
Flowlines with 2 Dewatering Manifolds connected to Wellheads by flexible jumpers.
1.2
SCOPE OF DOCUMENT
The purpose of this document is to present the installation analysis performed for
the flexible flowline of Campaign 2 installed with the Skandi Acergy.
Analyses have been done for the following operations:
Normal lay and curve lay of flexible flowline
Flexible flowline termination abandonment / recovery
Flexible riser termination / recovery.
Flexible flowline intermediate connection lay-down and sensitivity with
riser/flowline intermediate connection lay-down.
These analyses are based on the document Campaign 2 Flexible Flowline
Installation Procedure (ref. H8-SSP-00-066-V02-65785).
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 6 of 36
1.3
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

Abbreviation
A&R
ART
EF
EL
FLS
Hs
ID
MBR
OD
TDP
Tp
WD
1.4
ASSUMPTIONS
Section Ref.
3.3
1.5
Definition
Abandonment & Recovery
Anti-Roll Tank
End fitting
Elevation
Flexible Lay System
Significant wave height
Inner Diameter
Minimum Bending Radius (for installation purpose)
Outside Diameter
Touch Down Point
Peak Period
Water Depth
Assumption Detail
Typical friction coefficients have been taken from previous
projects
HOLD LIST
Number
1.6
REFERENCES
1.6.1
Documents Subsea 7
Reference
H8-SSP-00-066-V02-65785
H8-SSP-00-066-D06-65812
H8-SSP-00-066-D06-65814
H8-SSP-00-066-N01-65766
H8-SSP-00-066-D06-65818
1.6.2
Reason for Hold
Title
Campaign 2 Flexible Flowline Installation
Procedure
10" Flexible Lay Route Drawing BU-DS01
10" Flexible Lay Route Drawing BU-DS02
Flexible Risers Installation Analysis
Campaign 2 Skandi Acergy Deck Layout
Documents Customer
Reference
BUP3-000-SE-R02-D-00001
H8-SSP-01-029-D45-2134
H8-SSP-01-029-D45-2138
H8-SSP-01-020-G01-64782
Copyright Subsea 7
Title
Summary of Metocean Conditions Prepared for
Bayu Undan Location
Bayu Undan Phase 3 DPP Tie-Back Overall Field
Layout
Bayu Undan Phase 3 DPP Tie-Back Field Layout
Schematic Flexible Pipelay
Wellstream Pipe Data Sheets
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 7 of 36
Reference
H8-SSP-01-029-D06-64810
H8-SSP-01-029-D06-65050
1.6.3
Title
Wellstream - Endfitting Configuration 10"
Production Flowline
Wellstream - Installation/Pull Head Configuration
55Te SWL Grayloc 12M102 10.0" Riser/Flowline
Documents 3rd Party / Subcontractor

Reference
Copyright Subsea 7
Title
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 8 of 36
2.
CONCLUSIONS
The installation analyses of the flexible flowlines have been performed. The results
demonstrate that all operations can be performed in a safe manner with the
following allowable sea-states:
Installation
stage
Allowable
Hs (m)*
Lay back
range
(m)
Vessel
heading
restriction
Governing
parameter
Alternative
criteria on
vessel
motion
No
Clearance
with moon
pool, MBR
Not
required
(high Hs)
Min WD:
(16-30)
Normal lay
Flowline
termination
abandonment or
recovery
Riser
termination
abandonment or
recovery
Flowline/Flowline
intermediate
connection laydown
Flowline/Riser
intermediate
connection laydown
2.5
Max WD:
(16-35)
2.5
(13-21)
No
Clearance
with moon
pool, MBR
Not
required
(high Hs)
2.5
(12-20)
No
Clearance
with moon
pool, MBR
Not
required
(high Hs)
2.5
(14-27)
No
Clearance
with moon
pool, MBR
Not
required
(high Hs)
No
Clearance
with moon
pool, MBR
No simple
criteria
available
Without
ART:
(28.5-30)
With ART:
(28.533.5)
*Range of Tp covered in Table 4-1
Table 2-1-Allowable sea-states for flexible flowline operations
It is noted that the alternative criteria given on vessel motion is an

alternative criteria to the allowable sea-state criteria and can be used if
higher sea-states are encountered or in case of doubt on the current seastate or forecast. It is not necessary to check this motion criteria if the
actual sea-state is within the prescribed allowable sea-states (see section
4 and results sections for further details). Alternative criteria will be
completed for next revision of this document.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 9 of 36
The verification of the installation criteria is provided in Table below.
Criteria
Allowable
Static
Results
Dynamic
Results
Max departure angle at tulip

exit
14deg
6.3deg
12.9deg
Max dynamic top tension in

flexible (FLS)
39mT
19.5mT
21.30mT
MBR
4.16m
5.32m
4.26m
Maximum compression
59 kN empty /
137 kN flooded
@ 4.16m MBR
None
-3.85kN
MBR
4.22m
6.29m
5.71m
Maximum compression
51 kN empty @
4.4m MBR
None
-5.29kN
Component
Vessel
Flexible
flowline
Flexible riser
Table 2-2- Verification of the installation criteria
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 10 of 36
3.
ANALYSIS BASIS
3.1
PRODUCT AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
3.1.1
Flexible Flowline and Flexible Riser - Cross-section

The flexible flowlines and flexible risers have the following characteristics:
Data
Unit
Reference
Outside Diameter
Inside Diameter *
Weight in air - empty
Weight submerged - empty
Bending stiffness @ 23C
Axial stiffness
Torsional Stiffness @ 23C
MBRStorage
Installation MBR
mm
mm
t/m
t/m
kN.m
kN
kN.m
m
m
Max compression
kN
Flexible Flowline
BU-DS01
BU-DS02
H8-SSP-01-020-G0164782 (Rev 1. Issued
on 18/12/13)
389.96
260.1
0.174
0.052
151.1
374875
5411 (stiff dir)
2.53
4.16
59 kN empty /
137 kN flooded @
4.16m MBR
Flexible Riser
BU-DS01
BU-DS02
H8-SSP-01-020-G0164782 (Rev 1. Issued
on 18/12/13)
413.5
260.0
0.256
0.118
212.3
529147
12100
2.69
4.22
51 kN empty @
4.4m MBR
Table 3-1 Flexible flowline and Flexible Riser properties
Note:
* For the flexibles, the internal diameter used in Orcaflex is calculated with
respect to pipe internal volume (taking into account the volume inside the
carcass). This allows to model the pipe based on its weight in air empty, and to
play on fluid content density (uniform content option in Orcaflex) to define the
filling configuration of the pipe (empty or flooded).
The installation analyses presented in this report have been performed with the
flexible flowline empty except for the abandonment of the last section which was
done with the flowline flooded.
Some analyses have been performed considering the flexible riser data (recovery of
subsea end when flooded and lay-down of intermediate connection between riser
and first flowline section when catenary is partially flooded).
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 11 of 36
3.1.2
Flexible Flowline and Flexible Riser End-fitting and pull-head

The properties of the flexible flowline end-fitting and pull-head are presented in
next table.
Flexible Flowline
Parameter
Unit
End Fitting
Pulling Head
Reference
H8-SSP-01029-D06-64810
(Rev 2)
H8-SSP-01029-D06-64812
(Rev A),
Length
Weight in air
Weight water
m
kg
kg
1.051
821
668
SWL
mT
N/A
0.3
103
88 (est.)
25 (ref: H8-SSP00-066-D0670207)
Flexible Riser
End Fitting
Pulling Head
H8-SSP-01029-D0664995 (Rev 1.
Issued on
02/07/13)
1.20
1163
941
H8-SSP-01029-D0664811 (Rev A.
Issued on
13/12/13)
0.41
430
374
N/A
55
Table 3-2 Flowline and End-fitting and pull-head properties
Figure 3-1 Flowline end-fitting
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 12 of 36
3.2
VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS
The Skandi Acergy is a DP Class 3 multi-purpose flexlay and offshore construction
vessel.
Description
Length Overall
Length between perpendicular
Breadth Moulded
Operating draft
Depth Moulded (to main deck)
Speed
Deck Working Area (net)
Deck Loading / m2
Accommodation
Flag
Value
156.9m
137.7m
27m
6.5m 7.8m
12m
15 knots (max speed 18 knots)
2,100m
10 t/m
140
Isle of Man
Table 3-3 Skandi Acergy Main Properties
Figure 3-2 Skandi Acergy
Figure 3-3 Skandi Acergy Deck Layout
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 13 of 36
3.2.1
Flexible Lay System

The Skandi Acergys Flexible Lay System, comprises of a vertical lay tower on the
centreline of the ship directly over the dedicated moonpool. A 3000Te underdeck
carousel complete with spooling arm provides storage. There is a 125Te four track
tensioner on the Skandi Acergy.
Figure 3-4 Skandi Acergy FLS Tower and Loadout Spread
Morvin 7m TULIP
There is a large tulip which had been designed to allow the maximum possible
fleeting angle before contacting the bottom of the moonpool (15 Degrees): ID of
top of tulip is 750mm.
Figure 3-5 Morvin 7m Tulip
Abandonment and recovery Winch (A&R)

There is a 120Te A&R winch on top of the Tower. This has a 70mm, 120Te SWL,
750m wire with a closed swivel spelter socket. It is operated from the FLS control
cabin and has no Active Heave capabilities. It has a manual spooler connected via a
retractable A Frame.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 14 of 36
3.3
ENVIRONMENT INPUT DATA

Environmental data used for the analyses are extracted from the meteocean report
for the Bayu Undan location (ref. BUP3-000-SE-R02-D-00001).
Refer to section 4.2 for detailed explanations on how wave data have been
considered.
Regarding current effect, sensitivities have been performed to account for current
effect in some critical cases. Unless specified otherwise, 70% of the omnidirectional 1-yr velocity profile has been used. This percentage is used to attenuate
the strong conservatism in using a full 1-yr current profile (which by definition
occurs only once in a year). Strong conservative assumptions have been kept
though in the sensitivity calculation by considering the current profile in the same
direction through the entire water column and acting in the same plane as the
catenary.
3.4
LAY ROUTE DATA

Water depths and lay curve radius considered in the analysis have been extracted
from the alignment sheets in references and are listed in the table below for the
various items:
Line
76-109
71-80
Smallest
curve radius
(m)
100; 200
150
108
N/A
71
N/A
Water depths
(m)
Flexible flowline BU-DS01

Flexible flowline BU-DS02
Last EF/EF connection
BU-DS01
Last EF/EF connection
BU-DS02
Table 3-4 Water depths and curve radius considered Flexible flowline
3.5
SOIL FRICTION COEFFICIENTS

Soil friction coefficients have been considered from previous projects:
Axial friction coefficient
0.51
Lateral friction coefficient

0.38
Table 3-5 Soil Friction Coefficients
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 15 of 36
3.6
LIMITING CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS

The limitation criteria for the analysis are presented in the table below.
Component
Vessel
Flexible
flowline
Criteria
Allowable
Max departure angle at tulip exit
14deg
Max dynamic top tension in flexible

(FLS)
39mT
MBR
4.16m
Maximum compression
59 kN empty /
137 kN flooded @
4.16m MBR
MBR
4.22m
Maximum compression
51 kN empty @
4.4m MBR
Flexible riser
Table 3-6 Limiting Criteria
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 16 of 36
4.
METHODOLOGY
4.1
SOFTWARE
Calculations have been performed with Orcaflex (Version 9.5d)., a marine program
for static and dynamic analysis of flexible pipeline and cable systems in offshore
environments. It is widely used in the offshore industry for analyses of flexible
risers and installation of Subsea equipment.
This software is a fully 3D non-linear time domain finite element program capable
of dealing with ship motions, environmental conditions, random waves, buoys,
cables etc. Cable weight, structure characteristics, environmental conditions and lay
vessel motions can be accurately modelled with Orcaflex.
4.2
WAVE DATA SELECTION AND DIRECTONALITY

The 1yr return period wave data is considered too conservative for the installation
analyses; therefore a methodology has been used to define a more appropriate
seastate. The objective is to reduce the computation time while ensuring that the
seastates analysed are representative of the weather conditions experienced and
monitored during operations.
The figures below show the sea-state scatter diagrams (Hs-Tp) extracted from H8GEN-00-095-R02-2000 for the months of January and February, period during
which the Campaign 2 operations will be performed.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 17 of 36
Figure 4-1 Omnidirectional Hs-Tp Scatter diagram for the months of January and February
(Ref. H8-GEN-00-095-R02-2000)
The table below summarizes for each Tp bin in the scatter diagrams above the
maximum Hs considered to obtain an overall operability of about 90% during the
considered months.
Tp
From
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
To
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
TOTAL
Hs max
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
-
% occurence
in January
0
19.02
36.77
7.33
4.14
13.85
9.72
2.16
0
0
0
93
% occurence
in February
0
16.16
31.27
9.73
8.11
13.39
8.6
2.05
0
0
0
89.3
Table 4-1 Hs-Tp values considered in dynamic analysis
The dynamic analysis will be based on the worst Hs values in this table. This means
that if an operation is proved by analysis to be safe for all sea-states listed above
the operability will be at least 93% in January and 89% in February.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 18 of 36
Whenever possible, the installation vessel is positioned in-line with the Swell, with a
typical heading tolerance of +/-15 which will be included in the dynamic cases
matrix.
It is noted that no operation during campaign 2 has been identified that would
constrain the vessel to a particular heading. Therefore all dynamic analyses will be
done with the vessel aligned with the swell and accounting for a tolerance of
+/15deg.
Sensitivity analyses are performed considering the 1-yr current profile.
4.3
STATIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Static analysis is the first step in installation analysis and aims at establishing the
static equilibrium configuration at various stages of the installation. It defines the
starting point for subsequent dynamic analyses.
Installation of the flexible flowline is divided into the following main stages:
1. Recovery of flexible riser subsea end-fitting on installation vessel
2. Connection of the first section of flexible flowline on riser end-fitting and laydown of intermediate end-fitting connection between riser and
3. Normal lay and curve lay of flowline
4. Lay-down of intermediate end-fitting connection between flowline sections
5. Repeat step 3 and 4 for as many flowline sections to be laid
6. 2nd end abandonment of last flowline section to be installed
4.4
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Dynamic calculations are performed to ensure that static parameters calculated are
valid and that limiting criteria are still ensured when both functional and
environmental loads are applied. They also determine the maximum allowable
vessel motions and sea-states with regards to limiting criteria, which includes the
maximum loading of the product (tension, MBR, bending moment, etc.).
For that purpose, a set of the most critical steps are selected from the static
analyses to be checked with a full dynamic calculation methodology. These static
steps are selected based on the limiting criteria. If the integrity of the product or its
ancillary equipment or any vessel equipment is compromised with maximum wave
heights, the Hs is reduced until these requirements are met.
Different methodologies can be adopted to perform the full dynamic calculations in
time domain. These simulations can be based on regular waves or on irregular
waves. Irregular waves are generally less conservative compared to regular waves
but require more calculation time.
In order to optimise calculation time and to cover a large range of sea state events,
a methodology involving both regular wave time domain analysis and vessel
motions spectral calculations is used.
This method is described hereafter:
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 19 of 36
First, dynamic time domain simulations with regular waves are run for the
parameters presented in Table 4-1 in a previous section and considering the vessel
heading to be aligned with the swell with a +/-22.5deg tolerance.
A typical factor of 1.86 is considered to convert the significant wave height Hs into
a maximum wave height Hmax for a typical sea-state duration of 3hrs. This factor
is derived from the reference [Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures
Y. GODA].
with N the number of waves.

To estimate the maximum wave height of a storm with 3 hour persistence and a
mean period of 10 s this results in Hmax = 1.86Hs.
The objectives of this first set of dynamic calculations are:
As a conservative approach, it can be used to estimate quickly the allowable

wave Hs for the various periods and directions. If all governing parameters
are fulfilled at this stage, then the allowable sea-states for the considered
operation are the ones shown in Table 4-1 and the resulting operability of
the operation is at least 90%. Hence, no further dynamic analysis is
required.
It allows to understand the frequency content of the system response and

determine any peak response periods due to potential resonance effect or
peak vessel excitation periods
It can be used to determine the relationship between vessel motions and

the response of the catenary. Indeed, the dynamic responses of the
catenary are closely linked to the vessel motions and a direct relationship is
expected to be found for most installation stages. For example, the
catenary tension at hang off point is likely to be strongly correlated with the
vertical acceleration at the hang-off point.
If the first set of regular wave time domain calculations has concluded on low
allowable sea-states, the following methods can then be used:
If a strong correlation between one particular vessel motion (e.g. hang-off

vertical velocity) and one of the critical governing parameter (e.g. MBR) has
been found, then the maximum allowable value of that specific motion (e.g.
maximum hang-off vertical velocity of 1.5m/s) is determined in order to
ensure that the governing parameter limiting criteria (e.g. MBR of 2m) will
never be infringed. Then, by using simple spectral calculation method to
calculate the vessel motions for various sea-states, it is possible to define
what would be the maximum allowable sea-states that will ensure this
particular vessel motion is always below the limit defined above.
Furthermore, this criterion on a maximum vessel motion can be used as an
alternative criterion to the traditional allowable sea-state criterion to help
the decision process offshore. This method is called Vessel Motion Based
Criteria (VMBC) and aims at reducing the conservatisms underlying the
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 20 of 36
traditional approach using allowable sea-states and thus improving the

operability of the vessel.
If no satisfying correlation are found or correlation with too many different

vessel motion parameters, then a time domain analysis using irregular wave
can be used. Due to the time consuming aspect of irregular wave
calculations, a careful selection of sea-states should be performed to
minimize the computation time. Appropriate sea-states should be selected to
at least capture any peak response periods (system natural periods, vessel
natural periods) and capture the maximum vessel motions at hang-off points
(as a minimum: vertical motion, velocity and acceleration, pitch, roll).
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 21 of 36
5.
ANALYSES RESULTS
5.1
NORMAL LAY AND CURVE LAY

Analysis was performed to calculate the layback boundaries for normal lay.
Minimum and maximum water depths have been studied considering the routes of
both flowlines BU-DS01 and BU-DS02, refer to Table 3-4. Curve laying stability is
also checked.
The acceptable layback range is established based on static and dynamic analysis.
The lower layback limit is normally governed by MBR criteria and the compression
limit of the product. The upper layback limit is normally governed by the maximum
allowable tension at hang-off or at TDP, in some cases the departure angle.
5.1.1
Static Results
Layback ranges straight line laying
The following results are presented assuming normal lay operation is performed
with flowline empty.
Case
Layback
(m)
Angle
at tulip
exit ()
Top
Tension
(mT)
TDP
Tension
(kN)
MBR
(m)
16
1.25
6.08
0.73
10.49
30
5.21
6.46
4.49
15.62
16
0.71
8.01
0.60
10.30
35
4.02
8.43
4.82
16.09
14
39
4.16
Min WD (71m) Minimum layback

Min WD (71m) Maximum layback
Max WD (108m) Minimum layback
Max WD (108) Maximum layback
Installation
Criteria
Note: maximum layback given is valid for both straight and curve laying operations (see Table 5-2).
Table 5-1 Layback range and static results for straight line laying
Layback ranges curve laying

A maximum tension must not be exceeded to ensure line stability on seabed during
laying in curve. The maximum allowable TDP tension for laying in curve can be
obtained from the following formula:
TCurve =
Where:
..
TCurve: TDP Tension for a curve laying (kN)
: Lateral friction coefficient
W: product weight in water
: Curve radius
SF: Dynamic Factor (1.5)
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 22 of 36
The maximum tension capacity for curve laying is presented in the table below.
Parameter
Value
Lateral Friction Coefficient*
0.38
Flowline weight in Water (kN/m)
0.51
Max TDP tension (kN)
100m: 12.92
for various curve radius
200m: 25.84
*Taken from previous projects

Table 5-2 Maximum allowable TDP tension for curve laying
5.1.2
Dynamic results
Conservative dynamic analysis using regular wave up to 3m Hs has been performed
for normal lay operation.
For this operation, the vessel has the possibility to weathervane, therefore only
head sea +/-15deg has been considered.
Dynamic results are presented in next table.
Case
Min WD (71m) Minimum
layback
Min WD (71m) Maximum
layback
Max WD
(108m) Minimum
layback
Max WD (108) Maximum
layback
Installation
Criteria
Max
Angle at
tulip
exit ()
Max
Top
Tension
(mT)
Max
TDP
Tension
(kN)
MBR
(m)
6.09
6.98
4.38
8.08
9.37
7.47
10.46
10.40
5.57
9.32
3.79
7.94
8.23
9.88
10.93
10.75
14
39
12.92 &
25.84
4.16
Note: maximum layback given is valid for both straight and curve laying operations (see Table 5-2).
Table 5-3 Dynamic results for straight line laying
As all parameters are within their allowable limit, hence the normal lay operation
can be performed safely up to a maximum allowable Hs of 2.5m within the
specified layback range of 23m +/- 7m and 25.5 m +/- 9.5m for the
minimum and maximum water depths respectively.
It is also noted that the maximum layback is driven by the product top angle. Since
maximum TDP tensions are below the maximum allowable TDP tension for curves
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 23 of 36
introduced in Table 5-2, therefore the maximum laybacks for each water depth is
valid for both straight and curve laying operations.
Since, the resulting maximum allowable Hs is high, no alternative criteria on vessel
motion is deemed required.
5.1.3
Sensitivity with current

With respect to current effect on normal lay configuration, the same conclusions as
for the flowline-flowline intermediate connection lay-down (see 5.4.3) can be drawn
as the catenary shape is very similar and dynamic results are better.
In terms of MBR, since minimum bending radius for normal lay (Table 5-3) is
further away from the limit than for intermediate connection lay-down, no issue is
expected on MBR.
In terms of product departure angle at tulip exit, a lower maximum departure angle
is observed for normal lay than for intermediate connection lay-down (10 vs. 9.4)
an furthermore the maximum angle is well below the limit (14).
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 24 of 36
5.2
FLEXIBLE FLOWLINE TERMINATION ABANDONMENT / RECOVERY
5.2.1
Static results
Analysis is done for flowline termination abandonment this will also cover the
recovery operation as this is the reverse operation of abandonment. The catenary
will be flooded during this operation; the water depth is 71m.
Table below summarizes the steps for abandonment of flowline termination. Figure
5-1 shows the snapshots for this operation.
Step
A&R
Length
(m)
Vessel
Step
move
(m)
Layback
(m)
Pull
head
height
above
seabed
(m)
MBR in
flowline
(m)
NA, top
angle
1.1
Deploying pulling head subsea
13.5
17.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
63.17
63.17
68.17
68.17
73.17
73.17
80.17
80.17
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
4
15.0
21.0
14.0
19.0
13.0
18.0
10.0
15.0
20.2
20.4
15.2
15.4
10.2
10.4
3.1
3.3
8.5
9.9
8.2
9.5
8.1
9.1
10.9
11.2
85.17
5.2
0.3
52.6
4.16
Install.
Criteria
A&R
wire
angle at
tulip
exit ()
NA
8.9
Pull
Head
Tension
(mT)
Remarks
11.93
Release of the last endfitting off the tensioner

and held above the VLS.
Pull head 20m above sea
bed
Vessel move
A&R payout
Vessel move
A&R payout
Vessel move
A&R payout
Vessel move
2.0
3.0
4.3
1.6
3.8
1.2
3.5
0.6
2.6
3.2
2.4
2.6
1.8
2.0
1.2
1.2
0.4
0.0
A&R payout, Pull in head

landed on sea bed
14
Table 5-4 Static results for flowline termination abandonment, 71m WD
Figure 5-1- Flowline termination abandonment
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 25 of 36
5.2.2
Dynamic results
Conservative dynamic analysis using regular wave has been performed (as
described in section 4).
Step 2 (max layback) and Step 5 (min layback) of Table 5-4 are chosen for
dynamic analysis as they are associated with max angle and lowest MBR
respectively. Step 0 is also included for max dynamic top tension.
A&R Winch
Flowline
Max
Angle at
tulip
exit(deg)
Max
Hook
Load
(mT)
Max
TDP
Tension
(kN)
MBR
(m)
Compression
(kN)
Step 0 -Max
top Tension
2.57
13.04
6.52
7.02
-2.06
Step 2 -max
layback
(21m)
11.04
3.73
8.97
7.48
-0.92
Step 5 -min
layback
(13m)
8.08
2.20
4.87
6.28
-3.85
Installation
Criteria
14
4.16
-59
Step
Table 5-5 Dynamic results for flowline termination abandonment, 71m WD
As all parameters are within their allowable limit, the flowline termination
abandonment can be performed safely up to a maximum allowable Hs of 2.5m
with layback range maintained between 13m and 21m during the
operation.
5.2.3
Sensitivity at 108m WD
As previous calculations were done for the smallest WD (conservative in terms of
MBR and top angle), a sensitivity analysis has been performed at the maximum WD
(108m) to determine the maximum load on the recovery pull-head.
A&R hook load is directly correlated with crane tip heave acceleration, hence only
the dynamic case leading to the maximum hook acceleration has been run for the
108m WD case.
Resulting static hook load in 108m WD is 15.8mT and maximum dynamic load is
17.6mT.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 26 of 36
5.2.4
Sensitivity on content
As laydown prior to interim mobilisation will be performed with an empty product;
static analysis described in 5.2.1 is now performed with catenary empty.
Table below summarizes the static results.
Step
A&R
Length
(m)
Vessel
Step
move
(m)
Layback
(m)
Pull
head
height
above
seabed
(m)
MBR in
flowline
(m)
A&R
wire
angle at
tulip exit
()
Pull
Head
Tension
(mT)
63.17
63.17
68.17
68.17
73.17
73.17
80.17
80.17
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
4
17.0
22.0
16.0
21.0
15.0
20.0
12.0
16.0
59.8
59.7
64.8
64.7
69.8
69.7
76.9
76.7
10.5
12.3
10.2
12.0
10.4
12.0
15.0
15.7
1.3
1.7
3.3
0.9
3.0
0.7
2.8
0.5
2.5
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.3
0.9
0.9
85.17
5.0
79.7
68.4
0.4
0.0
Install.
Criteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4.16
14
Table 5-6 Static results for flowline termination abandonment, 71m WD, empty product
As indicated in the above table static results are improved comparing with flooded
case (larger MBR for step 5 and smaller angle for step2). Therefore the layback
range obtained for flooded case is also valid for empty case.
FLS load transfer top tension checks
Dynamic analysis has been performed for calculating max dynamic top tension of
the flowline when it is suspended from A&R above the tensioner tracks (~30m
above sea level); this is done with catenary empty.
WD
(m)
71
108
Max
Hs
(m)
2.5
2.5
Static
Top
Tension
(mT)
Max
Dynamic
Top
Tension
(mT)
10.39
12.27
11.71
13.94
Table 5-7 Top tension of flowline suspended 30m above sea level
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 27 of 36
5.3
FLEXIBLE RISER TERMINATION ABANDONMENT / RECOVERY
5.3.1
Static results
Analysis is done for flexible riser termination abandonment this will also cover the
recovery operation as this is the reverse operation of abandonment. The catenary is
flooded during this operation; the water depth is 77m.
Step
A&R
Length
(m)
Vessel
Step
move
(m)
NA
Layback
(m)
Pull
head
height
above
seabed
(m)
MBR in
Riser
(m)
15.0
NA
8.9
A&R
wire
angle at
tulip
exit ()
Pull
Head
Tension
(mT)
1.6
16.1
Remarks
Riser EF at worktable
Deploying pulling head subsea

63.17
63.17
68.17
68.17
73.17
73.17
80.17
80.17
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
4
15.0
20.0
13.0
18.0
12.0
17.0
10.0
14.0
20.2
20.4
15.2
15.4
10.2
10.4
3.1
3.3
8.1
9.3
7.8
8.8
7.6
8.5
10.0
10.3
85.17
4.8
0.3
82.1
4.4
Install.
Criteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.2
4.6
4.6
1.8
4.2
1.3
3.7
0.6
2.7
5.0
3.7
4.0
2.8
3.0
1.7
1.8
0.4
0.0
Pull head 20m above

sea bed
Vessel move
A&R payout
Vessel move
A&R payout
Vessel move
A&R payout
Vessel move
A&R payout, Pull in
head landed on sea
bed
Table 5-8 Static results for riser termination abandonment, 77m WD
5.3.2
Dynamic results
Conservative dynamic analysis using regular wave has been performed (as
described in section 4).
Step 2 (max layback) and Step 5 (min layback) of Table 5-8 are chosen for
dynamic analysis as they are associated with max angle and lowest MBR
respectively. Step 0 is also included for max dynamic top tension.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 28 of 36
A&R Winch
Riser
Max
Angle at
tulip
exit(deg)
Max
Hook
Load
(mT)
Max
TDP
Tension
(kN)
MBR
(m)
Compression
(kN)
Step 0 -Max
top Tension
3.55
17.54
8.2
7.52
-0.02
Step 2 -max
layback
(20m)
12.72
5.97
15.04
7.47
-0.16
Step 5 -min
layback
(12m)
8.27
3.23
5.41
6.19
-5.29
Installation
Criteria
14
4.4
-51
Step
Table 5-9 Dynamic results for riser termination abandonment, 77m WD
As all parameters are within their allowable limit, the riser termination
abandonment can be performed safely up to a maximum allowable Hs of 2.5m
with layback range maintained between 12m and 20m during the
operation.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 29 of 36
5.4
FLOWLINE-FLOWLINE INTERMEDIATE CONNECTION LAY-DOWN
5.4.1
Static results
Static analysis is performed for laying-down the intermediate connection between
two sections of flowline when the catenary is empty; this is done for the minimum
water depth (71m).
The table below summarizes the static results of the lay-down for maximum and
minimum laybacks. The results are presented when intermediate connection is in its
critical position in sagbend.
Figure 5-2 shows the intermediate connection in the critical position for MBR in the
sagbend.
It is noted that two anodes of 25kg each have been considered on each side of the
intermediate connection.
Case
Min
Layback
Max
Layback
Installation
Criteria
Layback
(m)
Angle at
tulip
exit ()
Top
Tension
(mT)
TDP
Tension
(kN)
MBR
(m)
14
1.9
6.67
0.94
5.32
27
6.3
6.99
5.78
6.36
14
39
4.16
Table 5-10 Static results for flowline-flowline intermediate connection laydown, 71m WD
Figure 5-2- Flexible Flowline intermediate connection laydown
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 30 of 36
For the landing of the intermediate connection on seabed, a layback value in

range of 14m to 27m has to be maintained to ensure appropriate bending radius
in the flexible and maintain the departure angle at the work table within an
acceptable limit.
5.4.2
Dynamic results
Conservative dynamic analysis using regular wave up to 3m Hs has been performed
on these two steps.
Dynamic results are presented in the next table. One case (Step 0) is also included
for max dynamic top tension, this is when intermediate connection is at worktable
and tensioner is engaged.
Step
Step 0 Max top

Tension
Min Layback
Max Layback
Installation
Criteria
Max Hs
(m)
Angle at
tulip exit
(deg)
Max Top
Tension
(mT)
Max TDP
Tension
(kN)
MBR (m)
2.5
5.4
9.33
10.5
10.42
2.5
2.5
6.42
9.97
7.42
7.84
5.43
12.84
4.55
5.23
14
39
4.16
Table 5-11 Dynamic results for flowline intermediate connection lay-down
As all parameters are within their allowable limit, the intermediate connection laydown can be performed safely up to a maximum allowable Hs of 2.5m with
layback range maintained between 14m and 27m during the operation.
Since, the resulting maximum allowable Hs is high, no alternative criteria on vessel
motion is deemed required.
5.4.3
Sensitivity with current

Sensitivity with current is performed for both laybacks. Current profile described in
section 3.3 is used. Current is applied in the catenary plane. Results and
comparison with nominal case are presented in table below.
Layback of 27m No current

Layback of 27m With current
Layback of 14m No current
Layback of 14m With current
Max
Hs
(m)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Angle at
tulip exit
(deg)
9.97
11.3
6.42
7.43
Installation Criteria
14
Connection in sagbend case
MBR (m)
5.23
5.21
4.55
4.39
4.16
Table 5-12 Dynamic results in presence of current for flowline intermediate connection
lay-down
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 31 of 36
The results show that the MBR of the flowline and its top angle remain within their
limit.
5.4.4
Sensitivity with maximum water depth

The same analysis detailed in section 5.4.1 is performed for maximum water depth
(108m). Following table shows the dynamic results in present of current for the
same range of layback.
Step
Min Layback
(14m)
Max Layback
(27m)
Installation
Criteria
Max Hs
(m)
Angle at
tulip exit
(deg)
Max Top
Tension
(mT)
Max TDP
Tension
(kN)
MBR (m)
2.5
7.31
7.42
5.43
4.55
2.5
9.97
7.84
12.84
5.23
14
39
4.16
Table 5-13 Dynamic results in presence of current for flowline intermediate connection
lay-down, 108m WD
As all parameters are within their allowable limit, therefore the intermediate
connection lay-down can be performed safely up to a maximum allowable Hs of
2.5m with layback range maintained between 14m and 27m during the
operation for both maximum and minimum water depths.
Resulting static top tension in 108m WD is 10.25mT and maximum dynamic load is
11.54mT.
5.4.5
Sensitivity with flowline-riser intermediate connection lay-down

Similar analysis as in section 5.4.1 is performed for laying the intermediate
connection of flowline and riser. In this case riser is flooded but flowline is empty.
Water depth for this operation is 77m. Figure 5-3 shows the intermediate
connection in the critical position for MBR in the sagbend.
Figure 5-3- Flowline-Riser intermediate connection laydown
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 32 of 36
To obtain a range for layback during installation conservative dynamic analysis

using regular wave has been performed for intermediate connection lay-down.
Dynamic results in presence of current are presented in the next table. One case
(Step 0) is also included for max dynamic top tension, this is when intermediate
connection is at worktable and tensioner is engaged.
Step
Step 0 Max
top Tension
Min Layback
(28.5m)
Max Layback
(30.0m)
Installation
Criteria
Max Hs
(m)
Angle at
tulip exit
(deg)
Max Top
Tension
(mT)
Max TDP
Tension
(kN)
2.5
9.54
21.30*
21.59
11.78
8.85
13.16
12.90
8.49
12.48
14
39
MBR (m)
10.61
(riser)
4.26
(flowline)
4.34
(flowline)
4.16
(flowline)/
4.44
(riser)
*The static top tension is 19.47mT
Table 5-14 Dynamic results in presence of current for flowline-riser intermediate

connection lay-down
As all parameters are within their allowable limit, therefore the flowline-riser
intermediate connection lay-down can be performed safely up to a maximum
allowable Hs of 2m with layback range maintained between 28.5m and
30m during the operation.
It is noted that limiting parameters for minimum and maximum laybacks are
catenary MBR and product top angle respectively.
No vessel motion criteria could be obtained for this operation.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 33 of 36
Sensitivity with ART

As mentioned before the limiting parameter for minimum layback is MBR. Lowest
value for MBR happens in head see; therefore ART will not affect the minimum
layback value that was given in Table 5-14.
However the maximum angle at tulip exit occurs when roll motion is introduced by
waves. Therefore maximum layback can be increased using ART. Following table
presents the dynamic results when ART is in use in presence of current.
Step
Min Layback
(28.5m)
Max Layback
(33.5m)
Installation
Criteria
Max Hs
(m)
Angle at
tulip exit
(deg)
Max Top
Tension
(mT)
Max TDP
Tension
(kN)
MBR
(m)*
10.38
8.85
13.29
4.26
11.09
8.90
16.25
4.50
14
39
4.16
*Lowest catenary MBR happens on flowline side
Table 5-15 Dynamic results in presence of current for flowline-riser intermediate

connection lay-down
As all parameters are within their allowable limit, therefore the flowline-riser
intermediate connection lay-down can be performed safely up to a maximum
allowable Hs of 2m with layback range maintained between 28.5m and
33.5m provided that ART is active during the operation.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 34 of 36
5.5
CROSSING ANALYSIS
5.5.1
Crossing support height

Point loading on the 18 WP1 production pipeline is not permitted. Therefore a
minimum clearance should be maintained between the flexible flowline and the
pipeline at crossing point.
Analysis has been performed to determine the required height of the mattresses on
either side of the pipeline to ensure that the gap between the flexible and pipeline
will be sufficient.
The mattresses are located 4m from centreline of the pipeline and installed at the
edge of this tolerance with consideration to the potential lateral movement of the
pipeline (Figure 5-4).
Max deflection of flowline over the free span happens assuming flow line is fixed at
one end and free (no tension) at the second end. When the line is flooded max
deflection is 25 cm.
Figure 5-4 Crossing support arrangement
Therefore the total height (h) of the mattresses required can be calculated as
below:
hmax = ODWP1 + Required clearance + max deflection of flooded line
Parameter
Value
Remarks
OD of production
pipeline
66cm
Required clearance
30cm
Including 10cm contingency
Max deflection
25cm
Under no back tension
hmax
121cm
Including concrete coating and

marine growth; also no pipeline
burial is assumed
Table 5-16 - Maximum required mattress height
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 35 of 36
Sensitivity has been performed with different residual tensions and contents for a
mattress height of 1.5m above mudline. The residual tension is obtained by
simulating the laying over the mattress with various laybacks. It is noted that the
layback range simulated here will cover the layback range specified for the offshore
operations.
Results are shown in table below and the configuration modelled is shown in
snapshot after.
Layback
(m)
Fluid
content
(kg/m3)
40
40
30
30
20
20
15
15
1025
0
1025
0
1025
0
1025
0
TDP
Max
tension deflection
(kN)
(m)
15.5
7.1
9.3
4.5
4.7
1.8
1.9
0.64
0.131
-0.045
0.134
-0.064
0.126
-0.100
0.170
-0.122
Max point
loading
(kN)
17.1
9.22
16.45
9.09
16.1
8.47
14.6
8.48
Allowable MBR:
Min
bending
radius
(m)
10.0
15.2
9.4
14.5
8.9
14.7
9.4
14.1
4.16
Table 5-17: Sensitivity on residual tension and content
Figure 5-5: Flowline configuration for sensitivity check
From these results the conclusions are:
No MBR issue is encountered, the safety factor on MBR is always greater

than 2.0 so above any operating, storage, accidental requirements
Point loading is mainly depend on fluid content,
Point load is less dependent on residual tension (hence layback)
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface
AA0016-ENG-20008

28.11.2014
Revision: 0
Page 36 of 36
5.5.2
Current stability
Stability of the flexible flowline against 100-year return period omni-directional
current when resting over the mattresses is investigated here. The analysis is done
assuming the flowline is empty.
The flowline is considered stable if friction force between the mattress and flowline
is greater than drag force produced by current (Ffric > Fdrag).
Drag and friction forces can be calculated using the following formulas respectively.
Fdrag = 0.5CdLODU (drag force term in Morison's equation)
Ffric = 9.81Lwf (lateral friction force before sliding)
Parameter
Value
Remarks
40m
length of flexible over which the

current is applied
OD
0.39m
OD of flexible
Cd
1.2
Drag coefficient
rho
1.025 t/m3
Seawater density
0.4 m/s
Current velocity
Fdrag
1.54 kN
Table 5-18 Drag force calculation
Parameter
Value
Remarks
4m
length of contact between flexible

and mattress
0.175 t/m
Mass per unit length of flexible

empty
0.3
Friction coefficient
flexible/mattress
Ffric
2.06 kN
Table 5-19 Friction force calculation
To conclude as shown the two above tables; Ffric > Fdrag and therefore the flowline
is stable.
Copyright Subsea 7
seabed-to-surface

H8 SSP 00 066 N01 68585 - 0 - 006 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

H8 SSP 00 066 N01 68585 - 0 - 006 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ConocoPhillips

BayuUndan Phase 3 Project

DOCUMENT COVER SHEET

COMPANYS DOCUMENT No:

SUPPLIERS DOCUMENT No:

EQUIPMENT TAG No:

DOCUMENT STATUS AS REVIEWED BY CONOCOPHILLIPS

Revise & Resubmit. Work May

Revise & Resubmit. Work May Not

REVISIONS TO COMPANYS DOCUMENT No.

Issued for Client Review

Approved for Construction

Supplier shall resubmit document in accordance with

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis

Senior Analysis Engineer

Approved for Construction

Reason for Issue

Project Engineering Manager

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

REVISION RECORD SHEET

Issued for IDC

Issue for Client

Implemented IDC comments

Implemented IFCR comments

Reason for HOLD

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

ANALYSIS BASIS .......................................................................................... 10

ANALYSES RESULTS ...................................................................................... 21

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

Figure 1-1: Field Location

Commercial production began in April 2004, delivering 115,000bpd of condensate

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

Figure 1-2: Field Schematic

Contractor is responsible for all project management, project services, coordination

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

Reason for Hold

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

Documents 3rd Party / Subcontractor

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

*Range of Tp covered in Table 4-1

Table 2-1-Allowable sea-states for flexible flowline operations

It is noted that the alternative criteria given on vessel motion is an

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

The verification of the installation criteria is provided in Table below.

Max departure angle at tulip

Max dynamic top tension in

Table 2-2- Verification of the installation criteria

ConocoPhillips Pty Ltd

Flexible Flowline Installation Analysis Campaign 2

PRODUCT AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION

Flexible Flowline and Flexible Riser - Cross-section

Table 3-1 Flexible flowline and Flexible Riser properties