Final Report

Development of Time-Domain VIV Prediction and Analysis Tool

Project No: C9-11

Project Duration: June 2009-March 2012

Submitted to:

Petroleum Research Newfoundland and Labrador

Submitted by:

Dr. Wei Qiu, Project Lead

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science
Memorial University

March 30, 2012

 SUMMARY

The objective of the project was to develop a time-domain analysis tool for the prediction of
vortex induced vibrations (VIV) of marine risers. A new forcing algorithm to maximize the use
of a wide range of available experimental data has been developed and implemented in a mooring
analysis program. The new time-domain VIV program aids in better prediction and analysis of
VIV impact. The developed tool differs from existing software as it operates in the time domain
rather than the standard modal approach, introducing greater robustness and accuracy in
modeling. The tool has been validated against the experimental data of a full scale rigid riser and
a flexible riser and the numerical results by other VIV programs used by the offshore industry.
The results show that the developed tool is able to predict the maximum and minimum
amplitudes of cross-flow vibrations of rigid and flexible risers.

The project has expanded experimental expertise, numerical modeling capability and facilities to
confidently address the issues related deepwater riser design. The outcome of this project places
the Atlantic Canadian community at the leading edge of this work internationally.

Further research should be carried out to capture the shape of the vibration envelope along the
length of flexible risers. Research should also be extended to VIV of multiple risers and risers
with suppression devices. Most hydrodynamic data available only include cross-flow responses
while risers respond also in-line. It is recommended to include in-line hydrodynamic data in the
database.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................4
2. Objective, Methodology and Results .......................................................................................4
3. Dissemination and Technology Transfer .................................................................................6
4. Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................................................6
5. Publications ..............................................................................................................................7
6. References ................................................................................................................................7

Appendix I Publication...............................................................................................................8
1. Introduction

One of the main technical challenges for the production of hydrocarbons in deep water is vortex
induced vibration of marine risers. The dynamic response of deep water risers due to VIV can
lead to large tensile and bending loading, fatigue damage to the riser structure itself and clashing
between adjacent risers and other equipment. The modal analysis has been commonly used to
model VIV. While this is an efficient approach, it is very limited and cannot handle non-linear
effects and relies on several simplifications of the experimental data. For example, the current
profile is generally limited to uniform or sheared current and the current must also be co-planar.
While Shear7 and VIVARRAY, commonly used by the offshore industry, can also model more
general current profiles, the current is however not time varying. In addition, the modal approach
cannot model dynamic boundary conditions such as vessel-induced motion and moving
touchdown points of SCR’s. Both Shear7 and VIVARRAY only model the cross-flow vibrations,
while the in-line vibrations and higher harmonics are either ignored or only approximated. At the
RPSEA (Research Program Secure Energy America) meeting in 2007, representatives from the
oil industry identified VIV as a major technological barrier and stated their desire to see new
tools for the prediction and analysis of VIV.

This report summarizes the development of a novel time-domain VIV prediction tool, which is a
significant departure from the existing tools based on the modal approach, its validation, and
future work.

2. Objective, Methodology and Results

The objective of the project was to develop a novel time-domain analysis tool to accurately
predict the vortex induced vibration of marine risers. The development of the time-domain tool is
based on a novel forcing algorithm and available database derived from experiments. In the new
algorithm, the VIV problem is solved in the time domain by making full use of the available high
Reynolds number empirical data. In the formulation, the hydrodynamic damping is not treated as
a special case but simply an extension of the experimentally derived lift curves. Note that the
standard method for interpreting the experimental data was re-formulated to avoid a singularity in
the lift coefficient when the flow velocity, U, goes to zero (i.e. still water damping).

Hydrodynamic Database: In recent years, there has been a large body of high quality empirical
data collected on finite segments of marine risers and risers with VIV suppression devices such
as strakes and fairings. Much of this data comes from the so-called forced experiments where the
cylinder is oscillated at a specified frequency and amplitude while being towed through the fluid
at constant speed. The total hydrodynamic force acting on the cylinder was then decomposed into
two orthogonal components, one parallel to the flow (i.e. drag) and one perpendicular to the flow
direction (i.e. lift). Since the cylinder oscillates in the direction of the lift force, this force
component is further decomposed into a force in phase with velocity (damping or excitation) and
a second component which is in phase with acceleration (added mass). If the component that is in
phase with velocity is positive, it will tend to increase the cylinder amplitude, or excite it, and if it
is negative, the fluid will remove energy or dampen the motion. The lift component in phase with
acceleration appears as an added mass and has the effect to change the natural frequency of the
system. The added mass can also be either negative or positive, with a positive value increasing
the overall apparent mass and reducing the natural period. The forced experiments demonstrate
that both of these lift force components are functions of the frequency of oscillation as well as its
amplitude. It is typical to present forces as non-dimensional coefficients and plot them as against
non-dimensional state variables, the amplitude ratio A* and reduced velocity VR.

Oceanic and Memorial have been involved in the development of the database of the added mass,
damping and lifting coefficients for the full scale cylinders with and without VIV suppression
devices through the DeepStar JIPs and the NSERC/NRC/PRAC project. The database has been
used in the project.

Note that the existing numerical prediction tools used by the offshore industry have not made full
use of this information. Some improvements have been made to incorporate this data in Shear7
and VIVARRAY. However, to date it has only been partially successful. For example,
Venugopal (1996) presented a damping model typical to programs such as Shear7, in which
damping is only defined for the low reduced velocities (VR<5) and at the higher reduced velocity
range (VR>8). For reduced velocities between these values (5<VR<8), the excitation (i.e. VIV)
was assumed to occur and a separate model was implemented for this. The Venugopal model has
shown the similarity to the forced experiments where the lift coefficients were found to be
negative (damped) at low and high reduced velocities. However it does not capture the large
area with negative lift coefficient CLV between reduced velocity of 4.5 and 5.5 with amplitude
ratios less than 0.6.

Forcing Algorithm: In the forced experiments the cylinder was forced as specific amplitudes
and frequencies and the resulting lift and drag loads experienced by the cylinder were recorded.
As part of these experiments, some of the forced experiments had two frequency components that
were combined so the signals beat together and the amplitude of oscillation varied continuously.
Results from these experiments indicated that the lift and added mass determined from the
analysis of single unsteady cycle with amplitude, A and frequency, f, was similar to that
determined from experiments with multiple cycles with constant period and amplitude. This
means that the fluid had no memory of what happened prior and the loads only depend on the
current state variables (A*, VR) of the cylinder in the fluid. This finding makes sense as the
vortices are swept downstream by the flow and away from the cylinder. If it is assumed that the
cylinder motion does not change dramatically from one cycle to the next, the state variables from
the previous cycle may be used to make an estimate of the lift and drag for the next cycle. Based
on this premise, a simple forcing algorithm was devised where the current state of the cylinder
was found by determining the frequency and period of oscillation from the previous cycle. The
various empirically derived forcing curves were then employed to determine the lift and drag
coefficients that are used for the next cycle.

Integration into Mooring Program: The forcing algorithm discussed above has been integrated
into a mooring analysis program based on a global-coordinate based finite element method. At
each time step, the added mass, lifting force and drag force coefficients and their corresponding
loads are computed for each element.

Validation Studies: Validation studies have been carried out for a flexible riser in model scale
and a full scale rigid riser. Note that it was proposed to use the sea trial data of 150 meter flexible
riser collected in the NSERC/NRC/PRAC project for validation studies in the original plan. It
was found that some calibration data were not available in the NSERC/NRC/PRAC project.
Efforts were made to validate the time domain tool using the model test data by Chaplin et al.
(see the validation cases in Appendix I) as alternatives.

Results: The predicted maximum and minimum amplitudes by the present tool agree well with
experimental data. In comparison with the modal approach based programs and other time-
domain tools, the predictions by the present method are generally in better agreement with
experimental data. The modal shape of VIV is however not well captured.

Evaluation of Fatigue Performance: The algorithm for the evaluation of fatigue performance of
risers subject to VIV has been investigated. Due to the time limitation and available resources,
the algorithm has not been included in the time-domain tool.

A User-Friendly Interface: It has been developed for the mooring analysis program.

Extension of Hydrodynamic Coefficient Database: Efforts have been made to investigate the
extension of the hydrodynamic coefficient database using commercial CFD programs. The
purpose was to include more data points in the current hydrodynamic database derived from
experiments for better interpolation. It has been confirmed for the studies that there are
limitations in the commercial CFD programs for producing the hydrodynamic coefficients,
especially at high Reynolds numbers. Note that this task was not included in the original
proposal.

Significance of the Results: The project provides a novel time-domain numerical tool for
offshore industry, especially in Atlantic Canada. This tool presents a significant departure from
the existing tools based on the modal approach to address the technical barriers in VIV analysis
and prediction. The emphasis of the work enables the marine performance evaluation community
consisting of universities, government research laboratories and industry to expand our
experimental expertise, numerical modeling capability and facilities to confidently address the
issues related deepwater riser design. The success of this project places the Atlantic Canadian
community at the front edge of this work internationally. The results of the project will be
presented at OMAE12. One of the reviewers for the OMAE2012 paper commented “this work is
very interesting and the methodology is a welcome addition to the literature”. Our partner,
Oceanic Consulting Corporation, has shown strong interests in marketing the tool to the
international community.

3. Dissemination and Technology Transfer

In working with our partner, Oceanic Consulting Corporation, a user friendly interface has been
developed for the mooring program. Oceanic is very interested in marketing the tool to Atlantic
Canada’s petroleum industry and the international offshore industry.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

A new forcing algorithm to maximize the use of a wide range of available experimental data has
been developed and implemented in a mooring analysis program. The new time-domain VIV
program aids in better prediction and analysis of VIV impact. The developed tool differs from
existing software as it operates in the time domain rather than the standard modal approach,
introducing greater robustness and accuracy in modeling. The tool has been validated against the
experimental data of a full scale rigid riser and a flexible riser and the numerical results by other
VIV programs. The results show that the developed tool is able to predict the maximum and
minimum amplitudes of cross-flow vibrations of rigid and flexible risers.

Further research should be carried out to capture the shape of the vibration envelope along the
length of flexible risers. Research should also be extended to VIV of multiple risers and risers
with suppression devices. Most hydrodynamic data available only include cross-flow responses
while risers respond also in-line. It is recommended to include in-line hydrodynamic data in the
database. Extensive validation studies are also recommended in the future projects.

5. Publications

Ma, P., Qiu, W. and Spencer, D., “Time-Domain VIV Prediction of Marine Risers”, OMAE2012,
Rio de Janiero, Brazil, July 2012 (see appendix I)

Ma, P., Qiu, W. and Spencer, D., “A Time-Domain Method for the Prediction of VIV of Marine
Risers”, Journal of OMAE, Submitted, April 2012.

Ma, P., “Time-Domain Simulation of Vortex Induced Vibration for Deepwater Marine Risers”,
M.Eng. Thesis, Memorial University, March 2012.

6. References

Venugopal, M., 1996, Damping and Response Prediction of a Flexible Cylinder in a Current,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, PhD Thesis, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Appendix I Publication
 Proceedings of OMAE2012
31th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Rio de Janiero, Brazil, July 1-6, 2012

OMAE2012-84269

TIME-DOMAIN VIV PREDICTION OF MARINE RISERS

Peter Ma*, Wei Qiu* and Don Spencer+

*Ocean Engineering Research Centre

Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John’s, Canada A1B 3X5
+ Oceanic Consulting Corporation

St. John’s, Canada A1B 2X5

ABSTRACT AE axial stiffness.

Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV) of marine risers poses CD drag coefficient.
a significant challenge as the offshore oil and gas industry CLV lift coefficient.
moves into deep water. A time-domain analysis tool has been CM added mass coefficient.
developed to predict the VIV of marine risers based on a forcing D reference riser diameter.
algorithm and by making full use of the available high Reynolds EI riser bending stiffness.
number experimental data. In the formulation, the hydrodynamic fo observed frequency of oscillation.
damping is not treated as a special case but simply an extension To period of oscillation.
of the experimentally derived lift curves. The forcing algorithm U∗ nominal reduced velocity.
was integrated into a mooring analysis program based on the U flow speed.
global-coordinate based finite element method. At each time VR reduced velocity.
step, the added mass, lifting force and drag force coefficients
and their corresponding loads are computed for each element.
Validation studies have been carried out for a full-scale rigid
riser segment and a model-scale flexible riser. The numerical INTRODUCTION
results were compared with experimental data and solutions by
Riser designers are facing increased challenges as offshore
other programs.
oil and gas exploration moves into greater water depths. One
of the most challenging issues is the accurate assessment of riser
fatigue due to vortex-induced vibrations. This in turn requires the
KEYWORDS accurate assessment of VIV responses. Risers operating in the
Vortex induced vibration, forcing algorithm, time domain, water column are subjected to current flow. The presence of riser
mooring line analysis. structure causes flow separation and results in the shedding of
vortices in the vicinity of the riser. Due to the asymmetric nature
of the wake structure behind the riser, a lift force (perpendicular
NOMENCLATURE to the flow direction) is generated and causes the riser to vibrate
A amplitude of cross flow oscillation. in the cross flow direction. VIV response prediction models
A∗ amplitude ratio. are aimed to evaluate the cross-flow vibration under certain flow

1 c 2012 by ASME
Copyright °
conditions.
Risers have large length-to-diameter ratio. It is not cost
effective and nearly impossible to model and scale the entire
riser system in physical testing. Most experiments have been
conducted on a segment of a riser to measure the hydrodynamic
forces and use numerical methods to predict the response of
the whole system. Considering Reynolds number is the most
important parameter in determining fluid flow regimes, these
VIV experiments should be conducted in high Reynolds number
flows. This implies that the diameter of the riser has to be
sufficiently large. Therefore this limits the length of the riser
that can be tested.
The common industry practice for multi-modal VIV
prediction is through the use of linear modal frequency models
such as Shear7 and VIVARRAY. These models use the modal
analysis to determine the number of modes that are likely to be
subjected to VIV and the corresponding natural frequencies. For
each mode, the reduced velocity is computed based on frequency
and flow information, and then an excitation or damping force is
applied depending on the value of reduced velocity.
The modal frequency models are limited in a number of
ways. The current profile is generally limited to uniform or
sheared current and the current must also be co-planar. While
Shear7 and VIVARRAY can also model more general current
profiles, the current is however not time varying. In addition,
the modal approach cannot model dynamic boundary conditions
such as vessel-induced motion, and moving touchdown points of
SCR’s. Both Shear7 and VIVARRAY only model the cross-flow
vibrations, while the in-line vibrations and higher harmonics are
either ignored or only approximated.
Efforts have been made to develop time-domain tools for
VIV predictions in recent years. For example, Grant et al. [1]
developed a time-domain program, ABAVIV to simulate the riser
VIV using the finite element package ABAQUS along with a
VIV algorithm. The program is based on the correlation model
proposed by Blevins [2]. The cross-flow vibration is excited
and monitored to determine if it is within a pre-defined lock-in
criterion. If so, the algorithm will tune the lift force to be in
phase with riser vibration velocity. If not, the algorithm uses
the Strouhal frequency as the lift force frequency and assign it a
random phase angle for each correlation length along the riser.
More recently, Sidarta et al. [3] developed SimVIV in the time
domain for VIV prediction. SimVIV also uses ABAQUS for
the finite element analysis. A user-subroutine was developed to
compute the VIV force. The cross flow vibration is essentially
based on the same theory as the one in ABAVIV.
A large database of high Reynolds number forced VIV
hydrodynamic coefficients has been collected on segments of
risers or risers with add-on devices in the work of Spencer et al.
[4] and Spencer et al. [5]. These segments were towed through
water at a constant speed to simulate current flow while subjected
to forced oscillation at a prescribed amplitude and frequency.
2 c 2012 by ASME
The total hydrodynamic forces can be decomposed into two
components (lift and drag) that are orthogonal to each other.
The drag force occurs in the direction of the flow (inline) and
the lift force acts in the cross flow direction at 90◦ to the inline
direction. Since the riser segment oscillates in the direction of lift
force, this force component is further decomposed into a force in
phase with acceleration (added mass) and a component that is in
phase with velocity (damping or excitation). If the component
that is in phase with velocity is positive, it will tend to increase
the cylinder amplitude, or excite it; and if negative the fluid will
remove energy or dampen the motion. The lift component in
phase with acceleration appears as an added mass and has the
effect to change the natural frequency of the system. The added
mass can also be either negative or positive, with a positive value
increasing the overall apparent mass and reducing the natural
period. These two lift force components are dependent on the
frequency of oscillation fo and its amplitude A. It is typical to
represent these forces in terms of non-dimensional coefficients
and plot them as functions of its state variables, the amplitude
ratio A∗ and the reduced velocity VR , which are defined as below.
A
A∗ =
D
UTo
VR =
D
where D is the diameter of the riser segment, To is the period
of oscillation, and U is the flow speed. Figure 1 shows lift
(CLV ) coefficients for a rough bare cylinder obtained from forced
experiments at critical Reynolds number flow. The yellow orange
shows area of positive CLV or excitation (all within the VR range
of 4 - 8). The rest of the plot shows negative CLV values or
damping. In other words, both excitation and damping are
included in the CLV curve. Note that the existing numerical
prediction tools have not made full use of this information. Some
improvements have been made to incorporate this data. However
to date it has only been partially successful.
Figure 2 shows a typical damping model used in Shear7
(Venugopal [6]). The figure shows damping is only defined for
reduced velocities lower than 5 and greater than 8. For the range
of reduced velocities between 5 and 8, excitation was assumed to
occur and a separate model was implemented.
Figure 3 shows a rotated view of the lift coefficient curve.
This plot shows similar characteristics to Venugopal’s damping
model. However, there’s damping (negative CLV ) between the
reduced velocities of 4.5-5.5 and amplitude ratios less than 0.6
as shown by the ‘dip’ on the plot. This is not captured in
Venugopal’s damping model since it assumes excitation to occur
at the VR range between 5 and 8.
Based on the earlier work of Spencer et al. [4], a
time-domain method has been developed to solve the VIV
problem by making full use of the available high Reynolds
Copyright °
 number experimental data. In the algorithm, the hydrodynamic
Lift Coefficients damping was not treated separately but instead as an extension
of the empirical lift curves derived from the experiments. A
1 1
0.5
method has also been employed to interpret the experimental
0
Clv 0
-0.5
data by avoiding a singularity in the lift coefficient when the flow
-1
-2
-1
-1.5
velocity, U, goes to zero. The forcing algorithm was integrated
-3
-2
-2.5
into a mooring analysis program based on the global-coordinate
-4
-3
-3.5
based finite element method. At each time step, the added mass,
-4 lifting force and drag force coefficients and their corresponding
0
loads are computed for each element. No assumption is made
0.2 on the correlation length. Correlation between neighboring
0.4
A
* 0.6
7
8
9 elements is implicitly included through structural response.
0.8
1
4
5
6
Vr
Validation studies have been carried out for a full-scale rigid
1.2 3
riser and a model-scale flexible riser. The numerical results
were compared with experimental data and solutions by other
programs.
Figure 1. Lift Coefficient Curve as Function of State Variable (A∗ ,VR )

TIME-DOMAIN FORCING FUNCTION

In the Deepstar test programme (Oakley and Spencer [7]),
the forced VIV test data has been collected. In the forced
experiments, the cylinder was forced as specific amplitudes and
frequencies and the resulting lift and drag loads experienced by
the cylinder were recorded. The lift force was then decomposed
into loads that in-phase with velocity and acceleration. As part
of these experiments some of the forced experiments had two
frequency components that were combined so the signals beat
together and the amplitude of oscillation varied continuously.
The results from these experiments indicated that the lift and
Figure 2. Venugopal’s Damping Model for Low and High VR added mass determined from the analysis of single unsteady
cycle with amplitude, A and frequency, f , was similar to that
determined from experiments with multiple cycles with constant
period and amplitude. This means that the fluid had no memory
Lift Coefficients
of what happened prior and the loads only depend on the current
1
1
state variables (A∗ , VR ) of the cylinder in the fluid. This finding
0 0.5
0
makes sense as the vortices are swept downstream by the flow
-1 -0.5
-1
and away from the cylinder. If it is assumed that the cylinder
Clv -2 -1.5
-2
motion does not change dramatically from one cycle to the next,
-3 -2.5
-3
the state variables from the previous cycle may be used to make
-4 -3.5
-4
an estimate of the lift and drag for the next cycle. This forms
the basis of the time-domain forcing algorithm in this work. The
1.2 current state variables of the cylinder are determined from the
1
0.8
9
frequency and period of oscillation of the previous cycle. The
0.6 8
current state variables are then used to to determine the lift and
*
A 0.4 7
0.2 6
5 Vr
0 3 4
drag force coefficients for use in the next cycle by interpolating
the hydrodynamic coefficient curves.
Zero crossing analysis of the cross flow velocity is used to
Figure 3. Lift Coefficient Curve (Rotated View)
determine the period (T0 ) and subsequently the amplitude of the
motion from the previous cycle. The state variables (A∗ , VR ) are
calculated according to the equations as follows based on the

3 c 2012 by ASME
Copyright °
parameters from the zero-crossing analysis: coordinate system of the grids and the distances d1 , d2 , d3 and
d4 are shown in Fig. 5.
ymax − ymin
A∗ =
2D
UT0
VR = (1)
D

where ymax , ymin , and T0 are shown in Fig. 4. The computed

state variables are then utilized to determine the lift (CLV ), added
mass(CM ), and drag (CD ) coefficients for the forcing function
in the next cycle by interpolating the hydrodynamic coefficient
surface curves in the database.

Figure 5. Interpolation Grid

The interpolated value of CLV in any quadrilateral grid can

be given as

4
CLV = ∑ Ni (ξ, η)CLV (i) (3)
i=1
Figure 4. Zero Crossing Analysis of a VIV Cycle (Spencer et al.[4])
CD and CM can be obtained in a similar way.
After the lift (CLV ), added mass (CM ), and drag (CD )
For the interpolation, the force surface curves are first coefficients are found, the total transverse force L(t) at each
discretized into smaller rectangular grids with A∗ as independent time step, consisting of two components that are in phase with
variable in one direction, and VR as the other independent acceleration and velocity, is given by
variable. Once the state variables (A∗ , VR ) of the current cycle
are found, a search algorithm begins to find the grid (on the 1
force coefficient curves) in which these two state variables lie. L(t) = CLV (A∗ ,VR )ρLDV 2 sin[ω(t − t0 )]
2
Once the grid is found, bilinear interpolation is conducted on the π
surface of the grid to determine the force coefficients (CLV , CD , + CM (A∗ ,VR )ρD2 Lω2 A cos[ω(t − t0 )] (4)
4
and CM ) through interpolation.
The interpolation on the grid requires the use of bilinear
where ω = 2π T and V is the transverse component of relative
interpolation functions to describe the domain. For a more
velocity. The lift force is synchronized to the cylinder velocity
general domain in ξ and η, these functions are given below:
by re-starting the lift at the point where the last cycle ended and
the cross flow velocity was zero.
1
N1 (ξ, η) = (d1 − ξ)(d3 − η)
c The total inline force in the present model is computed from
1 the drag force coefficient,
N2 (ξ, η) = (d2 + ξ)(d3 − η)
c
1
N3 (ξ, η) = (d2 + ξ)(d4 + η) CD (t) = CD0 + [CD (A∗ ,VR ) −CD0 ] sin[2ω(t − t0 )] (5)
c
1
N4 (ξ, η) = (d1 − ξ)(d4 + η) (2)
c where CD (A∗ ,VR ) is the total time-varying drag coefficient,
including the steady component, CD0 , and the oscillating
where N1 , N2 , N3 and N4 are the shape functions for the component. The drag oscillation takes place at twice the
quadrilateral grid and c = (d1 + d2 )(d3 + d4 ). The local frequency of the lift oscillation.

4 c 2012 by ASME
Copyright °
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The forcing algorithm was integrated into a mooring
analysis program (Yin and Qiu [8]). In the mooring program,
the geometric and load nonlinearity and bottom conditions were
considered. To account for the dynamics of risers, the global
coordinate based finite element method (Garrett [9] and Paulling
et. al. [10]) was used to model the marine riser. Assuming
there is no torque and the riser has equal principal stiffness, the
equations of motion can be written as
ρr̈ +CA r̈n + (EIr00 )00 − (λ̃r0 )0 = w + Fs + Fd (6)
and
1 0 0 T λ
(r · r − 1) = ≈ (7)
2 EA EA
where CA is the added mass coefficient, r is the position vector
measuring from the origin to any point along the centerline
of the riser, EI and EA are the bending and axial stiffness,
respectively, w is the effective weight per unit length, Fs and
Fd are the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces per unit length,
respectively, and T is the tension.
For the static problem, the inertia term is neglected. The
governing differential equations of the riser then become a set
of nonlinear algebraic equations. The nonlinear equations are
expanded about the estimated solution or solution from previous
iteration by using Taylor series. By neglecting the higher
order terms, the equations for iteration can be obtained. The
iterative method, Newton’s method, is used to solve the nonlinear
equations. The generalized stiffness matrix K and force vector F
in the iterative equations are recalculated for each iterative step.
For dynamic problems, the second-order differential
equations are substituted by a set of first-order differential
equations. The first-order Adams-Moulton method is used to
integrate the equations.
The non-penetrating bottom boundary conditions are
considered for both static and dynamic problems. It is assuming
that the sea bottom is flat and elastic and the sea bottom is
modeled by an elastic layer (spring mat) with linear viscous
friction. For dynamic responses of marine risers under VIV, the
added mass coefficient, the lifting force coefficient and the drag
force coefficient and their corresponding loads at each time step
were computed as described above.
VALIDATION STUDIES
Rigid Cylinder
The 1-DOF VIV of a rigid cylinder was simulated using
the forcing algorithm described above. The rigid cylinder was
connected to springs at both ends with an overall stiffness of 40
5 c 2012 by ASME
kN/m. Note that the same conditions as those in experiments
were applied in the simulation. The computed time series of
cross flow displacement for a number of uniform flows are
presented in Figs. 6 to 10. Figure 6 shows the computational
results for the rigid cylinder subjected to a uniform flow of 1.1
m/s. At this speed, VIV does not develop. The initial transient
vibration was damped out over a few seconds of simulation.
The results for the current speed of 1.6 m/s is presented in
Fig. 7. After the transient motions, at approximately 20 seconds,
the vibrations appear to be sinusoidal. This corresponds to the
lock-in region. At U = 1.6 m/s, the nominal reduced velocity
(U ∗ ) and the reduced velocity (VR ) coincide at approximately 5.6.
Note that the nominal reduced velocity is given as U ∗ = UTn /D
based on the current velocity, U, the natural period of the rigid
cylinder, Tn , and the cylinder diameter, D. The same nominal
reduced velocity and reduced velocity mean that the vibration
frequency approaches the natural frequency of the cylinder;
therefore lock-in was shown in the responses. In addition, Fig.
8 shows the responses of the cylinder subjected to a flow of 1.8
m/s. The corresponding VR in this simulation is approximately
5.7 while the nominal velocity is 6.3. From the figure, the lock-in
trend is still seen in this simulation since the vibration frequency
is close to the natural frequency of the system.
Displacement Time Series
U* = 3.83
1
Nondimensional Cross Flow Displacement
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (sec)
Figure 6. Rigid Riser VIV for Uniform Current Speed of 1.1 m/s
Figures 9 and 10 present the cross flow vibration of
the cylinder subjected to higher flow velocities. Due to the
self-limiting nature of VIV, the cross flow vibration is not
dominant in these simulations. In Fig. 10, the vibration shows a
beat pattern in which higher amplitudes are observed and then
followed by lower ones. This pattern repeats throughout the
simulation. These beating patterns in Figs. 9 and 10 were
also observed in the VIV experiments (Spencer et al. [4]).
Copyright °
 Displacement Time Series Displacement Time Series

U* = 5.6 U* = 8.36
1 1
Nondimensional Cross Flow Displacement

Nondimensional Cross Flow Displacement

0.5 0.5

0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 7. Rigid Riser VIV for Uniform Current Speed of 1.6 m/s Figure 9. Rigid Riser VIV for Uniform Current Speed of 2.4 m/s

Displacement Time Series

Displacement Time Series
U* = 9.06
1
U* = 6.27
1
Nondimensional Cross Flow Displacement
Nondimensional Cross Flow Displacement

0.5
0.5

0
0

-0.5
-0.5

-1
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Figure 10. Rigid Riser VIV for Uniform Current Speed of 2.6 m/s
Figure 8. Rigid Riser VIV for Uniform Current Speed of 1.8 m/s

Delft VIV Experiments

A model scale riser VIV experiment was conducted by
Chaplin et al. [11] and Chaplin et al. [12] in the flume tank at
Simulations were also carried out for a range of flow velocities.
the Delft Hydraulics Laboratory. A series of measurements were
The results are post-processed and shown in Figure 11. The
taken on a vertical riser subjected to a step current. The riser was
amplitude ratio (A∗ ) corresponding to each nominal reduced
tested with the lower 45% of it subjected to uniform current up to
velocity was obtained by the root mean square of the cross flow
1 m/s while the upper part was in still water. The responses of the
vibration amplitudes over the simulation period, i.e., the square
system were measured at 32 equally spaced locations along its
root of the sum of all the amplitudes squared divided by the
length. The properties of riser used in the experiment are shown
number of amplitudes in the time interval. The computed results
in Table 1. The test tank was 230m in length and 5m in width.
are compared with the experimental results obtained for the same
The water depth was 6.5m for these tests. The lower part of the
cylinder in Fig. 11.
riser passes through the 6.5m water depth while the upper part
The comparison has shown that the forcing algorithm was was inside a vacuum tank. As the carriage moves, it simulates a
able to make full use of the forced vibration coefficients to step current with uniform speed on the lower part and no current
capture free VIV. The comparisons between the predicted and on the upper part of the riser. Figure 12 shows the setup of the
the measured free VIV are in good agreement. experiment.

6 c 2012 by ASME
Copyright °
 Amplitude Ratio vs. Nominal Reduced Velocity
1.4
Experiment
Present model
1.2

1
Amplitude Ratio (A*)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Nominal Reduced Velocity (U*)

Figure 11. Amplitude Ratio vs Nominal Reduced Velocity

Figure 12. Delft VIV Experimental Setup (Chaplin et al. [12])

The riser was fixed with universal joints at each end. The
top end was also connected to a tensioning system for tension
adjustment. In the computation, the riser was fixed at both ends
to simulate zero displacement and subjected to step current. The
computation consisted of two steps - a static analysis to obtain
the equilibrium profile of the riser, and subsequently followed by
a dynamic analysis. The static analysis was also used to obtain
the desired top tension, as reported in the experiment. A total of
four cases were simulated, corresponding to the current speeds
and top tensions shown in Table 2.
In this study, the result of cross flow vibrations is plotted
and presented as vibration envelopes. These envelopes are
the non-dimensionalized maximum and minimum vibration
amplitudes of the riser. Results from the current simulation,
physical experiment, Shear7 and Norsk Hydro are compared.
Note that Norsk Hydro is a CFD-based program for riser VIV
analysis. This program uses Navsim to perform the CFD
computation on each plane and communicates with Usfos, a
nonlinear structural code, for VIV analysis. All the numerical
Table 1. Properties of the Riser Used in the Delft VIV Experiment
Parameters
Diameter
Length
results by programs other than the present one were taken from
the work by Chaplin et al. [12].
The first case (Case 1) was for a current speed of 0.16m/s
and an initial top tension of 405N. The first step in this study
was to examine the convergence with respect to the element size.
For a fixed time step of 0.0025 seconds, convergence studies
were carried out for 50, 100, and 200 elements. Each simulation
was conducted for a period of 250 seconds. The top tension of
the riser was first plotted over the 250 seconds to determine the
transient stage of the simulation. The transient results are then
excluded from the analysis. It was determined that 200 elements
were sufficient for this simulation. All the results presented
below are based on 200 elements.
The time series of the cross flow vibration at the middle of
the riser is shown in Fig. 13. This plot shows both transient and
steady results. The transient results were excluded in the analysis
of the vibration envelop shown in Figure 14.
Comparisons were made in Fig. 14 between results by the
present method, Shear7 and Norsk Hydro and the experimental
data. It can be observed that the predicted amplitudes of cross
Value flow vibration agree well with the experimental ones. However,
the experimental results showed sinusoidal envelope of vibration
28 mm
13.12 m Table 2. Current Speed and Top Tension of the Delft VIV Experiment

Length/diameter ratio 469 Case Current speed [m/s] Top tension [N]
Mass ratio (mass/displaced mass of water) 3 1 0.16 405
Submerged weight 12.1 N/m 3 0.31 457
Bending stiffness 29.9 Nm2 6 0.60 670
Re range 2500 - 25000 9 0.95 1002

7 c 2012 by ASME
Copyright °
(mode shapes). In the present model, the results are shown to be
more smeared and the mode shapes are not clearly captured. On
the other hand, the results from the present method show better
agreement with experimental data than the Norsk Hydro model.
In addition, both the Norsk Hydro and the present model do
not show sinusoidal shapes of maximum and minimum vibration
along the length of the riser.
The second case (Case 3 in Table 2) was for a step current of
speed 0.31m/s and an initial top tension of 457N. The time series
of the cross flow vibration at the middle of the riser is shown in
Figure 15. From this figure, it is shown that random vibration
was observed over the 250-second simulation. The simulation
results were compared with the results from other models in Fig.
16. Similar to Case 1, the maximum and minimum amplitudes
from the current simulation were in good agreement with the
amplitudes from the experiment. However, the shapes of these
maximum and minimum vibration was not seen in the prediction
by the present model.
The third case (Case 6 in Table 2) was for a step current of
speed 0.6m/s and an initial top tension of 670N. The time series
of the cross flow vibration at the middle of the riser is given in
Figure 17. From this figure, it is shown that random vibration
took place at this location over the entire simulation. Figure 18
shows, once again, that the maximum and minimum amplitudes
from the current model agree well with those from the physical
experiment.
The fourth case (Case 9 in Table 2) was for a step current
of speed 0.95m/s and an initial top tension of 1002N. The time
series of the cross flow vibration at the middle of the riser
is shown in Figure 20. From this figure, it is shown that
lock-in occurred at this location with sinusoidal vibration over
the 250-second simulation at an amplitude of approximately
0.021 meters. The comparison between the models is shown in
Figure 19 for Case 9. Like all other models, the present model
underpredicts the amplitudes of vibration in comparison with
the experimental results. One possible explanation for this is
the presence of a small systematic error during the experiments.
A loose ball joint at the top or bottom of the riser resulted in
a decrease in the stiffness of the system (Chaplin et al. [11]).
This decrease in system stiffness could allow for higher vibration
amplitudes.
The comparison of maximum and minimum cross flow
vibration amplitudes (A/D) is summarized in Figs. 21 and 22,
respectively. It can be observed from the comparison that there is
a large scatter in the predictions of cross flow vibration by all the
models. The Norsk Hydro model significantly underpredicts the
responses. Shear7 overpredicts the responses in all cases besides
Case 9. The predicted maximum and minimum amplitudes for
Cases 1, 3, and 6 by the present method are in good agreement
with the experimental results. The predicted amplitudes by the
present method are lower in Case 9 than the experimental ones.
This case is characterized by a higher pre-tension. This could be
8 c 2012 by ASME
due to an experimental error in which a loose connection at either
end can result in larger-than-expected vibration amplitudes.
Tensioning the riser changes its natural frequencies (i.e. stiffness
of the system), and decrease in tensioning increases the overall
vibration. The overall comparison showed that the present model
predicted the maximum and minimum amplitudes better than
Shear7 in all cases. The present model also showed better
agreement with the experimental results than Norsk Hydro. The
shape of the vibration envelope along the length of the riser was
not well captured by the present method. The reason is not clear.
One possible reason is due to the inaccurate prediction of the
inline motion. Although the inline motions are considered in the
present time-domain program, the inline VIV coefficients are not
available. Note that most hydrodynamic data include cross-flow
responses only while the risers responds also in-line. This could
have a considerable effect on the cross-flow responses. Further
investigation is needed.
CONCLUSIONS
A time-domain method was developed to simulate the VIV
of marine risers based on a VIV forcing algorithm and the global
coordinate based finite element method. The damping force
is included as an extension of the empirical lift data and not
assumed as analytic functions that operate on assumed reduced
velocity bands. This generalized approach allows empirical data
for many VIV suppression devices to be easily incorporated into
the model. The added mass force has been explicitly included as
a function of the state variables for a local segment of the riser.
With this approach, the current can vary in both magnitude and
direction with time (i.e. turbulence) or position (shear currents).
Validation studies were conducted on a spring-mounted rigid
riser subjected to free VIV as well as a tensioned model-scale
riser. Preliminary studies show that the present method is able
to predict the maximum and minimum amplitudes of cross-flow
vibrations for rigid and flexible risers. However, the shape of
the vibration envelope along the length of the riser, as shown in
model tests, was not well captured.
It is anticipated that riser clashing can be modeled based on
the current method, although at present it assumes there is no
hydrodynamic interaction between the risers. VIV suppression
devices such as strakes and fairings can be included in a simple
manner providing the empirical data from forced experiments is
available. Studies will be carried out on these aspects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Petroleum Research
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Research and Development
Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador. The authors would
also like to acknowledge Oceanic Consulting Corporation and
Copyright °
the Deepstar Project for providing the hydrodynamic coefficient
database.

REFERENCES
[1] Grant, R., Litton, R., Finn, L., Maher, J. and
Lambrakos, K., 2000, ”Highly Compliant Rigid Riser: Field Test
Benchmarking a Time Domain VIV Algorithm,” Proceedings of
the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
[2] Blevins, R.D., 1990, ”Flow-Induced Vibration,” van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
[3] Sidarta, D.E., Finn, L.D. and Maher, J., 2010,
”Time Domain FEA for Riser VIV Analysis,” Proceedings of
29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Shanghai.
[4] Spencer, D., Hui, Y. and Qiu, W., 2007, “Development
and Verification of a Time-Domain VIV Simulation Tool,” 3rd
International Workshop on Applied Offshore Hydrodynamics,
Rio, Brazil.
[5] Spencer, D., Leverette, S., Masters, R., Quinn, R.
amd Schaudt, J.S., 2007, “Enabling Enhancements of Riser
VIV Design Techniques Through Detailed Interpretation of
Test Results for VIV Suppression Devices,” Proceedings of the
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA.
[6] Venogopal, M., 1996, “Damping and Response
Prediction of a Flexible Cylinder in a Current”, PhD Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA.
[7] Oakley Jr., O.H. and Spencer, D., 2004, ”Deepstar High
Reynolds Number Cylinder Test Program,” Proceedings Deep
Offshore Technology Conference, DOT’04, New Orleans.
[8] Yin, H. and Qiu, W., 2007, ”Dynamic Analysis of
Mooring Line in the Time Domain,” 8th Canadian Marine
Hydromechanics and Structures Conference, St. John’s.
[9] Garrett, D.L., 1982, ”Dynamic Analysis of Slender
Rod”, J. Energy Resources technology, Trans ASME, Vol. 104,
pp.302-307.
[10] Paulling, J.R., and Webster, W.C., 1986, ”A Consistent,
Large-Amplitude Analysis of the Coupled Response of a TLP
and Tendon System,” Journal of OMAE, Vol 3, pp. 126-33.
[11] Chaplin, J.R., Bearman, P.W., Huera Huarte, F.J.
and Patternden, R.J., 2005a, “Laboratory Measurements of
Vortex-induced Vibrations of a Vertical Tension Riser in a
Stepped Current”, Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 21.
[12] Chaplin, J.R., Bearman, P.W., Cheng, Y., Fontaine, E.,
Graham, J.M.R., Herfjord, K., Hurta Huarte, F.J., Isherwood,
M., Lambrakos, K., Larsen, C.M., Meneghini, J.R., Moe,
G., Pattenden, R.J., Triantafyllou, M.S. and Willden, R.H.J.,
2005, “Blind Predictions of Laboratory Measurements of
Vortex-induced Vibrations of a Tension Riser,” Journal of Fluids
and Structures, Vol. 21.

9 c 2012 by ASME
Copyright °
 Displacement Time Series Displacement Time Series

0.04 0.04
Cross Flow Displacement (m)

Cross Flow Displacement (m)

0.02 0.02

0 0

-0.02 -0.02

-0.04 -0.04

50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250

Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 13. Case 1 - Time Series of Cross Flow Vibration at the Middle Figure 15. Case 3 - Time Series of Cross Flow Vibration at the Middle
of the Riser of the Riser

Case 1: Comparison Case 3: Comparison

1 1
Present model Present model
Experiment Experiment
Shear7 Shear7
Norsk Hydro Norsk Hydro
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
z/L

z/L

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Crossflow A/D Crossflow A/D

Figure 14. Case 1 - Cross Flow Vibration Envelope Figure 16. Case 3 - Cross Flow Vibration Envelope

10 c 2012 by ASME
Copyright °
 Displacement Time Series Displacement Time Series at 0.5L from the bottom
0.04

0.04
0.03

0.02
Cross Flow Displacement (m)

Cross Flow Displacement (m)

0.02
0.01

0 0

-0.01
-0.02
-0.02

-0.03
-0.04

-0.04
50 100 150 200 250 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 17. Case 6 - Time Series of Cross Flow Vibration at the Middle Figure 20. Case 9 - Time Series of Cross Flow Vibration at the Middle
of the Riser of the Riser

Case 6: Comparison Comparison of max amplitudes for all cases

1 1.5
Present model Experiment
Experiment Norsk Hydro
Shear7 Shear7
Norsk Hydro Present model
0.8 1.2

0.6 0.9
Max A/D
z/L

0.4 0.6

0.2 0.3

0 0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 3 6 9
Crossflow A/D Cases

Figure 18. Case 6 - Cross Flow Vibration Envelope Figure 21. Maximum Cross Flow Vibration by All Models

Case 9: Comparison Comparison of min amplitudes for all cases

1 -1.5
Present model Experiment
Experiment Norsk Hydro
Shear7 Shear7
Norsk Hydro Present model
0.8 -1.2

0.6 -0.9
Min A/D
z/L

0.4 -0.6

0.2 -0.3

0 0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 3 6 9
Crossflow A/D Cases

Figure 19. Case 9 - Cross Flow Vibration Envelope Figure 22. Minimum Cross Flow Vibration by All Models

11 c 2012 by ASME
Copyright °