W Orcina

Orcina UGM 2011

Short Examples - Spanning

Introduction
Often users are interested in modelling lines laid over complex (profiled) seabeds to
assess the spans. OrcaFlex makes certain assumptions when dealing with profiled
seabeds in statics, which affect the resulting behaviour of the line. This presentation
highlights these assumptions and shows that detailed spanning results are only
possible if the line is laid dynamically.
It should be noted that once a line has been laid dynamically, you can’t save the
friction target positions from the simulation back into another file – you can only save
the final line node positions. Saving of the friction target positions would only be
possible with a full restart facility, which is not available yet but is on our development
list!

OrcaFlex File : 1 Spanning – Dynamics.sim

This shows a single span with three lines laid over it. Two of the lines are static only;
the remaining line has been laid dynamically.
The workspace ‘1 Spanning - Simple – Tensions.wrk’ shows static tension range
graphs for the two static lines and an instantaneous effective tension range graph for
the dynamically laid line.

‘Static Without Friction’ – Green Line

This line has static friction excluded (and the friction coefficient set to zero). It is free
at one end, which is connected to a winch with 2.5kN of lay tension applied. It
therefore shows almost a constant tension of 2.5kN over its whole length.
Of course a real line lying on a real seabed would have a non-zero friction coefficient
so this isn’t really a practical option for many analyses. For example, the line could
slide off the seabed entirely if it were sloped.

‘Static With Friction’ – Yellow Line

This line is identical to the ‘Static Without Friction’ line but it has friction included in
statics and a non-zero friction coefficient.
When OrcaFlex includes friction in statics for a profiled seabed it assumes that the
lines was originally laid following the seabed profile exactly (i.e. no spans were
formed). As usual, OrcaFlex solves for the static equilibrium position by iterating to
achieve zero out-of-balance force. The friction force in this equilibrium calculation
tries to pull the line back into the seabed trough because this is where we assume it
was originally laid. It is as though we laid the line following the seabed exactly and
was then pulled slowly out to where it ends up in its static equilibrium position.
This produces the (wrong) static tension profile shown in the workspace. For
example, note the compression in the spanned section. It is also apparent that this
line sits ‘lower’ through the span than the frictionless one, which again shows the
influence of friction trying to pull the line back into the trough.
So, how do we model the line’s behaviour over the span accurately?

‘Laid Pipe With Friction’ – Red Line

1 of 2
N:\UserGroup\Current Year\Presentations\3. Short Examples\3 Spanning - SE 10mins\Spanning.doc 14 December 2011
W Orcina

The only way to accurately capture the history of motion (and so get the frictional
effects acting correctly) is model the lay dynamically.
The lay model shown in this file is a very simplified one (it applies a constant top
tension) but does show that a dynamic lay process can be modelled relatively easily.
Reviewing the instantaneous range graph of effective tension as the simulation
replays shows that the tension profile for this line is different from the other two. It is
clear that frictional effects are apparent but they aren’t creating the compression
seen in the static friction case.
It is also worth noting here that OrcaFlex doesn’t model the line - seabed interaction
in great detail. Specifically:
• Lateral forces come purely from friction.
• Normal forces from a linear spring in this case but could come from the non-
linear model if preferred.

OrcaFlex File : 2 Spanning – Detailed.sim

This shows a dynamic lay over a far more complex seabed.
Note that the seabed profile has been greatly exaggerated for effect and that the lay
operation is again modelled in a relatively simple way. As before, we have a constant
tension winch at the top end – if you were really laying a line on such a seabed, you’d
probably have a more advanced control system than this.
The workspace ‘2 Spanning - Detailed.wrk’ shows an instantaneous range graph of
seabed normal resistance force for the line.
Reviewing the replay of the lay shows that the line motion is complex. For example,
sometimes the line remains where it originally was laid but other times it slides.
Sometimes it spans large distances and sometimes small ones. As in reality, the
precise spanning behaviour then depends on the line configuration and seabed
profile at the precise moment it contacts the seabed.

2 of 2
N:\UserGroup\Current Year\Presentations\3. Short Examples\3 Spanning - SE 10mins\Spanning.doc 14 December 2011