See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308661538

Subsea Pipeline Design using a New Computational Tool

Conference Paper · September 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 1,488

3 authors, including:

Mohamed Fahmy Shehadeh Tarek Elsayed

Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport
65 PUBLICATIONS   255 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Spectral Fatigue Damage Comparison Study of Alternative Shipping Routes View project

DETECTION OF RESIDUAL STRESSES USING THE ACOUSTIC EMISSION TECHNIQUE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Fahmy Shehadeh on 27 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Subsea Pipeline Design using a New Computational Tool
M Shehadeh*, T Elsayed and M Hegazy
*
Mechanical Eng. Department, AASTMT, Alexandria, Egypt
Abstract—This paper presents a general methodology for
the design of subsea pipeline using an easy interface
software. Offshore pipeline design is discussed, showing wall
thickness selection, bottom stability, operational stress and
critical span length calculations. These topics encompass the
majority of issues regarding offshore pipeline design, which
may serve as reference and guide to the offshore pipeline
engineer during the design process. Also, a case study is
presented to determine the program capability.
I INTRODUCTIONS
Pipelines are widely applied means to transport oil
and natural gas, which are essential fuels for the
world’s economy. A research study from Association
of oil pipelines indicates that 60% annually of the
petroleum is transported by the pipelines [1]. The
principal objective of pipeline design is to select the
pipeline dimensions and route, and its method of
fabrication, installation and protection so that it can
transport the specified production requirement at an
acceptable level of risk, whilst incurring minimum life
cycle costs.
The pipeline engineering process must consider
the constraints imposed on the pipeline design by the
nature of the environment, the methods of
construction, operation and maintenance and the
changing state of pipeline technology [2].
II PIPELINE DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Pipeline design is governed by the code limitations
(e.g. DNV) regarding maximum allowable stresses
and by the onset of vortex shedding criteria. The
following sections present the factors affecting
pipeline design calculations.
A. Wall Thickness Selection
Wall thickness selection is a fundamental task in
the design of offshore pipelines. This task involves the
four main technical aspects related to design scenarios
as shown in the following sections.
A.1 Hydrostatic pressure check
The hydrostatic pressure tests are governed by
D − t1 2 *αu
Pd . ≤ ( SMYS − T y ,temp ) (1)
2 t1 1 . 732 * γ sc * γ m * γ inc
where:
TY, temp: derating value due to temperature [3].
γsc: safety class resistance factor (1.31).
γm: material resistance factor (1.15).
γinc: Incidental to design pressure ratio (1.1).
ICCTA 2007, 1-3 September 2007, Alexandria, Egypt
A.2 System collapse criteria
The characteristic resistance for collapse pressure
(external) shall be calculated as:
Pc
Pe ≤ (2)
1.1γ m γ sc
Pc 2 − Pc( Pp 2 + θ ) + Pp 2 × Pel = 0
where:
Pc: Collapse pressure is the pressure required to buckle
a pipeline.
Pp: Propagating pressure is the pressure required to
continue a propagating buckle.
Pel: Elastic collapse pressure.
Pe : External pressure.
A.3 Propagation buckling check
Propagating pressure is the pressure required to
continue a propagating buckle. A propagating buckle
will stop when the pressure is less than the
Propagating pressure.
A.4 Local buckling -combined loading check
Pipe members subjected to longitudinal
compressive strain (bending moment and axial force)
and internal over pressure shall be designed to satisfy
the following condition at all cross sections [3].
B. Bottom stability criteria
The analysis of pipeline hydrodynamic stability is
another major task in the design of submarine pipeline.
This analysis is important to ensure that, during the
construction and operation stages, the pipeline will
remain stable under the action of the hydrodynamic
forces produced by the waves and the currents. In order
to reach this stability the horizontal and lift forces are
balanced against the minimum submerged weight of
the pipeline. The gravitational and friction forces act
together to resist the hydrodynamic forces of the waves
and currents. For a pipeline resting on the sea bed or
partially buried, the total forces acting on the pipeline
are total submerged weight of pipe including concrete
coating and wrap, FD, FI, and FL, drag, inertia and lift
force respectively, N, normal force and Fr, friction
resistance, as shown in Fig. 1. The static analysis
method can be expressed by [6]:
γ st ( FD − FI ) ≤ µ (WSUb − FL ) (3)
where γst is factor of safety, normally taken less than
1.1 for installation and 1.05 for operation, while the
submerged pipe weight per unit length can be
determined by [3]:
161
 P is presenting the difference between internl and
external presurre

D. Code requirements
Allowable design stresses on pipelines are
specified and controlled by ASME code, the
following requirements should hold according to
ASME code [5]-[6]:

For hoop stress: σ p F T S

h 1t y
For longitudinal stress: σ p F S
L 2 y
The combined stress: σ 2 + σ 2 − σ σ + 3τ 2 ≤ F S
h L h L t 3
Fig. 1 Hydrodynamic forces on pipe, adopted from [4] where :
σh: hoop stress (kPa)
σl : maximum longitudinal stress (kPa)
Wsub = Wm + Wcoating + Wcontent - Fb (4)
τt : tangential shear stress (kPa)
where: -
Tt : temperature derating factor
Wm: Metal pipe weight per unit length
F1: hoop stress design factor
( π * ( Do2 – Di2 )* ρ metal)
F2: longitudinal stress design factor
(5)
4 F3: combined stress design factor
Wcoa : Coating weight per unit length In most cases, no torsion is present and τt =0, note
that the most compressive (-) value of σL must be used
( π * (Do coating2 – Di coating2)* ρ coating ) (6) for conservatism.
4
Wcon : Weight of content per unit length E. Critical span length
Generally the pipeline critical spanning occurs
( π * (Di2 )* ρ content) (7) when the contact between the pipeline and seabed is
4 lost over an appreciable distance on a rough seabed.
Fb: lift weight (Buoyancy). Thus, evaluation of an allowable free-span length is
necessary in pipeline design, because once a free span
( π * (Do coating2)* ρ seawater) (8) longer than the allowable span length occurs, the free
4
If the case has a concrete coating, it may be added span may suffer the vortex-induced vibration (VIV)
and consequently lead to fatigue damages on the pipe
to the total weight, calculated by
due to the wave and current [9]. The vortex shedding
π * (D 2 2 phenomenon results in two kinds of periodic forces on
o concrete – Di concrete )* ρ concrete (9)
4 a free span of a pipe. Symmetrical vortices are shed
when the flow velocity is low. A pipe will start to
C. Operation stress for thin wall pipe oscillate in-line with the flow when the vortex
shedding frequency is about one-third of the natural
If a thin–wall pipe (D/t >20) subjected to internal frequency of a pipe span. Lock-in occurs when the
pressure, P, for thin-wall unrestrained pipe with ends vortex shedding frequency is half of the natural
capped (e.g. hydrotest) the equations for hoop and frequency. As the flow velocity increases further, the
longitudinal stress, hoop and longitudinal strain, end cross- flow oscillation begins to occur and the vortex
movement and radial dilation are governed by [5]-[8]: shedding frequency may approach the natural
PD frequency of the pipe span. Amplified responses due
Hoop stress : σ h = (10) to resonance between the vortex shedding frequency
2t
PD and natural frequency of the free span may cause
Longitudin al stress : σ L = (11)
4t fatigue damage. Therefore, actual span lengths should
PD υ not exceed the allowable length.
Hoop strain ε h := α t Θ + (1 − ) (12)
2tE 2 The critical span length or the unsupported
PD 1 pipeline length at which oscillations of the pipeline
Longitudin al strain ε L := α t Θ + ( − υ ) (13)
2tE 2 occur for a specific current is based on the
LεL relationship between the natural frequency of the pipe
End movement : ∆L = (14)
2 free span and reduced velocity. The critical span
Radial movement : ∆R = αε h (15) length for cross flow motion is expressed as [9]-[11]:

ICCTA 2007, 1-3 September 2007, Alexandria, Egypt 162

 IV GENERAL DISCUSSIONS
CeUr D EI Offshore pipeline-engineering project (TEMSAH-4
LS = (16)
2πUC Me Pipelines) data has been used to determine the
capability of our program. The TEMSAH-4 gas
where : pipeline is the associated pipelines for TEMSAH-4 gas
platform, which is located 60km offshore Port Said in
Ce: end condition constant [12].
Egypt at the northern entrance to the Suez Canal at a
Uc: design current velocity [12].
water depth of 84 m. The pipeline (steel, API 5L)
Ur: reduced velocity at which vortex shedding
diameter is 10" with 5.5km length connecting between
induced oscillations [13].
Temsah-4 and Temsah-NW. The general operation
D : pipe outside diameter.
requirements for designing TEMSAH-4 pipeline are
ρ : sea water mass density around the pipe.
shown in Table 1 [12].
Me is summation of masses and expressed by: The program output results, Fig. (3) and Table 2,
show that the design of the TEMSAH-4 pipeline was
Me=Ma+Mc+Mp (17) in safe mode, which agrees with manual design
Mc: mass of pipe content. calculations results of TEMSAH-4 platform.
Mp: mass of pipe including coating.
Ma: mass of water displaced by the pipeline.

III COMPUTATIONAL SOFTWARE TOOL

DESCRIPTIONS
A program has been written using propriety
software to compute all above equations depending on
operational and environment constrains, and the code
requirements of minimum wall pipe thickness. The
program windows interface shows a red color that
indicates a problem in the design case being evaluated
and needs reconsiderations, while the green color
indicates that the design is in safe mode and the next
program steps is executed as shown in the program
routine flowchart in Fig. 2.

Project design

Operational Environmental Min wall thickness

Design constrains
constrains constrains requirements
Fig. 3 Typical snapshot of software tool final results

Table 1
Thickness check
No (red color) No (red color)
The Temsah- 4 pipelines operational data
Parameter Values Units
Yes( green color)
Design pressure 128 Bar
Bottom stability analysis Hydrotest pressure 160 Bar
Design temperature 91 °C
Maximum operating pressure 91 Bar
Operation stress
No (red color) Minimum operating
60 °C
Yes( green color) temperature
Maximum water ambient
Allowable free span 19 °C
temperature
Minimum water ambient
End 16 °C
water temperature
Fig. 2 Program routine flowchart Corrosion allowance 3 mm
Fluid density (gas) 0.72 Kg/m3

ICCTA 2007, 1-3 September 2007, Alexandria, Egypt 163

 Table (2)
Comparison between manual and program calculations
Manual Calculations
Wall
Thickness
Metal pipe weight per length = 77.7 Kg/ -Coating of pipe weight per length = 3.27
m Kg/ m
Bottom Coating of pipe weight per length = 3.27 -Content weight per length= 41.6 Kg/ m
Stability Kg/ m
Content weight per length= 41.6 Kg/ m
Lift weight (buoyancy) = 62 Kg/ m
The hoop stress:
σh = 145.6 MPa < 0.72*448 =322.5 MPa
Longitudinal stress:
Operation
σl = 72.8 MPa < 0.80*448 =358.5 MPa -The longitudinal stress is safe
Stress
Combined stress:
σc = 130 MPa < 0.9*448 = 403.2 MPa
For free spanning pipelines design,
Span reference is made to DNV guideline no.
14 "Free spanning pipelines"
CONCLUSIONS
A new simple computational tool program has been
developed and used to calculate the internal
containment pressure (burst) during operation and
hydrotest, collapse due to external pressure, local
buckling due to bending and external pressure, and
required wall thickness in deep water. Moreover, the
program evaluates and checks for a safe design of
subsea pipeline according to the code requirements.
Finally, it is thought that this program could be
used easily and directly by unprofessional users in
appraising the relative economic merits of alternative
pipeline design concepts, especially where pipeline of
different diameters could be used.
REFERENCES
[1]Trench CJ., “The US oil pipeline industry’s safety
performance”, Allegro Energy Group, May, 1999.
[2]R.G. BEA.,”Geotechnical Considerations in
Submarine Pipeline Design” state of the Art,
Louisiana, 2001.
[3]Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Rules for the
Design, Construction and Inspection of Submarine
Pipelines and Pipeline Risers, 1981.
[4]Allen, D.W., Lammert, W.F., Hale, J.R., and
Jacobsen, V., "Submarine pipeline on-bottom
stability: recent AGA research", Proceedings of the
ICCTA 2007, 1-3 September 2007, Alexandria, Egypt
View publication stats
New computational tool program Equations
9 The nominal wall thickness is safe for
contaminate pressure can not be
occurred
9 Collapse will not occur 1 and 2
9 Propagation will not occur
9 Local buckling -combined loading will
not occur
-Metal pipe weight per length = 77.7 Kg/ m
3 to 9
-Lift weight (buoyancy) = 62 Kg/ m
-Sub weight per meter =59.8 Kg/ m
THE PIPELINE IS STABLE ON THE
SEA BED
-The hoop stress is safe
10 to 15
-The combined stress is safe
critical span length = 1.44 m 16 and 17
Offshore Technology Conference 6055, Houston,
Texas, pp.121–132, 1989.
[5]ASME, B31.4, liquid transportation systems for
hydrocarbons, liquid petroleum gas, anhydrous
ammonia, and alcohols, 1995.
[6]Bai,Y, “Pipelines And Riser” , Elsevier science Ltd,
Oxford, 2001.
[7]Rebis, "AUTOPIPE PLUS finite element stress
analysis software", Ver 6.0, California, USA.
[8]Harvey ,J.F, "Theory and Design of Pressure
Vessels ", VonNostrand Reinhold Company, 1985.
[9]Choi, H.S., "Free spanning analysis of offshore
pipelines", Ocean Engineering, vol. 28, pp. 1325–
1338, 2001.
[10]Sumer, B.M., and Fredsoe, J., Scour below
pipeline in waves. Journal of Waterways,
Harbours and Coastal Engineering Division,
ASCE, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 307–322, 1990.
[11]Magda, W., "Wave-induced uplift force on a
submarine pipeline buried in a compressible
seabed", Ocean Engineering, vol.. 24, no. 6, pp.
551–576, 1997.
[12]PETROBEL, BELAYM petroleum company,
Project Design Basis.
[13]Guo, B., Song, S., Chacko, C., and Chalambor,
A., "Offshore Pipeline", Golf professional
publishing, USA, 2005.
164