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

net/publication/270584011

Advanced Analysis and Design Tools for Offshore Pipeline in Operation

Conference Paper · June 2011

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2011-49831

CITATIONS READS

11 1,450

5 authors, including:

Lorenzo Marchionni Luigino Vitali

Saipem S.p.A. Offshore Advanced Engineering Services Management
25 PUBLICATIONS 118 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 430 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lorenzo Maria Bartolini Cristian Crea

Saipem Singapore Saipem S.p.A.
19 PUBLICATIONS 91 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lorenzo Marchionni on 19 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of OMAE11
30th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 19-24, 2011

OMAE2011-49831
ADVANCED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN TOOLS
FOR OFFSHORE PIPELINE IN OPERATION

Lorenzo Bartolini
Saipem Energy Services S.p.A.
via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy
Lorenzo.Bartolini@saipem.com
Cristian Crea Lorenzo Marchionni
Saipem Energy Services S.p.A. Saipem Energy Services S.p.A.
via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy
Cristian.Crea@saipem.com Lorenzo.Marchionni@saipem.com

Maurizio Spinazzè Luigino Vitali

Saipem Energy Services S.p.A. Saipem Energy Services S.p.A.
via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy
Maurizio.Spinazze@saipem.com Luigino.Vitali@saipem.com

ABSTRACT pipeline configuration including 3-Dimensional (along and

In the last thirty years, the attention of the offshore pipeline
industry has been strongly focused on submarine pipelines
crossing very uneven seabed. New pipelines crossing the
uneven seabed of the Mediterranean Sea and of the North Sea
and deep water pipelines crossing the uneven continental slope
of the Gulf of Mexico are outstanding examples.
Pipeline structural integrity may be threaten by large
free-spanning sections between rocky peaks and deep
depressions that may be coupled with the pipeline propensity to
develop lateral/vertical deflection due to severe service
conditions (High Pressure/High Temperature). Generally, these
scenarios require mitigation measures aiming to control the
development of excessive bending moment/deformation by
means of Finite Element (FE) Modeling. FE Modeling gives a
valuable contribution to the pipeline engineering at identifying
a technical and cost effective solution since the early phase of
the project.
Finite Element (FE) Model approaches, based on standard
structural finite element codes available on the market, such as
ABAQUS, ADINA, ANSYS etc., are commonly used to
analyze the effects of non-linearity, e.g. steel material, soil-pipe
interaction and large rotations/displacements. 3-Dimensional
FE Models permit to predict the overall pipeline global
response under design loads taking into account the expected
(during design phase) and/or actual (after measurements
gathered during as-built survey campaign) 3-Dimensional
transversal to the pipeline route) bottom roughness, route
bends, intervention works for bottom roughness and free-span
correction and mitigation measures against HP/HT condition in
operation. In this paper:
ƒ The design approach for HP/HT pipelines is described;
ƒ The main features of the ABAQUS FE Model, developed to
predict the behavior of offshore pipelines in operation, are
presented;
ƒ Two relevant examples of offshore pipelines subject to
pressure and temperature conditions are presented with and
without mitigation measures.
KEYWORDS: Offshore Pipeline, Operation, 3-Dimensional
FEM Global and Local Analysis, Design Criteria, Failure
Mode, Limit State.
1 INTRODUCTION
DNV’ 81 Offshore Pipeline Rules was the only offshore
pipeline standard stating that buckling instability under
operating condition (pressure loads and thermal expansion)
may occur but it does not represent an hazard for the structural
integrity of offshore pipelines left exposed on the sea bottom
(i.e. not buried).
A number of unexpected mishaps occurred in the second half of
the 80’s in the North Sea, causing considerable economic

1 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

drawbacks from remedial measures and lost transmission
availability. At least five upheaval buckling incidents in the
North Sea are known, three of which occurred in 1989
(Ref. [1]). The first incident took place in 1986 in one of the
Mærsk Olie og Gas interfield pipelines in the Danish Sector of
the North Sea (Ref. [2]). All events occurred for small diameter
pipelines with a nominal diameter lower than 10 inches. In the
last years, large diameter pipelines (from 16” to 40”) have been
put in operation at higher pressure and temperature; see for
example the Troll Oljerør, the Zeepipe Phase IIA, the
Haltenpipe, the Ormen Lange pipelines.
A few Joint Industry Projects were launched in the Nineties
aiming to improve the understanding of the behavior of HP/HT
pipelines and to define guidelines for the design and
verification of HP/HT pipelines, see for example HotPipe and
SAFEBUCK lately.
The HotPipe JI Project was launched in the mid-Nineties,
sponsored by STATOIL and ENI Norge and carried out by
DNV and Snamprogetti. Later, BP, Shell and Hydro joined the
project. Attention was focused to trunklines, i.e. large diameter
pipelines subject to steady state conditions. The outcomes of
this JIP Project, detailed in Refs. [3]-[11], have been
implemented in the DNV Recommended Practice RP-F110
“Global Buckling of Submarine Pipelines Structural Design
Due to HP/HT” (Ref. [12]) in accordance to DNV OS-F101
Design Philosophy (Ref. [13]).
Lately, the SafeBuck JIP was launched. This project mainly
focused on flowlines, i.e. generally small diameter pipeline
subject to fluctuating operating conditions during the operative
life. The outcomes of this project are detailed in
Refs. [14]-[17].
Global buckling of a pipeline implies buckling of the pipe as a
beam in compression. The global buckling may appear either as
a downward deflection at pipeline free spannings, in the
horizontal plane, as a snaking, for a pipeline laid on a flat or
almost falt sea bottom or in the vertical plane as upheval
buckling for buried pipelines or at the crests/knees of an
exposed pipeline crossing an uneven sea bottom.
Pipelines, susceptible to global buckling, are then either that
with high effective axial compressive forces, or pipelines with
low buckling capacity, typically light pipelines with low lateral
pipe-soil resistance. HP/HT pipelines are, from a structural
point of view, characterized by large pressure loads and thermal
expansion and are as such typical candidates for global
buckling. The integrity of pipeline with a potential for global
buckling can be assured by two design concepts, particularly:
ƒ Restraining the pipeline, maintaining the large compressive
forces, or
ƒ Releasing the expansion forces, potentially causing it to
buckle in a controlled way so avoiding the excessive
bending moments/curvatures on the pipeline.
Design of HP/HT pipelines is affected by several parameters.
Particularly:
ƒ Trunklines (large diameter pipeline generally laid in
shallow to medium water depth) or flowlines (small
diameter pipelines generally left exposed on the sea bottom
when laid in deep to ultra-deep water depth) affecting
mobilization and localization of buckling pattern.
ƒ Sea bottom morphology and soil condition affecting
non-linear pipe-soil interaction forces in the axial, lateral
and vertical direction (only for buried
Trunklines/Flowlines).
ƒ Interference with fishing activities and environmental loads
induced by surface waves affecting mobilization and
localization of buckling pattern.
ƒ Laying technology i.e. S-lay, J-lay, Reel-lay or towing
affecting residual lay pull and pipeline out-of-straightness
in the horizontal plane.
ƒ Pipeline operating conditions i.e. steady state or transient
cyclic conditions affecting pipeline response behavior
(In-Service Buckling vs. Walking Analysis).
ƒ Linepipe material (steel grade) and geometrical properties
(outer diameter to thickness ratio, D/t) affecting pipeline
strength capacity and concrete coating thickness affecting
pipeline response.
2 HP/HT PIPELINE DESIGN APPROACH
The design of an HP/HT pipeline can be split in the following
steps, see Figure 1:
1. Pipe-Soil Interaction Assessment, PSI Analysis;
2. Pipeline Strength and Deformation Capacity Assessment,
PS&DC;
3. In-Service Buckling Analysis, ISB Analysis;
4. Mitigation Measure Design, MMD;
5. Pipeline Walking Analysis, PW Analysis.
DESIGN STEPS OF HP/HT OFFSHORE PIPELINE
PIPE-SOIL INTERACTION
ASSESSMENT
PIPELINE STRENGTH AND
DEFORMATION CAPACITY
IN-SERVICE BUCKLING
ANALYSIS
MITIGATION MEASURE DESIGN
PIPELINE WALKING ANALYSIS
Figure 1 - Design Flow Chart for HP/HT Pipelines.
The design flow chart of a severely temperature pressure
affected pipeline, as described above, includes the following
considerations:
ƒ First, to assess the criticality of a pipeline resting on the
seabed exposed and uncovered;
ƒ Second, if not acceptable, to design the optimum mitigation
measures which allow controlled and acceptable bending
development;
2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
ƒ Third, if found necessary to define and design potential
trenching/backfilling or cover in order to ensure the long
term effectiveness/stability of the restraint to the
development of additional bending.
2.1 Pipe-Soil Interaction Assessment
Pipe-soil interaction assessment aims to quantify non-linear
pipe-soil interaction force relationship (Lower Bound, LB; Best
Estimate, BE; and Upper Bound, UB) to be used in the ISB and
PW analysis. These relationships can be determined using
analytical formulas, calibrated through laboratory tests, or by
performing advanced FEM analyses.
2.2 Pipe Strength and Deformation Capacity
Assessment
Pipeline strength and deformation capacity aims to quantify the
strength and deformation capacity of the pipelines under
operating conditions at the locations where pipeline global
buckling occurs. Independently from the design format, load
(bending moment for an exposed pipeline or steel axial force
for a buried pipeline) and axial deformation capacity shall be
determined using available design equations (Ref. [13]) and/or
advanced FEM tools (Refs. [7] and [11]). Relevant design
criteria, failure modes and associated limit state equations shall
distinguish as follows:
ƒ Exposed pipeline sections susceptible to global buckling so
allowing additional bending:
- Local buckling failure mode,
- Fracture/plastic collapse/ductile tearing of defective
girth welds failure mode,
- Fatigue failure mode.
For the time being, sections of offshore pipeline subject to
global buckling are generally designed such as that:
- Maximum applied bending strain is 0.5% at maximum.
This limitation is generally driven by the resistance of
defective girth welds.
- Cyclic bending stresses and strains are generally
elastic so standard fatigue SN curves apply. Deep
water flowlines might be subject to low cycle fatigue.
Low fatigue performance is generally verified through
qualification tests during the project development.
ƒ Buried Pipelines, not allowing additional bending:
- Wrinkling failure mode under axial compression
dominated load condition.
- Accumulation of plastic deformation/ratcheting i.e.
increase of pipe diameter induced by high pressure and
temperature fluctuations.
For the time being, sections of buried offshore pipeline are
designed such as that:
- Maximum applied compressive loads and
deformations are not causing any sectional instability
of the pipeline (wrinkling failure mode).
- Cyclic axial and hoop stresses and strains are generally
elastic so accumulation of plastic
deformation/ratcheting does not occur. In case of
HT/HP conditions, experimental tests during the
project development have to be carried out, aiming to
verify ratcheting under fluctuating operating
conditions.
2.3 In-Service Buckling Analysis
In-service buckling analysis aims to quantify the susceptibility
of the pipeline to develop global buckling and to quantify load
effects in the post-buckling configuration, if relevant. Both
analytical and advanced 3-Dimensional FEM tools can be used.
Sensitivity analyses have to be performed on the relevant
parameters, particularly:
ƒ Pipeline properties i.e. diameter, steel wall thickness,
concrete coating etc.;
ƒ Non-linear material properties, i.e. stress-strain curve;
ƒ Non-linear pipe-soil interaction force relationships;
ƒ Pipeline conditions i.e. operating, hydrotest etc.;
ƒ Sea-bottom profile, if the pipeline is buried or exposed and
laid on a flat or an uneven sea bottom;
ƒ Pullover loads due to fishing devices.
2.4 Mitigation Measure Design
This activity aims to design suitable mitigation measures
aiming to control or avoid lateral buckling and limit the
pipeline susceptibility to walking. The robustness of selected
design solution including mitigation measures, if any, shall be
demonstrated by performing sensitivity analyses on the relevant
parameters. In general, the mitigation measures may be
grouped in two categories:
1. Mitigation measures preventing lateral and/or vertical
buckling;
2. Mitigation measures limiting/controlling bending
deformation.
The former mitigation measures are designed to ensure the
pipeline structural integrity during operation by totally
preventing the occurrence of lateral and/or vertical buckling.
Possible solutions are:
ƒ Stabilize the pipeline against upheaval/lateral buckling
with trenching and/or covering (spot or continuous). This
option is often difficult and expensive, and prompted a
search for alternatives.
ƒ Reduce the design operating temperature and pressure, and
to increase the submerged weight of the pipeline.
ƒ Reduce the driving force, i.e. the axial compressive force
in the pipeline, reducing the wall thickness of the line
and/or increasing lay tension. In this case, as the pipeline is
left unprotected on the seabed, particular attention should
be given to potential interference with fishing devices
(impact, trawling and hooking).
The latter mitigation measures are designed to ensure the
pipeline structural integrity during operation by acceptance of
lateral buckling, but preventing the development of excessive
bending moment by controlling the axial feed-in. The axial
3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
feed-in in the buckled zone can be controlled by means of
forcing the feed-in to develop in a limited length of pipe.
Possible solutions are:
ƒ Increased pipeline axial restraint;
ƒ Zig-zag route - Purpose made curves in the horizontal
plane;
ƒ Vertical imperfection/sleepers;
ƒ Buoyancy modules.
2.5 Pipeline Walking Analysis
Pipeline walking analysis aims to identify the pipeline
susceptibility to walking. This analysis shall be carried out only
in case of short flowline not reaching the fully axially
restrained conditions and subject to severe transient pressure
and temperature fluctuations (large number of cycles and large
pressure and temperature fluctuations over the pipeline
lifetime). Pipe walking is generally a design issue for flowlines.
Trunklines are generally long and subject to minor pressure and
temperature fluctuations over the lifetime. Sensitivity analyses
have to be performed on the relevant parameters, particularly:
ƒ Pipe-soil non-linear interaction force relationships;
ƒ Pipeline transient operating conditions i.e. characteristic
temperature and pressure gradient vs. KP and time,
numbers of transient operating conditions vs. lifetime, etc;
ƒ Sea bottom profile, if the pipeline is laid on an uneven sea
bottom, i.e. free spans are present along the pipeline route
affecting the release of pressure and temperature loads, i.e.
the effective axial compression is different from the fully
axially restrained conditions.
2.6 Verification of the As-built Survey
Once mitigation measures are recommended against HP/HT
conditions, the as-built pipeline configuration has to be verified
in relation to the design requirements. In particular:
ƒ For an exposed pipeline, the following verifications are
requested:
- Verification of the as-built pipeline configuration in
the vertical and horizontal plane, aiming to quantify:
- The actual configuration of the pipeline as regard
pipeline curvature in the vertical and horizontal
plane;
- Pipeline embedment, aiming to verify assumed
pipe-soil interaction forces as calculated at design
stage.
- In case, the as-built configuration is in accordance to
pipeline design requirements, the verification process
stops;
- Otherwise contingency mitigation measures have to be
purposely designed.
ƒ For a buried pipeline, the following verifications are
requested:
- Verification of the as-built pipeline configuration in
the vertical plane, aiming to quantify the actual
configuration of the pipeline as regard pipeline
curvature in the vertical plane and pipe stress state.
- Verification of the pipeline cover in the vertical plane
aiming to verify minimum protection requirements in
relation to the actual configuration of the pipeline in
the vertical plane.
- In case, the as-built configuration is in accordance to
pipeline installation requirements, the verification
process stops.
- Otherwise mitigation measures (increase of soil cover,
mattresses etc.) have to be designed.
3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING DESCRIPTION
The general purpose structural computer code ABAQUS
(Ver. 6.9.1) is used to analyze the structural behavior of an
offshore pipeline in operation. In particular, a Graphic User
Interface (GUI) using Matlab has been developed to perform
the pre- and post-processing of the 3-Dimensional FE analyses
simulating the pipeline behavior under HP/HT operating loads
(Figure 2).
The GUI’s use during the design stage allows Limit State
Based Designs (LSBD), and allows to:
ƒ change and optimize the design,
ƒ undertake a range of sensitivities,
ƒ simulate pipeline response, displacements and expansion,
ƒ obtain forces, moments and stress/strain.
The design can be iterated and, through the adoption of limit
states, the design can be optimized resulting in possibly
significant financial savings.
Figure 2 – Matlab GUI Interface for the Pre- and
Post-Processing of 3-Dimensional FE Analysis
Simulations with ABAQUS.
The 3-Dimensional FE Model permits to predict the pipeline
global response under design loads taking into account the
expected (during design phase) and/or actual (after
measurements of the as-built pipeline) 3-Dimensional pipeline
configuration including bottom roughness and route bends.
Attention is paid to the pipeline response prediction under
HP/HT loads and suitable mitigation measures able to control
the development of excessive bending moment/deformations.
4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
In particular, to get a comprehensive FE Model which takes
into account all the complexities affecting the pipeline
structural behavior, the following features are implemented in
the ABAQUS FE Model:
ƒ 3-Dimensional pipeline route including route bends and
sea bottom profile along and transversal to the pipeline
axis;
ƒ Non-linearities due to large rotations and elastic-plastic
steel material behavior, pipe-soil interaction non-linear
relationship in the axial, vertical and lateral direction etc;
ƒ Applied load sequence due to installation, operation and
environmental conditions;
ƒ The pipeline is laid on the seabed simulating the designed
laying direction and imposing the residual lay tension to
the pipeline at the Touch-Down Point (TDP) as a function
of the Kilometre Post (KP);
ƒ Intervention works for free-span correction and mitigation
measures for ISB.
Lateral Buckle along
a route bend under
Operating Loads
Figure 3 – Sketch of the 3-D S-Lay FE Model with
ABAQUS.
3.1 3-Dimensional FE Model
The main characteristics of the ABAQUS FE Model are the
following:
• Pipeline Element
The pipeline is modeled using 3-Dimensional hybrid beam
elements (PIPE31H), in order to limit the problem size of the
FE analysis.
• Mesh
Local pipeline element refinements can be considered along
the pipeline route in order to limit to 1 pipe diameter the
maximum element length where the pipeline is expected to
move in the vertical or lateral direction due to HP/HT
conditions.
• Material Behavior
In the formulation of the finite strain element, it is assumed
that the material is capable of exhibiting large inelastic
strains (ductile behavior). In ABAQUS the stress-strain
relationships are supplied as a function of the plastic strain.
• Sea bottom Profile Modeling
The 3-Dimensional sea bottom profile is modeled using rigid
elements (R3D4) and it can be assumed uniform transversally
to the pipeline axis or modeled as a fully 3-Dimensional
surface (Figure 3).
• Soil-pipe Interaction
The soil-pipe interaction forces in the axial and lateral
direction are considered using a Coulombian friction model
(bi-linear pressure-overclosure model) while in the vertical
direction a tabular pressure-overclosure definition is used.
• Boundary Conditions
Different boundary conditions can be assigned at the two
pipe ends, depending on the designed anchoring conditions.
• Mitigation Measures
The GUI interface permit to define regions where the
pipeline configuration is designed to be restrained using
gravel berms or natural backfilling (Figure 4). Pipe-soil
interaction elements (PSI34) are used to define the
interaction between the pipeline and cover in the lateral and
vertical direction. The distribution of the lateral and vertical
reaction along each pipeline cover is evaluated. On the
contrary it is possible to model vertical sleepers in order to
trigger the lateral buckle in a controlled way.
Gravel
Berms
Figure 4 – The Pipeline Cover is modeled with PSI elements.
• Loading Sequence and Solution Algorithm
The FE model is subject to the following loading steps:
1. Step 1: Lay the interested pipeline stretch on the sea
bottom considering:
o Apply residual lay tension to the straight pipeline
section under investigation;
o Apply pipe submerged weight and lay the pipeline
section on the sea bottom considering the horizontal
pipe bends, if relevant.
5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 2. Step 2: Apply pressure test conditions.
3. Step 3: Apply the operating internal pressure.
4. Step 4: Apply the operating thermal gradient.
3.2 Pre-Processing
Using the pre-processing module into the GUI interface
(Figure 2) it is possible to select all the relevant parameters
need for the In-Service Buckling Analysis. In particular, the
following data are considered:
compression in a controlled way to get an applied bending
moment within allowance criteria.
ƒ CASE 2: Pipeline route affected by 7 route bends with
small radius (i.e. < 2000m) and post-trenching to guarantee
a 1.5m undertaking clearance against the commercial ship
traffic.
The details of the two examples are summarized in Table 1.
Input Parameters 1 2 Unit

- Pipeline data (size, material and elements length); Steel Material X65 X65
- Residual Lay Pull as a function of the KP;
Specified Minimum Yield Stress 450 450 MPa
- Design Conditions in terms of pressure and differential
temperature; Specified Minimum Tensile
532 532 MPa
Strength
- Non-linear pipe-soil relationships for the pressure test and
operating load conditions; Inner diameter 768.4 868.4 mm
- Laying direction; Wall Thickness 22.2 23.0 mm
- Mitigation measures type and location.
Outer Diameter 812.8 914.4 mm
Corrosion Allowance 3.0 0.0 mm
3.3 Post-Processing
The post-processing module (Figure 2) permits to plot all the Concrete Coating Thickness 48.0 110.0 mm
relevant parameters along the pipeline route at one or more Concrete Coating Density 3040 3040 Kg/m3
time increments/steps representing different operating scenarios
(typically as-laid, hydrotest and operating conditions). In Max Operating Pressure 14.2 12.1 MPa
particular, the following outcomes are available: Max Operating Temperature 90.0 50.0 °C
- Horizontal and vertical pipeline configuration;
Residual Axial Friction Factor 0.5 0.2
- Free-span assessment;
- Steel and effective axial force as per Ref. [13]; Residual Lateral Friction Factor 0.7 0.3
- Axial (feed-in), lateral and vertical pipeline movements Friction Mobilization 10 10 mm
with respect to the as-laid configuration;
- Longitudinal and hoop strains; Table 1 – Main input parameter.
- Bending and torsional moments;
- Local Buckling Unity Check as per DNV OS-F101 Pipeline response assessment is initially performed to
(Ref. [12]); investigate the pipeline susceptibility to in-service buckling in
- Longitudinal and hoop stresses; the lateral/vertical plane.
- Vertical and lateral reactions of each berm. Should global buckling be activated, the associated bending
moment, stress and strain development is monitored in order to
check whether the localization at the buckle crest exceed the
4 APPLICATIONS allowance criteria or not.
This section describes results of the FE simulations carried out Afterwards, in case the bending moment/stress due to global
implementing the FE Model (i.e. pre-processing module) and buckling are not within the allowance criteria, proper mitigation
extracting the main results (i.e. post-processing module) measure shall be design to control the development of bending
through the ABAQUS FE solver (Ref. [18]) using the GUI in moment/strain.
Matlab (Figure 2). The design methodology and criteria are in accordance to
The two desk studies presented here below have been DNV-RP-F110 (Ref. [12]) and DNV OS-F101 (Ref. [13]).
performed with the aim to check the pipeline structural integrity
under typical load scenarios the pipelines experience during 4.1 CASE 1: Results
lifetime, namely pressure test and operating condition (pressure Figure 5a shows the assessed pipeline configuration in the
and thermal gradient). vertical and lateral plane. Figure 5b to Figure 5f show the main
The main issues related to the two cases analyzed are as FE analysis results obtained post-processing the ABAQUS run
follows: with the developed unified GUI. In the base case (Figure 5),
ƒ CASE 1: Pipeline route affected by 5 crossing of existing different sleepers have been placed at the crossing locations
pipelines and 4 route bends with small radius (i.e. < (Table 2). The analyses put into evidence the need for
2000m). Sleepers are adopted to release the axial mitigation measure since the local buckling unity check (as per
Ref. [13]) and the applied equivalent stress (von Mises) exceed

6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

the allowance Client design criteria (see Figure 5e and 2
As -Lai d Op erati ng _C o nd iti on s

A xi al D i sp l aceme nts (m)

Figure 5f, respectively). Therefore, a number of additional 1 .5

sleepers have been added along the route with the aim to trigger 0 .5

global buckling in the lateral plane, see Figure 6, Figure 7 and 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Table 2. The additional sleepers have been placed at suitable 12

KP (km )

As -Lai d Op erati ng _C o nd iti on s

pitch in order to share the release of the effective axial

L ateral D i spl aceme nts (m)

10

compression between a series of global buckling purposely

8

activated. The number of the sleepers has been preliminarily 4

estimated and then optimized through a series of parametric 0

0 5 10 15 20 25
KP (km )
30 35 40 45

analysis with the aim to both guarantee pipeline structural 0 .3

As -Lai d Op erati ng _C o nd iti on s

Ve rti ca l D ispl acem en ts (m )

0 .2

integrity under operating condition and design a robust 0 .1

solution. The results of the FE analysis carried out including the -0 .1

-0 .2

final sleepers configuration is given in Figure 7a to Figure 7f. -0 .3

-0 .4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )

Figure 5b - Pipeline response assessment results without

mitigation measures: (from top) a) axial, b) lateral
and c) vertical pipeline displacement.
As -Lai d Op erati n g _ C o nd iti o n s
8000

S te e l Axia l Fo rce (kN )

6000

4000

2000

-2 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )

As -Lai d Op erati n g _ C o nd iti o n s

1000
Effe cti ve A xi a l Fo rce (kN )

-1 0 0 0

-2 0 0 0

-3 0 0 0

-4 0 0 0

-5 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )

Figure 5c - Pipeline response assessment results without

mitigation measures: (from top) a) steel and b)
effective axial force.
As -Lai d Op erati ng _C o nd iti on s
0 .1
Mi ni mu m Lo ng itu di na l

0
Tota l Strai n (% )

-0 .1

-0 .2

-0 .3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Table 2 – Sleepers location along the pipeline. KP (km )

As -Lai d Op erati ng _C o nd iti on s

0 .4

0 .3
Ma xi mum L on gi tud in al

4 As -La i d Op e rati n g _ Co n d iti o n s

Total Strai n (% )

x 10
1 0 .2
Y-co ordi n ate (m)

0
0 .1

-1
0

-2
-0 .1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-3 KP (km )
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
As -La i d Op e rati n g _ Co n d i ti o n s Sm o oth e d Pi p e l in e C on fi g u ra ti o n As -Lai d Op erati ng _C o nd iti on s
8000 0.1 5
H ori zo n ta l BOP Cu rva tu re

6000
Ra di u s (m)

0 .1
E l a s ti c S trai n (% )
Ma xi mu m H oo p

4000

0.0 5
2000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
As -L ai d Op e ra tin g _ C on d i ti on s Ve rti cal Se ab e d Pro fi l e
-25 -0.0 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
-30
Z-co ord in a te (m)

-35

-40
Figure 5d - Pipeline response assessment results without
-45

-50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
mitigation measures: (from top) a) minimum and
KP (km )

8000
As -La i d Op e rati n g _ Co n d iti o n s
b) maximum applied longitudinal strain and c)
Ve rtica l BOP C urvatu re

6000
maximum hoop strain.
Ra d iu s (m)

4000

2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )

Figure 5a - Pipeline response assessment results without

mitigation measures: (from top) a) pipeline
horizontal configuration, b) pipeline horizontal
curvature radius, c) pipeline vertical configuration,
d) pipeline vertical curvature radius.

7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 As -L a i d Ope ra ti ng _ C on d i ti on s x 10
4 As -La i d Ope rati n g_ Co n di ti on s
L a te ra l Be nd i ng Momen t (kN m)

5 00 0 1

Y-coo rdi na te (m)

0

0 -1

-2

-5 00 0 -3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km ) KP (km )
As -L a i d Op e ra ti ng _ Co nd i ti on s Sm o o th e d Pip e l in e Co nfi g ura tio n
Verti cal Be n d in g Mo me n t (kNm)

As -L a i d Ope ra ti ng _ C on d i ti on s
8 00 0

Ho rizo ntal BOP C urva ture

2 00 0

1 00 0 6 00 0

R ad i us (m )
0 4 00 0

-1 00 0 2 00 0

-2 00 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
KP (km )
As -La i d Op e rati ng _ Co n di ti on s Ve rti cal Se a be d Pro fi l e
As -L a i d Ope ra ti ng _ C on d i ti on s
To tal Ben d i ng Mo men t (kN m)

-2 5
5 00 0
-3 0

Z-coo rdi na te (m)

4 00 0

-3 5
3 00 0

-4 0
2 00 0
-4 5
1 00 0
-5 0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
KP (km )
As -La i d Ope rati n g_ Co n di ti on s
As -L a i d Ope ra ti ng _ C on d i ti on s
8 00 0
L oca l Bu ckl i n g U ni ty Ch eck

1 .5

Ve rti ca l BOP Cu rvatu re

6 00 0

R ad i us (m )
1
4 00 0

0 .5 2 00 0

0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
KP (km )

Figure 5e - Pipeline response assessment results without Figure 7a - Pipeline response assessment results with
mitigation measures: (from top) a) lateral, b) additional sleepers: (from top) a) pipeline
vertical, c) total bending moment and d) local horizontal configuration, b) pipeline horizontal
buckling unity check. curvature radius, c) pipeline vertical configuration,
As -L ai d Op e rati n g _ C o n d i ti o n s
d) pipeline vertical curvature radius.
200
Mi n i mu m L o n g i tud i na l

100
As -L a id Op era ti n g_ Co n di ti on s
Stre ss (MPa )

1 .4
0
1 .2
Axi a l Di sp l ace me n ts (m )

-1 0 0
1
-2 0 0
0 .8
-3 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 .6
K P (km )
0 .4
As -L ai d Op e rati n g _ C o n d i ti o n s
600
0 .2
Maxi mu m L o n g i tu d i n a l

400 0
S tre ss (MP a)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
200
As -L a id Op era ti n g_ Co n di ti on s
0 12
L a tera l Di sp l ace me n ts (m )

10
-2 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
K P (km ) 8
As -L ai d Op e rati n g _ C o n d i ti o n s
250 6

200 4
Ma xi mum Ho o p
Stre ss (MPa )

150 2

100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
50 KP (km )

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 As -L a id Op era ti n g_ Co n di ti on s
1 .5
K P (km )
As -L ai d Op e rati n g _ C o n d i ti o n s
Ve rti ca l Di sp l ace me n ts (m )

500 1
Ma xi mu m Vo n Mi ses

400 Allowable Equivalent Stress

Stre ss (MPa )

0 .5
300
0
200

100 -0 .5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
K P (km ) KP (km )

Figure 5f - Pipeline response assessment results without Figure 7b- Pipeline response assessment results with
mitigation measures: (from top) a) minimum and additional sleepers: (from top) a) axial, b) lateral
b) maximum applied longitudinal strain, c) and c) vertical pipeline displacement.
maximum hoop strain and d) maximum equivalent 8 00 0
As -La i d Ope rati n g_ Co n di ti on s

Von Mises stress.

Stee l Axi al Fo rce (kN )

6 00 0

4 00 0

2 00 0

-2 00 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )

As -La i d Ope rati n g_ Co n di ti on s

1 00 0
Effecti ve Axi al Force (kN )

-1 00 0

-2 00 0

-3 00 0

-4 00 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )

Figure 7c- Pipeline response assessment results with

additional sleepers: (from top) a) steel and b)
effective axial force.

Figure 6 - Mitigation measure design: Pipeline 3D

configuration after being laid over the sleepers.

8 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 4.2 CASE 2: Results
As -La i d Ope rati n g_ Co n di ti on s
0.1 5

0 .1
Mi ni mum L o ng i tud i na l

0.0 5
Figure 8 shows the overall pipeline horizontal configuration
To ta l Strai n (% )

-0.0 5

-0 .1
assessed in this FE analysis. Figure 9a to Figure 9f show the
-0.1 5

-0 .2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
details of the main FE analysis results for the pipeline section
KP (km )

As -La i d Ope rati n g_ Co n di ti on s

where a global buckling has been activated. In particular, the
0 .3

0.2 5 analyses put into evidence the need for mitigation measure
Ma xi mum Lo n gi tud i n al

0 .2
To tal Stra i n (% )

0.1 5

0 .1
since the local buckling unity check exceeds the allowance
0.0 5

0
criteria, see Figure 9e. In addition, the FE analysis shows that
-0.0 5
0 5 10 15 20 25
KP (km )
30 35 40 45 the apex of the buckle slides laterally inside the bottom of the
0.1 5
As -La i d Ope rati n g_ Co n di ti on s
trench, raise the slope of the trench and complete the expansion
0 .1 in the access channel. This displacement and movement of the
Ela stic Stra i n (% )
Ma xi mum Ho o p

0.0 5
pipeline across the trench is not allowed.
0
The selected mitigation measure was to freeze the pipeline
-0.0 5
0 5 10 15 20 25
KP (km )
30 35 40 45
horizontal configuration at the route bends by spot gravel
Figure 7d - Pipeline response assessment results with dumping, see Figure 12. Rock fills configuration (i.e. length
additional sleepers: (from top) a) minimum and b) and spacing) has been properly designed in order to restraint
maximum applied longitudinal strain and c) any pipeline lateral displacement and mitigate the pipeline
maximum hoop strain. propensity to in-service buckling. Figure 11a to Figure 11g
As -L ai d Op era ti n g _C o n d i ti o n s gives the results of the FEM analysis evidencing the suitability
L ate ra l Be n d i ng Mome n t (kN m)

4000

2000
of the selected gravel heaps configuration to freeze the pipeline
0

-2 0 0 0
horizontal configuration. In particular, Figure 11e shows that
-4 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
KP (km )
30 35 40 45
the local buckling unity check is always much lower than 1.0
Verti ca l Be n di n g Mome n t (kN m)

As -L ai d Op era ti n g _C o n d i ti o n s
2000

1000
and in addition the pipeline is stable within the trench. Finally,
0 Figure 11g shows the reaction given by the rock fills.
-1 0 0 0

-2 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
As -L ai d Op era ti n g _C o n d i ti o n s
To ta l Be n d i ng Mo me n t (kN m)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
As -L ai d Op era ti n g _C o n d i ti o n s
L o cal Bu ckl i n g Un i ty Ch e ck

1 .5

0 .5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )

Figure 7e - Pipeline response assessment results with

additional sleepers: (from top) a) lateral, b)
vertical, c) total bending moment and d) local
Figure 8 - Overall horizontal pipeline configuration.
buckling unity check.
As -L a id H yd ro te s t Op era tin g _ C o nd i ti on s
1000
As -L a i d Op e ra ti n g _ C o n d i tio n s
500
Y-c o or di n a te (m)

20 0
Mi n i mu m L o n g i tu d i n a l

0
10 0
Stre ss (MPa )

-5 0 0
0
-1 0 0 0
-10 0
-1 5 0 0
-20 0 4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7.5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1.5 12
KP (km )
-30 0 As - La i d H yd ro tes t Op e ra tin g _ C o n d iti o n s Sm o o th e d P ip e li n e C o n fi gu ra tio n
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 8000
H o rizo n ta l B OP C u rv atu re

KP (km )
As -L a i d Op e ra ti n g _ C o n d i tio n s 6000
60 0
R a d iu s (m)
Ma xi mu m L o n g i tu d i n a l

4000
40 0
Stre ss (M Pa )

2000
20 0
0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7.5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1.5 12
0
KP (km )
As -La i d H yd ro tes t Op e ra tin g _ C o n d iti o n s Ve rtica l S ea b e d P ro fil e
-20 0 -6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
KP (km )
Z-co o rd in a te (m)

-7
As -L a i d Op e ra ti n g _ C o n d i tio n s
25 0
-8
20 0
Ma x i mu m H o o p
Stre ss (MPa )

-9
15 0
-1 0
10 0 4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7.5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1.5 12
KP (km )
50 As -L a id H yd ro te s t Op era tin g _ C o nd i ti on s
8000
Ve rtic al BOP C u rva tu re

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
6000
KP (km )
R a di u s (m)

As -L a i d Op e ra ti n g _ C o n d i tio n s
50 0 4000
M a xi mu m Vo n Mi se s

40 0 Allowable Equivalent Stress 2000

Stre ss (MPa )

30 0
0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7.5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1.5 12
20 0 KP (km )

10 0

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
KP (km )
30 35 40 45 Figure 9a - Pipeline response assessment results without
Figure 7f - Pipeline response assessment results with mitigation measures: (from top) a) pipeline
additional sleepers: (from top) a) minimum and b) horizontal configuration, b) pipeline horizontal
maximum applied longitudinal strain, c) maximum curvature radius, c) pipeline vertical configuration,
hoop strain and d) maximum equivalent Von Mises d) pipeline vertical curvature radius.
stress.

9 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 As -L ai d H ydro te s t Ope ra ti ng _ C o nd itio n s
As -L a id H yd r o te s t Op e ra ti n g _ C o n d i ti o n s

L a te ra l Be n d in g Mo me n t (kN m)
0 .8
8000
A xi a l D isp l a ce me n ts (m)

6000
0 .6
4000

0 .4 2000

0 .2 -2000
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (k m )

Ve rti ca l Be n d in g Mo me n t (kN m)
0 As - L a id H yd ro te s t Op e ra ti n g _ C o n d itio n s
4 4.5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12 4000
KP (km )
2000
As -L a id H yd ro te s t Op e ratin g _C o n d iti on s
10 0
L a te ra l D is p la ce me n ts (m)

8 -2000

6 -4000
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (k m )
4 As -L a id H yd r o te s t Op e ra ti n g _ C o n d i ti o n s

Tota l Be n d in g Mo me n t (kN m)
8000

2
6000

0
4 4.5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12 4000
KP (km )
2000
As -L a id H yd ro te s t Op e ratin g _C o n d iti on s
2 0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (k m )
Ve rtica l D i sp l a ce me n ts (m)

1 .5
As - L a id H yd ro te s t Op e ra ti n g _ C o n d itio n s

L o ca l Bu ck li ng U n ity C h e ck
1 .5
1

1
0 .5

0 0 .5

-0 .5 0
4 4.5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12 4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (km ) KP (k m )

Figure 9b - Pipeline response assessment results without Figure 9e - Pipeline response assessment results without
mitigation measures: (from top) a) axial, b) lateral mitigation measures: (from top) a) lateral, b)
and c) vertical pipeline displacement. vertical, c) total bending moment and d) local
10 0 00
As -La i d H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g _ Co n di ti o n s buckling unity check.
8 0 00
Stee l Axi a l Force (kN)

As -L a id H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g_ C o n di ti on s
6 0 00
200

Mi n imum L o n g itud i na l
4 0 00 100

2 0 00 S tre ss (MP a ) 0

0 -1 0 0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 10 .5 11 11 .5 12
KP (k m )
-2 0 0
4 4.5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (km )
As -La i d H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g _ Co n di ti o n s
2 0 00 As -L a id H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g_ C o n di ti on s
500
Ma ximu m L on g itu d in a l
Effecti ve Axi a l Force (kN)

0 400
S tre ss (MP a )

-2 0 00 300

-4 0 00 200

100
-6 0 00
0
-8 0 00 4 4.5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (km )
-10 0 00 As -L a id H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g_ C o n di ti on s
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 10 .5 11 11 .5 12 400
KP (k m )
300
Ma ximu m H o op
S tre ss (MPa )

Figure 9c- Pipeline response assessment results without 200

100

mitigation measures: (from top) a) steel and b) -1 0 0

0

4 4.5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8
KP (km )
8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12

effective axial force. 500

As -L a id H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g_ C o n di ti on s
Ma xi mu m V on Mi se s

400
S tre ss (MPa )

300

200

As -L a i d H yd ro te s t Op e rati n g _C o n di ti o n s
100
0 .0 5
0
0 4 4.5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12
M i n i mu m Lo ng i tud i n al

KP (km )
-0 .0 5
To ta l Strai n (% )

-0 .1

-0 .1 5

-0 .2
Figure 9f- Pipeline response assessment results without
-0 .2 5

-0 .3
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
mitigation measures: (from top) a) minimum and
0 .3 5
KP (km )

As -L a i d H yd ro te s t Op e rati n g _C o n di ti o n s
b) maximum applied longitudinal strain, c)
0.3
maximum hoop strain and d) maximum equivalent
M axi mum L on g i tu di na l

0 .2 5
Tota l Stra i n (% )

0.2

0 .1 5 Von Mises stress.

0.1

0 .0 5

0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (km )

As -L a i d H yd ro te s t Op e rati n g _C o n di ti o n s
0.2

0 .1 5
El a sti c Stra i n (% )
Ma xi m um H oo p

0.1

0 .0 5

-0 .0 5
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (km )

Figure 9d - Pipeline response assessment results without

mitigation measures: (from top) a) minimum and
b) maximum applied longitudinal strain and c)
maximum hoop strain. Figure 10 - Pipeline configuration at the global buckling
activation location.

10 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 g y

As -L a id H ydro te s t Ope ra tin g _ C on d iti o ns

1 00 0 As -L a i d H yd ro te s t Op er atin g _ C o n d i ti on s
Y -co o r d in a te (m)

5 00
0

Min i mu m L o ng i tu di n al
0

To ta l Stra i n (%)
-50 0
-0 .0 5
-1 0 00

-1 5 00
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9.5 10 10 .5 11 1 1 .5 12 -0 .1
KP (km )
As -La id H yd rotes t Op era ti ng _ C o nd itio n s Sm o o th ed P ip e lin e C o n fig u ratio n
8 00 0
H o ri zo n ta l BOP C u rv a tu re

4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
6 00 0 KP (k m )
R a d iu s ( m)

4 00 0 As -L a i d H yd ro te s t Op er atin g _ C o n d i ti on s

2 00 0

Ma ximu m L o n g itu d in a l
0

To ta l Strai n (%)
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9.5 10 10 .5 11 1 1 .5 12 0 .1
KP (km )
As -L a id H ydro te s t Op era ti n g_ C o nd itio n s Ve rtica l S e ab e d Pro fi le Vertica l Se a be d Pro file - Mod ifie d
-6
0 .0 5
Z-co o rd in a te ( m)

-7

-8
0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
-9 KP (k m )

-1 0 As -L a i d H yd ro te s t Op er atin g _ C o n d i ti on s
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9.5 10 10 .5 11 1 1 .5 12 0 .2
KP (km )
As -L a id H ydro te s t Ope ra tin g _ C on d iti o ns
8 00 0 0 .1 5
V e rti ca l B OP C u rva tu re

El a sti c Stra in (%)

Ma ximu m H o o p
6 00 0 0 .1
R a d iu s (m)

4 00 0 0 .0 5

2 00 0
0

0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6.5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9.5 10 10 .5 11 1 1 .5 12 -0 .0 5
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (km )
KP (k m )

Figure 11a- Pipeline response assessment results with Figure 11d -Pipeline response assessment results without
mitigation measures: (from top) a) pipeline mitigation measures: (from top) a) minimum and
horizontal configuration, b) pipeline horizontal b) maximum applied longitudinal strain and c)
curvature radius, c) pipeline vertical configuration, maximum hoop strain.
d) pipeline vertical curvature radius.

Ve rtic al B e n d in g Mo me n t ( kN m) L a te ra l B e nd i n g Mo me n t (k N m)
As -La i d H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g _C o n d itio n s
5 00 0
4 00 0

3 00 0
As -L a id Hyd ro te s t Op e ra tin g _ Co n d i tio n s
0 .1 2 00 0

1 00 0
Axi a l Di sp l a c e me n ts (m)

0 .0 8
0

-1 00 0
0 .0 6 4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8.5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12
K P (k m )
0 .0 4 As -La i d H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g _C o n d itio n s

2 00 0
0 .0 2
1 00 0

0 0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (k m ) -1 00 0

As -L a id Hyd ro te s t Op e ra tin g _ Co n d i tio n s -2 00 0

5
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8.5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12
K P (k m )
L a te ra l Di sp l a ce me n ts (m)

4 As -La i d H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g _C o n d itio n s

To ta l Be n d i ng Mome n t (kN m)

5 00 0

3 4 00 0

3 00 0
2
2 00 0
1
1 00 0

0 0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12 4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8.5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12
KP (k m ) K P (k m )
As -La i d H yd ro te s t Ope ra ti n g _C o n d itio n s
L o ca l Bu ck li n g U n ity C h e ck

1
As -L a id Hyd ro te s t Op e ra tin g _ Co n d i tio n s
0 .8
Ve rtic a l Di sp la c e me n ts (m)

0 .0 5 0 .6

0 0 .4
-0 .0 5
0 .2
-0 .1
0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8.5 9 9 .5 10 1 0.5 11 1 1 .5 12
-0 .1 5 K P (k m )

-0 .2

-0 .2 5
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8
KP (k m )
8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12 Figure 11e- Pipeline response assessment results without
Figure 11b- Pipeline response assessment results with mitigation measures: (from top) a) lateral, b)
mitigation measures: (from top) a) axial, b) lateral vertical, c) total bending moment and d) local
and c) vertical pipeline displacement. buckling unity check.
As -L a id H yd ro te s t Op e ra tin g _ C on d i tio n s
As -La i d Hyd ro te s t Ope rati n g_ C on d i ti on s 150
Mi ni mum Lo n g itu d in a l

10 00 0
100
S tre ss (MPa )

8 0 00 50
S te el Axi a l Fo rce (kN )

0
6 0 00
-5 0

4 0 00 -1 0 0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 11 .5 12
K P (km )
2 0 00
As -L a id H yd ro te s t Op e ra tin g _ C on d i tio n s
250
Max imu m L o ng i tu d in a l

0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9.5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12 200
S tre ss (MPa )

KP (km )
150

As -La i d Hyd ro te s t Ope rati n g_ C on d i ti on s 100

2 0 00
50
E ffe cti ve Ax i a l Fo rce (kN )

0
0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 11 .5 12
-2 00 0 K P (km )
As -L a id H yd ro te s t Op e ra tin g _ C on d i tio n s
-4 00 0 400

-6 00 0 300
Max imu m H o o p
S tre ss (MPa )

200
-8 00 0
100
-10 00 0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9.5 10 1 0 .5 11 1 1 .5 12 0
KP (km )
-1 0 0

Figure 11c- Pipeline response assessment results without 400

4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8
K P (km )
8 .5 9 9 .5 10

As -L a id
1 0 .5

H yd ro te s t
11 11 .5

Op e ra tin g _ C on d i tio n s
12

mitigation measures: (from top) a) steel and b)

Ma ximu m V on Mi se s

300
S tre ss (MPa )

200

effective axial force. 100

0
4 4 .5 5 5 .5 6 6 .5 7 7 .5 8 8 .5 9 9 .5 10 1 0 .5 11 11 .5 12
K P (km )

Figure 11f- Pipeline response assessment results without

mitigation measures: (from top) a) minimum and
b) maximum applied longitudinal strain, c)
maximum hoop strain and d) maximum equivalent
Von Mises stress.

11 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 1

0.9
Hydrotest Conditions
Operating Conditions All these steps are performed through a user-friendly graphic
D i sp l a ce m e n t ( m)
Ma xi m u m L a te r a l

0.8

0.7

0.6
interface which allows to reduce the time the analyst dedicates
0.5

0.5 to both FE model implementation and results extraction. In

M a xi m u m L a te r a l D i sp l a ce m e n t (m )

0.4

0.3
Hydrotest Conditions
Operating Conditions
Displacement at the Maximum Lateral Reaction
Lateral Displacement at Berm Failure
addition, the unified tool allows also to simulate a variety of
0.2 pipeline configurations even the ones extremely complicated
0.1

0
due to, for instance, a severe seabed unevenness or some
8.560

8.610

8.660

8.710

8.760

8.810

8.860

8.910

8.960

9.010

9.060

9.110
KP (km )

4
x 10 features affecting pipeline route (i.e. crossing, sleeper or other
Ma xi m u m Be rm L a te ra l R e a cti o n (N /m)

1
Hydrotest Conditions
Operating Conditions
Maximum Berm Lateral Reaction
obstacle like boulders).
Maximum Berm Lateral Reaction
0

-1

-2
LAT002

LAT003

LAT004

LAT005

LAT006

LAT007

LAT008

LAT009

LAT010

LAT011

LAT012

LAT013
-3
8.560

8.610

8.660

8.710

8.760

8.810

8.860

8.910

8.960

9.010

9.060

9.110
KP (km )

REFERENCES
Figure 11g- Pipeline response assessment results with
mitigation measures: (from top) a) maximum [1] Guijt, J. (1990): “Upheaval Buckling of Offshore
pipeline lateral displacement along each berm Pipelines: Overview and Introduction”; Offhore
location and c) maximum berm lateral reaction. Technology Conference, OTC. Paper No. 6487, Houston.
[2] Nielsen, N.J.R. et al.: (1990) “Upheaval Buckling Failures
of Insulated Buried Pipelines - Case Stories”, Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC Paper No. 6488, Houston.
[3] Mørk K. et al. (1999): “The HOTPIPE Project – Design
Guidelines for High Temperature/Pressure Pipelines”,
Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Brest, France.
[4] Spinazzè M. Torselletti E. & Levold E. (1999): “The
HOTPIPE Project – A Study of the Effectiveness of
Figure 12 - Pipeline configuration in the trench including the Remedial Measures to tackle/control the Development of
mitigation measure to avoid the onset of global Excessive Bending”, Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar
buckling. Engineering Conference, Brest, France.
[5] Torselletti E., Vitali L. & Levold E. (1999): “The
HOTPIPE Project – Snaking of Submarine Pipelines
5 CONCLUSIONS Resting on Flat Sea Bottom using Finite Element
The key of undertaking complex design of offshore pipeline Method”, Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering
systems is to use advanced analysis tools. These analysis tools Conference, Brest, France.
can perform local and global modeling of pipeline and subsea [6] Vitali L., Spinazzè M., Verley R. (1999): “The HOTPIPE
components. An in-house GUI in Matlab code integrated with Project – Use of Analytical Models/Formulas in
the ABAQUS structural code has been developed to perform Prediction of Lateral Buckling of Isolated and Interacting
user-friendly advanced analysis of offshore pipeline in order to Buckles”, Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering
simulate the actual pipeline behavior in operation. Conference, Brest, France.
This GUI allows to perform advanced analyses of offshore [7] Vitali L., Bruschi R. Mørk K.J., Levold E. & Verley R.
pipelines at design stage and verification (1999): “HOTPIPE Project: Capacity of Pipes Subject to
The tool considers: Internal Pressure, Axial Force and Bending Moment”,
ƒ Pipeline horizontal and vertical profile; Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
ƒ Seabed profiles both in the longitudinal and transverse Brest, France.
direction with respect to the pipeline axis. [8] Collberg L. et al. (2005): “HotPipe JI Project - Design
Guideline for High Temperature/High Pressure Pipelines”,
In addition the GUI allows to extract easily the main results of OMAE Paper No. 67523, Proc. 24th OMAE Conference,
the FEA runs, namely: Halkidiki, Greece, 12-17 June 2005.
ƒ Initial and final pipeline horizontal and vertical [9] Goplen S. et al. (2005): “HotPipe JI Project - HP/HT
configuration; Buried Pipelines”, OMAE Paper No. 67524, Proc. 24th
ƒ Axial, lateral and vertical displacements; OMAE Conference, Halkidiki, Greece, 12-17 June 2005.
ƒ Steel and effective axial load; [10] Spinazzè M. et al. (2005): “HotPipe JI Project - HP/HT
ƒ Maximum and minimum axial and hoop strain; Pipelines laid on Uneven Seabed”, OMAE Paper
ƒ Maximum and minimum axial and hoop stress including No. 67525, Proc. 24th OMAE Conference, Halkidiki,
equivalent (Von Mises) stress; Greece, 12-17 June 2005.
ƒ Bending moment in the lateral and vertical plane including
the local buckling unity check combing the component in
the two planes.

12 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

[11] Vitali L., Askheim D.O., Peek R., Levold E. and Bartolini
L.M. (2005): “Hotpipe JI Project: Experimental Tests and
FE Analyses “, OMAE Paper No. 67526, Proceedings of
24th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, June 12-17, 2005, Halkidiki, Greece.
[12] DNV Recommended Practice RP-F110: “Global Buckling
of Submarine Pipelines Structural Design Due to HP/HT”,
Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway.
[13] DNV Offshore Standard OS-F101: “Submarine Pipelines
Systems”, Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway.
[14] D. Bruton, M Carr, M Crawford and E. Poiate (2005):
”The Safe Design of On bottom Pipelines with Lateral
Buckling using the Design Guideline developed in the
SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Project”, Deep Offshore
Technology Conference, Vitoria, Espirito Santo, Brazil.
[15] D. Bruton et al. (2006): ”Pipe-soil Interaction Behavior
during Lateral Buckling, Including Large Amplitude
Cyclic Displacement Tests by the SAFEBUCK JIP”, OTC
Paper No. 17944, Houston, Texas.
[16] M. Carr et al. (2006): ”Pipeline Walking Understanding
the Field Layout Challenges, and Analytical Solutions
Developed for the SAFEBUCK JIP”, OTC Paper
No. 17945, Houston, Texas.
[17] “SAFE-BUCK Design Guideline” Report.
[18] “ABAQUS - Version 6.9”, Abaqus Inc., Dassault
Systèmes.

13 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

View publication stats