Acta Mech Sin DOI 10.

1007/s10409-011-0400-9

RESEARCH PAPER

Dynamic analysis of an oshore pipe laying operation using the reel method
Marek Szczotka

Received: 24 August 2010 / Revised: 15 September 2010 / Accepted: 15 September 2010 The Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Abstract A system designed for a rigid and exible pipe laying purposes is presented in the paper. Mathematical and numerical models are developed by using the rigid nite element method (RFEM). The RFEM is an ecient solution in the time domain. Static and dynamic problems related to pipe installation are solved by taking the advantage of simple interpretation and implementation of the method. Large deformations of the pipe during spooling and when it is reeled out at sea are considered. A material model implemented is used to take into consideration nonlinear material properties. In particular, the full elasto-plastic material characteristics with hardening and Bauschinger eect are included. Dynamic analyses are performed and the results attached in this work demonstrates how the sea conditions inuence the machinery and pipeline, assuming a passive reel drive system. The inuence of several other operational parameters on dynamic loads is veried. An active system, implemented as a part of the mathematical model, improves the system performance. Some results are presented as well.

1 Introduction Exploration of under seabed natural resources requires pipelines, risers and other communication and transportation systems [1]. As exploration increases, the natural resources are more and more exhausted. Distributed elds and deep water installations are generating new requirements for pipelines and other oshore systems. Companies are investing large resources in order to design, install and operate pipelines. Large percentage of the total cost is the material cost. Due to large forces and signicant deformations during the installation and operation, usually high strength materials are used, which are expensive [2,3]. The largest pipes are used as oil and gas transport lines. Usually they are installed on seabed using a lay barge, equipped with a special structure called the stinger. Installation methods are today well standardised and introduced to the oshore practice. However, each new construction requires an individual approach, due to the specic, unique project requirements. In spite of the existence of general purpose nite element method (FEM) packages, the industry still developes and uses special FEM built for the purpose models. FEM packages remains the main analysis tool and method, and many dierent problems related to installation and operation are solved [2]. In a conceptual project phase, the application of general, commercial FEM packages may not be suitable in terms of time and resources. Ecient, simplied special purpose models are also developed in order to support control systems, especially if they allow for the realtime simulations. Many dierent methods are used in pipeline construction. Most frequently used methods utilise a lay barge, which

Keywords Oshore pipeline installation Reel vessel Large elasto-plastic deformations

M. Szczotka () University of Bielsko-Biaa, Willowa 2, 43-309 Bielsko-Biaa, Poland and AXTech AS, Verftsgt. 10, P.O. Box 2008, 6042 Molde, Norway e-mail: marek.szczotka@axtech.no

M. Szczotka

has to be transported to the location. Then, having some support provided by other vessel, it can work as a factory. Lay barges are almost always used for large pipeline construction (diameters over 20, sign means inch pipe). The rst pipe lay barges were used in the Gulf of Mexico in the 1940s and 1950s. Initially, those systems used S-lay method. Since then, with water depth increase, many barges have been equipped with an adjustable, vertical lay ramp, founding a J-lay technique. An overview can be found in several books Refs. [25].

The lay method assumed in the paper is the reel method, which has several advantages. The rst one is related to the prefabrication, which is performed onshore. Therefore, costly oshore support is very limited and it depends less on the weather conditions. The whole spooling is arranged onshore (in a spool base). This makes the method very competitive in a nancial frame. The second advantage lies in the high laying rate. The reel method is especially eective when small and medium diameter pipes must be laid, in a few shorter lines. A typical reel lay vessel is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Typical vessel conguration for reel lay method

A mathematical model of the reel, pipe, lay ramp and vessel has been worked out. The main goal is to perform a dynamic analysis of the system, operated at the rough sea. The drive system considered is a passive, back tension, which provides a braking force. The pipeline is unreeled by the use of a traction force, generated by a tensioner. As the vessel moves on waves, large inertia forces may occur, causing an unstable reel behaviour. An active drive system, which has similar power as the passive one, has been simulated, too. A good improvement in the equipment performance has been achieved. As the dynamic model is considered, pipe vibrations, together with lay ramp oscillations can be simulated. Another approach to the problem has been presented in Ref. [6], where the so-called quasi-dynamic model was developed and used. In the mentioned paper, the pipe behaviour was calculated in the inner quasi-static loop, determining the pipe shape and reaction forces acting on the reel. Only the dynamics of the reel has been solved, neglecting the vibrations of the pipe. In this paper, the RFEM, described in Ref. [7], has been extended in order to take into account dynamics of the system with material nonlinearities (elasto-plastic characteristics), large deformations and contacts. The performance of the equipment and the inuence of the pipe dynamics is

studied by the model and software developed, when the laying vessel is operated on sea waves. The calculation results presented in the paper have been obtained from an own computer programme RTPV, which is based on developed mathematical models. It allows forces acting on the pipe as well as on the equipment to be determined in an easy way. The conceptual studies can be performed, which may conclude the ability of given vessel to safely perform the construction work in specied weather conditions. 2 Mathematical model for dynamic analysis 2.1 Pipelay vessel motion An example pipelay vessel is presented in Fig. 1 (http:// www.wartsila.com). This particular system has two reels, and a lay ramp, equipped with tensioners. Although the ships movement caused by sea waves is spacious, this paper assumes that the critical behaviour of the system is caused by heave, surge and pitch. Therefore the system considered is planar. The assumption about planar motion is consistent with a practical experience.

Dynamic analysis of an oshore pipe laying operation using the reel method

The response of a vessel to the ocean waves can be calculated by the application of ship theory and several simulation tools are used, for example WAMIT, VERES [8,9]. Both regular and irregular wave theories are in use, however irregular waves describe much better a real sea state. One of the simplest method to simulate the irregular wave, used also in this work, is summation of sinusoidal wave components. The linear, long crested wave model is dened by
Nw

S = f (t, (t), RAO()) ,

(2c)

where xS , yS , S are surge, heave and pitch of the vessel, respectively. 2.2 Kinetic and potential energy of the system The pipe is discretized by means of the rigid nite element method (RFEM) [7]. In its principle, the body (a beam) is divided into n + 1 rigid elements with appropriate mass and inertia properties, connected by n massless spring-damping elements, representing stiness and damping properties. The main advantage of the method is its simple interpretation and easy implementation. The RFEM can not compete with standard nite element method (FEM). The reason for this is a poor level of stress and deformation details, especially when geometric details have to be analysed. However, for a global analysis of deformations, dynamics and modal analysis, RFEM has been successfully veried by many experiments [7]. Considering a beam model presented in Fig. 2, the equations of motion of the system are derived using this method.

(t) =
j=1

R j sin( j t + j ),

(1)

where (t) is the height of wave surface elevation, Nw is the number of wave components, R j is the Rayleigh distributed random amplitude, R j = 2S ( j ) j , j = j j1 , S () is the wave spectrum, j is the random phase (with uniform distribution). The ship response to the assumed wave, considering given vessels response amplitude operators (RAO) is a known function of time xS = f (t, (t), RAO()) , yS = f (t, (t), RAO()) , (2a) (2b)

Fig. 2 Pipe discretized by rigid nite elements

In the classic RFEM method, the coecient of bending stiness of spring-damping element, can be calculated from the simple relation [7] cB = EI , l (3)

MB = cB (i i1 ) ,

(4)

where E is the Young modulus of elasticity, I is the second moment of inertia of cross-section of a beam, l is the element length. Each rigid element has one degree of freedom with respect to previous element: i = i i1 . The resulting bending moment due to spring-damping element deformation, is given as

where i1 and i are rotation angles of rigid elements attached to the spring-damping element. However, due to the elasto-plastic material model considered, the method diers from the above description. Internal forces due to material deformations are assumed as non-potential forces and are treated as external loads. These components are then added to the right side vector of the equations of motion, described later. The mass and moment of inertia, mi , Ii as well as the element length li , are assigned when performing the discretisation. The properties of the reel are assigned to the element number n. Assuming that each element has its mass centre

M. Szczotka
n

in the half element length, the location of the mass of the element i can be obtained from equations bellow
i

=y S cos(k )
i=k n (i) mi lk i j=0 i j=0

(i) mi lk x S sin(k )

n i=k

(i) mi lk

xC,i = xS +
j=0 i

l(ji) cos( j ) , l(ji) sin( j ) ,

(5a)

+
i=k n

l(ji) j cos(k j ) l(ji) 2 k, j sin(k j ) + Ik (11)

yC,i = yS +
j=0

(5b)

+
i=k

(i) mi lk

for j < i, i l j, (i) where i = S + j , l j = j=0 l j /2, for j = i. The Lagrange second order equations are used in order to derive dynamic equations of the system d T T V + = Qk , dt k k k for k = 0, 1, , n, (6)

for k = 0, 1, , n.

Finally, the form convenient for implementation is considered

n k (T )

=
j=0

a k, j j cos(k j ) k sin(k ) + y k cos(k ) x S A S A

n

where T , V are the kinetic and potential energy, Q is the non potential, generalised force. The kinetic energy of i-th rigid nite element equals 1 1 2 2 2 T i = mi x C , (7) C ,i + y ,i + Ii 2 2 i and after dierentiating relations (5) with respect to time and substituting into Eq. (7), one obtains Ti = 1 mi x S 2 S 2x 2
i i j=0

+
j=0

2 j bk, j sin(k j ),
n i=k (i) mi lk , bk, j = n i=max{k, j}

(12)
(i) (i) k, j + mi lk lj , a k, j = b

k = where A

l(ji) j sin( j )
2 i j=0

k, j Ik . The potential energy, taking into account Eq. (2b), can be expressed as following
n i

+
j=0

l(ji) i sin( j ) +
i

l(ji) i cos( j )

V=
i=0

mi g y S +
j=1

l(ji) sin( j ) ,

(13)

1 2 +y 2 S l(ji) j cos( j ) + Ii . S + 2y 2 i j=0

(8)

where g is the standard gravity acceleration. Having Ak dened as in Eq. (12), one obtains V = Ak g cos(k ), k for k = 0, 1, , n. (14)

After some transformations, the Lagrange operator T i d T i k (T i ) = dt k k can be written as

k (T i )

2.3 Generalised forces Generalised forces Qk , arising from external forces and moments, have to be dened. Consider the force F = T F x Fy , given in the global coordinate system, applied on the rigid nite element i, as shown in Fig. 3. The coordinates of point of force application, in the global coordinate system, are

(i) mi y S lk i j=0 i j=0

cos(k )

(i) x S lk

sin(k )

(i) +lk

l(ji) j cos(k j ) l(ji) 2 i, j sin(k j ) + k,i Ii

(i) +lk

(9)

where k,i is the Kronecker delta, k i. For the whole system (RFEi , i = 0, 1, , n), the following summation has to be performed
n

T=
i=0

Ti ,
k

(10) takes the form

Fig. 3 External force F applied on RFEi

and the operator

n k (T )

=
i=k

k (T i )

Dynamic analysis of an oshore pipe laying operation using the reel method
i

x F = xS +
j=0 i

di, j cos( j + i, j ), di, j sin( j + i, j ),

(15a)

Fy = Ni cos(i ) Ui sin(i ).

(17b)

y F = yS +
j=0

(15b)

After simple transformations, the generalised force due to the external force F applied on RFEi is obtained in the form Qk ( F ) = Ui di,k sin(k i + i,k ) Ni di,k cos(k i + i,k ), (18) where k = 0, 1, , i. The relation (18) is applied to all contact forces, which acts between pipeline elements and reel or lay ramp structure, Fig. 4. Thus, the following are dened: (1) generalised forces Q(r) k due to reel-pipe contact loads Fr(n j) , j = 1, 2, , p, p is the number of elements contacting with the reel, (2) generalised forces Q(l) k due to pipe-lay ramp contact, (reel) (3) generalised force Qk calculated as

where ai and bi are the coordinates of the point of application in the local coordinate system for j < i, l, j di, j = 2 a2 i + bi , for j = i, 0, i, j = arctan(bi /ai ), for j < i, for j = i.

Having applied the relation Qi = F x xF yF + Fy , i i (16)

and expressing the force F using the normal and tangential components Ni and Ui (Fig. 3), one can write F x = Ni sin(i ) Ui cos(i ), (17a)

Q(reel) = 0

j=1

Fr(n j) d j cos( j n r, j ) +

nD

M Di ,
i=1

(19)

where d j , r, j are dened similar to Eq. (15), nD is the number of reel drives, MDi is the drive torque.

Fig. 4 Contact, streightener and tensioner forces

For the pipeline model used in this work (based on one DOF elements), the only internal forces are bending moments caused by element deformations. Usually, when the linear elastic material properties are considered, one can use an approach based on potential energy of spring-damping elements SDE. In this paper, large deformations with elastoplastic material model are considered, therefore bending moments have to be included dierently. Bending moments due to the pipe deformation are assumed to be non-potential generalised moments, which are considered on the right side of the equations of motion as

Qk ( M j ) = M j ( j1 , j , j, j1 ), Qk ( M j+1 ) = M j+1 ( j , j+1 , j, j+1 ),

(20a) (20b)

where M j ( j1 , j , j, j1 ) is the bending moment, calculated from the elasto-plastic material model, acting in SDE j . During the spooling process, plastic deformations can develop in the pipe material. In order to eliminate permanent plastic deformation from the product (before it leaves the vessel when laying on seabed), the lay ramp has a straightener. This component is modelled by a set of springs with rollers. If the element reaches certain location on the lay

M. Szczotka

ramp, it is guided by these springs through rollers. The plastic deformations are removed, and the pipe becomes straight. The spring element with stiness k(jr) , shown in Fig. 4, represents one of such a roller. After similar transformations, the generalised force Qk (S j ) due to normal force S j , is given by the equation Qk (S j ) = S
(i) j d j,k

L (t) tan(t )v 1 + tan2 (t )

n

+
i=0

( i S )2 li sin(i S ) (24b) (24c)

+ S
i=0

li cos(i S ),

cos k

(ji,) k

0 = 0.

(21)

where j = 1, 2, , nS , nS is the number of rollers, S j = j k(jr) is the j-th force due to roller spring deformation, j is the spring deformation, = S + t , t is the lay ramp ) inclination, d(ji,k and (ji,) k are dened in Eq. (15) and depend on local coordinates of contact point between j-th roller and i-th nite element. The tension force P0 ensures that the pipes tip is sliding along the lay ramp with the assumed velocity vL . The normal force N0 , applied at the tip of RFE0 , keeps the point E on a desired path. Both forces have to be added to the system as generalised forces, which yields to Qk (P0 , N0 ) = P0 l0 sin(t k ) + N0 l0 cos(t k ), for k = 0, 1, , n. (22) Forces P0 and N0 are two additional unknown reaction forces, which are calculated from constraint equations, together with the equations of motion. 2.4 Constraint reactionsrigid lay ramp Constraint reactions, ensuring desired motion of the pipe element 0, in the case when the lay ramp is treated as a perfectly rigid body (part of the vessel body), are derived in this section. Consider that the point E has the speed equal to vL = vL (t) and it remains on the path dened by the lay ramp inclination angle t . The following constraint equations are formulated [vL (t)] =
D) y( E 2 D) 2 x ( E

Equations (24a) and (24b) allows the forces P0 and N0 to be determined. Equation (24c) ensures that RFE0 remains parallel to the lay ramp guide axis. An additional, unknown reaction moment M0 is solved from Eq. (24c). 2.5 Constraint reactionsexible lay ramp The inclination angle t is considered to be an additional degree of freedom. This angle takes into account lay ramp deformation. The constraint equations are slightly dierent now. Let a(L) and b(L) to be the coordinates of the origin of the system {L} (see Fig. 2) which is assigned to the lay ramp. Having dened the constraints in the local coordinate system {L} as
L) x ( E = vL (t), L) y ( E = 0, n i=0 L) ( L) li cos(i t ), y( E = y0 + n i=0

(25) li sin(i

L) ( L) where x( E = x0 +

t ), are the coordinates of the reel centre in {L}, and performL) ing simple calculations for determination of derivatives y ( E L) and x ( E , the following equations can be obtained
n

t a(L) sin() b(L) cos() +

i=0 n

( t i )li sin(i t )

=v L +
i=0

( i t )2 li cos(i t )

+ S a(L) sin() b(L) cos() ( t S )2 a(L) cos() + b(L) sin() ,

n

D) 2 y ( , E

(26a)

D) tan(t ) x( E n i=0

(23)
n i=0

+ b, li sin(i S ), are

( i t )li cos(i t ) + t a(L) cos() b(L) sin()

i=0 n

D) where x( E =

D) li cos(i S ), y( E =

=
i=0

( i t )2 li sin(i t ) + S a(L) cos() b(L) sin() +( t S )2 a(L) sin() + b(L) cos() , (26b) (26c)

the coordinates of the point E in the deck coordinate system {D}. The accelerated form of Eq. (23) can be written as
n

i=0

i li sin(i S ) = +
i=0

0 t = 0,
n

vL (t) 1 + tan2 (t )
n

S
i=0

li sin(i S ) (24a)

where = t S . Equation (26c) plays the same role as Eq. (24c). Thus, unknown forces P0 , N0 and reaction moment M0 are now determined. 2.6 Equations of motion Having considered relations (12), (14), (18)(21) and constraints (24) or (26), the equations of motion of the system with constraint equations can be presented as follows

( i S )2 li cos(i S ),

i li cos(i S )
i=0

Dynamic analysis of an oshore pipe laying operation using the reel method

7 Table 1 Main parameters of the system Name Vessel length/m Reel storage capacity/t Reel external diameter/m Reel inertia (loaded)/(ktm2 ) Lay ramp mass/t Lay ramp length/m Lay ramp head radius/m Lay ramp inclination/( ) Value 110 2 500 26 300 50 20 8 60

+C X = f , Aq =U, C q
T

(27)

where Al, s = [ al, s cos(l s )]l, s=0,1, ,n , An+1, s=0,1, ,n = 0, An+1,n+1 = It , It is the lay ramp moment of inertia, q = [0 1 n t ]T , X = [P0 N0 M0 MR ]T , f = Q e G, Q =
nk

l cos(l ), el=0,1, ,n = A l ( x S sin(l ) Q (reel) , Gl=0,1, ,n = gA n 2 bl, j sin(l j ), en+1 = mt dt cos(t + t ) + y S cos(l )) S + y S , Gn+1 = mt gdt cos(t + t ), nk is mt dt cos(t + t ) x the number of elements in contact, C and U are constraint coecient matrices dened by Eq. (26), mt is the lay ramp mass, dt , dt , t are constants depending on the ramp centre of gravity location, MR is the additional torque applied on the reel. Equations (27) are valid if the lay ramp angle is considered as additional degree of freedom. In the case when inclination angle t is constant during analysis, one could simply remove the last component of the vector q with related row in system matrixes and generate constraint matrices C and U according to Eqs. (24). Moreover, the number of components of the vector X may vary during simulation. The design of reel drive system ensures that 0 0, at any time t. (28) Thus, if Eq. (28) is not fullled, the reel speed 0 = 0 and the reaction moment MR has to be applied. The associated constraint equation for its determination is 0 = 0. (29) The system is solved by the application of the Runge Kutta method with constant time step h [10]. Before a dynamic analysis of the system can be performed, a few static and quasi-static pre-analyses should be done. The mathematical model presented has been implemented in an own computer programme RPTV. 3 Numerical simulations 3.1 Denition of load cases Several input data sets are examined, in order to test the system in various conditions. The main parameters of the system are provided in Table 1. Two pipe sizes are considered: 4 and 12, with unit masses 16 kgm1 and 128 kgm1 . All numerical simulations presented have been performed with the same integration step h = 0.001 s. The number of elements assumed in all cases (including dierent pipe sizes) is n = 250, where element length li = 1.0 m, for i = 1, 2, , n 1. Such a discretisation of the pipeline assumed provided both good numerical eectiveness and sufcient results quality.
j=0 j

i=1

Q (i) ( F i ) + Q ( M ) +

nS

j=0

Q ( j) (S j ) +

Table 2 presents assumed sea conditions. An inuence of dierent motion components and amplitudes on the system behaviour is explored. Data set A has no pitch motion. The sea state is built-up in the rst 9 seconds. The reel is accelerated form n = 0 at the initial time up to the nominal speed during the rst two seconds of the analysis.
Table 2 Sea conditions, load cases Load case A B C D Heave/m Ty = 6 s 1 0 1 2 Surge/m Tx = 8 s 1 0 1 2 Pitch/( ) T = 7 s 0 1 2 3

The parameters describing laying speed, back tension force and the lay ramp exibility are specied in Table 3. A passive back tension drive system is considered. The level of back tension force Ft , can be adjusted by the operator during reeling out. However, in all simulation examples, the back tension is assumed constant and equal to 20 t or 70 t. The laying speed vL is assumed to be constant, too (after the reel speed reaches the nominal value at t = 2 s). The symbol depicts the rigid lay ramp model, while the stiness assumed in load cases C3, C4 and C6 allows for a small angular deformation of the ramp under the tension force. Each plot has a legend, where assumed load case is dened, i.e. the symbol AC1 presents the simulation result performed with sea waves A from Table 2 and parameters C1 from Table 3, etc.
Table 3 System settings assumed during laying Conguration C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 F t /t 20 70 20 70 70 70 vL /(ms1 ) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 ct /(MNmrad1 ) 600 600 600

M. Szczotka

3.2 System performance with various parameters All congurations of the wave parameters listed in Table 2 are simulated with setting C1. The results are presented in Fig. 5 (time course of the pipe tension force) and Fig. 6 (reel angular velocity). Course AC1, obtained when the pitch amplitude equals zero, illustrates the insignicance of surge and heave motion (when the rigid lay ramp is used in the analysis). The pipe tension forces, as well as the reels speed are almost unchanged, when the pitch angle of the vessel equals zero.

70 t generates high peaks. Among analysed load cases, the best combination of sea condition and back tension level has been achieved for the condition BC2. The reel speed does not reach zero in this case (Fig. 8, green dashed line), however the speed is far from a constant level (desired value).

Fig. 6 Reel speed, eect of sea waves

Fig. 5 Pipe tension eect of sea waves

The highest dynamic force in the pipeline has been obtained for the sea condition BC1. The pitch amplitude of 1 assumed is relatively small, and it generates less acceleration of the reel in the rst phase of simulation. But the dynamic tension force is the largest among the analysed. For bigger pitch amplitudes, the rst wave produces higher reel acceleration, loosing the pre-tension in the pipeline. For the highest pitch angle (set D in Table 2), the reel rotation is large at the beginning of the analysis and a slack pipe is obtained. Due to low back tension force assumed (20 t ), the reel rotates due to its inertia. As described in Sect. 2.6, the speed of reel is constrained ( 0 0), which ensures that no spooling-in is possible. Clearly, the level of back tension force assumed is not enough. The amount of back tension can be adjusted, depending on the product type, which is laid to the seabed. The back tension can also improve the reel performance, when appropriately selected. Figures 7 and 8 present the result of changing the back tension force from 20 t to 70 t. The sea conditions B and D are considered as the most representative cases for the real operations. Now, the courses for Bt both 20 t and 70 t demonstrate that the resulting pipe tension force in condition D is quite dierent. This example (DC2) shows that changing the tension can result in worse and dangerous situations. The value of 20 t is too small, but

Fig. 7 Pipe tension, eect of back tension change

Next results concern the inuence of lay ramp exibility. Assume the sea condition B and setting C1 as well as C3 (rigid or exible ramp, back tension Bt = 20 t). Figure 9 shows lay ramp deformation angle t and deformation speed. The period of lay ramp vibration is determined by vessel motion (vessel heave and surge motion can become more important now). High frequency oscillations are generated due to contact forces and some pipe vibrations. The result in Fig. 10 shows the eect of lay ramp exibility on the pipeline tension force. It is very benecial to introduce a exible element into the ramp supporting structure. Peak dynamic tension forces are much smaller than those of the

Dynamic analysis of an oshore pipe laying operation using the reel method

system with the rigidly supported structure. Similar eects are obtained for any other combination of the input data. However, the exible lay ramp can not eliminate the surging problem, which is clearly visible in Fig. 11. A similar character of the angular velocity indicates the reel instability (partially as a derivative of low back tension level).

Fig. 10 Pipe tension, rigid vs. exible lay ramp

Fig. 8 Reel speed, eect of back tension change

Fig. 11 Reel speed, rigid vs. exible lay ramp

Fig. 9 Lay ramp deformation and deformation velocity

Next consider the system with dierent laying speeds vL . Figure 12 presents the maximum tension force, obtained when laying speed vL = 0.25 ms1 and vL = 0.5 ms1 , for both rigid and exible lay ramp models. The results are obtained for load combinations: DC2 vs. DC5 and DC4 vs. DC6 (all 4 pipe). In every case, higher speed generates higher dynamic loads. It happens due to higher dierence between reel velocity and pipeline laying speed dened by the constraint reaction.

Fig. 12 Peak tension forces when changing laying speed

10

M. Szczotka

All the results presented on proceeding plots concern a 4 steel pipe. When a 12 pipe is considered, the results are signicantly dierent. Figure 13 presents the tension force and the reel speed for 4 and 12 pipe, assuming the load case BC2. Due to higher dynamic inertia forces, peak values of the tension force are larger for the 12 pipe. Having the results for dierent pipe sizes, it may be concluded that the parameters, which allow us to keep the reel speed above 0, when the 4 pipe is installed, do not ensure the same for dierent pipe sizes.

G (X ) = 0 , Ir ( r + S ) = Mr (t, q , X ),

(30b) (30c)

where Eqs. (30a) and (30b) are the static equilibrium equations and the constraint equations (solved by the Newton method), Ir is the reel moment of inertia, Mr is the resulting moment acting on the reel, Eq. (30c) is solved by the numerical integration. The results (time histories of the pipe tension force) are presented in Fig. 14, and show how the pipe dynamics can inuence the level of tension force. Smaller pipes (exible) can be calculated with both models. Very similar courses have been obtained for 4 pipe (upper plot in Fig. 14). Heavier and stier pipe, due to the base motion involved, generates higher dynamic loads, and the reel rotates dierently. Therefore, when performing the calculations with the full dynamic model dened in Eq. (27), a notable increase of peak tension force occurs. In the case when a pipe of large size is analysed, or when the laying vessel moves signicantly (higher sea state), the full dynamic model should be applied.

Fig. 13 Results for 4 and 12 pipes: (upper) pipe tension force, (lower) reel rotational speed

The last example in this section is to compare the dynamic eects of the pipe. In Ref. [6] the problem was solved by using a combination of a quasi-static (for the pipe itself) and dynamic analysis (reel motion). Only the equation of motion of the reel was integrated, considering pipe forces acting on reel as the result of the static analysis, performed in each integration step. The quasi-static model is represented by the following system of equations F (q ) = 0 , (30a)

Fig. 14 Pipeline tension forces obtained with full and quasidynamic models, (upper) pipe size 4, (lower) pipe size 12

Dynamic analysis of an oshore pipe laying operation using the reel method

11

It is demonstrated by the number of examples that it is not possible to maintain relatively constant speed of the reel, considering passive, constant braking moment. The axial tension in the pipeline is very high and may be dangerous (for the personnel, equipment and product). It seems natural to implement a modication to the reel drive system, that would enable a compensation of the vessel motions due to waves. 3.3 Active reel drive system If the passive reel drive is replaced by an active one, the system can work very dierently. The results presented in this section have been obtained from the model with a controllable back tension. The amount of energy available on the vessel denes the operational limit for the equipment. When the sea is too wavy, the requested pipeline tension can not be maintained, therefore drive control relaxes the tension, using the energy to maintain the speed of the reel constant, if possible. The control system is based on a digital PID controller, which obtains the control error calculated as the difference between theoretical (joystick signal) and measured reel speeds. A few electric motors, which speed and torque is controlled by a frequency converter, can be applied. In addition, a feed forward PD controller can be added, with vessel pitch speed as the disturbance signal [11]. Figure 15 presents two surfaces. The upper one has been obtained for the passive while lower for the active reel drive. Courses of the pipeline tension, for two conditions indicated in Fig. 15, are plotted in Fig. 16. The value of root mean square (RMS) (Ft ) = f (Hz , T z ), presented on the vertical axis, has been calculated as
T

Quite a few simulations have been performed in order to obtain the plot presented in Fig. 15. Signicant wave height is considered between 2.5 m Hz 5.0 m and signicant wave period 6.0 s T z 12.0 s. The active system can work with a relatively constant pipe tension and a constant angular velocity of the reel, up to waves T z = 7.0 s when Hz = 5.0 m, and up to T z = 6.0 s with Hz = 2.5 m (the RMS 10 t ). If the vessel has to operate on high sea state with short wave periods, the level of requested tension has to be decreased.

Fig. 16 Passive vs. active drive, time courses of Bt

RMS(Ft ) =

Ft (t) Ft(0) dt T

(31)

where T is the total simulation time (T = 32 s), Ft(0) is the nominal pipe tension at time t = 0, in the example assumed as Ft(0) = 130 t.

The improvement in resulting dynamic tension force is quite signicant. If the drive system can adjust the back tension Bt automatically, the vessel motion is greatly compensated. On a small and moderate wave sizes, there would be a similar behaviour as if the sea would be calm. The lay speed can also be signicantly higher, if the energy installed is big enough (or sea conditions are not demanding).

4 Conclusion The mathematical model of the pipe laying machinery mounted on a vessel has been developed, as well as a computer analysis tool. It is used to simulate various conditions and congurations. The results could be useful when planning an installation work, dening a new equipment specications, etc. On the basis of models and software developed, one can nd out how big forces are generated on the structural members, and what loads act on the pipe. Large deformations of the pipe are taken into account. The material characteristics used, together with mathematical model, give the possibility to include plastic deformations in the static and dynamic analyses. In the examples attached, plastic deformations are generated during the spooling, and later,

Fig. 15 Passive vs. active drive, RMS

12

M. Szczotka Tech AS, Molde, Norway, for valuable discussions. The paper was supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (N N502 464934).

when the pipeline is reeled out at the destination. The pitch motion of the vessel strongly aects the performance of the reel and the whole system. Heave and surge do not inuence signicantly dynamics of the system, except the cases when exible lay ramp is included. Some reduction of tension force peaks could be achieved by the exibility in the lay ramp design. It has been illustrated that the passive drive system does not work very well on a rough sea. The full dynamic model, developed within this work, shows quite similar results to those obtained from the quasistatic model from Ref. [6]. However, when larger and heavier pipes are analysed, inertia becomes signicant and the full dynamics model (27) should be used. Similarly, if the lay ramp has a exible connection, the model (27) allow us to take its vibrations into account. Another important feature of the dynamic model is the simulation time. The full dynamic analysis is approximately eight to ten times faster than the quasi-static one. The reason for this dierence are convergence diculties in the Newton method applied when solving the Eqs. (30). The model presented is applied to verify the performance of the equipment dedicated to laying of oshore pipelines. Both passive and active reel drive systems can be analysed. Using the simulation method, the parameters of such a control system can be examined. The amount of required energy can be easily calculated, too. For the dened power available, one can obtain a map representing the ability of the equipment and the vessel given, to perform the installation work safely during specied sea conditions.
Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Company AX-

References
1 Sloan, E.: Oshore Hydrate Engineering Handbook. SPE Monograph, vol. 21 (2000) 2 Bai, Y., Bai Q.: Subsea Pipelines and Risers. Elsevier (2005) 3 Kyriakides, S., Corona, E.: Mechanics of Oshore Pipelines. Volume 1 Buckling and Collapse. Elsevier (2007) 4 Palmer, A.C., King R.A.: Subsea Pipeline Engineering. 2nd edn. PennWell Corporation (2008) 5 Guo, B., Song, S., Chacko, J., et al.: Oshore Pipelines. Elsevier (2005) 6 Szczotka, M., Maczy nski, A., Wojciech S.: Mathematical model of a pipelay spread. The Archive of Mechanical Engineering LIV 1, 2746 (2007) 7 Wittbrodt, E., Adamiec-W ojcik, I., Wojciech S.: Dynamics of Flexible Multibody Systems. Rigid Finite Element Method. Springer (2006) 8 Neuman, J.N., Sclavounos, P.D.: The computation of wave loads on large oshore structures. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on the Behaviour of Oshore Structures BOSS 88, June 21-24, Trondheim, Norway (1988) 9 Fathi, D., Ho, J.R.: ShipX Vessel Responses (VERES). Theory Manual. Marintek AS, Norway (2004) 10 Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky S.A., et al.: Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientic Computing. Cambridge University Press (1992) 11 Szczotka, M.: Pipe laying simulation with an active reel drive. Ocean Engineering 37, 539548 (2010)