Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
f
t
)
Scope(ft)
SCRvs.SLWR
SCR
SLWR
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
10 5 0 5 10
T
D
P
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
Hangoff Offset(ft)
SCRvs.SLWR
SCRVertical
SCRHorizontal
SLWRVertical
SLWRHorizontal
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
f
t
)
Scope(ft)
SLWR(6000'WD,DepartureAngle=8deg,d1=95%WaterDepth)
1300ftBuoyancy
1500ftBuoyancy
1700ftBuoyancy
1900ftBuoyancy
2100ftBuoyancy
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
10 5 0 5 10
T
D
P
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
Hangoff Offset(ft)
SLWR(6000'WD,DepartureAngle=8deg,d1=95%WaterDepth)
1300ftBuoyancy
1500ftBuoyancy
1700ftBuoyancy
1900ftBuoyancy
2100ftBuoyancy
6 OTC 24166
Figure 4 Decoupling Efficiency for SLWRs with Different Payloads
Figure 5 TDP Fatigue Life Comparison for Various SLWRs Configurations
Based on the above study, the following procedure has been adopted to configure a SLWR for a disconnectable system.
Step 1). The riser hang off angles and azimuth angles are selected to accommodate project specific subsea layout, mooring
offset balance, buoy trim balance, and interference considerations.
Step 2). Determine equivalent payload water depth J
1
based on riser payload limit allowed by the buoy.
Step 3). Perform parametric buoyancy length study to determine the decoupling effect to meet the performance target.
Step 4). Other important factors such as maximum hang off angle, VIV fatigue, riser strength and fatigue at hang off and
buoyancy regions need to be confirmed during detail analysis.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
f
t
)
Scope(ft)
SLWR(6000'WD,DepartureAngle=8deg,DifferentPayload)
1700ftBuoyancy,d1=75%WaterDepth
1700ftBuoyancy,d1=85%WaterDepth
1700ftBuoyancy,d1=95%WaterDepth
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
10 5 0 5 10
T
D
P
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
RiserHangoff VerticalOffset(ft)
SLWR(6000'WD,Departureangle=8deg,DifferentPayload)
1700ftBuoyancy,d1=75%WaterDepth
1700ftBuoyancy,d1=85%WaterDepth
1700ftBuoyancy,d1=95%WaterDepth
OTC 24166 7
Description of SLWR System
The key design data for various SLWRs considered in this study are summarized in Table 6. The riser wall thickness is
calculated based on the pressure requirement per CFR and API RP 2RD. The production risers are also covered with thermal
insulation layer for flow assurance considerations. All risers will be covered by fairings approximately 90 percent of upper
suspended length to suppress VIV. Fairings are selected to reduce drag force from current loading and from buoy descent
velocity during disconnect. It is also prudent to add VIV suppress devices near the lower catenary section when strong near
seabed current exists. The overall payload from riser and umbilical system is about 1,000 metric tons. The equivalent payload
water depth is 75% for production and gas export risers, and 70% for water injection riser. Figure 6 illustrates the riser and
umbilical system with FPSO and BTM mooring system.
Figure 6 Illustration of the Disconnectable SLWR System
Table 6 SLWR Design Data
8 Production 6 Gas Export 10 Water Injection
Pipe OD (inch) 8.625 6.625 10.75
Pipe WT (inch) 1.0 0.625 1.30
Material Grade X70 X70 X70
Corrosion Allowance (inch) 0.1574 - -
Dry Weight Tolerance +7% +7% +7%
Thermal Insulation or
Coating Thickness (inch)
3 0.018 0.018
Thermal Insulation/Coating Density (lb/ft
3
) 50.0 90.0 90.0
MAOP (psi) 7,500 3,625 10,000
Content Density (lb/ft
3
) 55.0 19.8 64.0~69.25
Departure Angle (deg) 6 6 6
Top Termination Unit Flex J oint Flex J oint Flex J oint
Equivalent Riser Payload Water Depth J
1
(ft) 4,500 4,500 4,200
Upper Catenary Section Length S
1
(ft) 5,400 5,190 5,026
Middle Buoyancy Section LengthS
2
( (ft) 1,800 1,500 2,200
Lower Catenary Section Length S
3
( (ft) 1,398 1307 1,398
Buoyancy Ratio 2.0 2.0 1.8
Buoyancy Material Density (lb/ft
3
) 36.7 36.7 36.7
VIV Suppression Coverage 90% 90% 90%
8 OTC 24166
Load Case Matrix
The full riser design load case matrix includes connected, disconnecting, disconnected, and reconnecting conditions. Omni-
directional environments are considered in this study. To reduce the amount of analysis work, a screening analysis is
performed for various vessel drafts, vessel headings, riser porch locations and azimuth angles. In general, ballasted draft
condition tends to induce more vessel dynamic motions than fully loaded draft condition. The BTM mooring allows the
vessel to weathervane. For simplicity, vessel headings between 0 and 30 degrees are compared. A heading of 30 degrees is
found more onerous than the head sea, and is used for riser strength design. Based on the results of the screening analysis, the
critical load cases and acceptance criteria for the riser strength design are detailed in Table 7. It is noted that accidental
conditions such as buoy or FPSO compartment flooded cases will be considered in the detailed design. The impact of buoy
damage can be reduced by its compartmentation design.
Table 7 Riser Strength Design Load Case Matrix
FPSO/buoy Connection Environment Mooring Condition Load Category API Stress Criteria
Connected 10-year Winter Storm Intact Operating 0.67 o
Connected 100-year Winter Storm Intact Extreme 0.80 o
Connected Max. Loop Current Intact Extreme 0.80 o
Connected 100-year Winter Storm One mooring line broken Survival 1.00 o
Connected 1000-year Winter Storm Intact Survival 1.00 o
Disconnected 100-year Hurricane Intact Extreme 0.80 o
Disconnected 1000-year Hurricane Intact Survival 1.00 o
Planned Disconnect Hs=3m Intact Operating 0.67 o
SLWR is modeled using nonlinear finite element software FLEXCOM. Riser buoyancy modules are modeled as continuous
section with equivalent mass and hydrodynamic properties. Table 8 lists the riser internal fluid properties for various
conditions. For emergency disconnect, full bore pressure is assumed.
Table 8 Riser Internal Fluid Properties
Load Case
Production Gas Export Water Injection
Density
(lb/ft
3
)
Pressure
(psi)
Density
(lb/ft
3
)
Pressure
(psi)
Density
(lb/ft
3
)
Pressure
(psi)
Operating 50 2,500 19.8 3,625 69.0 10,000
Extreme 50 7,500 19.8 3,625 69.0 10,000
Survival 50 7,500 19.8 3,625 69.0 10,000
Planned Disconnect 50 n/a 19.8 n/a 69.0 n/a
The strength design of SLWRs is implemented in accordance with API RP-2RD. For the connected cases, the analyses for
each riser are performed in the near, cross and far riser directions with multiple three (3) hours random dynamic simulations.
The vessel motions are input using RAO approach. It is assumed that the hull offset is 5% of water depth for operating
conditions, is 6% of water depth for extreme conditions, and is 8% of water depth for damaged and survival conditions. The
observed extreme responses from all realizations are used to estimate the extreme expected value. For both disconnected and
disconnecting cases, time traces motions generated by the coupled global performance software AQWA are imposed for the
riser analysis.
The fatigue design of SLWRs should include damages from connected, disconnecting, disconnected, vortex induced
vibration, slugging, and installation. This study only focuses on wave loading fatigue from connected, disconnecting, and
disconnected conditions. The target system design life for connected condition is conservatively set as 2,000 years including
a factor of safety 10. This provides sufficient design allowance for other fatigue damage sources. For disconnecting and
disconnected conditions, the system is designed to accommodate two (2) full hurricane events annually. To simplify the
analysis scenario, 100-year hurricane condition with 72 hours duration is conservatively assumed. Time domain rain-flow
cycle counting approach based on stress cycle (S-N) method is used to estimate the fatigue damage. API X curve with an
SCF value of 1.2 is used for pipe to pipe welds. The fatigue damage at critical TDP, buoyancy section, hang off (1
st
offshore
weld between flex-joint extension piece and riser pipe) are reported.
Analysis Results
The strength analysis results for production, gas export, and water injection risers are summarized in Tables 9, 10 and 11,
respectively. It is found that all risers meet the API RP 2RD stress criteria. The main conclusions are discussed as follows:
For the connected condition, some minor compression has been observed at the lower end of upper catenary section
for production riser and gas export riser during 1,000-year winter storm. The compression level remains low and
OTC 24166 9
will not cause any overstress and buckle of the riser pipe. This is induced by the large downward heave velocity at
about 19 ft/s. The results confirm that maximum heave velocity is the key measure to assess FPSO steel riser
feasibility [Ref.8]. The maximum flex joint rotation angle is less than 13 degrees, which is within the 20 degree
design allowable. Typical riser von Mises stress distribution and effective tension distribution envelopes in the 100-
year winter storm are plotted in Figure 7.
For the disconnected condition, the BTM buoy keel is submerged to a depth of 65 meters below MWL. The effect of
the extreme hurricane wave loading is reduced by more than 60% at this water depth. Therefore, riser stress and flex
joint angle are relatively low compared with the connected condition. It should be noted that current drag loading
will significantly influence the buoy and riser displacement due to low mooring stiffness at this stage.
Buoy release is a complex transient process. Buoy response depends on many factors including buoy/turret
configuration, mooring and riser loads, vessel offset, disconnect seastate and release time. Integrated buoy, mooring
and riser system is analyzed using coupled hydrodynamic software, which is calibrated by model tests. Figure 8
compares the typical buoy heave and pitch motions for connected, disconnecting, and disconnected seastates. It can
be seen that except for the quick initial descent, the buoy tends to have a large inclination angle when it exits from
the turret moonpool. Based on the design iterations from the integrated analysis model, the buoy should be designed
to limit its descent velocity to less than 13 ft/s and inclination angle to less than 14 deg in order to meet the riser and
operation performance requirement. The riser results of planned disconnecting condition meet the above design
limits. The vessel offset prior to release significantly affects the buoy velocity and angle. Based on the emergency
disconnect evaluation, the vessel excursion limit is 2.5% of water depth. This requirement will be included in the
operation philosophy.
Table 9 Strength Analysis Results for 8-inch Production Riser
Min
Tension
(kips)
TDP Stress
(ksi)
/Utilization
Arch Stress
(ksi)
/Utilization
Hang-off
Stress(ksi)
/Utilization
Max. Flex
J oint Rotation
Angle (deg)
10-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Operating 20.5 24.0 /0.51 27.3 /0.58 24.4 /0.52 2.8
100-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Extreme 9.1 43.0 /0.77 46.0 /0.82 40.6 /0.73 7.5
1000-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Survival -6.8 41.3 /0.59 48.8 /0.70 47.5 /0.68 12.8
100-yr Hurricane (Disconnected) Extreme 21.5 20.4 /0.37 23.2 /0.41 23.2 /0.39 3.1
1000-yr Hurricane (Disconnected) Survival 23.0 20.1 /0.29 23.0 /0.33 23.0 /0.34 4.4
Planned Disconnect 13.2 20.0 /0.43 23.0 / 0.49 20.9 /0.45 2.6
Emergency Disconnect -27.2 42.4 /0.61 44.5 /0.64 64.3 /0.92 14.5
Table 10 Strength Analysis Results for 6-inch Gas Export Riser
Min
Tension
(kips)
TDP Stress
(ksi)
/Utilization
Arch Stress
(ksi)
/Utilization
Hang-off
Stress(ksi)
/Utilization
Max. Flex
J oint Rotation
Angle (deg)
10-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Operating 9.8 18.6 /0.40 23.2 /0.49 24.7 /0.53 2.4
100-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Extreme 4.1 19.4 /0.35 28.1 /0.50 39.1 /0.70 6.2
1000-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Survival -3.6 22.3 /0.32 37.5 /0.54 60.8 /0.87 10.4
100-yr Hurricane (Disconnected) Extreme 11.5 16.0 /0.29 21.0 /0.37 22.1 /0.39 3.1
1000-yr Hurricane (Disconnected) Survival 10.6 16.0 /0.23 22.0 /0.31 24.2 /0.35 4.3
Planned Disconnect 9.5 18.9 /0.40 21.5 /0.46 19.8 /0.42 2.2
Emergency Disconnect -7.0 18.6 /0.27 32.9 /0.47 63.8 /0.91 13.2
Table 11 Strength Analysis Results for 10-inch Water Injection Riser
Min
Tension
(kips)
TDP Stress
(ksi)
/Utilization
Arch Stress
(ksi)
/Utilization
Hang-off
Stress(ksi)
/Utilization
Max. Flex
J oint Rotation
Angle (deg)
10-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Operating 44.8 42.8 /0.91 44.3 /0.94 38.0 /0.81 3.0
100-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Extreme 34.2 42.8 /0.76 45.0 /0.80 42.0 /0.75 7.3
1000-yr Winter Storm (Connected) Survival 20.6 43.8 /0.63 46.9 /0.67 45.4 /0.65 11.7
100-yr Hurricane (Disconnected) Extreme 50.4 41.5 /0.74 37.5 /0.67 36.7 /0.65 3.0
1000-yr Hurricane (Disconnected) Survival 48.7 41.1 /0.59 37.9 /0.54 37.0 /0.53 4.1
Planned Disconnect 50.0 24.9 /0.53 26.4 /0.56 23.7 /0.51 3.1
Emergency Disconnect 2.0 42.4 /0.61 43.6 /0.62 49.0 /0.70 16.8
10 OTC 24166
Figure7 8-inch Production Riser Max. API 2RD von Mises Stress and Effective Tension Envelope
Figure 8 Comparison of Buoy Motion Time Series
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
M
a
x
.
v
o
n
M
is
e
s
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
A
P
I
2
R
D
)
(
k
s
i
)
CurvilinearDistance Along Structure(ft)
SLWRforDisconnectableFPSO/8"Productionriser,100yrwinterstorm,
30degheading,Ballasteddraft
Cross
Near
Far
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
E
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
(
k
i
p
s
)
CurvilinearDistance along Structure(ft)
SLWRforDisconnectableFPSO/8"ProductionRiser,100yrWinterStorm
30degheading,Ballasteddraft
Near
Cross
Far
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
6000 6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600
B
u
o
y
H
e
a
v
e
(
f
t
)
Time(s)
BuoyConnected@100yrWinterStorm
BuoyVertical Displacement
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
6000 6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600
B
u
o
y
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
d
e
g
)
Time(s)
BuoyConnected@100yrWinterStorm
BuoyPitch
250
200
150
100
50
0
5620 5660 5700 5740 5780 5820 5860
B
u
o
y
H
e
a
v
e
(
f
t
)
Time(s)
BuoyDisconnecting@Hs=3m
BuoyVertical Displacement
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
5620 5660 5700 5740 5780 5820 5860
B
u
o
y
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
d
e
g
)
Time(s)
BuoyDisconnecting@Hs=3m
BuoyPitch
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
6000 6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600
B
u
o
y
H
e
a
v
e
(
f
t
)
Time(s)
BuoyDisconnected@100yrHurricane
BuoyVertical Displacement
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
6000 6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600
B
u
o
y
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
d
e
g
)
Time(s)
BuoyDisconnected@100yrHurricane
BuoyPitch
OTC 24166 11
Wave loading fatigue lives are computed for the three different risers based on FPSO ballasted draft (40% time) and fully
loaded draft (60% time) for the connected condition. It is assumed the risers are in the near plan and vessel is at 30 degree
heading. The estimated unfactored lives at critical locations of touchdown zone, buoyancy arch and hang-off zone are
summarized in Table 12. Its found that all risers exceed fatigue target of 2,000 years. In general, fully loaded condition
causes less fatigue damage rate than the ballasted draft condition. The touchdown zone is more critical than the buoyancy
arch. For hang off zone, the fatigue damage can be mitigated by moving 1
st
offshore weld location further away from the
hang off point. Fatigue life distribution along the 8 production riser is shown in Figure 9. The detailed damage breakdown is
listed in Table 13. The majority of wave loading fatigue at the riser touchdown zone is caused by the median seastates,
induced mainly by vessel heave and pitch motions. The majority of wave loading fatigue at the riser hang off zone is caused
by the median to high seastates, induced mainly by vessel pitch and roll motions.
Table 12 Comparison of Unfactored Wave Loading Fatigue Lives for Connected Condition
Riser FPSO Draft
Fatigue Life (yrs)
Touchdown Zone Buoyancy Section Hang-off
8" Production
Ballasted Draft 2,410 5,666 1,560
Fully Loaded Draft 3,507 8,400 3,092
Combined 2,966 7,040 2,220
6 Gas Export
Ballasted Draft 2,791 3,892 3,000
Fully Loaded Draft 4,355 4,860 6,000
Combined 3,557 4,420 4,285
10" Water
Injection
Ballasted Draft 2,357 6,332 2,234
Fully Loaded Draft 3,979 8,933 4,970
Combined 3,120 7,672 3,335
Table 13 Comparison of Fatigue Breakdown (8-inch Production Riser / Ballasted Draft)
Fatigue
Bin
Hs
(ft)
Tp
(s)
Probability of
Occurrence (%)
Touchdown Zone Buoyancy Section
Hang-off (1
st
Offshore
Weld)
Damage
Probability
Damage
Damage
Probability
Damage
Damage
Probability
Damage
1 0.75 4.5 18.034 0.00% 2.39E-11 0.00% 7.28E-12 0.00% 6.88E-10
2 2.5 5.5 39.241 0.00% 4.91E-09 0.00% 1.52E-09 0.00% 1.35E-07
3 4.5 5.5 11.884 0.00% 1.31E-08 0.00% 4.07E-09 0.00% 3.62E-07
4 4.5 7.5 12.403 0.50% 2.05E-06 0.26% 4.64E-07 0.19% 2.54E-05
5 6.5 6.5 5.907 0.10% 4.33E-07 0.06% 1.14E-07 0.06% 8.11E-06
6 6.5 8.5 5.081 4.98% 2.07E-05 2.27% 4.00E-06 1.06% 1.45E-04
7 8.5 8.5 4.210 9.89% 4.10E-05 4.80% 8.48E-06 2.41% 3.28E-04
8 11.0 9.5 2.162 30.31% 1.26E-04 17.46% 3.08E-05 8.36% 1.14E-03
9 13.75 9.5 0.518 13.22% 5.49E-05 9.93% 1.75E-05 6.02% 8.20E-04
10 17.5 11.5 0.473 37.25% 1.55E-04 49.19% 8.68E-05 47.06% 6.41E-03
11 22.5 12.5 0.068 1.03% 4.26E-06 2.40% 4.23E-06 3.06% 4.16E-04
12 27.5 12.5 0.014 0.30% 1.24E-06 1.19% 2.11E-06 1.60% 2.18E-04
13 32.5 14.5 0.003 1.00% 4.15E-06 4.31% 7.61E-06 9.24% 1.26E-03
14 37.5 14.5 0.003 1.42% 5.89E-06 8.12% 1.43E-05 20.93% 2.85E-03
Sum 100% 100% 100% 100%
12 OTC 24166
Figure 9 8-inch Production Riser Wave Loading Fatigue Life along Riser
Table 14 presents fatigue results for disconnecting and disconnected conditions. Annual fatigue damage includes the total
damage for BTM disconnecting, and 72 hours disconnected conditions from two 100-year hurricane events. The reconnection
damage is negligible. Coupled motion time traces are used to predict the buoy and riser responses. It can be seen that the
fatigue damage is significant and comparable with those from the connected seastates. It should be noted that the storm
condition and its duration are conservatively assumed in the study. Further increase of buoy submerged depth can also
mitigate riser fatigue damage.
Table 14 Disconnecting and Disconnected Fatigue Results
Riser
8 Production 6 Gas Export 10 Water Injection
Touch
Down Zone
Hang Off
Zone
Touch
Down Zone
Hang Off
Zone
Touch
Down Zone
Hang Off
Zone
Planned Disconnect Event Damage 2.75e-6 1.23e-5 2.12e-6 3.29e-6 2.51e-5 1.50e-5
100-yr Hurricane Disconnected
Event Damage for 72 hrs Duration
2.13e-4 3.42e-4 2.81e-4 1.77e-4 1.63e-4 7.15e-5
Annual Fatigue Damage Total (2 events) 4.32e-4 7.09e-4 5.66e-4 3.60e-4 3.31e-4 1.73e-4
Unfactored Fatigue Life (Years) 2,312 1,411 1,765 2,776 3,022 5,779
Conclusions
This paper has presented the feasibility design of a SLWR system for a disconnectable FPSO with BTM in the 6,000 ft water
depth in the Gulf of Mexico. An integrated approach is required to design the buoy, mooring and riser systems. With the
focus on the SLWR configuration and design, the key conclusions are as follows:
An efficient procedure is presented to systematically configure SLWRs for disconnectable FPSOs.
SLWR touchdown movement per unit hang off offset is a good measure to predict the decoupling efficiency. It is
strongly correlated to the fatigue life of touchdown region.
SLWR for the disconnectable BTM can be configured based on buoy payload and target riser performance.
Based on the analysis results, internal turret moored FPSO with SLWR is feasible to be connected under maximum
winter storm and loop current conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. The fatigue life for connected seastates exceeds the
design target based on proposed procedure.
The riser system will impose design constraints for buoy descent velocity and inclination angle. For emergency
disconnect, the vessels excursion is limited by these design constraints. The fatigue damage during disconnecting
and disconnected conditions is significant and comparable with that in the connected seastates.
In summary, the study demonstrates that the disconnectable FPSO with SLWR system is a feasible and cost effective solution
for the deepwater development in the Gulf of Mexico. The integrated approach presented in this paper can also be used for
similar applications in other areas.
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
F
a
t
i
g
u
e
L
i
f
e
(
y
r
s
)
TDP< ArcLength(ft) >Hangoff
SLWRforDisconnectableFPSO WaveFatigue/BallastedDraft
8"Prod 30degHeading
Hangoff
TDP
OTC 24166 13
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge permission from SBM Offshore to prepare and publish this work. The authors would
like to thank Carlos Mastrangelo, J ingxi He, and Sherry Xiang for their review and valuable comments.
Abbreviation Lists
BOPD Barrels of Oil Per Day
BTM Buoyant Turret Mooring
FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading
MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
MWL Mean Water Level
LPP Length between Perpendiculars
OD Outer Diameter
RAO Response Amplitude Operator
SCF Stress Concentration Factor
SCR Steel Catenary Riser
SLWR Steel Lazy Wave Riser
TDP Touch Down Point
VIV Vortex Induced Vibration
WT Wall Thickness
Reference
1. Mace A.J , Hunter K.C (1987) Disconnectable Riser Turret Mooring System for J abirus Tanker-Based Floating
Production System, OTC 5490.
2. Nion G.O, Calo D, Seguin R, Huang S (1990) Innovative Disconnectable Mooring System for Floating Production
System of HZ-21-1 Oil Field at Huizhou, South China Sea, OTC 6251.
3. Masson C, Carter R.H, Streit P, Delepine Y (2011) Cascade and Chinook Subsea Development, The Worlds Deepest
Production Risers, OTC 21857.
4. Hoffman J , Yun H, Modi A (2010) Parque das Conchas (BC-10) Pipeline, Flowline and Riser System Design,
Installation and Challenges, OTC 20650.
5. Banon H, Lavagna P, Connaulte X, (2012) Ultra Deepwater Mooring & SCR Solution for Disconnectable FPSOs, OTC
23500.
6. API Bulletin 2INT-MET (2007) Interim Guidance on Hurricane Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico.
7. Aranha J .A.P, Martins C.A., Pesce C.P. (1997) Analytical Approximation for the Dynamic Bending Moment at the
Touchdown Point of a Catenary Riser, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering.
8. Connaulte X, Lavagna P, Schuurmans S (2009) Steel Catenary Riser Feasibility Prediction for Ultra Deep Water FPSO
Applications, DOT.