Risk assessment and free span analysis of flowlines in East Kalimantan

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)
AND FREE SPAN ANALYSIS OF VICO INDONESIA

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
1 of 137
_________________________
INTERIM REPORT
__________________________
RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING

INSTALLATION (PHASE II) AND FREE SPAN ANALYSIS OF
VICO INDONESIA EAST KALIMANTAN
00
15 April 2014
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
LPPM ITS
KBA/MA/DN/KS
REV.
REV. DATE
DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED
BY

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
REVISION MODIFICATION LOG

Revisio
n
Sectio
n
00
TABLE OF CONTENT
Description
Interim Final Report
2 of 137

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
3 of 137
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................3
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................5
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................7
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................9
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 9
OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................... 9
OBJECT AND SCOPE OF WORK....................................................................................10
RISK MEASURES AND CODES......................................................................................13
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................ 14
2. REFERENCES..........................................................................................15
3. FACILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA......................................................16
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
PIPELINE DATA......................................................................................................... 16
BASIS DATA............................................................................................................ 16
PIPELINE UTM COORDINATE.......................................................................................17
BATHYMETRY AND RIVERBED PROFILE...........................................................................19
4. HAZARD SCREENING / IDENTIFICATION....................................................23

4.1.
4.2.
PIPELINE ROUTE....................................................................................................... 23
HAZARD COMPATIBILITY............................................................................................. 24
5. METHODOLOGY......................................................................................25
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION.......................................25

FREE SPAN ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 34
STABILITY AND SOIL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS...................................................................41
6. RISK ASSESSMENT..................................................................................44
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
FREQUENCY ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 44
CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 73
RISK MATRIX........................................................................................................... 80
7. RIVER BED STABILITY ANALYSIS...............................................................83

7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
PROJECT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................. 83
OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................. 83
SCOPE OF WORK..................................................................................................... 83
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.......................................................................................... 84
DATA SET FOR ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 98
8. FREE SPAN ANALYSIS..............................................................................99

8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
8.6.
8.7.
8.8.
8.9.
GENERAL.............................................................................................................. 112
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................114
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS................................................................................114
HANDLING, HAULING, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF REQUIRED MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT
115
GROUTBAGS INSTALLATION AND ACHOR RELEASE WORK................................................115
DAILY REPORTS...................................................................................................... 120
CLEAN-UP, RESTORATION AND DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MATERAILS...................................120
APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS.......................................................................121
GROUTBAGS STABILITY............................................................................................ 121
9. PIPELINE STABILITY ANALYSIS...............................................................123

9.1.
VERTICAL STABILITY
ANLAYSIS...................................................................................124

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
9.2.
9.3.
10.
15 April 2014
4 of 137
LATERAL STABILITY ANLAYSIS....................................................................................127

BUCKLING ANLAYSIS................................................................................................ 133
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................138

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
5 of 137
LIST OF FIGUR
Y
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
3.1 RIVERBED PROFILE OF DAPUR 12 CROSSING...........................................................19

3.5 RIVERBED PROFILE OF BALOK 12 CROSSING............................................................21
3.6 RIVERBED PROFILE OF BALOK 20 & 24 CROSSINGS................................................21
3.7 RIVERBED PROFILE OF BULU 12 CROSSING.............................................................21
3.10 RIVERBED PROFILE OF BULU 20 CROSSING...........................................................22
FIGURE 5.1 PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY................................................................25

FIGURE 5.2 RISK MATRIX ACCORDING TO DNV-RP-F107.............................................................26
FIGURE 5.3 EVENT TREE ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 5.4 DROPPED ANCHOR IMPACT DIAGRAM........................................................................29
FIGURE 5.5 CADZ AREA....................................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 5.6 STRESSES AT A TRAWL LINE SEGMENT IN SOIL............................................................31
FIGURE 5.7 ACTING FORCES ON VESSEL SINKING........................................................................32
FIGURE 5.8 OVERVIEW OF MAIN COMPONENTS IN A FREE SPAN ASSESSMENT....................................34
FIGURE 5.9 FLOW CHART FOR FREE SPAN DESIGN........................................................................35
FIGURE 5.10 FLOW CHART OVER DESIGN CHECKS FOR A FREE SPAN...............................................36
FIGURE 5.11 VELOCITY FOR ONSET OF MOTION..........................................................................40
FIGURE 5.12 SOIL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS PROCESS.....................................................................43
FIGURE 6.1 DROP ANCHOR EVENT TREE OF VESSEL GROUP A TO CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR RIVER
.................................................................................................................................. 47
FIGURE 6.2 DRAGGED ANCHOR EVENT TREE OF VESSEL GROUP A TO CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR
RIVER.......................................................................................................................... 56
FIGURE 6.3 SHIP SINKING EVENT TREE OF VESSEL GROUP A TO CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR RIVER
.................................................................................................................................. 65
FIGURE 6.4 RISK MATRIX DUE TO DROPPED ANCHOR VESSEL GROUP C TO CROSSING 12 FLOWLINE AT
DAPUR RIVER................................................................................................................ 81
FIGURE 6.5 RISK MATRIX DUE TO SHIP SINKING VESSEL GROUP C TO CROSSING 12 FLOWLINE AT
DAPUR RIVER................................................................................................................ 81
FIGURE 6.6 RISK PROFILE OF ALL CROSSING FLOWLINE DUE TO DROPPED ANCHOR..........................81
FIGURE 6.7 RISK PROFILE OF ALL CROSSING FLOWLINE DUE TO DRAGGED ANCHOR..........................82
FIGURE 6.8 RISK PROFILE OF ALL CROSSING FLOWLINE DUE TO SHIP SINKING.................................82
FIGURE 7.1 SIMPLIFIED FIGURE SHOWN RIVER BED INSTABILITY DUE TO INCREASING PORE-WATER
PRESSURE..................................................................................................................... 84
FIGURE 7.2 DEFINITION OF RIVER FLOW AND BED INTERACTION....................................................85
FIGURE 7.3 SOIL BEHAVIOR CLASSIFICATION CHART BASED ON NORMALISED CPT/ CPTU DATA
(ROBERTSON, 1990)...................................................................................................... 89
FIGURE 7.4 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT FROM CPTU RESULTS (LARSSON AND MULABDIC, 1991)..................90
FIGURE 7.5 EFFECT OF SAND COMPRESSIBILITY ON QC DR RELATION...........................................92
FIGURE 7.6 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DR (SCHMERTMAN, 1978)..........................................92
FIGURE 7.7 EVALUATION OF YOUNGS MODULUS FROM CPT FOR SILICA SAND (BELLOTTI ET AL, 1989S)
.................................................................................................................................. 93
FIGURE 7.8 HJULSTRM DIAGRAM........................................................................................... 94
FIGURE 7.9 HJULSTRM DIAGRAM SHOWING BED LOAD TRANSPORTATION.......................................95
FIGURE 7.10 A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE HJULSTRM CURVE AND THE SHIELDS CURVE..................95
FIGURE 7.11 THE MOODY DIAGRAM DETERMINED WITH THE SWAMEE JAIN EQUATION........................97

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
6 of 137
FIGURE 8.1 FLOWCHART OF CALCULATION PROCESS TO DETERMINE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FREE SPAN
LENGTH........................................................................................................................ 99
FIGURE 8.2 RISK PRIORITY RANKING PROCESS FLOWCHART........................................................100
FIGURE 8.3 ROCK DUMPING FOR UNDER WATER PIPELINE..........................................................110
FIGURE 8.4 GROUT BAGS FOR UNDER WATER PIPELINE.............................................................110
FIGURE 8.5 EXAMPLE OF GROUTBAGS DIMENSION (FSPS60/150).............................................121
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
9.1 LATERAL STABILITY ANALYSIS................................................................................128

9. 2 RIVERBED PROFILE OF BALOK 20 & 24 CROSSINGS.............................................132
9. 3 RIVERBED PROFILE OF BULU 24 CROSSING..........................................................132
9. 4 RIVERBED PROFILE OF BULU 20 CROSSING..........................................................132
9. 5 DISTRIBUTED PRESSURE CURRENT LOAD...............................................................134

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
7 of 137
LIST OF TABL
TABLE
Y
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
1.1 SCOPE
OF THIS STUDY............................................................................................ 10
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
PIPELINE DATA...................................................................................................... 16
PIPELINE BASIS DATA............................................................................................. 16
UTM COORDINATE OF DAPUR FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING............................................17
UTM COORDINATE OF BALOK FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING............................................17
UTM COORDINATE OF BULU FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING..............................................18
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
POSSIBLE HAZARD TO THE PIPELINE..........................................................................23

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE TO THE PIPELINE...............................................................23
QUALITATIVE THREAT SCREENING FOR PIPELINE...........................................................24
HAZARD COMPATIBILITY.......................................................................................... 24
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
FREQUENCY RANKING ACCORDING TO DNV-RP-F107..................................................26

CONSEQUENCE RANKING ACCORDING TO DNV-RP-F107..............................................26
DRAG COEFFICIENT................................................................................................ 30
FRICTION COEFFICIENT........................................................................................... 31
CONSTANTS BASED ON FOUNDATION SHAPE................................................................43
TABLE 6.1 DATA FOR BASE CASE FREQUENCY...........................................................................44

TABLE 6.2 DISTANCE BETWEEN FLOWLINES AT DAPUR RIVER........................................................45
TABLE 6.3 DISTANCE BETWEEN FLOWLINES AT BALOK RIVER........................................................45
TABLE 6.4 DISTANCE BETWEEN FLOWLINES AT BULU RIVER..........................................................45
TABLE 6.5 DISTANCE BETWEEN FLOWLINES AT TIRAM RIVER.........................................................45
TABLE 6.6 DISTANCE BETWEEN FLOWLINES AT MANIS RIVER.........................................................46
TABLE 6.7 FREQUENCY OF DROPPED ANCHOR VESSEL GROUP A TO CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR
RIVER.......................................................................................................................... 46
TABLE 6.8 SUMMARY OF DROPPED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR RIVER.......48
TABLE 6.9 SUMMARY OF DROPPED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BALOK RIVER.......49
TABLE 6.10 SUMMARY OF DROPPED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BULU RIVER.......50
TABLE 6.11 SUMMARY OF DROPPED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BULU RIVER
CONTD........................................................................................................................ 51
TABLE 6.12 SUMMARY OF DROPPED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT TIRAM RIVER......52
TABLE 6.13 SUMMARY OF DROPPED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT MANIS RIVER.....53
TABLE 6.14 SUMMARY OF DROPPED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT MANIS RIVER
CONTD........................................................................................................................ 54
TABLE 6.15 FREQUENCY OF DRAGGED ANCHOR VESSEL GROUP A TO CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR
RIVER.......................................................................................................................... 55
TABLE 6.16 SUMMARY OF DRAGGED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR RIVER....57
TABLE 6.17 SUMMARY OF DRAGGED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BALOK RIVER.....58
TABLE 6.18 SUMMARY OF DRAGGED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BULU RIVER......59
TABLE 6.19 SUMMARY OF DRAGGED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BULU RIVER
CONTD........................................................................................................................ 60
TABLE 6.20 SUMMARY OF DRAGGED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT TIRAM RIVER.....61
TABLE 6.21 SUMMARY OF DRAGGED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT MANIS RIVER.....62
TABLE 6.22 SUMMARY OF DRAGGED ANCHOR ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT MANIS RIVER
CONTD........................................................................................................................ 63
TABLE 6.23 FREQUENCY OF SHIP SINKING VESSEL GROUP A TO CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR RIVER64
TABLE 6.24 SUMMARY OF SHIP SINKING ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT DAPUR RIVER............66
TABLE 6.25 SUMMARY OF SHIP SINKING ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BALOK RIVER............67
TABLE 6.26 SUMMARY OF SHIP SINKING ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BULU RIVER..............68
TABLE 6.27 SUMMARY OF SHIP SINKING ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT BULU RIVER CONTD 69
TABLE 6.28 SUMMARY OF SHIP SINKING ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT TIRAM RIVER.............70
TABLE 6.29 SUMMARY OF SHIP SINKING ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT MANIS RIVER............71

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
8 of 137
TABLE 6.30 SUMMARY OF SHIP SINKING ANALYSIS FOR CROSSING FLOWLINE AT MANIS RIVER CONTD
.................................................................................................................................. 72
TABLE 6.31 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF DROPPED ANCHOR (VESSEL GROUP A) FOR CROSSING 12
FLOWLINE AT DAPUR RIVER.............................................................................................. 73
TABLE 6.32 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF DROPPED ANCHOR (VESSEL GROUP A) FOR CROSSING 12
FLOWLINE AT DAPUR RIVER - CONTINUED............................................................................74
TABLE 6.33 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF DRAGGED ANCHOR (VESSEL GROUP A) FOR CROSSING 12
TABLE 6.34 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF DRAGGED ANCHOR (VESSEL GROUP A) FOR CROSSING 12
TABLE 6.35 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF SHIP SINKING (VESSEL GROUP A) FOR CROSSING 12
TABLE 6.36 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF SHIP SINKING (VESSEL GROUP A) FOR CROSSING 12
TABLE 6.37 SUMMARY ON CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS FOR 12 FLOWLINE.........................................79
TABLE 6.38 SUMMARY ON CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF DROPPED ANCHOR.....................................79
TABLE 6.39 SUMMARY ON CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF DRAGGED ANCHOR.....................................80
TABLE 6.40 SUMMARY ON CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS OF SHIP SINKING............................................80
TABLE 7. 1 ESTIMATION OF CONSTRAINED MODULUS M, FOR CLAY (MITCHELL AND GARDNER, 1975). 91
TABLE 7. 2 ESTIMATION OF SOIL PERMEABILITY (K) FROM SOIL BEHAVIOR CHART (FIGURE 7.3) BY
ROBERTSON ET AL, 1986................................................................................................ 91
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
8.1 TIRAM CROSSING GAS PIPELINE 6 DATA.................................................................101

8.2 TIRAM CROSSING GAS PIPELINE 6 OPERATIONAL DATA..............................................101
8.3 TIRAM CROSSING GAS PIPELINE 6 COATING DATA....................................................101
8.4 TIRAM RIVER GAS PIPELINE 6 FREE SPAN CONDITION...............................................102
8.5 WORKSHEET FOR 6 GAS FLOWLINE AT TIRAM RIVER..................................................102
8.6 SUMMARY OF FREE SPAN ANALYSIS TIRAM RIVER CROSSINGS.......................................106
8.7 SUMMARY OF FREE SPAN ANALYSIS BALOK 12 PIPELINE RIVER CROSSING.....................106
8.8 SUMMARY OF FREE SPAN ANALYSIS BULU 12 PIPELINE RIVER CROSSING.......................107
8.9 SUMMARY OF FREE SPAN ANALYSIS BULU 18 PIPELINE RIVER CROSSING.......................107
8.10 SUMMARY OF FREE SPAN ANALYSIS DAPUR 12 PIPELINE RIVER CROSSING..................108
8.14 GROUT BAGS SPECIFICATION...............................................................................111
8.15 COMPARISON BETWEEN ROCK DUMPING AND GROUTBAGS.........................................112
8.16 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CURRENT FOR GROUT BAGS SPECIFICATION..............................122
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
9.1 PIPELINE AND SOIL DATA FOR ON-BOTTOM STABILITY ANALYSIS....................................123

9.2 PIPELINE WEIGHT AT VARIOUS CONDITION (OIL TRANSFER PIPELINE FOR EXAMPLE)..........124
9.3 VERTICAL STABILITY ANALYSIS (A) (OIL TRANSFER PIPELINE FOR EXAMPLE).....................125
9.4 VERTICAL STABILITY ANALYSIS (B) (OIL TRANSFER PIPELINE FOR EXAMPLE).....................126
9.5 SUMMARY FOR VERTICAL STABILITY ANALYSIS............................................................127
9.6 LATERAL STABILITY ANALYSIS (A)............................................................................129
9.7 LATERAL STABILITY ANALYSIS (C)............................................................................131
9. 8 SUMMARY OF BUCKLING ANALYSIS.........................................................................135

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
9 of 137
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
VICO Indonesia operates a Production Sharing Contract area of Sanga - Sanga PSC
on behalf of itself and a number of participants in Indonesian Joint Ventures. It
operates seven oil and gas producing fields onshore of East Kalimantan, Indonesia,
close to Mahakam Delta. They are Badak, Nilam, Pamaguan, Semberah, Mutiara,
Beras, and Lempake. The oil and gas produced are processed in four main production
plants. The first development was in Badak, in 1977, followed by Nilam (1982),
Mutiara (1990) and Semberah (1991).
The gas from main production plants are transmitted to PT. Badak NGL, an LNG
(Liquefied Natural Gas) and LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) Plant in Bontang, and to
fertilizer and methanol plants in Kaltim Industrial Estate, via pipeline networks. The
LNG is then sold to customers in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. The processed liquids are
transported through pipeline to UNOCAL- operated terminal in Tanjung Santan and
shipped to buyers.
To support the operations and production of gas, VICO Indonesia manages several
gas pipelines either onshore and offshore that mainly located in Delta Mahakam.
Currently there are 14 river crossings located at Bulu, Balok, Dapur, Tiram and Manis
Rivers managed by VICO Indonesia along the Delta Mahakam area. Some of the
flowline river crossings are unusable due to deterioration of the flowline, and some of
them are in operation. VICO Indonesia has an immediate plan to replace flowline river
crossings with a new one. Those flowlines are:
1
2
3
4
5
4
3
4
2
1
flowlines at Dapur River Crossing

flowlines at Balok River Crossing
flowlines at Bulu River Crossing
flowlines at Tiram River Crossing
flowline at Manis River Crossing
This interim report is submitted to VICO Indonesia in conjunction with the plan of
carrying out risk assessment of those flowline river crossings mentioned above. This
risk assessment is part of document to be submitted in order to obtain permit from
Ministry of Transportation c.q. Directorate General of Sea Communication.
1.2.
Objectives
The objectives and scopes of this study are:
1. To perform risk assessment of flowline that is planned to be laid by VICO
Indonesia according to DNV-RP-F107 (Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection),
covers:
a Identification of hazard that may cause damage to the flowline based on
various technical and environmental data and then screen out the threats
qualitatively.
b Identification of all possible failure modes for each threats screened for the
subsea gas pipeline by using FMEA and identify location of the along flowline
where threats is applicable.
c Undertaking a frequency analysis to determine the likelihood of failure by
estimating the hazard frequencies of occurrence and combining it with the

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
d
e
f
15 April 2014
10 of 137
consequences. These values can be compared with acceptable risk criteria

set in the DNV codes.
Undertaking consequence analysis of each hazard to determine the
magnitude of the risk.
Assessing the risks by combining both the consequence and frequency
analysis using DNV-RP-F107 to determine if the risk is acceptable.
If risks are not ALARP, then providing recommendations on how to reduce the
risk to ALARP or acceptable level.
2. To perform risk assessment of flowlines at which identified as likely in the position

of crossing the river transportation lanes.
3. To perform risk assessment of flowline at several river crossings and provide
recommendation to mitigate the risk if the risk is unacceptable or ALARP.
4. To assess the stability analysis and soil settlement analysis of the flowline with
respect to operational data of the flowline and environmental data in which the
flowline to be laid.
5. To carry out free span analysis of the flowline and to recommend mitigation or
safeguards to overcome the situation if the free span existed.
6. To recommend the best method of the flowline protection (if risk is unacceptable)
7. To assist VICO Indonesia in performing communication and socialization of risk
assessment result to Ditjen Hubla, Ditjen MIGAS and SKKMigas as part of permit
process.
1.3.
Object and Scope of Work

Objects of this proposed study are 14 river crossing flowlines as follows:
Table 1.1 Scope of this study
ID
LOCATION
Dapur River
Balok River
Bulu River
Tiram River
Manis River
Dia (inch)
Fluid
12
18
20
24
12
20
24
12
18
20
24
6
6
12
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
OIL
GAS

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
11 of 137
In General, the scopes of this study are:

1
Review and verification of datas related with the plan of flowline route: traffic of
ships across flowline route, bathymetry, ship specification, weather condition (wind
and current), flowline specification, plan of shipping lane around the route.
Hazard identification flowline operation by considering traffic, weather and other

aspect.
Determine probability of flowline failure and its consequences for each specific
hazard identified.
Review acceptance criteria of risk profile matrix with reference standard DNV-RPF107.
Perform risk assessment of river flowline crossings (if any).
Perform risk assessment of flowline at positions in which identified as likely in the

position traverses a river transportation lane.
Define and identify any mitigation action for each defined risk including
consideration to put flowline protection if required.
Define recommendation of control measures that need to be taken into account to

reduce risk into As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) level.
Assessing the stability analysis and soil settlement analysis of the flowline with
respect to operational data of the flowline and environmental data in which the
flowline to be laid.
10 Carrying out free span analysis of the flowline and to recommend mitigation or
safeguards to overcome the situation if the free span existed.
11 Recommending the best method of the flowline protection (if risk is unacceptable)
12 With VICO Indonesia presents the result of this risk assessment to stakeholder;
Ditjen Hubla, Ditjen MIGAS and SKKMigas as part of permit approval.
The above scope is further defined as below:
PHASE-1, Perform risk assessment of gas flowline on river crossing area
according to DNV-RP-F107 (Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection)
Phase-1 consists of:
1
Identification of hazard that may cause damage to the flowline based on various
technical and environmental data and then screen out the threats qualitatively.
Identification of all possible failure modes for each threats screened for flowline by
using failure modes and effect analysis (FMEA) and identify location of the along
flowline where threats is applicable.

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
12 of 137
Undertaking a frequency analysis to determine the likelihood of failure by

estimating the hazard frequencies of occurrence and combining it with the
consequences. These values can be compared with acceptable risk criteria set in
the DNV codes.
Undertaking consequence analysis of each hazard to determine the magnitude of

the risk. Assessing the risks by combining both the consequence and frequency
analysis using DNV-RP-F107 to determine if the risk is acceptable.
If risks are not As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP), then providing

recommendations on how to reduce the risk to ALARP or acceptable level.
PHASE-2, Define and identify any mitigation action for each defined risk
including consideration to put pipeline protection if required and give
recommendation of control measures that needed.
Phase-2 is consisted of:
1 Review existing relevant data available i.e (but not limited to) topographic data,
flowline alignment and configuration sheet (pipe type and size, foundation type
and level), result of previous inspections/ investigation/ monitoring programmes.
2
Identification, delineate and compile any information relevant to integrity of the

flowline and the ROW on a single plan GIS format. This will be provided by
Company before ongoing stages of work.
Site visit (where required) to identify the type, location, and other risk may occur.
Field investigation to evaluate current condition of previously identified risk on

VICO river crossing.
Evaluation of detailed analysis of the possibility failure of mechanism with respect

to environmental, geotechnical and others parameters, providing the confirmation
base the cause of risk.
Recommend monitoring system which is suitable for East Kalimantan pipeline

ROW conditions, to provide data to allow company to monitor further pipeline risk
in VICO river crossing areas.
PHASE-3, Give Recommendation for the best method of the pipeline free span
rectification and protection (if risk is unacceptable) including recommendation
to prevent free span growth
1 Perform detailed geotechnical mapping to determine the extents of free span,
provide the estimation of historical and prediction movement.
2
Provide design concepts for remedial and mitigation plan and shall provide a detail
of construction drawing for critical areas, complete with relevant construction
specifications and requirements.

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
13 of 137
PHASE-4, Evaluation of implemented free span rectification program and

underwater pipeline protection program
1 Review remedial action implemented by company.
2
Field investigation to evaluate current condition of previously implemented

freespan rectification and pipeline protection programme
Indentify risk areas which are identified to have the potential to increase to higher
risk, and to provide detailed analysis and conceptual designs to mitigate/eliminate
the risk.
PHASE -5: Reporting

1. Submitting comprehensive detailed report of the undertaken activities, findings
and recommendations of the study within Forty five (45) calendar days after
Commencement Date. Draft report shall be submitted in email electronic format to
Company. Prior to submission of final report, Company and Asset Holder will be
invited to visit Consultant to discuss the findings of the study and clarify format
and content of the final report.
2. Submitting the final report which shall be received by Company within seven (7)
calendar days after the agreement on report format and content as detailed in
section above.
3. Providing five (5) bound printed copies together with five (5) electronic copies in
CD-format, which are compatible and able to be accessed with Company
computer system.
1.4.
Risk Measures and Codes

The Ministry of Mining and Energy of Indonesia has issued Minister Decree No.
300.K/38M.PE/1997. The article 13 of the decree states that for a seabed depth less
than 13 meters, the pipeline must be buried to a minimum of 2 meters beneath the
seabed. However, the impending safety case legislation will allow the operator to
adopt a risk based approach in assessing new facilities, as quoted below:
1
2
Pasal 13
Pipa Penyalur yang digelar melintasi sungai atau saluran irigasi wajib ditanam
dengan kedalaman sekurang-kurangnya 2 (dua) meter di bawah dasar
normalisasi sungai atau saluran irigasi.
Pipa Penyalur yang digelar melintasi daerah rawa-rawa wajib ditanam dengan
kedalaman sekurang-kurangnya 1 (satu) meter di bawah dasar rawa serta
dilengkapi dengan system pemberat sedemikian rupa sehingga pipa tidak akan
tergeser maupun berpindah, atau disangga dengan pipa pancang.
Pipa Penyalur yang digelar di laut wajib memenuhi ketentuan sebagai berikut :
a Dalam hal kedalaman dasar laut kurang dari 13 meter maka pipa harus
ditanam sekurang-kuranganya 2 (dua) meter di bawah dasar laut (sea
bed), serta dilengkapi dengan sistem pemberat agar pipa tidak tergeser
atau berpindah.

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
b
c
15 April 2014
14 of 137
Dalam hal kedalaman dasar laut 13 (tiga belas) meter atau lebih maka
pipa dapat diletakkan di dasar laut, serta dilengkapi dengan sistem
pemberat agar pipa tidak tergeser atau berpindah.
Setelah diselesaikannya penggelaran pipa, pada daerah keberadaan pipa
harus dilengkapi dengan Sarana Bantu Navigasi Pelayaran (SBNP) sesuai
dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.
This study will measure the risk using ratio between denting per diameter of the pipeline
(/D).
This study will refer to several codes and standards as below:
DNV-RP-F107 (Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection)
API 581 (Risk Based Inspection)
DNV-RPF101 (Corroded Pipelines)
DNV-RPF111 (Interference Between Trawl Gear And Pipelines)
DNV-RPE302 (Design and Installation of Dragin Plate Anchors in Clay )
DNV-OS-F101 (Submarine Pipeline Design and Construction)
ASME B31.8 (Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems)
SNI 13-3474-2009 Sistem Penyaluran dan Distribusi Pipa Gas
Keputusan Menteri Perhubungan No: 68/2011 tentang Alur Pelayaran di Laut
Kepmen Pertambangan dan Energi No: 300.K/38M.PE/1997, Safety on Oil and Gas
Distribution Pipeline.
Ministry of Transportation has issued Ministry Decree No. 68/2011 on Alur Pelayaran Laut
that has different requirements with Kepmen Pertambangan dan Energi No.
300.K/38M.PE/1997. This study, however, will assess the risk of the export gas pipeline as
per technical design provided by VICO Indonesia that still refers to Kepmen Pertambangan
dan Energi No: 300.K/38M.PE/1997.
1.5.
List of Abbreviations
ALARP
CADZ
CADRZ
CSZ
DAF
DITJEN
DNV
DWT
GL
HAZID
HUBLA
KP
MPa
MSL
MIGAS
OD
OS
RP
SNI
SMYS
As Low As Reasonably Practicable

Critical Anchor Damage Zone
Critical Anchor Drag Zone
Critical Sinking Zone
Dynamic Amplification Factor
Direktorat Jenderal
Det Norske Veritas
Dead Weight Tonnage
Guideline
Hazard Identification
Perhubungan Laut
Kilometer Post/Pipe
Mega Pascal
Mean Sea Level
Indonesian Regulatory Authority
Outer Diameter
Operating System
Recommended Practice
Standar Nasional Indonesia
Specified Minimum Yield Strength

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
15 of 137

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
16 of 137
2. REFERENCES
This study will refer to several codes and standards as below:
1. Decree of Minister of Transportation No.68/2011, Alur Pelayaran di Laut.
2. Decree of the Minister of Mines and Energy No.300.K/38/M.PE/1997, Safety on
Oil and Gas Distribution Pipeline.
3. DNV-RP-F107, Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection, October 2010.
4. SNI 3474 tahun 2009, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping System.
5. DNV-OS-F101, Submarine Pipeline Design and Construction, October 2010.
6. DNV-RP-F113, Pipeline Subsea Repair, October 2007.
7. DNV-RP-F116 Integrity Management of Submarine Pipeline Systems, October
2009.
8. Dirjen. Perikanan Tangkap, Kementrian Kelautan dan Perikanan RI, Peta
Keragaman Perikanan Tangkap di Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan Republik
Indonesia (WPP-RI), 2011.
9. Pusat Data Statistik dan Informasi Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan,
Statistik Kelautan dan Perikanan 2011, Januari 2013.
10. Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan Tangkap Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan,
Statistik Perikanan Tangkap Indonesia 2011, ISSN: 1858-055, Tahun 2012.
11. Shuwang Yan, Zhiliang Huo, Wugang Wang, Run Liu, Risk Assessment on a
Pipeline Passing Through a Ship Mooring Area, ICPTT 2012.
12. Anchor
Data,
http://www.danforthanchors.com
and
http://www.amossg.com/download/AOE/4.3.pdf
13. Lloyds Casualty Data Register based in the UK, Referred from, HESS Project in
Pipeline Protection Risk Assessment.
14. DNV-RP-F111, Interference between Trawl Gear and Pipelines, October 2010.
15. DNV, *GL 13, Interference between Trawl Gear and Pipelines", September 1997.
16. Feyrer K., Wire Ropes Tension, Endurance, Reliability, Springer, 2007
17. Kristiansen S., Maritime Transportation Safety Management and Risk Analysis,
Elsevier, 2005.
18. Spouge, J. (1999): A Guide to Quantitative Risk Assessment for Offshore
Installation.

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
17 of 137
3. FACILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

The facility and environmental data of the risk assessment for flowline river crossing
installation and free span analysis of VICO Indonesia - East Kalimantan are compiled
from several sources as described below.
3.1.
Pipeline Data
Table 3.1 Pipeline Data
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3.2.
Description
Design Life
Pipe Diameter (inch)
Material Grade
SMYS (psi)
SMTS (psi)
Pipe Type
Length of single pipe (m)
End of Pipe
Pipe Length (m)
Corrosion Coating Type
Concrete Weight Coating
Reinforcement
Cathodic Protection
Pigging
Max. Water Depth (m)
Natural Bending radius
Remarks
- years
6, 12, 18, 20, 24
API 5LX GR 35, 42, 52
35000, 42000, 52000
ERW
Beveled
Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating
none
none
none
Basis Data
Table 3.2 Pipeline Basis Data
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
13
14
15
ITEM
Product
Density (kg/m3) at 20 deg
Pneumatic Viscosity at 20 deg cST
Vapor Pressure (in meter of product) 37.8 deg
Design Flow Rate (m3/hr)
ASTM Destilation range deg C
Design Temperature ( deg C)
Seawater Temperature (deg C)
Air Temperature (deg C)
Max. Operating Pressure (psi)
Operating Pressure (psi)
Design Pressure (psi)
Hydrostatic Test Pressure (psi)
Corrosion Allowance (in)
Crude Oil Spec. gravity pressure
PIPELINE
Gas Lift
109.182
0.1482
1770
37.8
25-30
Max. 36
1700
1300
2220
2775

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
3.3.
15 April 2014
Pipeline UTM Coordinate

Table 3.3 UTM Coordinate of Dapur Flowline River Crossing
Point ID
Easting
meter
UTM COORDINATE (ZONE 50 S)

Elevation MSL
Northing
meter
meter
INSERT DATA HERE
Table 3.4 UTM Coordinate of Balok Flowline River Crossing

Point ID
Easting
Northing
meter
meter
INSERT DATA HERE
Elevation
(MSL)
meter
18 of 137

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
Table 3.5 UTM Coordinate of Bulu Flowline River Crossing

Point ID

Elevation
Easting
Northing
MSL
meter
meter
meter
INSERT DATA HERE
Table 3.4 UTM Coordinate of Tiram Flowline River Crossing

Point ID

Elevation
Easting
Northing
MSL
meter
meter
INSERT DATA HERE
meter
19 of 137

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
Table 3.4 UTM Coordinate of Manis Flowline River Crossing
Point ID

Elevation
Easting
Northing
MSL
meter
meter
meter
INSERT DATA HERE
3.4.
Bathymetry and Riverbed Profile
Figure 3.1 Riverbed Profile of Dapur 12 Crossing
20 of 137

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
21 of 137

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
Figure 3.5 Riverbed Profile of Balok 12 Crossing
Figure 3.6 Riverbed Profile of Balok 20 & 24 Crossings
Figure 3.7 Riverbed Profile of Bulu 12 Crossing
22 of 137

EAST KALIMANTAN
DOCUMENT NO.:
REV:
REVISION DATE:
PAGE:
TITLE:
00
15 April 2014
23 of 137
4. HAZARD SCREENING / IDENTIFICATION

4.1.
Pipeline Route
Based on design information, Indonesia Nautical Chart (Peta Laut Indonesia),
previous projects report and information from some sources, the hazard identification
(HAZID) identify the threat that could affect the integrity of the pipeline as shown in
Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Possible Hazard to the Pipeline
NO.
1
2
3
THREAT
Threats due to marine traffic
1.1
Vessel sinking
1.2
Anchor drop
1.3
Anchor drag/snag
Threats due to fishing activity
2.1
Fishing current activity
2.2
Fishing future activity (potential trawling)
Threats due to future activities
3.1
Future construction/installation activity
3.2
Future traffic activity
Threats due to war exercises
4.1
Exploded materials
APPENDIX C shows threat screening worksheets that made to screen all possible
threats above into threats that significantly affect the integrity of the flowline. A
qualitative approach by accommodation some statistics and quantitative number is
applied to screen the threats. Table 4.2 shows a list of potential consequences to the
flowline. By performing this, a list of potential threat is obtained and the threats are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Anchor drop/dropped objects

Anchor drag
Vessel sinking
Fishing activity
Table 4.2 Potential Consequence to the Pipeline

No
.
1
Threats
Vessel sinking
Anchor drop/ drag
Consequence
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Damage to pipeline coating

Pipeline dent
Pipeline leak
Pipeline rupture
Damage to pipeline coating
Pipeline dent
Pipeline leak
Pipeline rupture
Table 4.3 Qualitative Threat Screening for Pipeline
NO
THREAT
Threat due to marine traffics

1.1
Vessel sinking
1.2
1.3
Fishing (future activity potential trawling)
Threat due to future activity

3.1
Future
construction/installation
activities
3.2
4.2.
Anchor drag/snag
Threat due to fishing activity

2.1
Fishing (current activity)
2.2
Anchor drop
Future traffic activity
ANALYSIS
There is a credible threats of vessel sinking due to

marine activities in these areas. Vessel sinking can
not be discounted because of its unpredictable
nature.
Due to marine activity in area under study, dropped
anchor is a credible threat particularly in emergency
situation.
Anchor drag is resulted from a dropped anchor
condition. Drag anchor is a credible threat
particularly in emergency situation.
There is fishing activity observed arround the Area
that may crossing the pipeline route. Some reports
state common fishing tools as being gill nets, shell
fish capturer, fishing rods, bamboo fish traps and
bamboo poles.
Although illegal, there is a high level of fishing
activity observed in the area. While only mini
trawling has been observed, consideration will need
to be given to potential for future larger trawls.
Trawling has been banned in Indonesia since 1980
however this does not mean that trawling will not
occur in the future. Risks are considered for
completeness.
Future construction/installation activity in the area
can not be accurately predicted over the design life
of the pipeline. Future development of berthing
structure can also impose future threats. However it
is considered that there is not potential threat of
damage caused by future construction activities.
It is considered that the traffic activity far from
pipeline position that there is no potential threat of
damage caused by future traffic activity due to
development of Port.
THREAT
CARRIED
FORWARD?
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Hazard Compatibility
Based on the above hazard screening analysis, further analysis will be based on the
following hazard compatibility chart.
Table 4.4 Hazard Compatibility
No
1
Stage
Pipeline Operation
Drop anchor
Potential hazards
Drag anchor
Ship sinking
Drop object
X
5. METHODOLOGY
5.1.
Risk Assessment of Flowline River Crossing Installation
The general process of the flowline risk assessment is shown below.
Figure 5.1 Pipeline Risk Assessment Methodology
The risk rating is determined by combining the probability of the event and the
consequence of the event. DNV-RP-F107, Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection is
adopted as an assessment protocol to determine the risk rating of risk events for dropped
anchor/object, dragged anchor, and ship sinking. This protocol uses a 5 x 5 risk matrix to
determine a risk rating as it is shown in Figure 5.2. Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 show the
annual frequency criteria and consequence criteria adopted from DNV-RP-F107.
CONSEQUENCE RANKING
1
3
MODERATE
HIGH
MAJOR
REMOTE
3
ALOCCASION
PROBABLE FREQUENT
LOW
1
IMPROBAB
FREQUENCY RANKING
VERY LOW
Figure 5.2 Risk Matrix According to DNV-RP-F107

Table 5.1 Frequency Ranking According to DNV-RP-F107
Ranking
Description
Annual Frequency
<10-5
So low frequency that event considered negligible
Event rarely expected to occur
10-4 >10-5
Event individually not expected to happen, but when

summarized over a large number of pipelines have
the credibility to happen once a year
10-3 >10-4
Event individually may be expected to occur during

the lifetime of the pipeline (Typically a 100 yr storm)
10-2 > 10-3
Event individually may be expected to occur more

than once during lifetime
>10-2
Table 5.2 Consequence Ranking According to DNV-RP-F107

Dent/Dia-
Impact
meter (%)
Energy
<5
EE
5 - 10
EE
10 - 15
EE
Leakage anticipated
Major damage
Leakage and rupture
EE
anticipated
Major damage
Leakage and rupture
Rangking
15 - 20
Damage description
Minor damage
Major damage
D1
Conditional Probability
D2
D3
R0
R1
R2
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.2
0.05
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.7
anticipated
5
> 20
EE
Rupture
In calculating the frequency analysis of identified hazard, event tree analysis is utilized to
develop the frequency model. A join probability model is applied to the event tree
analysis. The probability of an event (hazard) is a multiplication of probability of each
hazard sequence. For an example, the probability of the pipeline hits by the anchor
(dropped anchor) is a multiplication of the probability of vessel passes the flowline with
the, probability of vessel in CADZ (critical anchor damaged zone) as well as the
probability of vessel will drop anchor. If one event is failed to occur, then hazardous event
of flowline dropped anchor will not happen (see Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3 Event Tree Analysis
Below is some assumptions taken for frequency analysis for all potential hazards
identified in this study.
Frequency Dropped anchor
This frequency considers vessels that intend to anchor within a designated/intended area,
but due to error, ignorance or emergency, drops the anchor outside the intended area, i.e.
anchor drop is controlled but in the wrong place. Vessels are not permitted to anchor
within surrounding area close to the flowline (restricted area).
The main assumptions to derive the frequency of dropped anchor are listed below and
derived using engineering judgment from extensive research done during the data
acquisition stage:
Vessel speed: 2.5; 5.0; 7.5 knots.

0.3% probability per annum vessels will drop anchor during emergency. This is the
same value used by Yan et.al (2011), "Risk Assessment on Flowline Passing
Through a Ship Mooring Area"
The fishing vessels are assumed to be installed by Danforth anchor type while tug
boat, coal barge and other vessels are installed by standard stockeless anchors.
The Critical Anchor Damage Zone (CADZ) = 2 x (largest anchor widths) + pipe
diameter + concrete coating thickness relevant for that zone.
The probability of vessels inside CADZ is equal to CADZ/length of distributed
vessels.
Frequency of drag anchor

Threat to the flowline due to anchor drag may be one of the potential threats through a
sequential possibility of events (joint probability). Those events are: (1) probability of
anchor dropped close to the CADRZ (Critical Anchor Drag Zone), (2) probability of anchor
dragged after it is dropped. (3) probability of the anchor dragged onto the exposed
flowline.
The main assumptions to derive the frequency of dragged anchor are listed below and
acquisition stage:

0.3% probability per annum vessels will drop anchor during emergency.
80% probability of anchor dragged after it is dropped by vessels which is

conservative. Some studies assumed 50% of dropped anchors will result in
dragged anchors.
The Critical Anchor Drag Zone (CADRZ) = 27 x anchor fluke length.
Probability vessels inside CADZ: CADZ/ width within flowline area where vessels
are considerably distributed.
Frequency of ship sinking

The probability of ship sinking on the flowline can be calculated by a join probability of: (1)
the probability of ship located in the Critical Sinking Zone (CSZ), (2) the probability of the
ship will sink.
The CSZ for a condition where the ship pass across the flowline would then be twice of
the ships length. It means that if the vessel sink and touch the seabed then the ship must
in the position that one length of the ship before the flowline, and one length of the ship
after the flowline.
The main assumptions to derive the frequency of ship sinking are listed below and
acquisition stage:

The probability of ship sinking during operation is 0.03%.
Critical sinking zone (CSZ) = 2x (vessels length)
Probability vessels inside CSZ: CSZ/ width within flowline area where vessels are
considerably distributed.
Though the risk on flowline due to ship sinking only occurs to unburied flowline (on
seabed), to simulate the effect of the ship sinking to the flowline, a sequence of trench
depth will be analyzed.
Drop Anchor Consequence Assessment

Pipeline damage from dropped anchor impact is based on the methodology outlined in
DNV-RP-F107, which provides a consistent summary of generally accepted practice.
Figure 5.4 Dropped Anchor Impact Diagram
Impact damage is based on an energy balance approach where the available kinetic
energy from an impacting object is compared to the energy required to produce a dent-
The dent size, expressed as a percentage of overall the pipeline diameter, is an indication
as to the likelihood of a leak or rupture. The relationship is expressed mathematically as
follows:
2
E 16
1
2
D
mp
1
2
3
2
Where:
E
: absorbed energy
D
: pipeline OD
mp
: plastic moment capacity (=0.25 x SMYS x t2)
: pipeline deformation (dent depth)

t
: pipeline wall thickness
The impact capacity of concrete coating is calculated according to:
E=Y b h x 0
Where:
Y
bxh
Xo
: crushing strength of concrete: 3 x 42 = 126 MPa

: area of impacting object: 0.2 m x 0.2 m: 0.04 m2 [point load]
: impacting depth, i.e. concrete coating thickness (mm)
To calculate the energy impact of the anchor to the pipeline, this below equation can be
applied:
(m Vx water ) xg
where:
m
g
V
water
CD
A
vT
1
2
water C D A vT
2
: anchor weight, (kg)

: gravity, (9.81 m/s2)
: anchor volume, (m3)
: seawater density, (1025 kg/m3)
: anchor drag coefficient
: anchor projected area, (m2)
: anchor drop velocity, (m/s)
According to Table 11 DNV-RP-F107, the drag coefficient is shown in Table 5.3. For the
consequence calculation, value of 1.0 is used for drag coefficient as recommended by
DNV-RP-F107.
Table 5.3 Drag Coefficient
Cat. No.
Description
CD
CA
1,2,3
4,5,6,7
All
Slender shape
Box shape
Misc. Shapes
(spherical to complex)
0.7 1.5
1.2 1.3
0.6 2.0
0.1 1.0
0.6 1.5
1.0 2.0
Effective kinetic energy (EE) of the anchor is then calculated as follows:
EE ET EA
EE
where:
ma
Ca
1
m m a vT 2
2
: added mass, (kg)

: water x Ca x V
: drag coefficient of added mass
The kinetic energy of dropped object at terminal velocity is expressed by the following
formula:
1
2
ET m vT
2
where,
m
VT
: mass of the object (kg)

: terminal velocity
From the above formulation, we then can get that:

m g m

ET
V
C D A water
Critical anchor damage zone (CADZ) is a critical zone of the pipeline when an achor drop
on it. This zone is determined by the twice width of the anchor and the pipeline diameter,
as shown below.
Figure 5.5 CADZ Area
From the figure above, it is clearly seen that the CADZ is 2B + D. Where B is anchor
width and D is the pipeline diameter (including the concrete coating thickness). The CADZ
is a very important terminology when we calculate the likelihood of a pipeline is
threatened by an anchor dropped from a vessel (usually in emergency situation that force
a ship to drop anchor).
Drag anchor consequence assessment
The source of this risk is trawling activities in a certain pipeline zone. The cause of the
risk is fishing ship drop trawl and perform bottom trawling in the vicinity of the pipeline
zone. It is a possibility that trawl door will penetrate the pipeline trench. When this is
happened, it is also a possibility that the trawl door will pull over/hook the pipeline.
Figure 5.6 Stresses at a Trawl Line Segment in Soil
Two standards are the main reference of the consequence assessment of the pipeline
due to anchor drag. Those standards are DNV-RP-E301 and DNV-RP-E302.
The friction force of the trawl line to top of seabed can be calculated as below:
Rfric = x Wl' x Ls
where:
Ls
Wl'
: the length of line tension

: weight of trawl per unit length
: friction coefficient, which value is shown in Table 6.4.
Table 5.4 Friction Coefficient

Wire
Chai
n
Lower
bound
0.1
Default
value
0.2
Upper bound
Lower
bound
0.6
Default
value
0.7
Upper bound
0.3
0.8
Ship sinking consequence assessment

Vessel sinking and subsequent pipeline damage is a highly complex system involving a
number of variables associated with the hull / pipeline / seabed interaction. For the
purpose of this assessment a simplified model has been used.
Considering the length of the vessel, it is assumed that the vessel will sink relatively
slowly in the horizontal position and settle relatively gently onto the seabed and/or
pipeline. Hence the load from the sinking vessel is considered to be a quasi-static load
governed by its submerged weight. A dynamic amplification factor (DAF) of t. 2 is applied
to account for moderate dynamic effects. The vessel DWT is used in calculations and is a
conservative estimate of submerged weight. It is also assured that there are no air
pockets in the sunken vessel.
For an exposed pipeline on the seabed, it is assumed that more than half this load is
carried by the pipe, as shown in Figure 5.7 (a). If the pipeline has been lowered into the
seabed and covered, the load from the vessel will be distributed over the length of the
vessel acting as a point load. The load per meter, as shown in Figure 5.7 (b) may be
estimated from the length of the vessel, multiplied by a factor of 0.9 to account for the
rounded stem and bow. Figure 5.7 (c) shows the penetration depth as an acting force on
vessel sinking.
(a) Point Load onto Pipeline
(b) Line Load onto Pipeline
(c) Penetration Depth
Figure 5.7 Acting Forces on Vessel Sinking

To determine whether the load imposed by a sinking vessel is acceptable to the pipe, it is
necessary to establish the static capacity of the pipeline subjected to a point load at 12
o'clock for an exposed pipeline; and line load for a buried pipeline.
Considering the pipe section as a two dimensional ring, then the maximum bending
moment as:
Mload = (P x R)/
Where R is radius of pipe and P is the pressure load.
Considering the maximum capacity of the pipe to be given as a fully plasticized wall (i.e.
its plastic moment capacity), one gets:
M capacity
= 0.25 x SMYS x t2
Trawling activity
The consequence analysis is performed to estimate the effects of the three potential
phases of trawl board interaction with a pipeline. The methodology is based on
recommendations presented in DNV Guideline:
1. Impact
2. Pull-over
3. Hooking
Trawl Board impact. Impact loads from trawl boards or trawl beams are associated with
the transfer of energy from the trawl gear into the pipe and its coating. Given that there is
limited information available regarding the type of trawl gear used in the project area, the
analysis has been performed based on parameters for typical trawl board used
commonly. It is assumed that this provides a conservative estimate of the effects of trawl
board impact.
Trawl Board Pull-Over. Pull-over analysis deals with the global response of the pipeline
as the trawl gear is forced to cross over the pipeline. During this phase, it is not
uncommon for the pipeline to be subject to large transverse loading. The analysis has
been performed by estimating the horizontal and vertical pull-over forces using the
methodology presented in DNV Guideline 13.
Trawl Board Hooking. Trawl gear crossing a pipeline may get stuck underneath the
pipeline. Free spans represent an increased risk for hooking, however even with pipelines
resting on seabed, hooking cannot be ignored. Two hooking scenarios can occur:
1. Part penetration
2. Wedged
Part penetration can occur for call span heights. Freeing of the trawl board may lead to
the pipeline being lift a height governed by the geometry and the friction between the
trawl board and the pipe.
Wedged trawl board occurs for free spans above a critical height. Freeing of the trawl
board leads to the pipeline being lifted a height governed by the position of the warp line
point. The critical span height for trawl board is as follows.
Hcr = 0.7 x B
where B is half height of the trawl board. If the maximum span height is below the critical
span height, the pipeline is analyzed for a static lifting height H1, where:
H1 = 0.7 x B 0.3 x D
where D is pipeline OD. If the pipeline span height exceeds the critical span height, the
pipeline is analyzed for a static lifting height of H1, where:
H1 = B
The maximum warp line pull is based on a single warp with a typical capacity of 400 kN.
Given the similar height dimension for trawl boards presented in DNV Guideline 13.
Polyvalent board parameters have been used for the hooking analysis, where:
B= 2.8 /2 = 1.4m
5.2.
Free Span Analysis
The main aspects of a free span assessment together with key parameters and main
results are illustrated in the figure below.
For all temporary and permanent free spans a free span assessment addressing the
integrity with respect to fatigue (FLS) and local buckling (ULS) shall be performed.
Vibrations due to vortex shedding and direct wave loads are acceptable provided the
fatigue and ULS criteria specified herein are fulfilled. In case several potential vibration
modes can become active at a given flow velocity, all these modes shall be considered.
Unless otherwise documented the damage contribution for every mode should relate to
the same critical (weld) location.
Figure 5.9 shows part of a flow chart for a typical pipeline design. After deciding on
diameter, material, wall thickness, trenching or not and coating for weight and insulation,
any global buckling design and release of effective axial force needs to be addressed
before the free spans are to be assessed. It must be emphasized that the free span
assessment must be based on a realistic estimate of the effective axial force, and any
changes due to sagging in spans, lateral buckling, end expansion, changes in operational
conditions, etc. must be properly accounted for. The sequence in Figure 5.9 is not
followed in all projects. Normally an initial routing will be performed before detailed
pipeline design is started. As such a typical design process will be to follow this flow chart
in iterations until a final, acceptable design is found.
Main
Components
Key
Parameters
Environmental
Description,
ch 3
Project data
Current statistics
Current profile
Wave statistic
Wave spectrum
Structural Response,
ch 6 & 7
Pipe data
Seabed
Pipe profile
Soil data
Lay tension
Response Model
Force Model,
ch 4 & 5
VR
KC
Dumping
Free span parameters
Acceptance
Criteria,
ch 2
Safety class
Safety factors
SN curve
Directionality
Turbulence
Operational conditions
SCREENING
Wave & current

return period
valve
Design
Criteria &
Main Resuts
OK/not OK (span
length)
Natural frequency
FATIGUE
Wave & current

long term
description
Natural frequency
stress amplitude
Stress ranges no of
cycles
OK/not OK
(fatigue life)
Extreme stress
OK/not OK (local
buckling)
ULS
Wave & current
return period
valve
Natural frequency,
Stress ranges, Static
bending
Figure 5.8 Overview of Main Components in a Free Span Assessment
As span length/height and effective axial force may change significantly for different
operational conditions, one particular challenge, especially for flow lines, becomes to
decide the most critical/governing span scenarios. This will also depend on any global
buckling or other release of effective axial force by end expansion or sagging into spans,
etc.
The following functional requirements apply for the free span analysis.
The aim of fatigue design is to ensure an adequate safety against fatigue failure
within the design life of the pipeline.
The fatigue analysis should cover a period which is representative for the free span
exposure period.
All stress fluctuations imposed during the entire design life of the pipeline capable of
causing fatigue damage shall be accounted for.
The local fatigue design checks are to be performed at all free spanning pipe
sections accounting for damage contributions from all potential vibration modes
related to the considered spans.
Figure 5.9 Flow Chart for Free Span Design
Figure 5.10 Flow Chart over Design Checks for a Free Span
Static Allowable Span

The maximum span length based on static stress considerations, is governed by pipe's
self-weight, pressure, temperature and environmental loadings. The relative importance
of each of the above items depends on their magnitude and the orientation of the
pipeline. The allowable static span length for a pipeline is calculated by limiting the
equivalent stress in the span to (jab where (jab is the allowable bending stress based on
the Von Mises equation incorporating the axial stress.
Spanning analysis is carried out assuming a ''fixed-pinned'' boundary condition. The
analysis is performed for installation, hydrotest and operation conditions. The following
equations are used in the calculations of the maximum allowable static span.
Von Mises Equivalent Stress:
e = 2H + 2L + H L
where:
e =
Equivalent stress (MPa)
H =
Hoop stress (MPa)
L =
Longitudinal stress (MPa)
The torsional shear stress is assumed ignored in this equation.
Longitudinal Stress
From the maximum bending stress due to horizontal and vertical forces,the maximum
allowable longitudinal stress is calculated. The maximum allowable longitudinal stress
limits is given by:
L = L b
where:
A =
b =
Axial stress (Pa)

Bending stress (Pa)
Axial Stress
Depending on the end condition, the axial stress (A) is computed as follows.
For axially restrained pipeline,
AR =v H E T +
Ni
A
For one end restrained pipeline,

2
Pi Di f W vert X
AP =
4 A
A
where:
AR
P
E
T
A
Ni
Pi
Di
X
f
= Axial stress fully restrained (Pa)

= Axial stress partially restrained (Pa)
= Poisson's ratio (-)
= Linear expansion coefficient for steel pipeline (1/OC)
= Modulus of elasticity (N/m2)
= Diff. between maximum operating & installation temperature (OC)
= Cross-sectional area of steel pipe (m2)
= Residual axial tension (N)
= Design pressure (Pa)
= Internal diameter of pipeline (m)
= Length of pipeline from hot/cold end (m)
= Longitudinal frictional factor (-)
Bending Stress
Bending stress (b) due to span bending and horizontal curve is expressed as follows.
b = 2bs + 2bc
Bending
Stress
bs
bc
where:
bs
bc
W
Wvert
Whort
L
OD
I
R
FD
FI
Fs
Fully Restraint
Partially Restraint
[ ( ) ( )]
[ ( ) ( )]
k.L
2
W.L
.
k
tan k . Lk . L
k.L
tan k . L tan
2
W.L
.
k
tan k . Lk . L
tan k . L tan
k .L
2
k .L
2
OD
2I
W L2 OD
.
10 2 I
W L2 OD E . OD
.
+
OD E .OD
2R
.
+ 10 2 I
2I
2R
= Bending stress due to vertical force (N/m2)

= Bending stress due to horizontal force and curvature (N/m2)
= Uniformly distributed load per unit length (N/m)
= Wvert or Whort
= Total vertical force (N/m)
= Ws + Fs
= Total horizontal force (N/m)
= FD + FI+ Fs
= Maximum static span length (m)
= Pipe outer diameter (m)
= Second moment of area (m4)
= Radius of curvature (m)
= Drag force (N/m)
= Inertia force (N/m)
= Seismic force (N/m)
Ws
k
= Submerged pipe weight (N/m)

= Deflection coefficient (1/m)
=
Ne
Ne
E.I
= Effective axial compressive force (N)

=
Pi . . D 2i
( 12 v )
+ . T . A . EN i
4
Euler Bar Buckling Span

The Euler bar buckling of the pipeline shall be assessed in accordance with appendix B of
DNV-1981. The effective axial force with respect to bar buckling is given by:
S=N + ( D2t )2 Pi D2 P e
4
4
where:
S
N
Pi
Pe
D
t
= Effective axial force (N)

= Axial force (N)
= Internal pressure (MPa)
= External pressure (MPa)
= Steel Pipe outer diameter (mm)
= Steel Wall thickness (mm)
N=(v H E . T ) A s
where:
v
H
T
TD
TA
E
As
= Poissons ratio (-)

= Hoop Stress (MPa)
= Coefficient of thermal expansion (1/oC)
= TD - TA
= Design temperature (1/oC)
= Ambient temperature (1/oC)
= Youngs Modulus (MPa)
= Steel cross sectional area (mm2)
The critical span length, L, is calculated as :
L=
n 2 EI
S
where:
n = End fixity constant for bar buckling
Dynamic Allowable Span
Due to the flow of water past a free span in steady flow patterns vibrations may occur in
the pipeline due to vortex shedding.
Normally two types of oscillations are encountered;
Oscillations in line with the velocity vector (in-line).
Oscillations perpendicular to the velocity vector (cross flow)
For certain flow velocities the vortex shedding frequency may coincide with or be a
multiple of the harmonic or sub harmonic excitations. The span length will be selected
such that the harmonic frequency or natural frequency of the span will be less than the
vortex shedding frequency either for in-line or cross flow oscillations.
or in-line oscillations a less conservative dumping parameters were used i.e. = 0.126
and a calculated value of reduced velocity, V,.
The pipeline is designed such that no oscillation is allowed and to that effect, the
maximum allowable span for the VIV criteria shall be less than the onset of in-line
oscillation requirements. As in-line oscillations are not allowed, a fatigue analysis will not
be required.
The governing equations are as follows:
1
Effective mass
M E =M A +C M B
where:
= Effective Mass of pipe per unit length (kg/m)
= Total mass of coated pipe including content per unit length
(kg/m)
B
= Buoyancy of pipe per unit length (kg/m)
CM
= Added mass coefficient as per Appendix a of DNV-1981
ME
MA
Ks=
Stability Parameter
2 ME
w OD 2
KS
w
OD
where:
= Stability number (-)
= Mass density of seawater (kg/m3)
= Outside diameter of coated pipe (m)
= Logarithmic decrement = 0.126
3 Allowable Reduced Velocity

The reduced velocity can be determined from DNV-1981 Appendix A which comprises of
in-line and cross-flow oscillation phenomenon. For in-line motion, there exists two region
of instability. One of which is called the first in-line oscillation motion (first instability
region) induced by vortices shed symmetrically from the pipe cylinder. The second is
called the second in-line oscillation motion (second instability region) and is induced by
vortices shed alternately from the pipe cylinder. The necessary velocity for onset of
motion may be determined by Figure below.
Figure 5.11 Velocity for Onset of Motion
4 Reduced Velocity
The reduced velocities for onset of in-line and cross-flow vibrations are then given by the
equation below:
V R=
V cw
f n OD
where:
VA
= Reduced Velocity (-)
fn
= Natural frequency of pipe (1/s)
Vcw = VD for in-line and cross flow motion (m/s)
Us = Wave induced velocity using significant wave (m/s)
5
Natural Frequency of span

2
NeL
b 2 . EI
E. I
M e L4
a
f n=
where:
a
b
L
= Frequency factor
= Euler constant
= Dynamic span length (m)
Values for the frequency factor and Euler constant bare 15.40 and 2.05 respectively for
"fixed-pinned" condition. For a realistic estimation of the span, pinned-fixed end restraint
condition is considered. Maximum allowable dynamic span for in-line flow is based on
steady current, while cross flow considers both steady current and wave induced velocity
due to maximum wave.
Assessment Criteria Assumptions
The allowable free span shall be taken as the most critical of the following criteria:
The span length for which the equivalent stress in the pipe wall reaches the limits as
defined by DNV Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems (1981)
The span length which may cause unacceptable bar buckling of axially restrained
sections of the pipeline.
The span length which causes the onset of vortex induced vibration (VIV) of the
pipeline;
The assumptions made for in the analysis are as follows:
The content temperature for installation and hydro test condition is based on
maximum seawater temperature at seabed and surface respectively.
A "Fixed-Pinned" boundary condition will be utilized to determine the static free span
and assess the natural frequency of the pipe VIV span.
Equivalent concrete density as per data provided by VICO Indonesia, otherwise
further confirmation will be made.
Average product density is used for operating condition.
No marine growth is considered on the pipeline.
No residual lay tension is considered for a conservative analysis.
1.5mm corrosion allowance is considered for operation case as instructed by
Environmental forces acting on the pipeline is taken as the maximum wave and
current acting perpendicular to the pipeline during static span calculation. For
dynamic span calculation, the hydrodynamic loadings considered are based on
significant wave and period.
5.3.
Stability and Soil Settlement Analysis
Consolidation is a process by which soils decrease in volume. According to Karl Terzaghi

"consolidation is any process which involves decrease in water content of a saturated soil
without replacement of water by air. In general it is the process in which reduction in
volume takes place by expulsion of water under long term static loads. It occurs
when stress is applied to a soil that causes the soil particles to pack together more tightly,
therefore reducing its bulk volume. When this occurs in a soil that is saturated with water,
water will be squeezed out of the soil. The magnitude of consolidation can be predicted
by many different methods. In the Classical Method, developed by Terzaghi, soils are
tested with an oedometer test to determine their compression index. This can be used to
predict the amount of consolidation. In the process, there are three condition of pipeline,
such as Installation condition, hydrotest condition and operating condition. Installation
condition data will be used for installation risk assessment. Risk assessment will be done
with criteria given by standard (DNV-OS-F101) where is the clearance between two
crossing pipe should be kept separated at 0.3 m.
Below are the equation given by Terzaghi to determine ultimate bearing stress:
Long Footing (with Breadth = B)
1
qu =C N c + D f . N q+ B N
2
Square footing (with B x B size)
qu =1.3 C N c + D f . N q +0.4 B N
Circular footing (with radius = R)
qu =1.3 C N c + D f . N q + 0.6 R N
Quadrangle footing (with B x L size)
qu =(1+0.3
B
1
B
)C N c + Df . N q + B N (10.2 )
L
2
L
with:
qu
Df
Df
N ,
= ultimate bearing stress

= soil cohesion
= soil density
= depth of foundation
= overburden pressure
Nq , Nc
= bearing factor; determined by equation below:
N c =cot
N q=
a2
2 cos2 (45+ )
2
a2
2
2 cos (45+ )
2
K py
1
N c = tan
1
2
cos 2
With:
3
(
) tan
a=e 4 2
( q+233 )]
K py =3 tan 2 45+
On the other hand, bearing stress to seabed is affected by the weight of the pipe itself
and the hydrocarbon during its operational stage. To calculate the ultimate bearing stress
the following formula is applied.
qu =
Ws
B
With:
Ws = submerged weight of pipe
B = width of bearing area ( 2[d(Dc-d)])
Dc = outside diameter of coated pipe
Soil settlement analysis given by Timoshenko and Goodier (1951) is then evaluated by
using the following formula.
1 2
H=qB
I
Es w
with:
q = Total ultimate bearing (qu foundation+qu pipe)
B = breadth of foundation
= soil sheer factor
Es = young modulus
Iw = foundation factor (Table 5.5)
Table 5.5 Constants based on foundation shape
Cicle
Square
Rectangle:
L/B = 0.2
0.5
1.5
2.0
5.0
10.0
100.0
Shape
1.10
1.12
1.36
1.53
2.10
2.54
4.01
Flexible
Center Average
0.04
0.85
0.56
0.95
0.68
0.77
1.05
1.27
2.00
1.15
1.30
1.83
2.25
3.69
Rigid
Iw
0.88
0.82
Im
6.0
3.7
1.06
1.20
1.70
2.10
3.40
2.29
3.33
4.12
4.38
4.82
4.93
5.00
Figure 5.12 Soil Settlement Analysis Process
6. RISK ASSESSMENT
6.1.
Frequency Analysis
Based on design information and information from some sources, the hazard
identification (HAZID) indentify the threat that could affect the integrity of the flowline as
shown in Table 4.3. Table 6.1 shows data for the base case frequency analysis.
Table 6.1 Data for Base Case Frequency.
Table 6.1 shows data utilize for the base case frequency analysis. According to data
obtained from VICO Indonesia, direct survey to site and local people, the vessel can be
grouped into 7 (seven) groups, according to the size of vessel. The groups of vessel
considered in this study are, Group A for fishing vessel with capacity/size up to 10 GT and
Group B for fishing vessel/small cargo up to 30 GT. Group C for Tug Boat up to 210 GT,
Grop D for LCT up to 400 GT, Group E for Oil Barge up to 700 GT, Group F for Cargo
Vessel up to 1828 GT and Group G for Coal Barge up to 3028 GT. Number of crossing
vessel per annum is estimated from possible number of vessel crossing the flowline
within a week. The compatibility of vessels size depends on the width of rivers. Narrower
river will limit bigger vessel to sail along the river.
6.1.1
Frequency of dropped anchor
To calculate the frequency of dropped anchor, a joint probability concept is applied. The
anchor will hit the flowline if the vessel is crossing the pipeline AND the vessel is dropping
anchor AND the anchor is dropped in the Critical Anchor Damage Zone (CADZ). Should
one event is not occur, then the hazard to the pipeline of being dropped anchor is not
possible. CADZ is determined for group flowlines (flowline within a short distance to
other) and individual flowline. Distance between flowline for river crossing at Dapur,
Balok, Bulu, Tiram and Manis can be seen in Table 6.2 6.6 respectively.
Table 6.2 Distance between Flowlines at Dapur River
Table 6.3 Distance between Flowlines at Balok River
Table 6.4 Distance between Flowlines at Bulu River
Table 6.5 Distance between Flowlines at Tiram River
Table 6.6 Distance between Flowlines at Manis River
Three scenarios are developed for the hazard of dropped anchor, by implementing 3
(three) different vessel speed: 2.5 knot; 5.0 knot; 7.5 knot. Table 6.7 shows an example of
frequency analysis for crossing flowline at Dapur River due to vessel group A (fishing
vessel up to 10 GT) for three different vessel speeds. In this example frequency analysis,
CADZ is defined for flowline 2 (20) and 3 (24) with distance between others is 1.4 m. To
calculate the probability of vessel crossing the pipeline and the probability of vessel in the
CADZ, we need to set the possible area where the vessel are distributed. For that
purpose, this study assumes that the area of distributed vessels is 5 miles along the
pipeline.
Table 6.7 Frequency of Dropped Anchor Vessel Group A to Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
As shown in Table 6.7, the probability of vessel group A dropping anchor on the flowline is
3.65E-09; 1.83E-09; 1.22E-09 consecutively for vessel speed of 2.5; 5.0; 7.5 knot. Those
three values of frequency of dropping anchore are still in the first level of frequency
according to DNV-RP-F107. Detail frequency analysis can be seen in APPENDIX.
Figure 6.1 shows the event tree for scenario development of hazard due to dropped
anchor of vessel group A for Dapur River flowline number 2 (20) and 3 (24) with
distance between others is 1.4 m. Detail of the tree is shown in APPENDIX.
Tables 6.8 6.14 show the summary of frequency analysis due to anchor drop to the
flowline at Dapur, Balok, Bulu, Tiram and Manis Rivers. As shown in those tables, for all
vessel speed scenarios, frequency of hazard are in the first level of frequency according
to DNV-RP-F107.
Figure 6.1 Drop Anchor Event Tree of Vessel Group A to Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
Table 6.8 Summary of Dropped Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
Table 6.9 Summary of Dropped Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Balok River
Table 6.10 Summary of Dropped Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Bulu River
Table 6.11 Summary of Dropped Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Bulu River contd
Table 6.12 Summary of Dropped Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Tiram River
Table 6.13 Summary of Dropped Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Manis River
Table 6.14 Summary of Dropped Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Manis River contd
6.1.2
Frequency of dragged anchor
To calculate the frequency of dragged anchor, a join probability concept is also applied,
as that for dropped anchor. The anchor will drag the pipeline if the vessel is crossing the
pipeline AND the vessel is dropping anchor AND the anchor is dropped and dragged in
the Critical Anchor Drag Zone (CADRZ). Should one event is not occur, then the hazard
to the pipeline of being dropped anchor is not possible.
Three scenarios are developed for the hazard of dragged anchor, by implementing 3
(three) different vessel speeds: 2.5 knot; 5.0 knot; 7.5 knot. Table 6.15 shows a frequency
analysis example of dragged anchor vessel group A for three different vessel speeds. To
calculate the probability of vessel crossing the pipeline and the probability of vessel in the
CADRZ, we need to set the area where the vessel are distributed. For that purpose, this
study assumes that the area of distributed vessels is 5 miles along the pipeline.
Table 6.15 Frequency of Dragged Anchor Vessel Group A to Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
As shown in Table 6.15, the probability of vessel group A dropping anchor and drag the
pipeline is 7.06E-09; 3.53E-09; 2.35E-09 consecutively for vessel speed of 2.5; 5.0; 7.5
knot. Those three values of frequency of drag anchor are still in the first level of frequency
according to DNV-RP-F107. Detail frequency analysis can be seen in APPENDIX.
Figure 6.2 shows the event tree for scenario development of hazard due to dragged
anchor of vessel group A. Detail of the of the tree is shown in APPENDIX.
Tables 6.16 6.22 show the summary of frequency analysis due to anchor drag to the
flowline at Dapur, Balok, Bulu, Tiram and Manis Rivers respectively. As shown, for all
to DNV-RP-F107.
Figure 6.2 Dragged Anchor Event Tree of Vessel Group A to Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
Table 6.16 Summary of Dragged Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
Table 6.17 Summary of Dragged Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Balok River
Table 6.18 Summary of Dragged Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Bulu River
Table 6.19 Summary of Dragged Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Bulu River contd
Table 6.20 Summary of Dragged Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Tiram River
Table 6.21 Summary of Dragged Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Manis River
Table 6.22 Summary of Dragged Anchor Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Manis River contd
6.1.3
Frequency of Ship Sinking
To calculate the frequency of ship sinking, a join probability concept is also applied, as
that for dropped and dragged anchor. The ship will sink on the pipeline if the vessel is
crossing the pipeline AND the vessel is sinking AND the vessel is in the Critical Sinking
Zone (CSZ). Should one event is not occur, then the hazard due to ship sinking is not
possible.
Three scenarios are developed for the hazard of ship sinking, by implementing 3 (three)
different vessel speeds: 2.5 knot; 5.0 knot; 7.5 knot. Table 6.23 shows an example of ship
sinking frequency analysis of vessel group A to crossing flowline at Dapur River for three
different vessel speeds.
Table 6.23 Frequency of Ship Sinking Vessel Group A to Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
As shown in Table 6.19, the probability of vessel group A will sink on the flowline is
2.968E-08; 1.484E-08; 9.894E-09 consecutively for vessel speed of 2.5; 5.0; 7.5 knot.
Those three values of frequency of ship sinking are still in the first level of frequency
according to DNV-RP-F107. Detail frequency analysis can be seen in APPENDIX. Figure
6.3 shows the event tree for scenario development of hazard due to ship sinking of vessel
group A. Detail of the of the tree is shown in APPENDIX.
Tables 6.24 6.30 show the summary of frequency analysis due to ship sinking to
flowline at Dapur, Balok, Bulu, Tiram and Manis Rivers respectively. As shown, for all
to DNV-RP-F107.
Figure 6.3 Ship Sinking Event Tree of Vessel Group A to Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
Table 6.24 Summary of Ship Sinking Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Dapur River
Table 6.25 Summary of Ship Sinking Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Balok River
Table 6.26 Summary of Ship Sinking Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Bulu River
Table 6.27 Summary of Ship Sinking Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Bulu River contd
Table 6.28 Summary of Ship Sinking Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Tiram River
Table 6.29 Summary of Ship Sinking Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Manis River
Table 6.30 Summary of Ship Sinking Analysis for Crossing Flowline at Manis River contd
6.2.
Consequence Analysis
The same vessels data is utilized to conduct the consequence analysis due to dropped
and dragged anchor as well as consequence analysis due to ship sinking. This section
only presents one model of calculation (vessel group A is selected for the model) each for
all types of hazard. Detail calculation is given in APPENDIX, according to DNV-RP-F107.
Tables 6.31 to 6.36 show the model of consequence analysis for dropped anchor,
dragged anchor and ship sinking consecutively.
Table 6.31 Consequence Analysis of Dropped Anchor (Vessel Group A) for Crossing 12 Flowline
at Dapur River
Table 6.32 Consequence Analysis of Dropped Anchor (Vessel Group A) for Crossing 12 Flowline
at Dapur River - continued
Table 6.33 Consequence Analysis of Dragged Anchor (Vessel Group A) for Crossing 12 Flowline
at Dapur River
Table 6.34 Consequence Analysis of Dragged Anchor (Vessel Group A) for Crossing 12 Flowline
at Dapur River - continued
Table 6.35 Consequence Analysis of Ship Sinking (Vessel Group A) for Crossing 12 Flowline at
Dapur River
Table 6.36 Consequence Analysis of Ship Sinking (Vessel Group A) for Crossing 12 Flowline at
Dapur River - continued
As shown in Table 6.31 to Table 6.36, the level of consequence according to DNV-RPF107 is in level 1. Table 6.37 shows the summary of consequence analysis of the 12
production flowline at Dapur River for all vessel groups.
It is shown that dragged anchor and ship sinking results in level 5 (the highest level) for
bigger vessel size. This is mainly due to the position of the flowline laid on riverbed. By
assumption that all flowlines perfectly laid on riverbed, in case of vessels group A and B
provide no significant consequence to the flowline.
Table 6.37 Summary on Consequence Analysis for 12 Flowline
Tables 6.38 6.40 show summary of consequence analysis for all flowlines due to
dropped anchor, dragged anchor and ship sinking respectively. From those tables, mostly
the consequence ranking due to dragged anchor and ship sinking of ship groups C,D,E,F
ang G laid in ranking 5. It means that denting per diameter given by dragged anchor and
ship sinking of these vessel size will affect to rupture to the flowline.
Table 6.38 Summary on Consequence Analysis of Dropped Anchor
Table 6.39 Summary on Consequence Analysis of Dragged Anchor
Table 6.40 Summary on Consequence Analysis of Ship Sinking
6.3.
Risk Matrix
Section 6.1 and 6.2 presents the frequency and consequency analysis of all potential
hazards. By combining those two analysis, we can then combine them into risk matrix as
per DNV-RP-F107. Three potential hazards are compatible for this stage. The hazards
are drop anchor, drag anchor and ship sinking. As shown In Figure 6.4, the risk of the
pipeline due to dropped anchor of vessel group C to crossing flowline at Dapur River can
be obtained by combining the frequency analysis results and their consequences. It is
shown, that both frequency and consequence of the hazard is in Level 1, and hence the
risk is ACCEPTABLE.
Figure 6.4 Risk Matrix due to Dropped Anchor Vessel Group C to Crossing 12 Flowline at Dapur
River
Figure 6.5 Risk Matrix due to Ship Sinking Vessel Group C to Crossing 12 Flowline at Dapur River
Figure 6.5 shows the risk matrix due to ship sinking of vessel group C. as shown, the risk
is ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable), obtained from frequency level 1 and
consequence level 5 (pipeline rupture). Figure 6.6 6.8 shows the summary of all risk
pictures of the facilities due to dropped anchor, dragged anchor, and ship sinking
respectively.
Figure 6.6 Risk Profile of All Crossing Flowline due to Dropped Anchor
Figure 6.7 Risk Profile of All Crossing Flowline due to Dragged Anchor
Figure 6.8 Risk Profile of All Crossing Flowline due to Ship Sinking
7. RIVER BED STABILITY ANALYSIS

7.1.
Project Overview
VICO Indonesia operates a Production Sharing Contract area of Sanga - Sanga PSC on
behalf of itself and a number of participants in Indonesian Joint Ventures. It operates
seven oil and gas producing fields onshore of East Kalimantan, Indonesia, close to
Mahakam Delta. They are Badak, Nilam, Pamaguan, Semberah, Mutiara, Beras, and
Lempake. The oil and gas produced are processed in four main production plants. The
first development was in Badak, in 1977, followed by Nilam (1982), Mutiara (1990) and
Semberah (1991).
The gas from main production plants are transmitted to PT Badak NGL , an LNG
(Liquefied Natural Gas) and LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) Plant in Bontang, and to
fertilizer and methanol plants in Kaltim Industrial Estate, via pipeline networks. The LNG is
then sold to customers in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. The processed liquids are
transported through pipeline to UNOCAL- operated terminal in Tanjung Santan and
shipped to buyers.
To support the operations and production of gas, VICO Indonesia manages several gas
pipeline either onshore and offshore that mainly located in Delata Mahakam.
Currently there are 14 river crossings located at Bulu, Balok, Dapur, Tiram and Manis
Rivers managed by VICO Indonesia along the Delta Mahakam area. Some of the flowline
river crossings are unusable due to deterioration of the flowline, and some of them are in
operation. VICO Indonesia has an immediate plan to replace flowline river crossings with
a new one. Those flowlines are:
1.
4 flowlines at Dapur River Crossing
2.
3 flowlines at Balok River Crossing
3.
4 flowlines at Bulu River Crossing
4.
2 flowlines at Tiram River Crossing
5.
1 flowline at Manis River Crossing
The works are performed for providing study related with river bed stabilization. This is an
important study concerning the nature of Mahakam Rivers sediment which is relatively
unstable.
7.2.
Objectives
The objective of this study is to provide an analysis concerning river bed stability in
flowline crossing at Dapur, Balok, Bulu, Tiram and Manis Rivers.
7.3.
Scope of Work
The scope of work consists of:

1 Analyzing river bed stability in area of study
2 Providing information related with possible erosion mechanism
3 Providing recommendation in order to mitigate the problem
7.4.
Introductory Remarks
Pipelines systems have been widely used to transport natural oil, gas, and industrial
waste water etc. The installation commonly extent fromn offshore field to the onshore
receiving facilities. It also common that the pipelines crossing the river flow. As a
consequence, when gravitational water flow propagate over the river, they cause
fluctuating pressure upon the riverbed, which will further induce excess pore pressure and
effective stresses within seabed soil.
The excess pore pressure may be large enough to induce shear failure or liquefaction of
the soil around pipelines. This situation is illustrated in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1 Simplified Figure Shown River Bed Instability due to Increasing Pore-water Pressure
It is readily understandable, when the value of pore water pressure increases (due to river
flow) up to the value of total stress, the effective stress becomes zero. As a consequence,
the shear strength of soil will decrease to zero. Under such conditions, soil will loss it
strength to support pipelines and the pipelines will loss stability, which will cause
economic losses and environmental pollution.
Therefore, the evaluation of the river flow-induced soil response around a pipeline
(including pore pressure and effective stresses etc.) is important for the pipeline owners
as well as coastal geotechnical engineers.
In this study, we consider an ocean wave propagating over a porous seabed of finite
thickness. The definition of the problem is illustrated in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2 Definition of River Flow and Bed Interaction
The porous seabed is treated as hydraulically isotropic with the same permeability in all
directions. Zienkiewicz et al. (Zienkiewicz OC, Chang CT, Bettess P. Drained, undrained,
consolidating and dynamic behaviour assumption in soils. Geotechnique, 1980;30(4):385395) presented a general set of governing equations, which describe the behaviour of a
linear elastic porous solid under dynamic conditions. These equations are summarised in
a tensor form as below :
(7.1)
where p is the pore pressure in excess of hydrostatic, n is the porosity, is the combined
soil density; f is the fluid density, u and w are the displacements of solid and relative
displacements of solid and pore fluid. 1/Kf is the compressibility of pore-fluid, which is
defined by
(7.2)
in which S is the degree of saturation, Pwo is the absolute water pressure. The definition
of effective stresses, ij , which are assumed to control the deformation of the soil
skeleton are given by the total stress (ij) and pore pressure (p) as,
(7.3)
Therefore, the equation of force balance, Equation 7.1 becomes
(7.4)
To obtain the wave-induced pore pressure, soil and fluid displacements involved in above
equations, appropriate boundary conditions are required. The boundary conditions are
summarised below,
(7.5)
(7.6)
where, Pb is the water pressure at the seabed surface, which is given by the equation
below:
(7.7)
where H is the wave height and d is the water depth, k is the wave number, is wave
frequency, and w is the unit weight of water.
Following the procedure in Cha (Cha DH. Mechanism of Ocean Waves Propagating over
a Porous Seabed. M.Phill Thesis. Griffith University, Australia, 2003), the general solution
for the soil and pore fluid displacements, to satisfy the bottom boundary condition (2.5),
can be expressed as
(7.8)
where i coefficients are the roots of the characteristics equation from the couple of
equation. Based on the river flow-induced soil and fluid displacements, we can obtain the
flow induced pore pressure, effective stresses and shear stress. The unknown
coefficients, ai, bi, ci and di, can be solved with the boundary condition. Once we obtain
coefficients, we can calculate the wave-induced soil response parameters. Detailed
information of the above solution can be found in Jeng and Cha (Jeng DS, Cha DH.
Effects of dynamic soil behaviour and wave non-linearity on the wave-induced pore
pressure and effective stresses in porous seabed. Ocean Engineering, 2003;30(16):20652089) .
The significant wave height is estimated from available wind data. The process of
determining the significant wave height can be describe as follows:
Constructing windrose. Windrose is a presentation of frequency distribution of wind blows
during certain period of time. From the windrose we can obtain the dominant wind
directions and its velocities.
Calculating effective fetch (Feff). The Feff can be calculated using :
Feff
xi.Cos
Cos
where x is fetch length and is angle of deviation.

Predicting wave parameters. Wave height and wave period in deep water can be
calculated using the following equations (Shore Protection Manual, Vol. 1, 1984):
H 0=5,112 x 104 x U A x F 0,5
t=3,2115 x
U A =0,71 x U W 1,23
R L=
1
H rms =
H 21
N i=1
2
0.33
T 0 =6,238 x 10 x ( U A x F )
F2
UA
13
( )
UW
UL
H I =1,42 x H rms
where
Ho
To
t
: Wave height in deep water (m)

: Wave period in deep water (s)
: Wave duration
: Wind stress factor
: Relation between UL and UW (wind velocity in land and sea)
: H root mean square (m)
: Significant wave height (m)
: Average of wave height in deep water (m)
: Average of wave period in deep water (s)
UA
RL
Hrms
Hs
Havg
Tavg
Predicting waves returning period. The Gunbells method is incorporated for predicting
the returning period:
1 /k
1 /k
Y m= [ ln ( 1P ) ]
Y r =[ ln ( L x T r ) ]
H ar= A x Y r + B
H ar = A x Y m + B
a=a1 x e a 2 x N 1,3 +k [ (lnV )]
S nr =
1
x 1+ a (Y r c +e x ln ( V )2 )
n
( )
ar =Snr x sH s
where
P
Hsm
m
NT
Hnr
K
s=
( N 11 ) x S ( H
am
H r ) 2
: Probability of representative wave height m

:The m wave height
: Highest significant wave height
: Number of wave occurrence during recording time
: Significant wave height with returning period Tr
: Period of data (year)
L
Snr
N
Sr
sHs
: Average occurrence in a year

: Normalized standard deviation
: Number of significant wave data
: Standard deviation of significant wave height error with returning period Tr
: Standard deviation significant wave height
7.4.1 Interpretation of CPT Test Results

Soil behavior is in general complex. In addition to physical interactions at the particulate
or clay mineral scale, there is coupling of the pore fluid flow with the solid matrix
deformation; however, only macro-behavior is generally observed in soils testing. In
triaxial testing, for example, we impose well-controlled and known boundary conditions on
soil samples to measure the shear strength of the sample directly. Cone penetration into
soils imposes a completely different and complex set of boundary conditions, and we take
indirect measurements of the soils response to these imposed boundary conditions (i.e.
parameters such as tip resistance or sleeve friction) to determine the shear strength of
the soil. As a result, interpreting the cone penetration test (CPT) is largely empirical, with
the best empirical approaches having a sound theoretical basis.
Soil behavior type and stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone
bearing (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and pore water pressure (u). The friction ratio (Rf) is a
calculated parameter defined by 100fs/qc and is used to infer soil behavior type.
Generally:
Fine-grained (cohesive) soil
High friction ratio due to small cone bearing
Generate large excess pore water pressures
Coarse-grained (cohesionless) soils
Low friction ratio due to large cone bearing
Generate very little excess pore water pressures
The following sections describe some of the characteristics of CPTs and methods of
interpretation of soil parameters, namely:
soil stratification and estimation of soil type
soil strength characterization
soil deformability characterization with associated examples of interpretation where
appropriate.
1.
Soil classification
Fine-grained (cohesive) soils

a)
insertion of the cone into clay will give a low end resistance
b)
high friction ratio
c)
high pore pressure - slow dissipation of water (low permeability)
a)
insertion of the cone into sand will give a high end resistance
b)
low friction ratio
c)
low pore pressure - quick dissipation of water (high permeability)
Figure 7.3 Soil Behavior Classification Chart Based on Normalised CPT/ CPTU Data (Robertson,
1990)
2.
Engineering parameters
Fine-grained (cohesive) soils

a. Soil unit weight
Soil unit weight can be estimated from:
Figure 7.4 Soil Unit Weight from CPTU Results (Larsson and Mulabdic, 1991)
b. Undrained shear strength

The preliminary undrained shear strength (Su or Cu) of a clay can be estimated from:
where:
qc = minimum cone end resistance profile values
Nk' = 17-18 for weak normally consolidated (n.c.)
= 20 for overconsolidated (o.c.) clays

A more detailed undrained shear strength profile can be obtained from:
where:
po = overburden pressure
Nk = 15-16 for n.c. clays
= 18-19 for o.c. clays
c. Deformability/ Stiffness
For normally and lightly over consolidated clays (qc < 1.2 MPa) an "equivalent" coefficient
of volume change, mv, can be derived from the relationship:
where dependent on the plasticity, silt and organic content of the soil. For example
Grangemouth 'Carse' clays and Glasgow 'Clyde Alluvium' values of a = 5 to 7.5 have
been found to be appropriate.
mv, can also be estimated from the relationships in the following table:
Table 7. 1 Estimation of Constrained Modulus M, for Clay (Mitchell and Gardner, 1975)

a. Coefficient of permeability
Coefficient of permeability values can be estimated from the following table.
Table 7. 2 Estimation of Soil Permeability (k) from Soil Behavior Chart (Figure 7.3) by Robertson et
al, 1986
b. Relative density/ Friction angle

The relative density (Dr) and angle of internal friction (') can also be obtained by direct
relationship with this 'qc' value.
Figure 7.5 Effect of Sand Compressibility on qc Dr Relation

(Robertson and Campanella, 1983)
Figure 7.6 Relationships between Dr (Schmertman, 1978)
c. Deformability/ Stiffness
From correlation studies the following deformation moduli can be derived:
a)
Constrained Modulus 'M'(or 'D') (where 'M' = 1/mv)
b)
Elastic Modulus 'E' (Young's Modulus)
c)
Shear Modulus 'G'
This is a relatively complex subject and is dependent on the stress range considered;
however, for initial estimates:
a) M = 3 qc (i.e. mv equiv. = 1/3 qc)
b) E = 2.5 qc (square pad footings - axisymetric) and E = 3.5 qc (strip footing - plane
strain)
c) Gls = E/2.5 (large strains)
For small strain dynamic studies:
Gss = 5 x Gls from above (i.e. initial tangent static modulus)
where:
Gss = small strain shear modulus.
Gls = large strain shear modulus.
Young modulus for coarse-grained soil can be estimated from the following graphic.
Figure 7.7 Evaluation of Youngs Modulus from CPT for Silica Sand (Bellotti et al, 1989s)
7.4.2 Analyical Approach for Riverbed Scouring

In this study a relation is derived between the relevant grain parameters and the
operational parameters, resulting in curves that can be plotted both in the Shields and the
Hjulstrm approach. Based on the geometry of the grain with respect to the sediment,
different curves can be constructed for different cases of scour, from a single grain being
eroded to the entire top layer being eroded.
Hjulstrm approach
The Hjulstrm curve is a graph used by hydrologists to determine whether a river will
erode, transport or deposit sediment. The graph takes sediment size and channel velocity
into account. The x-axis shows the size of the particles in mm. The y-axis shows the
velocity of the river in cm/s. The tree lines on the diagram show when different sized
particles will be deposited, transported or eroded. The Hjulstrm curve uses a double
logarithmic scale. The curve shows several key ideas about the relationships between
erosion, transportation and deposition. The Hjulstrm curve shows that particles of a size
around 1mm require the least energy to erode, as they are sands that do not coagulate.
Particles smaller than these fine sands are often clays which require a higher velocity to
produce the energy required to split the small clay particles which have coagulated.
Larger particles such as pebbles are eroded at higher velocities and very large objects
such as boulders require the highest velocities to erode. When the velocity drops below
this velocity called the line of critical velocity, particles will be deposited or transported,
instead of being eroded, depending on the river's energy. It should be noted however that
there is a difference between the line of critical velocity for erosion and deposition.
Between the two particles will be transported as bed load.
Grains forming the boundary between a fluid and a sediment possess a finite weight and
finite coefficient of friction. When the applied shear stress is low they are not brought into
motion. As applied shear stress is increased, a critical shear stress is reached at which
grains will begin to move. The value of the critical stress will depend primarily on the size
and density of the particles and secondarily on their shape and packing and the cohesive
forces acting between particles.
Figure 7.8 Hjulstrm Diagram
Once the critical stress is just exceeded, particles will advance in the direction of flow due
to irregular jumps or less commonly rolls. This mode of transport is termed the bed load
and conceptually can be thought of as being deterministic, that is the behavior of a
particle once in motion is dominated by the gravity force. As the stress is further
increased, particles will also begin to be suspended in solution and subject to turbulent
forces. This mode of transport is termed the suspended load. Due to these two modes of
transport there will be a flux of material across a plane perpendicular to the flow. The
ultimate goal is to determine this mass flux by integrating the product of the velocity
profile and concentration profile.
The motion of sediment can be parameterized in a number of ways. The oldest of these is
due to Hjulstrm who summarized observational data in terms of fluid velocity and grain
size. There are a number of variants of the Hjulstrm diagram, using grain diameter as
one parameter and some measure of the stress as the other (via the quadratic stress law:
u, u100 or stress itself: u*.
Figure 7.9 Hjulstrm Diagram Showing Bed Load Transportation
Figure 7.10 A Comparison between the Hjulstrm Curve and the Shields Curve
In several of these figures there is an envelope of values for small particles, contrasting
unconsolidated and consolidated/cohesive sediment. This reflects the importance of inter
particle forces because of the higher ratio of surface area to volume. Sundborg (1956) added more detail, and dealt with consolidation in fine-grained end. Figure 7.10 shows
the Hjulstrm curves, normalized for 100cm water depth and compared with Shields
curves. In this graph, three Shields curves are plotted, first the Soulsby curve, second the
Miedema curve and third the Brownlie curve.
Since the Shields curves are derived for non-cohesive soils, they should be more or less
horizontal for the very fine particles. The Brownlie and Miedema curves match this, while
the Soulsby curve is descending with a decreasing particle diameter.
Friction coefficient and pressure losses
In order to use the above theory, a value for the friction coefficient of water flowing above
a bed of grains has to be determined. From literature the following relations can be
applied. When clear water flows through the pipeline, the pressure loss can be
determined with the well known Darcy-Weisbach equation:
The value of the friction factor depends on the Reynolds number:
For laminar flow (Re<2320) the value of can be determined according to Poiseuille:
For turbulent flow (Re>2320) the value of depends not only on the Reynolds number but
also on the relative roughness of the pipe /D. A general implicit equation for is the
Colebrook-White equation:
For very smooth pipes the value of the relative roughness /D is almost zero, resulting in
the Prandl & von Karman equation:
At very high Reynolds numbers the value of 2.51/(Re.) is almost zero, resulting in the
Nikuradse equation:
For a Reynolds number between 2320 and 105 the Blasius equation gives a good
approximation:
For a Reynolds number in the range of 105 to 108 the Nikuradse equation gives a good
approximation:
Over the whole range of Reynolds numbers above 2320 the Swamee Jain equation gives
a good approximation:
Figure 7.11 gives the so called Moody diagram, in this case based on the Swamee Jain
equation, while Figure 7.10 also gives the value of this coefficient based on the relative
roughness of the bed for a 100cm deep channel.
Figure 7.11 The Moody Diagram Determined with the Swamee Jain Equation
Scour evaluation
After discussing the erosion phenomena extensively in the previous paragraphs, it is the
question how to apply this in the model for determining the riverbed erosion process. The
first step is to find which particles will not settle due to scour at which average velocity
above the sediment. The relation between the shear velocity u* and the average velocity
above the bed is Ucr:
with the Shields parameter:
Re-arranging this gives an equation for the critical average velocity above the bed Ucr
that will erode a grain with a diameter ds:
and in the same way:
7.5.
Data Set for Analysis
WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR CURRENTLY COLLECTED FIELD DATA BY VICO
8. FREE SPAN ANALYSIS

The following functional requirements apply for the free span analysis:
The aim of fatigue design is to ensure an adequate safety against fatigue failure
within the design life of the pipeline.
The fatigue analysis should cover a period which is representative for the free
span exposure period.
All stress fluctuations imposed during the entire design life of the pipeline capable
of causing fatigue damage shall be accounted for.
The local fatigue design checks are to be performed at all free spanning pipe
sections accounting for damage contributions from all potential vibration modes
related to the considered spans.
Figure 8.1 Flowchart of Calculation Process to Determine Maximum Allowable Free Span Length
The risk priority ranking possessed by a certain free span is determined from three
criteria; which are L/D value, static analysis result, and dynamic analysis result. Should
the free span has an L/D value lower than 30, it would have a SAFE rank and the
analysis is aborted. If it scored higher than 30 on the L/D screening, a static analysis
would then be conducted. If it pass the static analysis, the analysis would be stopped and
a LOW rank would be assigned. Should it fail the static analysis, the process would
continue to dynamic analysis. The free span which pass the dynamic analysis would be
assigned a MEDIUM rank, while those who pass would be assigned a HIGH rank. The
details of the risk priority ranking process is detailed in figure 8.2 below:
Figure 8.2 Risk Priority Ranking Process Flowchart
The free span analysis is performed to the following pipelines of VICO Indonesia.
1. 4 flowlines at Dapur River Crossing
2. 3 flowlines at Balok River Crossing
3. 4 flowlines at Bulu River Crossing
4. 2 flowlines at Tiram River Crossing
5. 1 flowline at Manis River Crossing
This chapter only provide calculation of free span analysis for one pipeline 6 (gas) of
Tiram River crossing as calculation example. The remaining results will be summarized.
Calculation about maximum allowable free span length requires complete data from
pipeline and environment. Other Pipeline and environment data will be described on
Appendix.
The pipeline data, operational data as well as coating thickness is provided below:
Table 8.1 Tiram Crossing Gas Pipeline 6 Data
Table 8.2 Tiram Crossing Gas Pipeline 6 Operational Data
Table 8.3 Tiram Crossing Gas Pipeline 6 Coating Data
As shown below, free span condition of Tiram Crossing Gas Pipeline 6 is given that
consisted of single pipeline. Free span length and its elevation are given accordingly.
Table 8.4 Tiram River Gas Pipeline 6 Free Span Condition
The worksheets below shows the example of free span calculation of Tiram Crossing Gas
Pipeline 6 flowline no 1. The summary of free span analysis is provided in Table 8.6
Table 8.5 Worksheet for 6 gas flowline at Tiram River
Table 8.6 Summary of Free Span Analysis Tiram River Crossings
Table 8.7 Summary of Free Span Analysis Balok 12 Pipeline River Crossing
Table 8.8 Summary of Free Span Analysis Bulu 12 Pipeline River Crossing
Table 8.9 Summary of Free Span Analysis Bulu 18 Pipeline River Crossing
Table 8.10 Summary of Free Span Analysis Dapur 12 Pipeline River Crossing
Table 8.7-8.13 shows the recapitulation of free span analysis result. It is shown that some
HIGH RISK segments are found and these segments must be prioritized for mitigation
action.
There are 2 methods recommeden to rectify the free span:
1 Rock Dumping
2 Groutbags
Figure 8.3 shows the rock dumping method, while figure 8.4 shows the grouth bags
method. The rock dumping methods is one of the simplest method not only for free span
rectification, but also used fro pipeline stabilization, pipeline crossing as well as trench
backfilling.
Rock dumping is a form of river crossing pipeline protection where a flurry of uniformsized rocks / gravel are dumped from a specialized vessels via a fallpipe. Although rock
dumping are more commonly used to protect pipeline against dropped objects, it could
also be used to fill subsea trenches. The vessels used for rock dumping are commonly
equipped with a dynamic positioning system to ensure that the falling rocks are placed
accurately. Newer vessels equipped with ROV on the end of the fallpipe (to ensure better
pipe-end positioning) are capable to perform rock dumping up to 1200 m depths.
Another technique to provide support for free spanning pipelines are grout bag usage.
This technique has been used to provide foundations for various marine project for many
years. Grout bags are made from porous fabric which are tight enough to hold grout
together yet water permeable. The bags could be placed by a diver or an ROV, after
which a pipe will fill the bags with a special marine-use cement. The cement should
comply to certain standards for marine-use grout, which regulate such things as nonshrinkability, minimum compressive strength, and bond strength. Tabel 8.14 shows the
groutbags specifications.
Figure 8.3 Rock Dumping for Under Water Pipeline
Figure 8.4 Grout Bags for Under Water Pipeline
Table 8.14 Grout Bags Specification
Some consideration that need to be ensured for free span rectification using groud bags
are:
The grout bags and cement used for rectification should conform to
standards detailed in the bidding documents.
The vessels used for these works should be equipped either with
dynamic positioning system or four-points mooring system.
Vessels equipped with dynamic positioning system should conform to

standards detailed in bidding documents.
A pre-installation survey to ascertain the locations of grout bags

placement and as laid condition of the snagged anchor shall be performed.
A post-installation survey after the work is done shall be performed.
Field repairs should be performed for damage incurred by the
pipelines during the installation. These repairs should be detailed in the work
report.
Care should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the resulting
free span after grout bag installation do not exceed the length specified in the
documents.
Table 8.15 shows the comparison between advantegous and dis advantegous of both
methods. Based on table 8.15, then the groutbags method is recommended to rectify the
pipelines.
Table 8.15 Comparison between Rock Dumping and Groutbags

Condiseration
Economical
Technical
Rock Dumping
Cheaper
Simpler
Local contractor is limited
Shallow draft is not possible

considering the draft of the rock
dumping vessel
Longer execution time duration in
general due to technical and non
technical matters
Safety of pipeline is more difficult
to control
Less safety to people during
installation
Less impact to environment
Safety
Environemntal
Groutbags
More expensive
More complex procedure
and equipment
Local contractor is easy to
find
Shallow draft is possible
Shorther period of project

execution
Safety of pipeline is easier to

control
Safer to people during
intsallation
Slightly more impact to
environment compare to
rock dumping
Below is some procedures beed to be considered during the installation of groutbags.

8.1.
General
Contractor needs to consider the followings:
1. Documents detailing the conditions of the site (and environmental / specific
conditions that could hinder work progress, if any), the pipelines, and the scope
of work.
2. Details of specification for the vessels that will be used, equipment, tools,
materials, consumables, labours, and any specialized equipment (if any)
perceived as necessary. Minimum capabilities of the resources that should be
fulfilled by the contractor.
3. The laws and regulations that the contractor should follow. This includes the
standard and certificates for the resources detailed in previous bullet point.
4. Contractors submission of step-by-step details of the work theyll be doing.
5. Time frame of the said work, along with justification for the proposed time frame
and possible hindrance (if it deemed necessary).
6. A detailed procedure to inspect and monitor the work progress. A clause that
provide full access for company representative to these inspection and
monitoring procedures, as well as documentation of the ongoing work.
7. Contractors liabilities: damage prevention to the pipeline and contractors

responsibility should damage does occur, be it as a result of contractors mishap
or other unexpected causes.
8. Clause regarding the acceptance of contractors submission (method, equipment,
liabilities, etc.) by the company before construction can begin.
Further, contractor also shall consider the followings:
1. Contractor shall furnish and maintain all necessary barges, tugs,vessels,
equipment, tools and tackles, materials, consumable, labour, inspection and
monitoring services for the successful groutbags installation, anchor release,
RetrPod installation and other associated operations of submarine pipeline
system. All materials, equipment and vessels shall be subject to Company
approval prior to their use.
2. Contractor shall fully familiarize himself with all aspects of the environmental
information available for the area in which the work is to be carried. Prior to the
commencement of work, the Contractor shall be deemed to be fully familiar with
the site condition relating to sea bed, wind, waves, tides, currents, etc.
3. Contractor shall also fully familiarize himself with the location and depth of all
existing facilities and obstructions, including wrecks boulders, pipelines cables,
structures, etc., which may affect the groutbags installation and anchor release
works and other, associated operations.
4. Contractor shall consider the limiting weather, sea and current state in which the
marine spreads can operate, whilst ensuring safety of the personnel, equipment,
the Work and any other facilities in the working area and shall accordingly select
equipment for the groutbags installation and anchor release as well as other
associated operations to complete the Works within the schedule mentioned in
the Contract.
5. The Contractor shall acquaint himself and comply with all the applicable laws and
statutory regulations of the Government Agencies having jurisdiction over the
area of Work, while carrying out the groutbags installation, anchor release,
RetrPod installation and other associated operations. All such laws and
regulations enforced from time to time shall be binding upon the Contractor.
6. Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent damage to the existing
facilities, during the groutbags installation and anchor release and any other the
associated operations.
7. Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to the existing pipelines, its
coatings and/or appurtenances, during the operations. The cost of repair of
replacement of the existing facilities as a result of damage by Contractors
operations shall be borne by the Contractor.
8. Contractor shall provide full access to the Company Representative for
monitoring of all Work areas during all phases of Work and shall also provide
access to documentation related to the Work covered in the Contract.
9. Contractor shall provide office, communication and accommodation facilities for
specified number of Company personnel on-board for the groutbags installation
and anchor release, as well as personnel transport facilities as mentioned
elsewhere in the Contract.
10. Contractor shall provide all diving services required to ascertain and confirm that
the groutbags installation, anchor release, RetrPod installation and other
associated operations have been installed in accordance with the requirements of
this specification.
8.2.
Engineering Requirements
1. Procedures, drawings and calculations relevant to the groutbags installation,
anchor release, RetrPod installation and other associated operations shall be
prepared and submitted for Company approval, detailing all aspects of the
installation operations.
2. The Contractor shall calculate the stresses induced in the pipelines due the
groutbags installation, anchor release, RetrPod installation and other associated
operations The maximum allowable combined stress (calculated based on Von
Mises Criteris) in the pipeline during the groutbags installation, anchor release,
RetrPod installation and other associated operations shall be 85% of the
specified minimum yield strength of the pipe material.
3. The Contractor shall outline the method and basis of the calculations in the
documents submitted for Company approval. In case any computer programme
are proposed, Contractor shall furnish in his Bid, a brief description of the
analytical methods employed in the program along with the basis and theory
used.
4. Failure to submit the required information may invalidate the Bid.
8.3.
Construction Requirements
1. Contractor shall investigate and select the barge/vessel positioning system taking
into consideration:
a. Water depth
b. General installations
c. Sea bottom soil conditions
d. General environmental conditions
2. Contractor shall continuously monitor sea-state and general meteorological
conditions from the weather forecasting receiving facilities throughout groutbags
installation, anchor release, RetrPod installation and other associated operations
3. Diver operations for groutbags installation, anchor release, RetrPod installation
and other associated operations shall be monitored by close circuit television and
underwater camera. Contractor shall make video tape recording of completed
underwater work and permit Company Representative for TV viewing to enable
monitoring of underwater works. Video tapes of such recording shall be submitted
to the Company for record purposes. Recording shall be on VHS format tapes
and shall be suitable for PAL Systems.
4. Contractor shall carry out all works related to groutbags installation, anchor
release, RetrPod installation and other associated operations, strictly in
accordance with the requirements of this specification and the Company
approved drawings and documents, without damaging the existing pipeline
installations.
5. Contractor shall not commence any work on groutbags installation, anchor
release, RetrPod installation and other associated operations prior to the
approval of the method/procedures by Company.
8.4.
Handling, Hauling, Storage and Transportation of Required Material and

Equipment
1. Contractor shall receive and take over against requisition all Company supplied
materials from Companys designated place(s) of delivery as defined in the
Contact. The Contractor shall be totally responsible for all materials until the
acceptances of the work by the Company.
2. In case Company supplied materials, Representatives of the Contractor and the
Company shall jointly inspect all associated materials at the time of handing over.
Contractor shall perform visual inspection and defects, if any noted, shall be
recorded separately in the presence of Company Representative. The Contractor
shall be entitled to extra compensation for repair and rectification of such defects
inaccordance with the procedures previously approved by the Company at the
rates set forth in the Contract.
3. Contractor shall unload, load, stockpile and transport all associated materials
using suitable means and in a manner to avoid damages from designated
place(s) of delivery to the work site(s).
4. Contractor
shall
submit
to
Company
for
approval
a
detailed
procedure/transportation scheme including necessary drawings of cargo barges
for handling, hauling, storage and transportation prior to commencement of any
handling operations.
5. Contractor shall carry out a dynamic transportation analysis based on 1-year
storm conditions mentioned elsewhere in the Contract, considering the proposed
marine transportation scheme i.e. cargo barges and the securing arrangement
and establish that the proposed transportation arrangement is safe and stable.
The result of such analysis shall be submitted to Company for approval, prior to
undertaking the transportation of all associated materials to the work site(s).
6. Adequate strapping and padding shall be provided during handling. All all
associated materials handling equipment shall be approved by Company prior to
their use. All lifting equipment shall be of such a design so as to prevent damages
to the existing pipe or coating.
7. Contractor shall be responsible for the load out, sea fastening and transportation
to site of all materials necessary for installation and satisfactory completion of
operations.
8. Contractor shall be solely responsible for scheduling the delivery, handling and
hauling of appropriate materials to various intermediate and final locations as
required by the activities enumerated in the Scope of Work forming part of the
contract. Delays or lost time as a result of the Contractors inability to schedule
deliveries in time shall be to Contractors account.
8.5.
Groutbags Installation and Achor Release Work

Survey Requirements
1. Any information available with the Company regarding bathymetry, soil and other
surveys carried out by other Agencies pertaining to the Work covered in the
Contract are enclosed along with the Contract Document.
2. Any additional survey required to carry out and complete the works in all respects
shall be conducted by the Contractor at no extra cost to Company.
3. All surveys shall comply the requirements stated in the relevant Company survey
specifications included in the Contract, as and to the extent applicable.
Pre-engineering Survey
Pre engineering survey of the pipeline route, shall be carried out by the
Contractor, in case the same is required to be performed by the Contractor as per
the Contract.
Pre-Installation Survey
Contractor shall carry out, a pre-installation route survey to verify any omission
and discrepancies relevant to the scope of work and to ascertain the changes if
any from the pre-engineering to pre-installation period as well as collect data
relevant to installation, if required. During pre-construction, the as laid position of
groutbags and snagged anchor shall be identified and recorded.
Post-Installation Survey
Contractor shall carry out a survey of the groutbags installation, anchor release,
RetrPod installation and other associated operations utilizing required equipment
to assess the extend of unsupported spans, damage to pipelines, etc., and to
collect the information for as-built documents. Details of all remedial works such
as repair to pipeline system, rectification of pipeline alignment, supports to free
spans, etc. shall also be recorded subsequent to the remedial works.
Barge Navigation/Offshore Positioning System
1. For all works and activities related to the groutbags installation, anchor release,
RetrPod installation and other associated operations, the Contractor shall install a
high resolution navigation system/radio positioning system with +23 meters

accuracy, which shall be effective even during adverse visibility conditions and at
night. Contractor shall have sufficient spare parts on-board to ensure a 24 hours
a day positioning.
2. Contractor shall prepare and submit a survey positioning procedure including
details of the barge/vessel navigation/positioning system with equipment and
calibration procedures, station descriptions, etc. for Company review and
approval.
Anchor Handling Requirements
1. Prior to start of the installation works, Contractor shall submit to Company for
approval, an Anchor Handling Procedure including details of barge anchors,
anchor lines, winches, anchor handling tugs and position control equipment;
anchor tug positioning; anchor location, anchor dropping and testing for working
tension; Anchor relocation procedure Precautionary and safety measures when
installing anchors in the vicinity of the existing installations, anchor patterns
proposed along the pipeline route, and near the platform location and/or other
existing installations locations shall also be submitted for Company approval. In
addition, Contractor shall also indicate the anchor cable configuration (catenary)
for various water depths encountered along the pipeline route with the range of
tension applicable for pipeline installation, to clearly establish that the minimum
clearance requirements from the existing installations as mentioned in this
specification are completed.
2. Anchors shall always be positioned at such a distance from the barge to ensure
that, even with the maximum working tension, there shall never be any uplift force
on the anchor.
3. Anchor position and time of relocation shall be regularly logged onboard.
Constant watch shall be kept on the anchors to detect any signs of
slippage/dragging.
4. Radio positioning system shall be installed on-board the anchor handling tug to
enable careful monitoring of the position of each anchor, before dropping, in
respect of the actual position of the existing installations.
5. In the event that an anchor/buoy is lost, the Company Representative on-board
shall be immediately informed and the retrieval of the anchor/buoy shall then be
arranged by the Contractor at the earliest and any delay on this account shall be
to Contractors account.
Anchoring Near Existing Pipelines
1. While anchoring in the vicinity of the existing pipelines or installations, to safeguard the installation from damage, special safety precautions shall be taken in
respect of anchor handling and anchor positioning, which shall include as a
minimum, the following;
a. Anchor lines shall be laid such as to provide adequate clearance from
existing structures
b. No anchor shall be placed closer than 100 m from the existing
pipeline/cable and the anchor location measured along the line of pull
shall not be closer than 200 m to the pipeline/cable.
c. Minimum distance of 50 m is acceptable to Company provided the anchor
is not drawn towards the pipeline during tensioning of the anchor line.
d. Any anchor crossing existing pipelines cables shall be decked on-board
the anchor handling tug.
2. Clearance between the anchor wires and the existing pipelines/pipeline
appurtenances/cables while performing the anchor handling maneuvers, the
anchor wire shall not come in contact with any existing pipeline
appurtenance/cable. The minimum vertical clearance between the wires and the
pipelines/pipeline appurtenance/cable shall be 15 m. In case such clearance is
not possible or impractical to achieve due to specific working conditions, then
alternative arrangements viz. attachment of buoys with the anchoring wires at the
crossing location, etc. shall be carried out.
Field Repairs to Damaged Coating (Anti-Corrosion And Concrete) During Free
Span Rectification
1. Field repairs to damaged anti-corrosion and concrete coatings shall be
accomplished with materials and methods, which are compatible with the parent
coating, and provide a holiday free coating which are acceptable to the Company
Representative.
2. If the concrete weight coating is damaged to the extent that it has become loose
from the pipeline and is subject to spalling, it shall be repaired in accordance with
the requirements.
3. If both concrete weight coating and anti-corrosion coating are damaged, the
Contractor shall remove all weight coating material within 75 mm in all directions
of the defects. This removal shall leave a hole tapering to the outside on a slope
of around two parts vertical to one part horizontal. Contractor shall then remove
all anti-corrosion coating within 50 mm of the defect. The defective area shall be
wire brushed. Immediately following this, a primer compatible to that originally
used with the anti-corrosion coating. The remainder of the path shall be with
Special Mastic Mix. Of quality approved by Company.
Free Span Rectification and Anchor Release Operations
1. Contractor shall secure the necessary work permits for carrying out the works.
2. Contractor shall comply same and hold Company harmless of all claims,
damages resulting from Contractors failures to observe such provisions or
conditions. Damage resulting from Contractors negligence or failure to follow the
designated works shall be Contractors sole responsibility.
3. Contractor shall provide diver or other sub sea inspection during to the groutbags
to ensure that the installation of groutbags is properly located and anchor is
perfectly released without harming the existing pipeline.
4. For vessels / barges equipped with dynamic positioning system, the following
consideration should be taken into consideration:
a. water depth
b. site locations
c. seabed soil conditions
d. environmental conditions
e. mistake tolerance
5. A recording for all underwater works, which could be monitored by the company
representative onboard. The recording should be in common / familiar video
format.
6. Contractor shall carry out a survey to ascertain the groutbags location and
condition. The survey for these shall be carried out using sector scan, diver
inspection and video recording (PAL-VHS System). Video recording and other
survey documents shall be submitted to Company for information and approval in
case any modification is required to be carried out.
7. Groutbags shall be so installed that they will not affect or danger the safety of the
existing pipeline and its operation. Whenerver possible, to ensure the safety of
the pipeline, prior to groutbags installation, Contractor shall provide a marker
buoy at a point on the existing position of the pipeline.
8. A general layout of location of the installed groutbags are included in the Contract
Document. It shall be the Contractors responsibility to conduct a detailed and
accurate survey of the existing location of groutbags installation to determine
their exact location and depth. The Contractor shall carry out the soil investigation
if required to determine the soil bearing capacity for support/grout bags.
9. Contractor shall design the groutbags installation, anchor release, RetrPod
installation and other associated operations considering various information
mentioned in the Contract Document and submit to Company for approval.

General arrangement of the groutbags installation, anchor release, RetrPod
installation and other associated operations shall be as indicated in the relevant
drawings included in the Contract. Groutbags shall be designed to ensure onbottom stability under the 100 year storm conditions. Calculations shall includes
as a minimum the calculations for settlement of support/stability of support, based
on soil bearing capacity established during the soil investigation
10. The length of the free span between the two supports shall not exceed the limits
as mentioned in the Company approved documents.
11. The Contractor shall perform a detailed inspection of the groutbags installation,
anchor release, RetrPod installation and other associated operations and submit
an inspection report and preliminary as-built survey report to the Company for
approval. The inspection shall be done by the Contractors divers 12 hours after
completion of the installation. This report shall also include the video tape
recording and minimum of four good quality underwater photographs of the the
operations. The Contractor shall submit to Company the procedure and the
technique he proposes to use for such inspection for approval.
12. All available data (bathymetry, soil condition, pipeline design & operating
conditions, etc.) are enclosed with the tender documents. Additional surveys
deemed necessary by the contractor should be done by themselves at no
additional cost to the company.
13. Paper work submission for shipping channel clearance so that the work will not
be hindered by passing vessels.
14. Contractor should perform pre-survey before work begins to ensure there are no
discrepancies between existing documents / data and the real condition.
15. After all works are done, another survey shall be done to ensure that the
specifications laid out in the scope of work are met with acceptable results. All
remedial works done after this survey shall be detailed.
16. Details of the positioning and anchoring of the vessels. Details (such as
clearance) should be paid so that the anchor would not pose risk to the pipelines.
17. Take attention to the soil condition when determining the grout bag types.
18. The grout bags and cement for the grout should conform to certain specific
standard for marine uses (detailed below). The specification and certification of
the cement and grout bags that the contractor will use should be submitted to the
company, as mentioned before.
19. A detailed record of all materials used during the work should be kept by the
contractor.
Groutbags Material
1. The grout filled support bags shall be able to withstand the marine environment,
functional and operational forces of the pipeline for the life span of the pipeline.
The grout bags shall be constructed of a woven acrylic coated nylon or equivalent
material. The details and the specifications of the material to the used for pipeline
support shall be submitted by the Contractor to Company for approval.
2. Cement for the grout shall conform to Portland cement as per API Class G or
equivalent. The grout shall have a compressive strength of 105 kg/cm at 24 h
and 422 kg/cm at 28 days. The grout shall have a density of 1920 kg/m3 60
kg/m3.
Free Span Rectification and Anchor Release Procedure Document
At the time of bidding, the Contractor shall furnish the technical documents including
the following as a minimum:
1. Contractors summary of their previous works of similar nature with this one,
which should contain relevant details such as project name, year, client, location,
etc.
2. Complete description of suitable diving and underwater system to be used by the
contractor. Description of the complete barge/vessels, including diving and other
underwater system suitable for maximum and minimum water depths involved in
the scope of work
3. Description of the step-by-step method of work for each procedure which will be
utilized by the contractor.
4. Details of the positioning system that will be used (if any) to ensure that the
installation is carried out along the designated location along with the accuracy of
positioning Complete list of manpower, tools, equipment, and consumables that
will be utilized.
5. List of possible suppliers and sub-contractors, along with their experience in
similar line with the first bullet point of this section.
6. General organization or work, spread, supplies and transport.
7. Calculations regarding the work to be done (if any).
8. Post-installation survey method to establish and prepare as-built data upon
completion of installation.
9. All the necessary certifications for the equipment, manpower, and consumables.
This includes but not limited to:
a. divers certificate
b. vessels seaworthiness certificates
c. certificate for the tools and materials that will be used by the contractor,
supplied by their vendor
d. other certificate regarding the contractors capabilities in performing this
work (if applicable)
10. Contractor shall prepare and submit to Company for approval the groutbags
Procedure Document, which shall include, as a minimum, the following:
a. Groutbags installation, anchor release, RetrPod installation and other
associated operations equipment description including plan and profile of
barge/vessel, ramp orientation, barge/vessel positioning systems and
communication facilities: details of related materials to be handled.
b. Material handling procedures including transportation, storage and
material preparation.
c. Pipeline repair procedures
d. Groutbags or other associated materials hauling procedure including
positioning control and start-up procedures.
e. Environmental conditions viz. maximum wave heights, wave period and
current in which the installation can continue without damaging the
existing pipeline.
8.6.
Daily Reports
Daily progress reports of the groutbags installation, anchor release, RetrPod
installation and other associated operations operations shall be given to the
Company Representative on-board and communicated to the Companys office
onshore on a daily basis. This shall include as a minimum the following:
a. Designation of the groutbags being.
b. Barge location/co-ordinates along with chainage
c. Number of groutbags installed in the last 24 hrs.
d. Quality of groutbags installation.
e. Weather status
f. Any other relevant details
8.7.
Clean-Up, Restoration and Disposal of Surplus Materails

1. Lay out the details for surplus consumables and other salvageable materials after
the work is done, such as what to do with them and how it will affect the cost
component (i.e. whether any surplus materials counts as deductibles to the final
cost).
2. Lay out the details for the removal of scrap and debris from the work. Make sure
that it complies with applicable government law.
3. During the groutbags installation, anchor release, RetrPod installation and other
associated operations Contractor shall not discard at any point along the pipeline
routes, the construction materials, scrap or other objects. Any stacks, buoys or
temporary obstructions placed along the pipeline right of way in the water or on
land shall be removed at Contractors expense unless Company specifically
requests that they be left in place.
4. Work space furnished to the Contractor shall be cleaned of all scrap and debris
and restored to such stable and usable condition as may be reasonably
consistent with the condition of the right of way prior to laying of the pipeline.
5. All surplus materials supplied by Company shall be collected by the Contractor
and delivered to Companys warehouse as mentioned elsewhere in the Contract.
Contractor shall keep a record of all materials returned to Company and shall
submit the same for Company information.
6. All surplus and defective materials supplied by Contractor and all trash, refuse
and spoiled material shall not be disposed off from the vessels into the
surrounding water but shall be collected and disposed off by Contractor in a
manner satisfactory to Company.
7. All loose stones and rock exposed by the construction operations and scattered
over the right of way or adjacent grounds shall be removed by the Contractor and
be transported to a location considered suitable by the Authorities having
jurisdiction, for satisfactory disposal.
8.8.
Applicable Rules and Regulations

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DNV-RP-F107 (Risk assessment of pipeline protection)

DNV 1981 (Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems)
DNV-RP-F105 on Free Spanning Pipelines
DNV-OS-F101 (Submarine Pipeline Design and Construction)
ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems
API RP 1111 (Recommended Practice for Design Construction, Operation, and
Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines)
7. ASTM C-1107 (Standard Specification for Packaged Dry, Hydraulic-Cement
Grout (Nonshrink))
8. ASTM C-109 (Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic
Cement Mortars)
9. ASTM C1090 - 10 Standard Test Method for Measuring Changes in Height of
Cylindrical Specimens of Hydraulic-Cement Grout
8.9.
Groutbags Stability
Figure 8.5 Example of Groutbags Dimension (FSPS60/150)
Groutbags stability very affected by current velocity, since the current pressure work
on groutbags surface will create a force at some level depend on current velocity.
Greatest pressure occurred at 45 degree perpendicular to groutbags axis, as shown
at Figure 8.5, since from that angle, the projected area of groutbags side will be at its
biggest value. Force worked on groutbags is calculated as follow:
F=Pressure. Area
( 12 V ). Area
1
H
F=( V ).
( A 2+ B 2
2
2
.
F=
Where H = height of groutbags

While resistance force of groutbags is calculated as follow:
R=Volume . density . . 9,807

Where
is soil friction factor, taken as 0.7 and 9.807 is acceleration of gravity.
By those two calculation above, maximum allowable current can be calculated as

follow:
Table 8.16 Maximum Allowable Current for Grout bags Specification
Model
300 Pillow
F SPS 30 / 50
F SPS 30 / 75
F SPS 30 / 100
F SPS 30 / 125
F SPS 30 / 150
F SPS 30 / 175
F SPS 30 / 200
F SPS 30 / 225
F SPS 30 / 250
F SPS 60 / 50
F SPS 60 / 75
F SPS 60 / 100
F SPS 60 / 125
F SPS 60 / 150
F SPS 60 / 175
F SPS 60 / 200
F SPS 60 / 225
F SPS 60 / 250
Total Volume
m3 *
0.45
0.58
0.97
1.49
2.16
3.01
4.04
5.29
6.77
8.5
1.18
1.89
2.78
3.87
5.17
6.71
8.51
10.58
12.95
Resistance
force due
current (kN)
9.39
12.10
20.24
31.10
45.08
62.82
84.31
110.40
141.29
177.39
24.63
39.44
58.02
80.76
107.89
140.03
177.60
220.80
270.26
Maximum allowable
current velocity (m/s)
5.43
4.89
5.15
5.42
5.70
5.99
6.26
6.54
6.80
7.06
5.58
5.88
6.16
6.44
6.70
6.95
7.20
7.44
7.68
9. PIPELINE STABILITY ANALYSIS

This document presents the on-bottom stability analysis of RVX-03, RVX-06, RVX-20 and
crossing flowlines at Balok, Bulu, Dapur, Manis and Tiram river of VICO Indonesia, which
comprises the lateral stability analysis, vertical stability analysis and buckling analysis
according to specific pipeline data provided by VICO Indonesia. The lateral stability
analysis verify whether or not the designed pipeline achieve short and long term stability
subjevt to environmental loadings, whilst the vertical stability analysis verify the pipeline
stability criteria due to buoyancy of the pipeline.
The analysis is carried out as per:
1. SBI 13-3474-2009 (Sistem Penyaluran dan Distribusi Pipa Gas)
2. 300.K/38/M.PE/1997 (Keselamatan Kerja Pipa Penyalur Minyak dan Gas
Bumi)
3. PP No 81 Tahun 200 (PP tentang Kenavigasian)
The analysis at the same time is also carried out as per:
1. API Spec 5L (specification for linepipe)
2. Asme B31.8 (Gas Transmission and Distributing Piping Systems)
3. DNV 1981 (Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems)
4. DNV-RP-C205 (Environmental Condition and Environmental Loads)
5. DNV-RP-E305 (On-Bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines)
6. DNV-RP-F105 (Free Spanning Pipelines)
The Pipeline and soil data is provided below:
Table 9.1 Pipeline and Soil Data for On-Bottom stability Analysis
Input
Unit
Value
Pipe Data
Pipe Outer Diameter
Pipe Outer Diameter
Pipe Wall Thickness
Concrete Coating Thickness
Concrete Density
Corrosion Coating Thickness
Corrosion Coating Density
Steel Density
Water Density
Pipe Content Density
inch
mm
mm
mm
kg/m3
mm
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
As follow
As follow
As follow
25,4
3040
2,5
950
7850
1005
As follow
Soil Data
Soil Type (Sand / Clay)
Soil Friction Angle
Soil Bulk Density,
Soil Cohesion, C
Bearing Capacity Factor, Nc
Bearing Capacity Factor, Nq
Bearing Capacity Factor, N
deg
kg/m3
kPa
-
Very Soft Clay

0
1304,8
2
5,14
1
0
9.1.
Vertical Stability anlaysis
Table 9.2 Pipeline Weight at Various Condition (Oil Transfer Pipeline for Example)
Table 9.3 Vertical Stability Analysis (a) (Oil Transfer Pipeline for Example)
Table 9.4 Vertical Stability Analysis (b) (Oil Transfer Pipeline for Example)
Table 9.2-9.3 shows the on-bottom stability analysis for the 6-inch export flowline
according to pipeline data provided by VICO Indonesia. In the analysis, the flowlines were
analyzed for lateral and vertical stability to determine the concrete weight coating
thickness requirement based on the selected pipe wall thickness. The lateral stability and
vertical stability analysis is performed using in-housespreadsheet.
Based on the results of the analysis, maximum pipeline settlement usually occurs during
hydrotest condition due to the heavy weight, while the minimum pipe specific gravity
occurs for a corroded pipe at the end of design life. It is to note that pipeline flotation will
not occur because of relatively high submerged weight provided by weight of the pipeline
itself. The specific gravity of the export pipeline has satisfied the floatation criteria of 1.1
hence, no backfill is required to stable the pipe vertically. The maximum pipe settlement
gravity are summarized in Table 9.5.
As described above, the pipeline is adequate to provide both short-term and long-term
vertical stability with respect to its specific gravity and further it has satisfied the floatation
criteria.
Table 9.5 Summary for Vertical Stability Analysis
Crossing
Pipe
Rvx 3,6,20
Dapur
6"
12"
18"
20"
24"
12"
12" Oil
Balok
Bulu
18"
Tiram
6" Gas
6" Oil
9.2.
Expected Settlement (mm)

Installatio
n
Hydrotest Operation
15.24
4.68
1.22
0.45
0.36
4.68
4.68
1.22
15.24
15.24
20.03
20.53
22.75
23.31
24.40
20.53
20.53
22.75
20.03
20.03
15.79
6.67
3.71
2.78
3.67
6.67
18.84
3.71
15.79
19.37
Lateral Stability anlaysis
This lateral stability analysis is carried out with an assumption that all flowlines (RVX-03,
RVX-06, RVX-20, Balok, Bulu, Dapur, Tiram, Manis river) are composed by identical
pipeline which has size of 6, 12, 18, 20, 24. Further, some environmental conditions
are obtained from data supplied by VICO Indonesia, and some are assumed using a
conservative values.
The assessment was carried out based on DNV-RP-E305, on bottom stability design of
submarine pipelines. Though the pipelines are not located offshore, adjustment has been
carried out to fit with the used standard
.
The following basic conditions were considered throughout the analysis:
1. Environmental conditions (wave and current)
2. Geotechnical condition of riverbed (soil classification, density of soil, strength of
soil, and possibility of slide or liquefaction)
3. Topographical condition (based on 3D data provided by VICO) (topographical
feature such as slopes)
4. Bathymetry(variation in water depth along the pipeline, etc)
5. Pipeline data (OD, wall thickness, density, corrosion coating, properties of
pipeline material)
6. And location opf pipeline restraints (river crossing)
Three different methods are recommended according to DNV-RP-E305 namely: dynamic
analysis, generalized stability analysis and simplified stability analysis. This report was,
however, based on simplified stability analysis considering the availability of supporting
data. This particular analysis is based on a quasi-static balance of forces acting on the
pipe.
Figure 9.1 Lateral Stability Analysis
Table 9.6 Lateral Stability Analysis (a)
Table 9.6 Lateral Stability Analysis (b)
Table 9.7 Lateral Stability Analysis (c)
Tabel 9.6 shows the recapitulation of the lateral stability analysis. As shown in Table 9.6
(c), the pipeline weight during installation, hydrotest and operation is 1017, 1145 and
1129 N/m respectively. On the other hand, according to stability analysis result, it is
found that the minimum pipeline submerged weight to ensure the stability of the pipeline
is 100.4 N/m. This confirmed that the existing and selected pipeline is stable enough
considering load acting on it. Should the current velocity is increased to 2.57 m/s then
the stability criteria would be unacceptable (the existing value of the river current is 0.45
m/s).
By modifiying equation used in lateral stability and vertical stability calculation, minimum
buried pipe length is calculated to ensure lateral stability for each pipe crossing.
q nult Ls Fd Lb
Where :
qnult = Nett Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil
Ls = Exsisting Length of Crossing for each
Fd = River Current Drag Force
Lb = Recommended Buried Pipe Length
However, there are four pipelines as shown by figure 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4 that fully burried.
Because of that, pipeline stability analysis of those pipelines are unnecessary to do.
Figure 9. 2 Riverbed Profile of Balok 20 & 24 Crossings
Figure 9. 3 Riverbed Profile of Bulu 24 Crossing
Figure 9. 4 Riverbed Profile of Bulu 20 Crossing
For 3 m/s estimated current velocity (very conservative assumption), it is recommended

to uses table 9.7 below as one of the option to ensure pipeline stability1.
Table 9.7 Recommended Buried Pipe Length (Lb)
Crossing
Pipe
Rvx 6
No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No.1
No.2
No.3
Rvx 3
Meter
L span
36.72
41.95
37.34
39.08
15,14
19,27
19,41
Lb
11.31
17.51
15.58
16.31
4,661
5,933
5,976
1 Balok and Bulu 20 and 24 are fully buried and need not to be analyzed
No.4
No.5
No.6
No.7
No.8
No.9
No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No.5
Rvx 20
15,81
16,92
18,43
17,87
18,08
25,62
12,92
14,73
15,87
16,53
15,81
4,869
5,21
5,676
5,503
5,568
7,889
3,978
4,537
4,886
5,09
4,868
Table 9.7 Recommended Buried Pipe Length (Lb) (Continued)

Crossing
Pipe
Balok
Bulu
12"
12"
Dapur
18"
12"
18"
20"
24"
6"Gas
6"Oil
Tiram
9.3.
Meter
L span
52
55
30
30
30
24
30
72
10
Lb
16,01
16,94
9,239
9,239
9,239
7,391
9,239
22,17
3,08
Buckling anlaysis
Buckling analysis is conducted to determine the critical segment of pipeline which has
higher risk of rupture due to unacceptable buckling. Buckling analysis is conducted by
determine moment per existing span for each pipeline.
Maximum stress due current pressure is calculated as follow:
where, M
r
I
=
=
=
moment acting on pipe

radius of pipe
inerta moment of pipe = (D^4)/64
Moment acting on pipe is calculated as follow:
where, P
D
c
dx
=
=
=
=
current pressure = 0,5(V^2)

outer diameter of pipe include coating
half of the length of unburrieds pipe
length segment
Figure 9. 5 Distributed Pressure Current Load
Maximum stress due current :
Deflection is calculated as follows:
A standard deflection limit from DNV RP-F105 :
L 140,v
<
<2,5
D
D
Table 9. 8 Summary of Buckling Analysis

Crossing
Rvx 3
Pipe
Span
no
Span
Length (m)
0,532
2
1
14,604
19,267
D (m)
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
(m)
L/Ds?
OK?
/D?
OK?
0.000
3.491
YES
0.00
YES
0.061
0.186
95.83
126.4
YES
YES
0.39
1.18
YES
YES
Crossing
Rvx 6
19,406
15,811
16,917
18,433
17,87
18,081
25,619
Pipe
Span
no
Span
Length (m)
2,13
1,824
32,77
2,252
3,055
36,645
2,962
34,375
0,529
2,521
36,03
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
D (m)
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0,157
4
0.191
127.3
YES
1.22
YES
0.084
103.7
YES
0.54
YES
0.111
111
YES
0.7
YES
0.156
121
YES
0.99
YES
0.138
117.3
YES
0.87
YES
0.144
118.6
YES
0.92
YES
0.582
168.1
NO
3.7
NO
(m)
L/Ds?
OK?
/D?
OK?
0.000
13.98
YES
0.0
YES
0.000
11.97
YES
0.0
YES
1.557
215
NO
9.9
NO
0.000
14.78
YES
0.0
YES
0.000
20.05
YES
0.0
YES
2.435
240.5
NO
15.5
NO
0.000
19.44
YES
0.0
YES
1.885
225.6
NO
12.0
NO
0.000
3.471
YES
0.0
YES
0.000
16.54
YES
0.0
YES
2.275
236.4
NO
14.5
NO
Table 9. 8 Summary of Buckling Analysis (Continued)

Crossing
Rvx 20
Pipe
1
Span
no
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
Span
Length (m)
5,346
1,253
5,52
0,8
8,204
4,651
1,877
8,064
4,811
2,991
8,527
5,822
D (m)
(m)
L/Ds?
OK?
/D?
OK?
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.007
0.002
35.08
8.222
36.22
5.249
53.83
30.52
12.32
52.91
31.57
19.63
55.95
38.2
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.01
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Crossing
Pipe
Dapur
River
12"
18"
20"
24"
Crossing
Pipe
Balok
River
12"
3
1
2
3
4
2,179
8,795
1,007
4,266
1,74
Span
no
1
1
1
2
3
1
Span
Length (m)
30
30
10
8
6
30
Span
no
1
2
3
Span
D (m) (m) L/Ds? OK?
Length (m)
36
0,3239 0.822
111.2 YES
10
0,3239 0.005 30.88 YES
6
0,3239 0.001 18.53 YES
Fully buried pipe need not to be analyzed
Span
no
1
2
1
Span
D (m) (m) L/Ds? OK?
Length (m)
46
0,3239 2.192
142 NO
9
0,3239 0.003 27.79 YES
30
0,4572 0.149 65.62 YES
20
24
Crossing
Pipe
Bulu
River
12"
18"
20
24
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0,1574
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
14.3
57.71
6.608
27.99
11.42
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
D (m)
(m)
L/Ds?
OK?
/D?
OK?
0,3239
0,4572
0,508
0,508
0,508
0,6096
0.396
0.149
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.109
92.64
65.62
19.69
15.75
11.81
49.21
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
1.22
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
/D?
OK?
2.54
0.02
0.00
NO
YES
YES
/D?
OK?
6.77
0.01
0.33
NO
YES
YES
Table 9. 8 Summary of Buckling Analysis (Continued)

Crossing
Pipe
Tiram
6"Gas
River
6"Oil
Span
no
1
2
3
4
1
Span
Length (m)
25
26
11
10
10
D (m)
(m)
L/Ds?
OK?
/D?
OK?
0.1524
0.1524
0.1524
0.1524
0.1524
0.703
0.822
0.026
0.018
0.018
164
170.6
72.18
65.62
65.62
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
4.61
5.40
0.17
0.12
0.12
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
10. CONCLUSION
Risk Assessment of Bulu Balok Tiram Dapur River
7 (seven) different vessel classes (A-10 dwt; B-3-0 dwt, C-210 dwt, D-400 dwt, E-700
dwt, F-1828 dwt, and G-3028 dwt) have been examined to assess the risk of the
flowlines due to 3 (three) potential hazards; dropped anchor, dragged anchor and ship
sinking. It is found that all annual hazard frequencies fall in level 1 (less than 10-5), and
this value bring the risk to level ACCEPTABLE for dropped anchor due to all vessel
classes, ACCEPTABLE for dragged anchor for vessel class A, B and C&D depend on
diameter of pipe. Bigger diameter resulted in smaller denting per diameter (lower
consequence ranking as per DNV-RP-F107). Mostly, the risk profile is ALARP for
dragged anchor due to vessel class C, D, E and F. ALARP also given by ship sinking
due to vessel group C, D, and F.
Free Span Analysis of Flowlines
A study of free span analysis has been carried out on 4 flowlines of Dapur crossings, 4
flowlines of Bulu crossings, 3 flowlines of Balok crossings, 2 flowlines of Tiram
crossings, and one flowline of Manis crossing. From the assessment, it is found that:
1. For Balok crossing there are 1 flowline is considered HIGH risk, and 2 flowline
is SAFE.
2. For Bulu crossing there are 1 flowline is considered HIGH risk, 1 flowline is
considered LOW risk and 2 flowline is SAFE.
3. For Dapur crossing there are 3 flowline is considered LOW risk, and 1 flowline
is SAFE
4. For Tiram crossing there are 1 pipeline segments is considered HIGH risk,
and 1 pipeline segments are considered LOW risk.
By considering economical, technical, safety and environmental aspect, groutbags is
recommended as the rectification method, with several consideration as below:
1. The grout bags and cement used for rectification should conform to standards
detailed in the bidding documents.
2. The vessels used for these works should be equipped either with dynamic
positioning system or four-points mooring system.
3. Vessels equipped with dynamic positioning system should conform to
standards detailed in bidding documents.
4. A pre-installation survey to ascertain the locations of grout bags placement
and as laid condition of the snagged anchor shall be performed.
5. A post-installation survey after the work is done shall be performed.
6. Field repairs should be performed for damage incurred by the pipelines during
the installation. These repairs should be detailed in the work report.
7. Care should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the resulting free span
after grout bag installation do not exceed the length specified in the
documents.
Flowline Stability Analysis of Bulu Balok Tiram Dapur River Crossings
The analysis of vertical and lateral stability analysis of flowline based on API Spec 5L
(specification for linepipe), ASME B31.8 (Gas Transmission and Distributing Piping
Systems), DNV 1981 (Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems), DNV RP C205
(Environmental Condition and Environmental Loads), DNV-RP-E305 (On-Bottom
Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines) found that:
1. Maximum pipeline settlement usually occurs during hydrotestcondition due to
the heavy weight, while the minimum pipe specific gravity occurs for a
corroded pipe at the end of design life. It is to note that pipeline flotation will
not occur because of relatively high submerged weight provided by weight of
the pipeline itself. The specific gravity of the export pipeline has satisfied the
floatation criteria of 1.1 hence, no backfill is required to stable the pipe
vertically.
2. The pipeline is adequate to provide both short-term and long-term vertical

stability with respect to its specific gravity and further it has satisfied the
floatation criteria.
3. In regards to the lateral stability analysis, the pipeline weight during
installation, hydrotest and operation is 1017, 1145 and 1129 N/m respectively.
On the other hand, according to stability analysi result, it is found that the
minimum pipeline submerged weight to ensure the stability of the pipeline is
100.4 N/m. This confirmed that the existing and selected pipeline is stable
enough considering load acting on it. Should the current velocity is increased
to 2.57 m/s then the stability criteria would be unacceptable (the existing
value of the river current is 0.45 m/s).
River Bed Stability Analysis and River Bank Span Growth
Study on river bed instability due to river flow will be conducted after receiving data from
VICO Indonesia.

Risk assessment and free span analysis of flowlines in East Kalimantan

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Risk assessment and free span analysis of flowlines in East Kalimantan

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

AND FREE SPAN ANALYSIS OF VICO INDONESIA

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING

ISSUED FOR REVIEW

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

REVISION MODIFICATION LOG

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

4. HAZARD SCREENING / IDENTIFICATION....................................................23

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION.......................................25

7. RIVER BED STABILITY ANALYSIS...............................................................83

8. FREE SPAN ANALYSIS..............................................................................99

9. PIPELINE STABILITY ANALYSIS...............................................................123

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

LATERAL STABILITY ANLAYSIS....................................................................................127

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

3.1 RIVERBED PROFILE OF DAPUR 12 CROSSING...........................................................19

FIGURE 5.1 PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY................................................................25

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

9.1 LATERAL STABILITY ANALYSIS................................................................................128

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

POSSIBLE HAZARD TO THE PIPELINE..........................................................................23

FREQUENCY RANKING ACCORDING TO DNV-RP-F107..................................................26

TABLE 6.1 DATA FOR BASE CASE FREQUENCY...........................................................................44

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

8.1 TIRAM CROSSING GAS PIPELINE 6 DATA.................................................................101

9.1 PIPELINE AND SOIL DATA FOR ON-BOTTOM STABILITY ANALYSIS....................................123

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

flowlines at Dapur River Crossing

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

consequences. These values can be compared with acceptable risk criteria

2. To perform risk assessment of flowlines at which identified as likely in the position

Object and Scope of Work

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

In General, the scopes of this study are:

Hazard identification flowline operation by considering traffic, weather and other

Perform risk assessment of river flowline crossings (if any).

Perform risk assessment of flowline at positions in which identified as likely in the

Define recommendation of control measures that need to be taken into account to

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

Undertaking a frequency analysis to determine the likelihood of failure by

Undertaking consequence analysis of each hazard to determine the magnitude of

If risks are not As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP), then providing

Identification, delineate and compile any information relevant to integrity of the

Field investigation to evaluate current condition of previously identified risk on

Evaluation of detailed analysis of the possibility failure of mechanism with respect

Recommend monitoring system which is suitable for East Kalimantan pipeline

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

PHASE-4, Evaluation of implemented free span rectification program and

Field investigation to evaluate current condition of previously implemented

PHASE -5: Reporting

Risk Measures and Codes

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

As Low As Reasonably Practicable

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

3. FACILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

RISK ASSESSMENT OF FLOWLINE RIVER CROSSING INSTALLATION (PHASE II)

Pipeline UTM Coordinate

UTM COORDINATE (ZONE 50 S)

INSERT DATA HERE

Table 3.4 UTM Coordinate of Balok Flowline River Crossing