OTC 18303
New Industry Guidelines for Fatigue Analysis of Unbonded Flexible Risers
F. Grealish and R. Smith, MCS, and J. Zimmerman, ExxonMobil
Copyright 2006, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 1–4 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper reviews the Fatigue Analysis Methodology
Guidelines for flexible risers as produced by the Real Life
Joint Industry Project (JIP). The overall objective of Real Life
is to obtain industry consensus on methodologies for
computing the design fatigue life of a flexible riser with
particular emphasis on fatigue critical designs; for example
deepwater catenary risers. The paper also reviews the reasons
for initiating Real Life.
Real Life tested a range of analysis methodologies based
on existing practices and new proposals, and produced a
Fatigue Analysis Guidelines document that will be submitted
to API to be considered for publication as an API standard.
The fatigue analysis encompasses the riser global response
and the local stress in the tensile armour wires. The
Guidelines are also broadly applicable to the pressure armour,
which is not formally part of Real Life.
Introduction
The Real Life JIP is driven by the need to increase the
engineering rigour with which the industry currently computes
flexible pipe fatigue life so that we can continue to
demonstrate the safe design of flexible pipe in ever more
challenging offshore loading conditions combined with
realistic environments in the flexible pipe annulus. (The pipe
annulus contains the pressure and tensile armour layers and is
located between the pressure and external sheaths.) Equally,
existing methodologies lack the consistency and level of
transparency that is required to independently demonstrate the
level of safety and conservatism in new flexible riser designs.
The Real Life JIP addresses these issues by establishing an
independent, consistent and transparent fatigue analysis
methodology such that the level of safety and conservatism in
new flexible riser designs can become more easily
demonstrated. This has been achieved through the integration
of the following key tasks:
1. Improved characterisation of the global fatigue
environment.
2. Time domain global riser analysis techniques that are
refined to realistically, yet efficiently, represent
fatigue loading conditions on a flexible riser system.
3. Local cross-section fatigue analysis techniques that
are technically consistent with global fatigue load
calculations.
Real Life has established a best-practice approach to
flexible pipe fatigue analysis by combining current industry
knowledge with new developments within the JIP, and has
encapsulated the results into a set of Guidelines that can
ultimately be published as an industry standard or code of
practice.
The fatigue analysis methodologies recommended by the
Guidelines developed in Real Life have been demonstrated
using trial applications based on sample projects provided by
the JIP participants. These trial applications include a harsh
environmental North Sea location, an ultra-deepwater West of
Africa project and an offshore Brazil application.
The fatigue analysis methodologies established in Real
Life are reproducible using existing global and local tools
available to designers, manufacturers and operators of flexible
pipe.
Background
The accurate prediction of the fatigue performance of
unbonded flexible risers is dependent on a wide range of
service life factors that include material, environment, global
riser and local pipe cross-section response. It is generally
acknowledged that there are limitations associated with the
current state-of-practice regarding the selection and
application of these factors in computing flexible pipe fatigue
life. Furthermore, existing flexible pipe codes of practice do
not provide sufficient guidance on fatigue design for ultra-
deep and harsh environments. As a result, existing
methodologies tend to suffer from a lack of consistency of
application and transparency of approach.
A review of the fatigue analysis approaches being used by
designers, end users and flexible pipe manufacturers shows
that, notwithstanding some industry exceptions, a number of
key issues directly affecting fatigue performance can be over-
simplified. These key issues include:
1. Considerable over simplification of global loads such
as the use of max./min. curvature values that have
been derived from regular wave analyses. Irregular
2 OTC 18303
wave loading, rainflow counting, weather
directionality, and frequency domain response
screening is for the most part neglected, or at least
there is no consistent approach to use of these
techniques in the industry.
2. Flexible riser fatigue life is normally computed on the
basis that the pipe annulus maintains a dry benign
environment for the tensile and pressure armours.
There are uncertainties in how to define an appropriate
annulus environment, how to select wire fatigue S-N
curves, and what the approach should be for damaged
pipe.
3. Current methods do not normally account for flexible
pipe damping, nonlinear moment-curvature response,
or bending hysteresis effects.
4. Riser locations such as the seabed touchdown or sag-
bend regions may not be treated with sufficient rigour
in current riser fatigue computations.
5. The application of response parameters such as
curvature and tension determined from a global riser
analysis may not be performed in a manner that is
consistent with how armour wire stresses in the pipe
cross-section are computed.
6. Current local analysis techniques do not generally
always account for the variation in armour wire
stresses around the pipe circumference.
7. Current methods do not typically account for dynamic
tension variations that are likely to be significant, in
fatigue terms, in ultra-deepwater applications.
The use of flexible risers in ultra-deepwater and in harsh
offshore environments is clearly pushing the boundaries of
flexible pipe technology in a number of directions. This is
particularly true of fatigue. The tensile loads that these pipes
experience in ultra-deepwater applications are in some cases
substantially beyond current experience. This, allied to
potentially high inter-layer contact pressures, sour service and
a variety of annulus environments further undermine the
suitability of current fatigue analysis methods for such
applications.
To illustrate this point, operational experience has
demonstrated that in practice the flexible riser annulus
environment is far from benign. Flexible risers with flooded
annuli are susceptible to corrosion and, in dynamic
applications corrosion-fatigue. Also the combination of water
with permeated CO2 or H2S results in a corrosive
environment that may also cause stress corrosion cracking,
hydrogen induced cracking and pitting. If current fatigue
analysis methods were to be applied under such
circumstances, i.e., aggressive annulus environments, they
would probably yield unacceptably low remaining fatigue life
for many risers currently in operation.
It is clear therefore, that current industry practice needs to
be considerably improved to realistically determine the fatigue
life of flexible risers, taking into consideration the loading and
environments that they will experience during their service
life.
Fatigue Analysis Guidelines
General
A Fatigue Analysis Guidelines document is the main
deliverable of the Real Life JIP. The Guidelines provide best
practices for performing fatigue analysis of unbonded flexible
risers in offshore environments and act to supplement existing
rules and criteria used for the design, manufacture and supply
of flexible pipes [1, 2].
All aspects of the fatigue analysis procedure are covered,
from selection of global analysis parameters through to local
analysis issues and design criteria for the service life. Several
different methodologies are proposed, each with varying
levels of complexity.
The Guidelines draw together the existing and some new
practices in fatigue design and present a top-down approach to
the design procedure. The Guidelines address:
1. Global fatigue analysis of the riser system
2. Transposition from the global to local analyses
3. Local stress analysis of the tensile armour wires
4. Estimation of fatigue life from the wire stresses
The Guidelines primarily apply to the fatigue analysis of
the tensile armour wires in flexible pipe and may in general
also be utilised for the fatigue analysis of the pressure armour
wires. Specifically the guidelines given for items (1), (2) and
(4) above can also be applied to the pressure armour. The
fatigue stress calculations associated with the pressure
armours are not covered by the Guidelines.
The Guidelines generally start with simpler conservative
approaches that can be safely applied to a riser designed well
below a fatigue limit. The assessment of fatigue sensitive
designs is addressed using more accurate and comprehensive
methods. This facilitates a fatigue analysis approach, whereby
simplified yet conservative fatigue analyses can be initially
used, moving to more complicated, less conservative and more
accurate approaches as required in order to satisfy design
criteria.
Organisation of the Guidelines
The Guidelines is split into specific sections that deal with
different aspects or stages of a flexible pipe fatigue analysis.
A brief overview of each section is as follows:
Overview of Fatigue Analysis Methodology – Gives an
overview of the overall fatigue analysis process, identifying
the main stages in the process.
Global Fatigue Analysis – Provides guidance on all
aspects of global fatigue analysis.
Global to Local Transposition – Deals with the processes
involved in transferring load data from a global analysis to a
local analysis tool for calculation of the armour wire stress.
This is a key stage for flexible pipe fatigue analysis and
requires much more attention than for example in fatigue
analysis of steel risers.
Local Fatigue Analysis – Guidance is given on local cross
sectional analysis in this section with specific reference to
obtaining stresses in the tensile armour wires.
Fatigue Design Criteria – Gives details on parameter
selection associated with calculating fatigue damage from
local armour wire stresses.
OTC 18303
The Guidelines also contains a set of annexes that give
supplementary information on the following topics:
Generation of Deterministic Scatter Diagrams – Gives
methods on converting a seastate scatter diagram (Hs, Tp or
Tz) to a regular wave scatter diagram (H, T).
Modal Screening – Describes a modal or frequency
screening methodology for selecting wave periods in a global
fatigue analysis.
Selection of Maximum Wave Parameters – Guidelines on
selecting wave heights and periods for a conservative fatigue
analysis based on extreme regular waves.
Reliability Based Design – Discusses the potential
application of reliability based design for fatigue analysis of
flexible risers.
Overview of Fatigue Analysis Methodology
General
The overall fatigue analysis process involves several stages
as illustrated in Figure 1. The process shares several stages in
common with designing for extreme loadcases; namely:
1. Collate Loading Data
2. Define Loadcase Matrix
3. Riser Structural Design
4. Global Analysis
5. (Global to Local) Transposition
6. Local Stress Analysis
The last two stages are normally implemented with much
greater detail in a fatigue analysis. A fatigue analysis also has
the potential for addressing several more loading conditions
and may require a larger number of system parameters to be
varied.
Depending on the requirements of the particular
application, the objective of the fatigue analysis can be either
of the following:
1. Ensures the minimum fatigue life exceeds the
intended service life of the flexible pipe multiplied by
the fatigue safety factor, or
2. defines the time limits in which remedial action is
required.
A Structured Approach
The fatigue characteristics are not always a critical issue in
the design of a flexible riser system. An example is a pipe
with a dry annulus condition, where the loading from extreme
events produce stress ranges below the fatigue endurance limit
of the armour wire. In this case the fatigue assessment
requires a comparatively small amount of global and local
analysis. For this reason, the philosophy utilised in the
Guidelines recommends an initial simplified fatigue analysis,
followed by increasingly comprehensive analyses or design
changes until the fatigue design criteria are satisfied.
The first pass through the fatigue analysis procedure is
intended to provide an initial assessment of the fatigue life.
The sensitivity of the fatigue life to variations in the key
design parameters requires a further analysis. If the calculated
fatigue life does not meet the design requirements in this
initial analysis, then a revision is required either to reduce the
3
conservatism of the analysis or change one or more elements
of the structural design (e.g. interface bend limiter, riser
configuration or pipe design). This structured approach is
demonstrated for analysis methodologies based on regular
waves and stochastic seas as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3,
respectively.
Figure 2 shows three main levels of regular wave based
analysis. These levels are differentiated by the
characterisation of the global wave environment. Two
methods of transposition from the global to local analyses are
available within each level. The first method assigns ranges of
the tension and bending components (angle, curvature or
moment). The second less conservative transposition method
also assigns the phasing information or the complete timetrace
of each response.
Each analysis level represents a sizeable reduction in
conservatism from the preceding one. Level 3 characterisation
of the wave environment produces the most accurate
deterministic analysis when the local analysis accounts for
phasing between the pipe tension and bending components.
Figure 3 outlines a recommended stochastic analysis
methodology. The flowchart does not have the distinct levels
presented for deterministic analysis. When required, the
recommended iterations for the stochastic analysis include the
following:
1. Increasing the number of blocks used to discretise the
seastate scatter diagram.
2. Switching the global-to-local transposition method
from histograms of the tension and bending ranges to
timetraces of each response.
The first iteration can be repeated several times until all
seastates in the scatter diagram are analysed individually.
Screening & Sensitivity Studies
It is strongly recommended at the start of any fatigue
analyses to undertake relevant sensitivity studies to identify
appropriate conservative parameters for the main fatigue
analysis.
In the early stages of a project, particularly for fatigue
critical applications, it may prove useful to perform initial
fatigue screening studies. This could be to evaluate alternative
riser configurations or pipe cross-section designs, or to
identify the most critical seastates. A number of screening
methods are available, which allow quick fatigue assessments,
including the following methods developed in the Real Life
JIP [3]:
1. KN/TN Methodology – this uses the SN curve and
local armour wire stresses to develop a KN (curvature
versus number of cycles) or TN (tension versus
number of cycles) curve, and allows full stochastic
analysis to be performed using widely available riser
analysis programs.
2. RAO Methodology – regular wave analysis is
performed at a small number of key periods using the
respective maximum wave heights in the individual
wave scatter diagram. Global loads for all waves in
the scatter diagram are then linearly extrapolated from
4 OTC 18303
the maximum wave case by assuming curvatures and
tensions are a linear function of wave height. For
many applications tension variations are almost linear
relative to the wave height, while curvatures are
marginally nonlinear (using maximum wave height
case for extrapolating to smaller wave heights gives
conservative results for the lower wave heights). A
more optimal power-law scaling can be applied as part
of validating the screening procedure.
The advantage of the first method is the requirement for a
relatively few number of local analyses (with a significant
number of global stochastic analyses), while the advantage of
the second method is the requirement for a few regular wave
or stochastic sea global analyses (with a significant number of
local analyses).
Global Fatigue Analysis
The Guidelines describes several key issues applicable to
global fatigue analysis of flexible pipes and supplements
various codes of practice and design guidelines [1, 2, 3, 5].
The effect of various characterizations of the wave
environment on the predicted fatigue life is addressed in [6].
In addition to the above, the Guidelines make several
recommendations on the following global analysis topics:
1. Performing a sensitivity analysis and/or screening
study study in the early stages of a fatigue analysis
2. Wave selection procedures that account for the wave
frequency response of the floating production unit
and riser
3. Derivation methods for individual waves from
seastate scatter diagrams
4. Blocking scatter diagrams
5. Multi-modal and multi-directional seastates and
combining fatigue damage contributions from
component seatstates
6. Structural damping methodologies including
hysteresis
7. Bend limiters (stiffeners, bellmouths)
Global to Local Transposition
General
The global and local structural analyses of flexible pipe are
normally conducted with seperate software packages. It is
necessary to transfer key results from the global to local
analyses. This global to local transposition extracts the global
response at key locations on the flexible pipe and transfers the
data into a format suitable for local analysis of the pipe armour
wires.
The Guidelines includes the various methods for
performing this transposition and includes two new methods
that utilise two-dimensional histograms and principal axes of
pipe bending. These new methods are described in more
detail further below.
Fatigue Hotsposts of flexible pipe are usually located in
the bend limiter at the riser hang-off. Other hotspot locations
may include the touchdown of a catenary riser and the hog or
sag bend regions of wave-configured risers. The standard
deviation of the local bending response is the single most
reliable method to determine the location of fatigue hotspots.
Tension-Angle Transposition follows the same approach
as designing a bend limiter for extreme loading. The global
tension-angle response at a provisionally pinned connection is
applied in a local (or an intermediate) analysis that models the
bend limiter and a short length of pipe.
The fatigue analysis may in addition include the hysteretic
damping resulting from the normal operating pressure.
Including hysteresis in the analysis gives more accurate
prediction of the pipe bending response.
Tension-Curvature/Moment Transposition is used when
the bend limiter is included in the global analysis. The global
curvature (and tension) response is applied directly to the
flexible pipe in the local analysis. The pipe curvature
response should take account of sign changes between
hogging and sagging.
A local analysis may also account for hysteretic damping
of the pipe bending if this has not been performed in the
global analysis and in this case the transposition should
include both curvature and moment.
Transposition Formats
The Guidelines describe several transposition formats for
regular wave and stochastic sea analyses.
Regular Waves
Transposition formats for regular wave based analysis are
summarised as follows:
Ranges Only is a widely used format based on the
minimum and maximum values of the pipe bending and
tension response. The bending and tension ranges are
assumed to act in-phase, which can give overly conservative
results. The format can be simplified (and reduced in
conservatism by an unqualified amount) by fixing the tension
to the maximum response, although, this is not generally
recommended, especially for deepwater risers.
Ranges and Relative Phases is similar to the range-only
format except that the transposition includes the relative
phasing between the pipe bending and tension. A global
frequency domain analysis normally provides the phase
information as a direct output. A global time domain analysis
requires post-processing to extract the phase information and
for this reason, the transposition method is not widely
practised.
Full Timetrace transposition provides the most complete
transfer of data to the local analysis. This transposition format
transfers whole timetraces of the pipe global response to the
local analysis and thereby automatically accounts for phasing
between the pipe bending and tension responses. The phasing
of the friction-induced axial stress is improved if the
transposition ramps the tension and bending responses from
the mean values.
Stochastic Seas
Transposition formats for stochastic sea based analysis are
summarised as follows:
Ranges Only transposition as extracted from a stochastic
response uses the mean and statistical range of the pipe
bending and tension response. A conservative alternative
applies the minima and maxima of the stochastic response.
The significant range of four times the standard deviation of
OTC 18303
the timetrace is a more representative conservative range. The
smaller rms-range of 2√2 times the standard deviation of the
timetrace is less conservative, although its reliability would
need to be demonstrated.
Two-Dimensional Histograms is a new type of
transposition format that first computes histograms of the pipe
bending and tension response and then combines the two
histograms assuming statistical independence.
An illustrative example of combining tension and
curvature histograms is shown in Figure 4. The first step of
computing the separate tension and curvature histograms
follows standard procedures for cycle counting a stochastic
response, e.g. rainflow (wideband) or zero up-crossings
(narrowband). The percentage occurrences from both
histograms are multiplied together in a scalar manner to
produce the two-dimensional tension-curvature histogram as
shown in the figure. The tension-curvature histogram allows a
small curvature range to occur with a large tension range and
vice-versa, which results from the assumption of statistical
independence and compensates for the lack of information on
the relative phasing.
The range values in the paired tension and curvature bins
are transposed to the local analysis as regular wave responses
and these are assumed to act in-phase. The number of cycles
from the curvature histogram is assigned to the combined
histogram as curvature variations are generally more critical.
Frequency domain global analysis programs normally
support a post-processing facility for computing histograms of
the global load responses. The analysis usually assumes a
narrowband (Rayleigh) or wideband (e.g. Dirlik) distribution
of these loads in deriving the histograms.
Full Timetrace transposition of the pipe bending and
tension response follows the same format as described for a
regular wave based analysis. The recommendation of ramping
the bending and tension responses from the mean values still
applies as this ensures correct phasing of the friction-induced
axial stress.
Transposition & Frequency Domain Analysis
Direct transposition from frequency domain global
analysis is not always compatible with the highly nonlinear
local analysis. A frequency domain analysis based on regular
waves computes dynamic amplitudes and related phases of the
riser response and these are more readily transposed to the
local analysis as previously described.
In contrast, a frequency domain analysis based on
stochastic seas computes spectral responses of the riser
response. These response spectrums (bending and tension)
need to be converted to synthesised timetraces as part of the
transposition to the local analysis. The statistics of the
synthesised timetraces should be verified against the statistics
of the spectra from which they were generated.
Transposition & Directionality
Flexible pipe that dynamically bend out-of-plane (3D
loading) from the static configuration requires careful
consideration to ensure that the global response is transposed
to the local analysis in a consistent and conservative fashion.
If the local analysis tool is fully capable of accepting and
5
processing 3D global bending component data then the
transposition methods as described above can be followed.
Local analysis tools are however often only able to accept
2D (single plane of bending) data and in this case the
transposition from the global analysis becomes more
complicated: the 3D global response needs to be transformed
into an equivalent 2D global response for direct input to the
local model. The complication only arises in the case of the
pipe bending component as tension transposition is
independent of the manner in which the riser is bending.
Guidelines on converting 3D global responses to
equivalent 2D responses are summarised in the following for
both regular wave and stochastic sea based analyses.
Regular Waves
In a regular wave based analysis, the component ranges of
3D pipe bending are combined to produce a total range using
the following equation:
BC tot , range = ( BC y2, range + BC z2, range ) Eq. 1
The notation BCy, range and BCz, range denote the components of
the local bending range and BCtot, range is the total or combined
range. The equation assumes the component bending ranges
act in-phase. A similar relation also determines the resultant
of the mean pipe bending response, as follows:
BC res , mean = ( BC y2, mean + BC z2, mean ) Eq. 2
The fatigue analysis applies either the resultant mean and
range values or alternatively, the minimum and maximum pipe
bending responses, defined as follows:
(BC res , min , BC res , max ) = BC res , mean ± 0 .5 BC tot , range Eq. 3
The resultant 2D bending component range along with the
accompanying tension range can then be transferred to a local
analysis tool.
Stochastic Seas
In the case of a stochastic sea based analysis, the
conversion of 3D pipe bending components to a 2D bending
component is more complicated than for regular waves. This
is due to the fact that in stochastic analyses long duration
timetraces have to be dealt with rather than simple ranges.
The process involves mapping the timetraces of the 3D
bending components into a timetrace of a 2D principal
bending component.
Visually deciding upon the plane of principal bending for a
long duration simulation is not always straightforward. The
task can be alternatively accomplished by a mathematical
method for computing the first and second principal axes of
pipe bending. The method computes the variance and co-
variance of the 3D pipe bending components for the duration
of the timetraces and assembles the results into a 2 × 2 matrix
as follows:
6 OTC 18303
⎡ Var y CoVar yz ⎤
⎢ ⎥ Eq. 4
⎣ CoVar zy Var z ⎦
The subscripts y and z denotes the riser local-axes of bending.
The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrix are then
computed. The vector associated with the larger eigenvalue is
aligned with the first principal axis of the pipe bending
response. The vector associated with the second eigenvalue is
aligned with the second principal axis of pipe bending. The
timetraces of the 3D bending components are vectorially
projected onto these principal axes to obtain timetraces of the
first and second principal components of bending.
Where the second principal component of bending is much
less significant than the first it can be discarded. If both
however are of close to equal magnitudes they should both be
separately transposed to the local model with the associated
tension.
Local Fatigue Analysis
General
The local fatigue analysis converts the global loading at
selected hotspots to stress in the armour wires. The analysis is
based on a certified representation of the flexible pipe cross-
section and an interface that handles the global to local
transposition procedures.
The Guidelines contains information on the pipe data,
material behaviour and loading effects that should be
considered in the local fatigue analysis. The general
requirements for local analysis models are outlined as follows:
1. Verified against full-scale measurements.
2. Capable of modelling tension and curvature ranges.
3. Preferably account for hysteresis effects, if not already
addressed in the global or intermediate analysis.
4. Take into account the effects of external pressure.
5. Calculate the stress at the four corners of the
rectangular shaped wires normally used for tensile
armours.
6. Preferably output stresses at eight points around the
circumference, so that directionality effects can be
considered.
If distribution of damage around the circumference is to be
accounted for in the solution, then this will require a clear
understanding of any torsional rotational effects, such as due
to turret rotation, pressure effects, 3D environmental loads,
etc..
Pipe Hysteresis
The hysteresis characteristic of a flexible pipe has a major
influence on the fatigue performance of the system. The
hysteresis has significant potential to reduce and redistribute
the global curvature response and this is often conservatively
ignored in a fatigue analysis. The key issues are as follows:
1. The armour wire stress is strongly affected by the
interlayer frictional loading.
2. The pipe bending stiffness changes substantially in a
wave loading cycle (see example of hysteresis
response in Figure 5).
3. The non-elastic component of the hysteresis removes
energy from the bending response. The energy
removed from a regular bending cycle is proportional
to the area within a closed loop such as those shown in
Figure 5.
The curvature reduction and redistribution effect of hysteresis
can be accounted for with a variety of methods in either a
global or local analysis, or alternatively an intermediate
analysis.
Key Trends of Tensile Armour Fatigue Stress
In understanding the results from local stress analysis of
tensile armour wires, the Guidelines identify the following as
useful trends to consider.
Pre-Slip
In the initial bending of a pipe, prior to armour wire slip,
the maximum dynamic stresses generally occur at the neutral
axis of pipe bending as the wires are being bent around their
width rather than thickness. This is in contrast to a steel pipe
where the maximum stress always occurs in the plane of
bending at the extrados and intrados locations.
Post Slip
As curvature of the pipe progressively increases, the
armour wires slip and dynamic friction stresses will generally
dominate. The friction stress is at a maximum in the plane of
pipe bending and minimum at the neutral axis.
Pipe Bending vs. Tension
The bending induced stresses (direct bending and friction
related) generally dominate over the dynamic tension induced
stresses. However, due to the exponent effect of the SN
curve, where damage is a function of total stress range raised
to the power of m (SN curve exponent), even a relatively small
tension contribution will give a significant reduction in fatigue
life. Therefore, the Guidelines recommend that tension effects
are always included in the fatigue damage calculations. The
local analysis may consider the dynamic loading from tension
and bending as separate analyses and then combine the stress
ranges with or without phasing information.
Loadcase Selection
Decisions on selecting loadcases or analysis parameters
should be based on the significance of impact on the dynamic
curvatures rather than dynamic tensions.
Directionality
Most flexible pipe fatigue analysis methodologies
accumulate fatigue damage from the worst locations on the
pipe circumference; i.e. the full distribution of damage around
the circumference is not considered in the analysis. This
distribution may prove beneficial in critical cases, though in
general, the benefit may prove less significant than for steel
pipe. The reason for this is that curvature in the flexible riser
induces dynamic stresses all around the circumference,
including at the neutral axis of pipe bending, which is not the
case with steel risers (see Pre-Slip above).
Mean Stress
The pipe endcap load and the mean curvature and effective
tension contribute to the mean stress of the tensile armour.
OTC 18303
The mean stress significantly affects the maximum sustainable
friction on the tensile armour. The mean stress also reduces
the SN performance of the tensile armour in the fatigue design
calculation.
Fatigue Design Calculation
General
The fatigue design criteria applied to the armour layers of
a flexible pipe share much in common with other steel
structures. Most notably, constant-amplitude SN curves, a
fatigue safety factor and the Palmgren-Miner damage
accumulation rule if a fatigue limit does not apply.
The Guidelines also addresses topics specific to flexible
pipe. The main topics include:
1. Pipe annulus environments and related SN data
2. Design criteria for single, multiple and transitional
annulus environments
3. Fatigue safety factor
Several ancillary topics are also covered, including parent
metal and welds, cycle counting, stress concentration factors,
mean stress effects and endurance limits.
Fatigue Design Check
The main part of the Fatigue Design Calculation focuses
on multiple annulus environments. An assessment that
involves multiple or transitional annulus environments
requires a series of fatigue design calculations. The fatigue
design calculation is repeated with the appropriate SN curve
for each environment. The fatigue design check is then
conducted for the combined series of annulus environments.
The following format of the fatigue design criterion is suitable
for general transitional loadings or environments:
∑ T × d ≤ 1/FSF
i i Eq. 5
i transitional environments of the annulus. The objective is to
Where Ti denotes the associated period of the loading, di is
the damage per year for the applicable SN curve in each phase
of loading and FSF is the Fatigue Safety Factor. The FSF is
applied to increase the minimum requirement on the design
fatigue life. The factor accounts for uncertainties in the
fatigue assessment process, the in service behaviour of the
riser, the consequences of failure and the relative difficulty of
inspection and repair.
It is recommended that an FSF of 10 as specified in API
Spec 17J [1] should be applied for all loadings or annulus
environments.
The implementation the fatigue design criterion is
straightforward if the pipe annulus is considered dry for the
duration of the service life. Careful consideration of the
criterion needs to be taken if the annulus of the flexible pipe is
flooded with seawater. The alternatives are as follows.
Pipe remains in service for the design service life
In the first case, the assumption is the pipe should remain
in service for the design service life, even if the pipe annulus
is flooded. In this case, the seawater-flooded annulus is
7
considered as the only design condition. The fatigue damage
is then computed using Eq. 5 with the SN curve applicable for
the seawater-flooded annulus. The seawater-flooded case is
usually the most onerous and if it satisfies the design criterion,
then no replacement of the riser is required, although remedial
action and regular inspection of the damaged location is
advisable.
Minimum period available in which to replace the riser
If the seawater flooded annulus is not specified to be the
design case, it is still necessary to perform the fatigue
calculation to determine the minimum period available in
which to replace the riser, as specified in API Spec 17J. In
this case more accurate assessment of the remaining fatigue
life after seawater flooding in the case of an otherwise non-
corrosive annulus is determined as follows:
Tnorm × dnorm + Tsw × dsw ≤ 1/FSF Eq. 6
where the T, d and FSF are defined as above and the
subscripts norm and sw denote the normal and seawater
flooded phases of loading. Eq. 6 assumes normal operating
annulus conditions prior to flooding. Eq. 6 can be modified as
follows to calculate the allowable duration to keep a pipe in-
service that has an annulus flooded with seawater (Tsw,all):
Tsw,all = (1/FSF – Tnorm × dnorm)/dsw Eq. 7
Flushed annulus
A more complex situation occurs when the seawater is
flushed out of the annulus. The transitional environments may
include an initial dry period, corrosive gas dissolved in the
seawater flooding and a reduced rate of fatigue damage after
the annulus is flushed with an inert fluid. This situation is
more readily handled by adapting Eq. 5 to the precise
determine that the remaining service life with a flushed
annulus will satisfy the fatigue criterion.
Fatigue Safety Factor
API Spec 17J [1] specifies a fatigue safety factor of 10 on
flexible pipes in dynamic applications. The fatigue safety
factor should be used for all probable annulus environments as
described above. Sensitivity studies should also be conducted
on the riser global loading and the fatigue response checked
against the fatigue design criterion.
In cases where the fatigue design criterion restricts the
service life to less than the intended life, then the shorter life is
the recommended maximum time in which to implement
remedial action. The factor of safety should also be applied
when determining the period in which to undertake the
proposed remedial action. The remedial actions may involve
changes to the operating conditions or annulus environment,
or replacement of the flexible pipe.
Other alternatives may also apply and these are dependent
on the mitigating circumstances of the flexible pipe.
Reliability-based design may be applied as an alternative
8 OTC 18303

method, provided the level of safety obtained is not less than Nomenclature
that for comparable design cases [1, 7]. BC = bending component: angle, curvature,
or moment
CoVar = covariance
Conclusions d = fatigue damage per year
The main conclusions from this paper are as follows: FSF = fatigue safety factor
H = individual wave height
1. The Real Life JIP has produced a Fatigue Analysis Hs = significant wave height
Guidelines document that will be submitted to API to T = service life, or individual wave period
be considered for publication as an API standard. Tp = spectral-peak period
Tz = mean zero up-crossing period
2. The Guidelines reflect the consensus and state-of-the- Var = variance
art within industry practice for fatigue analysis of
unbonded flexible pipe in offshore environments. Subscripts
all = allowable
3. The Guidelines address all stages of flexible pipe norm = normal
fatigue analysis and provides details that are specific res = resultant
to flexible pipe that are not covered with sufficient sw = seawater
depth in related codes of practice. tot = total
y, z = local-y and -z pipe bending axes
4. The application of the Guidelines at an industry-wide
level, in conjunction with best practices in
manufacture, installation, operation and in-situ References
monitoring, will lead to improved in-service 1. API, Specification for Unbonded Flexible Pipe, API Spec 17J,
reliability of flexible pipe systems. 2nd edition plus errata and addendum 1, April 2002, Effective
December 2002, American Petroleum Institute.
2. API, Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe, API RP 17B,
3rd edition, March 2002, American Petroleum Institute.
Acknowledgments 3. MCS, Real Life JIP – Interim Reports 1 to 6, Confidential to
The authors wish to thank the support of the companies JIP, 2004 to 2005.
sponsoring the Real Life JIP and the many contributions made 4. DNV, Dynamic Risers, Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F201,
available through the steering committee meetings. The JIP 2001, Det Norske Veritas.
participants are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, 5. API, Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs)
NKT Flexibles, Petrobras, Shell, Statoil, Technip FlexiFrance, and Tension-Leg Platforms (TLPs), API RP 2RD”, 1st edition,
Wellstream and Woodside. June 1998, American Petroleum Institute.
6. Sheehan, J. M. et al., “Characterisation of the wave
environment in the fatigue analysis of flexible risers.” In:
Proceedings of OMAE2005, Paper No. 67507.
7. Leira, B. J. et al, “Fatigue safety factors for flexible risers based
on case specific realiability analysis.” In: Proceedings of
OMAE2005, Paper No. 67432.
OTC 18303 9

Collate Loading Data Riser Structural Design

Marine Direction-
Environment Wave Current
Growth ality Global Riser Cross
Low Configuration Section
Vessel RAO’s Draft Offsets
Frequency

Hydrodynamic & Structural

Internal Fluid Density Pressure Temperature Model

Bend Limiter & I-Tube in Global

OR Local Model
% Occurrences

Define Load Case Matrix

Combine load case blocks and occurrences

Identify base case and sensitivity case analyses

Structural Analysis
Global Transposition
Local Stress Analysis
Analysis
Wave Type Hotspots Global Response Format
Regular OR e.g. FPU Interface, Tension & Angle OR Regular OR
Irregular Seabed Touchdown, Tension & Curvature Rainflow Counted OR
Sag & Hog Bend Spectral

Analysis Global Response Format Collate Stress Ranges

Domain Range OR Range & Phase OR Timetrace OR Histogram OR
Time OR Spectrum Probability Distribution
Frequency

Fatigue Design Data Fatigue Life Calculation

SN Curves for all probable annulus
Endurance Limit OR
environments and probabilities
Haigh Diagram OR
Mean Stress Effects
Palmgren-Miner Rule
Fatigue Safety Factor (FSF)
Minimum fatigue life
Service Life

Less Conservative: Load case matrix, Structural analysis, SN data, Fatigue Damage
criteria No <
Revise: Riser interface, Global configuration, Pipe cross section 1/FSF

Yes

Fatigue
Analysis
Complete

Figure 1. Flowchart of Overall Fatigue Analysis Methodology

OTC 18303 10

Modal Screening Sensitivity Analysis for Selection of Fatigue Parameters

Representative Wave – HMAX Tass & 3 Directions Extreme Return Wave

– Near, Far, Cross Conditions

Global Load Analysis

Global to Local Transposition at Hotspots

LEVEL 1
Based on
extreme
loading Local Stress Analysis – No Phases
conditions

Fatigue Damage for all Annuli Conditions

No 1 Fatigue Yes 2
Damage
<
1/FSF

No 2

Representative Waves (H, T) per block & 3 Directions Blocked Stochastic

(H = Hs) Scatter Diagram

Global Load Analysis

LEVEL 2 Global to Local Transposition at Hotspots

Based on H = Hs
waves from
stochastic scatter
Local Stress Analysis
table
(i) Stresses from Load Ranges / No Phases, or
(ii) Stresses from Timetraces & Phases

Fatigue Damage for all Annuli Conditions

Fatigue Damage
No 1 Yes 2
<
1/FSF

No 2

Representative Waves – H, T 8 to 8 Directions Blocked

deterministic
Scatter Diagram
Global Load Analysis

Global to Local Transposition at Hotspots

LEVEL 3
Based on
individual waves Local Stress Analysis – Stresses from Timetraces & Phases

Fatigue Damage for all Annuli Conditions

No 1 Fatigue Damage Yes

<
1/FSF

Final Verification and Robustness Checks (if required)

No 2

Fatigue Analysis Complete

Move to Stochastic Analysis Revise Pipe Design or Riser
Methodology Configuration

Figure 2. Flowchart of Recommended Analysis Methodology Based on Regular Waves

OTC 18303 11

Modal Screening Sensitivity Analysis for Selection of Fatigue

Parameters

Representative Seastates ≥ 5 Blocked Seastate

(Hs, Tp or Tz) per block & 3 to 8 Directions Scatter Diagram

Global Load Analysis

Global to Local Transposition at Hotspots

Revise Pipe
Design or Riser
Configuration Local Stress Analysis
i) Statistical ranges (multiple of std. dev), or
ii) Histograms from Rainflow counting, or
iii) Full timetraces

Fatigue Damage
Fatigue for all
Damage forAnnului Conditions
all Annuli Conditions

Fatigue
damage Yes 1 Final Verification and Robutness
Sensitivity Checks
< Checks (if required)
1/FSF

Yes 2

Fatigue
Analysis
Complete

Figure 3. Flowchart of Recommended Analysis Methodology Based on Stochastic Seas

Curvature Histogram Tension Histogram

Total
Cycles 3.50E+06
Total Cycles 3.0E+06 Range (kN)
10 100 1000
Cycles (%) Total
70.0% 20.0% 10.0% 100.0%
Tension-Curvature Histogram
Total
Range Cycles Cycles 3.0E+06
(rad/m) (%) Cycles (%)
0.001 60.0% 42.0% 12.0% 6.0%
0.01 35.0% 24.5% 7.0% 3.5%
0.1 5.0% 3.5% 1.0% 0.5%
Total 100.0% Total 100.0%
Figure 4. Illustration of Method for Combining Tension and Curvature Histograms
12 OTC 18303

25000

20000

15000

10000

Moment
Pipe Moment

5000 Moment without

without
internal/external
friction
pressure

0
0

-5000

-10000

-15000

-20000

-25000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

Pipe Curvature

Figure 5. Hysteretic Pipe Bending Moment for a Series of Curvature Ranges