Design of Subsea Pipelines - Part 1, Volume 2 PDF

Pipeline, riser and
subsea engineering
Design of
subsea
pipelines
- Part 1
2
All information contained in this document has been prepared solely to illustrate
engineering principles for a training course, and is not suitable for use for engineering
purposes. Use for any purpose other than general engineering design training constitutes
infringement of copyright and is strictly forbidden. No liability can be accepted for any
loss or damage of whatever nature, for whatever reason, arising from use of this
information for purposes other than general engineering design training.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means whether electronic, mechanical, photographic or otherwise, or
stored in any retrieval system of any nature without the written permission of the
copyright holder.
Copyright of this book remains the sole property of:
Jee Limited
Hildenbrook House
The Slade
Tonbridge
Kent
TN9 1HR
England
© Jee Limited 2009

Table of contents
Volume one
PIPELINE ROUTING 7
Expectation 9
Rules For Routing 10
Route Survey 23
Design sequence 23
Desk study 24
Geophysical 26
Geotechnical 30
Alignment sheets 34
PIPELINE DIAMETER 39
Expectation 41
Sizing for flow 42
Fluid properties 43
Flow regimes 53
Flow fundamentals 57
Single-phase flow 64
4 Design of subsea pipelines – Part 1
THERMAL DESIGN AND INSULATION 77

Expectation 79
Need for thermal design 80
Fundamentals of heat transfer 85
Pipeline heat transfer 91
Insulation design considerations 101
Insulation systems 109
Wet insulation for rigid pipelines 109
Pipe-in-pipe insulation for rigid pipelines 117
Insulation for flexibles and risers 123
Design guidance 129
Application of insulation 133
At the factory 133
Field joints 140
Operational problems in deep water 143
Exercise 147
MATERIALS SPECIFICATION 153

Expectation 155
Line pipe codes 156
Material selection 162
Review of material properties 166
Specification of line pipe 176
CORROSION 185
Expectation 187
Introduction 188
Types of corrosion 195
External corrosion 195
Internal corrosion 199
Control measures 207
Chemical methods 207
External coatings 211
Cathodic protection 217
Anode design 222
Worked example 236
Volume two
DESIGN FOR STRENGTH 245
Expectation 247
Design principles 248
Bursting 264
Theory 264
Design pressure 265
Allowable stress 270
DNV-OS-F101 271
Collapse 276
Buckling and combined stresses 284
Strain-based design 295
Worked example 307
END EXPANSION AND SPOOLPIECES 323

Expectation 325
End force and expansion factors 327
End expansion 335
Temperature profile 346
Exercise 350
Spoolpieces 351
ON-BOTTOM STABILITY 363

Expectation 365
Review of fundamentals 366
Oceanography 369
Hydrodynamic loads 384
Resistance 390
Stability analysis 402
Computational fluid dynamics 411
Worked example and exercise 412
Weather and wave climate 420
Data selection 423
Trenching and soils 427
Bibliography 429
BOTTOM ROUGHNESS AND INTERVENTION 431

Expectation 433
Bottom roughness analysis 434
Spans 444
Design codes 444
Span assessment 446
Static analysis 449
Vortex-induced vibrations 454
Intervention 469
PROFILES 485
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 495
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & REFERENCES 509

Design for strength
Design for strength 247
EXPECTATION
EXPECTATION
 Understand what loads and failure

mechanisms we design for
 Understand the different approaches taken
in different codes
 Understand the process of design for
strength in sufficient depth to use any
design code intelligently
We will introduce the main types of loading experienced by a pipeline and the
corresponding failure modes. The different approaches of the design codes are
discussed for the objective of determining the required strength of the pipeline to
prevent these failure modes. Finally, a worked example and exercise are provided to
illustrate the process of design for strength for a typical pipeline configuration, ensuring
its ability to contain the internal pressure and resist hydrostatic collapse.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
 How do we make a pipeline stronger?
 Stronger material
 Thicker wall
 Generally fix on strongest

material – given constraints
of welding and cost
 Increase wall thickness

to increase strength
The variables affecting the strength of the pipeline are limited to wall thickness and
material strength.
Generally, we will select the strongest practical steel grade. When designing for strength,
we are therefore left with wall thickness as our one variable.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
 Loads and failure mechanisms

 Allowable stress vs limit-state
 Other contributions to wall thickness
 DNV-OS-F101 design process
In this section we will address the above.
LOADS
 Internal pressure
 External hydrostatic pressure
 Temperature
 Bending
Loads we design for include internal pressure, external pressure, axial compression or
tension and bending.
FAILURE MECHANISMS
 Different loads induce different failure

mechanisms
 Therefore need to design for a number of
criteria
 Burst
 Collapse
 Buckle
Because of the range of load conditions, we need to design for a number of failure
criteria.
BURSTING
 Tensile hoop stress in pipe wall
 Yielding then tensile failure at weakest
location – rupture
Stress Rupture
Yield
Strain
The first criterion is pressure containment or bursting. The failure mechanism is

illustrated above and failure will occur when stress in the pipewall reaches the ultimate
tensile strength of the material.
The mechanism of rupture is illustrated in the picture below.

BURSTING
 Explosive rupture
SYSTEM COLLAPSE
 External pressure
 Compressive hoop stress in pipe wall
 Ovality of pipe accentuated
 Increased bending and compression
 Structural collapse of cross-section (local
buckle)
System collapse or local buckle of the pipe may occur as a result of excessive external
pressure. The mechanism is described above.
The picture below shows the consequences of system collapse.

SYSTEM COLLAPSE
The left hand photograph is from a section of test pipe, whilst the one on the right is a
collapse that occurred during installation developing into a running buckle as far as the
first buckle arrestor shown in the foreground.
LOCAL BUCKLE
 Combined loadings
 Internal pressure, external pressure,
bending, axial load
 Failure mode due to combined loads is local
buckle
 Need to consider whether
 Internal or external over-pressure
 Displacement or load controlled
Combined loadings can initiate a local buckle. The local buckle failure mechanism is
most common during pipelay, when there are high levels of bending in conjunction with
external overpressure.
A displacement-controlled condition occurs when the displacement of the pipeline is,

within reasonable limits, independent of the load. An example of this condition would
be pipeline reeling, where the displacement of the pipeline is controlled by the radius of
the drum rather than the loads applied.
A load-controlled condition occurs when the displacement experienced by the pipeline

depends primarily on the applied load. An example of this condition would be a pipeline
span, sagging under self-weight.
WILL SHANE GET WET FEET?
 Branch may break

 Or be too bendy
 Two methods
 ASD (load-factor)
 Limit-state
 Consequences
There are two main things that can go wrong: the branch may not be strong or stiff
enough to support his weight. So it may either break or bend too much. There are two
main approaches to this design: ASD (allowable stress design also known as load-factor)
or the newer limit-state methods.
What happens if he gets his feet wet? What are the consequences? He may not be able
to swim or it may be shallow enough to wade to the bank. Or there may be piranha or
alligators in the pond!
Considerations to be used structural designs include:

■ Variation in materials in the structure and in test specimens
■ Variation in loading
■ Constructional inaccuracies
■ Accuracy in design calculations
■ Safety and serviceability
The various criteria required to define the serviceability or usefulness of any structure
can be described under the following headings, as being “unfit for use”:
■ Collapse
■ Deflection
■ Cracking (eg waterproof concrete) – may adversely affect the appearance or
efficiency of the structure
■ Vibration (from machinery or wind) – may cause discomfort or alarm in buildings
■ Fatigue – cyclic loading
■ Durability – (eg concrete porosity)
■ Fire resistance – of buildings
When any structure is rendered unfit for use for its designed function by one or more of
the above causes, it is said to have entered a limit-state. These are:
■ Ultimate limit-state – collapse
■ Serviceability limit-state – deflection, cracking, vibration
■ Accidental – unusual or special functions of a structure
■ Other – fatigue, durability, fire resistance, lightning
ALLOWABLE STRESS AND LIMIT-

STATE
 Allowable stress design (ASD) – load factor

 Limit-state design (LSD)
stress
Ultimate strength
LSD Yield stress

ASD
Maximum
operating
stress
strain
Allowable stress design principles ensure that the stress in the pipe wall never exceeds
yield. This is done by specifying yield as a limiting criterion, and applying a safety factor.
Limit-state design specifies the failure condition of the pipeline and then applies a safety
factor to that. Limit-state design does not necessarily mean a less conservative design
than ASD, but it does mean a more rational design.
ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
 Many codes available (basis in 1950s):

 PD 8010 Part 2
 ISO 13623:2000 modified
 DNV ’76 and ’81 – superseded but may still be used
 ASME B31.4 and B31.8
 Other regional equivalents: AS2885, Germanischer
Lloyd, NEN 3650
 All provide ‘cook-book’ approach
 Generalised safety factor applied to material
strength (yield)
Allowable Stress Design is the traditional approach to pipeline design and the vast
majority of pipelines installed to date around the world have been based on this
approach. The basis of allowable stress design is to consider the worst case loads
together with the minimum possible strength (based on yield stress) and then apply a
general safety factor. Many regional standards associations have their own interpretation
or peculiarities.
LIMIT-STATE DESIGN
 Design on the basis of achieving a target

reliability (ie a defined probability of failure)
 Therefore considering distributions of load
and strength functions
 Also known as Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD)
 Partial safety factors applied to each load and
strength component
 Required reliability dependent on
consequence of failure:
Risk = Probability x Consequence
The approach of limit-state design differs from that of allowable stress design in the way
in which the potential for failure and consequences of failure are evaluated. Both
approaches ultimately result in an acceptable design.
Limit-state design enables the designer to account for the low probability of worst-worst
conditions and determine the pipe design required to achieve a satisfactory level of
safety. These safety levels need to reflect a range of issues, including economic, public
relations and environmental costs.
Limit-state design is based on achieving a target reliability. It therefore adopts risk and
reliability technique to assess distributions on loads and strength and consequently define
the probability of failure. The greater the consequences of failure, the lower the target
reliability must be.
SAFETY CLASS
 Low, Normal or High
 Based on fluid – water, oil or natural gas etc

 Based on location – proximity to
installations
 Based on duration – temporary or
operational
Consequences can be defined by the safety class system. The safety class system assesses
the consequences by accounting for the location, the fluids and the duration. This is
explained in greater detail later.
DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD AND

STRENGTH
 Distribution of load
 Internal and external pressure
 Installation loads
 Temperature
 Hydrodynamic loads
 Self weight
 Distribution of strength
 Yield and ultimate strength
 Wall thickness
 Diameter
There are many possible variables affecting the load and strength of a system. These are
listed above. Monte Carlo or similar simulation methods can be used to determine the
probability distributions for load and strength. Safety factors can then be determined to
ensure a target reliability is met.
FUNDAMENTALS OF LIMIT-STATE
DESIGN
Factor x Resistance > Factor x Load: R  L

Mean safety margin
Design point
Probability density
Shift due Shift due

to  > 1 to  < 1
Nominal resistance
Nominal load
L =  R
Load Resistance
Mean resistance
Distribution Distribution
(log-normal) (log-normal)
Mean load
Nominal
safety margin
= /
Please note that this chart is not a true Gaussian curve, but has been derived from
experimental tests.
OTHER FACTORS
 Corrosion allowance
 Manufacturing tolerance
 Stability
 Installation method
 Upheaval/lateral buckling
 Stress concentrations
 Proximity of people
The rationale for the selection of the appropriate wall thickness is based on:
■ During installation and commissioning, only light corrosion would be expected
and all of the wall thickness is available for contributing to the strength and
bending stiffness of the pipe
■ During operation, corrosion takes place, progressively reducing the available wall
thickness
Corrosion tends to occur either as:

■ Localised pitting of the wall
■ Tramline corrosion either at any liquid/gas interface or along the bottom centre
of the pipe due to water dropout
Thus, even on a corroded pipe, most of the steel is still available to provide axial strength
and bending stiffness. Therefore, unless the design code specifies otherwise, the
corrosion allowance:
■ Should be excluded from the pressure containment check
■ May be partly or fully included in combined stress checks
■ May be partly or fully included in bending stiffness
WALL THICKNESS COMPONENTS
 Rationale is normally:
t nom  t min  t corr  t fab (  )
 tmin for pressure containment (hoop stress)
 tcorr corrosion allowance
 tfab(-) manufacturing under-tolerance on wall
thickness
 Round up to nearest standard wall thickness?
The nominal wall thickness is made up of various components.
Initially tmin is calculated based on the minimum wall thickness to contain the internal
pressure, as defined by the specified design code. To this, the pipeline corrosion
allowance is added. Typically this will be between 3 mm and 6 mm (0.12 in to 0.24 in).
The negative manufacturing tolerance on the pipe is added to the pipe thickness. If the
pipe is specified to ISO 3183-3, the negative manufacturing tolerance is -12.5% of tnom
for 4 mm to 10 mm (0.15 in to 0.39 in) thick seamless pipe and 0.75 mm (0.029 in) for
HFW and SAW pipe with a thickness between 6 mm and 15 mm (0.24 in and 0.59 in).
In sizes 508 mm (20 in) and above, the tolerance depends on the method of
manufacture. For welded pipe, the tolerance is -8% and for seamless pipe -10%.
The wall thickness of the pipe is usually rounded up to the next available standard wall
thickness above the calculated nominal wall thickness. However, whilst there are a
complete range of standard wall thickness published, there are some thicknesses that will
be more readily available from stockists. In some cases, a pipe with a thicker wall may
be cheaper.
WALL THICKNESS
Actual thickness
tfab(+)
tfab(+)
tfab(-)
tfab(-)
tcorr Nearest
standard
tnom tnom
tmin
The above slide illustrates the various components of the pipeline wall thickness
discussed previously. It should be noted that the actual wall thickness of the pipeline
may be greater than the nominal wall thickness due to manufacturing tolerances.
DNV-OS-F101
 Uses limit-state design based on LRFD

 Level of safety is satisfactory when:
 L  
f   Sd    1
  RRd i 
 Design load
LSd  LF  γ F  γc  LE  γ E  LI  γ F  γc  L A  γ A  γc
 Design resistance
Rc(f c ,tc )
RRd 
γm  γSC
DNV-OS-F101 uses the load resistance factor design format as indicated above. A
series of partial safety factors have been developed, using risk and reliability methods, to
provide a target reliability level.
All of the criteria are clearly defined in DNV-OS-F101 so we will not consider them
here.
SAFETY CLASS
 Partial safety factors are dependant on

safety class
 Low – minor environmental consequences and low
risk of human injury
 Normal – for temporary conditions giving risk of
human injury, significant pollution, etc
 High – for operating conditions giving risk of human
injury, significant pollution, etc
The required reliability depends on the fluid being transported and the location. The
safety classes (low, normal and high) are defined above.
For a subsea hydrocarbon pipeline, the normal safety class would be applied outside the
500 m exclusion zone (i.e. DNV location category 1) and the high safety class would be
applied within the 500 m exclusion zone (DNV location category 2).
TARGET RELIABILITY
Limit Probability basis Safety Class

state per zone per year Low Normal High Very High
SLS Serviceability 10-2 10-3 10-3 10-4
ULS Ultimate
FLS Fatigue 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6
ALS Accidental
The target reliability levels are defined above as a probability per zone per year.
SLS: Serviceability limit-state, e.g. a dent that is too large to permit the passage of a pig
ULS: Ultimate limit-state, e.g. rupture
FLS: Fatigue limit-state, e.g. due to vortex-induced vibrations
ALS: Accidental limit-state, e.g. dropped object
DESIGN PROCESS
Start
Load Displacement
Combined
controlled controlled
loading
criteria criteria
Pressure
containment
criteria Yes 1,nom  0.4%
System No
collapse
ECA on
criteria
installation
girth welds
1,nom = Total nominal strain

Supplementary No 1,nom  1.0% or
p = Accumulated plastic strain requirement P p  2.0%
Yes
Finish
The DNV-OS-F101 design process is defined in the figure above.
ECA: Engineering Criticality Assessment.
Supplementary requirement P is defined in section 5D 1100.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES – SUMMARY
 Loads and failure mechanisms

 Burst, collapse or buckle
 Allowable stress vs limit-state
 Contributions to wall thickness
 Pressure containment
 Corrosion allowance
 Manufacturing under-tolerance
 Increase
 Material strength or wall thickness
Any questions?
The loads and failure mechanisms for subsea pipelines and the design methodologies
available to prevent these failures have been presented. The design methods available
are of two types; the allowable stress and the limit-state design codes.
There are three components of the minimum wall thickness required for the pipeline.
These are the thickness required to contain the internal pressure, the thickness deemed
to allow to corrode away during the design life of the pipeline and the possible under-
tolerance that occurs during pipe manufacture.
There are two methods of increasing the strength of the pipe to ensure stresses do not
become critical. These are either increasing the material strength or increasing the wall
thickness. Likewise, if the pipeline is to be optimised for cost, then it is possible to
minimise the material strength or wall thickness.
BURSTING
Theory
Conventional pipeline design is based on straightforward principles of thin walled pipe
stresses, modified with a safety factor to limit the allowable stresses in the design.
THEORY
 Assumptions:
 Thin wall (D/t>20). Ignore radial stress in pipe wall
 Equations (PD 8010-2):
Force
Stress 
Area
(Pi  Po )  D Po
σ hoop 
2 t
 Thick wall (D/t < 20) 
2 2
DO  DI Pi Pi only
σ hoop  (Pi  Po )  2 2 t
DO  DI D
ID
Thin wall pipe theory can be explained by considering a short section of pipe as shown
above.
Splitting the pipe in half conceptually, the internal pressure tries to push apart the two
shells. The force pushing the shells apart is equal to the internal pressure, multiplied by
the area over which it acts (per unit length) = Pi·D. This separation force is taken by
both sections of pipe wall, with an area (per unit length) of 2 t.
This equation assumes:

■ That the hoop stress is the only stress acting
■ This becomes a plane stress analysis
■ Giving constant stresses through the pipe wall; i.e. radial stresses by internal and
external pressures are negligible (<10% hoop stress)
■ Hence D/t > 20
Many design codes reference OD rather than mean diameter or ID. They also specify
the selection of minimum or nominal wall thickness and the prescribed hoop stress
utilisation factor. Considered together, these factors combine to influence the overall
factor of safety on burst strength of the pipe.
For information, the hoop stress formula for thick walled pipe is also provided.
Design pressure
DESIGN PRESSURE
 Considerations in determining design

pressure
 In-field pipelines – wellhead shut-in pressure, will
decay over life of field.
 Export pipelines – MOL pump or compressor
discharge pressure
 Line-packing, future tie-ins, future mid-line
compression
 HIPPS to impose tight control on pressure in
pipeline
 Tolerance on pressure control and monitoring
The selection of the pipeline design pressure is fundamental in the overall field
development plan and how the field will be operated over the design life.
At day one, the maximum pressure of an in-field pipeline is equal to the shut in pressure
of the highest pressure well. This assumes that the emergency shut-down (ESD) valve
on the platform is closed but the well is still producing into the line. This may also
introduce transient effects (surge pressures) but ultimately as the line is packed the
wellhead pressure will be seen.
With time, the maximum shut-in pressure will decay as the reservoir is depleted. As the
field is developed, new wells may be tied-in to the existing pipeline. Due consideration
should be taken at the initial design phase to ensure that all known potential expansions
are identified and catered for by the pipeline design.
Note: this may have commercial implications.
Line-packing is the practice on long gas trunklines of raising the pressure on as much of
the line as possible to increase the storage of contents. An example is the Dampier to
Bunbury pipeline, which can supply gas for domestic power for short periods, even
when the producing fields are shut-in.
MOL = Main Oil Line

OTHER PRESSURE
CONSIDERATIONS
 Maximum allowable operating pressure

 Incidental pressure
 Hydrotest pressure considerations
 1.15 x design pressure for DNV-OS-F101
 1.25 x MAOP for API RP 1111 with combined
stresses < 0.96 x SMYS
 1.5 x design pressure or hoop stress = 0.9 x SMYS
for PD 8010
The maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) differs from the design pressure
due to the tolerance on the pressure control mechanism. It is possible for the design
pressure to equal the MAOP, e.g. where the pressures are driven by shut-in wellhead
pressure (SIWP), which is predicted from reservoir properties. State-of-the-art systems
such as HIPPS can be used to justify a minimum difference between design pressure and
MAOP.
Incidental pressure refers to short term transient conditions which may exist, primarily
due to surge condition in the pipeline, and is the maximum internal pressure the pipeline
or pipeline section is designed to withstand.
Hydrotest requirements are normally:

■ A strength test of the final pipe system during commissioning.
■ A leak test, generally to a lower pressure.
However, flexibles differ in test requirements, which can complicate testing of composite
rigid/flexible pipe systems
PRESSURE DEFINITIONS
Internal pressure
Accidental
pressure
Incidental pressure Pinc

tolerance
Maximum Allowable
Pressure Incidental Pressure (MAIP)
safety
system Design pressure
tolerance
Maximum Allowable
Pressure Operating Pressure (MAOP)
control
system
PRESSURE PROTECTION PRESSURE DEFINITION

SYSTEM
The above relationship is for DNV-OS-F101. By comparison, PD 8010 normally has

the design pressure equal to the MAOP, but the pipeline is actually operated at a “set
point” slightly below MAOP (e.g. 10%). The distinction is based on what is meant by
the terms MAOP, design pressure and set-point. Hence, care should be taken to use the
values relevant to the design code being considered.
SURGE PRESSURES
 Causes:
 Valve closures
 Slugging flow
 Normal limit is +10% over MAOP
 Analysis:
 Transient flow analysis: Olga, Profes Transient
 Approximate analytical technique
Incidental pressures are as a result of surge. Surge is a pressure wave travelling through
the flowing fluid, which will result from any change in flow rate. The water hammer
effect in domestic plumbing is an example of surge. Surge will result in a localised
increase in pressure.
The classic case shown is for rapid closure of a valve. Surge will result from partial valve
closure, pump start-up or other transient events. The principle for the development of a
surge pressure wave is the same, with fluid travelling at one velocity interfacing with fluid
travelling at another velocity.
SURGE
Pressure wave backs up pipeline at speed of sound

Valve
Stationary fluid Moving fluid
 Valve closure
 Fluid stops against valve whilst fluid behind
still moving
 Fluid compresses
 Pressure wave backs up pipeline as moving
fluid meets stationary fluid
The celerity of the pressure wave is the speed of sound in the product.
SURGE PRESSURES
P      V
where
 = density of oil
 = speed of sound in oil
= 1300 m/s (=4265 ft/s)
V = velocity of oil prior to shut-in
Maximum surge value is given by the Joukowsky equation. ‘Velocity of oil’ can be
replaced by ‘change in velocity’ for cases of partial valve closure. It is apparent that
lower fluid velocities give lower surge pressures.
SURGE PRESSURES
 Surge pressure can be greatly reduced by

slow closure
 Closure time greater than time for pressure
wave to travel to pipeline end and back
The pressure wave resulting from a valve closure travels back up the pipeline. It is
reflected at the pipeline end and travels back down the line to the valve. If the valve is
closed slowly, particularly if the closure time is greater than the time required for the
surge wave to travel to the pipeline end and back, the total overpressure is reduced.
HIPPS
Host platform
20in Production line:

~ 250 - 350 bar (low pressure)
~ 50 - 30 km
4 in Chemical injection line (full pressure)
100 barg 4 in Service/test line (full pressure)
400 barg shut-in

200 barg pressure
operational
Manifold
with HIPPS
Fortified zone for people proximity Fortified zone
(500 m (1640 ft) safety zone)
HIPPS stands for High Integrity Pipeline Protection System. They are mechanical
overpressure protection systems that rapidly isolate the pipeline (in around 2 seconds) if
there is a risk of the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of the pipeline
being exceeded. A HIPPS provides a cost-effective alternative to expensive mechanical
safety devices that may require pressure safety valves, instruments, valves and logics.
They then have the potential to offer significant cost savings to production flowlines
from satellite developments, where there is the possibility that the pipeline would see
shut-in wellhead pressures (for example, if a SSIV or ESV close to the platform was
activated).
“Shut-in” is a term used to describe the event where the flow in the pipeline is stopped.
These shut-in wellhead pressures can be much higher than normal operating pressures
and so result in wasted pipeline capacity other than in upset conditions.
An example where HIPPS was used is the Kingfisher Project.
Allowable stress
ISO 13623:2000
 The maximum hoop stress shall not exceed:
 hp  Fh   y
 y is the SMYS at the maximum design temperature

 Fh = 0.77 for general route
 Fh =0.67 for risers, pig traps and landfalls
 Fh can be increased to 0.83 for less critical fluids
(Category C and D)
This shows the allowable stress approach according to BS EN 14161:2003 (ISO

13623:2000 modified). Here the safety factor can vary between 0.67 and 0.83 depending
on the location and pipeline contents.
The yield strength is taken at the maximum design temperature, which will require
documentary evidence if above 50 °C.
ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
 Codes differ:
Design code Hoop stress Maximum
calculation allowable hoop
formula stress
USA P  OD 72% SMYS
ASME B31.4 and B31.8
h 
2  t nom
UK P  OD 72% SMYS
h 
PD 8010 2  t min
Netherlands P  (OD  t min ) 72% SMYS
NEN 3650
h 
2  t min
Canada P  OD 80% SMYS
h 
CAN-Z183 and Z184 2  t nom
International P  (OD  t min ) 77 to 83% SMYS
h 
ISO 13623 2  t min
Design factors from a range of codes are presented above. It should be noted that while
most design is performed to SMYS, the mean yield stress can be significantly higher (as
much as one strength grade). The wall thickness calculations are normally conservatively
based on outside diameter rather than mean diameter or internal diameter. However, the
variation in definition in conjunction with the selection of design factor and tmin or tnom is
accounted for in the code.
DNV-OS-F101
DNV-OS-F101 – LIMIT-STATE
DESIGN
 Characteristic yield strength
f y  (SMYS  f y,temp )  αU
 Characteristic tensile strength
f u  (SMTS  f u,temp )  αU
The following slides show the limit-state design approach given in DNV-OS-F101.
Material strength is defined through a combination of factors describing the yield and
ultimate material strengths, the effects of elevated temperature, the orientation of
loading, the material specification and the manufacturing method.
fy,temp and fu,temp are the strength derating values for elevated temperatures
U is the material strength factor, which is normally taken as 0.96. If supplementary
requirement U has been specified a factor of 1.0 may be applied
STRENGTH DE-RATING
 Strength reduced with temperature

100 200 300 400°F
180 25 ksi
160
20 ksi DSS – duplex
140
stainless steels
Stress De-rating MPa
120
15 ksi
100
80
10 ksi C Mn – Carbon
60
manganese steel
40 5 ksi
20
0
0 20 50 100 150 200
Temperature °C
DNV-OS-F101 presents this set of curves for de-rating of yield strength for duplex
stainless steels, and ordinary carbon steel.
The mechanical properties of duplex stainless steels can be reduced at temperatures

above 20 C (68 F). An appropriate de-rating value, read off the above graph, is
subtracted from the yield strength. The same stress de-rating applies to both the yield
strength and ultimate strength.
From the above table, the characteristic yield strength at 100 C (212 F) for duplex with
a nominal SMYS of 450 MPa is:
fy = SMYS - fy,temp
fy = 450 - 90 = 360 MPa (52.2 ksi)

LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR
pb (t1 )
pli  pe 
 SC   m
 Safety class factor – sc
Safety Class Low Normal High
Pressure containment 1.046 1.138 1.308
Other 1.04 1.14 1.26
 Material factor – m
SLS/ULS/ALS FLS
1.15 1.00
Recalling the pressure containment criteria, we finally have to specify the resistance
factors, here defined by the safety class resistance factor and the material resistance
factor.
DNV-OS-F101 BURSTING CRITERION
 Pressure containment must fulfil the

following criterion:
pb (t1 )
pli  pe 
 SC   m
 Where:
 pb(t1) is the pressure containment resistance based
on minimum wall thickness t1
 t1 = t - tfab - tcorr
Conventional pipeline design is based on straightforward principles of thin-walled pipe

stresses modified with a safety factor to limit the allowable stresses in the design.
This defines the bursting criterion, where:

■ pli is the local incidental pressure
■ pe is the local external pressure
■ pb(t1) is the pressure containment resistance based on minimum wall thickness t1

■ SC is the safety class resistance factor
■ m is the material factor
PRESSURE CONTAINMENT
RESISTANCE
2  t1 2
pb(t1 )   f cb 
D  t1 3
where
 f 
f cb  Min  f y ; u 
 1.15 
Two limit-states are defined for pressure containment and the governing criterion is the
one giving the lower limiting pressure.
PRESSURE
 Local incidental pressure

 Ratio between incidental and design pressures (inc)
normally 1.1
pli  pinc  ρcont  g  (href  h1 )  pd  γinc  ρcont  g  href  h1 
 Local external pressure

pe  ρseawater  g  depthLAT
The local, internal, incidental and external pressures are defined above.
BURSTING – SUMMARY
 Theory
 Thin wall theory relates pressure to hoop stress
 Design pressure has many considerations
 Future pipeline requirements, hydrotest pressure,
surge pressure
 Design codes specify criteria for pressure
containment
 DNV-OS-F101 (limit-state)
 PD 8010, ASME B31.8 (allowable stress)
Any questions?
We have looked at the design of pipelines for pressure containment, to resist the
bursting failure mode. To design for bursting, we need to predict the maximum
operating pressure the pipeline will experience by anticipating the expected pressures
during the field life. The predicted maximum pressure should account for current
operating pressures and any possible future tie-ins. Also hydrotest and surge pressures
should be accounted for in the selection of the suitable wall thickness.
Also provided are the design codes that specify criteria for pressure containment. The
two approaches of the design codes for pressure containment were examined: limit-state
design (DNV-OS-F101) and allowable stress design (PD 8010 and ASME B31.8).
COLLAPSE
COLLAPSE
 Collapse criterion
 Buckle propagation
 Buckle arrestors
Po
Collapse is caused by an external overpressure. Here we will look at calculation of the

pipe resistance to this force (especially for deep water), the manner of collapse
development and ways of minimising the risk.
EXTERNAL PRESSURE
 External pressure: highest water level

(HAT + storm surge)
 Internal pressure: normally atmospheric
for installation
Bundled pipelines can use
high-pressure nitrogen to
reduce external overpressure
on the carrier pipe
External pressure is due to the hydrostatic head of water. The external collapse analysis
must therefore be based on the maximum water depth encountered.
COLLAPSE CRITERION
 External pressure shall meet following

criterion
pc t 1 
pe  pmin 
γm  γSC
 Characteristic resistance for external

pressure, pc, given by
 pc  pel    pc2  p 2p   pc  pel  p p  f 0 

D
t1
Collapse depends on ovality, caused by fabrication tolerances and subsequent handling.

External collapse of thin walled pipes is primarily driven by the elastic properties of the
steel. Ovalisation of the pipe results in the hydrostatic forces on the flat sides being
much larger than the hydrostatic forces on the ends. This creates moments within the
pipe wall that tend to increase the ovalisation. When elastic and plastic resistance to this
ovalisation is overcome, a runaway flattening of the pipe occurs.
The above criterion is taken from DNV-OS-F101. The characteristic resistance is given
by solving the lower equation. This is essentially the same approach as PD 8010,
although the inherent safety factor is different and the ovality fo is defined differently,
having a less conservative lower limit.
COLLAPSE CRITERION
 Where:
 pel is the elastic collapse pressure for a perfect
tube given by:
3
t 
2E  1 
pel  D
1 ν2
 with t1 = t - tcorr - tfab
The collapse criterion uses t2 rather than t1, so that the fabrication tolerance is not
subtracted from the nominal wall thickness. In this equation:
■ E is the Young’s modulus of the pipe material (N/m2)
■ t is the pipeline wall thickness (m)
■ D is the pipeline diameter (m)
■  is the Poisson’s ratio of the pipe material
■ pel is the elastic collapse pressure for a perfect tube (N/m2)
COLLAPSE CRITERION
 And:
 pp is the plastic collapse pressure for a perfect
tube given by:
2  t1
p p  f y  α fab 
D
 The ovality is given by:

Dmax  Dmin
f0 
D
fab is the fabrication factor, which depends on the linepipe manufacturing process and
allows for the effects of cold working, giving a variation between tensile and compressive
strength.
The values for the fabrication factor are:

■ Seamless = 1.00
■ UO and TRB and ERW = 0.93
■ UOE = 0.85
TRB is Through Roller Bending (not normal for our pipe sizes).
SOLVING
 How to solve for pc
 pc  pel    pc2  p 2p   pc  pel  p p  f 0 

D
t1
 Spreadsheet ‘goalseek’ or Mathcad ‘find’

 DNV-OS-F101 gives analytical solution
method
The formula for characteristic collapse pressure is a cubic equation and is not simply
solved. The use of spreadsheets or mathematical packages such as Mathcad simplify the
process. DNV-OS-F101 has also provided an analytical solution, given below.
SOLVING
 D
b   pel c   p 2p  p p  pel  f 0   d  pel  p 2p
 t1 
1 1 1 2 1
u     b 2  c  v     b 3   b  c  d 
3  3  2  27 3 
 v  Φ 
Φ  cos 1  
3  y  2   u  cos  
 (u )   3 3
b
pc  y 
3
This is the standard method for solving a cubic equation (rather like that for a quadratic).
DIFFERENT FORMULAE
 At low D/t there are various conflicting

empirical formulae
 Safety factors not always explicit
16000
14000
12000
Water depth m (ft)
8000
6000
4000
2000
Comparison of
existing collapse
prediction methods
As mentioned previously, there are various formulae available for predicting the collapse
of pipe. As illustrated in the figure above, there is significant variation in the predictions
in the deep water, low D/t region.
BLUESTREAM
 Twin 609.6 mm (24 in)

pipelines across
Black Sea
 Maximum depth of
2150 m (7000 ft)
 Wall thickness
31.8 mm (1.25 in)
 Experimental work
to confirm collapse
behaviour
As a consequence of the concern regarding the collapse behaviour of thick walled

pipelines, the Bluestream project undertook experimental work to confirm the collapse
behaviour for their specific application.
BUCKLE PROPAGATION
 Propagation pressure < hydrostatic

pressure
 Hence once started, buckle ‘zips’ along
pipeline
p pr t 2 
pe 
γm .γSC
where
2 .5
t
p pr  35  f y .α fab   2 
D
 with t2 = t - tcorr
The external pressure required to cause a buckle to propagate is lower than that required
to collapse the pipe. If the pipe is designed to resist buckle propagation, any local buckle
accidentally introduced will not propagate. This is normally the case for pipelines
installed in shallow water, where wall thickness is governed by internal pressure
containment. As water depths increase, buckle propagation design begins to dominate.
It is possible to design pipelines to exceed the buckle propagation pressure and design
instead to the external collapse pressure with adequate mitigation measures. These
include the use of buckle arrestors to limit the damage caused if a buckle is initiated.
Since buckles are normally caused during installation and the worst conditions for buckle
propagation also occur during installation when the pipeline is empty, this forms the
principal design case.
It is normal to use 100% of any corrosion allowance in the analysis.
BUCKLE ARRESTORS
 Need to stop collapse

wave passing arrestor
 Types:
 Internal ring
 Integral ring
 Welded external ring
 Welded external sleeve
 Heavy walled pipe joint
 Grouted external ring
After: Mousselli, 1981
Several types of buckle arrestors are shown above. They all work on the same principal
and locally increase the bending stiffness of the pipe wall.
COLLAPSE – SUMMARY
 External over-pressure
 Worst case = installation at highest water level
 Collapse criterion
 Check for ovality
 Buckle propagation
 Propagation pressure < collapse pressure
 Buckle arrestors
 Constrain buckle propagation to a minimal length
Any questions?
The collapse of pipelines occurs due to external over-pressure loading. The worst case
of this over-pressure will usually be when the pipeline is being installed with atmospheric
internal pressure combined with the peak external hydrostatic pressure that occurs with
highest water level.
The criteria for collapse was introduced (taken from the DNV-OS-F101 and PD 8010
codes). The collapse is driven by the ovality of the pipeline and so codes specify
maximum allowable ovality for installed pipelines.
In the event of a hydrostatic collapse, there is then the risk that the buckle will propagate
along the line. The critical buckle propagation pressure is less than the critical pressure
for hydrostatic collapse. Therefore, if collapse does occur due to external pressure, then
the buckle will propagate rapidly along the line until there is some form of constraint or
reduction in external pressure applied. Buckle arrestors can be used to constrain the
propagation of buckles. They are effectively a short section of pipeline with increased
wall thickness.
BUCKLING AND COMBINED STRESSES
BUCKLE INITIATION
 External overpressure
 Local initiation due to bending, axial forces
(including thermal)
 Initiation due to excessive bending at touch-
down during lay
 Initiation due to accidental/environmental
loads, e.g. trawl gear
By far the most common cause of local buckling is due to excessive bending at the sag
bend during pipelay. Normally, a buckle detector is towed along by the laybarge inside
the pipeline, enabling the barge to back up and repair buckles on detection.
The PLUTO pipelines, installed between the Isle of Wight and Cherbourg following the
Normandy landings in WWII, buckled and collapsed due to hydrostatic pressure. The
lines were then filled with fuel and pressurised, blowing them back up. The pipes
operated normally – it was not realised until afterwards that the collapse had occurred,
when flow rates were initially lower than expected.
LOCAL BUCKLE INITIATION
 Depends on combination of:

 Longitudinal load
 Pipe bending moments
 Hoop stresses
 ‘Cook-book’ formulae in:
 PD 8010, Part 2, Annex G
 DNV-OS-F101
The localised buckling of the pipe is analogous to the folding of a drinking straw. As the
pipe bends, it places the extreme fibres in tension and compression. To partially relieve
these stresses, the pipe deflects, ovalising to flatten the areas under stress. The
ovalisation reduces the bending stiffness of the pipe. Eventually a runaway point is
reached and the pipe buckles, forming “pinch points” that may tear or fracture, with the
potential for loss of contents. Any axial compression in the pipe adds to the tendency to
form a buckle.
COMBINED STRESSES
 ASD codes specify limits on equivalent

stress
 Combined longitudinal, hoop and shear stresses
 Von Mises criterion
 eq   h2   l2   h   l  3   2
ASD codes specify combined stress criteria. Using suitable yield criteria for combined
stress, normally Von Mises, allowable combined equivalent stress is set close to yield.
The following slide indicates the ASD code equivalent stress limits.
Whilst an equivalent stress criterion can be used to prevent buckling, it is not

representative of an ultimate limit-state. Accordingly, it is not employed in DNV-OS-
F101, other than as a simple first-pass methodology.
In the above equation:

■ eq = equivalent stress
■ h = hoop stress
■ l = longitudinal stress
■ = torsional or shear stress
VON MISES CRITERION
 Different codes have different limits

Design code Maximum Allowable Combined Stress
Construction phase During operation
USA not covered 90 % SMYS
ASME B31.4 & B31.8
UK 100 % SMYS 96 % SMYS
PD 8010
Norway 96 % SMYS 96 % SMYS
DNV 96
Netherlands 80 to 100 % SMYS 80 to 100 % SMYS
NEN 3650
Canada 90 % SMYS 90 % SMYS
CAN-Z183 & Z184
International 100 % SMYS 90 % SMYS
ISO 13623
Von Mises is normally used in pipeline design. Radial stresses are ignored (internal and
external pressure). Different codes have different allowable stresses, as shown in the
table above.
PIPE WALL STRESS – WORKED

EXAMPLE
 What is the maximum allowable bending

moment of a spoolpiece when subject to the
hydrostatic test pressure?
 Assume no axial restraint conditions
 Assume no torque
 Simplify the Von Mises equation
 eq   h2   l2   h   l  3   2
 eq   b2  0.75   h2
The Von Mises equation can be simplified by removing the torque term and replacing
the axial stress due to internal pressure by half the hoop stress.

EXAMPLE
 Pipe OD = 273.1 mm (10¾ in)

 Wall thickness = 12.7 mm (½ in)
 X52 grade – SMYS = 358 MPa (52 ksi)
 Design pressure = 9.24 MPa (1340 psi)
 Operating depth = 90 m (295 ft)
 Seawater density = 1025 kg/m3 (64 lb/ft³)
 Equivalent stress design factor = 0.90

EXAMPLE
pt  1.5  pdes = 13.86 MPa (2010 psi)
pex   sw  g  depth = 0.905 MPa (131 psi)

EXAMPLE
 Hoop stress
Do
σ hd  (pt  pex ) 
2t
= 139.3 MPa (20 200 psi)
 Bending stress
σb  V F  σ y   0.75  σ 2hd
2
= 299.3 MPa (43 410 psi)
In these equations:
■ VF = equivalent stress design factor
■ y = SMYS

EXAMPLE
 2nd moment of area
I

64
D
o
4
 Di
4

 Bending moment
2 I
Mb  b  = 193.4 kN m (142 600 ft lbf)
Do
Where:
■ Di = internal diameter of steel pipe
■ Do = outside diameter of steel pipe
■ I = second moment of area of pipe
■ Mb = bending moment
■ b = bending stress
LOCAL BUCKLE CRITERIA
 DNV-OS-F101
 Load-controlled
 Bending moment, axial force and internal
overpressure
 Bending moment, axial force and external
overpressure
 Displacement-controlled
 Axial strain and internal overpressure
 Axial strain and external overpressure
DNV-OS-F101 defines a number of different local buckle criteria for different load
conditions. It is easy to visualise why the buckle criteria will differ between a pipeline
subject to internal overpressure (which is trying to keep the pipe round), with one
subject to external overpressure (which is trying to flatten the pipe). In a displacement-

controlled condition, the response to axial and bending loads is known and therefore
replaced with a defined strain component.
LOCAL BUCKLE CRITERIA
 Consider bending moment, effective axial

force and internal overpressure
 An operating pipeline
 Criterion is: 2
2  
 2
  pi  p e 
 γ  γ  M Sd   γSC  γm  S Sd    αp   1
 m sc αc  M p  αC  S P    2 
   α c  pb  
 3
 Wall thickness t2 to be used
All of the criteria are clearly defined in DNV-OS-F101 so we will not consider them
here.
To explain, however, the way the criteria are defined and built up, we consider one case
here. We look at the criterion for load-controlled conditions with internal overpressure,
(the load representative of an operating pipeline on the seabed).
LOADS
 Design loads given as:

M Sd  M F  γ F  γc  M E  γ E  M I  γ F  γc  M A  γ A  γc
S Sd  S F  γ F  γc  S E  γ E  S I  γ F  γc  S A  γ A  γc
 Partial safety factors

 Functional loads  Environmental loads
 Accidental loads  Pressure loads
 Conditional load effect
The format for the design loads is shown. These incorporate all load sources and partial
safety factors to account for the probability of occurrence together.
LOAD FACTORS
 Load effect factors and load combinations

Limit state/ Functional Environmen- Interference Accidental
Load loads tal loads loads loads
combination F E F A
SLS & a 1.2 0.7 - -
ULS b 1.1 1.3 1.1 -
FLS 1.0 1.0 1.0 -
ALS 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
 Conditional load effect factors
Condition c
Pipeline resting on uneven seabed or snaked 1.07
Continuously stiff supported 0.82
System pressure test 0.93
Otherwise 1.00
The partial safety factors and the load combination cases are shown above. For the SLS
and ULS criteria, there are two load combinations to consider.
The conditional load effect factors can be combined cumulatively if appropriate. For
example, hydrotest on an uneven seabed should have a conditional factor of 1.07 x 0.93
= 1.0.
BUCKLE CRITERION
 Criterion is:
2
2  
 2
  pi  pe 
 γm  γsc  M Sd   γSC  γm  S Sd     p   1

 αc  M p  αC  S P  
  2 
 c  pb  
 3
M p  f y  D  t2   t2
2
 Plastic moment capacity
 Plastic axial force S p  f y  π  D  t2   t2
The remaining components of the criterion equation are shown above.
The flow stress parameter accounts for strain hardening and is given below:
BUCKLE CRITERION
fu
 Flow stress parameter,  c  1      
fy
D
β  0.5 for  15
t2
 60  D 
 t2  D
β   for 15   60
 90  t2
 
D
β0 for  60
t2
Note that  is not a single function graph, but is dependant on other parameters.
BUCKLE CRITERION
 Accounting for D/t
 pi 
1-ββ for  0.7 
pb 
αp   
1-3  β  1- pi  for
pi
 0.7 
  p  pb 
 b 
BUCKLING – SUMMARY
 Buckling is a result of combined loading

 Axial, bending, and hoop stresses
 Buckle initiation
 Excessive bending during pipelay
 Also
 Accidental and environmental loading
 Thermal expansion during operation
 Different codes have different approaches
 ASD – equivalent stress criteria (Von Mises)
 Limit-state – load or displacement-controlled criteria
Any questions?
The principal critical load case for buckling failure is the excessive pipe bending that
occurs during pipelay. With this case, the section of pipeline in the sagbend of the
laycurve is subjected to significant bending and axial stresses combined with external
pressure. Other load cases that can result in buckling of the pipe are accidental loads (e.g
trawl gear impact), environmental loads (e.g bending in pipe spans) and buckles arising
from thermal expansion of the pipeline.
The design code approaches to preventing buckle initiation have been examined. In
summary, the allowable stress design codes use an equivalent stress criterion to
determine the allowable bending, axial, hoop and shear stresses to prevent buckle
initiation. The limit-state design codes give criteria for various critical load or
displacement-controlled cases.
STRAIN-BASED DESIGN
STRAIN-BASED DESIGN
 Allowing the pipe wall to go beyond yield

 OK if strain known and not repeated
 Reeling (radius limited)
 J-tubes (radius limited)
 Thermal compression (first time only)
 Not OK for strain-independent loads
 Wave loading
 Self weight
Strain-based design means allowing the pipe to go beyond yield. In certain

circumstances, this can be done safely. Indeed, it has been done for many years in
reeling and J-tube pulls. More recently in high temperature lines, the pipeline has been
designed to yield in compression on its first thermal cycle. This effectively shortens it
such that when it cools down it goes into tension and when it subsequently cycles, no
further yielding takes place. In these cases, the strain is always predictable and non-
cyclic.
Conditions in which it is not possible to use strain-based design are for strain-
independent loads. These are loads that persist even if the pipe yields. Examples are
wave loading, internal pressure and self-weight.
STRAIN-BASED DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
 Many codes (including ASD codes) allow

strain-based design
 Normally applied to controlled bending of
pipes
 Failure modes
 Local buckle
 Cumulative strain (work hardening)
 Low cycle fatigue
Whereas traditional design methods have been based on yield of the pipe material being
the limit-state, strain-based design uses the ultimate tensile stress as the limit. This
means that controlled plastic deformation of the pipe is allowed.
The application of strain-based design is limited to conditions of controlled bending.
APPLICATION OF STRAIN-BASED
DESIGN
 J-tube pull
 Reeling
 High temperature lines
 Lateral buckles
 Trawl gear pullover
Typical applications of strain-based design are shown above.

J-tube pulls, reeling and high temperature lines have been mentioned before. For the
cases of lateral buckling and trawl gear pullover, it is possible to predict the deflection
that would arise from the maximum expected load, often predicted using finite element
analysis techniques. Once these deflections are known a strain-based design can then be
used, such as the DNV-OS-F101 combined loading criteria for a displacement-
controlled condition.
DESIGN PROCESS
Start
Load Displacement
Combined
loading
criteria criteria
Pressure
containment
System No
collapse
ECA on
criteria
installation
girth welds

Supplementary Yes 
1,nom  1.0% or
p = Accumulated plastic strain requirement P p  2.0%
No
Finish
The use of the cumulative strain requirements within the design process is illustrated
above.
DNV-OS-F101: 2007
STRAIN CRITERIA TABLE 5-10
 Strain requirements Total strain
 Total nominal strain 0.4%: SMYS

 No additional requirements
Engineering critical
 Total nominal strain >0.4%: assessment (ECA)
Stress
 ECA
Plastic strain
 Total nominal strain >1.0%: Additional
testing
 Additional material tests –
supplementary requirement P
0.4 0.5 1.0 % strain
 Plastic strain degrades fracture resistance
of material each time it is yielded
 Additional material tests also required if
accumulated plastic strain exceeds 2.0%
 Reeling requires ECA and additional testing
The two ways of describing strain according to DNV-OS-F101: 2007 are total strain and
plastic strain; the latter being unrecoverable when tension is released. These are shown
in the graph above for a point with 1.0% plastic strain 1.3% total strain.
Each time a pipeline is yielded plastically (during reeling or otherwise), then the damage
caused by that strain is deemed to be cumulative. That is, the plastic strains are added
together to give ‘accumulated plastic strain’. The strain for each deformation operation
is added irrespective of sign (compressive or tensile).
When the total nominal strain exceeds 0.4%, an engineering critical assessment (ECA)
must be performed.
The criteria for additional requirements if the total nominal strain exceeds 1.0% or if the
accumulated plastic strain exceeds 2.0% are shown above. The additional requirements
determine the fracture toughness of the material and, particularly, the welds. The tests
are fracture assessment to BS 7910 level 3. Additional tests may include crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD) tests on specimens of the weld. This test will be usually
based on the largest weld defects allowed by the welding specification.
With reeled pipe, the accumulated plastic strain is always more than 2%, so the highest
assessment regime is demanded. Typically, the accumulated plastic strain is closer to
10%.
References
BS 7910:2005, Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures.
DNV Offshore standard OS-F101 : 2007 Submarine Pipeline Systems.
DNV SUPPLEMENTARY
REQUIREMENT P
 Seamless C-Mn and duplex stainless

 More restrictive dimensional tolerances
 Diameter, thickness, ovality and straightness
 Testing – before and after deformation
 Actual yield stress above quoted SMYS
 Yield to ultimate ratio
 Elongation
 Vickers hardness
 Base metal, weld metal and HAZ
 Charpy V-notch impact toughness
Section 5 D 1100 and section 7 I 300 of DNV-OS-F101: 2007 describe the

supplementary requirement, linepipe for plastic deformation (P).
It only applies to seamless linepipe of carbon-manganese (C-Mn) steel and duplex

stainless steels. Tables are provided in section 7 for C-Mn yield strengths between 245
MPa and 555 MPa (35.5 ksi and 80.5 ksi) and stainless with 22% and 25% chrome.
However, seam-welded linepipe and other materials can be used subject to agreement.
Testing is required on samples that closely follow the deformations likely to be

encountered during the reeling on and off process, as well any in-service conditions.
These tests on both the finished pipe, and the aged-and-deformed (tension and
compression) samples include:
■ Range of maximum to minimum measured yield stress – no greater than 100 MPa
(14.5 ksi)
■ Yield to ultimate ratio – no more than 0.90 on finished pipe and 0.92 or 0.93
(depending upon material) after deformation regime
■ Elongation – a minimum of 20% on finished pipe and 15% after deformation
regime
■ Maximum Vickers hardness on the base metal, weld metal and heat-affected zone
(HAZ) following deformation – HV 10 between 270 and 350 (depending upon
material)
■ Minimum Charpy V-notch energy for impact toughness – mean values (depending
upon material) between 27 J and 56 J (19.9 lbf ft and 41.3 lbf ft) along with
appropriate single values. Test temperature is dependent upon wall thickness and
product (gas or liquid) and is usually 0 °C, 10 °C or 20 °C (0 °F, 18 °F or 36 °F)
below the minimum operating temperature.
Section 6 D 400, 7 G 300 and tables 7-17 to 7-19 provide details of the enhanced
dimensional tolerances required. This is of particular importance at the pipe ends to
ensure that the sections of linepipe on either side of the weld are as similar as possible in
their cross-sections.
IMPLICATIONS
 Implications of cumulative strain are:

 Lower fatigue resistance
 Defects grow
 Increased strain hardening
 Increased strength
 Increased brittleness
The main implication of excessive cumulative strain is a reduced resistance to fatigue.

The reduced fatigue resistance results in the growth of defects through cyclic loading.
This is a particular concern for the growth of cracks and defects, which most commonly
occur in the welds. Cumulative strain also increases the brittleness of the pipe and
welds. This can lead to brittle fracture of pipe sections undergoing minimal increases in
plastic deformation.
LOCAL BUCKLE
 Reeling gives large plastic strains

 Section (tangential) stiffness defines
resistance to buckling
 Main factors affecting section stiffness
 D/t and YS/TS ratios
Stress
Local Plastic TS
Plastic
buckle
Pipe TS
YS
Tension
N A
Elastic
Reel Compression
hub Elastic
Strain
Reel hub
Reeling of pipe causes large plastic strains due to the large applied bending moments.
Plastic strains will be largest when the pipe must be deformed around the highest
curvature, which occurs when the first reel is made around the hub of the spool.
Subsequent layers of pipe reeled onto the hub will undergo smaller, but still significant
plastic strains.
At high curvatures, the plastic deformations may be large enough to cause a permanent
local buckle, or kink, in the compressed section of the pipe. The ability to resist this
local buckling is related to the section stiffness of the pipe. The section stiffness is
governed by both geometric and material properties. The section stiffness provided by
the geometry of the pipe is dependant on the D/t ratio. The section stiffness provided
by the material is the ratio of the yield stress (YS) to the tensile stress (TS). As the pipe
is entering the plastic range of material response, then the lower the YS/TS ratio, the
more resistant to local buckling the pipe material will be.
MATERIAL / DIMENSIONAL
TOLERANCES
 Section stiffness may differ between

adjacent pipe joints
 Causes discontinuities and strain concentrations
 Section stiffness variations due to
 Material properties
Stiffer pipe joint
Weaker
 Dimensions pipe
joint
 Strain concentration Local
may give local buckle buckle
Reel
 Occurring at pipe joint hub
Material and dimensional tolerances may result in the sectional properties being different
between adjacent pipe joints that are welded together and then spooled onto the reel.
Bending of the connected pipe joints having different sectional properties will result in
there being strain concentrations occurring at the pipe joints. The strain concentrations
can become large and cause a local buckle at the pipe joint.
To prevent local buckles occurring it becomes important to ensure tighter tolerances on

dimensional and material properties than would usually be required for other installation
methods, such as S-lay and J-lay.
MITIGATION
 Specify:
 Tight thickness fabrication tolerance (D/t ratio)
 Low variation in yield stress
 Low YS/TS ratio
 Applying a high and steady back tension during
reeling
 Similar problem for girth (hoop) welds

 Over-match weld properties to avoid excessive
strain in weld
To mitigate the risk of local buckles occurring during the reeling process it will be
necessary to specify the following to the pipe manufacturers:
■ Low thickness fabrication tolerance. A tighter manufacturing tolerance on the
wall thickness will be required to ensure joints have similar D/t ratios.
■ Low variation in yield stress. Usually a minimum yield stress will be specified.
For reeled pipe it may be necessary to specify a maximum yield stress as well.
■ Low yield stress (YS) to tensile stress (TS) ratio. Materials should be selected with
relatively large differences between yield and tensile strengths. In general the
higher strength materials have lower ratios.
■ High and steady back tension should be applied when reeling. A higher tension
will generally limit the difference in curvature between two adjacent pipe joints as
they are reeled onto the drum. This has been found to be one of the easiest
remedies available to reduce the risk of pipe buckling during reeling.
These methods for improving the resistance to buckling during reeling form the basis for
DNV’s supplementary material requirements for reeling, as detailed in DNV-OS-F101.
More detailed information is available in the reference:
Crome, Tim; “Reeling of pipelines with thick insulation coating, finite element analysis
of local buckling”, OTC, Houston, 1999.
OVALISATION
 Definition of ovality
D  Dmin Dmin
Ovality  max
Dmax  Dmin Dmax
 Equation  r2 
2
f reel  1    
2

 Rreel  t 
where
f reel  Ovalisatio n of pipe
  Poisson' s ratio
Rreel  Reel radius
r  Mean pipe radius  ( D  t ) / 2
t  wall thickness
The definition of ovality above is taken from API RP 1111. Please note that there is an
alternative definition in PD 8010 and DNV-OS-F101 which is about twice this, i.e. the
difference in diameters over the nominal diameter. So it is important to know which you
are using, and to make sure that the equations are consistent.
This slide shows the ovalisation equation as defined by Brazier on elastic tubes, which is
a conservative estimate in the plastic region.
This equation does not give the final ovality value for the installed pipe as some
roundness is regained during the straightening operation.
BUCKLING FORMULA
 API RP 1111
 Po  Pi  
  g ( )  g ( )
b Pc b
 g() =(1+20·)-1 is the collapse reduction factor

  is the ovality
 b = t/(2·D)
The bucking formula specified in API RP 1111 provides a sound basis for predicting
buckling. For reeling on and off the internal and external pressure are the same allowing
the expression to be simplified as shown.
On the reel the bending is deflection limited. However during the reeling on process the
pipe just off the reel is not deflection limited yet and is subject to the maximum bending
moment. It is in this location that local buckling tends to occur during the reeling
process.
IMPLICATIONS AND MITIGATION
 Implication
 Hydrostatic pressure greater on flatter sides of pipe
 Lead to collapse in deep water
 Mitigation
 Tight fabrication tolerances
 Care when handling
Dmin
Dmax
Ovalisation of the pipe can significantly reduce the pipe’s ability to withstand hydrostatic
pressures, which is a particular problem for pipes installed in deep water. When the pipe
is ovalised, the hydrostatic forces are larger over the flatter side of the pipe due to the
relatively larger surface area. This difference in applied external load over the pipe
circumference results in moments within the pipe that tend to increase the ovalisation.
This feedback loop can lead to a rapid collapse of the pipe. With the collapse occurring
at one point along the pipe, it is then very likely it will propagate along the pipe until
there is a significant change in pipe section (e.g. a buckle arrestor) or applied pressure
(lower water depth).
To prevent external collapse, tighter fabrication tolerances are required to ensure there is
limited and acceptable tolerance on the pipe diameters after manufacture. Also care is
required when handling the pipe to ensure it cannot be ovalised. This becomes a
significant issue when the pipe is reeled onto the drum as ovalisation can occur from the
bending of the pipe and the crushing that results from the tension, as discussed
previously.
FINAL OVALISATION
 Cyclic loading tests by Kyriakides – bend

then re-straighten
 Recovers approx 75% of bending
ovalisation
f final  f reel  1  0.75
When reeling pipe that is at risk of hydrostatic collapse due to ovalisation, then it is
desirable to know the ovalisation that will remain in the pipe once it has been reeled-off
the drum. Research into this subject has been conducted by Kyriakides (see reference
below) who studied the bending and re-straightening of pipe. He found that for pure
bending, approximately three-quarters of the maximum ovalisation can be recovered.
Kyriakides, S and Yeh, M. K. (1985), “Factors Affecting Pipe Collapse” Engineering

Mechanics Research Laboratory, EMRL Report No 85/1, A.G.A Catalogue No. L51479
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of
Texas at Austin.
REELING – SUMMARY
 Need to have ability to accurately estimate

the following
 Cumulative strain build-up
 Potential for local buckling
 Recoverable ovality
 Crushing
 Mitigations
 Improve tolerances on materials and pipe geometry
 Reel onto spool under high back-tension
Any questions?
Analysis methods are required to enable accurate prediction of the pipe response to the
high degree of bending required in reeling operations.
Of principal concern will be the following design issues:

■ Build-up of cumulative strain. Generated during reeling on and off the spool.
■ Local buckles in the pipe wall. A result of the large bending strains.
■ Amount of ovality recovered. Maximum allowable ovality is required to ensure
no collapse under hydrostatic pressure.
■ Ability to withstand the crushing pressures generated when reeling the pipe onto
the spool under a high back-tension.
To mitigate the above design issues we need tighter control on the manufacturing
tolerances of reeled pipe, in particular the tolerances on material properties and
geometry. Reeling the pipe onto the spool under high tension can prevent high stress
concentrations, which will also alleviate some of the above issues.
STRAIN – SUMMARY
 Pipe wall yields

 Used for cases where strain:
 Is known
 Can be controlled
 Codes
 Integral within limit-state codes
 ASD allows strain-based design for special cases
 Failure modes
 Buckling, cumulative strain and low cycle fatigue
Any questions?
Strain-based design can be used for strain-dependant loads that result in the yielding of
the pipe wall, provided that the strain is known, can be controlled and will not be
repeated.
The limit-state design codes provide a strain-based design approach as an integral part of
the design process. Some allowable stress design codes provide a strain-based design
approach for special cases only. The failure modes considered by the design codes when
undertaking a strain-based design are buckling, cumulative strain and low cycle fatigue.
WORKED EXAMPLE
DESIGN PROCESS
Start
Load Displacement
Combined
loading
criteria criteria
Pressure
containment
System No
collapse
ECA on
criteria
installation
girth welds

Supplementary No 1,nom  1.0% or
p = Accumulated plastic strain requirement P p  2.0%
Yes
Finish
In this worked example we are considering the pressure containment, system collapse
and combined loading criteria as shown above.
WORKED EXAMPLE: FLOW CHART
START
Define pressures Select pressures

for pressure for hydrostatic
containment criteria collapse
Select wall Check for

thickness and define hydrostatic collapse
minimum thickness
Increase
Increase Check pressure OK? wall
wall containment No thickness
Yes
thickness criteria
Repeat for
combined loading
OK?
No Yes END
WORKED EXAMPLE: DIAGRAM
Reference height
20 m
MSL Hmax 16 m (65.6 ft)
5m (52.5 ft)
htide
LAT (16.4 ft)
Maximum and minimum water depth

150 m (492 ft)
Pipeline section Riser section

WORKED EXAMPLE: DATA
 Data for a gas line (Imperial units in red)

 OD = 323.9 mm (12¾ in)
 X65 hence SMYS = 448 MPa (65 ksi)
 SMTS = 530 MPa (77 ksi)
 Contents density cont = 100 kg/m3 (6.24 lb/ft3)
 Corrosion allowance tcorr = 3 mm (0.118 in)
 Design pressure Pd = 9 MPa (1.3 ksi)
 Reference height above LAT = 20 m (65.6 ft)
 Maximum temperature = 40 °C (104 °F)
 Seawater density = 1025 kg/m3 (64.0 lb/ft3)
 Bending moments and axial forces

 Functional bending moment MF = 180 kNm
(133 ·103 lbf ft)
 Environmental bending moment ME = 0 Nm (0 lbf ft)
 Incidental bending moment MI = 0 Nm (0 lbf ft)
 Accidental bending moment MA = 0 Nm (0 lbf ft)
 Functional axial force SF = 600 kN (135 ·103 lbf)
 Environmental axial force SE = 0 N (0 lbf)
 Incidental axial force SI = 0 N (0 lbf)
 Accidental axial force SA = 0 N (0 lbf)
 Environmental conditions
 Maximum depth (LAT) = 150 m (492 ft)
 Minimum depth (LAT) = 150 m (492 ft)
 Assuming level seabed
so that depth is constant hmin(LAT)= hmax(LAT)
 Storm surge, tide, etc. htide = 5 m (16.4 ft)

 Maximum wave height Hmax = 16 m (52.5 ft)
 DNV load effect factors

 For interference loads γF  0
 For functional loads γF  1.2
 For environmental loads γE  0.7
 For accidental loads γA  0
 For condition loads γc  1.07
WORKED EXAMPLE: PRESSURE
 As water denser than contents base

pressures on minimum water depth
 Local incidental pressure
pli  pinc  ρcont  g  href  hi   Pd  γinc  ρcont  g  h
pli  9 10 6 1.1  100  9.81  0  (  170 )  10.1 MPa
0   557.6
pli  1.3 103 1.1  6.24   1.46 ksi
12 2
Note that:
SI differentiates between the units of mass and force, therefore requires an acceleration
due to gravity (g) to determine a pressure. Whereas, if calculating a pressure using the
above equation and working in U.S. units, no explicit differentiation is made and so
gravitational acceleration is not required. That is: the g term is not needed if density is
input in lb/ft³ and the forces output in lbf.
The U.S. unit equation also divides by 122 to convert from square feet to square inches.
WORKED EXAMPLE: PRESSURE
 Local external pressure

pe   seawater  g  depthLAT  1.51 MPa
 seawater  depthLAT 64.0  492
pe    0.22 ksi
12 2 12 2
* please see note above

WORKED EXAMPLE: MATERIAL
 Material factors
 At 40 °C (104 °F) de-rating = 0
 Assume standard pipe – no high utilisation
specified
 Characteristic yield strength
f y  (SMYS  f y,temp )  αU  (448  0)  0.96  430 MPa
f y  (SMYS  f y,temp )  αU  (65  0)  0.96  62.4 ksi
 Characteristic tensile strength

f u  (SMTS  fu,temp )  αU  (530  0)  0.96  509 MPa
fu  (SMTS  f u,temp )  αU  (77  0)  0.96  73.8 ksi
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Select nominal wall thickness

 Assume t = 11.1 mm (0.437 in)
 Assume seamless pipe – tolerance =12.5%
tfab = 1.39 mm (0.05 in)
 Corrosion allowance = 3 mm (0.12 in)
 t1 = t - tfab - tcorr = 6.7 mm (0.264 in)
WORKED EXAMPLE: LIMIT-STATES
 Pressure containment resistance

2  t1 2
pb(t1 )   f cb 
D  t1 3
fu
f cb(t)  Min (f y ; )
1.15
f y  430 MPa (62.3 ksi)
f u 509
  443 MPa (73.8 ksi = 64.2 ksi)
1.15 1.15 1.15
f cb(t)  430 MPa (62.3 ksi)
WORKED EXAMPLE: LIMIT-STATES
 Pressure containment resistance
2  6.7 2
pb(t1 )   430   21.0 MPa
323.9  6.7 3
2  0.264 2
pb(t1 )   62.4   3.05 ksi
12.75  0.264 3
WORKED EXAMPLE: CRITERION
 Pressure containment criterion is:
pb (t1 )
pli  pe 
 SC   m
 SC is the safety class resistance factor = 1.138

(For normal safety class for pipeline section –
riser adjacent to platform has high safety class)
 m is the material factor = 1.15
 Resistance
pb (t1 ) 21.0 MPa 3.05 ksi
  16.1 MPa   2.33 ksi
 SC   m 1.138 1.15 1.138 1.15
 Load
pli  pe  8.56 MPa  1.24 ksi
 Therefore criterion satisfied

WORKED EXAMPLE: COLLAPSE
 External pressure shall meet following

criterion:
p  t 
pe  pmin  c 1
γm  γSC
 Base on maximum water depth
WORKED EXAMPLE: RESISTANCE
 Characteristic resistance is:

 pc  pel    pc2  p 2p   pc  pel  p p  f0 
D
t1
 t1 = t – tcorr – tfab = 6.7 mm (0.264 in)
 Elastic collapse pressure
3 3
t 6.7 
2  E   1  2  210 103   
pel   D
  323.9 
 4.11 MPa
1 ν2 1  0.32
3
0.264 
2  32.110  
3

pel   12.75 
 0.596 ksi
1  0.32
 And:
 Plastic collapse pressure
2t 2  6.7 
p p  f y  α fab   1   430 1.0     17.8 MPa
 D   323.9 
2  0.264 
p p  62.4 1.0     2.59 ksi
 12.75 
 Ovality f0 is 0.01
 Solving for pc
 pc  pel    pc2  p 2p   pc  pel  p p  f0 
D
t1
 Gives pc = 3.68 MPa (0.534 ksi)
Solution for pc is defined previously in the ‘Collapse’ section

pc
 Criterion is: pe  pmin 
γSC  γm
 Load
 H 
pe  ρseawater  g   depthLAT  tide  wave   1.64 MPa
 2 
(238 psi)
 Resistance
pc 368
  2.81 MPa
γSC  γm 1.14 1.15
pc 534
  407 psi
γSC  γm 1.14 1.15
WORKED EXAMPLE: COMBINED

LOADING
 Criterion is: 
2

2
 2
  pi  pe 
 γm  γsc  M Sd   γSC  γm  S Sd     αp   1

 αc  M p  αC  S P  
  2 
αc  pb  
 3
 Design bending moment
M Sd  M F  γF  γC  M E  γE  M I  γF  γC  M A  γ A  γC
 180 1.2 1.07  0  0.7  0  0 1.07  0  0 1.07  231 kNm

 133 103 1.2 1.07  0  0.7  0  0 1.07  0  0 1.07
 170 103 lbf ft
 t2 = t - tcorr = 8.1 mm (0.319 in)


LOADING
 Design effective axial force

S Sd  S F  γF  γC  S E  γE  S I  γF  γC  S A  γ A  γC
 600 1.2 1.07  0  0.7  0  0 1.07  0  0 1.07
 770 kN
 135 103 1.2 1.07  0  0.7  0  0 1.07  0  0 1.07
 173 103 lbf

LOADING
 Plastic moment resistance

M p  f y   D  t 2   t 2  430  323.9  8.1  8.1  347 kNm
2 2
 62.4  12.75  0.319  0.319  256 103 lbf ft

2
 Characteristic plastic axial resistance

S p  f y  π  D  t2   t2
 430  π  323.9  8.1  8.1  3.46 103 kN
 62.4  π  12.75  0.319  0.319  777 103 lbf

LOADING
 Flow stress parameter and pressure facture

account for strain hardening and D/t and are
given by:
f
αc  ( 1  β   β  u
fy
 pi 
 1   for
pb
 0.7 

αp   
 p  pi
1  3  β  1  i  for  0.7 
  pb  pb 

LOADING
 Constant for parameters
D
β  0.5 for  15
t2
 60  D  D
β  t 2  for 15   60
 90  t2
 
D
β0 for  60
t2

LOADING
 Therefore
β  0.222
αc  1.04
α p  0.778

LOADING
 Criterion 2
2  
 2
  
 γ  γ  M Sd   γSC  γm  S Sd     α  pi  pe   1
 αc  M p  αC  S p    2 
m sc p
   αc  pb  
 3
2
 
 231  
2 2
   
 1.138 1.15 770    10.1 1.51
 1.15 1.138     0.788    0.888
 1.04  347  1.04  3.46  103    2
1.04  21  

 3
2
 
1.138  1.15  173    1.46  0.219 
2 2
 170 
 1.15 1.138       0.788    0.888
 1.04  256  1.04  777    2
1.04  3.05  

 3

DESIGN FOR STRENGTH –

SUMMARY
You should now:

 Understand the loads and failure
mechanisms we design for
 Understand the different approaches taken
in different codes
 Understand the process of design for
strength in sufficient depth to use any
design code intelligently
Any questions?
We have introduced the main types of loading experienced by a pipeline and the
corresponding failure modes. The different approaches of the design codes were
discussed, with the objective being to determine the required strength of the pipeline to
prevent these failure modes. Finally, a worked example and exercise were provided to
illustrate the process of design for strength for a typical pipeline configuration to ensure
pressure containment and resistance to hydrostatic collapse.
CODES AND STANDARDS
 ISO 13623:2000 Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Pipeline

transportation systems
 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other
Liquids, ASME B31.4 – 2006
 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, ASME B31.8 –
2007
 Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det
Norske Veritas, 2007
 Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas, 1981
 PD 8010-2:2004: Code of Practice for Pipelines, Part 2. Subsea
Pipelines, BSI, 2004
 API RP 1111: Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of
Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design) – 1999
OTHER REFERENCES
 Timoshenko & Gere, Theory of Elastic Stability, 2nd Ed.

 Young, Roark’s Formulas for Stress & Strain, 6th Ed., McGraw Hill,
1989
End expansion and
spoolpieces
End expansion and spoolpieces 325
EXPECTATION
EXPECTATION
 Understand stress behaviour of restrained

and unrestrained pipelines
 Be able to calculate end expansion
 Understand spoolpiece design to
accommodate pipeline expansion
The considerations for designing pipelines to accommodate expansions arising from

combined thermal, pressure and Poisson’s ratio effects are introduced. The stress
response of pipelines that are either restrained or unrestrained against expansion is
discussed. The calculation method for predicting the expansion that will occur at a
pipeline end for known thermal and pressure loads are provided.
INTRODUCTION
 May need to keep lines hot for operational

reasons
 One of the potential consequences of this is
end expansion
One of the major consequences of operating at raised temperatures is end expansion. In

this module, we will examine:
■ The factors contributing to end expansion in a pipeline
■ How to calculate the expansion
■ The design of spoolpieces to accommodate the expansion in a pipeline system
END FORCE AND EXPANSION FACTORS
END FORCES AND EXPANSION
 Thermal
 Pressure
 Poisson contraction
 Associated with pressure effects
There are three main factors contributing to end forces and expansion. These are
looked at in turn in the following slides.
THERMAL STRAIN
 Where totally unrestrained then steel

expands if temperature increases
 thermal    T
where
 is the thermal expansion coefficient (K-1) (°F-1)
T is the temperature difference (K) (°F)
 Temperature difference is between

installation and operation
We will start by looking at thermal effects.
The thermal expansion of a material is defined above. The pipeline will be installed at
ambient temperatures, but will operate at higher temperatures. Expansion is therefore
due to this increase in temperature.
THERMAL STRESS
 If totally constrained steel can not expand

and therefore the effects are seen as a
compressive stress in the pipe
 Thermal stress (compressive) is given by:
 thermal    E  T
where
E is elastic modulus
If steel is prevented from expanding, a compressive thermal stress is induced. If the

constraint on the steel is subsequently released, the stress diminishes as the steel
expands.
In a constrained pipeline, the stress is seen axially.
The convention is that tensile stresses are positive and compressive stresses are negative.
PRESSURE LOAD
 Two potential effects

 End cap force at curvature
 Poisson’s effect
We will now look at pressure loads.
Pressure induces axial loadings which contribute to the expansion of the pipeline. At the
same time there will be a Poisson contraction effect which we will see will act in the
opposite direction to the end cap force.
END CAP FORCE
 Force at a curvature
where
Fendcap  P  Ai PΔ is differenti al pressure
across pipe wall (N/m2 ) (psi)
Ai is internal pipe CSA
PΔ  Pinternal  Phydrostatic
π
P Ai   Di2
4
The first pressure effect is the end cap loading. This occurs at any curvature in the
pipeline. The illustration shows the loading at an elbow. There will, however, be an end
cap loading at any deviation from straight.
END CAP STRESS AND STRAIN
 If unrestrained – tensile stress is:

 endcap  Fendcap Asteel
 Corresponding strain is:
 endcap   endcap E
 If restrained – end cap force is counteracted

by restraining force therefore no stress
If unrestrained, the pipe wall will see a resultant stress and undergo a corresponding
strain.
POISSON’S EFFECT
 Internal pressure gives circumferential

strain
 Poisson’s effect gives resultant axial strain
 Circumferential expansion due to pressure gives
axial contraction
D increases
L reduces
The second effect is the Poisson’s effect. The internal pressure induces a hoop stress
and corresponding strain. In the same way as squashing an eraser causes it to bulge out
in the other direction, the hoop strain causes a corresponding axial strain of the pipe. If
the pipe expands in the hoop direction, the Poisson’s effect results in an axial
contraction.
Resultant stresses and strains for the restrained and unrestrained conditions are shown in
the following slides.
If the pipe is axially constrained, preventing the pipe from contracting, a tensile stress is
induced as a consequence. The effect is with respect to the internal pressure difference
from installation, since the external pressure is constant.
POISSON’S EFFECT
 If unrestrained

 poisson     hoop    hoop
E
 poisson  0
 If restrained – stress is tensile

 poisson  0
 poisson     hoop
These stresses and strains are in the axial direction.

COMBINED THERMAL AND

PRESSURE
 If unrestrained
 hoop 1  2  
    T  
2 E
 hoop

2
where
PD
 hoop 
2t
Combining the thermal, pressure and Poisson effects gives us the stresses and strains for
the unrestrained case above and the restrained case below.
COMBINED THERMAL AND

PRESSURE
 If restrained
 0
    E  T    hoop
RESTRAINING FORCE
 The force required to fully restrain the

pipeline is:
Comp Force  thermal  end cap  Poisson' s
P   D2 PD
F  E  As    T     As
4 2t
As    D  t
P   D2
 F    D  t  E    T  1  2  
4
The force required to restrain the pipeline is as a result of the thermal stress, the end cap
force and the Poisson’s stress. This is derived above. This is also known as the anchor
force.
The resultant required force can be high, as shown in the following example.
RESTRAINING FORCE
 Example
 609.6 mm line with 19.1 mm wall – 150 bar – 60 °C
(24 in with ¾ in wall – 2.176 ksi – 140 °F)
 Required restraining force:

approximately 600 tonnes (660 US tons)
This shows how large restraining forces can be.

END FORCE AND EXPANSION

FACTORS – SUMMARY
 Expansion is due to combined effects of

temperature, pressure and Poisson’s effect
 Thermal
 Steel has linear coefficient of thermal expansion
 Temperature increase = expansion (if unrestrained)
 Pressure has two effects to consider
 End cap force
 Poisson’s effect
 Poisson’s ratio
 Internal pressure = radial expansion = axial contraction
Any questions?
When determining the possible expansion of a pipeline there are three effects to
consider. These are increases in temperature and pressure and the effect of Poisson’s
ratio. In operational pipelines, these three effects will usually occur in combination.
The thermal expansion of the pipe steel results from increases in temperature and will be
a function of the linear thermal expansion coefficient property of the pipe steel.
Pressure has two effects that effect pipeline expansion. One is the end cap force that
acts at points of curvature and results in pipeline expansion. The other is Poisson’s
effect that is a result of internal pressure in the pipeline and results in contraction of the
pipeline.
END EXPANSION
END EXPANSION
 Expansion occurs at pipeline ends

 Friction acts to restrain movement
 Mid-pipeline fully restrained
Restrained Unrestrained
Active length Z Free end
Soil
Anchor
We will now consider how these forces, stresses and strains can be used in establishing
the expansion of a pipeline end.
The free end of the pipeline will move due to pressure and temperature forces. Friction
due to self weight of the pipeline on the seabed will act to constrain this movement. It
builds up over an ‘active length’ to the point where the friction force equals the anchor
force. When it does, the remainder of the pipeline cannot expand, does not move and
stays fully restrained. The point at which this happens is called the soil anchor.
END EXPANSION SUBJECTS
 Location of soil anchor

 Calculating expansion
 Expansion with varying temperature
We will look at methods for calculating the length to the ‘soil anchor’ (the length of
pipeline that will expand), and calculating the movement at the pipeline end.
SOIL ANCHOR
 Soil anchor – point at which the pipeline

becomes fully restrained
 Occurs where available friction force equals
restraining force
P   D2
F    D  t  E    T  1  2  
4
The soil anchor is the location at which the available friction force balances the thermal
and pressure loads. We previously determined the required restraining force as above.
SOIL ANCHOR
Restrained Moving
Active length Z Free end
Soil
Displacement Anchor Friction reaction
End movement
  hoop 
 
 2 
Pipewall stress
(   E steel  T     hoop )
This figure illustrates the soil anchor. The active length is the section of pipe in which
the pressure and temperature-generated load overcomes the frictional restraint and the
pipeline is able to expand. Over this active length, the stress in the pipe wall varies from
the unrestrained stress at the free end to the restrained stress at the soil anchor.
LOAD REMOVAL
Restrained
Free end
Initial soil New soil

Anchor Anchor Friction reaction
End
movement
Displacement
Pipewall stress
Operating
Shutdown
When the pressure and temperature loads are removed, the section of pipeline that has
previously expanded tries to contract. The friction load therefore reverses direction to
counter that contraction of the pipeline.
Where no previous movement has occurred, the stresses in the pipewall reduce to zero
(beyond the initial soil anchor). Where the pipeline has previously moved, the removal
of the thermal and pressure loads induces a tensile stress in the pipewall. This is what
causes the pipe to contract.
As the friction force is equal but now opposite to the original friction force, the total
friction will balance with the pipewall force at a point half way between the pipeline end
and the original soil anchor point, as illustrated in the figure above.
SOIL ANCHOR
 Friction force
f friction   axial  Ws (N/m or lbf/ft)
where
axial  axial friction coefficient
Ws  submerged weight (N/m or lbf/ft)
 Total restraining force

P   D2
F  f friction  z    D  t  E    T  1  2  
4
The friction force per unit length of pipeline is shown above. If z is the length to the
soil anchor, then the force balance is as shown in the lower equation.
LENGTH TO SOIL ANCHOR
 Rearranging gives length to soil anchor, i.e.

the ‘active length’
P    D 2  4  t  E    T 
z   1  2  
4  f friction  PD 
 Note that temperature is assumed constant,

i.e. an insulated line
Typical anchor lengths can be in the order of several kilometres (or several miles). These
equations are based on the assumption of constant temperature over that distance. For
insulated lines this may be reasonable. For uninsulated lines on the seabed, the initial
temperature gradient with distance from the hot end will be quite steep.
EXPANSION OF BURIED PIPE
 Friction force more complex

 Take account of depth of cover over pipe
 Reformed soil properties
Disturbed soil
overburden
Earth
pressure
Pipe weight
For the buried case the calculation of the friction force is more complex as shown in this
slide. The effects of soil overburden and the earth pressure need to be included.
BURIED PIPELINE
 Friction if buried in non-cohesive soil

  D     s  2 
f friction  axial     s  Do   H  o   1  k0   p  Do  2  k0 
2  2  3 
 In this equation:
 s = submerged weight of soil (kN/m3) (lbf/ft3)
 p = submerged density of pipe (kN/m3) (lbf/ft3)
= submerged weight of pipe  cross sectional area
 k0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest
 H = depth of cover over top of pipe (m) (ft)
 Do = outer diameter of the pipe over coatings (m) (ft)
If the pipeline is buried in non-cohesive soil, the total friction increases and is as shown
above.
Submerged density of sand is normally 9 kN/m3 (57.3 lbf/ft3) to 10 kN/m3 (63.7

lbf/ft3).
The axial friction factor, axial = tan(f · ´) is determined from the skin friction factor, f
= 0.92 for a concrete-coated pipe in sand and the internal angle of friction of the soil.
Refer to PRC International/American Gas Association paper Pipeline Freespan Design

– Volume 1 Design Guideline Project PR-170-9522 April 1997 for a fuller description of
resistance to lateral and axial friction.
The coefficient of earth pressure at rest is often taken as 0.4 for dense sand and 0.5 for
loose sand.
However, Bishop derived the following relationship for granular soils and normally
consolidated clays: ko  1 - sin ´ where ´ = angle of internal friction with respect to
effective stress. See A W Bishop’s Test requirements for measuring the coefficient of
earth pressure at rest, Brussels Earth Conference 1958.
EXPANSION
 Displacement (u) is related to longitudinal

strain by
  du / dx
 Therefore total expansion found by

integrating strain over length z
z
U    ( x)dx
0
The total movement of the length to the soil anchor can be derived as shown above.
STRAIN IN UNRESTRAINED END
 Strain in pipe given by:
 hoop 1  2  
    T  
2 E
 This assumes constant temperature

 Need to integrate this over length z
 Only applicable to unrestrained case
EXPANSION
 For constant temperature this gives:
2
  D  E t  P D
U    T   1  2  
2  f friction  E 4t 
If temperature is constant along the pipeline length then integration of strain gives the
equation shown above. Note that this assumes that the pipe length is greater than the
active length derived earlier.
WORKED EXAMPLE
 406.4 mm (16 in) diameter

 17.5 mm (0.69 in) wall thickness
 40 mm (1.58 in) concrete 2240 kg/m3 (140 lb/ft3)
 Gas content density 200 kg/m3 (12.5 lb/ft3)
 Operating pressure 150 barg (2.18 ksig)
 Constant operating temperature 60 °C (140 °F)
 Installation temperature 6 °C (42.8 °F)
 Friction coefficient 0.7
 Steel expansion coef. 11.7·10-6/K (6.5·10-6/°F)
 Elastic modulus 210 GPa (30.4·103 ksi)
 Poisson’s ratio 0.3
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Dry weights
 wsteel = 1646 N/m (112.8 lbf/ft)
 wconcrete = 1320 N/m (90.4 lbf/ft)
 wcontents = 213 N/m (14.6 lbf/ft)
 wdry = wsteel + wconcrete + wcontents
= 1646 + 1320 + 213 = 3179 N/m
= 112.8 + 90.4 + 14.6 = 217.8 lbf/ft
 Submerged weight
 wsub = wdry - (Adisplaced · g · )
= 3179 - (0.186 · 9.81 · 1025) = 1311 N/m
= 217.8 - (2.0 · 63.99) = 89.8 lbf/ft
The dry weight for each system component is the cross-sectional area of the component
multiplied by the density.
The submerged weight is the dry weight minus the buoyancy (weight of displaced water).
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Frictional restraint
 ffriction = axial · wsub
= 0.7 · 1311 = 918 N/m = 0.918 N/mm

= 0.7 · 89.8 = 62.9 lbf/ft = 5.24 lbf/in
Care must be taken with units to ensure consistency. In the illustrated calculation, mm
have been used for all pipe dimensions and N/mm² (same as MPa) for pressures and
stresses. Units of N/mm have been used for the friction value.
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Length to soil anchor

P    D 2  4  t  E    T
z   1  2  
4  f friction  PD 
15    406.4 2  4 17.5  2.1 105 1.17 105  (60  6) 

z   1  2  0.3
4  0.918  15  406.4 
z  4079 103 mm  4079 m
2.18 103  π 162  4  0.689  3.04 107  6.5 106  ( 140  43 ) 

z   1  2  0.3
4  5.24  2.18 10 16
3

z  160092 in  13341 ft  2.5 miles
Care must be taken with units to ensure consistency. In the illustrated calculation, mm
(in) have been used for all pipe dimensions and N/mm², same as MPa (ksi) for pressures
and stresses. Units of N/mm (lbf/in) have been used for the friction value.
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Expansion (end movement)

2
  D  E t 
1  2  
P D
U    T  
2  f friction  E 4t 
2
  406.4  2.1105 17.5  15 406.4
U  1.17 105  54   1  2  0.3
2  0.918  2.110 4 17.5
5

U  1.6 103 mm  1.6 m
2
π 16  3.04 107  0.689  2180 16
U  6.5 106  97   1  2  0.3
2  5.24  3.04 10 4  0.689
7

U  63 in  5.3 ft
Again, care must be taken with units.

END EXPANSION – SUMMARY
 Expansion concentrated at pipeline ends

 Friction fully restrains the mid-section of pipeline
 Initially determine location of soil anchor
 Available friction force = required restraining force
 Consider depth of coverage if pipeline is buried
 Determine end expansion of unrestrained
section
 Consider ‘ratchet’ effect for cyclic loading of
the pipeline
Any questions?
End expansion occurs at the pipeline ends. The expansion is restrained at mid-sections
of the pipeline by the frictional forces that occur as the pipeline tries to move over the
seabed soil.
To determine the expansion that will occur at the pipeline ends due to the applied
temperature and pressure loads, we must first predict the location of the soil anchor.
This will be at the point where the available friction force is equal to the force required
to restrain the pipeline against movement. Once known, the expansion needs only be
calculated for the unrestrained pipeline ends. A formula has been provided in this
section to determine this end expansion.
If the pressure and temperature loads are removed, the friction force acts in the opposite
direction and so prevents the pipeline contracting to the original length. As loads are
repeatedly applied and removed there is a ratcheting effect that causes the soil anchor to
progress towards the pipeline end, effectively ‘locking-in’ the expansion.
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
 Temperature will decrease along line

(assuming flow from platform)
100
200
80
150
Temperature (°C / °F)
60
40
100
20
50
0 5 10 10 20 15 30 20 40 25 30 50 35 60
Distance Along Flowline (km / mi)
The previous example assumed constant temperature along the pipeline length.
However in uninsulated cases especially, the temperature will vary significantly along the
pipeline length and an assessment of expansion based on constant temperature may be
excessively conservative. We therefore consider the implication of temperature loss and
redefine our equations.
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
 Temperature profile can be represented by

exponential function
T ( x)  T1  exp x  
 Where:
 x is the distance along the pipeline (m) (ft)
 T1 is the temperature differential at the pipeline
end (K) (°F)
  is the decay length over which the temperature
differential drops to 1/e of its initial value
e is the natural number, i.e. 2.718281828….
THERMAL DECAY LENGTH
 Thermal decay length can also be defined

as:
m  Cp

htotal
 Where:
 htotal is the total heat transfer coefficient W/(m K)
(BTU/ft/hr/°F)
 m is the mass flow rate kg/s (lb/s)
 Cp is the fluid specific heat capacity J/(kg K)
(BTU/lb/°F)
We have considered in the previous thermal analysis section how to determine the
thermal coefficients and temperature profile.
SOIL ANCHOR
 The length over which movement occurs

can be redefined as:
P    D 2  4  t  E    T1 
z   exp( z  )  1  2  
4  f friction  PD 
 The solution for z now has to be determined

iteratively
Introducing the exponential temperature function modifies the calculation of z, as shown

above. It now appears on both sides of the equation and an iterative calculation method
is required. Whilst this is no problem for spreadsheets or Mathcad calculations, it makes
hand calculations difficult.
EXPANSION
 For temperature profile case
  z  1  P  D  z f friction  z 
2

U    T1    1  exp     1  2    
    E  4t 2   D  t 
The corresponding calculation of pipeline end movement is as shown above.

TEMPERATURE PROFILE –
SUMMARY
 Assumption of constant temperature is

excessively conservative
 Temperature decreases along the pipeline
 Can be represented by an exponential
function
 Requires iterative solution for z, the
distance to the soil anchor
Any questions?
When calculating pipeline expansion, the assumption of constant temperature along the
pipeline is excessively conservative. This is especially true for uninsulated pipelines,
where a considerable temperature drop may be experienced.
The drop in pipeline temperature along the pipeline can be more realistically modelled
using exponential functions. However, this complicates the calculation of the distance to
the soil anchor as a temperature drop will also occur over this length. Therefore, z must
be determined iteratively as it appears on both sides of the equation.
EXERCISE
EXERCISE
 Calculate end expansion for given

conditions
The end expansion exercise can be found in the accompanying exercise book.
SPOOLPIECES
SPOOLPIECE REQUIREMENTS
 Provide tie-in Riser

 Not possible to lay
pipeline direct to Tie-in
platform
Spoolpiece
 Accommodate
expansion Tie-in
 High bending stresses

Pipeline
 Possible to yield
material
The purpose of the spoolpiece is to provide a tie-in between the end of the pipeline and
the platform riser. An important part of its function is to protect the riser from overload
caused by pipeline expansion. This would normally be achieved by providing an offset
spool of adequate length to withstand the movement, without overstressing in bending.
SPOOLPIECE CONFIGURATIONS
 Designed on a case-by-case basis

 Common configurations illustrated below
 Reproduce flange orientation of riser and
pipeline
Dog-leg L – shape U – shape

or Z – shape
Spoolpieces are designed on a case-by-case basis. Many configurations are possible and
the design will reflect the obstacles encountered when connecting the pipeline and riser
flanges at a particular location. However, some of the most common spoolpiece
configurations are shown in the slide above.
SPOOLPIECE DESIGN
 Generally performed using FEA

 Allows analysis of whole system in one pass
 Provides the most accurate assessment
 Stresses in spoolpiece assessed against
allowable
 Bending moments at flanges determined
 Flanges uprated if bending loads are high
Once the spoolpiece configuration has been determined, the detailed design can be
performed. This is generally carried out using finite element analysis (FEA).
FEA allows expansion, restraint and bending to be analysed for the whole system in one
go. This approach provides the most accurate assessment of pipeline and spoolpiece
movement, induced spoolpiece stresses and bending moments at the flange locations.
In locations where there is a significant bending load, flanges may be uprated to give
additional strength e.g. putting a class 1500 flange in a class 900 system.
PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS
 Determine approximate spoolpiece

dimensions
 Spoolpiece can be represented as follows:
F
M
U ffr
 Solve using Macaulay’s method

 Worked example illustrates this process
It is good practice to perform preliminary calculations in order to estimate the required

dimensions of the spoolpiece before finite element analysis is performed. This can save
a great deal of re-modelling in the long term.
For the purposes of this calculation, the following can be assumed:

■ The deflection of the spoolpiece is equal to the predicted end expansion of the
pipeline.
■ The resistance to motion provided by the seabed, ffr, can be applied as a uniformly
distributed load along the length of the spoolpiece.
■ The end of the spoolpiece can be represented with a built-in end condition.
The following worked example illustrates this process.

WORKED EXAMPLE
 Pipeline data
 323.9 mm (12.75 in) diameter
 14.3 mm (0.563 in) wall thickness
 0.5 mm (0.02 in) anti-corrosion coating
 30.0 mm (1.18 in) insulation coating
 Steel density 7850 kg/m3 (490.0 lb/ft3)
 Anti-corrosion coating density 1300 kg/m3 (81.2 lb/ft3)
 Insulation coat density 800 kg/m3 (49.9 lb/ft3)
 Content density 800 kg/m3 (49.9 lb/ft3)
 Elastic modulus 210 GPa (30.4·103 ksi)
 Pipeline expansion 0.9 m (2.95 ft)
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Environmental data
 Seawater density 1025 kg/m3 (64.0 lb/ft3)
 Friction coefficient between spool and seabed 0.7
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Dry weights
 wsteel = 1071 N/m (73.4 lbf/ft)
 wac = 6 N/m (0.4 lbf/ft)
 wcoat = 262 N/m (18.0 lbf/ft)
 wcontents = 537 N/m (36.8 lbf/ft)
 wdry = wsteel + wac + wcoat + wcontents
= 1071 + 6 + 262 + 537 = 1876 N/m
= 73.4 + 0.4 + 18.0 + 36.8 = 128.6 lbf/ft
 wsub = wdry - (Adisplaced · g · )
= 1876 - (0.116 · 9.81 · 1025) = 710 N/m
= 128.6 - (1.25 · 63.99) = 48.6 lbf/ft
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Frictional restraint
 ffriction = axial · wsub
= 0.7 · 710 = 497 N/m = 0.497 N/mm

= 0.7 · 48.6 = 34.0 lbf/ft = 2.84 lbf/in
WORKED EXAMPLE
General equation for moment distribution

d2 y
E  I  2  Mx
dx
For our spoolpiece, this becomes
d2 y f fr  x 2
EI  2  F x
dx 2
Integrate for the slope
d y F  x 2 f fr  x
3
EI    c
dx 2 6
WORKED EXAMPLE
Integrate again for the deflection

F  x 3 f fr  x
4
EI  y   cx d
6 24
Apply boundary conditions at x = 0
Displacement y = U. Therefore d = E·I·U
Apply boundary conditions at x = L
Slope dy/dx = 0. Therefore
f fr  L3 F  L2
c 
6 2
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Known boundary conditions at x = L

 Set moment at built in end = 0
f fr  L2
0 F L
2
 Displacement, y = 0
F  L3 f fr  L  f fr  L F  L2 
4 3
0  
    L  E  I U
6 24 6 2 
 
By setting the bending moment at the built-in end to zero, we can determine the length
of spoolpiece required to accommodate all of the expansion movement without exerting
loads on the riser.
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Solve system of equations using numerical

approximation method
 Give initial ‘guess’ values
and allow computerised solver to obtain solution
 L = 20 m (65.6 ft)
 F = 1 kN (0.22 kip)
 Calculated values
 Length of spoolpiece, L = 35.2 m (115.5 ft)
 Force, F = 8.71 kN (1.96 kip)
The simultaneous equations from the previous slide can be solved readily using an
iterative method in either MathCAD or Excel. The answers obtained are given in the
slide above.
However, determining the length of the spoolpiece by setting the bending moment at the
“built-in” end to zero may be excessively conservative and lead to the design of a longer
spool than necessary, making the installation process more complicated.
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Flange located half way along spool

 Known boundary conditions
 Set moment at L/2 = Mallow
2
 L
f fr   
FL 2
M allow  
2 2
 Set displacement at x = L to 0
F  L3 f fr  L  f fr  L F  L2 
4 3
0       L  E  I U

6 24  6 2 
The amount of bending that can be accommodated by the spoolpiece will usually be
limited to the allowable bending moment at the flanges. Therefore, a more refined
method of design would be to set the bending moment at a flange position equal to the
maximum allowable as shown above.
WORKED EXAMPLE
 Mallow = 190 kN·m (140·103 lbf·ft)

 Solving as before gives
 L = 16.1 m
 F = 25.6 kN
 Shorter spool
 Larger force exerted on pipeline
It can be seen that allowing more bending in the spoolpiece reduces the length of
spoolpiece required. However, the shorter the spoolpiece the greater the force that will
be exerted on the end of the pipeline. If this force becomes excessive, buckling may
become an issue.
LIFTING FORCES
 Spoolpieces lowered to
seabed by crane
 Compressive loads
exerted on spoolpiece
Compressive forces in spool
 Spreader beams and

multi-point lifts used to
prevent buckling
Compressive forces in
spreader bar
As the spool will be lowered to the seabed by crane, the angle of the lifting wires can
lead to axial compressive loads being applied. If the spool is too long or the angles of
the lifting wires too shallow, these compressive loads may become large enough to cause
buckling of the spool.
Euler buckling calculations should be performed for the spoolpiece to determine if

buckling will be a problem. If necessary, spreader beams and multi-point lifts can be
used to prevent buckling.
SPOOLPIECES – SUMMARY
 Provide tie-in to platform, accommodating

pipeline expansion
 Many configurations possible
 Case-by-case basis
 Determined by obstacles at a particular location
 Calculations used to size the spoolpiece
initially
 Designed using FEA
Any questions?
The purpose of the spoolpiece is to provide a tie-in from the pipeline to the platform
capable of accommodating pipeline expansion. Many configurations are possible and
the layout is arranged on a case-by-case basis depending on the obstacles at a given
location.
Generally, spoolpiece design is performed using FEA as this allows the whole system to
be analysed in one pass, giving the most accurate results. However, it is good practice to
perform preliminary calculations to size the spoolpiece initially, as this will reduce the
amount of re-modelling required to fine tune the design.
Once the spoolpiece has been designed, Euler buckling calculations should be
performed to ensure that buckling will not occur during installation.
END EXPANSION AND

SPOOLPIECES – SUMMARY
 Understanding of stress behaviour for

restrained and unrestrained pipelines
 Be able to calculate end expansion
 Understanding of spoolpiece design in
order to accommodate pipeline expansion
Any questions?
The considerations for designing pipelines to accommodate expansions arising from

combined thermal, pressure and Poisson’s ratio effects have been introduced. The stress
response of pipelines that are either restrained or unrestrained against expansion was
discussed. The calculation method for predicting the expansion that will occur at a
pipeline end for known thermal and pressure loads were provided.
On-bottom stability
On-bottom stability 365
EXPECTATION
EXPECTATION
 Understand importance of stability

 Gain appreciation of data sources and
oceanographic principals
 Understand loads and resistance
 Understand the method of stability analysis
 Practice with an exercise
REVIEW OF FUNDAMENTALS
FUNDAMENTALS
 Pipeline instability  movement

 Problems arising
 Bending stresses
 Fatigue
 Coating damage
 Balance of forces
 DNV ’76 and DNV ’81
If a pipeline is not stable then it will move under the actions of waves and currents. This
is a problem since the movement will cause bending stresses in the pipeline, which may
then cause the pipe to fatigue and fail. Alternatively, it may cause damage to pipeline
coatings, such as cracking of concrete.
Submarine pipeline stability is governed by the fundamental balance of forces between

loads and resistances. This approach to stability design of pipelines was incorporated
into DNV’s Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems issued in 1976 (and revised and reissued in
1981) and was the basis of design for many pipelines around the world.
FUNDAMENTALS
 Applied loads due to waves and currents

 Resistance due to seabed friction
 Stability achieved from:
 Self weight (submerged)
 Seabed resistance
 Coulomb friction
 Following slides describe the traditional

approach
The first pass approach to pipeline stability is a simple force balance model in 2
dimensions. It is the basis of the design methodology used in:
■ DNV ’76 and DNV ’81
■ AGA Level 1 stability software
FUNDAMENTALS
 Balance of horizontal and vertical forces
 Drag FD + Inertia FM
FL  Lift FL
 Lateral resistance R
 Submerged weight Ws
F H = FD + F M  Friction 
Ws
R =  (Ws - FL)
Vertical forces are:

■ Hydrodynamic lift
■ Pipe and contents submerged weight (weight - buoyancy)
The pipeline is vertically stable if the submerged weight exceeds the maximum lift force.
Horizontal forces are:

■ Hydrodynamic drag and inertia
■ Lateral resistance to movement due to seabed friction
The pipeline is horizontally stable if the lateral resistance exceeds the combined drag and
lift loads throughout the wave cycle.
In this simple approach seabed friction is modelled using coulomb friction.
FUNDAMENTALS – SUMMARY
 The steps to performing a stability analysis

are to determine:
 Waves and currents acting on the pipeline
 Resultant hydrodynamic loads
 Resistance due to the seabed
 These are discussed in detail in the

following sections
Any questions?
OCEANOGRAPHY
THE LANGUAGE OF
OCEANOGRAPHY
 Data sources
 Wave height
 Wave period
 Wave kinematics
 Airy wave theory, other wave theories
 Currents
We will look at how information is gained for determining the hydrodynamic forces,
which are dependent on local particle velocities.
The field of oceanography plays a large role in subsea pipeline design. Although pipeline
engineers are not often directly involved in the derivation of environmental design
criteria, an appreciation of the issues involved is required to ensure a good pipeline
stability design.
DATA SOURCES
Satellite
Radar altimeter
or laser
Downward
pointing
Wave rider radar
buoy
Radar
Marker Wave
Subsurface buoy staff
Accelerometer float
Pressure sensor
Pressure
transducers
Inverted echo
sounder
After:
Barltrop & Adams
Environmental data is recorded using a large variety of instruments:

■ Global wind data / synoptic charts
■ Satellite imagery (SAR)
■ Wave rider buoys
■ Ship observations
■ Platform-mounted measurements
■ Hindcast numerical modelling
Recorded data relevant to subsea pipelines includes:

■ Wave heights and directions: cause hydrodynamic loads on pipes
■ Wind speeds: drive sea currents
■ Currents: cause hydrodynamic loads on pipes
■ Tide heights: affect water depth
A large variation exists in the quality and quantity of this data between mature offshore
oil and gas areas (e.g. the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico), and much younger greenfield
areas (e.g. West of Ireland). Outside major oil and gas areas it is common not to have
100 years of recorded data. It is also unusual to have data recorded in the exact area of
interest.
Inherently, pipelines differ from platforms and similar structures in that they traverse the
seabed. Major trunklines can be hundreds of kilometres long and therefore have
changes in data along the route. Pipelines can therefore be subjected to a considerable
range of oceanographic conditions. Numerical models are used to hindcast or
extrapolate conditions from known storms to a sufficient number of locations along the
pipeline.
WAVE HEIGHT
 Significant wave height (Hs)

 Hs = 4.0 mo (where mo is the variance in the water
surface elevation)
 Hs  the average of the highest 1/3 of the waves
 Maximum wave height (Hmax)
 Hmax  1.86 x Hs
 Hmax is limited by water depth  0.78 x d
Significant Wave Height

Hs has its origins in the analysis of results from plotter data recorders, where a physical
line could be drawn below the highest 1/3 of the waves, then the average of the wave
heights determined. It corresponded to what a trained ship-borne observer would report
as the wave height when watching these same waves. Significant wave is the most
commonly provided measure of wave height in pipeline engineering. It is a fundamental
seastate parameter that is indicative of the energy of a given sea state.
Maximum Wave Height

The probability of exceedence for a single wave out of a group is given by the Rayleigh
distribution. The typical duration of a design return event or ‘storm’ is normally taken to
be 3 hours. Assuming a typical wave period of 10 seconds means that about 1000 waves
will pass the design location in that time, which by applying a Rayleigh distribution to the
expected extreme value results in the highest wave being about 1.86 times the height of
the significant wave.
The theoretical limit of wave height for a given water depth is 0.78 times the depth.
When the breaking wave limit is reached, the wave spectra become truncated at the
breaking wave limit. This alters the meaning of Hs and validity of the above
relationships. This is important when doing stability design using Hs.
WAVE HEIGHT
p{H}
1.0
0.5
Hs
Area 1/3
Hmax
0
0
Wave height - H
After: AGA
This illustrates how significant wave height is determined from the statistical data of
wave height. It shows the probability of a particular wave height occurring in a given sea
state, if the heights follow a Rayleigh distribution. The coloured portion of the graph
shows the highest third of the waves. Hs is the mean of this area.
WAVE PERIOD
 Ts & Tmax: Periods of significant and

maximum waves
 Tz: Mean zero crossing period
H5 MWL
H3
t
H1 H2 H4
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
After: AGA
The other main parameter important in determining wave properties is the period. Ts
and Tmax are the time periods of the significant and maximum waves respectively. The
most commonly recorded data is Tz, the mean zero crossing interval as shown in the plot
above.
WAVE PERIOD
 Tp: Wave period at the peak of the spectral

energy distribution
From:
Barltrop and Adams
The spectral peak period, Tp, is determined from spectral analysis and is commonly used
in design. For different JONSWAP peakedness values, conversion curves are provided
in DNV-RP-F109.
In practice the peak period will depend on fetch and depth limitations as well as duration
of the sea-states.
Sea states are often characterised by Hs and Tp, and this will often be the data on which a
stability analysis is performed.
WAVE KINEMATICS
 Wave kinematics
 Describe the motion of the wave particles
 Theories: Airy, Stokes, Stream Function, Cnoidal
 Breaking waves
 Regular theories and approaches do not work
Real wave
Sinusoidal wave
MWL
After: AGA
Wave Kinematics
Wave kinematics are used to describe the velocities and accelerations of water particles
that make up the wave.
Airy and Stokes wave theories are the simplest, describing the shape of the water/air
interface as a function of time. They both treat waves as a continuous series. Airy wave
theory uses a simple sine function while Stokes extended the description of the sea
surface using a 5th order sine series. In the above image, it means that Stokes wave
theory can provide a better approximation to the steeper waves typically encountered in
shallower water.
Stream function and Cnoidal wave theories are better approximations in shallow water.
They are more complex and require numerical solutions.
Breaking Waves
Theoretically, waves break when their tips (or crests) move forward at a higher velocity
than the wave itself. Breaking waves can be spilling, plunging or surging. The
hydrodynamic loads produced by breaking waves are not well defined, especially lower
down in the water column.
WAVE KINEMATICS
 Deep water  circular paths

 Shallow water  elliptical paths
Deep water Intermediate Shallow water
d/gT² > 0.08 0.0025 < d/gT² < 0.08 d/gT² < 0.0025
MWL
L
MWL L
d MWL
d
d
Wave particles move in an approximately elliptical path. In deep water, the paths are
nearly circular and decay exponentially with depth, so that at a depth of about one half of
the wave length there is very little effect due to surface waves. Because of this currents
tend to dominate over waves for deepwater developments.
In shallow water the paths are elliptical, as shown above. At the seabed, the particle
motion is purely horizontal, with the results that wave induced seabed currents are high,
with no bottom boundary layer. More pronounced asymmetry occurs with a net
displacement of particles in the direction of wave propagation.
WAVE KINEMATICS
 Which wave theory to use?

 Choice dependent on
water depth, wave
height and period
 Airy
 Stokes 5th
 Stream function
From: API RP 2A
Water depth classification as ‘deep’, ‘intermediate’ or ‘shallow’ is a relative measure and

depends on the wave period. The ordinate H/g T2 is a measure of wave steepness,
which is related to the angle of the face of the wave.
The above diagram refers to the conditions at the surface and not the seabed.
WAVE KINEMATICS
 Example
 Comparison of Airy, Stokes, and stream function:
 H = 10 m (32.8 ft), Tapp = 10.1 s, d = 20 m (65.6 ft)
 Data for 1 m (3.28 ft) (ASB)
Airy Stokes Streamfn
umax (m/s) 2.57 2.39 2.51
(ft/s) 8.43 7.84 8.24
amax (m/s2) 1.60 1.53 1.44
(ft/s2) 5.25 5.02 4.72
At seabed, Airy OK
From: API RP 2A
The normal area of interest in subsea pipeline engineering is in close proximity to the
seabed. The applicability of Airy wave theory is generally better at the seabed than closer
to the surface, which enables it to be used with caution beyond the domain described
above.
AIRY WAVE THEORY
 Sinusoidal surface elevation
z
C
a x
MWL H
(t)
w
d
u
S
Mud line
After: Barltrop & Adams
Airy wave theory uses a sine function to represent the surface of the sea. It is the
simplest wave theory, but it is applicable in many circumstances and it is widely used.
The theory allows us to calculate the surface shape (t) and local horizontal and vertical
flow components at a given point in (x,z).
The diagram shows:
■ Mean water level (MWL)
■  = Surface elevation
■ H = Wave height
■ L = Wave length
■ d = Water depth
■ a = Wave amplitude
■ C = Velocity of wave crests (known as ‘celerity’)
■ x,z = Horizontal and vertical position
■ u,w = Horizontal and vertical velocity components
■ S = Height above mud-line (S=d+z)
AIRY WAVE THEORY
 Surface elevation:
H  x t 
 (t )  . cos2. .  
2   L T 
 Actual wavelength:
 2   d 
L  Lo  tanh  
 L 
g T 2
where L0= ‘deep-water wavelength’ Lo 
2 
 L found using iteration
Airy wave theory involves an iterative solution to find the wavelength. The equations
then give the horizontal and vertical velocities and accelerations as sinusoidal functions
of horizontal distance x and time t. These sinusoidal variations with x and t are normally
replaced by a single parameter – wave phase angle .
Because a typical velocity boundary layer does not develop for wave induced seabed
currents, the normal approach is to determine the design parameters at the top of the
pipe (e.g. peak velocity and acceleration) and apply these values to the current over the
exposed area of pipe.
AIRY WAVE THEORY
 Particle velocity and acceleration

  z  d 
cosh  2 
 H   L    x t 
Horizontal velocity Uw     cos 2   
T   d    L T 
sinh 2 
  L  
  z  d 
dU 2   2  H  cosh  2 L     x t 
Horizontal acceleration a     sin 2   
dt T2  d
 sinh  2     L T 
  L  
Where:
L = wavelength z = vertical distance from mean level

H = wave height x = horizontal distance from crest
T = wave period t = time shift from crest
d = water depth
The water particle velocities and acceleration are determined by applying the Airy wave
equations. The second term in each of the above equations is the phase angle as
described in the previous slide.
The maximum wave induced water particle velocity and water particle acceleration occur
¼ of a cycle out-of-phase
Design codes such as DNV-RP-F109 provide graphical means of determining velocity

and acceleration directly from wave period, wave height and depth information.
Note that z is referenced from the mean water level and will be negative when measured
downwards towards the seabed.
CURRENTS
 Currents are driven by:

 Tidal, wind, ocean thermal gradients
 Data usually available at reference height,
eg 5 m (16 ft) ASB
Having established the velocity contributions due to waves we now need to consider the
effect of steady currents.
Steady currents develop a boundary layer due to the viscous forces in the water and the
boundary flow condition of zero flow at the seabed.
Seabed currents in design data are frequently given at 5 m (16 ft) above the seabed. The
location of the pipeline in the velocity boundary layer lowers the effective velocity seen
by the pipe. The approach used is to integrate the velocity over the height of the pipe to
give an effective steady current.
CURRENTS IN BOUNDARY LAYER
 1/7th power law zr

Ur
1
U z 7
 
U r  zr 
z U
 DNV-RP-F109
Uc 1  z   D  
  1  0   ln   1  1
Ur z   D   z0  
ln  r  1 
 z0 
U = current velocity at height z above seabed
Ur = Reference velocity at height zr above seabed (eg measured by current meter)
Uc = Averaged velocity over pipe taking account of bottom roughness height zo
Two approaches to finding the current at the pipe are shown above. The 1/7th power
law predicts the current at a height z based on the readings from the current meter (a
reference velocity Ur at a height zr). Often this is fed into the stability calculation as the
current prediction at the level of the top of the pipe.
The second formula is an average current (must be resolved to be perpendicular) over

the height of the pipe and is modified to take account of the effect of the seabed
roughness z0. The rougher the seabed, the thicker the boundary layer and the lower the
average velocity over the pipe height.
WAVE REFRACTION AT LANDFALL
Wave refraction
Land Shore approach route
Chainage Water depth Current velocity Wave Resolved

from beach angle force
500 m 1650 ft 3 m 10 ft 0.75 m/s 2.5 ft/s 22° 1.015
1000 m 3300 ft 6 m 27 ft 0.75 m/s 2.5 ft/s 29° 0.950
1500 m 4900 ft 10 m 33 ft 0.50 m/s 1.6 ft/s 44° 0.877
2000 m 6500 ft 16 m 53 ft 0.50 m/s 1.6 ft/s 50° 0.781

Pipelines tend to approach perpendicular to the shoreline for stability. The waves refract
as they come into shallow water, which means that they approach the shore in a
direction close to a right angle, no matter which way they had been travelling further out.
The high water particle velocities associated with breaking waves are in the same
direction as the waves, so routing the pipeline perpendicular to the shore minimises the
destabilising cross-velocities. Even so, it is normal to bury the pipeline on its final
approach and across the beach in the surf zone. These inshore sections of pipeline often
have increased concrete coating thickness or density.
By assessing the angle of attack at discrete points of the shore approach, it is possible to
ensure the combined de-stabilisation force is low enough to ensure stability. Even
though the attack angle is lower inshore, the wave destabilising force tends to be greater
in shallower water.
WAVE TRANSFORMATION
METHODS
 Offshore
 Normally use omni-directional waves
 Both current and waves act at 90° to pipeline
 Graphical method
 US Army Shore Protection Manual – Snell’s law
 Use extreme approach angles from both directions
 Hydrographic charts – designed for navigation
 Nearshore refraction
 SWAN – Delft shareware
 Includes shoaling and breaking waves
 Deepwater refraction
 WAM – open ocean modelling for shipping
Offshore, it is common to combine the omni-directional wave and current in order to

confirm the stability of the pipeline. However, at the shore approach, this would result
in the pipeline stability coating being over designed.
The Shore Protection Manual provides guidance on a graphical method based on Snell’s
law to determine refraction of waves. If there is no other information, it is normal to
consider extreme wave fronts (normal to the coastline) from either direction. Contours
of the seabed can be produced using spot heights shown on the standard hydrographic
charts. Allowance should be made for tides and the knowledge that these charts have
been produced for shipping so show the shallowest points rather than the average water
depths. The angle that the refracted paths make when intercepting the pipeline can then
be measured at regular intervals of chainage or depth.
Delft University of Technology provides the SWAN software (Simulating Waves

Nearshore) downloadable from http://fluidmechanics.tudelft.nl/swan/index.htm. It is
the accepted standard for nearshore refraction used by industry. It models the shallow
water effects such as bottom friction, shoaling, refraction, depth-induced breaking and
modified wave-wave interaction. It requires the seabottom profile to be known over a
wider area than normally surveyed for pipelaying activities. Again, other sources of data
such as navigation charts may be incorporated into the model.
If refraction studies are needed in deeper water and over a larger area, then account
needs to be taken of the curvature of the earth. The WAM (WAve Model) code ocean
waves are primarily wind-driven, and quadruplet (rather than triplet) wave-wave
interactions dominate the wave spectrum evolution. WAM tends to be run on a coarser
grid than SWAN but it is possible to interface between the open ocean package and the
more detailed nearshore analysis.
For a ‘comparison of the SWAN and WAM wave models for nearshore wave
predictions’, refer to the paper by Stephen Wornom of the Ohio State University
(wornomsf@wes.hpc.mil) of June 2, 2000.
Note that waves can be affected by the type of seabed. The surface of very soft muds
tends to oscillate in response to the change in pressure as the wave passes. This then
interacts to change the wave speed and direction. An example of this is found offshore
to the north of the mouth of the Amazon.
HYDROGRAPHIC CHARTS
 Produced for ship draughts (includes FoS)

 Highest points chosen – going inshore
 Chart datum – add tides
 Survey tolerances ±0.1 m (±4 in)
 Mega-ripples and nomadic sand waves
 Mean seabed 0.5 m (20 in) lower or more
CD
Chart level
Survey tolerance
with safety allowance
Beware that hydrographic charts do not show the same level of the seabed as that of our
topographic surveys. They are for navigation so identify the high points. The actual
seabed is often 0.5 m (1.6 ft) or more lower. In areas of sand waves, the troughs of these
are not shown.
Also their datum is the Chart Datum (CD) which is often the Lowest Astronomic Tide
(LAT). Water levels used for refraction should include the addition of tides – deeper
water tends to refract less.
COMBINING FORCES ON PIPELINES
 Current e
tn
lin
rre
p e
 Constant velocity W
av Pi
Cu
es
 Longshore currents c
 High velocity between rips w
 Waves
 Oscillating drag, inertia and lift forces
 Combined force
 Fc · sin(c) + Fw · sin(w)
 Rock dump
 Shear stress combination
High currents can be generated during storms when waves break onshore. Longshore
currents form to permit the water to reach the rips. The latter form at regular intervals
along a beach but are aligned normal to the beach. The longshore currents will be
aligned at 90° to the pipeline and can reach velocities of up to 1 m/s (3.2 ft/s).
The separate effects of the current and waves are calculated producing forces Fc and Fw
respectively. These are combined using the resolved forces of each as above.
Note that a different approach is taken for rock dump stability. Refer to Appendix 2
(A2.3) of Scour at Marine Structures by Richard Whitehouse of HR Wallingford,
Thomas Telford Publications, 1998 ISBN 0 7277 2655 2. This is due to pipelines being
restricted to movements perpendicular to their axis. However, individual stones in the
rock berm can be affected by shear from any direction. The photograph shows this
effect at a suspended line in oblique flow. For more information refer to Advances
Series on Coastal Engineering Volume 12 – Hydrodynamics around cylindrical
structures, World Scientific Publications, 1999 by B Mutlu Sumer and Jørgen Fredsøe
ISBN 981 02 2898 8.
OCEANOGRAPHY – SUMMARY
 Data is obtained from a variety of sources

 Waves can be characterised by height and
corresponding period
 Typically significant height and maximum
height used for design
 Particle motion described by Airy, Stokes or
more complex wave theory
 Models are available to calculate current
flows near the seabed
 Complex near-shore effects
Any questions?
HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS
HYDRODYNAMICS
 Wave and current

induced forces
From: Barltrop & Adams

HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS
 Forces due to
waves and currents
  Drag
  Inertia
  Lift
The loads due to the water particles can be classified into three types: drag, inertia and
lift.
HYDRODYNAMIC FORCES
 Drag due to turbulence, viscous fluid, width

of wake
 Inertia due to wave-induced accelerations
 Lift due to asymmetry, fluid over the top
goes faster
Drag
Drag is caused by the flow of a viscous fluid past a bluff body. The drag is mainly the
result of the high pressure in front of the pipe and the low pressure region in the wake
behind the pipe. The drag is influenced by the width of the wake and also by the wave
action. The effect of waves is that the wake from the previous 1/2 wave cycle is swept
back over the pipe again.
Inertia
Waves produce cyclic loadings on the water particles in the water column. These cyclic
loads accelerate and decelerate the water particles in both the horizontal and vertical
directions. Where a body sits within the water flow, it experiences the loads that would
have been exerted on the water that would have occupied the volume of the body.
Lift
Lift is produced in the same way as flow over an airfoil. The presence of the seabed
introduces an asymmetry between the flow over the top of the pipe and the flow
underneath. This causes slower flow (or no flow) underneath the pipeline (high
pressure) and higher velocities over the top (low pressure), resulting in lift.
HYDRODYNAMIC FORCES
 Loads by Morison’s equations:
 Drag: FD = 0.5 ·  · CD · D · V2
 Inertia: FM = ( · D2/4) ·  · CM · a
 Lift: FL = 0.5 ·  · CL · D · V2
 Typical pipe on seabed

Drag CD = 0.7, Inertia CM = 3.29, Lift CL = 0.9
When the water particle velocities are known the loads on the pipe are calculated using
Morison’s equations, as shown above. The combined wave and current velocities and
wave accelerations are input into the above equations where:
■ CD = Drag coefficient of pipe
■ CM =Inertia coefficient of pipe
■ CL = Lift coefficient of pipe
■ = Density of seawater
■ D = Overall diameter
■ V = Total current and wave vertical velocity
■ a = Wave particle acceleration
There is a phase difference of 90 between the maximum water particle velocity and
acceleration. The maximum lift and drag occur when the inertia load is zero and the
maximum inertia load occurs when lift is at a minimum.
The lift, drag and inertia coefficients are empirically determined, and vary depending on
the flow conditions. The selection of suitable coefficients is discussed in the following
slides.
HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS
 Drag coefficients determined from research

programmes:
 Reynolds
number
 Pipe
roughness
The magnitude of drag and lift forces depends on the flow boundary layer and the level
of turbulence.
Lift and drag coefficients are affected by:

■ The Reynolds Number of the flow: Re = U D/
where  = kinematic viscosity and is approximately 9.8 E-7 m2/s (1.06 E-5 ft2/s)
■ The pipe roughness (bare steel / concrete / marine growth shown above)
■ The Keulegan-Carpenter Number of waves: Kc = Umax T/D
■ Any embedment of the pipe into the seabed
The figure in the above slide illustrates the change in drag coefficient in steady flow for
changing Reynolds number and pipe roughness.
The following slide shows changing drag in wave flow.
Experimental research performed in the 1980s provides the best source of data
■ Hydrodynamic Forces on Pipelines – Model Tests, Final Report DHI report to
the AGA PR-170-185
HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS
 Coefficients from research programmes:

 Keulegan-Carpenter Number (Kc)
U max T
Kc 
D
 Wave/steady current
ratio (M)
 Each half wave washes
wake back over pipe
 Hence affects CD & CL
From: DNV ‘81
Keulegan-Carpenter Number Kc = Umax T/D

Where:
■ Umax is the maximum flow velocity
■ T = Wave period
■ D = Pipe outer diameter
■ Kc relates the drag to different wave types and the pipe OD
HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS
 Inertia coefficients
 Consists of two components
 1 + added mass coefficient
 C m = 1 + Ca
 Value of Ca determined experimentally
 Depends on height above seabed
 Reduces with distance above the seabed
 Ca  2.29 at the seabed
 Ca 1.1 more than 3 diameters above seabed
 Cm  3.29 at the seabed
The inertia load results from the differential pressures created by the wave. These
differential pressures accelerate the water particles as the wave passes. The inertia loads
on the pipe are increased because the movement of water close to the pipe is restricted
by the presence of the pipe. Consequently additional load from this water is transmitted
to the pipe.
There are two components:

■ Consider a stationary cylinder of fluid in the middle of a volume of that fluid. If
the volume of fluid is accelerated sideways, the cylinder of fluid experiences an
acceleration force in the same direction. This gives an inertia coefficient of 1.
■ The second component is due to the additional acceleration of fluid particles in
order to pass around the cylinder, which results in a coefficient greater than 1.
For a pipeline on the seabed, it gives an inertia force roughly equal to 2.29.
■ These inertia components add up to give 3.29.
Inertia coefficients vary depending on wave properties.
HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS –
SUMMARY
 Assess pipeline stability

 Drag, lift and inertia
 Use of Morison’s equations
 Coefficients from research
 Affected by Reynolds number and pipe roughness
 Typical values for pipeline on seabed
Any questions?
Hydrodynamic loads are calculated using Morison’s equations. The equations allow us
to determine the drag, lift and inertia forces on the pipeline. The loads depend on
experimentally determined coefficients which vary with Reynolds number and pipe
roughness.
RESISTANCE
SEABED RESISTANCE
 Seabed resistance – simple approach

 R = µ · (WS - FL)
 WS = Self weight - Buoyancy
 Self weight: (contents, steel, coating, concrete,
marine growth)
 Buoyancy based on overall OD
 Seabed friction
 Coulomb friction
 Typically  = 0.2 to 0.4 clay,  = 0.5 to 0.9 sand
In a simple analysis, the seabed frictional resistance can be represented by coulomb

friction. The resistance is therefore the friction coefficient multiplied by the vertical
reaction between the pipeline and the seabed. As the lift force fluctuates through the
wave cycle, the resistance will fluctuate.
Where:
■ µ = Friction coefficient
■ Ws= Submerged weight = Self weight – buoyancy
■ FL= Lift force
STABILISING PARAMETERS
 Increase resistance by:

 Increasing submerged weight (negative buoyancy)
 Trenching
 Negative buoyancy
 Heavy wall steel pipe
 Add concrete coating
 Density: 2400 to 3040 kg/m3
(150 to 190 lb/ft3)
 Thickness
 25 mm to 125 mm (1 in to 5 in)
 + up to 5% water absorption by weight
Normally pipelines will require some form of stabilisation. Reelable concrete-coated

pipelines are not currently an option. Concrete coating or a thick steel wall are the
normal means of stabilising non-reeled pipelines. Concrete aggregate has a density of
about 2400 kg/m3 (150 lb/ft3), but by addition of haematite (iron ore) a density of 3040
kg/m3 (190 lb/ft3) or even higher can be achieved.
Concrete coating is normally applied either using the wrap or the impingement method.
Coating thickness tolerance is normally not better than 5 mm (0.2 in), hence there are
tolerances and uncertainty on the pipe weight, although testing following fabrication
usually includes measuring the mass of the pipe.
Water absorption is normally quoted by weight of concrete.

TRENCH EFFECTS
 Hydrodynamic shielding
 Hydrodynamic coefficients investigated by HRS and
DHI
 Friction increase due to slope
FR  eff  Ws  FL 
Lift
tan   
eff 
1    tan  Drag

Submerged Horizontal
weight resistance
The presence of a trench has two beneficial effects. Firstly, the trench may provide
some degree of hydrodynamic shielding. A number of research programmes have
investigated the effects of trenches on hydrodynamic coefficients (refer to bibliography).
Secondly, the lateral resistance is increased because the pipeline has to move up the
gradient of the trench side.
In the simple force balance analysis, this can be accounted for by using an effective
friction coefficient as shown in the equation above where:
■ = slope angle from horizontal
■ = soil friction coefficient
■ eff = effective seabed friction coefficient
PIPELINE STABILISATION
 Pipe embedment
 Pipe moves laterally, oscillates with wave action
 Embedment process occurs during storm buildup
 Each lateral movement:
 Digs pipe in
 Creates soil berm
 Result: increased lateral resistance
State of the art stability requirements allow the pipeline to move laterally up to 20 m (66
ft). This is subject to the pipeline not being within 500 m (0.31 miles) of any subsea
obstructions or facilities.
PIPE EMBEDMENT
 Cyclic loading
FI = FM = Inertia force, FL = Lift force
When the pipe is first laid on the seabed, a small amount of settling or embedment
occurs. This could be evaluated considering the pipe as an infinitely long foundation,
which would show that the embedment is small.
Each wave half-cycle pushes the pipe against the small soil berm created by the pipe
resting on the seabed. As wave loads gradually increase during a storm build-up, the
forces displace the pipe back and forth against the soil berms, gradually pushing them
and enlarging them. As a consequence, the pipe moves further down into the seabed.
The theory is that embedment progresses until the pipe is sufficiently embedded to resist
movement. It is possible, however, that the pipe does not embed as fast as the storm
build-up. The pipe may then ‘break-out’ of the berms and move. If this movement is
within the allowable levels, the pipe may still be considered stable.
SOIL TYPES
 Geotechnical survey:
 During design process (e.g. during FEED)
 Soil type, surficial layers
 Get samples, cores etc
 Sand – information required:
 Internal angle of friction
 Relative density
 Clay – information required:
 Undrained shear strength
Seabed soils are classified extremely simply for pipeline stability design. Soils are either
sands or clays (if they have cohesive strength).
SUBMERGED WEIGHT
 Contents density changes

 Installation = air
 Operation = varies over field life (water cut / GOR)
 Installation condition
 Prior to trenching
 Short duration
 Operation
 Long duration
The pipeline submerged weight and design loadings change for different stages of the
pipeline life. The design analysis needs to consider all stages of the pipeline life.
For production flowlines, the density of the contents changes as the field is produced.
This can be due to various reasons:
■ Possible changes due to an increased GOR include using the pipeline to blow
down the gas cap.
■ Water cut can increase.
■ Late field life can result in lower pressure in the reservoir, resulting in lower
density production fluids. This is especially the case if gas lift is used to assist
production.
STABILISATION OPTIONS
 Trench and backfill

 Rock dump
 Mattresses/saddles
 Fronds
 Anchors/rock bolts
 Grout bags/saddles
When pipelines need to be designed to withstand extremely high hydrodynamic loads,

burial of the line by trenching and backfilling is the best option. When trenching is not
an option, pre-cutting a trench with a suction dredger or blasting can sometimes be used,
depending on environmental impact.
ROCK DUMPING
If large sections of a line need to be rectified then rockdumping would normally be

preferred. The material, i.e. rock, is cheap but there are high mobilisation costs for the
rock-dump vessel. Post-dump survey of rock-dumped sections is normally required,
again increasing costs.
Checks need to be carried out on the possible damage to the pipeline during the rock-
dumping operation and if large diameter rock is required for stability a smaller diameter
rock may need to be dumped as an armour layer to protect the pipeline.
CONCRETE MATTRESS
Concrete mattresses are widely used to add stability and/or protection to pipelines. The
advantages are that they are:
■ Cheap
■ Simple
■ Readily available – they can be taken out on a DSV and used if needed
■ Movable – they can be moved to another place or removed if necessary
The disadvantages are:

■ They may be removed by trawlers
■ They may not be stable in severe sea-states – the edges may lift and the mattress
be removed from the pipeline
■ They are not attached to the pipeline, which may move from under the mattress
CONCRETE MATTRESS
 Increases download
and reduces
hydrodynamic
forces on pipeline
 One or two
directional flexibility
 Different size
segments available
 A variety of
concrete densities
available CL1 CL3 CL2 CL3
A one-directional mattress (or log type) is shown here. Mattresses can be

sized/weighted to suit a specific application. For reasons noted previously, the stability
of the mattress itself must be considered. This can be improved by using fronded
mattresses, as shown below.
FRONDED MATTRESS
 Fronds cause
deposition of sand
 Can be included in
concrete
mattresses
 Needs sediment to
work
Fronds can be installed on their own or can be included in concrete mattresses. They
work by encouraging the deposition of sediment, thereby building up a berm of material.
As a consequence there needs to be sediment in the water for them to work, and the
more sediment there is, the better they will work. Typical frond heights will be of the
order of one metre.
The berm will build up rapidly where there is sediment transport and a metre high berm
could be built up in about one month for a typical sandy seabed. For silty seabeds, the
berm takes longer to establish, perhaps three to four months. Once formed the berm is
compact (due to the agitation of the fronds) and durable.
The creation of a berm over the pipeline gives protection from impacts and will also
increase the thermal insulation of the pipeline. The effects of the resultant change in the
pipeline temperature may need to be assessed.
ANCHORS / ROCK BOLTS
Saddle
Grout
Sand
Drill pipe
Rock
Sand
Screwed anchor Spade/Bat type anchor
Anchors and rock bolts are also used for stabilising pipelines. They are reliant on the
seabed being able to sustain lateral and vertical loads from the pipeline.
Rock bolts are particularly used where the seabed is rocky and trenching cannot be done.
Several designs exist and are used frequently on the Australian NWS. Bolts are installed
after pipelay at a spacing of about 20 m (66 ft). They have to be installed by divers and
are an extremely expensive solution.
Anchors are also diver-installed and can either be pushed or screwed into the ground.
They work better in cohesive soils such as clay. They are more commonly used on
landlines.
Other options include burial by anchor chain or installation of ‘doghouse’ tunnels.

PIPELINE STABILISATION
 Rationalise stability design:

 Various analysis points along pipeline
 Minimise stability design changes
North Morecambe Gas Pipeline
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 KP (km) 35
Depth (m)
0
20
40
50 mm 3040 kg/m3 100 mm 90 mm
90 mm 3050 kg/m3 3050 kg/m 3 3050 kg/m 3
Concrete
1.0 m to top,
Artificial Backfill
Trench 0.6 m to top, Natural backfill
2.0 m to top,
2.0 m to top,
Artificial Backfill
Natural backfill
Introducing changes in the stability design of a pipeline is a trade-off between design

optimisation and complexity. More changes enable the stability design of each section to
be better optimised. However, changes in design complicate stockpiling and
construction. Delivery to the laybarge of different thicknesses of concrete-coated pipe
must be in the correct order. It has been known for pipe to be transferred in the wrong
order, with the high day-rate of the laybarge forcing pipelay to proceed with the pipe out
of order. Remedial stabilisation may then be required.
Short pipelines (less than 5 km (3.1 miles)) would normally not have any changes in
design along their length.
WEST SOLE PIPELINE

STABILISATION-VIDEO
The video showed some of the options considered for re-stabilising two pipelines in the
Southern North Sea. These options included concrete mattresses, fronded mattresses,
rock dumping and screwed anchors.
RESISTANCE – SUMMARY
 Stability can be improved by trenching or

increasing self-weight
 Oscillating loads cause pipeline to embed
and increase its stability
 Soils are classified as either sand or clay
 Other methods of stabilisation include rock
dumping, mattresses, anchors or rock bolts
Any questions?
Stability can be improved by trenching or increasing self-weight. Oscillating loads due to

wave forces cause the pipeline to embed and increase its stability.
Seabed soils are classified extremely simply as either sand or clay. Other methods of
stabilisation include rock dumping, mattresses, anchors or rock bolts.
STABILITY ANALYSIS
STABILITY ANALYSIS
 Overview of analysis types

 Design waves
 Design periods
 Specific methods
ANALYSIS TYPES
 Analysis approaches
1. Force-balance (traditional approach)
2. Quasi-static
3. Dynamic analysis
 Design codes follow these approaches
 PRCI/AGA
 DNV-RP-F109
There are three basic approaches as listed above.
FORCE-BALANCE
 Simple 2D force balance

Long wave acting
perpendicular to
entire pipeline length
Hydrodynamic force
acting along entire
Simple Coulomb friction pipeline length
The simplest is the force-balance approach. This is applicable:

■ As a first pass screening exercise in stability analysis.
■ When using refined hydrodynamic coefficients.
■ When breaking waves are the design case.
■ When the pipeline is a piggyback line, with hydrodynamic coefficients from CFD
or experimental research.
Normally Hs is used with the force-balance technique for long pipelines. However, this
method is used in conjunction with Hmax for spools and jumpers which may see all of
Hmax and are not permitted to move.
FORCE BALANCE
 Simple force-balance approach

 Codes: DNV ’76, DHI, PRCI / AGA Level 1
 Check over 360° wave phase angles
 Resolve wave and current directions normal to pipeline using
the sine law
 The output is a factor of safety on stability for a given wave
 Codes suggest minimum FOS = 1.1
 Equation of stability:
WS  FL   
FOS 
FD  FM
Where:
■ FOS = Factor of safety
■ WS= Submerged weight
■ FL= Lift force
■ µ = Friction coefficient
■ FD = Drag force
■ FM = Inertia force
NEW APPROACH
 Recognise traditional Stationary pipe
approach contains
errors
Lateral displacement causes build of sand berm
 Hydrodynamic forces
are greater
 Restraining forces may Cyclic loads induce lateral oscillations
be greater due to
embedment
 Better results though Oscillations continue until pipe is em bedded
dynamic and quasi-

static analysis
It was known from experimental research that the hydrodynamic loads on a pipeline
could be very much higher than in the DNV ’76 model. In 1981, DNV’s revised rules
incorporated a much more realistic hydrodynamic model. This created an anomaly – the
new approach suggested many of the existing pipelines designed to DNV ’76 were
unstable. However, annual surveys showed no evidence of a wide-spread problem.
The explanation lay in the lateral resistance of a pipeline to movement also being very
much higher than predicted by the simple model. It was shown experimentally that
during a storm a pipeline undergoes small displacements under the action of wave
forces, gradually digging itself into the seabed. The pipeline therefore had small soil
berms either side, providing increased resistance to movement and greater hydrodynamic
shielding. The results of this research were incorporated into AGA’s suite of stability
design software, providing a state-of-the-art approach.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
 Detailed 3D model
Detailed
resistance
model Varying
hydrodynamic
force along length
Compliant
pipeline model
Random short crested

waves
The most detailed and complex approach is to do a dynamic analysis. This considers the
pipeline as a compliant structure with short crested waves acting randomly along its
length. Localised movement of the pipeline is determined and resultant strains
calculated. Limiting criteria are based on a maximum permissible movement, for
example 20 m (66 ft), and operating stresses.
The dynamic analysis requires the use of finite element analysis. The analysis includes
random waves, a long compliant pipeline model and a realistic seabed resistance model,
including the effects of embedment, ie increased resistance as the pipeline moves.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
 DNV-RP-F109
 PRCI / AGA Level 3:
 Not often used, new
version released
 Accounts for wave
spreading and 3D effects
 Output:
 Displacement along Deflection and stress
pipe length vs time

35 0.8
30 0.7
0.6
Deflection (m)
25
Stress (KPa)
0.5
20
 Embedment vs time
0.4
15
0.3
10 0.2
5 0.1
 Must interpret to
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pipeline Distance (ft)
determine acceptability
of design
Veritec RP-E305 was the most widely used stability design code. It has now been
replaced by DNV-RP-F109. Unlike in RP-E305, the fully dynamic analysis methodology
is covered in detail, along with the two approaches to quasi-static analysis.
Software is available for the PRCI/AGA Level 3 method. PRCI/AGA Level 3 software
is best applied as a verification tool to several key cases to confirm the bulk of the
stability analysis performed with Level 2 software.
Good environmental and geotechnical data is required to warrant the use of PRCI/AGA
Level 3; however, this is often not available.
The software accounts for the effect of the spread in heading of waves, which serves to
lower the loads on the pipe, as well as the fact that when the wave passes the pipe at an
angle, the wave crest passes the pipe over a finite time and distributes the loading.
QUASI-STATIC
 Modified force-balance model

 Uses calibration factors derived from dynamic
analyses
 Codes: DNV-RP-F109 & PRCI / AGA Level 2
 Check over 360° wave phase angle
 Complete wave cycle
 Use sine law for directionality
The quasi-static approach is a hybrid of the force-balance and the dynamic analysis. It
uses calibration factors derived from dynamic analyses to remove some of the
conservatism of the simple force-balance approach.
DNV-RP-F109 superseded the earlier and widely used RP-E305. Incorporated into
Excel or Mathcad, it can be an expedient tool to consider large numbers of
permutations.
DESIGN WAVES
 Significant wave Hs
 Many methods specify use of Hs
(including DNV ’76) for general pipeline
 Defines mean wave energy for the
given sea state
 Movement of pipeline p{H}
implicit 1.0
 Maximum wave Hmax

 Used where pipeline must 0.5
Area 1/3
not move, spools and
trenched pipelines 0 H
0 Hrms Hs Hmax
The design methods may use either significant wave height or maximum wave height.
Dynamic and quasi-static methods will usually use Hs as the design wave. In dynamic
analyses the significant wave is one of the parameters used to define the wave spectrum.
The original DNV ‘76 rules defined the use of Hs as it was recognised that waves were
short crested and that the resultant hydrodynamic forces would be representative of the
average force acting on the pipeline.
Maximum waves are used in analysis of pipelines that must not move. For example, a
pipeline in a trench must not be allowed to move as its stability is dependent on it
remaining in the trench.
DNV-RP-F109
 Replaced Veritec RP-E305 in October 2007

 Quasi-static
 Non-linear soil resistance incorporated
 2 levels of analysis
 Generalised assessment – allows some movement
and limits resultant strain to allowable
 Absolute method – no movement of pipeline allowed
 Provides methodology for full dynamic
analysis
Incorporated into Excel or Mathcad, DNV-RP-F109 can be an expedient tool to

consider large numbers of permutations. Unlike in RP-E305, the fully dynamic analysis
methodology is covered in detail, along with the two approaches to quasi-static analysis.
PRCI
 Level 1: Force-balance traditional approach

 Provides Factor of Safety
 Level 2: Quasi-static approach
 Hydrodynamic and pipe/soil interaction models
 Accounts for past cyclic loading history
 Models storm build up followed by design storm
 Provides factor of safety
 Level 3: Dynamic analysis
 Models pipe movement, embedment and stress
 Reliance on user interpretation
The quasi-static model is based on the results of many dynamic simulations and results
of model tests that enable factors of safety to be derived based on the significant wave
height and intermediate wave heights up to the maximum wave (one in a thousand
waves).
The dynamic model provides instant values of factor of safety, pipe displacement,
embedment and stress and it requires user interpretation. The significant height, wave
period and spectral peakedness parameter are input to derive an idealised spectrum from
which the water velocity time history at the seabed can be derived.
Good environmental and geotechnical data is required to warrant the use of Level 3,
however, this is often not available.
The software accounts for the effect of the spread in heading of waves, which serves to
lower the loads on the pipe, as well as the fact that when the wave passes the pipe at an
angle, the wave crest passes the pipe over a finite time and distributes the loading.
Trench effects can also be modelled if the trench dimensions fall within a certain range.
Flexibles can be modelled but it is necessary to modify the coating and content
properties in the Level 1 and Level 2 analysis since “steel” pipe properties are assumed
for the pipe.
STABILITY ANALYSIS – SUMMARY
 Three levels of analysis

 Simple force balance
 Quasi-static
 Fully dynamic
 DNV and PRCI/AGA approaches
 Wave heights – Hs and Hmax
Any questions?
There are three levels of analysis available for pipeline stability. These are a simple force
balance approach, a quasi-static approach, or a fully dynamic model of the pipeline. The
existing codes, DNV-RP-F109 and PRCI/AGA, follow these approaches.
The design methods may use either significant wave height or maximum wave height.
Dynamic and quasi-static methods usually use Hs as the design wave.
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
 Piggyback pipelines
 Subsea structures
 Mattresses
 CD, CL, CM
 VIV
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) provides the capability to model fluid flow around
subsea objects in a similar way to that of FEA in modelling stresses and strains in solid
objects. The analysis enables lift, drag and inertia forces to be determined.
CFD can model wave or steady currents, and can model and predict vortex shedding.
The primary applications of the software are for the stability design of unusual
geometries such as mattresses and piggyback pipelines.
WORKED EXAMPLE AND EXERCISE
WORKED EXAMPLE: ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW
Start
Determine water particle Determine

velocities resistance
Increase
Determine hydrodynamic
weight (add
loads
concrete)
Pipe
End
Yes stable? No
WORKED EXAMPLE: WATER

VELOCITIES
Wave data Current data
Select wave theory
Boundary layer
Velocity and average
Acceleration at pipe
Vector current
addition
DETERMINE WATER
PARTICLE VELOCITIES
EXAMPLE: WAVES
 Data:
 Hs = 14 m (45.9 ft)
 Ts = 11 s
 d = 40 m (131.2 ft)
 Diagram suggests
use stream function
 Will use Airy
anyway
After: API RP 2A
EXAMPLE: WAVE LENGTH
 Data:
 g = 9.81 m/s2 (31.2 ft/s2)
 T = 11 s
 d = 40 m (131 ft)
 Deep-water wavelength g T 2
Lo 
 L0 = 188.9 m (619.6 ft) 2 
 Solve iteratively to get L  2   d 
actual wavelength  tanh 
Lo  L 
 L = 170.1 m (558.2 ft)
EXAMPLE: WAVE LENGTH
170 m
14 m
40 m
EXAMPLE: WAVES
 Pipe data:
 OD = 406.4 mm (16 in)
 tpipe = 25.4 mm (1 in)
 tcor = 0.5 mm (0.02 in) 507.4mm
 tconc = 50 mm (1.97 in)

 No marine growth
 Dhyd = 507.4 mm (1.67 ft)
Where:
■ tpipe = Pipe wall thickness
■ tcor = Thickness of anti-corrosion coating
■ tconc = Thickness of concrete coating
■ Dhyd = Hydrodynamic diameter
EXAMPLE: WAVES
 Data:  D 
cosh  2  π  hyd 
 Hs = 14 m (45.9 ft) π  Hs  L 
U * 
s Ts  d
 Ts = 11 s sinh  2  π  
 L
 Dhyd = 507.4 mm (1.67 ft)  D 
cosh  2  π  hyd 
 L = 170.1 m (558.2 ft) 2  π 2
 H  L 
a s

T
2
 d 
 Peak orbital velocity s sinh  2  π  
 L
 Us* = 1.93 m/s (6.3 ft/s) Velocity and Acceleration vs. Phase Angle
 Peak acceleration 2.5

2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s^2)
1.5 1
1
Velocity (m/s)
0.5
 a = 1.1 m/s2 (3.6 ft/s2)

0.5
0 0
-0.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-1 -0.5
-1.5 u (m/s)
-1
-2 a (m/s^2)
-2.5 -1.5
Phase (degrees)
Note that the Airy equation is the same as before but with Dhyd replacing z+d
EXAMPLE: CURRENTS
 Data:
 Dhyd = 507.4 mm (1.67 ft)
 z0 = 41.7·10-6 m (0.14·10-3 ft) for medium sand
 Ur = 0.5 m/s (1.6 ft/s)
 zr = 5 m (16.4 ft)
1  z  D  
Uc   1  o   ln hyd  1  1  U r
z  Dhyd   zo
ln r  1   
 zo 
Uc = 0.36 m/s (1.18 ft/s)
EXAMPLE: HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS
WATER PARTICLE  Assume

VELOCITIES hydrodynamic
coefficients:
CD, CL, CM  CD = 0.7
 CL = 0.9
Forces: Morison’s  CM = 3.29
equations
DETERMINE
HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS
 Morison’s equations:
 FD = ½··CD·Dhyd · |Us*·cos()+Uc| · (Us*·cos()+Uc)
 = 0.95 kN/m (65.1 lbf/ft) at  = 0°
 FM = ¼ ·  ·  · CM · Dhyd2 · a · sin()
 = 0 kN/m (0 lbf/ft) at  = 0°
 FL = ½ ·  · CL · Dhyd · (Us* cos() + Uc)2

 = 1.22 kN/m (83.8 lbf/ft) at  = 0°
 Morison’s equations:
400
Lift, Drag and Inertia Forces (N/m)
FD
i 200
FL
i
FM
i 0
200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
i
Wave Phase Angle (Theta)
Note that drag and lift are in phase, but the latter cannot fall below zero (because it uses
velocity squared) so has an additional hump.
The inertia is 90° out of phase with the other two.

EXAMPLE: RESISTANCE TO
MOVEMENT
Pipe  Data:
submerged  t = 25.4 mm (1 in)
weight  cor = 1300 kg/m3 (81.2 lb/ft3)
 conc = 3040 kg/m3 (190 lb/ft3)
Friction  cont = 800 kg/m3 (49.9 lb/ft3)
 Ws = (Mpipe - Mdisp) · g
 Ws = 3.2 kN/m (221.8 lbf/ft) (Operational)
DETERMINE
 Ws = 2.5 kN/m (168.4 lbf/ft) (Installation)
RESISTANCE
 Medium sand   = 0.7
EXAMPLE: ASSESS STABILITY
 Check stability:
 Ws = 3.2 kN/m (221.8 lbf/ft)
 FD = 0.95 kN/m (65.1 lbf/ft) at  = 0°
 FL = 1.22 kN/m (83.8 lbf/ft) at  = 0°
 FM = 0 kN/m (0 lbf/ft) at  = 0°
  = 0.7
Ws  FL   
FOS 
FD  FM
FOS=0° = 1.5
FOSmin = 1.3 at  = 16°
Hence pipe is stable
EXAMPLE: ANALYSIS FLOW CHART
Wave data Current data
Select wave theory

Boundary layer average
Velocity & acceleration at pipe
Vector current addition
CD, CM , CL Forces: Morison’s equations
Pipe submerged
Friction Assess stability
weight
Factor of safety
ON BOTTOM STABILITY – SUMMARY
You should now:

 Understand importance of stability
 Have an appreciation of data sources
and oceanographic principals
 Understand loads and resistance
 Understand the method of stability
analysis
 Have practiced with an exercise
Any questions?
Weather and wave climate
GLOBAL WEATHER OVERVIEW
 North Sea
 Summer: some calm periods
 Winter: continuous bad weather with storms
 Atlantic margin
 Summer: worse weather than North Sea
 Winter: worse weather than North Sea
 West Africa
 Continual directional swell
The typical weather patterns in the major areas of offshore exploration and production
differ significantly. This has a bearing on the relative importance of stability in the
pipeline engineering design, as well as influencing the analysis performed.
 Brazil
 Similar to West Africa
 Australian North West Shelf
 Summer: calm except for tropical cyclones
 Winter: continual strong winds  rough weather
 Gulf of Mexico
 Summer tropical storms
 Winter storms
 Eddy currents
(loop current)
Courtesy: Naval Oceanographic Office
The above picture shows currents in the GoM. The loop current passes between
Yucatan and Cuba, periodically shedding an eddy, which then drifts towards the Texas
coast.
WAVE SPECTRA
 Wave Statistics – spectral descriptions

 Pierson-Moskowitz (fully developed seas)
 JONSWAP (JOint North Sea WAve Project)
 Ochi-Hubble
 (used in PRCI/AGA software, see Bibliography)
 All represent the same spectrum for fully
developed seas
 JS & O-H peakedness parameters = 1
 Occurs when waves not fetch-limited
As waves propagate out of the area in which they were developed, the spread of wave
energy changes and distribution approaches the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum. The
spectrum is then said to be “fully developed”. Before this it is “fetch limited”. The
distribution of wave energy for a given sea state is described by the wave spectrum. The
main spectral descriptions are JONSWAP, Ochi-Hubble and Pierson-Moskowitz.
The Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum is for fully-developed seas, whereas the Ochi-Hubble

and JONSWAP spectra are more general. By specifying parameters they can represent a
variety of spectra, including the Pierson-Moskowitz. The Ochi-Hubble spectrum is used
in AGA stability software.
WAVE SPECTRA
 Different spectra for same Hs, Tz
The above plot shows the distribution of wave energy as a function of wave frequency
for three different JONSWAP peakedness parameters. The plot shows how the spectral
distribution of a seastate can vary significantly, even though the two key descriptors – Hs
and Tz – are identical.
Data selection
WAVE STOCHASTICS
 Stochastics used to describe the design

return event
 Need to define characteristic events
 RP = return period
 ARI = average recurrence interval
 Rule of thumb:
 3 x design life for operational design event storm
 Seasonal (3 month) 1 year return for installation
 Tend to use 10 yr, 50 yr and 100 yr most
often
Wind
An effect of wind passing over water is to generate surface shear currents. The currents
gradually and increasingly propagate down through the water column as the wind:
■ Speed increases
■ Time or duration increases
■ Fetch or distance increases
Wind also causes ripples, which grow to form waves as the duration and fetch increase.
The mechanism is identical to that which causes flags to flap – a viscous, fluid-induced
instability.
Analysis
Numerical models can therefore be used to translate wind data to give waves and
currents. For rare but severe events (e.g. cyclones), non-statistical quantities of data can
be improved using Monte Carlo simulation techniques. Statistical analysis of measured
environmental data provides the basis of the probable environmental conditions the
pipeline must survive during its service life or design life. The industry rule of thumb
(for a design return event of at least 3 times the design life) is part of BS PD8010-2. The
underlying principle is one of achieving a satisfactory level of safety.
DATA SELECTION
 Selection of concurrent data

 Wave and currents depend on situation
 Concurrence of storms with spring tides, etc.
 First pass: analyse 100 yr wave with 10 yr current
 And vice versa
 When numerical modelling is derived:
 Request design wave and associated current
 And design current and associated wave
 Directional data – worst direction and
perpendicular to PL are distinct cases
The concurrency of extreme current and wave events depends on the causes. If extreme
currents are caused by spring tides and extreme waves are caused by an extreme event,
then there is a reduced likelihood of both events occurring simultaneously. On the other
hand, if extreme currents are caused by spring tides and extreme waves are caused by
extensive seasonally strong winds, then simultaneous occurrence is more likely.
WAVE REFRACTION AND SHOALING
 Deep water to shallow water propagation

 Most theories only valid for ‘flat’ seabed
 Waves change as Bottom contours
depth changes
 Shape/steepness H1 T1 h 1
t
es Coast
cr
 Direction W
av
e
 Data
1 point 2
 Period Data line 2

point 1 Pipe
T1 h 2
1
st
cre
ve

Wa
After: AGA
Waves and currents are affected by changes in regional bathymetry, including the
presence of the shoreline. Most relationships, e.g. wave theories, are only valid for flat
seabeds.
In general:
■ waves propagate from deep water to shallow water.
■ waves in ‘deep water’ are not influenced by the seabed.
■ in shallow water, waves refract so that they propagate perpendicular to depth
contours.
MARINE GROWTH
 Increase diameter
 Density 1025 kg/m³ to 1300 kg/m³
(64.0 lb/ft³ to 81.2 lb/ft³)
 Adjust drag coefficient
 Combination of both
Marine growth takes a number of forms:

■ Barnacles
■ Kelp
■ Soft marine growth
Marine growth is heavily dependent on:

■ Depth. Below 100 m (330 ft) is normally free of growth, however growth has
been known to occur at depths of over 700 m (2350 ft)
■ Seawater temperature. Tropical waters experience significantly greater growth
than cold water, e.g. North Sea
Where design increases the diameter, it is normally by 25 mm to 50 mm (1 in to 2 in).

This represents an ‘effective’ diameter increase.
WATER DEPTH
 Normally given data for MSL or LAT

 Tidal variation
 Storm surge
 Due to barometric changes
 Wind piling water up against continents
Bathymetric data is normally given referenced to LAT (Lowest Astronomical Tide),

although MSL (Mean Sea Level) is also used. Tidal variations in water depth also need to
be considered. High water spring tides give the largest tide rise.
Storms are normally driven by low pressure weather systems. The lower barometric
pressure results in seawater being sucked into the region, causing a seawater level
increase known as storm surge. Winds, especially storm winds, can also cause seawater
level increases, where coastal constraints on the currents exist, causing water to ‘pile up’
against the landmass.
Selection of the appropriate water depth influences the stability of the pipeline:
■ Shallower conditions result in wave energy being closer to the pipe, or may result
in waves breaking.
■ Deeper water enables larger waves to be present in that location.
Trenching and soils
TRENCHING
 Horizontal
From: AGA
The above plot presents the reduction factor for horizontal forces on the pipeline due to
a given trench slope angle.
TRENCHING
 Vertical
From: AGA
The above plot presents the reduction factor for vertical forces on the pipeline due to a
given trench slope angle.
SEABED INTERACTION MODEL
 Soil properties affect friction/embedment

 Clay
 Sand
 Others
 Calcareous sand
 Rock
The type of seabed and seabed properties affect the capacity to resist lateral movement.
In weak clays or soft/silty sands, there is significant potential for the pipe to embed itself
into the seabed. It is therefore likely under these conditions that the stability of the
pipeline will be considerably higher than would have been predicted by a traditional
approach to stability design.
In stiff clays, dense sands or over bare rock, the potential for the pipe to embed into the
seabed is small. The allowance for the pipeline to undergo small displacements within a
defined corridor means that improvements over traditional stability analysis techniques
may still be obtained.
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 DNV-RP-F109 On-bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines, 2007

 Skjelbreia & Hendrickson, Fifth Order Gravity Wave Theory, 7th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering – Proceedings 1960/61
 M. Ochi and N. Hubble, Six-parameter Wave Spectra, Chapter 18,
Proceedings on 15th International Conference on Coastal Engineering,
1976
 Sarpkaya & Isaacson, Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures,
van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1981
 API RP 2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Load and Resistance Factor
Design, 1993
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 DNV Classification Notes 30.5, Environmental Conditions and

Environmental Loads, 1991
 AGA Project PR-178-9333, Submarine Pipeline On-bottom Stability,
Volume 1: Analysis & Design Guidelines, 1993 (New edition now
out)
 DNV ’96, Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems, 1996
 Barltrop & Adams, Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures,
Butterworth-Heinemann, 3rd Ed. 1991
 Hydrodynamic Forces on Pipelines – Model Tests, Final Report DHI
report to the AGA PR-170-185
 Wave and current forces on pipelines in trenches and part buried,
Hydraulics Research Station Report No EX 1012, July 81
Bottom roughness
and intervention
Bottom roughness and intervention 433
EXPECTATION
EXPECTATION
 Understand the purpose and objectives of a

bottom roughness analysis
 Know how to perform a bottom roughness
analysis
 Understand how and why we analyse spans
 Understand the intervention methods
available
This module assesses the role of bottom roughness analysis in identifying spans and
locations of upheaval buckling before the pipeline is laid. The required analysis of the
identified spans is addressed in detail, whilst upheaval buckling is covered in a later
module. The bottom roughness analysis methodology is discussed before suitable
intervention methods are introduced.
BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVES
 Identify the location of spanning sections of

pipeline along the pipeline route
 Identify any regions where upheaval
buckling may occur
 Determine where intervention is required
The objectives of the bottom roughness analysis are to accurately model the pipeline and
seabed in order to identify potential spans and upheaval buckling issues. The need for
intervention, which is discussed later in this module, can then be determined.
A pipeline route is shown in the slide above, with the pipeline highlighted on the seabed
profile. In this case the pipeline crosses a number of sandwaves, which are shown in the
brown area. The undulations of the sandwaves may lead to spanning and upheaval
buckling of the pipeline.
SPANS
 Spans can be caused by:

 Uneven seabed on selected route
 Sandwaves
 Rocks
 Coral outcrop
Pipeline spans are caused by a variety of seabed features, the most common of which is
an uneven seabed on the selected route. Pipelines submerged in seawater form quite
efficient beams, resulting in a relatively high bending stiffness and a tendency to span
over seabed undulations.
Sandwaves are a feature of many soft seabeds, including the southern North Sea. The
sandwaves tend to propagate, resulting in continuously moving pipeline spans unless the
pipeline is lowered to below the trough level.
UPHEAVAL BUCKLING
 Fully restrained pipeline

 High axial loads if hot
 A vertical out-of-straightness means there is
a perpendicular load component
 If this exceeds restraint then pipe will move
up
Uplift
Axial movement fed in

by thermal expansion
Upheaval buckling occurs where the pipeline is initially fully restrained. A vertical out-
of-straightness is required for it to initiate. At the out-of-straightness, there will be a
perpendicular load component from the axially applied load. As axial loading increases,
due to pressure and temperature, the pipe will start to deflect if the perpendicular load
component exceeds the available restraint.
Upheaval buckling is covered in greater detail later in this course.
AVAILABLE ANALYSIS TOOLS
 Numerous FE packages capable of bottom

roughness analysis
 Most commonly used are:
 ABAQUS
 Sage Profile
 Also available:
 ANSYS
 Offpipe
There are numerous finite element packages capable of performing a bottom roughness
analysis, the most common of which are ABAQUS and Sage Profile. For the purposes
of illustration, the remainder of this module assumes the use of ABAQUS. However,
the methodology defined will be the same for any FE package.
MODEL SET-UP
 Seabed
 Modelled as rigid body
 Profile taken from alignment charts
 Properties from survey data
 Pipeline
 Modelled using beam elements
 Dimensions and material properties taken from
design basis
 Installation and operating data from design basis
 Route from alignment charts
The aim of the bottom roughness analysis model is to represent the actual conditions as
closely as possible. As such, the accuracy of the input data is extremely important when
modelling the interaction between the pipeline and seabed.
The seabed is usually modelled as a rigid body, based on the profile obtained from the
alignment charts. Soil properties, such as seabed material and lateral and axial friction
coefficients, should be obtained from survey data if it is available. Failing this, admiralty
charts or other data from the public domain may be used to assess the seabed material
along the pipeline route. Design codes such as DNV-RP-F109 give generalised friction
coefficients.
The most efficient way to model the pipeline is to use beam elements, as this gives an
accurate representation of the pipeline whilst saving on run time when compared to full
solid modelling. Pipeline dimensions and material properties should be obtained from
the design basis, whilst route data can be obtained from the alignment charts.
The model should be set up to apply the installation conditions initially, before applying
operating conditions when the pipeline is situated on the seabed. Parameters such as the
ambient water temperature during installation, pipeline contents densities and operating
pressures and temperatures should be obtained from the design basis.
CONTACT
 Contact modelled between pipeline and

seabed
 Seabed will not behave as a rigid body
 Pipeline will embed
 Contact stiffness of seabed reduced to
reflect this
Softening contact
Embedment
Contact must be modelled between the pipeline and the seabed, otherwise, as soon as
gravity was applied (unless the pipeline was buoyant), the pipeline would pass through
the seabed.
For the purposes of the bottom roughness analysis, the seabed is modelled as a rigid
body. However, the seabed will not be rigid in reality. In order to reflect this behaviour
in the FE model, the contact stiffness of the seabed can be reduced to allow a certain
degree of pipeline embedment.
LAY TENSION
 Provided by installation contractor

 Can be calculated using catenary
calculations
 If no data available
 Run case with low lay tension to assess upheaval
 Run case with high tension to assess spanning
If the installation analysis has been carried out then the installation contractor should be
able to supply the lay tension to be used in the analysis. Failing this, lay tensions can be
determined using catenary calculations. These are covered in detail in the Jee course on
“Installation Calculations for Subsea Pipelines”.
In cases where little or no data is available, it is conservative to run the bottom

roughness analysis with the two cases defined above. Running the analysis with a low lay
tension will provide the least resistance to the compressive forces in the pipeline which
drive upheaval buckling, whilst a high lay tension will increase the likelihood of spanning.
MODEL LOADING SEQUENCE
 Locate pipeline above seabed

 Apply installation conditions
 Fix pipeline at point A and apply tension at
free end
A
T
The first step in loading the bottom roughness model is to locate the pipeline above the
seabed, with the installation conditions applied. The pipeline should then be fixed at
point A but allowed to rotate around the out-of-plane axis as we look at the diagram.
This will enable the remainder of the pipeline to be lowered to the seabed. The lay
tension should be applied at the free end of the pipeline as shown.
 Apply gravity and buoyancy

 Seabed friction initially zero
The next step in the modelling process is to apply gravity and buoyancy to the pipeline,
lowering it to the seabed (assuming that the pipeline is negatively buoyant). Initially, the
seabed friction should be set to zero in order to allow the pipeline to take up its natural
shape.
 Apply seabed friction

 Burial requirements
 Apply hydrotest and operating conditions
Once the pipeline has settled on the seabed, seabed friction should be applied. If the
pipeline is to be buried, this should also be modelled before the application of the
hydrotest and operating conditions.
Applying the burial requirements and the seabed friction before the operating conditions
ensures that the correct resistance to pipeline expansion is realised, and therefore the
accurate representation of the locked-in forces.
RESULTS
 Spans
 Readily located by plotting contact opening
 Length determined by probing values
 Upheaval buckling locations
 Identified from pipeline deformed shape
 Intervention required
Span
The output of the bottom roughness analysis will be the location and dimensions of any
spans and areas of upheaval buckling along the pipeline route. The stresses in the
pipeline at these locations can also be extracted and compared to allowable.
The contact opening is a measure of the separation between bodies in the FE model
with a defined contact relationship. A positive contact opening implies a separation
whilst a negative contact opening implies embedment. Therefore, the locations of any
spans in the bottom roughness analysis can be readily detected by highlighting any
sections of pipeline with a positive contact opening in the results viewer. This will also
give a measure of the span height. The length of the span at these locations can then be
determined by probing.
The location of any areas of upheaval buckling during operation can be detected through
examination of the pipeline deformed shape and stress plots. This will identify whether
intervention, which is covered later in this module, is required. Again, the length of the
buckle can be determined by probing.
RESULTS
 Span locations highlighted in red along

route
The slide above illustrates how the contact opening can be used to quickly highlight all
of the spanning sections of pipeline along the pipeline route. In this plot, the deflection
of the pipeline has been exaggerated for clarity.
SENSITIVITIES TO INPUT DATA
 Reduction in axial seabed friction

 Reduced resistance to upheaval buckling
 Reduction in lay tension
 Reduces likelihood of spanning
 Reduced resistance to upheaval buckling
 Reduction in seabed contact stiffness
 Reduces likelihood of spanning
 Sensitivity analyses to ensure conservatism
The bottom roughness analysis is particularly sensitive to the seabed friction, the lay
tension and the seabed contact stiffness.
A reduction in the axial seabed friction will reduce the resistance to upheaval buckling.
This would mean that a lower locked-in force would be required to cause upheaval
buckling and therefore upheaval buckling would be more likely. Conversely, an increase
in the axial seabed friction would reduce the likelihood of upheaval buckling.
Reductions to the lay tension will also reduce the resistance to upheaval buckling, along
with the likelihood of spanning.
Reducing the contact stiffness between the seabed and the pipeline will also reduce the
tendency to span, as the pipeline will be able to embed at the span supports. This will
have the effect of reducing the span length and height, potentially eliminating some of
the smaller spans.
In order to assess the combination of these effects, sensitivity analyses should be

performed to ensure conservatism of the results without making the FE model too
unrealistic.
BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS –

SUMMARY
 Purpose of bottom roughness analysis

 Identify spans along pipeline route
 Predict upheaval buckling before pipeline laid
 Used to determine where intervention
required
 Many FE packages suitable
 Analysis methodology
 Assess sensitivity to pipeline inputs
 Maintain conservatism
 Keep model realistic
Any questions?
The objectives of the bottom roughness analysis are to accurately model the pipeline and
seabed in order to identify potential spans and upheaval buckling issues. The need for
intervention, which is discussed later in this module, can then be determined.
There are numerous finite element packages capable of performing a bottom roughness
analysis, the most common of which are ABAQUS and Sage Profile. However, the
analysis methodology illustrated will be identical.
The sensitivity of the model to input parameters, particularly the seabed friction, lay
tension and seabed contact stiffness should be assessed. This will enable conservatism
to be maintained throughout the analysis without making the model unrealistic.
SPANS
Design codes
SPAN DESIGN CODES
 Detailed codes
 DNV-RP-F105 – Free spanning pipelines
 DNV Guidelines 14
 DNV Classification Notes 30.5
 Barltrop & Adams
 Sarpkaya & Isaacson
 In-house / JIP studies
 General references
 Present in most subsea pipeline design codes
 DNV, ISO, ASME etc
 No detailed information on quantification
DNV-RP-F105 is the main design code available for the analysis of free spanning
pipelines in the offshore industry. Joint industry projects (JIPs) and studies by individual
companies have been performed and some of the findings from these have gradually
found their way into the DNV code. This recommended practice was updated in 2006
and replaced the earlier Guideline 14.
In the main offshore standards such as DNV OS-F101, PD 8010 and ASME B31.8,
general references are made to the consideration of free spanning pipelines. However,
none of them go into detail on how these studies should be quantified, they just
recommend what should be considered.
Other information can be found in publications such as “Dynamics of Fixed Marine

Structures” by Barltrop and Adams and “Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore
Structures” by Sarpkaya and Isaacson.
DNV-RP-F105
 Detailed design criteria

 Fatigue limit state (FLS)
 Ultimate limit state (ULS)
 VIV flow conditions
 In-line and cross-flow
 Single and adjacent side span interaction
 Spans changing with time, e.g due to scour
 Spans not changing with time
 Screening criteria
DNV-RP-F105 was developed from the earlier Guideline 14 and presents the most up-
to-date general approach to span assessment. It incorporates both simplified and
detailed methodologies. The effects of current and wave interactions, seabed proximity
and span end effects are incorporated in the assessment of both in-line and cross-flow
VIV. Multiple excitation modes are also considered. Although this is the latest guideline
on spans, it is known to be conservative in its assessment of VIV.
DESIGN CODES – SUMMARY
 Many codes and guidelines are available for

analysis
 DNV-RP-F105 most up-to-date
 Revised February 2006
 Based on FEA and experimental testing
Any questions?
There are many codes and guidelines available for the assessment of VIV. These have
been written based on the findings of finite element and computational fluid dynamics
analyses and the results of experimental testing. DNV-RP-F105 presents the most up-
to-date general approach to span assessment.
Span assessment
SPANNING PIPELINE CONCERNS
 Peak stresses – static and dynamic loads

 Buckling – axial operational loads
 Fatigue due to vortex-induced vibrations
(VIV)
The main concerns with spanning pipelines are listed below:

■ The potential failure due to excessive stresses from a long span.
■ The buckling of the span due to local bending or column buckling due to
compressive axial forces.
■ The likelihood of vortex-induced vibrations (VIV) occurring and hence the
potential for fatigue failure.
SPAN ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
 Assess static span response

 Spans with stresses exceeding code allowable
require rectification
 Determine critical span length based on
fatigue due to VIV
 Compare with spans identified in bottom
roughness FE analysis
 Spans exceeding this critical span length require
rectification
The purpose of the span assessment is to determine limits on the allowable span length
during pipeline installation, commissioning and operation. This assessment is normally
based on conservative criteria, which ensure that no short-term or long-term damage of
the pipe will result.
The critical span length calculated is used to assess each of the spans identified in the
bottom roughness FE analysis. This allows the determination of any longer spans
requiring rectification.
ANALYSIS CASES
 Peak stresses and buckling

 Ultimate limit state (ULS)
 Assess with FEA in the bottom roughness analysis
 VIV
 Fatigue limit state (FLS)
 Determine critical span length based on pipeline
design life
For each of the different analysis cases, we assess the ultimate limit state in terms of peak
stresses and buckling. This is generally performed in the bottom roughness FE analysis
for each of the identified spans.
We then assess the fatigue limit state for response to VIV. The critical span length is
determined as the maximum span length with a fatigue life greater than the design life of
the pipeline.
SPAN ASSESSMENT – SUMMARY
 Determine if span is acceptable

 Perform bottom roughness analysis
 Determine critical span length
 Identify spans requiring rectification
 Concerns
 Peak stresses (static and dynamic), buckling, VIV
 Probability of fatigue failure
Any questions?
When analysing spans, our main objective is to determine if a span is acceptable and can
be left alone or if there is a risk of failure. If there is a risk of failure, seabed
modifications will be required.
In areas where there is potential for the seabed to change over time, we would need to
ensure we check for the appearance of spans in our routine surveys of the pipeline. If
critical spans are detected, we need to conduct a detailed assessment of the stresses and
fatigue life associated with the span to determine if we need to undertake remedial work.
Static analysis
DESIGN CASES
 Installation
 Air filled
 Installation environmental loads
 Commissioning
 Water filled at ambient and at hydrotest pressure
 Installation environmental loads
 Operation
 Operational contents at MAOP
 Design return event environmental loads
The static analysis should consider the different conditions that the pipeline will
experience. These follow the sequence of installation onto the seabed (air-filled), then
flooding with seawater.
The changes in axial forces due to internal pressure mean that a span check should be
performed with the pipe flooded under unpressurised and hydrotest conditions. The
final case is the pipeline under operational conditions, with the design return event
environmental conditions applied.
STATIC SPAN ANALYSIS
 Performed during bottom roughness FE

analysis
 Modelling already performed
 Span geometry and boundary conditions defined
 Extract stresses readily
 Environmental and design loading applied
 Each of the identified spans assessed
 Stresses compared with code limits for acceptability
 Intervention required if stresses exceed allowable
The static span analysis is generally performed as part of the bottom roughness FE
analysis. The combined stresses at each of the spans identified in this analysis are
compared with code allowable after the application of the environmental and design
loading. Remedial work will be required should the stresses in any of the spans exceed
this limit.
PIPE LOADS
 Lateral bending due to:

 Drag and inertia from currents & waves
 Vertical bending due to:
 Submerged weight, Ws Lift
 Lift from currents & waves
Axial Drag
 Axial forces due to:
stresses
 Poisson effect Inertia
 Internal fluid
 Thermal stresses Self weight
The loads that act on a spanning pipeline are described in the above slide.
Laterally, the pipeline will experience drag and inertia due to current and wave loading.
This will encourage bending. Other loads such as impact from fishing gear may also be
encountered. In the vertical direction, the submerged weight of the pipeline is opposed
by the lift force from wave and current loading. If the pipeline is stable (i.e. the
submerged weight is greater than the lift force experienced), the pipeline will sag.
Otherwise, hogging will occur.
Along with the lateral and horizontal loads, the pipeline will also experience axial loading
due to pressure and temperature effects.
SPAN FAILURE MECHANISMS
 Failure due to excessive bending

 Plastic hinges possible at span supports
Bending at the
centre of the Plastic hinging
span at the span
supports
Current & Axial tension &

wave action compression
End
supports
Large lateral or vertical loads may cause excessive bending of the pipeline. This could
cause yielding and lead to failure in bending. If this mechanism could occur, then it is
necessary to stabilise the span and give it additional support.
SPAN FAILURE MECHANISMS
 Buckling due to out of straightness at span

centre and high compressive forces
Soil/virtual SPAN Soil/virtual
anchor anchor
Vertical deflection
point point
 axial stress relief
Feed-in Feed-in
Friction Friction
 Limited by seabed proximity

 Permitted if stresses acceptable
The above diagram illustrates how buckling can occur at a pipeline span. At the out-of-
straightness at the centre of the span, caused by the pipeline sagging under its own
weight, there will be a perpendicular load component from the axially applied load. As
axial loading increases, due to pressure and temperature, the pipe will start to deflect.
The deflection will initially be progressive as the load increases. However, it will reach a
point of elastic instability and will then exhibit rapid deflection (‘snap-through’) until a
stable condition is reached again. During this period, the axial restraint of the pipeline is
reduced and pipe will ‘feed-in’ to the buckle as the pipeline expands.
However, in the case of a spanning pipeline, buckling may not be a particular concern as
the out-of-axis deflections will be limited by the seabed proximity, particularly if the span
height is small.
STATIC ANALYSIS – SUMMARY
 Performed as part of bottom roughness FE

analysis
 Overstressing in bending
 Buckling
 Deflections due to buckling limited by
seabed proximity
 Stresses compared with code allowable
 Spans displaying stresses exceeding allowable
require intervention
Any questions?
The purpose of the static span analysis is to prevent failure of the pipeline at the span
due to either yielding caused by excessive bending stresses or buckling. However,
buckling at the span is not normally a problem as deflections are limited by the proximity
to the seabed.
analysis. The peak stresses extracted at each span are compared with code allowable (e.g.
PD 8010, ASME B31.8). Spans with stresses exceeding this limit will need intervention.
Vortex-induced vibrations
VORTEX SHEDDING
 Periodic instability in wake

 Occurs behind bluff bodies
 Fluctuating fluid velocity and pressure
Vortex shedding is a periodic instability that occurs in the wake behind bluff bodies,
most notably cylinders. This phenomenon is often visible in nature in locations such as
the piles on a bridge or jetty where the wake is visible.
Vortex shedding is where a swirl, or vortex, is shed into the wake of the pipe. The
picture above shows the results of CFD analysis with the classic asymmetric shedding
pattern, where the vortices are shed sequentially from opposite sides of the pipe with
opposing swirl direction.
VORTEX SHEDDING
 Vortices shed in short cells initially

 Random shedding of small cells
 Shedding frequency a function of flow velocity
 Pipe movement negligible
Vortices are shed initially in short cells of between 0.5 and 2.0 times the diameter (0.5-
2D) in length. Whilst the frequency of shedding is a function of the flow velocity, the
location and phase of shedding of adjacent cells is random. The net oscillatory load on
the pipe is therefore small and the resultant motion of the spanning pipeline is negligible.
VORTEX SHEDDING
 When frequency close to natural frequency

pipe movement becomes significant –
vortex shedding cells correlate
 Movement drives vortex shedding frequency

 Lock-in
As the flow velocity increases and the shedding frequency becomes close to the natural
frequency of the pipe span, the amplitude of movement of the pipe increases. This
movement drives the timing of the vortex shedding and the small vortex cells shed
together. The loads therefore are no longer of a random nature and the amplitude of
oscillation increases.
This leads to the situation where the vortices correlate and are shed as a long cell of
about 15D length. The span vibrations ‘lock-in’ at the natural frequency of the span
with the vortex shedding being controlled by the pipe oscillations, rather than the flow
velocity.
VORTEX-INDUCED VIBRATIONS
Vortex shedding frequency
Locked-in
Cross-flow
2 x Nat.freq.
Fixed pipe
response
Locked-in
In-line
Nat.freq.
Flexing pipe
response
Flow velocity
This effect is illustrated in the figure above. If the riser were totally rigid, the vortex
shedding frequency would increase linearly with increasing flow velocity. In reality, risers
are not totally rigid and always have some degree of flexibility. The vortex shedding
therefore causes the riser to oscillate.
As the frequency of vortex shedding approaches the natural frequency of the riser span,
the amplitude of oscillations increases. The riser oscillations then start to control the
frequency of vortex shedding and the riser oscillations and the vortex shedding lock-in at
the natural frequency of the riser span.
TACOMA NARROWS BRIDGE –

VIDEO
One dramatic example of flow-induced failure was on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge,
which collapsed due to vibrations in winds of 19 m/s (42 mph). The actual failure
mechanism was not VIV but aerodynamic flutter, but the effect is similar. In each case a
regular flow excites a periodic vibration in a structure at a natural frequency, which gives
rise to large displacements and high stresses that eventually cause failure. Subsea
pipeline spans and risers are prone to VIV.
The bridge was designed to resist the forces at the much higher wind speeds of 54 m/s
(120 mph). However, this particular lower speed coincided with the critical velocity to
cause excitation at the natural frequency of the structure.
The authorities closed the bridge when it was vibrating at 38 oscillations/minute with an
amplitude of 0.9 m (3 ft). The amplitude was much more when it collapsed.
The bridge had opened in July 1940 and was in operation until it fell in November that
year. During this time, it fluttered whenever it was subjected to the appropriate wind
speed. It gained the name ‘Galloping Gertie’ from thrill-seekers who would cross,
having no idea that its structural integrity might be suspect, since it conformed with all
existing codes. Attempts were made to increase damping to prevent such motion, but to
no avail. When subjected to higher autumn storm winds, the bridge remained stable.
Professor Farquharson, a consultant brought in to propose modifications and who

witnessed the collapse, had carried out model tests and identified that the fitting of
proper streamlining would be able to stop movements. However, the bridge fell just
before these could be added.
VIV IN PIPELINE
 Periodic instability
in wake
 Can cause
pipe vibration
Courtesy of Trelleborg
CRP Group
With increasing velocity, the vibration of the span passes through a number of oscillation
modes. The video shown within the presentation here illustrates this.
At lower flow velocities, the vortices are shed symmetrically from top and bottom of the
pipe, giving an in-line oscillation mode (oscillations in-line with the direction of current
flow).
At increased velocity, the vortices are shed asymmetrically, giving initially a further mode
of in-line oscillation and then a cross-flow mode (oscillations across the flow direction).
The consequence of vortex-induced vibrations is fatigue damage to the pipe.

SPAN DYNAMICS – DNV-RP-F105
 The parameters that control the span

dynamics are natural frequency and
damping
 Damping is defined by the stability

parameter:
4    me   T
KS 
  Dhyd 2
The two crucial parameters on which the span vibration depends are the natural
frequency of vibration of the span, and the damping in the system.The natural frequency
depends on the mass and stiffness of the span, where the mass includes the mass of pipe,
coatings, contents, marine growth and added mass of entrained water. DNV-RP-F105
quantifies damping using a stability parameter, which can be assessed using the above
equation, where:
■ me = Mass per unit length = Total pipe mass + added mass
■ Dhyd = Hydrodynamic diameter, ie, overall outside diameter
■ T = Total modal damping ratio at a given vibration mode comprising soil,
structural and hydrodynamic damping
■  = Seawater density = 1025 kg/m3 (64.4 lb/ft3 )
Structural damping is due to internal friction forces of the pipe material and depends on
the strain level and associated deflection. If no information is available, a structural
modal damping ratio of  = 0.005 can be assumed. If concrete is present, the sliding at
the interface between concrete and corrosion coating may further increase the damping
to typically 0.01-0.02. Flexibles have a high degree of structural damping and
accordingly are much less prone to VIV.
The added mass is a function of the gap between the seabed and the pipe and can be
defined from further information given within DNV-RP-F105. Further guidance is also
given on the structural, soils and hydrodynamic damping within the guidelines.
NATURAL FREQUENCY
 Natural frequency assessed by:

 Simple beam theory (not very accurate)
 Analytical equation (DNV-RP-F105)
 Contains provision for:
 Soil and end support conditions
 Effective axial load
 Static deflection
 Concrete coating enhanced stiffness
 Buckling resistance
 FEA
 Direct measurement (not for initial design)
A number of analytical and semi-empirical equations have been developed to predict

pipeline freespan natural frequency. The latest equation is presented in DNV-RP-F105.
This equation is applicable to a single span and where the symmetrical mode shape
dominates the dynamic response. This will generally require the ratio of span length to
pipe diameter to be less than 140 and the ratio of pipe deflection to outside diameter to
be less than 2.5.
Parameters used in the equation are:

■ Effective span length
■ Effective axial force
■ Euler buckling load resistance = 2EI/L2eff
■ Deflection load per unit length, eg submerged weight for vertical vibrations
■ Steel outer diameter
The effective span length represents the length where the span can be considered fully
fixed. The effective span length will depend on the L/D ratio and the soil stiffness.
Guidance is provided for calculating the soil stiffness depending on soil parameters for
both clay and sand, e.g. undrained shear strength and angle of friction. The effects of
tension or compression are important  tension increases natural frequency and
compression reduces it.
The use of FEA is a more accurate method of determining the natural frequency of the
span if reliable data is available. Alternatively, instruments can be mounted to an ROV
to measure the natural frequency of existing spans, or can be attached to the pipeline
directly. Jee Ltd has monitored several pipelines for VIV, correlating the movement
with current and wave action.
VIV RESPONSE – RP-F105
 VIV response determined by empirically

derived amplitude response models
 In-line response
 Cross-flow response
 Separate models
 Models presented as graphical response
envelopes, accessed via dimensionless
parameters
 Stress range for fatigue assessment
determined from VIV amplitude
Empirically derived response models have been developed and refined over many years.
These were originally based on steady current flow only but have been refined to include
the effects of waves.
The most advanced VIV response models for a free-spanning pipeline on the seabed are
included in DNV-RP-F105. These are presented as graphical response envelopes which
are used to determine the stress range to be used in the fatigue assessment.
RESPONSE MODEL
 Environmental input parameters

 Reduced velocity
Uc  U w
VR 
f0  D
 Keulegan-Carpenter number
Uw
KC 
fw  D
 Current flow velocity ratio
Uc

Uc  U w
The amplitude response of the span to VIV excitation can be determined based on the
above hydrodynamic parameters. In these equations:
■ Uc = current-induced water particle velocity normal to the pipe

■ Uw = wave-induced water particle velocity normal to the pipe
■ f0 = span natural frequency
■ fw = wave frequency
IN-LINE VIV
0.2
0.18
0.16
In-line VIV amplitude
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Reduced Velocity
In-line oscillations only occur in current dominated flow, i.e  > 0.5. The amplitudes of
oscillation are found from the graph above and are primarily a function of stability
parameter and reduced velocity. However turbulence intensity and flow angle also
provide input to the generation of each envelope.
The horizontal velocity relates to the reduced velocity and the vertical axis gives the ratio
of the amplitude of vibration to pipe outer diameter (Ay/D). Each of the envelopes is for
different values of stability parameter ranging from a value of zero at the top to 1.5 at
the bottom in 0.25 increments.
Both the reduced velocity and stability parameters are scaled using partial safety factors.
■ VR,d = VRf
■ KS,d = KS / k
CROSS-FLOW VIV
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
Cross-flow VIV amplitude

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Reduced Velocity
Cross-flow oscillations occur under all wave and current combinations. The amplitude
of vibration is affected by several parameters such as:
■ Reduced velocity, Vr
■ Keulegan-Carpenter number, KC
■ Current flow ratio, α
■ Stability parameter
■ Seabed gap ratio
■ Strouhal number
■ Pipe roughness
For steady current-dominated flow situations, the onset of cross-flow VIV of a

significant amplitude occurs at a value of Vr between 3 and 5, whereas maximum
amplitude occurs at a value of Vr between 5 and 7. For pipes with low specific mass,
wave dominated flow situations or with a low gap ratio, cross flow VIV can be initiated
for Vr between 2 and 3.
The amplitudes of oscillation are greater than for in-line VIV. The horizontal axis relates
to the reduced velocity and the vertical axis gives the ratio of the amplitude of vibration
to pipe outer diameter (AZ/D). The top envelope is for  > 0.8 and all values of KC.
The middle envelope is for < 0.8 and KC > 30. The bottom envelope is for  < 0.8
and KC < 10.
FATIGUE
 Cyclic Loads
 S-N curves
 Miner’s Rule
Having determined the resultant VIV stress range for each wave and current
combination, the resultant fatigue damage needs to be determined and summed.
From the total fatigue damage, the fatigue life can be derived. All significant cyclic loads
should be included and not just VIV. Fatigue damage is summed using Palmgren-
Miner’s accumulation rule.
CYCLIC LOADS
 Operational cycling – thermal, pressure

 Cyclic currents – tides
 Waves
 Need % exceedence tables for waves, currents
 Obtain from environmental data study
 In-line VIV
 Cross-flow VIV
 Direct wave action
Fatigue analysis requires the contributions to cyclic forces to be identified. For fatigue
analysis, rather than the extreme environmental data used in other aspects of design, it is
the regular data that is required. This is normally available as percentage exceedence
tables. This results in a number of permutation analyses to give wave forces, etc. A
proficient approach, such as using spreadsheets, is recommended.
The principle by which forces due to direct wave action are calculated is covered in the
stability section.
S-N CURVE
 S-N curves
 Dedicated laboratory test data
 Accepted fracture mechanics theory
 Codes DOE F2 S-N Curve
 BS 7608 1000
 DNV-RP-C203
Stress Range (MPa)
100
10
10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Endurance (cycles)
The damage due to each derived stress range can be determined using an appropriate S-
N curve. Material-specific S-N curves are available for high strength welded steel
tubulars in seawater, protected from corrosion by CP systems.
MINER’S RULE
 Miner’s rule
n 
D fat    i   
i  Ni 
 Allowable damage ratio

 Traditional assessments typically use DNV ’81
criteria which defines  = 0.1
 DNV-RP-F105 builds in safety factors each stage
and uses a usage factor depending on safety class
  is 0.25, 0.5 or 1.0
Miner’s rule enables the cumulative contribution from different load sources to be
summed and the fatigue life evaluated.
■ Dfat = Cumulative fatigue damage caused
■ ni = Number of cycles at stress band i
■ Ni = Number of cycles to failure at stress band i
Traditional approaches to fatigue assessment apply no safety factors to the response

models, but apply a large overall factor of safety to the calculated fatigue. DNV-RP-
F105 uses the partial safety factor approach, with factors applied to natural frequency,
onset of VIV, stability parameter and stress range.
CRITICAL SPAN LENGTH

DETERMINATION
Waves
Pipe Determine span Derive matrix of
scatter
parameters dynamics, wave and current
chart
& operating i.e. natural frequency combinations and
conditions and damping probabilities
Current
Determine VIV exceedence
Empirical
response to each data
VIV response
wave and current
curves
combination
Determine stress range

Determine critical
and fatigue damage for
S-N curve span length based
each wave/current
on design life
combination
The method used to determine the critical span length based on fatigue is illustrated
above. Each of the stages involved in this process will be covered in detail in the
following slides.
VORTEX-INDUCED VIBRATIONS –
SUMMARY
 Vibrations from periodic instability in wake

 In-line VIV at the lower velocities
 Cross-flow VIV at the higher velocities
 VIV response determined by empirically
derived amplitude response models
 Fatigue life assessed
 S-N curves
 Miner’s rule
 Critical span length determined
Any questions?
Vortex-induced vibrations (VIV) result from the shedding of vortices, which alter the
hydrodynamic loads acting on the pipeline.
At low velocities, the vortices are shed randomly along the length of the span and the net
oscillatory load is negligible. As the shedding frequency approaches the natural
frequency of the pipeline span, the amplitude of vibrations significantly increase. At
lower velocities, the span will tend to vibrate in an in-line vibration mode. At higher
frequencies, the span will tend to vibrate in a cross-flow vibration mode.
The VIV response of the span is determined by empirically derived response models.
These have been developed and refined over many years and are presented as graphical
response envelopes, which are used to determine the stress range to be used in the
fatigue assessment.
The damage due to each derived stress range is determined using an appropriate S-N
curve before the application of Miner’s rule, which enables the cumulative contribution
from different load sources to be summed and the fatigue life evaluated. The critical
span length is then determined as the maximum allowable span length with a fatigue life
greater than the design life of the pipeline.
SPANS – SUMMARY
 Static assessment performed as part of

bottom roughness FE analysis
 Spans with stresses exceeding code limits require
intervention
 Critical span length determined based on
VIV fatigue life and design life of pipeline
 Span lengths exceeding this limit require
intervention
Any questions?
When analysing spans, our main objective is to determine if a span is acceptable and can
be left alone or if there is a risk of failure. If there is a risk of failure, seabed intervention
will be required.
analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to prevent failure of the pipeline at the span due
to either yielding caused by excessive bending stresses or buckling.
The span is then assessed for fatigue due to VIV, using design codes such as DNV-RP-
F105. The critical span length is determined as the maximum span length with a fatigue
life greater than the design life of the pipeline. Comparing this value to the spans
identified during the bottom roughness analysis will identify any spans requiring
intervention.
INTERVENTION
INTERVENTION OPTIONS
 Pre-lay intervention
 Prevent unacceptable spans and upheaval buckling
 Smoothing of seabed by removal of high points
before pipeline laid
 Post-lay rectification
 Rectify unacceptable spans and prevent upheaval
 Use of supports and strakes on spans
 Rockdumping to provide extra resistance to
upheaval buckling
 Re-route pipeline
Where unacceptable spans or areas of upheaval buckling have been predicted by the
bottom roughness analysis, intervention is required. There are two main categories of
intervention options:
■ Pre-lay intervention
■ Post-lay rectification
Pre-lay intervention uses techniques such as sweeping and dredging to smooth the
seabed by the removal of the high points, reducing the likelihood of spanning. This
method can also be used to reduce the out-of-straightness of the pipeline in order to
prevent upheaval buckling.
Post-lay rectification includes activities such as supporting spans once the pipeline is on
the seabed and rockdumping areas where upheaval is predicted, in order to provide extra
resistance to movement.
If neither of these options prove to be applicable, either practically or financially, a third

option would be to re-route the pipeline to avoid the problem areas identified.
PRE-LAY INTERVENTION
 Removal of seabed highpoints

 May require a number of passes
5850 5950 6050 6150
-56.0
-57.0
Original
-58.0 Excavation 1
DEPTH (m)
-59.0 Excavation 2
Excavation 3
-60.0 Excavation 4
-61.0 Excavation 5
Excavation 6
-62.0
-63.0
KP (m)
Excavation methods can be employed to remove high points in the seabed, lowering the
pipeline and reducing or eliminating spans and upheaval buckling. In areas where
significant excavation is required, a number of passes will be utilised as illustrated above.
SANDWAVE SWEEPING
 Pre-sweep dredging usually by trailing

suction hopper dredger
 Sandwaves are
formed:
 In shallow seas
 With strong tidal
currents ~0.6 m/s
(1.2 knots)
Pre-sweep dredging of sandwaves along the selected pipeline route is undertaken using
trailing suction hopper dredgers.
SANDWAVE SWEEPING
Dredged
areas
Predicted
as laid OBP
Original
seabed
Pipeline then lowered by a further 2 m (7 ft) during burial
469 000 470 000 471 000 472 000 473 000 474 000
Chainage or KP in m (ft)
The figure above shows the profile along a 1500 m (5000 ft) section of the
Interconnector pipeline. The original seabed with five major static sandwaves is clearly
shown, together with the “as-dredged” profile. The predicted profile of the pipe is also
shown (by courtesy of Brown & Root).
The dredging operation is normally undertaken one to two weeks ahead of the pipe
laybarge activities. Once the pipeline is on the seabed, it is surveyed to ensure that there
are no excessive freespans before the post-trenching operations commence.
TRAILING SUCTION HOPPER
 Operating depth in excess of 100 m (300 ft)

 Accurately positioned drag head
 Material lifted to
surface for disposal
elsewhere
HAM 318 – with twin drag heads

Trailing suction hopper dredgers will trench through sandwaves and other obstructions,
and can operate in depths in excess of 100 metres (300 ft). The drag head on the
dredger is accurately positioned using sophisticated electronic equipment and the
progress is continuously monitored to ensure that the designed profile is obtained.
WATER INJECTION DREDGER
 Jetprop and Jetflow – alternative to trailing

suction hopper for offshore applications
 Water jet system cuts trench and displaces
soil to either side
 2 m (6 ft) depth per pass Flow down tube
 10 m to 15 m (30 ft to 50 ft) wide
Sand blasted from trench
 Rotech’s Aquaflow T8000

 Twin counter-thrust propellers keep
suction unit stable whilst suspended
The Jetflow and Jetprop excavation systems (Underwater Excavation Limited/PSL

Energy Services/International Dredging) have been developed to give lower cost and
more efficient trenching of pipeline landfalls and offshore trenches than conventional
trailing suction hopper dredging.
They are propeller-driven systems designed to distribute material evenly to each side of
the trench, leaving a clean and deep trench. Using a 10 bar (145 psi) pressure in sand
layers, jet-flow technology can achieve a 2 m (6 ft) deep trench at first pass, and a
bottom-width of 10 m to 15 m (30 ft to 50 ft). In clay, a 1.5 m (5 ft) deep trench can be
produced during the initial pass.
It is installed on the drag head of a conventional trailing suction hopper, although it does
not use the suction hopper in the usual way. The vessel’s hopper remains empty, as its
pumps are used to generate a powerful water jet through the suction pipe. No material
is taken on board the dredger. The digging force of the jets is much greater than with
conventional systems. The reportedly good results are realised by the combination of
fine nozzles and twin main jets, located at each side of the jet-flow head, distributing
material evenly beyond each side of the trench. The Jetflow system can also be used to
remove rock dumped over pipelines.
The photograph shows another device, the Aquaflow T8000 with twin thrusters in the
tubes on either side. Because these are mounted horizontally and the thrust is directed in
opposing jets, these maintain the unit stable at a fixed height above the seabed whilst
suspended from a barge. Suction power extracts either sand or clay soils. It is capable of
producing flowrates of up to 8 m³/s (26 ft/s) at a flow velocity of 10 m/s (33 ft/s). In
non-cohesive soils, excavation rates of 2400 m³/hour (85 000 ft³/hr) are achievable and
in soft clays – up to 60 kPa (8.7 psi) shear strength – excavation rates are more typically
1000 m³/hour (35 000 ft³/hr).
JETTING
 Large pumped units with eductor pipes

 Pumps on barge at surface with hoses to machine
 Electrical cables driving subsea pumps
 Capable of cutting soft clays
 Excavates material so leaves open trench
This overhead shows Saipem’s Diverless Jet Sled DJS1, which is capable of removing up
to 6 m (20 ft) of seabed in a single pass.
■ Deployment system – DJS1 is deployed from the host vessel and lowered over the
trench with positioning being facilitated by the real time sonar and video systems.
Remotely operated jet tools can be opened out clear of the pipeline during
deployment and recovery.
■ Jet trenching – Trenching is carried out, making use of two separate systems to
cut the trench and remove the spoil. High-pressure water from surface supply
pumps is delivered to nozzles located on the sled claws to break the seabed soil.
A separate suction system removes the spoil via eductors using a venturi-fed
water-lift eduction system.
■ Trench depth control – The depth of the trench may be altered during trenching
by changing the height of the hydraulically-actuated jet legs. The maximum
trench depth achievable in a single pass is dependent on soil type and trenching
speed.
ROCK OUTCROPS
 When protruding rock is encountered on the

route there are a number of options:
 Heavy dredger (for soft rock)
 Rockdump to provide smooth bed
 Drilling and blasting
 Re-route pipeline
When rock is encountered on a proposed subsea pipeline route, there are a number of
potential methods of overcoming the problem, as shown above. Another option is re-
routing the pipeline, diverting around rock outcrops so that the pipeline is laid on
sedimentary materials.
HEAVY DREDGER
 May be possible to cut rock using heavy

dredger
 Mechanical cutter
 Bucket dredger
 used at Milford Haven to cut
trench 8 m (26 ft) deep
Depending upon the strength, texture and extent of the rock, a subsea trench for the
pipeline can be formed without resorting to blasting, by using heavy dredging
equipment. At Milford Haven, a bucket dredger excavated a pipeline trench up to 8 m
(26 ft) deep in a water depth of 30 m (100 ft). This was a long process and took around
4 months.
Dipper dredgers are also used to excavate rock in shallow water.
ROCK DUMP
 Rock-dump to build causeway over rock

 Cormorant pipeline, Shetland approaches
 May need additional protection after laying
Dump rock-fill materials on the seabed above the height of the rock outcrops to form an
underwater causeway to lay the pipeline on at an acceptable profile. After the pipeline is
installed, it is covered with more rock to provide stability and protection. This technique
was used for the Cormorant pipeline on its approach to the Shetland Islands, where
more than 300 000 m³ (10 million ft³) of rock was dumped.
DRILLING AND BLASTING
 Most successful technique

 All rock types – tills through granites
 Slow (and therefore costly)
 Rock debris removed by dredging
 Drill rigs arranged
to suit production
needs
 Jackups in high
currents
Drilling in harbour entrance
from floating spud-legged platform
When rock has been encountered, the route cannot be altered and it is too hard to
dredge directly, the contractor has to resort to other methods to form an underwater
trench.
Drilling and blasting is the most successful technique but it is time-consuming and
therefore costly. Conditions vary widely from substantial layers of glacial till-type
overburden, to the hardest Scottish granites.
Drilling barges can be used in shallow waters to cut a trench in hard rock such as granite.
A pattern of holes are made and charges inserted. These are then detonated milliseconds
apart to blast and displace the excavated rock in one operation.
The depth of water and the exposure of the site also has a major impact on the type of
equipment to be utilised for each particular project. Drill barges with a varying number
of rigs to suit the production requirements (see overhead) are the preferred support
vessels. In fast-flowing and exposed locations, jack-up platforms have to be used.
The rock is drilled in a pre-established pattern and each hole packed with explosives. In
a subsea trench, a multi-row delayed-firing sequence is used to loosen the rock, which is
then removed by dredger.
SHAPED CHARGES
 Used for small areas

 Placed directly onto seabed
 Rock material blasted out of trench
 Not as effective as drilling
 No specialist barge needed 1 m (3 ft) dia
 Environmental issues
 Marine life
Blast directed downward

shatters rock
If small quantities of shallow rock have to be removed, ‘shaped charges’ can be placed
directly on the seabed. These explosives are contained in a weighted canister with an
internal conical shape. When the explosives are fired the material is displaced from the
trench, avoiding the need for subsequent dredging.
These charges are obviously not as efficient as drilling and blasting but can save high
mobilisation costs. The use of shaped charges avoids expensive drilling but can also
have severe detrimental effects on marine life.
POST-LAY RECTIFICATION
 Rockdumping used to provide extra

resistance to upheaval buckling
 Remedial activities for unacceptable spans
include
 Supports
 Vortex suppression
In areas where the potential for upheaval buckling was identified in the bottom
roughness analysis, rockdumping can be used to provide extra uplift resistance. The
calculation of the required amount of rock in order to prevent upheaval buckling is
covered in more detail later in the course.
Post-lay span rectification methods include the addition of vortex suppression devices
such as strakes and the use of supports. By adding support underneath the pipeline, the
bending stresses due to the self weight of the pipeline can be reduced significantly. The
use of supports also acts to reduce the length of the span, increasing the natural
frequency and hence reducing the likelihood of VIV. Vortex suppression does not aim
to rectify the span, but to reduce fatigue damage by diminishing or preventing VIV.
ROCK DUMPING
 Fall pipe
 Used for placing rock accurately
along pipelines
 Efficient use of rock
 Side dump
 General coverage of a wide
area
 Poor control of berm
profile
There are two different methods of rockdumping. Fall pipe vessels use a pipe to deliver
rock from the vessel to the seabed, giving accurate control of the rockdump berm. Side
dump vessels push rock over the side of the vessel, giving general coverage over a larger
area but offering little control of the berm profile.
The picture at the top right of the slide shows Rollingstone (Tideway’s dynamically
positioned rock dump vessel) working on the Wintershall offshore stabilisation project
through a fall pipe. The picture at the bottom right of the slide shows the dynamically
positioned (DP) stone dumping vessel HAM 601 side dumping near a platform.
TIDEWAY ROCK DUMP – VIDEO

This video details the rock dumping capabilities of the “Rollingstone” vessel operated by
Tideway. The vessel utilises a class 2 DP system with 6 thrusters. The DP system
eliminates the need for anchors and tugboats to hold the vessels station which enables it
to safely work in close proximity to offshore structures. The Rollingstone has a loading
capacity of 12000 tonnes and can accurately place rock on the seabed at 1000 tonnes per
hour in depths of up to 1000 m (3281 ft).
The vessel dumps the rock to the seabed through a fall pipe with a ROV connected to
the seabed end. The ROV utilises four 300 kW thrusters to position the end of the fall
pipe relative to the vessel and pipeline and so enable accurate placement of the rock over
the pipeline. The ROV also carries survey equipment consisting of cameras, pipeline
trackers and scanning profilers to ensure the rock is being placed in the required
location. The survey information is instantly accessible to the operators and client
representatives on the vessel, which enables them to quickly assess if the correct level of
protection is being achieved.
Shown in the video is the assembly of the fall pipe and deployment of the ROV through
a moonpool in the ship’s hull, which allows the vessel to operate in adverse weather
conditions. The fall pipe and ROV incorporate an active heave-compensated system,
which allows the end of the fall pipe to be accurately controlled by compensating for
vessel movement at the sea surface in bad weather. Also detailed in the video is the
design of the fall pipe, which is made-up of closed pipe segments to enable the delivery
of fine gravel for pipeline coverage without it being washed out of the pipe, as can be the
problem with cage-type fall pipe designs.
VORTEX SUPPRESSION
 Reduce likelihood
of VIV
 Helical strakes
 Main interest for
risers
 Used on pipeline
spans
 Gulf of Mexico
 West Africa
 Australia
The following devices have been used for VIV suppression:

■ Strakes
■ Shrouds
■ Fairings
Of these, the most widely used technique to reduce VIV on cylindrical structures is the
helical strake system. Two VIV suppression device suppliers are Trelleborg CRP and
Shell Global Solutions. In both cases the VIV suppression system is based on helical
strakes. Whilst these systems are most widely used on risers, they have also been used
on pipeline spans in the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa and Australia. The use of vortex
suppression does not aim to rectify the span, but to reduce the fatigue damage at the
span by diminishing or preventing VIV.
SUPPORTS
 Grout bags
 Grout formwork
 Bespoke structural supports
Grout formwork
Pipeline supports can be used to significantly reduce the bending stresses in the pipeline
due to its self weight. They can also act to reduce the span length, thereby increasing the
natural frequency of the span and hence reducing the propensity to VIV.
The supports themselves range in complexity from grout bags stacked under the pipeline
to specially-designed structural steel supports for extreme spans.
GROUT BAGS
 Sand bags or pillow shaped grout bags

 Manually installed by divers
 Grout supplied by pipe from surface
 Difficult and time-consuming to install and
position
Sand bags and pillow shaped grout bags are widely used throughout the world. They are
installed by divers who manually stack the bags to provide a support beneath the
pipeline. Grout bags are then pumped full of concrete, which then sets.
Both methods are difficult and time-consuming to install and position, especially if the
free-span height is above 300 mm (1 ft). They tend to be susceptible to scour and to
fishing activity.
GROUT FORMWORK
 Engineered fabric
formworks
 Can be deployed by
ROV
 Successfully
utilised at water
depths exceeding
900 m (3000 ft)
A variation on the conventional grout bag is formwork, which consists of a tailored

fabric construction that is filled with grout in situ. Formwork has, again, been used
around the world and has been shown to work well. These are inexpensive to
manufacture, easier to deploy by diver or ROV and rapid to grout.
SeaMark Systems have developed techniques for the deployment of fabric formworks by
ROV that have been successfully utilised at water depths exceeding 900 m (3000 ft).
INTERVENTION – SUMMARY
 Pre-lay intervention
 Excavation to remove seabed highpoints
 Post-lay rectification of spans
 Vortex suppression using strakes, fairings and
shrouds
 Supports such as grout bags and formwork and
structural supports
 Rockdumping to provide additional
upheaval buckling resistance
Any questions?
Where unacceptable spans or areas of upheaval buckling have been predicted by the
bottom roughness analysis, intervention is required.
Pre-lay intervention utilises excavation to smooth the seabed by the removal of the high
points, reducing the likelihood of spanning and upheaval buckling. Post-lay rectification
includes activities such as supporting spans once the pipeline is on the seabed and
rockdumping areas where upheaval is predicted, in order to provide extra resistance to
movement.
If neither of these options proves to be applicable, either practically or financially, a third

option would be to re-route the pipeline to avoid the problem areas identified.
There are also three remedial measures available to prevent the occurrence of vortex-
induced vibrations. These are strakes, shrouds and fairings. The use of vortex
suppression does not aim to rectify the span, but to reduce the fatigue damage at the
span by diminishing or preventing VIV.
BOTTOM ROUGHNESS AND

INTERVENTION – SUMMARY
 Understand the purpose and objectives of a

bottom roughness analysis
 Know how to perform a bottom roughness
analysis
 Understand how and why we analyse spans
 Understand the intervention methods
available
During this module, we have assessed the role of bottom roughness analysis in
identifying spans and locations of upheaval buckling before the pipeline is laid. The
required analysis of the identified spans has been addressed in detail, whilst upheaval
buckling is covered in a later module. The bottom roughness analysis methodology has
been discussed before suitable intervention methods were introduced.
Profiles
Profiles 487
TREVOR JEE
MANAGING DIRECTOR
MA CEng FIMechE
Education: Oxford University (MA)

Academic Qualifications: Honours degree in Engineering Science
Professional Qualifications: Chartered Engineer
Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Current Position at Jee Limited

Trevor Jee is a mechanical engineer with over 25 years’ experience in the design,
construction and operation of oil industry pipelines. He formed Jee Limited in 1988 and
has built it up into a specialist pipelines engineering and training company. As managing
director he is responsible for the technical review and project management of study
work, for the presentation and development of courses, and the sales and growth of the
company.
Specific Expertise and Experience at Jee Limited

As well as a broad experience of pipeline matters and wide ranging personal contacts
throughout the oil industry, Trevor has particular expertise in:
■ Conceptual and detailed design of subsea pipelines
■ Project management of studies and joint industry projects
■ Use of connectors in pipe-in-pipe systems
■ Trench versus non-trench decisions using risk analysis
■ Setting up and running the company ISO9001 quality system
■ Computer analysis of fluid/mechanical/structural/soils/thermal problems
■ Training courses in pipeline engineering
■ Technical and marketing consultancy
■ Sales, marketing, recruitment and growth of Jee
MIKE HAWKINS
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
BTech (Hons) CEng MIMechE
Education: Loughborough University

Academic Qualifications: Degree in Mechanical Engineering
Professional Qualifications: Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Mike is Jee’s Technical Director and a Principal Engineer with 25 years’ experience of
pipeline engineering project work and development. Mike has been instrumental in
writing the pipeline engineering courses at Jee and has travelled worldwide delivering
them.

In his time with Jee, Mike has been responsible for many studies and activities.
Particular fields of expertise include:
■ Conceptual and detailed design of pipeline and rigid riser systems
■ 3rd party verification of design
■ Computer analysis of fluid, mechanical, structural, soils and thermal problems
■ Trawl gear interaction with pipelines and the prediction of fishing gear loads
■ Upheaval and lateral buckling
■ Modelling of impact and denting
■ Heat transfer and modelling of transient behaviours
■ Creep of foam insulation systems
■ Analysis of pipeline freespans, vortex induced vibrations and fatigue assessment
■ Risk and reliability analysis
■ ABAQUS finite element analysis
■ Integrity management of pipelines
Profiles 489
MARTIN EAST
HEAD OF ANALYSIS
BSc (Hons) MSc CEng MIMechE
Education: Crewe Boys Grammar School

University of Sheffield
Loughborough University of Technology
Academic Qualifications: Honours degree in Mathematics
MSc in Computer Integrated Engineering
Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
NAFEMS Registered Analyst (Advanced)

Martin is Jee’s Head of Analysis and a Principal Engineer with nearly 20 years’
experience of pipeline engineering projects.

Martin is responsible for supervising and carrying out most of the finite element analysis
(FEA) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) work at Jee limited. Specific experience
includes:
■ Limit-state design of HP/HT pipelines
■ Lateral buckling assessments of surface-lad pipelines
■ Upheaval buckling analysis of trenched and buried pipelines
■ Thermal analysis of surface-laid and trenched umbilicals and pipelines
■ Stability assessments of pipelines
■ Pipeline spanning assessments
■ Fracture assessment
Martin was recently involved in the following projects and brings his experience straight
to the classroom:
■ Development of guidance to reduce the effects of flow-induced pulsations in gas
risers
■ Analysis of subsea Y piece connectors
■ Assessment of trenching and backfill options for a major contractor in UKCS
ALAN KNOWLES
CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIALIST

Eur Ing BSc(Hons) CEng MICE
Education: Park High Grammar School for Boys

Birkenhead Technical College
Liverpool Polytechnic College
Academic Qualifications: Honours Degree in Civil Engineering
Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers
FEANI European Engineer

Alan is Jee’s Civil and Construction Specialist – a civil engineer with over 30 years’
experience in the design of oil, gas and water pipelines. He has also worked in the
nuclear industry, substantiating structures for the safety issues associated with seismic
events. Alan joined Jee Limited as a Senior Engineer in 2002.

Alan has particular expertise in the following:
■ Installation methods for subsea lines for hydrocarbon developments
■ Design and specification of onshore and offshore pipelines
■ Soil assessment for pipeline trenching, burial and pile design
■ Subsea pipe bundles
■ Flowlines, landfalls, directional drilling, river crossings, marine structures and sea
defences
■ Both conventional and single-point moorings for tankers
■ Finite element analysis of subsea equipment and finite difference analysis in soils
■ Calculations for coated pipelines with regard to both stability and thermal
insulation
■ Design and construction of outfalls including investigation of primary and
secondary effluent dispersion patterns
Profiles 491
PHIL MEDLICOTT
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
BSc PhD CEng MIMechE
Education: Nottingham University

Academic Qualifications: BSc in Mechanical Engineering
PhD in Acoustics – Mechanical Engineering

Phil is one of Jee’s Principal Engineers with over 25 years’ experience in the oil industry
and 10 years’ specialising in pipeline engineering studies. He joined Jee in July 2000.

Phil has particular expertise in the following:
■ The use of polymer/composite materials in offshore applications
■ FEED studies including use of Pipesim
■ Pipeline piggability studies
■ Pipeline stability analysis using PRCI software
■ Fishing field trials to assess trawl gear interaction with pipelines
■ Tank testing to assess trawl gear interaction behaviour with pipelines
■ Verification, design and cost studies of alternative subsea pipeline schemes
■ Preparation of ISO 21329:2004 Standard for testing of mechanical connectors for
use in pipelines
■ Determining the suitability of mechanical connectors for S and J-lay
■ Presentation of training courses covering pipeline design, pipeline integrity
management and use of composite materials in offshore applications
■ Pipeline validation requirements
Phil has recently been involved in the following projects and brings his experience straight
to the classroom:
■ Pipeline risk assessment
■ ILI of subsea pipelines
■ Pipeline validation requirements
■ Corrosion management audit
BRUCE STOWELL
SENIOR ENGINEER
Eur Ing BEng(Hons) NDip CEng MIMechE
MIGEM
Education: Hilton College KwaZulu Natal South Africa

Technikon Witwatersrand South Africa
University of Salford
Academic Qualifications: Honours degree in Mechanical Engineering
National Diploma in Mechanical Engineering
Member of the Institution of Gas Engineers &
Managers
Registered Eur Ing with European
Federation of National Engineers Association

Bruce is a Senior Engineer at Jee Ltd and has 15 years’ experience in the petrochemical
industry. He joined the company at the beginning of 2006.

Bruce has particular expertise in the following:
■ Drafting ISO code: recommended practice for pipeline life extension
■ Umbilical stability verification – Arabian Gulf
■ Pipeline integrity management, emergency spares assessment – North Sea
■ Engineering critical assessment on defective pipework – Indonesia
■ Specification writing – North Sea
■ Pipeline stability analysis – Thailand
■ Riser defect assessment – North Sea
■ Continued operational risk assessments - Scotland
■ Concrete gravity structures - Australia
■ Tutor for remote learning MSc in Subsea Engineering
Profiles 493
JONATHAN FRANKLIN
ENGINEERING MANAGER AND

PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
BEng (Hons) CEng MIMechE
Education: Brunel University

Academic Qualifications: Degree in Mechanical Engineering
Professional Qualifications: Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Registered Offshore Survival Certificate

Jonathan is Jee’s Engineering Manager and a Principal Engineer with over 13 years’
experience of pipeline engineering project work and development.

Jonathan is involved in a wide range of pipeline engineering projects, specialities include:
■ Pipeline span assessment
■ Remnant life assessment
■ Onshore pipeline design assessments
■ Subsea LNG pipelines
■ Failure investigation
■ Pipeline integrity management
■ Subsea insulation systems
■ Defect and fracture assessment
Jonathan was recently involved in the following pipeline engineering studies and brings his
experiences straight to the classroom:
■ Evaluation of pigging options for Southern North Sea pipelines
■ Development of standards for deepwater pipelines
■ Evaluation of pipeline stabilisation options for North Sea pipelines
■ Evaluation of span mitigation options offshore West Africa
Acronyms and
abbreviations
Acronyms and abbreviations 497
+ve positive
-ve negative
°C degree Celsius
°F degree Fahrenheit
30D bend radius of 30 times the pipe diameter
3D three-dimensional
3rd third
A&R Abandonment and recovery
AC Alternating current
AGA American Gas Association
AGI Above-ground installation
Al Aluminium
AIS Automatic identification system
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ALARP As low as reasonably practical
ALS Accidental limit state
ANSI American National Standards Institute
API American Petroleum Institute
APOS Acoustic positioning operating station
approx. Approximate
ASB Above seabed
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
(computer text)
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASD Allowable stress (or strength) design
ASM American Society of Materials
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AUT Automated ultrasonic test
AUV Autonomous underwater vehicle
AVTUR Aviation turbine (fuel)
AWS American Welding Society
Bar a Bar absolute (1 bar = 100 kN/m²)
Bar g Bar gauge (0 bar g = 1 bar a)
BAT Best available technology
BBL US oil barrel (1 bbl ≈ 0.159 m³)
BHP Brake horse power (1 BHP ≈ 745.7 W)
BLEVE Boiling liquid, expanding vapour, explosion
BM Bending moment
BMP Best management practice
BoD Basis of design
BOP Blow-out preventer
BP British Petroleum Ltd
BPD Barrels per day (1 BPD ≈ 0.159 m³/day)
BPEO Best practical environmental option
BS British Standard
BSI British Standards Institute
BSR Bend strain reliever
C2H4 Ethene (ethylene)
C2H6 Ethane
C3H6 Propene (propylene)
C3H8 Propane
C4H10 Butane or isobutane
C5H12 Pentane or isopentane

C6H5CH3 Toluene
C6H6 Benzene
C6H14 n-Hexane
C10H8 Naphthalene
CA Corrosion allowance
CAD Computer-aided design
CAE Computer-aided engineering
CALM Catenary anchor leg mooring
CAPS Cranfield automated pipe-welding system
CBM Conventional buoy mooring
CBR Catenary bundle riser
CCTV Closed circuit television
CD Chart datum (often defined at LAT)
CDM Construction design and management regulations (UK
implementation of European Directive)
CDST Controlled-depth surface tow
CDT Controlled-depth tow
CDTM Controlled-depth tow method
CDUs Crude oil distillation units
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
CH4 Methane
CHP Combined heating and power
CHS Circular hollow section (structural steel tubing)
CITHP Closed-in tubing head pressure
Cl2 Chlorine
CLHR Concentric leg hybrid riser
CNS Central nervous system
Central North Sea
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CoB Centre of buoyancy
CoG Centre of gravity
COMAH Control of major accident hazards
COR Concentric offset riser (see CLHR)
CP Cathodic protection
Code of practice
cP Centipoise (1 cP = 1 x 10-3 Pa·s)
CPF Central processing facility
CPT Cone penetrometer test
CPTU CPT with undrained pore pressure measurement (also
known as PCPT)
CRA Corrosion resistant alloy
CRT Cathode ray tube
CSO Coflexip Stena Offshore
CSOL Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited
CSt Centistokes (1 cSt = 1 x 10-6 m²/s)
CT Computed tomography
CTE Coal tar enamel
CTL Cut to length
CTOD Crack tip opening displacement
CTR Cost time resource
CVAR Compliant vertical access riser

CVI Close visual inspection
C/WO Completion/work-over (well development)
D/t Diameter to wall thickness (ratio)
DA Double armour (cable)
DAF Dynamic amplification Factor
DC Direct current
DD Directional drilling
DDCV Deep draught caisson vessel
DGPS Differential global positioning system (see GPS)
DHL Dynamic hook load (lifting)
DHSS Dual head scanning sonar
dia, diam. Diameter
DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (German standards)
DMaC Diverless maintained cluster (connection system)
DnV Det Norske Veritas
DoF Degree of freedom
DOI MMS Department of Industries Mineral Management Services
(USA)
DP Dynamic positioning (for vessels)
DPI Dye penetrant inspection
DPT Dye penetrant testing
DRA Drag reduction agent
DSAW Double submerged arc welding
DSV Diver support vessel
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
DVL Doppler velocity log
DWP Design working pressure
DWT Dead weight tonnage
E Young’s modulus of elasticity
East
Easting
ECA Engineering criticality assessment
ECDIS Electronic chart display information system
ED 50 European datum 1950
EEIPS Extra extra improved plow steel (for wire ropes)
e.g. exempli gratia (= for example)
EGNOS European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service
EI Bending stiffness
EIA Environmental impact assessment
EIPS Extra improved plow steel (for wire ropes)
EIS Environmental impact statement
EMIT Examination, monitoring, inspection and testing
EN Euronorm
EoFL End of field life
EOR Enhanced oil recovery
EP Evacuation plan
EPE Exploration and production (Europe)
EPDM Ethylene propylene diene monomer
EPIC Engineering, procurement, installation and commissioning
ERD Extended reach drilling
ERP Emergency recovery plan
ERW Electrical resistance welding
ESD Emergency shut-down

ESDV Emergency shut-down valve
ESIA Environmental and social impact assessment
ESV Emergency shut-down valve
ETAP Eastern Trough area project
etc Et cetera (and other similar items)
FAD Fatigue assessment diagram
Fish-attractant device
FBE Fusion bonded epoxy
FDS Field development ship
FDEMS Frequency-dependent electromagnetic sensing
FE Finite element
FEA Finite element analysis
FEED Front end engineering design
FEHM Fire and explosion hazard management
FHM Fire hazard management
Fi Fi Fire fighting
FJ Flexible joint (FlexJoint)
FLAGS Far north associated gas system (North Sea)
FLIP Flowline induced pulsation
FLS Fatigue limit state
FoS Factor of safety
FP Foam pourers
Fluoroprotein
FPS Forties pipeline system
FPSI Forties pipeline system and infrastructure
FPSO Floating production storage and offloading (facility)
FPU Floating production unit (or unloading)
FRP Fibre reinforced plastic
FRSU Floating regasification and storage (unit for LNG)
FSM Field signature measurement (or method)
FSO Floating storage and offloading (facility)
ft foot (1 ft = 0.3048 m)
FTA Flowline termination assembly
GAEL Graben area export line
gal US US gallon (1 gal US ≈ 3.785 litre)
GBS Gravity based structure
GCHPL Grangemouth combined heat and power limited
GEBCO General bathymetric chart of the oceans
GIS Geographic information system
GLU Gas-lift umbilical
GMAW Gas metal arc welding
GoM Gulf of Mexico
GOR Gas oil ratio
GPR Ground penetrating radar
GPS Global positioning system
GPSS Government pipeline and storage system (UK)
GRP Glass-reinforced plastic
GSPU Glass syntactic polyurethane
GTAW Gas tungsten arc welding
GVI General visual inspection
H2 Hydrogen
H2O Water
H2S Hydrogen sulphide

H&S Health and safety
HAL Hiden Analytical Limited
HAT Highest astronomic tide
HAZ Heat-affected zone
HAZAN Hazard analysis
HAZOP Hazard and operating assessment
HCl Hydrogen chloride
HCR High collapse resistance
HCV Hydrant control valve
HDD Horizontal directional drilling
HDPE High density polyethylene (PE-HD)
He Helium
HEPC Hose end pressure coupling
HFI High frequency induction
HFW High frequency welding
HIC Hydrogen-induced cracking
HICC Hydrogen-induced corrosion cracking
HiPAP High precision acoustic positioning
HIPPS High integrity pressure protection system
HM High modulus
HMPE High modulus polyethylene (man-made fibre ropes)
HMWPE High molecular weight polyethylene
HP High pressure
HP/HT High pressure/high temperature
HSE Health and Safety Executive (UK)
Health, safety and environment
HT High tensile
HV Vickers hardness
HW High water
HWM High water mark
I Second moment of area (or moment of inertia)
ID Internal diameter
ID Density index (granular soil compaction)
i.e. id est (= that is)
IFC International Finance Corporation
in Inch (1 in = 25.4 mm)
INS Inertial navigation system
IP Institute of Petroleum
Inspection plan
Intersection point (between two straights of pipe route –
with a horizontal radius between TPs)
Intelligent pig (or pigging)
IPB Integrated production bundle
IPS Improved plow strength (for wire ropes)
ISGOTT International safety guide for oil tankers and terminals
ISO International Standards Organisation
IWRC Independent wire rope core
JIP Joint industry project
JIS Japanese Institute of Standards
JONSWAP Joint North Sea wave project
kip Kilopound (= 1000 lbf)
KP Kilometre point (chainage in km along pipe route)
LAFB Local authority fire brigade

LAT Lowest astronomical tide
LBL Long base line (survey)
LC Liquid crystal
LCP Lack of cross penetration
LDPE Low density polyethylene
LF Low frequency
LFS Lack of fusion surface
LFSS Lack of fusion subsurface
LHD Linear heat detection
LL Liquid limit (clay soils)
LLDPE Linear low density polyethylene
LMRP Lower marine riser package
LNG Liquid natural gas
LO Lift-off point (or touch down point for pipe catenary)
LP Low pressure
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
lpm Litres per minute
LRFD Load and resistance factor design
LRJ Lower riser joint
LRP Lead replacement petrol
LSD Level sensor device (survey)
Limit state design
LUSBL Long and ultra-short base line
LW Light weight
Low water
LWM Low water mark
LWP Light weight protected (cable)
LWSCR Lazy wave steel catenary riser
M Monitors
MA Mechanical advantage (pulley systems)
MAOP Maximum allowable operating pressure
MATIS Modular advanced tie-in system
max Maximum
MBD Thousand barrels per day (see mmbd)
MBF Minimum breaking force
MBL Minimum breaking load
MBP Minimum burst pressure
MBR Minimum bend radius
MDPE Medium density polyethylene
MEG Monoethylene glycol
MFL Magnetic flux leakage
MHR Multibore hybrid riser
MHWN Mean high water neap (tide)
MHWS Mean high water spring (tide)
MIG Metal inert gas (welding) (see GMAW)
mil Thousandth of an inch (1 mil = 25.4 m)
mile 1 mile ≈ 1.609 km
min Minimum
Minutes
MK Mark
MLWN Mean low water neap (tide)
MLWS Mean low water spring (tide)

MMA Manual metal arc (welding)
MMBD Million barrels per day (see MBD)
mmboe Million barrels of oil equivalent
MMS US Minerals Management Service
MMscfpd Million standard cubic feet per day (gas flow)
1 MMscfpd ≈ 28 317 m³/day
Mn Manganese
MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit
MOL Main oil line
MP Medium pressure
Marriage point
MPI Magnetic particle inspection
MPRE Military pipeline repair equipment
MPT Multifunction positioning transponder
MRS Main riser section
MRU Motion reference unit
MSL Mean sea level
MSV Multi-support vessel
N North
Northing
N° Number
N2 Nitrogen
NA Neutral axis
NACE National association of corrosion engineers
NAD27 North American Datum 1927
NAM Nederlandsche Aardolie Maatschappij (Dutch Petroleum
Company)
NAP Nieuw Amsterdams Peil (Dutch land survey height datum)
Nd Neodymium
NDE Non-destructive examination (see NDT)
NDT Non-destructive testing (AUT or radiography)
NE North east
NFPA National fire protection association
NGL Natural gas liquid
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NH3 Ammonia
NNF Normally no flow
NORSOK Norsk Sokels Konkurranseposisjon (Norwegian
Contracting Guidance and Standards)
NPSH Net positive suction head
NUI Normally unattended installation
NW North west
OCIMF Oil companies international marine forum
OD Outer diameter
Ordnance datum
ODN Ordnance datum Newlyn (UK land survey height datum)
OHTC Overall heat transfer coefficient
OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
OOS Out of straightness (pipeline survey)
op. Operating
OPA Oil and Pipelines Agency (UK)
ORQ Oil rig quality (wire rope)
OSGB 36 Ordnance Survey of Great Britain 1936 triangulation

OTDR Optical time-domain reflectometry
PA 11 Polyamide 11 (Nylon)
PCPT Piezometer cone penetration test (see CPTU)
PCR Pipeline cost reduction
PD Positive displacement (flow meters)
Published document (BSI)
PDF Probability density function
PDQ Production, drilling and quarters (platform areas)
PE Polyethylene
PFP Passive fire prevention
PGD Permanent ground deformation
pGMAW Pulsed gas metal arc welding (see STT)
PI Plasticity index (clay soils)
PIG Pipeline inspection gauge
PIMS Pipeline integrity management system
PIT Pull-in tool
PL Pipeline
Plastic limit (clay soils)
PLEM Pipe line end manifold
PLET Pipe line end termination
PP Polypropylene
PPA Pressure point analysis
PPE Personal protection equipment
PPF Polypropylene foam
PPM parts per million
PRISM Pipeline reporting inspection system multimedia
PS Plow steel (for wire ropes)
psi pounds per square inch (1 psi ≈ 0.069 bar)
PSV Pressure safety valve
PT Point of tangency
PU Polyurethane
PUF Polyurethane foam
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
PVDF Polyvinylidene fluoride
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
QC/DC Quick connect/disconnect (coupling)
RA Rock armour (cable)
RAO Response amplitude operator
RD Relative density
RHS Rectangular hollow section (structural steel tubing)
ROT Remotely operated tool
ROTV Remotely operated towed vehicle
ROV Remotely operated vehicle
ROVNAV ROV navigation (position fixing)
ROW Right of way
RP Recommended practice
Reference publication
Recovery plan
RSJ Rolled steel joist (structural section)
RTK Real time kinematic
RTU Remote terminal unit
RxV Receiver verify (DGBS)

S South
SA Single armour (cable)
SAC Special area of conservation
SAGE Scottish area gas evacuation
SAL Single armour light (cable)
SALM Single anchor leg mooring
SAW Submerged arc welding
SAWH Submerged arc welding (helical seam)
SAWL Submerged arc welding (longitudinal seam)
SBM Single buoy mooring (see SPM)
SBL Short base line (survey)
SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition
SCC Stress corrosion cracking
SCF Stress concentration factor
Single column floaters
SCR Steel catenary riser
SDGPS Satellite differential global positioning system
SE South east
sec second
SFPS Semi-floating production system
Semi-submersible floating production systems
SFR Strategic fuel reserve
SG Specific gravity – density of material compared with water
or air (SG for soil compaction in USA, see ID)
SIWP Shut-in wellhead pressure
SKL Skew load factor (lifting)
S.L. Sensu lato (= in the broad sense),
Satellite link
SLHR Single leg hybrid riser
SLOR Single leg offset riser (see SLHR)
SLS Serviceability limit state
SM Standard modulus
SMAW Submerged metal arc welding
SME Subject matter expert
SMYS Specified minimum yield strength
SOW Scope of works
S-N Stress – number of cycles (fatigue)
SPL Special load (tugger and guide lines for lifting)
SPM Single point mooring – can be buoy (see SBM) or tower
system
SPARNAV Spar navigation
SPT Standard penetration test
SPU Syntactic polyurethane
SRB Sulphate-reducing bacteria
SS Stainless steel
SSBL Super-short base line
SSC Sulphide stress cracking
STT Surface tension transfer welding (pulsed GMAW)
SSIV Subsea isolation valve
Subsea intervention valve
SSSI Site of special scientific interest
STP Standard temperature and pressure
SW South west
SWL Safe working load

T&C Threaded and coupled (joints)
T&I Transport and installation (project)
TAPS Trans-Alaska pipeline system
TARA Tartan riser access
TDP Touch down point
TDZ Touch down zone
TEG Tri-ethylene glycol
TFHE Tactical fuel handling equipment
Tg Glass transition temperature
Ti Titanium
TIG Tungsten inert gas (welding) (see GTAW)
TLP Tethered leg platform
Tensioned leg platform
TLWP Tension leg wellhead platform (unmanned)
TM Transverse mercator non-standard zone (see UTM)
TMAW Tungsten metal arc welding
TMS Tethered management system (‘tophat’ system for
launching ROVs)
T-N Tension – number of cycles (fatigue – US usage)
TOFD Time of flight diffraction (AUT)
TOM Total oil marine
TP Tangent point (between a straight and horizontal curve
along pipe route)
TRB Through (or three) roller bending
TRF Thermal radiation flux
Threaded riser and flowline
TS Tensile strength
TSA Thermally-sprayed aluminium
TSBR Top sliding bundle riser
TSJ Tapered stress joint
TTR Top-tensioned riser
UB Universal beam (structural steel section)
UC Universal column (structural steel section)
U/C Undercut
UD Uni-directional
UDL Uniformly distributed load
UI Ultrasonic inspection
UK United Kingdom
UKCS United Kingdom continental shelf
UKOOA United Kingdom offshore operators association
ULS Ultimate limit state
ULSD Ultra-low sulphur diesel
UO U-ing, O-ing (SAW method of pipe manufacture)
UOE U-ing, O-ing and expanding (SAW method of pipe
manufacture)
UPC Ultimate pull-in capacity
URJ Upper riser joint
US United States
USA United States of America
USBL Ultra-short base line
UT Ultrasonic testing or thickness (measurement)
UTA Umbilical termination assembly
UTM Universal transverse mercator (world projection)

UTS Ultimate tensile strength
UV Ultra violet
V Vanadium
Volt
VIV Vortex-induced vibration
viz. Videlicit (= namely)
VLA Vertical load anchor
VLS Vertical lay system
VOC Volatile organic content
VP Vapour pressure
W Tungsten (formerly Wolfram)
Watt
West
WAAS Wide area augmentation system
WD Water depth
WF Wave frequency
WGS 84 World Geodetic System 1984
WHSIP Wellhead shut-in pressure
WL Water line
Water level
WoS West of Shetland
WSA Wye sled assembly
WSD Working stress design
X52, X65, X80 API pipe steel grades
XLPE Cross-linked polyethylene
YAG Yttrium aluminium garnet (laser)
YS Yield stress (see SMYS)
P Change in pressure
eq Equivalent stress
h Hoop stress
l Longitudinal stress
Acknowledgements &
references
Acknowledgements & references 511
The following companies have kindly provided images, videos or help with this course.
Their help is gratefully acknowledged.
ABANDONRITE ARC MACHINES, INC

See Nabors Industries ltd (Automatic pipe welding equipment)
www.arcmachines.com
ABAQUS FINITE ELEMENT
SOFTWARE ARCELORMITTAL
See Simulia Sheet piling
www.arcelormittal.com
ACERGY MS LTD
(Formerly Stolt Offshore) ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO
(MATIS Modular advanced tie-in www.asplundh.com
system and Talon trencher)
www.acergy-group.com ASTEC UNDERGROUND
(Landline trenching machines)
ADAS ENVIRONMENTAL www.astecunderground.com
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
www.adas.co.uk BALDT ANCHOR & CHAIN
www.baldt.com
ADVANTICA TECHNOLOGIES
LTD BEXCO NV
www.advanticatech.com (Polypropylene, polyester, polyamide,
Dyneema and Aramid ropes)
AEI CABLES LIMITED (Associated with Vryhof Anchors bv)
www.aeicables.co.uk www.bexco.be
AKER SOLUTIONS BIG INCH MARINE SYSTEMS

(Formerly Aker Kvaerner) INC
www.akersolutions.com See Oil States Industries
ALLSEAS GROUP SA BJ PROCESS AND PIPELINE

www.allseas.com SERVICES
www.bjservices.com
ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE
COMPANY BODEWES WINCHES
(Trans-Alaska pipeline system (TAPS)) www.bodewes.com
www.alyeska-pipe.com
BOSKALIS OFFSHORE BV
ANKER ADVIES BUREAU BV www.boskalis.nl
(Anchors)
www.flipperdelta.com or
APPLIED INSPECTION LTD WESTMINSTER DREDGING

(NDT) COMPANY
www.appliedinspection.co.uk www.boskalis.co.uk
APPLUS RTD LTD BP PLC

www.applusrtd.com (Study for Shah Deniz in Azerbaij –
with Advantica and Transco)
AQUADEVICE www.bp.com
www.aquadevice.com
BREDERO PRICE COATERS CORTEC® CORPORATION

LTD (Corrosion inhibitor)
(BPCL) www.cortecvci.com
www.bredero-shaw.com
CORUS
BRIDON INTERNATIONAL (Steel & Hydrotherm)
LIMITED www.corusgroup.com
www.bridon.com
CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY
BRITISH GAS www.cranfield.ac.uk
(Walney Channel crossing case study)
See National Grid Plc CRC-EVANS PIPELINE
INTERNATIONAL INC
BROWN AND ROOT (Automatic welding, pipe installation
See KBR equipment and PIH)
www.crc-evans.com
CCP (CORROSION CONTROL
PRODUCTS COMPANY) AND or
PACTIV CORPORATION
(Rockguard foam pipe coating) AUTOMATIC WELDING
www.farwst.com/ccp www.crc-evans.com
CEBO HOLLAND CREST

(Rubber hoses) See Sapura Crest
www.ceboholland.nl
CSO, CSOL
CLOCK SPRING COMPANY, LP See Technip
(Pipeline repair)
www.clockspring.com CRP GROUP LIMITED
(Now part of the Trelleborg Group)
CLYDE PUMPS LTD www.crpgroup.com
www.clydepumps.com
CTC MARINE PROJECTS LTD
COBHAM (Trenching equipment) (Now part of
www.cobham.com DeepOcean Subsea Services)
www.ctcmarine.com
COFLEXIP SA
See Technip DEEPGULF INC
www.deep-gulf.com
CONOCO FLOW IMPROVER
SOLUTIONS DEEPOCEAN ASA
(LiquidPower™ DRA, Texaco Basin (See also CTC)
Case Study and Heidrun drilling riser) www.deepocean.no
www.conocophillips.com
DIGGING DONALD AND
CORROCEAN SUPPORT VESSEL,
Now known as Roxar ASA TRENCHSETTER
(Mechanical subsea trencher)
CORROSION CONTROL See Allseas
PRODUCTS COMPANY
See CCP DIXON MARINE CONSULTING
LTD
CORROSION COST www.dmcltd.com
www.corrosioncost.com
DORIS ENGINEERING FOUNDOCEAN

www.doris-engineering.com (Formerly SeaMark Systems Ltd)
www.foundocean.com
DSM DYNEEMA www.seamarksystems.com
(Man-made fibre for ropes)
www.dsm.com FUEL SUBSEA ENGINEERING
(DMaC umbilical connector tool)
DUCO (Now part of Intec
See Technip Engineering/Heerema)
www.intecengineering.com
EMC MARINE CONTROL
www.emc-offshore.com FUGRO NV
(Marine survey)
ESSO PETROLEUM www.fugro.nl
(Chad-Camaroon pipeline and
UK multi-product lines) GARDLINE MARINE SCIENCES
www.esso.com (Marine survey)
www.gardline.com
EUROPIPE
www.europipe.com GE OIL AND GAS
www.geoilandgas.com
FINE TUBES LTD
www.finetubes.com GEO-GRAF, INC
(GPR gas pipeline leak detection)
FL SMIDTH RAHCO www.geo-graf.com
(Onshore pipeline construction vehicle)
www.rahco.com GEOLINE APS
Sage Profile
FLEXCOM AND FREECOM 3D (Subsea pipeline analysis)
OFFSHORE SOFTWARE www.geoline.dk
See MCS: Advanced Engineering
Solutions GETMAPPING PLC
(Aerial photography)
FMC MEASUREMENT www.getmapping.com
SOLUTIONS
(Oil and gas flowmeters) GLOBAL INDUSTRIES
www.fmctechnologies.com/Measureme (Pipeline and derrick operations)
ntSolutions www.globalind.com
FMC TECHNOLOGIES GRENLAND GROUP ASA

(UTIS - Universal tie-in system) (Offshore fabricators)
(An FMC Corporation subsidiary) www.grenlandgroup.com
www.fmctechnologies.com/subsea
GROUNDFORCE SHORCO
FORCE TECHNOLOGY (Trenching equipment systems)
www.force.dk www.groundforce.co.uk/GroundforceS
horco
FOSTER WHEELER
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT GUSTO MSC INC and
(Kadanwari field case study) IHC GUSTO BV
www.fwc.com (Now part of SBM Offshore group)
See SBM
www.gusto.nl
HALMA PLC J RAY MCDERMOTT

www.halma.com See McDermott International
www.jraymcdermott.com
HDI HORIZONTAL DRILLING
INTERNATIONAL JME LTD
(Colville River HDD case study) (NDT equipment)
www.hdi.fr www.jme.co.uk
HEAMAN PIPE BENDING INC KBR

www.heaman.com (Formally Kellogg, Brown and Root)
www.kbr.com
HEAT TRACE LTD
(Pipeline heat tracing) KONGSBERG
www.heat-trace.ltd.uk (UTIS - Universal tie-in system)
See FMC technologies
HEEREMA MARINE
CONTRACTORS NEDERLAND LAND AND MARINE PROJECT
BV ENGINEERING LTD
(Balder laybarge) (Directional drilling, landfalls and
www.heerema.com bundles)
(Formerly part of Costain / Smit
HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS Groups)
GROUP, INC www.landandmarine.com
(Well operations, production and
Caldive) LANKELMA LTD
www.helixesg.com (Soils investigation)
www.lankelma.com
HIBBITT, KARLSSON &
SORENSEN INC LEIGHS PAINTS
(Abaqus finite element software) www.leighspaints.co.uk
See Simulia
LIFTEX CORPORATION
HYDRATITE (Pipeline lifting slings)
(Morgrip subsea connectors) www.liftex.com
(Formally Hydratite Sweeney)
www.hydratight.com LINCO EQUIPMENT INC
(Mobile soil sampling)
INTERLIANCE LLC. www.linco.com
Associates for the California Energy
Commission LMR DRILLING UK LTD
(Gulf Coast to California pipeline case (Horizontal directional drilling)
study) www.lmrdrilling.co.uk
www.interliance.com
LØGSTØR RØR A/S
ITAS (Pre-insulated pipelines, pipe-in-pipe)
(Pigging and isolation plugs) www.logstor.com
www.itas.biz
MACCAFERRI LTD
ITP INDUSTRIAL THERMO (Gabions and geotextiles,
POLYMERS LTD Severn river bank case study)
(Pipeline insulation) www.maccaferri.co.uk
www.tundrafoam.com
MAT AND TIMBER SERVICES NKT FLEXIBLES I/S

Division of Sarum Hardwood (Flexible subsea pipelines)
Structures Ltd www.nktflexibles.com
www.grootlemmer.com
NORFRA A/S
MATIS MODULAR ADVANCED (Dunkirk landfall)
TIE-IN SYSTEM www.norfra.no
See Acergy
NSW
MCCONNELL DOWELL (Umbilical cables)
(Natural gas line Australia) www.nsw.com
www.macdow.com.au
OCEAN ENGINEERING
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS
www.mcdermott.com www.oes.net.au
MCS: ADVANCED OCEANEERING

ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
(Flexcom & Freecom 3D offshore (Umbilical cables)
software) www.oceaneering.com
www.mcs.com
OCEANTEAM POWER &
MERLIN CONNECTORS UMBILICAL ASA
See Oil States Industries www.oceanteam.nl
MILLER ELECTRIC OFFPIPE

MANUFACTURING CO www.offpipe.com
(Welding equipment)
www.millerwelds.com OIL AND GAS UK
www.oilandgas.org.uk
MORGRIP
(Underwater connector) OIL STATES INDUSTRIES LTD
See Hydratight (Merlin pipe connectors)
www.oilstates.com
NABORS INDUSTRIES LTD
(Workovers) OLYMPIC PIPELINE COMPANY
www.nabors.com (Whatcom Creek /
Bellingham gas pipeline case study)
NATIONAL GRID PLC www.olympicpipeline.com
(Gas transmission pipelines for British
Gas) OMS (OPTICAL METROLOGY
(Study for Shah Deniz in Azerbaij, – SERVICES)
with BP and Advantica) (Pipe Checker ™)
www.nationalgrid.com www.optical-metrology-services.com
NEXANS ORCINA LTD

(Spider trenching excavator and cable (Orcaflex software)
manufacturers) www.orcina.com
www.nexans.com
PACTIV CORPORATION
NEXEN INC See CCP
(Energy company)
www.nexeninc.com PETROBRAS
www.petrobras.com.br
PHOENIX BEATTIE RUPTURE PIN TECHNOLOGY

(Rubber hoses) (Pressure safety systems ESDVs)
www.phoenixbeattie.co.uk www.rupturepin.com
PII PIPELINE SOLUTIONS SAAB SEAEYE LTD

(Pipeline inspection) Sister company to Hydrovision
Now part of GE Oil and Gas (Panther ROV)
www.seaeye.com
PIPE INDUCTION HEAT LTD
(PIH) SAGE PROFILE
See CRC-Evans (Subsea pipeline and plough analysis)
See Fugro and GeoLine
PIPESHIELD INTERNATIONAL www.sage-profile.com
LTD
www.pipeshield.co.uk SAIPEM
www.saipem.eni.it
PIRELLI SUBMARINE CABLES
See Prysmain Cables and Systems SAPURA CREST PETROLEUM
BERHAD
PSI PLUGGING SPECIALISTS (Incorporating Teknik Lengkap, TL
INTERNATIONAL AS Geosciences and TL Offshore)
Now TDW Offshore Services AS www.crest.com.my
PSL ENERGY SERVICES LTD SAS GOUDA BV

(Jet prop and clay cutter trenchers) www.sasgouda.nl
www.psles.com
SASOL GAS LTD
PRYSMIAN CABLES AND (Mozambique river crossing case study)
SYSTEMS www.sasol.com
www.nl.prysmian.com
SBM OFFSHORE NV
R J BROWN (Single buoy moorings, FSOs and
See Technip FPSOs)
www.singlebuoy.com
REDFERN AMIFLEX HOSE
www.redfern.co.uk SEABED SCOUR CONTROL
SYSTEMS LIMITED
ROCKWATER www.scourcontrol.co.uk
(CDT)
See Subsea 7 SEAMARK SYSTEMS LTD
(Concrete mattresses)
ROTECH See Foundocean
www.rotech.co.uk www.seamarksystems.com
ROXAR ASA SEAWAY FALCON

(Reservoir management) (Reel barge)
www.roxar.com See Acergy
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP SERIMAX

See Shell (Automated pipe welding)
www.serimax.com
RSK ENVIRONMENT LTD
www.rsk.co.uk
SHELL EXPLORATION & TALON SUBSEA TRENCHER

PRODUCTION See Acergy
(Nigerian Pipeline sabotage)
www.shell.com TAPS TRANS-ALASKA
PIPELINE SYSTEM
SIERRA PACIFIC CORP See Alyeska
(Infrared thermography)
www.x20.org TD WILLIAMSON INC
(Shortstopp® connection, pipeline
SIMULIA inspection and commissioning)
(Abaqus finite element software) www.tdwilliamson.com
www.simulia.com
TDW OFFSHORE SERVICES
SMD HYDROVISION www.tdwoffshore.com
www.smd.co.uk
TECHNICAL TOOLBOXES INC
SMIT INTERNATIONALE N.V. (Software products for the energy
(CDT – see also Land and Marine) industry)
www.smit.com www.ttoolboxes.com
SPM INSTRUMENT AB TECHNIP

(Condition monitoring systems) (Apache, Pliant wave and S risers)
www.spminstrument.se (Formerly Technip-Coflexip)
www.technip.com
SRD SONAR RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT LTD TEKNIK LENGKAP
(Underwater video) See Sapura Crest
SRD are part of Tritech and Halma
Group TESMEC
www.srduk.com (Landline trenching and stringing
machine manufacturers/suppliers)
STARTRAK PIGGING www.tesmec.it
TECHNOLOGIES
(Pigging and river crossing inspections) TESMEC USA INC
www.starpig.com (Landline trenching and stringing
machine manufacturers/suppliers)
STATOILHYDRO www.tesmec.com
www.statoilhydro.com
THRUST SHORE
STOLT COMEX SEAWAY MS See Groundforce Shorco
LTD
See Acergy TIG TITANIUM INFORMATION
GROUP
SUBSEA 7 www.titaniuminfogroup.co.uk
(Formed from Halliburton Subsea
(Rockwater) and the subsea activities of TL (TEKNIK LENGKAP)
DSND) OFFSHORE
www.subsea7.com See Sapura Crest
SUBSEA PROTECTION TOTAL DUNBAR

SYSTEMS LIMITED (Insulated pipe connector)
www.sps.gb.com See Total
SUPERPESA
www.superpesa.com.br
TOTAL EXPLORATION UK PLC VRYHOF ANCHORS

(Formally TotalFinaElf) (Anchors and manmade fibre ropes)
www.uk.total.com www.vryhof.com
TTI WELLSTREAM INTERNATIONAL

See Technical Toolboxes Inc www.wellstream.com
TRANSCANADA X100 STUDIES

www.transcanada.com See Shell Global Solutions,
TransCanada, Advantica, Serimer Dasa,
TRELLEBORG CRP AB Cranfield University and BP
www.trelleborg.com
TRENCH SHORE LTD

See Groundforce Shorco
TRENCOR INC
See Astec underground
TRIAD WESTERN
CONSTRUCTORS INC
(Auger boring, pipe ramming and
HDD)
www.triadwestern.com
TRITECH
See SRD
www.tritech.co.uk
TWI LTD
(The Welding Institute)
www.twi.co.uk
TYCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS
www.tycotelecom.com
UNITED OFFSHORE SERVICES

(Cable-laid slings and grommets)
www.uos-nl.com
VERMEER MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
(Rock trenchers and HDD)
www.vermeer.com
VIA+ VISITLESS INTEGRITY

ASSESSMENT LTD
(Satellite earth condition monitoring)
www.via-plus.net
VOSTA-LMG
(Dredging technology)
www.vostalmg.com
Acknowledgements and references 519
Additional Help
Additional help was provided by individuals:
Cyril Bishop
(Pipe freezing and hot tapping)
Herman Duff
(Malaysian pipeline)
Mike Mosedale
(Cartoonist)
Frank Gibbons
(Marsh and wetlands)
References
“Corrosion Costs and Preventive Strategies in the United States”, G.H. Koch, M.P.H.
Brongers, N.G. Thompson, Y.P. Virmani, and J.H. Payer, Study by CC Technologies,
Report FHWA-RD-01-156 (September 2001).
“Oman India Pipeline: Development of Design Methods for Hydrostatic Collapse in

Deep Water”, C Tam, P Raven, R Robinson, T Stensgaard, A M Al-Sharif & R Preston,
Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference (OPT96) Amsterdam (15-16 February).
“Liquefaction hazards and their effects on buried pipelines”, T D O’Rourke and P A

Lane (1989), Tech Rep NCEER-89-0007, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, Buffalo, NY (1 February).
“Guide to purchasing, manufacturing, and testing of loading and discharge hoses for
offshore moorings”, Oil Companies International Marine Forum (1991)
“Ultimate Pipe Strength under Bending, Collapse and Fatigue”, C E Murphey & CG
Langner, Proceedings of the 4th OMAE Symposium, Volume 1 (1985).
“Reeled Pipe-in-Pipe for Ultra Deepwater”, David Kaye and Vincent Ledoux of
Coflexip, Presented at Deepwater Offshore Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro,
(October 2001).
“Editorial of Géotechnique”, Vol LVI, Number 5 p 289 and letter pp 357-358 (June
2006).
“Critical state soil mechanics”, A N Schofield and C P Wroth (1968) – available to

download via http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~ans/
“Reeling of pipelines with thick insulation coating, finite element analysis of local
buckling”, Tim Crome; OTC, Houston (1999).
“‘Factors Affecting Pipe Collapse”, S Kyriakides, and M.K. Yeh, Engineering Mechanics
Research Laboratory, EMRL Report No 85/1, A.G.A Catalogue No. L51479
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of
Texas at Austin (1985)
“Calculating the service life of running steel wire ropes”, Dipl Ing Roland Verreet, Casar
Drahtseilwerk Saar GMBH (www.casar.de) (Aug 1998)
Web Sites
The following web contact addresses may also be of use:
API
American Petroleum Institute
www.api.org
ASME
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
www.asme.org
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
www.ansi.org
BS
British Standards Institute
www.bsi-global.com
BERR
Department for Business Enterprise and regulatory reform
www.berr.gov.uk
DEAL DATA REGISTRY FOR UK OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS

Data and information about offshore oil and gas exploration and production for the UK
www.ukdeal.co.uk
DEEP ROPE MANUAL 2004

www.offshoreengineering.org/moorings/Downloads/deepropemanual.pdf
DNV
Det Norske Veritas
www.dnv.com
HSE
UK Health and Safety Executive
(Offshore Safety Reports and
Contact Research Reports)
www.hse.gov.uk
ENERGY INSTITUTE
Previously the Institute of Petroleum
www.energyinst.org.uk
ISO
International Organisation for Standardization
www.iso.org
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE (MMS)

USA Authority for Pipelines – Offshore incidents in Pacific and Gulf of Mexico
www.mms.gov and www.mms.gov/offshore/index.htm
NACE - THE CORROSION SOCIETY

National Association of Corrosion Engineers
www.nace.org
PIGGING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ASSOCIATION

Information on pigging manufacturers and suppliers
www.ppsa-online.com
Acknowledgements and references 521
OS
Ordnance Survey (of Great Britain)
www.ordanancesurvey.co.uk
SAFEBUCK JIP
Design guideline for on-bottom lateral buckling
www.safebuck.com
SHEET PILING SPECIFICATIONS

Search engine for sheet piling specifications
www.pilespecs.com
US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
www.energy.gov
WORKSAFE VICTORIA
Australian State of Victoria
Health and Safety Accident Prevention Arm
(Good international contacts worldwide)
www.workcover.vic.gov.au

Design of Subsea Pipelines - Part 1, Volume 2 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

Design of Subsea Pipelines - Part 1, Volume 2 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pipeline, riser and

Copyright of this book remains the sole property of:

© Jee Limited 2009

THERMAL DESIGN AND INSULATION 77

MATERIALS SPECIFICATION 153

END EXPANSION AND SPOOLPIECES 323

ON-BOTTOM STABILITY 363

BOTTOM ROUGHNESS AND INTERVENTION 431

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 495

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & REFERENCES 509

 Understand what loads and failure

 How do we make a pipeline stronger?

 Generally fix on strongest

 Increase wall thickness

 Loads and failure mechanisms

In this section we will address the above.

 Different loads induce different failure

The first criterion is pressure containment or bursting. The failure mechanism is

The mechanism of rupture is illustrated in the picture below.

The picture below shows the consequences of system collapse.

A displacement-controlled condition occurs when the displacement of the pipeline is,

A load-controlled condition occurs when the displacement experienced by the pipeline

WILL SHANE GET WET FEET?

 Branch may break

Considerations to be used structural designs include:

ALLOWABLE STRESS AND LIMIT-

 Allowable stress design (ASD) – load factor

LSD Yield stress

ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN

 Many codes available (basis in 1950s):

 Design on the basis of achieving a target

Risk = Probability x Consequence

 Low, Normal or High

 Based on fluid – water, oil or natural gas etc

DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD AND

Factor x Resistance > Factor x Load: R  L

Shift due Shift due

Corrosion tends to occur either as:

WALL THICKNESS COMPONENTS

The nominal wall thickness is made up of various components.

 Uses limit-state design based on LRFD

 Partial safety factors are dependant on

Limit Probability basis Safety Class

SLS Serviceability 10-2 10-3 10-3 10-4

FLS Fatigue 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6

1,nom = Total nominal strain

The DNV-OS-F101 design process is defined in the figure above.

ECA: Engineering Criticality Assessment.

Supplementary requirement P is defined in section 5D 1100.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES – SUMMARY

 Loads and failure mechanisms

This equation assumes:

 Considerations in determining design

Note: this may have commercial implications.

MOL = Main Oil Line

 Maximum allowable operating pressure

Hydrotest requirements are normally:

Incidental pressure Pinc

PRESSURE PROTECTION PRESSURE DEFINITION

The above relationship is for DNV-OS-F101. By comparison, PD 8010 normally has

Pressure wave backs up pipeline at speed of sound

Stationary fluid Moving fluid

 Surge pressure can be greatly reduced by