OTC 16612 Matterhorn Steel Catenary Risers: Critical Issues and Lessons Learned for Reel-Layed SCRs to a TLP

W.K. Kavanagh & G. Harte/MCS, K.R. Farnsworth, P.G. Griffin & T.M. Hsu/ChevronTexaco, A. Jefferies/DSDS, A.P. Desalos/Unocal.

Copyright 2004, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 36 May 2004. This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.

injection well. The 10 gas export SCR is operated by Total and the 8 oil export SCR is operated by ChevronTexaco. Figure 1 illustrates the SeaStar TLP steel catenary riser and subsea layout. SCR Design and Construction Process The design, procurement and installation process for deepwater SCRs is a combination of interrelated tasks in several disciplines the interface between which is a critical prequesite to achieving a feasible, optimized and consistent SCR design. The maintenance of the interface between these disciplines and functions is an essential part of the SCR design process which requires effective interface management throughout the project. Figure 2 presents a flowchart of the SCR design and construction project process which illustrates the interfaces between the key SCR project stages: 1. Design 2. Procurement of pipe and ancillary devices 3. Weld qualification and testing 4. Coating and construction 5. Installation 6. Operation Also illustrated by this flowchart is the interrelationship between these processes and the important feedback loops that exist back to the design stage of the project. Although most inputs to design are typically defined by the project Design Basis, design is also influenced by key assumptions made at the design stage. Key elements of this feedback to design are provided by the pipe procurement (pipe weight), flexjoint procurement (flexjoint stiffness), pipe matcing (stress concentration factors), fatigue testing (design S-N curve).and installation (fatigue damage) stages of the project. For successful interface control and change control of the project, both the Design Basis inputs and key assumptions should to be validated during subsequent phases of the SCR project. This is typically achieved by one or both of two approaches: Review of as-built information relative to design sensitivity analyses performed during original design As-built re-analysis of SCRs with actual fabrication and test data. Both of these measures were taken for the Matterhorn SCR designs. The approach to sensitivity analyses and scope of as-

Abstract This paper presents key issues and lessons learned from the design, fabrication, weld qualification, fatigue testing and determination of defect acceptance criteria for the Matterhorn field export SCRs, the first reeled SCRs installed to a TLP in the Gulf of Mexico. The Matterhorn TLP, located in 2850ft water depth in Mississippi Canyon 243, exports oil and gas via 8-inch and 10-inch SCRs, operated by ChevronTexaco and Total. The design of these SCRs was one of the first to consider the Cold-Core Eddy Current (or submerged current) in the Gulf of Mexico and the design of the SCRs and other catenary risers was strongly influenced by its introduction. Reeled installation of the SCRs also affected the design, fabrication and fatigue testing process, particularly the pipe welding and matching process and the fatigue test and fracture mechanics analysis strategy. Both SCR designs were shown to be robust by early consideration of sensitivity to a wide range of design inputs. Designing to several such sensitivities was found to be a very valuable input to achieving robust SCR designs when managing change to base case assumptions in as-built SCRs and components. Being among the first to consider the Cold Core Eddycurrent in the Gulf of Mexico and the first reeled SCR to a GoM TLP, lessons learned have significant relevance to future SCR projects. Introduction The Matterhorn field consists of a SeaStar mini-TLP in 2,850ft of water in Block 243 of the Mississippi Canyon area of the Gulf of Mexico. The riser system consists of an array of top-tensioned production risers combined with steel catenary risers (SCRs) for gas and oil export with an additional flexible riser and steel tube umbilical riser to an

OTC 16612

built analyses of the SCRs is described in the Design section of this paper. Critical design assumptions and the design feedback required later to validate them are described in detail in the following sections. Design Basis & Assumptions The design analysis of the Matterhorn 8-inch oil and 10-inch gas export SCRs, illustrated schematically in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively, was strongly influenced by key design drivers and assumptions related to conditions under which the SCR was assumed to operate. These included: Design for Cold Core Eddy Metocean Current Design and construction for reeled installation Assumptions on soil-pipe interaction and trenching Assumptions on delivered pipe weight Assumptions on achievable fatigue S-N curve and weld stress concentration factor (SCF) Design for Cold Core Eddy Metocean Current. The Cold Core Eddy (CCE), or submerged current, was introduced as a design metocean condition into typical Gulf of Mexico Design Bases in late-2002, based on statistical predictions arising from several observations of the phenomenon at Brutus and other locations in the Gulf of Mexico. For Matterhorn, the design condition was introduced early in the execution phase of the project. What is unusual about the phenomenon is its combination of a relatively benign surface current with a high velocity submerged current, typically at a maximum between 500ft and 1500 ft water depth. Figure 5 illustrates a normalized shape of the design 100-year Cold Core Eddy compared to the 100-year design loop current. In terms of SCR design, the CCE presents several challenges not typically encountered in GoM designs before its introduction: Strength Design. Because the floating facility tends not to displace laterally as much as for other design metocean conditions such as a loop current or design hurricane, extreme angles between riser and hull under a CCE have the potential to be larger than for other large current and lateral loading conditions. Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV) Design. Because of its submerged nature, the CCE has for several facilities lead to a re-evaluation of the required strake length to mitigate extreme VIV. Interference and Riser Layout Design. The relatively small facility (TLP) displacement under the CCE can increase its potential to cause riser interference, especially with TLP tendons. Each of these challenges is described in further detail in the SCR Design section of this paper. Design and Construction for Reeled Installation. The design and construction of an SCR for reeled installation also necessitated design analysis and construction methods to account for the effect of reeling on the SCR design process. For the Matterhorn SCRs, this affected several of the SCR design and fabrication processes.

SCR Fatigue design. The stress concentration factor used in fatigue design and the S-N curve had to be compatible with what was achievable in a reeled pipe. This issue is also strongly related to the pipe welding and end-matching process. Pipe Welding and Weld Preparation. The reeling process has the potential to affect the measures like end matching and internal diameter (ID) boring which are typically used to ensure pipe alignment and minimum end mismatch prior to weld welding. Because the reeling and straightening process typically causes significant displacement controlled plastic strains to be imposed on the pipe, ID boring was avoided in order to avoid excessive local plastic strain concentrations associated with locally thinner wall at pipe joints. Weld Fatigue Testing. To ensure that accumulated plastic strains imposed during reeling, unreeling and pipe straightening during the reel-lay process did not adversely affect the pipe fatigue life, each of the full scale weld fatigue test pipe samples were pre-strained in a rig to simulate the reeling and unreeling process. Determination of AUT Inspection Criteria. Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), typically used to determine flaw acceptance criteria for automatic ultrasonic testing of welds, does not account for the plastic pre-straining cycles on the pipe. Therefore, non-linear elasto-plastic fracture mechanics analysis of the pipe was performed instead to determine minimum acceptable flaw sizes. Each of these issues is further described later in this paper. Assumptions on Soil-Pipe Interaction and Trenching. SCR fatigue design analysis needs to be aligned with physical assumptions related to the behaviour of the SCR on the seabed, particularly considering the issue of SCR selftrenching. For these designs, a conservative view was taken on the possibility of the SCRs being laterally restrained by the sides of their trenches under storm loading conditions lateral to the plane of each SCR. The physical assumption was that, under the influence of lateral loading conditions, the TLP would bring the SCR to the edge of its trench. For any dynamic motion after that, the SCR would behave as if it was laterally restrained. In analysis terms, this assumption meant that a nonlinear static analysis was performed for each TLP offset condition in the scatter diagram. This was followed by a linear dynamic analysis with lateral seabed restraint to represent a trenched condition. While this assumption was regarded as conservative in terms of actual fixity conditions of the SCRs, it did represent a condition that was not well represented either by lateral friction (for example, in a time domain analysis) or by an easily quantifiable lateral seabed stiffness. This assumption reflected trenching conditions known to exist in a similar facility, illustrated in Figure 6, which shows an approximately 6ft wide x 6ft deep trench of a TLP SCR two years after installation. Following installation of the Matterhorn SCRs, this assumption was later validated. Images from the ROV survey of the Matterhorn SCRs, presented in Figure 7, demonstrated significant touchdown zone trenching only 4 months after installation. Although lateral dynamic fixity was acknowledged as likely to be a conservative design assumption, it was

OTC 16612

nonetheless considered desirable, if possible, to achieve an SCR design which was robust enough to meet design criteria under this condition. Studies performed during design later tested the sensitivity of these assumptions to wave-induced fatigue design results. Assumptions on Delivered Pipe Weight. The design analysis of an SCR needs to be aligned with the procurement pipe specification, in terms of its wall thickness negative and positive tolerances. It also needs to be aligned with the mean delivered pipe weight compared to its nominal weight. Based on previous experience of procuring SCR linepipe, pipe mills often tend to deliver pipe on the positive side of its mean tolerance, possibly to minimize the possibility of pipe rejection due to wall thickness under its minimum tolerance. However, contrary to the assumption sometimes made that the heavier pipe produces a more conservative design, higher weight in water often leads to lower touchdown zone fatigue life for an SCR. This issue was accounted for in design by assuming a pipe delivery 8% above its nominal dry weight, for a specified wall thickness tolerance range of -5% to +16%. In other words, the mid-range pipe wall thickness of +6.5% on nominal was increased to 8% to account for an anticipated heavier than nominal pipe delivery. Further to this, design sensitivity to +12% on dry weight was considered as part of the design sensitivity analyses. To ensure robust design, pipe weight assumptions were later tested as part of the procurement process and actual pipe weights had a feedback into an as-built design analysis for final confirmation of feasible design. (Refer to Figure 2) Assumptions on Achievable Fatigue S-N Curve and Weld Stress Concentration Factor (SCF). For the fatigue design of the SCRs, initial assumptions on the welded pipe joint performance were made before the weld procedure was qualified. Furthermore, to increase contracting and installation strategy options later, these assumptions were also made before a final decision was made on the method of installation (reeling vs. S-lay or J-lay). To handle the uncertainty of design data, the design process subsequently needs to ensure that: 1. necessary measures are taken as part of pipe preparation to ensure that the design SCF can be met. In this case, because it was a reeled SCR, ID boring was not an option and a combination of tight end matching and joint selection were required to achieve the target SCFs. 2. weld procedure qualification and full scale fatigue testing demonstrate the adequacy of the assumptions on pipe fatigue S-N performance. The feedback loop associated with each of these is illustrated in Figure 2. SCR Design The approach taken to achieving a robust SCR design for the Matterhorn SCRs was the successful interface between all phases of the design and the inclusion of a wide range of design sensitivities to cover inputs and assumptions which could later be re-assessed to ensure final design feasibility.

The key activities of the SCR design are: 1. Strength Design 2. Wave Fatigue Design 3. VIV Design 4. Interference and Riser Placement 5. Fracture Mechanics Design 6. Sensitivities 7. As-Built Design These key aspects of the SCR design are discussed in detail in the following section of the paper. A key part of the design process was the usage of sensitivity analysis to cover the range of uncertainty of the various SCR design parameters with respect to the as-built SCRs. Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 present the strength, wave-fatigue and VIV design sensitivities respectively. The significance of the important sensitivities is discussed in each of the design sections on an individual basis. Specific outputs from the strength, fatigue and interference design included finalisation of riser parameters (i.e. hang-off angles, strake length, azimuth angles). Some of the more important SCR design outputs are presented in Table 4. SCR Strength Design. The strength analysis was performed using time-domain finite element analysis with Flexcom-3D [2]. The focus of the strength design was to: calculate riser and flexjoint loads and deflections perform riser stress design checks to ensure feasible design and code compliance calculate interface loads for the designers of connecting structures (flexjoint, porch, hull weight) Key Loadcases: To investigate the strength performance of the SCRs, a comprehensive load-case matrix encompassing extreme current and seastate load cases was used for stress utilization checks as per API RP 2RD [3]. The key strength loadcases included the 100yr loop current, 100yr hurricane, and the 10-year cold-core eddy current, and a 1000yr hurricane was also checked as a survival load case. The strength design showed the export SCRs designs to be within API 2RD allowable stresses for all extreme loading cases. Design Drivers: For the extreme and operating conditions, the SCRs were well within allowable stresses and it was confirmed that maximum riser stress was well below yield stress both in the touchdown and hangoff zones for the survival loadcase (1000yr hurricane). For Matterhorn, the cold core eddy current presented a particular design challenge for the flexjoint used to connect the SCR to the hull. For each of the SCRs, this load case was the driver of maximum riser and flexjoint deflection. As a result of lateral SCR deflections experienced under the coldcore current, the flexjoint designs had to be modified to accomodate larger rotations than originally anticipated. This was not a critical issue as extra flexjoint capacity was available with the existing flexjoint designs. Strength Sensitivities. The important strength sensitivities included: pipe weight flexjoint stiffness TLP offsets

OTC 16612

The base case detailed design was carried out for a pipe 8% heavier (expected weight or wall thickness increase over nominal specified). The potential for increased TLP offsets were also considered during the project. To provide for design changes that inevitably occur during the project (e.g. vessel offset or pipe weight increase), a margin was applied to the calculated SCR interface loads which was later confirmed as sufficient to account for both an increase in pipe weight to (12% heavy) and an increase in TLP offset. Sensitivity analysis also demonstrated sufficient allowances in the flexjoint rotational capacity existed for significant changes in flexjoint stiffness which occurred during the project. SCR Wave Fatigue Design. The primary contributor to fatigue damage of the SCRs comes from wave-induced fatigue, largely a function of wave-induced vessel motions. As the SCRs were connected to a TLP, this was largely driven by horizontal excursions first and second order motions of the facility, since heave and pitch were both negligible contributors to motions. As for most SCRs in the Gulf of Mexico, wave fatigue was the primary determinant of the SCR hang-off angles, in this case primarily driven by touchdown fatigue life design requirements. For the 8-inch and 10-inch SCRs, the minimum design wave-fatigue lives were 244 and 397 years respectively and, even with additional contributions from VIV and installation fatigue, still exceeded the target fatigue life of 200 years. Frequency Domain Analysis Method. Frequency domain analysis is applicable to wave fatigue design of SCRs when linear dynamic response can be demonstrated for design seastates. The wave-fatigue analysis for Matterhorn was performed using, Freecom-3D, the frequency-domain finite element analysis tool customised for the analysis of offshore risers [1], validated by Flexcom-3D, the widely used time domain FE riser design software [2]. The benefits of using the frequency domain over time domain analysis for this application may be summarized as follows: The demonstrated validity of the technique through time domain verification of fatigue results from critical design seastates. Analysis run-times that are several times faster than timedomain analysis for a large loadcase matrix enables more accurate seastate resolution and no. of seastates than are typically possible with time domain within a short cycle time. Adept handling of design changes and Design Basis variations Ability to analyze a wide range of design sensitivities, a key constituent of the design process, with minimal turnaround time. The use of the inherent linearization associated with frequency domain analysis does require the designer to ensure that the assumptions behind its use are not excessively conservative or unrealistic and are alligned with actual assumed seabed conditions. This issue has already been

discussed in the Design Basis & Assumptions section of this paper. Verification of the Frequency-Domain Approach. To verify the frequency domain approach is sufficiently accurate, given the necessity to linearize the riser response, comparisons of the frequency-domain response were made against equivalent time-domain [2] analyses for critical seastates. The checks included comparison of RMS bending moments along the SCRs for critical design seastates. For comparison with the frequency domain, the riser was restrained on the seabed during the dynamic phase of the time-domain analysis was similar to that used for frequency domain analysis, reflecting similar seabed interaction assumptions behind the analysis. To illustrate the comparisons, Figure 8 and Figure 9 show in-plane and out-of-plane RMS bending moments respectively for the most damaging in-plane seastate for the 8-inch SCR. The in-plane bending moments agree very well. Less agreement is observed for the out-of-plane moments, but the values are an order of magnitude smaller. Figure 10 shows a comparison of the out-of-plane RMS bending moments for the transverse seastate exerting the most damage on the SCR. In this case, the RMS bending moments agree very well for similar lateral restraint conditions and the time domain closely resembles the RMS bending response of the SCR in the frequency domain. These and similar analyses demonstrated that the predictions of the riser response from the frequency-domain compared well with the time-domain for key damaging seastates, which validated the use of frequency domain analysis for the fatigue design. Wave Fatigue Sensitivites. The important wave-fatigue sensitivities include: hang-off angle pipe delivered dry weight (ie. wall thickness) strake length The most sensitive parameter for an SCR hung-off a TLP is the hang-off angle and it is usually desirable that it is optimized in a set of sensitivity analyses. This angle needs to be high enough to give adequate fatigue life while low enough not to cause excessive load on or lateral displacement of the TLP. To illustrate the sensitivity, Figure 11 shows a plot of the wave fatigue life along the 8-inch SCR for an 18 degree and 21 degree hang-off, showing the sensitivity of fatigue life along length to this variation in angle. The pipe weight (i.e. wall thickness) has a very measurable effect on the wave fatigue life. The observed trend for an SCR hanging off a TLP is that increasing mill tolerances upwards will have a negative impact on the wave-fatigue performance. The detailed design assumption was a pipe 8% heavier than nominal and a wave fatigue sensitivity to a 12% heavy SCR was performed at the design stage. Figure 12 shows a plot of the wave fatigue life along the 8inch SCR for 8% heavy and 12% heavy. The lower fatigue performance is observed for the SCR 12% heavy. It transpired later in the project that the delivered pipe would be delivered approximately 13% heavier than nominally specified for reasons specified under the Pipe Procurement section of this paper; so choosing to look at sensitivity to SCR weight was beneficial.

OTC 16612

Increasing strake lengths have been found to have a beneficial impact on the wave-fatigue response. Figure 13 demonstrates the positive effect on the 8-inch SCR wave fatigue life for increasing the strake length by 300ft, largely attributable to the additional dampening of the riser vibration response provided by the longer strake length. SCR Design Verification As part of the deign process, independent verification was performed on the strength and fatigue analysis of the SCRs. For the strength analysis, selected extreme loadcases were analyzed, from which the conclusion was drawn that the SCR design results conformed well with the verification results for tension and bending moment at all parts of the SCRs, as well as for the flex joint angles at the top of the SCR. Fatigue analysis further demonstrated the fatigue life of the SCRs to be within the design life requirement of 10*20 years. A pipe-soil sensitivity analysis was also undertaken which examined the effect of remoulded soil conditions on the design. This showed the bending moment at touchdown to be within 10% of the base case analysis, indicating SCR response to be within design criteria. Interference and Riser Layout Design. While fatigue analysis was focused on determining the hangoff angle of the SCRs, interference work was focused on optimizing the composite azimuth arrangement of all base case and future catenary riser systems, including water injector and umbilical risers as well as the two export SCRs. Because the riser layout had not been optimized either in terms of riser hangoff angle or azimuth angle during FEED, and also because of the introduction of the 100-year cold core eddy current into the project design basis, several layout modifications required to be assessed early in the design phase of the Matterhorn risers. Interference design was thus focused on the following tasks: assessment of the potential of riser-tendon or riser-riser clashing under extreme current loading re-orientation of the azimuth angle, and potentially the hangoff angle, of base case and future risers to achieve a feasible riser system layout. Primary Interference Drivers: The cold-core eddy current had the largest impact on riser interference, leading to interference between risers and between risers and TLP tendons at the early design stage. Catenary Riser Layout Optimisation. One impact of the cold core eddy current, and perhaps the absence of detailed interference assessment at FEED stage, was the necessity to optimize several of the riser azimuths to the TLP during detailed design. Interference was avoided mostly by re-orientating several risers and re-positioning of some of the riser porches, but also by adjusting the hangoff angles of some risers. For example, separation of the 10-inch and the 8-inch SCR had to be increased. Of particular note in the case of the Matterhorn TLP is the relocation of catenaries away from their original locations near tendons to locations where interference was avoided.

SCR VIV Design In recent years, the design of SCRs for the Gulf region has highlighted the need for vortex suppression devices (typically strakes) attached to the outer diameters of SCRs to suppress vortex-induced vibrations (VIV). The VIV design is primarily concerned with determination of the SCR strake configuration and determining the length required to mitigate VIV fatigue. It is widely acknowledged that VIV analysis is not an exact science. Unavoidable uncertainties in the design analysis are typically accounted for assessing several sensitivities to base case assumptions and also by using a conservative approach to the strake length design.. VIV design drivers. To determine the required strake length, it was necessary to be conscious of the largely beneficial effect of strakes on the SCR wave-fatigue, and the potentially detrimental effect of longer strakes on the strength (especially flexjoint angles) and interference design. Long-term loop currents and short-term extreme currents (cold-core eddy and 100yr loop current) loadcases are typically the load cases which drive the VIV design. Of these, the extreme cold-core eddy current was found to have the most significant VIV response and was the driving loadcase for the selection of the design strake lengths for both the SCRs. Because this current profile contains relatively high current velocities deep in the water column it has the potential to excite damaging high-numbered modes in the absence of effective VIV mitigation. This mitigation was found to require longer strake lengths than those typically required to mitigate (warm core) loop currents, whose high velocity is concentrated higher in the water column. Selection of strake length. Strake lengths were finally selected which demonstrated fatigue lives significantly higher than required. The design strake lengths were 1200ft for the 8-inch SCR and 1300ft for the 10-inch SCR. The relationship between strake length and VIV life was determined with sensitivity analyses to ascertain the benefit (if any) of increasing design strake lengths beyond a certain length, and to gain confidence in selecting the appropriate length. To determine the design strake lengths, a strategy was adopted of choosing a strake length at which large gains in VIV life are gained. To demonstrate this process, Figure 14 presents the VIV fatigue life versus strake length for the 8inch oil export SCR for the cold-core current loadcase; the design strake length (1200ft) can be seen to be on the upward part of the curve. Fracture Mechanics Design. In recent years, reeling has frequently been considered in the oil industry as an effective and economical method of installing SCRs offshore. Reeling operations are a well-established practice for pipelines and flowlines where in-service fatigue is traditionally assumed to be negligible. However, for deepwater SCR applications, where in-service fatigue is critical, potential deleterious effects of reeling and unreeling on subsequent in-service fatigue performance of the SCRs need to be considered. Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics. Most development of the defect acceptance criteria used in the offshore industries broadly follows the fracture mechanics based principles of BS 7910:1999 (2000) or workmanship criteria of API 1104 (1999)

OTC 16612

For Matterhorn, conventional linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) was set aside in favor of an elastic-plastic approach, which more accurately considered the effect of reeling on critical flaw size and defect acceptance criteria. Fatigue qualification also required special attention to reeling and unreeling, leading to cyclic pre-bending of pipe samples before fatigue testing. Figure 15 illustrates the effect of the reeling and straightening processes, encountered more than once in the typical installation cycle, on the hysteretic behaviour of steel pipe. Effect of Pre-Strain. To illustrate the effect of reeling on critical flaw sizes on SCR pipe, acceptable defect sizes without a safety factor applied are presented Figure 16 for one reel with pre-service reeling strains of 1.14, 1.4 (consistent with the Matterhorn SCRs) and 2.0%. Also included in the figure is the result of conventional installation without preservice reeling strain. This figure shows that an increase in the reeling strain decreases the acceptable defect sizes. For a given constant flaw shape, when the reeling pre-strain increases from 1.14% to 2.0%, the acceptable defect size decreases about 10%. The approaches used to develop the acceptable fabrication weld defect sizes for both surface-breaking and embedded (buried) defects/cracks in the reeled risers have been demonstrated using the results of an engineering critical assessment for the 8 SCR. The current approach accounts for the effect of tearing-fatigue crack extension due to pre-service reeling operation on the subsequent in-service fatigue life. The fabrication defect acceptance criteria for AUT NDE inspections of the risers installed in Matterhorn were developed by applying the safety factors on the calculated maximum acceptable defect sizes using the approach similar to the development of workmanship based acceptance criteria. Maximum Acceptable Defects. Using elastic-plastic nonlinear fracture mechanics analysis and engineering experience and judgment and the development of workmanship based acceptance criteria, the final defect acceptance criteria for AUT NDE inspection for the reeled SCR were determined, separately defining flaw acceptance criteria for surfacebreaking defects and embedded defects. Cathodic Protection and Coating Design Coating Selection. The following coating strategy was determined for the SCRs: TSA for the straked section Fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) or three layer polyethylene (TLPE) for the free section Three layer Polyethylene (TLPE) for the SCR touchdown (TDP) sections TSA is an active coating for protection of the strake section. The decision to use FBE vs. TLPE below the straked region was related to the cathodic protection design and also the durability of the pipe in the touchdown region. While FBE is often selected for the free span length of an SCR, TLPE, which consists of FBE coated with co-polymer and polyethylene, is considered to be more abrasion resistant and a more effective long-term corrosion barrier for the pipe. CP Design Challenges. Initially, Al-In anodes were proposed for every 500 feet below the strake section of the SCRs. One

characteristic of using such anodes is that they typically require that copper leads be welded to the pipeline. Since the SCRs were reel-layed, no J-lay collars would be on the SCRs to which these could be welded, the consequence was therefore to have these attached directly to the SCR pipe body. If this technique was employed, the potential was seen to exist for hard spots to develop at these connections. Copper diffusion can also occur to harden the connection. Since the SCR is in dynamic motion and high stress, the potential for fatigue crack initiation and development was considered a serious concern for reel-layed pipe. While industry practice was not clear on this issue, no documented failures were available to the SCR team. Many previous SCRs were installed using the J-lay method and anodes leads were welded to the J-lay collars, which acted similar to a poison plate. ChevronTexaco conducted fatigue tests of pin-brazed anode connections on its previous Typhoon project and no associated detrimental effects were observed. However, such practice was not considered good practice for high yield line pipe in high stress service. The ultimate outcome of a review of the CP strategy and its fatigue implications was that welding anode leads to the riser was considered an unacceptable practice. A CP study was commissioned (using PROCOR software) to evaluate alternatives associated with having anodes only at the bottom of the riser past the far TDP. FBE, TLPE and TLPP were evaluated for the free section of the riser. Anodes were placed at the bottom of the riser past the far TDP. Conservative assumptions including large defects and coating breakdown factors were used in the analysis. Final Coating and CP Strategy. The final decision on pipe coatings following the CP study, was: (i) In terms of CP strategy, to place anodes only past the TDP at the bottom of the riser (past the TLPE section) (ii) TLPE coating for the touchdown zone (iii) TLPE for the free hanging section below the strakes (iv) TSA for beneath the straked section. As-Built Design Analysis The as-built analysis used measurements from the as-built SCR pipe for making comparisons between the designed and as-built SCRs and allows the consideration of parameter variations outside the range of sensitivities covered during the design itself. Consideration of the as-built SCR response provides an understanding of how the SCR will perform in the as-built condition and can also confirm or disprove conservatisms in the parameters used for the design. Significantly, the as-built wave-fatigue lives can be computed and compared with the lives obtained from the SCR design. The following information was used to as input to the asbuilt model: (i) -SCR pipe weights from the steel mill measurements. (ii) -Test S-N curves from the fatigue testing. (iii) -As-built SCFs from pipe end wall thickness & high-low pipe wall measurements. For the Matterhorn SCRs, as-built analysis was undertaken to account for some inputs which had drifted outside of the sensitivities covered in design (pipe weight drifted to 13% heavy from 8% base case with 12% as a sensitivity) combined with others which had achieved better than design

OTC 16612

performeance (SCFs). The test fatigue S-N curves varied between the 8-inch SCR, which met the required API X design curve, and the 10-inch, which fell a little short of API X at 85% API X. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show plots of the design versus as-built wave fatigue life along the 8-inch and 10-inch SCRs respectively, illustrating the proximity of the final as-built fatigue life to that calculated using design assumptions. The minimum as-built SCR wave-fatigue lives were calculated as 272 and 398 years for the 8-inch and 10-inch SCRs respectively. The corresponding lives from the wavefatigue design were 244 and 397 years respectively, indicating a very satisfactory overall alignment with initial assumptions. The significant increase in life of the 8-inch riser and the alignment of design assumptions has consequently provided good good confidence in the robustness of the as-built SCR design. Pipe Procurement and Weld Procedure Qualification Pipe Procurement. The project team made an early decision to purchase enough pipes to build a spare SCR. This pipe would facilitate end matching by providing a larger pipe population as well as provide pipe suitable for an SCR in case of problems offshore. This pipe was also used as some of the route contingency in order to reduce the added costs. This proved to be a valuable decision. During fatigue sample fabrication it was discovered that a joint of SCR pipe had significant internal grinding marks in a circumferential direction. Investigation revealed that this occurred during prove-up at the pipe manufacturer when the pipe wall was too heavy or an inner surface defect caused rejection. A detailed inspection effort had followed all QA/QC issues during pipe fabrication. Detailed documentation was available on every SCR joint which allowed the project team to determine which joints had failed initial UT in the pipe mill and could possibly have been ground internally during prove-up. Subsequent investigation of the internal grinding marks revealed that this was introduced by "repairs" at the pipe mill. Only excellent documentation by inspectors helped the SCR team avoid a lengthy process of inspecting all pipe. These records were reviewed and the decision taken to segregate all SCR pipe that was "repaired" after inline UT at the pipe mill. Although it was impossible to completely identify all SCR pipes that may have been internally ground, by segregating all pipes that had been repaired, the project team was confident that the remaining pipes would not have been internally ground. Since grinding could have been as far as 20 feet inside the pipe inspection would have been difficult to adequately identify all pipes that had been internally ground and not available for the SCR string. Some joints had multiple trips to the prove-up station and it proved impossible to conclusively segregate only the pipes that were internally ground. Sufficient information was available to segregate all pipes that might have been ground. To avoid the potential for notches in the SCR ID, this led to a quarantine of approximately 13% of SCR pipe joints which were not subsequently used for the SCRs. Because of the overage that was purposely purchased to meet such contingencies, this did not impact the project schedule.

Wall Thickness and Pipe Weight. During the fabrication, the pipe mill required an extra millimeter to be added to the wall thickness in order to meet specification minimum wall thickness (WT) tolerance for SCR pipe which has been endmachined (ID bored). The pipe was rolled prior to selection of reeling as the installation strategy. For this reason, at the pipe rolling stage, the mill was worried about meeting the required 5% (from target) minimum WT tolerance. This additional 1mm on wall thickness had the consequence of adding about 5% to pipe dry weight. As a general observation, pipe mills tend to stay on the high side of wall thickness ranges. This leads to pipe which is significantly heavier than "nominal". It is an important interface issue for the designer to account for this heavier than nominal delivery during the design analysis phase due to its potential to reduce fatigue life at the critical touchdown zone. For the Matterhorn SCRs, the potential for this was covered by sensitivities to the delivered weight which were considered as part of strength and fatigue design. Flex Joint Procurement. The 8-inch and 10-inch flex joints and their receptacles were on the critical path for the Matterhorn project, with schedule consequences for the hull fabricator in Singapore project if the receptacles were not delivered on time. Ordering and delivery of the castings used in the receptacle were thus critical path items, and an existing standard design was selected which was ready to go into fabrication. Initially, the SCR design considered estimated rotational stifnesses, based on past vendor experience. Subsequent reassessment during design and fabrication of the flexjoint lead to a significant reduction in specified stiffnesses which was addressed by design sensitivity analyses to include the required range of variation. The primary design consequence of the decreased stiffness was the larger angular capacity required to accommodate rotations under extreme current conditions, since stiffness reduction typically often increases SCR fatigue life. The project team subsequently made the decision to test the rotational stiffness of each flex joint to adequately assess the potential variability of key design parameters. The outcome of this was that measured stiffnesses for the 8-inch unit were approximately 36% higher than the predictions. Those for the 10-inch flexible joint compared more favorably. The stiffness of the 8-inch unit correlated better with first cycle modulus measurements than fifth cycle measurements, which was the manufacuters standard. Modulus measurements subsequently indicated that the stiffness of the material used for the 8-inch unit was high compared to nominal over the whole range of strains, as opposed to the 10-inch unit, which was closer to nominal. The ability to account for modulus variation with strain was found to be important in predictions of stiffness for the 8-inch flexible joint. The explanation for the increased 8-inch flexjoint stiffness appears to be that the area graduation used in the flex element layers for the 8-inch FlexJoint was different than other FlexJoint designs. For this FlexJoint, the resistance to external sea water pressure during laydown took precedence to the normal goal of balancing the direct shear strains in each layer at operational angles.

OTC 16612

Ultimately two significant changes in flexjoint stiffness through the project cycle were well addressed by the approach taken to design, which considered the sensitivity of the SCR strength and fatigue designs to significant changes in flexjoint stiffness. Weld Procedure Qualification. Initial weld procedure qualification tests failed to meet specification requirements for toughness and hardness. As a result of this, high nickel (3%) consumables were employed to raise toughness of the weld, which proved successful in achieving a qualified weld procedure. Because no industry history with the fatigue performance of this high nickel consumable was available, the project conducted additional strain ageing girth weld testing in order to assess the potential long term performance of the weld after significant strains due to reeled installation. Reeled Transition Joint Design. The reeled transition joint was designed by the contractor using FEA modeling. It was made out of two pieces of the heavier wall SCR pipe. The transitions were taper bored into the pipe. An ECA was not performed for this series of welds. Also, a calibration block was not made for the "intermediate" weld which had a different wall thickness than the line pipe and SCR cal-blocks. Because of the high strain levels and lack of an ECA, the project team required that the three welds meet the SCR ECA criteria. A special procedure was required for the intermediate weld using passes from both the SCR and line pipe scanners and raising the gain on the transducers. This was needed to get an accurate picture of the weld and assess any defects in accordance with the SCR ECA. Transition joint strains were more than twice that of the rest of the pipe (>3%). To demonstrate the need for inspection of joints with wall thicknesses beyond the limits of the existing calibration blocks, a test string of pipe was reeled off the vessel offshore in order to validate and set the straighteners. A simplified version of the permanent transition joint was used to connect the heavier wall SCR test pipe to the test string of line pipe. Significant deformation or kinking was observed in this transition as the test string left the barge. This validated the need for a detailed analysis and design of the transition joint. Pipe Fabrication and AUT. Prior to fabrication of the SCR it was requested by the project team that the end matching data be qualified by actual lineup and measurement of SCR pipe in the production environment. Due to scheduling constraints, this task was not performed. During fabrication the contractor requested that internal grinding of the pipe wall be allowed to facilitate meeting high/low requirements during end fitup if necessary. Discussion with AUT experts led to the project team declining to allow any internal grinding of the pipe surface. Use of hand grinders, as suggested by the contractor, had a high probability of producing an inner surface that would no longer be parallel to the outer pipe surface. This could interfere with the ability of AUT to properly inspect the root. Utilization of ray tracing software and weld geometry indicated that inner surface angle misalignment of as little as 2 degrees could cause the AUT to potentially miss root defects. The project team worked with the contractor to develop a cold

forming method of reaching the high/low requirement using a clamp if it became necessary. End matching. To achieve the target SCFs and high-low tolerances, the necessity existed for end matching for all SCR pipes. For that, a proprietary ovality measurement tool was used by the end-matching contractor. This tool measured the pipe wall profile and its thickness, which was transformed into an ovality measurement. Few contractors have the experience and are qualified to do end matching using such an automated computerized system. The system we used was still being developed during this stage of the project. The pipe matching challenge was to adequately plan for enough time to qualify the contractor and equipment, and then to verify that the result translated accurately into a desired misalignment tolerance measure. It is important to understand all the parameters that impact such a tool well before production and to use educated judgment. For example, when time came to verify the pipe end matching results onto the production line, using such sensitive tool gave problematic readings. There was no time to investigate this in sufficient detail to fully resove the issue so this verification method was ultimately replaced with a much more simple, practical method, but also one based on human readers ability method: the use of a hi-low gauge. Based on lessons learned from the fatigue sample test, the project team selected an electronic reading and calibrated gauge in lieu of the graduated one. Readings were taken at eight points around the pipe while welding. Since the welding was manual, this method was never on critical path of the welding production line. Cap Grinding. Cap grinding plays a critical role into the stress concentration induced into the weld. A specific procedure was developed, which included the direction of welding and the brush type to use. Even with all this information, the consistency depended on the dexterity of the operator. After the start of production, it was decided to define a consistent method of application and acceptance criterion for the cap-grinding, based on the width of the grinding, depth vs. wall thickness and curvature. Weld-Fatigue Sample Pre-Bending and Testing The purpose of the weld-fatige testing was to qualify the fatigue design S-N curves used for the Matterhorn SCRs. The Matterhorn SCRs presented the challenge of performing a fatigue testing for SCR pipe while accounting for the significant amount of strain the SCR experiences due to reeling. Fatigue testing of each of the SCRs was performed on full-scale welded samples of both the 8-inch and 10-inch SCRs which were first pre-bent to simulate the effect of the reeling process. Weld Fatigue Sample Pre-Bending. Additional measures were taken for fatigue sample preparation after reeling was selected as the installation method. The samples were required to undergo pre-bending over a special rig designed to simulate the actual strains which the physical SCR would be put through during the reeling installation. The rig, illustrated in Figure 19, was used to bend and counter bend the samples

OTC 16612

to simulate both the bending and counterbending plastic strain cycles associated with reeling and straightening of the actual SCR during reeling and installation. Automatic ultrasonic testing (AUT) inspection was performed before and after this bending simulation in order to assess the actual crack extension that might take place during the reeling process. Significant defects in the proper orientation were not found in the pre-bending AUT scans. The post-bending AUT scans were assessed to determine if crack extensions were to be found. The results were largely inconclusive due to the loss of pipe markings during transport and the various operations. Post-project lessons learned include the need for a detailed marking procedure and use of varnish to preserve markings on fatigue samples throughout the test program. Loss of markings also inhibited the examination of results after fatigue testing. The bending simulation of the SCR fatigue samples did reveal the potential for buckling due to variations in geometrical and mechanical properties of the project pipe. Some of the test samples exhibited standoff near the weld when they were bent around the reel form. This standoff section was seen to be close to the onset of buckling with slight bulging observed. One of the specimens which exhibited the standoff was examined and dimensional measurements were taken as well as yield tests on each end. This information was input into an FEA model of the bending rig and the model was able to simulate the experimental results. The reelability of the supplied pipe was, at this stage, considered the key challenge. Additional yield tests were taken on the entire pipe population based on heat numbers in order to obtain a larger population of yield test results. This data was analyzed and it was determined that the pipe joints could exhibit significant plastic moment mismatch if joints were welded together randomly. This would present a higher than expected level of buckling risk during the reeled installation. It was determined that heat matching the pipes by segregating the pipes by heat would provide a significant reduction in the risk of buckling. For the SCR, a limited number of heats were available so the pipe was sequenced in the SCR string based on the actual production number within a heat. This effort was coordinated with the end matching procedure to put each SCR pipe joint within 3-5 pipes of its original order. This effort when combined with the SCR welding procedure qualification problems put the project schedule at some risk. Pipe coating of the SCR was delayed until final sorting of the pipe into an SCR string with acceptable end matching and heat matching. Only then could the TSA and TLPE coatings be applied to the correct pipe joints. The outcome was that the SCR pipe was fabricated to greater than minimum API 5L PSL 2 specifications with tighter dimensional and mechanical requirements and testing included in the project specification. The reeling installation process was considered unable to utilize this standard commercial product without additional heat matching to reduce buckling risk. The pipe ends were originally intended to be end machined (ID bored) in order to provide the capability to meet the desired high/low requirements, and consequently the design

stress concentration factors (SCFs), for joint fitup of SCR welds. After selection of the reeled installation method, it was decided that pipe end machining not be performed because end machining of reeled pipelines was considered to have the potential to cause plastic strain to accumulate in areas of wall removal allowing buckling to become more likely to occur. An effective end matching process was therefore the measure which was selected to get the pipes to meet the project specifications high/low criteria and required SCF for SCR weld fitup. Weld Fatigue Testing. The accepted method of creating the design S-N curve is to take the mean of the test curve (i.e. best-fit curve) and remove two standard deviations from the data to formulate the design curve. Because the qualification of the Matterhorn SCRs was based on limited number of highcycle fatigue tests, the target curve had to be higher than the predicted mean S-N performance. This was based on selecting an appropriate confidence interval to calculate the required number of standard deviations above the mean curve. It was decided to perform pre-straining on the fatigue test samples to account for reeling of the actual SCR pipe. Figure 19 presents a schematic of the pre-bending rig. The 8-inch and 10-inch fatigue samples were tested in SES and TWI respectively using resonance fatigue testing rigs shown in Figure 20. This rig was used to impose a sinusoidal constantamplitude bending moment in the weld sample about a constant mean stress (created by internally pressurized water). The fatigue tests indicated that the 8-inch SCR met the SN design curve and that the 10-inch SCR did not, based on one prematurely failed sample. The outcome of the testing was that the design S-N curve was modified to generate an as-built curve for the 10-inch SCR, and the as-built S-N curve for the 8-inch remained the same as the design curve. The as-built S-N curves fed-back into the as-built analysis already described, the overall outcome of which indicated that both SCRs exceeded the required wave-fatigue life of 200 years in the as-built condition. SCR Installation The SCR and pipeline installation operation for both the 10 and 8 export lines was executed under 3 separate contracts. One with Technip Offshore for actual installation, one with Heerema for SCR recovery and hang off, and a third contract with Stolt Offshore for the tie in and commissioning of the lines in preparation for start up. Technip used the Deep Blue reel ship for the installation. The original plan was to install both the 10 line and the 8 line in a single mobilization. However, due to delays in the fabrication of the 10 SCR, the 8 line was mobilized to the field with a Nakika flowline installation planned from the second reel. The vessel returned to the spoolbase after the Nakika job to spool up the 10 line. The installation sequence started with a deepwater initiation against a pre-installed dead man anchor. The line was laid in a curve past the TLP installation site and then moved onto the established route prior to the mean SCR touchdown point being laid out. The installation analysis was based on not exceeding a bending strain on the pipe of 1.4%. The lines were laid dry with each end being configured with a pre tested laydown/recovery head.

10

OTC 16612

The SCRs were recovered by the Heerema vessel Hermod which was being used by Atlantia for the hull and topsides installation. The risers were recovered and hung off on the hull prior to the topsides module installation. The SCR recovery sequence was planned around limiting the bending strain on the pipe to a level lower than that imposed on it during installation by Technip. The maximum strain on the 10 pipe during recovery was limited to 0.1%. This approached preserved the operators warranty for the installed line with Technip. The loads encountered during the recovery operation confirmed that the lines had remained in a dry condition since their installation 2 months earlier. After the topsides module was installed, the risers were tied into the hull piping with closing spools by Stolt Offshore who were also responsible for the hydro testing, subsea tie in, and dewatering of both lines. Conclusions Being the first reeled SCR to a GoM TLP and among the first facilities to design to the Cold Core Eddy-current in the Gulf of Mexico and, significant lessons learned have been learned with application to future SCR projects. Effective interface and change control in the design process requires that feedback to the design from the procurement, testing and installation activities to adequately assess the effect of such changes on SCR design feasibility. This may be performed by review of change against design sensitivity analyses or the collation of all changes into a wrap-up as-built analysis of the SCR. The value of performing a wide range of sensitivities around a base case design, to provide for inevitable change during the design process, has been demonstrated as a very effective method of achievring a robust SCR design. The cold-core eddy current has been observed to have a significant impact on the design of SCRs for the Gulf of Mexico. Its influence has the potential to affect riser strength, interference and VIV design. The prediction of the 100-year CCE is still based on relatively few observations and the understanding and statistical prediction of this metocean event is seen as an evolving science whose potential variability should be accounted for through robust design to allow for potential change. While reel-installed SCRs have the potential to offer cost and schedule advantages to an SCR installation project, significant design and fabrication challenges are considered to be associated with the decision to reel, among them: (i) the challenge of achieving required high-lo tolerances and fatigue SCF needs without ID-bored pipe ends, which are considered to carry the potential risk of excessive plastic strain near welded joints during reeling. In such cases, key attention needs to be paid to the pipe specificaion, QC at the pipe mill and effective end matching to control the high-low tolerance. (ii) the necessity for elastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis to more accurately model plastic straining effects on acceptable flaw sizes

(iii) the necessity for pre-bending of full scale fatigue test specimens to account for plastic strain cycles prior to fatigue testing (iv) the challenge associated with fabricating SCR pipe to greater than minimum API 5L PSL 2 specifications with tighter dimensional and mechanical requirements and testing included in the project specification. The reeling installation process was considered unable to utilize this standard commercial product without additional heat matching to reduce buckling risk. The weld fatigue testing demonstrated the importance of performing fatigue testing to validate the S-N curves used for the design. The failure of one sample to achieve the required X fatigue performance demonstrates that achievement of design assumptions in fatigue testing of an SCR is a challenge with potential SCR delivery schedule implications in the event of failure to meet the design S-N curve. Although the project justified the avoidance of anodes for the catenary sections on the grounds of fatigue risks of anode attachment, it is however likely that longer or larger diameter risers in deeper water may well require anodes due to attenuation of anode potential. Because pipe mills often tend to stay on the high side of wall thickness ranges to avoid negative tolerance rejects, the potential exists for a pipe delivery which is significantly heavier than nominal. This is especially the case if additional wall thickness allowance for ID boring is to be made to the pipe mill. It is an important interface issue for the designer to account for this heavier than nominal delivery early in the design analysis phase due to its potential to reduce fatigue life at the critical touchdown zone. The project team required a high level of QA/QC on the entire project throughout design, procurement, fabrication, and installation. This proved to be more necessary and costly than originally anticipated. Because the riser layout had not been optimized either in terms of riser hangoff angle or azimuth angle during FEED, and also because of the introduction of the 100year cold core eddy current into the project design basis, more iteration was undertaken on the SCRs and on the riser system solution than initially planned during the detail design state of the project. The lesson from this is that effective front end engineering, especially strength, fatigue and interference assessment, is required if the riser system configuration is to be relatively stable going into the detailed design and construction phase of a project.

OTC 16612

11

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Total and ChevronTexaco for allowing selected results from their SCR designs to be presented in this paper. Thanks also to others involved with the joint Total / ChevronTexaco Matterhorn SCR design team, including Hugh Thompson, Richard Strauss, Jim Skogsberg, Richard Swanson, Erling Katla and Matterhorn Project Manager, Jean-Pierre Hurel. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contribution of Cort Cooper to the statistical prediction of the Cold Core Eddy current metocean condition described in this paper. References 1. MCS, Freecom-3D Reference Manual (2003) 2. MCS, Flexcom-3D Reference Manual (2003) 3. API RP 2RD, Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension-Leg Platforms (TLPs), 1998 4. API RP 1111, Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design), 3rd Edition 1999 5. Lane, M., Grealish, F., Kavanagh, K., and Thompson, H., Advanced Frequnecy Domain Analysis Techniques fro Steel Catenary Riser, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, May, 2001, OTC 13017. 6. MCS (September, 2000), Typhoon Field Development Execution Phase - SCR Verification Report, Report to Chevron by MCS, September, 2000, Doc No.4-1-4-019 / VR04 Rev. 01. 7. MCS (August, 2001), Chevron Typhoon Field Verification of 18 Gas Export SCR As Built Fatigue Analysis, Report to Chevron by MCS, August, 2001, Job No. 1-1-4-127. 8. BS 7910:1999 (2000), Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures, British Standards Institution.

12

OTC 16612

NOT TO SCALE

MWL

1200 FT. HELICAL STRAKES

8" OIL EXPORT (SCR) 8.625" O.D x 0.500" W.T PIPE

1200 '

STR AKE LEN GTH

18 HANG -OFF ANGLE

ft.

335 5

67 1 ft

L ca tena ry =

SCR TOUCH DOWN (MEAN)

3.1 SEA BED SLOPE

MUDLINE EL.(-) 2687 ft.

Lc ate na ry

16D X 0.25DHELICAL STRAKE SCALE: NONE

=3

SCR TOUCH DOWN (FAR)

SCR TOUCH DOWN (NEAR)

1730' HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO TDP (NEAR)

2240'

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO TDP (MEAN)

2804'

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO TDP (FAR)

Figure 3. Schematic of 8-inch Oil Export SCR Design.

ca te na ry

ft.

MUDLINE @ CL TLP

40 39

WD @ TLP = 2811 ft.

NOT TO SCALE

MWL

1300 FT. HELICAL STRAKES

1300 ' ST

10" GAS EXPORT (SCR) 10.75" O.D x 0.625" W.T PIPE

RAK E

LEN GTH

15 HANG -OFF ANGLE

ft.

3248

ft.

te na ry =

L ca

SCR TOUCH DOWN (MEAN)

3 SEA BED SLOPE

MUDLINE EL.(-) 2706 ft.

Lc

ate n

ary

16D X 0.25DHELICAL STRAKE SCALE: NONE

=3 50 8

SCR TOUCH DOWN (FAR)

SCR TOUCH DOWN (NEAR)

1499' HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO TDP (NEAR)

1955'

Figure 1: SeaStar TLP SCR Layout (Source: Atlantia Offshore)

Design

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO TDP (MEAN)

2464' HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO TDP (FAR)

Figure 4 Schematic of 10-inch Gas Export SCR Design.

0

Assumptions
Design Basis i) WD ii) SCR Diameter iii) Fluids iv) Waves v) Currents vi) Soil vii) TLP Motions

Strength (Pipe & FJ) WF Fatigue VIV Fatigue Installation Analysis Interference CP Design Fracture Mechanics

500

Water Depth (ft)

Design Sensitivities As-Built Design Analysis Design Verification

1000

1500

Procurement, Construct & Testing Reeled Installation Procurement Pipe

2000

Pipe Weights
2500

F/J Delivery & End Match Fatigue Testing Welding & Spooling

SCFs
3000

S-N

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

ca te na ry

ft.

100yr Loop
Cold-Core Eddy

0.7

MUDLINE @ CL TLP

38 23

WD @ TLP = 2811 ft.

0.8

0.9

Non-Dimensionalised Current Speed (1=max)

Installation

Installation Fatigue

Figure 5. Comparison of 100yr Cold-Core Eddy and 100yr (Warm Core) Loop Currents

Operations

As-installed ROV-surveyed SCR condition

Figure 2. Schematic SCR Design Flowchart

OTC 16612

13

Sensitivity Analysis Description

10 Gas Export

8 Oil Export

Basecase Sensitivities

Variation of drag coefficient of the straked region Variation of strake length Irregular sea analysis in the time-domain

Additional Sensitivities

112% weight tolerance Flexjoint stiffness variation Seabed Stiffness variation TLP coupled analysis offsets Revised Cold-core Eddy current Fluid Density variation Marine Growth (on SCR straked section) Corrosion Allowance/Wall Thickness tolerance on SCR wall thickness for API stress calculations

Figure 6. GoM SCR Trench (2 years after installation)

Table 1. Strength Design Sensitivities

Sensitivity Analysis Description 10 Gas 8 Oil

Base Case Sensitivities Removal of Lateral Friction Strake Length variation Hang-off Angle variation

Additional Sensitivities

112% Weight tolerance Revised flexjoint stiffness curves Removal of second order motions Seabed stiffness variation Variation in drag coefficient for the straked region Addition of marine growth to straked region S-N curve(s) Fluid density sensitivity Fluid pressure sensitivity

Table 2. Fatigue Design Sensitivities

Figure 7. Matterhorn 8-inch SCR Trench (4 Months after Installation)
Sensitivity Analysis Description 10 Gas 8 Oil

Variation of strake length

Variation of strake efficiency (lift coefficient)

112% weight tolerance

Variation of modal cut-off parameter

Updated Cold-core Eddy profile

Table 3. VIV Design Sensitivities

14

OTC 16612

Outer Diameter (inch)

10.750

8.625

Wall Thickness-Nominal (inch)

0.625

0.500

Azimuth Angle (deg)

Strake Length (ft)

N 21.5W 1300

N 34.5W 1200

RMS OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING (ft.lbs)

Hang-off Angle (deg)

15

18

Horizontal Distance to TDP (ft)

1955

2240

Suspended Catenary Length (ft)

3508

3671

Table 4. Summary of Key Design Outputs.

0
0

500

Water Depth at TDP (ft)

2706

2687

1000

1500

2000

2500

Design Output Parameter

10 Gas Export

8 Oil Export

Tim e Dom ain Frequency Dom ain

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CURVED DISTANCE ALONG SCR (ft)

Tim e Dom ain Frequency Dom ain

Figure 10. Comparison of RMS Horizontal Out-of-Plane Bending for Transverse Case. Riser Section on Seabed Laterally Restrained in Time Domain Analysis.
1,000,000,000
Base Case 21 Degree Hangoff

RMS IN-PLANE BENDING (ft.lbs)

1000

1500

2000

100,000,000

500

10,000,000 Fatigue Life (years)

1,000,000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CURVED DISTANCE ALONG SCR (ft)

100,000

10,000

Figure 8. Comparison of RMS Horizontal In-Plane Bending for Near In-Plane Case, Transverse Seabed Friction = 1.0.

1,000

100 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Distance from Top of SCR (ft)

Tim e Dom ain Frequency Dom ain

200

Figure 11: Distribution of Wave-Fatigue Life along 8 SCR for Variation of Hang-off Angle.
10,000
Base Case +12% Weight Tolerance

RMS OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING (ft.lbs)

100

150

Fatigue Life (years)

0

50

1,000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CURVED DISTANCE ALONG SET SCR (ft)

Figure 9. Comparison of RMS Horizontal Out-of-Plane Bending for Near In-Plane Case, Transverse Seabed Friction = 1.0.

100 3630

3640

3650

3660 Distance from Top of SCR (ft)

3670

3680

3690

Figure 12: Comparison of 8 SCR Fatigue Life at Touchdown for Increase in Pipe Thickness Tolerance.

OTC 16612

15

10,000

Effect of Reeling Strain on Acceptable Defect Size for 8" SCR (No Reel and 1 Pre-Service Reel)
5.0

ACCEPTABLE DEFECT HEIGHT, a, mm

8" SCR, 1.14% Pre-Strain, w/o SF

8" SCR, 1.4% Pre-Strain, w/o SF

4.0

8" SCR, 2.0% Pre-Strain, w/o SF 8" SCR, No Reeling, w/o SF

Fatigue Life (years)

Constant a/2c = 0.20

3.0

Constant a/2c = 0.05

1,000

Base Case +300 ft -300 ft

2.0

1.0

0.0 0.0
100 3630 3640 3650 3660 Distance from Top of SCR (ft) 3670 3680 3690

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

ACCEPTABLE DEFECT LENGTH, 2c, mm

Figure 13. Curve of Minimum Wave-Fatigue Life along 8 SCR for Variation of Strake Length.
VIV Fatigue Life vs. Strake Length Plot for 8" Oil Export Riser 100yr Coldcore Out of plane Current

Figure 16. Effect of pre-service reeling strain on calculated acceptable surface-breaking defect sizes for 8inch SCR
1.E+08

5.000

4.500

As-Built Fatigue Life

4.000
Cutoff 0.7, Efficiency 80%

Design Fatigue Life

1.E+07

3.500

Fatigue Life (yrs)

3.000

2.500

2.000

Wave Fatigue Life (Years)

0 200 400 600 Strake Length (ft) 800 1000 1200 1400

1.E+06

1.E+05

1.500

1.000

1.E+04

0.500

0.000

1.E+03

Figure 14. VIV Life versus Strake Length for 8-inch SCR

1.E+02 4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

-500

Distance Along Riser from Flexjoint Centre (ft)

Figure 17. Design vs. As-Built Wave Fatigue Life Along the 8-inch Export SCR.
Aligner
1.00E+09

As-Built Fatigue Life

Straightener
1.00E+08

Design Fatigue Life

Reel
Wave Fatigue Life (years)

1.00E+07

1.00E+06

Strain
1) 2) 3) 4) Bending onto reel (OA) Unreeling from reel to aligner (AB) Bending on aligner (BC) Straightening (CD)

1.00E+05

A C

1.00E+04

O Stress B D

1.00E+03

1.00E+02 4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

-500

Distance Along Riser from Flexjoint Centre (ft)

Figure 15. Reeling Installation Process.

Figure 18. Design vs. As-Built Wave Fatigue Life Along the 10-inch Export SCR.

16

OTC 16612

Figure 19. Pipe Pre-bending Rig for Weld Faigue Test Samples

Figure 20. Full Scale Weld Fatigue Test Rig