This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

RISER INTERFERENCE

APRIL 2009

DET NORSKE VERITAS

FOREWORD

DET NORSKE VERITAS (DNV) is an autonomous and independent foundation with the objectives of safeguarding life, property and the environment, at sea and onshore. DNV undertakes classification, certification, and other verification and consultancy services relating to quality of ships, offshore units and installations, and onshore industries worldwide, and carries out research in relation to these functions. DNV Offshore Codes consist of a three level hierarchy of documents: — Offshore Service Specifications. Provide principles and procedures of DNV classification, certification, verification and consultancy services. — Offshore Standards. Provide technical provisions and acceptance criteria for general use by the offshore industry as well as the technical basis for DNV offshore services. — Recommended Practices. Provide proven technology and sound engineering practice as well as guidance for the higher level Offshore Service Specifications and Offshore Standards. DNV Offshore Codes are offered within the following areas: A) Qualification, Quality and Safety Methodology B) Materials Technology C) Structures D) Systems E) Special Facilities F) Pipelines and Risers G) Asset Operation H) Marine Operations J) Wind Turbines O) Subsea Systems

**Amendments and Corrections
**

This document is valid until superseded by a new revision. Minor amendments and corrections will be published in a separate document normally updated twice per year (April and October). For a complete listing of the changes, see the “Amendments and Corrections” document located at: http://webshop.dnv.com/global/, under category “Offshore Codes”. The electronic web-versions of the DNV Offshore Codes will be regularly updated to include these amendments and corrections.

veien 1, NO-1322 Høvik, Norway; Tel +47 67 57 99 00, Fax +47 67 57 99 11.

Comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com For subscription orders or information about subscription terms, please use distribution@dnv.com Comprehensive information about DNV services, research and publications can be found at http://www.dnv.com, or can be obtained from DNV, Veritas-

© Det Norske Veritas. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, without the prior written consent of Det Norske Veritas. Computer Typesetting (Adobe FrameMaker) by Det Norske Veritas. Printed in Norway.

If any person suffers loss or damage which is proved to have been caused by any negligent act or omission of Det Norske Veritas, then Det Norske Veritas shall pay compensation to such person for his proved direct loss or damage. However, the compensation shall not exceed an amount equal to ten times the fee charged for the service in question, provided that the maximum compensation shall never exceed USD 2 million. In this provision "Det Norske Veritas" shall mean the Foundation Det Norske Veritas as well as all its subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents and any other acting on behalf of Det Norske Veritas.

BP. Chevron. All contributions are highly appreciated. ExxonMobil. Texaco and ExxonMobil carried out by Aker Kværner and Det Norske Veritas.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. DET NORSKE VERITAS . It has been sponsored by Norsk Hydro. and Shell. April 2009 Contents – Page 3 Acknowledgements This Recommended Practice has been developed in close cooperation with the Norwegian Deepwater Programme (NDP). Statoil. It has been a part of the Joint Industry Project called “Management of Riser Contact” sponsored by Conoco. ConocoPhilips. Total. BP.

April 2009 Page 4 – Contents DET NORSKE VERITAS .Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203.

............................... 10 General .. 10 Drag Amplification due to VIV............. 15 APP......................................2 4...3 3.............1 INTRODUCTION ........10 3............................... 4........2 1...3 1.............................................................................. 11 Models for Hydrodynamic Interaction in Global Analysis .................... B ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS ....1 4........ 11 RISER CLEARANCE ASSESSMENT............. 1......................................................8 Organisation of Document..........7 2......................2 3....9 Design Parameters for Compliant Configurations ........................................7 Scope and Application........................ 12 General..................... 3..........9 HYDRODYNAMIC INTERACTION......................4 4....................8 Main Symbols ......................................................7 Definitions .......7 Abbreviations...............4 4...............9 Design Parameters for Top-Tensioned Riser Arrays ............ 13 APP... 8 General ......... 12 Dynamic Analysis.........................................................7 Objective..... 20 DET NORSKE VERITAS ................................3 4...................... C LOCAL IMPACT STRESS ANALYSIS OF STEEL PIPES .............. 12 Clearance Acceptance Criterion.........................5 1......................4 1............................................4 3. 12 Wake Instability Analysis..............6 1......1 1.....3 2..................... 2...............................................................................................................................................8 Design Principles ..............Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203.................................................. 7 General ......................................... 12 REFERENCES................................ 12 Quasi-Static Analysis .1 2............... April 2009 Page 5 CONTENTS 1................................ 17 APP................................................. Mean Force in Steady Current ........ A INTRODUCTION TO HYDRODYNAMIC INTERACTION PHENOMENON ...........................................2 2.................................8 DESIGN APPROACH ......5 5......

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. April 2009 Page 6 DET NORSKE VERITAS .

Each impact event may involve several successive stress peaks. lazy wave. Examples are structural failure (rupture. The safety philosophy and design principles adopted in DNVOS-F201 /5/ apply. Line Impact: Assumes the ideal case where the longitudinal pipe axes are parallel at impact. which transform the lower fractile resistance to a design resistance. unintended and undesirable event. Force Coefficients: Non-dimensional coefficients for the drag and lift force as function of relative spacing. flexible risers. Screening Analysis: Used to frame the problem in order to identify if analysis and methods that is more advanced should be employed. and research is ongoing.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. deformation. The basic principles are in agreement with recognised codes and reflect state-of-the-art industry practice and latest research. Failure: An event causing an undesirable condition. effective tension. Impact Event: One impact event is defined as one collision event governed by the gross riser motion.g. Undisturbed Fluid Flow Model: Analysis approach disregard- DET NORSKE VERITAS . such as bending moment. Load: Refers to physical influences which cause stress. April 2009 Page 7 1. This Recommended Practice formally supports and complies with DNV-OS-F201 /5/. strain. typically 4-5 for a straight hit and 1-2 for a kissing event. Instead. In order to derive a complete framework for feasibility and practical design procedures. Riser Array: Riser system consisting of vertical or near vertical top-tensioned risers. A formal calibration is neither feasible nor optimal with the present level of experience. e. stress. local buckling) or operational limitations (stroke or clearance). Load Effect: Response or effect of a single load or combination of loads on the structure. e. conservative environmental modelling and analysis are applied. Typical accidental event has an annual probability of occurrence less than 10-2.2 Objective The overall objective of this document is to recommend a methodology for engineering analysis. In view of high uncertainties in interference predictions. Numerical Fluid Flow Models: Direct force and fluid flow estimation from a CFD solver. any recognised code considering the set of limit states discussed herein is in principle acceptable. Typically up to 20 risers distributed in a cluster. etc. The aim herein is to achieve and document the industry consensus as per today.4 Definitions Accidental Loads: Loads acting on the riser system. free hanging. Riser Tensioner System: A device that applies a tension to the riser string while compensating for the relative vertical motion (stroke) between the floater and riser. Point Impact: Assumes the case where the pipe axes are nonparallel resulting in a small contact area at impact. umbilicals. Whenever the terminology “risers” is used in this document it generally also applies for all types of riser systems e. Fatigue: Cyclic loading causing degradation of the material. Clearance: Sufficient minimum spacing between risers is documented. Impact Velocity: Referred to as the relative velocity between to colliding risers at the time of impact. Compliant Configuration: A unified term for riser/umbilical configurations being a catenary or e. The risk of interference between marine risers increases with increasing riser length. Limit State: The state beyond which the riser or part of the riser no longer satisfies the requirements laid down to its performance or operation. the general design practice is that riser collisions are not allowed under normal or even extreme conditions. etc. It is recognised to be a supplement to relevant National Rules and Regulations. Riser interference comprises complex physical phenomena. and to provide rational design criteria and guidance for assessment of riser interference.g. pliant wave.3 Scope and Application The scope of work is first of all to propose a framework for feasible analysis strategy and practical design procedures with focus on how to assess if the risers collide or not. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): Numerical methods which aim to model and solve all physics involved by solving the coupled equations of the structure and the fluid. 1. 1. deformation. Normal Operation: Conditions that are part of routine (normal) operation of the riser system. The present document considers analysis procedures and design criteria for riser interference assessment. the following topics need to be considered: — — — — — overall framework and design approach safety philosophy environmental conditions and loads analysis strategies and hydrodynamic interaction models acceptance criteria and fundamental requirements. Tandem Arrangement: See Figure 1-1. in the riser. etc. Introduction 1. strain.g. Safety Factors: Partial safety factors. loss of component or system function. due to a sudden. Coating: Sheeting on the outside of the riser used to protect the riser from damages caused by the surroundings. also known as kissing angle. Herein denoted as Urel. no calibration of safety factors is applied. Impact Angle: The angle between the relative velocity vector and the line between the cylinder (riser) centres at time and location of impact.g. Side-by-Side Arrangement: See Figure 1-1 Staggered Arrangement: See Figure 1-1 Strakes: Helical structural elements attached outside the riser to suppress VIV response. not yet fully understood.. Operation. Reduced Velocity: Non-dimensional velocity parameter used for assessing VIV due to the vortex shedding force. steep wave. Riser Interference: Minimum spacing between risers is less than acceptance criteria. Hydrodynamic Interaction: Interaction effects due to the presence of other structures located nearby in the fluid. Steel Catenary Risers (SCRs) and Top-Tensioned-Risers (TTRs). the downstream riser located in the wake of an upstream riser will be affected by the upstream one. However. reference is made to DNV-OS-F201 /5/ and API RP 2RD /1/. motion. displacement. Historically. or deterioration of functional capability to such an extent that the safety of the unit. 1.1 General A more accurate methodology for assessing riser interference has become increasingly more important when oil and gas exploration moves to deeper water. personnel or environment is significantly reduced. Global Analysis: Herein referred to as analysis of forced response of floater and risers due to waves and current.

Appendix A provides and introduction to the hydrodynamic interaction phenomenon in general. Appendix B provides an introduction to different analysis considerations.1 General The individual risers are generally subjected to loading from waves. Available modelling approaches accounting for hydrodynamic interaction in a global analysis tool are discussed. 2.5 Abbreviations ALS API CFD DNV FD FEM FLS LF LRFD LTD NDP NLTD RP SCF SCR TD TLP TTR ULS VIV WF WIO 2D 3D Accidental Limit State American Petroleum Institute Computational Fluid Dynamics Det Norske Veritas Frequency-Domain Finite Element Method Fatigue Limit State Low Frequency Load and Resistance Factor Design Linearized Time-Domain Norwegian Deepwater Program Non-Linear Time-Domain Recommended Practice Stress Concentration Factor Steel Catenary Riser Time-Domain Tension Leg Platform Top Tensioned Riser Ultimate Limit State Vortex Induced Vibrations Wave Frequency Wake Induced Oscillations Two-dimensional Three-dimensional 1. Appendix C contains an introduction to local impact stress analysis and requirements regarding modelling issues. current and forced wave-frequency and low-frequency floater motions. Whether collision between two adjacent risers will occur or not. WS/D. such as a description of hydrodynamic interaction models including application areas which are suitable for implementation in a global analysis tool.6 Main Symbols CD CL D E RE Urel V0 V* Vd VR VWR Vrel Vw Ws drag force coefficient lift force coefficient diameter Young’s modulus Reynolds number relative impact velocity free-stream current velocity local inflow velocity wake deficit velocity reduced velocity (defined with frequency given in Hertz) reduced velocity based upon local inflow velocity in wake relative inflow velocity current velocity in wake submerged weight turbulent kinetic energy impact angle fluid (water) density stress range Yield stress angular frequency fundamental angular frequency On-coming flow Tandem Arrangement Staggered Arrangement On-coming flow Side-by-Side Arrangement On-coming flow Figure 1-1 Tandem. Wake Induced Oscillations (WIO): Motion of downstream riser due to fluid elastic instabilities when located in the wake of an upstream riser.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203.7 Organisation of Document The documents is organised as follows: Section 2 contains the design approach including design parameters and design principles. April 2009 Page 8 ing hydrodynamic interaction effects. 1. Section 3 provides an introduction to the hydrodynamic interaction phenomenon including wake induced instabilities. depend on many factors such as: — — — — loading environment riser spacing at floater and seafloor terminations riser configuration and riser tension floater offset involving intact conditions as well as acci- DET NORSKE VERITAS . Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV): Resonant vibrations caused by vortex shedding. Available methods to estimate the force coefficients applied to describe the hydrodynamic interaction effects have been introduced. Design Approach 2. Staggered and Side-by-Side Arrangements ε θ ρ Δσ σy ω ωn 1. Weight/Diameter Ratio: Defined as submerged weight per unit length divided by the outer diameter. Section 5 contains the basic references used in the document. Section 4 contains a description and discussion of the procedures and methodologies involved in a riser clearance assessment. This ratio may change considerably due to marine growth.

Top-tension and riser spacing are the primary design parameters to mitigate riser interference.g. etc. 2) Cleaning of risers to remove marine growth. strakes riser operation. Note that weight/diameter ratio can be significantly influenced by marine growth. To avoid damage on risers due to mooring line failures it is normally not allowed that a mooring line crosses above the riser in any condition. Operational aspects may limit the applicability of the third approach.g. Testing may be required in the event that no calculations are available to document that the structures can sustain the contact load considering the local geometry of the contact area. This is in particular important for small diameter light weight risers. This should generally be done by combining qualification testing and design calculations. e. effective weight. increased outer sheath in bell mouth. 2.2 No collision allowed Sufficient spacing between adjacent risers should be documented for all critical load cases.3 Collision allowed Infrequent collision may be allowed provided that the consequences are evaluated and found acceptable. 4) Synchronisation of the tensioners to give equal pay-out or equal effective length for all risers in a riser array.g. 5) Introduction of spacer frames to keep the risers apart at critical locations. This means that collisions may be allowed in 2. temporary. Further development is needed to establish the last two described alternatives as feasible design strategies. drilling/completion/workover operations accidental load scenarios. accidental and extreme conditions. e. interaction between flexible riser and umbilicals in current conditions with no VIV. The cost related to increased top-tension and/or riser spacing at floater terminations may be very high. strategy and principles for vertical steel risers. 3) Introduction of bumpers or coating along critical areas of the risers to reduce the load effect due to collision. It should be documented that the structural integrity is not endangered. e. 2. DET NORSKE VERITAS . station-keeping system as well as riser system layout. These design philosophies set different requirements to load effect analyses as well as acceptance criteria.3 Design Parameters for Compliant Configurations For risers arranged in compliant configurations the following can be considered to mitigate riser interference or reduce the load effects due to contact: — grouping of risers with similar static/dynamic properties.4 Design Parameters for Top-Tensioned Riser Arrays TTRs operated from SPAR and TLP platforms are arranged in clusters of vertical. loss of pre-tension or loss of buoyancy different static/dynamic properties of the risers due to differences in mass. 2.e. Riser interference should therefore be addressed in early stages of the design process. I-/J-tube and floater interface area — design of adjacent system configurations allowing for riser crossing with different vertical positions — horizontal and vertical staggering of adjacent riser configurations — separation of the risers with different vertical hang-off angles — separation of the risers with different azimuth hang-off angles — cleaning of risers to remove marine growth if necessary — adjusting the cross-current configuration stiffness by modifying the effective tension through buoyancy and/or weight distribution. applied toptension or effective tension distribution. The engineering efforts required to qualify a riser system for structural impact is hence substantially more demanding compared to a no collision criterion. The design target weight/diameter ratio should hence be checked with and without accounting for marine growth.g. sufficient fatigue and ultimate capacity as well as wear resistance should be ensured. variation in density of conveyed fluids. e. while the first and second seem more feasible from that point of view. Collisions in permanent conditions are normally not allowed.or near vertical risers denoted riser arrays. Please see Appendix C for guidance on local impact analysis. The different loading conditions should be classified depending on probability of occurrence.g. Hydrodynamic interaction is a key issue that needs to be adequately accounted for in the load effect analyses for both alternatives. April 2009 Page 9 — — — — — — dental scenarios such as one or multiple mooring line failures marine growth hydrodynamic interaction comprising shielding. extreme conditions as well as identified accidental scenarios. Collisions are normally not acceptable in the following scenarios: — in buoyancy sections for example for compliant configurations — between risers and mooring lines — between risers and other structures such as mid water arch and pontoons not specially design for handling contacts — between risers with unprotected external lines such as kill and choke lines on drilling/workover risers or piggy back umbilicals. 2. weight/diameter ratios. The number of individual risers in a riser array may be 20 or more. wake instabilities and VIV use of VIV suppression devices. A design target weight/diameter ratio is often specified to achieve similar behaviour of adjacent riser systems.2 Design Principles 2. Possible riser interference is a key design issue for deep water floating installations that might be decisive for the choice of floater concept. Static load effect analysis can be used for assessment of the contact load in pure static interference scenarios. Other proposed design changes to mitigate riser interference or to reduce load effects due to contact are: 1) Grouping of risers with similar static/dynamic properties. Due regard should be given to hydrodynamic interaction in the global load effect analyses. the cost savings due to relaxation of the no collision design philosophy in extreme and/or accidental loading scenarios may be significant. e.g. The load cases should include normal operation. Assessment of structural interaction will in addition be required if collisions between risers are allowed. weight/diameter ratios — increased wear resistance by e.1 General Two fundamentally different design strategies apply: — no collisions allowed — collisions allowed. diameter. e.2. However. i.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203.g.2.2.

and lift-coefficients on downstream riser V0 is defined as the free-stream current velocity which is the velocity on the upstream riser. the physical load mechanisms on a pair of adjacent risers are complex. The most important effects of relevance for assessment of riser interference are: — reduced mean forces on downstream risers due to shielding effects tending to bring the risers closer — VIV effects on mean forces on upstream and downstream riser in terms of drag magnification. which will induce broad band buffeting vibrations — a periodic vortex shedding force causing high frequency VIV with limited amplitude — a time averaged mean force. Fernandes et al.30 1. Clashing between SCRs has been investigated by Fontaine et al.05 0. Experimental results on hydrodynamic interaction due to combined loading from waves. was investigated in /20/. The effects on mean forces on the downstream riser are: — reduced mean drag force due to shielding effects — lift force due to the velocity gradients in the wake field. 3.0 Figure 3-2 Mean drag force on cylinder in a wake [Wu et al. Equal effective length i. April 2009 Page 10 Conclusions from model tests are that ensuring equal payout for the risers by connecting them to a common frame can be applied to reduce the probability of collision in steady current /14/. These loading mechanisms will in general depend on Reynolds number as well as turbulence level in the incoming fluid flow. numerous experiments to study hydrodynamic interaction for arrays of cylinder sections are performed. /9/.g. see e. /28/] DET NORSKE VERITAS . — wake instability motions of downstream riser — multiple static equilibrium positions of downstream riser.2 Mean Force in Steady Current The hydrodynamic loading on downstream riser will be influenced by the wake field generated by upstream riser.0 3. while less information is available regarding interaction effects due to wave loading. Huse & Kleiven /14/ or Kavanagh et al. Fundamental research is needed to fully understand these load mechanisms and how they interact with each other. which varies depending upon the location in the wake. y) Figure 3-1 Coordinate system for description of drag. Significant effort has been applied to investigate hydrodynamic interaction in steady current. see Figure 3-1. In addition. Kalleklev et.05 -0. The origin is located in the centre of the upstream riser.0 -1. Examples of mean drag and lift force coefficients on a cylinder located in the wake of another cylinder of equal diameter are given Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 as function of relative spacing between the cylinders. see e. /8/ present experiments with flexible jumpers exposed to current. /16/.80 X/D = 2 X/D = 5 X/D = 10 X/D = 15 X/D = 20 X/D = 25 CD [-] 0. and hence the upstream riser can be treated as an isolated riser. Hydrodynamic Interaction 3. that the riser length plus the payout length of the tensioner system is equal for all risers. the work of Huse /12/ & /13/.al.0 -3.0 2.55 0. and the y-axis in the transverse direction. Duggal & Niedzwecki /6/ & /7/.0 -2. Full attention will therefore be given to hydrodynamic interaction effects on the downstream riser. Vw (x.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203.1 General Assessment of hydrodynamic interaction is a generic issue for load effect analyses related to riser interference evaluations.g. The wake instability motions are typically large amplitude motions caused by the position dependent force field due to the upstream riser. y) V0 y x Vd (x. The importance of the interaction effects is strongly system dependent and should be evaluated on a case by case basis.30 0.20 -4. In both cases clashing caused by wake effects were observed. /15/ showed that hydrodynamic interaction on the upstream riser conservatively can be ignored. The non-linear force field generated by the upstream riser may in addition lead to the following hydrodynamic interaction effects: 3. As outlined above. for an overview.0 0. It is therefore required to introduce simplifications supported by rational conservative assumptions in practical riser interference analyses. current and floater motions seems to be lacking One may distinguish between three different kinds of physical excitation forces on a downstream riser located in the wake of an upstream riser: — a broad band buffeting force due to oncoming turbulent flow and vortices shed from the upstream riser.0 y/D [-] 1. The spacing has been normalised by the diameter of cylinders. reference is made to Blevins /2/ and Zdravkovich /33/.0 4.e. The mean force coefficients are most conveniently described in a local coordinate system with x-axis in the incoming fluid flow direction. 1. The mean drag and lift coefficients will hence depend on the relative distance between the risers.

a time-domain formulation is required to capture the interaction effects. /23/ or /26/. reference is made to Appendix A and Appendix B. Furthermore. effective tension.4.0 -1. The hydrodynamic interaction models discussed in the following can be implemented by means of a 2D strip model. interaction between compliant risers with different hang-off angles or interaction with mooring lines. it is seen that the mean lift force is directed towards the wake centre line meaning that it will try to push the riser towards the centre of the wake.0 y/D [-] 1. DNV-OS-F201 /5/ for further details. which is derived in e.0 Figure 3-3 Mean lift force on cylinder in a wake [Wu et al. The strip model is applicable to linearized (LTD) as well as non-linear (NLTD) time-domain analyses. Note that very limited information is available regarding VIV behaviour of a riser located in the wake of an upstream one. in a stationary environmental load condition. a value slightly on the high side is recommended for the upstream riser.4 Parametric mean force model Hydrodynamic interaction effects between adjacent risers are accounted for by introduction of mean drag.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. separate VIV assessments for the upstream. Due to the enormous computational efforts involved.3 Drag Amplification due to VIV Representative drag amplification is based on the estimated VIV amplitude A normalised by the diameter D.4. e. DET NORSKE VERITAS .and lift force on the downstream riser as a function of distance from the upstream riser.65 ⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞ ⎜2 2A ⎟ ⎟ CD ' = CD ⎜ 1 1 . see e.20 -0.0 -3. 0.1 General This section provides an introduction to formulation of relevant hydrodynamic interaction models in global load effect analysis computer codes. Reference is made to e. The interaction forces will therefore depend on the relative distance between the risers in each strip. is not applicable to hydrodynamic models incorporating interaction effects from adjacent risers.40 0. Numerical fluid flow models allow for an advanced description of hydrodynamic loading including interaction effects from adjacent risers.40 -0. Huse & Kleiven /14/ observed that VIV motions almost disappeared for both risers when attaching strakes. The upstream riser should conservatively be treated as an isolated riser. bending moments. Alternative formulations are available with significant variations with regard to computational efforts. A conservative lower bound VIV response should therefore be applied for the downstream riser. The expression presented by Vandiver /25/ is recommended: 0. 3. It is focused on establishing a load model which aims to account for the major physical phenomena relevant for a riser interference assessment. stochastic and chaotic motion disappeared. The VIV response on the downstream riser should in general be based on the local inflow velocity at a mean position being representative for the VIV response. A state-of-practice VIV assessment tool should be applied.g. i.20 X/D = 2 X/D = 5 X/D = 10 X/D = 15 X/D = 20 X/D = 25 CL [-] 0. Another significant observation from the tests was that the risers were kept in mechanical contact after clashing due to changes in the force field. displacements and curvature.g.3 Numerical fluid flow model Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) can be applied to solve the viscous flow around two or more adjacent risers in each strip.0 2.4.e. Obviously. This approach may also be applicable if the area of hydrodynamic interaction is very small compared to the overall length of the riser.60 -4. For further details.0 4. The purpose of global riser analysis is to predict global structural response. e. Strakes are commonly used to suppress VIV of risers. /28/] A significant shielding effect is seen when the risers are close.0 0.g. 3.and torsional properties are used for modelling. generality etc. 3. Also low frequency. This approach may be applied for the first screening to identify if riser interference is a potential problem or not. Thus. The undisturbed fluid flow models should not be applied to interaction analyses of clusters of top-tensioned risers exposed to current loading. and has been applied in analysis of heat exchangers and power cables since 1970. It is noted that linearization of the external loading as required by frequency-domain techniques. it is conservative to apply a lower bound value for the drag amplification due to VIV. April 2009 Page 11 0.0 -2. axial. A dynamic approach is required to capture possible WIO response. Blevins /2/.4 Models for Hydrodynamic Interaction in Global Analysis 3.and downstream risers are required prior to the global riser interference analysis. 043 + ⎜ ⎜ D ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (3. 3. Such analyses are normally performed by tailor made finite element computer codes using a global cross-sectional description. This will tend to bring the mean position of the risers closer to each other. For the downstream riser.1) As a conservative estimate. This parametric representation of the interaction forces. This means that hydrodynamic interaction forces are computed in a number of ‘strips’ over the entire water column. accuracy.2 Undisturbed fluid flow A first approach is often to ignore hydrodynamic interaction. Several expressions for the increase in drag coefficient with vibration exist in literature. has gained consensus throughout the literature. In experiments with two adjacent risers.60 3. 3D beam elements with specified bending-. the CFD approach is presently not applicable in practical global riser interference analyses.00 -0.0 3. It is recommended to use no VIV on the downstream riser as a first estimate.g. A static or dynamic approach may be applied depending on the purpose of the analyses. A typical amplitude of one diameter for risers without strakes reduced to one tenth of a diameter for risers with strakes.g. The main difference between these approaches is that the structure is linearized at the static equilibrium position in a LTD formulation while a fully non-linear structural representation is applied in the NLTD formulation.4.

The omni-directional values for environmental loading and vessel offsets should be applied for all directions from 0 to 360 deg in steps of typically 5-10 deg. a 2D strip model can be used for static analysis. the design criterion against riser interference typically comprises assessment of the required spacing to avoid collision. i. 5) Repeat steps 3-4 until convergence is achieved. /12/ & /13/.2 Undisturbed flow analysis Static analysis of upstream and downstream riser can for undisturbed flow analysis be performed separately. 4. The drag force on the downstream riser can subsequently be computed taking shielding effects into account.e. see e. It has however been experienced that modification of current loading on the downstream riser is the most straightforward approach to handle in practical calculations. 4.3 Dynamic Analysis Simplified assessment of dynamic effects due to waves and floater motions may be based on separate dynamic analyses of the upstream and downstream risers.3) may be applied to represent mean current loading on the downstream riser in such analyses. As an approximation. Less severe current conditions may lead to more severe interference scenarios and should hence be considered.4 Wake Instability Analysis Present experience on the wake instability phenomenon from laboratory and field measurements is limited. The worst scenario. the behaviour of the flow in the near wake region cannot be adequately described as it is a highly non-linear phenomenon. If the static deflection is less than the minimum spacing between the risers in nominal static condition.2.4. The parametric force model is straightforward to implement in global time domain dynamic analysis software by means of a 2D strip approach.g. For further details. However. Riser Clearance Assessment 4. Dynamic analyses using the parametric mean force model for description of hydrodynamic interaction allows for evaluating possible wake induced instabilities. This model will in principle capture possible WIO response. 4. combination of floater offset and current loading. API RP 2 RD /1/. neglecting any hydrodynamic interaction between them. Based on available information. 4. reference is given to Appendix B. shielding analysis should be performed.e. As for parametric mean force model. The inflow to a riser situated in the wake can hence be computed at any location. The first step is to determine whether collisions are likely to occur or not considering floater offset and current loading. current loading) on the downstream riser. If the results from the undisturbed flow analysis indicate that 4. /16/.3 Shielding analysis Static analyses using the parametric wake field model for description of hydrodynamic interaction is denoted quasistatic shielding analysis. 4) Re-calculate downstream riser configuration considering resulting inflow as current loading. Shielding effects can in principle be accounted for by modification of the drag coefficient or resulting inflow (i. should be subject for dynamic analysis accounting for wave loading if required. one can for TTRs conclude that riser interference is not a possible scenario and no further analysis is necessary. the model is based on an analytical expression of the wake field behind a riser in steady current.5 Parametric wake field model A semi-empirical static wake formulation to account for the hydrodynamic interaction between individual risers in steady current was proposed by Huse /11/. 4. This approach requires that separate computer models are established for the upstream and downstream risers. However.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. 4. 3. However. reference is given to Appendix B.1 General Historically.2. the static deflection due to free-stream current loading may be calculated for each riser in the array. For certain system it can be difficult to assess whether the structures cross or not by looking at the configuration in extreme current. A tailor-made software application with the parametric mean force model implemented is however required for such analyses. Refined analyses taking possible hydrodynamic interaction effects into account is required if the initial assessment reveals that the interaction effects are significant. Streamlined computations require that the wake field model is implemented in the FE analysis software. it cannot on a general basis be excluded as a possible phenomenon for vertical riser arrays.2. WIO response cannot be described due to no lift force formulation. For further details.2 Quasi-Static Analysis 4. DET NORSKE VERITAS . Essentially.2. No lift force formulation is presently available in the model. Note that possible drag amplification due to VIV needs to be accounted for as described in the previous chapter. Possible wake induced instabilities should be evaluated if the quasi-static shielding analysis reveals hydrodynamic interaction effects along a significant part of the risers. At first. CFD) for the actual cross-sectional configuration. April 2009 Page 12 Relevant drag and lift coefficients need to be established by model tests or 2D numerical calculations (e. the converged inflow on the downstream riser (see item 4. There is presently no consistent theoretical formulation allowing for combining the parametric mean force model with loading due to waves and floater motions.1 General The quasi-static analysis should include floater offset and current loading. The described procedure is a slightly modified version of the approach described by Kavanagh et al. wake instability is not considered relevant for compliant configurations.5 Clearance Acceptance Criterion Since the parametric wake model is applicable for the far wake region (greater than about two diameters behind the upstream cylinder /16/). 2) Compute static downstream riser configuration under incoming current loading. This is because simultaneous dynamic analysis of the upstream and downstream risers is required for application of the parametric mean force. 3) Compute resulting inflow on downstream riser considering shielding effects from the upstream riser.g. any computer software for non-linear static analysis of slender structures can be applied using the following iterative scheme for assessment of shielding effects: 1) Compute static upstream riser configuration. the hydrodynamic interaction effects are of importance.

In Figure 4-1. Fernandes. (1993) “Interaction in Deep-Sea Riser Arrays”. & Sørensen. (2000) “The “Colliding Participating Mass”. (2007) “Experimental and Numerical Study of Wake Interference and Clashing between Steel Catenary Risers”. C. OTC paper no. Mørk.D.. Nygård. Kavanagh.S.. Thompson.D. T. pp. P. J. pp. Sødahl. “Drag in Oscillatory Flow Interpreted from Wake Considerations. Huse. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. a minimum clearance of two times the outer diameter is recommended for risers with equal outer diameters. 11992. & Lee. A. Kleiven.. A. 231-234. (1994) ‘Flow induced vibrations’. Blevins.D. pp. Hence. The maximum VIV displacement can be in the order of one diameter for each riser.. Horn. Figure 4-1 Minimum spacing criterion 5.. & Wardlaw. (1959) “Experiments on Flow around a Pair of Parallel Circular Cylinders” Proceedings 9th Japan National Congress for Applied Mechanics.A. to avoid collision the minimum spacing is given by Δ ≥ D1 + D2 . (1975) “Wake Induced Flutter of Power Transmission Conductors” Journal of Sound and Vibration. E.M. Volume 38. K. W. pp 80-112. This criterion does not reflect any “safety factor. F. Tokyo. OMAE 2000. DET NORSKE VERITAS . 53-71. S. 15383.. Huse. 5370.K. Vol 127.R. Jacob. (2000) “Impulse and Energy in Deepsea Riser collisions Owing to Wake Interference” OTC paper no. G. Huse. Merino.V. Kalleklev. L. Volume 2.L. A. DNV-OS-F201 “Dynamic Risers” Duggal.... No 1. (1987). R. Capanema. H. (2005) ‘Forces on and Stability of a Cylinder in a Wake’. A. The sum of the outer diameters is recommended as acceptance criterion in case of different outer diameters. N. References /1/ /2/ /3/ /4/ /5/ /6/ /7/ /8/ /9/ /10/ /11/ /12/ /13/ /14/ /15/ /16/ /17/ /18/ /19/ /20/ API RP 2 RD “Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension Leg Platforms (TLP’s)” Blevins. Krieger publishing company. Cooper. 8070. Price... Rustad. Rippol. (2003) “Design Guideline for Riser Collision” Offshore Technology Conference.P. (2000) “Genesis Spar Risers: Interference Assessment and VIV Model Testing” OTC paper no. (1993b) “Regular and Random Wave Interaction with a Long Flexible Cylinder”. pp 39-45. April 2009 Page 13 Another issue is that the VIV response of the adjacent risers is not included in the clearance assessment analyses. 1994.M. J.. Imas. ”FEM Modelling and Control for Collision Prevention of Top Tensioned Risers. & Piperni. Niedzwecki. 125-147.S. E.” Offshore Technology Conference. E. 11993. & Morrison. Price. (1996) “Experimental Investigation of Deep Sea Riser Interaction”. M. A Novel Technique to Quantify Riser Collisions”. (1993a) “An Experimental Study of Tendon/Riser Pairs in Waves”. A.. OMAE 1993..C.M. (1987) “An Investigation of the Effect of Mechanical Damping to Alleviate Wake-Induced Flutter of Overhead Power Conductors. Δ is defined as the distance between the outside of the cylinders. R.. B. B. M. The minimum spacing criterion is selected such that it account for possible VIV on both cylinders. R. S. A. Li. K. J. M.K. Niedzwecki. P.G. Duggal. E. Queiroz. OTC paper no. 647-655. OTC paper no.J.J. With this background. Capul. OTC paper no. Larsen.. Y. Paper IV. (1971) “Aeroelastic instabilities in wake” Proceedings International Symposium on Wind Effects on Building and Structures. Coelho. L.” Journal of Marine Structures.J.. 7239.” Journal of Fluid and Structures.J. E. A. D. Huse. J. (2008) “Riser Clashing Induced by Wake Interference” OMAE2008-57639 Fontaine.C. S. pp. Lespinasse. OTC paper no.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203.M.J (2008). Rocha.. A. OMAE2007-29149. Hori. J. Vol 21. 7237.

(2003). St. “Flow Around Circular Cylinders. N.” OMAE. M. & Cooper.01. Zdravkovich. 2002. dated 2000-02-02. Schlichting.Theory Manual” Marintek Report No.M. VIVANA . Zdravkovich. (1980). B. LTR-LA-117. Zdravkovich.L.M. “Aero-dynamics of two parallel circular cylinders of finite height simulated at high Reynolds number” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. Oxford University Press. 513102. 239-261. McGraw Hill Book Company Inc. Volume 60. W.” Offshore Technology Conference. Wardlaw. Wu. (2002) "Dynamic Simulation of Marine Risers Moving Relative to Each other due to Vortex and Wake Effects. Vivana (2000) “Deep Water Analysis Tools . J. (1968) “Boundary Layer Theory”. 618-633. Herfjord.for Version 4. N. Pte. Sumer. & Barltrop. “Multiple Stable/Unstable Equilibria of a Cylinder in the Wake of an Upstream Cylinder. (1977) “Review of Flow Interference Between Two Circular Cylinders in Various Arrangements” Journal of Fluids Engineering. K. T.. M. S. OTC 4490. (1983) “Drag Coefficients of Long-Flexible Cylinders. Rio de Janeiro.” OMAE. pp.M. pp. W. (1973) “A wind tunnel investigation of the steady aerodynamic force on smooth and stranded twin bundled power conductors for the Aluminium Company of America” National Research Council of Canada. (1997) “Hydrodynamics Around Cylindrical Structures” Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering. Wu.1 . Shear7 (2002) “Shear7 Program Theoretical Manual” Draft . H. Huang. Volume 99.M. Volume 12. Ltd. M. & Barltrop.M. Vandiver.21. Zdravkovich. 59-71. New York. (2001a). “Lift and Drag Forces on a Cylinder in the Wake of an Upstream Cylinder. M.I.R. World Scientific Publishing Co.K.. (1987) “The Effect of Interference between Circular Cylinders in Cross Flow” Journal of Fluids and Structures.” Volume 2 Applications. R.part 1. John’s.2 dated March 25. J. K. Task 2. DET NORSKE VERITAS . & Fredsøe." Journal of Fluid and Structures. S.DEEPER.. April 2009 Page 14 /21/ /22/ /23/ /24/ /25/ /26/ /27/ /28/ /29/ /30/ /31/ /32/ /33/ Sagatun. 1.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. No. & Holmås. S. (1999). pp. Huang.

which will affect the drag and lift coefficient for the downstream riser significantly. DET NORSKE VERITAS . [Sumer & Fredsøe/ 24/] Note that the above classification is repeated as given in Zdravkovich /30/.e. 2) Small repulsive lift force and reduced drag force. This is a dominant region for the downstream cylinder. This is a small region and beyond it there is no interference. April 2009 Page 15 APPENDIX A INTRODUCTION TO HYDRODYNAMIC INTERACTION PHENOMENON In order to evaluate the fluid-elastic instability and hydrodynamic interaction of the riser pair. but some results have been found in literature considering higher Reynolds number. Most of the experiments and models tests have been performed for low or moderate Reynolds number below the critical regime. In the post-critical flow regime the wake behind a single cylinder narrows compared with the sub-critical regime /30/.3 m and a current velocity of 1-2 m/s will be between 0. For Reynolds number larger than 1. The upward direction in the upper half and downward direction in the lower half of the figure indicate a repulsive. in the sub-critical flow regime. at least the part closest to the wake centre-line and to the upstream cylinder. while the opposite direction means that the drag is greater than for a single cylinder. Figure A-2 Drag coefficient as function of Reynolds number. the lift force should be classified as negative and not negligible. It is hence expected that the Reynolds number effects are at least equally important for the hydrodynamic interaction in riser arrays as well. A few preliminary findings have been reported in the following.0E + 06. negative or negligible. Alternatively. the wake is disorganised and turbulent. an essential prerequisite is the knowledge of the fluid forces on the risers as function of relative distance between the risers. The upstream cylinder can be located in three regions: 1) Negligible lift forces and reduced drag forces.0E + 04. and from his results Zdravkovich /30/ plotted the resultant interference force coefficient as shown in Figure A-1. indicates that the drag force is strongly depending on the flow conditions and the Reynolds number. The Reynolds number is defined by: RE = VD ν (A. The downstream cylinder can be located. in the following regions: 4) 5) Negligible lift force and increased drag force.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. which are referred to in Figure A-1.3E + 06 and 0. Negligible lift force and decreased drag force. 3) Repulsive lift force and increased drag force. The interference effects are proportional to the vectors shown. which is valid for a single cylinder in uniform flow. Figure A-2. In the fifth region. The first systematic measurements of surface pressure distribution around one of the two parallel cylinders in various staggered arrangements was carried out by Hori /10/. i. Figure A-4 shows the lift and drag coefficient variation typical for the post-critical state of flow compiled from the measurements of Wardlaw and Cooper /27/ presented in Zdravkovich /32/. D is the cylinder diameter and ν is the kinematic viscosity. in air with a Reynolds number in the order of 1. a sixth region could have been introduced in between region one and five with a decrease in drag and an attractive or negative lift force. Figure A-1 Interference force coefficients [Zdravkovich /30/] A direction of the interference force coefficient from right to left indicates that the drag at that position is less than for the single cylinder. According to Cooper & Wardlaw /4/ the wake instability boundary moves closer to the upstream cylinder and its wake axis as well. All possible arrangements of the two cylinders are classified into regions by taking into account whether the drag force is greater or less than for the single cylinder and whether the lift force is positive. The Reynolds number for offshore risers with typical diameter of 0.1) where V is the current velocity. in addition to the above three. Hori /10/ performed his experiments. This will cause a similar contraction of the interference boundary in the case of two staggered cylinders. see Figure A-2. It is observed that the measured forces on the downstream cylinder are almost identical to those in the sub-critical state of flow.6E + 06 which corresponds to what is called post-critical or super-critical flow regime. positive lift force while the opposite directions in the corresponding halves indicate a negative lift force. Hori calculated drag and lift coefficients from the surface pressure measurements. Figure A-3 shows the lift and drag coefficient variation typical for the sub-critical state of flow measured by Zdravkovich /30.

Zdravkovich /31/ verified the findings for stranded cables when the flow was simulated by surface roughness around a pair of cylinders.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. Figure A-3 Force coefficients measured in sub-critical state of flow: (a) lift coefficient and (b) drag coefficient [Zdravkovich /32/] Figure A-4 Force coefficients measured in post-critical state of flow: (a) drag coefficient and (b) lift coefficient [Zdravkovich /32/] DET NORSKE VERITAS .g. April 2009 Page 16 Note that the experiments performed for higher Reynolds number e. it is observed that the interaction effects on the upstream riser diminish rapidly when the relative distance between the risers increases. It is noted from the figures in the Sec.3 that the upstream riser experiences a positive lift force and a reduction in the drag force when being close to the downstream riser. it will be conservative to ignore the interaction effects on the upstream riser for the purpose of a riser interference assessment. Hence. In addition. /4/ and /18/ typically in the post-critical flow regime is performed for stranded cables and not for smooth cylinders.

Note that in recent studies Blevins /3/ has included a lift force formulation. The inflow velocities and wake fields for all upstream risers are computed sequentially in current flow direction starting with the far most upstream riser. y) D. y2) is hence given by: Figure B-1 Time-averaged properties of the turbulent wake of a cylinder with a downstream cylinder in the wake V w = V0 − V d (B.3) This principle has been extended to multiple riser arrays by Huse /12/. conventional strip theory can be applied dividing the two risers into equal number of strips. The parametric wake field formulation is based on the turbulent wake expressions of Schlichting /22/. B. and the ycoordinate in the transverse direction. the model is not considered valid when the relative distance between adjacent risers is less than two diameters.1) where xs and b are defined as xs = x + 4D CD (B.g.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. CFD) for the actual cross-sectional configurations.free-stream current velocity CD. who proposed a scheme for calculation of resulting inflow on a riser influenced by the wakes of several upstream risers. — it allows for assessment of shielding effects in steady current without making use of dedicated software. by making use of the generic drag coefficient approach as described below or the parametric wake field model outlined in the section above.1 Strip Formulation A 2D strip model for the hydrodynamic excitation forces should be applied for the load functions on the 3D risers.empirical constants where k1 = 0. Vw (x. The resulting inflow on a downstream riser at position (x1. Assuming piecewise constant conditions along the riser.2) V0 b = k1 C D Dx s The deficit velocity field Vd(x. — the computational procedure is well documented for tworiser systems. is derived in e. April 2009 Page 17 APPENDIX B ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS B.3 Parametric Mean Force Model A parametric force model requires that the force coefficients are derived as functions of relative riser spacing.693⎜ ⎝b⎠ e xs ⎛ y⎞ 2 (B.e. y) V d ( x.drag coefficient k1.2 Parametric Wake Field Model A semi-empirical static wake formulation to account for the hydrodynamic interaction between individual risers in steady current was proposed by Huse /11/.4) F y = FD sin γ + FL cos γ = 1 2 ρV rel D C D sin γ + C L cos γ 2 ) where r is the fluid density. is adjusted due to shielding effects e. which means that the model is not applicable for prediction of impact velocity and collision intensity. Typically. i. y) is described in a local xy coordinate system with x-axis in the current direction and origin in centre of the cylinder. /12/ & /13/. The strip mesh for the load formulation can be defined relatively coarse. The time averaged mean fluid forces on the downstream cylinder may be described by: Fx = FD cos γ − FL sin γ = 1 2 ρV rel D C D cos γ − C L sin γ 2 ( ( ) (B.0 for a smooth cylinder.e. The drag and lift coefficients should be established by model tests or 2D numerical calculations (e. and — the load formulation does not include a lift force formulation which is considered essential for describing the instabilities in the wake. y ) = k 2 V 0 ⎟ C D D − 0. The main limitations of the model may be summarised as: — the formulation is static. The main advantages of the parametric wake field model are: — the formulation is simple to implement in standard FE riser analysis tools without significant increase in computation time and it allows for arbitrary depth variation of the current loading along the riser. The other parameters involved are: y x Vd (x. inflow velocity on the upstream riser. The dynamic formulation outlined below is applicable to two-riser systems in steady current.g. C D an C L d are the local mean drag DET NORSKE VERITAS .25 and k2 = 1. — the turbulent wake model is applicable to the far wake field only. and V0 is the free-stream current velocity and i.g. The co-ordinate system applied in the load formulation and the configuration of two cylinder sections in steady current are given in Figure B-1. The inflow velocity on the downstream riser. The origin is located in the centre of the upstream riser. The deficit velocity field in the wake of a circular cylinder is given by: B.cylinder diameter V0. which has gained consensus throughout the literature. Based upon correlation with experiments Huse /12/ recommends to apply RMS (Root Mean Square) summation of the individual wake fields from all upstream risers to compute the resulting wake field. k2. — the formulation is applicable to multiple riser arrays. Blevins /2/. The x-coordinate is taken as the longitudinal direction with respect to the incoming fluid flow. a coarser mesh than the one applied in order to calculate the global response of the risers can be applied. However. A parametric representation of the hydrodynamic loading on two-riser systems. Vw. the mesh density should be fine enough to ensure a proper description of the loads acting along the riser.

and — the load formulation has gained consensus throughout most of the literature. and it is only necessary to estimate the coefficient on one side. it is necessary to obtain databases for a range of Reynolds number.g. It is generally necessary to establish a database of the mean drag and lift forces on the downstream cylinder as function of relative spacing from the upstream one. As illustrated the mesh can be coarser far out and down in the wake. it is possible to cover a wide range of two-riser systems — the effects from strakes or other VIV suppression devices may be included by means of results from model tests.4 Estimating the Force Coefficients The force coefficients applied to describe the hydrodynamic interaction effect between a pair of risers can be derived from e. April 2009 Page 18 and lift coefficients. y) and CL(x. and V* is the local inflow velocity. y). the force coefficients are based upon either linear or more advanced interpolation. Per definition the local inflow velocity is parallel to the x-axis.9) where CDG is a generic drag coefficient and CD(x. The local inflow velocity V* is defined as the free-stream current velocity V0 for the upstream riser and for the downstream riser as the local wake velocity Vw after accounting for shielding effects.e. CD(x. The main limitations of the model may be summarised as: — the formulation is impractical for extension to multiple riser arrays or more complex load cases (e. cos γ = & V* −x V rel & −y sin γ = Vrel (B.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. dedicated CFD analysis or laboratory tests or from other numerical methods such as the free-streamline method.g. In between the locations given in the database. In the following V* is used as the local inflow velocity to indicate that the relations yields for both the upstream and downstream riser.7) Typically > 4D 2 2 y and the fluid forces may be rewritten as: Fx = Fy = V2 1 & ) + CL y &) ρVrel D 0 2 (C D (Vw − x 2 Vw V2 1 & + C L (Vw − x & )) ρVrel D 0 2 (− C D y 2 Vw (B. From the force diagram the following relations can be outlined: B. the mean drag and lift coefficients for the downstream riser can be related to the free-stream velocity V0 by: CD = CD Vw V02 . The main advantages of the parametric mean force model are: — the formulation is simple to implement in standard FE riser analysis tools. The local inflow velocity in the wake is needed in order to calculate Vrel for the downstream riser.5) & are the structural velocity in x. CL = CL Vw V02 (B.6) Further. It is recommended to apply linear interpolation for two reasons: DET NORSKE VERITAS . With a comprehensive database. x-axis points longitudinal in the current direction and y-axis transversely to the current direction. The downstream cylinder is located at different locations in the wake of the upstream one. and it allows for arbitrary depth variation of the current loading along the riser — the instantaneous hydrodynamic loading on the individual risers is expressed by a parametric formulation as function of relative position of the adjacent riser — the formulation allows for re-use of results from advanced CFD calculations and/or model tests in practical design analyses. It might be estimated using the approach of Price & Piperni /19/: Vrel (x. WF excitation) — the force coefficients depend on Reynolds number. i. Generally.and y-direc& and y where x tions. y ) C DG (B. Fy coefficient of the downstream cylinder influenced by the wake.8) x Typically > 20D Figure B-3 Mesh of locations where force coefficients generally should be estimated The force coefficients are tabulated as functions of relative spacing between upstream and downstream riser. The other parameters are defined in the force diagram shown in Figure B-2. V0 or Vw will be used when the relations yields for upstream or downstream riser only. y ) = V0 C D ( x. Figure B-3 shows typical locations of the downstream riser where the upstream cylinder is located in the origin. the force coefficients are established for 28 different arrangement. y) is the drag Note that both the drag and lift force are symmetric around the wake centreline. In this illustrative example. & V* −x FL FD γ γ & −y Fx Vrel Figure B-2 Force diagram The relative inflow velocity Vrel is defined as Vrel = (V * & +y &2 −x ) 2 (B. the mesh should be denser for smaller spacing where the hydrodynamic interaction effects are most pronounced.

roughness etc. a lower boundary of 1. DET NORSKE VERITAS .5-2 diameters centre-tocentre distance should be applied.g. typically 20 to 25 diameters should be sufficient as an upper boundary. it depends on the level of accuracy when estimating it. e. April 2009 Page 19 — the gross riser displacement is assumed unaffected by local variations — uncertainties of each of the known values are quite significant. It is generally recommended that the force coefficients should be estimated from the wake centreline and 4 diameters in transverse direction. In longitudinal direction. but also on the Reynolds number. The force coefficient should also be estimated with as low spacing as possible. e.g.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203.

875 0 0 0. The strategy for calculation of the collision induced load effects depend on the type of impact. C.2 0. Coating is effective in reducing the stresses even for small thickness’ typical for corrosion protection. Li & Morrison /17/.4 1. a half joint. Contact modelling should be made with a method.4 0. Generally.1) The form of the response surface will typically take the shape of a 2nd order polynomial in the plane of impact angle and stress response. In addition. applying symmetry conditions. A convergence study should be performed in order to evaluate the expected accuracy of the results in the applied model.1 General Local non-linear dynamic analyses should be performed in order to capture the local dynamics of the riser at an impact.2 1. The analyses can be limited to series of analyses with given impact velocity for three different impact angles.θ ) (C. and gradually refining the meshes in longitudinal and circumferential directions. The analysis should be performed for a range of different relative impact velocities and impact angles. and a quasi-static approach is in general not sufficient. a series of finite element analyses need to be carried out. Other methods. which implies little sensitivity to the peak stresses. The reduction in stresses in the pipe due to the coating is reduced with an increasing stiffness of the coating. C. A 2nd order curve through these three points can then be established. More detailed and less conservative way of applying the masses may be done as long as they are properly documented. /15/.2 Response Surface Based on finite elements analysis.5 50. a response surface for stress component s may be derived as function of relative impact velocity and impact angle as follows: Δσ (U rel . This type of time-domain non-linear dynamics are fairly time consuming. 600 500 400 300 Stressrange [MPa] 200 100 0 Contact elements on surface.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. Generally. A conservative approach for mass modelling is to apply the entire mass as an equivalent mass to the outer cross-section. stress ranges and typically number of stress peaks in one collision event.6 1. Figure C-1 shows a response surface plotted in a 3D diagram. such as: — line impact — point impact. Urel.8 1 1. April 2009 Page 20 APPENDIX C LOCAL IMPACT STRESS ANALYSIS OF STEEL PIPES C. Examples of this are shown in Figure C-3. Solid elements for connector. the rise time for the peak stresses at the area of impact is in the order of 1 millisecond. Shell elements for entire pipe. one layer of shell on inside. The result of the analyses should be the peak stresses. The resulting load effects further depend on the pipe-wall deformation properties. the relation will be approximately linear.625 33.6 0. The time stepping procedure needs to be sufficient small to provide reliable results for the peak stresses. sensitivity analyses should be performed in order to verify the model. A Lagrange multiplier technique meets this criterion. like the “penalty stiffness” method may be applied if the selected contact spring stiffness is documented to yield satisfactory contact stresses. depend strongly on the impact duration and will normally be implicit in the solution and not an input-parameter.8 2 Shell elements for entire pipe. see Figure C-2. The response can be strongly dominated by local dynamics.n . For determining this response surface. The peak stresses and stress-ranges for one specific impact need to be determined based on detailed finite element analysis.g. the mesh density needs for practical purposes to be limited to a level that gives satisfactory results. The type of element should either be shell or solid volume elements with contact modelling between the impacting surfaces. The mesh density should be fine enough to capture the local dynamics as well as giving the proper measure for the shell bending stresses in the pipe wall. the models should be run with a refinement in all directions.n [m/s] Figure C-1 Response surface for a given point in the pipe Figure C-2 FE model of production riser with connector (top) and without connector (bottom) DET NORSKE VERITAS . see e.75 Impact angle [deg] 16. as this solves the equation defining no intrusion between the two contacting surfaces. Generally. will be sufficient. starting with fairly coarse meshes. 67. In the plane of impact velocity and stress response. Typically.3 Requirements to Finite Element Model The extent of the 3-D element model should be large enough such that the local dynamics giving the peak stresses is not impaired by boundary conditions. the effect of coating and strakes should be considered if relevant. The “participating mass”.

The derivation assumes a simplified analytical ring model as follows: — the two risers may be considered as a simple mass-springmass system — the assessment can be based on elastic ring and beam theories — the impact force is assumed to act as a point load — linear elastic response may be assumed for the vast majority of realistic line-like collisions.g.Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203. DET NORSKE VERITAS .e.74-0. Where D is the mean diameter. added mass for the risers. E is Young’s modulus and indices 1 and 2 indicating riser 1 and riser 2. i. The pipe wall stress may be evaluated using the following expression: σ = C ⋅ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎜ ⎛ p ⎞⎛ D ⎞ ⎟ ⎝ t ⎠⎝ t ⎟ ⎠ (C. According to assumption 1. April 2009 Page 21 1 The required input to the analyses is as follows: — mass per unit length incl.2) The contact stiffness kc may be evaluated directly from assumption 2 & 3. ⎛⎛ D ⎞ ⎛ D 2 32π ⎜ 1⎟ ⎜ 2 kc = E⎜ ⎜⎜ t ⎟ + ⎜ t 3 (3π − 8) ⎜ ⎝⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎝ 2 3 Figure C-3 Examples of convergence studies ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 3 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ −1 (C. — combined contact stiffness kc representing the cross-sectional force-deformation characteristics of the risers during the impact.80 corresponds to the maximum tensile inner fibre stress at the ring. m1 and m2 — mean diameter D and wall thickness t for the risers. Li & Morrison /17/: 2 p = kc 3 m1 m2 U rel (m1 + m2 ) (C. see e. and — relative velocity of risers prior to the impact Urel.72 applies for the mid-wall and should be used for fatigue purposes and C ≈ 0. the riser-riser line impact problem assumes that the risers are effectively impacting in a straight.4) where C is a correction factor accounting for the ring thickness.4 Special Case Impact As a special case. C = 0. parallel and co-planar configuration.3) C. the impact force per unit length p is given by.

April 2009 Page 22 DET NORSKE VERITAS .Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F203.

- BEAMPASK
- User Manual Secelem
- Sec Elem
- rp-a203_2013-07
- SSC 347 NonLinear Analysis of Marine Structures
- DNV Comparison of Offshore Structural Standards
- DNV Comparison of Offshore Structural Standards
- Failures - Sleipner a - North Sea Oil Platform Collapse
- DnV Plate Construction as Per NORSOK
- NORSOK R 002 r2 Lifting Equipment
- NORSOK C 004 r1 Helicopter Deck
- i-005-r3
- DNV CN 8 [Apr'2013] Conversion of Ships
- DNV CN 8 [Apr'2013] Conversion of Ships
- AASHTO Steel Bridge Bearing Design & Guidelines
- M-123-r2
- T-100
- NORSOK N 003 Action & Action Effects
- Norsok n 004 Rev3
- DNV-CN30-1-Apr2004
- DNV-os-e303_Feb2013
- rp-h104_Sep2011
- oss-901_2012-06
- rp-c103_2012-04
- rp-a203_2012-12

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulrecommended practice

recommended practice

- rp-f203_2009-04
- Interface Forces Calculation
- Chapter 2 Drag and Lift (CD and CL)
- A PAPER ON STABILITY OF OFFSHORE PIPELINES.pdf
- OMAE2011-49751
- 10.1.1.130.5096
- RM_Effect
- jfm-197
- vdHoef_FluidParticleInteractions
- Fluid Particle Separations
- Drag Force
- Drag Coefficient
- lecture5_drag2.pdf
- Fem
- Basset Force
- Flow Regimes and Drag Force
- 3 - NRG - On Bottom Stability Presentation
- Check Your Keel-Paul Bogataj
- rivmorrough
- Abstract
- Rowe ch2
- Thesis Rust Ado Rig
- Drag Equation
- Drag Equation - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- Hydrodynamic Reading 5
- Sscjen 2014eveningmechanicalobjectivepaper 151013025256 Lva1 App6892
- NorthSails-SpanSquared
- FLUENT - Laminar Pipe Flow - Solution - Simulation - Confluence
- Springer 1998 Important
- Micro System Design(15)
- DNV-RP-F203 Riser Interference April 2009