Investigation into the Limit State Design of XHPHT PIP Flowlines using Local and Global Finite Element

Analysis Methods
Paul Jukes, Jason Sun, Ayman Eltaher
J P Kenny, Inc., Houston, USA.

May 2008 OTC 19372, Houston.

Overview of Presentation
Introduction :
Design Challenges

Limit State Based Design SIMULATOR Global and Local FEA Models Conclusions

Introduction : Design Challenges

10,000ft (3000m) WD Hydrostatic Collapse Installation Issues Pressure 700bar (10,000psi) Temperatures 177C (350F) High Thermal Performance Span Length > 200m (660ft) Multimode Vibration Limitations of Design Codes

Deepwater

HP / HT

Super Spans

Introduction : Why Use Advanced FEA?

Highly Non-linear Problems Not Possible with Stress Based Design Added-Value Deepwater & HT Solution Optimize Design Solution Significant Financial Savings!!

Advanced Analysis Tools

Limit State Based Design

Limit State Based Design

Overview: Limit States:
Local Buckling Hoop Ratcheting Strain Capacity Low cycle Fatigue

Codes/Guidance:
HOTPIPE, DNV OS-F101, DNV-RP-F110, SAFEBUCK, API-1111

Advanced Finite Element Analysis Tools

Advanced Analysis Tools

Simulator FEA
202 200

Lateral Position [m]

198

196

194

Embedded Boulders

192

190 1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Distance Along Pipeline [m]

Simulator Suite
Tailored Software ABAQUS FE Engine Calibrated Highly non-linear Single Pipe/PIP

Protective Coating Outer Steel Sleeve Thermal Insulation Corrosion Coating Steel Flowline

Simulator Suite Gold Standard

Gold Standard Finite Element Models Reeling Analysis Lateral Buckling Analysis Upheaval Buckling Analysis Spanning and VIV Analysis Trawlboard Pullover
202 200

205

200

Lateral Position [m]

195

190

185

180 1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

2200

D ista nc e Alo ng P ipe line [m]

Lateral Position [m]

198

196

194

Embedded Boulders

192

190 1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Distance Along Pipeline [m]

Simulator Suites
Soil Friction Model User Subroutine
2 1.8 1.6 1.4 Upper Bound Mean Value Lower Bound

Friction Factor

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Lateral Movement, in

Examples : Spans and VIV Analysis

Detailed Span and VIV Analysis Modal Analysis Added Value Reduced Intervention

Phase 7 Trunkline Free Span Exceeding Fatigue Limits within 25 Year Design Life
74
Seabed

74.5
Bottom of Pipe (operation condition)

75

75.5
Water Depth (m)

76

76.5

77

77.5

78 28.9

28.9

28.9

28.9

28.9

29.0 KP (km)

29.0

29.0

29.0

29.0

29.1

Examples : Lateral Buckling Simulation

Post Buckle Formation Limit State Based Design Added Value Thermal Buckle Management
120

100

Lateral Displacement, in

80

60

40

36F 49F 69F 80F 95F 110F 120F 134F 146F 165F 180F

20

0 350 -20

450

550

650

750

850

950

Pipe Distance, ft

Examples : Pipeline Walking Analysis

160

140

120

100

Temperature, F

80

60
60

50

A x ia l D is p la c e m en t (in )

40 0.0844494 [h] 20 0.750233 [h] 1.33336 [h] 3.00019 [h] 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0.250011 [h] 0.916866 [h] 1.50014 [h] 7.00009 [h] 0.416798 [h] 1.00023 [h] 1.66668 [h] 48.0001 [h] 0.583757 [h] 1.16706 [h] 2.00018 [h]

40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 0 1

+ : From D6 to D7 - : From D7 to D6

Pipe Distance, ft

D6 D7

10

Operating Temperature Cycle

Examples : Reeling & Lateral Buckling

Aligner Straightener Tensioner Ramp Pipe Reel

Overview Long model

250m reeling 500m lateral

PIP Ultimate Limit States.

Advanced Analysis Tools

Global and Local FEA Study

205 200

Lateral Position [m]

195

190

185

180 1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

2200

D istance Alo ng P ipeline [m]

Global PIP FE Model

Friction Coefficient 0.2 Loadshare Outer Pipe Sleeper Seabed Friction

Inner Pipe

Spacer, 2m (6ft)

1,500m (4,921ft)

Element Selected

PIPE31H, 3D Pipe Element

Inner Pipe Outer Pipe

ITT31, 3D Tube-to-Tube Contact Element

Spacer

CONN32, Connector Element

Loadshare Sleeper Boundary

Local Full Size PIP FE Model

Composition of 3D PIP FE Model

4-node 3D shell element, S4R
Inner Pipe Outer Pipe

8-node 3D stress element, C3D8R

Spacer Bulkhead

Constraint
Spacer to Inner Pipe Pipeline to Bulkhead

Interaction/Contact
Spacer to Outer Pipe

Pipeline Data To Build FE Model

Pipe and Geometry

Pipe Material & Geometry Parameter Pipeline Material Density lb/ft3 (kg/m3) Diameter inch (m) Wall Thickness inch (mm) Inner Pipe X70 490 (7850) 8.625 (0.219) 0.787 (20.0) Outer Pipe X70 490 (7850) 12.750 (0.324) 0.591 (15.0)

Pipeline Data To Build FE Model

Material and Operating Condition
Parameter
Material Modulus psi (GPa) Poisson Ratio SMYS ksi (MPa) SMTS ksi (MPa) Coeff. Thermal Expansion F-1(C-1)

Pipe Properties
Temp 68F(20C) 30.0 x 106 (207) 0.3 70 (482.6) 82.7 (570) 6.5 x 10-6 (11.7 x 10-6) Temp 350F(177C) 29.9 x 106 (206) 0.3 61.2 (422) 72.4 (499) 1.31 x 10-5 (13.1 x 10-6)

Parameter
Water Depth WD ft (M) Seabed Temperature F (C) Inner Pressure MAOP psi (MPa) Design Temperature F (C)

Pipe Operating Condition

4,500 (1,371.6) 40 (4.4) 6,500 psi (44.8 MPa) 350 (177)

Global and Local FEA Study

Results

Study Case #1: Straight Pipeline vs. Lateral Buckled Pipeline

Pipeline Buckles with Initial Imperfection

Lateral Buckle Releases Inner Pipe Compression

Inner Pipe Axial Force
Buckled Axial Force, Inner Pipe -300 -350 -400 Not Buckled Axial Force, Inner Pipe

Axial Force (kips)

-450 -500 -550 -600 -650 -700 -750 2 822 1642 2462 Pipeline Distance (ft) 3282 4103

Local FEA Response

Pipeline

3D Helix of Inner Pipe Under XHT @350F (Scale x80)

Local Stress and Strain Response

Inner Pipe lateral Displacement
Inner Pipe Displacement Relative to Outer Pipe
(Lateral Direction)
0.40

0.30

0.20

Displacem ent (in)

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

-0.40 356

534

712

890

1069

Distance (ft)

3D Helix Observed in Buckled Global PIP Model (Scale x400)

Data off Buckle Region

3D Helix of Inner Pipe Under XHT (Scale x100)

Local Stress and Strain Response

Inner Pipe

Local Stress and Strain Response

Outer Pipe

Local Stress and Strain Response

Spacer

Full Size PIP FE vs. Global PIP Model

Peak Stresses (ksi) Parts Von Mises Stress Global FE Inner Pipe Outer Pipe 57.0 19.1 3D FE 58.4 17.9 Axial Stress Global FE -36.6 -7.3 3D FE -33.6 -9.3 Hoop Stress Global FE 29.1 -21.5 3D FE 34.2 -19.2

Good Match between Local (3D) and Global FE Results

Limit State Results : Local Buckling

Limit State Unity Check Sleeper Intervals Design Code Inner Pipe DNV, LC No Sleeper DNV, DC API DNV, LC 1,500m (4,920ft) DNV, DC API DNV, LC 1,000m (3,050ft) DNV, DC API 1.008 0.080 N/A 0.964 0.070 N/A 0.922 0.060 N/A Outer Pipe 1.159 0.867 0.382 1.047 0.803 0.281 0.983 0.744 0.196

Limit State Results : Hoop Stress Ratcheting

Limit State Unity Check Sleeper Intervals Inner Pipe Outer Pipe

No Sleeper

1.125

1.030

1,500m (4,920ft)

1.073

0.995

1,000m (3,050ft)

0.987

0.885

Limit State Results : Strain Capacity

Limit State Unity Check Sleeper Intervals Inner Pipe Outer Pipe

No Sleeper

0.279

0.293

1,500m (4,920ft)

0.273

0.306

1,000m (3,050ft)

0.178

0.180

Limit State Results : Low Cycle Fatigue Check

Allowable No. Cycles Pipe Class D Inner No Sleeper Outer 1,500m (4,920ft) 1,000m (3,050ft) Inner Outer Inner Outer 1,376 3,458 1,528 4,444 2,170 944 7,586 1,048 9,749 1,489 275 692 306 889 434 199 1,517 210 1,950 298 2,996 Class F 6,571 Class D 599 Class F 1,314 DNV Factored No. of Cycles

Sleeper Intervals

Global and Local FEA Study

Conclusions

Conclusions

A Global & Local PIP FE model presented Local full size PIP FE model, Pipeline response at component level Global and Local FE models present comparable results Limit State Based Design Allows Deepwater XHTHP PIP Designs Advanced FEA is the way forward!

Global and Local FEA Study

Thank you! Any Questions?

Investigation into the Limit State Design of XHPHT PIP Flowlines using Local and Global Finite Element Analysis Methods
Paul Jukes, Jason Sun, Ayman Eltaher
J P Kenny, Inc., Houston, USA.

May 2008 OTC 19372, Houston.