Proceedings of the Seventeenth

Sixteenth (2007)
(2007)
International
International
Offshore
Offshore
andand
Polar
Polar
Engineering
Engineering
Conference
Conference
Lisbon, Portugal, July 1-6, 2007
Copyright 2007 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers(ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-68-5; ISBN 1-880653-68-0(Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

The Comparison of Various SCR configurations for Bow Turret Moored FPSO in West Africa
Mason Wu, Kevin Huang
Acergy, North America and Mexico
Houston, TX, USA,

installation of the SCR riser (Tenet, 2006), pull-in system (Judd, 2005)
and FPSO (Xavier, 2006) are also shown in the literature. We have also
carried out the conceptual evaluations for several SCR related
configurations for Bow Turret Moored FPSO, which has gained more
popularity in the latest deepwater field development in West Africa
(Wyllie, 2006). Bow Turret Moored FPSO has a number of advantages,
including high schedule flexibility, and possible parallel component
construction resulting in lower total construction cost. One of its
disadvantages is that the heave motion at the turret is relatively higher
than that of the conventional FPSOs. This excessive heave motion
could cause large quantity of high stress cycles within the riser. One
possible solution is to use SCRs with high quality welds at certain
critical locations to provide satisfactory fatigue performance.
Consequently, this option would impose challenges on the welding
procedures and quality control of the welds. Another potential design
issue for SCR is the high compression load at the touchdown point for
thermally insulated risers. A proven concept to solve both of the fatigue
and compression problems is to use the full Lazy wave type of SCRs,
with large quantity of buoyancy modules attached to the riser to decouple the FPSO motions from the riser TDP. However, this solution is
also quite expensive due to the cost of buoyancy modules as well as the
cost to install them. Thus, a mini-lazy wave type of SCR configuration
is proposed as a candidate of more cost-effective solution. At the same
time, a weighted SCR by clamping heavy collars near the TDP to
mitigate the FPSO motions has also been studied. Comparing to the
buoyancy modules, the clamp weights cost less in hardware and
installation as well. To cover a wider range of FPSO applications, the
riser assessment is carried out on both AFRAMAX and VLCC classes.

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a high-level study of three different Steel Catenary
Riser (SCR) configurations and the associated strength and fatigue
requirements for Bow Turret Moored Floating Production Storage and
Offloading (FPSO) system in West Africa environment. The three SCR
configurations that have been studied are: simple SCR, weighted SCR
and Mini-Lazy Wave (MLW) SCR. This study is intended to provide
the performance comparisons among these riser configurations,
particularly the dynamic response characteristics at the touch down
point (TDP). The study results reveal that the MLW SCR has the best
performance for both fatigue and strength, followed by the weighted
SCR and then the simple SCR. For the strength assessment, MLW SCR
provides satisfactory von Mises stresses, and completely eliminates the
riser compression at the TDP, where high compressions for the Simple
SCR and moderate compression for the weighted SCR are observed.
For the fatigue assessment, comparing to the simple SCR, the MLW
SCR significantly improves the fatigue performance at the TDP, while
the weighted SCR provides marginally better fatigue performance as
well. It is concluded that the MLW is a promising configuration for
bow turret moored FPSO applications in West Africa environment, and
deserves further assessment.

KEY WORDS: Steel Catenary Riser, mini lazy wave, FPSO,

strength, fatigue.

INTRODUCTION
For the Deep Water riser applications, SCRs (Quintin et al. 2007),
Hybrid Riser Towers (HRTs), and flexible risers are the most popularly
used concepts. Flexible risers are generally motion tolerant, but costly
and limited in size and pressure rating. Therefore, there is always an
interest to extend the application scope for SCRs, and/or the variation
version of SCRs. Some general comparisons between SCRs and HRTs
have been performed by Alliot et al. (2005), Wu et al. (2006), and
Blevins et al. (2007).

In this paper we first described the design basis and environmental

criteria, followed by the riser modeling and analysis methodologies.
Then we illustrated the details of the stress comparisons at the riser
TDP, and provided the analysis result summaries. Last, conclusions
were drawn. It is found that the MLW concept is very effective to
decouple the FPSO motions from the riser touch down region,
especially in extreme environments. It is also shown that the MLW
concept could be further optimized to provide better fatigue
performance when needed. Therefore, it has high potential for bow
turret moored FPSOs in benign environments, such as in West Africa.

Recent years have seen the first uses of steel catenary risers (Legras,
2006, Nolop et al. 2007) with spread moored FPSOs for deepwater
field developments in West Africa. The lessons learnt from the

788

DESIGN BASIS
Table 3. Design Wave Parameters
The studied riser system for the turret-moored FPSO consists of three
10 insulated production lines, one 10 water injection line, one 8 gas
injection line, and one 4 gas lift line. The riser parameters are listed in
Table 1. The design pressure is 5,500psi (37.9Mpa) for production riser
and 4,500psi (31Mpa) for injection and gas lift riser.
Table 1. General Riser Data
Riser Type
Production
Water Injection
Gas Injection
Gas Lift

Number

OD in (mm)

3
1
1
1

10.75 (273.1)
10.75 (273.1)
8.75 (222.25)
4.56 (115.82)

Parameter
Swell Hs (m)
Swell Tp (s)
Associated Sea Hs (m)
Associated Sea Tp (s)

In (mm)
In (mm)
deg
Ksi (MPa)
In (mm)
%
In (mm)
In (mm)
lb/ft 3 (kg/m3)
In
lb/ft 3 (kg/m3)

3
8.75 (222.25)
10.75 (273.1)
9 or 15
API 5L X65
65 (448)
1 (25.4)
12.5
0.12 (3)
GSPP
3.5 (88.9)
45 (720)
FBE/TSE
0.12 (3)
85 (1360)

Internal Coating Type

Strake Length
Strakes mass
Weight of pipe in air, empty
Weight of pipe in air, filled
with water
Weight of pipe in water, empty
Weight of pipe in water, filled
with water
Bending Stiffness

ft
lb/ft (kg/m)
lb/ft (kg/m)
lb/ft (kg/m)

FBE
656.2 (200)
48 (71.4)
156 (232)
183 (272)

lb/ft (kg/m)
lb/ft (kg/m)

43 (64)
70 (104)

kip-ft 2 (kg-m2)

71,628 (3017)

Kip (Te)

840,650 (381)

Axial Stiffness

1000-yr

4.5

13.5
1
6

15.5
1
6

16
1.5
6

We included three production risers at 0 deg, 90 deg and 180 deg in a

single model. This is for the convenience of the analysis since we can
analyze the riser conditions in near, cross and far positions in a single
analysis run. In the actual field layout, the riser arrangement pattern is
not limited. The FPSO is assumed to maintain an orientation between
+/-15 degrees from the wave heading. Sensitivity cases have been
conservatively performed on wave headings beyond this range.
The SCRs are hung off from FPSO bow turret. The riser hang-off
section is not the primary focus of this study since (1) the SCR top
section is very similar for all the three concepts; (2) our preliminary
assessment shows that the SCR design at hang-off location may not be
as critical as the bottom TDP section; (3) there are various existing top
hang-off designs that have been field proven and could be used as
necessary. The riser portion suspended in the water column and a
sufficient extension on the sea floor are included in the model. Orcaflex
beam elements with sectional properties at any given location
equivalent to the section properties of all the tubulars making up the
riser are used in the model. The mass of external insulations, anodes,
as well as the weight tolerance for pipe manufacturing, is uniformly
distributed along each section assembled with the same riser joints.

Production Riser

Number of Risers
Minimum Nominal ID
Pipe OD
Riser Top Angle
Material
Material Yield Stress
Nominal wall thickness
Wall thickness tolerance
Internal corrosion
Insulation Type
Insulation Thickness
Insulation Density
External Coating Type
External Coating Thickness
External Coating Density

100-yr

RISER ANALYSIS MODELING

From the initial screening, the insulated production riser is likely to be

more governing than the injectors and gas lift line in terms of strength
design and fatigue design. Therefore, the insulated production riser is
chosen as the primary subject for the criteria check. For the purpose of
study, the riser wall thickness is chosen as 1, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Production Riser Design Data
Parameter
Unit

Return Period
1-yr

The sea floor is modeled as elastic surface with modulus of 1,200

kN/m2. The soil friction is included in the analysis using typical 0.5
friction coefficient for both axial and lateral directions. The end of the
SCR is a pin connection to the pipeline transition joint. There is a
sufficient length of SCR included in the model laying on the sea floor
such that the SCR dynamic response at the TDP will not be affected by
the boundary condition at the pipeline transition joint.
Wave and current induced loads are included through drag and inertia
coefficients. Marine growth is not modeled in this study, although it
could be included by introducing equivalent drag coefficients and
inertia coefficients. It is expected the effect of marine growth has
insignificant impact on the study results.
Imposed motions from the FPSO are the primary driving forces of the
riser dynamics. Prescribed motions of the FPSO were applied to the
SCR hang-off location at turret. We included static offsets and first
order motions in the analysis. The motion data were provided by the
FPSO global performance analysis. Vessel drift motion was not
included in this study.

The FPSO will be located in offshore West Africa, where swell waves
are typical and dominant. Table 3 summarizes the swell dominated
design wave parameters. The data of Current and Wind used are for
typical West Africa conditions. They are not listed here since they are
deemed not as critical as design wave (swell).

789

SCR CONFIGURATIONS
The nominal top departure angles were chosen as 15 degrees for simple
and weighted SCR concepts, and 9 degrees for mini-lazy-wave concept.
It was assumed that helical strakes cover the top 200m section of SCR
to suppress the possible vortex-induced vibration (VIV). The SCR is
assumed to be formed by insulated steel pipes jointed by girth weld.
Other key parameters are listed in Table 4.

Strakes

The studied SCR concepts have similar top interface with FPSO turret
and bottom interface with pipeline or subsea equipment. The main
difference is the arrangement near the seafloor region. The weighted
SCR concept has a section of pipe with dead weight collars attached,
while the mini-lazy wave concept has a section of pipe with buoyancy
modules attached. Both concepts are intended to modify the dynamic
characteristics near the SCR TDP for better strength and fatigue
performance.
Table 4. SCR Key Parameters for Different Concepts
Parameter

Unit

Simple

Weighted

Mini-Lazy
Wave

Water Depth
Nominal Top Tension
Bottom Eff. Tension
Departure Angle
Suspended Length
Horiz Span to TDP
Straked Length

m
kN
kN
deg
m
m
m

1515
2177
559
15
1996
1088
200

1515
2463
634
15
1924
977
200

1515
1780
280
9
2190
1280
200

Buoyancy Module

OD:2.5m
L:2.5m
Qty:11

Weight Clamp

Wt:2.9ton
Qty:16

Weight Clamps

Figure 1 shows the configurations of each of the three SCR

concepts. The water depth is 1500m. The suspended length is
approximately 2000m for simple SCR and weighted SCR, and
2200m for mini-lazy wave due to the buoyancy module lifting
force. As expected, the weighted SCR concept has the largest
top tension among these three concepts, and MLW concept has
the least top tension. The difference is about 35%.

Buoys

Fig. 1 SCR Configurations, top: Simple SCR, middle: Weighted SCR,

bottom: mini-lazy wave

790

Typically SCR design conditions include the following:

1.
Installation SCR is empty or filled with seawater.
2.
Pressure Test SCR is filled with seawater.
3.
Operating SCR is filled with oil/gas with normal operating
pressure.

VESSEL DESIGN DATA

Two types of FPSO are considered in this study: AFRAMAX and
VLCC. Table 5 and 6 show the general vessel data for AFRAMAX and
VLCC respectively. The motion RAOs indicate that the VLCC has
slightly better dynamic performance than AFRAMAX. However, since
the turret is mounted at the bow, the pitch motion could induce
considerable heave motion at the SCR hang-off location. VLCC has
smaller pitch motion, but with longer distance between COG and bow,
AFRAMAX has slightly larger pitch motion, but with shorter distance
between COG and bow. Overall, VLCC provides slightly better vertical
motions at the turret.

Installation and pressure test conditions should consider an

environmental condition with return period less or equal than 1-year.
Operating conditions should consider environmental conditions with
return period up to 100-year. Preliminary assessment showed that the
installation and pressure testing are not likely to govern the SCR
design. In other words, the SCR in-place design criteria will be
controlling. Because the environmental data indicates that extreme
environment of the 100-yr wave is only slightly more severe than the 1yr wave, it is expected that the maximum operating cases govern the
SCR strength design. The design load case factor and internal contents
are case dependent and defined individually. The allowable strength
increase factor of 1.2 was used for the 100-yr load cases with the
mooring lines in intact condition. For the 100-yr environmental load
and mooring line damaged case the allowable strength increase factor is
1.5. It is found that the mooring line damaged cases are less critical
than the intact cases.

The studies were carried out on both vessels for more general
conclusions. Each vessel different load conditions, i.e. ballast and 50%
loaded, and full loaded, were checked and compared.
Table 5 General Vessel Data for AFRAMAX
Vessel
AFRAMAX
Load Condition
LOADED BALLAST
Displacement
98850
43370
Length OA (m)
230
Length BP (m)
222
Breadth
32.2
Depth
22
Draught at midship
15.7
7.4

Unit
Te
m
m
m
m
m

The definition of the allowable stress follows API RP 2RD, and is

defined as = C 2 , where Cf is the case factor, and y is the yield
a

10.09
15210
175.62

338
325
56
26.7
14.1
15550
174.73

20.5
16280
173.04

5.83

-0.79

-4.46

345.85

345.85

345.85

16.61

12.6

6.2

stress. The principle stresses, which include tension induced stress

(T/A), bending moment induced stress (M/I*OD/2), and pressure
induced stress (hoop and radial stress), are combined using the von
Mises yield criterion.

Table 6 General Vessel Dada for VLCC

Parameter
VLCC FPSO Condition
Ballast
Interme
Fully
diate
Loaded
Loaded %
0
50
100
Length OA (m)
Length BP (m)
Beam (m)
Depth (m)
Displacement (m)
Waterplane area (m2)
COG Distance from Aft
Perpendicular (m)
COG Distance above WL
(m)
Center of turret from APP
(m)
Center of turret from WL
(m)

We used a two-step approach for strength analysis. Step 1, use regular

wave approach for preliminary screening. The regular wave approach is
conservative. Therefore, some calculated von Mises may exceed the
allowables. We then proceed to Step 2: screen through all the load
cases and select the governing cases for a refined random wave
simulation for calibration and validation. Regular wave approach is fast
and random wave simulation is much more time consuming, by
combining these two we were able to achieve the design goal in an
efficient way.

FATIGUE ANALYSIS APPROACH

We used spectral wave approach for the fatigue design. Figure 2 shows
the flow chart. The procedures are as follows:
1. Select a set of periods for regular wave. Usually it covers the
majority of the wave periods defined in the wave scatter diagram.
2. Select appropriate wave height for each period. We chose the
weighted average wave height for each period.
3. Perform regular wave simulation on all the defined wave periods.
The durations of the simulation are sufficiently long for stabilized
SCR response.
4. Normalize the SCR stress response by the wave height. This
would generate equivalent stress RAOs.
5. Combine the wave spectra with stress RAOs to calculate the stress
RMS and Tz for each fatigue sea state in wave scatter diagram.
6. Calculate the fatigue damage for each fatigue sea state through
narrow banded spectral method.
7. Sum up the fatigue damage of each fatigue bin over the wave
scatter diagram to obtain the total fatigue damage.

STRENGTH DESIGN LOAD CASES

We first performed the static check of the riser configurations. The
static results provide preliminary estimation of the SCR tension
distributions, departure angle variations and maximum stress location.
Based on static analysis results, selected cases were analyzed covering
all extreme and maximum operating cases conditions, vessel loading
(draft) conditions, current directions and vessel heading variations of 15
deg. Sensitivity analysis has been conducted on worst cases obtained,
where the maximum compression in the line was obtained.

791

This approach is similar to the frequency domain fatigue method,

however, with some nonlinear effect included.

Generate Weighted
Hs vs Tp Curve

Wave Scatter
Diagram

Select Wave Periods &

Simulation Durations

Stress RMS & Tz

OrcaFlex Simulation
Runs

Fatigue Damage

Clearance

Retrieve Stress
Ranges

Calculate Stress
RAOs

Fig. 3 Sea Bed Clearance Definition

Buoyancy Module Sea Bed Clearance

Fig. 2 Spectral Wave Fatigue Flow Chart

119
118

We also used the Rain Flow Counting technique to calculate the SCR
fatigue for selected cases, and compared the results to the spectral wave
fatigue approach, and good agreements have been observed.

far

117

cross

Clearance (m)

116

SEA BED CLEARANCE

near

115
114
113
112
111
110

The buoyancy modules for mini-lazy wave concept causes hog bend
and sag bend on the pipes. It is undesirable to have clashing between
the sag bend section and seabed. Therefore, the clearance is checked to
confirm the design. Figure 3 shows the definitions of the clearance. In
our nominal mini-lazy wave configuration, the sag bend is
approximately 100m above the seabed. We checked the clearance from
two aspects:

109
108
0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

FPSO Offset (%WD)

Fig. 4 Mini-lazy Wave Configuration Sea Bed Clearance

STRENGTH RESULTS

1. FPSO offset. When FPSO offsets, the riser suspended length

changes. This raises or lowers the sag bend section. Figure 3 shows the
static check results. It is checked for the FPSO offset up to 5% WD.
The clearance reduction is about 2 m, which is insignificant, as shown
in Figure 4.

The maximum von Mises stresses are checked along the risers and the
governing locations are identified. The stress utilization ratios are
compared in Table 7. Figure 5 shows the maximum von Mises
distribution along the riser for all the three concepts for extreme design
case. It shows that:
1.
The risers experience relatively high stress in the whole
section due to the high design pressure.
2.
The simple SCR has a very narrow stress spike at the TDP,
which is the most critical location. As expected, in both
weighted and MLW concepts, the stress level at the TDP has
been significantly reduced.
3.
For the MLW configuration, the von Mises at the hog bend
section could be higher than the rest of the pipe section. This
stress is obviously related to the buoyancy module
arrangement. In other words, this will be a design task that
requires careful considerations.

2. FPSO dynamic motion. The FPSO dynamic vertical movement could

also cause the sag bend to move up and down. We checked that the
clearance variation during 100-yr wave condition is in the range of less
than 10 meters.
Originally, there was a concern on the clearance between buoyancy
module section and sea floor. However, based on the proposed
configuration and clearance analysis results, the clearances between
SCR and seabed are adequate at all times.

Figure 6 presents the bending moment time histories at the TDP. It

shows that the weighted SCR and MLW configurations have much
lower peak values than the simple SCR.
Table 7 summarizes the stress utilization ratios. The results indicate
that adequate performance is obtained for both weighted and MLW
configurations. Poorer strength performance was observed for the
simple SCR risers.

792

300

Max Op

1.26

0.58

0.67

1.2

0.75

0.74

Extreme
Survival

1.08
0.86

0.62
0.5

0.71
0.58

1.02
0.73

0.65
0.48

0.72
0.63

Bending Moment @ TDP (kN-m)

Table 7 von Mises Stress Utilization Ratio Comparison

VLCC
AFRAMAX
Load
Category Simple Weighted MLW Simple Weighted MLW

290

250
SCR
weighted

200

MLW

150
100
50
0

TDP

270

10

20

30

40

50

60

time (sec)
von Mises (MPa)

250

Fig. 6 Bending Moment Time History Comparison @ TDP

230
210

FATIGUE RESULTS

190

Table 8 and 9 show the relative fatigue life comparisons between the
studied concepts for VLCC and AFRAMAX FPSO respectively. The
worst fatigue damage at the TDP region was reported. The results have
been normalized by the simple SCR fatigue life for DNV-E curve for
simplicity.The fatigue life ratio for simple SCR is selected as 1 for
DNV-E curve, while all other data are the relative ratios to the simple
SCR with DNV-E curve. It shows the MLW is able to improve the riser
fatigue life at the TDP by 5~6 times, while weighted SCR improves by
2 times. Both FPSOs have similar trend. VLCC provides slightly better
performance due to its larger displacement and lower motions.

170
150
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Arc Length (m)

290
270
250

von Mises (MPa)

TDP
230
210

Figure 7 shows the linearized stress RAO comparisons at the TDP. It

demonstrates that in most of the wave frequency range, the stress cycles
for MLW have the lowest amplitudes, followed by the weighted SCR.
It is interesting to see the stress RAOs are mixed in the wave period
range of 5~8 seconds. This suggests that the MLW is well suited for
swell dominant environments, where the periods are relatively long.
Figure 8 illustrates the fatigue life distributions along the riser. As
expected, the main difference is near the TDP region, where riser
configurations were locally modified. In the rest of the riser sections the
results are very similar. Figure 9 shows the fatigue damage breakdowns
at various wave periods, which is calculated by summing up the fatigue
damages at each period block in the scatter diagram, weighted by the
occurrence probabilities for each sea state. It shows the majority of the
fatigue damage is contributed by waves with period from 9 to 14
seconds.

190
170

Weight Clamp Section

150
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Arc Length (m)

290
270

von Mises (MPa)

250

TDP

Buoy Section

230
210
190

In summary, best fatigue performance was obtained with the mini lazy
wave configuration with a fatigue life that was approximately three
times the weighted riser and six times the simple SCR. In all cases, the
worst damage was obtained in the touchdown zone. As indicated in the
following table the calculated minimum fatigue life of the mini lazy
wave and weighted risers are significantly improved from the Simple
Catenary Riser. AFRAMAX has lower fatigue lives than those of
VLCC. It is possibly due to smaller vessel yielding more vessel
motions: heave and pitch induced heaves.

170
150
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Arc Length (m)

Fig. 5 Max von Mises Comparisons, top: simple SCR, middle:

weighted SCR, bottom: MLW.

Table 8 Fatigue Life Comparison Summary - VLCC

Description
Simple
Weighted
MLW

793

VLCC
DNV-B DNV-D DNV-E
17.82
56.00
198.64

1.45
3.27
8.00

1
2.27
5.55

AFRAMAX
DNV-E
0.38
0.71
1.91

CONCLUSIONS
Table 9 Fatigue Life Comparison Summary - AFRAMAX
Description
AFRAMAX
VLCC
DNV-B

DNV-D DNV-E

In this paper conceptual level analysis has been carried out to compare
three different SCR configurations. The clearance between the
buoyancy module section and the seabed has been checked and is not
likely a design concern for MLW SCR. The study results reveal that the
MLW SCR has the best performance for both fatigue and strength,
followed by the weighted SCR and then the simple SCR. For the
strength assessment, MLW SCR provides satisfactory von Mises
stresses, and completely eliminates riser compression at the riser TDP.
While high TDP compressions for the Simple SCR and moderate TDP
compression for the weighted SCR are observed. For the fatigue
assessment, comparing to the simple SCR, the MLW SCR significantly
improves the fatigue performance at the TDP, and the weighted SCR
provides marginally better fatigue performance as well. This is
attributed to the weighted SCR configuration not being able to
adequately de-couple the vessel heave motions between the riser top
end and the touchdown zone. Limiting vessel heave by moving the
riser hang off point closer to the vessel midship will improve the
performance of the free hanging configurations. However, there is
certain limitation to how much we can move riser hang-off/turret point
toward the midship for the weathervane requirement of turret moored
FPSO.

DNV-E

Simple

21.23

2.17

2.63

Weighted
MLW

39.42
107.64

4.03
11.01

1.86
5.07

3.20
2.91

Stress RAO @ TDP (MPa/m)

45
40

SCR

35

Weighted
MLW

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

15

20

25

Wave Period (sec)

It is concluded that the MLW SCR possesses the most attractive

strength and fatigue performance, and it has the potential to become a
cost-effective alternative solution to SCR. A high level installability
assessment of riser to FPSO has been screened. Further study on the
installability of the SCRs, including attached weight clamps and
buoyancy modules, is highly recommended to confirm the feasibility of
the weighted SCR and MLW concepts. And cost comparisons are also
to be performed to confirm the overall cost benefit/penalty of these two
concepts.

Fig. 7 Riser Stress RAO Comparison @ TDP

1.E+05

Fatigue Life (years)

1.E+04

1.E+03

SCR
MLW

1.E+02

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Weighted
TDP (MLW)
TDP (Weighted)

1.E+01

The authors are indebted to Acergy for supporting this paper, especially
the assistance from Jean-Francois Saint-Marcoux and Jean-Luc Legras ,
the guidance from Ian Frazer, and Cynthia/Donnas preparation of the
manuscript.

TDP (SCR)
1.E+00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Arc Length (m)

Fig. 8 Riser Fatigue Life Comparison (DNV-E)

This paper reflects the opinion of its authors and does not imply
endorsements by the company to which acknowledgements are given.
0.04

REFERENCES

SCR
Weighted

Damage (1/yr)

0.03

MLW

Alliot V., Legras J., Perinet, D., (2004), A Comparison Between Steel
Catenary Risers and Hybrid Riser Towers for Deep Water Field
Developments, DOT 2004, New Orleans, LA.
American Petroleum Institute, (1999), Design of risers for Floating
Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension-Leg Platforms (TLPs),
Recommended Practice 2RD, First Edition, January 1999.
Blevins, RD, Wu, M., (2007), "Investigation of Interference between
Upstream and Downstream Cylinders in a Current", Offshore
Technology Conference, paper 18529, Houston, Texas.
Det Norske Veritas, (1984), Fatigue Strength Analysis for Mobile
Offshore Units, Classification Note 30.2, August 1984.
Judd, S., Okonkwo U., Penel, G., (2005), Re-usable and multipurpose
pull-in system, OWA 2005, Abuja, Nigeria.
Legras, Jean-Luc, (2006), Riser Design for Offshore Nigeria
challenges and solutions, OWA 2006, 14-16, Abuja, Nigeria.

0.02

0.01

0
2

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

Wave Periods (sec)

Fig. 9 Fatigue Damage Distribution Comparison (DNV-E)

794

Nolop, N., Elholm, E., Wang, H., Hoyt, D., Kan, W., (2007),
Montbarbon, S., Quintin, H., Steel Catenary Risers and Offloading
System for the Erha Field Development, OTC 2007, Houston, TX
Quintin H., Legras J., Huang, K., Wu, M., (2007), Steel Catenary
Riser Challenges and Solutions for Deep Water Applications, to be
published OTC2007 Paper 19118, Houston, Texas.
Tenet, C., Duquesnes, V., (2006), Steel Catenary Riser Installation on
FPSO, DOT 2006, Houston, TX

Xavier, B., Dubreuil, G., Johns, J., (2006), Lessons Learnt from the
Installation of Deep Water FPSOs, DOT 2006, Houston, 2006.
Wu, M., Saint-Marcoux, J-F, Jacob, P., Birch, V., (2006), The
Dynamics of Flexible jumpers connecting a Turret Moored FPSO to
a Hybrid Riser Tower. DOT 2007, Houston, TX
Wyllie, M., W., J., Joynson, J., (2006), Recent Trends in FPSO Design
and Project Execution Applied to Leased Vessels, OTC 18061,
Houston, Texas.

795