CMNE/CILAMCE 2007 Porto, June 13th to 15 th, 2007 APMTAC, Portugal 2007

A CONTACT MODEL FOR THE SIMULATION OF LINE COLLISION IN OFFSHORE OIL EXPLOITATION
Danilo M. L. Silva1*, Antonio C. P. Pereira1 and Breno P. Jacob1
1: LAMCSO Laboratory of Computational Methods and Offshore Systems Graduate Institute of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro COPPE / UFRJ

e-mail: danilo@lamcso.coppe.ufrj.br antonio@lamcso.coppe.ufrj.br; breno@lamcso.coppe.ufrj.br Keywords: Contact Model, Line Collision, Offshore Oil Explotation. Abstract. Deepwater offshore oil exploitation activities have been requiring the use of a sophisticated computational tool to predict the behavior of floating offshore systems under the action of environmental loads. Nowadays, it has been recognized that such tool should be able to perform coupled dynamic analysis, considering the non-linear interaction of the hydrodynamic behavior of the platform with the structural/hydrodynamic behavior of the mooring lines and risers. In this approach, the structural behavior of the lines is represented by Finite Element models. Traditionally, the implementation of the analysis tools considers the coupling of the equations of motion of the FEM model with the 6-DOF equations of motion of the platform hull. However, this approach has a limitation for model some situations in offshore operations, it does not rigorously consider the contact between the lines in the model. Therefore, the objective of this work is to present a tool that improve the coupled analysis model described above and make it capable to model the collision involving the lines of the system (mooring lines and risers). Such tool includes a search algorithm for the automatic determination of the contact point. The contact point can, depending on the situation, slip on each line and no limitation is made related to the position of this point along the lines. Some physical considerations are made to model the behavior of the lines during the period of impact and during the period of deformation/restitution. The velocities and directions of collision are used to take into account the impulsive force acting on each line due the impact with another line. The application of the presented contact model is demonstrated by case studies of applications for offshore systems. The collision between a drilling riser and a mooring line is analyzed.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Top-tensioned risers are subject to displacement by platform motions, excitations by wave

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

loading, and vortex induced vibrations (VIV) by current loads. Such non-deterministic loading may cause a riser to move into the vicinity of another and provide conditions where interference or clashing may occur. The consequences of impact between risers can be dents to the pipe, damage to attachments (such as anodes, buoyancy modules, strakes, etc.), or even tearing of the coatings. In shallow water, the risers can be spaced so that this condition does not occur, but as oil exploration and production moves towards deeper water, it becomes unfeasible to provide the well spacing on the top-sides necessary to prevent interference. Consequently, some interference and impacts may have to be accepted in order to avoid impractical riser spacing. Clashing or colliding between marine risers is an issue of considerable interest in the design of deep sea floating oil and gas production systems. The problem is that static deflection of a marine riser due to drag is proportional to the square of its length, when other parameters are kept constant. This implies that risk of clashing and collision increases dramatically with respect to water depth. A second factor that contributes to this concern is that the number of marine risers suspended from offshore structures increases with the growing use of subsea production systems. Of course the collision between lines is an important issue not only for production risers but also in other types of lines and in different situations of installation and accidents. For instance, in drilling operations, when a dynamic positioning (DP) drilling unit is close to other production unit, the unit may lose its capacity to maintain position and must disconnect the drilling rigid riser column at the seabottom. In such situation, the unit drifts with the riser hung from the hull through the tensioning system, and may follow a trajectory that may lead to the collision of the riser column with a mooring line of a nearby production unit. Therefore, the objective of this work is to present a tool that improve the coupled analysis model, and make it capable to model the collision involving the lines of the system (mooring lines and risers). Such tool includes a search algorithm for the automatic determination of the contact point. The contact point can, depending on the situation, slip on each line and no limitation is made related to the position of this point along the lines. The proposed contact model has been incorporated into the Prosim computer program for the coupled nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of floating platforms [1]. The program is integrated to a pre and pos-processing interface called SITUA, that generates the models (including the FE meshes) and visualizes the results. The SITUA-Prosim system has been developed since 1997 [1], in cooperation by Petrobras and LAMCSO (Laboratory of Computational Methods and Offshore Systems, at the Civil Eng. Dept. of COPPE/UFRJ, Federal Univ. of Rio de Janeiro). Modules have been incorporated to the SITUA-Prosim system to allow generation and analyses of several installation and operational procedures in offshore oil explotation [2,3].

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

2.

TYPICAL CONTACT SITUATIONS

2.1. Contact involving adjacent risers For deep sea systems the relatively small difference in static deflection may lead to mechanical contact between adjacent risers. The situation is illustrated in Fig.1. The downstream riser, R2, is sitting in the wake of an upstream riser, R1. The effective inflow velocity, and thus the static deflection, of R2 will be reduced relative to R1. Depending on pretensions, spacing, and other geometrical parameters there is the possibility of clashing or collisions between the risers. So far, the tendency has been to consider such collisions as unacceptable in practical design, due to the possible damage of the risers that they may cause.

Figure 1. Physics of riser collision.

Due to the complexity of the physics of riser collisions, this is indeed a very challenging task. First of all one has to predict the traditional VIV response of the risers. Then one has to understand and predict the low frequency, stochastic motion response which is typical for the downstream risers [4]. In the end the possible damage mechanisms have to be predicted, combining all the relevant processes in a statistical model. Whether collision between two adjacent risers will occur or not, depend on many factors such as: loading environment; hydrodynamic interaction comprising wake induced oscillations (WIO) including shielding effects and vortex induced vibrations (VIV); riser spacing at floater and seafloor terminations; top-tension, and different dynamic properties of the risers due to differences in mass, diameter, effective weight, applied top-tension or effective tension-distribution etc. Structural interference is a complex phenomenon involving different time scales. The initial impact duration between two bare risers experiencing contact is typically a small fraction of a second. The maximum collision load effects normally occur at the very beginning of the impact. Only a small segment of the riser participates to the local 3

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

collision load effects such as stresses and strains. The peak stresses, and the number of peaks, are strongly affected by local dynamics of the risers. The riser tube is significantly stiffer in circumferential direction than in longitudinal direction. Hence, the hoop stress will be larger than the longitudinal stresses. The structural response is highly centralized around the contact point both in circumferential and longitudinal directions. Coating might effectively be used as a bumper to reduce the peak stresses [5]. However, coating must be designed to withstand the impact that might occur over the lifetime. 2.2. Contact involving risers and mooring lines Many important operations in offshore oil industry such as drilling, completion or workover are being performed in congested areas, with increasing proximity between dynamic positioning (DP) drilling units and other production units based on ships or platforms. The collision between the drilling riser of a DP unit and a mooring line can occur when the DP unit loses its capacity to maintain position, due to some failure of the electric system, thrusters or the control system. In such situations, it must disconnect the drilling rigid riser column at the seabottom, retaining the device known as Low Marine Riser Package (LMRP) still coupled to the base of the riser. Thus, the DP unit drifts with the riser hung from the hull through the tensioning system, and follows a trajectory that may lead to the collision of the riser column with a mooring line of a nearby production unit, with the possible consequences of material loss and financial damage due to the need of replacement and reinstallation operations. This situation is illustrated in Figure

Figure 2. Collision between a drilling riser and a mooring line.

The study of the collision between a rigid riser and mooring lines has been involved is one the main objectives of Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company, which is to develop oil exploration and production activities regarding environmental and human safety. These, in accordance with the current world demands, are indispensable factors for any enterprise that may present environmental impact.

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

In fact, drilling, completion and workover activities are being performed in congested areas, with crescent proximity between dynamic position floating units and other production installations. As a consequence, the risk of accidents may become high if effective safety procedures are not adopted. Several issues may be addressed amongst the possible results of the collision between a rigid riser and a mooring line [6,7]: The drilling riser can become engaged to the mooring line; this may be due to the fact that the LMRP device at the bottom of the riser has specific weight and diameter values considerably larger than those of the riser, In this case, either the line or the riser can rupture. The pull capacity of the anchor can be exceeded; The riser can slip along the mooring line. In this case the line can serve as a guide leading to the collision between the DP unit and the production unit. 3. COMMENTS ON GLOBAL ANALYSES MODELS

The purpose of global riser analysis is to predict global structural response, e.g. bending moments, effective tension, displacements and curvature, in a stationary environmental load conditions. Such analyses are performed by the Prosim finite element computer code using 3D beam elements with specified bending-, axial- and torsional properties. For direct modelling of interference and collision between lines, the global dynamic analyses should include: a hydrodynamic interaction model, and a global contact model, that may include the modeling of dynamic effects of impact, and also the global rebound effects of the collision. This paper deals with the latter aspect. Of course, a comprehensive approach for interference and collision of lines should include both aspects, although hydrodynamic interaction models are useful to represent some of the causes of line collision, but not all. For instance, in some installation procedures and accidental situations such as the described in the previous section, hydrodynamic interaction could be disregarded. 4. MODELLING AND ASSESSING IMPACT ON LINES

Conventionally, engineers employ a concept, such as kinetic energy, to calculate the impact damage when two bodies collide. The problem can be simplified by reducing the impactor as a single degree of freedom object and the total energy absorption by the target would be estimated by factoring the initial energy of the impactor. All the other structural quantities, such as strains and stresses, would be calculated based on the energy absorbed by the target structure [8,9]. In order to apply kinetic energy as the governing dynamic parameter in impact of risers and other types of lines, the mass of the line involved in the impact and the velocity profile along the effective length need to be known. One of the main challenges in 5

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

estimating impact energy in collisions between marine risers and lines is the assessment of the mass involved in the collision. One of the simplifications and assumptions made in this paper is to use a constant mass term in the energy calculations. The assumption of a constant mass during the impact is not self evident, but it is made to obtain suitable engineering solutions to this challenge. This constant mass term is denoted participating mass. Basic assumptions and simplifications 1. The participating mass m is constant during the duration of the impact time. 2. The exchange of momentum takes place over a very short interval, hence the global riser shape will not be altered during the impact. 3. The impact energy loss is negligibly. All impact energy is absorbed by deformation and velocities. This assumption is reasonable and conservative due to the very short collision time, hence there is very little time for the energy to dissipate out from the system due to internal or external damping. 4.1. Analysis Method for Collision Energy The impulse force is here defined as the integral of the force signal, Fdt (1) where F is force and t is time, the integration performed over the duration of the collision. The basic law of nature controlling the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration is F = d(mv)/dt Where m is mass and v is velocity. Integrated over the duration of the collision Fdt = d(mv) = mdv + vdm (3) Let us now assume that it is possible to define an effective mass meff which does not change during the collision. This makes the second integral on the right hand side above equal to zero, and m can be placed outside the integral sign of the first one. This leads to Fdt = meffdv Now, since dv = adt, where a is acceleration, Fdt meff = adt (5) (4) (2)

The acceleration and the collision force are obtained from dynamic simulation of the riser behavior. The acceleration at the contact point is easily obtained from equation of motion. The collision force is not evident once this force depends on inertial effects, which means it depends on the mass and velocity. Here, the value of the collision force is approximated by the resultant force at the contact point immediately before collision. Thus, the inertial 6

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

effects are considered without explicit use of the participating mass. It should be noted that in problems involving collision/impact two types of effects take place: a) effects due impact, such as impulse forces or high frequencies vibrations , which take place in a very short period of time and (b) effects just due the contact, which means no inertial effects involved. In that sense, the contact can be seemed as an impact with a very low velocity and during a long period of time which make inertial effects not significant. Thus, by Eq.(5) above an effective mass of the riser can be determined, referring to the collision. 4.2. Conservation of energy The Principle of conservation of energy states that the energy is conserved trough the impact:
1 2

(m vi
1

2 1

+ m2vi22) = 2 (m1vf21 + m2vf22)

(6)

The subscripts i and f refer to just before and just after the impact respectively and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to mass and velocities of riser 1 and 2. 4.3. Conservation of momentum The conservation of momentum states that: m1vi1 + m2vi2 = m1vf1 + m2vf2 where again the subscripts i and f refer to the states before and after the impact. 5. COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONTACT MODEL (7)

5.1. Distance Between Two Line Segments in 3D Mathematical Formulation The problem is to compute the minimum distance between points on two line segments L0 = B0 + sM0 for s [0,1], and L1 = B1 + sM1 for t [0,1]. The minimum distance is ^ [0,1] and ^ computed by locating the values s t [0,1] corresponding to the two closest points on the line segments [10]. The squareddistance function for any two points on the line segments is Q(s,t) = | L0(s) - L1(t) |2 for (s,t) [0,1]2. The function is quadratic in s and t, Q(s,t) = as2 + 2bst + ct2 + 2ds + 2et + f (8) Where a = M0 M0, b = - M0 M1, c = M1 M1, d = M0 (B0 - B1 ), e = - M1 (B0 - B1), and f = (B0 - B1) (B0 - B1). Quadratics are classified by the sign of ac b2. For function Q, 7

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

ac b2 = ( M0 M0 )( M1 M1 ) - ( M0 M1 )2 = | M0 M1 |2 0

(9)

If ac b2 > 0 then the two line segments are not parallel and the graph of Q is a paraboloid. If ac b2 = 0, then the two line segments are parallel and the graph of Q is a parabolic cylinder. In calculus terms, the goal is to minimize Q(s,t) over the unit square [0,1]2. Since Q is a continuously differentiable function, the minimum occurs either at an interior point of the square where the gradient Q = 2(as + bt + d, bs + ct + e) = (0,0) or at a point on the boundary of the square. The unit square [0,1]2 is shown in Figure 3. The central square labeled region 0 is the ^, ^ domain of Q, (s,t) [0,1]2. If (s t ) is in region 0, then the two closest points on the 3D line segments are interior points of those segments.

Figure 3. Partitioning of the st-plane by the unit square.

Nonparallel Line Segments When ac b2 > 0 the line are segments are not parallel. The gradient of Q is zero only ^ = (be - cd) / (ac - b2) and ^ ^, ^ when s t = (bd - ae) / (ac - b2). If (s t ) [0,1]2 then we have found the minimum of Q. Otherwise, the minimum must occur on the boundary of the square. Parallel Line Segments When ac b2 = 0 the gradient of Q is zero on an entire st-line, s = (bt - d) / a for all t . If any pair (s,t) satisfying this equation is in [0,1], then that pair leads to two points on the 3D lines that are closest. Otherwise, the minimum must occur on the boundary of the square. Implementation The implementation of the algorithm is designed so that at most one floating point division is used when computing the minimum distance and corresponding closest points. Moreover, the division is deferred until it is needed. In some cases no division is needed. Quantities that are used throughout the code are computed first. In particular, the quantities computed are a, b, c, d, e, f. It is also needed to determine immediately whether or not the two line segments are parallel. The quadratic classifier is d = ac b2 and is also

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

computed initially. The code actually computes d = | ac b2 | since it is possible for nearly parallel lines that some floating point roundoff errors lead to a small negative quantity. Finally, d is compared to a floating point tolerance value. If larger, the two line segments are nonparallel and the code for that case is processed. If smaller, the two line segments are assumed to be parallel and the code for that case is processed. General Case Nonparallel Line Segments ^ = (be - cd) / d and ^ In the theoretical development, it was computed s t = (bd - ae) / d so ^ ^ that Q(s, t ) = (0,0). The location of the global minimum is then tested to see if it is in the unit square [0,1]2. If so, then it was already determined what it needs to compute minimum distance. If not, then the boundary of the unit square must be tested. To defer the division ^ = (be - cd) and EQ ^ by d, the code instead computes s t = (bd - ae) and tests for containment in [0, d]2. If in that set, then the divisions are performed. If not, then the boundary of the unit square is tested. The general outline of the conditionals for ^ ,^ determining which region contains (s t ) is
det = a*c-b*b; s = b*e-c*d; t = b*d-a*e; if ( s >= 0 ) then if ( s <= det ) then if ( t >= 0 ) then if ( t <= det ) { region 0 } else { region 3 } } else { region 7 } end if else if ( t >= 0 ) then if ( t <= det ) { region 1 } else { region 2 } } else { region 8 } end if else if ( t >= 0 ) then if ( t <= det ) { region 5 } else { region 4 } } else { region 6 } end if end if

The blocks of code for handling region 0, region 1 and region 2 are

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

Region 0
invDet = 1/det s = s * invDet t = t * invDet

Region 2
!Q(1,1)s = 2(a+b+d), Q(1,1)t = 2(b+c+e)

tmp = b+d; if ( -tmp < a ) then

!F(s) = Q(s,1) !F(s) = 2*((b+d)+a*s) !F(S) = 0 when S = -(b+d)/a < 1

Region 1
! F(t) = Q(1,t) ! F(t) = 2*((b+e)+c*t) ! F(T) = 0 when T = -(b+e)/c

s = 1; tmp = b+e; if ( tmp > 0 ) t = 0 !T < else if ( -tmp t = 1 !T > else t = -tmp/c end if

t = 1; if ( tmp > 0 ) s = 0 !S < 0 else s = -tmp/a !0 <= S < 1 else s = 1; tmp = b+e; if ( -tmp < c ) then
!F(t) = Q(1,t) !F(t) = 2*((b+e)+c*t) !F(T) = 0 when T = -(b+e)/c < 1

then 0 > c ) then 1 !0 <= T <= 1

if ( tmp > 0 ) t = 0 !T < 0 else t = -tmp/c !0 <= T < 1 else t = 1 end if end if

Notice that at most one division occurs in these blocks during runtime. Code blocks for regions 3, 5, and 7 are similar to code for region 1. Code blocks for regions 4, 6, and 8 are similar to code for region 2. 6. VALIDATION OF THE PROGRAM

As with all programs, it requires validation against independent data, which can take the form of analytical, test, or computer generated data. The validation is the process of determining if a mathematical model of a physical event represents the actual physical event with sufficient accuracy [11]. It pass through a consistency check, to ensure that the results produced by the program are consistent with the assumptions from which it was derived, and a modeling check, to ensure that the model provides a good approximation to the physical event. As previously mentioned in problems involving collision/impact two types of effects take place: (a) effects due impact, such as impulse forces or high frequencies vibrations , which take place in a very short period of time and (b) effects just due to the contact, which means no inertial effects are involved. In that sense, the contact can be seemed as an impact with relatively low velocity and during a period of time long enough to make inertial effects not significant. The following items will assess these issues, by showing the results of two small academic examples.

10

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

6.1. The contact model The problem to be solved here consists of two perpendicular beams as shown in Figure 4. The two beams have the same physical and geometrical properties. Initially the two beams are very close but not in contact; then a displacement is applied to each beam as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Perpendicular beams Contact Model.

Thus the problem is symmetric and can be seen as a simple problem in strength of materials: a supported beam with concentrated load. The solution of this problem is easily obtained and is shown besides the mathematical model in Figure 5.
PL3 Deflection = 48EI PL Moment = 4 Figure 5. Simple supported beam and analytical solution.

The material and geometrical parameters are selected as follows: E = 70 GPa; r = 2680 kg/m3; L = 1200 mm; d = 20 mm. Thus, the load P and moment M depends on the value of the displacements u applied to the beams. If u1 = u2, the maximum deflection PL3 / 48EI is known and it is just u. For u = d / 4 = 5 mm: P = 0.076 KN and M = 0.023 KN m In order to avoid influence of inertial effects due to impact when the two beams intersect, the displacement u is applied slowly. The velocity of movement is less than 0.0005 m/s. Several different finite element meshes were used, with element lengths ranging from 0.02m (60 elements) to 0.6 (2 elements). Also, the analyses were performed for several time steps, from 0.1 seconds to 0.0001 seconds. The results were the same for all these parameters. The Figure 6 shows the vertical reaction and moments at the midpoint of beam 1 (blue) and 2 (red).

11

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

Vertical Reaction (KN)

Moment (KN.m)
Beam 1 Beam 2

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 Tempo (s)

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 Tempo (s)

Beam 1 Beam 2

Figure 6. Vertical reaction and moment midpoint beams 1 (blue) and 2 (red).

From these graphs one can see that the computed solution agree with the analytical solution, thus demonstrating that the contact model represents the physical event with sufficient accuracy. 6.2. The Impact model In an impact problem, the ratio of the magnitudes of the impulses corresponding, respectively, to the period of restitution and to the period of deformation is called the coefficient of restitution and is denoted by . The coefficient of restitution is the ratio of the relative velocities before and after impact. The value of is always between 0 and 1 and depends to a large extent on the two materials involved. However, it also varies considerably with the impact velocity and the shape and size of the two colliding bodies. When = 0, the impact is perfectly plastic. There is no period of restitution, and both bodies stay together after impact. When = 1, the impact is perfectly elastic. The relative velocities before and after impact are equal. The impulses received before by each body during the period of deformation and during the period of restitution are equal. In other words, the bodies move away from each other after impact with the same velocity with which they approached each other before impact. The determination of from experiments is conveniently accomplished by dropping a sphere on a massive plane plate of the same material from a height h and observing the rebounding height h*. The energy loss is then given by DE = mg(h - h*) and using the equation of free fall, v = restitution, yields = (10)

2gh, and the definition of the coefficient of h* / h (11)

Thus, when a body is in free fall, as shown in Figure 7, and collides with a plane surface (which can be seen as another much bigger body ), if the impact is perfectly elastic, than 12

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

there is no loss of energy, = 1 and h* = h.

Figure 7. Impact after free fall coefficient of restitution.

The free fall problem shown in Figure 7, in which a body collides with another very rigid, bigger body, was modeled using 2 beam elements with circular cross-section to represent the small body, and 10 beam elements to represent the larger body. Some parametric studies were done varying the finite element mesh and time step, as well as the specific weight of the two bodies, and the results were the same since the target body still is very rigid in comparison to the impactor body. The material and geometrical parameters are selected as follows: E = 70 GPa; r = 2680 kg/m3; L1 = 10000 mm; d1 = 10000 mm, L2 = 10 mm; d2 = 10 mm. The initial height is h = 4.85 m, and from Eq 11, it is possible to compute the value of h*. For values of = 1.00, = 0.90, = 0.75 and = 0.50, Eq.11 gives h* = h = 4.85, h* = 3.9285, h* = 2.7281 and h* = 1.2125 respectively. Figure 8 shows the computed response. It can be seem that the results agree with analytical predictions. There is no dissipation for = 1.00, thus h* = h = 4.85, and for others values of the computed h* are also equal to the analytical h*.
Height (m)

0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 -3.5 -4.0 -4.5 -5.0 0.0

e = 1.00 e = 0.90 e = 0.75 e = 0.50

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0
Tempo (s)

Figure 8. Perpendicular beams Contact Model.

7.

APPLICATION FOR OFFSHORE SYSTEMS

As mentioned previously, the proposed contact model has been incorporated into a computer program for the coupled static and dynamic analysis of floating offshore 13

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

systems. Several small preliminary problems have been run to test the validity of the algorithms as shown in section 6. A variety of actual applications for offshore systems involving complex configurations and nonlinear boundary conditions were also analyzed, including those presented in this section. 7.1. Collision of Drilling Risers with Mooring Lines The drilling column of a DP unit is contained in a rigid riser, connected to a wellhead on the sea bottom. If, as mentioned before, for some reason a DP unit operating near to a production unit loses control of its position, it disconnects the riser from the wellhead and may follow a trajectory that leads to the collision of the riser with a mooring line of the production unit. Table 1 summarizes the general data.
Table 1. General data. Depht Mooring Radius Initial Tension Line Lenght Line Sections Riser Lenght Riser Diameter 345m 1000m 55 t 1130m Chain (76mm) Wire rope (96 mm) Chain (76 mm) 335 m 18 pol

The complete study of the collision should consider not only the assessment of the consequences of a collision between the rigid riser of a DP unit and a mooring line of a production unit, but also the consequences of the collision between both units, and also of the collision of the rigid riser with the sea bottom, in situations when the DP unit derives towards shallower waters. The numerical simulation of such situation was performed by generating models with the SITUA-Prosim system [1], illustrated in Figure 9. The simulation consists of leaving the DP unit to drift under environmental loadings, with the riser hung. The environmental condition was set intentionally to make the unit follow a trajectory that lead to the collision of the riser column with a mooring line of the nearby production unit.
Table 2. Environmental conditions applied on the system. Current Profile Speed (m/s) 1.0 0.2 Regular Wave Tp 10.0

Depth (m) 0.0 345.0 H 2.0

Azimuth (degrees) 225 225 Azimuth (degrees) 25

The finite element meshes were modeled using nonlinear frame elements, 100 elements 14

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

were used to model the riser and 200 elements to model the mooring line. The total simulation time was 200 seconds, with time step 0.01 seconds.

Figure 9. Generated Model Initial Position.

Figure 10. Deformed Position.

Figure 11 shows the XY plane (horizontal plane) displacement for the DP unit and the contact point in the drilling riser and Figure 12 shows the resultant change in bending moment at the contact point.

15

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

Direction Y

0.0 -20.0 -40.0 -60.0 -80.0 -100.0 -120.0 -140.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Displacements (m) DP unit Contact Point

Direction X

Figure 11. Plane Displacement DP unit and contact point.

Moment (KN m)

200.0 175.0 150.0 125.0 100.0 75.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 -25.0 -50.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 175.0 200.0 225.0 250.0 275.0 300.0 325.0 350.0

Moment Y (Global) Moment X (Global)

Riser Lenght (m)

Figure 12. Moment in the Riser.

From Figure 11, one can see the abrupt change in trajectory of the riser after the collision with the mooring line. At this point there is a change in bending moment, leading to the peak shown in Figure 12. 8. FINAL REMARKS

This work presented a tool intended to improve the applicability and accuracy of coupled analysis of offshore floating units, making the simulations more realistic. Such tool represents, during the dynamic analysis, the contact involving different lines in the model. The generalized contact model presented here avoids some limitations of the computational tools traditionally used for the static and dynamic analysis of offshore structures. Also, this tool provides the engineer with several relevant information at preliminary design stages. In summary, the presented contact algorithm was shown to be quite efficient and 16

Danilo M. L. Silva, Antonio C. P. Pereira and Breno P. Jacob

robust, and comprises an important contribution to the analysis and design of offshore systems with flexible lines such as mooring lines, risers and hoses. The resulting numerical tool is able to provide valuable knowledge for the design of safe offshore operations. REFERENCES [1] B. P. Jacob, I.Q. Masetti, PROSIM Coupled Numerical Simulation of the Behavior Of Moored Semisubmersible Units COPPETEC-Petrobras Internal Report, Rio de Janeiro, 1997. [2] D. M. L. Silva, B. P. Jacob, M. V. Rodrigues, Implicit and Explicit Implementation of the Dynamic Relaxation Method for the Definition of Initial Equilibrium Configurations of Flexible Lines. 25st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE, June 4-9, Hamburg, Germany (2006). [3] D. M. L. Silva, F. N. Corra, B. P. Jacob, A Generalized Contact Model for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Floating Offshore Systems. 25st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE, June 4-9, Hamburg, Germany (2006). [4] E. Huse, G. Kleiven, F. G. Nielsen, Large Scale Testing of Deep Sea Risers, Paper No.8701, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA, (1998). [5] A.J. Kalleklev, K.J. Mrk, N. Sdahl, M.K. Nygrd, A.M. Horn,, Design Guideline for Riser Collision, Paper No.15383, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA, (2003). [6] S. F. Senra, Numerical Simulation of the Collision of Drilling Risers with Mooring Lines for Offshore Oil Exploration, M.Sc. Thesis (in Portuguese), UFRJ/COPPE, Civil Eng. Department, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (1998). [7] S. F. Senra, B. P. Jacob, Numerical Simulation of the Collision of Drilling Risers with Mooring Lines in Offshore Oil Exploration. 19th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE, February 14-17, New Orleans, LA (2000). [8] S.R. Wilmshurst, H.H. Chan, C.P. Ellinas, T Moros, Deepwater Riser Systems: Riser Local Impact. 19th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE, May 28-June 2, Seattle, USA (2000). [9] S.R. Wilmshurst, H.H. Chan, C.P. Ellinas, T Moros, Local Riser Impact: The Effect of Neoprene Coatings. 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE, June 17-22, Stavanger, Norway (2001). [10] D. Eberly, Distance between two line segments in 3D, Geometric Tools, Inc., http://www.geometrictools.com (2005). [11] I. Babuska, J. T. Oden, Verification and validation in computational engineering and science: basic concepts, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol. 193, pg 4057-4066 (2004).

17