You are on page 1of 9

OFT TOC

Proceedings of OMAE2003: OMAE, Cancun Mexico 03 Proceedings of OMAE03 8-13 June, 2003, Mexico. 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering June 813, 2003, Cancun, Mexico

OMAE2003-37190
DEPLOYMENT OF SUBSEA EQUIPMENT IN ULTRADEEP WATER
Denby Morrison and Christian Cermelli Shell E&P Projects.

ABSTRACT This paper describes various options to deploy subsea equipment in ultra-deepwater. The methodology used to study the feasibility and cost of the various options is presented. The focus of this paper is the performance of the numerical tools compared with offshore observations. Both offshore measurements and wave tank data are emphasized in this paper in order to validate the numerical model. Two possible contributors to more benign offshore response compared with calculations are: (1) complex subsea package hydrodynamics, and (2) wire rope damping effects. Indications are that internal damping in the very long, and relatively complex, wire ropes used offshore, is a source of significant damping. This damping is helpful in mitigating resonance effects. INTRODUCTION The offshore industry is confronted with more complex ultra-deepwater developments, and water depths extending to 10,000 feet. Deployment of trees and wellheads, as well as other subsea equipment has evolved from deployments using the winch on the MODUs rig (Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit), to stand-alone deployments from service vessels. A number of subsea equipment deployment techniques have developed in order to reduce costs associated with expensive 5th generation drilling vessels. This paper presents the methodology used and the results obtained for subsea equipment deployment and installation in the Gulf of Mexico at water depths up to 8,000 ft. The main packages considered in the analysis for deployment are subsea trees and mudmats. This study focuses primarily on deploying the equipment with rope overboard the vessel. The lifting and deployment was considered with either steel wire or synthetic fiber rope. Some cases were run with deployment through the moonpool of a MODU with a drillpipe. This method ensures good uptime as heave motions are kept to

a minimum on the very stable rig platform, while package motions are not amplified dynamically due to the high stiffness of the drill pipe. This is a well-established method for deployment, but the MODU must interrupt other drilling activities during deployment. This results in very large cost in ultra-deepwater as the time to deploy increases, and the rig capability and cost is also higher than in shallower waters. Three of the most critical phases during the installation of subsea equipment in deep water are: Overboarding procedure; Lowering equipment through the splash zone (sea surface and just below the surface); Connection / landing of equipment on the sea floor. This work focuses on the near-bottom region and the potential resonant locations within the water column. The landing of equipment on the sea floor, and the deployment operation immediately preceding the landing, in which the equipment is hanging close to the seabed and positioned above its target location are usually subject to very tight heave tolerances. A numerical tool has been developed to assess the feasibility of single line subsea package deployment for a variety of vessels, packages, environment, etc. Full-scale offshore measurements were conducted to validate the model. These measurements were taken on an Anchor Handling Vessel during deployment of suction pile anchors in ultra-deepwater. A highly resonant configuration was chosen to test the performance of the numerical model. The numerical results were found to overestimate the resonant behavior of the package response in this situation. Empirical adjustments were therefore added to the model to better match the experimental results. In addition further tests were conducted in a controlled environment to help establish the most likely sources of differences between the numerical tool results and the observed offshore response.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

DESCRIPTION SYSTEMS

OF

THE

SUBSEA

DEPLOYMENT The mudmat added-mass was determined using formulas for a deeply submerged flat plate as given for instance in [1]. The resulting heave added-mass is very large because the horizontal dimension of the mudmat exceeds 30 ft. This model neglects openings in the mudmat that let the water flow freely through it as it is landed on the sea floor. As noted in a following section on offshore measurements, the openings may affect hydrodynamic properties significantly, and more work is needed to further the understanding of the mudmat dynamic response. METHODOLOGY The main steps of the analysis and the assumptions that were used are described in detail by Cermelli et al. [2] including the spring-mass-damper model, a presentation of the heave Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) of various vessels, the heave thresholds set for safe landing of the subsea packages on the sea floor, and the environmental conditions in the Gulf of Mexico used to derive the probability of performing the deployment operations with each vessel. Only brief descriptions pertinent to this paper are used for completeness. Spring-Mass-Damper Model. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of a package deployed from a vessel. The motion of the package is assumed to be that of a package of similar mass and added-mass attached to a spring-damper system. Stiffness of the system is based on the wire rope stiffness modulus (EA) and its length (L). Mass is determined from the mass of the package and from an estimate of its added mass. Vessel Heave Motion. The package response, is computed from the heave motion of the point of the vessel at which the wire rope is attached. The heave is determined for a given sea-state by using Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs). RAOs are obtained either from experimental model test, or from numerical models based on three-dimensional diffraction-radiation solutions, or twodimensional strip theory. Examples of heave responses are provided in Figure 2 for a semi-submersible drilling rig vessel at the turntable, a 400 ft long Offshore Construction Vessel on the side near midship, and an Anchor Handling Vessel at the stern roller. Statistical Description. The components of wave amplitude corresponding to each seastate are determined for a large number of frequencies centered around the peak period. The frequency-domain response of the lift point (Xo()) is simply obtained by multiplying the heave RAO value at frequency by the wave amplitude

Deployment Vessels and Lowering Equipment. Three different types of vessels were considered in the present analyses: A fifth generation semi-submersible MODU with displacement of 42,000 tons. Deployment is performed using the drilling riser. An Offshore Construction Vessel (OCV) approximately 400 ft long and 100 ft wide with a displacement of 18,000 tons. The subsea packages are lowered using a winch located on the side of the vessel near mid-ship. A 260 ft long Anchor Handling Vessel (AHV) with displacement of approximately 6,000 tons. Deployment is conducted with either steel wire or synthetic fiber rope running over the stern. Mechanical properties of the ropes considered in the various deployment scenarios are given in table 1 below.
Rope type Diameter (in) Weight in air (lbs/ft) Mean Break Load (kips) Stiffness modulus, EA (lbs) wire 3/4 3 30 1150 8 1.13 10 wire 3 20 740 8 0.72 10 polyester 1/4 5 8 1050 7 2.23 10

Table 1: properties of ropes for numerical model


(1 in=25.4mm; 1 lb=4.448N; 1 ft=0.3048m; I kip= 4448N)

Subsea Packages. Subsea equipment includes a variety of sizes and shapes. Examples of commonly required equipment include manifolds, mudmats, trees, tubing-hanger spool, jumpers, piles, etc. The system response depends strongly on the package hydrodynamic properties including added-mass, drag, as well as its weight, and buoyancy. A subsea tree and mudmat used to support a manifold were considered in the present analysis because they have very different hydrodynamic properties, and clearly illustrate the importance of package hydrodynamics in predicting the system response. Their main characteristics are as follows: Subsea Tree. Estimated properties are: Weight in air (lbs) Buoyancy of the package (lbs) Added-mass (lbs) Drag coefficient (Cd) Area of package exposed to drag (ft2) Mudmat. Estimated properties are: Weight in air (lbs) Buoyancy of the package (lbs) Added-mass (lbs) Drag coefficient (Cd) Area of package exposed to drag (ft2) = = = = = = = = = = 80,000 16,000 30,000 1.5 200 140,000 18,000 1,200,000 1.5 1200

Copyright 2003 by ASME

corresponding to each frequency. Distribution of wave amplitude and periods at the installation is described by the wave scatter diagram. A sample diagram is presented in Figure 3. Operational Thresholds. The critical deployment phase investigated in this paper is the landing of subsea packages on the sea floor, or on top of subsea equipment located on the sea floor. It is essential that the package be accurately positioned, and that no damage be caused to the equipment. The subsea tree is placed on top of the Tubing Hanger Spool, a piece of equipment serving as the transition between the wellhead and the tree. It is assumed that the critical time when the tree is in close proximity to the THS before the connection is finalized, is relatively short, and therefore the duration considered to derive extreme value statistics is 10 minutes. A single-amplitude of 1 foot was deemed as a reasonable threshold for the details of the guide arrangement. The mudmat is lowered directly onto the sea floor. Impacts onto the mud are unlikely to cause damage to the mudmat, however the mudmat motion before landing must be kept relatively small to prevent excessive disturbance of the floor (2 foot single-amplitude was used as threshold). NUMERICAL MODEL CALIBRATION WITH OFFSHORE MEASUREMENTS AND WAVE TANK SCALE MODELS A software package was developed to assess the feasibility of various deployment options. The numerical model takes into consideration a large number of parameters such as wave statistics, vessel and subsea package dynamic characteristics, wire properties, and quickly generates useful guidance, such as the percentage of downtime for a given installation period. The dynamic model is somewhat simplified, since it is based on a linear spring-mass-damper model, and on global linearized hydrodynamic properties such as added-mass, and therefore it was important to validate the numerical predictions with offshore observations. Full-Scale, Offshore Measurements Measurements were obtained for the deployment of suction pile anchors in 6,000 ft waterdepths from an Anchor Handling Vessel. The suction pile anchor is a 60 ft long by 12 ft diameter cylinder, which is lowered vertically to the sea-floor using a 3.75 inch diameter wire rope. The top of the pile is capped with a plate on which two 18 inches diameter valves are located as shown in Figure 4. The valves are left open during overboarding of the pile to prevent an air pocket from forming at the top of the pile, and also, as the pile lands on the sea floor, it penetrates into the mud because of its weight, and the openings allow the water to flow freely outside the pile. The cross-sectional area of the flow through the valves only corresponds to about 3% of the pile cross-sectional area;

therefore it is assumed that for relatively high frequencies of motion, such as wave induced-excitation with period less than 6 or 7 seconds, the flow through the openings is small compared with the water displaced by the pile. As a result, the pile added-mass is approximately equal to the mass of water trapped inside the pile. Based on the wire rope stiffness and the pile properties, the natural period of the system is approximately 6 seconds in 5,000 ft waterdepth. The software package predicts very large amplification of the vertical motion of the pile in this situation. Instrumentation was set-up on the Chouest Ross Anchor Handling Vessel in November 2002 during the installation of a pre-lay mooring system in approximately 6,000 ft waterdepth. Accelerometers were placed near the vessel stern, winch loads were recorded and videos of the pile were taken during recovery of two suction piles. The nearest NOOA buoy located in deepwater 40 miles north of the site indicated a 1 ft sea-state during recovery of the first pile, and a 3 to 4 ft sea-state with 5 seconds peak period during recovery of the second pile. These values confirmed visual observations made during recovery of the piles. Accelerometer signals were integrated twice in time and filtered to provide the stern heave component. During recovery of the first pile, no measurable heave was obtained, while during recovery of the second pile, the heave standard deviation was approximately 0.30 ft, with a maximum double amplitude heave in 5 minutes of 2 ft. Based on the vessel RAOs, the standard deviation of 0.30 ft corresponds to a 3.5 ft sea-state with 5 seconds peak period. The predicted natural period, assuming all water inside the pile was entrapped is 6.5 seconds. In order to match the natural period determined from the measured line tension cycles, the added-mass was reduced by 20%. It is assumed that the reduction in added-mass is due to the presence of the openings at the top of the cylinder, and that the wire rope stiffness, as given by the rope manufacturer, is accurate. Videos of the pile motion were taken at 6,000 ft, 5,000 ft and 3,000 ft waterdepth from a Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV). A sample image is provided in Figure 4. This exercise is complicated by the fact that the pile spins constantly, and the distance between the ROV and the pile is not constant. The maximum double heave amplitude during recovery of the second pile was determined to be between 4 and 5 ft in 5,000 ft waterdepth, and between 3 and 4 ft in 3,000 ft waterdepth. This resulted in predicted maximum heave values of 18.8 ft double amplitude in 5,000 ft and 9.6 ft in 3,000 ft waterdepth. Pile heave motion in this highly resonant case was therefore significantly overestimated by the numerical model. Two hypotheses are put forward to justify this large discrepancy: The wire rope damping, which is taken as relatively small in the numerical model, may in fact be very significant. In 6,000 ft depth, the wire mass is as large as the pile mass in air. Damping is generated by friction of the wires as the cable stretches.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

The added-mass of the pile is considerably reduced by the presence of the openings. The effect of small openings in plates has been investigated by Molin and Legras [3] and [4]. Dramatic reductions in addedmass were obtained for small amplitudes of motion. However, results were only provided for porosity of 10% or more. Additionally, the pile geometry is different from a circular plate, and therefore its response may also be different. Therefore laboratory tests were conducted to measure the added-mass reduction of a 1/24 scale pile with openings.

Model-Scale, Wave Tank Measurments A 1/24 scale model of the suction pile was tested at the Shell Westhollow wave tank in Houston. The pile was fabricated from a PVC pipe, 6 in diameter and 30 long. Three sets of openings were made on the plate covering the top of the plate to model the suction pile valves. The nominal diameter of the openings was inch. A sensitivity was conducted with and 1 inch holes. For reference, runs were also made with all openings covered. Each set of openings comprises two diametrically opposed holes with a distance between hole center equal to 0.6 times the pile diameter. The pile was driven vertically using a hydraulic piston placed on the bridge spanning the wave tank, and acting on an aluminum rod rigidly connected to the pile. A picture of the set-up is shown in Figure 5. The pile motion was measured using an LVDT sensor connected to the top of the driving rod, and the force on the pile was measured using a load cell also connected to the top of the rod. Measurements were taken at 100 Hz during one minute. The pile motion was harmonic with period of 0.5, 1 and 2 seconds, and amplitude of 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 inches. The Reynolds number based on the hole diameter varied approximately between 1,000 and 5,000 in the wave tank experiment. Because flow separation occurs along the sharp edges of the holes, it was assumed that results would be independent of the Reynolds number. Hoerner [5] showed that drag coefficients of circular and square plates perpendicular to the flow are almost constant for Reynolds numbers above 100. Viscous effects of the suction pile holes are somewhat different because motion is harmonic at low Keulegan-Carpenter number, and the geometry is a hole as opposed to a plate of the same diameter. However, it was assumed that differences between the model and full size pile would be smaller than differences within the test matrix that covered a broader range of period, amplitude, and hole sizes. Assuming that the results are independent of the Reynolds number allows us to adopt Froude scaling. The period of harmonic oscillation of the model T(m) is therefore related to the full scale period T(p) as follows: T(m) = T(p) where , the scale factor is equal to 24. See for instance Newman [6]. A full-scale period of 5 seconds corresponds therefore to about 1 second period for the model.

The added-mass coefficient is defined as Cm=ma/V where V is the volume of the suction pile, and damping coefficient is defined as Cl = d / V T where T is the period of oscillation. The added-mass ma and damping d were determined by fitting a sinusoid to displacement and force signals at each time step for 10 consecutive periods. The added-mass coefficient is plotted in Figure 6 for the four pile configurations mentioned above: no hole, , , and 1 holes. In the no hole case, Cm remains approximately constant with amplitude and period, equal to 1. This means that the mass of fluid moved by the pile is approximately equal to the mass of water inside the pile. In the 1/2-in hole case, a slight decay of added-mass is apparent for the longer period (2 seconds) and smaller amplitude (1). This trend is reinforced in the 3/4-in hole case, where addedmass coefficient reduces even at the shorter periods. This trends is further amplified in the 1-in hole case. Added-mass coefficient remains above 80% in the range of period and displacement corresponding to the full-scale offshore measurements presented in the previous section. The non-dimensional damping coefficients, Figure 7, show consistent trends with their lowest level in the no hole case, and increasing with increasing hole diameter. The damping coefficients obtained in the no hole case are consistent with the initial numerical model described earlier. Displacements measured from video recordings of the offshore suction pile varied between 10 and 20% of the pile diameter, with a 5 second period. Corresponding small-scale measurements indicate that the damping level with -in holes (18 in full scale) is 5 to 10 times greater than without holes, and therefore neglecting the openings of the suction pile significantly underpredicts the damping. However, damping levels inferred from the offshore measurements are 50 to 100 times larger than predictions from the initial numerical model. It is therefore concluded that the contribution of wire rope damping is also very large. Further experimental or theoretical work is required to quantify the wire rope damping and assess the significance of much greater than expected damping in applications using long length of wire such as deployment of subsea equipment and mooring systems in ultra deepwater. Numerical Model Adjustments derived from Offshore & Model Observations An empirical correction was included in the numerical model assuming that a large amount of damping is generated in the wire rope. The damping was adjusted by matching the pile heave response as determined from the videos from the offshore investigations. It was also assumed that damping was proportional to the length of wire deployed. The cases in which this empirical correction was added are referred to as high damping cases in the following examples.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS Operability is defined as the percentage of time during a given two months period for which the sea-states are such that the most probable maximum heave of the subsea package in a 10 minute period is smaller than the threshold which has been defined for this given package. The Anchor Handling Vessel operability is shown in Figure 8 for the deployment of a subsea tree with the vessel in head seas. Operability is plotted as a function of the waterdepth for deployment with a 3.75 diameter wire rope in the FebruaryMarch period when seas are the roughest, and in July-August when seas are the mildest. Operability is 10% or less in winter and 50% or less in summer. Operability decreases considerably beyond 4,000 ft waterdepth, because of the package dynamic amplification. In 5,000 ft waterdepth, operability drops to 0 in winter as well as summer months. If the high damping model (as described in the preceeding section) is used, operability beyond 4,000 ft remains constant equal to 5% and 30% respectively for winter and summer. Overall, the operability of an Anchor Handling Vessel for single line deployment of subsea packages with small heave tolerance at the seafloor is quite limited. Because of the large added-mass associated with the mudmat, the natural period of the system is larger than the period of the sea-state and consequently, the wire rope acts as a spring absorbing high frequency impacts, and results in reduction of the mudmat heave, a phenomenon we will refer to as dynamic de-amplification. In Figure 9, the effects of dynamic de-amplification are compared for a 3.75 inch diameter wire rope and for a 5.25 inch diameter polyester rope having similar Minimum Break Loads. These results assume an AHV in head seas during the months of February-March. Operability of the mudmat deployment is considerably improved by using polyester, however in the subsea tree case, operability remains very small with wire or polyester rope. The system resonant period, also plotted in Figure 9 (b), varies between 1 and 4 seconds for the subsea tree with a wire rope, and from 2 to 7 with polyester. The period is not long enough to generate sufficient dynamic de-amplification. Alternative deployment methods have been developed to improve operability of Anchor Handling Vessels. These are described in [7] and [8]. Operability of the Offshore Construction Vessel in head and beam seas is plotted in Figure 10 for the deployment of a subsea tree using a 3.75 wire rope during the winter months. Operability is very high in head seas up to 6,000 ft water depth where it starts to drop using the model with no additional damping. Operability is maintained at 90% up to 8,000 ft waterdepth if the high damping model is used. Comparable results generated for the MODU result in close to 100% because of the very stable character of the unit, and the relatively very high stiffness of the pipe used to deploy the packages.

CONCLUSIONS A numerical tool has been developed to evaluate the feasibility of deploying subsea packages from various vessels. This paper focuses on one of the critical aspects of the deployment, namely the landing of subsea packages on the sea floor with tight heave specifications. Other critical activities consist of overboarding the package and lowering it through the wave zone. These activities often determine the feasibility of the overall deployment, but they must be studied on a case-by-case basis based on details of the vessel layout, equipment, and procedures. The numerical tool takes into account multiple parameters of importance to this operation in a realistic way to provide useful guidance on operability and cost-effectiveness of various options. The vessel characteristics are taken into account to provide Response Amplitude Operators for the heave at the lift point. The package geometry and hydrodynamic properties are input into the model, as well as characteristics of the deployment rope, such as stiffness, weight and buoyancy. The wave scatter diagram, which is a representation of the seastates for a given period of the year, and wave heading are used to derive the operability associated with various deployment scenarios. The model has been compared with full-scale measurements offshore. These have shown that the system response in some cases could be greatly overestimated by the numerical tool. Empirical corrections were brought into the model to match the predicted response to measurements. Observations from deployments of a suction pile were used (a cylindrical 60 long, 12 diameter item with openings in the cap of less than 5% of the cross-sectional area). Further investigations were conducted to determine the source of differences between original numerical predictions, and measurements. Two sources for the differences are investigated in this paper : the large amount of damping in the wire rope generated by friction between the wires, or a significant reduction of added-mass and increase in hydrodynamic damping due to the presence of small openings on top of the suction pile. Hydrodynamic damping is estimated as important, but the more significant source of damping is expected to be from the wire rope. This is a useful result in that most deployments can utilize the beneficial wire properties. On the other hand the findings should be limited to wire commonly used offshore. The ability to perform subsea package deployment from various vessels was investigated. The possible improvement of operability by taking advantage of the higher damping was investigated. The very large MODUs to smaller (and cheaper) AHVs had significantly different response characteristics: The Mobile Drilling Units ( MODUs) still have in excess of 95% operability even in the worst winter months. The large Offshore Construction Vessels had close to 90% operability in the worst months.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

Orientation into the head seas was very important, and including larger (postulated) estimates for damping also extended the water depth range in which high operability % could be achieved. The smaller, cheaper and more flexible Anchor Handling Vessels (AHVs) had much lower expected operability % in the winter months (in the low teens). Summer month operations brought this up to the 30% range. In addition the higher postulated damping effects significantly extended the water depth range of the operations beyond 5,000 to 8,000 ft. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Delmar, Edison Chouest Offshore and Oceaneering for their invaluable help during the acquisition of offshore measurements as well as the various contractors who provided vessel information and other data upon which the generic responses presented herein were based. Numerous colleagues have made significant contributions to this body of work over the years; we hope that they have been acknowledged indirectly by the cited references. REFERENCES
[1]: Mechanics of Wave Force on Offshore Structures, Sarpkaya and Isaacson, 1981. [2]: Progression of Ultradeep Subsea Deployment Systems, C. Cermelli, D. Morrison, H. Corvalan San Martin and M. Guinn. OTC 15147, May 2003, Houston, Texas.

[3]: On the added mass and damping of periodic arrays of fully or partially porous disks, B. Molin, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2001, Vol 16 [4]: Hydrodynamic modeling of the Roseau tower stabilizer, B. Molin & J.L. Legras, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Offsh. Mech. and Arctic Eng.(OMAE), vol 1, part B, 1990 [5]: Fluid-dynamic drag. S.F. Hoerner, 1965 [6]: Marine Hydrodynamics, J.N. Newman, MIT Press, 1980 [7]: Heave Compensated Landing System A Novel Tool for Subsea Intervention, Ron Nelson, James Soliah, Trevor Caldwell, John Pritchard and Denby Morrison. OTC 8452, , 1997 [8]: Dynamics of a Novel Heave-Compensated Deepwater Intervention System, Denby G. Morrison, Richard C. Swanson and John Pritchard. OMAE, 1996-ST21, Florence, Italy.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

Vessel Motions (RAOs) K = EA / L

Damping (drag) linearization)


Figure 1: Equivalent spring-mass-damper system
2 1.8 1.6
Heave RAO at liftpoint

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Wave period (sec)

Anchor Handling Vessel

Offshore Construction Vessel

Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit

Figure 2: Heave Response Amplitude Operator at the liftpoint for different vessels in head seas

10 9 Peak Period (sec) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Significant wave height (ft)


Frequency of occurrence in %

12.50-15.00 10.00-12.50 7.50-10.00 5.00-7.50 2.50-5.00 0.00-2.50

Figure 4: Top: Video recording of suction anchor pile deployed in 6,100 ft waterdepth - Bottom: View of the top of a suction anchor pile showing two openings

Figure 3: Wave-scatter diagram for deepwater Gulf of Mexico location average of February and March

Copyright 2003 by ASME

Added-mass for pile with no holes


1.20
Added-mass coef (Cm) Added-mass coef (Cm)

Added-mass for pile with 1/2" holes


1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 T=2 sec T=1 sec T=0.5 sec

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 T=2 sec T=1 sec T=0.5 sec

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Am plitude of m otion (A/D)

Am plitude of m otion (A/D)

Added-mass for pile with 3/4" holes


1.20
Added-mass coef (Cm) Added-mass coef (Cm)

Added-mass for pile with 1" holes


1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 T=2 sec T=1 sec T=0.5 sec

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 T=2 sec T=1 sec T=0.5 sec

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Am plitude of m otion (A/D)

Am plitude of m otion (A/D)

Figure 6: Suction pile heave added-mass coefficients for various opening size on pile top

Figure 5: Experimental set-up at Westhollow wave tank to determine suction pile hydrodynamic coefficients
Damping for pile with no holes
2.50 2.00
Damping coef (Cl)

Damping for pile with 1/2" holes


2.50 2.00 T=2 sec T=1 sec T=0.5 sec
Damping coef (Cl)

1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00

1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00

T=2 sec T=1 sec T=0.5 sec

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Am plitude of motion (A/D)

Am plitude of m otion (A/D)

Damping for pile with 3/4" holes


2.50 2.00
Damping coef (Cl)

Damping for pile with 1" holes


2.50 2.00 T=2 sec T=1 sec T=0.5 sec
Damping coef (Cl)

1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00

1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00

T=2 sec T=1 sec T=0.5 sec

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Am plitude of motion (A/D)

Amplitude of m otion (A/D)

Figure 7: Suction pile heave damping coefficients for various opening size on pile top

Copyright 2003 by ASME

100

100
operability (%)

80 60 40 20 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 deployment water depth (ft)


Feb/Mar - low damping Feb/Mar - high damping
Jul/Aug - low damping Jul/Aug - high damping

operability (%)

80 60 40 20 0 0 2000 4000 6000 deployment water depth (ft) 8000

head seas - low damp. head seas - high damp.

beam seas - low damp. beam seas - high damp.

Figure 8 : Operability of a subsea tree deployment using Anchor Handling Vessel in head sea
100

Figure 10: Operability of a subsea tree deployment using an Offshore Construction Vessel in head and beam seas

operability (%)

80 60 40 20 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 deployment water depth (ft) tree - wire rope tree - polyester mudmat - wire rope mudmat - polyester

(a)
25

resonant period (sec)

20 15 10 5 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 deployment water depth (ft) tree - wire rope tree - polyester mudmat - wire rope mudmat - polyester

(b) Figure 9: Operability (a) and resonant period (b) for the deployment of a subsea tree and mudmat with an AHV using wire and polyester ropes (in Head Seas in Winter Months)

Copyright 2003 by ASME