A COMPARISON OF SIMPLIFIED ENGINEERING AND FEM METHODS FOR ON-BOTTOM STABILITY ANALYSIS OF SUBSEA PIPELINES

© All Rights Reserved

13 views

A COMPARISON OF SIMPLIFIED ENGINEERING AND FEM METHODS FOR ON-BOTTOM STABILITY ANALYSIS OF SUBSEA PIPELINES

© All Rights Reserved

- Slugging Load - Riser & Tie-In Spool Stress
- Statement of Purpose UCSD
- Drag Force on a Sphere
- Assignment of subsonic aerodynamics.pdf
- Flutter instability of a fluid-conveying fluid-immersed pipe affixed to a rigid body
- Experimental Study of Settling and Drag on Cuboids With Square Base
- Modern Aircraft Design Techniques [William H. Mason]
- Hydrodynamic and Kinematic Models of Traffic
- Tugas PP bab 6
- Using Openfoam to Model Energy Taken From the Swirl Behind a Car
- Rr312103 Aerodynamics II
- Sliasas Tullis 2009 Numerical Modeling of Rowing Blade Hydrodynamics JSE
- curs3-eng
- Clarky Tutorial
- GetFile2
- Multi Scale Mixed Finite Element Modeling of Coupled Wellbore Near-Well Flow
- Cruise Flight
- Lecture 1
- ortiz-suslow osm2014
- Aerodynamics in Racing - F1technical

You are on page 1of 7

Proceedings of the ASME 2016 35 International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2016

June 19 - 24, 2016, Busan, Korea

OMAE2016-54431

BOTTOM STABILITY ANALYSIS OF SUBSEA PIPELINES

Guomin Ji Lanjing Li

MARINTEK University of Stavanger

NO-7450, Trondheim, Norway NO-4036, Stavanger, Norway

University of Stavanger

NO-4036, Stavanger, Norway

ABSTRACT

hydrodynamic load, finite element analysis.

This paper presents a comparison between simplified

engineering and FEM (Finite Element Method) methods for on-

INTRODUCTION

bottom stability analysis of a subsea pipeline. The simplified

engineering method is first used to assess the absolute on- A standard engineering task when designing subsea pipelines is

bottom stability of empty and filled pipelines under different to ensure that the pipeline is stable on the seabed under the

scenarios. The calculations of the hydrodynamic loads for action of hydrodynamic loads induced by waves and steady

three scenarios, i.e. steady current alone, regular waves alone currents. If it is too light, it will slide sideways under the action

and combined regular waves and current, are implemented in of hydrodynamic forces. If it is too heavy, it will be difficult

MATLAB code. The drag and lift coefficients are determined and expensive to construct. This movement of the pipeline will

based on Keulegan-Carpenter number, Reynolds number and cause bending stresses on the pipe, which may then cause the

surface roughness of the pipelines. Only the friction force is pipe to fatigue and fail. Simultaneously, it may cause damage to

considered in the simplified methods. In order to achieve the the coatings, for example, cracking of concrete. Conventionally

absolute stability, the vertical (lift force/submerged weight<1) a subsea pipeline has been considered stable if it has got

and horizontal (in-line force/friction force<1) criteria need to be sufficient submerged weight so the lateral soil resistance is

fulfilled at same time. Time-domain dynamic on-bottom sufficiently high to restrain the pipeline from deflecting

stability analysis is performed by PONDUS for the same cases. sideways.

The results of water particle velocity, hydrodynamic force, lift

force and soil resistance force are compared between the On-bottom stability calculations are performed to establish

simplified engineering and advanced FEM methods. Their requirements for pipeline submerged mass. The required

results are in good agreement for the cases, which fulfills the pipeline submerged mass will have a direct impact on the

absolute on-bottom stability criterion. For the cases which the required pipe-lay tensions, installation stresses and the pipe

pipelines will move under the combined wave and current configuration on the sea bottom. Subsea pipeline stability is

loadings, the soil resistance force predicted by the simplified governed by the fundamental balance of forces between loads

engineering method is different from that of the FEM method. and resistances. From the installation viewpoint, especially

The study shows that for engineering purpose the simplified where spans are not a concern, the priority is to minimize the

engineering method could be used to check the absolute on- required pipeline submerged weight [3].

bottom stability of the pipeline, whereas the more advanced

FEM method needs be performed when the pipeline is allowed The general on-bottom stability analysis involves the following

to move within a limited distance. procedures [1]:

Step 1: Data gathering for the 1-year and 100-year

environmental conditions, which includes:

Water depth Table 1 Pipe and soil data

Wave spectrum

Current characteristics

Soil properties

Seabed condition

Step 2: Determination of the hydrodynamic coefficients for the

traditional analysis: drag (CD), lift (CL) and inertia (CM)

coefficients. These coefficients may be adjusted for Reynolds

Number, Keulegan Number, steady current to wave ratio, and

embedment.

Step 3: Calculation of the hydrodynamic forces, i.e. drag (FD),

lift (FL) and inertia (FI) forces. Table 2 Material properties

Step 4: Performing static force balance at time step increments

and assessing stability and calculating the concrete coating

thickness for the worst combination of the hydrodynamic

forces.

SIMPLIFIED METHOD

The forces acting on the pipe are shown in Figure 1. U is the

flow velocity acting on the pipeline, FL is the lifting force,

Finline is the in-line force, F is the friction between the The environment data applied in the analysis is presented in

pipeline and the seabed, and Fg is the submerged weight with Table 3.

buoyancy taken into account.

Table 3 Environment data

Environment data Return period

1 year 10 year 100 year

Wave height H (m) 10.3 12.6 14.8

Wave period T (s) 13.2 14.7 15.9

Current velocity (m/s) 0.36 0.51 0.66

(1m above seabed)

Water depth (m) 104

seabed, the mean perpendicular current velocity over a pipe

Figure 1 Force acting on the pipe diameter is determined according to [2].

In order to verify stability two equations have to be fulfilled in 1 + 0 + 1 1

0

order to insure that the pipeline will not move. = ( ) ()

+ 1

Horizontal: 1.0 = 0

where

zr is the reference measurement height over sea bed.

Vertical: 1.0

Z0 is Bottom roughness parameter.

Where is the friction coefficient. D is the outer diameter of the pipe.

The pipe and soil properties used in analysis are presented in The on-bottom stability of pipeline is performed using

Table 1 and the material properties are listed in Table 2. simplified method for two conditions as following:

Empty pipe - temporary condition

Filled pipe - operation condition

The roughness of the pipeline k/D is 0.001 and only the friction

force is considered in the simplified method. Another

assumption regarding environment condition is that there is

only regular wave considered in the present study, and the

stability of the pipeline (empty and filled) under hydrodynamic

loading for the following three different scenarios is analyzed:

Steady current alone o Empty (temporary) condition

Waves alone 1-year return condition for waves and 10-year return

Combined wave and current. condition for current

The calculations of the hydrodynamic loads for three scenarios 10-year return condition for waves and 1-year return

are implemented in MATLAB code. condition for current

o Filled (permanent/operation) condition:

10-year return condition for waves and 100-year return

Steady current alone condition for current

100-year return condition for waves and 10-year return

For steady current alone only Reynolds number is calculated to condition for current

determine the drag and lift coefficient and this number tells

which flow regime the pipe is in, describing the water flow The flow velocity U is the sum of current velocity Uc and wave

around a cylindrical shaped object. Keulegan-Carpenter number velocity Uw:

(KC number) is zero. = +

The in-line and lift force:

= 1

= || +

- Kinematic viscosity of salt water at 20 degrees 2

1 2

=

The drag and lift force is calculated by: 2

1 The Re is calculated by maximum flow velocity and KC is

= 2 calculated by maximum wave induced velocity.

2

1 =

= 2

2

=

Wave alone

is maximum flow velocity.

A cylinder subjects to oscillatory flow may experience two

kinds of forces: the in-line force and the lift force. Analysis results

The in-line force per unit length of the cylinder is calculated by

the Morison equation:

1 Empty pipe

= | | +

2

The force consists of two parts: drag force and hydrodynamic The calculated results from MATLAB code for empty pipe are

mass force. shown in Table 4 and Table 5. The horizontal stability is not

is wave induced velocity. fulfilled for case 4 and after the thickness of concrete coating is

is the inertia coefficient. increased from 55 mm to 75 mm in case 5 the absolute

A is the cross-sectional area of the cylinder. stability of the pipe is fulfilled.

The lift force is calculated by: The velocity and force components acting on the empty pipe

1 under 10-y wave alone and combined 1-y current and 10-y

= 2 wave are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The drag force is

2

proportional to the flow velocity square and changes direction

The drag, Inertia and lift coefficient is dependent on KC, Re with flow, and the hydrodynamic mass force is proportional to

and surface roughness [9]. the flow acceleration and changes direction with acceleration.

The lift force is proportional to flow velocity square and is

=

always upwards.

=

The in-line force is a combination of the drag and inertia forces.

is maximum wave induced water particle velocity. Due to the 90 degree of phase difference between water particle

velocity and acceleration in regular wave the occurrence of

Combined wave and current maximum force of drag and inertial force has 90 degree phase

different. The hydrodynamic force consists obviously of more

Two load combinations for both empty and filled conditions are than one harmonic component. The amplitude ratio between

analyzed according to DNV RP-109. drag and inertia forces varies significantly depending on the

wave frequency and the current to wave-induced velocity ratio;

and the inertia becomes more important for small waves and a

weak current. For the cases with combined current and wave

loading the drag and lift forces are shifted upwards due to

current.

Description H T Re

No. D KC Uc Umw Um

Current Wave (m) (s) (e5)

1 10-year - 0.73 - - 3.09 - 0.44 - 0.44

3 10-year 1-year 0.73 10.3 13.2 6.08 7.8 0.44 0.43 0.87

4 1-year 10-year 0.73 12.6 14.7 7.3 14.8 0.31 0.74 1.05

5 1-year 10-year 0.77 12.6 14.7 7.7 14.8 0.31 0.74 1.05

pipe)

No. CM CD CL Fin-line FL F Fg Vertical Horizontal

Figure 3 Velocity and forces acting on the empty pipe with

1-y current and 10-y wave (case 4).

5 3 1.5 3.2 767 1403 878.6 2868 0.49 0.87

Filled pipe

The calculated results from MATLAB code for filled pipe are

shown in Table 6 and Table 7. The horizontal stability is not

fulfilled for case 9 and after the thickness of concrete coating is

increased from 55 mm to 75 mm in case 10 the absolute

stability of the pipe is fulfilled.

Description H T Re

No. D KC Uc Umw Um

Current Wave (m) (s) (e5)

6 100-year - 0.73 - - 3.99 - 0.57 - 0.57

8 100-year 10-year 0.73 12.6 14.7 9.11 14.8 0.57 0.74 1.31

9 10-year 100-year 0.73 14.8 15.9 10.3 22.6 0.44 1.04 1.48

10 10-year 100-year 0.77 14.8 15.9 10.8 21.8 0.44 1.04 1.48

No. CM CD CL Fin-line FL F Fg Vertical Horizontal

6 - 0.32 0.83 745.5 102.9 2329.1 3984.8 0.03 0.02

Figure 2 Velocity and forces acting on the empty pipe with 8 3 1.5 3 1044 1938 1228.3 3984.8 0.49 0.85

10-y wave (case2). 9 3.3 1.4 2.5 1263 2070 1149.1 3984.8 0.52 1.10

The velocity and force components acting on the empty pipe FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

under 10-y wave alone and combined 1-y current and 10-y

wave are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The force PONDUS developed by MARINTEK is software focusing

components show same characteristic as those for empty pipe. specifically on the dynamic lateral response of offshore pipeline

subject to a combined action of wave and current on a

horizontal seabed.

Calculates the wave kinematics from 3-D irregular waves

for medium and deep water

Calculates the hydrodynamic force by load models

Morrison

Database force model [6]

Combination of Morrison and Database force

model

Uses 2-D beam elements with small deflection theory in

the finite element formulation

Calculates the soil resistance forces by soil model

Sand soil [8]

Clay soil [7]

Computes the dynamic response of pipeline subjected to

wave and current in time domain for pipeline on

horizontal seabed

The cases with combined current and wave loading are most

relevant in real sea and case 4 and 5 for empty pipe and case 9

and 10 for filled pipe are analyzed by PONDUS. The same

Figure 4 Velocity and forces acting on the empty pipe with

drag, inertial and lift coefficient are applied in the PONDUS

100-y wave (case 7).

analysis.

elements in the model, and the boundary condition is defined as

fellow:

Fixed in translation and rotation at the left end.

Fixed in rotation at the right end.

The response of pipe are taken from the right end (node 51),

and the simulation time is set as 2400 seconds.

Analysis results

Empty pipe

Figure 5 Velocity and forces acting on the empty pipe with For case 4 the maximum pipe displacement occurs at node 51

10-y current and 100-y wave (case 9). and it reaches about 4.5 m after 1000s. The requirement for

absolute stability is obvious not fulfilled and the lateral

displacement may meet the requirement of the maximum

allowed displacement 10D.

soil friction force during first 100 seconds are shown in Figure

8 to Figure 11. The maximum value of water velocity,

hydrodynamic force, lift force and soil friction force are

presented in Table 8.

(case 4)

No. Um (m/s) Fin-line, max FL, max F, max

4 1.05 715 1410 660

Figure 8 Water velocity (case 4) 5 1.05 770 1400 880

Filled pipe

seconds, which indicates a considerably instability. The

maximum value of water velocity, hydrodynamic force, lift

force and soil friction force are presented in Table 9.

REFERENCES

1. Andrew C. Palmer and Roger A. King, Subsea Pipeline

Engineering. PennWell Corporation, Oklahoma, 2008.

Pipelines, 2010.

Offshore Pipelines. Gulf Professional Publishing,

Burlington, USA, 2005.

Figure 12 Displacement at node 51 (case 9) 6. R. Verley and K. Reed: Use of Laboratory Force Data in

Pipeline response Simulations, OMAE, The Hague, The

Netherlands, 1989.

Table 9 Filled pipe

No. Um (m/s) Fin-line, max FL, max F, max 7. R. Verley and K. M. Lund: A Soil Resistance Model for

9 1.5 1340 2070 1300 Pipelines Placed on Clay Soils, OMAE Volume 5, 1995.

10 1.5 1330 2250 1450

8. R. Verley and T. Sotberg: A Soil Resistance Model for

Pipelines Placed on Sandy Soils, OMAE Volume 5-A,

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF 1992.

SIMPLIFIED AND FEM METHOD

9. Sumer, B. M. and Fredse, J. (2006). Hydrodynamic

The results from FEM method and simplified method are around cylindrical structures. World Scientific Publishing,

compared. The maximum of the water velocity, lift force and Singapore.

hydrodynamic force from simplified engineering calculation

and FEM simulation have good agreement with each other.

5 and 10 which pipe is absolutely stable the friction forces have

good agreement between simplified and FEM method. For the

cases 4 and 9 the pipe displaces due to hydrodynamic loading,

and it shows that the soil friction forces are different for

simplified and FEM method. The deviation is likely due to that

the minimum friction force is used in the simplified engineering

calculation to obtain the safety factor, while friction force

actually varies by time in PONDUS simulation when the pipe is

in an unstable state.

CONCLUSIONS

engineering method could be used to check the absolute on-

bottom stability of the pipeline, whereas the more advanced

FEM method needs be performed when the pipeline is allowed

to move within a limited distance. PONDUS simulation

provides the transient variance of the friction force on the pipe

in its unstable state.

- Slugging Load - Riser & Tie-In Spool StressUploaded bybomxiga
- Statement of Purpose UCSDUploaded byRichard Daniels
- Drag Force on a SphereUploaded byCameron Bracken
- Assignment of subsonic aerodynamics.pdfUploaded byScoobyDooo
- Flutter instability of a fluid-conveying fluid-immersed pipe affixed to a rigid bodyUploaded byAdam Stevenson
- Experimental Study of Settling and Drag on Cuboids With Square BaseUploaded bymojex
- Modern Aircraft Design Techniques [William H. Mason]Uploaded byaeroacademic
- Hydrodynamic and Kinematic Models of TrafficUploaded byAJ
- Tugas PP bab 6Uploaded bypangiastika
- Using Openfoam to Model Energy Taken From the Swirl Behind a CarUploaded byAghajani
- Rr312103 Aerodynamics IIUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- Sliasas Tullis 2009 Numerical Modeling of Rowing Blade Hydrodynamics JSEUploaded bymctsou
- curs3-engUploaded byRaul Ilieș
- Clarky TutorialUploaded bymano121
- GetFile2Uploaded byNguyễn Chí Thanh
- Multi Scale Mixed Finite Element Modeling of Coupled Wellbore Near-Well FlowUploaded bypetar_damyanov
- Cruise FlightUploaded bySyafiq Kamil
- Lecture 1Uploaded byJessica James
- ortiz-suslow osm2014Uploaded byapi-234505466
- Aerodynamics in Racing - F1technicalUploaded byaslan006
- Cuttings TransportUploaded byjlhunter70
- Microsoft Word - Design Considerations for SelectionUploaded byMichael Shelton
- rocket labUploaded byapi-248779871
- Fluent-Intro 14.5 WS04 AirfoilUploaded byalfredozegarra
- Tutorial Modeling Uniform Fluidization in 2D Fluidized BedUploaded byNui Computercenter Swu Onk
- Speeding UpUploaded byrl228
- HehehehheUploaded byAhmad Helmi
- Boundary conditions in the method of the finite elements.docxUploaded byCesarMauricioCorrea
- Scientific paperUploaded byVesna Bacheva
- Numerical+study+on+heat+transfer+and+resistance+characteristics+of+supercritical+water+inside+internally-ribbed+tubeUploaded byOscar Dorantes Gómez

- Offshore Pipelaying DynamicUploaded byTruong Phan
- Eurocode2_WorkedExamples.pdfUploaded byPrabhakaran
- 41_ISO_9001_2015_certificateUploaded byGuomin Ji
- Ijss2010 Tsukrov Drach-el Def CylsUploaded byGuomin Ji
- DNV RP F109 (2011)Uploaded byPN
- Course of Modern an 00 WhitUploaded byGuomin Ji
- 05_Halvor_P and a IRIS 24_ March, 2015Uploaded byGuomin Ji
- OMAE2016-54839 Final - Pakozdi Et AlUploaded byGuomin Ji
- OMAE2016-54652 finalUploaded byGuomin Ji
- 350_Deployment of Pipe Laying on the Sea Bed-2011-Shorter VUploaded byGuomin Ji
- 1-s2.0-S2095034915000173-mainUploaded byGuomin Ji
- 1-s2.0-S2092678216303387-mainUploaded byGuomin Ji
- 1-s2.0-S0141118715000024-mainUploaded byGuomin Ji
- 4-rum2013-saipem-palazzetti.pdfUploaded byMehdiGhoddosi
- Obele_Ifenna.pdfUploaded byGuomin Ji
- Hvidsten, EivindUploaded byRagunath Karthick
- Herdiyanti, Jihan.pdfUploaded byyazard
- 286_Oral_WED_1B_04Uploaded byGuomin Ji
- Assessment of Existing Offshore Structures for Life ExtensionUploaded byrmahadevappa
- DNV-OS-J101Uploaded byGuomin Ji
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Modelling of Pipe Soil Interaction in CurrentUploaded byGuomin Ji
- CN34-1Uploaded byGuomin Ji

- 6Uploaded byomid_behniya
- 2010 ISFOG Perth_Setup of Suction Piles_Colliat ColliardUploaded byjasonwu1115
- ABAQUS TUTORIAL Workshop7 Creep StepsUploaded byBolarinwa
- n97-3Uploaded byMayuri Bhate
- Eccentrically Loaded Columns1Uploaded byShiela Sorino
- Dimensional Analysis Lecture (Cambridge)Uploaded byucaptd3
- Lab.-Manual.docxUploaded byaleksa grail
- FLOW MALDISTRIBUTION AND HEADER DESIGN.pptxUploaded byFati Andari Almahdini
- 119004300-Chapter-23Uploaded byCarlos Arturo Alaniz
- CBSE SCIENCE TEST PAPER CLASS9Uploaded byApex Institute
- 5229-5245Uploaded byLuis Alberto HM
- EULER EquationsUploaded bySouvikJana
- 7.3Uploaded byKamran Ali
- 1617 Level MS Math Physics BTG Questions Chap 5-7.pdfUploaded byAndrew
- TorqueUploaded byYamNerak Liramam
- Design and Construction of Journal Bearing Demonstration RigUploaded byRikrdo Ramirez
- Factors Affecting Strength of TimberUploaded byjambuh
- A Review- Basic of Laser and Its Role in Periodontics: Part IUploaded byIOSRjournal
- NCERT Ph 1 Motion PlaneUploaded bykdsiddhant
- WME01_01_que_20150120Uploaded byZarruq Hanafi
- Caliri-Ferreira-Tita -- 2016 -- A Review on Plate and Shell Theories for Laminated and Sandwich Structures Highlighting the Finite Element MethodUploaded byJorge Yarasca
- JCP-Marie - LBM versus CFDUploaded bysupermarioprof
- Anchor Force CalculationsUploaded byImmanuelraj Soosaiprakasam
- 1. Speed and Acceleration v1.0Uploaded byRamesh Iyer
- 8-387-396Uploaded byamit_iit
- Lecture 2 (Kinematics of Particles, Uniform Rectilinear Motion - Uniformly Accelerated Rectilinear Motion)Uploaded byRobby Rebolledo
- A Solution for Every Multiphase ChallengeUploaded bySunil Saini
- HW#3 (prob 8) as 16.15Uploaded bytfizzzle
- Models.mems.Layered PlateUploaded bythienhoangnc
- 09 - Friction.pptxUploaded byKeith Smith

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.