M. B.

Hydrodynamic Forces on
V. Jacobsen
Pipelines: Model Tests
An extensive model test program on the hydrodynamicforces on a submarine pipeline
Danish Hydraulic Institute, resting on the sea bottom and exposed to steady current, regular waves, combined
Horsholm, Denmark steady current and regular waves, irregular waves, and combined steady current and
irregular waves has been performed. The hydrodynamic forces in both the in-line
and the cross-flow directions have been analyzed using three different methods, i.e.,
D. T. Tsahalis least-squares-fit analysis based on Morison-type equations, Fourier analysis, and
maximum force analysis. The force coefficients associated with each method have
Department of Chemical Engineering, been determined for a wide range of environmental conditions. The results of the
University of Patras, tests are presented in terms of the calculated force coefficients and their dependence
Patra, Greece
on various nondimensional parameters is discussed. Furthermore, comparisons with
other test data are presented.

The aim of on-bottom stability design of submarine pipelines called carriage technique, which combines the advantages and
is to ensure their structural integrity when exposed to envi- flexibility of a medium size facility with the capability of car-
ronmental forces. Traditionally this has been achieved by re- rying out tests at full scale or near full scale. The model as
quiring that the pipeline should remain stable, i.e., no such is composed of the model pipe itself and a part of the
movement when exposed to the environmental forces under seabed, i.e., a flat plate sufficiently long to allow a correct
design conditions. However, various pipeline design codes al- oscillatory boundary layer to develop. The model is suspended
low certain limited movements of the pipeline that do not lead vertically from a carriage which runs on rails mounted on top
to interference with adjacent objects or overstressing of the of the flume walls. The carriage can be driven with any pre-
pipe. scribed oscillatory motion and can thus move the model relative
Both design philosophies require accurate and reliable pre- to the water, reproducing the near seabed wave-induced hor-
dictions of the forces involved. However, a design based on izontal water particle motions. A return flow in the flume
the no-movement criterion requires only knowledge of the reproduces a steady current. The model pipe and seabed are
worst combination of forces, whereas a design in which lateral fixed to each other and the gap between the pipe and the seabed
movements are allowed requires information on the time var- is sealed. The model is shown in principle in Fig. 1.
iation of the forces over the entire range of relevant environ-
mental conditions. Model Setup. The flume used for the model tests has a
The hydrodynamic model tests described are part of the test section 35 m long and 3 m wide with a maximum water
American Gas Association's long-term research effort to im- depth of 0.8 m, see Fig. 2. The maximum rate of flow is 1.5
prove existing and develop new design methods for the on- m3/s, which for a 0.8-m water depth and a width of 2.7 m
bottom stability of submarine pipelines. The test program and gives a cross-sectional average velocity of 0.69 m/s.
the data analyses were planned and executed in such a way Pipe and seabed were mounted in vertical position close to
that the resulting data could be equally applicable to either one of the flume walls. To prevent deflections of the 8-m long
design philosophy. model seabed, a guiding rail system was mounted at the bottom
This paper presents the model tests and the results in terms of the flume. Furthermore, a fixed intermediate wall was in-
of the force coefficients. In a separate paper, reference [10], stalled just behind the moving seabed extending through the
the hydrodynamic forces due to irregular wave and current full length of the flume. This wall served a double purpose;
action are discussed, and a new analytical model providing it eliminated secondary flows behind the model seabed, and
accurate force predictions is presented.

Model Tests
Testing Technique. The testing technique applied is the so- FLUME WALLS
Contributed by the OMAE Division and presented at the 7th International MODEL 5EABEO
Symposium and Exhibit on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Hous- r~\ SEALING
ton, Texas, February 7-12, 1988, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL W////////////////W///////^^^
ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the OMAE Division, March 20,1990; revised
manuscript received June 11, 1991. Associate Technical Editor:
D. Myrhaug. Fig. 1 Model setup in principle

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1992, Vol. 114 / 231

Copyright © 1992 by ASME
Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

whereas both ends were fixed directly to the seabed and an accelerometer mounted on the carriage. and 200 mm and 400 mm. 3 Cross section in flume with pipe suspended from carriage 7. which were produced by the carriage parts. The model pipes were composed of three locities and accelerations. having external diameters of placed upstream of the pipe in the centerline of the flume. a = Uc/Um0 irregular FL '-= lift force per unit length rent waves Fv == lift force per unit length Re = Uw D/v waves v = kinematic viscosity -FMEAS = = measured force T . locity spectrum co = 2ir/T 232 / Vol. wave period of regular p = density of water -FpRED = = predicted force waves <> / = phase I == time step. Fine k/D=###BOT_TEXT###~3 Medium k/D =10 . A cross section of the model setup is shown in Fig. including a flow meter mounted in the flume recirculation system. NOVEMBER 1992 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.246. were measured directly by means of a tachometer transducer. The position of the current sensors are shown in Fig.5 m wide by Fig. and acted as "dummies" eliminating end and other model In addition to these basic measurements. ducer.129.27. --= Fourier coefficients KC = Um0 Tp/D irregular U = velocity Ca == added mass coefficient waves Uc = current velocity cD == drag coefficient k = hydraulic roughness of pipe Uc = current velocity averaged CH == nondimensional horizontal on seabed over pipe diameter force kb = hydraulic roughness of Um0 = spectrum derived significant Q --= Fourier coefficient seabed bottom velocity cL --= lift coefficient k* = pipe roughness ratio ( = k/ Uw = maximum wave velocity CM -= inertia coefficient D) V= mean velocity outside Cy --= nondimensional lift force kt = seabed roughness ratio boundary layer D --= pipe diameter ( = kb/D) W = weight per unit length F --= force MME = structural mass y = vertical distance from FD == drag force per unit length N = total no. see http://www. in the flume was measured using a reference current meter Two pipe models were used. For the gaps between different sections. Three distinctly different array of bi-directional current sensors were placed in the vi- surface roughnesses were applied: cinity of the pipe. The central measuring section was suspended in the force motions. The seabed and both model future analyses and improved understanding of the relation pipes were provided with surface roughness which was varied between the flow around the pipe and the induced forces. counter Tp = peak period of bottom ve. 114. co = cyclic frequency KC == Keulegan-Carpenter no.org/terms/Terms_Use. 2 Current flume and oscillating carriage helped generate the desired steady current profile when pro- vided with roughness panels. a = Uc/Uw regular waves F. 4). dividual tests covering the following environmental conditions: KC = U„ T/D regular a -= acceleration waves t = time ahb.5 m long. 3.B Fig. 5.asme. The near seabed undisturbed wave-induced particle ve- Model Pipes. ~-= inertia force per unit length Re = Uc D/v steady cur. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. The surface wave disturbances created in the flume when moving the model were eliminated by means of a large horizontal aluminum plate 2. CARRIAGE QN RAILS (WEia. Each pipe was 750 mm long. The hydrodynamic forces on the instru- mented pipe segment were measured directly in the in-line and 1 The Main Test Matrix comprised approximately 500 in- cross-flow directions using a two-component shear force trans. mill IYTTP I I I I I ITI I I I I I I rtn ELEVATION GLASS SECTON 3 5 m TEST SECTKJN SECTION B . the steady current effects on the forces measured by the live section (see Fig.2 Model Test Program Rough k/D = 5-\Q- The test program was divided into two parts: Instrumentation.cfm . of time steps or seabed F„ = = total horizontal force per Fourier coefficients a = current ratio unit length Re = Reynolds no. an during the course of the test program.

5 4. the KC-number. 12 proximately 500 tests. (c) extreme force analysis yielding maximum coefficients for each half-wave. 114 / 233 Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223. 10 1 1 I 1 2 The Supplementary Test Program also comprised ap. inertia. where U(t) = Uw(t) + Uc is the total velocity and a(t) is Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1992.5-3. and the pipe 2.64 0.32 0.Y FORCE TRANSDUCER U. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright.80 0. FH(t)=^pDCDU{t) 11/(0 I + J pD*CMa(t) (1) nent Fourier series..asme. commonly used for calcu- ing the test program were: lating hydrodynamic forces on pipelines. 5 Instrumentation in principle 9 Steady current Table 2 Test matrix for regular waves with and without cur- 9 Regular waves rent.96 1.2 Fig. Table 1 Overview of parameter range for the main test matrix Parameter Definition Test range *ipe SECTION DLMMY PPE SECTIC ^ Keulegan-Carpenter no.20 1. The methods applied dur.5 0 25 « D Pipe roughness ratio Ar*=.lift force: ditional force coefficients for drag. (b) decomposition of the measured forces into nine-compo. These are 25 the seabed roughness ratio and the wave irregularity in natural 30 1 1 1 wave trains. 5. i.e. 0.16 0.25 K D D Seabed roughness ratio kb 10~ 3 -5-10~ 2 ~D Fig. k/D = NT 3 . the current ratio. on the hydrodynamic forces has been deter.27. (ff 1" indicates that one or more tests have been performed tion with analytical expressions or numerical methods would make it possible to reproduce correctly the hydrodynamic forces experienced by prototype pipelines. Regular Waves/Steady Current 140 The objective of the different analyses applied was to es. no.7-2.org/terms/Terms_Use.3-2.„o •D Irregular waves 0.„o Reynolds no.. have been determined using the following (a) least-squares-fit (LSF) method based on a Morison type expressions describing the horizontal or in-line force and the of force equation for both in-line and lift forces yielding tra. 160 tablish nondimensional force coefficients which in combina. the Morison type of force formulation. Vol.246.48 0. FL(t)=-PDCLU'(t) (2) Least-Squares-Fit Analysis. B A S E PLATE MODEL SEABED u„ T 3-160 Regular waves D ELASTIC 5EAUNO ELASTIC 5EAL1NQ U„. and a more detailed test matrix for the main 70 75 test program is given in Table 2. 0.0 mined from these tests.2 m. 5 10 2 9 Regular waves and steady current Current ratio: a * Irregular waves 9 Irregular waves and steady current KC. and lift.ficients for drag. 10" 3 -5-10" 2 0. D = 0. i. see http://www. and lift. 55 60 An overview of the parameter ranges covered in the tests is 65 given in Table 1. 4 Model pipes U. NT 2 . eters. •10= STEADY CURRENT Uc D Steady current Re.6 DUMMY PIPE SECTION fiUlD6„HAlL_ s\sSJSSS77? 7 Irregular waves 0-1. inertia.0 0. the effect of working in reduced scale 40 1 1 50 1 1 has been evaluated.6 MEASUREMENT MODEL PIPE S U S P E N V POSITION DEO IN X.o T p 1 10-70 FORCE TRANSDUCER FORCE TRANSDUCER Irregular waves D AOCELERQMETER ACCELEROMETER m Current ratio DUMMY PIPE SECTION Regular waves 0-1. 80 100 120 Methods of Analysis. The values of the force coef.5 roughness ratio. The purpose of these tests was to in.4 * V WAVE MOTION FLOW VELOCITY Regular waves Re = uw D 0.cfm .e.60 The influence of the most significant nondimensional param. 15 1 1 I 1 17 vestigate the influence of certain parameters which have 20 1 1 1 secondary influence on the hydrodynamic forces. In addition.129.

/. 3 . namely. where the force is totally [10]. <l>yn) that 9 harmonics and a mean value would result in acceptable 3 Extreme force coefficients (CHiVmx. forces. CD. 234 / Vol. In the present model tests.cfm . yield given by force predictions of very different accuracy. (1) and (2). . and mean values and standard dictions which often give a poor description of the measured deviations determined. Eq. see http://www. Eq. Due to the testing technique the in-line force formulation is FD(t)=FH(t)~^pD2Ca-a(t) (9) slightly modified because the model and not the water is ac. the drag was used. The extreme force coefficients give accurate estimates of the In order to determine nondimensional force coefficients from maximum in-line and lift force in each half-wave period. (3) becomes Cv(t)=FL(t)/^PDUl 9 FH(t) =~ PDCDU{t) I U(t) I +^pI?Caar(t) = CVo+^CVi-cos i(o)t-<pvi) (11) . The output from the analysis was CD and C„. inertia and lift coefficients (CD.) = bi/ah w = 2-w/T.1 is the added mass coefficient. CL) that the /th sine wave or superharmonic has a period 7} = 7 / 2 Fourier coefficients and associated phase angles (C H „. Equation (1) can be written in more detail as where Ca = 2. The basis The results of the model tests are the three sets of force for this method is that any quantity that has a periodic variation coefficients: with a period 7. (5) was used in the analysis. Uy. can be reproduced by superposition of a number of sine waves with periods equal to 7 and smaller. was used in the Fourier decomposition. for drag. NOVEMBER 1992 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.asme. a. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. Eq. These coefficients were sub- the commonly used Morison-type formulations yield force pre.. CV. 2. This nor. references [1-5]) has demonstrated that in zero downcrossing half-periods.246. Extreme Force Analysis. so 1 Drag. /=i and ar equals aw for a fixed pipe.. and lift. (6) Cv. tan (/ </>. 4>Hn. Therefore. CM. C„ = CM. = CHO+YJ Cm-cos i(wt-cj>Hi) (10) vation. = (a2 + b2)l/2. 4 celerated. the acceleration. see reference horizontal force at small KC number.mm = F„(kt)mn/ ~ pDU2w (12) found as CM = 1 + C„. a mathematical approach was employed in order to obtain more accurate predictions in the case of regular Test Results waves.27.m^=FL(t)m3X/-PDUl (13) Fourier Analysis The extreme coefficients were divided in two groups. The force coefficients obtained by subtracting the inertia force from the measured were found through a least-squares-fit between the measured horizontal force force components and those predicted by Eqs. respectively. determined from potential flow theory. are the Fourier coefficients to be determined. Therefore. MME is known and the last term of a least-squares-fit technique. between the in-line and lift force is obtained. thus.g. whereas the lift force in most cases is poorly described for both regular waves or with and without steady current superimposed. ar is the relative acceleration between pipe and water. and the inertia coefficient was CH. Cvi) and phases ($//. which. CMand CL are the traditional coefficients dominated by the inertia part. together with the associated analytical expressions.'=1 + MMEar(t) (4) The Fourier coefficients (CHi.max) accuracy of the predicted forces. <j>Vi) where MME is the structural mass of the test pipe and the effect have been determined by a direct Fourier transformation and of the entrapped water.org/terms/Terms_Use. which in nature is caused by the pressure gradient from the sloping surface ele. malization would result in extremely large coefficients for the For further discussion on force predictions. FH(t) = l-PDCDU(t) I U(t) I + J PD 2 Caar{t) The force coefficients were determined using the following expressions: + ?-PD2aM) (3) CH(t)=FD(t)/\pDU2w 4 9 where aw is the acceleration of the water. being the wave velocity amplitude. The general expression of the periodic quantity F(t) is. (4) is subtracted from the measured force before the anal- ysis is performed. the Fourier decomposition method. the measured forces were normalized by ever. N. For the present study. N The drag. sequently statistically analyzed. / = 1. N The Fourier coefficients in combination with the nine-term F(t) = C0+^Q cos Hut-fr) (8) force expression give in all cases very accurate description of l the hydrodynamic forces in regular waves and combined cur- where C. 114. The missing Froude-Krylov term -7r/4 pL^-ait) was added to the measured in-line force before the analysis was performed in order to determine coefficients valid + ^pD2Caar(t) (5) for the prototype situation.29. one for forces in zero-upcrossing half-periods and one for forces Previous work (e. and rent and regular waves. How- the Fourier analysis. The extreme force coefficients were determined as Therefore. it was assumed Cy„. and 6. no information regarding time variation or phase angle 1/lpDU2.129. . inertia and lift coefficients in combination with F(t) = O 0 + 2 J ( a ' cos iwt+bj sin icat) (7) the Morison-type formulas for in-line and lift force yield rea- I sonable force predictions for the in-line force.-. The extreme force coefficients were determined by normalizing the extreme forces in each FH(t) -MMEar{t) = i PDCDU(t) I U(t) I half wave by l/2pDU2w. inertia.

Effect of Pipe Surface Roughness. ness having three different values from relatively smooth to The presence of a steady current leads in all cases to reduction rough conditions. CL approaches the theoretical poten. Two decreases with increasing a-value. for regular waves and current (three pipe surface roughnesses are shown: fine ( ).E»T. 6 Force coefficients CD.org/terms/Terms_Use. observed that the drag and inertia coefficients increase sub- The inertia coefficient CM attains values close to its theoretical stantially with the surface roughness. Vol. . Expressed in hydrodynamic KC-numbers. 6. For increasing KC numbers. the coefficients with increasing a and the effect of a steady current can be are shown for the three different values of pipe surface rough.129. T" . the drag coefficient attains its maximum the effect in combined wave and current action. Cu. the results for three different values of pure wave action. .• • .\ FJOU H iA - ." — ' 1 . sets of graphs represent the same test series. Both the increase in drag force and the de- tial flow value of 4. —1 . compared to the effect of increasing the KC number in case ness. whereas the lift force remains for KC = 160. The drag coefficient approaches the roughness on the force coefficients. KC.»i r u m wuje _. V . It is to reduced drag and lift coefficients.\ \\r^^ ^ - J*~^ _ ~~~~-— r^» VI II KC "1 1 1 11 * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •=•• 1 • I • 1 PIPE SURFACE ROUGHNESS . medium ( — ) and rough (-•-)) Force Coefficients for Drag. The full lines in the two pronounced for small KC numbers... 7 as plots of the force coefficients against layer on the hydrodynamic forces has been investigated by the current ratio. inertia and lift coefficients versus current ratio. and in Fig. and CL for regular waves—(a) effect .asme. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. 7 Drag.„ . i . Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1992. 7 shows Around KC = 10-15. - (a) (*) _ Fig. • •HZ of pipe surface roughness. The results of all regular wave tests with- out superimposed steady current are shown in Fig. The effect of this boundary tests is shown on Fig. ™. the in-line force increases. whereas the inertia coef- characteristic that the steady current value is found for lower ficient is insignificantly influenced. . e.246.27. Each graph presents test results for one conducting tests in which the seabed was provided with rough- KC-value and three different pipe surface roughnesses. Increasing roughness leads value found in steady current for increasing a-values. 6(a). the inertia coefficient attains larger values. and Lift Regular Waves. 1 1 1 " . 1 t • i • i ' 1 1 .g.49. whereas a slight decrease potential flow value of 3. A representative selection of ditions the seabed roughness gives rise to the formation of a the results from combined regular wave and steady current thin unsteady boundary layer. forces. a. A '_ FINE . decreases and approaches 1.29 for small KC-numbers. 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' ' CO UGHNE35 r .>^ - ^ " ^ ^ ^ S T " — • — . PoieHT. It can be value for thereafter to decrease with increasing KC-number. In Fig. see http://www. i . pure wave case becomes more significant when a steady current For small KC-numbers. The pipe surface con- As indicated on the graphs. The force a-values the larger the KC number. is superimposed. Practical design situations will normally fall and the seabed roughness. a. 6(6). Figure 6(a) shows the effect for increasing values of KC in the interval 2<KC<10-15. the variation with the wave ditions tested vary from relatively smooth conditions to ex- parameter (KC) is very similar for all values of the pipe surface tremely rough.. The inertia coefficient coefficients are plotted against the wave parameter. 114/235 Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223. The lift coefficient decreases sets of coefficients are presented. The observed influence in the exhibits a variation with the KC number. Figure 6(6) shows the effect of the seabed of the force coefficients. 1 . FINE . Inertia.cfm .\ " u u ^ ~ ' . CL rapidly crease in lift force are relatively stronger. Effect of Seabed Roughness. This effect of the steady current is most of the seabed roughness are shown. Under oscillatory flow con- Regular Waves and Current. of pipe surface roughness in pure wave action and Fig.„ - BOTTOM nOUOHNCSS " k M KC 70 . The lift coefficient CL unchanged or decreases slightly. .. (b) effect of seabed roughness Fig. 1 i . " .»l — ._„ou.0 for KC = 160. The drag coefficient CD increases within the conditions investigated. For larger can be seen for the lift coefficient. t . CM is larger than 5. which is fairly simple.„. .

simple evaluations of the coefficients. 9 Fourier coefficients and phases for the lift force (regular waves. KC = 40. 114. Only results from the basic test conditions cor. a significant input is provided respectively. where the inertia force is dominant. 8 Fourier coefficients and phases for the in-line drag force (regular Fig. This value is found assuming CD = 0 and CM =3. KC = 40. normalizing the maximum forces with the factor \/2pDU2w are Taking into account the similarities between the simple Mor. 11 Fourier coefficients and phases for the lift force (regular waves pipe and seabed roughness: fine) and current. and their associated responding to the smallest pipe and smallest seabed roughness phase angles. see http://www. even as well as odd. ficients (Cu C3.129. . pipe and seabed roughness: fine) Fourier Coefficients ficients and phases for the drag and lift force is shown in Figs.cfm . The com- the same variation as shown in Figs. for the drag and the lift force. NOVEMBER 1992 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.29 and the data thus confirm the theoretical value Regular Waves and Current. An example of Fourier coef. pipe and seabed roughness: fine) Fig. the limiting value equals tributions to the force predictions of the Fourier expansion. The ison-type formulation and the full Fourier expansions. 8 and 9. Both the drag force and the lift force are shown in Figs. pipe and seabed roughness: fine) ular waves and current. 8 and 9.org/terms/Terms_Use.246. this is variation with the KC number of CHtmax is similar to the Co- not surprising.. The extreme force coefficients found by coefficients exhibit a similar variation with the KC number. C2. it is also clear that the phase variation for the large KC numbers. it can be seen that the Regular Waves. For small KC numbers.5/KC (ir2CM/KC). The Fourier coefficients and phases for comparable with the traditional coefficients CD and CL. 12 for the three pipe surface roughnesses. 10 and 11. Coefficients of higher order than five are small are shown.mSx has a variation with KC quite 236 / Vol. respectively. . C2„+i) theoretically equal zero for the lift force. angle and the higher order coefficients provide significant con.asme. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. shown in Fig. . 10 Fourier coefficients and phases for the in-line drag force (reg- waves.l"in < °s-s^ Fig. . Cv. C2„) describe the influence of the governing parameters based on theoretically equal zero for the drag force and all odd coef. The coefficients are no longer directly Regular Waves. 32. Fig.27. Considerations plex formulation makes it impossible to clearly identify and of symmetry disclose that all even coefficients (Co. of the inertia coefficient. On the other hand. Extreme Force Coefficients Comparing the dominating Fourier coefficients with the cor- responding drag and lift coefficient. •». by all coefficients. The data for increased seabed roughness exhibit enough to be neglected in all practical applications.

CM.0 0. CM.48 0.80 1. However. MEDIUM for KC = 20. Fig.\.%9 C6 — REGULAR WAVES *<* « IRREGULAR WAVES x2 6 X X * St _ Q> U 8 <* * "». but CV. Vol. 1 80 . and CL applicable wake reversal. 70 1 „ i i j t i i | ) .35. Increasing a-values reduce the effect of the based on Eqs.max is larger than CL for intermediate t KC-numbers.cfm ... both peak forces should become equal.35) 2 = 4. i i. and CL versus KC for irregular wave flow However. 1 100 1 1 1 1 1 1 120 1A0 160 half-periods where the two velocities counteract each other.35) 2 /(l-0.32 0. FINE - a /\ % X ***« ROUGH .35. It is the dominant in.0 .org/terms/Terms_Use. see http://www. Force expressions based on velocity-squared terms only would in fact predict Irregular Waves force ratios in succeeding half-waves of the order of (1 + A number of irregular wave tests with and without steady 0. (1) and (2) to yield CD. 14 CD..3 for a = 0. The variation of the force coefficients with Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1992.246. 1 20 .. r r J X C V MAX . The large lift forces are associated with high \ 0 flow velocities near the pipe induced by the reversal of the . . It is obvious for very large values based on the significant velocity and the peak period of the of a. as can be seen from Fig. Regular Waves and Current.27. 13 Extreme force coefficients versus current ratio for KC-numbers of 40 and 70 1 1 1 I 1 ' 1 _CL — REGULAR WAVES \ FLOW VALUE « IRREGULAR WAVES similar to CL. 114 / 237 Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223. f. PIPE SURFACE ROUGHNESS " 1 " indicates that one or more tests have been performed X O k* .asme. velocity spectrum. the ratio of the peak forces in two for the full test duration. KC i I i i 1 1 i i 1 1 > Fig. FINE . 1 1 Table 3 Test matrix for irregular waves (JONSWAP spec- fxCHMAX ! PI 1 < 1 ' P E SURFACE ROUGHNESS ' I ' I X trum has been applied generally. x A li* . Figure 14 shows the results compared succeeding half-waves never reaches the level predicted by the to the regular wave test data. 12 Extreme force coefficients versus Keulegan-Carpenter number for regular waves J i I I I i l_ 0 20 -0 60 80 100 120 IfcO 160 -i—i—i—i—r —QO 3 29 POTENTIAL FLOW VALUE ZLIJO ufJCPOSSirJG ZERO DOWMCROS5 REGULAR WAVES • IRREGULAR WAVES 20 to 60 80 100 120 I&0 160 Fig.129.16 0. 30 and 50) W X k * . The superposition of a steady current leads in general to extreme forces that are larger in KC - half-periods where wave and current velocities add than in the 0 . 13 there is no significant difference in the force levels in two succeeding half-waves for current ratios below approximately 0. 0. currents was conducted according to the test matrix shown in fluence of the wake reversal that leads to relatively high-force Table 3.20 J X X 10 . wake [6].T. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright.64 0. levels also when the free stream wave velocity opposes the The forces measured were analyzed with the LSF method steady current.<») 1 1 1 1 1 KC 6 X X 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 CT * X 6 ca OA oa 20 2 1 1 1 1 30 2 1 1 1 KC 50 2 1 1 I 1 i 1 i 1 1 . ROUGH Current ratio tv KC no. For the irregular waves KC was free stream velocities squared. PM spectrum additionally o u " . ! 60 .

these three references form a good would be required in analogy with spectral analysis of irregular basis for comparison.70 one ~ta • w i v n IKC t KC . period. Local KC numbers were defined based on averages the UM and the associated half-periods. KC { o F(B) sine dd (15) where Um is the velocity amplitude for an oscillating flow Comparisons With Other Data represented by U = —Um. 2 3 8 / V o l . The ATT scatter is quite significant.a o «1B ' TJ. '•C:—— .v ? * . 1980 [5]. is the maximum wave-induced velocity in the relevant and Rajabi have derived CD and CM values as so-called Fourier half-wave period. The following data have been compared with the results of the present study: Fig.T" «KC . CM. 71s the oscillation Experiments to determine the hydrodynamic forces on pipe. F(0) cose dd (14) 16 shows the extreme force coefficients for two irregular tests. 114. as a very large number of harmonics values of testing parameters. Monterey.. waves.— KC • • 0 • —-• .* e • 30 — . [2. KC-ao SEOULAR nff«ULAfl . and CL with Data from Sarpkaya by normalizing the maximum forces with the value l/2pDU2M. 8]. and CL versus a. 0 -^ * . Irregular waves and steady current 1 Laboratory tests carried out at the Naval Postgraduate School. jabi. O KC ~%o OKC " * 3 \ ° IRR10ULAR X MC " I S XKC . 6 = 2-Kt/T. " * "r- • • ••£r .— KC t 70 .asme. 5==Z. CM.. •. and Fm{6) is the measured in-line force. 1979.. Data for combined wave and current flow are shown in Fig. " ' KC-78 cD — — KC • 10 cD —— «C > 40 IRREGULAR" UAVC3 o . "•. NOVEMBER 1992 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.246. Based on the Morison equation. those for the regular wave tests. » . reported 1985-1986 [7]. 1981. Solid line: result from regular wave tests. —.MS D . California. one having global KC number of 20 and the other 70. c. KC-2B w i t f l l ss:r. JO KC .cfm . °Msi E^JL" £ •8 V .A.sin0. and various data analysis methods [9]. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. tV°^o ^XSXZ=3Z^- .. and Rajabi [5]. This analysis lines have also been carried out by other researchers..W_ • ^ >^ >==-. 16 Extreme force coefficients versus local KC-numbers. reported by Sarpkaya and Ra- the KC number is quite similar for the two test conditions. These method yields results very similar to a least-squares-fit analysis experiments have investigated the influence of one or more of for a perfect sinusoidal flow. 2 Laboratory tests carried out at the Norwegian Hydrody- whereas the lift coefficient attains values almost identical to namic Laboratories (NHL) as part of a joint industry project.129.org/terms/Terms_Use. and the extreme force coefficients were plotted versus these local KC numbers. KC • 5 0 • WAVE 3 «c > ao — KC .. a ..--i. as demonstrated by Sarpkaya the governing parameters. Figure CD= — (Vi/2PDU2m).— KC • BO • •". Extreme force coefficients were found for each half-wave Comparison for CD. partly 15 and also here the irregular wave results display a variation sponsored by A. 77~^r*—•?- C M 1IOUIAH W A V « 3 KC • JO 0 «C »10 O KC «fc3 IRREOULAR UAVE3 IflRHJUUD **C . Si- a > fe. have been applied. \V "\V^X Fig.. 15 Co.27. 3 Field experiments carried out off the coast of Hawaii.G. see http://www. •-— " » . similar to that of the regular tests. The drag coefficients are generally smaller for irregular waves. Sarpkaya where £4. a.- -e. Reported by Grace.7 0 • 0=° " ' 0 •b o ^x \ ? ^-i-. but the average trend follows that of the regular wave data shown in solid line. Results from irregular wave tests having global KC-numbers of 20 and 70.7 0 \ W A * 4 3 4 KC o «c i \ -JO . iii.u ^ - x" ••St «1l . The Fourier decomposition cannot be applied directly to the Despite some differences in analysis techniques and actual irregular wave forces.

but the overall agreement between the two sets of data is good. Cot by the NHL data as coefficients. CD and CM. The test conditions for the two sets of data have been quite similar. This observation is in agreement Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1992. i i i 0 20 i0 60 80 100 120 1 /. and a C^-value close to 3. There- fore. The tests have been performed with the same setup as the tests in reference [7]. a tendency toward a that increased pipe surface roughness leads to increased force larger constant lift force coefficient. 7 _ CM : l .5 m.29 is reached at low KC numbers. i. Deviations appearing at small KC numbers in the first harmonic amplitudes and phases are due to the inertia force being included in the NHL data.246. and it varies with the Fig. together with the present data on Fig. For the rough pipe case. 17. Vol. the data For the lift force. reference [5] yields somewhat larger force coefficients than the present ones for corresponding rel- n 3 I ' I 20 ' I 40 i I 60 l i 60 i I 100 . it is The Fourier amplitudes and phases for the lift forces are seen that the drag and inertia coefficients from the two sets generally in good agreement for all orders of the harmonics of data exhibit the same variation with the KC number and as shown in Fig. The data from NHL [7] have been re-plotted in Figs. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. and for the higher harmonics the excellent agree- least-squares-fit type of analysis. 17 Data for CD and CM from reference [5] and from present study On Fig. I 120 • ' : L0 • i 16C ative pipe roughness. The coefficients. The minor deviations maximum lift coefficients comparable to the extreme force may well be explained by differences in pipe surface roughness.cfm . analysis. 114/239 Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223. Comparison for Fourier Coefficients and Phases With Data from NHL [7]. however. 18 Fourier coefficients and phases for the in-line force—regular waves oscillation period. NHL used a "smooth" pipe surface presumably having a The data for CD and CM from reference [5] have been plotted k/D value lower than 10 -3 used for the present data. see http://www. The figures show the Fourier coefficients and phases for pure wave motion.ca Q_ Fig. In the NHL study the measured in-line and lift forces in regular wave motion with and without a steady current have been decomposed into Fourier series using a tech- nique similar to the one used in the present study.0 160 i 1 i | 1 | 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 r—. 17. 18 and 19 together with the data from this study. Fig. 19. an increase in the first harmonic amplitude appears and a phase lag is introduced. the data from the recent PIPESTAB study are added [11]. compared to the present ones. The inertia coefficient appears to be slightly larger than the present data. but they have determined' ment covers the full parameter range.e. 19 Fourier coefficients and phases for the lift force—regular waves The smooth pipe data from Sarpkaya and Rajabi show slightly smaller Co-values in accordance with the smaller k/ D-value in their tests. The NHL data cover experiments with two pipe diameters of 0.org/terms/Terms_Use. For the larger KC numbers. The measured in-line force. The agreement between the two sets of in-line force data is excellent.asme. This part of the force is dominating at low KC numbers. There is. Sarpkaya and Rajabi have not applied a correlate well. 17.129. o L_i l i l i i i i i i i i . Fig.27. from reference [11] are in good agreement with the other studies. 18. From Fig. has been treated somewhat differently by NHL as the Fourier amplitudes and phases include drag forces as well as inertia forces. however.. the period of the first harmonic.2 m and 0.

together with the data for regular 2 4 0 / V o l . see http://www. --. This is because the maximum velocity of each the Grace data have been divided by cos 2 15 deg in order to half-wave is used for the normalization of the measured force. \ - Grace [8]. This normalization procedure is similar to the one used in the model tests. 22 Coefficients for the extreme lift forces. Note that with high values. make the results comparable with the present model test results. Field test data and regular of peak force coefficients as function of an adapted period wave data from present study.org/terms/Terms_Use. V " accelerations. 21 Coefficients for the extreme horizontal forces. NOVEMBER 1992 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223. o •:I?V !v 0 '• • " • J * .cfm . shown as the hatched area.0 Fig. the half-wave analysis applied in the present of two irregular wave tests with KC equal 20 and 70. Fig.i -###BOT_TEXT###quot; . 22.129. * . Such a gap reduces fronts. Ci/ m „ The excellent agreement between the two data sets including the higher harmonics indicates that the actual force time series from the two studies have been very similar for identical test 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' CH MAX GRACE conditions. For regular waves this parameter is equal to KC/2ir and this relation has been applied for the tests yield somewhat larger vertical force coefficients. i . Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright.asme. . where a half-wave by half-wave analysis has been applied in . CH. a presumption that has been further supported by DHI visual comparisons of measured force time series. KC-7B OMI (AGA 1986) IRREGULAR WAVES 0 .„ O H M A O A 19Bfl> IRREGULAR WAVES 1 r l*:*SS-l GRACE ( 1 9 8 1 ) VARIATION OF MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL FORCE COEFFICIENT WITH ADAPTED PERIOD PARAMETER FOR oC . However. and large lift forces may occur in half-periods with small ve- The first observation from the two figures is that the scatter locities when the preceding half-periods are associated with is similar for the two sets of data. -. 1 . Grace looked at a full-wave cycle. Fig. 21. From time series of measured in-line and lift forces and corresponding time series of water particle velocities and . KC the present study. 20 Data for C Hmax and Cymax from reference [8] { l with the assumption that the NHL test pipes have had a rough- ness ratio less than 1CT3. • — •» . . 1 .27. \ \ Comparison for Extreme Force Coefficients With Data From . parameter. -~ - cycle.1 5 * Fig. espe- comparison although the relation is not fully valid for irregular cially for larger KC numbers. and the study will lead to a larger number of extreme lift coefficients field test data by Grace. the peak forces occurring in each wave cycle have been normalized with l/2pDU2w by Grace. Figure 20 below shows the data from reference [8] for to the fact that a small gap was present between the pipe and the case with an angle of 15 deg between the pipe and the wave its base structure in the field experiments.". 1 . This may be partly due waves. 1 . and that the general trend large velocities. \p = U^U„D.iit . KC-2B <£ 15" i 0 mma GRACE I i98i \ 0o° 0 * *. Figures 21 and 22 show the comparison between the results Furthermore. Fig. The extreme horizontal force The mean values of the coefficients from the field tests are coefficients correlate excellently. . where Uw is the maximum acceler- ation of the water particles.«•*.246.* ••• • i> HI • / • • 0 iir 1 i^T .„'*" . These data have been used for the comparison. with the KC number is identical. 23 Extreme in-line force coefficients. the maximum lift forces. 1 The results by Grace were plotted in reference [8] in terms Fig.i*. 114. 23 and 24. VARIATION OF MAXIMUM VERTICAL FORCE COEFFICIENT WITH ADAPTED PERIOD PARAMETER FOR oC = 15 ' 40 0 00.v. but does not change horizontal forces. where U„ is the maximum particle velocity measured during the same wave . whereas the model shown in Figs.

Paper OTC 4833. Bryndum." Report data. S.e. J. 24. "Wave Forces on Rigid Pipes Using are found in the model tests. Vol. K. 1985." Report type of equations.cfm . EX 1056 and EX 1059. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright. andSlotta. T. F. 71-92. WW4.." Proceedings of the Fif- waves from the present study. The Annual Offshore Technology Conference." Seventh Offshore Mechanics dimensional governing parameters on the hydrodynamic force and Arctic Engineering Conference. OTC 5503. J.. his support. and these data compare very well with the DHI 3 Littlejohns. "Prediction of Ir- forces on submarine pipelines. "Wave Forces on Pipelines. Houston. i 1 . Texas.. T. "Design of Pipelines to Resist The tests have been analyzed using three different methods. see http://www." Proceedings of 19th Annual Offshore were the Keulegan-Carpenter number. ratio. Schollhammer of the A. OTC 3761. Ocean Forces. Bryndum. 9 Sarpkaya. \ U0 — . Kinematics Close to Marine Pipelines and Their Use in Stability Calculations. 7 Norwegian Hydrodynamic Laboratories. Again. "Prediction of Hy- drodynamic Forces on Seabed Pipelines. Jacobsen. The force coefficients presented together with the ana. Vol. "Determination of Flow gated: steady current. Texas.. 1974. and Rajabi.. Texas. 6 0 " N jIiP&3 SARPKAYA The results have been compared to three other studies and excellent agreement was found. References 1 Bryndum.. Nath. 1 / u C 1 i > r 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' ness ratio.. V.. ysis.A.A. The authors would also like to thank the members of A. L.G. H." Journal of the Waterway. Houston. but also with respect to time variation of the forces. R.. Wallingford. pp. 1981.P. and Reed. L.G. regular Wave Forces on Submarine Pipelines. \ Acknowledgments ^ 3 0 *"••». for O . pp. P. i . Texas. Paper No. Houston. Houston. 499-505. not only in relation to force 5 0 . horizontal force is good. 1988. Texas.. "Hydrodynamic Forces from Wave and Current Loads on Marine Pipelines.. i.. 100. 1982. O. May 1987. coefficients. F. -^ The findings presented in this paper are based on work carried out by the Danish Hydraulic Institute for the American 2 0 '^v^-~^. 95-102. and Spencer. 1979. No. and Zee. to the American Gas Association." Journal of the Waterways. and larger values for the lift force May 1983." rent and regular waves. R. L... Coastal and Ocean Division. " A Slanted Look at Ocean Wave Forces on Pipes. 1983-1986. and combined irregular Proceedings of the 16th Annual Offshore Technology Conference. G. The parameter ranges tested cover most situations V MAX GRACE DHI met in practical design.. May 1984. P. "Hydrodynamic Drag on Bottom-Mounted The hydrodynamic forces on submarine pipelines resting on Smooth and Rough Cylinders in Periodic Flow. 343-360. B. K. and Mr. 5 Sarpkaya. pp. 98. England. combined steady cur. J. Ocean Test Data.. A. 24 Extreme lift force coefficients. OTC 4454. Port. ASCE. Vol. a least-squares-fit analysis in combination with Morison 8 Grace. in Fig." Final Report on Joint Industry R&D Program. andFreds0e. 1976. M. the pipe surface roughness ratio. 4 Yamamoto. T. pp.129. R. "Forces on Cylinders Near a Plane Boundary in Sinusoidally lytical force expressions constitute a very comprehensive and Oscillatory Fluid. T.. M. Fig.27. and Brand. Vol. has been identified and quantified. consistent data base applicable for calculating hydrodynamic 10 Jacobsen. B. Gas Association. i .. May following environmental conditions have been investi. B..246." ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering. irregular waves. D... Lambrakos. T.. A. M. Houston. waves and steady current. No. 2 Grace. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1992. regular waves. Fourier analysis and maximum force anal. Nos. 219-226. Texas. 6 Jacobsen. The maximum lift force coef. Harbours and Coastal En- Summary and Conclusion gineering Division. The parameters investigated 11 Verley. The authors wish to express their "^""41 appreciation to the American Gas Association for permission 1 0 to publish this paper. 1980.'s project ad-hoc committee for their KC cooperation. Feb. Hydraulic Research Station. V.asme. The influence of the main non. and the seabed rough. F. 114 / 241 Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223. Field test data and regular wave data from reference [5] and from present study.org/terms/Terms_Use. 107. "Wave Forces on Cylinders Near Plane Boundary. 1 t . the current to wave Technology Conference. V. Houston.. pp. R. Aug. ficients from reference [5]—regular waves—are also included ASCE. WW2. Y. S. the agreement for the teenth Annual Offshore Technology Conference." Proceedings of the Eleventh the seabed have been determined through model tests.. and Tsahalis.