You are on page 1of 11

Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

ISSN: 2040-7467
Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2012
Submitted: June 07, 2012 Accepted: June 09, 2012 Published: December 15, 2012

Fatigue Generation Mechanism in Touchdown Area of Steel Catenary Risers

in Non-Linear Hysteretic Seabed
Kosar Rezazadeh, 2Hodjat Shiri , 1Liang Zhang and 1Yong Bai
Ship Building College, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, China
Civil Engineering Department, Urmia University of Technology, Urmia, Iran

Abstract: The complex nature of seabed interaction with Steel Catenary Risers (SCR) in Touch Down
Zone (TDZ) and its vital impact on fatigue performance of SCRs makes serious difficulties against
proposing simplified and robust solutions for engineering design industry where the fatigue in touch down
zone is still considered as one the most challenging issues in riser design. In this study, authors have tried to
explore in deep the mechanism of fatigue generation in touchdown area with sophisticated numerical
simulations capturing the stress variation along the riser under complex load conditions in non-linear
hysteretic seabed. The results show interesting unknown stress variation trends which is believed to be
considerably useful in providing robust and simple solution for design industry.

Keywords: Fatigue, non-linear hysteretic seabed, Steel Catenary Riser (SCR), Touch Down Zone (TDZ)

INTRODUCTION embedment of the riser into the seabed and fatigue

damage generation, the area which is believed to be the
The complex riser-seabed interaction in touchdown main root of the subject and needs to be further
area is accepted today through ROV surveys where understood.
trenches with several diameters depth have been Various non-linear models have been presented in
observed (Bridge and Howels, 2007). Various literature for pipeline-seabed interaction (Bridge and
researches presented in literature have tried to Howels, 2007; Randolph and Quiggin 2009) but the
investigate the effect of trench formation on fatigue model proposed by Randolph and Quiggin (2009) is the
performance of SCRs, but the results show interesting model simulating gradual seabed soil stiffness
contradictions. Some authors report an increase in degradation which in turn models the gradual riser
fatigue damage due to trench creation (Giertsen et al., embedment into the seabed and trench formation due to
2004; Karunakaran et al., 2004) while others suggest soil softening under cyclic loading. The study has been
fatigue damage reduction (Clukey et al., 2007; Langner conducted through numerical simulations in which the
2003; Nakhaee and Zhang 2008). Shiri and Randolph complex non-linear hysteretic riser-seabed interaction
(2010) have performed numerical simulations and modeling the gradual soil stiffness degradation and soil
concluded that the source of contradiction is getting suction has been coupled with a full riser structural
back to the methodology undertaken for study. They model connected to a generic floating vessel. The
have proposed a study methodology letting the trench to vessel is excited by a generic wave spectrum
be gradually formed using a non-linear hysteretic throughout the displacement-controlled time domain
seabed interaction model. The final conclusion was analysis and then the fluctuations of riser in touchdown
showing the increasing of peak fatigue damage for area and its impact on stress variation along the riser is
deeper trenches. This totally different with findings of captured for detailed study. The seabed interactions and
Rezazadeh et al. (2012) where they showed that the gradual variation of boundary conditions in floating
implementing the effects of vessel slow drifts changes vessel has been coded in Fortran and linked to
the story to an unpredictable nature. Rezazadeh et al. ABAQUS. Post processing Excel macros have been
(2012) showed that depending on the load condition the developed to calculate the cumulative fatigue damage
peak fatigue damage in touchdown area can be and variation of von Mises stress range.
increased or decreased for deeper trench depths proving
more complexity of the subject. In this study, authors Global configuration of the model: The global
have tried to take a basic step and deeply explore the configuration of the numerical model which has been
nature of the relationship between the gradual constructed in ABAQUS is shown below in Fig. 1.The

Corresponding Author: Kosar Rezazadeh, Ship Building College, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, Heilongjiang
150001, China
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

The riser is fixed at the anchor end in the seabed

and is attached to Spar vessel in a point which is lower
than center of gravity. The riser-seabed interaction has
been considered from an area beyond the Touchdown
Point (TDP) until the anchor point throughout the riser
lay down on the seabed. The numerical model has been
constructed in ABAQUS finite element software
considering simple beam elements for riser. The riser-
seabed interaction has been modeled via User Defined
Elements (UEL) with the behavior coded inside the
Fortran which has been suitably coupled with main
In this example, the Spar has been perturbed by 10
regular sinusoidal cycles and the responses show a
number of features such as suction force mobilization,
gradual increasing penetration depth, and gradually
reducing mobilization of soil resistance at maximum
penetration. The seabed model parameters and the
characteristics of the SCR are presented in Table 1 and
Fig. 1: Global configuration of modeled SCR 2.
The manipulated wave scatter diagram applied in
Table 1: non-linear model parameters analysis is based on typical conditions in the Gulf of
Parameter Symbol Value
Mudline shear strength su0 0.65 kPa
Mexico shown in Table 3.
Shear strength gradient 1.5 kPa/m
Power law parameter a 6 The Mechanism of fatigue generation in TDZ: It is
Power law parameter b 0.25 believed that fatigue damage is mostly derived in
Normalized maximum stiffness Kmax 200
Suction ratio fsuc 0.3
seabed trench mouth but still further explorations are
Suction decay parameter suc 0.5 required. It is worth mentioning that in this paper, since
Repenetration parameter rep 0.5 the main question is the fatigue derivation mechanism,
therefore the accurate estimation of the fatigue damage
Table 2: Riser pipe parameters itself is not a focus point. Hence for the cases that
Parameter Value
Outer diameter, Do 0.324 m (123/4 ) fatigue damage has been calculated some
Wall thickness, t 0.0205 m simplifications have been applied to facilitate the study.
Bending stiffness 4.67107 Nm2 As an instance, in non-linear plastic seabed since the
Submerged unit mass 100 kg/m hierarchy of the sea states can affect themagnitude of
Fatigue S-N curve DNV(2008), E Class:
the ultimate cumulative damage, so the validity of
SCF = 1.15, a = 1.0510-12 , m utilizing Miners rule for linear superposition of the
= 3.0
damages caused by various sea states is under question.
floating vessel type, the overall model dimensions and Shiri and Randolph (2010) showed that applying a
hydrocarbon field location (Gulf of Mexico) have been wave with higher significant height flatten the variation
selected as such to enable comparison with published of the von Mises stress range for the waves with less
results in the literature if required. height. This means if the biggest sea state hits to

Table 3: Manipulated wave scatter diagram for a 30 year service life in Gulf of Mexico
Sea State ID Hs (m) Tz (s) N applied Sea State ID Hs (m) Tz (s) N applied
1 0.5 4.2 18011291 16 8.0 9.1 3389
2 1.0 4.6 71370445 17 8.5 9.3 3011
3 1.5 5.0 4844608 18 9.0 9.5 1822
4 2.0 5.4 25187856 19 9.5 9.7 1395
5 2.5 5.8 13529335 20 10.0 9.9 1070
6 3.0 6.1 7473660 21 10.5 10.1 1246
7 3.5 6.5 3080495 22 11.0 10.2 566
8 4.0 6.9 1631014 23 11.5 10.4 928
9 4.5 7.3 583770 24 12.0 10.6 544
10 5.0 7.7 363725 25 12.5 10.7 813
11 5.5 8.0 114700 26 13.0 10.9 712
12 6.0 8.4 33676 27 13.5 11.0 8.77
13 6.5 8.5 16907 28 14.0 11.2 262
14 7.0 8.7 10864 29 14.5 11.3 343
15 7.5 8.9 5421 30 15.0 11.5 420

Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

8 0.000040
Shear far
6 Peak fatigue location 0.000030
Shear near

4 0.000020
Shear Force kN

Fatigue damage
2 Trench bottum point 0.000010

0 0.000000

-2 -0.000010
TDP Scaled trench profile

-4 -0.000020
-370 -360 -350 -340 -330 -320 -310 -300 -290 -280
Horizontal coordinate (m)

Fig. 2: Peak fatigue position relative to trench and shear profile of near and far offsets

7 0.000040
wave 20 wave 15
6 0.000035
wave 10 0.000030
wave 5 0.000025
Shear Force kN

Fatigue damage
1 0.000005

0 0.000000

-1 -0.000005
-370 -360 -350 -340 -330
Horizontal coordinate (m)

Fig. 3: Near and far offset shear profile compare with fatigure damage for various waves

the vessel first, for the rest of the sea states the von near and far offsets are crossing each other. This is
Mises stress range will not be varied which in turn exactly in agreement with basic mechanical rule, where
means the application of Miners rule is allowed. In this the bending moment is the gradient of shear force
paper the described hypothesis has been undertaken which reaches its maximum value when the gradient
simplifying the calculation of the cumulative fatigue becomes zero. The bending moment itself is the main
damage and enabling authors to focus on subtle component making the von Mises stress for riser
mechanisms rather than the value of ultimate damage. tubular section which in turn produce the fatigue
As apparently shown in Fig. 5 for a sample damage by its variation range.
analysis, the peak fatigue damage is interestingly Comparing the location of peak fatigue damage
located at the point at which the shear force profiles of with riser profile ( Fig. 2) shows that the fatigue is

Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

120 0.000040
wave 20
wave 15

Bending Moment kN.m


Fatigue damage
60 0.000020
wave 10 0.000015
20 wave 5

-20 -0.000005
-370 -360 -350 -340 -330
Horizontal coordinate (m)

Fig. 4: Near and far offset bending moment profiles compared with fatigue damage for various waves

4.5 0.00004
4 wave 20 0.000035
wave 15 0.00003
Contact envelope, kPa


Fatigue damage
2 0.00002
wave 10
1.5 0.000015
wave 5 0.00001
-0.5 0

-1 -0.00000
-370 -360 -350 -340 -330
Horizontal coordinate (m)

Fig. 5: Contact envelope compared with fatigue damage for various waves

mostly derived in trench mouth where the TDP has study was performed and a wide range of parameters
longest travel courses. are examined. As expected, the wave characteristics,
As will be shown in coming section, the shear seabed stiffness and the trench depth were found having
force crossing points of the near and far offsets are considerable impacts on fatigue performance which will
gradually moved toward the vessel end by increasing be briefly reviewed in coming sections.
the number of load cycles but then stabilized for higher
number of cycles and it is due to stabilization of trench Influence of sea state characteristics: The sea states
profile, a fact that will be used for some evaluations No. 5, 10, 15 and 20 were selected and the initial
later in this study. analysis was repeated under selected loads. For easier
This starting analysis encouraged authors to deeply comparison of the results, only the near and far offset
explore the parameters affecting the shear force, profiles at cycle 20 (end of the analyses) where plotted
bending moment, riser and contact profile etc., in the against the fatigue damage profiles ( Fig. 3, 4 and 5). As
proximity of trench mouth over the various seen, the wave characteristics is directly affecting the
representative load cycles. Comprehensive parametric profile with a regular trend.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

7 0.000025
Near offset shear Fatigue Far offset shear
Su0 = 1.0 kPa 0.000020
5 Su0 = 1.5 kPa

4 0.000015

Fatigue damage
Shear force kN

1 0.000005

0 Su0 = 0.65 kPa


-2 -0.000005
-370 -360 -350 -340 -330
Horizontal coordinate (m)

Fig. 5: Near and offset shear profiles compared with fatigue damage for different seabed stiffness

120 0.000025
Near offset bending Fatigue
100 0.000020
Su0 = 1.5 kPa
Bending Moment, kN.m

Fatigue damage
Su0 = 1.0 kPa
Far offset bending 0.000010
Su0 = 0.65 kPa

0 0.000000

-20 -0.000005
-370 -360 -350 -340 -330
Horizontal coordinate (m)

Fig. 7: Near and offset bending moment profile comared with fatigure damage for various seabed stiffness

For all of the sea states the peak fatigue damage is The contact envelope shown in Fig. 5 is in quite
about the location at which the shear profile of far and agreement with results above. An important point is that
near offsets are crossing. It is also interestingly seen the TDP location is gradually moved towards the vessel
that the variation of the peak shear force in near and far end by increasing the wave height. It means, the trench
offsets are following opposite trends, but the average mouth is still the most indicative area in which the
shear in initial position is gradually changing parallel to fatigue damage is derived, this is in absolute correlation
fatigue damage variation. This means though the near with Fig. 2 where the peak fatigue position is shown to
and far offset profiles are varying in relatively irregular be somewhere between the TDP and trench bottom
scheme but the initial average can still be considered as point.
a reference index for fatigue damage estimation which It is accepted that the fatigue damage is increased
will be further discussed in later sections. Illustration of for seabed with higher stiffness. This has been
the bending moment variation in far and near vessel examined here to explore the effect of stiffness
offset over load cycles relative to fatigue damage in variation on fatigue derivation mechanism for seabed
Fig. 4 shows logic correlation with shear force profiles with stiffness in range of 0.65 to 1.5 kPa for undrained
as explained before in the current section. shear strength. As illustrated in Fig. 6, the peak values
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

of near and far offset shear forces are increased for diameter (Bridge and Howells, 2007). This has been
stiffer seabed soil and this is same for fatigue damage examined hear using extreme soil model parameters to
itself. This in turn explains the main reason for such make a trench in initial stages of fatigue analysis. Two
ascending trend. The contact pressure is increased for trench depths have been examined here, 3D and 5D and
higher seabed stiffness which causes the increasing of the results are shown in Fig. 8 to 10. It is interestingly
shear force as seen above. This makes inverse change in seen that insertion of deep trenches stabilize the
bending moment particularly for near offset (Fig. 7) and variation of shear force and bending moment profiles
the results is wider clearance between far and near keeping the peak fatigue position still at the point that
bending moment profiles which means higher von near and far shear offsets are crossing. For the cases
Mises variation over load cycles and higher fatigue with presence of deep trenches most serious variations
damage accordingly. occur in near offset profiles and this is getting back to
the high contact pressure of the riser with seabed in this
Influence of trench depth: ROV surveys proves trench course. As a common trend in all of these analysis the
formation beneath the riser with couple of times of riser peak fatigue point is moved towards the vessel for

10 0.000035
Fatigue Far offset shear
8 5D Trench 0.000030

6 0.000025
3D Trench

Fatigue damage
Shear force kN

4 0.000020

2 0.000015

0 0.000010

-2 0.000005
Near offset shear
-4 0.000000
-400 -380 -360 -340 -320 -300 -280
Horizontal coordinate(m)

Fig. 8: Near and for offset profiled compared with fatigue damage for various trench depths

140 0.000035
120 Fatigue Far offset shear 0.000030
5D Trench 0.000025
Bending Moment kN.m

Fatigue damage

60 3D Trench 0.000020

40 0.000015
Near offset shear
-40 0.000000
-400 -380 -360 -340 -320 -300 -280
Horizontal coordinate (m)

Fig. 9: Near and far offset bending moment profiles compared with fatigue damage for various trench depths

Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

8 0.000035
Fatigue Far offset shear
6 0.000030

Contact pressure envelope kPa

5D Trench

Fatigue damage
3D Trench 0.000015

-2 0.000005
Near offset shear
-4 0.000000
-400 -380 -360 -340 -320 -300 -280
Horizontal coordinate(m)

Fig. 10: Contact envelope compared with fatigue damage for various trench depths

deeper trenches, stiffer seabed soil and more severe sea As described by Barltrop et al. (1991) a standard
states. It is worth reminding hear that this for the cases form of S-N curves for marine structures to be used for
having no slow drift and only the wave action is fatigue calculations is:
Figure 10shows contact pressure envelope in which m
by increasing the trench depth, the TDP moves towards
N = a . f (1)
the vessel end whilst the trench surface point in anchor
side dose not considerably changes. Since the nature of where,
fatigue is governed by changing in stress profiles, the
fatigue damage is derived in trench mouth where we N = Is the number of cycles to failure
have the maximum variations. a = Is an empirical coefficient
f = Is the factored stress variation range in MPa
Rough estimation of fatigue damage on non-linear
seabed without fatigue analysis: In a standard fatigue M = Is the inverse slope of the S-N curve
calculation, for an operating life that incorporates many
millions of cycles of various stress ranges, the For tubular elements as pipelines under bending
accumulated fatigue damage can be calculated using a moments, stress range variation is calculated in terms of
linear cumulative damage, according to the well-known von Mises stress. For SCRs the maximum von Mises
Miners rule. The fatigue analysis itself is considered stress can be written as follows:
as a time consuming process with extensive number of
analysis for various load conditions. In the early stages H M TDP . D (2)
f Max = +
of a project, designers usually wish to have a rough As 2I
estimation of riser fatigue life in TDZ as a red line of
riser projects based on seabed soil characteristics, where,
because, the seabed stiffness governs the bed response
to riser through contact pressure, which in turn makes H = Is tension force in riser
the shear force distribution. The shear force itself is the As = Is riser section area
gradient of bending moment, the key parameter to D = Is riser diameter
calculate von Mises stress range which in turn produce I = Is section moment of inertia
the fatigue damage and fatigue life accordingly. Since MTDP = Is bending moment in TDP
the mechanism of fatigue derivation in TDZ was
relatively explored in the previous section, we are going The fatigue damage is calculated using the von
to propose an approximation methodology enabling a Mises stress range f within a load cycle, i.e., a
rough estimation of peak fatigue damage of the riser in
TDP on a non-linear hysteretic seabed, which can be cycle of vessel perturbation. Ignoring the minor
quite valuable for designers in early stages of projects. changes in horizontal force in the Touchdown Zone

Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

(TDZ) due to relocation of the touchdown point, f

can be approximated by the following relation:

M .D (3)
f Max TDP

This equation can be simplified in terms of bending

gradient, i.e., the product of average shear force and the
TDP relocation, as:

V TDP . x TDP . D (4)

f Max ave

where, Fig. 6: Schematic view of vessel relocation and curve

xTDP =is the maximum TDP relocation under a sin i
si = zi (5)
vessel perturbation cycle 1 cos i
V = is the initial/static maximum shear force in the

TDZ si zi (6)
ds i = dz i d i
zi 1 cos i
To avoid complex finite element analysis we would
need to propose closed form solutions for quick arcsin h (tan i ) cos i
x TDPi = z i (7)
calculation of the main parameters defined in equation 1 cos i
above. This can be done by combination of classical
catenary equations for estimation of TDP relocation and
x TDPi z x TDPi tan i (8)
an efficient boundary layer method for rough dx TDPi = dz i + i d i
calculation of average shear force in TDP. zi 1 cos i

TDP Relocation: Every change in vessel position due The change in hang-off angle can be written as
to load cycles applied by sea states will cause cyclic below using catenary equations:
relocation of the touchdown point, which will in turn
affect the SCR profile and stress distribution at the
seabed. In a 2-Dimensional (2D) planar system, the 1 cos i x s i (9)
= r i = b TDPi a
vessel can have vertical (heave) and horizontal (surge) 2 z i x TDPi tan i z i
motion and the vessel rotation (pitch) can be converted
into equivalent vertical and horizontal displacements -
taking into account the position of the attachment point substituting the change in vessel vertical and horizontal
of the riser, relative to the centre of gravity of the position, the TDP relocation can be written as below:
vessel. Figure 11 shows a schematic configuration of
the SCR as the vessel moves from its initial position s xTDPi si zi
(denoted by subscript i) to a new relocated position xTDP = sr si = i + a + b
(denoted by subscript r) under environmental loading. zi 2zi xTDPitani 2zi xTDPitani
The positive and negative sign of the heave and surge (10)
offsets (a, b) are determined based on the designated
TDZ peak shear force in initial configuration: Thus
coordinate system. The catenary length of the SCR
far, a range of different boundary layer methodologies
hanging part, the horizontal distance of the TDP from
have been to predict the analytical riser-seabed
vessel and the distance of the vessel from the seabed are
interaction overcoming the discontinuity of shear force
taken to be always positive. and bending moment along the riser in the touchdown
According to traditional catenary equations the area (Palmer et al., 1974; Pesce et al., 1998; Croll,
horizontal offset and the arc length in initial position 2000; Lenci and Callegari, 2005). Such models are
are the functions of depth and hang off angle, so the aimed to precisely evaluate SCR curvature in the
TDP relocation can be expressed based on changes of touchdown zone, and also to ensure continuity of
these 2 parameters: displacement gradient and shear force. As an example
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

of these methods, the model presented by Pesce et al. m s g .K 0 . 25

V max =
(1998) is selected and used in this work to find the in
2 + K 0 . 25

analytical stress distribution in touchdown area. They

applied a standard boundary layer technique to 1 (17)
construct local consistent analytical solutions for the X v max in = 0 . 25 K
0 . 25

2 + K 0 . 25
static/dynamic curvature problems, with the aim of
smooth matching of the corresponding outer ideal As shown before in this paper in parametric study
cable solution. A non-dimensional soil rigidity
of the effect of load cycles and sea state characteristics
parameter is defined as:
on shear force distribution, the peak shear force in TDZ
for initial vessel configuration is gradually varied for
K = k 4 / EI = k 2 / H = kEI / H 2
cyclic loading on non-linear seabed. These effects shall
be implemented on analytical estimation of peak shear
force, but before that we need to examine the accuracy
= Is the soil rigidity per unit area of the proposed methodology for a given configuration.
E= Is the SCR Youngs Modulus
I= Is the SCR second moment of inertia Examination of proposed method: The vessel has
= Is the horizontal tension force at the TDP been exited by one cycle of sea state No. 20 on a non-
is a flexural length parameter that provides the linear seabed with undrained shear strength of 0.65 kPa
boundary layer length scale, with a significant role in at mudline and a gradient of 1.5 kPa per meter in depth.
local solution. Its value is also interpreted as the Figure 12 shows the shear force distribution for far and
distance between the actual and ideal cable TDP - given near offsets of the vessel comparing with vessel initial
by: configuration, the hang-off angle and water depth is as
per the configuration illustrated in Fig 1. The
EI magnitude of TDP relocation (XTDP) for Wave No.20
= (12)
H based on the Equation 10 extracted from traditional
catenary equations in last section is about 6.2 m. To
Pesce et al. (1998) gives the following equations calculate the maximum shear force by boundary layer
for the shear force distribution in the TDZ: method the linear seabed stiffness is required; for the
riser not deeply penetrated into the seabed this value
ms g .K 0.25 K 0.25 K 0.25 K 0.25 can be roughly taken as about ten times of undrained
V = exp ( f ) cos ( f ) sin ( f )
2 + K 0.25 2 2 2 shear strength in mudline which is 0.65 kPa in this
(13) analysis, then the seabed stiffnes, k will be about 5.2
kPa. Using the boundary layer equation given before
if < f
the magnitude of parameter K will equals to 1.4, so the
maximum shear force for initial configuration can be
or calculated as below (Eq.16):

m g . K 0 .25 100 9 . 81 10 . 59 (1 . 4 ) 0 . 25
V = s exp( ( f )) (14) V max in = = 4 . 52 kN
1000 ( 2 + (1 . 4 ) 0 . 25 )
2 + K 0 .25

if f
The calculated value is almost equal to the peak
shear force value obtained from finite element analysis
where, msg is the weight of the riser unit length, f is shown in Fig, 12.
the ideal position of the TDP, defined as: Using the Eq. 5 the von Mises stress range can be
calculated as below:
1 1 (15)
= 0 . 25
K 0 . 25

2 + K
f 0 . 25
K 4 . 52 6 . 2 0 . 324
f Max = 20 . 1 MPa
1000 2 0 . 000226
and = f is the non-dimensional form of actual TDP
as shown in Fig. 13 the peak magnitude of von Mises
position (x/ ).
variation is about 18 MPa. This means the closed form
The peak value of shear force and its distance for solution has an accuracy about 90% which is quit
ideal TDP can be obtained by differentiation of Eq. (13) interesting. In another word, the fatigue life can be
and (14) which occurs, as expected, at = f : estimated by analytical solution without performing
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

6 cycles. Comprehensive parametric study was performed

Initial peak
and a wide range of parameters are examined. As
5 expected, the wave characteristics, seabed stiffness and
4 the trench depth were found having considerable
Far offset
Shear force, kN

3 impacts on fatigue performance.

Near offset Be side that an approximation methodology was
proposed to estimation of peak fatigue damage of the
1 riser in TDP on a non-linear hysteretic seabed, which
Initial can be quite valuable for designers in early stages of
projects. The fatigue life can be estimated by analytical
solution without performing extensive fatigue analysis
with a tolerance of about 10% which can be very
Horizontal coordinate (m)
appealing for design engineers.
Fig. 12: Initial, near and far offset shear profiles REFERENCES

30 Barltrop, N., A. Adams and M.G. Hallam, 1991.

20 Peak von Mises Range Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures.
10 Butterworth-Heinemann, London, pp: 764, ISBN:
Voin Mises, MPa

Bridge, C.D. and H.A. Howells, 2007. Observations
Von Mises Range and modeling of steel catenary riser trenches.
Proceedings of the 17th International Offshore and
-30 Max von Mises
Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal,
-40 Min von Mises July, 1-6, 2007, pp: 803, ISBN: 978-1-880653-68-
-50 5.
-60 Clukey, E., R. Ghosh, P. Mokarala and M. Dixon, 2007.
-400-390-380-370-360-350-340-330-320-310-300-290-280 Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) design issues at touch
Horizontal coordinate (m) down area. Proceedings of the Seventeenth
International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Fig. 7: Von Mises stress envelope and variation range Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, July, 1-6, 2007, pp:
814, ISBN: 978-1-880653-68-5.
extensive fatigue analysis with a tolerance of about Croll, J.G.A., 2000. Bending boundary layers in
10% which can be very appealing for design engineers. tensioned cables and rods. Appl. Ocean Res.,
Now it is time to implement the influence of 22(4): 241-253.
number of wave cycles as the parameter gradually Giertsen, E., R. Verley and K. Schroder, 2004.
vitiating the shear force distribution along the riser in CARISIMA a catenary riser/soil interaction model
TDZ. Combining the curve fits proposed before in for global riser analysis. Proceedings of the
parametric study the Equation 16 can be written as International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
below: and Arctic Engineering OMAE2004, June 20-25,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp: 633-640.
1 Karunakaran, D., K.A. Farnes and E. Giertsen, 2004.
V max var = V max in ( ) 0 .08 (18) Analysis guidelines and application of a riser-soil
n c ycle interaction model including trench effects.
Proceedings of the International Conference on
This equation implements the invers influence of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
number of wave cycles on peak shear force in initial OMAE2004, June 20-25, 2004, Vancouver, BC,
configuration. Canada, ASME, NY, USA, pp: 955-962.
Langner, C.G., 2003. Fatigue Life Improvement of
CONCLUSION Steel Catenary Risers due to Self-Trenching at the
Touchdown Point. Offshore Technology
The mechanism of fatigue generation in TDZ was Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, pp: 11, ISBN:
studied through use of the hysteretic non-linear seabed. 978-1-55563-250-2.
The nature of the relationship between the gradual Lenci, S. and M. Callegari, 2005. Simple analytical
embedment of the riser into the seabed and fatigue models for the j-lay problem. Acta Mechanica,
178(1-2): 23-39.
damage generation was investigated and the parameters
Nakhaee, A. and J. Zhang, 2008. Effects of the
affecting the shear force, bending moment, riser and
interaction with the seafloor on the fatigue life of a
contact profile was deeply explored in the proximity of
SCR. International Offshore and Polar Engineering
trench mouth over the various representative load
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(24): 5591-5601, 2012

Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 6-11, Engineering OMAE 2009, Honolulu, Hawaii,
pp: 87, ISBN: 978-1-880653-70-8. USA, pp: 1-10.
Palmer, A.C., G. Hutchinson and J.E. Ells, 1974. Rezazadeh, K., H. Shiri, L. Zhang and Y. Bai, 2012.
Configuration of submarine pipelines during Seabed trench formation and its impact on fatigue
laying operation. ASME J. Engng. Indust., 96: life of steel catenary risers in touchdown area. The
1112-1118. 22th International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Pesce, C., J. Aranha and C. Martins, 1998. The soil Conference ISOPE2012, Rhodos, Greece, pp:
rigidity effect in the touchdown boundary-layer of 20051.
a catenary riser: Static problem. Proceedings of the Shiri, H. and M. Randolph, 2010. Influence of seabed
8th International Offshore and Polar Engineering response on fatigue performance of steel catenary
Conference, International Society of Offshore and risers in touchdown zone. Proceeding of the 29th
Polar Engineers, Montreal, Canada, No. 207. International Conference on Offshore, Ocean and
Randolph, M.F. and P. Quiggin, 2009. Non-linear Arctic Engineering OMAE2010, Shanghai, China,
hysteretic seabed modelfor catenary pipeline pp: 63-72.
contact. Proceedings of the 28th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic