OTC 17945
Pipeline Walking—Understanding the Field Layout Challenges, and Analytical
Solutions Developed for the SAFEBUCK JIP
M. Carr, F. Sinclair, and D. Bruton, Boreas Consultants
Copyright 2006, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 1–4 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper addresses the phenomenon of pipeline walking,
which can cause cumulative axial displacement of a whole
pipeline, leading to potential failures at tie-ins or risers. This
phenomenon can massively complicate the design of deep
water flowlines and has significantly impacted field layouts on
a number of recent projects.
Pipeline walking occurs over a number of start-up and
shutdown cycles, under the following conditions:
• Tension at the end of the flowline, associated with a steel
catenary riser;
• Global seabed slope along the pipeline length;
• Thermal transients along the pipeline during start-up and
shutdown.
The SAFEBUCK JIP has developed new analytical
equations, from first principles, that predict the rate of walking
for all three load conditions. These equations have been
successfully validated against FE (finite element) models, and
bring welcome simplicity to conceptual design assessments.
Introduction
The SAFEBUCK JIP was undertaken with the intention of
developing a guideline for the design of high temperature
pipelines prone to lateral buckling. Part of the JIP included an
investigation into the little understood pipeline walking
phenomenon, which has occurred in a number of pipelines and
lead to at least one failure to date.
The aim of this task within the JIP was to define the key
factors that influence pipeline walking and provide guidance
for assessing the severity of the walking problem.
This paper summarizes the work done on pipeline walking
and presents simple analytic expressions which can be used to
assess pipeline walking at a conceptual design stage.
Pipeline Walking Mechanisms
When a pipeline is laid on the seabed and heated, it will tend
to expand. The expansion is resisted by the friction generated
by the seabed. When the pipeline is cooled, it contracts but
the effects of seabed friction mean that the pipeline ends
cannot contract to the original position. On subsequent heat-
up and shutdown cycles, the pipeline ends cycle between the
fully heated position and the cool-down position; this behavior
is addressed in the traditional approach to pipeline expansion
design.
However, in some cases thermal cycling can be
accompanied by global axial movement of the pipeline; this
global translation of the whole pipeline is termed pipeline
walking. Over a number of start-up and shutdown cycles
walking can lead to significant global displacement of the
pipeline. Walking itself is not a limit state, but without careful
consideration can lead to:
• Overstressing of spoolpieces/jumpers;
• Loss of tension in a SCR (steel catenary riser);
• Increased loading within a lateral buckle;
• Need for restraint using anchors;
• Route curve pullout of restrained systems.
Walking is a phenomenon that can occur in short, high
temperature pipelines. The term ‘short’ relates to pipelines
that do not reach full constraint in the middle, but instead
expand about a virtual anchor point located at the middle of
the pipeline. Walking involves a global axial movement
which occurs on cyclic load and does not reduce with the
number of cycles. There are related axial ratcheting
phenomena which can occur in more heavily constrained
pipelines, but these tend to reduce to a final equilibrium
position over a (relatively) small number of cycles[1].
With the current increase in pipeline operating
temperatures, ‘short’ pipelines can be many kilometers in
length. The phenomenon can also occur in longer lines where
lateral buckling has occurred.
Pipeline walking in short pipelines occurs under the
following conditions:
• Tension at the end of the flowline, associated with a SCR;
• Global seabed slope along the pipeline length;
• Thermal gradients along the pipeline during changes in
operating conditions.
The three walking mechanisms are treated in turn,
highlighting the parameters that influence walking for each.
2 OTC 17945
Effective Axial Force Profiles
The general expansion behavior of a pipeline can be
understood by considering the effective axial force profile
along the pipe. The effective axial force in the pipeline is
made up of the (true) axial force in the pipe wall and the
pressure induced axial force. This is defined as:-
S = S w + pe ⋅ A e − p i ⋅ A i
Here tensile forces are positive and all variables are
defined in the notation section at the end of this paper. In the
remainder of the paper all references to axial force imply the
effective axial force; the true wall force can always be
recovered using equation (1).
The force at which the axial strain in the pipeline is zero is
known as the fully constrained effective force, for a pipeline
installed with zero internal pressure this is given by:-
P = S L − (p i ⋅ A i ) ⋅ (1 − 2 ⋅ ν ) − E ⋅ A s ⋅ α ⋅ (θ − θ inst )
Although this is the conventional definition of fully
constrained force, the term really applies to sections where the
change in strain is zero, i.e. equation (2) defines the force
associated with zero strain change from the as-installed
condition. The distinction is important here, since we are
considering cyclic loading of the pipeline. The change in fully
constrained force associated with an unload event is therefore
given by
ΔP = −(p 2 − p 1 ) ⋅ A i ⋅ (1 − 2 ⋅ ν ) − E ⋅ A s ⋅ α ⋅ (θ 2 − θ 1 ) (3)
Where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to conditions before and
after the operating change.
An important consideration in pipeline walking assessment
is the level of axial constraint during start-up and shutdown
cycling. This can range from a condition of ‘full cyclic
constraint’ where no axial displacement occurs over a portion
of the pipeline, to ‘fully mobilized’ where axial displacement
occurs along the full length of the pipeline; there is also an
intermediate condition of ‘cyclic constraint’. Each of these
conditions is described in the following figures.
A typical force profile envelope for a fully mobilized
‘short’ pipeline is illustrated in Figure 1.
S illustrated in Figure 3.
f
fL
Effective Axial Force
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Cooldown
Heatup Length (x/L)
Fully Constrained Force
Figure 1 - Force Profile Envelope for a Fully Mobilized Pipeline
(f/f* <1)
Figure 1 shows the force profiles in the fully heated
position and the cool-down position. The slope of the force
profiles is defined by the axial friction force, f=μ·W. The
change in fully-constrained force, as defined by equation (3),
is also showni. For a pipeline to be fully-mobilized on load
and unload the change in fully constrained force (∆P) must
exceed the height of the force envelope defined by axial
(1) friction (f·L). The condition under which cyclic constraint
occurs can be expressed in terms of a constraint friction, f*:
ΔP
f* = (4)
L
If the friction force is less than f* then the pipeline is fully
mobilized (i.e. for f/f*<1). This definition of a ‘short’ pipeline
is fundamental, as such lines are the most susceptible to pipe
walking.
The force profiles change significantly when a pipeline is
(2)
long enough for a section of the line to become fully
constrained, as illustrated in Figure 2.
S
Effective Axial Force
ΔP
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ΔP
f
P
Cooldown Length (x/L)
Fully Constrained Force
Heatup
Figure 2 – Force Profile Envelope for Pipeline Reaching Full
Constraint (f/f*>2)
Figure 2 shows how the fully-constrained force is
insufficient to mobilize axial friction along the full length of
the pipeline; for a pipeline to reach full-constraint on first load
f/f*>2. A fully constrained section will prevent walking unless
the gradient of the thermal transient is extremely high.
There is an intermediate case in which the fully
constrained force is sufficient to overcome friction on first
load but insufficient to overcome friction on cool-down, as
0.8 1
ΔP
i
For simplicity the figure shows the fully constrained force to
be constant along the length. In general this will reduce with
falling operating conditions. The change in fully constrained
force (ΔP) assumes zero effective force following installation.
OTC 17945 3

cool-down. The slope of the profile indicates the direction of

S
f movement, since it acts to resist movement. This implies that
between A and B the pipeline expands towards the SCR on
heat-up and contracts towards the SCR on cool-down. Outside
Effective Axial Force

0 0.2 0.4 Δ P 0.6 0.8 1

this region (O-A and B-L) the force profile reverses between
heat-up and cool-down, therefore expansion and contraction
ΔP are equal. The overall global displacement of the pipeline is
f L/2
therefore governed by the central section (A-B), which causes
the whole pipeline to displace towards the SCR with each
P start-up and shutdown cycle.
Cooldown Length (x/L)
Heatup Analytic Model – SCR
Fully Constrained Force
Based upon the walking mechanism outlined above simple
Figure 3 - Force Profile Envelope for a Cyclically Constrained
Pipeline (1<f/f*<2)
equations describing the ‘walk’ per cycle can be developed.
The length between the virtual anchors Xab can be calculated
For the cyclically constrained case in Figure 3 the walking by:
behavior depends upon how close the system is to reaching
full constraint. If the system only just reaches cyclic SR
X ab = (5)
constraint then the walking will be similar to that of the short f
pipeline. However, as the friction increases the response will
tend towards constrained behavior. On start-up the change in force in the pipeline over the
length Xab is:
Pipeline Walking – SCRs ΔS f = S R − L ⋅ f (6)
In deepwater field developments, it is common for pipelines to
be tied into the reception facilities by a SCR. The design of The change in axial strain is related to the force change
the SCR is such that it pulls the pipeline into tension at the by:-
SCR touch down zone. The introduction of a constant tension
( ΔS − ΔP )
at the end of the pipeline can cause a short pipeline to walk Δε = (7)
when it is heated and cooled. This assumes that there is EA
sufficient axial friction along the pipeline for it to be axially
So the incremental distance walked per cycle can be
stable under the highest axial riser tension.
obtained by integration as:
The force profile envelope for a fully mobilized pipeline
attached to an SCR at the cold end is shown in Figure 4. ( ΔS f − ΔP ) ⋅ X ab
ΔR = (8)
B'
EA
S
A' Equations (5) to (7) are combined to define the walk per
cycle due to SCR tension as:
Effective Axial Force

Sr
( ΔP + S R − f ⋅ L ) ⋅ S R
ΔR = (9)
O
L EA ⋅ f
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

FEA Validation - SCR

B
The analytic model described above has been validated
A against pipe walking FE models. A 2 km model has been used
Direction of Movement Cooldown for the validation. Two riser tensions have been considered,
Length (x/L) Full Temperature
100 kN and 500 kN, the tensions have been applied at the hot
Figure 4 - Force Profile – SCR at Cold End and cold end of the pipeline. The walking per cycle from each
The SCR applies a constant tension Sr, shown on the right of the validation cases is presented in Figure 5.
of Figure 4. In practice, this tension will fluctuate with motion
of the FPS (floating production system) and to a lesser extent
with pipeline end expansion. It is considered safe to assume
that dynamic (short time scale) tension fluctuations can be
ignored, as the duration of cool-down and start-up operations
are expected to last several hours.
The presence of a tension at the end of the pipeline causes
asymmetry in the force profile, with the operational virtual
anchor (A) located further from the riser and the shutdown
anchor (B’) closer to the riser. Between virtual anchors (A-B)
the slope of the force profile remains the same on heat-up and
4 OTC 17945

Analytic Results
FEA results
Pipeline Walking (m/cycle)
slope of the force profile remains the same on heat-up and
2.5 Walking Towards cool-down, indicating that the pipeline expands downhill
Cold End
2.0 towards B on heat-up and contracts downhill towards B on
1.5 cool-down. As for the SCR, the overall global displacement

1.0 of the pipeline is therefore governed by the central section (A-

0.5 B), which causes the whole pipeline to displace downhill,
0.0
towards the cold endii.
-600 -400 -200 -0.5 0 200 400 600
-1.0
Analytic Model – Seabed Slope
-1.5
-2.0
The length between the virtual anchors Xab can be
-2.5
calculated by:
SCR at Cold End SCR at Hot End
Riser Tension L tan φ
X ab = (10)
Figure 5 - Walking with SCR – Validation Case μ
Walking due to SCR tension will cease if the friction
restraint is sufficient to cause cyclic constraint, i.e. f/f*>1 (as The change in force in the pipeline over the length Xab is
shown in Figure 3). given by:
ΔS s = − WL(μ cos φ − sin φ ) (11)
Pipeline Walking – Seabed Slopes
Seabed slope along the route can cause walking each time the Based on these definitions and equation (7) the walk per
pipeline is heated and cooled. cycle due to seabed slope is:
For this assessment, a pipeline is laid on a seabed with a
Δφ =
[ΔP + W ⋅ L ⋅ sin(φ ) − W ⋅ L ⋅ μ ⋅ cos(φ )]⋅ L ⋅ tan (φ ) (12)
constant slope φ, where the slope is positive for a seabed
EA ⋅ μ
sloping down from the inlet and negative for a seabed sloping
up from the inlet, as shown in Figure 6.
Inlet Outlet FEA Validation – Seabed Slope
(+) angle The analytic model described above has been validated against
the pipe walking FE models. Three seabed slopes have been
φ considered, 1°, 2° and 5° up and down from the inlet. The
Figure 6 – Seabed Slope Sign Convention
walking per cycle from each of the validation cases are
presented in Figure 8.
In this case there is a component of the pipeline weight
which acts in the direction of expansion. When the pipe Analytic Results 0.20
expands up the slope this acts against the expansion and when FEA results
0.15
the pipe expands down the slope this acts with the expansion.
This is similar to modifying the friction coefficient in the two 0.10
Pipeline Walking (m)

directions and the presence of a seabed slope causes an 0.05

asymmetry in the pipeline force profile. This affects the shape Slope Angle (°)
0.00
of the force envelope in a similar manner as the SCR tension.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
The asymmetric force profile envelope for this slope is shown -0.05
in Figure 7. -0.10

S A' B'
-0.15
Up from Inlet Down from Inlet
-0.20
Effective Axial Force

Figure 8 - Walking with Slope – Validation Case

O L Walking due to seabed slope will cease if the friction
restraint is sufficient to cause cyclic constraint, i.e. f/f*>1 (as
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 shown in Figure 3).

μWcosφ +Wsinφ μWcosφ -Wsinφ

A B
Direction of Movement Cooldown iiOutside this region (O-A and B-L) the force profile reverses
Length (x/L) Full Temperature
between heat-up and cool-down. Since the friction force is
Figure 7 - Force profile – Sloping Seabed different up and down the slope there will be a slightly
For a pipeline that slopes downwards from the inlet, the different expansion over these sections. This effect will only
hot anchor (A) is located closer to the hot end and the cold be significant on steep slopes.
anchor (B’) closer to the cold end. Between anchors (A-B) the
OTC 17945 5

Pipeline Walking – Thermal Transients 1

0.9

Thermal Loading and Transients 0.8

Temperature (t/Tmax)
0.7
An important consideration in pipeline walking
0.6
assessments is the direction of flow and the resultant transients
0.5
that occur. It is usual to consider the so-called ‘hot end’ of the 0.4
pipeline to be closest to the wellhead, or manifold, while the 0.3
‘cold end’ is at the reception facility or riser. It will be shown 0.2
that the direction of walking at restart, under thermal transient 0.1
loading is generally towards the cold end of the pipeline. 0
Cooling usually occurs after the pipeline is shut-in, as the 0 0.25 0.5
Length (x/L)
0.75 1

whole system gradually cools to ambient conditions without

Figure 10 - Example Thermal Transients
thermal transient loading. For this reason, walking generally
occurs on start-up but there is no reversal of walking on cool The linear transients exhibit a constant gradient along the
down. However, many field developments include shutdown pipeline until the full steady state profile is reached. The
and start-up operations that require the contents of the flowline transients cause the pipeline to expand, resulting in a force
to be displaced by dead oil to control hydrate formation. For profile on first load as shown in Figure 11.
such systems, hot oil is usually introduced at start-up to warm
the flowline before bringing in flow from the well. Under S
these conditions, the hot and cold ends of the flowline can be
reversed. This is particularly relevant to pipeline walking, as
the steepest thermal transients that drive the walking
Effective Axial Force
Cooldown
phenomenon usually occur during initial heating, or sudden
cooling of the line.
The key to the phenomenon is shape of the thermal profile 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

developed over time as the pipeline heats-up. A typical set of

heat-up thermal transients is presented in Figure 9. Heatup

1
15
0.9 14 Length (x/L)
0.8 13
Temperature (t/Tmax)

12
0.7 Figure 11 - Example Force Profiles – First Heat-up
11
0.6 10 The profile shows the first heating and cool-down cycle for
9
0.5 Heating steps
8 the pipeline from its as installed positioniv. The compressive
0.4 7 axial force gradually builds up in the line as the pipeline heats
0.3 6
5 and more pipe is mobilized. When the pipeline becomes fully
0.2 4
0.1 2
3 mobilized a virtual anchor forms at mid-line and the pipeline
1
0
expands from this point towards the hot and cold ends.
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 When cooled globally, the pipeline contracts about the
Distance (x/L)
virtual anchor at mid-line. Cooling causes the pipeline to go
Figure 9 - Typical Thermal Transients into effective axial tension (shown as blue). On the second
The hot fluid enters the pipeline at ‘0’ hereafter called the and subsequent heating cycles, the force in the pipeline builds
‘hot end’. As hot fluids enter the cold pipeline, heat is lost to up in a modified manner because of the residual axial tension
the surrounding seawater and the fluid quickly cools to developed in the pipeline on cool-down (see Figure 12).
ambient temperature. With time, the pipeline gradually warms
until hot fluid is discharged at the far end of the line. Walking Mechanism
Previous investigations[2,3] have shown that the steepness Pipeline walking occurs over each thermal cycle; although
of the thermal transients is the key driver behind walking walking occurs on first cycle, it is the second and subsequent
behavior. The early stages of the heat up, before the cold end cycles which dominate the process. Therefore, the second
of the pipeline rises above ambient (before step 9 in Figure 9), load response of the pipeline is considered in detail to
are key. understand the walking mechanism.
To examine this phenomena analytically a set of simplified
linear transient temperature profilesiii were used, as shown in
Figure 10. throughout this paper.
iv These profiles do not include a change in pressure; this
iii
More complex thermal profiles could be used, but these would tend to reduce the walking. However, it is quite normal
complicate the interpretation of the phenomena. Linear for shutdowns to occur with relatively small changes in
profiles capture the basic physical response and are used pressure.
6 OTC 17945

The walking mechanism under thermal transient loading is
understood by examining the relationship between the thermal
transient, the force profile and the displacement of the pipeline
at individual time steps during the heat-up process.
Heat-up
If we consider Figure 10, the first transient from heat-up
only heats 15% of the pipeline, the remaining 85% is cold.
This decay in temperature causes non-uniform expansion of
the pipeline. The associated force profile during heating
(following a full cooldown) is shown in Figure 12.
S Location of
B1
As the pipeline heats up the non uniform expansion is
evident. Pipe close to the hot end of the line tends to expand
towards the hot end whilst the remainder of the line moves
towards the cold end. As the pipeline continues to heat-up the
cumulative displacement increases and peaks at the centre
when the pipeline becomes fully mobilized. Once the pipeline
has become fully mobilized, the subsequent expansion is
centered on the mid-line virtual anchor point. The cumulative
expansion following full mobilization is shown in Figure 14.
200 Full Temperature (4) Continued
Heating (3)
Virtual Anchor B 150

Cumulative Displacement (m)

B2
B3 Cold End
B4 100 Full Mobilization (1) Expansion (2)
B5
Effective Axial Force

B6
B7 50
O

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
L 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A1
A2 -50
A3
A4
A5 -100
Location of
A6 Length (x/L)
Virtual Anchor A A7
Length (x/L) Figure 14 - Pipeline Expansion Following Full Mobilization.

Figure 12 - Example Force Profiles – Second Heat-up Once full mobilization has occurred (the blue line in
Figure 14, is the same as in Figure 13) the cold end begins to
As the pipeline heats up and starts to expand at the hot end,
expand as the temperature continues to rise. In this particular
a virtual anchor forms (at A1) and expansion occurs towards
example the end expansion at full load is about 1100mm; the
the hot end between O and A1. In order to maintain force
figure is truncated to focus on the walking displacement.
equilibrium a second virtual anchor must form (at B1) and
Because of the expansion asymmetry earlier in the heat-up
between the virtual anchors the expansion is towards the cold
cycle, the middle of the pipeline has moved towards the cold
end. Downstream of virtual anchor B1, the pipeline has not
end (in this case by 45 mm). This displacement is the ‘walk’.
been mobilized, therefore there is no change in force along
Once full mobilization occurs, the midline remains stationary
this section of pipe. As the pipeline continues to heat-up the
and walking stops for the remainder of the heat-up cycle.
locations of the virtual anchors change, the hot anchor (A1)
tends towards the mid-line (A1….A7), whilst the cold anchor
tends towards the cold end. Cooldown
The effect of the transients on the movement of the When the pipeline cools, it typically does so at a uniform
pipeline can be understood by considering the cumulative rate along the whole line, this leads to contraction about the
displacement through each time increment. Figure 13 presents mid-line virtual anchor point. The force profile during unload
the cumulative displacement of the pipeline during the start of is presented in Figure 15.
a typical heat-up cycle, from cool-down (with all
displacements set to zero) to the point of full mobilization. 2nd Unload
S

50 Full Mobilization (1)

40
Effective Axial Force
Cumulative Displacement (mm)

30
O L
20

10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0
-10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-20
-30 2nd Load
-40 Length (x/L)

-50 Figure 15 - Force Profile – Unload

Length (x/L)
The pipeline unloads symmetrically about the centre of the
Figure 13 - Cumulative Displacement – Prior to Full Mobilization pipeline. The cumulative displacement of the pipeline from
one unload to the next unload is presented in Figure 16.
OTC 17945 7

steps of xA. An arbitrary stage in the heat-up is considered;

200 Full Temperature (4)
the temperature and force profiles are shown in Figure 18.
150 Continued θ -θ w L
Cumulative Displacement (mm)

Heating (3)
xθk
100 Unload (5)
Temperature Profile
50
qθ
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-50

Force Profile 1st Load

-100 S
Profile for xθ
Length (x/L) f
Unload
Figure 16 - Pipeline Movement Following Unload.
Because the pipeline cools uniformly along its length,
there is no reversal of the displacement at the pipeline centre,
i.e. the global shift of the centre is not recovered. When the
pipeline is re-heated, the process starts again. The transients
L/2
cause asymmetric expansion along the length of the pipeline, k·xA L/2-k·xA

the mid point moves towards the cold end, full mobilization
occurs and the mid-line becomes an anchor, on cool-down the
pipe contracts equally about the midline anchor. So with each Figure 18 – Force and Thermal Profiles
cycle, the pipeline walks towards the cold end. At this stage in the heat up the hot anchor point is at a
The displacement of the centre of the pipeline over five position k·xA and the temperature is above ambient for a
heat-up/cool-down cycles is presented in Figure 17. distance xθk. By considering the force change as k increases to
k+1, equations for the strain and displacement change along
250 the pipeline can be developed. These equations have one
unknown, the length of heat-up xθk. Imposing the condition
that the displacement at the anchor points is zero yields
Mid-Line Displacement (mm)

200

2 ⋅ f ⋅ x A ⋅ (L − x A )
150 x θk = k ⋅ x A + (k ⋅ x A − x θk − 1 )
2
+
fθ
(13)

100
To start the analysis the thermal transient is taken at the
Walk per cycle location of the anchor point, i.e. x θ0 = x A . Once the x θk are
50 known the displacement at the centre of the line is then given
by:-
2
0 fx A L
⋅ (2k − 1) x θk ≤
0 1 2 3 4 5 EA 2
Load Cycle Number 2
⎛ L⎞
f ⋅⎜ x − ⎟
Figure 17 - Mid-line Displacement for 5 Load Cycles
2
fx A ⋅ (2 k − 1) θ ⎝ θk 2 ⎠ L
Δw k = − x θk − 1 < ≤ x θk
EA 2 EA 2
Analytic Model –Thermal Transients 2
fx A
−
(( 2
) (
⋅ (2 k − 1) fθ ⋅ L x θk − 1 − x θk + x θk − x θk − 1
2
)) x θk − 1 >
L
The analytical model considers a simplified approach to
EA 2EA 2
the walking problem with the following key assumptions:
• Linear transient temperature profiles, with constant
gradient throughout heat-up; And the total walk is given by:-
• No pressure variation is included (pressure = 0); Δ T = ∑ Δw k (15)
• Axial friction mobilization displacement not modeled; k
• Pipe is fully mobilized (‘short’); f/f*<1;
• Axial friction force less than the force associated with the When a sufficient number of increments are considered,
thermal gradient (f<fθ = EAα qθ); the solution shows good agreement with the FEA, as
• Considers second and subsequent heat-ups only. illustrated in Figure 19.
An incremental solution is developed in which the position
of the hot anchor point is allowed to move from the inlet to the
centre of the pipeline (after which walking ceases) in k equal
8 OTC 17945

FEA Results pipeline walk versus friction force for the three thermal
50 Approximate Solution
Incremental Solution
gradient cases. The results are presented for the FEA and
45
analytic models.
40
Walk Per Cycle (mm)

35 30°C/km - FEA
50 20°C/km - FEA
30 10°C/km - FEA
45
25 30°C/km - Incremental Solution
40 20°C/km - Incremental Solution

Walk Per Cycle (mm)

20
35 10°C/km - Incremental Solution
15 Analytic Solution 30
10 Valid Range
25
5 20
0 15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 10
f/f*
5
Figure 19 - Analytic Model Validation 0
The figure presents the walk as a function of the axial 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f/f*
friction force; this is normalized against the constraint friction,
f*. The walking rate is low for very low axial friction because Figure 20 - Effect of Thermal Gradient – 2km Pipeline
the pipeline becomes fully mobilized before much of the The amount of walking per cycle is strongly dependant on
transient has passed along the pipeline. The peak walking the gradient of the thermal transients. Indeed, the peak
occurs when the pipeline reaches full-mobilization close to pipeline walk is a linear function of the transient slope, i.e. the
when the transient reaches the cold end of the pipeline. peak displacement of the 30°C/km is 3 times that of the
The analytic model can be used to accurately predict the 10°C/km case.
rate of walking over its range of validity. The range is shown
in Figure 19 and the limit can be calculated using Equation 16. Effect of Pipeline Length
From the approximate analytic solution the peak walk per
fθ
≥ 1.5 (16) cycle is proportional to the pipeline length squared. The
f relationship is illustrated in Figure 21 for two pipeline lengths
The figure also shows the predictions of a simpler and a transient slope of 30°C/km.
approximate solution for the distance walked per cycle, which 200 FEA - 2 km
Fully mobilised FEA - 4 km
is given by: 180
Approximate Solution - 2 km
160
f ⋅ L2 ⎛⎜ ⎞ Approximate Solution - 4 km
Walk Per Cycle (mm)

f f f
ΔT ≅ 24 ⋅ θ − θ − 4 ⎟ if f > θ 140
16 ⋅ EA ⎜⎝ f f ⎟
⎠ 6 120
100 Thermal transient
80 =30 ºC /km
f ⋅ L2 fθ
ΔT ≅ if f < (17) 60
8 ⋅ EA 6 40
20
The walk per cycle varies with the friction force, f, and 0
there is a given friction force at which the rate of walking 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
peaks, as defined in Equation 18: f/f*

3 Figure 21 - Effect of Pipeline Length on Walking

fmax = ⋅ fθ
8 The FEA results confirm the relationship between length
The results from the approximate solution show reasonably
good agreement with the FEA.
The model development assumes that the transients exhibit
a constant gradient along the pipeline until the full steady state
profile is reached. In reality the gradient reduces as the pipe
heats up (Figure 9). The incremental solution can be used
with a changing thermal transient gradient, as long as the
change in gradient over an increment is small.
Effect of Thermal Gradient
The thermal gradient applied to the flowline has a
significant effect on the rate of walking. To illustrate this
three thermal gradients have been considered with a 2 km
pipeline model, 10, 20 and 30°C/km. Figure 20 presents the
(18)
and walk. However, as the length of the pipeline increases the
likelihood of reaching a position of constraint increases, which
modifies the behavior.
Behavior of Constrained Pipelines
Pipeline walking is known to occur in ‘short’ (fully
mobilized) pipelines. If the thermal gradient is steep enough
then walking can also persist through a section of full
constraint. The response is controlled by the ratio of the
thermal transient gradient force to the friction force, fθ/f. If
fθ/f> 1 then walking can persist even though the pipeline is
fully constrained at its centre, as illustrated in Figure 22.
OTC 17945 9

Fully Mobilised Cyclic Constraint

First Load reason can be illustrated by considering the 20 mm
Constraint mobilization displacement case, Figure 24.
450 fθ/f*=1.13 100
400 fθ/f*=1.51 20mm Mobilisation
90
350 fθ/f*=1.89

Mid Line Displacement (mm)

fθ/f*=2.26 80
Walk (mm/cycle)

300 fθ/f*=2.64 70
250
Analytic 60
200 FEA 50
150 Peak Displacement Elastic Recovery
40
100
30
Permanent Walk
50 20
0 10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 f/f* 2.5 3 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 22 - Walking Limits – Analytic and FEA model comparison Load Cycle

For a pipeline with a significant fully constrained length Figure 24 - Mid-Line Walk 20mm Mobilization displacement
(f/f* >3) the rate of walking is given by:- The figure shows that the mid line displacement reaches a
peak followed by a reduction from that peak. The reduction is
ΔP 2 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
ΔT = ⋅⎜ − ⎟ (19) termed the ‘elastic recovery’ of the soil and its magnitude is
2 ⋅ EA ⎜⎝ f fθ ⎟⎠ very close to that of the mobilization displacement of the soil.
For most pipelines this is unlikely to be a practical problem In this assessment the FEA assumes that the mobilisation
and full constraint will arrest walkingv. In the example displacement is wholly elastic, in reality this may not be the
considered in Figure 22 a gradient of 60ºC/km is required to case. Clearly the selection of mobilization displacement is
continue the walk through the constrained section. critical when performing a walking analysis using FEA.

Effect of Mobilization Displacement Effect of Internal Pressure

The amount by which a pipeline will walk is also affected The model outlined above is based on temperature loading
by the axial friction mobilization displacement. The only. Changes in internal pressure ahead of thermal loading
mobilization displacement is defined as the amount of axial will cause a degree of mobilization of the pipeline before the
elastic displacement that occurs before the full friction force is thermal transients pass, and will reduce the walk associated
generated. To illustrate this, a 2 km pipeline with a thermal with the thermal transients. This is illustrated in Figure 25.
transient gradient 30°C/km and a friction force of 300 N/m is S
Cooldown

considered. Pressure only

Full Temperature
Figure 23 presents the movement of the mid-line over five
load cycles for a range of mobilization displacements from Apply Internal
Effective Axial Force

0.1 mm to 20 mm. Pressure

0.1mm Mobilisation
200
5mm Mobilisation 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
180
10mm Mobilisation
Mid Line Displacement (mm)

160
20mm Mobilisation
140
120 Transient
100 Heat-up
Length (x/L)
80
60 Figure 25 - Force Profile Including Pressure Step
40
The effect of pressure can be incorporated into the models
20
by defining a reduced effective length over which the
0
transients act. However, in many cases the difference between
0 1 2 3 4 5
Load Cycle operating pressure and shut-in pressure is small, thus pressure
Figure 23 - Effect of Mobilization Displacement on Walking will have limited benefit in reducing walking. In addition, if
The walking displacement is reduced as the axial the pipeline has been depressurized, it is usual to increase
mobilization displacement increases; the peak walk per cycle pressure after heating has commenced to control hydrate
occurs when the mobilization displacement is close to zero formation; so that mitigating the rate of pipeline walking by
(this is the condition addressed by the analytic model). The pressurization ahead of heating is usually unacceptable for
operational reasons.

v This observation may not hold true in XHPHT Combined Loading

developments. Walking can be driven by each of the three mechanism
discussed above. For many pipelines more than one
10
mechanism may be active. In this case the mechanisms can
add to increase the rate of walking, or subtract to reduce it.
For example if the SCR is attached at the top of a slope it will
act to reduce the slope induced downhill movement. For
systems in which more than one mechanism is active, the
analytic models derived here can be used in isolation and then
combined to provide an estimate of the overall walk.
Implications for Field Architecture
Pipeline walking is an important phenomenon that can
threaten the integrity of a pipeline system. The severity of the
phenomena increases as the operating conditions become more
severe. As operating temperatures increase pipelines become
more susceptible to walking and the walking magnitude with
each cycle increases.
Shutdown and start-up cycles that lead to pipe-walking
may require some form of mitigation if, over a number of
cycles, this movement would lead to excessive global axial
displacement of the pipeline. Axial displacement is excessive
if it compromises the design of pipeline end terminations, in-
line connections or riser configurations. To illustrate how
serious an issue pipeline walking can be Table 1 presents the
walk associated with different drivers for an 8-inch surface
laid pipeline operating at 110ºC, that is subjected to 200 full
start-up-shutdown cycles over its lifetime.
Length Driver Walk/cycle Walk/Life
2km 10°C/km transient 15 mm 3m
2km 30°C/km transient 45 mm 9m
4km 30°C/km transient 180 mm 36 m
2km 100kN SCR tension 350 mm 70 m
2km 5° Slope 170 mm 34 m
Table 1 – Example Walking Results
In each of these examples the walk per cycle can appear to
be small but considered over the entire field life, the total axial
displacement can become excessive.
The most common method of mitigation is the installation
of flowline anchors to control or limit the maximum axial
displacement. The size of such anchors can be significant,
typically being in the range of 50 to 350 tonnes. Provision for
anchoring is important to address in the layout of multiple
flowline end terminations at a manifold.
End of line anchors are generally considered simpler to
install than a mid-line anchor. A unidirectional anchor is
preferred to a fixed anchor, as this reduces the required anchor
capacity by allowing thermal expansion towards the anchor
whilst limiting excessive walking displacement away from the
anchor. This configuration also avoids increasing compressive
loads in any lateral buckles along the pipeline. Anchor design
capacity can be further reduced by incorporating anchor
flexibility in the analysis and the anchor size can possibly be
reduced by designing the anchors to sustain loading only
during relatively infrequent pipeline shutdowns. Anchor loads
and walking susceptibility can be also moderated by
increasing pipe weight but this approach is case specific.
OTC 17945
A major concern raised by the use of holdback anchors to
control pipe walking, is the additional tension in the pipeline
generated at shutdown by the restraining anchors. The
concern is that tension in these pipelines could be sufficient to
cause lateral instability (ratcheting lateral displacement) of the
pipeline at a route-curve. Except for the shallowest of curves,
this instability can pullout the route-curve, allowing further
pipe to walk axially, until the curvature is small enough to be
laterally stable. The minimum stable radius of curvature may
be so large as to compromise field architecture. The tension
profiles, anchor loads and susceptibility of a pipeline to curve-
pullout should be addressed in front-end engineering design,
to ensure that field architecture is not compromised. In some
cases, it may be necessary to include a mid-line tie-in to
overcome route curve instability.
It is common now for high temperature pipelines to be
designed to buckle laterally on the seabed. Designing a long
pipeline to laterally buckle effectively splits the pipeline into a
number of shorter lines between buckles[3]. This is illustrated
in Figure 26.
S Buckled Pipe - Unload Straight Pipe - Unload
Buckled Pipe - Load Straight Pipe - Load
Effective Axial Force
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Length (x/L)
Virtual Anchor
Lateral Buckle
Figure 26 -Force Profile in Laterally Buckled Pipeline
The buckles effectively split a long pipeline, which may
not walk, into a series of shorter pipelines which could walk.
The analytic expressions can be used to quickly assess
whether walking may occur in a buckled pipeline by
modifying the effective pipeline length to match the spacing
between lateral buckles. The use of holdback anchors can
affect lateral buckling behavior and influence loading in the
lateral buckles. The interaction between lateral buckling and
pipeline walking is complex and requires the use of FEA to
investigate the phenomena fully.
Finally, the walking behavior is critically dependant upon
the axial friction force. In most situations decreasing the axial
friction results in an increased susceptibility to walking. It is
therefore crucial to select a suitable range of axial friction
coefficients at the design stage. It is common practice to
define very low lower bound axial friction coefficients; this is
particularly true in soft clays where axial friction coefficients
of 0.2 are regularly employed. For such low friction
coefficients, full mobilization will occur for very long lengths
of pipe and the walking mechanisms outlined here will all be
active.
However, recent work carried out by the SAFEBUCK JIP
suggests that the axial friction that develops in practice is very
unlikely to be this low. Selecting a more appropriate lower
OTC 17945 11

bound can fundamentally modify the severity of the walking pe External Pressure (Pa)
problem.
P Fully Constrained Effective Force (N)

Conclusions ΔP Change in Fully Constrained Force (N)

This study has determined the key parameters that effect qθ Thermal gradient (°C/m)
pipeline walking and developed some simple analytic S Effective Axial Force (N)
equations for use in conceptual design, to assess the likelihood SL Residual Lay Tension (N)
of walking occurring. SR SCR Tension (N)
The key parameters that affect walking are: Sw Axial Wall Force (N)
• Axial pipe-soil friction;
• Gradient of the thermal transients; ΔS Change in Effective Axial Force (N)
• Steady state operating conditions, which defines the range ΔS f Change in Effective Axial Force over Xab (SCR) (N)
of effective force; ΔS s Change in Effective Axial Force over Xab (Slope) (N)
• Seabed slope; W Submerged Unit Weight (N/m)
• Tension at the flowline end due to a SCR.
Xab Distance between virtual anchors (m)
This phenomenon can massively complicate the design of
deep water flowlines and has significantly impacted field α Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (1/°C)
layouts on a number of recent projects. ΔR Total Walk per cycle due to SCR Tension (m)
Δφ Total Walk per cycle due to Seabed Slope (m)
Acknowledgements ΔT Total Walk per cycle due to Thermal Transients (m)
The authors would like to thank the participants in the
ε Axial Strain
SAFEBUCK JIP. BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Petrobras
and Shell, as well as the US Government through the MMS φ Seabed Slope (°)
participated in Phase I, while installation contractors and θ Operating Temperature (°C)
suppliers were represented by Allseas, JFE-Metal One,
θinst Installation Temperature (°C)
Technip and Tenaris. Additional participants including
Chevron, Statoil and Stolt Offshore have joined Phase II, μ Axial Friction Coefficient
which will run through 2005 and 2006. ν Poisson’s Ratio

Abbreviations References
1. Konuk, I. “Expansion of Pipelines under Cyclic
FEA Finite Element Analysis Operational Conditions” OMAE 1998.
2. Tornes, K., Jury, J., Ose, B., Thompson. “Axial Creeping of
FPS Floating Production System
High Temperature Flowlines Caused By Soil Ratcheting”
JIP Joint Industry Project OMAE 2000.
SCR Steel Catenary Riser 3. Carr M., Bruton, D. and Leslie, D. “Lateral Buckling and
XHPHT Extreme High-pressure High-temperature Pipeline Walking, a Challenge for Hot Pipelines” Offshore
Pipeline Technology Conference, Amsterdam. 2003.

Nomenclature

Ae Cross sectional area of Pipe OD (m2)

Ai Cross sectional area of Pipe ID (bore) (m2)
As Cross sectional area of Pipe wall (m2)
E Youngs Modulus (N/m2)
EA Axial Stiffness (N)
f Axial Friction force f=μW (N/m)
fθ Force generated by the thermal transient EAαqθ
(N/m)
f* Friction force at which cyclic constraint occurs
(N/m)
fmax Friction force at which max walk occurs (N/m)
L Pipeline Length (m)
pi Internal Pressure (Pa)