SPE-176400-MS

A Novel Approach to Determine Minimum Riser Top Tension Setting and

Comparison with Traditional Methodology – Analytical Case Study
Reena Thomas, Wood Group Kenny

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 20 –22 October 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
As the development of offshore hydrocarbon reserves extends into greater water depths, the drilling riser
requirements and limits have become more onerous due to harsh environmental conditions and uncer-
tainties involved in response prediction. The dynamic response of the vessel to environmental conditions
can significantly impact the response of the riser tensioner systems. In the case of deep-water drilling
applications, as per API RP 16Q, the riser string must always be in positive effective tension. However,
in the case of modern riser tensioner systems, which have non-linear stiffness and damping characteristics,
the effective tension in the riser can vary substantially as the tensioner strokes in response to vessel heave.
In order to accurately predict the loads on the riser using finite element analysis, the tensioner system has
to be accurately modeled in great detail.
This paper presents a comparative analysis of direct acting and wireline tensioner system responses for
a range of environments using a top tension setting calculated as per API RP 16Q. The detailed tensioner
model used for the analysis has been validated against manufacturer performance data for existing
in-service tensioner systems and includes the individual hydraulic and pneumatic components of the
tensioner system. A non-linear structural FE analysis tool is used to model the detailed tensioner model
as part of a drilling riser string.
The analysis results show that there are large percentage variations in the effective tension at a given
point along the riser. The dynamic tension variation displays an increasing trend as the heave velocity
increases. An alternate method to calculate the top tension setting and it’s impact on the minimum
effective tension along the riser string is discussed herein.
Introduction
Deepwater drilling is generally performed using a dynamically positioned vessel or floater. In such cases
a marine drilling riser is used to provide the temporary extension of the subsea oil well to the surface
drilling facility. A marine drilling riser is a sequence of buoyancy joints and slick joints connected to the
subsea well head at the bottom and the vessel at the top.
The schematic in Figure 1 illustrates a typical drilling riser stack-up. Although a single riser joint is a
fairly stiff construction but when put together for deep water drilling, the entire stack up has very low
global stiffness and depends on applied top tension to guarantee a straight riser column. Also, when
2 SPE-176400-MS

drilling operations are being conducted from dynamically positioned (DP) offshore drilling rigs, at times
it is necessary to perform an emergency disconnect of the riser system. This can occur due to rapid onset
of severe weather conditions or because of a failure of the DP system to keep the vessel on station, and
is necessary to avoid serious damage to the drilling riser and/or the well. During an emergency disconnect
scenario a certain amount of additional ⬙over pull⬙ is needed to keep the riser in tension and to ensure that
the LMRP lifts clear of the BOP. [1]

Figure 1—Drilling Riser Stack-up

The recommended industry practice for calculating minimum top tension settings for marine drilling
riser systems, API RP 16Q, states that a minimum tension setting is required to ensure stability of the riser.
The tension setting should be sufficiently high so that the effective tension in the riser is always positive
even if a tensioner should fail [3]. For normal operations, the top tension should be maintained at a safe
level, for example 50 kips to 100 kips, above the API minimum tension to allow for variations in tension
that can otherwise allow the riser tension to fall below the minimum top tension [4]. Modern riser
tensioner systems, have non-linear stiffness and damping characteristics, as a result of which the effective
tension in the riser can vary substantially as the tensioner strokes in response to vessel heave. In order to
accurately predict the loads on the riser, the tensioner system has to be accurately modeled in great detail.
This paper presents a case study that compares the responses of direct acting and wireline tensioner
systems’ to a range of environments using a top tension setting calculated as per API RP 16Q. A
non-linear structural FE analysis tool is used to model the drilling riser string. A detailed tensioner model
that has been validated against manufacturer performance data for existing in-service tensioner systems
and includes the individual hydraulic and pneumatic components of the tensioner system is used for the
analysis and is modeled as part of the drilling riser string.
SPE-176400-MS 3

Tensioner Systems
The required top tension is applied using hydro-pneumatic riser tensioner systems which are commonly
categorized into tension-style and ram-style tensioners [2]. The widely used tension-style tensioners are
the direct acting tensioners and wire line tensioners. Both systems rely on a number of large hydraulic
cylinders to develop the tension that is transmitted to the riser. The primary difference between the two
systems is the manner in which the tension is transmitted to the riser. In wireline tensioning systems, the
hydraulic cylinders are mounted remotely from the riser and an arrangement of steel cables and sheaves
is used to transmit the tension from the hydraulic cylinders to the riser. Direct acting (or in-line) tensioners
have the hydraulic cylinders mounted in line with, and connected directly to, the riser.
Both systems use a bank of Air Pressure Vessels (APVs) to pressurize a high pressure (HP) air/oil
accumulator that supplies hydraulic fluid to the HP side of the tensioner cylinder. In wireline tensioners,
the HP side of the tensioner cylinder is generally the blind end, while for direct acting tensioners it is
generally the rod end. The low pressure (LP) side of the tensioner cylinder is supplied with hydraulic fluid
from a LP air/oil accumulator or alternatively may contain a gas such as nitrogen fed from a LP gas
accumulator. Where the LP side is gas filled, a small amount of hydraulic fluid is normally retained within
the LP side of the tensioner cylinder to maintain the seal around the tensioner piston.
A flow shut-off or anti-recoil valve is generally fitted on the hydraulic line between the HP side of the
tensioner cylinder and the HP air/oil accumulator. The function of this valve is to restrict the flow of
hydraulic fluid to the tensioner cylinder in the event of an emergency situation, such as disconnect of the
riser at the LMRP, riser parting, or failure of a component such as a wireline. The valve is designed to
close automatically if the flow rate exceeds a certain preset value, thereby preventing the tensioner
cylinder from extending (in wireline systems) or retracting (in direct acting systems) too quickly. In
normal operation this valve is fully open. In the event of emergency disconnect at the LMRP, the flow
shut-off operation of the valve is normally over-ridden and the operation of the valve is controlled by an
anti-recoil control system. This control system is normally implemented using a programmable logic
controller (PLC). Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the main components of a single tensioner for a direct
acting tensioner system and wireline tensioner system respectively.

Figure 2—Direct Acting Drilling Riser Tensioner

4 SPE-176400-MS

Figure 3—Wireline Drilling Riser Tensioner

To simulate the behavior of the tensioner system in normal operation, it is necessary to model all of
the major hydraulic and pneumatic components. With reference to Figure 2 and Figure 3, the following
system variables (or degrees of freedom) are required for each tensioner:
1. HP Side Tensioner Cylinder Pressure
2. Hydraulic fluid flow rate from HP air/oil accumulator to HP side tensioner cylinder
3. HP air/oil accumulator pressure
4. Air flow rate from APVs to HP air/oil accumulator
5. APV pressure
6. LP side tensioner cylinder pressure
7. Flow rate from tensioner cylinder LP side to LP accumulator
8. LP accumulator pressure
The tensioner piston stroke and the various pressure and flow rate variables are related by a system of
simultaneous nonlinear differential equations. Each ⬙tensioning line⬙ is represented in the global FE model
of the drilling riser using a beam-column element. ⬙Tensioning line⬙ in this context means the component
of the tensioner through which the tension load is transmitted to the tension ring. For a wireline tensioner,
this is the part of the wireline running from the turndown sheaves to the tension ring. For a direct-acting
tensioner, it is the complete tensioner cylinder. The uppermost point on the tensioning line is connected
to the vessel by means of displacement boundary conditions that ensure that the top of the tensioning line
moves with the vessel. The lowermost point on the tensioning line is connected to the outer barrel of the
telescopic joint by means of an articulation element and a short ⬙stub⬙ element that represents the tension
ring. In the case of direct acting tensioners, the mass of the tensioner piston and rod is concentrated at the
lower node of the element representing the tensioning line.
At each time step of a dynamic analysis, the global equations of motion of the FE structural model are
solved iteratively. This is required to account for the nonlinear nature of the equilibrium equations and the
loading on the riser. The tensioner system model is called at each iteration of the overall global system
of equations. The tensioner system model solves the system of equations that relate the tensioner stroke
at the present iteration and the various pressure and flow rate variables listed previously. Because these
equations are themselves nonlinear, an iterative procedure is used to find the solution. Once this solution
has been found, the tensioner system model computes the effective axial stiffness, damping and force
terms for the beam-column element representing the tensioning line. These terms, which are computed
SPE-176400-MS 5

from the appropriate pressure and flow rate values, are then assembled into the global system of equations
for the FE structural model, which are then solved. This process is repeated until convergence is reached
and the solution proceeds to the next time step.
Case Study
In order to study the impact of dynamic tension variation a coupled riser analysis is performed considering
a riser stack up for 3000ft water depth and connected to a drill ship. The riser stack-up considered for the
analysis is detailed in Appendix A. Multiple cases are analyzed considering direct acting and wireline
tensioners individually. Two methodologies for top tension calculation are considered. The first meth-
odology is based on the API RP 16Q approach for top tension calculations and considers a range of sea
states with significant wave heights of 4m, 5m and 6m and peak periods from 8s to 12s for the analysis.
The second methodology is an iterative analysis approach, to determine top tension and accounts for the
impact of dynamic vessel motions on the riser as well as the minimum tension requirements as per API
RP 16Q.
API RP 16Q Approach
As per API RP 16Q / ISO 13624-1 Minimum Stability Tension Methodology, the minimum top tension,
Tmin, is determined by:
Eqn. 1

Where:
TSRmin Minimum slip ring tension
N Number of tensioners supporting the riser
n Number of tensioners subject to sudden failure
Rf Reduction factor relating vertical tension at the slip ring to tensioner setting to account for fleet
angle and mechanical efficiency (typically 0.9 – 0.95)
Eqn. 2

Where:
Ws Submerged riser weight above point of consideration
fwt Submerged steel weight tolerance factor
Bn Net lift of buoyancy material above the point of consideration
fbt Buoyancy loss and tolerance factor; resulting from elastic compression, long term water
absorption and manufacturing tolerance of the buoyancy modules.
Ai Internal cross sectional area of riser including auxiliary lines
␳m Drilling fluid density
Hm Drilling fluid column height to point of consideration
␳w Seawater density
Hw Seawater column height to point of consideration, including storm surge and tide
A submerged weight tolerance factor (fwt) is calculated based on the water depth. If the water depth
is less than 3000ft, a weight factor of 1.05 is used and for water depths greater than 10000ft, the weight
factor is calculated as shown in Eqn. 3.
Eqn. 3

Similarly, buoyed loss of 0.96 is used if the water depth is less than 3000ft and if the water depth is
greater than 3000ft the weight factor is calculated as shown in Eqn. 4.
Eqn. 4
6 SPE-176400-MS

The submerged riser weight and net buoyancy weight are factored to provide for a heavier riser system
to account for the fact that the riser equipment weights may not be known precisely, there may be loss
of buoyancy due to elastic compression or long term water absorption and the manufacturing tolerance.
A certain amount of over pull is also considered depending on the tensioner system type used for the
analysis. The following over pulls are considered based on the tensioner system type:
Wireline system – 75kips over pull at LMRP
DAT tensioner – 200kips over pull at LMRP
Hence,
Eqn. 5

Based on Equation 1 and accounting for one failed tensioner a minimum required top tension is
calculated for each of the tensioner systems. The calculated top tension is specific to the riser stack up
considered and for a mud weight of 16ppg.
A summary of the calculated top tension setting and factors used to calculate the same, is presented in
Table 1.

Table 1—API RP 16Q Top Tension Calculation

Tensioner Type Water Depth (ft) Mud Weight (ppg) Tmin (kips) N n Rf fWt fbt

DAT 3000 16 1361 6 1 0.95 1.03 0.97

WL 1275 16 2 0.95 1.03 0.97

A dynamic regular wave analysis is performed and the minimum tension at the bottom of the LMRP,
is determined. Table 2 and Table 3 show the minimum tension at the bottom of the LMRP for the wireline
and direct-acting tensioner cases respectively. For the wireline tensioner cases, the riser stack up does not
experience any compression at the LMRP for all seastates considered. However with direct acting
tensioner system case, the riser stack up experiences compression or very low tension at the LMRP for
the higher sea state cases.

Table 2—Minimum Tension Results _WL Tensioner System

Minimum Tension at Bottom of LMRP

Significant Wave Height, Hs Peak Period, Tp (sec)

m ft 8 9 10 11 12

4 13.1 163.3 150.a 141.8 142.7 138.7

5 16.4 155.5 135.5 133.0 129.8 127.7
6 19.7 145.1 127.2 126.4 121.2 118.3

Table 3—Minimum Tension Results _DAT System

Minimum Tension at Bottom of LMRP

Significant Wave Height, Hs Peak Period, Tp (sec)

m ft 8 9 10 11 12

4 13.1 241.5 199.2 159.2 144.8 124.2

5 16.4 220.3 156.9 95.3 78.4 47.0
6 19.7 196.6 109.8 20.5 2.0 ⫺41.9
SPE-176400-MS 7

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the tension variation range for the wireline and direct acting tensioner
system cases. The riser stack with a wireline tensioner system displays a lower tension variation range
than the riser stack with a direct acting tensioner system. A high tension variation range is a result of
increased tensioner strokes and amplitudes and indicates that a higher minimum top tension, than what is
considered, might be required to ensure riser stability. Compression at the LMRP is indicative of potential
issues with lifting clear from the BOP during an emergency disconnect situation. Also it indicates that the
top tension estimated by the existing methodology may not be adequate to keep the riser in tension at all
times for the direct acting tensioner cases.

Figure 4 —Tension Variation Range for Riser W/ Wireline Tensioner System

8 SPE-176400-MS

Figure 5—Tension Variation Range for Riser W/ DAT Tensioner System

Iterative Analysis Approach

This approach for determining top tension values takes into account the maximum connected sea state.
The maximum connected sea state will result in the largest vessel heave and hence the largest tensioner
stroke amplitude and velocity. As the riser must stay in tension for the most onerous connected scenario,
the maximum connected sea state is used for the analysis. In order to determine the extreme operating sea
state, wave scatter data for the Gulf of Mexico region, covering a 10 year period, is analyzed and the
corresponding heave amplitude calculated. Based on the heave amplitudes and percentage occurrence a
significant wave height and period is selected to perform the analysis. Table 4 presents the sample wave
spectrum data for the Gulf of Mexico region.
SPE-176400-MS 9

Table 4 —Sample wave spectrum data- GOM [6]

Based on the sample GOM scatter diagram shown in Table 4, a significant wave height of 5.5m and
peak period of 12 seconds is selected for defining the operational tension setting. The 5.5m wave height
corresponds to maximum heave amplitude of 1.24m and accounts for 99.9% of all wave occurrences and
thus is considered for the analysis.

Table 5—Heave Amplitude of total significant wave height versus spectral peak period- GOM
Heave Amplitude (m)

Hs (m) Tp (s) 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12

0–0.5 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

0.5–1 0 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.19 ⫺ ⫺
1–1.5 0 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.28 ⫺ ⫺
1.5–2 ⫺ 0.01 0.04 0.1 0.19 0.29 0.38 ⫺ ⫺
2–2.5 ⫺ ⫺ 0.05 0.13 0.24 0.36 0.47 0.53 ⫺
2.5–3 ⫺ ⫺ 0.06 0.16 0.29 0.44 0.57 0.64 ⫺
3–3.5 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ 0.33 0.51 0.66 0.75 ⫺
3.5–4 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ 0.38 0.58 0.76 0.85 ⫺
4–4.5 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ 0.43 0.65 0.85 0.96 ⫺
4.5–5 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ 0.95 1.07 1.24
5–5.5 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ 1.18 ⫺
5.5–6 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺
6–6.5 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

Dynamic analysis is performed for the aforementioned maximum connected (i.e. drilling riser attached
to the wellhead) sea state using an estimated initial top tension value. A detailed tensioner model for a
direct acting tensioner system and 16ppg mud are considered for the analysis. The minimum effective
tension in the riser is monitored and dynamic analysis is repeated by changing the top tension values until
10 SPE-176400-MS

the results show that the minimum effective tension is 0kips. The resulting tension is the minimum
dynamic top tension (TD,min). As with the API methodology, the top tension calculated by the iterative
analysis approach should also account for a failed tensioner and should be high enough to maintain certain
over pull on the LMRP. Hence, the recommended top tension is taken as the maximum of Equation 5 and
Equation 6.
Eqn. 5

Where:
N Number of tensioners supporting the riser
n Number of tensioners subject to sudden failure
Eqn. 6

Based on the iterative analysis a TD,min of 1033 kips yields a minimum effective tension of 0kips. To
account for a single failed tensioner, TD,min is factored as per Equation 5, resulting in a Tmin of 1181kips.
Equation 6 is used to account for an over pull of 100kips, resulting in a Toverpull of 1421kips. Since Toverpull
is higher than Tmin, 1421 kips is the recommended top tension for this case.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the effective tension at the base of the riser for an applied top tension
setting of 1421kips (based on iterative analysis) versus 1361 kips (based on API RP 16Q methodology)
for the Hs⫽5.5m and Tp⫽12s case.

Figure 6 —Effective Tension at the base of the Riser for Hsⴝ5.5m and Tpⴝ12s

Dynamic analysis was also run for the Hs⫽6m and Tp⫽12s case using 1421 kips as top tension.
Results show that the minimum tension at the base of the LMRP improved to 13.4 kips from -41.9kips.
SPE-176400-MS 11

Recoil Analysis Recoil Analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of the calculated minimum top
tension in a recoil scenario. Eight recoil simulations are performed; with disconnect occurring at different
points during the heave cycle as shown in Figure 7. The analyses were carried out with the times of
disconnect corresponding to the 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, and 315° phase points during the
heave cycle.

Figure 7—Riser Disconnect Scenarios

Recoil analysis results for the Hs⫽5.5m and Tp⫽12s using 1421 kips top tension show acceptable
recoil response. Results indicate that the minimum riser tension after disconnect is positive throughout for
all cases considered. Additionally, the minimum slip ring / outer barrel interface tension is positive and
there is sufficient LMRP clearance for all disconnect times considered.

Conclusions
Detailed modelling of tensioner systems to capture their stiffness and dynamic damping behavior is
critical to determining accurate global riser response. It allows for monitoring of dynamic tension
variations at all locations along the riser as the vessel heaves up and down in a sea state. Based on the
results presented herein, it is evident that although the top tension values estimated using API RP 16Q
takes into account the impact of a failed tensioner and the need to maintain over pull on the LMRP, it may
not be sufficient in an extreme sea state condition. An alternate method, which in addition to accounting
for a failed tensioner and the need to maintain over pull on the LMRP, also accounts for the heave velocity
of the vessel in an extreme sea state condition may be a practical approach to determine riser top tensions.

References
1 Lang, D. W., Real, J. and Lane, M., ⬙Recent Developments in Drilling Riser Disconnect and
Recoil Analysis for Deepwater Applications⬙, OMAE2009 –79427, Proceedings of 28th Interna-
tional Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, June 2009.
12 SPE-176400-MS

2 Yu, A., Cheng, Y., and Bhat, S., ⬙Evaluation of Key Hydraulic Tensioner Performance Param-
eters for Ultra Deep Water Applications⬙, Proceedings of the ASME 27th International Confer-
ence on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Portugal, June, OMAE 2008 –57465
3 API RP 16Q, ⬙Recommended Practice for Design, Selection, Operation and Maintenance of
Marine Drilling Riser Systems⬙, First Edition, November 1993.
4 ISO 13624 –1:2009, ⬙Design and Operation of Marine Drilling Riser Equipment⬙, December
2009
5 MCS, ⬙DeepRiser User’s Manual⬙, Version 2.5, June 2008.
6 ISO 19901, ⬙Specific equirements for offshore structures — Part 1: Metocean design and
operating considerations⬙, First Edition, November 2005.
SPE-176400-MS 13

APPENDIX A

Riser Stack-Up for 3000ft Water Depth

Component Weights Section Weights

Component Section In Water In Water

Description QTY Length [ft] Length [ft] In Air [kips] [kips] In Air [kips] [kips]

Wellhead Stickup 1 12.6 12.6 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

BOP 1 29.1 29.1 511.0 444.0 511.0 444.0
LMRP 1 18.6 18.6 331.0 288.0 331.0 288.0
LFJ1 1 ⫺ ⫺ 25.0 21.7 25.0 21.7
Riser Adapter 1 4.4 4.4 9.9 8.6 9.9 8.6
Slick Joint 21in ⫻ 8 90.0 720.0 38.0 32.5 304.1 260.2
0.9375in
2500ft Buoyancy 21in 22 90.0 1980.0 59.2 ⫺4.1 1302.8 ⫺90.3
⫻ 0.875in
Slick Joint 21in ⫻ 2 90.0 180.0 36.8 31.5 73.8 63.1
0.875in
10ft Pup Joint 21in ⫻ 1 10.0 10.0 8.6 7.5 8.6 7.5
0.9375in
TJ OB & Tension Ring 1 79.0 79.0 88.8 77.3 88.9 77.3
TJ Stroke (IB) 1 33.3 33.3 12.0 10.4 12.0 10.4
Diverter FJ 1 9.0 9.0 12.2 10.6 12.2 10.6
Diverter FJ to RKB 1 5.8 5.8 ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

1
Conversion factor is exact.