PETRONAS TECHNICAL STANDARDS

Pipeline / Trawl Gear Interaction

PTS 11.30.05
September 2013

© 2013 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form
or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the permission of the copyright
owner. PETRONAS Technical Standards are Company’s internal standards and meant for authorized users only.
 PTS 11.30.05
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 2 of 22

FOREWORD

PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS) has been developed based on the accumulated knowledge,
experience and best practices of the PETRONAS group supplementing National and International
standards where appropriate. The key objective of PTS is to ensure standard technical practice
across the PETRONAS group.

Compliance to PTS is compulsory for PETRONAS-operated facilities and Joint Ventures (JVs) where
PETRONAS has more than fifty percent (50%) shareholding and/or operational control, and includes
all phases of work activities.

Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers who use PTS are solely responsible in ensuring the quality of
work, goods and services meet the required design and engineering standards. In the case where
specific requirements are not covered in the PTS, it is the responsibility of the
Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers to propose other proven or internationally established
standards or practices of the same level of quality and integrity as reflected in the PTS.

In issuing and making the PTS available, PETRONAS is not making any warranty on the accuracy or
completeness of the information contained in PTS. The Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers shall
ensure accuracy and completeness of the PTS used for the intended design and engineering
requirement and shall inform the Owner for any conflicting requirement with other international
codes and technical standards before start of any work.

PETRONAS is the sole copyright holder of PTS. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, recording
or otherwise) or be disclosed by users to any company or person whomsoever, without the prior
written consent of PETRONAS.

The PTS shall be used exclusively for the authorised purpose. The users shall arrange for PTS to be
kept in safe custody and shall ensure its secrecy is maintained and provide satisfactory information
to PETRONAS that this requirement is met.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 3 of 22

ANNOUNCEMENT

Please be informed that the entire PTS inventory is currently undergoing transformation exercise
from 2013 - 2015 which includes revision to numbering system, format and content. As part of this
change, the PTS numbering system has been revised to 6-digit numbers and drawings, forms and
requisition to 7-digit numbers. All newly revised PTS will adopt this new numbering system, and
where required make reference to other PTS in its revised numbering to ensure consistency. Users
are requested to refer to PTS 00.01.01 (PTS Index) for mapping between old and revised PTS
numbers for clarity. For further inquiries, contact PTS administrator at
ptshelpdesk@petronas.com.my
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 4 of 22

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 5

1.1 SCOPE .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 GLOSSARY OF TERM ........................................................................................................ 5
1.3 SUMMARY OF CHANGES ................................................................................................. 6
2.0 TRAWLING AND FISHING STATISTICS ..................................................................... 7
2.1 TRAWLING AND TRAWL GEAR ........................................................................................ 7
2.2 FISHING STATISTICS......................................................................................................... 8
2.3 CROSSING FREQUENCY ................................................................................................... 8
2.4 TRAWL GEAR/PIPELINE INTERACTION ............................................................................ 9
3.0 IMPACT FOCES AND RESPONSE............................................................................ 10
3.1 IMPACT ENERGY ............................................................................................................ 10
3.2 COATING AND INSULATION .......................................................................................... 11
3.3 PIPELINE RESPONSE ...................................................................................................... 11
4.0 PILLOVER FORCES AND RESPONSE ....................................................................... 13
4.1 PULLOVER FORCE-TIME HISTORY ................................................................................. 13
4.2 TRAWL BOARD PULLOVER ............................................................................................ 13
4.3 BEAM TRAWL PULLOVER .............................................................................................. 16
4.4 SOIL RESISTANCE ........................................................................................................... 18
4.5 PIPELINE RESPONSE ...................................................................................................... 18
4.6 PULLOVER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA................................................................................ 20
5.0 HOOKING ............................................................................................................ 21
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 22
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 5 of 22

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This PTS provides the minimum technical requirements to be considered in the analysis of
pipeline to sustain trawl gear activities which may cause damage to the pipeline due to the
external impact loads.

1.1 SCOPE
1.1.1 This PTS covers design of submarine pipelines against trawl gear interaction loads. This
includes calculating the crossing frequency, impact forces and response, pipeline response,
pullover force and soil resistance of the pipeline following the interaction event.
1.1.2 This PTS is not applicable for onshore pipeline and deep water pipeline which have no
trawling activities.

1.2 GLOSSARY OF TERM

1.2.1 General Definition of Terms & Abbreviations
Refer to PTS Requirements, General Definition of Terms, Abbreviations & Reading Guide PTS
00.01.03 for General Definition of Terms & Abbreviations.
1.2.2 Specific Definition of Terms
No Terms Definitions
1 Beam shoe The two shoes attached at each end of a trawl beam, which provide the
connection points for the towing chains and the net.
2 Beam trawl The combined trawl beam and beam shoes assembly.
3 Denting Local deformations of the wall of the pipeline, primarily due to transient
loads at the moment of impact.
4 Hooking Trawl gear snagging on a pipeline preventing the passage of the trawl
gear.
5 Pullover Trawl gear movement over and past the pipeline, typically inducing loads
on the pipeline that last several seconds.
6 Sweep line The tow wires between each otter trawl board and the net.
7 Trawl beam The steel beam between the two beam shoes.
8 Trawl board The door beam between the two beam shoes.
9 Trawl gear The seabed equipment used for trawling. In the context of trawl
gear/pipeline interaction, this primarily constitutes the trawl beam and
the two beam shoes for beam trawling, and the two trawl boards for
otter trawling.
10 Warp line The tow wire connecting the trawler vessel to the seabed trawl board or
trawl beam.
11 Wedged Condition when the trawl gear components have crossed under the pipe
in a free span and is stuck at the opposite side of the pipeline with the
warp line the pipe.
Table 1: Specific Definition of Terms
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 6 of 22

1.2.3 Specific Abbreviations

No Term Descriptions

1 NPS Nominal Pipe Size

2 OD Overall diameter including coatings

Table 2: Specific Abbreviations

1.3 SUMMARY OF CHANGES

This PTS 11.30.05 replaces PTS 31.40.10.17 (February 2010).
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 7 of 22

2.0 TRAWLING AND FISHING STATISTICS

2.1 TRAWLING AND TRAWL GEAR

The categories of fishing activities employing bottom trawl gear are; otter trawling and
beam trawling. Difference in these categories is the type of trawl gear employed.
2.1.1 Otter trawling

Otter trawling is showed as per figure 1 which illustrates the net is being towed by a vessel.
Pair trawling is another form of otter trawling, where the net is being towed by two vessels
on each side. Two (2) trawls boards were utilized to open the mouth of the net, one on
either side of the net.

Pipeline

Figure 1: Otter Trawling

2.1.2. Beam trawling

Beam trawling is showed as per figure 2 which the mouth of the net is held open on a
transverse beam which slides across the seabed on shoes at each end of the beam.
Normally, metal beam is utilized and towed in pairs depending on the size of the vessel.

Pipeline

Figure 2: Beam Trawling

 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 8 of 22

2.2 FISHING STATISTICS

2.2.1 Studies addressing interaction between fishing activities and pipelines should therefore
always commence with a prediction of the fishing techniques and fishing intensity, based on:
i. a review of available statistics;
ii. Anticipated developments in the fishing industry.
2.2.2 The fishing data to be defined should include:
iii. trawling techniques;
iv. trawling velocities;
v. gear type, mass and dimensions;
vi. direction (random, perpendicular or parallel);
vii. Intensity.

NOTES:

1. For otter trawl, typical trawling velocities and trawl board masses are shown below.
Fishing Vessel / Trawlgear Velocity Trawlgear Mass
Location (m/s) (kg)
French Stern 2.06 1400
German Stern 2.31 2200
Norwegian 2.57 2300
UK Light 1.65 1200
PMO’s water 2.47 440

2. Typical trawling velocities for a Dutch beam trawl are up to 4.11m/s. Typical trawlgear masses are 2400 kg for both shoes
and 2600 kg for the beam.

2.3 CROSSING FREQUENCY

2.3.1 The frequency of pipeline crossings is related to the fishing intensity by the expression

Where
ƒc is the number of crossings per year per km length of the pipeline;
I is the fishing intensity in fishing hours per km2 per year;
V is the trawling velocity;
e is the proportion of the pipeline length that is exposed and therefore potentially subject to
trawl gear crossings.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 9 of 22

The constant φ depends on the predominant trawling direction. Values of φ are shown in
(Table 3)

Trawling Direction Constant φ

Randomly distributed 2/π

Perpendicular to the pipeline route 1

Parallel to the pipeline route 0

Table 3: Trawling Directional Factor,φ

2.4 TRAWL GEAR/PIPELINE INTERACTION

2.4.1 There are several stages in the interaction event.

2.4.2 The pipeline experiences the impact force due to the deceleration of the trawl gear. It can
lead to local damage of the pipe coatings and possibly denting of the wall of the pipeline,
and may usually come in large magnitude but within short duration only.
2.4.3 The movement of the trawl gear is obstructed by the pipeline after the impact. The pipeline
will experience a more steady force due to the tow force, referred as pullover force. It acts in
a long duration due to vessel motion, leading to large displacements of the pipeline, and
may lead to yield, large strains and local buckling of the pipe.

2.4.4 Trawl gear that hooks under the pipeline and cannot be pulled clear by the vessel may cause
another severe pullover scenario. In this case the vessel will ultimately be brought to a
standstill by the pipeline. This hooking process induces a continuous and large force on the
pipeline.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 10 of 22

3.0 IMPACT FOCES AND RESPONSE

3.1 IMPACT ENERGY

3.1.1 Total kinetic energy of the trawl bends may be conservatively to be equal to the impact
energy to be absorbed by the pipeline; including coatings. The total kinetic energy shall be
calculated from:

Where
me is the effective mass of the trawl gear;
V is the trawling velocity.

3.1.2 For trawl boards, the sum of the mass of the trawl board and its hydrodynamic added mass
is equal to effective mass.

3.1.3 For beam trawls, the effective mass may be assumed to be equal to the mass and
hydrodynamic added mass of one beam shoe only. The effective mass of the beam and the
other shoe may be ignored.
3.1.4 The hydrodynamic added mass may be calculated from
ma = Caρ∇

Where
ρ is the seawater density,
∇ is the displaced volume of the trawl gear,
Ca is the added mass coefficient (this may be taken as equal to 1 unless more
detailed data are available).

3.1.5 Lower values for the impact energy transferred to the pipeline may be used provided they
can be justified. Possible causes of lower impact energy transfers which may be evaluated
include:
i. During the impact, the trawl gear does not come to a full stop;
ii. Deformation of trawl gear;
iii. Energy absorbed by the seabed.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 11 of 22

3.2 COATING AND INSULATION

3.2.1 Damage
i. Damage shall be considered to all pipeline coatings, including corrosion and
weight coatings, and to field joints and insulation. The frequency of pipeline
crossings is taken into account as the potential for damage.

ii. Damage should be determined from full-scale impact tests rather than
theoretical analyses wherever possible. During impact testing, all relevant
coating and insulation properties, including water adsorption and ageing in
seawater, should be simulated.

3.2.2 Damage acceptance criteria

i. Unless protected by impact-resistant sleeving, pipeline with insulation coatings

should be buried.

ii. Damage of the concrete weight coating may be allowed if it can be

demonstrated that the loss of weight coating is local and cannot result in
horizontal and/or vertical pipeline instability.

3.3 PIPELINE RESPONSE

3.3.1 Damage

i. Impact damage to the pipe steel should take into account the energy absorbed
by the concrete weight coating, if present. Any reduction of impact energy by
insulation and corrosion coatings should not be considered.

ii. Local deformation in the wall of the pipeline in the form of gouges, sharp
indentations and/or dents occurred due to the impact force.

iii. In order to indicate the likely extent of damage, full-scale impact tests can be
employed.

iv. The dent depth may be determined by a conservative estimate from the
following formulae:
Ellinas and Walker (7.1)

Wierzbicki and Suh (7.2)

128 π
El = S y (td l )1.5 (expression 3.3 )
27
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 12 of 22

Where
dI is the dent depth;

ODst and t are the pipe steel diameter and wall thickness respectively;

Sy is the pipe yield stress.

v. Due to relaxation of the dent under the internal pressure of the pipeline, the
dent depth will decrease following impact. Empirical correlations may be used to
determine the ratio of the residual dent depth to the initial dent depth as a
function of the pipeline diameter to wall thickness ratio and the internal
pressure.

NOTE: The ratio of the final to initial dent depth has been investigated by Maxey (7.3).

3.3.2 Acceptance criteria

Impact acting on the pipe should not result in any of the following damage:

i. gouges and sharp indentations;

ii. plastic deformation of longitudinal seams;

iii. plastic deformation of girth welds unless these welds have sufficient ductility to
accommodate the predicted deformation;

iv. Diameter variations, measured across the pipeline and through the centre, in
excess of 5 % of the nominal diameter.
The above criteria apply during the design of a pipeline. Different criteria may be used when
evaluating a defect discovered during the inspection of a pipeline in operation.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 13 of 22

4.0 PILLOVER FORCES AND RESPONSE

4.1 PULLOVER FORCE-TIME HISTORY

4.1.1 The motion of the trawl gear following impact is temporarily restrained by the pipeline. Due
to the stretching of the warp line, the vessel continues its path away from the trawl gear and
the tow force increases.

4.1.2 As the relative distance between the vessel and trawl gear increases, the force on the warp
line also increases. This is determined by the trawling velocity of the vessel and the dynamic
response of the pipeline. The interaction between the pullover force and the response of the
pipeline may be ignored, and the force and response considered separately.
NOTE: The warp line can be considered as a catenary under tension. The elasticity of the warp line is primarily
due to the tightening of the warp catenary rather than axial extension of the warp line.

4.2 TRAWL BOARD PULLOVER

4.2.1 The motion of a trawl board during pullover is influenced by hydrodynamic forces which are
difficult to predict, complex and three-dimensional. Predictions of pullover force-time
histories for trawl boards should be based on experimental data.
4.2.2 Illustrated in (Figures 3 and 4) is the measured time-history of the pullover force. The
force-time history depends on the type of board; in general the force rises up to a maximum
as the board starts to lift over the pipeline and then decreases as the board clears the
pipeline.
4.2.3 The following dimensionless groups are used to determine the maximum trawl board
pullover force and duration:

Where
Fp and Fz are the total force on the pipeline and the vertical force component
respectively (both in units of N);
t is the pullover duration (in sec);
V is the trawling velocity (in m/s);
m is the trawl board mass (in kg);
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 14 of 22

OD is the overall pipe diameter (in m);

k is the effective elasticity of the warp line catenary (in N);
B is half the board height (in m);
G is the span height below the pipe (in m).

For polyvalent boards:

For rectangular and vee boards:

F = 0.5F
Z p
( expression 4.9 )

These expressions are applicable to pipe diameters from 12’’ up to 28” and beam masses up
to 2600 kg. The expressions should not be used outside these limits of applicability without
further validation.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 15 of 22

Figure 3: Trawl Board Pullover Force-Time History for Polyvalent Boards

Figure 4: Trawl Board Pullover Force - Time History for Rectangular and V Board
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 16 of 22

4.3 BEAM TRAWL PULLOVER

4.3.1 Beam shoe movement during pullover is largely restricted to displacement and rotation
around the axis of the trawl beam only. Predictions of pullover force time-histories may be
based on either experimental data or theoretical modelling.
4.3.2 Illustrated in (Figure 5) is the typical measured time-history of the pullover force acting. As
the shoe is lifted over the pipeline, the pullover force rises following the initial impact up to
a peak force. The force then drops to an intermediate level as the shoe slides over the
pipeline, and then drops rapidly as the shoe moves clear of the pipeline.

Where

Fp and t are the peak pullover force on the pipeline and pullover duration (in units of

N and s respectively);

V is the trawling velocity (in units of m/s);

m is the mass of the beam and two shoes (in kg);

OD is the overall pipe diameter (in m);

k is the effective elasticity of the warp line catenary (in N);

h is the attachment point height of the tow bridle.

These expressions are applicable to pipe diameters from 16” up to 36” and beam masses up
to 4375 kg.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 17 of 22

4.3.3 Pullover force-time histories for beam trawl interaction may be predicted using theoretical
models.

Figure 5: Beam Shoe Pullover Force - Time History

 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 18 of 22

4.4 SOIL RESISTANCE

4.4.1 Soil friction restrains the deflections of the pipeline during pullover event.
4.4.2 Linear Coulomb friction shall represent the axial soil resistance. Unless accurate information
is available, in order to provide conservative predictions of pipeline displacement, a low
value of the axial friction coefficient should be adopted.
4.4.3 Lateral soil resistance acting on a pipeline is composed of both linear Coulomb friction
resistance and passive resistance due to the embedment of the pipe. Lateral soil resistance
should be represented by either a combined linear and passive model or by a linear model
where the effective friction coefficient is chosen to reflect the additional passive resistance.
4.4.4 Passive resistance for a pipeline which moves cyclically under hydrodynamic storm loading
will not be the same as the passive resistance for a pipeline which is moving in a single
direction.
4.4.5 The reaction force between the pipeline and soil will increase by the presence of any vertical
pullover force and will increase the frictional and passive soil resistance. Any down force
should be included in the lateral soil resistance, but shall not be included in the axial soil
resistance.

4.5 PIPELINE RESPONSE

4.5.1 Pipeline behavior

i. Pipeline being deflected sideways is caused by the pullover force on the
pipeline. Its response is induced by the combined action of the pullover force
and the effective axial force in the pipeline, and is opposed by axial and lateral
soil resistance, and the bending stiffness of the pipeline.

ii. The dynamic response of the pipeline, large displacement (second order)
structural effects, and possible plastic deformations located at the point of
contact between the trawl gear and the pipeline influence the behavior of the
pipeline.

iii. Pull-over loading may initiate buckles in case of pipeline operating at high
pressure and high temperature.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 19 of 22

4.5.2 Pullover analysis

Models for predicting the pullover behaviour of pipelines should be capable of accounting
for:

i. The effect of the effective axial force in the pipeline. The effective axial force
may be conservatively assumed to be equal to the fully constrained axial force,

πODst 2
N e = EAα∆T + (1− 2ν ) pi (Expression 4.18)
4
Where

EA is the axial stiffness of the pipeline;

α is the thermal expansion coefficient;

ν is Poisson's ratio;

Pi is the internal pressure;

∆T is the temperature difference above ambient.

Lower compressive forces should be considered where the pipeline is not fully
constrained.

Residual lay tension should not be considered when determining the axial force
for a pullover calculation.
NOTE: For the majority of subsea pipelines, the fully constrained axial force is large
enough to contribute to significant lateral displacement via an Euler buckling
instability. Euler buckling may contribute to rapid deflections which may affect the
transient behaviour of the pipeline and pullover loads.

ii. Change in the effective axial force from pipe elongations due to the horizontal
deflections.

iii. Elastic-plastic material response if elastic stresses are exceeded.

iv. Inertia and transient pipeline dynamics.

NOTE: The pipeline inertia will resist the acceleration during the initial stage of the pullover and the
deceleration at the end of the pullover.

v. Inertial loads and the hydrodynamic drag on the pipeline.

NOTE: The hydrodynamic drag and inertial forces will generally act to limit deflections, but
the hydrodynamic added mass will also maintain pipe deflections following the
peak of the pullover force.

During pullover, it is not necessary to account for the effect of hydrodynamic loads from
current and wave action.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 20 of 22

4.6 PULLOVER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

4.6.1 During pullover event, the maximum equivalent stress in the pipeline should be less than
allowable in PTS 11.30.01.
4.6.2 If the effective axial compressive force Ne causes the stresses to exceed the allowable limits,
the equivalent stress criterion may be replaced by a strain criterion. Deflections due to the
axial compressive force are self-limiting due to the elongation of the pipeline during the
horizontal movement.
4.6.3 The local buckling and excessive ovalisation need to check for complete analysis.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 21 of 22

5.0 HOOKING

Hooking happens when the trawl gear becomes stuck to the pipeline. It is often temporary,
but may be permanent in which case the vessel may need to free the trawl gear from under
the pipeline. Two (2) most likely scenarios for hooking are:

i. A de-stabilized trawl board approaches a pipeline on the seabed or a free

spanning pipeline with a small gap. The trawl board may dig under the pipeline
and get hooked.

ii. The crossing angle with the pipeline is less than 45○ and the pipeline is free
spanning. The warp line lifts the trawl board off the seabed; it slides along the
pipeline, becomes destabilized, turns over and slides underneath the pipeline
until it gets wedged at the span shoulder.
 PTS 13.40.01
PIPELINE / TRAWL GEAR INTERACTION September 2013
Page 22 of 22

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
In this PTS, reference is made to the following Standards/Publications. Unless specifically
designated by date, the latest edition of each publication shall be used, together with any
supplements/revisions thereto:
PETRONAS STANDARDS
Index to PTS PTS 00.01.01
PTS Requirements, General Definition of Terms, PTS 00.01.03
Abbreviations & Reading Guide
Pipeline and riser engineering PTS 11.30.01
Concrete coating of linepipe PTS 11.32.09

OTHERS
NOTE: The following documents are for information only and do
not form an integral part of this PTS.
Ellinas C.P. and Walker A.C. on Offshore Tubular Bracing IABSE Colloqium Copenhagen
Members. International Association for Bridge and (1983)
Structural Engineering
Wierzbicki T. and Suh M-S. Denting Analysis of Tube MIT Sea Grant College
Under Combined Loadings. Massachusetts Institute of Program, Report
Technology MITSG 86-5 (1986)
Maxey W.A. Serviceability of Damaged Line Pipe Rated. (15 June 1987)
Oil and Gas Journal
Guijt, J. and Horenberg, J.A.G. An Analytical and Paper OTC 5617 (1987)
Experimental Analysis of Trawl gear-Pipeline Interaction.
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas.
Wagner D.A., Murff J.D., Brennoden H., Sveggen O. Pipe- Paper OTC 5504 (1987)
Soil Interaction Model. Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas.
Guijt, J. and Horenberg, J.A.G. Recent Investigations Paper OTC 5616 (1987)
Concerning the Effect of Bottom Trawl gear Crossings on
Submarine Pipeline Integrity. Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas.
Langner C.G. Inelastic Analysis of Suspended Pipe Spans. WRC 198-76 (1977)
Technical Progress Report
Interference between trawl gear and pipelines DnV Guideline No. 13:1997