See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267607334

Drilling Riser Analysis During Installation of a Wellhead Equipment

Conference Paper · June 2013

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2013-10554

CITATIONS READS

2 1,412

4 authors, including:

Celso Morooka José Ricardo Pelaquim Mendes

University of Campinas University of Campinas
99 PUBLICATIONS   385 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   257 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kazuo Miura
The University of Tokyo
36 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energia Geotérmica – Alternativas tecnológicas para a implantação de geração de energia elétrica geotermal híbrida no Brasil a partir de fontes de baixa temperatura
View project

Dynamic analysis on offshore well construction activities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by José Ricardo Pelaquim Mendes on 23 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Artic Engineering
DRILLING RISER ANALYSIS DURING INSTALLATION OF A WELLHEAD
EQUIPMENT
Lucas C. Sevillano
Graduate Program
Petroleum Science and Engineering
University of Campinas
Campinas-SP, Brazil
Jose Ricardo P. Mendes
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Dep. of Petroleum Engineering
University of Campinas
Campinas-SP, Brazil
ABSTRACT
In offshore petroleum drilling, the BOP stack is run into the
sea by a string, composed of long and wide-bore pipes, called
the marine drilling riser. It also connects the BOP on the
wellhead to the drilling vessel at the sea surface, serving as
conduit between them.
While being lowered down, a special riser spider is used to
support the riser. During this operation, the hanging riser is
under the effects of sea current, waves and displacements
induced by sea surface drilling vessel motions.
The discovery of petroleum fields in deeper waters, usually
in remote and harsh environments, makes it a requirement for
the riser to withstand more severe conditions. Nevertheless,
riser design and failure analysis during this operation is a
seldom studied topic, even though drilling in ever increasing
water depths imply the riser is subject to risks inherent to
running a BOP for a longer period of time. It is of utmost
importance the adequate modeling of the system’s response
during this operation, in order to safely evaluate failure cases
due to extreme static and dynamic stresses.
As such, the present paper describes and proposes a
methodology developed for the analysis of extreme stresses that
act over the riser during the BOP running. Case studies were
conducted for a water depth up to 2000 m. Numerical
simulations were run to evaluate system’s static and dynamic
behavior due to environmental loading.
OMAE2013
June 9-14, 2013, Nantes, France
OMAE2013-10554
Celso K. Morooka
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Dep. of Petroleum Engineering
University of Campinas
Campinas-SP, Brazil
Kazuo Miura
Well Engineering Technology
Research Center – Cenpes
Petrobras
Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil
As a result conclusions were drawn regarding operation
limits in ultra-deep waters. Results are shown through charts
that delimit ocean conditions and vessel’s response that are
secure to operate under.
INTRODUCTION
Offshore petroleum exploration worldwide has led to the
discovery of petroleum fields under harsh environments and
ultra deepwater depth, such as the pre-salt fields in the Brazilian
coast. In this scenario, the installation of subsea equipment on
the seabed becomes a more time-consuming operation: for
water depths superior to 6500 ft, it can be expected 50 hours for
running and 50 hours for pulling a BOP (Hollande, 2001).
Running the BOP and other equipments, such as a
template, can be done by a marine drilling riser. Said
equipments are connected to the bottom of a riser joint and are
lowered as new risers joints are connected to the string.
Sometimes, during a drilling operation, it is required to
maintain BOP suspended, and the riser string is suspended on a
steel frame called spider, which corresponds to a hard hangoff
configuration.
Previous studies in this subject mainly addressed the riser
already deployed, in hang-off mode during forced disconnection
due to extreme events. Ambrose et al (2001) describe soft and
hard hang-off mode and investigate riser response and
survivability for both modes. Steddum (2003) discusses the
influence of several parameters in riser response analysis and
the importance of adequate understanding of riser response in
its disconnected configuration within a complete riser
management plan.
Other studies that concern the installation of subsea
equipment, such as Morooka et al (1990) and Morooka et al
(2008) present riser response under specific loading conditions
and assess its survivability.
However, as the riser is suspended, it is exposed to
environmental loads originated from waves and sea current that
can alter drastically with the suspended riser length. Also,
maximum environment conditions under which the riser can be
suspended during this operation, it will change with the
suspended riser length.
The main aim of this study is to outline a procedure to
evaluate riser behavior under several environmental loading
conditions during the installation of subsea equipments, and to
delimit conditions under which the operation of installation can
be carried out.
When the riser string is being run or retrieved, a spider is
used to support it while connections are being made or broken.
The spider is found on the drill floor. It can be sitting on a
gimbal, which is an equipment designed to act as a shock
absorber to assist with the weight of the riser string and also to
compensate for angular offset while running or retrieving the
riser string.
Is common practice in the industry, though, that the spider
sits on the gimbal only when deployment operation is
suspended and the sea states start to build up. Therefore,
depending on the procedures adopted by the drilling vessel, the
configuration used for the riser in this study applies for a
normal deployment or for a suspended operation only.
For this hang-off configuration, the displacements on the
top of the riser are the same as of the vessel, but the rotations
are determined by the stiffness of the spider-gimbal (Bai and
Bai, 2010).

MODEL DESCRIPTION
This study considered the installation of a BOP under a
water depth of 2050 m by a dynamically positioned semi-
submersible drilling vessel. Riser response was calculated for
eight different moments during this operation, comprising riser
lengths varying from 250 m to 2000 m.
Figure 1 shows schematically the suspended riser under the
incidence of waves and current in the same plane. On the
bottom of Figure 1 is pictured the coordinate system adopted
for this study.

Figure 2 – 2000 m length riser configuration

Tables 1 summarize the main data for the riser system and
the Table 2 data for other components of the riser. Table 3
describes riser configurations in the present study.

Table 1 – Main data for marine drilling riser

Bare Riser + Module
Parameter Unit
Riser of Buoyancy

Outer Diameter m 0.5343 1.224

Inner Diameter m 0.4889 -
Figure 1 – Scheme for suspended riser
Linear Mass in air 317.5 600.5
kg.m-1
Figure 2 shows the suspended riser with details as it (water) (276.2) (16.2)
reached 2000 m total length. Young Modulus GPa 210 210
The riser is made up of bare riser joins and riser joints with
buoyancy modules attached to them. A flexible joint is installed Yield Strength, σy MPa 448 448
in the LMRP to allow angular deflection on the lower part of
the riser string.

2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Table 2 – Main data for other riser system components Environmental Loads

Parameter Unit Value A Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum as described by

Equation 3 was assumed to represent the sea state.
BOP mass in air (water) t 430 (373)
H12/ 3 1  16π 3 1 
Sζ (ω ) = 4π 3 ⋅ 4
⋅ 5 ⋅ exp − 4 ⋅ 4  (3)
Lower Flex Joint
kN.m/degree 56.5 TZ ω  TZ ω 
rotational stiffness
Gimbal Rotational where, Sζ(ω) is the energy density at given frequency ω, H1/3 is
kN.m/degree 600 the significant wave height and TZ is the mean zero-crossing
Stiffness
wave period. Several possible environmental conditions were
simulated, varying HS and TZ, in order to delimit the operational
Table 3 – Riser configurations sea states.
Riser Bare Riser Buyoancy Module Bare Riser During analysis, vessel motion behavior to wave action was
Length [m] Length[m] Length [m] Length [m] calculated through a Response Amplitude Operator (RAO), as
shown for heave in Figure 3.
2000 91 899 1010
1750 - 740 1010
1500 - 490 1010
1250 - 240 1010
1000 - - 1010
750 - - 760
500 - - 510
250 - - 260

Dynamic Behavior of Riser

The matrix equation that governs riser behavior is
presented by Equation 1. The differential equations of motion
are discretized in time using the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor operator. Figure 3 – Vessel Heave RAO

This study focused on environmental wave loads and its

[M ]{&x&} + [C ]{x&} + [K ]{x} = {F } (1)
interaction with the vessel-riser system. For this reason, it was
assumed throughout the study only one current profile,
where, [M] is the mass matrix, [C] is the viscous damping, [K] presented by Figure 4.
is the stiffness matrix, x, x& and &x& are, respectively, riser
displacement, speed and acceleration vector in the in-line plane.
F is the hydrodynamic force vector and its formulation is
presented by Equation 2.

F = AI u& + CD AD u − x& (u − x& ) + C A AI (u& − &x&) (2)

where AI=πD2ρ/4, AD=½ ρD, CD is hydrodynamic drag force

coefficient, CA is the added mass coefficient, u and u& are water
particle velocity and acceleration, respectively. D is the riser
outer diameter and ρ is the density of external fluid.
A computer program based on the finite element
representation of a riser (Mourelle et al, 1995) was employed in
this study. The riser geometry is represented by a set of co-
rotated beam elements and time domain numerical simulations
were carried out. Figure 4 – Current profile

3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Operational Limits riser where much higher bending moment is observed due to
riser assembly with the top.
The criterion adopted to determine whether the operation
Throughout the numerical simulations run in this study, the
was feasible or not for a given sea state was that von Mises
higher von Mises stress were always found in the riser top
stress, σvm, along the riser did not exceed the admissible
region, which makes clear the importance of the top boundary
maximum stress, established as 0.67 times yield strength, as
condition.
recommended by API (1993).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2000 2000

Height above seabed [m]

Height above seabed [m]
Presenting individually the results for each riser
configuration and environmental loading is not possible due to 1500 1500
the amount of numeric simulations run, totalizing 720 analyses.
The trends observed throughout the study will be discussed
over the results obtained for 2000 m and 1000 m riser lengths. 1000 1000
The environmental loading is due a sea state with TZ = 13 s and
HS = 5 m. Results are shown in Figures 5 through 10.
Figure 5 shows the envelopes for oscillation in the x 500 500
direction and the z direction for the 1000 m length riser.
Observed oscillation in the x direction is greater at the top of
the riser, approximately 4 meters, and it is smaller near the 0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 -600-400-200 0 200
bottom of the riser, where it can be as large as 2 meters. The Rotation [degrees] My [kNm]
oscillation in the vertical direction is almost constant along the Figure 6 – Envelopes for rotation and bending moment in
riser length, as in the Fig. 5. XZ plane - 1000 m riser length, Tz = 13 s, Hs = 5 m

2000 2000 2000

2000
Height above seabed [m]

Height above seabed [m]

Height above seabed [m ]

Height above seabed [m]

1500 1500 1500
1500

1000 1000 1000 1000

500 500 500 500

0 0
-2 0 2 4 -2
x [m]
Figure 5 – Envelopes for displacements in x and z
direction 1000 m riser length, Tz = 13 s, Hs = 5 m
Figure 6 shows the envelopes of rotation and bending
moment in the xz plane, for the 1000 m length riser. Throughout
the analysis the riser, in its entire length, was subjected to
rotations between negative 0.7 degrees and positive 0.75
degrees. Furthermore, the bending moment is very small for
almost the entirety of riser length, but it increases abruptly near
the riser top due to the connection with the spider-gimble at the
platform.
Figure 7 show s the envelopes of axial force and von Mises
stress, for the 1000 m length riser. The shape of the von Mises
stress envelope follows the axial force envelope variation along
the riser length, showing the importance of the axial force
contribution to stresses. Exception is observed around the top of
0 0
0 2 0 2000 4000 6000 100 200 300
z [m] Axial Force [kN] VM stress [MPa]
Figure 7 – Envelopes for axial force and von Mises stress
1000 m riser length, Tz = 13 s, Hs = 5 m
Figures 8 to 10 show numerical simulation results for the
2000 m length riser. To reach this riser configuration from the
1000 m length riser, riser joints with attached buoyancy
modules were lowered for 1000 m. The riser response for this
condition is almost the same as found for the previous 1000 m
length riser. However, from the Fig. 10 it is observed that the
effects of riser joints with buoyancy modules over 1000 m
added to 1000 m bare riser joints of the previous case is very
small. If the yield strength for the steel riser joint as in Table 1
is taken, and observing the allowable von Mises stress [API,
1993], it indicates that for the sea state considered running of
the riser should have been suspended even before riser string
length reached 1000 meters.

4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Results of numerical simulation runs for each riser length
2000 2000 were consolidated in an operational chart, as the one shown by
Figure 11 for a riser length of 2000 m. In Figure 11, the contour
Height above seabed [m]

Height above seabed [m]

lines represent maximum von Mises stress along the riser
1500 1500 divided by riser material yield strength. The contour lines were
plotted against wave statistical parameters H1/3 and TZ. The
whole lines cover the sea states that respect the admissible
1000 1000 stress criterion, σvm / σy < 0.67, while the dashed lines cover the
sea states that don’t.
For this riser configuration the operation can be carried out
500 500 for sea states with significant wave height no taller than 3,5 m
for most wave zero crossing periods.
From an operational point of view, measuring incident
0 0 wave height is more difficult than measuring vessel heave.
-2 0 2 4 -2 0 2
x [m] z [m] Since wave induced vessel motions were recorded during the
simulation, it was possible from the heave time history record
Figure 8 – Envelopes for displacements in x and z direction
generated to calculate heave statistical parameters such as
2000 m riser length, Tz = 13 s, Hs = 5 m
significant heave motion double amplitude H1/3-Z, and mean
zero-crosing heave period, TZ-Z.
2000 2000
Height above seabed [m]

Height above seabed [m]

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 -600-400-200 0 200
Rotation [degrees] My [kNm]
Figure 9 – Envelopes for rotation and bending moment in
XZ plane - 2000 m riser length, Tz = 13 s, Hs = 5 m

2000 2000
Height above seabed [m]
Height above seabed [m]

Figure 11 – Von Mises contour lines for 2000 m riser length

1500 1500
The same results shown in Figure 11 are presented in
Figure 12 with regard to the vessel heave instead.
1000 1000 Observing Figure 12, it indicates that the limiting
parameter of the operation, heave significant height can be as
tall as one meter, as long as that it has long periods. For shorter
500 500 periods of heave motion, heave significant height must decrease
accordingly.
But for the purpose to assess the feasibility of the
0 0 operation, the 0.67 contour line alone suffices. This way, it is
2000 4000 6000 100 200 300
Axial Force [kN] VM Stress [MPa] possible to plot in the same chart the boundary lines for each of
.
the riser lengths simulated, as shown in Figures 13 and 14.
Figure 10 – Envelopes for axial force and von Mises stress
2000 m riser length, Tz = 13 s, Hs = 5 m Results obtained for 1750 m and 2000 m were very similar, thus
are represented by one single line. The same applies to 1250 m
and 1500 m riser lengths.

5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Figure 13 shows that maximum allowable environmental
conditions decrease as the riser is being deployed, but for two
regions of the chart the curves are very close to each other. For
a zero crossing period between 10 s and 13 s, the 750 m curve
and the 500 m curve overlap and for periods between 15 s and
16 the same is observed for the 750 m curve and the 1000 m
curve.
Figure 12 – Von Mises contour lines for 2000 m riser length
as function of heave spectrum
Figure 13 – Maximum allowable environmental
conditions for several riser configurations (lengths in
meters)
The observed tendency reverts when riser length reaches
1750 m. For this length and larger lengths maximum allowable
environmental conditions increase a little. This shows the non
linear behavior of the riser string as it is deployed, the axial
force increase experienced by larger riser lengths is balanced by
the decrease in the value of bending moment at the top of the
riser, which is enough to make these riser configurations less
restrict to operate.
Figure 14 shows the same tendencies observed in Figure
13. For 250 m riser length operation can resume to a significant
heave height up to 0.6 m for all periods, while that for riser
lengths between 1750m and 2000 m, operation can be carried
out for all periods with a significant heave height no taller than
0,35 m.
Figure 14 – Maximum allowable vessel response for several
riser configurations (lengths in meters)
CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic behavior of a drilling riser has been evaluated
during installation of wellhead equipment. A particular
installation procedure is taken when the riser with a BOP is
suspended by a spider at the floating drilling platform. Then, a
hang-off riser condition with it connected to a BOP stack is
considered, and excitation from the sea current, waves and riser
top displacements induced by sea surface vessel motions are
taken. Numerical simulations have been performed for a drilling
riser in approximate water depth of 2000 m.
Several riser configurations, representing distinct instants
during riser deployment, were evaluated, in order to delimit
maximum allowable environmental conditions throughout the
equipment installation operation. The criterion adopted to
assess operation feasibility was maximum von Mises stress
along riser. For all the numerical simulations, the top region of
the riser was identified as the critical region, where stresses
were higher.
The maximum environmental conditions were presented on
operational charts that correlate the criterion adopted with
environmental loading and vessel response. From the charts
6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
obtained was possible to observe that, in general, as the riser REFERENCES
length increases, the deployment operation becomes more
Ambrose, B. D., Grealish, F., Whooley, K. (2001): “Soft
restrictive. The results show that the riser has a non linear
Hangoff Method for Drilling Risers in Ultra Deepwater”,
behavior as is being deployed since, despite the difference in
Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston, Texas.
length and in response, certain riser configurations were under
the same stress levels for some environmental conditions, which
American Petroleum Institute: “API Recommended Practice
resulted in close operational boundaries.
16Q, Design, Selection, Operation and Maintenance of Marine
The knowledge of riser response during its deployment,
Drilling Riser Systems”, Washington, 1993, 48p.
shown here by the operational charts, combined with continuous
weather monitoring, or vessel heave monitoring, can be used to
Bai, Y., Bai, Q. (2010): “Subsea Structural Engineering
better plan the operation and assess its short-term feasibility.
Handbook”, 1st Ed., Elsevier.
This study focused on environmental loads resulting from
waves and the vessel wave induced motions. For this reason,
Hollande, P. (2001): “Reliability of Deepwater Subsea Blowout
only one current profile was adopted. A more severe current
Preventers”, SPE Drilling and Completion, Volume 16, Number
profile would increase deflections along the riser, which would
1, March.
increase bending moments on the top of the riser. Consequently
greater stresses would be expected. This same effect could be
Morooka, C. K., Nishimoto, K., Rodrigues, R. S., Cordeiro, A.
expected should Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV) be
L., (1990): “Coupled Motion of a Drillvessel-riser-template
incorporated to the analysis due to the increase in the effective
System in Waves”, 9th International Conference on Offshore
drag coefficient along the riser.
Mechanics and Artic Engineering (OMAE), Houston, USA.
NOMENCLATURE
Mourelle, M. M., Gonzales, E. C., Jacob, B. P. (1995) “Anflex
[C] Viscous damping matrix – Computational System for Flexible and Rigid Riser Analysis”,
CA Added mass coefficient International Offshore Engineering, John Wiley & Sons,
CD Riser outer diameter Chichester, New York.
F Hydrodynamic force
[K] Stiffness matrix Steddum, R. (2003): “The Management of Long, Suspended
[M] Mass matrix Strings of Tubulars from Floating Drilling Vessels”, Offshore
My Bending moment around y axis Technology Conference (OTC), Houston, Texas.
H 1/3 Significant wave height
H 1/3-Z Significant heave height Morooka, C.K., Tsukada, R.I., Brandt, D.M. (2008):
Sζ Wave energy spectrum “Numerical Simulations of Ocean Drilling System Behavior
TZ Mean zero-crossing wave period with A Surface or a Subsea Bop in Waves and Current”, 27th
TZ-Z Mean zero-crossing heave period International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
u, u& Water particle velocity, acceleration Engineering (OMAE), Estoril, Portugal.
x In-line riser motion
z Vertical motion
Za Heave amplitude
ρ Density of external fluid
σvm Von Mises stress
σy Yield Strength
ω Angular frequency
ζa Wave elevation amplitude

Abbreviations
BOP Blowout Preventer
RAO Response Amplitude Operator

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Capes for supporting the
present study with a scholarship, and Petrobras for the
continuous support of our research.

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

View publication stats