17TR9 SUT Selection and Sizing Recommendation

Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT)
Selection and Sizing

RecommendationsUmbilical
Termination Assembly (UTA) Selection
and Sizing Recommendations
API TECHNICAL REPORT 17TR9
FIRST EDITION, XXXX 2015
Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Design Recommendations
BALLOT DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Design Recommendations
Special Notes
API publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respect to particular
circumstances, local, state, and federal laws and regulations should be reviewed.
Neither API nor any of API's employees, subcontractors, consultants, committees, or other assignees
makes any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of the information contained herein, or assumes any liability or
responsibility for any use, or the results of such use, of any information or process disclosed in this
publication. Neither API nor any of API's employees, subcontractors, consultants, or other assignees
represent that use of this publication would not infringe upon privately owned rights.
API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been made by the Institute
to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; however, the Institute makes no
representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with this publication and hereby expressly
disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or damage resulting from its use or for the violation of
any authorities having jurisdiction with which this publication may conflict.
API publications are published to facilitate the broad availability of proven, sound engineering and
operating practices. These publications are not intended to obviate the need for applying sound
engineering judgment regarding when and where these publications should be utilized. The
formulation and publication of API publications is not intended in any way to inhibit anyone from using
any other practices.
Any manufacturer marking equipment or materials in conformance with the marking requirements of
an API standard is solely responsible for complying with all the applicable requirements of that
standard. API does not represent, warrant, or guarantee that such products do in fact conform to the
applicable API standard.
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the
publisher. Contact the Publisher, API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Copyright © 2015 American Petroleum Institute
ii
Foreword
Nothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or
otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use of any method, apparatus, or product covered by letters
patent. Neither should anything contained in the publication be construed as insuring anyone against
liability for infringement of letters patent.
This document was produced under API standardization procedures that ensure appropriate notification
and participation in the developmental process and is designated as an API standard. Questions
concerning the interpretation of the content of this publication or comments and questions concerning the
procedures under which this publication was developed should be directed in writing to the Director of
Standards, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Requests for
permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of the material published herein should also be
addressed to the director.
Generally, API standards are reviewed and revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn at least every five years. A
one-time extension of up to two years may be added to this review cycle. Status of the publication can be
ascertained from the API Standards Department, telephone (202) 682-8000. A catalog of API
publications and materials is published annually by API, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the Standards Department, API, 1220 L
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, standards@api.org.
iii
Introduction
1.1 General
This document was generated,compiled by means of the UMSIRE (Umbilical Termination Size
Reduction) Joint Industry Project (JIP) Group in response to the increasing difficulties in installation of
high-functionality Subsea Umbilical Terminations (SUTs), due to their increasing size and weight. The
JIP committee comprised of a representative cross section of experienced industry personnel from
Umbilical and UTA manufacturers Installation Contractors and end-user Oil and Gas Operator
representativesengineering, installation and operational organisations. UTA (Umbilical Termination
Assembly) is a subassembly of SUT.
Whilst there are widely accepted codes and standards for the design of SUTA and its sub-systems,
such as materials, core connector type, tubing specification, corrosion protection and lifting
arrangements,, none of these standards specifically address the substantially increased risks incurred
during packing, handling and installing umbilicals with large UTAs subject of the risks of installation,
and the measures required to minimise these risks.
The UMSIRE deliverables are two API documents,

1. 17TR9: Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Selection and Sizing Recommendations
and
2. 17TR10: Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Design Recommendations.
(Note TR10 deals in more depth with umbilical and UTA installation and the differing style and
restrictions of installation lay spread types)
This document is intended to be used as a reference guide by operators, UTA and umbilical specifiers,
installers and FEED companies. It is also intended to be used as a reference document to enable
reviews to be undertaken to ensure that installation risk has been properly considered as part of SUT
design and operations reviews.
This document assumes that the reader has a good level of understanding of the design, engineering
and installation of UTAs. The 17TR10 can be referred to for educational purposes and for additional
technical information on UTAs.
The intent with describing these project stages (see Figure 1) is to clarify when each UMSIRE
document should be referenced, within the umbilical project timeline, and the interested parties that
should be involved in discussions during each stage.
1.2 Use of the Document
This document is intended to be used as a reference guide by end-users & operators, umbilical
termination assembly (UTA) and umbilical manufacturers, installers and FEED companies. The
intention is that the document will enable the currently inherent installation difficulties to be embraced
up front by the UTA designers, prior to commencing SUT design and functionality definition. It is also
intended to be used as a reference document to enable reviews to be undertaken to ensure that
installation risk has been properly considered as part of SUT design and operations reviews.
This document assumes that the reader has a good level of understanding of the design, engineering
and installation of UTAs, whereas the 17TR10 document should be referred to for educational
purposes and for additional technical information on UTAs. The 17TR10 document can also be
referred to for understanding and highlighting installation vessel and lay-spread restrictions which are
compounded if unnecessary dimension and weight increases are made without a full awareness of
these areas.
The users of these Design Recommendation TRs are primarily intended to be operators, SUT
designers and FEED companies. Umbilical system design and manufacturing roles and
responsibilities are defined in Annex A.
This document should be read in conjunction with API 17TR10 which aims to provide best practice
technical guidance for SUT design, in order to aid in making informed choices during the design
phase.
iv
This document has an educational purpose and is intended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. It
is important to note that none of the following sections should be read in isolation.
1.3 Applicability
In recent years, the size and complexity of umbilical terminations have grown considerably, driven by
increasing umbilical functionality and additional flexibility and redundancy capability, as well as the
need to integrate with functions found on subsea SUTUs, Manifolds, Wellhead Christmas Tree’s,
Booster Pumps etcsubsea power, communication and fluid delivery requirements, as well as the need
to integrate functions normally found on manifolds. Due to some of the existing lay spreads and their
long service life, the equipment has been unable to keep pace with these UTA changes. It also
appears that the difficulties and increased risk implications incurred during installation of excessively
large UTAs are not given due consideration during early planning stages. Historically in some cases
the design has been such that the UTA cannot be easily deployed when connected to the umbilical by
conventional installation methods.
This emerging trend poses severe challenges to installers and appears to be compounded by the
increased functionality and higher expectations of parties in the supply chain (FEED contractors,
termination designers, operators and manufacturers) This trend has led to occurrences where the SUT
cannot be installed through conventional lay equipment which results in the necessity for higher
specification lay spreads and vessels and proportionately increased risk to personnel, equipment,
schedule and overall project cost impact.
Without full consideration of these collective impacts, this trend of higher functionality and
proportionately larger UTAs is expected to continue.
It is acknowledged that having a separate Subsea Distribution Unit (SDU) may have an impact on the
overall cost. However, the costs of the UTA / SDU alone should not be the deciding factor in
increasing the UTA proportions and weight to achieve an all-encompassing single UTA. Further
analysis should be undertaken throughout the lifecycle of the UTA, which may include the following:
• Packing, transporting and increased installation costs of the larger unit in conjunction with a risk
analysis; BALLOT DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
• Assessment of the aforementioned factors with detailed examination of the increased risks in
offshore handling, deployment and lay-down on the seabed.
This final UTA design approval should be made following close scrutiny of these analyses and
assessments in order to balance costs against increased risk.
The applicability of 17TR9 will be during all stages of UTA concept selection, design and installation.
The figure below shows the applicability of both 17TR9 and 17TR10 by all the parties involved.
v
Figure 1 Project Stage Chart

The intent with describing these project stages is to clarify when within the umbilical project timeline
each UMSIRE document should be referenced, and the interested parties that should be involved in
discussions during each stage.
Readers should be aware that integration of distribution leads to a significant increase in size of the
UTA, although it is required in some cases. For the purposes of this document, it is assumed that the
termination does not provide distribution.
vi
Contents
0.1 General................................................................................................................................... iv
0.2 Use of the Document.............................................................................................................. iv
0.3 Applicability............................................................................................................................ iv
1 Scope.............................................................................................................................................. 1
2 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 1
3 TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................1
3.1 Terms and Definitions............................................................................................................. 1
3.2 Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................... 3
4 Drivers for UTA Size........................................................................................................................ 3
4.1 General................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Consequences........................................................................................................................ 4
4.3 Forward Planning.................................................................................................................... 5
5 Installation Systems......................................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Installation Methods................................................................................................................ 6
5.2 Handling Restrictions.............................................................................................................. 7
5.3 Vessel Implications and Consequences..................................................................................7
5.3.1 General...................................................................................................................................... 7
5.3.2 Water Depth............................................................................................................................... 7
5.3.3 Limiting Sea state Lay spread limitations and consequences....................................................8
5.3.4 Type of Laying System............................................................................................................. 11
5.3.5 Rigid Length.......................................................................................................................... 11
5.3.6 Umbilical Minimum Bending Radius ........................................................................................ 12

6 Guidance for UTA Optimization..................................................................................................... 13
6.1 General................................................................................................................................. 13
6.2 Optimization Process............................................................................................................ 13
6.3 Key Optimization Aspects..................................................................................................... 14
6.4 Optimization Matrix............................................................................................................... 15
7 Workflow for Selection and Sizing of the UTA...............................................................................16
7.1 General................................................................................................................................. 16
7.2 Category Functionalities........................................................................................................ 16
7.3 UTA Categorization Method.................................................................................................. 18
7.4 Selection of packing reel or carousel....................................................................................20
7.5 SUT Rigid Length.................................................................................................................. 21
7.6 Optimization Assessment...................................................................................................... 29
Annex A................................................................................................................................................ 31
Packing of a UTA with the Confines of an Installation Reel or Carousel...............................................31
Annex B................................................................................................................................................ 35
STI and SUT Length Calculations......................................................................................................... 35
Annex C................................................................................................................................................ 37
Steel tube Umbilical or Thermoplastic Umbilical with Spool.................................................................37
Annex D................................................................................................................................................ 39
False Barrel Diameter Calculations...................................................................................................... 39
vii
Annex E................................................................................................................................................ 40
Responsibility Matrix............................................................................................................................. 40
0.1 General................................................................................................................................... iv
0.2 Use of the Document.............................................................................................................. iv
0.3 Applicability............................................................................................................................ iv
1 Scope.............................................................................................................................................. 1
2 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 1
3 TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................1
3.1 Terms and Definitions............................................................................................................. 1
3.2 Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................... 2
4 Drivers for UTA Size........................................................................................................................ 3
4.1 General................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Consequences........................................................................................................................ 3
4.3 Forward Planning.................................................................................................................... 4
5 Installation Systems......................................................................................................................... 5
5.1 Installation Methods................................................................................................................ 5
5.2 Handling Restrictions.............................................................................................................. 6
5.3 Vessel Implications and Consequences..................................................................................6
5.3.1 General................................................................................................................................... 6
5.3.2 Water Depth............................................................................................................................ 6
5.3.3 Limiting Sea state................................................................................................................... 6
5.3.4 Type of Laying System............................................................................................................ 9
5.3.5 Rigid Length............................................................................................................................ 9

5.3.6 Minimum Bending Radius..................................................................................................... 10
5.3.7 SUT Weight........................................................................................................................... 11
5.3.8 Size of Foundation Structure................................................................................................. 11
5.3.9 Installation Vessel Time Line................................................................................................ 11
5.3.10 Delivery Method................................................................................................................ 11
5.3.11 Installation Complexity...................................................................................................... 11
6 Guidance for UTA Optimisation..................................................................................................... 11
6.1 General................................................................................................................................. 11
6.2 Optimization Process............................................................................................................ 12
6.3 Key Optimization Aspects..................................................................................................... 12
6.4 Optimization Matrix............................................................................................................... 13
7 Workflow for Selection and Sizing of the UTA...............................................................................14
7.1 General................................................................................................................................. 14
7.2 Category Functionalities........................................................................................................ 15
7.3 UTA Categorization Method.................................................................................................. 15
7.4 Selection of packing reel or carousel....................................................................................17
7.5 SUT Rigid Length.................................................................................................................. 17
7.6 Optimization Assessment...................................................................................................... 23
Annex A................................................................................................................................................ 24
Packing of a UTA with the Confines of a Reel......................................................................................24
Annex B................................................................................................................................................ 27
viii
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)..................................................................................................................... 27
Annex C................................................................................................................................................ 30
(Informative).......................................................................................................................................... 30
STI and SUT Length Calculations......................................................................................................... 30
Annex D................................................................................................................................................ 32
(Informative).......................................................................................................................................... 32
Steel tube Umbilical or Thermoplastic Umbilical with Spool.................................................................32
Annex E................................................................................................................................................ 34
(Informative).......................................................................................................................................... 34
False Barrel Diameter Calculations...................................................................................................... 34
Annex F................................................................................................................................................ 35
(Informative).......................................................................................................................................... 35
Responsibility Matrix............................................................................................................................. 35
ix
2 Scope
This Technical Report identifies:
- Technical and commercial risks associated with large and heavy UTAs with respect to installation.
- Implications of decisions made early in the umbilical and SUT planning, selection and design
phases.
- Guidance on overall size, weight and handling of umbilical and their UTAs.
This document aims to:
 Assist in UTA design, thereby reducing technical and commercial risks with respect to
installationHighlight technical and commercial risks associated with high functionality umbilicals
and umbilical terminations, especially with respect to installation;
 Assist in making definitive and all-encompassing decisions at an early stage in the umbilical and
SUT design to ease the manufacturing, handling and final umbilical / UTA installationDescribe the
implications of decisions made early in the umbilical and SUT planning, selection and design
phases;
 Provide guidance on specifications and respective sizes of umbilical terminations.
This document is intended to aid the with informed decision making of informedand selection of
optimal choices during the early design phase of field development.
The primary aim purpose of this document is to be a reference guide during the early field
development planning stage to ensure that due consideration is given to the implications of the size of
UTAs and possible consequences during installation.
The gGuidelines for the design of UTAs are included in API 17TR10.
3 REFERENCES
The following referenced documents are indispensable for achieving the goals the application of this
document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest
edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
API 17TR10, Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Design Recommendations
API Specification 17D, Specification for Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems
API Specification 17E, Specification for Subsea Umbilicals
API Specification 17F, Specification for Subsea Production Control Systems
4 TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

4.1 Terms and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
1.1.1
bend limiter
(from the UMF Glossary of Terms)
Device for limiting the bend radius of the umbilical, usually by mechanical means, typically
comprising a series of interlocking metal or polymeric collars designed to lock at a pre-
defined radius
NOTE: This is sometimes known as “bend restrictor”.

1.1.2
bend restrictor
(Definition as per API 17E)
device for limiting the bend radius of the umbilical by mechanical means
NOTE: A bend restrictor typically is comprised of a series of interlocking metallic or moulded rings, applied over
the
umbilical. It is sometimes referred to as a bend strain reliever (BSR).
1.1.1
bend stiffener
BSR
(from the UMF Glossary of Terms)
Device for controlling bending strain in the umbilical by providing a localised increase in stiffness;
usually a moulded device, sometimes reinforced depending on the required duty, applied over the
umbilical
Definition from API 17E: device for providing a localized increase in bending stiffness, preserving the
minimum bend radius of the umbilical under defined bending moment conditions
NOTE: The stiffener is usually a moulded device, sometimes reinforced, depending on the required duty,
applied over the umbilical. This is sometimes referred to as a “bend strain reliever”.
1.1.2
rigid length
Sum of the combined lengths of the UTA and STI and any other component that increases the axial
rigid length and cannot easily be removed or re-installed offshore
NOTE: Further details are provided in section 5.3.5 and figure 5, figure 6 and figure 7
1.1.3
subsea distribution unit
SDU
Separately installed structure that receives hydraulic and/or electric and/or optical functions from the
UTA and distributes those functions to multiple locations such as manifolds or trees
4.1.1.5
subsea termination interface
STI
(Definition as per API 17E)
Mechanism that forms the transition between the umbilical and the UTAsubsea termination
NOTE: The interface is comprised typically of an umbilical armour termination and/or a mechanical anchoring
device for the tubes, bend stiffener/limiter, and tube or hose-end fittings. If the umbilical contains electric
cables/fibre optics, then penetrator(s) and/or connectors may also be incorporated.
4.1.2.5
subsea umbilical termination
SUT
Mechanism for mechanically, electrically, optically and/or hydraulically connecting an umbilical or
jumper bundle to a subsea system and contains the UTA (Umbilical Termination Assembly) and STI
(Subsea Termination Interface) but does not include bend restrictors or stiffeners
Definition from API 17E: mechanism for mechanically, electrically, optically and/or hydraulically
connecting an umbilical or jumper bundle to a subsea system
NOTE Functional components within the umbilical may include hoses, tubes, and electrical or fiber-optic cables,
as stated in API 17E. Figure 5 illustrates the terminology that is adopted in the context of the UMSIRE JIP which
is aligned with API’s nomenclature.
2
4.1.3.5
umbilical Line
Functional component within the umbilical, providing hydraulic, /electrical or optical service
Definition of umbilical from API 17E: group of functional components, such as electric cables, optical
fibre cables, hoses, and tubes, laid up or bundled together or in combination with each other, that
generally provides hydraulics, fluid injection, power and/or communication services
NOTE API 17E states that functional components are hoses, tubes, electric/optical fiber cables included within
an umbilical which are required to fulfill the operational service needs.
4.1.4.5
umbilical termination assembly
UTA
Mechanism for connecting an umbilical or jumper bundle to a subsea system, mechanically,
electrically, optically and hydraulically, as required, connecting an umbilical or jumper bundle to a
subsea system
4.1.5.5
UTA Yoke
A frame attached to a UTA, typically at its sides, by hinged or swivelling joints and provided with a
central attachment point for lifting rigging.
4.2 Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
BSR Bend stiffener
FBC Free Board Clearance
FEED Front-End Engineering Design
FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
FTA Fault Tree Analysis

HSE Health, Safety and Environment
IAQG International Aerospace Quality Group
JIP Joint Industry Project
LCC Life cycle costs
MBR Minimum Bend Radius
MQC Multiple Quick Connects
OD Outer diameter
NPS Nominal Pipe Size
RBD Risk-Based Design
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicles
SDU Subsea Distribution Unit
SPS Subsea Production Systems
STI Subsea Termination Interface
3
SUT Subsea Umbilical Termination
TOC Total Ownership Cost
TR Technical Report
UMF Umbilical Manufacturers’ Federation
UMSIRE Umbilical Termination Size Reduction [name of the JIP that created this document]
UTA Umbilical Termination Assembly
VLS Vertical Lay System
5 Functionality and Distribution of Umbilicals

5.1 Umbilical Functionality
Functionality is generally limited by the actual umbilical specification rather than the UTA size. The
umbilical specification will be limited by its minimum bend radius, stiffness, maximum axial tension
capacity and install-ability. When the functionality is increased the aforementioned parameters change
and eventually reach a point where, to retain such functions will result in manufacturing and installation
show-stoppers, or undesirable outcomes, such as having to join individual sections of umbilical,
resulting in higher probability of electrical or fluid component failures and loss of reliability and
longevity.
The functionality versus umbilical limitations will be realised very early in the umbilical design process
but it is essential that when the final umbilical design specification is reached, then, the design of the
UTA must be fully optimised to reduce, primarily, the external dimensions and secondly, the UTA
overall weight, allowing for the STI and BSR / Bend Restrictor weights.
An important consideration to fulfill the requirements of this document (as well as 17TR10) is enabling
precise routing of functions within the UTA by having well designed cable and fluid core distribution
routes, such as manifolds.
5.2 SDUs
Separate SDUs can substantially reduce the overall UTA dimensions by encompassing the distribution
paths and outlet ports. It is acknowledged a separate SDU may have an impact on the overall
manufacturing cost in order to connect the units together, but, the additional design and manufacture
costs of UTA/ SDU arrangements should not be the sole reason for opting for an all-encompassing
UTA. When complicated handling, packing, transporting, increased installation costs, elevated risk of
installation damage, possible replacement umbilical with subsequent schedule impact the final design
may opt for UTA/ SDU design.
The application of 17TR9 document should be from the inception of umbilical manufacturers initial
design. Subsequently, the UTA designers should interface closely with highly experienced installation
engineers who know installation possibilities, lay spread and vessel specifications. The figure below
shows the optimum interfacing of relevant parties who will play a part in achieving a successful
umbilical/UTA installation project.
4
Figure 2 Project Stage Chart
* FEED company also includes UTA manufacturer.
The intent with describing these project stages is to clarify when within the umbilical project timeline
each UMSIRE document should be referenced, and the interested parties that should be involved in
discussions during each stage.
6 Drivers for UTA Size

6.1 General
The trend of increasing functionality of topside, subsea and downhole equipment over the past decade
has created greater increasing requirements for additional fluid, electrical and optical lines to be routed
from the platform to the subsea equipment. This has resulted in a greater number of functionalities
required through control umbilicals and consequently the UTAs.
There is competition for space between umbilicals and production risers. If it is assumed that one large
umbilical is more space efficient than multiple smaller umbilicals, generally the conclusion during field
development planning is that larger umbilicals are the best option. A further consequence requiring
larger umbilicals results from the lack of sufficient platform J-Tubes for umbilicals. There is competition
for space between umbilicals and production risers, for which the umbilical is often seen as a lower
priority on a basis that one large umbilical is more space efficient than multiple smaller umbilicals,
hence larger umbilicals are envisaged to be the best option during field development planning.
5
6.2 Pros and Cons of a Greater Functionality Umbilical/ UTA
Although it is widely acknowledged that increased functionality, size and weight of the UTA poses
challenges with installation, there are several important drivers and advantages of using umbilicals /
UTAs with greater functionality. If increased functionality is balanced correctly with consideration of
installation requirements and difficulties, this may certainly outweigh less functional options. By
utilization of this document and 17TR10, the design evaluation process will take in to account the pros
and cons of more or less functions and result in a satisfactory, risk vs cost considered and robust
outcome.
5.2.1 Pros
 More compact field subsea layout in otherwise congested areas where multiple umbilicals may
result in additional complexity and higher risk
 Additional redundant cores for future tie-in to new step-outs which are in approved but
deferred future field architecture
 Spare cores available during single installation for use in the case of another core failure
 Better flexibility if additional sensor or fluid/chemical requirements are required
 Operational benefits
5.2.1 Cons
 Higher possibility of umbilical damage if UTA is larger and heavier. e.g – the weight of the UTA
can easily over-bend the umbilical during installation
 Installation vessel specification
o May need greater deck space due to increased MBR
o Deck Cranes must be suitable and have sufficient hook height and reach to handle
large and heavy UTA’s
o Lay spread functions to handle the large UTA’s may require re-design or substantial
modification
o Closed tensioner systems will be un-useable
o Flexibility in vessel choice not possible
o Schedule delay in waiting for vessel and lay-spread availability
o Increased vessel cost and offshore installation time
6.3 Consequences
Increasing functions within an The increasing size of umbilicals possibly and UTAs due to the drivers
identified above, has consequences related tofor the design, manufacturing and most importantly
during the installation of resultantly large and heavy UTAs.
The Ffigure below2 shows the consequence of increasing the size of UTAs (from category A to D, as
described in section 7.32) on the overall risk and complexity of the installation operation and
availability of suitable installation vessels, which can handle these units without damaging their
incumbent umbilicals, which has a direct impact on the overall cost. A broken umbilical can delay field
commissioning and the first Oil or Gas critical milestone of a project. (At substantially more cost than
manufacturing or installation costs of dividing the functions between more umbilicals), which has a
direct impact on the overall cost.
6
Figure 2: Consequence of Increasing Size of UTAs
Consequences in terms of design, schedule and technical risks include the following, all of which can
affect project cost. The consequences in terms of cost, schedule and technical risks are listed below.
― DesignCost
• Oversize terminations often require a bespoke solution leading to “re-inventing the wheel”
syndrome coupled with greatly increased man-hour costs on installation engineering and
inherently increased risk of severe and possibly irreparable damage and resultant project
schedule impacts during onshore repairs or complete remanufacture and additional design
and engineering
• Packing and handling the UTA on installation a reels may be no longer be possible where
infield umbilicals have similar sized UTAs on both ends, preventing turning of the reel
• A carousel equipped vessel or individual transportation of only carousels may will require
mobilisation with additional engineering activities and extensive engineering and
mobilisation man-hours and vessel-hours in handling these UTAs
• Handling and transportation difficulties
― Schedule
• Increase in lead time
• Longer fabrication and assembly
• Complex SIT/ FAT – Factory Acceptance Tests
• Increase in vessel mobilization/ demobilization and installation time
• Limited availability of suitable specification Installation Vessel availability
― Technical Risk
• Together with terminations, bend stiffeners and bend restrictors have grown in size and
weight
• Lack of clear definition of acceptable level of risk resulting in over-engineering
• UTAs which are not designed with installation and over-boarding restraint requirements
7
• Onshore handling heavy UTAs connected to weak umbilicals increases the probability of
damage to the umbilical
• Offshore installation of heavy UTAs connected to weak umbilicals substantially increases

the probability of damage to the umbilical and substantial project schedule delays Handling
of heavy UTA connected to weak umbilicals, both onshore and offshore, increases the
probability of damage to the umbilical and substantial project schedule delays and cost
impact
― HSE
The consequences due to increased size of umbilicals and UTAs can also be understood by an
analytical method such as FTA (fault tree analysis) and/ or FMEA (). It is recommended to
carry out such analysis on a project basis for getting a better understanding of Figure and
Table 1 (Note b) shows the FTA methodology used to highlight the main risks, associated
parameters and potential consequences
Increased size and weight of UTAs leads to handling difficulties, greater complexity of rigging
arrangements, increased requirements for restraint against vessel motions and increased energy
imparted by any accidental collisions. This has safety implications during load out and lay of
umbilicals, which involve the following operations:
• Load out from manufacturer’s facilities onshore,
• Transpooling from one vessel to another,
• Manoeuvring through and into restricted spaces, e.g. underdeck carousels, deck
openings and tensioners,
• Lifting to a considerable height and changing orientation to enter and pass through VLS
towers.
6.4 Forward Planning
During field architecture concept definition and the design phase, consideration must be given for
future expansion and limitations of the field and .
Consideration should be made for provision of shall be made for additional future J-Tube slots for
controls umbilicals. This will mitigate the competition for Umbilical J-Tube slots in the future.
Careful consideration of the number of umbilical functions required (including any functions in line with
the project’s sparing and possible expansion requirements) and the resultant installation feasibility
should be made at every stage of the SPS subsea production system design. Reducing the number of
umbilical functions will reduce the size of the umbilical and UTA installation.
Reducing the size of the UTA is encouraged wherever practical.
UTAs can be installed and recovered independently of their support frame or SDU and incur simpler
interface points with which to dock and engage the UTA onto the support/SDU. Multi-bore hubs can
bring all the required functions to the SDU where the full function distribution and outlet ports are
incorporated within. If an additional SDU installation is required, it can:
― Enable a much simpler deployment of SDU and umbilical individually
― Alleviate complex handling
― Mitigate much of the installation/recovery and/or re-installation risks
7 Installation Systems
7.1 Installation Methods
There are several industry standard umbilical installation methods such as;
8
a. Horizontal lay tensioner and over-boarding chute for low tension installation.
b. Horizontal lay tensioner with vertical over-boarding system for low/medium tension
installation of umbilicals with ancillary components such as buoyancy modules, clamps and, bend
restrictors, etc which cannot traverse horizontally over a chute
c. Closed Tensioner Vertical Lay System for low/ medium or high tension general installations
whether or not requiring additional ancillary item installationsof umbilicals including those with
higher top tension. These systems have limitations due to UTA having to pass through the closed
tensioner aperture while ancillary items may be installed beneath the tensioner units.
d. Open Tensioner Vertical Lay System for low/ medium or high tension general installations
whether or not requiring additional ancillary item installations of umbilicals including those with
higher top tension. These systems do not have limitations of closed tensioner systems due to
UTA not having to pass through the closed tensioner aperture. The UTA can be lowered past the
bottom of the tensioner unit prior to closing the tensioner tracks onto the umbilical.
e. Rigid Pipe Lay Systems (open or closed) used for installation of umbilicals, normally as part of
rigid pipelay installation using large diameter rigid pipe storage reel and near-vertical ‘J’ lay tower
complete with opening tensioner units.
Note – Regardless of which system used, the handling of the UTA over the umbilical deployment chute
or VLS top arch, is where 95% of the danger to the UTA umbilical is likely. With VLS systems the top
chute can be in excess of 40 metres in height at which point most attempts at restraining the UTA
movements from the deck below, on-board a pitching and rolling ship, is almost useless.
More detailed descriptions of the above installation methods are presented in API 17TR10.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the typical operational sequence and geometric limitations of a VLS
system.
Figure 3: Vertical Lay Installation, First End (Source: Technip)
9
Figure 4: Vertical Lay Installation, Second End (Source: Technip)
7.2 Handling Restrictions
The factors in Table 1 should be considered during SUTA design to best comply with handling
constraints and difficulties experienced by requirements of the SUT and Umbilical iInstallation
contractorsers.
7.3 Vessel Implications and Consequences
5.3.1 General
The installation-related consequences of increasing UTA size are identified in Table 2. There may be
additional consequences.
5.3.2 Water Depth
Water depth should not have a significant impact on the size of UTA, however there will be some
installation constraints, some of them are summarised as follows: It is considered that larger water
depths compared to shallow waters will lead to the following:
― the top tension will increase with a potential consequence to laying spread
― the crane / winches involved will have to reach deeper and possibly will require higher capacity
― the structure of the umbilical will potentially have to be more robust, i.e. possibly heavier and more
expensive
― the time to deploy and install the umbilical system is likely to increase
With the increase in water depth, the length of the umbilical increases; resulting in heavier loads
imposed on the UTA frame. This will have an impact on the size of the interface between the umbilical
and the UTA and components such as shackle and pad eye. This will also translate into increasing the
10
size of STI. Special consideration must be given to the dynamic loading on the UTA during second end
installation.
5.3.3 Limiting Sea state Lay spread limitations and consequences
A higher limiting seastate (Hs) gives increased flexibility in terms of schedule and planning, as well as
less exposure to reduced weather windows.
A low limiting seastate may give constraints in installation methodology, risk of waiting on weather, risk
to product during installation, etc.
Table 1 SUT Design Factors

Factor Reasons for Importance
1 UTA width and height Ability for UTA to pass through closed tensioner
units. and
Ability to pass through deck openings in the case
of vessels with beneath deck carousels.
Ability to accommodate stow both UTAs on
installation reels and/ or on carousels.
2 Handling points on UTA considering
Lift points must consider handling on deck and
installation through the lay system and
handling the UTA during Reel or Carousel loading.
sea-fastening
Restraining points during handling UTA over the
top of in the case of VLS systems.
Lift and pulling points relevant to deploying through
a horizontal tensioner lay system.
Due consideration to simplification of sea-fastening
the unit – e.g Its own support skid on deck and/ or
subsea.
Sea-fastening design, dDeck handling, lift planning
and lift rigging design.
Re-orientating the UTA when just above the
seabed to horizontal position for docking (e.g.
Hinge-over docking probes).
Note – Designer must take into account when

designing lift and handling aids that in some
cases, with lighter umbilicals and/or in heavier sea-
states, the installer may need to add pull-down
weight to the front of UTA in order to stabilise the
umbilical reactions in the water column and
synchronise them with the lay spread rise and fall
speed.
Overboarding operations.
3 Weight and centre of gravity of UTA Deck handling, lift planning and lift rigging design.
Overboarding and landing operations.
It is greatly advantageous if the UTA can be
suspended purely by the umbilical to avoid crane/
winch support during deployment to depth, due to
UTA being outside of maximum dynamic linear
tension capability of the umbilical.
An off-centre CoG when suspended from the
umbilical may result in excessive fatigue for the
umbilical in a short length of time and result in use
of crane/winch to counteract the impact of fatigue.
4 SUTA total rigid length Ability to accommodate UTA on reels and on
carousels.
Ability to lift UTA over arch VLS top and into the
VLS.
5 UTA and umbilical structural design UTA & umbilical be designed in conjunction with
each other design to withstand the loads imposed
11
during handling and installation and to
accommodate the flexibility for either direction of
umbilical installation (i.e first or second end UTA).
6 Umbilical length & weight UTA must be designed to withstand the loads
imposed by the umbilical during handling and
installation.
First and second ends, (apart from umbilical risers
with totally different end UTAs) must be design to
withstand the forces they will be subject to during
installation in either direction and recovery
operations.
7 Design of UTA bend stiffeners and UTA Ability to accommodate UTA and BSRs/ lifting
yokes yokes on reels and/ or on carousels.
Ability to lift UTA and BSRs/ lifting yokes over arch
and into VLS.
Suitable for pre-installation of BSRs/ restrictors at
manufacturer’s premises or for subsequent
installation on installation vessel permissible deck
space.
Suitable for overboarding and seabed landing or
pre-installed SDU docking operations.
Deck handling, lift planning and lift rigging design.
Overboarding and landing operations.
Consideration needs to be given to 2nd end
installation. For example, the yoke needs to be
designed in order for the vertical axis of the
umbilical to be in-line with the axis of the crane
wire during deployment in the water column. This
is required to mitigate excessive bending moment
at the umbilical/UTA interface
For the second end lay it shall be considered that

the umbilical and related bend limiter can only take
limited bending moments. UTA shall have lifting
points in line with the umbilical for the vertical lift.
The yoke may be design to fulfil this application.
8 Installation/ recovery of mudmats or Design of UTA docking facilities, latching
subsea UTA support structures arrangements and support structures.
It is recommended not to attach mudmats or
support structure to the UTA, prior to lowering
through the water column. The recommendation is
to lower the foundation first, followed by the UTA.
However if the project requires mudmats or the
support structure to be attached to the UTA while
installing, proper risk assessment must be carried
out by taking into account the relevant aspects
such as the sea state, to ensure that all safety
aspects are in place and that the operation is
carried out satisfactorily.
Installation/ recovery of mudmat structures should
be taken into account during initial design.
9 Critical installation parameters Compliance with product integrity
 Maximum umbilical tension <
allowable value
 Maximum umbilical
compression < allowable value
 Umbilical MBR > allowable
value
NOTE
The yoke allows the UTA to rotate during installation, e.g. in a “stab and hinge over” mode of deployment
where it is lowered vertically until its hinged docking probe engages with a receptacle on the mounting base,
12
then rotates until landed horizontally as the umbilical is laid away. The yoke allows the UTA to rotate during
installation and may be fitted to a UTA with or without a docking probe. The yoke is mainly used for horizontal
handling of UTAs such as a second end stab and hinge over operation. The UTA without and with a docking
probe respectively is shown in (a) and (b).
(a) UTA Without a Docking Probe
(b) UTA With a Docking Probe
13
Table 2 Installation-related Consequences
Consideration Explanation and Potential Consequences
The larger and heavier the UTA the higher the risk
factors with regard to safety of personnel and the
1 Safety Implications
product(s) (UTA and umbilical). This applies onshore as
well as offshore.
If UTA proportions are out-withbeyond the Installation
Vessel crane and handling equipment capacity it may
necessitate a Port Call to enable quayside crane
intervention (first end lay) or 2nd vessel crane (first or
second end lay).
Danger in handling a large / heavy
1a If both end UTAs are of similar proportions, it may not
load at height.
be possible to overboard the last end if a shoreside
crane had placed the first end UTA in position
With VLS systems the top arch may be so high there is
no suitable way of restraining the UTA during installation
over the VLS.
If the sea state is worse than that acceptable for safe
handling of the UTA, there may be delays associated
with waiting for improvement or else sailing to port or
sheltered water.
Danger from vessel motions
If environmental parameters change during the lay of a
1b caused by the sea state.
long umbilical a large UTA may not be capable of
overboarding and mean holding the final umbilical
deployment until conditions abate suitably to overboard
the oversized UTA, during which the umbilical will be
subjected to excessive fatigue.
Increasing UTA proportions size leads to increased
handling complexity resulting in the need for higher
specifications for installation systems (and vessels)
along with additional UTA handling and deployment
Cost (associated with vessel
2 equipment.
capacity)
Larger UTAs lead to more complex lay spreads and
vessels with capacity to accommodate such lay-spreads
for UTA handling, deck footprint and power
requirements.
Influenced by UTA functionality, umbilical length, water
depth, weight of umbilical, MBR and rigid length.
Increasing capacity requirements can lead to restricted
choice of vessel, more expensive vessel, or additional
port-calls and re-mobilisations.
The decision of choosing the installation method (reel vs
carousel) is mainly governed by the functionality, length
and weight per metre of the umbilical and consequently
2a Reel/Carousel capacity the size and weight of the UTA.
Increasing any of these parameters can rule out simple
reeled installation, which many vessels are capable of,
while substantially reducing a carousel or rotating
baskets available umbilical length capacity. This results
in only a handful of vessels available worldwide with a
lay spread specification suitable with which to execute
the installation or joined sections of umbilical, additional
port-calls and interim -mobilisations.
Choice of tensioners and lay-spreading system is driven
by top tension (SUTA dimensions / weight, umbilical
Required tensioner length / VLS weight, water depth) and installation method. Large
2b
capacity UTAs place Mmore onerous demands on VLS / lay-
spreadLay System capability and can lead to restricted
choice of vessel specification and charter costs.
14
Consideration Explanation and Potential Consequences
A need to handle a larger / heavier UTA tends to result
in a need for higher rated equipment, more items of
equipment, more complicated equipment - all leading to
2c Handling method requirements
greater cost.
Consequences of handling a large / heavy load at height
has been described in item 1a.
Increasing the UTA size tends to increase the risk of
extension to schedule due to complexity in handling,
3 Schedule
intervention and installation. It is possible for a small
growth in size to cause a large schedule impact.
A restricted choice of vessel can lead to schedule delay
owing to the reduced availability of suitable vessels.
3a Vessel availability Such a restricted choice could be caused by the need
for a VLS, an open tensioner VLS or a larger capacity
carousel.
The acceptable weather conditions for UTA and
umbilical installation will be diminished and less frequent
as UTA size increases or umbilical strength decreases,
3b Safe handling weather window resulting in project schedule delays. Consideration
should be given during early design phase as to
handling and weather parameters during lifting
operations.
A lLarge UTAs, as mentioned previously, can restricte
the choice of vessel which could result in a schedule
3c Geographical location
delay owing to transit time for suitable vessel to the work
locations.
The technical risks associated with UTAs are likely to
increase with their size, with consequent safety,
reliability, cost and schedule implications.
However there are also advantages by having higher
4 Technical Risk functionality UTAs, as described in section 5.2 of this
document, by allowing for spares, redundancy options,
reductions in welded fitting, etc., contributing towards
improved reliability, operational flexibility and extended
field life.
Increased functionality can have implications on long
4a Technical Risk Reliability term reliability of UTAs, however there are other factors
to be considered, as per section 5.2.
5.3.4 Type of Laying System
The optimum scenario is that the umbilical system can be installed with any available system (i.e. over
the stern, open / closed VLS, other – see API 17TR10 for description of laying systems). In a less than
optimum scenario, the umbilical system can only be installed by certain systems, e.g. open VLS if the
UTA is very large etc. or for purpose built systems.
The type of laying system still depends on the choice of the installer and the vessel spread availability.
It should also be noted that various geometrical constraints linked with the various laying systems may
influence the optimal choice of system. (See API 17TR10)
7.3.1.5 Rigid Length
The total rigid length of the SUT A assembly (including attached rigid elements) is defined in 3.1.3.
Depending on the configuration, rigid length can be calculated in three different ways, as outlined
below.
― If the UTA is equipped with a bend stiffener, the rigid length will be the sum of length of UTA, STI
and 1/3 of the length of bend stiffener, as shown in Figure 5.
15
― Rigid length = UTA + STI + (BSR/3)
― If the UTA is equipped with a bend restrictor, the rigid length will be the sum of length of UTA, STI
and the length of 1st interface flange (axial rigid length of bend restrictor), as shown in Figure 6.
― Rigid length = UTA + STI + L
― If the UTA is not equipped with a bend stiffener or bend restrictor, the rigid length will be the sum
of length of UTA and STI, as shown in Figure 7. It is recommended that either a bend stiffener or
bend restrictor is always used.
― Rigid length = UTA + STI
Figure 5: Rigid Length with a Bend Stiffener
Figure 6: Rigid Length with a Bend Restrictor
16
Figure 7: Rigid length without bend restrictor or stiffener
A longer length of UTA is worse for handling and installation through laying systems due to
geometrical constraints when interfacing and passing through these systems. Rigid lengths above a
certain length may not be installable using standard methods. (See API 17TR10).
A shorter length of UTA is preferable for handling and installation, also may improve the choice of
alternative laying systems available (Refer to API 17TR10).
5.3.6 Umbilical Minimum Bending Radius
The limiting minimum bend radius (also referred to as allowable bending radius, varying with various
stages of the operation) is less than optimal when a large radius is required, as this has a direct impact
on vessel layout, lay spreads, installation methods, complexity etc. A smaller limiting radius gives
increased flexibility versus handling and installation. “Minimum Bend Radius” relates to the minimum
radius to which an umbilical, at zero tensile load, can be bent to without infringing the stress criterion
or suffering loss of performance.
“Allowable Bend Radius” relates to the minimum radius to which an umbilical, at a given tension, may
be bent to without infringing design criteria or suffering loss of performance.
Refer to Specification for Subsea Umbilicals / ANSI/API Specification 17E, Fourth Edition, October 2010 /
Effective Date: April 1 2011 for correlation between MBR and ABR
Both MBR and ABR are mainly driven by the configuration of the umbilical characterized by the
following aspects:
 Number and functions required within the umbilical
 Physical properties of the subcomponents used (e.g. MBR of cables, hydraulic lines)
 Physical properties of supporting elements (e.g. interstices fillers, tensile strengthening
elements, outer sheath properties etc.)
 Umbilical manufacturing process (cross section layout, spiral bundling, etc.)
Typically the MBR and ABR are defined within the manufacturers handling and operating specification.
Both MBR & ABRs directly impact on the installation vessel specification lay spread specifications,
installation methods, over-boarding and seabed lay-down complexity. Umbilicals with smaller MBR &
ABR provide substantial advantages in passing them through the lay spread components and
availability of suitable vessels and lay-spreads.
However, besides the MBR / ABR criteria, a further and equally relevant umbilical characteristic is the
“bending stiffness” or better described, “bending resistance”. This characteristic can equally impact
heavily on the handing of umbilical and its SUT as one. As there is no direct correlation between the
bending radius and the bending resistance of an umbilical both aspects need to be considered when
preparing for the manufacture, handing, transportation, and final installation of the umbilical and SUT.
17
For example, an umbilical with a higher number of tensile strength elements, typical of dynamic
umbilicals, require larger MBR/ABR and an inherently higher stiffness/resistance. Inversely, an
Umbilical with a purely a high number of functions and/or sensitive subcomponents ‘can’ result in a
larger MBR/ABR, but equally exhibit a lesser bending stiffness/resistance.
Therefore the MBR/ABR and bending stiffness/resistance should be considered during initial Control
System FEED studies with relevance to possibility of additional bend stiffeners/restrictors, STI’s being
required , particularly where a SUT is dimensionally larger and of substantial weight in order to protect
a weaker umbilical structure.
The STI interface shall be used to provide the transition between the umbilical and its SUT. Within this
termination, the tensile-strength members of the umbilical, such as armour wires, rods or metallic
tubes themselves, are physically coupled to the unit using an approved method. At such an interface,
there is a transition in stiffness, which normally requires the use of a bend restrictor or stiffener in order
to protect the umbilical from excessive localized bending during handling or deployment.
The design of the interface shall be such that the components are not subjected to detrimental
stresses when they are connected to the SUT. This additional length and complexity can have an
unwelcome impact during the umbilical and SUT handling, packing, transportation, passing the SUT
through the lay spread components and final over-boarding and laydown on the seabed.
Figure 8: Illustration of impact of MBR/ ABR during various stages of

installation
SUT Weight
Very heavy SUTs are less practical from a handling point of view, versus vessel lay spreads, cranes
and winches, safety of product and personnel. Special installation aids, installation methods and
installation spreads may be required.
Size of Foundation Structure
The foundation structure (folded / open mud mats, support structure, etc) increases the total size of the
assembly and is either installed with the umbilical at launch or connected to the umbilical / UTA at the
seabed. A larger UTA will require a larger size of foundation, and is therefore worse for handling on
deck and for launching through the moon pool and through the water column.
18
A smaller and more compact foundation structure or pre-installed design (on seabed) is more
favourable in terms of handling and installation and induces less risk on the umbilical and UTA
deployment.
Installation Vessel Time Line
The time taken from UTA definition to offshore installation can influence the choice and availability of
vessels and laying systems. A short time to plan and execute the operation may be worse in terms of
vessel availability and choice of laying systems, while a longer time period between design and UTA
completion may give increased flexibility in terms of schedule and planning.
Delivery Method
In the best case scenario, all packing systems can be utilized for transport and installation, i.e.
baskets, reels or internal / external carousels etc. In the less than optimal case where the umbilical is
particularly long or UTA is unreasonably large, only particular packing systems can be used e.g. an
external carousel and open tensioner VLS system.
Installation Complexity
In a less than optimal case, the standard available laying systems are not suitable to install very large
and complex UTA / umbilical systems, moon pool may not be large enough, etc. In such a case,
specially engineered installation systems may need to be designed and fabricated for use onboard the
installation vessel to comply with complex handling and installation requirements – with the
consequence of increased schedule and cost impact.
8 Guidance for UTA Optimizsation

8.1 General
The size and complexity of the UTA can have enormous impact on the duration and cost forof the
installation of umbilicals and their UTAs, and might lead to:
― Bespoke, time consuming installation methods and lengthy costly onshore trials
― Specific requirements on installation vessel and equipment
― Reduced installation window due to the limited acceptable environmental installation conditions
― Limited availability of suitable installation vessels
― Time consuming and complex packing, transporting, mobilisation and offshore deployment
As the impact of the UTA size can be significant, it is recommended to perform an optimization of the
UTA size during the conceptual definition phase of the system layout.
Note – It is recommended to consult and engage with the installation contractor early during the design
phase to provide inputs on the install-ability and optimise the design. This will ensure that the
challenges and complexities faced during installation are known, fully understood and accounted for,
during the design process. This will minimise the delays and schedule/ cost overruns during project
execution. There might be technical and/ or commercial considerations for selecting the installation
contractor for early engagement/ consultation; it is recommended to address these on a project-by-
project basis.
The optimization model provides the method of optimizing the size of the UTA during the concept
stage of the development of a system. The model provides the opportunity to perform an optimization
of the UTA size considering key aspects of the system layout.
The model is structured in three elements:
― Optimization process
19
― Key Optimization Aspects
― Optimization Matrix
8.2 Optimization Process
Once the first draft of the system is present, the optimization exercise can be started based on the
following process, in combination with the information contained in earlier chapters of this document.
After each optimization process step, the key system questions should be answered and documented
within the optimization matrix. Once modifications of the UTA and/ or system have been implemented,
the process shall either be continued at the same level or re-started at one of the previous levels (see
Figure 8).
System Functional Design Requirements
“System layout versus UTA size”

UTA OPTIMIZATION
Figure 8 UTA Optimizsation Process
8.3 Key Optimization Aspects
During the concept phase for the development project not all details about the proposed equipment
are available. As a result, the optimization process concentrates on a few key aspects, as follows:
― Field architecture,
― Arrangement of drill centres and system layout
― Umbilical system and umbilical function
― Field environmental conditions, e.g.: seabed load-bearing capacity, tide, sea state, visibility
condition
― Use of SDU in conjunction with UTA
― UTA Functionality
20
― Termination of the umbilical services
― Distribution (e.g.: teeing of lines, electrical distribution units etc.)
― Isolation, reconfiguration option (gate/ ball valves, logic caps)
― Line Size
― Flow-assurance
― Bending radius
― Spare philosophy
― Number of spare lines/ cables
― Accessibility of spare lines
― Level of technology New technology development
― Qualification (for product and/ or system)
― Foundation arrangement
― Type of foundation structures (e.g. mudmat, suggestion suction pile, single or combined
foundation
― Installation method (combined or separate, permanent attached, disconnectable subsea)
In early conceptual and front end engineering phases of field layout, strong consideration should be
given to the number of wells to be served by a single umbilical. This directly influences the required
number of functional elements in the umbilical, and ultimately is truly what governs the size of the
UTA. Limiting the number of functional elements to a practical amount is a preferred method of
limiting the size of a UTA, as opposed to limiting or eliminating the ability to utilize spare lines or
compromising on design reliability with respect to materials of construction, minimum bend radii, and
the number of welded fittings.
8.4 Optimization Matrix
The optimization matrix (Table 3) has been developed:
― to perform the optimization process systematically
― to gain overview and awareness of which system design aspects influence the UTA size/
complexity
― to document the decisions/assumptions being made during FEED/ tender stage
This matrix should be used during all the stages of the optimization process. For the different process
steps, the matrix can be extended as needed, as this list is not exhaustive.
Upon completion of this process, the UTA size should be optimised as much as the system allows.
The matrix also provides an overview of the aspects which influences the system layout aspects, size
and complexity of the UTA.
During project execution, the matrix should be used to develop mitigation plans when the size and
complexity can be optimised no further. This should instigate critical activities such as development
work, qualification, vessel selection to address the challenging installation scenarios.
21
Table 3 Optimization Matrix
Key Aspects Why is the Can the size / If yes, HOW?
UTA large/ complexity be If not: WHY?
complex? reduced? Yes?/No?
Consideration of installation aspectsProcess step: Evaluation of packing optionProcess step: : UTA categorizationProcess step:
Field architecture
UTA Features
Line Size
Sparing philosophy
Level of technology
Foundation arrangement
Field architecture
UTA Features
Line Size
Sparing philosophy
Level of technology
Field architecture
UTA Features
Line Size
Sparing philosophy
Level of technology
The details about impact on the subcomponent level can be found in API17TR10.
9 Workflow for Selection and Sizing of the UTA

22
9.1 General
The aim of the workflow is to guide the user through a sequence of steps, to understand the
implications of the decisions made during early design phase. The workflow comprises a selection of
UTA category and packing, followed by an optimizsation assessment leading to optimised UTA size,
design and installation. Figure 9 shows the five sub-components of the workflow.
Category Functionalities
UTA Categorization Method
Selection of Packing Reel/ Carousel
SUT Rigid Length
Optimization Assessment
Figure 9 Workflow of the Selection and Sizing of the UTA
9.2 Category Functionalities
Table 4 indicates typical maximum functionalities that can be specified for each category of UTA, with
the categories defined as in Figure 10.
The convention for OD and ID in the document is in-line with common industry practices, therefore the
umbilical dimensions are expressed as ID and tubing (control lines) as OD. The reader is advised to
consult further to covert dimensions to ID/ OD as required.
23
Table 4 Functionalities of UTA Categories A, B C and D
UTA Category A UTA Category B UTA Category C UTA Category D UTA
Functionalities
To fit Closed 1.2 m (47 in) 1.4 m (55 in) 1.6 m (63 in) >1.6 m (63 in)
Tensioner Aperture (requires an open
Ø Maximum tensioner)
diameter of Closed
Tensioner Opening
for UTA to Fit
SUT maximum 1.1 m (43 in) 1.3 m (51 in) 1.5 m (59 in) >1.6 m (63 in)
diameter (with (requires an open
50mm clearance) tensioner)
MQC Plates 2 MQC plates with 7 2 MQC plates with 10 4 MQC plates with a total >4 MQC
lines each (2 up to 19 lines each (4 up to 19 of 24 lines (maximum of
mm (0.75 in) 3/4'' OD mm (0.75 in) 3/4''OD 4 up to 25 mm (1
and 5 up to 13 mm (0.5 and 6 up to 13 mm (0.5 in)1’’OD, 8 up to 19 mm
in) 1/2'' OD) in)1/2'' OD) (0.75 in)¾’’ OD and 12
up to 13 mm (0.5 in) ½’’
OD)
Cables A total of 6 optical and 6 electrical umbilical 6 electrical umbilical More than 6
electrical umbilical cables each terminating cables each terminating electrical umbilical
cables each terminating at a single connector, at a single connector, cables each
at a single connector, of and 2 fiber optic and 2 fiber optic umbilical terminating at a
which a maximum of 2 umbilical cables each cables each split into 3 single connector,
are fiber optics. split into 3 connectors connectors and more than 2
fiber optic umbilical
cables each split
into 3 connectors
Valves No No Not recommended Possible
Distribution No No Possible Possible
Max. UTA length 3 m (118 in) 3 m (118 in) 3.5 m (138 in) >3.5 m (depending
(including the on handling
padeye) limitations)
ROV operable Yes Yes Yes Yes
Note 1: The UTA length may exceed theses recommended values while optimizing the all-over length of the SUT or rigid length
with the length of the STI and bend limiter properties.
Note 2: ‘Distribution' refers to teeing of lines, electrical distribution units etc. Smaller UTAs generally don't have enough space to
cater these components.
24
Figure 10 Closed Tensioner Opening
Table 5 gives an indication of typical STI dimensions.
The table gives an indication of typical STI dimensions where it has not been possible to integrate the
STI into the main UTA body. In some cases STI may be integrated in the UTA, thereby the length of
STI will be much shorter than the indicative figures in the table above.
The total STI length may include the first joint in the bend restrictor interface when it is included as a
machined part of the armour body. The total rigid length includes this interface as shown in Figure 6.
9.3 UTA Categorization Method
87.3.1 General
This section describes the methodology for UTA size categorization adopted by the UMSIRE JIP.
UTAs have been classified into four categories depending on the limiting factors of installation
systems. Each category of UTA has been based on the level of functionality that can be incorporated
within each envelope as described in Table 4.
Table 5 describes the physical interface between the UTA and the umbilical with recommendations for
a standardized flange size. The advantage of this standardization is the minimization of the required
interface clarification between the UTA and umbilical supplier.
Table 5 Typical STI Dimensions (provided by Umbilical Suppliers) and

recommendations for a standard flange interface between UTA and
umbilicalRanges of STI Dimensions Advised by Umbilical Designers
UTA Category Total STI Length Max STI flange diameter (mm) Minimum interface aperture in UTA
(mm) (mm)
X Y Recommended Z Recommended
Default Default
A (steel tube) 1175 - 1400 650-710 ASME/ANSI B16.5 390 - 432 20” (510mm)
Class 300 – 20”
A (thermoplastic 370* 650* ASME/ANSI B16.5 390* 20” (510mm)

hose)* Class 300 – 20”
B (steel tube) 1250 - 1800 775 ASME/ANSI B16.5 480 - 550 20” (510mm)
Class 300 – 20”
B (thermoplastic 420* 650* ASME/ANSI B16.5 390* 20” (510mm)

C (steel tube) 1300 - 1900 770 - 838 ASME/ANSI B16.5 490 - 550 20” (510mm)
Class 300 – 20”
C (thermoplastic 510* 650* ASME/ANSI B16.5 390* 20” (510mm)

UTA Category Typical STI dimensions (based on past experiences Recommended Default for flange
for all types of UTAs) interface between UTA and umbilical
(for UTA type A-C)
Maximum total Max STI Minimum opening Recommendatio Recommendation

STI Length (see flange diameter in UTA n for standard for opening
Figure 12) outside flange interface diameter in UTA
25
diameter (inlet diameter
for umbilical
tubes/hoses)
A (steel tube) 1400 mm [55 in] 710 mm 390 mm [15.5 in] ASME/ANSI B16.5 510 mm [20 in]
[28 in] Class 300 – NPS
20
A (thermoplastic 370 mm* [14.5 650 mm* 390 mm* [15.4 in] ASME/ANSI B16.5 510 mm [20 in]
hose)* in] [25.6 in] Class 300 – NPS
20
B (steel tube) 1800 mm [71 in] 775 mm 480 mm [19 in] ASME/ANSI B16.5 510 mm [20 in]
[30.5 in] Class 300 – NPS
20
B (thermoplastic 420 mm* [16.5 650 mm* 390 mm* [15.4 in] ASME/ANSI B16.5 510 mm [20 in]
hose)* in] [25.6 in] Class 300 – NPS
20
C (steel tube) 1900 mm [75 in] 838 mm 490 mm [19.3 in] ASME/ANSI B16.5 510 mm [20 in]
[33 in] Class 300 – NPS
20
C (thermoplastic 510 mm* [20 in] 650 mm* 390 mm* [15.4 in] ASME/ANSI B16.5 510 mm [20 in]
hose)* [25.6 in] Class 300 – NPS
20
* Thermoplastic hose STI dimensions are examples from one umbilical designer only
Note: Figures are indicative based on experience within the UMSIRE JIP.
The values, range and tolerances in Table 5 are based on the past experience of umbilical
manufacturers, however the recommended default values in (Table 4) should be used as these are in-
line with the expectations with the size of the UTA.
Figure 103: UTA dimensions X, Y, Z (as per Table 5)
78.3.2 UTA Categories
Four UTA categories are defined as follows:
― Category A: up to 1.2 m closed tensioner diameter
― Category B: up to 1.4 m closed tensioner diameter
― Category C: up to 1.6 m closed tensioner diameter
― Category D: >1.6 m (requires open tensioner)
26
The categories are defined by the closed tensioner aperture as shown in the diagram below. The UTA
cross-section must stay within the aperture and be free to rotate within the circle enclosed by the
aperture. Figure 10 shows a 4-track tensioner, although other designs exist in the industry.
The convention used in the document is based on categorizing UTAs based on installation systems,
as this has the most impact. Functionality of UTAs is covered in TR10.
Category Tensioner
opening
A ≤ 1.2m
B ≤ 1.4m
C ≤ 1.6m
D > 1.6m
Figure 10 Closed Tensioner Opening

Clearance must be considered to allow the SUT to pass through the tensioner without issue. Certain
items may be temporarily removed to allow the SUT to pass freely through the tensioner. The
minimum radial clearance to tensioner aperture should typically be 50mm (for category A to C),
depending on geometrical layout and handling constrains (see Figure 10).
Certain items, such as protective covers, may be temporarily removed to allow the SUT to pass freely
through the tensioner.
9.4 Selection of packing reel or carousel
Figure 11 shows the methodology for selection of packing. The selection is based on three main
criteria, if all three criteria are meet, reeled installation requires a simpler lay spread and vessel
specification the specifications, the installation using a reel will be more favourable.
The total system weight refers to the weight of umbilical, fluid, terminations, reel (including cradle and
the partitions. The maximum rigid length check and the umbilical length check can be carried out with
the help of calculations such as described in Annex B.
27
UTA Category (Table 1) A B C D
Tensioner Type (Figure 7) CLOSED / OPEN OPEN
No
Total
System Weight
(350 tonne typical , 350 to 500 tonne special case only Check
< 350 tonne
Yes
No
Max rigid
Length check
Equation 2
Yes
No
Yes A to D
Umbilical Length
Check
Equation 3
Installation Vessel
Reel Carousel
Figure 11 Flow Chart for Selection of Packing Reel/ carousel

Equation C.2 and equation C.3 have been included in Annex C.
8.4.1 Installation Reels
The main reasons why installation reels fail the criteria is:
 the overall combined product (cores filled or empty) and reel weight exceeds the maximum
reel design capacity
 the reel simply cannot accommodate the overall length of the umbilical which can simply be
down to having to accommodate a dimensionally wide SUT, leaving the remaining space on
the drum for umbilical severely diminished.
 The reel inner drum cannot be packed out to a suitable radius which complies with the
umbilical’s MBR. (Typically large diameter steel cored umbilicals)
(The total system weight refers to the weight of umbilical, fluid, terminations, reel (including cradle and
the partitions. The maximum rigid length check and the umbilical length check can be carried out with
the help of calculations such as described in Annex C)
Various reel capacities are available, such as the industry standard 280-300te design which comes in
7.4m, 8.6m and 9.2m diameters with standard 4.4m diameter drums and 5m internally between side
flanges. There are also 350te rated reels available but these are quite sough after and therefore, like
bespoke reels, may have to be fabricated specifically for the project under design.
28
Figure 12 Typical Installation Reels Setup
8.4.2 Carousels
Due to their larger dimensions and maximum load capacities carousels pick up where reels prove
unfeasible. The will take several products and the “Last End” SUT’s are accommodated with relevant
ease upon their roof sections.
Figure 12 Typical Carousel Setup during Installation
9.5 SUT Rigid Length
8.5.1 General
The SUT rigid length is calculated based on the UTA dimensions and the STI length. The UTA
dimensions are obtained from section 7.1 and the following section describes STI length calculations.
Figure 12 shows the rigid length with a bend stiffener connected with the STI. As described in section
1.1.2, the rigid length will differ in other cases depending on if the SUT is connected with either a bend
stiffener or a bend restrictor, or none of them.
29
Figure 12 Rigid Length
The maximum permissible Rigid Length should be considered for two operational cases; storage and
as installed.
Storage Rigid Length - The total length of the UTA taken from the end of any padeyes or hold down
points plus the STI (if not incorporated into the UTA) with the Bend Restrictor or BSR not attached.
This will allow a longer UTA to be stored on the reel prior to deployment.
As Installed Rigid Length - The total length of the UTA taken from the end of any padeyes or hold
down points plus the STI (if not incorporated into the UTA) plus the Bend Restrictor interface or 1/3 rd
BSR length installed in position. This allows overboarding and deck handling requirements for the
different lay methods to be reviewed with the umbilical in the installed condition. The remaining Bend
Restrictors elements are attached prior to overboarding in a suitable location as determined by the
installer.
Further details on rigid length and STI have been provided in section 6.11.1 of API17TR10.
8.5.2 STI Length Calculation
The formulas for calculating length of STI have been included in Annex C (STI and SUT length
calculations). The formulas are intended to provide an initial sizing of the STI length based on the reel
diameter, umbilical (MBR & diameter) and UTA size (L & H).
Some of the important assumptions incorporated in the calculation method are as follows:
― The umbilical MBR should be equal or greater than the reel barrel drum radius;
― The UTA is box shape (side view) and does not have large extending brackets or component’s on
the top, base or front;
― The free board clearance (FBC) is the same for both the umbilical and UTA;
― Packing configuration ais per Figure 13.
The rigid length in Figure 13 is indicated as the sum of the length of UTA and STI, without a bend
stiffener or a bend restrictor. If a bend stiffener or a bend restrictor is used, the rigid length will be
different, as described in 3.1.3. It is recommended that a bend stiffener or a bend restrictor is always
used.
30
The rigid length in Figure 13 is indicated without a bend stiffener or a bend restrictor for packaging
purposes only. Although it is recommended that a bend stiffener or a bend restrictor is used, however
for packaging purposes the bend restrictor or stiffener can be temporarily relocated on the umbilical.
31
32
Figure 13 UTA packed within Reel Flanges (to Allow 2 nd End Lay)
33
The maximum STI length can be obtained from Figure 12 or can be calculated by using the equations
mentioned in Annex CB.
In some cases the barrel radius can be increased by adding a suitable packing structure to increase
the barrel radius. This may also be extended into both bay A and bay B, (as shown in Figure 14 and in
Annex E).
If pressure and/ or electrical monitoring is required during the transit or installation operations,
installation contractor may request temporary test-plates to enable external monitoring. Typically these
are installed before packing the UTA on the reel.
Figure 14 Illustration to Show Increased Barrel Radius by Using Packing

Structure (Sidze View)
Equation E.1 in Annex E contains the details of false barrel diameter calculations and the symbols
used (see Figure 15).
34
Figure 15 Illustration to Show Increased Barrel Radius by Using Packing

Structure (Front View)
Table 6 shows the estimated maximum STI lengths based on UTA categories, umbilical MBR and reel
size. The table provides guidance for STI lengths based on MBR range between 1-4 metres, which
has been chosen as an example in this document. For specific project requirements the user can refer
to the length equations in Annex C.
The main purpose of the table is to act as a quick reference guide for checking whether the results of
preliminary evaluation of umbilical length and the UTA dimensions will fit on the desired packing (reel/
carousel). The range of MBR, reel diameter and barrel diameter in the table has been chosen on the
basis of project experience, with an aim to provide an example of how such an exercise could be
conducted. The recommendation to the reader of the document is that an equivalent table must be
constructed for field specific requirements and range of possible umbilical and UTA dimensions. The
values provided in the table are estimated based on the assumptions made in this document.
The table can prove to be a useful and flexible tool which can be adjusted depending on project
specific conditions, drivers and requirements.
The aim intended use of thise table is not to act as a comprehensive guide, but to be used as an
approach for making a systematic methodology which can be effectively used on projects. The table
can be expanded or modified to suit individual project requirements.
Table 6 refers to technical terms such as reel, false barrel. A reel used for umbilical storage,
transportation or installation has a cylindrical barrel fitted with larger diameter flanges at each end. An
intermediate circular partition may be provided to divide the usable space on the reel into two
compartments: one of which may be used for storing the main quantity of umbilical and the other used
for containing a UTA. The partition is provided with a cross-over gate (aperture) to allow the umbilical
35
to pass between one compartment and the other. A false barrel may be fitted to increase the effective
central diameter of the reel when its use is dictated by the minimum bend radius of the umbilical being
carried. The edges of the flanges are reinforced to allow the reel to rest on deck or underrollers. The
barrel usually projects slightly outboard of the flanges to allow slings to be passed round it for lifting
purposes.
Table 6a Estimated Variation of Rigid Length with Varying Reel Diameter and
UTA Size Category (dimensions in m)
Rigid length (Lrigid)

UTA Size Category
A B C
Reel (m) Umbilical MBR range Umbilical MBR range Umbilical MBR range
(m) (m) (m)
Ø Ø 1.0 2.5 4.0 1.0 2.5 4.0 1.0 2.5 4.0
Rim Barrel
6 2.0 3.37 3.42
3.0 3.37
7 3 4.4 3.42 4.01
4 3.37 3.42
8.6 4 4.4 (4.4) 4.8 (3.42) 5.4 (4.01)
5 4.4 3.37 4.8 3.42 4.01 4.01
6 3.37 3.37 3.42
9.2 4 4.4 (4.4) 4.8 (4.8) 5.4 (4.01)
5 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.8 5.4 4.01
6 4.4 4.4 3.42 3.42 4.01
9.8 4 4.4 (4.4) 4.8 (4.8)
5.4 (5.4)
5 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.8 5.4 5.4
6 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.8 (3.42) 5.4 4.01
11.2 4 4.4 (4.4) 4.8 (4.8) 5.4 (5.4)
5 4.4 4.4 (4.4) 4.8 4.8 (4.8) 5.4 5.4 (5.4)
6 4.4 4.4 (4.4) 4.8 4.8 (4.8) 5.4 5.4 (4.01)
8 4.4 4.4 3.37 4.8 4.8 3.42 4.01 4.01 (4.01)
11.4 5 4.4 4.4 (4.4) 4.8 4.8 (4.8) 5.4 (5.4) (5.4)
6 4.4 4.4 (4.4) 4.8 4.8 (4.8) 5.4 5.4 (5.4)
8 4.4 4.4 3.37 4.8 4.8 3.42 5.4 4.01 4.01
Steel tube or thermoplastic STI

(…..) Steel tube or thermoplastic STI, umbilical requires false barrel
Thermoplastic STI only
(…..) Thermoplastic STI only, umbilical requires false barrel
Insufficient space for STI & UTA or MBR
NOTE Rigid length is calculated from the combined maximum values for STI length from Table 5 & UTA length
from Table 4.
The dimensions given in Table 6 are the maximum rigid lengths that can be used for either steel or
thermoplastic umbilicals for a given UTA category and MBR.
The two examples below show how the above approach can be used. Table 6 can be used in two
ways:
Example 1
36
If the available option has restricted the maximum reel diameter to 9.2m and have a 2.5m MBR steel
tube umbilical fitted with category “C” UTA:. It can be seen from the table the only option available is a
thermoplastic umbilical due to the maximum rigid length of 4.01m.
NOTES
1. A steel tube option may be possible, however it will need to be designed within the 4.01m rigid length
2. If the barrel diameter is less than 5m, then a false barrel will be required
3. A larger diameter reel may be required to accommodate the actual umbilical length.
Example 2
If the available option is to have a 2.5m MBR steel tube umbilical fitted with category “C” UTA: the first
available reel diameter is 9.8m with a 5m barrel.
NOTES
1. A 4m barrel could be used with a false barrel.
2. A larger diameter reel may be required to accommodate the actual umbilical length.
9.6 Optimization Assessment
The optimization assessment aims to guide the user through the process for optimising the process of
installation of umbilical and UTA. The methodology takes into account several factors such as the
environmental conditions (water depth, sea state), installation system, size and weight of the structure.
The aim of this table is to provide guidance to the user for being aware of the consequences of UTA
size relating to optimization and installation operation. Table 7 should be used to assess the
implications in terms of cost, schedule and risk.
37
Table 7 Optimization Assessment
38
Annex A
(Informative)
Packing of a UTA with the Confines of an Installation Reel or Carousel
A.1 Design Considerations

A.1.1 Packing Design
When considering the packing of a UTA within the confines of a transport / installation reel, the design
engineer shall assess the methods required for handling and packing onshore storage and also
loadout onto an installation vessel for installation un-packing offshore with consideration to the
following:
― Safe access to ALL rigging when onshore and offshore with zero or minimalum at height working
at height
― The project offshore lifting standard and certification requirements
― SUT first and second end lay. Note that for first end off the reel or carousel lay the SUT supporting
mechanism can be designed to allow the SUT extend outside of the reel flanges. In the case of a
carousel the SUT is normally positioned on the carousel roof UTA, 1st and 2nd end lay, note 1st lay
could be position outboard of the reel
― Reel Hub Drive system or under roller for rotating the reel
― Working clearance between UTA and reel compartment sides
― Load rating / testing of the reels UTA support structure and rigging attachment points
― Routing and anchorage of the umbilical

― Positioning of bend stiffeners or limiters and anchorage, with particular attention to long term
bending of bend stiffeners
― Design of rigging considering dynamic and rotational acceleration
― Clearance of the umbilical and UTA from reel rim and driving system (Note - when using RHD’s
the reel cradles can be higher to enable SUT’s which protrude past the outer rim to pass between
the higher cradles
― Second2nd end hold back anchorage of the UTA and umbilical or cable, with particular attention to
both tension and compression of the umbilical or cable at the point of partition cross over
― Environmental protection of partially dis-assembled equipment
― Accessibility to install and use pressure & electrical monitoring equipment
― Reel weight distribution
― Radial offset weight balance of the reel for lifting and rotation
― Reel lifting beam / rigging offset loading
― Packaging of removed equipment i.e. ROV grab bars, dummy connectors etc
― Drawings and procedures
39
A.1.2 Reel and Drive System
Reels shall be sized for the total weight of the umbilical, UTA (s) and all ancillary equipment, the
designer should also consider the following:
― Load distribution of product on the reel and lifting equipment, to ensure compliance with the reel
load / test certification
― Uneven weight distributionbalance
― Drive system, where under rollers may extend beyond the inner edge of the reel rim
― Low support structures, where access may be limited due to reel support cradles
― Structural strength of the rigging points
― Not welding rigging points to critical structural members of the reel
Reeler design may require additional structural analysis. Industry standards such as DNV 2.7-3 can
provide guidance on the design and design margins for these units.
A.1.3 Carousel Installation (See Section 7.4 – Selection of Packing a Reel or Carousel)
Where carousels are used the requirement for the SUT to be of minimal dimensions and weights
become largely invalid. The SUT’s are almost always placed on the roof of the carousel which has a
large area capable of holding several SUT’s or flexible riser/flowline end fittings.
However, as reels are relatively easily loaded transported and leave flexibility in installation lay-spread
and vessel, carousels don’t. The manufacturer generally has to set aside a carousel for the duration of
the storage period and the installation vessel must have a carousel onboard or have a temporary
carousel installed on deck which is very time consuming and costs dearly in extensive marine
engineering man-hours and vessel specification.
A.1.34 SUTA Support Structure

The UTA support structure should be designed with consideration to the following and the prevailing
offshore lifting standard and certification requirements:
― The structure should be easy to install and ideally adaptable to allow for a SUTA loading tolerance
― Ideally the structure should be designed and positioned to remove the need for disassembly
offshore
― If removal is required offshore, adequate lifting points should be provided and component weights
marked
― If any hot work (e.g. welding of sea fastening brackets and supports) is being carried in the
proximity of the SUT the structure has to be welded in position after the UTA is positioned,
adequate protection should shall be used to prevent damage to the SUTA and umbilical
A.1.45 Rigging Equipment
40
All rigging equipment should be designed to prevailing offshore lifting standard and certification
requirements and consideration of the following:
― Dynamic loading of the rigging and pad eyes
― Generally chain falls (chain block hoists) are the preferred lifting / lowering system offshore, this
allows the deck crew to work at deck level and clear of the descending UTA
― Ratchet lever hoists are generally used to rig fore and aft of the UTA
― Once installed chain falls and ratchet lever hoists should have chain lockers attached to secure
― Long term effect of high grade steel rigging in an offshore environment
Note: All rigging pad eyes should only be designed for the weight of the UTA with a nominal length of
umbilical attached. This will mitigate the possibility of deploying the UTA/ Umbilical via the "rigging"
pad eyes.
A.1.56 Umbilical RoutingPacking

The routing of the umbilical through the packing should consider the following:
― Maintaining the MBR
― Preventing damage to the outer sheath or roving from chafing, axial moment or over tightening of
the securing system
― Stored energy in umbilical or cable when released

― Future intervention, removal and decommissioning should be considered when considering the
routing of the umbilical
A.1.67 Bend Stiffeners

Consideration shall be given to the amount of bending the bend stiffener is subjected to and the
duration; typically to prevent a permanent set a bend stiffener should not be bent for more than the
maximum period specified by the manufacturer.
As a rule of thumb the bend stiffener should not be bent more than a 1/3 of its length for packing
purposes, in all cases the bend stiffener manufacturer must advise the amount of bend vs. duration.
A.1.78 Transportation & Installation Core Monitoring Systems
The UTA designer should take into consideration the packing, transportation and installation
monitoring requirements and make allowance for this in ensuring that the UTA test ports can be safely
accessed in order to install the monitoring system sensors. If the UTA is easily accessed but on the
roof of a carousel prior to sail-away, technicians can install wireless transmitters with which to send the
sensor values remotely to a control cabin. Where the UTA is packed within the confine of an
installation reel partition, designer should allow for extension of test ports to ground level for direct
connection of monitoring hoses and cables or safe and ease of access to install a similar wireless
monitoring system as per that on top of a carousel.
Monitoring systems used for shipping and or installation lay should have good access for installation of
the equipment and monitoring. When used for shipping the monitoring part of the system should be
positioned at ground / deck level to provide easy access on route.
41
Annex B
(Informative)
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
FTA is one of the most widely used methods in system reliability, maintainability and safety analysis.
The main drivers for using FTA are to be able to conduct a thorough examination of the factors which
may lead to a system failure or accident. The process identifies the causes of a failure, to identify the
weakness in a system, to prioritize contributors to failure, to identify effective upgrades to a system, to
quantify the failure probability and contributors, and to optimize tests and maintenances.
FTA is a deductive technique where users start with a specified system failure or an accident, known
as the top event of the fault tree. The immediate causal events A 1, A2, … that, either alone or in
combination, may lead to the top event are identified and connected to the top event through a logic
gate. Next, all potential causal events A i,1, Ai,2, … that may lead to event A i for i = 1, 2, 3, … are
identified. These events are connected to event A i through a logic gate. This procedure is continued
deductively until a suitable level of detail is reached. The events on the lowest level are called the
basic events of the fault tree.
The 1st FTA (Figure B.1) demonstrates that “sea state” event and the undeveloped “SUT size”
contribute to increase project costs. The 2nd FTA (Figure B.2) develops the “SUT size” and mentions
a number of contributory factors to the size of the SUT.
42
FTA - project costs
Operator point of view
Increased project Manufacturing /

Engineering
realization time Equipment
Increased Decreased vessel Increased Supply: Excessive Technical

installation time availability material vessel, # of hours risks
handling time cranes, Components
etc costs
Limited installation Increased material Heavy / large

vessels Sea state
window handling time
Large reels / Time to Quantity / Large / long
caroussels / soucre, complexity of umbilicals &
Large reels / lifting specify components SUT
caroussels / equipment
Decreased vessel Large reels / Health &
Sea state lifting
availability caroussels / safety equipment
lifting issues Large / long
equipment Large / long Large / long
umbilicals &
umbilicals & SUT umbilicals & SUT
SUT
Heavy / large
Sea state
vessels
Large / Personnel Repair of Large / long

Large reels / caroussels / long safety complex umbilicals &
lifting equipment umbilicals equipment SUT
& SUT damaged
Large / long umbilicals
& SUT
Figure B.1 FTA Step One
43
Large / long umbilicals &
SUT
Excessive # of
functions / interfaces
Over Lack of industry

engineering standardisation
Personnel Specifications Missing field Maximum # of

experience / lacking or not return functions / interface
training followed or reliability data per umbilical / SUT not
excessive defined
Figure B.2 FTA Step Two

The FTA methodology has been chosen to give an indication of an analytical approach that could be
used to gain a better understanding of the risks and consequences of excessive size of UTAs. The
choice of using FTA was driven by the following factors.
• FTA is specified in a number of reliability related manuals, such as US ARMY

HEADQUARTERS Design for Reliability Guide (1976), each investigative method (FMEA, FTA,
RBD, etc) will identify measures to be taken into account to enhance reliability, safety or other
probabilistic features. FMEA analysis, for example, is well adapted to “evaluate individual
component failures”.
• Our choice to use the Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) method was motivated by the fact that “FTA is
thus the appropriate analysis to carry out if a given undesired event is defined and the goal is to
determine its basic causes”, NASA Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications, 2002.
Hence, FTA is fit to analyze multiple causes and effects.
Some important considerations for using the FTA method have been outlined below.
• Our approach was to remain superficial and not to dive into design and/or engineering
considerations potentially overlapping with project requirements, specifications, supplier
experience, design intent, etc. The FTA presented aims at demonstrating that SUT size and
minimal design considerations can influence significantly project costs and timespan.
Publishing the complete FTA seemed irrelevant as it would generate interest away from the
objectives set forth.
• Serious considerations have to be taken into account during the design and/or engineering
phases as typically 5% of the life cycle costs have been spent at those stages, but typically
85% of the life cycle costs are determined then, Reliability and Maintainability Guideline for
Manufacturing Machinery and Equipment, (1999).
― Life cycle costs (LCC) refer to the total cost to the customer, both sunk and anticipated, of
acquisition and ownership of an item over its useful life, as defined by IAQG. It includes
the cost of research, development, test & evaluation; procurement (to include production
testing, deployment, support to operational test & evaluation); operations & support (to
include training); customer facilities; and disposal. Life Cycle Cost is also called Total
Ownership Cost (TOC).
• Our purpose here was to evaluate scenarios probability values but to identify major
contributions to increased installation costs.
537399122.docx, March 2015 45

Annex BC
(Informative)
STI and SUT Length Calculations
BC.1 Equation
Case A: Maximum permissible STI length = L STI( (For a UTA with a front pad eye length that equals ½
the UTA height)
LSTI ∶=¿ BC.1
Case B: Maximum permissible STI length = LSTI

(For a UTA with no front pad eye or a pad eye length less than ½ the UTA height)
LSTI ∶=¿ BC.2
Where:
RR = reel rim radius (m)RB = reel barrel radius (m)
FBC = free board clearance (m)
LUTA = length of UTA including pad eye (m)
HUTA = overall height of UTA (m)
Dprod = diameter of product (umbilical or cable) (m)
MBR = minimum bend radius of product (umbilical or cable) (m)
Hrig = height of support rigging between barrel & UTA (m)
H1 =distance between reel centre to UTA centreline (m)
H UTA
H 1 ∶=RB + H rig + ( )
2
BC.2 Umbilical or Cable Length Calculator
Total storage capacity (m) of umbilical or cable to be placed in bay (B), see Figure C110
L∏ ¿∶=¿¿ BC.3
Where:
Lprod = total length of product (umbilical or cable (m)
FBC = free board clearance (m)
Df = reel flange diameter (m)
Db = barrel diameter (m)
Wt = reel traverse width
Wp = partition width (m)
WUTA = maximum width of UTA (m)
Wc = UTA to reel clearance (each side) (m)
537399122.docx, March 2015 46

k1 = width fill factor (unit less)
k 1 ∶=round ¿
k2 = height fill factor (unit less)
k 2 ∶=round ¿
k3 = product fill factor (%) (Typically 80%)
Figure BC.1 shows an illustration of storage of umbilical or cable placed in a bay.
Figure BC.1 Storage of Umbilical or Cable Placed in a Bay
537399122.docx, March 2015 47

537399122.docx, March 2015 48

Annex CD
(Informative)
Comparison of Steel Tube Umbilical or Thermoplastic Umbilical
Thermoplastic umbilical’s has been on the market for many years, since the 1970 and served the
purpose very well. It has been used worldwide in almost every corner of the earth. Latterly with better
steel availability steel tube cores are increasingly used.
The table below provides an basic indication of Pro’s and Con’s of the differing core properties:
Title Thermoplastic Core Steel Core

Manufacture Seamless thermoplastic liner tube with “Seam welded” out of bent flat strip of
layers of high tenacity yarn short seamless lengths welded together
(reinforcement)as pressure retaininer.
Extruded sheath for abrasion and
environmental elements protection.
Can have supporting carcass for higher
hydrostatic pressures
Materials Liner: Polyamide 11, polyethylene. Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel (Duplex,
Reinforcement: High strength fibre, Super
(aramid). Duplex, etc).
Sheath: Polyamide 11, polyethylene. Sheath: Zinc or polyethylene bonded to
Carcass: Stainless Steel (316L) the tube for corrosion protection
Note: May be oversheathed with
suitable thermoplastic polymer for
geometrical conformance.
Max Continuous Non-carcass: 5,000 - 24,000m Seamless: 10-30m depending on bore
Lengths depending on bore size/tube wall
size / pressure rating thickness
Carcass: 3,000 - 18,000m depending on Seam Welded: 3,000 – 8,000m
bore depending on bore size / tube
Design Working Pressure Stainless Steels:-

(DWP) • 316L : 862 bar / 12,500 psi
862 bar / 12,500 psi • 19D : 1,207 bar / 17,500 psi
• Super Duplex : 1,517 bar / 22,000
psi
Carbon Steel : 1,207 bar / 17,500 psi

Safety Factor 4:1 based on minimum burst pressure to Nominal 1.25-1.50 based on minimum
DWP ratio yield strength (MYS)
Design Codes ISO 13628-5 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Design and operation of
subsea production systems – Part 5, subsea umbilicals
API 17E Specification for Subsea Production Control Umbilicals
Note: ISO 13628-5 and API 17E are basically the same document under a sharing
agreement.
End Connections Directly welded fittings or welded to Permanently attached end connections
interface tube built into STI or UTA. either crimped or swaged.
Caution: Post installation access to As per steel tube or Thermoplastic

connections is almost impossible Using access to inner fitting post installation is
heavy duty fittings with a secondary very difficult and requires very intricate
sealing improves matters and fail-safe routing though steel tube can
recommended, if screwed connections be made rigid and connected outside of
are employed. the UTA and lowered in one piece with
careful design.
Welding Butt Weld Seamless

100% X-ray inspection
Only for specific connectors with 100% X-ray after each weld pass.
welding design incorporated Seamless
Continuous eddy current inspection
and UT
Corrosion/Compatabil The use of polymers with high levels of Carbon and Duplex steels and some
ity chemical and fluid resistance Super Duplex at high temperature
generally ensures compatibility with require external corrosion protection in
fluids is not normally an issue a marine environment.
For corrosive fluid the steel must be
defined against the chemical.
‘Stainless Steel’ offers very high
corrosion resistance except in seawater
containing sulphite reducing bacteria
which can result in weld failure due to
corrosion.
Permeability To be considered where the fluid is of No permeability

low molecular weight where
permeability has corrected by the use of
ultra-low permeation hose liner
materials and venting of trace amounts
of permeated fluid
Collapse Resistance For standard hoses filled with fluids of Very high due to the inherent strength
specific gravity of less than that of the tube, further increased
of seawater (1.024), collapse may be an if fluid filled with a specific gravity of
issue as bore size 1.0 or greater.
and / or water depth increases.
A carcass reinforced hose can be used . Where Thermoplastic suffers due to
If core fluid s.g is >1.024 thermoplastic internal S.G < 1.024 in deep and
hoses can generally be used in ultradeep water environments Steel tube
deepwater applications. solves the problem
Crush Resistance Low resistance to crushing when Crush Resistance is very high.
unpressurised, but unimpaired However: Thin wall compared to tube
functionality unless repeatedly allowed diameter needs special care in handling,
to collapse. throughout and during laying-up
Note: Pressurisation during lay-up operation, crushing of weaker
ensures crushing is not an issue. components like fibre optic cables can
be an issue.
Volumetric Expansion Typically 7-10% at DWP reducing over Very low expansion so useful where
time due to ‘normalising’ of the hose fast response time is a major
structure. Requirement like SSIV’s.
Volumetric expansion of thermoplastic Reduces size of TUTU reservoir and
hose provides an accumulator topside HPU’s.
effect reducing or eliminating the size
of, subsea accumulators.
Track Record The change of materials and With the lessons learnt and
appropriate venting has eliminated investigation programmes, the industry
earlier issues. now has a high level of confidence in
Thermoplastic hoses provide a reliable selected steel tube designs for
and versatile means of conveying fluids umbilical service.
537399122.docx, March 2015 50

at high pressure in umbilical service. Over 15 years experience in umbilical
service.
Over 30 years experience in umbilical
service.
Flex Fatigue Very high level of resistance to flex Large bore centrally located steel tube
fatigue and, generally, ideal for can restrict eventual usage and or
severe dynamic service (floating installation lay spread configuration.
production facility, etc). For dynamic service, tubes need to be
oversheathed or prevented from contact
together prevent wear and premature
failure.
Typical Areas of Usage Shallow / medium depth installation or Medium and deepwater with resultant
deepwater with appropriate medium to high hang-off
service fluids and / or suitable collapse loads during installation / dynamic
resistant design of hose. service.
Light and heavy duty dynamic service.
Installation Larger diameter / heavier weight may Larger MBR may impact on size /
impact on size / capacity of capacity of installation spread.
installation spread
Deepwater installations result in high
Thermoplastic hose umbilicals are hang-off loads and high
invariably double wire armoured. gripping loads by the installation cable
hauler.
Reduced risk of damage to underlying
functional components during Resistance to crush in a consolidated
deployment and trenching operations umbilical is very high.
Steel tube umbilicals frequently

unarmoured.
Where the umbilical is to be trenched

there is an increased risk of sheath
removal and damage / contamination of
the underlying functional components.
Minimum Bend Radius Typically 10 x umbilical diameter for Larger than thermoplastic hose
(MBR) storage. equivalent umbilical and for arduous
Note: MBR is a factor in Increases as umbilical loading dynamic service increases significantly.
determining the increases. Also increases as umbilical
installation spread loading increases.
required to install an
umbilical.
Invariably, repair can be effected on the Offshore repair may not be possible
Repair Offshore deck of the installation / necessitating recovery of the
recovery vessel. umbilical and return ashore for repair
operations onshore, alongside the
vessel.
Design Life (typical) Up to 30 years achievable with a factor Up to 20 years achievable with a 4:1
of safety of 10 in respect of fatigue life safety factor in respect of pressure
capability, and a factor of 10 in respect
of fatigue life.
Seabed Stability If seabed stability is an issue, generally Unarmoured steel tube umbilical’s may
resolved by increasing the require additional ballast to
gauge (diameter) of the armour wires, achieve seabed stability
adding additional layers of Such armouring may also be required if
armour wire and / or high density fillers the umbilical is laid over rock dump or
with the bundled functional laid onto rough rocky shore approaches.
components.
Tensile Strength Very low requiring the umbilical to be Very high allowing the tubes to act as
537399122.docx, March 2015 51

provided with a tensile strength the tensile strength member in
member, usually in the form of double the umbilical as well as the pressure
wire armouring. An important retaining member.
secondary benefit of armouring is This results in a smaller and lighter
protection to the umbilical umbilical compared with its
functional components during umbilical thermoplastic hose equivalent provided
handling, installation and that additional ballasting /
service. protection is not required.
Temperature Limit-in 400C max typically, up to 600C Typically
Marine Environment intermittent. Zinc clad: up to 1000C
Polymer sheathed: up to 800C
Super Duplex – non sheathed: 550C
Cleanliness High levels of cleanliness achieved Carbon steel requires NACE 6 or higher
without the requirement to purge involving extensive flushing with
with cleaning agents. Cleanliness descaling agents, followed by chemical
maintained during flexing. passivation in order to achieve required
cleanliness.
Flexing of the tube can cause the fluid
to go out of specification, which may be
critical for control lines but acceptable
for chemical injection lines.
Stainless Steels readily flushed clean
and do not require descaling
agents. Cleanliness maintained during
flexing.
Bore Sizing Only an issue when DWP requirement Use of multiple smaller bore tubes
for a required bore size cannot preferable to single large bore
be satisfied. Two or more smaller bore tube resulting in:-
hoses in parallel may offer a • Reduced umbilical bending
solution. stiffness
• Enhanced fatigue life
• Elimination of multi-pass
welding
• Increase in system contingency
availability
.
The details of design and installation of different types of umbilical have been described in API17E and
API17I. Figure D.1 and Figure D.2 show the cross-section of the Steel tube and the Thermoplastic
Umbilical.
Note: Steel tubing has larger MBR than thermoplastic umbilical.
537399122.docx, March 2015 52

Figure CD.1 Steel Tube Umbilical or Thermoplastic Umbilical without Spool
Figure CD.2 Thermoplastic Umbilical

The calculation of rigid length depends if a bend stiffener or a bend restrictor is connected with the
STI. Figure D.3 shows the rigid length when a bend stiffener is used. As described in section 1.1.2, the
rigid length will differ in other cases depending on if the SUT is connected with either a bend stiffener
or a bend restrictor, or none of them.
537399122.docx, March 2015 53

Figure D.3 Calculation of Rigid Length (Handling)
537399122.docx, March 2015 54

Annex DE
(Informative)
False Barrel Diameter Calculations

The false barrel build up diameter required (see Figure 14 and Figure CD.1) to maintain the umbilical
manufacturer’s stated MBR
D B ∶= ( MBR∗2−H 1 )∗2+ D ∏ ¿¿ DE.1
DB = false barrel diameter
RB = reel barrel radius (m)
HUTA = overall height of UTA (m)
MBR = minimum bend radius of product (umbilical or cable) (m)
Hrig = height of support rigging between barrel & UTA (m)
H1 =distance between reel centre to UTA centreline (m)
H 1 ∶=RB + H rig + ( H2 )
UTA
537399122.docx, March 2015 55

Annex EF
(Informative)
Responsibility Matrix
The responsibility matrix (Table EF.1) includes the typical roles and responsibilities of multiple parties
involved in the design, development, manufacture and installation of UTAs. The matrix is for
informative purpose and can be used through the field planning and development phase.
Table EF.1 Responsibility Matrix

Typical Umbilical System Design, Manufacturing and Installation Roles
Activity Operator Umbilical UTA UTA Installer
Manufacturer Manufacturer
Umbilical Establishes and The Umbilical The UTA N/A
System monitors Manufacturer is Manufacturer
Requirements communication presented with is presented
between the umbilical the Umbilical with the
and UTA System Umbilical
manufacturers. configuration. System
Transmits Umbilical configuration.
System configuration,
functional and
operational
requirements.
Umbilical Establishes and Designs The UTA The Installer is
System monitors Umbilical Manufacturer presented with the
Configuration communication Bundle, is provided the Umbilical System
between the umbilical Structural and Umbilical configuration and
and UTA Mechanical configuration. properties for
manufacturers. Interfaces to the review and
Approves the design UTA to meet comments from
solution and project Installation
manufacturing requirements. Perspective to
process. ensure
configuration is
installable.
UTA Design Establishes and Reviews the Designs UTA The Installer is to
monitors UTA design and to be informed about
communication provide accommodate design parameters
between the umbilical feedback to interfaces to and layout/
and UTA operator and the Umbilical interfaces of the
manufacturers. UTA Bundle and UTA.
Approves the design Manufacturer. meet project
solution and requirements
manufacturing transmitted.
process.
Umbilical Takes ownership of Coordinates with Coordinates The Installer
Bundle & UTA the equipment the operator the with the witnesses the
Components designed and acceptance operator the acceptance
manufactured in activities of the acceptance activities where
compliance with the equipment activities of the practicable and is
project technical manufactured. equipment made aware of
requirements. manufactured. any technical
issues associated
with the
components to
assess installation
implications.
537399122.docx, March 2015 56

Umbilical N/A Assembles the N/A Provide N/A
Bundle & UTA Umbilical bundle support as
Assembly to the UTA in requested by
Process & FAT accordance with the operator.
the project
requirements.
Umbilical Establishes the Site Supports the SIT Supports the The Installer
Bundle & UTA Integration test activities and SIT activities witnesses the
SIT requirements, issues can provide and can acceptance
the Test Specification labour and provide labour activities where
and is responsible for resources. and resources. practicable and is
coordinating all made aware of
activities. any technical
issues arising
during SIT to
assess installation
implications and
for warranty.
Umbilical Takes ownership of Coordinates with N/A Takes custody of
System the equipment the Oil Field the designed,
Assembly designed and Developer and manufactured and
Post Load Out manufactured in acceptance tested equipment
compliance with the activities of the in compliance with
project technical equipment the Oil Field
requirements. manufactured. Operators project
technical
requirements and
installs items in
line with
installation design
criteria.
Installation Takes ownership of Coordinates with Coordinates Takes custody of
the equipment the Installer the with the the designed,
designed and acceptance Installer the manufactured and
manufactured in activities of the acceptance tested equipment
compliance with the equipment activities of the in compliance with
project technical manufactured in equipment the Oil Field
requirements and accordance with manufactured Operators project
free issues where Oil Field / in accordance technical
appropriate to Company with Oil Field / requirements and
Installer and monitors requirements. Company installs items in
where appropriate via requirements. line with
manufacturers installation design
installation activities criteria.
in accordance with
class design
requirements. Will
also include post
installation tests.
System Takes ownership of Supports the Supports the Supports the
Commissioning the post installation commissioning commissioning commissioning
activity and activity and can activity and activity.
verification of provide labour can provide
functionality prior to and resources. labour and
systems start up. resources.
537399122.docx, March 2015 57

17TR9 SUT Selection and Sizing Recommendation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

17TR9 SUT Selection and Sizing Recommendation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT)

Selection and Sizing

BALLOT DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

BALLOT DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

Copyright © 2015 American Petroleum Institute

BALLOT DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

The UMSIRE deliverables are two API documents,

technical information on UTAs.

1.2 Use of the Document

Figure 1 Project Stage Chart

5.3.6 Umbilical Minimum Bending Radius ........................................................................................ 12

5.3.5 Rigid Length............................................................................................................................ 9

BALLOT DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

This document aims to:

 Provide guidance on specifications and respective sizes of umbilical terminations.

API 17TR10, Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Design Recommendations

API Specification 17E, Specification for Subsea Umbilicals

API Specification 17F, Specification for Subsea Production Control Systems

4 TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

NOTE: This is sometimes known as “bend restrictor”.

API American Petroleum Institute

BSR Bend stiffener

FBC Free Board Clearance

FEED Front-End Engineering Design

FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

FTA Fault Tree Analysis

IAQG International Aerospace Quality Group

JIP Joint Industry Project

LCC Life cycle costs

MBR Minimum Bend Radius

MQC Multiple Quick Connects

NPS Nominal Pipe Size

RBD Risk-Based Design

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicles

SDU Subsea Distribution Unit

SPS Subsea Production Systems

STI Subsea Termination Interface

TOC Total Ownership Cost

UMF Umbilical Manufacturers’ Federation

UTA Umbilical Termination Assembly

VLS Vertical Lay System

5 Functionality and Distribution of Umbilicals

6 Drivers for UTA Size

• Handling and transportation difficulties

• Increase in lead time

• Longer fabrication and assembly

• Complex SIT/ FAT – Factory Acceptance Tests

• Increase in vessel mobilization/ demobilization and installation time

• Limited availability of suitable specification Installation Vessel availability

• Lack of clear definition of acceptable level of risk resulting in over-engineering

• Offshore installation of heavy UTAs connected to weak umbilicals substantially increases

6.4 Forward Planning

Reducing the size of the UTA is encouraged wherever practical.

― Enable a much simpler deployment of SDU and umbilical individually

― Alleviate complex handling

― Mitigate much of the installation/recovery and/or re-installation risks

Figure 3: Vertical Lay Installation, First End (Source: Technip)

7.3 Vessel Implications and Consequences

5.3.2 Water Depth

5.3.3 Limiting Sea state Lay spread limitations and consequences

Table 1 SUT Design Factors

Note – Designer must take into account when

For the second end lay it shall be considered that