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

net/publication/337514777

Tie-in of a Rigid Pipeline to a Flexible Rise: Design and Installation —

Challenges and Lessons Learnt

Conference Paper · June 2019

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2019-95057

CITATIONS READS

0 71

5 authors, including:

Gianbattista Curti Diego Pavone

Saipem Singapore Saipem S.p.A.
4 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   148 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Neptun Deep Project - Black Sea View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gianbattista Curti on 28 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


TIE-IN OF A RIGID PIPELINE TO A FLEXIBLE RISER: DESIGN AND INSTALLATION —
CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNT
Gianbattista CURTI
Saipem SpA
Fano, Italy
Gianluigi PIRINU Diego PAVONE
Saipem SA Saipem SpA
Saint Quentin Yvelines, France Fano, Italy
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the experience made with the engineering
and execution of the tie-in of flexible risers to rigid pipelines on
a project recently completed in West Africa.
Five production and injection pipelines (10” and 6”) were tied
back to the host platform with flexible risers, in Lazy wave
configurations, in ~600m water depth.
The risers are directly connected to the terminations structures
(PLETs) of the rigid pipelines, through horizontal connection
systems.
The structures forming the tie-in (risers, PLETs and pipelines)
have been designed to accommodate axial displacements of the
pipelines in the range 0.3m to 1.0m, as positive displacements
(expansions) and -0.1m to -0.7m as negative displacements
(contractions) of the pipelines, respectively towards and away
from the risers, due to pipelines thermal expansions and pipe
walking.
Note that along some of the lines anchoring structures have
been installed to control pipe walking.
The tie-in interface loads were to be limited, in order not to
threaten the flexible pipe, the PLETs and the connectors, and,
despite the small pipeline end displacements, keeping the
interface loads within allowable values, was a challenge.
The positive displacements were causing interface loads as
high as 80% of the allowable values, while the negative
displacements were causing up to 90% utilization of the
capacity of the connectors and 95% of the allowable loading of
the foundations of the PLETs.
The main drivers of such high loadings are the stiffness of the
flexible pipe, combined with the layout of the tie-in.
Extensive in place analyses were done to simulate the effects of
progressive displacements of the pipelines, the pipe-soil
interactions and the specifics of the behaviour of the flexible
pipes (hysteretic stiffness).
1 Copyright © 2019 ASME
A
Proceedings of the ASME 2019 38th International
tte
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
nd
ee
OMAE2019
June 9-14, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
R
ea
d-
O
nl
OMAE2019-95057
y
C
op
y
Francois LIROLA
Saipem SA
Saint Quentin Yvelines, France
Frederic PERRIN
Saipem SA
Saint Quentin Yvelines, France
Full 3D FE analyses of the foundations (mud mats) of the
PLETs were done, to circumvent the limitations of a classical
bearing capacity analysis approach.
As built information were also used, to remove some
conservatisms in the assumptions initially taken in the design.
A special installation procedure was implemented, to achieve a
layout of the riser at the approach of the pipeline capable to
better relieve the displacements of the pipelines and reduce
interface loads.
Feedbacks from the installation are given in the paper.
The lessons learned are also presented: a “flexible” pipe is a
“stiff” structure and a direct tie-in to the pipeline may become
an issue, if not addressed early enough during the execution of
the project, when it can be too late to add mitigation structures,
like intermediate tie-in spools, or to change significantly the
routing of the risers and pipelines
INTRODUCTION
The tie-back of production and injection wells to a
host platform (e.g. an FPSO unit or a semi-sub platform) can be
done by using rigid or flexible flow lines which convoy the
fluid to and from the platform.
The flow lines laid on the seabed and approaching the platform
are then hooked up to the platform with risers which also can be
of different typologies e.g. rigid lines as SCR (Steel Catenary
Riser) or flexible pipes in Lazy-waves configurations, free
hanging or a combination of top tensioned rigid risers and
flexible pipes.
During operations, the lines may experience axial
displacements, which can also cumulate due to ratcheting
expansions and contractions causing pipe walking.
Axial displacements and pipe walking are not a limit state by
itself, but may be excessive for the tie-in structures.
End displacements of the lines are excessive if they cause
overloading at the interface with the tie-in structures, e.g. loads
exceeding the max allowable loads of the connection system or
loads threatening the stability and bearing capacities of the
foundation of the structures.
To limit these interface, the configuration of the tie-in needs to
be flexible enough. There are several solutions to achieve a
configuration of the tie-in that limits the loads induced in the
tie-in structures. Normally, tie-in spool pieces are used, which
incorporate bends to accommodate the expansion and relieve
the loads transmitted to the connected structure.
When instead the risers are flexible pipes, and particularly when
the flexible risers are in a Lazy-wave configuration, direct
connections between the risers and the pipelines are normally
used.
However, in such cases, the designer may underestimate that the
flexible pipe – in spite of its name – is still a stiff structure all
the more that bend restrictors are present, and direct
connections between the rigid lines and the flexible riser may
generate excessive loads. The loads at the interface depends on
the flexibility of the configuration. The axial flexibility depends
on the axial and bending stiffness of the flexible pipe.
Compared to a rigid pipe, a flexible pipe is much more flexible
(the bending stiffness of a flexible pipe can be ~100 times lower
than the stiffness of a rigid pipe) but, this may not be enough,
depending on how is arranged the lay-out of the tie-in.
Ideally, to make the configuration more flexible, the rigid line
should be a 90deg with respect to the flexible pipe as, in this
case, the axial displacements of the pipeline are taken mainly by
the lateral displacement of the flexible, sliding on the seabed,
without causing significant reaction loads.
This configuration can be easily achieved when the connection
system is vertical, whilst it is much more problematic when the
connection is horizontal.
Therefore, to achieve a suitable tie-in configuration is not
straight forward – also when “flexible” pipes are used as risers
to connect subsea rigid pipelines to the platform.
A multidisciplinary approach is needed, with consideration of:
 The lay out – which may have a significant impact also
on the length of the risers;
 The type of connectors;
 The use (or not) of structures to control the
expansions;
 The installation methods, and the sequence of the
installation.
If this is not tackled since the early phase of a project, it may
then be too late for the implementation of cost effective
solutions, or may cause additional costs, not initially envisaged.
On a project recently completed in West Africa, the detailed
engineering of the tie-in between the rigid lines and the flexible
risers started:
 When the type of connectors had been already chosen,
before the award of the EPCI Contract of the risers and
flow lines – horizontal connectors were to be used and
NTE (Not-To be – Exceeded) loads were also
specified;
2 Copyright © 2019 ASME
 With a layout almost fixed (and thereof the length of
the flexible risers) – the layout had been drawn with
the nominal routing of the flexible riser almost straight
with the pipelines or making large radius curves before
approaching the termination of the pipeline (PLET).
Note that flexible risers had a fixed length, not
adjustable offshore, unlike steel pipelines
The designer was therefore to detail design the tie-in, given the
above constraints posed by the lengths and headings of the
risers, and also the NTE loads of the connectors.
The designer had limited possibilities to change the lay out and
the success relied on:
 The use of detailed in place analyses, to avoid too
conservative estimates of the loads;
 The use of FE analysis of the foundations of the PLETs
– for the most critical foundations - to demonstrate that
loads do not threaten the stability and bearing capacity
of the foundations;
 The use of structures to stop walking - whether and
when required;
 The adoption of installation methods which allowed to
achieve a more compliant configuration of the tie-in;
 The use of as-built data, to avoid over conservatisms.
Key factors were also:
 A close interfacing between different design
disciplines involved: in particular, the design of the
risers, the design of the rigid pipelines and the design
of the tie-in structures;
 A close interfacing with the supplier of the connectors,
to rationalize the use of the interface loads to be taken
by the connectors.
OVERVIEW
On a project recently completed in West Africa, a number of
rigid lines were connected to an FPSO, through flexible risers.
The flexible risers have a Lazy-wave configuration, with a static
section resting on the seabed, up to the termination of the
pipeline – the riser and the pipeline have different headings (see
Fig. 1)
Figure 1 – Lazy Wave configuration of the flexible riser and
layout
The termination structures of the pipelines – PLETs (Pipe Line
End Terminations) –are free to slide on the seabed, and have
foldable mud mats, to allow the passage through the J-lay tower
of the installation vessel (Fig. 2), with the sizes of the PLETs
being the maximum that could pass through the J-lay tower.
Figure 2 –PLET structure with integrated hinged mud mats
As shown in Fig. 2, a gooseneck is needed to elevate the hub of
the horizontal connectors off the seabed, to allow the tie-in of
the risers – this is an additional challenge for the stability of the
foundation.
On some of the lines, anchoring structures are required to stop
pipe walking (see Curti [3]).
The risers have been wet stored, before the arrival of the FPSO
and when the pipelines were already in place. During the wet
storage, the subsea end of the riser (2nd end, during the wet
storage installation) has been laydown on the receiving structure
of the PLET, and then the riser tied-in to the pipeline by closing
the connector. The top side end has been then recovered after
the arrival of the FPSO, and hooked-up to the FPSO. The tie-in
has been done after the hydro test of the pipeline, and a leak test
has been done after the hook up.
The end fitting at the subsea end is flanged to the outboard hub
of the connector. After the stroking, the configuration is as
shown in Fig. 3, with bend restrictors also in the section of the
flexible near the subsea termination.
3 Copyright © 2019 ASME
Figure 3 – Tie-in configuration
INITIAL CONSTRAINTS / BASIS OF DESIGN
Layout and installation sequence
The heading of the risers and the pipelines were fixed, by when
the detailed engineering of the EPCI contract was started.
Together with the overall layout, also the lengths of the risers
were almost frozen, with an allowance to modify the lengths by
not more than a few meters. otherwise the delivery schedule
(and costs) would have been significantly disrupted – and not
adjustable offshore, unlike a steel pipeline.
The installation sequence was also frozen, as the pipelines were
to be installed before the risers, and therefore the PLET was to
be already in place during the wet storage of the risers.
The risers were planned to be wet stored – waiting for the
arrival of the FPSO – and the end at the FPSO side was to be
packed at the outer side of the reel – therefore, the FPSO side
was to be the 1st end (initiation head) of the riser, during the
wet storage, and the lay down head the 2nd end.
Note also that the plan was to have the rigid lines installed (and
hydro tested) before the wet storage of the risers.
In summary, the plan was to start the installation of the risers
(flooded) from the FPSO end, to wet store the riser and to
complete the wet storage with the laydown of the 2nd end, on
the receiver of the connector incorporated in the PLET.
Normally, an “extra length” of the riser needs to be
accommodated. An extra length is needed because there are
manufacturing tolerances, which may cause the riser to end up
either “longer” or “shorter” than the nominal length. An extra
length is needed also because there are installation accuracies in
the location of the PLET to be taken into account.
This goes together with the need to have a straight section of the
riser at the approach of the PLET, to ease the catching of the
receiving structure of the connector in the PLET.
The routing of the riser was therefore drawn to stay within 2
extreme cases (see Fig. 4):
 A “Far-Far” routing, where the PLET is in the farthest
position (with respect to FPSO), and with the riser
having the shortest length;
  A “Near-Near” routing, where the PLET is in the
nearest position, and the riser is having the longest
length.
Figure 4 – “Far-Far” and “Near-Near” routes
Connection system
The connector had been chosen before the start of the detailed
engineering and the NTE (Not To be Exceeded) interface loads
had also been specified by the SPS Contractor.
The NTE loads were specified in term of maximum allowable
axial and vertical forces, and torsional and bending moments.
During the course of the engineering, these NTE loads were
challenged and have been increased.
Displacements
The axial displacements (positive displacements (+)) of the
pipelines were calculated for the maximum operating pressure
and temperature.
Pipe walking analyses have also been done to calculate the
accumulation of displacements during operation transients (e.g.
shutdown and restart cycles). All lines have a walking direction
away from the risers (negative displacements (-)). Therefore,
the tie-in had to be verified for both “positive” displacements -
which are pushing the PLETs toward the riser - and “negative”
displacements, pulling the PLET away from the riser.
For 4 out of 5 risers, a structure has been used to mitigate pipe
walking (see Table 1). The Pipe Walking Mitigation Structure
(PWMS) consists of a skirted structure, post-installed after the
installation of the pipelines, and engaged on an in-line structure
(ILA), laid in-line with the pipeline – see Fig.5 (see also Curti
[3]).
4 Copyright © 2019 ASME
Figure 5 – Pipe Walking Mitigation Structure (PWMS)
For 2 lines, the PWMS was required to be in place before the
start of the operations.
 In such case, there are still positive and negative
displacements to be accommodated, due to the
clearance between the ILA and the yoke of the fork,
plus the soil mobilization distance which is the
displacement of the anchor to mobilise the required
axial restrain capacity.
For the other 2 lines, the installation of PWMS could be
postponed to a later stage after the start-up.
 In such case, the positive displacement is the axial
expansion associated with the maximum operating
pressure and temperature, as these conditions could
occur any time, and also before the installation of the
PWMS – and the negative displacement is the
maximum that can cumulate during the transients
expected during the years before the installation of the
PWMS.
The pipeline end displacements are given in Table 1 – Lines 1
and 2 are production flow lines, while Lines 3 to 5 are injection
flow lines (water and gas injection).
Table 1 – Pipelines end displacements
In addition to the axial displacements of the PLETs, due to
thermal expansions and pipe walking of the rigid lines,
consideration has been given also to the behaviour of the
dynamic section of the risers.
Due to motions of the platform and wave and current forces, the
dynamic sections of the riser apply an axial force at the TDP
(Touch Down Point), which is resisted by the axial friction
along the static sections of the risers.
The lengths of the static sections between the TDP and the
PLET were long enough to absorb the axial force – therefore,
the dynamic section of the riser does not apply forces at the tie-
in point. Also the radius of the curves along the static sections
was selected to remain stable, both during installation and
operation.
Pipe-soil interaction parameters are also a key input, for both
the in-place analyses of the risers and of the pipelines, and for
the verification of the foundations of the PLETs.
The horizontal connection system requires that the outboard
hub – at the extremity of the riser – is stroked against the
inboard hub of the connector. The stroking is in the order of
300-500mm. Therefore, for this connection to be effective, the
tie-in configuration has to be flexible enough, to all to pull the
riser towards the PLET with a pulling force that is within the
capacity of the pulling tool used to make the stroking. The pitch
also has to be carefully controlled and maintained within a
certain range, to allow a proper connection of the connector
hub. This requires that during landing of the 2nd end, the
configuration is flexible enough to catch the receiver and to
maintain the pitch within a specified value.
(at maximum Temperature and minimum Pressure) slip stiffness
in the order of 600 kNm2 and 300 kNm2, respectively.
Generally, the increase in bending moments, shear forces and
tension/compression forces are found with the maximum
hysteretic stiffness.
Maximum hysteretic stiffness generates a high bending
stiffness, longer free span values and consequent increase in the
tie-in bending moments. Furthermore, in operational cases, the
high hysteretic stiffness of the pipe is a driver parameter for the
compression at the end fitting / connector interface.
As sensitivity, the initial pitch of the PLET is also changed
within the +/- 5deg range, which was the maximum expected
after the installation, as basis for the design.
Figure 6 shows the buildup of the axial (compressive) force
when a positive axial displacement is applied.

IN – PLACE ANALYSIS
The entire static section of the riser is included in the model,
from the interface point with the dynamic section – the so called
ZMP (Zero Motion Point) – to an interface point with the Figure 6 – Buildup of axial force during positive axial
PLET, which is taken to be the flange connecting the end fitting displacements
of the riser to the outboard hub of the connector.
In the model, the riser is in contact with the seabed. The maximum value of the axial (compressive) force has been
The connector is at ~ 2m from the seabed and, therefore the verified with reference to the allowable compressive axial force
riser has a suspended section when connected to the PLET (free of the flexible pipe (bird caging, etc).
spanning from the connector to the seabed, as shown in Fig. 3).
This is the initial condition of the risers, on which the axial During a negative displacement, an axial (tensile) force is
displacement is applied. This is also the initial condition building up (Fig.7), until lateral displacements are mobilized
achieved after the stroking of the outboard hub towards the along the curved sections of the route.
inboard hub of the connector, a stroking that pulls the risers
towards the PLET and as such, induces an initial status of axial
tension in the risers.
Note also that the end of the model has boundary conditions
that constrain the rotations around horizontal and vertical axis
and around the longitudinal axis.
The axial displacement – positive or negative – is applied
progressively. Several sensitivities are performed, on key
parameters affecting mainly the response of the risers,
In particular, the stiffness of the flexible pipe, which depends
also on the pressure applied, has a hysteretic behavior, and is
properly modelled.
Hysteretic bending stiffness is used in static, with an
Figure 7 – Buildup of axial force during negative axial
unpressurized stiffness.
displacements
For instance, the flexible riser connected to Line 1, has a
bending stiffness of ~ 200 kNm2, when empty, but the hysteretic
stiffness varies with pressure and temperature, with a maximum
(at minimum Temperature and max Pressure) and a minimum

5 Copyright © 2019 ASME

The forces are calculated at the face of the flange connecting
the end fitting of the riser to the outboard hub of the connector
(Fig. 8).
Figure 8 – Location of the interface point
Note that in the model, this interface section is moved axially
(with positive or negative displacements) but, it is not free to
rotate – actually, rotations are imposed, when making
sensitivities on the pitch of the PLET.
Bending moments are therefore calculated at this interface
point, together with axial and shear forces.
Taken from there, the loads are then transferred to the support
of the hub connector, to which the hub connector is flanged, and
to the centre of the foundation of the PLET, by taking into
account the weight of the PLETs at its COG (Center Of
Gravity), in water.
The factors that most contribute to the magnitude of the
interface loads are discussed.
To mobilize lateral displacements in the curved sections of the
route, the radius of the curves was reduced to the minimum
allowable, to ensure the stability during the installation.
Also the length of the straight sections between the curve and
the PLET has been reduced to a minimum value, that however,
still provides a straight routing of the riser required during the
final docking to the PLET.
The pitch of the PLET (Fig.9) is a major contributing factor.
The value of -5deg, initially chosen as basis for the design, as
sensitivity extreme value, induces a quite significant load. For
instance, by reducing the pitch of the PLET from -5deg to -
1.5deg, which is the as-built value finally achieved for one of
the PLETs, the loads are reduced by 20%. Note that, finally, the
as built values of the pitch were used, for a final verification.
Figure 9 – Pitch angle of the PLET
6 Copyright © 2019 ASME
The maximum bending moment is the value to be used to verify
the stability of the PLET, combined with the residual axial
force. To avoid over conservatisms, time consistent loads are
used rather than envelopes based on extrema on forces and
moments.
The verification of the foundations is driven by the loads
associated with negative displacements. The reason is that in
this case the overturning moment caused by the riser, when
pulling the PLET at the interface point, adds its effect to the
overturning moment caused by the weights of the connectors
(Table 2).
Table 2 – Overturning moment at the center of the PLET
PLETS – STRUCTURAL VERIFICATIONS
Through the path of the loads, that are caused by the axial
displacements of the pipeline, there are the connector, the
support of the connector and the piping (including the pup
pieces, and flanged connections). All these items have been
verified.
On some lines, the NTE loads of the connectors have been
further verified by taking into account the as-built pitch of the
PLETs, as soon as the as-built of the PLETs was made
available.
Otherwise, with -5deg pitch, assumed as conservative value
basis for the design, the loads would have not met the NTE
values, and measures would have been required to control and
reduce further the end displacements of the pipelines.
Note that an ILA was anyhow installed along those lines – so,
should it be required, the line was ready to be retro-fitted with a
PWMS. This however was not required, thanks to having taken
into account the as-built information.
PLETS – GEOTECHNICAL VERIFICATIONS
The loads at the centre of the mud mat are calculated by taking
into account the loads applied at the interface between the
PLET and the riser, the weights of the PLET, including the
weight of the piping, the connectors and the valves, and the
geometry of the PLET.
The applied bending moments were as high as 95% of the
allowable overturning moments. Note that the allowable
overturning moments were calculated through a detailed FE
analysis of the foundations, by using PLAXIS-3D software.
This allows to identify the load that is causing a global failure
of the foundation, to which then safety factors are applied, to
obtain an allowable value (Fig. 10)
For this purpose, the use of (temporary) buoyancy modules was
studied and in the end, it was chosen to use the winch that, with
a special rigging, allowed to adjust the position of the end
fitting of the riser, before landing it, in a sort of “camel back”
configuration – as shown in Fig.12.

Figure 11 – Docking of the riser in the PLET

Figure 10 – PLAXIS-3D Analysis – Overturning of the

foundation of the PLET

INSTALLATION ENGINEERING
Since the very beginning of the detailed engineering, the
designer of the tie-in configuration and the installation engineer
had to work hands in hands, in order to achieve a workable and
effective configuration.
As found through the in-place analyses, the length of the
straight sections and the radius of the curves play a key role to
reduce the interface loads. The routing of the risers needs to
make a curve before the approach to the PLET, in order to fit
the heading of the riser with the heading of the flow line. Figure 12 – “Camel Back” configuration during installation
The routing – in the extreme cases – was drawn to minimize the
radius of the curve and the length of the straight sections INSTALLATION AND AS BUILT
between the curve and the interface with the PLET. After the lay down, the pitch of the PLETs turned out to be very
However, the radius of the curve was kept larger than value for small (Fig. 13). This was beneficial to verify the acceptability of
which the curves remain stable, given the expected the expected interface loads as, by considering the as-built
characteristics of the soil, and the estimated tension required values of the pitch, the interface loads were recalculated and
during the installation. were significantly reduced.
Also, the straight section to approach the PLET was to be long
enough to allow the proper docking of the connector into the
PLET, as to achieve the accurate docking of the riser end into
the receiver of the hub, was also challenging (Fig.11).

7 Copyright © 2019 ASME


Figure 13 – Tilt of the PLET after installation
During the installation of the riser, the end fitting caught the
receiver as expected, thanks also to the use of the “camel-back”
technique (Fig.14).
Figure 14 – Riser tied-in to the PLET
Only in one case, it was required to lift the riser section already
laid, off the seabed, and to re-lay the riser, to achieve the target.
The as-built of the routing is also shown in Fig. 15 and fits well
with the expectations. The risers have been installed in between
the two extreme cases. The length of the straight section at the
8 Copyright © 2019 ASME
approach of the PLET was also as expected. Therefore, no
specific as-built verification have been deemed necessary.
Figure 15 – As built routes
LESSONS LEARNT
Workable configurations of the tie-in between the rigid
pipelines and the flexible risers have been achieved.
However, only limited axial displacements could be
accommodated, mainly because of the constraints posed by the
use of horizontal connection systems.
(Only) 9cm of axial displacement causes 80% utilizations.
It might be hard to believe, but analyses were showing that such
small axial displacements of the flow lines (particularly,
negative displacements of the PLET, pulling the riser), cause
high utilizations of the capacity of the connectors.
On Line 1, for example, a negative axial displacement equal to
only 9cm brings the utilization factors close to 80%, and, this is
notwithstanding a PWMS was installed on this line, since day
one (i.e. before the start-up of the system).
Figure 16 – Loads applied to connectors
 The “camel back” technique, that was used to control the offset
with reference to the receiving structure of the PLET, can also
be used to lower the riser on the seabed, after the connection of
the riser, to generate a curve on the final configuration of the
riser i.e. a curved shape, that remains stable on the seabed, as,
Table 3 – Loads applied to connectors once it is laid on the seabed, the residual laying tension is not
applied any longer (see Fig.17 through Fig.19), and the short
On Line 3, a utilization factor equal to 70% (with respect to the radius curve remains stable.
capacity of the connection system) is caused by a larger
displacement (0.6m).
Note that the flexible riser connected to this line, which is a
water injection line, has a bending stiffness equal to ~ 1/3 of the
stiffness of the riser connected to Line 1 (a production line) –
also, a reduced weight of the connector on this line, and a
smaller lever arm, contribute to a reduced bending moment
applied to the connector (see Fig.16 and Table 3).
In summary, the configuration of the tie-in did not contribute
significantly to reduce the interface loads, which were driven by
the stiffness of the flexible pipe.

How to make a configuration of the tie-in less sensitive to the

axial displacements of the pipelines?
In other words, how to increase the magnitude of axial
displacements that can be accommodated by the tie-in, such that
the installation of devices to control / stop the pipe walking can
be avoided or at least postponed?
The use of horizontal connectors has the drawback – compared
to vertical connectors – that a quite long straight section is
required at the approach of the riser towards the PLETs.
And the curves along the route of the risers have no significant
benefit as they do not contribute to absorb the displacements
and therefore to relieve / decrease the interface loads, if the
radius is too large or the straight section is too long.
On another side, any curve made during the laying of the riser Figure 17 – Curves generated after the tie-in
(during the wet storage of the risers, in our case), cannot have a
radius shorter than the stable radius, given the characteristics of
the soil and the tension used during the installation - unless
counteracts to make shorter radius of the curves, are used.

Use of (permanent) buoyancy modules

Buoyancy modules, used to lift off the seabed a section of the
flexible, can provides flexibility to the tie-in configuration.
In our case, when the difficulties to accommodate axial
displacements became evident, it was too late to go for this
solution: lead time of the buoyancy modules, changes to the
layout, length of the riser and installation procedure to be
changed, etc.
Figure 18 – Use of “camel back” technique to generate a
Use of “Camel back” installation technique curve after the tie-in
To achieve a layout that more efficiently absorbs the axial
displacements, a residual curve should be generated after the
tie-in / stroking.
This can be achieved by using the “camel back”.

9 Copyright © 2019 ASME


Figure 19 – Response of the curve generated after the tie-in
“Displacement Controlled” loads and integrated response
model
Note also that the interface loads are caused by the end
displacements of the lines and as such, these loads are
“displacement controlled”.
The loads are therefore somehow self-limiting as long as the
connected structures have a displacement (rotation, in
particular).
An integrated model which accounts for the rotation of the
PLETs and the loads taken also by the pipeline, can therefore
contribute to reduce significantly the loads at the interfaces and
in particular the loads transmitted to the foundations of the
PLETs (see also Curti [4], Abdalla [1] and [2], )
CONCLUSIONS
On a project recently completed in West Africa, five production
and water injection rigid flow lines (10” and 6” diameter) have
been successfully tied-back to a turret moored FPSO, in approx.
600m water depth, through flexible risers in Lazy-wave
configurations.
The flexible risers were directly connected to the rigid flow
lines.
The difficulties to achieve an acceptable configuration of the
tie-in had been initially overlooked during the FEED and the
detailed design phase had to manage with constraints posed by
e.g. a layout almost frozen and a connection system based on
the use of horizontal connectors.
To overcome these constraints – within the tight schedule of the
execution phase - extensive in-place analyses and verifications
of the connected structures (flexible pipes, connectors, and the
piping and foundations of the PLETs), and specific installation
methods, have been required.
In particular, it was beneficial to simulate in detail the loading
process of the tie-in during the progressive increase of the axial
displacements of the end of the flow lines, and also to make
detailed FE analysis of the foundations of the PLETs.
10
The model however, was still not an integrated model (riser,
PLET, flow line).
The experience made indicates instead that the use of an
integrated model would allow to remove some over
conservatisms and achieve more optimal solutions.
The experience made indicates also that a closer interfacing
between the riser designer, the flow line designer and the
installation engineer, since the early phase of a project – already
during the FEED phase – is a key, to avoid that the design of the
tie in is tackled too late, when e.g. changes to layout cannot be
done or be very limited.
NOMENCLATURE
EPCI Engineering Procurement Construction and
Installation
FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading
ILA In Line Anchor
NTE Not To be Exceeded
PLET Pipe Line End Termination
PWMS Pipe Walking Mitigation System
SPS Subsea Production System
TDP Touch Down Point
ZMP Zero Motion Point
REFERENCES
[1] Abdalla, Basel. Wang, Steven F. and Hossain, Kabir
M.“FEA-Based Stability Analysis of Mudmats – Coupled Soil-
Structure-Flowline Interaction Model.” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering. Paper 10955. Nantes, France, June 9-14, 2013
[2] Abdalla, Basel and Mei, Haixia. “Numerical Evaluation of
PLEM Structure and Foundation Modes of failure
Consequences.” Proceedings of the International Conference
on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Paper 10935.
Nantes, France, June 9-14, 2013
[3] Curti, Gianbattista. Pavone, Diego. Marchionni, Lorenzo.
Guyon, Vivien. Perrin, Frederic and Pirinu, Gianluigi.
“Challenges and Lessons Learnt from the Design, Fabrication,
Installation and Monitoring of Pipe Walking Mitigations”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Paper 95055. Glasgow,
Scotland, UK, June 9-14, 2019
[4] Curti, Gianbattista. Pavone, Diego. Pirinu, Gianluigi and
Qin, Janjun. “Challenges and Lessons Learnt from the Design,
Fabrication and Installation of Rigid Tie-in Spools”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Paper 95056. Glasgow,
Scotland, UK, June 9-14, 2019
Copyright © 2019 ASME
[5] Karnikian, A. Tarbadar, S. Bonnissel, M. and Legeay, S.
“Flexible Spools Solutions at Hybrid Risers Bases”
Proceedings of the Deep Offshore Technology International
Conference. Aberdeen, Scotland, 14-16 October, 2014

[6] Tarbadar, S. Legeay, S. Bonnissel, M. Nossa, O. and

Karnikian, A. “Flexible Spools Solutions for Hybrid Risers
Base for Green Fields Developments” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering. Paper 41271. St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada,
May 31-June 5, 2015

11 Copyright © 2019 ASME

View publication stats