Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

A systematic approach to pipe-in-pipe installation analysis MARK

a,b,c a,b,d,⁎ a,b d
M.Z. Jiwa , D.K. Kim , Z. Mustaffa , H.S. Choi
a
Ocean and Ship Technology Research Group, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Linton University College, Mantin 71700, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
d
Graduate School of Engineering Mastership, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang 37673, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: In the present study, the selection of a pipe-in-pipe (PIP) system which includes an installation analysis
Pipe-in-pipe (PIP) modelling technique is investigated. The PIP system has become the standard pipeline design for subsea field
Subsea pipeline developments, especially for deep water fields. One of the most important design challenges for engineers is the
Installation pipeline installation design. A design underestimation of loads could result in serious damage, while
Modelling technique
overestimation would result in high operation costs. An accurate or improved modelling method is definitely
Selection
required for the PIP system. The modelling of a finite element single pipe-lay simulation has been studied and
discussed by many authors, and is very much understood by the people in the industry. However, modelling
complex PIP systems for pipe laying simulations in order to obtain accurate results is quite challenging. To build
the most economic finite element (FE) model for the pipe-lay simulation of PIP systems, various modelling
aspects of the installation have been studied separately. In this work, three types of FE models which are two
models with different simplifications and one actual PIP model were established and compared. Finally, a
systematic approach selection for performing a PIP installation is presented.

1. Introduction formation. Other advantages of PIP systems include compatibility with

Developments of more optimised and efficient oil and gas technology
are to be considered in the latest low oil price era economy. Recent
discussions on advanced engineering tools for subsea indicate progression
in the developments of improved and optimised methods used for pipeline
installations, even in deep water (Bruschi et al., 2015). Any methods of
scale or production improvements towards the best interests of the
industry are relevant. One of the important factors to be managed when
designing an offshore field development is the production fluid's (crude
oil) thermal behaviour or characteristic. The flowlines need to be
efficiently thermally insulated regardless of being either in shallow or
deep waters in order to maintain a suitable production temperature and
avoid wax or solid formation inside the pipes (Aiyejina et al., 2011).
Pipe-in-pipe (PIP) systems provide better insulation than conven-
tional single pipelines (Kristoffersen et al., 2012). Due to the excellent
thermal insulation properties of PIP systems, it is the best pipeline
system for the transportation of crude oil and can prevent hydrate
high temperatures, stability on the seabed, and protection by the outer
pipe against external loads, and as a pipeline vibration mitigation
method (Bi and Hao, 2016). In addition, PIP systems have superior
resistance against indentation (Zheng et al., 2014). In some cases, this
may prevent the need for pipeline burial post-installation (Bai and Bai,
2005; Denniel, 2015). Nevertheless, the installation of PIP flowlines in
shallow or intermediate water depths can present real challenges due to
the PIP pipeline's weight and the effect of compression of the inner
pipe when a PIP is un-bonded.
In the industry, PIP is commonly treated as a single composite pipe for
global analysis. This is considered as a simple model for ease of analysis or
due to software limitations that can be used to perform PIP line contact
calculations. This method cannot evaluate the PIP system's load response
during installation. Thus, a full PIP simulation is required to obtain the
actual load responses. OrcaFlex (2012) had released commercial software
which includes a feature for PIP modelling suitable for modelling systems
where one pipeline is inside another pipeline, such as pipe-in-pipe systems

⁎
Corresponding author at: Ocean and Ship Technology Research Group, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: do.kim@petronas.com, dokim@postech.ac.kr (D.K. Kim).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.07.004
Received 10 January 2017; Received in revised form 16 June 2017; Accepted 2 July 2017
0029-8018/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.Z. Jiwa et al.
Fig. 1. S-lay installation and PIP bulkhead (Jiwa et al., 2016).
and pull-in operations. Though there is advancement in FE global analysis
software, the pipe-in-pipe interaction is still considerably a new feature in
any finite element software.
In this regard, a better way is required for a global analysis on the
modelling of PIP. So far, a single pipe for modelling PIP has been used
as industry practice for many years. However, not many research works
have focused on the accuracy of analysis of this simple pipeline
modelling. There are several single pipe methods that have been used
for simulation of the PIP pipeline during installation such as:
(1) Combined weight property
(2) Combined axial & bending stiffness properties
The objective of this paper is to present a systematic approach in
analysing the installation design process for pipe-in-pipe systems.
Thus, the focus of this paper is on the comparison of modelling
techniques for pipe-in-pipe systems’ installation using the S-lay as
shown in Fig. 1 to come out with a reliable approach that can be used to
perform PIP offshore installation analyses.
The process focuses on selection of the most suitable pipe-in-pipe
model for performing the installation analysis, based either on the
allowable stress design or load resistance factor design standard.
Applying a suitable model for the analysis could reduce the analysis
running time and the increasing the accuracy of the pipeline structural
load response during pipelay. Thus would lead to a potential reduction
of the lay tension schedule and ultimately the cost.
The existing technologies on S-lay installation method, dynamic
analysis, pipe-soil interaction, tensioner control, configuration, etc. can
be briefly summarised as follows. Malahy (1985) proposed a mathe-
matical method for predicting the dynamic motions and stresses
experienced by an offshore pipeline during its installation. Bhavikatti
et al. (1986) mentioned that the maximum moment in the pipeline
depends on horizontal tension and the lift off angle at the stinger end.
The moment in the pipeline is very much sensitive to lift-off angle,
suitably adjusting the lift off angle, and the maximum moments can be
considerably reduced. The optimum lift-off angle reduces with depth.
Bernitsas and Vlahopoulos (1990) had developed a nonlinear incre-
mental finite element algorithm which features condensation and
principles of contact mechanics. The developed model can be used to
study on the stinger pipelaying for various stinger configuration
479
Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490
including the effect of water depth.
Clauss et al. (1991) studied on nonlinear interaction between tension/
bending oscillations and tensioner control. They mentioned that dynamic
effects should be taken into account at any laying operation. Callegari et al.
(2003) proposed an analytical model based on finite difference-based
technique to determine the pipeline static equilibrium configuration using
large displacement-rotation theory of deflections beams. However, pro-
posed model does not consider any damping factor.
Perinet and Frazer (2008) found that the allowable strain levels in the
overbend region can be increased to around 0.35% without any detri-
mental effects on the pipeline integrity. Lawinscky da Silva et al. (2009)
had studied on the interaction contact of pipeline, lay barge on the over-
bend region, and tensioner behaviour. Two models were proposed
whereby one of the models is a rigorous contact model which provides
information related to the impact between the pipeline and the roller;
while the other model is to simulate the tensioner behaviour. This tool is
intended to improve the applicability and accuracy of analysis of pipeline
installation operation and making the simulations more realistic.
Hvidsten (2009) was studied on S-lay method by using OrcaFlex
software and it was mainly focused on the contact interaction of the
pipeline and seabed. The pipe-soil interaction issues were also inves-
tigated by Yu et al., (2013, 2015, 2017). Li et al. (2010) had encounter
the effects of various parameters such as water depth, pipe diameter,
thickness of concrete weighted coating layer, stinger length and control
strain on S-lay pipe-laying configuration. The result show that as the
inclination angle at the lower end of stinger is larger or smaller, the
effects of these parameters on the configuration of pipeline are
different; however, the thickness of concrete weighted coating layer
has little effect on the configuration.
Menkham (2010) has developed a suitable optimal stinger model
under verifying the recommended practice by using MATHCAD. The
stinger optimisation with the scoring approach is applied to find out the
suitable stinger structure for the crane capacity, wave height, tensioner
capacity and current velocity requirements. Zinovieva (2011) con-
ducted an analytical analysis of pipeline stress-strain in seabed laying.
Internal forces, moments, and stresses arising in the pipeline are
shown depending on the distance from the seabed and liquid pressure.
Recently, Ivic et al. (2014) proposed a method for tensioner
modelling based on friction contacts between the S-lay pipe and the
tensioner by considering the contact interactions with the vessel,
M.Z. Jiwa et al.
stinger and seabed. The frictional tensioner model can study on the
static structural analysis of the pipe laying but the basic principle could
be able to use in dynamic structural analysis of pipe laying. In addition,
further sensitivity studies of S-lay pipe-laying configuration by con-
sidering the variation in tension force, stringer angle and two adjacent
roller's height were conducted by Ivic (2015). Ivic et al. (2017) had also
developed a specialized Particle Swarm Optimisation variant of S-lay
pipe to obtain optimal pipe-laying configuration by extended with
additional displacement of optimisation vector.
Abovementioned traditional pipeline installation method used to
assess the response of PIP flowlines during installation often over-
simplify the flowline model, making them unsuitable for determining
important installation parameters for un-bonded PIP (Sun et al.,
2009). The simulation results presented in this paper will be focused
on studies of several generic PIP properties in S-lay which can reduce
uncertainties associated with predicting crucial installation response
parameters. For the S-lay installation analysis, the tensioner, roller
support and stinger configuration are the factors for pipelay design.
However, the stinger angle and roller support parameters are not
emphasised in this study, which means that the ramp and stinger
radius are constant. Only dry (static) installation was considered and
the dynamic effects of environmental loads were excluded as they are
considered as secondary analysis which focuses on limit states. This
study addresses the notion that there is definitely compression in the
inner pipe for an S-Lay PIP since the inner pipe is free-standing along
most of the pipe string.
The analysis also evaluates the stress, strain and bending loads of
the carrier and inner pipe of each modelling technique. The three
modelling techniques are; (1) Double pipe full PIP, (2) Single pipe
weight based (SPW), and (3) Single pipe equivalent stiffness (SPEQ).
2. Modelling techniques
The PIP systems can be categorised into three structural classifica-
tions which are sliding, fixed and restrained. Hausner and Dixon
(2002) explained and described these systems using a compatibility
matrix which shows the possible combinations of insulation material
type, field joint and installation method for the main structural
categories. The research by Hausner and Dixon (2002) on the PIP
system had utilised the sliding configuration due to its flexibility in
terms of offshore installation suitability with the S-lay. This configura-
tion is also generally recognised as an un-bonded PIP system which
works with or without centralisers placed inside the PIP annulus.
2.1. Design methodology
The pipeline load conditions using the S-lay method can be
approximated in a general form as Eq. (1) (Langner, 1984). Here, ws
is the submerged weight of unit pipe, d w is water depth, Kb is pipe
bending stiffness and C is the curvature at the stinger tension.
K ⋅ C2
Tst = Tres + ws ⋅ d w − b
2 (1)
Eq. (1) represents the main parameters that control the pipeline's
catenary shape at the sagbend region, which are tension, water depth
and submerged weight. By increasing the lay tension of a same pipe's
submerged weight and water depth, this would reduce the pipeline's
curvature in the overbend and sagbend regions. Thus, knowing a
reasonable barge tension to be utilised for pipe laying is an important
factor in determining the efficiency of the engineering analysis.
480
Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490
For every case, an initial tension has to be assumed prior to
performing the pipelay stress analysis. A rough estimation of the required
tension can be obtained using a simple method described based on single
pipe-laying experiences (Herbich, 1981). The tension load is directly
proportional to water depth. The initial tension equation is:
T = 260 × OD × 3 dw (2)
where T is the required lay tension in (kN) and OD is carrier pipe
diameter in (m).
This tension is applied on the carrier pipe only, while the inner pipe is
assumed to be freely standing (no tension) since this study is only on the PIP
sliding configuration. Because of this, during the S-lay installation, the inner
pipe is expected to be under compression as discussed by Sun et al. (2009).
The pipe was modelled using 3 techniques. The first technique is the
actual PIP system model shown in Fig. 2(a), and the other two
techniques are alternative simulation PIP systems using single pipes
as presented in Figs. 2(b) and (c). In the first model, an inner pipe is
placed inside the carrier pipe to simulate the actual PIP system
behaviour during installation. Both the inner pipe and carrier pipe
are independent structures. The second technique is called the single
pipe weight (SPW) model. The derivation of the PIP's resultant weight
is fairly direct, as shown in Eq. (3). In the SPW model, the weight of the
pipe is the sum of the carrier pipe's submerged weight and the inner
pipe's air weight. As pipe material density is not an important factor for
the pipeline installation stress analysis, the value of pipe material
density can be disregarded. Hence, the pipe's density is modified to get
a specific pipe submerged weight as shown in Eq. (4).
M total = Msub−carrier + Mair−inner (3)
M total = ρfind × A carrier (4)
where Mtotal is total pipe weight per length, Msub_carrier is carrier pipe
submerged weight per length, Mair_inner is inner pipe weight per length,
Acarrier is carrier pipe cross section area, and ρfind is the modify pipe density.
The third technique is called the single pipe equivalent stiffness
(SPEQ) model. Calculations to derive the equivalent value for the PIP
system are shown in Eqs. (5)–(9). The buoyancy force of the PIP
pipeline is calculated based on the carrier pipe displacement.
Therefore, the outer diameter of the SPEQ model should remain
identical to maintain its hydrodynamic properties. A comparison study
was conducted for the stress, strain and bending moment loads
experienced by the PIP system pipeline during installation.
In the PIP system, the equivalent moment of inertia (I eq ) is the sum
of moment of inertia for both the carrier pipe (Icarrier ) and inner pipe
(I inner ). The equivalent wall thickness (t eq ) is a function of the moment
of inertia. The pipe thickness is modified to obtain similar bending and
axial stiffness structural properties. By obtaining the equivalent wall
thickness, the internal diameter of the SPEQ can be calculated using
Eq. (8) for the PIP system. The equivalent pipe method based on the
second moment of area and cross-section area is derived from:
ODeq. = ODcarrier (5)
I eq. = Icarrier + I inner
(6)
π
I eq. = ⋅[OD4 − ID4]
64 (7)
IDeq = ODeq − 2⋅teq (8)
E⋅A eq = E⋅A carrier + E⋅A inner (9)
where ODeq is equivalent outer diameter, IDeq is equivalent inner
M.Z. Jiwa et al. Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490

Fig. 2. PIP modelling methods; (a) actual PIP system model, (b) single pipe weight (SPW) model, and (c) single pipe equivalent stiffness (SPEQ) model (Jiwa et al., 2016).

Table 1
PIP model parameter comparison.

Properties Unit Actual PIP SPW SPEQ

Carrier pipe diameter mm 254 254 254

Carrier pipe thickness mm 12.7 12.7 15.71
Pipe density kg/m3 7850 13,180 10,133
Submerged weight kN/m 0.7347 0.735 0.660 Fig. 3. Finite element lumped mass model.
Carrier pipe bending stiffness kNm2 14,545 14,545 17,747
Inner pipe bending stiffness kNm2 3202 n/a n/a end has rigid connection to the seabed at appropriate distance from the
Carrier pipe axial stiffness kN 1,992,881 1992,881 3345,108
singer. The pipe material is modelled as a linear elastic model by
Inner pipe axial stiffness kN 1,352,228 n/a n/a
specifying the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio.
The pipeline model uses a lumped mass approximation and allows for
a wide variety of connections between the individual pipeline, tensioner
diameter, ODcarrier is carrier pipe outer diameter ID is inner diameter, and anchor components. In detail, the (pipe) line is by divided into a series
teq is equivalent wall thickness, E is Young's modulus and Ainner is inner of line segments which are then modelled by straight massless model
pipe cross section area. segments with a node at each end. The two important considerations in
Table 1 shows a comparison of the main structural properties for a this model are the mass of the structure and its stiffness. The properties
254 mm carrier pipe and a 152 mm inner pipe with 12.7 mm wall such as mass, weight, volume and buoyancy are all lumped to the nodes.
thickness in a PIP system. For the SPW model, the pipe density is The line structures are modelled using three types of stiffness which are
modified to achieve a similar property weight as the PIP model. the axial stiffness, bending stiffness and the torsion stiffness. The
However, the pipe bending and axial stiffness properties remain segments only model the axial and torsional properties of the line.
unchanged. For the SPEQ model, the cross-section geometry of the Whereas the bending characteristics of the line are represented by
pipe can be calculated to attain the required pipe stiffness properties. rotational spring-dampers at each end of the segment, between the
From Orcaflex version 9.5, equivalent line features have been added to segment and the node (OrcaFlex, 2012). Fig. 3 shows cantilever repre-
the software. This gives an option for the program to calculate the PIP sentation of the lump mass model considering the axial spring and
system's equivalent properties. In theory, by modifying the properties bending spring. The software calculates the forces (tension and shear) and
of a single pipe to be similar to a PIP system, it is able to simulate the moments (bend and torsion) in five stages. Thus the analysis takes into
actual mechanical behaviour of a PIP pipeline during installation. account the geometric nonlinearities.

2.2. Numerical model

2.3. Design criteria

The pipelay model was developed using Orcaflex 9.6 software. Orcaflex
In the present study, DNV (2013) is set as the governing standard
is a finite element model used to simulate offshore pipeline, risers,
for the pipeline installation design. According to DNV (2013), there are
catenaries, and moorings (OrcaFlex, 2012). To model the pipelay only
two criteria that can be used for the pipeline installation design which
the catenary pipeline from the vessel tensioner to the seabed close to touch
are the simplified laying and the pipe local buckling criteria.
down point had to be modelled, as this is the most applicable section
In the early design stages or the feasibility study, a simplified laying
which cover both the load response in overbend and sagbend region. For
criterion can be applied as the design criteria pending satisfaction of
PIP model, a careful consideration of inner pipe and outer pipe interaction
other criteria such as concrete crushing, pipe rotation and fatigue limit.
is required. The PIP outer and inner pipe interaction is modelled in the
The simplified laying criterion is based on the ASD. For static loading,
same way as contact between line nodes and elastic solid shapes. Contact
the calculated loads shall satisfy the criteria listed in Table 2. The input
stiffness and friction are to be defined and the line nodes will experience a
data for these criteria are strain in the overbend region and stress in
reaction force when they come into contact with any elastic solid.
sagbend region.
Conversely, the SPW and SPEQ are modelled based on single pipeline
Subsea pipelines are normally designed to withstand local buckling
modelling technique with inclusion of the calculated properties in Eqs.
(3)–(4) and Eqs. (5)–(8), respectively.
Table 2
Since the study conducted for static analysis, the stinger is fixed to DNV OS-F101 Simplified laying criteria.
the vessel hence is considered as a rigid body with no motion allowed.
The outer and inner pipeline end at vessel is a free rotation connection Simplified laying criteria
stiffness. The tensioner is modelled using Winch object connected at
Region Overbend Sagbend
the vessel's end of the outer pipeline. This 10 m length pipeline section Load Strain Stress
is defined with very low axial stiffness to allow axial movement of the Criterion 0.250% 0.87 × fy
pipeline to acquire the required lay tension load. The pipeline seabed's

481
M.Z. Jiwa et al. Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490

failure due to the load combination coming from the axial force, bend Table 3
moment and external pressure during the installation phase. There are PIP System case selection.
two combined loading conditions imposed along the pipeline; the
Case Sub Carrier pipe (mm) Inner pipe (mm)
Displacement Controlled Condition (DC) in the overbend region, and
the Load Controlled condition (LC) in the sagbend region. These OD ID OD ID
combined loading criteria will govern the allowable longitudinal
1 A 168.0 145.6 89.0 63.6
compressive strain in overbend and bend moment in sagbend during
B 151.2
the pipelay operation. C 154.6
2 A 254.0 220.1 152.0 121.6
⎛ ε ⎞0.8 ⎧ P − P ⎫1.0
⎪ ⎪ B 228.6
⎜⎜ sd ⎟⎟ + ⎨ e min
⎬ ≤ 1.0
C 233.7
⎝ εc / γε ⎠ ⎩ Pc /(γm⋅γsc ) ⎭
⎪ ⎪

(10) 3 A 302.0 261.7 194.0 168.1

B 271.8
⎡ ⎧ ⎛ γ ⋅γ ⋅ Ssd ⋅ p ⎞2 ⎫ ⎤ ⎛
2
pi − pe ⎞
2 C 277.8
⎢ ⎪ Msd ⎪⎥
γ ⋅ γ ⎨ + ⎜
⎜
m sc i
⎟ ⎬
⎟ ⎥ + ⎜
⎜ p
α ⋅ ⎟
⎟ ≤ 1.0 4 A 406.0 378.9 203.0 162.4
⎢ m sc⎪ α ⋅M
⎢⎣ ⎩ c p ⎝ αc⋅ Sp ⎠⎪⎭⎥⎦ ⎝ αc⋅pb ⎠ B 382.8
(11) C 385.7
5 A 508.0 474.1 324.0 283.5
where εSd is design compressive strain, γε is strain resistance factor, Pe is
B 479.0
external pressure, Pi is internal pressure, Pmin is minimum internal C 482.6
pressure, Pc is characteristic collapse pressure, Pb is pressure containment
resistance, γm is material resistance factor, γSC is safety class resistance
factor, MSd is design moment, Ssd is design effective axial force,αc is flow
stress parameter, and αp is pressure factor, Sp/Mp is plastic capacity.
Eq. (10) satisfies the design for pipelines affected by compressive
strain loads (overbend) while Eq. (11) satisfies the design for pipelines
affected by bend moment loads (sagbend). Further explanation on these
two design criteria may be referred to in DNV (2013). As can be
understood from the two equations above, the input data needed are
the strain and bend moment. Therefore, referring to the input require-
ment for ASD and local buckling criteria the discussion of the analysis
results are based on the pipeline stress, strain and bending moment loads
response. All analysis in the study were done well within these criteria. For
the comparison study of the three (3) modelling techniques, the stress,
strain and bending moment load diagrams are produced.

3. Applied examples

In this section, the methods used to determine the PIP case

selection based on its probability distribution are described. A prob-
ability assessment of the size of the carrier pipe and inner pipe may be
utilised to predict the PIP's pipeline size. Various probability density
functions are compared and the plausible distribution for the collected
data is chosen. About forty (40) PIP projects’ data from around the
world were collected to obtain their actual outer pipe diameter and
inner pipe diameter data. The data were extracted from published
papers, journal, public articles and reliable news sources. These
projects involve the installation of pipe-in-pipe with carrier pipe
Fig. 5. Carrier pipe submerged weight.
diameters ranging from 168 mm to 610 mm and between years
1994–2016. However, other information such as water depth, lay
tension and installation method were ignored.
The qualitative goodness of fit for the investigation of probability
density functions (PDF) was assessed by utilising the Anderson-Darling
(A-D) goodness of fit test to get the best-fit PDF. This study has found
that the 3-Parameter Loglogistic distribution provides the best good-
ness of fit for this data set. Fig. 4 illustrates the histogram with the best
fit distribution of the data sets. The PDF is given by Eq. (12) where σ is
scale parameter, λ is threshold parameter and μ is location parameter.

1 exp ( ln(x − λ) − μ )
σ
f (x ) = .
σ (x − λ ) ⎡ ⎛ ln(x − λ) − μ ⎞⎤
2
⎢1 + exp⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ σ ⎠⎦ (12)
In the case study selection, the PDF approach is followed to
determine the outer diameter size of the carrier pipe. Using the
selected best fit PDF, the theoretical probabilities of the PIP system's
main data can be selected. Therefore, carrier pipe diameter values of
between 168 mm and 508 mm were selected which correspond to a
90% probability distribution.
P (168 mm < f (x) < 508 mm) = 90.5%
Fig. 4. Histogram with best-fit probability density function for the data set. Finally, a total of five cases were selected with different carrier pipe

482
M.Z. Jiwa et al. Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490

Fig. 6. Maximum stress profile of PIP model.

diameters, including the 168 mm and 508 mm as the minimum and
maximum values, respectively. The other cases selected are presented in
Table 3. In addition to this, each main case includes 3 sub-cases represented
by the pipe dimension ratio (DR). For small diameter pipes (Case 1, 2 and 3),
the DR variance are 15, 20 and 25 respectively, while for large diameter
pipes (Case 4 and 5), the DR variance are 30, 35 and 40 respectively.
The selection of inner pipe was based on the carrier pipe's diameter
and current industry PIP system design from the data sets. The available
inner pipe which was paired with the nearest carrier pipe diameter was
selected for that specific case. So, the inner pipe diameter and thickness
used in this study is the actual size used in various projects. The inner pipe
contributes to the weight and stiffness of PIP systems.

483
M.Z. Jiwa et al.
Fig. 7. Comparison of lay curvature of PIP models for Case 5A.
Fig. 8. Distribution of effective inner pipe loads for Case B.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Structural behaviour of PIP system
In general, tension and lay configuration will determine the support
roller load distribution. One of the key factors for the lay configuration
setup is the pipe's properties. This study has analysed a total of 45 cases
with 15 different pipe properties for each of the PIP, SPW and SPEQ
models. However, as mentioned previously, only one lay configuration
is utilised for analysis in this study. Thus, it is not expected that the
pipe laying load on the stinger to be well distributed for all the cases
analysed. In practice, it is desirable to have a balanced support roller
load distribution on the firing line and stinger. These selected pipes can
be categorised into two groups; small pipelines have DR of less than 30,
while large pipes have DR of more than 30. Cases 1–3 are considered as
small carrier pipes, while Case 4 and Case 5 are considered as large
carrier pipes. The effect of these DR properties in the PIP system is
explained by Jiwa et al. (2016).
Table 3 presents the differences in the main properties of each
selected case. As the pipe gets lighter from Case A, B to C, the pipeline
is not fully supported by all the stinger rollers, especially in the last
roller region. This would cause an increase in the maximum stress load
484
Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490
to occur along the pipeline in the overbend region. In the overbend
region, Case C shows a higher value at the support roller location
compared to the other cases. Whereas the load in the last roller region
decreases significantly which causes a separation between the stinger's
last roller and the pipe. However, as the stress and strain load
increases, the bending moment at the sagbend region reduces and
the pipe's DR increases.
The load distribution is not well balanced in Case 2A and Case 3A, as
high stress points were shown at the last roller regions of up to 298 MPa
and 304 MPa, respectively. The high load point on the last roller is believed
to occur due to the high lay curvature at the last roller region. Based on
Fig. 5, the carrier pipe weights in these two cases were the heaviest, with
submerged weights of 0.4624 kN/m and 0.6535 kN/m respectively. As the
carrier pipe's submerged weight reduces (with increase of pipe DR), the
stinger roller load distribution improves. This is shown in Figs. 6(b) and (c)
through the reduction of load for Case A at the last roller region.
Based on Fig. 5, pipe DR of more than 30 has negative submerged
weights, which mean that the pipe will self-float in the water. Due to this
characteristic, the lay tension utilised was reduced from an initial tension
of 389–233 kN for Case 4 in Fig. 6(d), and from 487 kN to 292 kN for
Case 5 in Fig. 6(e) to compensate for the high buoyancy force at the pipe's
weight. Moreover, these large diameter pipes have better load distribution
on the stinger roller support even though their stress load values are high.
No peak load was present at the last roller, although the pipe was
considerably heavy due to less stress placed on the last roller. Since the
large diameter pipes were quite stiff, the bending moment load at the
sagbend region was high. Thus, there were only small decreases of bend
moment load at the sagbend with increases in the pipe DR.
4.2. Comparison of lay curvature
During the S-lay installation, the pipe was exposed to bending stress and
strain when it passed over the stinger, creating a lay curvature. For the S-lay,
there were two curvatures on the upper section and lower section of the
pipeline. As aforementioned, there are many parameters for S-lay curve
control. The parameters include lay tension, vessel trim angle, stinger type,
stinger length, and support roller configuration. All these parameters
combine to create the pipeline's S-lay curvature during offshore installations.
A suitable lay curvature requires a balanced load response at the overbend
and sagbend regions.
Issues of unbalanced stinger load distribution or high bending moments
during a pipelay can be managed in several ways. The foremost method for
controlling the curve would be by modifying the lay tension. Other methods
are by modifying the stinger angle or vessel trim angle, and re-configuring
the support roller. For this study, the vessel and stinger support roller were
maintained the same for all case studies. The behaviour of the lay curvature
for the 3 different PIP systems was also investigated. In this study, only
three (3) sample cases are selected for the lay curvature comparison study.
The 3 cases are Case 3A, Case 4A and Case 5A.
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of lay curvature for the PIP model
(carrier pipe and inner pipe), SPW model and SPEQ model. The curvature
for the PIP and SPEQ models nearly match. However, for the SPW model,
the curvature at the last roller and sagbend region were slightly higher
than the others. As shown in Table 1, the SPW's pipe stiffness is much
lower than the two other models. This high curvature response occurs in
the pipeline's catenary which is a pipeline span between the last roller and
the seabed touchdown area. This curvature value is likely to increase in
proportion to the pipeline's span length. This means that the deeper the
water depth, the higher the curvature will be.
M.Z. Jiwa et al.
Fig. 9. Coefficient of variations.
Fig. 10. Coefficient of variation for optimised bending moment at sagbend.
4.3. Inner pipe response subjected to bending moment and
compression
One of the concerns of a PIP system installation is the inner pipe
compression load since the inner pipe freely slides along the pipeline string
(Sun et al., 2009). From this, it is required to ensure that the inner pipe's
compressive loading would not trigger the buckling of the pipe. Hence, it is
important to include a study on the load response of the inner pipe during the
installation phase. The inner pipe compression responses for all cases were
485
Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490
investigated and the results for the most onerous cases are illustrated in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8 shows the axial load variation results of the inner pipe along
the PIP from the stinger, catenary until the seabed area. The peak value
of the compressive axial load is expected to occur at a location near the
seabed touch down region. The inner pipe would preserve the
compression during installation when laid on the seabed. For this
study, the highest compressive stress had occurred when the inner pipe
was 60 kN in 50 m water depth (Case 5B). The compression load is
proportionate to the water depth, but this is not part of the study. Other
responses such as stress, strain and bending moment load in the inner
pipe are much less than the carrier pipe's load response.
4.4. Sensitivity analysis
The results for the bending moment load comparison study of the three
(3) model techniques are presented in the Appendix A (Figs. A1–A3). A
comparison of the maximum stress, strain and bend moment indicated that
there are some variations to these loads. However, the overall load response
pattern of these values remained similar. The minor deviation in the SPW
and SPEQ models from the PIP model is associated with the way these
models were simulated as explained in Fig. 2 above. For the evaluation of
variance and reliability of the SPW and SPEQ models, a statistical analysis of
the results was conducted by calculating the coefficient of variation (COV) as
shown in Eq. (13).
σ
COV =
μ (13)
M.Z. Jiwa et al. Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490

Fig. 11. Systematic flowchart of the PIP system design considering installation.

where σ is standard deviation and μ is mean value.
The COV provides an indication of accuracy of the PIP system's single
pipe modelling techniques for offshore installation analysis. Fig. 9(a) to (c)
show the COV for the maximum stress, maximum strain and bending
moment of the SPW and SPEQ models in comparison to the PIP model
for all cases. The COV of maximum stress and strain of all datasets
indicate a value of less than 8% which demonstrates that these models are
quite reliable. The SPW model performed much better with a highest COV
value of approximately 5%. The maximum bending moment shows a COV
value of more than 20% for the SPEQ model and a value marginally less
than 5% for the SPW model. This value indicates that the SPW model is
considerably a good model for the bending moment, whereas the SPEQ

486
M.Z. Jiwa et al.
model is not very reliable and requires further optimisation.
4.5. Optimisation of bending moment and compression
BMeq . = BMcarrier + BMinner
(14)
BM = κ⋅E⋅I (15)
BMopt = BMeq − κ⋅E⋅Iinner (16)
where BM is bending moment, BMcarrier is bending moment for
carrier pipe, BMinner is bending moment for inner pipe, BMopt is
optimised bending moment, BMeq. is equivalent bending moment, κ is
lay curvature, E is Young's modulus, I is moment of inertia, and Iinner is
moment of inertia for inner pipe.
The high COV percentage for the SPEQ model as presented in
Fig. 9(c) is thought to be due to the sliding configuration of the PIP
system. As explained by Hausner & Dixon, in this PIP configuration
the inner pipe can ‘slide’ over the carrier line and insulations (un-
bonded). The introduction of spacers at certain intervals in the annulus
may reduce the COV value for this modelling technique. Water depth
can also be a reason. The equivalent bending stiffness of the PIP system
can be represented as the sum of the bending stiffness of the carrier
pipe and inner pipe. However, this combined bending stiffness shows
excessive bending moment results, which require optimisation.
The pipe bending moment is a function of bend curvature and pipe
stiffness (EI), and can be calculated from Eq. (15). In the previous
results, discussion shows that the lay curvature for all models are very
much comparable. Results show that during an offshore installation,
the PIP system's bending moment load response is mainly contributed
by the carrier pipe. Hence, a method to reduce the inner pipe bending
stiffness load from the equivalent bending moment should be imple-
mented. By applying Eq. (16) to the results of the SPEQ model analysis,
an accurate and improved bending moment load is achieved as
illustrated in Fig. 10. The maximum COV value for the improved
bending moment is less than 0.35% which indicates that the new
bending moment is much more reliable and accurate.
5. Discussion and concluding remarks
This study had focused on the simplification analysis for the
simulation of pipeline installations. The three modelling techniques
of the PIP system were extensively analysed and investigated. A
systematic approach for performing the PIP system's installation
design by utilising the single pipe model instead of an actual carrier
and inner pipe interaction was studied. The main disadvantage of this
single pipe model is that it would not be able to produce an inner pipe
compression response.
Fig. 11 represents the systematic approach used for best selection of
pipe-in-pipe system design for offshore installations. The design
criteria chosen for the pipeline installation of either the allowable
stress design (ASD) or local buckling (LB) would determine the PIP
model used in the analysis. In the ASD criteria, the SPW model is
reliable for the stress load response, while in the LB criteria, both the
SPW and SPEQ models are required for the overbend and sagbend
regions. The following remarks and discussion are concluded:
Appendix A
See Appendix Figs. A1–A3 here.
487
Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490
a) The finite element (FE) of the PIP system offshore S-lay installation
simulation was carried out to obtain the stress, strain, lay curvature
and bending moment. The vessel and stinger configuration are fixed
and the water depth is 50 m for all cases.
b) The SPW model has produced good and reliable results for stress
and strain load, while the curvature in the pipeline span is slightly
higher. Due to this, this model is not suitable for analysing the
sagbend bending moment.
c) The SPEQ model does not gives the correct stress and strain load
due to an increase of the pipe wall's thickness. The high bending
moment produced by this model was improved by applying the
specific equation for removing the inner pipe's stiffness.
d) High compression in the inner pipe occurs at locations near the
touchdown point. This compressive load is required to be within the
allowable buckling limit.
e) The comparison demonstrated that the SPW method and optimised
SPEQ method are in very good agreement with the actual PIP
modelling method. This method will prove beneficial as simple PIP
system modelling techniques for installation analysis.
Finally, this paper discusses a comparison of various modelling
techniques for a PIP pipeline during the installation stage. The findings
that have been presented suggest that any modelling technique such as
SPW or SPEQ can be employed to simulate the PIP pipeline installa-
tion. In addition, it is recommended that careful consideration should
also be carried out to confirm that which method serves as best to
determine laying criteria.
The outcomes of this research are summarised below:
• Load comparison of the SPW and SPEQ models with the actual PIP
model.
• An improved solution by reducing the bending moment load for the
SPEQ model.
• A systematic approach for performing a PIP pipeline analysis.
Future work can include parametric studies of certain properties for
a better understanding of the PIP load response. Further work is
foreseen to study the effect of different vessel stinger configurations
and water depths. More advanced studies of the environment's
dynamic effect on the modelling techniques can also be beneficial for
understanding the PIP limit state.
Acknowledgements
This study was undertaken at Ocean and Ship Technology (OST)
research group at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. This research was
supported by the Technology Innovation Program (Grant No.:
10053121 and 10051279) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry
& Energy (MI, Korea) and YUTP Grant (0153AA-E60, Malaysia).
Special thanks give to Ms. H.L. Lye for her technical review. The
authors would also like to thank for the great support of POSTECH,
POSCO, and Daewoo E & C, Republic of Korea. Some part of the this
study was presented in the 3rd International Conference of Civil,
Offshore and Environment Engineering (ICCOEE 2016), 15–17
August, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
M.Z. Jiwa et al. Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490

Fig. A1. Bending moment distribution for all modelling technique for Case 1 and 2.

488
M.Z. Jiwa et al. Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490

Fig. A2. Bending moment distribution for all modelling technique for Case 3 and 4.

489
M.Z. Jiwa et al.
Fig. A3. Bending moment distribution for all modelling technique for Case 5.
References
Aiyejina, A., Chakrabarti, D.P., Pilgrim, A., Sastry, M.K.S., 2011. Wax formation in oil
pipelines: a critical review. Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 37 (7), 671–694.
Bai, Y., Bai, Q., 2005. Subsea Pipelines and Risers. Elsevier Press, London, UK.
490
Ocean Engineering 142 (2017) 478–490
Bernitsas, M.M., Vlahopoulos, N., 1990. Three-dimensional nonlinear statics of
pipelaying using condensation in an incremental finite element algorithm. Comput.
Struct. 35 (3), 195–214.
Bhavikatti, S.S., Akram, P., Ravichandran, T.V., 1986. Minimization of maximum
moment in offshore pipeline during installation. Appl. Ocean Res. 8 (3), 164–168.
Bi, K., Hao, H., 2016. Using pipe-in-pipe systems for subsea pipeline vibration control.
Eng. Struct. 109, 75–84.
Bruschi, R., Vitali, L., Marchionni, L., Parrella, A., Mancini, A., 2015. Pipe technology
and installation equipment for frontier deep water projects. Ocean Eng. 108,
369–392.
Callegari, M., Carini, C.B., Lenci, S., Torselletti, E., Vitali, L., 2003. Dynamic models of
marine pipelines for installation in deep and ultra-deep waters: analytical and
numerical approaches. In: Proceedings of the 5th National Congress of the Italian
Association of Mechanics (AIMETA 2003), Ferrara, Italy.
Clauss, G.F., Weede, H., Saroukh, A., 1991. Nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of
marine pipelines during laying. Ship Technol. Res. 38, 76–107.
Denniel, S., 2015. Pipe-in-pipe technology adapts to changing needs in deep and shallow
water. Offshore Magazine 75(2), Houston, TX, USA, 2nd November (〈http://www.
offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-75/issue-2/pipelines-flowlines/pipe-in-
pipe-technology-adapts-to-changing-needs-in-deep-and-shallow-water.html〉).
DNV, 2013. Submarine pipeline systems (DNV OS-F101), Det Norske Veritas, Oslo,
Norway.
Hausner, M., Dixon, M., 2002. Optimized design of pipe-in-pipe systems. The 34th
Offshore Technology Conference (OTC 2002), 6–9 May, Houston, TX, USA (OTC-
14182).
Hvidsten, E., 2009. Pipelaying on Uneven Seabed. University of Stavanger, Stavanger,
Norway.
Herbich, J.B., 1981. Offshore Pipeline Design Elements (Ocean Engineering). M. Dekker
Publisher, New York, USA.
Ivić, S., 2015. Sensitivity analysis of s-lay pipe-laying configuration. Int. J. Appl. Eng.
Res. 10 (22), 43250–43255.
Ivić, S., Čanad̄ija, M., Družeta, S., 2014. Static structural analysis of s-lay pipe laying with
a tensioner model based on the frictional contact. Eng. Rev. 34 (3), 223–234.
Ivić, S., Družeta, S., Hreljac, I., 2017. S-Lay pipe laying optimization using specialized
PSO method. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-
1665-9.
Jiwa, M.Z., Kim, D.K., Mustaffa, Z., Choi, H.S., 2016. An optimised model for pipe-in-
pipe installation for subsea field. The 3rd International Conference of Civil, Offshore
and Environment Engineering (ICCOEE 2016), 15–17 August, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Kristoffersen, A.S., Asklund, P.O., Nystrøm, P.R., 2012. Pipe-in-pipe global buckling and
trawl design on uneven seabed. The 22nd International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2012), 17–22 June, Rhodes, Greece (ISOPE-I-12-
300).
Langner, C.G., 1984. Relationships for deepwater suspended pipe spans. The 3rd
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE
1984), 12–17 February, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Lawinscky da Silva, D.M., de Lima, M.H.A., Jr., Jacob, B.P., 2009. Numerical model for
the simulation of the pipeline-laybarge interaction in pipelaying procedures. Int. J.
Model. Simul. Pet. Ind. 3 (1), 13–22.
Li, Z.G., Chen, Y., Gong, S.F., Jin, W.L., 2010. Configuration of submarine pipeline for
deepwater s-lay technique. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth (2010) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2010), 20-25 June, Beijing,
China.
Malahy, R.C., Jr., 1985. Nonlinear finite element method for the analysis of the offshore
pipelaying problem. Rice University, Houston, USA.
Menkham, S., 2010. A comprehensive articulated stinger optimization study. Asian
Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani, Tailand.
OrcaFlex, 2012. User's manual (version 9.6). Orcina Ltd., Ulverston, Cumbria,
UK〈https://www.orcina.com〉.
Perinet, D., Frazer, I., 2008. Strain criteria for deep water pipe laying operations. The
40th Offshore Technology Conference (OTC 2008), 5-8 May, Houston, USA (OTC-
19329-MS).
Sun, J., Jukes, P., Eltaher, A., 2009. Exploring the challenges of pipe-in-pipe (PIP)
flowline installation in deepwater. The 3rd ISOPE International Deep-Ocean
Technology Symposium, 28 June – 1 July, Beijing, China (ISOPE-D-09-002).
Yu, S.Y., Choi, H.S., Lee, S.K., Do, C.H., Kim, D.K., 2013. An optimum design of on-
bottom stability of offshore pipelines on soft clay. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 5
(4), 598–613.
Yu, S.Y., Choi, H.S., Lee, S.K., Park, K.S., Kim, D.K., 2015. Nonlinear soil parameter
effects on dynamic embedment of offshore pipeline on soft clay. Int. J. Nav. Archit.
Ocean Eng. 7 (2), 227–243.
Yu, S.Y., Choi, H.S., Park, K.S., Kim, Y.T., Kim, D.K., 2017. Advanced procedure for
estimation of pipeline embedment on soft clayed seabed. Struct. Eng. Mech. 62 (4),
381–389.
Zheng, J., Palmer, A., Brunning, P., Gan, C.T., 2014. Indentation and external pressure
on subsea single wall pipe and pipe-in-pipe. Ocean Eng. 83, 125–132.
Zinovieva, T.V., 2011. Analysis of pipeline stress-strain state in seabed laying. Electron.
Sci. J. Oil Gas. Bus. 1, 237–253.