Proceedings of
Proceedings of the
the ASME
ASME 2011
2011 30th
30th International
International Conference
Conference on
on Ocean,
Ocean, Offshore
June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES FOR FATIGUE DAMAGE
ACCUMULATION IN STEEL RISERS
Fernanda C. M. Takafuji
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
E-mail: fernanda.takafuji@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Fatigue is one of the main concerns of the offshore
industry nowadays, since the failure of equipments could put
not only the environment but also some people’s lives in
danger. As described in DNV-RP-C203 and in DNV-RP-F204,
the aim of fatigue analysis is to verify if a certain structure – in
this case, a riser – will be able to operate adequately during a
desired period of time, as well as to obtain information to
program inspections.
In a riser, the efforts vary along its length and also around
its circumference. If one considers the stress around the
circumference, the maximum stress point may change. To be
realistic, one approach is to calculate the stress and fatigue life
around the circumference. To be more conservative and also
simplify the calculation, one could consider that the maximum
stress always occurs at the same point.
The purpose of this paper is to compare the fatigue life
obtained with both approaches in order to verify the differences
between them and verify how conservative that simplification
can be. To perform the task, a steel riser is considered and the
dynamic analysis is executed in time domain using Orcaflex
9.4. The fatigue is analyzed through the S-N Curve approach
and the Miner’s rule is used to accumulate the damage.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays one of the industry’s main concerns is fatigue of
equipments and machines. The failure of one element could not
only cost a lot of money but also put the environment and some
people’s lives in danger. The offshore industry could not be
different. As described in DNV-RP-C203 and in DNV-RP-
F204, the aim of fatigue analysis is to verify if a certain
structure – in this case, a riser – will be able to operate
adequately during a desired period of time, as well as to obtain
information to program inspections.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Offshore and
and Arctic
Arctic Engineering
Engineering
OMAE2011
OMAE2011
OMAE2011-49888
OMAE2011- 49888
Clóvis A. Martins
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
E-mail: cmartins@usp.br
In risers, fatigue analyses comprise global and local
analyses. In both, there are uncertainties, such as: soil
parameters, sea states and their occurrences, interactions
between internal layers, damage accumulation method, among
others.
Besides the uncertainties, a full analysis, considering all
known effects, is not viable. Simplifications on the analyses
and on the structural model have to be done in order to make it
possible to analyze. However, it is desirable to know the
simplifications and their impact on the results. Over estimating
one effect can be too much conservative and discard good
solutions, leading to a more expensive one. On the other hand,
under estimating one effect can make bad solutions selectable,
which could cause accidents.
In a riser, the efforts vary along its length and also around
its circumference. If one considers the stress around the
circumference, the maximum stress point may change. The
more realistic approach is to calculate the stress and fatigue life
around the circumference but, as a matter of simplification, one
could consider that the maximum stress always occurs at the
same point.
The purpose of this paper is to compare the fatigue life
obtained with both approaches in order to verify the differences
between them and verify how conservative that simplification
can be. To perform the task, a steel riser is considered and the
dynamic analysis is executed in time domain using Orcaflex
9.4. The fatigue is analyzed through the S-N Curve approach
and the Miner’s rule is used to accumulate the damage.
NOMENCLATURE
A Cross sectional area of the riser
CD,n Normal drag coefficient
De External diameter
1 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 Cm Added mass coefficient
EI Bending stiffness T (t ) D
 ( , t )   ( M x (t ).sin( )  M y (t ). cos( )) e (1)
EA Axial stiffness A 2I
GJ Torsional stiffness
I Moment of inertia The external diameter is considered in order to increase the
Life Estimated service life bending moment effect on stress.
Mx x-Bending Moment It is suggested in DNV-RP-FC204 that at least 8 positions
My y-Bending Moment are analyzed. For this work, each position was numbered, as
Number of stress cycles with a given stress shown in Figure 1.
n
range
N Number of stress cycles until failure
Ns Number of sea states
P Wave period
Prob Probability of occurence
t Time
T Tension
γ Weight in air
Position of the hotspot around the
θ
circumference of the riser
µ Friction coefficient
σ Stress

MODEL
The fatigue life of the risers is estimated as follows. Given
the sea states that represent the environment at the location
where the riser is, or is intended to be, installed and their
occurrence, one can perform the global analysis to obtain the
efforts at each section.
Through the internal analysis one can calculate the effort
distribution along the cross section, for each layer, if
applicable. It may vary around its circumference and along its
length. Once one have the effort distribution, it is possible to
calculate the stresses.
The fatigue analysis consists on estimating the operation
life of the riser. Once the stresses are known, one can
compound the damage the riser would suffer and then estimate
how long it would be able to operate.
Figure 1 - Steel riser and positions 1 to 8
Another possibility, which is also studied in this work, is to
accumulate the highest stress around the circumference as if it
always occurred at the same point. This simplification approach
will henceforth be called “worst case”, because it is a more
conservative approach.
Fatigue
The model used to calculate fatigue life in this work is
based on the S-N Curve approach, as presented in DNV-RP-
F204. To accumulate the fatigue damage, the Palmgren-Miner
rule is used:
Ns

N
Global ni
D (2)
For each sea state the global analysis is performed in order i i
to obtain the efforts along the length of the riser.
In this work the riser is globally analyzed through the The number of cycles of a given stress range is obtained
commercial software OrcaflexTM 9.4b, see [5] for further as:
details. It performs a full non linear time domain analysis in
3D. The seabed is represented by linear springs and the Life
Coulomb friction is considered. At the top connection, the bend ni  Prob (3)
P
stiffener is represented by connection stiffness.
It was assumed that the efforts are harmonic, so only the To estimate the fatigue life, it is assumed that D=1.
last period was considered in the fatigue analysis.
CASE STUDY
In this section the data for the case studies are presented.
Internal
Two different risers were analyzed: one concerns a free-
For simplicity this work concerns a steel riser. The stress
hanging configuration and the other a lazy-wave configuration.
considered here is a linear combination of the axial and
bending stress, as shown next:

2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 This case study involves a steel riser, whose external
diameter is 16 inches and thickness is 1 inch. The properties of
the catenary configuration are shown in Table 1 and the
properties of the lazy-wave configuration can be seen in Table
2.
value used is 113 deg and the middle value of the friction
coefficient was used. In the last case, the azimuth of the riser
was changed to 23 deg to verify the influence of the static
configuration on the fatigue distribution along the length of the
riser.

Table 1 - Catenary Configuration Properties

De (m) 0.4064
γ (kN/m) 2.34
EI (kN.m2) 116000
EA (kN) 6380000
GJ (kN.m2) 89500
Length (m) 2954
CD,n 1.1
Cm 1

Table 2 – Lazy-wave Configuration Properties

Lower Intermediate Top
Segment Segment Segment
De (m) 0.4064 0.85 0.4064
γ (kN/m) 2.34 5.12 2.34 Figure 2 – S-N Curve B1
EI (kN.m2) 116000 116000 116000
EA (kN) 6380000 6380000 6380000 Figure 3 shows the orientation of the FPSO heading and
GJ (kN.m2) 89500 89500 89500 azimuth of the riser.
Length (m) 1212 500 1100
CD,n 1.1 1.1 1.1
Cm 1 1 1

To represent the bend stiffener, the stiffness at the top

connection is: 0.6581kN.m/deg for bending and
0.4387kN.m/deg for twisting. The local water depth is 1400m.
As usual, the top declination angle considered in the catenary
configuration is 20 deg with the vertical. For the lazy-wave,
Tanaka [6] shows in optimizing a lazy-wave configuration
connected to a FPSO that the best configuration can have a
smaller top angle, so the angle considered here is 7 deg.
Figure 3 - Riser azimuth and FPSO heading orientation
The sea states are typical of the Brazilian Coast and they
concern 76 different regular waves. Only one current profile
RESULTS
was considered and the floating unit offset is proportional to
The results are discussed in this section. They are
the waves' height - for the highest wave, 10% of the water
presented in Table 3 and Table 4 and from Figure 4 to Figure
depth is the offset - in the same direction as the wave. The
13, situated at the end of this paper. The arc length s starts at
floating unit is represented by a FPSO, commonly used on the
the top connection.
oil exploitation in Brazil. And its RAO was used to calculate
Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the estimative of life
the movement of the risers.
along the riser length for each position and for the worst case.
The S-N Curve used for the steel risers is the B1 presented
The main difference among them is that the estimated fatigue
in DNV-RP-C203 shown in Figure 2.
life of the segment in contact with the seabed increases
Five different cases for each configuration were analyzed.
considerably as the friction coefficient increases. That is
In the first three analyses only the friction coefficient has
probably because the friction restricts the movement of the riser
changed. In these analyses the FPSO heading is 203 deg - the
on the seabed, reducing the dynamics of this part. However, it
real installed heading for this FPSO – and the azimuth of the
does not have a significant effect on the suspended part of the
riser is 293 deg. The friction coefficient considered were: µ=0,
riser. The same can be said about the lazy-wave configuration -
µ=0.5 and µ=1. This range covers the coefficients suggested in
Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11.
DNV-RP-F105 and API RP 17B. In the fourth case, the
For all the cases, one can see that the results for the “worst
heading of the FPSO was changed in order to verify the
case” coincide with the worst case among the positions,
influence of the top movements in the fatigue analysis. The

3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 position 5. That can also be observed on Table 3 and Table 4. It see that the results for position 3 and position 7 are reversed.
shows that in most of the cases the worst point around the The difference between these cases is the angle of current
circumference is probably the same. profile. In the first case, Figure 5 and Figure 10, the current
The hotspot for the catenary configuration is the top reaches the riser from left to right, and in the second case,
connection. However, for the lazy-wave configuration, the Figure 8 and Figure 13, from right to left. However, it was not
TDP, the sag and hog are important regions, as Figure 9 to observed a significant effect on the minimum life.
Figure 13 show. It happens because the curvature is large in
these three points. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This paper presents a study of the fatigue life along the
Table 3 - Catenary Results length of the riser and around its circumference. The
Worst Among simplification of considering that the maximum stress always
Cases Worst Case occurs at the same point has been proposed. Two different
Positions
configurations of a steel riser were analyzed.
FPSO Riser For the global analyses, real sea states of the Brazilian
Life Life Coast were used and the FPSO considered was also real.
Heading Azimuth µ s (m) s (m)
(years) (years) For these cases, one could say that, considering the
(deg) (deg)
suspended part of the riser, the riser-soil friction influenced
203 293 0 Top 8.7598 20 8.7573 slightly the damage distribution along the length of the riser
203 293 0.5 Top 8.7896 20 8.7820 and around its circumference. The estimative of the minimum
203 293 1 Top 7.4681 20 7.4365 service life also did not change.
The static configuration influenced the estimative of life
113 293 0.5 Top 9.0855 20 9.0762 around the circumference. However, for the whole suspended
203 23 0.5 Top 14.3630 20 14.3443 length, the position 5, Figure 1, was the worst one. It shows
that the dynamic range of Mx is bigger than My.
Table 4 – Lazy-wave Results In lazy-wave configuration, the hotspots were the TDP, sag
and hog, as expected. On the other hand, for the catenary
Worst Among configuration, the hotspot was the top connection. It happens
Cases Worst Case
Positions because the top angle for steel risers is large and the tension at
the top connection is big. In this case, it was more relevant for
FPSO Riser
Life Life the stress than the bending moment variation at the TDP.
Heading Azimuth µ s (m) s (m)
(years) (years) Finally, the simplification proposed showed good results,
(deg) (deg)
as the results are virtually the same for the whole riser,
203 293 0 1190 0.5130 1190 0.5130 especially when one considers the hotspots.
203 293 0.5 1030 0.5182 1030 0.5182
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
203 293 1 1030 0.5183 1030 0.5183 The authors acknowledge CNPq for research grant of the
113 293 0.5 1190 0.5212 1190 0.5212 second author.
203 23 0.5 1030 0.4148 1030 0.4148
REFERENCES
[1] API - AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE.
One can observe that the life along the riser for the
Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe - API RP 17B.
positions 1, 2 and 8 have similar behavior. So does the results
1998.
for positions 4, 5 and 6 and for positions 3 and 7. It was
[2] Det Norske Veritas. Recommended Practive DNV-RP-C203
expected due to geometric symmetry that appears in Figure 1.
– Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures. April 2010.
In most part of the riser, from the top to the TDP region,
[3] Det Norske Veritas. Recommended Practive DNV-RP-F105
positions 1, 2 and 8 have greater estimated life, positions 3 and
– Free Spanning Pipelines. February 2006.
7 have intermediate and position 4, 5 and 6 lower. That changes
[4] Det Norske Veritas. Recommended Practive DNV-RP-F204
at the TDP region, where the life for positions 3 and 7
– Riser Fatigue. July 2005.
increases, and is the greatest among the positions. Nevertheless,
[5] Orcina Ltd. Orcaflex Manual Version 9.4a. Ulverston,
the minimum life always occurs in position 5. That suggests
Cumbria, UK. 429p.
that the dynamic range of Mx is bigger than My.
[6] Tanaka, R. L. Steel Riser Configuration Optimization (in
The graphic results for symmetrical points do not coincide,
Portuguese). PhD Thesis. EPUSP, Brazil, 2003.
as the static configurations of the riser are three dimensional.
Comparing Figure 10 and Figure 13 for the lazy-wave, one can

4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 4 – Catenary, µ=0, FPSO heading 203 deg, riser azimuth 293 deg

Figure 5 – Catenary, µ=0.5, FPSO heading 203 deg, riser azimuth 293 deg

5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 6 - Catenary, µ=1, FPSO heading 203 deg, riser azimuth 293 deg

Figure 7 - Catenary, µ=0.5, FPSO heading 113 deg, riser azimuth 293 deg

6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 8 – Catenary, µ=0.5, FPSO heading 203 deg, riser azimuth 23 deg

Figure 9 – Lazy-wave, µ=0, FPSO heading 203 deg, riser azimuth 293 deg

7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 10 – Lazy-wave, µ=0.5, FPSO heading 203 deg, riser azimuth 293 deg

Figure 11 – Lazy-wave, µ=1, FPSO heading 203 deg, riser azimuth 293 deg

8 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 12 – Lazy-wave, µ=0.5, FPSO heading 113 deg, riser azimuth 293 deg

Figure 13 – Lazy-wave, µ=0.5, FPSO heading 203 deg, riser azimuth 23 deg

9 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use