Job Name: Phase: Job Number: Detailed Engineering: A1 Ifidc 16.JAN.23 L.T.Luan L.M.Hung T.D.Hai B.T.Han

RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING INSTITUTE
FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS
PROJECT : KINH NGU TRANG – KINH NGU TRANG NAM

FIELD DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK 09-2/09
SUB PROJECT : KNT - MSP10 OIL PIPELINE
DOCUMENT TITLE : PIPELINE LATERAL BUCKLING AND PIPELINE

END EXPANSION ANALYSIS
DOCUMENT NO. : KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-CA-004
Job Name: Phase:

DETAILED ENGINEERING
Job Number:
A1 IFIDC 16.JAN.23 L.T.LUAN L.M.HUNG T.D.HAI B.T.HAN
LEAD ENG. PROJECT

REV. DES. DATE PREPARED
ENGINEER MANAGER MANAGER
KINH NGU TRANG – KINH NGU TRANG NAM KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-CA-
FIELD DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK 09-2/09 004
KNT - MSP10 OIL PIPELINE
PIPELINE LATERAL BUCKLING AND PIPELINE Rev. A1 Page 2 of 69
TRACK CHANGES
No Rev. Content of Change Note
____________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Purpose of Document ...................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Definition and Abbreviation .............................................................................................. 7
1.2.1 Definition ................................................................................................................ 7
1.2.2 Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Units of Measurement...................................................................................................... 9
2 CODES AND STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 9
3 REFERENCE .......................................................................................................................... 9
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 10
4.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.1 Buckling Trigger Mechanism................................................................................ 11
4.2.2 Pipeline Mechanical Response ............................................................................ 16
4.2.3 Pipeline Walking Analysis .................................................................................... 18
4.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 18
5 DESIGN AND OPERATING DATA ...................................................................................... 20
5.1 Design Life ..................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Pipeline Route Data ....................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Environmental Data ....................................................................................................... 21
5.3.1 Water Depth ......................................................................................................... 21
5.3.2 Tidal Range and Storm Surge ............................................................................. 22
5.3.3 Wave and Current Data ....................................................................................... 22
5.3.4 Seawater Properties ............................................................................................ 24
5.4 Pipeline Design and Operating Data ............................................................................. 24
5.4.1 Pipeline Material Properties ................................................................................. 24
5.4.2 Design and Operating Data ................................................................................. 24
5.4.3 Operating Pressure and Temperature Profile - Steady State .............................. 25
5.4.4 Pressure and Temperature Profiles - Transient Profiles ...................................... 26
5.4.5 Corrosion Allowance ............................................................................................ 29
5.4.6 External Anti-Corrosion and Field Joint Coating .................................................. 29
5.4.7 Concrete Weight Coating ..................................................................................... 29
5.5 Soil Data ........................................................................................................................ 30
5.6 Pipe-Sleeper Interaction ................................................................................................ 31
5.7 Pipe Installation Tension................................................................................................ 31
5.8 Trawl Gear Data ............................................................................................................ 31
____________________________________________________________________________________
5.9 Probabilistic Input Data .................................................................................................. 32

6 LIMIT STATES...................................................................................................................... 32
6.1 Local Buckling................................................................................................................ 32
6.1.1 Load-Controlled Condition (LCC)......................................................................... 32
6.1.2 Displacement-Controlled Condition (DCC) .......................................................... 33
6.2 Fracture ......................................................................................................................... 34
6.3 Fatigue ........................................................................................................................... 34
6.4 Cyclic Plasticity .............................................................................................................. 36
7 LATERAL BUCKLING DESIGN ........................................................................................... 36
7.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 36
7.2 VAS Analysis for Rogue Buckle..................................................................................... 37
7.3 VAS Analysis for Planned Buckle .................................................................................. 40
7.4 Structure Reliability Analysis ......................................................................................... 49
7.5 Full 3D Models ............................................................................................................... 51
7.5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 51
7.5.2 Cases Analysis .................................................................................................... 54
7.5.3 3D Analysis Results ............................................................................................. 54
7.6 VIV Assessment and Fatigue Damage .......................................................................... 63
7.6.1 Low Cycle Fatigue Damage ................................................................................. 63
7.6.2 High Cycle (VIV) Fatigue Damage ....................................................................... 64
7.7 Pipeline Walking Design ................................................................................................ 65
8 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 69
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 INTRODUCTION
Kinh Ngu Trang and Kinh Ngu Trang Nam fields belong to Block 09-2/09 in Cuu Long Basin
offshore southern Vietnam. Kinh Ngu Trang field locates in distance approximately 150km
from Vung Tau city, 40 km from the East of White Tiger field, 14 km from Rang Dong field and
25 km from Ca Ngu Vang field. Kinh Ngu Trang Nam field locates in distance 3.5km from Kinh
Ngu Trang field. Sea water depth at the Kinh Ngu Trang and Kinh Ngu Trang Nam locations is
approximately 65m.
Figure 1-1: Location of KNT/KTN fields at Block 09-2/09

The development of Block 09-2/09 was started since 2019 when Petroleum Sharing Contract
(PSC) was signed between JV Vietsovpetro (VSP) 40%, PVEP- 30% and AO Zerubezhneft-
30%. VSP took the operatorship of Block 09-2/09.
The field development of Kinh Ngu Trang and Kinh Ngu Trang Nam consists of installation of
two (02) offshore platforms namely CPP KNT and WHP KTN, in-field pipelines, inter-field
pipelines, submarine cable and modification on the existing platforms at White Tiger Field. The
CPP KNT will be located at Kinh Ngu Trang field and designed as a Central Processing
Platform, equipped with full process and utility facilities to ensure the safe and effective oil &
gas production of Block 09-2/09. WHP KTN will be located at Kinh Ngu Trang Nam field and
will be designed as an unmanned wellhead platform, which is monitored and controlled
remotely from CPP KNT. The production fluid of Kinh Ngu Trang and Kinh Ngu Trang Nam
fields will be gathered and processed on CPP KNT to meet the export conditions and self-
sufficiently supply of the gaslift, fuel gas and electrical power for internal field’s demands. After
the processing on CPP KNT, including separation, heating, compression and pumping, the
mixture of gas and liquid will be transported to MSP-10 platform at White Tiger field via 38.8
km of subsea pipeline. At MSP10, the oil gas mixture from CPP KNT will be routed to new
process facilities to separate the liquid and gas, conduct the allocation measurement before
____________________________________________________________________________________
export the gas to MKS platform for compression, liquid to CPP2/CPP3 for further processing to
meet the commercial requirement before offloading. The water injection for Kinh Ngu Trang
and Kinh Ngu Trang Nam fields will be supplied from BK-15 platform on White Tiger field via
35.8 km of subsea pipeline.
In addition, to ensure the power supply capacity for serving the connection of Kinh Ngu Trang
& Kinh Trang Nam fields, a modification for installation of new transformer sub-station 2500
KVA on MSP9 platform will be conducted. The power supply to MSP10 platform via the
existing submarine cable 6.3 kV MSP9-MSP10.
Scheme of Kinh Ngu Trang and Kinh Ngu Trang Nam field development is shown in Figure
1-2.
Figure 1-2: Development scheme of Block 09-2/09

The field development of Kinh Ngu Trang and Kinh Ngu Trang Nam is intended to allow for the
installation of offshore facilities in 2023-2024 years, and have First Oil in 4th Quarter of 2024.
1.1 Purpose of Document
This report presents the analysis and assessments which performed to develop the lateral
buckling mitigation scheme of the following pipeline.
• A 292.1mm ID (12-inch nominal) KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline. The total pipeline route
length is approximately 38.531 km. Noted, the pipeline shall be designed according to
ID constant philosophy.
The scope of this report is limited to the lateral buckling and axial walking responses of the
offshore pipeline under operating conditions at high temperature and pressure.
The detailed pipeline route, seabed topography, metocean and pipeline operating condition
have been included in the full 3D model analysis.
____________________________________________________________________________________
1.2 Definition and Abbreviation

1.2.1 Definition
PROJECT KINH NGU TRANG – KINH NGU TRANG NAM FIELD

DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK 09-2/09
SUB-PROJECT KNT - MSP10 OIL PIPELINE
COMPANY VIETSOVPETRO JOINT VENTURE [VSP]
ENGINEERING
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING INSTITUTE [REI]
CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR Party which carries out all or part of the design, engineering,
procurement, construction and commissioning of the project
VENDOR (or SUPPLIER) The person, group or organization responsible for the design,
manufacture, testing and load-out/shipping, installing of the
equipment
SUB-VENDOR The person, group or organization who may be employed by

the Vendor to provide services for the design, manufacture,
testing and load-out/shipping, installing of the equipment or to
provide materials, sub-components and sub-assemblies for
incorporation in the equipment packages
THIRD PARTY An Independent 3rd Party Certifying Authority appointed by

Vendor approved by the Company for certifying specific
equipment/equipment packages fabricated at Vendor’s shop
INSPECTOR Company appointed person, group or organization acting in

behalf of the Company responsible for inspection and witness
testing of equipment/ equipment packages at Vendor’s shop
CERTIFYING Independent agency contracted by the Company to provide

AUTHORITY (CA) Classification/ Certification services to Field Development
Project’s facilities from design review to construction &
commissioning (start up) in accordance with CA Rules &
Regulations, applicable Codes, Standards & Vietnamese
Register (VR) Regulations.
May Indicates possible course of action.
Shall Indicates mandatory requirements
Should Indicates preferred course of action.
1.2.2 Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
BE Best Estimate
BOP Bottom of Pipe
____________________________________________________________________________________
CA Corrosion Allowance
CP Cathodic Protection
CWC Concrete Weight Coating
CPP Central Processing Platform
DCC Displacement Control Check
DN Diameter Nominal
DNVGL Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FEM Finite Element Method
FBE Fusion Bonded Epoxy
FEED Front End Engineering Design
HAT Highest Astronomical Tide
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
ID Inside Diameter
IP Intersection Point
KNT Kinh Ngu Trang
KP Kilometer Post
KTN Kinh Ngu Trang Nam
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
LCC Load Control Check
LB Lower Bound
MSL Mean Sea Level
Max Maximum
Min Minimum
MSL Mean Sea Level
OD Outside Diameter
OOS Out-of-straightness
PE Polyethylene
PSL Product Specification Level
PUF Polyurethane Foam
Ref. Reference
Rev Revision
RP Return Period
SCF Stress Concentration Factor
SMLS Seamless Pipe
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
____________________________________________________________________________________
SMTS Specified Minimum Tensile Strength

SNCF Strain Concentration Factor
VIV Vortex Induced Vibration
VS Vertical Sleeper
TCVN Vietnamese Standard
TP Tangent Point
UB Upper Bound
WD Water Depth
WHP Well Head Platform
WT Wall Thickness
w.r.t with reference to
1.3 Units of Measurement
Unit of measurement will be applied the International System of Units (SI).
2 CODES AND STANDARDS
This section defines the codes, standards and regulations applicable to the design of the
pipeline. Unless specified by any specific edition, the latest edition shall apply in all applicable
codes, standards and regulations referenced below:
Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL)
DNVGL-ST-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems
DNVGL-RP-F105 Free Spanning Pipeline
DNVGL-RP-F109 On-Bottom Stability Design of Submarine
Pipelines
DNVGL-RP-F110 Global Buckling of Submarine Pipelines
DNVGL-RP-F111 Interference between Trawl Gear and
Pipelines
DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Structures
Vietnamese Standard (TCVN)
TCVN - 6475 Rules for Classification and Technical
Supervision of Subsea Pipeline Systems
(Part 1 to Part 13)
3 REFERENCE
[1] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-DB-001 Basic of Design;
[2] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-CA-001 Pipeline and Riser Wall Thickness
Calculation;
[3] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-CA-002 Pipeline On-Bottom Stability Analysis;
[4] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-CA-007 Riser and Tie-In Spool Stress Analysis
[5] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-DW-002 Pipeline Layout
[6] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-DW-015 Pipeline Crossing Detail;
____________________________________________________________________________________
[7] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-001-PL8-CA-004 Pipeline Lateral Buckling Screening Analysis;

[8] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-001-PL8-RPT-004 Pipeline Lateral Buckling Design Report;
[9] VSP-OFS-001-RPT-01 Flow Assurance Report;
[10] PGS/2021/GP/01 Geophysical Pipeline Route Survey for
Proposed MSP10-BK15-KNT-KTN Pipeline
Route from Block 09-1 to Block 09-2/09,
Offshore Vietnam;
[11] SAFEBUCK III JIP Document No. 5087471/01/A, “Safe Design of Pipeline with Lateral
Buckling Design Guideline”, 30th August 2011;
[12] Hobbs, R.E., In-Service Buckling of Heated Pipelines, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, ASCE, Volume 110, Mar 1984;
[13] Hobbs, R.E. and Liang F, “Thermal Buckling of Pipelines Close to Restraints”, 8th
International. Conf., Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, The Hague, March
19-23 1989;
[14] Olav Fyrileiv and Leif Collberg, Influence of Pressure in Pipeline Design-Effective Axial
Force, OMAE2005-67502, June 12-17, 2005;
[15] White, D. and Randolph, M., “Seabed Characterizations and Models for Pipeline-Soil
Interaction”, ISOPE, July 2007;
[16] Hill, A.J and Jacob, H.,”In-situ Measurement of Pipe-Soil Interaction in Deep Water”,
OTC9528, May 2008;
[17] Roy Whitlow, Basic Soil Mechanics, 4th Edition.
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Summary
A series of lateral buckling analyses were performed to assess the response of the 12-inch
KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline. The analyses followed stress/strain-based methods developed
within the frame of DNVGL-ST-F101 and followed guidance given in DNVGL-RP-F110.
According to the results of the analyses presented in Pipeline Lateral Buckling Screening
Analysis (Ref. [7]), it can be concluded that the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline was prone to
lateral buckling and that, due to the severity of their post-buckle mechanical responses as
considered in Section 5.2 of Pipeline Lateral Buckling Design Report (Ref. [8]), the pipeline
could not be allowed to buckle in an uncontrolled manner on the seabed.
As the pipeline cannot be allowed to buckle in an uncontrolled manner on the seabed, a
solution to control the pipeline buckling response is required. The solution adopted and
presented in this report, uses combination of vertical sleepers and thicker pipes without
concrete coating to trigger and control buckling at several intended locations along the pipeline
route. SAGE PROFILE models have been used to assess the limit states relevant to the
lateral buckling response (i.e., local buckling, fracture of the girth welds, fatigue damage and
cyclic plasticity/creeping). The solution has been developed using a series of VAS, full lengths
FEM and probabilistic assessments.
The lateral buckling mitigation strategy adopted in this work is to the place the vertical sleeper
engineered buckles such that the probability of rogue buckles between vertical sleeper sites is
limited to not more than 5% as recommended by SAFEBUCK III. The probability for rogue and
engineered buckles was ascertained through structural reliability analysis (SRA) based on
methodology outlined in SAFEBUCK III. The SRA was carried out based on the design
temperature profile with random sampling of four key parameters – axial friction, lateral friction,
pipeline HOOS and critical buckling force.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Several sensitivities were analyzed to cover the most onerous set of design parameters. In
addition, the accumulated fatigue damage which contributed from other sources such as
transportation & installation, cyclic loading and VIV of the pipeline section over the sleeper will
be checked according to DNVGL-ST-F101.
Following the global buckling design, pipeline walking has also been addressed as a part of
this report. The response of pipeline under cyclic operation has been assessed from a series
of non-linear analyses using SAGE PROFILE FE. Initially the unmitigated pipeline walking
response is studied. If plausible scenarios are identified where the adequacy of spools,
sleepers or pipeline is compromised, then a solution will be proposed to reduce the
accumulated displacements within the allowable limits.
4.2 Conclusion
4.2.1 Buckling Trigger Mechanism
The proposed controlled buckling solution consists of creating a vertical upset introduced
using two 0.5m high sleepers with spacing of 24m and using 180m length thicker pipe
(19.1mm steel wall thickness, the central 84m section with no concrete coating while the
balance on either side has concrete coating of 40mm thick).
The rationale of the mitigation scheme is built upon maintaining a low probability of rogue
buckles (5% or less) between the engineered buckles. Using structural reliability analysis
(SRA), a Monte Carlo simulation method which accounts for statistical distribution of the
critical buckling force of rogue and engineered buckles, the probability of rogue buckles can be
kept below 5% between the vertical sleepers through the use of twenty (20) Sleeper.
Furthermore, the SRA results showed close to 100% buckling probability at the vertical
sleepers, indicating high reliability/robustness of the mitigation strategy with respect to the
formation of the engineered buckles at the selected positions/locations and suppression of
rogue buckles.
The detailed locations and configuration of vertical sleepers are given in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Proposed Vertical Sleepers
Planned Buckle Sleeper Location Sleeper Size (Height x
Sleeper ID
Location (km) (km) Length) (mm x mm) (1, 2)
VS-01A 1.828 500 x 22000
1.840
VS-01B 1.852 500 x 22000
VS-02A 3.668 500 x 22000

3.680
VS-02B 3.692 500 x 22000
VS-03A 5.508 500 x 22000

5.520
VS-03B 5.532 500 x 22000
VS-04A 7.348 500 x 22000

7.360
VS-04B 7.372 500 x 22000
VS-05A 9.188 500 x 22000

9.200
VS-05B 9.212 500 x 22000
11.040 VS-06A 11.028 500 x 22000
____________________________________________________________________________________

Sleeper ID
VS-06B 11.052 500 x 22000
VS-07A 12.868 500 x 22000

12.880
VS-07B 12.892 500 x 22000
VS-08A 14.708 500 x 22000

14.720
VS-08B 14.732 500 x 22000
VS-09A 16.548 500 x 22000

16.560
VS-09B 16.572 500 x 22000
VS-10A 18.388 500 x 22000

18.400
VS-10B 18.412 500 x 22000
VS-11A 20.228 500 x 20000

20.240
VS-11B 20.252 500 x 20000
VS-12A 22.068 500 x 20000

22.080
VS-12B 22.092 500 x 20000
VS-13A 23.908 500 x 20000

23.920
VS-13B 23.932 500 x 20000
VS-14A 25.748 500 x 20000

25.760
VS-14B 25.772 500 x 20000
VS-15A 27.588 500 x 20000

27.600
VS-15B 27.612 500 x 20000
VS-16A 29.428 500 x 20000

29.440
VS-16B 29.452 500 x 20000
VS-17A 31.268 500 x 20000

31.280
VS-17B 31.292 500 x 20000
VS-18A 33.108 500 x 20000

33.120
VS-18B 33.132 500 x 20000
VS-19A 34.948 500 x 20000

34.960
VS-19B 34.972 500 x 20000
36.800 VS-20A 36.788 500 x 20000
____________________________________________________________________________________

Sleeper ID
VS-20B 36.812 500 x 20000
Notes:
1. Installation tolerance of 1.0m is assumed in the lateral direction at the buckle triggers;
2. The sleeper length is calculated considering the maximum lateral displacement during operation
Table 7-10, the increment during walking Table 7-14 and tolerance during installation.
The wall thickness and external coating along pipeline route are presented in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Proposed Pipe Wall Thickness and External Coatings
Pipe Size ID
KP Start KP End External Coating Note
(mm) x WT (mm)
0.000 1.750 292.1×15.9 Pipeline
70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC
1.750 1.798
VS-01 at
1.798 1.882 292.1x19.1 45.45mm Insulation/ No CWC
KP1.840
1.882 1.930
1.930 3.590 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline
3.590 3.638
VS-02 at
KP3.680
3.722 3.770
5.430 5.478
VS-03 at
KP5.520
5.562 5.610
7.270 7.318
VS-04 at
KP7.360
7.402 7.450
9.110 9.158
VS-05 at
KP9.200
9.242 9.290
9.290 10.950 292.1×15.9 Pipeline
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pipe Size ID
(mm) x WT (mm)
10.950 10.998
VS-06 at
KP11.040
11.082 11.130
12.790 12.838
VS-07 at
KP12.880
12.922 12.970
12.970 14.630 292.1×15.9 Pipeline

14.630 14.678
VS-08 at
KP14.720
14.762 14.810
16.470 16.518
VS-09 at
KP16.560
16.602 16.650
18.310 18.358
VS-10 at
KP18.400
18.442 18.490
20.150 20.198
VS-11 at
KP20.240
20.282 20.330
21.990 22.038
VS-12 at
KP22.080
22.122 22.170
22.170 23.830 292.1×15.9 Pipeline
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pipe Size ID
(mm) x WT (mm)
23.830 23.878
VS-13 at
KP23.920
23.962 24.010
25.670 25.718
VS-14 at
KP25.760
25.802 25.850
27.510 27.558
VS-15 at
KP27.600
27.642 27.690
29.350 29.398
VS-16 at
KP29.440
29.482 29.530
31.190 31.238
VS-17 at
KP31.280
31.322 31.370
33.030 33.078
VS-18 at
KP33.120
33.162 33.210
34.870 34.918
VS-19 at
KP34.960
35.002 35.050
35.050 36.710 292.1×15.9 Pipeline
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pipe Size ID
(mm) x WT (mm)
36.710 36.758
VS-20 at
KP36.800
36.842 36.890
36.890 38.531 292.1×15.9 Pipeline
A typical pipeline profile over sleeper structure is presented in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Typical Vertical Sleeper Configuration

4.2.2 Pipeline Mechanical Response
The mechanical response analyses have been performed in accordance with DNVGL-ST-
F101, DNVGL-RP-F110 and other commonly used industry practices. From the results of
assessment, it is concluded as following.
Susceptibility to Lateral Buckling
Using probabilistic reliability analysis and based on the vertical sleeper locations as indicated
in Table 4-1, the probability of initiating the engineered buckle is high, at close to 100%
probability level, indicating that under the design conditions, the mitigation scheme with
vertical sleeper is robust;
The maximum probability of rogue buckle(s) between the engineered buckle sites is 2.38%
less than proposed susceptibility limit of 5% (Ref. [11]) except the bottom pipe section from
KP0.361 to KP0.952 which the probability of buckling is up to 20.49% due to the presence of a
route bend with radius of 2000m. However, from full 3D model analysis that including detailed
pipeline route, seabed topography and restrained force of tie-in spool at KNT-CPP (Ref. [4]),
the pipeline lateral buckling is unlikely occur at the route bend.
In generally, it can be concluded that the straight pipeline sections between the vertical
sleepers are non-susceptible to lateral buckling.
Limit States Check
The mechanical integrity of planned buckles during normal operation is well acceptable based
on the Limit State Check, as set forth below.
• Combined load-controlled checks (LCC) are carried out and show that the bending
moment, effective axial force and internal over pressure of the pipeline are satisfying the
equation 5.19 of DNVGL-ST-F101 at all cross-sections;
• Peak compressive strains are lower than the allowable limit strain in all sensitivity cases.
The feed-in capacity of planned buckle is acceptable to absorb the thermal
expansion/feed-in before the strain at the buckle apex exceeds the allowable limit;
____________________________________________________________________________________
• Peak tensile strains are lower than the DNV workmanship limit for fracture criteria in all
sensitivities. This limit is the recommended by DNVGL-ST-F101;
• The accumulated fatigue damage due to installation, cyclic operation and VIV is below the
allowable damage ratio given in DNVGL-ST-F101;
• Hoop ratcheting is below unity and therefore additional plasticity is not anticipated during
cyclic operation.
Table 4-3 presents a summary of relevant limit state check for the planned buckles during
normal operation. The probability of rogue buckle development and trawling interaction is
relatively low so that the pipeline intergrity assessment for these cases will be considered as
further analysis and detailly presented in section 7.5.
Table 4-3: Relevant Limit States Check
Limit state Planned Buckle Allowable Limit Utilization Ratios

Local buckling, Load Controlled
0.87 1.00 0.87
Check (LCC)
Local buckling, Compressive
-0.16% -1.23% 0.13
Strain (DCC)
Fracture, Tensile Strain 0.17% 0.40% 0.43
Fatigue Damage (1) 4.05% 16.67% 0.24
Cyclic Plasticity Ratio 0.57 1.00 0.57
Peak Lateral Displacement 7.30 - -
Note:
1. The total fatigue damage is determined by sum of damage from installation (3.33%), cyclic
operating (0.7%) and VIV (0.015%).
Pipe-Sleeper Reactions
Two sleepers are arranged at each buckle locations except the crossing locations. Table 4-4
presents the pipeline loads that are transferred to the sleepers. These loads shall be used to
design the sleepers. Please note that these loads do not include any load factors.
Table 4-4: Pipe-Sleeper Loads
Pipeline Loads over the Sleeper

Condition Turning Moment (2)
Vertical (kN) Axial/Lateral (kN)
(kN.m)
As-laid 11.64 3.49 3.37
Hydrotest 28.61 8.58 7.58
Operating 15.95 4.79 6.77
Notes:
1. The axial and lateral reaction forces have been calculated using a pipe-sleeper friction coefficient of
0.3.
2. The turning moment is based on 0.5m gap from BOP to mud-line.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4.2.3 Pipeline Walking Analysis

The axial walking response of the offshore pipeline under cyclic operating conditions has been
assessed from a series of non-linear FEA. The seabed profiles and transient pressures &
temperatures are included in the analyses. The planned buckle sites and entire pipeline route
have also been modelled for essessment and therefore the risk of route curve pull out has
been addressed.
Details of the analyses and results are shown in 7.7. From the results of the analyses, the
following has been concluded:
• Pipeline walking is negligible and the accumulated axial movements are well within the
capacity of the pipeline end termination spools (Ref. [4]);
• The lateral position of the pipeline at the sleepers is kept well within the sleeper length.
It is not predicted that the pipeline will contact the sleeper bumpers;
• Peak LCC, compressive and tensile strains remain well within the allowable limits;
• The peak effective axial forces during shutdown are lower than the required force to
pull out straight the route curves, 1491.5kN. It is noted that this limiting force has been
calculated considering that the operating submerged weight of the pipeline, the low
estimate of the lateral friction breakout and the minimum route curve radius.
4.3 Recommendations
From the results of the assessment performed, the following is recommended:
• The welding of the 180m thicker pipe joints (19.1mm WT) centered at the triggers should
follow all relevant guidance given as part of the workmanship criteria of DNVGL-ST-F101.
• The misalignment between the thicker pipe joints centered at the triggers should also be
less than 2.0mm, which is less than 0.15 x wall thickness of thicker pipe, see Section 0 for
additional details.
• The longitudinal installation tolerance of the pipeline at the sleepers should be less than
half pipe joint, i.e., ±6.0m and the lateral installation tolerance should be less than ±1.0m.
Otherwise, additional sensitivities (FEA) would be recommended to ensure that the
mechanical response of the pipeline is within the allowable limits.
• The design of the sleeper mud-mat should ensure that there is no significant reduction of
the sleeper height, following initial and long-term penetration and soil consolidation. The
height of a sleeper shall be limited from 0.4m to 0.6m, with preferred height is 0.5m during
its design life. If the design height falls outside the previous range, additional sensitivities
(FEA) would be recommended to verify adequacy. The length of the sleeper shall be
sufficient to accommodate the expected buckle amplitude.
• The design of the sleepers shall include pipeline end stoppers to ensure that the pipeline
does not fall off of the sleeper under any circumstance.
• The sleeper at buckle locations shall be PE/PP coated to reduce the friction and abrasion
with pipe and also enhance buckling reliability during operation.
• The concrete coated pipe sections of 15.9mm WT have very low feed-in capacity. It is
recommended that straight pipeline sections between buckle triggers be installed as
straight as possible, with minimum lateral OOS as feasibly possible, preferably no smaller
than R3500m. This is to minimize the risk of unwanted buckles from being initiated due to
large lay imperfection.
____________________________________________________________________________________
• The buckle trigger structure shall have cathodic protection for the design life of the pipeline
of 25 years if it is a steel structure.
• The exact location of the sleeper structure should be selected based on careful
consideration of the local topology. Therefore, a high-resolution bathymetry survey is
desirable to reconfirm the local seabed topology at the buckle trigger locations during
detail engineering phase.
• Post-Lay Assessment
Following pipeline installation, as-built data will be submitted to CONSULTANT for
assessment prior to hydrotest the pipeline. It is recommended to assess post-laid condition
against intended design, and establish the following as a minimum but not limited to:
- Confidence level for formation of controlled buckle at intended locations;
- Capability of unplanned buckles happening and correspondent stress and strain levels;
- Stress levels at expansion spools.
Assessment shall comprise an update of the finite element analysis (FEA) model based on
the known field data:
- Embedment levels;
- Buckle trigger locations;
- Effect of pipeline crossings;
- Out-of-straightness;
- As-installed condition of the expansion spool;
- Any other parameters value that are different from the Detailed design.
If assessment shows insufficient confidence of buckle management, CONSULTANT shall
propose mitigation measures to control lateral buckling.
• Post Start Up Assessment
Following pipeline in operation, post start-up data will be submitted to CONSULTANT for
assessment. It is recommended to assess post star-tup condition against intended design
and establish the following as a minimum, but not limited to:
- Stress and strain levels at planned locations;
- Stress and strain levels at unplanned buckle locations (if any);
- Stress and strain levels at expansion spools.
Assessment shall comprise an update of the finite element analysis (FEA) model based on
known field data:
- Embedment levels;
- Buckle trigger locations;
- Effect of pipeline crossings;
- Out-of-straightness;
- Expansion spool.
Recommend fatigue life for actual free spans based on the available operational data and
future production profile.
____________________________________________________________________________________
If assessment shows excessive deviation from intended design, the CONSULTANT shall
propose mitigation measures to control lateral buckling.
On a sleeper, the pipeline upheaval is immediately accompanied by lateral displacement
so that the pipe should not lift off the sleeper (Ref. [11]). However, if the offshore pipeline is
upheaval but still does not come into contact with the sleeper then the excessive free span
will be established. In this case, the detailed data will be submitted to CONSULTANT for
assessment to provide that the pipeline should be continuously observed by survey in the
short time or need to be rectified.
5 DESIGN AND OPERATING DATA

The following sections summarize the design and operating data used for the lateral buckling
analyses. All design and operating data have been extracted from the Basis of Design
(Ref.[1]), unless otherwise noted.
5.1 Design Life
The design life of the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline System shall be 25 years.
5.2 Pipeline Route Data
The pipeline route of 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline including number of crossings and
route bends have been covered in this analysis model. The pipeline route length is
approximately 38.531km.
Detailed data of the pipeline route are summarized in Table 5-1 below. The locations of the
route curvatures and crossings will be used in 3D full model assessment.
Table 5-1: Route Details of 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline
Coordinate
Location Bearing KP (km) Remark
Easting Northing
Center of Well KNT-
KNT 759718.97 1094553.38 - -
2X
Start Point 759715.86 1094472.91 Tie-in Point
TP-1 759385.98 1094327.78 246o15’13” 0.361
IP-1 759113.37 1094207.86 Radius = 2000
TP-2 758817.66 1094172.55 0.952
TP-3 754893.84 1093704.16 263o11’33” 4.904
IP-2 753617.14 1093551.75 Radius = 20000
TP-4 752370.48 1093237.13 7.471
TP-5 737206.27 1089410.10 255o50’9” 23.111
IP-3 736741.81 1089292.89 Radius = 20000
TP-6 736283.49 1089153.57 24.069

253o5’31”
TP-7 729967.21 1087233.55 31.547
____________________________________________________________________________________
Coordinate
Location Bearing KP (km) Remark
Easting Northing
IP-4 727629.22 1086522.85 Radius = 20000
TP-8 725531.11 1085270.14 35.534
CP-1 722982.83 1083748.64 242o41’36” 38.502 Cable MSP10-BK15
CP-2 722977.74 1083745.60 38.508 Cable MSP9-MSP10
End Point 722956.99 1083733.22 - 38.531 Tie-in Point
MSP-10 722925.94 1083697.82 - Center of Platform
5.3 Environmental Data

5.3.1 Water Depth
The water depth profile along the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline is presented in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1: Water Depth Profile from KNT-CPP to MSP10

Maximum and minimum water depth related to KPs along 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline
are presented in Table 5-2.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-2: Key Water Depths
Descriptions Value (m)

Minimum Water Depth w.r.t MSL 52.64
Maximum Water Depth w.r.t MSL 65.00
5.3.2 Tidal Range and Storm Surge

The tidal range and storm surge levels with reference to MSL are presented in Table 5-3
below.
Table 5-3: Tidal and Storm Surge Level
Description Unit Value

Highest Astronomical Tide m 1.13
Mean Sea Level m 0.00
Lowest Astronomical Tide m 1.79
Positive Storm Surge m 0.77
Negative Storm Surge m 0.51
5.3.3 Wave and Current Data

Wave and current data which collected from “Basic of Design” (Ref.[1]) are presented as the
following.
Directional wave for sea state condition is summarized in the Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Wave with relative to Each Direction
Direction (To)
Description Unit
N NE E SE S SW W NW
1-Year RP
Significant Wave
m 1.3 6.0 2.4 1.2 2.3 3.7 2.9 2.6
Height, Hs
Spectral Peak Period,
sec 6.4 9.5 7.4 6.4 6.5 8.3 8.0 7.0
Tp
Maximum Wave
m 2.6 11.8 4.8 2.4 4.6 7.3 5.8 3.0
Height, Hmax
Associated Period,
sec 9.1 13.3 10.5 9.1 9.2 11.7 11.3 9.9
Tmax
10-Year RP
Significant Wave
Height, Hs m 2.9 7.4 3.3 2.1 2.7 4.7 3.7 3.0
____________________________________________________________________________________
Spectral Peak
Period, Tp sec 6.0 8.8 6.7 5.6 6.3 7.9 6.7 6.2
Maximum Wave
Height, Hmax m 5.9 14.6 6.6 4.3 5.4 9.3 7.4 6.1
Associated Period,
Tmax sec 8.5 12.4 9.5 8.0 8.9 11.1 9.5 8.8
100-Year RP
Significant Wave
Height, Hs m 5.8 8.7 4.8 3.3 4.3 6.3 4.8 4.9
Spectral Peak
Period, Tp sec 8.7 10.6 8.9 7.4 8.1 8.9 8.5 8.6
Maximum Wave
Height, Hmax m 11.1 16.4 9.1 6.4 8.2 12.0 9.2 9.4
Associated Period,
Tmax sec 12.0 14.5 12.3 10.3 11.2 12.3 11.7 11.9
The current regime was created under the influence of monsoon and tides. Directional current
for sea state condition is presented in the Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Current Data with relative to Each Direction
Direction (To)
Description Unit
N NE E SE S SW W NW
1-Year RP
Near Surface Current m/s 0.26 0.85 0.44 0.84 0.69 0.56 0.61 0.49
Near Bottom Current m/s 0.31 0.49 0.41 0.36 0.35 0.57 0.33 0.34
10-Year RP
Near Surface Current m/s 0.67 1.2 0.73 1.14 1.42 0.95 1.16 0.79
100-Year RP
Near Surface Current m/s 0.93 1.83 1.16 1.75 2.24 1.53 2 1.21
Note:
1. The reference height for near bottom current is assumed to be 5m above seabed.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5.3.4 Seawater Properties

The seawater properties used for design are presented in Table 5-6 below. For conservatism,
only minimum temperature at seabed is used as ambient temperature in lateral buckling
analysis.
Table 5-6: Seawater Properties

Seawater Density kg/m3 1025
Ocean Temperature at Max. 32.94

0C
Surface Min. 21.49
Ocean Temperature at Max. 32.57

0C
Bottom Min. 18.90
5.4 Pipeline Design and Operating Data

5.4.1 Pipeline Material Properties
Pipeline steel material grade shall be based on carbon steel API 5L Grade X60 PSL2. All line
pipes shall be manufactured to meet API 5L specification requirements.
Typical carbon steel line pipe properties are summarized in Table 5-7 below.
Table 5-7: Carbon Steel Line Pipe Properties
Line Pipe Inside Diameter mm/inch 292.1/12
Line Pipe Wall Thickness mm 15.9
Line Pipe Fabrication - SMLS/ HFW
Steel Density kg/m3 7850
Young’s Modulus of Elasticity MPa 207000
Poisson Ratio - 0.3
Thermal Expansion Coefficient 1/°C 11.7 x 10-6
SMYS (1) MPa 413
SMTS (1) MPa 517
Note:
1. Stress de-rating due to temperature shall be considered in analysis.
5.4.2 Design and Operating Data
Pipeline design data and functional parameters related to the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline
are presented in Table 5-8 below.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-8: Design and Operating Parameter
Value
Parameters Unit
At KNT-CPP At MSP10
Design Pressure barg 60
Hydrotest Pressure (1) barg 69
Max 120 80
Design Temperature °C
Min -29
Flange Rating lb 600
Max 930
Product Density kg/m3
Min 49
Notes:
1. Hydrotest pressure is taken as 1.15 x design pressure based on DNVGL-ST-F101 requirements
which satisfied the requirements of TCVN 6475:2017 for design purpose;
2. To be conservative, maximum product density will be used in lateral buckling analysis.
5.4.3 Operating Pressure and Temperature Profile - Steady State
The maximum operating pressure profile along the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline at steady
state is illustrated in Figure 5-2 below.
Figure 5-2: Operating Pressure Profile from KNT-CPP to MSP10
____________________________________________________________________________________
The maximum operating temperature profile along the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline at
steady state is illustrated in Figure 5-3 below.
Figure 5-3: Operating Temperature Profile from KNT-CPP to MSP10
5.4.4 Pressure and Temperature Profiles - Transient Profiles

Two times (02) of full shutdown/restart per year will be considered. Hence the total number of
full shutdown cycles is 50 times during the pipeline whole design life.
The shutdown transient pressure & temperature profiles used for pipeline walking analysis are
presented in Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5, respectively.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 5-4: Pipeline Shutdown Transient Pressure Profile
Figure 5-5: Pipeline Shutdown Transient Temperature Profile
____________________________________________________________________________________
The restart transient pressure & temperature profiles used for pipeline walking analysis are
presented in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7, respectively.
Figure 5-6: Pipeline Restart Transient Pressure Profile
Figure 5-7: Pipeline Restart Transient Temperature Profile
____________________________________________________________________________________
5.4.5 Corrosion Allowance

The internal corrosion allowance to be applied along entire 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline is
3.0mm (Ref. [1]).
5.4.6 External Anti-Corrosion and Field Joint Coating
The external anti-corrosion coating systems of 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline are
summarized in Table 5-9 below.
Table 5-9: External Anti-Corrosion Data
Coating Type Thickness (mm) Density (kg/m3)
FBE 0.45 1400
PUF (1) 65 200
HDPE 5 970
Note:
1. The PUF layer thickness of the pipeline sections (84m) over Sleeper shall be recommended as
40mm.
The field joint coating data of 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline are presented in Table 5-10.
Table 5-10: Field Joint Coating Data
Parameter Unit Value
Field joint coating type - Heat Shrink Sleeve (HSS)
Thickness mm 2.5
Overlap over the anti-corrosion
mm 50
coating on either side
Marine Mastic Infill or Injection
Infill material - Moulded Fast Curing High Density
Polyurethane Foam (HDPUF)
Matches with the concrete coating
Infill thickness -
layer thickness
≥ 1025 (saturated density)
Field Joint Infill Density kg/m3
 160 (dry density)
5.4.7 Concrete Weight Coating

The proposed concrete coating properties of the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline are
presented in Table 5-11 (Ref.[3]).
Table 5-11: Concrete Weight Coating Properties
Descriptions Units Value
Concrete Coating Thickness mm 40
Concrete Density kg/m3 2500
Concrete Cut-Back Length mm 450
____________________________________________________________________________________
Descriptions Units Value
Minimum Compressive Strength MPa 40
5.5 Soil Data

According to Geophysical Pipeline Route Survey for Proposed MSP10-BK15-KNT-KTN
Pipeline Route from Block 09-1 to Block 09-2/09, Offshore Vietnam (Doc. No.
PGS/2021/GP/01), the type of soil along 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline is mostly loose to
medium dense silty fine SAND with shell fragments. The soil properties are summarized in
Table 5-12 below.
Table 5-12: Soil Properties
Submerged Unit Average Friction
Pipeline Soil Type
Weight (kN/m³) Angle (0)
Loose to medium dense
12-inch KNT-MSP10
9.16 32.14 silty fine SAND with shell
Oil Pipeline
fragments
Pipeline lateral buckling and post-buckle behaviour is critically dependent on the interactions
between pipe and soil interface and hence the assessment must consider a range of soil
properties to account for any uncertainties in the measured soil data and analysis model. This
is normally done by considering a number of sensitivity load cases.
Pipe-soil interaction assessment has been performed in accordance with SAFEBUCK III, for
12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline. Table 5-13 presents the lateral and axial friction factor
results for the lateral buckling analysis. The detail of calculation is attached under Appendix 1.
Table 5-13: Friction Factor for Mitigation Study
Operating Condition Axial Friction Lateral Friction
Lower Bound (LB) 0.4 0.59
Best Estimate (BE) 0.6 0.77
Upper Bound (UB) 0.8 1.06
As minimum, the assessment shall be carried out for the following pipe-soil friction
combination.
• LB Axial + LB Lateral;
• LB Axial + BE Lateral;
• BE Axial + LB Lateral;
• BE Axial + BE Lateral;
• BE Axial + UB Lateral;
• UB Axial + BE Lateral;
• UB Axial + UB Lateral.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5.6 Pipe-Sleeper Interaction

The parameters of the pipe-sleeper interaction response are summarized in Table 5-14. This
table presents a range of values for the friction factor based on experience from past projects.
They are used for both PE/ PP coated pipe and sleeper interactions.
Table 5-14: Pipe-Sleeper Interaction Data
Parameters Lower Bound Best Estimate Upper Bound
Friction Factor 0.2 0.3 0.4
Contact Stiffness Rigid
5.7 Pipe Installation Tension

The residual lay tension for the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline in the lateral buckling
analysis is presented Table 5-15.
Table 5-15: Pipeline Residual Lay Tension
Facilities Minimum Residual Lay Tension (kN)
12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline 250
5.8 Trawl Gear Data

The 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline is belonging the area that does not allow fishing
activities or anchor mooring. However, to ensure safety in the unlikely events, the pipeline will
be checked for the trawl gear interaction from fishing operating with the trawl gear parameters
are summarized in Table 5-16 below. DNVGL-RP-F111 provides formulae for calculation of
pullover loads during a trawl gear crossing. The pullover load and duration are presented in
Table 5-17. No hooking has been considered. Detailed calculations are given in Appendix 2.
Table 5-16: Trawl Gear Parameters
Parameters Value
Type of Trawl Gear Bottom Trawl
Type of Board Rectangular
Trawling Velocity 2.00 knots (1.03 m/sec)
Maximum Trawl Borad Steel Mass 100 kg
Trawl Board Dimensions (Length x Height) 1.5 m x 0.7 m
Table 5-17: Trawl Gear Loadings
Span Height Parameter Value
0.5 m (Buckling on Maximum Pullover Horizontal Force 34.34 kN

Seabed) Maximum Pullover Vertical Force 6.90 kN
____________________________________________________________________________________
Span Height Parameter Value
Pullover Duration 0.31 sec
5.9 Probabilistic Input Data

The statistical input data to be used in the probabilistic lateral buckling analyses are
summarised in Table 5-18 below.
Table 5-18: Probabilistic Input Data
Variable Distribution Mean SD Comments

Calculated
based on 2.5%
Axial Friction Factor Log-normal 0.77 LB of Axial = 0.4
fractile of Low
Bound of Friction
Peak Lateral Friction Calculated
Factor in Operation (for based on 95% UB of lateral =
Log-normal 0.60
fractile of Upper 0.95
rogue buckles) Bound of Friction
Normalised Critical Force

As per
Parameter (for on-bottom recommendation
Log-normal 1.18 0.35
buckle on nominally in section 4.6.4.1
straight section) of SAFEBUCK III
Normalised Critical Force

As per
Parameter (for on-bottom recommendation
buckle on section on in section 4.6.4.2
route bend) of SAFEBUCK III
As per
Buckle Critical Force on recommendation
Sleeper in section 4.6.4.3
of SAFEBUCK III
6 LIMIT STATES
The summary of limited states relevant to the lateral buckling analysis (i.e., local buckling,
fracture, fatigue, ratcheting) are presented in the following sections.
6.1 Local Buckling
The purpose of the local buckling check is to avoid “failure” during operation due to local
buckling of the cross section.
6.1.1 Load-Controlled Condition (LCC)
Based on DNVGL-ST-F101, the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline shall be designed to satisfy
the following conditions at all cross sections:
____________________________________________________________________________________
2
   m .  SC .S S d ( pi ) 
2
  pi − p e 
2
 MSd 
 SC . m . +    +   p .   1
  c .M p (t 2 )   c .S p (t 2 )     c . pb (t 2 ) 
D S
15   45; pi  pe ; S d  0.4
t2 Sp
Whereas,
M Sd
Design bending moment (kN.m)
S Sd
Design effective axial force (kN)
t2 Characteristic wall thickness (where failure is likely to occur in connection with

an extreme load effect at a location with average thickness)
t for prior to operation
t − tcorr for operational condition
t Nominal steel wall thickness provided
tcorr
Internal corrosion allowance thickness
Mp Plastic moment resistance (kN.m)
f y .( D − t ) .t
2
Sp Characteristic plastic axial force resistance (kN)
f y . .( D − t ).t
pb
Burst pressure (MPa)
pc
Collapse pressure (MPa) (for the above equation, thickness t2 shall be used)
c Flow stress parameter (refer to DNVGL-ST-F101, Section 5.4.6.5)
p
Account for effect of D/t2 ratio.
 m ,  SC Safety Factors
pi
Internal pressure
pe
External pressure
pmin The minimum internal pressure that can be sustained.
6.1.2 Displacement-Controlled Condition (DCC)
The local buckling limit state will also be verified using the displacement controlled criterion.
The limit strains presented below will be compared against the design strain calculated as
follows:
____________________________________________________________________________________
 sd = SNCF   f   c   FE
Whereas,
 sd is the design strain to compare against the allowable value
 FE is the nominal mechanical strain from the FE analyses
SNCF is the strain concentration factor which is calculated using the Neuber approach
presented in DNVGL-ST-F101
f is the function/interference load factor, taken as 1.1
c is the condition load effect factor, taken as 1.0
The limit strains are summarized in Table 6-1 below. Additional details of the calculations can
be found in Appendix 3.
Table 6-1: Local Buckling Limit Strains
Pipeline on Pipeline on Vertical Sleeper

Description
Bottom With CWC Without CWC
Steel Wall Thickness 15.9 19.1 19.1
Concrete Coating Thickness 40 40 0
SNCF due to CWC 1.90 1.64 1.00
Limit Compressive Strain (1) 0.47% 0.75% 1.23%
Note:
1. The strains are nominal and include the strain concentration factor (SNCF) due to the discontinuity
of the concrete coating at the field joint, when appropriate. The strains can therefore directly be
compared with the strains from the FEA.
6.2 Fracture
The fracture check of the girth welds is to avoid “failure” during the installation and operation
phases, be determining the criticality of flaws.
The lateral buckling design for the pipeline will progress on the assumption that the girth welds
can be engineered to resist a nominal tensile strain of 0.4% as given in Table 7-2.
Table 6-2: Fracture Limit Strains
Pipeline on Vertical
Description Pipeline on Bottom
Sleeper
Limit Tensile Strain 0.40% 0.40%
6.3 Fatigue
Fatigue damage of the pipeline sections over Vertical Sleeper can occur due to the followings:
• Low Cycle Fatigue – due to repeated heat-up and shutdown cycle experienced by the
pipeline during its design life. It is assumed that there will be two (02) startup and
____________________________________________________________________________________
shutdown cycles per year for the whole design life of 25 years, as such there will be
total of 50 startup/shutdown cycles.
• High Cycle Fatigue – due to fatigue damage caused by vortex induced vibration (VIV)
of the pipeline buckle free spans.
The fatigue assessment shall be performed in accordance with the methodology outlined in
DNVGL-RP-F105 for free spans VIV and DNV-RP-C203 for operational low cycle fatigue.
In low cycle fatigue calculations, the nominal stress ranges obtained from the FE analysis are
multiplied by the SCF for the weld misalignment. As the wall thickness is lower than the
reference thickness (25mm for welded connections), it is not necessary to consider a plate
thickness factor. Stress concentration factor (SCF) due to weld misalignment has been
determined according to Section 2.10 of DNV-RP-C203.
Fatigue damage of the free spans caused by vortex induced vibration (VIV) is calculated by
using the DNV software FATFREE, based on DNVGL-RP-F105.
The checking criteria shall be complied with DNVGL-ST-F101 and DNV-RP-C203. The fatigue
damage produced by the different sources will be accumulated using the Miner’s rule.
k
ni
D fat =    fat
i =1 Ni
Where:
Dfat Miner’s sum
K Number of Stress Blocks
ni Number of Stress Cycles in Stress Block “i”
Ni Number of Cycle to failure
αfat Allowable damage ratio
The fatigue unity check is defined as.
D fat
UC fat =
 fat
The allowable damage ratio is taken as 1/6 as per DNVGL-ST-F101, which is the total
damage from pipe mill to end of design life including installation, hydrotest, start-up &
shutdown cycles and VIV. The fatigue damage caused before by other sources during
transportation, installation and as-laid condition is assumed to be 20% of the accumulated in-
service damage throughout the pipeline design life. Therefore, the allowable fatigue damage
for VIV plus operating cycles is 13.3%.
The fatigue assessment for the girth welds is carried out using S-N curves through following
expression. The S-N curves used in fatigue analysis shall be determined based on material,
construction detail, location of initial defect and corrosive environment.
log10 N = log10 a − m log10 
As required in this report, the maximum allowable misalignment of 2.0mm at weld joint is used,
which is less than 0.15t of the pipe. Hence F1 curve is applicable for weld root fatigue
assessment. Table 6-3 presents the required data to perform the fatigue assessment of the
girth welds.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Table 6-3: Girth Weld Data for Fatigue Assessment
Description Root Cap

SN Curve F1 in air (1) D in seawater with CP
SN Curve m factor 3.0 3.0
Thickness exponent 0.0 0.2
SN Curve, log10(a) (Up to 100°C) 11.699 11.764
SCF due to weld misalignment 1.00 1.25
Note:
1. Based on a misalignment calculated from DNV-RP-C203.
6.4 Cyclic Plasticity
The cyclic plasticity or hoop strain ratcheting limit state will be prevented by checking that the
maximum axial stress range complies with the following condition.
 3  
2
 2  fB 1−  h 
SMYS 4  SMYS 
where:
Δσ Nominal stress range from the FE analyses multiplied by the SCF for the weld
misalignment
σh Maximum absolute value of the hoop stress that could occur during operation
fB Bauschinger factor (=0.8)
SMYS The SMYS at ambient temperature
7 LATERAL BUCKLING DESIGN

7.1 General
The 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline has been checked for in-service global buckling
potential using the analytical method which is developed based on Hobb’s theory. From the
analysis results, it can be seen that the axial compressive force of the pipeline is significantly
higher than the critical buckling force corresponding to Hobbs’ buckling modes in the operating
condition, therefore the offshore pipeline is concluded to be susceptible to lateral buckling
phenomenon (Ref. [7]).
Subsequently, the uncontrolled buckling behavior of the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline has
been assessed by modelling the detailed pipeline route with seabed condition, the maximum
operating pressure and temperature profile at steady state shall also be included in the
analysis model. The results shown that uncontrolled lateral buckling cannot be accepted due
to the local buckling and fracture are exceeded allowable limit states (Ref. [8]).
The integrity of the pipeline could not be ensured in the event of uncontrolled lateral buckling
thus it is necessary to engineer a solution to control the lateral buckling responses of the
offshore pipeline.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7.2 VAS Analysis for Rogue Buckle

VAS analyses are conducted with an on-bottom buckle to assess the response of the potential
rouge buckle and to establish the tolerable VAS for on-bottom buckles. Figure 7-1 to Figure
7-3 present the relationship between the actual combined loading, compressive and tensile
strain with the VAS length. The allowable limits are also given for clarity. It is assumed that the
SNCF due to the concrete discontinuity dose not affect the tensile strain limit.
2.50
2.00
Combine Load Check - LC
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300
VAS Length (m)
65 (oC) 70 (oC) 75 (oC) 80 (oC) Allowable Limit
Figure 7-1: Combined Loading Correlation – Rogue Buckle
____________________________________________________________________________________
0.000
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300
-0.050
-0.100
Compressive Strain (%)
-0.150
-0.200
-0.250
-0.300
-0.350
-0.400
-0.450
-0.500
VAS Length (m)
Figure 7-2: Compressive Strain Correlation – Rogue Buckle
0.450
0.400
0.350
Tensile Strain (%)
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300
VAS Length (m)
Figure 7-3: Tensile Strain Correlation – Rogue Buckle
____________________________________________________________________________________
Table 7-1 tabulated the relationship between the tolerable VAS lengths of rogue buckle with
actual combined load and mechanical strains at designed temperatures of 65oC, 70oC, 75oC
and 80oC.
Table 7-1: Tolerable VAS Assessment – Rogue Buckle
Operating Condition
Temperature VAS Model Length Peak Actual Peak
(oC) (m) Peak Tensile
Combined Compressive
Strain (%)
Loading Strain (%)
600 0.60 -0.140 0.146
800 0.77 -0.159 0.164
1000 0.93 -0.175 0.181
1200 1.10 -0.191 0.196
65 1400 1.27 -0.206 0.211
1600 1.42 -0.217 0.222
1800 1.53 -0.226 0.231
2000 1.63 -0.233 0.238
2200 1.72 -0.240 0.245
600 0.63 -0.143 0.150
800 0.80 -0.162 0.168
1000 0.98 -0.179 0.185
1200 1.15 -0.195 0.201
70 1400 1.33 -0.210 0.216
1600 1.49 -0.222 0.228
1800 1.62 -0.232 0.238
2000 1.74 -0.241 0.246
2200 1.85 -0.248 0.254
600 0.69 -0.149 0.156
800 0.87 -0.169 0.175
1000 1.06 -0.187 0.193

75
1200 1.25 -0.203 0.210
1400 1.43 -0.218 0.224
1600 1.60 -0.230 0.236
____________________________________________________________________________________
Operating Condition
Strain (%)
Loading Strain (%)
1800 1.74 -0.241 0.247
2000 1.88 -0.250 0.257
2200 2.00 -0.259 0.265
600 0.85 -0.168 0.172
800 1.14 -0.196 0.199
1000 1.33 -0.211 0.215
1200 1.51 -0.225 0.228
80 1400 1.66 -0.236 0.240
1600 1.81 -0.247 0.251
1800 1.96 -0.257 0.262
2000 2.11 -0.268 0.273
2200 2.25 -0.283 0.288
7.3 VAS Analysis for Planned Buckle

For the tolerable VAS assessment of the pipeline with buckle initiators, a vertical upset
introduced using two 0.5m high sleepers with spacing of 24m and using 180m length thicker
pipe (19.1mm steel wall thickness, the central 84m section with no concrete coating while the
balance on either side has concrete coating of 40mm thick) were chosen to engineer the
controlled buckling solution.
All VAS analysis is performed with the best estimate of the axial friction and the high estimate
of the lateral friction.
The correlations between actual combined loading, compressive and tensile strain with VAS
lengths for several temperatures are presented from Figure 7-4 to Figure 7-6. Correlations are
pressented regarding to operating condition. It is observed that the actual combined loading
and mechanical strains are well below the corresponding allowable limits. The combined load
and strains increase slowly with the VAS length. The tolerable VAS length is larger than
3000m.
____________________________________________________________________________________
1.20
1.00
Actual Combined Loading - LC
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
VAS Length (m)
Figure 7-4: Combined Loading Correlation – Planned Buckle
0.000
-0.200
Compressive Strain (%)
-0.400
-0.600
-0.800
-1.000
-1.200
-1.400
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
VAS Length (m)
Figure 7-5: Compressive Strain Correlation – Planned Buckle
____________________________________________________________________________________
0.450
0.400
0.350
Tensile Strain (%)
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
VAS Length (m)
Figure 7-6: Tensile Strain Correlation – Planned Buckle
Table 7-2 tabulated the relationship between the tolerable VAS lengths of planned buckle with
actual combined load and mechanical strains at several designed temperatures.
Table 7-2: Tolerable VAS Assessment – Planned Buckle
Operating Condition
Strain (%)
Loading Strain (%)
600 0.14 -0.062 0.078
800 0.18 -0.073 0.088
1000 0.23 -0.083 0.097
1200 0.27 -0.091 0.105
1400 0.31 -0.098 0.112

65
1600 0.35 -0.105 0.118
1800 0.39 -0.111 0.124
2000 0.43 -0.117 0.130
2200 0.46 -0.122 0.135
2400 0.50 -0.127 0.140
____________________________________________________________________________________
Operating Condition
Strain (%)
Loading Strain (%)
2600 0.53 -0.131 0.144
2800 0.57 -0.136 0.148
3000 0.60 -0.140 0.152
600 0.15 -0.066 0.081
800 0.20 -0.078 0.092
1000 0.25 -0.087 0.101
1200 0.30 -0.096 0.110
1400 0.35 -0.104 0.118
1600 0.39 -0.111 0.125
70 1800 0.44 -0.118 0.131
2000 0.48 -0.124 0.137
2200 0.52 -0.130 0.143
2400 0.56 -0.135 0.148
2600 0.60 -0.140 0.153
2800 0.64 -0.145 0.157
3000 0.68 -0.149 0.162
600 0.17 -0.070 0.085
800 0.22 -0.082 0.096
1000 0.28 -0.092 0.106
1200 0.33 -0.101 0.115
1400 0.38 -0.110 0.123
75 1600 0.43 -0.117 0.130
1800 0.48 -0.124 0.137
2000 0.53 -0.131 0.144
2200 0.58 -0.137 0.150
2400 0.62 -0.143 0.155
2600 0.67 -0.148 0.160
____________________________________________________________________________________
Operating Condition
Strain (%)
Loading Strain (%)
2800 0.71 -0.153 0.165
3000 0.75 -0.158 0.170
600 0.18 -0.073 0.088
800 0.24 -0.086 0.100
1000 0.30 -0.097 0.110
1200 0.36 -0.106 0.120
1400 0.41 -0.115 0.128
1600 0.47 -0.123 0.136
80 1800 0.52 -0.130 0.143
2000 0.57 -0.137 0.150
2200 0.63 -0.143 0.156
2400 0.68 -0.149 0.162
2600 0.73 -0.155 0.167
2800 0.77 -0.160 0.172
3000 0.82 -0.165 0.177
To keep the peak actual combined loading and mechanical strains within the allowable limits,
total twenty (20) numbers of sleepers are proposed as buckle initiators for the offshore
pipeline with details presented in Table 7-3. Table 7-4 presents the pipeline wall thickness and
external coatings along the length.
Table 7-3: Proposed Vertical Sleepers Configuration
Sleeper ID
VS-01A 1.828 500 x 22000
1.840
VS-01B 1.852 500 x 22000
VS-02A 3.668 500 x 22000

3.680
VS-02B 3.692 500 x 22000
VS-03A 5.508 500 x 22000

5.520
VS-03B 5.532 500 x 22000
____________________________________________________________________________________

Sleeper ID
VS-04A 7.348 500 x 22000
7.360
VS-04B 7.372 500 x 22000
VS-05A 9.188 500 x 22000

9.200
VS-05B 9.212 500 x 22000
VS-06A 11.028 500 x 22000

11.040
VS-06B 11.052 500 x 22000
VS-07A 12.868 500 x 22000

12.880
VS-07B 12.892 500 x 22000
VS-08A 14.708 500 x 22000

14.720
VS-08B 14.732 500 x 22000
VS-09A 16.548 500 x 22000

16.560
VS-09B 16.572 500 x 22000
VS-10A 18.388 500 x 22000

18.400
VS-10B 18.412 500 x 22000
VS-11A 20.228 500 x 20000

20.240
VS-11B 20.252 500 x 20000
VS-12A 22.068 500 x 20000

22.080
VS-12B 22.092 500 x 20000
VS-13A 23.908 500 x 20000

23.920
VS-13B 23.932 500 x 20000
VS-14A 25.748 500 x 20000

25.760
VS-14B 25.772 500 x 20000
VS-15A 27.588 500 x 20000

27.600
VS-15B 27.612 500 x 20000
VS-16A 29.428 500 x 20000

29.440
VS-16B 29.452 500 x 20000
VS-17A 31.268 500 x 20000

31.280
VS-17B 31.292 500 x 20000
____________________________________________________________________________________

Sleeper ID
VS-18A 33.108 500 x 20000
33.120
VS-18B 33.132 500 x 20000
VS-19A 34.948 500 x 20000

34.960
VS-19B 34.972 500 x 20000
VS-20A 36.788 500 x 20000

36.800
VS-20B 36.812 500 x 20000
Table 7-4: Proposed Pipe Wall Thickness and External Coatings

Pipe Size ID
(mm) x WT (mm)
0.000 1.750 292.1×15.9 Pipeline
1.750 1.798
VS-01 at
KP1.840
1.882 1.930
3.590 3.638
VS-02 at
KP3.680
3.722 3.770
5.430 5.478
VS-03 at
KP5.520
5.562 5.610
7.270 7.318
VS-04 at
KP7.360
7.402 7.450
9.110 9.158 VS-05 at

292.1x19.1
9.158 9.242 45.45mm Insulation/ No CWC KP9.200
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pipe Size ID
(mm) x WT (mm)
9.242 9.290
10.950 10.998
VS-06 at
KP11.040
11.082 11.130
12.790 12.838
VS-07 at
KP12.880
12.922 12.970
12.970 14.630 292.1×15.9 Pipeline

14.630 14.678
VS-08 at
KP14.720
14.762 14.810
16.470 16.518
VS-09 at
KP16.560
16.602 16.650
18.310 18.358
VS-10 at
KP18.400
18.442 18.490
20.150 20.198
VS-11 at
KP20.240
20.282 20.330
21.990 22.038 VS-12 at

292.1x19.1
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pipe Size ID
(mm) x WT (mm)
22.122 22.170
23.830 23.878
VS-13 at
KP23.920
23.962 24.010
25.670 25.718
VS-14 at
KP25.760
25.802 25.850
27.510 27.558
VS-15 at
KP27.600
27.642 27.690
29.350 29.398
VS-16 at
KP29.440
29.482 29.530
31.190 31.238
VS-17 at
KP31.280
31.322 31.370
33.030 33.078
VS-18 at
KP33.120
33.162 33.210
34.870 34.918 VS-19 at

292.1x19.1
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pipe Size ID
(mm) x WT (mm)
35.002 35.050
36.710 36.758
VS-20 at
KP36.800
36.842 36.890
36.890 38.531 292.1×15.9 Pipeline
7.4 Structure Reliability Analysis

Probabilistic lateral buckling analyses are performed to confirm the locations of the trigger
mechanisms. At a high level, results from the tolerable VAS assessment have demonstrated
that the short-term integrity checks have been satisfied at the planned locations.
In the approach adopted, there is an intrinsic aim to avoid the risk of formation of rogue
buckles for on-bottom pipeline sections, as proving the integrity of rogue buckles would be
significantly more challenging than that of planned buckles. Therefore, the probability of rogue
buckle formation along the pipeline route will also be presented.
The design of the lateral buckling mitigation scheme is primarily based on the strategy of
reducing the effective compressive force in the pipeline to as low as practically possible. This
is to ensure that probability of rogue buckle between the planned buckle sites is below the
threshold of 5% in which the pipeline is deemed not susceptible to buckling, as per
SAFEBUCK III recommendation.
Table 7-5 presents the probability of buckling at the sleepers and the risk of triggering a rogue
buckle on the seabed due to imperfection.
Table 7-5: Probability of Buckling
Simulation Probability of Buckling

(%)
KP 1.84 99.18
KP 3.68 99.83
KP 5.52 99.76
KP 7.36 99.76
Planned Buckles at the
KP 9.20 99.73
Sleepers
KP 11.04 99.97
KP 12.88 99.86
KP 14.72 99.97
KP 16.56 99.86
____________________________________________________________________________________
Simulation Probability of Buckling

(%)
KP 18.40 99.86
KP 20.24 99.83
KP 22.08 99.93
KP 23.92 99.80
KP 25.76 99.69
KP 27.60 99.76
KP 29.44 99.86
KP 31.28 99.83
KP 33.12 99.69
KP 34.96 99.86
KP 36.80 99.22
KP 0.36 – KP 0.95
20.49
Route Bend (R2000)
Rogue Buckles
Remained on-bottom
2.38
pipeline sections
Figure 7-7 shows the distribution of the probabilities of buckling along the 12-inch KNT-MSP10
Oil Pipeline.
____________________________________________________________________________________
100.00
90.00
80.00
Probability Of Buckling (%)
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
Distance Along Pipeline (km)
Probability Of Buckling Allowable Rogue Probability (5%)
Figure 7-7: Probability of Buckling

From the results presented above, the following can be concluded:
• All planned buckles are expected to trigger. The probability of buckling forrmation at
the trigger mechanism is ~100%;
• Rogue buckles are not expected to form between each vertical sleepers because the
probability of rogue buckle formation is well less than 5%;
• Rogue buckles are likely to occur from KP 0.36 – KP 0.95 due to the presence of a
route bend with radius of 2000m. The probability of buckling on this section is 20.49%.
• Pipeline integrity of planned and rogue buckles will be further verified using 3D full
models.
7.5 Full 3D Models

7.5.1 Introduction
A full 3D model of pipeline is used to verify the proposed lateral buckling mitigation solution.
The full model contains the same features as the VAS models but with some enhancements.
The full 3D model captures the interaction between lateral buckles and the influence of the
route layout and seabed bathymetry. Figure 7-8 presents an overall view of the 3D SAGE
PROFILE models developed for the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline route.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7-8: Overal Pipeline Route in SAGE PROFILE
Stress analysis of an offshore pipeline in a finite element model requires special handling of
the circular pipe cross-section when working with simple beam-column elements. While these
elements model satisfactorily the overall pipeline configuration, the program must ensure that
the effects of internal and external fluid pressure on the stress level in the pipe wall, as well as
the thermal strains that can develop due to temperature effects, are taken into account. SAGE
Profile covers all the main features of circular pipe behavior.
- Effect of internal and external pressure on the ends of the pipe;
- Hoop stresses developed by internal and external pressure;
- Axial force developed in the pipe wall due to Poisson’s effect of the hoop stress;
- Thermal strains and axial forces in pipe wall due to changes in temperature;
- Output of true wall stress and hoop stress for equivalent stress calculation;
- Lay tension, if specified;
- Sag tensions which are computed automatically as a result of modelling geometric
changes (i.e., large deformations);
- Moment-curvature relationship based on the longitudinal stresses in the pipe wall and
the uni-axial stress strain behavior, accounting for the biaxial stress conditions in the
pipe wall.
The full 3D model also includes sleepers at the locations identified in Table 7-3. Figure 7-9
and Figure 7-10 below shows a representative detail of the pipeline before and after buckling
over the sleeper respectively.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7-9: 3D Model of Pipeline at Sleeper – Before Buckling
Figure 7-10: 3D Model of Pipeline at Sleeper – After Buckling
____________________________________________________________________________________
The offshore pipeline has been simulated step by step in the order of installation, as-laid,
flooded, hydrotest and operation to cover the behavior variation (stress/strain) in each state.
The model is runned with pipe element length of 2m for the pipeline sections at sleeper and
4m for the remainning sections.
7.5.2 Cases Analysis
The 3D model analyses shall consider all combinations of axial and lateral friction which is
recommended by DNVGL-RP-F110 as shown in Table 7-6 below. The objective of these
sensitivities is to assess the variability of the results and determine the most onerous
conditions.
Table 7-6: Combinations of Friction Analyzed
Axial
Lateral LB BE UB
LB X X
BE X X X
UB X X
First run was performed with free condition at both ends and without introducing any initial
imperfection. It is seen that the buckles have been triggered at all twenty (20) buckle trigger
locations. No rogue buckle is found along the offshore pipeline route.
However, from the structure reliability analysis, one (01) rogue buckle is likely to occur at the
pipeline route curvature near KNT-CPP. Therefore, to check the integrity of rogue buckle, the
reaction force of tie-spool at KNT-CPP will be added to 3D model. The value of reaction force
is substituted progressively until the rogue buckle initiate to occurr at the value of 400kN. It
can be seen that the rogue buckle is unlikely to happen, according to the FEA analysis, due to
the reaction force of tie-in spool at KNT-CPP extracted from Caesar II model of Riser and Tie-
In Spool Stress Analysis (Ref. [4]) is only about 50kN.
7.5.3 3D Analysis Results
The results of the controlled buckling analyses for the pipeline are presented in this section.
The strains presented do not include any partial safety factors or strain concentration factors
but it is noted that the partial safety factors and strains concentration factors were included to
calculate the allowable limit strains presented in Section 6 and therefore both sets of strains
can be compared directly.
The controlled buckling analyses have been performed by using SAGE PROFILE Program. In
which detailed pipeline route, operating process parameters and seabed condition
(geophysical and geotechnical properties) are included in 3D analysis model.
The analyses consider all combinations of axial and lateral friction which recommended by
DNVGL-RP-F110 to assess the variability of the results with the uncertain parameters and
determine the most onerous conditions.
a) Planned Buckle
The detailed results of the planned buckle analysis for the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil
Pipeline are presented in Table 7-7 below.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Table 7-7: Lateral Buckling Analysis Results – Planned Buckles
Friction Code Checks

Lateral
Run
LCC Compres. Tensile Hoop Displ. (m)
Axial Lateral
Unity Strain (%) Strain (%) Ratcheting
1 LB LB 0.775 -0.151 0.160 0.546 7.30
2 LB BE 0.832 -0.156 0.166 0.565 7.14
3 BE LB 0.746 -0.148 0.157 0.535 7.03
4 BE BE 0.792 -0.153 0.161 0.551 6.80
5 BE UB 0.867 -0.161 0.168 0.573 6.71
6 UB BE 0.753 -0.149 0.158 0.538 6.68
7 UB UB 0.836 -0.158 0.165 0.563 6.50
From the results presented above, it’s can be seen that all code checks of planned buckle
are satisfying the limit states of Section 6:
- The maximum actual combined loading (LCC) is 0.867 which is less than the allowable
value 1.0;
- The maximum magnitude of compressive strain is 0.161%, much smaller than the
allowable limit of 1.23%;
- The peak tensile strain is 0.168% which is also less than the 0.4% allowable limit;
- The peak hoop ratcheting utilization ratio is 0.573 which is below 1.0.
b) Rouge Buckle
The results of rogue buckle analysis for the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline are
presented in Table 7-8 below. The rogue buckle only takes place for friction combinations
of (UB Axial +BE Lateral) and (UB axial + UB lateral). In which, (UB axial + UB lateral)
friction combination gives the maximum code checks due to the highest axial and lateral
soil restraint applied to the rogue buckle.
Table 7-8: Lateral Buckling Analysis Results – Rogue Buckle

Lateral
Run
Axial Lateral
1 UB BE 1.111 -0.182 0.180 0.622 1.27
2 UB UB 1.540 -0.216 0.208 0.727 1.61
In this analysis model, the LCC unity is larger than 1.0, it means high stress (or moment)
develop in the rogue buckle. According to SAFEBUCK III (Ref. [11]), this is accepted as
long as the strain limit criteria is satisfied. The conventional stress-based design approach
is generally conservative to the design of a laterally buckling pipeline.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The result of simulation from Table 7-8 shown that the peak compressive strain at the apex
of rogue buckle is remaining low at 0.216%, which is less than 0.47%. In addition to
maximum the tensile strain and hoop ratcheting of rogue bucke is also with allowable limit.
c) Trawling Interaction
The pipeline is constructed in the area that does not allow fishing activities or anchor
mooring. However, to ensure the safety of pipeline in the unlikely events, the planned
buckle will be checked for the trawl gear interaction from fishing operating.
The potential of rogue buckle is relatively low in addition to its location (if heppen) is within
the area of 500m radius from the KNT-CPP where the fishing operating is impossible.
Therefore, the trawl gear interaction assessment was not carried out for the rogue buckle.
The detailed results of the trawling interaction analysis of planned buckle are presented in
Table 7-9 below.
Table 7-9: Planned Buckle/Trawling Interaction Assessment

Lateral
Run
Axial Lateral
1 LB LB 1.261 -0.165 0.179 0.611 8.54
2 LB BE 1.380 -0.173 0.187 0.637 8.24
3 BE LB 1.169 -0.158 0.173 0.590 8.07
4 BE BE 1.277 -0.166 0.180 0.614 7.79
5 BE UB 1.432 -0.177 0.190 0.647 7.47
6 UB BE 1.202 -0.161 0.175 0.597 7.42
7 UB LB 1.345 -0.171 0.184 0.629 7.10
As the same with rogue buckle analysis, the result of planned buckle/trawling interaction
assessment gives LCC unity larger than 1.0. In this case, the planned buckle intergrity
shall be verifed against strain-based design approach.
From the results presented in Table 7-9, it’s can be seen that all strains of planned buckle
under impacted of trawling are well within the allowble limit states.
- The maximum compressive strain is 0.177%, much smaller than the allowable limit of
1.23%;
- The peak tensile strain is 0.190% which is also less than the 0.4% allowable limit;
- The peak hoop ratcheting utilization ratio is 0.647 which is below 1.0.
d) Maximum Lateral Displacement
The maximum lateral displacement of the 12-inch KNT-MSP10 Oil Pipeline at vertical
sleeper loactions is summurized in Table 7-10 below.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Table 7-10: Maximum Lateral Displacement along Pipeline
Maximum Lateral Displacement (m)

Tigger No. Kilometer Post (km)
Normal Operating Trawling Interaction
VS-01 1.840 7.02 7.52
VS-02 3.680 7.23 7.69
VS-03 5.520 7.29 7.55
VS-04 7.360 7.08 7.36
VS-05 9.200 6.90 7.22
VS-06 11.040 6.94 7.20
VS-07 12.880 6.87 7.07
VS-08 14.720 6.74 7.02
VS-09 16.560 6.65 6.39
VS-10 18.400 6.44 8.50
VS-11 20.240 6.39 6.34
VS-12 22.080 6.31 6.69
VS-13 23.920 6.27 6.45
VS-14 25.760 6.07 6.46
VS-15 27.600 6.03 6.26
VS-16 29.440 5.94 6.20
VS-17 31.280 5.97 6.12
VS-18 33.120 5.62 5.75
VS-19 34.960 5.48 5.59
VS-20 36.800 4.91 5.06
The detailed analysis results of the offshore pipeline under normal operating and trawling
interaction conditions are summarized in the following plots.
The effective axial force profile (for operation and trawling) along the offshore pipeline is
shown through Figure 7-11 to Figure 7-12. The effective force profiles show the three different
axial frictions used (different profile slopes).
The effective force profile during the trawling impact also shows that additional tension is built-
up (i.e., less compression) around the vicinity of the buckle after the pipeline is impacted with
the trawl loading.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7-11: Effective Axial Force along Pipeline – Normal Operating
Figure 7-12: Effective Axial Force along Pipeline – Trawling Interaction
____________________________________________________________________________________
The lateral displacement profile (operation and trawling) along the offshore pipeline are shown
through Figure 7-13 to Figure 7-14.
Figure 7-13: Lateral Displacement along Pipeline – Normal Operating
Figure 7-14: Lateral Displacement along Pipeline – Trawling Interaction
____________________________________________________________________________________
The local buckling analysis results (LCC Unity and compressive strain) corresponding to
operating and trawling load case are shown through Figure 7-15 to Figure 7-18.
Figure 7-15: LCC Unity along Pipeline – Normal Operating
Figure 7-16: LCC Unity along Pipeline – Trawling Interaction
____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7-17: Compressive Strain along Pipeline – Normal Operating
Figure 7-18: Compressive Strain along Pipeline – Trawling Interaction
____________________________________________________________________________________
The tensile strain profile along the pipeline for fracture criteria check (operation and trawling)
are shown through Figure 7-19 to Figure 7-20.
Figure 7-19: Tensile Strain along Pipeline – Normal Operating
Figure 7-20: Tensile Strain along Pipeline – Trawling Interaction
The buckle mode shapes of the pipeline which having mitigation solution are presented in the
Figure 7-21. The buckle shapes indicate that Mode 1 and Mode 3 happens in all cases. These
buckle modes occur mostly when the variation of the pressure and temperature along the
pipeline length is not significant, making the buckle profile symmetric (approximately
symmetric feed-in).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7-21: Buckle Mode Shapes along Pipeline – Operating Load Case
7.6 VIV Assessment and Fatigue Damage

7.6.1 Low Cycle Fatigue Damage
Fatigue damage from operational cyclic load was determined using the corresponding cyclic
axial stress range obtained from the transient cyclic analysis. For conservative, the maximum
stress range of the buckle locations during the first start-up/shut-down cycle will be selected
and considered as constant for all remained cycles in fatigue damage calculation.
The stress range and fatigue damage calculations are summarized in Table 7-11 below.
Table 7-11: Maximum Stress Range at Buckle Locations during Operation
Friction Weld Root Weld Cap

Stress
Run Range No. of No. of
Damage Damage
Axial Lateral (MPa) cycles to cycles to
Ratio, % Ratio, %
failure, N failure, N
1 LE LE 330.90 13800 0.36 8266 0.61
2 LE BE 342.60 12430 0.40 7448 0.67
3 BE LE 324.65 14610 0.34 8753 0.57
4 BE BE 334.29 13390 0.37 8017 0.62
5 BE UB 347.48 11920 0.42 7139 0.70
6 UB BE 326.03 14430 0.35 8642 0.58
7 UB UB 341.16 12590 0.40 7543 0.66
____________________________________________________________________________________
Maximum low cycle fatigue damage of the planned buckles due to operational restarts and
shutdowns occurred at the weld cap (Run 5) with a total damage of 0.70%.
7.6.2 High Cycle (VIV) Fatigue Damage
From the 3D model analysis results, the span length from the touch down point to sleeper
during operating condition is about 30m as shown in Figure 7-22.
Figure 7-22: Pipeline Span Profile at Sleeper during Operating Condition
The fatigue of longest span of ~36m is calculated using the DNV FATFREE. Table 7-12
presents the fatigue results for both in-line and cross flow modes. The results indicate that
span meets the allowable fatigue damage limit of 13.3% and fulfills the fatigue check provided
by DNVGL-RP-F05.
The summary data sheets obtained from DNV FATFREE are attached in Appendix 4.
Table 7-12: Fatigue Life – FAT FREE Results
Span Fatigue Life (years) Fatigue Damage (%)

Length (m) In-line Cross Flow In-line Cross Flow
36 27934.16 49744.96 0.015% 0.008%
From the results presented above, the following can be concluded:

- The largest fatigue damage due to VIV occurs in the in-line direction;
- The largest portion of damage is accumulated due to operation of the pipeline;
- The largest fatigue damage is 0.015%. This value is well below the acceptable 13.3%
and should be added to damage due to the installation and operation of the pipeline.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7.7 Pipeline Walking Design

The model is run with BE of the axial and lateral friction factors. The transient temperature
profiles presented in Section 5.4.4 are also used. The sleeper height is set to 0.5m and the
pipe-sleeper friction to 0.3. All other inputs are as presented in section 5.4.
Table 7-13 presents the initial and final end spool expansions, and the pipeline lateral
displacements and peak strains at the sleeper. The initial and final readings are taken after
applying maximum operating temperature and pressure before and after the 50 operating
cycles. It is noted that the allowable compressive strain at the sleeper location is -1.23% and
the allowable tensile strain is 0.4%. Table 7-14 gives the final lateral displacements at the
buckle trigger locations after 50 operating cycles.
Table 7-13: Spool Expansions, Lateral Displacements and Peak Strains at Sleepers
Initial – 1st Final – 50th Accumulation due to
Parameter Units
Cycle Cycle Pipeline Walking
Expansion at Hot End mm -0.675 -0.836 0.161
Expansion at Cold End mm 0.389 0.389 0.000

Peak actual combined
loading
- 0.78 0.91 0.13
Peak Compressive Strain
at Sleeper
% -0.153 -0.142 0.011
Peak Tensile Strain at
Sleeper
% 0.160 0.149 0.011
Table 7-14: Maximum Lateral Displacements after Walking at Buckle Triggers

Maximum Lateral
Displacement (m)
VS-01 1.840 6.12
VS-02 3.680 7.01
VS-03 5.520 7.41
VS-04 7.360 6.79
VS-05 9.200 6.81
VS-06 11.040 6.62
VS-07 12.880 6.64
VS-08 14.720 6.63
VS-09 16.560 6.37
VS-10 18.400 6.13
VS-11 20.240 6.10
VS-12 22.080 6.03
VS-13 23.920 6.01
____________________________________________________________________________________
Maximum Lateral
Displacement (m)
VS-14 25.760 5.95
VS-15 27.600 5.70
VS-16 29.440 5.62
VS-17 31.280 5.75
VS-18 33.120 5.36
VS-19 34.960 5.28
VS-20 36.800 4.51
Figure 7-23 presents the predicted hot and cold end spool expansions during the years of
operation. Only the first 20 cycles are shown for clarity. The expansion of cycle 0 corresponds
to the value associated with the maximum operating and pressure profiles. It is observed that
the cold end expansion remains constant subject to the operating cycles while hot end
expansion increases slowly by 0.161m and become stable after about 27 operating cycles.
0.8
0.6
Axial Displacement (m)
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Cycle No.
Hot End Cold End
Figure 7-23: Hot and Cold End Spools – Axial Expansion
____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7-24 to Figure 7-27 present the effective axial force and local buckling check profiles of
the pipeline for the first 05 cycles.
Figure 7-24: Effective Axial Force Profiles – 1st to 5st Cycles
Figure 7-25: Actual Combined Loading Profiles – 1st to 5st Cycles
____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7-26: Compressive Strain Profiles – 1st to 5st Cycles
Figure 7-27: Tensile Strain Profiles – 1st to 5st Cycles
From the results presented in this section, the following can be extracted:
• Pipeline walking is negigible and the accumulated axial movements are well within the
capacity of the pipeline end termination spools (Ref. [4]);
• The lateral position of the pipeline at the sleepers is kept well within the sleeper length.
It is not predicted that the pipeline will contact the sleeper bumpers;
• Peak combined loading and mechanical strains (compressive and tensile) remain well
within the allowable limits;
____________________________________________________________________________________
• The peak effective axial force during shutdown is lower than the required force to pull
out straight the route curves, 1491.5kN. It is noted that this limiting force has been
calculated considering that the operating submerged weigth pff the pipeline, the low
estimated of the lateral friction breakout and the minimum route curve radius.
8 APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Pipe Soil Interaction Calculation
Appendix 2: Trawl Pullover Force Calculation
Appendix 3: 3D Model Analysis - Sage Profile Output
Appendix 4: 3D Model Analysis - Unity Checks
Appendix 5: VIV Fatigue Analysis
____________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX 1: PIPE SOIL INTERACTION CALCULATION

(04 Pages A4 including this page)
BLOCK 09-2/09 FIELD
SAFEBUCK III - UNITY CHECK

The calculations are performed in accordance with the SAFEBUCK guideline.
1.0 Introduction
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe
Outside Diameter Dfo  323.9mm
Wall Thickness tf  15.9mm
Corrosion Allowance tfcorr  3mm
Pipe Joint Length Lpj  12.2m
Corrosion Coating Thickness tcc  70.45mm

3
Corrosion Coating Density ρcc  286.57kg m
Concrete Weight Coating Thickness twc  40mm

3
Concrete Weight Coating Density ρcw  2500kg m
Concrete Cutback Length FJcb  450mm

3
Infill Density ρinfill  1025kg m
Water Absorbtion of Concrete (%) Pinc  4%
Marine Growth Thickness tmg  0mm

3
Marine Growth Density ρmar  1300 kg m
3
Pipe Steel Density ρst  7850kg m
2.2 Operating Data
Design Life
Life  25
3
Content Density ρcont  930kg m
2.3 Environment Data
3
Seawater Density ρw  1025kg m
3
Soil Submerged Density γ  9.16kN m
2.4 SAFEBUCK Data

Reference Pipe Diameter Dref  508mm
BLOCK 09-2/09 FIELD
3.0 Calculation
3.1 Submerged Pipe Weight
Corroded Pipeline Wall Thickness t  tf  0.5tfcorr
Internal Diameter Di  Dfo  2  t
Inside Diameter of Corrosion Coating Dicc  Dfo
Outside Diameter of Corronsion Coating Docc  Dfo  2  tcc
Inside Diameter of Concrete Weight Coating Diwc  Docc
Outside Diameter of Concrete Weight Coating Dowc  Diwc  2  twc
Inside Diameter of Marine Growth Dimg  Dowc
Pipeline Total Diameter Dt  Dfo  2  tcc  2  twc  2  tmg
Wst    Dfo  Di   ρst g  Lpj

   
π 2 2
Steel Weight Per Joint
4  
Wcc    Docc  Dicc   ρcc  g  Lpj

   
π 2 2
Corrosion Coat Weight Per Joint
4  
Wwc    Dowc  Diwc   ρcw g  1  Pinc  Lpj  2  FJcb

      
π 2 2
Concrete Coat Weight Per Joint
4  
Winfill    Dowc  Diwc   ρinfill g  2  FJcb

   
π 2 2
Field Joint Infill Weight Per Joint  
4
Wmg    Dt  Dimg   ρmar g  Lpj

   
π 2 2
Marine Growth Weight Per Joint  
4
 
π 2
Content Weight Per Joint Wcont   Di  ρcont g  Lpj
4
 
π 2
Buoyancy Per Joint B   Dt  ρw g  Lpj
4
Wst  Wcc  Wwc  Winfill  Wmg  Wcont

Dry Weight Per Metre Wdry 
Lpj
Wst  Wcc  Wwc  Winfill  Wmg  Wcont  B

Submerged Weight Per Metre Ws_act 
Lpj
3.2 BE Lateral Friction Factor

Ws_act
Calculated Factor ω   2.152

γ π 0.25 Dt  2
0.18
0.12  Dref 
BE Lateral Friction Factor for Sand μ50%  0.71 ω    0.769
 Dt 
BLOCK 09-2/09 FIELD
LB Lateral Friction Factor for Sand μ2.3%  0.05  0.7 μ50%  0.588
LB Lateral Friction Factor for Sand μ97.7%  0.18  1.15 μ50%  1.064
3.3 Axial Friction Factor

- Axial friction of pipeline on sandy soil, the value is generally within the range of 0.6 to 0.8 as referenced from
various sources.
- Additionally, SAFEBUCK also provides typical measured axial friction for sandy and silty sand soil falls
within the range of 0.65 to 0.8.
- Typically in drained condition for non-cohesive soils, the axial friction coefficient is equal to (tan δ) where δ
is the pipe-soil interface angle of friction. According to DNV-RP-F105, the friction angle of Loose sand range
from 28⁰-30⁰ and Medium sand range from 30⁰-36⁰. Based on these values, the axial friction falls in the range
of 0.53 to 0.73.
- Furthermore, the friction angles of soil data along 12-inch Oil Pipeline from KNT to MSP10 also indicate
values ranging from 29-35 for depth of top soil.
3.0 Results Summary

Based on these data, the ranges of axial and lateral friction factors adopted for this work are summarized in Table
below.
Friction Factors Abre. Axial Lateral

Lower Bound LB 0.4 0.59
Best Estimate BE 0.6 0.77
Upper Bound UB 0.8 1.06
APPENDIX 2: TRAWL PULLOVER FORCE CALCULATION

BLOCK 09-2/09 FIELD
PVEngineering DEVELOPMENT
TRAWL PULLOVER FORCE CALCULATION

12-INCH KNT-MSP10 OIL PIPELINE
This MathCAD sheet calculates trawl pullover force and the total pullover time. Calculations are based on
DNVGL-RP-F111, Interference Between Trawl Gear and Pipelines
1.0 Input Design Data
1.1 Pipeline Parameters
Steel Pipe Diameter D  330.3mm
Corrosion Coating Thickness tcorr  45.45mm
Concrete Coating Thickness tconc  40mm
Total Pipe Outer Diameter 

OD  D  2  t corr  tconc 
Span Height Hsp  0.5m
Water Depth d  52.64m Assumed minimum
Trawl Board (Clump Weight) Parameters
Clump Mass mt  100kg
Half trawl board height B  0.35m
Trawl speed V  2.0knot
1.2 Design Factors
Load factor γ  1
Coefficient for pull-over duration CT  2
2.0 Design Calculations

7
3.5  10 N kN
Warp stiffness k w  k w  221.63 
3d m
Hsp  0.5OD  0.2m

Dimensionless height H  H  2.72
B
Empirical coefficient 
CF  8  1  e
 0.8H  CF  7.09
Maximum horizontal force Fp  CF  V  mt  k w  γ Fp  34.34  kN
Maximum vertical downward force 

Fz  Fp  0.2  0.8  e
 2.5H  Fz  6.90  kN
Trawl Pullover Force Calculation - 0.5m H.xmcd Page 1 of 2

BLOCK 09-2/09 FIELD
PVEngineering DEVELOPMENT
mt
Total pull-over time Tp  CT  CF   1.1 Tp  0.32 s
kw
Pull load rise time Tpeak  Tp  0.6s if Tp  0.6s Tpeak  0.10 s
0.1s otherwise
If total pull-over time is less than 0.6s, fall time should be equal to total time (but still allowing for some force build-up
of 0.1s). Or else, fall off time is 0.6s
 0s   0.00   0N   0.00   0N   0.00 

       
Time   Tpeak    0.10  s Forcehorizontal   Fp    34.34   kN Forcedownward   Fz    6.90   kN
 T   0.32   0N   0.00   0N   0.00 
 p       
Trawl pullover force time history

40
30
Pullover Force (kN)
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Time (sec)
Horizontal
Downward
2 2
total  Fp  Fz  35.02  kN
Trawl Pullover Force Calculation - 0.5m H.xmcd Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX 3: 3D MODEL ANALYSIS - SAGE PROFILE OUTPUT

Sage Profile outputs are separately provided as soft copy (pdf format) in order to reduce size of
document/report. Hard copy of the same can be provided upon request.
APPENDIX 4: 3D MODEL ANALYSIS - UNITY CHECKS

BLOCK 09-2/09 FIELD DEVELOPMENT
UNITY CHECK - PLANNED BUCKLE - RUN 1
The calculations are performed in accordance with the displacement-controlled criteria of OS-F101, Section 5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
This file performs design code checks in accordance with the DNVGL-ST-F101
Units
5 6
barg  10  Pa kN  1000 N MPa  10  Pa CK
5 2
bar  10  N m N  newton MN  1000 kN s  sec
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe
Fabrication Fa  "Seamless"
Outside Diameter D  330.3mm
Wall Thickness t  19.1mm
Corrosion Allowance tcorr  3mm
Young Modulus E  207000MPa
Poison Ratio ν  0.3

5 1
Expansion Coefficient αf  1.17 10 C
Specified Minimum Yield Strength SMYS  413MPa
Specified Minimum Tensile Strength SMTS  517MPa
Manufacture Strength Factor αU  0.96
2.2 Operating Data
Service Ser  "hydrocarbon"
Design Life Life  25
Operating Pressure Pmin  15.01bar
Operating Temperature Tf  80.31  C
Number of Full Shutdown per Year n full  2
Water Depth d  60m
1/5
3
Ambient Temperature Ta  18.9 C
2.4 DNVGL Data

Safety Class Safety_Class  "Medium"
Ratio Rt0,5/Rm αh  0.93
Bauschinger Factor fB  0.8
Strain Concentration Factor SNCF f  1
Maximum Yield to Tensile Ratio YT  0.93

1
Allowable Damage Dfa 
6
2.5 Results from FE Analysis
Peak Compressive Strain ε cmax  0.150831687 %
Stress Range σR  330.9MPa
3.0 Calculation
3.1 Yield Strength at Temperature
Yield Strength Including De-rating fy  SMYS if Tf  50.C
1
 
SMYS  Tf  50 C  0.6 MPa  C if Tf  50.C  Tf  100  C
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
    otherwise
Tensile Strength Including De-rating fu  SMTS if Tf  50.C
1
 
SMTS  Tf  50 C  0.6 MPa  C if Tf  50.C  Tf  100  C
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
Yield Strength at Temperature fy  αU fy  379.021  MPa
Tensile Strength at Temperature fu  αU fu  478.861  MPa
3.2 Girth Weld Eccentricity
Maximum Wall Thickness tmax  t  max( 3.7mm 0.1 t) if t  25mm  0.022

t  0.150  t otherwise
Minimum Wall Thickness tmin  t  max( 3mm 0.1 t) if t  25mm

t  0.125  t otherwise
2/5
Maximum Diameter Dmax  D  0.4mm  0.9mm if D  60.3mm

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm
D  min( 0.005  D 1.6mm)  0.015  D if D  168.3mm  D  610mm
D  1.6mm  min( 0.01 D 13mm) otherwise
Minimum Diameter Dmin  D  0.8mm  0.9mm if D  60.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm
D  min( 0.005  D 1.6mm)  0.015  D if D  168.3mm  D  610mm
D  1.6mm  min( 0.01 D 13mm) otherwise
Geometry and Hot Spot
Girth Weld Eccentricity tmax  tmin Dmax  Dmin

δm   if Fa = "Welded Pipe"
2 4
2 2
 tmax  tmin   Dmax  Dmin 
    otherwise
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling
External Pressure Pe  ρw g  d
Corroded WT tf  t  tcorr
γSC.DC  2.0 if Safety_Class = "Low"

Resistance Strain Factors
2.5 if Safety_Class = "Medium"
3.3 otherwise
Inside Diameters Dfi  D  2  t
3/5
D
Girth weld factor (strain αgw  1 if 0   20
resistance) tf
D
0.01  1.2 otherwise
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
fcb  min fy  
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
Material having a Lüder Plateau αmat  1 if εε αP  0.025
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
Characteristic Bending Strain Resistance ε c  εε αP αmat
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
Design Strain ε 2  ε cmax  SNCF f  0.151  %
ε2
Local Buckling Unity Check UCLB   0.123
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
Misalignment SCF SCFCap  1  e  1.247
t
SCFRoot  1
Number of Cycles n f  Life n full  50
Fcurve.root  "F1" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)  "F1"

S-N Curve at Weld Root
"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
Fcurve.cap  "D"
σR
Local Stress Range σCap   SCFCap  412.63
MPa
4/5
σR
σRoot   SCFRoot  330.9
MPa
Allowable Cycles, external Nfe  10


11.764 3 log σCap   8.266  103
Allowable Cycles, internal Nfi  10


11.699 3 log σRoot   1.38  104
nf
Imposed Damage Dfat   0.605  %

min Nfi Nfe 
3.4 Plasticity Checks
Pmin Dfi  Pe D

Hoop Stress σh   6.263  MPa
2 t
2
 σh 
3
Maximum Allowable Stress Range σRall  fy  2  fB 1    
4 fy
 
σR
Stress Range Unity Check UCσR   0.546
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap   7.448  103


11.699 3 log σRoot   1.243  104
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap   8.753  103


11.699 3 log σRoot   1.461  104
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap   8.017  103


11.699 3 log σRoot   1.339  104
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap   7.139  103


11.699 3 log σRoot   1.192  104
nf
Imposed Damage Dfat   0.7 %


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap   8.642  103


11.699 3 log σRoot   1.443  104
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap   7.543  103


11.699 3 log σRoot   1.259  104
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
UNITY CHECK - ROGUE BUCKLE - RUN 1
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data

Strain Concentration Factor SNCF f  1.9

1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   0.897  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
UNITY CHECK - ROGUE BUCKLE - RUN 2
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data

Strain Concentration Factor SNCF f  1.9

1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   0.897  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
UNITY CHECK - TRAWLING INTERACTION - RUN 1
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
Peak Compressive Strain ε cmax  0.16499418%
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf
Imposed Damage Dfat   1.01 %


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
D608 and 609.
1.0 Introduction
Units
5 6
5 2
Units
2.0 Design Data

2.1 Line Pipe

5 1
2.2 Operating Data
1/5
3
2.4 DNVGL Data


1
6
3.0 Calculation
1
 
SMYS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1
1
 
SMTS  30 MPa  Tf  100  C  0.4 MPa  C

 1


2/5

D  1.6mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

D  0.4mm  0.015  D if D  60.3mm  D  168.3mm

2 4
2 2
 2   4 
δm  2mm
3.3 Local Buckling

3.3 otherwise
3/5
D
resistance) tf
D
tf
 tf  0.85  1.5
εε    0.01    αgw
D   αh 
 fu 
 1.15 
2  tf 2
Pb  f 
D  tf cb 3
2
 Pmin  Pe 
20
αP  1   
3
 Pb 
0.6 if εε αP  0.015

0.6  40 εε αP  0.015  otherwise
εc
ε Rd   1.228  %
γSC.DC 1.1
ε2
ε Rd
3.4 Fatigue
t
3  δm  D
t
SCFRoot  1

"F3" if δm  min( 0.15 t 3mm)
σR
MPa
4/5
σR
MPa


11.764 3 log σCap 


11.699 3 log σRoot 
nf


2 t
2
 σh 
3
4 fy
 
σR
σRall
5/5
APPENDIX 5: VIV FATIGUE ANALYSIS

FatFree Suite v13.0.1 Stokke, Einar
FATFREE FatFree GUI v13.0.1 Support:
FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF FREE SPANNING PIPELINES Software.Support@dnvgl.com
FATFREE IS READY Project: BLOCK 09-2/09 FIELD DEVELOPMENT Date: 2/28/2023 Calculations by LTL
License status: UNKNOWN. References: 12-INCH KNT-MSP10 OIL PIPELINE - 36M SPAN LENGTH Verified by NMH
Calculation options Code Free Span Scenario Response Data Soil Properties SN-Curve, cap position SN-Curve, root position Safety Factors
Flat sea-bed RP-F105 Span Sand - Loose D (seawater cp) F1 (air) MEDIUM
Return Period Values Directionality h [m] 59.26 f1 (in-line) 0.727 zstruc 0.005 m1 3 m1 3 Very well defined
Discrete - C dir. L [m] 36 f1 (cr-flow) 0.799 zsoil (in-line) 0.022 m2 5 m2 5 h 0.50
Current Modelling Current Sheet Name e [m] 0.50 A1 (in-line) 198 zsoil (cr-flow) 0.015 Log(C1) 11.764 Log(C1) 11.699 gk 1.15
Uc Histogram Current Template d [m] A1 (cr-flow) 204 zh,RM 0.0000 Log(C2) 15.606 Log(C2) 14.832 gf,IL(inline) 1.00
RM (In-Line) qpipe 75.8 l1 1.290 KS(in-line) 0.68 logNsw 6.00 logNsw 7.00 gf,CF(cr-flow) 1.00
Damage vs. direction FM (In-Line)
1.2 Cross-Flow D [m] 0.421 d/D 0.60 KS(cr-flow) 0.51 gS 1.30
1.0
Comb.(In-Line)
L/Ds 109 Seff/PE -0.19 KV 1.409E+07 SCF 1.25 SCF 1.00 gon,IL 1.10
0.8 Wave Modelling Wave Sheet Name KL 1.060E+07 Rcap 0.165 Rroot 0.148 gon,CF 1.20
0.6 Scatter Hs-Tp Wave Template KV,S 2.500E+05 YR 1.00
0.4 STRUCTURAL MODELLING Special input
0.2 Coating data Functional Loads Pipe Dimensions [m] Constants Densities [kg/m3]
0.0 kc 0.25 Heff [N] 2.26E+06 Ds 0.3303 n 0.30 rsteel 7850 RS,C -
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
q fcn [Mpa] 42 p [bar] 43.56 tsteel 0.0176 a [oC-1] 1.17E-05 rconcrete 0 RS,W -
Current pdf and response models for critical direction k [m] 1.0E-06 DT [ o
C] 54.72 tconcrete 0.0000 E [N/m 2
] 2.07E+11 rcoating 328.66 RIL,strakes -
RM (cross-flow) * 4 tcoating 0.0455 µwater [Pas] 1.80E-03 rcont 930 RCF,strakes -
6.0 RM (inline) * 10
pdf RESULTS R CF-ind-IL,strakes -
5.0
4.0 FATIGUE LIFE DYNAMIC STRESS [MPa]
3.0 In-line (Response Model) 3.07E+04 yrs Cross-flow Inline
2.0 Cross-Flow 4.97E+04 yrs Peak Von Mises Peak Von Mises
1.0 sx(1 year) 0.0 67.1 sx(1 year) 11.5 28.9
0.0
velocity In-line (Force Model) 2.89E+05 yrs sx(10 year) 2.4 69.2 sx(10 year) 21.7 30.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
In-line (Combined) 2.79E+04 yrs sx(100 year) 26.2 90.4 sx(100 year) 33.0 36.2
C:\Users\EISTO\source\repos\PipelineTools.FatFree.FrontEnd\Excel\FatFree.xlsm DNVGL

Job Name: Phase: Job Number: Detailed Engineering: A1 Ifidc 16.JAN.23 L.T.Luan L.M.Hung T.D.Hai B.T.Han

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Job Name: Phase: Job Number: Detailed Engineering: A1 Ifidc 16.JAN.23 L.T.Luan L.M.Hung T.D.Hai B.T.Han

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING INSTITUTE

FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS

PROJECT : KINH NGU TRANG – KINH NGU TRANG NAM

SUB PROJECT : KNT - MSP10 OIL PIPELINE

DOCUMENT TITLE : PIPELINE LATERAL BUCKLING AND PIPELINE

DOCUMENT NO. : KNT.MSP10-OL.1-002-PL8-CA-004

Job Name: Phase:

A1 IFIDC 16.JAN.23 L.T.LUAN L.M.HUNG T.D.HAI B.T.HAN

LEAD ENG. PROJECT

No Rev. Content of Change Note

5.9 Probabilistic Input Data .................................................................................................. 32

Figure 1-1: Location of KNT/KTN fields at Block 09-2/09

Figure 1-2: Development scheme of Block 09-2/09

1.2 Definition and Abbreviation

PROJECT KINH NGU TRANG – KINH NGU TRANG NAM FIELD

SUB-PROJECT KNT - MSP10 OIL PIPELINE

COMPANY VIETSOVPETRO JOINT VENTURE [VSP]

SUB-VENDOR The person, group or organization who may be employed by

THIRD PARTY An Independent 3rd Party Certifying Authority appointed by

INSPECTOR Company appointed person, group or organization acting in

CERTIFYING Independent agency contracted by the Company to provide

May Indicates possible course of action.

Shall Indicates mandatory requirements

Should Indicates preferred course of action.

SMTS Specified Minimum Tensile Strength

[7] KNT.MSP10-OL.1-001-PL8-CA-004 Pipeline Lateral Buckling Screening Analysis;

VS-02A 3.668 500 x 22000

VS-03A 5.508 500 x 22000

VS-04A 7.348 500 x 22000

VS-05A 9.188 500 x 22000

11.040 VS-06A 11.028 500 x 22000

Planned Buckle Sleeper Location Sleeper Size (Height x

VS-07A 12.868 500 x 22000

VS-08A 14.708 500 x 22000

VS-09A 16.548 500 x 22000

VS-10A 18.388 500 x 22000

VS-11A 20.228 500 x 20000

VS-12A 22.068 500 x 20000

VS-13A 23.908 500 x 20000

VS-14A 25.748 500 x 20000

VS-15A 27.588 500 x 20000

VS-16A 29.428 500 x 20000

VS-17A 31.268 500 x 20000

VS-18A 33.108 500 x 20000

VS-19A 34.948 500 x 20000

36.800 VS-20A 36.788 500 x 20000

Planned Buckle Sleeper Location Sleeper Size (Height x

1.930 3.590 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

3.770 5.430 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

5.610 7.270 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

7.450 9.110 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

11.130 12.790 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

12.970 14.630 292.1×15.9 Pipeline

14.810 16.470 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

16.650 18.310 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

18.490 20.150 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

20.330 21.990 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

24.010 25.670 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

25.850 27.510 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

27.690 29.350 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

29.530 31.190 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

31.370 33.030 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline

33.210 34.870 292.1×15.9 70.45mm Insulation/ 40mm CWC Pipeline