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

net/publication/310955777

Numerical method for subsea wellhead stability analysis in deepwater drilling

Data · November 2016

CITATION READS

1 439

6 authors, including:

Wei Yan Haiyan Zhu

China University of Petroleum - Beijing Chengdu University of Technology
50 PUBLICATIONS   477 CITATIONS    83 PUBLICATIONS   1,261 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fucheng Deng
China University of Petroleum - Beijing
27 PUBLICATIONS   288 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Frictional Characteristics of Shale and Their Influence on Fracture Network under the Effects of Fracturing Fluids View project

973 Program of China under Grant No. 2014CB239205 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Yan on 28 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ocean Engineering 98 (2015) 50–56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Numerical method for subsea wellhead stability analysis

in deepwater drilling
Wei Yan a,n, Zi-jian Chen a, Jin-gen Deng a,n, Hai-yan Zhu a, Fu-cheng Deng a, Zheng-li Liu b
a
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resource and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China
b
Shenzhen Limited Branch Company, CNOOC, Shekou, Shenzhen 518000, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A numerical model of under water wellhead stability analysis in deepwater drilling was established
Received 14 September 2012 using the pile element and nonlinear spring element of ANSYS. Based on the pile foundation theo-
Accepted 7 February 2015 ries, assume the constitutive relation of seabed soil obeys ideal elastic–plastic model. The relationsh-
ips between undrained shear strength and ideal elastic–plastic spring stiffness were given. In the
Keywords: application case, the D–F parameters of nonlinear spring element were calculated by pile foundation
Deepwater drilling theories. Nonlinear spring parameters in different depth were assigned continuously using the APDL
Pipe-spring model language. The results show that when the drilling vessel’s offsets are constant, the wellhead lateral
Elastic-perfectly plastic displacement, rotation angle and the conductor bending moment increase with increasing top tension
Wellhead stability
ratio. The higher the wellhead lateral loads, the deeper the maximum moment depth. When the depth
reaches 15 m under the mudline, the displacement and moment are close to zero. With the drilling
vessel’s offset increasing, the wellhead displacement, rotation angle and the conductor body moment
increase. Meanwhile, the increasing rate under high tension ratio is much higher than low tension ratio,
and the wellhead tends to roll over. When the drilling vessel’s offsets increase, the tension of the top
riser should be reduced to avoid wellhead rollover.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
As the ocean covers about 71% of the Earth’s surface, the offshore
hydrocarbon resources are quiet considerable. It is reported that
(Pettingill and Weimer, 2001) the hydrocarbon resource is about
92.2
108 m3 oil equivalent discovered in global deepwater areas in
the past decade, which exceeds half of the global added discovered
reserves. The offshore drilling is gradually heading to deepwater with
the technological development of oil and gas exploration. The surface
conductor, marine riser and under water wellhead are initial chan-
nels of deepwater drilling. Their stabilities are related to the whole
progress of offshore drilling. At present, researches on offshore deep-
water drilling riser system are mainly focused on the studies of the
stability, strength and vibration performance of the riser (in water)
(Fang, 1990) and the calculation method of jetting depth of surface
conductor (below the mud-line) (Beck et al., 1991; Philippe, 2002;
Akers, 2008; Xu et al., 2007). However, few studies are found on the
stability analysis of under water wellhead.
As offshore drilling turning to deep water, the lateral load induced
by the ocean current will increase remarkably as the water depth
n
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: yanwei@cup.edu.cn (W. Yan), dengjg@cup.edu.cn (J.-g. Deng).
increasing. The lateral loads are transferred to the wellhead thro-
ugh the bottom blowout preventer. Meanwhile, the subsea silt–clay
shallow foundation has low bearing capacity and high compressi-
bility. Consequently, it may lead to the rotation angle of Lower Flex
Joint (LFJ) to exceed its limitation (usually 2 degrees) and more
complex could appear during drilling. What’s worse, it may cause the
wellhead rollover.
Generally, p–y plot analytical method was prevalently used to
analyze the subsea wellhead stability (Guan et al., 2009). However,
this analytical method has several shortages compared to the
numerical method. First, the p–y analytical method only can consider
the external force not including the bending moment, while the
numerical method could take both of lateral moments and lateral
forces into consideration. Second, the p–y analytical method assum-
ing the resistance force at a certain depth range is a constant value;
this is an unrealistic hypothesis, especially for the deep-water
shallow formation. The numerical method in this paper has built
a fitting function of soil strength profile, which leads to a more
accurate result. Finally, the solution progress of analytical method is
complicated. Besides, the result is not intuitive and the accuracy of
the result is low. However, the numerical method is smarter than
analytical method, and the results are more intuitive and with high
accuracy.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.02.007
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W. Yan et al. / Ocean Engineering 98 (2015) 50–56
Based on the numerical method, a comprehensive analysis was
conducted on the subsea wellhead stability, such as wellhead
lateral displacement, rotation angle, conductor body moment and
force-deformation curve, are calculated individually. These study
results are significant to deepwater drilling.
2. Subsea wellhead structure and simplified model
Fig. 1 illustrates the wellhead structure. Loading analysis is
carried out before the wellhead stability analysis, simplifying both
loads on the whole marine riser to the LFJ which is on the top of
underwater blowout preventer (BOP). The LFJ could rotate in a
certain range of angles. When the rotation angle of the LFJ is less
than 2 degree, the rotation stiffness induced moment is negligible
(usually is 5.5 kN·m/degree), compared to the lateral force
induced moment, the error is less than 10%. It is assumed that
there is only force imposed on the LFJ in this case. Then the
wellhead lateral loads, longitudinal loads and the moment could
be calculated by simplifying the loads imposed on the preventer
based on the parameters such as the height of the preventer, cross
area against the flow and the flow velocity near the seabed, etc. It
needs to be stress that higher rotation stiffness is possible present
at the LFJ in a certain riser system. Under this condition, this non-
negligible moment can be added up to the entire moment results
profile directly. Because moment is a moveable parameter (inde-
pendent of distance).
The simplified model of stability analysis is shown in Fig. 2. The
lateral and longitudinal loads on the surface conductor and subsea
shallow soil are simplified as a pile-nonlinear spring model. The
conductor is identified as a linear elastic pile and the deformation
feature of the soil layer is simulated by a non-linear spring model.
Connect the pile element and nonlinear spring element by sharing
the nodes. The soil layer is divided into n pieces and every piece is
identified as a combination of a lateral spring and a longitudinal
spring; the deformation feature of the spring could be calculated
by force–displacement curve which could be measured by experi-
ment. When the soil is assumed as an elastic-perfectly plastic
material, the spring deformation parameters could be obtained by
the soil layer parameters, conductor size and the soil thickness
based on the pile foundation theories.
Fig. 1. Wellhead structure. (1) Technical casing, (2) wellhead (include low pressure
wellhead and high pressure wellhead), (3) blowout preventer, (4) lower flex joint,
(5) buoyancy block, (6) marine riser, (7) surface conductor, (8) mud mat,
(9) mudline.
51
Fig. 2. Simplified model of wellhead stability analysis.
3. Element characteristic and calculation method
of parameters
Indentify the surface conductor as a PIPE16 element, which is
similar to the beam element and widely used in offshore pipeline
engineering. It’s easy to calculate the parameters and many theses
(Li et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2006) had studied this in detail. No
more repetitions are needed here.
Indentify the subsea shallow soil as a COMBIN39 element, which
could simulate the nonlinear soil body. It’s possible to input a
generalized force-deformation curve into this nonlinear and uni-
directional element. Every element has a longitudinal or torsio-
nal function. The longitudinal option stands for axial tension and
compress element; every node has three degrees of freedom:
translational motion respectively along X, Y, Z axis of the nodal
coordinate system without consideration of bending and torsion.
The torsional option stands for pure torsional element, every node
has three degrees of freedom: rotation respectively along X, Y, Z axis
of the nodal coordinate system without consideration of bending
and axial loads. This paper uses the longitudinal option and Fig. 3
illustrates the element deformation–force curve.
Massive testing experiments are needed to determine the force-
deformation curve of soil body. The soil can be seen as an elastic-
perfectly plastic material when there is only one soil undrained
shear strength parameter. The element force-deformation curve can
be calculated according to four (D, F) points and the origin (0, 0) and
then followed by the modeling and solution, as shown in Fig. 4.
In order to determine the D–F curve of elastic-perfectly plastic
soil body, first the spring stiffness of different soil layers, namely the
slope of the curve in elastic stage K, has to be calculated (as shown
in Fig. 4). Next determine the ultimate resistance strength of
different kinds of soils, and then calculate the maximum bearing
capacity on the basis of the sectional area of spring element, namely
the F3 in the figure. D3 could be obtained according to the spring
stiffness, which is determined above and the inflection point (D3,
F3) of the curve is obtained in the end (the point (D2, F2) is the
opposite number of the point (D3, F3)). Let the absolute values of F1
and F4 be equal to or slightly larger than F3 and the absolute values
of D1 and D4 be respectively much larger than D2 and D3; then the
D–F curve of elastic-perfectly plastic soil body could be obtained.
3.1. Calculation method of soil spring stiffness K (Sun et al., 2002)
Penzien supports Winkler’s assumption by analysis of the half
space theory. Therefore, the average displacement of the pile plane
under unit horizontal loading in different depths could be calcu-
lated by Mindlin equation and then the horizontal spring stiffness,
52 W. Yan et al. / Ocean Engineering 98 (2015) 50–56

Fig. 3. D–F curve of COMBIN39 spring element.

J—dimensionless empirical constant which is determined by

field test, it’s value ranges from 0.5 of soft clay to 0.25 of hard
clay; D—pile diameter, m; γ—soil active weight, kN=m3 .
(2) The lateral ultimate resistance strength of hard clay
The minimum of the following two equations can be defined
as the lateral ultimate resistance strength of the hard clay.
  9
P u ¼ 2 þ γChui þ 2:83h
D
i
Cu =
ð3Þ
P u ¼ 9C u ;

where, the meanings of the symbols are the same with

the above.

Drilling in sandy soil is rarely encountered in deepwater shallow

Fig. 4. Ideal elastic–plastic model. formation (within 100 m), so the ultimate resistance strength of
sandy soil is omitted in this paper.
which is under the interaction of each pile–soil layer, can be The soil would be under periodic loading after the balance of
calculated by taking the reciprocal of the displacement. The short static loading and usually the lateral resistance strength
equation for calculation of K hi is as follows: would decrease and be less than the static resistance strength.

According to Matloff tests’ results, the soil lateral ultimate resis-
8π E i h zi h þ zi 2
K hi ¼ ar sinh i þ ar sinh i þ 2 tance strength would reduce to 0.72 Pu under periodic loading.
3 R R 3R
2 3 So for a special field it’s necessary to determine the degenerate
2 2
zi 3  2R2 zi 7 coefficient by testing.
6R h  2R zi þ hi zi þ zi
2 3

4 hi i1=2   1=2 5
2
R2 þ ðhi þ zi Þ R2 þ zi 2
2 3 4. Case analyses
26 zi hi zi 7
 4h i1=2   1=2 5
3 2 2 2 The surface conductor with outer diameter of 0.9144 m (36″)
R þ ðhi zi Þ R þzi 2
was jetted in a field in Equatorial Guinea Gulf whose water depth
2 39  1
> is 1100 m, the designed driving depth is 82 m, and the height of
46 R2 zi þ hi zi 2 þ zi 3 R 2 z i þ z i 3 7= wellhead out of the mudline is 4.5 m. The thickness of two surface
þ 4h i3=2   3=2 5> ð1Þ
3 2 ; conductors is 0.0381 m (1.5″) and the conductor below is 0.0254 m
R2 þ ðh þz Þ
i i R2 þz 2 i
(1.0″). The outer diameter of surface casing is 20″ and the thickness
where Ei is elastic modulus of i soil layer, MPa; hi is thickness of is 0.0127 m (0.5″). The casing elastic modulus is 210 GPa and the
i soil layer, m; zi is middle depth of i soil layer, m; and R is pile density is 7850 kg/m3. Couple the nodes which are in the corre-
radius, m. sponding depth of outer and inner pile element by neglecting the
influence of the cement between the conductor and inner casing.
3.2. Calculation of ultimate resistance strength of different types The wellhead lateral displacement, rotation angle and the con-
of soil layers ductor body moment were calculated under different vessel’s
offsets and tension ratios for normal offshore environment (the
(1) The lateral ultimate resistance strength of soft clay wind velocity is 6.2 m/s; the current velocity 0.4 m/s; the wave
The minimum of the following two equations can be defined height 1.0 m; the wave period 9 s. There is no need for wellhead
as the lateral ultimate resistance strength of the clay in any stability analysis for extreme offshore environment as the marine
depth (hi) from soft to semi-hard. riser would be detached from subsea wellhead.). There are six
  9 calculations in which vessel’s offset is respectively 20 m and 50 m,
P u ¼ 3 þ γChui þ JhDi C u = and each offset has three tension ratios. Table 1 depicts the
ð2Þ
P u ¼ 9C u ; wellhead loads on different conditions.
Table 2 shows the undrained shear strengths of seabed shallow
where P u —soil lateral ultimate resistance strength, kN=m2 ; soil and Fig. 5 illustrates the curve. The trend of the undrained
C u —undrained shear strength of undisturbed soil, kN=m2 ; shallow soil shear strengths which vary with depth is roughly in
 W. Yan et al. / Ocean Engineering 98 (2015) 50–56 53

Table 1
Stability analyses of wellhead loads.

Rig offset (m) Tension ratio Wellhead lateral force (kN) Wellhead moment (kN
m) Wellhead axial force (kN)

20 1.1 6 81 2000
1.4 16 216 2000
2.0 31 418.5 2000
50 1.1 12 162 2000
1.4 32 432 2000
2.0 75 1012.5 2000

Table 2
Data of seabed shallow soil.

No Soil description Up measuring point (m) Down measuring point (m) Undrained shear strength (kPa) Active weight (kN/m3)

1 Very soft clay to semi-hard clay 0 4.0 3.5

6.1 16.0 3.5
2 Semi-hard clay to hard clay 6.1 16.0 4.2
27.4 52.0 4.2
3 Hard clay 27.4 52.0 5.0
54.9 84.0 5.0
4 Hard clay to very hard clay 54.9 84.0 5.1
82.3 132.0 5.1

Undrained shear strength kPa Spring rate kN/m

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 0.0E+00 1.0E+07 2.0E+07 3.0E+07
0
0
m

y = 0.6146x - 1.8137
20
Depth below the mudline

R = 0.9947
40 10
Fitted curve
60
20
80
Depth below the mudline m

Test profile
100 30
120
40
140

Fig. 5. Profile of undrained seabed shallow soil shear strength. 50

60
accordance with a linear relationship and Eq. (4) is the fitting
function. 70
The fitting function of soil strength profile is as follows:
80
τi ¼ 1:627hi þ 2:951 ð4Þ

where τi is soil shear strength in the depth hi, kPa; hi is depth 90

under the mudline, m.
For clay, when there are only undrained shear strength data
(Su), the calculation of elastic modulus is based on the empirical
equation E¼ 12000Su (Guan et al., 2009).
Ei ¼ 1:9524hi þ 3:5412
where Ei is soil elastic modulus in the depth hi, MPa; hi is depth
under the mudline, m.
Determine the relationship curve of spring stiffness and de-
pth by substituting Eq. (5) and conductor radius into Eq. (1) and
setting the increment of soil layer depth as 1 m, and the results are
shown in Fig. 6. Substitute the soil data obtained from Table 1 and
the pipe’s outer diameter into Eqs. (2) and (3), and then the curve
of ultimate resistance strength can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 7.
According to the calculation results from Fig. 7 and the bearing
area of unit length conductor (0.9144 m2), the maximum bearing
capacity of soil spring could be calculated in different depths. The
displacement of ultimate resistance strength is obtained by the
ratio of capacity and elastic stiffness. That is the inflection point
(D3, F3) of D–F curve of soil spring in any depth. Fig. 8 illustrates
Fig. 6. Soil spring stiffness vary with depth.
the inflection point in any depth. Then all parameters of pile-
nonlinear spring model are determined.
ð5Þ The model is based on node modeling method. The conductor
depth increases in Z axial negative direction, the origin depth is
zero and the XY plane is mudline. All pile units are constant in
length (1 m) except for the wellhead (0.5 m). The distributions of
two spring element nodes are along X axis which is perpendicular
to the pile axis; one node is shared with pile element and the
other has non freedom degree. Construct a spring element down-
wards the mudline by the step of 1 m and every nonlinear spring’s
D–F curve is based on Fig. 8. A continuous strength profile is
obtained by means of continuous valuation using loop statement
in APDL language (Gong and Xie, 2004) (ANSYS Parametric Design
Language), so as to avoid the previous deficiency of obvious
distinctive soil profile based on soil characters. Fig. 9 illustrates
the finite element model.
Fig. 10 illustrates the conductor stress distribution on 36″
conductor and 20″ casing when vessel’s offset is 20 m and tension
54 W. Yan et al. / Ocean Engineering 98 (2015) 50–56

Limit resistance of shallow soil kPa

0 500 1000 1500
0

10

20
Depth below the mudline m

30

40

50

60

70

80
Fig. 10. Conductor stress distribution when vessel’s offset is 20 m and tension ratio
is 2.0.
90

Fig. 7. Ultimate resistance strength vary with depth.

Wellhead displacement cm
5
D mm
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
0 0
200 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
400
-5
kN

600
F

800
-10
m

1000
Depth

1200
-15
Fig. 8. (D3, F3) value of ideal soil elastic–plastic spring.

-20

Top tesion ratio=1.1

-25
Tension ratio=1.4
Tension ratio=2.0
-30
Fig. 11. Conductor displacement when vessel’s offset is 20 m.

Figs. 11 and 12 illustrate the results when the vessel’s offset is

Fig. 9. Finite element model of wellhead stability analysis.
ratio is 2.0. The maximum conductor stress is on the outer casing
and the equivalent stress on 20″ inner casing is far less than
the outer conductor, which indicates that the outer conductor
bears most loads. The maximum conductor stress is 61 MPa and is
2.5 m under the mudline; the wellhead loads mainly affect the
conductor stress distribution within 10 m under the mudline.
With parameters of the surface conductor node displacement
and element moment on all kinds of conditions, curves can be
drawn. (shown in from Figs. 11–15).
20 m. The wellhead displacement is respectively 0.40 cm, 1.02 cm
and 2.44 cm under three tension ratios and the maximum con-
ductor moment is 122 kN
m, 629 kN
m and 622 kN
m; the
position of the extreme value is nearly in 2.5 m under the mud-
line; Figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the results when the vessel’s offset is
50 m. The wellhead displacement is respectively 0.90 cm, 2.47 cm
and 8.54 cm under three tension ratios and the maximum con-
ductor moment is 288 kN
m, 629 kN
m and 1620 kN
m; the
position of the maximum moment shifts down to about 5 m under
the mudline. These results may be helpful for explaining why in
the top 10–20 m of the well is not strong (Reinas et al., 2012).
According to the calculation results: when the vessel’s offsets
are the same, the wellhead lateral displacement, rotation angle
and the conductor body moment increase as the top tension ratio
rises. When the depth reaches a certain level (in this case the
calculation depth is about 15 m under the mudline), the conductor
displacement and moment are close to zero. With the drilling
 W. Yan et al. / Ocean Engineering 98 (2015) 50–56 55

Bending moment kN*m Bending moment kN*m

5 5

0 0
-10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 -200 200 600 1000 1400 1800
0
-5 -5

-10 -10
m

m
Depth

Depth
-15 -15

-20 -20
Tension ratio=2.0
-25 Top tension ratio=2.0
Tension ratio=1.4 -25
Top tension ratio=1.4
Tension ratio=1.1
-30 Top tension ratio=1.1
-30
Fig. 12. Conductor moment when vessel’s offset is 20 m.
Fig. 14. Conductor moment when vessel’s offset is 50 m.

Wellhead displacement cm
5 300%
Wellhead displacement
250% Maximun moment
Percentage increase

0 200%

-1. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 150%
0
-5 100%

50%

-10 0%
Depth m

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

Top tesion ratio

-15 Fig. 15. Increase rate of wellhead displacement caused by the increase of vessel’s
offset under different tension ratios.

-20 300%

250%
Percentage increase

Top tesion ratio=1.1

-25 200%
Tension ratio=1.4
150%
Tension ratio=2.0
-30 100%

Fig. 13. Conductor displacement when vessel’s offset is 50 m. 50%

0%
vessel’s offset increasing, the wellhead displacement, rotation angle 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
and the conductor body moment will increase under the same Top tension ratio
tension ratio. The larger the vessel’s offset, the deeper the max- Fig. 16. Relationship of wellhead rotation angle and tension ratio when vessel’s
imum moment depth. offset is 50 m.
Fig. 15 illustrates respectively the increasing percentage of well-
head displacement and conductor maximum moment in different and rotation angle in tension ratio when the vessel’s offset is 50 m.
tension ratios when the vessel’s offset increases from 20 m to 50 m. When tension ratio is below 1.4, the wellhead displacement and
When tension ratio is 1.1, with the vessel’s displacement increasing, rotation angle increase slowly with tension ratio. However, the
the increasing percentage of wellhead lateral displacement and increasing rate will be more rapid when tension ratio excesses 1.4.
conductor maximum conductor is 125% and 87% respectively. When The above indicates that with the vessel’s offset increasing, the
tension ratio is 2.0, the increasing percentage is 224% and 145% wellhead lateral displacement, rotation angle and the conductor
respectively. Fig. 16 illustrates the curve of wellhead displacement body moment increase rapidly in high tension ratio, the wellhead
56 W. Yan et al. / Ocean Engineering 98 (2015) 50–56
tends to roll over. So when the drilling vessel’s offset increases, the
tension of the top riser should be reduced to avoid wellhead
rollover.
5. Conclusions and suggestions
(1) In this paper the author has simulated the surface conductor
and inner casing by means of PIPE16 element of ANSYS software
and the seabed shallow soft soil foundation by nonlinear spring
element COMBIN39 element. By identifying the shallow soil as
an elastic-perfectly plastic material, the paper established the
finite element model of subsea wellhead stability analysis,
mainly discussing the transformation process of seabed shallow
soil parameters to nonlinear spring element D–F curve.
(2) The deepwater seabed shallow soil within 100 m is usu-
ally clay. The strength profile, ranging from seabed soft silt
to hard clay in the near 100 m, is continuous. Based on the soil
mechanics theories, the elastic stiffness profile and ultimate
resistance strength profile are obtained from the profile. The
APDL language of ANSYS software makes it possible to con-
tinuously valuate the spring element parameters in different
depth, avoiding the previous deficiency of obvious distinctive
shallow seabed soil based on soil characters.
(3) According to the calculation results, the surface conductor bears
most lateral loads; when the vessel’s offsets are the same, the
wellhead lateral displacement, rotation angle and the conductor
body moment increase with the top tension ratio rises; with the
drilling vessel’s offset increases, the three parameters increase in
the same tension ratio. When the depth reaches a certain level
(in this case the calculation depth is 15 m under the mudline),
the conductor displacement and moment are close to zero.
(4) With the vessel’s offset increasing, the wellhead lateral displace-
ment, rotation angle and the conductor body moment increase
rapidly in high tension ratio. The wellhead tends to roll over. So
when the drilling vessel’s offset increases, the tension of the top
riser should be reduced to avoid wellhead rollover.
View publication stats
Acknowledgements
Thanks for the site data support of China National Offshore Oil
Corporation (CNOOC) Shenzhen Branch in the process of this
research.
References
Beck, R.D., Jackson, C.W., Hamilton, T.K., 1991. Reliable deepwater structural casing
installation using controlled jetting. Society of Petroleum Engineers, New
Orleans, Paper No. 22542.
Chang, Y.J., Chen, G.M., Xu, L.B., 2006. Non-linear dynamic response induced by
wave-current for marine risers with guide-frames. J. China Univ. Pet. (Ed. Nat.
Sci.) 30 (5), In Chinese.
Fang, H., 1990. Offshore Petroleum Drilling-production Equipment and Structure.
Publishing House of Oil Industry, Beijing, In Chinese.
Gong, S.G., Xie, G.L., 2004. ANSYS Function Command and Parameterize Program.
China Machine Press, Beijing, In Chinese.
Guan, Z.C., Su, K.H., Su, Y., 2009. Analysis on lateral load-bearing capacity of
conductor and surface casing for deepwater drilling. Pet. Sin. 30 (2), 285–290,
In Chinese.
Li, Z., Yang, J., Cao, S.J., et al., 2007. Analysis of mechanics characteristics of deepsea
drilling risers. Drill. Prod. Technol. 29 (1), 19–21, In Chinese.
Pettingill H.S., Weimer P, 2001. World-wide deepwater exploration and production:
past, present and future. In: Houston, Texas: 21st Annual Research Conference.
Philippe Jeanjean, 2002. Innovative design method for deepwater surface casings.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Texas, Paper No. 77357.
Reinas L., Sather M., Aadnoy B. S., 2012. The effect of a fatigue failure on the
wellhead ultimate load capacity. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 31st
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Paper
No. OMAE2012-83325.
Sun, L.M., Zhang, C.N., Pan, L., et al., 2002. Lumped-mass model and its parameters
for dynamic analysis of bridge pier–pile–soil system. J. Tongji Univ. 30 (2),
409–415, In Chinese.
T.J. Akers, 2008. Jetting of structural casing in deepwater environments: job design
and operational practices. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Texas, Paper No.
77357.
Xu, R.Q., Chen, J.B., Liu, Z.L., et al., 2007. The application of jetting technology in
deepwater drilling. Pet. Drill. Tech. 35 (3), 19–22, In Chinese.