Comments Response Sheet (CRS)

Comments Response Sheet (CRS) Project No / Title RUYA-FDP01-FEED4
Document Number: FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-343018-0001 Revision 00 Rev. Date 07-Feb-2023
Document Title: RUYA BATCH 1 - PIPELINE AND CABLE LAY ANALYSIS REPORT (CORRIDOR DC 06) Return Code 2 - Accepted with comments
Review Details
S/No Section/Para/Dwg. Reviewer CPY Comments CTR Proposed Change CPY Response Closed Closed by
WAHYUDI Yudistia YWA: Please refer to Applicable Comments from Doc.

1 General a. Applicable comments will be implemented.
Asa Negara FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-343021-0001.
AAK: Please follow comments from:
2 General AKAK Ahmed a. Applicable comments will be implemented.
FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-343019-0001
ASI: Delete PLR-102 and PLR-103 from the list. (Delete
in all Pipelay Analysis Report)
a. Noted, will be deleted from all the Pipelay
3 General SITIO Ambo (Both ASME B31.4/B31.8 and DNV-OS-F101 are still
Analysis Reports.
applicable to the project just the two Company specs
are not applicable anymore but to PLR-100).
ASI: Update OD to NPS and also in other tables as

4 General SITIO Ambo a. Noted, OD column will be changed to "NPS".
relevant.
a. Orcaflex screen shots showing all the properties
5 5 SITIO Ambo ASI: Please attach all calculation sheets in next revision.
will be added.
The status of the comment shall be:

a. Incorporated as is
b. Incorporated with minor modification
c. Not incorporated
For status b and c, Contractor shall justify the reasons of the modification or of the rejection and provide the associated benefits and/or impacts (Including Preparation of Change Order Request)
Block 5 - AL SHAHEEN FIELD Development
Document Title: RUYA BATCH 1 - PIPELINE AND CABLE LAY ANALYSIS REPORT (CORRIDOR DC 06)
Project: FDP01-MDM3 Document Number: ASYYY-14-343018-0001 Date: 28-Mar-2023 Rev.: 01
Doc Type: REP System: VARI Phase FE Status: AFD Class: 2
RUYA – FDP01 – FEED4
RUYA BATCH 1 - PIPELINE AND CABLE LAY

ANALYSIS REPORT (CORRIDOR DC 06)
Is the document generated from an existing As-Built? YES NO X
Originator Document Number Last ASB Rev. :
Remarks:
Nufail Anjikkath Vinod Puthiya

01 28-Mar-2023 AFD ACCEPTED FOR DESIGN Jagadeesh Tayalur
Muhamed Parambath
Rev. Rev. date Status Description Issued by Reviewed by Approved by
The information contained in this document is the proprietary to North Oil Company. It must not be reproduced, stored, disclosed to any third party or used for any purpose not authorized by North
Oil Company. Printed documents are uncontrolled and considered as "for information only". Reference should always be made to the on-line EDMS for the updated version.
Major Projects Template MAJOR-00000-MPQA-MPQA-FOR-000004_Rev00 Dated 29/03/2022
Page 1 of 56
REVISION HISTORY
Rev. Rev. Date Status History Issuer Reviewer Approver
Venkata Ramana Vinod Puthiya

00 07-Feb-2023 IFR ISSUED FOR REVIEW Jagadeesh Tayalur
Anipireddy Parambath
ACCEPTED FOR DESIGN
(Responses to COMPANY Nufail Anjikkath Vinod Puthiya
01 28-Mar-2023 AFD Jagadeesh Tayalur
Comments provided Muhamed Parambath
as part of CRS)
The information contained in this document is the proprietary to North Oil Company. It must not be reproduced, stored, disclosed to any third party or used for any purpose not authorized by North
Oil Company. Printed documents are uncontrolled and considered as "for information only". Reference should always be made to the on-line EDMS for the updated version.
Page 2 of 56
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................6
2. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................9
3. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................10
3.1. DEFINITIONS...................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2. ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 10
4. HOLDS ..........................................................................................................................................12
5. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ..............................................................................................................12
6. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................................13
6.1. PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT..................................................................................................................................... 13
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION......................................................................................................14
7.1. PIPELINES .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
7.2. CABLE ................................................................................................................................................................ 15
8. DESIGN DATA FOR PIPELINES .....................................................................................................16
8.1. PIPELINE MATERIAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................ 16
8.2. COATING PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 16
8.3. PIPELINE PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 17

8.3.1. INTENSIFICATION AT FIELD JOINTS ........................................................................................................................... 17
8.4. VESSEL AND STINGER PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................... 19
8.5. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA....................................................................................................................................... 20

8.5.1. WATER DEPTH ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
8.5.2. WAVE DATA ............................................................................................................................................................... 21
8.5.3. CURRENT DATA ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
8.6. SOIL DATA ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
The information contained in this document is the proprietary to North Oil Company. It must not be reproduced, stored, disclosed to any third party or used for any purpose not authorized by
North Oil Company. Printed documents are uncontrolled and considered as "for information only". Reference should always be made to the on-line EDMS for the updated version.
Page 3 of 56
8.7. HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS .......................................................................................................................... 22
9. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR PIPELINES ................................................................................23
9.1. General .............................................................................................................................................................. 23

9.1.1. Software Description: Orcaflex ................................................................................................................................. 23
9.1.2. Wave/Current Directions .......................................................................................................................................... 23
9.1.3. Irregular Wave Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 24
9.1.4. Dynamic Load Case Matrix ........................................................................................................................................ 24
9.2. Normal Lay Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 24
9.3. Start-Up Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 25
9.4. Laydown Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 25
9.5. Abandonment and Recovery Analysis .................................................................................................................... 25
9.6. Flooded Case Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 25
10. INSTALLATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ......................................................................................26
10.1. General ........................................................................................................................................................... 26
10.2. Pipeline Integrity .............................................................................................................................................. 27
11. NORMAL LAY ANALYSIS RESULTS ...............................................................................................28
11.1. Static Analysis Results ...................................................................................................................................... 29
11.2. Dynamic Analysis Results .................................................................................................................................. 31
12. START-UP PHILOSOPHY AND RESULTS .......................................................................................32
13. LAYDOWN / ABANDONMENT RESULTS........................................................................................37
14. ROUTE RADIUS CHECK ................................................................................................................39
15. FLOODED LAY ...............................................................................................................................40
16. CROSSINGS NEAR ENDS ..............................................................................................................42
17. CABLE DESIGN DATA ...................................................................................................................44
17.1. UMBILICAL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES .............................................................................................................. 44
Page 4 of 56
17.2. WATER DEPTH ................................................................................................................................................ 44
18. CABLE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ........................................................................45
18.1. 1ST END........................................................................................................................................................... 45
18.2. NORMAL LAY ................................................................................................................................................... 46
18.3. 2ND END .......................................................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix A – PIPE PROPERTIES .................................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix B – CONSTRUCTABILITY WORKSHOP-2 (Subsea) ............................................................................................. 50
Appendix C – J-TUBE PULL-IN CALCULATION for 1st END ................................................................................................ 51
Appendix D – J-TUBE PULL-IN CALCULATION for 2nd END ............................................................................................... 52
Appendix E J-TUBE DRAWINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix F - DLV2000 RAOs ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix G - Orcaflex LineTypes ................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix H - Orcaflex Static Range Graph Results .......................................................................................................... 56
Page 5 of 56
1. INTRODUCTION
The Al-Shaheen field is Qatar’s largest oil field. It is a conventional oil field (60-70m water depth) situated offshore in
Qatar approximately 70km north-north-east of Ras Laffan. The field overlays the giant pre-Khuff gas field known as the
North Field.
Figure 1-1: Qatar Offshore Development Overview.
Page 6 of 56
Discovered in 1982, Al-Shaheen is one of the world’s largest carbonate fields with producing reservoirs found mainly in
the Cretaceous period and some prospects in both the Cretaceous and Late Jurassic periods. It has been producing since
December 1994.
The recovery mechanism was based first on natural depletion followed by pressure support through water injection.
Recovery using Gas Injection (GI) and Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) has been under pilot trial since 2010.
Oil is produced from seven different reservoirs with the three major contributors being the Shuaiba, Kharaib and Nahr
Umr formations. In-place volumes are estimated to be 30 to 40Gb. Al-Shaheen oil averages 30° API; gas from the gas
cap contains ~0.4% H2S and 3% CO2.
Thirty-three (33) platforms, including five production hubs, have been installed in Al-Shaheen field. These are spread over
nine different locations across the field, A to I. Crude is exported by tanker via tandem offloading from two Floating
Storage and Offloading units (FSOs) which are permanently moored in the field to two of three single point moorings
(SPMs).
Gas is gathered in a gas grid pipeline system and exported via the North Field Alpha facilities. Cleaned-up produced water
is currently injected (disposal) into the Umm Er-Radhuma (UER) formation with some limited disposal to sea due to current
capacity constraints. Al-Shaheen reached a production plateau of 300kb/d in 2007 and is still producing at this rate today.
In December 2016, the total oil produced from Al-Shaheen was 1.7Gbbl.
The field has been developed through several phases and further development phases are envisaged by North Oil
Company (NOC), the operator of Al-Shaheen concession.
Phase 2 is currently ongoing with three batches where Batch 1 (3 WHPs) has been installed and production is ongoing;
Batch 2 (2 WHPs) facilities have been installed and project close out activities are ongoing; and Batch 3 (CPP + 2 WHPs)
is in EPC phase, planned for installation in 2023. In parallel, Phase 2 also includes some pipeline de-bottlenecking scope.
With the Phase 2 batches, the number of facilities in Al Shaheen will become forty-two (42) platforms installed.
NOC, in an effort to improve the field production capacity, has initiated a field development planned for Al Shaheen known
as the Ruya project.
The principal objectives of the Al Shaheen Ruya field development are:
• Accelerate production to reach robust 300 kbbls/d as soon as possible.

• Maintain target 300 kbbls/d yearly average plateau.
• Ensure the initial development step provides a plateau extension of circa five (5) years.
The scopes for the current Batch 1 (previously referred to as Phase 3.1) as part of Al Shaheen Ruya project comprise of
the following:
FEED for:
• Nine (9) new satellite WHPs.

• One (1) Riser Platform (BH) which will be bridge linked to existing BE Platform and shall accommodate all risers and
J tubes from ten (10) WHPs.
• One (1) Central Processing Platform BJ to be bridge linked to the new Riser Platform (BH).
• One (1) Flare Tripod (BK) connected to new Central Processing Platform (BJ).
• Three (3) bridge links between the platforms at B location.
• Intra-field subsea pipelines and intra-field cables (subsea power / ICSS fiber optic).
• Early production phase from 4-5 wellhead platforms via Riser Platform (BH) into the existing B facilities.
• Alternative design lifting solution for RP Jacket and Topsides and CPP Jacket.
• OPTIONAL scope for one (1) additional satellite WHP (DC11).
Page 7 of 56
• OPTIONAL scope for one (1) Living Quarter Platform (BI) including bridge connection.
• OPTIONAL scope for wet gas pipeline connection from DC05 to ED.
Detailed Design for:
• Brownfield activities and tie-ins to existing networks at B Location, including delivery of work packages to enable
EPCIC Contractor to perform Procurement, Fabrication and Installation.
• OPTION for Brownfield scope at E location.
Figure 1-2: Al Shaheen Surface Facility Overview
Page 8 of 56
2. REFERENCES
No. Reference Number Description
QATAR NATIONAL REGULATIONS

1. Environmental Regulations for Ras Laffan Industrial City, Revision 1, 2005.
2. Environmental Protection Law, 12 January 2003.
3. Qatar Supreme Council for the Environment and Natural Reserves (SCE), “Final SCE Standards”, 9 June 2003.
4. Environmental Protection Law No. 30 (2002).
5. Executive By-Law of Environmental Law (2005)
COMPANY TECHNICAL STANDARDS
6. SD-NOC-PLR-001 Documentation Requirements, Rev 01
7. SD-NOC-PLR-100 Submarine Pipeline Systems, Rev 02
8. SD-NOC-EC-119 Metocean and Earthquake Design Data
9. SD-NOC-PLR-401 Installation of Submarine Pipelines, Rev 02
DESIGN CODES, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND GUIDELINES

10. DNV-ST-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems, 2021
11. DNV-RP-C205 Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads, 2021
12. DNV-RP-105 Free spanning pipelines
PROJECT REFERENCES DOCUMENTS
13. FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-642057-0001 Ruya Batch 1 - Pipeline & Cable Basis Of Design
14. FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-642058-0001 Ruya Batch 1 - Pipeline & Cable Design Premise
Ruya Batch 1-Pipeline Wall Thickness Selection Report (Corridor
15. FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-343008-0001
DC03)
Ruya Batch 1 - Pipeline On-Bottom Stability Design Report
16. FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-343050-0001
(Corridor DC03)
17. FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14- 343036-0001 Ruya Batch 1 – Pipe Soil Interaction Report
FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-193005-0001,
18. Ruya Batch 1 - Overall, Field General Layout Drawing
0002
Ruya Batch 1 - Route Drawing Pipelines / Subsea Cable As-B-H To
19. FDP01-MDM3-ASLAY-14-080002-0001
As-L-A (Rp To Dc03)
20. FDP01-FEED4-MDM3-MPRU-DEV-000031 Additional Horizontal Member to Ease Installation
Page 9 of 56
3. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
3.1. DEFINITIONS
The following table briefly defines the terms used throughout this report.
TERM DESCRIPTION
The objective of the Brownfield study is to secure the feasibility, the operability, the planning
and the integration cost related to Existing facilities modifications.
Brownfield study
The level of details for the Brownfield study deliverables shall be understood as Detailed
Engineering level.
Refers to all the facilities already existing (i.e. in operation or planned as part of previous
phases of development) at the time when the studies are carried out.
Existing Facilities
Such facilities may have been designed applying technical rules and standards that can be
different from the “to-date” Technical standards.
Refers to the new facilities being implemented by the project. These might be either within
New facilities installed on existing structures or standalone and connected to the existing facilities via
subsea pipelines, cables and bridges.
Represents the NOC Corporate set of technical standards enforced at the time when the
“To-date” Standards
project studies are carried out.
ENGINEER MCDERMOTT MIDDLE EAST INC.
COMPANY NORTH OIL COMPANY (NOC)
PROJECT Ruya Batch 1 Project
3.2. ABBREVIATIONS
For ease of reference, abbreviations used in this document are listed in the following table.
Abbreviations Description
3LPE Three Layer Polyethylene

API American Petroleum Institute
CWC Concrete Weight Coating
DCC Displacement Control Criterion
DMA Deadman Anchor
DNV Det Norske Veritas
FEED Front End Engineering and Design
FJC Field Joint Coating
GI Gas Injection
HAT Highest Astronomical Tide
Page 10 of 56
Abbreviations Description
Hs Significant Wave Height

ID Internal Diameter
kbbls/d 1000 Barrels per Day
KP Kilometre Point
km Kilometre
LCC Load Control Criterion
LCE Linear Cable Engine
LG Lift Gas
MBR Minimum Bending Radius
MOQ Maersk Oil Qatar
MSL Mean Sea Level
NA Not Applicable
NOC North Oil Company
OB Overbend
OD Outer Diameter
PE Polyethylene
PL Pipeline
PP Polypropylene
RP Recommended Practice (Codes) / Return Period (Environmental Load) / Riser Platform
SB Sagbend
SIR Strain Intensification Factor
SMTS Specified Minimum Tensile Strength
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
ST Stinger Tip
SOW Scope of Work
Tp Peak Period
UC Unity Check
UF Utilisation Factor
ULS Ultimate Limit State
WAG Water Alternating Gas
WD Water Depth
WHP Wellhead Platform
WI Water Injection
WT Wall Thickness
Page 11 of 56
4. HOLDS
No. Description
5. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
The order of precedence shall be as follows:
• Qatar legislation, including Qatar Environmental Protection law 30/2002
• International conventions that have been ratified by Qatar Government
• Project Particular Specifications
• NOC Technical Standards
• International codes and standards
• Industry practices
In case of any conflicts between different codes and after taking into account COMPANY Standards, the more stringent
code shall be exercised. In this event, COMPANY shall be advised, and COMPANY’s APPROVAL obtained for resolution of
such conflict without any cost and / or schedule impact.
Page 12 of 56
6. PURPOSE
6.1. PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
The purpose of this document is to present the calculations that were performed to check the feasibility of laying the proposed
DC06 corridor pipelines and cable(s) without compromising the integrity and meeting the requirements of company standard and
industry practices.
The following lay parameters are estimated as result of feasibility studies for pipelines,
• Lay tension requirements
• Stinger requirements
• TDP tension
• Limiting weather
• Minimum allowable route radius w.r.t installation condition
The details of proposed pipelines are presented in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Proposed Pipeline Details

Pipe Pipe CWC
No. Corridor Tag Nos. From To Pipeline OD WT (mm) Length
(mm) (mm) Max Min (km)
1. PL-AS-PA-QA-96 AS-P-A (DC05) AS-Q-A (DC06) 10” Lift Gas 273.0 7.8 55 40 7.664
2. AS-Q-A PL-AS-PA-QA-97 AS-P-A (DC05) AS-Q-A (DC06) 20” Water Injection 508.0 17.48 40 40 7.672
3. (DC06) PL-AS-QA-BH-104 AS-Q-A (DC06) AS-B-H (RP) 16” Wet LP Gas 406.4 12.7 85 40 9.644
4. PL-AS-QA-BH-105 AS-Q-A (DC06) AS-B-H (RP) 10” Liquid Wet Oil 273.0 9.27 65 40 9.656
The following lay parameters are estimated as result of feasibility studies for cable(s),
• 1st End J-tube pull-in load
• Normal lay tension, layback and MBR
• 2nd End J-tube pull-in load
Page 13 of 56
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
7.1. PIPELINES
All the DC06 corridor pipelines are found suitable to install with DLV 2000 (DP class 3) vessel. Integrity of pipeline(s) during
installation is ascertained w.r.t local buckling checks, strain limits and concrete crushing. As the most occurred wave periods
(Tp=5s to 7s) are far away from the DLV 2000 critical periods (Tp =14s to 16s) there is hardly any difference in the static and
dynamic results presented in the Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Results Summary
Stinger Radius/ Value Limiting

Results
Environment Static Dynamic Criteria
Overbend
0.43 0.45 1
(DCC)
Max. Stinger Tip
0.08 0.21 1
DNV F101 UF (LCC)
Sagbend
Radius=200m, 0.31 0.43 1
(LCC)
Hs=2m,
Tp=5s to 7s, Max. CWC Strain (%) 0.14 0.14 0.23 (static)
Heading = Omni Overbend 0.25 (static)
Max. FJC Strain (%) 0.18 0.18 (3)
0.305 (dynamic)
72 (static)
Sagbend Stress (% of SMYS) 55 67
90 (dynamic)
Max. Top Tension (MT) 95 105 (4) 450(2)
Max. TDP Tension (MT) 75 92 175(2)
Notes:
1. Above results are considering all the DC06 pipelines, please refer section 11 for the detailed results
2. Installation vessel (DLV 2000) limits
3. The difference in static and dynamic values is seen only after 2 decimal points due to insignificant DAF.
4. 10% band width
5. Above summary is based on empty condition, refer to section 15 for flooded case results
DC06 pipelines are initiated in two methods:

i. Pipelines going to RP are initiated at RP using Pin Piles.
ii. Pipelines going to DC05 are initiated at DC06 using DMA.
Details of the start-up philosophy are included in section 12.
One stinger radius (200m) is found suitable to lay DC06 pipelines in omni directional sea state of 2m Hs, the monthly operability
for the safe installation is presented in the Table 7-2.
Table 7-2:Operability
Operability %
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
91.32 88.94 92.76 98.12 97.85 95.23 98.74 99.54 99.53 97.84 94.79 93.58
Page 14 of 56
The tensioner(s) are considered to lay pipeline in constant tension mode with +/- 10% bandwidth. DLV2000 has 3 tensioners of
150MT capacity each, the use of number of tensioners is at the discretion of offshore construction manager suited to the lay
tension.
The loads coming onto the vessel for the flooded lay condition are assessed and found within the DLV2000 limits, refer to section
8.4 and section 15 for the vessel limits and flooded case results respectively.
The maximum lay tension including flooded condition is within 75% of DLV2000 tensioner(s) and A&R wire limits (i.e., 450MT).
The maximum TDP tension including the flooded condition is within the 90% of DLV2000 DP capability (i.e., 175 MT).
The proposed minimum route radius of the DC06 pipelines is verified against the lateral sliding due to lay tension and found
acceptable. Minimum of 200m straight length is recommended before the curve at the ends. Refer to section 14 for more details.
7.2. CABLE
1st end of the cable is directly pulled through the J-tube whereas 2nd end of the cable is laid on the seabed in omega loop to
accommodate the extra length prior to J-tube pull-in, see Appendix B for more details about installation philosophy. The J-tube
pull-in loads, and normal lay tension, layback and MBR are estimated based on the maximum water depth location and are
presented in the Table 7-1.
Table 7-3: Results Summary
116mm OD Cable 109mm OD Cable 105mm OD Cable

Results Unit Value Value Value
Static Dynamic Static Dynamic Static Dynamic
Top Tension
(MT) 3.04 4.55 2.53 3.80 2.36 3.54
at LCE
Top Tension
Normal Lay (1) (MT) 1.62 2.43 1.35 2.03 1.26 1.89
at Chute Exit
TDP Tension (MT) 0.27 0.41 0.23 0.34 0.21 0.32
MBR at TDP (m) 15 10 15 10 15 10
1st End Pull-in Load (2) (MT) 5.7 6.9
116mm OD Cable results can be used
2nd End Pull-in Load (2) (MT) 7.3 8.8
Allowable MBR (m) 2.4 2.2 2.1
Notes:
1. Dynamic values are based conservative DAF of 1.5
2. Dynamic values are based conservative DAF of 1.2
Page 15 of 56
8. DESIGN DATA FOR PIPELINES

This section presents the design data of pipelines and all design data presented in this section have been extracted from
“Pipeline & Cable Basis of Design” [13] unless noted otherwise.
8.1. PIPELINE MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Common line pipe material properties applicable for all pipelines are presented in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1: Common Pipe Material Properties
Parameter Unit Values
Steel Type - Carbon Steel

Youngs Modulus GPa 207
Steel Density kg/m3 7850
Material Grade - API 5L X65
SMYS MPa 450
SMTS MPa 535
Poisson’s Ratio - 0.3
Notes:
1. Linear stress-strain is modelled conservatively in Orcaflex as the overbend strain for the selected lay radius is
within the elastic region
8.2. COATING PROPERTIES

The coating properties for pipelines are presented in Table 8-2 are extracted from “Pipeline & Cable Basis of Design” [13] unless
noted otherwise.
Table 8-2 : Coating Properties
Parameter Unit Values
3.5
Thickness mm
Corrossion coating (3LPE) (4.2mm for 22” Produced Water Pipeline)
Density kg/m3 940
Concrete Weight Coating Density kg/m3 3040
Concrete Cutback Length mm 375
Field Joint Coating Density kg/m3 940
Notes:
1. Pipeline coatings is modelled in terms of uniformly distributed weight and increased external diameter along the
pipe joint length
The concrete weight coating thicknesses considered in the calculation are presented in Table 8-3.
Page 16 of 56
8.3. PIPELINE PROPERTIES

Table 8-3: Pipeline Properties
LC2 LC1
Service / Empty Weight NPS x Empty Weight
Sr.No From To NPS NPS x WT x
Content WT x
CWC in Air in Water in Air in Water
CWC
(in) x (mm) x (in) x (mm)
[-] [-] [-] [-] [in] [kg/m] [kg/m] [kg/m] [kg/m]
(mm) x (mm)
1 AS-P-A (DC05) AS-Q-A (DC06) Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 229.7 103.7 10x7.8x40 176.0 69.0
2 AS-P-A (DC05) AS-Q-A (DC06) Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 428.5 138.2 20x17.48x40 428.5 138.2
3 AS-Q-A (DC06) AS-B-H (RP) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 532.0 249.7 16x12.7x40 300.6 100.5
4 AS-Q-A (DC06) AS-B-H (RP) Liquid Wet Oil 10 10x9.27x65 277.2 137.6 10x9.27x40 185.3 78.3
Notes:
1. Orcaflex linetypes are presented in Appendix G.
8.3.1. INTENSIFICATION AT FIELD JOINTS
Due to concrete coating discontinuity of the pipe string, local bending moment/strain amplification effects are expected at the
field joint. An important impact that the concrete will have on the pipe behaviour is the fact that even though the global stiffness
of the concrete coated pipe is higher than the stiffness of the steel pipe alone, the stiffness at the field joint remains the same
as the stiffness of the steel pipe. This will result in a curvature at the field joint that is higher than the global pipe curvature.
Strains at this area will therefore be more elevated than the rest of the pipe and SIR, or Stiffness Increase Ratio (SIR), needs to
be applied to the calculated strain in order to correctly take into consideration the stresses at the field joint.
For concrete coated pipelines, the calculated strain in the concrete coated pipe sections in the overbend and in Sagbend includes
effects of the stiffness due to concrete coating by applying SIR in accordance with F105 [12]
Figure 8.1 Bending of Concrete Coating Pipeline
Page 17 of 56
Concrete coating adds significant bending stiffness to the pipe which may increase stresses / strains in the steel at field joints
and at other discontinuities. The methodology described in F105 [12] is applied for the evaluation of the stiffness increase /
stress intensification. See Appendix A for details of calculations performed.
In essence:
SIR = Stiffness of Equivalent Section (concrete coated) / Stiffness of Bare Pipe
The SIR calculated from F105 [12] is then used to amplify the bending moments and strains obtained from installation analysis
of concrete coated pipes.
Stiffness increase ratio calculated for the pipelines are presented below:
Table 8-4: SIR Properties
LC2 LC1
Sr.No From To Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x
NPS x WT x CWC SIR SIR
CWC
(in) x (mm) x
[-] [-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm) [-] [-]
(mm)
1 AS-P-A (DC05) AS-Q-A (DC06) Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 1.44 10x7.8x40 1.31
2 AS-P-A (DC05) AS-Q-A (DC06) Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 1.15 20x17.48x40 1.15
3 AS-Q-A (DC06) AS-B-H (RP) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 1.43 16x12.7x40 1.19
4 AS-Q-A (DC06) AS-B-H (RP) Liquid Wet Oil 10 10x9.27x65 1.48 10x9.27x40 1.28
Page 18 of 56
8.4. VESSEL AND STINGER PARAMETERS
The analysis is based on the Pipelay vessel DLV 2000 equipped with a rigid truss type stinger. The stinger is connected to the
stern of the vessel by a hinge and suspended by A-Frame winch wire, which prevents its rotations about the horizontal principal
axis downwards. The main particulars pertaining to the vessel are provided in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5: DLV 2000 Main Characteristics and Limits
Parameter Unit Value

Type of Vessel - Derrick Lay Vessel
Class - American Bureau of Shipping
Class Notation - DP Class 3
Flag - Panama
Overall Length m 184
Overall Width m 38.6
Depth (Freeboard Deck) m 10.5
MT 3 x 150
Total Tension Capacity
(2 tracks for each tensioner)
Mean Draft m 7.9
Stinger Min and Max Radius m 85m to 365m
Selected Radius m 200
Barge and Stinger Roller Capacity MT 100
Bollard Pull (TDP Tension) Limit MT 175
A&R Wire Capacity MT 500
Centre of Motion or - 75m from stern; at waterline;
Longitudinal Centre of Flotation at centreline
Figure 8-2: DLV-2000 Vessel
Page 19 of 56
Figure 8-3: DLV2000 Stinger Schematic – 2 Ramps
Tensioner and stinger/ramp are rigidly connected to the vessel. Analyses are performed with tensioner in constant tension mode
with +/- 10% bandwidth. Vessel dynamics are simulated through displacement RAOs, and RAO plots are presented in Appendix
F.
8.5. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

8.5.1. WATER DEPTH
Maximum and Minimum water depth for each line is presented in Table 8-6.
Table 8-6: Design Water Depth

Maximum Minimum
Pipe OD Pipe WT
No. Corridor From To Pipeline Water Water Depth
(mm) (mm)
Depth (m) (m)
1. AS-P-A (DC05) AS-Q-A (DC06) 10” Lift Gas 273.0 7.8 69.0 63.0
2. AS-Q-A AS-P-A (DC05) AS-Q-A (DC06) 20” Water Injection 508.0 17.48 69.0 63.0
3. (DC06) AS-Q-A (DC06) AS-B-H (RP) 16” Wet LP Gas 406.4 12.7 69.0 60.5
4. AS-Q-A (DC06) AS-B-H (RP) 10” Liquid Wet Oil 273.0 9.27 69.0 61.0
For analysis purposes following depths are used as a simple and conservative approach.
• Corridors DC 06, DC 44, and AS-E-D; water depth = 73m
• Other Corridors; water depth =63m
The seabed is modelled as a continuous elastic foundation, which allows deformation in the vertical direction. The seabed is
modelled as flat. The loads on the pipeline and vessel are driven by the catenary between the vessel and TDP. The catenary
shape is driven by the water depth at TDP and the impact of seabed profile after the TDP on the catenary is negligible.
Page 20 of 56
8.5.2. WAVE DATA

Wave data has been extracted from SD-NOC-EC-119 [8]. Directional Hs-Tp Wave Scatter data has been shown in below figure.
Figure 8-4 Omnidirectional Wave Scatter (Tp vs Hs) Data
Omni directional significant wave height occurrence has been shown in below figure.
Frequency of Occurrence % - Significant Wave Height (Hm0)

Hm0 [m] Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
< 0.5 46.79 30.98 31.27 36.82 54.71 49.33 41.68 51.87 62.13 65.08 59.91 42.13 34.11
[0.5-1[ 28.67 31.12 28.52 29.45 27.74 29.78 27.87 29.6 26.31 25.52 26.97 30.41 30.82
[1.0-1.5[ 13.14 17.71 16.86 16.88 11.41 12.87 16.57 12.11 8.35 6.94 7.77 13.73 16.85
[1.5-2.0[ 7.13 11.51 12.29 9.61 4.26 5.87 9.11 5.16 2.75 1.99 3.19 8.52 11.8
[2.0-2.5[ 3.1 6.24 7.34 4.89 1.62 1.92 3.68 1.09 0.4 0.37 1.44 3.99 4.64
[2.5-3.0[ 0.91 1.77 2.8 1.78 0.17 0.23 0.96 0.16 0.06 0.09 0.65 1 1.46
[3.0-4.0[ 0.25 0.68 0.9 0.56 0.09 0 0.14 0.02 0 0 0.08 0.22 0.32
[4.0-5.0[ 0 0 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Figure 8-5 Omnidirectional Significant Wave Height Occurrence
8.5.3. CURRENT DATA

Current data has been extracted from SD-NOC-EC-119 [8]. 1-Yr extreme current is shown in below table.
Table 8-7: Design Water Depth
Depth Relative
1-Yr Current Speed
to MSL
(m/s)
(m)
Average 0-10 0.99
20 0.94
30 0.79
40 0.76
50 0.67
2m above seabed 0.46
Page 21 of 56
8.6. SOIL DATA

The soil type encountered along the pipeline route was found to be mainly Siliceous Carbonate SAND. The best estimate (BE)
lateral friction coefficient is considered for the curve stability checks as per “Pipe Soil Interaction Report” [17]. Refer to section
14 for the route curve checks along with the friction coefficient details.
8.7. HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS
The following hydrodynamic coefficients are used for analysis as per C205 [11].
Drag Coefficient (Cd) = 1.1
Added Mass Coefficient (Ca) = 1.0
Page 22 of 56
9. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR PIPELINES

This section presents the pipeline analysis methodology.
9.1. General
Pipelines installation analyses were carried out considering a Finite Element Method approach. The FE Model considers linepipe
as a stack-up of two-nodes linear beam elements with equivalent mechanical properties.
9.1.1. Software Description: Orcaflex
Finite Element software adopted for rigid pipelines installation analyses are briefly described here below. All the analyses
summarized in this report were carried out utilizing OrcaFlex software version 11.1d.
Orcaflex software is utilized for the installation analysis unless otherwise specified. Orcaflex is a fully 3D non-linear time domain
finite element program capable of dealing with arbitrarily large deflections of the pipe from the initial configuration. The program
is designed for the static and dynamic analysis of rigid pipelines, flexible pipes, structures, spools, and cable systems in an
offshore/marine environment. It provides accurate analysis of catenary systems such as risers and umbilical cables under wave
and current loads and externally imposed motions. The Orcaflex model considers linepipe and cable as a stack-up of two-nodes
linear beam elements with equivalent mechanical properties. The presence of discontinuities and/or structures along the pipeline
is considered in the analyses.
The models for the analysis comprise pipelines in the configuration associated with the installation vessel with appropriate RAO
data defined. The products are defined using the Line with the appropriate Line Type feature to define the pipeline and coating
cross-section.
9.1.2. Wave/Current Directions
The environmental directions nomenclature used in all analyses is presented in Figure 9.1.
Generally, for pipelay analysis, eight (8) directions are covered, i.e., 0 to 360 degrees with 45 degrees increment. Since the
DLV2000 vessel response is symmetrical about the vessel longitudinal axis, five (5) directions (0deg, 45deg, 90deg, 135deg, and
180deg) are sufficient to capture the worst vessel response.
Figure 9.1: Wave / Current Directions
Page 23 of 56
9.1.3. Irregular Wave Analysis
Irregular wave analysis is used for the analysis. It is a better representative model of the stochastic sea state, however it is
computationally expensive. The purpose of irregular wave analysis is to provide a more realistic response than a regular wave
would produce. For installation analysis the key is the maximum defined single wave which is contained within each 3hr wave
train.
Irregular wave analysis will be conducted utilising a windowed approach in which a short time history (~200s) will be analyzed
which contains the maximum defined single wave in the 3hr wave train.
Analyses are performed by using ISSC wave spectrum.
9.1.4. Dynamic Load Case Matrix
Load case matric considered for dynamic analysis are presented in the table below:
Table 9-1: Dynamic Analysis Load Case Matrix
Tp Hs Directions
5s ,6s , and 7s 2m 8
Notes:
1. 8 directions as per Figure 9.1
9.2. Normal Lay Analysis
The purpose of the installation analyses is to define the optimal static laying configuration in normal conditions considering the
maximum water depth along the route. Such configuration must guarantee that the installation criteria reported in Section 10
are fulfilled along the entire pipeline route.
Pipeline normal laying is the standard pipe-laying operation that considers continuous pipe string between vessel tensioners and
seabed (TDP).
The vessel configuration was optimized to fulfill the installation criteria and to minimize the vessel residual lay tension for the
given pipe properties and corresponding water depths.
Static analyses are accounted for all functional loads. In the numerical analysis of pipelaying activities, the following external
forces were considered:
• Uniformly distributed weight and buoyancy of pipeline
• Applied tension at lay vessel tensioners (constant axial force)
• Seabed foundation in the vertical plane (assumed continuous elastic foundation)
• External hydrostatic pressure
• Reaction forces from lay vessel rollers (uniformly distributed over support length)
Page 24 of 56
9.3. Start-Up Analysis
The start-up method(s) for pipelines is primarily driven by the field layout and clearances with the existing assets. Start-up
philosophy is briefly discussed in section 12 along with the necessary analyses.
Necessary analyses are performed for critical stages of start-up to capture below.
• Vessel position from the target box
• Maximum start-up wire load
• Maximum pipeline loads
Dedicated analyses are performed to assess the impact of crossings near start-up location. Refer to section 16 for the details.
9.4. Laydown Analysis
Necessary analyses are performed for critical stages of laydown to capture below.
• Vessel position from the target box
• Maximum A&R wire load
• Maximum pipeline loads
Please refer to Appendix B for laydown clearances. Dedicated analyses are performed to assess the impact of crossings near
laydown location. Refer to section 16 for the details.
9.5. Abandonment and Recovery Analysis
Abandonment operation is same as laydown and recovery is reversal of laydown. Laydown analysis covers the abandonment and
recovery as well.
9.6. Flooded Case Analyses
Analyses are performed for flooded case to confirm the installation vessel ability to lay/abandon the pipeline in flooded condition.
Page 25 of 56
10. INSTALLATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

This section presents the acceptance criteria followed for the pipeline analysis.
10.1. General
The laying operation shall ensure the integrity of pipeline and coating is not compromised, as well as other structures and devices
(rollers, tensioner etc.) in accordance with design codes and vessel constraints.
The combined effect of bending, tension and external hydrostatic pressure during installation will be checked to satisfy a local
buckling criterion. The local buckling analyses are based on F101 [10].
Safety factors as per F101 [10] are presented in the table below. A “Low” Safety Class is considered in the local buckling checks.
Table 10-1: Safety Factors as per F101 [10]

Property Symbol Value
Fabrication factor αfab 0.85
Material strength factor αu(supp) 1
Condition load effect factor
ɣc 1
(stinger tip/sagbend)
Condition load effect factor
ɣc 0.8
(Overbend)
Material resistance factor ɣm 1.15
Safety class resistance factor
ɣsc,LB 1.04
(LCC)
Girth weld factor αgw As per Figure 10-1
Out-of-roundness (%): fo 1.5
1.2 (a)
Functional Load Factor ɣF
1.1 (b)
0.7 (a)
Environmental Load Factor ɣE
1.3 (b)
Figure 10-1: Girth Weld Factor, F101 [10]
Page 26 of 56
10.2. Pipeline Integrity
All operations concerning pipeline installation shall comply with the criteria set out in F101 [10]. Specifically, the following failure
modes are covered in the installation analysis.
• The displacement-controlled unity check value (DCC) shall be ≤ 1.0 for the overbend as per F101 [10].
• The load-controlled unity check value (LCC) shall be ≤ 1.0 for the stinger tip and sagbend as per F101 [10].
• Strain in concrete weight coating shall be below the limit specified in Figure 10-2.
Figure 10-2: Permissible Stain at Pipe Concrete Interface, F101 [10]

The strain limit of 16” is used for the smaller sizes as a conservative approach.
Along with the above criteria, overbend strain and sag bend stresses shall be as per below table.
Table 10-2: Limiting Stress and strain as per [9]

Condition
Location Parameter
Static Dynamic
Overbend Strain, X65 grade < 0.250% < 0.305%
< 90% of SMYS (for empty)
Sagbend Stress < 72% of SMYS
< 96% of SMYS (for flooded)
Page 27 of 56
11. NORMAL LAY ANALYSIS RESULTS
This section presents the results of pipeline normal lay analysis.
The definitions for the DNV-ST-F101 checks are presented in Figure 11-1 and the diagram for normal lay results in presented in
Figure 11-2 respectively.
Figure 11-1: Normal Lay DNV-ST-F101 Definitions
Figure 11-2: Normal Lay Diagram
Page 28 of 56
11.1. Static Analysis Results

Table 11-1 and Table 11-2 presents the lay tension, lay profile, pipe utilisations and maximum roller loads in the static conditions.
Table 11-1: Static Normal Lay Analysis _ LC1
Max.DNV_UC Max Roller Load

Lay back (3) Max. Bending
Water Lay TDP Pipe LR [-] Strain [MT] Sagbend
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC from Moment
Depth(1) Tension Tension Gain Gap(2) [%] Stress
Stern OB ST SB (kN*m)
Vessel Stinger
[m] [MT] [MT] [m] [m] [m] DCC LCC LCC CWC FJC OB ST SB [% SMYS]
[-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm)
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x40 73 30 25 262 13.85 0.19 0.38 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.12 5 3 107 22 42 29
2 AS-Q-A Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 73 40 30 235 15.41 0.06 0.31 0.08 0.31 0.14 0.16 11 7 1045 397 772 55
3 (DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x40 73 40 30 251 14.53 0.13 0.33 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.14 8 6 432 52 240 38
4 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x40 73 30 25 250 14.40 0.09 0.26 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.12 5 3 119 14 54 31
Max 0.38 0.08 0.31 0 0 11 7 1045 397 772 55
Limit 1 1 1 0.23 0.25 100 100 72
Notes
1) Water depth presented here is w.r.t LAT. However, tide of 2m has been considered in the analysis.
2) Pipe bottom clearance from the stinger last roller
3) Max. Longitudinal Strain
The information contained in this document is the proprietary to North Oil Company. It must not be reproduced, stored, disclosed to any third party or used for any purpose not authorized by North Oil Company. Printed documents are
uncontrolled and considered as "for information only". Reference should always be made to the on-line EDMS for the updated version.
Page 29 of 56
Table 11-2: Static Normal Lay Analysis _ LC2

Lay back (3) Max. Bending
Water Lay TDP Pipe LR [-] Strain [MT] Sagbend
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC from Moment
Depth(1) Tension Tension Gain Gap(2) [%] Stress
Vessel Stinger
[-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm)
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 73 45 35 254 14.14 0.11 0.43 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.14 6 4 123 20 50 37
3 (DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 73 95 75 246 14.58 0.07 0.41 0.04 0.22 0.13 0.18 15 10 555 104 290 52
4 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x65 73 55 45 250 14.28 0.08 0.30 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.15 8 6 150 21 62 40
Max 0.43 0.08 0.31 0.14 0.18 15 10 1045 397 772 55
Limit 1 1 1 0.23 0.25 100 100 72
Notes
Page 30 of 56
11.2. Dynamic Analysis Results
Table 11- and Table 11-4 presents the pipe utilisations and maximum roller loads in the dynamic conditions. As the wave periods
(Tp 5s to 7s) are away from the DLV2000 critical periods (Tp=14s to 16s) the pipe utilisations are small even under dynamic
conditions.
Table 11-3: Dynamic Normal Lay Analysis _ LC1
Max.DNV_UC (3) Max Roller Load Max. Bending

Water Lay Sea State Max.TDP Strain Sagbend
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC [-] [MT] Moment
Depth(1) Tension Tension [%] Stress
Tp Hs Direction OB ST SB (kN*m)
Vessel Stinger LR(2)
[-] [m] [MT] [s] [m] [deg] [MT] DCC LCC LCC CWC FJC OB ST SB [% SMYS]
[-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm)
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x40 73 30 5 to 7 2 Omni 31 0.40 0.04 0.11 0.10 0.13 5 5 0 113 33 55 38
2 AS-Q-A Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 73 40 5 to 7 2 Omni 37 0.32 0.21 0.43 0.14 0.16 13 9 0 1058 647 964 67
3 (DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x40 73 40 5 to 7 2 Omni 37 0.35 0.03 0.21 0.12 0.14 9 9 0 495 103 306 48
4 Liquid Wet Oil 10 10x9.27x40 73 30 5 to 7 2 Omni 31 0.27 0.04 0.12 0.09 0.12 6 4 0 122 39 71 37
Max 0.40 0.21 0.43 0.14 0.16 13 9 0 1058 647 964 67
Limit 1 1 1 0.23 0.305 100 100 90
Notes
2) Stinger last roller reaction
Table 11-4: Dynamic Normal Lay Analysis _ LC2
Max.DNV_UC Max Roller Load Max. Bending

Water Lay Sea State Max.TDP Strain(3) Sagbend
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC (1) [-] [MT] Moment
Depth Tension Tension [%] Stress
[-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm)
Max 0.45 0.21 0.43 0.14 0.18 17 13 0 1058 647 964 67
Limit 1 1 1 0.23 0.305 100 100 90
Notes
Page 31 of 56
12. START-UP PHILOSOPHY AND RESULTS
DC06 Pipelines going to RP are initiated at RP using Pin Piles as the pipelay initiation anchor. DMA is not a preferred option as
multiple existing assets are present at both sides and high start-up tension requirement. Start-up at DC06 location is also not
preferred as laydown at RP location is not possible due to vessel clash with the existing assets. Horizontal bowstring kind of
arrangement can be used to initiate the pipeline whose heading run in between the piles.
Figure 12-1: Proposed Start-up Method at RP
Page 32 of 56
DC06 Pipelines going to DC05 can be initiated at DC06 using DMA.
Figure 12-2: Proposed Start-up Method at DC06
Page 33 of 56
Details of the start-up philosophy are shown in below table.

Table 12-1: Start-Up Philosophy
Heading Max. Lay Max. TDP

Start-Up Proposed
Corridor Pipeline Runs Tension Tension Remarks
Location Method
into RP (MT) (MT)
10'' Lift Gas

DC06 No 1 45 35 -
20'' Water
DC06 Injection
16'' Wet LP DMA is not a preferred option as
Gas multiple existing assets are
RP No 2 95 75
10'' Liquid present at both sides and high
Wet Oil start-up tension requirement
Method 1 DMA
Method 2 Pin Piles
Method 3 Off the Jacket; Horizontal bow string / Vertical bow string /
Horizontal member close to seabed level
Refer to Appendix B and Ref. [20] for more details about the start-up philosophy.
For the initiation using Pin Piles, the target box distance shall be such that the initiation rigging can be connected to the initiation
head at the tip of stinger. The proposed initiation off the jacket method and the minimum required target box distance is shown
in the following figure.
Figure 12-3: Pin Piles Diagram

Current target box locations respect the minimum target box distances shown in the above figure.
Page 34 of 56
Below table presents the vessel position w.r.t target box at the initial and final stage of the start-up.
Table 12-2: Start-Up Vessel Position
Initial Stage Final Stage
Vessel Stern Position Vessel Stern Position
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC
from Remarks from Remarks
Target Box Target Box
[-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm) [m] [-] [m] [-]
Start-up wire is 254
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 -14
connected to
2 AS-Q-A Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 -15 STH at Stern 235
(DC06)
STH is on Seabed
3 Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 55 Start-up wire is 246
connected to
250
4 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x65 56 STH at Stinger Tip
Notes
1) STH stands for start-up head
2) -ve values indicates target box is in front of stern towards bow
Page 35 of 56
The final stage of the initiation/start-up is most critical one and is same as normal case. Below table presents the results for the final stage of the initiation.
Table 12-3: Start-Up Results

Start-up Lay back (3) Max. Bending
Water Lay Pipe LR [-] Strain [MT] Sagbend
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC Wire from Moment
Depth(1) Tension Gain Gap(2) [%] Stress
Tension Stern OB ST SB (kN*m)
Vessel Stinger
[-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm)
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 73 45 35 254 14.14 0.11 0.43 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.14 6 4 123 20 50 37
3 (DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 73 95 75 246 14.58 0.07 0.41 0.04 0.22 0.13 0.18 15 10 555 104 290 52
4 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x65 73 55 45 250 14.28 0.08 0.30 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.15 8 6 150 21 62 40
Max 0.43 0.08 0.31 0.14 0.18 15 10 1045 397 772 55
Limit 1 1 1 0.23 0.25 100 100 72
Notes
The effect of crossing supports near start-up location are analysed and presented in section 16.
Page 36 of 56
13. LAYDOWN / ABANDONMENT RESULTS

Below table presents the vessel position w.r.t target box at the initial and final stage of the laydown.
Table 13-1: Laydown / Abandonment Vessel Position
Initial Stage Final Stage

Vessel Stern Position Vessel Stern Position
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC
from Remarks from Remarks
Target Box Target Box
[-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm) [m] [-] [m] [-]
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 -14 254
2 Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 -15 235

AS-Q-A
LDH is at Stern LDH is on Seabed
(DC06)
246
3 Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 -15
4 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x65 -14 250
Notes
1) LDH stands for laydown head
2) -ve values indicates target box is in front of stern towards bow
Page 37 of 56
The initial stage of the abandonment is most critical one and is same as the normal case. Below table presents the results for the initial stage of abandonment.
Table 13-2: Laydown / Abandonment Results

A&R Lay back Max. Bending
Water TDP Pipe LR [-] Strain(3) [MT] Sagbend
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC (1) Wire from (2) Moment
Depth Tension Gain Gap [%] Stress
Tension Stern OB ST SB (kN*m)
Vessel Stinger
[-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm) [m] [MT] [MT] [m] [m] [m] DCC LCC LCC CWC FJC OB ST SB [% SMYS]
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 73 45 35 254 14.14 0.11 0.43 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.14 6 4 123 20 50 37
3 (DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 73 95 75 246 14.58 0.07 0.41 0.04 0.22 0.13 0.18 15 10 555 104 290 52
4 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x65 73 55 45 250 14.28 0.08 0.30 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.15 8 6 150 21 62 40
Max 0.43 0.08 0.31 0.14 0.18 15 10 1045 397 772 55
Limit 1 1 1 0.23 0.25 100 100 72
Notes
The effect of crossing supports near laydown / abandonment location are analysed and presented in section 16.
Page 38 of 56
14. ROUTE RADIUS CHECK

The selected route radii are stable against the installation TDP tension. The allowable minimum radius and selected minimum
route radius are presented in the following tables.
Table 14-1: Route Radius check _ LC2
LC 2
Empty Weight
Lateral Friction Allowable Selected
Corridor Service / Content NPS TDP
NPS x WT x CWC Coefficient Route Min. Route UC
in Air in Water Tension
(BE) Radius Radius
(in) x (mm) x
[-] [-] [in] [kg/m] [kg/m] [MT] [-] [m] [m] (-)
(mm)
Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 229.7 103.7 35 0.69 590 1500 0.39
AS-Q-A Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 428.5 138.2 30 0.65 400 1500 0.27
(DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 532.0 249.7 75 0.71 505 2000 0.25
Liquid Wet Oil 10 10x9.27x65 277.2 137.6 45 0.72 544 2000 0.27
Max 0.39
Table 14-2: Route Radius check _ LC1
LC 1
Empty Weight Lateral
Allowable Selected
Corridor Service / Content NPS TDP Friction
NPS x WT x CWC Route Min. Route UC
in Air in Water Tension Coefficient
Radius Radius
(BE)
(in) x (mm) x
[-] [-] [in] [kg/m] [kg/m] [MT] [-] [m] [m] (-)
(mm)
Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x40 176.0 69.0 25 0.63 689 1500 0.46
AS-Q-A Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 428.5 138.2 30 0.65 400 1500 0.27
(DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x40 300.6 100.5 30 0.63 571 2000 0.29
Liquid Wet Oil 10 10x9.27x40 185.3 78.3 25 0.66 580 2000 0.29
Max 0.46
Notes:
1.Allowable Route Radius = TDP Ten*Factor of Safety (1.2) / (Weight in water * Lateral Friction Coefficient)
Sufficient straight length shall be required at both ends of the pipeline before a curve. Minimum required straight length at both
ends shall be calculated as below:
𝐸𝐼 2
𝑀𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = max (√ + 50𝑚 , 200𝑚)
𝑅 𝑊𝑆 𝜇𝐿
Where:
• WS = Pipeline submerged weight
• R = Curve radius
• µL = Lateral friction factor at pipe/seabed interface
• EI = Bending stiffness of pipeline
200m straight length is recommended before the curve at the free ends.
Page 39 of 56
15. FLOODED LAY

Analyses are performed for flooded case to confirm the installation vessel ability to lay/abandon the pipeline in flooded condition.
Table 15-1: Static Flooded Lay Analysis

Lay back Max. Bending
Water Lay TDP Pipe LR [-] Strain(3) [MT] Sagbend
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC (1) from (2) Moment
Depth Tension Tension Gain Gap [%] Stress
Vessel Stinger
[-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm) [m] [MT] [MT] [m] [m] [m] DCC LCC LCC CWC FJC OB ST SB [% SMYS]
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 73 70 55 256 13.94 0.12 0.48 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.15 7 6 132 25 48 44
3 (DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 73 145 115 247 14.39 0.06 0.45 0.04 0.23 0.13 0.19 17 13 575 82 280 57
4 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x65 73 80 65 253 14.04 0.10 0.33 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.16 9 7 159 28 59 45
Max 0.48 0.05 0.23 0.14 0.19 17 13 1076 261 648 57
Limit 1 1 1 0.23 0.25 100 100 72
Notes
Page 40 of 56
Table 15-2: Dynamic Flooded Lay Analysis
Max.DNV_UC Max Roller Load Max. Bending

Water Lay Sea State Max.TDP Strain(3) Sagbend
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content OD OD x WT x CWC (1) [-] [MT] Moment
Depth Tension Tension [%] Stress
[-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm)
Max 0.52 0.15 0.39 0.14 0.19 19 16 0 1089 426 795 71
Limit 1 1 1 0.23 0.305 100 100 96
Notes
From above results, the maximum lay / abandonment tension required for the flooded condition are within the DLV2000 capabilities.
Page 41 of 56
16. CROSSINGS NEAR ENDS
To assess the impact of crossing near start-up and laydown locations, analyses are carried out by keeping the crossing support (of height 2m) at 10m and 20m
distance from the target box. Details are presented in below figure and table.
Figure 16-1: Schematic of Crossing Analysis
Page 42 of 56
Table 16-1: Crossing Results
Support TDP Pipe end

Max.DNV_UC
Sr.No Corridor Service / Content NPS NPS x WT x CWC Location Distance Height Max. BM Remark
[-]
from Target Box from Support Above Seabed [-]
[-] [-] [-] [in] (in) x (mm) x (mm) [m] [MT] [m] LCC [kN*m]
1 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 10 23 3.0 0.32 101 ok
2 AS-Q-A Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 10 38 2.6 0.09 412 ok
3 (DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 10 27 2.7 0.31 360 ok
4 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x65 10 22 2.9 0.35 126 ok
5 Lift Gas 10 10x7.8x55 20 29 1.3 1.15 193 Not ok
6 AS-Q-A Water Injection 20 20x17.48x40 20 41 2.8 0.07 370 ok
7 (DC06) Wet LP Gas 16 16x12.7x85 20 31 2.2 0.51 466 ok
8 Liquid Wet oil 10 10x9.27x65 20 28 1.1 1.42 256 Not ok
Notes
1) If there is a situation similar to "Not ok", supporting the free end with a sandbag or a float is recommended.
Page 43 of 56
17. CABLE DESIGN DATA

All design data presented in this section and used in the calculation have been extracted from “Pipeline & Cable Basis of
Design” [13] unless noted otherwise.
17.1. UMBILICAL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Preliminary Umbilical mechanical properties considered for the calculations are are presented in Table 8-1.
Table 17-1: Umbilical Mechanical Properties
PARAMETER UNIT SUBSEA CABLE DATA
Outer Diameter (mm) 116 109 105
Installation (mm) 2400 2200 2100

Minimum Cable Bend Radius Storage (Coiling) (mm) 2600 2450 2350
Final setting (Operation) (mm) 1200 1100 1050
kg/m 29 25 23
Approximate Weight in Air
N/m 284.4 245.16 225.55
kg/m 18 15 14
Approximate Weight in Seawater
N/m 176.5 147.1 137.29
Axial Stiffness kN 45300 45300 36300
Bending Stiffness kN*m2 0.77 0.77 0.57
Figure 17-1: 15 KV XLPE Insulated Optical Fiber Composite Cable
17.2. WATER DEPTH

The maximum water depth across all the corridors (i.e, 73m) is considered as a conservative approach.
Page 44 of 56
18. CABLE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
1st end of the cable is directly pulled through the J-tube whereas 2nd end of the cable is laid on the seabed in omega loop to
accommodate the extra length prior to J-tube pull-in.
18.1. 1ST END
1st end of the cable is directly pulled through the J-tube. A Mathcad spreadsheet is used to estimate the required pull force
necessary to pull the umbilical through the J-tube considering following elements:
• Installation tension of the umbilical at J-tube entry during the pull-in operation
• Friction force between J-tube and umbilical
• Weight of extra length of umbilical pulled beyond J-tube termination
• Start-up factor (cable surging)
• A friction coefficient of 0.4 is considered between the cable and J-tube, this is based on the recommendation
from the cable vendors in past projects
Figure 18-1: Schematic of 1st End Pull-in

The Mathcad spreadsheet is based on OTC 6875: “J-Tube Design for Flexible, Umbilicals and Cables.
The platform winch wire is connected to the umbilical pull-in and hang-off assembly. Pull force is applied by the platform winch
and the umbilical is pulled into the J-tube. The summary of calculation for final stage of umbilical pull-in through the J-tube is
presented in table below. Detailed calculation of umbilical pull force is presented in Appendix C while the J-tube section elevation
drawings are presented in Appendix E.
Page 45 of 56
Table 18-1: 1st End J-tube Pull-in Force
1st End Pull-in Force

Cable OD Dynamic
Static (DAF = 1.2)
(mm) (MT) (MT)
116 5.7 6.9
109
Above results can be used
105
18.2. NORMAL LAY
As the cable normal lay profile follows simple catenary equations. The static normal lay parameters i.e., lay tension, layback and
MBR are calculated using catenary equations and capstan effect. A conservative DAF of 1.5 is considered to arrive at Dynamic
loads.
Figure 18-2: Catenary Equations
Page 46 of 56
Figure 18-3: Capstan Effect
The calculated normal lay results for the maximum water depth are presented in table below.
Table 18-2: Normal Lay Results
Inputs for Catenary Equations

Water Depth (includes tide of 2m) m 75 75 75
Submerged Weight kg/m 18 15 14
Allowable MBR m 2.4 2.2 2.1
Static Normal Lay Results
Top Tension at LCE
MT 3.04 2.53 2.36
(μ=0.4, ϴ=90 , capstan factor=1.87)
Top Tension at Chute Exit MT 1.62 1.35 1.26
TDP Tension MT 0.27 0.23 0.21
Departure Angle at Chute from Horizontal deg 80 80 80
Lay Back m 37 37 37
MBR at TDP m 15 15 15
Dynamic Normal Lay Results (DAF = 1.5)
Top Tension at LCE MT 4.55 3.80 3.54
Top Tension at Chute Exit MT 2.43 2.03 1.89
TDP Tension MT 0.41 0.34 0.32
MBR at TDP m 10 10 10
18.3. 2ND END
2nd end of the cable is laid on the seabed in omega loop to accommodate the extra length prior to J-tube pull-in. 2nd end pull
force is calculated like 1st end by increasing the J-tube entry tension to account for the frictional resistance from the omega loop
dragging on seabed. No buoys are considered to maximize the pull-in force. Omega loop length and seabed friction coefficient
considered for the calculation are 200 m and 0.3 respectively.
Page 47 of 56
Figure 18-4: Schematic of 2nd End Pull-in

The platform winch wire is connected to the umbilical pull-in and hang-off assembly. Pull force is applied by the platform winch
and the umbilical is pulled into the J-tube. The summary of calculation for final stage of umbilical pull-in through the J-tube is
presented in table below. Detailed calculation of umbilical pull force is presented in Appendix D while the J-tube section elevation
drawings are presented in Appendix E.
Table 18-3: 2nd End J-tube Pull-in Force
2nd End Pull-in Force

Cable
OD Dynamic
Static
(DAF =1.2)
(mm) (MT) (MT)
116 7.3 8.8
109 Above results can be
105 used
Page 48 of 56
Appendix A – PIPE PROPERTIES
(Total Pages = 3)
Page 49 of 56
McDermott PREP. BY_________
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
CHKD. BY_________
File: Pipe properties DnV - with clad.mcd (Version 1.0)
PROJECT:D7372 NOC
10inx9.27mmx40mm
6 3
MPa  10  Pa kN  1000 newton kPa  10  Pa
1.0 Scope
This worksheet calculates pipe properties for pipeline with concrete coating from outside and CRA or
other clad from inside based on "DnV-RP-F105, 2006.
2.0 Input
Ds := 273.1 mm _steel outer pipe diameter
t s := 9.27 mm _steel pipe thickness
t cl := 0 mm _Internal FBE thickness

5
E := 2.07 10  MPa _modulus of elasticity
-3
ρst := 7850 kg m _density of steel
-3
ρcl := 0  kg m _density of Internal FBE
t conc := 40 mm _concrete coat thickness

-3
ρconc := 3040 kg m _density of concrete
t cc := 3.5 mm _External corrosion coating thickness

-3
ρcc := 900 kg m _density of corrosion coating
ξ := 5 _percentage of water absorbtion

-3
ρw := 1033 kg m _density of water
Fcc := 40 MPa _28days concrete compressive strength
kc := 0.25 _0.33 for asphalt coating & 0.25 for PP/PE coating
Lcb := 380 mm _cutback
Cb := 0 _concrete bevel 1 in ......

-3
ρfj := 1450 kg m _density of field joint material
Lj := 12.2 m _joint length
t fj := t conc + t cc _field joint thickness
File : DC06-10inx9.27mmx40mm.xmcd Page 1 of 3

Date: 2/3/2023
McDermott
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
2.0 Calculation:
Di := Ds - 2  ts _internal steel pipe diameter Di = 254.56 mm
Dicl := Di - 2  tcl _internal CLAD diameter Dicl = 254.56 mm
Dcc := Ds + 2  tcc _outside diameter of corrosion coat Dcc = 280.1 mm
Dconc := Dcc + 2  tconc _outside diameter of conc. coat Dconc = 360.1 mm
Dfj := Ds + 2  tfj _outside diameter of field joint. coat
2.1 Weight Calculations
Wst :=   Ds - Di   ρst
π 2 2 kg
_weight of steel Wst = 60.315
4   m
Wcl :=   Di - Dicl   ρcl

π 2 2 _weight of CLAD
Wcl = 0
4  
Wcc :=   Dcc - Ds   ρcc

π 2 2 kg
_weight of corrosion coat Wcc = 2.737
4   m
Vconc :=   Dconc - Dcc 

π 2 2 2
_volume of concrete per unit length Vconc = 0.04 m
4  
kg
Wconc := Vconc ρconc _weight of conc. coating Wconc = 122.284
m
kg
Wa := Wst + Wcc + Wconc + Wcl _weight in air Wa = 185.336
m
π 2
B := D ρ kg
4 conc w _buoyancy B = 105.205
m
ξ kg
Wsc := Wa + V ρ - B _submerged weight (computed) Wsc = 82.208
100 conc w m
_weight of pipe excluding field joint
( ) ( )(
W1 := Wst + Wcl  Lj + Wcc + Wconc  Lj - 2  Lcb )
  D 2 - D 2 
 fj s  2 s
D 2
W2 := ρfj π Lcb + 2  π C b ( t fj)   + ( t fj)  
 2 2 3
2  cc
D t conc 
W3 := -2  π ρconc Cb  t conc   +  (W1 + W2 + W3)
 2 3  Waj :=
Lj
W2 = 47.679 kg
ξ kg
Wsa := Waj + V ρ - B _submerged weight (adjusted) Wsa = 78.328
100 conc w m
π 2 _flooded weight kg
Ww := Wsa +  Di  ρw Ww = 130.902
4 m

Date: 2/3/2023
McDermott
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
2.2 Cross sectional properties
2.2.1 Steel Pipe
Ast :=   Ds - Dicl 
π 2 2 -3 2
_steel plus CLAD c/s area Ast = 7.683  10 m
4  
π  4
 Ds - Dicl 
4 3 4
Ist := _steel plus CLAD moment of inertia Ist = 6.693  10  cm
64  
2 3
Zst := Ist _steel plus CLAD section modulus Zst = 490.181 cm
Ds
2
mm
Fc := Fcc 
2.2 Effective moment of inertia N

0.3 N 
Ec := 10000 Fc _Young's. modulus for concrete (ref: DNV-RP-F105: sec. 6.3.9)
 2
 mm 
4 N
Ec = 3.024  10 
2
mm
  Dconc - Dcc 
π 4 4
Ic := _concrete moment of inertia
64  
8 4
Ic = 5.232  10  mm
0.75
 Ec Ic  _Stiffening effect of concrete coating (ref: DNV-RP-F105: sec. 6.3.7)
CSF := kc   CSF = 0.276
 E Ist 
SCF := 1 + CSF SCF = 1.276 _stress concentration factor
Ieff := Ist  SCF
2.3 Results
kg 3 newton
Wa = 185.336  Wa g = 1.818  10  _Weight in air
m m
kg newton
Wsa = 78.328 Wsa g = 768.139 _Submerged weight - adjusted
m m
kg
Ww = 130.902 3 newton
m Ww g = 1.284  10  _Flooded weight
m
3 4
Ist = 6.693  10  cm
_Steel moment of inertia
3 4
Ieff = 8.542  10  cm _Effective moment of inerta

Date: 2/3/2023
Appendix B – CONSTRUCTABILITY WORKSHOP-2 (Subsea)
(Total Pages = 133)
Page 50 of 56
Appendix C – J-TUBE PULL-IN CALCULATION for 1st END
(Total Pages = 3)
Page 51 of 56
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
CHKD. BY_________
15 KV CABLE PULL THROUGH J-TUBE _preliminary
File: j-tube-pull.mcd (Version 1.1)
PROJECT:D7372 NOC FEED_1st End
1.0 Scope
The subsea cables / umbilicals are pulled through J-tubes on to the platforms. This work sheet presents the
calculation of anticipated pull force exerted on cables / umbilicals during the pulls through J-tube.
F
TERMINATION LEVEL
E CELLAR DECK
D 0.000 (LAT)
J-TUBE STRAIGHT SECTION
B
J-TUBE BEND
A
BELL MOUTH
T3 T2
L
T2 T1
STRAIGHT SECTION
BEND SECTION
File : AppendixA_NOC_FEED_J- Page 1 of 3

tube_pull_in_1st_end.xmcd Date: 1/5/2023
McDermott
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
2.0 INPUTS kN  1000 newton

-1
w := 29 kg m _Weight of Umbilical in air
-1
ws := 18 kg m _Submerged Weight of Umbilical
Wjs := 9.806 kN _Weight of pull-in / hang-off assembly (Assumed 1 MT)
P := 100  kN _Allowable Pull Force

2
EI := 0.77 kN m _Elastic flexural stiffness of umbilical
T := 10 kN _Tension of Umbilical at the J Tube bell-mouth
R := 6.42 m _J - Tube bend radius
μj := 0.4 _Friction Factor between J-Tube and Umbilical (Typical value range between 0.3-0.5)
fs := 1.10 _Start Up Factor (Surge Effect)
f := 4 _Wrapping factor (As per OTC paper 6875 J-tube design for Flexible Umbilicals)
D := 273  mm _Inside diameter of J-tube
d := 116  mm _Outside diameter of umbilical
Tb := 4  kN _Pull force required to bend the cable in J-tube (Assumed. Checked in further calculations -
Refer Section 3.1)
LAB := 1.13 m _Length of section A-B
θA := 30 deg _Angle with Horizontal
LBC := 6.05 m _Length of section B-C
θB := 54 deg _Total Bend Angle
LCD := 61 m _Length of section C-D
θc := 84 deg _Angle with horizontal
LDE := 7.9 m _Length of section D-E
θd := 84 deg _Angle with horizontal
LEF := 25 m _Length of section E-F
θe := 84 deg _Angle with horizontal

McDermott
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
3.0 Calculations:
3.1 Check for flexibility of umbilical to wrap around the bend:
0.5
a := [ 2  R ( D - d ) ] a = 1.42 m
EI
= 0.191 kN
2
0.5 f  a  Tb = 16.127 kN m
2 (0.5f a2)
2
_If EI < 0.5 f  a  Tb then assumed Tb is correct and the umbilical is sufficiently flexible to wrap around the bend
_Refer equation (15) of OTC paper 6875 J-tube design for Flexible Umbilicals)
Result1 := if  EI < 0.5 f  a  Tb , "Assumed Tb is OK" , "Assumed Tb is NOT OK" 

2
 
Result1 = "Assumed Tb is OK"
3.2 Umbilical pull force calculation
3.2.1 Section A-B
( ( )
T1 := Tb + T + LAB ws g sin θA + μj  cos θA ( ))
T1 = 14.169 kN
3.2.2 Section B-C (Concave Bend Section)

Considering the profile of umbilical in bend section
μj θB ws R g   μj θB 

 2  μj  sin θB -  1 - μj
2
T2 := T1  e -
2 
( )   e ( )
- cos θB
1 + μj
T2 = 20.738 kN
3.2.3 Section C-D (Straight Section below Chart Datum))
( ( )
T3 := T2 + LCD ws g sin θc + μj  cos θc ( ))
T3 = 31.897 kN
3.2.4 Section D-E (Straight Section above Chart Datum))
( ( )
T4 := T3 + LDE w g sin θd + μj  cos θd ( ))
T4 = 34.226 kN
3.2.5 Section E-F (Straight Section upto Termination Level of Pull Deck, Extra Length of the Cable)
( ( )
T5 := T4 + LEF w g sin θe + μj  cos θe ( ))
T5 = 41.594 kN
Ttotal := fs T5 + Wjs Ttotal = 55.559 kN _Total Pull Force in Umbilical
(
Result2 := if Ttotal < P , "Total pull force is OK" , "Total pull force is more than allowable" )
Result2 = "Total pull force is OK"

Appendix D – J-TUBE PULL-IN CALCULATION for 2nd END
(Total Pages = 3)
Page 52 of 56
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
CHKD. BY_________
15 KV CABLE PULL THROUGH J-TUBE _preliminary
File: j-tube-pull.mcd (Version 1.1)
PROJECT:D7372 NOC FEED_2nd End
1.0 Scope
The subsea cables / umbilicals are pulled through J-tubes on to the platforms. This work sheet presents the
calculation of anticipated pull force exerted on cables / umbilicals during the pulls through J-tube.
F
TERMINATION LEVEL
E CELLAR DECK
D 0.000 (LAT)
J-TUBE STRAIGHT SECTION
B
J-TUBE BEND
A
BELL MOUTH
T3 T2
L
T2 T1
STRAIGHT SECTION
BEND SECTION
File : AppendixB_NOC_FEED_J- Page 1 of 3

tube_pull_in_2nd_end.xmcd Date: 1/5/2023
McDermott
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
2.0 INPUTS kN  1000 newton

-1
w := 29 kg m _Weight of Umbilical in air
-1
ws := 18 kg m _Submerged Weight of Umbilical
Wjs := 9.806 kN _Weight of pull-in / hang-off assembly (Assumed 1 MT)
P := 100  kN _Allowable Pull Force

2
EI := 0.77 kN m _Elastic flexural stiffness of umbilical
T := 20 kN _Tension of Umbilical at the J Tube bell-mouth
R := 6.42 m _J - Tube bend radius
μj := 0.4 _Friction Factor between J-Tube and Umbilical (Typical value range between 0.3-0.5)
fs := 1.10 _Start Up Factor (Surge Effect)
f := 4 _Wrapping factor (As per OTC paper 6875 J-tube design for Flexible Umbilicals)
D := 273  mm _Inside diameter of J-tube
d := 116  mm _Outside diameter of umbilical
Tb := 4  kN _Pull force required to bend the cable in J-tube (Assumed. Checked in further calculations -
Refer Section 3.1)
LAB := 1.13 m _Length of section A-B
θA := 30 deg _Angle with Horizontal
LBC := 6.05 m _Length of section B-C
θB := 54 deg _Total Bend Angle
LCD := 61 m _Length of section C-D
θc := 84 deg _Angle with horizontal
LDE := 7.9 m _Length of section D-E
θd := 84 deg _Angle with horizontal
LEF := 25 m _Length of section E-F
θe := 84 deg _Angle with horizontal

McDermott
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
3.0 Calculations:
3.1 Check for flexibility of umbilical to wrap around the bend:
0.5
a := [ 2  R ( D - d ) ] a = 1.42 m
EI
= 0.191 kN
2
0.5 f  a  Tb = 16.127 kN m
2 (0.5f a2)
2
_If EI < 0.5 f  a  Tb then assumed Tb is correct and the umbilical is sufficiently flexible to wrap around the bend
_Refer equation (15) of OTC paper 6875 J-tube design for Flexible Umbilicals)
Result1 := if  EI < 0.5 f  a  Tb , "Assumed Tb is OK" , "Assumed Tb is NOT OK" 

2
 
Result1 = "Assumed Tb is OK"
3.2 Umbilical pull force calculation
3.2.1 Section A-B
( ( )
T1 := Tb + T + LAB ws g sin θA + μj  cos θA ( ))
T1 = 24.169 kN
3.2.2 Section B-C (Concave Bend Section)

Considering the profile of umbilical in bend section
μj θB ws R g   μj θB 

 2  μj  sin θB -  1 - μj
2
T2 := T1  e -
2 
( )   e ( )
- cos θB
1 + μj
T2 = 35.317 kN
3.2.3 Section C-D (Straight Section below Chart Datum))
( ( )
T3 := T2 + LCD ws g sin θc + μj  cos θc ( ))
T3 = 46.476 kN
3.2.4 Section D-E (Straight Section above Chart Datum))
( ( )
T4 := T3 + LDE w g sin θd + μj  cos θd ( ))
T4 = 48.805 kN
3.2.5 Section E-F (Straight Section upto Termination Level of Pull Deck, Extra Length of the Cable)
( ( )
T5 := T4 + LEF w g sin θe + μj  cos θe ( ))
T5 = 56.173 kN
Ttotal := fs T5 + Wjs Ttotal = 71.596 kN _Total Pull Force in Umbilical
(
Result2 := if Ttotal < P , "Total pull force is OK" , "Total pull force is more than allowable" )
Result2 = "Total pull force is OK"

Appendix E J-TUBE DRAWINGS
(Total Pages = 1)
Page 53 of 56
B
MATERIAL TAKE OFF NOTES
PLATFORM SNo DESCRIPTION MATERIAL QTY TOTAL LG UNIT WT TOTAL WT CAT
GRID NORTH 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, REFER TO DRAWING NO.
NORTH m/m2 kg/m/m2 kg
FDP01-MDM3- & OTHER WELDING
ASYYY-01-082843-0001
450 DETAILS REFER TO DRAWING NOS.
1447 1 273X x9.3/01 S355-KL+20 - 11.96 60.48 723.34 2 FDP01-MDM3- ,
ASYYY-01-082854-0001 ASYYY-01-082844-0001
EL +9.100 TO .
ASYYY-01-082849-0001
2 356X x12.7/01 S355-KL+20 - 75.68 107.52 8137.26 2
EL +7.800 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETER UNO.
N 273Øx9.3/01
TOP OF J-TUBE 3 356X x9.5/01 S355-KL+20 - 3.104 81.18 251.98 2 3. ALL ELEVATIONS INDICATED ARE IN METERS AND WRT LAT.
EL +6.800
TOTAL WEIGHT(TONNES) 9.11 4. STRUCTURAL STEEL MATERIAL CATEGORY, S-SPECIAL,
762Ø 1-FIRST CATEGORY, 2-SECONDARY CATEGORY.
356Øx12.7/01
A B
16460
864Ø DIAGONAL
BRACE
EL +1.697
B
EL (+) 0.000 L.A.T
1
273Øx9.3/01 762Ø DIAGONAL HOLD
EL -3.574 BRACE
1. AWAITING J-TUBE SIZE FROM ELECTRICAL.
1220Ø
273Øx9.3/01
EL -9.000
KEY PLAN
PLATFORM
22230
GRID NORTH
1020Ø NORTH
J-TUBE 14" 273Øx9.3/01 450
EL -14.539
1100
N
A A B
16000
1447
1020Ø DETAIL-1
273Øx9.3/01 1
6400
EL -20.727 SCALE 1:50
2
762Ø
273Øx9.3/01 THIS
DRAWING
22000
EL (-)26.000
1070Ø
273Øx9.3/01
EL -31.387 2
FRAMING PLAN AT C EL.+6.800
L
1070Ø
ASTAS-01-080012-0001 TA WHP - JACKET - FRAMING PLANS AT EL. -66.290M
273Øx9.3/01
EL -38.534 ASTAS-01-080011-0001 TA WHP - JACKET - FRAMING PLANS AT EL. -44.000M
ASTAS-01-080008-0001 TA WHP - JACKET - FRAMING PLANS AT EL. +6.800M
ASTAS-01-080007-0001 TA WHP - JACKET- ELEVATION ROW B
ASTAS-01-080006-0001 TA WHP - JACKET- ELEVATION ROW A
1220Ø ASTAS-01-080005-0001 TA WHP - JACKET- ELEVATION ROW 2
273Øx9.3/01 ASTAS-01-080004-0001 TA WHP - JACKET- ELEVATION ROW 1
EL (-)44.000 ASTAS-01-080001-0001 TA WHP - JACKET- DRAWING LIST
ASYYY-01-082842-0001 STANDARD DRAWING INDEX
1220Ø
273Øx9.3/01
EL -50.390
00 19/11/2022 IFR ISSUED FOR REVIEW SRS VG/SR JT
1220Ø
273Øx9.3/01
EL -60.133
FDP01-MDM3-ASTAS-01-080061-0001
356Øx12.7/01 PHASE 3 BATCH 1 FEED PROJECT
356Øx9.5/01
EL -65.100
813Ø
EL (-)66.290
TA WELLHEAD PLATFORM
(MUDLINE) JACKET - J - TUBE
EL (-) 67.700 0mm 10000 20000 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
SECTION A-A SCALE BAR (1:150 )
DRW 65 FE 2
1:150 A1 ASTAS-01-080061-0001 000 00

NOC-QA_BORDER_00H_01_A
Appendix F - DLV2000 RAOs
(Total Pages = 2)
Page 54 of 56
Heading = 0deg
Heading = 45deg
Heading = 90deg
Heading = 135deg
Heading = 180deg
Appendix G - Orcaflex LineTypes
(Total Pages = 7)
Page 55 of 56
Appendix H - Orcaflex Static Range Graph Results
(Total Pages = 7)
Page 56 of 56
Axial Strain (%) Bending Moment (kN*m)
100
0.08
80
0.06
60
0.04
40
0.02 20
0.00 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Arc Length (m) Arc Length (m)
Effective Tension (kN) Declination (deg)

300
25
290
20
280
270 15
260 10
250 5
240
0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
FPS(in)xWT(mm)xCWC(mm)_10x7.8x40
0.10 120
0.08 100
0.06 80
60
0.04
40
0.02 20
0.00 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

30
420 25
400 20
380 15
360 10
5
340
0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
120
0.08 100
0.06 80
60
0.04
40
0.02 20
0.00 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

30
300 25
20
280
15
260 10
5
240
0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
0.10 150
0.08 125
100
0.06
75
0.04
50
0.02 25
0.00 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

560 30
540 25
520
20
500
15
480
10
460
440 5
420 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
0.12
400
0.10
0.08 300
0.06
200
0.04
100
0.02
0.00 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

30
380
25
360
20
340
15
320
10
300
5
280 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
0.12
500
0.10
400
0.08
300
0.06
0.04 200
0.02 100
0.00 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

950 30
900 25
20
850
15
800
10
750 5
700 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
0.14
1000
0.12
0.10 800
0.08 600
0.06
400
0.04
0.02 200
0.00 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

420 30
400
25
380
20
360
340 15
320 10
300 5
280 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

Comments Response Sheet (CRS)

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

Comments Response Sheet (CRS)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comments Response Sheet (CRS) Project No / Title RUYA-FDP01-FEED4

Document Number: FDP01-MDM3-ASYYY-14-343018-0001 Revision 00 Rev. Date 07-Feb-2023

WAHYUDI Yudistia YWA: Please refer to Applicable Comments from Doc.

ASI: Update OD to NPS and also in other tables as

The status of the comment shall be:

Project: FDP01-MDM3 Document Number: ASYYY-14-343018-0001 Date: 28-Mar-2023 Rev.: 01

Doc Type: REP System: VARI Phase FE Status: AFD Class: 2

RUYA – FDP01 – FEED4

RUYA BATCH 1 - PIPELINE AND CABLE LAY

Is the document generated from an existing As-Built? YES NO X

Originator Document Number Last ASB Rev. :

Nufail Anjikkath Vinod Puthiya

Rev. Rev. date Status Description Issued by Reviewed by Approved by

Project: FDP01-MDM3 Document Number: ASYYY-14-343018-0001 Date: 28-Mar-2023 Rev.: 01

Doc Type: REP System: VARI Phase FE Status: AFD Class: 2

Rev. Rev. Date Status History Issuer Reviewer Approver

Venkata Ramana Vinod Puthiya

Project: FDP01-MDM3 Document Number: ASYYY-14-343018-0001 Date: 28-Mar-2023 Rev.: 01

Doc Type: REP System: VARI Phase FE Status: AFD Class: 2

3. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................10

3.2. ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 10

5. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ..............................................................................................................12

6.1. PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT..................................................................................................................................... 13

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION......................................................................................................14

7.1. PIPELINES .......................................................................................................................................................... 14

7.2. CABLE ................................................................................................................................................................ 15

8. DESIGN DATA FOR PIPELINES .....................................................................................................16

8.1. PIPELINE MATERIAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................ 16

8.2. COATING PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 16

8.3. PIPELINE PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 17

8.4. VESSEL AND STINGER PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................... 19

8.5. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA....................................................................................................................................... 20

8.6. SOIL DATA ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

Project: FDP01-MDM3 Document Number: ASYYY-14-343018-0001 Date: 28-Mar-2023 Rev.: 01

Doc Type: REP System: VARI Phase FE Status: AFD Class: 2

8.7. HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS .......................................................................................................................... 22

9. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR PIPELINES ................................................................................23

9.1. General .............................................................................................................................................................. 23

9.2. Normal Lay Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 24

9.3. Start-Up Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 25

9.4. Laydown Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 25

9.5. Abandonment and Recovery Analysis .................................................................................................................... 25

9.6. Flooded Case Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 25

10. INSTALLATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ......................................................................................26

10.1. General ........................................................................................................................................................... 26

10.2. Pipeline Integrity .............................................................................................................................................. 27

11. NORMAL LAY ANALYSIS RESULTS ...............................................................................................28

11.1. Static Analysis Results ...................................................................................................................................... 29

11.2. Dynamic Analysis Results .................................................................................................................................. 31

12. START-UP PHILOSOPHY AND RESULTS .......................................................................................32

13. LAYDOWN / ABANDONMENT RESULTS........................................................................................37

14. ROUTE RADIUS CHECK ................................................................................................................39

15. FLOODED LAY ...............................................................................................................................40

16. CROSSINGS NEAR ENDS ..............................................................................................................42

17. CABLE DESIGN DATA ...................................................................................................................44

17.1. UMBILICAL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES .............................................................................................................. 44

Project: FDP01-MDM3 Document Number: ASYYY-14-343018-0001 Date: 28-Mar-2023 Rev.: 01

Doc Type: REP System: VARI Phase FE Status: AFD Class: 2

17.2. WATER DEPTH ................................................................................................................................................ 44

18. CABLE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ........................................................................45

18.1. 1ST END........................................................................................................................................................... 45

18.2. NORMAL LAY ................................................................................................................................................... 46

18.3. 2ND END .......................................................................................................................................................... 47