Subsea Engineering Sample Dissertation

ANALYSIS OF HIGH-STRENGTH AND ULTRA-HIGH-STRENGTH STEEL
CATENARY RISER INSTALLATION IN J-LAY METHOD USING

ORCAFLEX IN DEEPWATER GULF OF MEXICO
EG59F9 Individual Project in Subsea Engineering
By
KURNIATI MUHAMAD EKOTOMO, B.Eng.
51657382
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of
Master of Science in Subsea Engineering at the University of Aberdeen
August 2017
EG59F9 – Individual Project in Subsea Engineering
ABSTRACT
One of the issues of the riser in the deep water field is high external pressure. It affects
the structural integrity of the riser, causing the collapse and buckling. Moreover, in the
deep water installation process, the riser will experience high tension and high bending
moment. To overcome these issues, a flexible riser is used. However, a flexible riser is
relatively expensive which is not preferable for some projects. Therefore, in this report,
the installability of a steel catenary riser (SCR) is analysed as an alternative to the flexible
riser. The material for SCR will be high-strength and ultra-high-strength material such as
X-80, X-90, X-100, or X-120 to obtain better structural integrity. The SCR diameter will
also be varied: 8 inch, 10 inch, 12 inch, 14 inch, and 16 inch.
The installation analysis will be performed in two fields in the Gulf of Mexico that
represents the metocean condition in the area. The first field is Stones which has a 2,914
meters water depth, and the second is Jack St. Malo, has a 2,134 meters water depth. The
installation method used is the J-lay method, the most common method for deep-water
installation, and the installation vessel used in this project is the Pathfinder vessel.
The Orcaflex 10.0 installation software will be applied in the analysis. The post-
processing analysis will be focused on the most critical section, which is the sagbend. The
feasibility will be confirmed regarding the load controlled combination (LCC) based on
the DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems. Finally, the top tension of the SCR will
be assessed to confirm the feasibility of the Pathfinder vessel in this operation.
The result of the analysis is that SCR installation using the J-lay method and Pathfinder
vessel is applicable in both fields. However, there are some constraints in this operation,
such as the SCR maximum diameter, SCR minimum grade, and vessel heading.
Keywords: SCR, Installation; J-lay, Orcaflex, Gulf of Mexico, Stones, Jack St. Malo
I
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
First of all, I am grateful to Allah SWT for his blessing for all this time.
This completion of this also not have been possible without the participation and
assistance of many people whose names may not all be enumerated. First, I am really
fortunate that, I have a very helpful supervisor, Dr. Antonis Karadimos from the
University of Aberdeen. Thank you for giving me the guidance and advice. Second, I
would also like to thanks to LPDP as my scholarship sponsor for providing me the
financial support for completing the MSc. Subsea Engineering.
Finally, I would like to thanks for my parents, Muhammad Ekotomo and Rini Ekotomo,
for all their prayers and motivation.
Aberdeen, August 2017,
Nia
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ................................................................................................ II
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... III
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... VII
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS .................................................................... IX
ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... XII
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aim and Objectives ........................................................................................ 2
1.3 Scope of the Work .......................................................................................... 3
1.4 Outline of the Report ...................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................. 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 5
2.1 Material Development .................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Development of High-Strength Steel ...................................................... 5
2.1.2 High-Strength Steel Standardisation ....................................................... 6
2.2 Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) ............................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Definition of SCR ................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Basic Catenary Analysis ......................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Global Analysis ..................................................................................... 10
2.2.3.1 Top Tension ...........................................................................................11
2.2.3.2 Bending Moment ...................................................................................11
2.2.3.3 Strain ......................................................................................................11
2.2.3.4 Equivalent Stress ....................................................................................11
2.2.4 The Usage of Steel Catenary Risers in Deep-Water Environments ..... 12
2.2.4.1 SCR Installation Method in a Deep-Water Environment ......................12
2.2.4.2 SCR Sizing due to The Collapse and Buckling .....................................14
2.3 Airy and JONSWAP Waves ........................................................................ 15
2.4 Gulf of Mexico Fields .................................................................................. 16
2.4.1 Stones Field........................................................................................... 16
III
2.4.2 Jack St. Malo Field ............................................................................... 17

CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................ 19
DESIGN CONCEPT & METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 19
3.1 Basic Design................................................................................................. 19
3.2 Load Criteria ................................................................................................ 19
3.2.1 Functional Load .................................................................................... 19
3.2.2 Environmental Load ............................................................................. 19
3.2.3 Interference Load and Accidental Load ................................................ 20
3.3 Design Load Effect....................................................................................... 20
3.4 Design Format .............................................................................................. 21
3.4.1 Roundness of the Riser ......................................................................... 21
3.4.2 Resistance Factor .................................................................................. 21
3.4.3 Material Strength Properties ................................................................. 21
3.5 Wall Thickness Design................................................................................. 23
3.5.1 Local Buckling ...................................................................................... 23
3.5.2 Propagation buckling ............................................................................ 24
3.5.3 Vertical stability .................................................................................... 24
3.6 Riser Installation Design Criteria ................................................................. 24
3.7 Design Methodology .................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER FOUR .......................................................................................................... 27
ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION ..................................................................... 27
4.1 Input ............................................................................................................. 27
4.1.1 SCR Data .............................................................................................. 27
4.1.2 Environment Data ................................................................................. 28
4.1.2.1 Water Depth ...........................................................................................28
4.1.2.2 Seawater Properties ................................................................................28
4.1.2.3 Waves .....................................................................................................28
4.1.2.4 Currents ..................................................................................................29
4.1.2.5 Seabed Condition ...................................................................................30
4.1.3 Vessel Motion Data .............................................................................. 30
4.2 Orcaflex Modelling ...................................................................................... 31
4.2.1 Coordinate System ................................................................................ 31
4.2.2 J-lay Modelling ..................................................................................... 32
IV
4.3 Orcaflex Simulation ..................................................................................... 34

4.3.1 Loadcase ............................................................................................... 34
4.3.2 Static Analysis ...................................................................................... 35
4.3.3 Dynamic Analysis ................................................................................. 35
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................ 36
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................... 36
5.1 Wall Thickness Design................................................................................. 36
5.2 Feasibility Analysis ...................................................................................... 38
5.2.1 Stones Field........................................................................................... 38
5.2.1.1 8 Inch SCR Stress Utilisation.................................................................39
5.2.1.2 10 Inch SCR Stress Utilisation ..............................................................40
5.2.1.3 12 Inch, 14 Inch, and 16 Inch Stress Utilisation ....................................42
5.2.2 Jack St. Malo Field ............................................................................... 43
5.2.2.1 8 Inch SCR Stress Utilisation.................................................................44
5.2.3 Overall SCR Feasibility in the Gulf of Mexico .................................... 51
CHAPTER SIX .............................................................................................................. 53
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 53
6.1 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 53
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 54
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 56
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 60
APPENDIX-A: STONES LOAD CASES ............................................................. 60
APPENDIX-B: JACK ST. MALO LOAD CASES ............................................... 61
APPENDIX-C: SCREENSHOT OF ORCAFLEX RESULTS .............................. 62
APPENDIX-D: WALL THICKNESS SUMMARY .............................................. 64
APPENDIX-E: J-LAY SIMULATION IN STONES ............................................ 66
APPENDIX-F: J-LAY SIMULATION IN JACK ST. MALO .............................. 71
APPENDIX-G : WALL THICKNESS BUCKLING CHECK .............................. 74
APPENDIX-H : LOAD CONTROLLED CONDITION CHECK ........................ 76
V
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 - Chemical Composition of High Strength Material [4]................................... 6

Table 2.2 - Tensile Properties of High-Strength Material [4] .......................................... 6
Table 3.1- Material Tensile and Yield Strength ............................................................. 22
Table 4.1 - Material Properties ....................................................................................... 27
Table 4.2 - Wave Data [26] ............................................................................................ 29
Table 4.3 - Jack St. Malo Wave Data [28] ..................................................................... 29
Table 4.4 - Stones Current Data [26].............................................................................. 30
Table 4.5 - Jack St. Malo Current Data [28] .................................................................. 30
Table 4.6 - Riser's Number of Segment.......................................................................... 34
Table 5.1 - Wave and Current Direction Constraints for Stones .................................... 51
Table 5.2 - Wave and Current Direction Constraints for Jack St. Malo......................... 52
Table 5.3 - Riser Fabrication Method for Stones ........................................................... 52
Table 5.4 - Riser Fabrication Method for Jack St .Malo ................................................ 52
Table 1 - Stones Load Cases........................................................................................... 60
Table 2 - Jack St. Malo Load Cases ............................................................................... 61
Table 3 - Minimum Wall Thickness Summary .............................................................. 64
Table 4 - Vertical Stability Check Results ..................................................................... 65
Table 5 - J-Lay Simulation Results in Stones ................................................................ 66
Table 6 - J-Lay Simulation Results in Jack St. Malo ..................................................... 71
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 - Development of High-Strength Steel [3] ...................................................... 5

Figure 2.2 - Steel Catenary Riser Arrangement [9] .......................................................... 8
Figure 2.3 - Catenary Free Body Diagram [10] ............................................................... 9
Figure 2.4 - Relation between Curvature and Bending Moment [11] ............................ 11
Figure 2.5 - S-Lay (Left) and J-Lay Installation Method (Right) [14] ........................... 12
Figure 2.6 - Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum and JONSWAP Spectrum Comparison [19]
........................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.7- Location of Stones and Jack St. Malo [22] .................................................. 16
Figure 2.8 - Steel Catenary Riser and Steel Lazy Waves Riser Comparison [25] ......... 17
Figure 3.1 - Flowchart Analysis ..................................................................................... 26
Figure 4.1 - Orcaflex Coordinate System [36] ............................................................... 31
Figure 4.2 - Orcaflex Vessel Rotation [37] .................................................................... 32
Figure 4.3 - Direction and Heading [38] ........................................................................ 32
Figure 4.4 - J-Lay Orcaflex Model ................................................................................. 33
Figure 4.5 - Wave-Current Direction According to the Vessel ...................................... 34
Figure 4.6 - Dynamic Analysis in Orcaflex [39] ............................................................ 35
Figure 5.1 - Minimum Wall Thickness in Stones........................................................... 36
Figure 5.2 - Minimum Wall Thickness in Jack St. Malo ............................................... 36
Figure 5.3 - Wall Thickness Vertical Stability ............................................................... 37
Figure 5.4 - Maximum Wall Thickness .......................................................................... 37
Figure 5.5 - SCR Top Tension in Stones ........................................................................ 38
Figure 5.6 - SCR Strain in Stones .................................................................................. 39
Figure 5.7- 8 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis in Stones ............................................ 39
Figure 5.8 - 8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis in Stones .......................................... 40
Figure 5.9 - 8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Post Processing Result in Stones ................... 40
Figure 5.10 - 10 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis in Stones ....................................... 41
Figure 5.11 - 10 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis in Stones ...................................... 41
Figure 5.12 - 10 inch SCR Irregular Wave Post Processing Result in Stones ............... 42
Figure 5.16 - SCR Top Tension in Jack St.Malo ........................................................... 44
VII
Figure 5.17 - SCR Strain in Jack St. Malo ..................................................................... 44

Figure 5.18 - 8 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis in Jack St. Malo .............................. 45
Figure 5.19 - 8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis in Jack St. Malo............................. 45
Figure 5.20 - 8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Post Processing Result in Jack St. Malo ...... 46
Figure 5.21 - 10 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis in Jack St. Malo ............................ 46
Figure 5.22 - 10 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis in Jack St. Malo........................... 47
Figure 5.23 - 10 inch SCR Irregular Wave Post Processing Result in Jack St. Malo .... 47
Figure 1 - Screenshot of Maximum Bending Moment of 10 inch SCR in Jack St. Malo
Field (Current-1, Wave, 225 deg)................................................................................... 62
Figure 2 - Screenshot of Maximum Top Tension of 10 inch SCR in Jack St. Malo Field
(Current-1, Wave, 225 deg) ............................................................................................ 62
Figure 3 - Screenshot of Time History Response of Effective Tension of 10 inch SCR in
Regular Wave (Current-1, Wave, 225 deg) in Jack St. Malo Field................................ 63
Irregular Wave (Current-1, Wave, 225 deg) in Jack St. Malo Field .............................. 63
Figure 5 - Wall Thickness Check Spreadsheet Part.1 .................................................... 74
Figure 6 - Wall Thickness Check Spreadsheet Part.2 .................................................... 75
Figure 7 - LCC Check Spreadsheet Part. 1..................................................................... 76
VIII
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS
Latin Characters
A Riser cross section

Riser external cross section
Riser internal cross section
B Boron
Riser buoyancy per unit length
C Carbon
CE Carbon Equivalent
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
d depth
Nominal diameter
Inside diameter
Greatest measured inside or outside diameter
Smallest measured inside or outside diameter
Outside Diameter
Ovality (Out of roundness)
Characteristic tensile strength
Characteristic yield strength
, Temperature derating values for yield strength
, Temperature derating values for yield strength

Gravity acceleration
Horizontal Tension
Hmax Maximum wave height
Accidental load
Interference load
Environmental load
Functional load
Design load
Segment length
IX
Bending moment of environmental load

Bending moment of functional load
Design bending moment
Plastic moment capacity
Maximum bending moment due to maximum bending stress
Mn Manganese
Mo Molybdenum
Nb Niobium
Ni Nickel
P Phosphorus
Characteristic Burst Pressure
Characteristic collapse pressure
External pressure
Elastic collapse pressure
Minimum internal pressure
Plastic collapse pressure
Propagation buckling pressure
R Resultant Weight
S Sulfur
Suspended length of riser
Si Silica
Functional axial force
Environmental axial force
Design effective axial force
Plastic axial force capacity
Top tension
Tension at the touchdown point
( ) A tension at particular length of riser
Tmax Associated wave period of Hmax
Ti Titanium
Riser wall thickness
Riser wall thickness, prior to installation case
X
V Vanadium
Riser apparent weight
Internal fluid weight
External fluid weight
Riser weight in the air
x Riser horizontal length
A particular length of a riser in vertical position
Greek Characters
Maximum fabrication factor

Material strength factor
Flow stress parameter
Load factor for accidental load
Load factor for conditional load effect
Load factor for environmental load
Load factor for functional load
Material resistance factor
Safety class resistance factor
Vertical stability factor
Design strain load
Strain of functional load
Strain of environmental load
Safety factor on weight
External fluid density
Riser material density
Internal fluid density
θ Hang-off angle
Hoop stress
Radial stress
Maximum bending stress
Axial stress
XI
ABBREVIATIONS
API American Petroleum Institute

DC Drill Center
DNV Det Norske Veritas
ERW Electric Resistance Welded
FEED Front End Engineering Design
FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading Unit
GOM Gulf of Mexico
ISO International Standard Organization
JONSWAP Joint North Sea Wave Project
LCC Load Controlled Condition
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
OS Offshore Standard
RAO Response Amplitude Operator
RP Recommended Practice
SCR Steel Catenary Riser
SLWR Steel Lazy Wave Riser
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
SMTS Specified Minimum Tensile Strength
SPAR Floating Oil Platform for the deep water
TLP Tension-Leg Platform
TM Thermomechanical
ULS Ultimate Limit State
UOE Fabrication process of a tubular structure by forming the plate
into “U”-shape, “O”-shape
XII
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The riser is one of the main facilities in the oil and gas industry, especially in subsea
technology. To transport the production fluid, it connects the facilities located on the
seabed to the host facility on the sea surface. Nowadays, deep-water field development
has recently focused on the use of flexible risers because of its versatility. However,
flexibles tend to have high cost compared to the SCR, which is not convenient for the low
oil price climate of the past several of years.
An SCR, a conventional riser can be used as an alternative to the flexibles. It can be

designed for deep-water application by using a suitable cross-section area and high
material grade to address the issue of structural integrity.
The project will focus on SCR installation in the ultra-deep water case in the Gulf of
Mexico. Two fields that will be assessed in this report. First is Stones, the deepest field
in the Gulf of Mexico. It has a 2,914 m water depth, and it is located 322 km from south
of New Orleans [1]. Currently, Stones is using steel lazy wave risers (SLWR), which are
tied back to the FPSO. This project is still developing, with the next phase covering six
wells and a future artificial lift system [1]. The second field is Jack St. Malo, located 450
km southwest of New Orleans [2]. It has a 2,134 m water depth and is the largest field in
the Gulf of Mexico [2]. As a host facility, a floating semi-submersible with the top side
is used by Jack St. Malo. To connect host facility to the other facility on the seabed, an
SCR with buoyancy was installed [2]. Both projects experience high waves, high current
and high external pressure. Therefore, these projects need risers with a specific
requirement and installation method. For deep water, the SCR wall thickness should be
increased. However, with increasing the wall thickness, the tension and the bending
moment also will also increase. Therefore, these considerations need to be analysed.
The analysis will focus on the SCR installation using the J-lay method and Pathfinder as
the installation vessel in an empty condition. It is also incorporated with the wall thickness
calculation and the material grade selection for the SCR. The wall thickness calculation
is developed according to the DNV-OS-F101 and will include the local buckling and
1
vertical stability analysis. Moreover, the material grade selection will be based on the
LCC check, also according to DNV-OS-F101.
Orcaflex 10.0 will be used as the finite element installation software. The analysis
includes the static and dynamic condition with realistic and extreme load cases. In the
static analysis, the model will reach equilibrium in a static condition. It includes the
weight of the system and the initial vessel position. The result of the static analysis is the
initial condition for the dynamic condition. The dynamic analysis will include the effect
of the waves on the SCR during the installation process. There are two types of waves in
this analysis; the first is the Airy wave as the regular waves and the second is the
JONSWAP wave as irregular waves. Regular waves have the same wave height and
period, whereas irregular waves are shaped as a spectrum with different waves and
periods. The purpose of the dynamic analysis is to determine the actual behaviour of the
SCR while it is being installed.
Finally, the recommendations include the required material grade for each field. They
also provide the maximum diameter that is feasible to be installed in the Gulf of Mexico
and a vessel heading position recommendation while the SCR is being installed.
1.2 Aim and Objectives

In accordance with the problems that have been stated previously, the objectives of the
project are stated as follows:
1. To analyse the feasibility of installing SCRs with 8 inch, 10 inch, 12 inch, 14 inch,
and 16 inch nominal diameters using X-80, X-90, X-100 and X-120 as the material
grade in a deep-water field;
2. To analyse the feasibility of the J-lay installation method in the Gulf of Mexico;
3. To analyse the Pathfinder vessel’s feasibility in the SCR deep-water installation
operations due to its motion and tensioner capacity;
4. To analyse the fabrication requirement of the SCR in deep-water applications;
5. To determine the vessel heading direction to avoid excessive stress during the
installation process.
2
1.3 Scope of the Work

This section lists the work performed in this report:
1. The environmental conditions are taken from real projects in the Gulf of Mexico:
Stones and Jack St. Malo;
2. The SCR wall thickness is reviewed based on the buckling, vertical stability, and
allowable diameter-thickness ratio in the DNV-OS-F101;
3. The simulation is done in Orcaflex 10.0 as the installation software to provide the
static and dynamic analysis;
4. The wave type for the dynamic analysis includes Airy as the regular waves and
JONSWAP as the irregular waves;
5. The SCR is installed only in an empty condition;
6. The analysis focuses on the critical section of the SCR, and several identifications
are done to review the SCR regarding the stress, strain, and LCC check.
1.4 Outline of the Report

1. Chapter 1 (INTRODUCTION) presents the background of the usage of SCRs in
the Gulf of Mexico as the deep-water field (specifically, during the installation
process), the objectives of the analysis, the statement of work, and a brief outline
of the report.
2. Chapter 2 (LITERATURE REVIEW) describes the development of high-strength
steel material in the oil and gas industry, the basic theory of SCR and catenary
calculation, the theory of Airy and JONSWAP waves, and finally brief
information about the Stones and Jack St. Malo fields.
3. Chapter 3 (DESIGN CONCEPTS AND METHODOLOGY) presents the basic
design of SCR, load criteria, material characteristics, and safety factor class which
later will be the input of the analysis. Moreover, the wall thickness and SCR
installation design are also described.
4. Chapter 4 (ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION) presents the input data for the
Orcaflex simulation. This chapter covers the SCR properties and environmental
conditions.
5. Chapter 5 (RESULTS AND DISCUSSION) presents the results of the wall

thickness calculation. Moreover, the simulation results from Orcaflex 10.0, such
as the strain, tension, and bending moment, are also provided. These results are
3
evaluated in the post-processing analysis based on the DNV-OS-F101 due to the

collapse and LCC.
6. Chapter 6 (CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION) presents the

conclusion of this project in reference to the project’s objectives in Chapter 1. It
also presents recommendations to improve the analysis in this project.
7. Chapter 7 (REFERENCES) presents the list of references used in this report.
8. Chapter 8 (APPENDICES) presents sample simulation and result data from

Orcaflex 10.0 and Mathcad spreadsheets for the wall thickness and LCC check.
4
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Material Development

SCR and steel pipe have the same manufacturers since they are made from the same
materials and the same fabrication method. Pipe manufacturers realised the needs of the
oil and gas industry to increase the efficiency of transporting the production fluid.
Moreover, the development of deep-water exploration is growing. This operation requires
high pressure, high temperature, and longer risers with better structural integrity. Most
the oil and gas projects use material grades X-65 and X-70. However, deeper fields and
explorations require higher material grades such as X-80 and above to prevent buckling
and collapse.
2.1.1 Development of High-Strength Steel
Figure 2.1 - Development of High-Strength Steel [3]

The development of high-strength steel started when the X-52 material grade was
produced in the late sixties using the hot rolling and normalising methods [3]. As shown
in Figure 2.1, in the seventies, these methods were replaced by thermomechanical rolling,
which was able to produce the X-70 material grade by reducing the carbon content. Some
improvements were made in the eighties, including the acceleration of the cooling time.
This improvement had a significant effect on the development of high-strength steel. As
a result, the X-80 material grade could be produced. Moreover, with the addition of
molybdenum, copper, and nickel, the X-100 material grade can be manufactured using
this method [3].
5
2.1.2 High-Strength Steel Standardisation

High-strength steel materials are mentioned in several engineering standards, such as
API-5L, ISO-3183, and DNV-OS-F101. Standards for X-90 until X-100 were added in
2007 [4]. The standards mention the composition, tensile strength, ultimate strength, and
ratio for each method.
Table 2.1 - Chemical Composition of High Strength Material [4]
As mentioned before, besides using a different manufacturing method, to get a higher

material strength, several material compositions need to be added. As shown in Table 2.1,
for the X-100 and X-120 material grades, the percentage of manganese (Mn) is increased
from 1.85% to 2.10%. Moreover, it is possible to add boron (B) up to 0.004% to those
material grades. In addition, for X-120, the percentage of nickel (Ni) can be increased to
1%. However, it is important to keep the carbon content down to achieve the weldability
of the X-120 as in X-80 material grade [5].
Table 2.2 - Tensile Properties of High-Strength Material [4]
Table 2.2 shows that not only the yield and tensile strength increase along with the
material grade but also the yield ratio. A higher yield ratio will decrease the deformability
and the elongation of the pipe [4]. This issue can be a problem when these materials are
brought into a real project, especially when the field has a harsh environment such as an
earthquake prone area. Hence, it is important to reassess and improve the mechanical
properties of the material for some cases to ensure the safety of the pipe.
The X-80 material grade has been used in various projects since the eighties [5]. The first
project was the Megal II project in 1984, which produced a 44 inch diameter, 13.6 mm
6
thickness pipe geometry with 603 MPa and 737 MPa yield and tensile strength,
respectively [3]. Afterward, with some improvements, such as the use of manganese-
niobium-titanium steel without adding copper and nickel, a 56 inch diameter, 15.6 mm
thickness steel pipe was produced for the CSSR project. In 1992, a thicker X-80 grade
was produced for the Ruhrgas Pipeline Project in Germany with a 250 km length. It had
a 48 inch diameter with 18.3 mm thickness. Moreover, One of the latest projects was BG
Transco in the United Kingdom and it was in 2000 [3]. From these projects, it can be
concluded that the X-80 material grade is not categorised as new technology in the oil
and gas industry since it has been used for more than 30 years.
The utilisation of the higher-grade steel can reduce material usage by around 7%-8% and
costs by around 3%-5% [6]. Hence, the China National Petroleum Corporation has
conducted research on the X-90 material grade and successfully built the trial production
of X-90 pipes with 1,219 mm diameter that can be used for the eastern route of the Russia-
China Gas Pipeline [7].
The X-100 pipe fabrication has already met the requirements of the properties of UOE
pipe; therefore, this type started to be commonly used in 2002 [4]. One of the fields that
used the X-100 material grade is located in Northern Canada and was laid in winter 2004
[4].
In contrast to the lower grades, X-120 is still under research [5]. The main difference
between X-120 and X-100 is the composition of the bainite. In X-100, the lower bainite
is used while the higher bainite is used for X-120 to increase the material strength [4].
Occasionally, the manufacturer also adds some boron to increase the strength of the base
metal. It is important to remember that the increased strength will reduce the material’s
ability to elongate and deform; hence, to improve the material condition, the cooling
condition also needs to be improved during the accelerated cooling process [4].
Higher-strength steel material is now competing with flexibles in deep-water

applications. The development of high-strength pipe suggests that the replacement of the
flexibles with the conventional steel pipe and risers with higher grades is promising.
7
2.2 Steel Catenary Riser (SCR)

2.2.1 Definition of SCR
The steel catenary riser has been popular since the early nineties. The first SCR was
installed in the Gulf of Mexico in 1993. It was connected to the TLP in a 872 m water
depth [8].The catenary itself is basically a mathematical curve that has the hang-off
section located at the top of the riser and the sagbend section located at the touchdown
point. The SCR is made of steel with the API 5L standard, and the most commonly used
grades are X-60, X-65, and X-70. In addition, the material selection depends on the
installation method and the requirement of the structural strength [8].
Figure 2.2 - Steel Catenary Riser Arrangement [9]

There are some challenges in SCR application, such as high hang-off tension and high
bending moment. Especially in deep-water applications, which tend to have high external
pressure. As shown in Figure 2.2, some SCRs are already installed and connected to the
facility on the seabed and the host facility. For instance, in the Gulf of Mexico, SCRs are
installed and connected to TLP, SPAR, and semi-submersible facility.
One of the key steps in designing an SCR is conducting a global performance analysis to
understand the effect of the waves, wind, current, and vessel motions. This analysis is
done by simulating the SCR using the time or frequency domain, and the results are
compared with the standards. It is important to ensure that the result is below the
maximum allowable value from the standard. There are a few of standards that need to
be fulfilled. First is the DNV-OS-F101, which gives the allowable limits for collapse,
buckling, and combination load. Second is DNV-RP-F109 for the on-bottom stability of
8
the SCR when it is lying on the seabed, and finally the API RP 1111 for hoop and burst
strength [8].
Basically, SCR analysis depends on environmental conditions, such as the current, waves,
and vessel motions, but there are some critical parts that must be focussed on. The first
critical part of the analysis is the hang-off section. At the hang-off section, the tension is
relatively high and causes the highest von-Misses stress [8]. If the tension is high, a vessel
with high tensioner capacity is needed. This consequence causes high operational cost;
therefore, in some projects, a buoyancy module is employed to reduce the tension at the
hang-off section.
The second critical part is the sagbend section near the touchdown [8]. In this section, the
compression and bending moment are relatively high, thus it is prone to buckling and
collapse as the failure mode. The condition is worse when the riser is empty and the
environment has high waves, high current, or hurricanes. To conquer the issue, a larger
vessel displacement is needed, and the SCR must be located close to the vessel’s centre
of gravity. The other solution that can be used is a higher material grade. Using a higher
material grade will not reduce the compression or the bending moment, but it will increase
the maximum allowable stress of the SCR. In addition, using thicker riser will not
necessarily reduce the tension and bending moment. Otherwise, it will increase the load
caused by the submerged weight, even though the stress will be reduced because of the
larger cross section.
2.2.2 Basic Catenary Analysis
Figure 2.3 - Catenary Free Body Diagram [10]

Figure 2.3 shows the free body diagram of the catenary. It is the basis for the basic
catenary equations that define the top tension (T) and the tension at the touchdown point
( ). Those parameters depend on the apparent weight (w), horizontal distance (x), total
9
catenary length (s), hang-off angle (θ) and vertical distance (y). The apparent weight is
the total catenary weight in the water which are followed by the equations 1, 2, 3, and 4 :
= + + , (1)
= .( − ). . , (2)
= . . . , (3)
= . . . . (4)
The total catenary length is measured from the top point to the touchdown point, whereas
the hang-off angle is the angle between the catenary’s slope and the horizontal line. Thus,
the basic catenary equation forms the shape of the catenary, which is affected by the
weight, as shown in equation 5,
. (5)
= cosh −1 .
From the above equation, the horizontal length of the catenary can be known; therefore,
the total length and the top tension can be obtained by using equations 6 and 7;
. (6)
= . sinh ,
. (7)
= . cosh .
In addition, the top tension can be described using the relationship between touchdown
tension and the hang-off angle, as shown in equation 8,
= . (8)
2.2.3 Global Analysis

In the installation operation, it is compulsory to ensure that the tension, stress, and strain
are under the allowable limit. Therefore, the analysis needs to be conducted. To perform
the analysis, the riser is modelled and simulated in a finite element installation software
package. The simulation will identify how the whole system responds to the
environmental conditions, such as the wind, waves, current, and vessel motion. Moreover,
the tension, stress, and strain are measured for the whole or a specific segment of the riser.
10
2.2.3.1 Top Tension

As mentioned before, the top tension can be determined by using the catenary equation.
It will govern the vessel capacity as in the tensioner in particular. The tensioner has the
grip to hold the riser during the operation.
2.2.3.2 Bending Moment
Figure 2.4 - Relation between Curvature and Bending Moment [11]

In real conditions, the catenary riser will be bent in its plastic range instead of the yield
range, as shown in Figure 2.4. When it is bent over its yield range, the catenary will be
controlled by the interaction between strain hardening and ovalisation. Then, when the
bending moment is reduced, the residual curvature will occur. It is important to keep the
bending moment under the buckling limit to avoid localised buckling and kink [11].
2.2.3.3 Strain
The sagbend section has the greatest bending shape among the other sections. This section
will have a higher strain value, which can lead to fracture failure. In the DNV-OS-F101,
it is mentioned that the strain limit is 0.4% due to the initial fracture [12].
2.2.3.4 Equivalent Stress

In the actual application, every load will not be obtained alone but will be combined;
hence, the equivalent stress is required. The equivalent can be calculated using the Von
Misses stress equation (equation 9),
(9)
= . − + − + − .
√
11
The Von Misses equation is the combination of the axial stresses as the tension, hoop
stress, which happen at the bending section, and radial stress. The equations are shown in
equations 10, 11, and 12, respectively.
( . . ) (10)
=− ,
(11)
=( − ). − ,
2
(12)
= + ( − ).
2
Finally, the maximum allowable limit is obtained by multiplying the equivalent stress by
the design case factor.
2.2.4 The Usage of Steel Catenary Risers in Deep-Water Environments

One of the SCR applications is in a deep water environment. Some experts believe that,
besides economic advantage, the SCR is a better solution in the technical aspects
compared to the flexibles [13]. Yet, for deep water, an SCR application needs more
advanced installation and design analysis, especially for the fields such as Gulf of Mexico,
where the water depths leads to the extreme load that are challenging the material limits.
The analysis must incorporate the riser sizing, material selection, installation method and
fatigue. In addition, the analysis has to follow codes as a recommended practice, including
API 2RD, DNV-OS-F101, and DNV-RP-F109. These standards have approximately 80%
of the yield strength for the design criteria and 100% for the abnormal condition that
needs to be satisfied in the analysis.
2.2.4.1 SCR Installation Method in a Deep-Water Environment
Figure 2.5 - S-Lay (Left) and J-Lay Installation Method (Right) [14]
12
The installation method that is usually used in deep-water applications is the laying
method. There are two types of laying methods, S-lay and J-lay, as shown in Figure 2.5.
The S-lay method is commonly used in mid-water depth areas such as the North Sea
which has around 300 m water depth [15]. It can install from 6 inch riser diameter up to
60 inch while the reeling method can have only up to 18 inch diameter with limited length
due to the carousel capacity [15]. For deeper-water riser installation, a steeper lay angle
of around 90 degrees is required to change the hang-off angle [16]. To achieve a steeper
lay angle, a higher tensioner capacity is needed. A high tensioner also keeps the curvature
of the riser from bending excessively [16]. The overbend section will experience a higher
strain; thus, it is important to have a displacement control check to ensure the riser
integrity. Moreover, the riser curvature is the main factor in deep-water installation;
hence, the stinger needs to be longer and follow the curvature needed. Otherwise, the riser
will bend excessively at the end of the stinger.
In deeper water, the elasticity of the catenary will have a significant effect caused by
waves and vessel movement [16]. Compared to the S-lay method, the J-lay method is
more suitable for deeper-water riser installation because of the elimination of the
overbend section. The J-lay method is also commonly used in the Gulf of Mexico area
[15].
Instead of having an extreme overbend section, the J-lay method uses a vertical tower that
has a one or a maximum of two welding stations; thus, the riser will have a 90-degree
departure angle. Limited welding stations are one of the reasons that this method has a
low lay rate in installation operations.
The operation begins with positioning the riser on the erector arm. After that, the erector
arm will bring the riser stalked up and move it to the tower using the elevator. The
following procedure is to weld the riser at the welding station to the previous riser;
subsequently, the elevator will operate the lay process to install the riser. The length of
the riser is limited to the stalk capacity [15]. The longer the riser is, the bigger the stalk
must be. On the other hand, a bigger stalk will affect the barge or vessel stability.
From structural integrity point of view, this method is better than the S-lay method
because it will have a bending moment only at the sagbend and there is no overbend
section. Hence, the tension at the riser will be reduced. In addition, the stinger will not be
13
needed, since the riser will enter the sea-water vertically. The vertical shape is also
beneficial for the touchdown of the riser since it will reach the seabed more precisely.
For the J-lay method, the most critical part is the touchdown point; it usually has the
highest bending moment and axial stress, and thus at that point it is necessary to do the
LCC check. The LCC check is a buckling analysis caused by the combination load, such
as external pressure, axial load, and bending moment. The hang-off sections also have
high tension, which determines the tensioner capacity. The tension of the hang-off section
depends on the riser size and the water depth. A bigger the riser or a deeper sea will
increase the tension on the hang-off section. Thus, it is important to review the best hang-
off angle for the riser during the operation. In addition, for the angle itself, it can be
arranged by setting up the tower inclination at the vessel.
Several big companies have already done some analysis of SCR installation operations in
deep water. First, McDermott analysed the Mars project in the Gulf of Mexico, which has
a water depth of almost 1000 m [13]. They used a Derrick Barge to do the riser
installation, and the analysis result showed that the J-lay method is feasible for this case
with fast cycle times because of the short water window and the vessel motion. To get
shorter cycle times, a multi-station vessel might be one of the solutions, for example the
Scarabeo vessel, owned by Saipem.
2.2.4.2 SCR Sizing due to The Collapse and Buckling

SCR buckling and collapse are categorised as a failure mode that often happens in the
field, especially when the vessel motion is acting actively. SCR buckling happens when
there is a compression load, which in this case is caused mostly from the vessel heave
motion and external pressure. By the time it reaches the critical load, the riser will start
to buckle and decrease in stiffness. Consequently, the riser will deform from straight to
bent. If the load keeps increasing when local buckling has already happened, propagation
buckling can be initiated. This means that the local buckle will spread along the riser.
Moreover, when the riser has material instability, it will cause collapse, which causes a
large deformation in the riser.
To prevent these failure modes, it is important to have sufficient wall thickness. Several
engineering standards mention the wall thickness requirement due to the riser buckling
and collapse. One of the standards is DNV-RP-F101. It gives the empirical method and
formula to calculate the critical pressure that later will be used in calculating the minimum
14
wall thickness required. These formulas also incorporate the effect of material properties,
bending, tension and the environmental load [17].
2.3 Airy and JONSWAP Waves

The dynamic analysis for SCR is basically done in regular and irregular waves. The
regular wave is the Airy type of wave, which has the same height and period, while the
irregular waves have as spectrum with different wave heights and periods. The result from
the regular wave is usually more conservative compare to the irregular wave analysis
because it takes the highest wave height in one year. Yet, in some cases, when the wave
period has the same value as the natural frequency, resonance might occur and make the
effect of the wave bigger at the system.
In the irregular wave, to get the fully developed sea, the wind must blow to achieve a
certain distance, called the fetch. The method that covers the fully developed sea is the
Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum, which takes data from the deep water in the North Atlantic
sea [18]. It has unlimited fetch, and there is no swell. In fact, not all sea conditions are a
fully developed sea, such as, the condition when the wave is limited by the distance from
the shore or a production facility.
Figure 2.6 - Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum and JONSWAP Spectrum Comparison [19]

Therefore, another method is applicable for limited fetch, called the JONSWAP spectrum.
The acronym stands for Joint North Sea Wave Project. Even though the data were taken
from North Sea waves, it is still applicable to use in other sea regions. Moreover,
JONSWAP is based on the peak frequency instead of the wind speed [20]. This spectrum
15
is built from the nonlinear wave interaction and from an empirical equation; an extra peak
enhancement factor is multiplied by the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum, equation as shown
in Figure 2.6 [18] [19].
2.4 Gulf of Mexico Fields

The Gulf of Mexico is one of the busiest locations for oil and gas projects in the world. It
is a part of the Atlantic Ocean that is surrounded by the United States of America, Mexico
and Cuba. It has a harsh environment, such as storms, high current, and waves. Moreover,
most of the oil and gas projects are in deep water that requires the latest technology.
This report will discuss two fields in the Gulf of Mexico that are taken as the case of SCR
installation, Stones and Jack St. Malo. Both projects are categorized as ultra-deep water
projects. They have a 2,914 m and 2,134 m water depth respectively [21] [2].
Furthermore, Figure 2.7 shows the location of the Stones and Jack St. Malo fields, these
projects are located in the same block, called the Walker Ridge area.
Figure 2.7- Location of Stones and Jack St. Malo [22]
2.4.1 Stones Field

The Stones project, owned by Shell, is located in the Walker Ridge area, 322 km south of
New Orleans, Louisiana. It was discovered in 2005, and in 2012, the project’s design was
approved and execution started. In 2016, the first oil was produced in this project [23].
The Stones project consists of two drill centres, DC-1 and DC-2. DC-1 has eight wells,
which are connected to the manifold and later connected to the FPSO through a riser.
Slightly different from DC-1, DC-2 has the daisy chain construction and it is connected
to the DC-1’s manifold [24].
16
Figure 2.8 - Steel Catenary Riser and Steel Lazy Waves Riser Comparison [25]
The Stones field uses a floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel as the
host facility. This host facility is equipped with turret moored with a disconnectable buoy
that can be released and moved. The purpose of the disconnectable buoy is to avoid
hurricane events in particular areas [21]. For the risers, the Stones project uses 8 inch wet
insulated steel lazy wave risers (SLWR) that connect to the eight production manifolds
[21]. The difference between SCR and SLWR is that SLWR has buoyancy between the
sagbend section and the touchdown point, as shown in Figure 2.8 - Steel Catenary Riser
and Steel Lazy Waves Riser Comparison. The buoyancy can reduce the effect of the
FPSO motion and increase the fatigue life of the riser. From the economic point of view,
SLWR is more costly compare to the SCR, and it increases the complexity of the
installation.
The metocean condition is accounted as the extreme cases, therefore it is important set
the installation schedule correctly in time. According to the metocean data, high waves
happen in August, September, and October, which have 47.5 meter waves as the highest.
In contrast, the lowest waves happen around April, May, and June with 1.44 meters as
the lowest height [26]. Thus, it is recommended to do the installation during these months.
The highest current is from north-east and east directions at the depth around 47 m from
the sea surface. It is around 1.7 knots or 0.874 m/s [26].
This project is one of the most challenging projects in the Gulf of Mexico. First, it has the
deepest depth among the projects in this area. Second, it has an extreme metocean
condition. To face these challenges, significant riser design and installation are needed.
2.4.2 Jack St. Malo Field

Jack St. Malo is the largest field in the Gulf of Mexico, located around approximately 450
km southwest of New Orleans, Louisiana [2]. It is a joint project consisting of the Jack
project and St. Malo project which are separated by 40 km [27]. Both projects are in the
Walker Ridge block, specifically blocks 758 and 759 for Jack Project and 678 for the St.
17
Malo project. These projects are accounted as deep-water project with around a 2,134 m
water depth.
Chevron has the biggest ownership share of Jack and St. Malo. In the Jack project,
Chevron owns 50%, while Maersk and Statoil own 25% each. Similarly, in the St. Malo
project, Chevron owns 51%, and the rest of the project is owned by Petrobras (25%),
Statoil (21.5%), ExxonMobil (1.25%), and ENI (1.25%) [27].
The first field discovered was St. Malo. It was found in October 2003, followed by Jack
in July 2004. In October 2010, the FEED of both projects was approved and fabrication
started. In March 2014, the production facility’s hull was moored and the topside
installed. Finally, in December 2014, Jack St. Malo had its first oil production [2]. [27]
There are two phases in Jack St. Malo. The first phase is four production wells at Jack,
and five at St. Malo which in 2016 produced 75,000 barrels of oil. The second phase’s
FEED was finished in October 2015. This phase has four additional wells, two in the Jack
field and two in the St. Malo field. The first oil for the second phase is expected in 2017
[2].
Instead of using FPSO, Jack St. Malo uses a floating semi-submersible with a 33,000 ton
topside as the host facility. It is tied back to the facility on the seabed [27]. As the
production line, SCR is used in the project. To minimize the effect of the wave and
current, the SCR is equipped with a buoyancy module. The SCR was fabricated at the
Technip Spoolbase in Theodore, Alabama [2]. For a deep-water project, the usage of SCR
needs to be analysed properly, because the external pressure will have a significant effect
on the structure itself. In the installing operation, specific equipment such as a big, stable
vessel is often needed. For this project, they used a brand new Saipem’s vessel which at
that time was the biggest installation vessel [2].
Compared with the Stones project, Jack St.Malo has a lower wave height throught-out
the year. The yearly wave height is around 3.44 meters, and the current speed is slightly
higher, around 1.38 m/s as the highest [28].
18
CHAPTER THREE
DESIGN CONCEPT & METHODOLOGY
3.1 Basic Design

To maintain operations from design until abandonment, it is necessary to follow
internationally acceptable standards. The objective of the standards is also to maintain
public safety and environmental protection. In this report, the design analysis is
developed using the DNV-OS-F101 standard, which based on the limit state design. This
standard covers the design, construction, and operation of submarine pipeline systems,
including risers. Specifically, for installation, the methods that are included in this
standard such as the J-lay, S-lay, and towing methods. Moreover, the standard gives
guidance for the designer, purchaser, and contractor, such as the minimum requirement
for the concept of the design.
3.2 Load Criteria

All loads that affect the riser must be taken into account. The loads in submarine pipeline
system are categorised as the functional load, environmental load, interference load, and
accidental load. In a particular operation like installation, only functional and
environmental loads are applied [12].
3.2.1 Functional Load

The functional load is load caused by the physical existence of the riser. The loads are in
the form of weight, internal pressure, reaction from the vessel, and external pressure. To
be specific, all the weight in the system needs to be included, such as the riser weight,
buoyancy, internal fluid, content, and anodes. Furthermore, for deep-water applications,
external pressure will greatly affect the system because of the water depth. The value of
the external pressure follows equation 13,
= . . . (13)
3.2.2 Environmental Load

The environmental load is the load at the riser caused by the surrounding environment,
such as the wind load and hydrodynamic load. The wind load can generate cyclic load on
the structure, and these cyclic loads cause vibration and instability, which later affect the
fatigue load. Moreover, the hydrodynamic load consists of the wave, current, and vessel
motion. It is also important to consider the variation of the current at different depths and
19
the wave height variation every month. Especially for the installation, the project schedule
needs to take into account the suitable month because of the wave and current conditions.
Finally, the environmental load will affect the total dynamic load in the system.
3.2.3 Interference Load and Accidental Load

Interference load is a load from third-party activity, such as trawl interference, anchoring,
and dropped objects. In addition, in extreme conditions, hooking may happen, and if it
happens with a frequency of less than 0.01 a year, it is considered interference load;
otherwise, it is considered accidental load. The accidental load itself is a load under an
unplanned condition.
3.3 Design Load Effect

Functional, environmental, interference, and accidental loads are combined into a design
load effect, as expressed in equation 14:
= . . + . + . . + . . . (14)
, , and stand for the functional, environmental, interference, and accidental

load effect factors, respectively. The limit state mode in the installation method is ULS
(Ultimate Limit State). In addition, the analysis is done on a series system failures or
system effect to analyse the riser at its weakest point; therefore, the extreme load and the
lowest resistance at the system needs to be taken. According to DNV-OS-F101 with the
ULS and system effect method, the values for the load effect factors are 1.2 for and
0.7 for , while the interference and accidental load are zero. For the condition load
effect factor ( ), it is assumed that the riser will be resting on the uneven seabed; hence,
the condition load effect factor equals 0.82 [12]. Because of all the load effect factors, the
equations for combined moment, strain, and tension become equation 15, 16, and 17 :
= . . + . , (15)
 = . . + . , (16)
= . . + . . (17)
20
3.4 Design Format

The design analysis is also based on the load and resistance factor (LRFD) which means
that the design load effect needs to be less than the design resistance. The design
resistance itself depends on the roundness of the riser, resistance factor, riser thickness,
and material strength.
3.4.1 Roundness of the Riser

The roundness of the riser or ovality is the ratio between the maximum minimum diameter
difference and the actual diameter, as shown in equation 18,
− (18)
= .
Ovality values vary depending on the fabrication process. The normal range is from 0-
0.6%, but based on the DNV-OS-F101, it is not allowed to taking account or advantage
in the calculation with the ovality less than 0.5% [29] [12]. In this report, the value is
taken from the SCR reeling and J-lay installation in Roncador field as the conservative
value, which is around 0.9% due to the residual stress [29]. In addition, if the ovality ratio
exceeds 3%, it is considered as an unstable factor and needs additional analysis.
3.4.2 Resistance Factor

The resistance factor consists of the material resistance factor and safety class factor. The
material resistance factor is taken as 1.15 since the ultimate limit state is used. In this
operation, the safety class is low; therefore, the safety class resistance factor is 1.046. The
reason is that is considered as a temporary operation and there is no human activity along
the riser route. In addition, there is no major risk to human safety, politics, or the
environment.
3.4.3 Material Strength Properties

Material characteristics depends on the yield and tensile strength, which are based on the
material stress-strain curve. Every material grade has different yield and tensile strength.
The material grades used in this report are classified as high-strength and ultra-high
strength materials, such as X-80, X-90, X-100, and X-120. According to the API-5 L [30],
the yield and tensile strength for all grades are listed in Table 3.1.
21
Table 3.1- Material Tensile and Yield Strength
SMYS SMTS
API Grade
MPa ksi MPa ksi
X-80 555 70300 625 90600
X-90 625 80500 695 100800
X-100 690 90600 760 110200
X-120 830 100100 915 312700
In the calculation the value used are and values, which follow the equations below,
= − , . , (19)
= − , . . (20)
, and , are temperature derating values for yield and ultimate stress which is
determined by the operation temperature if the operation temperature for C-Mn steel and
13Cr is above 50 degrees Celcius. In this operation, the highest temperature is 11.15
degrees Celsius, so these factors equal zero. Furthermore, since the installation is
considered a normal case, equals 0.96.
Every fabrication method will have a different effect on the material strength. If the
manufacturer does not mention the factor, the value from a standard will be used. Some
fabrication methods and factors are mentioned in the DNV-OS-F101, such as seamless,
UOE, and ERW. Seamless welded is typically used only for smaller tubular structure up
to 16 inch [31]. This structure is formed as a round billet by continuous casting. After
that, the billets go through the Mannesmann process. The other processes are categorised
as the seam welded method. First, the UOE method is done by pressing the steel plate
into U-shape, then to the O-shape, and then welded. Finally, to minimise the ovality, the
structure expanded circumferentially [32] . This method is used typically in bigger riser,
which is 16-64 inches. The ERW method is the most efficient because there are fewer
steps in the process [31]. ERW starts by forming the steel plate into a closed circular
shape and then seam welding the connection using the heat induction process. This
method can be used for the riser with a diameter range from 2.375 to 24 inches [31]. In
this report, the fabrication factors used are 1 as the seamless method and 0.93 as the ERW
method.
22
3.5 Wall Thickness Design

Wall thickness plays a big role in the riser design; it affects the riser structural integrity.
The riser is installed in ultra-deep water without any containment, so the external pressure
will be significantly high. The high external pressure without sufficient riser thickness
will cause collapse and propagation buckling in the riser. Hence, there are several
equations that need to be fulfilled to avoid collapse and local buckling.
3.5.1 Local Buckling

To avoid local buckling, the resistance from external pressure ( ) needs to be bigger than
the external pressure, as it is in equation 21. If the collapse pressure is lower than the
external pressure, a thicker wall is necessary.
( ) (21)
− ≤
.
From equation 21, equals zero since the riser is lying on the seabed empty. The
collapse pressure can be found from equation 22,
(22)
( )− ( ) . ( ) − ( ) = ( ). ( ). ( ). . ,
where :
. . (23)
( )= ,
2. (24)
( )= . . ,
= − , (25)
=− ( ), (26)
(27)
=− ( ) + ( ). ( ). . ,
= ( ). ( ) , (28)
1 1 (29)
= − + ,
3 3
1 2 1 (30)
= − + ,
2 27 3
23
= cos , (31)
√
60 (32)
= −2√− . cos + .
3 180
3.5.2 Propagation buckling

Propagation buckling will occur if local buckling occurred initially. However, it is still
necessary to the wall thickness to satisfy equation 33,
− ≤ , (33)
.
where,
. (34)
= 35. . . ,
15 < < 45. (35)
However, besides using thicker wall thickness, the propagation buckling can be avoided
by using the buckling arrestor.
3.5.3 Vertical stability

In this case, the riser will lie on the seabed without any additional structure such as a
mattress or rock dumping to keep it in place. It also lies in an unburied condition and
without the influence of thermal expansion, so only the riser weight keeps the structure
from floating. According to DNV-RP-F109 regarding on-bottom stability [33], the riser
submerge weight has to be bigger than the buoyancy weight and satisfy equations 36 and
37.
. ≤ 1.00, (36)
= . . . . (37)
In the equation, is the safety factor, which per the recommended practice equals 1.1 if
there is no specific information from the project.
3.6 Riser Installation Design Criteria

During the installation, the waves, currents, and vessel motion will give significant load
to the riser; therefore, there are limitation criteria for the particular dynamic analysis. For
J-lay method installation, the load controlled condition (LCC) is used. The sagbend area
24
is the most critical part of the J-lay method because of the high bending moment, so the
LCC check will be done in this specific area.
LCC incorporates the bending moment and axial stress during the dynamic analysis. The
external pressure is also accounted for. These values are compared to the material strength
depending on the material grade used as the riser material. The LCC check creation needs
to fulfil equation 38 for safe operation,
| | . . −
. . + + . . ≤ 1.
. ( ) . ( ) ( ) (38)
where,
( )= . . ( − ). , (39)
( )= . .( − ) . , (40)
= (1 − ) + . , (41)
1− <
= ,
1−3 1− ≥ (42)
(43)
= .
25
3.7 Design Methodology
Figure 3.1 - Flowchart Analysis
26
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION
The analysis in this report used Orcaflex version 10.0 to simulate the behaviour of the
riser in the installation process, including the static and dynamic analysis. Orcaflex is
software for marine systems that has been used in many offshore engineering business.
The static analysis result shows the equilibrium condition of the system, which is the
starting point for the dynamic analysis. Furthermore, from the dynamic analysis, the
values for top tension, bending moment, and strain during the installation can be
determined. These values later will be the input for the limitation criteria equation to
determine the feasibility of the riser installation.
4.1 Input
To model the riser installation system, several inputs need to be added to the software.
The inputs include the SCR properties, environmental or metocean data for the Stones
and Jack St. Malo projects, and the vessel motion data.
4.1.1 SCR Data

Table 4.1 shows the SCR data as the input for Orcaflex
Table 4.1 - Material Properties
Parameter Value Units

Nominal Diameter 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 inch
Material Density 7.85
Young's Modulus 212,000 MPa
Poisson Ratio 0.3
Material Carbon Steel (CS)
Manufacturing Type ERW and Seamless
Material Grade SMYS SMTS Units
X80 555 625 MPa
X90 625 695 MPa
X100 695 760 MPa
X120 830 915 MPa
27
4.1.2 Environment Data

The analysis is done in two fields in the Gulf of Mexico, Stones and Jack St.Malo. The
Stones project is located quite close to Jack St. Malo and both of them are in the Walter
Ridge area. The difference between the projects is that the Stones project has more
extreme environment data such as deeper water depth and higher average one-year wave
compares to the Jack St. Malo’s.
4.1.2.1 Water Depth

The simulations are done only in the deepest water depth for each field. According to
Stones and Jack St. Malo metocean data [27] [26], the deepest water depth is 2,914 m for
Stones and 2,134 m for Jack St. Malo.
4.1.2.2 Seawater Properties

Since the locations for both fields are in the Walker Ridge area, the seawater properties
are relatively the same. The seawater density depends on the water depth but on average
is 1033.4 kg/ . The kinematic viscosity and average temperature are 1.35x10 /
and 11.15 degrees Celcius, respectively.
4.1.2.3 Waves
Because of the water depth, the wave type is Airy for the regular waves and JONSWAP
for the irregular waves. The wave input is the maximum wave height from each direction,
measured from the individual trough to crest height. Additionally, some metocean data
give the significant wave height instead of the maximum wave height. In this case,
according to DNV-RP-H103, the significant wave height needs to be multiplied by 1.89
as a factor that depends on the peak shape parameter in the JONSWAP spectrum [34].
Table 4.2 shows the data on wave height and period from the Stones field. The data are
from one specific month that has the lowest wave height among other months. May, as
the month with the lowest wave height, will be the recommended month for installing the
riser. In contrast, the wave data for Jack St. Malo are shown in Table 4.3. The data are
taken from the average one-year wave height since the waves are relatively calm
throughout the year.
28
Table 4.2 - Wave Data [26]
Stones
May
Direction to Wave Name
Parameter
Hs (m) Hmax (m) Tp(s)
North (N) Wave-N 2.29 4.32 8
North East (NE) Wave-NE 2.29 4.32 8
East ( E) Wave-E 2.29 4.32 8
South East (SE) Wave-SE 3.81 7.2 9
South (S) Wave-SE 3.81 7.2 9
South West (SW) Wave-SW 0.76 1.44 6
West (W) Wave-W 0.76 1.44 6
North West (NW) Wave-NW 2.29 4.32 8
Table 4.3 - Jack St. Malo Wave Data [28]
Jack St. Malo

1 Year
Direction to Wave Name
Parameter
Hs (m) Hmax (m) Tp(s)
All Directions Wave 3.44 6.51 9
4.1.2.4 Currents
For the installation study, the one-year return period current is suitable for the analysis.
However, the velocity still should represent the vertical profile of the extreme velocity,
since as the sea gets deeper the velocity will get lower. The current data for Stones and
Jack St. Malo are shown in the Table 4.4 and Table 4.5, respectively.
29
Table 4.4 - Stones Current Data [26]
Current Speed (m/s)

Current Name
Depth = 47 m Depth = 2914 m
North (N) 0.77 0.08
North East (NE) 0.87 0.28
East ( E) 0.87 0.23
South East (SE) 0.57 0.18
South (S) 0.57 0.18
South West (SW) 0.46 0.49
West (W) 0.46 0.33
North West (NW) 0.67 0.18
Table 4.5 - Jack St. Malo Current Data [28]
Current Current Speed (m/s)

Name Depth = 0 m Depth = 49.99 m Depth = 74.98 m Depth = 199.95 m
Current-1 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.14

Current-2 0.51 0.51 0.47 0.27
Current-3 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.39
Current-4 1.03 1.03 0.92 0.48
Current-5 1.29 1.27 1.13 0.59
Depth = 299.92 m Depth = 600.15 m Depth = 700.12 m Depth = 2133.6 m
Current-1 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.10
Current-2 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10
Current-3 0.27 0.13 0.10 0.10
Current-4 0.34 0.16 0.10 0.10
Current-5 0.41 0.19 0.10 0.10
4.1.2.5 Seabed Condition

The seabed detail profile is neglected and assumed to be flat with stiffness equals to 100
kN/
4.1.3 Vessel Motion Data

To install a structure in a deep-water environment, a vessel with good stability is needed.
A big vessel usually has better stability through high waves and current rather than a
smaller vessel; therefore, in this analysis, the Pathfinder vessel is used. Instead of an
30
installation vessel, Pathfinder is a big drillship vessel owned by Transocean, Houston.

Although it is a drillship vessel, because of its size, vessel motion, and maximum working
depth, the RAO data still can be used in this analysis. Pathfinder has a 221.6 m length,
42.06 m wide, and 20.12 m depth with a 13.1 m draft when it operates and a 20.12 m draft
when it transits. It can accommodate 140 people on board and has a 3,048 m working
depth that is suitable for ultra-deep water project [35]. In addition, a Kongsberg Simrad
SDP 12 class 3 dynamic positioning system is already attached to the vessel, which is
convenient for the installation process.
4.2 Orcaflex Modelling

Modelling in Orcaflex is started by entering all the inputs and defining all the connections
between the objects. Besides the environment and vessel inputs, objects such as the riser
and tower also need to be described. They can be defined as the lines, buoy, winch, link,
and shape. Particularly in this model, only the lines and winch are used to model the
objects.
4.2.1 Coordinate System
Figure 4.1 - Orcaflex Coordinate System [36]

Orcaflex uses a right-handed coordinate system and a clockwise positive rotation. There
are two basic coordinate systems, global and local. The global coordinate system has G
as the global axes origin and GX, GY, and GZ as the axes, as shown in Figure 4.1. To
distinguish between the global and local axes, the local axes use lower cases in defining
the coordinates, while the global axes are using the upper cases.
31
Figure 4.2 - Orcaflex Vessel Rotation [37]

For the vessel rotation, it uses the right-handed rule for yaw, pitch, and roll, as presented
in Figure 4.2. This orientation needs to be matched with the origin of the RAO vessel data
before using them as input.
Figure 4.3 - Direction and Heading [38]

Figure 4.3 shows that the wind, current, and wave directions are based on the GX and GY
from the global axes. In addition, this directions show the direction in which the wind,
current, and wave are heading.
4.2.2 J-lay Modelling

For deep water, the preferred installation method is J-lay. The J-lay method is modelled
without a stinger, otherwise it is using a tower with the tensioner to lay the riser vertically.
Basically, there are four objects in this model, the vessel, winch, tower and riser. First,
the vessel is modelled as the Pathfinder drilling vessel with the RAO and dimension as
the inputs. Second, the winch provides the constant tensions on the riser. It is modelled
as a simple winch assuming that the moment inertia is neglected and with a perfect winch
32
drive. Moreover, the winch has a 10 m specified length and 100,000 kN stiffness of the
winch wire. Third, the tower and the riser are modelled as line in flexible linear elements
with steel material properties. The difference between the tower and the riser besides the
geometry is the line type and the connection for each line end point. The tower is modelled
as the general line type; both line points are connected to the vessel. Furthermore, the
riser is modelled as a homogeneous pipe such that one end of the line is anchored to the
seabed and the other end is connected to the winch but still free moving.
The contact between the riser and the tower assumes that the riser is located inside the
tower and the tower acts as a tensioner that holds the riser. In addition, the riser hang-off
angle depends on the tower inclination, which needs to be configured. The overall model
can be seen in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4 - J-Lay Orcaflex Model

The riser, as the main object of the analysis, is divided into segments. A segment is a
straight massless element of the object that determines the finite element analysis. The
more and smaller segments in the analysis, the more precise the results of the analysis.
Therefore, a critical part such as a sagbend section will have more segments, whereas the
suspended section will have fewer, as shown in Table 4.6.
33
Table 4.6 - Riser's Number of Segment
Stones Jack St. Malo

Target Segment Number of Target Segment Number of
(m) Segment (m) Segment
Upper Section 2 12 2 12
Upper Section 2 45 2 45
Suspended Section 7.5 53 7.5 40
Suspended Section 10 20 10 20
Sagbend Section 1 150 1 150
Seabed Section 10 42 2 212
4.3 Orcaflex Simulation

After all the inputs are placed and the model is finalised, the next step is defining the load
case and then the analysis. The analysis itself is divided into two stages, static and
dynamic analysis.
4.3.1 Loadcase
Figure 4.5 - Wave-Current Direction According to the Vessel

The analysis assumes that the current and waves will come from the same direction. They
will hit the vessel from port beam, port bow, bow, starboard bow, and starboard direction,
as shown in Figure 4.5. For the Stones project, since there are specific waves and currents
for each cardinal direction, their combinations are taken when the waves and currents
come from the same direction. Therefore, for the Stones project, they are 24 load cases
for each diameter. In contrast, for Jack St. Malo, the same wave height is assumed to
come from the same direction, so there are 15 load cases for each diameter. The details
for all the load cases are in Appendix-A. In addition, an irregular wave analysis is done
for some cases that have close to one as the LCC value.
34
4.3.2 Static Analysis

The purpose of the static analysis is to get the equilibrium configuration for the system of
the vessel, riser, winch, and tower. The static analysis starts with the initial position of
the vessel and the anchored end riser. After that, the software calculates the rest of the
objects with the iteration until the system is balance. With this analysis, the functional
load of the riser can be determined, which is later used in the post-processing.
4.3.3 Dynamic Analysis

The dynamic analysis is a non-linear analysis that calculates the effect of the wind, waves,
and current in the system. In this model, the time domain analysis is used, and it will give
the time history output. The analysis starts with the result from the static analysis as the
initial configuration. After that, it goes to the build-up stage, when the environmental data
and vessel motion ramped up to their value. This stage takes around one wave period and
a transition stage between the static and the dynamic analysis.
Figure 4.6 - Dynamic Analysis in Orcaflex [39]

As shown in Figure 4.6, the main stages have combined the time origin of the wave train
and the wind with respect to the global time; therefore, the results will be reported based
on the global time. Moreover, the simulation time is according to the wave period,
approximately six times the wave period. The wave itself is analysed using Morrison
wave theory, which calculates the wave loads on a fixed cylinder [40]. Finally, the results
from the dynamic analysis are the environmental loads, which will be the input for the
post-processing.
35
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Wall Thickness Design

The minimum wall thickness for each material grade and field are calculated due to the
local buckling and the vertical stability. Propagation buckling is excluded in this
calculation because this failure mode happens only when local buckling occurs. Aside
from having thicker walls, using buckling arrestor can overcome propagation buckling.
STONES
M I N I M U M WA L L T H I C K N E S S
18.27 mm
16 inch 18.71 mm
19.09 mm
19.77 mm
15.99 mm
14 inch 16.37 mm
16.70 mm
17.30 mm
14.56 mm
12 inch 14.91 mm
15.21 mm
15.76 mm X120
12.27 mm
12.57 mm X100
10 inch 12.82 mm
13.28 mm
X90
9.85 mm
8 inch 10.09 mm
10.29 mm
10.66 mm X80
Figure 5.1 - Minimum Wall Thickness in Stones
J A C K S T. M A L O
M I N I M U M WA L L T H I C K N E S S
16.31 mm
16 inch 16.57 mm
16.76 mm
17.09 mm
14.27 mm
14 inch 14.49 mm
14.67 mm
14.96 mm
13.00 mm
12 inch 13.20 mm
13.36 mm
13.62 mm
X120
10.96 mm
11.13 mm X100
10 inch 11.26 mm
11.48 mm
8.79 mm
X90
8 inch 8.93 mm
9.04 mm
9.21 mm X80
Figure 5.2 - Minimum Wall Thickness in Jack St. Malo

As shown in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2, the Stones field requires thicker SCR compares
to the Jack St. Malo field for the same diameter and grade. The reason is that the Stones
field has deeper water, so the higher pressure will occur to the SCR. Furthermore, higher
material grades requires less wall thickness, which means that fewer materials is needed.
In the actual project, further analysis is needed to determine whether is its more
economical to use a higher grade with fewer materials or lower grade with more materials.
36
This condition will have a big effect on the cost, especially when a very long SCR is
required.
Vertical Stability for The Minimum Wall Thickness

1.1
Vertical Stability
1
0.9 Jack St. Malo
0.8 Stones
0.7
8 inch 10 inch 12 inch 14 inch 16 inch Allowable Limit
Diameter
Figure 5.3 - Wall Thickness Vertical Stability

The results in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 confirm that all the SCRs have sufficient wall
thickness for the vertical stability, as shown in Figure 5.3. The vertical stability ratio for
Jack St. Malo and Stones are on average 0.84 and 0.94, respectively. These values are
still below the maximum allowable limit based on DNV-RP-F109 [33].
The maximum allowed wall thickness depends on the diameter and thickness ratio for the
LCC check, which is 15 ≤ ≤ 45 [12]. Therefore, the maximum wall thickness
equals the diameter divided by 15, as shown in Figure 5.4
M A X I M U M WA L L T H I C K N E S S
16 inch 27.09 mm
14 inch 23.71 mm
12 inch 21.59 mm
10 inch 18.20 mm
8 inch 14.61 mm
Figure 5.4 - Maximum Wall Thickness

The maximum allowed wall thickness has higher values compared to the required
minimum wall thickness. This means that the maximum allowed wall thickness is better
resistant to local buckling and has more vertical stability. These factors are very important
in the installation process, especially for ultra-deep water and high wave and current
conditions. Thus, in the feasibility analysis, the maximum allowed wall thickness is used.
37
5.2 Feasibility Analysis

The J-lay method is used in this analysis. In the Orcaflex simulation, the SCR will be laid
starting from the tower, which has a two-degree inclination, and continue to enter the
water without a stinger until it touches the seabed. The outputs from the simulation are
the top tension, bending moment, and strain in the static and dynamic analyses, which
will be the input of the post-processing analysis regarding the LCC check.
The post-processing analysis begins with the regular wave analysis results, which are
more conservative compared to the irregular wave analysis. It uses the ERW fabrication
method and 0.015 for the ovality for all the material grades and cases. After that, if in one
particular grade there are some cases that have more than one for the stress utilisation,
those cases will be analysed in irregular waves and with the ERW fabrication method and
0.015 ovality. Finally, if the results from the irregular wave analysis still exceed the
maximum stress utilisation allowed, the fabrication method will be changed to the
seamless and take 0.01 as the ovality. A material grade is taken as feasible when it has
less than one as the stress utilisation.
5.2.1 Stones Field

The metocean data of the Stones field is taken from one particular month, which is May
since it has the lowest waves among the other months. According to Figure 5.5, the top
tension increases with the SCR diameter. The highest top tension required is 4,972 kN,
while the vessel’s tensioner capacity is 11,383 kN; therefore, the Pathfinder vessel is
capable of performing this operation.
SCR Top Tension in Stones

4,972 kN
5000
4000 3,731 kN 8 inch

TOP TENSION
3,099 kN
3000 10 inch
2,216 kN
12 inch
2000
1,077 kN 14 inch
1000
16 inch
0
MATERIAL GRADE
Figure 5.5 - SCR Top Tension in Stones
38
Figure 5.6 shows the maximum bending strain in the SCR. Based on DNV-OS-F101, the
strain has to be less than 0.4. In the Stones field, the highest strain is 0.31, which occurs
at the sagbend section. Hence, the strains in the Stones field in all cases are below the
limit.
SCR Strain in Stones

0.45
0.4
0.35 8 inch
STRAIN
0.3 10 inch
0.25
12 inch
0.2
0.15 14 inch
0.1 16 inch
CASE10
CASE11
CASE12
CASE13
CASE14
CASE15
CASE16
CASE17
CASE18
CASE19
CASE20
CASE21
CASE22
CASE23
CASE24
CASE1
CASE2
CASE3
CASE4
CASE5
CASE6
CASE7
CASE8
CASE9
Allowable Limit
CASE
Figure 5.6 - SCR Strain in Stones

5.2.1.1 8 Inch SCR Stress Utilisation
Figure 5.7 shows the stress utilisation using the LCC check for the 8 inch SCR size in the
regular wave analysis. The only material grade that in some cases passes the allowable
limit is X-120, while the lower grades have a stress utilisation above one. From this result,
case 9, case 11, and case 12 for X-120 are slightly above 1. They have a stress utilisation
equal to 1.02, 1.09, and 1.02, so these cases are analysed using the irregular waves.
8 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation in Stones

STRESS UTILISATION
2.5
2
X80
1.5
X90
1 X100
0.5 X120
CASE10
CASE11
CASE12
CASE13
CASE14
CASE15
CASE16
CASE17
CASE18
CASE19
CASE20
CASE21
CASE22
CASE23
CASE24
CASE1
CASE2
CASE3
CASE4
CASE5
CASE6
CASE7
CASE8
CASE9
Allowable Limit
CASE
Figure 5.7- 8 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis in Stones

From the irregular wave analysis result in Figure 5.8, there is one case with a stress
utilisation above one, case 9. This case is the combination of waves from the south and
39
current to the west based on Appendix A. These currents and waves hit the port or
starboard side of the vessel. In addition, Figure 5.9 shows that, even using the seamless
fabrication method and better ovality, the result is still above the allowable limit. Thus,
an 8 inch SCR with the X-120 material grade is only feasible in the Stones field if the
vessel can control the heading to prevent the waves from hitting the port or the starboard
side of the vessel.
8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation in Stones

2.5
STRESS UTILISATION
2
X80
1.5 X90
1 X100
X120
0.5 Allowable Limit
CASE10
CASE11
CASE12
CASE13
CASE14
CASE15
CASE16
CASE17
CASE18
CASE19
CASE20
CASE21
CASE22
CASE23
CASE24
CASE1
CASE2
CASE3
CASE4
CASE5
CASE6
CASE7
CASE8
CASE9
CASE
Figure 5.8 - 8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis in Stones
8 inch SCR X-120 Post Processing Results

Irregular Wave Analysis in Stones Field
STRESS UTILISATION
1.10 1.08
1.00 1.03
0.96 0.95 ERW, 0.015 Ovality
0.90 0.91 0.90
Seamless, 0.01 Ovality
0.80
CASE 9 CASE 11 CASE 12 Allowable Limit
CASE
Figure 5.9 - 8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Post Processing Result in Stones
It can be seen from Figure 5.10, that the regular wave analysis for the 10 inch SCR has
only some of the cases using X-120 material grade with a stress utilisation below one.
Moreover, the lower grades of this diameter are clearly not feasible in this field. The cases
that do not pass for the X-120 material grade are analysed using the irregular waves,
which are cases 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16, with stress utilisation values of 1.03, 1.03,
1.09, 1.05, 1.17, and 1.09, respectively
40
10 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation in Stones

STRESS UTILISATION 2.5
2
X80
1.5 X90
1 X100
X120
0.5
CASE10
CASE11
CASE12
CASE13
CASE14
CASE15
CASE16
CASE17
CASE18
CASE19
CASE20
CASE21
CASE22
CASE23
CASE24
CASE1
CASE2
CASE3
CASE4
CASE5
CASE6
CASE7
CASE8
CASE9
Allowable Limit
CASE
Figure 5.10 - 10 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis in Stones

Furthermore, the results of these cases in an irregular wave analysis are shown in Figure
5.11. It can be seen that even though the irregular wave analysis is done in these particular
cases, the stress utilisations are still above the allowable limit. For the post-processing
analysis, the ERW and seamless methods that do not give acceptable results or still have
a stress utilisation above one are shown in Figure 5.12. There is no specific wave direction
in which all the cases pass the criteria. Hence, a 10 inch SCR in the Stones field is not
feasible for the installation operation.

2.5
STRESS UTILISATION
2
X80
1.5 X90
1 X100
X120
0.5
Allowable Limit
CASE10
CASE11
CASE12
CASE13
CASE14
CASE15
CASE16
CASE17
CASE18
CASE19
CASE20
CASE21
CASE22
CASE23
CASE24
CASE1
CASE2
CASE3
CASE4
CASE5
CASE6
CASE7
CASE8
CASE9
CASE
Figure 5.11 - 10 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis in Stones
41

Irregular Wave Analysis in Stones Field
1.30
STESS UTILISATION
1.20 1.18 1.19

1.13 1.13 1.15 1.15
1.10 1.10 1.08 1.08 1.10
1.06 1.07 ERW, 0.015 Ovality
1.00 1.03 1.03
Seamless, 0.01 Ovality
0.90
0.80 Allowable Limit
CASE 7 CASE 8 CASE 9 CASE 10 CASE 11 CASE 12 CASE 16
CASE
Figure 5.12 - 10 inch SCR Irregular Wave Post Processing Result in Stones
5.2.1.3 12 Inch, 14 Inch, and 16 Inch Stress Utilisation
Since a 10 inch SCR is not feasible in the Stones field, higher diameters will also not be
feasible in this field. The 12 inch, 14 inch, and 16 inch SCR regular wave analysis results
are shown in Figure 5.13, Figure 5.14, and Figure 5.15, respectively. In addition, none of
the cases for these diameters has a stress utilisation less than one, even in the highest
material grade and using seamless fabrication. As an option for this specific
environmental condition and water depth, using flexibles or adding a buoyancy module
to decrease the stress can be used if the project requires a bigger SCR.

4
STRESS UTILISATION
3.5
3
2.5 X80
2 X90
1.5 X100
1
X120
0.5
CASE10
CASE11
CASE12
CASE13
CASE14
CASE15
CASE16
CASE17
CASE18
CASE19
CASE20
CASE21
CASE22
CASE23
CASE24
CASE1
CASE2
CASE3
CASE4
CASE5
CASE6
CASE7
CASE8
CASE9
Allowable Limit
CASE
42

STRESS UTILISATION 3.5
3
2.5 X80
2
X90
1.5
X100
1
0.5 X120
CASE10
CASE11
CASE12
CASE13
CASE14
CASE15
CASE16
CASE17
CASE18
CASE19
CASE20
CASE21
CASE22
CASE23
CASE24
CASE1
CASE2
CASE3
CASE4
CASE5
CASE6
CASE7
CASE8
CASE9
Allowable Limit
CASE

3.5
STRESS UTILISATION
3
2.5 X80
2
X90
1.5
X100
1
0.5 X120
CASE10
CASE11
CASE12
CASE13
CASE14
CASE15
CASE16
CASE17
CASE18
CASE19
CASE20
CASE21
CASE22
CASE23
CASE24
CASE1
CASE2
CASE3
CASE4
CASE5
CASE6
CASE7
CASE8
CASE9
Allowable Limit
CASE
5.2.2 Jack St. Malo Field

The Jack St. Malo field has shallower water depth compared to the Stones field, so the
required top tension will also be lower, as shown in Figure 5.16. The maximum tension
is for the 16 inch SCR, 3,521 kN while the tensioner capacity is 11,383 kN. Hence, the
Pathfinder vessel is capable of performing this operation in the Jack St. Malo field.
43
SCR Top Tension in Jack St. Malo

4000 3,521 kN
3000 2,685 kN 8 inch

TOP TENSION
2,231 kN
10 inch
2000 1,588 kN
1,077 kN 12 inch
1000 14 inch
0 16 inch
MATERIAL GRADE
Figure 5.16 - SCR Top Tension in Jack St.Malo

The strain is also calculated to ensure that the value is still below the maximum allowable
limit, as shown in Figure 5.17. The maximum strain occurs at the sagbend section, at 0.23,
and this value is still below the allowable strain criteria based on DNV-OS-F101. Hence,
based on the strain limit, this installation is acceptable.
SCR Strain in Jack St. Malo

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3 8 inch
STRAIN
0.25 10 inch
0.2
0.15 12 inch
0.1
0.05 14 inch
0
16 inch
Allowable Limit
CASE
Figure 5.17 - SCR Strain in Jack St. Malo

Figure 5.18 shows the regular analysis result for the 8 inch SCR. It can be seen that the
material grades X-90 and above have a stress utilisation of less than one, which means
that these grades are feasible for the operation. The highest stress utilisation obtained in
the X-90 grade is 0.88 in case 2, which is not really close to the limitation criteria.
Moreover, this analysis still uses the ERW fabrication method and 0.015 as the ovality.
In contrast, for X-80, there are ten cases that are not feasible because of the stress factors,
so these cases are analysed using irregular waves.
44
8 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation in Jack St. Malo
1.2
STRESS UTILISATION
1
X80
0.8
X90
0.6
X100
0.4
X120
Allowable Limit
CASE
Figure 5.18 - 8 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis in Jack St. Malo
Figure 5.19 shows the overall result from the irregular wave analysis. To be more specific
in some cases, the results are shown in Figure 5.20. Within two SCR conditions, only
SCRs with seamless construction and 0.01 ovality pass the limitation criteria for the X-
80 material grade. Furthermore, there are a several of critical cases that have a stress
utilisation close to the limitation criteria according to Appendix A. These cases mostly
occur when the waves and current hit the vessel from the port beam, starboard, port bow,
and starboard bow directions. Hence, it is recommended to position the vessel’s bow
facing the incoming wave direction for safer operation.
8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation in Jack St. Malo
1.1
STRESS UTILISATION
1
0.9
0.8 X80
0.7 X90
0.6
X100
0.5
0.4 x120
Allowable Limit
CASE
Figure 5.19 - 8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis in Jack St. Malo
45

Irregular Wave Analysis in Jack St.Malo Field
1.10
STRESS UTILISATION
1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04

1.00
0.95 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96
ERW, 0.015
0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 Ovality
0.85
0.80 Seamless, 0.01
Case 2 Case 3 Case 5 Case 6 Case 8 Case 9 Case 11 Case 12 Case 14 Case 15 Ovality
CASE
Figure 5.20 - 8 inch SCR Irregular Wave Post Processing Result in Jack St. Malo
According to Figure 5.21, material grade X-80 for the 10 inch diameter is not feasible in
this operation because all the cases are above the stress utilisation limit. Different with
X-80, material grades above X-90 are feasible for this operation, as the highest standard
utilisation is 0.84. For X-90 itself, there are five cases that have exactly one as the stress
utilisation and are still feasible. However, to increase confidence in the operation, these
five cases are analysed using the irregular wave analysis, as shown in Figure 5.22.
10 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation

in Jack St. Malo
1.4
STRESS UTILISATION
1.2
1 X80
0.8 X90
0.6 X100
0.4 X120
Allowable Limit
CASE
Figure 5.22 shows that, according to the irregular wave analysis, all the cases for material
grade X-90 are below the allowable limit. In addition, the calculation is done with the
ERW fabrication factor and 0.015 ovality. Hence, the X-90 material grade and above are
feasible. The highest stress utilisation factor for X-90 is 0.97, which is close to the
allowable limit. Hence, to reduce the stress utilisation, seamless riser and lower ovality
can be used as an option. The stress utilisation comparison between ERW and seamless
46
SCRs is shown in Figure 5.23. There is around a 0.04 reduction in stress utilisation for
the seamless riser, but from the economic point of view, it will increase the cost of
fabrication.
10 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation in Jack St. Malo
1.3
STRESS UTILISATION
1.2
1.1
1
0.9 X80
0.8 X90
0.7
0.6 X100
0.5
0.4 X120
Allowable Limit
CASE

Irregular Wave Analysis in Jack St. Malo Field
STRESS UTILISATION
1.05
1.00
0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
0.95
0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 ERW, 0.015 Ovality
0.90
0.85 Seamless, 0.01 Ovality
Case 2 Case 5 Case 8 Case 11 Case 14
CASE

The 12 inch SCR regular wave analysis results are shown in Figure 5.24. It shows that
only the X-100 and X-120 material grades pass the requirement for the installation with
0.98 as the maximum stress utilisation. In contrast, for the X-80 material grade, the stress
utilisation is 1.5, which is not acceptable. For cases in which the wave and current hit the
vessel’s bow in X-90 material grades, the stress utilisations are just slightly above one.
Thus, it could be feasible if a less conservative analysis is conducted, such as irregular
wave analysis.
47
12 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis

Stress Utilisation in Jack St. Malo
1.6
STRESS UTILISATION
1.4
1.2 X80
1
0.8 X90
0.6 X100
0.4 X120
Allowable Limit
CASE
For the X-90 material grade, five cases are analysed in irregular waves. These cases have
a 180 degree wave and current heading to the vessel’s bow based on Appendix A. The
results from the irregular wave analysis are shown in Figure 5.25, and those for different
configuration results are shown in Figure 5.26. These figures show that case 1, case 4,
case 7, case 10, and case 13 have a stress utilisation of less than one with both the ERW
and seamless fabrication methods. However, seamless SCRs still give better stress
utilisation factors than the ERW. Thus, for 12 inch SCRs in the Jack St. Malo field, the
X-90 material grade is acceptable for both ERW and seamless SCR. Nevertheless, the
vessel’s bow must always head towards the waves’ incoming direction.
12 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation

in Jack St. Malo
1.6
STRESS UTILISATION
1.4
1.2
1 X80
0.8
0.6 X90
0.4
X100
0.2
0 X120
Allowable Limit
CASE
48

1.05
STRESS UTILISATION
1.00 0.99 0.99

0.98
0.95 0.94 0.95 0.95
ERW, 0.015 Ovality
0.90 0.91 0.91
0.85 0.87 0.87 Seamless, 0.01 Ovality
CASE 1 CASE 4 CASE 7 CASE 10 CASE 13
CASE

Figure 5.27 shows the stress utilisation for 14 inch SCRs in regular wave analysis. Two
material grades pass the requirement, X-100 and X-120. For X-120, all cases are safe for
the operation. However, for the X-100 material grade, some cases do not pass the
requirement. They have slightly higher values for stress utilisation compared to the
allowable limit. These cases have wave and current directions that hit the port beam, port
bow, starboard, and starboard bow of the vessel, based on Appendix A. Furthermore,
these cases are analysed using irregular wave analysis.
14 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation

in Jack St. Malo
1.8
STRESS UTILISATION
1.6
1.4
1.2 X80
1 X90
0.8
X100
0.6
0.4 X120
Allowable Limit
CASE
The irregular wave analysis is conducted for the X-100 material grade for some cases
apart from the 180 degree wave and current direction. From Figure 5.28, the results of
irregular wave analysis show that all cases for X-100 material grade are acceptable for
the installation due to the stress utilisation. In addition, in Figure 5.29 shows that both the
ERW and seamless fabrication methods can be used for this riser.
49
14 inch SCR Irregular Wave Analysis Stress Utilisation

in Jack St. Malo
1.6
STRESS UTILISATION
1.4
1.2
X80
1
X90
0.8
0.6 X100
0.4 X120
Allowable Limit
CASE
14 inch SCR X100 Post Processing Results

1.05
STRESS UTILISATION
1.00
0.95
ERW, 0.015 Ovality
0.90 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88
0.84 Seamless, 0.01 Ovality
0.85 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Allowable Limit
0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Case 2 Case 3 Case 5 Case 6 Case 9 Case 11 Case 12 Case 14 Case 15
CASE

According to the regular wave analysis, for 16 inches, the highest SCR diameter in this
analysis, only the X-120 material grade passes the requirement for the installation. The
maximum stress utilisation for X-120 is 0.84. The lower grades such as X-80, X-90, and
X-100 exceed the allowable limit in all cases, and the lowest stress utilisation is 1.1 and
the highest is 1.82. Hence, the irregular wave analysis will not be conducted for this
diameter. Therefore, the only material grade that is acceptable for installation for this
diameter is X-120.
50
16 inch SCR Regular Wave Analysis

Stress Utilisation in Jack St. Malo
1.9
STRESS UTILISATION
1.7
1.5
1.3 X80
1.1
X90
0.9
0.7 X100
0.5
X120
Allowable Limit
CASE
5.2.3 Overall SCR Feasibility in the Gulf of Mexico
Table 5.1, Table 5.2, Table 5.3, and Table 5.4 show the feasibility of the SCRs in the Gulf
of Mexico. Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 describe the requirements for specific directions for
the vessel heading, while Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 describe the specific requirements for
the riser fabrication methods. In all the tables, the red colour means that these particular
diameter and grades are not feasible for the installation, and the grey colour means that
there is no analysis in those cases. Moreover, for Table 5.1 and Table 5.2, the orange
colour means that the installation method can be done with a specific vessel heading,
while the blue one means that the installation can be done in all directions. In Table 5.3
and Table 5.4, the purple colour means that both seamless and ERW SCRs are feasible
with the maximum ovality of 0.015. Finally, the yellow colour means that the SCR should
be seamless with 0.01 ovality to be feasible for installation.
Table 5.1 - Wave and Current Direction Constraints for Stones
STONES
REGULAR WAVE ANALYSIS IRREGULAR WAVE ANALYSIS
Outside
Nominal Size MATERIAL GRADE
Diameter
X80 X90 X100 X120 X80 X90 X100 X120
8 inch 219.1 mm
10 inch 273.1 mm
12 inch 323.9 mm
14 inch 355.6 mm
16 inch 406.4 mm
51
Table 5.2 - Wave and Current Direction Constraints for Jack St. Malo
JACK ST. MALO

Outside
Diameter
X80 X90 X100 X120 X80 X90 X100 X120
8 inch 219.1 mm
10 inch 273.1 mm
12 inch 323.9 mm
14 inch 355.6 mm
16 inch 406.4 mm
Table 5.3 - Riser Fabrication Method for Stones
STONES
Outside
Nominal PSize MATERIAL GRADE
Diameter
X80 X90 X100 X120 X80 X90 X100 X120
8 inch 219.1 mm
10 inch 273.1 mm
12 inch 323.9 mm
14 inch 355.6 mm
16 inch 406.4 mm
Table 5.4 - Riser Fabrication Method for Jack St .Malo
JACK ST.MALO
Outside
Diameter
X80 X90 X100 X120 X80 X90 X100 X120
8 inch 219.1 mm
10 inch 273.1 mm
12 inch 323.9 mm
14 inch 355.6 mm
16 inch 406.4 mm
To summarize, only 8 inch SCRs with X-120 material grade feasible to be installed in the
Stones field. However, this SCR needs to be installed with a specific vessel heading. In
contrast, for the Jack St Malo field, all diameters are feasible to be installed, with the
minimum grade X-80 for 8 inches, X-90 for 12 and 14 inches, X-100 for 14 inches, and
X-120 for 16 inches. However, for 12 inch X-90 SCRs, the vessel needs a specific
heading, and for 8 inch X-80 SCRs, the fabrication needs to be seamless.
52
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 CONCLUSION
As mentioned in the beginning of the report, the project objective is to analyse the
feasibility of the SCR installation in ultra-deep water fields in the Gulf of Mexico. The J-
lay method is applied as the installation method and a vessel with the characteristic based
in Pathfinder was used for the analysis. However, the results are valid for all similar vessel
capable for this J-lay installation in the Gulf of Mexico.
Moreover, two fields are reviewed, which are Stones and Jack St. Malo. These fields have
different water depth: 2,914 m for Stones and 2,134 m for Jack St.Malo. Hence, they are
classified as ultra-deep water. The static and dynamic analysis are done in the Orcaflex
10.0 installation software using the Airy wave theory for the regular wave analysis and
JONSWAP wave theory for the irregular wave analysis.
In this conclusion, the project’s objectives are answered as follow:
 The maximum allowable wall thickness is limited by the diameter-thickness ratio in

the LCC calculation requirement which is = 15. These values are used in all
analysis. In addition, the minimum wall thickness governed by the collapse and
vertical stability is also defined. After that, they are compared with the maximum
allowable wall thickness to ensure that the maximum allowable wall thickness has
higher values than the minimum requirement.
 The highest tension occurs at the top section of the SCR; this result will determine
the tensioner capacity of the vessel. In the Stones and Jack St. Malo fields, the top
tension is 4,972 kN and 3,521 kN, respectively, while the tensioner capacity of
Pathfinder is 11,383 kN. Hence, the Pathfinder is capable of performing the operation
due to the tensioner capacity.
 The most critical section in the analysis is the sagbend section. It has a high bending
moment; therefore, the analysis will focus on this area, including the LCC check.
 Based on DNV-OS-F101, the maximum strain that can occur on the SCR is 0.4 while
the maximum strain that occurs in the Stones and Jack St. Malo fields are 0.31 and
0.23, respectively, which are below 0.4.
53
 The J-lay method is feasible for the ultra-deep water with several SCR variations and
vessel conditions in each field. In the Stones field, the SCR size is limited to the 8
inch nominal diameter and X-120 material grade. For the Jack St. Malo field, the
SCR size that can be installed is from the 8 inch to 16 inch nominal diameter, with
X-80 for the 8 inch, X-90 for the 10 and 12 inch, and X-100 for the 14 inch and 16
inch.
 The seamless fabrication method will give lower stress utilisation compared to ERW.
There is one case in which the seamless SCR is required: an 8 inch X-80 SCR for the
Jack St. Malo field.
 The vessel heading position also affects the installation operation. Some cases require
specific vessel headings. For the 8 inch X-120 SCR in Stones, the vessel needs to
avoid waves coming to the port and starboard of the vessel, while for 12 inch X-90
in Jack St. Malo, the vessel’s bow needs to be facing the waves’ incoming direction.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
For a feasibility study, every aspect needs to be reviewed, especially for an extreme
environment like that of the GOM. The more cases are analysed, the more comprehensive
results are gained and can be more applicable for future projects. Thus, some suggestions
for this analysis are as follows:
 The Gulf of Mexico is classified as a field that has extreme weather conditions such
as storms and the eddy current effects. Hence, the case with storms and eddy current
effects needs to be analysed further.
 The other failure mode that needs to be assessed is fatigue. Fatigue happens because
of cyclic loads, which with later affect the SCR performance. In addition, fatigue is
associated with VIV (vortex induced vibration), which is induced by the interaction
between the structure and the fluid flow. VIV also needs to be assessed to know the
needs of the VIV suppression device on the SCR to eliminate the effect of VIV.
 The SCR analysed is a simple SCR without any specific coating or insulation.
However, in a real project, the SCR will have a special coating or needs to be installed
not in empty condition; Therefore, SCRs with more realistic conditions need to be
assessed.
54
 A flat seabed is assumed in Orcaflex, but sometimes in the Gulf of Mexico, the
seabed is uneven. It might cause residual stress on the SCR. Thus, the seabed needs
to be precisely defined in the simulation.
 A financial comparison between ultra-high-strength material SCRs and flexibles
should be conducted since the flexible is widely used in the Gulf of Mexico but costs
more than the traditional SCR. With the financial comparison, the cost-saving details
can be known.
55
REFERENCES
[1] J. Hoffman, K. Clausing, S. Robinson, P. Subramanian and A. Zummo, “The Stones

Project: Subsea, Umbilical, Riser and Flowline Systems,” in Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 2017.
[2] U.S.A, Chevron, “Jack/ St. Malo Expanding Chevron's Reach in the deepwater U.S
Gulf of Mexico,” Oil & Gas Journal, 2014.
[3] H.-G. Hillenbrand, M. Graf and C. Kalwa, “Development and Production of High
Strength Pipeline Steels,” in International Symposium Niobium, Florida, 2001.
[4] N. Ishikawa, “Ultra-High-Strength Linepipe X100-X120,” Journal of Light Metal

Welding and Construction, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 657-662, 2009.
[5] J.-Y. Yoo, S.-S. Ahn, D.-H. Seo, W.-H. Song and K.-B. Kang, “New Development of
High Grade X80 to X120 Pipeline Steels,” Materials and Manufacturing Processes,
vol. 26, pp. 154-160, 2011.
[6] S. W. I. &. Steel, “World Iron Steel,” 7 June 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.worldironsteel.com/news/x90-pipeline-gear-up-for-the-third-west-east-g-
5982880.html. [Accessed 1 August 2017].
[7] CNPC International Departement, “2014 Annual Report,” China National Petroleum
Corporation, Beijing, 2014.
[8] Y. Bai and Q. Bai, “Steel Catenary Risers,” in Subsea Pipelines and Risers,
Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2005, pp. 437-441.
[9] R. Hejazi and M. Kimiaei, “Equivalent linear soil stiffness in fatigue design of steel
catenary risers,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 111, pp. 493-507, 2016.
[10] E. Pavlovskaia, “Cable Catenary Equation EG55F6/G6: Riser Systems and

Hydrodynamic,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://abdn.blackboard.com. [Accessed
June 2017].
[11] A. C. Palmer and R. King, “Strength,” in Subsea Pipeline Engineering, Oklahoma,

PennWell Corporation, 2006, pp. 311-312.
56
[12] Det Norske Veritas AS, Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101: Subsea Pipeline System,
DNV, 2013.
[13] S. A. Hatton and N. Wilis, “OTC-8607-MS: Steel Catenary Risers for Deepwater
Enviroments,” in Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1998.
[14] J. O. Oladimeji, C. V. Ossia and J. U. Okoli, “On the Structural Integrity of S-Lay
Method of Pipeline Installtion,” American Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 4,
no. 4, pp. 124-130, 2016.
[15] S. Kyriakides and E. Corona, “Offshore Facilities and Pipeline Installation Method,”
in Mechanics of Offshore Pipelines, Volume 1: Buckling and Collapse, Oxford,
Elsevier, 2007, pp. 15-43.
[16] D. Perinet and I. Frazer, “OTC-18669-MS: J-lay and Steep S-lay: Complementary
Tools for Ultradeep Water,” in Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2007.
[17] Y. Bai and Q. Bai, “Design of Deepwater Risers,” in Subsea Pipelines and Risers,
Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2005, pp. 401-411.
[18] A. H. Techet, 13.42 Lecture : Ocean Waves, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute

of Technology, 2005.
[19] “Norwegian University of Science and Technology,” [Online]. Available:

http://folk.ntnu.no/oivarn/hercules_ntnu/LWTcourse/partB/3seastate/3%20SEA%20S
TATE%20PARAMETERS%20AND%20ENGINEERING%20WAVE%20SPECTR
A.htm. [Accessed 8 August 2017].
[20] Secretariat of the World Meteological Organization, Guide to Wave Analysis and
Foecasting (second edition), Geneva: World Meteological Organization, 1990.
[21] J. Hoffman, K. Clausing, S. Robinson, P. Subramanian and A. Zummo, “OTC-27569-

MS: The Stones Project: Subsea, Umbilical, Riser and Flowline System,” in Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, 2017.
[22] R. Staff, “Analysis: U.S. to Reap Fruits of Deepwater Labor,” Rigzone, 26 March
2006. [Online]. Available:
57
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/90122/analysis_us_to_reap_fruits_of_deepw
ater_labor. [Accessed 8 August 2017].
[23] C. Lohr and M. Pena, “Stones Development: A Pioneering Management Philosophy

for Enhancing Project Performance and Safety,” in Offsore Technology Conference,
Houston, 2017.
[24] Shell, “The Stones Development, A New Vision in the Ultra-Deepwater Gulf of
Mexico,” Oil and Gas Journal, 2016.
[25] E. Jahanshahi , Control Solutions for Multiphase Flow: Linear and Nonlinear
Approaches to Anti-Slug Control, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, 2013.
[26] V. Kiselkova, J. Heideman and M. Vogel, Stones Development Metocean Reference

Document, Shell, 2012.
[27] “Jack / St Malo Deepwater Oil Project, Gulf of Mexico, United States of America,”
Offshore Technology, [Online]. Available: http://www.offshore-
technology.com/projects/jackstmalodeepwaterp/. [Accessed 2017 July 29].
[28] K. Bhalla, L. Gong and D. P. Huey, “JSM IWOCS Umbilical Analysis-Phase VIIII,”
Stress Engineering Service, Houston, 2012.
[29] V. Hansen, N. Sødahl, O. Aamlid and P. Jenkins, “OTC-13245-MS: Reeling and J-

Lay Installation in SCR's on Roncandor Field,” in Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, 2001.
[30] American Petroleum Institute, Specification for Line Pipe, ANSI/API Spesification 5L,
Washington: American Petroleum Institute, 2008.
[31] S. Kyriakides and E. Corona, “Pipe and Tube Manufacturing Processes,” in

Mechanics of Offshore Pipelines, Volume 1: Buckling and Collapse, Oxford, Elsevier,
2007, pp. 59-78.
[32] B. Young, Tubular Structures XIII, Hongkong: CRC Press, 2010.
[33] Det Norske Veritas, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F109 : On-Bottom Stability

Design of Submarine Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas AS, 2011.
58
[34] Det Norske Veritas, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-H103 : Modelling and Analysis
of Marine Operation, Det Norske Veritas, 2011.
[35] Transocean, Deepwater Pathfinder, Houston: Transocean, 2014.
[36] “Coordinate System,” Orcina, [Online]. Available:

https://www.orcina.com/SoftwareProducts/OrcaFlex/Documentation/Help/Content/ht
ml/CoordinateSystems.htm. [Accessed 1 August 2017].
[37] Orcina, “Vessel Frame of Reference,” [Online]. Available:

ml/VesselTheory,FramesofReference.htm#V. [Accessed 1 August 2017].
[38] “Directions and Headings,” Orcina, [Online]. Available:

ml/DirectionConventions.htm. [Accessed 1 August 2017].
[39] “Dynamic Analysis,” Orcina, [Online]. Available:

ml/DynamicAnalysis.htm. [Accessed 2 August 2017].
[40] “Morison's Equation,” Orcina, [Online]. Available:

ml/Morison'sEquation.htm. [Accessed 7 August 2017].
59
APPENDICES
APPENDIX-A: STONES LOAD CASES

Table 1 - Stones Load Cases
STONES
Wave Current Wave Current
Load Direction Load Direction
Combination Combination
Case Case
Angle Vessel Wave Current Angle Vessel Wave Current
1 180 Bow Wave-W Current-E 13 180 Bow Wave-E Current-W
Port Bow Port Bow
2 225 Starboard Wave-W Current-E 14 225 Starboard Wave-E Current-W
Bow Bow
Port Port
Beam Beam Wave-E Current-W
3 270 Wave-W Current-E 15 270
Starboard Starboard
4 180 Bow Wave-SW Current-NE 16 180 Bow Wave-NE Current-SW
Port Bow Port Bow
5 225 Starboard Wave-SW Current-NE 17 225 Starboard Wave-NE Current-SW
Bow Bow
Port Port
6 270 Beam Wave-SW Current-NE 18 270 Beam Wave-NE Current-SW
Starboard Starboard
7 180 Bow Wave-S Current-N 19 180 Bow Wave-N Current-S
Port Bow Port Bow
8 225 Starboard Wave-S Current-N 20 225 Starboard Wave-N Current-S
Bow Bow
Port Port
9 270 Beam Wave-S Current-N 21 270 Beam Wave-N Current-S
Starboard Starboard
10 180 Bow Wave-SE Current-NW 22 180 Bow Wave-NW Current-SE
Port Bow Port Bow
11 225 Starboard Wave-SE Current-NW 23 225 Starboard Wave-NW Current-SE
Bow Bow
Port Port
12 270 Beam Wave-SE Current-NW 24 270 Beam Wave-NW Current-SE
Starboard Starboard
60
APPENDIX-B: JACK ST. MALO LOAD CASES
Table 2 - Jack St. Malo Load Cases
JACK ST. MALO

Wave Current Wave Current
Load Direction Load Direction
Combination Combination
Case Case
Angle Vessel Wave Current Angle Vessel Wave Current
1 180 Bow Wave Current-1 Port Beam
9 270 Wave Current-3
Port Bow Starboard
2 225 Starboard Wave Current-1
10 180 Bow Wave Current-4
Bow
Port Beam Port Bow
3 270 Wave Current-1 11 225 Starboard Wave Current-4
Starboard
Bow
12 270 Wave Current-4
Port Bow Starboard
5 225 Starboard Wave Current-2
13 180 Bow Wave Current-5
Bow
Port Beam Port Bow
6 270 Wave Current-2 14 225 Starboard Wave Current-5
Starboard
Bow
Port Bow 15 270 Wave Current-5
8 225 Starboard Wave Current-3 Starboard
Bow
61
APPENDIX-C: SCREENSHOT OF ORCAFLEX RESULTS
Figure 1 - Screenshot of Maximum Bending Moment of 10 inch SCR in Jack St. Malo
Field (Current-1, Wave, 225 deg)
Figure 2 - Screenshot of Maximum Top Tension of 10 inch SCR in Jack St. Malo Field
(Current-1, Wave, 225 deg)
62

Regular Wave (Current-1, Wave, 225 deg) in Jack St. Malo Field

Irregular Wave (Current-1, Wave, 225 deg) in Jack St. Malo Field
63
APPENDIX-D: WALL THICKNESS SUMMARY
Table 3 - Minimum Wall Thickness Summary
JACK ST. MALO

NOMINAL OUTSIDE MINIMUM THICKNESS (mm) MAXIMUM THICKNESS (mm)
DIAMETER DIAMETER
X80 X90 X100 X120 X80 X90 X100 X120
(inch) (mm)
8 inch 219.1 10.66 mm 10.29 mm
10.09 mm 9.85 mm 14.61 mm 14.61 mm 14.61 mm 14.61 mm
10 inch 273 13.28 mm 12.82 mm
12.57 mm 12.27 mm 18.20 mm 18.20 mm 18.20 mm 18.20 mm
12 inch 323.9 15.76 mm 15.21 mm
14.91 mm 14.56 mm 21.59 mm 21.59 mm 21.59 mm 21.59 mm
14 inch 355.6 17.30 mm 16.70 mm
16.37 mm 15.99 mm 23.71 mm 23.71 mm 23.71 mm 23.71 mm
16 inch 406.4 19.77 mm 19.09 mm
18.71 mm 18.27 mm 27.09 mm 27.09 mm 27.09 mm 27.09 mm
STONES
NOMINAL OUTSIDE MINIMUM THICKNESS (mm) MAXIMUM THICKNESS (mm)
DIAMETER DIAMETER
X80 X90 X100 X120 X80 X90 X100 X120
(inch) (mm)
8 inch 219.1 9.21 mm 9.04 mm 8.93 mm 8.79 mm 14.61 mm 14.61 mm 14.61 mm 14.61 mm
10 inch 273 11.48 mm 11.26 mm 11.13 mm 10.96 mm 18.20 mm 18.20 mm 18.20 mm 18.20 mm
64
Table 4 - Vertical Stability Check Results
Jack St. Malo

Nominal Vertical
OD b Thickness ID Wriser Ws
Size Stability
8 inch 219.1 mm 382.2 N/m 8.8 mm 201.5 mm 447.4 N/m 65.2 N/m 0.94
10 inch 273. mm 593.4 N/m 11. mm 251.1 mm 695.1 N/m 101.7 N/m 0.94
12 inch 323.9 mm 835.3 N/m 13. mm 297.9 mm 978.2 N/m 142.9 N/m 0.94
14 inch 355.6 mm 1006.8 N/m 14.3 mm 327.1 mm 1178.9 N/m 172. N/m 0.94
16 inch 406.4 mm 1315. N/m 16.3 mm 373.8 mm 1539.9 N/m 224.8 N/m 0.94
Stones
Nominal Vertical
OD b Thickness ID Wriser Ws
Size Stability
10 inch 273. mm 593.4 N/m 12.3 mm 248.5 mm 774.3 N/m 180.9 N/m 0.84
14 inch 355.6 mm 1006.8 N/m 16. mm 323.6 mm 1314.3 N/m 307.5 N/m 0.84
16 inch 406.4 mm 1315. N/m 18.3 mm 369.9 mm 1716.2 N/m 401.2 N/m 0.84
65
APPENDIX-E: J-LAY SIMULATION IN STONES
Table 5 - J-Lay Simulation Results in Stones
STATIC DYNAMIC LCC CHECK

Nominal CONDITION CASE DIRECTION WAVE CURRENT MSd (kN.m) Ssd (kN) STRAIN TOP
Diameter SE (kN) ME (kN.m) SE (kN) ME (kN.m) TENSION X80 X90 X100 X120
1 180 Wave-W Current-E 14.91 167.58 14.17 185.89 345298.92 29060.05 0.19 1092.11 1.82 1.46 1.21 0.85
2 225 Wave-W Current-E 14.91 167.58 14.41 178.80 340337.02 29223.01 0.18 1091.70 1.78 1.42 1.18 0.83
3 270 Wave-W Current-E 14.91 167.58 15.46 167.93 332727.58 29962.48 0.17 1097.18 1.71 1.37 1.14 0.80
4 180 Wave-SW Current-NE 14.91 167.58 13.86 189.23 347639.23 28840.54 0.19 1091.74 1.84 1.47 1.22 0.86
7 180 Wave-S Current-N 14.91 167.58 27.69 212.32 363802.01 38519.10 0.22 1287.68 1.98 1.58 1.32 0.92
8 225 Wave-S Current-N 14.91 167.58 27.69 212.32 363802.01 38519.10 0.22 1287.68 2.02 1.62 1.35 0.95
9 270 Wave-S Current-N 14.91 167.58 36.10 257.08 395135.27 44405.39 0.24 1473.01 2.31 1.85 1.54 1.08
10 180 Wave-SE Current-NW 14.91 167.58 25.79 218.75 368306.99 37195.10 0.22 1285.29 2.02 1.61 1.34 0.94
8INCH MAY IRREGULAR 11 225 Wave-SE Current-NW 14.91 167.58 48.88 215.32 365900.48 53354.10 0.27 1462.65 2.04 1.64 1.36 0.96
13 180 Wave-E Current-W 14.91 167.58 14.95 199.13 354571.51 29601.11 0.20 1154.20 1.90 1.52 1.26 0.88
14 225 Wave-E Current-W 14.91 167.58 14.15 183.57 343677.99 29044.14 0.19 1107.99 1.80 1.45 1.20 0.84
15 270 Wave-E Current-W 14.91 167.58 20.63 178.72 340285.34 33580.45 0.18 1214.48 1.78 1.42 1.18 0.83
16 180 Wave-NE Current-SW 14.91 167.58 14.09 216.17 366499.69 28998.91 0.22 1152.23 2.00 1.60 1.33 0.93
19 180 Wave-N Current-S 14.91 167.58 15.71 188.97 347456.50 30132.86 0.19 1155.78 1.84 1.47 1.22 0.86
20 225 Wave-N Current-S 14.91 167.58 14.84 178.77 340315.96 29529.61 0.18 1109.29 1.78 1.42 1.18 0.83
21 270 Wave-N Current-S 14.91 167.58 20.30 179.21 340629.00 33346.25 0.18 1214.15 1.78 1.42 1.18 0.83
66
22 180 Wave-NW Current-SE 14.91 167.58 15.71 188.97 347456.50 30132.86 0.19 1155.78 1.84 1.47 1.22 0.86
1 180 Wave-W Current-E 21.43 357.58 20.46 390.83 732711.58 41834.38 0.21 1609.54 2.11 1.69 1.40 0.98
2 225 Wave-W Current-E 21.43 357.58 20.73 378.25 723908.83 42024.65 0.20 1608.95 2.07 1.66 1.38 0.96
3 270 Wave-W Current-E 21.43 357.58 22.25 358.28 709927.01 43085.57 0.19 1618.19 2.00 1.60 1.33 0.93
7 180 Wave-S Current-N 21.31 356.21 25.46 437.37 776160.64 45184.91 0.24 1906.48 2.27 1.82 1.51 1.06
8 225 Wave-S Current-N 21.31 356.21 55.13 437.37 807782.44 65949.69 0.24 1906.48 2.44 1.95 1.62 1.13
9 270 Wave-S Current-N 21.31 356.21 68.72 472.54 763918.34 75461.99 0.26 2214.95 2.21 1.77 1.47 1.03
10 INCH MAY IRREGULAR 12 270 Wave-SE Current-NW 21.31 356.21 69.07 472.44 761945.46 75710.49 0.26 2216.28 2.20 1.77 1.47 1.03
13 180 Wave-E Current-W 21.43 357.58 21.91 413.72 748736.05 42847.76 0.22 1698.72 2.37 1.90 1.58 1.10
14 225 Wave-E Current-W 21.43 357.58 20.42 386.21 729482.42 41801.66 0.21 1631.40 2.09 1.68 1.39 0.97
15 270 Wave-E Current-W 21.43 357.58 29.57 378.74 724252.19 48205.91 0.20 1792.47 2.07 1.66 1.38 0.96
19 180 Wave-N Current-S 21.43 357.58 22.97 396.82 736904.71 43589.62 0.21 1702.21 2.13 1.70 1.42 0.99
20 225 Wave-N Current-S 21.43 357.58 21.40 378.05 723766.93 42492.00 0.20 1633.08 2.07 1.65 1.38 0.96
21 270 Wave-N Current-S 21.43 357.58 29.29 379.32 724659.84 48013.44 0.20 1792.22 2.07 1.66 1.38 0.96
67
1 180 Wave-W Current-E 29.19 652.16 27.97 705.68 1331345.64 57052.30 0.23 2244.02 2.94 2.35 1.95 1.36
2 225 Wave-W Current-E 29.19 652.16 28.27 685.90 1317500.89 57263.60 0.22 2243.68 2.89 2.31 1.92 1.33
3 270 Wave-W Current-E 29.19 652.16 30.30 653.36 1294722.88 58686.06 0.21 2258.74 2.80 2.24 1.86 1.29
7 180 Wave-S Current-N 29.19 652.16 54.86 779.63 1383116.62 75879.50 0.25 2675.00 3.15 2.52 2.09 1.45
8 225 Wave-S Current-N 29.19 652.16 54.86 779.63 1383116.62 75879.50 0.25 2675.00 3.15 2.52 2.09 1.45
9 270 Wave-S Current-N 29.19 652.16 111.79 827.06 1416312.11 115728.31 0.27 3097.66 3.29 2.63 2.18 1.52
12 INCH MAY REGULAR
13 180 Wave-E Current-W 29.19 652.16 30.29 739.85 1355268.39 58674.90 0.24 2358.26 3.04 2.43 2.02 1.40
14 225 Wave-E Current-W 29.19 652.16 27.96 697.79 1325824.91 57046.60 0.23 2274.64 2.92 2.33 1.94 1.35
15 270 Wave-E Current-W 29.19 652.16 40.27 686.58 1317978.58 65660.57 0.22 2501.08 2.89 2.31 1.92 1.33
19 180 Wave-N Current-S 29.19 652.16 31.58 715.09 1337938.35 59581.11 0.23 2364.29 2.97 2.37 1.97 1.37
20 225 Wave-N Current-S 29.19 652.16 29.08 685.77 1317408.93 57833.49 0.22 2277.02 2.89 2.31 1.92 1.33
21 270 Wave-N Current-S 29.19 652.16 39.92 687.53 1318641.14 65421.60 0.22 2501.66 2.89 2.31 1.92 1.33
14 INCH MAY REGULAR 1 180 Wave-W Current-E 34.76 909.13 33.39 978.86 1852530.43 68007.52 0.24 2714.42 2.60 2.08 1.73 1.21
68
2 225 Wave-W Current-E 34.76 909.13 33.68 953.39 1834701.98 68213.41 0.23 2713.63 2.55 2.05 1.70 1.19
3 270 Wave-W Current-E 34.76 909.13 36.27 910.71 1804823.65 70027.21 0.22 2733.31 2.48 1.99 1.65 1.15
7 180 Wave-S Current-N 34.76 909.13 63.41 1076.21 1920675.39 89024.15 0.26 3250.21 2.77 2.22 1.84 1.28
8 225 Wave-S Current-N 34.76 909.13 63.41 1076.21 1920675.39 89024.15 0.26 3250.21 2.77 2.22 1.84 1.28
9 270 Wave-S Current-N 34.76 909.13 130.27 1129.70 1958116.20 135823.26 0.28 3729.58 2.86 2.29 1.90 1.33
13 180 Wave-E Current-W 34.76 909.13 36.14 1021.21 1882173.94 69935.03 0.25 2856.89 2.67 2.14 1.78 1.24
14 225 Wave-E Current-W 34.76 909.13 33.38 967.88 1844842.89 67998.13 0.24 2752.74 2.58 2.06 1.72 1.20
15 270 Wave-E Current-W 34.76 909.13 48.85 953.50 1834773.48 78833.34 0.23 3014.83 2.55 2.05 1.70 1.19
19 180 Wave-N Current-S 34.76 909.13 37.60 991.34 1861266.74 70957.82 0.24 2861.34 2.62 2.10 1.74 1.22
20 225 Wave-N Current-S 34.76 909.13 34.75 953.44 1834731.97 68960.89 0.23 2755.21 2.55 2.05 1.70 1.19
21 270 Wave-N Current-S 34.76 909.13 48.06 954.65 1835580.72 78280.11 0.23 3014.97 2.56 2.05 1.70 1.19
1 180 Wave-W Current-E 44.30 1457.24 42.72 1558.83 2962277.56 86789.46 0.26 3550.95 2.93 2.35 1.95 1.36
16 INCH MAY REGULAR 2 225 Wave-W Current-E 44.30 1457.24 42.93 1522.25 2936675.93 86937.72 0.25 3548.26 2.89 2.31 1.92 1.34
3 270 Wave-W Current-E 44.30 1457.24 46.01 1459.45 2892714.85 89092.66 0.24 3576.14 2.81 2.25 1.87 1.30
69
7 180 Wave-S Current-N 44.30 1457.24 76.55 1699.94 3061057.54 110467.77 0.28 4244.18 3.11 2.49 2.07 1.44
8 225 Wave-S Current-N 44.30 1457.24 76.55 1699.94 3061057.54 110467.77 0.28 4244.18 3.11 2.49 2.07 1.44
9 270 Wave-S Current-N 44.30 1457.24 160.40 1773.71 3112691.83 169166.10 0.29 4936.31 3.20 2.56 2.13 1.48
13 180 Wave-E Current-W 44.30 1457.24 45.57 1617.60 3003417.42 88785.28 0.27 3735.49 3.01 2.41 2.00 1.39
14 225 Wave-E Current-W 44.30 1457.24 42.60 1541.94 2950452.98 86706.63 0.25 3597.61 2.91 2.33 1.94 1.35
15 270 Wave-E Current-W 44.30 1457.24 62.52 1519.84 2934987.73 100644.60 0.25 3926.64 2.88 2.31 1.92 1.34
19 180 Wave-N Current-S 44.30 1457.24 48.54 1578.12 2975782.19 90860.11 0.26 3740.28 2.96 2.37 1.96 1.37
20 225 Wave-N Current-S 44.30 1457.24 44.69 1523.61 2937626.36 88164.26 0.25 3600.53 2.89 2.31 1.92 1.34
21 270 Wave-N Current-S 44.30 1457.24 61.51 1521.32 2936020.32 99939.50 0.25 3925.50 2.89 2.31 1.92 1.34
70
APPENDIX-F: J-LAY SIMULATION IN JACK ST. MALO
Table 6 - J-Lay Simulation Results in Jack St. Malo
MSd TOP
STATIC DYNAMIC Ssd (kN) STRAIN
(kN.m) TENSION LCC CHECK
CONDITION CASE DIRECTION WAVE CURRENT
Nominal SE ME SE ME
Diameter (kN) (kN.m) (kN) (kN.m) X80 X90 X100 X120
1 180 Wave Current-1 29.20 108.41 45.33 139.29 236701.20 69219.11 0.42 949.63 0.90 0.72 0.60 0.42
2 225 Wave Current-1 29.01 107.94 73.12 172.54 259369.09 88436.69 0.49 1076.78 1.04 0.83 0.69 0.49
3 270 Wave Current-1 29.01 107.94 72.83 172.61 259418.47 88233.72 0.49 1069.43 1.04 0.83 0.69 0.49
4 180 Wave Current-2 29.20 108.41 45.24 139.54 236877.19 69160.69 0.43 949.27 0.90 0.72 0.60 0.43
5 225 Wave Current-2 29.01 107.94 72.36 172.72 259490.45 87901.37 0.49 1076.04 1.04 0.83 0.69 0.49
6 270 Wave Current-2 29.01 107.94 71.74 172.81 259556.55 87466.52 0.49 1068.71 1.04 0.83 0.69 0.49
7 180 Wave Current-3 29.20 108.41 45.13 139.93 237151.38 69079.76 0.43 949.10 0.91 0.73 0.60 0.43
1
8" Year Irregular 8 225 Wave Current-3 29.01 107.94 70.97 172.88 259603.80 86932.16 0.49 1074.87 1.04 0.83 0.69 0.49
Wave
9 270 Wave Current-3 29.01 107.94 74.96 155.99 247785.32 89724.94 0.45 1067.83 0.97 0.78 0.65 0.45
10 180 Wave Current-4 29.20 108.41 45.02 140.36 237450.32 69003.49 0.43 948.67 0.91 0.73 0.61 0.43
11 225 Wave Current-4 29.01 107.94 74.84 155.83 247669.21 89641.72 0.45 1073.39 0.97 0.78 0.65 0.45
12 270 Wave Current-4 29.01 107.94 74.62 155.59 247504.19 89487.51 0.45 1066.84 0.97 0.77 0.65 0.45
13 180 Wave Current-5 29.20 108.41 45.02 140.87 237805.06 69006.07 0.43 948.14 0.91 0.73 0.61 0.43
14 225 Wave Current-5 29.01 107.94 74.33 155.27 247279.14 89279.97 0.45 1071.56 0.96 0.77 0.64 0.45
15 270 Wave Current-5 29.01 107.94 73.93 154.86 246988.37 88999.60 0.45 1065.48 0.96 0.77 0.64 0.45
1 180 Wave Current-1 54.00 259.00 101.00 314.49 552696.20 140036.00 0.57 1398.86 1.21 0.97 0.81 0.57
2 225 Wave Current-1 42.50 240.31 102.85 348.90 552791.02 126559.87 0.57 1587.89 1.21 0.97 0.81 0.57
3 270 Wave Current-1 42.50 240.31 123.95 346.46 551084.44 141335.05 0.56 1578.74 1.21 0.97 0.80 0.56
1 4 180 Wave Current-2 42.50 240.31 65.65 295.26 515238.20 100523.53 0.51 1398.70 1.08 0.87 0.72 0.51
10" Year Irregular
Wave 5 225 Wave Current-2 42.50 240.31 102.50 348.99 552848.50 126314.84 0.57 1586.82 1.21 0.97 0.81 0.57
6 270 Wave Current-2 42.50 240.31 123.71 346.01 550767.34 141164.98 0.56 1577.99 1.20 0.97 0.80 0.56
7 180 Wave Current-3 42.50 240.31 65.58 296.00 515756.22 100474.31 0.51 1398.37 1.08 0.87 0.72 0.51
8 225 Wave Current-3 42.50 240.31 101.96 349.25 553036.32 125938.59 0.57 1585.45 1.21 0.97 0.81 0.57
71
9 270 Wave Current-3 42.50 240.31 123.42 345.46 550381.35 140960.99 0.56 1577.03 1.20 0.96 0.80 0.56
10 180 Wave Current-4 42.50 240.31 65.52 296.81 516327.42 100431.34 0.51 1397.86 1.09 0.87 0.72 0.51
11 225 Wave Current-4 42.50 240.31 101.27 349.53 553232.27 125456.61 0.57 1583.79 1.21 0.97 0.81 0.57
12 270 Wave Current-4 42.50 240.31 123.09 344.85 549956.33 140730.93 0.56 1575.92 1.20 0.96 0.80 0.56
13 180 Wave Current-5 42.50 240.31 65.46 297.87 517066.36 100391.44 0.51 1397.11 1.09 0.87 0.73 0.51
14 225 Wave Current-5 42.50 240.31 100.41 349.87 553469.69 124850.55 0.57 1581.65 1.21 0.97 0.81 0.57
15 270 Wave Current-5 42.50 240.31 122.62 344.08 549415.14 140403.03 0.56 1574.46 1.20 0.96 0.80 0.56
1 180 Wave Current-1 59.43 453.05 70.10 498.10 930386.20 125378.12 0.57 1974.68 1.23 0.98 0.82 0.57
2 225 Wave Current-1 59.42 452.95 161.37 646.04 1033811.08 189251.97 0.68 2231.47 1.46 1.17 0.98 0.68
3 270 Wave Current-1 59.42 452.95 162.58 615.92 1012728.88 190097.70 0.66 2219.98 1.41 1.13 0.94 0.66
4 180 Wave Current-2 59.43 453.05 69.76 430.50 883066.20 125140.12 0.53 1974.11 1.13 0.91 0.75 0.53
5 225 Wave Current-2 59.42 452.95 161.03 645.90 1033714.15 189009.21 0.68 2230.41 1.46 1.17 0.97 0.68
6 270 Wave Current-2 59.42 452.95 162.31 615.33 1012315.99 189906.42 0.66 2219.11 1.41 1.13 0.94 0.66
7 180 Wave Current-3 59.43 453.05 69.23 430.71 883213.20 124769.12 0.53 1972.75 1.13 0.91 0.75 0.53
1
12" Year Irregular 8 225 Wave Current-3 59.42 452.95 89.66 541.60 960702.90 139057.08 0.60 1972.75 1.29 1.04 0.86 0.60
Wave
9 270 Wave Current-3 59.42 452.95 162.00 614.58 1011790.76 189693.27 0.66 2218.07 1.41 1.13 0.94 0.66
10 180 Wave Current-4 59.43 453.05 68.94 502.40 933396.20 124566.12 0.58 1973.22 1.23 0.99 0.82 0.58
11 225 Wave Current-4 59.42 452.95 160.24 645.40 1033361.03 188459.01 0.68 2227.47 1.46 1.17 0.97 0.68
12 270 Wave Current-4 59.42 452.95 161.65 613.83 1011267.54 189447.48 0.66 2216.85 1.41 1.13 0.94 0.66
13 180 Wave Current-5 59.43 453.05 68.84 504.60 934936.20 124496.12 0.58 1972.32 1.24 0.99 0.83 0.58
14 225 Wave Current-5 59.42 452.95 159.77 645.08 1033142.40 188132.00 0.68 2225.46 1.46 1.17 0.97 0.68
15 270 Wave Current-5 59.42 452.95 161.19 612.92 1010626.70 189121.20 0.66 2215.33 1.41 1.13 0.94 0.66
1 180 Wave Current-1 71.34 639.86 106.31 752.09 1348047.49 166020.31 0.66 2385.65 1.43 1.14 0.95 0.66
2 225 Wave Current-1 73.08 649.51 163.00 862.99 1282182.99 190393.46 0.74 2685.43 1.31 1.05 0.87 0.74
1 3 270 Wave Current-1 73.08 649.51 162.60 863.24 1282357.01 190109.74 0.72 2674.87 1.31 1.05 0.87 0.72
14" Year Irregular
Wave 4 180 Wave Current-2 71.34 639.86 106.22 752.86 1348589.27 165958.10 0.67 2384.82 1.43 1.14 0.95 0.67
5 225 Wave Current-2 73.08 649.51 161.22 864.77 1283425.20 189146.21 0.74 2684.23 1.31 1.05 0.88 0.74
6 270 Wave Current-2 73.08 649.51 160.24 865.74 1284105.31 188460.74 0.72 2674.12 1.32 1.05 0.88 0.72
72
7 180 Wave Current-3 71.34 639.86 106.18 754.61 1349811.64 165935.04 0.67 2382.84 1.43 1.15 0.95 0.67
8 225 Wave Current-3 71.34 639.86 106.18 754.61 1349811.64 165935.04 0.67 2382.84 1.43 1.15 0.95 0.67
9 270 Wave Current-3 73.08 649.51 164.97 815.79 1249140.49 191768.92 0.72 2673.03 1.26 1.01 0.84 0.72
10 180 Wave Current-4 71.34 639.86 106.05 756.50 1351138.59 165844.14 0.67 2383.14 1.43 1.15 0.95 0.67
11 225 Wave Current-4 73.08 649.51 164.82 815.42 1248881.30 191661.65 0.74 2681.26 1.26 1.01 0.84 0.74
12 270 Wave Current-4 73.08 649.51 164.59 814.95 1248552.69 191505.13 0.72 2671.69 1.26 1.01 0.84 0.72
13 180 Wave Current-5 71.34 639.86 106.02 758.91 1352822.52 165817.47 0.67 2382.58 1.44 1.15 0.96 0.67
14 225 Wave Current-5 73.08 649.51 164.29 814.44 1248192.50 191295.14 0.74 2679.42 1.26 1.01 0.84 0.74
15 270 Wave Current-5 73.08 649.51 163.87 813.73 1247699.41 191001.37 0.72 2670.20 1.25 1.01 0.84 0.72
1 180 Wave Current-1 92.51 1046.26 137.58 1208.67 2189474.23 215085.26 0.77 3108.60 1.65 1.32 1.10 0.77
2 225 Wave Current-1 92.51 1046.26 238.93 1389.61 2316128.56 286029.74 0.84 3520.99 1.82 1.46 1.21 0.84
3 270 Wave Current-1 92.51 1046.26 240.30 1339.95 2281366.55 286994.87 0.82 3497.38 1.77 1.42 1.18 0.82
4 180 Wave Current-2 92.51 1046.26 137.67 1210.15 2190507.77 215150.45 0.77 3106.92 1.65 1.32 1.10 0.77
5 225 Wave Current-2 92.51 1046.26 238.47 1389.85 2316297.33 285709.07 0.84 3519.08 1.82 1.46 1.21 0.84
6 270 Wave Current-2 92.51 1046.26 240.02 1339.10 2280768.91 286797.26 0.82 3496.35 1.77 1.42 1.18 0.82
7 180 Wave Current-3 92.51 1046.26 137.86 1213.02 2192516.92 215281.76 0.77 3105.11 1.65 1.32 1.10 0.77
1
16" Year Regular 8 225 Wave Current-3 92.51 1046.26 137.86 1213.02 2192516.92 215281.76 0.77 3105.11 1.65 1.32 1.10 0.77
Wave
9 270 Wave Current-3 92.51 1046.26 239.60 1338.07 2280047.69 286501.86 0.82 3494.28 1.77 1.42 1.18 0.82
10 180 Wave Current-4 92.51 1046.26 137.73 1215.99 2194598.52 215190.70 0.77 3104.12 1.65 1.32 1.10 0.77
11 225 Wave Current-4 92.51 1046.26 237.35 1390.46 2316722.90 284926.70 0.84 3514.84 1.82 1.46 1.21 0.84
12 270 Wave Current-4 92.51 1046.26 239.16 1336.99 2279293.46 286193.92 0.82 3491.87 1.77 1.42 1.18 0.82
13 180 Wave Current-5 92.51 1046.26 137.43 1218.48 2196338.32 214983.14 0.77 3102.71 1.66 1.33 1.10 0.77
14 225 Wave Current-5 92.51 1046.26 236.66 1390.72 2316902.78 284445.97 0.84 3512.22 1.82 1.46 1.21 0.84
15 270 Wave Current-5 92.51 1046.26 238.59 1335.81 2278468.86 285793.04 0.82 3489.11 1.77 1.41 1.18 0.82
73
APPENDIX-G : WALL THICKNESS BUCKLING CHECK
Figure 5 - Wall Thickness Check Spreadsheet Part.1
74
Figure 6 - Wall Thickness Check Spreadsheet Part.2
75
APPENDIX-H : LOAD CONTROLLED CONDITION CHECK
Figure 7 - LCC Check Spreadsheet Part. 1
76
77
78

Subsea Engineering Sample Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Subsea Engineering Sample Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYSIS OF HIGH-STRENGTH AND ULTRA-HIGH-STRENGTH STEEL

CATENARY RISER INSTALLATION IN J-LAY METHOD USING

EG59F9 Individual Project in Subsea Engineering

KURNIATI MUHAMAD EKOTOMO, B.Eng.

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of

Master of Science in Subsea Engineering at the University of Aberdeen

Aberdeen, August 2017,

2.4.2 Jack St. Malo Field ............................................................................... 17

4.3 Orcaflex Simulation ..................................................................................... 34

Table 2.1 - Chemical Composition of High Strength Material [4]................................... 6

Figure 2.1 - Development of High-Strength Steel [3] ...................................................... 5

Figure 5.17 - SCR Strain in Jack St. Malo ..................................................................... 44

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS

A Riser cross section

, Temperature derating values for yield strength

, Temperature derating values for yield strength

Bending moment of environmental load

Maximum fabrication factor

API American Petroleum Institute

An SCR, a conventional riser can be used as an alternative to the flexibles. It can be

1.2 Aim and Objectives

1.3 Scope of the Work

1.4 Outline of the Report

5. Chapter 5 (RESULTS AND DISCUSSION) presents the results of the wall

evaluated in the post-processing analysis based on the DNV-OS-F101 due to the

6. Chapter 6 (CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION) presents the

7. Chapter 7 (REFERENCES) presents the list of references used in this report.

8. Chapter 8 (APPENDICES) presents sample simulation and result data from

2.1 Material Development

2.1.1 Development of High-Strength Steel

Figure 2.1 - Development of High-Strength Steel [3]

2.1.2 High-Strength Steel Standardisation

Table 2.1 - Chemical Composition of High Strength Material [4]

As mentioned before, besides using a different manufacturing method, to get a higher

Table 2.2 - Tensile Properties of High-Strength Material [4]

Higher-strength steel material is now competing with flexibles in deep-water

2.2 Steel Catenary Riser (SCR)

Figure 2.2 - Steel Catenary Riser Arrangement [9]

2.2.2 Basic Catenary Analysis

Figure 2.3 - Catenary Free Body Diagram [10]

2.2.3 Global Analysis

2.2.3.1 Top Tension

2.2.3.2 Bending Moment

Figure 2.4 - Relation between Curvature and Bending Moment [11]

2.2.3.4 Equivalent Stress

2.2.4 The Usage of Steel Catenary Risers in Deep-Water Environments

2.2.4.1 SCR Installation Method in a Deep-Water Environment

2.2.4.2 SCR Sizing due to The Collapse and Buckling

2.3 Airy and JONSWAP Waves

Figure 2.6 - Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum and JONSWAP Spectrum Comparison [19]

2.4 Gulf of Mexico Fields

Figure 2.7- Location of Stones and Jack St. Malo [22]

2.4.1 Stones Field

2.4.2 Jack St. Malo Field

DESIGN CONCEPT & METHODOLOGY

3.1 Basic Design

3.2 Load Criteria

3.2.1 Functional Load

3.2.2 Environmental Load

3.2.3 Interference Load and Accidental Load

3.3 Design Load Effect

, , and stand for the functional, environmental, interference, and accidental

3.4 Design Format

3.4.1 Roundness of the Riser