OTe 5049

Design Methodology for Offshore Platform Tieback Conductors

by R.B. Manley Jr., Amoco Production Co.
Copyright 1985 Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 17th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 6-9,1985. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.
ABSTRACT
A methodology is presented for the design of
tieback conductors and internal casing strings. The
analysis is done by hand rather than by computer.
The methodology considers the combined loading from
environmental forces, external weights and internal
strings in tension or compression, thermal expan-
sion, and angular and lateral offsets. It also con-
siders the fact that internal strings in tension do
not cause buckling.
INTRODUCTION
This paper presents a comprehensive methodology
for the design of tieback and
internal casing strings. The stability and strength
checks of the tieback strings are performed by hand
rather than by means of a complex, finite-element
computer program. The actual computation time does
take longer, but the hand analysis allows one to
easily make changes in the system without having to
make elaborate changes to a sophisticated mathemat-
ical model as well, and then rerunning an expensive
computer program each time. The hand analysis
method can even be used during the installation off-
shore. Another advantage of the hand analysis is
that the effects on the stresses and conductor sta-
bility of each change in the loads or geometry are
easily perceived.
The tieback conductor design considers the
interaction of the loads from environmental forces,
internal and external casing and tubing weights,
thermal expansion, and angular and lateral offsets
between the casing strings and the subsea wellhead.
The equations required to check the adequacy of the
conductor and internal casing strings are presented.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
259
This paper is a companion to the paper pre-
sented at the Offshore Europe 1983 Conference enti-
tled itA North Sea Template Well Tieback System:
Design and Operational Experience" (Reference 1).
That paper presented the mechanical design and
installation experience from the tieback of the
seven subsea wells beneath the Northwest Hutton
Platform. The structural design of the tieback con-
ductors and internal casing strings was performed
using the methodology presented in this paper.
Together, the two papers give a complete overview of
the knowledge gained from the Northwest Hutton Plat-
form tiebacks. The following three paragraphs
briefly describe the Northwest Hutton Platform and
the tieback conductor installation procedure.
The Northwest Hutton Field is located in
Block 211/27 of the U.K. sector of the North Sea, in
473 ft of water. A 20-slot, unitized subsea tem-
plate was installed in 1979 and seven development
wells were drilled over a 20-month period. The
jacket was installed in 1981 and the deck in 1982.
The seven wells were tied back in January and
February 1983, with first oil production in April.
The tieback operation was completed on time and
within its budget.
The template wells were drilled using conven-
tional 18-3/4 in., 10,000-psi subsea wellhead equip-
ment compatible with floating vessel drilling
systems. The tieback system used a set of connec-
tors to engage the subsea wellhead, concentric
casing strings (20 in., 13-3/8 in. and 10-3/4 in.)
and platform wellheads to contain anticipated pres-
sures. The combined casing and tieback system is
shown in Figure 1.
The tieback procedure was as follows:
1. Deploy TV system.
2. Retrieve wellhead corrosion cap.
3. Flush and survey wellhead.
2
DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR PLATFORM TIEBACK CONDUCTOR
OTC 5049
4. Run 20 in. outer tieback, engage wellhead
and lock.
5. Cut 20 in. and weld on casing head.
6. Run and latch 13-3/8 in.
7. Set strips and packoff; cut casing and
install casing head.
8. Retrieve insert, flush seal area.
9. Run and lock down 10-3/4 in. tieback; set
slips, cut casing and install tubing head.
DISCUSSION
Theoretical Basis
The theoretical foundation of the subject tie-
back conductor design methodology was presented in
Reference 2. That reference, however, was specifi-
cally concerned with the design of standard conduc-
tors for conventional fixed platforms. As will be
discussed shortly, that methodology must be modified
somewhat for the design of tieback conductors.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of
Reference 2 is the explanation of why tensions in
internal casing and tubing strings, that are hung at
the top of the conductor, do not induce buckling of
the conductor.
Reference 2 presents interaction ratio (unity
ratio or IR) equations that account for the above
effects. The applicability of those equations was
checked by preparing a thorough mathematical model
of the conductor and inner strings, and analyzing
the stresses in them by means of a nonlinear
finite-element computer program. Reference 2shows
that one can use those equations to check the ade-
quacy of the strings, without having to perform a
computer analysis.
Design Assumptions and Loads
The first s_tep in the design procedure is the
development of the design assumptions and loads.
First, the tieback casing outside diameters
(including that of the outer conductor) are
selected. In order to limit the variables in the
design, the tieback inner casing strings can ini-
tially be assumed to be tne same sizes and strengths
as those hung in the subsea wellhead. If the anal-
ysis later indicates these sizes and strengths to be
inadequate, or grossly oversized, they can be
changed, accounting for such changes then in the
outer conductor's design as well.
It is convenient to assume that both the trial
wall thickness and yield strength of the tieback
conductor are constant from top to bottom. It is
quite possible to vary both along the conductor's
length, but such complicates both the design and the
installation. It was thus felt to be best avoided
if possible.
The steady-state, on-production temperatures of
the casing strings should be determined, based on
the reservoir temperature and the anticipated
flowing tubing temperature at the Christmas tree.
One can assume that the temperature of the inside
wall of the production tubing will be at the average
of the above temperatures, and that the outside of
the conductor will be exposed to the seawater tem-
260
perature and current. The thermal conductivities
and resistivities of the walls of the strings and
the materials in the annuli between them can then be
determined, along with the convective heat transfer
coefficient of the conductor wall to the moving sea-
water. A heat transfer computer program can then be
used to calculate the steady state temperature of
each of the casing strings. (Lacking all of the
above, one can make conservative assumptions of the
casing temperatures.) The internal casing strings
are assumed to heat up to their steady state temper-
atures from the inside out, in turn, in the deriva-
tion of the maximum thermal thrust in each string.
This is discussed further shortly.
The internal casing strings mayor may not be
pretensioned. If one determines that such preten-
sion is desired (to limit the compression due to
thermal thrust in the internal strings, to aid in
centralizing the strings in the wellhead at the
platform cellar deck, or to aid in establishing the
annular pressure pack-offs), one should consider
several factors. First, the pretension is developed
by picking up on the strings after they are locked
into the subsea wellhead. There will be very little
stretch for the desired pretension. Second, much of
the top tension in the string will be lost due to
slippage of that string through the sLips when it is
lowered in the slips and before the slips bite.
Third, there will be an additional loss of tension
in that string as the combined strings deflect axi-
ally due to that tension. Finally, the incremental
compressional loads on the other casing strings due
to the combined deflection must be accounted for.
This too is discussed shortly.
The tieback internal " mayor may
not be run with centralizers. the
interna.l casing strings car, hel p t tie outer conductor
resist bending moment, provided that those inner
strings are not already loaded to their ultimate
capacities. Such centralizat 'on wllI also reduce
the slight bending moment on the c0nductors that
results from the eccentricity of internal casing
strings in tension (see Reference 2), and make the
inner casing strings resist a share of the wave
loads (proportional to the moments of inertia).
It is generally assumed that the tieback
internal casing strings will not be cemented. Most
types of tieback systems are reversible, provided
the tieback casing strings are not cemented to each
other. It is worthwhile to maintain that freedom of
operation if possible.
Reasonable combinations of environmental forces
and drilling and production loads are assumed. For
example, a 1 in 50-year (2% annual occurrence prob-
ability, AOP) environmental condition can be consid-
ered for the drilling operation when the BOP is in
place on the conductor, and a 1 in 100-year (1% AOP)
condition assumed for the production case with the
much lighter Christmas tree in place, and much
longer exposure period.
The lateral and angular offsets between the
tieback strings and the subsea wellhead will cause
bending moments in the tieback strings, assuming
that a provision has been made to force the tieback
strings to align with the supposedly fixed subsea
wellhead. (See Figure 2 and Reference 1.) These
moments are called tieback overshot moments in this
paper.
UTe "'.i049 b. MANLEY, JR.
3
Analysis Methodology
Tieback Overshot Moment - The lleback overshot
bending moments on the tieback strings can be calcu--
lated by anyone of several indeterminate structural
analysis methods, such as the moment-slope, or
moment distribution methods, or by means of a com-
puter program. It is assumed that the bottom of the
conductor is displaced laterally and rotationally by
the amount of the offsets (conservatively assumed to
be additive), but that the remainder of the con-
ductor is laterally restrained at the conductor
guides. For convenience, only spans of the
conductor (a span is the distance from one conductor
guide to the next) are considered, as tieback
moments drop off rapidly with distance above the
subsea wellhead (see Figure 3). The moments are
arbitrarily set at zero at the top of the third
span, although in reality, there will be a small
moment there. (The designer can analyze as many
spans as desired.) No axial load is considered in
the tieback moment calculation, as the secondary
moments (load deflection or P-A effect) are
accounted for later in the interaction ratio equa-
tions. Also, for convenience in the design process,
the calculation can be made for a unit lateral
offset, a unit angular offset and a unit moment of
inertia. Appropriate ratios are then applied as
required for other offsets and other moments of
inertia.
Axial Loads-
The worst compressive load in each of the internal
casing strings occurs as each heats up upon produc-
tion. If they are pretensioned, the tensile
stresses occurring when each is initially preten-
sioned (before lowering into the slips) should be
checked as well.
The external axial load (See Reference 2) on
the outer conductor, at any elevation, is the sum of
the external weights on top of the conductor, and
the buoyant weights of the conductor and all of the
internal casing and tubing strings, from that eleva-
tion to the top of the conductor.
The maximum internal compressive load (See Ref-
erence 2) applied at the of the conductor is the
total compressive load on the top of the conductor
immediately after the prOduction tubing is run and
hung off, but while the BOP is still in place, less
the external weights applied at the top of the con-
ductor. Both loads were calculated in the axial
load history analysis. The maximum internal axial
load on the conductor at any other elevation is then
derived by subtracting from the above maximum
internal load at the top of the conductor, the
buoyant weights of all of the internal strings
(including the production tubing), from that eleva-
tion to the top of the conductor. Those weights
subtracted are considered part of the external load,
as noted in the previous paragraph.
Following are a few definitions arid example
calculations consistent with Figure 4 that illus-
trate the concept of internal and external axial
loads.
59.5 -dI.I + 250.6
External Internal Total Compressive
Load on Conductor
at Top
MSL at 0' elevation
Platform cellar deck at +83' elevation
Subsea wellhead @-458' elevation.
W=weight of tieback string or tbg from
+83' elevation to -458'
In Reference 2, if the first inner string
inside the outer conductor is in compression, and
centralized or cemented to the conductor, it and the
conductor are considered to act together as a compo-
site conductor in resisting axial and bending loads.
That composite conductor can usually carry consider-
ably greater external axial loads and bending loads
312.8
Total
at
Bottom
W
ZO
"
6Z.2 k (considering buoyancy below
water line)
W13-3/8"
31.9 k
WlO-3/4"
28.7 k (assuming entire length
W5- l/Z"
10.6 k submerged)
W
BOP
59.5 k (weight of BOP and riser
spool)
7+1':;..S- - 79+9.5+189.4
External Internal
Axial loads are applied to the conductor in
three ways. The first arises from external weights
applied at the top, such as that of the blowout pre-
venter (BOP). The second type of axial load is an
internal load that arises from pretensioning the
tieback internal casing strings and hanging produc-
tion tubing. The third type of axial load arises
from the thermal expansion thrusts that occur when
the internal casing strings heat up upon the well's
being brought on production. The latter load places
compressional loads on the internal strings, and
reduces the compressional load on the outer con-
ductor.
A method of distributing axial loads between
the combined strings is presented in Reference 2.
It is based on the axial stiffness of each string,
and the fact that the strings will experience a
common axial deflection. An axial load history
analysis is performed, tracking the axial loads in
all the strings as each is run in turn, with or
without pretension, the BOP is installed, the pro-
duction tubing is run and hung off, the BOP is
replaced with the lighter Christmas tree, the
flowing tubing pressure is applied (upward force on
the tree from the pressure on the inside area of the
production tubing), and as each string heats up in
turn. The thermal thrust that occurs in each string
as it is heated over the ambient temperature is felt
by the combined strings. The resultant expansion
places incremental tensile loads on the other
strings, and reduces the compressive thermal thrust
in the string heated.
The worst compressive load on the tieback con-
ductor occurs just after the production tubing is
run and hung off in the surface wellhead, and before
the BOP is replaced with the lighter Christmas tree.
Figure 4 illustrates the sort of tubular loads that
could exist for this condition.
261
without buckling than the outer conductor aLone can.
internal bending moment on the outer conductor is
This method of considering the combined strength of
then the sum of the internal bending moments from
the conductor and first inner string is inconvenient
the strings in tension, as calculated above, less
for the design of tieback conductors, however, as
the sum of the products of the loads in the internal
variations in the assumed design pretensions, tubing
strings in compression times the eccentricity of
weights, etc., can cause any of the inner strings to
those strings. The resultant, total, internaL com-
be anywhere from strongly in compression to strongly
pressive load and internal bending moment are then
in tension. It was found that there was a signifi-
appLled to the outer conductor alone, rather than
cant jump in the interaction ratio between the con-
the composite conductor noted in Reference 2. An
dition of the first inner strings being very
example calcualtion of the internaL axial loads and
slightly in tension to its being very slightly in
bending moments applied to the conductor at the top
compression. That jump was due to being able to
is shown in the coLumns below. The equations below
include that string in a composite conductor when it
illustrate how the internal bending moment and
was in compression, but not when it was in tension.
internal and external axial Loads on the conductor
This discrepancy should not exist. There is really
are calculated at any elevation. These calculations
very little difference between the two cases.
are consistent with Figure 4.
Axial Eccentricity Internal
As a result of the above discontinuity, the
Loati:<to 20 Conductor Moment
method of determining the help that internaL strings
Tubular (k) (in.) (in.-k)
provide was modified from that in Reference 2 as
follows. Instead of deriving a composite conductor
13-3/8 -47.1 2.1875 -103.0
if the first string inside the outer conductor is in
compression and centralized, one considers the axial
10-3/4 38.2 2.535 96.8
load in the outer conductor alone from the axial
Load history analysis. That analysis accounts for
5-1/2 200.0 2.535 507.0
the fact that all of the strings, whether in tension
or compression, help carry compressive Loads. Those
TOTAL 191.1 500.8
aLready in compression pick up more compressive load
and those in tension Lose some tension, sometimes *InternaL axial load on conductor at top.
even going from tension into compression.
Tension in internal string assumed to be
positive.
In Reference 2, it is shown how tension in
#L3-3/8 and 10-3/4 casing strings not
internal strings increases both the internal com-
centralized in this example. 5-1/2
pressive Load on the outer conductor (or composite
tubing is assumed to be centralized in
conductor), and the internal bending moment on it.
10-3/4 casing.
The latter is the sum of the products of the ten-
sions in the internaL strings times the eccentrici-
ties of those strings with respect to the conductor.
Z = distance beLow top of conductor (ft)
PI(Z) = internal compression on conductor Z
The eccentricity of a tubular with respect to
distance from top (kips)
the next outer string is calculated assuming that
the tubular is not centralized in that outer string
MI(Z) = internal bending moment on
and is Lying up against one side of that string,
conductor Z distance from top
touching it at the couplings of the inner string.
(in-k)
The inner strings eccentricity with respect to the
next outer string is then equal to the inside radius
(IR) of the outer string minus the outside radius of
PE(Z) = external compression on conductor
the couplings of the inner string. If the inner
Z distance from top (kips)
string is centralized in the next outer string, its
eccentricity with respect to that string is zero.
BOP
= weight of BOP (kips)
When there are severaL concentric strings, some
or all of which are not centralized in the next
b
and w = buoyant and dry unit weights,
outer strings, the eccentricities of each of those
d
respectively (kips per foot)
strings with respect to the conductor must be calcu-
lated. If all the strings were centralized, all the
eccentricities would be zero. For conservatism, it
e = eccentricity of inner string in
is assumed that all uncentralized strings are eccen-
conductor (inches)
tric in the same direction, so that the resultant
internal bending moments on the conductor will be
PI(Z) = 191.1 k - (Wb
+W
additive. The eccentricity of each internal string
13-3/8 blo-3/4
with respect to the conductor is calculated assuming
that each uncentralized strng is laying up against
+W )Z . . . . . . . . . (1)
the inside of the next outer string, again touching
b5-1/2
it at the couplings of the inner string.
In the revised methodology, with no composite
MI(Z) = 500.8 in.-k - [[(wb)(e)]13_3/8,,
conductor, the total internal compressive load on
the outer conductor from the internal strings is
+ [(wb)(e)110_3/4w
equal to the sum of the tensions in those strings
Less the sum of the compressive Loads in the
+ [(wb)(e)15-1/211
]2 . . . . . . . . ...* (z)
internal strings that are in compression. The
9K9
---
OTC 5049
k B. MANLEY, JR. 5
PE(Z)
= BOP
+ (w
above water line
Z = plastic section modulus of the
d
~oll
casing (in.3)
+W
Y = load factor
b13-3/8
= 1.7 when extreme environmental
loads are not considered
+W
blo-3/4
= 1.3 when extreme environmental
loads are considered
+W ) z ... (3)
b5-1/2!!
The above equation is a strength rather than
stability equation because the internal casing
strings in compression are laterally supported by
PE(Z)
below WL = BOP
+ (83)(wd )
the outer conductor.
20,1
When an internal casing string is in tension,
+ (Z - 83)(w )
its maximum axial load at any elevation is simpLy
b20
the maximum tensile Load from the time history anal-
ysis (or initial pretension before lowering in
slips), accounting for the change in axial load down
+ (w +W the string resulting from the strings buoyant unit
b13-3/8 blo-3/4 weight. The bending moment considered comes from
the tieback offsets, and is worst at the bottom of
+W ) z ........... (4)
the string. Tieback offsets would generally result
b5-1/2
in sufficiently large deflections across the Long
spans considered (if the conductor guides did not
laterally restrain the conductor and inner strings)
Internal casing strings that are centralized
that it makes Little difference to the tieback over-
will help the conductor resist bending, regardLess
shot bending moment in the internaL string whether
of whether those strings are in compression or ten-
that string is centralized in the outer conductor or
sion (another difference from Reference 2 where onLy
not. It is thus onLy sLightLy conservative to cal-
the first internal string was considered in the com-
cuLate such tieback overshot moments in the inner
posite conductor, and then onLy if it was in com-
strings as if they were fuLIY centralized in the
outer conductor.
pression). The extent of that bending resistance
Wave bendir,gmoments are another
heLp is discussed shortLy.
story. GeneralLy, the lateraL deflection of the
outer conductor from wave loads is small enough that
Internal String Stress Check
very little wave induced bending moments would get
into uncentralized inner strings. UnLess an inner
Once the worst axial Load in each of the
string is centralized, therefore, no wave moment is
internal casing strings is determined, a stress
considered in the inner string.
check is made for each for its worst Load condition,
by means of the folLowing interaction ratio (IR)
Centralizers on inner strings cannot actually
equation.
centralize those strings perfectLy in the outer con-
ductor i.e., zero eccentricity. The inner strings
could never be run if perfect centralization was
IR=~+~SlOO ................. (5)
achieved. It is assumed here that centralization
YP
means clearances between the centralizers and the
next outer string of a half inch or so. There will
stiLl be some internal bending moments on the outer
where: Fy = minimum yield strength of the
conductor from such eccentricities, but it wiLL be
casing steel (ksi)
much Less than if centralizers were not used.
P = axiaL load in the casing (kips)
When an inner string is in tension, but cen-
tralized, its maximum tensile Load is the same as in
Py = AF
the uncentralized case, but the bending load on the
Y inner string now equals the tieback overshot bending
= axiaL yieLd capacity of the
moment plus that inner stringsshare of the wave
casing (kips)
bending moment (when extreme wave Loading is being
considered). The inner strings share of the wave
A = cross sectional area of the
load wouLd be the total wave bending moment on the
casing string (inchesz)
conductor at that elevation times the ratio of the
inner strings moment of inertia to the sum of the
M = bending moment in the casing
moments of inertia of the conductor and aLL the
(in.-kips)
inner strings centralized within it.
Mp = ZF
The maximum combination of axial and bending
Y Loads in an inner string most often occurs near the
= plastic hinge moment capacity of
bottom of the string where that Load combination is
the casing (in.-kips)
dominated,by the tieback overshot moment. The use
of ~ = 1.3 when extreme waves are considered usually
9RQ
6 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FolsrlFFSH(N~PT,ATFURMTIEBACK CONDUCTOR OTC 5049
makes the interaction ratio calculated there with
wave loading much less than that without wave
loading, where a Y = 1.7 is considered. Wave
loading is thus usually not a significant factor in
the internal string stress check.
When the internal string is in compression and
uncentralized, the maximum compressive load comes
from the time history anaLysis,and the bending load
is the sum of the bending moments from helical buck-
Ling and the tieback overshot bending moment. The
heLical buckling stress is calculated by means of
the following equation from Reference 3:
_ DrF
_
b 41
...................................... (6)
where: D = nominal outside diameter of the
pipe in question (in.)
r = radial clearance between this
pipe and the next one out
(in.)
F = axial compressive load at that
elevation, from the time
history analysis, and accounting
for casing weight (kips)
I = moment of inertia of this casing
string (in. 4,
If centralizers are used, r is the cLearance
between the outside of the centralizers and the
inside waLl of the next string out. The use of cen-
tralizers will thus significantly decrease the hel-
ical buckling stresses. These stresses are,
however, usualLy far less than the tieback overshot
and wave bending stresses, and thus generally not
significant regardless of whether or not central-
izers are used.
When the inner string is in compression and
centralized, the maximum compressive load again
comes from the time history anaLysis.
The bending
Load for that case is now the sum of the helical
buckLing bending moment, the tieback overshot
bending moment, and, when wave loads are considered,
the inner strings share of the wave induc_edbending
moment.
For aLL of the above cases, the point in the
string where the maximum load condition occurs
should be determined.
ALong with the above stress check, the adequacy
of each internal strings couplings to prevent
Leaking is also checked, using the joint stre~gth
values tabuLated in sources such as the Halliburton
Cementing Tables. For example, the joint strength
of a 10-3/4 in. OD, 60.7 lb/ft p-no casing> with
buttress threads, is 1912 kips. A 1.6 safety factor
(SF) is applied, reducing that strength to
1195 kips. The axial and bending stresses for the
worst Load condition are then summed and multiplied
times the cross sectional area. That product should
be less than 1L95 kips. (This is obviously an
empirical check based on experience. It makes no
sense, strictly speaking, to add the axiaL and
bending stresses, as the axial stress is constant
over the cross section, and the bending stress
varies).
Equation L is aLso used to caLculate the
reserve bending moment capacity of each inner string
that is centralized in the outer conductor.
The
reserve bending moment capacity of a string is the
amount of additional bending moment that the string
can take in addition to the loads that it is aLready
carrying. The reserve bending moment capacities of
centralized strings can be added to the pLastic
moment capacity (M ) of the outer conductor in det-
? ermining its capac ty to support bending loads.
The Load factor, Y, is not used in the reserve
bending moment calculation, as it is applied later
in the outer conductor stress check. It is thus
deLeted from Equation 1 for this calculation. Since
the inner string reserve bending moment capacities
are used in the outer conductor stress check, the
inner string loads considered in deriving those
reserve capacities are those that occur in the inner
strings at the same time the outer conductor is
experiencing its worst load. These Loads all come
from the time history, axial load anaLysis.
To determine an inner strings reserve
strength, one calculates the aLLowable bending
moment in the inner string by setting the IR in
Equation 1 equal to L.0, deleting Y from the
equation, and solving for M. This value must be
Less than or equal to M . For P/P less than 0.L5,
the calculated value ofpM wouLd beygreater than M .
In that case, the alLowable moment is Limited to ~ .
One then deducts the actual bending moment in the p
string (sum of helical buckLing, overshot and wave
bending moments) from the allowabLe moment to arrive
at the remaining bending moment that the string can
take, i.e., the reserve bending moment capacity of
the string. The reserve bending moment capacities
of the centralized inner strings are then added to
the M of the outer conductor alone, to arrive at
the tgtal, uLtimate plastic moment capacity of the
conductor. This is equivalent to the method pre-
sented in Reference 2 for the determination of the
bending properties of a composite conductor.
The
difference is that all of the centralized internal
strings are considered and not just the first
internal string, when that string is in compression.
Conductor Interaction Ratio Equations
Following the inner string stress and joint
checks, slightly modified versions of the IR equa-
tions in Reference 2 are used to check the adequacy
of the outer conductor. At the subsea and celLar
deck wellheads, the inner strings are centralized.
As a result, the internaL bending moments on the
conductor due to eccentric inner strings in tension
are zero there. A calculation was made of the
defLected shape of the conductor and inner strings
before the inner strings are tensioned, and the
straightening capacity of any pretension in those
inner strings. That check indicated that the inner
strings can be pulled up against the inside waLL of
the conductor just a short distance above the subsea
weLlhead, where the tieback overshot moments are
still high. As a result, the centralization of the
inner strings at the weLlheads is ignored in calcu-
lating the internal bending moment, including at the
weLlheads themselves. Thus, for aLl elevations con-
sidered, the maximum internal moment is considered
aLong with the overshot moment in the interaction
ratio equations.
A
-- .
OTC 5049
F!. ,yAN ;- , . IR. 7
The two primary conductor design equations,
M1/M2 = ratio of smaller to larger
both from Equation 9 in Reference 2, are as follows:
overshot moments at the ends of
the unbraced portion of the
unbraced portion of the span
~R= Y@l+pE) Y(M+MOS)
considered. MI/Mz is positive
P + 1.18(1-Y P P )M
S1.O .. (7)
if the span is bent in reverse
Y
EJep
curvature and negative for
Strength Check
single curvature.
M2=MSin
yP1 yPE YI0.85M+CMMOS]
9
Equation 8, as defined
+ (1-~ PE/Pe)Mp ~lo .. (8)
a ove
IR = ~ +p
Y
crm
Stability Check
P = Euler buckling load (kips)
e = A?12E/(kl/r)2
k = effective length factor
where: PI = internal compressive load in
= 0.8 for bottom span of conductor
the outer conductor aLone at
= 1.0 for subsequent spans off
bottom
the elevation considered, due
to axial loads in the inner
r = radius of gyration of conductor
(in.)
strings (kips)
L = length of conductor span
considered (in.)
PE = external axial Load in the
E = modulus of elasticity (kips/in2)
conductor at the elevation
considered due to weights
Mp = (ZF )
on top of the conductor,
y conductor
plus the combined weights
of the conductor itself and
= ultimate plastic moment capacity
the inner strings from
of the conductor alone for the
the elevation considered
case with uncentralized inner
to the top of the conductor
casing strings (in.-kips)
(kips)
= zFy)conductor +
A = cross-sectional area of the
~M
conductor (in.z)
reserve
inner strings or
PY = AF
the case with internaL casing
Y
strings centralized in
= axial yield capacity of the
conductor (in.-kips)
conductor (kips)
Note that the Euler buckling load, Pe, in
Eq. (7) is the minimum Pe of the spans immediately
P = the modified criticaL buckling
crm
load of the outer conductor
above and below the support point being checked.
alone (kips). From Refere-nce2.
For the bottom and top of the conductor, there is
Y = Load factor
obviously nnly one span to consider, and thus only
one Pe. In Eq. (8), the P
= 1.7 without extreme wave
is that of the span
= 1.3 with extreme wave
whose buckling stabiLity i: being checked.
MW=M
Eq. (7) is used to calculate the interaction
ratio at the conductor guide support points.
= w~$~ginduced bending moment in
Eq. (8) is used to calculate the mid-span interac-
the outer conductor (in.-kips)
tion ratios. The derivation of Eqs. (7) and (8),
MI = internal bending moment in
and their components, is discussed in Reference 2.
the conductor at the eLevation
MI is the maximum moment thatthe tension in
considered due to the
the inner strings can generate (due to their eccen-
eccentricity of internaL
strings (in.-kips)
tricity), and it is conservatively assumed to be
aLways additive to the other moments. In other
words, M
M=M1orM
will always tend to increase the curvature
l+?$
in the c~nductors, no matter which direction that
curvature may be in. The Cm value noted accounts
0s
= tieback overshot moment at the
for the fact that the Mos moment is a Linearly var-
conductor guide (in.-kips)
for Equation 7
ying moment with reverse curvature. It generalLy
has vaLues on the order of 0.5 or Less.
= maximum end tieback overshot
bending moment in the
The 1.18 term in Equation 7 is simply an empir-
ical fit to experimental results. The inverse of
conductor span considered
(in.-kips) for Equation 8
that is 0.85. This could lead to some confusion
with Equation 9 in Reference 1 as the 0.85 value in
Cm = 0.6 - 0.4Ml/M2, but 20.4
the stability equation is a C value as noted above,
while it is the empirical fitmto experimental
results for the strength equation. Using 1.18 in
9s5 --
8 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR OFFSHORE PLATFORM TIEBACK CONDUCTOR OTC 5049
the denominator in the strength equation, rather
than 0.85 in the numerator, helps to resolve the
2. Stahl, B., Baur, M. P.~
Design Methodology for
confusion.
Offshore Platform Conductors, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, November, 1983.
Note that, as discussed previously, the outer
conductor is considered aLone in calculating P in
3. Lubinski, A., ALthouse, W. S., Logan, J. L.,
Equation 8. No composite conductor is conside$~~ in
Helical Buckling of Tubing SeaLed in Packers,
that calculation.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, June, 1962,
Transactions AIME (1962), 225, 655.
Conductor Stress Check
Strength checks with Equation 7 are performed
at those points where the conductor is laterally
supported, i.e., at the wellheads and conductor
guides. The conductor cannot buckle laterally at
those points. Buckling checks with Equation 8 are
made at the mid-spans between the conductor guides.
Buckling will generally control over strength at the
midspans.
The IR checks must be performed for the entire
Length of the conductor, rather than just for the
bottom portion, as the loads and span Lengths change
along the conductor, and these changes do affect the
interaction ratio calculations significantly.
CONCLUSIONS
The seven Northwest Hutton Platform tieback conduc-
tors and their internal casing strings were designed
by means of the analysis method presented in this
paper. As noted earlier, those wells were tied back
in January and February of 1983, and placed on pro-
duction. During the installation, pretensions
greater than those assumed in the design were
required in the inner strings to energize the
weight-set annular packoffs used in the first well.
(The packoffs were change~-to Allen-screw energized
packoffs in the remaining wells.) The ease of
changing design conditions in this analysis method
enabled the writer to determine at the site just how
much help could be obtained by adding centralizers
to the inner strings, and how much pretension could
be applied in the inner strings. The tieback was
made successfully.
This design method has been used successfully
to design tiebacks for another field as well. It
can thus be concluded that the tieback conductor
design methodology presented herein does work, and
that the methodology can be applied again for the
design of future tiebacks.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge the considerable
help of his colleagues Mr. G. W. Ingram and
Mr. J. A. Dwyer of AmOCO (UK) Exploration CO., and
Mr. J. D. McCuish and Mr. J. P. Barrington of Amoco
Production Co. (the Latter now with Brian watt) in
developing a practical tieback conductor design
methodology.
REFERENCES
1. Ingram, G. W., Humphrey, B., A North Sea Tem-
plate Well Tieback System: Design and Opera-
tional Experience, Offshore Europe 1983
Conference.
smfi
Platform
Wellhead
spools
+ P~
Fi g.1
lieback Schematic
(From Reference1)
550 ft.
Subsea
Wellhead
Ve
Re
uctor Angle
20 Teback
Connector
f{
p
$1
\
Wellhead
.
,!
Lateral
Offset
L
-+
Wellhead Angle
Fig. 2
Misalignment Between wellhead & ~eback connector
(From Reference 1)
I
+83
r
+24 - >c
o
-75 -
- 110
~
L
t
c
o
.= _1910
Z
iii
-280
I 7
1
1
\\
\
\
\.
-375
t t
\
>
----
---
.--
..-
---
I
458-400;
+ I I I A f I I [
-2000 0 4000 2000
Bending Moment (In Kips)
x Conductor Guide
Wave Moment
---- Overshot Moment
Fig. 3
20 13-3/8 10-3/4
_
5-1/2
.
_ _
4
250.6k
I
47.lk
t
38.2k
+83
r
w
B
I
w~olf
=62.2k
XL-
t
312. 8k
t
w13_3/ 8w
I
=31. 9k
79k
+
Fi g.4
1
wl &3/ 4.
=28. 7k
200k
!
W5_l/2V,
= 10.6k
9.5k
!
189.4k