Esplora Ebook
Categorie
Esplora Audiolibri
Categorie
Esplora Riviste
Categorie
Esplora Documenti
Categorie


.

\

+
(1)
where EI is the pipe bending stiffness, y(x) the pipe deflected shape in the vertical plane, w
the pipe submerged weight per unit length, the specific gravity of seawater, A the pipe cross
section and N
E
the effective axial force which is constant for long sections of pipeline. The
nonlinear equation is solved by successive calculation of the linearized system through
numerical methods (finite element method, finite difference methods, etc.).
2.2. Modelling of Pipelay Dynamics
Dynamic pipelaying analysis is necessary as the laybarge and the suspended span are subject
to the action of hydrodynamic loads due to waves and marine currents. The loading process
on the pipe is both direct and induced by the laybarge response mainly in pitch and heave
oscillations, transmitted to the pipeline through the lay ramp. The dynamic behaviour of a
pipeline during installation is mainly related to the laybarge response to wave action, as the
pipe is accompanied up to a certain water depth by the lay ramp and the effects of the direct
action of waves upon the suspended pipeline starts at a certain depth being therefore decayed
and of minor importance for the dynamic response.
5
Wave direction with respect to the lay heading has an important influence on the pipe
dynamic behaviour because the laybarge response to a given sea state is strictly dependant on
it. Indeed, the laybarge response in pitch is very significant for head seas, less important for
quartering seas and negligible for beam seas. Moreover, the pipeline response may be
different for waves coming from the bow of the laybarge with respect to waves coming from
its stern, due to the different combinations of pitch and heave motions dependent on their
phases with respect to the wave crest. Dynamic problems may also arise due to the vortex
shedding phenomena which can have very important effects upon the pipeline in some very
particular situations, however they are not considered within the present paper (see ref. [56]).
The modelling of the dynamic behaviour of a pipeline during installation is not simple as it
involves many nonlinearities. Important are the ones due to the following:
 reaction between the pipeline and the last rollers of the stinger with an alternance of
impact (contact) and separation (no contact) periods;
 dead band at the tensioner which can be assimilated as a restraint in the axial direction
with a nonlinear spring coupled with a viscous damper;
 fluidpipe interaction;
 nonlinearity of the relationship between the bending moment and the curvature for the
curved geometry envisaged during laying.
A linearization of the dynamic phenomena could be made acceptable e.g. in situations in
which the succession of piperoller impact and detaching is not so relevant and an almost
linear response of pipe section can be envisaged.
For shallow water depths, a simplified modelling could be successfully used. The
dynamics is studied for a pipe suspended span fixed or hinged or elastically restrained to the
sea bottom at one end and to the laybarge (liftoff point) at the other, excited by the laybarge
motions applied at one end [78]. This model can be applied successfully when dynamics
mainly affects (shallow waters) the suspended length and when critical pipe sections for both
statics and dynamics occur at the sagbend. In these cases, due to the slenderness of the lay
span, boundary conditions are of minor concern.
As concerns the dynamic behaviour of the pipeline in the proximity of the stinger exit,
which is usually the most critical zone in deep waterheavy pipe laying, a complete analysis is
required. The analysis of the dynamic behaviour is performed by using the numerical stepby
step integration of the equations of motion. The application within this study were performed
by using inhouse software based on this method. The integration of the equations of motion
is carried out at appropriate time steps and the response is calculated during each increment of
time for a linear system having the properties determined at the beginning of the interval. At
the end of the interval, the properties are modified to conform to the state of deformation and
stress at that time. Thus, the nonlinear analysis is approximated as a sequence of analyses of
successively changing linear systems. The final scope of a dynamic pipelay analysis is usually
to predict a limit sea state for which the limit of resistance of the pipeline, as defined by the
accepted criteria for a given situation, is reached. Some other methods, e.g. frequency
domain, could also be used successfully in case linearization is reasonably applicable [910].
3. SEMI ANALYTIC MODELS
Several models have been developed for the suspended pipe span. First, the catenary model
was used: it gave a deformed shape very close to the one obtained from FEM analysis, but it
did not provide a direct assessment of the bending moment. A rough estimation could be
6
obtained by evaluating the bending along the pipeline axis and then using the flexural
stiffness to guess the moment [11]; a more refined model is obtained by treating the pipeline
like an elastica with no weight and an inflection point, which means that in the deformed
shape there is a point with zero curvature. In this model such point coincides with the ramp on
the vessel, point A in Fig. 2: so it is possible to assume that in this point the bending moment
is null. As a matter of fact, the tensioning system represents a fixed joint, but the high depth
of the sea gives little bending moment on the ramp, so it is possible to place in this point a
revolute joint (hinge).
The pipe span that is laid on sea bottom is modelled as a beam on elastic foundation,
adopting Winklers model: since its length is longer than the suspended pipe span, it can be
treated like an infinite length beam. Therefore, the boundary conditions can be directly
applied in B, by imposing the congruence of the displacements in the x
1
direction and
imposing the continuity of internal actions by a flexural spring in the same point. It can be
supposed that the spring stiffness depends on pipeline and sea bed mechanical characteristics.
It is noted that this is a free boundary problem, since the length of the suspended pipe span is
not known a priori, but is part of the solution.
It is assumed that the loads acting on the suspended pipeline during the laying operation
are the gravitational and hydrostatic forces and no torsional moment is applied: so the
problem can be reduced to a bidimensional one and referred to a fixed plane frame [12].
Furthermore, Archimedes buoyancy can also be looked like an effect lowering the weight of
the suspended pipeline, so that the effective axial force acting on the pipe can be computed.
Fig. 2: Freebody diagram for the suspended span
3.1. Model of elastica without weight
Besides the boundary conditions already discussed, the sea depth H and a set of values for the
angle of the pipeline leaving the stinger must be granted by the model. To work out the
solution, it is used an orthogonal frame x
1
y
1
with origin in the TDP, from where the
curvilinear abscissa s is measured. The geometric congruence conditions at point B require a
null height y
1
and the same orientation angle of the pipeline span that is laid on sea bottom;
with this model there is a continuity of the moment in B, but not as well for the shear forces:
this is an intrinsic weak point of the model itself.
With reference to Fig. 2, it is possible to call R the force acting in A and in B and to
indicate with M
B
the bending moment acting in B; for each point of the curvilinear abscissa
that identifies the pipeline axis, it is also possible to define the angle as the angle between
the straight line tangent at the curvilinear abscissa in that point and the x
1
axis. To grant the
equilibrium of the pipeline in a generic point defined by its curvilinear abscissa s, the
following equation must hold:
7
B
M Ry
ds
d
EJ =
1
(2)
If previous equation is differentiated with respect to s:
sin
1
2
2
R
ds
dy
R
ds
d
EJ = = (3)
and then integrated with respect to , it is obtained:
C R
ds
d
EJ = +

.

\

cos
2
1
2
(4)
The solution of the previous equation (4) is obtained with the aid of the elliptic integrals
[13], that lead to the relation between and s; defining F as the elliptic integral of second kind
and EJ R W 2 = , the curvilinear abscissa is given by:
(
(


.

\

+

.

\

+


.

\

+ +
=
cos 1
2
,
4 2
cos
cos 1
2
,
2
cos
cos 1
2
F F
W
s (5)
where is the angle between the straight line tangent to the pipeline in the point with
curvilinear abscissa s and y
1
axis. It is now possible to find the coordinates x
1
y
1
of each point
of the pipeline and the internal forces acting along the pipeline, N, T and M:
cos R N = sin R T = cos cos = EJW M (68)
3.2. Model of elastica with external loads
The analytic model developed so far is characterised by closed form solutions, that have been
duly worked out; unfortunately, when external loads are applied along the axis of the pipeline,
a closed form solution does not exist any more.
This is a strong limitation for the model, since the weight of the pipeline represents an
important kind load both in static and in dynamic analysis. Another system of forces acting
along the axis of the pipeline is the drag force provided by the marine streams. Defining U the
sea water velocity, the drag force F
d
, with the same positive direction of water velocity, can
be split in two forces, acting along the pipeline and orthogonally to its axis. These forces are,
respectively [14]:
2 2 2
cos cos 5 . 0 5 . 0
dt e t t t e t dt
f U D C U U D C F = = = (9)
2 2 2
sin sin 5 . 0 5 . 0
dn e n n n e n dn
f U D C U U D C F = = = (10)
The pipeline is not deformable by axial forces or by shear forces, so the equilibrium
equation [1516] becomes, see Fig. 3:
0 cos sin = + +
dt dn
F F
ds
dH
0 sin cos = +
dt dn
F q F
ds
dV
(1112)
0 cos sin = + V H
ds
dM
(13)
If the following equations are added to the system (1113):
=
ds
d
EJ M = (1415)
sin =
ds
dy
cos =
ds
dx
1
2 2
=

.

\

+

.

\

ds
dx
ds
dy
(16)
8
a new differential algebraic system of 6 equations in 6 unknowns is obtained, that can be
solved by numerical methods; therefore, at each point s of the curvilinear abscissa, the values
for M, H, V, x, y, can be worked out.
Fig. 3: Forces acting on an elementary segment of the pipeline, including hydrodynamic forces
3.3. Formulation of the dynamic problem
For the setting of the dynamic problem, an approach derived from the perturbation theory has
been used, then the outcoming model has been solved by means of a finite differences
algorithm. As a starting point, the static model derived in previous section is considered, then
the inertial effects are added on [17]. Such a scheme would imply the solution of a set of
partial differential equations: anyway, since just little perturbations are admitted, it is
assumed that the dynamic solution differs from the static one, already known, only for a little
oscillatory term; in such a way, the problem is turned into the mere determination of the
amplitude of the oscillation and therefore it is still possible to integrate the system in the
spatial variable only.
Let
0
y be the static solution; the dynamic solution is then searched in the following form:
( ) t y y
y
sin
0
+ = (17)
It can be thought of the new model as if at every point of the spatial mesh along the
pipeline the unknown variables oscillate about the static solution with angular frequency .
The amplitude of the perturbation
y
is assumed to be small (i.e. <<1) so that the
polynomial expansion can be halted at the first order terms [18]. Such a technique can be used
only if the excitation angular frequency does not correspond to a natural frequency of the
pipeline; if such a condition is verified, a set of ordinary differential equations is obtained, the
amplitude vector , containing all the amplitude components
y
, being unknown.
The equilibrium equations are formally similar to Eqs. (1116) also in the dynamic case,
except for the addition of an inertial term on the right hand side [18]:
( )   t t U J
dt
d
A
t
r
m F
I
+ +
=
2
2
1
(18)
where r is the position vector of the pipe span, t is the unit vector tangent to the pipeline, J
is water flow velocity, U is relative velocity, m is pipe mass per unit length. The resulting
ordinary differential system takes the following expression:
cos = x sin = y cos sin V H EJ = = (1922)
( )  
2 2 2
1
sin cos cos sin sin cos 2 cos + + =
&
& & &
&
& & & & & y y x x A x m H (23)
( )   q x x y y A y m V + + + + =
2 2 2
1
sin cos cos sin sin cos 2 sin
&
& & &
&
& & & & & (24)
where the prime sign () indicates derivation with respect to curvilinear abscissa s.
9
4. APPLICATIONS
4.1. Statics
The system (1116) of nonlinear differential algebraic equations can not be solved in closed
form due to the heavy coupling among them; the solution has been worked out through a
finite differences numeric scheme, after adimensionalisation. Figures 4a4f show the
deformed shapes and bending moments for the same pipeline but plotted in case of different
stream velocities (considered positive if coherent with the x axis direction) for the most
common laying angles at vessels end.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Fig. 4: Deformed shapes and moments obtained for different drag forces and for different angles at vessel
10
Previous plots of Fig. 4 clearly show the influence of the drag force generated by the
stream: a unitforce stream flowing in the same direction of laying progression yields a
decrease in the bending moment (and therefore in pipes stress state) while the lay barge goes
away from the TDP; on the other hand, if the current flows opposite the TDP gets closer to
the vessel but the bending moment is increased. The solutions obtained by the described
model have been compared with the output of a commercial FEM package, with a close
agreement as shown in Tab. 1.
F.E.M. Finite Difference
X
TDP
580 m 579 m
TDP
0.032 0.032
M
TDP
184 kNm 135 kNm
N
TDP
5.81 MN 5.81 MN
T
TDP
61.8 kN 58.9 kN
M
max
2310 kNm 2180 kNm
X(
Mmax
) 95 m 99 m
N
A
3.37 MN 3.11 MN
A
85.8 85.8
w.f.
max
0.763 0.736
Tab. 1: Comparison between FEM and finite difference method results
4.2. Dynamics
To solve the differential system (1924) by a finite differences scheme, the following
parameters are introduced [19]:
q
L m
f
a
=
2
1
q
L m
f
i
0
2
1
=
q
L A
f
ca
=
2
q
L A
f
ci
0
2
= (2528)
and the following adimensional system is obtained:
=
0
sin
~
x =
0
cos
~
y 0
~
= (2931)
) cos
~
sin
~
(
~
cos
~
sin ) sin
~
cos
~
(
~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V H p V p H p V H p + + + = (32)
  ) cos sin
~
cos
~
(
~ ~
cos sin ) cos (
~
~
0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0
2
y x f x f y f f f x H
ca a ci ci i
+ + + + + = (33)
  ) cos sin
~
sin
~
(
~ ~
cos sin ) sin (
~
~
0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0
2
x y f y f x f f f y V
ca a ci ci i
+ + + + + = (34)
Eqs. (2934) represent an ordinary system of 6 linear differential equations in the 6
unknowns x
~
, y
~
,
~
, , H
~
, V
~
. The boundary conditions are the same already
defined in the static case, therefore, by using the linearization method introduced while
stating the equilibrium equations, the following boundary conditions are imposed:
0
~
1
= x 0
~
1
= y 0
1
=
+ N
0
~
1
=
+ N
(3538)
( )
0 1 0
4
1
1
2
~
L L
EJ
Kt
+

.

\

= (39)
1 , 0
0
1 1 1
~ ~
sin
~
cos
~
+ + + +


.

\

= +
N N N N
N
L
L
N V H (40)
11
where subscripts represent the node related to the indexed variable. The following Figs. 5 and
6 refer to a simulation case where the vessel has been subjected to a sinusoidal heave motion
with a period of 20 s and an amplitude of 10 m: pipeline response linearly depends on the
driving motion, since in test conditions the natural modes of the pipeline are not excited. In
particular, Fig. 5 plots the deformed shape of the pipeline close to TDP and near vessels end
in different time steps: it is apparent how TDP displacement closely follows vessels motion.
The bending moment in the sag bend is shown in Fig. 6 and is characterised by the same time
behaviour imposed by the motion of the vessel: the maximum value of 1 065 MNm is found at
t = 5 s in correspondence of the maximum vertical displacement of the vessel.
Fig. 5a: Pipeline deformed shape at different time
steps near the TDP (note the different axes scale)
Fig. 5b: Pipeline deformed shape at different time
steps near the vessel (note the different axes scale)
Fig. 6: Moment in the sag bend at different time steps
5. CONCLUSIONS
The solution obtained by integrating the elastica model with inflection point by means of the
finite differences scheme gives results that are comparable with the output of FEM packages,
both for the static and the dynamic cases. From the dynamic point of view, the approach
based on perturbation theory yields correct results whereas pipelines response can be
considered linear, i.e. in limited bandwidths far from natural frequencies: if such conditions
are satisfied, also in this case the results closely agree with other more sophisticated models.
It is noted that the proposed models do not consider any damping factors.
It must be stressed that in both cases computing times are one order of magnitude shorter
than the corresponding times of FEM simulation packages: this is an important result of the
12
work, in view of possible control applications; in fact, it could be very interesting to be able
to evaluate during laying the deformed shape of the suspended pipeline and therefore to
assess its stress state (particularly in the sag bend) at every instant, so as to be able to take
corrective actions tending to decrease pipe deformations that could possibly damage pipes
structure or limit its working conditions for all the possible lay configurations.
It is finally anticipated that the Authors are currently working out more sophisticated
models that are able to take damping into consideration as well as DAE models that integrate
the suspended pipe span and the pipeline laid on the bottom of the sea into one coherent
model, without any need for a separation in two parts, as done in the present work.
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Snamprogetti and ENI for the fruitful cooperation and for the
permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] DnV: Rules for Submarine Pipeline System; Det Norske Veritas (1981)
[2] DnV Offshore Standard OSF101: Submarine Pipelines Rules by Det Norske Veritas, Hvik (2000)
[3] Crisfield M.A.: Non Linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures Vol. 1; Wiley (1992)
[4] Rammant L.R and Bockx, E.: Offshore Pipeline Installation Sensitivity Analysis for a Conventional Lay
barge, Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 2, pp 1321 (1980)
[5] Vitali L. and Bruschi, R.: Vortex Shedding Induced Oscillations during Pipelaying, Proc. Intl. Conf. on
Hydroelasticity in Marin Technology, Trondheim, Norway (1994)
[6] Bruschi R. et al.: Pipelay Dynamics due to Cross Currents Induced Vortex Shedding, Snamprogetti Internal
Document (1992)
[7] Clauss G.F.et al.: Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis of Marine Pipelines during Laying, Ship
Technology Research, Vol. 38 (1991)
[8] Clauss G.F. et al.: Offshore Pipelaying: Significance of Motions and Dynamic Stresses during Laying
Operations, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC Paper No. 6760, Houston (1992)
[9] Wilson E.L.: Numerical Methods for Dynamic Analysis, in Numerical Methods in Offshore Engineering,
ed. Zienkiewicz, Wiley, pp. 195220 (1978).
[10] Shekher V, et al.: A Linearized Approach for the Evaluation of Dynamic Stresses in Offshore Pipelines
during Installation, Proc. of 3
rd
ASME Intl. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Symposium, New Orleans (1994)
[11] Langner C.G.: Relationships for deepwater Suspended Pipe Spans, Proc Ocean and Marine Engineering,
New Orleans, Lousiana, February 1217, pp. 552558 (1984)
[12] Guarracino F., Mallardo V.: A refined analytical analysis of submerged pipelines in seabed laying, Applied
Ocean Reserch, Vol. 21, pp. 281293 (1999)
[13] Kinball C., Tsai LW.: Modelling of flexural beams subjected to arbitrary end loads, ASME Journal of
Mechanical Design, Vol. 124, pp. 223235 (2002)
[14] Inoue Y., Surendran S.: Dynamics of the interaction of mooring line with sea bed, Proc. 4
th
Intl. Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan, April 1015, pp.317322 (1994)
[15] Love A.E.H.: On the mathematical theory of elasticity; 4
th
ed., Dover Publications, New York (1944).
[16] Villaggio P.: Mathematical models for elastic structures, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
(1977)
[17] Impollonia N., Muscolino G.: Static and Dynamic Analysis of NonLinerar Uncertain Structures,
Meccanica, Vol. 37, pp. 179192 (2002)
[18] Albow C.M., Schechter S.: Numerical simulation of undersea cable dynamics, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 10
N. 6, pp. 443457 (1983)
[19] Sofi A., Borino G., Muscolino G.: Dynamic Analysis of Prestressed Cables with Uncertain Pretension,
Meccanica, Vol. 37, pp. 179192 (2002)