Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Simulated in-line deployment of offshore rigid eld joint A

testing concept
Ahmed M. Reda a,b,n, Ali Mothana Saleh Al-Yafei a, Ian M. Howard b, Gareth L. Forbes b,
Kristoffer K. McKee b
a
b

Qatar Petroleum, Doha, Qatar

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 17 September 2015
Accepted 8 December 2015

Failure of submarine power cables have been shown to be attributed to cable eld joints in 18% of cases.
This high failure rate at the joining location indicates that the current acceptance testing of these joints is
inadequate. The failure mode of these joints is believed to be entirely due to water ingress at the eld
joint location. Submarine cable eld joints are required during installation due to cable repair, joining of
insufcient manufactured cable lengths or when the lay process has to be abandoned due to the
sea state.
Current design guidance for cable eld joints suggests sea trails to determine if the proposed eld
joining technique is acceptable. Sea trails, however, are often prohibitively expensive, such that a set of
standardised onshore testing regimes which improves both the reliability and affordability of these tests
would be advantageous.
This paper outlines a recent cable eld joint onshore testing regime to ensure the cable joint integrity
during the laying process as well as serviceability in operational life. The paper outlines a process for
simulation of the calculated cable laying tension and bend radius with a set of physical tests developed
for mechanical and water ingress protection.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Offshore eld joint
Subsea power cable
In-line deployment
Radial water penetration test
High voltage alternating current (HVAC)
cable
Deployment simulation

1. Introduction
According to Worzyk (2009) a study on subsea power cable
failures was undertaken in 1986 by CIGR (Conference Internationale des Grandes Reseaux Electriques). This study indicated a
typical failure rate of 0.32 failures/year/100 km. Furthermore, 82%
and 18% of the failures occurred in the cables and the joints,
respectively. The study did not specify the exact failure causes,
however, the three major fault causes for submarine cable joints
were known to be: 1) Inadequate joint design, 2) Poor joint
assembly work onboard the vessel, 3) Adverse weather conditions
during jointing, 4) Inadequate installation procedures.
The other failures to subsea power cables are due to many
other factors such as shing, anchors, dredging and other activities. According to the International Cable Protection Committee
(2009) anchors represent the largest portion of submarine cable
damages. Contact between a cable and an anchor is often
n
Corresponding author at: Qatar Petroleum, Doha, Qatar. Tel.: 974 5576 5276;
fax: 974 4013 9058.
E-mail address: reda@qp.com.qa (A.M. Reda).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.019
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

disastrous as the forces applied by a moving anchor may be

extremely high. The anchoring hazard may result from:

Emergency anchoring (where an anchor is deployed to prevent

collision or grounding).

Negligent anchoring.

A vessel being anchored inadequately and a resultant dragging
session.

Accidental anchoring (where an anchor falls unexpectedly from

a vessel due to equipment failure or operator error)

Insufcient protection for the cable

Component damage

Fig. 1 shows a proportion of cable faults by cause, from a

database of 2162 records spanning 19592006.
It can be seen from Fig. 1 that cable failure components
represents 7.2% of the statistical distribution of damages.
Worzyk (2009) indicated that while many failure statistics
account for failures during operation, the statistics normally do not
include damage to the cable that happens before commissioning.
Cable damages during the installation might call for expensive and
time-consuming repair operations.

154

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Fig. 1. Proportion of cable faults by cause Source: Tyco Telecommunications

(US) Inc.

Worzyk (2009) stated that The failure of some early installation joints during service shaded the reputation of submarine
power cable joints. Failures in the joints were usually caused by
poor engineering or inadequate installation procedures.
CIGR study (Update of Service Experience of HV Underground
and Submarine Cable Systems, 2009) revealed that there were
only four joint failures out of 49 failures in total in 7000 km of
installed submarine cable. The study stated that 19 of the 49
reported faults could be repaired within one month. The ratio of
joint failures changed from 0.22 to 0.095 failures/year/100 km,
from 1986 to 2009, respectively as per Worzyk (2009). This
demonstrates that the design of submarine cables has been
improved over the years and the cable joints are safer and more
reliable today than in 1986.
CIGR (2010) & Worzyk (2009) highlighted that manufacturing
of a reliable joint is often the most difcult undertaking during the
development. During the installation or the deployment of the
joints, they should withstand the mechanical stress and strains.
CIGR TB490 (CIGR TB490) emphasized the importance of
paying attention to repair joints as part of the AC submarine cable
system. DNV-RP-J301 (2014) indicated that all joints and terminations shall be subjected to a test program in accordance with the
applicable standards. Since subsea installation eld joints and
repair joints connect the cable parts along the cable route to form
one integrated cable, the joint has to withstand all the expected
different loads during the service life the same as the cable
(Karlsdttir, 2013). This paper focuses only on the stiff joints which
have a rigid outer casing. This rigid joint serves as a connection
point for the armouring wires of each cable end. The deployment
of a rigid joint on the sea bed is probably the trickiest and most
complicated operation of the cable installation. This is in part
because during the deployment operation the two jointed cables
must be handled with the rigid joint. Neither over-bending nor
over-tensioning must occur or the cable arrangement being stuck
in other structures on board Worzyk (2009). The deployment of
the rigid joints requires a complicated crane arrangement due to
the stiffness of the joints as well as the increased diameter of the
joint compared to the cable. The stresses experienced by the joints
during the deployment on the sea bed are the likely maximum
stresses experienced by the joint during the service life. Therefore,
it is important to verify the mechanical integrity and reliability of
the rigid joint during deployment.
Jointing operation is challenging and requires valuable vessel
time, good planning, highly qualied personnel, proper equipment
for deployment, jointing facility container load on the vessel as
well as good coordination between the jointing crew and the
vessel crew. Jointing operation typically requires from one day to
several days, depending on the cable joint and joint design, by
which a good weather window is required to complete the

jointing operation. Cable and joint repair is impossible during

storm seasons as it is difcult to nd suitable weather windows
that hold up long enough. Good weather conditions are essential
to ensure the workmanship of the joint and to obviate cable fatigue damage of the hanging cable sections. It is essential to ensure
the reliability of the offshore installation joints and repair joints.
This is in part because any failure in the joint could lead to blackouts in offshore platforms resulting in nancial and reputation
impacts on the offshore platform operators.
It should be highlighted that installation joint, eld joint or
repair joint denotes a joint of the complete submarine power
cable including the conductor, insulation system, armoring and all
other intermediate layers. The rigid joint often requires complicated rigging arrangements for the deployment. This is in part due
to the joint stiffness and increased diameter. Subsea cable offshore
rigid eld joints have to be designed and correctly installed. If not,
the offshore eld joint will represent weak points and frequently
turn out to be the only source of seawater ingress. This seawater
ingress will subsequently lead to electrical failures. For reliability,
offshore eld joints should be avoided where possible, as they are
a potential source of failure. However, in some situations it is
impossible to avoid offshore eld joints especially in the cases
whenever the subsea cable becomes damaged or the cable laying
operation must be temporarily stopped.
For the offshore pipeline installation industry, abandonment of
the laying operation takes place when the weather conditions do
not allow pipelay activities to continue or due to unforeseen circumstances in the pipeline eld area. In this situation, normally a
temporary abandonment head is welded to the end of the pipeline. The tension is then transferred from the tensioners to the
abandonment and recovery (A&R) winch and the abandonment of
the pipeline can begin. The barge is moved ahead a sufcient
distance to allow the abandonment to hard rest on the seabed as
illustrated in Fig. 2. However, the situation can be different with
the laying of subsea power cables.
Depending on the kind of emergency, there will be different
procedures according to time availability for sealing the subsea
cable. However, the cable will still be cut for each of the possible
scenarios. Once the weather conditions improve, the recovery
procedure will be undertaken in the reserve in order to continue
the deployment operation. Then, the in-line jointing will take
place using an offshore eld joint (OFJ). DNV-RP-J301 (2014)
recommends that the repair joint should, if possible, be laid in line
with the cable not within an arc.
CIGR TB490 (CIGR TB490) denes the eld joint as the joint
which is made onboard the cable installation vessel between the
cable lengths. Whereas, it denes the repair joint as the joint used
to repair a damaged submarine cable or jointing two delivery
lengths offshore. In principle there is no difference between a eld
joint and repair joint. The subject joint can be considered as either
a eld joint or repair joint. The subject joint shall only be used in
the situation where a repair joint is required during the cable
installation, and Omega laying, shown in Fig. 3, is not viable due to
the seabed conguration or crossing conditions. In the offshore
industry, the U shape that is deployed on the seaoor is also
known as Omega.
Electra No. 189 (Electra 189) indicated that the aim of the type
test is to qualify the design and the manufacturing of the cable
system against the conditions of the intended application.
As part of CIGR TB490 (CIGR TB490), type tests were conducted on a 132 kV power cable with unit capacity of 100 MW.
This is inclusive of offshore rigid eld joints (OFJ) as shown in
Fig. 4.
Recently, a type test for an offshore rigid eld joint was repeated three times. In the rst and the second type tests, the OFJ
passed all the mechanical and electrical tests successfully. On the

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

155

Fig. 2. Abandonment operations.

Fig. 3. Omega joint deployment.

Fig. 4. Offshore eld joint (OFJ).

contrary, the OFJ did not meet the criteria dened in CIGR TB490
(CIGR TB490) for the radial water penetration (RWP) test.
Therefore, it was decided to undertake a trial laying test with OFJ
in addition to the third RWP test as required for part of the type
test. It should be mentioned that after the investigations using the
results from type tests 1 and 2, it was concluded that the OFJ
during the two type tests were not dismantled carefully. Moreover,
stresses were introduced to the pre-molded joint during the
release from the compound lling before conducting the RWP
tests. The OFJ failed the two RWP tests due to one of the premolded joints containing incomplete llings at two locations of
the copper housings. During the third test, the OFJ was dismantled
cautiously and it was ensured that no additional stresses would be
introduced to the pre-molded joint during the release from the
compound lling before the execution of the RWP test. Also, it was
ensured that adequate measures were implemented to ensure that
the copper housing of the pre-molded joint was lled completely.

Water penetration tests can be conducted to measure the

ability of the rigid joint to resist the water penetration up to the
maximum water depth of the submarine joint. Water tightness is a
crucial feature for a high quality power cable system. CIGR TB490
(CIGR TB490) recommends that actual sea trials be conducted to
ensure the quality of the repaired joints. The loading conditions
during the deployment of the rigid joint on the seabed are critical.
Previously many joint failures occurred in the few days following
installation/early operation. Hence, by controlling loading conditions during deployment operation, the joints do not have to be
regarded as a weak joint anymore. Due to time constraints as well
as logistic issues, it was decided to replace the sea trial tests with
simulated on-land deployment. This was used to verify the
mechanical integrity of the OFJ and to identify OFJ weak points
under the deployment conditions.
In order to determine the loads which should be applied on the
OFJ during the on-land simulation, dynamic simulations using
OrcaFlex software (Manual, 2014) were undertaken to calculate all
the relevant loads/stresses expected during the over-boarding/
deployment procedure. OrcaFlex is a standard industry three
dimensional non-linear time domain nite element program
specically developed for marine dynamics and suited to the
dynamic analysis modeling of cable catenaries.
Similarly to the deployment simulation undertaken by this
paper to mimic the deployment of the in-line rigid joint offshore,
Woo et al. (2015) carried out an experiment to verify that the
anchor collision caused no damage to the power cable covered by
rock berm. Furthermore, Yoon and Na (2013) performed a safety
assessment of mattress type submarine power cable protectors
under the dragging forces of a 2-ton anchor through eld tests
on land.

156

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

This paper presents a new testing arrangement and testing

procedure which can be used to simulate the deployment of inline rigid offshore eld joints which is critical to the integrity of
the OFJ. This focusses with particular interest on the weak point of
the OFJ such as the plumbing point between the power cable
metallic sheath and the copper tube of the pre-molded joint as
shown in Fig. 5.
The new testing arrangements employs the design loads,
determined from the engineering simulations, to test the offshore
rigid joint in air simulating the actual installation conditions. Once
the load tests are completed, the joint including the plumbing area
was subjected to the water penetration test. In the water radial
penetration test, one pre-molded joint including plumbing areas
was submerged in pressurized water for 24 hours followed by
examination for seawater ingress. Upon completion of the radial
water penetration test, a visual inspection was conducted for the
plumbing area between the cable lead sheath and copper housing.
This was to ensure that the plumbing area was clear of any cracks,
or holes.
The new testing arrangement can be simplied to a load test of
the joint in dry air and consequently performing the radial water
penetration (RWP) test without loading. It is possible that the
seawater ingress potential would be greater, while the joint is
loaded and under external pressure, than the subject deployment
simulation where the loads on the joint are applied in air and then
the radial water penetration test is done without loading. Nevertheless, to overcome this issue during the radial penetration test,
the external pressure employed in RWP corresponds to the maximum water depths along the pipeline plus 50 m. This is consistent
with Electra 171 (Electra 171). Electra 171 (Electra 171) recommends to employ an external pressure in the RWP corresponding
to the maximum water depths along the cable plus 50 m in case of
the water depth less than 500 m and maximum water depth plus
100 m for water depths over 500 m.
The new testing arrangement offers an alternative to subsea
immersion testing for subsea cable joints and offshore deployment
simulations.

2. Testing design process for deployment simulation

The testing design process for the deployment simulation
involves a series of steps as shown in Fig. 6.
1. Dene cable/ crane hoist/ eye-bolt/ joint acceptance criteria (i.e.
allowable tension, minimum bend radius, crane hoist load,

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.
7.

eye-bolt load, allowable bending moment for the joint body).

More details of this step can be found in Section 4.
Select the optimum layback and departure angle. In this step
OrcaFlex (Manual, 2014) dynamic simulations should be undertaken to determine the layback which resulted in the highest
dynamic workability (low tension / compression and curvature
exceedance). Refer to Section 4.6.
Perform still water analysis at zero wave and current using
OrcaFlex (Manual, 2014). The objective of this step is to
investigate whether the acceptance criteria dened in step-1
are met with wide margin which then allows for wave/current
action to be added. Refer to Section 4.10.
Perform dynamic simulations using OrcaFlex (Manual, 2014) to
determine the limiting weather criteria. Refer to Section 4.11.
Perform a stress analysis using ABAQUS (Manual, 2012) for the
OFJ body to ensure that the allowable bending is not exceeded
during the deployment. In this step the bending moment from
steps 3 and 4 shall be used. Should the stresses from ABAQUS be
beyond the allowable stresses, the limiting weather criteria
should be relaxed and the dynamic simulations run again to
dene the relaxed weather criteria, as discussed in Section 4.12.
Dene loads from dynamic simulations using OrcaFlex to perform the mechanical test on the OFJ. Refer to Section 5.
Conduct the mechanical test followed by visual inspection and
RWP test as per Section 5. Should the radial water penetration
(RWP) test and in-line test items not be acceptable after
completing the mechanical test, then another joint should be
prepared and the limiting weather criteria relaxed. If the radial
water penetration test and in-line test items are acceptable then
the OFJ design can be deemed to be acceptable.

3. Offshore eld joint inline deployment procedure

This section highlights the steps which should be used to
deploy the in-line joints as an integral part of the emergency
contingency procedure during cable installation. Figs. 710 show
some of the required steps and a brief description of the operation.
Fig. 7 shows the use of the vessel crane to lift the joint outboard. The tensioner pays out the cable to ensure sufcient slack
during operation. The joint is then lowered through the splash
zone area.
Fig. 8 shows that as soon as the joint is fully submerged, the
tension on the crane wire will be removed. The crane wire will
only be detached from the joint when the joint reaches the seabed.
Until then nominal tension shall be maintained to ensure that the

Fig. 5. Plumbing area after in-line test and water penetration test.

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

157

Fig. 6. Testing design process.

Fig. 7. Lift the joint outboard. Tensioner to pay out cable to ensure sufcient slack during operation.

crane wire does not become entangled with the joint. During this
step, it is important to ensure that the departure angle is according
to the dynamic simulations undertaken.
Fig. 9 illustrates the lowering of the joint until it rests on the
seabed. The remote operate vehicle (ROV) will conrm proper set
down. It is important to ensure that the departure angle is
according to the dynamic simulations undertaken. The installation
vessel then proceeds with the laying of the remaining cable as
illustrated in Fig. 10.

departure angle, layback length, cable, and chute and touchdown

point. The simulations undertaken in this section were made using
OrcaFlex (Manual, 2014).
Fig. 12 illustrates the environmental conventions used throughout
the simulations. The wave direction is also illustrated in Fig. 12.
The environmental conventions are indicated as follows:

Stern wave (0 degree)

Starboard (90 degrees)
Head wave (180 degrees)
Portside (270 degrees)

4. Step 1 Dene Cable/crane hoist/eye-bolt/Joint acceptance

criteria

4.1. Cable data

Fig. 11 presents the cable lay conventions which are used in the
paper. The results presented are parametric with respect to the

The cross section and the mechanical properties of the submarine cable are highlighted in Fig. 13 and Table 1.

158

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Fig. 8. Lower the joint through the splash zone area.

Fig. 9. Keep lowering the joint until it rests on the seabed.

Fig. 10. Installation vessel to resume the normal cable laying operations.

Fig. 11. Cable lay conventions.

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

159

Fig. 12. Environmental conventions.

4.2. Joint data

Table 1
The mechanical properties of 132 kV HVAC submarine cable.

The joint is comprised of the actual joint, armor pot and bend
restrictor. The joint schematic is shown in Fig. 4. Tables 24 present the properties of the actual joint, armor pot and bend
restrictor, noting that the joint is not a rigid body but a exible
member having prescribed bending limits.
The allowable tension in the cable inside the bend restrictor
varies with the angle of the bending. Table 5 illustrates the relationship between the bending angle and allowable tension for the
cable inside the bend restrictor.
4.3. Crane lifting capacity
Table 6 highlights the maximum crane capacity limit used
throughout the simulations.

Item

Value

Unit

Outer diameter
Weight in air
Weight in water
Axial stiffness
Bending stiffness
Allowable tension (Straight Pull)
Allowable tension (on Minimum Bend Radius (MBR) pull)
Allowable compression (Straight Pull)
Allowable compression (on MBR pull)
Minimum Bending Radius (For installation)
Allowable curvature (For installation)

191
70
41
650
26
160
115
 17.3
 10.2
2.9
0.345

mm
kg/m
kg/m
MN
kN m2
kN
kN
kN
kN
m
Rad/m

Table 2
Joint body details.

4.4. Lifting aids capacity

Item

Value

Unit

Table 7 highlights the maximum eye-bolt and shackle capacity

limits used throughout the simulations.

Length
Outside diameter
Axial stiffness
Bending stiffness
Bending moment
Weight in air
Submerged weight

5580
605
2680
88000
125
744
449.3

mm
mm
MN
kN m2
kN m
Kg/m
kg/m

4.5. Wave data

A range of Hs (Signicant Wave Height) was applied in the
simulations, varying from 0.5 m to 1.00 m for WD (Water Depth)
38.4 m. A corresponding
realistic
p
p range of Tp (Peak Period) is
dened by H s :13 o T p o H s :30 as highlighted in (NDGL),
which is the relation for wind driven seas. In the analysis, 3 Tps
are considered, shown in Table 8, under categories of Upper
Bound, Best Estimate and Lower Bound Time Periods. The best
estimate time period is an average of the upper and lower bounds.
The JONSWAP (Joint North Sea Wave Project) spectrum was analyzed with the wave steepness value formulated from (DNV)
Section 3.5.5.5, shown below,
p
5 for T p = Hs r 3:6;


T
Hs

T
Hs

p
p
for 3:6 o p o 5;
exp 5:75  1:15p

and
T
Hs

p
:
1 for 5 o p

The inuence of the steepness factor over the Hs can be summarized as shown in Fig. 14.

4.6. Step 2 Select the optimum layback and departure angle

An intensive analysis was undertaken to determine the optimum layback distance and the departure angle of the cable. The
main criteria in selecting the optimum layback among the various
options was to choose the layback which resulted in the highest
dynamic workability (low tension/compression and curvature
exceedance).
Figs. 15 and 16 present the cable curvature and the effective
tension in the cable respectively. The results in these gures are
extracted from OrcaFlex dynamic simulations undertaken at the
same water depth and different layback lengths. It can be seen
from Fig. 15 that the cable curvatures at layback lengths of 44 m
(with legend shown on Fig. 15 as L44) and 50 m (L50) exceed the
allowable curvature. Fig. 16 shows that the compression generated
in the cable at layback lengths of 44 m (L44) and 50 m (L50)
exceed the allowable axial compression limit. Also, the same gure
shows that the effective tension for the layback length of 59 m
(L59) was greater than that from the layback length of 54 m. Based

160

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Fig. 13. Conguration of 132 kV HVAC submarine cable.

Table 3
Armor pot details.

Table 7
Lifting aids capacity.

Item

Value

Unit

Item

Value

Unit

Length per side

Outside diameter
Axial stiffness
Bending stiffness
Bending moment
Weight in air
Submerged weight

358
291
3695
36400
180
210.7
142.5

mm
mm
MN
kN m2
kN m
Kg/m
kg/m

Shackle
Eye-Bolt

9.5
17.3

Tonnes
Tonnes

Table 4
Bend restrictor details.
Item

Value

Unit

Length per side

Outside diameter
Axial stiffness
Bending stiffness unloaded
Bending stiffness loaded
Bending moment
Weight in air
Submerged weight
Minimum Bend Radius

2129
291
650
26
4600
100
281.4
213.2
3.0

mm
mm
MN
kN m2
kN m2
kN m
Kg/m
kg/m
m

Table 5
Bend restrictor allowable tension.
Angle Allowable tension (kN)
0
15
30
45
60
75
90

120
116
104
85
60
35
20

Table 6
Crane capacity.
Item

Value

Unit

Crane lifting capacity at smallest reach

Crane lifting capacity at largest reach
Crane block lifting capacity

13
4.9
30

Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes

Table 8
Wave data.
Hs [m] Lower bound (LB)
[s]

Best estimate (LB) [s] Upper bound (UB) [s]

0.5
0.75
1.0

3.24
3.97
4.58

2.55
3.12
3.61

3.87
4.74
5.48

on that it can be concluded that the optimum layback is 54 m. This

layback length resulted in low applied tension to the cable and
allowable curvature.
4.7. Initial set-up
Fig. 17 shows a snapshot from the OrcaFlex model used to
calculate all the relevant loads and stresses expected during the
actual installation. These loads were applied on the OFJ during the
on-land simulation. The initial set-up can be envisaged from
Fig. 18. In this example, the vessel, at its draft, was positioned so
that the layback length was approximately 54 m for a water depth
of 38.4 m.
It is worth mentioning that the water depth of 38.4 m was
selected as it represents the maximum water depth along the
cable route. Deployment simulations are considered at water
depths of 10 m, 20 m and 30 m. However, it is concluded that the
stresses experienced by the eld joint increases with the increased
water depth.
OrcaFlex models were developed of the cable, joint, winch and
vessel. The Cable and joint were modeled as lines objects in
Orcaex using input data described in 4.1 and 4.2. The winch wire
was modeled as a simple winch. The end point of the cable was
anchored on the seabed, whereas the end of the cable on the
vessel was free. The segmentation of the lines in OrcaFlex has a
considerable inuence on the accuracy of the results. As such a
sensitivity study was carried out to establish how small the segments had to be set before the results converged. This is

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

161

Fig. 14. Effect of Gamma and signicant wave height on spectrum.

Fig. 15. Cable curvature calculated at different layback lengths.

Fig. 16. Cable tension calculated at different layback lengths.

particularly important for the stress. The timestep size can be very
important to the accuracy of the results, but also has a signicant
impact upon the time it takes to run a simulation. For this reason it
is desirable to maximize the time steps, but without compromising accuracy or model stability.

4.8. Rigging set-up

In this step the in-line joint was lifted using a pulley arrangement where a sling was used to pass the joint over the pulley
neatly into the crane hook location as shown in Fig. 19. For the

162

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Fig. 17. Snapshot from OrcaFlex Model.

Fig. 18. OrcaFlex Model showing the starting point of the simulation.

OrcaFlex simulations, a 17 m steel sling was used. However, the

selection and the details of the slings were based on the maximum
dynamic force results. In the simulations, the pulley was held
7.6 m above the in-line joint at the taut sling as illustrated in
Fig. 20. Note that at this position, the joint is still located on the
vessel desk with no lift from the cable.
4.9. Crane operation and vessel maneuvers
In this step, the in-line joint was lifted by the crane and the
vessel was moved. The manoeuvers were done in such way that:

The allowable tension, minimum bend radius, axial compression of the cable, etc. are not exceeded.

There was no chance of immediate collision of the joint with the

adjoining metal structures.

Fig. 19. Lifting arrangement.

The total movement of the joint is displayed in Fig. 21. Additionally, Fig. 21 highlights the cable shape at different time steps of
the dynamic simulation undertaken using the OrcaFlex software.
This gure starts at the moment the crane lifts the in-line joint
until the moment the in-line joint is laid on the seabed. It is worth

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Fig. 20. Initial position of the crane hook with reference to the in-line joint.

Fig. 21. Cable shape at different time line of events and important events marked.

Fig. 22. Cable tension over length 38.4 m water depth.

163

164

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

indicating that the slings were released from the pulley once the
in-line joint was laid on the seabed.

4.10. Step 3 perform still water analysis

The bending moment along the cable is shown in Fig. 24. It is

evident that the bending moment requirement along the cable
was not exceeded.
4.11. Step 4 perform dynamic simulations

In this section, the analysis is undertaken ignoring the wave

inuence to determine if the requirements of tension, compression and curvature in the cable were met with some wide margin
which will later allow for wave action to be added.
OrcaFlex was used to extract the range of the tension values
shown in Fig. 22. It can be seen from the results that compression
was occurring at the joint. The joint has been designed for these
small compression loads. The compression in the OFJ is in part due
to the rigging set-up.
Fig. 23 illustrates the maximum curvature in the cable. The
gure demonstrates that the curvature requirement in the cable
was met. Moreover, the effect of the bend restriction was pronounced between the length (69.571.6 m) and (78.279.5 m) as
the curvature became reduced.

Upon completing the still water analysis, a range of dynamic

environments were introduced in the OrcaFlex model to investigate the
deviation in the results to the following environmental parameters:

Wave height
Wave Period
Wave direction
Current velocity

The dynamic simulations are required to determine the maximum seastate condition within which the vessel can deploy the
joint and the cable giving regard to the following:

Hoist wire tension.

Fig. 23. Cable curvature over length in 38.4 m water depth.

Fig. 24. Cable bending moment over length 38.4 m water depth.

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum

tension in the cable

bending moment in the cable.
curvature in the cable.
declination in the hoist wire

The results of the maximum tension in the cable, maximum

bending moment in the cable and maximum curvature in the

165

cable will be presented only in this section. The other results will
not be presented due to the paper length.
Fig. 25 presents the tension in the cable obtained from the range
graph. In this gure, the maximum and minimum tensions are given
as a function of environment. It can be seen from the gure that the
signicant wave height of 1 m at the upper bound wave period shows
tensions are beyond the acceptable limit of the cable.

Fig. 25. Cable tension value versus signicant wave height, peak period and steady current for the worst wave heading and current.

Fig. 26. Cable tension value versus wave direction and current for wave height 1 m and time 5.47 s.

Fig. 27. Cable curvature value versus signicant wave height, peak period and steady current for the worst wave heading and current.

166

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Fig. 28. Cable curvature value versus wave direction and current for wave height 1 m and time 5.47 s.
Table 9
Boundary condition and loading condition of analysis cases.
Analysis case Boundary condition
I

II

Loads applied

Fixed at Upper Hole of 2 Main

Flange

Gravitational Force of OFJ:

5.5 t
Bending Moment at Both
Armor Pot: 125 kN m
Fixed at Upper Hole of 2 Inter- Gravitational Force of OFJ:
mediate Flange
5.5 t
Bending Moment at Both
Armor Pot: 125 kN m

From Fig. 26 the limiting weather criteria, for joint deployment,

can be determined.
Figs. 27 and 28 show the curvature of the cable as a function of
environment. It can be seen from Fig. 27 that the curvature of the
subsea cable is above the allowable curvature limit for signicant
wave height of 1 m and upper bound wave period (5.47 s). In these
gures the red line refers to the cable allowable curvature and the
green line refers to the bend restrictor allowable curvature.
The curvature of the cable was also checked at the signicant
wave height of 1 m and upper bound wave period (5.47 s) for
different wave directions as indicated on Fig. 28.
Fig. 28 shows that the curvature is beyond the allowable limit
for the 60 and 90 degrees wave directions.
As indicated earlier the extensive OrcaFlex simulations were
undertaken to determine the limiting weather criteria during the
actual offshore jointing as well as to employ the likely maximum
expected loads in the on-land simulation. This is in part to verify
the mechanical properties of OFJ under deployment conditions.
4.12. Step 5 stress analysis for the joint
As the OFJ is subjected to a bending moment during the
deployment of the in-line OFJ, this section presents stress analysis
undertaken using the multi-purpose nite element package ABAQUS (Manual, 2012).
It can be seen from Fig. 22 that the maximum tension obtained
from the still water analysis at the water depth of 38.4 m was
70 kN. The maximum dynamic tension from OrcaFlex dynamic
simulation was 100 kN. This tension value is associated with the
maximum seastate condition within which the vessel can deploy
the joint and the cable. However, for conservatism this dynamic
tension associated with the maximum seastate will not be used to
calculate the dynamic amplication factor. Instead a tension value
of 112 kN will be used. This value represents the vessels tensioner
capacity. Based on that the dynamic amplication factor (DAF) can

be determined from the following equation:

DAF

Maximum TensionDynamic
112
1:6

70
Maximum Tension for still water condition

It should be highlighted that this DAF will be used later in the

hand calculations as part of the test procedure & requirements.
Table 9 presents the two cases undertaken where the loads are
applied to the joint as well as the boundary conditions employed in
the two cases. The bending moments of the joint are applied using
reference points at the right and the left ends that kinematically
couples the relevant degrees of freedom of the inner joint faces.
Reference points are constrained in the remaining DOF in which they
are not kinematically coupled with the inner joint faces. Single node
restraints are applied as per Table 9 to obviate rigid body motions.
Linear elastic analyzes were considered to determine the stresses to be
checked against the allowable stress criteria. The joint was modeled
using S4R having 4 nodes (quadrilateral), with all 6 active degrees of
freedom per node. S4R allows transverse shear deformation, where
the transverse shear becomes very small as the shell thickness
decreases (Manual, 2012). Fine nite element meshes were used in
regions of the joint where stress concentrations may occur.
Figs. 29 and 30 show schematics for the two analysis cases
undertaken using ABAQUS. As can be seen, the bending moment of
125 kN m was applied to the two ends of the OFJ. This bending
moment value represents the allowable bending moment for the
OFJ. Beside the bending moment applied to the two ends of the
OFJ, a gravity load of 5.5 t was applied to the OFJ. This bending
moment is greater than the dynamic bending moment obtained
from OrcaFlex simulations. The gravity load was applied as a distributed load along the OFJ length. During the deployment, the
crane will lift the OFJ using two main anges as indicated in
Fig. 29. This way of lifting was intended to relieve the bending
moment in the main cylindrical body of the OFJ. For conservatism,
the OFJ with different boundary condition as shown in Fig. 30 was
also investigated. This is in order to capture the likely maximum
bending moment in the OFJ structure.
Fig. 31 shows the stress contour extracted from ABAQUS for case I.
The maximum stress of 213.5 MPa occurs at the armor pot due to the
load concentration. However, it still remains in the elastic state. The
stress at the cylindrical body shows a low level of stress. The utilization factor is given as 0.80 ( 213.5 MPa/265 MPa).
Fig. 32 shows the stress contour for case II. The maximum
stress (219.2 MPa) occurs at the cylindrical body near the lifting
point (intermediate ange). Again, yielding of the cylindrical body
did not occur. Therefore we can ascertain that the allowable
bending moment of the OFJ structure is at least 125 kNm which is
harsher than the loading condition of the inline deployment. The
utilization factor is 0.83 ( 219.2 MPa/265 MPa).

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

167

Fig. 29. The boundary and loading condition of analysis case I.

Fig. 30. The boundary and loading condition of analysis case II.

Fig. 31. Stress contour of OFJ (Fixed at 2 Main Flanges, Bending Moment: 125 kNm).

5. Step 6 conduct the mechanical test followed by visual

inspection and RWP test
5.1. Testing concept for simulated in-line deployment of OFJ
It was indicated from the OrcaFlex simulations that during the
deployment operations, there are three critical stages which have
high tension or bending moment as illustrated in Fig. 33. The loads
given in this section are extracted from Orcaex simulations
undertaken as part of the installation engineering.
Before conducting the test, it was decided to compare the
results obtained from Orcaex against the analytical calculations
of residual tension. The detailed hand calculations of the
mechanical load during the in-line deployment of the OFJ are
presented below. The calculations are based on Electra 171
(Electra 171).
Cable and offshore eld joint (OFJ) parameters
Cable weight in air, WAir 70 kg/m
Cable weight in water, Wwater 41 kg/m

OFJ weight in air, WOFJ, Air 5500 kg (from bend restrictor to

bend restrictor including the cable)
OFJ weight in water, WOFJ, water 3517 kg (from bend restrictor
to bend restrictor including the cable)
Length of OFJ, LOFJ 10.55 m (from bend restrictor to bend
restrictor)
Inline deployment
For these calculations, refer to Fig. 18.
Water depth, D 38.4 m (Max.)
Vertical distance from water level to center of the joint body,
d 9.0 m
Vertical distance from seabed to center of the joint body,
D d 38.4 9.0 47.4 m
Unsupported catenary length, Lc 74.8 m
Departure angle, 36
Catenary factor, fc Lc/(D d) 74.8/47.4 1.58
Residual tension factor, fR 0.2 (Based on Electra 171)
During the in-line deployment, there are 3 representative
stages which have high tension or

168

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Fig. 32. Stress contour of OFJ (Fixed at 2 Intermediate Flanges, Bending Moment: 125 kNm).

bending of OFJ as shown in Fig. 33.

Stage I: above the stern chute
Catenary length corresponding to air section, Lc,Air
fc  d 1.58  9.0 m 14.22 m
Catenary weight corresponding to air section, Wc,Air WAir  LC,Air
70 kg/m  14.22 m995.4 kg
Catenary length corresponding to water section, Lc,water LC  Lc,
Air 74.8 m  14.22 m 60.58 m
Catenary weight corresponding to water section, WC,water
Wwater  Lc,water 41 kg/m  60.58 m 2484.0 kg
Total catenary weight, WC WC,Air Wc,water 995.4 kg
2484.0 kg 3479.4kg
Residual tension, Tres fRx(WAir  d Wwater  D) 0.2  (70 kg/
m  9 m 41 kg/m  38.4 m)440.9 kg
Dynamic factor, fD 1.6
Tension at left hand side of OFJ, TL fD  (WC Tres) 1.6x
(3479.4kg 440.9 kg) 6272.5 kg
Tension
at
right
hand
side
of
OFJ,
TR TL  sin
6272.5kg  sin 36 3686.9kg
Angle at left hand side of OFJ, L 45 (from Fig. 33)
Angle at right hand side of OFJ, R 45 (from Fig. 33)
STAGE II: below the seawater level
Catenary length corresponding to water section, Lc,water
Wwater,OFJ 60.58 m
Catenary weight corresponding to water section, Wc,water
Wwater  (Lc,water  LOFJ ) 41 kg/m x 50.03 m 2051.2 kg
Residual tension, Tres fRx(WAir  d WwaterD) 0.2x(70 kg/
mx9 m 41 kg/mx38.4 m) 440.9 kg
Tension at left hand side of OFJ, TL fDx(WC,water Tres) 1.6x
(2051.2 kg 440.9 kg)3987.4 kg
Tension at right hand side of OFJ, TR fDx(WC,water
WOFJ,water Tres)1.6  (2051.2 kg3517 kg440.9 kg) 9614.6 kg
Angle at left hand side of OFJ, L 0 (from Fig. 33)
Angle at right hand side of OFJ, R 0 (from Fig. 33)
STAGE III: touchdown
Tension at left hand side of OFJ, TL FdxTres 1.6  440.9 kg
705.4 kg
Tension at right hand side of OFJ, TR fD x (WOFJ,water Tres)
1.6x(3517 kg 440.9 kg) 6332.64 kg
Angle at left hand side of OFJ, L  45 (from Fig. 33)
Angle at right hand side of OFJ, R 45 (from Fig. 33)

Table 10
Load applied during the on-land simulations.
Stage

1
2
3

Tension (Tonnes)

Bending angle ( Degrees)

Left Side

Right Side

Left Side

Right Side

6.4
3.9
0.7

3.8
9
6.3

45
0
 45

 45
0
45

It was noticed that the hand calculations yield conservative

results compared to those from OrcaFlex. During the simulation,
the tensions from the hand calculations are used to perform the
testing.
The three critical stages can be summarized as follows:
1. Maximum bending: in this stage, the maximum bending takes
place roughly at 45 degrees and with maximum tensile stress of
6.4 t exerted on the joint. This is when the joint is lifted at one
side towards the end of the vessels deck as shown in Fig. 33.
2. Maximum tensile force: The bending is negligible but the tensile force encountered by the joint is maximized at 9.6t.
3. Opposite maximum bending: When the joint reaches the seabed, the cable will be bent in the opposite direction with a
bending angle of about  45 degrees but without tensile force.
The upper side of the in-line joint also experiences a bending in
the opposite direction with a tensile force of 6.3 t.
Table 10 presents the values obtained from hand calculations.
These values shall be employed during the on-land simulations.
5.2. In-line test items & acceptance criteria
Table 11 highlights the tests undertaken during the simulation and
after the completion of the on-land deployment simulation. The same
table lists the acceptance criteria associated with each test.
5.3. Testing installation set-up
This section describes the step-up adopted during the simulation to mimic the situation during the offshore installation. Noting
that the materials used in the simulation such as cable, housing,

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

169

Fig. 33. In-line deployment stages.

Table 11
Summary of in-line test items & associated acceptance criteria.
Specic In-Line Test Item

Acceptance Criteria

1. Fiber attenuation test

Fiber attenuation change during testing

Increase of attenuation per loop using power meter.

During the test: maximum 0.1 dB
After the test: maximum 0.05 dB
Change of torsion angle of the cable at bend restrictor is less than 5 degrees

2. Torsion Test
Torsion of cable at end of bend restrictor
3. Radial Water Penetration Test
Radial water penetration test on one pre-molded joint including plumbing areas, 24
hours water pressure test
4. Visual Check of plumbing area
Visual check of plumbing area between cable sheath and copper housing ( three joints )
5. Measurement of internal displacement of cable
Check the measurements in axial and angular in the 3 dimensions
6. Visual Checks
Visual check of armor pot and bend restrictor
7. Dimensional/material check on pre-molded and OFJ used

tools for installation, were identical to those deployed for the

installation on the vessel offshore.
1. The OFJ was installed in a straight arrangement.
2. During installation and assembly of the test arrangement. The
inner cores of the joint were marked to determine any signs of
axial movement, torsion or other displacement of the cable
cores that may occur during the simulation. The position measurements were in the three dimensions.
3. A visible straight marking was applied on the outside of the cable,
outer yarn at the armoring pot, outer yarn at the end of bend
restrictor, bend restrictor as well as OFJ housing. Similarly, this line
was used to determine any signs of axial movement, torsion or
other displacement of the cable cores that may occur during the
simulation. During the simulations, all the torsional variations in
the entire testing assembly were monitored and listed.
4. The total length of the arrangement was 34 m. This is in part to
perform the straight tensile test to mimic the in-line laying. Both
armoring at both ends of the cable were terminated by pulling
heads and a 1.5 m long ber optics cable. This will be fed out of the
pulling head to monitor the ber optics readings and ensure that
the changes in the light power are within acceptable limits.
5. Cable ends were xed during the simulations. The cable ends did not
rotate to ensure that any torsion in the cable due to bending or other
remained in the test sample and did not leave the cable at the ends.

No water was to be found in the joint

No visible crack.
No Hole in plumbing area.
No visible gap between plumbing and lead sheath and copper housing.
Information for further analysis & usage. The accuracy if the measurements
was less than 5 mm.
No visible crack or deformation
This was done in accordance with the applicable manufacturing plans

5.4. Stage-1 tensile bending test

In this test, the following steps were performed to mimic stage1 of the deployment procedure.
1. Before embarking on the tests, the initial attenuation of the
ber optics was measured and recorded.
2. The torsion angle of the cable in the front of the bending
restrictor was measured as shown in Figs. 34 and 35. Moreover,
the torsional variation along the assembly length was measured
and recorded.
3. The pulling force was increased slowly up the values indicated
in Table 10. The force was held for 15 min.
4. During the test, optical light power was continuously monitored
to check for any cable damage.
5. Upon completion of this test, the torsion angle in front of the
bending restrictor as well as the torsional variation were
measured.

5.5. Stage-2 tensile test

This test was undertaken to simulate stage-2 of the deployment
procedure as shown in Fig. 36. The steps followed during the test
are the same as the steps adopted in stage-1.

170

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Fig. 34. Tensile bending test (45 degrees) for in-line joint simulation.

5.6. Stage-3 opposite bending test

This is the stage-3 test where the opposite bending test was
exerted on the OFJ as illustrated in Figs. 37 and 38. The following
steps were implemented during the simulation.
1. Upon the completion of the tensile test, the OFJ housing was
turned to a  45 degrees direction and fastened to the ground to
keep its position during the tensile bending test.
2. Before embarking on the test, the initial attenuation of the ber
optics was measured and recorded.
3. The torsion angle of the cable in the front of the bending
restrictor was measured as shown in Fig. 37. Moreover, the
torsional variation along the assembly length was measured and
recorded.
4. The pulling force was increased slowly up the values indicated
in Table 10. The force was held for 15 min.
5. During the test, optical light power was continuously monitored
to check for signs of any cable damage.
6. Upon completion of the test, the torsion angle in front of the
bending restrictor as well as the torsional variation were
measured.
5.7. Visual inspection check
After the completion of the three stages of the on-land
deployment simulation, the OFJ was dismantled and inspected.
The pre-molded joint was released from the compound lling
without introducing any additional stresses. This was followed by
the following tests which were highlighted in Section 5.2.
Test item # 5: the axial and angular displacements of the cable
cores were measured.
Test items # 4 & 6: the plumbing area between the cable lead
sheath and copper housing were examined visually for any sign of
cracks or deformation.
Test item # 3: for one pre-molded joint a radial water penetration test was undertaken in order to check the tightness of the
pre-molded joint after the installation simulation test. The test
was performed in accordance with CIGR TB490 (CIGR TB490),
chapter 8.7.4 with the exception of the heat cycle test for 24 hours
under water. The end of the cable was sealed by plumbed metal
covers. The joint was then placed under pressurized seawater in a
pressure vessel. After 24 hours, the joint was released from the
water and checked for water ingress and damage.
Item test # 7: a complete dimensional check was carried out on
the pre-molded joint and OFJ to ensure the tested object was made
fully according to the manufacturing plans.
The tested objects used in this simulation included offshore
eld joints consisting of three pre-molded joints and one ber

Fig. 35. Testing set-up, 45 degrees pulling test.

optics joint and were found to pass the visual inspection and the
test plan which comprised of the serious of mechanical tests, ber
attenuation measurements and a water leakage test.

6. Conclusion
Currently, there are huge demands on the installation of subsea
cables around the globe. Often the installation takes place between
two distant locations where long cable lengths are required for
which subsea installation joints are unavoidable. The installation
of long cables requires repair joints. Based on that, it is essential
that the repair joint and installation joint will be designed to
withstand all the expected different loads during the design life
the same as for the cable. This is to increase the reliability and
availability of the subsea system and reduce the high cost involved
in the repair in the future.

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

171

Fig. 36. Tensile test for in-line joint simulation.

Fig. 37. Tensile bending test (  45 degrees) for in-line joint simulation.

often difcult before the mobilization of the installation vessels or

engagement of the installation contractor. This paper presents a
set of standardised onshore testing regimes which improves both
the reliability and affordability of these jointing's which would be
advantageous. The onshore testing regime is suitable only for inline joints. The paper presents the design process which involves a
series of steps. These design steps can be followed to determine
the loads which can be applied during the onshore testing to
mimic the installation conditions for in-line rigid joints. Also, an
analytical method is presented to calculate the loads experienced
by the in-line joint during the deployment.
The new testing arrangements employs the design loads,
determined from the engineering simulations, to test the offshore
rigid joint in air. Once the load tests are completed, the joint shall
be subjected to water penetration test. In other words, the new
testing arrangement can be simplied to load testing the joint in
dry air and subsequently performing the radial water penetration
test. This is rather than conducting a load test of the joint while
the joint is under external pressure. The new testing arrangement
offers an alternative to subsea immersion testing for subsea cable
joints and offshore deployment simulations.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Qatar Petroleum for their
permission to publish this paper.
Fig. 38.  45 degrees pulling test.

References
Failure of submarine power cables have been shown to be
attributed to cable eld joints on some cables. This could provide
indications that the current acceptance testing of these joints is
inadequate. Subsea cable failure could result in signicant nancial losses especially when power is transmitted via cables to
offshore production platforms.
Design guidance for cable eld joints suggests sea trails to
determine if the proposed eld jointing technique is acceptable.
Sea trails however are often prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, require large preparation and access to a vessel which is

CIGR (2010). NorNed, World's Longest Power Cable, CIGR, France, CIGR publication B1_106_2010.
CIGR TB490. Recommendations for testing of long AC submarine cables with
extruded insulation for system voltage above 30 (36 ) to 500 (550) kV.
DNV-RP-J301. Subsea power cables in shallow water renewable energy applications, February 2014.
DNV RP-C205. Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads.
Electra 189. Recommendations for tests of power transmission DC cables for a rated
voltage up to 800 kV.
Electra 171. Recommendations for Mechanical Tests on Sub-marine cables.
International Cable Protection Committee (2009). Damage to submarine cables
caused by anchors. Loss Prevention Bulletin.

172

A.M. Reda et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 153172

Karlsdttir, Svands Hln (2013). Experience in transporting energy through subsea

power cables: the case of Iceland.
Manual, OrcaFlex, 2014. Version 9.8 a.. Orcina, Ltd, Cumbria.
Manual, ABAQUS Benchmarks, 2012. "Version 6.12.". Dassault Systmes Simulia
Corp., Providence, RI.
NDGL 0001-0. General Guidance for Marine Operations.
Update of Service Experience of HV Underground and Submarine Cable Systems, to
be Presented by CIGR Working Group B1-10 2009.

Worzyk, T., 2009. Accessories, Submarine power cables: design, installation, repair,
environmental aspects. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin.
Woo, Jinho, Kim, Dongha, Na, Won-Bae, 2015. Safety analysis of rock berms that
protect submarine power cables in the event of an anchor collision. Ocean Eng.
107, 204211.
Yoon, Han-Sam, Na, Won-Bae, 2013. Safety assessment of submarine power cable
protectors by anchor dragging eld tests. Ocean Eng. 65, 19.