On-Bottom Stability Analysis

GAMBA EXPORT LOADING LINE (SHELL GABON)
On Bottom Stability Analysis

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
2 of 42
PROJECT NUMBER: 13027

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
REVISION CONTROL SHEET

REV.NO
DATE
SECTION NO.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
4/12/13
4.1
Table Revised
4/12/13
5.2
Formulas Added
A
A
A
A
4/12/13
4/12/13
4/12/13
4/12/13
5.8
6.1
6.3
7
Text Added
Text Added
Text Added
References Added
4/12/13
Appendix A
Graph replaced
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
3 of 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 4
1.1
1.2
2.0
UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................. 6
2.1
2.2
3.0
System of Units ............................................................................. 6

Abbreviations ................................................................................ 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION............................................................ 7
3.1
3.2
4.0
Summary ....................................................................................... 7
Conclusions ................................................................................... 8
DESIGN DATA ........................................................................................... 9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.4
5.0
Pipeline Properties ........................................................................ 9

Pipeline Route ............................................................................. 10
Environmental Data ..................................................................... 11
Water Depth and Water Level .............................................................................. 11
Seawater Properties ............................................................................................. 13
Wave and Current Data - Offshore ....................................................................... 13
Wave and Current Data Nearshore ................................................................... 14
Soil Properties ............................................................................. 15

DESIGN METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 17
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.0
General ......................................................................................... 4
Scope ............................................................................................ 5
General ....................................................................................... 17
Lateral Stability ............................................................................ 17
Generalized Lateral Stability Method.................................................................... 18
Vertical Stability in Water ............................................................. 18

Vertical Stability of the pipeline in soil at liquefied
phase .......................................................................................... 19
Design Loads and Assumptions .................................................. 19
Nearshore Waves Transformation ............................................... 21
Trenched section at onshore ....................................................... 22
Trenched Sections at Shore Approach ........................................ 23
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................... 24
Results ........................................................................................ 24
Trenching at Onshore Section ..................................................... 26
Trenching at Shore Approach ...................................................... 26
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A TRENCH DEPTH AT ONSHORE SECTION ............................. 28

APPENDIX B NEARSHORE WAVE CALCULATIONS .................................... 29
APPENDIX C- VERTICAL STABILITY CHECK IN LIQUIEFIED SOIL ......... 36
APPENDIX D- STABLELINES RESULTS .............................................................. 37
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
4 of 42
Rev. No.
B
Shell Gabon is operating and producing oil from numerous fields located in the western
part of Gabon. Crude is treated and exported from the Gamba Terminal to tankers
through a 30 inch offshore export line connected to a SBM via a PLEM and 2 x 16 inch
floating hose strings (risers).
The total length of the existing export line is about 10.7km from the export pump in
Gamba terminal to a PLEM (1.3km located onshore and 9.4km located offshore).
Figure 1-1 Project Location
Shell Gabon intends to replace the existing export pipeline. Zeetech B.V. has been
awarded by Shell to perform a concept replacement study and Front End Engineering
Design (FEED) for the selected concept.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
1.2

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
5 of 42
Rev. No.
B
Scope
This report presents the results of the on-bottom stability analysis performed for the 22
inch Gamba Export Dual pipelines, in accordance with Shell DEP 31.40.00.10 (Ref. 1)
and DNV RP F-109 (Ref. 2) using DNV STABLELINES software for the proposed
pipeline layout.

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
2.0
UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2.1
System of Units
Sht.
No.
6 of 42
Rev. No.
B
In accordance with Shell DEP 00.00.20.10. (Ref. 1), the International System (SI) of
units is adopted as the main system of units unless noted otherwise.
2.2
Abbreviations
CWC
Concrete Weight Coating
DEP
Design Engineering Practices
DNV
Det Norsk Veritas
FEED
Front End Engineering Design
KP
Kilometer Point
LAT
Lowest Astronomical Tide
MSL
Mean Sea level
PLEM
Pipeline End Manifold
RP
Recommended Practice
WD
Water Depth
w.r.t.
With Relative To

Issued
Date
16/12/13
3.0

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
7 of 42
Rev. No.
B
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

3.1
Summary
The required concrete weight coating thickness to ensure on-bottom stability of the
pipeline (vertical and lateral) against environmental loading, due to waves and currents,
has been calculated for one individual 22 Gamba pipeline in accordance with the
applicable codes and subsequent defined load cases. The stability analysis has been
considered for both installation and operation phases.
Analysis has been performed by using DNV StableLine Software and allowing a lateral
displacement up to half of the pipe diameter.
The on- bottom stability of the pipeline under following cases has been assessed:
Installation empty 1 year wave + 10 year current or 10 year wave + 1 year

current
Operation 100 year wave + 10 year current or 10 year wave + 100 year
current.
The critical loading condition to define the required concrete thickness is during
installation phase and in empty condition.
Refraction theory has been applied for the shore approach sections to determine the
appropriate wave height and approach angle to the pipeline.
Since the two export pipelines will be routed parallel in close distance, the
environmental data will be quite similar. Therefore stability results of one pipeline shall
be applicable also for the other line.

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
3.2
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
8 of 42
Rev. No.
B
Conclusions
Selected concrete weight coating thickness along the pipeline route are shown in
Table 3-1, based on the results of Section 6.0. The selected thicknesses are based on
the installation case which is the critical load case to assess the stability of the pipeline
for 25 years design life.
Table 3-1, Selected Concrete Coating Thickness along the Route
min WD (m)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
15
20
23
Approximate Approximate CWC required

selected concrete
Remarks
Starting Point
End Point
from Stablelines
thickness (mm)
(KP)
(KP)
Inst
1.07
1.175
40
Pre
1.175
1.194
41
trenched/
1.194
1.207
50
cofferdam
1.207
1.220
61
1.220
1.236
71
1.236
1.275
65
65
1.275
1.700
54
1.700
2.280
47
Exposed
2.280
5.600
44
5.600
8.500
40
8.500
10.600
63
10.600
63
A concrete coating thickness of 50mm has been selected for the onshore section
based on floatation prevention in case of liquefaction of the surrounding soil.
The pipeline route is to be pre-trenched from the starting point at Gamba Terminal to
the water depth of 5m and will be backfilled.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
4.0
Sht.
No.
9 of 42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
DESIGN DATA
All design data to be considered in the on-bottom stability calculations for both 22in
Gamba export lines, as presented in the following subsections, have been obtained
from the Pipeline Design Basis (Ref. 9).
4.1
Pipeline Properties
The pipeline properties to be used in the design are presented in Table 4-1 as below
Table 4-1, Pipeline Properties
Descriptions
Units
22in Gamba Export Lines
Outside Diameter
inch
22
Selected Pipeline Wall thickness
mm
9.5
API 5L X65
mm
Density of Steel Pipe
kg/m3
7850
Minimum Density of Product*
kg/m3
850
Concrete Coating Density
kg/m3
3040
3 layers
Polyethylene
mm
3.2
kg/m3
950
Material Grade of Linepipe

Internal Corrosion Allowance
Anti-Corrosion Coating Material

Anti-Corrosion Coating Thickness
Anti-Corrosion Coating Density
*The provided density of the product has been considered as the minimum density.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
4.2
Sht.
No.
10 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
Pipeline Route
The export pipeline length is approximately 10.7km; with an onshore length of
approximately 1.3 km.
The pipeline starts from the export pump at onshore Gumba terminal and then heading
towards south-west to a subsea PLEM.
In accordance with Ref. 5, the proposed dual pipelines will be routed toward SouthWest with the approximate angle of heading of 225 deg from North. Figure 4-1 shows
the layout of the dual pipeline concept and the route data are presented in Table 4-2
Table 4-2, Pipeline Route Data
Item
Remark
Initial Point
Export Pump at Onshore

Terminal
Final Point
Subsea PLEM
Approximate onshore Length (km)
1.3
Approximate offshore Length (km)
9.4

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
11 of
42
Rev. No.
B
Figure 4-1, Dual Pipeline Concept Layout
4.3
Environmental Data
4.3.1
Water Depth and Water Level
The selected pipeline route has been divided into two sections for on-bottom stability
analysis i.e. offshore and shore approach sections. Table 4-3 shows maximum and
minimum water depth (relative to LAT) along the route used in the analysis.
The seabed profile along the existing 30pipeline is shown in Figure 4-2 . (Ref 9)
The 22inch dual pipeline system is in close proximity to the existing 30 inch pipeline
route; hence bathymetry data can be assumed to be identical for the purpose of the
on- bottom stability analysis.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
12 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Figure 4-2, Seabed profile along the Existing Pipeline Route
Table 4-3, Water Depth relative to LAT
Approximate
Item
Depth (m)
Location
(kp)
Minimum Water Depth
1.07
Maximum Water Depth
24
10.6
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
13 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
4.3.2
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
Seawater Properties
The seawater density of 1026 kg/m3 is used in the analysis.
4.3.3
Wave and Current Data - Offshore
Wave and current data are considered in the on-bottom stability analysis have been
extracted from Ref. 6 and are given in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5.
Table 4-4: Wave Data Offshore (25m WD)
Return Period
Parameter
Unit
1
10
100
2.01
2.46
2.91
4.0
4.8
5.7
Spectral Peak Period (Tp)
13.0
13.9
14.3
Associated Maximum Period (Tm)
10.8
11.6
11.9
Mean Wave Direction (from North)
deg
Significant Wave Height (Hs)

3-hourly
Maximum
Wave
Height
(Hmax)
187-215
Based on Reference 6, the waves are swell dominated therefore the highest value of
spectral spreading factor has been applied in the Stablelines input (Ref.7)

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
14 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
Table 4-5: Current Data Offshore (20-25m WD)
Return Period
Current Velocity
Unit
1
10
100
Mean current speed at 24m above seabed
(m/s)
1.13
1.41
1.73
(m/s)
1.03
1.29
1.58
(m/s)
0.89
1.12
1.36
(m/s)
0.73
0.91
1.11
(m/s)
0.52
0.65
0.79
(m/s)
0.23
0.29
0.35
Current Direction
4.3.4
deg
Perpendicular to the pipe
Wave and Current Data Nearshore
The significant wave height being a prime parameter to define a seastate has been
used in the analysis.
As waves propagate from the open ocean over the continental shelf towards shore,
they are affected by the seabed bathymetry and experience shoaling, refraction and
breaking phenomena. The waves transformation towards shore is determined in
accordance with Coastal Engineering Manual (Ref. 4) and is explained in Section 5.6
Table 4-6 shows the wave data to be used in the analysis considering near shore
effects.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
15 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
Table 4-6, Wave and Current Data, From Reference Depth to the Shore Approach
Wave Height, Hs (m)

Min WD
(m)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
15
20
4.4
Peak Period, Tp (s)
Current Speed, Uc
(m/s)
1-yr
10-yr
100-yr
1-yr
10-yr
100-yr
1-yr
0.78
1.56
2.34
2.62
2.49
2.40
2.26
2.16
2.01
1.93
0.78
1.56
2.34
3.12
3.14
3.02
2.84
2.71
2.52
2.41
0.78
1.56
2.34
3.12
3.77
3.62
3.40
3.25
3.01
2.87
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Pipe
angle
wrt
10-yr 100-yr North
(deg)
Wave Angle wrt

North (deg)
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
208.2
205.9
204.1
202.6
201.2
200.0
198.0
196.2
192.5
189.0
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
214
214
214
214
214
209
209
209
209
254
Soil Properties
Based on the Reference 5, the majority of the seabed along the pipeline route consists
of sandy parts. Since no detailed soil properties have been provided, the top layer of
the soil has been assumed as fine sand with the minimum roughness as a
conservative assumption (Ref.2). The assumed soil data is summarized in Table 4-10.
(Ref.8)
A more detailed evaluation of the soil parameters is to be performed during detailed
design stage.
214.2
214.3
214.4
214.4
214.5
214.5
214.6
214.7
214.8
214.9

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
16 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Table 4-1: Soil Properties

Value
Soil Description
Unit
Submerged Unit Weight of Soil (s)
kN/m3
Dry Unit Weight of Soil (s )
kN/m3
19
Presumed unit weight of the liquefied
kN/m3
17
1E-05
mm
0.25
soil
Bottom Roughness (z0)
Grain Size (d50)
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
5.0
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
5.1
General
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
17 of
42
Rev. No.
B
The details of on-bottom stability design methodology for both lateral and vertical
stability is presented in the following sections.
5.2
Lateral Stability
The pipeline lateral stability analysis is performed using the Generalized Lateral
Stability Method (half a pipe diameter displacement) as stated in Section 3.5 of DNV
RP F109 (Ref. 2). However, if any of the following conditions are met, then the
Absolute Lateral Static Stability Method as per Section 3.6 of DNV RP F109 (Ref. 2)
shall be used:
Cases dominated by current.
sg < 1.05, sg > 3
At deep waters, where the K value is very small and the M value is very large.
N > 0.024 for clay and N > 0.048 for sand
Stiff clay soils, GC > 2.78
Where:
sg = Pipe specific density, as defined in Section 1.5.1 of DNV RP F109
K = Significant Keulegan-Carpenter number = Us. Tu/ D , as defined in Section 1.5.1 of
DNV RP F109
M = Steady to oscillatory velocity ratio for design spectrum V/Us , as defined in Section
1.5.1of DNV RP F109
N = Spectral acceleration factor, as defined in Section 1.5.1 of DNV RP F109
GC = Soil (clay) strength parameter, as defined in Section 1.5.1 of DNV RP F109
A design based on absolute stability criteria will lead to high concrete coating
thicknesses and consequently a very heavy pipe. Therefore the generalized lateral

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
18 of
42
Rev. No.
B
(Half a pipe diameter displacement) has been applied in this analysis as the governing
criterion of on-bottom stability of the pipe.
5.2.1
Generalized Lateral Stability Method
The minimum required concrete weight coating thickness for allowing the pipe to half
of its diameter lateral displacement, is calculated in accordance with the following
formulas:
Where:
LY = Significant weight parameter, as defined in Section 1.5.1 of DNV RP F109
Lstable = Minimum pipe weight required to obtain a virtually stable pipe, as defined in
Appendix A of DNV RP F109
L0.5 = Minimum pipe weight required to limit the lateral displacement to half of the pipe
diameter, as defined in Appendix A of DNV RP F109
= Number of oscillations in the design bottom velocity spectrum, as defined in Section

1.5.2 of DNV RP F109
5.3
Vertical Stability in Water

In order to avoid floatation in water, the submerged weight of the pipeline shall meet
the following criterion. (Ref 2)
Where:
w = Safety factor 1.1 if a sufficiently low probability of negative buoyancy is not

documented
b = Pipe buoyancy per unit length

Issued
Date
16/12/13
5.4

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
19 of
42
Rev. No.
B
Vertical Stability of the pipeline in soil at liquefied phase

Buried sections of the pipeline are to be checked for the possible floatation in case of
liquefaction of the surrounding soil mass.
Upward floatation of a pipe is prevented if the following criterion is satisfied:
Wpipe
Where:
Wpipe
B
soil
Dtot
g
= weight of the pipe (including contents) (N/m)

= Buoyancy Force (N/m)
= Density of the liquefied soil (kg/m3)
= Outside diameter of the pipe including coatings (m)
= Gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
The vertical stability of the pipe in soil at liquefied phase has been checked based on
the selected CWC thickness for the onshore and offshore sections. For details of the
analysis reference is made to Appendix C.
5.5
Design Loads and Assumptions

The load combinations to be considered in the pipeline on-bottom stability analysis for
both lateral and vertical stability are summarized as follows. The load combination
which result in a higher CWC thickness should be selected.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
20 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
Table 5-1: Design Loads for Lateral on-bottom stability analysis
Design Condition
Design Load
Installation
Operation
Environmental Load
Return Period
10-yr Wave + 1-yr Current &

1-yr Wave + 10-yr Current
100-yr Wave + 10-yr Current &

10-yr Wave + 100-yr Current
Internal Product
Empty
Min. Product Density
The required design data have been provided in Section 4.3.
The pipeline route has been divided in different sections and the minimum water depth
at each section has been considered to calculate the required concrete weight coating
thickness.
Table 5-2 shows the minimum water depth at these sections with the corresponding
approximate KP.

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
21 of
42
Rev. No.
B
Table 5-2, Minimum Water Depth along the Pipeline Route
Approximate
Starting Point
(KP)
Approximate
End Point (KP)
Min WD
(m)
1.07
1.175
1.175
1.194
1.194
1.207
1
2
1.207
1.220
1.236
1.275
1.700
2.280
5.600
8.500
1.220
1.236
1.275
1.700
2.280
5.600
8.500
10.600
3
4
5
6
8
10
15
20
10.600
5.6
23
Nearshore Waves Transformation
When waves propagate from deep to shallow waters the underlying bathymetry
causes the wave crest to turn to follow the seabed contours (i.e. parallel to the
contours) a process known as refraction. As the pipelines are routed almost
perpendicular to the shoreline the angle of incidence between the wave and pipelines
reduces, until it reaches approximately zero at the shore.
The reduction in angle of incidence reduces the wave induced hydrodynamic forces
acting on the pipe and subsequent the required concrete coating thickness.
In addition, the change in water depth produces a corresponding change in wave

speed and wave group celerity leading to a change in the waves energy and height (a
process known as shoaling). The wave speed and wave length decrease in shallow

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
22 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
water, therefore the energy per unit area of the wave increases, and hence the wave
height. The wave period remains the same during shoaling process.
The waves increase in steepness until they reach a limit after which the waves begin
to break. The refracted/shoaled wave height in a specific water depth can only reach
a maximum height equivalent to the breaking wave height for that water depth.
The approach used to determine the near shore wave parameters (through the
transformation of a wave approaching from deep water to shore) is outlined in the
Coastal Engineering Manual (Reference 4).
By taking into account shoaling and refraction effect, the wave height has been
calculated from a depth of 25m (as the deep water reference wave) towards the shore
line. The results are presented in Section 4.3.4 . A sample of the calculations is
presented in Appendix B for the 1 year significant wave height and wave direction of
187 degree.
Table 5-3, Deep Water Reference Wave Characteristics (WD=25m)
Return Period
Parameter
Unit
1
10
100
2.01
2.46
2.91
Spectral Peak Period (Tp)
sec
13.0
13.9
14.3
Mean Wave Direction (from North)
deg
Significant Wave Height (Hs)
5.7
187-215
Trenched section at onshore
The pipeline route is pre-trenched from the starting point at Gamba Terminal and
should be continued to the breaker zone. As the new pipelines will be installed at the
vicinity of the existing 30 pipeline, the approximate required cover on top of the pipe

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
23 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
can be assumed to be similar to the one of the existing pipelines i.e. a cover depth of
0.9 meters. Based on Reference 10, the burial depth of the 22 pipelines has been
presented in Appendix A.
5.8
Trenched Sections at Shore Approach
Due to high hydrodynamic loads at the shore approaches, the required concrete
weight coating thickness to ensure a stable pipeline are high.
By installing the pipeline in a pre-dredged trench and decrease the exposure of the
pipe, the required CWC thickness will reduce. The pre-dredged trench should extend
up to the breaker zone.
The depth at which a single wave (maximum wave) breaks is shown in the Table 5-4.
For the installation phase, the breaker zone has been considered up to the depth of
5m. More explanation is provided in Section 6.1
A sample of calculating the breaker zone has been provided in Appendix B.
Table 5-4, Depth of Breaking Wave
Depth of
Return Period
Breaking Wave
1 Year
10 Year
100 Year
(m)
5.8
6.9

Issued
Date
16/12/13
6.0
Sht.
No.
24 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1
Results
Based on the provided design data (Section 4.0) and environmental data which are
summarized in Table 6-1 , on bottom stability of the 22pipeline has been analyzed in
accordance with the applicable codes and standards.
Table 6-1, Environmental Load Cases during Operation and Installation Phase
Installation
Approximate Approximate
Min WD (m) Starting Point End Point Wave Height, Hs Peak Period, Tp
(KP)
(KP)
(m)
(s)
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
15
20
1.175
1.194
1.207
1.220
1.236
1.275
1.700
2.280
5.600
8.500
1.194
1.207
1.220
1.236
1.275
1.700
2.280
5.600
8.500
10.600
1-yr
0.78
1.56
2.34
2.62
2.49
2.40
2.26
2.16
2.01
1.93
10-yr
0.78
1.56
2.34
3.12
3.14
3.02
2.84
2.71
2.52
2.41
1-yr
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
10-yr
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
Operation
Current Speed, Uc
(m/s)
10-yr
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
100-yr
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Pipe angle wrt Wave Angle wrt

North (deg)
North (deg)
214
214
214
214
214
209
209
209
209
254
208.2
205.9
204.1
202.6
201.2
200.0
198.0
196.2
192.5
189.0
214.2
214.3
214.4
214.4
214.5
214.5
214.6
214.7
214.8
214.9
Table 6-2 represents the required and selected CWC thickness along the route for
installation and operation cases. As shown, the empty pipe during the installation
phase is more unstable. Therefore the installation case is the governing case from a
pipeline stability point of view.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
25 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
Table 6-2, Required and Selected CWC Thickness along the Route
min WD (m)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
15
20
25
Approximate
Starting Point
(KP)
1.07
1.175
1.194
1.207
1.220
1.236
1.275
1.700
2.280
5.600
8.500
10.600
Approximate
End Point
(KP)
1.175
1.194
1.207
1.220
1.236
1.275
1.700
2.280
5.600
8.500
10.600
CWC required
0.5 x D disp.
Inst
Ops
40
40
41
0
50
0
61
7
71
18
65
25
54
9
47
0
44
0
40
0
63
16
63
15
selected concrete
thickness (mm)
Remarks
Pre trenched/
cofferdam
65
Exposed
A concrete coating thickness of 50mm has been selected from KP 0.0 to KP 1.07,
based on the floatation prevention in case of liquefaction of the surrounding soil.
(Appendix C)
The concrete weight coating thickness has been selected based on the results of the
stability analysis and by considering the constructability and logistic point of view.
Therefore the thickness of 65mm has been taken along the pipeline at the offshore
section.
The breaker zone has been regarded up to the depth of 5m.
Considering a pre-dredged trench from the Gamba Terminal up to the breaker zone,
and also constructing a cofferdam from the shoreline along the trench, will result to
less exposure of the pipeline to hydrodynamic loads during installation. Consequently
the thickness of 65mm will be adequate for stability of the shore approach sections up
to the depth of 5m. Moreover the selected thickness will be sufficient to provide the
stability of the pipeline up to the calculated breaker zone at water depth of 5.8 meter
(Table 5-4). Therefore considering the breaker zone up to the water depth of 5m will
result to less extension of the trench and cofferdam.
Table 6-3 shows the pipeline submerged weight with different contents.
The results of the program for the considered sections and load conditions can be
found in Appendix D.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
26 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
Table 6-3, Pipe weight with selected CWC thickness
Selected CWC
thickness (mm)
65
6.2
Submerged Weight of the Pipe (N/m)

Empty
Water Filled
Product Filled
1313
3618
3223
Trenching at Onshore Section
The pipeline route should be pre- trenched from the Gamba Terminal to the breaker
zone as it was discussed in Section 5.7. The approximate cover depth of 0.9meters
should be provided on top of the pipe. (Appendix A)
6.3
Trenching at Shore Approach
At the shore approach the pipeline will be pulled into a pre-dredged trench. The trench
must be extended from Gamba Terminal up to the depth of 5m, as was explained in
Section 5.8 and 6.1, to protect the pipeline against breaking waves. In order to prevent
the backfilling of the pre-dredged trench, a sheet piled cofferdam is to be constructed
from the shore line to the depth of 5m.
The length of the cofferdam is approximately 170 m. Based on the existing 30 pipeline
and also Ref 11. the minimum required cover depth on top of the pipe in the offshore
section can be considered about 0.9 meters. (Appendix A).
According to Ref. 12, along the cofferdam the trench width will be kept 5m from a
constructability point of view.

Issued
Date
16/12/13
7.0

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
27 of
42
Rev. No.
B
REFERENCES
1-
Shell DEP 31.40.00.10, Pipeline Engineering (amendments/ supplement to

ISO 13623), 2010.
2- DNV-RP-F109, On-Bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines. Oct.

2010.Shell DEP 00.00.20.10, The Use of SI Quantities and Units, 2005Design
basis
3-
Concept Evaluation - Gamba Export Loading Line, Doc.No: Z.100.1.
4- EM 1110-2-1100, Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM). U.S Army Corps of

Engineers. 30/04/2002.
5- Pipeline Route, 8207-PR-01, 8207-PR-02, 8207-PR-03, 8207-PR-04

6- Gabon Metocean Geophysical and Environmental data collection, Doc. No:
GSL-08207-GPH-003.
7- DNV-RP- C205, Environmental Conditions and Environmental loads, October

2010
8- DNV RP F105, Free Spanning Pipelines, 2006.

9- Design Basis Doc. No:13027-ER-001
10- Pipe Cover, DW.PL.M.218029.013
11- ABS Subsea Pipeline Guideline, May 2006
12- Routing Report Doc. No: 13027-ER-004

16/12/13
Sht.
No.
28 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
APPENDIX A Trench Depth at Onshore Section

Based on Reference 10, the ground level, top of pipe, sheet pile level and bottom of
the sheet pile have been extracted.
The breaker zone has been considered up to the depth of 5m to which the cofferdam
requires to be extended.
cover
sheet pile
soil level top of pipe depth on level (m)
(w.r.t.m.s.l) (w.r.t.m.s.l) T.O.P. (w.r.t.m.s.l
(m)
)
KP
1.200
1.226
1.276
1.327
1.366
1.386
1.412
1.428
1.467
2.5
3.6
-0.2
-0.6
-1.0
-2.0
-4.5
-4.8
-6.0
1.6
2.7
-1.1
-1.5
-1.9
-2.9
-5.4
-5.7
-6.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
bottom of the
sheet pile (m) (w.r.t.m.s.l)
-5.8
-5.8
-7.6
-7.6
-10.5
-10.5
-10.5
4
2
Level w.r.t m.s.l (m)
Issued
Date
0
-21200.0
1250.0
1300.0
1350.0
1400.0
1450.0
1500.0
1550.0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
KP
soil profile
sea level at HAT
sheet pile level
Series4
Series5
Series6
top of pipe level
1600.0

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
APPENDIX B Nearshore Wave Calculations

-
1 year significant wave height, 187 degree wave angle
Sht.
No.
29 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
30 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
31 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
32 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
2- Breaker Zone Determination
Sht.
No.
33 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
34 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
35 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13
Sht.
No.
36 of
42

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Rev. No.
B
APPENDIX C- VERTICAL STABILITY CHECK IN LIQUIEFIED SOIL

W pipe
Buoyancy
Wpipe= Mpipe* g
where:
soil : density of the liquified soil (kg/m3)
g
: gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
Mpipe : mass of the pipe including contents
- for the offshore sections with the CWC of 65mm and content density of 850
kg/m3
Mpipe: 720 kg/m
Dtotal: 0.695 m
Unit weight of the liquefied soil: 17000N/m3
Wpipe= 720 * 9.81= 7063.2 N/m
B= 17000 x 1/4x x 0.695 2 = 6445 N/m
Pipe is vertically stable in liquefied soil
Wpipe > B
No Floatation
- Onshore sections
For the onshore section, the CWC of 50mm has been assumed and checked to meet
the floatation criterion in case of soil liquefaction:
Mpipe: 622.6 kg/m
Dtotal: 0.665 m
unit weight of the liquefied soil: 17000N/m3
Wpipe= 622.6 * 9.81= 6108 N/m
B= 17000 x 1/4x x 0.665 2 = 5901 N/m ........ Wpipe > B
No Floatation

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
APPENDIX D- STABLELINES RESULTS
Sht.
No.
37 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
38 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
39 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
40 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
41 of
42
Rev. No.
B

Issued
Date
16/12/13

DOCUMENT NUMBER :
Z.203.1
Sht.
No.
42 of
42
Rev. No.
B

On-Bottom Stability Analysis

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

On-Bottom Stability Analysis

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GAMBA EXPORT LOADING LINE (SHELL GABON)