Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2013
June 9-14, 2013, Nantes, France

OMAE2013-10090

TENSION LOSS OF HYDRO-PNEUMATIC RISER TENSIONERS

Songcheng Li Mike Campbell Hugh Howells John Orsak

2H Offshore Inc. 2H Offshore Inc. 2H Offshore Ltd. 2H Offshore Inc.
Houston, TX, USA Houston, TX, USA London, UK Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT system in Figure 1 is indirectly supplied by the air pressure

With drilling exploration extending to deeper water, the vessels (APV) via the hydraulic piping or hoses between the
total top tension to lift a drilling riser increases accordingly. high pressure accumulator (HP) and the cylinder, while the low
Tensioners with higher tension capacity are preferred to pressure in the cylinder chamber comes directly from the low
minimize the total number of tensioners due to space limitation pressure bottle (LP), which may be shared by other tensioners.
on a drilling vessel. Higher tension capacity requires more The riser is lifted directly at the bottom of the piston rod of
advanced recoil control for emergency events. Hydro- a direct acting tensioner, or indirectly at the top of the piston
pneumatic tensioners are widely used for risers with anti-recoil rod via the reeving system of a wire line tensioner. The vessel
control in deep water, and are commonly simulated as an and riser motions drive the piston up and down, changing the
equivalent linear or nonlinear spring or a pneumatic system. pressures and volumes of the gas and oil in the system. The
The discrepancy between simulation and measurement calls for pressure and volume relationship inside the HP and the LP is
a model with rate dependent stiffness considering the assumed following polytropic process of ideal gas. The
compressibility of hydraulic oil, the interference of valve difference in the gas laws is associated with quantitative choice
control and friction loss along piping or hose. of the polytropic index or gas constant, which is often selected
In this paper, the hydro-pneumatic tensioner system with between 1.0 for isothermal process and 1.4 for reversible
anti-recoil valve control is simulated in 2HRecoil, a customized adiabatic process.
version of ANSYS Mechanical APDL, and benchmarked with
commercial software DeepRiser. The tension loss due to
hydraulic oil friction, mass inertia, piston-cylinder friction is
evaluated with coupled riser motion. The conventional
approach in simulating the hydro-pneumatic tensioner system
as an equivalent pneumatic system is found inaccurate. The
sensitivity of the pressure difference between the cylinder
chamber and the high pressure accumulator on the gas constant
is discussed. The scatter in predicting gas constant, friction and
damping coefficients from measured data is explained using
hydro-pneumatic approach.
Keywords: Recoil, Tensioners, Friction, Losses

INTRODUCTION
Figure 1 Direct Acting Tensioner System Schematic
Hydro-pneumatic riser tensioners are commonly
categorized into tension-style and ram-style tensioners [1]. The
An important feature of a hydro-pneumatic system is the
widely used tension-style tensioners are the direct acting
anti-recoil valve, which controls the flow rate of its hydraulic
tensioners and wire line tensioners. The fundamental
oil and position of the piston. A valve can be widely open,
mechanism of all the hydro-pneumatic systems for a riser is
100% closed or at any other closure state, where the tensioner
similar to a cylinder-piston system: the tension or compression
stiffness of the hydro-pneumatic system can be anywhere
force of the piston rod is provided by the pressure difference in
between nearly pneumatic and completely hydraulic, owing to
the cylinder between two sides of the piston, each side is
bottle neck effect of the flow lines and the valve closure. Even
connected directly or indirectly with pressurized air or nitrogen
if the valve is widely open with its maximum flow capacity,
bottles. For example, the high pressure of the cylinder-piston

1 Copyright 2013 by ASME

pressure difference between the oil in cylinder and the gas in
APV can be induced in any sea states. Generally, the tensioner
stiffness varies with piston stroke, stroke rate and acceleration,
though most simulations consider tensioner stiffness as a
function of piston positions regardless of rod speed and valve
closure.
Discrepancy between simulation and measurements is
induced if the pressure monitored in the cylinder is directly
applied to the gas law. Considerable error can occur at riser
disconnect events where reduced valve closure, increased
stroke rate and sharp tension fluctuation are expected. The
accuracy in predicting tension and stroke plays a critical role in
analyzing riser fatigue during normal operation and avoiding a
hazardous recoil incident at riser emergency disconnect.
As an example, a drilling riser in 1933 m of water depth is
studied to demonstrate the significance of the tension loss in the
simulation of hydro-pneumatic tensioners. The tension losses
are expressed as a percentage of the top tension, which does not
necessarily imply that they are proportional to the top tension,
for example, the ratio of seal and Coulomb friction to the top
tension may become higher in shallower water.
PRESSURE DROP ACROSS ANTI-RECOIL VALVE
The flow rate Q of the valve is a function of pressure drop,
P, across the valve or
| P | (1)
Q CV * sign ( P )
So
where S0 is the specific weight of the hydraulic oil and CV is the
flow coefficient, which is a known value in gallon per minute
under pressure drop of one pound per square inch for a given
valve closure, and is provided by manufacturers or valve
suppliers. The pressure drop P relies on the history of pressure
build-up on both sides of the valve, which can be tracked to its
initial equilibrium state where there is no pressure drop across
the valve.
The pressure difference varies with rod speed and valve
closure. During normal operation, the anti-recoil valve is
widely open. For a vessel motion with heave amplitude of 0.7m
(peak to peak 1.4m) and period of 7 sec at the riser hang-off
location, the maximum pressure difference across the anti-
recoil valve is less than 1% of the APV pressure, as shown in
Figure 2 with time t<35 sec, where the rod speed is up to 0.6
m/s. In hurricane events the maximal rod speed exceeds 1.2
m/s.
At events of planned or emergency riser disconnect, the
riser is unlatched between the lower marine riser package
(LMRP) and the blow-out preventer (BOP). The anti-recoil
valve in this study is closed steadily from 30% closure to 85%
closure as a function of the piston stroke, which gives a rod
speed up to 1.6 m/s (upward) within 1.8 sec from the moment
the riser is disconnected. With limited valve flow rate and
delayed valve response, fast upward movement of the piston
causes rapid expansion of the hydraulic oil in the cylinder with
sharp decrease of its local pressure, as shown in Figure 2. The
APV pressure remains relatively stable after riser disconnect at
time t=35 sec. The maximum pressure difference across the
valve reaches about 96% of the APV pressure within 3.0 sec. In
conjunction with closure of the anti-recoil valve, the tensioner
stiffness is shifted from largely pneumatic (softer) to mainly
hydraulic (stiffer).
9
8
Riser Disconnected
7
Oil Pressure (MPa)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
Cylinder Side Pressure APV Side Pressure
Figure 2 Oil Pressures across the Anti-Recoil Valve
FRICTION OF HYDRAULIC OIL LINES
Hydraulic oil friction along piping (including hoses)
depends on oil viscosity that varies with oil rheology and
temperature. Water based hydraulic fluids, which is fire and
explosion resistant with high compression ignition ratio of 50:1
[2], are preferred for riser tensioners. For example, the water
glycol fluids contain 35% to 45% of water with typical
Newtonian rheology [3]. Other hydraulic fluids may
demonstrate Herschel-Bulkley, Cross, Carreau or Power-Law
rheology [4].
The flow of hydraulic fluid in tensioner piping system is
largely laminar or transitional during normal operation, while
turbulent in storm condition or after riser disconnect. A rod
speed of 1 m/s is translated into a volumetric oil speed of 6~11
m/s inside 6~8 inch piping, assuming a cylinder bore size of 22
inches in diameter with a rod outer diameter of 9 inches. Shear
rate of the oil is calculated from mass continuity or controlled
volume depending on rheological type of the oil. For
Newtonian rheology with a constant viscosity of 220 cSt, the
friction force as a percentage of the nominal tension is shown in
Figure 3. The oil friction is less than 1.3% of the top tension
during normal operation and up to 3.5% after the riser is
disconnected.
2 Copyright 2013 by ASME
 2%
Oil Friction / Nominal Tension
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
0 10
Figure 3 Oil Friction along Hydraulic Lines
The temperature was observed to have more influence than
the shear rate on viscosity. The natural logarithm of viscosity
versus the reciprocal of temperature is approximately linear
[5][6][7]. To simulate tensioner stiffness for a wide range of
both temperatures and shear rates, Modified Cross and Carreau
models are used [8].
INERTIA OF HYDRAULIC OIL AND PISTON MASS
The inertia of the hydraulic oil also contributes to tension
loss. For a tensioner system with 25m long 8 inch hose, 8m
long 8 inch hard piping on the cylinder side and 16.5m long 8
inch hard piping on the high pressure accumulator side, about 5
tons of hydraulic oil is stored in the hydraulic system with hard
piping, flexible hoses, valves, diverters, bends, goosenecks, as
well as the high pressure accumulator and the cylinder
chamber. The oil is constantly mobilized by the piston motion
by means of pressure waves propagating along the hydraulic
system. With averaged fluid hammer effect, the inertia of 5 tons
of hydraulic oil along with 8 tons of piston-rod mass is up to
1% of the top tension during normal operation, as shown in
Figure 4. The peak inertia force increases with faster piston
reversal and piston acceleration under irregular waves. Some
inertia energy is converted into lost work due to local
mechanical compliance of the oil bulk modulus with the
container (cylinder and piping) stiffness.
1.5%
Inertia Force / Nominal Tension
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
-0.5%
-1.0%
-1.5%
0 5
Figure 4 Inertia Force during Normal Operation
EFFECT OF PISTON FRICTION
Riser Disconnected
The tensioner stick-slip phenomenon is found in low sea
states [9][10]. For the pneumatic approach, piston Coulomb
friction and viscous damping are usually assumed to represent
the oil line friction and mass inertia of the hydraulic oil and
piston-rod system. This method results in very scattered friction
and damping coefficients [11]. In comparison, the hydro-
pneumatic approach considers the oil/piston inertia and
oil/piston friction independently.
For lubricated piston-cylinder contact, the piston friction is
assumed the sum of seal friction, Coulomb friction and viscous
20 30 40 50 60
friction, as illustrated in Figure 5. Piston friction in low rod
Time (sec) speeds is also referred to as Stribeck friction [12][13]. The seal
friction decreases exponentially with rod speed and can be
expressed as
f s c1e c2 |v / v s |sign(v )
where: c1 and c2 are constants, vs is the Stribeck velocity, and v
is the rod velocity. Coulomb friction is a constant regardless of
the rod speed. The combination of seal friction and Coulomb
friction at static is termed breakaway friction. The viscous
friction increases linearly with rod velocity as
f v c3 v
where: c3 is a constant. The total friction is:
f fs fv fc
The coefficients for piston friction can be evaluated by
experiments [14] or provided by manufacturers. A 10% friction
factor provided by a seal supplier for a one inch seal height
inside a 22 inch cylinder bore gives a breakaway friction of
about 3% of total tension and a Coulomb friction of about 2%
of total tension. Piston friction varies with tension level, load
type, frequency, extending/retracting stroke, etc. The viscous
friction is associated with the applied lubricant.
Figure 5 Piston Friction Components
PREDICTION OF GAS CONSTANT
The hydro-pneumatic tensioner system is commonly
simulated as a simple cylinder-piston system [1][11][15].
Reversible adiabatic process and ideal gas law are widely
assumed with a constant polytropic index, or gas constant. The
pressure in the cylinder as opposed to that in the high pressure
10 15 20 25 30 35 accumulator or air pressure vessels is commonly applied
Time (sec)
directly to the pressure-volume relationship. This is essentially
a pneumatic approach that defines the adiabatic process
approximately as
3 Copyright 2013 by ASME
 z0 n difference. Equation (6) can also be expressed in terms of the
p p0 ( ) (2) pressure p monitored in the cylinder:
z0 z p
or ln
np n p p
V0 n (7)
p p0 ( ) (3) n p p
V ln
where P and P0 are the instant and initial oil pressure values, p0
respectively, in the cylinder, Z0 is the effective length of the gas During normal operation, the anti-recoil valve is widely
column of the piston-cylinder system, Z is the stroke of the open with a constant flow coefficient CV. The pressure
piston with respect to the cylinder, V and V0 are the instant and maximum difference P across the valve in Figure 2 is less
initial gas volumes, respectively. With measured P and P0 at than 1% of the APV pressure when t<35 sec. This seemingly
each instant, the gas constant n is predicted from Equation (3), negligible pressure difference leads to considerable scatter in
or prediction of the gas constant, as shown in Figure 8. Given gas
p constant n=1.4 in Equation (7), the predicted gas constant using
ln the pneumatic approach varies with time and fluctuates from
p0
n np (4) 1.12 to 1.68 with a standard deviation of 0.12. Apart from the
V pressure difference across the anti-recoil valve, other pressure
ln( 0 ) drops along the hydraulic system also contribute to the scatter
V
in the predicted gas constant.
The equation above causes scatter and error in prediction of gas
In hurricane events, the mean pressure in the APV may
constant and other parameters.
deviate from the pressure associated with the mean stroke due
As a comparison, the hydro-pneumatic approach applies
to nonlinear adiabatic process, as illustrated in Figure 6.
the gas pressure in the APV as opposed to the oil pressure in the
Similarly, the nonlinear behavior of the pressure drop across the
cylinder. It simulates the pressure drop caused by the anti-recoil
anti-recoil valve is demonstrated in Figure 7 as far as normal
valve, the hydraulic oil lines, the end fittings, and the inertia
operation in Figure 2 is concerned. If the averaged pressure
and friction of all moving components. The adiabatic process
difference is non-zero, it is called biased. The average pressure
and ideal gas law gives:
difference can be more biased in hurricane events, with more
V0 n
q q0 ( ) deviation in predicting the gas constant according to Equation
V (6).
where q and q0 are the instant and initial APV gas pressures, P
respectively. The gas constant n suffices:
q
ln Pm
q0
n (5) ? Pm
V
ln( 0 ) V
V
Since the APV pressure q is not monitored or not available, V1 Vm V2
back calculation from the oil pressure p is required to predict Figure 6 Nonlinear Pressure-Volume Relationship
the gas constant, with the use of the pressure difference induced
by the anti-recoil valve, as specified in Equation (1), and those 1.0%
due to friction and inertia of hydraulic oil and other moving
Pressure Difference / APV Pressure

0.8%
components. 0.6%

The error in predicting the gas constant with the pneumatic 0.4%

approach can be derived from the combination of Equations (4) 0.2%

and (5), or 0.0%

q p -0.2%

ln
np n
-0.4%
q Start Point (7.5, 0.0%)

(6)
-0.6%

n q -0.8%

ln -1.0%
q0 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3
Stroke (m)
where the initial condition q0 = p0 is applied and the pressure Figure 7 Hysteresis Curve for Pressure Difference
difference P=p-q. The equation above suggests the scatter in
prediction of the gas constant increases with pressure Biased and scattered gas constant is observed in
interpreting full-scale measured data in Holstein Spar

4 Copyright 2013 by ASME

production facility during 2005 hurricane season [11], as shown
in Figure 9. The pneumatic approach was used, and an average
gas constant of 1.46 was reported, which looks biased and
overestimated. In addition, the predicted gas constant is as
scattered as that in Figure 8, despite of different significant
wave heights.
The hydro-pneumatic approach is more accurate in
predicting the gas constant as well as other parameters than the
pneumatic approach. The latter assumes no pressure difference
between the gas in the APV and the oil in the cylinder, while
the former models the pressure difference with model
parameters that can be calibrated by tests or experiments.
1.8
1.7
1.6
Gas Constant, n
riser joints have an outer diameter of 21 inches and a wall
thickness of 0.875 inches. All the buoyancy modules used have
an outer diameter of 54 inches. The total wet weight of the riser
and LMRP is 4063 kN (excludes BOP and components above
telescopic joint). The model is fixed at the base of the BOP, and
a drill string with 6 inch diameter is considered to be present
inside the riser. Two internal fluids are used for the analysis
1025 kg/m3 seawater and 1650 kg/m3 drilling mud. The riser
top tension setting is 5338 kN for the case with seawater and
8096 kN for the case with drilling mud.
The tensioner system used consists of six direct acting
tensioner cylinders as described in Table 2. The system
parameters are representative of high capacity tensioner
systems currently on the market. In order to simplify the
comparison, the only tensioner loss considered for the exercise
is the pressure drop across the anti-recoil valve described

earlier in this paper.

1.5 The typical results of interest for a recoil event are
1.4 tensioner stroke, riser top tension defined as the tension at the
1.3
tension ring and lower marine riser package (LMRP)
clearance from the BOP stack. Therefore, the comparison will
1.2
focus on these key results. No vessel motion is considered for
1.1 this comparison in order to eliminate outside sources of error.
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (sec) Joint Number Base
Predicted Using Cylinder Pressure Given Gas Constant Component Length of Elevation
Figure 8 Scatter of Predicted Gas Constant (m) Joints (m)
Diverter 1.536 1 1962.76
Upper Flexjoint 0.1 1 1962.66
10ft Pup 3.048 1 1959.62
Inner Barrel 9.6 1 1949.1
Outer Barrel 10.515 1 1923.8
Termination
25.928 1 1920.15
Joint
15ftPup 4.572 1 1915.57
Slick Joint 22.86 7 18.19
Buoyancy Joint
22.86 6 1778.41
2000ft Rating
Buoyancy Joint
22.86 26 1184.05
4000ft Rating
Figure 9 Predicted Gas Constant Assuming Pneumatic Buoyancy Joint
22.86 27 566.83
Approach (Gupta et al, 2008) 6000ft Rating
Buoyancy Joint
22.86 4 475.39
COMPARISON OF RESULTS BETWEEN 2HRECOIL 7000ft Rating
AND DEEPRISER Slick Joint 22.86 13 18.19
The anti-recoil analysis software 2HRecoil is developed in Lower
0.1 1 18.09
FORTRAN that can be integrated in ANSYS with full access to Flexjoint
ANSYS functions for 3-D riser simulation. In order to validate LMRP 7.23 1 10.86
the tensioner model developed for 2HRecoil, a benchmarking BOP 7.209 1 3.67
exercise is carried out with the commercially available Table 1 Drilling Riser Stack-up
DeepRiser [16]. The methodology used in 2HRecoil is very
similar to that used by DeepRiser [17].
The benchmarking exercise considers a drilling riser in
1933 m of water with the stack-up given in Table 1. The bare

5 Copyright 2013 by ASME

 0
Parameter Value
1
Number of Tensioners 6 2

Maximum Stroke 15 m 3

4
Gas Constant (Polytropic Index) 1.4
5
Clylinder Bore Diameter 0.56 m 6

Absolute Stroke (m)

7
Piston Rod Diameter 0.23 m
8
Air/Oil Accumulator Volume 4 m3 9

Air Pressure Vessel Volume per 10

9 m3 11
Tensioner
12
Low Pressure Accumulator Volume 4 m3/6 13

Table 2 Direct Acting Tensioner System Parameters 14

15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
The case with seawater filled riser is assessed first. The Time (sec)
riser disconnects from the BOP at 15 seconds, at which point DeepRiser 2HRecoil

the tensioner quickly strokes until the anti-recoil valve closes at Figure 10 Tensioner Stroke: Seawater Filled Riser
around 4.5 m of absolute stroke, which is defined as 0 m when
the tensioner rod is fully retracted and 15 m when the rod is 9000

fully extended. The anti-recoil valve does not completely close, 8000
so the tensioner is able to slowly continue stroking. The
7000
tensioner stroke responses from the two programs are very
similar as shown in Figure 10. The average relative difference 6000
between the strokes generated from the two programs is only
5000
Tension (kN)

3%. Because the internal fluid is seawater, drag effects of a

discharging fluid are non-existent, so the similarity shows that 4000

the general tensioner models are very similar. The anti-recoil

3000
valve slows the stroke down at practically the same time for
both programs, indicating that the valve theory is the same. 2000

The riser top tensions are shown in Figure 11, and aside 1000
from minor noise, the results compare very well between the
0
two programs (2% average relative difference). After 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
disconnect, the tension drops significantly and then rebounds Time (sec)

up to match the riser weight. The cause of the noise in the DeepRiser 2HRecoil

DeepRiser results is unknown, but it may be due to structural Figure 11 Riser Tension at Tension Ring: Seawater Filled
damping not being considered in the analysis. Regardless, the Riser
general trend of the top tension is consistent between the two
10
programs.
The LMRP displacement is shown in Figure 12, and the 9

response is within 5% for the duration of the analysis. The fact 8

that the LMRP clearances match up well indicates that the finite
7
element models used for the riser compare well between
ANSYS and DeepRiser. 6
Displacement (m)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Time (sec)
DeepRiser 2HRecoil

Figure 12 LMRP Clearance from BOP: Seawater Filled

Riser

6 Copyright 2013 by ASME

 0
Additional comparisons are conducted considering 1650
1
kg/m3 drilling mud as the internal fluid. After disconnect, the 2
mud discharges from the riser and applies friction forces until 3
the mud column reaches hydrostatic equilibrium with the 4

external seawater. The tensioner stroke is shown in Figure 13 5

with riser disconnected from the BOP at 15 seconds. The two 6

Absolute Stroke (m)

7
programs output very similar results aside from a slightly
8
different stroke rate from 25 to 160 seconds. Over the course of
9
the analysis, the average relative difference is only 7%. 10
The riser top tension is shown in Figure 14, and the 11
average relative difference is 7%. For the first 20 seconds after 12

disconnect, which is the critical time period for dynamic recoil 13

14
in terms of maximum upstroke, minimum tension and BOP
15
clearance the results are practically identical. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

The mud shedding velocity comes to nearly zero or static Time (sec)
DeepRiser 2HRecoil
relative to the riser string at about 160 sec when the downward
flow of the internal fluid starts to reverse as a result of Figure 13 - Tensioner Stroke: Drilling Mud Filled Riser
overshoot from the hydrostatic equilibrium with the external
seawater. After this point, the tension should vary with mud 9000

friction, which oscillates and attenuates until the mud column 8000
with bottom refilled with water and diluted mud becomes static
7000
and reaches hydrostatic equilibrium with the external seawater
pressure. At about 160 sec, the tension should be stabilized at 6000

the same value for both programs. However, the tensions are
5000
Tension (kN)

different by approximately 470 kN. This is in contrast to the

case with seawater where there is no practical difference in the 4000

stabilized tension. 3000

The most likely explanation of the tension difference, that
has not been confirmed, is the mud in the auxiliary lines. For 2000

this case, the valves for the auxiliary lines are assumed closed 1000
in 2HRecoil without mud loss in the choke and kill lines.
0
Hence, the tension trends towards the riser wet weight with 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
mud in the choke and kill lines. DeepRiser trends towards only Time (sec)
DeepRiser 2HRecoil
the riser wet weight, as shown in Figure 15.
Whilst there is a difference in the final static tension, the Figure 14 Riser Top Tension: Drilling Mud Filled Riser
4800
critical dynamic recoil response immediately following
disconnect is very similar. The results for the recoil phase of the
analysis (15-40 seconds) compare very well, and the difference 4600

in the long term tension pose little concern.

Tension (kN)

The LMRP displacement is very similar for both programs 4400

as shown in Figure 16. The response is not quite as similar as

the case with seawater, and the difference is likely caused by 4200

the slightly different stroke rate. Overall, the average relative

difference is 5%. 4000

3800
140 145 150 155 160
Time (sec)
DeepRiser Top Tension
2HRecol Top Tension
Riser Wet Weight
Riser Wet Weight + Aux Line Fluid Wet Weight

Figure 15 Riser Top Tension: Stabilized Tension

7 Copyright 2013 by ASME

 10
9 Development of fire resistant water based hydraulic
8
7
6 Giapa, (2005) Rheology of bio-edible oils according to
Displacement (m)
5 several rheological models and its potential as hydraulic
4
3
2 and hydraulic oil, U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series B, Vol. 73, Iss.
1
0
0 20 40 60 80
Time (sec)
DeepRiser 2HRecoil
Figure 16 LMRP Clearance from BOP: Drilling Mud
Filled Riser
CONCLUSIONS
Hydro-pneumatic tensioner systems can be simulated
accurately with model parameters calibrated from test results or
measured data. The model parameters include the polytropic
process of all gas components, the inertia and friction of
hydraulic oil and piston-rod system, the control of the anti-
recoil valve, the pressure loss along the hydraulic oil lines and
end-fittings. The tension loss stems from the bottleneck effect
of the hydraulic system and the dynamic interaction between all
components.
Hydro-pneumatic tensioner systems are widely simplified
as pneumatic systems, but this simplification is found sensitive
to the cylinder-APV pressure difference. For instance, a
pressure difference of less than 1% of the APV pressure gives a
standard deviation of 0.12 in gas constant. The gas constant and
other parameters predicted by the pneumatic approach can be
scattering and biased.
Both direct acting and wireline tensioner types are
simulated in 2HRecoil, which produces similar riser responses
to DeepRiser with regards to tensioner stroke, riser top tension,
and LMRP displacement. The differences in the results are
relatively minor and would not result in drastically different
conclusions in an analysis report. The comparison shows that
the tensioner model used in 2HRecoil is very similar to the
model available in the commercial software, DeepRiser.
REFERENCES
[1] Yu, A., Cheng, Y., and Bhat, S., Evaluation of Key
Hydraulic Tensioner Performance Parameters for Ultra
Deep Water Applications, Proceedings of the ASME 27th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Portugal, June, OMAE 2008-57465
[2] MIL-H-22072 Rev C (1984), Military specification:
hydraulic fluid, catapult, NATO code number H-579 (05
MAR).
[3] Philip Rakoff, G. John Colucci, Robert K. Smith, (1965)
fluids, E.F. Houghton & Company, Philadelphia, PA,
USA
[4] W.B. Wan Nika, F.N. Anib, H.H. Masjukic, S.G. Eng
fluid, Industrial Crops and Products, Volume 22, Issue 3,
November, pp 249255
[5] Stanciu, I., (2011), Rheological properties of rapeseed oil
3 ISSN 1454-2331
[6] H. Noureddini, B.C. Teoh, D.L.Clements, (1992),
100 120 140 160 Viscosities of vegetable oils and fatty acids, Journal of
American Oil Chemists Society, JAOCS, vol. 69, pp.
1189-1191
[7] Viswanath, D.S.,and Natarajan, G. (1989), Data Book on
the Viscosity of Liquids, Hemisphere Publ. Corp., New
York.
[8] Helleloid, G.T. On the computation of viscosity-shear rate
temperature master curves for polymeric liquids,
Morehead Electronic Journal of Applicable Mathematics,
Issue 1, CHEM-2000-01
[9] H. Gupta, L. Finn, and J. Halkyard, Spar Riser
Alternatives for 10,000 ft Water Depth, OTC paper
14298, 2002
[10] H. Gupta, F. Botros, Y. Cheng, and A. Yu, Design
Challenges for Ultra Deepwater Riser with Hydraulic
Tensioners, MCE Deepwater Development 2007, Wood
Green, London, March 27-29, 2007
[11] Gupta, H., Nava, V., Banon.H, Gkara,V. and Spanos, P.,
Determination of Riser Tensioner Properties from Full-
Scale Data, Proceedings of the ASME 27th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Portugal, June, OMAE2008-57791
[12] B. Armstrong, C. de Wit. Canudas, Friction Modeling and
Compensation, the Control Handbook, CRC Press, 1995
[13] L. Marton and B. Lantos, Modeling, Identification and
Compensation of Stick-Slip Friction, IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, Vol 54, No.1, Feb 2007
[14] Tran, X.B, Hafizah, N., Yanada, H., Modeling of dynamic
friction behaviors of hydraulic cylinders, Mechatronics,
Vol 22, Issue 1, Feb 2012, pp 65-75
[15] Zhang, H., Song, R., Theoretical Prediction of Tension-
Stroke Relationship of Hydr-Pneumatic Tension Systems,
Proceedings of the ASME 31st International Conference
on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, July, OMAE2012-84071
[16] MCS, DeepRiser Users Manual, Version 2.5, June 2008
[17] Lang, D.W., Real, J., Lane, M., Recent Development in
Drilling Riser Disconnect and Recoil Analysis for
DeepWater Applications, Proceedings of the ASME 2009
28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, Honolulu, HI, June, OMAE2009-
79427
8 Copyright 2013 by ASME