Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2007
June 10-15, 2007, San Diego, California, USA

OMAE2007-29195

In Line and Cross-flow Behavior of a Free-Spanning Pipeline

Celso K. Morooka Annelise Y. Idehara

State University of Campinas State University of Campinas
Department of Petroleum Engineering Department of Petroleum Engineering
Campinas- São Paulo, Brazil Campinas-São Paulo, Brazil
Morooka@dep.fem.unicamp.br annelise@dep.fem.unicamp.br

Cyntia G. da Costa Matt

Subsea Technology, Petrobras/Cenpes,
Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
cyntiagc@petrobras.com.br

ABSTRACT discussed. Discussions are carried out in terms of the behavior

of the free-spanning pipeline, through time domain simulations.
In an offshore petroleum production system, subsea
pipelines have an important function in the production of oil INTRODUCTION
and gas from subsea wells. They are primarily horizontal steel
pipe laying on, near or beneath to the seabed. Usually, a subsea Pipelines play an important role in offshore petroleum
pipeline is used to transport gas or oil from a satellite subsea systems. They are a simple and economically feasible way to
well to a manifold as well as in the transferring process of the transport oil and gas. Subsea pipelines will usually have free
petroleum production from the offshore facility to onshore spans where pass over uneven seafloor. These free spans may
installations. Frequently this pipeline is buried in the seabed, induce vibrations due to vortex shedding when subjected to
and sometimes it passes over uneven seafloor creating free- ocean current, which may eventually cause fatigue damage.
span lengths. The pipeline structure will need to withstand Then understanding of pipeline behavior is important to ensure
environmental forces caused by soil, current and waves. In the safe operation during its planned lifetime.
free spanning portion, for the in-line direction, which is defined
as the direction parallel to the ocean current flow direction,
drag and lift effects usually are present. The cross-flow, or
cross-flow direction, the presence of vortex induced vibrations
(VIV) forces and self-weight are observed. Free-span lengths
of pipeline can be a concern to the overall pipeline system due
to material fatigue resulting from induced dynamic behavior.
Previous investigations have shown that vortex induced
vibrations are important element in the reduction of life-time
service due to fatigue. In the present work, hydrodynamic
forces are calculated by a semi-empirical formulation based on
the Morison type equations, for inline and cross-flow
directions. Ocean current and wave forces are considered for
calculations of the free spanning pipeline behavior. Fluid
particle velocity and acceleration are calculated based on the 5th
order Strokes and Airy wave theory. The pipeline is modeled as
an Euler-Bernoulli beam. Different boundary conditions have Fig. 1 - Free Spanning Pipeline Schematic
been investigated in the present study and the results are

1 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 There are may works in the literature regarding vortex represents the coupling between the in-line and cross-flow
induced vibration in rigid and flexible cylinders (Larsen, 2002). directions which is given by:
The methods used in the calculation of VIV effects on pipelines
or cylinders, in general, have been improved over the years,
| Vr | (u z) 2 y2 (2)
however, for an accurate treatment many efforts are still Eq. 3 introduces the cross-flow force which is the sum
demanded. of vortex induced vibration, fluid reaction forces and weight.
Different methods have been proposed to describe Vortex induced vibration is caused by a difference of pressure
pipeline behavior. The main difference between these methods that occurs when the flow passes around the riser s cross
is the description of the hydrodynamic environmental loads on section. This difference of pressure causes a separation of the
the pipeline system. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) flow around the riser s external surface that results in the
which solve the Navier-Stokes equation numerically and Semi- shedding of vortices. This phenomenon results in hydrodynamic
empirical models based on experiments with cylinders are the forces alternating in time causing vibrations in the cross-flow
two principal approaches available to describe and obtain direction. The VIV phenomenon normally increases the stress
hydrodynamic loads on pipelines, risers or cylinders in general. levels in the riser. It is a high frequency motion, so it contributes to
Most of the pipeline behavior prediction methods base the the reduction of pipeline service life due to fatigue.
structural modeling on the Finite Element approach (FEM) The fluid reaction represents the fluid resistance to the
which is also applied in the present work. pipeline s motion. Eq. 4 describes the VIV force.
Blevins (1977) investigated flow induced vibration on
cylinders, and Bearman and Zdravkovich (1978) studied Fy FVIV C D AD | Vr | y C A AI y W (3)
hydrodynamics of cylinders near walls. Bruschi et al. (1989)
1 2
carried out full-scale measurements of free span pipeline FVIV 0 u x U c .D.C L cos 2 . f S t (4)
response. Det Norske Veritas (1998) issued guidelines and 2
recommendations with further improvements (DNV-G14,
where, Fy is the cross-flow excitation force, W is the weight
2002) with methods for direct calculation of VIV on free
spanning pipelines. Larsen et al. (2002) presents an approach and y, y, y are Cross-flow displacement, velocity and
for VIV analysis of free spanning pipelines based on the acceleration of pipeline respectively.
combined use of frequency and time domain analysis and an The vortex shedding frequency (fs) is given by Eq. 5 and
empirical model for prediction of vortex induced vibration for the mean oscillatory flow velocity ( U ) is described by Eq. 6
marine risers and pipelines. as follow:
The present work s aim is to discuss the dynamic
behavior of horizontally laying pipelines under hydrodynamic | U | St
forces calculated by semi-empirical methods and the effect of fS (5)
D
soil in time domain.
t u x Uc
U dt (6)
HYDRODYNAMICS 0 t t0
The current model assumes that hydrodynamic loads where, St is the Strouhal number. The coupling between in-line
(waves and currents) cause forces that act in the in-line and and cross-flow directions is given by the relative velocity, as
cross-flow directions. The force in the in-line direction is was previously stated before, and can be seen in fig. 2:
Cross-flow

calculated by the semi-empirical Morison s Equation

(modified), as described in Eq. 1 as follows:

Fz C M AI u C D AD | Vr | u U c z C A AI z (1)
Vr
y

where, CA is the added mass coefficient, AI and AD are external

and internal areas of the pipeline cross-section , u and u are
acceleration and velocity of fluid particle respectively, CD is the In-line
drag coefficient, Vr is the relative velocity, CM is the inertia Flow Pipeline
z
coefficient, UC is the current velocity and z , z , z are in-line
displacement, velocity and acceleration of pipeline in that
order.
The first term of Eq. 1 corresponds to the inertial
effect, the second term is the drag component and the last term Fig. 2 Schematic of in-line and cross-flow coupling
is the added mass effect. Vr is the relative velocity that

2 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The hydrodynamic forces on pipelines are similar to the Another important parameter in the description of a
forces on a riser (vertical pipe that transports oil or gas from a general operating pipeline behavior is the boundary conditions
subsea well to a platform). Initial developments carried out and the soil effect. Eqs. 8 and 9 are the governing equations for
[Morooka, 2003] simulate only the behavior of risers. The a tensioned Bernoulli-Euler beam on an elastic foundation
present development has extended this application to considering effects of shear and rotational inertia as in Graff et
horizontally laying subsea pipeline behavior also. The main al (1970):
differences between them are the directions of forces and soil
effects. 2 2 2
y y y
GAI 2
T 2
ky A 2 (8)
MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR x s x t
.
y 2 2 (9)
The pipeline system is usually submitted to external GAI EI I
and internal loads caused by hydrostatic pressure, external x x2 t2
environmental loads (waves, currents and others) and induced
loads from other components of the system. If the pipeline s where, G is the shear modulus, k is the soil stiffness, is the
structural behavior is represented as an Euler- Bernoulli beam adjustment coefficient to shear deformation and is the
the differential equation that describes the static behavior of the
rotation of the beam cross-section due to bending. The general
pipeline under action of static current loads in the horizontal
solution of Eqs. 8 and 9 for the cross-flow displacement at any
direction (z) can be written as shown in Eq. 7 and represented
position along the beam axis can be described in terms of these
by Fig. 3 as follow:
four components as

d2 d 2z d 2z
EI T A0 P0 AI PI y ( x, t ) y1e i ( 1s .t )
y2 ei ( 2s .t )

d 2x dx 2 d 2x (10)
(7)
dz y3 e i ( 3s .t )
y4 ei ( 4s .t )

S A0 AI f xs A0 0 mz f ZS
dx The Eq.s 8 and 9 describes the mechanical behavior at
the shoulders where there are soil-pipeline interactions.
The stiffness matrix of a simple beam and a beam on
d0 T an elastic foundation can be written considering the solutions
of each governing solutions. The stiffness matrix of a beam on
0 an elastic foundation was demonstrated by Gonzalez (2000).
V Fxo+Fxi From this point the stiffness matrix may be used in
the same way as any conventional finite element method. The
dx

Fzo+Fzi V stiffness considers soil effects at the first and last elements (at
w Fcrd0 the shoulders) and the stiffness given by pure beam elements at
all other elements.
Weight
x y
T VIV

z dz x

z
Fig. 3 Pipeline element under loads Current

Fig. 4 - Diagram of Pipeline

where, EI is the bending stiffness, T is axial tension, fzs is the
force in z direction and fxS is the force in x direction. Eq. 7 can
be used to describe the pipeline s static and dynamic free
vibration behavior. However, for static behavior the
acceleration term on the left-hand side of Eq. 7 is zero, and the
right-hand side will be composed of only constant horizontal
loads due to steady-state ocean currents perpendicular to the
pipeline s longitudinal axis. In this work the solution of Eq.7
utilizes a Weak Galerkin formulation along with a weighted
residual method (Morooka et al, 2005).
In the present work, the pipeline structure is divided
into finite elements. The mass of each element is considered to
be concentrated at the nodes. The pipeline s dynamic behavior
is obtained for the coupled in-line and cross-flow directions,
along the entire length of the pipeline in a quasi 3-D fashion.
Mass, stiffness and structural damping are considered for each
pipeline element. The numerical solution in time domain is
obtained from the equations of the dynamic behavior of the
pipeline.

3 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 A set of equation for the pipeline s dynamic behavior

y
- +
is represented in the form of matrices for pipeline z + z +
displacements in the in-line (Eq. 11) and cross-flow (Eq. 12) y y
directions as followed:
Fz 0
du z
M z C z K z C M AI
dt (11) +
z -
C D AD | Vr | u U c z C A AI - y
z -
y

Fy
1 2
M y C y K y 0 u x U c D.C L
2 (12) Fig. 5 - Sign convention for stresses due to in-line and cross-
cos 2 . f S t C D AD | Vr | y C A AI y W flow loads

where, [M] is the lumped mass matrix, [C] is the damping matrix CASE STUDIES
and [K] is the stiffness matrix. In order to solve Equations (11) and
(12) in time domain, the Newmark approach is used, with equal A typical offshore petroleum pipeline was considered
to ¼, to better insure convergence. The integration of the
in the present work as a case study. The pipeline has springs at
differential equations is taken throughout discrete intervals of time,
both ends. The main dimensions of the pipeline are shown in
including full nonlinearities such as that introduced by fluid
Table 1.
viscous damping. Moreover, pipeline displacement and velocity
at the end of a given time step are expressed in terms of
Table 1. Key data of the pipeline
acceleration at the end of the current time step along with
displacement, velocity and acceleration at the beginning of the Outer diameter [m] 0.2191
same time step. Therefore, the obtained solution for a given Inner diameter [m] 0.2004
time step, t, will be the initial condition for the integration of Bending stiffness [Nm ] 2
7.12 106
the equation for the next step, in other words, sequentially. To
take large time step could result in faster computation, Submerged weight [N/m] 163.46
however, important information of riser behavior could be lost. Free-span length [m] 20
On the other hand, a small time step would not represent
Pipeline length [m] 24
improvement in calculation accuracy, and it would represent
large increase in computing time. CD CM C L 0.5 1.2 0.4
The natural frequencies calculation is an eigen-value Young modulus [Pa] 207.10 9
and eigen-vector problem as represented by Eq.13. That is
calculated using Householder s and QR factorization methods. Yield strength [MPa] 289
2
([M] 1 .[K ]) y fn y (13) The DNV guidelines classify the free-span response
behavior as function of the free span length in terms of L/D as
shown in following Table 2.
If small deformations are supposed, and assuming the
cross-section along the pipeline length remains planar when Table 2. Free-span Classification by DNV guideline (2002)
submitted to bending, the maximum value of bending stress in L/D Response description
the pipeline cross-section is given by the Eq. 14 below Very little dynamic
L/D < 30
(Morooka, 2004): amplification
Response dominated by beam
M 30 < L/D < 100
behavior
Max D (14)
I Response dominated by
100 < L/D < 200 combined beam and cable
In the numerical calculations, motions for the in-line behavior
and cross-flow directions are obtained in the time domain for Response dominated by cable
each node along the pipeline length. The obtained bending L/D > 200
behavior
stresses for the in-line and cross-flow directions are calculated
considering a given point on the pipeline s cross-section The cases studied have responses dominated by beam
following the sign convention for stresses outlined in Fig. 5. behavior. The soil effect is considered as a spring acting on the

4 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 beam as shown in Fig. 4. The stiffness of the soil considered is Envelope of In-line Displacement Envelope of Cross-Flow Displacement
shown in Table 3.

[m]

Displacement/Do
Displacement/Do
Table 3. Data of soil 0.006 0.004

Displacement
Soil type - Médium sand 0.004
-0.004
0.002
Spring stiffness of soil [kN/m/m] 530 -0.012
0
Natural frequencies were calculated considering the -0.002 -0.02
pipeline material properties, the soil effect on the pipeline and 0 10 20 0 10 20
static displacement and are shown in the Table 4. Pipeline Coordinate [m] Pipeline Coordinate [m]

Table 4. Natural Frequencies [Hz] Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Mode In-line Cross-flow
Fig. 7 - Only wave
1 2.692 2.691
2 7.527 7.523 Envelope of In-line Displacement Envelope of Cross-Flow Displacement
3 14.843 14.836

[m]

Displacement/Do
Displacement/Do
4 24.603 24.592 0.006 0.004

Displacement
0.004
5 36.805 36.791 -0.004
0.002
In this present work, 3 cases were studied: 1. only 0 -0.012
current, 2. only wave and 3. current and wave. The flow is -0.002 -0.02
classified by as shown in Table 5 (DNV guideline - 2002). 0 10 20 0 10 20
Pipeline Coordinate [m] Pipeline Coordinate [m]
Table 5. Flow regimes
< 0.5 Wave dominant wave Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
superimposed by current
0.5 < < 0.8 Wave dominant current Fig. 8 - Current and Wave
superimposed by wave In-line Displacement Cross-Flow Displacement
> 0.8 Current dominant 2E-15 0
Displacement/Do

Displacement/Do
The case 1 is classified as current dominant, case 2 is 1.5E-15 -1E-15
wave dominant (wave superimposed by current) and case 3 is 1E-15 -2E-15
wave dominant (current superimposed with wave).
5E-16 -3E-15
Table 6 shows the main data of environment
characteristics: 0 -4E-15
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Table 6. Environment data Pipeline Coordinate [m] Pipeline Coordinate [m]
Current velocity [m/s] 0.5 Current and Wave Only Wave Only Current Current and Wave Only Wave Only Current
Wave amplitude [m] 2.5
Wave period [s] 8.4 Fig. 9 - Displacement at left shoulder
Figures 6, 7 and 8 are graphs of envelopes of
displacement of the pipeline of the only current, only wave and An important parameter to insure the longevity of an
current/wave cases. The penetration of the pipeline in the soil is operating petroleum pipeline is the root mean square (RMS)
shown in Figure 9 with more details. bending stresses. The RMS stress is calculated at a point in the
cross-section at a determined angle and in all examples
Envelope of In-line Displacement Envelope of Cross-Flow Displacement presented in this paper it is considered to be 246°
counterclockwise from the horizontal axis of the cross-section
Displacement [m]

Displacement/Do
Displacement/Do

0.006 0.004 plane. In that angle there is the biggest Stress.

0.004 -0.004 Figures 10, 11 and 12 show the Envelopes of RMS
0.002 stress to the third cases studied (current/wave).
-0.012
0
-0.002 -0.02
0 10 20 0 10 20
Pipeline Coordinate [m] Pipeline Coordinate [m]

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Fig. 6 - Only Current

5 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 RMS Stress
Figure 13 shows the tension at the point where there is
the biggest value (at the shoulder).
Stress [Mpa]

40
30 Time Series of Tension
20 60000
10 50000

Tension [kPa]
0 40000
30000
0 10 20 20000
10000
Pipeline Coordinate [m] 0
600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Total stress
Time [s]
only cross-flow loads stress
only in-line loads stress Current and Wave Only Wave Only Current

Fig. 10 - RMS Stress of the current and wave case Fig. 13- Time series of Stress
RMS Stress
FINAL REMARKS
Stress [Mpa]

40
An empirical model for the prediction of VIV for
30 marine risers in the in-line and cross-flow has been applied on
20 the free span pipeline case. Three cases with different
10 environment forces (only current, only wave and current and
wave flows) were evaluated.
0 Bending stresses at the shoulders are, for the analyzed
0 10 20 cases, higher than the mid-section. The in-line loads have a
small effect on the total bending stress; however the in-line
Pipeline Coordinate [m] vibration can be also important to estimate the service life.
The present model does not represent, of course, an
Total stress
ideal solution. The structural model at the shoulders needs to be
only cross-flow loads stress
improved including the effects of friction. More accurate
only in-line loads stress
hydrodynamic coefficients for oscillating pipelines close to the
Fig. 11 - RMS Stress of the only wave case seafloor are also needed. Verifications from comparisons with
experiments are also needed.
Another parameter to study is the pipeline behavior is
the gap (distance between seabed and the pipeline) which
RMS Stress results in the flow becoming asymmetric near the seabed.
Stress [Mpa]

40 NOMENCLATURE
30 A0 Internal area of the pipeline section
20 AI External area of the pipeline section
10 CA Added mass coefficient
CD Drag coefficient
0 CL Cross-flow force coefficient
0 10 20 CM Inertia coefficient
D Hydrodynamic diameter
Pipeline Coordinate [m] EI Bending stiffness
Total stress
FVIV Vortex induced vibration force
only cross-flow loads stress
FY Cross-flow external force
only in-line loads stress FZ In-line external force
G Shear modulus
Fig. 12 - RMS Stress of the only current case I Moment of inertia

6 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 L Pipeline length [3] Chakrabarti, S. K., (1987) Hydrodynamics of
P0 Internal Pressure Offshore Structures , Computacional Mechanics Publications,
PI External Pressure Southampton, Great Britain.
St Strouhal number
T Tension [4] Det Norske Veritas, (1998): Free Spanning
U Current velocity Pipelines , Guidelines No. 14, Norway.
U Cumulative average velocity of the oscillatory flow
UC Current velocity [5] Det Norske Veritas, (2002): "Free Spanning
Vr Relative velocity Pipelines", Recommended Practice, DNV-RP-F105, Norway.
W Weight per meter of pipeline
[6] Ferrari Jr., J. A. and Bearman, P. W., (1999),
f n Natural frequency Hydrodynamic Loading and Response of Offshore Risers ,
f S Vortex shedding frequency OMAE 1999, International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, St John's, Canada.
f xS , f ZS Forces in x direction and z direction
k Spring stiffness of the soil [7] Ferrari, J.A., (1998) Hydrodynamic Loading and
t Time Response of Offshore Risers Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College,
u, u Velocity and acceleration of fluid particle London.
y, y, y Cross-flow displacement, velocity and [8] Graff, K. F., (1991), Wave motion in Elastic
acceleration of pipeline Solids , Dover Publication, New York.
z, z, z In-line displacement, velocity and
[9] Gonzales, E. C. (2000), High Frequency
acceleration of pipeline
Response of Marine Risers with Application to Flow Induced
Current flow velocity ratio
Vibration , Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of technology,
S Specific weight USA.
Adjustment coefficient for shear deformation
External fluid density [10] Larsen, C.M., Vikestad, K., Yttervik, R. and
0
Passano, E. (2001): "Empirical Model for Analysis of Vortex
Pipeline density Induced Vibrations - Theoretical Background and Case
Cross-flow force phase Studies". OMAE 01, 20th International Conference on
Rotation of the beam cross-section due to bending Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Rio de Janeiro.

Max Maximum stress in the pipeline cross section

[11]Larsen, C.M., Koushan, K., Passano, E. (2002):
[K] Global stiffness matrix Frequency and Time Domain Analysis of Vortex Induced
[M] Global mass matrix Vibrations for Free Span Pipelines . OMAE 02, 21st
[C] Global damping matrix International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Oslo, Norway.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
[12]Larsen, C. M., Passano, E., Baarholm, G.S. and
The authors would like to thank CNPq and Finep/CTPetro, Koushan, K. (2004). Nonlinear Time Domain Analyses of
Fapesp and Petrobras for their support to the present study. Vortex Induced Vibrations for Free Spanning Pipelines .
OMAE 04, 23rd International Conference on Offshore
REFERENCES Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vancouver.

[1] Aronsen, K. H., Larsen, C. M. and Mørk,
K.(2005), Hydrodynamic Coefficients from in-line VIV
experiments , OMAE 2005, 24th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Halkidiki,
Greece.
[13] Mørk, K.J., Fyrilriv, O., Verley, R., Bryndum, M.
and Bruschi, R. (1998): Introduction to the New DNV
Guideline for Free Spanning Pipelines . OMAE 98, 17th
International Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Lisboa.

[2] Blevins, R.D. (1977), Flow-induced Vibrations . [14] Matt, C. G. C., Franciss, R., Morooka, C. K. and
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company 3º ed. Coelho, F. M. (2006), Service Life Reduction of Tensioned
Vertical Riser and VIV Efect , OMAE 2006, 25th International

7 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
Hamburg, Germany.

[15] Morooka, C. K., Coelho, F. M., Ribeiro, E. J. B.,

Ferrari Jr., J. A., and Franciss, R. (2005), Dynamic Behavior of a
Vertical Riser and Service Life Reduction , OMAE 2005, 24th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Halkidiki, Greece.

[16] Morooka, C. K., Idehara, A. Y., Matt, C. G.

C.(2006), Behavior of a Pipeline with Free Span under Steady
Current , CILAMCE 2006, Iberian Latin American Congress On
Computational Methods In Engineering, Belem, Brazil.

[17] Morooka, C.K. ; Coelho, F. M.; Kubota, H.Y.;

Ferrari Jr., J.A.; Ribeiro, Elton J.B. (2004), Investigations on
the Behavior of Vertical Production Risers , International
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE)
Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

[18] Tura, F. and Vitali, L. (1990): Non-linear

Behaviour of Free Spanning Pipelines Exposed to Steady
Current; Model Tests and Numerical Simulations . EUROMS-
90, European Offshore Mechanics Symposium, Trondheim.

8 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use