Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems

John Shanks RiserTec

Arnhall Business Center, Arnhall Business Park, Westhill, Aberdeenshire, AB23 6UF john.shanks@risertec.com

Abstract
The riser design process is well established and uses verified simulation tools to predict response to environmental loading. Design optimization is an established technology which has been widely used in other industry sectors including aerospace and automotive. Riser systems show inherently non-linear sensitivity to applied loading and parametric changes. For this reason response surface methods are required for optimization. The paper discusses two example riser configuration design problems and describes integration of Altair HyperWorks design optimization technology with the existing design process. The optimization proved to be efficient and repeatable. The designs produced for each configuration proved to be strong improvements over the baseline starting points and the wealth of information on sensitivity provided deeper understanding of the factors influencing design performance.
Keywords: Riser Design, Optimization, Flexcom, Orcaflex, HyperWorks

1.0

Introduction

Computer aided engineering (CAE) has for a long time been part of the Riser design process. The use of advanced simulation tools for capturing response in the offshore environment has enabled efficient derivation of high-quality designs. Automating the CAE driven design process using optimization technology is the next step and this paper describes two example applications: a spar riser system and a FPSO steep wave riser system. The benefits of design optimization are well known and have demonstrated capability to increase the performance of engineering systems, reduce time to market and provide deeper understanding of the factors influencing performance. Response surface technology [1] is used as the basis for the optimization examples in this paper and provides a method for optimizing highly non-linear systems. When used with the correct sampling methods, these processes can provide a very efficient means of fully exploring the design space, helping with identification of general system characteristics and assessing reliability. A typical riser design process is shown (Figure 1). The design process is complex and the ultimate solution must meet a diverse range of often conflicting requirements. Optimization can play a part early in the design process and help to speed up development of initial concepts. The details of the process and implementation are provided for each example. The spar riser system is commonly used with a floating platform which contains tensioning equipment to keep the riser in the correct configuration. In common with the Steep wave Riser the system has to be able to withstand environmental wave loading, and in the case we will look at a specific wave loading event known to cause damage to such systems.

Altair Engineering 2007

11-1

Figure 1: Overview of a Typical Riser Design Process The steep wave riser system design example is a typical FPSO System (Figure 2) and must be shown to be capable of withstanding enveloping environmental wave loading. The system must be constrained to meet clearance requirements as well as attachment loading limits. The application of the optimization technology to both examples demonstrates a high level of efficiency in evolving designs from initial concepts. The final solutions have strong scientific basis providing justification for all of the design parameters. A by-product of application of the process is the wealth of information available regarding sensitivity of the performance to all of the controllable design characteristics.

Figure 2: Typical Spar and Steep Wave Riser Systems

2.0 Design Optimization Process for Riser Design

2.1 Introduction

The design optimization problem is defined using a standard approach which is general for a range of engineering design challenges. A baseline model is developed, which is correlated against known response. A set of design variables are defined which may be geometric (pipe lengths, section geometries), material characteristics (Youngs modulus, yield stress) or constraint conditions which can be used to allow analysis of multiple configurations and therefore assess the most suitable for purpose. A set of experiments are then defined, which select a number of settings for each of these variables to provide a broad and evenly distributed
Altair Engineering 2007 Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems 11-2

mix of design options. Responses from the simulations (e.g. pipe loads and stresses) are extracted and plotted against design variable ranges. The data is then fitted and verified using advanced multi-dimensional surface fitting technology. Once this data fit is available and verified, optimization algorithms can be deployed to find the optimum solution. 2.1 Definition of Baseline Model

For the examples in this paper, the baseline design refers to the nominal design produced using the traditional design approach. This design is modelled using OrcaFlex or FlexCom, and a set of design load cases defined and analysed. The results from this model are compared with expected response providing confidence in the analysis procedure. 2.2 Design Variable Definitions

Design variables are defined as parametric changes to the baseline model. These are generally geometric changes such as changes in pipe length or cross section or changes in material properties. These changes are defined and combined to explore a controlled set of design variations. In the optimization process, the variations are applied to the model automatically based on carefully chosen weightings defined in a test plan. The design variables are chosen to fully explore the available options and are selected from a larger set of variables by filtering those to which the required responses show greatest sensitivity. 2.3 Test Plan Definition

The selection of a good test plan which samples a broad range of designs evenly distributed between the bounds of the design variables is important to provide sufficient data for initial surface fitting. To populate the design space, the Extended Uniform Latin HyperCube space filling algorithm is generally used which uses genetic algorithms to iterate towards the required distribution of samples. Each design sample point corresponds to a design iteration which includes a specific set of design variable combinations. 2.4 Submission of Simulations and Response Extractions

Once a test plan has been defined, a single analysis process is performed for each design sample using HyperStudy and the interface with Orcaflex or FlexCom. Post processing of each analysis run is then performed to extract the responses required for sensitivity assessment and design optimization. These are typically loads and stresses in the pipe, but may also include relative displacements and clearances between vessel and pipe. The analyses can be run in parallel to take advantage of multi-processor computing systems 2.5 Surface Fitting and Verification

Surface fitting is performed to provide a means of estimating the response continuously across the design space. The quality of the fit will depend on the gradients of the surface and the concentration of sample points. Since the gradients are not known before starting the design of experiments, the best strategy is to evenly fill the design space and check the quality of the fit. A new set of samples are then defined in zones where the fit is poor and a subset of responses generated before revising the surface fit. This loop is repeated until the fit is within acceptable bounds across the design space. Advanced surface fitting techniques are used to give the required quality of fit to the data, in general the only technique found to give such a quality of fit is the Moving Least square Method (MLSM). 2.6 Design Optimization

The typical design optimization problem is set up to minimize a cost function (often related to mass, installation or assembly costs), or some physical requirement such as maximum curvature found in the pipe. Constraints are defined on the remaining responses to limit other component loads in the pipe and displacements.

3.0
3.1

Spar Riser Design Optimization

Introduction

The spar riser design problem documented in this section is typical of this type of configuration. The riser runs from the seabed through a guide structure which is attached to the spar buoy. There is a small clearance
Altair Engineering 2007 Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems 11-3

between guide and riser. Under dynamic loads, this gap opens and closes and gives rise to high local bending and contact stresses. 3.2 FlexCom Model Development and Baseline Analysis

The spar model (Figure 3) was developed in Flexcom [2] to include a detailed riser model with 9 different riser line segments, the spar buoy and guide to riser contact. Motions were defined for the buoy as time history data measured offshore.

Figure 3: Spar Model

Figure 4: Maximum Von Mises Stress Envelope vs Riser Height A dynamic simulation of the spar was performed using the implicit solver in Flexcom. Results for Von Mises stress along the riser close to the contact zone were extracted using a HyperStudy interface with Flexcom (Figure 4). 3.3 Parameterisation and Design of Experiments

The parameterisation of the model was defined as pipe section variations for each of the 9 sections. A total of 9 design variables were defined, each with 19 discrete levels. The chosen values for the sections (Figure 5) were ordered in increasing stiffness to avoid stiffness discontinuities as the design variables a varied throughout their respective ranges. The design of experiments was defined using an Extended Uniform Latin Hypercube, generating 202 analysis runs. We used 202 runs because some of our original runs failed. This occurred in regions where the design variable combinations werent physically possible, or the models became numerically unstable for other reasons. HyperStudy allows us to deal with this in the Response Surface Generation phase without compromising the result quality. Of course care has to be taken that there are not too many failed runs within the explored space. If this is the case we have to re-evaluate the bounds of the design space we explore. The
Altair Engineering 2007 Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems 11-4

HyperStudy-Flexcom interface was used to generate the models and execute the analysis automatically at each sample point. Stress results and the overall mass of the riser were extracted and stored as responses for each run.

Figure 5: Parameterisation of Riser 3.4 Optimization

A moving least squares approximation was developed for each response and tuned to provide a good fit to the data. This was an iterative process which involved adjustment of the closeness of fit parameter and review of the errors for each point of the matrix. Error reduction in this process has to be balanced against getting a good quality curvature in the response surface otherwise step changes may occur which mitigate against optimisation (Figure 6). A validation matrix was then constructed and a further set of runs performed. The adequacy of the approximation fit (Figure 7) to the new results was then assessed and further points added where the fit was found to be poor.

Figure 6: Surface Fitting Process

Altair Engineering 2007

Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems

11-5

Figure 7: Example Response Surface Main effects plots were then generated to assess the sensitivity of the two responses to each of the design variables (Figure 8). It should be noted that there is a difference in the sensitivity of the mass response to each of the design variables because each section length is not of equal size. The stress response shows a highly non-linear relationship with each design variable and is a result of the complex interaction between the variations of the sections of the line. The main effects plots help to determine which design variables may be removed from the optimization. Since all design variables had a significant effect on each response, all were maintained for this example.

Figure 8a: Main Effects Plots for Riser Design Parameters

Figure 8b: Anova Plots for Riser Design Parameters The optimization was performed with mass reduction as the objective and stress as the constraint. The SQP algorithm was used to perform the optimization. A further validation GA optimization was performed. As we are now working on the Response Surface to calculate our results each iteration can be performed in a few seconds which means we can try different optimisation technologies, and formulate different Optimisation problems very quickly to explore different hypotheses. The optimal point was verified by performing a final solve in Flexcom with design variables set at the optimum values (Figure 9).
Altair Engineering 2007 Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems 11-6

Figure 9: Final Optimized Design Parameters and Stress Response

3.5

Discussion of Results

The optimum solution confirmed that the maximum stress was lower than the allowable and that all sections were highly utilised.

4.0
4.1

FPSO Steep Wave Riser Design Optimization

Introduction

The FPSO example is a typical steep wave riser system provided by Risertec (Figure 10). A steep wave riser formation has support provided at about midwater by distributed buoyancy modules and has a near vertical connection at the seabed. 'Steep' means that the riser centreline is near vertical at the lowest end while 'Wave' describes the line shape as a result of the buoyancy modules. Some of the key design requirements for a system of this configuration include: i) ii) Limiting maximum and minimum tension Limiting maximum curvature

iii) Controlling of the pipe clearance from the seabed and vessel during dynamic excitation These design requirements form the basis of a set of responses for the design optimization process. The design variables for this system are lengths of the various pipe sections. The overall objective for the design is to minimize the pipe curvature.

Altair Engineering 2007

Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems

11-7

Figure 10: Riser Configuration Examples 4.2 OrcaFlex Model Development

The Orcaflex model was developed based on good practice for a starting point steep wave riser design. Three sections of pipe were defined, with the central section defined as buoyant. Three configurations were chosen to cover the main design conditions: i) ii) Static datum position Near Condition (Figure 11)

iii) Far Condition (Figure 11) A single water depth was selected for each configuration.

Figure 11: Steep Wave Riser Example Showing Datum, Near and Far Configurations

A single pipe section was used for the model with properties as summarised in Table 1.
Line Identifier Length Section Properties OD Riser Buoyant Riser Riser 137 70 32 0.354 0.630 (buoyant) 0.354 ID 0.254 0.254 0.254 Mass/Unit Length 0.15 0.15 0.15

Table 1: Summary of Line Parameters

Altair Engineering 2007 Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems 11-8

4.3

Baseline Analysis

The baseline analysis provides verification that the analysis setup is specified correctly and that the responses can be extracted using the interface between HyperStudy and OrcaFlex. Baseline analysis was performed in three stages: i) ii) Static Analysis of DATUM position to define Azimuth and Declination angles Dynamic Analysis of Near Condition using the DATUM angles (100 year wave)

iii) Dynamic Analysis of Far Condition using the DATUM anlges (100 year wave) Results were extracted for logging in HyperStudy for items ii and iii for ship clearances, peak tensions and maximum curvature. Snap shots of the dynamic response for the Far and Near positions and the variation of curvature along the pipe length are provided (Figure 12).
Orc aFlex 9.0a: NEAR.dat (modified 12 :20 on 30/03/20 07 by Orc aFlex 8.3a) (az imuth =270; elev ation =0) Replay Time: -3.20s

30 m

Z X

Orc aFlex 9.0a: NEAR.dat (modified 12:20 on 30/03/2007 by Orc aFlex 8.3a) (az imuth=270; elev ation=0) Replay Time: 1.80s

30 m

Z X

Orc aFlex 9.0a: NEAR.dat (modified 12:20 on 30/03/2007 by Orc aFlex 8.3a) (az imuth=270; elev ation=0) Replay Time: 7.70s

30 m

Z X

Figure 12: Dynamic Response to Wave Loading for Baseline Design The dynamic response of the line in the far and near conditions is as expected and clearances from the vessel and seabed are within acceptable limits for both cases. No compression was detected in the line throughout the simulations. 4.4 Parameterisation and Design of Experiments

Three design variables were defined for the optimization, namely the lengths for the three line segments. Table 1 provides a summary of how the lengths were varied for each line. The parameters were varied automatically using HyperStudy and the interface with OrcaFlex. To populate the design space fully, an Extended Uniform Latin Hypercube space filling approach was used. One hundred and twenty designs were defined to provide the resolution required for surface fitting (Figure 13). This provided a thorough examination of the design options within the practical limits of the system. The number of samples was relatively high for three design variables, but could be run very efficiently thanks to the implicit solution technique.

Figure 13: Design of Experiments Sample Points Shown for 3 design Variables A suite of solves similar to the baseline analysis was performed for each sample point. Responses were extracted automatically for each analysis and stored in HyperStudy.
Altair Engineering 2007 Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems 11-9

4.5

Surface Fitting and Design Optimization

The optimization process commences with generation of a fit to the response data generated in the DoE stage. A separate data fit was implemented for each response. The data fitting technique was MLSM, as for the spar example. It was not necessary to run a further validation matrix for this example since the sample point density was large for the number of design variables. Parameters for the MLSM fit were chosen carefully to achieve a good trade-off between fit accuracy and smoothness of the response surface (Figure 14). This was performed in an iterative loop, starting with adjustment to the closeness of fit parameter followed by examination of the errors for each point in the matrix (Figure 15).

Figure 14: Approximation Build Panel

Figure 15: Residual Evaluation Plot The design optimization problem was defined as: Objective: Minimise Max Curvature Constraints: Ship Clearance >= 2.5m Seabed Clearance >= 2.5m Minimum Tension >= 1kN Maximum Tension <= 200kN Design optimization was performed in two stages. To fully explore the design space, a combination of the GA and SQP methods was adopted. The SQP method was used to generate a provisional optimum which was then validated using GA. A significant difference in the optimum was found and SQP was restarted at the improved GA optimum. It should be noted that the GA is not a true optimiser, but an engine of improvement. As such it will not necessarily try to hone a design to find a true optimum. It will however often find the location of the global
Altair Engineering 2007 Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems 11-10

optimum where other techniques may fall into local optima. Restarting SQP from the GA optima allows us to find the real optimum point that the GA has indicated for us. Finally, a validation run was performed using Orcaflex with the optimum design variable settings to produce a final set of responses (Table 2).
Objective Description Baseline Model Base SQP Optimisation Base GA Study Restart SQP Optimisation from GA Validation Run Curvature (Minimise) 0.3638 0.3530 0.3311 0.3308 0.3444 Percent Improve. 2.97% 8.99% 9.07% Ship Clear. (>=2.5m) 7.86 9.06 9.22 9.12 9.45 Constraints Seabed Min Clear. Tens. (>=2.5m) (>=1kN) 8.68 5.87 3.15 3.36 3.29 11.02 11.75 10.27 10.31 10.39 Design Variables Max Tens. (<=200kN) 103.43 107.57 109.30 109.10 109.21 Len_1 (m) 137.00 138.45 146.65 146.40 146.40 Len_2 (m) 70.00 67.80 80.00 80.00 80.00 Len_3 (m) 32.00 23.60 22.95 23.00 23.00

Table 2: Summary of Optimization Results 4.6 Discussion of Results

The response surface for curvature was found to be highly non-linear (Figure 16), identifying that robust design was challenging for this basic configuration. This would be the first stage in an optimization process for this system. The next stage would incorporate bend stiffeners which would serve to reduce the curvature at the seabed and vessel attachments. The peak curvature would then shift to other zones in the line. The curvature response surface would likely be smoother for these systems helping to remove high sensitivity to small changes in the system parameters (e.g. manufacturing tolerances). It can however be seen from this surface that there are clear areas of the region explored which have a significantly lower curvature response associated with them.

Figure 16: Objective Response Surface Plot (Maximum Pipe Curvature)

Altair Engineering 2007

Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems

11-11

5.0

Conclusions

The examples have demonstrated that an existing design optimization process can be applied successfully to riser design without any further enhancements. The solution is implemented in Altair HyperStudy and interfaces with widely used riser design software systems. There is no need for any fundamental research to broaden the reach of the technology. There is a need to explore a wider range of riser design problems and to address some more of the design issues and practical constraints. Vessel offset positions, fatigue load cases and different riser configurations are all areas where further focused study is required. The benefits of using the response surface approach have been identified through application of the process. Design sensitivity information is automatically produced by the process, which can be assimilated with the response surface visualisations to provide a much greater depth of understanding of the design problem. The aspects of the design which have the greatest influence on key responses can be identified through the sensitivities. The shape of the response surfaces, bounded by the variable ranges, can help to identify whether the general configuration can be made robust (smoother surfaces) or if it is inherently unstable (highly non-linear surfaces). Once a verified data fit has been defined, a range of assessments can be made including design optimization and robustness assessment. The sampling strategy for definition of the DoE provides a practical manageable number of analyses, making the technology suitable for commercial use. Two design optimization examples have been documented. The spar example provided a minimum mass solution which would meet peak stress requirements with a practical manufacturable solution. In the second example a steep wave riser example was optimized to minimize curvature subject to constraints on seabed and vessel clearances. A 10% reduction in maximum curvature was achieved even though the response surface was highly non-linear.

6.0
[1]
[2] [3]

References
HyperWorks Version 8.0, Altair Computing Inc., 2006. FlexCom v7.1, MCS, 2006 Orcaflex v9.0, Orcina Ltd, 2006

Altair Engineering 2007

Rapid Design Exploration to Determine Feasible FPSO and Spar Systems

11-12