INDEPENDENCE HUB-MC920 EXPORT GAS SCR DESIGN

ANLALYSIS REPORT

GEM 20120941 KIM, YOUNG TAE

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 1.2 2. 2.1 2.2 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 6. 7. General ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 4 Project Documents ................................................................................................................... 4 Design Codes and Standards .................................................................................................... 5 Steel Riser data ......................................................................................................................... 5 SCR Porch Location & Hang-Off Angles ................................................................................ 6 Flex-Joint .................................................................................................................................. 6 Strake Properties....................................................................................................................... 7 Hydrodynamic Coefficient for Strength and Interference Analysis ......................................... 8 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Fatigue Analysis .................................................................... 8 Internal Fluid Data, Export SCR .............................................................................................. 8 Environmental Data .................................................................................................................. 9 Sea Water Properties ............................................................................................................. 9 Soil Data ............................................................................................................................... 9 Current Data.......................................................................................................................... 9 General ................................................................................................................................... 11 Static Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 12 Dynamic Analysis .................................................................................................................. 12 Input Data for Shear7 Software .............................................................................................. 13 Free Strake (Bare pipe) Riser System [Current Case I].......................................................... 14 Riser System with Strake [Current Case I] & [Nonlinear Stiffness] ...................................... 16 Riser System with Strake [Current Case II] & [Nonlinear Stiffness] ..................................... 19 Riser System with Strake [Current Case III] & [Nonlinear Stiffness] ................................... 20 Riser System with Strake [Current Case I] & [Single Value Stiffness] ................................. 24 Top vs. Bottom Strakes ....................................................................................................... 24 Top vs. Separated Strakes ................................................................................................... 25 Eddy & Hurricane Current (100-Year) Condition .............................................................. 27 DNV E & DNV C Curve based on Eddy Current ....................................................... 28

PROJECT DOCUMENT AND DESIGN CODES ......................................................................... 4

DESIGN DATA (RISER DESIGN BASIS & METHODOLOGY) ............................................... 5

DESIGN METHOD ...................................................................................................................... 11

ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 14

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 29 References ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 1 Strake Design ......................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 Fatigue Design Life with Strake (years)................................................................. 4 Table 3 Current Speed for SEHAR 7 Beam 3 Example Cases ...................................... 10 Table 4 100 Year Loop Current Eddy Profile (DEEPSTAR IIA Project: "Steel Catenary Riser Performance On A Floating Production System, 1996) ................................... 11 Table 5 100 Year Hurricane Current Profile (DEEPSTAR IIA Project: "Steel Catenary Riser Performance On A Floating Production System, 1996) ............................................ 11 Table 6 Design Basis Recommended Value ...................................................................... 13 Table 7 SHEAR7 Recommended Value ............................................................................ 14 Table 8 OMFD & Fatigue Life for Free Straked Riser ..................................................... 16 Table 9 OMFD & Fatigue Life for Straked Riser [Current Case I & Non-Linear F.J. Stiffness] ................................................................................................................... 18 Table 10 OMFD & Fatigue Life for Straked Riser [Current Case II & Non-Linear F.J. Stiffness] ................................................................................................................... 19 Table 11 OMFD & Fatigue Life for Straked Riser [Current Case III & Non-Linear F.J. Stiffness] ................................................................................................................... 22 Table 12 Fatigue Life for Current Case I~III .................................................................... 22 Table 13 OMFD & Fatigue Life Near TDP for Straked Riser [Current Case III & NonLinear F.J. Stiffness] ................................................................................................. 23 Table 14 Fatigue Life Near TDP for Current Case I~III ................................................... 23 Table 15 OMFD & Fatigue life with Different Allocation of Strakes............................... 26 Table 16 OMFD & Fatigue Life Extreme GOM Condition [DNV C Curve] ................ 27 Table 17 Comparative Table DNV "E" vs. DNV "C" ....................................................... 28 Table 18 S-N curves in seawater with cathodic protection (DNV-RP-C203, 2012) ......... 28

Figure 1 Current Profile for 5 cases .................................................................................. 10 Figure 2 Fatigue Life of Free Strkaked Riser.................................................................... 15 Figure 3 Comparative Table for Current Case I&II .......................................................... 20

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General

This document presents the VIV fatigue analyses required to achieve the fatigue design life for the export riser. Steel Catenary Risers (SCRs) is employed for the export lines. The detailed project description is provided in the Riser Design Basis & Methodology.

1.2

Executive Summary
SCR with Strakes Strakes type: 16D x 0.25D Strake Coverage: 80 %

Table 1 Strake Design

Type Strake Riser Strake Riser (Flow line)

Start 0ft 2000 ft. 3000 ft. 9000 ft.

Stop 2000 ft. 3000 ft. 9000 ft. ~

Table 2 Fatigue Design Life with Strake (years)

Current Type Beam 3 example Eddy Current Hurricane Currrent

80 % coverage 425.24 177.6 585.86

2. PROJECT DOCUMENT AND DESIGN CODES

2.1 Project Documents

The following design document shall govern the design of the export riser for the initial design. Riser Design Basis & Method

2.2

Design Codes and Standards

Det Norske Veritas (DNV ) DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures

3. DESIGN DATA (RISER DESIGN BASIS & METHODOLOGY)

3.1 Steel Riser data (p.13)
Steel Riser Data Riser pipe outer diameter (in) Wall Thickness (in) Corrosion Allowance: Internal (in) External(in) Wall Thickness Tolerances: Wall thickness tolerance range Average dry weight (% of Nominal) Ovality Material Properties Material Properties Density(lb/ft3) Minimum yield strength (ksi) Young's Modulus (ksi) Shear Modulus (ksi) Tangent Modulus (ksi) Anti-corrosion coating Strake / Faring region FBE Thickness (in) Density(lbs/ft3) Touchdown Zone region TLPE Thickness (in) 0.1 0.016 87 API X-65 490 65 29700 11423 66.3 +20~-8% 108% +0.75%/-0.25% 0.05 none 20.000 1.210

Density(lbs/ft3) Bare Pipe Region FBE Thickness (in) Density(lbs/ft3) S-N Curve (p.40) SCF (p.40)

87

0.016 87

DNV E curve (single slope) 1.2

3.2

SCR Porch Location & Hang-Off Angles (p.14)

Porch Co-ordinates Identification X(ft) Gas Export SCR 17.50 Y(ft) 120.67 Z(c) 15.00 Hang-Off Angles (deg) 12

Azimuth Angle

325

3.3

Flex-Joint

Single value stiffness for flex-joint will be adjusted for this analysis according to the Riser Design Basis & Methodology, but Flex-joint stiffness curve data will be considered for the analysis too. The details of data is as following: Table-Flex-Joint Stiffness Single Value data for SCR analysis (p.18) Riser Type Fatigue Analysis (small angle) 20-inch SCR 25 kips-ft.

Table-Flex-Joint Stiffness Curve data for 20-inch Export SCR Analysis (p.16) Alternating F.J. Angle (deg) 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 Max Design Rotation Stiffness (kips-ft./deg) 436.411 358.097 318.974 293.836 275.711 261.734 Unit (kips-ft.) 4.36411 7.16194 9.56922 11.75344 13.78555 15.70404

0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 15 20 25

250.471 241.108 233.139 226.234 185.637 165.355 152.324 142.928 135.682 129.844 124.990 120.859 117.280 104.466 96.234 85.720 78.965 74.094 70.338 64.794 60.797 54.155 49.887 46.810

17.53297 19.28864 20.98251 22.6234 37.1274 49.6065 60.9296 71.464 81.4092 90.8908 99.992 108.7731 117.28 156.699 192.468 257.16 315.86 370.47 422.028 518.352 607.97 812.325 997.74 1170.25

3.4

Strake Properties (p.19)

The strake type for achieving the VIV suppression is adopted for export riser. The data is presented as following: Strake Properties Section weight in air (lbs. /ft.) Section weight in water (lbs. /ft.) Barrel Outside diameter (in) Barrel thickness 48.4 5.3 22.362 0.098

Strake Height (0.25D) (in) Strake Pitch (16D) (in)

5.591 357.8

3.5

Hydrodynamic Coefficient for Strength and Interference Analysis (p.20)

strength and interference analysis parameter Normal drag Tangential drag Normal inertia Normal added mass Tangential mass added 1.2 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Bare pipe 2.6 0.05 2.5 1.5 0.05 Straked section

3.6

Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Fatigue Analysis (p.20)

Fatigue load cases Bare pipe 0.7 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Straked section 2.6 0.05 2.5 1.5 0.05

parameter Normal drag Tangential drag Normal inertia Normal added mass Tangential mass added

3.7

Internal Fluid Data, Export SCR (p.21)

Load case & parameter shut-in condition pressure (psig) density (lb./ft3) normal operating conditions for fatigue assessment pressure (psig) 3250 3250 12.5

density (lb./ft3) hydrotest conditions pressure (psig) density (lb./ft3) installation conditions pressure (psig) density (lb./ft3)

12.5

4875 64

ambient void

3.8
3.8.1

Environmental Data Sea Water Properties (p.23)

Water depth Sea water density 8000 ft. 64 lbs./ft3

3.8.2

Soil Data (p.26)

undrained shear strength submerged unit weight Friction coefficients Longitudinal Transverse Soil Stiffness (lbs./ft./ft.) Vertical Lateral (VIV purposes) 23500 16215 lbs./ft./ft. lbs./ft./ft. 0.5 1 50 20 lbs./ft2 lbs./ft3

3.8.3

Current Data

Current data was assumed based on the data of SHEAR 7 Beam 3 example. Five current cases were prepared to perform SCR analysis because current profile in Beam 3 example cant be convinced to represent GOM current. Case I: Uniform current below half of the water depth with 1.0 ft. /s Case II: Uniform current below half of the water depth with 0.8 ft. /s Case III: Sheared current below from the top of the sea level

Table 3 Current Speed for SEHAR 7 Beam 3 Example Cases

Case I depth(ft.) -160 -532 -1068 -2000 -3892 -4000 -4800 -8000 4.3 4.29 2.42 1.49 1.01 1 1 1

Case II current speed (ft./s) 4.3 4.29 2.42 1.49 1.01 1 0.8 0.8

Case III

4.3 3.892 2.42 1.39 1.49 1.49 1.35 1

Figure 1 Current Profile for 5 cases

Current Profile
0 0 -1000 -2000 -3000 Case I Case II Case III 100-Year Loop Current EDDY Profile (ft./s) 100-Year Hurricane Current Profile (ft./s) 2 4 6 8

depth

-4000 -5000 -6000 -7000 -8000

current speed (ft./s)

Including the example current study, the additional case study with 100-year loop current eddy profile and Hurricane current profile current data were performed to check for practical purpose. These data shown below table have been taken from the Deepstar JIP. (INTEC, 2006)

Table 4 100 Year Loop Current Eddy Profile (DEEPSTAR IIA Project: "Steel Catenary Riser Performance On A Floating Production System, 1996)

Depth (ft.) 0 300 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 6000

Case IV. 100-Year Loop Current EDDY Profile (ft./s) 6.76 6.25 2.54 2.37 0.85 0.34 0.34 0

Table 5 100 Year Hurricane Current Profile (DEEPSTAR IIA Project: "Steel Catenary Riser Performance On A Floating Production System, 1996)

Depth (ft.) 0 190 272 6000

CASE V. 100-Year Hurricane Current Profile (ft./s) 4.2 4.2 0 0

4. DESIGN METHOD
4.1 General

The VIV analysis of the Independence Hub SCRs shall be performed to assess the fatigue performance of the SCRs to different five types of current events. Fatigue analysis are performed considering the purpose of the report. Shear7 is applicable program to analysis fatigue design. Shear7 however needs a third party software because it does not an internal routine for computing the natural frequencies and mode shaped of a general SCR, Flexible riser and Umbilical with significant bending stiffness or complex configuration.

The solution for that is to import the natural frequencies and mode shapes through a FEA software such like an OrcaFlex, Flexcom. Natural frequencies and mode shapes should be written with file *.mds file name for input Shear7. OrcaFlex has the function to generate the *.dat file and *.mds file from the result of the static analysis, then which will be used for run Shear7 software. (Introduction to VIV and SHEAR7, 2013) Analysis Static Analysis Modal Analysis Dynamic Analysis FEM Software OrcaFlex 9.6c OrcaFlex 9.6c Shear7

4.2

Static Analysis

The main purpose of the static analysis is to generate the equilibrium profile of riser under the combined effects of self-weight, buoyancy, inner fluid, VIV suppression devices weight and current. The result is presented by calculating modal analysis. The undamped natural modes of the SCR line is generated from the modal analysis using the OrcaFlex. From the modal analysis generate the modes table with mode types, periods and mode shape with respect to each mode. For convenience 200 number of modes are considered and transverse types among these are used to the input for dynamic analysis OrcaFlex calculates the natural modes of the discretized model, not those of the real continuous system. However the discretized modes are close to the continuous ones and for a mode number the accuracy improves with increasing elements.

4.3

Dynamic Analysis

Shear7 performs dynamic analysis with the result of the modal analysis that mean to calculate fatigue damage using VIV analysis. The procedure of dynamic analysis is as following.

natural frequency and mode shape

initial lift and drag coefficients

Calculating modal input power & output power

Program output

Finding potentially excited modes

Excitation length calculation

Modal power balance: A/D

RMS stress and fatigue life

Input power for each mode

Modes above cutoff

Adjust CL if not converging

RMS displacement and acceleration

4.4

Input Data for Shear7 Software

Table 6 Design Basis Recommended Value

No. of elements Mode cut-off value Structural Damping Strouhal No.1 Bandwidth
1

2000 0.7 0.003 0.18 Single Multi 0.4 0.2

Design basis recommend the value of Strouhal code with 200 curve has Strouhal numbers of

0.24 for Reynolds numbers above 90,000, 0.17 for Reynolds numbers below 20,000, and intermediate numbers in between. Strouhal code 200 however has been disabled in the Shear7 v4.7 and then the recommend value from Shear7 v4.7 user guide is adopted. (VandiverKim, 2012) Shear7 User Guide Recommended Value Strake and bare pipe riser have different value of St, Cl table, Band width, etc. The values table 7 is recommended from Shear7 User Guide.

Table 7 SHEAR7 Recommended Value

Type Ca St Cl table Damp Coefficient

Strake 2 0.1 5 0.4, 0.5, 0.2

Bare 1 0.18 1 0.2, 0.18, 0.2

5. ANALYSIS
5.1 Free Strake (Bare pipe) Riser System [Current Case I]

An initial analysis for riser pipe with no strakes is performed to study the fatigue life and stress at the location of flexible joint and touchdown point. The seabed properties are presented in the design basis. Linear model with stiffness is sued, so stiffness of the flexible joint will effects the fatigue life of the system. RMS Stress
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00

RMS Stress near Top

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 DEPTH 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Free stiffness Nonlinear Stiffness Infinity stiffness Simple Value

0 50 100 150 200 DEPTH 250 300 350 400 450 500
Free stiffness Nonlinear Stiffness Infinity stiffness Simple Value

Damage Rate (1/yr)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 DEPTH DEPTH 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Free stiffness Nonlinear Stiffness Infinity stiffness Simple Value 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Damage Rate Near Top (1/yr)

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Free stiffness Nonlinear Stiffness Infinity stiffness Simple Value

1.00

2.00

Figure 2 Fatigue Life of Free Strkaked Riser

Fatigue Life (yr)

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Free stiffness Infinity stiffness Nonlinear Stiffness Simple Value

Table 8 OMFD & Fatigue Life for Free Straked Riser

F.J Type Free stiffness Infinity stiffness Nonlinear Stiffness Simple Value

OFMD 0.960 29.400

x/L occurred OMFD 0.992 0.000

Fatigue Life 1.042 0.034

2.888 0.961

0.000 0.992

0.346 1.041

The result shows the effect of the stiffness of the flexible joint on the hang-off region. Free stiffness condition give the largest fatigue life with both of top and touch down point. Infinity stiffness has the worst result regarding the fatigue life, furthermore the damage rate of the top point is larger than the touch down point. Accordingly flexible joint to reduce bend stiffness should be designed. The non-linear stiffness case with having various value responding the angle has also the negative effect to the fatigue life.

5.2

Riser System with Strake [Current Case I] & [Nonlinear Stiffness]

The analysis shows the effect of the VIV suppression device according to the length of the coverage with strake. The analysis is performed with current case I and nonlinear stiffness.

RMS Stress
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 2000 Strake10 4000 Strake30 6000 Strake50 8000 Strake70 10000 Strake90

RMS Stress Near Top

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 100 200 300 Strake30 400 500 Strake50 600 700 Strake70 800 900 Strake90 1000 Strake10

RMS Stress Near TDP

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 8000 Strake10 8500 Strake30 9000 Strake50 9500 Strake70 10000 Strake90

Damage Rate (1/yr)

0.00E+00 0 5.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.50E-02 2.00E-02

2000

4000

Strake10 Strake20 Strake50 Strake85

6000

Strake90

8000

10000

Table 9 OMFD & Fatigue Life for Straked Riser [Current Case I & Non-Linear F.J. Stiffness]
Strake Coverage

Strake10 0.38835

Strake30 0.32208

Strake50 0.25515

Strake70 0.11839

Strake90 0.0008025

OMFD x/L occurred OMFD Fatigue Life

9925.3

9955

9974.8

9984.7

2.57

3.1

3.92

8.45

1246.18

This result shows that more coverage with strake enhance the fatigue life. The fatigue life however is not satisfy the design life considering safety factor (400 yr.) except the case of 90 percent coverage. It can be explained that constant current speed of 1ft/sec below the half of the water

depth gives constant shedding frequency. Single shedding frequency would increase RMS stress in the focused power-in region.

5.3

Riser System with Strake [Current Case II] & [Nonlinear Stiffness]

D a m a ge R a t e (1/yr)
0.00E+00 0 2.00E-03

D a m a ge R a t e Near Top (1/yr)

0.00E+00 0 2.00E-03

Damage Rate Near Bottom (1/yr)

0.00E+00 8000 2.00E-03

2000

40 8500

4000

80

9000

6000

120

9500

8000

160

10000

10000 Strake30 Strake70 Strake50 Strake90

200 Strake30 Strake70 Strake50 Strake90

10500 Strake30 Strake70 Strake50 Strake90

Table 10 OMFD & Fatigue Life for Straked Riser [Current Case II & Non-Linear F.J. Stiffness]

Strake Coverage OMFD x/L occurred OMFD Fatigue Life

Strake30 0.084774

Strake50 0.063352

Strake70 0.012645

Strake90 0.000806

9955

9974.8

9984.7

11.79607

15.78482

79.08264

1241.465

Figure 3 Comparative Table for Current Case I&II

Fatigue Life Current Case I & II

Fatigue Life (yr)

400 Case II Current Case I Current -100 Strake30 Strake50 Strake70 Strake90

Case I Current

Case II Current

Figure 3 present that less uniform current speed would increase the fatigue life of the riser system, but still coverage strake less than 70 % is not enough large to satisfy the requirement of the design life. But installation of the 90 % coverage of the strake could be solution to prevent the fatigue damage from VIV.

5.4

Riser System with Strake [Current Case III] & [Nonlinear Stiffness]

Damage Rate (1/yr)

-1.00E-03 1.00E-03 3.00E-03 5.00E-03 7.00E-03 9.00E-03 1.10E-02 1.30E-02 1.50E-02 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Strake30 Strake50 Strake70 Strake90

Damage Rate Near Top (1/yr)

-1.00E-03 1.00E-03 3.00E-03 5.00E-03 7.00E-03 9.00E-03 1.10E-02 1.30E-02 1.50E-02 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Strake30 Strake50 Strake70 Strake90

Damage Rate Near Bottom (1/yr)

-1.00E-03 1.00E-03 3.00E-03 5.00E-03 7.00E-03 9.00E-03 1.10E-02 1.30E-02 1.50E-02 8000

8500

9000

Strake30 Strake50 Strake70

9500

Strake90

10000

10500

Table 11 OMFD & Fatigue Life for Straked Riser [Current Case III & Non-Linear F.J. Stiffness]

Strake Coverage OMFD x/L occurred OMFD Fatigue Life

Strake30 0.017647

Strake50 0.0055057

Strake70 0.0057614

Strake90 0.0059242

56.66

181.63

173.57

168.80

Table 12 Fatigue Life for Current Case I~III

Strake Coverage Current I Current II Current III

Strake30 3.10 11.80 56.67

Strake50 3.92 15.78 181.63

Strake70 8.45 79.08 173.57

Strake90 1246.18 1241.46 168.80

Fatigue Life Current Case I ~III

Strake90 Strake70 Strake50 Strake30 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00

Case III Current

Case II Current

Case I Current

In case of sheared current the fatigue life is noticeably increased compared to the case I and II. It is should be noted that the OMFD of current case III occurred at the location of flexible joint, not touch down point. The vulnerable point of the fatigue is changed into the flexible joint location.

Although the sheared current reduced the fatigue damage rate of the touch down point but did not so significantly on the flexible joint location.

Table 13 OMFD & Fatigue Life Near TDP for Straked Riser [Current Case III & Non-Linear F.J. Stiffness]

Strake Coverage OMFD x/L occurred OMFD Fatigue Life

Strake30

Strake50

Strake70

Strake90 0.00002712 4

0.014274

0.00047415

0.00014685

9955.00

9974.80

9984.70

9960.50

70.06

2109.04

6809.67

36867.72

Table 14 Fatigue Life Near TDP for Current Case I~III

Strake Coverage Case I Current Case II Current Case III Current

Strake30

Strake50

Strake70

Strake90

3.10

3.92

8.45

135233.00

11.80

15.78

79.08

56293.00

70.06

2109.04

6809.67

36867.72

Fatigue Life Near TDP

Strake70 Strake50 Strake30 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00 4000.00

Case III Current

Case II Current

Case I Current

As a result of this parametric study it is severely conservative to use the non-linear data of flexible joint for fatigue analysis. According to the design basis single value stiffness shall be used for VIV analysis. The analysis with simple value of flexible joint is performed and present the result as follows.

5.5

Riser System with Strake [Current Case I] & [Single Value Stiffness]

Top Strakes vs. Bottom Strakes with 70% coverage The Single value stiffness of the flexible joint will reduce the fatigue damage rate. From this result of study most harsh current profile (Case I) is adopted for VIV design and this chapter will present several parametric study. For designing the VIV suppression device it is most important to decide the length and location of strakes considering both of safety and economic sense. 5.5.1

Top vs. Bottom Strakes

Strakes installed from top give the considerably different result with bottom strakes. In this current case bottom strakes could reduce the fatigue damage at the touch down zone, but the fatigue damage rate at near flexible joint still remain large compared to the top strakes.

Top vs. Bottom Strakes

FATIGUE DAMAGE RATE

Top vs. Seperated Strakes

0.00E+00 0 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03

0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01 0

2000

2000

4000

4000

6000

6000

8000

8000

10000

10000

Strake70Top

Strake70Bottom

Stake40Strake30

Strake70Top

5.5.2

Top vs. Separated Strakes

Top section covered 40% Strakes and bottom section with 30% strakes design is compared to the continuous top section strakes with 70%. Top strakes design does not cover the uniform current profile area fully, it thus is not good for the fatigue life in touch down area. To suppress VIV effectively the installation of strakes in the constant current area would be considered.

Adjustment of the strakes allocation along with riser system As appears by below parametric study the design allocated more strakes in the bottom area enhance the fatigue life than vice versa. From the result it is reasonable to design of strakes in the constant current area including top strakes.

Seperated Strakes with 80% Coverage

0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 8000 0.00 0 1000 2000 8500 3000 4000 9000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10500 Stake30Strake50 Strake20Strake60 10000

RMS Stress
0.20 0.40

9500

10000

Stake30Strake50 Strake20Strake60

Table 15 OMFD & Fatigue life with Different Allocation of Strakes

Strake Coverage

Stake40 Strake30

Strake70 Top

Stake30 Strake40

Strake70 Bottom

Stake30 Strake50

Strake20 Strake60

OMFD x/L Fatigue Life

0.01739 9939.60 57.49

0.11841 9984.70 8.45

0.01333 9935.20 75.00

0.20152 514.80 4.96

0.00321 9945.10 311.12

0.00235 9945.10 425.24

As the result of the study the design with 20% and 60% each top and bottom separately of strakes is the best solution. To confirm the design and compare as-built value of strakes for Independence Hub additional check is performed based on the practical data with GOM current profile in harsh environmental study. Examples of current

5.5.3

Eddy & Hurricane Current (100-Year) Condition

Table 16 OMFD & Fatigue Life Extreme GOM Condition [DNV C Curve] Stake20Strake60 Eddy Current 0.0056307 9945.10 177.60 Stake30Strake50 Hurricane 0.0017069 9945.10 585.86

Strake Coverage OMFD x/L Fatigue Life

Stake30Strake50 Eddy Current 0.0060283 9945.10 165.88

As the result of the study with extreme condition of eddy and hurricane current, fatigue life is not satisfied to the case of 100-year eddy current. To satisfy the eddy current condition the design of strake would become very conservative. Fatigue Damage in Eddy & Hurricane
0.000 0 0.002 0.004 0.006

RMS Stress in Eddy & Hurricane

0.00 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

2000

2000

4000

4000

6000

6000

8000

8000

10000 Stake30Strake50Eddy Stake30Strake50Hurr Stake20Strake60EddyDNVE

10000 Stake30Strake50Eddy Stake30Strake50Hurr Stake20Strake60EddyDNVE

5.5.4

DNV E & DNV C Curve based on Eddy Current

Table 17 Comparative Table DNV "E" vs. DNV "C"

Strake Coverage OMFD x/L occurred OMFD Fatigue Life

Stake20Strake60EddyDNV E 0.0056307 9945.1 177.59

Stake20Strake60EddyDNV C 0.0015106 9945.1 661.98

RMS stress is calculated from the VIV analysis with Shear7, fatigue damage is then calculated based on the specified S-N curve. When calculate the damage using the S-N curve, the stress range should be defined. Stress Concentration Factor (SCF) scales the stress ranges, so SCF and S-N curve type give significant effects the fatigue life. In this parametric study fatigue life calculated by S-N Curve C are increased more three times than E curve. The DNV S-N curve is as follow figure.

Table 18 S-N curves in seawater with cathodic protection (DNV-RP-C203, 2012)

Fatigue Damage with

RMS Stress DNV "E"& DNV "C"

0.00E+001.00E-012.00E-013.00E-014.00E-01 0

DNV "E"& DNV "C"

-1.00E-03 1.00E-03 3.00E-03 5.00E-03 7.00E-03 0

2000

2000

4000

4000

6000

6000

8000

8000

10000 Stake20Strake60EddyDNVE Stake20Strake60EddyDNVC

10000 Stake20Strake60EddyDNVE Stake20Strake60EddyDNVC

6. Summary
Analyses were performed for different cases of bared and Straked riser on several profile of current. Hang-off region and touch down zone are vulnerable the fatigue damage from the analyses. Besides fatigue life is very sensitive to the current profile. More accurate design data would be needed for VIV suppression design from the result of this study. According to the as-built design the strake coverage on the SCR of 8300 ft., which is about 80% of suspended catenary length, 10340 ft. (Conor Galvin, 2007) As noted that current data give the effect to the fatigue life considerably, which current data set is used for design very important. 30 current profiles were used to assess SCR VIV performance in FEED for the project. The result of the FEED study is that the dataset was not sufficiently refined, yielding spurious damage prediction. Therefor the dataset was refined further using filtered current data from a sample of monitored data, recorded hourly for two years. And then large current profile dataset was used for detailed design of the gas export SCR. The detail design gave the result that about 9,100 ft. of strakes

to achieve a satisfactory VIV fatigue life in the critical touchdown region. But during the project, the strake coverage on the SCR was reduced slightly to a final as built design of 8,300 ft. by using the welding procedure and S-N curve approaching a C curve with an SCF 1.1. As a result applying the same DNV S-N curve the strake design also could satisfy all extreme cases such as eddy current with high speed. For practical application real current profile which investigated for I-Hub project and soil data would be required, then sensitivity study with soil could be performed.

7. References
Conor Galvin, R. H. (2007). Independence Trail-Steel Catenray Riser Design and Materials. OTC. (1996). DEEPSTAR IIA Project: "Steel Catenary Riser Performance On A Floating Production System. DNV-RP-C203. (2012). Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures. DET NORSKE VERITAS. INTEC. (2006). SCR Integrity Study. MMS. Introduction to VIV and SHEAR7. AMOG. RISER DESIGN BASIS & METHODOLOGY. Vandiver, K. (2012). SHEAR7 USER GUIDE Version 4.7. AMOG.