Tension and Expansion Analysis of Pipe-In-Pipe Risers: Part B, Finite Element Modeling

Bin Yue, Kevin C. Man, David Walters

2H Offshore Inc.
Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT
We developed a mathematical model for accurately calculating the
pipe-in-pipe riser tension and elongation in Part A of the paper. In this
Part B, we focus on finite element modeling of the multi-string riser
system. The simulations are performed using two widely used riser
analysis finite element software, OrcaFlex and Flexcom. A tensioner
supported pipe-in-pipe TTR system is studied. Special measures and
considerations in modeling the pipe-in-pipe features are discussed. The
finite element analysis solutions are benchmarked against theoretical
results considering weight, temperature, pressure, and tensioner loads.
Good agreements, including riser stroke and tension distributions
between the inner and outer risers along the length of the riser, are
observed. The riser dynamic analysis with environmental loads is
subsequently performed with finite element software.

KEY WORDS: Riser; Pipe-In-Pipe; Pre-tension; Tensioner; Thermal

Expansion; Pressure Expansion.

INTRODUCTION
Pipe-in-pipe Top Tension Riser (TTR) systems are widely used in the
offshore oil and gas industry. The main feature of a typical pipe-in-pipe
TTR system is a concentric inner string (tubing) protected by one or
more protective outer strings (casings). All strings are firmly connected
at top ends. The bottom ends of casings are fixed to the subsea
wellhead, whereas the bottom end of tubing is fixed to a mud line
tubing hanger or downhole packer. Insulation materials, in the form of
solid, liquid, or gas, exist in the annulus between strings. Generally, the
wall temperature and annulus pressure are higher for the inner strings
than the outer strings. If the strings were not connected, the free
elongation of inner string will be larger than those of the outer strings.
However, due to the existence of end constraints, pressure and
temperature variations result in the redistribution of tensions amongst
strings. The complexity of the problem is further enhanced by the
tubing pretension and the riser external forces. The external forces
include weight, environmental loads, and aircan or tensioner tensions.
Due to the importance and complexity of the pipe-in-pipe TTR system,
it is desirable to have a systematic and accurate methodology to model
the static and dynamic responses of the TTRs.

In the offshore industry, the pipe-in-pipe interaction is of particular

concern for pipelines and flowlines due to their likelihood of buckling.
Comprehensive researches have been performed. Some of the examples
include the study considering thermal expansion and soil resistance
(Harrison, Kershenbaum, and Choi, 1997, and Bai, and Bai, 2005), as
well as the bulkhead arrangements (Chen, Wang, Chia, and Ngiam,
2009). The studies for pipe-in-pipe risers are mainly concentrated on
the bending moments generated by the centralizers. The concept of
Bending Magnification Factor (BMF) is used in both the Steel Catenary
Riser (SCR) assessment (Masson, Fang, Jordan, and Hays, 2006) and
TTR assessment (Harrison and Helle, 2007). There is also Vortex
Induced Vibration (VIV) study considering the fluid-structure
interaction within the pipe-in-pipe riser (Yettou, Derradji-Aouat, and
Williams, 2008). However, the detailed tension and expansion formulae
and finite element modeling methodology of pipe-in-pipe risers is yet to
be developed.
In Part A of the paper, we have developed a mathematical model for
accurately calculating the riser tension and elongation under static
loads. In this Part B, we focus on finite element modeling of the multistring TTR riser system. The primary goals for this paper are to:

Identify the special considerations that must be taken in

modeling the pipe-in-pipe feature in a finite element
software; and to
Benchmark the finite element analysis results against the
theoretical solutions obtained from Part A of the paper.

Traditionally pipe-in-pipe risers are typically analyzed using the so

called composite models. This is mainly due to software limitations.
For riser analysis finite element software like Flexcom and OrcaFlex,
there was not a true pipe in pipe feature. For general purpose finite
element software like ABAQUS and ANSYS, the effort of modeling
true pipe in pipe riser and the computational cost associated with it are
both significant.
In a composite model, the multi-string sections are modeled using one
equivalent string with section properties equal to the summation of all
strings. The interactions between strings cannot be captured by the
model. Oftentimes post-processings accounting for pressure and

temperature changes are performed. This method can have acceptable

engineering accuracy if cautions are used during finite element
modeling (FEM) and post-processing. However, some true interactions
within the system are hard to capture. In addition, the procedure of preprocessing and post-processing are time consuming and mistake prone.
The recent versions of riser analysis software, OrcaFlex (version 9.6b)
and Flexcom (version 7.9.7), have incorporated the pipe-in-pipe
feature. The analyses of pipe-in-pipe risers are thus significantly
simplified. However, the pipe-in-pipe interactions established by Part A
of the paper need to be well understood to correctly and accurately
model the PIP risers. This is demonstrated in the latter part of this
paper. Moreover, neither of the software is fully equipped for modeling
all aspects of the true pipe in pipe feature. Some special but simple
measures must be taken.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Firstly, a tensioner
supported pipe-in-pipe TTR system is introduced with key components
and design parameters. Selected loading conditions, including
temperature, pressure, and environments, are also introduced. Secondly,
the finite element modeling consideration and procedure for both
OrcaFlex and Flexcom are given. This is followed by the FEM results
with static loads and comparison with the theoretical solutions obtained
using the method introduced in Part A of the paper. The dynamic finite
element analysis solutions are subsequently provided. The paper is
concluded with key considerations and recommendations for modeling
pipe-in-pipe risers.

TTR SYSTEM UNDER CONSIDERATION

The following generic TTR system is used as an example to aid the
demonstration of FEM modeling of a multi-string riser system. The
parameters are hypothetic and not specific to a particular project.

System Description
The key components and their arrangements for a production TTR
system in 1000m water depth are shown in Fig. 1. The inner string is
fixed to the surface wellhead and tree from the top, and fixed to the
Mud Line Tubing Hanger (MLTH) at 150m below mud line. There are
three sections considered for the outer string: the tension joint, the
standard outer riser joint, and the lower Taper Stress Joint (LTSJ). This
is a simplified version of a realistic outer string which also includes
splash zone joints and pup joint (a joint of pipe of non-standard length,
to make up a string to an exact required length) and considers marine
growths at different water depth. The outer string is fixed to the surface
wellhead and tree from the top, and fixed to the subsea wellhead just
above the mud line. A four rod pull-up tensioner is considered in this
example. The actual tensioner is not shown in the figure for clarity.

Key Parameters of the TTR System

Key parameters of the TTR system, including geometries and physical
properties of different components, are summarized in Table 1. The
pre-tension forces are the tensions applied on the outer and inner
strings, respectively, during lock-off when the two strings are firmly
connected on the top. The pre-tension is applied on the outer string for
keeping it steady during installation. The pre-tension is applied on the
inner string for reducing the compression resulted from the pressure
and temperature increase during operation. For this example the inner
string pre-tension is relatively large due to its high operating
temperature and pressure.

Surface Wellhead
and Tree

1050 m
1040 m

Tensioner Rod

1030 m
Tensioner Ring

1000 m

Tension Joint
Outer Riser
Inner Riser

12.2 m
Taper Stress Joint
Subsea Wellhead
0m
Conductor and Casing
Mud Line Tubing Hanger
-150 m

Fig. 1 Riser Stack-up Overview (Normal Operating)

Table 1 Key Parameters of the TTR System
Parameter
Inner String
Outer Diameter (mm, in)
Inner Diameter (mm, in)
Wt. Increase Due to Couplings etc.
Outer String
Standard Outer Diameter (mm, in)
Standard Inner Diameter (mm, in)
Wt. Increase Due to Couplings etc.
Tension Joint OD (mm, in)
TSJ Thick End OD (mm, in)
Physical Properties
Youngs Modulus (GPa)
Poissons Ratio
Steel Density (kg/m3)
Thermal Expansion Coefficient (1/C)
Other
Gravity Acceleration (m/s2)
Mass of Tree (kg)
Tensioner Nominal Vertical Tension (kN, kips)
Outer Riser Pre-tension (kN, kips)
Inner Riser Pre-tension (kN, kips)

Value
228.6, 9
203.2, 8
3%
304.8, 12
330.2, 13
10%
355.6, 14
355.6, 14
207
0.3
7850
13E-6
9.81
10000
2035, 457
133, 30
1779, 400

Loading Conditions
Five loading conditions are to be analyzed for the TTR system as given
in Table 2. They cover some most typical extreme conditions that a
production TTR sees in the life time. The scenarios where the riser is
used for well work-over and completion are not considered. Note that
the temperatures given in the table are the average temperature
increases above the initial (ambient) temperature when the riser is
installed. The load case of normal operating is the specified nominal
condition. Dynamic analysis uses wave Hmax=20m and T=12s.

Table 2 TTR Loading Conditions

Load Case
1. Normal
Operating
2. Shut-in
Hot
3. Shut-in
Cold
4. Shut-in
Hot, Inner
String Leak
5. Shut-in
Cold, Outer
String Leak

Parameter
Fluid Density (kg/m3)
Pressure (MPa)
Temperature Inc. (C)
Fluid Density (kg/m3)
Pressure (MPa)
Temperature Inc. (C)
Fluid Density (kg/m3)
Pressure (MPa)
Temperature Inc. (C)
Fluid Density (kg/m3)
Pressure (MPa)
Temperature Inc. (C)
Fluid Density (kg/m3)
Pressure (MPa)
Temperature Inc. (C)

Inner
String
350
21
75
350
35
75
300
28
0
350
35
75
300
28
0

Outer
String
70
7
6
70
7
6
80
7
0
70
35
6
1025
0
0

The TTR geometry and tension variations are not only dependent on
the current loads applied on the riser, but also dependent on the load
history starting from installation. So the study must start from
installation. As load conditions change, the TTR stack-up also evolves.
The geometry shown in Fig. 1 is only valid for one chosen load
condition. As the normal operating load condition is what the riser
experiences in most of the life time, we choose it to be the nominal
condition whose geometry meets Fig. 1. If the load condition changes,
e.g., the well is shut-in and becomes cold (Case 3), the tension ring will
move to a different elevation from 1040m.
Following is a brief description of the load cases. Normal operating is
the chosen nominal condition whose geometry matches Fig. 1. It has
high pressure in the inner string and high temperatures that are 75C
above ambient. The inner string product is gas and the annulus uses
nitrogen as insulation. If the well is shut-in, initially the inner string
remains hot and the pressure is even higher. After an extended period
of time, the temperature drops to ambient temperature with the pressure
remains relatively high. Those are the two conditions covered by cases
2 and 3. Case 4 and Case 5 study two accidental conditions of Case 2
and Case 3, respectively. Case 4 considers the high pressure seen by the
annulus if the inner string leaks. Case 5 considers the annulus flooded
by sea water if the outer string leaks. The latter is not typically a design
case as the outer string connectors are usually water proof. However, it
will be interesting to observe the tension distribution changes among
the two strings in that scenario.

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING

String Original Length and Apparent Length
The most important consideration for modeling the pipe-in-pipe TTR is
the original lengths of the strings. Original length is defined as the
string length without any load that stretches it. A dry pipe lying
horizontally on the deck is a good example, wherein the pipe has no
axial elongation/contraction although gravity exists. Consider the inner
string shown in Fig. 1, in this normal operating condition its apparent
length is 1200m between the two end connections (MLTH and surface
wellhead). However, that is not the original length as it is the resulting
apparent length under a variety of loads. To achieve the apparent length
of 1200m, the original length of this section should be 1198.41m, with
1.59m stretched by the loads. Similarly, the original length of the outer
string is 1049.58m and not 1050m from mud line to surface wellhead.
When 1200m and 1050m are used in the model, the resultant tension

ring elevation is found to be 1040.74m, or 0.74m higher than nominal.

The consequences are much larger riser stroke and wrong tension
distribution between the two strings.
The original lengths of the two strings cannot be determined by the
above finite element modeling result. On the contrary, they are the
input of the model. If the finite element modeling predicts that the
elongation will be 0.74m if 1200m and 1050m are used for the two
strings, subtracting this elongation from the apparent lengths wont give
the correct original lengths. This is because the elongations of the two
strings are different during the procedure from installation to the
nominal condition. There are two variables to solve for (differences
between original and apparent lengths for inner and outer strings) but
we have only one equation (the combined elongation). The other
equation is obtained from installation.
The original lengths of the strings can be determined by using the
formulae given in Part A of this paper (equations 12-14). In addition,
the installation procedure has to be known. This is because the string
length evolves from the start of installation. A simplified procedure for
the purpose of the original length determination is as follows:

The outer string is installed and pre-tensioned (30kips);

The inner string is installed and pre-tensioned (400kips);
The two strings are connected at the top;
The riser is operating with the design fluid, pressure, and
temperature, and nominal tension provided by the tensioner.

The calculation of original lengths is as follows. Firstly, assume that the

original lengths are equal to the apparent lengths. In this example, they
are 1200m and 1050m for the inner string and outer string, respectively.
Secondly, use the pipe-in-pipe expansion formulae given in Part A of
this paper wherein all loads including weight, pressure, thermal,
internal fluid weight, tension applied by tensioner, as well as the
interaction between the two pipes are taken into account, and consider
the above installation procedure, the elongations of each pipe can be
obtained. They are 1.59m and 0.42m for the inner string and outer
string, respectively, for this example. The details of calculating the pipe
elongations are covered in Part A of this paper and are not repeated
here. Finally, those elongations are subtracted from the apparent
lengths to obtain the original lengths. As the subtracted lengths are
small fractions of the apparent length, the second order effect is small
and no iteration is needed.

Model PIP Riser Using OrcaFlex

The current version of OrcaFlex has the feature of modeling pipe-inpipe risers. This is done by simply specifying string A is inside of string
B. The locations of centralizers and associated stiffnesses can also be
defined.
Modeling pipe-in-pipe in OrcaFlex is convenient since it defines the
component by its section length. The section length is defined as, from
the OrcaFlex manual, The un-stretched length of the section. This is
the unstressed length (i.e. zero wall tension) at atmospheric pressure
inside and out. This is the same as the string original length concept
that we discussed.
Modeling pipe-in-pipe in the current version of OrcaFlex does need
some extra effort because it does not consider the axial thermal
expansion. However, this can be overcome by incorporating the
thermal expansion length into the original length. For the example that
we study, the thermal expansion lengths for the inner string and outer
string are 1.17m and 0.08m if their temperatures increase 75C and 6C

above ambient temperature, respectively. The section lengths for the

two strings are thus input into OrcaFlex as given in either of the last
two rows of Table 3 depending on the cold or hot condition.
Table 3 Section Length Inputs into OrcaFlex
Parameter
Inner String
Original Length (m)
1198.41
Temperature Increase Hot (C)
75
Thermal Expansion Hot (m)
1.16
Input Section Length Cold (m)
1198.41
Input Section Length Hot (m)
1199.57

Outer String
1049.58
6
0.08
1049.58
1049.66

Model PIP Riser Using Flexcom

Flexcom also has the feature of modeling pipe-in-pipe risers. This is
done by simply specifying string A is inside of string B. The locations
of centralizers and associated stiffnesses can also be defined.
Flexcom allows the user to directly specify temperature variations and
pipe thermal expansion coefficients. The software will calculate the
axial thermal expansion automatically.
There are two approaches to specify the string length in Flexcom, both
of which define the original length. The first approach is to define the
string as a cable of given length between two finite element nodes.
Intermediate nodes can be defined as arc length distance from the start
of the cable. This is similar to the way that OrcaFlex defines its
components. The other approach is to directly define the coordinates of
the finite element nodes. The distance between two nodes is taken as
the element length and the original length. If this approach is taken
caution must be used. This is because usually the coordinates of the
nodes are defined according to the apparent locations when the string is
already expanded. If this is the case, the original length can be achieved
by converting the apparent length to original length using the thermal
expansion/contraction correction. For the example that we study, inner
string temperature is corrected for -102C for 1200m to contract to
1198.41m. The temperature variations for the two strings are thus input
into Flexcom as given in either of the last two rows of Table 4
depending on the cold or hot condition.
Table 4 Temperature Inputs into Flexcom
Parameter
Inner String
Temperature Increase Hot (C)
75
Original Length (m)
1198.41
Apparent Length (m)
1200.0
Temperature Correction (C)
-102
Input Temperature Cold (C)
-102
Input Temperature Hot (C)
-27

Outer String
6
1049.58
1050.0
-31
-31
-25

RESULTS WITH STATIC LOADS

Results Comparison
The static tension and expansion results for the pipe-in-pipe TTR are
summarized in Table 5 for the five load cases defined in Table 2. The
table compares the results obtained from three sources: theoretical
solutions based on the pipe-in-pipe formulae developed in Part A of
this paper, FEM results from OrcaFlex, and FEM results from Flexcom.
The key parameter for the riser expansion is the riser stroke at tension
ring. Effective tension forces are reported at control locations (MLTH,
Mud Line, and Top at tension ring) and for separate strings and the
combined riser (at Mud Line and Top at tension ring).

Table 5 Static Result Summary

Results
Theoretical OrcaFlex Flexcom
Load Case 1
Riser Stroke (m)
0.000
0.001
0.001
To at Mud Line (kN)
660.0
668.3
668.8
To at Top (kN)
984.7
992.9
990.0
Ti at MLTH (kN)
11.3
1.6
3.3
Ti at Mud Line (kN)
126.2
116.4
118.0
Ti at Top (kN)
923.0
912.9
914.7
T at Mud Line (kN)
786.2
784.7
786.8
T at Top (kN)
1907.6
1905.8
1904.7
Load Case 2
Riser Stroke (m)
0.038
0.039
0.040
To at Mud Line (kN)
757.3
766.1
768.3
To at Top (kN)
1082.0
1090.7
1087
Ti at MLTH (kN)
-113.0
-122.6
-119.1
Ti at Mud Line (kN)
1.9
-7.7
-4.4
Ti at Top (kN)
798.7
788.8
789.5
T at Mud Line (kN)
759.3
758.4
763.9
T at Top (kN)
1880.7
1879.5
1876.5
Load Case 3
Riser Stroke (m)
-0.380
-0.380
-0.380
To at Mud Line (kN)
-105.1
-97.9
-103.8
To at Top (kN)
227.0
233.7
227.4
Ti at MLTH (kN)
1106.5
1086.0
1098.0
Ti at Mud Line (kN)
1218.5
1198.0
1210.0
Ti at Top (kN)
1994.5
1972.8
1981.0
T at Mud Line (kN)
1113.4
1100.1
1106.2
T at Top (kN)
2221.6
2206.5
2208.4
Load Case 4
Riser Stroke (m)
0.114
0.115
0.115
To at Mud Line (kN)
132.9
141.4
143.1
To at Top (kN)
457.6
466.0
464.4
Ti at MLTH (kN)
460.2
450.2
453.1
Ti at Mud Line (kN)
575.1
565.1
567.9
Ti at Top (kN)
1371.9
1361.6
1364.0
T at Mud Line (kN)
708.0
706.5
711.0
T at Top (kN)
1829.5
1827.6
1828.4
Load Case 5
Riser Stroke (m)
-0.413
-0.412
-0.413
To at Mud Line (kN)
-463.3
-455.7
-459.6
To at Top (kN)
542.7
549.9
537.3
Ti at MLTH (kN)
1240.7
1234.2
1243.0
Ti at Mud Line (kN)
1300.1
1289.1
1300.0
Ti at Top (kN)
1711.5
1685.3
1699.0
T at Mud Line (kN)
836.7
833.4
840.4
T at Top (kN)
2254.2
2235.2
2236.3
Positive riser stroke defined as tension ring moves upward
Ti: Effective Tension of Inner String
To: Effective Tension of Outer String
T: Combined Inner and Outer Effective Tension
It can be observed from Table 5 that both the riser tension and
expansion results among the three sources are very close. The
differences in expansion are typically within 1 millimeter with the
maximum of 2 millimeters. The differences in effective tensions are
typically within 10kN with the maximum of 26kN (1.5%).
The following conclusions can be made based on the comparison
between theoretical and finite element results:

The formulae developed in Part A of this paper can

accurately predict the pipe-in-pipe TTR tension and
expansion behavior in static conditions;
Both OrcaFlex and Flexcom are benchmarked against the
theoretical solutions;
The original string lengths must be correctly input into the
FEM software to obtain the real string behaviors.

Results Interpretation
The normal operating load case (Case 1) is the riser nominal condition.
All load variations will cause the stroke and tensions to change from
the nominal condition. The stroke is 0 in this condition. The tension
distributions of inner and outer strings are shown in Fig. 2. It is
observed that the bottom of the inner string is close to zero tension
despite the large pre-tension (1779kN, 400kips) applied to it during
installation. This is because the high pressure and temperature cause the
inner string to stretch, whereas this trend is constrained by the two ends
at top and MLTH. On the other hand, the outer string has increased
tension due to the stretch of the inner string. It is also interesting to
observe that the weight per unit length of the inner string is heavier
than that of the outer string. This is due to the low density of the
annulus content which provides the inner string some low buoyancy
and in the meantime low outer string weight.

Fig. 2 Tension Distribution (Normal Operating, Case 1)

The inner string pressure increases from 21MPa to 35MPa (Case 2)

when the well is shut-in. This causes the inner string to stretch and the
riser to stroke. The riser strokes 0.038m from the nominal elevation.
Again, the stretch of inner string is limited by the end constrains, which
results in a decrease of inner string tension and an increase of outer
string tension. The tension distributions are shown in Fig. 3. Compared
with the normal operating tensions, it is observed that the inner string
tension curve shifts to the left (decreasing) and the outer string tension
curve shifts slightly to the right (increasing) by approximately 100kN in
both cases.
After the well is shut-in for an extended period of time, the temperature
drops to ambient (Case 3). The control factor in this case is the thermal
contraction of the inner string. In a free shrinkage scenario, the inner
string would contract 1.16m due to its temperature drop. Due to the
constraints of the outer string and tensioner (as well as the pressure
change and outer string temperature drop), the inner string only
expands 0.38m, as indicated by the calculated stroke. The contraction
tendency of the inner string has the opposite effect compared with its
elongation tendency. The inner string effective tension increases
(approximately 1100kN) while the outer string tension decreases
(approximately 750kN). This can be observed from Fig. 4. The
combined tension increase is due to the effect of tensioner stiffness.

Fig. 3 Tension Distribution (Shut-in, Hot, Case 2)

Case 4 is an accidental scenario based on Case 2. The increased

pressure leaking from the inner string to the annulus will stretch the
outer string while contracting the inner string. The overall effect results
in an increase in riser stroke of 0.114m. Due to the interaction between
the inner and outer strings, as well as the constraint from the tensioner,
the outer string tension decreases and the inner riser increases
compared with the no-leak condition. The tension distributions are
shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 4 Tension Distribution (Shut-in, Cold, Case 3)

Case 5 is an accidental scenario based on Case 3. The heavy sea water
leaking from the environment into the annulus causes the riser to stroke
down 0.41m and the total tension from the tensioner increases. The
tension distribution curves of the two strings are shown in Fig. 6 from

which two observations can be made. The changes in slopes of the

curve indicate that the wet weights of the strings have changed. The
wet weight of the inner string is lower as the heavier sea water replaces
nitrogen in the annulus and provides more buoyancy. The wet weight of
outer string is higher as sea water replaces the internal nitrogen. As a
result of these weight changes, the inner string tends to contract and the
outer string tends to elongate. These trends result in an increase in
tension for the inner string and a reduction in outer string tension due to
their constraints on each other. This phenomenon explains the second
observation from Fig. 6 wherein approximately 450m (40%) of the
outer riser is in compression.

tensioner is examined in terms of the relationship between riser stroke

and vertical tension force. These responses in all load conditions are
captured in the curves depicted by Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.

Fig. 7 Tensioner Rod Responses for Static Load Conditions

Fig. 5 Tension Distribution (Shut-in, Hot, Inner String Leak, Case 4)

Fig. 8 Tensioner Responses for Static Load Conditions

RESULTS WITH DYNAMIC LOADS

Fig. 6 Tension Distribution (Shut-in, Cold, Outer String Leak, Case 5)

Despite the fact that either the inner string or the outer string is in
compression in some of those load cases, the combined riser tension
force is always positive, as given in Table 5, and shown in Fig. 2
through Fig. 6. This indicates that global buckling is not a concern for
the riser. However, intervals of centralizers need to be calculated using
the criteria of global and local buckling of individual strings and based
on compressions and pressures. This calculation is outside of the scope
of this paper. This paper focuses solely on the tension responses of the
riser strings, with the riser centralized at each node along the strings.
The responses of the tension rods are examined in terms of the
relationship between length and tension force. The response of the

After the finite element model is correctly established by choosing

accurate original lengths, the dynamic analyses of the riser can be
carried out. These typically include extreme strength, vessel motion
fatigue, and interference. This paper uses OrcaFlex to apply a harmonic
wave of Hmax=20m and T=12s to the normal operation model to assess
the tension and expansion responses of the strings. Vessel offset of
100m and set-down of 5m is assumed.
The effective tension envelopes for the two strings are shown in Fig. 9.
The variation range of the inner string is approximately 100kN and
180kN for the outer string. The difference between the two variations is
due to the different stiffnesses of the two strings. As the strokes of the
two strings are same and are solely caused by external tension from the
tensioner, the tension variation is proportional to EA/L of the individual
strings.
The stroke responses are reported for different tensioner rods. Due to
the directionality of wave load and vessel offset, the strokes of different

tensioner rods vary. The rod downstream of the wave elongates the
most whereas the one upstream of the wave elongates the least. The
elongation time histories of the four tensioner rods are shown in Fig.
10. The positive elongation indicates a riser down stroke. It is observed
that the range of variation is the same for all the rods. The downstream
rod has a maximum down stroke of 0.3m within which 0.12m is due to
the vessel offset and set-down.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper discusses some of the key considerations for modeling pipein-pipe risers using riser analysis finite element software OrcaFlex and
Flexcom. The focus is capturing the tension and expansion responses
for a tensioner supported TTR system. It is concluded that the riser
original lengths are the most important factor for accurate riser tension
and expansion analysis. These parameters can be determined by
theoretical formulae developed in Part A of this paper. The two finite
element models created using these parameters demonstrate very close
agreement with each other and with the theoretical solution.
In a pipe-in-pipe riser design including TTR, it is recommended that the
theoretical formulae be used to 1), evaluate the tension distributions of
all static loading conditions to optimize the pre-tensions; and 2),
calculate the original lengths of all strings for correct FEM modeling.
Note that the formulae and FEM modeling technique are applicable not
only to pipe-in-pipe TTRs, but also to other pipe-in-pipe risers such as
drilling riser, Free Standing Hybrid Riser (FSHR) and SCR.

REFERENCES

Fig. 9 Dynamic Tension Envelopes of the Two Strings

Fig. 10 Dynamic Tensioner Rod Stretch Time History

Bai, Y., and Bai, Q., (2005). Subsea Pipelines and Risers, Elsevier
Chen, Q., Wang, L.Q., Chia, H.K., and Ngiam, A., (2009). Thermal
Expansion Analysis of Pipe-In-Pipe System Having Multiple
Bulkheads, Proc ASME 28th Int Conf Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Eng., Honolulu, OMAE2009-80156.
Harrison, G., Kershenbaum, N., and Choi, H., (1997). Expansion
Analysis of Subsea Pipe-In-Pipe Flowline, Proc 7th Int Offshore and
Polar Eng Conf, Honolulu, ISOPE, Vol II, pp 293298.
Harrison, R., and Helle, Y., (2007). Understanding the Response of
Pipe-In-Pipe Deepwater Riser Systems, Proc 17th Int Offshore and
Polar Eng Conf, Lisbon, ISOPE, pp 926930.
Man, C.K., Yue, B., Szucs, A., and Thethi, R., (2013). Tension and
Expansion Analysis of Pipe-In-Pipe Risers: Part A, Theoretical
Formulation, Proc 23rd Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf, Anchorage,
ISOPE2013-TPC0839.
Masson, C., Fang, J., Jordan, D., and Hays, P.R., (2006). Dynamic
Analysis of Pipe-In-Pipe Steel Catenary Risers with Direct Modeling
of Structure Interaction, Offshore Technology Conf, Houston,
OTC2006-18202.
Yettou, E., Derradji-Aouat, A., and Williams, C.D., (2008). FluidStructure Interactions Modelling of Pipe-In-Pipe Riser Systems
Operating in Ocean Environments, National Research Council
Canada, Institute for Ocean Technology, St. John's, NL, Canada