INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

The use of offshore pipelines is one of the most important developments of the twentieth
century. In recent years, the size, number, and applications of offshore pipelines have been
steadily increasing. The energy crisis is the main cause behind this. Considerable amount of
energy resources are located below the seabed and ocean. Pipelines need to transfer the
resources between the offshore platforms or to transfer the resources directly from the
offshore to lands. The main reason for this is that pipelines consume less amount of energy
than other ways of transportation, e.g. tankers (Palmer and King, 2004). Pipelines are served
for a number of purposes in the development of offshore hydrocarbon resources as shown in
Fig. 1.1. These includes (Bai, 2001)
Export (transportation) pipelines.
Flow lines to transfer product from a platform to export lines.
Water injection or chemical injection flow lines.
Flow lines to transfer product between platforms, subsea manifolds and satellite wells.
Pipeline bundles.

Fig.1.1 Use of flow lines offshore pipeline (Bai, 2001)

The design of an offshore pipeline is complex and multidisciplinary. It generally relates with
the three fields of engineering- Structural mechanics, hydrodynamics and soil mechanics.

Now days researches on various aspects of free spanning offshore pipelines are going on.
The design methodology for free spanning subsea pipelines are still under development
which has lead to a substantial field of research that deals with a proper physical evaluation
of the many aspects of a pipeline life cycle.

1.2

Pipeline life cycle

Many different perspectives of the pipeline life cycle must be considered. Route planning
demands a great deal of considerations. After years of operation the installed pipeline must
provide safe transportation during the life cycle from fabrication to abandoning. If failure
occurs then, severe environmental pollution and great economic loss may occur. The main
perspectives of life cycle for an offshore pipeline have been evaluated in this section. The
main aspects of a life cycle for a typical offshore pipeline are discussed in the following
sequentially:
1. Route Planning
2. Fabrication
3. Operation
4. Installation
5. Maintenance
6. Abandonment
For route planning, the seabed conditions, wave and current actions on the pipeline are
considered. At the same time it is also kept in mind that the pipeline sections must comply
with the transportation demand, sufficient bearing capacity and a proper protection to resist
the rather rough environment of the sea during installation and operation.
At installation stage, a detailed knowledge of the following is necessary:
Welded connection of the pipe, laying technique (i.e. S-laying or J-laying) of the pipeline and
the seabed conditions (i.e. scour or not). The offshore pipes are assembled and laid by using
customized vessels. Pressure tests of the pipes are performed before they are installed.
During the operational state, the pipeline is used for pumping oil or gas through it, but it must
also comply with the states of being water-filled or air-filled. The above-mentioned states in

the life cycle have

great

analyze

the

consequences of an

offshore

pipeline.

Failure

pipeline

due

resonance,

to

influence
of

to
the

fatigue

damage etc. must also be considered.

Maintenance is another important state of a pipeline life cycle. Annual inspections of the
seabed are made by video and then if necessary possible repair work are performed for the
seabed. These can be done by local rock-dumping at the seabed to prevent erosion in the
future. Annual inspection of the pipeline is also made. If it is found that a pipeline section has
suffered severe damage or buckling, then it may be necessary to repair or replace the section.
As stated earlier, this would have severe environmental and economical consequences.
When the pipeline crossed its life period of typical 25 years or due to some reason has lost its
usability, the pipeline is emptied and disconnected. The pipeline is typically left in a safe
condition on the seabed if no request is made for removal from the local bodies.

1.3

Free span or Suspended span

1.3.1 Definition
This subsea pipeline is laid on seabed by various methods either embedded in a trench
(buried method) or laid on uneven seabed (unburied method). Since buried situation is
usually more expensive thats why construction of unburied pipeline is the most common
method for its rapid and economic performance. Due to unevenness of the seabed,
operational loads, residual lay tension, and by scouring phenomena an offshore pipeline will
not touch down on the seabed uniformly along the length of the pipe. Hence, free span or
suspended spans are formed in between the two touchdown points as shown in Fig.1.3.

Fig.1.3 Schematic diagram of a free spanning pipeline due to irregular seabed.

Free spanning is a critical problem of subsea pipelines. Analysis of free spanning is important
to avoid resonance which leads to damage of pipelines and may develop more fatigue on the
pipelines.

1.3.2 Free spanning pipeline supported on elastic foundations on both

ends

Fig.1.4 Schematic diagram of a free spanning pipeline having elastic foundations on both
ends.

A free spanning pipeline can be modeled by providing partial elastic foundations at the free
span shoulders (touch-down zones) as shown in Fig.1.4.

Figure 1.4 represents a Schematic diagram of a free spanning pipeline having elastic
foundations on both ends. In Fig.1.4, the span length is denoted as Ls. The portions of the pipe
where it touches to the seabed are labeled as span shoulders, and denoted as Lsh.

1.3.3 Various types of loads acting on free span

A subsea pipeline can experience various loads from various sources. A brief description of
these loads and limit states for an offshore pipeline are discussed in that subsection. The
effective loads for the side-span and suspended-span of a subsea pipeline are illustrated in
Fig.1.5.

Fig. 1.5 Typical loads that affect the side-span (left) and free-span (right) of an offshore
pipeline (Ruby and Hartvig, 2008).

1.4 Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV)

The flow around the pipe surface and the boundary layer causes the formulation and shedding
of vortices at the lee side of the pipeline (Blevins and Krieger, 1997), (Fredsoe and Sumer,
2006). Due to the formation and shedding of Vortices, oscillating pressure differentials are
created periodically in the in-line and cross-flow directions, which may cause resonance.
When the flow velocities are lower, then symmetrical vortex shedding (i.e. vortices are shed
simultaneously from both sides of the pipe) takes place as shown in Fig. 1.6a. Similarly, for
higher flow velocities, asymmetrical vortex shedding (i.e. a vortex is shed from one side of
the pipeline followed by a vortex shed from the other side in an alternating pattern) takes
place as shown in Fig. 1.6b.

Fig.1.6.

Represents

Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV) in free span: (a) symmetrical vortices and in-line vibration;
(b) asymmetrical vortices and in-line and cross-flow vibrations. (Xiao et al., 2010)
For Symmetrical shedding, pipeline vibrates in line with the flow direction as shown in Fig.
1.6a.Whereas, for asymmetrical shedding, two component of vibrations take place, i.e. in-line
motion (in the direction of the flow) and cross flow motion (at right angles to the flow) as
shown in Fig. 1.6b. The inline impulse occurs in the same direction with every vortex. The
cross-flow impulse occurs in alternates direction with every vortex. Inline excitation is thus
has a smaller motion amplitude and stress (Beckmann et al., 1991).
When the frequency of the hydrodynamic forces induced by a vortex shedding around the
pipelines becomes equal to the natural frequency of the pipelines then resonance may occurs
as a result pipelines got damaged. For example, subsea pipelines in the Cook Inlet in South
Alaska experienced 14 failures due to VIV between 1965 and 1976, and the Ping Hu pipeline
in the East China Sea failed at two locations during the autumn of 2000 due to VIV (Fyrileiv
and Mork, 2005). So, accurate prediction of VIV and designing the pipeline system to
minimize the effects of VIV are the major challenges for the free span analysis. That is why
improvement of the knowledge about the effect of pipe-seabed interaction on VIV is quite
important for free spanning pipelines, which are often highly nonlinear due to interaction
with the seabed. The pipe soil interaction depends on several parameters such as the loading
history, load rate and amplitude.
According

to

the

Strouhal

law

the

vortex shedding frequency is directly proportional to the flow velocities and it is increases
linearly (Sumer and Fredsoe, 2006). Hence when the lowest natural frequency of the
pipelines become higher than twice of the maximum vortex shedding frequency then vortex
shedding vibrations will not occur. This principal is called an onset criterion (DNV-RP-C205,
2010).
Therefore, it is necessary to study the hydrodynamic frequency induced by vortex shedding
around the pipelines and to calculate the natural frequency of the subsea pipelines in free
span.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Previous Research Works

A large amount of research effort related to various aspects of VIV and free span pipelines
has been seen during the last few years. In the fourth decade of nineteenth century the
analytical analysis of the motion for a beam on a variable elastic foundation was performed.
Clough and Penzien (1975) provided some basic theory for the dynamics of a beam
considering the influence of axial force.
The differential equation:
EI

4 v
2 v
+
P
+ m=0(1)
e
x4
x2

Where,
v = the lateral deflection. [mm]
x = the axial co-ordinate. [-]
t = time. [sec]
Pe= the effective axial force. [N]
EI = the bending stiffness. [N-m2]

m
= the effective mass of the beam per length (including structural mass, mass of
hydrocarbon product and hydro dynamical added mass). [kg]
Finally he concluded that the lowest natural frequency for the beam subjected to axial force
became

1+C 2

Pe
Pc

EI
()(2)
L4
m
f =C 1
Where,
L = the beam (span) length. [m]
Pc

EI
= the critical Euler buckling force L2 . [N]

C1, C2 = boundary condition coefficients. [-]

Timoshenko (1983) considered the transverse and axial forces and studied their influence on
deflections for a freely supported beam with initial curvature. For this regard the
displacement field was represented as a Fourier sine series and deflections are found out.
Kaye et al. (1993) considered span length as 1.1 times the observed span length for
calculating natural frequency of pipelines by using fixed/fixed end conditions. Freds e and
Sumer (1997) determined the role of free spans in unburied offshore pipelines and they
concluded that resonance and fatigue are vital problem for the pipe laid on free span.

As a result of such research activities a new set of guidelines was issued by Det N rske
Veritas (1998), also referred to as DNV-G14. Important implications of these guidelines were
published by Mrk et.al. (1998). The guidelines DNV G-14 (1998) is used for fatigue
analysis of free span pipelines by using direct calculations of empirical models for vertical
risers. But for pipelines the current is uniform, while for risers the current profile is sheared
and that the pipeline will respond at low modes only, which is in contrast to a riser where
higher order modes often are seen. However, the boundary conditions are more complex for a

pipeline than a riser. Then Carl M. Larsen et.al (2002) illustrated the significance of these
boundary conditions and described how they can be taken into account in a direct analysis.
DNV (1998) and ABS (2001) suggested that the free spanning length should be reduced to
the allowable length to avoid fatigue damage. These guidelines provided a simple formula to
calculate allowable span length of the pipeline based on pipeline specifications, seabed
condition, reduced velocity, stream wise flow velocity (which is normal to the pipe), effective
mass and natural frequency of the pipeline. The following equation was developed to
determine the natural frequency of the free spanning subsea pipeline

f =C1

EI
(3)
m
L4

Where,
C1 =1.57

for pinned-pinned boundary condition. [-]

C1 =2.45

for fixed-pinned boundary condition. [-]

C1 =3.57

for fixed-fixed boundary condition. [-]

L = the allowable span length. [m]

EI = the equivalent bending stiffness of the pipeline and it was calculated as
EI =Est I st + Ec I c ( 4)
Where,
Est

= Young modulus of steel. [N/mm2]

I st

= Moment of inertia for steel. [mm4]

Ec

= Modulus of elasticity for concrete. [N/mm2]

Ic

= Moment of inertia for concrete. [mm4]

These guidelines also recommended that the effect of axial force should be considered while
determining the lowest natural frequency of the subsea pipeline. DNV (1998) also provided
the formula as shown in Eq. (5) for calculating the effective span length. This formula was
based on pipeline specifications only.

1.12

L
40
D

Le 1.120.001 L 40 40 L 160
=
(5)
D
D
L
L
1.00 160
D

Where,
D = the outer diameter of the pipe. [mm]

Xu et al. (1999) and Bai (2001) applied modal analysis to determine the natural frequency of
the subsea pipeline. Euler-Bernoulli beam equation was used for this purpose and free
vibration equation was solved. With the help of modal analysis the partial differential EulerBernoulli beam equation was reduced to an ordinary differential equation. It was concluded
that natural frequency of a pipeline is a function of its free vibration mode that neglects both
the external force and damping ratio. Bai (2001) also applied the modal analysis to determine
the allowable length of free span for offshore pipelines. Bai (2001) also demonstrated that the
internal pressure, temperature gradient and pipe deflection influenced the axial forces in
pipelines at free spanning sections.

Choi (2000) considered the effect of axial force on free span analysis and improved some
calculation in the design code DNV (1981), like determination of allowable span length,
maximum amplitude of vibration for both in-line and cross-flow motion. It was mentioned
that the load on the pipeline during operation is not same with loading condition at the
installation stage. Due to the lay-barge method the pipeline may be subjected to residual lay
tension at the time of installation. On the other hand due to the operational pressure and
temperature the pipeline may be subjected to operational load at the operation stage. Due to
that operational load high compressive forces were generated in part of the pipeline. Thats
why both tensile as well as the compressive forces were considered for analysis. The shape of
the elastic deflection was greatly affected by the axial force and its influence on the
equilibrium conditions could not be neglected. Euler-Bernoulli beam-column equation was
solved for different boundary conditions. The mode shape factors, amplitude of vibrations for

various boundary conditions for both in-line and cross-flow motion were found out. The
natural frequencies of the free span were calculated by using energy balance concept i.e. by
equating the maximum potential energy with the maximum kinetic energy. Then the results
were compared with the results obtained by Lloyds approximate formula for fixed-fixed,
fixed-pinned, pinned-pinned and fixed-free boundary condition and it was found that these
results were approximately matched with the Lloyds results for fixed-fixed, fixed-pinned and
pinned-pinned support condition. But there was significant deviation with the Lloyds result
for the fixed-free boundary condition. Then the exact solutions of the beam-column equation
under the consideration of the axial load were used to calculate the natural frequency with the
help of energy method or Rayleigh method. As a result more appropriate span length was
obtained. It was mentioned that an iterative numerical method can also be applied to calculate
the allowable span lengths under the influence of the axial force. It was found that the
allowable free span length increased with the increasing tension and decreased with the
increasing compression. It was concluded that if high axial force is included during the
operation and installation of offshore pipelines then its effect could not be neglected.

Fyrileiv and Mrk (2002) used the improved beam theory formulations and assessed the
structural response quantities such as lower natural frequencies and associated mode shapes
by considering different span length and soil conditions for real free spanning offshore
pipelines. The updated expressions were suitable for all types of soils, pipe diameters,
thickness, and lengths for lower lateral and vertical vibration modes. Here, it was tried to
establish a simple but accurate estimates for the structural response for a free spanning
pipeline. The boundary condition coefficients for the beam theory formulations were updated
based on an effective span length concept, which was partly based on the theoretical studies
and partly based on the large number of Finite Element analysis. For this purpose effective
length, Leff, was introduced. Here, the effective length concept of Hoobs (1986) was modified.
The effective length means the structural response of the pipeline span resting on elastic
supports was calculated as the response of an equivalent pipe of length Leff having fixed-fixed
boundary conditions. With the increase of the span length and the soil stiffness, fixed-fixed
support was assumed to be realistic and asymptotic boundary case for a free span thats why
effective length based on fixed-fixed supports was found to be superior in compare to the
other boundary conditions. FE analysis was performed and then the FE results were

correlated with the Hoobs (1986) and Hetenyi (1946) results. The results were used to update
the expressions of the effective length, natural frequency of the free spanning pipeline in
DNV codes and were expressed in the newly developed DNV (2002) codes.
In DNV (2006) guidelines both static and dynamic analysis were described and the structural
behavior of the pipeline was evaluated considering the pipeline specifications, seabed
characteristics and relevant artificial supports. The effect of concrete coating was also
considered and mentioned that the effect of coating was generally limited to increase in
submerged weight, drag forces, added mass or buoyancy. Here, it was indicated that the
positive effect on the stiffness and strength, were normally to be disregarded. According to
that code, if there was significant effect of the coating on the structural response then
appropriate models should be used. Due to discontinuities of the coating across field joints or
other effects the non-homogeneity of the bending stiffness along the pipe, may imply strain
concentrations that should be taken into account. This code described the formula for
determining stiffening effect of concrete coating by the following Eq. (6):
CSF=c p

Ec I c
E st I st

0.75

( )

(6)

Where,
cp = the empirical constant which is determined by the deformation/slippage in the
corrosion coating and the cracking of the concrete coating and its value for asphalt and PP/PE
coating may be taken as 0.33 and 0.25 respectively.
Whereas,
Ec I c

= the initial, uncracked and cross-sectional bending stiffness of the concrete

coating.
In the code DNV (2006) it was indicated that if the pipeline is subjected to increased stiffness
effect, and then the increased bending stresses due to field joints should be accounted. The
formula for determination of CSF given in Eq. (6) is valid for all relevant pipe diameters,
(D/t)-ratios and concrete strengths, fck, and it was provided that if the pipe joint length
exceeds 12 m then the field joint length should be 0.5-1.0 m and the concrete coating
thickness should not exceed 150 mm. Here, it was specified that in the absence of detailed
data, assumption of the presence of the girth weld in the heavily loaded cross-section would

be conservative, which was the basis for determination of the concrete stiffening effect by
using Eq. (6).
DNV (2006) also specified the Youngs modulus for concrete by the following form
EC =10000 f ck0.3 (7)
Where,
fck = the construction strength of the concrete. Here, both Ec and fck are to be expressed
in N/mm2.
In this code DNV (2006) it was indicated that the boundary conditions of the pipeline will
adequately represent the pipe-soil interaction and the continuity of the pipeline. Here, it was
also mentioned that sufficient lengths of the pipeline must be provided at both sides of the
span for accounting the effects of side spans. In finite element model the element length was
depend upon the accuracy required. When the stress ranges were to be derived from the mode
shapes the accuracy of the stress ranges become strongly affected by the element length, at
the span shoulders. Actually the maximum element length was found out by reducing the
length until the natural frequencies and stresses converged towards constant values.
According to this code practically this convergence test was very difficult to perform, and, as
guidance, the element length should be in the order of the outer diameter of the pipeline (1D)
and for higher order modes and/or short spans (L/D < 30) element length may be shorter. It
was mentioned that to obtain realistic rotational pipe-soil stiffness, contact should be ensured
between at least two nodes at each span shoulder by using a sufficiently short element length
or by other means. DNV (2006) specified the stiffness of the pipelines in two ways: material
stiffness and geometrical stiffness and mentioned that the geometrical stiffness was
developed due to effective axial force. A simple formula was provided to calculate effective
axial force depending upon operational temperature and pressure, residual lay tension and
axial force relaxation by sagging, axial sliding (feed-in), lateral buckling, multi-spanning and
significant seabed unevenness. In DNV (2006) it was mentioned that at the time of
installation, the static deflection and the stresses were influenced and by the residual lay
tension, and submerged weight and are mainly determined by the submerged weight and the
axial force at the phase considered. On the other hand, the static stresses and deflection were
influenced significantly by the span geometry i.e. the inclination of the span shoulders. Thats
why the static response was considered based on survey results (measured deflections) and/or
FE analysis for the span assessment. This code also provided some formulation for Eigen

value analyses to calculate the natural frequencies and corresponding stress due to associated
mode shapes for free spanning offshore pipeline, considering the pipeline specifications,
seabed soil conditions, the effective axial force and the initial imperfection. Here, the
analyses were performed for both single span and multi span of the pipeline. In this code for
single span analysis, it was mentioned that the pipeline was supported on relatively flat
seabed at both sides of the free span, i.e. the shoulders are almost horizontal and at the same
level and assumed (L/Ds < 140). A simple formula was provided to calculate the lowest
natural frequency of the free spanning subsea pipeline considering the pipeline specifications,
seabed soil conditions, the effective axial force and initial imperfection factor.
f =C1 (1+CSF)

E st I st
P

1+ e +C 3
4
Pc
D
m
Le

( ) )(8)

Where,
C1
C3 =0.8

&

= the boundary conditions coefficients.[-]

for pinned-pinned boundary condition.[-]

C3 =0.2
C3 =0

C3

for fixed-fixed boundary condition.[-]

if steady current is not accounted then for in-line frequency analysis.[-]

= the static deflection (normally ignored for inline direction). [mm]

The effective mass m

per unit length can be calculated by the following formula:

m ( x ) y2 ( x ) dx
m=

(9)

y ( x ) dx
2

Where,
m( x)

= the mass per unit length including structural mass, added mass & mass of

hydrocarbon product. [kg]

y(x) = the mode shape function depending upon the boundary condition.

DNV (2006) considered two types of soils, such as- cohesive (clays) or cohesion less (sands).
According to this code, the pipe-soil interaction was evaluated by using the following basic
soil parameters: type of soil, in-situ stress conditions, shear strength parameters for drained or
undrained condition including remolded shear strength for clays, soil module and damping
coefficients as function of cyclic shear strain, soil settlement parameters, general soil data
such as submerged unit weight, void ratio, Poissons ratio, water content and angle of friction.
Here, it was mentioned that the pipe-soil interaction was important in the evaluation of the
static equilibrium configuration and the dynamic response of a free spanning pipeline. It was
also mentioned that for the modeling of soil resistance following requirements were needed:
(i) Along the pipeline route seabed topography must be represented.
(ii) Non-linear contact forces vertical to the pipeline must be considered.
(iii) Sliding in the axial direction must be accounted and for force models these should be in
lateral direction.
(iv) Appropriate short and long-term stiffness i.e. static and dynamic stiffness and damping
should be applied.
In this code the seabed topography was defined by a vertical profile along the pipeline route
and it was mentioned that actual seabed condition, roughness, the pipe, and the passive soil
resistance were reflected by the axial and lateral frictional coefficients between the pipe and
the seabed. The effects of the axial and lateral resistance were not always of a pure frictional
type. In low permeable soil rapid changes in vertical stresses were reacted by pore water and
not by a change in effective contact stresses between the pipe and the soil. In addition, it was
also mentioned that the lateral resistance which have a contribution due to the penetration of
the pipe into the soil, which needed to be accounted. For coarse sands the frictional
component of the axial and lateral resistance was proportional to the vertical force at any time
but for clays, the resistance was proportional to the undrained shear strength. Vertical loading
should also be considered and the soil stiffness for vertical loading should be evaluated
differently for static and dynamic analyses. The static soil stiffness would be governed mainly
by the maximum reaction, including some cyclic effects, whereas, the dynamic stiffness
would be characterized mainly by the unloading/re-loading situation. According to this code,
the static vertical stiffness is used during installation and erosion and development of free
spans.
Ai et al. (2009) developed a time domain analysis method for nonlinear pipe-seabed
interaction analysis of free spanning subsea pipelines under VIV conditions. Modeling of the

flow was done by a Van-der-Pol wake oscillator developed by Facchinetti et al (2004). Stall
parameters were considered in the general form of the VIV amplitude and the response
frequency. For modeling the free span and pipe-soil interaction linear pipe structure was
considered and then free spanning pipeline was discretized into finite elements. Shear
deformation was neglected in the analysis. Same shoulder conditions on both sides of the free
span, three types of pipe-seabed interaction (such as-linear spring, perfectly plastic nonlinear
spring, and tension cut-off nonlinear spring) and equivalent soil damping were considered.
For analysis purpose it was assumed that shoulder length on each side of the free span equals
to half of the free span length.

Xiao and Zhao (2010) analyzed the natural frequency based on the boundary conditions, mass
of hydrocarbon product, axial force, and multiple spans by FE method in Abaqus software.
Natural frequency of free spanning subsea pipeline was analyzed for both isolated and
multiple span. For isolated span analysis five span length and three boundary conditions
(fixed-fixed, fixed-pinned & pinned-pinned) were considered. The span of the pipeline was
modeled by using quadrilateral shell S4R elements. Natural frequency of the free span was
analyzed based on with and without oil mass consideration. It was concluded that pipeline
frequency decreases with the increase of span length and increases with the fixity against
rotation at ends for without oil mass consideration. Comparison studies for both the two cases
were performed and it was found that the natural frequency of the pipeline decreases
significantly for oil mass consideration. Shoulders were modeled by using 3D solid elements
and the bottom face of the shoulder model was considered fixed to the seabed. The
interaction between the shoulder and the pipe was modeled with the surface-to surface
contact in Abaqus. Finally it was concluded that when the shoulder length is more than 1 m
then it does not affect the natural frequency but when the shoulder length is less than 1 m
then natural frequency will decrease with the length of shoulder. For finding the influence of
axial force on natural frequency geometric nonlinear analysis was performed.

Mehdi et al. (2012) investigated the natural frequency of free spanning pipelines and
influence of soil characteristics in support of pipelines in free span. In this regard, various
boundary conditions were considered. It was concluded that natural frequency of the pipeline
increases with decreases of the pipeline length and it was maximum for fixed-fixed support
condition. It was also found that natural frequency of the pipeline increases with increases of

the soil stiffness. Two-nodal 3-D beam elements PIPE 31-beam elements were used at side
spans and mid -span of the pipeline for modeling the pipeline. Non-linear 3D element PSI34
was used to model the soil at the shoulders.

CONCLUSION AND SCOPE

From the literature review it is seen that the for free spanning subsea pipeline the effect of
(D/t) ratio for different support conditions, and for different soil conditions on natural
frequency are not considered. Therefore, the purpose of this project will be to quantify the
effect of (D/t) ratio for three different support conditions and for different types of soil seabed
condition on natural frequency of the pipe. Finally comparative studies with the DNV (2006)
results will be made. The scope of this project covers all of the activities necessary to
understand, assess, and analyze subsea pipeline free spans.

REFERENCES
[1] Ai, S., Sun, L., and Ma, G., 2009, The Effect of Soil Non-linearity on VIV Response of a
Free Spanning Pipeline, Proc. 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp. 1-6.
[2] American Bureau of Shipping, 2001, Guide for building and classing subsea pipeline
systems and riser, ABS, USA.
[3] Choi, H. S., 2001, Free Spanning Analysis of Offshore Pipelines, Ocean Engineering.
28, pp. 132538.
[4] Det Norske Veritas, 1981, Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems, DNV, Norway.
[5] Det Norske Veritas, 1998, Free Spanning Pipelines, Guidelines No.14, DNV, Norway.
[6] Det Norske Veritas, 2002, Free Spanning Pipelines, DNV-RP-F105, DNV, Norway.

[7] Det Norske Veritas, 2006, Free spanning Pipelines, DNV-RP-F105, 2006, DNV,
Norway.
[8] Fyrileiv, O., and Mrk, K., 2002, Structural Response of Pipeline Free Spans Based on
Beam Theory, Proc. 21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Oslo, Norway, pp. 1-9.
[9] Fyrileiv, O., Mrk, K., and Chezhian, M., 2005, Experiences using DNV-RP-F105 in
Assessment of Free Spanning Pipelines, Proc. 24th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Greece, Vol. 3, pp. 571-578.
[10] Mehdi, Y., Said, M., Ebrahim, J., 2012, Determining Natural Frequency of Free
Spanning Offshore Pipelines, Journal of the Persian Gulf (Marine Science), 3(8), pp. 25-34.
[11] Xiao, Z. G., and Zhao, X. L., 2010, Prediction of Natural Frequency of Free Spanning
Subsea Pipelines, International Journal of Steel Structures, 1(1), pp. 81-89.