O

OTC 2303
33

A Holistic
c Approach to Ste
eady-State Heat Trransfer frrom Partially and Fully
B
Buried Piipelines
E
Erich Zakarian
n, Schlumberrger; James Holbeach,
H MS
Si Kenny; and Julie Morgan
n, Woodside E
Energy Limite
ed

C
Copyright 2012, Offshore Technology Confere
ence

T
This paper was prepare
ed for presentation at the Offshore Technolog
gy Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA , 30 April–3 May 2012 .

This paper was selected for presentation by an

T a OTC program comm mittee following review
w of information containned in an abstract subm mitted by the author(s)). Contents of the papeer have not been
re
eviewed by the Offshore Technology Confere ence and are subject to o correction by the autthor(s). The material dooes not necessarily re
eflect any position of the Offshore Technologyy Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic
E reproductionn, distribution, or stora
age of any part of this paper without the wriitten consent of the O Offshore Technology C Conference is prohibite
ed. Permission to
re
eproduce in print is res
stricted to an abstract of
o not more than 300 words;
w illustrations mayy not be copied. The abbstract must contain coonspicuous acknowled dgment of OTC copyrig ght.

AAbstract
TThe mechanism m of steady-staate heat transfer from deeply buried pipes hhas been rigoroously modeled for a long tim me. Detailed
aanalytical formmulae have been proposed reccently for the calculation of the overall heeat transfer coeefficient acrosss the entire
rrange of burial depths. This paper
p presents an evaluation of these formuulae and suggeests some imprrovements on tthe basis of
nnumerical simu ulations performmed with high--fidelity Computational Fluidd Dynamics (C CFD) models.
Explicit forrmulae can quiickly be implem mented and ussed for generatting profiles off overall heat ttransfer coefficcient along
ppipelines. The effect of unceertainties in innput data on stteady-state heaat transfer can easily be asseessed for any amount of
bburial. Four ex uous formulae are presented and comparedd to three inddependent sourrces of CFD aanalyses. A
xplicit, continu
rrelative differennce of 10% or less with respeect to CFD can n be achieved w
with analytical formulae for a comprehensivve range of
ooffshore pipeliine systems, ambient
a condittions, soil therrmal conductivvities, and burrial depths. Thhe applicabilitty of these
fformulae to onsshore systems is i also evaluateed.

Introduction
PPipeline embed dment into the seabed is a key y consideration n for offshore ooil & gas deveelopments withh high temperaature fluids.
IInaccurate calcculation of thee overall heat transfer
t coefficient at the deesign stage off a project mayy significantlyy affect the
inntegrity of piipelines and ancillary
a systeems after startt-up. For exam mple, the oveerall heat trannsfer coefficient will be
ooverpredicted ifi the effect off pipeline embeedment into thee seabed is ignnored. In the case of high tem mperature fluidds this will
rresult in hotter temperature profiles
p for lonnger. Such erroors may cause issues such ass uncontrolled pipeline bucklling; under
ddesign of coolin ng spools; acceelerated degrad dation of exterrnal coatings; eexcessive corroosion rates; andd unanticipatedd/excessive
toop of line corroosion in wet gaas pipelines.
Two explicit, continuous formulae havee been proposeed recently to iimprove the deetermination off the overall heeat transfer
ccoefficient for partially and fully
f buried piipes (Morud, 2007)
2 (Ovuworrie, 2010). Thiis paper presennts a detailed analysis of
thhese formulae with the suppo ort of high-fideelity CFD simu ulation. Two otther analytical formulae are inntroduced and evaluated.

T
Theory
T
This section defines the overaall heat transferr coefficient (O
OHTC) and preesents formulaee for its calculaation.

SSteady-state heat transfer modeling

m for unburied
u pipess
WWhen steady sttate flow condditions are estaablished in a piipeline, the steeady state heatt transfer betw
ween the transpported fluid
aand ambient flu
uid can be apprroximated as foollows (Bai, 20005):
= −
w
where
= heaat transfer rate between the trransported fluid
d and surrounddings through a pipe of surfacce area [W];
= p surface areea [W/m2/K]];
oveerall heat transsfer coefficient based on the pipe
= pip
pe surface area calculated from m a reference diameter
d , normal to the heat transfer ddirection [m2];
= aveerage temperatture of transporrted fluid withiin the pipe secttion of surface area [K]; annd
= am
mbient temperatture of surroun ndings [K].
2 OTC 23033

The OHTC of an unburied pipe comprises three primary terms modeling the heat transfer by convection at the inner
surface of the pipe wall in contact with the pipeline product (gas, oil, water, and possibly solids), the heat transfer by
conduction through the pipe wall layers, and the heat transfer by convection at the outer surface of the pipe wall in contact
with the ambient fluid:

= + +
ℎ ℎ
where:
= reference diameter for the determination of the OHTC [m];
= OHTC of unburied pipe based on [W/m2/K];
= heat transfer coefficient of pipe wall and coatings, based on [W/m2/K];
= outer diameter of steel wall [m];
= inner diameter of pipe [m];
= overall outer diameter of pipe wall and external coatings [m];
ℎ = internal heat transfer coefficient or inside film coefficient [W/m2/K]; and
ℎ = external heat transfer coefficient or outside film coefficient [W/m2/K].

The U-value of a pipe is often defined as above although the definition may differ from one engineering discipline to
another. Insulation manufacturers calculate the U-value at the outer surface of the steel wall, excluding any contribution from
internal convection, external convection, and conduction through steel. Pipeline designers typically use the inner diameter of
the pipe to define the reference diameter and may exclude any contribution from convection (Bai, 2005).
The definition of the U-value also differs from one simulation tool to another. In the one-dimensional dynamic multiphase
flow simulator OLGA® the U-value is based on the inner diameter of the steel wall; user-specified U-values must include the
contribution from internal convection. In the one-dimensional steady-state multiphase flow simulator PIPESIM, the U-value
is based on the outer diameter of the steel wall; the inside film coefficient can be included in the specified U-value or
calculated separately and added to the U-value.
The heat transfer coefficient of a cylindrical pipe coated with concentric conductive layers is calculated as follows
(Incropera, 1996):

1
=
2

where:
= thermal conductivity of layer [W/m/K];
= inner diameter of wall layer ( = ) [m];
= inner diameter of wall layer + 1 [m].
A surrounding layer may be convective in nature, like the fluid filled annulus of a pipe-in-pipe system. The contribution
from this layer to the overall thermal resistance is modeled by means of an overall film coefficient, ℎ , expressed in
W/m2/K:

1 1
= +
2 ℎ

The internal heat transfer coefficient ℎ is a convection coefficient, also known as film coefficient because convection
occurs at a film layer of fluid adjacent to the pipe surface. The inside film coefficient is calculated from the Nusselt number
of the transported fluid in contact with the pipe surface:

ℎ =

where:
= Nusselt number of transported fluid [-]; and
= thermal conductivity of transported fluid [W/m/K].
Many correlations exist for the determination of in conditions of natural or forced convection. The reader may refer
to (Bai, 2005) for a holistic determination of the Nusselt number with respect to fluid properties, fluid velocity, and pipe
diameter.
The external heat transfer coefficient, ℎ , is a also a convection coefficient, calculated from the Nusselt number of the
ambient fluid:
OTC 23033 3

ℎ =

where:
= Nusselt number of ambient fluid [-]; and
= thermal conductivity of ambient fluid [W/m/K].
Empirical correlations are commonly used to determine the value of ℎ for unburied pipes in conditions of natural or
forced convection (Bai, 2005). These correlations normally assume that the pipe is suspended in an infinite medium. This
assumption, reasonable for pipes in free span, is questionable for embedded or trenched pipelines. This issue will be
addressed later.

Steady-state heat transfer modeling for buried pipes

In offshore developments pipeline burial may be required for protection and on-bottom stability by means of placement of
rock, grit or seabed material on the pipe. Burial can result from the gradual infill of sediments on a trenched pipeline. It can
also develop from seabed mobility or pipeline movement (Bai, 2005).
When a pipe is fully buried a fourth term, ℎ , is added to the definition of the overall heat transfer coefficient to account
for the heat transfer by conduction through the asymmetric soil layer surrounding the pipe. The outside film coefficient ℎ
is replaced with a pseudo film coefficient modeling the heat transfer by convection at the sea/soil interface, ℎ :
1
= + + +
ℎ ℎ ℎ
where:
= overall heat transfer coefficient of buried pipe, based on [W/m2/K];
ℎ 2
= heat transfer coefficient of surrounding soil [W/m /K]; and
ℎ = pseudo film coefficient of ambient fluid at ground level [W/m2/K].
Assuming uniform temperatures at mudline and the outer surface of the pipe (i.e. Dirichlet boundary conditions), the heat
transfer coefficient equivalent to the thermal resistance of the surrounding soil, ℎ , is commonly calculated from the
following expression (Carslaw, 1959):
ℎ =
2
where:
= soil thermal conductivity [W/m/K];
= burial depth, from soil surface to pipe centerline [m]; and
= constant depending on the burial depth:
Seabed (isotherm)

H > 0 Outer surface of pipe wall

2 2 2 including external
= cosh = ln + −1 coatings (isotherm)

Dext

This expression of ℎ is appropriate for deeply buried pipes; however when the top of line is close the soil surface (i.e.
when the pipe is “just” buried), the burial depth approaches /2 and tends to zero since lim → ℎ ( ) = 0.
The coefficient ℎ increases to infinity and the overall heat transfer coefficient reduces to:
1
+ +
→( / ) ℎ ℎ
This limiting behavior of when approaches /2 is unphysical as it disregards the contribution from the
surrounding soil to the overall thermal resistance of the pipe which is mostly buried. This contribution can be significant
(often dominant), even when the pipe is “just” buried.
To avoid a division by zero at = /2 the definition of has to be modified. For example:
4 OTC 23033

= + +
ℎ ℎ
where ℎ is the heat transfer coefficient combining the heat transfer by conduction through the surroundings and the
heat transfer by convection above the soil surface:

ℎ =
2( + )
ℎ
2
The quantity stands for the thickness of an extra thin soil layer modeling the thermal resistance resulting from convection
at the soil surface. This thickness can be determined from the continuity equation of the heat flux rate at the sea/soil interface:
2
ℎ ( − )= ( − )
+2

where:
= thickness of soil layer providing a thermal resistance equivalent to ℎ [m];
= soil temperature [K];
= ambient fluid temperature [K]; and
= outer diameter of soil layer providing a thermal resistance equivalent to ℎ [m]:
2
=
ℎ
Solving the continuity equation above leads to the following expression for :
2
= −1
2 ℎ
From the above expression of the heat transfer coefficient ℎ can be calculated:

ℎ =
where:
= Nusselt number of ambient fluid [-]; and
= thermal conductivity of ambient fluid [W/m/K].
In conclusion the singularity of ℎ at = /2 can be resolved with a modification based on a thermal boundary
layer of thickness surrounding an equivalent soil layer of outer diameter ; however, for high values of ℎ , the
thickness approaches zero and cosh (1 + 2 / ) ≈ 0 when the burial depth approaches /2. Alternative
formulae for exist. They are presented below, after an introduction to steady-state heat transfer modeling for partially
buried pipes.

Steady-state heat transfer modeling for partially buried pipes

The overall heat transfer coefficient of partially buried pipes is commonly modeled as an average, weighted on the exposed
wetted surface area of the pipe:

= + 1−
where:

= overall heat transfer coefficient of partially buried pipe, based on [W/m2/K];

= heat transfer coefficient of pipe in contact with ambient fluid, based on [W/m2/K];
2
= heat transfer coefficient of pipe in contact with ground, based on [W/m /K]; and
= angle of the exposed wetted surface of the pipe [rad]:
OTC 23033 5

Seabed
θb
H > 0
= cos (2 / )

Dext

0<θb<π
The overall heat transfer coefficient of an unburied pipe provides the heat transfer coefficient of the wetted exposed part
of the pipe:

= = + +
ℎ ℎ
Four different expressions for the heat transfer coefficient of the buried part of the pipe are presented hereafter.

Overall heat transfer coefficient

Combining the previous definitions the overall heat transfer coefficient, , is defined as a function of burial depth:

+ 1− − ≤ <
= 2 2
≤
2
Four formulae are evaluated in this paper. The first formula, named after Carslaw & Jaeger's reference book on
conduction (Carslaw, 1959), is based on the previously defined heat transfer coefficient ℎ , assuming isothermal
(Dirichlet) boundary conditions at the sea/soil interface and outside surface of the pipe.

First Formula (Carslaw & Jaeger)

1
= + +
ℎ ℎ∗
1
= + +
ℎ ℎ

where ℎ∗ is the limit of ℎ when approaches /2:

2
ℎ∗ = ∗
∗
= exp −1
2 2 ℎ
cosh 1+
2
2
ℎ = = exp −1
2( + ) 2 ℎ
cosh
2

is the diameter of the soil layer providing a thermal resistance equivalent to ℎ :

2
= exp = exp( ) since ℎ =2 / .
ℎ
The film coefficient ℎ is calculated from the external heat transfer coefficient ℎ as follows:

ℎ = ℎ
6 OTC 23033

The second formula is the result of Morud & Simonsen's work (Morud, 2007) and is an extended version to partially
buried pipes of the Bau & Sadhal formula (Bau, 1982). Unlike the Carslaw & Jaeger formula, the Morud & Simonsen
formula is based on a convective (mixed) boundary condition at the outside surface of the pipe. An isothermal (Dirichlet)
boundary is assumed at the sea/soil interface.

Second Formula (Morud & Simonsen)

1 1
= +
ℎ ℎ
1 1
= +
ℎ ℎ
where ℎ and ℎ are heat transfer coefficients combining the inside film coefficient, heat
transfer coefficient of pipe wall and heat transfer coefficient of soil:

2 +1
− tan tan >1
( − ) −1 2 −1 2
2
ℎ =
1−

1 tan +
2 1+
ln <1
( − ) 1− 1−
tan −
2 1+
2
ℎ = /
1+ +2 coth( )
where is the pipe Biot number, based on the reference diameter ; , and are two constants:

2 2
= = 1− = +
2

is the heat transfer coefficient combining the inside film coefficient and heat transfer coefficient
of pipe wall:

= +
ℎ
The ambient film coefficient, ℎ , is approximated as follows:

ℎ = ℎ

Few differences between this second formula and the one introduced in the original paper (Morud, 2007) can be noticed
(typographical errors in the original paper have been corrected here). The definition of the pipe Biot number has been
modified to include internal convection. External convection at the sea/soil interface when the pipe is fully buried is
accounted for by means of an additional ambient film coefficient, ℎ . This modification is necessary for low values of
ambient film coefficient. We will discuss this later when we address the problem of heat transfer modeling for onshore
pipelines.
The third formula is based on Ovuworie's work (Ovuworie, 2010). This published formula is currently the default method
for calculating OHTC in PIPESIM (2009 Method). The Ovuworie formula is based on convective (mixed) boundary
conditions at both sea/soil interface and outside surface of the pipe.
OTC 23033 7

Third Formula (Ovuworie)

1 1
= + + +
ℎ ℎ ℎ
1 1
= + + +
ℎ ℎ ℎ
where:

1−
2 sin( ) tan
1+
−1 < <1
1−
2 1
ℎ = sin( ) = 1
1+
−1
2 sin( ) tanh
+1
>1
−1
2 ℎ( )
ℎ = /

ℎ( )+ ℎ( )+ − 1+

and are the pipe Biot number and ground Biot number based on the external diameter ,
respectively; and are two constants:
ℎ 2
= = = cos −
2 2

= 1+ cos( ) + ( − )sin( ) −

is the heat transfer coefficient combining the inside film coefficient and heat transfer coefficient
of pipe wall:

= +
ℎ
The ambient film coefficient, ℎ , is approximated as follows:

ℎ = ℎ

Few differences between this third formula and the one introduced in the original paper (Ovuworie, 2010) can be noticed
(typographical errors in the original paper have been corrected here). Unlike other formulae the Biot numbers in the
Ovuworie formula are based on the overall external diameter of the pipe, . The coefficients and depend
explicitly on the heat transfer coefficients ℎ and .
The fourth formula, named after this paper number, is a modified version of the Ovuworie formula. The inside film
coefficient ℎ and heat transfer coefficient are removed from the definition of . The pipe and ground Biot
numbers are more rigorously based on the reference diameter instead of . The heat transfer coefficient is
derived from the limit of when approaches /2, bearing in mind that = 0 at = /2; sinh( ) = +
( ); and cosh( ) = 1 + /2 + ( ).
8 OTC 23033

Fourth Formula (OTC 23033)

1 1
= +
ℎ ℎ
1 1
= +
ℎ ℎ
where ℎ and ℎ are heat transfer coefficients combining the inside film coefficient, heat
transfer coefficient of pipe wall and heat transfer coefficient of soil:
2
ℎ = /

1+ 1+2

2 ℎ( )
ℎ = /
ℎ( )+ ℎ( )+ − 1+

and are the pipe Biot number and ground Biot number, respectively:
ℎ
= =
2 2
is the heat transfer coefficient combining the inside film coefficient and heat transfer coefficient
of pipe wall:

= +
ℎ
The ambient film coefficient, ℎ , is approximated as follows:

ℎ = ℎ

Numerical application
The pipe Biot number provides a practical tool for the classification of offshore pipeline systems with respect to their U-value
and soil thermal conductivity: see Table 1. Typical U-values of fully exposed pipe can be found in (Bai, 2005). A wide range
of soil thermal conductivities, from 0.7 to 2.5 W/m/K, is assumed in this paper although recent in-situ measurements of
thermal conductivity from eight different deepwater sites around the world have shown values from 0.7 to 1.1 W/m/K
(Young, 2001).
Typical U-value
Typical pipe
Example of transport of fully exposed pipe
Biot number
system (see note below)
2 [-]
[W/m /K]
• Pipe-in-pipe system
• Insulated pipeline 0.5 to 15 ≤4
• Flexible flowline
• Insulated pipeline
15 to 50 4< ≤ 50
• Concrete weight coated trunkline
• Uninsulated pipeline
50 to 1500+ 50 <
• Cooling spool
Note: typical U-value based on outer diameter of steel wall, excluding conduction
through steel and convection
Table 1: typical pipe U-values and Biot numbers

One example per range of pipe Biot numbers (low, intermediate and high) is presented in this section and analyzed
thoroughly. Overall heat transfer coefficients are calculated for a sensible range of burial depths, from each of the four
analytical formulae. The results are compared to numerical simulations performed with high-fidelity CFD models. Three
OTC 23033 9

independent sources of CFD analyses have been used and each example has been simulated in PIPESIM with the default
method for OHTC calculation (2009 method). A direct comparison of the analytical results to PIPESIM is possible provided
that the reference diameter is the outer diameter of the steel wall. A multiplication of the calculated inside and outside
fluid film coefficients from PIPESIM by / and / is required to derive the coefficients ℎ and ℎ ,
respectively. For an effortless interpretation, the results are presented by means of a more intuitive definition of the burial
depth (see Figure 1 for few examples):
1
Burial depth (%) = + . 100
2

Sea water Burial depth = 200%

Pipe H = +3Dext/2
Fully buried pipe
Mudline
Pipe
Burial depth = 0%
H = -Dext/2 Pipe
Fully exposed pipe Burial depth = 50%
H=0
Half buried pipe Burial depth = 100%
H = +Dext/2 Pipe
Fully buried pipe
Soil

Figure 1: pipe burial depths

Case 1: Low pipe Biot number

Pipe-in-pipe systems, insulated pipelines and flexible flowlines are characterized by low pipe Biot numbers. In the example
below, inspired from an ongoing deep offshore development in Western Australia, the pipe Biot number, based on , is
approximately 2 (see Table 2 for input data).

= = 2.08
2
Diameter Thickness Thermal conductivity
Pipe wall description
[mm] [mm] [W/m/K]
Pipe inner diameter 298.4 (Din) - -
Carbon steel 355.6 (Dref) 28.6 45
Three Layer Polypropylene 399.6 (Dext) 22 0.22
Soil - - 0.9
Table 2: pipe wall description and soil conductivity (Case 1)
®
ANSYS CFX 12.1 was used to build CFD models in a similar manner to the one described in Morud & Simonsen’s
paper (Morud, 2007), for a discrete set of burial depths. A low ambient fluid velocity of 0.03 m/s, a seawater temperature of
6°C, and a high transported fluid temperature of 100°C were set as per metocean and process data.
The inside film coefficient, ℎ , was determined with PIPESIM, by use of the Kreith default method, for a particular set of
process conditions and fluid composition; however the contribution from internal convection to the overall heat transfer
coefficient is normally negligible in steady flow conditions for low and intermediate pipe Biot numbers because the overall
thermal resistance is dominated by the thermal resistance of the pipe wall and soil.
The outside film coefficient, ℎ , was predicted from two methods: correlation (PIPESIM) and numerical simulation
(CFD). The latter was used as the base case whilst the former was used to confirm consistency of the Ovuworie formula with
results from PIPESIM. A significant discrepancy is noticed between CFD (ℎ = 170 W/m2/K) and PIPESIM (ℎ = 496
W/m2/K). This issue and the dependence of ℎ on burial depth will be discussed later in the paper.
The OHTC predicted from the four analytical formulae is presented in Figure 2:
• At 0% burial the four formulae converge to the analytically derived OHTC of a fully exposed wetted pipe.
• The Morud & Simonsen formula agrees with CFD results with a relative difference not exceeding 2% when the
outside film coefficient predicted from CFD is used.
• The OTC 23033 formula provides similar results with a relative difference less than 8% with respect to CFD.
• The Carslaw & Jaeger formula shows poor agreement with CFD and PIPESIM.
• The implementation of the Ovuworie formula in PIPESIM (2009 Method) is consistent with PIPESIM
simulations. A maximum relative error of 26% with respect to CFD is observed.
10 OTC 23033

• The Morud & Simonsen, OTC 23033, and Carslaw & Jaeger formulae converge to the same curve for deeply
buried pipes. Figure 2 shows that the implementation of the Ovuworie formula in PIPESIM is inconsistent with
the original version of the formula since the OTC 23033 formula is identical to original version of the Ovuworie
formula for buried pipes (Ovuworie, 2010). The coefficients and in the Ovuworie formula
depend explicitly on ℎ and . This implementation seems incorrect because the contribution from these
two last coefficients to the OHTC is implicitly included in the definition of ℎ and ℎ by means of the
Biot number . A quick check of the limiting behavior of ℎ in the Ovuworie formula for low values of
confirms this finding:
2 ℎ( ) 2 2
≪1⇒ℎ ≈ /
= = =
2
ℎ( ) −1

• The sensitivity of the OHTC to the outside film coefficient ℎ is small. The Carslaw & Jaeger formula is more
sensitive to variations of ℎ because the thickness of the equivalent soil layer modeling the convective
thermal resistance at the soil surface is approximately inversely proportional to ℎ .

Overall heat transfer coefficient vs. burial depth (Case 1)

Based on outer diameter of steel wall
12.0

10.0

Carslaw & Jaeger (hext PIPESIM)

8.0
OHTC [W/m2/K]

Carslaw & Jaeger (hext CFD)

Morud & Simonsen (hext PIPESIM)

6.0 Morud & Simonsen (hext CFD)

Ovuworie (hext PIPESIM)
Ovuworie (hext CFD)
4.0 OTC 23033 (hext PIPESIM)
OTC 23033 (hext CFD)
CFD (CFX 12.1)
2.0 PIPESIM 2009

0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%

Burial depth [%]

Figure 2: overall heat transfer coefficient vs. burial depth (Case 1)

Case 2: Intermediate pipe Biot number

A concrete weight coated (CWC) pipeline is a typical example of pipe with an intermediate Biot number. In the example
below taken from Morud & Simonsen’s paper (Morud, 2007) the pipe Biot number, based on , is close to 4 (see Table 3
for input data):

= = 4.17
2
Diameter Thickness Thermal conductivity
Pipe wall description
[mm] [mm] [W/m/K]
Pipe inner diameter 966.4 (Din) - -
Carbon steel 1014.8 (Dref) 24.2 50
Asphalt 1028.8 7 0.74
Concrete 1228.8 (Dext) 100 2.9
Soil - - 2.97
Table 3: pipe wall description and soil conductivity (Case 2)
OTC 23033 11

Morud & Simonsen built CFD models in ANSYS® FLUENT 6.2 for five different burial depths: 0.5%, 25% 50%, 75%,
and 99.5% (Morud, 2007). OHTCs presented in the paper are based on the external diameter . An ambient fluid velocity
of 0.5 m/s and a seawater temperature of 4°C were used. Internal convection was not simulated and no indicative value for
ℎ is given in the paper. The latter was estimated with PIPESIM (ℎ = 1053 W/m2/K).
The OHTC profiles predicted from the four analytical formulae are presented in Figure 3:
• The Morud & Simonsen formula is consistent with CFD results with a relative difference not exceeding 11%.
• The formula OTC 23033 agrees even better with CFD with a maximum relative error of 6%.
• The implementation of the Ovuworie formula in PIPESIM is consistent with PIPESIM simulations. A maximum
relative error of 27% with respect to CFD is observed.
• The Carslaw & Jaeger formula performance is very poor because of a high OHTC at 100% burial depth.

Overall heat transfer coefficient vs. burial depth (Case 2)

Based on outer diameter of steel wall
25.0

20.0
OHTC [W/m2/K]

15.0
Carslaw & Jaeger
Morud & Simonsen
Ovuworie
10.0 OTC 23033
CFD (FLUENT 6.2)
PIPESIM 2009

5.0

0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%

Burial [%]

Figure 3: overall heat transfer coefficient vs. burial depth (Case 2)

Case 3: High pipe Biot number

A cooling spool is a typical example of a system with a high pipe Biot number because of the absence of insulation. In the
example below, inspired from an ongoing deep offshore development in Western Australia, the pipeline is a multi-kilometer
cooling section upstream of a wet gas pipeline made of carbon steel. The provision of corrosion resistant cooling sections
upstream of wet gas pipelines is required to avoid excessive water condensation rates at top of line, and subsequently
corrosion associated with high CO2 level and organic acid content, along uninhibited downstream carbon steel pipelines. The
cooling section is a carbon steel pipeline internally clad with a layer of corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) and externally coated
with a very conductive layer of thermally sprayed aluminum for protection against external corrosion. The resulting pipe Biot
number, based on , is 441 (see Table 4 for input data).
= = 441.24
2
Diameter Thickness Thermal conductivity
Pipe wall description
[mm] [mm] [W/m/K]
Pipe inner diameter 556 (Din) - -
Corrosion resistant alloy 562 3 17.31
Carbon steel 610 (Dref) 24 45
Thermally sprayed aluminum 610.5 (Dext) 0.25 237
Soil - - 0.927
Table 4: pipe wall description and soil conductivity (Case 3)
12 OTC 23033

ANSYS® FLUENT 13.0 was used to build CFD models in a similar manner to the one described in Morud & Simonsen’s
paper (Morud, 2007), for a discrete set of burial depths. An ambient fluid velocity of 0.1 m/s, a seawater temperature of
10°C, and a mid-range transported fluid temperature of 50°C were set as per metocean and process data.
To run an equivalent simulation in PIPESIM it is necessary to merge the two steel layers (CRA and carbon steel) into a
single layer since PIPESIM accepts only one steel layer per wall definition. The equivalent steel layer has a thickness of 27
mm and an equivalent thermal conductivity as follows:

=
1 1
+

where:
= equivalent thermal conductivity of equivalent steel layer [W/m/K];
= thermal conductivity of layer ( = 1 for CRA; = 2 for carbon steel) [W/m/K];
= inner diameter of wall layer ( = ) [m]; and
= outer diameter of wall layer + 1 [m].
At high pipe Biot numbers convection is a dominant heat transfer mechanism because the film coefficients and heat
transfer coefficient of pipe wall have the same order of magnitude (here = 1341 W/m2/K). The outside film
coefficient, ℎ , was predicted from two methods: correlation (PIPESIM) and numerical simulation (CFD). Fully
temperature dependent seawater properties have been used in all CFD simulations for Case 3. Figure 4 shows results for two
ambient fluid velocities: 0.1 m/s and 0.01 m/s. When the current speed is 0.1 m/s predictions from PIPESIM and CFD are
fairly consistent, with a relative difference less than 6% for burial depths below 95%. In conditions close to natural (free)
convection, when the ambient fluid is 0.01 m/s, the discrepancy between PIPESIM and CFD is quite significant; a relative
difference exceeding 30% is observed for burial depths below 90%.

External heat transfer coefficient

1100

1000

900
hext [W/m2/K]

PIPESIM 2009
(current speed 0.1 m/s)
800 CFD (FLUENT)
(current speed 0.1 m/s)
PIPESIM 2009
700 (current speed 0.01 m/s)
CFD (FLUENT)
600 (current speed 0.01 m/s)

500
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Burial [%]

Figure 4: external heat transfer coefficient: PIPESIM vs. CFD

For comparison of analytical formulae to CFD the outside film coefficient predicted from PIPESIM at 0% burial depth
and current speed of 0.1 m/s has been used in the analytical formulae: ℎ = 827 W/m2/K. Since internal convection was
neglected in the CFD work (internal pipe wall temperature was specified) the inside film coefficient was arbitrarily set to a
very high value in the analytical formulae (ℎ =106 W/m2/K); however sensitivity was performed with the inside film
coefficient predicted from PIPESIM (ℎ = 2223 W/m2/K) to confirm the consistency between the implementation of the
Ovuworie formula in PIPESIM (2009 Method) and PIPESIM simulations.
The OHTC predicted from the four analytical formulae is presented in Figure 5:
• For the range of burial depths where the selected outside film coefficient ℎ = 827 W/m2/K is consistent with
both PIPESIM and CFD predictions (i.e. from 0 to 95% burial depth as per Figure 4) the Morud & Simonsen
formula is consistent with CFD, with a maximum relative error of 4%. The Ovuworie, OTC 23033 and Carslaw
& Jaeger formulae do not exceed a relative difference of 7%, 10%, and 18%, respectively.
• The implementation of the Ovuworie formula in PIPESIM is consistent with PIPESIM simulations when internal
convection is accounted for.
OTC 23033 13

Overall heat transfer coefficient vs. burial depth (Case 3)

Based on outer diameter of steel wall
600.0

500.0

Carslaw & Jaeger

No internal convection
400.0
Morud & Simonsen
OHTC [W/m2/K]

No internal convection
Ovuworie
300.0 No internal convection
OTC 23033
No internal convection
200.0 Ovuworie
(hin from PIPESIM)
CFD (FLUENT 14.0)

100.0
PIPESIM 2009

0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%

Burial [%]

Figure 5: overall heat transfer coefficient vs. burial depth (Case 3)

Onshore pipelines
Although offshore pipelines are the main focus of this paper the reader might be interested in applying the previous analytical
formulae to onshore pipelines. The example below is inspired from Morud & Simonsen’s paper (Morud, 2007). Starting from
Case 2, the concrete weight coating, used for offshore on-bottom stability, is removed. The soil conductivity of 2.97 W/m/K
is high but consistent with typical onshore soil conductivities. The resulting pipe Biot number is now 17 instead of 4 (see
Table 5 for input data).
= = 17.27
2
Diameter Thickness Thermal conductivity
Pipe wall description
[m] [mm] [W/m/K]
Pipe inner diameter 0.9664 (Din) - -
Carbon steel 1.0148 (Dref) 24.2 50
Asphalt 1.0288 (Dext) 7 0.74
Soil - - 2.97
Table 5: pipe wall description and soil conductivity (onshore pipeline)

Representative onshore conditions are assumed. A mean air velocity of 5 m/s and an ambient temperature of 20°C are
used whilst the other parameters remain identical to Case 2. The inside film coefficient is determined with PIPESIM for a
particular set of process conditions and fluid composition (ℎ =1268 W/m2/K). According to PIPESIM the outside film
coefficient is almost insensitive to the burial depth: ℎ ≈ 13.5 W/m2/K. Following the change of ambient fluid, from
seawater to air, the ambient film coefficient is significantly reduced; the value of 13.5 W/m2/K is within the normal range of
external heat transfer coefficient for pipes exposed to air (Bai, 2005).
The OHTC predicted from the four analytical formulae is presented in Figure 6. Unlike the previous cases the Morud &
Simonsen formula differs significantly from the OTC 23033 formula at 100% burial depth. The Morud & Simonsen formula
predicts an unphysical peak near 100% burial. This peak likely results from the unphysical assumption of an isothermal
air/soil interface. This assumption becomes increasingly inaccurate for cases where the ambient film coefficient is small
(dash red line in Figure 6). The original formula from Morud & Simonsen's work (Morud, 2007) has been modified in this
paper to account for external convection at the soil surface when the pipe is fully buried by means of an additional ambient
film coefficient ℎ . This modification improves the results to some extent (solid red line in Figure 6).
A mixed (convective) boundary condition at the soil surface seems more appropriate for low ground Biot numbers (here
= 2.34) and intermediate or high values of . PIPESIM and the OTC 23033 formulae provide similar results because
14 OTC 23033

the inside film coefficient (ℎ =1268 W/m2/K) and heat transfer coefficient of the pipe wall ( =101 W/m2/K) are much
greater than the soil heat transfer coefficient (ℎ = 5.8 W/m /K) and the ambient film coefficient (ℎ ≈ 13.5 W/m2/K).
2

Overall heat transfer coefficient vs. burial depth (onshore pipeline)

Based on outer diameter of steel wall
18.0

16.0

14.0
Carslaw & Jaeger
12.0
OHTC [W/m2/K]

Morud & Simonsen

10.0
Morud & Simonsen
8.0 (original formula)
Ovuworie
6.0
OTC 23033
4.0
PIPESIM 2009

2.0

0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%
Burial [%]

Figure 6: overall heat transfer coefficient vs. burial depth (onshore pipeline)

Conclusions
Four explicit analytical formulae for the calculation of the overall heat transfer coefficient for partially and fully buried
pipelines have been presented, analyzed and compared to high-fidelity CFD simulations. A relative difference of 10% or less
with respect to CFD can be achieved with analytical formulae, for a comprehensive range of offshore production systems,
ambient conditions, soil thermal conductivities, and burial depths. Table 6 presents the formulae recommended for OHTC
calculation when accounting for the effect of burial on heat transfer. Formulae for onshore systems are also recommended.
Typical U-value
Environment Recommended formulae
of fully exposed pipe Example of transport Typical pipe
(see note 2 for the calculation of
[W/m2/K] system Biot number [-]
below) OHTC vs. burial depth
(see note 1 below)
• Pipe-in-pipe system Offshore • Morud & Simonsen
0.5 – 15 • Insulated pipeline ≤4
Onshore • OTC 23033
• Flexible flowline
• Morud & Simonsen
• Insulated pipeline Offshore
• OTC 23033
15 – 50 4<
• Concrete weight coated≤ 50
• Ovuworie
trunkline Onshore
• OTC 23033
• Morud & Simonsen
Offshore • Ovuworie
• Uninsulated pipeline
50 – 1500+ 50 < • OTC 23033
• Cooling spool
• Ovuworie
Onshore
• OTC 23033
Note 1: U-value based on outer diameter of steel wall, excluding conduction through steel and convection
Note 2: An offshore environment is characterized by a high ground Biot number (typically Big > 50) whilst onshore
ambient conditions are characterized by a low ground Biot number (typically Big <10)
Table 6: Recommended formulae for the determination of OHTC vs. burial depth

The external heat transfer coefficient is a key parameter for the design of uninsulated pipelines and cooling spools. Some
inconsistencies between CFD and external heat transfer coefficients calculated from empirical correlations have been
observed. Understanding these will be the subject of further work.
OTC 23033 15

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank MSi Kenny and Frazer-Nash Consultancy for their valuable support in CFD simulation.

Nomenclature
= constant depending on burial depth: = cosh (2 / ) [-]
= thickness of pipe wall layer [m]
= pipe surface area at a reference diameter , normal to the heat transfer direction [m2]
= ground Biot number [-]
= pipe Biot number [-]
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
= overall outer diameter of pipe and external coatings [m]
= inner diameter of wall layer ( = ) [m]
= outer diameter of wall layer + 1 [m]
= inner diameter of pipe [m]
= reference diameter for the determination of the overall heat transfer coefficient [m]
= diameter of soil layer providing a thermal resistance equivalent to ℎ [m]
= outer diameter of steel wall [m]
= thickness of soil layer providing a thermal resistance equivalent to ℎ [m]
= burial depth, from mudline to pipe centerline [m]
ℎ = pseudo film coefficient of ambient fluid at ground level [W/m2/K]
ℎ = external heat transfer coefficient or outside film coefficient [W/m2/K]
ℎ = overall film coefficient of an annulus layer [W/m2/K]
ℎ = internal heat transfer coefficient or inside film coefficient [W/m2/K]
ℎ = heat transfer coefficient of surrounding soil [W/m2/K]
= thermal conductivity of ambient fluid [W/m/K]
= equivalent thermal conductivity of equivalent steel layer [W/m/K]
= thermal conductivity of transported fluid [W/m/K]
= thermal conductivity of layer [W/m/K]
= thermal conductivity of soil [W/m/K]
= Nusselt number of ambient fluid [-]
= Nusselt number of transported fluid [-]
OHTC = overall heat transfer coefficient ( ) [W/m2/K]
= heat transfer rate between the transported fluid and surroundings through a pipe of surface area [W]
= ambient fluid temperature [K]
= average temperature of transported fluid within the pipe section of surface area [K]
= ambient temperature of surroundings [K]
= soil temperature [K]
= overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) based on the pipe surface area [W/m2/K]
= overall heat transfer coefficient of buried pipe, based on [W/m2/K]
= heat transfer coefficient of pipe in contact with ambient fluid, based on [W/m2/K]
= heat transfer coefficient of pipe in contact with ground, based on 2
[W/m /K]
= overall heat transfer coefficient of partially buried pipe, based on [W/m2/K]
2
= overall heat transfer coefficient of unburied pipe based [W/m /K]
= heat transfer coefficient of pipe wall and coatings, based on [W/m2/K]

References
1. Bai, Y., and Bai, Q. 2005. Subsea Pipelines and Risers, first edition, Elsevier,
2. Bau, H. H., and Sadhal, S. S. 1982. Heat Losses from a Fluid Flowing in a Buried Pipe, Int. Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
25 (11): 1621-1629.
3. Carslaw, H. S., and Jaeger, J. C. 1959. Conduction of Heat in Solids, second edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
4. Incropera, F. P., and Dewitt, D. P. 1996. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, sixth edition, Wiley, New York.
5. Morud, J.C., and Simonsen, A. 2007. Heat Transfer from Partially Buried Pipes. Paper presented at the 16th Australasian Fluid
Mechanics Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 2-7 December.
6. Ovuworie, C. 2010. Steady-State Heat Transfer Models for Fully and Partially Buried Pipelines. Paper SPE 131137 presented at
the CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, 8–10 June.
7. Young, A. G., Osborne, R. S., and Frazer, I. 2001. Utilizing Thermal Properties of Seabed Soils as Cost-Effective Insulation for
Subsea Flowlines. Paper OTC 13137 presented at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 30 April–3 May.