Proceedings of OMAE2006 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering June 4-9, 2006, Hamburg, Germany

OMAE2006-92308

EFFICIENT ANALYSIS OF A CATENARY RISER

Elizabeth Passano Centre of Ships and Ocean Structures, CeSOS Trondheim, Norway

Carl M. Larsen Centre of Ships and Ocean Structures Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACT The paper deals with the challenge of predicting the extreme response of catenary risers, a topic of both industry and academic interest. Large heave motions introduced at the upper end of a catenary riser can lead to compression and large bending moments in the region immediately above the touch down area. In the worst case, dynamic beam buckling may occur. The focus of the paper will be on understanding the riser behaviour in extreme, low-tension response and in establishing suitable analysis strategies to predict the extreme response. Results from long nonlinear stochastic simulations of many sea states with varying environmental and operating conditions may be combined to describe the long-term response of a nonlinear structure such as a catenary riser. However, this theoretically straight-forward approach is very demanding computationally and ways to limit the extent of nonlinear stochastic simulations are therefore sought. The usefulness of simpler methods such as regular wave analysis to improve understanding of the physical behaviour and to aid in concentrating the nonlinear simulations to where they are most useful., will be demonstrated. INTRODUCTION All floating production systems must rely on some kind of marine risers for transport of the well-stream from the seafloor to the platform, and in many cases also for transport of processed oil and gas down to a pipeline. Among the many proposed riser concepts, the steel catenary riser is in particular promising due to its simplicity and low costs. This is in particular true if the heave motions of the floater are moderate, like for tension leg platforms, SPAR buoys and deep draught floaters.

The low cost of catenary risers makes it tempting to extend there use to vessels with less moderate heave motions. The response of catenary risers to large heave motions is critical in this endeavour. And in any case, unexpectedly large floater motions may be encountered; e.g. due to extreme environmental conditions or damage to the floater and mooring system. The work reported here is part of a more comprehensive study on extreme analysis of catenary risers. In this paper, the focus is on describing the riser behaviour in conditions with large vessel motion and in investigating procedures for reducing simulation time. The complete work will cover the following points:: Identifying environmental and operating conditions for extreme response Modelling issues; e.g. element length, seafloor damping Relative importance of the vessel ,motions and wave loading Use of regular wave analysis Predicting instances of extreme response in realizations Using short simulations of intervals where extreme response is expected The first point is beyond the scope of this paper. The next three are discussed somewhat, while the main focus of this paper is on the last two points. MODELS Catenary riser models for 300, 500, 800, 1200 and 1800 m water depth are shown in Figure 1. The basic models were established by Carl Martin Larsen and ystein Wrstad with the same cross-section and horizontal force for the different

Copyright 2006 by ASME

(kN) or (kNM)

water depths. The upper end is free to rotate, so the angle is the result of the line length, water depth, submerged weight and applied tension. The upper end of the riser becomes significantly more vertical as the water depth increases. The configurations are shown here with the anchor ends aligned. In the models used, the vessels are all positioned at the same location, so that identical waves and motions may be applied in the stochastic simulations in different water depths. The horizontal arrows at the upper end mark the distance to the vessel CG where the motions are introduced. The motions may be given directly or may be determined by the wave elevation and the linear motion transfer function. Motion transfer functions for a semisub were used in this study.
200 0 -200 -400 -600 Depth coord. (m) -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800 -2000 0 200 400 600 Distance from anchor (m) 800 1000 1200 300 m 500 m 800 m 1200 m 1800 m

The five models have different lengths of riser between the anchor at the lower end and the static touch down points (TDPs). With the TDPs aligned, the five models have the same tension at the lower end and the same bending moment in the touch down area (TDA), see Figure 2.
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 TDP -200 -500 0 500 1000 1500 Distance from static TDP (m) 2000 2500 Bending moment Effective tension 1800 m 1200 m 800 m 500 m 300 m

Figure 2 Static effective tension and bending moment for the 300, 500, 800, 1200 and 18000 m configurations TDPs aligned REGULAR WAVE AND MOTION ANALYSIS The regular base case (12 m wave amplitude, 12 s wave period) is analysed at all five water depths. The wave propagation is in the positive x-direction; i.e. towards the right in Figure 1. The displacement envelope curves for the five different water depths are shown in Figure 3. The identical motions at the upper end follow different curves along the riser towards the TDA. The horizontal motions immediately over the TDA are similar for all five water depths and increase approximately 20 cm while the depth increases to 1800 m. The maximum vertical displacements in the TDA increase by approximately 2 m as the water depth increases to 1800 m. The static TDP in these figures is defined as the last node with vertical static contact force. The start and end of the TDA is determined as the first node that is more than 1 mm above the seafloor and last node that is within 1 mm of the seafloor. The length of the TDA also increases with increasing water depth as more of the riser is lifted off the seabed, see Table 2. Table 2 Key results fro regular base case analysis for different water depths Water Min. effective Max. bending Length of depth tension moment TDA (m) (kN) (kNm) (m) 300 -128.7 914.1 64.1 500 -133.6 907 65.1 800 -161 938 69.2 1200 -187 971.3 72.2 1800 -224.8 1002 74.5

Figure 1 Static configurations for 300, 500, 800, 1200 and 1800 m water depths The computer program RIFLEX (Fylling et al. 1998) was used in this study.. In order to simplify evaluation of the results, the same steel pipe was used for the complete length of all five models. The pipe had an outer diameter of 42.9 cm, 2.2 cm wall thickness and thus an inner diameter of 38.5 cm, approx. 15 inches. An outer coating of 1.5 cm of slightly buoyant material was added along the riser. The riser contents have a density of 200 kg/m3, corresponding to gas. Constant element lengths ranging from 2.2 m to 4.1 m were used for each riser, see Table 1. Table 1 Key finite element model parameters for the catenary riser models Water Line Number Element Top angle depth length of length from vertical (m) (m) elements (m) (deg) 300 885.0 400 2.2125 24.9 500 1085.0 400 2.7125 17.6 800 1385.0 500 2.77 12.3 1200 1885.0 600 3.14167 8.8 1800 2485.0 600 4.14167 6.2

Copyright 2006 by ASME

4 X displacements (m) 2 0 -2

1800 m 1200 m 800 m 500 m 300 m Horizontal

to 2.21 m. The decreased moments in the wave zone for increasing water depth and line length are therefore not due to unsuitably long elements in the deep water models.
1200 1800 m 1200 m 800 m 500 m 300 m

1000
-4 6

800
3 Z displacements (m)

Vertical

Bending moment (kNm)

600

400

-3

200

0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 Distance from static TDP (m) 2000 -6 2500

-200

Figure 3 Displacement envelope curves for regular wave case with amplitude 12 m and period 12 s for different water depths The minimum effective tension decreases with increasing water depth and the length of line in compression increases, see Figure 4 and Table 2.
3000 1800 m 1200 m 800 m 500 m 300 m

-400

-600 -500

500

1000 1500 Distance from static TDP (m)

2000

2500

Figure 5 Bending moment envelope curves for regular wave case with amplitude 12 m and period 12 s for different water depths To investigate the relative importance of the wave kinematics and the wave frequency motions, the base case was re-analysed with the same motions, but without the corresponding wave kinematics for the five water depths. The upper part of the riser is thus being swung in still water. The minimum effective tension and the maximum bending moment from the five analyses may be found in Table 3. The analyses without wave kinematics give up to 11 % higher compression and up to 4 % higher bending moments, i.e. conservative results. As expected, the effect of the wave kinematics is reduced as the water depth increases.

2500

2000

Eff. tension (kN)

1500

1000

500

-500 -500

500

1000 1500 Distance from static TDP (m)

2000

2500

Figure 4 Effective tension envelope curves for regular wave case with amplitude 12 m and period 12 s for different water depths. The maximum bending moment is found immediately above the TDA for all five water depths, see Figure 5. Except for a slight decrease from 300 to 500 m, the maximum bending moment increases with increasing water depth, see Figure 5 and Table 2. The bending moments in the wave zone, however, decreases with increasing water depth. The element lengths increase for the deeper water models, see Table 1. The effect of element length was investigated by comparing results from two element models for the 1800 m case. No visible change was found in the bending moment envelopes when the element lengths were decreased from 4.14

Table 3 Minimum effective tension and maximum bending moment from the analyses without wave kinematics. Absolute values and values relative to values from the analyses with wave kinematics. Water Min. effective tension Max. bending moment depth (m) (kN) relative (kNm) relative 300 -135.1 1.05 935.3 1.02 500 -148 1.11 944 1.04 800 -170.1 1.06 969.5 1.03 1200 -189.7 1.01 992.7 1.02 1800 -222.1 0.99 1016 1.01 The effective tension and bending moment envelope curves from the 500 m water depth analyses are compared in Figure 6. The effective tension has an almost constant reduction along the riser. The maximum bending moment is increased, but has a

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Effective force (kM), bending moment (kNm)

very similar shape outside of the wave zone. The response in the TDA is clearly primarily due to the forced motions at the upper end. Omitting the wave kinematics in the analyses gives conservative results in the TDA.
1200 force, wave moment, wave force, no wave moment, no wave

1200 high damp mid damp low damp 1000 Moment 800 Force 600

1000

400

Eff. tension (kN), Bending moment (kNm)

800

200

600

400

-200 TDA

200

-400 0 200 400 600 Line length (m) 800 1000 1200

-200

-400 0 200 400 600 Line length (m) 800 1000 1200

Figure 7 Effective tension and bending moment envelopes for various levels of seafloor damping. Regular waves with 12 m amplitude and 12 s period. 500 m water depth.

Figure 6 Effective tension (red and brown) and bending moment (blue and violet) envelopes for the analyses with and without wave kinematics. 500 m water depth. In the current official version of the riser software used (RIFLEX 3.4) no damping is included in the riser seafloor contact. The option to specify damping for from seafloor contact was therefore added. The damping is specified as damping force per unit length riser per unit velocity; e.g. in N/(m m/s). The ratio between the specified damping and the corresponding specified stiffness corresponds to the a2 coefficient in the Rayleigh damping formulation. The effect of damping between the riser and seafloor was investigated using different seafloor damping values, , see Table 4. The low damping case uses the same stiffness proportional damping as specified for the structural stiffness proportional damping. This low damping value seems unrealistically low. The two other cases correspond to quite high damping levels, but significant damping is expected from the seafloor contact. The effective tension and bending moment envelopes for the three analyses with seafloor damping are shown in Figure 7. The central vertical dashed line marks the static TDP and the two outer lines the extent of the dynamic TDA. The most significant effect of the damping is to reduce the compression in the TDA and in the riser on the bottom back towards the anchor. The minimum bending moment in the TDA is also slightly reduced. However, the maximum bending moment and the maximum compression at this location are almost unchanged, see Table 4.

Table 4 Minimum effective tension and maximum bending moment for the analysis with different damping levels Case a2 Seafloor Min eff. Max Min eff. damping tension bending tension T = 1 sec overall moment at Mmax (kN) (%) (kN) (kNm) None 0.0 0.0 -164.8 910.4 -123.9 Low 0.001 0.314 -164.5 910.6 -124.1 Mid 0.5 157.1 -148.1 904.2 -122.8 High 1.0 314.2 -133.6 907 -121 From the no seafloor damping case to the high case the damping reduces (the absolute value of) the minimum effective tension by 19 % and the maximum bending moment by 0.4 %, The minimum tension at the location of the maximum bending moment is reduced by 2.3 %. The analyses in the rest of this memo were carried out with the high damping. The response near the seafloor increases with increasing water depth for analyses both with and without wave kinematics, see Table 2 and Table 3. Initially, this may seem surprising as the identical top motions in the different analyses are relatively smaller with regards to both water depth and line length as the water depth increases. The top motions are also further and further away from the maximum response, which in all these cases is found near the seafloor. However, as the water depth increases, the upper end of the riser becomes steeper with the angle from the vertical decreasing from 24.9 to 6.2 degrees. The motion component in the static axial direction will therefore vary with the water depth. For the base case motions in Figure 8, the minimum axial velocity increases from 1.95 to 2.30 m/s as the water depth increases from 300 to 1800 m. The increasing axial velocities will introduce more compression in the riser.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

16 Base case motions 300 m 500 m 800 m 1200 m 1800 m

14

12

first two sets correspond to maximum axial velocities up to 2.9 m/s. There is a very clear trend in the axial velocity - minimum effective tension values from all three sets up to ca 3 m/s. A trend is also found in the axial velocity bending moment up to this level, but the scatter is significantly larger. STOCHASTIC SIMULATIONS Three different extreme seastates were applied; see Table 5, with significant wave heights ranging from 12.0 to 16.5 m. The simulations had a duration of one hour (3600 s) and a time step of 0.1 s. Waves, water kinematics and vessel motions were pregenerated with a 1 s time step. Pairs of simulations with identical time series of vessel motions and wave elevation directly under the upper end of the riser were carried out for 500 and 1800 m water depth. Effective tension and bending moment envelopes from a pair of simulations inn 500 and 1800 m water depth are compared in Figure 10. The envelope values around the TDA are very similar. The length in compression, the minimum effective tension and maximum bending moment values from the 500 and 1800 m water depths are compared in Table 5. The response increases with the severity of the seastate and the length in compression increases from 279 to 806 m for the 500 m water depth. The upper part of the line is still in tension for all three sea states.
3000 1800 m, force moment 500 m, force moment

10 Z coord. (m)

0 -10 -5 0 Horizontal distance from top (m) 5 10

Figure 8 Base case motions together with the static orientation of the upper part of the riser for different water depths Minimum tension and maximum bending moment from a large number of regular analyses are plotted together in Figure 9. The sets of data are 25 wave cases with varying amplitude and period. 500 m water depth 8 motion cases without wave kinematics; constant motion period and varying motion shape. 500 m water depth 330 motion cases without wave kinematics; variation of water depth, motion period and amplitude. 300 1800 m water depth
3000 330 motin cases - min force max moment 8 motion cases - min force max moment 25 wave cases - min force max moment

2500

Eff. tension (kN), bending moment (kNm)

2000

1500

Force 1000

Min. eff. tension (kN), max. bending moment (kNm)

2000

500

1000

0 Moment

-500 -500

500

1000 1500 Distance from static TDP (m)

2000

2500

-1000

Figure 10 Effective tension and bending moment envelopes for 500 and 1800 m water depth. 16.5 m seastate. For all three pairs of simulations, the maximum bending moments occur during the same vessel motion cycles. The maximum bending moments occur 0.4 0.6 s earlier in 1800 m than in 500 m water depth. For the 12.0 and 16.5 m simulations, the minimum tension occurs at the same vessel motion cycles for both depths, coinciding with the maximum bending moment. The minimum tension and the maximum bending moment also coincide for the 14.5 m simulation in 500 m water depth. For the 14.5 m simulation in 1800 m water

-2000

-1

-2

-3 -4 Min. axial velocity (m/s)

-5

-6

-7

Figure 9 Minimum effective tension (red and black) and maximum bending moment (blue and brown) from 363 regular analyses. 300 1800 m water depth. The last set contains axial velocity values up to almost 7 m/s, well outside the range of likely values. The data from the

Copyright 2006 by ASME

depth, the 2nd largest tension minimum coincides with the largest bending moment maxima. Table 5 Length in compression, minimum effective tension and maximum bending moment values from 500 and 1800 m water depth. Values for the element with maximum bending moment.
HS TP Peak para m. Water depth LC Min eff. tension Max bend. mom.

In all, there are around 12 intervals for the 500 m water depth where significant compression occurs either once or several times. Three of these are in the first 600 s of the simulation. Response time series from this interval are plotted in Figure 12 together the corresponding time series from the 1800 m water depth. The time series are not identical, but are very similar. The component of the upper end motions in the static axial direction is also plotted for the two cases. The intervals with large response are seen to coincide with large axial motions.
1200 500 m 1800 m, force moment axial mot. 72.8 - 79.5 s

(m)
12.0

(s)
15.5

(-)
1.83

(m)
500 1800 500 1800 500 1800

(m)
279 335 450 543 806 679

(s)
1124 1123 75.3 1125 76.3 76.0

(kN)
-49.8 -75.4 -111.7 -151.1 -221.5 -210.4

(s) (kNm)
1125 1124 76.3 75.7 77.3 76.8 824 87
Eff. tension (kN), bending moment (kNm) 1000

14.5

16.0

2.50

96 965 1131 1133

800

600

16.5

16.5

2.94

400

200 Motion (m)

1400 force moment 1200 1 2 4 Eff. tension (kN), bending. moment (kNm) 1000 3

0 5 -200 0 -400 0 100 200 300 Time (s) 400 500 -5 600

800

600

400

Figure 12 Effective tension, bending moment and axial motion time series for 16.5 m, 16.5 s seastate. 500 and 1800 m water depths. The two largest response values in the 500 m case coincide with the two largest values of the axial velocity. The tension minima occur close to the maximum downward velocity and the bending moment maxima occur approximately one second after the tension minima. The maximum bending moment and the minimum effective tension occur during the marked downward half-cycle around 75 s for both water depths. Displacement snapshots of this half cycle for the 500 m water depth are shown in Figure 13. During this interval, the riser is laid down on the seafloor with the TDP moving 67.8 m from -478.3 to -410.5 m. The maximum bending moment occurs at the marked node 161. Compression is marked in red in Figure 13. The riser is in tension at the beginning and end of the interval and in compression while the rapid laying down is taking place. The compression reaches from the anchor up to around -250 m. At the maximum extent of compression, somewhat more than half of the line between the TDA and the top is in compression simultaneously.

200

-200 2 1 -400 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Time(s) 2500 3000 3

3500

4000

Figure 11 Effective tension and bending moment time series for 16.5 m, 16.5 s seastates, 500 m water depth. Time series taken for the element with maximum bending moment. Time series of effective tension and bending moment from the 16.5 m seastate in 500 m water depth are shown in Figure 11. Both response time series are taken at the point where the maximum bending moment occurs; i.e. somewhat above the TDA. The minimum effective tension will be found in the TDA. The four largest bending moment maxima and tension minima are marked with arrows. The two response time series show a high degree of correlation with large bending moments and compression coinciding. The largest and second largest bending moment maxima coincide with the largest and second largest tension minima while the third largest bending moment maximum coincides with the fourth tension minimum.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

-450 -400

-400

-350

-300

-450 Node 161

-100

-200 Z (m) -500 TDP -300

Node 161

-400

-500

from the complete one hour simulation. The minimum tension along the whole length of the riser length occurs in this interval. The displacements in this region are shown in the lower part of Figure 14. As in this figure, the first time step is marked in green, the time step with minimum tension in red, the time step with maximum bending moment in blue and the last step in brown. In addition, the first and last time steps with compression at the location of the maximum moment are marked in violet. The slope of the tension back towards the anchors differs depending on whether the line is being pulled taut or being pushed towards the anchor. In either case the seafloor axial spring and friction forces will counter some of the tension or compression at the TDP.
Node 161 400 72.8 s 74.2 s min tension max moment 78.2 s 79.5 s

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400 X (m)

-300

-200

-100

Figure 13 Displacement snapshots from 72.8 - 79.5 s, 16.5 m significant wave height, 500 m water depth. Compression marked in red.
Eff. tension (kN)

300

200

Snapshots of a region around the TDA and the upper end are shown in Figure 14. The circular motions at the upper end result in almost vertical motions near the seafloor. Note that scale is different on the two parts of this figure; the displacements are in fact larger near the seafloor than at the upper end. The first time step in the interval is marked in green, the time step with minimum tension in red, the time step with maximum bending moment in blue and the last step in brown. As noted before, the minimum tension occurs close to the minimum (compressive) axial velocity; i.e. near the middle of the half-cycle. The maximum bending moment occurs slightly later but still before the minimum of the axial motions.
-60 20 Top (2X) 0 -40 -20 0 72.8 s min tension max moment 79.5 s

100

-100

-200

-300 300

350

400

450 Line length (m)

500

550

600

Figure 15 Detail of effective tension snapshots from 72.8 - 79.5 s, 16.5 m significant wave height, 500 m water depth Instantaneous bending moment values are shown in Figure 16 together with the envelopes curves from the complete one hour simulation. The maximum bending moment in the 100 m above the TDA occurs in this interval. The violet lines here show the extent of compression at the first and last time step with compression at the location of the maximum moment. At the time step with the minimum tension of -221 kN (marked in red), 703 m of the riser is in compression. 301 m has compression below -150 kN and 146 m below -200 kN. The corresponding critical buckling lengths for -150 and -200 kN are 89 m and 77 m. This indicates that global buckling is a possibility. However, the duration of the compression is quite short; the compression at the bending moment peak lasts only 4 s (74.2 - 78.2 s). The waves seen in the bending moment at the time step with minimum tension (red) and maximum bending moment (blue) are ca 58 m long (measured between up- and down crossings of the 400 kNm level.) and are thus somewhat shorter than the buckling lengths.

Z (m)

-20

-400

-40 -450 Near bottom Node 161 -500 -500 -450 -400 X (m) -350 -300 -250

Figure 14 Details of displacement snapshots from 72.8 - 79.5 s, 16.5 m significant wave height, 500 m water depth Instantaneous effective tension values for the same interval are shown in Figure 15 together with the envelopes curves

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Node 161 1200 72.8 s 74.2 s min tension max moment 78.2 s 79.5 s

1000

800 Bending. moment (kNm)

600

tension and bending moment minima and maxima from the three seastates are plotted in Figure 18. Each bending moment maximum is plotted against the closest effective tension minimum and likewise for bending moment minima and effective tension maxima. For brevitys sake, such pairs of roughly concurrent maxima / minima values will hereafter be referred to as corresponding maxima
1200 16.5 m, 16.5 s 14.5 m, 16.0 s 12.0 m, 15.5 s

400

200

1100

1000
0

-200 300

350

400

450 Line length (m)

500

550

600

Bending. moment (kNm)

TDP

900

800

Figure 16 Detail of bending moment snapshots from 72.8 - 79.5 s, 16.5 m significant wave height, 500 m water depth The top motions for the 16.5 m case are shown as time traces in Figure 17. The half cycle of downward motion with the largest bending moment maxima and effective tension minima for both depths is marked in red. The static configurations and the location of the largest downward axial velocity are marked for the 500 and 1800 m cases in brown and blue, respectively. The maximum axial velocity is -2.30 and 2.35 m/s for the 500 and 1800 m cases. The shape and clockwise direction of the motions causes the maximal axial velocity to come slightly earlier in the 1800 m case, which explains the time shift seen in the response time series, ref Table 5.
72.8 - 79.5 s Static 500 m 1800 m

700

600

500

400

300 -200 0 200 Eff. tension (kN) 400 600

Figure 18 Corresponding maxima of effective tension and bending moment. Three irregular seastates, 500 m water depth. There is a very clear and strong correlation between the bending moment and effective tension values. The time series for each case are taken at the location with the highest bending moment for this simulation; elements 160, 162 and 161 for the 12.0, 14.5 ad 16.5 m sea states. The overlapping dashed lines mark the static values for the three different points while the solid line marks the limit for compression at the point with maximum bending moment. The corresponding tension minima and bending moment maxima to the axial velocity minima from the three simulations in each water depth are shown in Figure 19. The correlation between axial velocity and tension values is excellent, while the correlation between axial velocity and bending moment values is good. Values from the 1800 m depth (coloured) are seen to be in good agreement with the trends in the values from the 500 m depth (grey). The agreement is again best for the effective tension.

2 Z disp. (m)

0 -2.35 m/s -2 -2.30 m/s

-4

-6

-5

0 X disp. (m)

10

Figure 17 Top motions for the 16.5 m seastate. Static configuration and max axial velocity for 500 and 1800 m water depths. As discussed previously, the largest bending moments tend to coincide with the largest compression values. Effective

Copyright 2006 by ASME

1400 500 m,16.5 m, 16.5 s 14.5 m, 16.0 s 12.0 m, 15.5 s 1800 m,16.5 m, 16.5 s 14.5 m, 16.0 s 12.0 m, 15.5 s
Min. eff. tension (kN), max. bending moment (kNm) 1000

1200 Min. eff. tension (kN), max. bending moment (kNm)

1000

Regular - min force max moment Irregular: 16.5 m, 16.5 s 14.5 m, 16.0 s 12.0 m, 15.5 s

800

600

500

400

200

-200

-400 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Min. axial velocity (m/s) -2 -2.5

-500 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Max. axial velocity (m/s) -2 -2.5 -3

Figure 19 Corresponding maxima of effective tension / bending moment and axial velocity for 500 m depth (grey) and 1800 m depth (coloured) Figure 18 and Figure 19 show a clear correlation between axial velocity and response and between effective tension and bending moment in the TDA. Large bending moment maxima and effective tension minima coincide with large downward (negative) axial velocity values. And the largest bending moment maxima coincide with the largest instances of compression. The effective tension minima and bending moment maxima from the 500 m water depth are plotted together with values from the regular wave and motion analyses in 300 1800 m water depth in Figure 20. The irregular simulations have a maximum downward axial velocity of 2.30 m/s, so values for velocities above 3 m/s are omitted here. The effective tension minima and the bending moment maxima corresponding to the ten largest axial velocity minima in the 16.5 m seastate at 1800 m water depth are summarized in Table 6. The correlation between the axial velocity minima and the effective tension minima is excellent, with the first eight values coming in identical order. The seven largest bending moment maxima are found among the maxima corresponding to the ten largest axial velocity minima. The correlation is, however, not as good as for the effective tension minima. In particular, the sixth and twelfth largest bending moments are found corresponding to the second and fifth largest velocity minima. The corresponding downward motions are found to end at moderate negative axial displacements; -4.17 and -3.68 m compared to an average of 5.08 m for the ten largest velocity minima. The motions around the second largest axial velocity minima may be found in Figure 17; the top goes from maximum horizontal displacement, on the far right of the time traces, and then in a shallow curve to about 60 % of the maximum vertical displacement. It is here close to the motions following the fifth largest axial velocity minima.

t Figure 20 Corresponding maxima of effective tension / bending moment and axial velocity, three irregular simulations (500 m) and 363 regular analyses (300 1800 m water depth).

Table 6 The ten largest axial velocity minima and the corresponding response maxima / minima. 16.5 m seastate, 1800 m water depth Axial velocity Min axial Min Max minima displ. effective bending tension moment
(-) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (s) 76.0 2910. 245.2 2666. 1126. 3234. 3374. 2860. 59.2 1112. (m/s) -2.35 -2.31 -2.27 -2.25 -2.24 -2.09 -2.08 -2.07 -2.04 -2.04 (-) 5 21 6 7 41 4 2 1 10 3 (m) -5.36 -4.17 -5.29 -5.22 -3.68 -5.40 -5.57 -5.59 -4.94 -5.55 (-) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 (kN) -210. -189. -172. -169. -167. -126. -123. -113. -104. -103. (-) 1 6 2 3 12 5 4 7 10 9 (kNm) 1133.0 988.5 1053.7 1034.2 922.0 1004.4 1005.9 984.2 946.7 957.4

Effective tension minima samples and bending moment maxima samples are compared for the two water depths in Figure 21. Thin lines are used for the 500 m water depth and normal lines for the 1800 m water depth, with blue, violet and red colour marking the 12.0, 14.5 and 16.5 m seastates. The response samples consist of one maximum / minimum between each up-crossing of the mean level; i.e. global maxima. In addition, effective tension minima that are below 5 % of the standard deviation were removed from the sample as a significant number of very small fluctuations were found, particularly in the 500 m water depth cases. The normalized minima / maxima samples are quite similar for the two different water depths. The tails of the minima / maxima samples show a trend of increasing normalized

Copyright 2006 by ASME

minima / maxima with increasing wave height. This trend is clearest in the bending moment maxima.
12.0 m 14.5 m 16.5 m Rayleigh

0.9999 0.9990 Probability

0.9900

Moment 0.9000 Eff. tension

0.5000

0.1000

The standard deviations and the normalized minima / maxima from the two water depths are compared in Table 7. The standard deviation of the axial velocity increases by 6 - 7 % from the 500 to the 1800 m water depth. The response standard deviations increase by 6 9 %. A clear trend is not found between the single largest normalized minimum / maximum in each simulation. To investigate the correlation between the realizations of axial velocity and response, four new one hour simulations were made for the 16.5 m seastate in 1800 m water depth. The combined maxima / minima samples from the four new simulations are plotted together with the response samples from each simulation in Figure 22. As expected, the minimum / maximum response varies considerably between realizations. The minimum effective tension varies from -179 to -410 kN and the maximum bending moment from 1065 to 1419 kNm.
Rayleigh Sample

-6

-4

-2

0 2 Response standard deviations

Figure 21 Minima / maxima samples from the 500 (thin lines) and 1800 m (thick lines) depths. Effective tension minima smaller than 5 % of the standard deviation are filtered out.
Probability

0.9999 0.9990

Table 7 Response standard deviation, minimum / maximum response and minimum / maximum normalized response. 500 and 1800 m water depths.
Standard dev. 500 m Axial velocity 12.0 m, 15.5 s 14.5 m, 16.0 s 16.5 m, 16.5 s Effectiv e tension 12.0 m, 15.5 s 14.5 m, 16.0 s 16.5 m, 16.5 s Bending moment 12.0 m, 15.5 s 14.5 m, 16.0 s 16.5 m, 16.5 s (m/s) 0.514 0.633 0.726 1800 m (m/s) 0.551 0.676 0.772 Min / max 500 m (m/s) -1.77 -1.99 -2.30 1800 m (m/s) -1.88 -2.17 -2.35 Norm. min/max 500 m (-) -3.44 -3.15 -3.16 1800 m (-) -3.41 -3.21 -3.05

0.9900

0.9000

0.5000 Eff. tension 0.1000 Bending moment

-500

500 Eff. tension (kN), bending. moment (kNm)

1000

1500

Figure 22 Response maxima / minima samples (red) and corresponding Rayleigh distributions (grey) for four new realizations (thin lines) and combined (thick lines). 16.5 m seastate, 1800 m water depth. The variation in response between the simulations is caused by the variation between the realizations of the wave spectra. Can the variation between the response realizations be predicted in advance? The wave elevation time series are found using FT with deterministic amplitudes and random phase angles for each of the equally-spaced frequencies. This results in all of the generated time series having identical spectra and standard deviations. This also applies to time series found by a linear transformation and derivation of the wave elevation, e.g. the axial velocity time series.

(kN) 48.4 66.2 82.5

(kN) 52.8 72.0 89.0

(kN) -49.8 -111.7 -221.5

(kN) -75.4 -151.1 -210.4

(-) -5.22 -4.77 -5.14

(-) -5.28 -4.94 -4.65

(kNm) 55.6 71.9 87.3

(kNm) 59.5 76.4 92.2

(kNm) 824.1 966.7 1131.

(kNm) 869.7 965.0 1133.

(-) 6.02 6.57 7.29

(-) 6.39 6.16 6.93

10

Copyright 2006 by ASME

1750 Axial vel. Axial vel. min. Eff tension Bending moment Bending moment

1500 force moment axial vel

1500

Eff. tension (kN), bending. moment (kNm)

Eff. tension (kN), bending moment (kNm)

1250

1000

D B

1000 Axial velocity (m/s)

750 -2 500 Axial velocity 250 -2.5

500

0 Eff. tension

-3

5 -500 0 -5

-250

-500 org A B Realization C D

1750

1800

1850 Time(s)

1950

2000

Figure 23 Minimum axial velocity and effective tension and maximum bending moment. 16.5 m seastate, 1800 m water depth. The minimum axial velocity and effective tension and the maximum bending moment from the five different simulations are shown in Figure 23. The ten largest axial velocity minima in each realization are marked with grey crosses. The variation in response between the realizations clearly follows the variation in minimum axial velocity. As the axial velocity time series may be generated directly from the wave spectrum, vessel motion transfer function, vessel coordinates and static angle; i.e. without dynamic simulations; they may be used to concentrate simulation efforts to where they will be most useful. The use of short simulations of intervals where extreme response is expected has previously been applied to tensioned and flexible risers (Passano 1994). Short simulations were therefore carried our around each of the ten largest axial velocity minima in the four new realizations. These are marked with asterisks in Figure 23 and range from 2.31 to -2.91 m/s. Each simulation started with a 10 s clutch in which vessel motions and wave loading were reduced. This was followed by 18 s of simulation centered on the selected axial velocity minimum, resulting in individual simulation lengths of 28 s. Four short simulations were carried out in intervals of realization B, three in C and three in D. The total simulation length was thus 280 s or 4.7 minutes. This is just under 2 % of the total length of the four complete simulations. Axial velocity and response from the simulations around the three largest axial velocity minima (colored) are compared to results from the corresponding complete one hour simulations (grey) in Figure 24. The response is very similar after the clutch. The differences may be reduced by increasing the clutch somewhat in the short simulations. Reducing the simulation time step in both simulations may also help.

Figure 24 28 s simulations around the three largest axial velocity minima. Realization D (left) and B (right). 16.5 m seastate, 1800 m water depth. Response maxima / minima samples from the simulations are compared in Figure 25. The effective tension and bending moment values from the short simulations are plotted assuming that they are the ten largest in a set with one response values per axial velocity minima. The sample from the ten short simulations (blue crosses) are in quite good agreement with the upper part of the samples from complete simulations (red lines).
Rayleigh Sample: 238.6 min 4.7 min

0.9999 0.9990 Probability

0.9900

0.9000

0.5000 Eff. tension 0.1000 Bending moment

-500

500 Eff. tension (kN), bending. moment (kNm)

1000

1500

Figure 25 Response maxima / minima samples from complete four hour simulation and from 4.7 min simulation. 16.5 m seastate, 1800 m water depth. The 10 largest effective tension minima and the 8 largest bending moment maxima do in fact correspond with the ten largest axial velocity minima. The differences in the samples are thus primarily due to the simulation accuracy.

11

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Motion (m)

The sample from the short simulations gives excellent estimates of the tails from the complete sample. These tail estimates may be combined with the samples from the initial one hour simulation to give estimates of the complete four hour response samples.

CONCLUSIONS Regular analyses were found to be very useful in investigating the sensitivity of the extreme response to key parameters; e.g. damping, motion characteristics; and to analysis assumptions; e.g. including or omitting wave kinematics. Regular analyses may thus be used to gain an improved understanding of the behaviour of the system. This may then be used to concentrate the nonlinear stochastic simulations to where they are most useful. For the catenary riser cases studied, the effective tension and bending moment in and near the TDA were strongly correlated with the prescribed top end motions. The strongest correlation was found to be with the velocity component in the axial direction of the riser. In particular, large downward compressive velocities gave an almost immediate extreme response at the lower end. Simulations of short intervals containing the largest axial velocity minima were found to give very good estimates of the extreme response. The presented response samples from 4.7 minutes of simulation are in good agreement with the tails of the response samples from four hours of stochastic simulation. In future work, the clear trends found between the prescribed axial velocity at the upper end and the TDA response will be used to estimate individual response values, complete response samples and the underlying response distributions. A strategy to combine these estimated distributions with simulated values will be investigated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported here was carried out at CeSOS (the Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology) during a post doc. position in 2005. The support of CeSOS is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES Fylling, I, Larsen, C.M., Sdahl, N., Passano, E., Bech, A., Engseth, A.G., Lie, E. and Ormberg, H., 1998, Riflex USERS MANUAL, MARINTEK report, Trondheim, Norway Passano E., 1994, "Efficient Analysis of Nonlinear Slender Marine Structures", Dr.ing. thesis, MTA Report 1994:99, Division of Marine Structures, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim

12

Copyright 2006 by ASME