OTC 15383 Design Guideline for Riser Collision

Arve Johan Kalleklev, Kim J. Mrk & Nils Sdahl, Det Norske Veritas Magne K. Nygrd & Agnes Marie Horn, Aker Kvaerner Technology
Copyright 2003, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2003 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 58 May 2003. This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or officers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.

Abstract The paper describes the main topics and findings of the JIP Management of Riser Contact, performed as a co-operation between Aker Kvaerner Technology and Det Norske Veritas, and sponsored by 5 major oil companies. The overall objective is to establish a design practise that properly accounts for contact between top-tensioned risers in operational conditions typical for the major deepwater locations. The results, findings and recommendations for design and analysis are embedded in a Design Guideline document, reflecting industry consensus on methodology for engineering analysis and design for riser collision. The Design Guideline document constitutes the first steps towards a formal DNV Recommended Practise document, and includes a state-of-theart introduction to the main building stones for riser collision assessment. So far, design codes have not allowed riser collision under normal operational or even extreme conditions. In the Design Guideline document, riser collisions are allowed provided that the riser array is subjected to state-of-the art analyses and sufficient fatigue (FLS) and ultimate (ULS) capacity are documented. The paper discusses the main items regarding riser interference comprising hydrodynamic interaction, local response of risers in contact and acceptance criteria for design. Introduction A more accurate tool for assessing riser collision has become increasingly more important when oil and gas exploration offshore moves to deeper water. The risk of collision between marine risers increases with increasing riser length. Collisions may be damaging to the risers, both from a high cycle and low cycle fatigue point of view if the collisions lead to excessive plastic displacements. The current design practice is that riser collisions are not allowed under normal or even extreme conditions. Top-tension

and riser spacing are the primary parameters for design of riser arrays against collision. The costs related to increased toptension and/or riser spacing at floater termination may be very high due to possible implications on floater- and tensioner system design. Hence, riser collision has become a critical issue for cost effective design of deep-water explorations utilising top-tensioned riser arrays. Det Norske Veritas and Aker Kvaerner Technology have prepared a project Design Guideline [1] for the Joint Industry Project Management of Riser Contact. The document is based upon and being an extension of a former DNV report prepared for the Norwegian Deepwater Program [2]. The Design Guideline includes a state-of-the-art introduction to the main building stones for riser collision assessment, comprising: global analyses with hydrodynamic interaction model; local analyses, and acceptance criteria. The safety philosophy and design principles adopted in DNV-OS-F201 Dynamic Risers [3] apply. However, any recognised code considering the set of limit states discussed in the Design Guideline is in principle acceptable. The basic principles are in agreement with most recognised codes and reflect state-of-the-art industry practice and latest research. The governing development philosophy may be summarised as: a modular approach should be adopted in order to ensure easy incorporation of future research in specific areas; sufficiently conservative approaches should be applied when needed; e.g. due to high uncertainty of the calculations or if the consequence of failure is large, and the approaches of the Design Guideline should embody all the important aspects for design of risers in contact. In order to derive a complete framework for feasibility and practical design, the following topics need to be considered: methodologies for riser collision analyses; overall framework and design approach; safety philosophy; environmental conditions and loads; analysis strategies and hydrodynamic interaction models;

OTC 15383

requirements to local analysis and to structural modelling; requirements to fatigue analysis; qualification issues, and acceptance criteria and fundamental requirements. The overall objective of the Design Guideline is to outline a methodology for engineering analysis, and to provide rational design criteria and guidance for assessment of riser collision. Riser collisions are allowed provided that the riser array is subjected to state-of-the-art analyses and sufficient fatigue (FLS) and ultimate (ULS) capacities are documented. Riser collision comprises complex physical phenomena, not yet fully understood, and research is ongoing. The aim is to achieve and document the industry consensus as per today. Sufficiently conservative approaches should be applied with focus on practical design procedures. The scope is confined to environmental conditions where direct wave loads are assumed insignificant for riser collisions. Note that wave loads always should be considered, but detailed analysis, at present, are feasible for current only. Hence, the riser collision assessment is assumed based upon the selected current profile and floater motion. Physical Problem Description Top-tensioned risers operated from SPARs and TLPs are arranged in clusters of vertical- or near vertical risers denoted riser arrays. The number of individual risers in a riser array may be 20 or more. The individual risers in a riser array are subjected to loads from waves, current and forced wave-frequent and lowfrequent floater motions. Whether collision between two adjacent risers will occur or not, depend on many factors such as: loading environment; hydrodynamic interaction comprising wake induced oscillations (WIO) including shielding effects and vortex induced vibrations (VIV); riser spacing at floater and seafloor terminations; top-tension, and different dynamic properties of the risers due to differences in mass, diameter, effective weight, applied top-tension or effective tension-distribution etc. Significant effort has been applied to investigate riser collision behaviour in steady current; see e.g. the work of Huse [4 & 5], Huse & Kleiven [6] or Kavanagh et al. [7], while less information is available regarding collisions due to wave loading; see e.g. Duggal & Niedzwecki [8 & 9]. In addition, numerous experiments are performed to study hydrodynamic interaction for arrays of cylinder sections; for an overview, reference is made to Blevins [10] and Zdravkovich [11]. It has not been possible to find published experimental results on collision behaviour due to combined loading from waves, current and floater motions. Classification of Hydrodynamic Interaction. The overall conclusion from the referred experiments is that hydrodynamic interaction is an essential issue for prediction of potential riser interference in riser arrays. Alternative formulations are

available with significant variations with regard to computational efforts, accuracy, generality etc. Undisturbed fluid flow, where interaction effects from adjacent risers are ignored, is applied in the simplest approach. This modelling alternative corresponds to traditional clearance analysis used for assessment of whether collision is a potential problem for the actual design or not. Numerical fluid flow models (CFD) aim to model and solve all physics involved in the investigated phenomenon by solving the coupled equations of the structure and the fluid. Numerical fluid flow models allow for an advanced description of hydrodynamic loading including interaction effects from adjacent risers. Due to the enormous computational efforts involved, the CFD approach is presently not applicable in practical global riser analyses. However, verification analyses of rather simple configurations using 2D CFD strip formulation are feasible. Parametric models have been introduced for simplified representation of the hydrodynamic interaction effects between adjacent risers with acceptable computational efforts. These models have in common that the fluid flow and/or forces on the individual risers are described in terms of a few characteristic parameters that have to be determined by model tests or 2D CFD calculations of cylinder sections. The main benefit is that the parametric representation allows for implementation in global analysis computer tools without significant increase in computation time. For global analyses established for riser collision purposes, parametric models are recommended. At present, a parametric model is the only practical approach for design purposes. WIO may be considered as an instability phenomenon caused by changes in mean fluid forces in the wake resulting in self-started dynamic oscillations. The VIV motion response is typically in the order of 1-2 diameters while the WIO are much larger; motion ranges of 30-40 diameters are reported from model tests in steady current [5]. For steady current, this rather complex motion pattern indicates that the gross riser displacements are governed by WIO. WIO will therefore be decisive for whether the riser will collide or not. VIV is found to contribute to WIO, particularly through the magnified drag forces due to cross-flow vibrations [12]. VIV contributes substantially to the collision velocity and will hence be important for prediction of the impact velocity. The WIO part of the impact velocity component may be of similar magnitude in some cases. Hence, both WIO and VIV should be accounted for when estimating the relative impact velocities. Structural Response. Structural interference is a complex phenomenon involving different time scales. The initial impact duration between two bare risers experiencing contact is typically a small fraction of a second. The maximum collision load effects normally occur at the very beginning of the impact. Only a small segment of the riser participates to the local collision load effects such as stresses and strains. The peak stresses, and the number of peaks, are strongly affected by local dynamics of the risers. The local dynamics shall be established for each set of risers that are evaluated for riser collision.

OTC 15383

The riser tube is significantly stiffer in circumferential direction than in longitudinal direction. Hence, the hoop stress will be larger than the longitudinal stresses. The structural response is highly centralised around the contact point both in circumferential and longitudinal directions [13]. Coating might effectively be used as a bumper to reduce the peak stresses [13]. However, coating must be designed to withstand the impact that might occur over the lifetime. Structural Damage. A direct impact between a flange and a pipe may induce structural damage such as fatigue, a dent or a gouge. High cycle or low cycle fatigue damage is governed by the number of loading cycles. Each direct impact involves typically 4-5 peaks [13]; e.g. with a collision event approximately every 10th second, the number of imposed cyclic loading in one hour exceeds 1000. This means that the fatigue life, see Figure 1, might be consumed in one extreme condition. In view of this, it is concluded that plastic stresses are not allowed in extreme (ULS) conditions. Further, dents may lead to failure in one single extreme condition; accordingly, repeated dents are only allowed in accidental (ALS) conditions involving a limited number of impacts. Abrasion and wear due to riser kissing should also be considered and accounted for. If coating is relevant, qualification testing and establishing relevant SN-curves are required. Design Parameters. Top-tension and riser spacing are the primary design parameters. The costs related to increased toptension and/or riser spacing at floater termination may be very high and other design changes may be considered to reduce the riser interference problem: 1. synchronisation of the tensioners to give equal payout for all risers in a riser array; 2. introduction of bumpers along critical areas of the risers to prevent damage due to clashing, or 3. introduction of spacer frames to keep the risers apart at critical locations. Conclusions from model tests are that the first approach can be applied to reduce the probability of collision in steady current [6]. However, the behaviour of the equal pay-out principle is presently not documented in case of loading due to waves and floater motion. Further development is needed to establish the second and third alternative as feasible design strategies. Practical considerations such as operational procedures may limit the applicability of the first and third approach, while the second seams more feasible from that point of view. Design Approach The potential for riser interference should be checked during the early stages of the design process. The geometric system arrangement such as riser spacing and top-tension may be modified accordingly if required. Any feasible design approach may be categorized into: no collision allowed, or collision allowed.

Hence, a first step is to determine whether collisions are likely to occur or not. If no collisions are allowed, it must be documented by proper analyses that the probability of riser collisions is very low, e.g. by clearance and on-set criteria. Screening analyses using a conservative approach to identify critical conditions or configurations imply use of simplified conservative environmental and structural modelling. Note that screening is only applied to frame the problem in order to identify if more advanced analyses and methods must be employed. On-set of collisions criteria, which may be used in a situation where collisions are not allowed, involve: conservative environmental modelling, and wake instability criteria. Collision allowed criteria, which require detailed analyses of identified critical conditions using state-of-the-art interference analyses, should involve: global analyses utilising a recognised hydrodynamic interaction model; explicit collision induced load effect model based on a-priori local finite element analyses or an implicit collision model, and dedicated 2D CFD calculations or dedicated laboratory tests carried out in order to establish hydrodynamic interaction coefficients; detailed criticality assessments with explicit limitstate design criteria. If collisions are allowed, it must be documented that the structural integrity is not endangered; i.e. sufficient fatigue (FLS) and ultimate (ULS) capacity should be ensured. It is distinguished between two design options: 1. In-frequent Collisions. Riser interference with plastic response is only allowed in accidental (ALS) conditions. It must be documented by proper analyses that riser collisions are a rare event, and that the risers structural capacities are sufficient. 2. Frequent Collisions. Riser interference with elastic response is allowed in extreme conditions (ULS), e.g. with a return period in excess of 1 year. Detailed collision analyses must be conducted to document sufficient fatigue and ultimate capacities. The design options are of increasing complexity. However, detailed riser interference analyses are required for documentation of the riser capacity with regard to interference for both design options. Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria discussed herein comprise: on-set of collision; high- and low cycle fatigue; dents; ovalisation, and additional requirements. In addition, a set of requirements must be dedicated for qualification of coating, if relevant. On-set of Collision. Historically, see e.g. API RP 2RD [14], the design criterion against riser interference typically comprises assessment of the required spacing to avoid

OTC 15383

collision. The quasi-static model should only be applied as a screening tool. The downstream riser can become unstable as the current reaches a critical speed. Hence, the safety margin is not proportional to riser spacing even for a single current condition. Wu et al. [15] proposed an on-set criterion for wake induced instabilities, assuming two identical cylinders in steady uniform flow with a typical riser spacing of 15 times riser diameter. Similar onset criterion is proposed by Blevins [10], originally developed for cylinders in air, but possible to expand to be valid for water, as well. The on-set of collision criterion may be used with caution for assessing if riser collision can occur in situations where collisions are not allowed. However, it requires qualification testing of the empirical parameters involved. High Cycle Fatigue. The fatigue damage assessment is to be based on the accumulation law by Miner-Palmgren. The total damage may be estimated as follows:
D fat =
j i

There are no available SN-curves specifically developed for dented pipes. A central issue is whether the local material damage during denting has an adverse effect on the subsequent fatigue behaviour. According to standard industry practice the acceptance criterion for extreme impact loads refers to an acceptable dent size, see e.g. DNV-OS-F101 [17]. The present dent criterion is relevant in case of in-frequent collisions; i.e. in an ALS condition.
F = CY t2 D t

.................................................(2)

and D is the outer pipe diameter. Most of the force-dent relationships found in the literature correspond to trawl impact and C is a constant depending on the type of impact; see e.g. Mellem et al. [18] for further references. Other Considerations. A large number of additional limitstates may become relevant and requires specific attention. Some of these such as e.g. coating, strakes, bare pipes, girth welds, connectors and fracture in annulus are discussed in the Design Guideline [1]. Design Procedure Detailed modelling of riser collisions requires that a number of simplifications are introduced and evaluated by the designer. Among other things, this implies that: a riser pair and environmental description can be conservatively defined; potential collisions in terms of intensity and distribution along the risers can be predicted with a global analysis tool utilising a recognised hydrodynamic interaction model; dedicated model tests are carried out in order to verify and calibrate the global analysis tool including the hydrodynamic interaction model; the relationship between relative collision velocity and relevant pipe stress components is estimated using a recognised finite element approach; fatigue analysis is based on SN-curves established from realistic and relevant laboratory test scenarios, and project specific details such as coating, bumpers and strakes are tested for qualification of lifetime endurance. The main aspects of a riser collision assessment, together with essential parameters and main results, are illustrated in Figure 4. Conservative modelling at all steps require e.g.: a conservative environmental model in terms of current profile, distribution and directionality; if collisions are allowed, a conservative assessment of the long-term distribution of the impact velocity in time and space, and a conservative assessment of local response for contact between bare risers or between connector and riser.

Y is the yield stress, t is the wall thickness, is the dent depth

where F is the impact load experienced by the pipe wall,

n j (Si ) N j (Si )

Pj ....................................... (1)

where nj(Si) is the total number of stress cycles with range Si, and Nj(Si) is the number of cycles to failure at stress range Si due to event j. The damage due to event j is accumulated and multiplied with the probability of occurrence Pj. is the allowable damage ratio. Relevant SN-curves should be selected based on: constructional details; weld details and tolerances; stress concentration factors from concentricity, thickness variations, out of roundness and eccentricity, and environment such as air, seawater or cathodic protection. The following SN-curves are recommended, see Figure 2: Base material B1 Longitudinal welds C1 Girth welds loaded in parallel to the weld C Girth welds loaded normal to the weld F1 DNV-RP-C203 [16] is recommended for guidance. Figure 3 indicates possible scenarios for impacts with different location of the longitudinal weld and the girth weld. According to DNV-OS-F201 [3], SN-curve F1 is recommended for location b and d, while SN-curve D is relevant for location a. In the contact area, the surface material will undergo a certain strain hardening, which will influence the fatigue properties at location c. It is accordingly recommended to generate a relevant SN-curve by testing for this section of the pipe. Low Cycle Fatigue. In order to establish relevant acceptance criteria, appropriate calculation models must be used both in terms of stress estimation and crack growth prediction. The current state-of-the-art is mainly limited to longitudinal dents and internal pressure only. Hence, there is still a necessity to generate, eventually modify, models, which with sufficient accuracy is describing the prescribed imperfections.

OTC 15383

Selection of the two most critical adjacent risers in a riser array is not straightforward. A conservative, though realistic, selection is required. The procedure of API RP 2 RD, accounting for hydrodynamic shielding effects in a quasi-static model, may be applied to screen the riser array for selecting the riser pair. However, due to the wake-induced instabilities as reported by e.g. Wu et al. [15 & 19], the two risers with smallest gap in a quasi-static model may not necessarily be the two most critical risers. Global Analysis Model. The purpose of global riser analysis is to predict global structural response, e.g. bending moments, effective tension, displacements and curvature, in a stationary environmental load conditions. Such analyses are normally performed by tailor made finite element computer codes using a global cross-sectional description; i.e. 3D beam elements with specified bending-, axial- and torsional properties are used for modelling. Reference is made to DNV-OS-F201 [3]. For direct modelling of riser interference the global dynamic analyses should include, see Figure 4: a hydrodynamic interaction model, and a global collision model modelling the global rebound effects of the collision. It is noted that linearization of the external loading as required by frequency-domain techniques, not is applicable to hydrodynamic models incorporating interaction effects from adjacent risers. Obviously, a non-linear time-domain formulation is required, and time-domain techniques will consequently be the primary approach for riser collision analyses. The applied load formulation should emphasis on describing the gross riser motion governed by WIO properly. Hydrodynamic interaction effects on the upstream riser may conservatively be omitted. Hence, the upstream riser may be treated as an isolated cylinder. WIO are more or less unaffected by VIV except for through the magnified drag forces. In order to estimate the drag amplification due to VIV, a separate VIV assessment is needed. The upstream cylinder may be treated as an isolated cylinder. Representative drag amplification is based on the estimated VIV amplitude. As a conservative estimate, a value slightly on the high side is recommended. For the downstream riser, it is conservative to disregard possible drag amplification due to VIV. Collision Parameters. The collision parameters in time and space as output from the global analysis comprises, see Figure 4: relative velocity at impact; location of impact, and collision intensity along the riser. At a section along the riser, the relative velocity is typically defined by:
U rel = V2 V1 ........................................................... (3)

The local xy co-ordinate system is defined with the x-axis going through the centre of both cylinders, i.e. the relative impact velocity is defined along the local x-axis and the tangent relative velocity along the local y-axis. The impact angle, or kissing angle, is defined as

= arctan

Ut ............................................................(4) Un

where Ut is defined as the tangential relative velocity at time of impact, see Figure 5. The relative impact velocity, Un, and impact angle, , is applied to establish the local stress responses. Global Collision Model. In global analysis, it is in general much easier to obtain reliable estimates of relative impact velocities than structural peak forces during impact. The latter would require accurate modelling of the pipe shell stiffness together with an adaptive time integration procedure capable of handling the different time scales of global dynamics and structural impacts. It is distinguished between two approaches, where the structural collision in connection with global analyses is treated differently. The most complete and complex approach is to include an integrated collision model simulating the structural contact in time-domain. At each contact event, the local finite element mesh is refined and the stresses and strains are estimated implicitly. Using such an approach, the global analyses will be rather time-consuming and involve numerical challenges, which require special treatment. A less advanced approach is to simply include the rebound effects, i.e. keeping the risers physically apart, in the timedomain simulations. The impact velocities and angles are logged for post-processing each collision event, and the local collision parameters are ignored during the simulations. This latter approach is more flexible, efficient, and therefore recommended for design purposes. In addition, it enables that the VIV component of the impact velocity, which can be of significant importance, may be accounted for. In a post-processing tool, the collision parameters, which are known from the global analysis, are given as input to a local collision model. In the local collision model, the VIV velocity component of both upstream and downstream cylinder may be accounted for in e.g. a Monte-Carlo simulation. For each collision event from the global analysis, a number of simulations are carried out. Statistical parameters, such as mean value, standard deviation and skewness, are estimated for establishing a Gaussian distribution of the collision parameters. As output the impact velocity in time and space consisting both the VIV and WIO parts, are given as input to fatigue calculations. Fatigue Calculations. Generally, the fatigue damage shall be based on a long-term description of current profiles, see Figure 4. Through a global analysis long-term descriptions of relative impact velocities in time and space are established, and based on local analysis the elastic stress ranges with corresponding number of cycles are estimated. The damage from VIV and

where it is assumed that the velocities of the cylinders, V1 and V2, are given in a global XY co-ordinate system, see Figure 5. The relative impact velocity denoted Un in the figure is defined as the normal centre-to-centre impact velocity component.

OTC 15383

impact stresses should be addressed separately and added conservatively to other fatigue damage contributions. With decreasing conservatism, the design approach regarding fatigue should be carried out as illustrated in Figure 7. The location of collisions may conservatively be assumed to occur in connection with a weld. The methodology may be summarised as: 1. Identify hot spot areas. Assume all collision within a certain longitudinal and circumferential sector hitting the hot spot as direct hits. 2. If the simplest and most conservative approach is not acceptable, assume circumferential distribution of the hits. Use an estimate of the distribution of hits, and add all hits within a zone for which the stress contribution at the hot spot is significant. 3. If the second approach neither is acceptable, decrease the conservatism by increasing the complexity of the analysis by assuming both circumferential and longitudinal distribution of the hits. 4. If none of the above approaches are acceptable, coating might be considered to reduce the stress response. If detailed information of the distribution of the hits is not available, a geometric distribution may be applied. The structural responses of the hits are local, and the hits anywhere in the zone should assume maximum stress response. Comments on Local Analyses Local non-linear dynamic analyses shall be performed in order to capture the local dynamics of the riser at an impact. The result of the analyses shall be the peak stresses, stress ranges and typically number of stress peaks in one collision event. The analysis should be performed for a range of different relative impact velocities and impact angles. The resulting load effects further depend on the pipe-wall deformation properties. The participating mass, see e.g. Li & Morrison [20], depend strongly on the impact duration and will normally be implicit in the solution and not an inputparameter. The extreme stresses in a pipe occur for a direct hit. The two risers hit each other such that a line going through the centre of each riser will also intersect with the pipe at the point where contact is made. The collision-induced stresses are found to be proportional to the relative impact velocity and quadratic with the impact angle [13]. Response Surface. Based on finite elements analysis, a response surface for stress component ij may be derived as function of relative impact velocity and impact angle as follows:

For determining this response surface, a series of finite element analyses need to be carried out. In general, these analyses can be limited to series of analyses with given impact velocity for three different impact angles. A 2nd order curve through these points can then be established. Requirements to the Finite Element Model. The requirements to the finite element model may be summarized as: The extent of the 3-D element model shall be large enough such that the local dynamics giving the peak stresses is not impaired by boundary conditions. The type of element should either be shell or solid volume elements with contact modelling between the impacting surfaces. The mesh density shall be fine enough to capture the local dynamics as well as giving the proper measure for the shell bending stresses in the pipe wall. Generally, sensitivity analyses shall be performed in order to verify the model. Contact modelling shall be made with a method, which implies little sensitivity to the peak stresses. A Lagrange multiplier technique meets this criterion, as this solves the equation defining no intrusion between the two contacting surfaces. Other methods, like the penalty stiffness method may be applied if the selected contact spring stiffness is documented to yield satisfactory contact stresses. A conservative approach for mass modelling is to apply the entire mass as an equivalent mass to the outer pipe wall. More detailed and less conservative way of applying the masses may be done as long as they are properly documented. The time stepping procedure needs to be sufficient small to provide reliable results for the peak stresses. Typically, the rise time for the peak stresses at the area of impact is in the order of 1 millisecond. A convergence study should be performed in order to evaluate the expected accuracy of the results in the applied model. This type of time-domain non-linear dynamics are fairly time consuming, the mesh density needs for practical purposes to be limited to a level that gives satisfactory results. Conclusions The work presented herein has constituted the first steps towards a formal DNV Recommended Practice document and includes a discussion of the main building stones needed for performing riser interference assessments. Based on the work carried out within the Aker/DNV JIP Management of Riser Contact a framework and methodology for engineering analysis and design of riser collision is outlined. Due to the large prevailing uncertainties involved in the prediction of collisions and collision induced load effects, the presumable conservative recommendations given herein may require some verification work on a case by case basis. The extreme stress as well as the stress range response during an impact event between two risers may be described well with a simplified response surface. This allows for a semi-explicit expression for the stress ranges based on relative

ij (U n , ) ............................................................... (5)
The form of the response surface will typically take the shape of a general 2nd order polynomial in the plane of kissing angle and stress response. In the plane of impact velocity and stress response, the relation will be approximately linear [13]. Figure 6 shows a response surface plotted in a 3D diagram.

OTC 15383

impact velocity and impact angle. The response surface is well suited for being applied in e.g. fatigue calculations. The typical extreme responses will occur at a direct hit. Acknowledgements The work described in this paper was carried out as a part of the Joint Industry Project Management of Riser Contact sponsored by Conoco, BP, Chevron, Texaco and ExxonMobil. Nomenclature C = constant D = diameter Dfat = fatigue damage factor F = impact load nj(Si) = number of stress cycles with range Si Nj(Si) = number of cycles to failure with stress range Si Pj = probability of occurrence t = thickness Un = relative impact velocity Urel = relative velocity Ut = tangential relative impact velocity V1 = velocity of cylinder 1 V2 = velocity of cylinder 2 xy = local co-ordinate system XY = global co-ordinate system = dent depth = stress ij = stress range for component ij = allowable damage ratio = impact angle Y = yield stress References
1. DNV Report No. 2002-1124. Design Guideline for Riser Collision Revision No. 3, August 2002. 2. DNV Report No. 2000-3239. NDP Riser Array Interference Framework and Design Methodology Revision No. 2, April 2001. 3. DNV-OS-F201 Dynamic Risers, January 2001. 4. Huse, E. Interaction in Deep-Sea Riser Arrays OTC paper no. 7237, 1993.

5. Huse, E. Experimental Investigation of Deep Sea Riser Interaction OTC paper no. 8070, 1996. 6. Huse, E. & Kleiven, G. Impulse and Energy in Deepsea Riser collisions Owing to Wake Interference OTC paper no. 11993, 2000. 7. Kavanagh, W. K., Imas, L., Thompson, H. & Lee, L. Genesis Spar Risers: Interference Assessment and VIV Model Testing OTC paper no. 11992, 2000. 8. Duggal, A. S., Niedzwecki, J. M. An Experimental Study of Tendon/Riser Pairs in Waves OTC paper no. 7239, 1993. 9. Duggal, A. S., Niedzwecki, J. M. Regular and Random Wave Interaction with a Long Flexible Cylinder Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Glasgow, 1993. 10. Blevins, R. D. Flow induced vibrations Krieger publishing company, 2nd edition reprinted 2001. 11. Zdravkovich, M. M. Flow Around Circular Cylinders, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, Volume 1, 1997. 12. DNV Report No. 2002-1122 Management of Riser Contact Task 2. Simplified Global Analysis Model, Revision No. 2, August 2002. 13. Aker Kvaerner Report No. 2002-Y-2300 Local Impact Analysis Revision No. 3, August 2002. 14. API RP 2 RD Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs), 1st edition, June 1998. 15. Wu, W., Huang, S. & Barltrop, N. Multiple Stable/Unstable Equilibria of a Cylinder in the Wake of an Upstream Cylinder 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 2001. 16. DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Steel Structures, October 2001. 17. DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems, January 2000. 18. Mellem, T., Spiten, J., Verley, R. & Moshagen, H. Trawl Board Impacts on Pipelines Proceeding of the 15th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Florence, 1996. 19. Wu, W., Huang, S. & Barltrop, N. Stationary and Hopf Bifurcation of Equilibrium Positions of a Cylinder Situated in Near and Far Wake Fields of an Upstream Cylinder Proceedings ISOPE 2001, Stavanger. 20. Li, Y. & Morrison, D. G. The Colliding Participating Mass A Novel Technique to Quantify Riser Collisions Proceeding of the 19th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, New Orleans, 2000.

OTC 15383

1000

Typical post yield stress range

Stress Range

100

DNV B1-curve (BM) DNV C1-curve (WM stress parallell to weld) DNV F1-curve (WM stress normal to weld)

10 1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

No of cycles to failure, N
Figure 1 Stress regimes for a typical post yield plastic strain situation.

B1

C1

F1

Figure 2 Fatigue capacity SN-curves.

Impact area
Impact area

a b

c d

Figure 3 Possible scenarios for longitudinal welds (left) and girth welds (right).

OTC 15383

Main Components

Design Basis
Project data Riser array configuration Current description Floater motion

Global Analysis Model

Hydrodynamic interaction Collision model, rebound effects Force coefficients WIO VIV

Finite Element Analysis

Impact velocity/angle Modelling requirements Sensitivity Mesh

Acceptance Criteria
Safety class Safety factors FLS ULS Wear & tear

Key Parameters

Uc(z,t) Current distribution in time and space incl. floater motion

Un(z ,t) Relative impact velocity in time and space

ij(z,) ; ij(z,)
Stress and strain components

D(z,) OK / not OK (Damage factor)

Fatigue
Design Criteria & Main Results

Long-term description of current

Long term description of relative impact velocity

Elastic stress ranges, No of cycles

OK / not OK (Fatigue life)

ULS Extreme value of relative impact velocity Dents, accumulated plastic strain OK / not OK

Figure 4 Overview of main building stones for riser collision assessment.

Un

V1

Urel Y Ut X
Figure 5 Relative impact velocity.

V2

10

OTC 15383

Max. Stressrange 11 [MPa] in section point 1 - inside

600

500

400 Stressrange [MPa] 500-600 400-500 300-400 200-300 100-200 0-100

300

200

100 0 67.5 50.625 33.75 Kissing angle [deg] 16.875 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Un velocity [m/s] 2.0

Figure 6 Response surface for a given point in the pipe.

Damage in welded area Assume all collisions in one location of the weld (straight hit). Not acceptable
Hot Spot

OK

Decreasing Conservatism

Damage in welded area Assume circumferential distributed collision along the weld (kissing). Not acceptable Damage in pipe and welded area Assume circumferential and longitudinal distributed collisions over weld and base material. Not acceptable Damage mitigation Use coating to reduce stress response.
Hot Spot Hot Spot

OK

OK

OK

Figure 7 Fatigue approach methodology.