OTC 19862 Evaluation and Mitigation of Axial Walking with a Focus on Deep Water Flowlines

H. Rong, R. Inglis, G. Bell, Z. Huang and R. Chan, J P Kenny, London

Copyright 2009, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 47 May 2009. 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 have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract Axial walking is the cumulative axial displacement of a complete flowline length occurring over a number of start up and shut in cycles, which may lead to excessive end movement and ultimately the failure of tie-in jumper/spool connection. The phenomenon shall be evaluated for the relatively short deep water flowlines which are operated under the following conditions: very soft clay soil high slope seabed profile steep temperature gradient during start up and shut down This paper addresses a study of deep water flowline walking through detailed finite element simulation with ABAQUS. The nonlinearity of pipe-soil friction and pipe material, the seabed profile, the pressure and temperature profile, and the connected PLET resistance are considered. The effects of different parameters on the pipeline axial walking are studied, especially for the pipe-soil friction models which are critical and heavily dependent on the embedment for the deep water flowline. A range of friction curves (LB, BE and UB) and mobilization distances are considered due to the uncertainty and complexities involved in the deep water soil properties. Possible mitigation methods for axial walking are further discussed. The advantage and disadvantages of each option are compared with respect to cost, possibility of success and conditions. The suitability of each mitigation method for the case study is analyzed. The work presented in this paper is intended to help raise awareness of axial walking for the design of deep water flowlines and shows the importance of the decision making process of the mitigation method to achieve an optimum balance between economical and technical constraints. Keywords: Axial walking, Mitigation methods, Deep water flowline, Very soft clay Introduction In recent years, much attention has been focused on pipeline axial walking which is the cumulative axial displacement of a relatively short pipeline occurring over a number of start up and shut in cycles. The mechanism leading to axial walking has been studied in detail (Knut Trnes et. al, 2000). An analytical equation predicting the rate of axial walking has been presented by SAFEBUCK JIP (M. Carr et. al, 2006). The mitigation measures for deep water pipeline instability including axial walking induced by pressure and temperature variations have been discussed (D. Perinet and I. Frazer, 2006). Axial walking itself, will not cause the pipeline failure if the pipeline is not susceptible to buckling. However, as a result of the accumulated global displacement over a number of cycles, axial walking may cause the failure of tie-in jumpers/spools. It may also increase the loading within a lateral buckle causing localized failure. Therefore, it is necessary to address this problem at a conceptual design stage since its occurrence may have a major influence on the field layout, which can have a huge impact on the project cost and development. Pipe walking is a complex aspect in regard to the pipe/soil interaction especially in high plasticity clay deposits so often found in deep fields. The analysis that is typically used especially for cohesive soils, is a very simplified constant residual friction and elastic soil, mobilisation and recovery axial resistance model. In reality, there are a lot of parameter non-linearities, most crucial perhaps, being the suction force between embedded pipe and surficial liquid soil which is probably re-set in very short period following pipe breakout and soil disturbance. Actual axial restraint is probably very much a function of the time between heat-up and cool down cycles, pipe coating type, soil contact area and adhesion force with variable embedment and

OTC 19862

associated varying force mobilisation distance. The very soft clay soils with a high plasticity may result in quite a broad range of friction values due to complexity and uncertainty surrounding pipeline embedment. Inevitably, limited availability of site-specific pipe-soil interaction data necessitates a study of the range of probable friction factors to allow for in the design. Coupling such a broad friction range with the low submerged weight for deep water flowlines results in increased susceptibility to axial movements as a result of cyclic pressure and temperature loads and/or seabed slope. This paper addresses a case study of deep water flowline walking through detailed finite element simulation with ABAQUS. A range of pipe-soil friction is considered in the analysis. A sensitivity study is carried out evaluating the effects of different friction values, mobilization distances, PLET and/or in-line structure resistances. Possible mitigation methods are presented with respect to cost, possibility of success and conditions. FE Models General An extensive finite element analysis was carried out with ABAQUS to study the axial walking of pipelines under cyclic operation, shut-in, restart conditions. The FE model considers the seabed profiles, nonlinear pipe-soil friction, the pressure and temperature profiles, and the connected PLET resistance. The details of each are addressed below. Pipeline and Seabed Modeling The pipelines are modeled as three-dimensional pipe elements (PIPE31H) available in the ABAQUS code. The pipe data for the case study are listed in Table 1. Table 1 - Pipe and Soil Data
Pipe Data OD (mm) WT (mm) Submerged weight operation (N/m) Steel grade Corrosion coating SG Values 273.1 15.9 465 X65 2.5mm 3LPE 1.75 Soil Parameters Soil Type Undrained Shear Strength: Submerged Unit Weight: Bulk Weight: Sensitivity: (Ratio of in-situ to remoulded undrained shear strength) Values Very Soft to Soft Clay 1.0 kPa + 1.3 kPa / m depth 4.5 kN/m3 14.7 kN/m3 1.6 Lower Bound 2.4 Best Estimate 3.2 Upper Bound

The seabed is modeled as a three-dimensional rigid surface with its profile defined by KP-WD coordinates. To simulate the proper contact between pipeline and seabed, an analytical step is performed by lowering the straight pipeline onto seabed surface.
-900 -920 -940 W ater D ep th (m ) -960 -980 -1000 -1020 -1040 -1060 -1080 0 500 1000
Water Depth

5 4 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 1500 2000 2500 Distance from Well (m)

Seabed Slope (axially)

100% 90% Embedment [% of Pipe Outside Diameter Including Coatings]

S eab ed S lo p e (D eg )

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Non-dimensional Pipe Weight [Weff / (su x D)]

Selected UB Selected BE Selected LB Safebuck UB Safebuck BE Safebuck LB B&S V&L DNV

Figure 1 Seabed Profile for the Case Study

Figure 2 Ranges of Embedment Predicted

Pipe-Soil Interaction The pipe-soil interaction is considered by applying a friction model in the FE analysis. Previous research shows that pipesoil frictional interaction in clay is strongly non-linear with a breakout resistance force reached at a very small mobilization displacement, which then gradually reduces to a residual value. Therefore, definition of the friction range may play a key role in the study. Pipe-soil interaction relies heavily on the pipe embedment into the soil. Empirical methods have been presented (Verley and Lund 1995, Brennodden & Stokkeland, DNV, SAFEBUCK, etc), which predict the pipe penetration due to the self-weight of the pipeline during installation. To gain an understanding of how the various theories compare, the pipe embedment calculated using the different methods are presented in Figure 2. It can be observed from Figure 2 that SAFEBUCK, Brennodden & Stokkeland, and DNV all yield similar trends but with decreasing gradients. Whilst Verley & Lund yields the highest embedment results for low non-dimensional weights, and the lowest embedment results for high non-dimensional weights. Figure 2 also indicates that SAFEBUCK consistently predicts higher embedment over a range of non-dimensional pipe weights, which will result in high axial and lateral pipe-soil frictional resistance. However, as embedment is historically underpredicted, the SAFEBUCK results should not be taken as unreasonable. On the other hand, lower bound axial resistance is of particular concern to axial walking analysis, pipe end expansion and in turn spool design. Thus, it is not considered prudent to

OTC 19862

ignore the lower embedment values. For this reason, a Lower-bound (LB) embedment is calculated based on Brennodon & Stokkeland, a Best-estimate (BE) embedment is based on the lower-bound SAFEBUCK calculation and an Upper-bound (UB) embedment is based on the upper-bound SAFEBUCK calculation. Hence, the ranges of probable embedment values are captured and used to obtain corresponding UB, BE and LB axial/lateral soil resistance values. An equivalent friction factor is then calculated by dividing the resistance value by the operating submerged weight. The axial mobilization distances may have significant affects on the axial walking (M. Carr et. al, 2005). Unfortunately, limited literature is available about this topic. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out in the following sections covering different axial mobilization (axial breakout = 1% ~ 10% of OD). Axial residual distance is assumed to be 1.5 x axial Breakout mobilization distance. The lateral friction breakout distance is assumed to be 5% of OD while lateral residual is 300% of OD (D. Bruton et.al, 2006). The pipe-soil friction curves along axial and lateral directions are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
1 Equivalent Friction Coefficient
Equivalent Friction Coefficient 1.4

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.01 0.02

Lower-bound Best-estimate Upper-bound

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Lower-bound Best-estimate Upper-bound

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Axial Displacement (m)

Lateral Displacement (m)

Figure 3 - Axial Friction Curve

Figure 4 - Lateral Friction Curve

Applied Loadings and Boundary Conditions Quasi-static analysis is performed to simulate the pipeline axial walking. This method is considered to be reasonable since the axial walking occurs at an approximate rate of 1m per year even for the worst affected flowlines assessed (Knut Trnes et. al, 2000). Therefore, the dynamic inertia loading is assumed negligible.
70

70

60

60

50 Temperature [ C]

50 Temperature [ C]
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 KP [m]
MaxOP 0s 600s 1200s 1800s 2400s 3000s 3600s 5400s 7200s 9000s 10800s 12600s 25200s Ambient

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 KP [m]

Ambient 42843s 45963s 36000s 43803s 46203s 38520s 44283s 46443s 39480s 44643s 46803s 39720s 44763s 47283s 39960s 44883s 48483s 40200s 45003s 68400s 40440s 45123s 40680s 45243s 40920s 45363s 41160s 45483s 41522s 45603s 42003s 45723s

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Figure 5 - Shut-in Temperature Profiles

25

Figure 6 - Start-up Temperature Profiles

18.0 16.0

20

14.0

15

Internal Pressure [MPa] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 KP [m] 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

Internal Pressure [MPa]

12.0

10.0

8.0

10

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 KP [m]

Ambient MaxOP 0s 600s 1200s 1800s 2400s 3000s 3600s 5400s 7200s 9000s 10800s 12600s 25200s Ambient 42843s 45963s 36000s 43803s 46203s 38520s 44283s 46443s 39480s 44643s 46803s 39720s 44763s 47283s 39960s 44883s 48483s 40200s 45003s 68400s 40440s 45123s 40680s 45243s 40920s 45363s 41160s 45483s 41522s 45603s 42003s 45723s

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Figure 7 - Shut-in Pressure Profiles

Figure 8 - Start-up Pressure Profiles

OTC 19862

Three different loadings are included, i. e. the pipeline submerged weight, external pressure, and the internal pressure and temperature profiles. A uniform static load is applied along the pipeline elements to simulate the submerged weight of the pipeline with all the coatings. The external pressure varies with the water depth. The internal pressure and temperature variation under operation, shut-in and re-start conditions are defined by their transient data shown in Figure 5 ~ Figure 8. For the boundary conditions, the axial restraint due to the associated spool pieces/jumper is ignored as their stiffness is minimal in comparison to the expansion force of the pipeline. Therefore, the two ends of the pipeline are free in the axial direction under the cyclic temperature analysis. The PLETS are modeled as lump masses on dedicated friction elements at the end of the pipeline. Material Properties To consider the possibility of the pipeline exceeding linear elastic limits during the operational cycles, a Ramberg-Osgood approximation representative of pipe stress-strain curves is used in the FE model. Analytical Cases Pipeline walking can be caused by seabed slope and/or transient temperature gradients over operational cycles (M. Carr et. al, 2006). This is due to shifts in the virtual anchor point during expansion and contraction cycles (during heat-up and shut-in respectively). Gravity encourages the pipe to walk downhill, with the rate of walking dependent upon the slope. Transient temperature gradients cause the pipe to walk towards the cold end of pipe. A steep temperature gradient results in a higher rate of walking. Three different cases are studied as follows, to compare their respective effects on axial walking: 1) Transient only the flowline will operate on a flat seabed with the full spectrum of shut-in and restart cycles. 2) Slope+Transient (in the same direction) will apply the full spectrum of shut-in and restart profiles thus yielding a slope & transient induced walking result. Gas flows from KP-0 to KP-end (where the hot end is assumed to be at KP-0 as indicated from Figure 1) 3) Slope-Transient (in the opposite direction) - will apply the full spectrum of shut-in and restart profiles but the gas flows from KP-end to KP-0 (where the hot end is assumed to be at KP-end as shown from Figure 1). Axial Walking Mechanism Figure 9 shows a typical axial walking result at the mid-point and two ends of the pipeline due to the expansion and contraction with the pressure and temperature profiles. In Figure 9, the pipeline reaches its steady production state at P1. Over the following shut-in and start up cycle (from P1 to P2), the pipeline end tends to contract and then expand, however, it does not reach the same condition as P1. A relative axial movement appears from P1 to P2. With this cycle repeated, i.e. from P2 to P3, P3 to P4 etc, the pipeline undergoes an accumulated axial walking, which reaches about 1m after the 10th cycle for the hot end.
1.2 1 Axial displacement (m) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operation cycles No.
P1 1st cycle P2

Hot end (at KP0)

3th cycle 2nd cycle P3 P4 4th cycle

Cold end

Pipe Mid-point

P5

Figure 9 - Axial Walking with Repeated Start-up and Shut-in Operational Cycles

The axial walking over an expansion and contraction cycle is mainly caused by the shift of virtual anchor points (VAP) under seabed slope and transient temperature/pressure gradients (M. Carr et. al, 2005). This phenomenon can be clearly indicated from their effective axial force (EAF) distribution for cool down and heat up cycles as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively. It can be observed from Figure 10 that as the pipeline heats up, two VAPs are formed at A1 and B1 to maintain the force balance. As more hot fluid is introduced, the hot VAP (A1) tends to move to A2 towards the mid-point while the cold VAP (B1) tends to move to B2 towards the cold end. If the pipeline is of insufficient length for full fixity to be achieved mid-length, the two VAPs will meet and the full pipeline length is subject to expansion movement and therefore susceptible to axial walking. For axial walking due to seabed slope, Figure 11 shows that the hot anchor point (A) is close to hot end while the cold anchor B is close to the cold end due to the pipeline weight component acting in the direction of expansion. The slope of the effective axial force (EAF) between A-B and A-B is the same for the heat-up and shut-in. It indicates that the pipeline expands downhill towards B on heat up and contracts downhill towards B on cool down.

OTC 19862

200000 150000

200000
c0 c1 B0 c2 c3 B1 B2 c4

A'

B'

150000
c0

100000 Effective axial force (N) 50000 0

A0

100000
Effective axial force (N)

c1 c4 c5 c6 c7 h4 h5 h6

c5 c6 c7 h1 h2 h3 h4

50000 0 -50000 -100000 -150000

-50000 -100000 -150000

A1

h5 h6 A2 h7 h8

-200000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Operation cycles No.

-200000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Distance along pipeline from well (m)

Figure 10 - Effective Axial Temperature/pressure Profiles

Force for due to

Transient

Figure 11 - Effective Axial Force due to Seabed Slope

This case study indicates that the relatively short pipeline is fully mobilised where axial displacement occurs along the full length of pipeline. In fact, in some other cases, the pipeline possibly reaches a cyclic constraint condition after a certain number of cycles when the partial restraint is achieved along the pipeline and walking curtailed. This mechanism has been discussed (M. Carr et. al, 2006). Sensitivity Study Results Under the different friction conditions (LB, BE and UB), the axial walking per cycle for transient only, and slope + transient in the same and opposite directions are listed in Table 2. Table 2 - Axial Displacement per Cycle for Different Cases under Different Friction Conditions
Friction Transient only (mm) (1) Slope+transient in the same direction (mm) (2) Slope-transient in the opposite direction (mm) (2) cases (Hot end at KP0) (Hot end at KP0) (Hot end at KP end) LB 23 +170 +123 BE 26 +105 +56 UB 29 +74 +23 Note: 1). Axial displacement is towards the cold end; 2). Positive value is a displacement downhill along the seabed slope.

Transient only For the pipeline response under transient gradient only (where seabed is assumed to be flat), Table 2 indicates that the axial walking has a slight rise with a friction increase in the range of LB ~ UB. The axial movements over a range of operational cycles for different friction cases are shown in Figure 12.
0.25

0.05 -0.05 -0.15 -0.25 -0.35 -0.45 -0.55 -0.65 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operation Cycle No.

Axial Walking per Cycle (m)

0.15 Axial Displacement (m)

Hot end - LB

Hot end - BE

Hot end - UB

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 Axial Residual Friction Factor

Figure 12 Axial Walking under Transient Gradient Only for Different Friction Conditions

Figure 13 - Variation of Axial Walking for Various Axial Frictions (Transient Gradient Only)

To understand more about the friction effects on the axial walking in this case, an extensive analysis is performed and the results are shown in Figure 13 . It can be seen that axial movement tends to increase gradually until the residual axial friction factor reaches a certain value (about 0.5 in this case). The axial movement then diminishes with further increase in friction factors and finally disappears if the axial residual friction is high enough (about 1.0 in this case). The results above can be explained as follows. With a very low friction factor, the entire pipeline will expand and contract freely and with no hysteresis effect, no net shift will occur. On the other hand, when the friction is high enough, the pipeline will behave like a long pipeline which is fully restrained over a fixed length under operation conditions. Slope+transient in the same direction By taking the hot end at KP-0 (as shown in Figure 1), the seabed slope and gas transient gradients are in the same direction. Table 2 indicates that the axial walking in this case reduces gradually with the friction ranging from LB to UB. The axial walking variation with the operational cycles for friction cases (LB, BE and UB) is shown in Figure 14, which indicates a

OTC 19862

more rapid accumulative axial movement for LB compared to UB case. At the end of the 10th operation cycle, the axial displacement has accumulated to 1.6m for the hot end under LB friction while it is about 0.7m under UB friction. An extensive analysis is carried out to study the friction effects on axial walking in this case and the results are shown in Figure 15. It can be seen that the walking behaviour is heavily dependent upon the range of axial friction coefficient. The walking reduces significantly once the residual axial friction reaches 1.0 for this case study and effectively disappears when axial residual friction factor reaches about 1.5. However with a very low friction factor, the axial walking will drastically increase to 0.88m per cycle in the case of an axial residual friction of 0.05. This phenomenon is mainly caused by the seabed slope effects, as the component of the pipeline weight acting in the direction of axial movement will overcome the friction resistance and make the pipeline globally move along the seabed slope. In practical terms, this might be difficult to countenance and possibly at such ultra low friction factors, different mechanisms should be considered. In addition, it can be observed from Table 2 that the slope (average angle of 1.67o) has much more impact on the axial walking than the transient gradient of temperature and pressure in this case. The temperature gradient produces only about 27mm walking per cycle but in combination with seabed slope effects, the axial walking rises up to 170mm for LB friction case.
2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operation Cycle No.
1

Hot end - LB

Hot end - BE

Hot end - UB
Axial Walking per Cycle (m )

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 0 0.25

Axial Displacem ent (m )

Slope + Transient in the Same Direction Slope - Transient in the Opposite Direction Transient Only

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

Axial Residual Friction Factor

Figure 14 Axial Walking for Different Friction Conditions (Slope + Transient Gradient in the same Direction)

Figure 15 - Variation of Walking for Different Axial Frictions

Slope - transient in the opposite direction By taking the hot end at KP-end (as shown in Figure 1), the gas transient gradient is in the opposite direction to the seabed slope gradient. Table 2 shows that the axial walking is downhill. The seabed slope gradient dominates in the axial walking as compared to transient gradient for the axial frictions ranging from LB to UB. In addition, the axial walking under these three friction conditions (LB, BE, and UB) are all higher than those for the transient gradient only, but less than those for the case of gas flowing along the seabed slope direction. This is expected, since the walking due to seabed slope will be partially cancelled by the walking due to the transient gradient where the two effects are in opposition. The variation of axial walking per cycle with the extensive range of friction factors for this case is also studied and shown in Figure 15. It can be observed that the axial walking reduces gradually with the increase in the axial friction. However when the axial residual friction factor reaches about 0.5, it seems that the axial walking due to seabed slope is balanced by that due to transient gradient. With further increase in axial friction, the axial walking due to transient gradient overcomes the seabed slope effects and appears uphill. The axial walking will diminish once the axial friction is high enough to give conditions of effective fixity (1.0 in this case). Axial Friction Mobilization Distances Axial mobilization effects on the pipeline walking per cycle are shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17.
2
1%OD 2.5%OD 5%OD 7.5%OD 10%OD

0.175 0.17 Axial Walking per Cycle (m ) 0.165 0.16 0.155 0.15 0.145 0.14 0.002
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operation Cycle No.

1.5 Axial Displacement (m)

0.5

-0.5

-1

0.007

0.012

0.017

0.022

0.027

0.032

Axial Mobilisation Distance (m)

Figure 16 Axial Walking versus Axial Mobilization Distances

Figure 17 - Axial Mobilization Distances Effects on Axial Walking

OTC 19862

The results indicate that larger axial mobilisation distances produce a reduction in the walking per cycle. This is mainly due to the increase in the elastic recovery of the soil. The selection of 1%OD as the axial mobilisation distance therefore gives a relatively conservative analysis of the walking. PLET Effects Deep water flowlines are usually fitted with Pipeline End Termination (PLET) Assemblies, housing remote connectors, isolation valves on a structural frame. These are usually designed to skid along the seabed in response to pipeline expansion loads. PLET effects have also been considered in the above model. For comparison, pipe walking without PLET resistance at the two ends or with a PLET at one end only are studied for the case of slope and transient gradient in the same direction. The EAF distribution is shown in Figure 18. The results indicate that the PLET at the hot end tends to increase the axial walking by 16% in this case while the PLET at the cold end reduces axial walking by about 15%. If the axial friction resistance for the PLETs is similar, the net axial walking is little affected as indicated from Figure 19. Note that the effect of the PLETs is dependent on the relative weight and frictional resistance of the PLETs and pipelines.
150000 100000 Effective Axial Force (N) 50000 0 -50000 -100000 -150000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Distance along Pipeline (m)
PLET at two ends No PLET at two ends 'PLET at cold end and no PLEt at hot end PLET at hot end and no PLET at cold end PLET at two ends No PLET at two ends PLEt at cold end and no PLET at hot end PLET at hot end and no PLET at cold end

B4

B1 B3
Axial Displacement (m)

2.3 1.8

PLET at two ends No PLET at two ends PLET at cold end and no PLET at hot end PLET at hot end and no PLET at cold end

B2

1.3 0.8 0.3 -0.2 -0.7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operation Cycles No.

A2 A4 A1 A3

Figure 18 - Effective Axial Force with Different PLET Cases

Figure 19 - PLET Effects on Axial Walking

In-Line Structure Effects Assuming an in-line structure in the middle of the line with a submerged weight of 10ton (axial friction = 0.3), which is designed to skid along the seabed, the axial walking and effective axial force distributions are shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21. It is shown that the the in-line structure has a beneficial effect on the pipe walking. A jump in the effective axial force is built up at the in-line structure location and the central section between anchor points (A1-B1) reduces which produces some decline in the axial walking. For this case, the axial walking considering an in-line structure, decreases by around 55% (from 170mm to 76mm per cycle) compared to the base case. Note that the in-line structure in effect behaves like a pipeline anchor (see below). The in-line structure has obvious effects on the axial walking, therefore, it shall be viewed as a key point required of detailed consideration.
150000 100000 Effective Axial Force (N) 50000 0 -50000 -100000 A0 A1 -150000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Distance along Pipeline (m) B1

1.8
B0
with In-line Structure without In-line Structure

Axial Displacement (m)

1.3

0.8

0.3

-0.2

-0.7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operation Cycles No.

Figure 20 - Effective Axial Force with In-line Structure

Figure 21 - In-line Structure Effects on Axial Walking

Possible Mitigation Methods The necessity for walking mitigation is obviously dependent on the consequential effects of accumulated axial walking. This section outlines a number of methods to mitigate walking in such circumstances and briefly reviews the advantages and disadvantages for each option. Increase Jumper/ Spool Expansion Capacity This method obviously involves little additional cost if the jumper/spool can accommodate the accumulated walking.

OTC 19862

However, for the flowline in this study, assuming a design life of 25 year and 2 shut-downs per year, the total walking is around 8.7m (LB friction) and 3.7m (UB friction), which far exceeds any possible jumper/spool capacity. Installation and handling limits may restrict capability for increasing jumper/spool capacities by more than 1-2m in total. Increase Axial Friction The above sensitivity study indicates that the axial walking per cycle will reduce when the axial friction increases to a certain extent. Therefore, increasing axial friction can be treated as a possible mitigation for pipeline walking. Methods of achieving this are discussed as follows. Site specific pipe-soil geotechnical investigation One possible way to improve confidence in friction factors for design, is the investigation of the specific pipe-soil interaction on site. It is helpful to reduce the range of friction factors that has to be accommodated. However it is quite time consuming to collect additional soil data for subsequent interpretation. In addition, the accurate analysis of the deep water soils is also challenging, not just because of the very low shear strength exhibited by most deep water seabed top layers, but also because of the very low effective stress level (a few kPa only), hence material responses may fall outside common experience for geotechnical design. While this may improve confidence and provide a narrower range of friction factors for design on its own, this may not eliminate the possibility of the axial walking. In this case, the axial friction is required to be around 1.5 to eliminate walking. Without any mitigation, it is impractical to produce such a high axial resistance for the deep water flowlines, based on the improved data alone. Concrete weight coating Axial and lateral friction resistance can be increased by applying concrete weight coating resulting in reduced end expansion and walking per cycle. Concrete coating can also help guarantee controlled buckles occur and reduce the axial feed in to buckles. However, due to the higher axial resistance, the likelihood of uncontrolled lateral buckling increases and the higher lateral frictions may result in higher localized strains at buckled locations. It also produces the problem with significant field joint stress concentration factor (SCF) during buckling if employing concrete. Furthermore, it is often impractical to install concrete coated lines in deep water; the increased weight results in excessive top tensions and of course, the option of pipeline reeling is excluded. Trench and bury Another possible way to increase the axial friction resistance is to trench and bury the flowlines. However, the cost is high and equipment limited for deep water trenching. Due to the insulating effects of the backfill, the operating temperature for a buried flowline will increase and the line may be potentially exposed to upheaval buckling. The determination of the trench depth is also challenging due to the large uncertainty over backfill soil geotechnical properties. Spot rock dump / mattress Spot rock dumping or additional anchoring by, say, installation of flexible concrete mattresses can reduce the end expansion and walking per cycle. It can also help guarantee controlled buckles occurring, which reduces the corresponding axial feed-in to buckles. However, large quantities of anchoring materials are required to eliminate the walking problem. In addition, this method will increase the installation time and cost, especially for mattresses. Specialist vessels are required for deep water rock dumping and practicality in ultra-deep applications must be considered. Initiate Controlled Buckles To mitigate the hot/cold end displacement, one possible method is to trigger pipeline buckles in a controlled manner. This method can reduce the end expansion. The buckle sites may absorb walking effects, further reducing end expansion. One possible method is snake-lay, where the pipeline is laid in a pre-determined series of curves (J. Hooper, etc, 2004). However, snake-lay is challenging for deep water flowlines due to the difficulties in predicting the lateral resistance which can be achieved from the soil considering the uncertainties related to pipeline embedment. Walking into the buckles may also overstress the pipeline. Moreover, due to the short length of the line in this case, the axial friction is insufficient to guarantee buckles initiation, even in the UB friction case. Buckling-walking interaction is highly complex to analyze and predict. Another possible way is to lay the line over sleepers. This method provides a better control of the pipeline buckling mechanism. However, in addition to the insufficient axial friction to initiate the buckle, this method involves the cost of supply and deployment of the sleepers. The bearing design of sleepers on the very soft clay may be another challenge. Walking into the buckles also may overstress pipeline. There can be also flow assurance issues as a result of the induced profiles change. Anchoring Anchoring is a potential method to eliminate axial walking for deep water flowlines with a high probability of success and level of robustness. The anchor location can be optimized to redistribute end expansions. Nevertheless, it is recognized that a rigid anchor may be difficult to achieve in soft soil conditions. The anchors will probably be large and heavy and require substantial vessels to install. Subsea connection of the anchor to the pipeline is hard to achieve and connection must be rigid to prevent excessive movement at ends. Anchor and anchor connection flexibility must be allowed for in end expansions. To mitigate walking, an anchor can be placed on the pipeline to force the virtual anchor points to share the same location on the pipe. An anchor would cause a mismatch of soil resistance build up from the two ends (Figure 22 and Figure 23). An anchor can be placed at any location along the pipe, however the optimal location to place the anchor to minimize the loading

OTC 19862

is at the centre of the two virtual anchor points. Whilst an anchor can eliminate walking, if a pipe is susceptible to buckling, walking can still occur into the buckled region. Walking into a buckle may over stress the pipe. To fully eliminate any walking on pipes that are susceptible to buckling, the anchor would have to be placed on the trailing end (in terms of the walking direction) of the buckling susceptible region. This ensures the pipe would always walk away from the anchor, but not toward the anchor where a buckle could be initiated. Apart from mitigating pipeline walking, an anchor has a side effect of redistributing end expansion. Without an anchor, the pipeline expands towards the two ends from the virtual anchor point. With an anchor installed the pipeline expands from the anchor instead. Hence the closer the anchor is to one end, the less expansion at that end of the pipe. This can be used to limit expansion for jumper/spool design. In summary, the location of an anchor is influenced by possible buckling in the pipeline, jumper/spool capacity to accommodate expansion, and the design rigidity of the anchor system. Locations of crossings and other lines must also be taken into account to avoid clashes. Anchor Loads The deep water flowline for this case study is re-analyzed with an anchor at the mid-point. Results are shown as follows. Figure 22 gives an illustration of the anchor loads due to seabed slope only. The inner lines (with anchor points A and B) are axial force within the pipeline without an anchor along the pipe. By putting an anchor between the expansion and contraction virtual anchor points, the axial force will move to the outer lines (with the anchors O and O). The anchor has to resist the difference between the axial force build-up from the two ends. The anchor loads due to transient temperature are shown in Figure 23, where the transient temperature profile is used in the FE analysis. It can be seen that anchor force is the vertical distance between the contraction line and expansion line. The force will be at its greatest when the temperature profile reaches the anchor (i.e. temperature profile of h3 for this case).
Anchored Expansion Axial Force Unanchored Expansion Axial Force Anchored Contraction Axial Force Unanchored Contraction Axial Force B

300000 Effective axial force (N) 200000 100000 0

70 60 50 40 30 Temperature profile (Deg)

300000
O'

Effective Axial Force (N)

200000 100000 0 -100000

-100000 -200000 -300000

20 10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Distance along pipeline (m)

-200000
A
O

-300000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Distance along Pipeline (m)

Anchored axial force - h0 Anchored axial force - h3 Anchored axial force - h6 Temperature prof ile - h2 Temperature prof ile - h5

Anchored axial force - h1 Anchored axial force - h4 Temprature prof ile - h0 Temperature prof ile - h3 Temperature prof ile - h6

Anchored axial f orce - h2 Anchored axial f orce - h5 Temperature profile - h1 Temperature profile - h4

Figure 22 - Anchor loads slope only

Figure 23 - Anchor loads - transient temperature profile

The anchor force variation with operation cycles is shown in Figure 24 under different friction conditions. The anchor is modeled as a relatively stiff spring (1E7N/m) in the FE model, with a slackness length (assumed to be 300mm in the case study) before the full effect of the anchor is attained. It can be observed that the anchor is fully mobilized in the 3rd cycle for LB friction case and in the 5th cycle for the UB friction. The maximum anchor force is higher in the UB friction case compared to LB case due to the higher effective axial force built up along the pipeline. The stiffness of the designed anchor has much impact on the selection of the anchor capacity. The more flexible anchor brings out a reduction in the anchor design capacity as indicated from Figure 25. Selection of the appropriate stiffness of the design anchor is greatly dependent on the soil properties.
160000 140000 Anchor Force (N) 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operation Cycles No.
0 1.E+05 250000

UB Friction LB Friction
Maximum Anchor Force (N) 200000

150000

100000

50000

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

1.E+09

1.E+10

1.E+11

1.E+12

Anchor Stiffness (N/m)

Figure 24 - Anchor Force Variation with shut-in/start-up cycles

Figure 25 Max. Anchor Forces for Various Anchor Stiffness

10

OTC 19862

Discussion The above analysis is based on anchoring at the optimum location, the mid-point of the expansion and contraction virtual anchor points. In the FEA model, the anchor is located at the mid-point of the pipeline, which is very close to the mid-point of the two virtual anchor points. Note that the suitability of the anchor location needs to be validated through confirmation of the revised expansion of the pipeline ends and the jumper/spool capacity to accommodate these. The selected location needs also to consider the possibility of buckling initiation. Ideally the location will avoid generating axial forces higher than Hobbs buckle initiation force, and the curve pull out force, to avoid system susceptibility to buckling. If that is not possible due to expansion constraints, the anchor should be placed ideally uphill of the buckling section. This means the pipe will walk away from the anchor rather than towards the anchor. A pipe that walks into a buckling region would aggravate the buckle and potentially lead to failure. Placing the anchor uphill of any possible buckle may prevent this walking/buckling interaction. When walking/buckling interaction cannot be avoided, i.e. for longer pipelines where they are both susceptible to walking and buckling, a full 3D FEA with full seabed profile and route bends will be required. Such analysis will simulate the life time of shut in and restart cycles to determine the iterative effect of walking and buckling and the effectiveness of an anchor. The complexity of this should not be underestimated however. The flexibility of the anchor itself must be taken into consideration, which may change the whole progressive pattern of axial movement of pipe during its operation. Conclusions Relatively short deep water flowlines may be susceptible to axial walking due to soft clay soil conditions, low submerged weight of pipes; seabed slopes and cyclic transient temperature/pressure gradients. This phenomenon will make the design of deep water flowlines complicated and may have a significant impact on the field layout. A sensitivity study is performed for different parameters including a range of possible friction factors, axial mobilization distances, PLET and/or in-line structure resistances. The results indicate that axial walking heavily relies on the axial friction coefficients selected for the design, and the axial walking will diminish when axial friction increases. However due to the uncertainty involved in the deep water soil conditions, it is quite difficult to accurately predict the axial friction with confidence. Possible methods for limiting axial walking are further presented and discussed in this paper. Anchoring is the most practical method for arresting axial walking for deep water flowlines. The optimisation of anchor location is complex as it may be influenced by possible buckling in the pipeline, jumper/spool expansion capacity, and the design rigidity of the anchor system. Reference
1. Verley, R. and Lund, K.M., A Soil Resistance Model for Pipelines Placed on Clay Soils, Proceedings of OMAE 1995 pp 225-232. 2. Bruton, D. et al. Pipe/Soil Interaction Behaviour During Lateral Buckling, Including Large-Amplitude Cyclic Displacement Tests by the SAFEBUCK JIP, OTC 17944, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston Texas, 1-4 May 2006. 3. Brennodden, H. and Stokkeland, A., Time-Dependent Pipe-Soil Resistance for Soft Clay, OTC 6846, 1992 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston Texas, 4-7 May 1992. 4. Det Norske Veritas, DNV-RP-F105 Free Spanning Pipelines, February 2006. 5. Knut Trnes, Bjrn A. Ose, Jonathan Jury and Peter Thomson, Axial Creeping of High Temperature Flowlines Caused by Soil Ratcheting, OMAE2000/PIPE-5055, Proceddings of ETCE/OMAE 2000 Joint Conference Energy for New Millenium, Feb. 14-17, 2000, New Orleans, LA. 6. M. Carr, F. Sinclair, and D. Bruton, Pipeline Walking Understanding the Field Layout Challenges, and Analytical Solutions Developed for the SAFEBUCK JIP, OTC 17945, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston Texas, 1-4 May 2006. 7. D. Perinet and I. Frazer, Mitigation Methods for Deep-water Pipeline Instability Induced by Pressure and Temperature Variations, OTC 17815, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston Texas, 1-4 May 2006. 8. D. Bruton, D. White, C. Cheuk, M. Bolton and M. Carr, Pipe-Soil Interaction Behavior During Lateral Buckling, Including Large Amplitude Cyclic Displacement Tests by the SAFEBUCK JIP, OTC 17944, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston , 1-4 May 2006. 9. J. Hooper, E. Maschner, T. Farrant, JP Kenny Ltd, HT/HP Pipe-in-Pipe Snaked Lay Technology - Industry Challenges, OTC 16379, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston , 3-6 May 2004. 10. J.Hooper, E. Maschner, T. Farrant, JP Kenny Ltd, Penguins Pipeline System -Design Challenges for the Worlds Longest Snaked Lay HP/HT PIP Tie-back OPT 2004, Amsterdam.