Design Methodology for Offshore Platform Tieback Conductors
by R.B. Manley Jr., Amoco Production Co. Copyright 1985 Offshore Technology Conference This paper was presented at the 17th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 6-9,1985. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. ABSTRACT A methodology is presented for the design of tieback conductors and internal casing strings. The analysis is done by hand rather than by computer. The methodology considers the combined loading from environmental forces, external weights and internal strings in tension or compression, thermal expan- sion, and angular and lateral offsets. It also con- siders the fact that internal strings in tension do not cause buckling. INTRODUCTION This paper presents a comprehensive methodology for the design of tieback and internal casing strings. The stability and strength checks of the tieback strings are performed by hand rather than by means of a complex, finite-element computer program. The actual computation time does take longer, but the hand analysis allows one to easily make changes in the system without having to make elaborate changes to a sophisticated mathemat- ical model as well, and then rerunning an expensive computer program each time. The hand analysis method can even be used during the installation off- shore. Another advantage of the hand analysis is that the effects on the stresses and conductor sta- bility of each change in the loads or geometry are easily perceived. The tieback conductor design considers the interaction of the loads from environmental forces, internal and external casing and tubing weights, thermal expansion, and angular and lateral offsets between the casing strings and the subsea wellhead. The equations required to check the adequacy of the conductor and internal casing strings are presented. References and illustrations at end of paper. 259 This paper is a companion to the paper pre- sented at the Offshore Europe 1983 Conference enti- tled itA North Sea Template Well Tieback System: Design and Operational Experience" (Reference 1). That paper presented the mechanical design and installation experience from the tieback of the seven subsea wells beneath the Northwest Hutton Platform. The structural design of the tieback con- ductors and internal casing strings was performed using the methodology presented in this paper. Together, the two papers give a complete overview of the knowledge gained from the Northwest Hutton Plat- form tiebacks. The following three paragraphs briefly describe the Northwest Hutton Platform and the tieback conductor installation procedure. The Northwest Hutton Field is located in Block 211/27 of the U.K. sector of the North Sea, in 473 ft of water. A 20-slot, unitized subsea tem- plate was installed in 1979 and seven development wells were drilled over a 20-month period. The jacket was installed in 1981 and the deck in 1982. The seven wells were tied back in January and February 1983, with first oil production in April. The tieback operation was completed on time and within its budget. The template wells were drilled using conven- tional 18-3/4 in., 10,000-psi subsea wellhead equip- ment compatible with floating vessel drilling systems. The tieback system used a set of connec- tors to engage the subsea wellhead, concentric casing strings (20 in., 13-3/8 in. and 10-3/4 in.) and platform wellheads to contain anticipated pres- sures. The combined casing and tieback system is shown in Figure 1. The tieback procedure was as follows: 1. Deploy TV system. 2. Retrieve wellhead corrosion cap. 3. Flush and survey wellhead. 2 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR PLATFORM TIEBACK CONDUCTOR OTC 5049 4. Run 20 in. outer tieback, engage wellhead and lock. 5. Cut 20 in. and weld on casing head. 6. Run and latch 13-3/8 in. 7. Set strips and packoff; cut casing and install casing head. 8. Retrieve insert, flush seal area. 9. Run and lock down 10-3/4 in. tieback; set slips, cut casing and install tubing head. DISCUSSION Theoretical Basis The theoretical foundation of the subject tie- back conductor design methodology was presented in Reference 2. That reference, however, was specifi- cally concerned with the design of standard conduc- tors for conventional fixed platforms. As will be discussed shortly, that methodology must be modified somewhat for the design of tieback conductors. Perhaps the most significant contribution of Reference 2 is the explanation of why tensions in internal casing and tubing strings, that are hung at the top of the conductor, do not induce buckling of the conductor. Reference 2 presents interaction ratio (unity ratio or IR) equations that account for the above effects. The applicability of those equations was checked by preparing a thorough mathematical model of the conductor and inner strings, and analyzing the stresses in them by means of a nonlinear finite-element computer program. Reference 2shows that one can use those equations to check the ade- quacy of the strings, without having to perform a computer analysis. Design Assumptions and Loads The first s_tep in the design procedure is the development of the design assumptions and loads. First, the tieback casing outside diameters (including that of the outer conductor) are selected. In order to limit the variables in the design, the tieback inner casing strings can ini- tially be assumed to be tne same sizes and strengths as those hung in the subsea wellhead. If the anal- ysis later indicates these sizes and strengths to be inadequate, or grossly oversized, they can be changed, accounting for such changes then in the outer conductor's design as well. It is convenient to assume that both the trial wall thickness and yield strength of the tieback conductor are constant from top to bottom. It is quite possible to vary both along the conductor's length, but such complicates both the design and the installation. It was thus felt to be best avoided if possible. The steady-state, on-production temperatures of the casing strings should be determined, based on the reservoir temperature and the anticipated flowing tubing temperature at the Christmas tree. One can assume that the temperature of the inside wall of the production tubing will be at the average of the above temperatures, and that the outside of the conductor will be exposed to the seawater tem- 260 perature and current. The thermal conductivities and resistivities of the walls of the strings and the materials in the annuli between them can then be determined, along with the convective heat transfer coefficient of the conductor wall to the moving sea- water. A heat transfer computer program can then be used to calculate the steady state temperature of each of the casing strings. (Lacking all of the above, one can make conservative assumptions of the casing temperatures.) The internal casing strings are assumed to heat up to their steady state temper- atures from the inside out, in turn, in the deriva- tion of the maximum thermal thrust in each string. This is discussed further shortly. The internal casing strings mayor may not be pretensioned. If one determines that such preten- sion is desired (to limit the compression due to thermal thrust in the internal strings, to aid in centralizing the strings in the wellhead at the platform cellar deck, or to aid in establishing the annular pressure pack-offs), one should consider several factors. First, the pretension is developed by picking up on the strings after they are locked into the subsea wellhead. There will be very little stretch for the desired pretension. Second, much of the top tension in the string will be lost due to slippage of that string through the sLips when it is lowered in the slips and before the slips bite. Third, there will be an additional loss of tension in that string as the combined strings deflect axi- ally due to that tension. Finally, the incremental compressional loads on the other casing strings due to the combined deflection must be accounted for. This too is discussed shortly. The tieback internal " mayor may not be run with centralizers. the interna.l casing strings car, hel p t tie outer conductor resist bending moment, provided that those inner strings are not already loaded to their ultimate capacities. Such centralizat 'on wllI also reduce the slight bending moment on the c0nductors that results from the eccentricity of internal casing strings in tension (see Reference 2), and make the inner casing strings resist a share of the wave loads (proportional to the moments of inertia). It is generally assumed that the tieback internal casing strings will not be cemented. Most types of tieback systems are reversible, provided the tieback casing strings are not cemented to each other. It is worthwhile to maintain that freedom of operation if possible. Reasonable combinations of environmental forces and drilling and production loads are assumed. For example, a 1 in 50-year (2% annual occurrence prob- ability, AOP) environmental condition can be consid- ered for the drilling operation when the BOP is in place on the conductor, and a 1 in 100-year (1% AOP) condition assumed for the production case with the much lighter Christmas tree in place, and much longer exposure period. The lateral and angular offsets between the tieback strings and the subsea wellhead will cause bending moments in the tieback strings, assuming that a provision has been made to force the tieback strings to align with the supposedly fixed subsea wellhead. (See Figure 2 and Reference 1.) These moments are called tieback overshot moments in this paper. UTe "'.i049 b. MANLEY, JR. 3 Analysis Methodology Tieback Overshot Moment - The lleback overshot bending moments on the tieback strings can be calcu-- lated by anyone of several indeterminate structural analysis methods, such as the moment-slope, or moment distribution methods, or by means of a com- puter program. It is assumed that the bottom of the conductor is displaced laterally and rotationally by the amount of the offsets (conservatively assumed to be additive), but that the remainder of the con- ductor is laterally restrained at the conductor guides. For convenience, only spans of the conductor (a span is the distance from one conductor guide to the next) are considered, as tieback moments drop off rapidly with distance above the subsea wellhead (see Figure 3). The moments are arbitrarily set at zero at the top of the third span, although in reality, there will be a small moment there. (The designer can analyze as many spans as desired.) No axial load is considered in the tieback moment calculation, as the secondary moments (load deflection or P-A effect) are accounted for later in the interaction ratio equa- tions. Also, for convenience in the design process, the calculation can be made for a unit lateral offset, a unit angular offset and a unit moment of inertia. Appropriate ratios are then applied as required for other offsets and other moments of inertia. Axial Loads- The worst compressive load in each of the internal casing strings occurs as each heats up upon produc- tion. If they are pretensioned, the tensile stresses occurring when each is initially preten- sioned (before lowering into the slips) should be checked as well. The external axial load (See Reference 2) on the outer conductor, at any elevation, is the sum of the external weights on top of the conductor, and the buoyant weights of the conductor and all of the internal casing and tubing strings, from that eleva- tion to the top of the conductor. The maximum internal compressive load (See Ref- erence 2) applied at the of the conductor is the total compressive load on the top of the conductor immediately after the prOduction tubing is run and hung off, but while the BOP is still in place, less the external weights applied at the top of the con- ductor. Both loads were calculated in the axial load history analysis. The maximum internal axial load on the conductor at any other elevation is then derived by subtracting from the above maximum internal load at the top of the conductor, the buoyant weights of all of the internal strings (including the production tubing), from that eleva- tion to the top of the conductor. Those weights subtracted are considered part of the external load, as noted in the previous paragraph. Following are a few definitions arid example calculations consistent with Figure 4 that illus- trate the concept of internal and external axial loads. 59.5 -dI.I + 250.6 External Internal Total Compressive Load on Conductor at Top MSL at 0' elevation Platform cellar deck at +83' elevation Subsea wellhead @-458' elevation. W=weight of tieback string or tbg from +83' elevation to -458' In Reference 2, if the first inner string inside the outer conductor is in compression, and centralized or cemented to the conductor, it and the conductor are considered to act together as a compo- site conductor in resisting axial and bending loads. That composite conductor can usually carry consider- ably greater external axial loads and bending loads 312.8 Total at Bottom W ZO " 6Z.2 k (considering buoyancy below water line) W13-3/8" 31.9 k WlO-3/4" 28.7 k (assuming entire length W5- l/Z" 10.6 k submerged) W BOP 59.5 k (weight of BOP and riser spool) 7+1':;..S- - 79+9.5+189.4 External Internal Axial loads are applied to the conductor in three ways. The first arises from external weights applied at the top, such as that of the blowout pre- venter (BOP). The second type of axial load is an internal load that arises from pretensioning the tieback internal casing strings and hanging produc- tion tubing. The third type of axial load arises from the thermal expansion thrusts that occur when the internal casing strings heat up upon the well's being brought on production. The latter load places compressional loads on the internal strings, and reduces the compressional load on the outer con- ductor. A method of distributing axial loads between the combined strings is presented in Reference 2. It is based on the axial stiffness of each string, and the fact that the strings will experience a common axial deflection. An axial load history analysis is performed, tracking the axial loads in all the strings as each is run in turn, with or without pretension, the BOP is installed, the pro- duction tubing is run and hung off, the BOP is replaced with the lighter Christmas tree, the flowing tubing pressure is applied (upward force on the tree from the pressure on the inside area of the production tubing), and as each string heats up in turn. The thermal thrust that occurs in each string as it is heated over the ambient temperature is felt by the combined strings. The resultant expansion places incremental tensile loads on the other strings, and reduces the compressive thermal thrust in the string heated. The worst compressive load on the tieback con- ductor occurs just after the production tubing is run and hung off in the surface wellhead, and before the BOP is replaced with the lighter Christmas tree. Figure 4 illustrates the sort of tubular loads that could exist for this condition. 261 without buckling than the outer conductor aLone can. internal bending moment on the outer conductor is This method of considering the combined strength of then the sum of the internal bending moments from the conductor and first inner string is inconvenient the strings in tension, as calculated above, less for the design of tieback conductors, however, as the sum of the products of the loads in the internal variations in the assumed design pretensions, tubing strings in compression times the eccentricity of weights, etc., can cause any of the inner strings to those strings. The resultant, total, internaL com- be anywhere from strongly in compression to strongly pressive load and internal bending moment are then in tension. It was found that there was a signifi- appLled to the outer conductor alone, rather than cant jump in the interaction ratio between the con- the composite conductor noted in Reference 2. An dition of the first inner strings being very example calcualtion of the internaL axial loads and slightly in tension to its being very slightly in bending moments applied to the conductor at the top compression. That jump was due to being able to is shown in the coLumns below. The equations below include that string in a composite conductor when it illustrate how the internal bending moment and was in compression, but not when it was in tension. internal and external axial Loads on the conductor This discrepancy should not exist. There is really are calculated at any elevation. These calculations very little difference between the two cases. are consistent with Figure 4. Axial Eccentricity Internal As a result of the above discontinuity, the Loati:<to 20 Conductor Moment method of determining the help that internaL strings Tubular (k) (in.) (in.-k) provide was modified from that in Reference 2 as follows. Instead of deriving a composite conductor 13-3/8 -47.1 2.1875 -103.0 if the first string inside the outer conductor is in compression and centralized, one considers the axial 10-3/4 38.2 2.535 96.8 load in the outer conductor alone from the axial Load history analysis. That analysis accounts for 5-1/2 200.0 2.535 507.0 the fact that all of the strings, whether in tension or compression, help carry compressive Loads. Those TOTAL 191.1 500.8 aLready in compression pick up more compressive load and those in tension Lose some tension, sometimes *InternaL axial load on conductor at top. even going from tension into compression. Tension in internal string assumed to be positive. In Reference 2, it is shown how tension in #L3-3/8 and 10-3/4 casing strings not internal strings increases both the internal com- centralized in this example. 5-1/2 pressive Load on the outer conductor (or composite tubing is assumed to be centralized in conductor), and the internal bending moment on it. 10-3/4 casing. The latter is the sum of the products of the ten- sions in the internaL strings times the eccentrici- ties of those strings with respect to the conductor. Z = distance beLow top of conductor (ft) PI(Z) = internal compression on conductor Z The eccentricity of a tubular with respect to distance from top (kips) the next outer string is calculated assuming that the tubular is not centralized in that outer string MI(Z) = internal bending moment on and is Lying up against one side of that string, conductor Z distance from top touching it at the couplings of the inner string. (in-k) The inner strings eccentricity with respect to the next outer string is then equal to the inside radius (IR) of the outer string minus the outside radius of PE(Z) = external compression on conductor the couplings of the inner string. If the inner Z distance from top (kips) string is centralized in the next outer string, its eccentricity with respect to that string is zero. BOP = weight of BOP (kips) When there are severaL concentric strings, some or all of which are not centralized in the next b and w = buoyant and dry unit weights, outer strings, the eccentricities of each of those d respectively (kips per foot) strings with respect to the conductor must be calcu- lated. If all the strings were centralized, all the eccentricities would be zero. For conservatism, it e = eccentricity of inner string in is assumed that all uncentralized strings are eccen- conductor (inches) tric in the same direction, so that the resultant internal bending moments on the conductor will be PI(Z) = 191.1 k - (Wb +W additive. The eccentricity of each internal string 13-3/8 blo-3/4 with respect to the conductor is calculated assuming that each uncentralized strng is laying up against +W )Z . . . . . . . . . (1) the inside of the next outer string, again touching b5-1/2 it at the couplings of the inner string. In the revised methodology, with no composite MI(Z) = 500.8 in.-k - [[(wb)(e)]13_3/8,, conductor, the total internal compressive load on the outer conductor from the internal strings is + [(wb)(e)110_3/4w equal to the sum of the tensions in those strings Less the sum of the compressive Loads in the + [(wb)(e)15-1/211 ]2 . . . . . . . . ...* (z) internal strings that are in compression. The 9K9 --- OTC 5049 k B. MANLEY, JR. 5 PE(Z) = BOP + (w above water line Z = plastic section modulus of the d ~oll casing (in.3) +W Y = load factor b13-3/8 = 1.7 when extreme environmental loads are not considered +W blo-3/4 = 1.3 when extreme environmental loads are considered +W ) z ... (3) b5-1/2!! The above equation is a strength rather than stability equation because the internal casing strings in compression are laterally supported by PE(Z) below WL = BOP + (83)(wd ) the outer conductor. 20,1 When an internal casing string is in tension, + (Z - 83)(w ) its maximum axial load at any elevation is simpLy b20 the maximum tensile Load from the time history anal- ysis (or initial pretension before lowering in slips), accounting for the change in axial load down + (w +W the string resulting from the strings buoyant unit b13-3/8 blo-3/4 weight. The bending moment considered comes from the tieback offsets, and is worst at the bottom of +W ) z ........... (4) the string. Tieback offsets would generally result b5-1/2 in sufficiently large deflections across the Long spans considered (if the conductor guides did not laterally restrain the conductor and inner strings) Internal casing strings that are centralized that it makes Little difference to the tieback over- will help the conductor resist bending, regardLess shot bending moment in the internaL string whether of whether those strings are in compression or ten- that string is centralized in the outer conductor or sion (another difference from Reference 2 where onLy not. It is thus onLy sLightLy conservative to cal- the first internal string was considered in the com- cuLate such tieback overshot moments in the inner posite conductor, and then onLy if it was in com- strings as if they were fuLIY centralized in the outer conductor. pression). The extent of that bending resistance Wave bendir,gmoments are another heLp is discussed shortLy. story. GeneralLy, the lateraL deflection of the outer conductor from wave loads is small enough that Internal String Stress Check very little wave induced bending moments would get into uncentralized inner strings. UnLess an inner Once the worst axial Load in each of the string is centralized, therefore, no wave moment is internal casing strings is determined, a stress considered in the inner string. check is made for each for its worst Load condition, by means of the folLowing interaction ratio (IR) Centralizers on inner strings cannot actually equation. centralize those strings perfectLy in the outer con- ductor i.e., zero eccentricity. The inner strings could never be run if perfect centralization was IR=~+~SlOO ................. (5) achieved. It is assumed here that centralization YP means clearances between the centralizers and the next outer string of a half inch or so. There will stiLl be some internal bending moments on the outer where: Fy = minimum yield strength of the conductor from such eccentricities, but it wiLL be casing steel (ksi) much Less than if centralizers were not used. P = axiaL load in the casing (kips) When an inner string is in tension, but cen- tralized, its maximum tensile Load is the same as in Py = AF the uncentralized case, but the bending load on the Y inner string now equals the tieback overshot bending = axiaL yieLd capacity of the moment plus that inner stringsshare of the wave casing (kips) bending moment (when extreme wave Loading is being considered). The inner strings share of the wave A = cross sectional area of the load wouLd be the total wave bending moment on the casing string (inchesz) conductor at that elevation times the ratio of the inner strings moment of inertia to the sum of the M = bending moment in the casing moments of inertia of the conductor and aLL the (in.-kips) inner strings centralized within it. Mp = ZF The maximum combination of axial and bending Y Loads in an inner string most often occurs near the = plastic hinge moment capacity of bottom of the string where that Load combination is the casing (in.-kips) dominated,by the tieback overshot moment. The use of ~ = 1.3 when extreme waves are considered usually 9RQ 6 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FolsrlFFSH(N~PT,ATFURMTIEBACK CONDUCTOR OTC 5049 makes the interaction ratio calculated there with wave loading much less than that without wave loading, where a Y = 1.7 is considered. Wave loading is thus usually not a significant factor in the internal string stress check. When the internal string is in compression and uncentralized, the maximum compressive load comes from the time history anaLysis,and the bending load is the sum of the bending moments from helical buck- Ling and the tieback overshot bending moment. The heLical buckling stress is calculated by means of the following equation from Reference 3: _ DrF _ b 41 ...................................... (6) where: D = nominal outside diameter of the pipe in question (in.) r = radial clearance between this pipe and the next one out (in.) F = axial compressive load at that elevation, from the time history analysis, and accounting for casing weight (kips) I = moment of inertia of this casing string (in. 4, If centralizers are used, r is the cLearance between the outside of the centralizers and the inside waLl of the next string out. The use of cen- tralizers will thus significantly decrease the hel- ical buckling stresses. These stresses are, however, usualLy far less than the tieback overshot and wave bending stresses, and thus generally not significant regardless of whether or not central- izers are used. When the inner string is in compression and centralized, the maximum compressive load again comes from the time history anaLysis. The bending Load for that case is now the sum of the helical buckLing bending moment, the tieback overshot bending moment, and, when wave loads are considered, the inner strings share of the wave induc_edbending moment. For aLL of the above cases, the point in the string where the maximum load condition occurs should be determined. ALong with the above stress check, the adequacy of each internal strings couplings to prevent Leaking is also checked, using the joint stre~gth values tabuLated in sources such as the Halliburton Cementing Tables. For example, the joint strength of a 10-3/4 in. OD, 60.7 lb/ft p-no casing> with buttress threads, is 1912 kips. A 1.6 safety factor (SF) is applied, reducing that strength to 1195 kips. The axial and bending stresses for the worst Load condition are then summed and multiplied times the cross sectional area. That product should be less than 1L95 kips. (This is obviously an empirical check based on experience. It makes no sense, strictly speaking, to add the axiaL and bending stresses, as the axial stress is constant over the cross section, and the bending stress varies). Equation L is aLso used to caLculate the reserve bending moment capacity of each inner string that is centralized in the outer conductor. The reserve bending moment capacity of a string is the amount of additional bending moment that the string can take in addition to the loads that it is aLready carrying. The reserve bending moment capacities of centralized strings can be added to the pLastic moment capacity (M ) of the outer conductor in det- ? ermining its capac ty to support bending loads. The Load factor, Y, is not used in the reserve bending moment calculation, as it is applied later in the outer conductor stress check. It is thus deLeted from Equation 1 for this calculation. Since the inner string reserve bending moment capacities are used in the outer conductor stress check, the inner string loads considered in deriving those reserve capacities are those that occur in the inner strings at the same time the outer conductor is experiencing its worst load. These Loads all come from the time history, axial load anaLysis. To determine an inner strings reserve strength, one calculates the aLLowable bending moment in the inner string by setting the IR in Equation 1 equal to L.0, deleting Y from the equation, and solving for M. This value must be Less than or equal to M . For P/P less than 0.L5, the calculated value ofpM wouLd beygreater than M . In that case, the alLowable moment is Limited to ~ . One then deducts the actual bending moment in the p string (sum of helical buckLing, overshot and wave bending moments) from the allowabLe moment to arrive at the remaining bending moment that the string can take, i.e., the reserve bending moment capacity of the string. The reserve bending moment capacities of the centralized inner strings are then added to the M of the outer conductor alone, to arrive at the tgtal, uLtimate plastic moment capacity of the conductor. This is equivalent to the method pre- sented in Reference 2 for the determination of the bending properties of a composite conductor. The difference is that all of the centralized internal strings are considered and not just the first internal string, when that string is in compression. Conductor Interaction Ratio Equations Following the inner string stress and joint checks, slightly modified versions of the IR equa- tions in Reference 2 are used to check the adequacy of the outer conductor. At the subsea and celLar deck wellheads, the inner strings are centralized. As a result, the internaL bending moments on the conductor due to eccentric inner strings in tension are zero there. A calculation was made of the defLected shape of the conductor and inner strings before the inner strings are tensioned, and the straightening capacity of any pretension in those inner strings. That check indicated that the inner strings can be pulled up against the inside waLL of the conductor just a short distance above the subsea weLlhead, where the tieback overshot moments are still high. As a result, the centralization of the inner strings at the weLlheads is ignored in calcu- lating the internal bending moment, including at the weLlheads themselves. Thus, for aLl elevations con- sidered, the maximum internal moment is considered aLong with the overshot moment in the interaction ratio equations. A -- . OTC 5049 F!. ,yAN ;- , . IR. 7 The two primary conductor design equations, M1/M2 = ratio of smaller to larger both from Equation 9 in Reference 2, are as follows: overshot moments at the ends of the unbraced portion of the unbraced portion of the span ~R= Y@l+pE) Y(M+MOS) considered. MI/Mz is positive P + 1.18(1-Y P P )M S1.O .. (7) if the span is bent in reverse Y EJep curvature and negative for Strength Check single curvature. M2=MSin yP1 yPE YI0.85M+CMMOS] 9 Equation 8, as defined + (1-~ PE/Pe)Mp ~lo .. (8) a ove IR = ~ +p Y crm Stability Check P = Euler buckling load (kips) e = A?12E/(kl/r)2 k = effective length factor where: PI = internal compressive load in = 0.8 for bottom span of conductor the outer conductor aLone at = 1.0 for subsequent spans off bottom the elevation considered, due to axial loads in the inner r = radius of gyration of conductor (in.) strings (kips) L = length of conductor span considered (in.) PE = external axial Load in the E = modulus of elasticity (kips/in2) conductor at the elevation considered due to weights Mp = (ZF ) on top of the conductor, y conductor plus the combined weights of the conductor itself and = ultimate plastic moment capacity the inner strings from of the conductor alone for the the elevation considered case with uncentralized inner to the top of the conductor casing strings (in.-kips) (kips) = zFy)conductor + A = cross-sectional area of the ~M conductor (in.z) reserve inner strings or PY = AF the case with internaL casing Y strings centralized in = axial yield capacity of the conductor (in.-kips) conductor (kips) Note that the Euler buckling load, Pe, in Eq. (7) is the minimum Pe of the spans immediately P = the modified criticaL buckling crm load of the outer conductor above and below the support point being checked. alone (kips). From Refere-nce2. For the bottom and top of the conductor, there is Y = Load factor obviously nnly one span to consider, and thus only one Pe. In Eq. (8), the P = 1.7 without extreme wave is that of the span = 1.3 with extreme wave whose buckling stabiLity i: being checked. MW=M Eq. (7) is used to calculate the interaction ratio at the conductor guide support points. = w~$~ginduced bending moment in Eq. (8) is used to calculate the mid-span interac- the outer conductor (in.-kips) tion ratios. The derivation of Eqs. (7) and (8), MI = internal bending moment in and their components, is discussed in Reference 2. the conductor at the eLevation MI is the maximum moment thatthe tension in considered due to the the inner strings can generate (due to their eccen- eccentricity of internaL strings (in.-kips) tricity), and it is conservatively assumed to be aLways additive to the other moments. In other words, M M=M1orM will always tend to increase the curvature l+?$ in the c~nductors, no matter which direction that curvature may be in. The Cm value noted accounts 0s = tieback overshot moment at the for the fact that the Mos moment is a Linearly var- conductor guide (in.-kips) for Equation 7 ying moment with reverse curvature. It generalLy has vaLues on the order of 0.5 or Less. = maximum end tieback overshot bending moment in the The 1.18 term in Equation 7 is simply an empir- ical fit to experimental results. The inverse of conductor span considered (in.-kips) for Equation 8 that is 0.85. This could lead to some confusion with Equation 9 in Reference 1 as the 0.85 value in Cm = 0.6 - 0.4Ml/M2, but 20.4 the stability equation is a C value as noted above, while it is the empirical fitmto experimental results for the strength equation. Using 1.18 in 9s5 -- 8 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR OFFSHORE PLATFORM TIEBACK CONDUCTOR OTC 5049 the denominator in the strength equation, rather than 0.85 in the numerator, helps to resolve the 2. Stahl, B., Baur, M. P.~ Design Methodology for confusion. Offshore Platform Conductors, Journal of Petroleum Technology, November, 1983. Note that, as discussed previously, the outer conductor is considered aLone in calculating P in 3. Lubinski, A., ALthouse, W. S., Logan, J. L., Equation 8. No composite conductor is conside$~~ in Helical Buckling of Tubing SeaLed in Packers, that calculation. Journal of Petroleum Technology, June, 1962, Transactions AIME (1962), 225, 655. Conductor Stress Check Strength checks with Equation 7 are performed at those points where the conductor is laterally supported, i.e., at the wellheads and conductor guides. The conductor cannot buckle laterally at those points. Buckling checks with Equation 8 are made at the mid-spans between the conductor guides. Buckling will generally control over strength at the midspans. The IR checks must be performed for the entire Length of the conductor, rather than just for the bottom portion, as the loads and span Lengths change along the conductor, and these changes do affect the interaction ratio calculations significantly. CONCLUSIONS The seven Northwest Hutton Platform tieback conduc- tors and their internal casing strings were designed by means of the analysis method presented in this paper. As noted earlier, those wells were tied back in January and February of 1983, and placed on pro- duction. During the installation, pretensions greater than those assumed in the design were required in the inner strings to energize the weight-set annular packoffs used in the first well. (The packoffs were change~-to Allen-screw energized packoffs in the remaining wells.) The ease of changing design conditions in this analysis method enabled the writer to determine at the site just how much help could be obtained by adding centralizers to the inner strings, and how much pretension could be applied in the inner strings. The tieback was made successfully. This design method has been used successfully to design tiebacks for another field as well. It can thus be concluded that the tieback conductor design methodology presented herein does work, and that the methodology can be applied again for the design of future tiebacks. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the considerable help of his colleagues Mr. G. W. Ingram and Mr. J. A. Dwyer of AmOCO (UK) Exploration CO., and Mr. J. D. McCuish and Mr. J. P. Barrington of Amoco Production Co. (the Latter now with Brian watt) in developing a practical tieback conductor design methodology. REFERENCES 1. Ingram, G. W., Humphrey, B., A North Sea Tem- plate Well Tieback System: Design and Opera- tional Experience, Offshore Europe 1983 Conference. smfi Platform Wellhead spools + P~ Fi g.1 lieback Schematic (From Reference1) 550 ft. Subsea Wellhead Ve Re uctor Angle 20 Teback Connector f{ p $1 \ Wellhead . ,! Lateral Offset L -+ Wellhead Angle Fig. 2 Misalignment Between wellhead & ~eback connector (From Reference 1) I +83 r +24 - >c o -75 - - 110 ~ L t c o .= _1910 Z iii -280 I 7 1 1 \\ \ \ \. -375 t t \ > ---- --- .-- ..- --- I 458-400; + I I I A f I I [ -2000 0 4000 2000 Bending Moment (In Kips) x Conductor Guide Wave Moment ---- Overshot Moment Fig. 3 20 13-3/8 10-3/4 _ 5-1/2 . _ _ 4 250.6k I 47.lk t 38.2k +83 r w B I w~olf =62.2k XL- t 312. 8k t w13_3/ 8w I =31. 9k 79k + Fi g.4 1 wl &3/ 4. =28. 7k 200k ! W5_l/2V, = 10.6k 9.5k ! 189.4k