Hybrid Riser Towers from an Operator's Perspective
A. Sworn, BP Exploration Operating Co. Copyright 2005, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, TX, U.S.A., 25 May 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in a proposal 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, its officers, or members. Papers presented at OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore Technology Conference. 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 a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract The Hybrid Riser Tower (HRT) concept has been established as a viable solution for deepwater developments, but only a handful of systems exist; this is in contrast to the 25 or more Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) based systems that exist, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Campos Basin. Recent FPSO developments offshore Nigeria are also being developed with SCR systems.
So what are the drivers for using a HRT system, and will the HRT concept offer a competitive solution for future offshore developments? The key to answering this question is to understand the characteristics of the system.
BP has actively studied the application of Hybrid Riser Tower (HRT) systems in several very different offshore development areas. The key characteristics are discussed in this paper.
Hybrid Riser Tower Concept The hybrid riser tower concept can be defined as; a bundled, free-standing vertical riser with near surface flexible connections, see figure 1. The hybrid description relates to the partial use of steel lines and flexible lines within the configuration. Typically a near surface cylindrical buoyancy tank is used, but other configurations are also feasible.
Several tensioned hybrid bundled riser systems have been operated using drilling rig tensioning systems, e.g. BP Buchan in the North Sea, but it wasnt until the ground breaking Placid Green Canyon 29 project [1] that the concept came to full fruition as a free-standing version. Subsequently the Girassol project [2] extended the concept to a deeper water version, constructed onshore, towed to site, and upended. The Rosa-Lirio field subsea tieback to Girassol FPSO will also be developed with a hybrid riser tower design.
The concept has been almost universally configured with the following elements from bottom up: seabed foundation, flexible joint / flowline jumpers, bundle riser, buoyancy tank, and flexible jumpers. Floating Production System Buoyancy Tank Flexible J umpers and Umbilicals Riser Bundle Foundation Flexible J oint
Figure 1 Hybrid Riser Tower Configuration
Two variations for the configuration of the buoyancy tank have developed; the integral buoyancy tank with product lines passing through it, versus a separate tethered buoyancy tank, with the product lines emerging at the top of the bundle. Both of these options have been successfully engineered and implemented, and there is no reason to exclude either of these configurations from future design studies. As always, the 2 OTC 17397 devil is in the detail, and a successful design will have to address fundamental challenges with both approaches; the integral option requires a high integrity stress joint; the independent option requires a high integrity tether.
Field Layout The use of a hybrid riser tower will typically allow a very compact subsea layout of lines and umbilicals. The various product lines must all converge to the base of the tower, but from that point the subsea layout is not restricted by the riser requirements, and lines can be routed directly to the subsea infrastructure.
This is in contrast to SCR and flexible systems where the lines must take very long, separated, straight paths to the touch down location before routing towards the required subsea destination. Where many subsea tieback lines are planned, the hybrid tower system offers a very manageable subsea layout.
Where a very large diameter export line is required, the present flexible riser maximum inner diameter of 19 inches will mean that either a subsea manifold is required, or an alternative riser design is used e.g. SCR.
The bundling of all riser lines into a tower will mean that future riser options are either included in the bundle and left unused, or slots left available on the Floating Production System (FPS) for future use. Future riser additions will need to be considered when deciding the subsea field layout.
Global Analysis A fundamental characteristic of the hybrid riser tower is that it is controlled by buoyancy forces rather than gravity forces. It has been compared to an upside down pendulum. This may be obvious, but it imparts some very different, almost contrary, characteristics when compared with SCRs;
1. The amount and distribution of excess buoyancy in the system is critical to global response.
2. Buoyancy becomes less efficient and higher cost when positioned at increased depth.
3. Drag loading can induce large lateral offsets of the tower, especially when acting near the upper end.
4. Vertical loads at the seabed are very significant, and require a substantial foundation.
5. Loss of a critical level of buoyancy can lead to instability, and possible catastrophic collapse of the system.
A compromise is immediately obvious for the location of buoyancy elements: near to surface for cost effectiveness; deep enough below wave and current loadings. Locating the buoyancy tank of the hybrid riser typically fifty meters or more below sea level means that the wave loads and consequently the dynamic wave induced motions are significantly reduced. Thus the major loading on the hybrid riser will be of a static or quasi-static nature. This means that the global sizing analysis can be performed with sufficient accuracy using quasi-static analysis techniques. The flexible jumper lines will still require dynamic analysis of motions, loads and clearances as these are much more dynamic in nature.
Hybrid riser tower designs have been considered by BP for a number of regions; Gulf of Mexico [3] [4], Atlantic Margins, Norwegian Sea, and Angola. The very different metocean conditions in these regions have a direct impact on the design and installation of the riser systems.
The extreme metocean criteria for these regional projects are summarized in Table 1. These values give an indication to the level of extreme environmental loads that need to be considered for the structural loading and extreme displacements.
Norway GoM Angola Water depth (m) 1500 2000 1300 2000 100 year Wave height Hs (m) 16 12 5 100 year wave period Tp (sec) 18 14 17 100 year surface Current Velocity (m/s) 1.4 2.3 1.3 Table 1 100 year metocean conditions
The 100 year design current profiles are presented in figure 2. The profiles are very different in magnitude and shape, and when applied as Morrison drag loads proportional to velocity squared, the lateral loading can be very much larger for instance, for the Norway application compared to the Angolan one. The GoM loop current profile is large at surface, but reduces quickly with depth, so a deeper riser top, say 150 meters, will minimize current loading on a HRT system. -2000 -1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Current Velocity (m/s) D e p t h
( m ) Norway GoM Loop Angola Figure 2 100 year design current profiles OTC 17397 3
The top end buoyancy tank serves three major purposes:
1. To carry any submerged weight of the bundle; 2. To carry the vertical component of the hang-off loads from the flexible jumpers; 3. To contribute a sufficient restoring force to ensure stability of the hybrid riser structure.
To control dynamic motions and offsets in the more extreme metocean load conditions, the restoring buoyancy component may need to increase.
The global motion and load analysis of a hybrid riser tower can be performed with reference to the industry standard specifications, and using standard riser analysis software. The bundle is usually modeled as an equivalent single pipe, by taking each of the structural and hydrodynamic aspects and calculating a set of equivalent properties. Analysis cases are well defined in API [6] and DNV [7] standards, and will include;
The calculated buoyancy volumes and depth of buoyancy tank for the three regions are compared for the same bundle, carrying six, 12 inch flowlines. The buoyancy volume and depth of buoyancy tank identified in Table 2 is that required to maintain acceptable flexible riser configuration, and limit riser base angle to less than 15 degrees.
Norway GoM Angola Water Depth (m) 1500 2000 2000 Buoyancy volume (m^3) 720 940 560 Depth of Tank (m) 75 150 50 Nominal Base tension (ton) 650 850 580 Table 2. Parameters for buoyancy tanks (similar bundle)
The requirement to place the upper buoyancy tank at a greater depth for the GoM has a double cost impact; the buoyancy tank must be stronger to withstand the higher hydrostatic pressure; plus the flexible jumper costs increase due to the longer lengths required.
Riser Bundle Configurations The bundle section of the riser system represents a very significant proportion of both the riser cost and construction schedule. There is a motivation therefore to explore cost effective means of designing and constructing this element. Several characteristics of the bundle section are discussed.
A benefit of the hybrid riser concept is that the design of individual product lines can be changed without major impact on dynamic performance of the system. For instance, high thermal insulation performance can be added through a pipe- in-pipe configuration on product lines, and supported with additional buoyancy; however the outer diameter of the bundle will change very little.
Several different approaches to the cross sectional layout of the riser bundle have developed. Both the Placid and Girassol risers are configured with a structural core member surrounded by buoyancy foam elements and the product lines captured within the foam elements as per Figure 3. This configuration provides simple structural loadings, but requires complex buoyancy element shapes with very good control of the buoyancy module geometry to ensure adequate clearances and alignments for the encapsulated lines. The core pipe can be left empty to provide buoyancy, or may possibly be used for product carrying if the integrity can be assured during the life.
Buoyancy elements
Figure 3 Bundle with encapsulated lines and structural core.
A second configuration studied includes a much larger diameter structural carrier pipe within which the product lines are carried, see Figure 4. The carrier is then surrounded by buoyancy foam. This configuration is much heavier due to the weight of the carrier pipe, but the buoyancy foam design is very simple and the geometric tolerances are not critical to differential movement and interface loads. Material costs will be higher as the expensive buoyancy is not optimized. Construction techniques for this configuration may potentially be more difficult because of the carrier pipe fabrication and handling.
Figure 4 Bundle with lines within a structural carrier pipe
Structural Core Pipe Product Line Buoyancy elements Structural Carrier Pipe Product Line 4 OTC 17397 A third configuration studied has a simple structural core pipe, but the product lines are external to the buoyancy elements. This configuration greatly simplifies the buoyancy foam configuration without introducing a heavy carrier pipe. The product lines however will require some form of external guidance, and the hydrodynamic performance and stability will be much more complex to evaluate.
Figure 5 Bundle with lines external to buoyancy and core pipe
Hydrodynamic performance. The hydrodynamic performance of the simple cylindrical geometry of the first two riser bundles shown, is well understood. Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV) modeling techniques for cylindrical sections are becoming more accurate in predicting the drag amplification effects and induced oscillatory motions. Typically the in place VIV and wave induced fatigue, when combined with towing and installation fatigue does not require extremely high quality requirements for materials and fabrication. The installed Angolan projects have typically not required VIV suppression to achieve the required fatigue design life targets.
The third configuration, figure 5, with external product lines, however poses new challenges to modeling the hydrodynamic performance. The external lines give the bundle a non-circular form, and may also give a non-symmetric cross- section. This will mean that the static and dynamic hydrodynamic coefficients will have to be evaluated for each orientation to the prevailing current direction. Additionally the peripheral lines are now hydrodynamically loaded, and will need to be evaluated for hydrodynamic loading and stability.
Computation Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, see figure 6, are now being used to understand both the global and local hydrodynamic effects of these very complex configurations, and calibrate them with model test results.
Figure 6 CFD modeling of vorticity around a bundle riser (courtesy Deepsea Engineering Management Ltd.)
Bundle Structural Design. Although the global structural modeling of the riser bundle is reasonably straight forward, the distribution of loads within the bundle is much more complex. Each of the elements within the bundle will interact in both the axial and lateral axes, and the transfer of loads must be considered for all phases of the tow, upending and operation.
Key design issues with the bundle internal design are:
a. Thermal expansion b. Buoyancy load transfer c. Friction loads
Thermal expansion The product lines will be subject to expansion and contraction during operation as the product temperatures change during start up and shut down. For a 40 degree centigrade temperature change, and steel expansion coefficient of 11.7x10 -6 per degree C, a 1500 meter steel line will expand by 0.7 meters. This extension can be managed by allowing the individual lines to expand freely at an end. The lines will exert frictional loads between the bundle components
The product lines may either be hung in tension from a top bulkhead (Girassol), or free standing in compression on a lower bulkhead (Placid). Despite first assumptions that this difference will produce different riser response, the configuration chosen does NOT change the overall global dynamics because the effective tension within the bundle is unchanged, see [5]. However the distribution of loads within the bundle will be very different. It is difficult to keep every element in tension for all of the installation and operating conditions, so some elements may be required to be designed for compressive loading.
Alternatively to allowing free movement of lines, the ends can be fully restrained by structurally locating the lines at substantial bulkheads at top and bottom of the riser. This will result in very significant compressive loads within the lines.
Buoyancy Load transfer The buoyancy elements distributed along the bundle section length provide buoyancy both during a towed installation phase, and during the in-place operating phase. If the buoyancy forces are transmitted regularly along the riser length to the structural core, then core pipe will transfer this load to the top of the tower and be in compression at the top. The core pipe and bundle will require to be designed to transfer these compressive loads.
To prevent compressive loading, this distributed buoyancy force can be transferred directly to the top of the riser through the buoyancy elements. This option would require high compressive loading in the buoyancy elements, and the associated design requirements.
Conditions may be found whereby compressive loading in both the core pipe and buoyancy modules can be evenly distributed so to achieve a more optimal balance of loads. Product Line Structural Core Pipe Buoyancy Elements OTC 17397 5 Friction Loads The possibility of compressive loads in the bundle elements and transfer of lateral loading, plus the tolerances in the various components, and global geometry changes, means that the contact forces and surface conditions of adjacent elements will be lead to very unpredictable friction loads. Worst case scenarios may lead to quite high frictional loading in the bundle and elements. Verification may be required in prototype bundle tests to establish the relationship of the friction load with these various parameters.
Industry Specifications Typically several top level standards will be required to be used for a hybrid riser system, due to the hybrid nature. A number of the applicable standards are shown here, demonstrating the range of sources that have to be considered.
Flexible pipe API 17J Product lines API 2RD, API 1111, DNV F201 Buoyancy Tank API 2A Manifolding AMSE B31.4 Polymers ASTM (material specific) Buoyancy Inspec J IP [6] / ASTM Global analysis API 2RD Foundation API 2A
These industry standards are just the starting point for a riser engineering team, as company specific and project specific requirements will also be documented. In a recent project, 59 company specifications were referenced in the hybrid riser functional specification submitted to the design contractor.
The industry standards for riser design, API 2RD [7] and DNV F201 [8], provide only a very small amount of guidance specific to the design and construction of hybrid riser systems.
These standards do however provide many of the fundamental structural design loads and design criteria aspects that can be related to the hybrid tower product lines. Global modeling techniques are also addressed from the aspect of equivalencing techniques, hydrodynamic modeling, design load cases and allowable stress.
There is an opportunity in the next few years to capture the experience and lessons from a number of hybrid riser projects to update the guidance and design techniques used for hybrid riser towers.
Industry standards and guidance are needed to be extended for such areas as:
1. Buoyancy foam standards industry standard water depth and temperature qualification criteria, long term testing against agreed standards and conditions.
2. The modeling of friction, load transfer, compression buckling, and tolerance management in complex bundled arrangements.
3. The design requirements for pressure balanced or pressurized buoyancy tanks.
4. Methods of modeling hydrodynamic performance of non-symmetric bundle configurations, and model test approaches suitable for developing the hydrodynamic coefficients.
5. The design and hydrodynamic modeling of external product lines in close proximity to other elements.
Construction Offshore construction of a complex hybrid riser tower system has been demonstrated on the Placid Green Canyon project, but required a dedicated drilling and production vessel. For small hybrid riser configurations e.g. single lines, this may be effective, but for complex hybrid riser tower configurations it is not considered that this option would be schedule or economically efficient.
Onshore construction sites in Angola, GoM and UK have been developed and used very successfully for the construction of riser and pipeline bundles. Towing and installation activities have proved to be well managed and successfully executed in most cases. Suitable construction sites in new regions can be difficult to find and develop in a practical project time frame.
Onshore fabrication allows a greater range of materials and construction techniques to be considered compared to offshore fabrication. Complex elements such as umbilicals and gas lift manifolds can be easily integrated into the structure.
The towing and upending process for more active areas like Norway represent much higher risk for the installation. The long tows in more active wave conditions would consume a large proportion of the total fatigue life, and represents a higher risk of damage and major loss. The proximity of the construction site to the field can therefore be a key issue.
There are practical challenges to the increased size of elements in the riser tower configuration e.g. buoyancy tank, bundle diameter, but there does not appear to be any fundamental limitations on the diameter and length (water depth) for a system. Economic limitations may be reached when major upgrading is required for construction sites.
Operational Integrity The life-of-field operational integrity is a key consideration for BP and other operators. During the design, construction and installation of offshore systems, the long term performance must be considered and optimized with respect to capital cost and schedule.
For a hybrid riser tower, a large investment is made in a single, integrated assembly, which may transport a large proportion, or even all, of a fields production fluids. The 6 OTC 17397 consequences of a major failure would have a major impact on the project for many months or years, and the reliability and availability of the system and individual non-redundant components is critical to long term success.
BP has developed and promoted a proactive approach to subsea reliability, and has issued reliability standards to the industry, [9]. These standards outline a number of processes to use in evaluating the design and operability of subsea equipment. Guidelines have been developed for the long term integrity management of flexible pipe [10] and [11].
When projects have had to stretch the envelope of proven technology, monitoring can offer greatest value for integrity management, and performance verification. BP has established some minimum levels for monitoring, and outlined principles to apply during the design process of floating systems and risers. The hybrid riser system does not allow easy access to the components in the bundle, so inspection is difficult. The high reliability can be achieved through robust design, quality controlled construction, and long term integrity monitoring.
Costs Budgetary cost data is presented in figure 7 for a deepwater project in 1500 meters water depth. The costs are for the construction and installation of 12 infield lines, plus 2 export lines. The hybrid riser system option falls between the flexible riser configuration and the lazy wave SCR system. This trend is common to the projects reviewed in all regions and tends to reflect the major differences in materials costs for the systems. The SCR and lazy wave SCR systems tend to offer lowest riser system installed costs.
What is not included in this comparison though is the impact on subsea configuration, the impact on the floating system, increased functionality (gas lift, heating, monitoring) and project delivery risk. When these costs are included, and the total field development costs are derived, the cost differentials are less evident. This suggests that hybrid riser systems should not be discounted early in a project concept due to high cost alone. The evaluation assessment must include the impact on the field development comprehensive cost and schedule risk.
Riser Cost Comparison 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 FLEXIBLE RISERS 2 HYBRID RISER TOWERS LAZY WAVE SCRs m i l l .
U S $ IMPORT EXPORT
Figure 7 Cost comparison for Riser Systems in 1500m water depth The cost breakdown for individual components within the hybrid riser system is shown in figure 8. The costs are dominated by the capital costs of the equipment which total 85% of the installed cost. The bundle (pipe, insulation, buoyancy, core pipe, and fittings) is approximately half of the material cost. Installation costs form around 15% of total installed cost. Engineering management and overheads are shared between the components in this breakdown. Figure 8 Breakdown of costs for a hybrid riser system in 1500m
Contracting A significant influence on selecting a riser concept for a floating production facility is the strategy taken for inviting, evaluating and awarding the contracts.
It is evident from the project assessments made for the GoM, Norway and Angola, that there are different contracting preferences based on regional operator preference, contractor capabilities, and governmental and cultural preference.
Two very different approaches to the packaging of contracts for an offshore floating development are:
1. Large independent EPIC packages 2. Small operator/designer managed packages
These approaches are diagrammatically outlined in figures 9, and 10, showing a typical packaging of contracts for a subsea development.
FPS R i s e r Flowlines Subsea Equipment Installation Operator and Integrated Designer Installation Installation Installation Umbilicals OTC 17397 7 The hybrid riser system offers a very in-sensitive interface with both the subsea system, and the floating production system (FPS). This is in contrast to SCR, and flexible riser systems where loading on the vessel are high, vessel motions are critical to fatigue design, and subsea layouts have to be configured around the riser layout. These different characteristics are compared in previously industry papers [12] and [13].
For the EPIC contracting approach, where risk is valued and included in the contract, and interfaces are key risk factors, a riser system that offers in-sensitivity to design and installation is a beneficial option, even if capital costs may be slightly higher.
When the contracting approach includes an operator or integrated designer to closely manage all phases of the design and construction, the interfaces can be highly managed, and the risks associated with these interfaces are less of a risk for the selection of riser elements. This maybe more suited to riser designs that offer lower capital costs, but more complex interfaces and interdependent design solutions.
Conclusions This review has led to the following conclusions for hybrid riser tower systems:
The global dynamics of a hybrid riser tower are generally quasi-static in nature, and dominated by current loads, and flexible jumper loads. The criticality of installation to surface metocean, and the sensitivity to surface currents, suggests that the hybrid riser will favor the less severe environments.
There are many options for configuring the cross-section of the riser bundle. The selection of a configuration is highly complex and will require analysis and trade-off of many interdependent engineering facets.
Construction and installation experience of HRTs to date has been good. Given the criticality of damage during installation, installation in harsher environment locations will represent a significant hurdle to selection of the HRT concept.
Hybrid riser tower system costs are dominated by the materials and fabrication costs; only 15% is associated with the installation costs. Optimizing the HRT materials is key to optimizing the total costs.
Hybrid riser tower solutions typically represent a higher material cost when compared to SCR systems, but this differential maybe less evident when the value of other factors are considered, such as schedule flexibility, the low impact on the vessel hull, field layout, insensitivity to installation cost, and onshore quality control.
Contracting large independent EPIC packages for the riser, subsea and FPS system will favor a hybrid type riser system which provides great flexibility and independence in the design, construction and installation phases.
Long term integrity management is critical to the HRT concept because of the level of investment and production throughput in a single integrated component.
Acknowledgement The author wishes to thank Geoff Ashcombe and Stephane Cornut for their contributions, BPs technology management for their support in development of this paper, and Deepsea Engineering Management Ltd. for CFD Figure 6.
References
[1] Non-Integral production Riser for Green Canyon Block 29 Development, Fisher, Berner, OTC 5846, May 1988
[2] Girassol The Umbilicals and flowlines Presentation and challenges, J . Rouillon, OTC 14171, May 2002
[3] Riser System Selection and Design for a Deepwater FSO in the Gulf of Mexico, Petruska, Zimmermann, Krafft, Thurmond (BP America), A. Duggal (FMC SOFEC), OTC 14154, May 2002
[4] Studies of Hybrid Tower Riser and SCR Concepts for Ultradeepwater Applications, DeepStar Doc No. 4403-2.
[5] 'Riser Effective Tension - Now You See It, Now You Don't!', McIver DB, Olson RJ , ASME Riser Technology Workshop, 37th Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Workshop & Conference, Dallas, Texas, September 1981.
[6] New Standard for Insulation and Buoyancy Materials, Grealish F, Reiners J , Bergman R, Kavanagh W, Roddy I, OTC14116, May 2002.
[7] Design of Risers for Floating Production and Tension Leg Platforms, API 2RD
[8] Dynamic Risers, DNV-RP-F201
[9] The BP Subsea Reliability Strategy, BP Exploration, April 2003.
[10] Guidelines for Integrity Monitoring of Unbonded Flexible Pipe, MCS International & Robit joint J IP Report, published by UK HSE as OTO Document No. 98019, March 1998.
[11] Managing the Integrity of Flexible Pipe Field Systems: Industry Guidelines and their Application to BPs West of Shetland Assets, Picksely, Kavanagh, Garnham and Turner, OTC14064, May 2002.
[13] A comparison between Steel Catenary Risers and Hybrid Riser Towers for Deepwater Field Developments, V.Alliot, J . Legras, D. Perinet, Deep Offshore Technoclogy Conference, November 2004.