Copyright 2007, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 30 April3 May 2007.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, 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 an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
As exploration activity increases and day rates increase for
drilling vessels there is significant pressure on drilling
contractors to push the limitations of both vessels and drilling
equipment, as such deepwater drilling riser management has
become a critical aspect of any well drilling operation. This is
particularly the case in deepwater operations combined with
potentially harsh environmental conditions (currents, wind,
wave combinations) where maintaining operability is a
potential problem as is maintaining riser integrity. There are
several areas of technology development that may allow
continued operations or planning of operations to allow
minimal downtime related to environmental conditions.
There are also several areas of key technology that could
enable riser operations in deeper water depths. The items
outlined will be assessed critically with respect to rig
operations and highlight key areas that require development.

Introduction
It is accepted that for deepwater drilling riser analysis drilling
contractors and operators adhere to the guidance provided by
API RP16Q to define riser tensions and assess operability,
hang-off, drift-off and weak point analysis, however each
operator / drilling contractor may have procedures in place to
enhance operability, maintain mean riser angles and so on. It is
the intent of this paper to assess what procedures are in place
as compared to what aspects are typically analyzed. The
intent of the paper is to also offer a critical assessment of
potential enabling technologies be they the deployment of
fairings, composite auxiliary lines, riser materials, drilling
riser management software or real time monitoring systems.

Drilling Riser Management
The operation of deepwater drilling riser systems are
generally dependent upon the current regime at any particular
well location, with the most significant impact on riser
response from the full depth current profile rather than just
from surface current alone. It should also be noted that it is
not sufficient to just address the drilling riser alone since
interaction with the wellhead and conductor becomes
considerably more important as tension in the riser increases.
It is generally accepted that riser analysis allows operators
and drilling contractors a perception of what potentially will
influence riser operations during the drilling program. Riser
operations being considered as the following:

Open water operations
Operability
Hang-off performance
Fatigue
Running and retrieval

The main driver for good drilling riser management (see
figure 1) practice is the concept that no drilling contractor
wants to have to pull the riser in a storm, or leave it hanging
from the spider / tensioners and hence there is pressure applied
to provide a system robust enough to remain connected during
a storm and preferably remain drilling ahead.
In order to manage long strings of drilling riser it is
accepted that certain strategies can be applied in an attempt to
combat the loss of operability:

Control riser tension (increase to reduce LFJ angle)
Control vessel position
Spaceout modifications
Alter riser drag (with fairings or otherwise)

In order to manage long strings of drilling riser in harsh
environments, that may comprise high currents in combination
with severe wave regimes, it is necessary for a vessel
operating at a particular well location to have access to
significant amounts of data related to drilling equipment and
metocean conditions.

These data may include the following:

OTC 18646
Enabling Solutions for Deepwater Drilling Riser ManagementA Critical Evaluation
A.S. Westlake and K. Uppu, MCS
2 OTC 18646

Real time angle measurements (upper, lower and
intermediate flex joints)
Access to reliable acoustic Doppler current profiles
Bathymetric charts
Reliable advance (72 hour) weather forecasting of storms
and currents
Well specific riser management plan
Operator well design


Riser Response
Before any drilling riser is deployed a drilling contractor /
operator will undertake a drilling riser response study based on
the prevailing metocean conditions for a given well site based
on the guidance of API RP 16Q [1] and AMJIG [2].
For connected operations emphasis is generally given to
assessing the riser response due to currents since wave loading
on any given vessel is unlikely to have a large influence on
mean riser angles. The current drilling riser codes suggest
that drilling downtime is likely to be incurred if mean riser
angles exceed 2 degrees. In reality most drilling contractors
place a more stringent requirement on their operations
generally limiting mean angles to less than 1 degree. This
more stringent angular limitation is designed to reduce wear in
the system, particularly in lieu of the lower flex joint, although
again in reality if the correct wear bushings are deployed then
it is unlikely that key seating will occur across critical
components of the system even above a 1 degree mean angle.
This limitation is also designed to provide some margin
against the wellhead not being perfectly vertical when
installed.
Conversely for disconnected operations wave induced
vessel motions will tend to have the largest influence on riser
response, although current drag load on the suspended riser
string may also cause clashing issues with the diverter housing
or otherwise. It is also understood that suspended risers are a
low tension system and as such could be subject to significant
fatigue damage from vortex induced vibration if allowed to
hang free in relatively high currents. The effect of VIV would
likely compound the drag on the riser since VIV increases the
effective drag coefficient of the riser. It is accepted that
running and retrieval operations are more than likely
conducted in benign environmental conditions, however an
emergency disconnect for a DP vessel may well be in
relatively harsh conditions since the vessel will have lost
station.
For connected and disconnected operations there are
already operating / operational procedures in place to try and
manage long riser systems and these are discussed in the
following section.

Operational Techniques
Prior to deploying a riser system a set of operational limits
will be defined by each drilling contractor on a vessel and well
specific basis. In addition to the documented limitations a set
of procedures would also likely be drawn up that could
potentially mitigate any problems, and hence a riser
management plan is developed. Riser management as
previously stated can be split into several areas of which the
intent of this paper is to only really assess three of the key
issues (operability, hang-off and running and retrieval)., with
most attention paid to connected operations.

Connected Operations
On a well specific basis a set of mechanical limitations will
be prescribed for the riser system generally in relation to flex
joint angles and tensioner / telescopic joint stroke. The riser
spaceout may also be optimized to provide sufficient
buoyancy to allow for tensioner capacity and sufficient in
water weight such that the riser can be hung-off in at least the
largest connected seastate without going into compression or
clashing with the vessel.
It would be considered normal practice where mean
differential riser angle (allowing for wellhead being out of
plumb) exceeds 1-degree and is less than 3-degrees with the
same dynamic amplitude of +/- 0.50-degrees, that tripping
operations (non-rotating, hoisting operations) would be carried
out to secure the well and/or bring the drill string above the
BOP rams. Following which operations will be suspended
until it is confirmed that measured riser response is within the
tolerances specified for resumption of operations. To assist in
this decision making process a riser operability analysis would
have been performed prior to spud of the well.
As additional guidance for rig operating personnel, based
on the analytical data the installation can be repositioned up-
current (to improve lower angle), down-current (to improve
upper angle) by active winching or biasing for DP
installations. Riser tension may also be adjusted upwards
within the rated capabilities of the tensioners and riser system
to aid in the control of the mean riser angle and minimize the
associated dynamic amplitude; however, riser tension will
never be reduced below the API minimum recommended
vertical tension for the location. It should also be considered
that for the harsh environment dynamically positioned vessels
there will likely be a limitation on the maximum and minimum
tensions due to the anti-recoil system.
It is clear that if the riser spaceout can be optimized to
account for the requirements of the well and also to allow a
significant amount of reserve tension over and above that
required for the maximum mud weight then it should be
possible to control riser angles with that tension.
There are additional challenges associated with deepwater
drilling riser management particularly for the connected
drilling riser. There is more and more pressure applied now to
carry out combined operations in that for development wells
drilled from a MODU the rig may be required to deploy
completions equipment, coiled tubing and or a test tree. These
operations can only be performed under more stringent
mechanical limits than just standard drilling due to the general
requirement that the operator is unlikely to want to carry the
cost of a sheared tree or string of coiled tubing.
In order to take a critical look at whether the approaches
above do increase operability, a generic 6000 ft WD case with
connected riser with applied 10-year return period loop current
was analyzed to provide comparative results. In the analytical
work the effect of increasing tension and optimizing vessel
offset from the well centre have been investigated.

3 OTC 18646
Tables 1to 4 and figures 3 to 8 provide the analytical results of
conducting the above operations in a 10-year loop current.

The results provided indicate that increasing tension can
have a significant impact on drilling riser angle, however this
should be qualified in that the addition of tension also results
in increased tension across the wellhead and into the
conductor casing both statically and dynamically.

Loss of stationkeeping for DP vessels leading to
emergency disconnect should also be considered whilst
developing the riser management plan, since this requires
forced suspension of the drilling riser from the drill floor.

Conclusion of Connected Parametric Study
The results of the parametric study carried out for this section
of the paper indicate some interesting trends for this water
depth case at least.
The increase in top tension applied to the riser system in
the current regime applied reduces curvature in the system and
therefore influences the angular rotations at both the top and
the bottom of the system. It should also be noted that any
increase in tension will also increase the load carried through
the wellhead and conductor and any riser management plan
must address this issue if applying additional tension is part of
any mitigation measure prescribed.
The reduction in curvature appears to have a profound
effect on the upper flex joint and lower flex joint angles, for
this current regime and water depth. In addition the effect is
more significant for a riser that has been displaced to seawater
when compared to the 12ppg mud case. The figures
(3,4,5,6,7,8) also indicate that the reduced mass in the riser
generates a lesser initial riser response.
The conclusion above therefore confirms that displacement
of the riser to seawater and addition of more tension may
allow the rise to remain connected when it may have had to
have been disconnected if more dense drilling fluid had
remained in the system.
In addition figures 3, 4 and 5 clearly show the effect of re-
positioning the vessel up current on the lower flex joint and
moving down current on upper flex joint.
The short study shows that techniques already employed
on board drilling vessels are effective in reducing riser angles,
possibly sufficiently to continue drilling or at least remain
connected when the riser may otherwise have been
disconnected.
Critically though it should also be noted that additional
tension can only be applied within the constraints of the
tensioner system and also the constraints of the recoil system,
as such the application of additional tension may be limited for
a given rig and well location.


Disconnected Operations
In many cases, contrary to connected operations long riser
strings are deployed under controlled conditions. In
combination with the operability analyses, a drilling contractor
will establish through analyses the maximum environmental
conditions during which the riser can be deployed or safely
suspended. As such any string will only be deployed, or
suspended, if an adequate weather window exists. For the
emergency hang-off situation the riser string has to be
designed for the maximum connected operating condition.
The key issues for long suspended strings of riser are the
potential for clashing with the diverter housing or vessel and
avoiding the axial dynamic response that puts the riser in
compression. More recently there have also been problems
with relative axial motions of the auxiliary lines causing
failure of auxiliary line seals.
It is difficult to quantify a set of enabling solutions that
would allow a riser string to be deployed or hung-off in
environmental conditions outwith the original design of the
system; however a few items for discussion are listed below:

Drift while running
Reduce drag on the riser
Vertical support through the moonpool
Support arrangement

In order to minimize the effect of current on a riser string
being deployed from a DP vessel it is often the case that to
facilitate running, or retrieval, a vessel will be positioned such
that it can drift onto location with the prevailing current. This
minimizing the drag effect on the riser and hence avoids
clashing issues. This also requires very careful planning since
overshot of the wellhead can cause significant lost time as the
vessel repositions for latch up. There must also be a
favourable bathymetric corridor through which the riser can be
run to avoid clashing with the seabed or other sub-sea
infrastructure.
Reduction of drag on the riser is discussed in the following
section, suffice to say that it is possible through optimization
of the position of buoyant riser joints and or the deployment of
fairings to reduce hydrodynamic drag over the upper section
of any riser string. Critically the time that it takes to run
fairings often drives the decision not to run them and as such it
is probably more prudent to try and optimize the position of
the buoyant joints in the string.
A major consideration when assessing the hang-off of
long strings of drilling riser are the support arrangements
(boundary conditions) at the top of the system. It is difficult to
optimize the running and retrieval operations since the riser
will always be supported by the blocks and then resting in the
riser for make-up and break out of joint connections. In storm
hang-off mode there are several options, traditionally the riser
may be supported in the spider. However, to provide a more
pliant load path following emergency disconnect the
telescopic joint may be latched up and the riser allowed to
remain supported by the tensioners and hook. The latter
arrangement allows the vessel motions to be de-coupled from
the riser and thus potentially avoiding exciting the riser axially
and causing compression in the system or exceeding the
hoisting capacity of the rig. This does not solve the issue of
current loading on the riser which may still in these
circumstances cause angular rotation at just below the
drillfloor and potential clashing through the diverter and
moonpool.
A novel solution(s) to the problem of large rotation
suspended riser strings is moving the point of rotation below
4 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646
the keel or at least below the telescopic joint by the
deployment of an intermediate flex joint. The intermediate
flex joint solution can only really be an effective solution if
the riser can also be laterally restrained through the moonpool.
This lateral restraint solution has been attempted by a number
of rigs with varying degrees of success, in addition the concept
of having a riser guide system in the moonpool has also
recently been investigated.
It is important based on the above that a thorough
management plan be developed which encompasses not only
connected operations but also disconnected operations. This
form of riser management document would have to
incorporate a thorough understanding of the potential response
of the riser string axially and laterally.

Riser Hydrodynamic Drag
Exposure to high currents results not only in high drag
loads and riser angles, but increases possibility of vortex-
induced vibration (VIV), observed as oscillation of the riser
and resulting in accelerated fatigue damage of the string. It
should also be noted that another problem associated with VIV
is the increase in the effective drag coefficient of the riser
string potentially resulting in larger deflections of the riser if
lock in of response occurs. It should also be pointed out that
riser vibrations are not always apparent, especially in long
riser strings where vibration can be induced at mid-water
column or near the mud line without apparent effect in the
moon pool. Operationally therefore it is desirable to avoid
vortex-induced vibration in the riser string through various
means. In addition to the reduction in VIV response it may
also be desirable to reduce hydrodynamic drag on the riser
system.
Fairings
Riser fairings for example, are not primarily intended to
suppress VIV, but rather improve riser operability in high
currents by reducing drag load on the riser. However, effective
reduction in VIV response also has the added benefit of
reducing effective drag brought on by VIV. Strakes, in
comparison, tend to counter the effects of VIV by disturbing
water flow around the riser, but does little to reduce drag on
the riser and in some cases actually increase the drag on the
riser.
Auxiliary lines and hoses can be independently excited by
vortex induced vibration, resulting in fatigue damage or failure
of hoses, umbilicals and small tubulars such as rigid conduits.
A drilling contractor may dictate that a vessel caught in
high currents with a vibrating drilling riser could as a control
adjust the vertical tension upward incrementally (up to the
maximum usable top tension (typically 0.90 x installed tension
x 0.95). It should be noted that the vertical tension will likely
be adjusted at the discretion of the onboard responsible parties
and should be set only as high as required to mitigate
vibration. Since it is difficult to actually see a riser vibrating
in the moonpool, it would be a difficult call for rig personnel
to decide if and when the drilling riser has discontinued from
vibrating.
It may also be possible to reduce response to a degree by
offset of the installation slightly up-current or down-current,
this will also effect riser angles and would therefore have to be
considered carefully prior to performing this operation.
A rig may also consider attempting to increase the reserve
top tension that it can apply to the drilling riser by lightening
the system weight during an extreme event. The action taken
by the rig would be to displace the drilling fluid from the riser
for sea water. This improves the effect of increased vertical
tension by reducing the submerged weight of the riser
contents. A similar analysis has been performed for this case
with regard to riser angles rather than vibration response, thus
taking the same riser model displaced to seawater and
increasing tension to assess relative angles (see tables 1 and 2
and figures 3 to 8).
In addition since fairings rather than strakes have been
applied in the past to drilling risers for VIV suppression a
critical evaluation of the effect of fairings on a string of riser
parametric study has been performed factoring up and down
the riser joint tangential drag coefficients and assessing the
effect on angular rotation of the flex joints during exposure to
a Gulf of Mexico 10-year loop current in 6000ft water depth
The results of this drag parametric study can be seen in
tables 5 and 6 and figures 9 to 14.
Conclusion of Drag Parametric Study
The results of the drag parametric study indicate some
interesting trends for this water depth case at least.
It is clear that reducing drag over the full length of the riser
has some impact on lower flex joint angle, however there is a
significant impact on the upper flex joint. This is significant
in that as water depths increase the hydrodynamic drag effect
on the riser starts to become limited to a large degree over a
limited section of the riser string. This effect has been
assessed by varying the length over which the drag coefficient
is reduced during the analysis. What is most noticeable about
these analyses are that the results for varying the drag
coefficient over the full length of the riser are actually the
same as if the drag coefficient is only varied over the upper
portion of the riser. These results appear intuitive in that with
a sheared current profile (Brazil, Gulf of Mexico) the majority
of drag load will likely be concentrated over the upper portion
of the riser.
Critically if we assess the drag parameters as published by
Shell for their tail fairings (see table 6) and assess based what
C
d
should be applied analytically for a set of currents it is
possible to come to the general conclusion that higher current
velocities (hence higher Reynolds numbers) will result, if the
riser is faired, or if buoyant joints are run over the upper
portion of the riser exposed to the highest current that
significant savings in upper flex joint angle can be achieved.
Based on the analytical work performed for this paper, altering
the drag coefficient from 1.0 to 0.7 likely provides a saving of
25% on upper angle for a highly sheared loop current.
The ultimate conclusions drawn from the analytical work
performed during preparation of this paper are as follows:

Reducing drag coefficient over the region of drilling riser
subject to high currents can increase operability in that it
is possible to reduce upper flex joint angle.
Fairings have been proven through model tests and
experience to reduce the VIV response and the increased
drag associated with a vibrating drilling riser. At high
Reynolds numbers the benefit of running fairings (based
5 OTC 18646
on Shell Tail fairings) could be dramatic.
It should also be considered that at high Reynolds
numbers buoyancy modules alone may also provide
similar savings in drag coefficient over the upper sections
of the riser string. This conclusion is purely based on
guidance provided by API RP 16Q [1]

Hardware
It is obvious that a combination of factors assist in
increasing operability and hence managing strings of riser in
deepwater and challenging environmental conditions.
However, one purpose of this paper was to also discuss the
potential use of emerging technologies in marine drilling riser
systems to meet the challenges of drilling riser management
during the coming years in the deep-offshore drilling industry.
Drilling operations in the US Gulf of Mexico (US GOM) in a
water depth of 10,011 feet by the Discoverer Deep Seas in
November 2003 have provided indications that the ability to
perform efficiently and successfully in water depths beyond
10,000 feet requires study of new technologies to enhance the
capabilities of existing equipment in lieu of simply scaling up
existing systems to meet the increased capability demands,
since this is potentially cost prohibitive.
The issues with the conventional steel marine drilling riser
appear principally to be mass and wet weight, thus many rigs
become tension limited and thus have little margin for
increasing tension to try and reduce angles and increase
operability. Thus, the ability to reduce the mass supported by
the tensioner system should not only allow the advanced 5
th

generation rigs to push the water depth envelope out beyond
10 or 11,000ft but also allow some of the lesser capable rigs to
move beyond their limiting water depths and still be able to
manage their drilling risers effectively. Several new or
emerging technologies are considered as candidates for a
critical assessment for this paper. These include but are not
limited the following:

Composites all composite riser and / or composite
auxiliary lines
Aluminium riser / auxiliary lines
Titanium riser / auxiliary lines
Surface BOP (already been deployed in deep water depths
from a DP MODU)
Free-standing riser

While all of these options have real benefits, some of
which are yet to be fully quantified, since surface BOP,
aluminium riser and the FSR concept have already been
studied in depth as such a critical focus in this paper has been
how much weight can be saved for a particular concept and
hence what is the implication for reserved tension and hence
operability (riser management).
In this paper the use of different materials for the
peripheral lines on a steel riser tube has been concentrated
upon. This decision has been made since the replacement of
existing auxiliary lines on an existing deep water riser system
represents a substantial reduction in capital investment over
the purchase of an entirely new riser system (different material
or otherwise). Additionally, for the drilling contractor risk is
comparatively small since the ability to revert to conventional
auxiliary lines is retained. Also of concern is the trend toward
higher anticipated mud weights in ultra-deep water wells
which not only increase the tension requirement but also result
in high local loads in the riser couplings along the length of
the riser string.

Subsequently, the equivalent mass between a standard
slick joint of steel riser joints versus the other solutions has
been assessed. It can be seen that composite auxiliary lines
and even titanium, although to a lesser degree offer significant
weight savings. This has a direct impact on the mass to be
supported by a rigs tensioner system and hence the amount of
reserve tension that can be applied to increase operability.
This is complicated to some degree by the fact that it is
desirable to tune buoyancy requirements in order that minimal
top tension is applied to support the riser and mud column
while maintaining sufficient in water weight should the riser
require to be hung-off. Tables 7 and 8 indicate that due to the
additional buoyancy of all three material types a reduction in
the buoyancy diameter and lift characteristics may be
achieved. This in itself has a profound effect on the drag
characteristics of a long string of riser in deepwater that is
deployed with a significant number of buoyant joints in the
region of highest currents in any given water column. It is
suggested therefore that not only does substituting the
auxiliary lines for another material reduce the mass of the riser
system it may also go some to reducing the drag load on the
system.
From this assessment and previous work performed by
Transocean [4] and Vetco [7] it is possible to conclude the
following:

Conclusion from Hardware Assessment
The results of the hardware assessment indicate the following:

Comparable connected operability should be achievable
with a reduction in required top tension, eliminating the
need for tensioner capacity and corresponding
substructure upgrades for some ultra-deep water drilling
units.
In addition to the conclusion above this would free up
more reserve tension for use in managing riser angles.
The potential reduced wet weight of the hybrid riser
string, combined with a reduced tension requirement
should result in lower coupling loads.
The potential for reduction in buoyancy diameters over
the upper portion of the string should lead to enhanced
drag characteristics and hence better operability and riser
management.

A potential criticism of the hardware enabling options may
be that it is unlikely that a drilling contractor will take a step
out from traditional equipment until a test case or qualification
has been performed to prove reliability. This statement is
made since the pressure at present is to remain drilling and
connected for as long as possible. It may also be the case that
the wall thickness required for the materials other than steel to
6 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646
meet the design requirements may make the options less
desirable.

Other Hardware Options
Since riser management in deepwater is generally concerned
with maintaining operability and riser integrity some novel
solutions have been applied recently for deep water locations
where riser component integrity due to high current loading is
an issue. What is meant can be illustrated by the fact that
during high currents riser deflections can lead to lower angles
that may result in contact between the internal diameter of the
riser / LFJ / LMRP / BOP and the drillpipe within it causing
high contact forces and hence wear at any given contact
location.
The API RP 16Q document suggests that once a 2 degree
mean lower flex joint angle is attained rotation of the drillpipe
within the riser should be halted and the riser and drilling
equipment be prepared for potential disconnected operations.
The 2 degree angle limitation is an estimate of the point of
contact and hence the point at which wear commences. Good
drilling practice dictates that wear bushings should be in place
across the critical components of the LMRP and BOP stack
such that key areas are not key seated. It is considered that the
2 degree mean angle was chosen to also account for the fact
that the wellhead and hence BOP at most drilling locations are
rarely installed purely vertical. In considering the mean lower
flex joint angle as a limitation to drilling due to wear, then it
should be noted that most drilling contractors stipulate a mean
lower angle limitation of 1 degree or less for drilling
operations in an attempt to maintain equipment integrity.
Pioneer Natural resources have published information
regarding one solution to this problem, a passive solution
rather than active management of angles. By passive the
authors mean that the solution applied by Pioneer to exceed
the angular limitations of their drilling contractor did not
require that the vessel apply an active means of controlling
angle (tension, vessel offset etc).
The enabling solution applied by Pioneer Natural
Resources was to install non-rotating drillpipe protectors on
each joint of drillpipe. The protectors comprise sleeves made
from tough, but flexible polymer that are free to rotate on the
pipe. These pipe protectors have generally, to date at least
been applied to reduce torque, drag and casing wear in high
angle wells. The protectors deployed had outside diameters
greater than the diameter of the drillpipe tool joints and hence
provide a stand-off between the most damaging component of
the pipe and the riser internal wall. During loop current
exposure at the well location drilling operations continued
even with lower riser angles up to and exceeding 2 degrees.
Although this is a passive system it appears to be an
effective riser management solution in that with the drillpipe
protectors deployed the vessel in question (moored) did not
have to try and apply significant additional top tension
(assuming that it was not operating at the limit of its tensioner
system), nor did the rig have to try and actively winch around
location to try and free up angle to continue drilling.
It should be considered that although the above is a
potential solution to some drilling riser management issues,
wear of the internal wall of the riser and other key components
is very difficult to quantify. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
removal of the lower flex joint wear bushing during drilling
operations can result in key seating or drilling right through
the flex element. There has also been significant amounts of
work performed to assess critical contact angles at which point
contact forces start to rise and wear commences within the
system, however quantifying how much wear is going to occur
and where is very difficult.
This solution appears to have been a success for Pioneer
Natural Resources however, the authors would be surprised if
many drilling contractors would be willing to deploy the same
type of system.

Passive Solutions
In addition to the active, hardware and passive hardware
solutions to managing deepwater drilling riser systems the
recent development of several on-board operational simulation
software packages and riser monitoring systems has enabled
enhanced planning of rig and drilling operations.
In itself these do not appear to be significant contributors
to the whole drilling riser management plan for a well or
sequence of wells. However, the reliable planning of
operations in combination with reliable weather forecasting
can be a valuable drilling riser management tool.
MCS has developed the following tools which can be
utilized to manage offshore operations and provide valuable
input into the decision making process on-board any drilling
vessel. The software packages are the following:

IRIS 3D full real time monitoring coupled with riser
management software.
DeepDrift drift off assessment for DP vessels

The capabilities of each of these packages are outlined
below with the riser management benefits of each
summarized:

IRIS RMS 3D
This system is an on-board Riser Management System
(RMS) that provides an integrated full real-time riser response
monitoring system coupled to a state of the art FE analysis
tool.
The IRIS system can provide the following analyses in real
time:

Operability
Hang-off
Running and Retrieval
Drift-off analyses
Fatigue tracking
VIV response


It can be seen from the break down of capabilities that
there are significant benefits from the system from both a riser
operating stand-point and an integrity management tool.
Of most importance in terms of this paper are the
capabilities of the operability analysis module. Not only does
the software calculate the mechanical limits of the riser system
7 OTC 18646
for a given monitored set of environmental conditions, it will
utilize these data to provide the following:

Recommended vessel position(s) to optimize specific riser
system parameters
Maximum and minimum top tension limits on the riser
Optimum total riser top tension and optimum split of
tension between tensioner tension and hook load
Maximum stress in riser joints and location (joint) where
this occurs
Recommended red and yellow watch circles for DP vessel

If we take these items in the context of the rest of this
paper then it is clear that the IRIS RMS software is taking
the guesswork out of riser management. This means that for
rig personnel there is a relatively easy decision tree to follow,
in that the software is providing the optimum solution in order
to keep the vessel drilling and maintain riser integrity.

DeepDrift
This system is an on-board drift-off simulator / prediction
program. This software is designed to predict the alert offsets
for a given DP MODUs station loss scenarios. The program
was developed in conjunction with GlobalSantaFe and is
designed to operate in the offline mode only. By stipulating
that the software remains offline, the requirement is then that
the DP operator onboard the rig takes responsibility for the
environmental data input. There is no integration with any on-
board sensors or data acquisition systems.
Most recently this program has been enhanced with a drift
while running module and a running and retrieval module.
The software incorporates a fully-couple FE model of the
vessel, drilling riser and well system. The FE engine from
Flexcom acts as the analysis tool and is run to simulate the
behaviour of the riser and vessel during the loss of power on
board the vessel. Critical riser parameters are monitored
during the analysis to determine where the yellow and red
watch circles should be in relation to the point of disconnect.
The results of each simulation allow rig personnel to make
informed decisions about when / whether emergency
disconnect will be required in any given environment. The
ultimate driver for this type of tool is that the prevailing
environmental conditions on any given day at any location
will not reflect the conservative design environments applied
in the riser analysis. By allowing the user to input actual
environmental data in effect allows the expansion of watch
circles during benign conditions. Conditions during which,
with no simulation software onboard, emergency disconnect
may be forced if station loss occurs. In reality decision
making time is extended during benign conditions and hence
the avoidance of unnecessary disconnects of the LMRP, and
associated loss of drilling time can be avoided.
GlobalSantaFe cite that when combined with appropriate
operating decision making processes this system saved them
more than $2million on one well.
The additional enhancements to the software away from
just the drift off analyses are also designed to assist in riser
management and operational planning by allowing simulation
of running riser drifting or otherwise. By simulating
prevailing conditions while the riser is being run the software
provides the appropriate drift speed and path and vessel
position to allow latch up to the wellhead without overshoot
and the associated lost time repositioning the rig to attempt to
latch up again.

Conclusions
Riser management in deepwater, high current and harsh
environments can be achieved through good operating
procedures, operations planning, data acquisition and weather
forecasting.
As rigs move out to deeper water depths then the
requirement for reducing riser string weight, to fit with
existing tensioner and recoil systems may have a significant
impact on the application of new technology to enable
connected and disconnected drilling riser operations.
It is also considered that the application of real time
monitoring systems in conjunction with state of the art
simulation software will allow access to significant quantities
of riser response data for analytical model calibration. In
addition riser management will be assisted by the ability to
reliably simulate what the riser response will be for a given set
of forecast data.
Tried and tested methods of riser management such as
repositioning the rig and pulling more tension appear effective
within the constraints of the vessels equipment, analytically at
least. It is also considered the possibility of reducing the drag
on any given riser system particularly over sections exposed to
high currents can have a dramatic effect.
Finally, good riser management moving into the future for
deeper water depths will likely require a full combination of
the techniques and systems described in this paper in order for
rigs to maintain operability and riser integrity.


References

[1] American Petroleum Institute: Recommended Practice for
Design, Selection, Operation and Maintenance of Marine
Drilling Riser Systems (API RP16Q), American Petroleum
Institute (Nov. 1993).
[2] Report Prepared for the Atlantic Margin Joint Industry
Group (AMJIG) Deepwater Drilling Riser Integrity
Management Guidelines October 1998
[3] American Petroleum Institute: Bulletin on Formulas and
Calculations for Casing, Tubing, Drill Pipe and Line Pipe
Properties (API Bulletin 5C3), American Petroleum Institute
(Oct. 1994).
[4] Darrel K. Pelley, Riddle E. Steddum, P.E., Andrew S.
Westlake Mooring and Riser Management In Ultra-Deep
Water and Beyond SPE/IADC SPE-92616-PP, February
2005
[5] Riddle Steddum The Management of Long Suspended
Strings of Tubulars from Floating Drilling Vessels, Offshore
8 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646
Technology Conference, OTC 15235, Houston, Texas 2003

[6] Douglas B. Johnson, Donald Baldwin, Composite Choke
and Kill Lines, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC
14020, Houston, Texas 2002
[7] W.F Andersen, O. Burgdorf, Jr., T.F. Sweeney
Comparative Analysis of 12,500ft Water Depth Steel and
Advanced Composite Drilling Risers, Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 8732, Houston, Texas 1998

9 OTC 18646



Figure 1 Riser Management Definition Flow Chart

R
i
s
e
r

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
i
s
e
r

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
O
n
s
h
o
r
e
O
n
s
h
o
r
e
O
f
f
s
h
o
r
e
O
f
f
s
h
o
r
e
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
:
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
:
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d

U
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
O
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d

U
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
:
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
:
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
a
t
i
g
u
e
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
-
U
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
F
a
t
i
g
u
e
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
-
U
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
e
a
l

T
e
s
t
s
S
e
a
l

T
e
s
t
s
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

T
e
s
t
s
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

T
e
s
t
s
E
t
c
.
E
t
c
.
O
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
O
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
R
i
s
e
r

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
R
e
a
l
-
T
i
m
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
R
e
a
l
-
T
i
m
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
O
n
-
B
o
a
r
d

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
)
O
n
-
B
o
a
r
d

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
)
A
D
C
P
A
D
C
P
R
i
s
e
r

V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

A
n
g
l
e
s
R
i
s
e
r

A
n
g
l
e
s
S
l
i
p

J
o
i
n
t

/

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
r

S
t
r
o
k
e
S
l
i
p

J
o
i
n
t

/

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
r

S
t
r
o
k
e
V
I
V

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
V
I
V

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
v
e

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
v
e

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
i
r
i
n
g
s

A
n
g
l
e

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
i
r
i
n
g
s

A
n
g
l
e

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

O
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

O
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

R
i
s
e
r

R
u
n
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
.

R
u
n
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

R
i
s
e
r

R
u
n
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
.

R
u
n
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
R
i
s
e
r

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
i
s
e
r

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
O
n
s
h
o
r
e
O
n
s
h
o
r
e
O
f
f
s
h
o
r
e
O
f
f
s
h
o
r
e
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
:
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
:
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d

U
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
O
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d

U
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
:
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
:
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
a
t
i
g
u
e
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
-
U
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
F
a
t
i
g
u
e
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
-
U
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
e
a
l

T
e
s
t
s
S
e
a
l

T
e
s
t
s
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

T
e
s
t
s
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

T
e
s
t
s
E
t
c
.
E
t
c
.
O
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
O
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
R
i
s
e
r

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
R
e
a
l
-
T
i
m
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
R
e
a
l
-
T
i
m
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
O
n
-
B
o
a
r
d

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
)
O
n
-
B
o
a
r
d

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
)
A
D
C
P
A
D
C
P
R
i
s
e
r

V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
R
i
s
e
r

A
n
g
l
e
s
R
i
s
e
r

A
n
g
l
e
s
S
l
i
p

J
o
i
n
t

/

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
r

S
t
r
o
k
e
S
l
i
p

J
o
i
n
t

/

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
r

S
t
r
o
k
e
V
I
V

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
V
I
V

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
v
e

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
v
e

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
i
r
i
n
g
s

A
n
g
l
e

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
i
r
i
n
g
s

A
n
g
l
e

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

O
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

O
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

R
i
s
e
r

R
u
n
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
.

R
u
n
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

R
i
s
e
r

R
u
n
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
.

R
u
n
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
10 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646

10 Yr Loop Current Profile
-4300
-3800
-3300
-2800
-2300
-1800
-1300
-800
-300
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Current Velocity (knots)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)


Figure 2 Representative 10-year Loop Current Profile
11 OTC 18646
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
700 1.184 2.019 2.811 3.627 4.401 5.287 5.992 6.807 7.566 8.426 9.069 9.811 10.49
800 0.058 0.904 1.747 2.592 3.399 4.319 5.085 5.949 6.762 7.66 8.36 9.145 9.764
900 0.819 0.037 0.91 1.779 2.624 3.567 4.379 5.284 6.14 6.938 7.815 8.514 9.3
1000 1.5 0.65 0.24 1.128 1.998 2.855 3.814 4.751 5.644 6.48 7.384 8.121 8.949
1100 2.078 1.214 0.374 0.592 1.483 2.367 3.35 4.315 5.239 6.108 7.033 7.803 8.652
1200 2.566 1.686 0.818 0.066 1.051 1.959 2.961 3.95 4.902 5.799 6.744 7.55 8.408
1300 2.975 2.087 1.208 0.309 0.684 1.611 2.63 3.641 4.616 5.538 6.5 7.328 8.203
1350 3.139 2.266 1.382 0.477 0.52 1.455 2.483 3.503 4.489 5.422 6.392 7.23 8.113
1400 3.31 2.432 1.544 0.634 0.367 1.31 2.345 3.374 4.371 5.315 6.292 7.14 8.029
1500 3.619 2.734 1.837 0.911 0.089 1.048 2.096 3.143 4.158 5.122 6.113 6.978 7.88
1600 3.891 2.999 2.095 1.161 0.154 0.817 1.877 2.939 3.972 4.953 5.956 6.837 7.75
1700 4.14 3.214 2.325 1.385 0.372 0.611 1.682 2.758 3.807 4.805 5.819 6.714 7.637
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
700 6.864 6.068 5.262 4.44 3.607 2.757 1.903 1.038 0.171 0.694 1.557 2.41 3.254
800 5.579 4.913 4.236 3.549 2.854 2.148 1.438 0.723 0.002 0.711 1.425 2.132 2.835
900 4.715 4.139 3.553 2.961 2.363 1.756 1.147 0.534 0.083 0.697 1.307 1.915 2.517
1000 4.087 3.578 3.063 2.541 2.015 1.484 0.949 0.41 0.128 0.668 1.203 1.736 2.264
1100 3.606 3.152 2.692 2.225 1.755 1.282 0.804 0.325 0.155 0.635 1.111 1.586 2.056
1200 3.225 2.814 2.398 1.978 1.553 1.126 0.695 0.264 0.169 0.601 1.03 1.458 1.882
1300 2.915 2.539 2.16 1.777 1.391 1.002 0.611 0.217 0.175 0.568 0.959 1.348 1.734
1350 2.78 2.42 2.057 1.691 1.321 0.949 0.575 0.199 0.177 0.553 0.926 1.298 1.667
1400 2.656 2.311 1.963 1.612 1.257 0.901 0.543 0.182 0.178 0.538 0.895 1.252 1.605
1500 2.436 2.118 1.797 1.473 1.146 0.817 0.487 0.156 0.178 0.509 0.838 1.167 1.493
1600 2.248 1.953 1.655 1.354 1.051 0.747 0.441 0.133 0.175 0.482 0.788 1.092 1.394
1700 2.085 1.809 1.532 1.252 0.97 0.686 0.401 0.115 0.171 0.457 0.741 1.025 1.306
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
Offset (% WD)
Offset (% WD)
UFJ
LFJ
8.56 ppg
8.56 ppg


Tables 1 and 2 6000ft WD riser 8.56ppg mud weight, effect of varying tension and vessel offset
12 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
700 3.515 4.189 4.82 5.388 5.856 6.36 6.799 7.323 7.609 8.116 8.378 8.725 9.02
800 2.011 2.708 3.307 3.895 4.496 5.054 5.706 6.181 6.738 7.375 7.81 8.334 8.803
900 0.808 1.523 2.135 2.789 3.429 4.165 4.763 5.45 6.088 6.669 7.33 7.817 8.397
1000 0.09 0.606 1.291 2.002 2.692 3.471 4.132 4.878 5.579 6.226 6.943 7.5 8.153
1100 0.843 0.108 0.613 1.36 2.09 2.908 3.621 4.415 5.168 5.868 6.629 7.239 7.935
1200 1.457 0.704 0.054 0.828 1.592 2.349 3.198 4.031 4.827 5.572 6.369 7.033 7.753
1300 1.973 1.214 0.404 0.38 1.171 1.961 2.84 3.708 4.54 5.323 6.151 6.85 7.6
1350 2.201 1.433 0.668 0.182 0.985 1.789 2.682 3.564 4.413 5.213 6.054 6.769 7.532
1400 2.387 1.635 0.861 0.071 0.811 1.629 2.534 3.431 4.296 5.111 5.965 6.694 7.469
1500 2.774 2 1.208 0.389 0.498 1.34 2.268 3.19 4.084 4.928 5.81 6.56 7.357
1600 3.114 2.295 1.513 0.679 0.23 1.087 2.034 2.98 3.899 4.769 5.67 6.444 7.281
1700 3.408 2.579 1.759 0.935 0 0.862 1.827 2.794 3.736 4.629 5.547 6.365 7.194
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
700 27.17 24.3 21.53 18.63 15.64 12.35 8.88 5.151 1.335 2.521 6.286 9.829 13.18
800 14.17 12.57 10.96 9.281 7.55 5.776 3.94 2.084 0.198 1.676 3.532 5.34 7.106
900 9.743 8.589 7.428 6.229 5.008 3.755 2.493 1.21 0.08 1.366 2.635 3.896 5.128
1000 7.459 6.556 5.636 4.697 3.744 2.774 1.797 0.809 0.183 1.173 2.152 3.126 4.083
1100 6.059 5.308 4.545 3.77 2.987 2.192 1.391 0.584 0.227 1.035 1.836 2.633 3.418
1200 5.099 4.458 3.806 3.147 2.48 1.807 1.126 0.442 0.244 0.929 1.607 2.283 2.95
1300 4.399 3.84 3.27 2.696 2.117 1.531 0.94 0.346 0.249 0.842 1.431 2.018 2.597
1350 4.115 3.588 3.056 2.514 1.97 1.421 0.867 0.31 0.248 0.805 1.357 1.907 2.451
1400 3.863 3.367 2.865 2.356 1.842 1.325 0.803 0.279 0.246 0.77 1.29 1.808 2.32
1500 3.44 2.994 2.543 2.088 1.627 1.165 0.698 0.229 0.24 0.709 1.174 1.637 2.096
1600 3.096 2.691 2.283 1.871 1.455 1.036 0.615 0.191 0.233 0.656 1.076 1.495 1.91
1700 2.81 2.441 2.068 1.693 1.313 0.932 0.548 0.162 0.225 0.61 0.993 1.374 1.752
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
Offset (% WD)
Offset (% WD)
UFJ
LFJ
12 ppg
12 ppg


Tables 3 and 4 6000ft WD riser 12ppg mud weight, effect of varying tension and vessel offset
13 OTC 18646
UFJ & LFJ Angle vs. Top Tension
Vessel Offset = 0% WD; Mud Weight = 8.56 ppg
Limits: UFJ = 2 deg, LFJ = 1 deg
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Top Tension (kips)
A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
LFJ Angle
UFJ Angle
LFJ Limit
UFJ Limit

Figure 3 Change Flex Joint Angles as Function of Increasing Vertical Top Tension 0% WD Offset

UFJ & LFJ Angle vs. Top Tension
Vessel Offset = -4% WD; Mud Weight = 8.56 ppg
Limits: UFJ = 2 deg, LFJ = 1 deg
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Top Tension (kips)
A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
LFJ Angle
UFJ Angle
LFJ Limit
UFJ Limit


Figure 4 Change in Flex Joint Angles as Function of Increasing Vertical Top Tension Zero -4% of WD Vessel Offset
14 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646
UFJ & LFJ Angle vs. Top Tension
Vessel Offset = 4% WD; Mud Weight = 8.56 ppg
Limits: UFJ = 2 deg, LFJ = 1 deg
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Top Tension (kips)
A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
LFJ Angle
UFJ Angle
LFJ Limit
UFJ Limit

Figure 5 Change in Flex Joint Angles as Function of Increasing Vertical Top Tension Zero +4% of WD Vessel Offset

UFJ & LFJ Angle vs. Top Tension
Vessel Offset = 0% WD; Mud Weight = 12 ppg
Limits: UFJ = 2 deg, LFJ = 1 deg
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Top Tension (kips)
A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
LFJ Angle
UFJ Angle
LFJ Limit
UFJ Limit

Figure 6 Change in Flex Joint Angles as Function of Increasing Vertical Top Tension Zero 0% of WD Vessel Offset

15 OTC 18646
UFJ & LFJ Angle vs. Top Tension
Vessel Offset = 4% WD; Mud Weight = 12 ppg
Limits: UFJ = 2 deg, LFJ = 1 deg
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Top Tension (kips)
A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
LFJ Angle
UFJ Angle
LFJ Limit
UFJ Limit

Figure 7 Change in Flex Joint Angles as Function of Increasing Vertical Top Tension Zero +4% of WD Vessel Offset


UFJ & LFJ Angle vs. Top Tension
Vessel Offset = -4% WD; Mud Weight = 12 ppg
Limits: UFJ = 2 deg, LFJ = 1 deg
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Top Tension (kips)
A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
LFJ Angle
UFJ Angle
LFJ Limit
UFJ Limit


Figure 8 Change in Flex Joint Angles as Function of Increasing Vertical Top Tension Zero -4% of WD Vessel Offset

16 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646
Normal
Drag
Tangential
Drag
Normal
Inertia Added Mass
UBJ Angle
(degrees)
LBJ Angle
(degrees)
UBJ Angle
(degrees)
LBJ Angle
(degrees)
UBJ Angle
(degrees)
LBJ Angle
(degrees)
0.00 0 2.00 0 0.075 0.000 3.693 0.113 0.158 0.025
0.10 0 2.00 0 0.418 0.000 3.704 0.116 0.516 0.039
0.20 0 2.00 0 0.794 0.016 3.715 0.121 0.882 0.05
0.30 0 2.00 0 1.172 0.036 3.725 0.127 1.249 0.061
0.40 0 2.00 0 1.550 0.052 3.736 0.131 1.616 0.075
0.50 0 2.00 0 1.927 0.068 3.747 0.131 1.981 0.103
0.60 0 2.00 0 2.303 0.099 3.757 0.153 2.347 0.102
0.70 0 2.00 0 2.680 0.101 3.768 0.158 2.712 0.115
0.80 0 2.00 0 3.054 0.121 3.779 0.162 3.076 0.125
0.90 0 2.00 0 3.428 0.132 3.789 0.167 3.439 0.136
1.00 0 2.00 0 3.801 0.144 3.801 0.144 3.801 0.144
1.10 0 2.00 0 4.172 0.158 3.811 0.148 4.161 0.157
Full Riser Varied Lower Half Varied Upper Half Varied


Table 5 Effect of varying drag coefficient on Riser Angles

Full Riser Varied (0% Offset)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Normal Drag
U
B
J

A
n
g
l
e
Full Riser Varied (0% Offset)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Normal Drag
L
B
J

A
n
g
l
e


Figure 9 and 10 Effect of varying drag over the full length of the riser
17 OTC 18646

Lower Half Varied (0% Offset)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Normal Drag
U
B
J

A
n
g
l
e
Lower Half Varied (0% Offset)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Normal Drag
L
B
J

A
n
g
l
e


Figure 11 and 12 Effect of varying drag over the lower half of the riser
18 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646

Reynolds Number (Re) Drag Coefficient (Cd)
100,000 1.25 - 1.15
300,000 1.10 - 1.00
500,000 0.95 - 0.85
700,000 0.80 - 0.70
1,000,000 0.70 - 0.60
Upper Half Varied (0% Offset)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Normal Drag
U
B
J

A
n
g
l
e
Upper Half Varied (0% Offset)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Normal Drag
L
B
J

A
n
g
l
e



Figure 13 and 14 Effect of varying drag over the upper half of the riser













Note: Data Courtesy of Shell Global Solutions
Table 6 Typical tail fairing drag coefficients
19 OTC 18646



Joint Type All-Steel
Steel /
Aluminium
Steel / Titanium
Steel/Comp
Length [feet] 75 75 75 75
Coupling Type H H H H
Coupling Rating [kips] 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Coupling Yield [ksi] 80 80 80 80

Main Tube OD [inches] 21.500 21.500 21.500 21.500
Tube Wall Thickness [inches] 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Tube Yield Strength [ksi] 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0
C&K Lines ID [inches] 4.500 4.500 4.500 4.500
C&K Lines OD [inches] 6.625 6.625 6.625 8.000
C&K MAWP [psi] 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Mud Boost Line ID [inches] 3.826 3.826 3.826 3.826
Mud Boost Line OD [inches] 4.500 4.500 4.500 4.500
Boost MAWP [psi] 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Hydro Line OD / ID [inches]
3.50 /
2.624 3.50 / 2.624 3.50 / 2.624 3.50 / 2.624
Hyd. Line MAWP [psi] 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Number of Hydro Lines 1 1 1 1

Riser Steel Air Weight [pounds] 24212
24212 24212
24212
Auxiliary Line Dry Weight [pounds] 12001
4504 7311
4409

Riser Steel Wet Weight [pounds] 21050
21050 21050
21050
Auxiliary Line Wet Weight [pounds] 10434
2794 5646
2845




Table 7 Characteristic weights of slick riser joints woth varied auxiliary line material properties

Joint Type Dry Weight Wet Weight
Slick Joint, All Steel [pounds] 36,213 31,484
Slick Joint, Comp. Lines [pounds] 28,621 23,896
Slick Joint, AL. Lines [pounds] 28,716 23,844
Slick Joint, Ti. Lines [pounds] 31,523 26,696


Table 8 Characteristic weights of slick riser joints woth varied auxiliary line material properties
20 Andy Westlake, Kalyan Uppu OTC 18646
Simulator Control
Module (SCM)
RMS Top Level Control Module (TLCM)
URSJ
LRSJ
Riser
Instrumentation
1
Tensioner
System
2
Top Drive
System
WOCS
DP System
RMS
Main Window
Riser Operating
Simulator
Riser/Vessel
Drift-off Simulator
Riser Input Module
/Integrity Database
Manager
(RIM/IDM)
RMS
Database
Riser Stack-up Static
Calculation Results
Riser Model File
Riser
Simulators
Integrity Tracking
Module
Notes: 1) Assumes instrumentation of 2 riser joints only, the URSJ and LRSJ.
2) At the time of writing, the availability of data from the tensioner system has yet to be confirmed.
Main
Operator
Interface


Figure 15 IRIS RMS Flow chart overview




Figure 16 IRIS RMS Screen Shot
21 OTC 18646


Figure 17 DeepDrift Screen Shot