© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 22

© All Rights Reserved

- Mechanical Behavior of Precipitation Hardened Aluminum Alloys Welds
- ASTM E466 Uji Fatik Logam
- Aircraft Structural Design
- DNV-OS-C501 Composite Components Oct 2010
- ABS Standards OS-501
- saly ala muhamad wa al muhamad
- 45 Full Con Rod
- Advances in Fatigue Analysis Technologies
- lesson 3
- (05) Christian Bucherie, BV
- fatiga
- Analisis de Falla de Valvula
- Effect of welding structure on high-cycle and low-cycle fatigue properties for MIG welded A5083 aluminum alloys at cryogenic temperatures.pdf
- Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures
- Matterhorn Steel Catenary Risers Critical Issues and Lessons Learned for Reel-Layed SCRs to a TLP
- Strain Life Techniques
- fatiga multiaxial
- Rigid Pavement Design Sandur Dowlatpur
- Friction Stir Welding of Al Alloys
- FATIGA BUENOsivaraj2014

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

Wave Catenary Riser

1 Abstract

Lazy-wave catenary risers have gained popularity as a viable solution to improve fatigue and

strength performance at the touchdown zone of a simple catenary riser. With the objective to

provide technical reference for a lazy-wave shaped riser, this paper focuses on the study of

lazy-wave configurations and dynamic responses when the riser is supported from high

motion floating production platforms such as semi-submersibles and FPSOs. The study

explores the behavior of lazy-wave risers with respect to a variety of input parameters, such as

critical curvature radii, hang-off angle, top tension and buoyancy distribution. A systematic

approach to pinpoint driving factors and critical locations is discussed. Equations are also

presented to provide an analytic and deterministic approach to a desired lazy-wave shape for

further numerical assessment of strength and fatigue responses.

2 Introduction

The application of lazy-wave catenary riser (LWR) has been popular in deep water application

due to its adjustable payload on vessel and its options to control dynamic strength and fatigue

response along the riser [1]. With help of commercial software or self-developed optimization

tools [2], current practices rely on numerical approaches using trial and error or iterative

procedures to explore a lazy-wave riser configuration [3], which demands a huge effort for

optimization. It is time consuming and not cost effective, especially during preliminary

screening stage or riser study for a project. The challenge encountered in the optimization of

lazy-wave configuration is associated with the lack of parameterized equations for the

configurations.

1

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

In this work, configuration of lazy-wave riser is derived analytically with two design input

options. The key factors for dynamic strength and fatigue responses are explored and

expressed as equations of the lazy-wave configuration parameters, which provide insight and

perspective in lazy-wave riser behavior. This work simplifies the riser optimization process

and can be used as a framework for lazy-wave configuration design.

A simple steel catenary riser (SCR) is considered a cord of uniform density and cross-section

area hanging on two ends under gravity and buoyancy force in water [4], although slight

variation in density or cross-section may exist due to strakes, marine growth or special joints

such as taper stress joint. A typical SCR is characterized by downward wet weight along its

length.

A lazy-wave catenary riser (LWR) is a special SCR with a segment of its length equipped

with external buoyancy modules, where its upward buoyancy force in water is greater than its

downward gravity force and thus an equivalent negative “gravity” force. A typical LWR

consists of three segments, each segment a catenary, namely the hang-off catenary (hanging

and jumper sections), the buoyancy catenary (lift and drag sections) and the touchdown

catenary, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The buoyancy catenary lies between the hang-off

catenary and the touchdown catenary. A typical LWR has a sag bend and an arch bend. The

elevation difference between the top of the arch bend and the bottom of the sag bend is termed

arch height.

As a general rule of thumb, the buoyancy force provided by the buoyancy modules is around

twice the self-weight of the steel pipe with internal fluid. The variation of the net buoyancy

force from the buoyancy modules produces high-arch, mid-arch or low-arch LWR

configurations, or a shaped SCR[5]. A shaped SCR is defined as a degenerated LWR with no

sag bend or arch bend. That is, its lowest elevation along the hang-off catenary coincides with

the highest elevation along the buoyancy catenary at their connection point. A sag bend along

the hang-off catenary and an arch bend along the buoyancy catenary distinguish a LWR from

a shaped SCR.

2

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

The equations in the subsequent sections apply to SCR, LWR and shaped SCR.

8000

Hangoff Buoyancy Touchdown

7000 Catenary Catenary Catenary

Elevation from Seabed (ft)

Arch Bend

4000 Lift Section

3000

Drag Point

Sag Bend

1000

Touchdown Point

0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Horizontal Distance from Hangoff (ft)

As a special SCR, the LWR shares some common characteristics of SCR such as correlations

between curvature, riser mass density, arc length and hang-off angle. A catenary is governed

by a hyperbolic cosine function [6] in Equation (1) as illustrated in Figure 3.2:

x x

x a

y a (cosh 1) (e a e a 2) , (1)

a 2

where a is the curvature radius of a catenary at its origin, since curvature k or

d2y

| |

dx 2 1

k 3 , (2)

x

2

2 2

dy a cosh

1 ( ) a

dx

where dx ds cos , dy ds sin , (3)

at origin x 0 gives

3

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

1

k . (4)

a

Y Y

X T+dT

ds β

ds dy

T

dx

Qds=mgds

X

O

1 a

k ,

a cosh 2

x (a y ) 2

a

which dontes the maximum curvature or the lowest curvature radius along a catenary occurs at

the origin y=0. The catenary curve is symmetric about the Y-axis in Figure 3.2. Without loss

of generality, the absolute values of X and Y are used for the equations in this paper. The arc

length of a catenary from its origin can be obtained from

2

dy x

S ds 1 dx a sinh . (5)

dx a

The inclination angle β suffices

dy x S

tan sinh . (6)

dx a a

From horizontal equilibrium

T cos (T dT ) cos 0 ,

one obtains

d (T cos ) 0 ,

4

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

which implies a constant horizontal force along a catenary. By defining horizontal force N and

wet weight per unit length Q:

N T cos const , Q mg , (7)

where m is the wet mass per unit length and g the acceleration of gravity, the relationship

between the horizontal force N and wet weight per unit length Q can be derived using vertical

equilibrium equation:

T sin Qds (T dT ) sin 0 ,

or d (T sin ) Qds ,

or d (T cos tan ) Qds . (8)

Substituting (3) and (7) into (8) gives

dy dy

d (N ) Qdx 1 ( ) 2 ,

dx dx

d2y dy

or N 2 Q 1 ( )2 . (9)

dx dx

Substituting Equation (1) to (9), the relationship between the horizontal force N and wet

weight per unit length Q is obtained:

N

N aQ const , or a . (10)

Q

This implies that the curvature radius at origin can be adjusted by varying the horizontal force

N or the wet weight per unit length Q.

The static equilibrium of the LWR illustrated in Figure 3.3 (a) and (b) indicates that, the

resultant forces at the sag bend B and the arch bend D are horizontal and both equal to the

horizontal force N at the touchdown point. In the vertical direction, there are no shear forces at

points B and D, which requires static equilibrium of the weight of the jumper section BC and

net buoyancy force of the lift section CD, as well as the drag section DE and the touchdown

catenary EF. In other words, the net buoyancy force of the lift section CD “lifts” the wet

weight of the jumper section, and that of the drag section “drags” the wet weight of the

touchdown section.

5

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

Lift Section N N

Drag Section

D D

C

E

N

Jumper Section

B Touchdown Catenary N

(a) (b) F

In local coordinate systems x-B-y, u-D-v and p-F-q, as shown in Figure 3.4, the hang-off

catenary ABC, the buoyancy catenary CDE and the touchdown catenary EF can be expressed

as the following equations:

x u p

y ai (cosh 1) , v a j (cosh 1) , q ak (cosh 1) . (11)

ai aj ak

where ai , a j and ak are the curvature radii at their corresponding origins B, D, and F.

Catenary (i) Catenary (j) Catenary (k)

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

A

β

y1 y

D

u

V y3

v y4

y2 C

B x E

ya

ys q

y5

F p

x1 x2 x3 x4 x5

H

6

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

Assuming mi , m j and mk the wet masses of steel pipes with internal fluid at unit length of the

hang-off catenary, the buoyancy catenary and the touchdown catenaries, the wet weights of

riser per unit length are

Qi mi g , Q j F m j g , Qk mk g , (12)

where F is the net buoyancy force from the buoyancy modules pointing upward. Application

of the dimensions in Figure 3.4 to Equation (5), the arc lengths of the jumper section and the

lift section become

x2 x

S 2 ai sinh , S 3 a j sinh 3 . (13)

ai aj

S2 Q j

S 2Qi S3Q j , or (14)

S3 Qi

Equation (14) implies that the lengths of the jumper section and the lift section are

proportional to their vertical weight at unit length. Further derivations using Equation (10)

give

S 2 x2 y2 Q j ai

. (15)

S3 x3 y3 Qi a j

Similarly, for the drag section and the touchdown catenary, the following is true:

S 4 x4 y4 Qk a j

. (16)

S5 x5 y5 Q j ak

Usually same materials and same geometric properties are utilized for both the hang-off

catenary and the touchdown catenary, that is

Qi Qk or ai ak . (17)

Combination of Equations (15) through (18) obtains

S 2 S5 Q j S S5 Q j

, or 2 . (18)

S3 S 4 Qi S3 S 4 Qi

For a lazy-wave configuration, there are usually two design input options. One option give the

lengths of the three catenaries, and the other the elevations of the sag bend and the arch bend.

7

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

For design input option 1, given the lengths of the hang-off catenary Si , the buoyancy

catenary S j , either the water depth V at the hang-off location A or the touchdown catenary

length S k , the configuration of the LWR is determined. Without loss of generality, the

through (21).

Si S1 S 2 (19)

S j S3 S 4 (20)

Sk S5

The total length of the LWR is therefore

S Si S j S k (21)

Combination of Equations (19) through (21) provides the arc length of the hanging section:

Qj

S1 S (1 )S j . (22)

Qi

On the other hand, application of Equation (6) to the hang-off location gives

S1 ai tan ai cot , (23)

where is the given top hang-off angle, and 900 is the inclination angle at the hang-off

location, as shown in Figure 3.4. Substituting Equation (22) into Equation (23) obtains the

curvature radius of the sag bend or the touchdown point:

Qj

ai S (1 ) S j tan . (24)

Qi

Substituting Equations (23) and (24) into Equations (5), (10) and (11), one obtains the spread

and height of the hanging section:

x1

x1 ai arcsin h(cot ) , y1 ai (cosh 1) .

ai

Equations (11), (13) and (19) give the spread and height of the jumper section:

Si S1 x

x2 ai arcsin h( ) , y2 ai [cosh( 2 ) 1] .

ai ai

8

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

Equation (15) gives the spread and the height of the lift section:

x2Qi yQ

x3 , y3 2 i .

Qj Qj

Equations (16) and (21) provide the length of the drag section:

Qi

S4 ( S Si S j ) .

Qj

Qi

aj ai ,

Qj

S4 x

x4 a j arcsin h( ) , y4 a j [cosh( 4 ) 1] ,

aj aj

S Si S j y4Q j

x5 ai arcsin h( ) , y5 .

ai Qi

With all the dimensions calculated above, the sag bend height is determined by:

y s y 4 y5 y 2 y3 ,

and the arch bend height becomes

y a y 4 y5 .

The water depth V at the hang-off location can be checked by

V y1 y 4 y 5 y 2 y3 .

For design input option 2, the LWR configuration can also be uniquely determined if the sag

bend height ys , the arch bend height ya and the water depth V at the hang-off location A are

provided. Starting with the height of the hanging section

y1 V ys ,

Equations (6) and (11) give the curvature radius at the sag bend as

y1

ai . (25)

cosh[arcsin h(cot )] 1

The curvature radius at the arch bend is given by Equations (15) and (25) as

9

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

Qi y1

aj . (26)

Q j cosh[arcsin h(cot )] 1

x1 ai arcsin h(cot ) .

Given the arch height, or the vertical distance between the arch bend and the sag bend,

y 2 y3 y a y s . (27)

Equations (15) and (27) produce the heights of the jumper section and the lift section:

Q j ( ya y s ) Qi ( ya ys )

y2 , y3 .

Qi Q j Qi Q j

Subsequently, the spreads of the jumper section and the lift section are thus

y2 y

x2 ai arccos h( 1) , x3 a j arccos h( 3 1) .

ai aj

The same derivations apply to the drag section and the touchdown catenary. Given the arch

bend elevation

y 4 y5 y a , (28)

Equations (16) and (28) yield the heights of the drag section and the touchdown catenary:

Qi ya Q j ya

y4 , y5 .

Qi Q j Qi Q j

y4 y

x4 a j arccos h( 1) , x5 ai arccos h( 5 1) .

aj ai

As a result, the arc length of each catenary can be calculated using Equation (5) as follows:

x1 x x x x

Si ai (sinh sinh 2 ) , S j a j (sinh 3 sinh 4 ) , S k S5 ai sinh 5 .

ai ai aj aj ai

For both design input options, the total horizontal distance from the hang-off location to the

touchdown point is

H x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 ,

the horizontal force at any point along the LWR and at touchdown point is

N aiQi a j Q j ak Qk , (29)

10

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

T N / sin . (30)

Combination of Equations (29) and (30) gives

T sin T sin T sin

ai ,aj , or ak . (31)

Qi Qj Qk

The first order motions in heave, surge and sway directions at the hang-off point A are mainly

translated into heave motions at the sag bend B due to the constraint of the length of the hang-

off catenary and the drag of the buoyancy modules at lift point C, as shown in Figure 4.1. For

example, the horizontal surface motion ∆x as a function of time at point A becomes a heave

dominated motion ∆y at sag bend B due to the motion difference in amplitude and phase

between A and C.

Y

∆x

P

A

R C

Q

∆y X

Figure 4.1 – Heave Motion at Sag Bend due to Horizontal Motion at Hang-Off Point

As opposed to the first order motion, the relatively long period of the second order motion

gives the more time for the LWR to respond globally, especially along the buoyancy catenary.

The second order motions at the hang-off point A turn into both horizontal motion and heave

motion at the sag bend, as shown in Figure 4.2. For example, a horizontal second order motion

at the hang-off point A is followed by dominant horizontal motions at the lift point C and the

drag point E. This generates open and close movements of the sag bend or the arch bend,

11

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

fluctuating curvature radii along LWR, especially at such critical locations as the sag bend B,

the arch bend D and touchdown point F.

Catenary Catenary Catenary

∆xA

A

β

∆uD

D

V ∆uC

B

C

E

∆uB ∆uE

∆uF

F

x1 x2 x3 x4 x5

Techically, the critical locations for curvature radius refer to critical zones. The local top point

D may travel along the buoyancy catenary, such that the points near the arch bend D on the

riser take turns to become the local top elevation to account for tension variations and section

length adjustment during dynamic motions. In this sense, the arch bend is actually a zone in

length instead of a fixed point, so are the sag bend and the touchdown point.

The length of these critical zones varies with dynamic motions as well as vessel offsets, as

shown in Figure 4.3. At a far offset of 10% water depth, a LWR shape with a decent arch

height at near offset may degenerate into a low arch LWR, or even a shaped SCR if failed to

optimize the buoyancy catenary for large offsets. Extreme far and near offset positions should

be checked for a LWR configuration to avoid undesired buckling problem of a low-arch

configuration, and to avoid local high stress at the arch bend at near offset.

12

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

Critical curvatures along LWR are associated with extreme vessel positions under driving load

conditions and are functions of the horizontal force N or top tension T and hang-off angle θ as

indicated in Equation (31). A configuration with higher top tension T or greater hang-off angle

θ gives larger critical curvature radii and generally provides a better dynamic strength

response. Restricted by vessel payload, sag bend can also be adjusted for a given top tension

cap. The density, length and thickness of the buoyancy modules are among other key

parameters for optimization of LWR configuration.

Taper stress joint or flex joint is widely used for stress relief at the hang-off location, while

other critical locations along LWR have to rely on the optimization of the buoyancy catenary.

The horizontal motion and the heave motion at the hang-off location lead to an open and close

movement of the sag bend, the arch bend and the touchdown zone as illustrated in Figure 4.2.

The lowest curvature radii at these critical locations governs their stress response since stress

and bending moment are proportional to curvature, as shown in Figure 4.4. The highest stress

frequently occurs at the arch bend where the most critical curvature is more likely when the

13

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

lift point and the drag point move out of phase with the vessel at near offset position. On the

other hand, the preference of high net buoyancy force for arch height optimization also results

in lower curvature at the arch bend. Other critical curvatures occur at the touchdown point and

the sag bend. For an optimized LWR, the stress at the touchdown point and the sag bend is

normally not driving in strength response, which is another feature of the LWR.

0.8 7000

0.7 6000

Von Mises / Yield Stress Ratio

0.6

5000

0.5

4000

0.4

3000

0.3

2000

0.2

0.1 1000

0.0 0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Riser mass density is another factor for LWR optimization. A lighter riser or smaller Qi

including internal fluid improves the strength response at the sag bend and the touchdown

point as suggested in Equation (12). As equivalent negative mass along the buoyancy catenary

where Q j F m j g , lower net buoyancy force F favors a greater curvature radius, but may

result in an undesirable low-arch configuration at vessel far offset. For instance, the stress

response of a low-arch lazy-wave configuration with sag bend and arch bend elevations of

2900 ft and 3100 ft, respectively, is shown in Figure 4.5. Heave motion at the sag bend

becomes whipping and buckling wave motion between sag bend and the arch bend, which

results in local curvature and stress much higher than those otherwise at the sag bend or the

arch bend. The structural and hydrodynamic damping effect is significantly compromised in

this case.

14

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

0.8 7000

0.7 6000

0.5 4000

0.4 3000

0.3 2000

0.2 1000

0.1 0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Strength response is driven by extreme curvature at critical locations, while fatigue response is

controlled by curvature fluctuation range associated with higher stress range. The highest

curvature fluctuation occurs at the sag bend, the arch bend or the touchdown point. The low

fatigue lives occur at these high curvature fluctuation zones, as shown in Figure 4.6. Critical

fatigue damage is observed at the touchdown point and at the riser hang-off location. The

fatigue damage at the touchdown zone is driven by soil-structure interaction under more

frequent occurrence of small stress cycles from low seastates, while at the top hang-off section

it is driven by combination of tension and bending moment from less frequent but high stress

range from high seastates.

Three case studies are presented in this section for sensitivity of the fatigue response of LWR

attached to an internally turret-moored FPSO.

15

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

The first case explores the first order fatigue sensitivity to arch heights. Three configurations

with different arch heights – namely high arch, mid arch and low arch – are developed by

varying the length of the buoyancy catenary. The vessel payload remains the same in all

configurations with a constant hang-off angle and sag bend elevation. It is observed that

fatigue life at the touchdown point (TDP) improves with arch height. With the same buoyancy

thickness, a higher arch configuration requires a longer buoyancy catenary that provides more

damping to motions. The buoyancy lengths of the three arch heights are compared in Figure

4.7, and their first order motion fatigue lives are presented in Table 4.1. The fatigue life of the

mid-arch configuration at the TDP improves slightly from the low-arch configurations, but

that of the high-arch configuration doubled. A higher arch diverts and damps cable wave

motion in more favorable directions. This also indicates nonlinear redistribution of structural

damping and hydrodynamic damping between different configurations.

1.E+12 7000

1.E+11

6000

1.E+10

1.E+09

Minimum Fatigue Life (years)

5000

1.E+08

1.E+07 4000

1.E+06

1.E+05 3000

1.E+04

2000

1.E+03

1.E+02

1000

1.E+01

1.E+00 0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Horizontal Distance From Hangoff (ft)

16

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

7000

6000

Sag Bend Height: 2400ft

Arch Bend Heights:

Low Arch 2600ft

Elevation from Seabed (ft)

5000

Mid Arch 3100ft

High Arch 3600ft

Archbend

4000

3000

2000

Sagbend

1000

0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Horizontal Distance From Hangoff (ft)

Low Arch Mid Arch High Arch Buoyancy 1742 ft Buoyancy 2261 ft Buoyancy 2722 ft

Arch Type Arch Height (ft) TDP (years)

High Arch 1200 1,500

Mid Arch 700 750

Low Arch 200 670

Table 4.1 – First Order Motion Fatigue Life Variation with Arch Configurations

The second case compares the first order fatigue responses to sag bend elevations. Two

configurations with different sag bend elevations are developed as shown in Figure 4.8. The

hang-off angle and arch height are kept constant. The lower sag bend configuration improves

the TDP fatigue life by 80%, however decreases the fatigue response at top of the riser by

13%, as compared in Table 4.2. The fatigue life increase at the TDP can be justified from

Equation (31). The lower sag bend configuration has longer hang-off catenary length hence

greater hang-off tension and smaller TDP curvature and bending stress range. The higher

dynamic tension fluctuation near the hang-off location adversely contributes to the fatigue

performance at top of the riser.

17

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

7000

6000

Elevation from Seabed (ft)

5000

Buoyancy 2722 ft

4000

High Sagbend

3000

Buoyancy 2189 ft

2000

Low Sagbend

1000

0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Horizontal Distance From Hangoff (ft)

Lazy Wave Sagbend 600ft Buoyancy 10inch Thickness

Location

Sag Bend 2400 ft Sag Bend 600 ft

Touchdown Point 1,500 2,700

Top Taper Stress Joint 2,400 2,100

Table 4.2 – Motion Fatigue Life Sensitivity to Sag Bend Elevations

The third case study is about fatigue response to current loading. Background current

interferences riser motion and helps dissipating cable wave energy in an addition to

hydrodynamic damping. As shown in Figure 4.9, the TDP fatigue life improves with increased

background current speed. Background current profile should be used with caution to reduce

conservativeness. Generally, application of background profile with 50% occurrence increases

TDP fatigue life 2~3 times from without background current depending on variation of current

directions and speeds.

18

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Base Case (no background current)

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Figure 4.9 – Effect of Background Current on Motion Fatigue Life at Touchdown Point

5 Summary

Consisting of three catenaries, namely the hang-off catenary, the buoyancy catenary and the

touchdown catenary, a lazy-wave riser has better strength and fatigue responses than SCR.

The buoyancy catenary produces effective hydrodynamic and structural damping to attenuate

cables waves from vessel motions propagating along lazy-wave riser. The critical locations for

strength and fatigue responses are at the top hang-off location, the sag bend, the arch bend and

the touchdown point. This work provides parameterized equations for configuration

optimization and strategic analysis.

The damping efficiency of the buoyancy catenary and the variation of the curvature radii at

the critical locations in conjunction with the top tension and hang-off angle are the driving

factors for lazy-wave riser strength and motion fatigue responses. The horizontal force along

the riser is a constant and a function of net riser wet weight at the hanging section and the top

hang-off angle. The curvature at the critical locations is a function of horizontal force and

submerged weight of riser section, which drives dynamic response. Dynamic response is

sensitive to arch height, sag bend elevation, top hang-off angle and background current

loading.

19

Deep Offshore Technology International, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Dec 2010

6 References

[1] Torres, A.L.F.L. et al (2002), “Lazy-wave steel rigid risers for turret-moored FPSO”,

OMAE’02/OFT-28124

[2] Jaco, B.P. et al (2008), “Synthesis and optimization of steel catenary risers

configurtations through evolutionary computation,” 5th Report for Petrobras,

COPPE/UFRJ

Wave Riser Configuration for Spread Moored FPSOs in Deepwater Offshore Brazil”,

OTC 20777

[4] Hugh Howells, (1995). “Advances in Steel Catenary Riser Design: Advances in Steel

Catenary Riser design”, DEEPTEC '95, Aberdeen, February 1995

[5] Bin Yue et al, (2010) “Improved SCR Design for Dynamic Vessel Applications”,

OMAE2010-20406, Beijing, June 2010

20

- Mechanical Behavior of Precipitation Hardened Aluminum Alloys WeldsЗагружено:Khin Aung Shwe
- ASTM E466 Uji Fatik LogamЗагружено:Mad Is
- Aircraft Structural DesignЗагружено:John Blackburn
- DNV-OS-C501 Composite Components Oct 2010Загружено:mseymour91
- ABS Standards OS-501Загружено:vijuindia1111
- saly ala muhamad wa al muhamadЗагружено:Saad Al Hely
- 45 Full Con RodЗагружено:Swati Gadave-Chougule
- Advances in Fatigue Analysis TechnologiesЗагружено:Marcelino Pereira Do Nascimento
- lesson 3Загружено:api-265666323
- (05) Christian Bucherie, BVЗагружено:Kevin Khoo
- fatigaЗагружено:lduran_63
- Analisis de Falla de ValvulaЗагружено:jdavidospina
- Effect of welding structure on high-cycle and low-cycle fatigue properties for MIG welded A5083 aluminum alloys at cryogenic temperatures.pdfЗагружено:Serkan Apay
- Fatigue Assessment of Ship StructuresЗагружено:Nikolay Mamykin
- Matterhorn Steel Catenary Risers Critical Issues and Lessons Learned for Reel-Layed SCRs to a TLPЗагружено:Tee Shi Feng
- Strain Life TechniquesЗагружено:Suhasks
- fatiga multiaxialЗагружено:Irving Champion
- Rigid Pavement Design Sandur DowlatpurЗагружено:ashoknr
- Friction Stir Welding of Al AlloysЗагружено:Harinder Grover
- FATIGA BUENOsivaraj2014Загружено:Taguis Velasco
- CE470(2012) Chapter10 Fatigue (Filled in Notes)Загружено:700spymaster007
- 10.1007-s00170-016-9628-7Загружено:Amine Khalfallah
- F9.10 KawashitaЗагружено:bnidhal
- Oecd Nea Ctc-Ensa Eng 01Загружено:Juan Alfonso Beltran
- Assignment 6 SolutionsЗагружено:afnene1
- vic note 5Загружено:Jing Cao
- Mitsuhiro Okayasu Amr0204004Загружено:pavan_1988
- porosity weldingЗагружено:azerai2000
- Sheet Metal Forming Using Polymer Composite Rapid Prototype Tooling.pdfЗагружено:alexayala5151
- Kinematics on Cyclic FatigueЗагружено:liaam

- Atmospheric and Ocean CirculationsЗагружено:Carlos Garrido
- Decommissioning Programme Harding Submerged Turret Loading SystemЗагружено:Carlos Garrido
- 228_13.pdfЗагружено:Umar Mohammad
- Non-Preload-Assemblies-BS-EN-15048-12.pdfЗагружено:Shubhrashree Maji
- Application of wave models to fatigue assessment of offshore floating structuresЗагружено:Carlos Garrido
- Book - Dynamics of Offshore Structures - By JF WilsonЗагружено:Wei Shi
- Vaabenoe LouiseЗагружено:Carlos Garrido
- Dynamical Modelling FloaterЗагружено:Carlos Garrido
- Grp Properties 2016 01Загружено:Carlos Garrido
- manualWaves2Foam_v090Загружено:Chee Meng Low
- Thesis NiekBruinsmaЗагружено:Carlos Garrido
- An Introduction to Risk in Floating Wind _ Roberts Proskovics _ AP-0014Загружено:Carlos Garrido

- Masonry arch bridges to modern day demandsЗагружено:ec02160
- Bridge Construction Terminology.pdfЗагружено:Elisabetta Bolzoni
- designofdomes00terruoftЗагружено:aquibzafar
- La 53435 Rice Rca Giordani AЗагружено:aptureinc
- Hagia Sophia. A masterpiece of Byzantine architecture.pdfЗагружено:Lycophron
- Alber Archi 003 en 1785.TextЗагружено:Stepan Krawctschuk
- A text-book of the history of architecture ([1906])Загружено:texas_grad3
- BridgesЗагружено:Anonymous PeFQLw19
- sweco damЗагружено:jovana
- ARCHEA + Atelier 4Загружено:Atelier Albania
- 200605727-414354-Buzancic-Diokl.pdfЗагружено:previsetrazite
- Analysis and Design of Arch-Type Pedestrian Bridge for Static and Dynamic LoadsЗагружено:structural engineer 02
- DessertationЗагружено:EKTA AGARWAL
- ConstructionЗагружено:jbsng123
- ArchitectureЗагружено:Sagar Arora
- Structure lab-three hinge arc (example lab report).docxЗагружено:NabilZaed
- BEBO ARCH SYSTEM the Best Overfilled Arch Structures WorldwideЗагружено:Ibnuyusoff77
- Arch BridgesЗагружено:lisan2053
- Exp 9Загружено:mkalliou
- Laurie Baker-Rural House PlansЗагружено:khan
- Introduction to Bridges.pptЗагружено:bala subramanyam
- EC 6-3 Lateral ResistanceЗагружено:rdeans2
- Section module 2 sheet 7 12 Arch construction.pdfЗагружено:namkval
- Combined Orcaflex ExampleЗагружено:Okolo Obinna
- BRIDGESЗагружено:Nada Barakeh
- History of Roman ArchitectureЗагружено:Ankit Jain
- Concreto armado - Ghoneim - Design_of_Reinforced_Concrete_Structure__Volume_3.pdfЗагружено:Janiiiio
- Columns-- Walls--Floors~2013Загружено:700spymaster007
- 02 Types of Timber BridgesЗагружено:walaywan
- Stress Ribbon and Cable-supported Pedestrian Bridges CAP 10.pdfЗагружено:Anonymous VkzquW39

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.