Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-23 March 2018.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.
Abstract
Steel Catenary Risers (SCRs) and Hybrid Risers (HRs) are the most common production riser systems
used in deepwater. These concepts are field proven. SCRs and Steel Lazy Wave Risers (SLWRs), a specific
configuration of SCR, have been widely used in Gulf of Mexico (GoM). HRs have also recently gained
popularity in West of Africa, as the concept proves to be advantageous in harsh environments. This paper
addresses the global structural response of various production risers attached to a Semi-submersible in GoM.
The stress analysis was conducted based on the fundamental thoughts of SCR and HR. Thus, 26 different
models of risers (HRs, SCRs, and SLWRs) were analyzed to investigate the impacts of the various critical
considerations on the riser structure. Details of riser modeling, environmental data, and vessel particulars are
described. A primary vortex induced vibration analysis was also conducted to assess the systems further. The
studies stated above were evaluated using a dynamic analysis software, Orcaflex. An initial cost calculation
was also done for a holistic approach for selection of riser. Finally, the results obtained from the analyses
were assessed. The key findings and conclusions were described. As such, a suitable riser was determined.
Introduction
The term "deepwater" is always in flux. While previously depths of 500m was considered deepwater, the
industry has a large number of operational fields in waters deeper than 2000m. The need for resources like
oil and gas has dramatically increased due to globalization, population growth, and energy demand. The
industry has to resort to deepwater for hydrocarbons, the resources available onshore and shallow water
deplete,
It is common knowledge that with deeper seas, vessels and systems related to drilling and production
of hydrocarbons are exposed to harsh environments, and this poses various technical and economic
impediment. Furthermore, production vessels like semi-submersible and Floating Production Storage and
Offloading (FPSO) vessels used in deepwater are motion prone. Hence, the systems developed for these
conditions have to be substantially more robust, and the critical design considerations have to be extensively
evaluated. While all systems are essential for the success of the floating production platform, the production
riser, as the only connection between the production vessel and the seabed for the transport of fluids, plays
an increasingly important role.
2 OTC-28394-MS
A myriad of riser solutions is available to the industry. However, the most common production riser
solutions deployed by companies are Steel Lazy Wave Risers (SLWRs), a different configuration of SCRs,
and HRs (Bai, 2005).
Background
Numerous studies have been conducted on SCRs and HRs, but most fall short of analyzing the riser
comprehensively, to understand the impact of the various components in the risers. Studies have also not
compared both HRs and SCRs in the same environment with similar operating conditions. Thus, failing to
show the differences and comparisons of the behavior of both the risers to make a better, well-informed
choice of riser systems for ultra-deepwater.
Karunakaran et al. (2015), Cheng et al. (2013) and Yue et al. (2011) agree that the vessel offset and
buoyancy modules are vital attentions in designing SCRs and SLWRs. However, they have not shown the
structural impact of the critical considerations, on the risers. In Cascade & Chinook development, the world’s
deepest HR system, the configuration and position of the Buoyancy Can (BC) and the vessel offset were
the governing parameters in the global design (Song and Streit, 2011). This statement is similar to Webster
et al. (2011), who agreed in their paper that the BC and vessel offset are essential. However, they have not
demonstrated the impact of the parameters on the HRs.
Once the dynamic analysis has been carried out on the various types of risers, the results are tabulated
in Microsoft Excel and API RP 2RD is used to calculate von Mises stress as per regulations stated. The
calculated von Mises stress and sufficient tension, where applicable, are applied to evaluate the risers.
Design basis
In order to obtain accurate results, using accurate boundary conditions are extremely crucial. Hence, the
data used for were obtained from available literature.
Design environment. Seabed coefficients are extremely important to ensure accurate depiction of the
seabed as the Soil-Riser interaction is one of the crucial design considerations for a steel catenary riser
(Karunakaran et al., 2015). Table 1 shows the respective values used to represent the seabed condition. The
extreme wave conditions are defined in Table 2.
Parameter Values
Parameter Values
Vessel modelling. The semi-submersible is modeled in MOSES. It takes the design of a typical semi-
submersible with two pontoons and six columns as shown in Fig. 2. The vessel dimensions are shown in
Table 3. To ensure that the wind forces were taken into account, derrick and cranes were modeled into the
semi-submersible as well. It is essential that the semi-submersible is designed as accurately as possible, as
any mistakes made at this point will affect the accuracy and reliability of the results obtained in Orcaflex. It
is also essential to note that the units in Orcaflex and MOSES have to be consistent with each other or the
necessary changes have to be made to the hydrodynamic data before importing. Otherwise, the imported
data will lead to inaccurate and meaningless results.
Particulars Values
Riser modelling. All risers are designed as a single line anchored to the seabed and connected to the
vessel with a flexible joint. Except for HRs, where the top end of the riser is connected to the buoyancy can
from which the flexible jumper is connected to the vessel. The azimuth of the risers is normal to the wave
direction, to ensure vessel motion has the maximum effect on the riser.
For the analysis of vessel offset on SCR and SLWR, the arc lengths (3195m), as calculated by Orcaflex, of
all the risers are the same, and all the SLWRs have a fixed buoyant length of 800m. The buoyancy modules
of the SLWR are connected at the nodes of the lines. Fig.3 and Fig.4 show the free hanging SCR and SLWR
models attached to a semi-submersible in Orcaflex.
All SLWRs with vertical Buoyancy modules and change in buoyant length have the same offset of 2500m.
The four SLWRs with vertical buoyancy have different lengths of vertical buoyancy from 50m to 125m but
have similar arc length and overall length as the SLWR with 2500m offset. The four SLWRs with varying
buoyant length from 800m to 1500m have increased overall length proportionate to the increase in buoyant
length, but arc length is kept constant. The overall length, includes flowlines that connect the riser to the
wellhead which is not the concern in this paper. Hence, the focus will be on the arc length which is kept
constant to reduce introducing other variables, like weight, from affecting the comparison.
All HR models, apart from the four models with varying BC volume, have BC specifications as stated in
Table 5. The length of the flexible jumper is kept constant for all models except the four models with varying
vessel offset and the four models with varying BC depth. The BC is designed as a free-floating 6DOF buoy
with the rigid riser and flexible jumper attached to it. Fig. 5 depicts an example of the top section of the riser.
Table 4 shows the detailed parameters of the production risers. Orcaflex calculates other values about
the properties of steel pipes based on the Poisson ratio, Young's modulus and technical data available. The
material and specifications used are similar to SCR to limit the differences so that the comparison will be
more accurate. Hence, the rigid riser specification will follow Table 4.
6 OTC-28394-MS
Property Values
Table 5—Properties of HR
Property Values
In Table 6, the mooring properties are shown. As stated previously, apart from manual calculations,
multiple iterations were required to obtain optimum mooring configuration. However, it should be noted
that semi-submersibles often use dynamic positioning in deepwater drilling and workover/completions.
Property Values
hang off point, intermediate length and touchdown point (TDP). Since the stresses are always higher at the
hang off and TDP, the intermediate length will thus not be considered.
Semi-submersible
The RAO of the semi-submersible is shown in Fig.6. It clearly shows that due to the direction of the wave,
0 degree, surge and heave are the predominate motions. The vessel could have been optimised by having
better pontoon and column designs.
Figure 7—Stresses for SCR and SLWR with different offsets from vessel
The effective tension for the SCR was not considered as it has been shown that for deepwater application
from Fig. 7, that SLWR is more efficient and effective.
The sufficient tension is lesser for SLWR with lower vessel offset due to the weight. However, it is clear
that at around 1700m, the point where buoyancy modules are attached to the SLWR, the tension starts
to rise until the end of the buoyant section. This is due to the forced curvature of the riser pipe from the
buoyancy. After which, as shown in Fig.8, the tension reduces, The SLWR with the longer offset has, the
higher tension, which is to be expected, given the added weight due to longer lengths.
8 OTC-28394-MS
Figure 8—Effective Tension for SLWR with different offsets from vessel
shows that for a given SLWR, there is an optimum buoyant length which causes the riser to experience the
least stresses. For this particular riser, the length is higher than 800m but lower than 1200m. Comparing
Fig.11 and Fig.12, it is clear that the proportion of buoyant length to the overall length of the riser plays a
vital role in the stresses experienced at TDP.
Fig.12 shows the effective tension of the riser; it can be seen that a longer buoyant length offers lower
hang off tension but leads to a higher spike in tension at the end of the buoyant length. It also shows a
small spike, caused by excess buoyancy, at the beginning of the buoyant length before the riser. This spike
is more present for risers with buoyant length higher than 1200m. It is due to the sharp curvature at the
beginning of the buoyant length.
250m 120.81
300m 120.89
350m 120.97
400m 121.11
Fig.13 shows the stresses experienced by the rigid riser, 326 to 331 MPa. Similar to the stresses of the
jumper, the vessel offset barely affected the stress experienced by the riser. It is due to the active decoupling
of the riser from the floater and is one of HRs’ advantages, especially in harsh environments.
10 OTC-28394-MS
150m 130.51
200m 130.62
250m 130.71
300m 132.75
Stress
Diameter of Buoyancy Can
(MPa)
6m 120.86
7m 120.87
8m 120.89
9m 120.89
Property Values
SCR SLWR
HR (M
(M (M
USD)
USD) USD)
Material and
31.25 37.5 42.5
Fabrication
Transport and
9.7 13.2 29
Installation
Engineering and
4.2 4.2 10.75
PM
Fig.22 shows the lowest, maximum stresses experienced by the risers from the analyses above. It is clear
that the stress difference between the risers is not drastic. The results were checked according to API RP
2RD, which states that the calculated von Mises stress must be lesser than 2/3 of the yield strength of steel,
298 MPa. Thus, as shown in Fig.7 and Fig.22, all configurations of SLWR satisfies the API standard at
the maximum utilization of 0.89 of the allowable stress, which is at the hang off point of the SLWR with
2500m offset. However, with changes in the configuration of HR, it would be possible to meet the API
requirements as it only failed to meet the demand by 7%.
14 OTC-28394-MS
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Mr Vivekraj Kannalgan who did his UG (BEng with Honors in Offshore
Engineering) final year project (FYP) under the joint supervision of the author and Dr John Preedy. The
author would also like to express his gratitude to Dr John Preedy for his advice and inputs throughout this
project.
References
American Petroleum Institute, 2010. Design of risers for floating production systems (FPSs) and tension-leg platforms
(TLPs). API Publishing services, Washington DC.
Bai, Y., Bai, Q., 2005 Subsea pipelines and risers. Elsevier, London.
Bentley, 2013. Reference Manual for MOSES.
Karunakaran, D., Subramanian, S., Baarholm, R., 2015. Steel Lazy Wave Riser Configuration for Turret Moored FPSO
with disconnectable Turret in Deepwater. Proceedings of ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering.
Orcina Ltd., 2012. Orcaflex Manual. UK
Song, R., Streit, P., 2011. Design of World’s Deepest Hybrid Riser System for the Cascade & Chinook Development.
Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference.
Webster, W., Kang, Z., Liang, W., Kang, Y., Sun, L., 2011. Bundled hybrid offset riser global strength analysis. Journal
of Marine Science and Application 10(4), 465–470.
Yue, B., Walter, D., Yu, W., Raghavan, K., Thompson, H., 2011. Lazy wave SCR on turret moored FPSO. Proceedings of
The Twenty-first International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.