Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Dynamic Response Interaction of

Vibrating Offshore Pipeline on


Vincent O. S. Olunloyo1
Department of Systems Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
Moving Seabed
University of Lagos,
Lagos 234, Nigeria The dynamic response interaction of a vibrating offshore pipeline on a moving seabed is
e-mail: vosolunloyo@hotmail.com herein investigated where the pipeline is idealized as a beam vibrating on an elastic
foundation. This problem is of relevance in offshore exploration where pipelines are laid
Charles A. Osheku either on or buried in the seabed. When such pipes carry oil and gas, the undulating
Department of Mechanical Engineering, topography of the sea floor and the internal motion of the fluid subject the entire structure
Faculty of Engineering, to vibration due to bending forces and form the subject of our study. Our analysis
University of Lagos, revealed that in general, the seabed acts either as a damper or as a spring and in
Lagos 234, Nigeria particular when we have sedimentation, the seabed geology permits the geomechanical
property of the sediment cover to act only as a damper. As expected, external excitation
Ayo A. Oyediran will increase the response of these pipes for which an amplification factor has been
AYT Research Corp., derived. For soft beds, high transverse vibrations were dampened by increasing the
7922 Falstaff Road, internal fluid velocity whereas they became amplified for hard beds. These results are of
McLean, VA 22102 contemporary interest in the oil/gas industry where deep sea exploration is now receiving
significant attention. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.2426994兴

Keywords: offshore pipeline, dynamic response, seabed, excitation of seabed, convey-


ance velocity of internal fluid

1 Introduction much more dependent on the nonlinearities in the wave propaga-


tion and more often than expected, it is also influenced by the
The challenge of additional sources to meet the energy require- pipeline-seabed interaction dynamics.
ments of the new century has led to a surge in the quest for new It is well known that the nature of sea states and its effect on
fossil deposits and provided renewed impetus for investigations sea wave height distributions and propagation is a complicated
into alternative sources of energy. In respect of fossil deposits, this process. In fact on close examination of the real sea surface, one
has intensified interest and activities of oil prospecting companies observes that the surface consists of variety of waves moving in
for offshore hydrocarbon deposits even though such offshore ex- different directions with different frequencies and heights. The
ploration, especially in deep waters, has its challenges as there are variation in the wave-height distributions from place to place in
additional problems to contend with especially with respect to relation to time history depends on fetch, wind velocity, duration
hazards attributed to environmental forces such as currents, winds, of the wind flow, etc. as explained by Venkataramana et al. 关1兴.
waves, etc. to which the engineering structures are now exposed. The seawave behavior can also be visualized as an assemblage
Within this context, the risk of deep sea oil spillage is real espe- of Fourier series with complex kernels. If we also know that an
cially in the process of its conveyance from the seabed to the offshore transmission pipeline excited by dynamic loads interacts
Production Storage Facilities; such consideration is particularly with the surrounding soil, then the dynamic response of such a
important in regions that have been geologically active. pipeline would be strongly influenced by the dynamic properties
of the seabed or floor. The ocean or sea floor 共bed兲 properties are
Traditionally exploited hydrocarbon resources from the wells
random in nature and are functions of multiple factors such as the
are usually transported via transmission pipelines from the oil
type of seabed geology, the conditions of the site, thickness of
fields to production storage facilities. However for offshore loca- layers in the soil strata, lateral, and geo-mechanical properties
tions, the hydrodynamic forces to which these pipelines are sub- such as, for example, the axial and compressive loading charac-
jected and their overall effect on the longevity of these pipelines is teristics of the soil. To be sure, the seabed elastic, visco-elastic
an area that is not yet fully understood. To be sure the lifespan of and poro-elastic nature as well as the shear and normal stresses
such pipelines depends on multiple factors such as the character- condition all influence and circumscribe its resistance to sliding
istics of the pipeline materials, water depth, ground motion, and motion and characterize its geo-mechanical behavior.
the seabed integrity in relation to geological and geo-mechanical Thus the scenario we are confronted with is generally one
properties, and so on. where within an ocean or sea floor, the aforementioned mechani-
The appropriate method of analysis of sea states and waves, be cal processes vary with the seabed geology in consonance with
it linear or nonlinear, is also a source of considerable debate. corresponding variation in geo-mechanical properties. Oil spills
While linear methods are more readily amenable to analysis and are harmful environmentally to both terrestrial and aquatic life
can thus be considered as efficient from a probabilistic sense, and occur through pipeline rupture. However, such transmission
fatigue damage and lifespan of a pipeline are on the other hand pipelines vibrate transversely as a result of the internal fluid
flow through the pipe, thereby subjecting such piping to stress
distributions.
Contributed by the Ocean Offshore and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for The engineering construction of an offshore pipeline is a com-
publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANIC AND ARTIC ENGINEERING. Manu- plicated process and requires advanced technology. Although the
script received January 4, 2006; final manuscript received October 19, 2006. Asso-
ciate Editor Chon Tsai. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on
pipeline may initially be laid on the seabed, it eventually becomes
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 共OMAE2004兲, Vancouver, British Co- buried over time due to sediment deposition and the rate of depo-
lumbia, Canada, June 20–25, 2004. sition varies depending on the geo-mechanical and geological

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 107
Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


properties or characteristics. Buried pipelines, irrespective of their In Sec. 2 of the paper, the problem is idealized as a hollow
degree of coating, are susceptible to corrosion effects due to geo- beam vibrating on an elastic foundation, with a fully developed
mechanical interaction of the moving sediments and the pipeline fluid flowing inside and the assumptions made with respect to the
structure. Over time, their structural rigidity or integrity becomes material properties of the soil at the seabed are enumerated. In
questionable. The pipelines also being under hydrodynamic load- Sec. 3, the effect of the geology is examined by constructing
ing are subject to geo-mechanical compression and up traction different models for the geomechanical behavior of the seabed.
effects 共induced clamping pressure兲 due to nonuniformity in the For this purpose, the bed is treated both as a rigid body and also as
rate of sediment deposite hence accelerating the tendency for pipe an elastically deformable one. Section 4 deals with the analysis of
rupture. the results using typical values for some of the soil and physical
The problem of bending vibrations of a pipeline containing parameters met in practice. The paper is concluded in Sec. 5 with
flowing liquid was in fact investigated several decades ago by a discussion of the results and implication for engineering works
Housner 关2兴. In his studies, the pipe was idealized as a pinned associated with the laying of the pipes on the seabed.
beam and with the assumption of small displacements, a govern-
ing fourth-order partial differential equation was formulated with
the third and fourth terms representing the centripetal and coriolis 2 Problem Fundamentals and Governing Differential
effects such that the Euler–Bernoulli’s classical beam equation is
recovered, if for theoretical purposes, the density of the flowing Equation
liquid is negligible. His analysis was however limited to surface 2.1 Problem Fundamentals. The problem under investiga-
transmission pipeline resting on supports at the two points, along tion here is a fluid–pipeline–soil dynamic interaction boundary
the pipe. value problem where the fluid flow regime is assumed to be fully
In our analysis, the point of departure is that the transmission developed. For clarity, an incompressible Newtonian or viscous
pipeline is buried through the seabed over time to allow for sedi- fluid is assumed to be flowing at uniform velocity through a par-
ment flow at nonuniform rate depending on the seabed geological tially buried offshore pipeline that is idealized as a hollow elastic
and geo-mechanical properties and is subject to clamping pressure beam vibrating on an elastic foundation
关3兴. These modes of flow-induced sediment motion vary from the Two models of the geo-mechanical nature of the beds are con-
slow creep and roll of surface particles on a flat or rippled seaf- sidered for the analysis of the problem under investigation viz;
loor, to the faster sediment sheet flow, and sometimes include rigid porous bed model and deformable porous bed model. For
massive bulk movement in the form of mud flows and submarine this problem, the seabed subsoil layer is modeled as a homo-
slides. These sediment movements, as pointed out by Foda 关4兴, are geneous semi-infinite elastic continuum with nonretarded geo-
constantly reshaping the seabed morphology in endless cycles of mechanical properties, namely:
sediment deposition and erosion.
Chemical activities can further add to the complexities of the 1. The density, Poisson ratio, porosity, and permeability coef-
seabed geological formation thus having significant implications ficients at any depth and layers along the 共3D兲. Cartesian
on the geo-mechanical characteristics. This makes the constitutive axes are sufficiently constant;
behavior of cohesive mud very different from that of sand, hence 2. The elasticity coefficient in any burrier depth through any
resulting in beds responding differently to the imposed water layer is sufficiently uniform to obey Hooke’s law;
wave loading, with wide variations in associated seabed processes 3. The energy absorption ability, which is sufficiently modu-
such as sediment transport modes and intensities, soil fluidization lated by the nature of geology of the bed, is assumed to be
and failure mechanism, wave damping characteristics, and others. uniform in any burrier depth and layer;
Although the dynamics of water waves is an established and 4. The geo-dynamic behavior of the seabed sublayer under
mature field of study, dating back to the work of Stokes 共1847兲, rigid porous bed model is analyzed via the generalized Dar-
investigation of seabed dynamics is more recent, in the consider- cy’s law in vertical direction, while for the case of the de-
ation of dynamic interaction problems. Based on recent advances formable porous bed model, the consolidated generalized
made in the theory of sediment transport the seabed can be ideal- theory of Biot’s 共1941, 1956兲 applies; and
ized as an effective absorber of wave energy, if it is considered as 5. Pipeline is idealized as a beam on seabed which may also be
nonrigid. This idealization works satisfactorily for seafloor undu- idealized as an elastic foundation following Winkler 共1867兲.
lation, rippling, and erodibility, as well as for the compliance,
permeability, and consolidation of the seabed. The transport of 2.2 Problem Definition and Governing Differential
fine sand under waves in combination with following and oppos- Equation. By considering the effects of the clamping pressure
ing currents 共as present in plume conditions兲 was studied by Van from the overlying ocean water and the underlying seabed subsoil
Rijn et al. 关5兴. The influence of the dynamic model based on the layer the governing differential equation for the fluid–pipeline soil
one-equation turbulence closure formulation has also been de- dynamic interaction boundary value problem satisfies the fourth-
scribed by Davies 关6–8兴 and has been extended by others to in- order partial differential equation as derived in the Appendix of
clude a density stratification term in the turbulent energy equation, Ref. 关13兴 viz.
which simulates the buoyancy effect due to vertical gradients of
sediment concentration on the production of turbulent energy 关9兴. EIWxxxx + 共␳ + ␳ f 兲Wtt + 2u␳ f + Wtx + ␳ f u2Wxx + KbW − ␮S␲␦共R
In this study, the pipeline is idealized as a beam vibrating on an
⳵ PS
elastic foundation. The theory of the bending of beams on an − ␦/2兲 = Ph␲共2R − ␦兲 ∀ x 苸 ⍀2 共internal兲 共1兲
elastic foundation was originally developed by Winkler 共1867兲 ⳵x
关10兴. Timoshenko et al. 共1932兲 idealized railway tracks as beams By assuming that a linear Airy wave profile propagates uniformly
on elastic foundation. Their analysis gave good agreement with above the still water level, where the effect of surface tension is
actual measurement, and the idealization is that the beam is im- considered negligible, the dynamic interaction boundary value
bedded in a material capable of exerting downward as well as problem is captured via Eq. 共1兲 and Fig. 1.
upward forces on it 关11兴. A beam with free ends supported on an
elastic foundation can also vibrate as a rigid body in translation
and rotation 关12兴. It is against this background that we attempt to 2.3 Method of Analysis of the Dynamic Response
simplify the dynamic response of the pipeline buried through the Interaction. We consider an isentropic 共sea state兲 inviscid fluid
seabed and the time history effects on the physics of the stress flow problem such that flow in domain ⍀1 is governed by the
distribution. differential equation 共see Fig. 2兲.

108 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


⳵2 f
ⵜ2␾ f共z,t兲 + ␾ =0 共4兲
⳵ z2
and
Ph
␳w
⳵f
+ ␾ + gz +
⳵t
1
2

兩ⵜ␾兩2 f 2共z,t兲 + ␾2
⳵f
⳵z
冉 冊册 2
= 0. 共5兲

Equation 共4兲 can be further rewritten by using the assumption of


linear wave theory as
Ph ⳵f
+ ␾ + gz = 0 共6兲
␳w ⳵t
Following Rahman and Monsavizadegan 共2004兲, we introduce the
Fig. 1 The flow geometry of the dynamic interaction of pipe- relation, namely
line on seabed

冉 冊 冉 冊
D Ph
Dt ␳w
+
D
Dt

⳵f
⳵t
D
+ 共gz兲 = 0
Dt
共7a兲
ⵜ ⌽=0
2
where
Ph ⳵ ⌽ 1 共2兲
+ + gz + 兩ⵜ⌽兩2 = F1共t兲 D ⳵
␳w ⳵ t 2 = +q·ⵜ 共7b兲
Dt ⳵ t
where F1共t兲 is constant in space and for this purpose assumed as
zero. In a Cartesian coordinate system, Eqs. 共2兲 can be written as and
⳵ 2⌽ ⳵ 2⌽ ⳵ 2⌽
+ +
⳵ x2 ⳵ y 2 ⳵ z2
=0 共3a兲 q= f 冉 ⳵␾ ⳵ f
,␾
⳵x ⳵z
冊 共7c兲

Ph ⳵ ⌽
+
␳w ⳵ t
+ gz +
1
2
冋冉 冊 冉 冊 冉 冊 册
⳵⌽
⳵x
2
+
⳵⌽
⳵y
2
+
⳵⌽
⳵z
2
= 0, ∀ z = ␩a
Thus for isentropic 共sea state兲 inviscid fluid flow, Eq. 共7a兲 now
takes the form
1 ⳵ Ph ⳵2 f ⳵z
共3b兲 +␾ 2 +g =0 共8兲
␳w ⳵ t ⳵t ⳵t
Since ⌽ = ⌽共x , y , z , t兲 satisfies Eq. 共3a兲, we introduce the variable
separable solution Now, at z = ␩a, we invoke the kinematics boundary condition,
namely
⌽ = ␾共x,y,兲f共z,t兲
⳵␩ ⳵f
which allows us to rewrite Eq. 共3a兲 as =␾ 共9兲
⳵t ⳵z
But at z = ␩a, Ph = Pa 共atmospheric pressure兲, which allows us to
rewrite Eq. 共8兲 as
⳵2 f ⳵f
␾ 2 + g␾ =0
⳵t ⳵z
or as
⳵2 f ⳵f
=−g 共10兲
⳵ t2 ⳵z
Now, the governing equation of motion in domain 共⍀2兲 as recalled
from Eq. 共1兲 admits the form
EIWxxxx + 共␳ + ␳ f 兲Wtt + 2u␳ f Wtx + ␳ f u2Wxx
⳵ PS
+ KbW − ␮S␲␦共R − ␦/2兲
⳵x
= Ph␲共2R − ␦兲 ∀ x 苸 ⍀2 共internal兲 共11兲
where, ␦ is the level of sediment coverage of the pipeline at a
given time. Thus
ẑ = z + h + R
and

冏 冉
Ph = − ␳wzg + ␳w
⳵⌽
⳵t
冊冏 z=−h
共12兲

enforces the continuity of pressure at the interface between ⍀1


and ⍀2.
Fig. 2 Control volume sketch for the pipeline dynamic interac- To be sure, the value ␦ = 0 corresponds to the case where the
tion problem pipe is freshly laid on the seabed while the value ␦ = 2R describes

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 109

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


the case when the pipe is now fully covered by sediment at the
seabed. Part of the problem here is to define the rate of growth of
s
k
W̃共x,s兲 1 +
s2
gk
冉 冊
冉 冊
␦ as a function of time, thereby characterizing the state of the B共s兲 = −
seabed. s2
2 sinh kh + cosh kh
Equation 共4兲 with variable separation can be written as gk
ⵜ2␾共x,y兲
␾共x,y兲
=−
⳵2 f共z,t兲
⳵ z2
冒 f共z,t兲 = − k2 共13a兲
so that in the limit of steady state, we obtain the asymptotic result

f̃共z,s兲 = −
sW̃共x,s兲
cosh kz 共20兲
i.e. k sinh kh

ⵜ2␾共x,y兲
␾共x,y兲
= − k2 ;
⳵2 f共z,t兲
⳵ z2
冒 f共z,t兲 = k2 共13b兲
Now, the reduced velocity potential ␾共x , y兲 is defined from
⳵ ␾共x,0兲
= UW
where k is a constant 共wave number兲 to be determined from the
2 ⳵x
fluid kinematics boundary conditions. Hence


The first of Eqs. 共13兲 is the Helmholtz equation, namely L

ⵜ ␾+k ␾=0
2 2
共14兲 ␾共x,0兲 = UW dx = UWL 共21兲
0
where ␾共x , y兲 is the reduced fluid velocity potential.
where Uw= uniform water velocity at infinity 共for the sea state
The second of Eqs. 共13兲 gives
earlier defined兲.
⳵2 f共z,t兲 We now introduce the Laplace transform earlier used as namely

冕 冕
− k2 f共z,t兲 = 0 共15兲 ⬁ ␥+i⬁
⳵ z2 1
共•˜ 兲 = 共•兲e−st dt, 共•兲 = 共•˜ 兲est ds 共22兲
subject to the boundary conditions 0
2␲i ␥−i⬁

⳵ f共z,t兲 1 ⳵2 f Hence, using Eqs. 共11兲, 共12兲, and 共22兲, we have


=− at z = 0, in ⍀1 共16a兲
⳵z g ⳵ t2 EIW̃xxxx共x,s兲 + 共␳ + ␳ f 兲关s2W̃共x,s兲 − sW共x,0兲 − Ẇ共x,0兲兴
corresponding to the condition at the free surface. However en-
+ 2u␳ f 关sW̃共x,s兲 − W共0兲兴 + ␳ f u2W̃xx共x,s兲 + KbW̃共x,s兲
forcing the continuity across the interface between ⍀1 and ⍀2
requires that

⳵ f共z,t兲 ⳵ W
− ␮S␲␦共R − ␦/2兲
dPS共s,x兲
dx
= ␲共2R − ␦兲␳w − s⌽̃共x,s,z兲 +
gh
s
冋 册
= at z = − h, in ⍀2 共16b兲 共23兲
⳵z ⳵t
If we consider no external excitation in ⍀3 at this stage, we can
Equation 共16a兲 represents the free surface 共no surface tension兲 sea
write
state boundary condition and Eq. 共16b兲 represents the fluid–
structure–seabed dynamic interaction boundary condition. EIW̃xxxx共x,s兲 + 共␳ + ␳ f 兲关s2W̃共x,s兲兴 + 2u␳ f 关sW̃共x,s兲兴 + ␳ f u2W̃xx共x,s兲
The general solution of Eq. 共15兲 in the Laplace transform plane
admits the form dPS共s,x兲
+ KbW̃共x,s兲 − ␮S␲␦共R − ␦/2兲
⳵x

冋 册
f̃共z,s兲 = A共s兲ekz + B共s兲e−kz 共17兲
gh
while the Laplace transform of the boundary conditions 共16a兲 and = ␲共2R − ␦兲␳w − s⌽̃F共x,s,z兲 + 共24兲
s
共16b兲 gives
wherein for motion through the domain 共⍀3兲
共z,s兲 1
df
= 关− s2 f共s,z兲 − sf共0,z兲 − ḟ共0,z兲兴, z = 0 苸 ⍀1 PS = PS共x,t兲
dz g
We next introduce Fourier finite sine transform namely


L
共z,s兲
df n␲x
= sW̃共x,s兲 − W共0兲, z = − h 苸 ⍀1 共external兲 共18兲 IS关兴 = 关•¯ 兴 = 关•兴sin dx
dz 0
L

再 冎
On substitution of the zero initial conditions, we find ⬁
n␲x

2
共z,s兲 关•兴 = 关•¯ 兴sin 共25兲
df s2 L n=1 L
= − f̃共s,z兲
dz g Thus, Eq. 共24兲 can be written as

冏 冏
共z,s兲
df
dz z=−h
= sW̃共x,s兲 共19兲
EIIs共W̃xxxx兲 + 共␳ + ␳ f 兲s2Is关W̃共x,s兲兴 + 2u␳ f sIs关W̃x共x,s兲兴

+ ␳ f u2Is关W̃xx共x,s兲兴 + KbIs关W̃共x,s兲兴
Consequently, we obtain
− ␮S␲␦共R − ␦/2兲␦Is 冋 dPS共s,x兲

s
k
冉 冊
W̃共x,s兲e2kh 1 +
s
gk s
2


= ␲共2R − ␦兲␳w − s⌽̃F共␭n,s,z兲 +
dx
gh F

冉 冊
A共s兲 = − 2 + W̃共x,s兲ekh 1 共26兲
s k s
2 sinh kh + cosh kh
gk where

110 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


1F = 冕0
L
sin
n␲x
L
dx =
L
n␲
关1 + 共− 1兲n+1兴
W̃F共␭n,s兲 =
共2R − ␦兲␳Wgh␲1F + ␮S␲␦共R − ␦/2兲sIS

dP
dx
S

共x,s兲 册
关共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␳W共2R − ␦兲␤␲兴s共s2 + ␩2兲
We shall limit our investigation for now to the problem of pipe
conveyance of crude oil as a result of which the third term 共Co- 共34兲
riolis force兲 is negligible. where
Furthermore, noting that
EIn4␲4 u 2n 2␲ 2
− ␳f + Kb
n␲ 4 4
L 4
L2
IS关W̃xxxx共x,s兲兴 = IS兵W̃共x,s兲其 ␩ =
2
共35兲
L4 共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␲共2R − ␦兲␳W␤
n 3␲ 3

L3
兵W̃共0,s兲 + 共− 1兲n+1W共L,s兲 其 To complete our solution we need to fully define the boundary
condition on the seabed as embedded in the pressure gradient term
in Eq. 共34兲. This is determined by the nature of the geology of the
n␲ bed. In the next section, we consider two such conditions.
+ 兵W̃xx共0,s兲 + 共− 1兲n+1Wxx共L,s兲其 共27兲
L
and
3 Modeling of Seabed Geology and Geo-Dynamic In-
n 2␲ 2 n␲ fluence
IS关W̃xx共x,s兲兴 = − 2 IS兵W共x,s兲其 + 兵W̃共0,s兲 − W̃共L,s兲cos n␲其
L L The geo-mechanical properties are influenced by the fact that
共28兲 for a moving seabed, the propagating waves will force an oscil-
lating seepage flow through the pores of the bed. We next examine
and using the fact that in domain ⍀3 the pipeline is idealized as two models for our analysis namely, permeable bed 共rigid porous
simply supported at x = 共0 , L兲, i.e. bed兲 and deformable porous bed.
3.1 Analytic Solution for Rigid Porous Bed. The geo-
d2W̃共0,s兲 d2W̃共L,s兲 mechanical properties or characteristics are modeled with Darcy’s
W̃共0,s兲 = W̃共L,s兲 = = =0 共29兲
dx2 dx2 law through ⍀3 共in a horizontal direction兲, namely
so that Eq. 共26兲, can be reduced to the form ⳵ Ps ␮ sc pU s
=− , ∀ x 苸 ⍀3 共36兲
⳵x Ks
n␲ F
4 4
n␲ 2 2
EI W̃ 共␭n,s兲 + 共␳ + ␳ f 兲s2W̃F共␭n,s兲 − ␳ f u2 2 W̃F共␭n,s兲 where Ps= sediment pressure; Ks= bed’s specific permeability co-
L4 L

冋 册
efficient; Us⫽seepage horizontal velocity component; C p= poros-
dPS共x,s兲 ity coefficient or index; and ␮s⫽bed sliding friction coefficient.
+ KbW̃F共␭n,s兲 − ␮S␲␦共R − ␦/2兲IS For this case
dx


= ␲共2R − ␦兲␳W s⌽̃F兩共␭n,s,z兲兩z=−h +
gh F
s
1 册 共30兲 Is 冉 冊
dP̃s
dx
,=−
␮ sc pU s F
sKs
1

If we invoke the decomposition of ⌽, introduced earlier, we can and Eq. 共34兲 simplifies to
write from Eqs. 共20兲 and 共21兲

s cosh kz W̃ 共␭n,s兲 =
F

␲共2R − ␦兲 ␳wgh −
␮s2␲␦c pUs F
2Ks
1 冊 共37兲
⌽̃ 共␭n,s,z兲 = ␾ 共␭n兲f̃共z,s兲 = − UWL W̃共x,s兲1F
F F
关共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␲共2R − ␦兲␳w␤兴s共s2 + ␩2兲
k sinh kh
So that we can write
= ␤ˆ sW̃F共␭n,s兲 共31兲

And using Eq. 共31兲, we write Eq. 共30兲 in the form of W̃F共␭n,s兲 = 共38兲
s共s2 + ␩2兲
n 4␲ 4 F 2n ␲
2 2 where
4 W̃ 共␭n,s兲 + 共␳ + ␳ f 兲s W̃ 共␭n,s兲 − ␳ f u

冉 冊
EI 2 F
W̃F共␭n,s兲
L L2 ␮s2␦c pUs F

冋 册
␲共2R − ␦兲 ␳wgh − 1
dPS共x,s兲 2Ks
+ KbW̃F共␭n,s兲 − ␮S␲␦共R − ␦/2兲IS ⌸= 共39兲
dx 共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␲共2R − ␦兲␳w␤
␲共2R − ␦兲␳Wgh1F This gives us the Laplace inversion of W̃F共␭n , s兲 as
= ␲共2R − ␦兲␳W␤s2W̃F共␭n,s兲 + 共32兲
s ⌸
WF共␭n,t兲 = 共1 − cos ␩t兲 共40兲
where ␩2
U WL and
␤ˆ = − cosh kz ⬁
k sinh kh ⌸ n␲x

2
W共x,t兲 = 共1 − cos ␩t兲sin
and L n=1 ␩2 L

⌸̂ 共1 − cos ␩ˆ t兲 2n␲x

U WL
兩␤ = ␤ˆ 兩z=−h = − coth kh 共33兲 = sin 共41兲
k L n=1 n␩ˆ 2
L
and using Eq. 共31兲, we cast Eq. 共30兲 in the form of where

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 111

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


⌸̂ =

共2R − ␦兲 ␳Wgh −
␮s2␦c pUs
2Ks
冊 Ũs共s兲 =
Us
共s − i␻s兲
共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␲共2R − ␦兲␳w␤
and for the case

16EIn4␲4 4u2n2␲2 Us共t兲 = H共t兲Usei␻st


− ␳ + Kb
L4
f
L2 where ␻S= seabed frequency of oscillatory motion; and US= sea-
␩ˆ 2 = bed velocity amplitude.
共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␲共2R − ␦兲␳W␤
Equation 共41兲 gives the corresponding transverse response of the 3.2.1 Case A: ∀Ũs共s兲 = Us / s. The case corresponds to that of a
pipeline with rigid porous bed model and shows that the funda- constant seabed velocity. For this case, Eq. 共45兲 assumes the form
mental mode in this case is not the first harmonic.
␣1 + ␣2 ␣ 3U s
3.2 Analytic Solution for Deformable Porous Bed. Next, W̃F共␭n,s兲 = −
s共s + i␩兲共s − i␩兲 共s + i␩兲共s − i␩兲
we now relax the rigid bed model of Darcy’s and use instead the
poro-elastic model of Biot 共1941, 1956兲, where it is assumed that so that
the porous medium deforms elastically, obeying Hooke’s law.
Hence, the generalized law of Biot in the horizontal direction is ␣1 + ␣2 ␣ 3U S
WF共␭n,t兲 = 共1 − cos ␩t兲 − sin ␩t 共46兲
such that ␩2 ␩
⳵ Ps ⳵ Us 共Us − Ub兲 Hence
= − ␳s − c p␮ s 共42兲

冋冉 冊 册
⳵x ⳵t Ks ⬁
␣ˆ 1 + ␣ˆ 2 ␣ˆ 3US 2n␲x

1
where W共x,t兲 = 共1 − cos ␩ˆ t兲 − sin ␩ˆ t sin
L n=1 n␩ˆ 2
n␩ˆ L
共Us − Ub兲 = sediment-seabed-relative velocity
共47兲
Now
where
dP̃s共x,s兲 cp
= − ␳s关sŨs共s兲 − U共0兲兴 − 共 U s − U b兲 ␮ s ␣ˆ n = ␣n/␲1F
dx sKs
in the Laplace domain. 3.2.2 Case B: ∀Ũs共s兲 = Us / 共s − i␻s兲. For this case, we assume
Hence that the seabed velocity is sinusoidal and Eq. 共45兲 takes the form

dP̃s共x,s兲 cp ␣1 + ␣2 ␣3sUS
= − ␳ssŨs共s兲 − 共 U s − U b兲 ␮ s 共43兲 W̃F共␭n,s兲 = − 共48兲
dx sKs s共s + i␩兲共s − i␩兲 共s − i␻S兲共s + i␩兲共s − i␩兲
Using zero initial term in this case, Eq. 共34兲 in this case takes the so that

冋冉 冊 冉 冊
form
␣1 + ␣2 ␣3Us e−i␩t e i␩t
WF共␭n,t兲 = 共1 − cos ␩t兲 − i −
␣1 + ␣2 ␣3sŨs共s兲 ␩ 2
2 ␩ + ␻s ␩ − ␻s
W̃F共␭n,s兲 = 共44兲



s共s2 + ␩2兲 共s2 + ␩2兲 ␣ 3␻ sU s i␻ t
−i e s 共49兲
where ␩2 − ␻s2
共2R − ␦兲␳wgh␲1F and
␣1 =

冋冉 冊
关共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␳w共2R − ␦兲␤␲兴


␣ˆ 1 + ␣ˆ 2 ␣ˆ 3Us e−i␩ˆ t

1
W共x,t兲 = 共1 − cos ␩t兲 − i
cp L n=1 n␩ˆ 2
2␩ˆ ␩ˆ + ␻s
␮s2␲␦共R − ␦/2兲 共Us − Ub兲1F
␣2 =
Ks
关共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␳w共2R − ␦兲␤␲兴 −
ei␩ˆ t
␩ˆ − ␻s
冊 −i
␣ˆ 3␻sUS i␻ t
2 e
n共␩ˆ − ␻s 兲
2 册
s sin
2n␲x
L
共50兲

␮2S␲␦共R − ␦/2兲␳s1F Equations 共47兲 and 共50兲 give the corresponding transverse re-
␣3 =
关共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␳w共2R − ␦兲␤␲兴 sponse of the pipeline with relaxed rigid porous bed model.
Hence
3.3 Analytic Solution for Rigid Porous Bed With Excita-
␣1 + ␣2 ␣3sŨs共s兲 tion of Seabed. The transverse vibration response in which the
W̃ 共␭n,s兲 =
F
− 共45兲
s共s + i␩兲共s − i␩兲 共s + i␩兲共s − i␩兲 seabed forcing function is the impulsive load

The solution of Eq. 共45兲 is clearly subject to the form of Ũs共s兲 F共t兲 = F0˜␦共t − t0兲
We shall assume the following forms
has the solution

冋 册
共a兲 ⬁
⌸̂ + ¯␣ˆ 2n␲x

1
Us W共x,t兲 = 共1 − cos ␩ˆ t兲 sin 共51兲
Ũs共s兲 = L n=1 n␩ˆ 2 L
s
corresponding to the case Us共t兲 = H共t兲Us and whereas the response for the forcing function F共t兲 = F0 exp共i⍀̄t兲 is
共b兲 given by

112 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


W共x,t兲 =
1

兺 再 ⌸̂
n␩ˆ 2
共1 − cos ␩
ˆ t兲 +
¯␣ˆ
冋 ¯
ei⍀t

1 e−i¯␩t
n ␩ˆ 2 − ⍀̄2 2␩ˆ ␩ˆ + ⍀̄ 冉
Table 2 Relative density of typical geological soils

Description of soil

冊册冎
L n=1
deposit Relative density
i¯␩t
e 2n␲x
+ sin 共52兲 Very loose 0–15
␩ˆ − ⍀̄ L Loose 15–20
Dense 50–70
Thus by comparing the result Eq. 共51兲 with Eq. 共41兲, we can see Very dense 70–85
that the effect of an impulsive load is to increase the amplitude of 85–100
the vibration by a factor ¯␣ˆ where

¯␣ˆ = ¯␣/␲1F = −
F0
关共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␳W共2R − ␦兲␤␲兴
Furthermore, when we compare the result for the case of sinu-
共53兲
⌬W共x,t兲 =
2

L n=1

再冋
¯␣ˆ
¯
ei⍀t
− 冉
1 e−i␩ˆ t
+
ei␩ˆ t
n ␩ˆ 2 − ⍀̄2 2␩ˆ ␩ˆ + ⍀̄ ␩ˆ − ⍀̄ 冊册冎
soidal forcing function i.e., Eq. 共52兲 with Eq. 共41兲 we see that the 2n␲x
effect of sinusoidal load is to increase the amplitude by the ⫻sin 共57兲
L
differential

⌬W共x,t兲 =
1

L n=1

再冋 ¯␣ˆ
¯
ei⍀t

1 e−i␩ˆ t
冉+
ei␩ˆ t
n ␩ˆ 2 − ⍀̄2 2␩ˆ ␩ˆ + ⍀̄ ␩ˆ − ⍀̄ 冊册冎 4 Analysis of Results
In this paper, we have looked at the dynamic response interac-
tion of a vibrating offshore pipeline on a moving seabed by ide-
2n␲x alizing the pipe as a beam vibrating on an elastic foundation so
⫻sin 共54兲 long as we have invoked the derived governing differential equa-
L tions and allowed for gradual burial of the pipe through sedimen-
tation. For the case of natural vibration, we have found that the
response is influenced by factors such as the geological character-
3.4 Analytic Solution for Deformable Porous Bed With istics of the bed, the speed of flow of oil/gas within the pipeline,
Excitation of Seabed. The transverse vibration response in which as well as the depth to the seabed. Although our analysis assumes
the seabed forcing function is inviscid fluid flow nonetheless, the dynamic interaction of the
fluid–structure–seabed is captured through the boundary condition
F共t兲 = F0˜␦共t − t0兲 Eq. 共16b兲, at the fluid–structure interface.
To enable us to interpret the significance of our results, we have
which has the solution also carried out simulations based on characteristic values of some

冋 册
of the fluid and geo–mechanical parameters that govern this fluid–

⌸̂ + 2¯␣ˆ 2n␲x structure–soil interaction. In particular, some of the values used in

1
W共x,t兲 = 共1 − cos ␩ˆ t兲 sin 共55兲 the simulations are listed in Tables 1–4. The values used for other
L n=1 n␩ˆ 2 L relevant parameters for the problem treated in this report are simi-
So that comparison with Eq. 共41兲 shows that for this case the lar to those used by Olunloyo et al. 共2004兲 in a related paper 关13兴
and are as contained in Table 5. Thus, Fig. 3 illustrates the effect
factor of amplitude modulation is 2¯␣ˆ being twice what was re-
ported for the rigid porous bed, whereas the response for the forc-
ing function F共t兲 = F0 exp共i⍀̄t兲 is given by Table 3 Young’s modulus for typical geological soils

W共x,t兲 =
2
L n=1 兺

再冉 n␩ˆ 2

␣ˆ 1 + ␣ˆ 2
共1 − cos ␩
ˆ t兲 − i 冉
␣ˆ 3US e−i␩ˆ t
2n ␩ˆ + ␻s
Type of soil Young’s modulus
KN/ m2


ei␩ˆ t
␩ˆ − ␻s
冊 −i
␣ˆ 3␻sUs i␻ t ¯␣ˆ
n共␩ˆ 2 − ␻s2兲
e +
s

¯
ei⍀t
Soft clay
Hard clay
Loose
1380–3450
5 865–13,800
10,350–27,600

冊册冎
n 共␩ˆ 2 − ⍀̄2兲 Dense sand 34,500–69,000

− 冉
1 e−i␩ˆ t
+
ei␩ˆ t
2␩ˆ ␩ˆ + ⍀̄ ␩ˆ − ⍀̄
sin
2n␲x
L
共56兲 Table 4 Typical value of drained angle of friction for sands
and silts

and comparison with Eq. 共50兲 gives the amplitude differential Sand: rounded grams

Soil type ␾ 共deg兲

Loose 27–30
Table 1 Coefficient of permeability of typical geological soils Medium 30–35
Dense 35–38
Soil type cm/s
Sand: angular grams
Soil type ␾ 共deg兲
Clean gravel 1.0–100
Coarse sand 1.0–0.001 Loose 30–35
Fine sand 0.01–0.001 Medium 35–40
Silty 0.001–0.0001 Dense 40–45
Clay Less than Gravel with some sand 34–48
0.000001 Silts 26–35

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 113

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Table 5 Parametric values used for simulation

S/N Description Symbol Values used

1 Density of pipe ␳ 7.81 kg/ m3


material
2 Density of sea ␳w 980 kg/ m3
water
3 Pipeline fluid ␳f 0.875
relative density
4 Sliding frictional ␮s 0.2
coefficient at the
interface of the
pipe and the
sediment layer
5 Time domain F共t兲
forcing function
6 Sediment relative ␳s 0.6
density
7 Modulus of E 207 MN/ m2
rigidity of pipe
material
8 Acceleration due G 9.8 m / s2
to free fall
9 Height 共depth兲 of H 150 m Fig. 3 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed
pipeline below and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s
mean sea surface
10 Seabed modulus Kb 8 N / m 共soft bed兲8


of deformation MN/m 共hard bed兲
11 Length of the F0
L 6m ¯␣ˆ = ; for rigid porous bed
pipeline ␲关共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␳␻共2R − ␦兲␤␲兴
12 External Do 3.5, 6.5, 12.5, 24.5 in.
diameter Y= 2F0
13 Internal Di 3, 6, 12, 24 in. 2¯␣ˆ = ; for deformable porous
diameter ␲关共␳ + ␳ f 兲 − ␳␻共2R − ␦兲␤␲兴
14 Inner radius of R Di / 2 bed
the pipeline
15 Moment of I — 共58兲
inertia
16 Uniform fluid flow velocity U 5 , 10, 15, 20 m / s
as derived from Eq. 共51兲.
through the pipe As expected, sediment cover helps to control the effect of vi-
17 Transverse pipe W W共x , t兲 bration and justifies the popular practice of burying pipes in the
displacement seabed where the geology permits 共see Figs. 5–7兲.
18 Height of ␦ Fraction
For soft seabeds, the use of increased flow velocity to dampen
sediment layer of pipe
on the pipe external diameter excitation is less effective at lower sediment cover than at the
19 Seabed Ks 0.02 higher level as can be seen from Figs. 6 and 7 compared to Figs.
permibility 4 and 5. Such increased pumping speed, however, transfers the
coefficient likelihood of rupture from one of shear to that of fatigue since, as
20 Wave number K 0.1 seen from the Fig. 8–11, as it is usually accompanied by increased
21 Porosity cp 0.03
coefficient or
frequency in the case of the hard seabed.
index However, the optimal damping is not linearly dependent on
internal fluid velocity for the soft bed neither is it inversely de-
pendent for the hard ocean floor.

of velocity variation on dynamic response of the pipeline. In the


absence of seismic excitation of the seabed, the response can be
dampened by increasing the velocity at which the fluid is being
pumped through the pipe. This can be easily arranged where there
is excess pressure at the well head. However, this is strictly cor-
rect only for soft seabeds. In fact where the seabed is hard, the
geomechanical behavior of the seabed invariably acts like a spring
as seen from comparing Figs. 4 and 9.
With increasing depth, the hydrodynamic load on the pipe in-
creases, but this does not appear to restrain the level of vibration
of the pipeline as much as the one described above, that is, the
effect of internal fluid velocity. The bed geology is described by
the bed stiffness Kb for our problem. The pipe modulus of rigidity
seems to eclipse the effect of bed geology for the typical material
used for crude conveyance piping. When there is impulsive exci-
tation of the structure through a force of magnitude F0 the ampli-
tude of the dynamic response is increased by a factor Y where Fig. 4 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed
and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s

114 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 5 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed Fig. 7 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed
and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s

This means that the optimal policy for the effective manage-
ment of the pipeline system will require adequate monitoring of stays within reasonable limits. One of such domains occurs at low
the sediment cover. In subsequent publications, this and other is- to moderate pumping speeds, while the other requires relatively
sues will be discussed further 共see Figs. 12–18兲. high and unrealistic velocities for the physical model under ex-
Being at the bottom of the sea, drag effects as usually calcu- amination as our solution must also satisfy the requirement that
lated by use of Morison empirical formula are of second order the velocity of the conveyed fluid remains within reasonable
consideration especially in cases such as ours where the pipe is limits.
laid along the flow direction. However, such contribution can be By examining any of Figs. 19–24, it can be deduced that the
significant where the inclination between the fluid flow and pipe range of the optimal domain for the fluid conveyance velocity
direction is appreciable and of course, when dealing with risers. increases, in general, with the level of sediment cover. Further-
Where the pipe is laid at an inclination, to the fluid flow direction, more, comparison of the plots for soft and hard seabeds 共e.g., by
the appropriate governing differential equation to be solved was way of comparison of Figs. 19 and 20, 21 and 22 etc.兲 shows that
given by us in Ref. 关13兴 while the more general problem of the the optimal domain is on the average wider for a hard bed than for
effect of a nonstationary seabed on the Morison hydrodynamic a soft bed and that even this range can be enlarged by increasing
force was addressed by Olunloyo and Osheku in Ref. 关14兴. the size of the conduit pipe as is evidenced from Fig. 24 when
However, in this paper, we have also attempted to examine the compared with Figs. 22 or 20 for example.
level of attenuation of the deflection in relation to the sediment On the other hand we also find that with increasing pipe radius,
cover ␦ and the pumping speed. In this regard, we find that in the amplitude of vibration increases. This can be confirmed by
general, the amplitude of vibration dies progressively with in- examining sequentially Figs. 13, 5, 15, and 17 corresponding to
crease in sediment cover ␦. With respect to pumping speed, the the deflection pattern for pipes of radius 75 mm, 150 mm, 300
relation is nonlinear and may in fact be parabolic. mm, and 600 mm, respectively, on a soft seabed while Figs. 14,
For example, in Figs. 19–24 we find that for each of the profiles 10, 16, and 18 display the corresponding patterns for pipes laid on
there are at least two regions where the maximum pipe deflection a hard seabed. However, irrespective of the seabed geology or

Fig. 6 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed Fig. 8 Dynamic interaction response profile for hard seabed
and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 115

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 9 Dynamic interaction response profile for hard seabed Fig. 12 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed
and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s

internal fluid velocity, as the pipe size increases the dynamic re-
sponse converges to the bimodal profile as can be confirmed from
Figs. 17 and 18.
As expected, external excitation will increase the response of
these pipes for which an amplification factor has been derived for
the case of impulsive loading as earlier highlighted in Eq. 共58兲.
These results are of contemporary interest in the oil/gas industry
where deep sea exploration is now receiving significant attention.

5 Discussion and Conclusion


In this paper we have examined the problem of conveyance of
fluid in pipes laid on or buried under the sea floor. In particular,
the dynamic response interaction of a vibrating offshore pipeline
on a moving seabed was investigated where the pipeline is ideal-
ized as a hollow beam vibrating on an elastic foundation.
Interest in this problem derives from offshore exploration
where pipelines are laid either on or buried in the seabed. In either
case, the pipelines eventually get buried as a result of sedimenta-
tion. Such pipes carry oil and gas and form the subject of our
investigation. Due to the undulating topography of the sea floor
Fig. 10 Dynamic interaction response profile for hard seabed and the internal motion of the fluid within the piping network, the
and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s entire structure is subjected to vibration due to bending forces. Its

Fig. 11 Dynamic interaction response profile for hard seabed Fig. 13 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed
and pipe internal diameter 150 mm „6 in. … at 80 s and pipe internal diameter 75 mm „3 in. … at 80 s

116 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 14 Dynamic interaction response profile for hard seabed Fig. 17 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed
and pipe internal diameter 75 mm „3 in. … at 80 s and pipe internal diameter 600 mm „24 in. … at 80 s

Fig. 15 Dynamic interaction response profile for soft seabed Fig. 18 Dynamic interaction response profile for hard seabed
and pipe internal diameter 300 mm „12 in. … at 80 s and pipe internal diameter 600 mm „24 in. … at 80 s

Fig. 19 Maximum transverse response as a function of flow


Fig. 16 Dynamic interaction response profile for hard seabed velocity for soft seabed and pipe internal diameter of
and pipe internal diameter 300 mm „12 in. … at 80 s 150 mm „6 in. …

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 117

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 20 Maximum transverse response as a function of flow Fig. 23 Maximum transverse response as a function of flow
velocity for hard seabed and pipe internal diameter of velocity for soft seabed and pipe internal diameter of
150 mm „6 in. … 600 mm „24 in. …

motion is influenced by factors such as the natural characteristics


of the bed; speed of flow of oil/gas within pipeline; depth of
seabed; sedimentation cover of pipeline; size of pipeline; etc. With
respect to forced vibration, we also need to capture the motion
under seismic excitation. For this problem, the sea floor is treated
both as porous rigid and porous deformable continuum so as to
reflect the geo-mechanical properties of the seafloor as met in
practice.
1. Although our results indicate that with increasing depth, the
hydrodynamic load on the pipe increases, this however does
not appear to restrain the level of vibration of the pipeline as
much as some of the other factors.
2. In fact the two main factors that control the level of vibra-
tion are the pumping speed of the internal fluid and the level
of sediment cover on the laid pipe.
3. Our studies reveal that sediment cover does help to control
the effect of vibration as we found that in all cases and
irrespective of the seabed geology, increased sedimentation
Fig. 21 Maximum transverse response as a function of flow cover helps to control the level of vibration. This then justi-
velocity for soft seabed and pipe internal diameter of fies the popular practice of burying pipes in the seabed
300 mm „12 in. … where the geology permits.
4. With respect to the pumping speed of the internal fluid, we
find that: 共a兲 For soft seabeds, use of increased internal flow

Fig. 22 Maximum transverse response as a function of flow Fig. 24 Maximum transverse response as a function of flow
velocity for hard seabed and pipe internal diameter of velocity for hard seabed and pipe internal diameter of
300 mm „12 in. … 600 mm „24 in. …

118 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


velocity can significantly dampen excitation. For such cases, d / dx ⫽ total derivative operator with respect to x
the seabed acts as damper. Such increased flow velocity can PS共x兲 ⫽ sediment pressure on the pipe surface
be arranged where there is excess pressure at the well head. Ph共x兲 ⫽ hydrodynamic pressure distribution function
However, such increased pumping speed also transfers the R ⫽ external radius of the pipe
likelihood of rupture from one of shear to that of fatigue as ␮S ⫽ sliding frictional coefficient at the interface of
shown in our plots. It is usually accompanied by increased the pipe and the sediment layer
frequency. 共b兲 For the case of hard seabed, its geo- dFS ⫽ foundation differential force strength
mechanical behavior is that of a spring as increased pumping dFtransverse ⫽ fluid particle transverse force element
velocity amplifies the frequency of response. P
␦ ⫽ height of sediment layer on the pipe
5. Although increased internal fluid velocity tends to dampen
␲ ⫽ constant 共pi兲
the level of vibration for the soft bed and increase the fre-
dx ⫽ differential length of pipe
quency of vibration for the hard bed, the optimal damping is
AS ⫽ sediment layer area
not linearly dependent on internal fluid velocity for the soft
bed and neither is it inversely dependent for the hard ocean Ah ⫽ pipe area normal to ocean water
floor.

With in respect to crude oil/gas conveyance piping network on the References


seabed, we have been able to identify and have also initiated the 关1兴 Venkataramana, K., 1990, “On the Modelling of Uncertainties Associated With
process of ordering the factors that influence its transverse motion the Ocean Environment and Their Influence on Response Evaluations,” Integ-
rity of Offshore Structures, 4, pp. 39–51.
due to bending forces associated with the topography of the sea 关2兴 Housner, G. W., 1952, “Bending Vibration of Pipe Line Containing Flowing
floor as well as the process of pipe laying on the floor of the Liquids,” J. Appl. Mech., 19, pp. 205–209.
ocean. 关3兴 Foda, M. A., 1987, “Pipeline Breakout From Seafloor Under Wave Action,”
Appl. Ocean. Res., 2, pp. 211–231.
关4兴 Foda, M. A., 1995, “Sea Floor Dynamics,” Advances in Coastal and Ocean
Nomenclature Engineering, 1, pp. 77–123.
⍀1 ⫽ free fluid domain 关5兴 Van Rijn, L. C. et al., 1993, “Transport of Fine Sands by Currents and Waves,”
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., ASCE 119共2兲, pp. 123–143.
⍀2 ⫽ pipeline surface domain 关6兴 Davies, A. G., 1990, “A Model of the Vertical Structure of the Wave and
⍀3 ⫽ elastic seabed domain Current Bottom Boundary Layer,” Modelling Marine Systems, A. M. Davies,
E ⫽ pipe modulus of rigidity ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL., Vol. 2, pp. 263–297.
I ⫽ moment of inertia 关7兴 Davies, A. G., 1992, “Modelling the Vertical Distribution of Suspended Sedi-
ment in Combined Wave-Current Flow,” Coastal and Estuarine Studies, D.
␳ ⫽ density of pipe material Prandle, ed., AGU, Washington, D.C., Vol. 40, pp. 441–466.
␳f ⫽ fluid density 关8兴 Davies, A. G., 1995, “Modelling the Vertical Distribution of Suspended Sedi-
␳w ⫽ density of sea water ment in Collinear Wave-Current Flow,” Cont. Shelf Res., 15, pp. 949–979.
关9兴 Zhihong, L., and Davies, A. G., 1996, “Towards Predicting Sediment Trans-
␳s ⫽ sediment density port in Combined Wave-Current Flow,” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean
u ⫽ uniform fluid flow velocity through the pipe Eng., 122共4兲, pp. 157–164.
Kb ⫽ seabed modulus of deformation 关10兴 Winkler, E., 1867, “The Theory of the Bending of Beams on an Elastic Foun-
An ⫽ pipeline surface area normal to sea water dation,” Die Lehre von der Elastizität und Festigkeit, Prague, p. 182.
关11兴 Timoshenko, S., and Langer, B. F., 1932, Trans. ASME, 54, p. 186–187.
As ⫽ surface area of pipe in contact with sediments 关12兴 Warburton, G. B., 1976, The Dynamical Behaviour of Structures, 2nd ed.,
PS ⫽ sediment pressure on pipe surface Pergamon, New York, pp. 204–205 and 230–231.
F共t兲 ⫽ time domain harmonic forcing function 关13兴 Olunloyo, V. O. S., Oyediran, A. A., and Osheku, C. A., 2004, “Dynamic
Response Interaction of Vibrating Offshore Pipeline and Moving Seabed With
L ⫽ length of the pipeline Varying Geological and Geo-Mechanical Properties,” Proceedings
g ⫽ acceleration due to free fall OMAE2004, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 20–25, 2004, Paper
h ⫽ height of sea level above seabed OMAE 2004–51353
S ⫽ shear force 关14兴 Olunloyo, V. O. S., and Osheku, C. A., 2005, “On The Effects of a Non-
Stationary Seabed on the Morison Hydrodynamic Force for Off-Shore Struc-
M ⫽ bending moment tures,” Proceedings OMAE2005, Halkidiki, Greece, June 12–17, 2005, Paper
W ⫽ transverse pipe displacement OMAE2005–67475.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 119

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Вам также может понравиться