Você está na página 1de 9

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No.

1, January 2012

A Finite Element Model for Subsea Pipeline Stability and Free Span Screening
T. Elsayed, M. Fahmy and R. Samir

Abstract An approach for the screening of subsea pipelines against on bottom lateral instability and free spanning is presented in this paper. The approach is based on the use of a nonlinear finite element model. Combined stresses/lateral displacement acting on offshore pipelines due to combined hydrodynamic loads including wave/current effects are computed using the finite element model for both on bottom stability and free spans. Results are compared with those obtained from pipeline design codes. A case study is presented for an actual pipeline off the shore of Saudi Arabia. Results show that computed stresses/lateral displacements are within the specified code values. The proposed approach can be a valuable tool for the pipeline designer/operator for assessment of pipeline stability and free spans. . Keywords: subsea pipelines, on bottom stability, free span, finite element method.

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is used as a verification case study.

II.

OFFSHORE PIPELINE DESIGN CODES

I.

INTRODUCTION

Offshore pipelines on bottom stability and free spanning are two of the most important criteria for design/operation of submarine pipelines. Assessment of pipeline on bottom stability includes determining the pipeline lateral displacement and stresses due to hydrodynamic loads and pipe soil interaction. Excessive displacement/stresses may cause lack of the pipeline reliability (Taylor et al.1994; Teh et al.2003; Gao et al.2003; Zeitoun 2009). The presence of free spans along the length of the pipeline results in excessive displacements and bending/vibration of the pipeline section. The assessment of free span includes determining the maximum or critical span length under the effects of hydrodynamic loads and the pipe soil interaction (Fyriliev and Mork 1998). In this work a nonlinear finite element FEM model is used for assessment of on bottom stability as well as free spans. A case study for a 32 inch gas submarine pipeline in the Arabian Gulf in the

The DNV recommended practice (DNV RP F109, 2010) represents the assessment of pipeline stability subjected to waves and currents using three approaches for assessment. These are the dynamic lateral stability analysis, generalized lateral stability method and the absolute lateral static stability method. The dynamic lateral stability method calculates the lateral displacement of a pipeline subjected to waves and current loads for a design sea state. An allowed lateral displacement is in the range from less than half a pipe diameter up to a significant displacement of 10 diameters during the given sea state. These assessments are obtained from a large number of one-dimensional dynamic analyses, i.e. on flat seabed and neglecting bending and axial deformation of the pipe. The generalized lateral stability method is based on a database of results from dynamic analyses/simulations. Its objective is to calculate the minimum required weight for obtaining on-bottom stability for the allowable displacement range from less than half a pipe diameter up to a significant displacement of 10 diameters in a design spectrum of oscillatory wave induced velocities perpendicular to the pipeline at the pipeline level. The absolute lateral static stability method, on the other hand, is a design wave approach. It ensures absolute static stability for a single design extreme waveinduced oscillation. The length of unsupported spans on an offshore pipeline should be controlled to avoid excessive loads or deformations in the pipeline. The DNV recommended practice (DNV RP F105, 2006) represents the free span assessment code and provides rational design criteria and guidance for assessment of pipeline free spans subjected to combined wave and current loading. Pipeline deflections and frequencies for both in line and cross flow vibrations can be determined for the effective span length. Figure 1 shows a flow chart for the design checks for a free span according to this code.

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2012

Fig. 1

Flow chart for design checks for a free span

III.

STRUCTURAL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

A nonlinear finite element model FEM is used for the screening of lateral stability and free span phenomena in subsea pipelines subjected to hydrodynamic forces resulting from wave and currents with pipe soil interaction. The FEM model was constructed using the finite element package ANSYS (Ansys, Inc. 2009, 2009b). ANSYS allows modeling of the pipeline and seabed as well as contact between the two using contact elements. As such, friction forces and soil stiffness can be considered into the analysis. The immersed pipe element, PIPE59, was used in this study. PIPE59 is a uniaxial element with tensioncompression, torsion, and bending capabilities, and with member forces simulating ocean waves and current and used as a composite pipe including insulation corrosion and concrete layers. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z-axes. PIPE59, as shown in Figure 2, is similar to PIPE16 except that the element loads include the hydrodynamic and buoyant effects 2

of the water and the element mass include the added mass of the water and the pipe internals. The random waves can be introduced using the water motion table for the element where various wave theories may be selected in the water motion table. These include Airy, Stokes 5th order and stream function wave theory. Figure 3 shows the pipe soil modeled using ANSYS. The pipeline is modeled as a rigid structure, and the seabed is considered as a flat non-deformable area. Contact between the two is modeled using ANSYS contact elements. Seabed soil stiffness is used to define the contact stiffness between pipeline and seabed. Three different elements are used for modeling the pipesoil interaction and contact between the pipeline and seabed. These elements are the pipe element PIPE59, contact element CONTA177 and target element TARGE170. CONTA177 as shown in Figure 4 is used to represent contact and sliding between three dimensional surface segments and a deformable line segment. This element is located on the surfaces. TARGE170 is used to represent the seabed soil target surface for the contact elements. The contact element itself overlay the seabed soil target surface. This target surface is discredited by a set of target segment

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2012

elements (TARGE170) and is paired with its associated contact surface via a shared real constant set.

Fig. 2. Pipe element PIPE59 nodes, coordinate system and inputs.

Fig. 3. Pipe soil interaction model.

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2012

Fig. 4. Contact element CONTA177 nodes and coordinate system.

IV.

ASSESSMENT OF FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS FOR ON BOTTOM STABILITY

A case study for a 32 inch pipeline project at the Arabian Gulf was used to demonstrate the model capability. This pipeline transports gas from offshore Karan Khuff field to Khursaniyah gas plant in Saudia Arabia. The Karan field is located in Arabian Gulf at approximately 100 kilometers northeast of Jubail and lies mainly offshore in water depths of approximately 40 to 60 meters. The 32 inch gas pipeline was assessed for both on bottom stability and free spanning. Table 1

provides a summary of the pipeline specifications and environmental data. Assessment results for the pipeline for both DNV codes and finite element model are provided in Table 2. For the dynamic lateral stability method the lateral displacement of the pipeline should not exceed movements of ten times of the pipe outer diameter to be stable. . Figures (5, 6) show the results of both the pipe lateral displacement and the maximum Von Mises stresses. Figures (7, 8) show the sinusoidal time domain displacement results at midpoint of the pipeline and the sinusoidal reaction force at the constraint.

Table 1 Pipeline specification data and environmental condition


Pipe specifications Pipe outer diameter(m) Nominal wall thickness(m) Inner diameter(m) Steel density(kg/m3) Concrete coating thickness(m) Concrete coating density(kg.m3) Corrosion coating thickness(m) Corrosion coating density(kg/m3) Insulation thickness(m) Insulation density(kg/m3) Specified minimum yield strength(MPa) Environmental conditions Wind speed(m/sec) Current speed(m/sec) Water depth(m) Maximum wave height(m) Associated wave period to max height(sec) Sig. wave height(m) Lift force coefficient Drag force coefficient Inertia force coefficient -

0.9652 0.0302 0.9048 7850 0.0635 3050 0.00066 1400 0.00076 1400 414

21.05 0.3 56.24 10.26 11.3 5.5 0.9 0.7 3.29

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2012

Table 2 Pipelines criteria assessment results and non-linear finite element results.
32 inch pipeline DNV criteria results Applicable method Pipeline dry weight (N/m) Pipeline submerged weight (N/m) Buoyancy (N/m) Horizontal load (N/m) Vertical load (N/m) Displacement (m) Minimum weight for stability (N/m) SMYS (MPa) Finite element ANSYS results Lateral displacement (m) Maximum Von Mises stress (MPa) Absolute and Dynamic 13047.71 4271.56 9516.04 716.08 323.39 0.44 2113.58 414 0.18 58.7

Fig. 5. Lateral displacement results 12 inch gas pipeline.

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2012

Fig. 6. Maximum Von Mises stress results

Fig. 7 Time domain dsiplacement (m) at mid pipe wave period 10.7 sec

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2012

Fig. 8 Time domain reaction force (Newtons) at constraint wave period 10.7 sec

V.

FREE SPAN ASSESSMENT

Free spans occur as a result of irregular seabed topography at installation or during pipeline operation as a result of vibration and scour. The assessment and analysis of free spans must take into account a number of variables that can be classified into the following categories: Physical and mechanical properties of pipeline materials at the free span. b) Physical and mechanical properties of pipeline contents at the free span. c) Environmental properties around the free span. d) Geometric configuration of the pipeline free span on the sea bed.
a)

. .. . . ..

< 2.7

2.7

(1)

Where: Leff = effective span length L = free span length = relative soil stiffness parameter The natural frequencies used to determine the pipeline span criteria in both in-line and cross-flow depend on the soil type, where the natural frequency of the pipeline on rock seabed is greater than that of the clay bed. If the natural frequency of the span is sufficiently low, it is well known that transverse vibration can occur as a result of the action of vortex shedding induced by current flowing across the pipe. The natural frequencies indicated by the Equations 2 and 3 must be achieved for the cross-flow and in-line, if this criteria is violated, then a full in-line and cross-flow VIV fatigue analysis is required. , . / .

The DNV recommended practice (DNV RP F105, 2006) defines the effective span length as the length of an idealized fixed-fixed span having the same structural response in terms of natural frequencies as the real free span supported on soil under environmental loads based on Morisons force expression and is given by:

>

>

, , ,

(2)

(3)

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2012

Where : fn,CF = cross-flow natural frequency fn,IL = in-line natural frequency

= safety factor for in-line screening criterion CF = safety factor for cross-flow screening criterion
IL

= 1 2

significant seabed unevenness. For a totally restrained pipe the following effective applies.

(4)

Uc,100year = 100 year return period value for the


current velocity at the pipe level

Uw,1year = significant 1 year return period value for


the waveinduced flow velocity at the pipe level corresponding to the annual significant wave height Hs,1year VR,onset = onset value for the reduced velocity L = free span length D = pipe outer diameter (including any coating) = current flow ratio

It is difficult to determine the effective axial force in a span due to operational varieties of temperature and pressure, residual lay tension, lateral buckling and

Where : Seff = effective axial force Heff = effective lay tension Pi = internal pressure difference relative to laying, according to DNV-OS-F101 A = internal cross section area of the pipe v = Poisson's ratio As = pipe steel cross section area E = Young's modulus of elasticity T = temperature difference relative to laying e = temperature expansion coefficient, may be temperature dependent Table 3 shows a comparison between FEM model results and DNV code results. Figure 9 shows a plot of the Von Mises stress for the free span.

Fig. 9. Von Mises stresses for the free span.

Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2012

Table 3 Free span criteria assessment and nonlinear finite element results
32 inch pipeline DNV criteria results Effective Mass (kg/m) Euler Load (KN) Cross-flow Static Deflection (m) In-line Static Deflection (m) Effective Span Length (m) Finite element ANSYS results Cross-flow deflection (m) In-line deflection (m) Von Mises stress (MPa) 2193.9 849.3 0.023 0.0003 10.38 0.020 0.00002 505

VI.

CONCLUSION

An approach for screening of submarine pipelines against on bottom lateral instability and free spans is presented in this work. Pipe structural response, stresses/strains and lateral displacement due to combined hydrodynamic loads were computed using a non-linear finite element model. The model takes into account the effect of pipe soil interaction using a Coulomb friction model which assumes pure constant plastic friction between the pipeline and the seabed. Computed pipe stresses/lateral displacements were compared with values obtained using design codes. A case study for a gas pipeline was analyzed using the proposed approach and the design codes for on bottom stability and free spans. Results show that computed displacements/stresses are within the target values as set in design codes. The proposed approach can be a valuable tool for the pipeline designer/operator for assessment of pipeline on bottom stability and free spans.

Rami Samir is a graduate student at the Department of Marine Engineering at the Arab Academy for Science & Technology & Maritime Transport AASTMT in Alexandria, Egypt. He has obtained his BSc degree from AASTMT in 2008.

REFERENCES
[1] T.C. Teh, A.C. Palmera, J.S. Damgaard 2003. Experimental study of marine pipelines on unstable and liquefied seabed. Coastal Engineering 50 (2003) 1 17 Elsevier. [2] F.P. Gao, X.Y. Gu, D.S. Jeng 2003. Physical modeling of untrenched submarine pipeline instability. Ocean Engineering 30. 12831304 Elsevier. [3] Zeitoun HO, Trnes K, Wong S, Brevet R, Willcocks J, Li J.2009. Advanced dynamic stability analysis. Proceedings of the ASME 28th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2009; 2009 May 31June 5; Honolulu (HI). [4] O. Fyriliev and Kim Mork 1998. Assessment of free spanning pipelines using DNV guidelines. International offshore and polar engineering conference . ISBN 1-880653-34-6 [5] Det Norske Veritas. DNV 2007. Offshore standard DNV-OS-F101: submarine pipeline systems. Hvik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas, DNV [6] Det Norske Veritas. 2010. Recommended practice DNV-RPF109:on-bottom stability design of submarine pipelines. [7] DetNorskeVeritas. 2006. Recommended practiceDNV-RP-F105:free spanning pipelines. Hvik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas, DNV. [8] ANSYS. 2009. Contact technology guide. ANSYS Release 9.0. Canonsburg (PA): ANSYS, Inc. [9] ANSYS. 2009b. Software elements library, Canonsburg (PA): ANSYS, Inc.

BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Tarek Elsayed is a Professor at the Department of Marine Engineering at the Arab Academy for Science & Technology & Maritime Transport AASTMT in Alexandria, Egypt. He has obtained his PhD degree from the University of California at Berkeley in USAin 1998. Prior to joining AASTMT, he has worked in the industry for many years in USA. Dr. Mohamed Fahmy is an Associate Professor at the Department of Marine Engineering at the Arab Academy for Science & Technology & Maritime Transport in Alexandria, Egypt. He has obtained his PhD degree from the Heriot Watt University in UK in 2006.

Você também pode gostar