3 - NRG - On Bottom Stability Presentation

Pipeline Design Training
Pipeline Lateral On-bottom Stability

Design
NRG ENGINEERING
training@nrgengineering.com
The Power to Deliver
Pipeline Design Training Module I Overview

August
2 2 August 28,
by Mr. 4Eng Bin NG
5
1
3
Pipe
Allowable
Applicable
Codes
On-bottom
Stability
(Concrete
Coating)
Design
Wall
Thickness
Design
Cathodic
Protection
Design
Expansion
Calculations
Free Span
Calculations
Flexibility
Analysis
Methodology
On-bottom
Roughness
Analysis
Use of
Spoilers for
Pipe Selfburial
&
Unconventional
against
Anchors, Wave
Liquefaction &
Earthquake
10
Pipeline
Construction
- Conventional
Pipeline
Protection
Installation
Engineering
(1/2)
Installation
Engineering
(2/2)
Workshop, revision, exercise
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
The Power to Deliver #2
Commonly Used Codes

DNV OS F101 (2000) Submarine Pipeline Systems
DNV RP E305 (1988) On bottom Stability Design of
Submarine Pipelines
DNV 1981 Rules for Submarine Pipelines
AGA Software (not a code but acceptable practice)
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
The on-bottom stability design focuses on determining the

concrete weight coating requirement for the pipeline so that it
is stable during its operating life
Typically, the stability analysis is performed for 2 conditions:
Installation condition Pipeline Empty and subjected to 1-year
return period wave and current
Operating condition: Pipeline filled with Product (minimum density)
and subjected to 100-year return-period wave and 100- or 10-year
return-period current.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
Wave approach to the pipeline axis can be utilized to derive

optimum concrete thickness in shallower waters.
The pipeline may be divided into many sections to account for
water depth variation, soil data and environmental loading.
The concrete density used in the analysis is adjusted to account
for field joint content.
Normally no corrosion allowance is considered for the lateral
stability calculations unless corrosion allowance is very
significant, as the corroded pipe can still contribute to the pipe
weight.
Water absorption is considered, e.g. 3% may be assumed
during the installation and hydrotest conditions, and 5% during
operational conditions.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

The design is based on no movement and no pipe soil
interaction.
Pipeline lateral stability refers to the stability of the pipeline
against lateral movements when subjected to
hydrodynamic loadings from wave and current.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015

(contd)
It is fundamentally based on static balance between applied hydrodynamic
forces and resisting soil forces as illustrated in Figure below. The resisting
soil forces is typically characterised by frictional force at the pipe/soil
interface.
FORCES ACTING ON SUBMARINE PIPELINE
Hydrodynamic Lift
Force, FL
Inline Hydrodynamic
Loadings
(FD + FI)
Pipe
Soil Resisting Force,
(Wsub FL)
Seabed
Pipe Submerged
Weight, WSub
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
Soil Resisting Force,

(Wsub -FFL)

(contd)
Appropriate hydrodynamic force coefficients are used in the
stability analysis of the pipeline.
The stability criterion is expressed by:
W sub FL
Fs
FD FI
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015

(contd)
Where:
Wsub
Submerged weight of pipeline per unit length (N/m)
FL
Hydrodynamic lift force per unit length (N/m)
FD
Hydrodynamic drag force per unit length (N/m)
FI
Hydrodynamic inertia force per unit length (N/m)
Coefficient of friction between pipe and seabed

(Varies between 0.3 for dense clay to 0.7 for sand,
normal friction coefficient =0.5)
Fs
NRG ENGINEERING
Safety factor = 1.1
27 May 2015

(contd)
The drag force per unit length (FD) of the pipeline is
calculated as follows:
FD
NRG ENGINEERING
2 W
C D Dt U d | U d |
27 May 2015

(contd)
The lift force per unit length (FL) is calculated as follows:
FL
NRG ENGINEERING
1
2
W CL Dt Ud
27 May 2015

(contd)
The inertia force per unit length (FI) is calculated as follows:
FI
NRG ENGINEERING
W Dt CI a sin
27 May 2015
=
Density of seawater (kg/m)
(contd)
Where:
w
CI
Inertia coefficient (3.29)
CD
Drag coefficient (Normally 1.2)
CL
Lift coefficient (Normally 0.9)
Dt
Total outer diameter of pipeline including coatings
Horizontal water particle acceleration normal to

the pipe axis (m/s)
a
Ud
=
=
Uw
Uc
NRG ENGINEERING
=
=
Horizontal water particle velocity normal to

the pipe axis
(Uc + Uw Cos ) (m/s)
Wave induced horizontal water
particle velocity normal to pipe (m/s)
Horizontal steady current velocity normal to
pipe axis (m/s)
27 May 2015

(contd)
The hydrodynamic coefficients will be reduced to care of
trench effects if applicable as per Jacobsen et al OTC paper
Fluid Loads on Pipeline: Sheltered or Sliding (what are the
values?)
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
DNV RP E305, 1988

DNV RP E305 is based on the PIPESTAB Joint Industry
Project conducted in the North Sea in the mid-eighties.
Three design methods are described in this Code.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
Simplified Analysis
This analysis is based on quasi-static method with results
calibrated from the Generalised Stability analysis.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
2. Generalised Analysis
This analysis is based on a set of non-dimensional stability
curves which have been derived from a series of runs
presenting pipe movement and strain results with a
dynamic response model. Net pipe movement is permitted
for pipe on sandy soil up to 40 pipe diameters. Pipe on clay,
however, does not allow net pipe movement.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
3. Dynamic Analysis
The analysis described involves a full dynamic simulation of
a pipeline resting on seabed with soil resistance,
hydrodynamic forces, boundary conditions and dynamic
response modelled for. It forms the basis of reference for
the Generalised analysis.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
DNV RP E305, 1988 (contd)

The hydrodynamic coefficients allowing pipeline to move a
maximum of 20 m in sand and no movement in clay.
Normally, a Pierson Moskovitz (PM) wave spectrum is
assumed in the analysis.
The stability criteria is expressed as:
W sub
FL FD FI
Fw
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
Where:
Wsub
= Submerged weight of pipeline (N/m)
FL
= Hydrodynamic lift force per unit length (N/m)
FD
= Hydrodynamic drag force per unit length (N/m)
FI
= Hydrodynamic inertia force per unit length (N/m)
= Coefficient of friction between pipe and seabed in
accordance with DNV RP E305.

(Friction coefficient varies between 0.15 to 1.3 for clayey soil
depending soil shear strength and K C Number. The
frictional factor for sand is 0.7 regards of flow parameters)
FW
= Calibration factor depending on Keulegan Carpenter
number and velocity ratio. A safety factor of 1.1 is inherent in the
calibration factor.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
The drag force per unit length (FD) of the pipeline is

calculated as follows:
FD
1
2
W C D D (U s Cos U c ) | U s Cos U c |
The lift force per unit length (FL) is calculated as follow:
FL
NRG ENGINEERING
1
2
W C L D (U s Cos U c )
27 May 2015
The inertia force per unit length (FI) is calculated as follow:
1
2
FI w D C M a sin
4
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
Where:
CM
=
=
=
CD
The mass density of seawater (kg/m)

Inertia coefficient
3.29
Drag coefficient
= 1.2 for Re < 3 x 105 and M 0.8
NRG ENGINEERING
CL
=
=
D
a
=
=
=
Us
Uc
0.7 ??
Lift coefficient
0.9
Total outer diameter of pipeline including external coatings (m)
Horizontal water particle acceleration normal to the pipe axis
(m/s)
Horizontal water particle velocity normal to the pipe axis due to
(m/s)
Horizontal steady current velocity normal to the pipe axis due to
(m/s)
Wave phase angle (deg.)
Current velocity to wave velocity ratio (Uc/Us)
27 May 2015
AGA (PRCI) Method
The PRCI/AGA Stability software was developed based on analytical

research and large-scale test model sponsored by Pipeline Research
Council International, Inc. (PRCI).
The software represents the state-of-the-art design in pipeline

stability and models the complex behaviour of pipe/soil interaction
which includes:
1. Hydrodynamic forces which account for the effect of wake (generated by
flow over pipe) washing back and forth over the pipe in oscillatory flow;
2. Embedment (digging) into clay or sand which occurs as the pipe resting on
the seabed is exposed to oscillatory loading and small oscillatory
deflections.
Three levels of analysis are provided by PRCI (AGA) Stability software,

namely Levels 1, 2 and 3. The general characteristics of each level of
analysis is summarised as follows:
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
PRCI (AGA) STABILITY SOFTWARE

Software
Analysis Type
Description
Level 1
Simplified Static
Performs a simplified analysis using traditional

methods.
Level 2
Level 3
NRG ENGINEERING
Simplified Quasi-Static
Performs a static analysis based on:

Realistic hydrodynamic forces
Realistic pipe embedment calculated by
quasi-static simulation of wave induced
pipe oscillations.
Dynamic Time Domain with

Wave Kinematics for 3-D
Random Seas
Consists of 3-program suite, WinWave,

WinForce and WinDynamics.
WinWave generates wave kinematics for
3-D random seas.
WinForce generates wave forces based
on time history of wave kinematics
WinDynamics analyses pipe dynamics
with external forces and a history
dependent soil model.
27 May 2015
AGA (PRCI) Method (contd)

Level 1 analysis:
This approach is based on traditional stability analysis
methods where the Morrison type hydrodynamic forces and
frictional soil resistance are considered. Its design
methodology corresponds to that described in DNV 1976
and DNV 1981 Codes. A no movement pipeline stability
design criteria is assumed.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015

Level 2 analysis:
With the similar no movement stability criteria, it is based
on quasi-static analysis where it simulates pipeline
embedment process as in the Level 3 analysis.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015

Level 3 analysis:
This level of analysis is most detailed where pipeline is
simulated in a finite element time domain software.
Detailed information on pipeline movement and stresses
obtained are basis of pipeline safety assessment.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015

Normally, a Level 2 analysis is adequate. Level 3 analysis is
carried out only if further optimisation of concrete weight
coating thickness is required.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
Analytical Methodology (Level 2)

According PRCI (AGA) a pipeline exposed to wave flow will
experience a hydrodynamic force, which is expressed by
two components: the in-line drag force and the lift force.
These two forces are calculated based on the physics of the
water-pipeline interaction.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015

(contd)
The AGA hydrodynamic force model is expressed as:
1
FD D U s2 C oD
2
FL
1
DU s2 C oL
2
iD
cos i ( wt iD )
(1)
iL
cos i ( wt iL )
(2)
2
FI
DU s2 C M a(t )
4
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
(3)
FL
FD =
F=
I
=
Hydrodynamic inertia force per unit length (N/m)

Density of sea water (kg/m3)
Pipe outer diameter (m)
U s=
Near seabed water velocity (m/s)
iL =
CM =
a (t )=
NRG ENGINEERING
Hydrodynamic drag force per unit length (N/m)
D=
C iD , C iL =
iD
Hydrodynamic lift force per unit length (N/m)
Fourier coefficient
Fourier phases
Inertia coefficient
Water acceleration (m/s2)
27 May 2015

(contd)
The Fourier coefficient and phases are determined from
extensive model test programme, which includes the
effects of steady current, waves, pipe roughness, and
seabed roughness. These values have been stored as a
database, which is implemented in the AGA Level 2 stability
analysis.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
Analytical Procedures
The AGA Level 2 is a quasi-static analysis program, which is

designed to take advantage of the results from the AGAs
hydrodynamic and pipe/soil interaction tests.
The procedure of the program analysis is as follows:
1. Based on user inputs, the program calculates the

significant bottom velocity, Us
2. Maximum and minimum in-line hydrodynamic forces for the
Largest 200 waves contained in an assumed 4-hour long
build-up sea state are calculated.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
3. Maximum and minimum inline forces for the largest 50 waves

during a subsequent 3-hour long design sea state are
calculated.
4. Based on the forces calculated, a conservative estimate of
pipe embedment at the end of the 4-hr storm build-up period
is calculated.
5. Based on the forces calculated and the pipe embedment
calculated, the amount of additional pipe embedment that
can be produced by the 50 largest waves in the design sea
state is calculated in a similar fashion similar. This
embedment and the associated soil resistance force are
saved for future processing.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
6. Hydrodynamic forces for a complete wave cycle are

calculated for four statistically meaningful wave induced
bottom velocities which are expected in a 3-hr long design
sea state.
7. The four bottom velocities, and, the most likely number of
wave induced velocities exceeding each are:
U1/3
=
U1/10
=
U1/100 =
U1/1000 =
NRG ENGINEERING
1.00
1.27
1.66
1.86
Us
Us
Us
Us
(135 exceedances)
(40 exceedances)
(4 exceedances)
(0 exceedances)
27 May 2015
8. Using the soil resistance values obtained and the

hydrodynamic forces calculated, the minimum factor of
safety against lateral sliding is calculated for the pipe
embedment at the end of the 4-hr long build up period, and
at the end of the 3-hr long design sea state.
9. The factor of safety is calculated at one-degree intervals of
wave passage for a complete 360-degree from:
(Ws FL (t )) Fh
Factor of Safety (FOS)
FD (t ) FI (t )
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
10. The recommended Level 2 stability criteria should satisfy

the following aspects. At the end of the 4-hour storm build
up, the pipeline should be stable in the U1/100 condition,
i.e. FOS 1.0 At the end of the additional 3-hour storm
period, the pipeline should be stable in the U1/1000
condition, i.e. FOS 1.0
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
COMPARISON BETWEEN AGA AND DNV

RP E305
In general, DNV RP E305 designs are more conservative
than the AGA designs. This is true for most designs where
pipeline is laid on clay and all designs where the soil is
sand. No net pipe movement criterion is assumed.
For cases in DNV RP E 305 design where movement is
allowed for pipe on sand, the concrete requirements is
significantly less, and often similar to the AGA designs
which movement is not permitted.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
COMPARISON BETWEEN AGA AND DNV

RP E305 (contd)
Compared to the traditional method (DNV 1976 / 1981), both
AGA Level 2 analysis and DNV RP E305 designs result in concrete
weight coatings that are more sensitive to soil strength / density.
With no pipe movement criteria, this sensitivity is similar in both
AGA Level 2 analysis and DNV RP E305. However, concrete
weight coating is less sensitive to soil density when pipe net
movement is allowed for in DNV RP E305 design.
AGA designs produce concrete weight coating less sensitive to
water depth than DNV RP E305 designs. This is due to the
reduction in pipe embedment in the AGA Level 2 analysis at
deeper waters.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
PIPELINE STABILITY IN OPEN TRENCH

Both AGA and DNV RP E305 are not applicable for pipeline
resting in an open trench. Thus, to analyse pipeline stability
in an open trench, an alternative method would have to be
used.
NRG ENGINEERING
27 May 2015
Pipeline Design Training
Any questions?
NRG ENGINEERING
training@nrgengineering.com
The Power to Deliver

3 - NRG - On Bottom Stability Presentation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

3 - NRG - On Bottom Stability Presentation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Pipeline Design Training

Pipeline Lateral On-bottom Stability

The Power to Deliver

Pipeline Design Training Module I Overview

Workshop, revision, exercise

The Power to Deliver #2

Commonly Used Codes

The Power to Deliver #3

The on-bottom stability design focuses on determining the

The Power to Deliver #4

Wave approach to the pipeline axis can be utilized to derive

The Power to Deliver #5

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

The Power to Deliver #6

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

Soil Resisting Force,

The Power to Deliver #7

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

The Power to Deliver #8

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

Submerged weight of pipeline per unit length (N/m)

Hydrodynamic lift force per unit length (N/m)

Hydrodynamic drag force per unit length (N/m)

Hydrodynamic inertia force per unit length (N/m)

Coefficient of friction between pipe and seabed

Safety factor = 1.1

The Power to Deliver #9

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

The Power to Deliver #10

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

The Power to Deliver #11

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

The Power to Deliver #12

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

Inertia coefficient (3.29)

Drag coefficient (Normally 1.2)

Lift coefficient (Normally 0.9)

Total outer diameter of pipeline including coatings

Horizontal water particle acceleration normal to

Horizontal water particle velocity normal to

The Power to Deliver #13

DNV 1981 - Lateral Stability Design

The Power to Deliver #14

DNV RP E305, 1988

The Power to Deliver #15

The Power to Deliver #16

The Power to Deliver #17

The Power to Deliver #18

DNV RP E305, 1988 (contd)

The Power to Deliver #19

= Submerged weight of pipeline (N/m)

= Hydrodynamic lift force per unit length (N/m)

= Hydrodynamic drag force per unit length (N/m)

= Hydrodynamic inertia force per unit length (N/m)

= Coefficient of friction between pipe and seabed in

accordance with DNV RP E305.

The Power to Deliver #20

The drag force per unit length (FD) of the pipeline is

The lift force per unit length (FL) is calculated as follow:

The Power to Deliver #21

The inertia force per unit length (FI) is calculated as follow:

The Power to Deliver #22

The mass density of seawater (kg/m)

= 1.2 for Re < 3 x 105 and M 0.8