2.3 Results and Discussion Table 2.

Summary of the impact energies of different offshore

dropped objects related to fishing activities.
The methodology presented in Section 2.2 is further used to
compute the impact energies of different offshore dropped 𝒎 𝑽 𝑨 (m2) 𝑳 (m) 𝑪𝑫 𝑹𝒆 𝑰 (kJ),
Dropped Objects (kg) (m3) (×106) Present
objects, see Tables 1 and 2. The computed impact energies of the (×103) study
dropped objects range from 3 kJ for a small offshore tool to 2627 Trawl Board 5.00 3 3 4 2.2 9.4 14
kJ for a subsea tree. The results obtained from the present study Trawlnet Loaded 1.50 1 1 2 0.5 8.5 14
are also compared with the data available from DROPS [2], see Trawling Rope Coil 1.00 0.5 1 1 0.5 4.3 9
Table 1. The difference between impact energy for the present Net Spreader Beam 5.00 3 3 2 2.2 4.7 14
Shrimp Pass grid 4.00 3 3 1 1.2 2.2 10
study and DROPS [2] is less than 20% for all the compared Small Tools 0.15 0.08 0.1 2 0.3 13.2 3
objects. This difference is considered acceptable because no
accurate data of dropped objects geometry and physical
parameters is available and a qualitative judgement is carried out
to estimate theses parameters. Secondly, the impact energies also 3 IMPACT ABSORPTION CAPACITIES OF THREE
differ slightly due to the large variation of geometry and physical DIFFERENT GRP PROTECTION COVERS
parameters of the offshore dropped objects from one supplier to
another.
In this section, impact absorption capacities of three different
GRP protection covers, i.e., square, triangular semi-circular
The dropped object impact energies of the oil and gas equipment
shaped covers, for the dropped objects of diameters 0.1 m and
such as subsea tree, spool tree and surge tank are of significantly
high magnitude and it will be nearly impractical to design subsea 0.5 m are studied at the center and side of the three selected
protection covers for these equipment. Therefore, in order to covers. A comparison between these three shapes is carried out
avoid any offshore hazard, special safety measures shall be and conclusions are drawn.
incorporated while performing installations of these equipment.
The other dropped objects related to oil and gas activities listed
in Table 1 have lower impact energies than the aforementioned; 3.1 Dimensions and Material Properties
however, the order of the impact energies are considerably large,
i.e., greater than 28 kJ, for the conventional protection covers to The dimensions of the cross-sections of the protection covers are
withstand. Contrarily, the impact energies of the offshore fishing shown in Figure 1.
equipment are all under 15 kJ, see Table 2. 1.2 m 1.2 m

0.2 m 0.2 m
The frequency of the offshore fishing activities is considerably
higher than the oil and gas activities and most of the dropped
objects are released from fishing activities. Therefore, from the 1.2 m
1m
1.2 m
1m
present study it is recommended that the subsea protection 0.7 m

covers should have an impact absorption capacity greater than

15 kJ in locations where significant fishing activities take place. Fixed Fixed
Boundary 0.25 m Boundary 0.25 m
Condition Condition
(a) (b)
Table 1. Summary of the impact energies of different offshore
dropped objects related to oil and gas activities and their
comparison with DROPS [2].

𝒎 𝑽 𝑨 𝑳 𝑪𝑫 𝑹𝒆 𝑰 (kJ), 𝑰 (kJ), 2m
Dropped Objects (kg) (m3) (m2) (m) (×106) Present DROPS Pipeline
(×103) study [2]
1m
Subsea Tree 50.00 15 6 4 1.05 41.0 2,627 2,880 Seabed
0.2 m
Spool Tree 12.00 3.5 3 2 0.8 16.4 402 650
Tubing Hanger 2.50 1 1 1 0.7 6.3 50 45
Umbilical Realer 10.00 8 1 2 0.47 17.1 366 326 Fixed
Glycol Tank 3.60 2 1 2 0.7 13.0 76 65 Boundary 0.25 m
Condition
Holding Tank 2.50 1.5 1 1 0.8 4.8 29 36
Surge Tank 25.00 17.5 3.5 3 0.6 24.1 804 860 (c)
Gravel Infuser 1.80 0.5 1 1 0.8 5.5 28 36
Protection Frame 3.00 2 1 1 0.7 5.1 39 45
9,1/2"Drill Collar 3.50 3.2 0.2 1 0.5 6.5 74 63 Figure 2. Dimensions and boundary conditions of a) square cover
b) semi-circular cover c) triangular cover.

4 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

These covers have a top clearance and wall thickness of 0.2 m. is applied incrementally on the covers and the corresponding 𝛿
The length of each cover is set as 10 m so that the effect of the is obtained at a particular location. The increment in 𝐹 stops
cover ends is negligible on the results computed at the center of when the Von Mises stress becomes equal to 300 MPa or 𝛿
the cover. exceeds 0.2 m, i.e., the clearance between protection cover and
the pipeline. These values of 𝐹 and 𝛿 are plugged in
Macroscopically, GRP behaves as an orthotropic material. Equation 6 to compute resultant 𝐸.
Hence, in the present simulations, orthotropic material properties
are specified; see Table 3. Composite materials can have very
specific directional properties, however, general GRP properties
are defined in the present study. The directions X, Y and Z are 3.3 Mesh sensitivity Study
planner horizontal, planner vertical and out of the plane
respectively. Mesh sensitivity study is carried out for all the cases studied in
the present study, see Figures 3 and 4. Three different mesh sizes
Table 3 Orthotropic (GRP) material properties. are used in each case and the variations of 𝐹 and 𝛿 are
considered. Here 𝐹 and 𝛿 are calculated at the center and the
Parameters Value
sides of each cover. The results of the left and right sides are
Density (kg/m3) 2000 identical, therefore, results of the left side are presented only. The
EX (MPa) 35000 variations of 𝐹 and 𝛿 for the finest and the intermediate mesh
Young’s Modulus EY (MPa) 10000 are less than 5% in all the simulations except for 𝛿 of the
EZ (MPa) 10000 triangular cover, where the difference is 9%, see Figure 4 (a).
VXY 0.25
Poisson’s ratio VYZ 0.30
200
VXZ 0.25
GXY (MPa) 5000
L o c a tio n :
Shear Modulus GYZ (MPa) 6000
150
GXZ (MPa) 5000
Stress Limit Von Mises (MPa) 300

 (m m ) 100

3.2 Numerical Model S e m i-c irc lu la r c o v e r

fo r d ro p p e d o b je c t D 1
50
S e m i-c irc lu la r c o v e r
The numerical model presented in Wang et. al. [11] is used in the fo r d ro p p e d o b je c t D 2

present study to compute the impact absorption capacity of the S q u a re c o v e r fo r

d ro p p e d o b je c t D 1
GRP protection covers. According to Wang et. al. [11], the
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 S q u a re c o v e r fo r
impact absorption capacity ( 𝐸 ) of the cover at a particular N o . o f e le m e n ts d ro p p e d o b je c t D 2

location can be expressed as follows: (a )

800

𝐸 = ∫ 𝐹 𝑑𝛿 (6) 600

where 𝐹 is the external force and 𝑑𝛿 is the resultant F (k N ) 4 0 0

displacement at the particular location. Equation 6 is solved
using ANSYS Mechanical, at three different locations of each 200

cover. Shell elements are used to discretize the computational

domain. The mud mats of the covers are applied by incorporating 0

fixed boundary conditions, i.e., all displacements and rotations 0 50000 100000 150000 200000

N o . o f e le m e n ts
of the nodal elements are zero. This is because the mud mats of (b )
the GRP covers are covered with rock berm and dropped object Figure 3. Mesh sensitivity study of a) 𝜹 b) 𝑭 for the dropped
impact damage is an instantaneous loading condition where object at the geometric centre of the cover.
localized deformations takes place only and negligible global
deformations are observed. Mesh sensitivity is ensured since the variation of 𝐹 and 𝛿 for
the finest and the intermediate mesh is less than that for the
𝐸 is calculated for dropped objects of diameters 0.1 m and coarsest and the intermediate mesh in all the simulations. For
0.5 m which is in accordance with NORSOK U-002 [10] example, 𝛿 for the semi-circular cover for dropped object D1
guidelines. According to NORSOK U-002 [10], subsea released at the center of the cover varies 54% when the number
protection covers should have 𝐸 greater than 20 kJ for dropped of mesh elements are increased from 6,720 to 38,688. However,
objects having diameters of 0.5 m and 5 kJ for dropped objects the variation reduces to 3% when the mesh elements are
having diameters 0.1 m, see Table 4. In ANSYS Mechanical, 𝐹 increased from 38,688 to 87,396, see Figure 3 (a). Similarly, the

5 Copyright © 2017 by ASME