DESIGN OF FREE SPANNING PIPELINE SUBJECTED TO

VORTEX INDUCED VIBRATIONS

Internship Report

by

Ms SUMALATHA D P
M.tech in Ocean Engineering, IIT BOMBAY

Department of Offshore Structures (OSS)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OCEAN TECHNOLOGY
CHENNAI-600 100
2014

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. M.V.Ramana Murthy, Head-
Offshore Structures, NIOT for giving me this opportunity to be an intern at NIOT.

I am grateful to Dr.G.Dhinesh, Scientist-Offshore Structures, NIOT for technical support,

comments, remarks, and patience throughout the learning process of this topic.

Finally, I would like to express my heartful thanks to my thesis guide Prof. R. Balaji, Ocean
Engineering, IIT Bombay for his support throughout the process.

ii
 ABSTRACT

Subsea pipelines represent the most cost effective way of transporting oil and gas from the
subsea field to the market. As the seabed is irregular, pipeline free-spans are unavoidable.
This in combination with significant current action, may cause Vortex Induced Vibration
(VIV) and fatigue in the pipeline joints. This work is focussed on evaluating the fatigue
performance of free-spanning pipelines using DNV Recommended Practices.

CONTENTS

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

Abstract iii

Contents iv

Chapter 1- Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction 1
Review of Current Fatigue Assessment 2

Chapter 2 - Problem Statement 3

Chapter 3 - RESULTS 6

– CONCLUSION 10

iv
 Chapter 1- Introduction

1.1 Introduction

When a part of a subsea pipeline is suspended between two points on an uneven seabed, it is
always referred to as a free span pipeline. They are often installed on irregular seabed when
on-bottom pipelines from off-shelf fields climb onto the continental shelf, it may also be
found closer to the coast when crossing rough topography.

The pipeline structure will have to stand complicate environmental forces caused by soil,
current and waves. One of the main risk factors is fatigue failure due to ocean current and
wave loading. If a free span is exposed to a current flow, vortex-induced vibrations (VIV) of
the hanging part of the pipeline may occur. These vibrations may lead to unacceptable fatigue
damage in pipeline.

The span evaluation is compliant with the design principles in DNV-RP-F105 in this study.
Based on the DNV code, the study of a free spanning pipeline includes both response and
force models. The response model is based on a Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV) amplitude
response where the VIV is caused by vortex shedding across the pipeline.

In the free span section, there are two directions of modes. One is parallel to the current flow,
which is called “in-line” direction, the presence of drag and lift effects are observed. The
other one is “cross-flow” direction, vortex induced vibrations (VIV) forces and self-weight
are usually present. From previous investigations, it is observed that vortex induced vibration
is a very important element in the reduction of life-time service due to fatigue.

Both in-line and cross-flow VIV can be current induced or and wave-induced. The
“combined” velocity is obtained from both current and wave velocities before it goes into the
fatigue calculation, as in DNV RP-F105. The pipe may also experience fatigue damage and
local over-utilization due to direct waves, typically in shallow water. The influencing
factors in VIV and direct wave loading assessment are

1
  Pipe size, weight, and geometry
 Additional weight such as content, insulation, and concrete coating if
applicable
 Current and wave parameters
 Static and dynamic seabed soil stiffness; Span shoulder geometry
 Residual lay tension;
 Operational conditions such as temperature and internal pressure.

1.2 Review of Current Fatigue Assessment

Current fatigue assessments of pipeline free spans are based upon internationally accepted
codes (e.g. DNV-RP-F105). Within these codes, assumptions are made. For example,
boundary coefficients are assumed based on fixed or pinned boundary conditions for fatigue
assessment calculations within response models. According to DNV-RP-F105, these response
models use empirical relations to derive a stress response from an assumed vibration mode.
These and other conservative assumptions are made to ensure calculations based on response
models do not overestimate fatigue life and to compensate for the limitations of these
analyses.

2
 Chapter 2 - PROBLEM STATEMENT

Using DNV-RP-F105, amplitudes for different values of flow currents and wave conditions
for a freely spanning pipeline are evaluated. The end supports of the pipeline are considered
as pinned- pinned condition. The length of clear span is L S with seabed gap, e equivalent to
diameter of the pipeline.

Fig 2.1 Sketch of free spanning pipeline

Table 2.1 Parameters considered

PARAMETERS VALUES
Span length Ls( m) 300
Outer Diameter of pipe(mm) 500
Thickness of pipe(mm) 10
Inner Diameter of pipe(mm) 480
Density of Pipe (kg/m3) 2600
Density of fluid (kg/m3) 1240
Seabed gap 'e' (m) 0.5
elastic modulus E (N/mm2) 200000
Moment of Inertia I (mm4) 4.62E+08
Water Depth (m) 20
Hs (m) 2
Ts (sec) 10
Mass per unit length of the pipe mi (kg/m) 51.025
Additional mass of fluid inside pipe mw
(kg/m) 22.427
Added mass coefficient 1
Added mass Ma (kg/m) 73.452
Buoyancy (kg/m) 0.196
Mass during installation (kg/m) 124.281
Mass during operation (kg/m) 146.708
Wave frequency fw (Hz) 0.1
External Tension on the pipe (N) 10
Modal shape (n) 1

3
 EI (N-m2) 9.24E+07

The amplitude response depends on a set of hydrodynamic parameters constituting the link
between the environmental data and the Response Models:

 Reduced Velocity, VR
 Keulegan-Carpenter number, KC
 Current flow velocity ratio, α
 Turbulence intensity, Ic
 Flow angle, relative to the pipe, θrel
 Stability parameter, KS

The Reduced Velocity is defined as,

U c+ U W
Vr=
fnD

fn - Natural frequency for a given vibration mode

Uc - Mean current velocity normal to the pipe,
Uw - Significant wave-induced flow velocity,
D - Outer pipe diameter.

The Keulegan – Carpenter number describes the relative importance of the drag forces over
inertia forces for bluff objects in an oscillatory fluid flow. It is defined as,
Uw
KC =
fw D

Where fw is the (significant) wave frequency

The Stability parameter KS representing the damping for a given modal shape is given by

4 π me ζ T
KS= 2
ρD

4
Where, ρ is Water density
ζT is Total modal damping ratio (includes structural damping, soil damping and
hydrodynamics damping)
me is effective mass

In the evaluation of Amplitude ratio, the design values for the reduced velocity and stability
parameter are applied

V Rd=V R γ f

Ks
K sd =
γk

Where, γf and γk are safety factors related to the natural frequency and damping respectively

Current flow velocity ratio is defined by

Uc
α=
U c +U w

Table 2.2 Parameters obtained for installation and operation conditions

INSTALLATION OPERATION
Effective Mass (kg/m) 124.281 146.708
ωEI 0.094 0.087
ωT 0.003 0.003
Natural frequency fn (Hz) 0.095 0.087
Reduced Velocity Vr 15.449 16.785
KC number 12.6 12.6
Stability parameter Ks 0.036 0.0425
Ksd 0.5 0.039
α 0.137 0.137

5
 Chapter 3 - RESULTS

3.1 Inline VIV

The amplitude ratio for different velocity ratios are calculated using the expressions from
section 4.3.5 of DNV-RP-F105and plotted as shown below.

Table 3.1 Amplitude Ratios for In-line VIV

IN-LINE VIV
AY,2/D 0.08284 RIθ,1 0.982
AY,1/D 0.10314 RIθ,2 0.882

6
 Table 3.2 Velocity ratios for In-line VIV

VR IL onset 1
IL
VR,1 2.03141
IL
VR,2 3.93431
IL
VR,end 4.1

Table 3.3 Showing Vr and A/D for different values of Ksd

Ksd= 0.0288 Ksd=0.033

Ksd=0.0656 Ksd=1.5
Vr A/D Vr Vr A/DA/D Vr A/D
0.90909 0 0.9091
0.909 0 0 1.9091 0
0.16
2.63474 0.172565 2.6284 0.172 2.58 7 2.1003 0.0191
0.11
4.2512 0.112869 4.2483 0.113 4.226 1 3.6618 0.0191
4.47694 0 4.4735 0 4.447 0 3.7 0

Ksd=1.0 Ksd=0.7 Ksd=0.2 Ksd=0.5

Vr A/D Vr A/D Vr A/D Vr A/D
1.455 0 1.182 0 0.909 0 1 0
1.964 0.051 1.919 0.074 2.383 0.1473 2.031 0.1031
3.598 0.051 3.8 0.07 4.136 0.102 3.934 0.0828
3.7 0 3.94 0 4.34 0 4.1 0

7
 In-line VIV Response Amplitude vs VR and Ks
0.2

0.18

0.16
Inline VIV Amplitude (Ay/D)

Ksd=0.028
0.14
Ksd=1.5
0.12

0.1 Ksd=1.0

0.08
Ksd=0.7
0.06
Ksd=0.2
0.04

0.02 Ksd=0.5

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Reduced Velocity VR

Fig 3.1 Graph of In-line Response Amplitude v/s VR and KS

3.2 CROSS-FLOW VIV

8
Where is the cross-flow frequency ratio for two consecutive (contributing) cross
flow modes.

Table 3.4 Parameters obtained for Cross-flow VIV

CROSS-FLOW VIV
ψproxi,onset 1
∆/D 0.25
ψ trench,onset 1.125
A Z,1/D 0.726
A Z,2/D 0.726
VR,onset CF 2.8125
CF
VR,1 4.90989
CF
VR,2 12.0908
CF
VR,end 16

Table 3.5 Showing VR and A/D for KC and α

KC=12.6 α >0.8
VR Az/D VR Az/D
2 0 2 0
2.813 0.15 2.813 0.15
4.7 0.726 6.5 1.3
12.4 0.726 9.5 1.3
16 0 16 0

9
 Cross-flow VIV response model
1.4

1.2
Cross flow VIV amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Reduced velocity VR

alpha>0.8 KC=12.6

Fig 3.2 Graph of VR and A/D for KC and α

CONCLUSION

 For In-line VIV, maximum amplitude ratio is observed within reduced velocity range 1 to
4.5 for different values of Ksd

 For Cross-flow VIV, maximum amplitude ratio is observed within the reduced velocity of
2 to 16 for different values of KC

10