See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317616074

Advanced 3-D FEA Modelling for a Modern and Multidisciplinary Pipeline Design
Approach

Article · June 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 352

5 authors, including:

Lorenzo Marchionni Lorenzo Maria Bartolini

Saipem S.p.A. Saipem Singapore
25 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Giulio Claudio Vignati Luigino Vitali

Saipem S.p.A. Offshore Advanced Engineering Services Management
7 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 418 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strength and Deformation Capacity of Lined Pipelines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lorenzo Marchionni on 19 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
Proceedings of the ASME 36 International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE 2017
June 25 - 30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway

OMAE2017-61282
ADVANCED 3-D FEA MODELLING FOR A MODERN AND
MULTIDISCIPLINARY PIPELINE DESIGN APPROACH

Lorenzo Maria Bartolini

Saipem S.p.A.
via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy
[email protected]
Lorenzo Marchionni Maurizio Spinazzè
Saipem S.p.A. Saipem S.p.A.
via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy
[email protected] [email protected]

Giulio Claudio Vignati Luigino Vitali

Saipem S.p.A. Saipem S.p.A.
viale A. de Gasperi 16, San Donato M. (MI) 20097, Italy via Toniolo 1, Fano (PU) 61032, Italy
[email protected] [email protected]

ABSTRACT developed in MATLAB environment and based on ABAQUS

In the last thirty years the attention of the offshore pipeline Finite Element.
industry has been strongly focused on submarine pipelines
crossing harsh environments and subject to severe operating KEYWORDS: Offshore Pipeline, Operation, 3-Dimensional
conditions of temperature and pressure. FEM Global and Local Analysis, Design Criteria, Mitigation
Pipeline structural integrity may be threaten by large Measures.
free-spanning sections between rocky peaks and deep
depressions that may be coupled with the pipeline propensity to 1 INTRODUCTION
develop lateral/vertical deflection due to severe service DNV’ 81 Offshore Pipeline Rules was the only offshore
conditions (high pressure/high temperature). For short pipeline standard stating that buckling instability under
flowlines, pipeline walking is an additional issue to be verified operating conditions (pressure loads and thermal expansion)
and faced during design and the application of an integrated may occur but it does not represent a hazard for the structural
approach between flow assurance, installation, geotechnics and integrity of offshore pipelines left exposed on the sea bottom
pipeline design is a must. (i.e. not buried).
All these features characterize new load scenarios for which A number of unexpected mishaps occurred in the second half of
intervention works are mandatory to control the development of the 80’s in the North Sea, causing considerable economic
excessive loads and deformations within acceptance criteria. drawbacks from remedial measures and lost transmission
3-Dimensional Finite Element Models permit to anticipate the availability.
pipeline global response under design loads taking into account A few Joint Industry Projects were launched in the Nineties
the expected (during design phase) and/or actual (after aiming to improve the understanding of High Pressure/High
measurements of the as-built) 3-Dimensional pipeline Temperature (HP/HT) pipelines behavior and to define
configuration. In case that mitigation measures are to be guidelines for their design and verification, see for example
installed along the pipeline route, their effectiveness can be HotPipe ([1] to [9]) and SAFEBUCK [10] lately.
verified and optimized. Potential failure events in the most HP/HT pipelines are, from a structural point of view,
promising mitigation measure strategy can be investigated and characterized by large pressure loads and thermal expansion
anticipated at design stage. This paper describes the most and are as such typical candidates for global buckling. The
relevant capability of the pre- and post- processing tools

1 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

integrity of pipeline with a potential for global buckling can be A set of applications were presented in [11] with the aim to
assured by two opposite design concepts, particularly: check the pipeline structural integrity under typical load
 Restraining the pipeline while maintaining the large scenarios that the pipelines experience during lifetime, namely
compressive forces, or pressure test and operating conditions (pressure and thermal
 Releasing the expansion forces by smooth and controlled gradient).
lateral buckle activation to avoid the development of This paper describes two real applications of this advanced
excessive bending moments/curvatures on the pipeline. engineering tool to address the design of intervention works
along with mitigation measures required for installation,
Design of HP/HT pipelines is affected by several parameters namely on-bottom roughness and pipeline walking. In
with their inherent uncertainties. In particular: particular:
 Trunklines (large diameter pipelines generally laid in  Full 3-D FEM analysis of a trunkline laid on a severe
shallow to medium water depth) or flowlines (small uneven seabed bathymetry. Special emphasis is given to
diameter pipelines generally left exposed on the sea bottom the interaction between intervention works and the pipeline
when laid in deep to ultra-deep water depth) affecting being subjected to temporary and operating.
mobilization and localization of buckling pattern.  Pipeline walking analysis of a short flowline laid on almost
 Sea bottom morphology and soil condition affecting constant seabed slope and subject to steep pressure and
non-linear pipe-soil interaction forces in the axial, lateral temperature transient operating conditions. The paper will
and vertical direction (only for buried lines). provide an insight on pipeline walking susceptibility
 Interference with fishing activities and environmental loads assessment and then design and verification of mitigation
induced by currents and surface waves affecting measures suitable to prevent excessive accumulated pipe
mobilization and localization of buckling pattern. ends displacements during the operating life.
 Interaction between intervention works or in-line and
termination structures and the pipeline being subjected to
2 HP/HT PIPELINE DESIGN ASSESSMENTS
temporary and operating loads.
The design of an HP/HT pipeline can be split into the following
 Laying technology i.e. S-lay, J-lay, Reel-lay or towing
steps:
affecting residual lay-pull and pipeline out-of-straightness
1. Pipe-soil interaction assessment, PSI analysis;
in the horizontal plane.
2. Pipeline strength and deformation capacity assessment,
 Pipeline operating conditions i.e. steady state or transient
PS&DC;
cyclic conditions affecting pipeline response behavior
3. In-service buckling analysis, ISB analysis;
(In-Service Buckling vs. Walking Analysis).
4. On-bottom roughness analysis, OBR analysis;
 Linepipe material (steel grade) and geometrical properties
5. Pipeline walking analysis, PW analysis;
(outer diameter to thickness ratio, D/t) affecting pipeline
6. Verification of the as-built survey.
strength capacity and concrete coating thickness affecting
pipeline response.
 Service condition in relation to the transported fluid state 2.1 Pipe-Soil Interaction Assessment
(liquid or gas or both of them) affecting pipeline weight Pipe-soil interaction assessment aims at quantifying non-linear
and fluid corrosiveness (e.g. sweet or sour) affecting pipe-soil interaction force relationship to be used in the ISB,
pipeline material performances in the long run. OBR and PW analysis. These relationships can be determined
using analytical formulas [10] and [13], calibrated through
In [11], a modern and advanced tool of pre- and laboratory tests, or by performing advanced FEM analyses.
post-processing linked with ABAQUS [12] has been presented
as an additional instrument to face the complex design of
offshore pipeline systems. All the key parameters affecting the 2.2 Pipe Strength and Deformation Capacity
pipeline response laid on the seabed subjected to functional, Assessment
environmental and accidental loads can be considered taking Pipeline capacity assessment aims at quantifying the strength
and deformation capacity of the pipeline under operating
into account also the actual load history.
conditions at the locations where pipeline global buckling
In the last years additional features have been engineered and
occurs. Independently from the design format, load (bending
new functions and capabilities have been implemented in the
moment for an exposed pipeline or steel axial force for a buried
in-house tool. The drivers of this R&D activity are to facilitate
and speed-up the design of mitigation measures against pipeline) and axial deformation capacity shall be determined
In-Service Buckling (ISB) and/or Pipeline Walking (PW) or using available design equations [14] and/or advanced FEM
tools ([5], [9] and [15]).
when in presence of very challenging seabed morphology,
enabling to carry out preliminary advanced simulations,
although computationally intensive, also during early 2.3 In-Service Buckling Analysis
engineering phases (e.g. FEED and bidding activities). The scope of in-service buckling analysis is to investigate the
susceptibility of the pipeline to develop global buckling and to

2 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

quantify load effects in the post-buckling configuration, if 3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING DESCRIPTION
relevant. Both analytical and advanced 3-Dimensional FEM The general purpose structural computer code ABAQUS
tools [11] can be used depending on the severity/complexity of (ver. 6.14.1, [12]), is used to analyze the structural behavior of
the analysis. Generally. sensitivity analyses have to be an offshore pipeline in operation. In particular, a Graphic User
performed on the relevant parameters in order to ensure an Interface (GUI) using Matlab has been developed to perform
appropriate level of robustness [10]. the pre- and post-processing of the 3-Dimensional FE analyses
simulating the pipeline behavior under HP/HT operating loads
(Figure 1).
2.4 Design and Verification against Severe
A previous release of this in-house tool was presented in [11].
On-Bottom Roughness Scenarios
Additional functions and capabilities have been added in the
The scope of the on-bottom roughness assessment is the
last one.
following:
The GUI’s use during the design stage allows Limit State
 To assess the pipeline configuration on seabed during the
Based Designs (LSBD), and allows to:
overall pipeline lifetime;
 Change and optimize the design;
 To identify the area exceeding the allowable static and
 Undertake a range of sensitivities;
fatigue criteria;
 Simulate pipeline response, displacements and expansion;
 To design and verify suitable intervention works to control
 Obtain forces, moments and stress/strain.
or avoid excessive pipeline loads and deformations.
The design can be iterated and, through the adoption of limit
In case of a challenging seabed morphology, harsh environment
states, the design can be optimized resulting in potential
or existing pipeline systems in proximity of or crossing the
significant costs saving if used since the early engineering
laying corridor, this activity could be very critical and advanced
phases.
design tools are generally required to avoid over-conservative
approaches and to simulate correctly the load history applied to
the pipeline including installation, pre-commissioning (e.g.
flooding, pressure test, dewatering) and operating (e.g. relevant
pressure and temperature conditions planned for the pipeline
life). The implementation of mitigation measures in the FE
model permits to verify and optimize the conventional or even
unconventional intervention works, reducing costs and attaining
a higher level of reliability.

2.5 Pipeline Walking Analysis

This analysis aims at identifying the pipeline susceptibility to
walking. PW analysis is generally carried out only in case of
short flowlines not reaching the fully axially restrained
conditions and subjected to severe transient pressure and Figure 1 – Matlab GUI Interface for the Pre- (red section) and
temperature fluctuations (high number of cycles and large Post-Processing (blue section) of 3-Dimensional
pressure and temperature fluctuations over the pipeline FE Analysis Simulations with ABAQUS.
lifetime). For less frequent cases, this assessment is performed
also for long pipelines subjected to lateral buckling. In these The 3-Dimensional FE Model (Figure 2) permits to predict the
conditions, pipeline walking on limited sections can occur even pipeline global response under design loads taking into account
if the anchoring condition is reached along the route, even if the expected (during design phase) and/or actual (after
trunklines are generally subjected to minor pressure and measurements of the as-built) 3-Dimensional pipeline
temperature fluctuations over the lifetime. configuration including seabed roughness and route bends.
Attention is paid to the pipeline response prediction under
HP/HT loads and suitable mitigation measures able to control
2.6 Verification of the As-built Survey the development of excessive bending moment/deformations.
Once mitigation measures against HP/HT conditions have been In particular, to get a comprehensive FE Model which takes
designed, the effectiveness of the mitigation strategy has to be into account all the complexities affecting the pipeline
verified with respect to the design requirements on the basis of structural behavior, the following features are implemented in
the as-built pipeline configuration in the vertical and horizontal the FE Model:
plane.  3-Dimensional pipeline route including route bends and
sea bottom profile along and transversal to the pipeline
axis (i.e. full 3-D seabed morphology).

3 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 Non-linearities due to large rotations and elastic-plastic Local pipeline element refinements can be implemented
steel material behavior, pipe-soil interaction non-linear along the pipeline route in order to limit the maximum
relationship in the axial, vertical and lateral direction etc. element length where the pipeline is expected to exhibit large
 Applied load sequence from installation, to operation deformations and loads.
including loads from environmental conditions.  Material Behavior
 The pipeline is laid on the seabed simulating the nominal The material behavior is defined with a dedicated editor. A
laying direction and imposing the residual lay tension to preset list of material cards is provided for standard materials
the pipeline at the Touch-Down Point (TDP) as a function commonly used in offshore application (i.e. API 5L steel
of the Kilometer Post (KP). grades). By default the ductile behavior is assumed,
 Interaction between the pipeline and sleepers used at the considering a Ramberg-Osgood like behavior (hardening
crossing locations with existing pipelines/cables or used as after yielding). A user friendly procedure has been developed
triggering systems to control lateral buckling. to automatically generate a stress-strain plastic relationship in
 Interaction between pipeline and counteracts used to accordance to standard or customized materials (i.e. starting
control the pipeline position during laying along route from experimental stress-strain data, or yielding and tensile
curves. strength point values).
 Intervention works for free-span correction and mitigation  Sea Bottom Profile Modeling
measures for ISB and PW. The 3-Dimensional sea bottom profile is modeled using rigid
elements (R3D4) and it can be implemented uniform
transversally to the pipeline axis (i.e. 2½D Model) or as a
fully 3-Dimensional surface (Figure 2).
 Soil-Pipe Interaction
For the soil-pipe interaction forces in the axial and lateral
direction either a Coulombian (bi-linear) or tri-linear
(dedicated user-subroutine are used) friction model can be
considered. In the vertical direction a tabular
pressure-overclosure definition is used based on geotechnical
soil characteristics.
 Boundary Conditions
Different boundary conditions can be assigned at the two
Lateral Buckle along pipe ends, depending on the designed anchoring conditions.
The axial reaction given by termination structures
a route bend under
(PLET/FLET) or spools can be considered.
Operating Loads  Pipeline Cover Against Upheaval Buckling or Rock Berms
The GUI interface permits to define regions where the
pipeline configuration is designed to be restrained using
gravel berms or natural backfilling (Figure 3). Pipe-soil
interaction elements (PSI34) are used to define the
interaction forces between pipeline and cover in the axial,
lateral and vertical direction.

Gravel
Berms

Figure 2 – Sketches of Typical 3-D S-Lay FE Models with

ABAQUS.

3.1 3-Dimensional FE Model

The main characteristics of the FE Model are the following: Figure 3 – The Pipeline Cover is Modeled with PSI Elements.
 Pipeline Element
The pipeline is modeled using 3-Dimensional hybrid beam  Mitigation Measures Against Lateral Buckling
elements (PIPE31H), in order to limit the problem size of the It is possible to model sleepers as triggering devices for
FE analysis; either thin or thick pipe cross-section can be lateral buckles (Figure 4) or buoy modules for limited
chosen. pipeline sections to reduce global buckling activation load.
 Mesh

4 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 Spot gravel dumping can be used as well to reduce the axial o Application of pipe submerged weight and external
feed-in into the lateral buckle or to ensure a virtual anchor pressure while pipeline laying including the horizontal
point between two adjacent lateral buckles (using PSI pipe bends, if relevant.
elements). 2. Step 2: Application of pressure test conditions (water
filling, system pressure test, depressurization and
dewatering).
3. Step 3: Application of the operating internal pressure.
4. Step 4: Application of the operating thermal gradient.
5. Step 5: Application of cyclic conditions of temperature
and pressure (transient profiles sequences) in case of
pipeline walking assessment or fatigue checks.

3.2 Pre-Processing
Using the pre-processing module into the GUI interface (red
section in Figure 1) it is possible to select all the relevant
Figure 4 – Sleepers Used as Triggers for Lateral Buckling. parameters needed for the ISB, OBR or PW analysis. In
particular, the following data are considered:
 Mitigation Measures Against Pipeline Walking  Pipeline data (size, material and mesh characteristics);
If the pipeline is susceptible to pipeline walking, artificial  Residual Lay-Pull as a function of the KP;
anchoring points shall be placed along the route to limit  Design Conditions in terms of pressure and differential
pipeline ends displacements within acceptance criteria for temperature (steady or transient conditions);
spools or termination structures (PLET/FLET).  Non-linear pipe-soil relationships considering the pipeline
Non-linear springs and/or local masses can be used to in empty, flooded or in operation condition;
simulate the effects of ancillary devices such as suction piles  Material physical and mechanical properties (even
and chains, mattresses or in-line structures. temperature dependent);
 Laying direction;
 Lateral Counteracts  Artificial lateral OOS along the pipeline route;
Lateral counteracts (LaCs) are modelled as analytical rigid  Mitigation measures type and location (berms, mattresses,
surfaces. Any specific force-displacement pattern simulating sleepers, counteracts, suction piles or in-line structures).
the interaction between the pipeline and LaCs can be
managed in the model by use of contact pair (Figure 5). 3.3 Post-Processing
The post-processing module (blue section in Figure 1) permits
to plot all the relevant parameters along the pipeline route at
one or more time increments/steps representing different
operating scenarios (typically as-laid, hydrotest and operating
conditions, but also intermediate instants or predefined cycles
for PW analysis). In particular, the following outcomes are
available:
- Horizontal and vertical pipeline configuration;
- Free-span height/length/clearance;
- Steel and effective axial force;
- Axial (feed-in), lateral and vertical pipeline movements
with respect to the as-laid configuration;
- Longitudinal, hoop and Von Mises stresses and strains;
Figure 5 – 3-D Seabed Model With ABAQUS – Lateral - Bending and torsional moments;
Counteracts Along the Pipeline Route. - Local Buckling Unity Check as per DNV-OS-F101 [14] or
pipeline integrity check according to SAFEBUCK [10]
 Loading Sequence and Solution Algorithm design criteria (modified DCC check).
The FE model is subject to the following loading steps: - Vertical and lateral reactions of berms (used for ISB
1. Step 1: Lay the interested pipeline stretch on the sea analyses) or forces applied to chains (suction piles) or
bottom considering: in-line structures (used for PW analyses).
o Application of the relevant residual lay tension to the
straight pipeline section under investigation; The use of such tools significantly reduces the time to prepare
and process a set of pipeline global analyses for the expert
engineer, thus providing the basis for decision making and

5 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

optimizations at both early and detailed engineering phases and For the deep depression area, 3-D FEM analyses with
enhancing standardization, traceability and quality of design ABAQUS (Figure 7 and Figure 8) using the pre- and
activities. post-processing tools described in Section 3 have been
performed to simulate the evolution of the pipeline
configuration in both vertical and horizontal plane under all
4 APPLICATIONS
applicable load conditions (i.e. temporary, transient and long
This section describes results of typical simulations carried out
term conditions). The assessment incorporates the seabed
using the in-house design tool (Figure 1).
terrain and gravel intervention works required for the crossings
The two desk studies presented here below have been
of the existing pipelines and cables preliminarily defined using
performed with the aim to check the structural integrity of a
standard 2-D FEM analyses, which takes into account the
pipeline laid on a very uneven seabed subjected to typical load
pipeline configuration only in the vertical plane.
scenarios experienced by the pipelines during lifetime, namely
pressure test and operating conditions (pressure and thermal
gradient). Furthermore a typical example of a flowline
susceptible to pipeline walking phenomenon is presented. In
particular:
 CASE 1: Pipeline laid on a very uneven rocky sea bottom at
a water depth of 200-550 m. A 3-D FE Model has been
developed to verify the pipeline structural integrity on a
deep depression. Moreover, counteracts are adopted to
control the pipeline horizontal position within the laying
corridor. The structural pipeline integrity and counteracts
loads have been assessed.
 CASE 2: Production line susceptible to pipeline walking Figure 7 - 3-D Seabed Model with ABAQUS.
due to seabed slope and thermal transient conditions.
Example of mitigation measures to limit the maximum pipe
ends expansion are herein described.

4.1 Case 1: On-Bottom Roughness Assessment and

Route Curve Stability
The OBR analysis has been carried out along the overall
pipeline route aiming at assessing the pipeline configuration on
seabed and identifying the sections where stress and free-span Figure 8 - 3-D Seabed Model with ABAQUS. – Zoom on
mitigation measures are required. Deep Depression Area.
The pipeline route crosses some sections where the seabed
morphology is characterized by uneven seabed. Due attention Moreover the analyses include lateral counteracts (LaCs) and
has been paid to the crossing of the so-called Deep Depression the relevant gravel bases (GB) along some route curves which
(Figure 6) where the original seabed profile abruptly goes down are to be installed before pipe laying. The 3-D FEM analysis
with a steep slope leading to a very long and high free-span was addressed to define the design loads applied to the LaCs
overstressing the pipeline. and at the same time verify the structural pipeline integrity
under different operating scenarios (Figure 5).

The main input data are summarized in Table 1.

Input Parameters Value Unit

Steel Material X70

Specified Minimum Yield Stress 485 MPa
Specified Minimum Tensile Strength 570 MPa
Inner Diameter 859 mm
Wall Thickness 38.1 mm
Outer Diameter 935.2 mm
Corrosion Allowance 1.5 mm
Concrete Coating Thickness 0-50 mm
Concrete Coating Density 3050 kg/m3
Design Pressure 22.5 MPa
Hydrotest Pressure 28.0 MPa
Figure 6 - Deep Depression - DTM plot. Design Temperature 8.0 °C

6 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 4
x 10
Residual Lay Tension 500 kN 1

Bending Moment (kNm)

kg/m3
0.5
Content Density 900
0

Vertical
Residual Axial Friction Factor 0.5 -- -0.5

Residual Lateral Friction Factor 0.7 -- -1

P/L Submerged Empty Weight 0.136 – 0.328 t/m -1.5

5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8 5.85 5.9 5.95 6

0.732 – 0.924
KP (km)
P/L Submerged Flooded Weight t/m 1.4

1.2

P/L Submerged Operating Weight 0.657 – 0.849 t/m

LCC Local Buckling

1

Unity Check
Table 1 – Case 1: Main Input Parameters. 0.8

0.6

0.4

During flooding and hydrotest conditions, the pipeline sags into 0.2

0
5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8 5.85 5.9 5.95 6

the Deep Depression (Figure 6) due to the increased weight and KP (km)

Figure 10b - Deep Depression – Vertical Bending Moments

to the effect of the internal pressure.
and DNV LCC Unity Checks Considering Base
-490 Case Gravel Supports.
As Laid
-495 Flooded KP6026
Flooded KP5918
Flooded KP5908
-500 Flooded KP5894
Flooded KP5870
The need of a 3-D FEM analysis instead of a classic 2-D
Flooded KP5836
-505 Flooded KP5786
Flooded KP5776
approach is driven by the possibility to take into account the
Flooded KP5766
-510
influence of history load on the pipeline configuration. In
Z-coordinate (m)

Flooded KP5752
Flooded KP5732
Flooded KP5700
-515
Flooded KP5650
Vertical Seabed Profile
particular, during hydrotest, the pipeline flooding operation is
-520
controlled by a pig from shallow to deep. The pipeline
-525
configuration along the free-span generated through the Deep
-530

-535
Depression is strongly affected by sequential increase of weight
-540
(Figure 9). It is fundamental in these circumstances to simulate
5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8 5.85 5.9 5.95 6
KP (km)
the actual load sequence since an incremental uniform
Figure 9 - Sequential Water Flooding along the Deep application of loads along the overall pipeline route leads to
Depression. unrealistic results.
In order to prevent pipeline overstress along the Deep
This scenario was expected to not overstress the pipeline since Depression (Figure 10b), alternative solutions have been
the rock berms were accurately positioned to control the investigated considering:
sagbend. However, the vertical displacement is not fully  Additional gravel supports to limit the pipe sagging after
recovered once the line is depressurized and dewatered due to flooding (Figure 11),
the axial resistance provided by the soil at the shoulders  The use of batches of thicker pipe to improve the pipeline
(Figure 10a). Therefore, during the following load step when capacity,
the internal pressure is set to the incidental one and the design  A combination of the above solutions.
temperature is applied (named mechanical design step), the
pipeline continues sagging, leading to an excessive bending The selected solution was to include additional gravel supports
concentration at the bottom of the Deep Depression to limit the pipe sagging. In particular, the position and height
(Figure 10b). of two additional post-lay gravel berms has been optimized.
-490
Figure 11a shows the vertical seabed and pipeline profiles
-495
resulting from the analysis run including the additional
-500 intervention works, while Figure 11b shows the applied vertical
-505 bending moments and local buckling unity checks (now within
-510 acceptance criteria).
Z-coordinate (m)

-515 -490

-520 -495

-525 -500

As Laid -505
-530
Flooded
Hydrotest
Z-coordinate (m)

Depressurization -510
-535
Mechanical Design
Vertical Seabed Profile
-515
-540
5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8 5.85 5.9 5.95 6
KP (km)
-520

Figure 10a - Deep Depression – Vertical Pipeline -525

Configuration Considering Base Case Gravel -530

As Laid
Flooded
Hydrotest
Supports. -535 Depressurization
Mechanical Design
Vertical Seabed Profile
-540
5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8 5.85 5.9 5.95 6
KP (km)

Figure 11a - Deep Depression – Vertical Pipeline

Configuration Considering Additional Gravel
Supports.

7 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 4
x 10
1
hydrotest, which are also expected to affect the axial tension
Bending Moment (kNm)

0.5

0
distribution and hence the pipe-LaCs interaction. The most
Vertical

-0.5 relevant pipeline parameters are plotted in Figure 12 while the

-1
maximum loads and displacements of each LaCs are shown in
-1.5
5.6
1
5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8
KP (km)
5.85 5.9 5.95 6
Figure 13.
0.8
LCC Local Buckling
Unity Check

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8 5.85 5.9 5.95 6
KP (km)

Figure 11b - Deep Depression – Vertical Bending Moments

and DNV LCC Unity Checks Considering
Additional Gravel Supports.

Furthermore, the lateral stability of the curves along the same

pipeline route was a key design task since:
Figure 12a - Horizontal and Vertical Pipeline Configuration.
 Curves with tight radii have required avoiding / minimizing
the interference with the large seabed features and with the

Bending Moment (kNm)

As Laid Flooded Hydrotest Depressurization Mechanical Design
5000

existing pipeline systems. 6-off route curves have required 0

Lateral
stabilization pursued with the installation of Lateral -10000
-5000

Counteracts (LaCs). The basic functional requirement to the 1

2
x 10
4 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8

Bending Moment (kNm)

lateral counteract was to prevent sliding during installation. Vertical
0.5

 A great part of these LaCs has been positioned over -0.5

purposely installed Gravel Bases (GB) or over existing -1

1
2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8
LCC Local Buckling

Pre-IW. 0.8
Unity Check

0.6

 The curves stabilized with LaCs fell, themselves, in uneven 0.4

areas where the pipeline was partially free spanning and the 0.2

0
2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8
contact with the soil occurred only in correspondence of KP (km)

localized areas. Figure 12b - Pipeline Horizontal and Vertical Bending

 Since the flooded conditions, the pipeline in the uneven area Moments and DNV LCC Unity Checks.
was also affected by a generalized increase of the sagging As Laid Flooded Hydrotest Depressurization Mechanical Design
Axial Displacements (m)

due to the combined effect of the long free-spans and 4

increase of pipe weight. The sagging causes an increase of 2

axial force and consequently an increase of the loads 1

transferred to the counteracts and to the GB. 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8
Lateral Displacements (m)

-2
The position of lateral counteracts has been defined based on a
-4

simplified analytical approach (2-D model). This model is 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8
Vertical Displacements (m)

0
based on the equilibrium between the horizontal forces along -2

the pipe, which tend to straight the curve, and the lateral -4

-6
resistance provided by lateral counteracts. The horizontal forces 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
KP (km)
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8

have been evaluated during the installation phase, neglecting Figure 12c - Pipeline Axial, Lateral and Vertical
the beneficial contribution of soil friction, and the flooded Displacements.
condition. 300
As Laid
Maximum Counteract Reaction (kN)

The 3-D FE Model developed with ABAQUS (Figure 7) to 250

Flooded
Hydrotest
Depressurization

perform the on-bottom roughness analysis has been re-used to: 200 Mechanical Design

 Verify the maximum loads applied to the LaCs under

150

100

temporary and operating loads; 50

 Assess the pipeline configuration accounting for the lateral 0

3285 3508 3635 3689 4400 4460 4530 4593 4976 5135 5190 5454 5490 5560 5603
Maximum Counteract Displacement (m)

0.2

uneven seabed morphology and the local forces from pipe- As Laid
Flooded
Hydrotest
0.15

LaCs interaction. Depressurization

Mechanical Design
0.1

0.05
The analysis has been carried out for all the design conditions
from empty to normal operating / mechanical design. Attention 0
3285 3508 3635 3689 4400 4460 4530 4593 4976
KP Counteracts (m)
5135 5190 5454 5490 5560 5603

has been paid to the temporary conditions and, in particular, the Figure 13 - Maximum LaCs Displacements and Reactions.
water filling process and the depressurization after the

8 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

4.2 Case 2: Pipeline Walking Assessment Simplified analytical solutions for pipeline walking
For a deep water subsea field development project a complete susceptibility assessment were produced during SAFEBUCK
walking assessment was requested for 7-off flowlines, which JIP [10]. However, due to complex P/T load scenario (different
were found to be susceptible to PW and required mitigation sequences, alternated cycles), lateral buckling susceptibility in
measures. In this section, the main outcomes of the analysis are addition to pipeline walking and advanced phase of the project,
described for one of them. it has been decided to carry out detailed FEM analyses.
The main input data are summarized in Table 2. The first FE analysis aimed at investigating the flowline
walking susceptibility without mitigation measures. The
maximum first and second end walking rate (i.e. accumulated
Input Parameters Value Unit axial displacement per cycle) after simulating 24 cycles was
Steel Material X60 - equal to 42 and 31 mm/cycle, respectively, in the direction of
Specified Minimum Yield Stress 415 MPa increasing KP (i.e. towards second end). They are evidenced in
Specified Minimum Tensile Strength 520 MPa Figure 15, where the cumulated axial displacement can be
Inner Diameter 222.3 mm noted in the upper plot as a constant-slope displacement of both
Wall Thickness 25.4 mm first and second ends. Furthermore, a lateral buckle develops at
Outer Diameter 273.1 mm approx. KP 1.15, close to mid-line and along the only route
Corrosion Allowance 6.0 mm curve (Figure 16, lateral displacement along the line).
Content Density (Production) 340 kg/m3 Extrapolation of the walking rate for the expected number of
Max Pressure 8.1 MPa cycles during field life led to unacceptable cumulated
Max Temperature 105.0 °C displacements for spools at flowline ends equal to 4.2 m and
Flowline Length 1.863 km 3.5 m for the first and second ends, respectively. Therefore
WD at first end (KP 0) 447.5 m mitigation measures were implemented into the FE global
WD at second end (KP 1.863) 470.8 m model to counteract walking phenomenon.
Average Seabed Slope -0.7 °
Table 2 – Case 2: Main Input Parameters. 2
Displacement (m)
Pipe Axial

1
In general the P/T (pressure and temperature) transient profiles
0
can greatly vary depending on the pipeline service (e.g. oil, gas, First End
Second End
water, etc…) and the types of cycle the flowline is subjected to -1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Walking Rate (m/cycle)

0.1
during field life. In this case, two types of start-up sequences 0.08
0.06
0.04
were provided (i.e. cold restart, warm restart preceded by hot 0.02
0
-0.02
oil circulation in both directions). As an example, Figure 14 -0.04
-0.06
First End - Walking Rate
Second End - Walking Rate
shows the cold restart temperature profiles along the flowline at -0.08
-0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
different time instants, which shall be applied cyclically in the Cycle Number (#)

FEM simulation along with shut-down profiles. The in-house Figure 15 - Pipe Ends Axial Displacements and Walking Rate
Matlab tool allows the engineer to produce the input file for Without Mitigation Measures.
ABAQUS which combines any start-up or shut-down sequence As-Laid
8
in a very flexible manner, drastically reducing the time spent Hydrotest
Pre-Commissioning
for input file generation. 7 Half Cycle - Cycle #1
End Cycle - Cycle #1
Lateral Displacements (m)

Half Cycle - Cycle #2

6 End Cycle - Cycle #2
Half Cycle - Cycle #3
110 0.00
0.25 5
End Cycle - Cycle #3
Half Cycle - Cycle #4
100 0.50 End Cycle - Cycle #4
Half Cycle - Cycle #5
90 0.75 4 End Cycle - Cycle #5
1.00
Temperature [°C]

Half Cycle - Cycle #6

80 1.25 3 End Cycle - Cycle #6
1.50
70 1.75
Half Cycle - Cycle #7
End Cycle - Cycle #7
2
60 2.00 Half Cycle - Cycle #8
End Cycle - Cycle #8
2.25
50 2.50 1 Half Cycle - Cycle #9
End Cycle - Cycle #9
40 2.75 Half Cycle - Cycle #10
3.00 0 End Cycle - Cycle #10
30 3.25 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6Half Cycle
1.8- Cycle #11
2
KP (km) End Cycle - Cycle #11
20 3.50 Half Cycle - Cycle #12

10
3.75
4.00
Figure 16 - Lateral Displacement Profiles Without Mitigation End Cycle - Cycle #12
Half Cycle - Cycle #13
0 4.25
4.50
Measures. End Cycle - Cycle #13
Half Cycle - Cycle #14
End Cycle - Cycle #14
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 4.75 Half Cycle - Cycle #15
5.00 End Cycle - Cycle #15
KP [km] 10.00 To minimize the load required to stop PW care must be taken Half Cycle - Cycle #16
50.00 End Cycle - Cycle #16
of the effective axial force and of the potential for lateral Half Cycle - Cycle #17
End Cycle - Cycle #17
Figure 14 - Cold Restart Temperature Profiles at Different buckling occurrence along the pipeline. If no lateral buckle Half Cycle - Cycle #18
End Cycle - Cycle #18
Time Instants (in hours) along the Flowline. occurs, the best theoretical position for a line which does not Half Cycle - Cycle #19
End Cycle - Cycle #19
Half Cycle - Cycle #20
reach fully restrained conditions is mid-line. If lateral buckles End Cycle - Cycle #20
Half Cycle - Cycle #21
End Cycle - Cycle #21
Half Cycle - Cycle #22
End Cycle - Cycle #22
Half Cycle - Cycle #23
End Cycle - Cycle #23
9 Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Half Cycle - Cycle #24
End Cycle - Cycle #24
occur, the best theoretical position is at virtual anchor point Due to the evidenced complexity of the assessment, fully
(uphill with respect to cumulated displacement direction). non-linear FE analyses are required to verify all the possible
However, it is worth noting that: interactions between PW and lateral buckling.
 For a mitigation measure which reacts in both directions In order to optimize the mitigation measures, most promising
(e.g. In-Line Structures), the best theoretical position is strategy were investigated including mattresses, suction piles,
between the virtual anchor point and the lateral buckle dead man anchors and post-installed In-Line Structures (ILS).
apex; however since the mitigation measure itself might Mattresses aim at increasing the vertical force exerted by the
change the effective axial force profile and since the pipe on soil and therefore increasing the pipe axial reaction.
transient profiles change the load on the mitigation Dead man anchors and suction piles are linked to the pipeline
measures as the P/T cycles develop, the real optimal via forged piece/collar and chains and represent direct
position cannot be determined in advance. constraints for pipeline displacements. ILS is installed along the
 Robustness checks must be carried out to verify that the pipeline and assembled with an in-line anchor (ILA)
mitigation measure strategy for PW does not induce lateral incorporated in a quad-joint with the functionality to transfer
buckle activation between pipeline end and the mitigation the axial load from the pipe to the mitigation device. The ILS
device itself, in which case an uncontrolled feed-in might shall sustain the axial reaction assessed by FE walking global
still trigger PW. analyses.

When PW and lateral buckling occur at the same time, a During the optimization activities, mattresses and dead man
number of related phenomena can take place, all of which have anchors were discarded since they were shown to be not really
been observed during the optimization analyses, e.g.: effective on soft soils and not suitable for the high required
 While fixing first end of the pipeline as shown below, loads to suppress walking propensity, while suction piles were
second end might migrate feeding-in into the lateral buckle discarded due to tight installation schedule, layout constraints
in the opposite direction; and presence of hard ground soils in depth. Post-installed
 Walking at second end might still occur in case a route in-line structures have been proven to be the most flexible and
curve positioned e.g. close to the second virtual anchor reliable solution for quite to very severe applications. In
point shown in Figure 17 slightly moves laterally; addition, this kind of mitigation allows to take the advantages
 Fixing walking at first end might “transfer” the propensity of the “wait and see” approach. Actually, they could be
to accumulate axial displacements to the second end. installed at a later time in case walking develops during field
life with a minimum preliminary set-up, (ILA installation at
predetermined KP along the line) and they could be adapted to
provide a range of axial reactions as needed.
Effective Axial Force

In the FE model the ILS has been simulated with a non-linear

spring element (spring type #2 [12]) attached to one pipe node
Seabed

Slope/
T-transients effects and reacting in the longitudinal direction, being the other end of
Lateral buckle the spring fixed.
A number of FE analyses have been carried out, including
Mitigation measure sensitivities on pipe-soil lateral friction factors, P/T transient
(uphill) profiles, ILS position along the route, ILS gap
Reaction
Virtual anchor points (100 mm, -100 mm, +/-50 mm), with the aim to minimize the
KP number and dimension of the post-installed ILS, optimize their
positions to limit PW and verify the robustness of the chosen
mitigation measures.
Effective Axial Force

For the analyzed flowline, one ILS at KP 0.714 was

recommended for installation since the beginning of the field
Seabed

Weak slope/
T-transients effects life. Thanks to this ILS, the walking rate at first end was
negligible at the end of the simulation. The maximum
Lateral buckle
registered reaction was lower than 200 kN (see effective axial
Mitigation measure force discontinuities at KP 0.714 in Figure 19), well below the
(uphill) structure capacity (~600 kN).
Reaction
Virtual anchor points
KP
Figure 17 - Effective Axial Force With Lateral Buckle and
Seabed Profile (Schematic).

10 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 As-Laid 1
Hydrotest
800 Pre-Commissioning
First End
Half Cycle - Cycle #1 Second End
Effective Axial Force (kN) (+: Tension; -: Compression)

Displacement (m)
End Cycle - Cycle #1
Half Cycle - Cycle #2 0.5
600 End Cycle - Cycle #2

Pipe Axial
Half Cycle - Cycle #3
End Cycle - Cycle #3
Half Cycle - Cycle #4 0
400 End Cycle - Cycle #4
Half Cycle - Cycle #5
End Cycle - Cycle #5
Half Cycle - Cycle #6
End Cycle - Cycle #6
-0.5
200 Half Cycle - Cycle #7
End Cycle - Cycle #7
Half Cycle - Cycle #8
End Cycle - Cycle #8 -1
0 Half Cycle - Cycle #9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
End Cycle - Cycle #9 0.02
Half Cycle - Cycle #10 First End - Walking Rate

Walking Rate (m/cycle)

End Cycle - Cycle #10
-200 Half Cycle - Cycle #11 Second End - Walking Rate
End Cycle - Cycle #11 0.01
Half Cycle - Cycle #12
End Cycle - Cycle #12
Half Cycle - Cycle #13
-400 End Cycle - Cycle #13
Half Cycle - Cycle #14
0
End Cycle - Cycle #14
Half Cycle - Cycle #15
-600 End Cycle - Cycle #15
-0.01
Half Cycle - Cycle #16
End Cycle - Cycle #16
Half Cycle - Cycle #17
End Cycle - Cycle #17
-800 -0.02
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Half Cycle - Cycle #18
End Cycle - Cycle #18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
KP (km) Half Cycle - Cycle #19 Cycle Number (#)
End Cycle - Cycle #19

Figure 18 - Effective Axial Force Profiles With One ILS Half Cycle - Cycle #20
End Cycle - Cycle #20 Figure 20 - Pipe Ends Axial Displacements and Walking Rate
(KP 0.714). With One ILS (KP 0.714).
As-Laid
6 Hydrotest
Pre-Commissioning

The position of the ILS has been optimized taking into account Half Cycle - Cycle #1
End Cycle - Cycle #1
Half Cycle - Cycle #2
5 End Cycle - Cycle #2
all the constraints given by installation and geotechnical Half Cycle - Cycle #3
End Cycle - Cycle #3
Half Cycle - Cycle #4
disciplines. Figure 19 shows the effective axial force profile

Lateral Displacements (m)

End Cycle - Cycle #4
4 Half Cycle - Cycle #5
End Cycle - Cycle #5
with one ILS at KP 0.226: as expected, being the structure Half Cycle - Cycle #6
End Cycle - Cycle #6
Half Cycle - Cycle #7
closer to the first end its reaction (represented by axial force 3 End Cycle - Cycle #7
Half Cycle - Cycle #8
End Cycle - Cycle #8
discontinuity) is higher than in the optimized case (ILS at 2
Half Cycle - Cycle #9
End Cycle - Cycle #9
Half Cycle - Cycle #10

KP 0.714). Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the pipe ends axial End Cycle - Cycle #10
Half Cycle - Cycle #11
End Cycle - Cycle #11

displacements, walking rate and pipeline lateral displacements 1 Half Cycle - Cycle #12
End Cycle - Cycle #12
Half Cycle - Cycle #13

along the route, respectively. At the second end a small walking End Cycle - Cycle #13
Half Cycle - Cycle #14
End Cycle - Cycle #14
0
rate (< 5mm/cycle) was registered towards mid-line see 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
KP (km)
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 - Cycle #152
Half Cycle
End Cycle - Cycle #15
Half Cycle - Cycle #16

Figure 20. Actually from Figure 21 it is evident that the pipe is Figure 21 - Lateral Displacement Profiles With One ILS End Cycle - Cycle #16
Half Cycle - Cycle #17
End Cycle - Cycle #17

moving into the buckle amplifying the lateral displacement as (KP 0.714). Half Cycle - Cycle #18
End Cycle - Cycle #18
Half Cycle - Cycle #19

the simulation runs proceeds. End Cycle - Cycle #19

Half Cycle - Cycle #20
End Cycle - Cycle #20

Therefore, it was decided to introduce one additional structure

800
As-Laid
Hydrotest
Pre-Commissioning
at KP 1.495 as “wait and see”. This structure could be installed
Effective Axial Force (kN) (+: Tension; -: Compression)

600
Half Cycle - Cycle #1
End Cycle - Cycle #1
Half Cycle - Cycle #2
only in case during field life an excessive cumulated
End Cycle - Cycle #2
Half Cycle - Cycle #3
displacement at second end occurs. It has been recommended to
End Cycle - Cycle #3
400
Half Cycle - Cycle #4
End Cycle - Cycle #4
the Company to check this condition with regular surveys.
200
Half Cycle - Cycle #5
End Cycle - Cycle #5
Half Cycle - Cycle #6
With two ILS, it has been proven that PW susceptibility is
0
End Cycle - Cycle #6
Half Cycle - Cycle #7 successfully and completely suppressed as shown in Figure 22,
End Cycle - Cycle #7
Half Cycle - Cycle #8
End Cycle - Cycle #8
with walking rate at the end of the simulation almost negligible
Half Cycle - Cycle #9
-200
End Cycle - Cycle #9
Half Cycle - Cycle #10
and while maintaining a reaction on the structure lower than the
-400
End Cycle - Cycle #10
Half Cycle - Cycle #11 allowable value. Including the sensitivities, the overall
End Cycle - Cycle #11
Half Cycle - Cycle #12
End Cycle - Cycle #12
maximum ILS reaction was lower than 350 kN.
-600 Half Cycle - Cycle #13
End Cycle - Cycle #13
Half Cycle - Cycle #14
-800 End Cycle - Cycle #14 0.5
Pipe Axial Displacement (m)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Half2Cycle - Cycle #15
KP (km) End Cycle - Cycle #15
Half Cycle - Cycle #16
Figure 19 - Effective Axial Force Profiles With One ILS End Cycle - Cycle #16
Half Cycle - Cycle #17 0
End Cycle - Cycle #17
(KP 0.226, Non-Optimized Case). Half Cycle - Cycle #18
End Cycle - Cycle #18
Half Cycle - Cycle #19
End Cycle - Cycle #19 -0.5
Half Cycle - Cycle #20
End Cycle - Cycle #20

First End
Second End
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0.02
First End - Walking Rate
Walking Rate (m/cycle)

Second End - Walking Rate

0.01

-0.01

-0.02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Cycle Number (#)

Figure 22 - Pipe Ends Axial Displacements and Walking Rate

With Two ILS (KP 0.714, KP 1.495).

11 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

5 CONCLUSIONS [5] Vitali L., Bruschi R. Mørk K.J., Levold E. and Verley R.,
The key of undertaking complex design of offshore pipeline 1999: “HOTPIPE Project: Capacity of Pipes Subject to
systems is to use advanced analysis tools. These analysis tools Internal Pressure, Axial Force and Bending Moment”,
can perform local and global modeling of pipeline and subsea Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
components. An in-house GUI in Matlab code integrated with Brest, France.
the ABAQUS structural code has been developed to perform [6] Collberg L. et al., 2005: “HotPipe JI Project - Design
user-friendly advanced analysis of offshore pipeline in order to Guideline for High Temperature/High Pressure Pipelines”,
simulate the actual pipeline behavior in operation. OMAE Paper No. 67523, Proc. 24th OMAE Conference,
This GUI allows performing advanced analyses of offshore Halkidiki, Greece, 12-17 June 2005.
pipelines at design stage and verification considering as
[7] Goplen S. et al., 2005: “HotPipe JI Project - HP/HT
follows:
Buried Pipelines”, OMAE Paper No. 67524, Proc. 24th
 Pipeline horizontal and vertical configuration;
OMAE Conference, Halkidiki, Greece, 12-17 June 2005.
 Seabed profiles both in the longitudinal and transverse
direction with respect to the pipeline axis; [8] Spinazzè M. et al., 2005: “HotPipe JI Project - HP/HT
 Influence of in-line and termination structures on global Pipelines laid on Uneven Seabed”, OMAE Paper
pipeline behavior (i.e. expansion and global buckling); No. 67525, Proc. 24th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics
 Mitigation measures and intervention works to guarantee and Arctic Engineering, June 12-17, 2005, Halkidiki,
the pipeline integrity against the relevant failure modes; Greece.
 Actual history load of the most relevant temporary, [9] Vitali L. et al., 2005: “Hotpipe JI Project: Experimental
operating and /or accidental conditions. Tests and FE Analyses“, OMAE Paper No. 67526, Proc.
24th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
All these steps are performed through a user-friendly graphic Engineering, June 12-17, 2005, Halkidiki, Greece.
interface which allows reducing the time the analyst dedicates [10] “SAFEBUCK Design Guideline” Report.
to both FE model implementation and results extraction. In [11] Bartolini L.M., et al., 2011: “Advanced Analysis and
addition, the unified tool allows also: Design Tools for Offshore Pipeline In Operation“, OMAE
 Simulating a variety of pipeline configurations, even the Paper No. 49831, Proceedings of 30th Int. Conf. on Ocean,
ones extremely complicated due to, for instance, severe Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Rotterdam, The
seabed unevenness or some features affecting pipeline route Netherlands, June 19-24, 2011.
(i.e. crossing, sleeper or other obstacle like boulders). [12] “ABAQUS - Version 6.14.1”, ABAQUS Inc., Dassault
 Having a full understanding of the global or local pipeline Systèmes.
response subjected to complex history loads. [13] DNV-RP-F110: “Global Buckling of Submarine Pipelines
Structural Design Due to HP/HT”, Det Norske Veritas,
Høvik, Norway.
REFERENCES
[14] DNV-OS-F101: “Submarine Pipelines Systems”, Det
[1] Mørk K. et al., 1999: “The HOTPIPE Project – Design Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway.
Guidelines for High Temperature/Pressure Pipelines”, [15] Bartolini L.M. et al., 2014: “Strength and Deformation
Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Capacity: A Novel FE Tool for the Numerical Lab”,
Brest, France. OMAE Paper No. 24662, Proceedings of 33rd Int. Conf.
[2] Spinazzè M. Torselletti E. and Levold E., 1999: “The on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, San
HOTPIPE Project – A Study of the Effectiveness of Francisco, California, USA, June 8-13, 2014.
Remedial Measures to tackle/control the Development of
Excessive Bending”, Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Brest, France.
[3] Torselletti E., Vitali L. and Levold E., 1999: “The
HOTPIPE Project – Snaking of Submarine Pipelines
Resting on Flat Sea Bottom using Finite Element
Method”, Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Brest, France.
[4] Vitali L., Spinazzè M. and Verley R., 1999: “The
HOTPIPE Project – Use of Analytical Models/Formulas
in Prediction of Lateral Buckling of Isolated and
Interacting Buckles”, Proc. 9th Int. Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Brest, France.

12 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

View publication stats