Pipeline Span Assessment Lessons Learned from Numerical Simulations

Huang, Shawn; Sun, Jason; Abdalla, Basel

doi:10.4043/27846-ms

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The FEA method can be utilized to realistically simulate the pipeline on-bottom roughness behaviour affected by pipeline properties, pipe-soil interaction including penetration and soil friction resistance, the internal and external pressure, product content, temperature profile and bottom tension from pipe-lay. An FEA model which is accurately built can provide a reliable prediction for the pipeline profile, free spanning length and gap under all conditions, which are crucial for stress and fatigue assessment as well as for the design of free span mitigation (S. Huang, Sun, Abdalla, & Group, 2017).…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of pipeline span analysis

Shittu

Kara

Aliyu

et al. 2019

WJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to mainly review the state-of-the-art developments in the field of hydrodynamics of offshore pipelines, identifying the key tools for analysis of pipeline free spans, their applications, their qualifying characteristics and capabilities and limitations. Design/methodology/approach These different analytical, numerical and semi-empirical tools available for predicting such hydrodynamic loads and their effects include VIVANA, PIPESIN, VIVSIM, SIMULATOR, FATFREE, amongst others. Inherent in these models are current effects, wave effects and/ or pipe–soil interactions. Findings Amongst these models, the most attention was given to the new VIVANA model because this model take into account the vortex-induced effects with respect to free-spanning pipelines (which have dominant effect in the span analysis in deep water) better than other semi-empirical models (such as Shear 7). Recent improvements in VIVANA include its ability to have arbitrary variation in speed and direction of current, as well as the ability for calculation of pure IL and combined IL-CF response. Improvements in fatigue assessments at free spans, i.e. pipe–soil interaction have been achieved through the combined frequency domain and non-linear time domain analysis methodology adopted. Semi-empirical models are still the de facto currently used in the design of free-spanning pipelines. However, there is need for further research on free-span hydrodynamic coefficients and on how in-line and cross-flow vibrations interact. Again, there is still the challenge due to VIV complexity in fully understanding the fluid structure interaction problem, as there is no consolidated procedure for its analysis. It has been observed that there is large scatter between the different codes adopted in the prediction of fatigue damage, as there lacks full-scale test data devoted to determination/validation of the coefficients used in the semi-empirical models. A case study of the preliminary design of a typical 48 in. pipeline has been presented in this study to demonstrate the use of the free-span analysis tool, DNV RP F105. Excel spreadsheet has been applied in the execution of formulas. Originality/value This review paper is the first of its kind to study the state-of-the-art development in pipeline free-span analysis models and demonstrate the use of analysis tool, DNV for MAFSL calculation. Hence, information obtained from this paper would be invaluable in assisting designers both in the industry and academia.

show abstract

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Huang et al (2017), the result of a comparative study between FEA and as-laid pipeline profiles shows that there was correlation for the empty, flooded, post-hydrotest and operating conditions as the pipeline profile, free-spanning length and gap predictions were accurate.…”

Section: Comparative Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%