Lazy S and lazy wave riser optimisation

JEE484 Assignment II
Alex Fuglsang
Date 02/10/1014

I.

INTRODUCTION

TABLE I. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

The purpose of a midwater arch, weather is achieved through a

physical arch as in the lazy S, or a buoyancy section like the
lazy wave, is to isolate the touchdown point (TDP) from the
motion of the vessel or platform on the surface. This isolation
will reduce the velocity of the motions at the TDP, and reduce
the compressive forces here, as well as the wear from friction.
The lazy S and lazy wave riser systems use different methods to
obtain similar riser configurations, with some important
differences between them. A lazy S riser is displayed in Figure
1, below. This system uses a buoyant structure that is tethered
to the seabed to create a midwater arch (MWA) that the riser(s)
run over the top of to minimize the minimum bend radius and
reduce seabed friction. This system is suited to multiple line
applications, and would not be feasible for the single riser
design here.

Water Depth (m)

100

Wave Height (m)

Wave period (s)

Current Velocity (m/s)

0.75-0.2

This report compares the two different configurations; to access

which performs better in regards to minimum bend radius and
maximum effective tension. Wear at the TDP is not studied
here.
II.

METHODS

A. Lazy S riser
To determine the best case of lowest maximum effective line
tension, and greatest minimum bend radius, 15 cases in both the
near and far load case scenarios. The list of different
configurations is displayed in Table II.
A total line length of 190m is kept constant, without
considering the line running over the MWA. If the base case
line lengths were set at even lengths: 95m/95m, the maximum
effective tension and minimum bend radius results were outside
the operating range of the Technip[2] riser at extreme line
combinations, so the lengths in Table II were used to ensure
riser survival during all simulations.

Figure 1. An example of a lazy S riser[1]

The lazy wave riser uses a section of positively buoyant line to

create a similar line shape to the lazy S. The lazy S is shown in
Figure 2. This system is best suited to deepwater diverless
installation, but is more prone to wear at the seabed due to
friction and is more sensitive to cross currents.

TABLE II. LIST OF CASES USED FOR BOTH NEAR AND FAR CONDITIONS
MWA Position

10m away from

vessel

Midpoint between
vessel and anchor

10m towards
vessel

Figure 2. Lazy wave riser modeled in OrcaFlex

The environmental conditions that are implemented into

OrcaFlex for these simulations are listed in Table I.

Line Length (Upper/Lower) (m)

115/75
110/80
105/85
100/90
95/95
115/75
110/80
105/85
100/90
95/95
115/75
110/80
105/85
100/90
95/95

B. Lazy wave riser

To find the best configuration for the lazy wave riser, two
variables are modified; the position of the buoyancy section in
the line and the amount of buoyancy. The buoyancy can be

changed by modifying the pitch or the size of the buoyancy

units. For the simulations here, the pitch is modified, as well as
the lengths of riser above and below the buoyant section. The
overall line length is kept constant at 190m, and the buoyancy
section length is kept at 50m. The full matrix of different
configurations is shown in Table III. The line is simulated as a
smeared line in OrcaFlex.

TABLE IV. TANAGENTAL DRAG COEFFICIENT [3]

TABLE III. LIST OF LAZY WAVE CASES FOR BOTH NEAR AND FAR CONDITIONS
Pitch
(m)

Line Length (Upper/Lower)

(m)
60/80
65/75

2.25

70/70
75/65

Figure 3. Dimensions of buoyency elements [3]

80/60
60/80
65/75
2.5

70/70
75/65
80/60
60/80
65/75

3.0

70/70
75/65
80/60

Figure 4. Interaction factor (I) vs KC number [3]

60/80

To calculate the KC of the buoyancy section, the maximum

velocity of the riser is calculated, assuming the heave of the
vessel is transferred to this section.
Wavelength:

65/75
3.25

70/70
75/65
80/60

gT 2
2 d

tanh

60/80
65/75
3.5

Using the variables specified in Table I, = 76.5m. As D > /2,

this is a deepwater wave. Equation(1.3) can be used to calculate
maximum vertical water particle velocity:

70/70
75/65
80/60

Once the ideal case is determined, this line is modelled as a

discretised line, with the floats modelled as attachments based
on the idealised smeared line segments.
The mass and volume of the clumped floats are obtained from
the OrcaFlex line wizard for the smeared line. The DNVRP
C205 [3] code is used to estimate the tangential and axial drag
coefficients for the attachments.
Using section 6.11, the tangential drag coefficient ( ) is
estimated using equation (1.1):

CDT

CD1 NI Db2
4( D1L)

(1.2)

HgT sinh(k ( z d )
sin
2 cosh(kd )

(1.3)

Where k = 0.082, z = 0 as the vessel is at the surface, and

maximum velocity occurs at sin = 1. Thus w = 2.69 m/s.
KC is now calculated using a float diameter (Db) of 1.2m:

wT
Db
K C 15.7
KC

(1.4)

As pitch (S) = 2.5m, S/Db = 2.08. Using Figure 4 and

interpolating between the solid and dotted lines, I is estimated
to be 0.56.
The length of a single floatation element is 1m, thus l/D b =
0.833.
Using Table IV, the value for CD1 is interpolated:

(1.1)

The dimensions S, Db, and L are shown in Figure 3. CD1 is

obtained from Table IV, and I from the plot in Figure 4. N is
number of buoyancy elements, in this case, 21. D1 is taken as
the diameter of the riser (0.2726m)

CD1 1.15

0.833 0.5
0.9 1.15
1.0 0.5
CD1 0.98

(1.5)

Length of floatation section = 50m. Equation (1.1) is now used

to calculate :

CDT

0.98 23 0.56 1.2 2

1.05
4 (50 0.2726)

The axial drag coefficient, CD is estimated from the maximum

current velocity of 0.75 m/s, Figure 5 and calculating the
Reynolds number:

Re

vDb

Figure 6. Comparing minimum bend radius (m) for lazy S riser

(1.6)

= 1.52 x 10-6 m2/s [3], thus Re = 5.92 x 105.

Figure 7. Comparing maximum effective tension (kN) for lazy S riser

The minimum bend radius for all of the 15 cases is displayed in

Figure 8, below. Case 1 represents the MWA being offset 10m
away from the FPSO. Line lengths are 115m between the
FPSO and MWA, and 75m from the MWA to the anchor. This
case obtains the maximum minimum bend radius of 10.5m.

Figure 5. Drag coefficient for fixed circular cylinder in steady flow [3]

Assuming a painted steel riser, and a k value of 5 x 10 -6,

CD = 0.4
III.

RESULTS AND DISUCSSION

To optimize the riser for each design, the maximum effective

tension (kN) and minimum bend radius (m) are compared to the
maximum allowable tension and minimum allowable bend
radius of this riser. The maximum allowable tension is 3517kN,
and the minimum bend radius is 2.02m. The effect of wear is
not analysed in this report.
A. Lazy S riser
Figure 6 displays the minimum bend radius recorded for all
variables in both the near and far load conditions. It clearly
shows that for every case the near condition has lower and thus
more critical bend radii than the far case. Only the near cases
will be considered when selecting the optimal design. The
inverse is displayed when comparing maximum effective
tension in Figure 7; the far load condition exerts more tension
onto the riser in all cases, thus the selection process is based on
the far condition.

Figure 8. Minimum bend radii for each case

Maximum effective tension is presented in Figure 9. As the

maximum allowable tension in this riser is 3517 kN, even the
worst case of 314.7 kN in case 5 will have a factor of safety of
over 11. The lowest maximum effective tension of 77.86 kN
occurs in case 14.

Figure 9. Maximum effective tension for each case

Figure 11. Comparing minimum bend radius for lazy wave riser

Case 1 is chosen as the optimised lazy S riser. As it is far closer

to the allowable limit than maximum effective tension,
minimum bend radius is the most important factor when
determining the ideal case. This is represented in case 1, which
also has a low maximum effective tension of 92.1 kN.
The factors of safety are 5.2 for bend radius, and 38.2 for
effective tension. The safety factor for this riser is 5.2.
B. Lazy wave riser
Figure 10 displays the ideal case selected in this section, in the
far loading condition. Both the smeared and discretised risers
are shown. The buoyancy and mass of the float attachments are
taken from the line wizard in OrcaFlex for the floating line, and
the drag coefficients for these clumps are calculated in
Methods.

Figure 12. Comparing maximum effective tension for lazy wave riser

Figure 13 displays the minimum bend radii for all near loading
cases. A clear pattern can be observed in these cases: the
minimum bend radius decreases as the pitch is increased, and
increases as the floatation section is moved lower in the riser
length. It is clear that the best case for the minimum band
radius occurs in case 5, with a value of 7.76m.

Figure 10. Both the diectreted and smeared risers implemented in OrcaFlex

Similar to the lazy S comparison, it is clear that the worst

minimum bend radii observed in Figure 11 occur in the near
loading condition, and the worst cases for effective tension
occur in the far condition (Figure 12)

Figure 13. Minimum bend radii in the near loading condition

The maximum effective tensions shown in Figure 14 are

relatively consistent across all cases, with an overall variation
of 54.5 kN. The lowest effective tension occurs in case 11,
however minimum bend radius has a larger effect on the factor
of safety of this riser than even the maximum effective tension
observed here will.

Table V, below, summarises the ideal bend radii and effective

tensions achieved in these simulations.
TABLE V. SUMMERY OF RESULTS FOR IDEAL CASES
Variable
Minimum
Bend radius
(m)
Maximum
Tension
(kN)

Figure 14. Maximum effective tension in the far condition

Based on the greatest minimum bend radius, the optimal case

for these variable is case 5. The pitch in this case is 2.5m, and
the line sections are 80m/50m/60m from FPSO to anchor.
The lowest maximum effective tension is 95.6 kN (factor of
safety = 36.8), and the greatest minimum bend radius is 7.76m.
Thus the overall safety factor of this riser is 3.84, which is
acceptable.
The plots of the ideal lazy wave and lazy S riser configurations
are plotted in Figure 15, Figure 16. These are plots of the X
against Z positions of each riser along their arc lengths
throughout the two simulations for each load condition.

Lazy S

Lazy Wave
(Smeared)

Lazy wave
(discretised)

Allowable
limit

10.5

7.76

7.89

2.02

92.1

95.6

95.4

3517.15

IV.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimised lazy wave subjects the riser to a maximum

effective tension of 95.6 kN and a minimum bend radius of
7.76m. The ideal lazy S riser achieves a minimum bend radius
if 10.5m and 92.1 kN maximum effective tension.
This study is limited to only changing two variables for each
system. To obtain a more complete optimised design, variables
such as MWA height, buoyancy attachments, buoyant line
length, vessel position relative to the anchor and even the riser
materials should be investigated.
Without considering important factors such as friction and
impact forces at the touch down point, it is clear that using the
MWA is more effective than using floatation directly connected
to the line. Due to the static nature of a correctly tensioned
MWA, there will also be lower forces at the TDP for the lazy S
than there will be for the lazy wave.
The Lazy S is superior in these simulations, however the
differences between the two risers are minimal. If this was to be
applied in a real world application, the lazy S would not be
economically feasible for a single riser, so the lazy wave riser is
considered more suitable in these environmental conditions.

Figure 15. The plot of both load conditions for lazy wave

REFERENCES
1.

These two plots in Figure 15 and Figure 16 confirm the validity

of the results here, as there is a clear ground leg for all cases.

2.
3.

Figure 16. The plot of both load conditions for lazy S

Technip, Flexible System Definitions. 2011, Technip

France.
Technip, Structure 2.5 - Technical Data Sheet. 2005,
Technip France.
DNV, Environmental Conditions and Environmental
Loads, in Reccomended Practice - DNV-RP-C205.
2010, Det Norske Veritas: Norway.