ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF A LAZY-WAVE STEEL

CATENARY RIZERS (LWSCR or LWR)

By;

OLIYIDE, ABIODUN AREMU

&
ADEGBAYI, ADEOLA PHILIP

A Coursework in NM 958, Risers and Mooring Lines

Submitted to;
The Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine
Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE

December, 2014
1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................2

2.0

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................3

3.0

OPTIMISATION METHOD....................................................................3

3.1

Input Data........................................................................................4

3.2

Output Data.....................................................................................4

4.0

CASE STUDY.......................................................................................4

5.0

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...............................................................5

5.1 Effect of Change in Buoyancy Ratio.....................................................5

5.2 Effect of Change in Hang-Off Angle.....................................................9
5.3 Effect of Change in Size of Riser Diameter.........................................10
5.4: Effect of Change in Internal Fluid Density........................................12
5.4 Effect of Change in Water Depth........................................................14
5.6 Effect of Change in Platform Offset....................................................15
5.7 Effect of Change in Arch Bend & Sag Bend Height............................17
5.8 Effect of Change in Catenary Lengths...............................................18
1.

Hang-off Catenary.......................................................................18

2.

Buoyancy Catenary......................................................................19

3.

Touchdown Catenary...................................................................20

6.0

CONCLUSION....................................................................................22

7.0

REFERENCES...................................................................................22

1.0
A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
very

good

understanding

of

the

structural

configuration

and

characteristics of a Lazy-wave riser is very essential is very essential for the

riser engineer to analyse effectively and do a design that will serve its
intended purpose throughout the life of the riser without jeopardizing cost
effectiveness and time constraints. In this coursework, an analysis code was
designed for the optimisation of the configuration of a lazy-wave riser. Lazywave configuration has been proved adequate due to its structural dynamic
behaviour when compared to other configurations [3] [4] [5]. Thereafter, a
parametric study was carried out to better understand the structural
behaviour and configuration of lazy-wave risers under the effect of change in
different parameters like; water depth, riser diameter, arc length, hang-off
angle, platform-offset and buoyancy ratio. Two options were considered
according to the literature, Option 1 makes use of the length of the three
catenaries while option 2 specifies the height of the sag bend and the arch
bend above the seabed [1].
2.0

INTRODUCTION

With the recent increase in the discoveries in the discoveries in the deep
water oil fields and rapid development of deep-water floating production
systems the design of dynamic risers to produce and export oil to and from
these floating production systems has become more complex. The riser
engineer is saddled with the responsibility to determine the best riser
configuration to be used in a subsea development. Lazy-wave riser is gaining

popularity because it has been considered as an adequate solution due to its

structural dynamic behaviour when compared to other riser types [2].
Despite the suitability of a lazy-wave riser, the onus to choose the best lazywave configuration is quite demanding because any little change in the
geometric properties of the riser has a significant effect on the static and
dynamic behaviour of the riser [2].
This coursework presents an optimised configuration of a lazy-wave riser, a
tool with which the riser engineer can lay his hands upon in practice to
determine the approximate lazy-wave configuration to be used for a
particular subsea development [1].
3.0

OPTIMISATION METHOD

A Mathcad program was designed for the optimisation process, the program
takes the input data, process them, analyse the data statically and plot the
configuration on a graph with report on the static properties and
configuration of the Lazy-wave riser. Several buoyancy ratios were used for
the optimization and the buoyancy ratio was fixed at 2 at hang-off angle of
40.82O, this forms the base or seed lazy wave riser that was used for the
parametric analysis.
3.1

Input Data

Two options were considered differently for the input parameters, option one
was for shallow water of 150m water depth while option two after being
tested and confirmed that it worked for the same parameters in option 1 was
used for parametric study in deep water with depth of 2000m. For option
one, the input data that was used to plot the riser configuration are; hangoff catenary length Si, buoyancy catenary length Sj, touch-down catenary
length Sk, and the water depth V. The analysis program was designed to
iterate for optimum value of the of hang-off angle in degree for every

parameter that was varied. The other geometric properties of the lazy-wave
riser were generated from the analysis code.
3.2

Output Data

For each of the variation in input parameter, several output data were
generated which include the hang-off angle , maximum horizontal
projection

H,

minimum

bending

radius

a,

Maximum

Curvature,

maximum bending stress, horizontal force acting on the riser N at the TDP
and the top tension. All these output will help the riser design engineer to
make his initial decision on what type of configuration he should choose.

4.0

CASE STUDY

The case study used for this analysis is a rise with outer diameter of
150mm, wall thickness 45mm, weight in air of 37.86kg/m and catenary
lengths Si, Sj, Sk equal 150, 60 and 130m respectively in a shallow water of
150m depth. On the attaining a lazy-wave configuration the plot, the
buoyancy ratio was fixed at 2 and the following parameters were varied one
after the other while holding the other parameters constant.
1. Buoyancy ratio
2. Hang off angle
3. Pipe size diameter
4. Density of internal fluid
5. Catenary length Si, Sj, Sk
6. Water depth
7. Platform offset
The effect of variation in the above parameters were recorded and monitored
against the following important features of the Lazy-wave riser which forms
the basis for our discussion in the next section
1. Hang off angle at the vessel
2. Maximum Horizontal projection H
3. Minimum bending radius, a
4. Maximum Curvature, k
5. Maximum bending moment, M
6. Maximum bending stress

7. Horizontal force
8. Top Tension
5.0

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the optimisation, the following results were generated and the
parametric analysis for each change in configuration are presented below.
5.1 Effect of Change in Buoyancy Ratio
The buoyancy catenary of a lazy-wave riser consist of a section of pipe where
the upward buoyancy force in water is greater than its downward gravity
force in water, this gives an equavalent negative force and is responsible for
the upward curvature of the buoyancy section of the riser. A variation in the
buoyancy ratio of the lazy-wave riser could give rise to a shaped Steel
catenary riser or a degenerated Lazy-wave Riser with less buoyancy and no
sag bend or arch bend [4]. In our optimisation, the bouyance ratio was
varied from 1 to 3 on a step on 0.5 and its effect on the configuration of the
riser properties are discussed below.
Firstly at buoyancy ratio of 1, the properties of the risers were the same and
the configuration was a shaped SCR as in the figure below.

Figure 5.1: Lazy-wave riser with buoyancy ratio of 1(Shaped SCR)

The properties and parameters of the hang-off section and the buoyancy
sections like the minimum bending radius, curvature, bending moment and

bending stress were the same for a buoyancy ratio of 1. This implies that the
whole length of the pipe was made of the same material.
We started noticing a difference in the riser properties when the buoyancy
ratio was greater than 1. Physically, as the buoyancy ratio increased, the
arch

heigh

continued

to

increased

and

the

shape

of

the

riser

metamophosized from a steel catenary shape through a low-water arch, to a

mid-water arch and finally to a high-water arch with a buoyancy ratio of 3
as in the figure below.

Figure 5.2: Effect of change in buoyance on the shape of a lazy-wave riser

For the hang-off catenary, the minimum bending radius was decreasing with
respect to an increase in the buoyancy ratio, this was because the MBR is a
function of the inverse of the buoyancy ratio i.e (Qj/Qi). As the bouyancy
ratio increased, the MBR was reducing. Conversely, there was an increase in
the bending moment since bending moment is inversely propotional to the
MBR. An increase in the bending moment also gave rise to the bending
stress, this implies that As the buoyancy ratio increases, the bending
moment and bending stress also increase.
As the buoyancy ratio increases there was a decrease in the Top Tension,
this was due to an increase in the net upward force, since sum of upward

forces is equal to sum of downward forces there was a reduction in the top
tension and subsequently the Horizontal force at the Touch Down Point.
Finally, the hang-off angle at the vessel and the Horizontal disstance
between the vessel and the TDP (Platform offset) also reduced with respect to
an increase in the buoyancy ratio as shown in the graph below.

Figure 5.3: Effect of change in buoyance on the properties of lazy-wave riser

After the optimisation, for the purpose of our research, the buoyancy ratio
was fixed at 2, being our uptimum buoyancy ratio. It is important to note at
this point that the buoyancy catenary is obtained in practice by adding a
series of floaters to the riser. The effect of variation can be seen in the table
below.
Figure 5.1: Effect of change in buoyance on the properties of lazy-wave riser
Riser Parameters

Buoyancy Ratio
1

1.5

2.5

Ya (m)

76.70

73.04

77.30

89.10

116.34

Ys (m)

53.04

65.35

76.76

86.36

89.93

(degrees)

42.44

41.97

40.82

37.83

28.08

H (m)

297.64

297.55

295.53

287.29

248.69

MBR (m)

201.17

170.90

138.21

100.95

53.22

BM (N.m)

22.22

26.16

32.34

44.28

83.99

Bending (kN/m2)

88.25

108.88

128.46

175.87

333.61

Horizontal Force (kN)

56.47

47.97

38.79

28.34

14.94

Top tension (kN)

83.68

71.73

59.35

46.20

31.74

5.2 Effect of Change in Hang-Off Angle

Figure 5.4: Effect of Change in Hang-Off Angle

The motion of vessels to which risers and mooring lines are connected due
to environmental forces such as waves and current or the disconnection of a
turret can give rise to a change in the hang-off angle of the LWR.

In

addition flow induced motion resulting from under water current and/or
slug flow in the riser itself may lead to larger displacement in the LWR
profile consequently leading to variations the hang-off angle of the LWR. The
knowledge of the possible variations in the hook-up angle is important to the
riser engineer in the design of the LWR. To do this the possible hook-up
angles corresponding to the likely environment scenarios need to be derived

in order to design against the corresponding stresses that may arise in the
life time of the well.
In order to determine the variation in the configuration of the LWR, the
hang-off angle of the riser was varied from around the obtained hang-off
angle of 40.82. the At a constant buoyancy ration, a 20 increase in the
hang-off angle resulted in a 47.35m

increase in the TDP/hang-off angle

offset.
From the parametric study carried out, it was observed that increase in the
hang-off angle resulted in an increase in the minimum bending radius
(MBR) which led to a reduction in the bending stress and bending moment
of the riser pipe as indicated in the table below. However, increase in LWR
horizontal tension and top tension was observed as the hang-off angle was
increased.
Figure 5.2: Effect of Change in Hang-Off Angle

30.82

35.82

40.82

45.82

50.82

Ya (m)
(degrees)

98.74

87.61

77.30

67.70

58.71

Ys (m)

97.96

86.96

76.76

67.23

58.33

H (m)

266.78

283.06

295.53

305.75

314.13

MBRi (m)

95.46

115.48

138.21

164.65

196.32

BM (N.m)

46.83

38.71

32.34

27.15

22.77

(KN/m )

185.99

153.73

128.46

107.83

90.43

N (KN)

26.79

32.41

38.79

46.22

55.11

T (KN)

52.30

55.39

59.35

64.44

71.09

5.3 Effect of Change in Size of Riser Diameter

In order to compare the effect of change in riser diameter, the outer diameter
was varies while the wall thickness was kept constant,

Figure 5.5: Effect of Change in Size of Riser Diameter

The chat above summarises the effect of change in the side of the riser pipe
diameter. When the diameter of the riser pipe is increased, it mean the
volume per unit length will increase which will increase the mass of internal
fluid, but the equivalent mass of fluid displayed by a larger volume is more
than the mass of internal fluid, this increase in mass of fluid displaced
reduces the wet mass Q per unit length of the riser. Hence, an increase in
the size of the riser pipe will lead to reduction in the minimum bending
radius.
Since the minimum bending radius is inversely proportional to the
maximum bending moment, an increase in pipe side diameter will lead to an
increase in the maximum bending moment.
A reduction was noticed in the maximum bending stress when the size of
the riser pipe was increased, this was so because the bending stress
depends on the second moment of inertia I of the cylindrical pipe which
increases as the radius of the pipe increases
It was also noticed that there was a reduction in top tension when the
diameter of the riser pipe was increased, this reduction was due to the
reduction in wet mass of the riser as explained above. Consequently, there

was also a reduction in the Horizontal force at the touch down point which
is constant throughout the height of the riser and is equal to the horizontal
component of the top tension. To maintain the water depth, there was also a
reduction in the hang-off angle at the vessel when there is an increase in
the size of the riser pipe.
Finally on the change in pipe size diameter, the offset of the platform H
reduced slightly, while the arch height and the sag bend height also
increased respectively. The analysis complete analysis is shown in the table
below

Figure 5.3: Effect of Change in Size of Riser Diameter

Riser

Pipe diameter

parameters
wet weight (N/m)

110mm

130mm

150mm

170mm

190mm

309.109

294.9

280.69

266.48

252.27

MBR (m)

158.71

153.39

147.43

140.70

133.06

BM (N.m)

28.16

29.14

30.32

31.77

33.59

(kN/m2)

245.46

165.33

120.42

93.07

75.50

Top tension (kN)

73.82

68.31

62.77

57.22

51.64

N (kN)

49.06

45.23

41.38

37.49

33.57

(degrees)

41.65

41.47

41.24

40.94

40.54

Ys (m)

69.86

71.74

73.78

75.97

78.33

Ya (m)

73.89

74.55

75.49

76.77

78.51

H (m)

297.13

296.83

296.41

295.79

294.98

5.4: Effect of Change in Internal Fluid Density

Figure 5.6: Effect of Change in Internal Fluid Density

It is possible that several fluids with different densities are passed through
the riser during its service life, for example prior to installation the riser is
flooded with seawater and later on, the riser is used for oil or gas
production. To check the effect of different fluid densities, an investigation
was done with an empty riser with fluid density of 1kg/m 3, gas with density
200kg/m3, oil with density 800kg/m3 and seawater with density 1025kg/m3.
As the density of internal fluid increases, there is an increase in in-water
weight of the riser which increases the minimum bending radius (MBR).
Since MBR is inversely proportional to the maximum bending moment, a
reduction was noticed in the maximum bending moment and the maximum
bending stress as it can be noticed in the graph above.
With an increase in fluid density, the downward wet weight of the pipe also
increases which gave rise to an increase in the Top tension and
subsequently the Horizontal force at the touch down point of the riser which
is the horizontal component of the top tension and is constant throughout
the height of the riser.
From the analysis carried out, it was also noticed that the touch down point
of the riser increases with the increase in internal fluid density while the

arch and sag bend of the riser reduces respectively. A progressive increase
was also noticed in the hang-off angle when the internal fluid density is
increased. The results of the parametric analysis for change in internal fluid
densities are presented in the table below.
Table 5.4: Effect of change in density of internal fluid
Riser parameters

Internal Fluid Densities

800kg/m3 1025kg/m3

1kg/m

200kg/m
210.633
3
102.29

261.582

280.688

MBR(m)

193.73
3
83.75

138.21

147.43

BM (N.m)

53.37

43.70

32.34

30.32

(kN/m )

211.99

173.56

128.46

120.42

Top tension

28.03

35.00

55.31

62.77

Horizontal

16.22

21.55

36.15

41.38

(degrees)

35.37

38.00

40.82

41.24

H (m)

279.00

287.79

295.53

296.41

Ys (m)

89.04

86.08

76.76

73.78

Ya (m)

97.15

88.54

77.30

75.49

Wet weight (N/m)

5.4 Effect of Change in Water Depth

In this parametric study, the effect of increased water depth on the LWR
configuration investigated. With exploration moving further offshore into
deeper waters, the conditions in which the operations take place becomes
more difficult as the pay zone more is harder to reach due to the
environmental conditions and the increase distance between the platform
and the seabed. With the advent of subsea separation, the need for vessels
in deeper waters can be reduced. However for region with no pipeline
infrastructure such as in West Africa, floating production, storage and
offloading (FPSO) vessels moored to the seabed can be employed at different
water depths resulting in flexible riser at different water depth. The heave
motion of the platform leads to a corresponding change in the hang-off

location this change in the vertical height of the riser is small compared to
the change in water depth.

Figure 5.7: Effect of Change in Water Depth

Having determined an optimum buoyancy ratio R, varying the water depth
of the LWR flooded with seawater at a constant buoyancy ratio, culminated
in changes to the arch & sag bend, hang-off angle, hang-off/TDP offset, Top
& horizontal tensions, and the minimum bending radius (MBR), bending
and shear stresses for both the hang-off and the buoyancy section. A 40m
increase in water depth from 130m resulted in rise in the sag and arch bend
heights: this was observed to be the case as the height of the touchdown
catenary is a function of the water depth, V. The observed reduction in the
hang-off angle as the water depth was increased, is a function of the
accompanied reduction in the offset of the hang-off point from the
touchdown (TDP). Furthermore, as the water depth was increased, the
minimum bending radius, the top tension and the horizontal force was
observed to reduce whilst increment was observed in the values of the
bending moment and bending stresses of the LWR. The chart above depicts
the variations in the riser configuration presented in the table below.

Table 5.5: Effect of Change in Water Depth

Water depth(m)

130m

140m

150m

160m

170m

Ya (m)

66.52

71.88

77.30

82.75

88.25

Ys (m)

66.08

71.39

76.76

82.15

87.59

(degrees)

46.46

43.60

40.82

38.13

35.52

H (m)

306.91

301.46

295.53

289.13

282.23

MBRi (m)

168.37

152.37

138.21

125.59

114.21

BM (N.m)

26.55

29.34

32.34

35.59

39.14

(KN/m2)

105.44

116.52

128.46

141.36

155.44

N (KN)
Top tension

47.26

42.77

38.79

35.25

32.06

65.20

62.02

59.35

57.09

55.18

(KN)
5.6 Effect of Change in Platform Offset
From the second option, the offset of the platform from the TDP was also
varied. As the platform offset increases, the minimum bending radius also
increases, the increase was obvious as a result of the constant length S of
the riser. Since the bending moment is inversely proportional to the
minimum bending radius, an increase in the platform offset will resulted in
a decrease in the maximum bending moment of the curvatures.

Figure 5.8: Effect of Change in Platform Offset

A decrease in the maximum bending moment will also lead to a decrease in

the stresses in the members, this implies an increase in platform offset will
lead to a decrease in the bending stress in the members as it can be seen in
the graph above. As the distance from the touch down point increases, there
was also an increase in the top tension, which was due to a reduction in the
height of the arch bend as a result of a constant riser length. The horizontal
component of the Top Tension which is constant throughout the height of
the riser and equal to the horizontal force at the TDP also increases as a
result of the increase in platform offset. The table below shows the effect of
change in platform offset on the riser configuration and properties.
Table 5.6: Effect of Change in Platform Offset
Riser

HANG-OFF OFFSET FROM TOUCH DOWN POINT

228m
238m
248m
258m
268m
Parameters
Si (m)
142.59
146.29
150.00
153.81
157.62
Sj (m)
57.36
58.68
60.00
61.36
62.72
Sk (m)
125.04
127.51
130.00
132.57
135.16
(degrees)
25.69
26.87
28.02
29.16
30.27
MBRi (m)
49.96
49.54
53.22
57.08
61.05
BM (kNm)
92.25
90.23
83.99
78.31
73.22
(kN/m2)
386.24
358.38
333.59
311.03
290.78
N (kN)
12.90
13.90
14.94
16.02
17.14
Top
tension 29.76
30.75
31.80
32.88
34.00
5.7 Effect of Change in Arch Bend & Sag Bend Height
(kN)
The hang-off catenary, the buoyancy catenary and the touchdown catenary
both make up the lazy-wave riser. For simplification, this parametric study
on the varying arch height Ya, and sag bend height Ys was carried out with
one parameter constant as the other tends towards the constant value.
From the parametric study carried out on the arch and sag bend heights of
the LWR, it was observed that the variations in the arch and sag bend
heights produced high, mid-arch and low-arch LWR configurations. The
effect of the sag bend and arch bend height seemed to be similar to the
effect of the buoyancy ratio on the LWR configuration.

Figure 5.9: Effect of Change in Height Arch Bend and Sag Bend Height
The investigation of sag bend height on the LWR configuration showed the
same relationship and the arch bend as illustrated in the chart above from
the tabulated data. From the reduced arch bend height, increments were
observed for the top tension, the horizontal force at the TDP, the hang-off
angle and the minimum bending radius is change is associated with the .
On the other hand, the bending moments and bending stress in the hang-off
catenary was observed to reduce as the arch bend height reduced to towards
the value of the sag bend height. At this point where the arch bend height
and sag bend height are at the same, a configuration having no sag or arch
bend is produced.
Table 5.7: Effect of Change in Height Arch Bend and Sag Height
Ya (m)

116.34m

107.54m

98.74m

89.94m

(degree)

28.02

29.73

32.11

38.04

MBRi (m)

53.22

59.06

68.16

96.45

BM (N.m)

83.99

75.69

65.58

46.35

(KN/m )

333.59

300.60

260.46

184.07

N (KN)

14.94

16.58

19.13

27.07

T (KN)

31.80

33.43

35.99

43.93

5.8 Effect of Change in Catenary Lengths

1.

Hang-off Catenary

The hang-off catenary, the buoyancy catenary and the touchdown catenary
both make up the lazy-wave riser. With varying water depths, the LWR
configuration will have different catenary lengths. For simplification of this
parametric study, the lengths of the two catenaries were kept constant as
the catenary length of the third catenary was varied.

Figure 5.10: Effect of Change in Hang-off Catenary

To investigate the effect of the length of the hang-off catenary on the LWR
configuration, the lengths of the buoyancy catenary S j and the touchdown
catenary Sk was kept constant while the length of the hang-off catenary Si
was varied in 10m increments. The parametric analysis, it was observed
that the sag bend height, the arch bend height, the minimum bending
radius, bending stress, the horizontal force and top tension are largely
dependent on the length of the hang-off catenary on the other hand the
hang-off angle increased by just over 4 for a 40m increase in length of the
hang-off catenary.
Table 5.8: Effect of Length of Hang-off Catenary
Ya

116.34m

109.27m

102.72m

96.57m

90.83m

Ys (m)

89.93

85.78

81.64

77.55

73.55

(degrees)

28.02

29.46

30.67

31.75

32.73

H (m)

248.69

266.96

283.57

299.01

313.52

MBRi (m)

53.22

62.13

71.17

80.45

89.98

BM (N.m)

83.99

71.95

62.81

55.56

49.68

(KN/m )

105.44

285.73

249.46

220.68

197.30

N (KN)

14.94

17.44

19.98

22.58

25.26

T (KN)

31.80

35.46

39.16

42.91

46.71

2.

Buoyancy Catenary

Further investigation into the effect off buoyancy catenary length on the
LWR required was conducted with the lengths of the hang-off and
touchdown catenary keep constant at a buoyancy ratio of 3.0.

Figure 5.11: Effect of Change in Buoyancy Catenary

The study showed that the arch bend height, sag bend height, bending
moment of the buoyancy section and the bending stress of the buoyancy
section reduces with the reduction in the length of the buoyancy whilst the
hang-off angle, minimum bending radius of buoyancy section, horizontal
force at the TDP and the top tension increased. The offset distance was
observed to increase as the buoyancy catenary length increased: this can be
associated with the upward movement of the TDP.
Table 5.9: Effect of Change in Length of Hang-off Catenary

Ya (m)

116.34

98.72

87.27

79.16

73.11

Ys (m)

89.93

88.63

84.53

79.01

72.59

(degrees)

28.02

33.48

36.55

37.84

38.37

H (m)

248.69

269.95

275.62

275.39

272.40

MBRj (m)

17.34

25.70

32.12

37.52

42.43

BM (N.m)

257.79

173.92

139.17

119.14

105.35

(KN/m )

1001.00

690.77

552.65

472.85

420.43

N (KN)

4.87

7.21

9.02

10.53

11.91

T (KN)

10.36

13.08

15.14

17.17

19.19

3.

Touchdown Catenary

Table 5.12: Effect of Change in Length of Touch down Catenary

In the third study of the effect of catenary, the touchdown catenary length of
the LWR was increased. Increments were observed in the sag bend height,
the hang-off angle, the offset, the horizontal force, the top tension and the
minimum bending moment of the hang-off catenary as the touchdown
catenary length increased. From the parametric study, the increase in offset
distance, this was as a result of increase in the MBR of the hang-off section
which in itself resulted from the increased hang-off angle as the touchdown
catenary length increase as depicted in the table and chart below.
Table 5.10: Effect of Change in Length of Touch down Catenary

Sk (m)
Ya (m)
Ys (m)
(degrees)
H (m)
MBRi (m)
BM (N.m)
(KN/m2)
N (KN)
T (KN)

6.0
Based

130m
116.34
89.93
28.02
248.69
53.22
83.99
333.61
14.94
31.80

140m
107.06
94.73
36.67
284.44
81.90
54.58
216.76
22.99
38.49

150m

160m

102.72
96.72
42.13
306.23
108.54
41.18
163.46
30.47
45.42

170m

99.40
97.42
45.96
322.87
134.43
33.25
133.06
37.73
52.49

97.85
97.44
48.85
337.14
160.20
27.90
110.82
44.97
59.72

CONCLUSION
on

the

optimisation

and

parametric

analysis,

the

following

conclusions were made;

1. Any little change in the geometric properties of the riser or environmental
conditions has a significant effect on the static configuration and dynamic
behaviour of the riser for example a 2O change in hang-off handle increased
the bending stress at the hang off catenary by 30%.
2. For a constant water depth, the best way to reduce the Top tension is to
reduce the hang-off angle, reduce the platform offset from the TDP, increase
the buoyancy ratio or increase the diameter of the riser pipe.

3. The effective ways to reduce the Maximum bending moment is to reduce

the buoyancy ratio, Increase the platform offset, and Increase the hang offangle at the platform.
It is very important to note that most of the things we do to reduce the Top
tension requires the opposite action to reduce the bending moment. This
present a dilemma. Hence the riser engineer has to be careful to place a
balance between these two important parameters lazy-wave parameters.
7.0

REFERENCES

[1]

Songchen Li et al (2010) Dynamic Response of Deepwater Lazy-wave

[2]

Catenary Riser, DOT

Edmundo Queiroz de Andrade et al (2010) Optimization Procedure of
Steel Lazy Wave Riser Configuration for Spread Moored FPSOs in

[3]

Deepwater Offshore Brazil, OTC 20777]

Jacob B.P et al (1999) Alternative Configurations for Steel Catenary

[4]

Risers for Turret Moored FPSO ISOPE

Silva R.M.C et all (1999) Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design of

[5]

SCR attached to FPSO OMAE

Torres A.L.F.L et all (2002) Lazy wave Steel Rigid Riser for Moored
FPSO OFT-2P124