Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Abstract
Lazy-wave catenary risers have gained popularity as a viable solution to improve fatigue and
strength performance at the touchdown zone of a simple catenary riser. With the objective to
provide technical reference for a lazy-wave shaped riser, this paper focuses on the study of
lazy-wave configurations and dynamic responses when the riser is supported from high
motion floating production platforms such as semi-submersibles and FPSOs. The study
explores the behavior of lazy-wave risers with respect to a variety of input parameters, such as
critical curvature radii, hang-off angle, top tension and buoyancy distribution. A systematic
approach to pinpoint driving factors and critical locations is discussed. Equations are also
presented to provide an analytic and deterministic approach to a desired lazy-wave shape for
further numerical assessment of strength and fatigue responses.
2 Introduction
The application of lazy-wave catenary riser (LWR) has been popular in deep water application
due to its adjustable payload on vessel and its options to control dynamic strength and fatigue
response along the riser [1]. With help of commercial software or self-developed optimization
tools [2], current practices rely on numerical approaches using trial and error or iterative
procedures to explore a lazy-wave riser configuration [3], which demands a huge effort for
optimization. It is time consuming and not cost effective, especially during preliminary
screening stage or riser study for a project. The challenge encountered in the optimization of
lazy-wave configuration is associated with the lack of parameterized equations for the
configurations.
The equations in the subsequent sections apply to SCR, LWR and shaped SCR.
8000
Buoyancy
Catenary
7000
Hangoff
Catenary
6000
Hangoff Location
5000
Hanging Section
4000
Lift Section
Touchdown
Catenary
Arch Bend
Lift Point
Drag Section
3000
Drag Point
Jumper Section
2000
Sag Bend
1000
Touchdown Point
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
As a special SCR, the LWR shares some common characteristics of SCR such as correlations
between curvature, riser mass density, arc length and hang-off angle. A catenary is governed
by a hyperbolic cosine function [6] in Equation (1) as illustrated in Figure 3.2:
x
y a (cosh
x
a
1) (e a e a 2) ,
a
2
(1)
d2y
|
1
dx 2
,
k
3
2
x
2
dy
2
a cosh
1 ( )
a
dx
(2)
dx ds cos , dy ds sin ,
(3)
where
at origin x 0 gives
3
1
.
a
(4)
Y
X
ds
ds
T+dT
dy
T
dx
Qds=mgds
X
O
Figure 3.2 Coordinate System of Catenary
1
x
a cosh 2
a
a
,
(a y ) 2
which dontes the maximum curvature or the lowest curvature radius along a catenary occurs at
the origin y=0. The catenary curve is symmetric about the Y-axis in Figure 3.2. Without loss
of generality, the absolute values of X and Y are used for the equations in this paper. The arc
length of a catenary from its origin can be obtained from
S ds
x
dy
1 dx a sinh .
a
dx
(5)
dy
x S
sinh .
dx
a a
(6)
tan
From horizontal equilibrium
T cos (T dT ) cos 0 ,
one obtains
d (T cos ) 0 ,
(7)
where m is the wet mass per unit length and g the acceleration of gravity, the relationship
between the horizontal force N and wet weight per unit length Q can be derived using vertical
equilibrium equation:
T sin Qds (T dT ) sin 0 ,
or
d (T sin ) Qds ,
or
(8)
or
dy
dy
) Qdx 1 ( ) 2 ,
dx
dx
d2y
dy
N 2 Q 1 ( )2 .
dx
dx
(9)
Substituting Equation (1) to (9), the relationship between the horizontal force N and wet
weight per unit length Q is obtained:
N aQ const , or a
N
.
Q
(10)
This implies that the curvature radius at origin can be adjusted by varying the horizontal force
N or the wet weight per unit length Q.
3.2
The static equilibrium of the LWR illustrated in Figure 3.3 (a) and (b) indicates that, the
resultant forces at the sag bend B and the arch bend D are horizontal and both equal to the
horizontal force N at the touchdown point. In the vertical direction, there are no shear forces at
points B and D, which requires static equilibrium of the weight of the jumper section BC and
net buoyancy force of the lift section CD, as well as the drag section DE and the touchdown
catenary EF. In other words, the net buoyancy force of the lift section CD lifts the wet
weight of the jumper section, and that of the drag section drags the wet weight of the
touchdown section.
5
Lift Section
Drag Section
N
Jumper Section
Touchdown Catenary
(a)
(b)
In local coordinate systems x-B-y, u-D-v and p-F-q, as shown in Figure 3.4, the hang-off
catenary ABC, the buoyancy catenary CDE and the touchdown catenary EF can be expressed
as the following equations:
y ai (cosh
x
p
u
1) , v a j (cosh 1) , q ak (cosh 1) .
ai
ak
aj
where ai , a j and ak are the curvature radii at their corresponding origins B, D, and F.
Hangoff
Catenary (i)
S1
Buoyancy
Catenary (j)
S4
S3
S2
Touchdown
Catenary (k)
S5
y1
y
D
u
V
y3
y2
y4
ya
ys
F
x1
x2
x3
x4
y5
p
x5
(11)
Qi mi g , Q j F m j g , Qk mk g ,
(12)
where F is the net buoyancy force from the buoyancy modules pointing upward. Application
of the dimensions in Figure 3.4 to Equation (5), the arc lengths of the jumper section and the
lift section become
S 2 ai sinh
x2
x
, S 3 a j sinh 3 .
ai
aj
(13)
S2 Q j
S3 Qi
(14)
Equation (14) implies that the lengths of the jumper section and the lift section are
proportional to their vertical weight at unit length. Further derivations using Equation (10)
give
S 2 x2 y2 Q j ai
.
S3 x3 y3 Qi a j
(15)
Similarly, for the drag section and the touchdown catenary, the following is true:
S 4 x4 y4 Qk a j
.
S5 x5 y5 Q j ak
(16)
Usually same materials and same geometric properties are utilized for both the hang-off
catenary and the touchdown catenary, that is
Qi Qk or ai ak .
(17)
, or 2
.
S3 S 4 Qi
S3 S 4 Qi
3.3
(18)
For a lazy-wave configuration, there are usually two design input options. One option give the
lengths of the three catenaries, and the other the elevations of the sag bend and the arch bend.
7
For design input option 1, given the lengths of the hang-off catenary Si , the buoyancy
catenary S j , either the water depth V at the hang-off location A or the touchdown catenary
length S k , the configuration of the LWR is determined. Without loss of generality, the
touchdown catenary length S k is assumed provided herein, as presented in Equations (19)
through (21).
Si S1 S 2
(19)
S j S3 S 4
(20)
Sk S5
(21)
Combination of Equations (19) through (21) provides the arc length of the hanging section:
S1 S (1
Qj
Qi
)S j .
(22)
On the other hand, application of Equation (6) to the hang-off location gives
S1 ai tan ai cot ,
(23)
where is the given top hang-off angle, and 900 is the inclination angle at the hang-off
location, as shown in Figure 3.4. Substituting Equation (22) into Equation (23) obtains the
curvature radius of the sag bend or the touchdown point:
Qj
ai S (1 ) S j tan .
Qi
(24)
Substituting Equations (23) and (24) into Equations (5), (10) and (11), one obtains the spread
and height of the hanging section:
x1 ai arcsin h(cot ) , y1 ai (cosh
x1
1) .
ai
Equations (11), (13) and (19) give the spread and height of the jumper section:
x2 ai arcsin h(
Si S1
x
) , y2 ai [cosh( 2 ) 1] .
ai
ai
x3
Equations (16) and (21) provide the length of the drag section:
S4
Qi
( S Si S j ) .
Qj
Qi
ai ,
Qj
S4
x
) , y4 a j [cosh( 4 ) 1] ,
aj
aj
S Si S j
ai
) , y5
y4Q j
Qi
With all the dimensions calculated above, the sag bend height is determined by:
y s y 4 y5 y 2 y3 ,
For design input option 2, the LWR configuration can also be uniquely determined if the sag
bend height ys , the arch bend height ya and the water depth V at the hang-off location A are
provided. Starting with the height of the hanging section
y1 V ys ,
Equations (6) and (11) give the curvature radius at the sag bend as
ai
y1
.
cosh[arcsin h(cot )] 1
The curvature radius at the arch bend is given by Equations (15) and (25) as
9
(25)
aj
Qi
y1
.
Q j cosh[arcsin h(cot )] 1
(26)
Given the arch height, or the vertical distance between the arch bend and the sag bend,
y 2 y3 y a y s .
(27)
Equations (15) and (27) produce the heights of the jumper section and the lift section:
y2
Q j ( ya y s )
Qi Q j
, y3
Qi ( ya ys )
.
Qi Q j
Subsequently, the spreads of the jumper section and the lift section are thus
x2 ai arccos h(
y2
y
1) , x3 a j arccos h( 3 1) .
ai
aj
The same derivations apply to the drag section and the touchdown catenary. Given the arch
bend elevation
y 4 y5 y a ,
(28)
Equations (16) and (28) yield the heights of the drag section and the touchdown catenary:
y4
Q j ya
Qi ya
, y5
.
Qi Q j
Qi Q j
y
y4
1) , x5 ai arccos h( 5 1) .
ai
aj
As a result, the arc length of each catenary can be calculated using Equation (5) as follows:
Si ai (sinh
x1
x
x
x
x
sinh 2 ) , S j a j (sinh 3 sinh 4 ) , S k S5 ai sinh 5 .
ai
ai
ai
aj
aj
For both design input options, the total horizontal distance from the hang-off location to the
touchdown point is
H x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 ,
the horizontal force at any point along the LWR and at touchdown point is
N aiQi a j Q j ak Qk ,
10
(29)
(30)
T sin
T sin
T sin
, or ak
,aj
.
Qi
Qj
Qk
(31)
The first order motions in heave, surge and sway directions at the hang-off point A are mainly
translated into heave motions at the sag bend B due to the constraint of the length of the hangoff catenary and the drag of the buoyancy modules at lift point C, as shown in Figure 4.1. For
example, the horizontal surface motion x as a function of time at point A becomes a heave
dominated motion y at sag bend B due to the motion difference in amplitude and phase
between A and C.
Y
P
x
A
Q
y
Figure 4.1 Heave Motion at Sag Bend due to Horizontal Motion at Hang-Off Point
As opposed to the first order motion, the relatively long period of the second order motion
gives the more time for the LWR to respond globally, especially along the buoyancy catenary.
The second order motions at the hang-off point A turn into both horizontal motion and heave
motion at the sag bend, as shown in Figure 4.2. For example, a horizontal second order motion
at the hang-off point A is followed by dominant horizontal motions at the lift point C and the
drag point E. This generates open and close movements of the sag bend or the arch bend,
11
Buoyancy
Catenary
Touchdown
Catenary
uD
uC
C
E
uB
uE
F
x1
x2
x3
x4
uF
x5
Techically, the critical locations for curvature radius refer to critical zones. The local top point
D may travel along the buoyancy catenary, such that the points near the arch bend D on the
riser take turns to become the local top elevation to account for tension variations and section
length adjustment during dynamic motions. In this sense, the arch bend is actually a zone in
length instead of a fixed point, so are the sag bend and the touchdown point.
The length of these critical zones varies with dynamic motions as well as vessel offsets, as
shown in Figure 4.3. At a far offset of 10% water depth, a LWR shape with a decent arch
height at near offset may degenerate into a low arch LWR, or even a shaped SCR if failed to
optimize the buoyancy catenary for large offsets. Extreme far and near offset positions should
be checked for a LWR configuration to avoid undesired buckling problem of a low-arch
configuration, and to avoid local high stress at the arch bend at near offset.
12
Taper stress joint or flex joint is widely used for stress relief at the hang-off location, while
other critical locations along LWR have to rely on the optimization of the buoyancy catenary.
The horizontal motion and the heave motion at the hang-off location lead to an open and close
movement of the sag bend, the arch bend and the touchdown zone as illustrated in Figure 4.2.
The lowest curvature radii at these critical locations governs their stress response since stress
and bending moment are proportional to curvature, as shown in Figure 4.4. The highest stress
frequently occurs at the arch bend where the most critical curvature is more likely when the
13
0.8
7000
0.7
6000
0.6
5000
0.5
4000
0.4
3000
0.3
2000
0.2
normally not driving in strength response, which is another feature of the LWR.
1000
0.1
0.0
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Riser mass density is another factor for LWR optimization. A lighter riser or smaller Qi
including internal fluid improves the strength response at the sag bend and the touchdown
point as suggested in Equation (12). As equivalent negative mass along the buoyancy catenary
where Q j F m j g , lower net buoyancy force F favors a greater curvature radius, but may
result in an undesirable low-arch configuration at vessel far offset. For instance, the stress
response of a low-arch lazy-wave configuration with sag bend and arch bend elevations of
2900 ft and 3100 ft, respectively, is shown in Figure 4.5. Heave motion at the sag bend
becomes whipping and buckling wave motion between sag bend and the arch bend, which
results in local curvature and stress much higher than those otherwise at the sag bend or the
arch bend. The structural and hydrodynamic damping effect is significantly compromised in
this case.
14
0.8
7000
0.7
6000
0.6
5000
0.5
4000
0.4
3000
0.3
2000
0.2
1000
0.1
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Strength response is driven by extreme curvature at critical locations, while fatigue response is
controlled by curvature fluctuation range associated with higher stress range. The highest
curvature fluctuation occurs at the sag bend, the arch bend or the touchdown point. The low
fatigue lives occur at these high curvature fluctuation zones, as shown in Figure 4.6. Critical
fatigue damage is observed at the touchdown point and at the riser hang-off location. The
fatigue damage at the touchdown zone is driven by soil-structure interaction under more
frequent occurrence of small stress cycles from low seastates, while at the top hang-off section
it is driven by combination of tension and bending moment from less frequent but high stress
range from high seastates.
Three case studies are presented in this section for sensitivity of the fatigue response of LWR
attached to an internally turret-moored FPSO.
15
7000
1.E+11
1.E+09
5000
1.E+08
1.E+07
4000
1.E+06
3000
1.E+05
1.E+04
2000
1.E+03
1.E+02
6000
1.E+10
1000
1.E+01
1.E+00
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Slick Section
Buoyancy Section
16
7000
6000
5000
Archbend
4000
3000
2000
Sagbend
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Mid Arch
High Arch
Buoyancy 1742 ft
Buoyancy 2261 ft
Buoyancy 2722 ft
Table 4.1 First Order Motion Fatigue Life Variation with Arch Configurations
The second case compares the first order fatigue responses to sag bend elevations. Two
configurations with different sag bend elevations are developed as shown in Figure 4.8. The
hang-off angle and arch height are kept constant. The lower sag bend configuration improves
the TDP fatigue life by 80%, however decreases the fatigue response at top of the riser by
13%, as compared in Table 4.2. The fatigue life increase at the TDP can be justified from
Equation (31). The lower sag bend configuration has longer hang-off catenary length hence
greater hang-off tension and smaller TDP curvature and bending stress range. The higher
dynamic tension fluctuation near the hang-off location adversely contributes to the fatigue
performance at top of the riser.
17
7000
6000
5000
Buoyancy 2722 ft
4000
High Sagbend
3000
Buoyancy 2189 ft
2000
Low Sagbend
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Touchdown Point
Top Taper Stress Joint
The third case study is about fatigue response to current loading. Background current
interferences riser motion and helps dissipating cable wave energy in an addition to
hydrodynamic damping. As shown in Figure 4.9, the TDP fatigue life improves with increased
background current speed. Background current profile should be used with caution to reduce
conservativeness. Generally, application of background profile with 50% occurrence increases
TDP fatigue life 2~3 times from without background current depending on variation of current
directions and speeds.
18
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Base Case (no background current)
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 4.9 Effect of Background Current on Motion Fatigue Life at Touchdown Point
5 Summary
Consisting of three catenaries, namely the hang-off catenary, the buoyancy catenary and the
touchdown catenary, a lazy-wave riser has better strength and fatigue responses than SCR.
The buoyancy catenary produces effective hydrodynamic and structural damping to attenuate
cables waves from vessel motions propagating along lazy-wave riser. The critical locations for
strength and fatigue responses are at the top hang-off location, the sag bend, the arch bend and
the touchdown point. This work provides parameterized equations for configuration
optimization and strategic analysis.
The damping efficiency of the buoyancy catenary and the variation of the curvature radii at
the critical locations in conjunction with the top tension and hang-off angle are the driving
factors for lazy-wave riser strength and motion fatigue responses. The horizontal force along
the riser is a constant and a function of net riser wet weight at the hanging section and the top
hang-off angle. The curvature at the critical locations is a function of horizontal force and
submerged weight of riser section, which drives dynamic response. Dynamic response is
sensitive to arch height, sag bend elevation, top hang-off angle and background current
loading.
19
6 References
[1]
Torres, A.L.F.L. et al (2002), Lazy-wave steel rigid risers for turret-moored FPSO,
OMAE02/OFT-28124
[2]
[3]
[4]
Hugh Howells, (1995). Advances in Steel Catenary Riser Design: Advances in Steel
Catenary Riser design, DEEPTEC '95, Aberdeen, February 1995
[5]
Bin Yue et al, (2010) Improved SCR Design for Dynamic Vessel Applications,
OMAE2010-20406, Beijing, June 2010
[6]
20