Numerical Analysis For Pipeline Installation by S-Lay Method

1 Copyright 2010 by ASME
Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2010
June 6-11, 2010, Shanghai, China
OMAE2010-20552
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS FOR PIPELINE INSTALLATION BY S-LAY METHOD
Li-Zhong Wang*
Zhejiang University
College of Civil Engineering and
Architecture
Hangzhou, China, 310058
Email:wlzzju@163.com
Feng Yuan
Zhejiang University
Architecture
Email:yuanfen5742@163.com
Zhen Guo
Zhejiang University
Architecture
Email:nehzoug@163.com
ABSTRACT

S-lay method is widely used in pipeline installation from
shallow water to deep water for decades. However, previous
researches on S-lay method are not so complete because they
are based on some assumptions, such as calm water and rigid
seabed, which make the results deviate from precision. In this
paper, a novel numerical model for analyzing pipelines in the
S-lay problem is proposed to investigate the overall
configurationinternal forces and strain of the pipeline taking
into account the influence of ocean currents and seabed
stiffness. Such a model is of great advantage because it can
properly consider many influential factors in the real situation
including the variation position of the liftoff point, the change
of stinger radius, the influence of ocean currents, seabed
stiffness and the strain of the pipeline. Moreover, the solution
process of this model is easy and not time consuming, so it is
suitable for engineering application.

1 INTRODUCTION

Pipelines are considered to be the best way for the
transport of gas and crude oil in the exploitation of offshore
resources. Considering the hostile environment underwater,
several different methods are developed for installation of
marine pipelines in order to guarantee their safety. In
deepwater and ultra-deepwater, J-lay and S-lay methods are
most commonly used [1], and comparisons of the J -lay and
S-lay methods have been well documented in literature [2]. In
this work, the attention is focused on S-lay method. For the
last decades, a large number of papers have been published on
this subject, mostly dealing with perturbation method and
numerical solution techniques. Following the seminal work of
Wasow [3], Plunkett [4] used the singular perturbation method
to derive asymptotic expansion to consider the behavior of
stiffened catenary considering the boundary layers. Dixon and
Rutledge [5] applied Plunketts expansions to the analysis of
J -lay method. Meanwhile, Palmer et al. [6] developed the
expansions to analyze S-lay method, which is one of the
earliest works in S-lay method. On the basis of previous
works, Zhu et al. [7] employed the perturbation method for
the optimization of buoyancy of an articulated stinger. Later,
Guarracino et al. [8] improved the perturbation method on
S-lay method by considering the effect of ovalization based on
the work of Zhu. However, some assumptions, such as calm
water and rigid seabed, are necessary to obtain the final
solution by perturbation method. Considering the highly
nonlinear behavior of the pipeline during laying process, some
previous numerical methods have been adopted. Wilkins et al.
[9] applied finite difference equations and load deflection
curves to form a mathematical model of the
pipeline-stinger-lay barge system. Ovunc [10,11], Oliver and
Oate [12] analyzed the problem by means of finite element
method. Besides, Guarracino [8] and Konuk [13] have
compared the results by numerical analysis with those by
perturbation method in order to prove the reliability of the
results. More recently, Martinez et al. [14] provided a better
simulation of the boundary conditions at the stinger by
introducing a series of springs, however the boundary
condition at the seabed is assumed to be a zero slope and zero
bending moment. The influence of ocean currents and the pipe
embedment cannot yet be included in previous numerical
analysis.
This work proposed a simple numerical model on
pipeline laying by S-lay method. The pipeline is divided into
four parts according to their different mechanical
characteristics and the continuity between the neighboring
parts is well guaranteed.
Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2010
OMAE2010-20552
Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2010
OMAE2010-205
Downloaded 01 Apr 2011 to 222.205.116.96. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Nomenclature
a, b,c
1
-c
4
coefficients
dl strained length of an differential pipe element
D outer diameter of the pipeline
e embedment depth
e
embedment depth at x
E elastic modulus of the pipeline
F
n
drag force in the normal direction
F
drag force in the tangential direction

F
so
soil resistance
F
st
stinger resistance
h
1
height from the deck to water surface
(free-board)
h
2
water height
I moment of inertia of the pipe cross-section
k seabed stiffness
l pipeline length from the origin to the ending
point
M bending moment of the pipeline
M

TDP
pipeline bending moment in water at TDP
M
+
TDP
pipeline bending moment on the seabed at TDP
r
1
outer radius of the pipeline
r
2
inner radius of the pipeline
R pipeline radius
R
st
radius of the stinger
T axial tension
w
1
unit weight of pipeline in the air
w
2
unit weight of pipeline in water
axial strain of the pipeline
l
axial strain of the pipeline at the lower side
u
axial strain of the pipeline at the upper side
increase rate of shear strength of soil
slope angle between horizontal line and
tangential direction of a pipe segment
curvature of the pipeline
central angle of part I

2 LOADS AND GOVERNING EQUATIONS

Figure 1. Configuration of pipeline by S-lay method.

Fig. 1 illustrates a typical configuration of a pipeline in
S-lay. The pipeline is divided into four parts by the following
three points:
(1) Liftoff point (LOP), which is the point where the
pipeline leaves the stinger;
(2) Division point (DP). It is not simply the traditional
inflection point where the curvature of pipeline is zero, but
where the influence of bending moment becomes negligible;
(3) Touchdown point (TDP), which is the point where the
pipe first touches the seabed.

2.1 Part

This part is laid on the stinger where the curvature is the
same as the stinger. The origin of the coordinate system is
located at the starting point of the pipeline at the top, and the
directions of x and y axes are shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2. Scheme of Part I

Pipeline of this part comprises two components,
component A in the air and component B in water, both of
which are assumed to fully contact with the stinger. For a
differential element of component A, the segment is loaded by
the axial tension, bending moment, self-weight and the stinger
resistance, while for the element of component B, there are
extra hydrodynamic forces, as shown in Fig. 3.
The curvature of the pipeline of this part is the same as
that of the stinger, so the bending moment remains a constant.
By taking force equilibrium of elements of component A and
B in the tangential direction, the governing equations are
obtained
For component A
1
sin dT w dl =
(1)
For component B
2
sin dT w dl F dl
= +
(2)
where the steady hydrodynamic forces can be obtained by
Morisons equation:
2
0.5 ( sin )
n w n
F C D v =
(3)
2
0.5 ( cos )
w
F C D v

=
(4)

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Force sketch of differential elements of:
(a) component A; (b) component B.

It should be noted that the directions of hydrodynamic
forces are closely related with the current direction. If the
part II
TDP
part I
ocean current
seabed
part III
part IV
LOP
DP
ocean current
component A
component B
LOP
y
x
stinger
upper side
lower side
origin
M+dM
w
1
dl
M

dl
+d
F
st
T
T+dT
y
x
M+dM
w
2
dl
M
dl
+d
F
st
T
T+dT
F
n
dl
F
dl
y
x
current direction in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 (b) changes to the
positive x direction, the corresponding hydrodynamic forces in
the governing equations should be replaced by -F
n
and -F
,
respectively.

Under the integrated result of both axial tension and the
bending moment, axial strain occurs along the pipeline. The
maximum positive and negative stress caused by bending
moment can be derived on the basis of material mechanics.

1
st
Er
R
=
(5)
So the strain can be derived as:
1
st
r T
EA R
=
(6)
where the sign means that when the pipeline is stretched
under the effect of bending moment, the sign + is adopted,
while if the pipeline is compressed the sign should be
used. Besides, it is regulated in this work that if the lower side
of the pipeline is stretched, the bending moment is positive.

2.2 Part II

Figure 4. Force sketch of a differential element of part II.

This is a part suspended below and close to LOP, so the
curvature of this part is not only affected by its self weight and
hydrodynamic forces, but greatly influenced by the bending
moment at LOP, and the force sketch of a differential element
is shown in Fig. 4. Gu [15] presented an expression that can
approximately describe the curvature lower than and close to
the LOP in calm water, and he pointed out that the curvature is
influenced by both the bending moment at LOP and the self
weight. However, when the water is not calm, the influence of
hydrodynamic forces should be taken into consideration, so
the curvature should be expressed as:
1 1 1 1
( ) ( ) ( )
m w c
R s R s R s R
=
(7)
where s is the arc length of pipeline from liftoff point, 1/R(s)
is the pipeline curvature at arc length of s, 1/R
m
(s) is the
curvature component caused by bending moment at the liftoff
point, 1/R
w
(s) is the curvature component caused by self
weight, 1/R
c
(s) is the curvature component caused by currents.
The expressions for 1/R
m
(s), 1/R
w
(s) and 1/R
c
(s) can be
derived from beam theory:
1 1
[ ]
( )
m st
T T
ch s sh s
R s R EI EI
=
(8)
1 cos
( )
w
w
R s T
=
(9)
1
2
n
c
F dl
R EI
=
(10)
By taking the force equilibrium in the tangential
direction and neglecting the higher-order terms, we have:
2
sin dT w dl F dl
= + (11)
Geometrically, the following relationships can be
obtained:

cos dx dl = (12)

sin dy dl = (13)

2.3 Part III

Figure 5. Force sketch of a differential element of part III.

The curvature in this part is controlled by the tension
applied at the top, and sudden movement of the ship or loss of
tension for whatever reason can result in excessive bending,
local buckling and collapse [16]. Many previous works paid
much attention on the boundary layer effect near TDP, and
they have proved that the bending moment close to TDP
cannot be ignored when the seabed is rigid. However, the
boundary effect in this work has much less influence on the
pipeline, or it could be ignored when the seabed is very soft,
because the embedment of the pipeline enables the pipeline
curvature change smoothly at TDP as will be shown in section
3.2. So, considering the mechanical properties of this part,
catenary method can provide a good approximation of the
pipeline configuration.
Considering force equilibrium of an infinitesimal
element shown in Fig. 5, the governing equations can be
obtained:
2
sin cos
n
dV F dl F dl w dl
= (14)
sin cos
n
dH F dl F dl
= + (15)
According to the relation between forces and the angle :
tan
V
H
=
(16)
the angle change can be expressed as:
arctan( ) arctan( )
V dV V
d
H dH H
+
=
+
(17)
Besides, though the pipeline of this part does not support
bending moment, the real bending moment can be
approximately obtained by multiplying the bending stiffness
EI and the curvature
:

M EI =
(18)
The geometric relationships are the same as part II,
namely Eq. (14) and Eq. (15).

2.4 Part IV

The pipeline embedment plays an important role on
further movement of the pipeline such as buckling and
walking, so the traditional assumption of rigid seabed is
gotten rid of and the seabed is considered to behave like a
Winkler foundation in this work. Elementary beam theory is
used as the basis for developing formulations for a differential
M+dM
w
2
dl
M

dl
+d
T
T+dT
F
n
dl
F
dl
y
x
S+dS
S
V+dV
+d
F
n
dl
F
dl
w
2
dl
V

H
dl
H+dH
y
x
element shown in Fig. 6 [17]:
4 2
1 2 2 4 2
( )
d y d y
EI T k y h h w
dx dx
+ =

(19)
where T is a constant. For
2 T EIk >
, no real solution can be
obtained, but for
2 T EIk
, the general solution can be
obtained as:
2
1 2 1 2
3 4
cos( ) sin( )
cos( ) sin( )
x x
x x
w
y h h c e x c e x
k
c e x c e x

= + + + +
+ +

(20)
where
1
2
2
k T
EI EI
= +
(21)

1
2
2
k T
EI EI
=
(22)
It must be noted that the inequality 2 T EIk needs to
be checked at the end of calculation, and it can always be
satisfied by the solutions presented in the following work.

Figure 6. Force sketch of a differential element of part IV.

Considering the boundary condition at x where
the embedment of pipe is only influenced by its self-weight
and the value of y

approximates h
1
+h
2
+w
2
/kc
3
and c
4
must be
zero. Therefore, Eq. (20) can be simplified as:
2
1 2 1 2
cos( ) sin( )
x x
w
y h h c e x c e x
k

= + + + +

(23)
The associated bending moment is

2
2
d y
M EI
dx
=
(24)

3 NUMERICAL SOLUTION

3.1 Iteration procedure

Figure 7. Scheme of element division.

In many cases, the position of the liftoff point is
determined in advance for design, while the whole
configuration and load distribution are unknown. So the aim
of the calculation is to obtain a reasonable solution to
investigate the stress and strain under a given position of
liftoff point and certain environmental conditions. It should be
noted that, when the tension at the tensioners is given while
the position of the liftoff point is unknown, the calculation can
also be executed with a similar iteration procedure. As shown
in Fig. 7, the origin of the coordinate system locates at the
starting point of the pipeline at the top, and the axis x directs
left and axis y directs downwards. From the origin to TDP, the
pipeline is divided into m small differential elements of the
same length arc dl with m+1 end points ranging from 1 at the
origin to m+1 at TDP. From TDP to the ending point (EP), the
pipeline is divided into n small differential elements of the
same coordinate increment dx, and the number of end point at
EP is n+m+1.
In the iteration process, the continuity of both the
geometry and bending moment should be guaranteed. Such a
process can be realized through the following steps:

(i) Calculation in part I
The sketch of part I is shown in Fig. 8. By applying an
assumed top tension T
1
to the origin, the iteration can get
started in part I.
1
i
st
M EI
R
=
(25)
where
1
st
R
is the curvature, which is a constant for this part.
1 i i
T T dT
+
= + (26)
1 i
i
st
T r
EA R
=
(27)
1
(sin sin )
i i
x R = (28)
1
(cos cos )
i i
y R = (29)
The position of liftoff point is pre-determined by the
central angle , so when the arc length dli reaches R, the
calculation for part I comes to the end.

Figure 8. Sketch of part I.

(ii) Calculation in part II
By virtue of Eq. (7) to Eq. (13), the iteration equations of
part II can be derived:
1
( )
i
i
R s
=
(30)
1
( )
i
i
M EI
R s
=
(31)
where s
i
is the arc length from liftoff point and it can be
obtained as s
i
=dli-R
st
.
S+dS
S
T
M
M+dM
+d

k(y-h)dl
T+dT
y
x
wdl
dl
x
y
anchor pile
1
seabed
i
TDP
ocean current
EP
O
V
i

H
i

dl
LOP
DP
n+m+1
i+1
m+1
dx
h
1
h
2
T
1

1

LOP

1
R
y
i
O

i
x
i
T
1

i

h
1
y
x
1 i i
T T dT
+
= +
(32)
1 i i
x x dx
+
= +
(33)
1 i i
y y dy
+
= +
(34)
On the basis of Eq. (6), the strain can be expressed as:
1
( )
i
i
i
T r
EA R s
=
(35)
The continuity between the part I and part II can be well
guaranteed through transition at liftoff point.

(iii) Determination of the position of DP
The position of the division point is not known in
advance, so it should be determined in the iteration process. In
view of the fact that the division point is both the end of part
II and beginning of part III, and the difference in calculation
between the two parts is mainly the expression of bending
moment, a comparison of bending moments is made in order
to estimate the position of division point. If the bending
moments at point i calculated by Eq. (31) and by catenary
method are close enough, point i is the division point.
The approximate bending moment derived from catenary
method is obtained by virtue of Eq. (17) and Eq. (18):

'
arctan( ) arctan( )
i i
i
i i
V dV V
d
H dH H
+
=
+
(36)
'
' i
i
d
M EI
dl
=
(37)
where the superscript
'
means that
'
i
d
and
'
i
M
are just
for comparison. V
i
and H
i
are the vertical and horizontal
component of axial tension: V
i
=T
i
sin
i
; H
i
=T
i
cos
i
. dV and dH
are determined by Eq. (14) and Eq. (15).
'
i
M
is compared
with M
i
which is the bending moment gained from Eq. (32).
The comparison is made until
'
( )
i i i
M M M < , where
is a small specified quantity, then the division point can be
determined and the calculation can proceed to part III.

(iv) Calculation in part III
At this step, the iteration equations for part III are
obtained as :

2 2
i i i
T V H = +
(38)
arctan( ) arctan( )
i i i
i
i i i
V dV V
d
H dH H
+
=
+
(39)
i
i
d
M EI
dl
=
(40)
1
i i
i
T d
r
EA dl
=
(41)
The geometric equations are the same as Eq. (33) and
(34).

(v) Continuity at TDP
The calculation of part III can proceed until
|y
i
-(h
1
+h
2
)|<, where is a small specified quantity. For
pipeline on the seabed, Eq. (23) should be solved to determine
the two variables c
1
and c
2
, which needs two boundary
conditions. Considering the boundary conditions at x

have already been satisfied, in order to guarantee the
continuity at TDP, two boundary conditions at TDP, namely
the continuity of coordinates and the slope, are adopted:
1 2 TDP
y h h = + (42)
1 2
tan
m
y h h
dy
dx

= +
=

(43)
On the basis of Eq. (42), Eq. (43) and Eq. (23), c
1
and c
2

can be uniquely determined for a given T
1
, and then the
corresponding pipeline configuration and internal loads along
the pipe can be obtained. For a different T
1
, the results are
different. However, only one group of results can guarantee
the continuity of bending moment at TDP, which needs to be
checked at the end of each calculation. So iteration is needed
to obtain the reasonable T
1
. In order to guarantee the
continuity of bending moment at TDP, |M

+
TDP
- M

-
TDP
|<
must be satisfied, where is a small specified quantity. If the
bending moment is continuous, calculation can proceed to EP
which is set previously by l
EP
or x
EP
.

(vi) Calculation in part IV
Based on Eq. (23.) and Eq. (24), the iteration equations
can be expressed as:
1
( )
i m
x x dl i m
+
= + ( ) i m > (44)
2
1 2 1 2
cos( ) sin( )
i i
x x
i i i
w
y h h c e x c e x
k

= + + + +
(45)
1 i m
T T
+
=
(46)

2
2
i
i
x x
d y
M EI
dx
=
=
(47)
When the calculation proceeds to the ending point, the
whole calculation is completed.

3.2 Comparison and discussion

In order to discuss the application of the proposed
procedure, a comparison is performed with the results worked
out by Guarracina [18]. The pipeline in the comparison is laid
in 750 m water depth, with diameter 508 mm, wall thickness
13.6 mm and a submerged weight of 3.12 kN/m. The tension
at the top is 4905 kN. The stinger radius is assumed to be
120m, the free-board is zero, and top angle and the slope
angle of the seabed are zero. Besides, noticing that rigid
seabed is necessary for the solution by Guarracina [18], a high
soil stiffness of 10
6
kN/m
2
is adopted in the present solution in
order to make the comparison reasonable.

Figure 9. Comparison of pipeline configurations.

Fig. 9 shows the juxtaposition of the pipeline deflections
obtained by the present and Guarracinas solutions. Its
evident that the two solutions coincide well for the part on and
close to the stinger. The difference becomes obvious with the
water depth becoming deeper, which may be caused by the
difference in approaches to get the solution, such as different
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
800
600
400
200
0
y

(
m
)
x (m)
Guarracino
Present
LOP
DP
TDP EP
treatments of the boundary condition at TDP. Guarracina [8]
adopted perturbation method and the bending moment sharply
becomes zero at TDP, while the present method provided a
smooth transition of bending moment from the suspended part
to the part laid on the seabed as Fig. 10 shows.

Figure 10. Comparison of pipeline curvatures.

4 PARAMETER ANALYSIS

4.1 Basic parameters

Parameters are critical for the calculation and they should
be selected reasonably. The diameter, thickness and
submerged unit weight of the pipeline is the same as the
former example in section 3.2. The pipeline is laid in a
relatively deeper water of 2000m in depth and 1000kg/m
3
in
density. The relative parameters of the laying barge are: the
radius of the stinger is 100m; the free-board is 5m; top angle
is 10
; the designed central angle of part I is 54
. The
hydrodynamic parameters and the seabed stiffness are
discussed in detail as follows.

Figure 11. Variation of soil resistance and shear strength with
embedment depth.

The relationship between soil resistance and the
embedment is nonlinear, and much work has been done to
reveal the interaction mechanism between pipe and the seabed
[18-22]. In this work, the interaction relationship between
pipe and seabed is obtained based on the work of Aubeny et al.
[21] which concluded an empirical power expression:
( )
b so
u
R e
a
S D D
=
(48)
where R
so
is the soil resistance to a pipe segment of unit length.
Coefficients a and b are related with pipe roughness and the
variation of shear strength of soil.
The pipe is assumed to be rough, and the shear strength
of soil varies linearly by increase rate =1.0 kPa/m from 0 at
the mudline as Fig. 11 shows. The values of a and b for
different cases can be determined on the basis of [21]: for
e/D<0.5, the recommended values of coefficients are a=5.95
and b=0.15, so R
so
=6.8425D
0.85
e
1.15
; for e/D>0.5, a =6.02 and
b =0.20, so R
so
=9.03D
0.8
e
1.2
, where the indexes of e, namely
1.15 and 1.2, are very close to 1, so the results can be well
fitted linearly as shown in Fig. 11. The fitted soil stiffness
k=3.9602 kN/m
2
is adopted for the following calculation, so
the soil resistance R
so
=3.9602e kN/m.
As for the hydrodynamic parameters, the normal drag
coefficient C
n
depends on various factors such as Reynolds
number, roughness of the pipe and vortex induced vibration.
C
n
=1.2 is chosen in the following calculations [23]. Wilson
[24] recommended that the ratio of C

/C
n
ranges from 0.01 to
0.03 for different cylinders and cables. In this work, C

/C
n

=0.02 is selected, so C

=0.024.

4.2 Influence of position of LOP

During the pipeline laying process, the pipeline will slide
from the stinger down to the water under axial tension and self
weight, which leads to the change of position of LOP as well
as load and stress distribution along the pipeline. The position
of LOP can be represented as the central angle of part I, so
four central angles are selected in order to investigate the
influence of position of LOP: =30
, =40
, =50
, =60
.

Figure 12. Pipeline configurations during laying process.

In reality, the laying barge at the water surface is fixed by
anchors or dynamic positioning system, so the starting point
in each calculation doesnt change for different central angles.
The position of the ending points are set by the same length
along the x axial: x=3500m. As Fig. 12 shows, pipeline
configuration changes a lot with its TDP getting closer to the
barge as listed in Table 1. During the laying process, the
length of laid pipeline changes continuously, and different
lengths result in different stress and strain states. Moreover,
the length of laid pipeline is easy to measure, so it can be
taken as a indirect reference to control stress and strain along
the pipeline.
The curvature distribution is shown in Fig. 13, where the
maximum negative curvature remains the same for different
central angles while the maximum positive curvature
increases when the pipeline is continuously laid down to the
water.
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
-0.010
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0.000
0.002
Guarracino
Present

(
m
-
1
)
x (m)
sharp inflection
smooth transition

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
s
o
i
l

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
k
P
a
)

e (m)
R
s
o

(
k
N
/
m
)
R
so
by Anbeny (2005)
Linear fit of R
so
by Aubeny (2005)
Soil shear strength
k=3.9602
=1.0
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
2000
1500
1000
500
0

y

(
m
)
x (m)
=30

=40

=50

=60


Figure 13. Curvature distributions during the laying process.

Figure 14. Tension distributions during the laying process.

The process of laying pipeline is also a process of
releasing the axial tension. As illustrated in Fig. 14 and Table
1, the axial tension becomes smaller when the central angle
gets larger. It is worth noticing that the curvature and bending
moment have opposite change tendency, so their
comprehensive effect should be taken into account in order to
estimate the precise location of the weakest point.

(a)
(b)
Figure 15. Distributions of pipeline strain at:
(a) the upper side; (b) at the lower side.
Table 1. Change of critical parameters during laying process.
(
)
x
TDP

(m)
l
(m)
|
max
|
T
max

(MN)
umax

(%)
lmax

(%)
30 3192.31 4218.26 0.01 14.60 0.90 0.65
40 2246.34 4419.53 0.01 10.53 0.72 0.46
50 1437.98 4680.23 0.01 8.08 0.61 0.35
60 1122.11 4814.56 0.01 7.38 0.58 0.32
Annotation*: the subscript max means the maximum

Based on Eq. (6), the strain of the pipeline under the
combined effect of both axial tension and bending moment
can be obtained as shown in Fig. 15. The variation of pipeline
strain varies at different sides of the pipeline: for the upper
side of the pipeline, the position of the maximum strain occurs
at the starting point where both the maximum negative
curvature and tension appear; for the lower side, the position
of the maximum strain lies at DP. For both upper and lower
side, the strains have a decreasing tendency with the laying
process going on, so it can be concluded that axial tension has
a dominating influence on the pipeline strain.

4.3 Influence of current velocity

For simplicity, the distribution of current velocity is
considered to vary linearly with the maximum velocity at the
surface and zero at the bottom. And three different maximum
surface velocities are selected with their positive direction the
same as the positive x direction: -2 m/s, 0 m/s and 2 m/s.
Fig. 16 illustrates the configurations of pipelines in
different current velocities. In order to make the comparison
reasonable, the EPs for different currents are the same point
which is set by the same arc length. The calculation results in
Fig. 16 and Table 2 indicate that the difference between the
configurations is negligible.

Figure 16. Pipeline configurations under different currents.

Table 2. Influence of currents.
V
max
(m/s) T
max
(MN) |
max
|
umax
(%)
lmax
(%)
0 7.3793 0.0100 0.5822 0.3160
-2 7.3567 0.0100 0.5812 0.3150
2 7.3810 0.0100 0.5823 0.3161

Under the influence of different ocean currents, the
maximum tension along the pipeline changes slightly with a
decrease for a negative current velocity and an increase for a
positive current velocity as shown in Table 2. The maximum
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

-0.010
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0.000
0.002
0.004

x (m)
=30

=40

=50

=60

(
m
-
1
)

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14

T

(
M
N
)
x (m)
=30

=40

=50

=60
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009

x (m)
=30

=40

=50

=60
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
x (m)
=30

=40

=50

=60

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
2000
1500
1000
500
0
y

(
m
)
x (m)
v
max
=0 m/s
v
max
=2 m/s
v
max
=-2m/s
curvature of the pipeline remains the same for different
currents. Under the combined effect of axial tension and
bending moment, the strains decrease for a negative current,
while increase for a positive current, and the maximum strains
at both the upper and lower side change just a little.
As discussed above, the currents have little influence on
the pipeline during S-lay, which can be attributed to the high
axial tension during the laying process. Compared with the
tension, the hydrodynamic forces are too small, so they
contribute little to the changes. But it can contribute to the
precision of the results to take into account of the ocean
currents.

4.4 Influence of seabed stiffness

Though rigid seabed is widely accepted in some previous
research for simplicity, Palmer [25] pointed out a seabed
composed of sediment cannot withstand a concentrated force
without deforming. The deformation is sometimes taken into
account by a touchdown factor which simply multiplies the
submerged weight by 2 or 3. However, the influence of the lay
parameters, particularly the lay tension, pipeline bending
stiffness and seabed stiffness cannot be included in the
touchdown factor. The stiffness of seabed is significant
because it determines the embedment depth of the pipeline
which is a critical factor to the soils resistance when the
pipeline is buckling or walking, and the importance of the
lateral resistance has been pointed out by Palmer [26].

Figure 17. Seabed stiffness.

Figure 18. Pipeline configurations from TDP to EP.

Three types of soil with different shear strength are
selected: =1.0kPa/m, =10.0kPa/m and =100.0kP/m. On the
basis of [20], the relationship between soil resistance and pipe
embedment can be obtained. And a linearly fitted relationship
for each soil type can be gained, as shown in Fig. 17.

Table 3. Pipe embedment for different soil strength.
(kPa/m) e
max
(m) e
(m) (e
max
-e
)/e
max
(%)
1.0 0.8044 0.7879 2.0512
10.0 0.1068 0.0788 26.2172
100.0 0.01177 0.0079 32.8802

The influence on the configuration of part IV is shown in
Fig. 18 where the embedment varies apparently for different
seabed stiffness. For each configuration, a concaved shape can
be observed near TDP, and it is right the place where the
maximum embedment e
max
appears. As Fig. 18 and Table 3
show, both e
max
and e
decrease with the increasing seabed

stiffness, where e
is controlled by the self-weight of pipe and

e
max
is mainly caused by both its self-weight and the bending
moment near TDP. Besides, it can be seen from Table 3 that
e
max
and e
becomes closer when the seabed gets softer and

the difference even decrease to about 2% for the softest soil. It
can be concluded that, when the seabed becomes softer,
embedment near TDP becomes dominated by self-weight, and
the bending moment has less influence on the pipe at the
neighborhood of TDP.

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A rather simple and general numerical model for pipeline
in S-lay method has been presented, which can make a better
consideration of the real situation by taking into account the
influence of ocean currents and seabed stiffness. The model
developed in this work enables us to unify many problems
associated with pipelines, because most of them can
mathematically be described as thin rods with nonlinear
and/or large deformations. The key feature of this model is
separating the pipeline into four parts according to their
different mechanical properties and the continuity between
neighboring parts is well guaranteed to make the pipeline as a
whole. A number of illustrative examples show the
widespread applicability of the model, and comparison with
previous work allow demonstration of its reliability.
The configuration, stress and strain states change
continuously with the pipeline being laid down, and the length
of laid pipeline can be adopted to control the stress and strain.
The ocean current, as calculated in the examples, has little
influence on pipeline, which proves the barges excellent
ability of station keeping in currents during S-lay. As
illustrated in the examples, seabed stiffness plays an important
role in the pipeline embedment depth which changes a lot for
different seabed stiffness. So the seabed stiffness must be
taken into consideration in pipeline design, and currents can
be considered to make the results more precise.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the
Grant No. 50779061 from the National Nature Science
Foundation of China.

7 REFERENCES

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0
100
200
300
400
500

R
s
o

(
k
N
/
m
)
e (m)
=1.0e
=10.0e
=100.0e
linear fir for =100.0e
k=396.0155
k=39.6015
k=3.9602
1300 1280 1260 1240 1220 1200 1180 1160 1140 1120
2006.0
2005.5
2005.0
2004.5
y

(
m
)
x (m)
k=0.0396
k=0.3960
k=3.9602
[1] Kashani, M. and Young, R., 2005, Installation load
consideration in ultra-deepwater pipeline sizing, J ournal
of transportation engineering, 131 (8), pp: 632-639.
[2] Torselletti, E., Brusci, R., Vitali, L., and , Marchesani, F.,
1999, Lay challenges in deep waters: Technologies and
criteria,. Proc. 2nd Int. Deepwater Pipeline Technology,
Clarion Technical Conf., New Orleans, Louisiana.
[3] Wasow W., 1956, Singular perturbations of boundary
value problems for nonlinear differential equations of
second order, Pure Appl Math, 9, pp: 93-113.
[4] Plunkett R., 1967, Static bending stresses in catenaries
and drill strings, J ournal of Engineering for Industry, 39B
(1), pp:31-36.
[5] Dixon D.A., Rultledge D.R., 1968, Stiffened catenary
calculation in pipeline laying problem, J ournal of
Engineering for Industry, 90B (1) pp: 153-160.
[6] Palmer A.C., Hutchinson G., Ells W.J ., 1974,
Configuration of submarine pipelines during laying
operations, Journal of Engineering for Industry ASME,
pp: 1112-1118.
[7] Zhu D.S., Cheung Y.K., 1997, Optimization of buoyancy
of an articulated stinger on submerger pipelines laid with a
barge, Ocean engineering, 24(4) pp: 301-311.
[8] Guarracino F., Mallardo V., 1999, A refined analytical
analysis of submerged pipelines in seabed laying, Applied
Ocean Research, 21, pp: 281-293.
[9] Wilkins J .R., J . Ray McDermott & Co., 1970, Offshore
pipeline stress analysis, Offshore technology conference,
OTC 1227, Texas, pp: 11-19.
[10] Ovunc B. 1982, Design of offshore pipelines,, J .
Pipelines. 2(4), pp: 285-295.
[11] Ovunc B., 1982, Geometrical nonlinearity in offshore
pipelines, Proceedings of the international conference
of pipeline design and installation, Las Vegas, pp:
336-350.
[12] Oliver J ., Oate E., 1985, A finite element formulation
for the analysis of marine pipelines during laying
operations, J . pipelines, 5, pp: 15-35.
[13] Konuk I., 1980, Higher order approximations in stress
analysis of submarine pipelines, J ournal of Energy
resources technology.102, pp:190-196.
[14] Martinez C.E., Goncalves R., 2003, Laying modeling of
submarine pipelines using contact elements into a
corotational formulation, J ournal of offshore
mechanics and arctic engineering, 125, pp: 145-152.
[15] Yong-Ning G., 1989, Analysis f pipeline behaviors
during laying operation, China ocean engineering, 3(4),
pp: 477-486.
[16] Kyriakides S., Corona E., 2007, Mechanics of offshore
pipelines: volume 1 buckling and collapse, Elsevier
Science, Oxford, UK, Chapter 2.
[17] Lenci S., Callegari M., 2005, Simple analytical models
for the J -lay problem, Acta Mechanica, 178, pp: 23-29.
[18] Murff, J .D., Wanger, D.A., Randolph, M.F, 1989, Pipe
penetration in cohesive soil, Geotechnique, 39(2) pp:
213-229.
[19] Aubeny, C.P., Dunlap, W.A., 2003, Penetration of
cylindrical objects in soft mud, Proc. IEEE Oceans, Pp:
2068-2073.
[20] Bridge, C., Laver, K., Clukey, E., Evans, T. 2004, Steel
catenary riser touchdown point vertical interaction
models, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 16628,
pp: 1-8.
[21] Aubeny, C.P., Shi, H., Murff, J.D., 2005, Collapse loads
for a cylinder embedded in trench in cohesive soil,
International J ournal of Geomechanics, 5(4), pp:
320-325.
[22] Merifield, R., White, D.J ., Randolph, M.F., 2008, The
ultimate undrained resistance of partially embedded
pipelines, Geotechnique, 58(6), pp: 461-470.
[23] Berteaux, H.O., 1976, Buoy engineering, New York, John
Wiley and Sons Inc., pp. 104-105.
[24] Wilson B.W., 1960, Characteristics of anchor cables in
uniform ocean currents, A&M college of Texas,
Technical report, No. 204-1.
[25] Palmer, A.C., 2008, Touchdown indention of the seabed,
Applied ocean research, 30, pp:235-238.
[26] Palmer, A.C., King, R.A., 2008, Subsea pipeline
engineering, Pennwell corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
Chapter 14.

Numerical Analysis For Pipeline Installation by S-Lay Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Analysis For Pipeline Installation by S-Lay Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Copyright 2010 by ASME

drag force in the tangential direction

; the designed central angle of part I is 54

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

decrease with the increasing seabed

is controlled by the self-weight of pipe and

becomes closer when the seabed gets softer and

You might also like