PlOceedlngs of Ihe FH sl (1990) EUI opean OffshOi e Mechanrcs SympOSIUm

TI ondhelm, NO! way, 20-22 Augusl 1990

COPYlIl?hl 1990 by The InrelnatlOnai Souely ofOffshOie and Polal Englneel'
ISBN 0-9626104-4-5

FLEXIBLE RISER BEHAVIOUR AND MODELLING

H H coo~
BP Engmeenng
London, England

I J Fyillng
Manntek
Trondhelm, Norway

ABSTRACT

Ne

Results are presented of a comparison between the

observed behaviour of two model flexible riser
systems subject to environmental loads and
simulated floating production system vessel
motion, and the behaviour predicted using a
flexible
riser computer modelling program.
Significant results are the validation of the
modelling program over a range of environmental
conditions and the establishment of representative
drag coefficients for sections of riser with
distributed bluff-faced buoyancy modules.
The
need for an improved understanding of the drag
characteristics for such systems is identified.

( -)

N KC - Keulegan - Carpenter Number

T
- Wave period (s)
FPS

RAO

RIFLEX
SINTEF

Riser, Flexible, Drag Coefficient, Modelling,

Analysis, Floating Production System (FPS).

a
Cnb
Cnp

De
H

- amplitude of oscillatory flow (m)

- Morison drag coefficient of buoyed pipe
direction normal to pipe axis (-)
Morison drag coefficient of bare pipe
direction normal to pipe axis (-)
- Morison drag coefficient of buoyed pipe
direction parallel to pipe axis (-)
- Morison drag coefficient of bare pipe
direction parallel to pipe axis (-)
- Pipe external diameter (m)

- Number of mesh elements in a riser segment

1.

= 2n

alOe

Floating Production System

Response Amplitude Operator
Flexible Riser Analysis Computer
Progrannne
Structural Research Establishment,
Trondheim, Norway

INTRODUCTIm

This paper presents the results of a

comparison between the observed behaviour of
two model-scale flexible riser systems subject
to environmental loads and simulated floating
production system (FPS) vessel motion, and the
be~aviour predicted using C\ state-of-the-art
flexible riser computer modelling program.

in
in

The study was instigated by BP as a result of

experiences gained on the concept design
studies for a floating production, storage and
offloading unit for BP's 23/26a North Sea
field in 85m water depth.
The development
plan intended the use of a bow-moored tanker
with turret and flexible risers. Originally
thought to be an impractical concept for this
water depth at the 20 year return storm
condition, through extensive use of a computer
modelling program for flexible risers and
refinement of flexible riser design the
concept was deemed feasible. Further work of
an investigative nature, outwith the main
project, was thus undertaken.

in
in

- Wave height, peak to peak (m)

- Length of riser segment (m)
- submerged pipe weight/unit length
including contents (tonne/m)

433

The models were constructed from

silicone rubber tube, ballasted to the
correct in-water weight using small
lead weights equispaced and suspended
on the inside using a thin nylon
filament. The axial stiffness of the
model was determined by both the
silicon tube and the filament, the
bending stiffness being determined by
the tube alone. Bend stiffeners were
moulded using silicon rubber. Buoyancy
modules
using
a
plastic
foam
(divinycell), ballasted to give the
correct in-water weight.

The primary objective of the work was to

examine in detail the accuracy and modelling
capabilities of the program. A secondary
objective was to compare the behaviour of the
two different riser systems under identical
imposed loadings.
Lightweight pipes were specifically chosen for
the study since they were representative of
elastomeric flexible pipe constructions and
because they would ensure large deflections
under hydrodynamic loading. While this was
expected to be impractical for a full scale
tanker-based floating production system in
this water depth, it was viewed as a
reasonable basis for computer program - model
comparisons.

'I2\BLB 1: III!CIIl\NICAL PROPERTIES 01" TIlE RISERS- PULLSOILE IlM2\.

The riser systems separately examined were a

"steep wave" and a "lazy wave" configuration
in 120m water depth. The top end of the riser
was subject to motions dependent on the
prevailing wave conditions, based in part on
that of a turret on a bow-moored tanker. The
flexible riser models were built to a scale of
1:32.67 and tested in the Towing Tank at
Marintek's Ocean Laboratory in Trondheim,
NOrway. The models and range of experimental
parameters used are fully described in Section
2.

Steep
wave
External p1pe d1ameter, De (m)
P1pe mass, mclud1ng contents (kgj'm)

The models' behaviour was predicted using the

flexible riser modelling program "RIFLEX" ,
specifically written for the analysis of
flexible riser systems, developed by SINTEF
under a joint industry project, see Reference
1. This is a program with features such as
linear and nonlinear analysis, regular or
irregular waves, seabed friction, slug flow
analysis, and other options to cover most
expected analysis requirements for floating
production systems.

the development of realistic drag

coefficients based on comparisons under
static conditions.
the predicted
conditions.

behaviour

under

dynamic

RISER MODELS

2.1

.294
140.

Submerged p1pe we1ght (kNj'm)

.494

.691

Alual st1ffness, EA (kN)

29200.

29200.

Bendmg st1ffness, EI (kNm')

30.7

30.7

Mass of buoyed plpe, lnc contents

( kgj'm)

202.4

243.3

Submerged we1ght of buoyed p1pe

(kNj'm)

-.669

-.798

The underwater cameras were mounted on

the same towed structure as the riser
upper and lower ends, thus all relative
movement observed in the camera field
of view represents riser movement under
current and wave loading at full scale.
Underwater lighting is used to ensure a
clear light image of the riser against
a darker background of the towing tank.
Processing of the TV image Signal is
used to calculate in real time the
x-position of the riser at selected
positions within the camera's field of
view. The "centre of gravity" of the
riser image single pulse is used to
define
the
riser
poSition,
the
resolution being much better than half
a pipe diameter.
Alternatively, the
z-position of the riser can be
determined if the camera orientation is
changed
by
90 0
Measurement,
processing
and
storage
is
straightforward for cases where all
movement is 2-d.imensional.
For

the comparison of the two riser systems'

behaviour.

2.

120.

The models were attached to a towing

frame within a towing tank and to an
exciter at the riser top end to provide
simulated vessel heave and surge
motion.
Riser motions were measured
using underwater
cameras
and
a
"TV-line" system. Full details of the
TV-line system are given in Reference
2, but a brief description is given
below.

In the following sections the details of both

the physical and theoretical models are
described. The results are then discussed in
three stages:

.294

Lazy
wave

Physical Models and Measurement System

The steep wave and lazy wave models
used are depicted in Figures 1 and 2,
showing overall riser geometry.
The
physical properties of the full size
flexible pipes they represent are shown
in Table 1.
They are based on 8"
nominal bore flexible pipe.

434

3-dimensional
monitoring
(eg
90
wave/current directions), cameras are
mounted in pairs and the signals
combined to determine riser position.
In all cases stringent calibrations
were made to ensure that reference
frames wi thin the 'lV camera field of
view, and of the riser in the towing
frame were correct and could be
correlated.

In all the analyses, Airy waves and

linear mechanical stiffness properties
are assumed. wave amplitudes and phase
angles are based upon the first
harmonics fran the Fourier analyses of
measured wave motions.
Dynamic analyses were of either linear
or non-linear type, where the element
bending restoring force calculated for
the static configuration is updated
during subsequent dynamic analysis.

Environmental current was simulated by

steady motion of the towing frame.
Waves were produced fran the towing
tank
wave generator
(regular or
irregular). The riser top-end motion
was
generated
fran wave
height
measurements modified by specified
vessel RAOs, and vessel direction
selected by the orientation of the
riser model within the towing frame.
Wave
probes
were
mounted
both
"up-stream" of and in line with the
riser top end, and signals processed to
ensure correct driving functions for
surge
and
heave,
together
with
appropriate phase corr.ections, .were
delivered to the exci tat10n mechanism.

3.

3.1

'1be drag coefficients requiring to be

established were those for drag normal
to the pipe axis for the bare pipe,
C , and the buoyed pipe, C b' and
~se of drag parallel to ~ pipe
axis, Ct
and Ctb
These are
traditioridl Morison coefficients as
defined in Appendix A.

SUCcessive analyses were performed

using
different
sets
of
drag
coefficients to establish a best fit to
model test results. The resulting set
of drag coefficients is given in Table
3.

computer Models
'lbree different computer models were
~nerated:
(i) a steep wave system for
0 90 and 180 heading. (ii) a lazy
wa~ system for 0 and 180 heading.
The latter having to be truncated at
the lower end in the seabed contact
region, as was the physical model to
permit it to fit within the limited
width of the towing tank.

'mBLB 3: FiDal. set of ~ Coefficients

IiISed

Bare Pipe
Buoyed Pipe

La:zy
00

wave

wave
90"

LaZy

1800

Rlser Segment
N.

L,

N.

4
96
123.5
2.5

1
24
30
1

140
80
147.5
2.5

20
20
25
1

88.5
80
147.5
2.5

20
20
25
1

226

56

370

66

318.5

66

L.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Bare plpe
Buc>yed plpe
Bare plpe
Bare plpe

'IOTAI.

N.

L.

Static aeSUlts

c::: -- 1.5
1.5

Ctp
Ctb

0.04

1.0

current directions. It was established

that one set of coefficients could not
give a perfect fit to all these cases,
some differences between in plane (0
and 180) and out-of-plane behaviour
remaining. 'lbis is attributed to the
coupled nature of the normal and axial
coefficients, which would have a
greater effect for in-plane cases. The
fi ts
obtained
wi th
the
above
co-efficients are shown in Figures 3
and 4

........ .t: nNI'1'I!: ~ IIESII IS USID III RISDI AllllLDIS

wave

OIl

'1be drag coefficients were adjusted to

give a good fit to both the steep and
lazy wave risers in 0, 90 and 1800

'lbe fini te element mesh used is shown

in Table 2.
steep

Derivation of Drag Coefficients

Drag coefficients for the bare and
buoyed sections of riser were derived
fran the measurements of riser offset
W1der steady flow (current only)
conditions. While the work of others
(Reference 3) has shawn a dependence of
drag coefficient upon RUlegaDcarpenter NUmber, Xc ' the caaputer
models used here were based on drag
co-efficients independent of flow
regime.
'lbe aim was to obtain good
model-theory agreement for steady flow
cases
(hereafter referred to as
"static") before examining deviations
due to oscillatory flow conditions
(hereafter referred to as "dynamic").

various combinations of current, wave

height, wave period, wave type and
riser orientation were examined for
comparison with the theoretical model.
For regular wave studies reported here,
wave heights of 15m at periods of 10,
12 and 14 s, and 25m at 12, 14 and 16
seconds were used.
For the more
extreme cases these resulted in heave
and surge amplitudes of approximately
19m and 12m respectively.
The
conventions used are summarised in
Appendix A.
Displacement data were
stored directly.
CUrvatures were
derived fran displacement data.
Top
and bottan end tensions were measured
using force transducers fitted to the
bend stiffener mounting plates.

2.2

BBSUL'l'S

435

3.2 DynaIIic Analysis

These coefficients were retained for

all subsequent dynamic analyses. It is
significant that the drag coefficients
use here are larger than those normally
used for smooth cylindrical pipes in
steady flow.
It is well established
that drag forces in oscillatory flow
depend on the flow field in the wake
and on the position of the structure
relative to its own wake (reference 3).
For regular oscillations these motion
parameters
are
governed
by
the
Keulegan-carpenter number N_ KC

The model behaviour under dynamic conditions

was compared to the computer predictions for a
range of wave heights and periods, but at a
constant current velocity of 0.5 nv's.
The
drag coefficients used were those established
in the static analysiS, and the IW)s were
those physically measured for the model
exciter mechanism on the tawing carriage.
Linear and non-linear analysis were used.

The parameters selected

comparison were:

N_KC .. 2 n aID.

as

basis

for

effective axial tension at the riser top

end termination
effective axial tension at the riser lower
end termination
riser motion double amplitude in the
vertical plane at the hog
and sag bends
riser curvatures in the hog and sag bends

For the present cases the ampli tude, a,

varies from 0 to 4 - Sm, and the
Keulegan-carpenter number varies in the
range 0-100.
The Beynolds number is
approximately 1200 at model scale and
165000 at full scale.
The drag
coefficient is in the range 1.-1.5 for
N KC ranging from 100 down to 5. For
lOwer values (smaller amplitudes) the
drag coefficient increases steeply with
decreasing N KC.
This behaviour can
conveniently De modelled by introducing
a linear force term to be combined with
the quadratiC Morison force.
This
approach has been demonstrated and
verified by model tests, (reference 4).
The
model
is however,
not yet
implemented in the fini te element
program.

3.2.1

Tensions
The peak effective axial tension at the
upper and lower end of the riser was
measured by force transducers in the
models, and compared to computer
predictions.
Accurate modelling of
riser tensions is viewed as one of the
most important requirements of a
modelling program, since tensions and
the associated safety factors on
breaking load are a key safety
consideration.

The value of 1. 5 for the normal drag

coefficient used in the present
analyses seems to be representative for
a wide range of conditions.
The
increase from the steady flow value
(typically 0.9 - 1.2 according to data
presented in reference 5) represents
the effect of strumming in the large
amplitude ranges and the effect of
wake-interaction in the small amplitude
ranges.

The comparison is presented in Figures

5, 6, 7 and 8 for the upper and lower
tensions of the steep and lazy wave

systems
respectively.
For
all
combinations of wave height, direction
and period a linear analysis was
performed. For the larger wave heights
at the 1800 wave direction non-linear
analyses were also performed.

The coefficient of 1.5 derived for the

buoyed section of pipe in the normal
direction may well depend on detailed
geometry of the distributed buoyancy
modules, for example module aspect
ratio, spacing and edge profiles.
Recent work is presented in References
6 and 7 on studies of the drag on riser
sections wi th distributed buoyancy
I t was concluded that 2-D
modules.
cylinder
formulations
for
drag
derivation may lead to significant
errors. Practical measurements of drag
forces on full scale riser sections
were described and indicate a strong
dependance of both C and C b on angle
of incidence to the fiow. Aiso Ct b was
dependent on the buoy arrangement
geometry, C b much less so. It is not
possible t8 compare resul ts to work
reported here since actual Cd and Ct
values measured were not clearly
reported. It is clear however that the
derivation of
representative drag
coefficients for pipe sections with
distributed buoyancy is an area worthy
of further study.

Generally agreement is very good - the

average deviation between model test
results and prediction being 15% for
linear analysis. The average deviation
for non-linear analysis is the same
indicating that at least for tensio~
prediction the use of non-linear
analysis to improve accuracies is
perhaps unnecessary.
For the highest waves, it is observed
that the computed tension is very
accurate for the shortest wave period
at T .. 12s.
The calculated tension
becomes increasingly conservative as
the wave period increases to 14 and
16s. The period increase from 12 to 14
and 16 seconds also implies a motion
amplitude increase.
Discrepancies present between model and
predictions
are
attributed
to:
measurement error,
computer model
simplification (static analysis drag

436

coefficients
used
for
dynaadc
analysis), and inaccurate modelling of
all the dynaadc effects present. An
average error of only 15% as a result
of all these effects is regarded as
acceptable for design purposes. It is
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
simplified hydrodynamic load model
accounts for most of the discrepancies.

the riser.
For the analyses the
curvature is derived fran bending
moment envelopes.
Figure 14 shows
examples of bending moment envelopes
for the steep wave case, linear and
nonlinear analysis. 'Ibis illustrates
the location sensitivity of the dynamic
bending IIICIIIIIInt.

3.2.2 Motions

Figures 15 and 16 show comparison of

measured and calculated curvatures for
the steep wave case.
Although the
comparison is somewhat uncertain, as
indicated above, Salle conclusions can
be drawn. 'lbe linear analysis appears
to
underestimate
the
sag-bend
curvature, except for the 1800 case
where the curvature is over estimated.
For the overbend the deviations are
opposite.
'lbe non-linear analysiS
option gives good agreement both for
sag-bend and overbend.
In order to
obtain a more accurate and reliable
comparison further processing of the
video recording could be carried out.

Figure 9 shews the general motion

pattern of the steep wave system as
predicted with non-linear analysiS,
with the range of motion actually
observed overlaid. Agreement is good.
To examine motion comparisons in more
detail,
the
vertical peak-to-peak
displaanents of selected positions in
both the hog and sag bends were
compared. Comparisons are illustrated
in Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13 for the
steep
and
lazy
wave
systems
respectively. As with the comparison
of tensions, most analysis was linear,
but for three cases at larger wave
heights, non-linear analysis was also
performed.

3.3

Riser Systems' Performance

'lbe performance of the risers based on
the model test results and computer

In many
cases,
linear
analysis
overpredicted riser motions, by an
average of 48% over the model test
results, and by at least 100% in the
larger excitation cases.
~linear
analysis
provides
much
closer
agreement, the deviation here being an
average of +15%.

predictions
would
probably
be
unacceptable for a floating production
system. 'Ibis was not unexpected since
a lightweight pipe had been chosen
specifically for the study, and the
combination of wave height (at 25m) and
tanker-based RAO's was a deliberately
extreme condition, designed to be a
severe test of the modelling program's
capability. 'lbe lightweight pipe was
also representative of a standard
elastcmeric construction of flexible
pipe, with D /DI. - 4.2 for oil filled,
and 5.8 for gas filled cases.

'Ibe improved agreement is attributed to

non-linear analysis modelling more
correctly two effects: the drift of the
whole riser in the direction of the
current and waves, and buckling of the
riser in the slack condition.

'lbe following general comments can be

'lbat agreement deviates still by an

average of 15% is attributed to
measurement error, drag coefficients
established in the static analysis
being too low to correctly model the
dynaadc analysis, or same other effects
as yet unidentified.

made about the riser performance:-

motions of the riser were

extreme to the extent that in the
larger wave heights the riser curved up
above the termination point.
(See
Figure 17.) While the computer program
modelled this observed behaviour well,
such extreme motions might preclude the
use of such a lightweight pipe in this
particular application.

(b)

severe
snatching
and
compreSSion
loading was observed in both systems,
particularly at the higher sea states.
'Ibis is linked to the observations in
(a) above and again would limit the
application of this riser system. Peak
dynamic tensions at the upper end
termination exceeded six times 'the
static tension at this point for the
worst cases observed.

3.2.3 CUrvatures
Although the bending behaviour in the
region of the bend restrictor is most
critical for riser design, since this
is in the wave zone for the model tests
it is not possible to measure
curvatures here using the 'lV-line
system. All curvature comparisons thus
relate
to measurements made
in
submerged regions.
Comparison
of
curvatures
are
complicated due to the difference of
'measurement' technique in model tests
and in analyses.
In the model tests
the curvature is calculated as the
change of contour curvature at fixed
coordinates, not for a fixed point on

437

(a)

(c)

(d)

(e)

The
relationship
of
these
drag
coefficients
to
the
distributed
buoyancy details ( e 9 module aspect
ratio, module spacing, edge profiles)
is not clear and worthy of separate
examination.

Vortex shedding of the riser model was

observed in the high sea states and'
currents. While the computer program
cannot model this effect, it may be a
contibutory factor to increased drag
coefficients and would require to be
considered for design purposes.
Lower end tensions were
acceptable in all cases.

The combination of lightweight pipe and

extreme vessel motions such as with the
turrent-moored tanker in this study,
gave rise to unacceptable top-end
motions and tensions. A heavier weight
pipe or reduced vessel motions would be
required to obtain a satisfatory
response.

generally

Lateral motions, both average offset

and at the hog bend are nearly the same

for both of the riser systems. For the

extreme 25m, 14s regular wave -and
O. Smls current 90 to the riser, the
hog bend offset is 30m and the lateral
ampli tudes approximately Sm for both
the steep wave and the lazy wave cases.
(f)

Vortex shedding was observed in the

model riser in the higher sea states.

The dynamic top tension is considerably

higher in the lazy wave system than in
the steep wave system. This is mainly
attributed to the wider sag bend in the
lazy wave case.
In order to avoid
slack riser and unacceptable curvatures
at the touchdown point, the lazy wave
case has been specified with a larger
horizontal force component than the
steep wave case. This is the reason
for the larger sag bend radius and the
consequently higher dynamic tension.

1)

Engseth, A., Bech, A. and Larsen, C.M.,

"Efficient Method for AnalYSis of Flexible
Risers",. Proceedings Behaviour of Offshore
Structures, Trondheim, June 1988.

2)

Ruse, E., "New Model Testing Instrumentation

for Flexible Risers", MARINTEK Review, No 2,
Trondheim, September 1989.

3)

Sarpkaya, T. "In-line and transverse forces on

Cylinders in Oscillatory Flow at High
Reynolds numbers" arc paper 1976, No. OTC
2533.

4)

Huse, E. "Linear drag on flexible risers",

Research project FPS-2000, Flexible risers
and pipes. Report No. 511201.00-1, Marintek,
Trondheim, 1990 (presently restricted but due
to become available in 1992).

5)

Berteaux, H.O. "Buoy Engineering", John Wiley

& Sons 1976. Figure 4.3

6)

Beef, W.J.C. & Lange,

FC.
"Analysis
of
Flexible Riser Systems". Paper presented at
5th International Conference on Floating
Production Systems, London, 11/12th Dec.
1989.

7)

H.J.J.
&
van Walree,
van den Boom,
F. "Hydrodynamic Aspects of Flexible Risers".
OTC Paper 1990, No. OTC 6438

The main conclusions from this work are:

The computer program studied here is
shown to be an adequate tool for the
modelling of flexible riser systems
under hydrodynamic loading and imposed
excitation.
The accurancy of the program in
predicting tensions and motions across
a range of environmental conditions,
many in excess of those which would be
contemplated
for
normal
design
purposes, was typically + 15%. This is
regarded as acceptable.
Non-linear analysis is required to
obtain
representative
motion
predictions in the more extreme sea
states.
Non-linear analysis did not generally
provide
improved
predictions
for
tension forces.

The authors would like to express their thanks to

the following:

Drag coefficients have been established

for the computer model from static
results, which predict behaviour in the
physical model in dynamic situations
wi th acceptable accuracy.

BP Norway Limited U.A. who were sole sponsor of

the work, and Marintek for their efforts in
undertaking the work, in particular Mr. A 0ydvin,
Prof. E. Huse, Mr. G.P. Sandnes, Dr. W. Lian and
Mr. N. SOOahl.

438

APPBNDIX A: ConYenticms used

Phase Angles:

all phase angles quoted are

phase
leads
of
response
compared to the point at which
the wave crest passes the
top-end termination of the
riser.

Wave directions:

00 - wave travelling in the

positive x direction
900 - wave travelling in the
positive y direction
1800 - wave travelling in the
negative x direction

Coodinates:

Riser mounted in the x - z

plane
x - 0, y - 0, z - -120m at the
riser lower end termination.
Riser upper end termination is
in positive x direction.

Drag coefficients

Forces

per

mit

length

FIGURE 2:
LAZY WAVE RISER CONFIGURATION

Aaar.1IepIh 1:I11III

of

buoyed pipe are calculated as

force components:
f" -

and

fy - ~

P Ctb
p

Cnb

v!

FIGURE 3: STEEP WAVE RISER'

MODEL TEST VS ANALYSIS

A./1

..
..
I.....

~ 1\,./1

CUrnnl veIocIIIeIIl.0 to +1.0 mlaln the 0and 1. . (1n-pIane) dIractIona

,,-------~~~----------------,,~

where A. and I\,. are as defined

in Figure A.l

Current

-til

I-I
o.s

Figure A.l

711

~
~.
--......,,.---_.
,
L

10

-110
0

211

10

40

10

110

x . CoMIInote Iml

FIGURE 4: STEEP WAVE RISER

MODEL TEST VS ANALYSIS
Current veIocItIea + 0.25 to
110" (ouHf.pIane) dlrec:llon

FIGURE 1:
STEEP WAVE RISER CONFIGURATION

+ 1.0 mla In the

IO,-----------~------~~~--_,

40

10

211

40

10

10

110

1211

X CoMIInote 1m)

439

FIGURE 5: STEEP WAVE RISER. COMPARISON

OF UPPER END EFFECTIVE TENSIONS

FIGURE 9: MonON PATTERN OF STEEP WAVE

RISER MODEL VS ANALYSIS

20
0

20

....

_----

....................

Ia.-.. }
.......

40

.40

25
25
tI (m)
15 15 15 25
14
16
T (I)
10 12 14 12
Dlr(deg) - - - 1 9 0 - - - -

15 25
12 14
90 90

15 25
12 14
0 0

MotIonl
only

120
411

20

40

III

III

100

FIGURE 6: STEEP WAVE RISER. COMPARISON

OF LOWER END EFFECTIVE TENSIONS

FIGURE 10: STEEP WAVE RISER.

.COMPARISON OF HO~ BEND MOTIONS

._1. . .

25~--------------------

T._
kN

120

x~(U)

150

_ _ _~

Anelyela, linear
Anelyala, nonlinear

100
50
0

H(m)
T(I)

15 15 15
10 12 14

Dlr(deg)

25
12
180

25

25

14

16

15 25
12 14
90 90

15 25
12 14
0 0

H(m)

15 15 15 25
25
25
10 12 14 12
14
16
Dlr(deg) - - - 1 8 0 - - -

Motions
only

T(e)

FIGURE 7: LAZY WAVE RISER. COMPARISON

OF UPPER END EFFECTIVE TENSIONS

15 25
12 14
90 90

15 25
12 14
o 0

Motions
only

FIGURE 11: STEEP WAVE RISER.

COMPARISON OF SAG BEND MOTIONS

.U_I_
Analylla, llnoer
OAneIyola. _

20

25
25
15 15 15 25
10 12 14 12
14
16
Dlr(deg) - - - 1 8 0 - - -

H(m)
T(e)

15 25
12 14
90 90

15 25
12 14
o 0

H (m)
15 15 15 25
25
25
T (I)
10 12 14 12
14
16
Dlr(dag) - - - 1 8 0 - - -

MoUons
only

15 25
12 14
o 0

15 25
12 14
90 80

Motlone
only

FIGURE 12: LAZY WAVE RISER.

COMPARISON OF HOG BEND MOTIONS

FIGURE 8: LAZY WAVE RISER. COMPARISON

OF LOWER END EFFECTIVE TENSIONS

.U_I_

~~-----------------------~

25

AneIyaIa, llR01r

o Anelyala, nonlinear

20

H (m)

T (e)
Dlr (dag)

15 15 15
10 12 14

25
25
25
14
16
12
180---

15 25
12 14
90 80

15 25
12 14

Motlonl
only

15 15 15 25
25
25
10 12 14 12
14
16
Dlr(deg) - - - 1 8 0 - - - -

H(m)

440

T(s)

15 25
12 14
90 80

15 25
12 14
o 0

MoUon.
only

FIGURE 16: STEEP WAVE RISER.

COMPARISON OF SAG BEND CURVATURE

FIGURE 13: LAZY WAVE RISER.

COMPARISON OF SAG BEND MOTIONS

020~-------------------=~--------'

25~------------------------------1

015

Model te.t.,
typical maximum
Analysla, linea,

o Analyals, nonlinear

Oynamlc

Curvature
m 1 0

15 15 15
10 12 14

H (m)
T (s)

Olr (dog)

15 25
12 14

15 25
12 14
90 90

25
25
25
16
14
12
180 - - - - - -

H (m)

Mollons
only

T (s)
Olr (deg)

Uneer

.........

.0
0

50

...........
,io

.60

t'~ I

'I

~,

.,:

50

150

260

. " :::"'Iml

-20

~ 1-

:ISO La_Iml

60

FIGURE 15: STEEP WAVE RISER.

COMPARISON OF HOG BEND CURVATURE
020~--------------------------~

Dynamic
Curvature

H(m)
T(s)

Mollons
only

=\' .

.,.

15 25
12 14
o 0

Z-coor-Cf ..nO\,e I L ,

---~\

(lllHn1

Banding _

15 25
12 14
90 90

20

Bending moment variation slonlt:': length of the riser.

Unear and no....lnear analysis.
p _ . H=25m. T= 128
30

25
25
25
14
16
12
180 - - - - - -

FIGURE 17: MOTION ENVELOPE - UPPER END,

STEEP WAVE RISER

FIGURE 14: BENDING MOMENT ENVELOPES

40

15 15 15
10 12 14

15 15 15 25
25
25
10 12 14 12
14
16
Olr (deg) - - - - - - 1 8 0 - - - - - - -

15 25
12 14
90 90

15 25
12 14

Mollon.
only

441

1<0

X-coord,note III