ASF01 012 SE REP 0005 - Revb

Report - SURF Flowline Global Buckling Analysis
Doc. No: ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005
Rev. B
COMMENTS RESPONSE SHEET

DOCUMENT REF. : ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005
No
Document
/ Page Ref.
Company Comments
Initial
Contractor Response
Initial
Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 2 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B

Rev. B
Where the term HOLD is specified in this document, it signifies that additional engineering
or information shall be required to finalise the document.
Below is a summary of the HOLDS outstanding in this document.
HOLDS STATUS SHEET

HOLD NO
SECTION
PARA NO
DESCRIPTION OF HOLD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 3 of 50

Rev. B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
INTRODUCTION
10
1.1
Abadi Gas Field Development
10
1.2
Scope
11
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
12
2.1
Summary
12
2.2
Conclusions
12
2.3
Recommendation
14
DESIGN DATA
15
3.1
Classification of Location and Safety Classes
15
3.2
Mechanical Properties
15
3.3
Operational Data
16
3.4
Material Properties
17
3.5
Flowline Equivalent Material Data for Bi-Metal
18
3.6
Steady State Design Profiles
19
3.7
Transient Profiles
21
3.8
Environmental Data
24
3.9
Seabed Profile
24
3.10
Pipe Soil Properties
25
LATERAL BUCKLING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
27
4.1
Allowable Strain Criteria
27
4.2
Fatigue Limit State
30
Page 4 of 50

5.0
6.0
7.0
Rev. B
4.3
Low Cycle Fatigue
31
4.4
Limit State Check Summary
31
BUCKLING DESIGN METHODOLOGY
33
5.1
General
33
5.2
Pipeline Effective Axial Force
33
5.3
Lateral buckling Susceptibility
33
5.4
Consequence of single isolated buckle
34
5.5
Lateral Buckling Design Approach
36
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
38
6.1
General
38
6.2
Effective Axial Force and Expansion Analysis
38
6.3
Lateral Buckling Susceptibility
39
6.4
Consequence of Unplanned Buckling
44
6.5
Fatigue Damage Assessments
45
6.6
Planned Buckle to Reduce End Expansion
47
REFERENCES
50
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A EQUIVALENT PROPERTIES CALCULATION
Page 5 of 50

Rev. B
Index of Tables
Table 2.1 Susceptibility to Lateral Buckling Conclusion .................................................................................. 13
Table 2.2 Reduced Expansion for Planned Buckle ......................................................................................... 14
Table 3.1 Safety Class Definition for DNV-OS-F101 ....................................................................................... 15
Table 3.2 Mechanical Properties ..................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3.3 Operational Data ............................................................................................................................. 16
Table 3.4 Flowline Material Properties ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 3.5 Flowline Coating Properties............................................................................................................. 17
Table 3.6 Operating Pressure and Temperature ............................................................................................. 19
Table 3.7 Environmental Data ......................................................................................................................... 24
Table 3.8 Axial pipe-soil friction coefficients (Operation) ................................................................................ 25
Table 3.9 Lateral pipe-soil friction coefficient monotonic loading (Operation).............................................. 26
Table 4.1 - Design Factor for Strain Criteria ....................................................................................................... 27
Table 4.2 Limit State Summary ....................................................................................................................... 29
Table 4.3 - S-N Curve Parameters in Fatigue Analysis ...................................................................................... 31
Table 6.1 Low Cycle Fatigue Damage at Weld Root (F1 Curve) .................................................................... 46
Index of Figures
Figure 1-1 Field Location Map ............................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 3.1 De-rated API 5L X65 Claded Material True Stress Strain Curve ...................................................... 19
Figure 3.2 Steady State Design Pressure and Temperature Profile .................................................................. 20
Figure 3.3 Shut-in Temperature and Pressure Profile Year 30 ....................................................................... 22
Figure 3.4 Start-up Temperature and Pressure Profile Year 30...................................................................... 23
Figure 3.5 Seabed Profile ................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.6 Axial pipe-soil interaction (Operation) ............................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.7 Lateral pipe-soil friction interaction monotonic loading (Operation) ............................................... 26
Figure 5-1 Material Strength Mismatches Modelling .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 5-2 Insulation Coating SCF Value ........................................................................................................... 35
Figure 5-3 Insulation Coating SNCF ................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 6-1 Effective Axial Force (Lower Bound, Mean and Upper Bound Axial) ............................................... 38
Figure 6-2 Axial Expansion (Lower Bound, Mean and Upper Bound Axial) ....................................................... 39
Figure 6-3 Critical Buckling Force due to Seabed Terrain (LB breakout lateral friction) .................................... 40
Figure 6-4 Lateral Buckling Susceptibility........................................................................................................... 42
Figure 6-5 Probability of Buckling Along the Unmitigated Pipeline .................................................................... 43
Figure 6-6 Feed-In Capacity of Unplanned Buckle on Seabed .......................................................................... 44
Figure 6-7 Effective Axial Force of One (1) Planned Buckle on Seabed ........................................................... 48
Figure 6-8 Effective Axial Force of Two (2) Planned Buckles on Seabed .......................................................... 48
Page 6 of 50

Rev. B
Abbreviations / Nomenclature
3D
3 x outside diameter
5D
5 x outside diameter
5LPP
5 layer polypropylene
ALS
Accidental limit state
API
American Petroleum Institute
ASME
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BE
Best estimate
CITHP
Cold in tube head pressure
CP
Cathodic protection
CS
Carbon steel
CRA
Corrosion resistant alloy
DC
Displacement controlled
DEP
Design engineering practices
DNV
Det Norske Veritas
EAF
Effective axial force
ECA
Engineering critical assessment
FE
Finite element
FEED
Front end engineering design
FLNG
Floating liquefied natural gas
FLS
Fatigue limit state
HAT
Highest astronomical tide
HOOS
Horizontal out of straightness
HT/HP
High temperature / high pressure
ISO
International Standard Organization
KP
Kilometre post
Page 7 of 50

Rev. B
LAT
Lowest astronomical tide
LB
Lower bound
LC
Load controlled
LNG
Liquifed natural gas
MMscfd
Million standard cubic feet per day
Mtpa
Million ton per annum
MNFL
Manifold
MSL
Mean sea level
Ncr
Critical Buckling Force (SAFEBUCK)
OD
Outside diameter
OOS
Out of straightness
OS
Offshore standard
Pcr
Critical buckling force
PSC
Production sharing contract
RP
Return period
S-N
Stress cycle number
SNCF
Strain concentration factor
SMYS
Specified minimum yield strength
SMTS
Specified minimum tensile strength
SURF
Subsea, umbilicals, risers and flowlines
Overall thermal coefficient
UB
Upper bound
UCR
Unity check ratio
UOE
U-Ing, O-Ing and Expanding
ULS
Ultimate limit state
UNS
Unified numbering system
Page 8 of 50

Rev. B
VOOS
Vertical out of straightness
WD
Water depth
WGK
Wood Group Kenny
WT
Wall thickness
YT
Yield to tensile
Page 9 of 50

Rev. B
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Abadi Gas Field Development

The Abadi gas field is located in the Masela PSC Block in the Arafura Sea in Maluku
Province. The Masela Block is located approximately 800 km East of Kupang, West Timor,
Indonesia and approximately 400 km North of Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. Water
depth in the field ranges from 400 m to 800 m. The southern boundary of the block is
adjacent to the agreed Indonesia-Australia maritime border as shown in Figure 1-1.
INPEX Masela Ltd (COMPANY) is considering development of the Abadi gas field with a
FLNG concept which has circa 2.5 Mtpa of LNG production capacity. Optimisation of the
LNG production capacity will be performed during FEED. The Abadi development plan
includes a single subsea drill centre with 5 production wells and a subsea manifold tied back
to a FLNG facility via three flowlines and three flexible risers. The subsea wells will be
required to produce approximately 467 MMscfd on average for 30 years to meet yearly LNG
production targets.
Figure 1-1 Field Location Map
Page 10 of 50

1.2
Rev. B
Scope
This report establishes the susceptibility of the production flowline to global buckling, the
post-buckle response of the pipe and its feed-in capacities. The analysis is based on both
thermal expansion calculations and non-linear finite-element model of the flowline.
Required mitigation measure will be addressed in a separate report, subject to outcome of
this report.
Page 11 of 50

Rev. B
2.0
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1
Summary
Susceptibility to global lateral buckling for the 12 inch Abadi flowline is accessed based on
two methodologies:
1. Deterministic: comparison of the pipeline effective axial force with the critical buckling
force based on Hobbs equation as presented in SAFEBUCK [4] and the critical buckling
force due to seabed undulation from FEA model.
2. Probabilistic: based on Monte Carlo simulation, the probability of rouge buckle formation
determined by sampling the critical buckling force along the flowline and compared
against the effective axial force. Probability of buckling is quantified by the number of
events that trigger a rouge buckle. Log-normal distribution is assumed for all governing
parameters used in the simulation [4].
The overall design methodology broadly follows the SAFEBUCK guidelines while acceptance
criteria refers to DNV OS-F101 for displacement controlled condition, i.e. strain based
criteria.
Design temperature of 136oC at inlet and 110oC outlet with constant design pressure of 318
bar are used to access the lateral buckling susceptibility. A model length of 3 km is used to
represent the full length of the Abadi flowline.
Post-buckle capacity of the pipe, in the event of an isolated rouge buckle occurring, is
accessed by evaluating the amount of thermal expansion that can be accommodated before
the buckle load exceeded the allowable limit. Strain concentration factor (SCNF) arising from
insulation coating cutback is also determined in the strain calculation. Fatigue capacity of the
buckle due to temperature and pressure cycles are then assessed based on fatigue S/N
curve.
Due to the limitation of tie-in spool expansion offsets at both hot and cold ends, a preliminary
expansion calculation is also performed to assess the feasibility of using engineered buckles
to control the thermal expansion into the tie-in spool. Both one (1) and two (2) buckle scheme
are considered.
2.2
Conclusions
2.2.1
Lateral Buckling Susceptibility Assessment
Deterministic analysis results confirmed that the 12-inch Abadi flowline is not
susceptible to lateral buckling along its entire length. This was established based on
comparison of unmitigated pipe effective force profile against the critical buckling
force from Hobbs equation and from seabed profile.
Probabilistic calculation based on Monte Carlo simulation also shown that the
probability of buckling along the flowline is less than 0.01%, as compare to a
threshold value of 5% based on SAFEBUCK [4] guideline.
Page 12 of 50

Rev. B
Table 2.1 Susceptibility to Lateral Buckling Conclusion
MANNER
PARAMETER
Max compressive effective axial
force
DETERMINISTIC
Hobbs critical buckling force
ASSESSMENT
Seabed critical Buckling Force
PROBABILISTIC
Maximum probability of buckling
ASSESSMENT
2.2.2
2.2.3
VALUE
365 kN
604 kN
758 kN
0.08%
CONCLUSION
Effective axial
force < critical
buckling force
hence rouge
buckle on seabed
is not likely.
< 5%
(SAFEBUCK
threshold value)
Consequence on Unplanned Buckle
For a CRA clad pipeline, the design strain is likely to be limited by the ECA
requirements, as other acceptance requirements are generally found less stringent.
In the present work and from past project experience, a limiting strain of 1% is
assumed prior to actual ECA assessment. At 1% strain, the thermal feed-in to the
buckle is found to be in excess of 5m, much greater than the end expansion of the
pipeline.
In the unlikely event of an uncontrolled buckle occurring, the maximum feed-in to the
buckle is estimated to be about 2.3m which is well within the capacity of the pipe.
The corresponding maximum strain at the buckle apex is about 0.2% at best
estimate axial and lateral frictions, which is also within the design limit of 1%.
The accumulated fatigue damage calculation due to operating cycles, assuming 12

cycles per year, gave a total fatigue damage unity check of about 10-3 over the
design life of the pipeline. This assumed a shutdown frequency of 12 cycles per
years. However, in view of the low fatigue damages, it is expected that considerably
more shutdown cycles can be accommodated.
Reduced Expansions from Planned Buckle
Expansion calculation shown that the pipe end expansions can be reduced by
introducing planned buckles in the pipeline. These buckles shared the thermal
expansion loads and hence reduce the end expansions. Preliminary calculations
with one (1) buckle located at mid-length and two (2) buckles spaced at 1 km apart,
shows able to reduce the hot end expansion from the unmitigated value of 2.52m to
1.88m and 1.63m, respectively, as summarised in Table 2.2 overleaf.
Page 13 of 50

Rev. B
It should be emphasized that the end expansion is a function of the buckle locations,
which in turn, is dictated by the pipe effective force profile to ensure that the planned
buckles can be initiated reliably. This therefore limits the minimum effective distance
of the buckle from the pipe end.
Table 2.2 Reduced Expansion for Planned Buckle
Expansion (m)
2.3
Ends
Unmitigated
One (1) Planned Buckle
(2) Planned Buckle
Buckle Location
KP 1.5
KP 1.0 & KP 2.0
Hot End (MNFL)
2.52
1.88
1.63
Cold End (Riser)
2.26
1.55
1.33
Recommendation
Based on the analysis results, Abadi flowline is not susceptible to uncontrolled global
buckling and hence buckle mitigation for the purpose of stress relieving is not deemed
necessary. Analysis also confirmed that the chosen pipe section and properties have
sufficient capacity to accommodate a rouge buckle on seabed should one is to occur
during operation.
Buckle mitigation is effective in limiting the pipe end expansions due to shared thermal
feed-in to the buckles. Preliminary calculation shown that mitigation based on a two (2)
buckles is able to reduce the end expansion to a value within the capacity of the tie-in
spool. However, more detailed assessments are necessary to confirm the viability of this
solution with respect to buckle initiation and post buckle responses. This should include
considerations for the actual pipe lay process, buckle initiation method (e.g. ZRB) and, if
necessary, increase friction at pipe-soil interface via rough coating of pipe. Various
sensitivity assessments are also necessary to quantify the locations of the buckle and
their reliability.
Due to short flowline length and the relatively low axial friction, the flowline may be prone
to global axial walking, which can impose significant additional loads onto the tie-in
spool. This can also lead to requirements for flowline anchoring, if axial walking persists.
This has large impacts on the PLET structure configuration design and, to some extent,
the overall field layout. As such, the proposed buckle mitigation analysis should also
include axial walking to provide an early indication of walking potential and pipe
anchoring loads, if applicable.
Page 14 of 50

3.0
Rev. B
DESIGN DATA
The input data presented in this section is taken from URF and Structure Design Premise
[1] unless noted otherwise.
3.1
Classification of Location and Safety Classes

The safety class discreteness is presented in Table 3.1 for DNV-OS-F101.
Table 3.1 Safety Class Definition for DNV-OS-F101
SECTION
FLUID
LOCATION
CLASS CLASSIFICATION
Flowline
3.2
SAFETY CLASS
TEMPORARY
SAFETY CLASS
OPERATION
Low
Medium
Mechanical Properties
The mechanical properties are summarised in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Mechanical Properties
PARAMETER
UNIT
VALUE
ISO 3183 L450 / API 5L X65

Seam Welded Clad Pipe
Flowline length
km
~3
Outer Diameter
mm
323.9
Wall Thickness (CS) - [2]
mm
17.5
Internal Clad Thickness
mm
3.0
External Coating - 5LPP
mm
5.2
-0.5 (Base metal)
Flowline Material
Manufacturing Method
Wall Thickness Tolerance
0 (Cladding)
Pipe Ovality
Page 15 of 50
1.5

3.3
Rev. B
Operational Data
Operational data is presented in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Operational Data
PARAMETER
UNIT
VALUE
Gas
MMscfd
250
Product/Content
Design Throughput Capacity each Flowline
Flowline Design Temperature
136
Maximum Operating Temperature
131
Normal Operating Inlet Temperature
125
Design Pressure at CITHP
bar
318
Maximum Operating Pressure
bar
219
- 609
bar
461.75
Ref. Elevation for Hydrotest
+ 30
Location of Hydrotest
offshore
C
C
Ref. Elevation for Design Pressure

Hydrotest Pressure @ Seabed Level
Maximum and Minimum Content Bulk Density
207/86
Assumed Static Lay Tension:

- Top
- Bottom
Page 16 of 50
Tonnes
50
25

3.4
Rev. B
Material Properties
The material properties for flowline are summarised in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Flowline Material Properties
PARAMETER
UNIT
CS ISO- 3183 L450 /

API 5L X65 GRADE
ALLOY 625
(UNS N06625)
7850
8440
0.3
0.31
11.7 x 10-6
12.8 x 10-6
12.6 x 10-6
13.7 x 10-6
450
414
kg/m3
-
Density
Poisson Ratio
Thermal Expansion
Coefficient at 20C
/C
Thermal Expansion
Coefficient at 130C (1)
/oC
SMYS at 20C
SMYS at 136C
MPa
MPa
405.6
SMTS at 20C
MPa
535
(2)
369.6 (2)
827
(2)
782.6 (2)
SMTS at 136C
MPa
490.6
Elastic Modulus at 20C
GPa
207
205
Elastic Modulus at 136C (3)
GPa
200 (3)
198 (3)
Notes:
1. Values conservatively adjusted to design temperature based on increments of 8x10-9 per

C for carbon steel as per SAFEBUCK III [4]
2. De-rated as per DNV-OS-F101 recommendation [8]
3. Taken and de-rated from SAFEBUCK III [4]
Linear interpolation will be used to establish material de-rating values at intermediate
temperatures.
The flowline coating material property is summarised in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Flowline Coating Properties
COATING
5LPP Equivalent Density
UNIT
VALUE
kg/m3
920
Page 17 of 50

3.5
Rev. B
Flowline Equivalent Material Data for Bi-Metal

The properties of CRA and carbon steel, based on specified minimum values, will be
combined to obtain an equivalent property for finite element modeling. This is a normal
practice for lateral buckling design and has been adopted in past projects in line with
SAFEBUCK III [4] recommendations and also other recent industry guidelines [7]. A
summary of the important basis in modeling the CRA lining is as follows:
1.
The effective wall thickness is taken as the nominal wall thickness of the pipe plus the
cladding.
2.
Equivalent elastic properties are then calculated as the weighted average of the carbon
steel and cladding properties as:
a.
b.
eq =
s t s + c tc
ts + tc
where
is the property of interest (Elastic Modulus, Poissons ratio, thermal
expansion coefficient, etc.), is the nominal wall thickness. The subscript s and c
refers to carbon steel and cladding respectively.
3.
The submerged weight of the flowline incorporates the weight of the cladding.
4.
The stress-strain response of the equivalent pipe is obtained through a process of

weighted averaging, where the stress value of the given strain is averaged.
5.
For FE analysis, the pipe is modeled as a single pipe with the effective wall thickness of
steel plus cladding. The stress-strain curve used is taken as the weighted average of the
stress-strain curve for steel and cladding. In addition, the nominal stress is converted
into true stress prior to weight averaging.
However, for characteristic resistance calculation (i.e. local buckling limiting strain), strength
contribution from cladding will be excluded.
The de-rated true stress-strain curve for the steel and cladding at maximum design
temperature of 136OC is shown in Figure 3.1 overleaf.
Page 18 of 50

Rev. B
Figure 3.1 De-rated API 5L X65 Claded Material True Stress Strain Curve
3.6
Steady State Design Profiles

Detailed operating pressure and temperature profiles for different possible combinations of
flowrate are provided in COMPANYs Flow Assurance report [13] and summarised in Table
3.6.
Table 3.6 Operating Pressure and Temperature
PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE
DOWNSTREAM
OF SUBSEA
CHOKE
FLET
MANIFOLD
END
RISER
INLET
RISER
TOP
1. Base Case
185 MMscfpd x 3 flowlines
221bara /
130degC
219bara /
126degC
215bara /
69degC
202bara /
63degC
2. Normal Operation Day 1

204bara /
124degC
209bara /
125degC
205bara /
68degC
192bara /
62degC
3. Normal Operation Year 15

(202 MMscfpd x 2 flowline) +
(150 MMscfpd x 1 flowline)
4. Normal Operation Year 30
(222 MMscfpd x 2 flowline) +
(111 MMscfpd x 1 flowline)
5. Severe Condition
300 MMscfpd x 1 flowline
255 MMscfpd x 1 flowline
6. Severe Condition, late
production stage, 20% of U-
179bara /
125degC
178bara /
173bara /
71degC
160bara /
64degC
113bara /
120degC
112bara /
101bara /
70degC
91bara /
63degC
140bara /
125degC
119bara /
122degC
99bara /
81degC
82bara /
73degC
123bara /
119bara /
110bara /
82bara /
FLOW RATE
Page 19 of 50
122degC
119degC

Rev. B
PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE
FLOW RATE
value reduction in jumper,

manifold and tie-in spool
sections and fully buried
flowline
(220 MMscfpd x 2 flowlines)
+ (110 MMscfpd x 1 flowline)
7. Turndown Operation
DOWNSTREAM
OF SUBSEA
CHOKE
FLET
MANIFOLD
END
RISER
INLET
RISER
TOP
138degC
131degC
105degC
94degC
97bara /
106degC
97bara /
96bara /
24degC
88bara /
18degC
100degC
From the flow assurance sensitivity evaluations of the above cases, it was identified that
Case 6 yields the most critical temperature during late life production when the flowline is
assumed fully buried. The expected steady state maximum operating inlet and outlet
temperature are 131C and 105C, respectively. A 5C margin is then added to the maximum
operating values to give the design profile (136 C inlet) as shown in Figure 3.2 below.
Figure 3.2 Steady State Design Pressure and Temperature Profile
Page 20 of 50

3.7
Rev. B
Transient Profiles
For cyclic and global axial walking analysis, transient temperature and corresponding
pressure profiles representative of the flowline loading under day-to-day operating condition
will be considered. The flow transient arises from the operating shutdown and restart cycles.
The flow assurance study report [13] has considered the full shutdown case whereby after
normal production, the well is shut-in and fully cooled down to ambient. The well is then reopened to the flowline for ramp-up to normal production after two hours. The corresponding
transient temperature and pressure profiles along the flowline are shown in following Figure
3.3 and Figure 3.4, respectively.
Page 21 of 50

Rev. B
Figure 3.3 Shut-in Temperature and Pressure Profile Year 30
Page 22 of 50

Rev. B
Figure 3.4 Start-up Temperature and Pressure Profile Year 30
For initial study, the numbers of full shut down cycles assumed are twelve (12) per year
throughout the operating life of the flowline.
Page 23 of 50

3.8
Rev. B
Environmental Data
Table 3.7 presents the environmental data.
Table 3.7 Environmental Data
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
VALUE
Water Depth (MSL)
607-609
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT)
1.27
Mean Sea Level (MSL)
0.00
Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT)
Seawater density
kg/m
1025
Minimum Seawater temperature
5.8
Maximum Wave Height -100yrs RP

Marine growth thickness
12.49
mm
Marine Growth Density
kg/m
10
3
1175
Seabed Profile
Two types of seabed surface are to be utilised in ABAQUS:1. Flat Seabed this type of seabed is utilised in FE model to evaluate the buckle feed-in
and strain.
2. Actual Seabed this type of seabed is used to determine the critical buckling force for
any unwanted/unplanned buckle(s) initiated by vertical seabed imperfection.
Figure 3.5 shows the seabed profile for the proposed flowline [1].
Figure 3.5 Seabed Profile

-607.7
-607.8
-607.9
Riser inlet
-608.0
-608.1
-608.2
-608.3
Elevation, m
3.9
-1.62
3
-608.4
-608.5
-608.6
-608.7
-608.8
PLET Manifold end
-608.9
-609.0
-609.1
-609.2
-609.3
-609.4
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Disntance from PLET, m
Page 24 of 50

3.10
Rev. B
Pipe Soil Properties

The pipe soil properties are summarised in Table 3.8 &
Figure 3.6 and Table 3.9 & Figure 3.7 for axial and lateral soil properties, respectively, based
on SURF Pipe Soil Interaction Data technical note [3].
Following the SAFEBUCK guideline, only the residual axial friction is used in all thermal
expansion calculation.
Table 3.8 Axial pipe-soil friction coefficients (Operation)
MOBILISATION
DISTANCE (m)
LOWER
BOUND
BEST
ESTIMATE
UPPER
BOUND
0.003
0.38
0.58
0.96
0.330
0.13
0.19
0.32
0.659
0.13
0.19
0.32
Figure 3.6 Axial pipe-soil interaction (Operation)
Page 25 of 50

Rev. B
Table 3.9 Lateral pipe-soil friction coefficient monotonic loading (Operation)
MOBILISATION
DISTANCE (m)
LOWER
BOUND
BEST
ESTIMATE
UPPER
BOUND
0.049
0.55
0.92
1.72
0.989
0.36
0.57
0.90
1.648
0.36
0.57
0.90
Figure 3.7 Lateral pipe-soil friction interaction monotonic loading (Operation)
Page 26 of 50

Rev. B
4.0
LATERAL BUCKLING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
4.1
Allowable Strain Criteria

The allowable strain criteria define the limiting strain capacity of the buckle. Several
considerations are to be addresses as summarized below.
4.1.1
Local Buckling
This limit state is to check against the development of pipe wall wrinkle (local buckling) at the
buckle apex when subject to axial compressive load. Design standard based on DNV-OSF101 [8] for local buckling can be used, which provides two levels of checks:
1. Limiting the bending moment at the buckle apex - a Load Controlled (LC) criterion
applicable to all stress based design assessment.
2. Limiting the compressive strain at the buckle apex - a Displacement Controlled (DC)
criterion applicable to strain based design only.
For lateral buckling assessment, LC criterion is often found to be too restrictive and
conservative on pipe bending capacity while DC criterion provides much greater flexibility. Inline with current industry practices for HT/HP flowlines and also many recent project
experiences, DC criterion is adopted for this project.
The appropriate partial safety factors and relevant material parameters for the DC limiting
strain are presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 - Design Factor for Strain Criteria
DESCRIPTION
DNV-OS-F101 [8]
SYMBOL
CATEGORY/VALUE
Hazard Potential
Sec.2 C200
Safety Class
Sec.2 C400
Medium
Material Strength Factor
Sec.5, Table 5.6
0.96
Maximum allowed yield to tensile

ratio
Sec.7, Table 7.5
0.90
Girth weld factor
Sec.13, E1000
gw
1.0
Resistance strain factor
Sec.5, Table 5.8
2.5
Functional Load Effect Factor
Sec.4, Table 4.4
1.10
Condition Load Effect Factor
Sec.5, Table 4.5
1.07
The calculations of the allowance strain for internal and external overpressure are stated
below as per DNV-OS-F101 [8] requirement.
Page 27 of 50

Rev. B
p pe
1
t

h 1.5 gw
0.01 1 + 5.75 min
pb
For Internal Overpressure
Pe Pmin
1
PC
For External Overpressure
sd 0.78
SD
C
0.8
m SC
Where:
Maximum allowed yield to tensile ratio
gw
Girth weld factor
Resistance factor (strain resistance)
sd
Design axial strain
Pmin
Minimum internal pressure
Pe
External pressure
Pb
Containment resistance pressure
PC
Collapse pressure
Minimum wall thickness
Outer diameter
The design compressive strain, sd is given by
SD = F C C
Where:
is the functional load effect factor (=1.1)
is the condition load effect factor (=1.07)
is the analysis predicted compressive strain at the buckle.
It should be stressed that limiting strain for local buckling is dependent on the pipe internal
pressure; higher pressure will result in higher resistance and thus larger compressive strain
capacity. The anticipated minimum local operating internal pressure therefore shall be used
for limiting check.
In determining the above characteristic strain, strength contribution from the cladding shall be
neglected.
Page 28 of 50

4.1.2
Rev. B
Material Uniform Strain Capacity

The strain limit against local buckling defined previously may not be relevant to thick walled
pipe for which the design strain could be unrealistically large. For this reason, additional limit
on the equivalent strain is necessary to prevent material from necking under tension before
local buckling could occur on the compression side.
Essentially the limit prevents gross plastic deformation of the pipe cross-section. Typically the
onset to gross plastic deformation (and prior to failure) under tension is the overall gross
reduction in cross sectional area, resulting in a significantly smaller area at the point of
impending failure compared to the rest of the section. Hence, forming what is seen as a
necking effect as the area continuously reduces under load.
SAFEBUCK III [4] has proposed a simple expression for equivalent strain limits based on
material yield-to-tensile ratio (YT) as below:
0.25(0.99 YT )
The allowable equivalent strain limit is therefore 1.5% for present pipe section assuming a
maximum YT ratio of 0.93.
4.1.3
Engineering Critical Assessment Limiting Strain

From past projects, it was found that design strain based on local buckling and/or uniform
material tensile strength discussed above may result in very stringent Engineering Critical
Assessment (ECA) weld requirements, which can be difficult to achieve with respect to
acceptable defect flaw size. For this reason, a maximum design strain of 1.0% is imposed at
the weld joint.
4.1.4
ALLOWABLE STRAIN LIMIT STATE SUMMARY

The design limiting strain criteria discussed previously are summarised in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Limit State Summary
PIPE SIZE
323.9mm OD x 17.5mm WT
COMPRESSIVE
TENSILE
ECA
(%)
(%)
(%)
1.36
1.5
1.0
Page 29 of 50
DESIGN
STRAIN
(%)
1.0

4.2
Rev. B
Fatigue Limit State

Fatigue assessments will be conducted using the methodologies outlined in DNV-RP-C203
[9] for weld toe (S/N curve D) and weld root (S/N curve F1). The predicted number of cycles
to failure N is expressed in the following general form:
t
log N = log a m log .( loc ( ) k
t ref
Where:
loc = SCF nor min al

And:
k
is the thickness exponent;
is the fatigue exponent;
log a
is the fatigue strength constant;
is the pipe wall thickness;
tref
is the reference wall thickness 25mm
The Stress Concentration Factor (SCF) at the weld toe (curve D) is expressed in equations
below.
SCF = 1 +
3 m
t
exp(
)
t
D
Where:
m = Tot
2
2
Tot = Thickness
+ Ovality
Thickness = (t max t min ) / 2

Ovality = DMax Dmin
For simplicity, curves corresponding to seawater with cathodic protection will be used at weld
toe (curve D) whereas in-air curve (curve F1) will be used for weld root. The relevant
parameters are summarized in Table 4.3.
Page 30 of 50

Rev. B
Table 4.3 - S-N Curve Parameters in Fatigue Analysis
Curve F1 at Weld
Root
(In Air)
Curve D at Weld
Toe
(Seawater with CP)
11.699
11.764
1.0
1.55 (1)
0.15
Fatigue exponent, m
Fatigue strength constant, log a
SCF
Thickness exponent, k
2 (2)
Fatigue knockdown factor

Allowable Fatigue Usage
1
0.1
(3)
Notes:
1. SCF calculated based on the selected pipe section properties.
2. Apply at weld root to account for clad girth weld [7].
3. A split of 20% and 80% between installation and operational fatigues to be assumed until actual
flowline installation method is confirmed.
4.3
Low Cycle Fatigue

Repeated heat-up and shutdown cycle experienced by the flowline during its design life
imposes fatigue damage on the unplanned buckles. The low cycle fatigue is investigated
using the transient temperature and pressure profiles determined from flow assurance study
[13] based on the startup and shutdown conditions. It is assumed that there will be twelve
(12) full shut-down cycles per year, as reflected in the flow assurance study in Section 3.7
The axial stress range is extracted from the global FE model at pipe mid-wall and used to
calculate the low cycle fatigue damages
4.4
Limit State Check Summary

In summary, global buckle design limit state checks are to comprise of the followings:
i.
Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
Local buckling strain limit at buckle apex of unplanned buckles;
Material uniform tensile strain limit to ensure non-occurrence of material necking

under tensile load;
Cyclic plasticity limit to ensure non-occurrence of hoop strain ratcheting;
Page 31 of 50

ii.
iii.
Rev. B
Fatigue Limit State (FLS)
Low cycle fatigue due to operational pressure and temperature fluctuations;
ECA weld fracture and fatigue crack growth (scope not covered in this document);
Accidental Limit State (ALS)
No trawling assumed.
Page 32 of 50

Rev. B
5.0
BUCKLING DESIGN METHODOLOGY
5.1
General
This section presents the general assessment methodology that will be undertaken for this
phase of the FEED work with the objectives of confirming the pipe susceptibility to global
buckling and the subsequent post-buckle response and axial working behavior. The
methodology discussed here focuses on buckle acceptance criteria, modeling parameters,
loading conditions and interactions, limit states and the FE modeling itself.
5.2
Pipeline Effective Axial Force

The first step in the buckling assessment is to establish the effective force distribution along
the pipeline. The effective force analysis is performed using in-house spreadsheets which
compute the effective axial force and its corresponding axial expansion. Lower bound, mean
and upper bound sliding axial friction factors shall be considered. It shall be assumed that the
pipeline is unrestrained at both ends and is free to expand at the tie-in spools since axial
resistance from the vertical jumper spools are expected to be minimal.
5.3
Lateral buckling Susceptibility

The next step of the assessment is to determine the susceptibility of the pipeline to lateral
buckling. This is carried out by comparing the effective force of the pipeline to the critical
buckling force due to vertical out-of-straightness (VOOS) these are imperfection introduced
by the undulations of the seabed.
The susceptibility assessment is carried out in both a deterministic and probabilistic manner.
In the former, pipeline susceptibility is assessed through comparison of the pipeline effective
axial force with theoretical critical buckling forces from Hobbs and route curvature.
In the latter, a probabilistic distribution of the VOOS and HOOS is used to generate a random
series of potential critical buckling forces which is then compared with the pipeline effective
axial force. The probability of lateral buckling is then quantified by the number of events that
trigger an unplanned/rogue buckle.
Pipeline OOS data is unknown prior to installation and there is no existing database of
pipeline OOS in this region. Therefore, in lieu of these data, the recommended OOS
distribution from [4] will be utilized.
Page 33 of 50

5.4
Rev. B
Consequence of single isolated buckle

If the pipeline is found to be susceptible, the acceptance of an event of a single isolated
buckle will be qualified through: 1. Local buckling limit state the buckle shall be assessed and shown to fulfil the
requirements of Section 4.1;
2. Fatigue limit state the buckle shall be assessed and shown to fulfil the requirements
of Sections 4.2 for low cycle fatigue only.
5.4.1
Material Strength Mismatches

To account for possible material strength mismatch at the buckle apex, a weak link concept
is normally adopted as per recommendations in SIEP-EP-5154 [11] and [10]. It is assumed
that the fully plastic moment in the weak section is 12% below the fully plastic moment of the
adjacent pipe and the length of the weak section is set to be 6m in length. In past projects,
the weak section property has been based on temperature de-rated SMYS and the mismatch
in the adjacent flowline is set to be 12% higher than the de-rated weak section as shown in
Figure 5.1 below.
Figure 5-1 Material Strength Mismatches Modelling
However, in recent SAFEBUCK III update [4], it was stated that modelling of normal joint to
joint strength mismatch on strain localisation is not required, although other forms of SCNF
still need to be accounted for. Given the relative small size of the Abadi flowline with no
concrete weight coating, buckle strain is expected to be low to moderate, any impact on
strain location due to material strength mismatch is expected to be relatively small. For this
reason, it is excluded from the weak-link model.
5.4.2
Wall Thickness Variations

For pipe manufactured to UOE process with long seam welds, wall thickness tolerances
between joints or within joint are generally small as compare to seamless pipe [10]. As such,
wall thickness fabrication tolerance is also not included in the weak-link model.
Page 34 of 50

5.4.3
Rev. B
Coating Cutbacks
The change in local bending stiffness due to cutback of external insulation coating at field
joint can lead to strain localization. The degree of localization depends on the elastic
modulus of the insulating and field joint coating material. If the same high integrity insulation
coating material is adopted as field joint infill, stiffness discontinuity will be minimal and strain
localization may be neglected.
However, Abadi flowline coating has yet to be confirmed and hence the SCNF effect from
insulation coating cutback will be accounted for by using a methodology presented in [12]. The
approach is based on conservation of total moment across the steel pipe and the relevant
insulation coated sections, as depicted in
Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2 Insulation Coating SCF Value
Total moment, Mt = Mcc = Mfj, where

Mcc = Moment by insulation + Moment by steel pipe (nominal moment) and;
Mfj = Moment by field joint + Moment by steel pipe (peak moment).
The above two equations can be further expressed in terms of nominal and peak strain
respectively using the basic relationship between sectional stress and moment arm. The two
equations are then solved for a series of bending moments and the SCNF is simply the ratio
of the peak strain at the field joint to the nominal strain at the insulated section.
Page 35 of 50

Rev. B
Figure 5-3 below shows the insulating SNCF at the unplanned buckle region against the
normalised bending strain.
Figure 5-3 Insulation Coating SNCF
As can be seen from the figure above, strain concentration factor (SNCF) increases rapidly
after the nominal strain exceeded 0.2%. Therefore, the predicted bending strain from finite
element (FE) model at unplanned buckle is factored by the SNCF value to give the total
expected peak strain.
5.5
Lateral Buckling Design Approach

The design process involves a series of steps, as detailed below:
Step 1 Define acceptance criteria

Defining the acceptance criteria (i.e. local buckling limit states, engineering critical
assessment constrain and allowable axial displacements).
Step 2 Perform pipeline effective axial force and end expansion analysis
Perform a deterministic pipeline effective axial force and its corresponding end
expansion calculation. If the end expansion exceeds the allowable limit, expansion
control measures are required.
Step 3 Perform lateral buckling susceptibility assessment
Page 36 of 50

Rev. B
Once the requirement for expansion control has been defined, the susceptibility of
the pipeline to lateral buckling is determined by comparing the effective axial force
with the critical buckling force from all possible out-of-straightness considered in this
work.
Step 4 Assess the acceptability of unplanned buckle

If Step 3 shows that the pipeline is likely to buckle, the next step is to determine if the
unplanned/uncontrolled buckling would result in non-compliance with the acceptable
limit states. This is done by investigating the post-buckle behaviour of a single
isolated buckle on seabed.
If Step 4 shows that unplanned buckling results in non-compliance of the limit states
then buckling mitigation will be developed and carried out in separated document.
Page 37 of 50

6.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1
General
Rev. B
The detailed lateral buckling assessments of the 12inch Abadi flowline are discussed in this
section.
6.2
Effective Axial Force and Expansion Analysis

The first step in the lateral buckling assessment is to establish the effective axial force
distribution along the pipeline.
The effective force and corresponding axial expansions for lower, mean and upper bound
axial frictions are shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-12, respectively.
Figure 6-1 Effective Axial Force (Lower Bound, Mean and Upper Bound Axial)
From Figure 6-1, it can be seen that the Abadi flowline can be considered as short pipeline
where the axial soil friction is fully mobilised. The peak effective force at UB axial friction is
about -365kN while the LB value is only -150kN.
In Figure 6-2, it is seen that the flowline hot end expansion is about 2.5m for all three axial
friction cases considered.
Page 38 of 50

Rev. B
Figure 6-2 Axial Expansion (Lower Bound, Mean and Upper Bound Axial)
6.3
Lateral Buckling Susceptibility
6.3.1
General
Unplanned buckles can be initiated by OOS incurred during installation and/or by natural
occurring seabed terrain. To establish the possible range of buckling force, the followings are
considered and analysed in ABAQUS:1. The critical buckling force along the pipeline due to naturally occurring vertical
imperfections based on actual seabed profile along the centre line of the straight
pipeline route.
2. The critical buckling force calculated based on Hobbs equation as per SAFEBUCK
recommendations.
6.3.2
Critical Buckling Force Due to Seabed Terrain

The overall seabed profile along the flowline is generally flat. Nevertheless, there are vertical
imperfections at various locations which may act as buckle initiators. Critical buckling forces
at these locations need to be established.
In order to investigate this, an FE analysis has been carried out with the actual seabed
profile. The general features of the FE model used in this analysis are:-
Page 39 of 50

Rev. B
1. The entire seabed is modelled as a rigid contact surface. Since only the vertical
profile is available, this profile is extruded to generate a 3D surface with variation in
the vertical direction.
2. The analysis is carried out using lower bound lateral breakout friction in combination
with minimum content density to provide the least resistance to unplanned buckle
formation.
The results, together with the corresponding seabed profile are summarised in Figure 6-3
below. It showed that there is one location at approximately KP 0.2km, where the critical
buckling force is lowest at about 758 kN as denoted by the solid blue dot. However,
unplanned buckle at this location is deemed very unlikely due to its proximity to the pipe end
where there is insufficient effective force built-up to initiate the buckle, see Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-3 Critical Buckling Force due to Seabed Terrain (LB breakout lateral friction)
Page 40 of 50

6.3.3
Rev. B
SAFEBUCK Hobbs Equation

For screening purposes, the critical buckling force, Ncr, for a nominally straight pipeline is
given in SAFEBUCK [4] as:
N cr = min(0.65 N , N crB )
Where
N = 3.86
EI Ws L
and N crB = Ws L R
D
EI
is pipeline flexural rigidity
is minimum lateral break-out friction.
Ws
is minimum pipe submerged weight.
is steel outer diameter
is lateral radius
Since the initial layout of the flowline route does not have any route curvature, the critical
buckling force is solely determined from N to give a value of 604 kN.
6.3.4
Susceptibility of Lateral Buckling
6.3.4.1 General
The susceptibility of the 12-inch Abadi flowline to lateral buckling is assessed by comparing
the critical buckling forces with the pipe effective axial force. Two different approaches are
considered in this work.
6.3.4.2 Deterministic Assessment

The lateral buckling susceptibility of the pipeline is determined by directly comparing the
critical buckling forces determined in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.43 against the pipe effective
axial force shown in Figure 6-1. The comparison plot is summarised in Figure 6-4 and it can
be clearly seen that the effective force is inadequate to initiate any rouge buckle on seabed
for entire length of the flowline. This therefore confirms that the flowline is not susceptible to
global lateral buckling.
Page 41 of 50

Rev. B
Figure 6-4 Lateral Buckling Susceptibility
6.3.4.3 Probabilistic Assessment

Lateral buckling probability is also assessed using a probabilistic model as outlined in
SAFEBUCK [4]. The probability assessment is performed using an in-house Mathcad
spread sheet based on Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 sampling points.
Figure 6-5 overleaf shows the bucking probability distribution along the length for a higher
axial friction of 0.39 (design UB is 0.32) after additional soil sensitivity assessments. The
maximum buckling probability is less than 0.08% at KP 1.75, which is much lower than the
threshold value of 5% for the full pipe length given in the SAFEBUCK guidelines [4]. This
therefore further affirms the previous conclusion from the deterministic model that the
flowline is not susceptible to global buckling.
Page 42 of 50

Rev. B
Figure 6-5 Probability of Buckling Along the Unmitigated Pipeline
6.3.5
Lateral Buckling Susceptibility Summary

Both the deterministic and probabilistic calculations above have shown that the 12inch Abadi
flowline is not susceptible to global lateral buckling.
Although the buckling likelihood is very low, it is nevertheless useful to find out the capacity
of the buckle should one occur on seabed. This is discussed in the next section.
Page 43 of 50

6.4
Rev. B
Consequence of Unplanned Buckling

The consequence of a rouge buckle can be assessed by investigating the post-buckle
characteristics of an isolated buckle on seabed from the FE model. This is determined based
on the thermal feed-in capacity as a function of buckle strain.
Once a pipeline has developed compressive buckle globally, there is a release of the axial
effective force within the buckle and, as a result, the resultant axial expansion feeds into the
buckle. The capacity of a buckle is defined as the amount of thermal expansion which can be
accommodated before the buckle is overloaded i.e. exceed the allowable strain.
A short FE model is utilised to determine the buckle capacity. Some additional attributes are
incorporated into the model to capture the stress/strain at buckle apex accurately. These
include:
1.
The use of non-linear material properties with de-rated equivalent SMYS as shown
in Figure 3.1 previously.
2.
The model is progressively heated up, the post-buckle pipe feed-in and the
corresponding compressive strains at the apex are extracted at each step.
The results for LB, BE and UB lateral fictions are shown in

Figure 6-6, as buckle strain vs feed-in. At 1% design strain, it can be seen that the buckle
has feed-in capacity in excess of 5m, which is greater than the total pipe end expansions.
This observation suggested that the current pipe properties have large capacity to
accommodate an uncontrolled rouge buckle.
Figure 6-6 Feed-In Capacity of Unplanned Buckle on Seabed
Page 44 of 50

Rev. B
Using the same 3km pipeline model, a buckle is artificially initiated with a large horizontal
imperfection to determine the actual pipe feed-in and strain at design temperature and
pressure. However, due to the relatively low axial friction, the buckle can only be initiated in
the FE model with BE axial and lateral frictions. The pipe effective force is insufficient to
initiate buckle at LB axial or UB lateral frictions, although this friction combination is more
onerous to the buckle.
The predicted feed-in and corresponding strain is indicated in Figure 6-6 as a blue solid dot.
The 2.3m feed-in and 0.2% strain are well below the allowable of 5m and 1%, respectively,
and hence confirmed the pipe structural integrity even in the event of an uncontrolled buckle
on seabed.
6.5
Fatigue Damage Assessments

A preliminary fatigue assessment is performed to determine the damage at the rouge buckle
due to cyclic temperature and pressure loads. To this, the, the transient temperature and
pressure profiles (Figures 3.3 and 3.4) are used for one (1) full shutdown and restart cycle.
This is conservative since the stress at the buckle generally reduces with load cycles due to
shakedown effects until the buckle profile has stabilised.
The 3km length FE model discussed previously with BE frictions is restarted with transient
load steps. Maximum longitudinal stresses are extracted at pipe mid-wall and plotted against
cyclic load steps as shown in figure 6-7 below. The stress range between full start-up and
shut-down cycle, under maximum operating condition, is about 24MPa as highlighted in the
figure.
Figure 6-7 Cyclic Stress Range at Buckle
24 MPa
Page 45 of 50

Rev. B
Using the fatigue S/N curve and methodology presented in Section 4.2, fatigue damage
calculation is performed for 360 cycles (assume 12 cycles per year for 30-year design life)
and the results are summarised in table 6.1 and 6.2 below at weld root and weld toe,
respectively. It can be seen that the fatigue damage Unity Checks are very low at both weld
locations.
Table 6.1 Low Cycle Fatigue Damage at Weld Root (F1 Curve)
No.
Cycle/Year
nor min al
12
24
loc = SCF nor min al Log (N)

24.00
7.16
Damage
Ratio
1.440E+07
8.33E-07
Damage per year
8.33E-07
Damage over 30 years design life
2.50E-05
Fatigue knockdown factor (1)
Allowable usage factor (2)
0.08
Fatigue Unity Check
6.25E-04
Table 6.2 Low Cycle Fatigue Damage at Weld Toe (D Curve)

No.
Cycle/Year
nor min al
12
24
loc = SCF nor min al Log (N)

37.20 (3)
6.59
Damage
Ratio
3.87E+06
3.10E-06
Damage per year
3.10E-06
Damage over 30 years design life
9.31E-05
Fatigue knockdown factor
Allowable usage factor (2)
0.08
Fatigue Unity Check
1.16E-03
Notes (1): To account for internal cladding [7].

(2): Assume 20% fatigue budget for installation.
(3): SCF due to field joint misalignment included at weld toe, refer Table 4.3.
Page 46 of 50

6.6
Rev. B
Planned Buckle to Reduce End Expansion

It has been shown in Section 6.3 and 6.4 that the 12in Abadi flowlines are not susceptible to
uncontrolled global buckling and hence buckle mitigation for the purpose of stress relieving is
not deemed necessary. However, due to the high operating temperature and pressure, pipe
end expansion was found to be in excess of 2.5m, which is beyond the limit of the current tiein spool capacities. To reduce expansion, a buckle mitigation scheme can be considered,
which directly introduces additional virtual anchor points into the pipeline. The distance
between the first or last virtual anchor points at the respective pipe ends effectively controlled
the end expansions. In other words, the closer the buckle location to the pipe end, the less
expansion it will see. However, there is a limit to the buckle position as too close to the end,
there may not be sufficient effective force to initiate the buckle.
To demonstrate this concept of using buckles to limit the pipe end expansion, expansion
calculations are performed for one (1) and two (2) buckle cases. For simplicity, the one
buckle case assumes the buckle is located at KP 1.5 while the two buckle case at KP 1 and
KP 2.
The post buckle effective forces for the two cases are shown in in Figure 6-8 and Figure 6-8
overleaf. It can be seen that, the virtual anchor length reduces to about 1km and 0.75km for
the one and two buckle cases, respectively, at LB axial friction from the original unmitigated
value of 1.5km as shown in Figure 6-1.
The corresponding pipe end expansions are summarised in Table 6.3 overleaf, which shown
that one buckle scheme can reduce the maximum end expansion to 1.9m while the two
buckle scheme to 1.6m at hot end, from the unmitigated value of about 2.5m. Preliminary
spool calculation indicated that 1.6m is close to the anticipated spool capacity and this
implies that a two buckle scheme is necessary. The two buckle scheme is also likely to be
the maximum that can be accommodated in the present flowline due to low effective axial
force to initiate more buckles.
It should be emphasized that the above results are indicative only and preliminary in nature.
The actual location of the buckles and the resultant end expansions have to be quantified
with more detailed analyses, incorporating buckle initiators (e.g. ZRB) and pipe lay process
into the analysis model. Due to the critical nature of these buckles to the structure integrity of
the tie-in spool, sensitivity analysis should also be performed to confirm the buckle reliability.
Page 47 of 50

Rev. B
Figure 6-7 Effective Axial Force of One (1) Planned Buckle on Seabed
Figure 6-8 Effective Axial Force of Two (2) Planned Buckles on Seabed
Page 48 of 50

Rev. B
Table 6.3 Reduced Expansion due to Planned Buckles

No of Planned Buckle
1 (KP 1.5)
2 (KP 1 and KP 2)
Ends
Expansion (m)
LB
BE
UB
Hot End (MNFL)
1.88
1.71
1.70
Cold End (Riser)
1.63
1.48
1.46
Hot End (MNFL)
1.55
1.38
1.21
Cold End (Riser)
1.33
1.17
1.02
Page 49 of 50

7.0
Rev. B
REFERENCES
[1] WGK Document No. ASF01-012-SE-SBD-0001;
PREMISE; Revision A; January 2013.
URF AND STRUCTURE DESIGN
[2] WGK Document No. ASF01-012-SE-REP-0001; TECHNICAL NOTE PRELIMINARY

SURF FLOWLINE WALL THICKNESS ASSESSMENT; Revision B; February 2013.
[3] WGK Document No. ASF01-015-SE-TCN-0002; TECHNICAL NOTE - SURF PIPE
SOIL INTERACTION DATA; Revision B; February 2013.
[4] SAFEBUCK III JIP Document No. 5087471/01/A, Safe Design of Pipeline with Lateral
Buckling Design Guideline, 30th August 2011.
[5] DEP 31.40.00.10-Gen; Pipeline Engineering (Amendments/Supplements to ISO 13626);
February 2011.
[6] DEP
31.40.20.32-Gen;
CRA-Clad
and
CRA-Lined
(Amendments/Supplements to API Spec 5LD); Sept. 2011.
Steel
Pipe
[7] Technical Report; JIP Lined and Clad Pipeline Materials; Phase 2; Guideline for Design
and Construction of Clad and Lined Pipelines; Report No. 2007-0220; Rev 02; DNV;
10th November 2008.
[8] Det Norske Veritas; DNV-OS-F101; Submarine Pipeline Systems; October 2011.
[9] Det Norske Veritas; DNV-RP-C203; Fatigue Design of Offshore Structures; April 2008.
[10] Note: Definition of Weak Section to Assess Strain Localisation in Seamless Pipes; by
Ralf Peek (SIEP EPT-PNR) and George W. Brown (SUKEP-EPE-T-PC); 2009.
[11] SIEPP-EP2005-5154; Design Specification for a Clad Pipelines Subject to Lateral
Buckling on a Flat Soft Clay Seabed; April 2005.
[12] OMAE 2009-79779; Strain Intensification Due To Material Discontinuity At Field Joints
Adjacent To Thick Wall Insulation Coating.
[13] COMPANY Doc. No. A0510-010-FA-TCN-0001, Flow Assurance for Commencement
of FEED, Rev 0, December 2012.
[14] A0510-010-SE-BOD-0001; Abadi Gas Field Development; SURF Basis of Design.
Page 50 of 50

Rev. B
APPENDIX A
EQUIVALENT PROPERTIES CALCULATION
INPEX ABADI GAS DEVELOPEMENT PROJECT

Equivalent Properties for Lateral Buckling Analysis
BY:
CHK:
CS ISO- 3183 L450

/ API 5L X65 Grade
Alloy 625
7850
8440
17.5
/C
1.17E-05
1.28E-05
MPa
MPa
GPa
450
414
535
827
207
205
Parameter
Unit
Density
Thickness
Thermal Expansion
Coefficient at 20C
SMYS at 20C
SMTS at 20C
Elastis Modulus 20C
kg/m
mm
Input the maximum design temperature !
MDT := 136C
ma := 8 10
DR
ST
CK
MDT := + ma ( MDT 20C)
MDT = 12.6 10
13.7 10
y := SMYS MPa
yMDT :=
y if MDT 50C
( MDT 50 C) 0.6 MPa C 1 if 50C < MDT 100C

y
30 MPa + ( MDT 100 C) 0.4 MPa C 1 otherwise

y
yMDT = ( 405.6 369.6 ) MPa

T := SMTS MPa
TMDT :=
T if MDT 50C
( MDT 50 C) 0.6 MPa C 1 if 50C < MDT 100C

T
30 MPa + ( MDT 100 C) 0.4 MPa C 1 otherwise

T
TMDT = ( 490.6 782.6) MPa

E := E GPa
EMDT :=
E if MDT 20C
E ( MDT 20C) C 1 0.05GPa if ( 20C < MDT 100C)

E ( MDT 20C) C 1 0.06GPa if ( 100C < MDT 200C) otherwise
EMDT = ( 200.04 198.04) GPa
1 of 2
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005
For input into ABAQUS or MathCAD Calculation that requires equivalent (Claded X65 Pipe)
Properties
CS ISO- 3183
L450 / API 5L
Alloy 625
Claded Pipe
(equivalent)
7850
8440
7936
17.5
3.0
20.5
/C
1.26E-05
1.37E-05
1.28E-05
MPa
MPa
405.6
369.6
400.3
490.6
782.6
533.3
GPa
200
198
199.75
Parameter
Unit
Density
Thickness
Thermal
Expansion
Coefficient at
MDT
SMYS at MDT
SMTS at MDT
Elastis Modulus
at MDT
kg/m 3
mm
o
2 of 2
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005

ASF01 012 SE REP 0005 - Revb

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

ASF01 012 SE REP 0005 - Revb

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report - SURF Flowline Global Buckling Analysis

Doc. No: ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005

COMMENTS RESPONSE SHEET

Report - SURF Flowline Global Buckling Analysis

HOLDS STATUS SHEET

Report - SURF Flowline Global Buckling Analysis

Abadi Gas Field Development

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Classification of Location and Safety Classes

Flowline Equivalent Material Data for Bi-Metal

Steady State Design Profiles

Pipe Soil Properties

LATERAL BUCKLING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Allowable Strain Criteria

Fatigue Limit State

Report - SURF Flowline Global Buckling Analysis

Low Cycle Fatigue

Limit State Check Summary

BUCKLING DESIGN METHODOLOGY

Pipeline Effective Axial Force

Lateral buckling Susceptibility

Consequence of single isolated buckle

Lateral Buckling Design Approach

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Effective Axial Force and Expansion Analysis

Lateral Buckling Susceptibility

Consequence of Unplanned Buckling

Fatigue Damage Assessments

Planned Buckle to Reduce End Expansion

Report - SURF Flowline Global Buckling Analysis

Figure 1-1 Field Location Map ............................................................................................................................ 10

Report - SURF Flowline Global Buckling Analysis

Accidental limit state

American Petroleum Institute

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Cold in tube head pressure

Corrosion resistant alloy

Design engineering practices

Det Norske Veritas

Effective axial force

Engineering critical assessment

Front end engineering design

Floating liquefied natural gas

Fatigue limit state

Highest astronomical tide

Horizontal out of straightness

High temperature / high pressure

International Standard Organization

Report - SURF Flowline Global Buckling Analysis

Lowest astronomical tide

Liquifed natural gas

Million standard cubic feet per day

Million ton per annum

Mean sea level

Critical Buckling Force (SAFEBUCK)

Critical buckling force

Production sharing contract

Stress cycle number

Strain concentration factor

Specified minimum yield strength

Specified minimum tensile strength

Subsea, umbilicals, risers and flowlines

Overall thermal coefficient