TECHNICAL NOTE:

ROCKFALL IMPACT ANALYSIS ON FO CABLE

ISS.3
1 SUMMARY

ETA have evaluated the potential effect of flint rocks of 350-400mm diameter being
dropped on to a cable during trench backfilling. Initial analysis assuming a rounded
profile with a contact radius of 25 mm (as defined by IEC 60794-1-21 E4) striking the
cable from a 2 m drop height suggests that the rock impact is within the limits
specified for the cable. Given that flints are known to fracture with quite sharp
edges, a more conservative ‘worst case’ analysis has been undertaken assuming a
sharp edge or point. This latter approach for an assumed drop height of 2 m also
indicates that the rock impact is within acceptable limits as assumed by this technical
Note (TN).

2 INTRODUCTION

ETA have been requested by Global Marine to prepare a TN determining the impact
energy of flint backfilling over a submarine fibre optic cable. Two cases are
considered; 350 and 400mm diameter flint from a drop height of 2m.

ETA’s understanding of the operation is that the FO cable sits at the bottom of a
trench. The trench was excavated by a long armed excavator from a barge with spoil
deposits placed to the side. The spoil is to be replaced using the excavator bucket
either by picking up and dropping or pushing to backfill the trench. For the purpose of
this technical note and to provide a conservative analysis, only the drop case will be
considered.

3 METHODOLOGY

This technical note uses DNV recommended practice [1] as the basis for calculation.
It should be noted that the equation for impact energy in this document is based on
the terminal velocity of a given rock. Terminal velocity occurs between the depths of
50-100m, dependant on fall object properties. The scenario considered in this TN is
from a fall height of 2m and therefore a more reasonable velocity needs to be
evaluated to calculate impact energy to avoid overestimation.

Issue 3 Compiled: AG
Date: 13/09/2017 Page 1 of 7 Checked: JDF
The FO cable specification was issued to ETA by Global Marine [2] [3].

3.1 Rock Type

Flint is specified as the backfill material. Flint rock has potentially sharp edges when
fractured. Such sharp edges are likely to be found in some rocks within the spoil
intended to be used for backfill.

Figure 1 Typical examples of Flint to be used as backfill

4 CALCULATION

4.1 Stated Parameters

Parameter Symbol Value Unit

Flint density [4] ρs 2600 kgm3
Seawater density ρw 1025 kgm3
∆ ∆ 1675 kgm3
Gravitational acceleration g 9.81 ms-2
Drag coefficient Flint [1] CD,Flint 0.6
Hydrodynamic coefficient Flint Ca,Flint 1
FO cable impact resistance [2] Emax 300 J
Table 1

Issue 3 Compiled: AG
Date: 13/09/2017 Page 2 of 7 Checked: JDF
The drag coefficient was selected as per ‘miscellaneous shapes’. In this instance, a
low value yields high velocities and therefore conservative results for impact energy.

4.2 Drop Velocity

Drop velocity has an exponential relationship with drop height, tending to a terminal
velocity. The graph below shows an approximation of the expected velocity related
to drop height. This was derived by plotting the earliest expected height at which the
rock would achieve terminal velocity and fitting a 2nd order polynomial trend line with
intercept set at 0ms-1 for a drop height of 0m.

Figure 2

The terminal velocity was calculated using Equations 1 and 2 below.

∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Equation 1

Rearranges to give terminal velocity as;

∙ ∙∆∙
Equation 2
∙ ∙

Issue 3 Compiled: AG
Date: 13/09/2017 Page 3 of 7 Checked: JDF
Where ∆

4.3 Impact Energy

Impact energy was taken as the rock’s kinetic energy as it fell through the water
column. The contribution of the added hydrodynamic mass was also considered.

+ ∙ + ∙ Equation 3

Parameter Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit

Diameter D 350 400 mm
Volume of falling Flint
V 0.0224 0.0335 m3
(geometry assumed spherical)
Mass of Flint m 58.4 87.1 kg
Hydrodynamic mass ma 23.0 34.3 kg
Projected area A 0.096 0.126 m2
Terminal velocity vt 3.42 3.66 ms-1
Impact energy @ vt EE,vt 477.0 813.8 J
Velocity at 2m drop height v(2) 0.25 0.26 ms-1
Impact energy @ v(2) EE(2) 2.5 4.2 J
Factor of Safety (2) 120 71
Table 2

Through back working the preceding equations, it is possible to evaluate a critical

drop height for each case based on the cable’s maximum resistance of 300J. This is
the height above which the impact energy exceeds the allowable value.
×
Equation 4

Rock Diameter 350 400 mm

Critical Velocity 2.72 2.22 ms-1
Critical drop height 26.2 18.0 m
Table 3

Issue 3 Compiled: AG
Date: 13/09/2017 Page 4 of 7 Checked: JDF
4.4 Influence of Rock Shape on Impact

It might be apparent from Table 2 that the impact energies are well within the
allowable of the cable. Typically, the allowable value of impact energy in cable
specifications is derived by testing. The standard used for this cable was IEC
60794-1-21E4 [5] using a 50 mm diameter striker as shown below. This is also the
same as the Alt. 1 striker as DNV-RP F111 [6].

Figure 3 25mm Radius striker

However, in this case it is prudent to consider that the flint backfill is likely to have
sharp edges. These will result in the impact energy being transmitted into the cable
on a smaller area so it is likely that the impact capability of the cable will be reduced.

In the absence of data other than that for the 50 mm diameter striker it is considered
that the assumption that the allowable impact energy is proportional to the contact
area of the striker. Therefore for a smaller contact area the allowable impact energy
of the cable would be given by:

×"##
Equation 5
"$#

For the purpose of this technical note, such a strike is modelled as a contact area
with edge radius 7mm.

Issue 3 Compiled: AG
Date: 13/09/2017 Page 5 of 7 Checked: JDF
 Parameter Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Unit
Diameter D 350 400 mm
Allowable impact energy 25 mm
EE1 300 300 J
striker
Allowable impact energy 7 mm
EE2 23.52 23.52 J
striker
Impact energy from 2 m EE(2) 2.5 4.2 J
Factor of Safety 4.3 2.5
Table 4

5 DISCUSSION

For each rock size – 350mm and 400mm diameter – two scenarios have been
considered. In both scenarios it is assumed that the full kinetic energy of a given
rock is transferred as impact energy to the cable with no energy absorbed by
surrounding seabed. This is a conservative approach.

In the first scenario, it is assumed that the contact surface between rock and cable is
no more aggressive than that implied by the cable specification (equivalent to a 25
mm radius striker). The results from this scenario are summarised in Table 2. For
both rock sizes, the impact energy, when dropped from a 2 m height, is within the
specified limit with the lowest factor of safety to be 71.

In the second scenario, it is assumed that the contact surface between rock and
cable is sharp (equivalent to a 7 mm radius striker). In this case it is assumed that
the allowable impact energy is proportional to the contact area of the striker. Table 4
summarises the results from this scenario, showing again that for both rock sizes,
the impact energy, when dropped from a 2 m height, is within the specified limit with
the lowest factor of safety to be 2.5.

Issue 3 Compiled: AG
Date: 13/09/2017 Page 6 of 7 Checked: JDF
 Figure 4 FO Cable cross section [2]

6 REFERENCES

[1] DNV, “Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection,” 2010.

[2] H. C. &. I. Systems, “1301-TOL4041132+ rev. B”. 2017.
[3] H. C. &. I. Systems, “28701-GJMLTV-25tonDA Uen Rev B”.
[4] The Engineering Toolbox, “Densities of Common Solids”.
[5] IEC 60794-1-21E4 Generic specification - Basic optical cable test procedures -
Mechanical tests methods
[6] DNV, “Interference Between Trawl Gear and Pipelines,” DNV, 2010.

Issue 3 Compiled: AG
Date: 13/09/2017 Page 7 of 7 Checked: JDF