Pipl Stress Analysis

STRESS ANALYSIS OF UNDERWATER PIPELINE FOR IRREGULAR
SEABED TOPOGRAPHY USING CAESAR II.
By
Nurul Alia binti Mohd Anuar
9127
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
(Mechanical Engineering)
JANUARY 2012
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,
Bandar Seri Iskandar,
31750 Tronoh,
Perak Darul Ridzuan.

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
Stress Analysis of Underwater Pipeline for Irregular Seabed Topography Using

CAESAR II
By
Nurul Alia Binti Mohd Anuar
A project dissertation submitted to

the Mechanical Engineering Program
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (Hons)
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
Approved by,
____________________
(Dr. Mokhtar bin Awang)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

TRONOH, PERAK
January 2012
i

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the
original work is my own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements,
and that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by
unspecified sources or persons.
_______________________________
NURUL ALIA BINTI MOHD ANUAR

ii

ABSTRACT
Offshore oil and gas pipelines are being subjected to deeper water depths, more extreme
environmental conditions, and harsher operating requirements than ever before. Given
these conditions, free spanning pipelines are becoming more common and are often
unavoidable during pipeline installation. Free spans occur as a result of irregular seafloor
topography at installation or during pipeline operation as a result of vibration and scour
[1].
A linear-elastic finite element model is applied to the solution of stress analysis problems
involving submarine pipelines freely resting upon irregular seabed profiles. This report
describes a finite element (FE) modelling procedure and parametric study leading to the
investigation of stress distribution and deformation subjected on pipeline. The objective
of this project is to model underwater pipeline using pipe stress analysis software,
CAESAR II. The pipeline will be examined on various conditions according to the
geometry of the seabed. The input or load cases of the pipeline system are ocean current
and wave. The FE analyses are carried out for both the fully fixed and simply supported
pipes, which form the two extreme conditions of pipelines under service conditions.
Expected result is that the stress of the pipelines should not exceed the maximum
allowable stress set by the regulations.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL ........................................................................................... i

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENT............................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
1.1.Project Background ............................................................................................1
1.2.Problem Statement .............................................................................................3
1.3.Objectives and Scopes of study .........................................................................4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................5

2.1. Submarine Pipeline ...........................................................................................5
2.2. Pipeline Support and Stability Analysis ...........................................................6
2.3. Pipeline Stress Analysis ....................................................................................9
2.4. Seabed Topography Analysis .........................................................................12
2.5. Pressure Design of Pipeline ............................................................................14
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................20

3.1. Project Flow Process .......................................................................................20
3.2. Material Selection ...........................................................................................21
3.3. Line Pipe Specification ...................................................................................23
3.4. Design Condition ............................................................................................23
3.5. Load Cases ......................................................................................................24
3.6. Applicable Codes, Standards and Specifications ............................................25
3.7. Steps of Analysis.............................................................................................25
3.8. Project Gantt Chart .........................................................................................27
iv

CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION ...........................................................................29
4.1. Stress Analysis Result .....................................................................................29
4.2. Maximum mStresses ......................................................................................29
4.3. Maximum Displacement ................................................................................31
4.4. Seabed Topography Cases .............................................................................32
4.5. Stress Summary Result ..................................................................................36
4.6. Support Location ............................................................................................37
4.7. Distance between Nodes ................................................................................38

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................39
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................40
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................43
Appendix A: ....................................................................................................... .A1
Appendix B: ........................................................................................................ B1
Appendix C: ........................................................................................................ C1
Appendix D: ........................................................................................................ D1
v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Roles of pipelines in an offshore hydrocarbon field............................................2

Figure 2: Secondary stabilization – concrete mattresses..................................................6
Figure 3: Free body diagram of pipeline for on-bottom stability analysis..........................7
Figure 4: Flowline stresses and vortex shedding.................................................................8
Figure 5: Free spanning pipeline on seabed........................................................................9
Figure 6: Longitudinal and cross-sectional view of steel tubes........................................10
Figure 7: Result of free span analysis................................................................................11
Figure 8: SIMLA: Planning of pipe routes, trenching and rock dumping.........................12
Figure 9: Underwater pipeline...........................................................................................12
Figure 10: Continental shelf and continental slope............................................................13
Figure 11: Subsea pipelines on rough seabed, Ormen Range field...................................13
Figure 12: Hoop (h), Longitudinal (1) and Radial (r) Stress Direction.............................14
Figure 13: Analysis steps...................................................................................................25
Figure 14: CAEASAR II workflow...................................................................................26
Figure 15: Pipeline routing using CAESAR II (with node numbers)................................31
Figure 16: Front view of the pipeline routing....................................................................32
Figure 17: CAESAR II interface of pipeline modeling.....................................................32
Figure 18: Slide-down shaped topography.………….......................................................33
Figure 19: Slide-down shaped topography applied on the pipeline routing (Brown line
indicates the seabed topography) ……………………......................................................33
Figure 20: Stair-case shaped topography.…………..........................................................34
Figure 21: Stair-case shaped topography applied on the pipeline routing (Brown line
indicates the seabed topography) ……………………......................................................34
Figure 22: Wavy shaped topography.…………................................................................35
Figure 23: Wavy shaped topography applied on the pipeline routing (Brown line indicates
the seabed topography) …………………………...…......................................................35
Figure 24: Stress summary result…………………….......................................................36
vi

LIST OF TABLE
Table 1: Examples of Longitudinal Weld Joint Factors E (ASME B31.8) ......................16

Table 2: Examples of Yield and Ultimate Stress (ASME II Part D) …............................16
Table 3: Location Design Factor F (ASME B31.8) ..........................................................17
Table 4: Temperature Derating Factor (B31.8) ................................................................17
Table 5: ASME B31.3 Allowable Stress …………..........................................................19
Table 6: Tensile strength properties (API 5L, 2000) ........................................................21
Table 7: Pipeline Specification .........................................................................................23
Table 8: Load Cases .........................................................................................................24
Table 9: FYP 1 Gantt Chart ..............................................................................................27
Table 10: FYP 2 Gantt Chart ............................................................................................28
Table 11: Hydro test Load Case .......................................................................................29
Table 12: Operating Load Case ........................................................................................29
Table 13: Sustained Load Case ........................................................................................30
Table 14: Expansion Load Case .......................................................................................30
Table 15: Maximum displacement ...................................................................................31
Table 16: Support types …………....................................................................................37
Table 17: Distance between nodes ....................................................................................38
vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Marine pipelines for the transportation of oil and gas have become a safe and
reliable part of the expanding infrastructure put in place for the development of the
valuable resources below the world’s seas and oceans [2]. Route selection for pipeline is
a crucial activity. A poorly chosen route can be much more expensive than a well chosen
route. Understanding of the seabed geotechnics and the oceanographic conditions:
knowledge of the locations of geotechnically uniform and smooth seabed, free of
obstructions or existing pipelines and not in conflict with other fields, existing or planned
subsea installations [3].
Stress is classified into three major categories namely primary stress, secondary
stress and tertiary stress. Primary stress is developed by imposed loading and necessary to
satisfy the equilibrium between external and internal forces and moments of the pipeline.
Secondary stress is a self-limiting stress which is developed by constraint of the
displacement of a structure. The displacement is caused by thermal expansion or by
outwardly imposed restraint. Tertiary stress is a peak stress which causes no significant
distortion. It is the highest stress under consideration and responsible for causing fatigue
failure [4].
A pipeline rests on or in the seabed. Based on research typically for Malay basin,
most of the underwater pipelines are not supported [5]. Depending on the seabed
topography, sometimes rocks are dumped surrounding the pipeline as a means of support.
The pipelines are also being anchored on the seabed as a means of fixed support or rather
being laid by the concrete mattress. Thus, this particular study is generally focus on the
stress analysis accounted for pipeline that is laid on different type of seabed topography
such as inclined slope, uneven seabed, etc.
1

Sea current and pressure difference around a pipeline will create hydrodynamic
forces. The stress on the pipeline is determined by the relative magnitude of the agitating
hydrodynamic force and the resulting force due to the submerged of pipeline. The
pipeline will be displaced when the resultant of drag and lift forces exceed the resisting
force due to the submerged weight of pipeline [6].
CAESAR II is used rather that ANSYS are for various reasons. CAESAR II user
creates a model of the piping system using simple beam elements and defines the loading
conditions imposed on the system. With this input, CAESAR II produces results in the
form of displacements, loads and stresses throughout the system. Additionally, CAESAR
II compares these results to limits specified by recognized codes and standards [7].
Unlike ANSYS, CAESAR II is a simplified version of finite element analysis

software. CAESAR II does not encounter mesh analysis, thus the steps to complete an
analysis are fewer which means faster than ANSYS that acquire more steps. The
simulation using CAESAR II is on the whole pipe and demonstrates 3-dimensional
analysis compared to ANSYS which only focus at one point where analysis is done.
There are few assumptions needed to be made when using CAESAR II to increase the
accuracy level. Furthermore, CAESAR II is a more comprehensive software to be used
for pipeline stress analysis as the software are designed specifically for pipes.
Figure 1: Roles of pipelines in an offshore hydrocarbon field [10]
2

1.2 Problem Statement
From the pipeline point of view, the ideal seabed is level and smooth so that no
spans are formed and is composed of stable medium clay. The pipe settles into the clay
and gains enhanced lateral stability [2]. However, the seabed has many types of geometry
and not consistently that the pipeline encounters flat and even ocean floor. Some seabeds
are highly mobile and include sandwaves (which may be 15 m high and 100 m long) and
smaller ripple features (which range in size on many scales from millimeters to meters
high) [6].
Information on the seabed topography and geotechnics are needed in order to

make a rational choice of pipeline route. This study takes into consideration on several
types of irregular seabed topography.
All of the offshore activities are mainly concerns on the safety measure. Thorough
inspections are done to ensure that all the facilities and equipment used offshore are safe
and reliable. Pipelines in service are subjected to wave and current loadings. Thus, an
analysis is required for detailed examination of external hydrodynamics loading on the
pipeline.
The input graphics model of CAESAR II facilitates intuitive pipe stress analysis
modeling. CAESAR II stress analysis shows piping system flexibility, plus any areas of
concern. Pipe stress analysis results, in the form of displacements, loads and stresses, are
compared with international piping standards and piping codes [8].
3

1.3 Objective and Scope of Study
Objectives:
1. To model pipeline and perform the stress analysis using pipe stress analysis
interface, CAESAR II.
2. To study the stress distribution of underwater pipeline laying on irregular seabed
geometry under ocean current loads and also verifies the design code compliance.
Scope of study:
The scope of this project encompasses all the necessary activities to understand,
assess and analyze subsea pipeline stress distribution. The beginning phase of the project
includes an extensive research effort. This research begins with the knowledge and
experience of engineers from oil and gas industry and also study through recent journals.
The focal point of this project is the simulation of pipe model using CAESAR II
that focuses on the pipe stress analysis subjected to the pipeline. For economic reasons,
the material that will be used for the fabrication of pipelines (for production and
transmission of oil and gas) is carbon steels (API 5L X65). The area of seabed
investigated is Malay Basin which is located on the north-west of peninsula Malaysia.
Water depth is approximately 100-300 m. The piping code used for the pipeline analysis
is ASME B31.3. The subsea pipeline coverage is from the riser that is attached to the
processing unit (CPP) to the wellhead platform (WHP). The length for the pipe spool is
20 feet.
4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to engineering works, the seabed must be thoroughly surveyed along the
entire pipeline route to map seabed topography and identify potential obstacles. This is to
avoid free spans and seabed peaks and troughs. Uneven topographic conditions mean that
the rigid pipelines cannot always be in direct contact with the seabed. Based on some
research, the author hasn’t found any study on stress analysis of pipeline particularly for
irregular seabed topography. Most previous investigations have only concerned either on
the seabed topography alone or the pipeline stress analysis alone. Recent study by F.P.
Gao, D.S. Jeng and H. Sekiguchi focus on the wave-seabed pipeline interaction problem.
In this study, a proposed finite element model is adopted to investigate the interaction
between nonlinear ocean waves, a buried pipelines and a porous seabed. The numerical
results indicate the importance to the effect of pipeline on the seabed response [9].
2.1 Submarine Pipeline
Pipelines are used for a number of purposes in the development of offshore

hydrocarbon resources [10]. These include export (transportation) of pipelines, flowlines
to transfer product from a platform to export lines, water injection or chemical injection
flowlines, flowlines to transfer product between platforms, subsea manifolds and satellite
wells and pipeline bundles
Mechanical design of underwater pipeline usually requires consideration of

several factors. The internal pressure is due to contained fluid. If the generated stress in
the pipe wall is too large, the pipeline will yield circumferentially and continued yielding
will lead to thinning of pipe wall and rupture. There is also external pressure which is due
to the hydrostatic and hydrodynamics effect on the pipeline. Pipeline stability depends on
the geometry of the seabed and types of sand. A pipeline laid on uneven seabed does not
usually conform to seabed profile but instead forms free span. Expansion stress arises
from difference between pipeline operating temperature and installation temperature [11].
5

Pipeline routing is a major factor that can directly influence cost and feasibility of
a pipeline project. For example, this may impact technical considerations such as
excessive water depth or the presence of geohazards, or geopolitical reasons such as
national boundaries. Furthermore, these factors generally become more pronounced when
pipeline routes traverse continental slopes to the abyssal or deep ocean depths [12].
2.2 Pipeline Support and Stability Analysis
Submarine pipeline are usually just laid above or under the seabed. There are
basically no pipe supports used for underwater pipelines. Some only used anchor as fixed
support and others used rock dumping to ensure the pipelines are in-place. To cater for
thermal expansion and hydrodynamics forces (process related), bends are sometimes
intentionally introduced.
Figure 2: Secondary stabilization – concrete mattresses [13]
6

Pipelines resting on the seabed are subjected to fluid loading from both waves and
steady currents. For regions of the seabed where damage may result from vertical or
lateral movement of the pipeline it is a design requirement that the pipe weight is
sufficient to ensure stability under the worst possible environmental conditions. In some
circumstances, the pipeline may be allowed to move laterally provided stress (or strain)
limits are not exceeded. [10]
Figure 3: Free body diagram of pipeline for on-bottom stability analysis [10]
Pipeline stability analyses require the calculation of hydrodynamic loads acting on

the pipeline for various shore crossing configurations. Hydrodynamic stability analyses
are performed on shallow water pipelines and may include a limit state design approach
in which the pipeline-soil interaction during pipeline movement and subsequent pipeline
embedment is included. Optimization of concrete weight coating and discrete anchoring
stabilization techniques versus trenching requirements must be performed. Pipeline
stability analyses are required to ensure pipeline design; construction and installation
processes are suitable for the anticipated environmental and operational conditions.
Evaluation of near shore soil conditions, seasonal coastal processes and shoreline
erosion/accretion processes are also often considered in the stability analyses [12].
7

The loads acting on the pipeline due to wave and current action are; the
fluctuating drag, lift and inertia forces. In a design situation a factor of safety is required
by most pipeline codes, the components of hydrodynamics forces are shown below:
Figure 4: Flowline stresses and vortex shedding [10]
8

2.3 Pipeline Stress Analysis
Pipeline stress analysis is performed to determine if the pipeline stresses are

acceptable (in accordance with requirements) during pipeline installation, testing and
operation. The analysis performed to verify that stresses experienced are acceptable
includes [10]:
 Hoop stress
 Longitudinal stress
 Span Analysis
 Stability analysis
 Expansion and buckling analysis
Pipelines do not always rest continuously in contact with the seabed. There may
be spans where pipeline bridges across low points in profile. Spans can give rise to
various structural problems and may need to be corrected [14].
Figure 5: Free spanning pipeline on seabed [14]
The numerical simulation of unilaterally constrained structural systems is

receiving increased attention, mainly due to the fact that direct solutions to the problem
are unattainable. Maier and Andreuzzi [15] and Chuang and Smith [16] adopted quadratic
programming for the determination of pipeline configurations bounded by a rigid seabed
of irregular geometry.
9

According to C.Kalliontzia, E. Andrianis, K. Spyropoulos and S. Doikas [17], the
mathematical treatment of pressurized submarine pipelines, which are freely laid on sea
floors, poses a considerable problem since the contact points are not known a priori. The
geometrical irregularities of the assumed frictionless seabed profile, which may either be
rigid or deformable, influence to a large extent the bending stress distribution along the
pipeline.
Research has been carried out in the past, aimed mainly at providing solutions
regarding the accurate prediction of pipeline configurations resting freely on seabeds. The
use of a reliable FE model for design predictions could allow the engineer to study
material and structural behaviors, especially in the remote regions of the structure where
physical observation or measurement is not possible [18].
Preliminary tests have been carried out by Oliver [18] on simply supported (SS)
and rigidly clamped pipes under quasi-static and impact loading conditions using rigid
patch and wedge indentors.
Figure 6: Longitudinal and cross-sectional view of steel tubes [18]
10

Figure 7: Result of free span analysis [19]
11

2.4 Seabed Topography Analysis
Technology today has developed numbers of software to investigate the condition

of the seabed geometry and geotechnics. One of the infamous software used by the oil
and gas company is SIMLA. SIMLA is a software used for pipeline laying and in-place
analysis program. [20]
Figure 8: SIMLA with SimVis: Planning of pipe routes, trenching and rock dumping [20]
Alam M.R. and Mei C.C. [21] estimate the impact of long-period internal waves
on gas pipelines. They study on the evolution of internal solitary waves and the effect of
harmonic-generation in time-periodic waves travelling over random topography.
Figure 9: Underwater pipeline [21]
12

The irregular seabed profile is seen on the continental slope; a steep slope where
the mild slope continental shelf reaches ultra deep waters as seen in figure 10. Figure 11
shows visualizations of a rough seabed topography and subsea pipeline of the Ormen
Lange field (Norway) passing a rough seabed [14].
Figure 10: Continental shelf and continental slope [14]
Figure 11: Subsea pipelines on rough seabed, Ormen Lange field, Norway [14]
13

2.5 Pressure Design of Pipeline [22]
2.5.1 Thin Wall Approximation
Consider a straight section of pipe filled with a pressurized liquid or gas. The
internal pressure generates three principal stresses in the pipe wall: as illustrated in Figure
14: a hoop stress σr . When the ratio of the pipe diameter to its wall thickness D/t is
greater than 20 the pipe may be considered to thin wall. In this case, the hoop stress is
nearly constant through the wall thickness and equal to
σh = PD
2t
P = Design pressure, Psi

D = Outside pipe diameter, in
t = Pipe wall thickness, in
The longitudinal stress is also constant through the wall and equal to half the hoop
stress
σ1 = PD
4t
The radial stress varies through the wall, from P at the inner surface of the pipe to zero
on the outer surface.
Figure 12: Hoop (h), Longitudinal (l) and Radial (r) Stress Directions
14

2.5.2 Pipeline design equation
For oil and gas pipelines, the thickness of the pipe wall is obtained by writing that
the hoop stress, which is the largest stress in the pipe, must be limited to a certain
allowable stress S. Using the thin wall approximation, this condition corresponds to
PD < S
2t
P = Internal design pressure, psi

D = Pipe outer diamenter, in
t = Pipe wall thickness, in
S = Allowable stress, psi
For hazardous liquid pipelines (hydrocarbon, carbon dioxide, etc.) the allowable stress
is set at [ASME B31.4]:
S = 0.72 SYE
0.72 = Design factor

E = Longitudinal weld joint factor, Table 1
Sy = Specified minimum yield strength,psi, Table 2
For gas pipelines, the allowable stress is [ASME B31.8]:
S = SY F E T
P = Design pressure, psi

D = Nominal outside diameter, in
SY = Specified minimum yield stress,psi, Table 2 (commonly referred to as SMYS in
the pipeline industry)
F = Design factor, Table 3
15

E = Weld joint factor, Table 1
T = Temperature derating factor, Table 4
Table 1: Examples of Longitudinal Weld Joint Factors E [ASME B31.8]
Material Pipe Class E

ASTM A 53,A106 Seamless 1.0
ASTM A 53 ERW 1.0
ASTM A 53 Furnace Butt Welded 0.6
ASTM A 134 Electric Fusion Arc Welded 0.8
ASTM A 135 Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) 1.0
API 5L Seamless 1.0
API 5L Submerged Arc Welded or ERW 1.0
API 5L Furnace Butt Welded 0.6
Table 2: Examples of Yield and Ultimate Stress [ASME II Part D]
Temperature A 106 Gr.B A 106 Gr.B A 312 T.304 A 312 T.304

(ºF) SY (ksi) Su (ksi) SY (ksi) SY (ksi)
100 35.0 60 30.0 75.0
200 31.9 60 25.0 71.0
300 31.0 60 22.5 66.0
400 30.0 60 20.7 64.4
500 28.3 60 19.4 63.5
16

Table 3: Location Design Factor F [ASME B31.8]
Location F
Class 1 Div.1: Deserts, farm land, sparsely populated, etc 0.8
Class 1 Div.2: Class 1, with line tested to 110% design 0.72
Class 2: Industrial areas, town fringes, ranch, etc. 0.6
Class 3: Suburban housing, shipping centers, etc. 0.5
Class 4: Multistory buildings, heavy traffic, etc. 0.4
Note : Lowe location design factors apply at crossing, compressor station, etc. The
pipeline designer must refer to codes and regulations for the applicable location design
factor.
Table 4: Temperature Derating Factor [B31.8]
Temperature (ºF) T
250 or less 1.0
300 0.967
350 0.933
400 0.9
450 0.867
17

2.5.3 Lame’s formula
Without the thin wall approximation, the more general form of the three principal stresses
in a closed cylinder subject to internal pressure P is given by Lame’s formula.
σt = P
σr = P
σl = P
σt = Tangential (hoop) stress, psi

σr = Radial stress, psi
σl = Longitudinal (axial) stress, psi
ri = Inner pipe radius, in
r0 = Outer pipe radius, in
r = Radial distance of a point in the pipe wall, in
2.5.4 Allowable stress
The allowable stress for pipelines is 72% Sy and does not depend on the material’s
ultimate strength. The allowable stress for power and process plant piping systems is
S(T) = min. { SY (T) / SFY ; SU (T) / SFU }
S(T) = Allowable stress at design temperature T, psi

SFy = Safety factor applied to yield stress
SFu = Safety factor applied to ultimate strength
18

Sy (T ) = Minimum specified yield stress at design temperature T,psi
Su(T ) = Minimum specified ultimate strength at design temperature T, psi
For carbon steel pipe in ASME B31.3 applications;
S(T) = min.{2 SY (T ) / 3;SU (T ) / 3}
Where the values of yield stress Sy or ultimate strength Su at design temperature are
larger than at room temperature, the room temperature values are used. Some values of
allowable stress are listed in Table 5.
Table 5: ASME B31.3 Allowable Stress
Material 100ºF 200ºF 300ºF 400ºF 500ºF

A 106 Gr.B 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 18.9
API 5L X52 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 -
A 312 Type 304 20.0 20.0 20.0 18.7 17.5
B 241 6061 T6 12.7 12.7 10.6 5.6 -
19

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Project Flow Process
The author had read some journals and articles to enhance the understanding on
irregular seabed topography and also stress analysis imposed on pipelines. In order to
complete the project according to the given time frame, the author had planned on the
project flow process as follows:
Project Identification
Literature Review
Define parameter and
data collection
Study the design and
parameter of pipeline
Calculation and
problem definition
Simulation and stress
analysis using CAESAR II
Satisfactory simulation
result
Conclusion and
recommendation
20

3.2 Material Selection
Generally, carbon steels are used for subsea pipelines. API-5L “Specification for
Line Pipe” (2000) is used for standard specifications. API-5L covers Grade B to Grade
X80 steels with Outside Diameter (OD) ranging from 4.5 to 80 inch. Table 1 shows
tensile strength properties according to API-5L. Generally the most common steel grade
used for deepwater subsea pipelines is X65, regarding its cost-effectiveness and adequate
welding technology [14]. Thus, for this project, pipe material used is API 5L X65.
Table 6: Tensile strength properties (API 5L, 2000) [14]
Grade Yield Strength Yield Strength Ultimate Tensile Ultimate Tensile Elongation in
Min. (Psi) Max. (Psi) Strength Min. (Psi) Strength Max. (Psi) 2 in. min. (%)
B 35,000 65,000 60,000 110,000 a
X42 42,000 72,000 60,000 110,000 a
X46 46,000 76,000 63,000 110,000 a
X52 52,000 77,000 66,000 110,000 a
X56 56,000 79,000 71,000 110,000 a
X60 60,000 82,000 75,000 110,000 a
X65 65,000 87,000 77,000 110,000 a
X70 70,000 90,000 82,000 110,000 a
X80 80,000 100,000 90,000 120,000 a
The minimum elongation in 2 in. (50.8 mm) shall be that determined by the following
equation:
U.S. Customary Unit Equation
.
625,000 .
21

SI Unit Equation
.
1,944 .
where;
e = minimum elongation in 2 in. (50.8 mm) in percent rounded to the nearest

percent.
A = applicable tensile test specimen area, as follows:
a. For both sizes of round bar specimens, 0.20 in.2 (130 mm2);
b. For full section specimens, the smaller of (i) 0.75 in.2 (485 mm2) and
(ii) the cross-sectional area of the test specimen, calculated using
specified outside diameter of the pipe and the specified wall thickness
of the pipe, rounded to the nearest 0.01 in.2 (10 mm2); and
c. For strip specimens, the smaller of (i) 0.75 in.2 (485 mm2) and (ii) the
cross-sectional area of the test specimen, calculated using the specified
width of the test specimen and the specified wall thickness of the pipe,
rounded to the nearest 0.01 in.2 (10 mm2).
U = specified minimum ultimate tensile strength in Psi (Mpa).
By using higher grade steels, the required wall thickness is reduced. Therefore,
the cost of pipeline per meter is slightly reduced. Higher grade steels result in a lighter
pipeline, thus the tension is lower. This factor is very important in deep waters, where
required tension can be a limiting factor.
22

3.3 Line Pipe Specification
Table 2 below shows the physical information regarding the pipe geometry, steel
material strength and all other information required to define the necessary input for
stress analysis.
Table 7: Pipeline specifications
Line Pipe Diameter = 10” (DN 250) Parameter values

Pipe Inside diameter ID, DN 250 230.19 mm
Pipe Structural wall thickness, DN 250 21.43 mm
Pipe Outside diameter, OD 273.05 mm
Yield Strength 448 MPa
Tensile Strength 500 – 750 MPa
Allowable Stress 25,700 Psi
Elasticity modulus 2.95E7 Psi
Poisson’s Ratio 0.292
3.4 Design Condition
Design Pressure, P1 = 120 bar(g)

Hydrotest Pressure, HP = 150 bar(g)
Max. Design Temperature, T1 = 82 ºC
Min. Design Temperature, T2 = 5 ºC
Installation temperature, Tambient = 21 ºC
Fluid Density = 790 Kg/m3
Drag coefficient, CD = 0.7
Added mass coefficient, Ca = 0.85
Lift coefficient, Cl = 0.9
23

3.5 Load Cases
The pipeline system is analyzed for various load cases listed below, in accordance
with the Pipeline Design Code DEP 31.40.10.19/ISO 14692/ASME B 31.3
Table 8: Load cases
Load Case Description Case Type Remarks

1 WNC SUS Dead weight of installed system
2 W SUS Dead weight of installed system with content
3 WW SUS Dead weight of installed system with water filled
4 W+P1 SUS Sustain condition at design pressure without
thermal effect
5 W+T1+P1 OPE Sustain condition at design pressure & design
temperature with thermal effect
6 W+T2+P1 OPE Sustain condition at design pressure & minimum
design temperature with thermal effect
7 WW+HP HYD Hydrotest condition
8 L8=L5-L4 EXP Expansion due to maximum design temperature
T1
9 L9=L6-L4 EXP Expansion due to minimum design temperature T2
Legend:
WW Pipeline filled with water

W Pipeline with fluid weight
WNC Pipeline with no contents
P1 Design pressure of the pipeline
HP Hydrotest pressure
T1 Design temperature of the pipeline (buried/aboveground)
T2 Minimum design temperature (buried/aboveground)
24

3.6 Applicable Codes, Standards and Specifications
Following codes and standards, with the requirements in these design criteria,
shall form the basis for stress analysis. The International System of units (SI) shall be
used for all unit measurement.
Code and Standard:

ASME B31.3 : Process piping
API 5L : Specification for Line Pipes
3.7 Steps of the Analysis
Figure below shows the step by step procedures to complete the analysis from
starting point until the end where all the results are generated.
Compare obtained
result with
START Run simulation
maximum allowable
stress
Data collection
•Piping code/size Report based
Locate support
•Allowable stress output
•Load cases
Input to CAESAR II
•Wave load
Model pipelines END
•Pipe dimensions
Figure 13: Analysis steps
25

Figure 14: CAESAR II workflow
26

3.8 Project Gantt Chart
Table 9: FYP 1 Gantt Chart
No Detail/Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 Selection of Project Topic
2 Project Identification and
Planning
3 Preliminary Research Work
4 Submission of Preliminary
Report
5 Project Work:
 Further research and
Mid-semester break
study
 Literature review
6 Seminar (compulsory)
7 Project work continues:
 Defining project
constraints and
criteria to be
evaluated
 Developing the
analysis technique
9 Submission of Draft Report
10 Submission of Final Report
Milestone
Process
27

Table 10: FYP 2 Gantt Chart
No Detail/Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
11 Project Work Continues
 Data gathering for
analysis
 Start pipeline
modelling
 Verifying results
12 Submission of Progress
Mid-semester break
Report
13 Project Work Continues:
 Results of analysis
14 Pre-EDX
15 Submission of Draft Report
16 Submission of Dissertation
(Soft Bound)
17 Submission of Technical
Paper
18 Oral Presentation
19 Submission of Project
Dissertation (Hard Bound)
Milestone
Process

28

CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Stress Analysis Result
The stresses, displacements, forces and moments for the system analyzed are
found to be within code allowable limits. The maximum stresses (refer Appendix A) and
maximum displacement from the analysis results are tabulated below.
4.2 Maximum Stresses
(a) Table 11: Hydro Test Load Case
LOAD CASES: NODE CALCULATED ALLOWABLE STRESS

NO STRESS (PSI) STRESS (PSI) RATIO (%)
CASE 7 (HYD) WW+HP 120 12959.4 27500 47.1
During hydro test, the stress of the pipeline is subjected up to 12959.4 Psi at node
120. Hydrostatic testing is used to determine and verify pipeline integrity. Generally,
pipelines are hydrotested by filling the test section of pipe with water and pumping the
pressure up to a value that is higher than maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP).
(b) Table 12: Operating Load Case

CASE 5 (OPE) W+T1+P1 120 13371.9 27500 48.62
CASE 6 (OPE) W+T2+P1 130 16701.6 27500 60.73
Compared to all the applied load cases on the underwater pipeline, operating load
case 6 gives the maximum value of stress which 16701.6 Psi with stress ratio of 60.73
percent. Pipelines are loaded by operating conditions; basically, internal pressure and
temperature. The stress distribution is at maximum during operation of the pipeline due to
29

the increasing temperature. These lead to the expansion of the pipeline which later creates
stress upon certain areas such as the joints.
(c) Table 13: Sustained Load Case

CASE 1 (SUS) WNC 120 6155.5 27500 24
CASE 2 (SUS) W 120 7698.8 27500 30
CASE 3 (SUS) WW 120 8084.6 27500 31.5
CASE 4 (SUS) W+P1 120 12356.7 27500 48.1
Sustained loads consist of internal pressure and dead-weight. Dead weight is from
the weight of pipes, fittings and components. Internal design or operating pressure causes
uniform circumferential stresses in the pipe wall, based on which a pipe thickness is
determined. Additionally, internal pressure gives rise to axial stresses in the pipe wall. A
pipe’s dead-weight causes it to bend between supports and nozzles, producing axial
stresses in the pipe wall. In the stress analysis, node 120 gives the highest value of stress
for all sustained load cases. Case 4 is the highest amongst other that reads stress of
12356.7 Psi with ratio nearly 50 %.
(d) Table 14: Expansion Load Case

CASE 8 (EXP) L8=L5-L4 9050 3046.4 55262.9 5.5
CASE 9 (EXP) L9=L6-L4 9050 758.9 55262.9 1.4
Expansion loads refer to the cyclic thermal expansion and contraction of pipe.
When the pipeline is restrained in the directions it thermally deforms, such constraint on
free thermal deformation generates cyclic thermal stress range, the system is susceptible
30

to failure by fatigue. To avoid fatigue failure, pipeline system should be made flexible.
Table shows the least pipe stress generated at support node 9050.
4.3 Maximum displacement
Table 15: Maximum displacement
LOAD CASES: NODE DX DY DZ

NO mm mm mm
CASE 1 (OPE) WNC 28 0.0035 0.0426 0.0000
CASE 1 (OPE) W+T1+P1 150 0.0636 -0.0000 1.5788
CASE 1 (OPE) W+T1+P1 190 0.7282 -0.7663 5.6254
Subsea pipeline are loaded by internal pressure, by longitudinal displacement

restrictions caused by support or soil interaction and by temperature differential. Above
table represents random selection of nodes with maximum displacement. The
displacements are higher during operations (refer Appendix B).
Figure 15: Pipeline routing using CAESAR II (with node numbers)
31

Figure 16: Front view of the pipeline routing
Figure 17: CAESAR II interface of pipeline modeling
32

4.4 Seabed Topography Cases
There are three (3) cases of the seabed geometry and topography. Each of these
cases concentrates on a specific loading scenario and has different type of free span.
4.4.1 Case 1:
Figure 18: Slide-down shaped topography
Offshore oil and gas pipelines are being subjected to deeper water depths, more
extreme environmental conditions and harsher operating requirements than ever before.
Thus, free spanning pipelines are becoming more common and are often unavoidable
during pipeline installation. For case 1, free spans are induced by elevated obstructions.
Loads are more focused at node 80 (refer figure 19), hence the stress distribution is
higher at that point of the pipeline. Fixed support which is an anchor and guide support is
located along node 40 to 90 to sustain the pipe from buckling or fatigue failure.
Figure 19: Slide-down shaped topography applied on the pipeline routing (Brown line
indicates the seabed topography)
33

4.4.2 Case 2
Figure 20: Stair-case shaped topography
Case 2 is basically the same conditions with case 1, only the stress distribution is
higher at 90 degree shaped of seabed. This is due to the hanging pipeline in between the
corner of the 90 degree seabed (refer figure 21). Without suitable type of support, the
pipeline at the point may buckle and later will cause fatigue failure. Guide support is
located in the middle between node 140 and node 150 to ensure the pipeline can
withstand load subjected to it. Higher stress results were obtained at node 150 which
means critical point of the pipeline.
Figure 21: Stair-case shaped topography applied on the pipeline routing (Brown line
indicates the seabed topography)
34

4.4.3 Case 3
Figure 22: Wavy shaped topography
The gap between the pipeline and seafloor will affect the free stream velocity of
the current passing around the free spanning pipe. This gap can also limit the amount of
deflection that may occur due to static and dynamic loading. In general, as pipe tension
increases, the maximum allowable span length increases. The stresses on the free span
due to static loading are not affected significantly by the increase in pipe tension. For
case 3, no support is located along node 150 to 160. The humps of the seabed in a way
creates a +Y rest support to the pipeline. The stress distribution is stable along the
pipeline due to uniform load subjected.
Figure 23: Wavy shaped topography applied on the pipeline routing (Brown line indicates
the seabed topography
35

4.5 Stress Summary Result
PASSED
Figure 24: Stress summary result
The pipeline met all the criteria and passed all the analysis. With suitable type of
support attached to the pipeline, it can withstand the maximum possible load subjected.
The material used for the pipeline has the best strength to make the lifetime of the
pipeline last longer. Appendix A shows the maximum calculated stress for all load cases
and appendix B shows the displacement of each node in the pipeline.
36

4.6 Support Location
The pipeline is laid on the seabed and fully constrained. There are one anchor
block at the connecting point or tie in point between the pipeline and the riser. Only three
types of supports that is used in this pipeline which are resting (+Y), guide with 3mm gap
and limit stop. Support type and support location is listed in the table below and support
shall be designed considering the loading.
Table 16: Support types
No. Node Type of support Description

1 10 ANC Anchored at flange (tie-in point)
2 30 +Y Rest support
3 9060 Guide, Lim Guide with 3mm gap and limit stop
5 9080 +Y, guide Rest support, guide with 3mm gap
6 9070 +Y, guide Rest support, guide with 3mm gap
8 9010 Guide Guide with 3mm gap
11 9000 Guide Guide with 3mm gap
13 120 +Y, Lim Rest support and limit stop
15 9020 +Y, Guide Rest support, guide with 3mm gap
37

4.7 Distances between Nodes
Table 17: Distance between nodes
Node from Node to Distance (m)

10 30 10
30 9060 5
9060 40 15
40 9080 5
9080 50 10
70 9070 5
9070 80 10
80 9010 1
9010 90 2
90 100 10
100 9000 1.25
9000 110 1.25
110 120 10
120 130 20
130 9020 2
9020 140 6
140 9030 1.5
9030 150 2.5
150 160 12
160 170 4
170 180 20
180 190 9
190 240 40
38

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
This report has covered the pipeline modeling and performed pipe stress analysis.
Analytical solutions were developed using pipe stress analysis software, CAESAR II
version 5.10 to generate stress distributions along the underwater pipeline of 250mm
diameter. The design code compliance was verified for the subsea pipeline laying on
irregular seabed geometry under ocean current loads.
It is concluded from the stress analysis result that the system is within design
envelope and stress are acceptable under operating/design conditions. With the
recommended support system, stresses are kept low within code allowable limits. The
pipe stress analysis of underwater pipeline with DN250 has successfully been analyzed
using CAESAR II. The X65 Carbon Steel pipeline has maximum strength that is able to
withstand the highest value of current load.
The maximum allowable stress along the pipeline was calculated to be 27500 Psi.
The maximum stress on the pipeline were up to 16701.6 Psi located at node 130 with
60.73 % stress ratio. While, the maximum displacement can be seen at node 9030 (refer
appendix B of page B11) of 3 inches in +Z direction, 0.0129 inches in +Y direction and
0.2797 inches and +X direction. Node 9030 is a means of guide support. It is not laid on
the seabed due to the gap of free spanning (refer case 2). All of the nodes have higher
displacements during load case 5 and 6 which is the operating conditions compared to
other load cases.
The stress analysis result was compared using manual template calculation to
validate the value. This result should only be used as a guide in determining the most
practical and reasonable maximum allowable stress for a given case.
39

REFERENCES
[1] Project Consulting Services, Inc., December 1997, Analysis and Assessment of
Unsupported Subsea Pipeline Spans, United States Department of The Interior Minerals
Management Service.
[2] Cinda L. Cyrus, 1995, “Pipeline Construction”, Petroleum Extension Service,

Division of Continuing Education, The University of Texas at Austin.
[3] Andrew C. Palmer and Roger A. King, 2004, “Subsea Pipeline Engineering”,
PennWell Corporation, Oklahoma.
[4] JP Kenny, 1993, Structural Analysis of Pipeline Span, JP Kenny and Partners Ltd.
[5] Michele G. Bishop, 2002, Petroleum System of the Malay Basin Province, Malaysia,
Central Region Energy Resources Team, U.S. Department of U.S. Geological Survey
[6] Andrew C. Palmer, Rofer A. King, 2008, “Subsea Pipeline Engineering”, 2nd Edition,
Pennwell Corporation
[7] Coade Inc., 2010, Intergraph CAESAR II
<www.coade.com> , date retrieved: 10 July 2011
[8] Fern Newswires, 2011, Pipe Stress Analysis Software
<http://www.ferncc.com/CAESAR-Pipe-Stress-Analysis-05.html > , date retrieved: 10

July 2011
[9] F.P. Gao, D.S. Jeng and H. Sekiguchi, 2003, “Numerical study on the interaction
between non-linear wave, buried pipeline and non-homogenous porous seabed”,
Computers and Geotechnics, Volume 30, 535-547
[10] Yong Bai, 2001, Pipelines And Risers, ELSEVIER Ocean Engineering Book Series,
Volume 3, USA.
40

[11] DNV-RP-F109, 2007, Rules of Submarine Pipeline, On-Bottom Stability Design of
Submarine Pipelines.
[12] Intecsea, Offshore Pipelines Capability and Experience, Worley Parsons Group
[13] Lisa King, Dr Jeremy Leggoe, W/Prof Liang Cheng, “Hydrodynamic Forces on
Subsea Pipes due to Orbital Wave Effects”, The University of Western Australia,
Woodside Energy Ltd
[14] Nikzad Nourpanah, 2009, “Subsea Pipelines”, Dalhousie University, Directed

Studies CIVL 7006
[15] G. Maier and F. Andreuzzi, 1978, Elastic and Elasto-plastic Analysis of Submarine
Pipelines as Unilateral Contact Problems, Computers & Structures Vol. 8, 421-431
[16] P.H. Chuang and D.L. Smith, 1992, Elastic Analysis of Submarine Pipelines, J.
Structural Engineering ASCE 119(1), 90-107
[17] C.Kalliontzia, E. Andrianis, K. Spyropoulos and S. Doikas, 7 February 1996,

Nonlinear Static Stress Analysis of Submarine High Pressure Pipelines, Computers &
Structures Vol. 63, 397-411
[18] O.O.R Famiyesin, K.D. Oliver, A.A. Rodger, 4 May 2002, Semi-empirical
Equations for Pipeline Design by Finite Element Method, Computers & Structures,
Volume 80, 1369-1382
[19] MARINTEK Research Programmes, 2005, “Design, Installation and Operation on

Deepwater Pipelines”, Deepline
[20] Marintek USA Inc Presentation, 2005, Norway

<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/user/My%20Documents/Google%20Talk%20
Received%20Files/FYP1/REFERENCES/Marintek%20USA%20Inc%20presentation.pdf
> , date retrieved: 24 September 2011
41

[21] Alam, M.-R. and Mei, C.C., 2008, "Ships advancing near the critical speed in a
shallow channel with a randomly uneven bed", J. Fluid Mechanics, Volume 616, 397-417
<http://www.sintef.no/home/MARINTEK/MARINTEK-Research-
Programmes/DEEPLINE/> , date retrieved: 4 August 2011
[22] Preliminary of Piping and Pipeline Engineering, Kikuchi Industry (Thailand) Co.,
Ltd.
<http://www.kikuchi-th.com/en/home.html> , date retrieved: 14 October 2011
[23] JP Kenny, 1993, “Structural Analysis of Pipeline Span”, JP Kenny and Partners Ltd.
[24] Iwan R., Lambrakos K.F., Billy L., 1999, “Prediction of Hydrodynamic Forces on
Submarine Pipelines Using an Improved Wake II Model”, Ocean Engineering Journal,
Volume 26, 431-462
[25] Ian A.R., John B.H., 1998, “Wave and wave-current loading on a bottom-mounted
circular cylinder”, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Volume
8(2), 122
[26] SST Systems, Inc., Basic Pipe Stress Analysis Tutorial
<http://www.sstusa.com> , date retrieved: 18 November 2011
42

CAESAR II Ver.5.10.00, (Build 070917) Date: DEC 29, 2011 Time: 10:53
Job: D:\FYP2CAESAR\PIPELINE1
Licensed To: DEALR/EVAL COPY -- ID #4369
LISTING OF STATIC LOAD CASES FOR THIS ANALYSIS
1 (SUS) WNC
2 (SUS) W
3 (SUS) WW
4 (SUS) W+P1
5 (OPE) W+T1+P1
6 (OPE) W+T2+P1
7 (HYD) WW+HP
8 (EXP) L8=L5-L4
9 (EXP) L9=L6-L4
A1
STRESS SUMMARY REPORT: Highest Stresses Mini Statement

Various Load Cases
LOAD CASE DEFINITION KEY
CASE 1 (SUS) WNC

CASE 2 (SUS) W
CASE 3 (SUS) WW
CASE 4 (SUS) W+P1
CASE 5 (OPE) W+T1+P1
CASE 7 (HYD) WW+HP
CASE 8 (EXP) L8=L5-L4
CASE 9 (EXP) L9=L6-L4
Piping Code: B31.3 = B31.3 -2006, May 31, 2007
CODE STRESS CHECK PASSED : LOADCASE 1 (SUS) WNC
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 1 (SUS) WNC

CodeStress Ratio (%): 24.0 @Node 120
Code Stress: 6155.5 Allowable: 25700.0
Axial Stress: 286.2 @Node 200
Bending Stress: 6143.2 @Node 120
Torsion Stress: 1851.6 @Node 180
Hoop Stress: 0.0 @Node 20
3D Max Intensity: 6239.1 @Node 120
CODE STRESS CHECK PASSED : LOADCASE 2 (SUS) W
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 2 (SUS) W

CODE STRESS CHECK PASSED : LOADCASE 3 (SUS) WW
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 3 (SUS) WW

CODE STRESS CHECK PASSED : LOADCASE 4 (SUS) W+P1
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 4 (SUS) W+P1

A2

Various Load Cases

NO CODE STRESS CHECK PROCESSED: LOADCASE 5 (OPE) W+T1+P1
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 5 (OPE) W+T1+P1

OPE Stress Ratio (%): 0.0 @Node 120
OPE Stress: 13371.9 Allowable: 0.0
NO CODE STRESS CHECK PROCESSED: LOADCASE 6 (OPE) W+T2+P1
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 6 (OPE) W+T2+P1

OPE Stress Ratio (%): 0.0 @Node 130
OPE Stress: 16701.6 Allowable: 0.0
NO CODE STRESS CHECK PROCESSED: LOADCASE 7 (HYD) WW+HP
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 7 (HYD) WW+HP

CODE STRESS CHECK PASSED : LOADCASE 8 (EXP) L8=L5-L4
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 8 (EXP) L8=L5-L4

A3

Various Load Cases
CODE STRESS CHECK PASSED : LOADCASE 9 (EXP) L9=L6-L4
Highest Stresses: (lb./sq.in.) LOADCASE 9 (EXP) L9=L6-L4

A4
1
LISTING OF STATIC LOAD CASES FOR THIS ANALYSIS
1 (SUS) WNC
2 (SUS) W
3 (SUS) WW
4 (SUS) W+P1
5 (OPE) W+T1+P1
6 (OPE) W+T2+P1
7 (HYD) WW+HP
8 (EXP) L8=L5-L4
9 (EXP) L9=L6-L4
2
DISPLACEMENTS REPORT: Nodal Movements

NODE DX in. DY in. DZ in. RX deg. RY deg. RZ deg.

10 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
20 -0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0071 -0.0002 0.0000 -0.0001
28 -0.1270 0.0523 -0.2708 0.0836 0.0290 -0.2668
29 -0.1307 0.0468 -0.2809 0.0824 0.0291 -0.2766
30 -0.1291 -0.0000 -0.2903 0.0793 0.0292 -0.2934
38 0.2559 -0.1039 -0.6550 0.0558 0.0403 0.3421
39 0.2622 -0.0363 -0.6660 0.0544 0.0415 0.3401
40 0.2540 -0.0000 -0.6761 0.0489 0.0425 0.3362
50 -0.4521 -0.6018 -1.1306 0.1140 0.0474 0.1777
60 -0.4605 -0.5814 -1.1377 0.1142 0.0474 0.1777
61 -0.4605 -0.5814 -1.1377 0.1142 0.0474 0.1777
70 -0.4690 -0.5610 -1.1449 0.1144 0.0474 0.1777
78 -0.8662 0.0004 -1.5014 -0.0211 0.0081 0.0155
79 -0.8652 -0.0015 -1.5101 -0.0306 0.0048 0.0098
80 -0.8593 -0.0000 -1.5163 -0.0386 0.0030 0.0006
88 -0.7778 0.0043 -1.5564 -0.0945 -0.0138 -0.0295
89 -0.7749 0.0029 -1.5575 -0.0964 -0.0143 -0.0324
90 -0.7722 -0.0000 -1.5577 -0.0985 -0.0150 -0.0357
98 -0.4429 -0.0065 -1.3936 -0.2237 -0.0525 0.1114
99 -0.4411 -0.0038 -1.3923 -0.2251 -0.0530 0.1090
100 -0.4400 -0.0000 -1.3914 -0.2264 -0.0533 0.1064
108 -0.3936 0.2097 -1.3603 -0.2900 -0.0651 0.1059
109 -0.3932 0.2126 -1.3603 -0.2908 -0.0652 0.1071
110 -0.3930 0.2155 -1.3610 -0.2916 -0.0652 0.1083
118 -0.4127 1.0814 -1.8101 -0.5188 -0.1088 -0.1060
119 -0.4084 1.0747 -1.8113 -0.5209 -0.1088 -0.1324
120 -0.4059 1.0654 -1.8041 -0.5230 -0.1092 -0.1596
128 -0.0033 -0.0066 1.0245 -0.9615 -0.1085 0.1560
129 -0.0018 -0.0031 1.0309 -0.9622 -0.1086 0.1495
130 0.0000 -0.0000 1.0393 -0.9630 -0.1087 0.1430
138 0.2366 0.0005 3.3662 -1.1375 -0.0880 -0.0062
139 0.2403 -0.0005 3.3879 -1.1405 -0.0878 -0.0049
140 0.2440 -0.0000 3.3706 -1.1437 -0.0867 -0.0038
148 0.3661 0.0058 2.2215 -1.2292 -0.0858 -0.0557
149 0.3692 0.0034 2.2052 -1.2312 -0.0848 -0.0631
150 0.3717 -0.0000 2.2027 -1.2330 -0.0842 -0.0708
158 0.6960 -0.0172 2.7200 -1.4919 -0.0369 0.1361
159 0.6975 -0.0086 2.7115 -1.4939 -0.0355 0.1349
160 0.6969 -0.0000 2.6818 -1.4963 -0.0338 0.1334
168 0.6317 0.3719 0.8193 -1.5786 -0.0161 0.1321
169 0.6277 0.2785 0.6825 -1.5886 -0.0096 0.1294
170 0.6261 -0.0000 0.6073 -1.6021 -0.0044 0.1267
178 -1.9952 -0.3466 -0.0770 1.3538 0.3843 0.0339
179 -2.0651 -0.1024 -0.0494 1.3006 0.4044 0.0265
180 -2.0914 -0.0000 -0.0000 1.2527 0.4312 0.0123
188 -1.4795 -0.5409 0.0029 0.3659 0.3951 -0.1640
189 -1.4599 -0.5530 -0.0019 0.3407 0.3995 -0.1632
190 -1.4369 -0.5535 0.0264 0.3049 0.4004 -0.1627
3


200 -0.0000 -0.0071 0.0000 -0.0001 0.0001 -0.0001
210 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
220 0.0000 0.0071 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
230 0.0000 0.5371 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
240 0.0000 0.5443 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
9000 -0.4168 0.1039 -1.3762 -0.2580 -0.0593 0.0949
9010 -0.8491 0.0037 -1.5212 -0.0465 0.0006 -0.0042
9020 0.1011 0.0910 1.7289 -1.0165 -0.1032 0.0149
9030 0.2797 0.0129 3.0000 -1.1719 -0.0867 -0.0040
9040 0.6699 0.1552 1.9187 -1.5306 -0.0268 0.1292
9050 -2.0070 -0.0000 0.2930 0.9871 0.4602 -0.0740
9060 -0.0606 -0.8949 -0.4017 0.0714 0.0302 -0.1887
9070 -0.6641 -0.0000 -1.2372 0.1031 0.0386 0.1220
9080 0.0213 -0.0000 -0.8053 -0.0999 0.0487 0.2858
CAESAR II Ver.5.10.00, (Build 070917) Date: DEC 28, 2011 Time: 10:53 4


10 0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000
20 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0018 -0.0002 -0.0000 -0.0001
28 0.0374 0.0519 0.0677 0.0841 -0.0093 -0.2694
29 0.0370 0.0466 0.0699 0.0830 -0.0094 -0.2792
30 0.0323 -0.0000 0.0713 0.0800 -0.0094 -0.2961
38 -0.0728 -0.1039 0.1671 0.0597 -0.0226 0.3389
39 -0.0708 -0.0363 0.1718 0.0583 -0.0238 0.3370
40 -0.0706 -0.0000 0.1761 0.0528 -0.0251 0.3331
50 0.0214 -0.5982 0.2264 0.1180 -0.0326 0.1818
60 0.0272 -0.5771 0.2282 0.1182 -0.0326 0.1817
61 0.0272 -0.5771 0.2282 0.1182 -0.0326 0.1817
70 0.0330 -0.5559 0.2300 0.1184 -0.0326 0.1817
78 0.1981 -0.0014 0.3779 -0.0087 -0.0141 0.0323
79 0.1985 -0.0019 0.3801 -0.0162 -0.0130 0.0277
80 0.1960 -0.0000 0.3812 -0.0233 -0.0108 0.0198
88 0.1740 0.0027 0.3653 -0.0659 -0.0091 -0.0090
89 0.1736 0.0016 0.3647 -0.0676 -0.0084 -0.0120
90 0.1732 -0.0000 0.3649 -0.0694 -0.0079 -0.0152
98 0.1062 -0.0012 0.3841 -0.1720 0.0063 0.0421
99 0.1057 -0.0009 0.3836 -0.1737 0.0065 0.0372
100 0.1051 -0.0000 0.3825 -0.1752 0.0068 0.0323
108 0.0841 0.0026 0.2979 -0.2412 0.0073 -0.0060
109 0.0839 0.0024 0.2964 -0.2421 0.0075 -0.0056
110 0.0837 0.0022 0.2943 -0.2431 0.0078 -0.0052
118 -0.0011 0.0219 -0.6442 -0.4720 -0.0054 -0.1517
119 0.0007 0.0117 -0.6511 -0.4742 -0.0050 -0.1732
120 0.0000 -0.0000 -0.6507 -0.4763 -0.0050 -0.1953
128 -0.0023 -0.0105 0.6274 -0.9202 -0.0108 0.2284
129 -0.0014 -0.0052 0.6314 -0.9210 -0.0111 0.2209
130 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.6373 -0.9219 -0.0114 0.2130
138 -0.0127 0.1453 2.4401 -1.1019 -0.0173 -0.0322
139 -0.0140 0.1424 2.4548 -1.1051 -0.0185 -0.0321
140 -0.0142 0.1393 2.4320 -1.1084 -0.0187 -0.0322
148 0.0124 0.0095 1.1684 -1.1999 -0.0382 -0.0814
149 0.0133 0.0050 1.1502 -1.2018 -0.0383 -0.0880
150 0.0133 -0.0000 1.1454 -1.2036 -0.0387 -0.0948
158 -0.0677 -0.0182 1.6133 -1.4698 -0.0786 0.1557
159 -0.0694 -0.0087 1.6075 -1.4718 -0.0792 0.1551
160 -0.0733 -0.0000 1.5809 -1.4739 -0.0794 0.1542
168 -0.2913 0.3683 -0.0925 -1.5617 -0.1050 0.1567
169 -0.2984 0.2758 -0.2092 -1.5704 -0.1058 0.1529
170 -0.2862 -0.0000 -0.2680 -1.5837 -0.1083 0.1491
178 -0.2045 -0.3343 -0.1183 1.3298 0.2327 0.0389
179 -0.2509 -0.0965 -0.0733 1.2742 0.2577 0.0316
180 -0.2747 -0.0000 -0.0000 1.2238 0.2894 0.0174
188 -0.4237 0.1283 0.5300 0.3160 0.3044 0.0503
189 -0.4291 0.1319 0.5292 0.2896 0.3105 0.0413
190 -0.4342 0.1319 0.5538 0.2528 0.3126 0.0314
200 -0.0000 0.0018 0.0000 -0.0001 0.0001 -0.0001
CAESAR II Ver.5.10.00, (Build 070917) Date: DEC 28, 2011 Time: 10:53 5


210 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
220 0.0000 -0.0018 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
230 0.0000 -0.1393 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
240 0.0000 -0.1411 -0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000
9000 0.0931 0.0103 0.3433 -0.2081 0.0071 -0.0012
9010 0.1916 0.0033 0.3811 -0.0293 -0.0105 0.0154
9020 0.0439 0.1948 1.1514 -0.9766 -0.0126 0.0418
9030 -0.0102 0.1069 2.0184 -1.1389 -0.0250 -0.0351
9040 -0.1637 0.1524 0.8850 -1.5108 -0.0900 0.1532
9050 -0.2958 -0.0000 0.4762 0.9506 0.3357 0.0029
9060 -0.0606 -0.8941 0.0882 0.0735 -0.0118 -0.1921
9070 0.0953 -0.0000 0.3119 0.1044 -0.0290 0.1298
9080 -0.0650 -0.0000 0.2084 -0.0953 -0.0302 0.2844
APPENDIX C: Maximum allowable pressure and temperature ratings
Maximum Allowable Pressure (kPa)
Temperature (oC)
-29 - 38 205 260 350 370 400 4301) 450

Nominal Size Wall Thickness
Schedule no.
(mm) (mm)
Maximum Allowable Stress (kPa)
137800 137800 130221 117130 115752 89570 74412 59943
20 6.35 5698 5698 5388 4844 4789 3707 3080 2480
30 7.8 7028 7028 6642 5974 5905 4568 3796 3059
STD 40 9.27 8385 8385 7923 7131 7048 5450 4527 3652
XS 60 12.7 11596 11596 10955 9853 9736 7538 6263 5043
250 80 15.09 13863 13863 13098 11781 11644 9012 7483 6028
100 18.26 16922 16922 15992 14386 14214 10996 9136 7359
120 21.44 20036 20036 18934 17032 16825 13022 10817 8716
XXS 140 25.4 23998 23998 16474 20394 20153 15599 12960 10438
160 28.58 27229 27229 25734 23143 22875 17700 14703 11844
C1

APPENDIX D: The density of some common liquids can be found in the table below:
Temperature Density
Liquid -t- -ρ-
(oC) (kg/m3)
Crude oil, 48o API 60oF 790
Crude oil, 40o API 60oF 825
Crude oil, 35.6o API 60oF 847
Crude oil, 32.6o API 60oF 862
Crude oil,alifornia 60oF 915
Crude oil, Mexican 60oF 973
Crude oil, Texas 60oF 873
Diesel fuel oil 20 to 60 15 820 - 950
Fuel oil 60oF 890
Gasoline, natural 60oF 711
Gasoline, Vehicle 60oF 737
Gas oils 60oF 890
Kerosene 60oF 820.1
Oil of resin 20 940
Oil of turpentine 20 870
D1

Temperature Density
Liquid -t- -ρ-
(oC) (kg/m3)
Petroleum Ether 20 640
Petrol, natural 60oF 711
Petrol, Vehicle 60oF 737
Sea water 25 1025
Sodium Hydroxide (caustic soda) 15 1250
Water - pure 4 1000
1 kg/m3 = 0.001 g/cm3 = 0.0005780 oz/in3 = 0.16036 oz/gal (Imperial) = 0.1335 oz/gal (U.S.) =
0.0624 lb/ft3 = 0.000036127 lb/in3 = 1.6856 lb/yd3 = 0.010022 lb/gal (Imperial) = 0.008345
lb/gal (U.S) = 0.0007525 ton/yd3
D2

Pipl Stress Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pipl Stress Analysis

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

Pipl Stress Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRESS ANALYSIS OF UNDERWATER PIPELINE FOR IRREGULAR

SEABED TOPOGRAPHY USING CAESAR II.

Nurul Alia binti Mohd Anuar

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the

Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,

Bandar Seri Iskandar,

Perak Darul Ridzuan.

Stress Analysis of Underwater Pipeline for Irregular Seabed Topography Using

Nurul Alia Binti Mohd Anuar

A project dissertation submitted to

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL ........................................................................................... i

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................5

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................20

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................39

Figure 1: Roles of pipelines in an offshore hydrocarbon field............................................2

Table 1: Examples of Longitudinal Weld Joint Factors E (ASME B31.8) ......................16

1.1 Project Background

Unlike ANSYS, CAESAR II is a simplified version of finite element analysis

Figure 1: Roles of pipelines in an offshore hydrocarbon field [10]

Information on the seabed topography and geotechnics are needed in order to

2.1 Submarine Pipeline

Pipelines are used for a number of purposes in the development of offshore

Mechanical design of underwater pipeline usually requires consideration of

2.2 Pipeline Support and Stability Analysis

Figure 2: Secondary stabilization – concrete mattresses [13]

Pipeline stability analyses require the calculation of hydrodynamic loads acting on

Figure 4: Flowline stresses and vortex shedding [10]

Pipeline stress analysis is performed to determine if the pipeline stresses are

Figure 5: Free spanning pipeline on seabed [14]

The numerical simulation of unilaterally constrained structural systems is

Figure 6: Longitudinal and cross-sectional view of steel tubes [18]

Technology today has developed numbers of software to investigate the condition

Figure 9: Underwater pipeline [21]

Figure 10: Continental shelf and continental slope [14]

P = Design pressure, Psi

P = Internal design pressure, psi

0.72 = Design factor

For gas pipelines, the allowable stress is [ASME B31.8]:

P = Design pressure, psi

Table 1: Examples of Longitudinal Weld Joint Factors E [ASME B31.8]

Material Pipe Class E

Table 2: Examples of Yield and Ultimate Stress [ASME II Part D]

Temperature A 106 Gr.B A 106 Gr.B A 312 T.304 A 312 T.304

Table 4: Temperature Derating Factor [B31.8]

σt = Tangential (hoop) stress, psi

2.5.4 Allowable stress

S(T) = min. { SY (T) / SFY ; SU (T) / SFU }

S(T) = Allowable stress at design temperature T, psi

For carbon steel pipe in ASME B31.3 applications;

S(T) = min.{2 SY (T ) / 3;SU (T ) / 3}

Table 5: ASME B31.3 Allowable Stress

Material 100ºF 200ºF 300ºF 400ºF 500ºF

3.1 Project Flow Process

Table 6: Tensile strength properties (API 5L, 2000) [14]

U.S. Customary Unit Equation

e = minimum elongation in 2 in. (50.8 mm) in percent rounded to the nearest