Rev. B
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.
SECTION
PARA NO
DESCRIPTION OF HOLD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 3 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
INTRODUCTION
10
1.1
10
1.2
Scope
11
12
2.1
Summary
12
2.2
Conclusions
12
2.3
Recommendation
14
DESIGN DATA
15
3.1
15
3.2
Mechanical Properties
15
3.3
Operational Data
16
3.4
Material Properties
17
3.5
18
3.6
19
3.7
Transient Profiles
21
3.8
Environmental Data
24
3.9
Seabed Profile
24
3.10
25
27
4.1
27
4.2
30
Page 4 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
5.0
6.0
7.0
Rev. B
4.3
31
4.4
31
33
5.1
General
33
5.2
33
5.3
33
5.4
34
5.5
36
38
6.1
General
38
6.2
38
6.3
39
6.4
44
6.5
45
6.6
47
REFERENCES
50
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A EQUIVALENT PROPERTIES CALCULATION
Page 5 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
Page 6 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
Abbreviations / Nomenclature
3D
3 x outside diameter
5D
5 x outside diameter
5LPP
5 layer polypropylene
ALS
API
ASME
BE
Best estimate
CITHP
CP
Cathodic protection
CS
Carbon steel
CRA
DC
Displacement controlled
DEP
DNV
EAF
ECA
FE
Finite element
FEED
FLNG
FLS
HAT
HOOS
HT/HP
ISO
KP
Kilometre post
Page 7 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
LAT
LB
Lower bound
LC
Load controlled
LNG
MMscfd
Mtpa
MNFL
Manifold
MSL
Ncr
OD
Outside diameter
OOS
Out of straightness
OS
Offshore standard
Pcr
PSC
RP
Return period
S-N
SNCF
SMYS
SMTS
SURF
UB
Upper bound
UCR
UOE
ULS
UNS
Page 8 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
VOOS
WD
Water depth
WGK
WT
Wall thickness
YT
Yield to tensile
Page 9 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
1.0
INTRODUCTION
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
2.0
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
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
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)
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%.
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
Buckle Location
KP 1.5
2.52
1.88
1.63
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
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
Flowline length
km
~3
Outer Diameter
mm
323.9
mm
17.5
mm
3.0
mm
5.2
Flowline Material
Manufacturing Method
0 (Cladding)
Pipe Ovality
Page 15 of 50
1.5
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
131
125
bar
318
bar
219
- 609
bar
461.75
+ 30
Location of Hydrotest
offshore
C
C
207/86
Page 16 of 50
Tonnes
50
25
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
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
GPa
207
205
GPa
200 (3)
198 (3)
Notes:
COATING
5LPP Equivalent Density
UNIT
VALUE
kg/m3
920
Page 17 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
3.5
Rev. B
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.
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
Figure 3.1 De-rated API 5L X65 Claded Material True Stress Strain Curve
3.6
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
204bara /
124degC
209bara /
125degC
205bara /
68degC
192bara /
62degC
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE
FLOW RATE
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
Page 22 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
3.8
Rev. B
Environmental Data
Table 3.7 presents the environmental data.
Table 3.7 Environmental Data
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
VALUE
607-609
1.27
0.00
Seawater density
kg/m
1025
5.8
12.49
mm
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].
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
-608.9
-609.0
-609.1
-609.2
-609.3
-609.4
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Page 24 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
3.10
Rev. B
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
Page 25 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
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
Page 26 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
4.0
4.1
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
0.96
0.90
Sec.13, E1000
gw
1.0
2.5
1.10
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
p pe
1
t
h 1.5 gw
0.01 1 + 5.75 min
pb
Pe Pmin
1
PC
sd 0.78
SD
C
0.8
m SC
Where:
gw
sd
Pmin
Pe
External pressure
Pb
PC
Collapse pressure
Outer diameter
SD = F C C
Where:
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
4.1.2
Rev. B
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
4.1.4
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
4.2
Rev. B
t
log N = log a m log .( loc ( ) k
t ref
Where:
log a
tref
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
Page 30 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
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)
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
4.4
Page 31 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
ii.
iii.
Rev. B
ECA weld fracture and fatigue crack growth (scope not covered in this document);
No trawling assumed.
Page 32 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
5.0
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
5.3
Page 33 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
5.4
Rev. B
5.4.1
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
Page 34 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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.
Page 35 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
Figure 5-3 below shows the insulating SNCF at the unplanned buckle region against the
normalised bending strain.
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
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.
Page 36 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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.
Page 37 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
6.0
6.1
General
Rev. B
The detailed lateral buckling assessments of the 12inch Abadi flowline are discussed in this
section.
6.2
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
Figure 6-2 Axial Expansion (Lower Bound, Mean and Upper Bound Axial)
6.3
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
Page 39 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
6.3.3
Rev. B
N cr = min(0.65 N , N crB )
Where
N = 3.86
EI Ws L
and N crB = Ws L R
D
EI
Ws
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
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.
Page 41 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
Page 42 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
6.3.5
Page 43 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
6.4
Rev. B
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.
Page 44 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
24 MPa
Page 45 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
7.16
Damage
Ratio
1.440E+07
8.33E-07
8.33E-07
2.50E-05
0.08
6.25E-04
nor min al
12
24
6.59
Damage
Ratio
3.87E+06
3.10E-06
3.10E-06
9.31E-05
0.08
1.16E-03
Page 46 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
6.6
Rev. B
Page 47 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
1 (KP 1.5)
2 (KP 1 and KP 2)
Ends
Expansion (m)
LB
BE
UB
1.88
1.71
1.70
1.63
1.48
1.46
1.55
1.38
1.21
1.33
1.17
1.02
Page 49 of 50
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
7.0
Rev. B
REFERENCES
[1] WGK Document No. ASF01-012-SE-SBD-0001;
PREMISE; Revision A; January 2013.
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
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
Rev. B
APPENDIX A
EQUIVALENT PROPERTIES CALCULATION
ASF01-012-SE-REP-0005 Rev. B
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
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
T if MDT 50C
E if MDT 20C
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