School of Engineering

MSc Oil and Gas Engineering

Umbilical Seabed Stability – Assessment of
The Design Method and Pipe/Soil Behaviour
T. Ademowo
September 2007
 UMBILICAL SEABED STABILITY – ASSESSMENT OF THE DESIGN METHOD
AND PIPE/SOIL BEHAVIOUR

Theophilus Ademowo
BTech (Hons) Chemical Engineering
September 2007

This report is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science in Oil and Gas Engineering
at The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.

ii
 ABSTRACT

The DnV Recommended Practice (RP E305) outlines the considerations with regard
to the stability design of submarine pipelines. Although, tailored towards pipelines,
the approach has been widely used for calculating umbilical seabed stability. The
RP E305 is based on the results from pipeline stability project PIPESTAB (1988)
and adopts its models; pipe-soil interaction models proposed by Wagner et al.
(1987), Brennodden et al. (1989) and wake model by Lambrakos et al. (1987) to
calculate the soil resistance and the hydrodynamic forces upon pipeline
respectively.

With recent results from other pipeline on-bottom stability approaches, concerns
have been raised with results generated from the DnV RP E305 approach. This
study thus seeks to subject umbilical parameters to the DnV RP E305 design
method and a New Design Method proposed by Gao et al., in other to identify their
experimental differences and compare their predicted submerged weights results.
Unlike the DNV stability experiments which were based on pipe-soil interaction, the
Gao et al.’s experiment was based on the coupling effects of the wave-pipe-soil
interaction.

The pipe/soil behaviour assessment has also been discussed briefly as part of this
project in other to verify the effects of sand build up with respect to stability. These
ties back into the pipe-soil interaction, as the geometry profile of the umbilical burial
within the soil and the level of sand significance should always be explored while
performing stability design. Although a detailed methodological analysis for this is
not pursued, theoretical pathways in assessing the effects of sands have been
established.

This project proposes helpful suggestions for the continuing evolving engineering
practice of umbilical stability design which should help in understanding the physics
governing umbilical on-bottom stability better and specifically concludes on the
possibilities of tightening up the present DNV RP E305 framework.

iii
 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank God almighty for His love, blessings and seeing me through my stay at
Robert Gordon University.

I appreciate my parents, Most Revd. (Dr) E.A. and Mrs. I.O. Ademowo who have
always supported me in any endeavour I chose to pursue. Your prayers and
constant advice have been indispensable. You both inspire me to be better.

I would like to thank my supervisors; Mr David Arul (RGU) and Mr Joe Cross
(Controls and Subsea Equipment Business Manager – JP Kenny) for their
suggestions, guidance and their intriguing way of working and thinking.

I also want to thank others who supported my research and me, Rev Precious
Omuku – Shell London, Mr Mark Jones – Duco Ltd, Mr Paul Williams – Oceaneering
Multiplex, Mr Fartein Thorkildsen – KW Ltd, Dr Dong.S. Jeng – University of Sydney;
for his research and advice on wave-pipe-soil interaction modelling, Dr George
Zhang – Advanced Geomechanics; for his advice on sand build up, and Dr Siam
Yimsiri – Burapha University, Thailand.

Looking back, my stay in Aberdeen was a unique opportunity and experience, which
wouldn’t have been so fulfilling without friends and colleagues, who with wit and grit
and no small amount of courage we’ve together accomplish this educational feat of
derring-do unbounded by any constraint whatsoever.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE Page
TITLE PAGE i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND 2
1.2 PROJECT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 4
1.3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY 4
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF ON – BOTTOM STABILITY DESIGN
2.1 STABILITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 5
2.1.1 Environmental Conditions 6
2.1.2 Hydrodynamic Loads 6
2.1.3 Soil (Seabed) Condition 8
2.2 PIPELINE CODE OF PRACTICE STABILITY
APPROACHES 9
2.1.1 Two Dimensional Analysis Method 9
2.1.2 Three Dimensional Analysis Method 11
2.3 DNV RECOMMENDED PRACTICE– E305
ON-BOTTOM STABILITY DESIGN 11
2.3.1 RP – E305 Design Methodology 12
2.3.2 RP – E305 Pipe/Soil Interaction Modelling 13
2. 4 GAO et al’s STABILITY APPROACH 16
2.4.1 Experimental Facilities and Modelling 16
2.4.2 Froude Modelling 18
2.4.3 Experiment Results 19
2.4.4 Instability Criteria 21
2.5 EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISONS 22
2.6 SAND BUILD – UP 23
2.6.1 Effects of Sand Scouring 24
2.6.2. Sand Build up due to Sedimentation 25

v
CHAPTER 3 PROCEDURE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF UMBILICAL
ON-BOTTOM STABILITY
3.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS 27
3.2 RP E305 SIMPLIFIED STABILITY ANALYSIS 28
3.3 GAO et al. STABILITY ANALYSIS 28
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 RP E305 SIMPLIFIED STABILITY RESULTS 31
4.2 GAO et al. STABILITY RESULTS 33
4.3 RESULTS COMPARISON 33
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35
REFERENCES 37
APPENDIX 40

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1.1 Cross sectional diagram of a typical umbilical design 1
Figure 2.1 Two dimensional stability analysis method 10
Figure 2.2 Sketch of U shaped oscillatory water flow tunnel 16
Figure 2.3 Schematic diagram of testing method 16
Figure 2.4 Onset of sand scouring 20
Figure 2.5 Phenomena of pipeline losing stability 20
Figure 2.6 KC and G Correlation 21
Figure 2.7 Fr and G Correlation for medium sand. 22
Figure 2.8 Pipe displacement-time curves 24
Figure 2.9 Sediments build up at Umbilical and Pipeline at the seabed 25
Figure 3.1 Analysis flow chart for umbilical on-bottom stability
induced by waves 30
Figure 4.1 Comparison between the results predicted by DNV RP E305
and Gao et al’s Approach 33

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Design parameters for wave, seabed and umbilical 27

Table 4.1 Showing the Design Values of Submerged Weight of
Umbilical Based on DnV RP E305 31
Table 4.2 Showing the Calculated Values of the dimensionless
Submerged Weight and the Froude Number
based on the DnV RP E305 31
Table 4.3 Showing the Design Results Based on Gao et al’s approach 33

viii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Umbilicals are high-tech control cables, where electrical and optical signals, together
with control fluids and chemical injection fluids, are transferred between sub-sea
installations and the facilities at sea level (DNV, 2007). They are typically made up
of hoses (lines), electric cables and fibre optic cables bound together in a covering
sheath to carry out these various functions. Often, steel armour wires are wound
over the bundle to provide protection and added mass. A subsea control umbilical
would typically include four hydraulic lines, chemical lines (corrosion inhibition line,
methanol injection line etc.), power cables and communication cable bound together
to form the composite umbilical of diameter ranging from 85mm to 340mm, with
each inner line’s diameter approximately 8 – 35mm.

They are manufactured using steel tubes or hoses of thermoplastic material, which
are typically armoured by two layers of contra-wound steel that provide strength and
weight to assist with on-bottom stability. The armouring is covered with a high
density polyethylene sheath or bitumen bedding to provide corrosion and abrasion
protection. The Figure 1.1 below illustrates a typical internal umbilical design.

Figure 1.1 Cross sectional diagram of a typical umbilical design (DUCO Ltd)

Instability in the context of this report refers to wave action and seabed current
induced, soil instability. This can simply be defined as condition where the water
(wave condition) will push the umbilical but might not necessarily cause a failure.
Nominally, umbilicals are significantly smaller than a pipeline and sand build up
would be more significant on a relative basis. They are also significantly more
flexible than pipelines and that may have local consequences with respect to
seabed stability where wave / umbilical interaction can be less severe.

1
1.1 BACKGROUND
A significant step in the engineering process of submarine pipeline and umbilicals is
to ensure that they will have sufficient on-bottom stability. On-bottom stability design
has traditionally been based on the static balance between the applied
hydrodynamic forces and the resisting soil forces as presented in section 2.1.2.
According to Allen et al, (1989), typically applied hydrodynamic forces on pipelines
from both wave and current actions were computed using the familiar Morison
equation, with drag and lift force coefficients based on model tests, resisting soil
force characterised as frictional force, and friction coefficients based on sliding pipe
tests or on simple foundation design theory.

The stability of pipelines and umbilicals are directly related to the submerged weight
of the pipe, environmental forces and the resistance developed by the seabed soil.
Basic conditions considered during on-bottom stability design include magnitude of
the waves and currents (environmental conditions), geotechnical conditions (route
analysis and soil classification), topographic conditions of the seabed, bathymetry
(water depth), and pipe data (outside diameter, wall thickness, content density and
coating density, mechanical properties and location of restraints). Consequently, the
aim of stability design is to verify the submerged weight of the pipe is sufficient to
meet the required stability criteria.

The Det norske Veritas Recommended Practice for On-Bottom Stability Design of
Submarine Pipeline (DNV RP-E305; 1988) outlines the considerations with regard to
the stability design of submarine pipelines and the industrial challenge raised, which
is the basis for this project proposal, comes from the use of this RP-E305 for
umbilicals stability. A new recommended practice, DNV RP F109 meant to replace
the RP E305 is supposed to give an up to date assessment of general on-bottom
stability design and importantly give guidance for umbilicals application. But it is still
on external hearing and is unavailable for use. This gives a threat to extensive up to
date information for this study. Also, limited dedicated research has been carried out
into umbilical stability; nevertheless this study has taken a comparison approach
using existing studies on pipeline stability to investigate umbilical stability.

One of the main problems encountered with pipelines is the wave induced instability
(Herbich, 1985), and this is also similar with umbilicals. When they are installed on
the seabed and subjected to wave loading, there exists a complex balancing
interaction between hydrodynamic wave forces, the submerged weight of pipelines

2
and soil resistance. In the past decades, with increasing demand for submarine
pipeline transportation of oil and gas, similar to the hydrodynamic aspects of on-
bottom stability, many researchers have focused on the interaction between the pipe
and the seabed (Wagner et al. 1987; Brenodden et al. 1989; Allen et al. 1989; Foda
et al., 1990 etc). However the problem has not been fully understood because of
complicated soil behaviour, pipe geometry and lack of sufficient experimental data.

The DNV RP-E305 been reviewed in this project is based on the results from
pipeline stability project PIPESTAB and it adopts the pipe-soil interaction model
proposed by Wagner et al. (1987), Brennodden et al. (1989) and wake model by
Lambrakos et al. (1987) to calculate the soil resistance and the hydrodynamic forces
upon pipeline respectively. It is noted that in the RP-E305, the evaluation of soil
resistance to pipeline movement and that of wave loads on the pipeline have been
conducted separately and this has been deemed conservative to some respect. This
study seeks to verify this claim by analysing the pipe soil interaction experiments
which were used in the E305.

RP E305 has three different analytical methods; they include the Dynamic Analysis
Method, Generalized Stability Analysis Method and Simplified Stability Analysis
Method. This study uses the simplified stability method to calculate the submerged
weight of umbilicals, although the choice of method is dependent on the degree of
detail required for any design analysis.

There exist several other analysis methods on which to base stability design and for
the benefits of comparison, this study is looking at a recent approach to wave
induced pipeline stability design proposed by Gao et al., (2002; 2003; 2005). They
have studied intensively pipeline on bottom stability with the U-shaped oscillatory
flow tunnel as described in Chapter two of this report. Unlike the method in the DnV
practice, they propose another method for on bottom stability taking into account the
coupling effect between wave, pipeline and a sandy seabed.

3
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
a) This report aims to review the seabed stability design of pipelines and
umbilicals in other to assess the accuracy of the design approaches.
b) The report would review, investigate and compare, the traditional stability
analysis methods, ‘the Det norske Veritas Recommended Practice method
(DNV RP E305), and a new improved method proposed by Gao et al., in
other identify their experimental differences and compare their application.
c) Consideration would be given to analysing the effects of sand build up; a key
stability issues raised as part of the project proposal.
d) Finally, a proposition on how to improve stability design would be made
based on the well reasoned comparison of technique carried out in this
study; this hopefully should provide a helpful tool for the calculating seabed
umbilicals stability.

1.3 METHODOLOGY
The report would carry out a general review of what seabed stability design entails
and describe the traditional stability analysis method (Morison’s equation and
Pipeline code of practice approach). It would describe the existing design
methodology to umbilical seabed stability; DNV RP-E305 and the Gao et al.’s design
approach with respect to pipe – soil – wave interaction. Both of these approaches
are based on pipelines but would be used to investigate umbilical stability. All this
are presented as literature review in chapter two of the report. The effect of sand
build up around the base of the umbilical is also reviewed in chapter two.

Typical Umbilical characteristics is then subjected to the DNV – RP E305 and the
improved method proposed by Gao et al., for the purpose of comparison and
analysis between the physical phenomena of pipe losing stability in the pipe-soil
interaction test and those in the wave-pipe-soil interaction tests as detailed in
chapter three. The industry challenge comes from the continuous use of the DNV
Recommended Practice (RP-E305 simplified method) for umbilical stability and a
well reasoned comparison of technique between E305 and the Gao et al. on bottom
modelling approach would help find out if an alternative approach should be
developed with respect to stability design. This report should therefore provide a
helpful tool for the calculating seabed umbilicals stability.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF ON-BOTTOM STABILITY DESIGN

Pipelines and umbilicals are designed to be stable during construction and operation
as movement might affect their integrity. Their stability is directly related to the
submerged weight, the environmental forces and the resistance developed by the
sea bed soil. General stability analysis should take into consideration, the
environmental conditions (wave induced and steady currents on the pipeline),
hydrodynamic forces resulting from the action of near seabed, It should also take
into account lateral soil forces, vertical stability, historic stability of the seabed and
axial forces in the pipe where appropriate.

2.1 STABILITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

2.1.1 Environmental Conditions

Designing of a submarine pipeline or umbilical system is fundamentally dependent
upon loads and influences imposed by the environment. The system must be able to
withstand both extreme and long term environmental effects. The environmental
conditions are Waves and Currents and they are evaluated at a number of positions
along the length of the pipeline. Stability design makes use of the environmental
conditions from the area in questions, but if sufficient data are not available,
reasonable estimates based on data from nearby locations are typically used. The
operational conditions for both permanent and temporary phases with varying
duration (greater or less than 12months) are listed in RP 305 and this report is
based on a 1 year storm data as presented in Chapter three.

Recognised methods of statistical analysis are always used in describing the

random nature of the environmental conditions and seastates will normally be
defined in terms of the significant wave height ( H S ), spectral peak period (TP ) and

corresponding return probability. Other defining parameters include the water depth
(d ) and the wave length (L) . Traditionally, design sea-state conditions are typically
represented by a single regular wave height and period, but have since been
deemed inaccurate for oscillatory flow conditions, due to its simplistic models for
hydrodynamic and pipe/soil interaction forces. Hence as stated by Allen et al (1989)
it is generally felt that the method yields conservative results.

5
There is an assumption of normal wave situation typical to relatively shallow water of
40m and a varying wave height of 1.7m to 3.8m. The description and characteristics
of the natural environment in terms of there defined and quantifiable parameters
used in this project which would help evaluate their influence upon the umbilicals
system are presented in Chapter Three.

DNV - RP – E305 gives the details to the form and use of wave information with
respect to any particular location in question. It represents the wave induced particle
velocity used in the stability design analysis by the significant value of near bottom
velocity perpendicular to the pipeline (U S ) , and the corresponding zero up-crossing

period (TU ) .

2.1.2 Hydrodynamic Loads

Hydrodynamic loads are defined as the flow-induced loads caused by the relative
motion between the pipe and the surrounding water. (DNV-OS F101, 2000). These
loadings on offshore structures can be said to include direct hydrodynamic loads,
wave slam, vortex shedding induced oscillatory loading and shock pressure from
breaking waves (Barltrop et al 1991). The direct hydrodynamic loads, which are
relative in the context of this study, are the result of water particles flowing around
the pipe from both current and wave effects. According to Barltrop et al (1991),
these loads are:

Drag loading: caused by vortices generated in the flow as it passes the

pipeline. Drag force Fd is proportional to incident velocity

square.
Inertia loading: caused by the pressure gradient in an accelerating fluid and
the local interaction of the member with the accelerating fluid.
The inertia force Fi is proportional to the acceleration of the

fluid
Lift Loading: caused by the fluid dynamics forces perpendicular to the
direction of the external flow approaching the pipeline.

Historically, Morison’s Equation (O’Brien and Morison, 1952) shown below, have
been used for calculating the wave induced forces of drag and inertia loading on
pipelines (Barltrop et al 1991). The equation below is the horizontal hydraulic force,
which is the sum of drag force and inertia force:

6
 F = 0.5Cd ρD | U | U + Cm ρAU& (2.1)
Where:
F is the force/unit length of member
Cd is the drag coefficient

Cm is the inertia coefficient

ρ is the density of water
D is the member diameter
A is the member’s cross sectional area
U is the velocity of the flow resolved normal to the member
U& is the acceleration of the flow resolved normal to the member

For the given or calculated water particle velocity and acceleration, the individual
direct hydrodynamic loads per unit length of each of the loads can be calculated
using equations (2.2) to (2.4)

FD = 0.5C d ρD | U | U (2.2)

FL = 0.5Cl ρDU 2 (2.3)

FI = C m ρAU& (2.4)

The equation is implemented along the wave theories in numerous computer

programs which allow the automatic calculation of the resolved velocities U and

accelerations U& . The user is still required to select the values of the hydrodynamic
force coefficients Cd , Cl , Cm .

Morison’s equation have been adapted, for both horizontal hydraulic force
calculation as shown in equation 1 and vertical or lift force, taken to be proportional
to the ambient velocity square as shown in equation (2.3), however experiment have
shown that the standard Morison type of force calculations based on ambient flow
velocity and with time invariant coefficients have proven inadequate for calculating
lateral displacement of pipes due to hydrodynamic loads. This will, for pipes that do
experience some displacement lead to an overestimation of total displacement.

7
It has been recognized that in the force model, the ambient velocity should be
modified under the consideration of wake flow’ as measurements have showed that
Morison’s equation lacks the ability to predict the details in shape and magnitude of
force time history. Several force models have been developed to account for
shortfalls in Morison’s equation over the last decades.

The DNV RP-E305 uses the Lambrakos et al. (1987) Wake Modelling of
hydrodynamic forces on pipeline, which according to Hale et al (1991), describes the
near pipe water particle kinematics more accurately. Also the coefficients for drag,
lift and inertia forces are time dependent rather that being constant in time. Wake II
model proposed by Soedigdo et al (1999) in which wake velocity correction was
derived for oscillatory flow and hydrodynamic force coefficients have been regarded
as a greater improvement on calculating hydrodynamic forces. Extensive research
into the area of hydrodynamic forces is not within the scope of this report, but a
method of realistically representing the hydrodynamic forces experienced should
always be used when there is need to carry out a detailed stability analysis.

2.1.3 Soil (Seabed) Condition

Seabed soil characteristic are always established as part of the site investigation to
establish the geotechnical conditions required at the site. This is normally performed
by sampling techniques at suitable intervals along the route of the pipeline/umbilical
and the numbers of intervals require depends on the length of the pipeline and the
anticipated variations in the geotechnical conditions. Guidelines for site and
laboratory testing are found in the DNV – RP –D301.

From the view point of stability design, the site investigation should establish the
following information for the seabed soil and immediately below the surface of the
seabed:
– soil classification
– soil density (sand only)
– shear strength and grain size distribution
– specific weight
– possibility of soil slides or liquefaction

Soil instability which is the focus in the report can be initiated by wave action and
seabed current, seismic activity, overloading due to submerged weight of the
pipeline/umbilical, deposition and scouring of seabed soil material,

8
Pipeline trenching, slope failure and pockmark and gaseous emissions. This project
looks at the most potent cause of soil instability which is wave induced instability
and also verifies the effect of sediment deposition and scouring of seabed soil
material. Vertical stability of the pipeline should also take into account some of the
consideration listed above.
The soil type in this project is a sandy seabed and its parameters are presented in
chapter three. Establishing the level of instability caused to pipe, is a major factor in
choosing the adequate stability enhancement method.

2.2 PIPELINE CODE OF PRACTICE STABILITY APROACHES

This two and three dimensional analysis summarised below are general approaches
to stability design and are used for on bottom stability of pipeline where there are
established known parameters. Although they are not to be used in this study, they
have been extended to Umbilicals too as they are standard approaches according to
the PD 8010-2:2004 and there methodologies can be supplemented by the
approach defined in the DNV – RP – E305.

2.1.1 Two Dimensional Analysis Method

In most cases, a two dimensional analysis method is acceptable for determining the
stability of a pipeline. In using the approach, as shown in the Figure 2.1 below, the
lateral soil friction µ should be greater than or equal to the stability safety factor S F
as shown in equation (2.5). It is common to use 1.1 as the safety factor and in
exceptional circumstances where environmental conditions are known to a high
degree, a lower value could be used.

µ (WS − FL ) ≥ S F ( FD + FI ) (2.5)

This equation shows that the pipeline will become mobile if the resultant of the drag
and inertia forces (sum of the horizontal forces) exceeds the resisting forces due to
the vertical loads. This approach is based on traditional stability analysis methods
(Morison type hydrodynamic forces and frictional soil resistance), showing there
exists a static balance between the applied hydrodynamic forces FD , FL , FI and the
resisting soil forces as depicted in the figure below.

9
 FL

FD

FI

WS

µ (WS − FL )
Figure 2.1 Two dimensional stability analysis method
Where:
Ws − Submerged weight of pipe and contents
FD − Drag Force
FI − Inertial Force
FL − Lift Force
 − Normal Force = (WS − FL )
µ − Lateral soil friction

This two dimensional methodology could be supplemented by adopting some of the

approaches defined within DNV – OS – F101 and DNV – RP – E305 for carrying out
on-bottom stability provided that all its criteria are met and method adhered too as
shown in equation (2.6) – (2.9). But according to Hale et al (1991), analytical
differences in using this approach is that it predicts less values for hydrodynamic
forces in oscillatory flow conditions ‘stating that hydrodynamic forces have typically
been under-predicted in using the traditional approach.

2.1.2 Three Dimensional Analysis Method

In areas where excessive stabilization is predicted, this more complex, three
dimensional analysis may be used. This approach involves analysing more forces
response due to waves and currents variations, i.e. resultant force due to steady
current, force due to short crested waves or the combined force due to steady
current and short crested waves.

10
In using this method the allowable movements should be based on acceptable
stress levels and fatigue. The approaches defined in the DNV – OS – F101, DNV –
RP – E305 and the American Gas Association publication Submarine pipeline on-
bottom stability covers this method and may be considered.

2.3 DNV RECOMMENDED PRACTICE– E305 ON-BOTTOM STABILITY DESIGN

The RP – E305 outlines the basic considerations with regards to the stability design
of submarine pipelines. It states the basic conditions considered during any on-
bottom stability design. Stability design is based on the given return period of near-
bottom environmental conditions acting perpendicular to the pipe, with consideration
given to both near bottom wave induced particle velocity and near bottom currents
depending on how sufficient is the information available on the joint probability of
waves and currents.

The design method presented in the RP – E305 relates to a pipeline resting on the
seabed throughout its lifetime or prior to some other form of stabilization. The
stability of the pipeline is then directly related to the submerged weight, the
environmental forces and the resistance developed by the seabed. The aim as
stated in the design method of RP – E305 is to verify that the submerged weight of
the pipeline is sufficient to meet the required stability criteria.

The design criteria considered during stability design as stated in RP – E305

include:
– lateral displacement
– stress/strain in pipe wall
– interaction with lateral buckling due to axial forces
– fatigue damage
– wear and deterioration of the coating
– damage to sacrificial anodes

In general the lateral displacement and stress/strain experienced by pipelines will be

the governing design criteria, but for the purpose of sand build up the lateral
displacement is the objective criterion.

11
2.3.1 RP – E305 Design Methodology
In the DnV Practice, three different methods are described, namely Dynamic
Analysis Method, Generalized Stability Analysis Method and Simplified Stability
Analysis Method (Det norske Veritas 1988). Outlined below are these three
methods:
• The Dynamic Analysis Method involves a full dynamic simulation of a
pipeline resting on the seabed, including modelling of soil resistance,
hydrodynamic forces, boundary conditions and pipe dynamic response.
Dynamic analysis forms the reference base for the Generalized Analysis
Method. It may only be used for detail analysis of critical areas along
pipeline, such as pipeline crossings, riser connections etc., where the details
of pipeline response are required, or for reanalysis of a critical existing
pipeline.

As listed above, information regarding the type of analysis and what effects the
design should include are provided; however no tool is provided within the RP-E305
for performing dynamic analyses.

• The Generalized Stability Analysis utilizes a set of non-dimensional stability

curves representing pipe movement and strain results which have been
derived from numerous dynamic response models. This method may be
used for the design of the pipeline sections where potential pipeline
movement may be important. The Generalized Analysis Method includes a
complete-stable-pipeline design criterion for the special sections of a
pipeline.

• The Simplified Stability Analysis Method is for the design of common

sections of a pipeline, to which an accumulative lateral displacement is
allowable. It is based on a quasi-static balance of forces acting on the pipe,
but has been calibrated from the Generalized Stability Analysis. The method
generally gives pipe weights that form a conservative envelope of those
obtained from the Generalized Stability Analysis.

The simplified approach would be used in Chapter three for stability calculations to
compare the submerged weight from RP E305’s and the other available on-bottom
stability approaches described in this review.

12
In the DnV Practice, the evaluation of soil resistance to pipeline movement and that
of wave loads were conducted separately. The experiments produced the Pipe-Soil
Interaction Model (Wagner et al. 1987) and the Energy Based Pipe-Soil Interaction
Model (Brennodden et al 1989). Details of these experiments that were carried out
to evaluate the wave-induced hydrodynamic forces upon pipeline and the pipe-soil
modelling are presented in the next section.

2.3.2 RP – E305 Pipe/Soil Interaction Modelling

The interaction between the ocean waves, pipe and seabed conditions have
attracted more and more attention over the past decades. Before the 1970’s the
Coulomb friction theory was employed to estimate the friction force between pipeline
and soil under the action of ocean waves. Lyons (1973) exploratory experiments on
wave – induced instability on untrenched pipelines made conclusions that the
Coulomb friction theory was not suitable to describe the wave induced interaction
between pipeline and soil, especially when adhesive clay is involved. This is
because the lateral friction between the pipeline and soil should be the function of
properties of the soil, pipe and wave, thus, making the Coulomb friction theory far
less realistic approach to wave-induced pipe-soil interaction.

Two large model multi client test programs ‘PIPESTAB (1985 – 87) and the ‘‘AGA –
Project’’ (1987 – 88) – (Allen, 1989; Brennodden et al., 1986; Wagner et al., 1987;
Brennodden et al, 1989), were conducted by SINTEF in the 1980’s, to examine the
pipeline-seabed interaction with full diameter pipe segments. These projects
produced the soil resistance models – ‘The Pipe-Soil Interaction Model (Wagner et
al. 1987) and the Energy Based Pipe-Soil Interaction Model (Brennodden et al
1989)’.

The projects developed models that predict the soil resistance to lateral motions of
untrenched pipelines using the amplitude of pipe motion, pipe diameter, and a
characteristic soil parameter as variables to determine the soil resistance. The
model improves upon the Coulomb friction theory, by including soil strength
information in his resistance prediction. These experimental outcomes and models
deduced from the results form an important basis for today’s regulations regarding
pipeline stability design; DnV – RP – E305 (Det norsk Veritas, 1988)

13
In both the Pipe – Soil Interaction Model and Energy Based Pipe – Soil Interaction
model, the total lateral resistance to pipeline movement FH was assumed as the

sum of the sliding resistance component FF and soil passive resistance component

FR i.e.
FH = FF + FR (2.6)

Where

FF = µ (Ws − FL ) (2.7)

µ = Sliding resistance coefficient

Ws = Submerged weight per meter

FL = Wave-induced lift force on the pipe

The difference between the two models is the methods for calculating the soil
passive resistance component. In Wagner et al, (1987) Empirical pipe-soil model;
FR was calculated as shown below however in Brennodden et al (1989) FR is
relative to the work done by pipe during its movement.

FR = βγ ' AT (2.8)
Where

β = empirical coefficient
γ ' = soil buoyant weight
AT = half of the contact area between the pipeline and soil

Thus
FH = µ (Ws − FL ) + βγ ' AT

The submerged weight of pipeline ( Ws ) for maintaining pipeline stability can then be

calculated as:

Ws = ( FH − βγ ' AT + µFL ) / µ (2.9)

14
The above Pipe-Soil Interaction Model has been adopted in the existing DnV RP
Practice (Det norske Veritas 1988). The lateral soil resistance ( FH ) should balance
the designed wave loads upon pipeline. A notable different from this approach and
the two dimensional approach expression in equation (2.5), is that the two
dimensional approach does not put passive resistance component into
consideration and if the pipe should undergo some penetration into the soil, the
lateral resistance would include both the friction type of resistance and resistance
due to mobilising the soil outside the contact surface, making this approach more
realistic than the traditional approaches.

In the experiments (Brennodden et al, 1986 and Wagner et al, 1987), the wave-
induced hydrodynamic forces upon the pipeline were simulated with a mechanical
actuator. The test pipeline was attached to the mechanical rig by a suspension
system which provided the transfer of the horizontal and vertical forces simulating
the wave loads on pipeline. The complicated behaviour of submarine pipelines
subjected to ocean environmental loads was reflected to a certain extent. Moreover,
the pressure upon the seabed could not be simulated in their experiments and
according to Gao et al., (2002) this pressure fluctuations induces variations in
effective stresses and pore water pressure within the non-cohesive marine
sediments.

In the models proposed by the experiments of Wagner et al, (1987) and Brennodden
et al, (1989) etc, other concerns raised were the use of empirical coefficients with no
implicit physical meanings which are difficult to determine in design procedure.
Although these empirical models developed incorporate significant trends observed
from the test results and have been used suitably for pipeline and umbilical dynamic
response predictions i.e. the results have been used over the last decade and it has
been a baseline for other On-Bottom Stability research programs.

‘‘In reality, the wave forces act not only on the pipeline but also on the seabed and
the response of seabed to the hydrodynamic forces can affect the pipeline stability
too. Therefore, precisely speaking, the wave induced on-bottom stability of the
pipelines involves the interaction of wave, soil and pipe, not only pipe/soil
interaction.’’

15
2. 4 GAO et al’s STABILITY APPROACH
As regarding the interaction between waves, pipes and sandy seabed, many
investigations have been conducted on the study of sand movement near pipeline
and up to today the underlying physical mechanism is not yet fully understood. The
next section outlines the work of Gao et al (2002, 2003 and 2005). They have
studied the pipeline on bottom stability and propose an improved analysis method
for pipeline stability from the aspect of wave-pipe-soil interaction.

2.4.1 Experimental Facilities and Modelling

Figure 2.2 Sketch of U shaped oscillatory water flow tunnel

Figure 2.3 Schematic diagram of testing method

Gao et al., (2002) adopted a U-shaped oscillatory flow tunnel, as shown in Figures
2.2 and 2.3, to explore the mechanism of pipeline instability and hydrodynamic
loading. This helped to simulate the oscillating movement of water particles near the
seabed. The test pipe rests on a constructed soil box filled with sand, which is
regarded as sand bed at the sea bottom.

16
The sand bed consist of medium to fine sand which is also the subject sand for this
project and the index properties of the sand which would be used for this report is
presented in Chapter 3. The U –shaped oscillatory flow tunnel has an attached
butterfly valve, opening and closing periodically at the top of the branch of the water
tunnel which helps the water accomplish a simple harmonic motion (equation 2.9) to
simulate the oscillating movement:

A = Ao (t ) sin ωt (2.9)

Where
Ao (t ) = amplitude of oscillatory flow
2π
ω = angle of oscillatory flow, i.e. ω =
T
T = period of oscillatory flow, T = 2.60(s)
t = loading time

By regulating the valve, the effective air flux from the air blower can be charged, i.e.
enabling a continuous variation in the amplitude. There testing procedure involves
exploring the mechanism of pipeline instability by rapidly increasing the storm wave
from the an initial oscillatory flow amplitude A& 0 ( A& 0 ≈ 9 × 10 −3 cm / s ) and from equation

(2.9) the velocity of oscillatory flow was deduced as

U (t ) = A& 0 (t ) sin ω t + ωA& 0 cos ω t (2.10)

A& 0
Since A& 0 (t ) in the experiment is the order of 10 –1
(m), ≈ 0(10 −3 ) thus making
ωA0
the maximum water particle velocity of the oscillating flow U m as follows:

U m ≈ ω A0 (t ) (2.11)

In other words, the maximum water particle velocity is mainly relative to the angle
velocity and the current flow amplitude.

Various loading velocities (changes in oscillatory flow amplitude) were employed

also to look at the effect of loading history on the pipeline, since storm is not always
continuous.

17
They conducted four types of loading history to imply that wave induced instability is
coupled with sand scouring around the pipe. Whereas, in the Pipe-soil interaction
experiments, the same wave loading method was adopted to examine the instability
induced by rapidly increasing storm, however real storm wave events are mostly
unpredictable and the field conditions are often characterized with significant
uncertainty.

Gao et al. also considered the following two constraints conditions: Pipeline free at
its ends (Case I) and Pipeline with restricted rolling, but can move freely in
horizontal and vertical direction (Case II). This is because stability of long distance
laid pipeline are different at separate section e.g. the demand for stability of pipeline
near risers, is higher than normal sections. They investigated the critical conditions
for pipeline instability by altering pipeline submerged weight, diameter, soil
parameters etc. Based on the experimental results different linear relationships
between Froude number Fr and Non – dimensional pipeline weight G were obtained
for the two constraint conditions.

2.4.2 Froude Modelling

Care must be taken to ensure that models simulates the behaviour of prototypes as
accurately as possible as obtaining data from the experimental prototypes is difficult,
thus making the development and testing of offshore pipeline model of great
importance.

In Gao et al’s study of wave-pipeline interaction problem, three dimensional

numbers, relative to flow characteristics that were deduced include;

(a) Froude number Fr is the ratio of the inertia force to gravitational force,
which reflects the dynamic similarity of flow with gravity forces acting;
Um
Fr = (2.12)
gD

(b) Keulegan-Capenter number, KC reflects the generation and

development of vortex around pipeline, and is related to the hydrodynamic
forces on the pipe under wave loading.
U mT
KC = (2.13)
D

18
 (c) Reynolds number. R e is the ratio of inertia force to viscous force.

UmD
Re = (2.14)
v

They employed a Froude scaling process to make allowance for the Reynolds
number since Fr and Re cannot be satisfied concurrently during the model tests
unlike Fr and KC which can be satisfied concurrently during the tests.

The pipeline model was treated as a two-dimensional structure and the submerged
weight of pipeline directly determines the contact force between pipeline and seabed
and further affects on-bottom stability around the pipeline.

The weight of the pipe is adjusted to model the typical submerged weight of actual
pipeline according to the similarity parameter G, i.e.

Ws
G= (2.15)
γ ' D2
In which γ ' is buoyant unit weight of soil, γ ' = ( ρ sat − ρ w ) g . That is the

model and prototype can be expressed by:

(Ws ) p (Ws ) m
G= = (2.16)
γ 'p D 2
p γ 'm D 2 m
Where the subscripts p and m stand for prototype and model respectively. They
used three different diameters group for the test and with each group different pipe
weights.

2.4.3 Experiment Results

The pipeline displacement was recorded with continuous increase in the amplitude
of oscillatory flow A0 with a constant velocity. This instability process was observed

and recorded by an attached video camera. Three characteristic times were

identified in the pipeline instability process. These include:

19
 1) t = t s At a certain distance apart from the pipe, the sand grains at the bed

surface start to move visibly. Onset of scour occurs as shown in figure 3

below. When the water particle velocity is large enough to make
considerable amount of sediment into suspension, sand ripples are gradually
formed in the vicinity of the pipe.

Figure 2.4 Onset of sand scouring

2) t = t r : The pipe begins to move slightly (see Figs. 4 and 6). As to Case
(1), the pipe mainly swings at its original site, and its vertical settlement is
nearly invisible. But for Case II, both vertical and horizontal movements
develop gradually. The horizontal displacement is about 1–3%D, while the
vertical settlement is approximately less than 1%D.

Case 1 Case 11
Figure 2.5 Phenomena of pipeline losing stability

3) t = t b : Pipe breakout takes place at a short time in case three, (see Figs.

4 and 6). As to Case (1), the pipe begins detaching from its original place for
few cycles. Then it rolls away immediately, and sometimes it rolls over the
sand ripple nearby. But, as for Case II, the pipe pushes the sand aside with
the horizontal displacement of approximately 20–30%D.

Pipeline instability was discovered to be coupled with sand scouring in their

experiments and this is further discussed in Section 2.6

20
2.4.4 Instability Criteria
The wave-induced instability with the two constraint conditions i.e. Case I and Case
II were studied respectively. They recorded the oscillatory flow amplitudes at which
pipeline losses its stability ( A0 = Ab ) and with equation (2.11), (2.12), and (2.13) the

Keulegan-Capenter number, KC and Froude numbers Fr was obtained by

2πAb
KC = (2.17)
D
2πAb
Fr = (2.18)
T gD

For the freely laid pipeline, model graphs obtained by Gao et al (2002) show the
correlation between G and KC (Figure 2.6). As to pipelines with the same diameter,
KC at which pipeline loses stability increases linearly with G number. But the
relationship is different for different diameters. This shows that when using KC
number for data reduction, pipeline diameter effect is significant.

Figure 2.6 KC and G Correlation

In the correlation between Fr and G in figure 2.7, for the same sand (medium sand),
all the data with different pipe diameter fall within the range with the same linear
relationship. This shows there is a good correlation between the Fr number and the
G number regardless of the pipeline diameter, adding up to the indication that Fr is
important in the case of water-structure-soil interaction.

21
 Figure 2.7 Fr and G Correlation for medium sand.

It is noted however, that there exist some deference between the results for medium
sand and fine sand as shown in both figures above, which means the sand
characteristics influence pipeline stability.
The case of anti-rolling pipeline also arrived at similar result. With the same
diameter, KC at which the pipeline loses stability increase linearly with G number,
but diameter effect is also obvious. For the correlation by Fr and G all the data with
different pipe diameters also fall within the range with the same linear relationship as
in Case I.

2.5 EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISONS

Gao et al’s experimental results show that, under the action of changes in wave
induced loading, there exist different linear relationship between Fr and G numbers
for freely laid pipelines and anti-rolling pipelines respectively. As to medium sands,
least square fitting equations of the data in figure 2.7 and figure 2.9 was given as:

 W
 0.043 + 0.37 s 2 < 0.65 freely laid pipes
Um  γ 'D
= (2.19)
gD 0.069 + 0.62 Ws < 0.36 anti − rolling pipes
 γ ' D2
This equation gives the relationships between water particle velocity, soil properties,
pipe diameter and the submerged weight of the pipe. All the parameters involved
have obvious physical meaning. This can be said to be critical for pipe on-bottom
instability. However in the previous experiments (Wagner et al 1987., Brenodden et
al., 1989), where mechanical actuators were used to simulate the real hydrodynamic
forces upon the pipeline,

22
The pipe-soil interaction models obtained by the experiments do not include direct
wave parameters as the calculation of hydrodynamic forces induced on by waves on
the pipeline was carried out separately.

As discussed in Gao et al’s experimental results, (Section 2.5.3), under the rapidly
increasing wave loading, the pipe suddenly moves away from its original site after a
period of slight moving. During the breakout process, pipeline must conquer the
maximum soil resistance. Gao et al (2005) obtained a larger average value of the
soil resistance in there experiments compared to that in the previous pipe – soil
interaction experiments and states that ‘even though they were conducted with two
different loading style, their results are comparable with the later.

It is well reasoned to say that Gao et al’s approach is more reliable in the
mechanism aspect for reflecting the coupling of wave-pipe-soil. But it is noted that
they the final model has not been obtained yet due to insufficiency of data. Although
their work can serve as supplementary analysis tool for pipe stability, this shows
how much research is still needed in the area of on-bottom stability design.

2.6 SAND BUILD – UP

Sections 2.1 to 2.6 have been limited to the first two aims of this study i.e.
reviewing/comparison of stability design approaches and pipe-soil-wave interaction.
This section thus seeks to consider sand build up and the effects it posses with
respect to stability. According to Zhang J. (2007), Sand build up may contain three
components:
• build-up of soil on the advancing side of the umbilical;
• build-up of soil due to sedimentation on both sides of the line;
• and de-build up (scouring) of the soil around the pipe.

Build-up of soil due to sedimentation on both sides of the line and effect of sand
scouring during the process of pipe’s losing stability are the focus of sand build up
within the context of this study.

23
2.6.1 Effects of Sand Scouring
Effect of sand scouring was detected in Gao et al’s experiment unlike the DNV RP
E305 experiments (Section 2.5.3). Pipeline displacement was recorded with the
increase of oscillatory flow amplitude A0 and three characteristic times were

experienced during the pipe losing its on bottom stability. (See Figure 2.4 – 2.5) (a)
Onset of scour: local scour was triggered when water particles’ velocity around the
pipe was large enough; (b) Pipe Rocking: the pipe rocks slightly periodically at its
original location with approximately same frequency of oscillatory flow; (c) Pipe
Breakout: the pipe suddenly moves away from its original location, or breakout takes
place, after a period of slight rocking. From the pipe displacement-time curve
generated (shown below) for the two different constraint conditions (freely laid
pipelines and anti-rolling pipeline), the stable, slight-rocking and break out period
can be seen.

Case I

24
 Case II
Figure 2.8 Pipe displacement-time curves

This shows that pipeline instability is always coupled with a degree of sand scouring,
however as stated by D.S Jeng (2002); as to pipes whose submerged weight are
small, they would breakout when the oscillatory flow is not enough to induce sand
scour. This also is reiterated by Chiew Yee-Meng (2003), which concludes that for
pipe which is just embedded, the onset of scour does not occur if the ratio of the
flow depth to pipe diameter exceeds 3:5. Similarly, the onset of scour does not occur
for half buried pipes, a phenomenon synonymous with sand building up due to
sediments deposition.

2.6.2 Sand Build up due to Sedimentation

Figure 2.9 Sediments build up at Umbilical and Pipeline at the Seabed

The figure above shows the comparison between umbilical and pipeline with respect
to sand building up at the base of the two structures.

25
Nominally, umbilical is significantly smaller than pipeline and therefore as a
percentage of the diameter, sand build up is much more significant on a relative
basis. Literally, this phenomenon caused by sediments transport can be seen as a
form of stabilization as the pipe should remain stable, acting as a barrier initially,
until the sand builds up appreciably, and maybe overtop it. The RP E305 and Gao et
al’s approach does not cover this as it relates to the pipe prior this form of
stabilization and others such as trenching, burial, self-burial etc. There is very limited
existing research and data to analyse this level of the significance into details, thus
the approach below is presented in general terms.

The design criteria would be to ensure enough vertical stability of the pipe resting on
the seabed or buried in the soil. Relating the specific weight of the pipe with that of
the soil would be an idea on analysing this sedimentary build up. If the specific
weight of the pipe is less than that of the soil (including water content), no further
analysis is required to document the safety against sinking, as the pipe would not
sink into the sand sediments. Sinking should be considered with maximum content
density e.g. water filled.

For lines to be placed on or in soil having low shear strength, consideration of the
soil stress may be necessary. If the soil is, or likely to be liquefied, the depth of
sinking should be limited to a satisfactory value, by consideration of the depth of
liquefaction or the build up of resistance during sinking.

‘Both scouring and sediment deposition are important factors in assessing the long
term stability of umbilical’. There importance should be stressed because the lateral
resistance that is needed to resist hydrodynamic forces on the seabed (on bottom
stability), is dependent on them, Although this report have simply verify there effects,
the approaches above emphasises that through consideration of basic soil
mechanics with the pipe weight, the general long term behavioural principles of the
umbilical stability can be established leading to design methods than can provide
the most appropriate way of establishing their effects.

26
 CHAPTER THREE

PROCEDURE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF UMBILICAL ON-BOTTOM STABILITY

3.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS

The aim of this design section is to subject typical umbilical characteristics to the
simplified DNV – RP E305 and to the improved method proposed by Gao et al. for
the purpose of comparison and analysis between the physical phenomena of pipe
losing stability in the pipe-soil interaction test and those in the wave-pipe-soil
interaction tests. With respect to on-bottom stability, the design criterion (decisive
parameter) is to determine the umbilical’s submerged weight in both cases and
compare the values.

An umbilical with an outside diameter of 0.144m (app 5.669 inches) is set as an

example and the other parameters for the umbilical on-bottom stability, wave and
seabed are listed below. With similar properties used in both design approaches, it
is noted that the design wave height are various as shown in the table.

Table 3.1 Design parameters for wave, seabed and umbilical

Umbilical Characteristics
Diameter outside ( ± 3mm) 0.144m
Umbilical operational mass 18.96kg/m
Umbilical operational weight 14.00kgf/m
Density of sea water 1.03 × 103 kg/m3
Wave Characteristics
Wave period (T ) 9.0 (s)

Water depth (d ) 40 (m)

Wave length (L) 125 (m)

Wave height (H ) 1.7-3.8 (m) various

Wave Spectrum JONSWAP
Storm Duration 1 year
Seabed (sand) Characteristics
Mean particle diameter ( d 50 ) 0.38 (mm)

Buoyant unit weight (γ ' ) 0.9 × 104 (N/m3)

Relative density 0.37

27
3.2 RP E305 SIMPLIFIED STABILITY ANALYSIS
Based on the simplified analysis method in DnV Practice (Det norske Veritas 1988)
presented in Appendix A, the design values of submerged weight ( Ws ) of umbilicals

for the given design parameters would be obtained from an Excel Worksheet
Program developed for the simplified static stability analysis method.

The programme is designed to run independently and contains all of the relevant
graphs and tables. Some graphs & tables require a "manual" interpretation and
these are highlighted on the input sheet. Others have associated formulae and will
extract information automatically. Where appropriate, options are given on some
inputs, i.e. current profile type and wave spectrum type.

Once the submerged weight is gotten from the RP E305 as shown in section 4.1,
the dimensionless submerged weight W s/(γ ' D 2 ) would be calculated. The values of

the Froude number U m /(gD ) 0.5 would also be calculated. This is to compare the

variations of U m /(gD ) 0.5 and W s/(γ ' D 2 ) from this method with those from the Gao

et al.’s analysis approach as presented in section 4.3.

3.3 GAO et al. STABILITY ANALYSIS

As indicated by Gao et al., dimensional analysis shows that the critical pipe
submerge-weight ‘ G ’ ( Ws γ ' D 2 ) to keep it laterally stable is mainly relative to the

following parameters:

Ws γ ' D 2 = f (U m gD ) , U mT D, U m D ν , t T , A& 0 U m , ρ sat ρ w , D d s , Dr , κ , ... ...)

0.5

And from inspection, all this have been put into consideration while carrying out
there wave experiments. Based of the experimental results the criteria for stability
on a medium –dense sand of ( Dr = 0.37) for the two kinds of constraints i.e. the
pipe is free at its ends (Case I) and the pipe is constrained against rolling (Case II)
was established as shown in equation 2.19.

 Ws
 0 . 043 + 0 . 37 < 0.65 freely laid pipes
Um
=
γ 'D2
(2.19)
gD 0.069 + 0.62 Ws < 0.36 anti − rolling pipes
 γ ' D2

28
The relationships developed have been based on dimensional analysis and fitted to
the laboratory data. The equations capture the main influential factors for on-bottom
stability of pipe laid on a sandy seabed, as the parameters for wave, pipe and sand
are coupled.

As stated in section 2.5 these relationships were generated for small scale wave-
pipe – soil interaction tests (which favour umbilical sizes), that is to say the equation
would have to be extrapolated to pipe line sizes of larger diameters of about 0.3 –
1.0m. This indicates that more large-scale experiments and field observations would
still be needed to verify the above empirical relationships.

Using these relationships, Gao et al. evaluated the criteria graphs for on bottom
stability for both the common section of pipeline (Case I and Case II – relative to this
design scenario) as presented in Appendix B. It is noted that the critical lines in the
figures are based on the medium sand test result, similar subject sand in this study,
thus there should be modification when the physical parameters of seabed are
changed.

An analysis flowchart has been developed to suit this study as presented below. For
the specific values of wave height (H ) , wave period (T ) and water depth (d ) , the

maximum values of wave-induced particle velocity near seabed bottom (U m ) would

be obtained based on Stokes’ second order wave theory, suggested by Le Mehaute,

(1976). The expression is also given in the Appendix B.

The design values of the Froude number U m /(gD ) 0.5 and the dimensionless

submerged weight W s/(γ ' D 2 ) of the umbilical would be obtained from a self

developed Excel Worksheet programs based on the Gao et al. analysis approach.
These results are presented in Section 4.2 and subjected to comparison with the
simplified approach in Section 4.3.

29
 Umbilical conditions: Wave conditions: Sandy seabed conditions
D, W(o.p), W(o.w) d, T, H γ 'd 50 , Dr

Calculate d / T 2 , H / T 2

Get a trial value of umbilical Choose an appropriate

outer diameter D ' wave theory

Calculate maximum value of

wave-induced water particle
velocity Um

Calculate U m /(gD ) 0.5

Based on Gao et al’s criteria

for pipe stability Revise the criteria

Subject the Fr to the For consideration i.e.

free pipe, subject the
Gao criteria of common
section (Suitable for this Fr to the special
analysis) section curve.

Refer to Fig B.1 Refer to Fig B.2

Obtain the value of Ws / γ ' D 2

Calculate the umbilical

submerged Weight Ws

Figure 3.1 Analysis flow chart for umbilical on-bottom stability induced by waves
(Flow chart suited to Umbilical stability developed from the Gao et al’s comprehensive flow chart)
– (this studies path way)
– (alternative’s path way)

30
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RP E305 SIMPLIFIED STABILITY RESULTS

Table 4.1 Showing the Design Values of Submerged Weight of Umbilical Based on
DnV RP E305
H /( m) U m /( m / s ) Ws /( k / m) Min Safety Factor

1.7 0.144 0.106 1.3

2.1 0.173 0.123 1.12
2.4 0.197 0.132 1.04
2.8 0.230 0.144 0.95
3.1 0.255 0.153 0.90
3.4 0.280 0.163 0.84
3.8 0.313 0.176 0.78

Table 4.2 Showing the Calculated Values of the dimensionless Submerged Weight
and the Froude Number based on the DnV RP E305
H /( m) U m /( gD ) 0.5 Ws / γ ′D 2
1.7 0.121 0.567
2.1 0.146 0.659
2.4 0.166 0.707
2.8 0.193 0.772
3.1 0.214 0.820
3.4 0.235 0.873
3.8 0.263 0.943

The programme calculates the minimum required submerged weight Ws for the

umbilical seabed stability at varying significant wave height H s (1.7 to 3.8m). There

is an increase in the submerged weight with the increase in the significant wave
height as shown in table 4.1. The included minimum safety factor is that which is
based on the optimum force phase angle and it indicates the stability of the umbilical
within the constraints of this method.

31
The submerged weight result includes the safety factor of 1.1 implicit in it for
Fw (calibration factor) and this should always be included, as the method is empirical
and should not be modified in any way, if it is to give useful results. The minimum
safety factor due to the calculated optimum force phase angle indicates that the pipe
is more stable as the safety factor increases above unity and would be unstable as it
drops below unity. From the results, it is clear that the stability reduces as the wave
height increases.

The Table 4.2 shows the calculated values of the dimensionless submerged weight
and the Froude number which puts into consideration the buoyant unit weight of the
soil ( γ ' = ( ρ sat − ρ w ) g ) and the gravitational force (gD ) 0.5 . This is used to generate

the comparison lines between the RP E305 approach and the Gao et al. approach
as shown in Figure 4.1

In normal design scenario with a fixed water depth, wave period and varying wave
height, this reduction in stability would have to be properly catered for by possibly
altering the umbilical operational weight and umbilical diameter to suit the wave and
seabed conditions i.e. subjecting the umbilical pipe weight as a trial value to revise
the umbilical diameter. This approach is covered under the RP E305 generalised
approach and could be used to supplement the simplified approach design. This is
not the concern in this study, as the drop in stability is suitable for comparing the
method with the Gao et al’s approach.

32
4.2 GAO et al. STABILITY RESULTS

Table 4.3 Showing the Design Results Based on Gao et al’s. Approach

H /( m) Um U m /( gD ) 0.5 Ws / γ ′D 2

1.7 0.162 0.136 0.248

2.1 0.200 0.168 0.332
2.4 0.229 0.192 0.396
2.8 0.267 0.224 0.480
3.1 0.295 0.249 0.554
3.4 0.324 0.273 0.607
3.8 0.362 0.305 0.691

The self-developed excel programme calculates the Froude Number Fr and the

dimensionless submerged weight WS for the changing significant wave height

H s (1.7 to 3.8m) by looking up the criteria lines (Appendix B.4) as shown in the table
4.3 above. The

4.3 RESULTS COMPARISON

Comparison between the results predicted by DnV RP E305

and Gao et al's Approach

0.35

0.3

0.25
Um/(gD)0.5

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05 DnV Simplified Analysis Method

Gao et al Analysis Method
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
2
Ws/(y'D )

Figure 4.1 Comparison between the results predicted by DNV RP E305 and
Gao et al’s Approach

33
Based on the results from both approaches as shown above, the critical lines are
parallel to each other. The DnV Simplified Analysis method results in lower Froude
Number Fr and higher dimensionless submerged weight WS when compared with

that of the Gao et al.’s approach through the increasing wave heights. Thus
establishing that; for the increasing Froude Number Fr , the values of the

dimensionless submerged weight WS from the DnV Simplified Analysis method

appears more conservative than that from the Gao et al’s approach.

An explanation for the Gao et al’s lower values can be reasoned to be the impacts of
the sand that forms in the vicinity of the umbilical either due to sand scour or if on a
larger scale due to the sediment transport and both conditions benefits umbilical’s
on-bottom stability. Both types of sand build up, especially the sand scour which
however was not taken into account in the existing DnV Practice are indicators of
wave-pipe-soil interaction and can be said to be influential factors for umbilical
stability.

It is also a point of note that the differences in the values of the dimensionless
submerged weight WS from both approaches reduces (0.349 – 0.266) as the wave

height increases, which might possibly bring the results from both approaches to
similar values in higher wave height conditions i.e. when the degree of instability
increases.

34
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With an established review, this study indicates that the DNV RP E305 was based
on pipe-soil interaction tests and the Gao et al’s approach on wave-pipe-soil
interaction test. Both methods, for the purpose of umbilical on-bottom stability have
therefore been subjected to the same design criterion, which is the submerged
weight required to keep the pipe stable at given environmental conditions.

The Result shows that values obtained from the DNV RP E305 Simplified Static
Analysis tends to be higher than that of the Gao et al.’s approach at the given
environmental conditions, lending an affirmation to the growing concern that the
‘results from the DNV RP E305 are sometimes deems conservative.’ This study
believes that wave-induced instability of either pipeline or umbilical should be seen
more as a wave-pipe-soil coupling dynamic problem other than isolating either the
pipe-soil and pipe-wave interaction respectively.

Gao et al’s choice of modelling pipeline instability with a linear relationship between
‘Froude number Fr and non-dimensional pipe weight G ’ is thus applauded in this
study, as important parameters in modelling wave-induced instability and can be
accepted as a supplementary analysis for umbilical instability in design procedure.
The resulting equation which contains the relationships between water particle
velocity, soil properties, pipe diameter and the submerged weight can be said to
offer more physical meaning in terms of its parameters that that established in the
DNV RP E305 models.

Sand Scouring ‘a form of sand build up’ was also visualised in the Gao et al’s wave-
pipe-soil approach unlike in the experiments carried out for the DNV RP E305 pipe-
soil interaction. This report thus holds the premonition that putting the scouring of
sand besides the pipe into consideration while developing the model adds up to the
differences in the obtained results as it is believed that the sand scour will affect
stability eventually. The other form of build up – ‘effects of sediments deposition’ can
also be analysed based on specific weight comparison between the soil and
umbilical and it is recommended that a detailed methodological analysis for this
should be further looked into.

35
Since the development of the umbilical, it has always borrowed design approaches
from pipelines and up till now there seems to be no available experiments carried
out specifically to evaluate its seabed interaction. In order to establish a practical,
tailored design approach which would be more extensive and would put the
umbilical’s flexibility and soil interaction into consideration, it is recommended that
an umbilical stability experimental project should be carried.

Although the DNV RP E305 Simplified Static Analysis is still widely used, at least
until the much awaited RP F109 is released, this report concludes that a
complementary and more accurate method should always be used to validate
stability design where results are marginal or the design is critical. That is to say,
any established method which reflects the wave-umbilical-soil coupling effects would
be more reasonable in terms of umbilical seabed mechanism and would offer more
accuracy in its on-bottom stability design.

36
 REFERENCES

DET NORSKE VERITAS, 1988. On-bottom stability design of submarine pipelines,

Recommended Practice E305. Veritec Offshore Technology and Services A/S

BRITISH STANDARDS; PD 8010:2. 2004 Code of Practice for Pipeline – Part 2

Subsea Pipelines. London: BSI.

WAGNER, D.A. et al., 1987. Pipe-soil Interaction Model. Proceeding of the

Nineteenth Offshore Technology Conference, 27-30 April 1987. Houston: OTC.
Paper No. 5504.

BRENNODDEN, H. et al., 1989. An Energy Based Pipe-Soil Interaction Model.

Proceeding of the Twenty-first Offshore Technology Conference. 1-4 May 1989.
Houston: OTC. Paper No. 6057.

ALLEN, D.W. et al., 1989. Submarine pipeline on-bottom stability: recent AGA
research. Proceeding of the Twenty-first Offshore Technology Conference. 1-4 May
1989. Houston: OTC. Paper No. 6055.

BRITISH STANDARDS; BS ISO 13628-5:2002 Petroleum and Natural Gas

Industries - Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems – Part 5; Subsea
Umbilical. London: BSI.

BRENNODDEN, et al., 1986. Full-scale pipe-soil interaction tests. Eighteenth

Offshore Technology Conference, 2-5 May 1987. Houston: OTC. Paper No. 5338.

GAO, F.P., GU, X.Y. and JENG, D.S., 2003. Physical modelling of Untrenched
submarine pipeline instability. Ocean Engineering, 30 (10): pp. 1283-1304.

YIMSIRI, S., et al, 2005. Lateral and Upward Soil-Pipeline Interactions in Sand for
Deep Embedment Conditions

ZHANG, J., STEWART, D.P., and RANDOLPH, M.F. 2002. Vertical Load-
Displacement Response on Untrenched Offshore Pipeline on Calcareous Sand.
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Volume 12, No 1.

37
JENG, D.S., 2003. Wave Induced Sea Floor Dynamics Applied Mech. Rev Vol 56,
No 4. ASME pp 11 – 33.

DET NORSKE VERITAS, 2002. Submarine pipeline systems, Offshore Standard

F101. Veritec Offshore Technology and Services A/S

GAO, F.P. and JENG, D.S., 2006. A New Design Method for Wave-Induced Pipeline
Stability on a Sandy Seabed [online]. Available from: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au
Environmental Fluids/Wind Group [Accessed 19th April 2007]

JOHANSEN, R.B. and EKEBERG, K.R. 2005. Subsea Umbilicals – Joint Industry
Project aiming to revise ISO 13628-5. 2005 Offshore Technology Conference.

GAO, F.P., et al., 2002. An experimental study for wave induced instability of
pipelines: The breakout of pipelines. Applied Ocean Research 24(2), pp 83-90

CHIEW, Y.M., 1990. Mechanics of local scour around submarine pipelines. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 116, 515~529.

ENGINEERING SCIENCE DATA Item no: 80025., 1980. Mean forces, pressures
and flow field velocities for circular cylindrical structure. London: ESDU

HALE, J.R., LAMMERT, W.F., and ALLEN, D.W., 1989. Pipeline On-Bottom Stability
Calculation: Comparison of Two State of the Art Methods and Pipe-Soil Model
Verification.Proceeding of the Twenty-first Offshore Technology Conference. 1-4
May 1989. Houston: OTC. Paper No. 6761.

PATENT STORM. 1999. Arrangement in a Cable. Houston. [online]. Available from

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5902958.html. [Accessed 5th July 2007]

RANDOLPH, M., CASSIDY, M., GOURVENCE, S. and ERRICH C., 2005.

Challenges of Offshore Geotechnical Engineering. [online]. London: ISFOG.
Available from www.icsmge2005.org/02/pdf/Randouph.pdf [Accessed 22nd June
2007]

38
ZHANG, J., STEWART, D.P., and RANDOLPH, M.F. 2002. Modelling of Shallowly
Embedded Offshore Pipeline in Calcareous Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 128, Issue 5, pp 363-371

JONES, W.T., 1978. On-Bottom Pipeline Stability in Steady Water Currents [Online].
Available from Journal of Petroleum Technology. www.spe.org . Paper 6300.

CATHIE, D.N., et al. 2005. Pipeline Geotechnics – State of Art. Frontiers in

Offshore Geotechnics. ISFOG London.

MARINTEK. 2004. DEEPLINE – Design, Installation and Operation of Deepwater

Pipelines. [Online] Available from http://www.sintef.no/content/page1____3583.aspx
[Accessed 11th April 2007]

BRAESTRUP, M.W., et al. 2005. Design and Installation of Marine Pipeline. Oxford;
Blackwell Publishing.

39
 APPENDIX A

DNV RP E305 SIMPLIFIED STATIC STABILITY ANALYSIS

A.1
The purpose of this section is to outline a simple method of stability design suitable
for checking stability in all normal design situations. (A excel program have been
used for calculating in this study and the results are stated in section 4.1)

A.2
The method is based on a static stability approach, which ties the classical static
design approach to the generalized stability method through a calibration of the
classical method with generalized stability results. A calibration faction (Fw) is
included, which has been developed from pipelines designed with a lateral
displacement of up to 20m. The results are thus brought into agreement even
through the forces calculated for any given case are not necessarily physically
realistic (ref. e.g. constant Cd = 0.7 instead of as function of Re, K, roughness etc).

A.3
The soil friction factors to be used in conjunction with the simple design method are
to be based on soil classification as follows:

Soil Type Friction Calibration Factor

Sand 0.7
Clay Given in Figure A.1

A.4
The friction factors presented for clay soils in Figure A.1 were developed as part of
the simplified method and consequently must only be used in conjunction with the
simplified design method.

40
 Recommended Friction Factors For Clay

10

Friction Factor
1

0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.0/Non-dimensional shear strength

Figure A.1 Recommended Friction Factors for Clay (Simplified Design Method)

A.5
Stability in this quasi-static method is given by the following expression

[Ws / FW − FL ]µ ≥ FD + FI (A 1.1)

where:

Ws = submerged weight of the pipe

FW = calibration factor
µ = soil friction factor
FL = lift force
FD = drag force
FI = inertia force

A.6
The limiting value of the submerged weight can then be found from

 ( F + FI ) + µ .FL 
WS =  D  .Fw (A 1.2)
 µ  max

41
A.7
The variation of the calibration factor F W with K and M is shown in Figure A.2. A

safety factor of 1.1 is inherent in the calibration factor FW

Calibration Factor vs K & M

1.7
1.6
C alib ratio n Facto r F w

1.5
M<=0.2
1.4
M=0.3
1.3
M=0.4 - 0.6
1.2
M=0.7
1.1
M>=0.8
1
0.9
0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50
Keulegan Carpenter No. K

Figure A.2 Calibration Factor, FW as function of K and M

A.8
When using the calibration factor FW to calculate WS , the hydrodynamic forces

action on the pipe ( FL , FD and FI ) may be estimated from the following expressions:

FL = 1 / 2.ρ w .D.C L .(U s . cosθ + U C ) 2 (A 1.3)

FD = 1 / 2.ρ w .D.C D . ¦ (U s . cosθ + U C ) ¦ (U s .Coθ + U C ) (A 1.4)

FI = (π .D 2 ) / 4.ρ w .C M . AS .sin θ (A 1.5)

where:
ρ w = mass density of water
D = total outside diameter of the pipe
C L = lift force coefficient (C L = 0.9)
C D = drag force coefficient (C D = 0.7)

C M =inertia force coefficient (C M = 3.29)

U S = significant near-bottom velocity amplitude perpendicular to the pipeline

U C = current velocity perpendicular to the pipeline

AS = significant acceleration perpendicular to the pipeline ( (= 2πU S / TU )

42
θ = phase angle of the hydrodynamic force in the wave cycle

A.9
Information on the estimation of the water particle characteristics is given in the
literature review.

A.10
Values for the soil friction factor are based on the soil classification of the seabed.
Recommended soil friction factors are given in A.3.

A.11
For K > 50 and M ≥ 0.8 , (i.e. approaching stationary current), a constant calibration
factor FW = 1.2 may be applied.

A.12
For supercritical and critical flow regime i.e. Re < 3 × 10 5 and M ≥ 0.8 , realistic

hydrodynamic coefficients valid for stationary current ( (C D = 1.2, C L = 0.9) , should

be applied to determine hydrodynamic forces for the stability calculations.

43
 APPENDIX B

GAO et al’s PROCEDURE FOR ON BOTTOM STABILITY

B.1
The aim of pipe design with respect to the on-bottom stability is to determine the
submerged weight of the pipe that would be sufficient to keep the pipe stable.

In the case of pipeline, the aim would further be to determine the steel pipeline
thickness and the weight of the concrete coatings or the thickness of the concrete
coating so that the submerged weight of the pipeline is sufficient to meet the
required stability criteria.

B.2
From the experimental analysis, the critical pipe submerge-weight ‘ G ’ ( Ws γ ' D 2 )

to keep it laterally stable is mainly a function of the following parameters:

Ws γ ' D 2 = f (U m gD ) , U mT D, U m D ν , t T , A& 0 U m , ρ sat ρ w , D d s , Dr , κ , ....)

0.5

(B 1.1)

Where Ws is the pipeline submerged weight per meter; γ ' = ( ρ sat − ρ w ) g is the

buoyant unit weight of the soil; D is the outer diameter of the pipe; U m /(gD ) 0.5 is

the Froude number ( Fr ) , whose physical meaning is the ratio of inertia force to

gravitational force; U m is the maximum value of the velocity of water particles at

seabed, g is the gravitational acceleration; U mT / D is the Keulegan –Carpenter

( KC ), which controls the generation and development of vortex around pipeline;

T is the wave period; U m D /ν is the Reynolds number ( R e ), whose physical

meaning is the ratio of the increase of oscillatory flow amplitude per second ( A& ) to
the maximum of water particle velocity; ρ sat / ρ w is specific gravity of saturated sand,

i.e. the ratio of density of saturated sand ( ρ sat ) to that of pore water ( ρ w ); D / d s is

the ratio of pipe diameter ( D ) to particle diameter of sand ( d s ) ; Dr is the relative

density of sand; κ is the relative roughness of pipeline (Gao et al. 2003)

44
B.3
Putting the dimensional analysis in equation (B 1.1) into consideration while carrying
out the wave experiments, an experimental results for the criteria for stability on the
medium –dense sand of ( Dr = 0.37) for the two kinds of constraints i.e. the pipe is
free at its ends (Case I) and the pipe is constrained against rolling (Case II) was
established respectively as:

Um Ws
= 0.042 + 0.38 for case I B 1.2
gD γ ' D2

Um Ws
= 0.069 + 0.62 for case II B 1.3
gD γ ' D2

The relationships are based on dimensional analysis and have been fitted to the
laboratory data and since the equations were generated for small scale wave-pipe-
soil interaction tests, they would have to be extrapolated to pipe line sizes of larger
diameters of about 0.3 – 1.0m.

B.4
Using these relationships, the criteria line for Case I can be used for evaluating the
on-bottom stability of pipeline at special locations, and the one for Case II can be
used for evaluating the on-bottom stability of pipeline at common locations as shown
in figure B.1 (a) and (b) respectively. These graphs are based on the medium sand
test result, and modification should be carried out when the physical parameters of
seabed are changed.

45
 Figure B.1 Criteria for pipeline on-bottom stability on sandy medium seabed: (a)
Common sections of pipeline; (b) Special sections of pipeline

B.5
Based on the criteria equation and curve in section B.4, an analysis procedure
should be suggested, which would involve a flow chart of the pipe, wave and seabed
condition parameters.

B.6
To obtain the maximum values of wave-induced particle velocity near seabed
bottom (U m ) , appropriate wave theories should be used based on the values of

d /T 2 and H /T 2 calculated. The wave theory can be chosen according to the range
of suitability for wave theory, as suggested by Le Mehaute (1976).

The Stokes’ second – order wave theory is been used here, and it expresses the
maximum particle velocity induced by waves as:

πH ch[k ( z + d )] 3  πH  πH  ch[2k (z + d )]
Um = +    B 1.4
T sh(kd ) 4  T  L  sh 4 (kd )
In which k is the wave number (k = 2π / L) , L is the wave length, d is the water

depth (Sarpkaya and Isaacson 1981). For an untrenched pipe the value of U m is

often chosen as that at the middle of the pipe, i.e. z = − d + 0.5 D .

46
B.7
Once the trial value of the pipe’s outer diameter ( D ' ) is given the Froude

number U m /(gD ) 0.5 , can be calculated. Based on the criteria for pipeline on-bottom

stability as shown in Figure B.1, the corresponding values of the dimensionless pipe
weight ( Ws / γ ' D 2 ) can be obtained for the common sections or the special sections

of pipeline. The submerged weight of the pipeline per meter ( Ws ) can thereby be

calculated.

B.8
In the design for calculation of the thickness of the concrete coating t c , a new

calculated value of the pipeline diameter must be obtained by the following formula

1  4Ws 
D2 = + Di ( ρ st − ρ i ) + Dst ( ρ ac − ρ st ) + D 2 ac ( ρ c − ρ ac ) ,
2 2
 B 1.5
ρ c − ρ w  πg 

In which Dst is the outer diameter of steel pipe ( Dst = Di + 2t st ); Dac is the outer

diameter of antiseptic coating ( Dac = Dst + 2t ac ) . If D − D ′ / D is larger than the

permitting value (e.g. 0.1 0/0), the trial value f the pipeline outer diameter D ′ will be
revised,

The thickness of concrete coating t c can be calculated by

t c = D ′ − Di − 2t st − 2t ac ) / 2 B 1.6

The design value of thickness of concrete coating (t c D ) is given as

tc D = f t × tc B 1.7

Where f t is the safety factor, normally taken as 1.1 (Det norske Veritas 1988).

47
 APPENDIX C

UMBILICAL SEABED STABILITY CALCULATION OUTPUT PAGES

C.1

J P KENNY

Umbilical Seabed Stability Calculation

Client:
ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY MSc OIL AND
GAS ENGINEERING

Run Identification:
Central Satellite CSP 1, 40m Water Depth, 1yr
Storm

INPUT VALUES
Current at Height 'Y' above seabed (Ur, m/s) 0.95
Height above seabed for nominal current (Y, m) 9
Basis for current calculation (1/7 Power Law, Log
Basis) OR: Log Basis
Seabed Current Velocity (m/s) N/A
Seawater Mass Density (kg/m^3) 1030
Diameter of Umbilical (mm) 144.00
Installed Mass of Umbilical (kg/m) 18.96
Installed Weight (flooded) of Umbilical (N/m) 137.34
Water Depth (m) 40.00
Coefficient of Soil Friction (for Simplified Method) 0.70
Significant Wave Height (m) 1.70
Associated Wave Period (Tp, s) 9.00
Coefficient of Drag (Simplified Method Value, Cd) 1.20
Coefficient of Lift (Simplified Method Value, Cl) 0.90
Coefficient of Inertia (Simplified Method, Cm) 3.29
Wave Spectrum Type JONSWAP
JONSWAP Gamma Value 5
Angle of Current to Umbilical 90

48
 OUTPUT VALUES
Significant Velocity Perpendicular to Umbilical
(m/s) 0.14
Zero Upcrossing Period (Tu, s) 9.28
Lift Force on Umbilical (N/m) 31.80
Drag Force on Umbilical (N/m) 42.40
Inertia Force on Umbilical (N/m) 1.00
Limit Weight for Stability - includes Simplified
Method Safety Factor (N/m) 106.00

Minimum Safety Factor 1.30

Calculation to DNV RP E305 - Simplified Method

2nd RUN INPUT VARIATION

Significant Wave Height (m) 2.10

OUTPUT VALUES
Significant Velocity Perpendicular to Umbilical
(m/s) 0.17
Zero Upcrossing Period (Tu, s) 9.28
Lift Force on Umbilical (N/m) 34.85
Drag Force on Umbilical (N/m) 46.46
Inertia Force on Umbilical (N/m) 1.23
Limit Weight for Stability - includes Simplified
Method Safety Factor (N/m) 122.55

Minimum Safety Factor 1.12

49
3rd RUN INPUT VARIATION

Significant Wave Height (m) 2.40

OUTPUT VALUES
Significant Velocity Perpendicular to Umbilical
(m/s) 0.20
Zero Upcrossing Period (Tu, s) 9.28
Lift Force on Umbilical (N/m) 37.29
Drag Force on Umbilical (N/m) 49.71
Inertia Force on Umbilical (N/m) 1.28
Limit Weight for Stability - includes Simplified
Method Safety Factor (N/m) 132.16

Minimum Safety Factor 1.04

Calculation to DNV RP E305 - Simplified Method

4th RUN INPUT VARIATION

Significant Wave Height (m) 2.80

OUTPUT VALUES
Significant Velocity Perpendicular to Umbilical
(m/s) 0.23
Zero Upcrossing Period (Tu, s) 9.28
Lift Force on Umbilical (N/m) 40.59
Drag Force on Umbilical (N/m) 54.12
Inertia Force on Umbilical (N/m) 1.50
Limit Weight for Stability - includes Simplified
Method Safety Factor (N/m) 144.04

Minimum Safety Factor 0.95

Calculation to DNV RP E305 - Simplified Method

50
5th RUN INPUT VARIATION

Significant Wave Height (m) 3.10

OUTPUT VALUES
Significant Velocity Perpendicular to Umbilical
(m/s) 0.25
Zero Upcrossing Period (Tu, s) 9.28
Lift Force on Umbilical (N/m) 43.16
Drag Force on Umbilical (N/m) 57.54
Inertia Force on Umbilical (N/m) 1.66
Limit Weight for Stability - includes Simplified
Method Safety Factor (N/m) 153.27

Minimum Safety Factor 0.90

Calculation to DNV RP E305 - Simplified Method

6th RUN INPUT VARIAION

Significant Wave Height (m) 3.40

OUTPUT VALUES
Significant Velocity Perpendicular to Umbilical
(m/s) 0.28
Zero Upcrossing Period (Tu, s) 9.28
Lift Force on Umbilical (N/m) 45.89
Drag Force on Umbilical (N/m) 61.19
Inertia Force on Umbilical (N/m) 1.64
Limit Weight for Stability - includes Simplified
Method Safety Factor (N/m) 162.78

Minimum Safety Factor 0.84

Calculation to DNV RP E305 - Simplified Method

51
7th RUN INPUT VARIAION

Significant Wave Height (m) 3.80

OUTPUT VALUES
Significant Velocity Perpendicular to Umbilical
(m/s) 0.31
Zero Upcrossing Period (Tu, s) 9.28
Lift Force on Umbilical (N/m) 49.56
Drag Force on Umbilical (N/m) 66.08
Inertia Force on Umbilical (N/m) 1.83
Limit Weight for Stability - includes Simplified
Method Safety Factor (N/m) 175.89

Minimum Safety Factor 0.78

Calculation to DNV RP E305 - Simplified Method

52