processes

Article
Numerical Simulations of Dynamic Pipeline-Vessel
Response on a Deepwater S-Laying Vessel
Yingfei Zan 1 , Lihao Yuan 1, *, Kuo Huang 1 , Song Ding 2 and Zhaohui Wu 3
1 College of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China;
[email protected] (Y.Z.); [email protected] (K.H.)
2 China Ship Research and Development Academy, Beijing 100192, China; [email protected]
3 Offshore Oil Engineering Co., Ltd., Tianjin 300461, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-139-3640-9814




Received: 21 November 2018; Accepted: 8 December 2018; Published: 11 December 2018


Abstract: The dynamic action induced on offshore pipelines by deepwater S-laying is significant,
and directly determines how the pipeline structures are designed and installed. Existing research
has not fully investigated the benefits of coupling models of pipeline and pipelaying vessel motions.
Therefore, this paper presents a coupled time-domain numerical model for examining the effect of
coupled dynamic reactions. The coupled model takes into account the motion of the pipelaying vessel,
surface waves, ocean currents, wind forces, pipeline dynamics, and contact between the rollers and
the pipeline. A proportional, integral, derivative (PID) controller was used for simulating the control
of the pipelaying vessel. The hydrodynamic forces that the pipeline experiences were modeled using
the Morison equation. The model was solved using Newmark’s method and verified using OrcaFlex
software. The model was then used to analyze practical operations: the laying of a 22” gas export
pipeline on the seabed by the pipelaying vessel HYSY201 in the Pingbei-Huangyan gas fields in the
East China Sea. The effects of coupled factors on pipelaying vessel motions and pipeline dynamics
were approximated. These effects included configurations, axial tensions, and bending moments. The
results show a significant connection between the dynamic responses of the pipelines and pipelaying
vessel motions.

Keywords: pipeline; S-laying method; dynamic positioning system; coupled dynamic analysis

1. Introduction
Submarine pipelines are considered to be the most efficient and feasible means of transporting
large-scale gas and oil from offshore to onshore. Deepwater pipelaying is a standardized industrial
process for offshore pipeline installation and maintenance [1,2]. Installations of deepwater pipelines
are implemented using the J-laying or S-laying techniques. During J-laying operations, the pipeline
is lifted off the stinger in a nearly vertical position, which gives the pipeline a large bending radius
from the sea surface to the seabed. Therefore, the touchdown point is relatively close to the pipelaying
vessel, which makes it easy to monitor and position. The tension in the pipeline is small. However, the
speed and efficiency of J-laying is lower than that of S-laying. Because all the J-laying operations are
performed vertically, the vessel is not as stable as in S-laying [3]. The S-laying technique still occupies
a dominant position in the current pipelaying market because of its specific advantages. S-laying has a
higher adaptability and workability in different sea states and at various water depths, and it has a
higher pipelaying efficiency and lower costs. In 1967, Plunkett showed that a deepwater pipeline can
be assembled in an angular position on a lay barge and maintained at a predetermined high-tensile
force while lowering it to the ocean bottom. This process is called S-laying. The S-laying method
was developed in the 1980s and became the most frequently-used installation method [4]. In the

Processes 2018, 6, 261; doi:10.3390/pr6120261 www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2018, 6, 261 2 of 22

Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 22

S-laying method, the pipeline is supported using a stinger and passes over a regular roller sequence
the S-laying method, the pipeline is supported using a stinger and passes over a regular roller
forming an S-shaped trajectory before landing on the seabed, as illustrated in Figure 1. The upper
sequence forming an S-shaped trajectory before landing on the seabed, as illustrated in Figure 1. The
curved S-shaped parts that rest on stingers are called overbends and are followed by inflection points
upper curved S-shaped parts that rest on stingers are called overbends and are followed by inflection
where thewhere
points pipeline curvature
the pipeline is zero. is
curvature Before approaching
zero. Before the seafloor,
approaching the pipeline
the seafloor, is reversed
the pipeline into a
is reversed
sagbend.
into a sagbend. Horizontal tension in the pipeline is maintained by mounted tensioner devices on thetop
Horizontal tension in the pipeline is maintained by mounted tensioner devices on the
of top
the pipeline. Consequently,
of the pipeline. S-laying
Consequently, operations
S-laying depend
operations on roller
depend configuration
on roller and stinger
configuration radius.
and stinger
Large
radius. Large plastic deformation occurs when pipes pass over stingers. The plastic deformation is by
plastic deformation occurs when pipes pass over stingers. The plastic deformation is caused
thecaused
combined
by theeffects of theeffects
combined pipelaying
of thevessel motion,
pipelaying roller
vessel reaction
motion, forces,
roller axialforces,
reaction tensions,
axialand bending
tensions,
moments [5,6]. moments [5,6].
and bending

Figure1.1.Schematic
Figure Schematic diagram
diagram of
of S-laying
S-laying pipeline
pipelineinstallation.
installation.

There
There areare severalmethods
several methodsfor foranalyzing
analyzingpipelaying
pipelaying issues.
issues. These
Thesemethods
methodsinclude
includestatic
staticanalysis,
analysis,
quasi-static analysis, and dynamic analysis. The natural catenary technique involves initially initially
quasi-static analysis, and dynamic analysis. The natural catenary technique involves modeling
modeling
a pipeline a pipeline
with asymptoticwith expansion,
asymptotic andexpansion,
is idealandfor is idealnonlinear
large, for large, deflections
nonlinear deflections
when tension whenhas
tension has more effect on significant length than bending stiffness, and
more effect on significant length than bending stiffness, and was first used in 1967 by Plunkett was first used in 1967 by[7].
Plunkett [7]. Dixon used the stiffened catenary technique to solve the pipeline laying problem, and
Dixon used the stiffened catenary technique to solve the pipeline laying problem, and computed the
computed the required pipeline inclination and tension for the pipelaying vessel [8]. Brewer
required pipeline inclination and tension for the pipelaying vessel [8]. Brewer examined the impact
examined the impact of pipelaying barge motions on suspended pipelines using quasi-static
of pipelaying barge motions on suspended pipelines using quasi-static procedures and an extended
procedures and an extended stiffened catenary concept [9]. In recent years, some researchers have
stiffened catenary concept [9]. In recent years, some researchers have analyzed the S-laying pipeline
analyzed the S-laying pipeline configuration using the stiffened catenary technique and proposed a
configuration using the stiffened catenary technique and proposed a co-rotational finite element
co-rotational finite element formulation integrated with Bernoulli’s beam theory for assessing
formulation integrated with Bernoulli’s
offshore pipeline configurations beamintheory
and stresses S-layingforoperations
assessing[10]. offshore pipeline configurations
and stresses in S-laying operations
The abovementioned studies [10].
on modeling pipelaying issues focused on static and quasi-static
The abovementioned studies
analysis. Because offshore production on modeling
has shifted pipelaying
to deepwater, issues
it isfocused
necessary ontostatic andoperation-
address quasi-static
analysis. Because offshore production has shifted to deepwater, it is necessary
induced dynamic pipeline laying factors using modeling. Zan et al. developed a real-time numerical to address operation-
induced
model dynamic pipeline
for dynamically laying factors
analyzing offshore using modeling.
pipelaying usingZan et al. developed
simulations; a real-time
they included vessel numerical
motion,
model for dynamically
stratified current flow,analyzing
nonuniform offshore pipelaying
currents, and other using simulations;
dynamic factors. they
Theirincluded vessel motion,
results revealed that
stratified
dynamic current
forces flow,
were nonuniform currents,
important factors that and
actedother
upon dynamic
the pipelinefactors. Their
[11]. Gong results
et al. revealed
created an that
extensive
dynamic finitewere
forces element model factors
important for S-laying systems
that acted uponthatthe
considered
pipeline the [11].contact
Gongbetween stingeran
et al. created
rollers and
extensive finitetheelement
pipeline, pipelaying
model vessel systems
for S-laying motion, ocean currents, and
that considered thesurface
contactwaves
between using OrcaFlex
stinger rollers
[12]. OrcaFlex is a 3D, nonlinear, time-domain, finite element program developed
and the pipeline, pipelaying vessel motion, ocean currents, and surface waves using OrcaFlex [12]. by Orcina for static
and dynamic
OrcaFlex is a 3D, analysis of marine
nonlinear, risers andfinite
time-domain, pipelaying
element operation
programsystems.
developedHowever, the calculations
by Orcina for static and
in OrcaFlex
dynamic are based
analysis on therisers
of marine response
and amplitude
pipelayingoperator
operation (RAO) motions
systems. of the vessel.
However, This implies in
the calculations
that theare
OrcaFlex vessel
basedwillon
only
themake slightamplitude
response movements at the balanced
operator position, of
(RAO) motions and bevessel.
the unaffectedThisby the
implies
pipeline. Furthermore, the dynamic positioning system control model is not considered in OrcaFlex
that the vessel will only make slight movements at the balanced position, and be unaffected by
Processes 2018, 6, 261 3 of 22

the pipeline. Furthermore, the dynamic positioning system control model is not considered in
OrcaFlex [13]. Liang et al. created a modified finite element model using the software of Abaqus
to consider the6, complex
Processes 2018, x FOR PEERsurface
REVIEW contact properties within the overbend section. The contact state
3 of 22
properties of various rollers in a single box of rollers were investigated and the emerging support
[13]. (forces)
torques Liang et fromal. created a modified
all roller boxes were finitecomputed
element model using the software
and contrasted of Abaqus to
using commercial consider[14].
software
the complex surface contact properties within the overbend section. The contact state properties of
Xie determined a pipe’s dynamic loading history for S-laying operations using a verified finite element
various rollers in a single box of rollers were investigated and the emerging support torques (forces)
model, and then computed residual plastic deformations for pipe cross-sections after the pipe had
from all roller boxes were computed and contrasted using commercial software [14]. Xie determined
reached the seafloor [15]. Jensen established a model using nonlinear partial differential equations for
a pipe’s dynamic loading history for S-laying operations using a verified finite element model, and
the then
dynamics
computedof pipeline
residual strings
plasticsuspended
deformations fromfora pipe
pipelaying vessel to
cross-sections thethe
after seafloor during
pipe had pipelaying
reached the
operations. Jensen developed his model from an existing three-dimensional
seafloor [15]. Jensen established a model using nonlinear partial differential equations for beam model that described
the
tension forces,ofbending
dynamics pipeline moments, and shearing
strings suspended from ainpipelaying
sea applications;
vessel toJensen addedduring
the seafloor the effects of seabed
pipelaying
interactions,
operations. hydrodynamic
Jensen developed drag,his andmodel
restoration
from forces [16]. Wittbrodt
an existing employed
three-dimensional an improved
beam model that rigid
finite
described tension forces, bending moments, and shearing in sea applications; Jensen added the effects of
element method to enhance computational effectiveness when a dynamic response simulation
of seabed
pipelines interactions,
is carried out [17]. hydrodynamic drag, and restoration forces [16]. Wittbrodt employed an
improved
However,rigid none finite element
of the method
existing to enhance
research has fullycomputational effectiveness
investigated, whenthe
or evaluated a dynamic
benefits of,
response simulation of pipelines is carried out [17].
coupled vessel motion and pipeline dynamics models using dynamic positioning systems. Therefore,
However,
the present paper none of thethis
addresses existing research
knowledge gaphasbyfully investigated,
investigating or evaluated
a coupled vesselthe benefits of,
motion–pipeline
coupled vessel motion and pipeline dynamics models using dynamic
dynamics time-domain numerical model for analyzing a pipeline’s mechanical properties positioning systems. Therefore,
in S-laying
the present paper addresses this knowledge gap by investigating a coupled vessel motion–pipeline
operations. The coupled numerical model incorporates, among others, pipelaying vessel motions
dynamics time-domain numerical model for analyzing a pipeline’s mechanical properties in S-laying
and the contacts between stinger rollers and the pipeline. A dynamic positioning system was used to
operations. The coupled numerical model incorporates, among others, pipelaying vessel motions and
control the pipelaying vessel’s position within the coupled model. The hydrodynamic forces acting on
the contacts between stinger rollers and the pipeline. A dynamic positioning system was used to
the control
pipeline thewere considered
pipelaying using
vessel’s the Morison
position within the equation. Finally,The
coupled model. thehydrodynamic
effects of coupled
forcesfactors
acting on
the on
dynamic properties of offshore pipelines were extensively investigated using
the pipeline were considered using the Morison equation. Finally, the effects of coupled factors a practical example:
the on
laying of a 22” properties
the dynamic gas exportofpipeline
offshore on the seafloor
pipelines by the pipelaying
were extensively vessel
investigated HYSY201
using in the
a practical
Pingbei-Huangyan
example: the laying oil of
and gasgas
a 22″ fields in the
export East China
pipeline on the Sea.
seafloor by the pipelaying vessel HYSY201 in
the Pingbei-Huangyan oil and gas fields in the East China Sea.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. S-Laying Vessel Description
2.1. S-Laying Vessel Description
The results described are for the pipelaying vessel HYSY201—a deepwater S-laying vessel owned
by China’s
The Offshore Oil Engineering
results described are for theCompany
pipelayingLtd. (Beijing,
vessel China)deepwater
HYSY201—a (see Figure 2). The
S-laying main
vessel
owned byfor
parameters China’s Offshore Oilvessel
the pipelaying Engineering
with aCompany
10% pipeLtd.
load(Beijing, China) (see
requirement are Figure 2). The
presented in main
Table 1.
Theparameters
pipelayingfor the pipelaying
capacity vessel with a 10%
for double-jointing pipe load
systems withrequirement
6–60” pipesare and presented in Tabletensioning
a 2 × 200-ton 1. The
pipelaying capacity for double-jointing systems with 6–60″ pipes and a 2 × 200-ton tensioning
system, supported by a 400-ton Abandonment & Recovery capacity, is provided. The weight of the system,
supported
pipes that canby
beastored
400-tonon Abandonment
the upper deck& Recovery capacity,
is 9000 tons. Pipeistransferring
provided. The andweight of theispipes
handling that
undertaken
can be stored on the upper deck is 9000 tons. Pipe transferring and handling is undertaken using
using conveyors, rollers, and two mobile gantry deck cranes [18]. A permanent truss-type stinger and
conveyors, rollers, and two mobile gantry deck cranes [18]. A permanent truss-type stinger and
stinger adjustment system is located at the vessel aft. A dynamic positioning (DP) system has been
stinger adjustment system is located at the vessel aft. A dynamic positioning (DP) system has been
designed that provides high redundancy and meets DP2 requirements for pipelaying operations in
designed that provides high redundancy and meets DP2 requirements for pipelaying operations in
deepwater [19].
deepwater [19].

Figure2.2.The
Figure The HYSY201
HYSY201 operating
operatingatatsea.
sea.
Processes 2018, 6, 261 4 of 22

Table 1. HYSY201: pertinent specifications.

Item Unit Data

Overall length m 204.65
Length between perpendiculars m 185.00
Breadth m 39.20
Depth m 14.00
Mean draft m 8
Trim ◦ 1
Displacement t 47,886.7
Transverse inertia radius m 15.93
Longitudinal inertia radius m 55.24

2.2. Equations for Coupled Motion

Using Newton’s second law, the time-domain equations of motion for the six degrees of freedom
for a vessel were linearized to reach an equilibrium point:
..
Mx(t) = frad (t) + fhs (t) + fwave (t) + fexc (t) (1)

where M denotes the inertia matrix, x(t) represents the displacement vector, and t represents time.
frad (t) represents the radiation forces arising from the change in fluid momentum caused by the
vessel’s motion, fhs (t) represents the hydrostatic restoration forces caused by buoyancy and gravity,
and fwave (t) represents the wave forces acting on the vessel. In addition, fexc (t) represents other loads:

fexc (t) = fc (t) + fw (t) + fdp (t) + fr (t) + f p (t) (2)

where fc (t) and fw (t) represent the current and wind forces, respectively, acting on the vessel. fdp (t)
represents the thruster forces regulated by the DP system, fr (t) represents the reaction forces for the
roller–stinger contact model, and f p (t) represents the tensional forces at the top of the pipeline that act
on the vessel.
For the approximation of a linear wave, Cummins [20] used potential theory when studying
hydrodynamic radiation within the time-domain of an ideal fluid and obtained the following
representation.
Z t
.. .
frad (t) = −A(∞)x(t) − K(t − τ )x(τ )dτ (3)
0

where A(∞) represents a constant positive-definite matrix known as infinite-frequency added mass,
which is linked to the displaced fluid because of the vessel’s motion. The second term represents
fluid-memory, which captures the transfer of energy from the vessel’s motion into the liquid in
free-surface radiated waves. The kernel of the convolution term, K(t), is the matrix of retardation or
memory functions (impulse responses).
The convolution term is known as a fluid-memory model. It represents the fluid memory effects
that incorporate energy dissipation caused by the radiated waves generated by the motion of the vessel.
This term is not an efficient term to compute numerically because it requires information from the
previous time steps, and, in theory, from the start of the body motion. Therefore, most of the existing
codes using this formulation truncate the integral in Equation (4):
Z t
.. .
frad (t) = −A(∞)x(t) − K(t − τ )x(τ )dτ (4)
t − t0

The accurate nature of the convolution term depends on the stored memory time quantity (t0 )
and the modeling of the vessel’s impulse reaction function quality. A pipelaying vessel, which radiates
few waves, does not require long-term memory values.
Processes 2018, 6, 261 5 of 22

When a vessel’s motions are taken into account within the frequency dimension at the expense of
other loads, it assumes the form [21]
n o
−ω 2 [M + A(ω )] + jωB(ω ) + C X(jω ) = Fwave (jω ) (5)

where A(ω ) and B(ω ) represent the frequency-dependent added mass alongside the damping matrices.
The term X(jω ) represents the motion amplitude and phase caused by wave excitations and Fwave (jω )
represents the linear forces caused by the waves. Ogilvie determined A(ω ) and B(ω ) directly by
applying a Fourier transform in a sinusoidal regime [22]:
Z ∞
1
A( ω ) = A( ∞ ) − K(t) sin(ωt)dt (6)
ω 0
Z ∞
B( ω ) = K(t) cos(ωt)dt (7)
0
Through the application of a Fourier transform, K(t) can be computed from the information for
the damping matrices and added mass:
Z ∞
2
K( t ) = B(ω ) cos(ωt)dω (8)
π 0
Z ∞
K(jω ) = K(t)e−jωt dt = B(ω ) + jω [A(ω ) − A(∞)] (9)
0
In linear theory, when the motion of the pipelaying vessel and waves are assumed to be small,
the hydrostatic restoring forces are linear and proportional to the respective displacements of the body,
and are simply represented by
fhs (t) = −Cx(t) (10)

where C is the hydrostatic restoring matrix.

2.3. Environmental Forces

2.3.1. Wave Forces

Wave forces possess first-order wave forces and second-order slow wave drifting forces.
The first-order wave forces arise from incoming waves, thus accounting for the Froude–Krylov
(pressure forces caused by undisturbed wave fields) forces as well as the diffraction forces (caused
by modified wave fields as a result of their structure). Average low frequency and second-order
wave forces play a significant role in floating body dynamics. The horizontal parts are referred to
as second-order slow wave drift forces because, under their influence, floating unrestrained vessels
would drift away, and undergo a slow drifting motion along the direction of the wave. In this paper,
the total first-order and second-order wave forces and moments are computed using the frequency
transfer function derived through diffraction analysis and a defined wave spectral density function.
To examine the impact caused by irregular waves, the Joint North Sea Wave Project (Jonswap)
spectra are used [23]. Jonswap wave spectral density refers to the function of two user-defined
coefficients A and B, peak period (Tp ), and significant wave heights (Hs ). The density of the spectra is
expressed as h
4 i
S(ω ) = Ag2 /ω 5 exp −1.25 ω p /ω Bq (11)

and the exponent q is calculated by

h
2  i
q = exp − ω − ω p / 2σ2 ω 2p (12)
 Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22

where S ( ω ) represents the spectral density, A is the generalized Phillips’ constant, ω is the
circular frequency of the wave component, and ω p is the circular wave frequency at the spectral
Processes 2018, 6, 261 6 of 22
peak.
The Phillips’ constant A can be expressed by
where S(ω ) represents the spectral density, A is the generalized Phillips’ constant, ω is the circular
ω 4p
frequency of the wave component, andAω=p 5is H
the 1 − 0.287
2 circular waveln (frequency
B )  at the spectral peak. (13)
s 2 
16
The Phillips’ constant A can be expressed byg

The parameter t is presented as 4

5 2 ωp
A= H [1 − 0.287 ( B)]
lnω (13)
 σ = 0.07
16 s
g2 ω< p
 (14)
 σ = 0.09 ω > ω p
The parameter t is presented as
The Preakness parameter B is defined
( as
σ = 0.07 ω <ω p
 Tp (14)
σ = 0.09 ω >ω p < 3.6
5
 Hs
The Preakness parameter B is defined
 as
 Tp  Tp
B =exp 5.75 − 1.15  3.6 ≤ ≤5 (15)
 5  H s  √ p < 3.6 H s
T
 Hs


3.6 ≤ T√p Hp >≤
h i
T T
B = 1 exp 5.75 − 1.15 √ Hp 5 (15)
s 5

s
H

 Tp
1 √
H
> 5s
s
To determine the surface wave effects on the dynamic behavior of the pipeline in deepwater S-
To determine the surface wave effects on the dynamic behavior of the pipeline in deepwater
laying operations, the corresponding Jonswap spectra for all specific wave conditions, four sea states
S-laying operations, the corresponding Jonswap spectra for all specific wave conditions, four sea states
containing varying significant wave heights, and peak periods were considered (Figure 3).
containing varying significant wave heights, and peak periods were considered (Figure 3).
S (m 2s/rad)

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Jonswap
Jonswap spectra
spectra forfor four
four sea
sea states.
states.

The superposition
The principle
superposition is employed
principle for building
is employed for irregular
building sea states. The
irregular sealaw of superposition
states. The law of
states that problems
superposition canthat
states be broken
problemsdown caninto
bedifferent
broken subproblems, with each
down into different subproblem with
subproblems, carrying
each
itssubproblem
solution. The solution
carrying for the entire
its solution. issue isfor
The solution then
the considered
entire issueasis the
thentotal of the subproblem
considered as the total of
solutions. Therefore,
the subproblem when several
solutions. wave
Therefore, whencomponents
several wavewith a frequency
components ωi and
with ωi and wave
wave amplitude
a frequency ζ ai
amplitude ζ ai undergo superposition, the outcome is irregular waves. The waves’ overall motion
undergo superposition, the outcome is irregular waves. The waves’ overall motion featuring n wave
components
featuring ncan be components
wave explained bycan thebevelocity potential
explained by thebelow.
velocity potential below.
n
ζ ai g cosh k i (z + h)
Φ( x, y, z, t) = ∑ ωi cosh k i h
cos(ωi t − k i x cos β i − k i y sin β i + ε i ) (16)
i =1
Processes 2018, 6, 261 7 of 22

where h represents the depth of water, k i represents the wave number, β i represents the main wave
propagation direction, and ε i represents the wave’s phase angle.
The amplitude of the wave can be obtained from the spectra S(ωi ) and spreading function D ( β i )
of the wave: q
ζ ai = 2S(ωi ) D ( β i )dωdβ (17)

The first-order wave forces are computed within the time domain as
Z ∞ Z ∞
1
fwave1 (t) = H(1) (ω )e−iωτ dωζ (t − τ )dτ (18)
4π2 −∞ −∞

where H(1) (ω ) represents the first-order transfer function between wave elevation and excitation
force, and was computed using WAMIT [24] software. WAMIT was developed by Lee and Newman,
and uses the 3D numerical panel method to solve the linearized hydrodynamic radiation and diffraction
problems for the interaction of surface waves with a vessel.
The quadratic transfer function (QTF) is used for computing linear wave drift forces:
Z ∞
fwave2 (t) = 2H(2) (ω )S(ω )dω (19)
0

where H(2) (ω ) is the desired QTF, and is also computed using WAMIT software.
Thus, the resulting wave forces are

fwave (t) = fwave1 (t) + fwave2 (t) (20)

2.3.2. Current Forces

The current forces acting upon the vessel were computed during every time step, based on
definitions provided by OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum) [25]. The formulae below
for the surge, sway, and yaw directions were employed.

2 2
 Fcx (t) = 0.5ρw Ccx Vc L

Fcy (t) = 0.5ρw Ccy Vc L2
2 (21)
 M (t) = 0.5ρ C V 2 L2 T

cmz w cmz c

where ρw represents the density of water; L represents the vessel’s overall length; T represents the
draught of the vessel; Vc is the relative velocity between the vessel and the surface current of the sea;
and Ccx , Ccy , and Ccmz represent nondimensional current coefficients in a longitudinal direction, lateral
direction, and yaw moment direction, and can be obtained through basin modeling or wind tunnel
tests. In this study, the current coefficients for HYSY201 are based on data derived from wind tunnel
tests (Figure 4).
The current forces in the surge, sway, and yaw directions can be calculated. The DP system is
designed only to control the vessel motion on the horizontal plane, which includes the surge, sway,
and yaw. During pipelaying operations, the vessel motion in the other three directions has little
influence on the operations. Thus, the forces in the other three directions can be ignored, and the
current forces can be expressed as
h iT
fc ( t ) = Fcx (t) Fcy (t) 0 0 0 Mcmz (t) (22)
Processes 2018, 6, 261 8 of 22
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

Figure 4. The current coefficients for HYSY201.

Figure 4. The current coefficients for HYSY201.
2.3.3. Wind Forces
2.3.3. Wind Forces
Wind forces acting on bodies were also computed for every time step. A varying or constant
Wind forces
wind direction andacting on bodies
velocity can bewere also computed
simulated. Different for kinds
every time step. Aexist
of spectra varying or constant
within the model.
wind direction and velocity can be simulated. Different kinds of spectra exist within the model.
Alternatively, user-defined time traces can be used. The OCIMF [25] formulae below were employed
Alternatively, user-defined time traces can be used. The OCIMF [25] formulae below were employed
for the calculation of wind forces in the directions of surge, sway, and yaw.
for the calculation of wind forces in the directions of surge, sway, and yaw.

2 22L2
 Fwx
 (t()t )== 0.5ρ
Fwx 0.5 ρaaCCwxwxVV
wLw

Fwy ( t ) = 0.5ρ C V 2 2
2 w2L (23)
 Fwy (t ) = 0.5 ρa CwyVw L 2 2
a wy
(23)
 wmz

 M ( t ) = 0.5ρ C
a wmz2 2w V L T
 M wmz (t ) = 0.5 ρa CwmzVw L T
where Vw represents the relative velocity between the vessel and the wind, and Cwx , Cwy , and Cwmz are
where V w represents the relative velocity between the vessel and the wind, and Cwx , Cwy , and C wmz
the desired nondimensional wind coefficients in the longitudinal, lateral, and yaw moment directions.
are the desired nondimensional wind coefficients in the longitudinal, lateral, and yaw moment
Wind tunnel tests are the most accurate means of estimating wind forces on offshore structures and
directions. Wind tunnel tests are the most accurate means of estimating wind forces on offshore
vessels. The coefficients for HYSY201 are based on data derived from wind tunnel tests, as illustrated
structures and vessels. The coefficients for HYSY201 are based on data derived from wind tunnel
in Figure 5.
tests, as illustrated in Figure 5.
As
Asininthe
thecalculation for current
calculation for current forces,
forces,the thewind
windforcesforcesininthe
the heave,
heave, roll,
roll, and
and pitch
pitch directions
directions areare
ignored.
ignored.Thus,
Thus,the
thewind
windforces
forces can
can be
be expressed
expressed as as
T iT
(t ) = Fwx
fw (tf)w= Fwx((tt)) FFwy (tt)) 00 00 00 MMwmz (t ) 
h
wy ( wmz (t )
(24) (24)
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

Figure 5. 5.The
Figure Thewind
windcoefficients
coefficientsfor
for HYSY201.
HYSY201.

2.4. Dynamic Positioning System Control Model

Dynamic positioning (DP) is a computer-guided system for automatically maintaining the
 Figure 5. The wind coefficients for HYSY201.
Processes 2018, 6, 261 9 of 22
2.4. Dynamic Positioning System Control Model
Dynamic
2.4. Dynamic positioning
Positioning (DP)
System is a computer-guided
Control Model system for automatically maintaining the
position and direction of a vessel using the vessel’s thrusters and propellers. Position reference
Dynamic
sensors coupledpositioning
with gyro(DP)compasses,
is a computer-guided
motion sensors,system for and automatically
wind sensors maintaining
supply the position
information
and direction of a vessel using the vessel’s thrusters and propellers. Position
regarding the direction of environmental forces influencing the vessel’s position, magnitude, reference sensors coupled
and
with gyro This
position. compasses, motion sensors,
paper presents and wind
a simulation of thesensors
DP time supply
domain information regarding
to dynamically the direction
determine of
whether
environmental forces influencing the vessel’s position, magnitude, and position.
pipelaying vessels can maintain their positions. The simulation for the time domain was realized for This paper presents a
simulation of the DP time domain to dynamically
DP vessel motion using a mathematical model [26]. determine whether pipelaying vessels can maintain
their Apositions. The simulation for the time domain
PID (proportional–integral–derivative) controller waswas realized
used for for DP vessel motion
simulating using a
the pipelaying
mathematical model [26].
vessel’s position. It has been extensively used in engineering and is a stable and simple control
A PID
system. The(proportional–integral–derivative)
controller corrects velocity and position controllererrors, was usedwhich forare
simulating the pipelaying
then eliminated by the
vessel’s position. It has been extensively used in engineering and is
thrusters. The PID’s nonlinear horizontal-plane positioning feedback controller is given by [27]a stable and simple control
system. The controller corrects velocity and position errors, which are then eliminated by the thrusters.
t
The PID’s nonlinear horizontal-plane f dp positioning (t )  K I  controller
K D ε(t )  K P εfeedback ε(τ )dτ + f w is given by [27]
0

.
ε(tK) Pε(xt0)(t+ ) KxI(t )t ε(τ )dτ +fw (25)
R
fdp = K D ε(t) + 0
(25)
. ) x. 0x(0 t()t )−
ε(tε)(t=  xx. ((tt))
ε(t) = x0 (t) − x (t)
where f dp represents the desired control force from the thrusters, ε(t ) represents the position error,
where fdp represents the desired control force from the thrusters, ε(t) represents the position error,
KP represents the position feedback gains, KI is the desired integral feedback gain, KD represents the
KP represents the position feedback gains, KI is the desired integral feedback gain, KD represents the
velocity feedback gains, f w represents the wind feedforward forces, x(t) is the desired filtered
velocity feedback gains, fw represents the wind feedforward forces, x(t) is the desired filtered position,
position, and x0(t) is the target position. The arrangement and position of the HYSY201 thrusters are
and x0 (t) is the target position. The arrangement and position of the HYSY201 thrusters are illustrated
illustrated in Figure 6 and summarized in Table 2.
in Figure 6 and summarized in Table 2.

yp

xp
op

0.5Lpp

Figure6.6. The
Figure The arrangement
arrangementand
andposition
positionof
ofthe
theHYSY201
HYSY201thrusters.
thrusters.
Table 2. The position of the thrusters for HYSY201.
Table 2. The position of the thrusters for HYSY201.
x Direction y Direction Rotating Thruster Maximum
No. Type
Position/m Position/m Speed/rpm Diameter Thrust/kN
1 azimuth −92.50 9.45 181 3.6 680
2 Azimuth −92.50 −9.45 181 3.6 680
3 azimuth −11.25 15.40 192 3.2 540
4 azimuth −11.25 −15.40 192 3.2 540
5 azimuth 39.15 14.00 192 3.2 540
6 azimuth 39.15 −14.00 192 3.2 540
7 azimuth 54.21 0 192 3.2 540

The vessel’s positioning model was separated into low frequency (LF) components and high
frequency (HF) components. Thrusters control the LF motions. The DP system is sensitive to
high-frequency noise in the velocity and position signals because the noise undergoes amplification
and is transported to the thrusters. To address this, the positions and velocities were modified using a
Kalman filter. First, motion constructs were inserted using position reference systems and compared
with the required position. Previously computed position predictions were then modified using a
Kalman gain matrix. The Kalman gain matrix is related to cutoff frequencies, which were selected on
the basis of natural durations of motions and on-wave frequency motions [28].
frequency noise in the velocity and position signals because the noise undergoes amplification and is
transported to the thrusters. To address this, the positions and velocities were modified using a
Kalman filter. First, motion constructs were inserted using position reference systems and compared
with the required position. Previously computed position predictions were then modified using a
Kalman2018,
Processes gain matrix. The Kalman gain matrix is related to cutoff frequencies, which were selected
6, 261 10 of on
22
the basis of natural durations of motions and on-wave frequency motions [28].

2.5.
2.5. Pipeline
Pipeline Dynamics:
Dynamics: Model
Model Theory
Theory
2.5.1. Pipeline Model
2.5.1. Pipeline Model
The model uses the finite element method and is based on continuum mechanics principles.
The model uses the finite element method and is based on continuum mechanics principles.
Lagrangian descriptions were used to describe the pipeline motions. As shown in Figure 7, the particle
Lagrangian descriptions were used to describe the pipeline motions. As shown in Figure 7, the
motion can be represented as
particle motion can be represented as
η = η(X, t) (26)
η = η( X ,t) (26)
where X indicates the particle’s position vector and η represents the particle’s position at time t.
Definition of the displacement
where X indicates vector
the particle’s u is achieved
position through
vector and η represents the particle’s position at time t.
Definition of the displacement vector u is achieved through
η = X+u (27)
η = X +u (27)
For the Lagrangian formulation, measurement of strains is undertaken using the Green strain
For the Lagrangian formulation, measurement of strains is undertaken using the Green strain
tensor E. The strain tensor is expressed as
tensor E. The strain tensor is expressed as
dlnd2ln−
2 2
−dld0l0 2 =
= 2d
2dXX ⋅·EE⋅ ·ddX
X (28)
(28)

wheredldl
where 0 and
0 and dln represent
dln represent the linethe line segment
segment PQ’safter,
PQ’s length length
and after, and
prior to, prior to, deformation,
deformation, respectively.
respectively. an
Additionally, Additionally,
ideal stress an ideal stress
measure measure
is required is required
during during
the analysis. Inthe analysis.
most In most
instances, instances,
the symmetric
the symmetric Piola–Kirchhoff
Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor l isstress
used tensor
with thel isGreen
used strain.
with the Green strain.

prior to deformation

C0
P
u Cn
dl0 Q
P
I3 X
I1 dln Q
η
after deformation
I2
Figure 7. The
Figure 7. The particle
particle motion
motion during
during deformation.
deformation.

Malvern [29] is referred to for the detailed theory of the pipeline model. The virtual work equation
can be used for expressing a finite body’s equilibrium. Using Green strains and Piola–Kirchhoff stresses,
the equation can be expressed as
Z Z Z
l : δEdV0 = t0 · δudA0 + f0 · δudV0 (29)
V0 A0 V0

where the colon (:) notation indicates an inner product, δ represents virtual quantities, and V0 and
A0 represent the volume and surface of the first reference configuration, respectively. Body forces f0
and surface traction t0 represent the unit volume and unit surface within the initial state of reference.
Consequently, the equation for the dynamic equilibrium in terms of virtual work can be expressed as
Z Z Z Z Z
”
l : EdV0 + ρ0 uδudV0 + ceuδudV0 = t0 · δudA0 + f0 · δudV0 (30)
V0 V0 V0 A0 V0

where ρ0 represents mass density and ce indicates a function of viscous damping density. Damping
forces are proportional to velocity. The forces of inertia are proportional to the structure’s acceleration
and mass. The finite element nodal points may have up to six degrees of freedom (three translations
Processes 2018, 6, 261 11 of 22

and three rotations). Finite rigid bodies can be introduced at the nodes. Thus, the tensional forces at
the top of the pipeline f p (t) can be obtained [30].

2.5.2. Hydrodynamic Forces Acting on the Pipeline

Hydrodynamic in-line forces from currents acting on the pipeline apply to an accelerated fluid
setting in which the pipeline is kept vertical and stationary:
. .
fh = 0.5ρw Cd Du|u| + ρw Cm Au + ρw Au (31)

Equation (31) is known as the Morison equation [31]. In this equation, ρw represents the density
of water, D is the outer diameter of the pipeline, A represents the cross-sectional area of the pipeline,
u represents the velocity of the fluid, Cd represents the drag coefficient, and Cm represents the
hydrodynamic mass. The drag and mass coefficients depend on several parameters, including the
ratio of surface roughness, a relative current value, the Keulegan–Carpenter number, and the Reynolds
number. The drag and mass coefficients should be determined empirically [32].
When the pipeline is in motion and oceans currents are present during pipelaying operations,
Equation (31) can be simplified for hydrodynamic force per unit length as
. .
fh = −0.5ρw Cd Dvr |vr | − ρw Cm Avr + ρw Avc (32)

where vr =v −vc represents relative velocity, vc represents the velocity of the ocean current, and v
represents the pipeline’s velocity. It should be noted that the Froude–Krylov force is independent of
v because the force is linked to the fluid’s absolute motion. It is assumed that ocean currents vary
.
gradually; this implies that vc ≈ 0 and the Froude–Krylov term can be discarded.

2.6. Roller: Simplifying Assumptions

On pipelaying vessels, the pipeline is usually supplied by multiple discrete rollers. For example,
the stinger of HYSY201 has three sections: a tail section, an intermediate section, and a hitch section,
with lengths of 19.6 m, 22.9 m, and 33.2 m, respectively. Ten boxes of regularly spaced rollers are on
the stingers, as illustrated in Figure 8a; it can be seen that the pipeline is in contact with the stinger
rollers as shown in Figure 8b.
In practice, the vertical heights of all roller boxes could be modified slightly to meet the pipelaying
conditions prior to offshore pipeline installation. The roller boxes support the pipeline on the stinger,
and pipelaying barges prevent the pipelines’ downward lateral and vertical displacement. All rollers
within the roller boxes are analyzed to ascertain if the pipelines are in contact with the rollers, and then
support requirements are computed and applied to the rollers and pipes. In this paper, it is assumed
that the rollers are cylindrical, and that the support acts in directions that are mutually perpendicular
towards the pipelines’ longitudinal axes and all supporting rollers. The contact forces of the roller
acting on the pipeline can be calculated by linear stiffness ks [33]:

fr (t) = k s (0.5D − δ) (33)

where D represents the pipe diameter and δ represents the distance between two straight lines on
different surfaces.
Processes 2018, 6, 261 12 of 22
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22

Winch

Stinger hitch

Roller
Hitch section

Intermediate
section

Tail section

(a)

(b)

Figure
Figure 8. Stinger
8. Stinger forfor S-laying
S-laying operations:(a)
operations: (a)articulated
articulatedstinger
stingerofofthe
theHYSY201
HYSY201and
and(b)
(b)the
the pipeline
pipeline in
in contact with the stinger roller.
contact with the stinger roller.

3. ModelIn Solution
practice, the vertical heights of all roller boxes could be modified slightly to meet the
pipelaying conditions prior to offshore pipeline installation. The roller boxes support the pipeline on
theNewmark’s
stinger, and integral method
pipelaying was prevent
barges used to the solvepipelines’
Equationdownward
(1), in which theand
lateral velocity and
vertical
displacement of the vessel–pipeline system during the instant t + ∆t ( i + 1
displacement. All rollers within the roller boxes are analyzed to ascertain if the pipelines are in) can be expressed as
contact with the rollers, and( then support. requirements h are
 .. computed
.. i and applied to the rollers and
i ∆t + are2cylindrical, 1 ∆tthe support acts in directions
1 2
Si + 1 =
pipes. In this paper, it is assumed Sithe
that + Srollers − β Si + βand Si+that
. . .. .. (34)
that are mutually perpendicular Si+1 towards
= Si + (1the δ)Si ∆t + δlongitudinal
− pipelines’ Si+1 ∆t axes and all supporting rollers.
The contact forces of the roller acting on the pipeline can be calculated by linear stiffness ks [33]:
where S is the matrix of the pipelaying vessel displacement for the six degree freedom in surge, sway,
f r ( t ) = k s ( 0.5 D − δ ) (33)
heave, roll, pitch, and yaw directions; ∆t represents the time step length; and β and δ represent
where D represents
parameters associatedthe
with pipe diameter
stability andand δ represents
accuracy, the distance between two straight lines on
respectively.
different surfaces. (34), the acceleration and velocity at the instant i + 1 is approximated using the
Using Equation
displacements at the instant i + 1 and the instant i:
3. Model Solution
 where S is the matrix of the pipelaying vessel displacement for the six degree freedom in surge,
sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw directions; Δt represents the time step length; and β and δ represent
parameters associated with stability and accuracy, respectively.
Using Equation (34), the acceleration and velocity at the instant i + 1 is approximated using the
Processes 2018, 6, 261 13 of 22
displacements at the instant i + 1 and the instant i:

 δ  δ  δ  
 .  Si +1 = βΔt ( Si +1 − Si ) +  1 −   Si + 1 −
 β  Si Δ t
 Si+1 = δ (Si+1 − Si ) +  1 −β δ Si +  12 −
.
 δ S.. ∆t
 β∆t β  2β i (35)
δ 1 .  1 .. (35)
 Si+1S=
..
= ( S − S ) − 1 S + 1 − 1 S
i +1
δ
2 (S2i +1 i −
+1 Si )i − Si i+  1 −  Si i
β∆tβΔt
 βΔt
β∆t  2 β2β
Substitution of Equation (35) into Equation (1) and simplification produces the equation
Substitution of Equation (35) into Equation (1) and simplification produces the equation

 11 S + 11 S. − 1 − ..
   
1
M M 2 S1i+1S= f=i+f1 ++M 1 1  S
β∆t βΔt 2 i +1 i +1 M S + S
β∆t 2 i β∆t i 
2 i i − 1 − S
2βi  i (36)(36)
 βΔt βΔt  2 β  
fi+1frepresents all the forces input into the system, including environmental forces (f , f f , ,and f ),
i +1 represents all the forces input into the system, including environmental forces ( fwave wave , w w and c
radius forces (f
f c ), radius forces), hydrostatic forces (f
rad ( f rad ), hydrostatic forces
hs ), tensional forces (f
( f hs ), tensional forces
p ) at
( f p ) at the top of the pipeline thaton
the top of the pipeline that act
the vessel, and roller–stinger contact forces (fr ). The responses of the system, including accelerations,
act on the vessel, and roller–stinger contact forces ( f ). The responses of the system, including
velocities, and displacements at the instant i + 1 werer derived by substituting Equation (36) into
accelerations, velocities, and displacements at the instant i + 1 were derived by substituting Equation
Equation (35) and simplifying. Then, these results were input into the DP system to be compared
(36) into Equation (35) and simplifying. Then, these results were input into the DP system to be
with the target position to obtain the deviation. Based on the deviation, the thrusters produce specific
compared with the target position to obtain the deviation. Based on the deviation, the thrusters
forces and feed them back to the Newmark method solver to run the calculation in the next step. Thus,
produce specific forces and feed them back to the Newmark method solver to run the calculation in
thethe
vessel will be maneuvered, step by step, to the target position. The solution procedure for the
next step. Thus, the vessel will be maneuvered, step by step, to the target position. The solution
coupled
procedure model
foristhe
shown in Figure
coupled model 9.
is shown in Figure 9.
Tensional forces

contact forces
Roller-stinger

Target position
Environmental forces

Wave forces

x0
fr
fp

fwave Newmark S, S Vessel postion

Wind forces Kalman filter PID controler
fw , fc method solver and velocity
frad

fhs

Current forces
restoration forces
Radiation forces

Hydrostatic

fdp Thruster total Thruster force

forces allocation

Figure9.9.Solution
Figure Solution procedure
procedure for
for the
the coupled
coupledmodel.
model.

4. Results and
4. Results Discussion
and Discussion

4.1.4.1.
Verification and
Verification Comparison
and Comparison
The model data originate from a practical engineering program for the Pingbei-Huangyan oil and
gas fields, located in the East China Sea, the People’s Republic of China. The oil and gas fields are
approximately 425 km southeast of Shanghai. The pipeline parameters for the 22” gas pipeline are
shown in Table 3. A fixed stinger was placed at the stern of the HYSY201 for launching the pipe into
the water with a suitable curvature (radius of 200 m). A water depth of 110 m and a soft seabed with a
normal soil stiffness of 105 kN/m2 were assumed for the purpose of the analysis.
The overall configurations, axial tensions, and bending moments of the pipeline from HYSY201
through the stingers to the seafloor were computed using OrcaFlex [13] and the current model.
The dynamic positioning system was not included while computing the motions of the vessel. It can
be seen from Figure 10 that the results of the pipeline calculated using the OrcaFlex software and the
present model are in good agreement. The offshore pipeline configurations are in good agreement.
Similarly, the axial tensions on the pipeline are nearly identical. The axial tension at the top of the
pipeline reaches 1117.5 kN. Additionally, the bending moments match independently throughout
 Description Unit Value
Outer diameter m 0.599
Wall thickness m 0.0159
Steel density kg/m3 7.85 × 10 3
Processes 2018, 6, 261 Poisson ratio / 0.3 14 of 22
11
Elastic modulus N/m 2 2.07×10
Concrete coating thickness m 0.06
the whole pipeline, especially for the bending moments kg/m on the stinger and the pipelaying vessel;
Concrete coating density 3 2.95× 103
the variations in bending moments caused by the roller
Anticorrosion coating thickness supports
m are highly
0.0035 coincident.
Anticorrosion coating density 00 kg/m 3 940
Table 3. Parameters for the 22 gas pipeline.
Joint length m 12.2
Description Unit Value
The overall configurations, axial tensions, and bending moments of the pipeline from HYSY201
Outer diameter m 0.599
through the stingers to the seafloor were computed using OrcaFlex
Wall thickness m
[13] and the current model. The
0.0159
dynamic positioning system was notdensity
Steel included while computing
kg/m3 the7.8 motions
× 103 of the vessel. It can be
seen from Figure 10 that the results of ratio
Poisson the pipeline calculated
/ using the 0.3 OrcaFlex software and the
present model are in good agreement. The offshore pipeline
Elastic modulus 2 2.07 × 1011are in good agreement.
N/mconfigurations
Concrete
Similarly, the axial tensions on thecoating thickness
pipeline m
are nearly identical. The 0.06
axial tension at the top of the
pipeline reaches 1117.5 kN.Concrete coatingthe
Additionally, density kg/m3 match
bending moments × 103
2.95independently throughout the
Anticorrosion coating thickness m 0.0035
whole pipeline, especially for the bending moments on the stinger and the pipelaying vessel; the
Anticorrosion coating density kg/m3 940
variations in bending moments caused by
Joint length the roller supports
m are highly coincident.
12.2

106
1.15
Orcaflex
1.1 Present model
Axial tension (N)

1.05

0.95

0.9

0.85
0 100 200 300 400 500
Arc length(m)
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22
(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 10. Comparison
10. Comparison between
between the present
the present modeland
model results results andsimulations:
OrcaFlex OrcaFlex simulations: (a)
(a) configurations;
configurations; (b) tension forces; and (c)
(b) tension forces; and (c) bending moments. bending moments.

4.2. Coupled Dynamic Pipelaying Analysis Results

The velocity values of the currents within the oil and gas fields of Pingbei-Huangyan were
obtained from field measurements. Figure 11 illustrates the differences in current velocity for various
annual return periods and water depths. The current velocity data for 1-year return periods at
varying water depths were used in the dynamic analysis. The current direction was assumed to be
obtained from field measurements. Figure 11 illustrates the differences in current velocity for various
annual return periods and water depths. The current velocity data for 1-year return periods at
varying water depths were used in the dynamic analysis. The current direction was assumed to be
coincident with the heading of the pipelaying vessel.
Processes 2018,46,shows
Table 261 15 of 22
the environmental parameters for the hydrodynamic basin test for significant
wave height (Hs), peak period peak (Tp), enhancement factor ( γ ), mean wind speed (Vw), and wave
direction ( α Dynamic
4.2. Coupled ). The API (American
Pipelaying Petroleum
Analysis ResultsInstitute) spectrum model was used to calculate the
wind speed acting on the vessel.
The velocity values of the currents within the oil and gas fields of Pingbei-Huangyan were
obtained from fieldTable
measurements. Figureparameters
4. Environmental 11 illustrates thehydrodynamic
for the differences inbasin
current
test.velocity for various
annual return periods and water depths. The current velocity data for 1-year return periods at varying
water depths were used in the dynamic Tp(s) γ TheVcurrent
Hs(m) analysis. w(m/s) α ( ° ) was assumed to be coincident
direction
1.5
with the heading of the pipelaying vessel. 8.2 3.3 9 45

Figure 11.
Figure The variation
11. The variation of
of the
the current
current velocity
velocity at
at different
different water
water depths.
depths.

Table 4 shows the environmental parameters for the hydrodynamic basin test for significant wave
height (Hs ), peak period peak (Tp ), enhancement factor (γ), mean wind speed (V w ), and wave direction
(α). The API (American Petroleum Institute) spectrum model was used to calculate the wind speed
acting on the vessel.

Table 4. Environmental parameters for the hydrodynamic basin test.

Hs (m) Tp (s) γ Vw (m/s) α (◦ )

1.5 8.2 3.3 9 45

The hydrodynamic parameters used in the analysis, the drag coefficient, and the added mass
coefficient are presented in Table 5 [34].

Table 5. Drag and added mass coefficients for the pipeline dynamic analysis.

Items Value
Drag Coefficient 1.2
Added Mass Coefficient 1

The initial vessel position was determined (97.3 m, −1.52 m) and the heading angle was 1.22◦ .
The PID controller was switched on and propelled the vessel to the desired surface reference position
(98.5 m, 0 m) with a specified heading angle of 0◦ . The simulation time was 1000 s and the simulation
step size was 0.1 s. Figure 12 shows the random wave elevation time history curve in 1000 s, which
contains the maximum wave height (2.668 m) at the global time of 497.8 s.
were performed with identical initial conditions. Six degrees of freedom for the vessel motion are
presented in Figure 13.
As shown in Figure 13a for surge, the vessel quickly reaches the target position of 98.5 m from
the initial position 97.3 m in the uncoupled result. However, in the coupled result, the process takes
longer, and the vessel goes through a larger deviation to 99.91 m before it approaches the target
Processes 2018, 6, 261 16 of 22
position of 98.5 m; this is because of the effect of pipeline forces.

Figure 12. The time history of the wave elevation.

Figure 12. The time history of the wave elevation.
To investigate the S-laying pipeline and DP coupling effect on the results of thruster force
A comparison between coupling and uncoupling for the sway direction is shown in Figure 13b.
allocation, the coupled and decoupled simulations of the dynamic response of the pipelaying system
It were
can be seen that in both uncoupled and coupled results, the vessel approaches the target position 0
performed with identical initial conditions. Six degrees of freedom for the vessel motion are
mpresented
in a shortintime, and13.that sway is slightly less than 1 m around the target position. Furthermore, the
Figure
dynamic motioninthat
As shown takes
Figure 13acoupling
for surge,into account
the vessel is slightly
quickly reachessmaller
the targetthan the dynamic
position of 98.5 mmotion
from thethat
does not consider coupling.
initial position 97.3 m in the uncoupled result. However, in the coupled result, the process takes longer,
andFigure 13c,d
the vessel show
goes that athe
through timedeviation
larger historiestoof99.91
coupled results
m before in the heave
it approaches and roll
the target directions
position of
closely follow the uncoupled results. However,
98.5 m; this is because of the effect of pipeline forces. the coupled result in the pitch direction is smaller
than the uncoupled result,
A comparison between ascoupling
shown inand Figure 13e. This
uncoupling foristhe
due to the
sway influence
direction of thein
is shown pipeline on the
Figure 13b.
vessel stern.
It can be seen that in both uncoupled and coupled results, the vessel approaches the target position
0 mFigure 13f time,
in a short shows andthat forsway
that the yaw direction,
is slightly the vessel
less than gets to
1 m around thethe target
target position
position. of 0° from its
Furthermore,
initial position 1.22° in a short time in the uncoupled result, while it takes longer in the coupledthat
the dynamic motion that takes coupling into account is slightly smaller than the dynamic motion result
todoes
get tonotthe
consider
same coupling.
position. In addition, the deviation in the coupled result reaches −1.44 m as the
vessel Figure 13c,d show
approaches that the
the target time histories
position. This isof coupled
much results
larger thaninfor
thethe
heave and roll directions
uncoupled result. closely
follow the uncoupled results. However, the coupled result in the pitch direction is smaller than the
uncoupled result, as shown in Figure 13e. This is due to the influence of the pipeline on the vessel stern.
Figure 13f shows that for the yaw direction, the vessel gets to the target position of 0◦ from its
initial position 1.22◦ in a short time in the uncoupled result, while it takes longer in the coupled result
to get to the same position. In addition, the deviation in the coupled result reaches −1.44 m as the
vessel approaches the target position. This is much larger than for the uncoupled result.
As shown in Figure 14, the thrust force required under coupling conditions is much greater than
that under uncoupling conditions. This is especially true for the surge force shown in Figure 14a,
where only a small thrust force is required by the DP system to maintain the thruster’s position when
the coupling effect is not considered. When the coupling effect is considered, the total thrust force
required increases to 1590 kN. It can be seen from Figure 14b that the difference in thrust force for
coupling and without coupling is small in the sway direction. This small difference is the result of the
pipeline being in the same direction as the pipelaying vessel. Thus, coupling has less impact on the
sway direction force than on the surge direction force. To maintain the pipelaying vessel’s heading
and position, the torsional moment in the heading direction of the pipelaying vessel when coupling
is considered is 1.3 times the torsional moment when coupling is not considered, as illustrated in
Figure 14c.
Processes 2018, 6, 261 17 of 22

The time histories for the pipeline top tension force are presented in Figure 15. The dynamic
maximum pipeline tension is 1556 kN at the global time of 128 s, which is 39.24% higher than the static
tension force (1117.5 kN). The dynamic minimum pipe tension is 880.5 kN at the global time of 488
s, which is about 29.94% smaller than the static tension force (1117.5 kN). Therefore, the designed
tensioner capability has to be significantly higher than the static results, and the pipeline dynamic
tension should be considered when planning pipeline installations.
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22
Surge(m)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 13. Cont.

 Pitc
Processes 2018, 6, 261 18 of 22
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22
(e)

Pitch(deg)

(f)

Figure 13. Time histories for the vessel’s six degrees(e)

of freedom of motion for uncoupled and coupled
results: (a) Surge, (b) Sway, (c) Heave, (d) Roll, (e) Pitch, and (f) Yaw.

As shown in Figure 14, the thrust force required under coupling conditions is much greater than
that under uncoupling conditions. This is especially true for the surge force shown in Figure 14a,
where only a small thrust force is required by the DP system to maintain the thruster’s position when
the coupling effect is not considered. When the coupling effect is considered, the total thrust force
required increases to 1590 kN. It can be seen from Figure 14b that the difference in thrust force for
coupling and without coupling is small in the sway direction. This small difference is the result of the
pipeline being in the same direction as the pipelaying vessel. Thus, coupling has less impact on the
sway direction force than on the surge direction force. (f) To maintain the pipelaying vessel’s heading
and position, the torsional moment in the heading direction of the pipelaying vessel when coupling
Figure 13. Time histories for the vessel’s six degrees of freedom of motion for uncoupled and coupled
Figure 13. Timeishistories
is considered 1.3 timesfor thetorsional
the vessel’s six degrees
moment of freedom
when coupling of is
motion for uncoupled
not considered, and coupled
as illustrated in
results: (a) Surge, (b) Sway, (c) Heave, (d) Roll, (e) Pitch, and (f) Yaw.
results: (a) Surge, (b) Sway, (c) Heave, (d) Roll, (e) Pitch, and (f) Yaw.
Figure 14c.
As shown in Figure 14, the thrust force required under coupling conditions is much greater than
that under uncoupling conditions. This is especially true for the surge force shown in Figure 14a,
Surge force(N)

where only a small thrust force is required by the DP system to maintain the thruster’s position when
the coupling effect is not considered. When the coupling effect is considered, the total thrust force
required increases to 1590 kN. It can be seen from Figure 14b that the difference in thrust force for
coupling and without coupling is small in the sway direction. This small difference is the result of the
pipeline being in the same direction as the pipelaying vessel. Thus, coupling has less impact on the
sway direction force than on the surge direction force. To maintain the pipelaying vessel’s heading
Processes
and 2018, 6, the
position, x FOR PEER REVIEW
torsional moment in the heading 19 of 22
(a)direction of the pipelaying vessel when coupling
is considered is 1.3 times the torsional moment when coupling is not considered, as illustrated in
Figure 14c.
Surge force(N)

(b)

(a)
Yaw moment(N m)

(c)

Figure 14. Dynamic total force thrust for uncoupled and coupled results: (a) Surge direction force; (b)
Figure 14. Dynamic total force thrust for uncoupled and coupled results: (a) Surge direction force;
Sway direction force; and (c) Yaw direction moment.
(b) Sway direction force; and (c) Yaw direction moment.
The time histories for the pipeline top tension force are presented in Figure 15. The dynamic
maximum pipeline tension is 1556 kN at the global time of 128 s, which is 39.24% higher than the
static tension force (1117.5 kN). The dynamic minimum pipe tension is 880.5 kN at the global time of
488 s, which is about 29.94% smaller than the static tension force (1117.5 kN). Therefore, the designed
tensioner capability has to be significantly higher than the static results, and the pipeline dynamic
tension should be considered when planning pipeline installations.
 area, where the arc length of the pipeline is approximately 427–530 m, exhibits almost no change. The
bending moment at the upper curved part, where the arc length of the pipeline is approximately 390–
427 m, has a small change when compared with the static bending moment. Then, the bending
moment increases gradually at the lower curved part, where the arc length of the pipeline is
approximately
Processes 2018, 6, 26150–390 m. These results indicate that the movement of the pipelaying vessel has
19 of an
22
influence on the bending moment of the pipeline and a strong influence on the axial tension force.

Axial tension(N)

Figure 15.
Figure 15. Time
Time histories
histories for
for the
the pipeline
pipeline top
top tension
tension force.
force.

Figures 16 and 17 show the minimum and maximum values of the tension force and bending
moment of the pipeline when the pipelaying vessel behaves stably for the period of 700 to 1000 s.
As shown in Figure 16, the static axial tension force differs significantly from the maximum and
minimum tension forces of the pipeline. The maximum axial tension force of the pipeline is 33.76%
larger than the static axial tension force, and the minimum axial tension force of the pipeline is
23.88% smaller than the static tension force. The bending moment of the pipeline (Figure 17) in
the stinger area, where the arc length of the pipeline is approximately 427–530 m, exhibits almost
no change. The bending moment at the upper curved part, where the arc length of the pipeline is
approximately 390–427 m, has a small change when compared with the static bending moment. Then,
the bending moment increases gradually at the lower curved part, where the arc length of the pipeline
is approximately 50–390 m. These results indicate that the movement of the pipelaying vessel has an
influence on the bending moment of the pipeline and a strong influence on the axial tension force.
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 22

106
1.6
Static
Min
1.4 Max
Axial tension(N)

1.2

0.8

0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500
Arc length(m)

Figure
Figure 16. Comparisonof
16. Comparison ofaxial
axialtension
tensionforces.
forces.
 0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500
Arc length(m)
Processes 2018, 6, 261 20 of 22
Figure 16. Comparison of axial tension forces.

Figure 17.
Figure 17. Comparison
Comparisonofofbending
bending moments.
moments.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
This paper presents a coupled dynamic model of a pipelaying vessel and the pipeline. The model
This paper presents a coupled dynamic model of a pipelaying vessel and the pipeline. The model
takes into account the combined effects of wave, wind, current, and thruster forces to compute the
takes into account the combined effects of wave, wind, current, and thruster forces to compute the
dynamic motion of the vessel. In addition, current forces and roller contact forces with the pipeline were
dynamic motion of the vessel. In addition, current forces and roller contact forces with the pipeline
incorporated to calculate the pipeline’s dynamic configurations, tension forces, and bending moments.
were incorporated
The results from the to model
calculate
weretheverified
pipeline’s
usingdynamic configurations,
results from tension forces,
OrcaFlex software. and bending
A demonstration
moments.
of the modelThewas results frombythe
provided model the
assessing were verifiedofusing
placement results
2200 gas exportfrom OrcaFlex
pipelines on thesoftware.
seafloor A
demonstration
by the HYSY201 pipelaying vessel in the Pingbei-Huangyan oil and gas fields in the East China Sea. on
of the model was provided by assessing the placement of 22″ gas export pipelines
the
The seafloor by the
assessment HYSY201
revealed pipelaying
a significant vessel inbetween
relationship the Pingbei-Huangyan oil andofgas
the dynamic responses thefields in the
pipeline andEast
China Sea. The assessment revealed a significant relationship between the dynamic
the pipelaying vessel’s motion. This shows that coupled disturbance models, which can compute the responses of the
pipeline
coupledand the pipelaying
motion vessel’s
of the pipeline motion.
and vessel areThis showsThe
necessary. thatdynamic
coupledpositioning
disturbancesystemmodels, which
should becan
compute
includedthe coupled
while motion
computing the of the pipeline
motions and vessel
of the vessel. are important
The most necessary.influence
The dynamic of the positioning
pipeline
system
feedbackshould be vessel
on the included
is inwhile computing
the surge and thetheyaw
motions of the The
directions. vessel. The
total most important
thrusting influence
force increased
ofsignificantly
the pipelineinfeedback
the coupledon model.
the vessel
Theiscoupled
in the surge
modeland
can the
be ofyaw directions.
value in planning The total thrusting
offshore force
pipelaying
activities significantly
increased and installation.
in the coupled model. The coupled model can be of value in planning offshore
pipelaying activities and installation.
Author Contributions: This paper is the result of collaborative teamwork. Y.Z. wrote the paper, L.Y. reviewed
and edited the text, S.D. and K.H. analyzed the data, and Z.W. obtained the resource data. All authors approved
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51809067
and the National Key R&D Program of China, grant number 2018YFC0309400.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Zhang, Z.; Wang, L.; Ci, H. An apparatus design and testing of a flexible pipe-laying in submarine context.
Ocean Eng. 2015, 106, 386–395. [CrossRef]
2. Zhou, Y.; Wang, D.; Guo, Y.; Liu, S. The static frictional behaviors of rubber for pipe-Laying operation.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 760. [CrossRef]
3. Li, Z.; Wang, C.; He, N.; Zhao, D. An overview of deepwater pipeline laying technology. China Ocean Eng.
2008, 22, 521–532.
4. Bruschi, R.; Vitali, L.; Marchionni, L.; Parrella, A.; Mancini, A. Pipe technology and installation equipment
for frontier deep water projects. Ocean Eng. 2015, 108, 369–392. [CrossRef]
Processes 2018, 6, 261 21 of 22

5. Wang, F.; Chen, J.; Gao, S.; Tang, K.; Meng, X. Development and sea trial of real-time offshore pipeline
installation monitoring system. Ocean Eng. 2017, 146, 468–476. [CrossRef]
6. Jensen, G.A. Offshore pipelaying dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway, 2010.
7. Plunkett, R. Static bending stresses in catenaries and drill strings. J. Eng. Ind. 1967, 89, 31–36. [CrossRef]
8. Dixon, D.A.; Rutledge, D.R. Stiffened catenary calculations in pipeline laying problem. J. Eng. Ind. 1968, 90,
153–160. [CrossRef]
9. Brewer, W.V.; Dixon, D.A. Influence of lay barge motions on a deepwater pipeline laid under tension.
J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 1970, 92, 595–604. [CrossRef]
10. Gong, S.F.; Chen, K.; Chen, Y.; Jin, W.L.; Li, Z.G.; Zhao, D.Y. Configuration analysis of deepwater S-lay
pipeline. China Ocean Eng. 2011, 25, 519–530. [CrossRef]
11. Zan, Y.; Yuan, L.; Han, D.; Bai, X.; Wu, Z. Real-time dynamic analysis of J-laying. Chaos Soliton Fract. 2016, 89,
381–390. [CrossRef]
12. Gong, S.; Xu, P.; Bao, S.; Zhong, W.; He, N.; Yan, H. Numerical modelling on dynamic behaviour of deepwater
S-lay pipeline. Ocean Eng. 2014, 88, 393–408. [CrossRef]
13. Orcina Ltd. OrcaFlex Manual Version 10.0e; Orcina Ltd.: Cumbria, UK. Available online: https://www.orcina.
com/SoftwareProducts/OrcaFlex/Documentation/index.php (accessed on 18 December 2017).
14. Liang, H.; Yue, Q.; Lim, G.; Palmer, A.C. Study on the contact behavior of pipe and rollers in deep S-lay.
Appl Ocean Res. 2018, 72, 1–11. [CrossRef]
15. Xie, P.; Zhao, Y.; Yue, Q.; Palmer, A.C. Dynamic loading history and collapse analysis of the pipe during
deepwater S-lay operation. Mar. Struct. 2015, 40, 183–192. [CrossRef]
16. Jensen, G.A.; Safstrom, N.; Nguyen, T.D.; Fossen, T.I. A nonlinear PDE formulation for offshore vessel
pipeline installation. Ocean Eng. 2010, 37, 365–377. [CrossRef]
17. Wittbrodt, E.; Szczotka, M.; Maczyński, A.; Wojciech, S. Rigid Finite Element Method in Analysis of Dynamics of
Offshore Structures; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013.
18. Duan, M.; Wang, Y.; Estefen, S.; He, N.; Li, L.; Chen, B. An installation system of deepwater risers by an S-lay
vessel. China Ocean Eng. 2011, 25, 139–148. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, F.; Luo, Y.; Xie, Y.; Li, B.; Li, J. Practical and theoretical assessments of subsea installation capacity
for HYSY 201 laybarge according to recent project performances in South China Sea. In Proceedings of the
Offshore Technology Conference; 5–8 May 2014.
20. Cummins, W. The Impulse Response Function and Ship motions. Available online: http://dome.mit.edu/
bitstream/handle/1721.3/49049/DTMB_1962_1661.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 10 May 2015).
21. Newman, J.N. Marine Hydrodynamics; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2018.
22. Ogilvie, T.F. Recent progress toward the understanding and prediction of ship motions. In Proceedings of
the 5th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Bergen, Norway, 10–12 September 1964; pp. 3–80.
23. Hasselmann, K.; Barnett, T.; Bouws, E.; Carlson, H.; Cartwright, D.; Enke, K.; Ewing, J.; Gienapp, H.;
Hasselmann, D. Measurements of Wind-Wave Growth and Swell Decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project
(JONSWAP); Technical Report; Deutches Hydrographisches Institut: Heidelberg, Germany, January 1973.
24. Lee, C.-H.; Newman, J.N. WAMIT User Manual; Versions 6.3, 6.3PC, 6.3S, 6.3S-PC; WAMIT Inc.: Chestnut
Hill, MA, USA, 2006.
25. Forum, O.C.I.M. Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on VLCCs, 2nd ed.; Witherby & Co.: London, UK, 1994.
26. Choi, J.W.; Park, J.J. A Study on the Effects of Wind Load on the DP Capability. In Proceedings of the
Twenty-fourth International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Busan, Korea, June 15–20 2014.
27. SINTEF Ocean. SIMO 4.12.2 Theory Manual. Available online: https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/upload/
marintek/pdf-filer/sofware/simo.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2018).
28. Yang, X.; Sun, L.; Chai, S. Time Domain Simulation of a Dynamic Positioning Deepwater Semisubmersible
Drilling Platform. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014; pp. V08AT06A021–V008AT006A021.
29. Malvern, L.E. Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium; Prentice Hall, Inc.: Englewood, NJ,
USA, 1969.
30. SINTEF Ocean. RIFLEX 4.12.2 Theory Manual. Available online: https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/
upload/marintek/pdf-filer/sofware/riflex.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2018).
Processes 2018, 6, 261 22 of 22

31. Morison, J.; Johnson, J.; Schaaf, S. The force exerted by surface waves on piles. J. Pet. Technol. 1950, 2, 149–154.
[CrossRef]
32. Faltinsen, O. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993;
Volume 1.
33. Gong, S.; Xu, P. The influence of sea state on dynamic behaviour of offshore pipelines for deepwater S-lay.
Ocean Eng. 2016, 111, 398–413. [CrossRef]
34. Wilson, B.W. Characteristics of Anchor Cables in Uniform Ocean Currents; Texas A & M University:
College Station, TX, USA, 1960.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).