OTC 20795

Installation Analysis of Matterhorn Pipeline Replacement

Dongmei Chu, MMI Engineering; Mathieu Boisne, and Aubin Malassagne, Technip USA

Copyright 2010, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 36 May 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information containe d in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
The paper describes the installation analysis for the Matterhorn field pipeline replacement, located in water depths
between 800-ft to 1200-ft in the Gulf of Mexico. For this pipeline repair project, the existing 10-in gas pipeline
leaving the Matterhorn platform was rerouted outside of the mudslide area and connected to the existing 12-in
gas pipeline. The replacement project includes recovering the 10-in pipeline, welding an 8-in pipeline using a
reducer and laying down a Pipeline End Termination (PLET). This fast track project faced scheduling, mobilizing
and analytical challenges due to its time constraints. The feasibility study of the 10 x 8 reducer was performed
and an optimized lay tower angle was proposed considering weather limitation and the ease of equipment
handling at different installation phases. An installation fatigue analysis was carried out to assess the fatigue. The
pipelines and PLET were installed successfully in July 2009.
The maximum allowable sea states were identified for all the pipeline repair and installation phases. The laydown
of the 10 x 8 reducer is the most critical installation phase under beam sea and head quarter sea. For the
normal pipelay of the 8-in pipelines with the same lay angles, the limiting sea states for the minimum water depth
are more critical than that for the maximum water depth. The limiting sea state for the reducer welding to the
existing 10-in pipeline was lowered in order to decrease installation fatigue damage in the sagbend.
This paper presents an installation analysis for rigid pipeline repair and replacement with different ODs between
the existing and new pipelines. The application of the pipeline recovery tool system and the reducer has been
confirmed. An optimized lay angle was developed based on the limiting sea states from both dynamic behavior
and fatigue assessment.
Introduction
Technip performed a pipeline installation project for Total in the Matterhorn Field. This project involved recovering
a 10" pipeline to the surface, welding a 10" x 8" reducer to the 10" pipeline, welding approximately 5 miles of 8"
pipeline to the reducer and then laying down the 8" pipeline with a PLET (Pipeline End Termination) in a
predetermined target box. The water depth across the installation route varies between 1200' and 800'. The
fabrication phase of the project was April to June 2009. As scheduled, the pipelines and PLET were installed
successfully in July 2009.
Technip welded the free-issued pipe into stalks at the spool base in Theodore, Alabama. The pipe was spooled
onto the installation vessel, Deep Blue, and was taken to the field for installation. The existing 10" pipeline was cut
using an ROV operated cutting machine. A pipe recovery tool was inserted into the upstream pipeline and it was
recovered to surface. After beveling, the reducer and replacement 8" pipe were welded to the 10" pipeline and the
Deep Blue installed the pipeline along a predetermined route. The 8" pipeline was installed over an umbilical
crossing and then north and west of the Amberjack platform. It was then connected into an existing 12" pipeline
owned by Transco.
The Matterhorn field layout is shown in Figure 1. The existing 10 flowline is recovered from water depth of 1,125ft
(343m) to 1085ft (331m). A 10 X 8 reducer and 8 flowline are welded to the 10 flowline and initiated at 1085ft
(331m) water depth and terminated at 760ft (232m) water depth with a 2nd end PLET. The 10 flowline was
recovered in flooded condition and an average water depth of 1,105ft (337m) was considered in the analysis. The
8 line was installed in an empty condition and both an empty and flooded condition were analyzed as a base and
contingency cases, respectively. A pipeline segment summary is provided in Table 1.

OTC 20795

Figure 1 Matterhorn Field Layout

Pipeline

Length (m)

Max. Water Depth (m)

Min. Water Depth (m)

10.75 0.438 WT

343

331

8.625 0.438 WT

6820

331

232

Table 1 Pipeline Segment Summary

The overall purpose of the installation analysis was to provide the pipelay parameters and operational conditions
for the installation of the pipelines and the 2nd End PLET. Both static and dynamic analyses were carried out for
each of the installation stages as listed below.
Recovery of 10 Flowline
10X8 Reducer Laydown
8 Flowline Normal Pipelay
Deployment of the 2nd End PLET
Abandonment and Recovery (A&R)
Contingency Cases
The above pipelay operations were considered in straight line in the installation analysis. Additional analysis was
performed for the pipelay in curve (on-bottom stability for flat seabed).
For pipeline welding operations, installation fatigue in pipelines was assessed for the following phases:
Phase I - the reducer and replacement 8" pipe welded to the 10" pipeline
Phase II - the 2nd End PLET welded to the new 8 pipe (this case covers the event of the welding of an
A&R head in case of a contingency A&R)
Installation Analysis Methodology
The purpose of the installation analysis was to identify the most optimum operational conditions and parameters
to ensure pipe integrity. Hence the following analyses were carried out to ensure pipeline integrity during offshore
operations by providing adequate pipelay parameters in terms of vessel movements and catenary geometry:
A static and dynamic analysis for each installation operational stages for base cases and contingency
cases
Curved route stability analysis
Operational parameters were driven by pipe allowable stresses and strains, system physical properties,
equipment limitations, catenary configuration, and weather conditions. Due to the wide range of variables, it was

OTC 20795

required to implement iterative methods to ensure that all parameters were optimized and that the key limiting
factors were identified. Once operational parameters such as weather limitation, catenary geometry, etc., were
optimized, the static analysis is re-run to provide final pipelay parameters for installation.
Basic methodology involved modeling the system with Orcaflex software. This program had detailed FEA
capabilities in addressing pipeline loads. It is a fully 3D non-linear time domain finite element program capable of
dealing with arbitrarily large deflections of the pipe from the initial configuration. A simple lumped mass element is
used which greatly simplifies the mathematical formulation and allows quick and efficient development of the
program to include additional force terms and constraints on the system in response to new engineering
requirements. The program is designed for the static and dynamic analysis of rigid pipeline and cable systems in
an offshore/marine environment.
The first step was to investigate the most probable environmental conditions for the area. Iterative and
optimization methods were used in the dynamic analysis to identify for which weather conditions the pipe
stress/strain limiting criteria were verified. Weather limitations were checked for each of the installation stages and
the results for base cases became the maximum allowable conditions for normal operations. For example, empty
case was the base case for 8 flowline normal pipelay, flooded case was the base case for 10 flowline recovery,
and the flooded 10 flowline and empty 8 flowline was the base case for reducer laydown. Dynamic analyses
were carried out for both base cases and contingency cases. Contingency cases were used to check vessel
equipment capabilities such as the A&R system in case of accidental or contingency flooding of the line.
Resulting loads were used to check localized stresses in the pipe due to reaction forces from pipe interaction with
the pipe lay equipment, for example when pipe was clamped at the HOM (Hang-Off Module). In some cases
these reactions may be a limiting factor and impose a further decrease in the maximum allowable operational
conditions, or the implementation of some type of mitigation.
Specific calculations such as fatigue analysis, curve route stability, etc., were implemented as required to ensure
that pipe integrity was not jeopardized during operations. Fatigue analysis for installation was performed and the
required pipelay parameters were provided for operational implementation by the installation vessel.
Analysis Assumptions and Installation Constraints
Analysis Assumptions. It was assumed that all analyses were based upon a flat seabed with a collinear wave
and current directions. Seawater density was assumed a constant of 1025 kg/m3 throughout the water column. All
analyses considered the nominal pipeline dimensions, weights and strength. The tolerance on vessel offset was
considered for the pipelay installation and PLET deployment operations.
Most of the dynamic analyses were modelled using regular wave approach which was more conservative than
irregular wave approach. The regular wave dynamic analysis was carried out with the maximum wave height in
order to cover the eventuality a maximum wave occurs during offshore operations. However, if the results from
the regular wave analysis were too conservative, then irregular wave analysis was applied. When required for
critical cases, the waves were modelled using an irregular wave/spectral approach. Irregular wave simulations
were performed in the time domain for a 10,800s duration. A 3-hour simulation period was considered to produce
a realistic description of the sea state.
Installation Constraints. The stress and strain limits considered in the installation analysis were defined below
as per DNV OS F 101 (DNV, 2007):
Static bending strain limit of 0.15% (load controlled conditions);
Static max Von Mises Stress limit of 72% SMYS (Specified Minimum Yield Stress);
Dynamic bending strain limit of 0.2% (load controlled conditions);
Dynamic max Von Mises Stress limit of 96% SMYS
The dynamic stress and strain limits were based on Technip Group installation analysis experience. For such
limits and the maximum pipe ovality, the local buckling occurrence should be avoided, and was checked for the
resulting stress/strain worst cases (combined loading criteria) according to DNV-OS-F101 (DNV, 2007). The DNV
local buckling scores were calculated for dynamic analyses.
The top bending moment limitations for the pipe held in the Deep Blue HOM and Tensioner were determined by
keeping the combined stress below 96% SMYS. The calculations considered the effect of HOM squeeze pressure
as well as the tension and bending moment.
The bending moment and tension at the HOM and Tensioner were checked during the PLET deployment in order
to ensure each couple of maxima is within the allowable bending moment. When the maximum bending moment
and maximum tension couples exceeded the limitation, details of the time histories or irregular wave analysis
were used to validate the critical cases. If required the limiting sea state were decreased in order to obtain
bending moment within the limit.

OTC 20795

Design Data
The Total Matterhorn pipe system was composed of 8.625 OD x 0.438 WT and 10.75 OD x 0.438 WT Gas
flowlines, a ballgrab (for 10 flowline recovery), a 10X8 reducer and a 2nd End PLET. The 150 Te winch wire on
the Deep Blue was used for the recovery of the 10 flowline and the A&R of the 8 flowline. The specifications and
properties of the pipelines, ballgrab, reducer and 2nd End PLET are presented in this section as below.
Flowline Specification and Properties. The properties of 10.75 and 8.625 flowline (with external coating) are
summarized in Table 2. For the analysis, equivalent pipe properties used are shown in Table 3.
Description

Flowline

Property

Unit

10

OD

[mm/in]

273.1/10.75

219.1/8.625

WT

[mm/in]

11.1/0.438

11.1/0.438

Material

Carbon Steel

Carbon Steel

Material Grade

API 5L X65

API 5L X52

SMYS

[MPa/ksi]

448/65

359/52

Ultimate Tensile Strength

[MPa/ksi]

531/77

455/66

Density

[kg/m -lb/ft ]

7850/490

7850/490

Youngs Modulus

[GPa/psi]

207/3.0E7

207/3.0E7

Poissons Ratio

0.3

0.3

Material

Fusion Bonded
Epoxy (FBE)

Fusion Bonded
Epoxy (FBE)

External
Coating

Thickness

[mm/mils]

0.36/14

0.36/14

Density

[kg/m -lb/ft ]

1442/90

1442/90

Table 2 Flowline Pipe Properties

Equivalent Pipe
for 8 Flowline

Equivalent Pipe
for 10 Flowline

Flowline Weight in Air, Empty, kg/m (lb/ft):

57.4(38.6)

72.3(48.6)

Flowline Weight in Sea Water, Empty, kg/m (lb/ft):

18.5(12.4)

12.0(8.0)

Flowline Weight in Air, Flooded, kg/m (lb/ft):

88.6(59.5)

122.9(82.6)

Flowline Weight in Sea Water, Flooded, kg/m (lb/ft):

49.7(33.4)

62.6(42.1)

Flowline OD Including Coatings and insulation, mm(in):

220(8.66)

273.8(10.78)

Flowline Pipe ID mm (in):

197(7.75)

251(9.87)

1.505E+06 (3.38E+05)

1.895E+06 (4.26E+05)

8.158E+03 (2.84E+06)

1.628E+04 (5.67E+06)

Parameter
Pipe Weight:

Pipe Section Properties:

Axial Stiffness, kN (kips):

2

Bending Stiffness, kN-m (kips-in ):

Table 3 Pipe Weights and Section Properties

OTC 20795

Ballgrab Data. The 10 existing flowline was recovered by using a BALLTEC Ltd BREM 10 Pipeline Recovery
Tool System (a.k.a. Ballgrab), which is composed of Primary Insertion Tool and Deployment Arm. The primary
insertion tool was included in the 10 flowline recovery analysis. The two parts of the insertion tool, insertion and
pull-in head, are shown in Figure 2. The properties of ballgrab are summarized in Table 4.

Figure 2 Ballgrab: Insertion and Pull-in Head

Weight
Recovery Tool

Unit Weight

OD

Length

Volume

in Air

in Water

in Air

in Water

(m)

(m)

(m^3)

(kg)

(kg)

(kg/m)

(kg/m)

0.1312

718

625

Insertion

0.225

1.552

0.0617

338

294

218

189

Pull-in Head

0.32

0.864

0.0695

380

331

440

383

Insertion Tool Overall

Table 4 Ballgrab Properties

Reducer Data. A 10 X 8 reducer with material grade X65 was used to connect the existing 10 flowline and the
8 flowline. Figure 3 shows the cross section of the reducer. The transition length of reducer is 0.203m. For
analysis, 5 pipe types were used to represent different reducer cross sections and are given in Table 5.

Figure 3 10 X 8 Reducer

Outer
Diameter

Inner
Diameter

(m)

(m)

0.2731

0.2508

0.2596
0.2461

Weight
in Air

Axial Stiffness

Bending
Stiffness

(kN)

(kN.m )

72

1.895E+06

1.628E+04

0.2373

68

1.797E+06

1.389E+04

0.2238

64

1.700E+06

1.175E+04

0.2326

0.2103

61

1.602E+06

9.845E+03

0.2191

0.1968

57

1.504E+06

8.156E+03

(kg/m)

Table 5 Pipe Properties for Reducer Transition

OTC 20795

2nd End PLET Specification and Properties. The 8 flowline was terminated with a 2nd End PLET, installed by a
Reel Lay type vessel, the Deep Blue. The PLET was designed in two major parts: the main structure including the
piping and skid; and the mudmat. The total dry and submerged weights of the PELT are 17.46 Te and 15.40 Te,
respectively. The PLET general arrangement is shown in Figure 4. The PLET dimensions considered in the
analysis are given in Table 6.

Figure 4 PLET General Arrangement

Part of the Structure

Length

Width

Height

(m)/(ft)

(m)/(ft)

(m)/(ft)

Mudmat

6.02 / 19.75

4.52 / 14.83

0.91 / 3.00

Piping+ SKID Structure

4.98 / 16.33

1.52 / 5.00

1.62 / 5.33

Yoke

5.66/ 18.58

N/A

N/A

Table 6 PLET Main Dimensions

Environmental Data
In order to assess the dynamic effect of the sea states (wave and current) on the system (vessel and pipe), the
installation analysis considered the vessel headings as shown in Figure 5. The effects of wave and current from
port and starboard side were assumed to be symmetrical. Therefore, the dynamic analyses were performed only
for five wave and current directions.
90 current and/or wave
135 current and/or wave

Beam Seas

Head Quarter Seas

45 current and/or wave

Stern Quarter Seas

Pipelay Direction
180 current and/or wave

0 current and/or wave

Head Seas

Stern Seas
Figure 5 Environmental Direction and Nomenclature Definition

Wave Data. The dynamic analyses were predominantly performed using regular waves. The input parameters for
regular waves in Orcaflex software are H max and TH max . Sea states were derived from the wave scatter diagram
and the sea states for the most probable T p corresponding to wave heights of 0.5 m ~ 4 m, together with the
related non-exceedance probabilities, are summarized in Table 7.

OTC 20795

Hs
(m)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4

Most
Probable
Tp
(s)
1.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8
8.5
9.5

Hmax Thmax
(m)
1.07
2.02
2.99
3.94
4.88
5.83
6.77
7.68

NonExceedance

(s)
1.37
4.10
5.01
5.92
6.83
7.29
7.74
8.66

(%)
8.06
43.02
69.08
83.42
91.80
96.64
98.79
100.00

Table 7 Wave Data

The dynamic analysis was performed using the most critical period for the vessel/catenary system corresponding
to the probable periods of the selected sea states. A critical period was defined for each wave height range and
wave/current direction for pipelay and PLET deployment operations. Prior to starting the dynamic analysis, a
sensitivity analysis was performed for one wave height and a range of periods in order to identify which periods
were critical for the considered system configuration. Simulations were run for stern seas, stern quartering seas,
beam seas, head quartering seas and head seas without current. An increment of 0.5s was used for the period
scan. The resulting top tension, top bending moment, maximum Von Mises stress and bending strain at the
vessel connection and in lower catenary versus the wave periods were analyzed in order to select a specific
(more critical) wave period for each wave direction and the selected lay tower ramp angle.
Current Data. The current profile used in the installation analysis is summarized in Table 8. The current profile
was assumed to be unidirectional and the current direction was assumed to be collinear to the wave direction. A
surface current speed of 1.0knot (0.51m/s) was considered.
Depth Factor
(m)
0
1
91.44
1
152.4 0.333
>152.4 0.333

Table 8 Current Profile

Soil Data. Orcaflex provides a simple friction model that can give an approximate representation of seabed
interaction and this simplified modelling technique was deemed conservative as it minimizes the friction compared
to the actual conditions. The soil friction factor of 0.36 was considered for both axial and lateral directions. The
seabed stiffness was assumed as 100kN/m/m2 in the installation analysis.
Vessel Data
The installation vessel for the Matterhorn project is Deep Blue. The general arrangement of the Deep Blue is
shown in Figure 6. The installation analysis addresses the parts of the pipelay equipment that interact with the
pipe resulting in a contribution to the pipe stress levels or has an effect on the pipe catenary. Amongst the pipelay
equipment, lay tower, tensioners and HOM interact with the pipe during the normal pipelay and PLET deployment
and therefore it will be required to model or check resulting pipe/equipment effect of these interfaces.
The lay tower carries the pipe tensioners and is hinged to the deck. Its position defines the pipelay angle and it
can be changed by modifying its pin connection referred to as pinhole in pipelay tables.
There are upper and lower tensioners that are used for reel lay operations. The tensioners are the final pipeline to
vessel connection before the pipe goes into free catenary suspension in the reel lay installation. The tensioner
exit rotates with the tower angle.
The HOM is assumed to be fully fixed in all six degrees of freedom when clamped. The HOM rotates around its
pivot to suit the tower angle, but only when the clamp is open. There is a 1-2 adjustment in the angle for weld
lineup when the clamp is closed and holding rigid pipe. The HOM is located at the center of the Deep Blue.

OTC 20795

Figure 6 Deep Blue General Arrangement

Highlights of Analysis Results

The installation analysis for the Matterhorn pipeline replacement was performed for cases presented in Table 9.

10.75 X 0.438 WT

Installation
Description
Recovery

10 X 8 Reducer

Laydown

8.625 X 0.438 WT

Normal Pipelay

8.625 X 0.438 WT
nd
2 End PLET

A&R
PLET deployment

Flowlines/Structures

Water Depth [m]

337
337
331
232
282
232

Table 9 Cases for Installation Analysis

10 Flowline Recovery. The recovery operations for the 10 flowline employed the ballgrab and the 150Te winch
wire. The 10 flowline recovery sequence was determined from the static analysis results. The two most critical
steps were selected corresponding to the steps with the highest top tension and the maximum pipeline
stress/strain, respectively. The highest top tension occurred when the ballgrab was 5 m above seabed, while the
maximum pipeline stress/strain occured when the 10 flowline was recovered to the the pipe cut position at the
Deep Blue and before the flowline was clamped in the HOM.
The dynamic analyses were performed by applying the environmental conditions with the vessel longitudinal
positioning tolerance for the selected critical steps. The limiting criterion for the 10 flowline recovery sea states
was generally the maximum sea state for safe installation using the Deep Blue, i.e. 3.5m Hs, with the exception of
beam seas as 3.0m Hs. The governing criteria were the maximum Von Mises Stress, maximum bending strain
and the local buckling score in the flowline when it is in the pipe cut position and before the 10 flowline was
clamped in the HOM.
10 X 8 Reducer Laydown. A lay tower angle of 70.86 was determined for the reducer laydown to achieve the
optimized operational conditions and the ease of equipment handing at the Deep Blue. The reducer laydown
sequence was proposed based on the static analysis results and three critical steps were selected for dynamic
anlaysis. The first critical step was corresponding to the highest vessel bollard pull, which occurred just after the
8 flowline and reducer were welded to the 10 flowline and the 8 flowline was clamped in tensioner. The other
two critical steps were corresponding to the maximum stress/strain in the 10 and 8 flowlines, when the reducer
is 25 m and 5 m above seabed, respectively.
The limiting sea states for the 10 X 8 reducer laydown are shown in Table 10. The most critical environmental
conditions for the reducer laydown operation were under beam sea and head quarter sea.

OTC 20795

Wave & Current

Direction
[]

Limiting Sea
States Hs
[m]

3.0

45

2.0

90

1.5

135

1.5

180

2.0

Table 10 Limiting Sea States for Reducer Laydown

Normal Pipelay. The normal pipelay lay angle for the flowline was 70.86. In order to account for the field
tolerance relative to the nominal pipelay configurations in terms of vessel positioning, catenary length and pipelay
equipment settings, the analysis was performed for three cases:
Near case that corresponds to the pipe with the lowest top tension;
Nominal case that is the preferred pipelay configuration with a minimized top bending moment;
Far case that corresponds to the pipe with the highest top tension.
Static normal pipelay analyses were carried out for three vessel positions (near, nominal and far), two water
depths (the minimum and maximum), two vessel connection locations (HOM exit and Tensioner exit) for both
base and contingency cases. To simplify the analysis process and ensure that the proposed limiting sea states
was valid when field tolerance was considered, dynamic analysis was conducted for the near and far
configurations, by offsetting the vessel position from the nominal position only while keeping the same nominal
pipelay equipment settings.
The governing criteria for selection of the limiting sea state were the maximum Von Mises stress and bending
strain at the top end, the maximum Von Mises stress and bending strain in sagbend, local buckling score and the
bending moment/top tension combination. Compression in the sagbend area was allowed in the installation
analysis as the pipe integrity was verified using the local buckling defined in DNV-OS-F101 (DNV, 2007). The
limiting sea states for normal pipelay are summarized in Table 11. For the normal pipelay of the 8 pipelines, the
limiting sea states for the minimum water depth were more critical than that for the maximum water depth.
LimitingSeaStatesHs
10inFlowline
Wave&Current
8inFlowlineEmpty
8inFlowlineFlooded
Flooded
Direction
WD=337m WD=331m WD=232m WD=331m WD=232m
[]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
0
3.5
2.5
2.0
3.0
1.0
45
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
90
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
135
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
180
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0

Table 11 Limiting Sea States for Normal Pipelay

Curved Route Stability. This analysis was performed to confirm that the radii of the curve along the proposed
route, 5000ft (1524m) was sufficiently large to ensure that the pipeline would not be dragged laterally under the
action of the axial bottom tension in the pipelines during normal pipelay. The method of analysis adopted was
based on Hobbs formula which considered the pipeline submerged weight, lateral friction coefficient, axial
bottom tension, and curve radius. A summary of the analysis results is presented in Table 12.

LineDescription

8.625"X0.438"WT
Empty
8.625"X0.438"WT
Flooded

Submerged Route
Weight
Radius

Lateral
Soil
Friction

FOS

Limiting
Dynamic
Bottom
Tension
Te

Max.Dynamic
NormalLay
BottomTension

Max.Dynamic
A&R
BottomTension

Te

Te

kg/m

18.5

1524

0.36

1.1

9.1

7.8

6.2

49.7

1524

0.36

1.1

24.3

13.4

11.9

Table 12 Curved Route Stability Results

10

OTC 20795

2nd END PLET Deployment. The 2nd End PLET was modelled as one 6D buoy (to represent the mudmat, the
upper structure and piping) and one equivalent pipe (to represent the yoke), as shown in Figure 7. The 6D buoy is
an element having all six degrees of freedom: 3 translational (X, Y and Z) and 3 rotational (Rotation 1, 2 and 3).

150Te Winch
Wire
Lowering
Link

Rigging

Yoke

8 Flowline
Mudmat
+ Upper Structure +
Piping

Figure 7 2nd End PLET OrcaFlex Model

The installation sequence for 2nd End PLET employment was determined from the static results for both base
case (empty pipe) and contingency case (flooded pipe). Three critical steps were selected corresponding to the
maximum bending strain at 8 flowline, the maximum tension at PLET hook and the maximum bending strain at
the PLET piping. Dynamic analysis was performed for the selected critical steps and the maximum vessel
longitudinal offset was considered for the near and far vessel positions. The limiting sea states determined for the
installation of the 2nd End PLET are given in Table 13 for the base case.
Allowable Sea State
Wave Heading
2

nd

End PLET Deployment

()

Description

Hs (m)

Limiting Criteria

Stern

3.50

None

45

Stern Quarter

3.50

None

90

Beam

2.50

Von Mises Stress at

PLET Connection

135

Head Quarter

3.50

None

180

Head

3.50

None

Table 13 - Limiting Sea States for 2nd End PLET Deployment, Base Case (Empty Pipe)
The limiting sea state during the 2nd End PLET installation, base case, was 2.5m Hs in beam seas and was
governed by the Von Mises stress at PLET/pipe connection when PLET is 70m above seabed. The maximum
load on the Winch Wire during the deployment of the 2nd End PLET (base case) was 80.4Te, which was well
within the winch capcity.

OTC 20795

11

Fatigue Analysis. The fatigue analysis was performed using the limiting seastates determined from dynamic
analysis results. For the fatigue regular analysis, irregular wave theory was applied. A Jonswap spectrum was
considered with 3 hours simulation period. Rainflow counting method was used to assess the fatigue damage.
The fatigue analysis was performed considering the vessel at its nominal position with the TDP water depth
associated to the operation. As shown in Figure 8, the fatigue in pipelines during two welding phases (reducer
welding and PLET welding) was assessed at the following locations:
The pipeline base metal at the HOM exit;
The nearest pipeline weld from the HOM exit;
The sagbend

Figure 8 Fatigue Evaluation: Areas of Concern

From the base metal calculations, the fatigue damage results were used to assess the allowable clamping times
by comparing them with the allowable accumulated fatigue damage of 1% for installation. Based on experience
from past projects using the Deep Blue for installation, the estimated required clamping time, including some
contingency time, was 12 hours. From the weld calculations, the fatigue damage results were used to assess the
allowable clamping times. If these results are more limiting than the base metal results, these values would be
taken into consideration. It also determined the minimum allowable distance between the first weld location along
the flowline and the HOM exit.
For the reducer welding phase, the welding operations could be performed safely with fatigue damages under the
maximum acceptable values of 1% using the limiting sea states shown in Table 11, for all environmental
directions except beam sea. For beam sea environmental conditions, an alternative solution was proposed to use
a lower sea state (Hs = 2.0 m) and the fatigue results were greatly improved.
For the 2nd End PLET welding phase, welding operations could be performed safely with fatigue damages under
the maximum acceptable values of 1% using the limiting sea states shown in Table 13. There was no minimum
welding distance away from the HOM for all environmental directions, except head sea. For head sea conditions,
a minimum 1.4 m welding distance away from the HOM was required.
Conclusions
This paper presented an installation analysis for rigid pipeline repair and replacement with different ODs between
the existing and new pipelines. The application of the pipeline recovery tool system and the reducer was
confirmed. An optimized lay angle was developed based on the limiting sea states from dynamic behavior, fatigue
assessment, and the ease of equipment handling at different installation phases.
The maximum allowable sea states were identified for all the pipeline repair and installation phases. The laydown
of the 10 x 8 reducer was the most critical installation phase under beam sea and head quarter sea. For the
normal pipelay of the 8-in pipelines with the same lay angles, the limiting sea states for the minimum water depth
were more critical than that for the maximum water depth. The limiting sea state for the reducer welding to the
existing 10-in pipeline was lowered in order to decrease installation fatigue damage in the sagbend.

12

OTC 20795

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Technip and Total for permission to publish this paper. It is also
acknowledged the generous support from Paul Summers at MMI Engineering to publish this paper. Special
thanks are given to Delphine Martel, Samatha Bush, Emeline Astier and other installation analytical engineers at
Technip for their contribution to this successful project. Additional thanks are given to Jeff Jewett, Matterhorn
project manager, Nicholas Camp, and other project engineers for Matterhorn pipeline replacement project.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

BS7608. Code of Practice for Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Structures. 2003.
DNV-OS-F101. Offshore Standard, Submarine Pipeline Systems. 2007.
DNV-RP-C203. Recommended Practice, Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures. August 2005.
DNV-RP-C205. Recommended Practice, Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads. 2007.
Technip OED-TP-048. Rigid Pipeline Installation Analysis (In-house Technical Procedure).