Opt 2008 Advanced Deepwater Spool Analysis Paper 27-02-08

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Hung Hing Chan Senior Consultant J P Kenny Lenas Mylonas- Subsea Construction Engineer J P Kenny Colin McKinnon - Technical Director J P Kenny
Abstract
Deepwater pipelines are connected to manifolds/trees/FTA/ITA by utilising diverless rigid spools and mechanical connectors. Deepwater rigid spools have to be designed to accommodate expansion movements resulting from high product temperatures, low strength soils and phenomena such as pipe walking. They also have to accommodate spool fabrication and installation tolerances. These requirements drive the spool geometry and can lead to complex spool geometries that are difficult to install. This paper summarises the technical challenges associated with deepwater spool piece design and proposes methods for reducing the size and complexity of tie-in spools, including: Review of the pros and cons of vertical and horizontal connection systems Review of typical connector loads and capacities Review the impact the various types of tolerances have on spool design including installation and, metrology Review of loads induced in the spools and connectors while the running tools operate during levelling and stroking Discussion of installation issues that should be considered during spool design. Examples of good and bad spool designs are presented. Description of finite element modelling techniques that can be used to reduce the loadings on the spools and connectors Review of structure settlements after installation Review of typical stress and strain results from a spool analysis Use of DNV-OS-F101 limit state approach to reduce spool sizes. Use of pipeline design changes to reduce spool sizes and connector loads.
IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition
Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon
Page 1
1.
Why are Tie-in Spools Important?

A typical deepwater development may consist of 1 export pipeline, 6 infield lines, 12 flowlines, 11 structures and 18 well. Each of these elements has to be connected by means of tie-in spools carrying oil or gas product, injection water, injection chemicals, riser lift gas, etc. The tie-in process is performed diverless at great depth, which requires the use of subsea construction vessels and ROVs that are costly and time consuming. The connections must be highly reliable. Each element must be recoverable. The spools connection flowlines to manifolds may have to accommodate large expansion movements, which can lead to large spool sizes that are difficult to fabricate and install.
2.
Review of the Pros and Cons of the Horizontal and Vertical Connectors
There are 2 main types of connector used in deepwater projects. The following photos show typical horizontal and vertical connectors and spool configurations. The picture below show a horizontal multi bore connector with chemical injection lines riding piggyback on the main spool. The stab-in guide on the connector mates with a receptacle on the connecting structures. A running tool is deployed to make up the connector. Doghouse insulation is fitted after the connection is made. A single spreader bar is used to support the spool.
Horizontal Spool
Page 2
Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design The picture below shows a vertical mono bore connector. The running tools used to make up the connector are deployed with the spool. Doghouse insulation is fitted after the connection is made. A single spreader bar is used to support the spool.
Vertical Spool and Connector
The following table lists some of the criteria that should be considered when selecting connector type for a deepwater project. In many cases the decision can be quite subjective, as both types of connector have been used successfully in deepwater. A colour code is used to help assess the strength and weaknesses of each system against each criterion. Risk Description High may limit the application of this system in some cases. Medium risk needs to be assessed on a project basis Low proven reliable service
Page 3
Analysis Criteria
Ease of Installation
Vertical Connector
Vertical connectors are gravity deployed directly over the hub, connection tooling is simpler, lighter & cheaper, allows short hub-to-hub spacing, vertical connections can allow compact receiver assemblies, large rotation of hubs is not allowed.
Horizontal Connector
Horizontal spools are gravity positioned and then controlled make-up is achieved by tooling, docking of hub on porch is vertical but stroking is horizontal, stroking generates deflection, so short jumpers difficult, thermal expansion can be accommodated via known pull-in loads and relative hub twist can be accommodated Simple / lots industry experience - Horizontal connectors can accommodate multibore designs easier than vertical connectors due to better-controlled alignment systems. The vertical connector does not generally have a specific orientation whereas the receptacle and keys on the connector orientate the horizontal systems. If a multibore system is utilised there would be advantages in using it throughout on main connections and process connections alike. There has been very little utilisation of Multibore on vertical systems whereas multibore Horizontals have been used on the block 18, Girassol and Dalia projects amongst others. The horizontal system has distinctly different landing and locking operations thus giving a high level of control over these functions Seals (or seal plate, gasket) may be replaced by stroking back a horizontal connector.
Controls Multibore and umbilical installation (e.g. tree jumpers)
Difficult / industry very little experience
Landing and locking loads.
The vertical connector running tool has to control the landing loads and ensure they are not transferred into the locking function. Vertical connector has to be completely removed in order to replace a seal. With the vertical connector greater care is required to ensure the connector is not separated too far.
Seal replacement
Page 4
Analysis Criteria
Torsional Load capacity
Vertical Connector
Vertical connectors are generally exposed to higher torsional loads as a result of the connector orientation.
Horizontal connectors the torsional loads can be minimised by optimising spool geometry.
Turning Moment
Because the Vertical Connector is fitted to taller structures there is an increase in the turning moment on the structure.
Simple
Impact on Structure Design
Vertical connector spool configurations can result in significant loading of seabed structures.
Horizontal connectors require a greater degree of receiver structure and hub support than the more compact arrangement possible with vertical connectors, The horizontal connector more easily accommodates the retrofit of insulation in the form of doghouses, these are more difficult to effectively design and deploy on vertical connectors. Requires more subsea complexity in connection system No difference Pipework is less likely to collect gas pockets that cause hydrates
Hydrate avoidance
Vertical configured spool hampers free drainage of water.
Complexity
Simpler connection on trees and manifold
Maintenance Flow assurance
No difference Gas is more likely to collect within the jumper enabling hydrate to form in the jumper if hydrate mitigation procedure fail. Hydrate formation may become an issue at the top of the hairpin U bends in vertical connectors, which is less of an issue with horizontal connection system
Page 5
Analysis Criteria
Size and Weight Anti-Snagging Capability
Vertical Connector
Large, Heavy
Larger, Heavier Pipe runs horizontal out of the structure
Pipe runs vertically out of the connector Proven Technology Emergency Disconnection Feature Soft Landing System Landing and locking loads - The vertical connector running tool has to control the landing loads and ensure they are not transferred into the locking function. System has soft landing system or controlled descent during final alignment of critical components Low Tolerance to Hydrodynamics Induce Loads Difficult / industry very little experience Controls Multibore and umbilical installation (e.g. tree jumpers) Controlled connector landing and makeup Decouple Schedule for spool handling and makeup Difficult Retrieval of tree/manifold Simple Simple / lots industry experience Yes Yes Yes Yes Landing and locking loads- The horizontal system has distinctly different landing and locking operations thus giving a high level of control over these functions. Soft landings system not required as hubs stroked into contact as separate operation High
Greater risk of seal damage or problems with connector makeup Difficult
Lesser risk of seal damage or problems with connector makeup Simple
Page 6
Analysis Criteria
Connector stroking distance
Vertical Connector
Neutral on Spool design
Can be used to advantage or neutralised (U spool) Less risk of pig getting stuck due to horizontal orientation of spool.
Pigging
The complexity (and risk) is increased in the vertical connection system because of the extra 5D bends that have to be fitted to the Pigging loop. The Pig launcher receiver has to have a 90 degree bend fitted so that it doesnt interfere with the connector installation tooling. Advantage for riser base
Advantage for FTA-manifold- tree
Loads on Horizontal vs. Vertical axis connections Insulation
For the vertical system there is a limit on the thickness of insulation so that the tool can still be placed on and taken off the connector. If additional insulation is required this would make the insulation doghouse large and difficult to install. A further consideration is plane of deploying the insulation doghouse, for verticals it has to be wrapped around the connector whereas for Horizontals it is lowered onto the connector and hence is easier. Higher requirement Vertical connectors require more accurate metrology in order to accurately install both ends of a flowline spool. This is because the vertical connector is placed directly on the final alignment structure whereas the horizontal connector is lowered into a receptacle that gives both coarse and final alignment as well as allowing an additional tolerance during the connector final make up.
Horizontal connectors can incorporate insulation requirements easier than vertical connectors due to the potential clash of the vertical tooling system.
Metrology
Lower requirement
Page 7
Analysis Criteria
Multibore design
Vertical Connector
The vertical connector does not generally have a specific orientation whereas the receptacle and keys on the connector orientate the horizontal systems. If a multibore system is utilised there would be advantages in using it throughout on main connections and process connections alike. There has been very little utilisation of Multibore on vertical systems whereas multibore Horizontals have been used on Greater Plutonio, Girassol and Dalia projects amongst others. Difficult The requirement to recover flowline / umbilical jumper in order to retrieve subsea production equipment, such as tree or manifold horizontal connectors may be disconnected and stroked away from the equipment and left in the receptacle. Vertical connectors require to be lifted away from the equipment and either wet parked or retrieved to surface increasing total vessel time. Horizontal connectors only require one end of a flowline spool to be disconnected in order to retrieve an item of subsea equipment, whereas vertical connectors require both ends to be disconnected. Requirement for additional structure vertical connectors require a secondary receptacle in order to wet park the flowline spool after retrieval of the subsea equipment. Alternatively a secondary connection system such as a flowbase could be utilised. A horizontal connector does not require any secondary equipment for wet parking but does require some form of structure to accommodate the guidance and/or pull in system.
Horizontal connectors can accommodate multibore designs easier than vertical connectors due to better-controlled alignment systems.
Equipment Retrieval
Simple
Page 8
Analysis Criteria
Deploy to place system Buoyancy application
Vertical Connector
Not affected by seabed condition Buoyancy in some cases is required in order to reduce connector and spool stresses where nominal spools are particularly long, loads are particularly high due to structure movements and equipment are installed outwith installation tolerances necessitating the design of special jumpers. The vertical structure has a slightly smaller footprint than the horizontal connector and this may result in a slightly reduced weight and footprint for structures using a vertical connector but they are slightly taller. Taller Structures however will mean higher moments that are acting to turn over the structures. No difference
Structural Requirements
Maintenance
Page 9
3.
3.1.
Review of Connection Systems Capacities

Typical Connector Capacities The spool designer needs to know the design capacities for each size of connector. Typical limiting capacity of different connector sizes is given in the table below. The data is based on a study of connectors from FMC Aker Kvaerner and Cameron. The data can be used for horizontal and vertical connectors, as the capacities are similar. It should be noted that the capacity of the spool, the manifold/FTA piping and foundations may not be as great as the capacity of the connector and needs to be checked by the designer.
Typical Connector Capacities
Diameter / Location
10 Manifold - FTA
Connector Location
Manifold FTA Manifold Well Manifold
Load Case
Forces (kN)
Fz (Fy2+Fx2) 30 30 70 70 30
Moments (kNm)
Mz 60 60 40 40 60 (My2+Mx2) 200 200 150 150 200
Operation
40 40 120
6
Manifold-Well 10 Manifold ITA
Operation Operation
120 40
60 200 ITA 40 30 12 FTA 70 50 60 250 Operation FTA FTA FTA 70 50 60 250 Note that these are estimated maximum capacities and there may be a trade off between forces and moments.
Page 10
4.
4.1.
Tolerances
Introduction The following sections describe the tolerances that need to be considered during a spool design, namely: Structure installation tolerances Metrology tolerances Fabrication tolerances Hub to connector tolerances Connector stroking tolerances.
4.2.
Structure Installation Tolerances Typical installation tolerances for wellhead guide bases, manifolds, flowline termination units and in-line tees are given below: Wellhead Guide-bases: Verticality 2 deg Azimuth 15 deg Manifolds Verticality 3 deg Azimuth 5 deg FTAs/in-line tees Verticality 5 deg Distance between pairs of Christmas tree connection tie-in points: 25 10 metres Distance between production manifold and flowline connection: 35 5 metres The spool piece geometry must have sufficient length and angular capacity to accommodate these tolerances during fabrication. If pre-fabricated spool elements are used they must have sufficient green material to accommodate these tolerances.
4.3.
Metrology and Fabrication Tolerances Once the subsea structures have been installed the distance between the connectors and the angular alignment of the hubs will be established by survey. These measurements will then be used to fabricate the spools. Typical metrology and fabrication tolerances are: + 150mm in any three axes + 2 degrees in any three axes
Page 11
4.4.
Hub to Connector Tolerances Hub to connector tolerances arise from a number of sources including fabrication tolerances for the inboard structures, stack-up tolerances for two-part structures such as MSS/Manifold and PGB/Tree and also the requirement that production jumpers shall be re-usable after tree interventions. The tolerance stack-up reports will be required during the project execution. These shall be considered in the stress analyses of spools.
4.5.
Connector Stroking Connector stroking (closure of the hub and connector) induces stresses in the tie-in spool which should be included in the stress analysis. A typical stroke length is 500mm. In some cases stroking will reduce the stresses in the tie-in spool. It may be possible to change the local architecture to take advantage of this fact. The following pictures show the stroking of a horizontal connector. The running tool would then be removed and the doghouse fitted, if needed.
Page 12
Before Stroking
After Stroking
Page 13
Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design 4.6. Tolerance Types A distinction should be made between the structure installation tolerances, which will be quantified during offshore metrology, and the other tolerances resulting from metrology, fabrication and stroking. The structure installation tolerance shall be accommodated within the design of prefabricated spool kits that will have angular and length adjustment on closing welds during spool fabrication. All other tolerances have to be accommodated in the design flexibility of the spools. The spool designer needs to check the spool can accommodate all the possible combinations of angular & linear tolerances and misalignments. 4.7. Spool Fit-up A spool fit up test performed onshore prior to shipping the spool offshore is an important part of the process of ensuring the spool can be installed offshore without the need for modification. Significant cost and time penalties can result if the spool has to be shipped back to the fabrication yard to be adjusted to fit correctly.
Page 14
5.
5.1.
Spool Installation Considerations

Introduction The following section provides guidance on the installation issues that should be considered when developing the spool configuration.
5.2.
Spool Installation Guidance The following installation guidance should be considered when developing spool piece layouts. Spool can be installed based on 60-meter accumulative length (pipe length) and 45-meter distance between connector to connector. Installation is feasible with appropriate engineering input based on 60- meter accumulative length and 45-meter distance between connector to connector Spool will be hard too install when over length 70-meter accumulative length and 50-meter distance between connector to connector. Installation is feasible with 60 metre cumulative length (pipelength) and 45 metre envelope (connector to connector). The width of the spool should be kept to the minimum. The centre of gravity of the spool should be kept close to the main axis of the spool. Lift capacity of the vessel crane must be adequate at the required radius A common rigid spool installation practice is that the rigid spool gets to be lifted off the deck of the installation vessel or barge/supply vessel and deployed to depth by using the vessel crane or a & r winch.
Page 15
5.3.
Spool Installation Difficulties The picture below shows a very large spool that was a result of subsea structures (manifold and well) being placed on the seabed outside of installation tolerances. As a consequence the spool load could not be accommodated by the connector capacities and the SPS contractor had to revisit its connector engineering specifications and engineer & manufacture new designed connectors that would accommodate the load of the spool. In addition the installation vessel could not load the spool on its deck or the rental barge it had available and the installation contractor had to hire a longer and wider barge in order to load out the spool. Three spreader bars were utilised for the load out and installation of this spool a quite rare practice in comparison to a viable spool common practice, which is one spreader bar/ maximum two spreader bars. The whole saga had a major financial impact to the contractor/operator and a severe schedule delay. In summary after metrology was received the spool was installed after 170 days.
Complex Spool Lift
Page 16
6.
6.1.
Optimised Spool Design

Introduction The original and revised spool configurations presented over leaf have been analysed using the non-linear, large deflection finite element software ABAQUS. The results of the analysis are discussed below.
6.2.
Stress Analysis Results The stress distributions and connector loads for the straight spool and the M spool are presented over leaf. The analysis includes the effect of pipeline expansion, metrology tolerance, fabrication tolerance and connector stroking. The connector loads for the M spool are reduced by a factor of 10. The bending stresses in the M spool are reduced and are moved away from the connector location. Stress Analysis Results Summary Connector Loads
Axial Force (KN) Shear Force (KN) Torsion (KN*m) Moment (KN*m)
Item description
Spool Stress (Mpa) 442 248 423
Original Spool Design Optimised Spool Design Spool and Connector Capacity
67.7 28.2 70
142.1 37.39 50
39 4.7 60
692.8 68 250
Page 17
Spool geometry before optimisation
Spool geometry after optimisation
Page 18
Finite Element Results before Optimisation (In-plane bending moment contour plot )
Finite Element Results after Optimisation (In-plane bending moment contour plot )
Page 19
7.
The finite element modelling techniques that can be used to reduce the calculated loadings on the tie-in spools
By employing sophisticated Finite element program such as Abaqus, it is possible to obtain a more detail solution, hence reduction in unnecessary conservatism. There two major features within Abaqus that we could take advantage are described as below.
7.1.
Analysis mode A spoolpiece is a relatively small structure designed to accommodate large end displacements imposed by pipeline expansion, hence the geometric nonlinear effects must be considered in finite element analysis. The advantages of employing nonlinear analysis techniques Provider higher accuracy solution to the problem Render lower stress and load results within the structure because of load redistribution as the geometry of the structure deforming
7.2.
Boundary condition Metrology and spool fabrication tolerances can lead to misalignment at the connector hub face. As a result, residual loads can arise from spool deformation due to installation forces induced to match-up the connector faces. The magnitude of these residual loads are depending of the stiffness of the system at the region close to the connectors. The finite element technique to reduce the loading are as follow: The stiffness of the load path from the connector into the inboard hub, its mounting structure and the steel framework of the inboard structures shall be included, this would allows for flexibility, hence reduction in connector loads Modelling the misalignments tolerances with kinematics constraints, this would provide certain flexibilities within the system, hence lower the localised bending moments at the connector supporting system.
Page 20
8.
Structure Settlements after Installation

Subsea structures can experience immediate and consolidation settlement through their field life. The prediction and qualification of these settlements is important to ensure the structure remains stable and serviceable. The settlement experienced by a structure is not only dependant on the geotechnical properties of the soil but also the stress distribution across and down the structure foundation and is considered under serviceability limit state conditions. Installation Contractor should to carry out a detailed finite element analysis for the RMM (Removable Manifold Modules) caisson settlement. An axisymmetric Plaxis finite element model has to be developed. The caisson settlement shall be then computed for the following load cases: Caisson and grillage installation; Manifold installation; Spool installation and other line loads.
It should be noted that although the grillage and caisson will be installed as a single structure the loads cases were separated here for computational reasons. The development of settlement with time was computed as well as the limiting cases of drained and undrained conditions. Parametric studies were carried out to evaluate the influence of the following parameters: Soil compressibility; Permeability; Mobilised soil / caisson interface friction; Effect of a gap between the top plate and the soil plug.
Below you can see indicative analysis results of field life settlements that have been carried out for a 7 m outside diameter by 9.5 m deep RMM caissons: Immediate settlement after manifold installation = 0.14 m; Immediate settlement after jumper installation = 0.23 m; Total settlement after 25 years = 0.48 m; Total long term settlement (400 years) = 0.64 m; Differential total settlement after manifold installation = 0.34 m.
Page 21
9.
Use of limit state criteria to reduce spool sizes.

The traditional Allowable stress Design is normally provide us more conservitive solution however it is over simplistic and often overlooking the influence of the integrity of the structure under combinations of loads. The limit state criteria provide us a rigorous and economical solution design by considering various relevant fail mode consideration for spoolpiece. It methodology is primary based on statistics to determine the level of safety required by or during the design process. The following example shows that for a type case where the spool is subjected to the pipeline displacement loads from both ends, the results based on allowable stress check and the results from limit state criteria( load based and strain based ) are showing form Fig 5-7, it is clear from Fig 8 that both the limit state design and alloweable stress approach predict the similar untilisation distribution along the spool but the limit state criteria give lower utilisation ratio, hence reduction in spool size requirement.
Allowable stress utilisation contour plot
Page 22
Utilisation contour plot(Limit State Criteria assumed load control condition)
Page 23
Utilisation contour plot(Limit State Criteria assumed displacement control condition

Utilisation under different Design Criteria
1.2
0.8
Utilisation Ratio
0.6
DNV -ALLOWABLE STRESS UTILISATION

0.4
DNV-DISPLACEMENT CONTROL UTILISATION DNV-LOAD CONTROL UTILISATION

0.2
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.2
Element Number
Utilisation ratio along the spool length
Page 24
10. Loading Conditions for spoolpieces.

The spoolpiece is primary under displacement-control by having imposing displacements from the pipeline ends and mislignment tolerance,however if the spoolpiece is designed to rest on the seabed, then the frictional force between the spool and seabed would induce a significant degree of load control.
11. Design Code and capacity, design criteria

The design code usually used for spool analysis is DNV-OS-101[1] which is a primary design code for pipeline design. Nevertheless it can be used for the straight part of the spool with careful considerations because the bends tend to behave different from a straight pipe, especially the ovality response under in-plane bending which in this case a separated design criteria is required to be performed. The most convenient way to establish this design capacity is by utilising a 3-D non-linear finite element analysis. The displacement at failure should be compared with the corresponding displacement under design conditions. The safety factor should be set at 3.0 or above as approve by classification society such as DNV What DNV says about bends and spools: The local buckling criteria, see D300-D600, are only applicable to pipelines that are straight in stress-free condition and are not applicable to e.g. bends Another intermediate case is an expansion spool in contact with the seabed. Pipeline expansion induced by temperature and pressure imposes a displacement at the end of the spool. The structural response of the spool itself has little effect on the imposed expansion displacement, and the response is primarily displacement- controlled. However, the lateral resistance to movement of the spool across the seabed also plays a significant part and induces a degree of load control. The answer to the question on if a condition is load controlled or displacement controlled is impossible since the questions in wrong, the question should be; how can one take partial benefit of that a condition is partially displacement controlled element? On a general basis this needs sensitivity analyses. A load controlled criterion can, however, always be applied. Bends exposed to bending moments behave differently from straight pipes. Ovalisation becomes the first order of deformation and changes the stress pattern considerably compared to straight pipes. The ovalisation of the bend has typically to be determined by finite element calculation. The acceptable distortion will typically governed by the bullet points in D900.
12. Use of pipeline design changes to reduce spool sizes and the need for two connectors per tie-in spool.
Uncontrolled Pipeline end expansion could lead to severe challenge for spools design. The Design option to reduce the end expansion can be listed as below: By introducing route bends close to the pipeline ends to initiate the controlled buckles to absorb the pipeline expansion, however the feasibility of this option would depending of the soil friction between the pipeline the seabed.
Page 25
Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design By introducing a sleeper close the pipeline end to initiate buckle formation, hence reduction in pipeline expansion at the end
13.
Conclusions
13.1. Summary Connection system must satisfy where applicable the following functional and design requirements: A design with a proven long term integrity of 20 years Suitability for Design water depth 2500 m and qualified and proven for this depth High insulation requirements on some areas of the fields requiring a cooldown time of up to 12 hours (6 hours for SPS equipment and 12 hours for flowlines and risers). As well as this requirement, a system that avoids cold spots will help to reduce hydrate problems during shutdown periods. Controlled connector landing and make-up. In deep water operations the accuracy of placing and making up a connector is a challenge and a connection system that minimise risks associated with tooling and makeup is required Ability to replace seal subsea. In the event of a seal leak this would be required and simple method would be advantageous. Ability to retrieve subsea equipment (e.g. Christmas Tree or a Manifold) without having to retrieve or wet park the spool Assembly Have the ability to wet park long term prior to connection or installation of equipment.
Preferred Functional Requirements: A capability to incorporate multiple connection points (multibore) within one connector body. Common tooling throughout the field. This would reduce the complexity and logistical problems with supporting the installation operations and providing tool spares and technical expertise. Rapid Installation. This would reduce the amount of vessel time and could also reduce the risk if the connectors are easy to make up with few operations. Reduced structure height and size. A smaller, lighter structure will be easier to handle for the installation contractors and a lower structure will be more stable on the sea-bed when loaded. Suitability for a maximum pipeline expansion movement of up to 4.50m at the FTA connections and capable of withstanding the loads associated with this (should wet insulation be considered). Ability to use the same connection system for the main/extension umbilicals as well as process connections. Ability to use the same connection system for rigid and flexible spools/jumpers.
Page 26
Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design A horizontal deploy to place connection system is preferred and recommended for the following reasons: Controlled connector landing and makeup. Decouple spool Handling and makeup Added schedule flexibility Retrieval of equipment (can pull Tree / Manifold). More suited to multibore design Tolerance to forces due to flowline movement (including bending and torsion)
A Vertical deploy to place connection system is preferred and recommended for the following reasons: Connection tooling is simpler, lighter & cheaper Allows short hub-to-hub spacing Vertical connections can allow compact receiver assemblies Large rotation of hubs is not allowed Thermal expansion can be accommodated via known pull-in loads Stroking generates deflection, so short jumpers difficult Docking of hub on porch is vertical, stroking is horizontal Relative hub twist can be accommodated
13.2. Conclusion Horizontal connections are advantageous where there is considerable relative hub movement (perhaps on long flowlines and some risers) and where rotation around the horizontal axis is likely (e.g. at the ends of long flowlines and in-line tees on gas/water injection lines). Vertical connection systems are faster and simpler on manifold-tree connections and elsewhere where there is little hub movement. Different tooling is generally used for each. As a single connection system is favoured and significant relative hub movements expected, horizontal connections are likely to be favoured on deepwater operations. In addition overall having a vertical connector/spool which is cheaper, simpler and faster (installation wise) is a preference for every operator and contractor but the a vertical spool is restricted to a standard geometrical M shape that is often needed to incorporate angular offset to the line of the pipeline to fit the subsea field layout, and this would introduce high torsional load at the connection system. Unlike the horizontal spool which has the flexibility to more geometrical configurations and shapes in order to optimized for any given field layout arrangement. The average elevation of the vertical spool is much higher than that of horizontal one, hence subjected to higher current and wave induce water particle velocity, as the result the vertical spool is more susceptible to vortex induces vibration.
Page 27
Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design Both Horizontal and Vertical Connectors have advantages and disadvantages. Choice is field and operator specific. Integrated working between systems engineers, design flowline engineers, subsea production engineers and installation engineers is a necessity to produce fully optimised spool designs. Typical connector capacities, installation, metrology and fabrication tolerances, stroke length and settlements are presented. A spool optimisation example is presented. The use of advanced FE analysis and limit state criteria can result in significant in spool length saving. Pipeline buckling initiation technique and Pipe-in-pipe flowlines can be employed to reduce end expansion, hence reduction in spool sizes.
14. Acknowledgement
The Authors would like to thank the support of Paul Linfoot and Andrew Whitehead in the preparation of this paper.
15. Reference
[1] DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Flowline Systems, DNV Offshore Standard 2007
Page 28

Opt 2008 Advanced Deepwater Spool Analysis Paper 27-02-08

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Opt 2008 Advanced Deepwater Spool Analysis Paper 27-02-08

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Why are Tie-in Spools Important?

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Vertical Spool and Connector

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Controls Multibore and umbilical installation (e.g. tree jumpers)

Difficult / industry very little experience

Landing and locking loads.

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Impact on Structure Design

Vertical configured spool hampers free drainage of water.

Simpler connection on trees and manifold

Maintenance Flow assurance

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Greater risk of seal damage or problems with connector makeup Difficult

Lesser risk of seal damage or problems with connector makeup Simple

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Advantage for FTA-manifold- tree

Loads on Horizontal vs. Vertical axis connections Insulation

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Review of Connection Systems Capacities

Typical Connector Capacities

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Spool Installation Considerations

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon

Advanced Deepwater Spool Piece Design

Complex Spool Lift

IBCs 31st annual Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference & Exhibition

Hung Hing Chan, Lenas Mylonas & Colin McKinnon