Proceedings of the Ninth (1999) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Brest, France, May 30-June 4, 1999

Copyright 1999 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-39-7 (Set); ISBN 1-880653-41-9 (Vol. II); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Alternative Configurations for Steel Catenary Risers for Turret-Moored FPSOs

Breno P. Jacob
COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Marta C.T. Reyes and Beatriz S.L.P. de Lima
EE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Ana L.F.L. Torres, Marcio M. Mourelle and Renato C.M. Silva
PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses the study of some alternative configurations of

SCR's with flexibilization elements, conducted by Petrobras together
with the Post-Graduate Institute of the Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro. The behavior of these configurations is simulated by numerical
models based on nonlinear time-domain dynamic analyses methods,
implemented in Petrobras in-house computer programs. The results will
be assessed in terms of maximum stresses and fatigue life.

This work investigates steel catenary risers applied to FPSO's

(Floating Production, Storage and Offioading units), by analyzing
alternative configurations for the SCR's with and without floating
elements, and considering different positions of the turret in the FPSO.
The behavior of these configurations is simulated by numerical models,
by using nonlinear time-domain dynamic analyses methods. The results
are assessed in terms of maximum stresses corresponding to extreme
environmental loadings, and fatigue life. The results of the analyses
provide information to determine the confgurafion that better fits the
conditions imposed to risers connected to FPSO's.

The behaviour of each configuration is compared in terms of its

response to extreme environmental conditions, and fatigue life. In both
cases, the analysis methodology considers:
An initial non-linear static analysis, to determine the equilibrium
configuration under the action of the static components of the
environmental loading: dead weight, current, and mean offset of the
vessel, considering both the far and near positions; this analysis is
followed by

INTRODUCTION
Oil production in deep water levels is a permanent challenge to the
petroleum industries around the world. For water depths below 1000m,
flexible risers have been employed with floating production systems
such as semi-submersible platforms and TLP's. For water depths
beyond 1000m, the Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) concept has been
shown to be a feasible alternative when employed in TLP's or semisubmersible platforms. Significant savings can be achieved with SCR's
when compared with the costs of flexible risers (Sert~ et al., 1996;
Franciss et al., 1997).

non-linear time-domain dynamic analysis, considering a regular

wave approach.

The computational program ANFLEX (Mourelle et al., 1995;

Petrobras, 1998) is employed for these analyses. Fatigue damage and
life are determined by the post-processor fatigue analysis program
POSFAL (Torres et al., 1995; Petrobras, 1996).

Recently, there is a trend in the oil industries to convert tanker

ships into FPSO's- Floating Production, Storage and Offloading units,
that comprise production or exploring systems in deep waters. It is now
necessary to study the application of the SCR concept in conjunction
with FPSO's, because, since such units are characterized by significant
static offsets and heave motions, the behavior of SCR in semisubmersibles cannot be easily extended to FPSO's.

CONFIGURATIONS
Four different SCR configurations are considered in the search of
the most promising alternative for application with FPSOs, including
the usual basic riser shapes characterized by the presence (or absence)
of floating and flexibilization elements. The selected configurations
comprise the simple free-hanging catenary, and more complex
configurations with distributed or concentrated floating elements,
known as lazy-wave, steep-wave, and lazy-S.

Petrobras is now developing a project with European companies

and Brazilian universities, to study alternative configurations of SCR's
installed in turret-moored FPSO's, in order to reduce the costs of the
risers with respect to the flexible risers solution, to overcome the
limitation of the viable riser diameter particularly when associated to
high external pressures and temperatures, and to increase the capability
of sustaining significant harsh service conditions.

All of the considered configurations employ at least one

flexibilization element: a "flex-joint" installed at the riser connection
with the FPSO.
Initially, all configurations are analyzed considering that the turret
234

is located near the bow of the vessel. An additional analysis is

performed for the simple free-hanging configuration, considering the
turret located at an intermediary point, located 65m fore of midship,
corresponding to approximately 20% of the vessel length between
perpendiculars.

a) Next to the anchoring;

b) Near the touch-down point (TDP);
c) Intermediate suspended section;
d) Near the connection with the vessel.
For the finite element discretization, each one of these sections is
represented by a given number of elements, with a constant length
value selected according to the characteristics of its structural
behaviour. Sections b) and d) are thus discretized by relatively smaller
elements, while sections a) and c) have relatively larger elements. In
order to assure a smooth variation of the element lengths, transition
segments are defined between sections b) and c), and sections c) and d).
The six resulting segments are depicted on the following Figure.

All configurations are comprised by a steel 12" nominal diameter

tubular riser, with an external diameter equal to 12.75". The wall
thickness for the free-hanging configuration is 1"; all other
configurations with buoyancy elements have a wall thickness of 0.875".
The properties of the steel considered for all configurations are:

Elasticity Modulus:
Density:
Yield Strength:
Tensile Strength:

207800 MPa
7850 kg/m3
413 MPa
517 MPa

The values for the hydrodynamic coefficients for the bare riser and
buoyant sections are:
Drag Coefficient:
Inertia Coefficient:

Cd = 1.0
Cm = 2.0

In all the configurations a 200 m section at the upper part of the

riser is considered to be equipped with strakes to reduce vortex effects
(VIV). In this section the assumed value for Cd is 1.5 and for Cm
(inertia coefficient) is 2.6. At this same section an anti-fouling material
is considered, increasing the thickness of the riser section in 0.5".
Marine growth was not taken into account in these analyses.
The riser comprises a water injection system, where the density of
the internal fluid is the same as the seawater, and the operation pressure
on top of the riser is 21 MPa.

"-,--.._

Figure 1 - Model mesh segments

The following sections describe the geometric characteristics of

each configuration, and the criteria employed for the finite element
discretization. The finite element model devised for the analysis of all
configurations employs the three-dimensional nonlinear beam element,
available in the ANFLEX program, that is in the current state-of-the-art
of the finite element technology. This element is based in a
geometrically nonlinear corotational formulation (Mourelle, 1993;
Engseth, 1984; Mathisen, 1990), that allows the precise representation
of slender structures subjected to large displacements and rotations.
This formulation separates the rigid body motions from the motions
that lead to deformation, and is able to accurately take into account the
bending effects that are significant in SCR's.

For this configuration, a study was performed to verify the

sensitivity of the results to the degree of refinement in the finite
element mesh employed for the riser discretization. To do so, two
meshes were prepared:
A basic mesh, composed by a total number of 325 beam elements,
and
A refined mesh, composed by a total of 1293 elements.

Lazy-wave
The lazy-wave configuration is obtained by the use of buoyancy
elements distributed on a central section of the riser. This leads to the
wave shape that results from the initial static equilibrium, while the
inferior section is resting in catenary on the seabed, as shown in the
following Figure.

Free-hanging
The free-hanging configuration is essentially a simple catenary
resting on the seabed. The simplicity of its shape, that requires a small
number of components, makes this configuration the ideal "target"
solution, with reduced material and installation costs.
This configuration, and all the succeeding, present a flexibilization
element located on the top connection with the FPSO that allow the
limitation of the local bending effects caused by horizontal vessel
offsets and by relative rotations, in dynamic conditions, between the
vessel and the riser. This flexibilization element is a flex-joint, that is
represented in the finite element model by a scalar element joining two
nodes with identical coordinates, presenting a very great value of
translational stiffness, and a constant rotational stiffness equal to 10
kN.m/degree.
In the present application the line has a total length equal to 1700m,
that can be divided in the following representative sections regarding its
structural behaviour:

Figure 2 - Lazy-wave model

235

with height equal to 12 m, located at 850m from the upper line end,
modeled as a nodal scalar

The distributed floaters, employed in the lazy and steep wave

configurations, provide a net uplift distributed force taken as twice the
submerged weight of the original riser section. The adopted values for
the parameters of the distributed floaters are:
External diameter of buoyancy element A = 0.896 m
Net uplift = 2818 N/m
The section with buoyancy has a length of 400m, following the first
1100m from the upper extremity. The total riser length is 2000m, and
the number of finite elements in the mesh is 320. Applying the
buoyancy defined previously, the total net lift is equal to 1130kN.
Steep-wave

The steep-wave configuration is similar to the lazy-wave, but the

buoyancy section now extends through the lower anchoring end. The
result is the characteristic shape of this configuration, shown in the
Figure below, where the lower section is not laying in catenary on the
seabed, but is attached to the anchoring point that works under tension
on a fixed base.

Figure 4 - Lazy-S model

This configuration presents the flexibilization element a t the
connection with the FPSO, and another flex-joint at the buoy
connection.
The riser is discretized by a mesh with a total number of 306 finite
elements.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L D A T A AND V E S S E L M O T I O N S
Location

The scenario for t~e application of the FPSO / SCR system

considered in the analyses presented here corresponds to a site with an
inclined seabottom, where the still water level ranges from 855m tO
870m. However, since the purpose of these analyses is the comparison
of the behaviour of different SCR configurations, the inclination of the
sea bottom is not considered and the water depth is assumed as constant
and equal to 870m. The soil-riser interaction model considers a soil
with a non-drained shear resistanc e equal to 5 kPa; the riser plarne is
aligned with the North-South direction.

Figure 3 - Steep-wave model

The buoyancy section has a length of 700m, following the first
1000m from the upper end. The total riser length is then 1700m, less
than the lazy-wave configuration. The horizontal distance from the
connection to the anchoring is 1200m. The floaters are similar to the
employed in the lazy-wave configuration, but as the buoyancy length is
greater now, the total net lift obtained by the buoyancy system increases
to 1970 kN.

Current Data

Extreme conditions
A centenary current profile is applied in the analyses for extreme
environmental conditions, defined by the following velocity values:
Surface:
1.34 m/s
Sea bottom:
0.55 m/s

This configuration presents the flex-joint element on the connection

end with the FPSO that is common to all configurations, and also
presents another flexibilization element on the base connection of the
riser on the seabed. This element may be a flex-joint or a stress-joint.

Fatigue
The riser is discretized by a mesh with a total number of 329 finite
elements.

The following values for the current profile are considered for the
fatigue analyses:
Surface:
0.80 m/s
Sea bottom:
0.30 m/s

Lazy-S
The lazy-S configuration is characterized by one concentrated
buoyancy element in an intermediate position on the line, thus defining
two sections: the first is a eatenary hanged on the vessel and on the
buoyancy element; and the other is a free-hanging catenary connected
to the buoy and resting on the seabed. The length of the suspended part
is 850m; the length of the lower part is 1050m, comprising a total of
1900m of line. The concentrated buoyancy is provided by a cylinder

Wave Data

Extreme conditions
The centenary regular wave data considered for the extreme
conditions is the following:
Height:
14.6 m
Period:
13.0 s
236

Fatigue

In the dynamic analysis, the top end of the riser is submitted to the
deterministic wave frequency vessel motions, combined with the
considered sea state applied to the length of the riser.

For the definition of the regular sea states and the associated
percentages of occurrence to be employed in the deterministic fatigue
analysis the meteocean data related to the site were employed, in terms
of a table containing the joint distribution of individual wave heights
and periods. From the meteocean data five ranges of wave heights were
extracted, and for each range of wave height two ranges of wave
periods were established. This procedure leads to ten representative
classes of environmental conditions, each characterized by
representative values for wave height and period, and an associated
value for the percentage of occurrence.

For the extreme conditions analyses, a sequence (static analysis +

dynamic analysis) described before is performed to each loading
situation (near and far) and for all the considered configurations,
employing the current and regular centenary wave values presented
before.
For the fatigue analyses, the environmental condition considers the
5 classes of static offset and slow drift, and 10 classes of regular wave,
as defined before.

Mean Offset and Slow Drift Vessel Motion

Extreme conditions

DESIGN CRITERIA

The definition of the static offset for analyses under extreme

environmental conditions adopts the usual criteria of considering 10%
of the still water level, leading to the value of 87 m. It is also assumed
that the slow drift vessel motion may be treated statically, and is
therefore incorporated in the mean offset value.

At the current design phase, the analyses start with the SCR crosssection defined by previously established criteria. Thus, the SCR
internal diameter was defined to comply with the required fluid flow
rate; the wall thickness was designed to support the maximum internal
pressure, to avoid local buckling due to external pressure and bending,
and propagating buckling under external pressure.

Fatigue

The SCR behavior due to VIV action is not considered at this

phase. The vortex shedding effects are ignored because it is assumed
that they may be avoided by the presence of helical strakes. These
strakes are applied in the same region as the anti-fouling covering, i.e.,
at the initial 200m of the line from the connection with the vessel.

Five classes of irregular seastates were considered for the fatigue

analyses. Each class is characterized by a significant wave height Hs
and zero-upcrossing period 1",.; wind velocity, surface and bottom
current, and corresponding percentages of occurrence. The
representative values of Hs and T, are obtained following a procedure
similar to the previously described for the regular wave data from
individual waves, but now operating on a table with the distribution of
significant wave heights and zero-upcrossing periods.

The main parameter for the evaluation of the behaviour of a given

SCR configuration under extreme conditions, and for the comparison
with other configurations, is the utilization factor, defined as the ratio
between the maximum combined Von Mises Stress on a determined
point of the riser section, and the allowable stress.

These classes were employed in vessel motion analyses for the near
and far conditions. The results of these analyses are the mean offsets
and representative values for the slow drift surge motions in terms of
amplitude and period.

The verification of the following parameters should also be

included among the design criteria for SCR's:
Maximum rotation and tension of the top end, to comply with the
utilization limits of the flex-joint;

Wave Frequency Vessel Motions

Minimum tension near the TDP, to avoid static or dynamic

compression that can lead to the riser local buckling and to
collapse;

The wave frequency vessel motions are defined by RAOs

(Response Amplitude Operators) determined at the vessel center of
gravity, and are given as input data of the analysis computer program
(ANFLEX) in all the studied alternatives. The RAOs are referred to a
maximum vessel draft equal to 21.628 m and with a heading of 180
degrees with relation to the stem-bow direction.

Interference of the riser motions with nearby structures (other risers

and/or mooting lines).
The fatigue analysis provides another parameter for the design
criteria and comparison between the alternative configurations:

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Fatigue damage, from which the SCR fatigue life is determined,

which is compared with the SCR required life, usually taken as 10
times the design life.

The methodology employed for the extreme environmental

conditions and fatigue consider the following sequence of analyses:

The damage is computed considering a reference S-N curve; the

Palmgren-Miner rule is employed for the damage summation. The S-N
curve adopted is the API X', with the stress concentration factor taken
as 1.5.

a) A non-linear static analysis for the determination of the equilibrium

configuration under the action of the static loading conditions (dead
loads, current, mean offset of the vessel).
b) A non-linear time domain dynamic analysis, that starts from the
results obtained at the end of the static analysis and applies the
vessel dynamic movement and the wave loads acting on the riser.

RESULTS
The results are expressed at the most significant points of the line,
generally near the TDP and the top end. Results for the dynamic
analyses include both maximum and minimum values for the axial
forces, in order to determine situations when the line is compressed.

This sequence of analyses is performed for the far and near loading
condition. For the far condition, the static offset and current are applied
on the static analysis to increase the distance between the connection
and the anchoring; on the near condition these loadings are inverted to
approximate the connection to the anchoring.

Initially, a comparison was performed for the results of analyses for

extreme conditions with the "basic" and the "refined" meshes for the
237

free-hanging configuration with turret located near bow, to determine

the sensitivity to the degree of refinement in the finite element mesh.
Table 1 presents this comparison, expressed as the ratio between the
basic case results and the refined mesh results.

of the other configurations.

For the free-hanging configuration installed in a FPSO with turret
located in an intermediary section, the smaller vertical motions imposed
at the top of the riser lead to more favorable results for the SCR.

Table 1 -Comparison of results for basic and refined meshes

NEAR

TOP

Static

Axiai i~orce '

i,00

TDP

As expected, the results for the configurations that employ

buoyancy elements are milder than those of the free-hanging
configuration, and their design is approved by the utilization factor
criterion

FAR

TOP

TDP

,,OOl,ob'i,oo

A comparison of the final results for the fatigue analyses is reported

in the following table, tn terms of the minimum lifetime values,
normalized with respect to the values obtained for the flee-hanging
configuration with turret located near bow.

lViin. 1,00 ] 0',99[ 1,00 ! 0,98

Max. 1,00 1 1,0_01 . .1,00
. . [ 1,00
"Bending moment 'rS~atie . . . . . .
ll~olloc],'ligollOCl
Dynamic Max'- |u~oI,]i a o , a i lolo]=.'toll
";Von,Mises s t r e s s Static
i ~oi'ii;il~imll(,~o-iml~,ii
Axial stress ,
_ IIl0101/R010]/l[O]/'l~010
,Bending; stress
I[l~/~0i/~'I l II[O1i~ol~'i~
VonMises Stress' D y n a m i c
I [ ~ ~ [ ~ W [ ~ ~
Axial stress
f ll~llIOlO]IEoI,]!K,I~
..Bendin.8 's~ess ....
~
llto]p& i toIol hnnlIOI~I
Utilization facto; ....Static . . . .
][]~nB~oIolnnlloIO]lil(oIA
"'Dynamic

Dynami~

Table 3
Configuration
Free-hangxng
Free'hanging, Midwa), Turret
Lazy wave
Steep W a v e
Lazy S

" I[lmmmnlo~mm~o, mm~o:o

The results of the sensitivity studies regarding the degree of mesh

refinement, that were performed for the free-hanging configuration,
allow us to confirm the following qualitative observations:

Table 2 summarizes the results for extreme environmental

conditions for all configurations, normalized with respect to the freehanging configuration with turret located near bow. This Table includes
the results of the free-hanging configuration installed in a FPSO with
turret located in an intermediary section, midway between bow and
midship.

. The maximum axial forces are well represented by relatively coarse

meshes, but
* The values for the minimum axial forces and maximum bending
moments are more susceptible to the mesh refinement, particularly
the values near the TDP.

Table 2 - Comparison of results, extreme environmental conditions

Near
Free-h, Free-h, Lazy Steep imzyS
Turret midway Wave Wave
near bow Turret
Norrn..' max toptension .... 1'00 '
0.89 ..0175,0.68 ~0.45
Norm. min line tension
-1.00
-0.17
0.29 _ 0.33 L 0.41
Norm. max line moment
1.00
0.47
0.23 0.20 0.22
Norm. utifiZ_ fac-tor,max "- L00 ..... o.47 0128
0125 k 0127
.

It can also be concluded that, in preliminary phases of the design of

SCRs, it is a reasonable procedure to employ unrefined meshes
following the criteria used to establish the "basic" mesh employed in
this work. However, it is important to establish a variable-length mesh,
where the regions near the top connection, the TDP and intermediary
buoyancy or flexibilization elements are represented by elements with
smaller lengths.

The comparison of analyses results presented in this work shows

that the free-hanging configuration for turret near bow presents the
worst behaviour due to the severe heave motions that are generated.

Far
iree-h, Free-h, Lazy Steep Lazy S
Turret midway Wave Wave
near bow Turret
max top
. [ i.00
0.77
0.40 0 . 3 8 0 . 2 4
min line tension
-1.00
2.02
1.20 0.92 0.86
max line moment
1.00
0.28
0.34
0.40 0.30
utilizl factor, max . . . . i.00 . . . . 0.61
0.52 0.54 0.55
........

Norm
Norm.
Norm.
Norm.
,

L.

8198
48.03
61.57
2703.64

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F I N A L R E M A R K S AND C O N C L U S I O N S

The results are very similar, thus justifying the use of the basic
mesh on the following analyses.

Normalized
Lifetime
1.00

The behaviour of the free, hanging configuration is less adverse for

the application with a FPSO with turret installed midway between bow
and midship, due to the smaller heave motions that result.
As expected, the results for all configurations that present buoyancy
elements are milder than those observed for the free-hanging
configuration.

,,

..

Finally, it is important to remark that the free-hanging

configuration, which has considerably smaller installation costs than
those presented by the buoyant configurations, still cannot be definitely
discarded. It is recalled that the analyses performed in this work
correspond to a preliminary phase of the design of a SCR, and are
intended only to establish a comparison between the behaviour of the
different configurations. The employed analysis methodology
considered several simplifications and conservative assumptions;
therefore, the behaviour of the free-hanging configuration should be

A first observation regarding the behaviour of the free-hanging

configuration with turret located near bow under extreme conditions
can now be established. The dynamic results near the TDP are very
unfavorable, not only in terms of minimum line tension values, that
reaches negative values indicating compression of the line, but also in
terms of the high absolute values for the bending moments. This is
reflected in the negative value for the normalized min. line tension in
Table 2, and in the utilization factors, that are always higher than those
238

further investigated, since it is possible that, with more elaborate

analysis methods and a more rigorous definition of the environmental
conditions (considering, for instance, the directionality of the sea
states), its use may turn out to become feasible.

References
Engseth, A.G. (1984), Finite Element Collapse Anlaysis of Tubular
Steel Offshore Structures, PhD Dissertation, University of Trondheim.
Franciss, R, Torres, A.L.F.L., Mourelle, M.M., Pinto, F.J.C.P. and
Souza, L.F.A. (1997), "Steel Catenary Riser for a Taut-Leg Moored
Semi-submersible Platform", OTC Paper 8515, Procs of the 29th
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.
Mathisen, K.M. (1990), Large Displacement Analysis of Flexible and
Rigid Systems considering Displacement-Dependent Loads and
Nonlinear Constraints, PhD Dissertation, University of Trondheim.
Mourelle, M.M. (1993), An6lise Dindmica de Sistemas Estruturais
Constituidos por Linhas Maritimas, D.Sc. Thesis, PEC/COPPE/UFRJ,
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Mourelle, M.M., Gonzalez, E.C. and Jacob, B.P. (1995) "ANFLEX Computational System for Flexible and Rigid Riser Analysis", in:
F.L.L.B. Carneiro et alii (eds), International Offshore Engineering, pp.
441-458, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester/New York.
Petrobras/CENPES/DIPREX/SEDEM (1996), POSFAL P6sProcessador de Fadiga Aleat6ria, Manual de Entrada de Dados,
ver. 2.0, rev. 0, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Petrobras/CENPES/DIPREX/SEDEM (1998), ANFLEX- Andlise NaoLinear de Risers e Linhas de Ancoragem, Manual de Entrada de
Dados, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Sert~, O.B., Mourelle, M.M., Grealish, F.W., Harbert, S.J. and
L.F.A. Souza (1996), "Steel Catenary Riser for the Marlim Field FPS
P-XVIlr', OTC Paper 8069, Procs of the 28th Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.
Torres, A.L.F.L., Sagrilo, L.V.S., Siqueira, M.Q. and Lima, E.C.P.
(1995), "A Procedure for Random Fatigue Analysis of Offshore
Structures", in F.L.L.B. Cameiro et alii (eds), International Offshore
Engineering, pp. 391-405, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester/New York.

239