OTC 14152

Design and Implementation of the First Buoyed Steel Catenary Risers

Douglas R. Korth, Mentor Subsea Technology Services, Inc. (a J. Ray McDermott company); Bob Shian J. Chou, Mentor
Subsea Technology Services, Inc. (a J. Ray McDermott company); Gary D. McCullough, Mariner Energy, Inc.
Copyright 2002, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference held
in Houston, Texas U.S.A., 69 May 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject
to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was
presented.

Abstract
This paper presents the design and implementation of buoyed
steel catenary risers (SCR). Two 6" steel catenary risers,
installed in November-December 2001, were designed to
include 50,000-pounds of buoyancy per riser in 3,300 feet of
water for Mariner Energy, Inc.'s King Kong/Yosemite field
development in the Green Canyon area of the Gulf of Mexico.
The risers are suspended from the Agip Petroleum
"Allegheny" tension leg platform (TLP) where reduced riser
loads were required for additional process equipment and safe
TLP operation.
Introduction
The King Kong/Yosemite development consists of three
subsea gas wells located in Green Canyon Blocks 472, 473
and 516 in water depths of 3,800 - 3,900 feet. The subsea
wells are commingled at a manifold located in Green Canyon
block 472 into two 7 production flowlines. These 7
flowlines transit approximately 15 miles to Green Canyon
Block 254, in 3,300-foot water depth, where they transition to
6 SCRs to board the Agip Petroleum Allegheny mini
Tension Leg Platform, (TLP). The field layout is pictured in
Figure A-1. The riser locations near the platform are
illustrated in Figure A-2.
During the course of the riser design, and after order of riser
pipe and titanium stress joints, it was discovered that the
weight of additional process equipment and the planned SCRs
placed the Allegheny TLP beyond its allowable load capacity.
In order to maintain a safe load budget for the TLP and to
account for future process equipment addition it was decided

to reduce the total TLP load by 100-kips via buoyancy on

the risers.
The challenge involved making a buoyed riser system work
within the constraints of a non-buoyed, simple catenary SCR.
The buoyed riser design involved an iterative approach to
optimize the riser and buoyancy to satisfy the requirements for
design codes, S-Lay installation and project cost and schedule
constraints. The position and characteristics of the buoyancy
were important to produce a riser catenary that met project
requirements and code stress and fatigue criteria. In the final
configuration, each riser utilizes 271 separate, surface
installed buoyancy modules applied over a continuous length
of 800-feet, starting below the VIV strakes, to provide 50-kips
of net buoyancy plus a 5% safety factor. The resultant riser
has an arc length of 3,532-feet with a horizontal offset of
1028-feet at a departure angle of 8. Figure A-3 illustrates the
final riser configuration.
The final profile of the riser is a shallow "S" exhibiting a
slight double catenary. Analysis shows that, compared to a
conventional SCR, the buoyed riser exhibits increased
bending and dynamic stress in the sagbend. This results from
the "lighter" SCR motion characteristics and the departure
from the second catenary, best illustrated as a shorter
horizontal offset to touchdown than conventional simple
catenary SCRs. Riser stresses are managed by placement,
distribution and size of buoyancy modules.
Execution of this project demonstrates the viability of the
buoyed SCR for deepwater developments and how this
concept can be used to expand or enhance the capacity of
floating production systems.
This paper presents the design and implementation of the
buoyed steel catenary risers (SCR) for the Mariner Energy,
Inc., King Kong/Yosemite field development. Included is an
overall description of the riser key parameters; design
including static, dynamic, vortex induced and wave fatigue
analyses; and installation experience. In the description of the
static analysis, comparing and contrasting results of the
original simple catenary SCR, the final buoyed SCR
configuration and one of the iterative buoyed SCR

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

configurations examined before selecting the preferred

concept will be presented. The conclusion will summarize the
system and the lessons learned throughout the project with
recommendations presented for future development and
changes that would be incorporated.
Design Parameters
The basic parameters of the SCR, determined during the
preliminary design and before the addition of buoyancy to the
system area as follows:
Hang-off type: Titanium Stress Joint
Stress Joint Length: 27-feet
Riser Material: 6.625 O.D. x 0.791 w.t. API 5L X65
Riser Departure Angle: 8-degrees
Hang-off depth: 79.5-feet
External Coating: 12-14 mils Roughcoat F.B.E.
VIV Strakes: 5D design
Strake Length/Placement: 520-feet commencing after
stress joint
Touchdown Coating: 1,000-feet of Three-Layer
Polyethylene, 125 mils.
Buoyancy System Selection. The buoyancy system selection
was complicated by the fact that the process system could not
tolerate arrival temperatures below 50 F. Given the flowing
temperature of the gas, 38 F, it was essential that the
buoyancy not provide any insulation, allowing the gas to
warm up in the water column. This ruled out the use of a
uniformly distributed coating/buoyancy system or other
system that maintained direct contact with the riser pipe.
Resultantly, the selection focused on a system of independent
modules. The drivers for the selection of the buoyancy
system were:
Configuration
Dimensions
Configuration. The final buoyancy system selected
utilized a series of independent buoyancy modules banded to
the riser. The buoyancy modules were designed with an inside
diameter larger than the pipe O.D. to provide a annulus
around the riser pipe. Additionally, flow channels were
molded on the inside diameter of each module to allow for
continuous water flow around the riser, providing the required
warming of the produced gas. Figure A-4, illustrates the
general arrangement of the buoyancy module.
Dimensions. The module dimensions we driven by
three factors:
Allowable Local Buoyancy. During design it was
determined that the maximum allowable local buoyancy was
67.5 lbs./foot. It was found that if the buoyancy provided
more that 67.5 lbs./foot the riser would begin to take a true
lazy-S configuration with a flat or raised profile located midriser. Based on the preliminary analyses of a buoyed riser, the

OTC 14152

existing fixed parameters of the riser material, stress joint and

departure angle and project time concerns it was felt that the
true lazy-S configuration would not be feasible.
Consequently, it was specified for the unit buoyancy to remain
below this value. This was reiterated later during the dynamic
analysis where the impact of the unit buoyancy on the motion
response and bending stress was further magnified.
Installation Load. The modules consist of an outer
polymer shell with a wax infill material, Evasyn, with
macroshperes in the matrix. The design installation load, as
determined by the vessel stinger characteristics and lay
tensions was 11-tons per roller pair for the Allseas vessel
Solitaire. From this the buoyancy supplier, CRP, Inc.,
determined that the infill material density required to
withstand the load was 600 kg/m3. The outer shell was found
to be sufficiently durable for this application. Full scale testing
of the buoyancy modules was performed prior to delivery (see
figure A-5).
Handling. The module could be made in any size
requested. However, for installation handling ease, it was
decided to limit the length of the modules to no more than
four feet. The module diameter was a result of the length
restriction and the maximum allowable unit buoyancy.
The modules are attached to the riser using three inconel
bands per module. Every third module, a polymer stopper
clamp is installed to prevent the buoyancy modules from
sliding up the pipe as it enters the water. Additionally, a
transition piece with a steel clamped bulkhead is affixed on
either end to provide a taper for entering the lay vessel stinger
and to serve as the ultimate buoyancy holdback during
operation.
The
resultant
modules
have
the
following characteristics:
Length:
Outside Diameter:
Inside Diameter:
Weight (dry):
Buoyancy per module:
Unit Buoyancy:

35.4-inches
26.7-inches
7.2-inches
142 lbs.
193-lbs.
66.15 lbs./foot

Figures A-6 and A-7 show the buoyancy during installation.

Design Results
In this section is presented the results of the SCR design. A
walk through of static, dynamic and fatigue (wave and VIV) is
presented. A comparison is made at the static level of three
riser configurations to illustrate the uniqueness of the buoyed
riser. The three risers compared are:

Simple Catenary (non-buoyed) Has no buoyancy. There

are 520-feet of strakes starting immediately after the
stress joint. (See Figure 1 and A-8)

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

Mariner KKY SCR Geometry, No buoyancy

Mariner KKY - SCR Static Profile

Strakes

Bare

Buoyancy

Pipe

Sea Bed

Straked Region

-500

Straked Region

-1000

Vertical Distance from Water Surface (ft)

Vertical distance from the sea surface (Ft)

-500

-1500

-2000

-2500

-3000

-1000

Buoyed Region
-1500

-2000

-2500

-3000

-3500
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

-3500

1600

100

200

300

400

Horizontal Distance from the top of the SCR (Ft)

Mariner KKY SCR (With Low Bouyancy Modules) Static Profile

0

Vertical Distance from Water Surface

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

Figure 3 Buoyed Riser 2 High Buoyancy Static Configuration

Buoyed SCR 1 This configuration has 900-feet of

buoyancy, 305 modules, starting 1,500-feet below the
VIV strakes. (See Figure 2)

Straked Region

-500

600

Horizontal Distance from the Riser Top (ft)

Figure 1 Simple Catenary SCR Static Configuration

500

Static Analysis Results. The static analysis was performed

using the ABAQUS program, and checked using OFFPIPE, to
give the total arc length and the horizontal scope (touchdown)
of the SCR as well as to calculate axial, bending and total
static stress. Analysis results are shown for three
configurations. The differences are shown for the simple
catenary (non-buoyed) and two configurations of buoyed
SCR. The results of the static analysis were used as a gateway
to select the final buoyed riser configuration. Figures 4 - 6
show the total stress profiles for the three configurations.

-1000

-1500

Bouyed Region
-2000

Mariner KKY SCR (No Buoyancy Modules) Total Static Stress Distribution (with 7500 psi Internal Pressure)
Stress Joint

Strake

Bare pipe

-2500

30000.00

-3000

25000.00
-3500
0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

20000.00

Figure 2 Buoyed SCR 1 Low Buoyancy Static Configuration

Buoyed SCR 2 This configuration has 800-feet of

buoyancy, 271 modules, starting 30-feet below the VIV
strakes. (See Figure 3 and A-2)

Static Stress (psi)

Horizontal Distance From the Riser Top (ft)

15000.00

Straked Region
10000.00

5000.00

0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Arc Distance From The Top of The SCR (ft)

Figure 4 Simple Catenary SCR, Total Static Stress Profile

4000

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

Riser
Configuration
Max. Static
Bending Stress
Max. Total
Static Stress
Allowable
Stress
Arc Length
Touchdown
Distance
Departure
Angle

Mariner KKY SCR (with 900' Buoyancy modules 1500' from Strakes) Total Static Stress Distribution (with 7500 psi
Internal Pressure)
Stress Joint

Strake

Bare pipe

Buoyant

Sagbend

40000.00

35000.00

Straked Region

Static Stress (psi)

30000.00

Buoyed Region

25000.00

20000.00

15000.00

10000.00

Top Tension

5000.00

0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Arc Distance From The Top of The SCR (ft)

Figure 5 Buoyancy Configuration 1, Total Static Stress Profile

Mariner KKY SCR Total Static Stress Distribution (with 7500 psi Internal Pressure)
Stress Joint

Strake

Bare pipe

Buoyant

Sagbend

40000.00

35000.00

Simple
Catenary

Buoyed 1
(low buoyancy)

Buoyed 2
(high buoyancy)

15.8 Ksi

23.5 Ksi

26 Ksi

27.5 Ksi

34 Ksi

36.5 Ksi

43 Ksi

43 Ksi

43 Ksi

3720

3826

3532

1420

1725

1028

136 kips

86 kips

83 kips

Amount of
Buoyancy for
N/A
59.5 kips
50 kips
50-kip
reduction
# of Buoyancy
N/A
305
256
Modules Reqd
Total # of
modules with
N/A
305
271
5% S.F.
Total
buoyancy with
N/A
59.5 kips
53 kips
5% overage
Table 1 Static Analysis Result Comparison

Straked Region

30000.00

Static Stress (psi)

OTC 14152

25000.00

Buoyed Region

20000.00

15000.00

10000.00

5000.00

0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Arc Distance From The Top of The SCR (ft)

Figure 6 Buoyancy Configuration 2, Total Static Stress Profile

The static analysis results for all three cases are

summarized in Table 1. It is shown that both buoyed
configurations were within the allowable stress envelope. The
buoyed SCR bending stress is shown to be almost 50% higher
when compared to the non-buoyed SCR. It is also seen that
total stress is governed by the bending stress for both buoyed
cases. Also notable is the dramatic change in the stress profile
in the area of the buoyancy. This is attributed to the steep
decline of the riser after the buoyancy. Figure 5, illustrates
that the buoyancy placed lower in the riser serves to decrease
the bending and overall stress of the riser by lifting the
sagbend by approximately 10% when compared to Figure 6,
the high buoyancy case.

Buoyed Configuration 2 (high buoyancy), while still

exhibiting a higher total and bending stress than Buoyancy
Configuration 1 (low buoyancy), is much more efficient,
requiring 44 fewer buoyancy modules (or 9.5-kips of
buoyancy) per riser to achieve the desired 50-kip reduction.
This is attributed to the buoyancy being placed closer to the
surface in a near vertical orientation as opposed to being
placed in the sagbend area where the riser was approaching a
horizontal profile. The resultant overall project cost and
schedule benefit associated with fewer buoyancy modules led
to the selection of Buoyed Configuration 2 (high buoyancy)
(see figures 3, 6 and A-2) as the final riser configuration.
Dynamic Analysis. The dynamic analysis was performed
using the finite element program ABAQUS and various
Mentor in house pre and post processors. It was determined
that the limiting condition for the risers is when the TLP is in
the Near position, or moving closer towards the riser
touchdown point. Using this limiting condition, three cases
were used to determine the riser suitability, the 100-year
hurricane, 10-year hurricane + 100-year eddy current and the
10-year hurricane. Table 2 illustrates the Design load matrix
with the analysis results:
Case Condition
1
2
3
4
5

Extreme
Extreme
Extreme

Environment

TLP
Position

Max
Stress
(ksi)
48.5
39.5
38.4

Allowable
(ksi)

100-yr. hurricane
Near
52
100-yr. hurricane
Far
52
100-yr. hurricane
Trans.
52
10-yr. hurricane
Extreme
Near
46.2
52
+ 100-year eddy
Operating
10-yr. hurricane
Near
41.6
43.33
Table 2 Load Case Matrix with Dynamic Analysis Result

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

As seen in Table 2, the buoyed riser has a comparatively

high dynamic stress relative to what would be expected from a
simple catenary riser. The peak stresses are all located in the
touchdown regions with the bending stress being the dominant
factor for the total stress.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the total dynamic stress profile
for the 100-year hurricane, near position and the 10-year
hurricane, near position, respectively.
As seen in Figure 7, the SCR follows a normal stress
profile from the hang-off point until the start of the buoyancy.
Approximately 10-feet into the buoyancy, the stress profile
exhibits a sharp peak, increasing approximately 5 Ksi. The
stress declines slowly throughout the buoyancy then drops off
at the end of the buoyancy. The stress peaks once again just
before the touchdown point.

In general, the 10-year storm dynamic stress follows a

similar profile to the 100-year case. Once again, stress peaks
are seen in the buoyed region and just before touchdown. One
dissimilarity is the second stress peak located in the center of
the buoyed region. Also, it is seen that the stress decreases and
peaks again at the end of the buoyancy where the pipe is
departing into the second, shallow, catenary. These peaks and
valleys in the buoyed region are directly attributed to bending
stress and the higher response due to the shorter period
motions of the TLP. To illustrate the governance of the
bending stress on the total dynamic stress, Figures 9 and 10
illustrate the maximum axial stress and maximum bending
stress for the buoyed riser in the 10-year storm near position.
Mariner KKY SCR Dynamic Stress Distribution, 10 Year Hurricane Near Position
Stress Joint

Strake

Bare pipe

Buoyant

Sagbend

25000.0

Mariner KKY SCR Dynamic Stress Distribution, 100 Year Hurricane Near Position
Stress Joint

Strake

Bare pipe

Buoyant

Straked Region

Sagbend
20000.0

Maximum Axial Stress (psi)

70000.00

60000.00

Maximum Total Stress (psi)

50000.00

Straked Region

40000.00

Buoyed Region

30000.00

15000.0

10000.0

Buoyed Region

5000.0

0.0

20000.00

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

Arc Distance From The Top of The SCR (ft)

10000.00

Figure 9 Maximum Axial Stress Distribution, 10-Year Hurricane,

Near Position

0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Arc Distance From The Top of The SCR (ft)

Figure 7 Maximum Total Stress Distribution, 100-year Hurricane,

Near Position

The axial stress profile shown in Figure 9, with the stress

rise throughout the buoyed area, was seen for all cases run,
with changes seen in magnitude only.

Figure 8 illustrates the total stress profile for the governing

operating case, the 10-year hurricane.

Mariner KKY SCR Dynamic Stress Distribution, 10 Year Hurricane Near Position
Stress Joint

Strake

Bare pipe

Buoyant

Sagbend

35000.00

Mariner KKY SCR Dynamic Stress Distribution, 10 Year Hurricane Near Position
Strake

Bare pipe

Buoyant

45000.00

40000.00

Straked Region

Maximum Total Stress (psi)

35000.00

30000.00

Buoyed Region

25000.00

30000.00

Sagbend
Maximum Bending Stress (psi)

Stress Joint

25000.00

20000.00

Straked Region

15000.00

Buoyed Region

10000.00

5000.00

20000.00
0.00

15000.00

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

Arc Distance From The Top of The SCR (ft)

10000.00

5000.00

0.00
0

200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 1600

1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600

Figure 10 Maximum Bending Stress Distribution, 10-year

Hurricane, Near Position

Arc Distance From The Top of The SCR (ft)

Figure 8 Maximum Total Stress Distribution, 10-Year Hurricane,

Near Position

A comparison of Figure 8 with Figure 10 shows that the

bending stress indeed governs the riser dynamic stress profile.
The analysis to determine the desired unit buoyancy of 67.5

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

lbs./foot indicated that the stress peaks seen in Figures 5 and 7

(static profiles) in the buoyed region and consequently in the
touchdown region, would be magnified commensurately with
a higher unit buoyancy.
In summary, the dynamic analysis reveals that the buoyed
SCR exhibits eccentric behavior when compared to a
conventional SCR. The stress peak at the buoyed region is
attributed to the buoyancy induced bending and resultant
change in the catenary profile and is magnified, dynamically,
by the increased motions of the lighter SCR. The dynamic
analysis also revealed the criticality of maintaining the unit
buoyancy at a value that does not create a steep double
catenary for this configuration. It was concluded that higher
unit buoyancy resulted in elevation in bending stress in the
buoyed and touchdown regions. However, relocating the
buoyancy further down the riser, closer to touchdown, results
in reduced bending stress, as was found for buoyancy
configuration 1, shown in Figures 2 and 5.
Fatigue Analysis. The riser fatigue analysis was performed in
two parts:
Wave Fatigue
Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV)
The results of these two analyses were combined to
produce the final fatigue life results.
Wave Fatigue. The wave fatigue analysis was performed
using the finite element analysis program, ABAQUS. The
wave scatter diagram was divided into 29 bins of significant
wave height and peak period combinations based on
probability of occurrence. The most sever sea state within
each bin was used to represent that particular data set. Using
this information, a time domain, random wave simulation of
the dynamic response of the riser was generated. The
statistical results of the analysis and the API-X curve was
used for prediction of the general fatigue life of the buoyed
SCR. The characteristic sea states for the fatigue analysis are
shown in Table A-1.
Based on the dynamic stress distribution along the SCR,
four critical regions were identified and checked for their
expected fatigue life:
Top and strake region REGION 1
Strake to Buoyancy Transition REGION 2
Buoyancy section REGION 3
Touch-down region REGION 4
The root-mean-square (RMS) stress distribution is shown
in Figure 11, illustrating the critical regions for fatigue.

OTC 14152

Case 7, Total RMS Stress Distribution

Stress Joint

Strakee

Bare

Buoyant

Sagbend

3000.00

2500.00

Total RMS Stress (psi)

2000.00

Touchdown Region

Straked Region
1500.00

Buoyed Region
1000.00

500.00

0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Arc Distance from the Top of SCR (ft)

Figure 11 Total RMS Stress Distribution Along the SCR Length

As Figure 11 illustrates, the areas of maximum RMS stress

are located in the four identified regions.
A stress concentration factor (SCF) of 1.2 was used to
evaluate these critical regions. For sensitivity, this was
compared with an SCF of 1.0. The results of the wave fatigue
analysis are summarized in Table 3.
Region
1
2
3
4

SCF=1.0
(years)
414
9564
2320
772

SCF=1.2
(years)
209
4836
1173
390

Table 3 - Minimum Fatigue Life, Wave Induced

Table A-2 shows the minimum RMS stresses and Fatigue

life along the entire length of the riser.
In the wave fatigue analysis the same trend is evident as in
the dynamic analysis having a peak response noticeable in the
buoyed region. This is illustrated as a higher RMS stress and,
consequently, lower fatigue life.
Vortex Induced Vibration. Vortex Induced Vibration
fatigue was performed by 2H offshore using the program
SHEAR 7, which predicts VIV effects based on mode
superposition, and a series of pre and post processors.
VIV analysis was performed using seven current profiles
acting in the transverse direction. It has been assumed that the
transverse current direction provides the worst VIV response.
The resultant fatigue damage due to the VIV effect is
presented in Figure 12.

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

MENTOR SUBSEA - KING KONG YOSEMITE - 6INCH GAS SCR

LOOP/EDDY CURRENT VIV FATIGUE DAMAGE
API X' CLASS WELD AND SCF 1.2 - ELASTIC SEABED (31317psf)
520ft STRAKES

Region
1
2
3
4

0.0035

Fatigue Damage (1/Years)

0.003
0.0025

0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

3300

3600

Distance Along Riser From Attachment (ft)

6inch SCR

Figure 12 Fatigue Damage Rate Due to VIV Effects

Figure 12 illustrates the effect of the strakes on the fatigue

life of the riser. It is seen that the damage rate is highest in the
buoyed region and then peaks a second time at the touchdown
point. Figure 13 shows the curve for the resultant fatigue life
due to VIV effects.
Mariner KKY SCR Fatigue Life Due To VIV Effect
1E+21
1E+20
1E+19
1E+18
1E+17
1E+16
1E+15
1E+14
Fatigue Life (Years)

SCF=1.2
(years)
1513
2696
318
471

Table 4 - Minimum Fatigue Life, VIV Induced

0.002

1E+13
1E+12
1E+11
1E+10
1E+09
1E+08
1E+07
1E+06
100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
0

200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800
Arc Length From The Top Of SCR (Ft)

Figure 13 Fatigue Life Due to VIV Effects

In Figure 13, it is seen that, corresponding to the fatigue

damage rate in Figure 12, the fatigue life along the riser is
lowest in the buoyed region. The low fatigue life is attributed
to the more active response of the riser in that region and the
added current effect of the modules on the riser. The low end
VIV fatigue life is seen to be 318 years for the buoyed region.
Table 4 summarizes the fatigue life due to VIV effect for
regions 1-4, previously defined.

Fatigue Summary. The results from both the wave/current

and VIV fatigue analyses were combined to estimate the
overall minimum fatigue life for the buoyed risers.
The final results of the fatigue summary for regions 1-4
are presented in Table 5, using a stress concentration factor
(SCF) of 1.2.
Region
1
2
3
4

Dynamic
(years)
209
4836
1173
390

VIV
(years)
1513
2696
318
471

Overall
(years)
208
2016
251
310

Table 5 - Summary of Minimum Fatigue Life

A complete series of fatigue tests was performed after

completion of the analysis to verify the design and welding
procedures. It should be noted that all fatigue samples greatly
exceeded the design fatigue life. Table A-3 contains the
complete fatigue stress spectrum used for fatigue testing.
In conclusion of the fatigue analysis, it is seen that the
addition of buoyancy has a measurable effect on the fatigue
life. The wave/current dynamic fatigue life is affected by the
reduced weight and drag forces induced by the buoyancy
modules on the riser. A similar effect is seen with respect to
VIV fatigue. It is theorized that adding strakes to the
buoyancy and/or reducing the module size (by decreasing
density or increasing the length of distribution) can reduce the
wave and fatigue effect on the buoyed section.
Installation
The installation of the buoyed risers was performed by Allseas
using the DP pipelay vessel, Solitaire. The installation was a
first-end layaway from the TLP, using a pull-in winch
arrangement on the platform.
Two main aspects of the installation were impacted by the
addition of buoyancy:
Initiation of the SCR at the TLP
Laydown of the SCR
SCR Initiation. The buoyed SCRs were initiated at the TLP
using a winch arrangement on the platform for pull-in.
During the initiation, the first sections to depart the stinger
were the stress joint, strakes and buoyancy, in that order. The
uniqueness of the buoyed system led to a vertical S bend in
the suspended pipe section.

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

In order to control this, strict attention was paid, both

procedurally and operationally to the vessel position and lay
speed to prevent the pipe from being too greatly affected by
currents or allowing to much slack in the pipe which could
result in a steeper S bend.
Resultantly, there were no problems during this operation
for both risers and the strain was maintained below the
allowable limit of 0.3%.
The decision to initiate from the platform was made late in
the design and procurement process. Resultantly, the
buoyancy was designed to sustain installation compressive
loads for a termination at the platform. The design
compressive load for this installation scenario was 11- tons
per roller pair. As a result a higher density, and hence less
efficient, buoyancy material was required. If the much
reduced compressive loads from the platform initiation
scenario were applied, a lower density, more efficient
buoyancy material could have been utilized resulting in fewer
or smaller modules.
SCR Laydown. Placement of the touchdown point and
monitoring of the final departure angle is critical for all SCR
installations. The buoyed SCRs have a design departure angle
of 8, +/- 1 to account for installation and TLP position
tolerance. A target box of 10-feet x 20-feet was established
with the center of the target box being the design touchdown
length of 3,532-feet.
During the laydown of the buoyed SCR and monitoring of
the touchdown point, two key items became apparent.
First, the buoyed SCR has a tendency to return to a more
natural shape. This was encountered during the laydown of
the first buoyed SCR when too low of a tension was
maintained on subsequent pipelay after setting the SCR in the
touchdown target box. As a result, the touchdown point,
marked on the pipe with a long baseline sonar (LBL)
transponder, moved approximately 100-feet closer to the TLP
from its position inside the target box.
The second item became apparent immediately following
this when the surface departure angle was inspected, using an
electronic inclinometer mounted on the lower tip of the stress
joint. It was found that the surface departure angle, with the
touchdown point 100-feet off target was 7.8, well within the
installation tolerance. Upon pulling the riser so the calculated
pipe touchdown point fell within the target box, the surface
departure angle was re-inspected to reveal that the departure
angle was now exactly 8, as designed. What was determined
is that the second, steeper departure angle after the buoyancy
changes easier and more rapidly than the surface departure
angle as a result of the spring effect provided by the
buoyancy. It is possible, as evidenced by the previously
described experience, that the surface departure angle can be
correct within tolerances and still have the touchdown point
drastically off location. The net result of this would be
increased bending stress in the critical regions of the riser, the
buoyed section and the touchdown region, as well as a

OTC 14152

reduced fatigue life.

This experience begs the conclusion that the exact spotting
and control of the touchdown point is critical to the successful
installation of the buoyed SCR and no assumption should be
made as to the correctness of the touchdown based on surface
departure angle measurement.
Conclusion
It has been shown that in the static analysis, the buoyancy
augmented the bending stress at the touchdown point over a
simple catenary by introducing a steep departure angle,
smaller than the surface departure angle, after the buoyancy.
This same effect was seen in both buoyancy configurations
presented. It was shown that, in the static profile, placing the
buoyancy lower in the water column nearer the touchdown
region reduced the bending stress. It can be concluded from
this that the dynamic stress would also be reduced and fatigue
life increased.
The trade off between the two buoyed riser concepts,
compared statically, is a reduced stress profile for the low
buoyancy case with an approximate 20% lower buoyancy
efficiency, requiring 44 additional modules per riser to
achieve the required 50-kip weight reduction at the platform.
With both buoyed configurations falling within the design
code allowable for static stress, the configuration with
buoyancy placed high in the water column immediately
following the strakes was selected since it provides the best
project value.
Carrying the high buoyancy through the dynamic
analysis it was seen that the stress continue to peak in the
buoyed and touchdown regions while still remaining within
allowable limits in extreme and operating events.
Fatigue analysis revealed that the buoyed region is
sensitive, particularly to VIV. To reduce the VIV sensitivity, it
was concluded that strakes could be added to the buoyancy
modules/region.
During installation it was seen that there are sensitivities
specific tot he buoyed riser, most notable the relationship
between the touchdown point ands surface departure angle.
In conclusion it was demonstrated that the buoyed SCR
can be successfully designed and implemented within existing
code limits and using the design constraints of a non-buoyed,
simple catenary SCR. Also, it was shown that sensitivities can
be managed and overcome allowing implementation for future
SCR developments.
Other Applications
In addition to being used to reduce the load on the
conventional realm of floating production facilities for SCRs
such as TLPs, Spars and Semi Submersibles, some of the
experiences from this project indicate potential use of SCRs
on FPSOs.
One of the critical design factors for SCRs in FPSO
application is the sometimes large heave motions particularly
in the South Atlantic, which lead to large SCR touchdown
point motions. The phenomenon experienced during

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

installation of the first King Kong buoyed SCR, described

previously, demonstrates a de-coupling or weakening of the
relationship between the surface departure angle and the
touchdown point position. It is theorized that this
characteristic of the buoyed SCR would serve well to diminish
the touchdown point variance due to heave for an FPSO
application, particularly with a configuration similar to
Buoyed Configuration 1 (low buoyancy) described in
this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of Mariner
Energy, Inc., Mentor Subsea Technology Services, Inc. (a J.
Ray McDermott company), Allseas Services, U.S. and the
crew of the vessel Solitaire, CRP, Inc., 2H Offshore and all
the participating individuals who made the King
Kong/Yosemite
buoyed
riser
design
and
installation successful..
References
1.

Chou, Shian J., Korth, D.R., Suschitz, L., Mariner Energy, Inc.
King Kong/Yosemite Development, Steel Catenary Riser
Design Report, Doc. No. 20258-HC-230, Mentor Subsea
Technology Services, Inc., Houston, Texas.

2.

American Petroleum Institute, Exploration and Production

Department,
Recommended
Practice
1111,
Design,
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Offshore
Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design), 3rd Edition, API
Publishing Services, Washington D.C., 1999

3.

American Petroleum Institute, Exploration and Production

Department, Recommended Practice 2RD, Design of Risers for
Floating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension-Leg Platforms
(TLPs), 1st Edition, API Publishing Services, Washington
D.C., 1998

10

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

OTC 14152

-3050

0
-315

0
-310

-3200

50
-32
00
-33
50
-33

50
-31

-3200

-3250

-3800

Figure A-1: Mariner Energy, Inc. King Kong/Yosemite Field Layout

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

33
00

GC 254
GC 298

Figure A-2: SCR Layout Near Platform

11

12

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

Figure A-3 Buoyed Riser Final Layout

OTC 14152

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

Figure A-4: Buoyancy Module Details

Figure A-5: Buoyancy Module Arrangement on SCR

13

14

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

Figure A-6: Buoyancy Module Testing, Simulated S-Lay Stinger

Figure A-7: Buoyancy Module Installation During Pipelay

OTC 14152

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

Figure A-8: SCR With Buoyancy Modules Departing Lay Vessel

15

16

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

Figure A-9: Non-Buoyed, Simple Catenary SCR Arrangement

OTC 14152

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

Bin(Case) #
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
Case 8
Case 9
Case 10
Case 11
Case 12
Case 13
Case 14
Case 15
Case 16
Case 17
Case 18
Case 19
Case 20
Case 21
Case 22
Case 23
Case 24
Case 25
Case 26
Case 27
Case 28
Case 29

Hs (ft)
2
3
4
4
4
6
8
10
12
16
19
26
1
16
16
12
12
8
8
4
21
22
19
10
10
7
8
14
12

Tp (sec)
2
4
5.5
9
4
6
7.5
8.5
9
9.5
11
11.5
1.5
7.5
12.5
6
12
4.5
12
7.5
9.5
11.5
12
12
9.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
7.5

Tz (sec)
1.42
2.84
3.90
6.39
2.84
4.26
5.32
6.03
6.39
6.74
7.81
8.16
1.06
5.32
8.87
4.26
8.52
3.19
8.52
5.32
6.74
8.16
8.52
8.52
6.74
5.32
6.03
6.74
5.32

Probability of
occurrence
(%)
11.587
22.066
22.307
0.075
1.541
14.547
2.946
2.846
1.295
0.166
0.110
0.001
2.748
0.023
0.253
0.647
0.262
0.001
0.068
2.482
0.021
0.009
0.001
0.023
0.384
10.570
1.427
0.604
0.990

Fatigue Life-year

17

Maximum RMS Stresses (psi)

Strake
188
144
196
345
189
351
569
815
976
1393
1843
2266
135
1154
1611
657
1061
353
772
304
1718
2159
1974
940
845
510
656
1164
806
412

Bare pipe Buoyant Sag bend

82
85
35
82
103
69
118
163
191
166
247
516
102
120
72
197
277
348
287
431
602
363
550
841
410
602
895
431
596
1026
494
710
1275
722
1035
1495
59
61
28
400
616
1037
416
588
1236
344
491
619
410
585
1059
201
251
207
308
447
870
162
238
394
615
883
1373
560
794
1386
526
798
1361
357
520
943
365
529
772
255
378
514
304
446
637
450
660
979
377
564
797
9560

2299

Table A-1: Maximum RMS Stresses and Fatigue Life for Riser Regions, Wave Fatigue

561

18

D. KORTH, B. CHOU, G. MCCULLOUGH

Strake

Bare pipe

Buoyant

OTC 14152

Sag bend

Arc
Arc
Arc
Arc
Element Distance Fatigue
Element Distance Fatigue
Element Distance Fatigue
Element Distance
Element Length from SCR Life
Element Length from SCR Life
Element Length from SCR Life
Element Length from SCR Fatigue
#
(ft)
top (ft)
(year)
#
(ft)
top (ft) (year)
#
(ft)
top (ft)
(year)
#
(ft)
top (ft) Life (year)
Min. Fatigue Life
208
2016
251
310
24
2.5
24.25
208
64
15
550.5
2016
66
20
583
1326
163
20
2523
6038
25
2.5
26.75
344
65
15
565.5
3645
67
20
603
265
164
20
2543
1632
26
2.5
29.25
522
608
251
165
20
2563
3408
27
2.5
31.75
731
68
20
623
484
166
20
2583
39542
28
2.5
34.25
947
69
20
643
386
167
20
2603
6308
29
2.5
36.75
1136
70
20
663
425
168
20
2623
1481
30
2.5
39.25
1280
71
20
683
506
169
20
2643
2844
31
2.5
41.75
1374
72
20
703
352
170
20
2663
35641
32
2.5
44.25
1426
73
20
723
665
171
20
2683
5543
33
2.5
46.75
1442
74
20
743
344
172
20
2703
1280
34
16.5
56.25
1471
75
20
763
764
173
20
2723
2580
35
16.5
72.75
1551
76
20
783
372
174
20
2743
32085
36
16.5
89.25
2012
77
20
803
627
175
20
2763
4088
37
16.5
105.75
2348
96
20
1183
1093
176
20
2783
1106
38
16.5
122.25
2442
97
20
1203
665
177
20
2803
2864
39
16.5
138.75
2061
98
20
1223
1304
178
20
2823
32805
40
16.5
155.25
1625
99
20
1243
712
179
20
2843
2757
41
16.5
171.75
1872
100
20
1263
1134
180
20
2863
973
42
16.5
188.25
2634
101
20
1283
974
181
20
2883
3756
43
16.5
204.75
2946
102
20
1303
889
182
20
2903
25601
44
16.5
221.25
2828
103
20
1323
1335
183
20
2923
1529
45
16.5
237.75
1976
104
20
1343
796
184
20
2943
946
46
16.5
254.25
1523
105
20
1363
1358
185
20
2963
6961
47
16.5
270.75
1844
106
20
1383
4022
186
20
2983
8822
48
16.5
287.25
2683
107
20
1403
18802
187
20
3003
916
49
16.5
303.75
2850
108
20
1423
9625
188
20
3023
1203
50
16.5
320.25
2532
109
20
1443
8042
189
20
3043
12018
51
16.5
336.75
1612
110
20
1463
16475
190
20
3063
2411
52
16.5
353.25
1358
111
20
1483
52892
191
20
3083
666
53
16.5
369.75
1948
112
20
1503
32596
192
20
3103
2222
54
16.5
386.25
2844
113
20
1523
9683
193
20
3123
7288
55
16.5
402.75
2999
114
20
1543
6926
194
20
3143
908
56
16.5
419.25
2147
115
20
1563
13309
195
20
3163
781
57
16.5
435.75
1316
116
20
1583
49543
196
20
3183
6743
58
16.5
452.25
1432
197
20
3203
2782
59
16.5
468.75
2764
198
20
3223
590
60
16.5
485.25
4239
199
20
3243
1882
61
16.5
501.75
4133
200
20
3263
15833
62
16.5
518.25
1827
201
20
3283
839
63
16.5
534.75
1248
202
20
3303
692
203
20
3323
4067
204
20
3343
1299
205
20
3363
423
206
20
3383
964
207
20
3403
1259
208
20
3423
436
3429.25
385
209
20
3443
681
210
20
3463
8619
211
20
3483
1610
212
20
3503
310
213
20
3523
386
214
20
3543
1267
215
20
3563
113482

Table A-2: Combined Minimum Fatigue Life for Riser Regions

OTC 14152

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST BUOYED STEEL CATENARY RISERS

19

Rainflow Stress Count (per Year)

Stress Range
Ksi
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
More

Maximum
Total Tensile
Stress (ksi)

Top
Axial
Total
0
0
23643040
15210313
65196
543989
2211
108104
416
22242
340.4
6509.1
0.0
1496.4
0.0
1232.0
0.0
590.7
0.0
187.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

39.72

Middle
Axial
Total
0
0
21729577 14904202
15235
531416
1237
49659
341
2651
340.4
440.7
0.0
215.9
0.0
44.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

23.6

Bottom-Max. Stress
Axial
Total
0
0
20432722
9299369
681
452318
0.0
14782
0.0
545
0.0
46.3
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

51.05

Table A-3: Fatigue Stress Spectrum for Fatigue Testing

Bottom
Axial
Total
0
0
20290872 12389051
1236
364499
546
96633
488
27964
0.3
5852.1
0.0
380.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

34.71