Optimization of Catenary Risers

C. M. Larsen
Departmentof Marine Structures,
Norwegian Universityof
Science and Technology (NTNU),
7034 Trondheim, Norway
e-mail: callas@marine.ntnu.no
T. Hanson
Norsk Hydro a.s.,
Research Centre,
Bergen, Norway
e-mail: tor.david.hanson@nho.hydro.com
This paper describes how the design of a catenary riser can be formulated as an
optimization problem by using riser costs as the criteria function, design requirements
in terms of maximum allowable stress and buckling capacity as constraints, and riser
dimensions as free variables. The theory has been implemented in a computer pro-
gram that can generate an optimized riser design for given design parameters such
as water depth, diameter, pressure, and platform excursions. The developed software
consists of a conventional program for two-dimensional riser analysis and a set of
standard routines to minimize a nonlinear function subjected to general constraints.
A case study where design parameters and requirements have been varied is also
presented. The importance of buckling versus allowable equivalent stress as the most
critical constraint has been investigated for varying water depth. The conclusion of
this work is that optimization is a useful tool for riser design, and that the proposed
strategy for selection of design variables and constraints will enable an engineer to
identify designs with minimum costs in an efficient way.

Introduction A set of free design variables x that in a unique way can

define the topology and all needed dimensions of the struc-
The petroleum industry has always worked hard to develop ture
the technology needed for oil and gas production on an ever-
increasing water depth, One area of particular interest today is x = [Xl, x2 . . . . XN] (1)
the deepwater fields outside Norway, where exploration drilling
is taking place at present. The water depth here exceeds 1200 A criterion or objective function F that should be subjected
m, which means a considerable increase as compared to North to minimization. F must be uniquely defined from the free
Sea fields in operation at present. The extreme wave climate variables
together with the near-arctic conditions means that solutions
developed for deepwater fields elsewhere in the world are not F = F ( x ) = F(xl, X2 ..... XN) (2)
necessarily applicable here. New concepts for floating produc- Normally, the weight or the cost of the structure will serve
tion systems must therefore be developed. as the objective function.
All floating production systems must rely on some kind of A set of restrictions or constraints g that defines all relevant
marine risers for transport of the well stream from the seafloor limitations for the structure. Each constraint must be a
to the platform and also the processed oil and gas down to a unique function of the free variables
pipeline for transport to shore. Among the many proposed riser
concepts, the steel catenary riser is in particular promising due g = [gl, gz . . . . . gM]
to its simplicity and robustness. This is in particular true if the
heave motions of the floater are moderate, like for a tension leg gj = gj(x) = gj( Xl, X2. . . . XN) (3)
platform or a deep draught floater; but catenary risers may also Such constraints might be given in terms of maximum allow-
be applied on semi-submersibles and even production ships. able stresses, minimum tube thickness of minimum buckling
Deepwater production and export risers will have to meet capacity. The design is defined as acceptable as long as all
many design requirements, and the significance of these require- constraints are non-negative. A set of design variables that gives
ments will vary along the riser. This means that an optimized a negative result for one or more constraints must hence be
riser will not have constant wall thickness along its entire length. rejected.
An illustrative example is a catenary gas export riser; internal The purpose of the optimization process is hence to identify
overpressure together with the axial force should be expected the set of design variables that gives minimum weight function
to govern the design at upper end, while fatigue might become and non-negative value for all constraints. In the general case,
important in the wave zone. In addition, buckling due to the F and gi are nonlinear functions of x, meaning that no analytical
combination of external pressure and bending moment may solution to the optimization problem exists. Numerical tech-
require increased wall thickness in the vicinity of the touchdown niques are hence required.
point where both the bending moment and external pressure In order to support the search for the optimum solution, gradi-
will have their maximum values. The total length of a catenary ents of the weight function and constraints should be available
riser is also a design variable. The riser should be as short as
possible in order to reduce costs; but the riser must also have OF
sufficient flexibility to allow for large excursions of the floater. -- i=1,2 .... N
Oxi '

Design by Optimization Ogj i = 1,2 . . . . N; j= 1,2 . . . . M (4)

In order to apply optimization theory on a structural design
problem, one has to establish the following type of parameters
and functions:
Contributed by the OMAE Division for publication in the JOURNALOF OFF-
SHOREMECHANICSAND ARCTICENGINEERING.Manuscript received by the OMAE
Division, April 8, 1998; revised manuscript received November 7, 1998. Technical
Editor: S. Liu.
Oxi '
Such gradients might be derived analytically, but in most cases
one has to apply a numerical approximation. A two-sided differ-
ence scheme is then recommended. A consequence of this is
that the computing time will increase as the number of functions
and constraint calculations increase considerably.
The theory and application of structural optimization goes
back to the early days of computers. General theory for minimi-

90 / Vol. 121, MAY 1999 Transactions of the A S M E

Copyright 1999 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 DIST APOS Free Variables. The riser is divided into segments with
constant cross section properties. Segment length and wall
thickness for all segments may be defined as free variables,
N,7 ~ while internal diameter (decided from flow capacity considera-
tions) and material properties are fixed design parameters. In
Near addition to the segment-oriented variables, the horizontal dis-
position tance from lower to upper end at the far position will be a free
variable. This is necessary in order to find the shortest possible
position
riser for the actual application, and also to define the riser shape,
and thereby to perform the stress analysis for a particular set
of design variables.

Function to be Minimized. The objective function will be

the total material costs of the riser, defined as the volume of each
riser segment multiplied by a unit cost valid for the particular
segment. If more than one material type is applied, the relative
costs of each material must be known. This objective function
is a linear or quadratic function of all free variables, meaning
that the selected method for optimization should be considered
adequate.

Constraints. The present version of the computer program

defines constraints related to two static load conditions. These
are defined in terms of upper end position (often referred to as
" n e a r " and " f a r " position), internal pressure, density of riser
Fig. 1 Geometryof catenary riser
content, and current profile. The following classes of constraints
will apply:

zation with and without nonlinear constraints is given by Walsh
(1975). Moe et al. (1971) applied optimization on design of
ship structures. A more recent application on stress joints for
workover and production risers has been presented by Larsen
et al. (1995). Papalambros et al. (1982) has applied a more
analytical approach to the riser problem than what is presented
in this paper.
a Formal constraints, stating that all free variables must be
within a range given by predefined minimum and maximum
values
a Global geometry, saying that the sum of all segment lengths
must exceed the length of a straight line between end points
of the riser. Using the notations seen from Fig. 1, we have
L

The optimization software used in the present study has been Y, li > ~/(DIST + A P O S ) 2 + (O + H ) 2 (5)
developed by Schittkowski ( 1985, 1994) and has proved to be i= 1

efficient and reliable for the actual application. The problem is

solved by using a sequential quadratic programming scheme.
For each iteration step, the search direction is found as the
solution of a quadratic programming sub-problem, regenerating
the search direction for each iteration. The method requires
that the weight (or objective) function and all constraints are
continuous and differentiable in the definition domain for all
variables.
Design Variables for Catenary Risers
In the case of a catenary riser, there is no predefined total
length of the riser. Water depth and vessel excursions between
a " n e a r " and a " f a r " position will, in addition to internal pipe
diameter, define the design problem. Optimization will result
in riser length and wall thickness in segments along the riser.
Material data such as modulus of elasticity, allowable stress,
density, and cost may vary from one segment to another. Hence,
segments with titanium or steel with increased yield stress may
be found in the riser. Basic design parameters and free variables
are illustrated in Fig. 1.
A minimum riser length/8 must remain in contact with the
seafloor when the floater is at far position and the riser is
subjected to a specified static load condition
Maximum equivalent stress within each riser segment must
not exceed a defined level, which might be different for the
two load cases
Sufficient local buckling capacity for the combined action
of bending and external pressure must be demonstrated. The
riser will normally be empty for this design control, and the
margins might be different for the two load cases. Note that
global buckling of the riser due to axial compression is not
included as a possible failure mechanism in this study.
Analysis of a Catenary Riser
Global Analysis. The static two-dimensional analysis of a
catenary riser is carried out as follows:
1 The riser is defined by its total length and positions of
both ends in a global coordinate system.

Nomenclature

L =
no. of segments in riser A P O S = distance between near and far ~ra = axial stress
M =
no. of constraints position (rb = bending stress
N =
no. of free variables Ii = length of segment i (rh = hoop stress
D =
water depth 1B = length of bottom segment ~rr = radial stress
H =
upper end position above sea pi = internal pressure ~req = equivalent stress
surface Pe = external pressure ~ry = yield stress of material
DIST = horizontal distance between Ai = internal area of riser pipe E = modulus of elasticity
ends, near position Ae = external area of riser pipe u = Poisson's ratio

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 1999, Vol. 121 / 91

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Common design parameters piAi + (pi - pe)Ae - peAe
~h,int -~
Internal diameter 0.4 m Ae - Ai
Upper end position H 10 m
Maximum current velocity 1.5 rn/s Gr, int : --Pi (10)
Length of bottom segment LB 200 m
The bending stress is found from the global static analysis. This
Material: steel analysis is based on the effective weight and effective tension
Yield stress 450 MPa concept (cf., Sparks, 1980). True axial stress is then found
Density 7.85 t/m3 from the relation
Load case l: near position
Ze + piAi - peAe
~a : (11)
Empty riser Ae - Ai
Maximum equiv, stress 225 MPa
Buckling safety factor SI 1.25 where Te is the effective tension from the global analysis. All
Load case 2: far position stress components are n o w known, and the yon Mises equivalent
stress is easily available.
Internal pressure 250 bar As seen from these equations, it is not possible to k n o w
Density of content 0.35 t/m 3
beforehand where on the cross section the m a x i m u m value of
Maximum equiv, stress 315 MPa
equivalent stress will be found simply because this position will
be a function of the actual load condition. M a x i m u m equivalent
stress at a position is therefore identified after computation of
the stress at inner and outer surface and at both sides of the
2 An approximate solution is found from simple catenary
theory, meaning that bending stiffness and current forces are neutral axis.
neglected. Note that this solution is applied as a starting point
Buckling/Bending Interaction. A broad discussion of the
for an iteration that will give a more accurate result.
local buckling capacity of pipelines and risers is presented by
3 The final solution is found from a nonlinear finite element
SINTEF, Snamprogetti, and D N V ( 1 9 9 6 ) . The capacity equa-
method. A direct equilibrium iteration from the initial catenary
tions applied in this study are based on recommendations from
solution is carried out. In this iteration, current forces are in-
this group and are valid for cases when the bending stress is
cluded in addition to weight and buoyancy, and bending stiff-
displacement-controlled, which is the most relevant case for a
ness is taken into account.
deepwater catenary riser. The interaction equation deals with
The method is described in more detail by Sa~vik ( 1 9 9 0 ) . bending strain and net external overpressure

Equivalent Stresses. Stress control is performed by check- ~0.8

")/m'~b "Jr p , = --1 (12)
ing that the equivalent stress at selected positions is less than
\ rh" ec / ~RPc S~
a pre-described fraction of the specified yield stress

Creq,max ~ "Ycr"cry (6) where

where y~ is a utilization factor, specified by user, and Cry is the
yield stress at actual location. Creq.m~xfor each load condition is cb = actual bending strain
given in Table 1. Ym = bending m o m e n t load factor = 1.2 for present study
The equivalent stress must be found from axial, bending, ec = critical bending strain
hoop, and radial stress components. Shear stresses are neglected 77, = strain capacity usage factor = 0.4 in present study
in this calculation. The analytically correct equation for hoop p, = actual net external pressure
stresses was first published by Lam6 et al. ( 1 8 3 3 ) . He found Pc = critical net external pressure
that although hoop and radial stresses and strains will vary over ~TR = pressure capacity usage factor = 0.76 in present study
the wall thickness of a pipe with external and internal pressure, SI = safety factor computed from given values of other
axial strains and stresses are constant if there is no bending in quantities
the pipe. The reason for this is that the average value of hoop
Tables for load and usage factors are given by S I N T E F et al.
and radial stresses does not vary. Lam6 found that the following
(1996).
relation was valid:
The critical b e n d i n g strain ec and pressure Pc applied in the
interaction Eq. ( 1 2 ) are given by the following equations:
Cr~ _ constant = Crp
Crh__+ (7)
2
t
ec = -- - 0.001 (13)
The stress parameter ap will depend on the radius to the actual D
position and is found from the equation

piAi -- peAt (P~I -- 1 ) ( ( p c l 2 -- 1 ) = py t (14)

Crp(r) = (8)
(a~ - ag)ar(r)

where A~ is the area of the circle with radius r. F r o m these 60 is a parameter to define initial ovalization
equations, one can easily derive the following formulas for hoop
and radial stress components at the outer and inner surfaces of
the pipe:
Table 2 Riser case definition
piAi + (Pi - pe)Ai - peAe
Crh,ext Riser case W~er depth(m) APOS (m)
Ae - A~
1 300 30
C7..... : --Pe (9) 2 900 80
3 1500 130
Similar equations can be found for the inner surface

92 / Vol. 121, MAY 1999 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3 Key results from optimization B u c k l i n g c o n t r o l of c a t e n a r y riser.
Riser case 1:300 m water depth
Case no. t~o~(mm) ti.t (ram) tbtm (ram) lf~ (m) DIST (m) L o a d case 1: Near position, e m p t y riser
1 13.3 13.1 13.4 515.4 547.6 1.0-
2 14.3 13.2 14.4 1128.5 968.5
3 14.5 13.3 22.8 1841.9 1044.4

0.8

Dma x - Dmi n
60 - (r5)
Dm~ + Dmin E
0,6-

This parameter needs to be specified by the user. A value of 0

0.005 was used in this study according to recommendations 0
from Det Norske Vefitas. 0.4-
The elastic buckling pressure Pel is found from Timoshenko C
et al. (1970)

0.2-
P~1- 1 - u 2 (16)

while the yield pressure p y is given by 0.0- I ' I ' i ' I '''t i
0 200 400 600 800
t D i s t a n c e f r o m b o t t o m e n d a l o n g t h e riser ( m )
Pr = 2O'y ~ (17)
Fig. 3 Buckling criteria, riser case 1

Equation (14) is a third-order equation for pc, for which the

solution can be easily found. The smallest real and positive root each water depth is the distance between far and near position,
will always represent the correct solution. A P O S (cf., Fig. 1), which is given in Table 2.
Results From Optimization. Key results from optimiza-
tion are presented in Table 3. The following parameters are
Case Study
shown:
Definition of Riser Cases. Three catenary risers with some ttop = wall thickness at upper riser end
common design requirements, but installed at different water train = minimum wall thickness found for intermediate
depth, have been optimized in order to illustrate the capability segment
of the developed software. Common data for all cases are de- tbtm = wall thickness at lowest suspended segment,
fined in Table 1. The only design parameter that is specific for normally segment which has maximum bending
stress
lear = length of suspended riser at far position
Stresses in o p t i m i z e d catenary riser
Riser case 1 : 3 0 0 m water depth Stresses in o p t i m i z e d catenary riser
Load case 2: Far position, internal pressure Riser case 3 : 1 5 0 0 m water depth
Load case 2: Far position, internal pressure
400 --
400 --

300 -
~ ~ ~/ ~
300 -
Axial
Bending
a. 200 -
.... Ho~Li_~de ~
I1. 200 -
/ -f ~- Radial, inside

100 - / ~ Max equivalent

100 -
- - - Radial, Inside

I \ J ~ Max equivalent
0- 0-

-100 -100
' I ' I ' I ' ' I ' I ' I ' I '
0 200 400 600 800 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Distance from bottom end a l o n g riser (m) Distance f r o m b o t t o m end along riser (m)

Fig. 2 Stress distribution, riser case 1 Fig. 4 Stress distribution, riser case 3

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 1 9 9 9 , Vol. 121 / 9 3

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Buckling control of catenary riser.
Riser case 3 : 1 5 0 0 m water depth
Load case 1: Near position, empty riser
1.0 L
0,8-
E for the design of catenary risers. At least two load conditions
=
U) 0.6-
O capacity as well as maximum stresses must be defined.
E
0.4-
0.2
0.0
\ sensitive to vertical motions at upper end. Such motions may
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Distance from bottom end along the riser (m)
Fig. 5 Buckling criteria, riser case 3
DIST = horizontal distance between touchdown point and
upper end at near position (cf., Fig. 1 )
Comments. The wall thickness is seen to have an insig-
nificant variation for the riser on 300 m water depth. The reason
for this is easy to understand from the stress distribution shown
in Fig. 2. Hoop stresses from internal overpressure (load case
2) is seen to dominate the stress condition even at the touch-
down area. External pressure at bottom is slightly above 10
percent of the internal pressure, and maximum bending stress
for this load condition is less than 50 percent of the average
hoop stress. Load case 1 (empty riser at near position) will
give higher bending stress, but is too low to become critical.
As seen from Fig. 3, buckling is far from critical for this case,
illustrated by the fact that maximum buckling interaction sum
is approximately 0.3, while maximum allowable value is 0.8.
Hence, load case 2 will govern the design along the total length
of the riser for this case.
The only result of interest for this case is the needed length
of the riser, which is found by considering the far position only.
At this position the riser must have a sufficiently low bending
stress to give allowable equivalent stress in combination with
hoop and other stress components.
The situation for the riser on 1500 m water depth is seen to
be totally different. Distributions for stress components and the
buckling interaction sum are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
From Table 3 it is found that the wall thickness at upper end
is slightly higher for case 3 than for case 1, obviously caused
by increased riser tension. At lower end, however, the wall
thickness is significantly increased, which is caused by the fact
that the buckling constraint is active in this case.
Figure 4 shows that the equivalent stress criterion will govern
the design for the upper segment only, while local buckling will
control the wall thickness for the other three suspended riser
segments. Still, a reduction of thickness at an intermediate sec-
tion is possible, but the combination of high external pressure
and high bending stresses requires a large wall thickness at the
lower segment.
The wall thickness for the riser on 900 m water depth is
seen to exhibit some variation along its length. However, the
difference between maximum and minimum wall thickness is
only slightly above 1 mm, which is considered insignificant.
94 / Vol. 121, MAY 1999
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The only difference between this riser and case 1 is that the
buckling constraint and the equivalent stress constraints both
are active for the lowest segment. This means that one must
expect an increase of the wall thickness at the lower part for
water depths exceeding 900 m for the selected diameter and
design pressure.
Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Work
It has been demonstrated that optimization is a helpful tool
must be taken into account, and constraints in terms of buckling
For the studied case, wall thickness was found to have an
insignificant variation for water depths up to 900 m. Increased
water depth will increase the importance of the buckling criteria,
and increased wall thickness at the lower riser part must be
expected.
An obvious shortcoming of the present work is that only
static load cases are applied. Catenary risers are known to be
easily cause a global buckling behavior, and hence excessive
bending stresses.
Fatigue is another failure criterion that needs to be consid-
ered, which again calls for dynamic analyses. A two-dimen-
sional frequency domain solution may be relevant to analyze
fatigue in the wave zone. However, the riser may also have a
significant fatigue damage close to the touchdown point. Here, a
linear dynamic solution combined with the analytical boundary-
layer solution published by Pesce et al. (1997) is expected to
yield results of sufficient accuracy.
Another improvement would be to apply established design
guidelines as constraints in a user-friendly way as an alternative
to user-specified limits for stress and buckling usage factors.
Other design requirements and load conditions may also be
introduced.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Norsk Hydro A / S for permis-
sion to publish this work, and also colleagues who contributed
to the development of the applied software.
References
Lamr, G., and Clapeyron, B. P. E., 1833, "Mrmoire sur l'rquilibre intrrieur
des corps solides homogrnes," Mdm. divers sarans, Vol. 4.
Larsen, C. M., and van Hoeken, A., 1995, "Optimisation of Steel and Titanium
Stress joints for Marine Risers," Proceedings, 5th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE), den Haas.
Moe, J., and Gisvold, K., eds., 1971, "Optimization and Automated Design of
Structures," Division of Ship Structures, The Norwegian Institute of Technology,
Trondheim, Norway.
Papalambros, P., and Bernitsas, M. M., 1982, "Monotonicity Analysis in Opti-
mum Design of Marine Risers," Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 104, pp.
849-854.
Pesce, C. P., Aranha, J. A. P., Martins, C. A., Ricardo, O. G. S., and Silva, S.,
1997, "Dynamic Curvature in Catenary Risers at the Touch Down Point: An
Experimental Study and the Analytical Boundary-Layer Solution," Proceedings,
Seventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Schittkowski, K., 1985, "NLPQL: A FORTRAN Subroutine Solving Con-
strained Nonlinear Programming Problems," J. C. Baltzer AG, Scientific Publish-
ing Company.
Schittkowski, K., 1994, Non-Linear Programming Software, Department of
mathematics, The University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Lebanon.
SINTEF, Snamprogetti, and Det Norske Veritas, 1996, "Limit State Design
Guidelines for Offshore Pipelines," The SUPERB Project, Draft Version, SINTEF
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Trondheim, Norway.
Sparks, C. P., 1980, "The Influence of Tension, Pressure and Weight on Pipe
and Riser Deformations and Stresses," ASME Journal of Energy Resources
Technology, Dec.
S~evik, S., 1990, "Pipeline Analysis System," Vol. 3, Theory Manual, Rev.
1.0, Reinertsen Engineering, Trondheim, Norway.
Timoshenko, S. P., and Googier, J. N., 1970, Theory of Elasticity, 3rd Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Walsh, G.R., 1975, Methods of Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, London,
U.K.
Transactions of the A S M E