0
Offshore Technology

Comparison Between Frequency Domain and Time Domain Riser Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Moraes Takafuji

e-mail: fernanda.takafuji@gmail.com

Clóvis de Arruda Martins

e-mail: cmartins@usp.br
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 2231,
University of São Paulo,
05508-970 São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Contributed by the Ocean Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received August 16, 2010; final manuscript received October 10, 2011; published online May 30, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Daniel T. Valentine.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 134(4), 041301 (Nov 01, 2012) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006149 History: Received August 16, 2010; Revised October 10, 2011; Online May 30, 2012

In the optimization or parametric analyses of risers, several configurations must be analyzed. It is laborious to perform time domain solutions for the dynamic analysis, since they are time-consuming tasks. So, frequency domain solutions appear to be a possible alternative, mainly in the early stages of a riser design. However, frequency domain analysis is linear and requires that nonlinear effects are treated. The aim of this paper is to present a possible way to treat some of these nonlinearities, using an iterative process together with an analytical correction, and compare the results of a frequency domain analysis with the those of a full nonlinear analysis.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Sketch of the TDP movement. The middle position B is the static configuration and the other two, A and C, are dynamic instants. The black dots represent the seabed.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sketch of the frequency domain’s boundary condition. The middle position is the static configuration and the other two are dynamic instants.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Effective tension envelope comparison for the catenary. Min denotes the minimum values, ave denotes average, and max denotes the maximum values.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Results of the catenary in the half wave of the Campos Basin. They show the X, Y, Z, θ, ψ, out-of-plane curvature, in-plane curvature, and effective tension amplitudes in the function of the curvilinear coordinate s. BL denotes the boundary layer results.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Results of the lazy-wave in the Campos Basin. They show the X, Y, Z, θ, ψ, out-of-plane curvature, in-plane curvature, and effective tension amplitudes in the function of the curvilinear coordinate s. BL denotes the boundary layer results.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Results of the lazy-wave in the Norwegian Sea. They show the X, Y, Z, θ, ψ, out-of-plane curvature, in-plane curvature, and effective tension amplitudes in the function of the curvilinear coordinate s. BL denotes the boundary layer results.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In