0
Research Papers: Piper and Riser Technology

Drilling Riser Model Test for Software Verification

[+] Author and Article Information
Decao Yin

SINTEF Ocean,
Trondheim NO-7052, Norway
e-mails: decao.yin@sintef.no; decao.yin@gmail.com

Halvor Lie

SINTEF Ocean,
Trondheim NO-7052, Norway

Massimiliano Russo

Statoil,
Oslo NO-1330, Norway

Guttorm Grytøyr

Statoil
Oslo NO-1330, Norway

1Corresponding author.

2Present address: Kongsberg Oil & Gas, Houston, TX 77042.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 27, 2017; final manuscript received August 2, 2017; published online September 14, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Luis V. S. Sagrilo.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 140(1), 011701 (Sep 14, 2017) (15 pages) Paper No: OMAE-17-1067; doi: 10.1115/1.4037727 History: Received April 27, 2017; Revised August 02, 2017

Marine drilling riser is subject to complicated environmental loads which include top motions due to mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU), wave loads, and current loads. Cyclic dynamic loads will cause severe fatigue accumulation along the drilling riser system, especially at the subsea wellhead (WH). Statoil and BP have carried out a comprehensive model test program on drilling riser in MARINTEK's Towing Tank in February 2015. The objective is to validate and verify software predictions of drilling riser behavior under various environmental conditions by the use of model test data. Six drilling riser configurations were tested, including different components such as upper flex joint (UFJ), tensioner, marine riser, lower marine riser package (LMRP), blow-out preventer (BOP), lower flex joint (LFJ), buoyancy elements, and seabed boundary model. The drilling riser models were tested in different load conditions. Measurements were made of microbending strains and accelerations along the riser in both in-line (IL) and crossflow (CF) directions. Video recordings were made both above and under water. In this paper, the test setup and test program are presented. Comparisons of results between model test and RIFLEX simulation are presented on selected cases. Preliminary results show that the drilling riser model tests are able to capture the typical dynamic responses observed from field measurement, and the comparison between model test and RIFLEX simulation is promising.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Reinås, L. , Russo, M. , and Grytøyr, G. , 2012, “ Wellhead Fatigue Analysis Method: The Effect of Variation of Lower Boundary Conditions in Global Riser Load Analysis,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2012-83314.
Tognarelli, M. , Taggart, S. , and Campbell, C. , 2008, “ Actual VIV Fatigue Response of Full Scale Drilling Risers: With and Without Suppression Devices,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2008-57046.
McNeill, S. , Agarwal, P. , Kluk, D. , Bhalla, K. , Young, R. , Burman, S. , and Denison, S. E. , 2014, “ Subsea Wellhead and Riser Fatigue Monitoring in a Strong Surface and Submerged Current Environment,” Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, May 5–8, SPE Paper No. OTC-25403-MS.
Grytøyr, G. , Hørte, T. , and Lem, A. I. , 2011, “ Wellhead Fatigue Analysis Method Rev 01,” Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway, Technical Report No. 2011-0063/12Q5071-26.
DNV GL, 2015, “ Recommended Practice DNVGL-RP-0142 Wellhead Fatigue Analysis,” Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway, Technical Report No. DNVGL-RP-0142.
Reinås, L. , Sæther, M. , and Svensson, J. , 2012, “ Wellhead Fatigue Analysis Method: A New Boundary Condition Modelling of Lateral Cement Support in Local Wellhead Models,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2012-83049.
Russo, M. , 2014, Personal Communication.
MARINTEK, 2012, “ RIFLEX Theory Manual, 4.0v0 ed.,” MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway.
MARINTEK, 2014, “ SIMA User Guide,” MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway.
Faltinsen, O. M. , 1993, Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures (Cambridge Ocean Technology Series), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 223–227.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Typical drilling riser system operated from a MODU [5]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Drilling riser model test setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Soil model (a) Four parameter beam-spring lower boundary model [4]. (b) Lower BC with lockable universal joint.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Drilling riser top unit: One degree-of-freedom (DOF) forced motion actuator, tensioner of marine riser, tensioner of drill string, heave compensation, UFJ, horizontal potentiometer, and three component force measurement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Instrumentation distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Drilling riser model configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Eigenmodes and eigenfrequencies of MOD4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Calibrated irregular wave applied on case 4115 in the model test: Hs = 0.105 m and fp = 0.5 Hz (MS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

MOD1. Test1011: Amplitude of displacement and curvature. Forced harmonic motion, A = 0.013 m, T = 0.677 s in MS, and A = 0.25 m, T = 2.95 s in FS: (a) displacement and (b) curvature.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

MOD1. Test1011: Spectra analysis of curvature. Forced harmonic motion, A = 0.013 m, T = 0.677 s in MS, and A = 0.25 m, T = 2.95 s in FS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

MOD4. Test4016: Amplitude of displacement and curvature. Regular wave, H = 0.105 m, T = 2.0 s in MS, and H = 2.0 m, T = 8.72 s in FS: (a) displacement and (b) curvature.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

MOD4. Test4016: Spectra analysis of curvature. Regular wave, H = 0.105 m, T = 2.0 s in MS, and H = 2.0 m, T = 8.72 s in FS.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

MOD4. Test4115: Amplitude of displacement and curvature. Irregular wave, Hs = 0.105 m, Tp = 2.0 s in MS, and Hs = 2.0 m, Tp = 8.72 s in FS: (a) displacement and (b) curvature.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

MOD4. Test4115: Spectra analysis of curvature. Irregular wave, Hs = 0.105 m, Tp = 2.0 s in MS, and Hs = 2.0 m, Tp = 8.72 s in FS.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

MOD4. Test4120: Amplitude of displacement and curvature. Irregular wave, Hs = 0.105 m, Tp = 2.0 s, U = 0.05 m/s in MS, and Hs = 2.0 m, Tp = 8.72 s, U = 0.22 m/s in FS: (a) displacement and (b) curvature.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Test4120: Spectra analysis of curvature. Irregular wave, Hs = 0.105 m, Tp = 2.0 s, U = 0.05 m/s in MS, and Hs = 2.0 m, Tp = 8.72 s, U = 0.22 m/s in FS.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Test6005: Amplitude of displacement and curvature. Regular wave, H = 0.105 m, T = 1.835 s in MS, and H = 2.0 m, T = 8 s in FS: (a) displacement and (b) curvature.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Test6005: Spectra analysis of curvature. Regular wave, H = 0.105 m, T = 1.835 s in MS, and H = 2.0 m, T = 8 s in FS.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Test6105: Amplitude of displacement and curvature. Irregular wave, Hs = 0.105 m, Tp = 1.835 s in MS, and Hs = 2.0 m, Tp = 1.835 s in FS: (a) displacement and (b) curvature.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Test6105: Spectra analysis of curvature. Irregular wave, Hs = 0.105 m, Tp = 1.835 s in MS, and Hs = 2.0 m, Tp = 1.835 s in FS.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Example of mode-shapes of displacement (left) and curvature. (Note the differences in horizontal scaling for curvature mode-shapes.)

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