ANALYSIS OF SPANS FOR SUBMERGED PIPELINES

DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.

December 2007
(DEP Circular 01/10 has been incorporated)

DESIGN AND ENGINEERING PRACTICE

This document is restricted. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of Shell Global
Solutions International B.V., The Netherlands. The copyright of this document is vested in this company. All rights reserved. Neither the whole nor any part of this
document may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise)
without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 2

PREFACE

DEPs (Design and Engineering Practice) publications reflect the views, at the time of publication, of:
Shell Global Solutions International B.V. (Shell GSI)
and/or
Shell International Exploration and Production B.V. (SIEP)
and/or
other Shell Service Companies.
They are based on the experience acquired during their involvement with the design, construction, operation and
maintenance of processing units and facilities, and they are supplemented with the experience of Shell Operating Units.
Where appropriate they are based on, or reference is made to, international, regional, national and industry standards.
The objective is to set the recommended standard for good design and engineering practice applied by Shell companies
operating an oil refinery, gas handling installation, chemical plant, oil and gas production facility, or any other such
facility, and thereby to achieve maximum technical and economic benefit from standardization.
The information set forth in these publications is provided to Shell companies for their consideration and decision to
implement. This is of particular importance where DEPs may not cover every requirement or diversity of condition at
each locality. The system of DEPs is expected to be sufficiently flexible to allow individual Operating Units to adapt the
information set forth in DEPs to their own environment and requirements.
When Contractors or Manufacturers/Suppliers use DEPs they shall be solely responsible for the quality of work and the
attainment of the required design and engineering standards. In particular, for those requirements not specifically
covered, the Principal will expect them to follow those design and engineering practices which will achieve the same
level of integrity as reflected in the DEPs. If in doubt, the Contractor or Manufacturer/Supplier shall, without detracting
from his own responsibility, consult the Principal or its technical advisor.
The right to use DEPs is granted by Shell GSI, in most cases under Service Agreements primarily with Shell companies
and other companies receiving technical advice and services from Shell GSI or another Shell Service Company.
Consequently, three categories of users of DEPs can be distinguished:
1) Operating Units having a Service Agreement with Shell GSI or other Shell Service Company. The use of DEPs
by these Operating Units is subject in all respects to the terms and conditions of the relevant Service
Agreement.
2) Other parties who are authorized to use DEPs subject to appropriate contractual arrangements (whether as part
of a Service Agreement or otherwise).
3) Contractors/subcontractors and Manufacturers/Suppliers under a contract with users referred to under 1) or 2)
which requires that tenders for projects, materials supplied or - generally - work performed on behalf of the said
users comply with the relevant standards.
Subject to any particular terms and conditions as may be set forth in specific agreements with users, Shell GSI
disclaims any liability of whatsoever nature for any damage (including injury or death) suffered by any company or
person whomsoever as a result of or in connection with the use, application or implementation of any DEP, combination
of DEPs or any part thereof, even if it is wholly or partly caused by negligence on the part of Shell GSI or other Shell
Service Company. The benefit of this disclaimer shall inure in all respects to Shell GSI and/or any Shell Service
Company, or companies affiliated to these companies, that may issue DEPs or require the use of DEPs.
Without prejudice to any specific terms in respect of confidentiality under relevant contractual arrangements, DEPs shall
not, without the prior written consent of Shell GSI, be disclosed by users to any company or person whomsoever and
the DEPs shall be used exclusively for the purpose for which they have been provided to the user. They shall be
returned after use, including any copies which shall only be made by users with the express prior written consent of
Shell GSI. The copyright of DEPs vests in Shell GSI. Users shall arrange for DEPs to be held in safe custody and Shell
GSI may at any time require information satisfactory to them in order to ascertain how users implement this
requirement.
All administrative queries should be directed to the DEP Administrator in Shell GSI.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................4
1.1 SCOPE........................................................................................................................4
1.2 DISTRIBUTION, INTENDED USE AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS .........5
1.3 DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................5
1.4 ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................5
1.5 SYMBOLS...................................................................................................................5
1.6 CROSS-REFERENCES .............................................................................................6
1.7 SUMMARY OF MAIN CHANGES SINCE PREVIOUS EDITION ...............................7
1.8 COMMENTS ON THIS DEP .......................................................................................7
2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................8
2.1 PROCEDURE .............................................................................................................8
2.2 LOAD CONDITIONS...................................................................................................9
2.3 SPAN MODELLING ..................................................................................................10
3. EXTERNAL LOAD ASSESSMENT .........................................................................12
4. REDUCED VELOCITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................13
5. STATIC STRESS ASSESSMENT............................................................................15
6. FATIGUE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................16
6.1 FLOW-INDUCED VIBRATIONS DUE TO VORTEX SHEDDING ............................16
7. STRAIN-BASED ASSESSMENT .............................................................................18
8. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................19
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................20

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A WORKED EXAMPLE.......................................................................................24
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCOPE
This DEP specifies requirements and gives recommendations for the analysis of spans in
offshore pipelines including risers and provides guidance for such analyses. Aspects
included in this DEP are:
span analysis methodology;
design loads to be considered;
span modelling requirements;
design equations;
span acceptance criteria.
Span analysis is necessary to assess the potential for pipeline damage at the location of a
span due to:
possible external loads from activities in the area of the pipelines. Examples of such
activities are the anchoring of construction or supply vessels for pipelines in the vicinity
of installations and trawling;
over-stressing and deformations from bending due to weight and hydrodynamic loads;
fatigue due to vortex-induced vibration (VIV).
NOTES: 1. Operating pressures and temperatures affect the response of a span and also need to be
considered during a span analysis.
2. Vortex shedding occurs behind a cylinder when subjected to a lateral current. Oscillating forces,
both transverse and in-line with the current, are imposed by this vortex shedding and may cause
significant vortex-induced vibrations (VIVs) if the frequency of these forces and the natural
frequency of the bending cylinder can align. VIVs can occur in the direction of the current (in-line)
or perpendicular to the current direction (cross-flow). Analysis of span damage due to fatigue from
cyclic wave loads is not a concern in water depths of 100m or more and is therefore not addressed
in this DEP. In shallower waters this should be addressed using accepted methods of determining
hydrodynamic forces on cross sections under cyclic loading and accounting for the proximity of the
seabed.

Cases where there are significant variations in flow velocity along the length of the span (as
is for instance the case in catenary risers) are not addressed in this DEP.
This DEP can be applied:
- to the design of new pipelines, to provide a design concept which results in the
prevention of pipeline span damage at minimum life cycle cost. This requires that all
possible span-related costs are addressed, i.e. seabed preparation before pipeline
installation (such as seabed levelling) and span correction after construction and/or
during operation;
- for the analysis of spans observed from surveys during construction and pipeline
operations, in order to decide whether they can be (temporarily) accepted or require
correction.
Design equations included in this DEP apply to single-pipe pipeline concepts only. Whilst
the basic principles for formulating these design equations apply also to other pipeline
concepts such as bundles or pipe-in-pipe pipelines, they differ depending on the selected
concept.
Other span assessment criteria may be applied if justified, and if approved by the Principal.
The minimum requirements are that all load categories listed in this DEP shall be
addressed, and the factor of safety on the mean fatigue life shall be at least 10 unless
otherwise specified by the Principal.
This is a revision of the DEP of the same number dated December 1997; see (1.7)
regarding the main changes.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 5

1.2 DISTRIBUTION, INTENDED USE AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Unless otherwise authorised by Shell GSI, the distribution of this DEP is confined to Shell
companies and, where necessary, to Contractors and Manufacturers/Suppliers nominated
by them.
This DEP is intended for use on offshore pipelines.
When DEPs are applied, a Management of Change (MOC) process should be
implemented; this is of particular importance when existing facilities are to be modified.
If national and/or local regulations exist in which some of the requirements may be more
stringent than in this DEP, the Contractor shall determine by careful scrutiny which of the
requirements are the more stringent and which combination of requirements will be
acceptable with regard to the safety, environmental, economic and legal aspects. In all
cases the Contractor shall inform the Principal of any deviation from the requirements of
this DEP which is considered to be necessary in order to comply with national and/or local
regulations. The Principal may then negotiate with the Authorities concerned, the objective
being to obtain agreement to follow this DEP as closely as possible.

1.3 DEFINITIONS
1.3.1 General definitions
The Contractor is the party which carries out all or part of the design, procurement,
construction, commissioning or management of a project, or operation or maintenance of a
facility. The Principal may undertake all or part of duties of the Contractor.
The Manufacturer/Supplier is the party which manufactures or supplies equipment and
services to perform the duties supplied by the Contractor.
The Principal is the party which initiates the project and ultimately pays for its design and
construction. The Principal will generally specify the technical requirements. The Principal
may include an agent or consultant authorised to act for, and on behalf of, the Principal.
The word shall indicates a requirement.
The word should indicates a recommendation.
1.3.2 Specific definitions
Span - section of a submerged pipeline not in contact with the seabed over its length.
NOTE: Generally applicable definitions and requirements for pipeline engineering can be found in
DEP 31.40.00.10-Gen.

1.4 ABBREVIATIONS
SMYS - Specified minimum yield strength
VIV - Vortex-induced vibrations.

1.5 SYMBOLS
Amended per
Circular 01/10

linear thermal expansion coefficient for the pipeline steel C-1

logarithmic decrement of damping of the span in still water -
density of the seawater kg/m3
Poisson's ratio -
modal damping ratio in still water -
a frequency factor -
b Euler constant -
A cross-sectional area of the steel pipe based on nominal wall thickness m2
2
Af cross-sectional area for flow of transported fluid m
d fatigue damage -
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 6

ID internal pipeline diameter m

E Young's modulus N/m2
f1 first natural frequency of span s-1
G the average gap between the seabed and the bottom of the spanning pipe
along the central one-third of the span m
I moment of inertia of the pipe m4
-1
k Euler buckling wavenumber calculated in accordance with Equation 5.1 m
Kc Keulegan-Carpenter number -
Ks stability parameter -
L span length m
M bending moment in pipe Nm
Me effective mass per unit length of pipeline including added mass and mass
of pipe content kg/m
n predicted number of stress cycles -
Ne effective axial compressive force in pipeline (see Equation 2.1) N
nf number of stress cycles resulting in pipeline failure due to fatigue -
Ni residual axial tension in the pipeline from installation N
OD outside diameter of pipeline including coating(s) m
ODst nominal outside diameter of the steel pipe m
Pi maximum allowable operating pressure N/m2
t nominal pipe wall thickness m
T difference, at the location of the span, between the predicted maximum
pipeline operating temperature and the pipe temperature during installation C
Ts wave period associated with the significant wave s
Vc steady current velocity perpendicular to the pipe, at top of pipe level m/s
Vr reduced velocity -
Vw wave-induced velocity, perpendicular to the pipe at top of pipe level m/s
W force, per unit length of pipeline, resulting from the combined
weight and hydrodynamic loads N/m
y mid-span span deflection due to in-line VIV m

1.6 CROSS-REFERENCES
Where cross-references to other parts of this DEP are made, the referenced section
number is shown in brackets. Other documents referenced in this DEP are listed in (8).
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 7

1.7 SUMMARY OF MAIN CHANGES SINCE PREVIOUS EDITION

This DEP is a revision of the DEP of the same number dated December 1997. The
following are the main, non-editorial changes.
Old section New section Change
General General Some minor corrections have been made.
1.1 1.1 NOTE 2 clarified regarding deep and shallow water depths.
1.1 1.1 A paragraph has been introduced to the effect that other
span design criteria may be used if approved by the
Principal.
2.2 2.2 Table 1 has been reworded.
Return periods (Table 2) have been modified.
2.3.2 2.3.2 Analysis requirements have been modified.
4. 4. Equation 4.4 has been modified.
In Equation 4.5, the definition of has been changed.
Text has been added after Equation 4.6.
5. 5. Note has been added at the end.
6.1.1 6.1.1 This section has been modified substantially.
6.1.2 6.1.2 Equation 6.4 has been added.
6.1.3 6.1.3 Sentence added for clarification.
6.1.4 6.1.4 Clarifications for fatigue curve determination and use of
Miner's rule have been added.
Appendix A Appendix A The example has been reduced in scope and revised to
ensure that all results are reproducible from the information
given, and to make it consistent with the methodology
described in the DEP.

1.8 COMMENTS ON THIS DEP

Comments on this DEP may be sent to the DEP Administrator at standards@shell.com.
Shell staff may also post comments on this DEP on the Surface Global Network (SGN)
under the Standards folder.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 8

2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

2.1 PROCEDURE
Figure 1 schematises the recommended procedure for the analysis of spans of submerged
pipelines outlined below.
The assessment of possible external loads is the first step of the analysis after the
necessary input data have been collected.
Spans which pass the external load assessment should then be subjected to a preliminary
assessment involving a relatively simple analysis based on conservative assumptions. In
this analysis spans are considered acceptable if:
- the analysis of reduced velocities indicates that VIVs will not occur and that,
consequently, fatigue damage from these vibrations can be ruled out; and
- the calculated maximum combined stresses under the loads defined in this DEP stay
within the limits for elastic stresses in DEP 31.40.00.10-Gen.
Spans which fail the preliminary assessment may still be acceptable if unacceptable
damage and/or failure of the span can be ruled out with a more detailed assessment
removing some of the conservatism of the preliminary assessment. Spans subjected to the
detailed assessment are acceptable if:
- the fatigue assessment demonstrates that fatigue damage from vortex-induced
vibrations will not lead to failure during the design or remaining operating lifetime of the
pipeline or until the span can be corrected; and
- limits for acceptable plastic strain are not exceeded.
NOTE: Spans have traditionally been assessed against the criteria of the preliminary assessment only.
Recent hydrodynamic research on the effect of currents and waves on spanning pipelines has,
however, provided information necessary to cautiously quantify stress fluctuations from vortex-induced
vibrations. Similarly, research on post-elastic behaviour of pipelines demonstrates that straining of the
pipeline beyond the elastic limits can be permitted without impairing the safety of the pipeline.

The requirements, criteria and guidance for each of the above assessments are given in (3)
to (7).
(2.2) and (2.3) specify the load conditions and requirements for span modelling to be
considered for these assessments.
The length of the span is the critical parameter. Span corrections to reduce the span's
length are normally done by dumping rock or seabed material along the entire span, or
providing supports along the span. Other methods are water jetting of supports to lower the
span into the seabed, or (on sandy seabeds) the placing of artificial seaweed to draw sand
into the gap. Requirements for long-term stability should be a main consideration when
selecting span rectification method(s).
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 9

2.2 LOAD CONDITIONS

Pipeline spans shall be addressed for all phases of the pipeline life cycle. Table 1 shows
these phases with the pipeline condition and design loads which shall be considered for
span analyses.
Table 1 Pipeline conditions and design loads
Phase Pipeline condition Design loads
Construction - empty pipeline - residual lay tension
- submerged empty pipeline weight
- hydrodynamic loads
- flooded pipeline (see NOTE) - residual construction loads
- submerged flooded pipeline
- hydrodynamic loads
Hydrotesting - pipeline under test - residual lay tension
pressure, filled with test - submerged pipeline filled with test
medium medium
- hydrodynamic loads
- test pressure
Operation - operating condition - residual lay tension
- submerged pipeline filled with fluid
- hydrodynamic loads
- pipeline operating pressure
- maximum operating temperature
- flooded pipeline (see NOTE) - residual lay tension
- submerged flooded pipeline
- hydrodynamic loads
NOTE: The flooded pipeline case shall be considered in order to prevent damage in the event of accidental
pipeline flooding.

Loads for calculating maximum stresses or strains for comparison with maximum allowable
values should be based on:
- the maximum allowable operating pressure for the pipeline;
- maximum pipeline operating temperature predicted at the location of the span;
- maximum fluid density;
- design currents and maximum waves associated with the relevant return period.
Loads for calculating whether VIVs can occur and for fatigue damage calculation should be
based on:
- pipeline operating pressure, temperature and fluid density predicted for the location of
the span under planned operating conditions;
- design currents and significant waves associated with the relevant return period.
The return period for the hydrodynamic loads should be taken as not less than indicated in
Table 2.
Table 2 Return periods for hydrodynamic loads
Case Return period
Design of safe spans for the 100 years
pipeline lifetime
Assessment following survey 1 year if span is discovered and is rectified
during construction or operations immediately; or
10 years if span will be rectified within one year of
discovery except when discovered and rectified as
indicated above; or
100 years if span will not be rectified.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 10

2.3 SPAN MODELLING

2.3.1 Simple beam model
Spans in pipelines on an undulating seabed or at a location of local scour or seabed
depression may be modelled as simple beams with fixed-pinned boundary conditions and
subjected to uniform lateral forces along the span from the combined weight and
hydrodynamic loads and to the effective axial compressive force, Ne, see Figure 2.

Spans which result from the pipeline being lifted off the seabed due to the presence of rock,
boulders, debris, etc. should be modelled in accordance with a model appropriate for the
specific span.
For axially restrained lines, the effective axial compressive force (Ne) should take into
account the pipe contraction from the internal pressure due to the Poisson effect and the
expansion due to temperature differentials. The effective axial compressive force for
restrained lines is:

where:
is the linear thermal expansion coefficient for the pipeline steel
is Poisson's ratio
A is the cross-sectional area of the steel pipe based on nominal pipe wall
thickness
ID is the internal pipeline diameter
E is Young's modulus
Ni is the residual axial tension in the pipeline from installation
Pi is the operating pressure selected in accordance with (2.2)
T is the difference at the location of the span between the maximum pipeline
operating temperature and pipe temperature during installation.

NOTE: The effective axial force Ne is positive when the force is compressive.

Sagging will cause the length of a spanning pipe to increase and effectively cause the pipe
to be tensioned. For pipelines in operation, this results in a decrease in the effective axial
compressive force calculated in accordance with Equation 2.1. The beneficial effect of this
tensioning on the permissible span length may be taken into account provided the feed-in
from sections adjacent to the span, caused by the imbalance of axial forces, is also
considered.
Interaction of spans may be neglected if the pipeline length resting on the seabed to the
adjacent span is 20 % or more of the length of the span being analysed. The length of the
span should be increased by 0.2 times the length of the adjacent span if this distance is
less.
2.3.2 Finite element model
Finite element modelling of the span permits the removal of some of the conservatism
inherent with the simplified beam modelling. Finite element modelling enables the pipe-
seabed interaction to be modelled to include the beneficial effects of
- additional pipe settlement near the span ends,
- span tensioning due to sagging,
- arch action due to sagging (whereby the cross flow frequency is raised), and
- soil damping
to be modelled. As with simple beam models, axial feed-in from pipeline sections adjacent
to the span should also be modelled if the effect of pipe tensioning due to span sagging is
included in the analysis.
To account for the above effects a nonlinear analysis for the static loads shall be
performed. This shall be followed by linearisation to calculate the vibration modeshapes
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 11

and natural frequencies used in the VIV analysis. Steady-state current loads shall not be
included in the loads applied prior to linearisation, unless approved by the Principal. Where
contact and/or stick-slip conditions are involved to model pipe-seabed interaction, care shall
be taken to ensure that such linearisation results in realistic dynamic stiffnesses. For
example, in the determination of the cross-flow frequency in a span with significant sagging,
it shall be ensured that realistic dynamic stiffness values are used to describe the
resistance to axial slip of the pipe at the shoulders of the span. This may require the use of
dynamic stiffnesses that differ from the tangent stiffness given by the static analysis.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 12

3. EXTERNAL LOAD ASSESSMENT

Except for areas in the vicinity of platforms or other installations, trawling is normally the
only potential external load to be considered when reviewing permissible spans. The effect
of the height of a span on trawlgear loads shall be addressed. Span heights shall be limited
to prevent hooking of trawlgear.
Pipeline stresses and/or strains predicted from external loads shall meet the requirements
of DEP 31.40.00.10-Gen. unless it is demonstrated that the likelihood of such loads
occurring is small and the consequences of pipeline failure acceptable.
Spans should not be permitted in areas near platforms where cables or chains for the
anchoring of supply vessels may be run frequently.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 13

4. REDUCED VELOCITY ASSESSMENT

Fatigue damage from both in-line and cross-flow VIVs will be prevented if the margin
between the frequency of the shedding vortices and lowest natural frequency of the span is
sufficient to prevent "lock in" of those frequencies. It may be assumed that lock-in will not
occur if:
Vc + Vw
Vr = < 1.0 (equation 4.1)
fn OD

where:
Vr is the calculated reduced velocity
Vc is the steady current velocity perpendicular to the pipe at top of pipe level
Vw is the wave-induced velocity perpendicular to the pipe at top of pipe level
fn is the first natural frequency of the span.

For the calculation of Vr, the wave-induced velocity Vw may be based on the significant
wave.
The contribution of the wave-induced current (Vw) in Equation 4.1 may be ignored for
significant waves with a Keulegan-Carpenter number (Kc) less than 30.
The Keulegan-Carpenter number is calculated from:

where:
Ts is the period associated with the significant wave.
The first natural frequency of a simple beam span model subjected to an effective axial
compressive force Ne is:

where:
a is the frequency factor
b is the Euler constant
I is moment of inertia of the pipe
L is the span length
me is the effective mass of the pipeline (including content and added mass) per
unit length.

Values for the frequency factor a and Euler constant b depend on the end condition of the
span:
End condition Frequency factor Euler constant
a b
Pinned pinned 9.87 1.
Fixed pinned 15.4 2.05
Fixed fixed 22.0 4.

Fixed-pinned end conditions may be assumed for single spans. Fixed-fixed end conditions
may only be assumed if validated by the observed support conditions. The support
conditions in the case of multiple spans shall be based on sound engineering judgement.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 14

The mass of displaced volume of (sea)water may be assumed for the added mass when
calculating the effective pipeline mass.
The effect of VIV may be neglected if both in-line and cross flow VIV are negligible.
In-line VIVs are unlikely to occur also in narrow gaps between the seabed and bottom of
the pipeline or if the stability parameter (Ks), reflecting the structural damping of the span,
exceeds 1.8. The possibility of fatigue damage from in-line VIVs may therefore be ignored
if:
G/OD 0.1 (equation 4.4)
or if

where:
is the logarithmic decrement of damping of the span in still water, defined at
the slope of a plot of the natural logarithm of the free vibration amplitude as
function of the cycle number, or by = 2 , where is the modal damping
ratio
is the density of the seawater
G is the average gap between the seabed and the bottom of the spanning
pipe along the central one-third length of the span
Ks is the stability parameter.

For most spans, cross flow VIV can be neglected if

In Equation 4.6, the contribution of the wave-induced current Vw may be ignored for
significant waves with a Keulegan-Carpenter number less than 6. However, for long spans
with little damping for which VIV could occur at low Reynolds numbers, the possibility and
consequences of cross flow VIV at lower reduced velocities should be considered based on
available test data and/or accepted industry guidance.
NOTES: 1. The modal damping ratio or logarithmic decrement includes structural and soil damping, but
not hydrodynamic damping as this is already included in the VIV response function. For small
amplitude vibrations in still water hydrodynamic damping is negligible, so that may be estimated
from observations of small amplitude vibrations in still water. However for non-viscous soil and/or
structural damping the effective damping coefficient is amplitude-dependent. In this case the
value used should be based on the expected VIV vibration amplitude.
2. Soil damping can include energy radiated away from the pipe in the form of elastic waves, as well
as energy absorbed in elastic deformations of the soil itself.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 15

5. STATIC STRESS ASSESSMENT

Weight and environmental loads shall be determined in accordance with accepted

engineering practices and the resulting bending stresses are then determined. Equivalent
stresses shall be calculated taking into account these bending stresses, other axial
stresses and the hoop stress and be verified against the criteria for permissible stresses in
DEP 31.40.00.10-Gen.
For calculating bending stresses in spans subjected to an effective axial compressive force
(Ne >0), the maximum bending moment in a span may be approximated by:

End condition Maximum bending moment

Pinned pinned

Pinned fixed

Fixed fixed at support:

at centre of span:

Amended per
Circular 01/10

where the arguments of the trigonometric functions are in radians, and:

k is the Euler buckling wavenumber to be calculated from the following:

For a pipeline in which the effective axial tension is zero, the maximum bending moment
may be calculated from:
End condition Maximum bending moment
Pinned-pinned

Pinned-fixed

Fixed-fixed

NOTE: The pinned-fixed boundary condition is sometimes used as an approximation to represent a partial
restraint against rotation at both shoulders. This approximation, however, leads to high static stresses
at the fixed shoulder. The fixed-fixed boundary condition provides a better approximation for the static
stresses if there is partial restraint against rotation at the shoulders. Indeed, as the rotational restraint
is increased equally at both shoulders the maximum stress first drops to wL2/16. Then, the location of
the maximum stress changes from midspan to the shoulders, and the maximum stress rises
asymptotically to the fixed-fixed value.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 16

6. FATIGUE ASSESSMENT

6.1 FLOW-INDUCED VIBRATIONS DUE TO VORTEX SHEDDING

6.1.1 Conditions for permitting flow-induced vibrations
In-line VIVs may be permitted provided:
- a safety margin of at least 10 (ten) is maintained between the predicted fatigue damage
and the fatigue damage at which the pipeline will fail, unless a different safety margin is
agreed with the Principal for the specific method of calculation used; and
- they do not occur in risers including the subsea connections to the pipeline resting on
the seabed and at locations where intensification of the fluctuating bending stress may
occur.
Cross-flow vibrations should not be permitted at reduced velocities beyond the limit of
Equation 4.6. If cross-flow vibrations are expected below this limit, the fatigue damage due
to such vibrations shall be assessed. The fatigue damage due to in-line and cross-flow
vibrations need not be combined because they occur at different locations on the
circumference of the pipe (6 and 12 oclock positions for cross-flow, and 3 and 9 oclock
positions for in-line).
NOTES: 1. The above safety margin of 10 reflects the fact that subsea pipelines cannot be inspected for the
presence of fatigue damage.
2. Examples of sources for the intensification of bending stresses are fittings, flanges, mechanical
connectors and ancillaries welded to the pipeline.
3. The occurrence and amplitude of cross-flow vibrations are difficult to predict. E.g. some model
tests on long spans with essentially zero damping have shown cross-flow vibration starting at
reduced velocities around 2. Stresses from cross-flow vibrations can lead to rapid pipeline failure,
but for long spans a fatigue analysis should be considered to assess whether limited cross-flow
vibrations under extreme circumstances can be tolerated.

6.1.2 Span response from in-line VIVs

Fatigue damage due to in-line flow-induced vibrations shall be assessed if the following
three conditions are satisfied:

G/OD > 0.1 (equation 6.2);

and

NOTE: In-line VIVs are unlikely to occur if any of these conditions are not met.

As in the reduced velocity assessment (4), the contribution of the wave-induced current in
Equation 4.1 may be ignored for significant waves with a Keulegan-Carpenter number of
less than 30.
The following may be assumed for the response of the span from in-line vibrations:
- the span will respond with a frequency equal to the first natural frequency of the span;
- the maximum mid-point deflection y of the pipeline span may be obtained from Figure 3
or from Equation 6.4.
y = OD max ( 0.2 KS/6, 0.15 KS/9) (equation 6.4)
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 17

The total bending stress range due to in-line VIV oscillations with an amplitude y may be
calculated as follows:
End condition Maximum bending stress
Pinned - pinned

Fixed - pinned

Fixed fixed

where:
ODst is the nominal outside diameter of the steel pipe.
6.1.3 Preventing cross-flow VIVs
Cross-flow VIVs may be assumed not to occur if Equation 4.6 is satisfied. At lower
velocities limited cross flow VIV could occur, but may be accepted if it is shown that this will
not lead to fatigue failure.
6.1.4 Fatigue assessment
The fatigue damage of a span over a given period is determined as follows:
- determine the total time that the span may be subjected to in-line VIVs;
- calculate the natural frequency of the in-line VIV;
- calculate the total number of stress cycles n due to VIVs;
- calculate the stress fluctuation per stress cycle (twice the amount calculated with the
equations given in (6.1.2));
- determine from a representative fatigue curve the number of cycles nf that would result
in pipeline failure, considering the effects of internal and external environments, the
defect tolerance criteria at girth welds, including misalignment offset, as well as any
allowable lack of fusion and other defects;
- calculate fatigue damage d = n/nf

The span is acceptable if the fatigue damage, d, does not exceed 0.1.
If d exceeds 0.1, then the span should be corrected within a period during which d does not
exceed 0.1.
In the above, the number of cycles nf until fatigue failure should be reduced if the pipeline
has been subjected to other, non-concurrent stress cycles, e.g. from installation, or earlier
spanning. Miner's rule may be used to add the fatigue damage from various non-concurrent
stress cycles occurring at any given location. In such cases the limit of 0.1 applies to the
overall fatigue damage.
If stress cycles from different sources of loading (e.g. thermal cycles) occur concurrently
with VIV and at the same location, then Miners rule is not applicable. For such cases the
actual combined stress history shall be calculated, and the fatigue damage it produces
evaluated, e.g. by a rainflow counting algorithm. Detailed guidance for such cases is
outside the scope of this DEP.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 18

7. STRAIN-BASED ASSESSMENT

The static stress assessment (5) may be replaced by a strain-based strength assessment
provided the bending of the span is restricted by the seabed before:
- bending strain can cause fracture;
- compressive strain can cause wrinkling or buckling of the pipe;
- pipe ovalisation can exceed 2.5 %.
A further requirement for permitting strain is that cyclic plastic straining cannot occur.
Variations in operating pressures, temperatures and fluid densities and hydrodynamic loads
should all be considered when determining the total possible strain cycle.
NOTE: To prevent fracture, the maximum value for the permissible total strain is 0.5 % unless it is
demonstrated that for the selected steel and weld properties a higher value may be used.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 19

8. REFERENCES

In this DEP reference is made to the following publications:

NOTE: Unless specifically designated by date, the latest edition of each publication shall be used, together
with any amendments/supplements/revisions thereto.

SHELL STANDARDS
Pipeline engineering DEP 31.40.00.10-Gen.
NORWEGIAN STANDARDS
Rules for submarine pipeline systems DNV 1981
Free spanning pipelines DNV-RP-F105
Fatigue strength analysis of offshore steel structure DNV-RP-C203
Issued by:
Det Norske Veritas Industri Norge AS
PO Box 300, N-1322 Hvik
Norway
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 20

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTE: The following documents are for information only and do not form an integral part of this DEP

1. "Dynamics of marine structures: Methods of calculating ISSN: 0 86017 101/9

the dynamic response of fixed structures subject to wave
and current action"; Report UR8 (2nd Edition), CIRIA
Underwater Engineering Group
2. Celant M., Re G., Venzi S., Fatigue Analysis for
Submarine Pipelines, Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Paper No. 4233 (1982).
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 21

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SPAN ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
FIGURE 2 SIMPLE FIXED - PINNED SPAN MODEL
FIGURE 3 AMPLITUDE OF IN-LINE MOTION AS A FUNCTION OF KS
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 22

FIGURE 1 SPAN ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 23

FIGURE 2 SIMPLE FIXED - PINNED SPAN MODEL

FIGURE 3 AMPLITUDE OF IN-LINE MOTION AS A FUNCTION OF Ks

 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 24

APPENDIX A WORKED EXAMPLE

A.1 SCOPE
This worked example illustrates the application of this DEP.

A.2 INPUT DATA

A.2.1 General pipeline data
The worked example is for a span of 30 m length in a 500 mm pipeline carrying oil, in the
Central North Sea.
The span is modelled as a beam-column with fixed-pinned boundary conditions, subject to
axial load and uniform lateral loads along the length of the span.
The pipeline is fully axially restrained.
A.2.2 Pipeline and span data
Table A.1 gives the details of the pipeline under consideration. The table also outlines the
parameters defining the span assessed in this worked example.
Table A.1 Data for pipeline and span

Parameter Units Value

Pipeline:
Nominal outside diameter of the steel m 0.508
pipe (ODst)
Nominal wall thickness mm 15.88
Material grade - API 5L X60
Young's modulus (E) MPa 2.07x105
Poisson ratio () - 0.3
Steel density kg/m3 7850
Coefficient of thermal expansion () C-1 11.6x10-6
External corrosion coating - Asphalt enamel
Corrosion coat thickness m 0.0065
Corrosion coat density kg/m3 1300
Concrete coating thickness m 0.1
Concrete coating density kg/m3 3000
Thickness of marine growth m 0
Internal diameter (ID) m 0.4762
Outside diameter of pipeline including m 0.721
coating(s) (OD)
Design life years 20
Span:
Span length (L) m 30
Water depth m 91.5
Marine growth on the pipeline not expected
Gap under central part of span as a 0.277
fraction of the overall outside diameter
(G/OD)
Logarithmic decrement of damping of the 0.126
span in still water ()
Bearing of pipeline degrees 150

A.2.3 Operating and environmental data for fatigue assessment

Table A.2 and Figure A.1 give the significant environmental data and normal pipeline
operating conditions required for fatigue assessment of the span.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 25

Table A.2 Data for fatigue assessment

Parameter Units Value

Environmental:
Density of sea-water () kg/m3 1025
Temperature of sea-water during C 4
installation
100-year maximum component of steady m/s 0.59
current normal to the pipeline
Steady current reference height m top of pipe
Significant wave height m 12.8
Significant wave period (Ts) s 12.1
Content:
Fluid Oil
Contents density kg/m3 870
Normal operating temperature C 25
Normal operating contents pressure (Pi) bar 120
A.2.4 Data for stress assessment
Table A.3 contains the maximum environmental conditions and extreme operating
conditions to be used for the stress assessment.
Table A.3 Data for stress analysis

Parameters Units Value

Environmental:
Maximum wave height m 23.8
Maximum wave period s 17.1
Content:
Extreme operating temperature C 30
Extreme operating pressure (Pi) bar 134

A.3 EXTERNAL LOAD ASSESSMENT (3)

For the purposes of this example, external loads are not considered. It is assumed that a
separate analysis has demonstrated that the span can withstand loads from trawlgear
present in the area.

A.4 REDUCED VELOCITY ASSESSMENT (4)

The preliminary assessment of VIV is carried out in accordance with (4).
A.4.1 Axial load on the span
The effective axial compressive force in a fully restrained pipeline is given by Equation 2.1
for the normal operating conditions given in Table A.2. If, to be conservative, the residual
installation tension is agnored, then the resulting effective axial compressive force is 2.09 x
106 N.
A.4.2 Natural frequency of span
The first natural frequency of a beam-column subjected to an axial compressive force is
given by Equation 4.3. For a fixed-pinned span, the frequency factor and Euler constant are
15.4 and 2.05 respectively. This equation can therefore be rewritten using the data in
Table A.1 and the effective axial compressive force as calculated in (A.4.1) to give a first
natural frequency of 0.575 Hz.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 26

A.4.3 Wave and current velocity

The wave-induced velocity at the crown of the pipeline is calculated from linear wave
theory. This yields a component of wave-induced velocity perpendicular to the pipeline of
0.52 m/s and 2.25 m/s, based on the significant and peak wave data in Table A.2,
respectively. The current velocity perpendicular to the pipe at the top of the pipeline is given
as 0.59 m/s.
A.4.4 Limiting criteria for vortex-induced vibration
From Equation 4.2 the Keulegan-Carpenter number is found to be 8.7. This exceeds 6 but
is less than 30. Therefore the significant wave-induced velocity shall be included in the
assessment for cross-flow VIV but not for in-line VIV. This leads to reduced velocities of
2.7 for cross-flow VIV, and 1.4 for in-line VIV. Thus, in-line VIV could occur according to
Equation 4.1, but no cross-flow VIV would occur according to Equation 4.6.
The possibility of in-line VIV can be ignored if either Equation 4.4 or 4.5 is satisfied. For this
example, the gap under the span as a fraction of overall outside diameter is 0.277,
therefore Equation 4.4 is not satisfied. In addition, the stability parameter is calculated to be
0.644, so Equation 4.5 is also not satisfied. Therefore an assessment of in-line VIV fatigue
damage is necessary.

A.5 FATIGUE ASSESSMENT (6)

A.5.1 Conditions for permitting flow-induced vibrations (6.1.1)
Cross-flow VIV is not permitted. However, the span has already been shown (A.4.4) to be
unlikely to suffer damage from cross-flow VIV. Also, there are no connectors or other
fittings in the vicinity of the span where intensification of the fluctuating bending stress may
occur. In-line VIV may therefore be permitted provided it is demonstrated that the fatigue
damage does not exceed 0.1 during the lifetime of the pipeline.
A.5.2 Span response from in-line VIV (6.1.2)
In-line VIV should be taken into account only if the criteria laid down by Equation 6.1,
Equation 6.2 and Equation 6.3 are satisfied simultaneously. All three of these conditions
are satisfied, see (A.4.4), and in-line VIV shall therefore be assessed.
A.5.3 Fatigue assessment (6.1.4)
From Equation 6.4 the amplitude of oscillation is found to be y = 56 MPa, and the
corresponding dynamic stress amplitude is 56 MPa based on formula for the fixed-pinned
condition in (6.1.2).
For the fatigue life, it is assumed, to be conservative that a girth weld is present where the
highest fatigue loading occurs. The fatigue life of the girth weld is determined from
recommendations given in DNV-RP-C203, which recommends that two hotspots should be
checked: the cap (toe of the weld) and the root.
For the cap, the possibility of loss of protection by the coating is considered. Therefore the
D-curve for seawater with cathodic protection applies. Considering this, and the effect of
misalignment offset assumed to be 1.6 mm, and the wall thickness effect, leads to a fatigue
life of 324,000 cycles.
For the root, the fatigue curve for air is used, because the oil is non-corrosive. Using the F1
curve then leads to a fatigue life of 357,000 cycles.
The hotspot giving the lowest fatigue life governs. Thus the cap governs, giving a fatigue
life of Nf = 324,000 cycles.
According to the response function in this DEP, in-line VIV occurs whenever the reduced
velocity exceeds 1.0, and the amplitude or fatigue damage rate does not depend on the
amount by which the threshold velocity is exceeded (provided it is not exceeded by more
than a factor of 3.5, as indicated by Equation 6.1).
The threshold velocity for in-line VIV is
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 27

Vthreshold = OD fn = 0.41 m/s

Based on the probability distribution for the component of current velocity normal to the
pipeline (Figure A.1), this threshold velocity is exceeded 0.028 % of the time. Over the
design life this amounts to 1 day (86,459 s). Multiplying this by the natural frequency of
oscillation gives an applied number of cycles over the lifetime of the span of N = 49,734;
which is 15 % of the number of cycles to failure. This exceeds the allowable fatigue
damage ratio of 10 % as specified by this DEP [(6.1.1) requires a factor of safety of at least
10 on fatigue life].

A.6 STATIC STRESS ASSESSMENT (5)

A.6.1 Wave and current velocity
The peak wave velocity is calculated from linear wave theory. Based on the maximum wave
data in Table A.3, the peak wave-induced velocity perpendicular to the pipe at the top of the
pipeline is 2.25 m/s.
The current velocity perpendicular to the pipe at the top of the pipeline is 0.59 m/s.
The Keulegan-Carpenter number, as given by Equation 4.2 with the wave and current
velocities for the maximum wave, is therefore 53.4. The Keulegan-Carpenter number is
used, along with the Reynolds number and the ratio of span height to overall outside
diameter, to establish hydrodynamic coefficients from DNV 1981 which give the
hydrodynamic forces on the pipeline.
A.6.2 Maximum load on span
The maximum load on the span is the greatest combined loading resulting from its own
weight and all hydrodynamic forces throughout the 360 wave cycle. The hydrodynamic
loads can be calculated according to DNV 1981. The force per unit length resulting from the
combined submerged weight and hydrodynamic loads on the span is found to be
5620 N/m.
A.6.3 Axial load on the span
The effective axial compressive force is calculated using Equation 2.1, applying the
conditions for the extreme load case given in Table A.3. To be conservative, the residual
tension is ignored. The resulting effective axial compressive force is then 2.49 x 106 N.
A.6.4 Static stress assessment
A.6.4.1 Maximum bending moment
The maximum bending moment is calculated using the formula for a pinned-fixed beam
given in (5). The maximum bending moment is equal to 1.66 x106 Nm.
A.6.4.2 Maximum/minimum bending stress
Amended per
Circular 01/10

The maximum bending stress is calculated from the bending moment and is b = 568 MPa.
The bending stress results from the combination of the vertical load due to pipe weight and
the horizontal hydrodynamic load, which in this case acts at 23 from vertical. Thus this
bending stress is tensile at 23 from the top of the pipe (12 oclock position) and
compressive at 23 from the bottom (6 oclock position), and it occurs at the shoulder where
the pipe is assumed to be fixed against rotation, by the pinned-fixed assumption.
A.6.4.3 Axial stress
Amended per
Circular 01/10

The mean axial stress is calculated from

a = (p Af Ne)/A
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 28

where p denote the pressure and effective axial compressive force for the load case under
consideration, and Af and A are the cross sectional areas for the flow and steel,
respectively.
The residual tension, sag-induced tension and feed-in are ignored in this example. The
mean axial stress is 4.1 MPa. This stress is constant across the wall thickness.
A.6.4.4 Hoop stress
Amended per
Circular 01/10

The mean hoop stress is calculated from:

h = p ID /(2 t)
The hoop stress is 201 MPa. The actual hoop stress is slightly higher on the inside of the
pipe wall and slightly lower on the outside of the pipe wall, but this variation is neglected.
Also, the variation in hoop stress around the circumference is negligible.
A.6.4.5 Span assessment
Amended per
Circular 01/10

The maximum von Mises stress is calculated from

eq = { h + at h at }
2 2 1/2

where
at = a b
respresents the total axial stress obtained by combining he mean axial stress and the
bending stress. The corresponds to the tension (+) and compression (-) sides,
respectively. In this case the highest von Mises stress is calculated for the compression
side, and is 695 MPa. The span is considered safe if the maximum von Mises stress is less
than 90 % of the specified minimum yield strength for the steel. The 90 % SMYS limit for
this pipeline steel is 373 MPa, which is exceeded by the maximum von Mises stress. The
span therefore fails the preliminary static stress assessment. It is necessary to perform a
strain-based assessment in order to further assess whether the span is acceptable.

A.7 CONCLUSION
This span does not satisfy the screening criteria of this DEP. This leaves the following
alternatives:
- Shorten the span length, e.g. by seabed intervention; or
- Perform a more detailed and less conservative assessment [as is allowed according to
(1.1), provided the approach is justified and approved by the Principal].
To remove conservatism such a more detailed analysis could address the following:
- For spans that are partially constrained against rotation at both ends, the assumption of
fixed-pinned boundary conditions for the span may provide a reasonable approximation
to the natural frequency. However it is very conservative in the assessment of the static
stresses, and the dynamic stresses for a given amplitude of oscillation. Modelling the
pipe as a beam with partial restraint against rotation at each end would remove this
source of conservatism.
- The sag of the span tends to reduce the compressive axial force. Accounting for this
leads to a higher natural frequency and lower stresses due to static loads.
- If the sag is sufficient the span becomes supported by the seabed. In such cases a
strain-based assessment may be applied, since the displacements are limited. However
all possible sources of strain concentration shall be considered in this case.
- The response function used in this DEP for in-line VIV assumes the full VIV amplitude of
oscillation at the moment the threshold velocity is exceeded. Tests suggest that the
amplitudes are smaller near the threshold and reach a maximum only at significantly
larger current velocities.
 DEP 31.40.10.15-Gen.
December 2007
Page 29

A number of these sources of conservatism are addressed in DNV-RP-F105.

Figure A.1 Cumulative distribution function for curent velocity

The "current velocity" shown is the absolute value

of the component of current velocity normal to the
0.1 pipeline.
Exceedance Probability

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.00001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Current Velocity (m/s)

Last page of this DEP