Bottom Roughness Analysis

Comment [MSOffice1]:
Formatted: Top: 0.8", Header distance fro edge: 0.49", Footer distance from edge: 0.
EPCIC ALLIANCE LNG REGASIFICATION UNIT, ISLAND BERTH AND SUBSEA PIPELINE
SUBSEA PIPELINE AND SUBSEA CABLE INSTALLATION, TESTING & PRE-COMMISSIONING
MASER PROJECT NO: MME-PJ-ME-PJ016 LYE PROJECT NO: LY104201
ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS
DOCUMENTATION REF. NO.: MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENG-RPT-00611

00 3 Apr 12 Issued for Use LS VKV
10 Feb 12
Issued for PRW review
LS
VKV
3 Feb 12
Issued for MASER Review
LS
VKV
A1
2 Feb 12
Issued For Internal Review
LS
VKV MME APPROVED PRW APPROVED ALLIANCE ENDORSED
Comment [MSOffice2]: Pls check whether not we have sent out Rev A previously.
REV
DATE
DESCRIPTION
PREPARED
CHECKED
Project No.: MME-PJ- ME-PJ016 Doc No: MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENGRPT-00611
Rev: 00B
Page 2 of 46
Formatted: Left
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2. 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 4. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 43 General ................................................................................................................. 43 Objective of the Document ................................................................................... 43 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 43 System of Units ..................................................................................................... 54 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 65 DESIGN DATA ..................................................................................................... 87 Design Life ......................................................................................................... 87 Pipeline Process Data ....................................................................................... 87 Pipeline Data ...................................................................................................... 87 External Coating Material Properties ............................................................... 109 Environmental Data ......................................................................................... 109 Geotechnical Data ......................................................................................... 1210 Soil Friction Factor ......................................................................................... 1511 Soil Stiffness Factors ..................................................................................... 1511 Trenching and Burial Cover ........................................................................... 1612 Allowable Stress Criteria................................................................................ 1612 Allowable Span Length .................................................................................. 1612 Pipeline Weight .............................................................................................. 1713 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 1814 4.1 Description of Computer Model ........................................................................ 1814 4.2 On-Bottom Roughness Analysis....................................................................... 1814 5. 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................... 2016 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 3832
Comment [MSOffice3]: Pls update and include the Appendixes.
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 General .................................................................................................................. 3 Objective of the Document.................................................................................... 3 Abbreviations......................................................................................................... 3 System of Units ..................................................................................................... 4
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 5 3. DESIGN DATA ............................................................................................................... 7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Design Life ............................................................................................................ 7 Pipeline Process Data ........................................................................................... 7 Pipeline Data ......................................................................................................... 7 External Coating Material Properties .................................................................... 8 Environmental Data ............................................................................................... 8 Geotechnical Data ................................................................................................ 9 Soil Friction Factor .............................................................................................. 11
Rev: 00B
Page 3 of 46
3.8 Soil Stiffness Factors .................................................................................................. 12 3.8 Trenching and Burial Cover ................................................................................ 12 3.9 Allowable Stress Criteria ..................................................................................... 12 3.10 Allowable Span Length .................................................................................... 12 3.11 Pipeline Weight ......................................................................................................... 13 4. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 14 4.1 4.2 6. Description of Computer Model .......................................................................... 14 On-Bottom Roughness Analysis ......................................................................... 14 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 3231
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................. 1615 APPENDICES
Comment [MSOffice4]: Section 4.3 is not a new subsection. Section 4 only have 4.1 and 4.2. Pls check
APPENDIX A - OFFPIPE OUTPUTS APPENDIX B - TYPICAL FREE SPAN CORRECTION DETAILS APPENDIX C - 30-INCH PIPELINE ALIGNMENT DRAWING APPENDIX D - SHORE APPROACH DRAWING APPENDIX E - PIPELINE WEIGHT CALCULATIONS
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Space After 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Left, Line spacing: Multiple 1.2 Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1.25 li, T stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Line spacing: Multiple 1.25 li, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1.25 li
Formatted: Left, Line spacing: Multiple 1.2 Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Space After 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines
Rev: 00B
Page 4 of 46
1. 1.1
INTRODUCTION General
PETRONAS GAS BERHAD intends to build an LNG Import Facility at Mukim Sungai Udang, Melaka with an import capacity of 3.8 Million tons per annum. The facilities will be designed to receive LNG at an island jetty where the LNG will be transferred to two Floating Storage Units (FSU) for storage. Regasification of the LNG will take place in a Regasification Unit located on the island jetty. The gas will then be transferred back to shore via subsea pipeline. The island jetty will be constructed within Sungai Udang harbor limit, located approximately 3km from shore.
Comment [MSOffice5]: Pls check the Rev number. Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
1.2
Objective of the Document

This document presents the on-bottom roughness analyses due to the existing seabed profile for the 30-inch gas pipeline from the flare platform at Jetty Regasification Unit (JRU) to the Onshore Landfall Tie-in point at KP 2.531. KP 0.000 lies at the flare platform. The scope of these analyses is: To perform on-bottom roughness analyses for installation, hydrotest, flooded, and operation cases. To identify the locations where the spanning spans exceeds the maximum allowable unsupported span length as per Pipeline Free Span Report, PGB0078LEKAS(P2)-00-PL-REP-0012. To ensure the stresses induced in the pipeline are within the maximum allowable stresses for spans in excess of allowable spans.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
1.3
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations have been used throughout the document: 3LPE AE API ASME DNV FSU HAT JRU LAT LFP 3 Layer Polyethylene Asphalt Enamel American Petroleum Institute American Society of Mechanical Engineers Det Norske Veritas Floating Storage Units Highest Astronomical Tide Jetty Regasification Unit Lowest Astronomical Tide Landfall Tie-in Point
Project No.: MME-PJ- ME-PJ016 Doc No: MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENGRPT-00611 LNG LSAW MSL OD PGB PPMSB PTS SI SMYS SMTS VIV
Rev: 00B
Page 5 of 46
Liquefied Natural Gas Longitudinal Submerged Arc Weld Mean Sea Level Outer Diameter Petronas Gas Berhad Petronas Penapisan Melaka Sdn. Bhd. Petronas Technical Standards System International Specific Minimum Yield Strength Specific Minimum Tensile Strength Vortex Induced Vibration
1.4
System of Units
The International System (SI) of units is adopted as the main system of units throughout the engineering design unless otherwise noted.
Rev: 00B
Page 6 of 46
2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The pipeline on-bottom roughness analyses have been carried out for empty, flooded, hydrotest and operational conditions using OFFPIPE program. The pipe stresses and pipeline span lengths are checked against the over-stressing and over-spanning respectively. Over-stressing is a situation where the pipeline stress exceeds the allowable yield stress in accordance with Petronas Techanical Standard PTS 20.214 [Ref 4]. Over-spanning is considered when the pipeline span exceeds the stipulated computed maximum allowable span lengths given in Table 3.131. The on-bottom roughness analyses have been carried out from flare platform located offshore at KP 0.000 to landfall point (LFP) near shore region. The bottom roughness analyses has been performed to identify the occurrences of free spans and their estimated lengths and locations based on seabed profile along the proposed pipeline route for the exposed unburied pipelines condition. During operation whole length except a short section from KP 0.000 to KP 0.300xxx to xxx will be trenched and buried. For on-bottom roughness analyses, pipeline is considered exposed along the proposed seabed or installation, flooded, and hydrotest cases and first 300 mm pipeline from KP 0.000 is not buried for operation case, The seabed elevations are determined from the offshore pipelines alignment sheets and shore approach drawing [Ref 6,7,8, and 9]Appendices C and D]. A number of over free spanning locations have been identified based on spans exceeding maximum allowable span lengths under installation and operating condition given in Table 3.10.3 For installation condition, span corrections are required from KP 0.124 to KP 0.175 and for operating condition span rectification needed from KP 0.126 to KP 0.172 and from KP 0.241 to KP 0.283. However, the stresses are all within the maximum allowable stress values under empty, flooded, hydrotest and operating condition. Thus, span correction is required over spanning location for installation and operating conditions. However, iIt is recommended to verify the actual span vs. allowable spans during the post lay survey. Should any of the spanspans exceedsexceed the allowable, free span remedial measures should be introduced undertaken by means of grout bags or rock placement. It is proposed that or advanced fatigue analysis can may be carried out to reduce or eliminateoptimise span corrections. A typical free span correction configuration is attached in Appendix B. Table 2.1 summarizes the on-bottom roughness analysis results for 30-inch gas pipeline from the flare platform at Jetty Regasification Unit (JRU) to the Onshore Landfall Tie-in point at KP 2.531. Detailed results are shown in Section 5 of this document.
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Highlight
Comment [RKJ6]: This table gives stress allowable.
Comment [RKJ7]: Not clear
Project No.: MME-PJ- ME-PJ016 Doc No: MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENG-RPT-006
Formatted Table Formatted: Centered Formatted: Widow/Orphan control

Rev: 00B Table 2.1: Pipeline On-Bottom Roughness Analysis Page 7 of 46
KP (km)
Number of Spans Exceeding Allowable Span Length
Unity Check
[1]
Formatted: Line spacing: single Formatted Table
From
To
Installation
FloodingFlooded
Hydrotest
Operating
Installation
FloodingFlooded
Hydrotest
Operating
Formatted: Line spacing: single
0.000
0.300 2.531 (LFP)
NIL
NIL
2 0.63 0.75 0.92 0.94
Formatted: Line spacing: single Comment [RKJ8]: Correction as discussed Formatted: Line spacing: single Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: -0.13", First line: 0.19", Tab stops: 0", Left
0.300
NIL
NIL
NIL
N/A
Note 1: Allowable stresses are derived based on allowable stress usage factors outlined in Table 3.12.0
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 8 of 46
Formatted: None, Don't keep with next, Do keep lines together Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.06"
3.
DESIGN DATA
The Pipeline design data summarized in the following subsections as stipulated given in the Residual Engineering Design Basis [Ref.1], unless stated otherwise.
Comment [MSOffice9]: Pls change the Header title. Not showing On-Bottom Roughness Analysis Formatted: Right: 1.08"
3.1
Design Life
The design life for the pipeline system shall be 20 years.
3.2
3.2.1
Pipeline Process Data

The pipeline process data considered in the design has been presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Pipeline Process Data Parameters Service Design Pressure Hydrotest Pressure Design Temperature Product Densities Unit Barg Barg
o
Formatted: Heading 3, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.7" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt Formatted: Space After: 3 pt Formatted Table
30-inch pipeline LNG 68.95 103.425 Maximum 55 498 439
Formatted: Heading 3, Justified, Indent: Le 0", Hanging: 1" Formatted Formatted: Font: Bold
C
3
Formatted: Body Text, Centered, Space Afte 3 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted Formatted Table Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold Formatted
kg/m
Maximum Minimum
3.2.2
The delta temperature and pressure used for the different load cases are listed below in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. Table 3.2: Delta Temperature for Load Cases
Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted
Product Installation Hydrotest Maximum seawater temperature (30.0 C) & Minimum ambient seawater temperature (20.0 C) Flooded Maximum seawater temperature (30.0 C) & Minimum ambient seawater temperature (20.0 C) Operation Maximum design temperature (55.0 C) & Minimum ambientt seawater temperature (20.0 C
Delta Temperature (C) 0

10
Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted Formatted: Font: 10 pt
10
Formatted Formatted Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted
35
Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted Formatted
Note: The temperature difference (T) is considered to be consistent along the pipeline
Formatted
Formatted Table
Formatted Formatted
Rev: B00
Page 9 of 46
Formatted Formatted
Table 3.3: Pressure Used for Load Cases
Formatted Formatted Table Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted
Design Condition Installation Hydrotest Flooded Operation 3.3 Pipeline Data

The pipeline design data is summarized in Table 3.24.
Table 3.24: Pipeline Data Description Outside Diameter Line Pipe Wall Thickness Thickness Concrete Coating Cutback Material Standard of Line pipeMaterial Grade of Line pipe Line Pipe Manufacture Hydrostatic Test Medium Hydrostatic Test Medium Density Offshore Pipeline Cutback Line pipe External Corrosion and Coating Thickness and Cutbacks Onshore Pipeline Cutback SMTS SMYS Steel Density Youngs Modulus Poisson Ratio Coefficient of Linear Expansion mm mm -
Pressure (barg) 0 103.425 (Hydrotest Pressure) 0 68.95 (Design Pressure)
Unit mm (inch) mm mm
Parameters 762 (30) 14.3 95 (KP 0.0-1.0) 115 (KP 1.0-2.531) 350 API 5L Grade X-65 LSAW Treated (Inhibited) Sea Water
Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Table Formatted Formatted
kg/m mm mm MPa MPa kg/m
1025 5.5 mm AE 250 3.5 mm 3LPE 250 535 450 7850 2.07 x 10 0.3
5 5
Formatted Comment [RKJ10]: Which edition? Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Comment [MSOffice11]: Pls include the Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted
MPa C
1.17 x 10
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 10 of 46
Description Internal Corrosion Allowance
Unit mm
Parameters 0
Formatted: Space Before: 2.5 pt, After: 2. pt Formatted Table
3.4
External Coating Material Properties

The external coating properties are presented in Table 3.35. Table 3.35: Coating Properties Material Asphalt Enamel
3 Layer Polyethylene (3LPE)
[2] [3]
Formatted: Space Before: 2.5 pt, After: 2. pt
Density (kg/m ) 1280 925 3040 1027
Formatted Table
Comment [RKJ12]: Do they use both coatings?
Concrete (Dry)
Field Joint Coating
Notes: 1. The thermal conductivity and density of the 3LPE are the composite equivalent values of the component materials FBE, adhesive and the polypropylene. 2. 5% of water absorption will be considered in the analysis . 3. Field joint coating density comprises of heat shrink sleeve and HDPU foam as infill material.
Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Space Before: 3 pt
3.5
3.5.1
3.5
Environmental Data
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.2", Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
Seawater Properties The seawater properties are presented in Table 3.46.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Body Text, Centered, Space Afte 0 pt, Line spacing: single
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 11 of 46
Table 3.46: Sea Water properties Parameters Density Kinematic Viscosity Surface Temperature Seabed Temperature 3.5.2 Design Water Depth The design water depth along the pipeline route is summarized as below. Table 3.7: Design Water Depth Description Design Min. Water Depth Max. Water Depth along Pipeline Route w.r.t. LAT Design Max. Water Depth Unit m m m Value 0 20.2 22.85 Values 1025 kg/m
-6 o o 3 2
Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1.25 li Formatted Table
0.96 x 10 m /s 23 C 33 C 20 C 30 C
Comment [RKJ13]: This section may be made 3.5.1
o o
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.7
Formatted Table
Formatted: Heading 3, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.7"
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 12 of 46
3.5.3
Tidal Data The astronomical tidal range taken relative to Mean Sea Level (MSL) is given below. Table 3.58: Tidal and Surge Data Tide/Parameters Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) Mean Sea Level (MSL) Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) Unit m m m Height +1.46 0.00 -1.19
Comment [RKJ14]: Be made 3.5.2
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0
Formatted Table Formatted: Centered
3.5.3
Design Water Depth
Comment [RKJ15]: This section may be made 3.5.1 Formatted: Heading 3, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.7"
The design water depth along the pipeline route is summarized as below. Table 3.6: Design Water Depth
Formatted: Heading 3, Left, Indent: Left: 0 Hanging: 0.7"
Description
Unit
Value
Design Min. Water Depth Max. Water Depth along Pipeline Route w.r.t. LAT Design Max. Water Depth
m m m
0 20.2 22.85
Formatted: Heading 3, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.7", Right: 0", Space Before: 0 p After: 0 pt
Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25"
3.6
3.6 Geotechnical Data

The following general characterization of the soil properties along the pipeline corridor will be used for installation engineering purpose [Ref. 1]. Table 3.79: Soil Properties
Comment [RKJ16]: Table needs tiding up
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 13 of 46
BoreHole / DropCore
KP
Sample Depth (m)
Soil Soil Strength Condition Parameter
Sub. Weight 3 (kN/m )
Dry Weight 3 (kN/m )
Formatted Table
Drop Core 1 0.25
0 - 0.21
Very Soft SiltyCLAY
No Data
2.90
5.20
0-2 Bore Hole 1 0.50 2-6 6-7 0 - 0.5 Drop Core 2 0.75 0.5 - 1 Drop Core 3 1.00 0 - 0.18 0 - 0.5 Bore Hole 2 1.25 0.5 - 3 3 - 3.5 3.5 - 5 Drop Core 4 1.50 0 - 0.18 0 - 1.5 Bore Hole 3 1.75 1.5 - 3 3 - 4.5 Drop Core 5 2.00 0 - 0.23 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 Bore Hole 5 2.50 0 - 0.5
Medium Grey CLAY Sandy CLAY Very Soft Silty CLAY Very Soft SILT Soft SILT Sandy SILT Medium Dense SiltySAND Medium Dense SAND No Data Medium Grey CLAY Very Soft SILT Medium Grey CLAY Sandy CLAY
No Data Too Very Soft Su=11kPa No Data
3.83 1.39 2.80
6.45 6.56 4.71
No Data No Data No Data No Data = 40 = 38 No Data No Data Su=17kPa Su=16kPa No Data No Data Su=13kPa Su=13kPa Su=11kPa
5.40 6.70 4.43 4.63 5.30 4.97 4.75 4.33 -
8.83 11.87 7.52 8.00 8.53 8.63 8.51 7.84 Comment [MSOffice17]: Drag the table in Page 11 and display it below this table.
Bore Hole 4
2.25
SandySILT
No Data
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 14 of 46
BoreHole / DropCore
KP
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 - 2.5 2.5 6.5
Soil Soil Strength Condition Parameter Su=38kPa = 29 No Data Grey CLAY No Data Su=7kPa
Sub. Weight 3 (kN/m ) 1.83 3.25 -
Dry Weight 3 (kN/m ) 14.04 5.43 -
Formatted Table
Bore Hole 6
Note 1
0-2 2-3
Formatted: Font: 9 pt Formatted: Indent: First line: 1"
Notes: 1. 2. Borehole number 6 is located at Jetty approach spool piece. In the absent of soil data at seabed surface, 4kPa soil shear strength is used for top soil along the pipeline.
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 15 of 46
Formatted: Normal, Indent: First line: 1", N widow/orphan control, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers, Tab stops: Not at 6.13"
3.7
Soil Friction Factor

The soil condition along the pipeline route is predominantly soft to sandy clay. Longitudinal and lateral soil friction coefficients of 0.3 and 0.5 as per Section 3.4.6 [Ref 11] have been used in the analysis.
3.8
Soil Stiffness Factors

The soil stiffness parameters used for soft clay and loose sand in the analyses are tabulated in Table 3.8 10 as stipulated in DNV RP F105 [Ref 5].
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 16 of 46
Table 3.810: Soil Stiffness Factors Coefficient for Vertical Soil Stiffness, CV (kN/m5/2) 1400 10500 Coefficient for Lateral Soil Stiffness, CL (kN/m5/2) 1200 9000 Dynamic Stiffness Factor, KV,S (kN/m/m) 160 260 250
Soil Type
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.1", Hanging: 0.03", Right: 0.08" Formatted Table Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.1", Hanging: 0.03", Right: 0.08" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.1", Hanging: 0.03", Right: 0.08" Comment [RKJ18]: Please state in introduction and executive summary that pipeline is trenched to what extent. It is not stated there.
Soft Clay Loose Sand
3.8
Trenching and Burial Cover

Subsea pipeline and cable are to be buried using post-trench method. Subsea cable will be buried minimum 2m to the top of cable for the entire subsea section. Burial of soil to the top of pipeline are given in Table 3.9 11 below. Table 3.911: Trench and Burial Cover for Pipeline KP 0-0.3 0.3-0.8 0.8-2.531 Soil Cover to top None 1 meter cover 2 meter cover
Formatted Table
3.9
Allowable Stress Criteria

The maximum allowable stresses for the nearshore and offshore sections of the pipeline system are tabulated in Table 3.1012, as a percentage of the Specified Minimum Yield Stress (SMYS) [Ref.2]. The allowable stresses are based on the PTS 20.214. Table 3.1012: Pipeline Allowable Stress Criteria (Offshore) Load Condition Installation Hydrotest Operating Allowable Stress (% SMYS) 72 100 72
Formatted: Body Text, Left, Indent: Left: 0
Comment [RKJ19]: Please clarify what stresses you are checking? These appear to OK for hoop stress but may not be correct for equivalent stress, please check
Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt Line spacing: single Formatted Table
3.10
Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt Line spacing: single
Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt Line spacing: single
3.10
Allowable Span Length

The maximum allowable span lengths for the pipeline is as per Pipeline Free Span Report, PGB0078-LEKAS(P2)-00-PL-REP-0012 [Ref. 2]. Allowable span lengths are stated in Table 3.1113.
Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Normal, Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5" Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 17 of 46
Table 3.1113: Summary of Maximum Allowable Span Length for 30-inch Gas Pipeline KP (km) From 0.000 0.300 2.531 To 0.300 2.531 2.871 Maximum Allowable Span Length (m) Installation 47 47 Flooding 47 47 Onshore Hydrotest 47 47 Operating 40 N/A
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.19"
Formatted Table
3.11
Pipeline Weight
The pipeline weight used for the shore pull is shown in Table 3.1214. The detailed calculation is attached in Appendix E.
Table 3.1214: Pipeline Weight

Concrete Weight Coated (CWC) (mm) Case Pipe Weight In Air (N/m) 10180.93 14427.44 14427.44 12244.11 11952.35 16198.86 16198.86 14015.53 Pipe Submerged Weight (N/m) 2982.12 7228.63 7228.63 5045.30 4161.95 8408.45 8408.45 6225.13
Formatted Table
Installation 95 Hydrotest Flooded Operation Installation 115 Hydrotest Flooded Operation
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 18 of 46
Formatted: None, Don't keep with next, Do keep lines together Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.06" Formatted: Heading 2, Left, No bullets or numbering
4. 4.1
METHODOLOGY Description of Computer Model

The on-bottom roughness analysis is performed using the pipeline installation analysis program OFFPIPE. It is a proprietary advanced, finite element computer programs developed specifically for designing offshore pipelines and to perform structural analysis of non-linear pipeline problems. The program is capable of modeling the separation of pipeline from the seabed, as well as the resulting stresses on the pipeline due to variations on the seabed profile.
Formatted: Body Text, Left, Indent: Left: 0 Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: single
Comment [RKJ20]: Meaning what?
4.2
On-Bottom Roughness Analysis

The on-bottom roughness analyses have been performed to predict compute the theoretical free span occurrences and their estimated lengths and locations based on the seabed profile along the proposed pipeline route. The procedures adopted for on-bottom roughness analyses are: Using the existing seabed profile perform hydrotest pipeline condition stress/freespans finite element analyses; Identify the over-stressing and over-spanning location along the pipeline route (if any); Using the existing seabed profile for first 300 m from KP 0.000 and perform operational pipeline condition stress/free-spans finite element analyses; Identify the over stressing and over spanning location along the pipeline route (if any) Perform empty condition stress/free-spans finite element analyses using the existing seabed profile. Identify the over-stressing and over-spanning location along the pipeline route (if any); Perform flooded condition stress/free-spans finite element analysis using the seabed profile. Identify the over-stressing and over-spanning location along the pipeline route (if any);
Comment [RKJ21]: Flooded case not discussed here
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.3 No bullets or numbering
The analysis has been performed by dividing the pipeline in segments of 1000 m, each segment consisting of section between adjacent kilometer points.
Comment [RKJ22]: Same type repeated againa and. The whole thing cabe presented better. Formatted: Body Text Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
4.3
Assumptions
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 19 of 46
The following assumptions and design considerations have been used in the pipeline onbottom roughness analysis: The properties of the steel pipe material are assumed as linear and modeled using constant density and modulus of elasticity. Pipeline coatings are modeled to allow account for the resulting increased weight and external diameter of the pipeline. The pipe stresses are however calculated based on the dimensions of the steel pipe alone. The analysis considers 100 m overlap for each KP range analysed load cases. The pipeline span is assumed to be aoccur as isolated single span on the seabed, the boundary of the single span is assumed to be fixed-pinned. A residual lay tension of 287.45 kN obtained from pipelay static analysis has been used in the analyses for installation, flooded, hydrotest, and operation condition.
Comment [RKJ23]: Not necessary to state
Comment [RKJ24]: This value appears to b excessive. I would have expected it to be very small particularly for short length. Comment [RKJ25]: Installation case not analysied. Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets o numbering
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 20 of 46
5.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The on-bottom roughness analyses have been carried out for empty, flooded, hydrotest and operational conditions using the OFFPIPE program. OFFPIPE program is used to model a pipeline to sink lay naturally and following the seabed profile. The pipe stresses and pipeline span locations and lengths, if any, are compared against the maximum stress criteria and allowable span length respectively. The pipeline is divided into a number of segments in the OFFPIPE analysis. The pipeline OFFPIPE analyses were segmented between the KP values with overlap lengths for effective continuity. The pipe over-spanning refers to the pipe span longer than the maximum allowable span length given in Table 3.131. The pipe over-stressing refers to the pipe stress exceeding the allowable stress criteria defined in Table 3.120. A number of over spanning locations have been identified based on spans exceeding maximum allowable span lengths under installation and operating condition given in Table 3.11. For installation condition, span corrections are required from KP 0.124 to KP 0.175 and for operating condition span rectification needed from KP 0.126 to KP 0.172 and from KP 0.241 to KP 0.283. Typical free span correction configuration is attached in Appendix B. However, the stresses are all within the maximum allowable stress values under empty, flooded, hydrotest and operating condition. Thus, span correction is required over spanning location for installation and operating conditions. However, iIt is recommended to verify the actual span vs. allowable spans during the post lay survey. Should any of the span exceeds the allowable, free span remedial measures should be introduced undertaken by means of grout bags or rock placement. oIt is rsuggested that advanced fatigue analysis can be carried out to reduce or eliminatoptimisee span corrections. Complete outputs of OFFPIPE analysis for as-laid empty, flooded, hydrotest, and operating conditions are attached in Appendix A. The pipeline on-bottom analyses results are summarized in Tables 5.1 to 5.4.
Formatted: Body Text, Left, Space Before: pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single
Comment [RKJ26]: Not clear Formatted: Body Text
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 21 of 46
Formatted: None, Don't keep with next, Do keep lines together Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.06" Formatted: Body Text, Left, Space Before: pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single
Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
Table 5.1: Result of Pipeline On-Bottom Roughness Analyses (Installation)
From (km) To (km) Span Location (KP) Case Installation From (km) 0.001 0.016 0.060 0.071 0.081 0.121 0.124 0.180 0.208 0.239 0.291 0.333 0.340 0.370 0.394 0.401 0.416 0.440 0.480 To (km) 0.003 0.055 0.070 0.076 0.116 0.123 0.175 0.207 0.234 0.284 0.333 0.336 0.362 0.390 0.399 0.413 0.426 0.474 0.498
Formatted Table
Span Length (m) 2 39 10 5 35 2 51 27 26 45 42 3 22 20 5 12 10 34 18
Allowable Span Length (m) 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Number of Spans eExceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL 1 NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Maximum Stress (72% SMYS) 45
Unity Check ( 1.0) 0.63
Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold
Comment [RKJ27]: Flag these as potential problem to be checked during survey
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 22 of 46
From (km) To (km) Span Location (KP) Case From (km) 0.502 0.510 0.516 0.523 0.531 0.547 0.561 0.594 0.598 0.609 0.618 0.629 0.642 0.673 0.702 0.719 0.734 0.745 0.765 0.791 0.816 0.827 0.832 0.851 0.879 0.903 0.913 0.917 0.926 0.936 0.944 0.970 1.012 1.047 1.082 1.099 1.145 1.180 To (km) 0.509 0.515 0.521 0.529 0.546 0.550 0.592 0.597 0.609 0.612 0.625 0.640 0.663 0.698 0.708 0.733 0.740 0.759 0.787 0.815 0.819 0.832 0.850 0.868 0.898 0.907 0.916 0.924 0.931 0.941 0.967 1.001 1.046 1.079 1.098 1.143 1.179 1.201
Formatted Table
Span Length (m) 7 5 5 6 15 3 31 3 11 3 7 11 21 25 6 14 6 14 22 24 3 5 18 17 19 4 3 7 5 5 23 31 34 32 16 44 34 21
Allowable Span Length (m) 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Number of Spans eExceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Maximum Stress (72% SMYS)
Unity Check ( 1.0)
45
0.63
Comment [RKJ28]: Flag
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 23 of 46
From (km) To (km) Span Location (KP) Case From (km) 1.203 1.230 1.257 1.265 1.297 1.322 1.345 1.355 1.399 1.436 1.479 1.493 1.523 1.536 1.556 1.589 1.637 1.639 1.682 1.705 1.737 1.741 1.768 1.783 1.792 1.811 1.823 1.848 1.867 1.883 1.891 1.906 1.913 1.921 1.951 1.960 1.968 1.979 To (km) 1.229 1.256 1.263 1.294 1.320 1.342 1.354 1.396 1.435 1.478 1.491 1.521 1.535 1.554 1.587 1.636 1.639 1.680 1.704 1.736 1.741 1.765 1.782 1.791 1.809 1.821 1.843 1.864 1.881 1.888 1.896 1.912 1.919 1.947 1.959 1.968 1.977 1.989
Formatted Table
Span Length (m) 26 26 6 29 23 20 9 41 36 42 12 28 12 18 31 47 2 41 22 31 4 24 14 8 17 10 20 16 14 5 5 6 6 26 8 8 9 10
Number of Spans eExceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Unity Check ( 1.0)
Comment [RKJ29]: Flag
Comment [RKJ30]: Flag Comment [RKJ31]: Flag
45
0.63
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 24 of 46
From (km) To (km) Span Location (KP) Case From (km) 1.990 1.997 2.019 2.051 2.071 2.102 2.107 2.130 2.137 2.162 2.198 2.203 2.231 2.252 2.255 2.289 2.315 2.320 2.328 2.338 2.346 2.356 2.362 2.377 2.380 2.388 2.410 2.414 2.429 2.435 2.442 2.449 2.458 2.488 To (km) 1.996 2.016 2.050 2.069 2.100 2.105 2.129 2.133 2.157 2.195 2.202 2.227 2.249 2.254 2.282 2.315 2.318 2.327 2.338 2.346 2.354 2.358 2.375 2.380 2.384 2.403 2.413 2.429 2.434 2.441 2.449 2.456 2.485 2.531
Formatted Table
Span Length (m) 6 19 31 18 29 3 22 3 20 33 4 24 18 2 27 26 3 7 10 8 8 2 13 3 4 15 3 15 5 6 7 7 27 43
Allowable Span Length (m) 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Number of Spans eExceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Unity Check ( 1.0)
45
0.63
Comment [RKJ32]: Flag Formatted: Font: 9 pt Formatted: Font: 9 pt Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Note 1: Span length exceeds 40 m is potential span locations that need to be checked during post-lay trench.
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 25 of 46
Formatted: None, Don't keep with next, Do keep lines together Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.06" Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Space Before: 3 pt
Table 5.2: Result of Pipeline On-Bottom Roughness Analyses (Flooding)
From (km) To (km) Span Location (KP) Case Flooding From (km) 1 25 36 50 60 72 83 To (km) 3 35 43 52 69 75 87 Span Length (m) 2 10 7 2 9 3 4
Formatted Table
Allowable Span Length (m) 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Number of Spans Exceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Unity Check Formatted: Font: Bold ( 1.0) 0.75
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 26 of 46
From (km) To (km) Span Location (KP) Case From (km) 96 126 129 140 161 181 193 215 243 253 292 323 345 356 376 403 417 442 448 460 471 481 484 511 535 562 572 585 601 605 618 630 644 679 703 721 736 747 To (km) 114 128 138 160 172 192 201 234 252 281 313 331 353 361 386 411 424 444 451 467 473 483 488 514 545 568 581 588 605 608 623 634 661 692 707 731 738 750 Span Length (m) 18 2 9 20 11 11 8 19 9 28 21 8 8 5 10 8 7 2 3 7 2 2 4 3 10 6 9 3 4 3 5 4 17 13 4 10 2 3
Formatted Table
Number of Spans Exceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Unity Check Formatted: Font: Bold ( 1.0)
75
0.75
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 27 of 46
Formatted Table
75
0.75
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 28 of 46
Formatted Table
75
0.75
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 29 of 46
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 30 of 46
From (km) To (km) Span Location (KP) Case From (km) 2368 2381 2392 2416 2430 2436 2442 2450 2459 2492 2519 To (km) 2370 2383 2402 2429 2434 2441 2449 2455 2485 2506 2529 Span Length (m) 2 2 10 13 4 5 7 5 26 14 10
Formatted Table
Allowable Span Length (m) 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Number of Spans Exceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Unity Check Formatted: Font: Bold ( 1.0) 0.75
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 31 of 46
Table 5.3: Result of Pipeline On-Bottom Roughness Analyses (Hydrotest)
From (km)
To (km) Span Length (m) 2 10 7 2 9 3 4 Allowable Span Length (m) 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 Number of Spans exceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL Maximum Stress (100% SMYS) 92 Unity Check ( 1.0) 0.92
Formatted Table
Span Location (KP) Case Hydrotest From (km) 1 25 36 50 60 72 83 To (km) 3 35 43 52 69 75 87
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 32 of 46
From (km)
To (km) Span Length (m) 18 2 9 20 11 11 8 19 9 28 21 8 8 5 10 8 7 2 3 7 2 2 4 3 10 6 9 3 4 3 5 4 17 13 4 Allowable Span Length (m) 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 Number of Spans exceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL Maximum Stress (100% SMYS) Unity Check ( 1.0)
Formatted Table
Span Location (KP) Case From (km) 96 126 129 140 161 181 193 215 243 253 292 323 345 356 376 403 417 442 448 460 471 481 484 511 535 562 572 585 601 605 618 630 644 679 703 To (km) 114 128 138 160 172 192 201 234 252 281 313 331 353 361 386 411 424 444 451 467 473 483 488 514 545 568 581 588 605 608 623 634 661 692 707
92
0.92
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 33 of 46
From (km)
Formatted Table
92
0.92
Comment [RKJ33]: Not clear why singled o for short spans
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 34 of 46
From (km)
Formatted Table
92
0.92
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 35 of 46
From (km)
Formatted Table
92
0.92
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 36 of 46
From (km)
To (km) Span Length (m) 22 3 10 3 25 4 15 3 5 8 5 5 5 2 2 10 13 4 5 7 5 26 14 10 Allowable Span Length (m) 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 Number of Spans exceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL Maximum Stress (100% SMYS) Unity Check ( 1.0)
Formatted Table
Span Location (KP) Case From (km) 2204 2232 2235 2246 2256 2289 2295 2311 2321 2329 2339 2349 2363 2368 2381 2392 2416 2430 2436 2442 2450 2459 2492 2519 To (km) 2226 2235 2245 2249 2281 2293 2310 2314 2326 2337 2344 2354 2368 2370 2383 2402 2429 2434 2441 2449 2455 2485 2506 2529
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 37 of 46
Table 5.4: Result of Pipeline On-Bottom Roughness Analyses (Operation)
Span Location (KP) Case Operation From (km) 1 24 49 60 72 83 89 95 126 181 203 212 241 292 To (km) 3 44 52 70 76 87 92 116 172 202 206 234 283 300 Span Length (m) 2 20 3 10 4 4 3 21 46 21 3 22 42 8
Allowable Span Length (m) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Number of Spans exceeding Allowable Span Length NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL 1 NIL NIL NIL 1 NIL
Unity Check ( 1.0) 0.94
Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted Table
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 38 of 46
6.
REFERENCES
1. 1.2. 3. 3.4. 5. 5.6. 7. 7.8. 9. 10. MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENG-RPT-001 Residual Engineering Design Basis. PGB0078-LEKAS(P2)-00-PL-REP-0012 Pipeline Free Span Report OFFPIPE USERS GUIDE MANUAL by Robert C. Malahy, Jr Petronas Technical Standards, Pipeline and Riser Engineering PTS 20.214
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
DNV-RP-F105, Free Spanning Pipelines

PG80078-LEKAS(P2)-00-PL-DGA-0007 30-inch Pipeline Alignment Drawing PG80078-LEKAS(P2)-00-PL-DGA-0018 30-inch Pipeline trench and Burial Details MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENG-DWG-001 Shore Approach-Site Layout Plan MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENG-DWG-003 Shore Approach-Sections, Elevations, and Detail MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENG-DWG-016 Typical Free Span Correction Details Drawing
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
10.11. DNV RP F109 On-Bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines
Rev: 00BA
Page 39 of 46
APPENDIX A OFFPIPE OUTPUTS
Rev: 00BA
Page 40 of 46
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 41 of 46 Formatted: None, Don't keep with next, Do

keep lines together Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.06"
APPENDIX B TYPICAL FREE SPAN CORRECTION DETAILS
Formatted: Space After: 10 pt, Line spacin Multiple 1.15 li, Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
Rev: 00BA
Page 42 of 46
APPENDIX C 30-INCH PIPELINE ALIGNMENT DRAWING
Rev: 00BA
Page 43 of 46
APPENDIX D SHORE APPROACH DRAWING
Formatted Table
Rev: B00
Page 44 of 46 Formatted: None, Don't keep with next, Do

keep lines together Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.06"
Rev: 00BA
Page 45 of 46
APPENDIX E PIPELINE WEIGHT CALCULATIONS
EPCIC ALLIANCE LNG REGASIFICATION UNIT, ISLAND BERTH AND SUBSEA PIPELINE ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS
Rev: A Page 46 of 46
Formatted: Width: 8.27", Height: 11.69"
PJ016
PJ016-ENG-RPT-006

Bottom Roughness Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bottom Roughness Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comment [MSOffice1]:

SUBSEA PIPELINE AND SUBSEA CABLE INSTALLATION, TESTING & PRE-COMMISSIONING

MASER PROJECT NO: MME-PJ-ME-PJ016 LYE PROJECT NO: LY104201

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

DOCUMENTATION REF. NO.: MME-PJ-ME-PJ016-ENG-RPT-00611

Issued for PRW review

Issued for MASER Review

Issued For Internal Review

VKV MME APPROVED PRW APPROVED ALLIANCE ENDORSED

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Comment [MSOffice3]: Pls update and include the Appendixes.

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................. 1615 APPENDICES

Formatted: Left, Line spacing: Multiple 1.2 Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Left, Line spacing: Multiple 1.2 Formatted: Font: Bold

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Objective of the Document

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Highlight

Comment [RKJ6]: This table gives stress allowable.

Comment [RKJ7]: Not clear

Formatted Table Formatted: Centered Formatted: Widow/Orphan control

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Number of Spans Exceeding Allowable Span Length

Formatted: Line spacing: single Formatted Table

Formatted: Line spacing: single

0.300 2.531 (LFP)

2 0.63 0.75 0.92 0.94

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Pipeline Process Data

30-inch pipeline LNG 68.95 103.425 Maximum 55 498 439

Delta Temperature (C) 0

Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted Formatted Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted

Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted Formatted

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Table 3.3: Pressure Used for Load Cases

Design Condition Installation Hydrotest Flooded Operation 3.3 Pipeline Data

Pressure (barg) 0 103.425 (Hydrotest Pressure) 0 68.95 (Design Pressure)

kg/m mm mm MPa MPa kg/m

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Description Internal Corrosion Allowance

Formatted: Space Before: 2.5 pt, After: 2. pt Formatted Table

External Coating Material Properties

Formatted: Space Before: 2.5 pt, After: 2. pt

Density (kg/m ) 1280 925 3040 1027

Comment [RKJ12]: Do they use both coatings?

Field Joint Coating

Seawater Properties The seawater properties are presented in Table 3.46.

Formatted: Font: Bold

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1.25 li Formatted Table

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.7

Formatted: Heading 3, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.7"

ON-BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Comment [RKJ14]: Be made 3.5.2

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0

Formatted Table Formatted: Centered

Design Water Depth

Formatted: Heading 3, Left, Indent: Left: 0 Hanging: 0.7"