OTC 17815

Mitigation Methods for Deepwater Pipeline Instability Induced by Pressure and

Temperature Variations
D. Perinet and I. Frazer, Acergy

Copyright 2006, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 14 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Deep water field developments have introduced a new set of
general conditions which can significantly affect the design of
subsea pipelines compared to more conventional water depths
experienced in the past. Deep water pipelines do not require a
concrete weight coating due to the low wave and current
loads, as a result these pipelines have a lower submerged
weight. This combined with the lower resistance provided by
the soft soil found on the sea bed in deep water have resulted
in pipelines being more susceptable to movements both in the
lateral and axial directions as a result of pressure and
temperature driven loads. Consequenthly the instability of
pipelines on the sea bed induced by pressure and temperature
effects have taken a much larger importance. This paper will
compare a range of solutions which can be used to mitigate
these issues of lateral buckling and pipe walking, which can
cumulated their effect and induce fatigue failures of the
pipeline. The paper will be based upon the practical
experienced gain in implementing these mitigation measures
in deep water projedcts in West Africa. Based upon an
understanding of the instability mechanisms and the practical
aspects of installation, each mitigation method will be
discussed and the impact on pipeline design, installation, and
project cost and planning will be highlighted.
Introduction
The expansion of submarine pipelines under the influence of
pressure and temperature is not a new subject area for the
design of pipelines, risers and tie-in spools. However,
previously, the issues were mainly concerned with the
displacements of the pipe ends and the resulting stresses and
strains in the pipe wall. In addition for trenched and buried
pipelines the issues of up-heaval buckling have required
specific attention in recent years. It is important to note that

the pipe end displacements under these conditions can be

considered to be more or less reversible. That is the expansion
of the pipeline experienced during production start up is more
or less equal to the retraction of the pipeline during a shut
down situation. This paper deals with a relatively new
phenomena influencing deep water flowlines layed directly on
the seabed, where the displacements induced by pressure and
temperature variations can result in progressive and
cumulative movements of the pipeline. The factors influencing
the progressive movements include : Constant and asymmetrical tension applied to the
pipeline from a Steel Catenary Riser (SCR)
Relatively lightweight pipelines due to the absence of
a concrete weight coating and use of insulation
coatings which can have specific gravity less than 1.0.
Short in field flowlines, consequently the whole line is
affected by the pressure and temperature
displacements
In general deep water soils are very soft with a high
water content and consequently provide relatively
little resistance to pipeline movements
The conditions described above for deep water flowlines can
result in two different types of displacements. These are :Axial Displacement commonly known as Pipe Walking
where the progressive displacement of the pipeline over many
production start up cycles can cumulate resulting in global
axial movement of the pipeline.
Lateral Displacement where the pressure and temperature
induced displacements can cause the pipeline to move laterally
and can result in lateral buckling of the pipeline.
Impact of Pipeline Movements
The pipeline displacements induced by pressure and
temperature will result in stresses in the pipeline itself and the
connection spools and subsea structures. The continuous
production cycles of start up and shut down result in cyclic
loading and progressive movements of the flowlines. This will
result in cumulative fatigue damage to the flowlines, which if
not considered in the overall design of the flowline system can
result in failure and rupture of the flowline. Under these
conditions excessive bending and subsequent failure of the
pipeline are extremely unlikely, the fatigue of the line being
the most likely failure mechanism. It is important that a
distinction is made between the design conditions for a
pipeline and the operating conditions. The design pressure and

temperature by their nature should be extreme not to be

exceeded values, which are used for the ultimate design of the
pipeline. However the design temperature and pressure should
not be used when assessing the pipe walking and lateral
buckling of the pipeline, as this may result in overly
conservative results. The operational temperature and pressure
must be used when assessing the pipe walking and lateral
buckling.
It is not just the cyclic pressure and temperature loading
caused by production shut downs, which need to be
considered, but also the pressure fluctuations resulting from
the transient nature of the fluid flow inside the pipeline.
Immediately after a production shut down the flow is not
stable and pressure fluctuations can add to the cumulative
fatigue damage in the pipeline.
If a pipeline is considered to be perfectly straight then the
primary movements will be in the axial direction. However
this is very rarely the case and curvature of the pipeline can
result in lateral movements, which increase with increasing
curvature of the line. High levels of curvature can amplify the
effects of pressure variations resulting in relatively large
lateral movements due to pressure variations.
Consequently it is clear that the production shut down
frequency of a flowline system can directly influence the
fatigue damage incurred in the flowline. As an order of
magnitude one shut down per week during the lifetime of a
flowline can significantly influence the fatigue behavior of the
line. For a 20 year field life this results in approximately 1000
production shut down cycles. This will induce 1000 thermal
cycles in the line which on there own are unlikely to result in
fatigue failure of the pipeline. However these must be
combined with the pressure variations which can be orders of
magnitude higher resulting in a potential fatigue problem
unless mitigation measures are provided for in the pipeline
system design.
A detailed description of the factors influencing both the
axial and lateral movements of pipelines subjected to pressure
and temperature loads can be found in Reference /1/. In
addition these issues are the subject of a Joint Industry Project
SAFEBUCK /2/ where the uncertainties in both the soil and
fatigue models are being studied together with the
establishment of design guidelines for dealing with these
conditions. This paper will subsequently concentrate on the
methods, which can be employed to mitigate against both pipe
walking and lateral buckling. Before discussing the mitigation
methods it is first necessary to describe the boundary
conditions existing on the pipelines, as these will influence the
selection of the appropriate mitigation methods.
Boundary Conditions
The boundary conditions have a major impact on the response
of a pipeline when subjected to pressure and temperature
loads. The boundary conditions to be considered not only
include the conditions at the extremities of the pipeline such as
risers and subsea structures, but also the conditions along the
length of the line. This is particularly important for water
injection lines, particularly in West Africa where several tee
structures can be located along the length of the pipeline.
These structures can act as anchors along the line and can
prevent axial movements of the pipeline or be fitted with

OTC 17815

sliding arrangements to provide some compliance with the

axial loads.
The risers have a significant influence on the stability of
the pipelines. In the case of a Hybrid Riser Tower, Figure 1,
the risers are rigidly linked to the flowlines through tie-in
spools. Consequently these risers can be considered as fixed
structures at the end of the pipeline.

Figure 1 : Hybrid Riser Towers

However in the case of a Steel Catenary Riser, Figure 2,

the riser connects directly to the pipeline at the touch down
point of the catenary which will result in asymmetrical loading
of the pipeline.

Figure 2 : Field Development with Steel Catenary Risers

OTC 17815

At the touch down point region of the SCR, the suspended

part of the riser will transfer a tensile force into the horizontal
pipeline, which is in contact with the seabed. In the case of
temperature loading, if the pipeline is not anchored, the
pipeline will experience an expansion at both ends of the
pipeline, that is towards the SCR and towards the opposite
end. As a result the pipeline will expand and move on either
side of a fixed point on the pipeline. When the pipeline
experiences a production shut down the pipeline will cool
down and on both sides of the fixed point. However the
pipeline is still under the influence of the tensile load from the
riser and consequently these fixed points are at different
locations depending on whether the pipe is expanding or
contracting. In the shut down situation when the pipeline is
cooling down and retracting the fixed point will be closer to
the SCR than during the start up situation. As a result the
pipeline will experience a net displacement towards the SCR
at every production Shut Down Cycle, this is further illustrated
in Figure 3 below. A similar asymmetrical loading and
cumulative displacement may result when pipelines are layed
down a relatively steep sloping seabed. In this case the
asymmetrical loads are resulting from the gravity component
of the pipeline weight acting down the direction of the sloping
seabed.

Pipe Walking Prevention

In order to eliminate the effects of pipe walking it is
essential that the pipeline be anchored in some way. Achieving
this at the first end of the pipeline is relatively straightforward,
as the anchoring system can be included within the initiation
system for the pipelay operations. However anchoring the
pipeline at the second end, where the pipelay is terminated
requires a more complex solution. At the first end of the
pipeline it is possible to use a suction anchor which can be
connected to the pipeline to anchor the pipeline end and
prevent any axial displacement of the line. The suction anchor
can be positioned accurately on the seabed prior to the start of
pipelay and either used to initiate the pipelay or be connected
to the pipeline after the laying operation. The connection to
the pipeline can be made with a chain linking the suction
anchor to the flowline as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 : Axial Movement Mitigation with Anchor and Chain

It is necessary with this system to pretension the chain

prior to lay down of the pipeline head on the seabed, which is
an added operation and consequently adding to the cost of the
overall pipeline system.
An alternative to the chain connection system is a system
of direct mechanical connection of the pipeline end to the
suction anchor. This is shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 where
the Tee Bar arrangement on the end of the pipeline mates with
the receptacle on top of the suction anchor, providing a stab
and hinge over mechanism for both initiating the pipelay and
anchoring the flowline end preventing pipe walking.
Figure 3 : Illustration of Pipe Walking

Mitigation Measures
When dealing with lateral buckling and pipe walking it is
considered safer to provide mitigation measures to prevent
these conditions than attempt to design the pipeline system to
accommodate the loads and displacements.
From a general point of view there are two alternative
approaches which can be taken with respect to mitigation
measures. These are restraining the pipeline to prevent or limit
the resulting displacements and a compliant approach where
the location for the displacements are selected to prevent
excessive stress variations in the pipe. The anchoring approach
is best suited to mitigating pipe walking, whereas the
compliant approach is best suited to the control of lateral
buckling.

Figure 5 : Pipeline Anchor with Stab & Hinge Over System

OTC 17815

Lateral Buckling Prevention

As discussed above a compliant approach is the most
effective mitigation technique for lateral displacements.
Basically this involves allowing the pipeline to move laterally
in a controlled manner to prevent the build up of high
curvature areas which can result in high fatigue loads. Snake
Lay is one such method, which has been proposed as a
mitigation method for lateral buckling. This is based upon
laying the pipeline with some predetermined curves in the line
as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 6 : Offshore Installation of Stab & Hinge Over System

The stab and hinge over system shown Figure 5 and 6

above provide a rigid connection to the top of the suction
anchor. This has the effect that the pipeline end is axially
restrained in both directions which must be taken into account
in the overall pipeline system design. In addition with this
system the pipeline loads are transferred to the top of the
suction anchor. This is a less efficient load transfer than
applying the load part way down the anchor, as shown in
Figure 4. As a result the suction anchors may need to be larger
than if the loads were applied at a more optimum location.
For anchoring the second end of a pipeline a preinstalled
set of anchors can be used connected to the pipeline via a set
of chains and a clamp on the pipeline, as shown in Figure 7.

Walking

Clamp
Chain
Pile
Figure 7 : Anchor and Chain Restraint for Pipeline

If it is necessary to provide an axial restraint system for the

mid-section of a pipeline, a preinstalled suction pile can be
used fitted with a set of guides on the top. The pipeline is
layed through the guides and a set of chains used to provide
the connection to the suction anchor to provide the axial
restraint to the pipeline, as shown in Figure 8.
Guide
lateral

Walking

Clamp

Pile
Chain

Figure 8 : Mid Line Axial Restraint System

Figure 9 : Snake Lay

The aim of snake lay is to provide an over length of the

pipeline within the deliberate curves layed in the line, which
will absorb the expansion of the pipeline. However it in the
opinion of the authors the snake lay method of mitigation is
not suitable as a mitigation technique for deep water pipelines.
The main reason for this is, in deep water the seabed soil tends
to be soft clay as a result it is very difficult to predict the level
of lateral resistance which can be achieved form the soil due to
the uncertainties related to pipeline emmbedment. As a result
the expansion behavior of the pipeline in the overlength
regions can be very uncertain, consequently it is not a reliable
mitigation technique for such deep water conditions. In
addition it can be difficult to guarantee the accurate formation
of the desired curved lay route in deep water conditions due to
the level of control available from the laybarge and the level
of resistance from the soft seabed.
One simple potential mitigation method for lateral
displacements is to increase the lateral resistance of the
pipeline on the seabed by progressive free flooding of the
pipeline, thereby increasing the embeddment of the pipe into
the seabed. This requires the injection of chemicals into the
water such as corrosion inhibitor and biocide, which is an
added complication. The efficiency of this method is based on
the fact that the pipe-soil resistance at the Touch Down Point
is larger than in the case of post laying flooding. However it
has to be pointed out that the soil behavior may be different
from the consolidation and draining point of view in the case
of the short duration loading during laying and the final result
may be less than anticipated.
Another relatively simple mitigation method is to bury the
pipeline beneath the seabed. This can be achieved with a
subsea trenching and burial system such as the one shown in
Figure 10. This will obviously depend on the characteristics of
the seabed soils, however in some circumstances can provide a
relatively cost effect and reliable solution to the mitigation of
lateral buckling.

OTC 17815

locations a sleeper is placed on the seabed and the pipeline

layed over it. This has the effect of both providing a surface
which has less lateral resistance than the seabed, and also
raising a length of pipeline above the seabed also reducing the
lateral resistance of the pipe. A typical layout for this type of
mitigation system is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 10 : Pipeline Burial Machine

Lateral buckling can be mitigated by allowing the pipeline

to expand by providing an axial sliding system on the subsea
structures. With this system the thermal expansion of the pipe
end does not generate buckling compression at the extremity.
Such systems can be used in conjunction with a chainanchoring device attached to the sliding part of the subsea
structure. This is a method, which has been employed on a
number of projects in West Africa. In this situation a sliding
device is built into the subsea structure, as shown in Figure 11.
The sliding device is locked during the pipelay operations and
then released by an ROV once the pipeline is installed on the
seabed.

Figure 11 : Mid Line Tee with Sliding System

Mitigation against lateral buckling can be achieved by

providing controlled lateral movements of the pipeline to
avoid the situation of the expansion from various parts of the
pipeline feeding into one particular area producing a very
large lateral displacement with high curvature. This mitigation
method involves providing areas along the length of the
pipeline which have a significantly lower lateral resistance
than the majority of the line. Thereby forcing the pipeline to
move laterally in these areas to relieve the axial load in the
pipe which can cause the high buckling loads. At each of these

Figure 12 : Sleeper System

The selection of the particular mitigation system which is

most suited to a particular situation will be very much
dependant on the conditions and constraints affecting a
specific project. Each one of the mitigation methods presented
in this paper are suitable for a number of physical situations
the selection will be very much dependant on project specific
constraints. The philosophy of this mitigation method is the
spreading of the extra length induced by thermal expansion
over a long section of the pipeline in order to avoid
concentration of curvature.
The design of the pipeline has to be undertaken by
eliminating any potential source of curvature concentration.
Short sections with a lower stiffness in particularly when the
pipeline includes a number of different components need
particular attention. Special care should also be given to the
overall layout of the flowline system on the seabed to
eliminate areas where the pipe has a short radius of curvature.
This can result in the situation of the lateral loading due to
pressure and temperature exceeding the lateral resistance
provided by the soil.
At locations where the pipe is planned to move laterally,
the pipe design is no longer governed by static loads.
Consequently the fatigue behavior of the pipeline when
subjected to cyclic loads requires special attention in these
areas. This results in the need for extra attention to the welding
of the pipeline and in particularly the improvement of the weld
profile for the adjacent pipes in these areas.
The mitigation methods presented above can require a
significant amount of subsea intervention and consequently
can have a relatively large cost associated with the mitigation
systems. It is not possible within the confines of this paper to
go into the details costs of each mitigation system as this will
be very much dependant on the specifics of the situation under
consideration. However as a general guide for a large subsea

OTC 17815

field development the cost of the mitigation measures can be

as much as 10% of the overall cost of the flowline system.
However the cost of not including any mitigation measures
can be orders of magnitude higher than this.
Conclusions
This paper has presented an overview of the drivers behind
pipe walking and lateral buckling, highlighting the need for
mitigation systems. The mitigation systems, which are suitable
for control of both pipe walking and lateral buckling have
been presented and discussed.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Acergy for supporting this
paper and the contribution from the various Project Teams
who have implemented many of the mitigation solutions
presented in this paper.
References
/1/

Perinet, D., and Frazer, I. : Movements of Deep Water

Flowlines as a Result of Pressure and Temperature Loads, and
the Influence of Steel Catenary Risers, Deep Offshore
Technology Conference, Vitoria, Brazil, 2005.

/2/

Bruton, D., Carr, M., Crawford, M., and Poiate, E. : The Safe
Design of Hot On-Bottom Pipelines with Lateral Buckling
Using the Guideline Developed by the SAFEBUCK Joint
Industry Project, Deep Offshore Technology Conference,
Vitoria, Brazil, 2005.