GUIDELINES

No.14

FREE SPANNING PIPELINES

JUNE 1998

DETNORSKE VERITAS
Veiitasveien I, N-1322 H0vil<, Norway Tel.: +47 67 57 99 00 Fax: +47 67 57 99 11
FOREWORD
DET NORSKE VERITAS (DNV) is an autonomous and independent Foundation with the object of safeguarding life, property
and the environment at sea and ashore.

DET NORSKE VERITAS AS (DNV AS), a fully owned subsidiary Society of the Foundation, undertakes classification and
certification and ensures the quality of ships, mobile offshore units, fixed offshore strnctures, facilities and systems, and carries
out research in connection with these functions. The Society operates a world-wide network of survey stations and is
authorised by more than 120 national administrations to carry out surveys and, in most cases, issue certificates on their behalf.

Guidelines

Guidelines are publications which give infonnation and advice on technical and formal matters related to the design, building,
operating, maintenance and repair of vessels and other objects, as well as the services rendered by the Society in this
connection. Aspects concerning classification may be included in the publication.

An updated list of Guidelines is available on request. The list is also given in the Latest edition of the Introduction-booklets to
the ''Rules for Classification of Ships", the "Rules for Classification of Mobile Offshore Units" and the "Rules for
Classification of High Speed and Light Craft".

In "Rules for Classification of Fixed Offshore Installations", only those Guidelines which are relevant for this type of structure
have been listed.

Comments may be sent by e-mail to dtp203@dnv.c:om

For subscription orders or information about subscription terms, please use distribution@dnv.com

Comprehensive information about DNV and the Society's services i:; found at the Web site http://www.dnv.com

Det Norske Veritas AS 1998

Data processed and typeset by Division Technology and Products, Det Norske Veritas AS
Printed in Norway by Det Norske Veritas AS
98-06-05 11:54 -Gul4.doc
6.98.2000
If any pe1SOn suffeis loss or damage wtllch is pro~ed to have been caused by any negligent act or omission of Del Norske Verilas, then Del Norske Ventas shall pay compensation to such person for
his proved direct loss or damage. However, the oompensation shall not exceed an amoonl equal to ten times the fee chaiged for the seivice in queslion, provided Iha! lhe maximum compensaliOll shall
never 8XCeOO USO 2mHllon.

In lhis provision "Del Nocske vemas shaO mean the FOUlldation Del Nolske V91i!as as weE as all ils subsidiaries, directors. officers, empk>yees, agenlS and any oUlef acting on behatt cl Del N01Ske
Ventas.
CONTENTS
1. General ..................................................................... 4 S. Hydrodynamic Description .................................. 20
1.1 Introduction ........................ .................................... ... 4 5.1 Flow Regilnes ......................................................... 20
1.2 Scope and Applicability ...... ......................... .............. 4 5.2 Hydrodynamic Parameters .......................... .... ........ 22
1.3 Structure of Guideline ............................................... S 5.3 Sea-bed Proxilnity ................ .. ................................. 22
1.4 Relationship to Other Rules ....................................... 6 6. Environmental conditions..................................... 23
1.5 Safety Philosophy ...... ................................................ 6 6.1 General ................................................ .................... 23
l .6 Definitions ................................................................. 6 6.2 Current Conditions .................................................. 23
2. Free Span Classiftcation .......................................... 9 6.3 Short-tenn Wave Conditions .................. .. ............... 24
2.1 General ...................................................................... 9 6.4 Long-Tenn Statistics .. ...... ............ ....... ............. ..... .. 27
2.2 Morphological Classification .. ............. .... ................. . 9 7. Fatigue Analysis .................................................... 28
2.3 Temporal Classification ........................................... I 1 7.1 General .......................................................... .......... 28
3. Free Span Analysis ................................................ 11 7.2 Fatigue Criteria ....................................................... 28
3.1 General .................... ................................................ 11 7.3 SN-Curves ......... .................... .. .. .............................. 29
3.2 Structural Modelling ....................... ......................... 11 7.4 Safety Factors ........................ .. ................................ 30
3.3 Loads ....................................................................... 12 8. Amplitude Response Models ................................ 31
3.4 Static Analysis .................................. ....................... 12 8.1 General .................................................................... 31
3.5 Eigen-value Analyses ................................ .............. 13 8.2 In-line VIV in Current Dominated Conditions ........ 31
3 .6 Damping .............................. ........................ .......... .. 13 8.3 Cross-Flow VIV from Combined Wave and Current34
3 .7 Approximate Response Quantities ........................ .. . 15 9. Force Models ......................................................... 36
4. Geotechnical Conditions ....................................... 16 9. I General .................................................................... 36
4.1 General ........... .............. ......... ... ......... ........ .............. 16 9.2 In-line Direction .................................................. .. .. 36
4.2 Modelling of Soil Interaction................................... 17 9.3 Cross-Flow Direction ............... ................ ............... 38
4.3 Approximate Soil Stiffness ........................ .............. 18 10. References .............................................................. 38
4.4 Artificial Supports ............................. ...................... 20

DET NORSKE VERJTAS

4 Guidelines No. 14
1. General
1.1 Introduction
The present Guideline considers fatigue of free spanning
pipelines subjected to combined wave and current loading.
The premises for the Guideline are based on the technical
development within pipeline free span technology in recent
R&D projects as well as design experience from recent and
ongoing projects, i.e.
The sections regarding Geotechnical Conditions and part
of the hydrodynamic model are based on the research
perfonned in the GUDESP project, see Tura et al.,
(1994). The GUDESP project is a JIP sponsored by
EEC-General Directorate for Energy, Exxon Production
Research, Statoil and Snam SpA and perfonned by
Danish Hydraulic Institute, Snamprogetti SpA and Det
Norske Veritas.
The sections regarding Free Span Analysis and in-line
VIV fatigue analyses are based on the published results
from the MULTISPAN project, see Merk et al., (1997).
The MUL TISPAN project is a JTP sponsored by Statoil
and Norsk Agip and performed by Snamprogetti SpA,
SINTEF, Danish Hydraulic Institute and Det Norske
Veritas.
Further, recent R&D and design experience e.g. from
Asgard Transport, ZEEPIPE, NORFRA and TROLL
OIL pipeline projects are implemented.
The basic principles applied in this Guideline are in
agreement with most recognised rules and reflect state-of-
the-art industry practice and latest research.
1.2 Scope and applicability
1.2.1
The objective of this Guideline is to provide rational design
criteria and guidance on fatigue analyses of free pipeline
spans subjected to combined wave and current loading.
Detailed design criteria are specified for fatigue analyses due
to in-line and cross-flow Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV).
Functional requirements are given for direct wave loading.
The following topics are considered:
methodologies for free span analysis
requirements for structural modelling
geotechnical conditions
environmental conditions & loads
requirements for fatigue analysis
response and direct wave force analysis models
acceptance criteria.
1.2.2
The following environmental flow conditions are described
in this document:
steady flow due to current
oscillatory flow due to waves
combined flow due to current and waves.
DETNORSKE VERITAS
June 1998
The flow regimes are discussed in section 5.1.
1.2.3
The foJlowing soils are considered:
cohesive soils (clay)
cohesionless soils (sand).
The geotechnical conditions are discussed in section 4.
1.2.4
The free span analysis may be based on a simple structural
model or a refined FE approach depending on the free span
classification, see section 2. The following cases are
considered:
single spans
spans interacting with adjacent/side spans.
1.2.5
Free spans may be caused by:
seabed unevenness
change of seabed topology (e.g. scouring, sand waves).
1.2.6
The following analysis models are considered:
response models
force models.
An amplitude response model is applicable when the
vibration of the free span is dominated by vortex induced
resonance phenomena. A force model may be used when the
free span response can be found through application of
calibrated hydrodynamic loads. The selection of an
appropriate model may be based on the prevailing flow
regimes, see section 5.1.
t.2.7
The loads to be considered for fatigue analysis of free
spanning pipelines includes:
functional loads
environmental loads, comprising
direct loads from wave and current
loads induced by hydro-elastic phenomena.
Fatigue loads from trawl impact, cyclic loads during
installation or pressure variations are not considered herein
but must be considered as a part of the integrated fatigue
damage assessment.
1.2.8
An explicit criterion for onset of cross-flow VIV is not
included in this Guideline. Design recommendations in case
of current dominated conditions can be found in
MULTrSPAN ( l 996) and M0rk et al., ( 1997).
Guidelines No. 14 5

June 1998

1.2.9 1.3 Structure of Guideline

Static design check and combined stress check from static
and dynamic bending moment induced peak stress, axial
force and pressure shall be performed in compliance with the
Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems, 1996.
1.3.l
The structure of this Guideline illustrating the components
entering the fatigue analyses is given in the figure below.

FLOW CHART FOR FATIGUE ANALYSES

Project Da1a Free Span Scenario

Design Conditions DESIGN BASJS Safety Philosophy

Current Conditions ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION Wave Conditions

::---j
-----.....------------
Structural Modtlling FR.1E SPAN ANALYSES Geotechnical Conditions

Eigenvalue Full FE-simulation

Static Analyses
Analyses
Simplified Assessment

mode shapes frequencies damping

Hydrodynamic Paramete . Hyd rodynamic Forces

reduced velocity vave velocity
Keulcgan-Carpenter numbe

FORCl!:MODEL
RESPONSE MODEL
TIME DOMAIN v~ FREQUENCY DOMAIN

PIPE RESPONSF:
(STRESS RANGES &. CYCLES)

SN CURVF.S
(Tl!ST DATA, LITERATIJRE, l'MA)

SAFETY FACTORS
(SAFETY CLASS. ADD. DATA)

DET NORSKE VERlT AS

6 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

1.4 Relationship to other Rules
1.4.1
This Guideline formally supports and complies with the
Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems, 1996, hereafter called
the Rules for Pipelines, and is considered.to be a supplement
to relevant National Rules and Regulations.
judgement in order to obtain a safety level equivalent to
modem industry practice.
1.6 Definitions
The international system of units (ST system) is applied
throughout the Guideline. Further, the following definitions
apply:

external cross-section area

1.4.2
This guideline is supported by other DNV documents as A; internal cross-section area
follows:
pipe steel cross section area
Classification Note No. 30.2 "Fatigue Strength Analysis
for Mobile Offshore Units", 1984. (Av/D) normalised in-line VIV amplitude
Classification Note No. 30.5 "Environmental Conditions
(Az/D) normalised cross-flow VIV amplitude
and Environmental Loads", 1991.
The MUL TISPAN Project: Guideline. VIV of Free b chord corresponding to pipe embedment equal
Spanning Pipelines. Part I Steady Current Loading, tov
1996.
ln case of discrepancies in the recommendation, this c characteristic fatigue strength constant
Guideline supersedes the Classification Notes listed above.
c. added mass coefficient

1.5 Safety philosophy Co drag coefficient

1.5.1 (C3 +\) is the inertia coefficient

The safety philosophy adopted herein is in full compliance
with section 3 in the Rules for Pipelines. c(s) soil dampjng per unit length

Pipeline design is nonnally to be based on Location Class, 0 pipe outer diameter (including any coating)
Fluid Category and potential failure consequence for each detenninistic (design) fatigue damage
failure mode, and to be classified into one of the following Drat
Safety Classes: outer steel diameter
Low Safety Class, where failure implies no risk of E Young's modulus
human injury and minor environmental and economic
consequences. EI bending stiffuess
Normal Safety Class, classification for temporary
conditions where failure implies risk of human injury, e gap between the pipe bottom and the sea-floor
significant environmental pollution or very high
(e/D) seabed gap ratio
economic or political consequences. Normal
classification for Operation. fo in-line (fo.W or cross-flow (fo,cr) natural
High Safety Class, classification for operating conditions frequency
where failure implies risk of human injury, significant
environmental pollution or very high economic or
political consequences. S1 U is the vortex shedding frequency
D
For a definition of location class and fluid category, see the (Strouhal frequency)
Rules for Pipelines.
dominating vibration frequency
1.5.2 wave frequency
The reliability of the pipeline against fatigue failure is
ensured by use of a safety factor fonnat (also known as a PO distribution function
Load and Resistance Factors Design Format (LRFD)). gravity
g
For the in-line VIV acceptance criterion the set of safety G soil parameter
factors is calibrated to acceptable target reliability levels
using reliability based methods. 0(<0) frequency transfer function
For all other acceptance criteria the recommended safety
factors are based on a "soft calibration" and engineering

DET NORSKE V ERITAS

Guidelines No. 14 7

June 1998

Heir effective lay tension Pc external pressure

Hs significant wave height P internal pressure

h water depth, i.e. distance from the mean sea .1pi internal pressure difference relative to laying
level to the pipe
Q deflection load per unit length
le turbulence intensity over 30 minutes
OCR over-consolidation ratio (only clays)
Ip plasticity index, cohesive soils
PE Euler load
k wave number
R. axial soil reaction
kc soil parameter
Re current reduction factor
ks soil parameter
Ro reduction factor from wave direction and
kw nonnalisation constant spreading

KL lateral (horizontal) dynamic soil stiffness Rv vertical soil react1on

Kv vertical dynamic soil stiffness Rio reduction factor from turbulence and flow
direction
(k/D) pipe roughness
Rt reduction factor from damping
KC ~; is the Keulegan Carpenter numper
UD is the Reynolds number
w
Re v
41tme;r s abscissa co-ordinate along the pipe axis or
Ks is the stability parameter
pD2 spreading parameter

L free span length, (apparent)

s stress range, i.e. double stress amplitude

Setr effective axial force

La length of adjacent span
s~~ wave spectral density
Leff effectivespanlength

span length with vortex shedding loads Suu wave velocity spectra at pipe level
Ls
length of span shoulders Su undrained shear strength, cohesive soils
L sh

effective mass per unit length SA-ID unit amplitude stress (stress induced by a pipe
fie
(vibration mode) deflection equal to an outer
m fatigue exponent diameterD)

m(s) mass per unit length including structural SCF Stress Concentration Factor due to geometrical
mass, added mass and mass of internal fluid imperfections in the welded area not
implemented in the applied SN-curve.
Mn spectral moments of order n
S, Strauhal nwnber
MSL mean (surface) water level
pipe wall thickness or time
nI number of stress cycles
T temperature
N number of cycles to failure
Tn nonnalisation period
N1r true steel wall axial force
T11fe time of exposure to fatigue load effects
Ne soil bearing capacity
T" peak period
Nq soil bearing capacity
Tu mean zero upcrossing period of oscillating
Ny soil bearing capacity flow

DET NORSKE VERITAS

8 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

ilT temperature difference relative to laying K von Karmans constant or curvature

u Uc+Uw is the maximum flow velocity T] usage factor

mean flow velocity

u factor transforming standard deviations to
maximum response
current velocity nonnal to the pipe
axial friction coefficient
significant wave velocity
v Poisson's ratio or kinematic viscosity
wave induced velocity amplitude
mode shape
significant wave induced flow velocity
corrected for wave direction and spreading angle of friction, cohesionless soils

v vertical soil settlement (pipe embedment) p density of water

pJp spedfic mass ratio between the pipe mass (not

Uc + U w is the reduced velocity including added mass) and the displaced water,
f0 D
7t 02
v friction velocity P4

w wave energy spreading function effective soil stress

Wsou submerged wiit weight of soil environmental sea state vector E>=[H., Tv, Sw]T

z height above seabed e flow angle relative to pipe

Zo height to the mid pipe direction perpendicular to the pipeline

sea-bottom roughness mean/main wave direction

z reference (measurement) height spreading angle measured from the mean

wave direction
Uc
- ---''--- current flow velocity ratio total modal damping ratio
Uc + Uw
~voiJ soil modal damping ratio
Weibull distribution parameter
structural modal damping ratio
temperature expansion coefficient
hydrodynamic modal damping ratio
Weibull distribution parameter
angular wave frequency
Weibull distribution parameter
soil shear strength.
pipe eccentricity

t band-width parameter

\f/mod mode shape parameter

~ reduction factor

r gamma function

y peakedness parameter, JONSWAP spectrum

'Ys safety factor on stress amplitude

Yr safety factor on natural frequency

'Yk safety factor on stability parameter

DETNORSKE VERITAS
Guidelines No. 14 9

June 1998

scour induced or unevenness induced free span, see 2.3.

2. Free Span Classification
2.1.2
2.1 General
ln the table below an overview of typical free span
2.1.l
characteristics are given as a function of the free span length.
Jn the present chapter the free span scenario in classified into The ranges indicated for the normalised free span length in
tenns of (LID) are tentative and given for illustration only.
single (isolated) or multi-spanning free spans, see 2.2

UD Response description Characteristics

< 30 Very little dynamic It is nonnally not required to perfonn comprehensive fatigue
amplification. Not design check. Insignificant dynamic response from envirorunental
considered a free span loads expected and unlikely to experience VIV.

30-lOO Response dominated by Typical span length for operating conditions.

beam behaviour
Natural frequencies sensitive to boundary conditions (and
effective axial force). Maximum stress amplitudes normally at
span support.

100-200/250 Response dominated by Relevant for free spans at uneven seabed in temporary conditions.
combined beam and Natural frequencies sensitive to boundary conditions, effective
cable behaviour axial force (including initial deflection, geometric stiffness) and
pipe "feed in" for scour induced free spans in operation.
Maximum stress amplitudes at span support or at mid span

> 200/250 Response dominated by Relevant for small diameter pipes in temporary conditions.
cable behaviour Natural frequencies governed by detlected shape and effective
axial force. Maximum stress amplillldes at mid span.

2.2 Morphological classification
2.2.l
The objective of the morphological classification is to defme
whether the free span is isolated or interacting. The
morphological classification determines the degree of
complexity required of the free span analysis:
Two or more consecutive free spans are considered to be
isolated (i.e. single span) if the static and dynamic
behaviour are unaffected by neighbouring spans.
A sequence of free spans is interacting (i.e. multi-
spanning) if the static and dynamic behaviour is affected
by the presence of neighbouring spans. If the free span is
interacting, more than one span must be included in the
pipe/seabed model.
If detailed information is not available Figure 2-1 or figure
2-2 may be used to classify the spans into isolated or
interacting dependent on the soil types and span and support
lengths. The figures are in a narrow sense only valid for the
vertical (in-line) dynamic response but may also be used for
assessment of the horizontal (cross-flow) response. In this
case the effective lateral soil stiffuess should be used to
select the appropriate curve.
2.2.2
The morphological classification should in general be
detennined based on detailed static and dynamic analyses.
The classification may be useful for evaluation of scour
induced free spans or in deriving approximate response
quantities.

DETNORSKE VERITAS
10 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

1.0 c---:----:-:--=:::::;:=~=--:--:---:--:--:----,
lnterac~ng .
0.9 . . . . ... .........:.................;.............. .
. . .
............... i .. .. ... .... .;. ..............;......... .. .. .;....... . .... ..:........... .
. ...
. . ....
0.8 .... :...:-
. . ......
. . . . . .
0.7
0.6 T-.. .: : T: ::;: :::~:.:::.: . . .. . :. :r.:. -r:: :::::: . .......
' o I f

~.5 ...........~..........) .......... ) .........1span scenario - Sandi) ..........)...................... .

...J
.: .
:
.
:
. .
. ' . :
.!
r......... rr--1.. 1............1..
' +
'
o o I o o I I

0.4 . .......-roo~ ..

. --- --:- ..
o I o o
0.3
t

?---~ . r--~-- ~----~----- ---~--

..
0.2 . t
..
I
.
.
. '

--::-:----
..
o
..
o

. . . . .~ . . . - - l. . .). . . . . ). . . . . . -;10:. . .:-.--. --::'"'

~

0.1 L~ ~ I Ls~
hl ~~
: : ( ) ( )(
0.0 -1-~~;._.~~~~__;,_.
: ~~~:~~-!;::====::;=============;=======;:=====(

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 2-1 Classification of free spans - sand

0.9 r v~ry h~rtl -- ; ..

0.8
' .
. .i
. .:............ .:..............~.
0.7
..
.. ....
..
..
. ......
.
. . .+. . +. . . . .
0.6 .
.... : !.. . . t
. . . .
~ 0.5 -jsp~n scen~rio - Cl.ay j..... .J.-........
.J
. . . . . .
.. .... .. .
o o ' I o I

. .. ... ... .. .. . . t-- ......... 1 ......... ;-! ............... .

o o o

0.4 .- ........ ,.:... t I I

. ~.

0
I
~
o
o
'-~
I
o
I
'
t
o
t
j
I f o I o I "'

0.3 ...... ---~ .. -~ .. f ~--~--- - ~- -~--~ -~-

: : : : : : : : i
0.2 . --~-- o.l ++ -.....,_-~~----:-~
0.1
.
... : -'"! .....
I"". ... I L..hl ''~
L
...a.-"
..
( )( )(

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 2-2 Classification of free spans - clay

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Guidelines No. 14
June 1998
2.3 Temporal classification
Z.3.1
The temporal criterion categorises the free span according to
scour or unevenness induced free spans, i.e.
Scour induced free spans are caused by seabed erosion
or bed-form activities. The free span scenarios (span
length, gap ratio etc.) may change with time.
Unevenness induced free spans are caused by an
irregular seabed profile. Normally the free span scenario
is time invariant unless the operational parameters such
as pressure and temperature change significantly.
2.3.2
The free span analysis shall take due account of the temporal
classification in the application of the load sequence for the
functional loads:
Scour induced free spans: all loads may be applied in
one step.
Unevenness induced free spans: loading sequence in
steps, see section 3.
2.3.3
In case of scour induced spans, where no detailed
infonnation is available on the maximum expected span
length, gap ratio and exposure time, the following apply:
Where unifonn conditions exist and no large-scale
mobile bed-fonns are present the maximum span length
may be taken as the length resulting in a statically mid
span deflection equal to one external diameter (including
any coating).
The exposure time may be taken as the remaining
operational lifetime or the time duration until possible
intervention works will take place. All previous damage
accumulation must be included.
2.3.4
Additional information (e.g. free span length, gap ratio,
natural frequencies) from surveys combined with an
inspection strategy may be used to qualify scour induced free
spans. These aspects are not covered herein. Guidance may
be found in Fyrileiv et al., (1998).
3. Free Span Analysis
3.1 General
3.1.1
The following tasks normally have to be performed in the
assessment of free spans:
structural modelling
load modelling
a static analysis to obtain the static configuration of the
pipeline
DET NORSKE VERITAS
11
an eigenvalue analysis which provides natural
frequencies and corresponding modal shapes for the in-
line and cross-flow vibrations of the free spans
a response analysis using a response model or a force
model in order to obtain the stress ranges from
envirorunental actions.
3.2 Structural modelling
3.2.1
The structural behaviour of the pipeline shall be evaluated by
modelling the pipeline, the seabed and relevant artificial
supports and perfonning static and dynamic analyses. lo this
section requirements to the structural modelling are given.
Soil-pipe interactions are treated in section 4.2.
3.2.2
A realistic characterisation of the cross-sectional behaviour
of a pipeline can be based on the following assumptions:
The pipe cross-sections remain circular and plane.
The two dimensional state of stress (axial and hoop)
should be considered.
The stresses may be assumed constant across the pipe-
wall thickness.
A plasticity model based on the von Mises criterion and
associated flow rule may be adopted.
The internal pressure affects the bending response if
yielding takes place
Load effect calculation is normally to be performed
using nominal un-corroded cross section values.
3.2.3
The pressure differential causes hoop stresses to develop in
the pipeline wall along with axial stresses. In case of yielding
this bi-axial state of stress shall be represented in a consistent
way to allow for a realistic cross-sectional behaviour. In
particular the influence of the hoop stress and Poisson's
effect on the bending stiffness must be considered.
3.2.4
The effect of coating is generally limited to increasing
submerged weight, drag forces, added mass and buoyancy.
The positive effect on the stiffness and strength is normally
to be disregarded. If the contribution of the coating to the
structural response is considered significant, appropriate
models shall be used.
3.2.5
Non-homogeneity of the bending stiffness along the pipe,
due to discontinuities of the coating across field joints or
other effects, may imply strain concentrations that shall be
taken into account.
3.2.6
The boundary conditions at the ends of the pipeline section
modelled shall be able to simulate the pipe-soil interaction
and the continuity of the whole pipeline length.
l2 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

3.2.7 3.4 Static analysis

The element length to be used in a finite element model is
3.4.1
dictated by the accuracy required. Typically an element
length of I.120 (L is the span length) is sufficient. The static configuration is to be detennined for different
conditions:
3.3 Loads as-laid condition
3.3.1 flooded condition
pressure test condition
The loads to be considered for fatigue analysis of free
operating condition.
spanning pipelines includes:

functional loads
environmental loads, comprising
direct loads from wave and current
loads induced by hydro-elastic phenomena.
Fatigue loads from trawl impact, cyclic loads during
installation or pressure variations are not considered herein
but must be considered as a part of the integrated fatigue
damage assessment.
3.3.2
The functional loads which shall be considered are:
weight of the pipe and internal fluid
external and internal fluid pressure
soil pressure if the pipe is locaJJy buried
thennal expansion and contraction
installation forces.
3.3.3
Weight must account for the weight of the pipe considering
coating and all attachments to the pipe, the weight of the
internal fluid and the buoyancy.
3.4.2
The static analysis should normally account for non-linear
effects such as:
large displacements (geometric nonlinearity)
soil nonlinear response
non-linear behaviour of the pipe cross-section
loading sequence.
3.4.3
The stiffuess of the pipeline consists of material stiffness
plus geometrical stiffness. The effective axial force, Serf,
shall be used to calculate the geometrical stiffness. This force
is the true steel wall axial force, Nir, with corrections for the
effect of external and internal pressures:
Where p; and Pe denotes the internal and external pressure,
respectively and Ai and Ae are the corresponding cross
section areas.
For a completely unrestrained (axially) pipe the effective
axial force becomes:

3.3.4
Soil pressure, if the pipe is locally buried, is normally not For a totally restrained pipe the following effective axial
considered explicitly in the free span analyses but rather force apply:
implicitly by imposing appropriate soil restraints.

3.3.5
Thennal expansion and contraction loads and possible other where:
changes in pipe behaviour caused by temperature differences
effective lay tension
shall be accounted for.
internal pressure difference relative to laying, see
3.3.6 Rules for Pipelines
Installation forces are to include all forces acting on the pipe
during installation . Typical installation forces are applied pipe steel cross section area
tension during laying and forces from the trenching machine
ti.T temperature difference relative to laying
if trenching is carried out after laying. Pre-stressing such as
pennanent curvature or a permanent elongation introduced
temperature expansion coefficient.
during installation must also be taken into account.

3.4.4
3.3.7
The static environmental loads are in this guideline confined
Response calculations must account for the relevant
to those from on bottom current. The load may be
sequence of load application if important.
disregarded in the analysis if much smaller than the vertical

DETNORSKE VERITAS
Guidelines No. 14 13

June 1998

functional loads. However, for light pipes it should be element modelling. Thus, the element lengths must be short
considered. enough to ensure a sufficient number of elements over the
free spans that are to be assessed.
3.5 Eigen-value analyses
3.6 Damping
3.5.l
The aim of the eigen-value analyses is to calculate the 3.6.l
natural frequencies and corresponding mode shapes. In Response amplitudes are affected by damping. The stability
general the analysis is complex and depends on parameter, Ks, representing the damping for a given modal
shape is given by:
the temporal criterion
the pipeline condition (i.e. as-laid, water-filled, pressure
test and operation)
the pipe and soil properties
the seabed classification, effective free span length and where:
boundary conditions
the effective axial force and the initial deflected shape p water density
after laying
the loading history and axial displacement ("feed-in") of total modal damping ratio at a given vibration
the pipe. mode comprising:

Jn general, it is recommended to assess the response structural damping, (m, see 3.6.4
quantities using non-linear FE-analyses conducted over an soil damping, Ssoih see 3.6.5
appropriate stretch of the pipeline. However, approximate hydrodynamic damping, Sh, see 3.6.6
response quantities may be applied in some cases, see section
3.7. (psfp) specific mass (without added mass)

added mass coefficient.

3.5.2
Using a FE-approach, the follow ing comments apply:

The eigenvalue analysis shall account for the static 3.6.2

equilibrium configuration.
The effective mass, me, is defined by
In the eigenvalue analysis, a consistent linearisation of
the problem must be made.
The pipe-soil linearisation should be validated. Jm(s)~ 2 (s)dsl
The effect of geometric non-linearity on the dynamic m - ~
L'--=_ _ _
response should be assessed. e- [ J~ 2 (s)ds
The pipe support points may be assumed not to change L
during Vortex-Induced Vibrations (VIV).
m(s) is the mass per unit length including structural mass,
3.5.3 added mass and mass of internal fluid.
For a multi-spanning scenario, special care must be paid to
the determination of the eigenvalues and associated 3.6.3
eigenvectors due to the potential occurrence of very close
The added mass coefficient, Ca, as function of the gap ratio
eigenvalues, especially as concerns the identification of
(e/D) is given by Figure 3-1. It applies for both smooth and
con-ect eigenvectors.
rough pipe surfaces.

3.5.4
The stress ranges are derived from the mode shapes. The
accuracy of the stress ranges is strongly affected by the fmite

DETNORSKE VERITAS
14 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

2.00 -......... : .........: .................................... ; .......... 1 1 ;

l.90 . . ...
.... .... ...... --- ----------:-:---- ........... ::: :
... ...
~
' .. .... .. .. ...'
.
1.80 ................................ ................. ............................... . ......' .'
' ...................... .. ....
.. .'' ~ ~

u
....Q 1.70
. '
................. !' .............: . .'
'
'
................... :11
.'
'
----1.

... 1 ..........:~ ........... :...........:... ...... t~ ........ t~ . . . . 1--

t '
Q,l
o
e4J
1.60
.. 1
0
u 1.50 ... - ----- -: ........ --. !... -- -- .... ;-........ -- ...... -..... ......... ; ...........
"'"' ' . -~- ~-
.. ...
~

= .
.
'
' .
. . . ..
-............... .. ......... . ................. ... ....... .... ... ............
' .
'

~ 1.40
'
'
. . . ' .
.
'
~-
'

T : : T: : : :.:.:. ; :::r: :.L

"" .

.
t
' .

.
4J
"O l.30 ' ' ' t I ' '

~ !
1.20

1.10 -i- ~
.
. . .....
...
~
..
!
..
'
-~ ---~

1.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 l.4 1.6 1.8 2
Gap Ratio (e/D)

Figure 3-1 Added mass coefficient versus gap ratio

2
3.6.4 jU(s)cjl (s)ds ]
Structural damping is due to internal friction forces of the <'.;, pDC 0 C L-L~l
pipe material and depends on the strain level and associated h =\jl 4rrf
0 [
(s-)$-2-(s-)-ds-
- -L=-Jm-
deflections. If no information is available, a structural modal
damping ratio of
where:
Sstr == 0.005
constant to be taken a:> 1.0 for in-line VIV and
can be assumed. If concrete coating is present, the sliding at 0.5 for cross-flow VIV.
the interface between concrete and corrosion coating may
further increase the damping to typically 0.01-0.02. p water density

3.6.5 D outer pipe diameter (including any coating)

For screening purposes the following soil (modal) damping Co drag coefficient
ratio can be assumed:
fo natural frequency
~I =0.01
lj>(s) mode shape
For a more detailed analysis, see 4.2.
U(s) mean flow velocity normal to the pipe as a
3.6.6 function of the pipe axis co-ordinate, s.
For VIV the hydrodynamic modal damping ratio ~.,is m(s) mass per Wlit length incl. structural mass,
normally to be taken as zero, i.e. added mass and mass of internal tluid

L free span length

For VIV the hydrodynamic damping, ~11, is the damping Ls span length with vortex shedding loads.
outside the lock-in region for the pipe. The contribution to
hydrodynamic damping within the lock-in region shall be set ~his not to exceed 0.05.
to zero. Thus, ~h. may be taken from:

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Guidelines No. 14 15

June 1998

3.7 Approximate response quantities
3.7.1
The approximate response quantities specified in this section
may be applied for free span assessment provided:
conservative assumptions are applied with respect to
boundary conditions, span length, effective axial force,
etc.
a sensitivity study is perfonned in order to quantify the
criticality of the assumptions.
Approximate response quantities are considered relevant in
performing efficient screening of FE or survey results in
order to identify critical spans to be assessed with methods
that are more accurate, see Fyrileiv & M0rk, (1998).
3.7.2
The fundamental natural frequency may be approximated by,
see Bruschi & Vitali, (1991):
approximate coefficient related to the deflection (sagging)
tenn. The higher value for C3 typically apply to as-laid
condition and the lower to cases with significant feed-in e.g.
during operation.
If more detailed infonnation is not available the following
values are recommended:
C1~2.0, C2""0.50, C3,..J.0 104 for as-laid condition.
C,,.,2.0, Cr:::0.50, C3,.,5.0 105 for in-service condition.
The approximate equation for fo normally predicts
frequencies within+/- 30% of the true natural frequency
provided (C 2 S.ffl'PE) > -0.5 and (LID) < 200.
3.7.4
The ratio between the effective span length, Leff, and
apparent (visual) span length, L, depend on the soil and
support conditions. If more detailed infonnation is not
available it may be taken as:

1.12 LID < 40

L.;:r = 1.12-0.00{~ -40) 40 <UD< l60
{
where: 1.0 L/D> l60
E Youngs modulus
3.7.5
I moment of inertia The unit diameter stress amplitude (stress due to unit outer
diameter mode shape deflection) may be calculated by
effective span length, see 3.7.4

M. effective mass, see 3.6.2

steel outer diameter of pipe

where ~(s) is the assumed mode shape satisfying the
Q deflection load per unit length (submerged boundary conditions, D is the outer pipe diameter (including
weight for cross-flow or static current loading any coating) and 0 5 is the steel pipe diameter. K is the
for in-line) curvature of the mode shape ~(s) at the point (s, ~(s)) to be
calculated as
s.rr effective axial force, see section 3.4.3
3
Euler buckling load"" n 2EIIL2.rr. 2 [
K(s) = ....1 I+ (ap)
2)- 12
Bs 2 Os
3.7.3
The coefficients Ci. Cz and C3 are given in the table below Alternatively, SA-io, can be calculated as the quasi-static
for different idealised boundary conditions: stress introduced by the inertia load m(s)~(s)(2nf0 r.

Boundary Condition C1 C2 C3 3.7.6

Pinned - Pinned 1.57 J.00 5.0 104 ~ 5.0 103
Jf detailed infonnation is not available, the (unit diameter)
stress amplitude SA=ID may be taken from Figure 3-2 below.
Pinned - Fixed 2.45 0.50 5.0 10 ~ 5.0 10
5 4 The figure provides SA=ID divided by the boundary
coefficient C1 squared. Consistent boundary conditions for
Fixed - Fixed 3.56 0.25 5.0 10"6 ~ 5.0 10-5 evaluation of f0 and SA=ID must be applied.

The coefficients C 1 and C2 relate to the bending stiffness

tenn and axial force tenn in section 3.7.2, respectively. They
are theoretically correct for a rectilinear pipe while C3 is an

DET NORSKE VERIT AS

16 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

.:..
300 ---, , .....
. :
..: .:..
:
... ...
250 .............. 1
. .. . ..
.
:--~: 1-r

'iO \
nt ame er max mum ress Ampll u e
Cl. 200 ...\ , ..... .. ............... ,............... .
!. \
\
scaled wrt boundary coefficient C1 2
N '\ \
~ \
' .
0 150 .. ,

\..,
__________ _.1 . . . . . . . .- .. .
-.:-----------:. .. -:--r-----.---.--..--'-r-.
.. . .. :

. - - ptnne -ptnn
. -... fixed ..fixed
.. . :: ' ' '' . . '
..
- - - pinned-fixed
..,, ....................... ...'
...
.. ..................................
'

..
--------~~ ---
..
100 ......... : ....... :
:.. : .............
I o, I
~ .
- ... : '11.... .....

50 ............ ; ........ . )::.-:.:::: . .

.... ..:":-------
-~.:-~-~-~~~+
- -- ~- -- -:-. ______ _
... ... .. ..; ... .
. ........ .. :........... .. ' ... ; .....-: .~.- -
O +----~---~---.-;-----:-----::-----:-----:------l
40 50 60 70 90 100 110 120

Figure 3-2 Unit outer diameter maximum stress amplitude

3.7.7 general soil data as submerged specific weight, void

ratio, water content and plasticity limits.
The fatigue damage from higher order modes must be
considered. The following approximate response quantities 4.1.2
may be applied:
If the approximate soil stiffness expressions in section 4.3
f 2 = (2-3)f0
are to be used the following specific parameters are of
relevance:
S2 = 2SA=ID
submerged unit weight of soil (wsoit)
where f2 and S2 is the frequency aud w1it diameter stress Poisson's ratio (v)
amplitude related to the 2"" mode shape.
void ratio (e5)
angle of friction, cohesionless soils ( q>5 )
4. Geotechnical Conditions undrained shear strength, cohesive soils (Su)
over-consolidation ratio (OCR)
4.1 General plasticity index, cohesive soils (ip).

4.1.1 4.1.3
The soil is to be classified as cohesive (clays) or cohesion less The parameters defined above should preferably be obtained
(sands). Rocks may be treated as hard clay. As basis for the by means of geotechnica\ tests on undisturbed soil samples,
evaluations of the pipe-soil interaction the following basic and be representative for the particular geographical location
soil parameters are ofrelevance: of the pipeline. In case 110 detailed infonnation is available,
the values given in Table 4-land Table 4-2 may be used.
type of soil
in-situ stress conditions
shear strength parameters for drained or undrained
condition including remoulded shear strength for clays
soil moduli and damping coefficients as function of
cyclic shear strain
soil settlement parameters

DETNORSKE VERITAS
Guidelines No. 14 17
June 1998

4.2.3
Soil type <p. Wsoil v es
3 The axial and lateral frictional coefficients between the pipe
[kN/m ]
and the seabed shall reflect the actual seabed condition, the
Loose 30 9.1 0.35 0.7 roughness, the pipe, and the passive soil resistance.
Medium 35" 9.6 0.35 0.5
4.2.4
Dense 40 10. J 0.35 0.4 The axial and lateral resistance is not always of a pure
Table 4-1 Typical gcotech mcal parameters for sandy
frictional type. Rapid changes in vertical stresses are (in low
permeable soil) reacted by pore water and not by a change in
soils
effective contact shcsses between the soil and the pipe. In
addition, the lateral resistance will have a contribution due to
Soil type Cu Wsoil v es Ip the penetration of the pipe into the soil, which need to be
[kN/m3 ] [kN/m3 ] l%J accounted for.
Very soft 5 4.4 0.45 2.0 60
4.2.5
Soft 17 5.4 0.45 1.8 55 For sands with low content of fines, the frictional component
may be proportional to the vertical force at any time, whereas
Stiff 70 7.4 0.45 J.3 35 for clays the 'frictional' component is more related to the
Hard 280 9.4 0.45 0.8 20 static vertical force for which the clay is consolidated.

Table 4-2 Typical gcotechnical parameters for clay 4.2.6

(OCR=l).
4.1.4
The uncertainties in the soil data should be co11sidered. lt
may arise from variations in soil conditions along the
pipeline route and difficulties in detennining reliable in-situ
soil characteristics of the upper soil layer, say, 0.02-0.05 m
for small diameter pipelines to 0.2-0.5 m for large diameter
pipelines.
4.2 Modelling of soil interaction
4.2.1
The pipe-soil interaction is important in the evaluation of the
static equilibrium configuration and the dynamic response of
a free spanning pipeline. The following functional
requirements apply for the modelling of soil resistance:
Where linear soil stiffness have to be defined for the
eigenvalue analysis, the soil stiffness should be selected
conside1i11g the actual soil resistance and the amplitude of the
oscillations.
4.2.7
The soil stiffness for vertical loading should be evaluated
differently for static and dynamic analyses. The static soil
response will mainly be governed by the maximum reaction,
including some cyclic effects. Dynamic stiffness will mainly
be characterised by the unloading/re-loading situation.
4.l.8
The soil damping is generally dependent on the dynamic
loads acting on the soil. Two different types of soil damping
mechanisms can be distinguished:

The seabed topography along the pipeline route must be
represented.
The modelling of soil resistance must account for non-
linear contact forces nonnal to the pipeline and lift off.
The modelling of soil resistance must account for sliding
in the axial direction. For force models this also applies
in the lateral direction.
Appropriate (different) short- and long-tenn
characteristics for stiffness and damping shall be
applied, i.e. static and dynamic stiffiless and damping.
4.2.2
The seabed topography may be defined by a vertical profile
along the pipeline route. The spacing of the data points
characterising t11e profile should relate to the actual
roughness of the seabed.
Material damping associated with hysteresis taking place
close to the yield zone in contact with the pipe.
Radiation damping associated with propagation of
elastic waves through the yield zone.
4.2.9
The material damping is dependent on the relative stress
level in the soil, which again depends on the amplitude of the
pipeline oscillations at the contact points with the soil. The
contribution of material damping is more important for in-
line VIV than for cross-flow VIV, since in-line sliding
between pipe and soil may give larg~ hysteresis effects.
4.2.10
The radiation damping may be evaluated from available
solutions for elastic soils using relevant soil modulus
reflecting the soil stress (or strain) levels. The radiation
damping depends highly on the frequency of the oscillations,
and is more important for high frequency oscillations.

DETNORSKE VERITAS
18 Guidelines No. l4

June 1998

4.2.11 4.2.12
The modal soil damping ratio, ~oil> due to the soil-pipe It should be emphasised that the determination of
interaction may be determined by: pipeline/soil interaction effects is encumbered with relatively
large uncertainties stemming from the basic soil parameters
and physical models. It is thus important that a sensitivity
study is performed to investigate the effect of above-
mentioned uncertainties.

4,3 Approximate Soil Stiffness

where the soil damping per unit length, c(s), may be defined
on the basis of an energy balance between the maximum
elastic energy stored by the soil during an oscillation cycle
and the energy dissipated by a viscous damper in the same
cycle.
4.3.1
The following expressions may be llScd for the static, vertical
soil reaction per unit length as a function of the settlement, v:

Alternatively, the modal soil damping ratio, ~oii. may be

taken from Table 4-4 and Table 4-3. Interpolation is allowed.

LID Clay Sand where

Soft Medium Hard Loose Medium Dense
b {2J(D - v)v forv 5 0.5 D
< 40 5.0 2.0 1.4 3.0 1.5 1.5 D forv >0.5D
100 3.5 1.4 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.5
D outer pipe diameter (including any coating)
> 160 2.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.5
W 50 n submerged unit weight of soil
Table 4-3 Modal soil damping ratios in[%). Horizontal
(in-line) direction Su undrained shear strength.

4.3.2
The bearing capacity factors Ne. N~ and N.1 versus internal
LID Clay Sand
friction angle cp., may be taken from Figure 4-1. For clayey
Soft Medium Hard Loose Medium Dense soils the friction angle is set equal to O", i.e. N,1 = 1.0 and
N0 =-= 5.l4.
< 40 3.0 1.2 0.7 2.0 1.2 1.2

JOO 2.0 1.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 l.O

> 160 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8

Table 4-4 Modal soil damping ratios in[%]. Vertical

(cross-flow) direction

DETNORSKE VERJTAS
Guidelines No. 14 19

June 1998

100 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
!.. -:-"1 i .. ..;. ....:.. ..:.....
: : i
.............. i t f,.. ...
. .................... j., 1 ............ .... ... .
,. .. ~o ....................

~-
o I 1 I '

~---~~---~ !-~+ ..~ -~ ~+- li .. -: .. ' ' ' .

1 4
;- f r 1 ~- ~ - -r --~- -----T -~ - ;~- ~- --(- -~- -1-
~- ~-
0

rr-r-r . .
---:- ---:----:--..f t!- !' - -;-- ..... - -.
-~ -~--;.-- :---:--:--~-
: : : : : : : : : : :
r - ~;
: . : ; : : :
1 r ..:.....; 1 ! ...\ i ... rr
z. . ..rr~- =r r. ? ...... T-r:--
.. ....
. .. ...
'C . .. .
c
Ill 10 ' .. '

. ..
........ .......
o

..-
o

...._.......
. ..
I

D"
z
0
z

. . . .
. ..
. . . .. .. .
. .. ..
....... . .. . .....,. ........
..,.. .. .
........
.. .. . ..
..
I

... ..
I
.
..... ..
'

..
..
'

.. . .
..
...
1
0 10 20 30 40 50
<p[degreeJ

Figure 4-1 Bearing capacity factors N0 , Nq and N 1 versus the internal friction angle <p1

4.3.3 4.3.4
The ma.'<imum static, axial soil reaction per unit length may The dynamic soil stiffness in the vertical and horizontal
be taken as: (lateral) direction may be taken as:

K = 0.88-G
v 1-v

- clayey soils: R ~ = min~ ~ , bTmax } 8 K1 =0.76 G(l+v)

where:
where:
Rvs vertical static soil reaction given by 4.3. l.

axial friction coefficient

1955-(2.97 -e,)
2
.Jcr: sand
I +e $ {kN/m2
G 2
b given in section 4.3 . l { 1300 (2.97-e,\ ,fci;(OCR)k, clay
I +e,

s~ -(O.S(l -bk,)R: )' is lhe soil shear strenglh effective soil stress in [kN/rn2] to be calculated as:
cr,= 0.75 WsoH b where b is given in section 4.3.1.
OCR over-consolidation ratio
..fOCR(1-~)+(~)
2.61 200 200 void ratio

The coefficient ks, may be taken from Figure 4-2.

D ET NORSKE VERITAS
20 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

05

04
/
_,./
v ""'"' -i--........

/
v
/
0.3 7
~ ,.V
/ "'
02
v -
/ -
,v
1-- 1--

01
v
/
0
v
0 20 60 80 100 120
Plasticity index, ip

Figure 4-2 k. versus plasticity index, ip

4.3.5 CL< 0.5 wave dominant - wave superimposed by

current.
lfno information is available on the dynamic axial soil
stiffness, it may be taken equal to the dynamic lateral soil ln-line direct ion: in-line loads may be
stiffness as described above. described according to Morison's
formulae, see section 9.2. In-line VIV due
4.4 Artificial supports to vortex shedding is negligible.

4.4.J Cross-flow direction: cross-flow loads are

Gravel sleepers can be modelled by modifying the seabed mainly due to asymmetric vo1tex shedding.
profile, considering the rock dump support shape and A response model, see section 8.3, is
applying appropriate stiffness and damping characteristics. recommended. Alternatively a force model
may be applied, see section 9.3.
4.4.2
0.5 <a < 0.8 wave dominant- current superimposed
The purpose of mechanical supports is generally to impose by wave
locally a pipeline configuration in the vertical and/or
transverse directions. Such supports can be modelled by In-line direction: in-line loads may be
concentrated springs having a defi ned stiffness, taking into described according to Morison's
account the soil defonnation beneath the support and formulae, see section 9.2. In-line VIV due
disregarding the damping effect. to vortex shedding is negligible.

Cross-flow direction : cross-flow loads are

5. Hydrodynamic Description mainly due to asymmetric vortex shedding
and resemble the cu1Tent dominated
5.1 Flow regimes situation. A response model, see section
8.3, is recommended. Alternatively a for~
5.1.1 model may be applied, see section 9 .3.
The current flow velocity ratio, a=UJ<Uc+Uw}. see 5.2.6,
may be applied to classify the flow regimes as follows:

DETNORSKE V ERITAS
Guidelines No. 14 21

June 1998

a.> 0.8 current dominant

In-line direction: in-line loads comprises

the following components :

a steady drag dominated component

a oscillatory component due to regular

vortex shedding

For fatigue analyses a response model

applies, see section 8.2. In-line loads
according to Morison's formulae may,
however, still be present.

Cross-flow direction: cross-flow loads are

cyclic and due to vortex shedding and
resembles the pure current situation. A
response model, see section 8.3, is
recommended. Alternatively a force model
may be applied, see section 9.3.

Note that a=O correspond to pure oscillatory flow due to

waves and a.=l correspond to pure (steady) current flow.

The flow regimes are illustrated in Figure 5-l.

6 - - . .... .

1r---t .............. t ;-:: ..

current dominated '.
4
' '
: ,.tl.QW .......... .... .. / , ..' .-.. .......................
' , ,,.,,,,. " ,
,,. . ._ .. '
wave dominated llow ' ,.
+ +. ..:.... . , J a=-0.s J~

-,<.'. .......................... ........ . . '"~<. ....... .

1 - .
time
2 ............. . . ................. ... ............ .............................. ........... .

Figure 5-l Flow regimes

5.1.2 In case of a fatigue analysis based on decomposition of

sea states into single random waves, Uw corresponds to
Oscillatory flow due to waves is stochastic in nature, and a each single velocity amplitude at pipe level.
random sequence of wave heights and associated wave. .
In case of a fatigue analysis based on characteristic
periods generate a random sequence of near seabed orbital
harmonic oscillation representing an entire sea state the
oscillations. The following definition oftl1e wave induced
characteristic velocity amplitude, Uw*, applies, see
flow velocity amplitude, Uw, applies:
section 6.3.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

22 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

5.2 Hydrodynamic parameters where fw is the wave frequency.

5.2.1 5.2.6
Vortex induced vibrations (VIV) and direct wave actions are
The current flow velocity ratio, a, is defined by:
affected by several parameters, such as:

Reynolds number, Re
Strouhal number, S1
reduced velocity, VR
Keulegan-Carpenter number, KC 5.2.7
current flow velocity ratio, a The pipe roughness influences the boundary layer on the pipe
flow angle relative to the pipe. Herein, only the and thereby the vortex shedding. The effect of pipe
component normal to the pipe axis is to be considered roughness in t11e range 0.005 < (k/D) < 0.02 is..implicit in the
pipe roughness, (k/D) response models.
gap ratio (seabed proximity), (e!D).
Herein a brief introduction of the basic hydrodynamic 5.3 Seabed proximity
parameters is given. For a thorough introduction see e.g.
5.3.l
Sumer & Freds0e, (I 997) and Blevins ( 1994).
The gap is defmed as the distance between the pipe and the
seabed. The gap used in design, as a single representative
5.2.2
value, must be characteristic for the free span
Vortex shedding from pipe is a function of Reynolds
number: For in line VIV the gap may be calculated as the average
value over the central third of the span.
R = UD For cross-flow VIV, the gap may be taken as the
e v maximum modal pipe deflection (vertical) allowed by
the presence of the sea-bottom.
where U is the flow velocity, Dis the outer pipe diameter of
the pipe (including any coating) and v is the kinematic 5.3.2
viscosity ("'='l.5106 [m2/s] ).
The presence of a fixed boundary near the pipe (proximity
effect) has a pronounced effect on the response, e.g.:
5.2.3
The vortex shedding frequency in steady cunent or regular The physics of pipe vibrations close to a boundary (i.e.
wave flow with KC numbers greater than 30 is approximated the seabed) is different from the physics of a vibrating
by: free pipe.
The alternating vortex shedding is suppressed for small
gap ratio (typically for (e/D) < 0.3); however self-
excited vibrations (cross-flow) still take place initiated
by fluctuations in the hydrodynamic lift force.
where fs is the vortex shedding frequency, Uc is the current Significant vertical oscillations exist for (e/D) < l at
velocity and Uw the wave induced velocity amplitude normal oscillatory flow conditions (i.e. a < 0.5) with a vibration
to the pipe. The Strouhal number, S" is a function of Reynolds frequency twice the wave frequency.
number and other parameters. The drag coefficient C 0 and inertia coefficient CM
increase in the proximity of the boundary.
5.2.4
The reduced velocity, YR, is in the general case with
5.3.3
combined current and wave induced flow, defined as: Details on seabed proximity effect may be found in the
literature, (see Sumer & Freds0e, 1997). Herein, the effect of
V _ Uc+Uw the sea-bed proximity is treated conservatively, i.e.:
R - foD
For in-line VIV, any mitigation effect is ignored.
where f0 is a natural frequency for a given vibration mode. For cross-flow VIV the sea-bed effects (for e/D < 0.5) is
introduced conservatively in t~e Response Model using
a simplified approach.
5.2.5
The Keulegan-Carpenter number, KC, is defined as:

DET NORSKE VERIT AS

Guidelines No. 14
June 1998
6. Environmental Conditions
6.1 General
6.1.1
The objective of the present section is to provide guidance
on:
the long term current velocity distribution
short-term description of wave induced flow velocity
amplitude and period of oscillating flow at the pipe level
long term statistics
to be applied in fatigue assessment in section 7.
6.1.2
The environmental data to be used in the assessment of the
long-term distributions shall be representative for the
particular geographical location of tl1e pipeline free span.
6.1.3
The fl.ow conditions at the pipe level due to current and wave
action gov em the response behaviour of free spanning
pipelines. The principles and methods as described in
Classification Note No. 30.5 may be used in addition to this
Guideline as a basis when establishing the environmental
load conditions.
6.1.4
Preferably, the environmental load conditions should be
established near the pipeline using measurement data of
acceptable quality and duration. The envirorunental data
must be collected from periods that are representative for the
long-term variation of the wave and current climate,
respectively. In case of less reliable or limited number of,
wave and current data the statistical uncertainty should be
assessed and included in the analysis if significant.
6.1.5
The wave and current characteristics must be transferred
(extrapolated) to the free span level and location using
appropriate conservative assumptions. The level of the free
span is defined relative to the mean water (surface) level
(MSL) by the distance from the top of the pipe to the MSL.
In case of large free span deflection, the top of the pipe
should be taken as the average over the pipe span.
6.2 Current conditions
6.2.1
The steady current flow at the free span level may be a
compound of:
tidal cun-ent
wind induced current
stonn surge induced current
density driven current.
DET NO RS KE VERIT AS
23
6.2.2
When detailed field measurements are not available, the
tidal, wind and stonn surge driven current velocity
components may be taken from Classification No. 30.5. For
current measurements, data analyses and transfo1mations of
current characteristics reference is given to the MULTIS PAN
Design Guideline, (1996).
6.2.3
For water depths greater than 100 m the ocean currents can
be characterised in tenns of the driving and steering agents:
The driving agents are tidal forces, pressure gradients
due to surface elevation or density changes, wind and
sto1m surge forces.
The steering agents are topography and the rotation of
the earth.
The modelling should account adequately for all agents.
6.2.4
The distribution type for the long-term current velocity
distribution should be selected based on the physics and
experience. Normally a 3-parameter Weibull distribution is
considered representative:
where F( ) is the cumulative distribution function. a.c, Pc and
Ye are Weibull distribution parameters and U0 is the current
velocity.
6.2.5
Directional infonnation of the current velocity may be used
in the analysis. If no such infonnation is available, the
current should be assumed to act perpendicular to the axis of
the pipeline.
6.2.6
The current velocity profile in the boundary layer in areas
where flow separation does not occur may be taken as:
where:
V* friction velocity
K von Kannan's constant ( = 0.4)
z elevation above the seabed
reference measurement height
Zo bottom roughness parameter to be taken as:
24 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

Seabed roughness 7<1 (m) 6.3.3

Directional short-crested wave spectra may be required for a
Silt : : : 5 10"6 complete statistical description of the sea. The directional
spectra accounts for the spreading of wave energy by
fine sand <::! l 105 direction as well as frequency. It may be derived from the
::::: 4 10-s non-directional wave spectra as follows:
medium sand

coarse sand : : : 1 104 S,1,1( (l),O)=S,1,1(co)w(O)

Gravel ~ 3 104 where:

Pebble -"" 2 10"3 a spreading angle measured from the mean

(main) wave direction, and
Cobble :::::: I 102
the wave energy spreading (directional)
Boulder ""'4 102 function. A frequency independent cosine
power function is normally applied:
The non-linear interaction between wave and current flow
results in a modification of the steady velocity profile due to
an apparent increase in the seabed roughness. The hereby
introduced reduction factor may be taken from DNV RP
E305, (1988).

6.2.7
r(-) is the gamma function ands is a spreading parameter,
The mean current velocity over a pipe diameter (i.e. averaged typically modelled as a function of the sea state. Normally s
over the external pipe diameter, D) should be applied in the is lakcn as a real number, SE [2;8]. For larges, the energy is
analyses. It may be assessed assuming a logarithmic mean concentrated around the main wave direction.
velocity profile:
6.3.4
e+D
Uc(z 0 ) = J U(z)dz = U(zr) Re The vclocily spcchUm at the pipe level may be obtained
through a spectral transfonnation of the waves at sea level
e using a first order wave theory, i.e.
Re =a reduction factor for the current

=
1 {(..:.+1)1n((e + D)!z0 }-(..:.)1n(e/ zo}-1} ' - 2
Suu(co,0) = G ((l))S'1 11 (<o,0)
-
ln(zr I z0 ) D D
where:
where e is the gap and z 0 is the height to the mid pipe.
Suu (co,6) the wave induced t1ow velocity spet:trum at
6.3 Short-term wave conditions pipe level, and

6.3.1 G(ro) a frequency transfer function given by

The wave induced oscillatory flow condition at the free span
level may be calculated using numerical or analytical wave G(ro) = oocosh{k(D + e))
theories. The wave theory shall be capable of describing the sinh(kh)
conditions at the pipe location, including effects due to
shallow water, if applicable. For most practical cases, linear where:
wave theory can be applied. Wave boundary layer effects can
normally be neglected. 2nfw is the angular wave frequency and t~v is the
wave frequency
6.3.2
k wave number
The short-term, stationary, irregular sea states may be
described by a wave spectrum S~~(co), i.e. the power spectral D outer pipe diameter (including any coating)
density function of the sea surface elevation. Wave spectra
may be given in table fo1m, as measured spectra, or in an e gap between pipeline and sea bed
analytical form. Jn Classification Note No. 30.5, the
commonly used JONSWAP or PM spectra are described in h water depth to the sea bottom.
detail.

DETNORSKE VERITAS
Guidelines No. 14 25

June 1998

6.3.5
The spectral moments of order n is defined as:

"' Bandwidth parameter:

M0 = JronSuu(ro)dro
0
f.=~1 - MoM4
M~
The following spectrally derived parameters appear:

Significant flow velocity amplitude at pipe level: The process (spectrum) is narrow-banded fore~ 0 and
broad banded fore ~ l (in practice the process may be
considered broad-banded fore larger than 0.6). Us, Tu and e
may be taken fromFigure 6-1, Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3
Mean zero upcrossing period of oscillating flow at pipe assuming linear wave theory. In the figures, Tn is a
level: normalisation period and y is the JON SWAP spectrum
peakedness parameter.

-- --- - i : ~-:. . . :
0.5 .--~--~
-~~ ; j i i
~:i... : : : : :
": : : : :
0 .4 .........................\..l~----- l -~= =
! ~ l : j !
;; ' ,,- : . :: '

0.3 ........ .. .................; ............ '!\, ..... -~ i ~- i

~ 1 ~ '. I = :

~ : "\, : : . .
p 0.2
......................... , : r=l.0; 3.3; 5.0 rT~-~-----------l . . . . . . .-. -y---.......................,
i ~ : i .i
. ...
.................... -------,..-------- ------------- --,---------
.
. -... -.- ....... -... -............... ..................... .
0.1
... .... ~-

.
-~...... -~

.
. .
o.o L ___j__ _ __J_____i__=::::::l:::::::::::===d 0.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Figure 6-1 Significant wave induced flow velocity amplitude, Us

DETNORSKE VERrTAS
26 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

l.S -.. -- .......... -.--..... ,.........................................

. ----- ..... --.... .. --- ... .-.......... - -...- -.......... ----- ..... -- ....
.... .
.. ..
1.4

1.3 ---1---r 1
: : - ~~~~~~~~
~

1.2
.
...................... : . .......... I
.......:
. .
... ............ ........... -~ ..... ...................... . -r.... --

..,..,. ..-".

0.9 ........ ~-~-~;:.::;~1 -

: _ '/" : o

11-r 1
o I

,,.,,, : : : : :
0.8 ..1.....- -r- - i- .. -:-...:.r..;,;c'hi;;)o:s ..--1
:o ;o :
0
n ~ :
I
' + o I

0.7+-~~~~~~+ ~~~~~~-+-
~~~~~~~,__~~~~~--+~~~~~~-i

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Figure 6-l Zero-up-crossing period, T"

0.8

0.7
.. . :... : ': . : ...:.: _] _ : _ : : :I : ... . ..L. _ : _ . ...
1
...
\; l
.
I
....
I
.I 0

0.6 .......... ~-~~ .. --1.. - .. - ..r1 ..+ -- -- - -~

-~,
-~
. :.
0.5 r~ '."' -- -- - -- ~ : - 1 -:- -~

~'\ y=l.0; ,3 .3;5.0 I , j

.....................; ...............................;.. ---------- .. -- .......... ,.:
(.I) 0.4
:: Iii'"', ~
- ---{-, ., . . . .. :---
:: : :: :
l.
'
0.3

0.2
~--=---- ,.~
........... ... ................ ~--- :- --- - - --:- - - -------:
-.. . . . ........ ........_.......

- ~- -
.
...... . ;-..;,:
I

0. 1 .. ........ ..............l................. -1-----l-~- --......(.. -T~;(higjo.s - ~

'

. .. .' ..
0+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~-+~~~~~~-+-
' ~~~~~~-t-~~~~~---1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Figure 6-3 Bandwidth parameter s

DETNORSKE VERITAS
Guidelines No. 14 27

June 1998

where:
6.3.6
The effect of wave directionality and wave spreading may be mean (main) wave direction
introduced in the form of a reduction factor on the significant
flow velocity amplitude, i.e.: direction perpendicular to the pipeline

sub-direction around mean wave direction

Ro is a reduction factor given by w spreading function, see section 6.3.3.

Values for Ro as a function of directionality and wave

spreading may be taken from Figure 6-4.

l.O r-"-------_.._.._
-r ---------- -- --.l----.. -..r. ..- .... !. --- -
_::.:::.:.:-_::+ .... : : :
.. - .. - .. - .. _ - ..::- - ~ ., : : : .
0.8 --------- - .. ......... -~ ..: . :. _., . ..-::;.-t; . . . .. ~-------- ............... -~ .............. ------ ;.......... ---... -- -......... :
...... --:, ~ '
"'' t
.
'
~
o
....
~ ~..... .. I '

::; 0.6
~ -- ........................ :---- :---" .......
: :
.... . :.
~ ~~ - .:.: :
-~--- .......... .
C'-1 : ,~..... , .................. '
~ : I , .... , : s=2
= : '
.... ,
~ 0.4
1
.................... -: ............ )
: :
....................... f.........>.~.::;-: .~:~- ~:: .":" . -:-., . ~ .~~
. "":..._
.....::
i:z::
...; .:-s=8
. ....; .
0.2 ... -- ~
.. - .. . . . ... -~--
... - - -------i--
. - -- - -- .f ............................:
.. ...
. .
s = 100 :
0.0 - 1 - - - - -- - 1 - - - - - -- 1 - -- - - - -1 - - - - - - - l - - - -4.-- - - 4
0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 6-4 Reduction factor due to wave spreading and directionality

may be characterised by an environmental sea state vector

6.3.7
E>=(H., Tp, 9w)T comprising:
The short-tenn flow velocity may be taken as a narrow
banded stationary Gaussian process. The short-term local Hs significant wave height defmed as the average of
maxima for a given sea state (i.e. conditional on the the upper third of the wave heights
environmental sea state vector e, see section 6.4) of the
wave-induced flow velocity amplitude perpendicular to the TP peak period
pipeline axis, Uw, is then given by the Rayleigh distribution:
ew main (mean) wave direction, measured relative to
a given reference direction

in addition to a selection of a wave spectrum and a

directional spreading function.

6.4.2
6.4 Long-term statistics
e
The long-tenn variation of are normally described in terms
6.4.1 of a scatter diagram. The data sets of wave observations may
The wave climate at a given location may be characterised be sorted with respect to the main wave directions if
by a series of short-term sea-states. Each short-term sea state directional buoy or hindcast data are available with statistics

DET NORSKE VERIT AS

28 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

on the observations for different sectors. Otherwise, the 7.1.3

statistical properties may be assumed identical for aJI sectors. The fatigue acceptance criteria in this guideline are based on
the interaction free Palrngren-Miners damage rule. The
In some locations also the joint environmental probability
fatigue analysis requires suitable SN-curves for the actual
density function providing a continuous representation for
pipe. The SN- curves must be applicable for the material,
e or ranked sets of wave height and associated periods are construction detail, state of stress and corrosive environment
available.
7.'1,4
6.4.3
The concept adopted for the fatigue analysis applies to both
The fatigue analysis is normally most conveniently
response models and force models. The stress ranges to be
performed using a scatter diagram. Thus, the fatigue damage
used may be detennined by:
is evaluated in each cell in a scatter diagram in tenns ofHs,
Tp and 8w times the probability of occurrence of the (short- a response model, see section 8
tenn) sea-state followed by a summation over all sea-states, a force model, see section 9.
see 7.2.5.
The stress ranges and natural frequencies should nonually be
6.4.4 obtained from a FE-approach. Requirements to the structural
modelling and free span analysis are given in section 3.
Alternatively, the fatigue analysis may be based explicitly on
the long-term wave induced flow velocity at the pipe level,
see 7 .2.4. In this case, the long-tenn wave induced flow
7.2 Fatigue criteria
velocity distribution may be derived from a set of stationary 7.2.1
short-term sea states:
The fatigue damage assessment is to be based on the
accumulation law by Palmgren-Mincr:
fuw(Uw)= Jfuwie(Uw 19)dFe
E>

where f Uwl0 ( uw I e) is the conditional short tenn

probability density function for Uw defined by 6.3.7 and Fe is where:
the distribution function for the environmental sea state
Drai accumulated fatigue damage
vector 0, e.g. represented by a scatter diagram or given
explicitly by a joint envirorunental probability distribution. Tl a llowable damage ratio

~ = summation over all stress fluctuations in the

7. Fatigue Analysis design life.

7.1 General 7.2.2

7.1.l Ni is the number of cycles to failure at stress range S; defined
Vibrations due to vortex shedding and direct wave loads.are by the SN curve (see section 7.3):
allowed provided the fatigue criteria specified herein are
fulfilled.

7.1.2 where:
The following functional requirements apply: m fatigue exponent (the inverse slope of the SN curve)

The aim of fatigue design is to ensure an adequate safety C characteristic fatigue strength constant.
against fatigue failure within the design life of the
pipeline. 7.2.3
The fatigue analysis should cover a period which is
ni is the number of cycles corresponding to the stress range S;
representative for the free span exposure period.
given by:
All stress fluctuations imposed during the entire design
life of the pipeline capable of causing fatigue damage
shall be accounted for.
The local fatigue design checks are to be performed at where:
all free spanning pipe sections accowiting for damage
contributions from all potential vibration modes related
to the actual and neighbouring spans.

DETNORSKE VERITAS
Guidelines No. 14
June 1998
probability of a given flow condition
dominating vibration frequency of the considered
pipe response
time of exposure to fatigue load effects (i.e.
design life).
7.2.4
When several potential vibration modes may become active
simultaneously at a given current velocity the mode
associated with the largest contribution to the fatigue damage
must be applied. Formally, the fatigue damage criteria may
be assessed numerically as:
where:
A vector of environmental parameters. In the
response model approach it comprises the
non-dimensional hydrodynamic parameters:
A=(VR, KC, o:)
S(A) stress range for a given outcome of A
F,.. (A) long tenn probability distribution (vector-)
function for A, e.g. derived from section 6.2
and 6.4.
7.2.5
For practical applications the following approximate fatigue
damage criterion applicable to both in-line and cross-flow
VIV is recommended:
00
Dra1 = T~e L Pr() Jmax(rvs(v~;cx ;Kcf }Fuc ~11 7.2.6
H,,Tp,9w O Unless otherwise documented the following assumptions is
where
probability of occurrence for the given sea-state
(Hs, Tp, 9w)
s stress range determined from the response
models given in section 8.
dominating vibration frequency to be taken as
(response model):
fv= 2fw: for (KC< 5) or gap ratio (e/D) < 0.3
fv = f0,c,: vortex induced cross-flow motion
fv= fo,cr: cross-flow induced in-line motion
fv= f0,u: vortex induced in-line motion,
where f0,n, fo,cr are the in-line and cross-flow
natural frequencies
DET NORSKE VERIT AS
29
dFuc long-term distribution function for the current
velocity.
In the analyses, the reduced velocity, VR, the Keulegan-
Carpenter number, KC, and the current flow velocity ratio,
, are replaced by "significant" substitutes defined as:
Uc+ U~v
v; foD
KC*
u
~
fwD
a
. Uc
Uc+ u:v
An asterisk * indicate that the wave induced flow velocity
Uw is represented by the significant flow velocity. Thus,
Kc is assumed constant in each sea-state while Vi and
will vary due to the variability in the current velocity. The
following comments apply:
The fatigue damage may be evaluated independently in
each sea-state, i.e., the fatigue damage in each cell in a
scatter diagram in tenns of Hs, Tp and 9w times the
probability of occurrence for the individual sea state.
In each sea-state (Hs, TP 6w) is transformed into (Uw *,
T 0 , 9w) at the pipe level as described in section 6.3.
The sea state is represented by a significant short-tenn
flow induced velocity amplitude Uw * with mean zero
upcrossing period Tu, i.e. by a train ofregular wave
induced flow velocities with amplitudes equal to Uw *
and period T0 The effect of irregularity will reduce the
number of large amplitudes. It may be accounted for if
properly docwnented.
Integration over the long-term current velocity
distribution is perfonned in each sea-state.
recommended:
The current and wave induced flow components at the
pipe level are statistically independent.
The current and wave-induced flow is co-linear.
Omni-directional environmental data are considered
appropriate.
7.3 SN-curves
7.3.l
The SN-curve is on the form
N=C .s-m
where:
30
N number of cycles to failure at stress range S
s stress range, i.e. the double stress amplitude S
= (Smax - Smin) SCF
SCF Stress Concentration Factor
m fatigue exponent (the inverse slope of the SN
curve)
C characteristic fatigue strength constant defined
as the mean-minus-two-standard-deviation
curve.
7.3.2
If not implicit in the applied SN-curve, a Stress
Concentration Factor (SCF) due to potential geometrical
imperfections in the welded area must be applied. Stress
concentrations may be due to eccentricities resulting from
different sources:
concentricity i.e., difference in diameters of joined pipes
difference in thickness of joined pipes
pipe out of roundness or centre eccentricity.
The resulting eccentricity &may conservatively be evaluated
by a direct summation of the contribution from the different
sources. If no detailed information is available, the following
conservative fonnula may be applied:
SCF = 1+3 . & -e- (D/t)--0
5
t 7.4.2
7.3.3
A cut-off (threshold) stress range below which no significant
fatigue damage occurs is normally not to be used in the
fatigue analyses.
7.3.4
The SN-curves may be determined from:
dedicated laboratory test data,
fracture mechanics theory, or
accepted literature references, see e.g. NORSOK, (1998)
and Classification Note No. 30.2.
If the SN-curves are detennined by a fracture mechanics
approach an accepted crack growth model with a
conservative initial defect hypotheses must be documented.
Guidelines for conducting an Engineering Criticality
Assessment using a fracture mechanics approach may be
found in BSI PD6493, (1991). Consideration should be given
to the applied welding and Non - Destructive Testing
specifications applicable to the weld.
7.3.5
If detailed infonnation is not available the following apply
for cathodically protected carbon steel pipelines:
DET NORSKE VERIT AS
Guidelines No. 14
June J998
For girth welds that are symmetric with respect to the
weld root the F2 curve, with C=4.3-10 11, m=3.0 and
SCF= l .O is recommended.
f
For girth welds that are not symmetric with respect to
the weld root the F2 curve with SCF accounting for
(eccentricity) fabrication tolerances is recommended.
The transition of the weld to base material on the outside
of the pipe can normally be classified as E, with
C= l.010 12 , m: 3.0 with SCF accounting for
(eccentricity) fabrication tolerances.
7.4 Safety factors
7.4.1
The reliability of the pipeline against fatigue loads is ensured
by use of tl1e safety class concept. The safety class concept
accounts for the failure consequences, see the Rules for
Pipelines.
The following safety factor format are used:
Yr, Yt and Ys denote partial safety factors for the natural
frequency, stability parameter and stress range respectively.
The set of partial safety factor to be applied are specified in
the table below for the individual safety classes:
Safety Class
Safety Factor
Low l Normal
I High
11 0.6
"ff 1.3
Yk 1.3
'Ys l.05
l 1.3
I 1.55
7.4.3
For the in-line VIV acceptance criterion the above set of
safety factors have been calibrated to specified target
reliability levels in compliance with the Rules for Pipelines
using a reliability based approach, see M0rk et al., (1997).
For the cross-flow VIV acceptance criterion the above set of
safety factors normally apply. However, the applicability
should be evaluated on a case to case basis.
The safety factors ri and Ys are considered to be valid in
general and thus also applies for force models while
appropriate values for Yr and Yk should be evaluated on a case
to case basis.
Guidelines No. 14
June 1998
7.4.4
\llR is a reduction factor normally to be set to 1.0. It may be
set to 0.9 if the free span is well defined. A well defined free
span may be defined as:
A free span scenario with well defined boundary
conditions, i.e. where the free span length (or sequence
of free span lengths) and consequently the natural
frequency is insensitive to changes in the functional
loads.
A free span scenario with high precision artificial
supports.
A free span where a reduced variability (increased
knowledge) can be documented through pre-intervention
(post-operation) frequency measurements.
7.4.5
Comments:
Recent industry practice implies TJorr0.1 in case of no access
and llotd=0.3 in case 9faccess combined with 'YF'Yk=rs=l.O
using somewhat different response models e.g. as reflected in
(DNV, 1981). Usually the case TJord=0.3 is not allowed for
submarine pipelines in practice. Note that the present format
does not explicitly distinguish between access and no access
but rather implicitly using a safety class philosophy.
Detailed studies have revealed that existing practice,
although acceptable on average, provides design with very
varying reliability levels dependent on the stability
p arameter, natural frequency, stress amplitudes, etc.
The design format specified herein applies a set of 4 safety
factors in order to control these dominant uncertainty sources
rather than one usage factor, TJ. Due to this, the proposed
design fonnat is more flexible and provides design with a
more uniform reliability levels compared to industry
practice. On average the difference in the resulting safety
level is minor when applying appropriate response models
for the "old" industry practice and the approach proposed
herein.
8. Amplitude Response Models
8.1 General
8.1.1
Amplitude response models are empirical models providing
the maximum steady state amplitude response as a function
of the basic hydrodynamic and structural parameters. The
response models provided herein have been derived based on
available experimental laboratory test data and a limited
amount of full-scale tests for the following flow conditions:
in-line VIV from steady current
~ cross-flow VIV steady current
cross-flow VIV from combined wave and current.
The response models are in agreement with the generally
accepted concept of VIV.
DET NORSKE VERIT AS
31
8.1.2
In the response models, in-line and cross-flow vibration are
considered separately. Damage contributions from both first
and second in-line instability regions in current dominated
conditions are included. Cross-flow induced additional in-
line VIV resulting in possible increased fatigue damage is
considered approximately, see 8.2.2.
8.2 In-line VIV in current dominated conditions
8.2.1
The fatigue criterion specified in this section applies to
current dominated situations. In case of a <0.8 or
equivalently a<o.5 (see 7.2.5) in-line VIV may be ignored.
8.2.2
The in-line response of a pipeline span in current dominated
conditions is associated with either alternating or symmetric
vortex shedding. Contributions from both the first in-line
instability region (1.0<VR<2.5) and the second instability
region (2.5<V R<4.5) are included in this section. ff no other
information is available the cross-flow induced in-line VIV
should be accounted for approximately by taking the
maximum of the in-line VIV amplitude or 50% of the cross-
flow VIV amplitude for the given VR The cross-flow VIV
amplitude may be taken from section 9.
8.2.3
The amplitude response depends mainly on the reduced
velocity, VR, the stability parameter, Ks, the turbulence
intensity, I" and the flow angle, 0 relative to the pipe. The
Reynolds number, Re. is not explicit in the evaluation of
response amplitudes. Further, mitigation effects from the
seabed proximity, (e/D) is conservatively not included.
The stress range S is calculated by the In-line VlV
Response Model:
S = 2 SA~ID R l6 (Ay I D) A.rnax 'I' mod Ys ljlR
where:
unit stress nmplitLlde (stress due to unit
diameter in-line mode shape deflection)
Rio amplitude reduction factor accounting for
the turbulence intensity and flow angle
(Av/D) non-dimensional in-line VIV response
amplitude
'Ys safety factor to be multiplied on the stress
range, see section 7.4
factor depending on the free span scenario,
see section 7.4
Amax transformation factor to be taken as:
32 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

. - {I
)..
max -
in case of a constant amplitude response
r(I + m /2)11m in case of a narrow banded Gaussian process
8.2.S
(Av/D) is the in-line VIV response amplitude as a function
of VRand Ks, see Figure 8- l . ln the evaluation of (Av/D) the
design values for the reduced velocity and stability parameter
where m is the fatigue exponent. shall be applied:

vR,d = VR 'Yr
8.2.4
Ks,d =Ks l'Yk
The mode-shape parameter, !fmod, accounting for the
flexibility of the span is defined as: where Yr and yk are safety factors related to the natural
frequency and damping respectively, see section 7.4.
1/2
f~ 2 (s)ds Interpolation for different values of the stability parameter is
lj/mod =~max L.J 4
allowed. The figure provides maximum values. The
[ ~ (s)ds ] corresponding standard deviation may be obtained as
L. (Av !D)/-f2.

Typical mode shape values may be found in Classification

Note No. 30.5. For a simply supported pipe in the first
vibration mode, the mode-shape parameter equals 1.16.

0.20
==T il1 r1r
. ... ...
-...... 1 ......... ....... --.. ...... -..... :' ...........
'
-~ ~
'

'
.
'
.'.

... 1 ....... J'.''.~.110 I r-r--t-..1!_+-:-.:-:..;:-'_-

. ....... -:. ...... -.. -.. .... .. ... ... ' -.. . -
~ ~. . ~

..' ''
'
~=1.s

0.00 -1 -- - - 1 . - --i<-- - - i -'--- + - ' - - - - l - - - + --'--+---'----f-L-----ll - -- I

0.0 0.5 l.O 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Reduced Velocity V R,d (=VRYr)

Figure 8-1 In-line VIV response amplitude

l
8.2.6 1.0 for Ks,d < 0.4
The characteristic vibration amplitude curves in Figure 8 l VR,oosct = 0. 6 + K s,d for 0.4 < K s.,d < 1.6
can be constructed as follows: 2.2 for Ks,d > 1.6

The onset value for the reduced velocity in the 151 The end value of the 2"d instability region is given by:
instability region is given by:
-{4.5-0.8Ks,d for Ks,d < 0.4
VR,eod - 3.7 for Ks,d;:::: 1.0

DETNORSKE VERITAS
Guidelines No. 14 33

June 1998

A slope equal to (l /10) at the start of the 1st instability The amplitude in the lst instability region for given Ks,d
region and a slope equal to (- L/2) at the end of the 2nd is not to be taken less than the amplitude in the 2nd
instability region applies. instability region, see Figure 8-2.
The maximum in-line vibration amplitude (AY,ntaxJD) as a
function of the stability parameter is given by (see
Figure 8-2):

0.15(1- Ks,d) 1st inst. region

(Av.max /D)= i 2
{ 0.11(1- ~) zod inst. region
1.8

0.16 .......... .,............. i, ............................

:
,.............,. ........... .,...................................................
: : : ; : ;
i l l : . l l l
0.14
... ~ .... r 1;.i~~~~-~~;;fy ~~~i~~- . r t1 .....r............ . 1
0.12 !. .... ~--
.. - ~------ -----~-----~- -~~- ~
..
..
o

.
o
.. o
o
..
I

t
.
o
....I

I
..' 0
.
..
....................:................ i--~---------~
...................................;............ . .................
-8,. .
0.1
.... ... ..
... ..
s 0.08 ... -:;t 1 .... ; .... :
o o I o o '

~-.. . ~
~
$ . . ; , Instability Region . .
0.06 ............ -:-~-~., ...... : ............ :
: . :
. ' :
~
:
:
:
:
0.04 ............1:................ ::................::. ................. ~'-:., ......... [... ..... ..,..........................t.: ........................;:
.. .. :'
'
'
"
' '
:' .
:
' . .
0.02 .
.
.
. . '
-~ -\-
' ~
; '
.
........................................................... - ...... ----- -----..... ,, ___ ...... -... ... .
' '
:
.
:
' .:
' I '
' '
:
' 'II '
:
'
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 l.4 1.6 1.8 2
Stability Parameter K s,d

Figure 8-2 Maximum in-line vibration amplitude

8.2.7 Linear interpqlation on 0 is allowed.

R10(Ic,9) is a reduction function accounting for the effect of In the 2nd instability region R16(Jc,0) is independent of 8. It
the turbulence intensity, le, and angle of attack for the flow. may be taken as
In the 151 instability region R10(Ic,9) is given by: for le <5%
for 5% <le <20%

l
1.0 for 0=90
for le >20%
R19(Ic ,6) = 1.0 - ( 36~ 0 )(45 -0.7 -0}1c for 30 < 0 <60
0.0 for e = 0 The reduction functions are illustrated in Figure 8-3 .

DET N ORS KE VERITAS

34 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

. .
.... ) .. -- .....~ .........;........... ~..... . . i 9==90 v '
0.7
i..
.s 0.6
t>

r:
0.5 .
'
l=0.4
~
0.3

0.2

0.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Turbulence Intensity (%]

Figure 8-3 Reduction function wrt turbulence intensity and flow angle

8.3 Cross-flow VIV from combined wave and 8.3.3

current The characteristic vortex shedding induced stress range S
due to a combined current and wave flow is calculated by the
8.3.l Cross-Flow VIV Response Model
The fatigue criterion specified in this section applies to all
flow conditions.

8.3.2 where:
Cross-flow VlV are affected by several parameters, such as S A ID unit stress amplitude (stress due to unit
the reduced velocity V R> the Keulegan-Carpenter number, diameter cross-flow mode shape deflection)
KC, the current flow velocity ratio, a , the stability
parameter, Ks, the seabed gap ratio, (e/D). the Strouhal ~ amplitude reduction factor due to damping
number, Si. and the pipe roughness, (k/D), among others.
Note that Reynolds number, R.,, is not explicit in the model. (A2 /D) cross-flow VIV amplitude

For steady current dominated fl ow situations, onset of cross-
flow VIV of significant amplitude occurs typically at a value
of VRbetween 3.0 and 5.0, whereas maximum vibration
levels occurs at a value between 5 and 7. For wave
dominated flow situations or span scenarios with a low gap
ratio, cross-flow vibration may be initiated for VR between 2
and 3 and are in this region apparently linked to the in-line
motions. For high values of VR the motion are again de-
coupled.
Ys safety factor to be multiplied on the stress
range, see section 7 .4
factor depending on the free span scenario,
see section 7.4
transformation factor, see section 8.2.3.
The cross-flow VIV amplitude (Az/D) in combined current
and wave flow conditions may be taken from Figure 8-4. The
figure provides characteristic maximum values. The
corresponding standard deviation may be obtained as
(Az /D)/../2.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Guidelines No. 14 35

June 1998

1.2

l.I

,......
e 0.9
~
'-'
G>
0.8
"'.<::::= 0.7
-a.
~
-
0.6
;;... 0.5
~
~ 0.4
J,
..."' 0.3
~

u
0.2

0. 1

2 4 6 8 IO 12 14 16
Reduced Velocity VR.d

Figure 8-4 Cross-flow VIV amplitude

8.3.4 forKs,d ~ 4
Th e characteristic amplitude response for cross-flow VIV for Ks,d >- 4
may be reduced due to the effect of damping. The reduction
factor, Rk is given by, see Figure 8-5.

.,....... :. r : ;---r . . :.. - ~

.. ..
.
.
.
-r . . -- r- r -----r--------r -- ---- ----- ..........:
-~- -~- ~-
~ : : j

:e=0.6
0
.
.... ......................
'
.I
>
.
o
.
o
o
.
..
t
o
. o
.
o
.
o

. -- ........................................................................................................
I

'
I
.. o

. .
~c:
I t o o o '
0 I 0 0 I
'

. --- - --:-. ...... -....

..------:----
-
.Si
c.i
::I
0.4 --- ---- : .. .... -. ~-. -. -- -~- - -
.

: : :
. - -- -:- -- -- ---:- --. --:
l : : i :
~

~
~ ................. ...... -----------
. .
0.2 _________
.... . ... -- -.. ------- -
..
.................
. ..
..... .
I o o o 0

.. . ..
... ...
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stability Parameter ~,d

Figure 8-5 Damping reduction function Rk

DETNORSKE VERITAS
36
8.3.5
The normalised amplitude curves in Figure 8-4 to a large
degree embody all available test result. However, the
following comments apply:
The response for (e/D < 0.5) is (in reality) not governed
by vortex shedding and should in a narrow sense not be
characterised by VIV parameters as VR and KC. Tue
indicated response curve is considered conservative in
general.
The response for low KC values is associated with a
large uncertainty and the number of test data is scarce.
For KC< 5 the response is not governed by VIV but
rather linked to wave induced water particle motions,
and one sided vortex shedding. Typical maximum
response at VR between 2.5 and 3 .0 occur at fo/fw.,. 2.
In case f0 < 3fw the criticality should be assessed, e.g.
from dedicated tests or applying a force model.
9. Force Models
9.1 General
9.1.1
In principle, force models may be used for both vortex
induced and direct wave and current dominated loads if
appropriate formulations of force models exist and reliable
and consistent data are available for calibration.
9.1.2
The well-known Morison's equation is presented herein
while functional requirements are provided for general force
models for combined flow conditions.
Several analytical force models for cross-flow have been
proposed and calibrated using experimental data, see e.g.
Sumer & Freds0e, (1997) and Blevins, (1994) for a detailed
introduction. However, generally applicable force models do
not exist and an empirical response model reflecting
observed pipeline response in a variety of flow conditions is
at present superior.
9.1.3
The stress range to be applied in section 7.2 may be
calculated explicitly introducing the force model as a loading
term in the equation of motion for the free span scenario. The
solution may apply time domain solutions or frequency
domain solution using linearization techniques.
The set of safety factors given in section 7.4 is linked to a
consistent definition of characteristic parameters and models.
They have not been calibrated to the force model, and, if
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Guidelines No. 14
June 1998
applied, the adequacy must be evaluated on a case to case
basis.
9.2 In-line direction
9.2.1
The in-line force per unit length of a pipe free span is
determined using the Morison's equation:
where:
p water density
D outer pipe diameter (including any coating)
U instantaneous (time dependent) flow velocity
y in-line displacement of the pipe
drag coeffici~nt.
ine11ia coefficient
(Ca+ l) where c. is the added mass coefficient
differentiation with respect to time.
9.2.2
In general, the drag and inertia coefficient is given by:
Co= Cn(Rc,KC,o.,(c/D),(k/D),(Az ID))
CM= CM(Rc,KC,a,(e/D), (klf)))
where Re is the Reynolds number, KC is the Keulegan
Carpenter number, a is the current velocity ratio, (e/D) is the
gap ratio, (k/D) is the pipe roughness and (Az/D) is the cross-
flow vibration amplitude. Definitions are given in section 5.
9.2.3
In Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-2 drag and inertia coefficients are
given as function of KC and ex., i.e. CL>(KC,a.) and CM(KC,cx.).
Corrections due to the influence of the seabed may be taken
from Figure 5-1. Fuither, the effect of the pipe roughness and
increase oft11e drag coefficient due to cross-flow vibration
may be taken from Classification Note No. 30.5.
Guidelines No. 14 37

June 1998

2.0 ..,....----... ....................;-- .. -- --1--... ............. .

: I

1.8 .:
i
...................... ., ..... -1 ....... .
:

l.6
.
-r!-
.
1.4 t-.:
Q
u f ;
c
~
1.2 ... fi
. .
....a ............
o 0.0
e
~
1.0
Q
uOil 0.8
<I'S
N
. ..............................................
~ 0.6 . .. . ....................... ...... ............. ................. . ... ........ .................. .............
. ..... .... ......... .
:
gap ratio .e > .
! i. : i
.
<0.5
0.4 roughness (k/D)=l/200 .. i.....................f...................T" ................. T .................
. t
. t
. . I o

..
0.2 ........................................................
o
.
t
o
. .
t

..........
0

.
----~--.- -
I

--- -----.................................. .
0
I
I

o.o ...______,_.____________,______,_. __________

. ~

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
KC

Figure 9-1 Drag coefficient C 0 versus KC and

2.0 i-----=
--~----------~-------------------:------ -- ----;-- --------: -- --,
... . ....
.
1.8 ;.. ------ ---------- ~-- ---------------r ------------------- --~--- -~- ------------1
. . . ~o .
;:oo,.........,..._......._ _ _ _~---.-;:.. !:P.... ........1
~ 0.2
1.4 ................ .. ................ . .>
. ............... .....P---"" ----' -- -- -- ....... ...
....................................

: : 0.3 :
~ 1.2 ..............
'
---~ ....
. .
. ...... ... ~... ......... ....... ~ .. ...................:... ...................;..................
. j.
u
e : : o.4
~ t.o -1----~-- ....:~ ................ - ~ - .. - ---~~~:~~~~~~~~____..:
......... ---:-- ...................................... T.............. ----j
u . .
'f
~
0.8 ~

..................... .....................f.................... T.<o:s-- ........ j

~
I j

=
... 0.6
.
--- .....................................................
'
'

. .
.
o

................ - ..................................
~
o
'
I

.
'

.
_.............................................
'
I I
'
--
'
.
.............. .
o

gap ratio e > . : : ! : :

: : i
0.4 .... roughness (k/D)=l/200 "j"................... ( ...................f................... T................... :j
I

; ; : ! :
o.2 .................... T ....................r--1-------........ f.................... 1--~
..
+

' ..
'
..
o
.
o
..
I

0.0 -1------+'-----+------1------i-------'1------~
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
KC

Figure 9-2 Inertia coefficient CM versus KC and a,

DETNORSKE VERITAS
38 Guidelines No. 14

June 1998

9.2.4 Fyrileiv, 0. & M0rk, K.J., " Assessment of Free Spanning

Both time domain and frequency domain solutions are
allowed. A time domain solution may account for all
significant non-linearities but is in general very time
consuming if a large number of sea-states are to be analysed.
For fatigue analysis a frequency domain solution (if
thoroughly verified) is more tractable since it facilitate
analyses of a very large number of sea-states at a small
fraction of the time required for a time domain solution, see
M0rk and Fyrileiv (1998).
9.3 Cross-flow direction
9.3.t
Models describing the vortex shedding cross-flow forces are
semi-analytical and include coefficients that are derived from
test data. Generally, the models are limited in tenns of their
physical basis and the range of application. A number of
models can treat steady current conditions, see e.g. Blevins,
(1994). Others have been developed for harmonic flow
(regular waves) conditions see e.g. Bearman, (1984) and
Verley ( 1982). Models, which treat general flow conditions,
are more complex and the wide parameter range and
conditions to be covered makes it necessary to include a
number of different terms each justified by different physical
conditions or parameters.
10. References
Pipelines using the DNV Guideline", JSOPE'98, M ontreal,
Canada, May 24-29, 1998.
MULTISPAN Project, "Design Guideline. VIV of Free
Spanning Pipelines. Part I: Steady Current Loading'', DNV
report 95-3 134, H0vik, Norway, 1996.
M0rk, K.J., Vitali, L. & Verley, R., "The l'vfULTISPAN
Project: Design Guideline for Free Spanning Pipelines",
Proc. of OMAE'97 conf., Yokohama, Japan, April 13-17,
1997.
Mmk, K.J. & Fyrileiv, 0. "Fatigue Design According to the
DNV Guideline for Free Spanning Pipelines", OPT'98, Oslo,
Norway, February 23-24, 1998.
M0rk K.J., Fyrileiv, 0., Verley, R., Bryndum, M. & Bruschi,
R. "lntroduction to the DNV Guideline for Free Spanning
Pipelines", OMAE'98, Lisboa, July 6-9, 1998.
NORSOK Standard "Design Principles. Steel Structures.
Armex C: Fatigue Strength Analyses", 1998
Sumer B.M. & Freds0e, J. " Hydrodynamics around
Cylindrical Structures", Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering - Volume 12, World Scientific, London, 1997.
Tura, F., Dwnitrescu, A., Bryndum, M. B. & Smeed, P.F.
"Guidelines for Free Spanning Pipelines: The GUDESP
Project", OMAE'94, Volume V, pp 247-256, Houston, 1994.

Bearman, P. W., Graham, J.M. R, Obasaju, E. D., "A Model Verley, R., "A Simple Method of Vortex-Induced Forces in
Equation for the Transverse Forces on Cylinders in Waves and Oscillating Currents'', Applied Ocean Research,
Oscillatory Flows", Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, Volume 4, No. 2, 1982.
pp. 166-172, 1984.

Blevins, R.D., "Flow-Induced Vibrations", Krieger

Publishing Company, Florida, 1994

Bruschi, R. & Vitali, L., "Large-Amplitude Oscillations of

Geometrically Non-linear Elastic Beams Subjected to
Hydrodynamic Excitation", JOMAE, Vol. 113, May, 1991.

BSI PD6493, "Guidance on Methods for Assessing the

Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures", British
Standard Code of Practice, 1991

DNV, " Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems", 1981

DNV, "Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems", 1996

DNV Classification Note No. 30.2, "Fatigue Strength

Analysis for Mobile Offshore Units", 1984.

DNV Classification Note No. 30.5, "Environmental

Conditions and Environmental Loads", 1991.

DNV RP E305, "On-bottom Stability Design of Submarine

Pipelines", 1988.

Fyrileiv, 0., M0rk, K.J., Kathrud, K., & Sortland, L "Free

Span Assessment of the Zeepipe IIA Pipeline", OMAE'98,
Lisboa, July 6-9, 1998.

DETNORSKE VERITAS