Abstract

The hybrid flexible risers have a multi-layered structure and use thermoplastic composite for the pressure and tensile armour. In contrast, a conventional flexible riser uses heavier carbon steel as armour which significantly contributes to its weight. For shallow-water applications, the conventional risers are widely used in offshore oil and gas industry due to their corrosion resistance properties and low transportation costs. However, the weight of conventional risers is a key limitation in ultra-deep-water applications. This shortcoming can be addressed by including a lightweight carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite as one of the individual layers. The use of CFRP reduces the effective tension at the hang off point which is a key limitation in extending the range of flexible risers. Here, the dynamic stability and functional load interactions of both risers (viz: a thermoplastic CFRP riser and a conventional flexible riser) at a water depth of 3000 m were studied. A global analysis was performed considering the onerous 1000-year hurricane wave with 100-year currents. The investigation considered ±150 m vessel offsets, three vessel headings (viz: 135, 180, 225°) and three vessel draughts (ballasted, empty, loaded). Additionally, a numerical model with a variable bending stiffness was used to capture the orthotropic material behaviour of a flexible riser. Results showed that the buoyancy requirement and effective tension were 2.1 times greater and 2% higher for the conventional riser compared to its composite counterpart. The most onerous case for a conventional riser was at zero offset whereas for its composite counterpart was at –150 m along the length of a riser. It was observed that the heavier masses of a conventional riser aid in aligning the weight vector with the upward direction of the buoyancy force. Contrarily, the composite risers undergo large displacements leading to misalignments and instability. Furthermore, the observed bending radius of the flexible riser was found to be within the allowable minimum bend radius at the hog bend location.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.