HyperWorks is a division of

A Platform for Innovation

TM
1 Copyright 2011 by ASME
Proceedings of the ASME 2011 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2011
June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube
Array Using CFD
by Yiannis Constantinides, Chevron Energy Technology Company; Houston, TX, USA
Samuel Holmes, Red Wing Engineering, Inc.; Mountain View, CA, USA
Weiwei Yu, Chevron Energy Technology Company; Houston, TX, USA
Abstract
Complex fows through cylinder arrays, such as the case of pull-tubes located in the truss
section of a truss spar, are very diffcult to describe and analyze. It is especially diffcult to
predict and correct Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV) response using traditional tools that were
developed to analyze single cylinder rather than arrays of cylinders. Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) offers the designer the ability to properly analyze these complex problems
and increase the reliability of his design. In this study, a full scale truss spar with pull-tubes is
modeled using CFD coupled with an FEA structural model of the pull-tubes for a fuid-structure
interaction (FSI) computation. The VIV response of the pull-tubes is predicted and analyzed for
different current headings and speeds.
Introduction
This paper addresses the problem of predicting vibration and hence fatigue damage in the
tube arrays present underneath many offshore platforms. The potential damage arises from
vortex induced vibration in the tube array which is diffcult to predict because of the geometric
complexity and irregularity of the array. Furthermore, the current conditions can vary over time
and current speed and direction can vary with depth. The later condition is called a sheared
current. Because of the many parameters one cannot expect to predict VIV in the array using
existing experimental data for individual tubes or groups of tubes. This paper is an extension
of a prior study [Reference 1] in which we examine the fow and VIV around the pull tubes in
the upper bay of a truss spar. This earlier work showed the importance of wake effects on pull
tube response.
In the current problem, 20 straked pull tubes ranging in diameter from 16 to 25 inches are
in close proximity underneath a truss spar. The general arrangement is shown in Figure 1.
The pull tubes originate about 10m above the water line and pass though the fooded
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
2
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
centerwell in the platform (not shown) and extend down to below the soft tank. Each pull tube
is about 170m long and is supported at several locations along its length.
In order to predict the pull tube motion it is necessary to model the entire structure of each
pull tube and its supports as well as the fuid fow along the pull tube. Although the pull tubes
are assumed independent structurally, wake effects in the fuid in the array can result in
complex interactions in the fow. With this in mind, the fuid volume simulated here includes
the volume around and under the hard tank and well below the soft tank.
Solution Method
In an earlier work [1] we studied the response of the pull tubes by modeling the fuid fow in the
uppermost bay in a truss spar. In this earlier study we assumed that the pull tubes are fxed
at the bottom of the hard tank and at the top of the uppermost heave plate and we modeled
only the structure and fuid between these two elevations. We also did not examine the effect
of sheared currents. These assumptions limited problem size but of course the assumption of
perfectly fxed supports for the pull tubes is not completely satisfying or correct. In the current
study we treat the pull tube supports more accurately and model the full length of the pull tube.
We also calculate the structural properties of the pull tubes (the eigenvalue problem) using fnite
element methods accurately modeling pull tube geometry and supports, etc.
All of the solutions were obtained using the commercial CFD code AcuSolve
TM
. AcuSolve is a
fnite element based code which is second order accurate in space and time and supports a
variety of turbulence models. In this study, turbulence effects were modeled using Spalarts
detached eddy simulation (DES) which is described in References 2 and 3.
Figure 1 - Underside of truss spar showing truss and pull tubes
heave plates, soft tank (bottom) and hard tank (top).
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
3
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
For economy, wall functions are used in the boundary layer so that the fow is not resolved down
to the wall. Here, the CFD code is used to solve both the fuid fow (Navier-Stokes equations) and
the structural response equations. However, the structural model is reduced to a simple linear
vibration model so this task requires little computational effort.
Structural model - The solution of the pull tube structural response is obtained using the
fexible body option in AcuSolve
TM
. In this method, the problem of riser motion is solved
by fnding the eigenvalues and eigenvectors associated with the pull tube alone and thus
characterizing the pull tube motion as a simple linear vibrating structure. Thus the pull tube
motion is described by a series of eigenvectors which are translated into mesh motions.
In this case, we found the eigenvalues and eigenvectors for each pull tube prior to starting the
FSI problem using the fnite element code Abaqus
TM
using beam elements to describe each
tube. About 500 elements are used along the pull tube length with the beam node locations
on the pull tube centerline. Using the Abaqus output at the beam nodes the displacements
on the pull tube surface and hence the displacements associated with each mode in the
AcuSolve solution ( S
n
) are found though interpolation along the pull tube length.
With this approach, the motion of the riser is assumed to be a linear summation of the
various modes. The response of each of n modes is found by solving the equation:
In each time step, the surface tractions on the riser are projected onto the eigenvectors to fnd
the values
i
:
The resulting
i
are then used with Equation [1] to fnd the displacements for the next time
step using the trapezoidal rule to integrate. Note that AcuSolve iterates between the fuid
and structure solutions within the time step to improve accuracy. The mesh motion required
to accommodate the changes in riser geometry were accomplished by using an Arbitrary
Langrangian-Eulerian (ALE) mesh movement strategy.
In the case studied here, each pull tube is supported at about 10 positions along its length.
Using the fnite element structures code in a separate calculation we found the mode shapes
and associated mass for a range of modes in each pull tube. Figure 2 shows example shapes
for a typical pull tube. The eigenvalue analysis typically predicted that the lowest modal
frequency of vibration for any tube in the array is on the order of 0.7 Hz. Fundamental vortex
i
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
4
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
shedding frequencies for the ocean current conditions modeled thus far are from 0.5Hz to
0.7 Hz maximum, so we expect that the lowest modes of response of the tubes will be the
most important. Most of the FSI simulations are thus run using a structural model comprised
of the lowestthsix modes of response. The frequency associated with the 6 tubes. mode
varies from 1.8Hz to 2.6Hz for all the pull tubes.
Pull Tube R1 Here we use pull tube R1 to illustrate the method and results for all the pull
tubes. ABAQUS V6.9-1 [4] is used to obtain the natural frequency and mode shape for this
pull tube. The origin of the coordinate system used is at the center of the spar at the mean
water line. The initial confguration of the pull-tube lies on the ABAQUS X-Z plane. For pull
tube R1, The pull-tube assumed heading towards 180 counter-clockwise from ABAQUS
positive X-axis. The pull tube is 0.244m in diameter and 175m long. For modal analysis,
two-node linear beam elements with a hybrid formulation is applied to model the pull tube
using 500 elements along the pull-tube.
The pull tube is supported by decks and other supports at nine elevations. These supports
are modeled in the FEA using guide nodes defned at contact points between pull-tube and
the supports. The support from decks is modeled by defning spring elements connecting
the guide nodes and the corresponding pull-tube node. The spring stiffness of the supports
is on the order of 10
8
N/m in both X and Y directions so that the supports are stiff in terms
Figure 2. Example of pull tube with associated mode shapes
corresponding to 0.7Hz for mode1 and 1.5Hz for mode 2.
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
5
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
of displacements. As designed, the vertical stiffness and three rotational stiffnesses at the
supports are small and are assumed to be zero here. In order to correct for the effects of
any installed changes in the pull tube geometry, a static solution with gravity, buoyancy and
riser lateral loads is found frst and then the frequency analysis is performed to extract the
frst 6 modes.
Fluid model The overall fuids mesh is a circular cylinder as shown in Figure 3a.
The purpose of this shape is to facilitate changes in current heading which can be changed
with a simple command without any mesh changes. The mesh models a section of the ocean
364m in diameter by 200m deep. The mesh is made up primarily of tetrahedral elements
but the mesh in the boundary layer on the spar platform is made of wedge elements.
Mesh density is kept high in the region of the truss so that vortex shedding is modeled
regardless of current direction. Also, the outer region of the mesh, far from the platform is
made of wedge elements. These elements are slender and aligned horizontally to facilitate
the propagation of sheared currents while keeping the problem size small. Table 1 gives the
nodes and elements counts for the mesh.
The boundary layer on the pull tubes and truss elements is made up of wedge elements.
The frst element thickness in the critical wedge elements is 4mm which gave a range
of y+ from 10 to 50 on these surfaces for most problems. No attempt was made to model
the boundary layer on the hard tank or the soft tank in reduce problem size.
The time step for the calculations is constant and is chosen to resolve the fuid fow as
accurately as possible. For the meshes used here, the typical time step used is 0.05s so
about 60 time steps are used in a vortex shedding cycle. Run time for most problems was
from 24 hours to 48 hours using 188 cores on a 48 node cluster with infniband connectivity.
Table 1. Node and element count for mesh.
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
6
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
Figure 3. Fluids mesh.
(a)
(b)
(c)
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
7
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
Figure 4 shows velocity vectors on a cut plant in the truss area under a typical fow condition.
The velocity vectors are colored with velocity magnitude. This picture illustrates the close
proximity of the pull tubes and the potential for strong wake effects for downstream tubes.
Also note that the each vector is associated with a single element so the vectors give and
indication of mesh density. Note that the mesh around the pull tubes is isotropic so that the
wakes of the tubes can be captured regardless of current direction.
CFD Results
Flow visualization
The computed fow velocities were visualized in an effort to understand the fow through the
riser array. Figure 5 shows the vectors of a vertical slice along the centerline colored by the
velocity magnitude. The fow accelerates as it fows under the spar resulting in a 30% increase
in mean velocity. The X truss member cross section generates a strong wake at different
locations in the bay. The horizontal members that support the heave plates, shown in the
cross-section, also generate strong wakes. The velocity slice shown here has considerable
wake infuence and unsteady fow, especially at locations behind vertical members such the
truss members and pull tubes. The bottom ballast tank, identifed by two rectangles, has a
typical bluff body fow with complex separation and recirculation zones.
Figure 4. Velocity vectors around pull tubes with contours of velocity magnitude.
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
8
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. Velocity vectors colored by magnitude
of vertical slice at the centerline of the domain.
The horizontal cross-section shown in Figure 6 is located near the top of the uppermost bay
and shows contours of the total velocity magnitude at 3 current headings: 0, 24 and 45
degrees. The free stream velocity is uniform with a magnitude of 1.5 m/s. The upstream
truss members, either vertical or X shape, infuence the fow causing speedup to the fuid
between them. The fow pattern and infuence of the wake to the risers is different in the three
headings. For example, R1 is infuenced signifcantly by the wake of the top left truss member
at 24 degrees heading (Figure 6b). Pull tubes R2, R3 are infuenced at a 45 degree heading
(Figure 6c) by truss member that is directly upstream. Looking at the interaction between
the pull tubes, it is obvious that the large eddies in their wakes affect any pull tube located
directly downstream. This dynamic wake can cause buffeting and dynamic forces on the
downstream tubes that will lead to increased response. As a result, a downstream pull-tube
with strakes can vibrate even though the strakes would ordinarily mitigate VIV effectively.
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
9
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
Other interaction effects are shown in Figure 6a for a heading of 0 degrees. Here R3 is shown
to infuence R2 and R4. The cluster of R5, R6 and R7 is also infuenced by upstream pull
tubes as well by each others wake as they are located in close proximity. The study of the
3 headings suggests that the response of individual pull tubes will be different for each
heading as the wake and fow structure will change signifcantly. No pull tube was found to
operate independent of any wake effect from other structures.
Figure 6. Flow feld (velocity magnitude) at 0, 24 and 45 degree heading at the top bay.
(a)
(b)
(c)
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
10
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
VIV response evaluation
A number of simulations were performed allowing the pull tubes to freely vibrate in the
presence of a uniform current. The current speeds were varied from 1 m/s to 2.0 m/s to
represent typical extreme current events in the Gulf of Mexico. Because the pull tubes extend
to a depth of about 160m these current speeds are close to extreme loop current events.
Returning to tube R1 as an example, we see that the dynamic response of R1 along the
length, shown in Figure 7, is similar to the shape of mode 1 shown in Figure 2. Thus R1
response is dominated by mode 1 in the range of velocities of interest. Looking at the
response of pull tubes R1 through R7 in Figure 8 for 0 degree heading, each pull tube has
a different maximum amplitude of response (along its length). The response amplitude
varies from 0.02 to 0.12 standard deviations (std) of normalized response amplitude A/D.
The response difference can be explained by the location of the pull tubes with respect to
other tubes and truss members with the upstream cluster R1- R3 having less VIV than the
downstream cluster R4-R7.
We also found that differences in structural properties between the pull tubes is another
important factor in determining response in this example because the various pull tubes
have different natural frequencies and hence lock-in velocities. Finally, we compared the
simulation results with predicted VIV amplitudes for bare and straked cylinders under similar
fow conditions using simple formulas for VIV based on single cylinder data. In this comparison
the simple models predicted greater VIV amplitudes for bare tubes but lower amplitudes for
straked tubes. It would seem that estimates based on single tube models without interaction
effects are not useful for predicted VIV this problem.
Figure 7. Dynamic response of R1 along span.
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
11
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
The variation of the VIV response with current speed for 0 degree heading is shown in Figure
9. For the tubes R1 and R5 the cross-fow response increases with the velocity and reaches a
maximum at a value of 0.25 for R5 and 0.1 for R1 at the maximum velocity. With resonance
frequencies in the range of 0.5Hz only mode 1 is excited with a natural frequency of 0.7 Hz
for R1. The frequency content of the hydrodynamic pressure appears to be broad band due
to the unsteady incoming fow caused by the wake of upstream tubes.
The response is affected by the current heading which results in changes in the upstream
geometry for any particular pull tube. Figure 10 shows the response of R1 in 0, 24 and
45 degrees of 1.5 m/s current. From Figure 6a we see that for a 0 degree heading R1 does
not sit directly in the wake of any large upstream members. While at 24 degrees the vertical
truss member is directly in front of R1. The strong wake from the truss results in higher
VIV amplitudes for R1 at this heading.
Figure 11 compares the time history of displacement for R1 and R5 for a 1.5 m/s current
at 0 degree heading. Because R5 is downstream a number of pull tubes, its response is
signifcantly higher than that of R1. Also the time history is complex as might be expected
in the wake of a straked cylinder.
Overall, it is a big challenge to understand the response of pull tubes physics since the fow
is complex and there are multiple sources of wake excitation (truss members, other tubes)
that will affect an individual tube. CFD can model all these effects and provide results that
will reduce the number of assumptions one will need and refne the design. The only way,
based on our understanding, to accomplish this design with existing empirical tools is to build
in suffcient conservatism in the design. Even then it is impossible to determine the proper
infow conditions and strake effciencies without extensive experimental data including tube
bundle experiments.
Figure 8. Crossfow std crossfow motion of selected pull- tubes at 0 degree heading.
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
12
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
Figure 11. Crossfow timeseries comparison between R1 and R5 for 1.5 m/s.
Figure 10. Combined std response magnitude of R1 as a function of heading.
Figure 9. Crossfow std motion at different current speeds for 0 degree heading.
HyperWorks is a division of
A Platform for Innovation
TM
13
VIV Prediction of a Truss Spar Pull-Tube Array Using CFD
OMAE2011-50145
Copyright 2011 by ASME
Conclusions
CFD was successfully used to evaluate the response of a full scale truss spar pull tube array
using exact design parameters. The truss spar and pull tubes were modeled with adequate
detail including FEA structural models for the pull tubes. The model is easily handled by a
medium size cluster and requires 24 to 48 hours to run.
Flow visualization revealed a complex fow in the tube array with increase fow velocity under
the spar hard tank. The truss members as well as the pull tubes create complex wakes that
interact and affect the downstream pull tubes causing vibrations due to wake buffeting.
The pull tube response was found to vary from pull tubes to pull tube due to different
properties and location. Current heading is identifed as an important factor with the worse
case for any particular pull tube occurring when it is downstream other tube and truss
elements. It appears that CFD offers the best hope to predict these complex wake effects
and predict VIV for this type of problem.
Nomenclature
References
[1] Constantinides Y., Oakley H. O. Jr. and Holmes, S. Analysis of Turbulent Flows and VIV in
Truss Spar Risers, OMAE-92674 (2006).
[2] Holmes S., Oakley H. O. Jr. and Constantinides Y., Simulation of Riser VIV using Fully
Three Dimensional CFD Simulations, OMAE-92124 (2006).
[3] Constantinides Y., Oakley H. O. Jr. Numerical Prediction of Bare and Straked Cylinder VIV,
OMAE-92334 (2006).
[4] ABAQUS/Standard Users Manual, V. . Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen,
Pawtucket, RI 12860, Inc.
a = motion amplitude, [m]
A = area, [m2]
Cd = drag coeffcient based, [-]
Cl = lift coeffcient, [-]
D = riser diameter, [m]

i
= modal force, [N]
m
i
= system mass, [kg]
n = modenumber[-]
K
n
= system stiffness [N/m]
T = period of oscillation, [s]
Tn = system natural period of oscillation, [s]
T = Surface traction [Pa]
V = current velocity, [m/s]
Vrn = nominal reduced velocity, V Tn/D, [-]
e
i
= unit vector [-]

i
= modal amplitude [m]
std = standard deviation
i