OTC 10979

Steel Catenary Riser Configurations for North Sea Field Developments

Daniel Karunakaran, MARINTEK, Kjell M. Lund, STATOIL and Nils T. Nordsve, STATOIL

Copyright 1999, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, 36 May 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

Abstract
Free hanging metal risers have become an important
alternative to flexible risers for oil and gas field developments.
These risers also have a potential benefit when used in high
temperature and high-pressure applications.
This paper presents a summary of the work performed to
establish Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) concepts for two fields in
North Sea. They are: Statfjord C, a gravity based concrete
platform located on the Norwegian continental shelf in a water
depth of approximately 145 m and Heidrun, with a concrete
TLP at a water depth of 345 m.
These developed configurations fulfil both the Ultimate
Limit State (ULS) conditions and fatigue due to first order
wave action and due to vortex induced vibrations. Also, as
shown in this paper, the Fatigue Limit State (FLS) governs the
global configuration of the SCR concept.
In order to achieve a confident design, several design
aspects have been studied in detail:
First order wave loading
Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV)
Diffraction effects (from the large volume structure)
Riser/Soil interaction
Fatigue capacity
Introduction
A number of research and development projects are currently
evaluating the applicability of the SCR concept to floating
production systems mainly in deep-water environments (e.g.
Karunakaran et al. (1996), Hatton et al. (1998)). However, as
shown in this paper, the SCR concept could be an attractive
alternative also for tie-in of pipelines to fixed platform
structures, like Statfjord C, see Figure 1.
Even in the absence of top-end motions (as for floating
production units), the design challenges for a SCR concept for

this application are significant. Due to the relatively shallow

water and quite severe wave and current environment, the riser
is subject to large hydrodynamic loading causing extensive
dynamic behavior.
For the Heidrun TLP shown in Figure 2, the design
challenge for the metal risers is due to the riser dynamics from
wave loading and the platform motions. Furthermore, for this
concept the diffraction effects proved to be a key factor for
fatigue response.
In this paper the developed SCR configurations for both
these fields are discussed along with the key issues governing
the design of such riser concepts.

Figure 1 Statfjord C and riser geometry

Figure 2 Heidrun TLP

KARUNAKARAN, LUND AND NORDSVE

Design Criteria
The riser design is to comply with the NPD (1990)
regulations, which means that:
The developed configurations are to fulfil PLS, ULS
and FLS limit state criteria
The extreme stresses are to be checked by the working
stress method
The design lifetime shall be obtained using a factor of
0.1 on the calculated fatigue lives. The minimum
fatigue life required for the risers is 20 years (project
requirement).
Environmental conditions
The riser is designed for the 100-year wave condition in
combination with 10-year current profile as specified by
STATOIL in their design brief.
Statfjord-C
100-year design wave:
Wave height
Corresponding wave period

28 m
16.0 sec

The riser is designed for 10-year current velocity along

with the above mentioned wave condition. The design current
profile is:
At surface
At -50 m
At 141.6 m
At 144.6 m

1.0 m s-1
0.8 m s-1
0.65 m s-1
0.0 m s-1

The water depth at this location is 144.6 m.

Heidrun TLP
100-year design wave:
Wave height
Corresponding wave period

29 m
16.0 sec

The riser is designed for 10-year current velocity along

with the above mentioned wave condition. The design current
profile is:
At surface
At 34.5 m
At 69 m
At 138 m
At -276 m
At 340 m
At 345 m

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.0

m s-1
m s-1
m s-1
m s-1
m s-1
m s-1
m s-1

The water depth at this location is 345 m.

Material data
For these riser configurations, the fatigue limit state is the
most critical one. So the selection of steel quality is dictated
by the fatigue performance of the steel quality.

OTC 10979

From initial fatigue analyses, it was found that a fatigue

capacity corresponding to a class E design SN-curve, (NS
3472), would be desirable in order to obtain the lifetime
required.
Given a good girth weld performance and limited
misalignment, it was believed that this was attainable for
normal carbon steel. However, due to exposure to a corrosive
medium, the fatigue properties are reduced due to the risk for
localised corrosion. Using carbon steel for this application, no
better fatigue capacity than a class F2 design SN-curve, should
be applied. As this was found to be unacceptable, an
alternative, corrosion resistant steel quality was selected, i.e.,
Super Duplex steel.
Super duplex steel has very good corrosion properties and
no localised corrosion is expected, either from the transported
fluid (production fluid, water), or the outside seawater
combined with cathodic protection.
A limited test program was carried out by The Welding
Institute (TWI) in Cambridge UK, to verify the fatigue and
corrosion properties of super duplex in addition to assess the
effect of plastic cycling (in bending) of the riser during
installation.
After completion of the test program, the following
recommendations were made:
Use of class E design curve with a Stress
Concentration Factor of 1.2 for the critical sections
(inside grinding of the weld is necessary)
Use of class F2 design curve with a Stress
Concentration Factor of 1.0 for the remaining parts of
the riser
The yield stresses for the super duplex material at the
design temperature for the two risers are:
Production riser
: 460 N/mm2
Water injection riser
: 524 N/mm2
Soil-Riser interaction
When the riser is subjected to oscillatory motion, there is a
complex interaction between riser movement and the sea-bed
at touch down point (TDP), penetrating the riser into the soil
and thereby increasing the soil resistance.
A proper description of the pipe-soil interaction is
therefore very important for the accuracy in calculation of
riser fatigue damage. Depending upon the stiffness and
friction of the seafloor, out-of plane bending stresses will be
more or less concentrated in the TDP region when the riser is
subjected to oscillatory motion.
In riser response analysis tools, the pipe-soil interaction is
commonly modelled by use of friction coefficients (sliding
resistance) and linear springs (elastic soil stiffness). However,
these parameters must be selected carefully in order to
properly represent the complex pipe-soil interaction.
The pipe-soil interaction model as described in Verley and
Sotberg (1992) and Verley and Lund (1995), which was
developed for on-bottom stability calculations for pipelines,
was used as a basis for selecting representative pipe-soil
interaction parameters for the wave response analyses.

OTC 10979

STEEL CATENARY RISER CONFIGURATIONS FOR NORTH SEA FIELD DEVELOPMENTS

During small and moderate wave loading (the seastates

contributing the most to the fatigue damage) the riser TDP
response (movement) in the lateral direction is very small (in
the order of 0.2 pipe diameters). This will cause the riser to dig
into the topsoil layer and create its own trench. This effect will
gradually decrease as the riser gets closer to the underlying
stiff clay soil, where very limited penetration is expected. The
width of this trench will typically be 2-3 pipe diameters, which
leaves space within the trench for the pipe to move without
hitting the trench edges. During a storm build-up, the trench
will gradually disappear as a result of larger riser motions in
addition to natural backfill. For the ULS condition, the pipesoil interaction is found to be of minor importance even if
higher lateral soil resistance is mobilised.
The following parameters are found to be representative
for this work:
Statfjord-C Sandy soil:
Lateral friction coefficient
- 0.8
Soil lateral stiffness
- 100 kN/m/m
Heidrun TLP Clay soil
Lateral friction coefficient
- 0.9
Soil lateral stiffness
- 7 kN/m/m
No problems related to the integrity of coating are
expected as a result of abrasion against the sea bottom.
Hydrodynamic coefficients
Common practice for this type of marine structures is to
apply a CD in the range of 0.7-0.8. However, using a CD of 1.0
would implicitly include a possible increase in external
diameter from marine growth (it is assumed that cleaning will
take place if the marine growth thickness exceeds 20 mm). No
marine growth was explicitly included.
The drag coefficient above 40 m is increased to account
for the increased loading area in a lock-in situation due to
Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV). It is reported that the CD to
account for VIV is about 1.2. However, in this study an
increased CD of 1.4 is used to account for both VIV and
marine growth.
To cover all options, It was decided to use the following
combination of drag-coefficients:
CD= 1.0 in the top part and CD=0.8 at the bottom (Base
case)
CD= 1.4 in the top part and CD=1.0 at the bottom (VIV
case)
CD= 1.4 in the top part and CD=1.4 at the bottom (if VIV
suppression devices are used)
The inertia coefficient CM used in this analysis is 2.0. Drag
and inertia forces in the riser axial direction are not
considered.
Diffraction effects
The flow around the platform is disturbed by the large
volume shafts and the concrete caisson in Statfjord C platform
and by the concrete pontoons in the Heidrun TLP. In order to
account for this in the fatigue analysis, the exact co-ordinates
of the riser configuration were used as input to a full linear

hydrodynamic analysis, which was performed numerically

using the program WAMIT and the velocity RAOs along the
riser length calculated. These velocity RAOs are applied in
dynamic response calculations.
Upper-end termination
In this study the top end of the riser is assumed to be
equipped with a flex joint attached to the riser termination
point. In the global analysis model for ULS the top end is
modelled as pinned. However, in the fatigue analysis,
rotational springs are attached to the top end, with rotational
spring stiffness of 30 kNm/deg.
Vessel data Heidrun TLP
The static vessel offset in connection with the extreme
response analysis is 21.4 m. In the fatigue analysis no vessel
offsets is considered. Also in the dynamic response analysis
the vessel motions are generated based on the vessel RAOs
provided.
Analysis procedure
Ultimate limit state analysis
The riser configuration is developed by satisfying the ULS
design conditions. The basic configurations are obtained by
performing nonlinear dynamic response analysis using the
dynamic analysis program RIFLEX, SINTEF (1995). The
response analysis is characterised by:
The riser is modelled by FEM principles using
discrete beam elements.
The static riser configuration is established
considering the design current
Nonlinear dynamic response analysis is used applying
the design wave and Stoke's V order wave model. The
riser configuration and tension are calculated at each
time step by an iterative procedure and the dynamic
response of the riser system is estimated using the
Newmark- method, with constant average
acceleration algorithm.
For the ULS analysis, the diffraction effect is not
considered, since for the long period waves, it is insignificant
The dynamic analysis was performed for both 0o and 180o
wave directions (in plane with the riser configuration).
Fatigue analysis
In this work, a non-linear time domain fatigue analysis is
performed. The dynamic response is obtained by performing
non-linear dynamic response analysis using Airy wave model
without applying current velocity. For the Heidrun TLP the
vessel is kept at mean position for the fatigue analysis.
The step-by-step procedure used in the time domain
fatigue analysis is described below:
Divide the wave scatter diagram into various blocks.
The blocks used for Statfjord-C platform is shown in
Table 1 and for the Heidrun TLP in Table 2.
Perform non-linear time domain analysis for one
representative sea state for each of these blocks. This

KARUNAKARAN, LUND AND NORDSVE

representative sea state has the highest occurrence rate

with in that block. The non-linear analysis includes the
diffraction effect. The diffraction effects are modelled
by the following steps:
Read the water particle velocity RAOs for every
section along the riser from a WAMIT result file
From the velocity RAOs the water particle
acceleration RAOs are computed
Multiply the velocity RAOs by the wave spectrum
for the particular sea state in frequency domain
Perform inverse FFT to obtain time series of
water particle kinematics at a given location
Calculate local force by Morison equation with
relative velocities
Perform non-linear time domain response analysis and
calculate stress time series
Estimate the fatigue damage with in each simulation
using rain-flow-counting procedure and weight that
with the probability of each block. The fatigue damage
is estimated at 16 points along the circumference of
the pipe.
Sum-up the fatigue damage over all the blocks and
obtain the fatigue damage for that direction
Perform the same procedure for all 8 direction and
sum-up the total fatigue damage is estimated by
applying directional probabilities.
Apply a reduction factor 0.1, as per NPD regulations
for un-inspectable welds and estimate the fatigue life
as inverse of damage.

Table 1

OTC 10979

In this analysis a total time series length of 1.5 hour (5400

sec) is used for every sea state. The variability of predicted
fatigue life associated with the simulation length was studied
by performing three independent simulations of 1.5 hour each
at one sea state and the fatigue life was estimated. The
variation in fatigue life was much less than 1 % between the
simulations. Hence, it is concluded that this simulation length
is sufficiently long to estimate fatigue response.
One of the important parameters in the time domain
fatigue analysis is the number of blocks used to sub-divide the
wave scatter diagrams. A sensitivity study is performed to
assess effects of this blocking. This is performed only for the
Heidrun TLP, which has both vessel motions and large
diffraction effect. Since the diffraction effects are very
important for wave periods below 11 sec., it was important to
assess the influence of the number of blocks used in time
domain fatigue analysis.
In the base case analysis 17 blocks were used. In the
sensitivity study, the blocks are increased to 45, with one
block for every second in the peak period axis until TP = 11
sec. The results indicated that by increasing the blocks to 45,
the fatigue life has increased by about 6 % at MWL and by
about 10 % at the lower sections of the riser. This difference is
small in terms of fatigue life compared to other uncertainties
related to the wave kinematics including the diffraction
effects.

Blocking of wave scatter diagram for fatigue analysis - Statfjord C

TP (sec)
HS
(m)
01
12
2-3
34

2
to
3

3
to
4

4
to
5

5
to
6

6
to
7

7
to
8

8
to
9

9
to
10

10
to
11

11
to
12

12
to
13

13
to
14

14
to
15

15
to
16

*
*
*
*

45

56

67

78

89
9 - 10
10 - 11

11 12
12 13
13 14
14 15
15 - 16

(*) Denotes the sea state at which the nonlinear

dynamic response is simulated

16
to
17

17
to
18

18
to
19

19
to
20

20
to
21

21
to
22

22
to
23

23
to
24

24
to
25

OTC 10979

STEEL CATENARY RISER CONFIGURATIONS FOR NORTH SEA FIELD DEVELOPMENTS

Table 2

Blocking of wave scatter diagram for fatigue analysis - Heidrun TLP

TP (sec)
HS
(m)

2
to
3

3
to
4

01
12

4
to
5

5
to
6

6
to
7

7
to
8

8
to
9

9
to
10

2-3

10
to
11

12
to
13

13
to
14

14
to
15

15
to
16

16
to
17

*
*

34

11
to
12

19
to
20

20
to
21

21
to
22

22
to
23

23
to
24

24
to
25

*
*

56

18
to
19

*
*

45

17
to
18

*
*

67

78

89

9 - 10
10 - 11

11 12
(*) Denotes the sea state at which the nonlinear
dynamic response is simulated

12 13
13 14

14 15
15 - 16

Riser Orientation
Statfjord-C
The orientation of the platform and the riser with respect to
geographical North direction is shown in Figure 3.

maximum top tension is 1380 kN. The top angle has a

variation of about 10 o from the mean position. The von
Mises stress along the riser is shown in Figure 6. As seen the
maximum stress occurs around MWL, and the stresses at TDP
is low as expected. For these riser configurations the wall
thickness at TDP are 12 mm and 11 mm for production and
water injection risers respectively. The thickness at midsection is increased to 28 mm for both risers in order to
achieve the required tension to fulfil the FLS criteria.

E
Riser
23 m
N

Figure 3 Riser and platform orientation Statfjord-C

Heidrun-TLP
The steel catenary riser is hung from a balcony on the
south side of the platform. The orientation of the platform and
the risers with respect to geographical North direction is
shown in Figure 4.
Results
Ultimate limit state
Statfjord-C
The static configuration of the production riser is shown in
Figure 5, including the wall thickness along the riser. The top
angle in the static position is 47.5o from vertical. The

E
51 m

Steel Catenary
Riser

Figure 4 Riser and platform orientation Heidrun TLP

KARUNAKARAN, LUND AND NORDSVE

12 mm thick - 131.5 m
22 mm thick - 90 m

28 mm thick - 325 m

OTC 10979

Maximum Stress Curves - Production Riser

Platform in Near position & waves going out of platform
C d = 1.0

0
-50

C d = 1.4

300000

-100

Stress [kPa]

Depth [m]

50

-150
0

100

200

300

400

500

Horizontal distance from top end [m]

200000
100000
0

Figure 5 Static configuration with riser wall

thickness

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Line length [m]

Stress [kPa]

W aves away from platform

W aves towards platform

350000

Figure 8 Stresses along the riser Heidrun TLP

300000

Heidrun TLP
The static configuration of the production riser is shown in
Figure 7, including the wall thickness along the riser.
The top angle in the static position is 16.5o from vertical.
The top tension is 1040 kN. The top angle has a variation of
about 7 o from the mean position. The von Mises stress
along the riser is shown in Figure 8. As seen for this riser, the
maximum stress occurs at the TDP, mainly due to vessel
movement towards the riser. The thickness at mid-section is
increased to 25 mm for both risers in order to achieve the
required tension to fulfil the FLS criteria.

250000
200000
150000
100000
0

100

200

300

400

500

Line length [m]

Production Riser Statfjord C

Figure 6 Stresses along the riser Statfjord C

20 m m -200 m
20 m m -120 m

Fatigue analysis
Statfjord-C
The results from the fatigue analysis are summarised in
Table 3. The fatigue lives presented here are after factoring by
0.1. As mentioned earlier, two types of S-N curves are applied.
For critical sections the E-curve is used with the condition that
the weld will be ground both inside and the outside. For all
other sections the F2 curve is applied. The critical sections at
touchdown and at MWL are only about 20 m long.

25 m m -295 m

-2 0 0

Production
riser

D e pth [m ]

-1 0 0

Table 3 Fatigue life with factor 0.1 Statfjord C

Water
injection
riser

-3 0 0

-5 0 0

-4 0 0

-3 0 0

-2 0 0

-1 0 0

H o ri zo ntal di stance fr o m ce ntr e o f pl atfo r m [m ]

Figure 7 Static configuration with riser wall thickness

Production Riser - Heidrun TLP

At touch down point

At mid-section
At mean water level
At touch down point
At mid-section
At mean water level

Fatigue life
(years)
27
489
26
26
543
30

The main stresses at the TDP are due to the dynamic

vibration of the riser since the second mode of vibration is at
10 s, which coincides with the dominant wave action. The
displacement envelope of the riser is shown in Figure 9. As
seen the main vibration is in the riser second mode. Hence if
the second mode of vibration is successfully damped, the
fatigue life will improve.

OTC 10979

STEEL CATENARY RISER CONFIGURATIONS FOR NORTH SEA FIELD DEVELOPMENTS

90 m - Small thickness
100 m - Additional coating
178 m - Heavy section
120 m - Required thickness from ULS

Depth [m]

50
0
-50
-100
-150
0

100

200

300

400

500

Horizontal distance from top end [m]

Figure 10

Schematic diagram of an optimal configuration

Table 4 Fatigue life with factor 0.1 Heidrun TLP

Figure 9 Displacement envelop

An increase in the projected area for drag damping at the

lower half of the riser will increase the drag damping and
thereby improve the fatigue life at TDP. A sensitivity study
was performed by assuming 100 mm thick coating/attachment
on the lower 100 m of riser. The results indicated this would
increase the fatigue life at TDP by as much as 65%.
The studies clearly indicate that the fatigue limit state is
the most critical limit state. Furthermore, the soil-riser
interaction is the most important parameter for fatigue
response at TDP. The fatigue response at various locations can
be improved in the following ways:
The fatigue response at MWL is influenced mainly by
the wave loading and can be improved by increasing
tension. which reduces the dynamic stresses. Also
smaller diameter means reduced loading and thereby
improves fatigue life.
The fatigue life at TDP is influenced by the riser
dynamics and soil-riser interaction. Since nothing can
be done with the soil properties, it is important to
control the riser dynamics. Similarly, increasing the
drag area in the lower part of riser increases the drag
damping, which also increases the fatigue life.
Furthermore, for sand soil condition, providing the
absolute minimum weight of riser at mudline can
reduce the transverse friction forces. This also
improves the fatigue life at TDP. A combination of all
the three points mentioned above can produce an
optimal riser configuration. A schematic diagram
showing the optimal configuration is found in Figure
10.

At touch down point

At mid-section
At mean water level
At touch down point
At mid-section
At mean water level

Production
riser
Water
injection
riser

For this riser, the comparison indicates that the total

fatigue life at MWL (for all directions) is reduced by a factor
of 0.54, when diffraction is applied. However, at touch down
area there is no effect from diffraction. Also, the diffraction
effect is very dependent on wave direction, as shown in
Figures 11 and 12.
Diffraction vs Undisturbed Kinematics - Fatigue life at MWL
Factor for all directions - 0.54

120

90
3.0

60

2.0

150

30

1.0
180

0.0

210

330
240

300
270

Figure 11

Heidrun TLP
The results from the fatigue analysis for Heidrun TLP are
summarized in Table 4. The fatigue lives presented here are
after factoring by 0.1. The fatigue analysis is performed
applying diffraction effects and with undisturbed wave
kinematics.

Fatigue life
(years)
28
548
25
21
613
26

Reduction factor for fatigue life when applying

diffraction at MWL

Fatigue due to VIV

The fatigue responses due to VIV for both risers are
estimated using the computer program SHEAR7(MIT 1995).
An equivalent vertical riser with the length equal to the
suspended length of the SCR configuration has been used to
model the riser. This approximation is good for the out-ofplane modes, but not satisfactory for the in-plane modes.

KARUNAKARAN, LUND AND NORDSVE

Diffraction vs Undisturbed Kinematics - Fatigue life at TDP
Factor for all directions - 1.03

120

90
2.0

60

1.5

150

30

1.0
180

0.5

210

330
240

300
270

Figure 12

Reduction factor for fatigue life when applying

diffraction at Touch Down Point

The out-of-plane modes are excited by current velocity in

the direction of the catenary plane. Due to the riser inclination
angle only the current velocity component normal to the riser
axis was considered for the current in this direction, (the crossflow principle).
The critical location for VIV induced fatigue is at TDP,
where the fatigue life was approximately 40 years. But the
critical section for VIV fatigue does not coincide with the
critical section for wave induced fatigue at TDP. The fatigue
due to VIV at MWL is approximately 85 years after applying
the NPD factor 0.1. This combined with wave induced fatigue
is still above 20 years.
The model tests were performed in the towing tank at
MARINTEK in Trondheim, Norway. The riser was fixed to a
vertical frame, which was attached to a wagon. During the
test programme the riser was exposed to:
uniform current only
combinations of waves and current
waves only
Model testing of the riser has so far verified the drag
coefficient used for modelling the wave and current loading
and has also confirmed the conservatism in assessing VIV and
wave response independent.
INSTALLATION
Two different methods for installation have been evaluated
and are found feasible for the installation of the Steel Catenary
Risers investigated in this work.
The risers can either be installed by use of the reeling
method or it can be towed from an onshore fabrication facility
to platform location using the Controlled Depth Tow Method
(CDTM).
Conclusions
SCR concepts for Statfjord C and for Heidrun TLP are
successfully developed, both for production and water
injection. The following different design aspects has been
studied in an elaborate manner:

OTC 10979

First order wave loading

Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV)
Diffraction effects (from the large volume structure)
Fatigue capacity
The Fatigue Limit State (FLS) is found to be governing for
the global configuration of the SCR concept, in particular the
wave-induced fatigue. Utilisation of drag damping by
increasing drag area in the locations of less hydrodynamic
excitation is found to give significant improvement to the riser
dynamic response, thereby improves wave induced fatigue.
The diffraction effects have significant influence on the
fatigue response at MWL for Heidrun TLP.
The VIV-induced fatigue appears more or less independent
and does not add directly with wave induced fatigue. Model
testing of the riser has so far verified the drag coefficient used
for modelling the wave and current loading and has also
confirmed the conservatism in assessing VIV and wave
response independently.
Due to the corrosive properties of the transported fluid,
super duplex steel was selected in order to achieve the
required fatigue capacity. The validity of assuming a class E
design curve with a Stress Concentration Factor of 1.2 for the
critical sections is confirmed.
As shown in this paper, the SCR concept could be an
attractive alternative also for tie-in of pipelines to fixed
platform in relatively shallow water.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Statoil for permission
to publish the results presented in the paper. It is emphasised
that the conclusions put forth reflects the views of the authors
alone, and not necessarily those of Statoil or MARINTEK.
The contributions from Dr. P.Teigen and Dr. K.H. Halse,
both from STATOIL for diffraction analysis and VIV analysis,
respectively are highly acknowledged.
References
Hatton, S.A., Willis, N. and Bowman, J. 1998: Steel Catenary Risers
for Deepwater Environments Stride, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 1998.
Karunakaran, D., Nordsve, N.T. and Olufsen, A. 1996: "An Efficient
Metal Riser Configurations for Ship and Semi Based Production
Systems", Proc. Sixth Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Los Angeles, 1996.
MIT 1995: SHEAR7 Program Theoretical Manual, Department of
Ocean Engineering, MIT.
NPD 1990:Regulations relating to pipeline systems in the petroleum
activities, 30.04.1990.
SINTEF, 1995: "RIFLEX - Flexible Riser System Analysis Program User Manual", MARINTEK and SINTEF Division of structures
and concrete report - STF70 F95218, 1995.
Verley, R.L.P. and Sotberg, T.,1992: A Soil Resistance Model for
Pipelines Placed on Sandy Soils, ASME J. Offshore Mech.
And Arctic Eng., 1992.
Verley, R.L.P. and Lund, K.M. 1995: A Soil Resistance Model for
Pipelines Placed on Clay Soils, Proc. Int. Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering Conference ,1995.