Nº

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001

CLIENT OR SHEET
USER E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 1 Fro
m
16
JOB OR CC
PROJECT PRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT

UNITS AND PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

CENPES RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

INDEX OF REVISIONS

REV. DESCRIPTION AND/OR AFFECTED SHEETS

0 ORIGINAL

ORIGINAL REV. A REV. B REV. C REV. D REV. E REV. F REV. G

DATE SEP/2015

Carlos Lemos
MADE BY
R. Caldeira
CHECKED A. Cordeiro
APPROVAL Arthur Saad
THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION.
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 2 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

INDEX
1.  PURPOSE......................................................................................................................... 3 
2.  ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................ 3 
3.  APPLIED DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 
4.  GENERAL REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................... 4 
4.1.  HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS ............................................................................... 5 
5.  INTERFERENCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 6 
6.  LOADING CASES ............................................................................................................ 7 
6.1.  PHASE 1 – QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS WITHOUT OFFSET ....................................... 7 
6.2.  PHASE 2 – QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS WITH OFFSET ............................................... 9 
6.3.  PHASE 3 – QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS WITH CURRENT ROTATION...................... 11 
6.4.  PHASE 4 – DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 13 
6.5.  PHASE 5 – SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 14 
7.  INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................... 16 

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 3 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

1. PURPOSE

The riser system should be designed to avoid interferences. The design shall include evaluation or
analysis of potential riser interference (including hydrodynamic interaction if relevant) with other
risers and between risers and mooring lines, tendons, vessel hull, seabed, or any other obstruction
[II]. Abnormal service conditions including the case of one mooring line damaged [II] and loss of
buoyance module [V] shall be also considered. Interference should be considered during all phases
of the riser design life, including installation, in-place and unusual events [II]. The accuracy and
suitability of the selected analytical technique should be assessed when determining the probability
and severity of contact.

This Technical Specification is applicable for Fixed or Floating Production Units (FPU) and has the
purpose to provide minimum requirements for in-place interference analysis of risers with
neighboring flexible risers, umbilicals, rigid risers (e.g. SCRs-Steel Catenary Risers and SLWRs-
Steel Lazy Wave Risers), mooring lines, UNIT hull or structure or any other obstruction.

2. ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

 CONTRACTOR Company responsible for the interference analysis

 FPU Floating Production Unit (SS, FPSO in Turret or SM)
 shall Mandatory Requirement
 should Recommended Practice
 may On course of action
 Metocean Meteorologic & Oceanographic
 SS Semi-submersible
 SM Spread Mooring
 TDP Touch Down Point
 Hmax Maximum wave height
 THmax Period associated to Hmax
 RAO Response Amplitude Operator
 RHAS Hybrid Riser
 UNIT Fixed or Floating Platform
 MHR Multiple Hibrid Risers
 SLWR Steel Lazy Wave Riser
 SCR Steel Catenary Riser
 SSWR Steel Steep Wave Riser
 VIV Vortex Induced Vibration

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 4 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

3. APPLIED DOCUMENTS

[I]. I-ET-3010.00-1500-960-PPC-006 – Structural Analysis of Flexible Pipes, Rev. G

[II]. API RP 17B, Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe, Fifth Edition,

[III]. DNV-RP-F203, Riser Interference, April 2009

[IV]. DNV-RP-C205, Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads, August 2010

[V]. API RP 17L2, Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe Ancillary Equipment

4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Only time-domain analyses are allowed, since the linearization of the external loading as required
by frequency-domain techniques is not applicable to hydrodynamic models incorporating
interaction effects from adjacent risers.

Interference analysis shall be performed considering the transient (period from the application of
loads to steady state is achieved) and the steady state conditions. Care shall be taken to evaluate the
duration of the transient period for each application. In compliant configurations (such as lazy-
wave) in deep waters, the time to achieve the steady state may be relatively long.

Wave data and Current profiles shall be obtained from the applicable Metocean Data (provided by
PETROBRAS). If, for each direction, two types of current profiles (for instance, surface referenced
velocities and mid-water referenced velocities) were provided, both shall be used for analysis. As
required hereafter, an interference analysis shall be performed also by using currents normally
adopted for fatigue evaluation, which shall be used to find the 98% Non-Exceedance current profile.

In case interference is identified, its progression shall be evaluated considering contact enabled
between them (the interference may start in an allowed position of the riser, e.g. bare riser, and
evolve to a position not allowed, e.g. intermediate connector or buoyance section); the sliding
length and path shall be reported. The time step, riser segment discretization and pipe stiffness shall
be adequately modelled to ensure correct model of the phenomenon. The progression of the contact
point with the sliding of one riser over the other shall not, in any condition, extend to a region
where interference is not allowed. It shall be documented by the CONTRACTOR that structural
integrity will not be jeopardized and the fatigue life will not be affected and wear resistance shall be
ensured. If deemed necessary by the CONTRACTOR, the contact energy, peak force and velocities
at collision time and position may be also evaluated.

The premises for the interference analysis shall be submitted by the CONTRACTOR to
PETROBRAS approval, presenting all the premises and methodology to be used. Alternative
methodology, additional loading cases or any deviation from this specification shall be clearly
explained by the CONTRACTOR on the premise for PETROBRAS evaluation and approval.

As the interference phenomena depends on the configuration of neighbors risers and is an

interactive phenomenon, it is recommended that CONTRACTOR promotes design review meetings
to update PETROBRAS about the evolution of the design and harmonize different risers’
configurations from different CONTRACTORs. These meetings may occur between the Phases
described in Table 2.

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 5 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

4.1. Hydrodynamic Coefficients

The selection of hydrodynamic coefficients tends to introduce a source of uncertainty in the

accuracy of the analysis results. In flexible pipe analyses, Cm is usually taken to be 2.0, while CD
varies between 0.7 and 1.2. In most cases, it is normal practice to take 1.2 for extreme. However,
other coefficients may be used if a justification is available (e.g. Re number dependency or real
/small scale tests). It is always recommended to perform sensitivity studies to investigate the effect
of the selected coefficients. Guidance on selection of drag coefficients for bare pipe, buoyancy
modules and other accessories is given in DNV-RP-C205 [IV]. For straked sections, preferably
values according to strake manufacturer laboratory tests shall be used. Care shall be taken to
consider the actual Reynolds, Keulegan-Carpenter numbers and surface roughness due to marine
growth.

VIV analysis shall be carried out to correct definition of hydrodynamic behavior and to account for
a possible drag amplification factor. The geometry of the riser configuration, the hysteretic variation
of stiffness and damping throughout the riser length (both, the viscoelastic and structural damping,
considering the stick and slip behavior, shall be considered for flexible riser) shall be considered to
correctly define drag coefficients amplifications for flexible risers and umbilicals.

The CONTRACTOR shall justify the adopted parameters such as stiffness and damping, the
adequacy of chosen VIV software and the method and the parameters used to define the vibration
modes. The drag amplifications due to VIV effect shall be considered with the correct variation
with Reynolds Number and surface roughness. Care shall be taken to define the VIV analysis
procedure in order to not over predict the drag amplification and any simplification like a 1.2
constant drag coefficient may be accepted if it is fully justified in the design premise. For
justification on the methods, criteria, and parameters used in flexible pipe analysis, the
CONTRACTOR may provide results gathered from field or lab monitoring of flexible risers.

As a conservative estimate, a value slightly on the upper bound side value for the drag amplification
due to VIV is recommended for the upstream riser and on the lower bound value for the
downstream. This will tend to bring the mean position of the risers closer to each other [III]. As
there is very limited information regarding VIV behavior of a riser located in the wake of an
upstream one, it is recommended to use no drag amplification on the downstream riser as a first
estimation [III].

Thus, separate VIV assessments for the upstream and downstream risers are required prior to the
global riser interference analysis and they should conservatively be treated as isolated risers [III]
with no wake issues.

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 6 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

5. INTERFERENCE CRITERIA

The interference of risers with the following structures is not acceptable:

 Flexible or rigid risers in the buoyance sections (compliant configurations such as lazy-
wave, pliant-wave or steep-wave);
 Mooring lines;
 Subsea arch and its tethers;
 UNIT hull or structures of Fixed Platforms;
 Straked sections;
 Unprotected accessories (such as unprotected intermediate end fitting of neighboring risers)

Depending on the environmental loading case (according to the table 1), the clashing between risers
in the bare section (i.e. without any ancillary components) is allowed. Table 1 presents the
acceptance criteria considering the riser interference and riser crossing below mooring lines.

Table 1 – Acceptance criteria for interference analysis

Environmental Loading Case Interference Criteria
(Current Return period)2
No clashing1
98% non-exceedance
No umbilical riser crossing bellow any mooring line1
1-year No flexible or rigid riser crossing below any mooring line1
100-year Allowed interference between risers only in the bare section.
1: Unless otherwise specified by PETROBRAS.
2: Compass directions shall be considered for surface referenced currents and for Mid Water referenced currents

Interference is characterized by the contact of the upstream and downstream riser outer diameters
(see Figure 1), considering coatings, floaters or any other appurtenances that may exist in the riser
section.

On-coming flow
Current direction

Upstream Downstream
Riser Riser

Figure 1 – Physical Risers Related Position

Unless otherwise specified by PETROBRAS, it’s not allowed for flexible or rigid risers to cross
bellow mooring lines in annual conditions and umbilical risers in 98% non-exceedance conditions,
due to the risk of a possible rupture of mooring line damaging the riser (or umbilical) during the
fall.

The general environmental loading cases herein presented are intended to provide only the sea state
conditions and combinations. The actual number of loading cases to be simulated will depend on
the number of combinations of riser configurations and internal fluid densities.

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 7 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

6. LOADING CASES

The environmental loading cases for global analysis of riser interference combines the following
parameters: FPU offset (magnitude and direction), current (profile, direction and return period) and
waves (direction and return period).

Riser interference analysis shall be performed in phases as presented in Table 2. Each phase will be
used to select critical load conditions to perform the next one. If the riser configuration doesn’t
fulfill the acceptance criteria it shall be adjusted and the analysis restarted form phase 1.

Dynamic analysis may be performed only for the worst cases obtained from quasi-static analysis,
with the critical combinations of vessel draft, vessel orientation, wave frequency, and wave heading
that maximize riser motions and deflections, in the presence of currents.

All phases of interference analysis shall consider any possible variation of normal operation internal
fluid density during the service life. Eventual operations conditions (temporary) using a non-
operational fluid density and a special environmental window may be also requested by
PETROBRAS considering the duration of the event and that the combined probability have to be
lower than 10-4.

Lower bound internal fluid weight (considering Start Of Life buoyance) shall be considered for
upstream risers (to maximize risers’ lateral displacement) while upper bound internal fluid weight
(considering End Of Life buoyance and annulus flooded for flexibles risers) shall be considered for
downstream risers (to minimize risers’ lateral displacements), in order to achieve minimum
clearances between each pairs. The opposite shall be also evaluated to check if the difference of
configuration geometry could influence on the interference check.

For each riser, the interference analysis, could involve not only the two close by risers but risers that
could be hanging on two or more slots apart. The range of risers involved in the analysis shall be
fully justified.

Table 2 – Design Phases (for each combination of riser internal fluid density)
Load Case Phase Description Objective
Quasi-static Analysis without
Phase 1 Choose worst currents
Offset
Phase 2 Quasi-static Analysis with Offset Choose worst offset
Quasi-static Analysis with Offset
Phase 3 Sensitivity of current direction
and varying current direction
Evaluate contact progression and riser
Phase 4 Dynamic Analysis
drift due to dynamic movements
Phase 5 Damage conditions Sensitivity of damaged conditions

6.1. Phase 1 – Quasi-static Analysis without offset

Load cases of Phase 1 are presented on Table 3 and Table 4, the objective is to define critical
current profiles and shall include all current profiles listed on Metocean Data Technical
Specification with current direction referenced to the surface or for mid depth (e.g. level of 800 m),
for:
 extreme current conditions (1 and 100 year conditions) and
 currents for fatigue analysis (to evaluate the 98% non-exceedance case).

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 8 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

Table 3 – Load Cases for Quasi-static Interference Analysis for riser x riser - without offset
Upstream  Downstream  Number of 
Case  Current  Offset 
Riser  Riser  cases1 
w/o  Lower Bound  Upper Bound 
Surf 1.1  100 years  16 
offset  Weight  Weight 
w/o  Lower Bound  Upper Bound 
Surf 1.2  98% non exc.   16 
offset  Weight  Weight 
w/o  Upper Bound  Lower Bound 
Surf 1.3  100 years  16 
offset  Weight  Weight 
w/o  Upper Bound  Lower Bound 
Surf 1.4  98% non exc.  16 
offset  Weight  Weight 
w/o  Lower Bound  Upper Bound 
Mid 1.1  100 years  16 
offset  Weight  Weight 
w/o  Lower Bound  Upper Bound 
Mid 1.2  98% non exc.  16 
offset  Weight  Weight 
w/o  Upper Bound  Lower Bound 
Mid 1.3  100 years  16 
offset  Weight  Weight 
w/o  Upper Bound  Lower Bound 
Mid 1.4  98% non exc.  16 
offset  Weight  Weight 
Maximum 
        128 
number of cases 
1 – Number of cases estimated considering 16 directions of current profiles

Table 4 – Load Cases for Quasi-static Interf. Analysis for riser x mooring line - without offset
Upstream  Number of 
Case  Current  Offset  Downstream  
Riser  cases1 
Lower Bound 
Moor‐ Surf 1.1  100 years  w/o offset  Mooring line  16 
Weight 
Lower Bound 
Moor ‐ Surf 1.2  1 year  w/o offset  Mooring line  16 
Weight 
98% non exc.  Lower Bound 
Moor ‐ Surf 1.3  w/o offset  Mooring line  16 
(umb x moor.)  Weight 
Lower Bound 
Moor ‐ Mid 1.1  100 years  w/o offset  Mooring line  16 
Weight 
Lower Bound 
Moor ‐ Mid 1.2  1 year  w/o offset  Mooring line  16 
Weight 
98% non exc.  Lower Bound 
Moor ‐ Mid 1.3  w/o offset  Mooring line  16 
(umb x moor)  Weight 
Maximum 
        96 
number of cases 
1 – Number of cases estimated considering 16 directions of current profiles
If any acceptance criteria is not fulfilled risers configuration shall be adjusted and phase 1 repeated
prior to proceed to next phase.

All cases that interference between bare risers occurs shall be chosen to be deeper analyzed in the
following phases. Besides that, at least three additional critical cases (e.g.: closest risers cases)
among the cases performed shall be also chosen to proceed to the next phase. These Ndircrit
(NDIRCRIT number of bare risers interference cases plus critical cases) cases shall be analyzed in
phase 2.

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 9 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

At least three critical cases, Ndircrit_moor (NDIRCRIT-MOOR, number of critical cases for
interference between risers and mooring) among the interference check between risers and mooring
lines cases (Table 4) shall be chosen to perform the phase 2.

In this first phase CONTRACTOR may model all risers together to catch the overall behavior of the
risers system, including relations of upper/lower weight that are critical, for the following phases.

6.2. Phase 2 – Quasi-static Analysis with offset

Once there is no correlation between current and wave, for each current direction chosen on
previous phase (Ndircrit plus Ndircrit_moor cases), any offset direction is possible, but not all relative
direction between wave and current could cause the maximum offset, four offsets are defined for
each set of current profiles (maximum at surface or maximum at mid water). The main goal of the
2nd phase is to define critical offset directions and load cases are presented on Table 5 for
interference riser x riser and Table 6 for interference riser x mooring line. If any acceptance criteria
is not fulfilled risers configuration shall be adjusted by the CONTRACTOR and the procedure shall
be restarted from phase 1.

Table 5 – Load Cases for Quasi-static Analysis with offset – Interference Riser x Riser
Case  Current  Offset direction  Max offset  # of cases 
Maximum
Surf 2.1  100 years  Collinear  Ndircrit 
100 years
Non collinear up to +/‐ 45o Maximum
Surf 2.2  100 years  4 * Ndircrit 
apart  100 years
Non collinear from +/‐ Half of Maximum 100
Surf 2.3  100 years  8 * Ndircrit 
67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart  years 
Non collinear more than  (already analysed on 
Surf 2.4  100 years  No offset
+/‐ 157.5o apart  previous phase)1 
Maximum
Surf 2.5  98% non exc.  Collinear  Ndircrit 
1 year
Non collinear up to +/‐ 45o Maximum
Surf 2.6  98% non exc.  4 * Ndircrit 
apart  1 year 
Non collinear from +/‐
Surf 2.7  98% non exc.  Half of Maximum 1 year  8 * Ndircrit 
67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart 
Non collinear more than  (already analysed on 
Surf 2.8  98% non exc.  No offset
+/‐ 157.5o apart  previous phase)1 
Half of Maximum 100
Mid 2.1  100 years  Collinear  Ndircrit 
years
o
Non collinear up to +/‐ 45 Half of Maximum 100
Mid 2.2  100 years  4 * Ndircrit 
apart  years
Non collinear from +/‐ (already analysed on 
Mid 2.3  100 years  No offset
67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart  previous phase)1 
Non collinear more than  Half of Maximum 100
Mid 2.4  100 years  3 * Ndircrit 
+/‐ 157.5o apart  years, opposite direction
Mid 2.5  98% non exc.  Collinear  Half of Maximum 1 year Ndircrit 
o
Non collinear up to +/‐ 45
Mid 2.6  98% non exc.  Half of Maximum 1 year 4 * Ndircrit 
apart 
Non collinear from +/‐ (already analysed on 
Mid 2.7  98% non exc.  No offset
67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart  previous phase)1 
Non collinear more or  Half of Maximum 1 year,
Mid 2.8  98% non exc.  3 * Ndircrit 
than +/‐ 157.5o apart  opposite direction
      42 * Ndircrit 
Note 1: Some cases of relative direction of current and wave could end up with null offset (opposite direction of wave and current for the surface
current and around 90º for mid water currents with maximum at 800 m), in these cases the worst case is already chosen in phase 1 and shall be further
analyzed in next phases.
THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 10 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

Table 6 – Load Cases for Quasi-static Analysis with offset – Interference Riser x Mooring
Case  Current  Offset direction  Max offset  # of cases 
Moor ‐  Maximum
100 years  Collinear  Ndircrit‐Moor 
Surf 2.1  100 years
Moor ‐  Non collinear up to +/‐ 45o Maximum
100 years  4 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Surf 2.2  apart  100 years
Moor ‐  Non collinear from +/‐ Half of Maximum 100
100 years  8 * Ndircrit‐moor 
Surf 2.3  67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart  years 
Moor ‐  Non collinear more than  (already analysed on 
100 years  No offset
Surf 2.4  +/‐ 157.5o apart  previous phase)1 
Moor ‐  Maximum
1 year  Collinear  Ndircrit‐Moor 
Surf 2.5  1 year 
Moor ‐  Non collinear up to +/‐ 45o Maximum
1 year  4 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Surf 2.6  apart  1 year 
Moor ‐  Non collinear from +/‐
1 year  Half of Maximum 1 year  8 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Surf 2.7  67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart 
Moor ‐  Non collinear more than  (already analysed on 
1 year  No offset
Surf 2.8  +/‐ 157.5o apart  previous phase)1 
Moor ‐  98% non exc.  Maximum
Collinear  Ndircrit‐Moor 
Surf 2.9  (umb x moor.)  1 year 
Moor ‐  98% non exc.  Non collinear up to +/‐ 45o Maximum
4 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Surf 2.10  (umb x moor.)  apart  1 year 
Moor ‐  98% non exc.  Non collinear from +/‐
Half of Maximum 1 year  8 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Surf 2.11  (umb x moor.)  67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart 
Moor ‐  98% non exc.  Non collinear more than  (already analysed on 
No offset
Surf 2.12  (umb x moor.)  +/‐ 157.5o apart  previous phase)1 
Moor ‐  Half of Maximum 100
100 years  Collinear  Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.1  years
o
Moor ‐  Non collinear up to +/‐ 45 Half of Maximum 100
100 years  4 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.2  apart  years
Moor ‐  Non collinear from +/‐ (already analysed on 
100 years  No offset
Mid 2.3  67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart  previous phase)1 
Moor ‐  Non collinear more than  Half of Maximum 100
100 years  3 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.4  +/‐ 157.5o apart  years, opposite direction
Moor ‐ 
1 year  Collinear  Half of Maximum 1 year Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.5 
Moor ‐  Non collinear up to +/‐ 45o
1 year  Half of Maximum 1 year 4 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.6  apart 
Moor ‐  Non collinear from +/‐ (already analysed on 
1 year  No offset
Mid 2.7  67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart  previous phase)1 
Moor ‐  Non collinear more than  Half of Maximum 1 year,
1 year  3 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.8  +/‐ 157.5o apart  opposite direction
Moor ‐  98% non exc. 
Collinear  Half of Maximum 1 year Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.9  (umb x moor.) 
Moor ‐  98% non exc.  Non collinear up to +/‐ 45o
Half of Maximum 1 year 4 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.10  (umb x moor.)  apart 
Moor ‐  98% non exc.  Non collinear from +/‐ (already analysed on 
No offset
Mid 2.11  (umb x moor.)  67.5o  up to +/‐ 135o apart  previous phase)1 
Moor ‐  98% non exc.  Non collinear more or  Half of Maximum 1 year,
3 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Mid 2.12  (umb x moor.)  than +/‐ 157.5o apart  opposite direction
      42 * Ndircrit‐Moor 
Note 1: Some cases of relative direction of current and wave could end up with null offset (opposite direction of wave and current for the surface
current and around 90º for mid water currents with maximum at 800 m), in these cases the worst case is already chosen in phase 1 and shall be further
analyzed in next phases.

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 11 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

45o

Half of  135o
Maximum 
offset

Current Max offset No offset

Direction
Half of 
Maximum 
offset ‐ 135o

‐ 45o
Figure 2 – Offset distribution for Surface Referenced Current cases

45o 135o
No offset

Half of Maximum 
Current Half of  offset
Direction Maximum  Opposite Direction
offset
No offset
‐ 45o ‐ 135o
Figure 3 – Offset distribution for Mid Water Referenced Current cases

6.3. Phase 3 – Quasi-static Analysis with current rotation

Each current profile direction represents not only the Compass direction (e.g.: N, NNE, NE …) but
a range of directions that could be 22,5º or 45º wide, depending on how refined the Metocean Data
is presented. The main goal of the 3rd phase is to find the critical direction within the sector of the
current direction chosen on phase 1. Load cases are presented on Table 7 for interference riser x
riser and Table 8 for interference riser x mooring line.

If any acceptance criteria is not fulfilled risers configuration shall be adjusted by the
CONTRACTOR and the procedure shall be restarted from phase 1.

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 12 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

Table 7 – Load Cases for Quasi-static Analysis with current direction rotation – Interference
Riser x Riser
Case  Current  Offset  Number of cases 

Worst Current  Worst associated offset 
Surf 3.1  4 
profile of 100 years  defined on phase 2 

Worst Current 
Worst associated offset 
Surf 3.2  profile of 98% of  4 
defined on phase 2 
non‐exceedance 

Worst Current  Worst associated offset 
Mid 3.1  4 
profile of 100 years  defined on phase 2 

Worst Current 
Worst associated offset 
Mid 3.2  profile of 98% of  4 
defined on phase 2 
non‐exceedance 
Total Number of cases 
    16 
(based on sectors of 22,5º) 

Table 8 – Load Cases for Quasi-static Analysis with current direction rotation – Interference
Riser x Mooring line
Case  Current  Offset  Number of cases 

Worst Current  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Surf 3.1  4 
profile of 100 years  defined on phase 2 

Worst Current  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Surf 3.2  4 
profile of 1 year   defined on phase 2 

Worst Current 
profile of 98% of  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Surf 3.3  4 
non‐exceedance  defined on phase 2 
(umb x moor.)

Worst Current  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Mid 3.1  4 
profile of 100 years  defined on phase 2 

Worst Current  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Mid 3.2  4 
profile of 1 year   defined on phase 2 

Worst Current 
profile of 98% of  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Mid 3.3  4 
non‐exceedance  defined on phase 2 
(umb x moor.)
Total Number of cases 
    16 
(based on sectors of 22,5º) 

For cases presented on Table 7 and Table 8, entire current profiles shall be rotated from their
original Compass direction ±7,5º and ±15º if sectors are defined each 22,5º degrees in Metocean
Data or ±10, ±20 and ±30º if sectors are defined each 45º.

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 13 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

6.4. Phase 4 – Dynamic Analysis

Following Quasi-static phases Dynamic Analysis shall be performed to evaluate the wave
contribution to the interference. The worst cases chosen among those analyzed in previous phases
shall be dynamic analyzed considering waves with the same direction of the offset applied (if no
specific directions are available). Load cases are presented on Table 9 for interference of riser x
riser and Table 10 for interference riser x mooring line.

For each direction, the worst wave among the contour curve of extreme Hs x Tp presented in the
Metocean data shall be considered (e.g. Spectrum which can cause the Maximum Heave
Acceleration or other fully justified). Regular or irregular wave analyses methodologies are
acceptable. In both cases, sufficient analysis time shall be simulated to confirm a stable position. It
should be noted that a deterministic wave approach may incur in a long transient with unreal TDP
displacement, been preferable an irregular wave approach.

Table 9 – Load Cases for Dynamic Analysis – Interference riser x riser

Case  Current  Offset Wave  Number of cases
Worst Current profile of  Worst associated offset 
Surf 4.1  10 years  1 
100 years   defined on phase 2 

Worst Current profile of  Worst associated offset 
Surf 4.2  1 year  1 
98% of non‐exceedance  defined on phase 2 

Worst Current profile of  Worst associated offset 
Mid 4.1  10 years  1 
100 years   defined on phase 2 

Worst Current profile of  Worst associated offset 
Mid 4.2  1 year  1 
98% of non‐exceedance  defined on phase 2 
Total Number of 
      4 
cases 

Table 10 – Load Cases for Dynamic Analysis – Interference riser x mooring line
Case  Current  Offset Wave  Number of cases
Worst Current profile of  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Surf 4.1  10 years  1 
100 years   defined on phase 2 

Worst Current profile of  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Surf 4.2  1 year  1 
1 year   defined on phase 2 
Worst Current profile of 
Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Surf 4.3  98% of non‐exceedance  1 year  1 
defined on phase 2 
(umb x moor.) 
Worst Current profile of  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Mid 4.1  10 years  1 
100 years   defined on phase 2 

Worst Current profile of  Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Mid 4.2  1 year  1 
1 year   defined on phase 2 

Worst Current profile of 
Worst associated offset 
Moor ‐ Mid 4.3  98% of non‐exceedance  1 year  1 
defined on phase 2 
(umb x moor.) 
Total Number of 
      4 
cases 

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 14 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

If any acceptance criteria is not fulfilled risers configuration shall be adjusted by the
CONTRACTOR and the procedure shall be restarted from phase 1.

As stated before, in case interference between risers is identified, its progression shall be evaluated
considering contact enabled between them. The time step, riser segment discretization and pipe
stiffness shall be adequately modelled to ensure correctly modelling of the phenomenon. The
progression of the contact with the sliding of one riser over the other shall not, in any condition,
extend to a region where interference is not allowed.

6.5. Phase 5 – Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity loading cases matrix for interference analysis between risers in Table 11 and
between risers and mooring lines are presented in Table 12. The critical loading cases selected and
analyzed on phase 4 shall be considered for this phase.

Two sensitivity studies shall be performed, one for offset with one mooring line damaged and the
other to account for the loss of buoyance modules as per [V] (applicable to risers with
configurations with attached flotation or weight modules, e.g. lazy-wave, steep-wave, pliant-wave,
etc.) or one compartment flooding of buoyance tanks in subsea arch (applicable to risers with
configurations like: lazy-s, RHAS, MHR, etc.).

Table 11 – Sensitivity (Dynamic) environmental loading cases matrix

Number of 
Case  Current  Offset  Wave   
cases 
Damaged offset in the 
Worst Current profile 
Surf 5.1  worst direction defined  10 years    1 
of 100 years  
on phase 2 
Damaged offset in the 
Worst Current profile 
Surf 5.2  worst direction defined  1 year    1 
of 98% of non‐exceed. 
on phase 2 
Loss of buoyance 
Intact offset in the 
Worst Current profile  modules or 
Surf 5.3  worst direction defined  10 year  1 
of 100 years   compartment 
on phase 2 
flooding 
Loss of buoyance 
Worst Current profile  Intact offset in the 
modules or 
Surf 5.4  of 98% of non‐ worst direction defined  10 years  1 
compartment 
exceedance  on phase 2 
flooding 
Damaged offset in the 
Worst Current profile 
Mid 5.1  worst direction defined  10 year    1 
of 100 years  
on phase 2 
Worst Current profile  Damaged offset in the 
Mid 5.2  of 98% of non‐ worst direction defined  1 year    1 
exceedance  on phase 2 
Loss of buoyance 
Intact offset in the 
Worst Current profile  modules or 
Mid 5.3  worst direction defined  10 year  1 
of 100 years   compartment 
on phase 2 
flooding 
Loss of buoyance 
Worst Current profile  Intact offset in the 
modules or 
Mid 5.4  of 98% of non‐ worst direction defined  1 year  1 
compartment 
exceedance  on phase 2 
flooding 
Total Number of 
        8 
cases 

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 15 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

Table 12 – Sensitivity (Dynamic) environmental loading cases matrix

Number of 
Case  Current  Offset  Wave   
cases 
Worst Current  Damaged offset in the 
Moor ‐ Surf 5.1  profile of 100  worst direction defined  10 years    1 
years   on phase 2 
Damaged offset in the 
Worst Current 
Moor ‐ Surf 5.2  worst direction defined  1 year    1 
profile of 1 year  
on phase 2 
Worst Current 
Damaged offset in the 
profile of 98% of 
Moor ‐ Surf 5.3  worst direction defined  1 year    1 
non‐exceedance 
on phase 2 
(umb x moor.) 
Loss of buoyance 
Worst Current  Intact offset in the  modules or 
Moor ‐ Surf 5.4  profile of 100  worst direction defined  10 year  compartment  1 
years   on phase 2  flooding on 
midwater buoy 
Loss of buoyance 
Intact offset in the  modules or 
Worst Current 
Moor ‐ Surf 5.5  worst direction defined  1 yeas  compartment  1 
profile of 1 year  
on phase 2  flooding on 
midwater buoy 
Loss of buoyance 
Worst Current 
Intact offset in the  modules or 
profile of 98% of 
Moor ‐ Surf 5.6  worst direction defined  1 yeas  compartment  1 
non‐exceedance 
on phase 2  flooding on 
(umb x moor.) 
midwater buoy 
Worst Current  Damaged offset in the 
Moor ‐ Mid 5.1  profile of 100  worst direction defined  10 year    1 
years   on phase 2 
Damaged offset in the 
Worst Current 
Moor ‐ Mid 5.2  worst direction defined  1 year    1 
profile of 1 year  
on phase 2 
Worst Current 
Damaged offset in the 
profile of 98% of 
Moor ‐ Mid 5.3  worst direction defined  1 year    1 
non‐exceedance 
on phase 2 
(umb x moor.) 
Loss of buoyance 
Worst Current  Intact offset in the  modules or 
Moor ‐ Mid 5.4  profile of 100  worst direction defined  10 year  compartment  1 
years   on phase 2  flooding on 
midwater buoy 
Loss of buoyance 
Intact offset in the  modules or 
Worst Current 
Moor ‐ Mid 5.5  worst direction defined  1 year  compartment  1 
profile of 1 year  
on phase 2  flooding on 
midwater buoy 
Loss of buoyance 
Worst Current 
Intact offset in the  modules or 
profile of 98% of 
Moor ‐ Mid 5.6  worst direction defined  1 year  compartment  1 
non‐exceedance 
on phase 2  flooding on 
(umb x moor.) 
midwater buoy 
Total Number of 
        8 
cases 

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION
 Nº
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I-ET-3010.00-1519-274-PPC-001 REV 0
USER SHEET
E&P-SERV/US-IPSUB 16 from 16
RISER INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

7. INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

As a minimum, the following analysis outputs shall be provided for the critical loading cases:

 Table presenting the minimum clearance between risers and neighboring structures (others
risers, mooring lines, RHAS/MHR, etc.) along the riser length occurring during each phase
(for quasi-static and dynamic simulations);
 For each phase shall be presented a result summary showing worst cases and the
justification for the chosen cases to be analyzed in following phases;
 For each pair analyzed, graphic of the critical cases with clearance between risers and
neighboring structures (others risers, mooring lines, RHAS/MHR,etc.), along the riser
length, from top view;
 For each riser, pictures showing the most critical interference (if any), in 3D model view and
decomposed view (top view, lateral view and front view);
 For compliant configurations such as lazy-wave, pliant-wave and lazy-s, the maximum
horizontal displacement of the sag bend and of the hog bend regions for each riser function
shall be presented;
 Results of 100-year and 1-year environmental conditions shall be presented separately,
considering both criteria (interference and crossing below mooring lines);
 Conclusions and recommendations of the interference analysis shall be included in a
separate chapter (beginning of the interference report);
 Clashing energy, force or velocity (what CONTRACTOR considers necessary) of the
critical loading cases selected to perform the damage evaluation and comparison with the
allowed damage capacity.

It shall be presented a critical analysis of the results, with main conclusions and technical
recommendations.

THE DATA, OR PARTS THEREOF, ARE PETROBRÁS PROPERTY AND THUS MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PERMISSION