4.6 Article

Extreme response based reliability analysis of composite risers for applications in deepwater

期刊

MARINE STRUCTURES
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2021.103015

关键词

Monte Carlo simulation; Composite risers; Catenary; Durability; Hygrothermal aging

资金

  1. EPSRC Centre of Doctoral Training [EP/L015382/1]
  2. Lloyd's Register Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper conducts a strength-based reliability analysis of composite catenary risers operating at depths between 1,500 m and 4,000 m, showing that they perform well at greater depths but face performance degradation due to moisture absorption. Further investigation is needed in this area.
As current oil reserves start to deplete, companies are looking to exploit deeper deposits. At these greater depths composite risers, with their high strength-to-weight ratio, reduce the effective tensions and bending moments compared to steel risers. However, there is still limited research into their behaviour, with one key missing element being a comparison with traditional riser designs which accounts for variances in material properties and wave loads. This paper therefore conducts a strength-based reliability analysis of composite catenary risers operating between 1,500 m and 4,000 m. A static global catenary model is combined with Classical Laminate Theory to determine the extreme response and its performance is verified against FEA. This response is evaluated with the Tsai-Wu failure criterion to determine first-ply failure. The effect of laminate moisture absorption on the long-term reliability of submerged composite-based risers is also investigated as it can cause a significant reduction in the strength of composite risers. The reliability analysis is conducted using the Monte Carlo Method, revealing that the composite risers perform well at 4000 m. The degradation in performance from moisture absorption becomes increasingly important at greater depths and needs further investigation for these applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据