See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/344359716

Establishing an Industry Best Practice on Subsea Wellhead Fatigue

Assessment

Technical Report · July 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23009.12649

CITATIONS READS

0 326

1 author:

Wilfredo Salas
Independent Development Talis Oil Services
37 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ALBANIA EOR PRPGRAM FOR HEAVY OIL View project

Shales Production Technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wilfredo Salas on 24 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DEEPSTAR CORE STUDY DS 151198

Establishing an Industry Best Practice on Subsea Wellhead Fatigue

Assessment
Salas, W. Hørte, G. Grytøyr, and L.T. Haug, Det Norske Veritas

Copyright 2019, DEEPSTAR Drilling Team.

This document was prepared for presentation at the 2018 Drilling Meeting held in San Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March 2019.

This study was selected for presentation by a program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors on the Deepstar , its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 deepstar copyright.

Abstract

Wellhead fatigue has received priority attention within the drilling industry, especially on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.
Concern has also been raised in other areas of the world when drilling on existing older wells and when using new heavier rigs
and BOP systems. Focus has been on developing a universal wellhead fatigue calculation methodology. This is part of an
ongoing joint industry project (JIP) facilitated by DNV with participation from BG Group, BP, Chevron, Det Norske, Eni,
ExxonMobil, GDF Suez, Lundin, Marathon, Nexen, Shell, Statoil, Talisman, Total and Woodside. Motivation for developing
an industry guideline stems from the fact that existing international standards provide limited or no guidance on wellhead
fatigue calculation.

A recommended practice is being finalized through the ongoing JIP, which builds on the strengths of the methodologies
available in the industry today. The RP provides guidance on selection of methodologies for wellhead fatigue assessment
based on the specific conditions for a subsea well.

Due to the harsh weather conditions and shallow waters of the North Sea, wellhead fatigue has historically been a
challenge. There are uniquely different challenges in deeper water, such as the Gulf of Mexico, which influence the selection
of the analysis approach. In recent years, there have been a number of papers published on wellhead fatigue, and the
background for different methodologies as well as the key differences is presented in this paper.

It is crucial that the drilling industry is aware of the challenges with regard to a consistent safe design and operation of its
equipment and that the industry is continuously pushing forward to improve upon design methodology and guidelines. This
methodology incorporates key elements from the best practices from around world on wellhead fatigue analysis.

Introduction

Since the birth of subsea drilling wells, where the conductor and wellhead system has been located at the seabed and connected
to a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU), it has been important to establish the fatigue capacity of the subsea wellhead
system. Through years of experience, the analysis methodology and input variables to the analyses have been improved and
refined. Despite the improvement in the industry, one distinct best practice for calculating the fatigue capacity of subsea
wellhead systems has yet to be recognized.
2 DS 151198

One of the key objectives of an on-going Joint Industry Project (JIP) is to establish an industry-recognized Recommended
Practice (RP) on fatigue calculation methodology. The JIP is facilitated by DNV with participation from, BG Group, BP,
Chevron, Det Norske, Eni, ExxonMobil, GDF Suez, Lundin, Marathon, Nexen, Shell, Statoil, Talisman, Total and Woodside.
Feedback has also been provided by the subsea wellhead suppliers. Additional project input has been provided by 2H
Engineering and Stress Engineering Services. Focus has been to develop a RP, which the entire industry can use for fatigue
analysis. The RP will provide uniform guidance on the various possible options for calculating fatigue capacity on subsea
wellhead system and selection criteria for when certain tiers of analyses should be used.

The RP on wellhead fatigue analysis methodology is part of a new family of RP’s describing methods for assessing the
structural integrity of the entire drilling and well system. Altogether there are four RP’s, which form the basis for assessing
and maintaining the structural integrity of the entire drilling and well system, from rig to reservoir. Figure 1 depicts how the
four RP’s fit together to form a unified set of RP’s. The four RP’s are 1) Structural Integrity Philosophy for Offshore Drilling
and Well systems 2) Capacity Design and Analysis of Drilling and Well System 3) Fatigue Design and Analysis of Drilling
and Well Systems 4) Structural Well Integrity Management Systems [1], [2], [3]. The RP’s describe topics such as system
engineering, responsibility breakdown, capacity calculations, data management and integrity management.

RP - 1 - Structural Integrity Philosophy for Offshore Drilling

and Well Systems

RP - 2 – Capacity Design and Analysis of Drilling and Well

System

RP - 3 – Fatigue Design and Analysis of Drilling and Well

Systems

RP - 4 – Structural Well Integrity Management System

Figure 1 – RP Structure “Family of RP’s” Pyramid

Background

Subsea wellhead systems are part of entire drilling and well systems, where the wellhead is the key element at the seabed. The
wellhead system is connected to drilling rig systems through the use of a blowout preventer (BOP) and a riser system. The
wellhead system can be placed inside of a template arrangement, which supports the wellhead system at the seabed, or it can
be left free-standing in a satellite configuration. The latter is also usually the case for exploration wells. In addition there are
dry tree systems which have a subsea wellhead and a permanently installed production riser. The importance of the wellhead
system is two-fold. Firstly, the wellhead system including the conductor forms a structural element of the entire drilling and
well system. Dynamic loads from the drilling system and riser system are transferred into the wellhead system and further into
the surrounding seabed. In this fashion, the wellhead system interfaces as a structural boundary condition with the drilling riser
system and the supporting seabed. The second function of the wellhead system is to provide a safe drilling barrier for the well
during drilling of intermediate casings. A structural failure of the wellhead system could potentially lead to a situation where
well integrity can be compromised. As a result of this, wellhead fatigue is currently considered a highly critical issue in the
industry due to its consequence on well integrity.
DS 151198 3

A history of integrity issues related to dynamic or fatigue loading on subsea wellhead systems exists and has been
documented through a series of papers.

Singeetham reported in 1989 that, “The industry has experienced multiple field failures in the last 10 years, primarily at
the bottom of the high pressure housings, which prompted further investigation of the load transfer mechanisms” [4].
Singeetham outlines that the cause for the fatigue failures of the subsea wellhead systems in the 1980’s is the lack of a second
landing shoulder in the lower pressure housing as well as a lack of a method for rigidly connecting the lower pressure housing
to the high pressure housing. While these are design improvements that have been implemented in the industry since 1990, [4],
Singeetham described the ongoing difficulty of estimating or calculating the fatigue capacity of subsea wellhead system,
“Fatigue life of a ‘Typical Drilling System’ is difficult to predict accurately due to variables external to the system such as the
sea state, cementing procedures, soil conditions, etc.”

A field example of a wellhead failure is presented in Hopper [5], where the failure occurred at the base of the high pressure
housing in the welded transition to the first casing joint. The failure occurred West of Shetland in UK waters. Hopper
concludes that the failure was caused by vortex induced vibrations (VIV) loading from the drilling riser and that some
modifications to the subsea wellhead system were needed [5]. This particular example illustrates the possibility for fatigue
failure in welded joints within the wellhead system. The welded transition between the high pressure housing and the first
casing joint has received high focus in the development of the analysis methodology. In general, the paper presented by
Hopper illustrates the possibility for fatigue failure in wellhead systems based on the dynamic loads they are subjected to. This
topic was presented and explained further by Farrants et. al, showing its industry relevance [6].

Following the documented wellhead failures of the 1980’s and early 1990’s less focus was placed on wellhead fatigue until
the issue re-surfaced around 2015 when concerns were raised in the North Sea, [7] Reinås et. al. explain that, “In 2005 Statoil
experienced significant lateral BOP movements on a subsea well during drilling operations from a MODU in the North Sea.
This subsea wellhead had seen [long] lasting operations from drilling rigs, accumulating to approximately 1 year of
operations. The abnormal movements were explained by a parted conductor casing extension weld, caused by fatigue loading
driven by drilling riser dynamic loads” [7]. Based on the resulting investigations, wellhead fatigue calculations and
specifically the analysis methodology used to evaluate wellhead fatigue has been a key focus in the drilling industry.

The wellhead configurations studied in industry papers [4], [5], [6], and [7] are fundamentally similar to many of the
wellhead configuration installed and planned-for-use today. This is due to the fact that the subsea wellheads are used in the
similar applications. There are differences in the manufacturing processes, dimensions, materials and installation methods;
however the general challenge remains, which is the exposure to high dynamic loading. The need to develop a uniform method
for assessing the wellhead system fatigue capacity has been driven by the industry. In addition to industry need, motivation for
developing an industry guideline stems from the fact that existing international standards provide limited or no guidance on
wellhead fatigue calculation, [8]. Evans and McGrail agree on the importance of studying wellhead fatigue, “It therefore
becomes increasingly important to ensure that the mechanisms which influence wellhead fatigue are understood, and that the
fatigue resistance requirements of [the] wellhead system are more accurately defined upfront [9].”

The subsea wellhead is exposed to dynamic loads transferred from the attached drilling riser system. The loads can be a
combination of bending and tension or compression loads. The subsequent sections of this paper describe the analyses
methodologies studied as part of the JIP and how they should be selected and applied. 

System Overview

Overview

As part of the establishment of the uniform wellhead fatigue analysis methodology, which is included in the RP, many of
the system descriptions previously presented in [8] and [10] have been accepted by the JIP group and are now a part of the RP
documentation. These descriptions are repeated in this section of the paper for clarity, in order to have a common understand
of the rig systems, drilling riser system, wellhead systems and their interactions.
4 DS 1511 98

Analysis of drilling and well systems is both complex and multidisciplinary. The wellhead system itself is structurally
complex with several interacting components. The interactions between these components are, to a certain degree, dependent
on their installation during the process of drilling a well.

The wellhead system interacts with the surrounding soil. Thus, there is a structure-soil interface which has to be included in
the analysis. In addition to the soil, the wellhead system could be connected to a template which adds further boundary
conditions to the analysis.

When drilling and completing the well, performing workover/intervention on the well or plugging the well for
abandonment, a MODU is connected to the WH system through a riser. Thus, loads are imposed on the wellhead system from
both the MODU and riser. These loads are dependent on the hydrodynamic properties of the MODU, riser and the
environmental conditions during the length of the operations.

Thus, when assessing the fatigue damage of a WH system, structural, hydrodynamic, geotechnical, metaocean and
operational knowledge is necessary.
DS 151198 5

 
Figure 2 – System description and global system picture

MODU Motions

In order to complete drilling and well operations on subsea wellhead systems, an offshore drilling rig system needs to be in
place. The focus of methodology development has been placed into subsea wells drilled from MODU’s. The methodology for
calculating fatigue life on drilling and well equipment for other systems, such as platform wells is similar to that of MODU’s
with slight modifications in the system definition.
6 DS 151198

The motions of the MODU are dependent on the type of MODU, which is servicing the well. There are currently a large
variety of MODU’s in the industry ranging from older drilling rig to 6th generation state-of-the-art drilling rigs to specialized
workover vessels. One of the main influencing factors of the vessel motions is the whether the station-keeping system of the
MODU is a mooring or dynamic positioning (DP) system or a combination of the two. This factor together with the overall
size of the vessel and the specific design and operation of the MODU itself will determine the dynamic motions of the vessel.
These motions are typically expressed in the form of vessel motion response amplitude operators (RAO’s).

Riser Movements

A riser is needed in order to establish access to the well from the MODU. The marine drilling riser and the well casings are
used to establish a safe conduit from the ocean surface to the bottom of the well. The first phase of the drilling operations,
when installing the conductor and the WH, is performed in open sea. Following the first drilling phase the MODU is
connected to the wellhead system via a riser for most of the remaining operations.

Dynamic riser calculations entail composition of global riser models, which analyze the performance of the riser based on
the connected MODU, blowout preventer (BOP) system, subsea wellhead system and surrounding boundary conditions. The
riser models include the vertical weight balance of the system, which is caused by the downweight of the submerged
components such as the BOP and lower marine riser package (LMRP) as well as the upward tension supplied by the drilling
rig. The riser system is affected by the motion of the MODU and the surrounding wind and waves as well as ocean currents
and potentially VIV.

Well construction

A typical well construction serves two purposes, firstly as a structural foundation for external loads and secondly as a
pressure containing vessel for well pressures. The pressure containment criteria for the wellhead system is defined and
established during the design phase. The structural capacity of the wellhead and conductor is based on standardized wellhead
architecture, [7]. The inner casings of the well construction are site and well specific and are designed to merge with the pre-
existing wellhead and conductor designs.

Structural analysis of the subsea wellhead system including the transitions to the inner casings is performed using detailed
finite element analysis (FEA). The finite element analysis captures the performance of the subsea wellhead system for a given
load combination, which is then used in combination with results from the riser analysis to compute the fatigue performance of
the wellhead system.

Seabed Support

The boundary conditions surrounding the subsea wellhead system include the seabed soil, cement between the conductor
casing and the seabed soil as well as subsea templates. In some areas of the world, the conductor is jetted or hammered into
place, resulting in cases where there is no cement on the outside of the conductor housing. Additionally, the use of subsea
templates is project specific and not implemented in all projects.

The subsea soil and cement support the well both vertically and horizontally. The soil and cement performance depends on
soil properties as well as the installation method of the conductor. Generally, the soil properties are defined by the stiffness, i.e.
the amount of support they provide, at a given depth below the seabed. These properties are then converted into boundary
condition elements in the FEA model for the wellhead system and in some cases into the riser analysis. Similarly, a boundary
condition element for templates can be included in the modeling.
DS 151198 7

Environmental Conditions

The environmental loading has an effect on the vessel motions and thus the fatigue performance of the wellhead system [7].
The environmental loads consist of the wave and wind loading as well as ocean current loads. These are the general loads
which are encountered, however more project-specific loads also exist.

The environmental load conditions are included into the fatigue analysis in the form of scatter diagrams. The scatter
diagrams can be specified for a specific season of operation or for an annualized period of time. Based on the scatter diagrams,
the riser analysis and the FEA fatigue analysis can be performed. Actual historical data may be used for drilling operations in
the past.

Overall analysis philosophy

General

Fatigue damage is to be calculated for operations carried out in the past (for existing wells) and for planned operations in
the future. The analysis procedure generally includes a global load analysis, where the vessel motions and environmental
actions are imposed on the riser, and the loads on the wellhead system are calculated. The stresses at a particular location (hot
spot) due to these loads are then calculated by a local response analysis, with different degrees of refinement. Finally a fatigue
damage assessment is carried out.

The calculation results are sensitive to analysis techniques and input parameters. Some parameters may be difficult or
impossible to assess accurately. Previous experience has shown that results from different analysts may vary by orders of
magnitude for the same WH system. The new RP on wellhead fatigue is intended to be specific in order to avoid such
deviations, but at the same time allow for some flexibility for the user to choose a method that serves the purpose for that
particular case.

A wellhead fatigue assessment involves many steps, many analysis steps and choices and a high number of uncertain
parameters. Engineers tend to make conservative choices when selecting parameters and methodology, when these are not
specifically defined. The final result may end up being overly conservative if conservative choices are applied in every
analysis step. A best practice should ensure that the analysis captures the “expected load history”, while trying to avoid
unnecessary conservatism.

Analysis methodology, tiered approach

A tiered approach is described in the following section. The overall objective is to apply an analysis method that serves the
purpose for the case under consideration. The selected approach should cover the important physical effects, including non-
linear behavior, that influence fatigue. This may require sensitivity studies. The selection of methodology approach should be
based on technical evaluations and engineering judgment. Some operators may wish to specify the use of a particular approach
and methodology in order to obtain results from different analysis houses and for different wells that can be compared on in a
consistent manner.

Results from a vessel response analysis, in terms of response amplitude operators (RAO’s), are considered input to the
fatigue analysis and is not further described in this document. A so-called “fine mesh” analysis for calculation of stress
concentration factors is also described. The results from a fine mesh analysis are not tied to a particular tier, but used whenever
applicable as described below.

A tiered analysis approach is described in the following section and outlined in Figure 4.
8 DS 151198

Tier 1, Coupled beam analysis (with 3D option)

Global load analysis: The global analysis is typically performed in a standard riser analysis software, of which there are
several available. The model for the global load analysis includes the whole vertical axis, from the rotary table and down into
the soil where the conductor is modeled with interface to the soil/template via non-linear springs. Beam elements are used
along the stack-up, and sectional loads can be obtained at any desired elevation. A single beam with lumped properties from
the surface casing and the conductor may be used. Time domain analysis is generally recommended in order to account for the
nonlinearities involved. Frequency domain analysis may be utilized for studies and screening, but needs proper verification
versus time domain analysis results.

Local response analysis: Two options are presented as means of going from sectional loads to hot spot stress in the
wellhead system:

a) Use of stress amplification factors (SAF’s) to the sectional loads at relevant hot spot elevation (moment and
tension). Depending on complexity, SAF’s may simply be based on the sectional properties and/or taken from
separate calculations such as a fine mesh analysis.

b) Use of load-to-stress curves that provides the relationship between the sectional loads at wellhead datum and the
hot spot stress. In this approach, non-linear interaction between the well components is accounted for. This type
of analysis is similar to the local response analysis as described for the tier 2 analysis.

Fatigue damage assessment: The fatigue damage is calculated using the S-N approach. Time series of stresses are
calculated in all sea states, and the stress ranges are obtained by rainflow counting. Accumulation over all the sea states in the
scatter diagram is performed to reflect the relevant environmental conditions and well operation(s).

Selection and use of the tier 1 analysis approach

A tier 1 analysis is typically used in the following intentions:

• in less fatigue sensitive areas; e.g. benign water, deep water,

• for pre-loaded wellhead systems,

• when there are no template gaps or wellhead rotation in the conductor that may be important for the BOP motion,

• conductor fatigue evaluations,

• at an early stage of a project and

• when there may be a lack of detailed information.

A tier 1 global analysis has limitations as to the accuracy of the mechanical performance of the wellhead systems and
associated load distribution between the pipes in the system, in particular for non-preloaded systems and/or if there are gaps
between conductor and template. This may lead to inaccurate sectional loads and hence inaccurate stresses. One should aim for
a proper balance between the accuracy in the sectional loads and the SAF’s/SCF’s.

A stress concentration factor (SCF) represents the stress at a hot spot divided by the nominal stress at a uniquely defined
cross-section. A stress amplification factor (SAF) is the ratio between a stress and a sectional load, and may or may not include
SCF. Different SAF’s apply to bending and tension.
DS 151198 9

Tier 2, Hybrid de-coupled beam and 3D analysis

A tier 2 analysis is called hybrid de-coupled since the global and local analysis is de-coupled at wellhead datum. This is
similar to the decoupled approach described in ISO 13624-2, [11]. In the hybrid-decoupled approach, however, the models are
still inter-linked since the boundary conditions applied to the global model at wellhead datum are based on the local response
analysis results.

The tier 2 analysis approach is described in greater detail in, “DNV Wellhead Fatigue Analysis Method,” where the
specific analysis details and guidance are provided [10].

The analysis process is depicted in Figure 3.

10 DS 151198

Figure 3 – Analysis Work Flow for Tier 2 Approach

DS 151198 11

Global load analysis: The global analysis is similar to the global analysis in tier 1, but the analysis model terminates at the
wellhead datum where the boundary conditions are applied, simulating the stiffness of the well. Hence, the local response
analysis needs to be performed prior to the global load analysis, which may be impractical in some cases.

Local response analysis: The local response analysis uses a 3-D solid finite element analysis that extends from the
wellhead datum to a depth where the dynamic stresses due to environmental loads vanish. The model includes pipe in pipe
modeling that accounts for the mechanical interaction between the well components, friction, pretension, cement, soil and
template support. Reference loads are applied incrementally at wellhead datum, and a static analysis is used to calculate the
load-to-stress curve; i.e. a non-linear relationship between the load at wellhead datum and the stress at a selected hot spot. In
addition realistic non-linear stiffness properties at wellhead datum for use as boundary conditions in the global analysis are
calculated. The local response analysis is therefore ideally to be performed prior to the global analysis. However, some
analysis iterations may be needed, depending on the availability of data or stage in the design process.

The local analysis model should be sufficiently refined to represent interaction and load sharing between the well
components, and is usually sufficient for an assessment of the stresses in the welds. The nominal stress from a local analysis
can be used in combination with a stress concentration factor from a fine mesh analysis if necessary; e.g. for sharp corners in
the base material or for connectors.

It is essential that the applied loads in the local analysis are of a sufficient magnitude to cover the relevant load range from
the global analysis.

Load-to-stress curves can, in principle, be made individually for bending moment, shear and axial force. However, if these
are calculated separately there is a potential that non-linear effects will not be captured properly; e.g. the stress due to bending
depends on the tension etc. It is therefore recommended to compute a load-to-stress curve under the assumption of full
correlation between the shear force and the bending moment at the wellhead datum. The factor between the shear force and the
moment is taken equal to the height from wellhead datum and the flex joint. This factor is thus correct if the bending moment
at the flex joint is zero, and nonlinear and dynamic BOP effects are ignored. This does not precisely represent the physical
behavior, however the assumption is still considered reasonable since the stresses at most hot spots are significantly less
sensitive to the shear forces compared relatively to the bending moment at wellhead datum.

Load-to-stress curves for axial load variation may be neglected if the tensioner systems are effective means of ensuring low
tension variations. Evaluations are recommended to ensure this assumption is valid in each case. If not ignored, load-to-stress
curves for axial load need to be calculated separately from moment/shear load-to-stress curves. It has been shown that the riser
tension variation has practically no effect on the weld between the wellhead and the surface casing since this variation
primarily goes into the conductor.

Fatigue damage assessment: The fatigue calculation is similar to the method described in tier 1.

A tier 2 analysis is comparable to the tier 1b analysis, except from the boundary conditions in the global load analysis
which are obtained from the local response analysis. This has an influence on the work process, and may be more convenient
for existing wells than for new designs where design iterations take place. One advantage of the tier 2 analysis and the
separation of the models at the wellhead datum is the fact that the soil and template data are only needed as input to the local
response analysis.

In cases where the results from either the tier 1 or tier 2 analysis methodologies are insufficient, advanced fatigue
calculations can be performed. The advanced fatigue calculation possibilities identified as part of the JIP are fracture
mechanics, strain based approach and structural reliability analysis. These are described under the tier 3 and tier 4 approaches.
This paper does not specifically describe the methodologies for fracture mechanics, strain life or SRA.

 
12 DS 151198

Selection and use of the tier 2 analysis approach

It is recommended to use the tier 2 analysis approach for wellhead fatigue evaluations, especially in regions with harsh
weather and relatively shallow water depth, like e.g. the North Sea.

The tier 2 approach is also applicable to deep water, and can be used on both pre-loaded and non-preloaded WH systems,
and can as such be used for analysis in any region of the world.

Tier 3, fracture mechanics and strain based approach

Tier 3 represents fatigue calculation alternatives different from the S-N approach. Fracture mechanics is well-established
method that takes into consideration the propagation of cracks in the material. Another alternative is the strain-life method, [12]
which deals with initiation time; i.e. the time to initiate a crack. For the base material the initiation time may be significantly
longer than the crack propagation time, which is typically opposite for welds.

These methods may be options, typically for thick walled components in the base material with steep stress gradients,
where the S-N approach tend to give overly conservative results.

Selection and use of the tier 3 analysis approach

The tier 3 analysis methodologies could be implemented in cases where the fatigue capacity results from tier 1 or tier 2 are
insufficient and where further fatigue evaluation may be needed.

Tier 4, Structural reliability Analysis

Structural reliability is an alternative, in particular for special cases where established codes are in-sufficient or unavailable. It
is also a methodology for code development; i.e. to calibrate the design procedure and safety factors to a target reliability level.

Selection and use of the tier 4 analysis approach

The tier 4 analysis methodology could be implemented in cases where the fatigue capacity results from tier 2 or tier 3 are
insufficient and where further fatigue evaluation may be needed.
DS 151198 13

Non‐ 
preloaded 
wellhead 

Tier 1,  Tier 2, 

Coupled analysis  Hybrid de‐coupled 
analysis 
 

Global Load  Local 
Analysis  Response 
Analysis 
 

a) Sectional  b) Loads on WH  Stiffness at WH  Load‐to‐stress 

loads  datum  datum curve 

Local   
Global Load 
Response  Analysis 
Analysis 

a) Stress    
b) Load‐to‐ Loads on WH 
amplification  stress curve  datum 
factor 

a) Fatigue  b) Fatigue  Fatigue 

Figure 4 – Illustration of analysis options, Tiered approaches

14 DS 151198

Fine mesh analysis

A fine mesh model can be made by having an axisymmetric model or a 3-D model. The purpose is to calculate stress
concentration factors and/or stress amplification factors in the wellhead system. The model needs to be long enough so that
end effects do not disturb the calculated stresses. The SCF from a fine mesh analysis may be used in tiers 1, 2 and 3.

The fine mesh analysis is typically used to:

• Compute stress concentration factors at e.g. sharp corners in the base material or in threaded connections etc.

• To compute stress concentration factors at welds if the local response analysis used in tier 1 or 2 is insufficient;
e.g. if the weld is too close to a sharp corner or a thickness transitions and a refined mesh is required.

• For use with tier 3 analysis, fracture mechanics or strain based fatigue

A fine mesh analysis is of considerable interest to manufacturers for optimizing their designs. It may be a challenge to
obtain detailed information/drawings of sensitive details due to intellectual property rights, and sometimes a tier 1 or 2 analysis
will use SCF’s provided by the actual manufacturer.

Selection of Appropriate Analysis Method

The tiered analysis approach was developed through the JIP work and based on the feedback received from the industry. By
having tiered analysis approaches, the analyst has more freedom in selecting the most applicable analysis for the particular
case of interest. This freedom was desired by the industry in order to be able to calculate wellhead fatigue capacity with
different intentions such as in the early stages of a project.

One negative aspect with having a more flexible RP is that the methodology is dependent on the competence and
experience of the analyst. Additionally there can be a large variance in the analysis parameters used such as the modeling
techniques, contact elements, friction factors and meshing techniques.

The applicability of the individual analysis tiers are provided in the descriptions of the different analysis tiers.

Recommended approach

Based on the JIP work, which is to be documented in the appendices of the upcoming RP-3, “Fatigue Design and Analysis
of Drilling and Well System,” [2], it is recommended to use the tier 2 analysis approach for wellhead fatigue evaluations.

As part of the ongoing JIP, the current status indicates tier 2 as a favorable approach; however, the difference compared to
tier 1b may be small in many cases. Case studies are being initiated to study the differences including the level of conservatism
between the various methods. The results of the case studies will provide documentation and references useful when selecting
the analysis methodology.

The reason for recommending the tier 2 approach is that the method has been shown representative through comparison
studies. The tier 2 approach takes into account dynamic effects in the models such as BOP dynamics, gap clearances between
the template and the wellhead system and also relative movements between the wellhead and conductor housings. By using the
tier 2 approach it is possible to model both rigid lock wellhead systems as well as more traditional wellhead systems.
Additionally, the physical representation in the global model includes all of the lower boundary conditions representing the
wellhead system, soil, cement and any subsea support structures.

It is has been shown that the analysis time required to perform a tier 2 analysis can be similar to the amount of time
required to run a tier 1 analysis. This has been demonstrated by several analysis companies in the industry, who have been able
DS 151198 15

to build parametric databases for generating, running and interpreting analysis results. This demonstrates that there is a
negligible benefit in performing a tier 1 analysis with regard to analysis time.

Another apparent advantage of using the tier 2 analysis approach is that the results from the analyses are comparable.
Operators can compare the fatigue capacity of various wells within their portfolio, where there can be both pre-existing
wellhead systems as well as new to-be-installed wellhead systems, [7]. This may have an effect operational planning and
decision making. Additionally it is then possible for different analysts to perform the same analysis and come up with
comparable results.

Should more detail in the analysis model be necessary than what is prescribed in the tier 2 approach, it is possible to run
fine mesh analysis on certain areas of interest. This could be of relevance for non-welded hotspots, or for areas of interest
where additional analysis accuracy is specifically desired. By combining the tier 2 approach with a more fine mesh additional
confidence could be established in the analysis results.

If the calculated fatigue capacity from the tier 2 analysis approach is not satisfactory, further studies using operational
weather data, seasonal-specific scatter diagrams and monitoring data could potentially be included in the evaluations. Tier 3
and tier 4 analysis approaches can also be carried out.

Future Considerations

With the upcoming release of RP-3, “Fatigue Design and Analysis of Drilling and Well System,” [2], a unified approach to
wellhead fatigue calculation will be available for the industry.

An information management system should also be established to handle the data used in connection with wellhead fatigue
analysis. Recommendations for such systems are described in RP-4, “Structural Well Integrity Management System,” [3]. The
database systems should be able to handle the information required for the input data, the analysis models and the results. Any
deviation from the tier 2 analysis methodology should also be included in the information management system.

Other aspects within the area of structural integrity of drilling and well systems still require focus. Specifically for subsea
wellhead systems little guidance on a uniform analysis methodology and acceptance criteria is available for strength
calculations and other system evaluations such as resonance frequency analysis, [8]. Additionally the impact of data
monitoring systems on analytical tools has yet to be implemented on an industry-wide systematic level. These aspects should
be co-operatively looked at in future industry forums.

Summary

Wellhead fatigue calculation has received priority attention within the drilling industry. One of the results of this industry
focus is the ongoing JIP where DNV together with 15 operators have been developing a family of RP’s on structural integrity
for offshore drilling and well systems. One of these RP’s focuses specifically on wellhead fatigue calculation.

Within the suggested RP on wellhead fatigue calculation, a tiered approach is provided, which details the various analysis
approaches available for performing wellhead fatigue evaluations. Guidance is also provided for when the specific tiers of
analysis approaches should be followed. It is recommended to use the tier 2 analysis approach in the evolution of fatigue
capacity on existing and to-be-installed wellhead systems. This provides one uniform approach for wellhead fatigue
calculation, while allowing flexibility to perform the analysis using alternative methods.

Wellhead fatigue calculation is an integral part of the structural capacity evaluations that are performed on subsea wellhead
systems. By having a unified approach for performing the wellhead fatigue calculations, an improved traceability and control
can be established for the structural capacity of subsea wellhead systems.
References

[1] DNV Report Number 2011-1486 “Structural Integrity Philosophy for Offshore Drilling and Well system (RP-1),” date pending 2012.

[2] DNV Report Number 2011-1488 “Fatigue Design and Analysis of Drilling and Well System (RP-3),” date pending 2012.

[3] DNV Report Number 2011-1489 “Structural Well Integrity Management Systems (RP-4),” date pending 2012.

[4] Singeetham, S.P., “Optimized design of a typical subsea drilling system for fatigue applications,” Proc. of the International Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium, 1989.

[5] Hopper, C.T., “Vortex Induced Oscillations of Long Marine Drilling Risers,” Proc. Deep Offshore Technology Conf., Malta, 1983.

[6] Farrant, T., Howells, H., Robertson, N., “Drilling Riser, Wellhead and Conductor Structural Integrity Management in New and Remote
Offshore Regions, ” Proc. of the Drilling Offshore Conference 2007.

[7] Reinås, L., Sæther, M., Hørte, T., and Grytøyr, G., “Wellhead Fatigue Analysis Method,” Proc. of the International Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering Conference Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2011.

[8] ISO 13628, Petroleum and natural Gas Industries – Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems Part 4: Subsea wellhead and tree
equipment, 1999.

[9] Evans, J.T., McGrail, J., “An Evaluation of the Fatigue Performance of Subsea Wellhead Systems and Recommendations for Fatigue
Enhancements,” Proc. of the Offshore Technology Conference Houston, USA, 2011.

[10] DNV Report 2011-0063/ 12Q5071-26, “Wellhead Fatigue Analysis Method,” Rev 01, Jan 2011.

[11] ISO 13628, Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Drilling and production equipment -- Part 2: Deepwater drilling riser methodologies,
operations, and integrity technical report, 2009.

[12] Buitrago, J., Hudak, S., Baxter, D. “High cycle and low cycle fatigue resistance of girth welds in sour service,” Proc. of the Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Material Technology Symposium, 2008.

View publication stats