fpso design and structural integrity assessment - amazon web
TRANSCRIPT
FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment
SNAME TEXASApril 14th 2009
2FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Summary
►
Background
►
Design Aspects
►
Condition Assessment (Conversions)
►
Hull Strength Assessment
►
Integrity Management
►
Conclusions
3FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Our Profession : QHSE Compliance
Reference Standard Action Deliverable
Assessment
Full Independencefrom any
Design / Manufacturing / Contracting / Insurance
4FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Bureau Veritas at a Glance
Marine 11%
In-Service Inspection
& Verification 13%
Certification 11%
HSE 10%
Industry 19%
Government Services & International Trade 6%
Consumer Products12%
Construction 18%
►
Created in 1828
►
A global leader in conformity assessment services in the areas of quality, health and safety, environment and social responsibility (QHSE)
2008 revenue: €2.55bn
2008 adjusted operating profit: €388m
More than 900 offices in 140 countries
►
Over 40,000 skilled employees
►
Eight global businesses providing a complete set of services
Inspection, testing, audit, certification, risk management, outsourcing, consulting and training services
►
Servicing 370,000 customers across a wide range of end markets
Broad Geographical PresenceRevenue breakdown
Eight Global Businesses
Revenue breakdown
Asia Pacific 23%
EMEA* 35%
France 27%
The Americas15%
* EMEA includes:• Europe –
excluding France• Middle-East• Africa
5FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Extensive Geographic Footprint
Asia-Pacific
205 offices, including 66 laboratories
13,300 staff
37 countries
France
165 offices, including 14 laboratories
7,400 staff
Americas
153 offices, including 31 laboratories
8,000 staff
30 countries
EMEA (excluding France)
388 offices, including 45 laboratories
11,300 staff
77 countries
Global network comprising more than 900 locations across 140 countriesGlobal network comprising more than 900 locations across 140 countries
Note: EMEA = Europe, Middle-East & Africa
6FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
A Balanced Portfolio of Activities
Marine ►
Ship classification, ship and marine equipment certification, technical assistance and outsourcing services
Industry►
Conformity assessment of industrial equipment and installations to regulatory or client specifications from feasibility stage to de-commissioning
►
Services include design review, shop inspection, site inspection, asset integrity management, product certification and related testing services such as non-destructive testing
In-Service Inspection & Verification (IVS)
►
Periodic inspection of equipment and installations to assess conformity with regulations or client-
specific requirements. Services apply to electrical installations, fire safety systems, lifts, pressure equipment, lifting equipment and machinery
Construction►
Conformity assessment of construction projects to local regulations and construction standards, from design stage to completion
►
Services include design review, code compliance, technical control, on-site safety coordination, testing of construction materials, asset management and technical due diligence services
Health, Safety and Environment (HSE)
►
Inspection, audit, measurement and testing services in the fields of environment / health & safety ►
Technical assistance and consultancy services to help companies define their HSE management strategy and improve their performance
Certification►
Certification of management systems and processes in the areas of quality, health and safety, environment and social responsibility based on public standards
►
Second party auditing services based on customer-specific or Bureau Veritas standards
Consumer Products►
Testing, inspection and certification of consumer goods including textile, hardlines, toys, electrical and electronic products
►
Factory audits, social responsibility audits and training services
Government Services and International Trade(GSIT)
►
Government Services: Pre-Shipment Inspection, X-Ray Scanning, Verification of Conformity of imported products
►
International Trade: Commodity quantity/quality assurance, automotive services
8 global businesses providing strong growth and cross-selling opportunities8 global businesses providing strong growth and cross-selling opportunities
7FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
3653 59 62
86106
137
171
204
244268
312
388
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Adju
sted
Ope
ratin
g Pr
ofit
(€m
)
A Solid Growth Track Record
Adjusted Operating Profit CAGR: 22%
Revenue CAGR: 15%
Revenue Growth since 1996 Adjusted Operating Profit Growth since 1996
13 years of continuous growth and profit improvements Revenue expanded by a multiple of 5.6 and adjusted operating profit by 10.8
13 years of continuous growth and profit improvements Revenue expanded by a multiple of 5.6 and adjusted operating profit by 10.8
455
619695 722
8501012
11451283
1422
1647
1846
2067
2549
0
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Reve
nue
(€m
)
8FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Classification & Technical Assistance
More than 80 FSOs & FPSOs studied by BV
9FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
•
TOTAL PAZFLOR FPSO (Angola)•
TOTAL USAN FPSO (Nigeria)•
2 FPSOs for Nan Hai in China for CNOOC•
AKPO FPSO in Nigeria for TOTAL•
MOHO BILONDO FPU in Congo for TOTAL•
P53 FPSO in Brazil for PETROBRAS•
CENDOR FSO in Malaysia for MISC / PETROFAC•
FEDERAL 1 FSO for PETROCHINA•
BELANAK LPG FSO for COMPASS ENERGY•
P47 FPSO for PETROBRAS•
ORKID FSO for MISC
Plutonio FPSO (2 mbl) Akpo FPSO
Belanak LPG FSO
Floating Production, Storage & Offloading Systems
10FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Moho FPSO - CongoHyundai
Akpo FPSO - NigeriaHyundai
Classification/Certification Recent References
P-55 - Brazil
P-53 FPU - BrazilKeppel-Fels
Nan Hai FPSO - China
11FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Regulatory Frame
► International rules (IMO and ILO rules…)
► Flag State rules
►Classification Society rules
►Coastal states rules and guidelines
► International maritime standards (OCIMF, ISGOTT…)
►Owner or operating company standards and guidelines
►Offshore industry standards and recommended practices (ISO, API, ASME/ANSI…)
Wide range: Coastal State Regulations and Company Corporate requirement
12FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Project Specification
►Hull type
►Storage capacity
►Cargo and ballast tank layout
►Permanent or disconnectable
►Required FPSO service life
►Service location environmental conditions
► Layout (deck area, cargo tanks and mooring system)
►Materials of construction
13FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
New-Built►
Typical of fast-track projects
►
Availability of conversion docks
►
Considered for contained CAPEX
BUT
►
Must know what is being bought
►
Imposes constraintsStorage capacity
Deck space…
►
Age will limit its relocation
►
Purpose-built
►
Take into account latest construction standards and safety margins
►
Can be designed with process versatility
BUT
►
Limited number of shipyards and already packed
►
Usually mean higher CAPEX
►
Longer delivery times
Conversion
New-Built vs. Conversion
14FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
General Arrangement - Tank Capacity & Layout
►Provide the specified minimum crude oil storage capacity
►Adequate stability and longitudinal strength (normal and temporary operating conditions)
►Sufficient segregated ballast water tanks to allow adjustment of
heel, trim and draft of the FPSO
►Avoid loading/unloading restrictions
►Ballast piping arrangement (single hull tankers)
► Larger the number of smaller oil storage tanks:
Flexibility for loading and offloading
Reduce free surface effects. Improves vessel stability.
Increase storage capacity during inspections and work in tanks
►Cargo and bunker oil protection
15FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
General Arrangement – Deck Area & Accommodation
►Sufficient for layout of topside equipment, accommodations, lay-down areas, etc.
►Separation of hazardous areas from accommodations and lifesaving
►Protect personnel and equipment against green water
► Foundations and supporting structures for the process decks positioned iwo
main deck intersections. Minimize under deck stiffening.
►Spread mooring lines and risers configuration: interface between topsides supports and mooring installation equipment.
►Accommodation module and location of the turret and the main machinery space: natural thrusters assisted weathervaning.
16FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Seakeeping
►Safety and comfort to personnel and maintain high uptime and reliability of production
►Mitigation of excessive roll motion. Weathervaning
turret moored vessels may be aligned beam with swell resulting in production shut downs.
► Freeboard and structural protection to prevent green water onto primary routes of escape and work areas (process, machinery, piping, cabling, equipment, superstructures, etc.)
17FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Single vs. Double Hull Configuration
►Regulatory
Costal State and COMPANY requirements.
MARPOL 73/78 Annex I requirements for FPSOs, as modified by IMO Resolutions MEPC 139(53) and MEPC 142(54).
►Single hull FPSOs
deployed worldwide
►Double hull main advantages:
External structural protection to crude oil and bunkers
No ballast piping through cargo tanks
Means of inspection while in service
Smooth tank bottom
18FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
High Tensile Steel Construction
19FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Structural Detail Design
►Hard toed structural details shall be avoided
►Cutout radius
►Snipe angles
► Longitudinal Web Frame Penetrations and Lugs
► Longitudinal stiffener end connections (soft toe brackets)
► Transverse Bulkhead Penetration. Soft toe brackets fitted on both sides
20FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Hull Condition Assessment (Conversion)
► Following information should be reviewed: Structural drawings
Trading history
Previous thickness measurements
Condition and extent of protective coatings
Classification status including any outstanding conditions of class
Previous repairs
Typical load conditions and purpose of tanks (i.e. cargo, clean ballast, dirty ballast, segregated ballast)
► Typical defects:Corrosion
Buckling
Cracks
21FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Areas of Special Concern - Cracks
► Longitudinal stiffeners end-connections
►Web frame penetrations
►Bilge keels
►Hoppers
►Horizontal stringer terminations
►Vertical bulkhead stiffener terminations
22FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Areas of Special Concern - Corrosion
►Areas exposed to corrosion:
Horizontal stringers
Longitudinals on longitudinal bulkhead
Longitudinal bulkhead plating
Web frames upper part and close to Longitudinal bulkheads
Cross ties
Transverse bulkhead plating, upper part
►Areas exposed to pitting:
Horizontal surface of stringers
Bottom plating
Bottom longitudinal face plates/flanges
23FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Hull Strength Assessment – Environmental Loads
►Design environmental condition equivalent to a 100-year rp
based on site specific metocean
data
►Metocean
data for transit route to the FPSO final station
► Tank inspection, maintenance and repair conditions combined with
the 1-year rp
site-specific wave loading
►Results:Ship’s motions and accelerations
Relative wave elevation (RWE)
Global hydrodynamic loads (VWBM and VWSF)
►Application:Heading and mooring analysis
Structural strength
Fatigue calculations
24FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Design Load Assessment
Hydrodynamic analysis
3D global analysis
Dynamic loads
Site Specific
Data
3D local analysis
25FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Hull Strength Assessment – Stability & Hull Girder
►
Intact & Damage Stability checked for all operational and maintenance loading conditions
Classification Society production system rules.
IMO intact stability requirements (static and dynamic).
MARPOL 73/78
IMO Mobile Offshore Drilling Units Code.
1966 International Load Line Convention and amendments.
►
Hull girder and hull girder ultimate strength checks
26FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
Multi-step analysis procedure:
2D analysis
3D Coarse Mesh analysis
3D Fine Mesh analysis
►
Limit state check:Corrosion
Fatigue
►
Hull life assessment:Stress levels
Remaining fatigue life
►
Hot Spot map
Yielding Buckling Ultimate Strength Fatigue
Hull Girder
Plating
Ordinary stiffeners
Primary supporting
Structural details
Limit state checks
27FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Hull Monitoring for each InspectionB V
ThicknessUnit History recordedUnit History recorded
Crack on Bracket
Hull Condition Assessment
28FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
FPSO at ConversionFPSO at Conversion FPSO + 15 yearsFPSO + 15 years
AsAs--built Tankerbuilt Tanker
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Corrosion (%)
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Corrosion (%)
Hull Condition Assessment
29FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
Hull Structure
►
Turret Integration
►
Flare Tower
►
Topsides
►
…
Detailed stress analysis
30FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►Deterministic fatigue analysis
Based on site conditions (modification of Rules parameter to take into account hydrodynamic results) – Previously calibrated with SFA
►Spectral fatigue analysis (SFA)
Site conditions
Direct input of loads coming from hydrodynamic analysis and use of scatter diagram
Fatigue Analysis for Offshore Units
31FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Fatigue Strength Assessment
►
Locations -
selection criteria:
BV Rules
Detailed stress analysis
Feedback from experience
Survey records
►
Fatigue Screening
2D analysis
Simplified 3D analysis
32FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Stress Concentration
Before After
Lower Stresses
Detail Design Improvement
33FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
2D Analysis Limitations
Side shell longitudinal stiffeners end connections
Flexural mode Shear mode
34FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Hull + Topsides Integrated ModelHull + Topsides Integrated Model
Adding Topsides on the Deck: Coupling with Hull to be checked
Hull and Topside integrated model
35FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
Spectral Fatigue Analysis
Specific Environmental Conditions
A 5 steps analysis interfacing Hydrodynamic and Structural Analysis
BV methodology calibrated with experience
Methodology
HydrodynamicCalculation
StructuralMesh
Coarse MeshCalculation
Fine MeshCalculation
SpectralCalculation
Spectral Fatigue Analysis for Offshore Units
36FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
1 –
Structural Mesh
VeriSTAR CSM
Complete ship model
Side shell refined near free surface
StructuralMesh
HydrodynamicCalculation
Global ModelCalculation
Fine MeshCalculation
SpectralCalculation
Spectral Fatigue Analysis for Offshore Units
37FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
2 –
Hydrodynamic calculation
Extraction of the Hydrodynamic mesh and Mechanical properties
3D diffraction radiation analysis
StructuralMesh
HydrodynamicCalculation
Global ModelCalculation
Fine MeshCalculation
SpectralCalculation
Spectral Fatigue Analysis for Offshore Units
38FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
3 –
Coarse Mesh Calculation
Complete ship model
Equilibrium between inertia loads and wave pressure checked
Intermittent wetting correction implemented
StructuralMesh
HydrodynamicCalculation
Global ModelCalculation
Fine MeshCalculation
SpectralCalculation
25 frequencies
7 headings (180 to 360° each 30°)
4 loading conditions
Real and Imaginary part
2 cases for intermittent wetting correction
1402 loadings cases
Spectral Fatigue Analysis for Offshore Units
39FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
4 –
Fine Mesh Calculation
Local stress for each loading
Localization of fine mesh based on Hydrodynamic results for acceleration
1402 calculations
Interpolation of stress at weld toe
RAO of stress for wave headings from portside to starboard
StructuralMesh
HydrodynamicCalculation
Coarse MeshCalculation
Fine MeshCalculation
SpectralCalculation
Spectral Fatigue Analysis for Offshore Units
40FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
5 –
Spectral calculation
Based on given environmental conditions
Long term distribution of stress
StructuralMesh
HydrodynamicCalculation
Coarse MeshCalculation
Fine MeshCalculation
SpectralCalculation
Spectral Fatigue Analysis for Offshore Units
41FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
5 –
Spectral calculation
Damage calculation based on Miner law
Fatigue Life / Safety Factors
StructuralMesh
HydrodynamicCalculation
Coarse MeshCalculation
Fine MeshCalculation
SpectralCalculation
Spectral Fatigue Analysis for Offshore Units
42FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Stress Range due to the L/U cycle higher than the Stress Range due to Waves.
stress ranges
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
9.6 12.12 13.12 14.66 15.17 15.66 16.92 18 18.4 19.5 L/U
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
9.6 12.12 13.12 14.66 15.17 15.66 16.92 18 18.4 19.5
Draft (m)
Stre
ss (M
Pa)
CrestTroughstress range
L/U Cycle plays a main role in the crack propagation, being the main driving effect
in those locations where stress ranges due to waves are low.
Relevance of the L/U Cycles
43FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
►
Parameters:
Critical connection details (stress level and fatigue)
Areas corroded or prone to corrosion
Hot Spots (structural analysis results)
0.975
0.950
0.925
0.900
0.800
0.500
0.000
Stress Ratio
0.975
0.950
0.925
0.900
0.800
0.500
0.000
Stress Ratio
0.975
0.950
0.925
0.900
0.800
0.500
0.000
Stress Ratio 310
290270250230210190170150130110908070605040302010
Stress ComponentAll Load CaseGD/Shell SVMM
310290270250230210190170150130110908070605040302010
Stress ComponentAll Load CaseGD/Shell SVMM
310290270250230210190170150130110908070605040302010
Stress ComponentAll Load CaseGD/Shell SVMM
Hull Structural Strength
44FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Continuous Survey Program (Hot Spot Map)
Full Ship model (as-built)
Hull Structure Database
►
Hull structure models and results
►
Material properties
►
Coating condition
►
Corrosion condition
Hull Structure Database
45FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Risk-Based Inspection studies covering hull, topsides and
mooring system
Dalia FPSO (2 mbl) for Total
Floating Production, Storage & Offloading Systems
46FPSO Design and Structural Integrity Assessment – SNAME TEXAS – April 14th 2009
Conclusions & Discussions
►
Regulatory frame impact the engineering work level and Operator effort for regulatory compliance.
►
Hull structure should not have no restrictions on individual cargo tanks (i.e., all combinations of tank usage and tank filling levels shall be possible).
►
Design also to performance (availability of cargo tanks):Facilitate access to tanks and internal compartments
Rational IRM planning
Designed to life time (corrosion and fatigue)
►
Extensive analyses required to address FPSO structural adequacy in during transit and normal operation onsite
►
Short schedule requires use efficiently resources to perform design and engineering verification. Adequate tools and methodologies. Not necessarily the most sophisticated. New developments required.
►
Conversion requires additional verification effort. Source of corrosion and fatigue uncertainties.