Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/144288532/Floating-Production-Systems
Timestamp: 2018-05-23 21:26:51
Document Index: 767508435

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 7', 'art 1', 'art 6', 'art 3']

Floating Production Systems | Tropical Cyclones | Fatigue (Material)
COMMITTEE V.2
COMMITTEE MANDATE Concern for the design of floating production systems. Specific emphasis shall be given to FPSO hulls and the recent industry experience that influences the design methodology. Consideration shall be given to identification and quantification of uncertainties for use in reliability methods.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairman: D T Brown I K Chatjigeorgiou W C de Boom H Nedergaard T Netto K Orbech Nilssen R Li M Wang Y S Won
KEYWORDS FPSO, FPS, floating production, offloading, monohull, semi-submersible, spar, tension leg platform, hull, riser, pipe in pipe, steel tube umbilical, steel catenary riser, mooring, anchor, tether, offloading, LNG, GTL
ISSC Committee V.2: Floating Production Systems CONTENTS 1. 2.
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 65 ENVIRONMENT, LOADING AND RESPONSE.................................................... 66 2.1 Loading and Response of FPS units and components........................................ 66 2.1.1 General ........................................................................................... 66 2.1.2 FPSOs............................................................................................. 67 2.1.3 Spars ............................................................................................... 69 2.1.4 TLPs ............................................................................................... 69 2.1.5 Risers .............................................................................................. 70 2.2 Extreme Environments........................................................................................ 71 2.2.1 Tsunamis ........................................................................................ 72 2.2.2 Hurricanes ...................................................................................... 72 STRUCTURAL DESIGN........................................................................................... 73 3.1 Ship-Shaped Oil FPSOs...................................................................................... 73 3.1.1 Newbuildings.................................................................................. 73 3.1.2 Structural Condition Assessment Candidates for Conversion....... 74 3.1.3 Dynamic Positioning FPSOs.......................................................... 75 3.1.4 Specific Structural Design Issues Related to FPSOs ..................... 75 3.2 Ship-Shaped Gas FPSOs..................................................................................... 76 3.3 Non Ship-Shaped Units ...................................................................................... 77 3.3.1 TLPs ............................................................................................... 77 3.3.2 Semi-Submersibles and Spars ........................................................ 77 3.4 Novel Hull Developments .................................................................................. 78 3.5 Deep Water Moorings ........................................................................................ 78 3.5.1 Catenary moorings ......................................................................... 78 3.5.2 Synthetic fibre moorings ................................................................ 79 3.6 Fluid Transfer Systems ....................................................................................... 79 3.6.1 Metallic Riser Design..................................................................... 79 3.6.2 Flexible Riser Design ..................................................................... 81 3.6.3 Gas Offloading Systems................................................................. 82 CONSTRUCTION...................................................................................................... 83 4.1 General................................................................................................................ 83 4.2 Fabrication Standards, Material Selection and Structural Testing..................... 83 4.2.1 Fabrication Standards..................................................................... 83 4.2.2 Use of Higher Strength Steel.......................................................... 83 4.2.3 Fabrication Inspections and Structural Testing Programs ............. 84 4.3 On-Ground Construction of FPS ........................................................................ 84 4.3.1 Drivers for Development of the On-ground Construction Method...................................................................... 84 4.3.2 Characteristics of the Conventional FPS Construction Method...................................................................... 85
ISSC Committee V.2: Floating Production Systems 4.3.3 On-ground Construction Method ................................................... 85 4.4 Innovative Approaches for FPSO Topsides Fabrication, Installation and Integration ................................................................................. 86 4.4.1 Conventional Topside Fabrication, Installation and Integration ... 86 4.4.2 Development of New Approaches ................................................. 86 4.4.3 Integrated Deck Concept................................................................ 87 4.4.4 Jack-Deck Method ......................................................................... 87 4.4.5 Other Methods................................................................................ 88 4.4.6 Interface Issues ............................................................................... 88
INSTALLATION........................................................................................................ 89 5.1 General................................................................................................................ 89 5.2 Platform and Subsea Hardware Installation ....................................................... 89 5.3 Mooring and Riser Installation ........................................................................... 90 5.4 Reeled Pipe and SCRs ........................................................................................ 90 OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE............................................................................... 91 6.1 General................................................................................................................ 91 6.2 Lessons Learned from Operations ...................................................................... 91 6.3 Inspection, Maintenance and Repair .................................................................. 94 REGULATORY ISSUES ........................................................................................... 96 7.1 General................................................................................................................ 96 7.2 Recent Developments in Coastal (Shelf) State Legislation................................ 96 7.2.1 Global Regulatory Trends.............................................................. 96 7.2.2 Regional Developments ................................................................. 96 7.2.3 Unification of Coastal State Regulations ....................................... 98 7.3 Recent Developments in Maritime (Flag) Authority Legislation....................... 98 7.3.1 New MARPOL Annex 1 Guideline for FPSOs............................. 98 7.3.2 New Air Pollution Regulations (IAPP – MARPOL Annex VI)....................................................................................... 99 7.3.3 International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code............ 99 7.4 Recent Developments by Classification Societies.............................................. 99 7.5 Recent Developments within Standardisation Activities ................................. 100 7.6 Special Regional Legislation ............................................................................ 101 7.7 Areas of Special Interest ................................................................................... 101 7.7.1 Transit Phases............................................................................... 101 7.7.2 Working Environment Regulations.............................................. 101 7.7.3 Floating LNG and GTL facilities................................................. 102 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................... 102
REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 104
ISSC Committee V.2: Floating Production Systems 1. INTRODUCTION
The offshore industry has 250% more Floating Production Systems (FPS) than it did 10 years ago and this strong growth is set to continue. As of April 2004 there were 37 production floaters on order – 26 Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels, 5 spars, 4 production semi-submersibles and 2 TLPs, and 5 storage units (FSUs). This report presents the research and industry experience that has been published on FPS and their components over the relevant 3-year period (mid-2002 through mid-2005). In line with the Committee mandate the report concentrates on work associated with FPS hulls and the recent experience that influences their design methodology. The life cycle of an offshore development, i.e. analysis of environmental conditions and loads, design aspects, construction, installation , operation, maintenance and repair and endof life disposal, are dealt with in this report. The current status of the relevant certification guidelines, rules and regulations are also provided together with recent and future planned changes. The issues that were flagged in the FPS Committee 2003 report as noticeable uncertainties requiring further attention have been considered. Substantial progress was made by the research community and industry with respect to specific localized loadings on FPSO hulls such as green water, sloshing, slamming, etc, offshore production and transfer of LNG, guidelines for fatigue assessment and design together with deep-water applications of various riser arrangements. Additionally the first studies were considered for dynamically positioned FPSOs, without the use of mooring lines. One further observation is that there is an ever-growing trend to satisfy the industry need for rapid development of specific technical knowledge concerning Floating Production Systems by the initiation of research and development via a large variety of Joint Industry Programs (JIPs). Much of this work has been combined within the so-called FPSO Research Forum and Deep Star Projects. The FPSO Research Forum represents a collection of individual JIPs with variable participant groups. The JIPs are organized as stand-alone projects, controlled by steering committees composed of participants. The following subjects are amongst those that are covered: FPSO Structural Integrity, FPSO Fatigue Capacity, Batelle Structural Stress, FPSO Offloading Operability, Green water impacts, Review of mooring failures, Shallow water waves and moorings, Ship motions in relation to sloshing. The Deep Star Forum is a permanent research programme, for which funding is raised via participant membership fees. Through regular meetings participants control the contents and priority of the research. DeepStar has defined a number of example field developments that embrace environmental conditions, water depths and/or technologies, which are beyond current expertise. These include:
cost effective marine operations.e. missing technology associated with these developments is determined and the most important areas for future work are established. However. composite patch repair for FPSO structures. The results of the studies within the above JIPs are restricted to participants for a limited number of years.Gravity Oil) – Pumba Field Using operator interviews. The following sections of the report quote an important number of such publications originating from JIPs.1. 2. utilizing the same principle as DeepStar.2: Floating Production Systems • Gulf of Mexico (HPHT Oil) – Canopy Field • Gulf of Mexico (HPHT Gas) – Diablo Field • Brazil (API 18 . sandwich technology for ship design. Spar vortex induced motions. riser configurations. durability of polyester mooring ropes. Examples where recommended design practice is provided are: higher order wave .66 ISSC Committee V. development of guidelines for reeling of pipelines.Gravity Oil) – Pele’ Field • West of Africa (API 13 . comprising amongst others deep water model testing guidelines. Other recent JIPs include deepwater installation of subsea hardware. 2. which have usually been ignored in the past. and HPHT Dry tree semi-submersibles. installation and operation. In addition to the above JIPS a large Norwegian development program “DEMO 2000” has been developed. defining a number of example field developments and studying the missing technology: • Norway Oil Field to Shore (300 km) – Ivers Field • Norway Gas Host (Remote) – Kniksen Field • Norway Oil Field to FPSO with 400 km gas line – Tommy Field. i.1 2.1 ENVIRONMENT. marginal field concepts. overview publications are prepared during the execution of the projects (when endorsed by the related participants) and results become accessible via more detailed publications and technical papers after expiration of the confidentiality period. These include a wide variety of subjects being considered for the next phase (Phase 8) of DeepStar. etc. riser integrity management. There is nowadays a trend followed by the classification societies to extend the relevant classification notes to include guidance for specific contributions from environmental loadings. LOADING AND RESPONSE Loading and Response of FPS units and components General The successful design and operation of floating production units involves consideration of the environmental conditions and the appropriate evaluation of the environmental loads that prevail during transportation.
Examples are the slowly varying motions of moored floating systems especially in tandem configurations. ship speed and tank filling ratio.2 FPSOs With the trend towards offshore LNG production and offloading.5). The theoretical model was based on potential flow theory. Related to this a JIP has been initiated (SALTSeakeeping Affected by Liquid motions in Tanks) to address the influence of this cargo-hull coupling induced by roll. In the analysis the authors conclude that further work is required to establish an accurate yet robust method for determining the waveinduced stochastic sloshing response reflecting long-term loading characteristics. LNG sloshing motion must be carefully studied to ensure that the tank walls can withstand possible impact loads. joint environmental loads for wind. Of concern also is the effect of the cargo motion upon the response of the supporting vessel itself. important issues are the bottom-soil interaction effects for catenary configurations. run-up and air gap. Gaillarde et al (2004) reported this study. They also suggest that the method should account for variation in significant wave height. This problem has been investigated by Kyoung et al (2005). numerical results being obtained by imposing the exact nonlinear free surface conditions and comparing with those predicted by Morison’s formula. and to a lesser extent sway and yaw.1. There are also additional areas related to the FPSO systems. compression loading at the lower portion of the risers due to vertical motions of the floaters. loads on LNG storage units due to sloshing. Graczyk et al (2005) investigated the problem of determining characteristic extreme values of sloshing pressures for structural design. sloshing of LNG in partially filled tanks has become an important research subject for the offshore industry. current and waves etc. Wemmenhove et al (2005) addressed the two-phase flow that occurs in partially filled LNG tanks using CFD techniques within the ComFLOW JIP. for which on-going research could provide answers and propose procedures for increased safety and improved operation. .ISSC Committee V. breaking waves. of a moored LNG FPSO with partially filled tanks subjected to beam seas. shows strong couplings. With regard to FPS mooring systems and risers. and state that roll. nonlinear sea surface statistics. which is relevant to the design of the FPSO mooring system. Sloshing may induce significant impact pressures on the containment system of the LNG FPSO or carrier. green water loads. mean wave period. The authors concluded that the incompressible two-phase model matched the experimental results more closely and it was suggested that further research is required for developing a compressible two-phase model.2: Floating Production Systems 67 loads. unstable lateral tether response of TLPs. coupled response of terminal and carrier assemblies and effective operation of tug/work boats assisting LNGs. Even the second order drift forces in the transverse direction and the mean second order yaw moment appeared affected. Experimental measurements were compared with predictions obtained by an incompressible one and two-phase model. (reference can be made to for instance RP-C205 updated version of DNV Classification note 30. and VIV effects on Spars. 2.
Both studies underline the importance of appropriate evaluation of the hydrodynamic interactions between the two vessels and especially the second-order hydrodynamic effects.000 dwt FPSO. Other environmental loading and response issues relate to berthing of carriers alongside LNG terminals.68 ISSC Committee V. forecast errors. For solving the first-order radiation and diffraction problems the authors applied a higher-order boundary-element method directly to the whole wetted surface of the two vessels. For the evaluation of the radiation forces and exciting force transfer functions a 3-D sink-source technique was applied. A higher-order boundary element method combined with generalized mode approach was applied for analysing the motion and drift force of side-by-side moored multiple vessels (LNG FPSO. The newly developed Floating Regasification Unit (FRU) concept is considered for LNG import in the US GoM region. and ship dynamics can be a useful tool for design of time and weather-sensitive transits. Ye et al (2005) considered the coupled dynamics of LNG carriers when attached alongside floating re-gasification systems. Ma and Cooper (2005) have considered the transit time of LNG tankers from Western Australia to the Far East concluding that a routing simulator that allows for the influence of weather. Brown and Ekstrom (2005) investigated the performance of thrusters when influenced by adjacent thrusters or by a current field showing that current as well as thruster-thruster interactions influence tug efficiency significantly. Buchner et al (2005) addressed the behaviour of tugs used to assist LNG carriers during berthing and offloading operations. The experimental investigation was performed with a length scale ratio of 1:35 and for the tugs in ‘pull’ and ‘push’ mode. include tug boat assistance for such operations. The second paper addressed the accurate prediction of the extreme excursions and the corresponding forces applied on the moorings in multi-directional environmental conditions. A response-based method was used with calculations for a 200. Specific attention was given to the wave drift forces and moments. . Such a method can equally be applied to transit of FPS hulls from fabrication yard to the field site. In the first paper the authors performed a systematic study on the dynamics of a turret moored FPSO in single and tandem configuration to formulate a control strategy for the shuttle vessel. Publications addressing the response of FPSOs have been presented by Morishita et al (2005) and Mazaheri et al (2005). Side-by-side floaters representing an LNG-FPSO and shuttle tanker system were also studied by Kashiwagi et al (2005). The second-order wave drift forces were computed by the near-field method based on pressure integration.2: Floating Production Systems Hong et al (2005) investigated the interaction characteristics of side-by-side moored vessels using numerical and experimental methods. The same method was also used by Inoue et al (2005) for calculating the hydrodynamic loading on an FPSO-LNG system. LNGC and shuttle tankers).
The observations led the authors to understand that the flow of the water over the deck edge. b) researched the 6 dof coupled dynamic behaviour of a spar platform. and concluded that 3D effects are not dominant. Younis and Przulj (2006) extended an existing method for fluidflow simulations to capture the free surface evolution around a full-scale mini TLP. For example Nielsen et al (2004) used a Navier-Stokes CFD solver with a free surface capturing scheme to model green water loads on a moored FPSO exposed to head sea waves. 2.3 Spars The recent research work on Spars primarily deals with the hull dynamic behaviour. Their solution model was based on common formulations for the stiffness provided by the mooring system and the damping due to hydrodynamic drag. the calculation of damping for low KC numbers and VIV effects. Damping and hull/mooring/riser coupled effects are investigated on the principal Mathieu instability.1. 2. giving special attention to platform-tether coupling. Agarwal and Jain (2003a. resembled a suddenly released wall of water rather than a breaking wave. and on quantifying the effects of the free surface distortion on this loading. In the same context. The CFD techniques described by Kleefsman et al (2005) using a “volume-of-fluid” based description of the free water surface. Tao and Cai (2004) investigated the vortex shedding flow of a Spar type oscillating vertical cylinder with a disc attached at its keel. Koo et al (2004a) treated the problem of Mathieu type instabilities that the Spar may experience in heave. Bhattacharyya et al (2003) studied the dynamic behaviour of the SeaStar mini TLP. The technique was further developed within the ComFLOW JIP for simulating green water flows on decks.2: Floating Production Systems 69 A significant amount of work has been carried out on green water impacts on FPSOs. and onto the deck.1. Yilmaz et al (2003) performed experiments with FPSO models. Chen et al (2006) examined the coupled dynamic behaviour of a mini-TLP both numerically and . are promising. The focus of the work was the prediction of the hydrodynamic loading in turbulent flow conditions. Liang et al (2004) introduced the concept of using a Spar buoy as a floating breakwater and studied the wave reflection and transmission characteristics and the mooring line tensions.ISSC Committee V. Of concern is also the coupled response of Spars with moorings and risers. Korpus and Liapis (2005) applied the computational RANS method (ReynoldsAverage Navier-Stokes) for calculating the vortex induced motions on Spar platforms. For solving the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations they applied a finite difference method. The same authors (Koo et al (2004b)) extended their work by studying the multi-contact coupling between vertical risers and guide frames inside the Spar's moon-pool. The authors reported good agreement between their numerical calculations and existing experimental measurements. with Morison hydrodynamic damping. Tao and Thiagarajan (2003) proposed a quantitative method for identifying the vortex shedding flow regimes and for estimating the heave damping at low KC flows.4 TLPs Work on Tension Leg Platforms includes investigations driven by the increasing use of mini TLPs at marginal water depths.
The paper discussed the general properties of the platform and environmental conditions. clashing with adjacent structures. and compression loading at the lower section due to tension variation along the riser length. surge/pitch and sway/roll coupling together with the frequency dependence of the hydrodynamic added mass and damping coefficients. Lee and Wang (2003) analyzed the wave induced surge motion of a twin platform tension legged structural system. A Mathieu stability analysis was then performed for TLPs of different shapes in varying water depths to obtain the amplitudes of tether vibrations. bottom-soil interaction effects. and the wave kinematics used are sufficiently accurate. omitting diffraction effects.1. In this field Chandrasekaran et al (2006) performed a modal analysis. Recent work addresses the VIV induced hydroelastic response. using a linear cable equation to model the tether. 2. They reported that the wave loads can be accurately predicted using Morison's equation provided that the wave length of incident waves is much longer than the diameters of the columns and pontoons. and included consideration of nonlinear stiffness. together with Ong and Pelegrino (2003)). planned to operate in the North-East of the Marmara Sea. indicating that by ignoring the interaction effects between tethers and waves the wave induced response could be overestimated. The study focused on the influence of hydrodynamic drag and inertia terms. Liagre and Niedzwecki (2003) applied the reverse multiple input/single output (RMI/SO) technique in combination with the dynamic response model of a compliant offshore structure for the identification of the system parameters from real excitation and response data.2: Floating Production Systems experimentally. However applying this work to risers raises issues such as their larger size and finite bend . TLP tethers can be formulated as long slender structures and may exhibit instabilities under certain excitation conditions. Significant progress has been made for cables in this field by Gatti-Bono and Perkins (2004). The analysis was developed around the nonlinear coupled equations of motions for a deepwater mini-TLP design. Chandrasekaran et al (2004) presented the influence of hydrodynamic coefficients on the response of two triangular TLP models. An important issue related to the dynamic response of TLP structures that requires further investigation is the behaviour of TLP tethers due to the heaving motions of the platform. Chatjigeorgiou and Mavrakos (2005) investigated the transverse dynamics of a slender structure representing a riser or a TLP tether using a parametrically excited Mathieu-Duffing oscillator.70 ISSC Committee V. coupled response of risers and floating units. Of particular importance is the structuresoil interaction effect for catenary risers. Additional work appertains to specific types of TLP platforms. subjected to tension varying along its length. therefore the FPS Committee has selected to focus only on specific aspects associated with riser behaviour. Other ISSC Committees report on this work in detail. On the other hand the global research community appears to disregard the influence of riser internal flow. Soylemez and Yilmaz (2003) investigated the hydrodynamics of a TLP offloading platform.5 Risers The behaviour of riser-type structures is a wide area for research as verified by the volume of work regularly published on this subject. quadratic damping.
When considering the design of floating units. that the design wave height for hurricane conditions may need to be increased. This was further amplified because of the 2005 hurricanes (mainly Katrina and Rita) that hit areas in the GoM and caused human casualties and economic loss of enormous proportions. Another complex issue is the effect of soil friction during riser out-of-plane motions. Here the problem of dynamic equilibrium is rather simpler because of the vertical static configuration. An example is the large swells offshore West Africa. Although riser-soil interaction effects relate only to catenary risers. This is caused by the coupling between axial and lateral motions. but at the present causes design uncertainty. However. PM. based on measurements during the Katrina hurricane event. The first paper addressed the soil and bending stiffness effects for bottom lying risers using asymptotic and perturbation methods. The second contribution presented results obtained from the CARISIMA (CAtenary RIser/Soil Interaction Model Analysis) Joint Industry Project for estimating riser-soil interaction effects. The Ochi Hubble spectra. There are first indications. swells have two dominant periods. as tsunamis are less likely to occur and their influence is more severe in very shallow water. This compression is caused because of the variation of static tension along the structure and is amplified at the lower suspended part due to the lower tension there. separate from the wave period. . For ultimate strength design of floaters this is not a problem because it is feasible to identify the worst case from the three highest loading conditions. An additional feature associated with the dynamic response of catenary risers is the possible compression loading which may be experienced due to tangential excitations. such as JONSWAP. 2. for fatigue analysis this issue has attracted much attention. Nevertheless. Examples are the works reported by Pesce and Martins (2004) and Giertsen et al (2004). thus making the static and dynamic formulation more complicated.2 Extreme Environments The December 2004 earthquake and tsunami events triggered intensive study of these extreme phenomena and the impact it could have on hydrocarbon structures. For most areas.2: Floating Production Systems 71 bending stiffness. compression loading may also affect vertical risers.ISSC Committee V. is capable of modeling double-peak phenomenon but not three peaks. The popular spectrum models. ISSC or Bretschneider formulae. it has been observed that these structures may fall into a dynamic instability region despite the effect of hydrodynamic drag. Due to the complexity of the problem there are limited publications during the reporting period. Morooka et al (2004) and Chatjigeorgiou (2004). are incapable of modeling the combined waves and swells. hurricanes appear more important. especially in Nigerian waters. Contributions in this field are by Suzuki et al (2004). Clearly more work is required to quantify the influence of the impulsive loading on the lower portion of the riser structure during soil impact. Moreover there are other natural phenomena not yet fully described which are important from the engineering point of view and which are related to the operation of floating systems.
72 ISSC Committee V.1 Tsunamis According to Sobey (2005) the normal mode decomposition is a useful analysis methodology for evaluating the storm tide and tsunami hazard at a coastal site. In their work the authors considered eleven cyclones. and used the parametric hurricane wave prediction model for hindcasting the wave heights and periods. The reporting period has provided several interesting papers dealing with the development of hurricanes and the impact that they may have on drilling and production units. In this context Rao and Mandal (2005) performed a neural network approach to estimate the wave parameters from cyclone generated wind fields. ocean. Gedik et al (2005) performed experiments in a channel for investigating the tsunami run-up and the erosion area on permeable slope beaches.2. it may be assumed that the study of extreme environments and the possibility of their recurrence will intensify. namely.2 Hurricanes Hurricanes are inevitably important for offshore applications especially in areas such as GoM because of the repeated occurrence of such extreme phenomena. applying their theoretical model to the 2002 GoM Hurricane Lili. coastal. Cho et al (2004) investigated the run-up heights of near-shore tsunamis in the vicinity of a circular island by developing a numerical model based on quadtree grids.2. Kumar et al (2003) presented an estimation of the wave and wind characteristics based on cyclones that hit the east coast of India during 1960-1996. Cheung et al (2003) described a model package that simulated coastal flooding resulting from storm surge and waves generated by tropical cyclones. which crossed the SE coast of India between 1962 and 1979. Hayir (2005) presented the solutions for the near-field tsunami amplitudes caused by submarine landslides spreading in two orthogonal directions. and . 2.2: Floating Production Systems As the global climate continues to alter. and particularly floating offshore structures. The prediction of the normal modes was formulated as a Sturm–Liouville problem. 2. At present this concentrates on an improved understanding of the environment that is extending to include floater global and local response. The author concluded that the normalized peak amplitudes for the models were small because of the interaction of the velocities. The governing equations of the model were the nonlinear shallow-water equations. This consisted of four component models implemented at three levels of nested geographic regions. This report highlights some of the relevant bibliography and provides information related to the recent analysis of extreme environmental phenomena and the aspects that are of concern for the offshore industry. Zahibo et al (2005) demonstrated the role of nonlinear effects on the computed dynamics of tsunami waves in shallow seas and the applicability of the rigorous and approximated solutions of the nonlinear theory of water waves to explain the results of the numerical simulation. Tolman and Alves (2005) presented a continuously moving spatial grid model in order to investigate the wind waves generated by tropical cyclones in deep water away from the coast. The author demonstrated a spectral line plot as a suitable analysis summary for a historical storm tide or tsunami event.
in part. the interest in this detail is understandable. while Phadke et al (2003) compared three commonly used parametric models of tropical cyclone winds and evaluated their application in the wave model WAM. executed in two phases between 1998 and 2003. Lotsberg et al (2004) indicated that fatigue damage of the side longitudinals in a typical FPSO structure.1 3. Because of the nature of these stresses (compressive) actual test results were significantly more favourable than predictions. 3. This JIP also provided numerous interesting papers including Kang et al (2004). for relatively large offshore developments. Work within the FPSO Research Forum. FPSO guidelines generally account for the specific difference between a ship-shaped platform and a tanker: the offshore platform remaining moored on-site for its entire service life and a sailing ship. see Section 1. which hit the Hawaiian Island of Kauai in 1992. The various tasks carried out by the contributors to the FPSO fatigue capacity JIP has led to the issue of a comprehensive report on fatigue design recommendations for FPSOs given by Lotsberg et al (2003). see Section 7 for further discussion. which can undergo repairs during its five-yearly special survey. opening possibilities to cover . They revealed the importance of residual welding stress at the end of the attachment. so that local reinforcement of the hopper joint or weld toe treatment is necessary. after extensive research in the field of structural integrity and fatigue loading. They also applied the model package for hindcasting the wind and wave conditions of Hurricane Iniki. 3. Dong (2004) presented a “new structural stress method”. has focused on fatigue response of FPSO hulls.1. Young (2003) reviewed sea states generated by hurricanes. based on element nodal stresses. The bent hopper detail shows lower fatigue capacity than the conventional welded type.1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN Ship-Shaped Oil FPSOs Newbuildings In recent years newbuild FPSOs are increasingly considered as the preferred operating platform. With regard to fatigue analysis methodology. was significantly more severe in the ballast than the loaded condition. explains why the industry. This. It is no longer necessary to fall back to standard tanker rules for FPSO design. Fricke et al (2004) presented work on fatigue crack initiation at fillet-welds around stiffener and bracket toes. has emphasised this key area. Adequate rules and regulations are provided by the Classification Societies for ship-shaped permanent offshore installations. Since newbuild FPSOs must be of double hull (or at least double sided) construction. Bergan et al (2004) presented a general overview of the FPSO fatigue capacity JIP.2: Floating Production Systems 73 near-shore. considering the fatigue properties of the bent type hopper corner detail.ISSC Committee V. Site specific analysis is accepted as a basis for the structural design of FPSOs.
cathodic protection and corrosion allowance is recommended for newbuilding FPSOs. This Battelle structural stress method. MacMillan et al (2004) presented a comprehensive overview of corrosion related issues. Inspection requirements appear not always consistent with design requirements for mooring chain corrosion. is being studied in the continuing Batelle Structural Stress JIP. as well as fabrication standards. This publication described general design practises and pointed at uncertainties in the quantification of corrosion rates in cold. oxygen-rich waters in a harsh environment. In the study a tanker. as well as in tropical areas having benign sea conditions. The importance of the trade history in the selection of a candidate tanker for conversion is also addressed by Newport et al (2004). 3. and the paper suggested that for FPSO mooring chains the required inspection regime would be reconsidered by the regulatory bodies. showed substantial fatigue damage. They recommended a finite element analysis (FEA) to be the appropriate basis for selection. “Cathodic Protection Design”. Paik et al . Budgetary restrictions as well as project time schedules are driving factors for conversions. DNV’s Recommended Practise DNV-RP-401. considering the anticipated duration of uninterrupted service for an FPSO. Biasotto et al (2005) presented an overview of factors which influence the selection process. the majority of offshore field developments using FPSOs are still based on conversions of existing tankers. The design of cathodic protection (generally composed of sacrificial anodes in tanks and an impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) for the wet hull surface) needs to account for temperature and water depth effects.2: Floating Production Systems welds of various type classification into one master S-N curve. Corrosion of the mooring chain itself is addressed by Wang et al (2004). Apart from fatigue damage. taking into account a sufficient length of mooring chain.1.2 Structural Condition Assessment Candidates for Conversion Although newbuild FPSOs are increasing in number. current drain will most likely occur. They concluded that a combination of coating. and additionally the supporting FEA is time consuming. but its structural condition is one of the major ones. indicating the industry approach to fast track conversion projects. Assuming that the mooring system is not electrically isolated from the vessel. corrosion protection is an important issue. 2005. The analysis has to address previous trade and operating conditions.74 ISSC Committee V. being not always compatible with fast-track conversion projects. Emphasis was given to the history of the vessel. Various criteria play a role in the selection of a trading tanker as candidate for conversion into an FPSO. provides design values. This is information which is sometimes difficult to obtain. which had traded on the TAPS route (Trans-Alaska Pipeline System). Wyllie (2004) described a series of three tanker-FPSO conversions. using a computed equivalent structural stress parameter instead of the so-called hot-spot stress derived by extrapolation of surface stresses towards the weld toe. The ICCP system for the hull needs to be sized.
1. the FPSO concept. TSCF have recently published further guidance on condition assessment and corrosion rates of tanker structures.2: Floating Production Systems 75 (2003) presented a summary of research on time-dependent risk assessment of aging ship structures. The paper compared observations of tanker corrosion rates with databases published by the Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum (TSCF) in 1992. . accounting for degrading structural members. Smedley et al (2004) provided information about penetration depths for collisions at typical energy levels. With emerging solutions based on existing technology. as reported by Hodgson et al (2004) and Fyfe et al (2004). damage and crack records. The research has contributed to a growing understanding of the phenomena of both green water and bow wave impact. are discussed in the paper. Both human and organisational factors together with technical measures. Time dependent variations of ultimate longitudinal strength of ship type FPSOs are studied. use of high tensile steel. Chitwood et al (2005) presented the conclusions of the study. Extensive studies are presented into the ultimate strength reduction characteristics of ship panels that are wasted due to pit corrosion. while case studies of early production and full field conceptual applications of similar FPSOs were presented by Duggal et al (2004) and Poldervaart et al (2004).000 ft water depth.ISSC Committee V. deck buckling strength. In a separate study Soeters et al (2005) reported a successful temporary replacement of offshore production facilities by a full dynamically positioned FPSO in the South China Sea. see TSCF (1997) and TSCF (2002). Snieckus (2004) discussed the scrutiny being given to Suezmax tankers and VLCCs that are prime candidates for FPS duty. which reduce the collision risk. Additionally Vinnem et al (2003) analysed risk of collision between DP shuttle tankers and FPSOs. structure connections. The comprehensive paper comprised mathematical models for prediction of corrosion and fatigue cracking damage as a function of ship age. ‘Red alert’ areas calling for close attention are the number and reputation of previous owners.3 Dynamic Positioning FPSOs Within the DeepStar JIP comparative studies have been made into the application of various platform concepts for Gulf of Mexico conditions.4 Specific Structural Design Issues Related to FPSOs Significant research effort has been devoted to the phenomenon of structural response to impact loading. vessel trading area. fatigue cracking or local denting damage. Potential collision between a shuttle tanker and an FPSO is clearly of importance and is considered in reliability methods for hull design. extent of deck corrosion and coating in water ballast and cargo tanks. appear to be viable competitive options. and for certain field applications specifically the dynamic positioned FPSO concept.1. 3. see for example Wang et al (2003) who studied corrosion rates of structural members in oil tankers. 3. in 10.
Sloshing research. put in operation in 2005.2: Floating Production Systems There has recently been considerable focus on gas production offshore. Lee et al.76 3. Figure 1: Sanha FPSO LNG applications offshore have also received significant R&D attention. together with its storage. The LPG containment system comprises of self-standing prismatic IMO-type-B (SPB) storage tanks. based to a large extent on existing LNG carrier and oil FPSO technology.2 Ship-Shaped Gas FPSOs ISSC Committee V. is on-going and CFD techniques will become viable for use in design. transportation to shore and re-gasification. built of low-temperature carbon steel (design temperature -50 oC). once they are further developed. Further publications on the design of floating LNG production or re-gasification facilities tend to be conceptual/economic overview papers.2. . Ruyter et al (2005) presented an overview of existing floating LPG installations.. Various containment systems are in use for LNG carriers. and work is focusing on the optimum system for operation with partially filled tanks (inevitable during either production or regasification).1. (2005) described the first LNG re-gasification vessel. and described in detail the design of a newbuild FPSO unit. as reported in Section 2.
2 Semi-Submersibles and Spars As with TLPs. but present an ultra deepwater alternative based on conventional steel tendons. in this reporting period. Initial testing is encouraging but further qualification and certification for offshore use is not yet completed. .2 (Sablok et al (2005)). described by Hogan et al (2005). incorporating an oscillation suppression system.3.3 3. The publication indicated that there are still important design challenges for FPS structures. which are higher than usual because the spar is located in an area with high loop currents. the complexity of design details at the riser hull interface being one of the major issues to be tackled. a key part of the overall project.ISSC Committee V. Perryman et al (2005) gave a good overview of the technical solutions adopted. focus on mooring and riser design and VIV response of floater and risers. Worthy of mention is the fabrication of the first-of-a-kind cell spar design for the Red Hawk development. Technical papers are mainly in the field of VIV response. Interface management is important for these projects. needed a careful evaluation of differential pressures inside and outside the strake enclosed volume. In view of increasing water depths. the majority of the research publications about semi-submersibles and spars. has been presented by DeMerchant et al (2005). Furthermore tendon and riser installation and hook-up.1 Non Ship-Shaped Units TLPs 77 In this report period a limited number of publications are attributed to the TLP platform concept. The small number of publications on structural issues do not mean that no structural design achievements are being made. since substructure and platform deck are usually not constructed in the same location. The largest Spar built to date is the Holstein Truss Spar. The strakes. with minimal work on new structural design issues addressed. even when focussing on detailed structural elements. see Fig 3. 3. Sparks et al (2003) described the advantages of carbon fibre composite tendons. These subjects are covered by other sections in this report.3. Leverette et al (2004) acknowledged the progress in development of composite tendons. are strongly linked with the basic design of the units. The structural design of the spar’s helical strakes for vortex induced motion suppression.2: Floating Production Systems 3. novel materials are being studied for the tendons components. The papers mainly describe general project execution overviews.
The material originates from the Floating Production Mooring Integrity JIP. In the Far East a series of cylindrically shaped FPS hulls is being built. the growing dimensions of newbuild FPSOs and in particular LNG FPSO concepts. the sizeable order books of shipyards worldwide. 3. new floater shapes are explored.2: Floating Production Systems Figure 2: Holstein Spar . Application is envisaged in Brazil and in the UK sector of the North Sea.computer image (left) and mating operation (right) 3. their integrity. resulting in reduced structural weight and reduction of fatigue prone details. etc.5 3.5. but also on new applications. The use of concrete materials for hull construction is not novel. Special lightweight concrete is applied between relatively thin-walled steel sheets. The work provides . The renewed interest focuses both on the traditional application of concrete. In 1975 the Ardjuna LPG FPSO was installed offshore Indonesia.1 Deep Water Moorings Catenary moorings A good report of catenary mooring design issues. such as Bergan et al (2005) who presented work on concrete based sandwich structures. It will be interesting to learn more about this kind of novel hull concepts by future reports of their performance. carried out as part of the FPSO Research Forum. causes of failures. was presented by Brown et al (2005).78 ISSC Committee V. see for example Raine et al (2003) describing a concrete LNG FPSO concept. with an oil storage capacity of 300.4 Novel Hull Developments There is renewed interest in the application of concrete for hull construction driven in part by steel construction prices.000 bbls. based on a concrete barge. In addition to materials.
Banfield et al (2005) presented a comprehensive overview of the performance of polyester deep water mooring ropes based on a JIP into “The Durability of Polyester Mooring Rope”.1 Fluid Transfer Systems Metallic Riser Design Steel Catenary Risers (SCR) and other steel riser systems for deepwater applications are nowadays relatively mature solutions. 3. Tanaka et al (2005) and Roveri et al (2005) all presented extensive studies into the lazy wave configuration. Test data suggest that the polyester rope design T-N curve has a similar slope as the steel rope curve. Hybrid riser towers.ISSC Committee V. Steel risers can be arranged in catenary. Franciss et al (2004).6. Hybrid Riser Tower Hybrid riser towers offer significant advantages for riser installation in ultra deepwater and harsh environments. aramid and HMPE ropes are compared and models are provided for strain and creep. Jean et al. lazy or steep wave configurations. to facilitate hook-up and tensioning. the lazy wave configuration has been investigated as an alternative. alternative systems and configurations. Recently. have initiated research in fatigue of mooring chains. Although deep water mooring lines are generally not composed of chain over the full length.6 3. (2005) presented the mechanism of out of plane bending fatigue of an individual chain link as the assumed cause for the failures experienced. and new riser materials such as composite pipes are explored. but the polyester rope has a fifty-fold superior fatigue performance. Brazil.2 Synthetic fibre moorings Polyester mooring ropes are widely accepted for deep water mooring applications. have been proposed as feasible alternatives. such as the hybrid riser tower and sub-surface buoy system. chain may be used for the top section near the floater. In the report period. Work presented by Davies et al (2003) focused on the long term behaviour of synthetic mooring lines under tension. Unexpected failures of chain sections in moorings with high pretension. 3. Internal abrasion appeared to be the only mode of fatigue damage in polyester ropes. key design areas and consequences of mooring failures. despite high cost and complexity of design and installation may represent a good solution. generally for Brazilian conditions. Gonzalez et al (2005) presented the conceptual design of 43 risers for a single FPSO at 1800m water depth at the Roncador field.2: Floating Production Systems 79 support to the industry on how to inspect moorings. Polyester. The first riser tower was installed by .5. Where the free-hanging catenary is not feasible due to high top tensions in combination with high fatigue loading. Large bore specification (high production rates) combined with strict insulation requirements in deepwater applications inhibit the use of conventional systems using flexible or metallic risers.
which can significantly reduce the weight of the structure yet preserving good collapse resistance. More recently. located approximately 100m below the water surface. see Fig 3. Sub-surface Buoy: An alternative method proposed for the installation of SCRs in 1800m water depth. which comprises a metallic inner pipe with an outer layer of composite material.3. ). Structural design and manufacturing aspects of pipe-in-pipe systems are well covered in the literature. to be located at Roncador field. reducing the riserplatform load transfer and allowing the installation of the system before the installation of the production vessel. though further studies must be performed before project execution. connected via a shackle to the riser top and the gooseneck transition piece. This has the advantage of uncoupling the movements of the platform from the risers. as presented by Roveri et al (2005). Reference can be made to Kyriakides et al (2003 and 2004) and Estefen et al (2005). The manufacturing process including adhesion between layers was considered by Pasqualino et al (2005). is the use of a subsurface boy. Composite pipe: A new concept for submarine pipes and risers for deepwater applications is the metalcomposite pipe. see for example Oliveira et al (2005). The system presented utilizes a buoyancy can arranged around the top of the vertical riser. and allows preassembly of the flexible jumper to the gooseneck before deployment of the vertical riser. Amongst the design modifications. as described by Franciss (2005). an 18” OD oil export line of the P52 semi-submersible platform. Earlier designs used a separate buoyancy tank. The concept underwent some changes for application at the Girassol field in Angola (2002). and anchored to the sea bed. The advantage of this structure is that the composite layer provides both thermal insulation and structural strength when coupled with the inner pipe. where three towers have been installed. The proposed arrangement simplifies the interface between the buoyancy can and vertical riser. . Thiébaud et al (2005) reported on a concept to adapt the hybrid riser tower to much deeper waters (around 2500m) and relatively severe environments such as the Gulf of Mexico loop current or hurricane wave conditions. just underneath the gooseneck transition piece to the flexible jumper. the main studies being related to collapse resistance and instability propagation. they proposed the use of the pipe-inpipe technology for combined efficient insulation and structural resistance.80 ISSC Committee V. was designed to operate in a free standing hybrid riser (FSHR) system.2: Floating Production Systems Placid Oil in the Gulf of Mexico in 1988.
indicating that flexible risers are not yet qualified to operate in 2000m. External sheath damage. In order to qualify flexible risers to operate in water depths up to 2000m. (bird caging). see Bectarte et al (2004) and Brack et al (2005). lateral buckling and also rupture of the high resistance tapes.2 Flexible Riser Design Flexible riser durability Williams (2003) presented a flexible pipe integrity review on observed flexible pipe failure modes.ISSC Committee V. 3. These various failure modes and different flexible pipe design are still the biggest limitation for the development of a reliable pipeline integrity management. PVDF (PolyVinyliDene Fluoride) became the industry’s solution due to its chemical stability up to temperatures in the region of 275oF (135oC). often occurs during installation. Technip and Petrobras performed deep immersion performance tests with a 7” and 9” flexible riser in 2000m and 1800m water depth respectively. Results were not conclusive. The results implied that further experimental tests and numerical analysis need to be performed. 2005). the highest rate failure mode. For high temperature environments. Novitsky et al (2003) indicated that dynamic flexible risers are qualified to operate in 1500m water depth.2: Floating Production Systems 81 Figure 3: Sub-surface buoy riser system (Franciss. Flexible pipes for ultra deep water: New technologies are under investigation to allow operation of flexible pipes in ultra deep water. while static flexible flowlines are proven up to 2000m. as summarized in Figure 4. . Some of the failure modes reported in this study have already been solved by the use of a new PVDF resin. Aging of the internal pressure sheath can mostly be attributed to high temperatures and rising water cut.6. The tests showed tensile armour instability problems. Contamination of the armour wires (flooded annulus) can lead to reduction in fatigue life.
comprising of a monopod structure to which the LNG carrier moors.25 Fraction Aged Internal Sheath Pull-out PVDF Birdcaging 0.15 0. the transfer of LPG or LNG is still a significant research topic.2 0. Work by Van der Valk et al (2005) discussed model testing of offloading systems from a weathervaning LNG production unit. which carries the LNG offloading booms hooking up to the carrier’s midship manifold.5m. Both the offloading from LNG FPSOs into LNG carriers as well as the gas transfer in shallower waters from the LNG carrier to a floating or GBS type re-gasification unit have been subject of development studies.05 0 Failure Modes Overbending Ancillary Device failure Ovality/ kink End fitting leak Vent bloackage Others Figure 4: Main failure modes for flexible pipes (Williams (2003)) 3.2: Floating Production Systems External Sheath damage 0. McDonald et al (2004) presented a comprehensive overview of the concepts being developed. swivelling around the monopod. While most of the systems attempt to create a flexible mechanical connection between the LNG carrier and the FPSO or the terminal. Naciri et al (2004) presented an SPM LNG transfer unit for shallow water based on the Soft-Yoke mooring principle. Liu et al (2005) described a recently developed duplex yoke mooring system and conventional boom-to-tanker LNG offloading arms to carry out tandem offloading of LNG in open sea areas with significant wave heights up to 5. progress is also made in the development of cryogenic hoses.3 Gas Offloading Systems While offloading from oil FPSOs has become standard practice.6. see for example Witz et al (2004) and Eide et al (2004). The authors concluded that the technology is ready to be implemented for safe and reliable transfer of LNG in harsh open sea environments. .82 ISSC Committee V. Krekel et al (2004) outlined an alternative single-point mooring/LNG transfer concept.1 0. and a long semi-floating arm.
Higher strength steel 320 MPa) constitutes as much as 75% of total steel weight for FPS. Key industry considerations and recommendations for dealing with these requirements during the fabrication phase are reviewed below. shipbuilding industry has increased the portion of higher strength steel as the basic material in ship construction to reduce cost and also to improve economic performance of seagoing ships. 4.2. Perira et al (2004) also discussed quality acceptance criteria based on the case studies that were collected. classification societies are required to improve the standards and practices.2 Fabrication Standards. Some common aspects or issues of steel fabrication are expected to be covered by the report of ISSC Committee V. In general. More joint efforts by the fabrication industry. development of fabrication standards for FPSOs have lagged the development in design.2 Use of Higher Strength Steel Because the unit price of steel has significantly increased during past few years. This trend has raised concerns of FPS owners and/or operators as higher strength steel has higher strength capacity but its fatigue performance is equal to or only marginally better than mild steel. 4. 4. Many fabrication issues are design. To cope with limited availability of publications. Classification Societies have recently established relevant standards. Material Selection and Structural Testing In general. selection of critical joints. April 2004. Extensive use of higher strength steel can significantly increase risks to hull integrity.1 Fabrication Standards It has been realized that the conventional fabrication standards for trading tankers. Adhia G. Some practices that have been widely applied to trading tankers may not be appropriate for ship-shaped FPS. industry practices in fabrication are that ship-shaped FPS follows tanker standards. eg DNV OSC401: Fabrication and Testing of Offshore Structures.2.3 (Fabrication Technology). Wang and D’Souza (2004) pointed out this issue based on their experience and . owners or operators. are acceptable for the majority of shipshaped FPS but additional or more rigorous requirements may need to be adopted for FPS structures. 4. equipment or facility dependent.1 CONSTRUCTION General 83 This section focuses on construction and fabrication technologies and the new developments that significantly influence FPS construction industry and research.ISSC Committee V. this section focuses on the topics selected below. et al (2004) presented the additional requirements beyond JSQS for the Escravos LPG FPSO. including mis-alignment control.2: Floating Production Systems 4. such as Japanese Shipbuilding Quality Standards (JSQS).
and outfitting by quays has been arranged in a similar manner to the production lines of modern factories which do not allow addition of any unplanned work or delay in any segment of the production line. the work fails to provide a systematic specification of the applicable requirements. This situation has driven the fabrication industry to find solutions that can accommodate the necessary changes requested by their clients and are also capable of helping reduce. In addition to consideration of fatigue. Most FPS owners or operators require that all bulkheads be hydrostatically tested. this practice can be inadequate for FPS schemes that are required to stay on station for long periods without dry docking. However. However.2: Floating Production Systems engineering practices. . erection and assembly in dry dock. Both in air and hydrostatic tests of bulkheads. 2005) allows testing of one selected tank. Availability of dry dock slot has become a key factor for planning of an FPS project and selection of fabrication contractors. This practice may be adequate for trading tankers because they can be dry-dock inspected and maintained in a regular basis. this being representative of a group of similar structure tanks. the very important aspect of welding tests. 4.g. Such changes usually lead to fabrication schedule delays. use of higher strength steel should also take corrosion into account. April 2004.3.3 Fabrication Inspections and Structural Testing Programs More rigorous inspection and testing programs are needed for FPS. a rational approach can be established for appropriate use of higher strength steel. are also not covered in the paper. which negatively impact the yards’ overall production schedule and profit. the impact of schedule delays in FPS construction on shipyard operations and financial performance. e.1 On-Ground Construction of FPS Drivers for Development of the On-ground Construction Method Dry dock schedule for major shipyards have in recent years been so tight that it has been difficult to get a dry dock slot without very early booking. Classification Rules (for instance ABS Steel Vessel Rules. Pereira et al (2004) presented a comprehensive discussion of the issues and requirements for fabrication inspection and various tests for FPS.3 4. Unfortunately. and sensitivity to fatigue loads. if not eliminate. The historic cases presented provide useful experience and lessons learned for fabrication of FPSOs. 4. Production including block fabrication. Work by Adhia et al (2004 & 2004) discussed special requirements for the higher strength steel areas. When structural details of FPS hulls are categorized according to their criticality. which involves filling more tanks.2. as proposed by DNV OS-C102: Structural Design of Offshore Ships. construction of FPS cannot usually avoid changes to design or fabrication or both during the construction phase.84 ISSC Committee V. accessibility.
3 On-ground Construction Method Hyundai Heavy Industry (HHI) Offshore Division decided to resolve the issues by developing a method of FPSO construction which does not require use of dry docks. Alternatively. Figure 5: On-Ground Construction Site . Unfortunately. design and analysis for load-out of the completed FSO to a semi-submersible double barge.2: Floating Production Systems 85 4.3. one of the key operations for this construction method applied to the Amenam FSO project. no thorough description of all method details has been found in public literatures except the brief report by RINA’s The Naval Architect in January 2003. Major interfaces are usually set at the top plate of the module supports. see Figure 5. depending on the contract arrangement and suitability and availability of facilities. Due to the limitation in length of the usable construction area.000 DWT Class Elf Amenam FSO in 2002.ISSC Committee V. The hull was constructed ‘on-ground’ using the traditional block-stacking method and the completed topside integrated with the hull. the hull together with its associated topsides modules was divided into a 138m forward section and a 160m aft section.3. Following the well established modern shipbuilding methods and procedures. 4. Topsides modules are fabricated on the ground in the fabrication yard in a conventional manner. the installation and integration of topsides modules can be carried out in the topsides fabrication yard or in the hull construction shipyard. The completed hull is then towed to the quay side of the integration yard for installation of topsides modules by land based or floating heavy lifting cranes. the fabrication and assembly of FPS and other types of floating offshore structure hulls are carried out in the dry dock of a shipyard by stacking the pre-fabricated unit blocks sequentially from lower to upper levels. Yang et al (2003) presented the methodology.2 Characteristics of the Conventional FPS Construction Method Construction methods for FPS are a combination of shipbuilding and offshore structure fabrication practices. The on-ground construction method that was developed has been applied to construction of the 340.
2 Development of New Approaches The offshore industry developed new lifting based approaches for installation and integration of topsides to overcome the disadvantages of the conventional method. The completed FSO was then loaded out to the semi-submersible double barge (Figure 6d) for float-off in the next step.86 ISSC Committee V. The topsides are built on-ground and fully integrated as a single unit. 4. Installation and Integration Conventional Topside Fabrication. 4. The installation and integration may take as long as 12 months.4 Innovative Approaches for FPSO Topsides Fabrication.4. Loadout. Details of the loadout operations and solutions to the technical critical issues can be found in the paper. Then the forward section was moved transversely to fit up with the aft section for integration of these two sections (Figure 6c).4. and degree of complexity in connections and integrations. .1 Many technical papers have been published describing the conventional method of topsides fabrication. Floatoff consisted of clearing off the decks and progressively ballasting the double barge until the FSO was afloat with adequate clearance between the bottom of the hull and the skid shoes on the barge deck. and Float-off of Amenam FSO (RINA. the aft section was moved towards the quay edge (Figure 6a) with part of this section supported by a temporarily installed support (Figure 6b). Examples of the popular methods include single barge Floatover and Versatruss methods. Finally the barge was towed away. Jan 2003) After completion of the two sections. Maintaining the installation and integration schedule is frequently a critical components in the successful execution of an FPSO project. The “Integrated Deck” (ID) concept was originally developed for fixed platforms. depending on the number of modules. Installation and Integration 4.2: Floating Production Systems Figure 6a Figure 6b Figure 6c Figure 6d Sequence of Section Integration. Thomas (2003) provided a good summary of the method and its drawbacks. the latter shown in Figure 7.
800 tons. The jack legs are lowered down to the sea floor and the module jacked up to allow the barge to be towed away. Two approaches are described below and others will be briefly referred to.ISSC Committee V.3 Integrated Deck Concept The Integrated Deck concept was applied to both the Girassol FPSO and Amenam FSO.2: Floating Production Systems 87 Figure 7: Versatruss Installation of ID to Fixed Platform Starting in the early 1990s. Figure 8 shows a point of the installation sequence.4. Once the construction of the integrated module is completed. . ideas of applying the integrated deck concept to FPSOs have been explored. The topsides were built on a 7m high Module Support Frame (MSF). The modules were lifted onboard the hull deck sequentially and the topsides assembled onboard. The topsides of large FPSOs.4 Jack-Deck Method Thomas et al (2003) described an innovative method for deck integration having some similarity to the floatover approach for installation of an integrated deck to a fixed platform. 4. sufficient for a middle size FPSO topsides to be built as a single unit. using similar approaches for installation of the topsides to the hull. 4. The Girassol FPSO project used a “piece meal” approach for installation of the Integrated Deck onto the hull. it is loaded out to a barge for transporting to the installation site where it is received by the FPSO hull. The maximum allowable weight for an Integrated Module is reported to be in the region of 19. Bang (2002) and Loez (2002) provided general descriptions of the Integrated Deck concept and the installation approach.4. The bottom part of this integrated deck was utilized as a pipe rack for both topsides piping and cargo piping systems. such as for West African fields. After the transportation barge is clear of the site the FPSO hull is towed underneath and the module lowered down until it fully rests on its supports. The Concept has both advantages and drawbacks as described in the papers. These FPS units were both constructed in HHI. may need to be constructed in two or even three modules.
topsides & hull (e. produced water disposal. firewater. etc). 4. swivel and turret transfer aspects) FPSO projects tend to experience significant interface problems due to reasons such as: • • • • • Lack of understanding of scope at the interface areas Failure to identify gaps in work scopes or contract scopes Lack of experience in project teams Inadequate interface management systems Poor communication .g. diesel. topside systems (e. weight control & distribution) Subsea/turret .g. steam. vent & drains.g.6 Interface Issues Interfaces are normally defined as the point where two work scopes meet and data/information needs to be supplied from one interface party to the other.4. Hull vs topside structure (e. and so it is not possible to find publications that describe them in a reasonable level of detail. seawater.5 Other Methods There have been numerous installation methods and the associated design and fabrication approaches proposed by the offshore industry. Many of these are protected by confidentiality. electrical power generation and distribution. load transfer. key interface areas include: • • • Marine vs.4. supports. instrument air.88 ISSC Committee V. topsides installed subsea control equipment.2: Floating Production Systems Figure 8: Concept of Jack-Deck Installation Method 4. flare. For FPS.
The mooring lines were deployed from one installation platform. This section highlights the trends in offshore installation. 5.1 INSTALLATION General FPS installation involves the use of a wide range of technology. only in sheltered waters. steel catenary risers (SCRs) and pipe-in-pipe structures. heavy duty winches are used to lower equipment to the seabed.2: Floating Production Systems • • • 89 Failure to recognise that FPSO projects are different from fixed platforms or a trading vessel Lack of understanding of interdependence between interface parties Components manufactured at different sites or countries to different standards. Consideration should be made towards treating Interface Management as a separate project activity through a hierarchy of interface management activities and documents/databases. the risers installed via a J-lay system. the integrated deck lifted on top of the Spar structure and final hook-up achieved. to date. need appropriate lengths of hoisting cable to reach the seabed in deepwater conditions. as discussed in Section 4. 5. heavy equipment has to be lowered to the seabed. Alternatively.ISSC Committee V. It is noted that as an alternative to offshore heavy lifts. This may consist of templates or similar equipment or suction anchors. It is therefore important that interface data requirements are addressed in contracts and project contracting strategies that reduce the number of interfaces or at least clarify the ownership for the management of interfaces clearly. which can significantly reduce the maximum allowable payload that can be lifted. with focus on deepwater. Large offshore cranes. Additional drawbacks are the self-weight of the cable. nowadays regularly utilized for deep water moorings. and specifically addresses the volume of research to support the reel lay method of pipelines. Most of the research and development publications address capabilities of specialized offshore installation contractor equipment. Furthermore research is being carried out to support specific installation methodologies and its compatibility with the equipment to be installed. from DP offshore service vessels. which are based on multi-part reevings. 5. Dijkhuizen et al (2003) performed a comprehensive overview of installation tasks for the Horn Mountain Spar in 1650m water depth. but have been executed. During deepwater installation. These service vessels show more . integrated deck float-over concepts have been studied. in a single rope arrangement.2 Platform and Subsea Hardware Installation Several papers present the capabilities of integral offshore facility installation vessels.
The installation of the sub-surface-buoy deep water riser arrangement. and straightening processes as applied on the vessel. introduces pipe bending/curvature histories. The industry has recognized that the lowering of heavy objects to the seabed is not a straight forward operation. the line is unreeled. Petruska et al (2004) give a step-by-step. These effects may have an influence in both the ultimate strength and subsequent fatigue performance of the line.1.6. Thus. An example paper of reeled SCR installation (see also Section 5. and growing of eventual welding flaws may occur. which significantly suppresses the top heave motions. distortions in the form of residual out-of-roundness. The paper describes both riser design and installation for the GoM Matterhorn TLP. changes in material properties due to plasticity.4) was presented by Kavanagh et al (2004). straightened. During installation. . The so-called cold core eddy current for which the SCR system had to be designed.4 Reeled Pipe and SCRs One of the most cost-effective installation methods for metallic risers is the reel-lay process. has been extensively investigated and relevant results are now available. the use of SCRs. and then laid into the sea under tension. installation procedure for the polyester mooring of the Mad Dog truss spar with Bugg et al (2004) discussing the regulatory process. as described by Netto et al (2005).2: Floating Production Systems wave induced heave motions than the large semi-submersible crane vessels.. which carry the heavy duty offshore cranes. However. in which pipe segments are welded onshore and subsequently bent over a cylindrical rigid surface (reel) at a laying vessel. implies a careful examination of the possibility of riser failure due to fatigue. The imposed motions at the top of the lowering wire may cause resonant tension oscillations in the wire. Although the pipe is straightened prior to launch. Limited sea conditions and heave compensation in the pull-in wire are considered necessary to make this installation procedure feasible. Standing et al (2004) present the objectives. Over the last 4 years the influence of installation methods.3 Mooring and Riser Installation Deepwater mooring installation often involves nowadays the installation of polyester mooring lines. involving pipeline material and geometric changes. work scope and key findings of this JIP. was outlined by Kvello et al (2003). was an important factor. which will be inevitably subjected to cyclic loading during operation. which are well within the plastic range of the material. residual stresses. Wire failures have been reported due to such resonant behaviour. unbending. 5.90 ISSC Committee V. Landing of the SCRs on the sub-surface buoy is considered the most critical stage of the installation. 5. Dalmaijer et al (2003) investigated an active heave compensation system. the bending. in addition to ultimate strength design. as described in Section 3. and a JIP termed DISH (Deepwater Installation of Subsea Hardware) has been undertaken.
olf.damage to equipment and windows at the accommodation block Hull strength .ISSC Committee V.free turret recommended Turret design . Some people have argued that experience is mainly based on mistakes. as presented by Netto et al (2005). and to gather experience from 20 operating years with FPSOs on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. As expressed by van den Boom et al (2005): “Experience has always been a driver for improvements. 6. entitled “Fracture Control for Installation Methods Introducing Cyclic Plastic Strain .wear in bearings General layout .Development of Guidelines for Reeling of Pipelines”.2: Floating Production Systems 91 DNV. The outcome is a database available on the web at http://www.more effort in design required Capex over-run . Pasqualino et al (2004) showed that the reeling process has little influence on the collapse pressure of reeled pipes even when considering small bending radius (6m).no/lesson/.” 6. after reeling and ageing.cracks in-between tanks Turret location . Safety and Operations Committee. The following issues have been highlighted as the most important (note that a number of these are appropriate because of the severe weather conditions): • • • • • • Green water .better interaction between contractor and company . heat affected zone (HAZ) and welds. Tivelli et al (2005) studied the effect of plastic deformation pattern due to reeled pipes. fatigue life requirements can still be met through appropriate design that considers engineering critical assessment (ECA) analysis for flaw acceptance criteria and fatigue analysis using both S-N and fracture mechanics approaches. the effort expended during design and fabrication are tested and challenged under the “real” conditions for the first time. Wastberg et al (2004) summarized these guidelines. The results and outcome of these tests are therefore vital for gathering experience. The committee recognized in 2001 the need to capture lessons learned during several North Sea FPSO projects during the 1990s. which was set up under the sponsorship of the OLF Health. Tivelli et al (2005) and Torselletti et al (2005). 6. Others have stated that there is no such thing as a ´bad experience´ as we always learn from them. Although the reeling method affects the fracture mechanics proprieties of the base metal. A Norwegian example of such is the FPSO Experience Transfer network. setting standards that form the basis for future projects.1 OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE General Once an FPS is operational. TWI and Sintef conducted a Joint Industry Project.2 Lessons Learned from Operations Experience derived from floating production operations are drawn upon by national or operators associations.
from Jenman et al (2005) . emergency disconnection.no evidence that FPSOs are less safe than other offshore installations In situ repair and modifications .uk/issues/fpso/. design guidance notes.92 • • • • • ISSC Committee V. see Jenman et al (2005).ukooa.g. The association of operators on the UK continental shelf.co. An additional source of operational data and lessons learned is included in the report on incidents related to FPSO offloading to shuttle tanker in the UK sector. UKOOA has also established a committee to deal specifically with issues relating to FPSOs and other floating structures. minor pollution Position excursion causing emergency shut down Station keeping problem causing concern Figure 9: FPSO offloading incidents per year for UK sector distributed on the defined categories.too few beds for e.marine standards assume periodic visits to port & dry docking. UKOOA FPSO studies includes among others. The report deals with four categories of incidents: I II III IV Loss of Life or major pollution Collision with loading point. maintenance crew Uptime performance .2: Floating Production Systems Compression problems .excellent but often due to significant unscheduled modification/repair Safety . flexible pipe assessments and incident reports.due to undersized gas-scrubbers Accommodation . all available on the web at http://www.
wind and current) exceeded the 100 year event. based on operational data. Brown et al (2005) concluded that the wear can be larger on the leeside mooring chains than the windward lines. indicates that no fatalities or major pollution incidents (category I) occurred for the observed period. Knowledge about the corrosion rate of the hull is also important at the design stage. a possibility for some mature fields. Brock (2003) carried out work describing the transition of the Auger TLP from field development to tie-back host. thus seen as a positive tendency.2: Floating Production Systems 93 Fig 6. The current trend whereby operators supply data that has been compiled is very positive. Data for explosion recurrence modelling based on field data was investigated by Yasseri et al (2004). which requires collaboration between industry and the different educational institutions. A comprehensive guideline including operational experience for corrosion prediction and protection is given by MacMillan et al (2004). In a comprehensive study Idsøe-Næss et al (2005) report on operator experience of anchor systems in Norwegian waters indicating that recent anchoring incidents are caused by a number of factors including failure to organise work or responsibility appropriately. Such data are very useful for developing probability based design studies and inspection planning methods.1. Morandi et al (2004 and 2004) established detailed response data and comparison with design values for the Brutus and Typhoon TLPs exposed to Hurricane Lili.ISSC Committee V. the measured tendon tension was within the design values. The likely explanation was indicated to be the conservatism in the standard design assumptions such as peak environmental conditions lasting 3-hours. FPS exposed to hurricanes may yield important data with respect to design load and response. wind and current directions. Hall (2005) has assessed data from 29 FPS schemes and draws the conclusion that mooring chain elongation is most significant at the touch down position and at the surface. Morandi et al (2005) discussed the importance of skilled and well trained personnel for deep water FPS. The key issue is that the requirements call for multi-skilled personnel. . Tahar et al (2005) examined mooring data for a spar platform. Despite the fact that the environmental conditions (wave. The availability of data is valuable for design of new structures or modifications of existing vessels. recommending that the friction in fairleads should be included when modelling the mooring system for response analysis. deficient training and failure of equipment. Garbatov et al (2005) presented a study where service measured data were used as a basis for a corrosion wastage model. stationary narrow-banded process and constant collinear wave. however a number of collisions occurred! The significant increase in category IV incidents is considered to be due to improved reporting and awareness.
from UK sector.3 ISSC Committee V. Figure 10: Spread of failures/defects on six selected FPSOs. compared to that traditionally experienced by the shipping industry.2: Floating Production Systems Inspection. FPS are normally planned to have a full service life at location of the order of typically 5 to 20 years. This requires a different mindset regarding inspection. Maintenance and Repair Unlike normal vessels that regularly enter port and periodically dry dock. based on incident reports compiled by Lloyds Register (2003) . maintenance and repair.94 6.
Inspection and monitoring of deep water risers has been described by Chapin (2005) and Thethi et al (2005) both authors discussing problems associated with ROV access to the risers in deep water. Nowadays. Regarding flexible pipes. Inherent in the method is that improved inspection which results in lower probability of undetected defects will be valuable. where welding is substituted by the use of elastomers and sandwich plates. Marques et al (2004) investigated use of a specially designed ROV to inspect of the bottom shell plates of an FPSO. Bayesian updating (Straub and Faber. However. the somewhat poor defect detection capability of existing inspection techniques.2. and the lack of broad longterm inspection data hamper the development of an effective RBI planning for their integrity management. Field maintenance experience was reported by Hoppe et al (2004). drive down operating and maintenance costs and disseminates the lessons learned. Here incident information was collected and compiled from a series of operators with the objective to improve safety. An example of how to avoid “hot work” during operation has been described by Kennedy et al (2003). 2005) is a potential tool for reducing uncertainties in RBI planning of such structures. allowing production to be maintained. Risk based inspection (RBI) planning can establish a cost-effective inspection strategy while maintaining the desired level of safety. Li et al (2004) and Ku et al (2005). Marshall et al (2005) described experience gained through inspection management for a fleet of spars. and Newport et al (2004) gave valuable information on the inspection and repair of local cracks in FPSO tank structures. Although generally an FPS is maintained and repaired on location. A monitoring programme consisting of measurement of the riser topangle and related design analysis combined with a fatigue monitoring system has been described by Vogel et al (2004). the solution being to reduce stress concentration factors by modifications in the field. The essence of RBI planning is to express the cost of inspection. Further description and application of risk based inspection can be found with Holdbrook (2004). Though not yet applied for flexible pipes. repair and inspection best practice on the UK continental shelf. Assessment of FPSO fatigue by Hoogeland et al (2003) highlighted the necessity of improved models for prediction of loading at structural details and Sigurdsson et al (2004) gave associated inspection planning examples. despite the higher costs. a large portion of operational cost is devoted to inspection and maintenance. Soeters el al (2005) described a project where an FPSO is exchanged with another during necessary maintenance in dry dock. Detailed incidents reports are included within the study. FPS repairs are normally carried out on location at the same time as processing hydrocarbons. 2003). This relies heavily on operational data and its open sharing within the design community.2: Floating Production Systems 95 UKOOA commissioned Lloyds Register (2003) to undertake a study into FPSO maintenance. it is noted that the main difficulty is to establish the probability functions with adequate accuracy. . the complexity and variety of these multi-layer structures with their interacting failure mechanisms (Williams. this process being well described by Goyet et al (2004). repair and failure in probabilistic terms and establish the optimum inspection plan.ISSC Committee V. as indicated in Fig 6.
FPS schemes can operate locally without being flagged/classed. Here the principle relationships between the different regulators as applied to FPSOs are outlined.2. Norway also plans to introduce an approval scheme for FPSOs from 2006. and partly also Canada where studies in goal setting direction are underway. and one of its advantages is that a general acceptance of the unit is obtained from the . however production plant and working environment issues still need to comply directly with the Petroleum Regulations. generally move from prescriptive regimes to risk based goal setting regulations based on operators’ total responsibility and applied self-control. This is called “Acknowledgement of Compliance” (AoC). often refer to maritime codes.96 7.1 Global Regulatory Trends New provinces tend to seek to develop and implement relative prescriptive regulations based on industry “best practice” relying much on class/flag for floating units. 7. on the other hand. flag state. international and national standardisation bodies as well as regional directives.1 Regional Developments Norway The new regulations in force from 2002 introduced significant changes related to regulation of floating units. The primary reason for this change is probably related to wanting to attract more units to the NCS and reduce the amount of costly upgrading of international units before being allowed to operate.2 7.2. Priority areas of future interest are suggested in section 8.1 REGULATORY ISSUES General ISSC Committee V. More mature provinces. Australia. class. unless specifically required by the coastal state. The scheme is in operation for drilling units. Examples of such mature provinces include Norway. 7.2: Floating Production Systems FPSOs are subjected to regulation and standardisation by the coastal state.2 Recent Developments in Coastal (Shelf) State Legislation The overriding and governing legislation for an FPS will be those of the Coastal State in the area of operation. rules and standards with respect to maritime aspects of floating units.2.2. 7. Coastal regulations will. Typical examples are the West-African states. however. since these are regarded as the industry standard within these areas. This applies to aspects of maritime nature. and recent regulatory and standardisation developments and trends are reviewed. UK. 7. Flagged and classed floating units may now be accepted on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) based on compliance with maritime rules and standards as an alternative to meeting the petroleum regulations.
but MMS indicates that they are ready to accept applications.2. thus avoiding expensive and time consuming re-qualification of the unit for every new job and/or re-entry to Norwegian waters. No FPSOs have.ISSC Committee V. the more important of these being: • • • • • • RR 324: Steep wave impact pressures and the structural dynamic response of FPSO (2005) RR 047: Analysis of accident statistics for floating monohull and fixed installations (2003) RR 083: Margins of safety on FPSO hull strength (2003) RR 095: Accident statistics for floating offshore units on the UK Continental Shelf 1980-2001 RR 113: Operational safety of FPSOs shuttle tanker collision risk summary report (2003) Analysis of green water susceptibility of FPSO/FSU’s on the UKCS (OTO 2001/005) No specific legislative actions/changes have emerged as a result of these studies. Local regulators expect operators to use their “best practice”. 7. been approved for operation in the Gulf of Mexico so far.2 UK Following several problem issues with FPSOs operating on the UK shelf during the 1990s.3 US A decision to formally allow FPSOs in US waters was made by the Mineral Management Services (MMS) in January 2002.2: Floating Production Systems 97 regulator. environment and fiscal revenues.2.4 West Africa Present legislations are prescriptive and include aspects of safety. 7. 7. the HSE has expressed concern about the adequacy of maritime standards applied to FPSOs. Up until recently FPSOs have not been allowed in the US GoM.2. designers and operators ensure that findings and recommendations in the reports above are adopted.2. but HSE expects that FPSO owners. FPSO solutions are expected to become more interesting in the future as development move out to deeper waters where there is no pipeline infrastructure. particularly related to green sea impact and cracking in ballast tanks. especially on resource management. Several studies have been commissioned by HSE.2. but also on HSE . Young regimes seek advice from more mature sectors. The MMS has considered FPSOs for some time and released a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the potential use of FPSOs in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico in February 2001.2. however.
3 Recent Developments in Maritime (Flag) Authority Legislation Production/storage units do not generally need flagging. Individual coastal states may however require FPSOs to be flagged and classed. 7. as MEPC/Circular 406. but are free to move in international waters when flagged. This is particularly relevant for drilling units. 7.2: Floating Production Systems issues. but also challenging for FPSOs on short or medium term contracts. Existing units and conversions do not need to comply with the double side requirement.98 ISSC Committee V. The most important issues of the new guidelines are the following: • • • New purpose built FPSO/FSOs shall have double sides. but need not have double bottom. and provide a long needed uniform interpretation of the application of MARPOL Annex 1 (Oil pollution) to FPSOs. Behind the project stood both industry and the coastal state regulators. As an example Nigeria is planning to ban flaring. Existing pre-MARPOL single hull tankers can in future still be converted to FPSO/FSOs. The results may also benefit the free movement of FPSOs across borders. and units moving among several states are therefore subjected to a complex and costly compliance process. These were issued in 2003. Storage and Offloading Facilities (FPSOs) and Floating Storage Units (FSUs)”. This has already proved to become a popular re-use of old tankers which are being phased out because they are no longer allowed to trade as tankers any more due to stricter MARPOL tanker requirements. Current practice for all FPS schemes is to comply with the maritime safety regime (flag and class). .3 Unification of Coastal State Regulations Coastal state regulations have no common denominator. The degree to which IMO guidelines are enforced for FPSOs depends on the flag state. an approach which appears to satisfy local authorities and ensure a licence to operate is obtained. 7. For drilling units a project was undertaken in the period 2001-2003 to harmonize legal requirements and make uniform approvals for drilling units following concerns about the difficulties in moving rigs across North Sea coastal state borders.1 New MARPOL Annex 1 Guideline for FPSOs The most important development happening within the last 3 years has been the development and issue of new IMO “Guidelines for the Application of the Revised MARPOL Annex I Requirements to Floating Production.3. the North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum (NSOAF).2. and may vary from state to state.
3. This may have been true in the early days of the FPSO and for some converted tankers. recommends that coastal states should consider establishing appropriate security measures on location. cranes and marine services. engines directly linked to drilling equipment) 7.3 International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code This code applies to offshore units in transit. however. which have resulted in state-of-the-art dedicated FPSO and MOU rules and standards.4 Recent Developments by Classification Societies All major class societies offer classification services for FPSOs and BV. but not at the offshore location. . No specific coastal state legislation has been issued yet. This may cause restrictions on allowable topside loads on smaller size (Aframax) FPSOs that were originally designed according to MODU code requirements. New builds delivered after 19 May 2005 will need to obtain an IAPP Certificate at delivery. Flag authorities require flagged units to be classed. FPSOs/FSOs contracted.3. Coastal state regulators and oil majors often state that class rules applied for FPSOs are in practice ship standards not particularly suitable for the purpose. the major class societies have performed and are continuously carrying out extensive rule development within the floating offshore unit area. ABS and DNV have dedicated rules and standards for FPSOs. 7. 7. while engines only used for drilling and processing related activities are exempt (e. or converted before August 2005 need not be upgraded. The extent of application for offshore units is likely to include engines used for propulsion. mud/cement pump engines.2: Floating Production Systems • 99 MARPOL damage stability requirements shall apply to FPSO/FSOs. station keeping.ISSC Committee V. but through extensive feed-back and lessons learnt. The Guidelines recommend adoption by member states within 2 years. The code. Fixed and floating drilling units and other platforms (incl. LRS. Existing units will need to be certificated by 19 May 2008. The Code applies for: • • All new and existing ships (including barges) of 400 gt and above. Class societies are probably the only organisations where rule/standards for FPSOs are developed and improved on a continuous basis. and most of them refer to class as the recognised standard for maritime aspects of FPSOs. Coastal states may require class.2 New Air Pollution Regulations (IAPP – MARPOL Annex VI) This is a new provision for air pollution prevention which came into force in May 2005. built.g. FPSOs).
2: Floating Production Systems Examples of recent FPSO relevant class publications are: • • • ABS Guide to Building and Classing Floating Production Installations.100 ISSC Committee V. American. ISO. Once issued. last issue August 2005 Lloyds Register “Rules and Regulations for the Classification of a Floating Offshore Installation at a Fixed Location. CEN. and most regulatory bodies will refer to them as recognised codes. latest edition October 2003 (new edition in 2006) DNV have issued dedicated publications to cover this aspect of additional verification to shelf requirements based on class: • • DNV-OSS-201 “Verification for Compliance with Norwegian Shelf Regulations . thereby enabling new technology to be quickly applied. thus assuring good co-operation between ISO and API. March 2001 Class societies carry out extensive JIP projects and in-house R&D.5 Recent Developments within Standardisation Activities Apart from class societies. NORSOK. CENELEC) • National standards (e. recommended practices and industry guidance. July 2003 DNV-OSS-202 “Verification for Compliance with UK Shelf Regulations. API.g. European and other standards bodies adopt them for regional and national use. API has the chairmanship of TC67. EMUUA) International standardisation mainly takes place within ISO and IEC. BS.g. a range of standards that influence FPSO design. fabrication and operation are: • International standards (e. 7.g. IEC) • Regional (European) standard (e. 1999 DNV “Rules for Classification of Floating Production and Storage Units”.g. and are assisting the industry by turning the results of these activities into useful industry practice through new rules. FPSO relevant standards are primarily the responsibility of ISO the Technical Committee (TC) 67.Offshore production installations . NS) • Industry standards (e. FPSO related ISO standards which have been recently issued include: • ISO/ISO 10418 .Basic surface process safety systems (2003) . The international oil and gas industry and national standardisation organisations support these standards.
Class normally include the effect of such loadings in their approval basis. a large degree of uncertainty among regulators as to what extent the directives shall apply.Specific requirements for offshore structures .Specific requirements for offshore structures .Specific requirements for offshore structures . There is. while independent voyages require the unit to have valid maritime certificates. 7. requiring significantly more investment at the design/engineering stage.Part 5: Weight control during engineering and construction (2003) Standards developed and now underway through the hearing processes are: • ISO/FDIS 19901-1 . 7. For FPSOs we normally see that the units are issued with voyage certificates as bulk carriers.7. however. There are to date no common international standards which cover the area adequately.6 Special Regional Legislation Regional legislation such as the EC directives will impact on FPSOs located within the European Economic Area.Part 3: Topsides structures • ISO/FDIS 19901-7 . but no verdict has been reached to date. .7 7.1 Areas of Special Interest Transit Phases Tows may be regarded as temporary phases where the unit does not need any formal certificates. Current practice appears to be that the industrial part (process plant and associated equipment) of the FPSO must comply with the directives. Discussions are ongoing among regulators about a uniform interpretation. An important aspect of the transfer is the loading conditions which apply to the unit.Specific requirements for offshore structures .2 Working Environment Regulations The local working environmental regulations may have a strong influence upon the size of the FPSO.ISSC Committee V.Part 1: Monohulls.Floating offshore structures .Part 7: Station keeping systems for floating offshore structures and mobile offshore units • ISO/DIS 19904-1 . These may be significant and should be included in the design basis for the unit.Part 1: Metocean conditions and criteria • ISO/CD 19901-3 .2: Floating Production Systems • • 101 ISO/ISO 19900 .General requirements for offshore structures (2002) ISO/ISO 19901-5 . Unfortunately these requirements are often introduced late in projects with subcontractors not having knowledge about them. Semisubmersibles and Spars • ISO/CD 19901-6 .Part 6: Marine operations 7. while the maritime parts are exempt.Specific requirements for offshore structures .7. The main message is that these aspects must be properly understood and clarified at an early stage of the project.
102 ISSC Committee V. and Classification of Gas Export and Receiving Terminals”. 8. planned for issue in 2009. and green water effects on hull and deck equipment in high sea state locations. wind and current in terms of both magnitude and direction. As highlighted in the ISSC FPS 2003 Report further study and measurement is still required to quantify the joint occurrence probability of extreme waves. a number of offshore import terminals are currently being proposed. ISO has a new Arctic Structures Standard underway. Guidance Notes. Similarly the need to develop associated and stranded gas in remote locations has encouraged the consideration of offshore LNG production and export terminals. and IMO has issued new guidelines for Arctic shipping. installation and operation of floating production systems. construction. RECOMMENDATIONS This section suggests areas where future research work would be beneficial in reducing uncertainty in the design. Cert. Drilling operations in the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea . 2002 ABS Guide for Building and Classing Offshore LNG Terminals.2: Floating Production Systems 7. 2004. Development of new offshore fields in or near to Arctic areas will pose severe requirements on the safety and reliability of floating units in these environments. multi-peaked wave spectra offshore West Africa. A draft for a new EN 1474 Part III: Offshore Transfer Systems will be ready for industry hearing by the end of 2005. Further research should also be carried out on the quantification and use in design of loop currents in the Gulf of Mexico. January 2005 DNV-OSS-103 “Rules for Classification of LNG/LPG Production and Storage Units”.3 Floating LNG and GTL facilities With the growing worldwide demand for natural gas and the difficulty in finding and permitting onshore sites. Standardisation is also taking place within CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) for offshore gas loading arms. construction and verification of such facilities.7. May 2001 DNV-OS-C503 “Concrete LNG Terminal Structures and Containment Systems”. Class societies have met this challenge by introducing publications for design. These are: • • • • • DNV-OSS-309 “Verification. together with safety considerations. October 2004 LRS Classification of Offshore LNG Production and Storage Installations.
Conversely as offshore drilling continues to set new boundaries in terms of ultra-deep water there continues to be demand for research allowing the design. which has proved to be difficult to enforce in practice. Here the objective is to obtain a target level of reliability. Further work is needed in these important areas. are all areas that would benefit from future research. Because of the numerous interfaces between FPS components (eg topside. Although FPS schemes are regularly considered in shallow water there appears to be little work or guidance on the issue of ‘squat’ in extremely small water depths. Though computationally time consuming LRFD shows high potential and has been documented in certification rules and guidelines. The structural response of the integrated deck. hull. More work is required to quantify the occurrence frequency and influence of the impulsive loading on the lower portion of riser structures during impact with the soil. It would be useful if methods and tools were developed to ensure that interface data requirements could be addressed in an improved manner with the aim to reduce the number of interfaces. In the reporting period there were a limited number of papers documenting FPS responsebased design methods and results.2: Floating Production Systems 103 have been initiated with a zero pollution philosophy. Approaches allowing consideration of each segment of the transportation route have been reported and further studies will contribute to the significant progress being made in this area. Construction techniques increasingly involve the fabrication and mating of integrated decks or modules rather than conventional modularized hull components. there appears to be only limited work carried out on the development and use of LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design) methodology. manufacture and installation of suitable production schemes and the associated sub-surface riser. The influence of riser internal flows on their local structural response has also been neglected. However further work is needed in this area to understand the behaviour of this in the field. or at least clarify the ownership of interfaces more clearly. Similarly. There is renewed interest in the application of concrete for hull construction including lightweight concrete applied between thin-walled steel sheets. and this can lead to overconservative structural design and build detail. umbilical and mooring architecture. seabed) FPS construction projects tend to experience significant interfacing problems. At present development of a robust and workable method is more crucial than analysis of individual load cases. as indicated in the 2003 report. to achieve reduced structural weight and fatigue risk. operability and availability rather than a ‘storm-level’ based design approach. including the influence of its deformation and deflection on topsides piping systems. In a similar . marine. This will likely follow through to similar requirements for FPS operations and at other locations worldwide. water column. and the increased stiffness relative to the traditional modular design.ISSC Committee V. In many FPS developments the transportation loads govern.
Industry demand for FPS schemes continues to accelerate for both conventional and new designs operating in an expanding range of water depths and environmental conditions to produce an increasing variety of hydrocarbon products. thus forming a more “optimal” maintenance strategy. OTC – Offshore Technology Conference. Additionally with the present day and anticipated future accelerating requirement for environmentally friendly gas. . With the key drivers of improvements in safety and efficiency further emphasis should be placed in the future on the development of research results in a form more accessible for use in reliability based methodologies. DOT – Deep Offshore Technology.Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. in the future. such as the large cylindrical hull design envisaged for application in Brazil and in the UK North Sea. REFERENCES The following conference publications are denoted as indicated: OMAE . as these are increasingly being employed both by the classification societies and the offshore industry to quantify and minimize uncertainty. ISOPE – International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers. Previous databases have for example pointed to requirements to consider ballast tank failures at an early design stage. Furthermore such data are useful as input for probabilistic methods allowing risk based inspection planning.2: Floating Production Systems vein industry has expressed a need for further research on the standardisation of systems and equipment. The application and benefits from the use of RCM should be investigated. This is likely to be followed shortly by Gas to Liquids (GTL) floating facilities processing both hydrocarbon and petrochemicals on a single floating platform. layout problems with generators. Ideally these should be made freely available allowing further improvements in safety and efficiency. exhaust/flare radiation and workshop/store locations. In terms of FPS operations there is a need for the development of additional comprehensive databases that capture operational experience. amplified by recent ‘no flaring’ requirements. where the importance of each component of a system is balanced with the probability of failure. Although monohulls continue to be the most popular concept for new developments. together with the occurrence and consequence of collisions between FPS and offloading tankers. Work on Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) for FPS schemes. turret bearing/swivel issues. Further work will.104 ISSC Committee V. appears not to have been considered during the reporting period. various innovative floater shapes are being considered. internal cracking between tanks. excessive roll limiting operations. be required on all aspects of the life cycle of these new concepts. LNG storage and re-gasification units (LNG FSRUs) are being designed and constructed.
Adhia. Vessel thuster-thruster interactions during azimuthing operations. Sandwich Design: A solution for marine structures?. OMAE 67404. (2005).G. F. and Ekstrom L. Bhattacharyya.M. principles and benefits. Sreekumar. R. V. OMAE-FPSO 0012. Selection of Trading Tankers for FPSO Conversion Projects.. G. O. Instability of tensile armour layers of flexible pipes under external pressure. D. T.B. P. bending.. Proc. (2003) Auger – an asset in transition.and Bakken.. Ocean Eng. OTC 16706. and Nataraja. OMAE Specialty Symposium on Integrity of Floating Production. A. and Dorchak. American Bureau of Shipping (2005). and Waals.. Proc. Pellegrino. Awashima.A. (2006). A. Banfield. Kakimoto. D. G. Troina. USA. M.K. S. Proc OTC 16089. Buchner.. Proc. Bang. 30. The behaviour of tags in waves assisting LNG carriers during berthing along offshore LNG terminals. and Jain. (2002) Girassol: The FPSO Presentation and Challenges. Bergan. Bonniol. Storage & Offloading (FPSO) Systems.. OTC 15111. Advances in fatigue Assessment of FPSOs. Proc. and Lotsberg I. S. 30. Proc. USA. A. Marr. A. G.. Jahre-Nilsen. 517-551. and Pellegrino..R. OMAE 67219. Casey. Hall.H. P.. OMAE FPSO 0090. Part 3 Section 3. and Ando. and Souza. OTC 17510. P. R. OTC 17506. (2004). Eccomas Marine.J. Ocean Eng. standards and lessons. (2001) RBI planning for pipelines. USA. Agarwal.K. L.K. Houston.. Oslo. Proc. Marley. P. (2003a) Dynamic behaviour of offshore spar platform under regular waves.J.O. P. Houston.K.K. USA. A. Bectarte. and Cambos. Bjornoy. OTC 17499. Bergan..F. Proc. M. Snell. Chandak. and Coutarel. Brown D. Proc. Ocean Eng.. (2005). K. N. Houston. 30. Mad Dog Project: Regulatory approval process for the new technology of synthetic (polyester) moorings in the Gulf of Mexico. D.M.. (2005) Floating production mooring integrity JIP – key findings. B. Computational Methods in Marine Engineering. Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels. G. V. R.. 709-737. Ocean Eng. Dierx. Vickers. and Anupam. (2004). Proc. Brack. OMAE 51352.. Texas. Durability of polyester deepwater mooring rope.D. S. Brown M. Owner and shipyard perspective on newbuild FPSO contracting scheme. P. Proc. Proc OMAE 67500. Biasotto.2: Floating Production Systems 105 Adhia. Ximenes. (2003b) Nonlinear coupled dynamic response of offshore Spar platforms under regular sea waves. (2004). O. Chandrasekaran. Proc. and Jain. S. OMAE 4007.L.G. Proc. M. S. and Idichandy. (2005). Stability analysis of TLP tethers. S. (2005). N. Houston.R. Bugg. Williamson. J.G. and torsion in ultra-deep water depths. 33. OTC 14172. Practical considerations in the design and construction of FPSOs..ISSC Committee V.T. . Flexible riser resistance against combined axial compression. Agarwal. 471-482. Y.T.. (2004). (2004). M. C.J. (2005). T. Brock V. (2003) Coupled dynamics of SeaStar mini tension leg platform.C. (2005).. Proc. C. 487-516. June. Norway.
and Matos.-M. K. Proc.. 93-117. (2003). Jain. A.106 ISSC Committee V. Eide. (2005) Inspection and monitoring of Girassol hybrid riser towers.J. Bunsell. A. P. 31. Ocean Eng.. Marseille.K (2004) On the parametric excitation of vertical elastic slender structures and the effect of damping in marine applications. P. Heave compensation system for deep water installation. and Teigen... Cathodic Protection Design. Wei.. Douyere. J... and Francois. OTC 17200. and Nakazaki.R. Lopez-Cortijo. F. A. Proc.. Y. DNV Classification Notes No. H. A. and Chandak.000 fsw GOM field development.. Chatjigeorgiou.. M. 26.R. Ding. 30. USA. USA. Z. (2004) Influence of hydrodynamic coefficients in the response behaviour of triangular TLPs in regular waves. S. USA. (2004). P. OTC 17300. March DNV. Chapin G. Applied Ocean Research.K. Journal of Applied Mechanics. J. J. P. and Jenkins. S. Installation of Horn Mountain Spar using the enhanced DCV Balder. Duggal. J. Steen K. Y. Cho. 30. 72:4.Van Dijk. Holstein Spar hard tank strake structural design.. Y. Prediction of long-term behaviour of synthetic mooring lines. 15th DOT.. T-H.. USA. (2003).. (2004). (2005). OTC 15367. Li.-F. Y-S. P. (2003).5 (2000).. and Perryman (2005). OTC 17696.. P. Penn. Martino.D. E. Proc.. K-Y and Lin.C. (2004) qualification of a flexible pipe for use in a transfer system of LNG between two floating vessels in harsh environment – an update. and Mavrakos. J. Holden. G. Chen.. (2004).. France... 2319-2342. C. Netto. J. P... Dodd. Houston. 83.. S.J.. . S. Houston. A.2: Floating Production Systems Chandrasekaran. (2006) Coupled dynamic analysis of a mini TLP: Comparison with measurements. DeMerchant. OMAE-FPSO 0029. Strength analyses of sandwich pipes for ultra deepwater.L.A... (2003) Modelling of storm-induced flooding for emergency management. OTC 15379. Coppens. Det Norske Veritas Industri Norge AS. 31. Zhang. USA. C. S. Ocean Eng. N. and Pasqualino.. J.. Chailleux.... T. Phadke. Houston. (2005). N. I. and Kuijpers.W. Rojas. T. Hanrahan.H. Magee. Ocean Eng. Houston. 1353-1386. T.. S. and Van der Graaf.L. M. Dong. Proc. (2005) Nonlinear resonances of parametrically excited risers-numerical and analytic investigation for Ω=2ω1. April.. 33. S. I. Proc.K. DeepStar – FPSO solutions for 10. P. Liu. 560-573. USA. Proc. Computers and Structures. R. 2333. Davies. Proc. and Adhia. Houston. I. Liagre. Liao. AIChE Spring National Meeting. Grosjean. R.A. Loken. Chitwood.. Houston. A.P. Proc. Run-up heights of nearshore tsunamis based on quadtree grid system. Cheung. Dijkhuizen. Dalmaijer..F.. New Orleans. Recommended structural stress analysis procedures for fatigue assessment. 1093-1109. 599-608. USA. E. Chatjigeorgiou. Ocean Eng. Lynett. Full field and early production ultra-deep waters: The ‘DP-FPSO and ‘DP-EFPSO’ concepts. Recommended Practice RP B401 (1993). OTC 16710. Niedzwecki. Estefen.E. X. E. Environmental conditions and environmental loads. . Park.
N. Gatti-Bono.C. Proc. Rpt 03-0582 Rev. Halkidiki. Structural response of bow type structures to impact by steep fronted waves and resulting structural design. K.(2005). A. (2004).J. USA. 118-124. (2004) Numerical simulations of cable/seabed interaction. Hayir. ISBN 1-880633-62-1.D.. Vancouver. J. Proc.. Fatigue strength investigation and assessment of fillet-welds around stiffener and bracket toes. Giertsen. Proc. OMAE 67096. Franciss. A. Proc. Proc. Fyfe. Ocean Eng.. Faber. Fricke. ISOPE. Proc. Hodgson. E.. A.. M.H. S. (2005). The near-field tsunami amplitudes caused by submarine landslides and slumps spreading in two orthogonal directions. Ledoux.. 32. and Perkins. (2004). Safety and Operations Committee. C. G. Canada. Sept. Doerk. OLF Health. http://www.no/lesson/ Franciss. (2005). OMAE 67203... Analyses of a large diameter steel lazy wave riser for ultra deepwater in campos basin.J. OMAE 67579. Subsurface buoy configuration for rigid risers in ultra deepwater.. Kuuri.C. T. N. and Schroder. Graczyk. Coupling between liquefied gas and vessel’s motions for partially filled tanks: effect on seakeeping. L. Proc. London. OMAE-FPSO 0010. Cost effective mooring integrity management. and Lynch. (2004). Moan. Risk based inspection planning for an fpso hull – lessons for design. (2005) Probabilistic analysis of characteristic pressure for LNG tanks. Norway. OMAE 51176.. Ocean Eng. 14(2).ISSC Committee V. Gaillarde.. (2005). E. 02. Proc. OTC 17333. O. OTC 17498.C. USA. Steel catenary riser design and analysis for Petrobras Roncador field development. Proc. OMAE-FPSO 0065. E. M. R. Lima. Gedik. Greece. C. United Kingdom. OMAE 51572. (2003). USA. Non-linear time dependent corrosion wastage of deck plates of ballast and cargo tanks of tankers. Hall A. Gonzalez.. (2004). A design evaluation methodology for green water and bow impact type problems. M.. 513-528. Industrial implementation of risk based planning lessons learned from experience: (1) The case of FPSOs.J. Mourelle. FPSO Experience Transfer. E. (2004). (2005).. (2004). (2005). and Rognebakke. DNV/B Veritas. Goyet J. T. N. Proc. Int Journal of Offshore and Polar Eng. Rouhan. A catenary riser/soil interaction model for global riser analysis. OMAE-FPSO 0064. W. Proc. J. 1-11. Hogan. (2004) CARISMA. and Kabdasli. Guedes Soares. Proc. and Wang. . International Conference Design and Operation of Gas Carriers.. and Ballard.... Houston. J. Verley.M.olf. and Barltrop.2: Floating Production Systems 107 Fatigue Design Recommendations for FPSOs. R. Irtem. Red Hawk cell spar hull fabrication. (2004).. J. G. Garbatov Y.and Grünitz.. Houston.G. and Moreira. Holdbrook S.T. and Ribeiro. Proc. USA. A. (2005) Laboratory investigation on tsunami run-up. and Maher. OMAE 51345. Proc. OTC 17670. C. E.M.. M. R. O.
OMAE 67245. Basu.J. Proc OMAE 67190. K. V. R. Greece. Fatigue strength of bent type hopper corner detail in double hull structure.M van der Nat. Houston. (2003) FPSO fatigue assessment. (2005).. Cruz. D. Failure of chains by bending on deep water mooring systems.. Proc.. R.... P.P. P.S. and Falkenberg. . C.H. Buchner. V. Wu.Y. L.J. Vinnem. A. (2005).. B. M. Forsyth. Cho. Proc.L. and J. Jenman C. Structural reliability applications in risk-based inspection plans and their sensitivity to different environmental conditions.. P. Kennedy S. Ocean Engineering. M. Griffin.A.G.. (2003). S.J.. USA. OTC 17535. Halkidiki. J-K. Goessens. Halkidiki. Noble.S. H. Kumar. A.108 ISSC Committee V... 31.C. OTC 15064. Farnsworth.K. (2004). (2005).G.J. USA. M. OTC 16612. Spong.G. (2004). M. R. (2003) Estimation of wind speed and wave height during cyclones. D. Veldman. Houston. Proc. J. R. K. B. Kim. R. Loots. J. (2005) Numerical simulation on mooring performance of LNG-FPSO system in realistic seas. J. Halkidiki. (2003) An innovative “No Hot Work” approach to hull repair on in-service FPSOs using sandwich plate system overlay. W. Gomes. T. Krekel. OMAE-FPSO 0011. (2005). T-B. Nov. (2004a) Mathieu instability of a spar platform with mooring and risers. Y... 529-555. DOT. Kang. A.. K. Matterhorn steel catenary risers.. Kleefsman. S. Leeuwenburgh. M. E.E. (2004) FPSO hull maintenance field experience. Proc.. M.. and Francis.. Proc. Mandal.P. Kavanagh. Proc. and Wang.H. S. Koo. R. Farrell-Dillon (2005) Report on UKCP shuttle tanker incidents 19982004. Kashiwagi. SCRs installation to sub-surface buoy.D. Choi. I.. (2005) Numerical and experimental study on hydrodynamic interaction of side-by-side moored multiple vessels. Jean. 2175-2208. Bishop..E.K.. Anchoring of facilities on the Norwegian shelf.2: Floating Production Systems Hong.. Kim.M. Greece. Marseille. G. 32.. Ocean Engineering.. OTC 17238. Korpus. Feedback from in-service inspections. (2005) Wave drift forces on two ships arranged side by side in wave. Inoue.S. O... Krzonkalla. 30. E.E. critical issues and lessons learned for reel-layed SCR’s to a TLP.. Kim. France. Hsu. 1469-1502.H. (2004b) The effect of nonlinear multi-contact coupling with gap between risers an d guide frames on global spar motion analysis. W. and Kamruzzaman.. (2004). 31. Harte. T. R. Braun.K. Ocean Eng. Charnaux.. USA..E. Single point mooring system for an offshore LNG import terminal. R. B. Ocean Eng. S. 2239-2253. Kvitrud. A.. Proc.. 2003.. Y. 32. Greece. 783-801. The numerical simulation of green water loading including vessel motions and the incoming wave field..J. G. USA.. C. and Heo J. and Kumar. Endo.M. OMAE 67448.F. OMAE-FPSO 0070. Ku A.H.. K. Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority Report.A. Kim... and Davis..R. Bond. Bunnik. Proc. Proc.R. J. and L’Hostis. OTC 15315. ISBN 0 717661105. Jefferies.. and Randal. Kim. Idsøe-Næss. Hoogeland M. R. Hoppe R. Y. (2005) Active and passive control of Spar vortex-induced motions. and Randal. Ocean Eng.. Kvello. Houston.G.H. Yamaguchi. Lacourt. Kaminski. X.R. and Desalos. Houston. and Liapis. Y. A. Nielsen. OTC 16717. Koo.S. T.
32. J. 67119.R. LNG regasification vessel – The first offshore LNG facility. J. Liagre. Applied Ocean Research. S.T. (2005) Inspection management experience for a fleet of Spars in the Gulf of Mexico. J-S and Li. Proc. and Landet. 363-393. Bai. 1-19. (2003).. J. D. Proc. International journal of solids and structures.A. W. 0582. and Oslo. Proc. USA. and Francois. M.R. (2004). (2005).C. Ma. Smith. Estimating the voyage duration of transoceanic LNG transports.. MacMillan A. Carlsen. 5463-5482. H. and Wang.. Loez. Hong. Kyriakides. (2004) Special ROV designed for shell hull plates evaluation. S. Martinez..J. Finite element computation of wave impact load due to a violent sloshing.. Conf. B. P. 38. Liu. New Orleans. (2003).ISSC Committee V. W-S. M. OMAE-FPSO 0033. Fatigue design recommendations for FPSOs. FPSO inspection. O. (2004) Comprehensive Evaluations of LNG Transfer Technology for Offshore LNG Development. K.2: Floating Production Systems 109 Kyoung. Doha Qatar... Leverette. Tang. C. and Boatman. Liang... G. P.. T. (2004). 41. 31. On the dynamic propagation and arrest of buckles in pipe in pipe systems. 743-774.H. (2005) Response-based method for determining the extreme behaviour of floating offshore platforms. Goksøyr. N-K. Risk Based inspection and repair optimization of ship structures considering corrosion effects. Report R20281-5_UKOOA. Det Norske Veritas/Bureau Veritas. and Cooper. 32. K. Maherault-Mougin. On the dragged surge vibration of twin TLP systems with multi-interactions of wave and structures. Smith. Janssens. International journal of solids and structures.. Martins. Mar. OTC 16048.M. Lee. Lotsberg.. G.H. and Niedzwecki. Study into best practice.. Kyriakides.. . S. McDonald. 263. A study of spar buoy floating breakwater. Li D. on LNG. Lee. 43-60.. 2020-2039. (2005). Lotsberg. Morandi A. repair and maintenance. (2003). . Girassol: The biggest FPSO in the world: as seen by its contractor. S. J. Ø. D. I. Ocean Eng. OTC 17619.V. OMAE-FPSO 0015. Marques F.J. 267-284. I. Internal ring buckle arrestor for pipe in pipe systems. Proc. Estimating nonlinear coupled frequencydependent parameters in offshore engineering. Proc.Y. DOT. Ocean Engineering. Brasil W.J. (2004). Mazaheri. Fisher. H.. Houston. Zang. Marshall K. (2004) Statistics of TLP tendon tension behaviour during hurricane Lili.F. Y. E.H. S. Rev 2. and Cook. Halkidiki. L.P. (2004) Newbuild FPSO corrosion protection –a design and operation planning guideline. Proc. OTC 14212. Huang.L. Proc. Chen-Hwa Chiu and Adkins.. D. C. Houston. USA... S. Proc. (2004).M.W. W. Greece. Rijken. (2005). OMAE 51445. S. E.. Rep.000 ft water depth. Lloyds Register/UKOOA.. (2004) fatigue capacity of side longitudinals in floating structures. Sigurdsson. US. (2003). OMAE. Proc. M. 14th Int. C-F (2004). Ocean Eng. (2005). Lloyd’s Register of Shipping. 67398. Proc. 25. Journal of Sound and Vibration. OMAE.C. J.W. Analysis of duplex yoke mooring system for tandem offloading of LNG. Development of tension leg platform for 10. Kim.H. and Netto. OTC 17161. OMAE 51016. M. (2002). and Downie. and Spillane.
Silva. C. L. OMAE 37401. Canada. 2. Oliveira Jr. and Martins. Newport A.M. (2003).A. S. A. Corrosion control of steel fixed offshore structures associated with petroleum production.A. Proceedings of OMAE Specialty Symposium on Integrity of Floating .. San Francisco. Y. and Still. FPSO Structural Integrity – A TWI Collection of Case Studies.K.M. Mercier. Netto. Proc. (2004). J. (2004) Performance of deepwater floating production facilities during hurricane Lili... Ong. Novitsky. Vancouver. of the Mediterranean.J. Y. Proc. Flexible and rigid pipe solutions in the development of ultra-deepwater fields. and Poldervaart. Kubota.P. A. Proc. M. F. Botto. (2004) Structural modifications to the FPSO Kuito cargo tanks. Cancun. Thayamballi. Galiotos. Pereira. R.2: Floating Production Systems Morandi A. and Mayer. Pasqualino.and Park. NACE. 21018. I. S. SNAME Annual Meeting. Botros. (2005). F.. Nov. S.A. The effect of the reeling laying method on the collapse pressure of steel pipes for deepwater. (2003)..A. J. Lee. Nielsen. R. and Estefen. Ocean Eng. and Gray. and Pelegrino. Morooka.. J. Ouro Preto. . USA. OMAE. Vancouver. (2004).B. Proc OMAE 51268.P. NACE Standard RP0176. Bea. (2005).. Perryman.P. Proc. Proc. and Yu.M.Y. Metal-composite pipes for deepwater applications. S.I and Quaranta. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 164.L. C. F. T. (2004) Investigations on the behaviour of vertical production risers.P. Proc. Brazil. Houston. Canada. 31.G. S. (2005) Integrity management of deep water floating production facilities: Towards better and safer workforce personnel.K. G. 573-590. (2005) Dynamics and control of a two-body floating system under realistic environmental loads.J. (2004) Numerical prediction of green water incidents. Proc OMAE 37465. OMAE 67572. OTC 16715. (2004) Riser-soil interaction: Local dynamics at TDP and a discussion on the eigenvalue problem. T. I. 18th Intl Congress of Mech. J. Morandi A.. Peden. F. M. Pasqualino.K. USA... Proc. Coelho. A. H. Speck. Standard Recommended Practice (2003). Mexico. E. 363-399. Holstein truss spar and top tensioned riser system design challenges and innovations. Design Aspects of SPM LNG Terminals in Shallow Water.A...I. Paik..B. Naciri. and Netto..M. and Bolognati. OTC 16804.. A.. OMAE-FPSO-0085. A. Lourenço. M. J.. 17-20 October. Proc. On the feasibility of installing SCR’s by the reel method. S. Basu. Proc. Proc.A.110 ISSC Committee V. 51513.C. Time-dependent risk assessment of aging ships accounting for general/pit corrosion... K. OMAE 51190. C. 1447-1454..C. item No. and Ribeiro. J. Eng. Proc.. (2003) Modelling of seabed interaction in frequency domain analysis of mooring cables.. Morishita. Houston. 12th Intl Congress of Intl Maritime Assoc. J. (2005). Pesce. H. USA. P.Q. Gebara. Wang. fatigue cracking and local denting damage. OTC 17292. Ferrari Jr.
Shuttle Tanker to FPSO – Collision scenarios and associated energy levels. 30. (2004). R. R. Houston. The challenge of installing subsea hardware in ultra-deepwater using a fibre rope deployment system. J.. Rao.. (2003). Poldervaart. Paper No. Proc. (2004). Stiehl G. C... Rainford. P. Coastal Eng. Ocean Eng. M. Hydrodynamic design of a TLP type offloading platform. Ocean Eng.. Soylemez. (2004). Gebara. Fyfe. and White. Standing. J. and Pessoa. In Press. OTC 2005. and Trowbridge..ISSC Committee V. SR-1386. Petruska. Williams. New Orleans.. Offshore Engineer. S. USA.E. Raine. A. J-H. (2005)... available on-line. and Hampshire L. Roveri.O. (2005). 30. R. S.. West Seno project & construction management challenges.E. New Orleans. Proc. and Jackson. OTC 16525. Nov. Fatigue resistant detail design guide for ship structures.. 1269-1282. Sparks. Ship Structure Committee. Rijtema. OTC 15164. . Storage & Offloading (FPSO) Systems. USA. Proc. (2005).. J. (2003).Wylie.F.D. RINA. OTC 17363. Van Cann. Snieckus D. L. Paper 17297. The Naval Architect. USA.. Smedley. Snell. Houston. H. Proc. USA. A. Martino. Brugts. C. Apr. dimensional control and analysis. B. Normal mode decomposition for identification of storm tide and tsunami hazard. (1999). Mating of the Holstein hard tank and truss . S. August 6. Jackson. USA.2: Floating Production Systems 111 Production.J. Lotsberg. (2004) Inspection planning of a critical block weld in an FPSO.. and Perryman.. (2005). corrected proof.C...Cattell. P. Proc. (2004). Proc. OTC 16484. 553578. and Yilmaz.. OTC 15299. F. USA. Pellegrino.. OMAE-FPSO 0032. Proc. and Mandal. Modelling of tropical cyclone winds and waves for emergency management. (2004).F. E. D.challenges. (2003). Zivanovic. execution.G. Mad Dog polyester mooring installation. Free standing hybrid riser for 1800 m water depth.. Carbon fibre composite tendons for deepwater tension leg platforms.. Temporary replacement of production facilities by a dynamic positioned FPSO. B. A DP-FPSO as a First-Stage Field Development Unit for Deepwater Prospects in relatively mild environments. S. and Cariou. 667-684. H. OTC 17361. Ocean Eng. I..R.H. 16th DOT. Testing time for tankers. January 2003 page 24. ‘On-ground’ construction technique for new Hyundai VLCC-size FSO. Landet. D. and Westhuis. 111. S. A.. Houston.. H. Houston. and Hudson. 32. SSC-405..J. Proc OMAE 67178. Ruyter. and Houston. Luyckx. A. (2003). Phadke. G. The Sanha LPG FPSO. S. K. (2005) Hindcasting of storm waves using neural networks. Cheung. W.. O.. Sablok. C. 16th DOT. de. Sigurdsson G. Geyer. Proc. W.. (2004). Sobey. R. G. S. P. Proc. G. I. OMAE-FPSO 0051. OMAE-FPSO’040086. Soeters M. (2005). Technical issues associated with the integration of LNG production and storage facilities using floating concrete substructures. Lui. Kaplan.
H. Real world data for design. P. H.L.A. N. K.. .Ltd. J. OMAE 51094. (2005). F..A. R.A. Applied Ocean Research. S. 25. (2004). Aalberts. and Faber. S. Proc.C.E. Thethi R. OTC 15317. Van der Valk. Kieran. Proc. Tahar A.. (2005).co. http://www.112 ISSC Committee V.I. Hokstad. L... Tao. H. (2005) A fatigue monitoring strategy & implementation on a deepwater top tensioned riser. and Balena. Vogel H. (2003) Low KC flow regimes of oscillating sharp edges. M. E. and Périnet. (2005). Proc. D. Vancouver. Nyhus. and Thiagarajan. Heave motion suppression of a Spar with a heave plate. Howells H. Proc OMAE 67439. A solution for FPSO module integration.G. Halkyard. 305-323. J-H.Ltd..2: Floating Production Systems Straub. K.G. Emonoto. Design drivers of hybrid riser towers.. England. S. Structural Safety. Effect of plastic deformation pattern typical of reel laying on the in-service mechanical performance of pipes and girth welds. (2005) Numerical modelling of wind waves generated by tropical cyclones using moving grids. USA. H. Tivelli. OTC 15314. Takafuji. Mooring of LNG Carriers to a weathervaning floater – Side-by-Side or Stern-to-Bow. Silveira.. Martins. Thomas. (2004). L. Proc. Bending capacity of girth-welded pipes. Takano. Operational safety analysis of FPSO-shuttle tanker collision risk reveals areas of improvement. 31. engineering and operation. P.K. Thiébaud. Alves. T. L. Vitali.A. L.M. Guidance Manual for Tanker Structures. Suzuki. N. Finn. Proc. P. Houston. Saele. Cumino... and Toennessen. Schouw-Hansen. ISBN 1-880633-62-1. USA. Torselletti. A. Luteyn.. Liagre. Proc. Proc. and Bestel. O. P. Canada.. and Bruschi. Proc. Axial and lateral coupled response of a deepsea riser for scientific drilling. (2003). Vinnem. Houston. R. Thomas.M. Dammen.M. (2005). Koning. J. 335–355. England. Rio pipeline IBP1008-05. J.. S.. and Cai. E.uk/issues/fpso/ van den Boom H.. Kleppestoe. ISBN 1 85609 093 0. Guidelines for Ballast Tank Coating Systems and Surface Preparation.Y. (2005) Offshore monitoring. and Watson. S. TSCF (Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum) (2002).. OTC 17172.C. OMAE 67487. Chen... Hydrodynamic forces. Anelli.. K. COBEM 1848.. 27. Ocean Modelling. L. Witherby & Co... H. D. H.. (2005). V. (2005).. OMAE 67307.. TSCF (Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum) (1997). D. Witherby & Co. Proc. ISOPE. L.L.. Tanaka. 9. R.. K.ukooa. Proc.Natarajan. Haver. Dynamic analysis of lazy-wave steel risers. Risk based inspection planning for structural systems. F. II.. C. 53-62. M. Proc. C.J. Full scale data comparison for the Horn mountain spar mooring line tension during the hurricane Isidore. and Bridge C. OTC 17248. 669-692. Association of Operators UK continental shelf. Tcherniguin. Malek. (2004) In-service monitoring of riser fatigue. Tolman.. Tao. ISBN 1 85609 214 3. and Oka. Ocean Eng. (2003). A. Izquierdo. OTC 17154.. J... UKOOA.
Texas. 201-218. (2003). Halkidiki.P. and Veldman. G. Proc. corrected proof.. 181-204. and Kang H. Proc. T. USA. (2004). Mexico.. and Hall. Halkidiki. Kurkin. Fast track FPSOs for deepwater and ultra-deepwater. OMAE 51048. J. Loots. B. ISSN 14754584.. M.2: Floating Production Systems 113 Wang. E... A. 33. G. A. E. and Elsayed. (2003). J. OTC 15313. 05. O.... Proc. R. B. R. Houston. . Luppes.ISSC Committee V. Mooring chain corrosion design considerations for an FPSO in Tropical Water. Greece... Luo.S.. Witz. Proc. (2006) Prediction of hydrodynamic loading on a mini TLP with free surface effects. V.. Proc. Greece..S. (2005) Analytical and numerical study of nonlinear effects at tsunami modelling. Williams. Zahibo. T. Young. Development of load-out methodology for on-ground-build FPSO. N. Offshore LNG transfer – A new flexible cryogenic hose for dynamic service.. A. Wyllie. and Han. 30. M. Younis.A. H. OMAE 67460. (2004). M. Ocean Eng. OMAE 51061.Y. Yilmaz.. Proc. USA. 16. OTC 16270. 601-610.W. Incecik. J. Modelling two-phase flow with offshore applications. S. J....R.. Yoon K. OMAE 37361. Cho H. and Pollack. (2003) Simulation of green water flow on deck using non-linear dam breaking theory.. P. Proc. Ridolfi. A.A. Fourth quarter. Wang. Ocean Eng.. The reliability of flexible pipe and its failure modes. I. (2003).F. and D’Souza. Prager. (2005) LNG floating regasification Unit (FRU) side-by-side mooring analysis. OMAE 67117. Proc. Y. Guidelines for engineering critical assessments for pipeline installation methods introducing cyclic plastic strain. Wastberg. Talipova. Pelinovsky. W. Spencer. Proc. Jul. (2003) A review of the sea state generated by hurricanes. M. (2005).G. Marine Structures. (2004). Ye.T. Wang. Journal of Pipeline Integrity. J. Yang Y. and Przulj.J. (2004) Explosion recurrence modelling. Proc. OMAE-FPSO 0046.C. Houston. Wemmenhove.. Kozelkov. OMAE-FPSO 0020. (2004). In Press. Estimation of corrosion rates of structural members in oil tankers. Houston. Cancun.A. OTC 16708. Ha S. Applied Mathematics and Computation. and Nyhus. Yasseri S. R. Pisarski. Consistent practical fatigue design for FPSO integrity.R.V. R. available on-line. and D’Souza.
A Comparison Bt Turret and Spread Moored F(P)SOs for DW Field Dev
CT5870 Dynamica.e
Fpso Dp Study
en_3000190207v020100o.pdf