FPSO

FLOATING PRODUCTION STORAGE & OFFLOADING

ESPADARTE OVERVIEW

tubes Moonpool Lower Bearing Chain Hawse Espadarte Elevation .Swivel Stack Overhead Structure Superstructure Main Bearing Turret Riser I.

Espadarte Turret System .

Riser Tie-in Spools Riser Termination Deck Chain Support Arch Riser I-tubes Chain Jack Chain Hawse Riser Bell Mouth Turret Cut-Away .

Espadarte Mooring System .

Espadarte Riser System .

ESPADARTE SUBSEA LAYOUT .

KUITO OVERVIEW .

KUITO FIELD LAYOUT .

FPSO UTILITY • Proven floating concept – ship – Can survive any non-ice sea environment • Large topside area for production – Allows for horizontal integration – safety by distance • Large storage capacity for periodic export – Normal 1-2 week production storage capacity • Proven offloading capability in tandem or side-by-side – High tandem offload thresholds assure continuous production .

HULL SIZE DRIVERS • Required storage capacity .parcel size – tankers of opportunity • Topsides – required deck area – stability • Environment – freeboard in fully loaded conditions (“green water”) – minimum draft in ballasted conditions (“slamming”) – size of the mooring system (anchor leg / turret) • • Location of the accommodation Location & size of the turret – internal – external .Shuttling philosophy – dedicated tankers .

the FPSO should not be older than 30-35 years • Environment – the fatigue resistance of a tanker is suitable for a 25-year deployment in West Africa – in harsh environment.24 months (topsides & mooring on critical path) – new construction: 24 to 30+ months (hull on critical path) • Costs – CAPEX in favor of conversion (but cost and schedule somewhat difficult to predict accurately) – new construction costs (and schedule) can be reduced by accepting an early design freeze date on topsides .CONVERSION vs. NEW BUILD • Design field life – at the end of the life of the field. ships rules do not provide adequate fatigue resistance for long term deployment • Project planning – conversion: 14 .

RULES & REGULATIONS • Shipbuilding vs. Offshore Standards – piping – selection of materials – accommodations – control & safety systems • Safety – IMO MODU as a reference – SOLAS limited to specific items not covered by MODU – MARPOL with unified interpretation for FPSO’s .

FPSO STATION KEEPING AND OFFLOADING Multidirectional environment – Turret – Norm – Buoy / Yoke – Old – Tower/Yoke – Shallow Offloading – Tandem or side-by-side Single Point Mooring (SPM) Significant wave Height (m) any < 8-10 < 5-6 Directional environment spread mooring – Multiple mooring lines tied directly to vessel Significant wave Height (m) < 6-7 <4 – Bow on waves – Beam on waves Offloading – Through separate SPM. side-by-side* or tandem* *Safety issues .

roll and pitch surge. yaw. yaw and roll (heel) surge. sway and yaw . sway.GLOBAL FORCES AND MOTIONS • Global forces and resultant mooring motion – Wind (Steady) – Wave (Variable) – Current (Steady) Steady offset Variable offsets Steady offset • Global forces and resultant vessel motion – Wind – Wave – Current surge. heave. sway.

GLOBAL FORCES AND MOTIONS • Variable wave forces occur at: vessel natural period and at FPSO/Mooring natural period – Wave inertial hydrodynamic forces at periods of 7 to 20 sec induce large loads on FPSOs but small mooring forces. – Wave drift forces which result from random wave group sequences create mean and variable forces on the FPSO. JONSWAP PM . The variable horizontal force is troublesome as it occurs at periods near to the FPSO/mooring natural period.

7m Tp=15s σWF=0.3m σLF=9.2E5 Second Order (LF) 0.0E7 First Order (WF) 0.WAVE FORCES 1.0 Pierson-Moskowitz – Hs=6.3m .0 1.

large horizontal motions are experienced limited only by damping. . When second order wave force excitation occurs at this period.WAVE DRIFT F X FPSO with mooring is simply a single degree of freedom mass spring system with a natural period ω.

• Wind can be designing in areas such as West Africa. b) speed and duration. when the vessel is spread moored. • Windage areas can be very large owing to Topsides especially in ballasted condition. • How to best describe wind: a) uniform. • Plays a role in wave drift damping. . • If we use wind spectrum or time series. d) recorded time series.WIND • Wind load prediction – OCIMF. combination of wind + wave both being random would have to be rationalized. wind tunnel or windage areas not from wave model basin tests. c) wind spectrum.

. • Interaction with wave important in wave drift force. • Plays a significant role in wave drift damping. analytical (future CFD). analytical (many good programs). current basin. • Knowledge is important throughout the depth for mooring and riser system. • Current load prediction on riser and mooring – current basin (scaling problems). • Knowledge of current down to the fully loaded draft is important for current forces on the FPSO hull (say first 25m). • Profile is important both in magnitude and direction.CURRENT • Current load prediction on hull – OCIMF.

.SOURCES and DERIVATION of DAMPING Source Mooring line/riser Current Wind Wave drift Physics Drag Drag Drag Potential Quasi-static derivation N Y Y Y Fully coupled derivation Y Y Y Y Radiation Potential Y Y Mooring and riser damping derivation is an iterative process (damping depending on amplitude. which itself depends on the damping). fully coupled methods should be used. To solve this problem.

– Use this in an uncoupled quick analysis program. • Computer time for fully coupled design prohibitive from a design point of view. – Check result with fully coupled program. • Alternate method: – Make a short coupled run. RISER AND MOORING ANALYSIS • Fully coupled analyses are required to capture all interactions influencing mooring loads. .COUPLED HULL. – Derive proper behavior / damping from this run. – Do probabilistic analysis.

9 1.2 1.5 Wave frequency (Rad/s) – Risers: VIV .6 0.3 0. – 1st order motions: Roll prediction and damping 5 4 3 2 Radiation damping only Bilge keel damping Roll motion RAO [°/m] 10 7 5 4 3 2 1 7 5 4 3 2 0.NUMERICAL PREDICTIONS • Main limitations – Mooring: Yaw and fish-tailing.0 0.

IMPACT on DESIGN & COST of METOCEAN UNCERTAINTIES Anchor Anchor leg Leg tension Tension Pretension Wind Current Mean wave Slow-drift Wave freq. + dynamic Total Mild Harsh Mild environment environment environment – shallow – shallow – deep water water water 10% 30% 10% 25% 20% 5% 100% 50% 15% 10% 6% 11% 8% 100% 15% 20% 5% 13% 17% 30% 100% .

IMPACT on DESIGN & COST of METOCEAN UNCERTAINTIES Horizontal Horizontal Mooring mooring Force force Wind Current Mean wave Slow-drift Wave freq. + dynamic Total Mild Mild environment environment – shallow – deep water water 34% 10% 27% 22% 7% 100% 50% 13% 12% 15% 10% 100% Harsh environment – shallow water 24% 6% 15% 22% 33% 100% .

2 0.8 1.CONCURRENT ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS Wave height and period 1e5 Surge drift force [N/m^2] 8e4 20 6e4 15 4e4 Drift force JONSWAP .4 0.Tp=13s JONSWAP -Tp=16s 10 2e4 5 0e00.20 Wave frequency [Rad/s] .0 1.6 0.

0 0.CONCURRENT ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS Wave with current influence on wave drift force 2e5 Surge QTF [N/m^2] 2e5 No current 1m/s collinear current 1m/s opposite current 1e5 7e4 3e4 -1e40.9 1.6 0.2 1.5 Wave frequency [Rad/s] .3 0.

wind or current conditions can cause operational problems • Cross current (or wind) vessel orientation to wave can lead to roll induced problems with: 1. Process . Crew 2.METOCEAN IMPACT on OPERABILITY Areas having persistent crossing wave.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful