Professional Documents
Culture Documents
+ =
The first term is equivalent to the coefficient presented by Bridon. The coefficient on
rotation represents the geometric torsional stiffness of the wire rope, plus an additional
term reflecting interaction between tension and torsional stiffness.
It should be noted that the numerical coefficients listed above vary even within the
reference quoted above, and as such predictions of the numbers of turns for a given
condition should be treated with care.
A4163-01 89
The four different types of line segment used in the deployment and operation of
mooring lines exhibit very different torsional characteristics. Both the torsional
stiffness and the tension induced torque vary.
- Six (or eight) strand wire rope is not torque balanced. This means than
when an axial tension is applied, torsion is developed in the line. The
greater the tension, the larger the torsion.
- Chain demonstrates little torsional stiffness for low levels of rotation, very
high stiffness for greater rotation (in excess of 3 degrees per link). A chain
with no twist will not develop torsional moments under tension.
- Spiral strand wire rope presents a relatively high torsional stiffness. It is
essentially torque balanced, developing a much reduced torsional moment
than the corresponding six strand rope. If a torque is applied to spiral strand
wire it can easily become damaged see Figure 6-7.
- Polyester rope has a low torsional stiffness, due to the small diameter of
individual fibres. There is little tendency to develop torsional moments
under tension.
In the design of mooring systems, consideration must be given both to the interaction of
the individual components in the operating condition, and to the implications of this
during installation. It is very important when deploying chain that no twists should be
included, but in practical terms for a long length of chain this is not simple to achieve in
practice.
Clearly, where one component has a tendency to rotate and develop line torsion, this
may result in the twisting of adjacent components. Each line type has different issues
associated with the imposition / release of torsional loading.
- Where six or eight strand wire rope is subjected to dynamic axial loads with
no torsional restraint it will rotate. The combination of tension and rotation
is much more subject to fatigue than tension cycling with ends restrained.
There may also be issues associated with the whirling of heavy fittings or
adjacent chain segments increasing damage rates.
- The performance of chain when subjected to torsion plus tension is not well
understood. Where line tension drops below a limiting value there is some
possibility of knotting of the chain, which will reduce strength and fatigue
resistance. Under significant tensions chain is able to accept small levels of
rotation without apparent damage.
- Spiral strand wire rope is both relatively stiff in torsion and sensitive to
damage when twisted. This damage occurs due to slippage between layers
of (torque balanced) wire. In extreme cases this can develop into hockles,
where the lay of the wire is so distorted that some wires twisrt right away
from the body of the rope see Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-7).
Fibre ropes appear to be able to accept quite large levels of rotation without a
significant impact on their performance.
A4163-01 90
Figure 6-4 - Illustration of Twist on a FPSO Mooring Line during Recovery
Figure 6-5 Illustration of a Hockle in Spiral Strand Wire during Recovery of a
FPSO Mooring System
A4163-01 91
Figure 6-6 - Example of Damage to the Bend Stiffener on an Open Socket
Figure 6-7 Illustration of Spiral Strand Wire Kinking during Installation
A4163-01 92
6.2.3 The Use of Swivels
Where it is desirable to prevent the imposition of torque on mooring line segments, in
line swivels may be used. There are two main types of offshore mooring swivel. Slide
bearings provide a robust, low maintenance torque release, but will only operate under
quite high torque levels. Roller bearing swivels provide a low friction torque release,
but require maintenance.
Swivels are sometimes used during the installation of deepwater moorings to avoid the
introduction of twist in a heavy chain or spiral strand line segment.
If a mid-line buoy is to be used in a mooring line, a connection link such as that
illustrated in Figure 6-8 may be used. This connector allows the central section which
is attached to the buoy to rotate but the padeyes on either side for the main mooring
legs are fixed relative to each other. This type of swivel is intended more for use in a
permanent mooring system as opposed to as a temporary installation measure.
Figure 6-8 - Mid Line Buoy Swivel Connection Link (courtesy of MoorLink AB).
Mid line buoys can result in greater relative rotation at the connections which in certain
instances has been known to lead to premature failure see Section 10.3.2. Therefore,
the use of mid line buoys should be treated with caution.
6.2.4 Pre-Installing Mooring Lines
It is often desirable to pre-lay mooring lines. This permits location and securing of
anchor points prior to the arrival of the FPS. Separation of the installation programme
into discrete segments reduces the vulnerability of the programme to weather windows
and removes these operations from the critical path.
A4163-01 93
Deploying an anchor pile, chain, spiral strand wire or polyester rope as one operation
can be problematic, unless a high specification construction vessel is employed and
great care is taken. Potential difficulties include:
- Risk of rotation, possible interference and damage
- Difficult to control simultaneous lowering of multiple handling systems
- Difficult to reverse the process.
However, a reliable subsea connector is required if lines are going to be pre-installed.
If the subsea connector is not reliable, over time a weakness may be introduced into the
system. Assuming a reliable subsea connector is available its use may help with
respect to possible mooring line repair operations which may be needed at some stage
during the field life. It is important, to minimise relative rotation and wear, that the
weight per metre of the connector should not be too much higher than that of the
mooring line to which it attached.
6.3 Installation Watch Points from a Mooring Integrity Standpoint
Over the last few years there have been a number of notable deepwater projects
completed in the Gulf of Mexico, which have used either spiral strand wire or fibre
ropes. Very useful experience has been gained form these projects. This section
attempts to summarise some of the key lessons learnt.
Suction Pile Rotations
It is important that the orientation of the padeye lines up with the mooring line direction
when it is tightened up. Cases have been reported of suction piles rotating as they are
sucked into the sea-bed, which can be problematic.
Spiral Strand Wire
The key watch points are:
- Requires handling within tight tolerances for twist, friction and compression.
- Sheathing can be easily damaged.
There have been several cases where spiral strand has been irretrievably damaged
(usually through kinking) during installation.
Polyester / Synthetic
The key watch points are:
- Large diameter ropes, have a large storage volume requirement.
- Multiple spooling operations from storage reels to installation winch are
normally required.
- The outer braiding layers are susceptible to damage.
A4163-01 94
Although polyester is a durable material, the braided jacket and even the core, can
be subject to damage during installation if not properly handled, much like sheathed
spiral strand wire [Ref. 26].
At present it is customary not to allow polyester rope to come in contact with the sea
floor due to concern that particle ingression will cause harmful abrasion of the fibres.
With the introduction of soil particle filter clothes just under the jacket this may be no
longer necessary [Ref. 26] but at present it is customary to adhere to and this will
impact the installation procedures. Balmoral Group Norways experience with
MODUs and fibre ropes indicates that this may not be required. However, it is still
difficult to know what would happen during a true long-term deployment.
Installation Ground Rules
It can be helpful to provide Installation Contractor with succinct ground rules for
installation including any special considerations, e.g. handling of polyester ropes, such
as:
- Limits on twist
- No sea-bed contact
- Acceptable means to handle and stopper
- Temporary storage and transport requirements
- Contingency measures
Past projects have successfully utilised a management of twist procedure to identify
how twist will be monitored, assessed, recorded and summed up over a mooring line. In
particular, it is important to specify low torque or torque balanced wires for messenger
line or slings during installation. Twist can be monitored by a ROV viewing a pre-
painted stripe onto the mooring chain and a colour stripe marker built into the polyester
ropes jacket during the manufacturing process.
Petruska reports [Ref. 26] Installing a polyester mooring system is similar in many
ways to installing a sheathed, spiral strand wire system when using similar/identical
installation vessels, but a few differences do exist. For example sheathed, spiral strand
has special requirements on minimum bending radius and the associated tension in
order to prevent damage to the sheathing and also to prevent kinking wire strands.
Both have limitations on twist, although different, since spiral strand is not perfectly
torque balanced while polyester ropes can be made to be torque neutral. On the Mad
Dog project two complete twists (i.e. 720) per mooring line were permitted for the
fibre rope.
Although polyester weighs much less both in air and in water, it does take up more
volume, which needs to be taken account of during installation.
A4163-01 95
6.3.1 Polyester Rope Line Length Implications
Polyester rope lengths can vary and it is important to understand the different
categorisations namely:
- Manufactured length,
- Installed length at the specified pre-tension,
- Lengths expected at various phases during the installation.
The total variation through out this process may vary as much as 50 to 100m. Short
Term Creep and Long Term Construction Stretch may lead to a need for the rope being
manufactured somewhat shorter than its final required length.
Common practice calls for polyester to never come into contact with sharp edges, high
heat or steel work wires. It is vital to ensure all equipment free of sharp edges and
where necessary to use special padding material such as burlap or lamiflex to
further aid in protecting the rope jacket from snags and tears.
On fibre rope moorings the majority of fibre rope creep should occur in the first year of
service. This creep is likely to result in a requirement to re-tension the mooring system.
On the Red Hawk Spar there is no requirement for spar offsetting for well drilling or
maintenance operations. Hence a single chain windlass located at one position on the
Spar deck with fairleading access to the six mooring stations was assessed to be
sufficient for pre-tensioning and mooring line adjustment purposes if required. This
single chain windlass was integrated into the topsides rather than at a dedicated
winching deck as on previous spars. To reduce the necessity of future line length
adjustments, some of the fabrication stretch was removed as illustrated below. This
required application of a tension level of 40% of the MBL for 1 hour, namely
approximately 500 t. The geometric amplification provided by this means seems to be
capable of achieving such a tension. It appears that this method of tensioning up the
lines is not very precise and there must be a danger of increased dynamic loading of the
tensioning tow line due to tug motion/changes in tow line angle. Hence it will be
interesting to see how such lines perform in situ.
A4163-01 96
Figure 6-9 Pre-Stretching Polyester lines During Installation to Minimise the
Requirement for Future Line Length Adjustments [Ref. 27]
Fibre Rope Protection
It is important to limit fibre rope exposure to ultraviolet light by the use of lamiflex
sheeting and tarpaulins. Also there should be no welding or flame cutting in the
vicinity of fibre rope. Hence there may be a need for bolted clips for sea fastening the
rope reels to transportation cradles.
Fibre Rope Connectors and Thimbles
The design of connectors for use with fibre ropes is still evolving. Figure 6-10
illustrates one design that has been used in the Gulf of Mexico.
Such connectors need to be designed to simplify offshore lining up of pins. For
example in Figure 6-10 the H-link is not a true H-link in the sense that the two face
plates are not rigidly connected. This allows differential movement of the two plates
which can cause problems with alignment and getting the pin back through especially
at the hang-off platform under load see Figure 6-10.
The illustrated design includes a thimble which should take most of the wear. But
tight fits may still be encountered offshore, since the polyurethane protective coating
around the eye of the polyester splice is manually applied. Also when spreading the
eye of the polyester splice to insert the thimble, tearing of the polyurethane would often
occur in the crotch region, thus either special care/an improved procedure is required or
the polyurethane needs to be reinforced.
A4163-01 97
Not all fibre rope connectors have made use of thimbles so it will be interesting to see
if over time wear/abrasions becomes an issue. Unfortunately inspection access to this
area is difficult see Section 18.6.1/Figure 18-15.
An important point for the use of fibre ropes is careful labelling for
identifying/avoiding confusion on fibre rope segments.
Figure 6-10 - Illustration of the Potential Difficulty in offshore alignment of pins on
large Diameter Rope [Ref. 26]
6.3.2 Overboarding Operations
Overboarding of heavy items (anchors, sockets, etc.) may need special protection as
may be provided by a sledge arrangement see Figure 6-11 for example which shows
an H shackle launch. The sledge can be recovered using a work wire on to a capstan
winch after the heavy item has been deployed over the stern roller.
Figure 6-11 - Sledge used to Protect H Connector during Deployment over the Stern
Roller (Courtesy I. Williams)
A4163-01 98
6.3.3 Anchors
Once anchors have been installed and successfully pre-tensioned on FPSs they seem to
have proved reliable in situ. The difficulties which have been experienced in the field
are typically when soil conditions turn about to be different than predicted. Hence, it is
desirable to collect sufficient soils information prior to the FPS deployment.
If project schedule and vessel availability allow, it is recommended that the following
site survey work should be undertaken prior to installation:
- Carry out bore hole soil sampling at two locations on each mooring line.
- The first location should be the anticipated anchor landing point.
- The second location should be the predicted final anchor position.
In certain instances only limited borehole data may be available. In such cases it makes
sense to be on the conservative side when selecting the size and weight of the proposed
anchors. Anchor steel is relatively cheap compared to the day rate of installation
vessels!
When a drag anchor is installed it is very difficult to determine the depth of the sea-bed
penetration. This can make accurate determination of line pretension difficult if, during
installation, the length of all the mooring line sections was carefully noted on the basis
that this can be used to back calculate the pre-tensions.
Drag anchors normally have minimal corrosion protection, just a basic paint coating.
Despite this corrosion has not been a problem even for anchors on drilling rigs, which
have a much harder life than an anchor which sits deep into the sea-bed. Still given that
field lives can be extended and that high quality coatings are available, it would seem
logical to make greater us of such coatings.
Drag anchor fatigue life is typically far superior to that of the chain, which they are
attached to. Hence, anchor fatigue life is normally only checked if specified by the
anchor manufacturers client.
A4163-01 99
7 CORROSION, FATIGUE AND WEAR (CASE
STUDIES)
7.1 The Balmoral FPV An Industry Benchmark
The Balmoral Floating Production Vessel (FPV) represents an early North Sea semi-
submersible production unit (see Figure 7-1). Unusually for the time, it was a purpose
built production unit utilising a new GVA design and was built in Gothenberg in 1986.
Hence, today (2005), it has been in continuous operation without dry docking for some
19 years.
It is also worth noting that the Buchan, Amerada Hess 001 semi-submersibles and
the Brent Spar have also seen long deployment periods. Some of the experience
which has been gained from these units is discussed in Sections 8 and 11.
The Balmoral FPV was provided with a Rolls Royce mooring system consisting of
driven anchor piles and 92mm R4 studded chain made in accordance with the new
DNV standard to avoid brittle failures. The chain, when new, had a minimum break
load (MBL) of 853t MBL. In addition, the FPV has 4 x 39 tonne maximum nominal
thrust azimuthing thrusters, which are used in storm conditions to reduce mooring line
tensions.
Figure 7-1 The Balmoral Benchmark FPV which has been continuously on station
since 1986 (Courtesy of CNR)
Despite some built in redundancy the FPV has experienced a number of line failures
which are summarized in the plan view in Figure 7-2.
A4163-01 100
Chart of the FPV Mooring System
6453500
6454000
6454500
6455000
6455500
6456000
6456500
563500 564000 564500 565000 565500 566000 566500
Easting
N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g
Kenter links
Touchdown
Missing or
loose studs
D-shackles
Pile 1
+2.7%
Pile 2
No measurements
Pile 3
-1.9%
Pile 4
+11.6%
Pile 5
+7.5%
Pile 6
No measurements
Pile 7
+33.5%
Pile 8
-25.7%
Figure 7-2 Plan View of Mooring Incidents at Balmoral
Historically, Balmorals mooring lines were inspected and the studs pressed every 5
years on the back of an AHT. In 2001 one of the most heavily loaded windward lines
was recovered and taken to Haugersund for detailed inspection by Chainco. Every
other link was examined. Just one crack was discovered on the outer shoulder of a
single link which was thought to be a random manufacturing problem
One section of the line had very loose studs and this was cut out and transferred to the
chain locker on board the FPV. On this basis DNV accepted Welaptega Marines (see
Section 18.4) in water ROV inspection for the other lines, rather than inspection of each
line on the back of an anchor handler.
However, in November 2002 a leeward line broke. Despite a drop in the reported
tension it took time to confirm that the line had definitely broken. This was because the
break was in the mud and the line still had some catenary profile. Hence, one option
was a partial line run out. The break was only confirmed when the line was pulled in
on the chain windlass and a ROV saw the chain end emerge from the mud. This has
definite implications for possible line failure detection methods see Section 17.
A4163-01 101
7.2 Corrosion and Wear Allowance Discussion of Code Requirements
For long term integrity it is vital that wear and corrosion are correctly accounted for in
the design process. This section reviews the existing guidance which is available in
mooring design codes/recommended practices and then compares the specified values
with what has been recorded in the field. It is worth noting that some earlier mooring
systems were designed with no corrosion allowance. This ties in with what was
specified in the design codes available at the time, e.g. POSMOOR code of July 1989
[Ref. 29]. Hence, if these early systems did not include much design margin (i.e. they
just met their allowable loads) then wear and corrosion may fairly quickly cause a
reduction in their capacities, such that they no longer meet their allowable loads. In
some instances the safety factors in some of the earlier codes may have been higher,
which thus by default effectively included some in built allowance for wear/corrosion.
In a similar vein fatigue life calculation were not required by POSMOOR 1989.
In the absence of alternatives API RP 2I [Ref. 30] is sometimes applied to long term
FPS moorings. API RP 2I has universal allowable reductions in chain diameter (see
Section 7.5.3). These may not be appropriate for a long term FPS which does not have
an inbuilt allowance for corrosion and wear. In such cases a new evaluation of the
worn chain break strength should be undertaken. However, as is discussed in Section
7.3.3 an accurate assessment of the strength of worn chain is difficult to determine.
Draft ISO standard (19901-7) Part 7, Section 10.6 [Ref. 31] states for chain in the
splash zone or in contact with a hard bottom sea-bed the diameter should be increased
by 0.2mm to 0.8 mm per year of the design service life. The 0.8 mm per year is a
significant increase compared to other codes.
API RP 2SK Section 3.1.2 states the following Protection against chain corrosion and
wear is normally provided by increasing chain diameter. The allowance in chain
diameter for corrosion and wear is a complicated issue that still requires significant
research and service experience to address. Currently industry practice is to increase
the chain diameter by 0.2mm to 0.4mm per service year in the splash zone where
oxygenated water tends to accelerate corrosion and in the dip or thrust zone on hard
bottom where heavy corrosion takes place.
A4163-01 102
OS-E301, Table F1 Corrosion & Wear Allowance for Chain
Corrosion allowance referred to the chain diameter
Part of Mooring
Line
No Inspection
(mm/year)
Regular inspection
1)
(mm/year)
Requirements for the
Norwegian
continental shelf
(mm/year)
Splash zone
3)
0.4 0.2 0.8
2)
Catenary
4)
0.3 0.2 0.3
Bottom
5)
0.4 0.3 0.4
1) Regular inspection e.g. in accordance with the Classification Societies or
according to operators own inspection programme approved by national
Authorities if necessary. The mooring lines have to be replaced when the
diameter of the chain with the breaking strength used in the design of the
mooring system is reduced by 2%.
2) The increased corrosion allowance in the splash zone is required by
NORSOK M-001 and is required for compliance with NPD regulations.
3) Splash zone is defined as 5m above the still water level and 4m below the
still water level.
4) Suspended length of the mooring line below the splash zone and always
above the touch down point.
The corrosion allowance in the Table is given as guidance; lower values
may be accepted provided it is documented.
Table 7-1 - Example of Specified Corrosion and Wear Allowances from One
Classification Society
Section 59.2.2 (Concentrated Corrosion) of BS6349-1 2000 [Ref. 28] defines
accelerated or localized corrosion as concentrated corrosion. Relevant factors
include:
1) Repeated removal of the protective corrosion product layer.
2) Bi-metallic corrosion, where steel is electrically connected to metals having
nobler potentials or where weld metals are significantly less noble than the
parent metal.
3) Accelerated corrosion associated with microbiological activity.
In such circumstances typical corrosion rates of 0.5mm/side/year and as high as
0.8mm/side/year have been observed in the relatively cold UK coastal waters.
A4163-01 103
7.2.1 Wear/Corrosion Rates Experienced in the North Sea
Figure 7-3 Illustration of the Extent of General Corrosion on a Recovered Floating
Production Unit Mooring Line after 16 years service
The data considered in this section is based on a North Sea semi submersible based
floating production facility that has been continuously operating for almost 20 years.
On this unit a line failed in the thrash zone and a number of links close to the break
were recovered back to shore. Dimensional checks of the most worn areas of this chain
revealed 10mm of apparent wear/corrosion over 16.25 years based on the nominal
chain diameter. This gives a wear rate of 0.615 mm/year in the thrash zone. As can be
seen this is 50% higher than the value specified in OS E301 [Ref. 5]. If a higher wear
rate is experienced than has been allowed for it is possible that after a set number of
years the mooring system will no longer be capable of with standing the maximum
anticipated storm loading. Since all the lines will be subject to wear, although not
necessarily at the same rate, this could mean that if one line fails the remaining lines
may no longer be strong enough to withstand the one line failed design case. In such a
case there is a real danger of the mooring system starting to un zip itself and the unit
loosing its station keeping capability.
A4163-01 104
Figure 7-4 Illustration of the Extent of Corrosion Pitting
Figure 7-3 is a picture of some of the links which were recovered following the line
failure. As can be seen the chain has experienced fairly heavy corrosion. In addition,
Figure 7-4 shows the extent of corrosion pitting. The materials testing laboratory
which examined the chain reported the following:
The metal loss observed on all the links took the form of large areas of
pitting where the metal loss was at least 2-3mm, with isolated areas of deeper
pits with more severe metal loss. The entire outer bend region of some links
was affected in this way, as well as large areas of the straight sections.
A somewhat unexpected result from the examination of the links recovered from the
thrash zone was damage to the crown of the links see Figure 7-5. It is believed that,
as tension is cyclically reduced, some type of impact or grinding action on the on inner
edge of an adjacent link seems to be occurring (see Figure 7-6). It is also worth noting
that the chain had very loose studs, hence it is possible that contact between the crown
and the stud is occurring. However, there was no particular evidence on the stud itself
of such a contact happening.
A4163-01 105
Figure 7-5 Example of the Damage Caused to the Crown of the Links
Figure 7-6 Arrow shows the Apparent Grinding Action on the Inner Face of One of
the Links
Another example of how the dynamic action of a moving link may cause damage to an
adjacent item is shown in Figure 7-7. This photograph shows the beginning of a failure
of a small hanging shackle which attaches an excursion limiting weighted chain section
to the main links of a FPSO mooring line. The failure of the hanging shackle pin is
likely to have been caused by the dynamic pinching action of the adjacent link plus the
general rotation of the hanging shackle pin see also Section 10.3.
A4163-01 106
Figure 7-7 Example of the Damage Caused to a Hanging Shackle Pin on a FPSO
Mooring Line
When a chain is subjected to an applied load it is subject to a complex combination of
tension, bending and shear loads. A finite element derived indicative stress pattern for
a loaded link is shown in Figure 7-8. In this plot the highest stresses areas are coloured
red. Comparing Figure 7-8 with Figure 7-6 shows that the area of apparent grinding
damage approximately corresponds with one of the areas of maximum stress (see also
3.3.3). Hence damage in this area could result in a relative rapid reduction in break test
capability. Another related factor here is the effect of corrosion pitting which in certain
cases can be in excess of 3mm (see earlier).
Figure 7-8 Finite Element Stress Contour Plot (compare red areas with Figure 7-6)
[Ref. 8]
A4163-01 107
In Figure 7-8 it should be noted that the stress contours show a weak asymmetry
about the X-Y plane due to simply supported constraints applied to the static end of the
chain model and a static load applied to the dynamic end.
7.2.2 Wear in the Thrash Zone
The data in Figure 7-9 is based on a detailed measurement programme on a line which
was bought back to shore after many years of use on a North Sea semi-sub FPS.
Although there is quite a lot of scatter, the black poly line on the graph indicates
maximum wear at the touchdown point indicated by the red dashed vertical line.
Chain Thickness vs Link Number
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650
Link Number (for line 7 section)
C
h
a
i
n
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
/
2
)
(
m
m
)
Line 7 Chain Thickness API Minimum Line 4 Thickness Poly. (Line 7 Chain Thickness)
BREAK POINT TOUCH DOWN @ 128Te
FPV PILE
835m 761m 687m 909m 946m 983m 1057m
Distance from Pile (m)
Figure 7-9 - Example of Thrash Zone Wear
A4163-01 108
7.3 North Sea FPSO Apparent Corrosion and Wear Data
This section is based on recent measurements on components which were recovered
from a North Sea FPSO mooring system. Figure 7-10 and Figure 7-11 show the
condition of a special shackle. The shackle was positioned approximately 40m out
from the wildcat at the base of the turret at the transition from studless to studded chain.
This shackle is much more pitted than expected considering that it was in the water for
less than 7 years. It appears that some degree of galvanic type or perhaps sulphate
reducing bacteria (SRB) induced corrosion has taken place. Galvanic type corrosion is
perhaps more likely given the localised deterioration of the shackle pin (see Figure
7-11) where it has been in contact with studded chain.
On the studded chain heavy pitting of 2 to 3mm depth was noted where the chain
connected to the shackle. This localised effect again supports the hypothesis of galvanic
type corrosion between the shackle and the chain, which has affected some 26 links
before the effect is dissipated. Pits can act as stress raisers see Section 7.5.
Given that there is a length of studded chain without pitting between where the pitting
has been observed and the fairlead, there is some evidence that this pitting is not due to
any cathodic action from the FPSO itself. Since this phenomenon has developed either
side of the shackle, it is logical to assume that the material characteristics of the shackle
may be a contributing factor.
Figure 7-10 - Illustration of the Extent of Pitting Corrosion
A4163-01 109
Figure 7-11 - Example of Wear and Pitting Corrosion on the Shackle Pin
The as forged dimensions on this shackle are not known with certainty, but typical
dimensions are known. The pin of the shackle goes through the end of a common link
of studded chain and the bow of the shackle goes through the studless chain. Based on
nominal or typical dimensions significant wear appears to have occurred at the bow of
the shackle with the bar diameter down from 170mm to 158mm (12mm) a major
reduction in less than 7 years.
7.3.1 Chain Wear/Corrosion Assessment (Studded and Studless)
Since chains and shackles are typically forged the final dimensions after manufacturing
are not known with any certainty, unless as built data is measured, recorded and the
item can be identified. If this is not done the final as manufactured bar diameter at the
inter-grip area may well not be known. As chain is manufactured it is bent around an
anvil when red hot and this tends to reduce the bar diameter particularly where it is
bent.
Based on the nominal chain diameter of the studless 142mm chain this shows an
apparent maximum in field combined wear/corrosion of (142 134.5) 7.5mm over less
than 7 years which at 1.07mm/year is high. So far the apparent wear and pitting
corrosion seen on this chain has been 3.6 times (1.07/0.3) higher than was allowed for
during the design process.
Based on the nominal diameter of the studded 137mm chain this gives a maximum
combined wear/corrosion of (137 132) 5mm over less than 7 years which at
0.71mm/yr is also in excess of what was allowed for in the design process.
A4163-01 110
In this case it would be useful to compare the relative shackle surface hardness with the
existing chain to see if this or galvanic type corrosion is the cause of the high apparent
wear/corrosion rate.
7.3.2 Discussion of the Consequences of the Apparent Wear/Corrosion Rate
It is appreciated that the quoted apparent North Sea wear/corrosion rate may well not be
applicable to all geographical areas and unit types. However, if the rate is even roughly
correct this may well have potentially serious consequences for units intended for long-
term field lives. Thus it is important that this area is investigated further as a matter of
priority - see Section 21.1.
7.3.3 Break Testing of all Chains
At the end of perhaps a 20 year deployment period the minimum break load of all
mooring components on a FPS should still be able to meet the calculated maximum
design load multiplied a suitable safety factor. However, we do not know how
grinding, wear or pitting corrosion will affect the chains break load. An approximate
estimate of the break test load could be obtained by using a finite element model
representation. With such a model it would be difficult to have confidence that the
finite element model is representative, particularly when hairline cracks may be
present. Hence, it is recommended that as used mooring lines and components become
available, either due to line failure or the completion of a FPS assignment, that
representative lines should be break tested to see what their actual break load is after
X years service. Figure 7-12 illustrates a test rig set up from a mooring chain break
test.
Break testing such lines may also reveal the presence or otherwise of any fatigue
cracks. Such cracks may not always be detectable using conventional inspection
techniques. For example, Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) on recovered semi-
submersible chain has found crack like indications at the inner bend region of all links.
The materials testing laboratory doing the inspection judged these to be Laps. This
feature occurs as the result of two mating links rubbing together, which causes a fold on
the material surface. Due to the rough nature of the surface in this area it is not
generally possible to do ultrasonic testing to assess the depth of these cracks like
indentations. Hence, the desirability to obtain confirmation of the presence or
otherwise of any obscured fatigue cracks.
A4163-01 111
Figure 7-12 -Test Rig Set Up for Break Testing of Mooring Components (Studless
Chain in the instance)
A4163-01 112
7.4 Sulphate Reducing Bacteria (SRB) Induced Pitting Corrosion
Sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) have been known to cause pitting corrosion in areas
such as ballast tanks see Figure 7-13. Unconfirmed rumours have indicated that SRB
may have also caused rapid corrosion damage to mooring systems in the North Sea,
south-east Asia and off Brazil. In certain areas, such as the Black Sea, it is believed
that the concentration of SRB is higher and this is believed to have caused some
difficulties for drilling contractors.
Figure 7-13 Illustration of Biologically Induced Pitting Corrosion in a Ballast Tank
It is understood that biologically induced pitting corrosion tends to be more prevalent in
warm oceans. Deep isolated pitting is a text book classic example of SRB attack. Thus
microbial induced corrosion has potential implications for floating production units in
the tropical oceans. SRB are anaerobic and can develop in a < 1mm thick layer of
slime. These bacteria can cause severe corrosion by accelerating the reduction of
sulphate compounds to corrosive hydrogen sulphide. Concern has also been expressed
about the use of high strength mooring line steel in high H
2
S environments as it may
lead to hydrogen embrittlement. This can also be affected by the amount of cathodic
protection being applied (see also Par Ohlsson paper, 3
rd
Int. Offshore Mooring
Seminar [Ref. 5]).
Standard bacteria cultivation tests exist to check for the presence of SRB. It is believed
that it would be possible to collect a slime sample from a mooring line by means of a
ROV or if necessary by diver. If a likely candidate FPS can be identified it would be
interesting to undertake such a test to assess the concentration of such bacteria. In
general 1 SRB per litre of sea water is fairly normal. Higher concentrations can be
found in the sea bed top soil.
A4163-01 113
7.5 Stress Corrosion Fatigue
Investigations undertaken by Vicinay Cadenas, Labein R&D, Bilbao University and
others have shown that corrosion clearly affects the fatigue behaviour of steel mooring
components.
Hostile environments, such as seawater, can accelerate the initiation and growth of
fatigue cracks, particularly in the presence of mean tensile stresses. One mechanism is
the development of corrosion pits, which then act as stress raisers. In other cases the
environment causes cracks to grow faster by chemical reactions and dissolution of
material at the crack tip.
To make fatigue life estimates (see also Section 16 Fracture Mechanics and Critical
Crack Size) it is possible to apply the fracture mechanics characterization as
represented by the Paris equation as shown below in terms of a curve of da/dN versus
K:
m
K C
dN
da
In this expression a is the crack length, N is the number of cycles, K is the range of
stress intensity factor. C and m are material and environment dependent constants
which are typically determined in the laboratory. For chain, Vicinay has measured
values for the exponent m in different environments. The figures for dry air are lower
(around m = 2.7), compared with the values of free corrosion in seawater that are m =
2.88. Below a threshold value of K cracks do not grow at all. Above a high level of
K crack growth is much more rapid as is illustrated in Figure 7-14.
Figure 7-14 - Crack Growth per Cycle versus Stress Intensity Range [Ref. 2]
A4163-01 114
Vicinay, in conjunction with fracture mechanics, metallographic and materials science
experts has further investigations in process to study the environment-assisted cracking
(EAC) and particularly the hydrogen-assisted cracking (HAC) behaviour of chain.
7.5.1 Latest Work on Chain Corrosion
For certain oil and gas projects the required design life for production facilities may
reach 30 years. An example of such a project is the Belanak offshore liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) FPSO facility offshore Indonesia. This hull has been designed
and built to last 30 years without the need for dry docking and all mechanical
equipment has been specified to last for this period. Such a long design life presents
real challenges for a system which is exposed to continuous wear and corrosion, yet at
the end of the field life must still be able to withstand a 100 year return period storm.
The recent OMAE Speciality Symposium on FPSO Integrity in Houston August 30 -
September 2, 2004 included a paper looking at Mooring Chain Corrosion Design
Considerations for an FPSO in Tropical Water [Ref. 33]. This paper reviewed US
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) data on corrosion rates from its 16 year test
programme in a tropical area and from corrosion data for other geographical areas from
other sources. In summary the US NRLs test results indicate that a corrosion
allowance of 0.2mm per year on one side should be sufficient for compensating the
actual corrosion damage. This gives 2 x 0.2 = 0.4mm/year on diameter which ties in
quite well with the existing codes. However, this is lower than the North Sea reference
number reported in Section 7.2.1, i.e. 0.6mm/year.
What is perhaps significant here is that the 0.4mm/year rate discussed in the OMAE
paper seems to only correspond to corrosion, the effect of wear seems to have been
neglected. North Sea experience seems to indicate that wear can be quite considerable.
In locations such as West Africa, where less extreme but regular FPSO motion can be
expected year after year, the effect of wear is expected to be significant. Hence it is felt
that a 0.4 mm/year rate to cover corrosion and wear is not conservative, at least for the
North Sea. But still more data is needed from other types of units, which have seen
long-term deployments in different geographical locations.
The design of the surface floating facility, the type of mooring and metocean conditions
will affect wear rate. For example in 1982 4.5 inch diameter U4 grade chain on a
CALM buoy failed due to excessive wear after two months, see Figure 7-15 [Ref. 34].
In this case the buoy anchor pattern was asymmetric with distinct strong and weak roll
stiffness axes and surge stiffness axes. However, this incident shows that accelerated
wear can be a real issue.
A4163-01 115
Figure 7-15 Illustration of Excessive Chain Wear on a CALM Buoy [Ref. 34]
7.5.2 Temperature, Salinity and Dissolved Oxygen Content
The following factors will influence corrosion rate all of which will vry to some degree
depending on geographical location. :
- Dissolved oxygen
- Temperature
- Salinity
- Velocity of water particles
All other factors being equal corrosion rates are approximately proportional to the level
of dissolved oxygen in the water. Oxygen content is influenced mainly by water
particle velocity and temperature. As can be seen in Figure 7-16, (also see Figure 7-17)
temperature drops with increasing water depth and hence oxygen content increases.
Thus this is a potentially undesirable effect from a corrosion perspective for deepwater
FPSs.
A4163-01 116
Figure 7-16 Typical Temperature and Salinity Profile in the Tropical Oceans
Figure 7-17 Indicative Oxygen Concentration versus Water Depth (courtesy of BP)
A4163-01 117
Figure 7-18 Gulf of Mexico Snap Shot of Bottom Oxygen Concentration
(courtesy of BP)
Salinity in terms of the chloride content of sea-water increases corrosion rate by
increasing electrical conductivity and adversely affecting development of the protective
films on the chain surface. It can be seen from Figure 7-16 that there is an approximate
change in salinity of approximately 7.7% from the surface down to a depth of about
3,000m.
It can be seen from the values reported in this section that the corrosion behaviour of
deep water mooring systems is presently uncertain.
7.5.3 Inconsistency in API RP 2SK and RP 2I
Wang and DSouzas OMAE paper identified an inconsistency between the mooring
chain inspection requirements defined in API RP 2I (In-service Inspection of Mooring
Hardware for Floating Drilling Units, and RP 2SK (Recommended Practice for the
Design and Analysis and Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures.) Although
RP 2I is not necessarily appropriate for a FPSO it would be logical to apply it to a semi
submersible production unit.
Section 3.4 of RP 2I states Links having any of the following problems should be
removed: an average diameter of two measured diameters less than 95% of the nominal
diameter (about 10% reduction of cross sectional area) or a diameter in any direction
less than 90% of the nominal diameter. This is a different approach to the corrosion
rate specified in RP 2SK.
A4163-01 118
An example helps to illustrate the difference between the two approaches. Take a chain
designed to have a net diameter of 105mm for a 30 year service life. Applying a
0.4mm per year corrosion allowance results in a final diameter of (30 x 0.4) + 105 =
117mm. After 25 years assuming the 0.4mm per year corrosion allowance the chain
will still have a sound diameter of 117 (25 x 0.4) 107mm which would still meet
the original design requirement. However, this remaining diameter of 107 fails the RP
2I inspection criteria of 0.95 x 117 111mm.
Obviously it is undesirable to have an inconsistency between two API reports. It is
believed that API 2I is due to be revised and it would be desirable for this inconsistency
to be resolved at this time.
7.6 Wear Analysis (Shoup and Mueller Work)
As was mentioned in Section 7.5 an interesting example of how wear can lead to
mooring line failure is provided by the failure of a CALM buoy just two months after
installation. This was investigated by Shoup and Mueller in their OTC paper 4764
from 1984. Although this is a now a fairly old paper, it is still a particularly useful
work in the respect of surface hardness and wear prediction.
Wear is a complex process involving material properties, forces, sliding distances and
environmental factors, such as sea-water immersion. Hence, rather than relying solely
on theoretical analysis, Shoup and Mueller undertook an experimental wear study.
Because of the cost of full scale component testing, it was decided to perform wear
tests on smaller size specimens simulating as closely as practical the actual service
conditions. Figure 7-19 shows the wear results obtained from the crossed cylinder wear
tests. Both U3 and U4 marine/ship grade chain had high initial wear rates, followed by
a distinct knee and a nearly linear lower rate after approximately 150 cycles. The knee
and the plateau were probably caused by the decreased contact pressure and reduced
sliding distance resulting from wear. The presence of sea water which provided
lubrication caused a distinct reduction in wear. This has implications for external
turret moored FPSOs in benign climates.
A4163-01 119
Figure 7-19 - Measured Wear Rates of U3 and U4 Chain at 8,170lbs (300 tonnes
equivalent) [Ref. 34]
These experimental tests identified wear rate coefficients which are dependent on
applied tension and whether the chains were in air or sea-water.
Using this data a modified form of Archards wear equation was developed of the
following form:
where:
F = chain tension
= roll angle (degrees)
r = radius of the chain barstock
K = wear coefficient (dependent of F)
N = number of records
TWV = total wear volume for the duration of the test
( ) ( )( ) | | 3 ........
180
1
2
1
1
1
i r i i
Fi Fi
TMV
N
i
K |
.
|
\
|
+ |
.
|
\
| + +
=
_
=
t
| |
A4163-01 120
7.6.1 Shoup and Muellers Key Conclusions
The conclusions from Shoup and Muellers paper are interesting and have potential
implications for the reliability of the mooring systems on deep water floating
production facilities. Hence, they are reproduced in full below:
The most important result of the study is the realization that wear is an important
criteria for anchor leg design, especially for deepwater systems. Deepwater catenary
systems are prone to anchor chain wear because:
1. Overall system elasticity and surge motion increases with water depth. As
surge motion increases, interlink motions also increase.
2. Catenary chain moorings have large pretension interlink forces in deep
water. The wear study shows wear rate increases dramatically with
increasing load (particularly at the floating structure interface).
Catastrophic wear failure of catenary anchor leg lines (at the floating structure
interface) can be prevented by:
1. Placing large links below the chainstoppers to keep the gross contact
pressure below the high wear rate regime.
2. Using a stopper casting support which is free to rotate about two
perpendicular axis. This will eliminate most of the wear generating
interlink motions.
3. Studying the behaviour of links in the wear zone to determine if a
particular mooring arrangement generates large relative sliding distance
between links.
With respect to point 2 it is worth noting that that most FPSOs only allow stopper
rotation about one axis rather than two (see Figure 9-3). For spread moored FPSOs it
will be interesting to see if wear experienced in the field may make adopting a twin
axis approach worthwhile.
A4163-01 121
7.6.2 Calibration of Up to Date Wear Analysis Model with Offshore Recorded Values
With modern dynamic analysis mooring packages, it is possible to predict the relative
rotation between individual links for different line tensions/sea states. There are now a
number of FPSs which have been operational for a number of years and from which
indicative wear rates are available. Hence, there is benchmark data which can be
potentially used to validate a wear analysis assessment and assist with the selection of
wear rate coefficients. Thus, it is recommended that such an exercise should be
undertaken (see Section 21). Once a good validation has been achieved it should be
possible to apply the developed methodology to a planned new deep water long-term
FPS. It should be possible to take into account the system specified pretension and
expected environmental conditions and vessel response. In this way the calculated
wear rate can be compared with the code specified wear and corrosion rates (see
Section 0). If the calculated value is higher than the code specified value a cost benefit
analysis may be required to assess whether increasing the line diameter is more cost
effective than carrying out a replacement operation some time during the field life.
7.6.3 Enhanced Wear and the Possible Development of Loose Studs in the Chain
Lockers
On all the lines in the chain locker on the FPSO with adjustable lines discussed in
section 9.1, there will be two slack sections where the chain hangs off from the bitter
end shackle and down from the ceiling mounted gypsy wheel. As the FPSO responds
to the environment these slack chain sections will move around and may be subject to
wear within the locker, which might not normally be expected for un-tensioned chain in
the chain locker. The motion of the chain added to the possibility of corrosion inside
the chain locker could lead to the development of loose studs. On this unit loose studs
were found in a 17 link, chain section, which was pulled out from the chain locker.
Previous experience with chain storage in lockers on semi-subs indicates a potential for
corrosion pitting damage. To quote, chain which normally remained in the locker
exhibited severe localized corrosion in the form of deep pitting. This was unexpected.
However, the severe pitting probably resulted from the formation of oxygen
concentration cells at points of contact within the stored pile of chain. The moist salty
environment provided electrolyte and the varying local concentrations of oxygen
provided the anode/cathode galvanic potential [Ref. 35].
Pitting corrosion and the wear are both potentially significant points, since you do not
want to adjust line lengths to reduce wear and possibly by doing so introduce weak
links into the system, which were not previously under high tension see Section 9.1.
A4163-01 122
8 UNBALANCED LINE PRE-TENSIONS (CASE
STUDIES)
8.1 North Sea Semi-Submersible FPS
When a mooring analysis is undertaken the pre- or working tensions are set at specific
values, which are often identical. This is a reasonable approach as long as the unit in
the field can set their line tensions to comparable values. If the set up line pre-tensions
on a FPS are unbalanced, this can lead to increased maximum line tensions and reduced
fatigue lives. In addition, in case of a single line failure this can lead to an increased
transient excursion, which might exceed the allowable watch circle.
On a North Sea semi-sub FPS the offshore personnel doubted the tension readouts were
accurate because:
- Sometimes the wire became partially bedded into, and/or damaged the lower
wrap on the winch drums
- When grappling for certain components on the mooring line they were not
found at the expected depth.
Therefore, an underwater ROV survey was taken of the flounder or tri-plate connectors
on the mooring lines to obtain their x, y and z co-ordinates. From these positions and
knowing the submerged weight of the line it was possible to undertake a catenary line
calculation to determine the actual line tension. These tensions can then be compared
to the tension readouts on the rig at the time that the ROV position check was made. It
was found from this process that the calculated tensions and the measured tensions
could be out by up to 160% in the worst instance!
There are a number of potential reasons why the tension meters were so far out. These
include:
- The meters have not been calibrated or the calibration has drifted over time
- The gypsy wheels may be seized
- The instrumentation is not sufficiently sensitive
- The tensions are measured at the base of the winches in board of the fairleads
A4163-01 123
8.2 Line Payout/Pull-In Test
To confirm whether or not the gypsy wheels were seized and to assess the sensitivity of
the tension meters, a carefully controlled Line Payout/Pull-In Test was undertaken. In
this test each line was paid out in 2m increments and the line tensions were recorded.
The lines were then pulled in by the same amount and the line tensions recorded. If this
test is undertaken relatively quickly in good weather, it would be expected that the
same tension would be obtained for the same line payouts. However, this was revealed
not to be the case in all instances, see for example the plot below for Line Number 11.
Line No11
185.0
186.0
187.0
188.0
189.0
190.0
191.0
192.0
193.0
194.0
195.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Tension (te)
W
i
r
e
p
a
y
o
u
t
(
m
)
Figure 8-1 Illustration of Line Tension Variations during a Payout/Pull-In Test
The wiggles on this graph are believed to be due to due to the sheaves binding and
then becoming free and then binding again. It is understood that a similar wiggle
pattern has been recorded during a Payout/Pull-In test on a Gulf of Mexico Spar.
A4163-01 124
8.3 North Sea FPSO
This FPSO is fortunate, compared to FPSOs where the mooring lines are stoppered off
at the turret base, in that loadcells are available which can provide a rapid means of
verifying mooring line tensions. In principle loadcells should be able to detect both
extreme event line tensions and normal working tensions. However, on this particular
unit not all the loadcells are working properly and the offshore personnel have little
confidence in the reported values. In addition, the wildcats could be partially seized,
which would influence the line tension readings.
Obviously if loadcells are uncalibrated the results cannot be treated with confidence.
But also on a single loadcell unit, with a very large reporting range, the sensitivity to
accurately establish the lower pretension value is uncertain, as seems to be
demonstrated by this FPSO. Hence consideration should be given to using two
loadcells on each mooring line. The first would be accurate at the pre-tensioning load
( 100t) level. The second loadcell would have sufficient range to monitor loads
during storm conditions ( 1,000t).
8.3.1 Chapter Conclusions and Recommendations
Historically semi submersible drilling units have been subject to relatively frequent
mooring line failures which equate to approximately one failure per three operating
years. Sometimes these failures cannot be attributed to obvious causes. The work
reported in this section shows that it is possible for a carefully set up Rig to have a
seriously unbalanced mooring pattern, which may well not be detected by the Operator.
Such a Rig would thus be in greater danger of mooring line failure.
If the tension meters are well positioned, working properly and their calibration is in
date, a likely cause of unbalanced line tensions is partial seizure of the gypsy wheels.
This can be confirmed by a simple line Payout/Pull-In test. If this reveals that some of
the gypsy wheels are partially seized an attempt should be made to free them up.
However, if the unit is on station it may not be feasible to undertake such work in situ.
In such a case the line tensions out with the fairlead should be determined by other
measures such as:
- ROV or possibly diver monitoring of the chain angles where they emerge
from the fairleads
- Acoustic monitoring of the x, y and z positions of specific connectors on the
mooring lines
From these measurements it is possible to back calculate the actual line tensions as long
as this is done in calm conditions with minimal tidal variations.
A4163-01 125
At present it is not known how common a problem this could be for other operating
units. Seized wheels may be more likely on a wire sheave than on a chain
gypsywheel/wildcat. Hence, it is recommended that similar Payout/Pull-In tests are
repeated for a number of different ages and designs of Semi-Submersibles. This is
recommended in the HSEs recent research report 219, Design and Integrity
Monitoring of Mobile Installation Moorings [Ref. 36].
Azimuth Checks and Marine Growth
If a gypsy wheel is partially seized with respect to rotation it may also be seized relative
to azimuth rotations. Hence, as well as checks gypsy wheel checks on free running, the
ability of the fairlead assembly to freely slew or azimuth should also be confirmed. If
the fairleads cannot azimuth freely increased chain wear is likely to occur. In practice
the best way to achieve this in the field may be to examine the marine growth at the
fairlead to see if it has been displaced as the gypsy wheels azimuth. If there is no
evidence of removal of marine growth it is likely that the fairleads may be seized in the
azimuth direction and may also have problems rotating!
A4163-01 126
9 MOORING BEHAVIOUR AT THE VESSEL
INTERFACE (CASE STUDIES)
The design of the vessel interface needs to minimize the potential for wear, corrosion or
other forms of degradation. However, in field experience is demonstrating that this is
not always being achieved. This is discussed in this chapter. The key points are
relevant to mooring systems in general, not just to one particular design or even type of
floating platform. Although turrets are discussed in detail the key points are relevant to
Spars, spread moored FPSOs and semi-subs.
9.1 Permanently Stoppered Off Versus Adjustable Lines
There are a number of different turret designs available on the market. On many turret
designs the chains are stoppered off at the base of the turret see Figure 9-2. There are
also a fewer number in which the line lengths can be adjusted during the life of the unit
see Figure 9-1. In addition, there is at least one unit which uses wire into the turret as
opposed to chain. Although there are many different designs, including both internal
and external turrets, it is possible to categorize them as follows:
a) Non adjustable permanently locked off chains at the turret base,
b) Adjustable chains which come up through the turret and are stored in a chain locker.
On Type a) systems the line tensions are not normally intended to be changed at any
time throughout the field life. Type b) systems use a wildcat at the base of the turret
similar to that found on a semi-submersible drilling unit running chains. Type b)
FPSOs typically adjust their lines lengths and tensions either annually or even monthly.
On some designs of spread-moored FPSOs the line lengths are also not intended to be
adjusted and the required equipment for adjustment may not normally be present.
Being able to chain the line lengths has the following beneficial effects:
1) Distributes the high wear point on the chain over several links thus prolonging
chain life.
2) Distributes the wear over several gypsy wheel pockets, thus prolonging gypsy
wheel life.
A4163-01 127
Figure 9-1 - Turret Design in which Chain Lengths can be Adjusted (courtesy of
Chevron-Texaco)
Figure 9-2 Generic Turret Design in which the Chains are Stoppered off at the Turret
Base (courtesy of Bluewater)
A4163-01 128
If the line lengths are never adjusted during the field life this means that the same links
in the thrash zone and at the turret interface will need to withstand the majority of the
degradation. In addition, inspecting lines in situ is more difficult, since the chain is
relatively inaccessible inside the trumpet/chain stopper. It is also much more difficult
with such designs to pick up the chain off the sea-bed to make it more accessible for in
water inspection (see Section 18).
Being able to adjust line lengths can introduce its own perils, although these should be
controllable. During a regular line tension adjustment operation on one North Sea
FPSO there was a failure of the lifting and locking mechanism resulting in a complete
line run out (see Section 0).
On type a) systems the trumpets are typically pivoted about a single axis so as to
minimize chain rotation and wear. Since the rotation is only about one axis and the
trumpets are arranged around an approximate circle, the pivoting action cannot
eliminate chain rotation for all the lines at the same time. Thus, to minimize wear over
a long field life, there may be arguments for selecting a design which can pivot about
two axes, although this would be mechanically more complicated. This may be
particularly relevant to spread moored FPSOs which cannot weather vane. Hence,
there may be more wear at the chain/hull interface when the weather is not directly on
the bow. Depending on location the weather coming in on the vessels quarters may
occur for a significant proportion of the time.
Figure 9-3 - Spread Moored FPSO Single Axis Chain Stopper (courtesy of SBM)
A4163-01 129
Trumpets or guides are normally included on type a) FPSO designs to help guide the
chain into the chain stopper. The trumpets themselves may include angle iron guides
to ensure that the chain is in the right orientation when it enters the chain stopper. Once
the chains are tensioned the trumpets have no real purpose unless they are required in
the future for a new chain pull in operation. Interestingly, the pivoting chain stopper
design which was adopted for the Brent Spar buoy did not include trumpets to help
guide in the chain see Section 11. However, in this case the chains in the stoppers were
probably pre-rigged before the Spar was towed out to location. A kenter joining
shackle was then used to connect up the chain in the field before the line was tensioned
up. If you have a reliable method of connecting up in the field this approach does have
some advantages. For example, the trumpets can be dispensed with and it is also easier
to undertake a change out of the top chain section at some stage during the field life if
required without cutting the chain. This illustrates the importance of having long-term
reliable connectors, which is an area which still requires further work.
A4163-01 130
9.2 Wear at Trumpet Welds Internal and External Turrets
9.2.1 External Turret
On a number of type a) turret configurations wear has been experienced where the
chains have been rubbing against the weld beads, where the bell mouth joins with the
parallel trumpet section (see Figure 9-6). This was first experienced on an early S.E.
Asian external turret moored FPSO. For this external turret, in air access was such that
it was possible to shroud the chains where they were rubbing against the weld beads
with a replaceable material (ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UMPHE)
sheeting). This whitish material can just be seen on Figure 9-4 poking out of the
trumpets. In this case the weld beads were left as they were with no attempt to grind
them down smooth. On this project UMPHE has been successful in stopping the chain
wear, however, the sheeting needs regular inspection and replacement when it becomes
worn or damaged. Hence, this is a solution which is only suitable where access is
good, not for a submerged turret, in a harsh environment.
Figure 9-4 - External Cantilever Turret which experienced Chain wear at the Trumpet
Welds which was halted by use of UMPHE (courtesy of Shell)
Considerable wear has also been noted on the chains which are normally in air on a
benign climate external turret unit. Water lubrication may be a possibility to minimize
the wear rate on such units see section 7.6.
A4163-01 131
9.2.2 Wear at Trumpets - Internal Turret
In the North Sea mooring lines are typically inspected utilising a work class ROV
which performs a fly by of the lines. During one of these surveys a slight shadow was
seen on one of the chains at the trumpet interface during the annual workclass ROV
chain survey. Unfortunately, the large work class ROV was unable to get close in
enough to inspect this shadow to determine whether it was simply removal of marine
growth and mill scale, or if a notch was being ground into the chain (see Figure 9-5).
To investigate this apparent anomaly further, a test tank mock up of the chain and
trumpet assembly was built so that the capability of using a football sized micro-ROV
(see Figure 17-5) to get in close to the bell mouth could be evaluated. This test tank
test is illustrated in Figure 9-6. Micro-ROVs are particularly attractive for inspecting
around the base of the turret since they can be deployed from the FPS itself rather than
employing the services of a ROV support vessel. A micro-ROV can typically be
deployed over the side of the FPSO either by hand or using a simple lowering frame.
In addition, on some FPSOs there may be a spare I tube which is wide enough for the
micro-ROV to be lowered down through. The test of the micro-ROV was successful
ands it was subsequently deployed in the field. Figure 9-7 illustrates one of the
photographs taken by the micro-ROV in the field. Marks can be clearly seen on both
left hand and right hand faces of the chain where it has been in contact with the
trumpet.
Figure 9-5 - Example of the Level of Inspection Detail which can be achieved using a
Typical Workclass ROV (courtesy of I.Williams)
A4163-01 132
Figure 9-6- Test Tank Mock-Up of Micro-ROV inspection of Chain Emerging from
Turret Trumpet (courtesy of I. Williams)
Figure 9-7 - Micro-ROV Photograph of Chain Wear Notches where Chain Emerges at
the Trumpet Bell Mouth (courtesy of I. Williams)
A4163-01 133
Even with the better image resolution provided by the micro-ROV, quantifying the
exact extent of the chain wear was difficult. However, it can be seen from
Figure 9-8 that it was potentially significant if the illustrated reduction in bar diameter
is correct. In addition, it can be seen from Figure 9-10 that the location of the notch is
in an area which is subject to significant reduction in bar diameter when a chain is
loaded up to its MBL. Unfortunately, there is little data available on how reduction in
bar diameter can affect chain strength. To try and determine as reliably as possible how
a notch in the chain would affect strength, a notch was ground into some spare chain
links left over from the original installation see Figure 9-9. This link was then break
tested to assess how much the chain MBL had been reduced by the presence of the
notch.
6
1
6
1
Figure 9-8 - Indication of the Extent of the Wear
A4163-01 134
Figure 9-9 - Artificially Introduced Notch on to Spare Chain Links, note also Red
Circular Infrared Target (courtesy of I. Williams)
Figure 9-10 - Example of Stretched Chain during Break Testing, the Blue Mark Shows
the Location of a Typical Notch (courtesy of I. Williams)
A4163-01 135
The results from this break test of the notched chain indicated that it was likely that
some of the as installed mooring lines would no longer meet the required mooring line
safety factors. Even if the lines were still within the required safety factors, it would
just be a matter of time until they became out of specification and when this might
happen could not be reliably quantified. In addition, there was some possibility that
fatigue cracks could have developed due to the regular knocking action which, if
present, would reduce the break strength considerably. At present no technology exists
which can check for fatigue cracks underwater, particularly in such an inaccessible
area. Therefore, the decision was made to undertake a repair operation to change out
the links going through the trumpets by custom built chain links of the same length as
the existing chain, but made from a larger bar size. In addition, the new links were
given a special hard cobalt chromium anti wear coating see Figure 9-11. Further
details of the repair operation can be found in Section 18.8.2.
Figure 9-11 - Example of a Special Cobalt Chromium Anti-Wear Coating (courtesy of
I. Williams)
9.2.3 Actual Chain Condition after Recovery
It is interesting to compare the actual condition of the recovered compared to its
expected condition. Figure 9-12 shows one of the recovered links. This figure clearly
demonstrates that the wear was gradually eating into the side of the chain, thus
progressively weakening the link. Although the extent of the wear was not as bad as
some of the earlier predictions, it was clear that the wear would get worse over time.
Fortunately, Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) of the key links did not reveal any
hairline cracks, but this was not known beforehand. As well as the wear due to contact
with the weld beads, additional damage was noted along the chain which was lying
along the trumpet and sitting in the stopper see Figure 9-13.
A4163-01 136
Figure 9-12 - Photograph of a Recovered Link Showing a Wear Notch (courtesy of I.
Williams)
Figure 9-13 - An Example of the Chain Damage noted after the Notched Chains had
been recovered back to Shore (courtesy of I. Williams)
A4163-01 137
9.2.4 Reasons for the Wear
It is significant to note that the chain stopper on type a) designs is typically inboard of
the pivot point - see Figure 9-14. This means that the trumpet assembly does not
automatically follow the motion of the chain. In fact it is contact between the chain and
the outer face of the bell mouth which causes the trumpet to rotate see Figure 9-21. It
is this contact, plus an associated sliding/sawing action, which seems to have led to the
chain notches.
Figure 9-14 - Turret Arrangement where the Chain Stopper (in red) is Behind the
Rotation Point (2 black concentric circles)
Should the Stopper be behind or in front of the Pivot Point?
It is helpful to consider the pros and cons of having the pivot point behind the chain
stopper (i.e. the rotation point is closest to the hull). Some spread moored units have
gone the other way (see Figure 9-16). This approach seems to ensure that the
compliance introduced by the bearing takes out as much of the motion as possible and
the metal to metal contact as illustrated in Figure 9-15 is avoided. It will be interesting
to see how much wear is experienced in the field by the designs with the stopper
outboard of the pivot point. It will also be interesting to see what happens to the chain
which is under low tension from the stopper up to the deck of the FPS see Section
9.2.5.
Implications of Long Trumpets
For chain stoppers which are inboard of the pivot points it would appear that long
trumpets are not helpful after the completion of the installation process. Thus it is
recommended that careful checks should be made on any FPSOs which fit this category
[Ref. 37].
A4163-01 138
Figure 9-15 Illustration of Potential Wear at Metal to Metal Contact (courtesy of I.
Williams)
Figure 9-16 - Fairlead Chain Stopper where the Chain Stopper is in Front of the
Rotation Point (used on some Spread Moored FPSOs) (courtesy of Maritime Pusnes)
A4163-01 139
Figure 9-17 - As Installed Photo Graph of the Design Shown in Figure 9-16 (courtesy
of Maritime Pusnes)
Compatible Surface Hardness
In general achieving compatible chain surface hardness is important for long term
integrity, since it affects wear. Unfortunately, at present chain hardness and wear do
not seem to be evaluated in any detail. These factors should be taken account of during
detailed design, but more work is needed on this area before it becomes part of the
standard design process.
Having the pivot point behind the chain stopper may date back to the original design of
CALM buoys (see Figure 9-18). However, as far as can be determined the early Shell
buoys did not have long trumpets and thus wear at the end of the trumpets may not
have been an issue. Given that a tried and tested working design from CALM buoys
was already available it is not surprising that this detail was incorporated into early
FPSO turret designs which were not initially deployed in harsh environments.
A4163-01 140
Figure 9-18 Typical CALM Buoy Chain Stopper (courtesy of The Professional
Divers Handbook [Ref. 38])
On the subject of CALMs Figure 9-19 shows an Imodco buoy with a rubber casting
used to minimise wear at the lip of the trumpet. Thus, it is clear that potential wear in
this area has been an issue for a number of years. Significantly during installation it is
apparently difficult to get the rubber castings in exactly the right place.
Figure 9-19 - Amoco CALM Buoy- Note Inclusion of Rubber Casting (courtesy of
[Ref. 38])
A4163-01 141
9.2.5 Alternative Fairlead Designs
The traditional fairlead arrangement on a semi-sub is illustrated on the upper two
sketches of Figure 9-20. With this design the chain where it runs round the lower
wildcat is under high tension, particularly in storm conditions. With this type of design
the first free link hinges on the last link in the fairlead pocket as the chain catenary
angle changes. Thus the chain scrubs the surfaces of the pocket and whelp under high
contact pressures. Hence, over time, both the chain and the wildcat will suffer from
wear and damage see Figure 18-8 and Figure 18-9. An alternative design is presented
in the lower two sketches of Figure 9-20. In this design the in the motion between the
chain and the surface platform is mainly taken out at a horizontal pin which attaches the
stopper to the floating vessel and also by a freely azimuthing assembly.
With this alternative design it is important that the chain should not be actually slack
from where it runs from the chain stopper to the windlass or chain jack. If the line is
too slack there may well be excessive movement between links as the surface platform
responds to wave excitation. Excessive movement can lead to accelerated wear. If
wear happens above the stopper and then line is let out a weak point may be introduced
in the system. However, not too much back tension should be included since it is
important that the whole chain stopper assembly should still be able to azimuth freely.
It is important that the in field performance of these new designs of fairleads should be
studied after a few years of operational experience to check whether they are
performing as well in situ as hoped. This information then needs to be fed back to the
wider mooring community.
A4163-01 142
Figure 9-20 - Comparison of Alternative Fairlead Arrangements (courtesy of Bardex)
A4163-01 143
9.3 Use of Bending Shoes
Before concluding this section on mooring lines at the vessel interface it is appropriate
to also include mention of bending shoes. As can be seen from Figure 9-21 and Figure
9-22 bending shoes can be used both for wire rope and chain. At present there is little
data available in the public domain comparing the performance of bending shoes to
either wildcats/gypsy wheels or permanently stoppered off designs. It would be
extremely helpful to track down such data, since it could be that a well designed
bending shoe could help to preserve the life of the mooring line at the vital vessel
interface.
Figure 9-21 Example of a Wire Rope Bending Shoe (courtesy of API RP25K)
Figure 9-22 - Example of a Chain Bending Shoe Design [Ref. 39]
A4163-01 144
For wire rope cyclic stresses from bending will shorten its service life because of
fatigue. Fatigue resistance (service life) increases as a ratio of bend shoe diameter to
wire diameter (D/d) increases. Individual wires move relative to one another and to the
bearing surface as the rope bends causing abrasion. Abrasive wear increases as D/d
decreases. Under heavy loads, the rope flattens against the bearing surface, increasing
relative motion between strands and wires. Lubrication and large D/d ratios mitigate
the adverse affects of bending. Minimum D/d ratios are available for different rope
constructions [Ref. 19 7-2.12].
Chain works most efficiently when loaded in pure tension. Tensioning chain that is
bent over a surface introduces bending stress that reduces load carrying capability. It is
thus recommended that Chain should not be tensioned over surfaces with diameters less
than seven times the chain diameter. Thus sharp bends and corners should be avoided
[Ref. 19 7-29].
The bending shoe design illustrated in Figure 9-23 includes an angle sensor which can
be used to back calculate the static line tension. However, given the problems outlined
in Section 0 it will be interesting to see if the dynamic behaviour of the chain at this
point over time may cause wear problems. The particular application illustrated is in
deep water and hence line dynamics (whipping/fluid drag) will affect tension. In other
words the recorded angle may not give an accurate idea of the tension in the line.
Figure 9-23 - Bending Shoe Design which includes an Angle Sensor [Ref. 40]
Another point to note on this project is that the chain is locked off and it is not planned
to be moved regularly. In fact the chain jacks were removed after installation and will
be re-installed as required during chain inspection. Not being able to work the chain
will affect its fatigue life, so it will be interesting to see how well this mooring system
performs over time.
A4163-01 145
10 FURTHER MOORING CASE STUDIES
10.1 Wire Rope Systems
A number of floating production/storage units ropes within their mooring systems
have seen periods of extended operation in the north sea including :
- AH001
- Buchan FPS
- Emerald Producer FPSO
A number of wires from these units were removed and examined as part of two
previous JIPs [Ref. 41 and Ref. 42]. The inspection of these lines confirmed that wire
will be subject to degradation at the fairlead region and in the thrash zone. Hence, if
IWRC wire is used in these locations it will typically need to be replaced after about 8
years service see Table 3-9. Further information on when to discard IWRC mooring
lines can be found in Chaplin 1992. Figure 10-1 from Chaplin 1992 [Ref. 43] gives an
idea of the type of degradation which IWRC rope can be subject to :
Figure 10-1 Examples of the Subjectivity Associated with Assessing IWRC Rope
Conditions [Ref. 43]
A4163-01 146
10.2 Unintended Line Disconnection
On a North Sea dis-connectable FSU (see Figure 10-2) the mooring wire and socket
was found to have parted from the triplate assembly. An in-water survey showed the
line to be in normal alignment, but separated by 36m from the triplate assembly, which
was still securely attached by the mooring chain to the suction anchor. Inspection of
the mooring line socket showed the socket retaining pin to be displaced, as one of the
circular retaining plates which keep the pin in place had parted from the socket body
(see Figure 10-3). It should be noted that the initial design prevented pin from rotating,
also Section 14.1.2.
Figure 10-2 - Illustration of the Mooring Layout and Connections
A4163-01 147
Figure 10-3 - Photograph of Disconnected Socket on the Sea-Bed (courtesy of BP/Stolt
Offshore)
Figure 10-4 - Note End Plate also seems to be Falling Off on the Right Hand Side
(courtesy of BP/Stolt Offshore)
A4163-01 148
Figure 10-5 - End Connection Detail
Figure 10-6 - Illustration of Socket Minus End Plate
A4163-01 149
10.2.1 Probable Causes of the Failure
There was a relatively steep change in mass per unit length at the triplate. This meant
that the line at the forged tri-plate was subject to:
- repeated pick up and set down contacts with the seabed, and
- quite large relative rotations between chains, the wire and the tri-plate
elements.
This resulted in rotational torque being transmitted from the wire socket through the
retaining pin into the tri-plate and finally out to the chain cable via the LTM shackle.
The pin retaining plate is bolted both to the pin and to the socket body the pin. The pin
cannot rotate and the torque must be resisted by these bolts. These bolts either became
loose and fell out, or failed in shear/fatigue.
How was it Rectified?
The problem was rectified by using more and bigger bolts on the end plate and
allowing it to rotate see Figure 10-7. The issue of whether or not to allow the pin to
rotate is discussed in greater detail in Section 14.1.2.
Figure 10-7 - Repair Utilised Bigger Bolts and Allowed the Socket Pin to Rotate
A4163-01 150
10.2.2 Anode Failures
Excessive corrosion was noted on the moorings wires discussed in Section 10.2.
Therefore a series of anodes were retrofitted on the lines to control the corrosion level
see Figure 10-8. The anodes were inspected after approximately 12 months service
see Figure 10-9, where it can be seen that a number had become disconnected. There
are a number of possible reasons for the anodes becoming disconnected and, due to
commercial reasons it is not possible to discuss these in detail. However, from a
mooring integrity point of view the key message seems to be keep your catenaries
clean see also Section 10.3. In other words avoid adding anything on to the
catenary, particularly in the thrash zone.
Figure 10-8 - Example of Retrofitted Anodes to Control Corrosion Rate
Figure 10-9 - Example of Disconnected Anodes after approximately 12 months of
Service
A4163-01 151
10.3 Excursion Limiting Weighted Chain Problems
Excursion limiting weighted chain designs (see also Section 3.1.6) have been adopted
for certain FPSO projects. However, as can be seen from the two projects discussed in
this section, their use can cause problems. Figure 10-10 and Figure 10-11 illustrate
clump weights used on a North Sea FPSO. Unfortunately, as can be seen from Figure
10-10 a number of clump weights have come off in service. It is not feasible to re-
attach the clumps without recovering the lines to the surface, which is a major costly
exercise.
Figure 10-10 - Example of Detached Clump Weight on the Sea-Bed
Figure 10-11 - Example of Recovered Clump Weights
A4163-01 152
Figure 10-12 illustrates an alternative weighted chain design utilising hung off chain
tails. However, this design has also seen problems as is discussed in Section 7.2.1 and
illustrated in Figure 7-7.
General Location of
Damaged Shackles
General Location
of Excessive
Wear
General Location of
Damaged Shackles
General Location
of Excessive
Wear
Figure 10-12 Illustration of Where the Damage Occurred on the Mooring Catenary
10.3.1 Use of Parallel chains to Increase Weight
Figure 10-10 illustrates an excursion limiting weighted chain design which has
operated successfully in the North Sea since the later half of the 1980s. As can be seen
it utilises a parallel chain design.
Figure 10-13 - Example of a Parallel Chain Excursion Limiter (courtesy of I. Williams)
A4163-01 153
If adopting such a solution with more than 2 parallel chains it is necessary to appreciate
that the chains will not be of identical length and thus will experience different tension
ranges. Hence the chains need to be suitably sized. In addition, it is important to still
inspect the chains regularly. Figure 10-15 shows the extent of wear that can still occur
due to the dynamic motion in the thrash zone. Thus whatever connectors are selected
need to be robust.
Figure 10-14 - Weighted Chain Option Utilising Parallel Chain Sections
(courtesy of N.Groves)
Figure 10-15 - Red Arrow Illustrates the Local Wear can take place when utilising
Parallel Chain (courtesy of N. Groves)
A4163-01 154
10.3.2 Buoys on Mooring Lines
Problems with submerged mooring line buoys have been encountered on a European
based FPSO (see Figure 10-16). Figure 10-16 and a semi-submersible production unit.
It is interesting to note that in Figure 10-16 the failures have occurred on leeside or
breasting lines, not windward lines.
Line 10,
shackle
buoy
failed,
2001
Line 1,
shackle
buoy
failed,
2004, sea
bed wire
corroded
Line 2,
buoy chain
cracked &
replaced
Line 3,
buoy chain
failed
Line 10,
shackle
buoy
failed,
2001
Line 1,
shackle
buoy
failed,
2004, sea
bed wire
corroded
Line 2,
buoy chain
cracked &
replaced
Line 3,
buoy chain
failed
Figure 10-16 - Example of Mid-Line Buoy Failures on a European FPSO
A4163-01 155
10.4 Line Run Outs and Quick Releases
A complete mooring line run out from the turret of a North Sea FPSO occurred during
the course of this JIP. The line back to the bitter end shackle was whipped out of the
turret and fell down to the sea-bed. It was a serious uncontrolled incident which could
easily have lead to a serious injury or a fatality. There was an added danger of damage
to sub sea assets. Again semi sub drilling units have suffered from chain run outs and
thus this was not a known failure mode. Figure 10-17 illustrates the damage done to
one of the chain gripper chocks.
The following list of operations chronicles the events leading up to the failure:
- Raised hydraulic oil pressure to approximately 250 barg.
- Chain load was taken on the gripper and the chain rose up to remove load
from stopper.
- Opened the stopper and the chain was pulled up by fully extending the lift
cylinders.
- Attempted to close the stopper but was not possible because the stopper
was contacting chain link. The operator considered that either tensioner
was not fully extended or that chain links were too long.
- The chain was lowered and the exercise repeated, but it was still not
possible to engage the lower stopper.
- Whilst lowering the tensioner a loud noise occurred and operator thought
that chain was slipping through the tensioner and ran for cover.
- Due to dust from the chain being detected by smoke detectors, a platform
general platform alert (GPA) occurred and all personnel were mustered.
The FPSO was shut down until an ROV could be mobilized through fear
of damage to risers and other mooring lines.
Late Design Changes and Subsequent Modifications
The design of this particular mooring system was revised during the latter stages of
fabrication. This was a result of further load cases which required a stronger mooring
system. This was identified when the turret fabrication was well advanced. Thus, with
the positions of equipment fixed, compromises in the design were made. Critical to
these were the relative position of the tensioner to the chain locker spurling pipe which
had the effect of fixing the size of the gypsy wheel and therefore the number of pockets
in the wheel - see Figure 10-18. Also the tolerances of forged chain links had not been
properly taken account of. Modifications to the lifting and locking mechanisms should
prevent another incident of this type occurring. It is worth noting that line run-outs are
far from unknown on semi-submersible drilling rigs [Ref. 45] and OTO 98086 [Ref.
46].
A4163-01 156
Figure 10-17 - Gripper chock showing chain damage
Figure 10-18 - Upper Gypsy Wheel Arrangement before Failure
Figure 10-19 - Gypsy wheel structure after failure, i.e. Gypsy Wheel No Longer Present
A4163-01 157
Chain Run out Implications for the Industry
The Manufacturer of the Linear Tensioner assembly which failed has confirmed that
this FPSO is unique in its use of a combined upper gripper and lower stopper assembly
in one installed unit. BUT this does not necessarily mean that there is no danger of
possible chain run out on other units which are able to adjust mooring line tensions.
Hence the lessons learnt need to be distributed through out the industry. This incident
highlights the importance of reviewing all similar mechanical systems to check that,
during the course of a long period of operation, chain/stopper wear or link dimensional
variation may not jeopardize the integrity of the mechanism.
10.4.1 North Sea FPSO Repair of Loose Studs
On an early North Sea FPSO it was discovered that a number of mooring lines had
loose studs. The lines were repaired with a new design of kenters (see Figure 10-20).
However, at present the classification society is stating that, despite the expected
superior fatigue performance of these kenters, they will still need to be examined in the
dry after 5 years service. Recovering kenters on to the back of an anchor handler, so
that they can be dissembled and examined, is a major cost. Since kenters themselves
are not that expensive relative to boat time, it makes sense to replace any kenters which
have to be recovered for inspection. The replaced kenters can then be examined in
detail back on land to evaluate whether there is deterioration or cracking. If this shows
that the new improved fatigue life kenters have behaved well in the field, there would
be more of an argument for leaving them in situ for longer between inspections.
Figure 10-20 - Illustration of a New Design of Kenter Shackle intended to have
improved Fatigue Performance
A4163-01 158
As FPS units get older, the desirability of repairing lines using components, such as
kenters, which are as similar as possible to common link chain, will increase. Hence, it
will be important to record the performance of all new designs of kenters both on FPS
and semi submersible applications. Since flotels and drilling semis recover their
mooring lines regularly this should give increased scope for inspection compared to a
permanent FPS mooring. It is worth noting, however, that at present no type of kenter
is permitted to be part of a permanent mooring system in the Gulf of Mexico.
10.5 Windlass Failures
This incident relates to a South China Seas production semi. Eleven mooring lines
made of 5 inch spiral strand wires and 4.75 inch chains moor the semi. The windlasses,
by paying in and out of the upper chains, are used to adjust the position of the semi
over the subsea trees. In the early phase of the project the wells were batched drilled
and completed. This led to a significant chain mileage. A year after first oil, one of the
windlass wheels started to wobble. A closer inspection discovered that the windlass
wheel was split into two pieces by a circumferential crack, see
Figure 10-21. Inspection of the other wheels indicated similar damage. Since the
windlasses could not be used, all the chains were locked on the chain stoppers. The
wheels were not of a standard design. The wheels designed for a 5 inch chain had
been modified to accommodate two chain sizes: 5 inch and 3 inch. The 3 inch chain
was used to pull in the 5 inch mooring chain at installation. An additional
circumferential groove had been machined in the wheel to accommodate clamps
between the 3 inch to 5 inch chain. The roots of the main wheels were squared up to
accept these clamps. The circumferential groove had no fillet.
Figure 10-21 - Example of Windlass Crack (Red Arrow) due to Stress Raiser caused by
Sharp Corner (courtesy of BP)
A4163-01 159
An important principle of practical design is the scrupulous avoidance of sharp corners
or other "stress raisers" if there is any suspicion of alternating stress. So the cause of
the failure was the stress raiser. Two independent fatigue analyses were made that
showed the wheel could not have failed even with the bad fatigue detail. Further
investigations revealed that the chains were not being locked off by the chain stoppers
when the chains were not being adjusted, thus increasing the wave cycling loading on
the wheels. Including the wave and wind tension cycle damage continuously was still
far from sufficient to explain the failure. Knowing the answer the investigators dug
deeper and added to the fatigue estimate the damage caused by the wheel rotation under
the chain load. The rotation fatigue damage greatly exceeded the environment fatigue
damage and easily explained the failures. New wheels without the groove were air
shipped to Hong Kong and installed. The windlasses have operated without problem
since then.
It is perhaps significant to note that fatigue damage caused by wheel rotation under
chain load is not typically evaluated.
10.5.1 Operators Conclusions from this Incident
The following summarises the Operators conclusions from this incident which are
informative from a mooring integrity point of view:
1. One of a kind designs or modifications of old designs sometimes fail
prematurely.
2. When one designs a first-of-its-kind system that is critical to the operation
of a one billion dollar facility, one should make the design robust. There
are many ways to increase robustness. One very effective way, and
practically free in comparison to the consequences, is to remove all stress
raisers and all bad fatigue details.
3. Experienced specialists should perform detailed reviews of the design and
finished product.
4. In a one of a kind design there are many unknown unknowns that may
load the system in unanticipated ways.
5. Failure investigations should be well publicised to help educate others - part
of the purpose of this JIP!
A4163-01 160
11 SPARS AND OFFLOADING BUOYS (CASE
STUDIES)
11.1 Brent Spar Buoy
The Brent Spar Buoy, although now famous for the nature of its abandonment, was a
successful design from a mooring integrity point of view. It had a 19 year operational
life and minimum wear was found on the chains at the stoppers when they were
examined when the Spar was cut up in Norway, see Figure 11-4 and Figure 11-5 . The
MBL of the IWRC wire rope was found to have had no loss of strength when break
tested after the line had been recovered see Figure 11-6. Indeed if the strength had
changed at all it had marginally increased.
Figure 11-1 - General Arrangement of the Brent Spar Mooring System (courtesy of
Shell)
Brent Spars motion characteristics are probably significantly better than either a semi-
sub or a FPSO. Loop currents do not occur in the North Sea and hence vortex induced
hull vibration on Brent Spar does not seem to have occurred, unlike some Gulf of
Mexico Spars. Brent Spar is interesting in that, relative to most FPSO designs of today,
there were no trumpets or hawse pipes to guide the chain into the stopper. Figure 11-3
and Figure 11-2 show the fairlead arrangement used on Brent Spar.
A4163-01 161
The chain is likely to have been pre-rigged which would have made things easier in the
field, but this meant that a kenter was introduced at the connection. Thus this does not
seem to be a particularly desirable solution for a long-term moored FPSO. Still it
would be good to find a way of lining up chain in a stopper without using trumpets and
angle iron as a guide, since these items can cause problems over time, see Section 9.2.
It is believed there was one mooring failure on Brent Spar, but this was at a kenter
connecting link. Such a failure is not surprising, since standard kenters are known to
have low fatigue lives. There are, fortunately, now new designs of kenters with
improved fatigue lives, but these still do not at present have classification society
approval for long-term mooring see Section 10.4.1. In addition, one of the Brent Spar
mooring lines got damaged by an anchor line from a drifting vessel.
Figure 11-2 - Brent Spar Fairlead Chain Stopper in the Hull (courtesy of Shell)
Figure 11-3 - Close Up of the Stopper (courtesy of Shell)
A4163-01 162
Figure 11-4 - Indentation from where the chain bore down on the Stopper (courtesy of
Shell)
Figure 11-5 Red Arrow Illustrates wear on the chain, where it sat on the stopper
(courtesy of Shell)
A4163-01 163
Figure 11-6 - Brent Spar Wire Sample Y1 prior to cleaning [Ref. 41]
11.2 Floating Loading Platform (FLP)
The FLP illustrated in Figure 11-7 is continuing to enjoy a 12 year deployment in the
Northern North Sea. During this time no problems have been experienced with the
mooring system. What is perhaps significant about the FLP is that the trumpets when
the chains come into the platform are short see Figure 11-8. In addition, this unit was
fitted with simple, but reasonably accurate inclinometers (see Figure 17-4). Micro
ROV inspection of such inclinometers, in calm weather conditions, can identify if the
lines are intact and whether or not a breakage could have occurred in the mud.
Figure 11-7 FLP Mooring General Arrangement (courtesy of Shell)
A4163-01 164
Figure 11-8 - Example of Short Trumpets on a Long Term Moored Floating Loading
Platform (courtesy of Shell)
A4163-01 165
12 TURRET MECHANICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR
MOORING INTEGRITY
12.1 Introduction to Turrets and Failure Modes
Turrets are reasonably complicated mechanical constructions which are subject to the
following :
- A long service life with limited opportunity for in depth inspections while
deployed.
- Regular fatigue loading.
- High storm loading.
- Gradual wear of bearings, gripper/locking units, etc.
There are numerous different types of turret, some of which are driven and others are
freely weather-vaning. Turrets can be located at different positions on a FPSO and this
tends to influence the turret type. Active turrets are supported on sliding bearings while
other suppliers tend to use wheels or rollers. Table 12-1 summarises the advantages
and disadvantages of the two bearing approaches [Ref. 48].
A key concern from a mooring integrity point of view is if the turret fails to rotate
which could result in the FPSO becoming partially or totally beam on to survival storm
conditions. This may well lead to twisting of the mooring system which could cause
damage.
Active or driven turrets are not normally at the bow or the stern of a FPSO. Thus such
systems tend not to naturally weathervane. Hence, the FPSOs thrusters combined with
the turrets turning and locking system are used to turn the FPSO so it stays head on the
weather. It can thus be appreciated that an active turret is probably more susceptible to
FPSO power loss than a naturally weather-vaning turret. In practice blackship or no
power conditions have occurred in the past on active turrets which have led to the
FPSO being exposed to beam sea conditions. What is significant from a mooring
design point of view is that FPSOs with turrets are not analysed for survival beam sea
conditions. The wave frequency motion of a FPSO exposed to survival beam sea type
conditions will be high and in certain cases this could lead to extremely high mooring
line tensions. As well as blackship conditions active turrets can also be susceptible to
thrusters coming out of the water in extreme storm conditions. In such cases if has
been known for the thrusters to race in air, overload and trip. Even temporarily losing a
thruster in the middle of a storm is undesirable.
Good references for turret behaviour in the field are HSE Offshore Technology Report
2001/073 [Ref. 47] and Turret Operations in the North Sea: Experience from Norne
and Asgard A [Ref. 48].
A4163-01 166
From a mooring integrity point of view the key points for the two different turret
systems seem to be as follows:
- If the active turret turning system or power supply fails or is operated wrongly
there is a danger that the FPSO could end up broadside to the waves.
However, the turning system includes redundancy, for example two of the
four cylinders have sufficient capacity to turn the turret, even for maximum
friction. These need to be designed for good access for servicing and repair.
- For the passive turret if the bearings fail and the turret seizes up there is a
danger of ending up broadside to the weather. A serious failure may require
talking a FPSO off station to dry dock. Depending on location, even in an
emergency it will take several days or weeks to put in place arrangements to
take a FPSO off station. Hence the FPSO could have to ride out storms
broadside to the weather, condition which the mooring lines are typically not
designed to be able to withstand. The probability of complete bearing is
likely to increase with age. It would be interesting to know what level of
bearing deterioration has been noted when FPSOs have been removed from
station at the end of a particular assignment. A related point is how quickly
these systems can deteriorate if, for some reason, there is inadequate
lubrication.
Active turrets do not utilise the turret turning and locking systems all the time. Instead
the system is only activated when the turret has absorbed about 7 degrees of twist. This
is different to passive turrets and hence it will be interesting to see if this results in any
different wear mechanisms than active turrets. In actual fact this will be difficult to
differentiate since passive turrets tend to be stoppered off at the base of the turret while
active turrets have a gypsy wheel arrangement at the turret base. Wear at the gypsy
wheel may be more similar to that which is typically encountered on a semi
submersible submerged gypsy wheel fairlead.
Recommendation
A check should be made on a typical FPSO to see how great the increases in line
tension are if the vessel cannot weathervane and thus has to ride out a storm broadside
to the weather.
12.1.1 Line Tension Behaviour over Time
An interesting question is whether on active turrets the mooring line tensions have
decreased over time due to straightening of the chain on the sea bed? On two
Norwegian FPSO the line tension monitoring has not revealed any tension values close
to the maximum design values. The line tension has not been found to decrease (or
increase) significantly during the first years of operation.
Fatigue cracking was experienced on the grippers of a Norwegian FPSO at a stress hot
spot. All grippers on this unit have been upgraded to improve their fatigue
performance by removing the sharp notch.
A4163-01 167
Sliding Bearings Roller Bearings
Advantages - Extremely high
vertical load capacity
- Redundant system
allowing partial repair
or substitution
- Stable turret position
- Minimum wear on
swivel
- Wide fabrication
tolerances
- Adapts to vessel
deformations, hence
promotes a central
turret position with
minimum riser loads
- Passive system
requiring no daily
operations
- Promotes passive
weathervaning, hence
suitable for vessel with
limited or no thrusters
- Less risk of human
errors
Disadvantages - Active turret turning
system needed
- Daily turning
operations
- More frequent
maintenance
- Risk of excessive twist
in case of turning
system failure or faulty
operation possibility
of uncontrolled twist
back. This may
happen if the torque
from the mooring
system overcomes the
frictional torque from
the bearings.
- Non redundant system
(failure leads to
Stuck Turret)
- Greater wear on swivel
due to frequent
rotations
- Small fabrication
tolerances
- Vulnerable to vessel
deformation
- The forward turret
position gives riser to
higher riser motions
and increased mooring
loads
Table 12-1 - Summary of the Pros and Cons of Sliding and Roller Bearings [Ref. 48]
A4163-01 168
12.1.2 How Marine Issues fit in with Normal Operations
It is important to be aware that turret operation/mooring behaviour is normally a
secondary task for control room operators. Their main task is to keep the topsides
process plant running and optimise the production of oil and gas. Given the importance
of moorings it is vital that regular emergency drills are undertaken to keep training up
to date.
On one Norwegian FPSO, to achieve optimum ventilation of the vessel topsides
facilities the vessel is normally orientated against the weather with the wind
approaching on the bow port side. This will tend to result in a slight corkscrew motion,
which over time could influence the wear/fatigue behaviour of the mooring system.
It is important to understand that a Floating Production Platform is the whole hull plus
process equipment plus risers and moorings. Thus the whole system needs to be
considered as one inter-related unit. This is somewhat different to a fixed structure
where the supporting structure is highly unlikely to suffer from progressive failure.
12.2 Implications of Mechanical Repairs
Turrets and thrusters are mechanical systems which are typically operating for an
unusually long period of time in harsh environments. The option for dry dock
inspection is not normally available and on going production operations may limit
when and how inspection can be undertaken. Turret or thruster mechanical repairs can
have safety case implications and any repair operation can be difficult and potentially
dangerous. The following extract gives an idea of what can be involved in repairing a
thruster in situ.
Faced with removing a 13 ton thruster motor from deep within the
bowels of the vessel and transporting it to the beach for overhaul onshore,
the team instead chose to dismantle thruster 2 in-situ onboard the FPSO.
There were significant safety concerns regarding the removal of the motor
in its entirety. The lifting route involved a 15-foot vertical lift, cross-
hauling through the bulkhead hatch with only 90mm clearance in winter
sea conditions, lifting over thruster 1 and a lift through an engineering
space of 90-foot to reach the main deck. Due to these safety concerns, a
safer and better method was needed to achieve the overhaul. The eventual
solution was to strip down the motor into manageable pieces, onboard the
FPSO, and to remove the rotor and bell housing for repair onshore. On
completion of the repair, the rotor and bell housing were successfully
reinstated using state-of-the-art technology from specialist vendors to
realign the motor onboard. The entire process was achieved without any
disruption to production.
Active turrets also make use of computer controlled systems. Issues can arise of
computer/software obsolescence. This needs to be taken account of in the
planned maintenance system.
A4163-01 169
13 GENERAL TRENDS AND STATISTICS
13.1 Questionnaire Process
A custom designed questionnaire was developed to undertake an international survey of
worldwide FPS operations including FPSOs, production semis and Spars. A typical
custom designed questionnaire is included in appendix B. The questionnaire is based
on an Excel spreadsheet based with drop down boxes in an attempt to make completion
as quick and easy as possible. The questionnaire was partially filled in making use of
information in the public domain before emailing to Operators and Contractors. If the
answer to certain issues is yes a standard series of questions are generated in a new
worksheet. A filled out example is also included as part of the spreadsheet.
A. GENERAL DETAILS
A1. Unit Name A2. Field Name
A3. Unit Type
A4. Water Depth m A5. Geographical Area
A6. Date Installed
A7. Is the FPS classed?
A8. Has the unit ever been used elsewhere?
A9. Was the unit ever removed from site and then re-installed?
A10. Can the mooring system be disconnected in case of typhoons or ice bergs ?
A11. If the moorings can be disconnected, how often has this happened to date ?
JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT: FPS MOORING INTEGRITY
QUESTIONNAIRE
Kuito FPSO Kuito, offshore Angola
Spread FPSO
383 West Africa
Sep 1999
Classification Society:
??????
Yes
No
No
No
N.A.
Table 13-1 - Example of the First Page of the Questionnaire see appendix B for a Full
Listing
The questionnaire is now available in the public domain and it is hoped that the format
for reporting incidents will continue to be of use to the offshore community after the
completion of the JIP.
A4163-01 170
13.1.1 Difficulties Obtaining Data
Initially it was hoped that offshore personnel would be able to complete the majority of
the questionnaires. Despite considerable time spent preparing and chasing up
questionnaires and the ease of email communication, it became clear that the
questionnaire was not given a high priority by hard pressed offshore and office based
personnel. A degree of past knowledge is necessary to complete the questionnaire
properly and with personnel change outs on units this knowledge can easily get lost.
This is itself is a somewhat worrying result for such complicated production facilities.
Getting detailed information on units operating outside the North Sea was particularly
difficult. The problem was not necessarily lack of interest, just a lack of time with
operational issues taking precedence. It is noted that good data could be obtained by
visiting FPSs and auditing the condition of the set up of their mooring systems and
reviewing inspection records. Quite often there is reasonable data available and the key
problem is gaining access to this data which may not be centrally stored.
Although it was difficult to get data on as many units as initially hoped, the data which
was obtained was in general of high quality (see Case Studies) and is believed to be pof
relevance to the vast majority of FPSs in the world today.
13.1.2 International Survey of FPS Experience
Types of Units and Geographical Location
The international survey has been an important part of the JIP. The approach has been
to collate data in a similar fashion to the UKOOA FPSO study but extending it to the
worldwide fleet of FPSOs, Production Semi submersibles and Spars. Mooring
performance will depend on the type of unit considered and the environment which it is
exposed to. The following generic types have been considered:
- North Sea turret moored FPSO
- North Sea Semi-sub FPS
- West African spread moored FPSO
- Brazilian deepwater FPSOs (turret and spread moored)
- Brazilian Semi-sub FPS (very limited data received)
- Gulf of Mexico Spar
- South East Asia FPSO
- Special FPSOs e.g. dis-connectable and ice resistant
- Worldwide FSU (limited investigation)
A4163-01 171
13.2 Summary Statistics for Unit Type and Geographical Area
The following graphs summarise some of the more reliable and significant results
obtained from post processing the returned questionnaires. Only statistics where a
reasonable sample size was acheievd have been reported.
North Sea Turret Moored FPSOs
Adjustable Line Lengths
Lines
Locked Off
50%
Can Be
Adjusted
50%
Real Time Offset Monitoring
Units with
67%
Unit s
without
33%
Real Time Line Tension Monitoring
Unit s with
50%
Unit s
without
50%
A4163-01 172
Line Failure Alarms
Units with
22%
Units
without
78%
Mooring Line Spares
Unit s with
33%
Units
wit hout
67%
Existing Repair Procedures
Units with
13%
Unit s
without
87%
A4163-01 173
It is interesting to compare the average mooring line inspection periods for various
different types of FPS units in different locations. This is illustrated in Figure 13-1.
1.2
1.6
5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Years
Average Inspection Periods
North Sea Turret Rest of World Turret Rest of World Spread
Figure 13-1 - Comparison of Mooring Line Inspection Periods for Different FPS
Categories
A4163-01 174
13.3 HSE UK Sector and Norwegian Statistics
Interrogation of existing health and safety databases provided useful validated data
see Table 13-2, Table 13-3 and Table 13-4.
96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total
Moorings/DP 0 0 1 2 1 3 7
FPSO/FSU
Total
Incidents
11 10 15 22 10 11 79
Mooring/DP
percentage of
FPSO/FSU
incidents
0% 0% 6.7% 9.1% 10% 27.3% 8.9%
Table 13-2 - UK Sector of the North Sea Data [Ref. 49]
Period 1980 to 2001 (ORION database)
Drilling Semis Production Semis Accommodation
Semis
FPSOs
N F N F N F N F
Anchor
Failure
170 0.211 8 0.111 23 8 0.113
Table 13-3 - UK Sector of the North Sea Data [Ref. 49]
Where N = number of events and F = occurrences per unit year. Anchor failure defined
as Problems with anchor/anchor lines, mooring devices, winching equipment or
fairleads (e.g. anchor dragging, breaking of mooring lines, loss of anchor(s), winch
failures.
Incident Description Mobile Drilling Units Production
Single Failure 9 3
Multiple Failures 3 -
Table 13-4 Number of Anchor Incidents in the Period of 1990-2003 in the Norwegian
Sector [Ref. 50]
A4163-01 175
Even though considerable resources have been devoted to the international survey, it is
quite possible that that only a fraction of the total number of mooring incidents which
have occurred outside of the North Sea have been reported. In the North Sea there are
statutory requirements for mooring incidents to be reported to the UK Health and
Safety Executive (HSE). Although the North Sea is a hostile climate, units intended for
use here are in general designed to a high standard. In addition, a number of the units
in the North Sea have been around long enough for age related problems to start
making an appearance. It thus seems prudent to consider official statistics for this
region to be a reasonable indicator of the likelihood of mooring line failure.
These statistics indicate that it would not be totally unexpected for the crew on a FPS to
expect a mooring line failure sometime during a field life which exceeds 9 years.
Exactly how these statistics can be related to milder environments is difficult to
estimate without access to more data. But it is worth noting that but fatigue may be
more of an issue for milder locations - see Figure 15-11.
This concern that offshore staff on a FPS should always be prepared and ready to react
appropriately in case of mooring line failure is reflected in the following quote from
from Ref. 3. Although the background of this paper is mooring operations of semi-
submersible units, the basic sentiment is felt also to be appropriate for FPS units in
general.
The high failure rate of individual mooring lines means that a unit must
always be prepared to deal with a mooring line failure as an almost routine
operational matter. It is unrealistic to operate a unit on the assumption that a
mooring line failure is unlikely to occur.
It is not perhaps surprising that when FPSs first became more prevalent that their
mooring systems suffered some initial teething troubles as new designs were
introduced. These early problems seem to have been largely resolved and thus in
general terms one might expect a plateau period of mooring failures. What will be
interesting to see is how the number of failures increase as the mooring lines age and
are subject to corrosion, wear and fatigue.
As a FPS operator, it is probably helpful to think in terms of average historical line
failure rate per FPS unit operating year.
Figure 13-2 illustrates historical failure rates for different types of North Sea units. The
failure rate for FPSOs is closer to the UKOOA study reported value of once every 5.4
operating years. Given that North Sea designed FPSOs are carefully regulated it would
be expected that the reliability of these units should be good. Hence it is disappointing
that the failure rates for FPSOs is only slightly better than production semis and only
about twice as good as a drilling semis.
A4163-01 176
NDEs UKOOA report referred to DNVs data for 1980 to 1998, which reported 7
FPSO/FSU anchor system failures. This gave 0.186 failures per unit operating year or
one failure every 5.4 operating years. Hence, it can be seen that the failure rate seems
to have improved somewhat from 1998 to 2001.
Comparison of North Sea Failure Rates for Different Unit Types (1980 - 2001)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Drilling Semi Production Semi FPSO
Type of Unit
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
y
e
a
r
s
p
e
r
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
Figure 13-2 Historical Failure Rates for Different Types of Units
A4163-01 177
14 CONNECTORS AND TERMINATIONS
14.1 Background
Connectors and line terminations (e.g. spelter sockets or fibre rope splices) are vital
components in a mooring system, since they are typically necessary to join up different
types of line e.g. chain to wire, or to suit manufacturing/transportation limitations on
line lengths. However, the need for some type of opening and closing mechanism
means that, to achieve the required strength, the connectors tend to be heavier than the
lines to which they are attached. Thus connectors and line terminations tend to be areas
of discontinuity on a mooring system with respect to weight per metre and also bending
and torsional stiffness. This is because they are unlikely to flex in the precisely the
same way as the chain, wire or fibre rope to which they are connected.
In general, where there is a weight discontinuity on a mooring line there is an increase
in relative rotation. This rotation can result in wear plus possibly some fatigue loading.
Yet it is typically fairly difficult to inspect connectors in situ for wear see for example
Figure 18-15. Hence, due to the long-term effect of these degradation mechanisms,
failures have occurred see for example Section 10.2 and the problems associated with
traditional Kenters, Baldt, Pear and C Links on drilling rigs.
The design of chains and wire rope does not tend to change dramatically from one
project to another. This is not necessarily true of connectors which may need changes
for new applications. Hence this section attempts to summarise what connectors and
line terminations are available at present. It then goes on to consider what should be
taken account of when designing new connectors see the flow diagram in Section
14.3. The section concludes with any gaps in the existing knowledge base and
identifies topics which merit further investigation.
14.2 What Type of Connectors Can be Considered for Long Term Mooring
(LTM)
Class Societies typically have special requirements for Long term Mooring (LTM)
systems. For example DNV applies this categorisation for mooring systems which will
be at the same location for more than 5 years. LTM D shackles typically have a
double locking mechanism, such as a nut and locking pin restraining the primary
restraint system, see for example Figure 14-10.
The following section reviews the type of connectors which are fairly readily available
and might be considered for a long term mooring.
A4163-01 178
14.2.1 Traditional Kenter
The traditional design of Kenter link dates back to a 1905 patent by Max Kenter. The
patent description is as follows :
Improvements in Chain Coupling-links - A coupling-link for chains
consists of two similar parts a, b, which are adapted to engage laterally and
are locked in their engaged position by the grooved piece f. Movement of
the piece f is prevented by the inclined taper-pin h secured in place by the
lead plug i. [Ref. 52].
The great merits of a kenter are that it can pass through a gypsy wheel in the same way
as normal chain and its dynamic behaviour is very similar to chain, since it is of
comparable weight and geometric arrangement. If kenters are tight fitting and are
properly assembled with a lead plug added after assembly, they can perform quite well.
For example some drilling rigs end up with kenters in the thrash zone and these can last
quite well for a temporary application. Still assembly tolerances vary in practice, and
thus having a kenter in the thrash zone should only be considered as a temporary repair.
Kenters are discussed in more detail in Section 10.4.1. It should benoted that if the lead
plug comes out in service there is a danger that the kenter could open up.
14.2.2 Special Joining Shackle (SJS) and Shackle Pin Rotation
A SJS can be used to connect studless common link chain to studless common link
chain without the need for an enlarged end links, which would typically be required if a
normal shackle were to be used. Enlarged end links can only be added to a chain at a
Forge so their inclusion reduces flexibility with regard, for example, to trimming chain
during line hook up operations.
The bow of a SJS needs to be trimmed compared to a standard D shackle to allow
studless link connection. To qualify for LTM designation typically a double locking
mechanism for the shackle pin is required, as well as a demonstration of fatigue life. In
addition, the same quality material is typically used for the shackle body, pin and
locking nut.
In the design illustrated in Figure 14-1 the pin of the shackle is oval which means that it
normally cannot rotate in the shackle body. Normally when two chain links rotate
against each other the surface profile and the harness for the links is very similar.
However, when a chain is connected to a SJS the surface hardnesses of the chain link
and the shackle, as well as the geometry may be somewhat different. If the
combination is such that this leads to accelerated wear of the chain link, which is of
thinner section than the shackle, then this could lead to early loss of integrity. In
addition, due to the weight discontinuity it is likely that there will be more relative
rotation between the link and the joining shackle.
A4163-01 179
Whether or not to allow pin rotation on a connector is a difficult question to answer. In
the case described in Section 10.2, the initial approach adopted to preventing pin
rotation was not strong enough and ultimately failed. The solution was to allow the
system to rotate and using a much stronger mechanism to keep the end plates in
position. For the H shackle illustrated in Figure 14-2 the pins are oval where they pass
through the shackle body. This is needed to make them small enough to pass through
the chain links. However, the holes in the H shackle body are round. This allows the
oval pin to rotate in the H shackle body. Since the H shackle body and pin are
oversized any wear in these components should not be significant. But it is important
that wear in the attached chain link should be minimised, since when it moves it should
not be grinding against a fixed, not rotating surface (pin).
Some precautions are possible; for example the shackle shown in Figure 14-2 had its
pins specifically fitted to the chain links and a set of baseline pin angle measurements
were taken using photographs so that they can be compared in the future to ROV
photographs. Whether this logic proves to be demonstrated in practice will only
become clear over time!
Figure 14-1 - Special Joining Shackle (courtesy of Vicinay Catalogue)
A4163-01 180
Figure 14-2 - H Shackle Pin Configuration (courtesy of I. Williams)
Other Types of Connectors
Other types of subsea connectors are illustrated in Figure 14-3. Requirements for
subsea connectors are discussed in more depth in section 6.2.4. More temporary types
of connectors include Baldt or C connectors and pear links. Sometimes these are a
rattling good fit and the general perception is that they fail more often than kenters.
They should not be considered for long term mooring systems, even for temporary
fixes, unless they are all that is available. Standard kenters are better machined, fit
tighter and are more suitable for a short term repair.
Subsea
Connector
(Delmar)
Female and Male being assembled
Female Male
Designed to
facilitate
connection &
disconnection
A4163-01 181
Subsea
Connector
(Ballgrab)
Designed to
facilitate
connection &
disconnection
Figure 14-3 Illustration of Subsea Connectors which have been used on Pre-Installed
Mooring Lines
Figure 14-4 - Example of a Special Joining Plate - Note Electrical Isolating Bush
A4163-01 182
14.3 Terminations General
To be of practical use a rope must be provided with means for connecting it at its ends
into the mooring system. The task of the termination is to transfer the predominantly
axial load in the rope into an engineering component which can be attached to standard
mechanical/structural components which form part of the platform being moored.
Nearly all rope terminations depend to some degree on developing radial forces - and
through them friction - to allow the axial load in the rope to be transferred to another
element. The splice is the basic example of this in which, when the rope is placed in
tension, the geometry of the splice generates radial loads between the rope strands and
these allow sufficient friction forces to be generated to transfer the load from one strand
to another. In other terminations the radial forces are generated by means of a
mechanical device.
It is well documented that during break or fatigue testing many rope specimens are seen
to fail at or very close to the terminations. This is due to the additional stresses
introduced into the rope at or close to the termination.
The termination components may have to support many other additional loads, such as
bending and shear, other than the axial load in the rope. Finally the termination may
have to survive abrasion, fatigue and corrosion.
14.3.1 Spelter Sockets
Splicing of wire ropes is complex and difficult on account of the weight and stiffness of
the large size of typical mooring ropes. An alternative which has developed is the use
of the spelter socket (see Figure 14-7) in which the rope is inserted into a metal collar
with an internal conical hole. The wire rope is cleaned and teased out to form a brush
which adopts the internal conical space of the termination. Into the cone is poured a
molten spelter alloy which solidifies and acts to grip the wire when it is pulled.
Figure 14-5 Example of the Make Up of a Typical Closed Spelter Socket (courtesy of
Bridon)
A4163-01 183
Wire rope terminations or sockets can be either open (Figure 14-6) or closed (Figure
14-7).
Figure 14-6 - Example of an Open Socket
Figure 14-7 - Example of a Closed Socket
An alternative to using spelter alloy for terminating wire ropes is to use an epoxy resin.
This has become a popular and efficient method of terminating wire rope. Potted
sockets have the advantage that they can be applied in the field if necessary without the
complications of providing a means of melting the spelter alloy.
The potted resin socket has also been used for terminating fibre ropes. As in the case of
wire rope the end of the rope is inserted into a socket and the yarns/strands splayed out.
A compound such as epoxy is then used to fill the socket which, when it sets, forms a
strong bond to the fibre material and socket. Conventional wire rope sockets have been
used successfully on small aramid ropes.
A4163-01 184
Although epoxy potting has been used for some small size fibre ropes it has not proved
effective for larger ropes due to the difficulty in providing sufficient circumferential
area over which to distribute the shear loads needed to carry the axial load out of the
rope. Solutions have been proposed in which the rope is divided into component
strands each with its own potted termination but so far the complexity of this approach
has been a major obstacle to its use.
It is important that, when being prepared for potting or speltering, a rope must be
accurately set so that the termination is not at an angle to the axis if the rope. If this
happens the rope will be subjected to a degree of bending when the load is applied and
this can seriously weaken the capacity of the rope. This effect is particularly apparent
when only a short specimen of rope is being terminated as in such cases the limited
length of the rope means that the uneven loading over the rope cross section has less
chance of being absorbed in the stretch of the rope. This leads to a concentration of
bending effect and earlier failure. This can be particularly important when preparing
short specimens for prototype testing.
14.3.2 Spelter Socket Fatigue Assessment (S-N curves) + Bend Limiters
At present during detailed design S-N curves for common link chain seem to be often
applied. This is not really appropriate and requires further consideration on live
projects.
The Bend stiffener and attachment mechanism also needs to be suitably designed, see
for example the damage shown on Figure 6-6.
Other areas to consider for sockets include:-
- the potential for pin rotation,
- the need for anti rotation keys,
- whether or not the spelter sockets are in a vertical orientation.
If the spelter sockets are not vertical they will be subject to cyclical bending stresses,
which over time might cause a fatigue problem, depending on their design. It is also
important to be able to check whether the insulating PTFE bushes are present or not.
14.3.3 Fibre Rope Splices
This is the prevalent form of termination for fibre ropes throughout the industry. There
is a large degree of experience available when considering terminating large diameter
fibre mooring ropes with eye splices. Other techniques (Grip and Potted) are much less
well documented. A splice in a polyester rope has been shown to have an efficiency
approaching 1.00, depending on the quality of the splice. It should be noted that the
certified minimum break load (MBL) of a fibre rope is that of the spliced rope ([Ref.
53] or OCIMF hawser guideline).
A4163-01 185
Splicing has been described as an Art; there is a movement within the rope industry
pushing for this to be changed to a Technology. There are papers which describe
modelling of splices (see for instance Ref. 67) and recent offshore projects in the Gulf
of Mexico have described various means of controlling and documenting splice
production in ropes with a breaking strength in the region of 2,000 tonnes.
In terms of fatigue testing, most assessments have been made with splice terminations.
Here the fatigue lives for polyester and aramid ropes are described as being well above
that of steel wire rope at normal working loads.
For large diameter synthetic fibre ropes under long term cyclic loading the only verified
technology for their termination is by use of a splice.
Two types of spliced eye hardware are described. The first is a construction involving
a metal thimble and shackle arrangement which has been used successfully for years at
single point mooring terminals. This type of connector is, however, described as
making rope handling particularly cumbersome and awkward [Ref. 68].
To-date most offshore experience of large fibre mooring ropes has relied on this type in
which the thimble can be slipped into a prepared soft-eye splice when the connection is
being made-up on the deck of the mooring installation vessel. The thimble is supported
by a shackle and provides a suitably large diameter over which the fibre rope can be
bent. Advice on the choice of spool diameter is available from guidance documents
such as Ref. 69. The thimble diameter should be large enough to develop the best axial
tension and fatigue strength while minimising abrasion and wear as the stretching rope
slides against the metal of the spool. In order to minimise this problem the splice eye is
often wrapped locally with a binding tape in order to minimise wear on the fibre rope.
When the line goes into tension the spliced eye pulls tight and prevents the thimble
from falling out. However, during over-boarding when there may low line tensions and
eccentric loads on the connection care must be taken to stop the line slipping-off the
thimble and being caught on the shackle instead.
It is important that the fitting between the eye and the spool is tight enough so that the
two do not become separated. This is described as being most likely to occur during
rope handling when the rope is slack.
This is often achieved through encapsulating the thimble in polyurethane. However if
the splice is provided with a permanently fitted hard eye in this way it means that there
are additional problems when handling the rope on its transportation and deployment
spools as the thimble must be prevented from abrading and damaging the rope on the
spool.
Various novel terminations are currently being proposed and evaluated. These seek to
improve the efficiency of terminations for very large ropes by splicing the sub-ropes
individually to themselves to create a number of eyes. These are then supported on
multiple pins. High performance materials (e.g. titanium or super duplex) are used in
order to minimise the weight of the metal components.
A4163-01 186
14.4 Connector/Termination Design Flow Chart
Figure 14-8 and Figure 14-9 together illustrate a connector design flow chart based on
approaching the subject with a blank piece of paper. The flow chart is also generally
applicable for the design of terminations. Comparing this flow chart with present day
design practice shows that the following:
- A wear analysis is typically not undertaken
- The dynamic motion of the connector is typically not evaluated
- Calculations are not typically undertaken to size locking pins based on high
line tensions and frictional forces
- Electrical isolation needs to be considered early on in the design process
- Inspection is not given a high priority during connector design.
A4163-01 187
Figure 14-8 - Connector or Termination Design Flow Diagram - Initial Phase
YES
UNSATISFACTORY
YES
NO
Could any existing
designs be used?
Asses the pros &
cons of the existing
design & decide
whether to proceed
with modifications?
Develop a Design Brief specifying strength,
fatigue life, installation weight, material
properties etc
NO
Obtain Client written approval of Design Brief
& Class agreement in principle
Quality Plan for design & manufacture to
describe activities to be performed, frequency
and type of inspection/tests, criteria to be met as
well as give reference to applicable controlling
documents
Submit Quality Plan for Class Approval
Requirement to join two lines
Assess the ease of deployment, including
connection/disconnection & the likelihood of
unintentional disconnection
Identify what is special about the new
application & propose a new design
A4163-01 188
Figure 14-9 - Connector (Termination) Detailed Design Flow Chart
NO
Wear Assessment
- Proposed Methodology
- Justification
- Past Observation
- Guidelines
- Codes
Fatigue Life Assessment
- Suitable S-N Curves
- Stress Concentration
Factors Identified?
- Physical Testing
- Hand/Simple
Calculations
- Tension/Tension
Assessment
- Tension/Bending
Assessment
- Cumulative Damage
Evaluation
Corrosion Assessment
- Avoidance e.g.Anodes
- Allowance
e.g.Corrosion Margin
- Physical Testing
- Past Observation
- Calculations
Strength Assessment
- Hand/Simple
Calculations
- Finite Element Analysis
- Material Testing
- Physical Testing
Commence Detailed
Design Process
Manufacture in accordance
with Quality Plan & Class
Society inspections
Test Connector as per
Quality Plan
Documentation to be
stamped with Class
Approval
Issue Recommendations
for Connector
Transportation, Installation
& Long Term Inspection
Finalise Design Reports &
Drawings; issue to Class
Society & Client
Design
Iterations
Successful?
NO
YES
A4163-01 189
14.5 Detailed Design Guidance
There are numerous different types of mooring line connectors depending on whether
chain, wire or fibre ropes are being connected. Operational experience from a number
of floating production and drilling units has shown that failures quite often occur at
connectors. In certain instances the connectors have failed by coming undone when
their locking mechanisms have failed, see Section 10.2.
To ensure the long term reliability of a FPS mooring system it is important that the
design of ALL the proposed connectors in a mooring system should be carefully
reviewed. This also needs to take into account where on the catenary and on the sea-
bed the connectors are situated. The following general guidelines are provided for the
design and selection of connectors:
- Try to minimise connector weight to avoid increased rotation at each end due to
an abrupt change in weight per metre of the mooring line.
- Avoid placing connectors in the thrash zone.
- Allow shackle or spelter socket pins the ability to rotate.
- Add marks on connectors so that any wear can be measured.
- Ensure connectors have compliance in all required planes of motion see below.
- Match material characteristics to minimise wear.
- Pin locking devices need to take in to account applied loads and friction developed
lever arms.
- Secondary locking devices should be provided which are capable of withstanding
the full anticipated loading in case the primary device fails.
- Sharp edges where any pin is stepped down to the locking nuts should be rounded
to minimise the danger of cracking occurring.
- In general rounded rather than chamfered edges around the edge of the shackle
should minimise damage if contact occurs with chain links.
- It may be beneficial to put a groove in shackle/spelter socket pin to reduce point to
point contact. In other words contact between the link and the pin would be
similar to link to link contact.
- Thought should be given on how to handle the connector given its weight.
Welding lifting eyes on to it should be avoided.
- The weight distributions of the connector, including the locking mechanism,
should be balanced to ensure that it does not lie to one particular side.
A4163-01 190
Depending on configuration/pre-tension as a catenary leg is laid down on the sea-bed
and the sea-bed takes up the weight, the tension may drop down to zero. Hence if you
have a heavy connector on the sea bed you can see a lot of rotation at this point and thus
potential wear. Modern day dynamic mooring analysis programmes can assess if the
lines are likely to go slack at any time.
Chain, wire and fibre rope can all rotate in numerous planes. However, most connectors
have limited compliance and it is thus important to confirm that, where they are placed
on a mooring system, they can allow the predicted motion without resulting in lock up
and thus relatively sudden increases in bending stress. Figure 14-10 illustrates a
purpose designed X shackle for connecting between studless common links at the
base of a FPSO turret. In this case a dynamic analysis was undertaken to determine the
required compliance in two planes and then the V in the X shackle was designed to
suit, including a contingency factor, see Figure 14-2 and Figure 14-10.
When designing a connector the most appropriate proof stress should be assessed which
will give a good fatigue life see Section 14.5.
Figure 14-10 Illustration of a Purpose Designed connector allowing limited
compliance in Two Planes
A4163-01 191
Figure 14-11 - Example of a Dynamic Analysis to Estimate the Angle for the V Slot
Size on the H Shackle
Certain connectors, such as Long Term Mooring (LTM) D shackles, have been
available on the market for a number of years and thus have established track records.
Still it is prudent when selecting connectors to determine where they have been used
before and if any problems have been identified. Even with an established track record,
connectors must still be evaluated on a case by case basis, since different pretensions,
vessel motions and position on the mooring line can affect their long term behaviour.
14.5.1 Forging versus Casting
From a mooring perspective castings are normally considered only suitable for mass
produced, intricate items. For example, Wire rope sockets are cast because of their
inherent elaborate design. Forging is the preferred method of manufacturing mooring
accessories, since it helps to ensure that the items are strong but ductile. Impact
strength is a key element in any mooring accessory design.
The following list details the advantages of forgings versus castings [Ref. 51] :
- Higher strength
- Unmatched toughness
- Longer service life
- Higher structural integrity (absence of internal defects)
- Use of higher design stresses
A4163-01 192
- Greater transverse properties
- Increased safety margin (due to high ductility)
- Greater strength-to-weight ratio (lighter parts, reduced sections)
- 100% density (no porosity)
- Higher overall quality / reliability
- Reduced product liability concerns
- More acceptable parts / fewer concerns
- More uniform heat properties (lot to lot, and part to part)
- Directional or isotropic property profile
- More consistent machining (uniform microstructure and chemical
composition)
- Better hardness control for abrasion / wear resistance
- Extended warranties more probable on critical part / assemblies
- More versatile processing options and combinations
- Option to optimise the grain flow directions of the component
14.5.2 Discussion of Connector/Terminations Type Approval
At present it appears that each Classification Society has their own rules and
regulations for assessing whether a connector is suitable for a long term mooring
application. It would be helpful if, perhaps under the auspices of IACS (International
Association of Classification Societies), that a standard protocol could be developed for
designing and testing these connectors/terminations.
14.5.3 Fatigue and Wear Assessment of Connectors
API RP2SK provides the following Data for other types of connecting links (i.e. apart
from Kenter or Baldt links) are insufficient for generating design curves. Limited data
indicates that the fatigue life of D-shackles is comparable to that of common links of
the same size and grade, provided that the shackle is machined fit with close tolerance,
no cotter pin is used through the shackle body and the shackle is the narrow throat
type. Since spiral strand sockets are not D shackles or Baldt or Kenter links it can be
argued that it is not valid to assess their fatigue performance using a S-N curve for
common link chain based on API RP 2SK. However, this technique appears to have
been used on a number of North Sea FPSOs.
A4163-01 193
Apart for a few general types of connectors, such as kenters or Baldt links, specific S-N
curves are not available. In such cases it is common practice to assume that the
behaviour of a large, heavy connector will be superior to that of the chain or wire to
which it is connected. Considering the cost associated with mooring failure or
intervention, this is not a re-assuring situation in terms of long term system reliability.
Hence it is important that a valid fatigue assessment is undertaken for each individual
part of a mooring system. This should be reflected in the mooring design specification.
As is discussed further in Section 0, wear can be a significant issue over the life time of
a mooring system. Where there is an abrupt change in weight per metre of a mooring
line at a connector, greater relative rotation can be expected. This may not be too much
of an issue for the connector itself which may be oversized. However, over the long
term it may become an issue for whatever is connected up to the connector, e.g.
common link chain. This should be assessed on a case by case basis and if considered
to be a possible cause of concern, suitable analysis or testing should be undertaken.
14.6 Proof Load Testing and Its Impact on Fatigue
Chain strength is established by break and proof load tests. In a break test, a sample
length of chain is loaded in tension to an estimated break load value which it is held at
for 30 seconds without failure. The minimum breaking load specified is typically 75%
of the stress level for the minimum ultimate tensile strength. The proof load test is
nominally the highest load carried by the chain without deformation. The ratio of proof
load to breaking strength depends on chain grade see IACS W22 [Ref. 66]. In
studded mooring chain proof load is about two thirds of its break strength. For example
for setting the chain to its final shape and locking the studs into position, a proof load
based on 90% of the load at minimum yield stress, or 78% of the minimum breaking
load is typical.
The proof load concept needs some further refinement for materials, such as certain
higher strength steels, which do not exhibit a particularly defined yield point. These
materials initially respond under load with a linear elastic response but this gradually
softens until the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is reached. As no yield point can be
used as a reference point, the concept of proof stress has been advanced, essentially as a
material property, where the 0.1% proof stress corresponds to the stress from which a
0.1% strain permanent set would result following elastic unloading. Depending on the
material, the proof stress (PS) may be defined variously as a 0.1% or 0.2% proof stress
see Figure 14-12 and Figure 3-34. From a materials perspective a proof test is to
confirm that the degree of elongation under application of the proof load (stress) is not
exceeded.
A4163-01 194
Figure 14-12 - Example of Material with a Non Clearly Defined Yield Point
Proof loading of chain is carried out for a number of purposes including to check the
stiffness (elongation) of chain and to ensure the studs are fixed following heat
treatment which otherwise relaxes the initial clamping forces applied. Proof loads are
generally defined in codes and standards as a proportion of the minimum 0.2% proof
stress or minimum UTS combined with the nominal section area.
Proof loading of the chain into the plastic range leaves a small permanent set when the
load is removed. The component geometries means this induces locked in residual
stresses in the chain and these are compressive at the inner shoulders of the links. This
means that applied tensions have to reverse the residual compressive stresses before
tension is induced in these fatigue prone areas and the proof loading may therefore be
considered to be beneficial to fatigue endurance.
Evidence for this was obtained, inadvertently in the BOMEL JIP. The first two tension
fatigue tests delivered extraordinary results and were halted, without evidence of
cracking, when the predicted lives were exceeded by a factor of around three. In
consultation with the chain supplier, it was concluded that the chain had been subjected
to an excessive proof load during manufacture. It was noted that such treatment was
allowed under the specification and the practice is not uncommon to stretch the chain
when it is under-length.
A4163-01 195
Amoco (one of the BOMEL JIP sponsors) proceeded to undertake further testing to
assess proof loading effects on the fatigue life of chains, in conjunction with the
University of Tulsa [Ref. 54]. A range of proof load levels was investigated (up to
82% of break strength) and it was concluded that proof loading substantially increases
the fatigue life and this was attributed to the residual stresses generated. Importantly
they noted that in addition to the level of proof loading, the ability of the material to
sustain the residual stresses without redistribution under cyclic loading was another
factor affecting the consequences for fatigue life.
A difficulty for high strength (e.g. R4) chain is that the proof stress is cited with
reference to the minimum UTS/breaking load. If a batch has a significantly higher
UTS (which in many senses is desirable), the degree of plasticity brought about at the
proof load level may be significantly less than assumed with the minimum specification
material. This means that the degree of residual compressive stress within the links
will vary depending on the actual material properties. Furthermore with the high
strength steels used for chain, the proof stress to UTS ratio can exceed 0.95, something
that is generally precluded with a limit around 0.85 in steel for structural purposes.
High actual PS/UTS ratios would further limit the degree of plastic deformation /
residual compressive stresses achieved through the standard proof loading procedure.
A more consistent approach for specifying the proof load would be in relation to the
batch UTS, something that is invariably tested.
Although the above discussion relates the effects of proof loading to the consequences
in terms of fatigue performance, in the case of studlink chain appropriate levels of
proof loading are equally important. If the degree of plasticity achieved under proof
loading is less than anticipated, studs will be more likely to become loose in service.
The above discussion highlights the importance of:
- Developing a more meaningful specification for effective proof loading during
chain manufacture
- Undertaking research (using finite element analysis and physical testing) to
define any beneficial effect of proof loading of chain for fatigue performance
and translating this into manufacturing specifications, as appropriate.
14.6.1 Break Testing Rate of Load Application
OTC paper 10798 1999 [Ref. 70] states on page 268 that a connector failed the
minimum break load test because the rate of load application was faster than had been
specified by the manufacturers test procedure. Another connector plate was tested
using a slower rate of load application and passed the minimum break load test.
A4163-01 196
This is of considerable interest since, depending on the slow drift offset of the FPS, a
mooring system can experience very rapid increases in line tensions due to first order
wave frequency response. As far as can be determined classification societies
(including IACS) typically do not specify the rate of application of the break test load.
Hence it is believed that this is a matter which requires further consideration, since
intrinsically it is not desirable to have a means of testing which:
a) poorly replicates the offshore loading environment,
b) can lead to either a pass or a fail depending how the test is done.
Whilst performing a "real" scale test would be a rigorous/ideal way forward, it is
unknown whether all the test houses / manufacturers would be able to undertake this for
the larger sized items and more research is needed. In general the ramping period does
not appear to be recorded unless specifically requested by reference to a manufacturer's
or client specification. This seems a simple and informative piece of information which
should, by default, be included in the as built documentation.
It is appreciated that failure through shock loading may be caused by brittle failure
instead of the traditional tensile failures (necking). Therefore, one option may be to
have more onerous requirements for impact tests or at lower temperatures. This may be
of more particular interest with high tensile steels which may be more prone to the
brittle failure due to defects / flaws. But still there is a need to correlate this back to the
ramping speed break test performance of real connectors.
A4163-01 197
15 OUT OF PLANE BENDING CHAIN AND ROPES
(FIBRE + WIRE)
15.1 Tension Bending at a Wildcat and its Effect on Fatigue
As chain is fed over a fairlead it is subjected to tension plus an out of plane bending
moment resulting from the local geometry of the contact between chain link and gypsy
wheel bearing surfaces. Fatigue issues associated with chain links in gypsy wheel
fairleads have been reasonably well documented and incorporated in design practice
(API 2SK RP2SK [Ref. 31] and DNV OS-E301 [Ref. 5] for example).
Despite this, failure of mooring systems continues to occur. Fatigue calculations are
often restricted to links in the catenary, neglecting the reduced fatigue life local to the
end termination. One North Sea unit suffered a link breakage at the fairlead, after only
one winter.
Figure 15-1 Broken Link from Fairlead Figure 15-2 Mechanical Damage on
Fairlead Link
The photographs above demonstrate both fatigue cracking and the mechanical damage
with can result from the high stresses experienced by a chain link at a fairlead.
A4163-01 198
15.1.1 The Load Mechanism
The load mechanism is related to the eccentricity of thrust lines with respect to the bar
neutral axis (centroid). This effect is enhanced where the change of angle is greater
(for a five pocket as opposed to a seven or a nine pocket fairlead). It may also be
increased where wear of the fairlead moves the contact point away from the end of the
link. The imposed hogging moment is balanced by a counter effect at the other end of
the link.
The chain links within the fairlead are thus subjected to an out of plane bending
moment which is proportional to the tension in the mooring line. Tension variations in
the mooring line result in a stress range due to both the axial and out of plane loading in
the link.
Figure 15-3 - Support of a Link in a Wheel Fairlead
The fluctuating bending stress in the link is referred to as tension bending in API and
bending of the chain links in the fairleads in DNV. In both cases the fatigue
mechanism appears to be identical to that examined by BOMEL in their anchor chain
JIP see Section 15.1.2. Fatigue damage (SN) curves and implied stress concentration
factors are broadly consistent between the three sources.
15.1.2 Tension Bending Fatigue Testing Undertaken by BOMEL
During the early 1990s BOMEL conducted a Joint Industry Project into the design of
anchor chains [Ref. 10]. As part of this study work they conducted a series of tests to
examine the influence of the tension bending effect on mooring line fatigue.
A4163-01 199
Figure 15-4 - Photograph of Test Link Showing Bearing Plates [Ref. 10]
The programme included the use of a test rig representing a five pocket fairlead (see
Figure 15-4 and Figure 15-5). The horizontal link was supported at four points on a
mounting point which was cycled vertically in order to develop varying tension in the
two fixed links. The tests were conducted on 54 mm diameter K3 chain with welded
studs.
Figure 15-5 - General View of Tension Bending Test Rig (protective screens removed
for clarity) [Ref. 10]
A4163-01 200
BOMEL monitored the mean and range of the imposed loads in the horizontal link and
used strain gauge readings to assess the response of the chain. The result set was
limited to 6 tests. The test conditions represented a different number of stress ranges.
The figure below demonstrates damage to the mounting plates during the first test. It
can be seen that two of the four hardened bed plates are cracked diagonally opposite
each other. The wear marks on the plates and on the links indicate that the two which
cracked were more heavily loaded than the other pair. The crack in the link occurred
over one of the fractured bed plates, also indicating heavier loading at this location.
These wear and crack locations demonstrate the significance of twist or out of
flatness in the unstressed link. The initial out of flatness was measured for all
subsequent tests see Figure 15-8. As can be seen in Figure 15-7 in certain cases out
of flatness can be quite significant.
Figure 15-6 - Broken Hardened Plates at the end of the First Test [Ref. 10]
A4163-01 201
Figure 15-7 - Twisted Link Due to Mis-aligned Butt Weld [Ref. 10]
When set in the fairlead the link position support restraints include bearing of the
shoulders of the link against the fairlead plus of the bend at each end against the
corresponding sections of adjacent links. As a result imperfection in any of the three
links, or in the fairlead itself, can prevent the link from initially bearing on four
shoulders.
As the link is relatively stiff BOMEL found that the load required to deform it
sufficiently that load is transferred through all four bearing points may approach or even
exceed the 0.2% permanent strain value.
Figure 15-8 - Simple Out of Flatness Twist Measurement Jig [Ref. 10]
A4163-01 202
15.1.3 Conclusions Regarding Fatigue Life Calculation
Despite the limited data set, BOMEL presented a fairly consistent relationship between
tension range and number of cycles to failure. Scatter appeared to be associated with
initial out of flatness in certain links.
A factor on the nominal stress in the link was defined as the local (measured) stress
divided by the nominal link stress.
Fac
nom
= Factor on nominal stress = Local (Measured) stress/ Nominal link stress
Nominal link stress = LineTension/Area = LineTension /(2 x x (Bar Dia/2)
2
)
Nominal link stress = (2 x LineTension) / x (Bar Dia)
2
=
= = = =
T D
D TD
T Z
A M
TD
M
D
A
D
Z
n Calculatio
nom
nom nom
tnom
bnom
nom nom nom
t
t
o
o
t t
Notation:
D chain bar diameter (m)
T Tension force (kN)
A Area (m
2
)
M Bending Moment (kN.m)
Z bar section modulus (m
3
)
o Stress due to bending or tension (kPa)
Friction coefficient
nom
Suffix nominal
b
Suffix bending
t
Suffix tension
A4163-01 209
Notes :
i) The bending component reverses, doubling the range of extreme fibre bending
stress.
ii) Stress will tend to cycle tension to tension.
iii) The above comparison is based on nominal stresses. It is anticipated that the SCF
associated with interlink friction will be less than that for a link in the catenary
under a tension range.
Individual links are extremely stiff. As a result very high out of plane bending moments
and thus stresses can be developed, even at relatively small angular deflections. Under
high tensions the interlink behaviour thus prevents links from slipping, providing a
beam like behaviour in the chain sections.
15.2.3 Physical Testing Following the Girassol Failure
SBM carried out a series of tests using a rig designed to reproduce the load regime at
link 5. Strain gauges were mounted on the link in order to quantify the out of plane
bending stress developed. The test was carried out under both dry and in-water
conditions.
Figure 15-15 - Schematic of SBM Test Rig [Ref. 55]
From their laboratory work SBM derived a relationship between interlink angle and the
out of plane bending stress in the link. The measured value amounted to 288MPa
change in extreme stress for an angle of 1 degree between consecutive links.
A4163-01 210
Using this relationship with the DNV B1 curve [Ref. 57] and a limiting range in
interlink angle of 3.8 degrees (imposed by geometry of chainhawse) SBM computed a
life to failure of 107 days. This calculation assumed that the full pitch rotation was
imposed on a single link, and that the friction coefficient was sufficient that no slip
occurred up to the limiting angle of 3.8 degrees (amplitude) where the 7
th
link touches
the chainhawse.
Figure 15-16 - Photograph of SBMs Test Rig [Ref. 55]
A4163-01 211
15.2.4 Relevance of the Girassol Failures to Other Systems
It can be seen from the Girassol failures that under certain conditions, the interlink
friction driven fatigue can result in very rapid fatigue damage. This mechanism
appears not to govern for many mooring systems, though the basic mechanics will be
present for all chains.
Figure 15-17 - Typical FPSO Chain Stopper Arrangement
The requirement for rotation between the end links of the chain was not a result of the
curved chainhawser. As illustrated above, where the stopper is located above the
assembly pivot point, rotation of chainhawser is unlikely until the chain contacts the end
of the trumpet. Small angles of rotation will thus be taken out in the first free link,
either as slip or in bending.
Sensitivity to this failure mechanism appears to result from three factors in the Girassol
system.
i) The nature of and natural frequencies of the moored structure resulted in angular
rotations having a high frequency of occurrence at a significant magnitude.
ii) The design of the chainhawse imposed the restraint that the majority of the rotation
(principally due to buoy pitch) was taken out in a single link.
iii) The relatively high working tension for the chain size permitted the development of
significant interlinks friction forces and local yielding.
Stopper plates,
holding a
horizontal link
Pivot point
of trumpet
A4163-01 212
The relative significance of these is not yet totally clear at present. Due to the
individual stiffness of chain links, large bending stresses can be developed by relatively
small end rotations. These will tend to be relieved, either by slip or contact with the
trumpet, for larger motions. The proportion of the rotation imposed at a single link may
depend upon the chainhawse design, but this has not been studied. Friction coefficients
for interlink friction combined with the line tension will determine the stress developed
prior to slip, but little data is available in this area.
The simplified calculations below illustrate the accumulation of fatigue in a mooring
chain. The first calculation relates to Girassol (high pre-tension and an assumed annual
damage of 1.0 from the failure history). Example 2 relates to real example for a FPSO
in moderate water depth and a relatively low pre-tension. Example 3 relates to an FPSO
in deep water with high pretension. These calculations are intended to be indicative
only, it is appreciated that the wave climate, directionality and chain hawse geometry
are not represented.
In the following examples the notation listed below is applicable:
D chain bar diameter (mm)
T Tension force (tonnes)
A Area (m
2
)
M Bending Moment (kN.m)
Z bar section modulus (m
3
)
SCF Stress Concentration Factor
m Slope of the S-N curve
N Number of cycles to failure
N
1 year
Number of cycles in one year
o Stress due to bending or tension (kPa)
Friction coefficient
nom
Suffix nominal
b
Suffix bending
t
Suffix tension
A4163-01 213
Example 1 is a summary of the behaviour of the Girassol offloading buoy.
18 . 1 7 . 3 :
318 . 0 10
) 47 2 log( 173 . 3 46 . 11 ) log(
10 6 , 1 , 173 . 3 , 46 . 11 ) log( :
) 2 log( log ) log(
47
8
2 2
32
2
,
32
2
1 . 0 , 5 . 123 , 81
1 _
)) 94 log(
173 . 3
778 . 6 46 . 11
(
1
6
1
2 3
3
= =
= =
=
= = = =
=
= =
= =
= =
= = =
ratio
ratio
ratio year
year
bnom
nom
nom
bnom
nom nom
SCF SCF NB
SCF
SCF N
N ge AnnualDama m A Take
SCF m A N
MPa
D
T
D
TD
Z
M
TD
M
D
Z
Te T mm D
Example
o
t
o
t
However, the interlink frictrion will impose a bending force on both sides of the link.
Above example developed from BOMEL JIP ([Ref. 10] Section 3.11.1, page 29).
Log
10
N = 11.32 3.173 log
10
(Ao
nom
)
The report expression is:
Log(N) = logA mlog(2 x SCF x o
bnom
)
M = 3.173 is the SN curve gradient. Ao
nom
is the nominal stress range in a link during
fatigue testing. This has been set to be equal to 2 x SCF x o
bnom
. The 2 takes into
account that the link can move both clockwise and anticlockwise about an axis through
the line of the chain.
Within the catenary there are many chain links, increasing the likelihood of failure.
The design value of logA is typically 2 standard deviations below the test mean.
BOMEL took a value of 4.4 to reflect the number of chain links with a standard
deviation of 0.184. BOMEL results are from tests in air. Submerged chain will fatigue
more rapidly (logA increases by 0.301 based on standard fatigue texts for in air and
cathodically protected in water).
In this instance Log A has been taken to be 11.46 rather than 11.32 as shown below.
Considering a single link seems appropriate for the link being bent at the hawsepipe.
logA = 11.762 relates to a single link in air.
logA = 11.320 relates to a 4000 link chain in air.
logA = 11.461 relates to a single link in water.
logA = 11.019 relates to a 4000 link chain in water.
A4163-01 214
N
1 year
= 6 x 10
6
cycles is based on a wave frequency indicative period of 5.3 seconds,
i.e. (365 days x 24 hrs x 60mins x 60 sec)/5.3 seconds = 6 x 10
6
cycles. This is a crude
approximation.
The annual damage amounts to (6 x 10
6
cycles)/Inv. Log(11.46 3.173 x log(2 x 47 x
0.318)) = 1.0002, which means the fatigue life is consumed in less than a year. This is
not too different to what happened in practice on the Girassol buoy
007 . 0
10
) 10 2
7 . 3
18 . 1
log( 173 . 3 46 . 11 ) log(
10 6 , 18 . 1 , 173 . 3 , 46 . 11 ) log( :
) 2 log( log ) log(
10
8
2 2
32
2
,
32
2
1 . 0 , 60 , 120
2 _
1
91 . 8
6
1
2 3
3
= =
=
=
= = = =
=
= =
= =
= =
= = =
N
N
ge AnnualDama
N
N
N SCF m A Take
SCF m A N
MPa
D
T
D
TD
Z
M
TD
M
D
Z
Te T mm D
Example
year
year
bnom
nom
nom
bnom
nom nom
o
t
o
t
= =
= =
= = =
N
N
ge AnnualDama
N
N
N SCF m A Take
SCF m A N
MPa
D
T
D
TD
Z
M
TD
M
D
Z
Te T mm D
Example
year
year
bnom
nom
nom
bnom
nom nom
o
t
o
t