Offshore Structures

XIV National Conference on Structural Engineering,
Acapulco 2004

Offshore Structures A new challenge
How can the experience from the marine concrete industry be utilized

Knut Sandvik, Rolf Eie and Jan-Diederik Advocaat, of Aker Kvaerner Engineering & Technology AS
Arnstein Godejord, Kre O.Hreid, Kolbjrn Hyland and Tor Ole Olsen, of Dr.techn.Olav Olsen a.s
Norway

XIV National Conference on Structural Engineering, Acapulco 2004

TABLE OF CONTENT

Summary
1 Marine Concrete Structures ............................................................................................ 4
1.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Floating Concrete Sea-structures............................................................................................. 4
1.3 Performance in the marine environment ................................................................................. 6
1.4 Considerations for new field development.............................................................................. 8
1.5 Design aspects ......................................................................................................................... 8
3 The Norwegian Experience and Know-how................................................................. 13
3.1 The structures ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Research and development .................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Decommissioning of offshore concrete platforms................................................................. 17
4 Project Execution Typical ........................................................................................... 18
5 Ongoing Projects............................................................................................................. 26
5.1 The Sakhalin II Project.......................................................................................................... 26
5.2 The Adriatic LNG Terminal Project...................................................................................... 29
6 Novel Concepts................................................................................................................ 32
6.1 Floating LNG Terminals ....................................................................................................... 32
6.2 Floating airport or navy base................................................................................................. 33
6.3 MPU Heavy Lifter................................................................................................................. 34
6.4 MPU Semo ............................................................................................................................ 35
6.5 Other novel concepts ............................................................................................................. 36
7 Project Execution in Mexico .......................................................................................... 39
7.1 Engineering and Design ........................................................................................................ 39
7.1.1 Conceptual design ......................................................................................................... 39
7.1.2 Detail design.................................................................................................................. 39
7.1.3 Rules and Regulations proposed for concrete projects in Mexico ................................ 40
7.2 Fabrication Site...................................................................................................................... 41
7.3 Options for fabrication .......................................................................................................... 42
7.4 Construction and Methods..................................................................................................... 43
7.5 Material Qualities .................................................................................................................. 43
7.5.1 Concrete......................................................................................................................... 44
7.5.2 Ordinary reinforcement ................................................................................................. 44
7.5.3 Prestressed reinforcement.............................................................................................. 45
7.6 Cathodic Protection ............................................................................................................... 45

7.7 Steel/Concrete Connection Methods ..................................................................................... 46
7.7.1 Riser support.................................................................................................................. 46
7.7.2 Mooring brackets / Towing brackets / Fairleads ........................................................... 46
7.7.3 Embedment plates ......................................................................................................... 47
References ............................................................................................................................... 48
3

Summary

The concrete construction industry is widely spread and every country has its own.

Concrete structures have been used in the marine environment for a very long time. Examples are
bridges, docks and lighthouses. Particularly in war times, when steel is scarce, concrete has also been
used for barges and ships. The long history of marine concrete structures is interesting and represents
valuable experience.

Concrete structures have proven especially well suited to develop offshore oil and gas fields.

More than 40 major offshore concrete structures make a good job at supporting the processing
facilities of hydrocarbon plants offshore. They are constructed over the past 30 years, and perform
well in all the different environments from the arctic to tropical waters, and from sandy stiff seabed to
very soft clays.

A number of the platforms are permanently floating, and they also show good and efficient behaviour.

How may all this experience be utilized to further develop the offshore oil and gas industry?

The authors of the present paper, being representatives of the Norwegian offshore concrete industry,
have experience from all levels of design and construction of small and large offshore concrete
structures. Examples are described in this paper, including the important elements of project
execution, the experiences from design and construction, the durability of offshore concrete structures
and the associated required maintenance, as well as the issues of removal and recycling of such
structures.

Ongoing projects (Sakhalin II in Russia and Adriatic LNG Terminal in the Adriatic Ocean) are briefly
presented.

Recent trends and some novel concepts for further development are discussed.

The paper concludes with some thoughts on project execution in Mexico, including engineering,
construction and construction methods, materials and labour.

It is the hope of the authors that the paper will represent a fairly comprehensive description of offshore
concrete structures, or at least a place to start in the search for improved oil and gas field development.

4

1 Marine Concrete Structures

1.1 General
Fig. 1-1 shows the still floating caissons for a roll on/roll off facility in Port dAutonome Abidjan,
built by Selmer Skanska.

Figure 1-1. Floating caissons

The picture shows that having access to water and an innovative concrete construction industry may
be a good, and possibly sufficient, starting point for building offshore structures.

Some situations may call for more complicated structures, and deep sheltered waters may be a
requirement for the construction. Many of the offshore structures described in this paper are from
Norway which has deep fjords, protected from the ocean.

Although many of the examples in this paper describe complex offshore concrete structures, it is
important to recognize the value of simplicity. Ingenuity and standard means of construction will bring
the best results.

1.2 Floating Concrete Sea-structures
The history of floating concrete sea structures goes back to the 19th century. In 1848 Lambot for the
first time used reinforced concrete to build a boat. During World War I, 14 concrete ships were built
due to the steel shortage - including the 130 m long U.S.S. Selma. At that time reinforced concrete had
already been used in shipbuilding (small ships) in the Scandinavian countries.

World War II concrete ships saw widespread wartime service in battle zones. Twenty-four of these
ships were large sea-going vessels and 80 were sea-going barges of large size. The cargo capacities
ranged from 3.200 to 140.250 tons. Ref. 1, by Morgan, gives a good description of the early
development of the concrete hull.

5
A number of notable pontoon bridges have been built of concrete. Ref. 2 gives an overview of the long
traditions within this area. The first floating concrete bridge was built across Lake Washington in
1940.

In the late 1950s, a number of pre-stressed concrete ocean-going barges were constructed in the
Philippines (additionally 19 barges from 1964 to 1966), and concrete lighthouses were constructed as
caissons in the 1960s. Concrete lighthouses are installed in the Irish Sea, in Eastern Canada and in the
Gulf of Bothnia. Many pontoons, barges and other crafts have been successfully built in the former
USSR, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

Over the years, starting back in mid 1920s, some 70 temporary floating immersed concrete tunnels
have been built in the following countries: USA, Canada, Argentina, Cuba, UK, Denmark, Sweden,
Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Hong Kong, Taiwan (Republic of China), Japan and Australia.

During the 1970s concrete gained recognition as a well-suited material for construction of offshore
platforms for the exploration of oil in the North Sea. Permanently floating offshore vessels related to
the petroleum industry are now installed in the Java Sea, in the North Sea and outside the coast of
Congo in West Africa.

From 1950 to 1982 it was registered that approximately 1.130 concrete hulls had been built. Most of
them are small with overall length less than 50 m. Among the bigger ones, two groups of sizes are
dominant, - approximately 250 hulls with length ranging from 58 to 67 m, and 40 hulls with a length
of 110 m.

Concrete hulls and barges - examples from practice

The ARCO barge (ref. 3)
The Ardjuna Sakti is a floating pre-stressed concrete LPG storage facility with overall dimensions
140.5 x 41.5 x 17.2 m (length x beam x depth). Fully loaded, the vessel displaces 66.000 tons. The
ARCO barge was built and completely outfitted in Tacoma (Washington) and towed 16.000 km
(10.000 miles) across the Pacific Ocean to the Java Sea in 1976, where it is permanently moored.

Concrete barge C-Boat 500.
The prototype barge, of 37 m length, 9 m beam and 3.1 m depth and of 500 dwt loading capacity was
built in Japan in 1982.

Heidrun TLP (ref. 4)
Conocos Heidrun platform is the worlds first TLP with a concrete hull and the largest permanently
floating concrete structure ever with a concrete volume of 67.000 m
3
. The topside related weight is
89.000 tons (net 65.000 t topside) and the displacement 285.000 tons. The platform was installed on
location in the North Sea in 1995, at a water depth of 345 m.

Troll Oil Semi (ref. 5)
Norsk Hydros Troll Oil FPS platform is the worlds first concrete catenary anchored floater. The
Troll Oil semi submersible hull has a concrete volume of 46.000 m
3
and supports a topside weight of
32.500 tons. The displacement is 190.000 tons. The platform was installed on location in the North
Sea in 1995, at a water depth of 335 m.

Nkossa barge (ref. 6 & 7)
Elf Congos Nkossa barge is the worlds largest pre-stressed concrete barge. The floating production
vessel of which the dimensions are 220 x 46 x 16 m was built in Marseille, France, and towed 4500
nautical miles to the west coast of Congo in West Africa where it was permanently anchored in 170 m
6
water depth in 1996. The total displacement fully loaded is 107.000 tons, and the concrete volume of
the barge is 27.000 m
3
. The hull supports six topside modules with a total weight of 33.000 tons.

1.3 Performance in the marine environment
Considering the wide use of concrete for marine applications there is surprisingly little documentation
to be found on in-service performance. The apparent cause for this is that provided satisfactory design
and execution, concrete is an optimal material for harbour, coastal and offshore construction as it
combines durability, strength and economy. This fact is supported by studies of floating concrete
docks back in the 1970s, showing dramatic savings, requiring less than 10% the maintenance of
similar all-steel docks, ref. 1.

Other structures also utilize the water-tightness properties of concrete; storage tanks, nuclear
containment structures and submarine tunnels.

Sare and Yee, ref. 8, report negligible repair and maintenance costs for the 19 pre-stressed concrete
barges constructed in the Philippines during 1964-66 for Lusteveco, with no need for dry-docking.
After many years in service, average annual maintenance cost of the concrete barges are found to be
about 1/3 compared to steel barges.

The fabrication cost of Yees barges showed a saving of 16 percent compared to that of steel. In the
period 1974 to 1975, the total downtime per floating barge per year for maintenance work was six
days for the concrete structures. The similar steel barges had an average downtime of 24 days.

The Refiner I barge, checked by Bureau Veritas for issuing necessary certificates for the towed
voyage, was designed for 4.2m wave height. It is worth noting that the vessel in fact endured a storm
in the Bay of Biscay during which time the conditions were undoubtedly more severe than those
contemplated in the calculations (the pontoon drifted in winds of force 10-11 and angles of roll and
pitch of 14 and 10 respectively were observed). The unit behaved perfectly well through this
unexpectedly severe environment. It seems to be general consensus that concrete vessels and barges
have proved to have good seagoing qualities, to be safe and strong, and suffer much less from
vibration than steel ships - to the crews satisfaction.

The 1970s and 1980s saw the spectacular development of offshore bottom fixed concrete structures,
installed in up to 300 meters (1000 ft) of water depth in the midst of one of the worlds stormiest
oceans, the North Sea. It is remarkable how well these structures have performed in the hostile marine
environment, successfully withstanding the extreme loads from waves approaching 30 meters in
height as well as the dynamic cyclic forces. Experience has shown that the offshore concrete structures
currently in use are virtually maintenance-free. It is generally recognized that the first concrete
platforms in the North Sea were over-inspected and that the need for extensive instrumentation of
platforms of common types should be reconsidered.

A comprehensive list of references to information pertaining to the performance of North Sea concrete
structures is presented in ref. 9 and 19. No significant sign of material deterioration, corrosion of
reinforcement or other material-related deficiencies have been observed. Falling objects or ramming
ships mainly cause observed damages. Platforms designed for 20 years operation have now passed the
end of their prescribed design life. Inspections and investigations confirm that their lifetime in general
can be extended.

Various codes give well-established rules for assessing fire resistance. Two hydrocarbon fires inside
North Sea concrete platform shafts in the late seventies are reported. The consequence was a surface
7
scaling about 10-20 mm deep over a height of 5-10 m. This marginal impact is attributed to the large heat
capacity and low thermal conductivity of concrete. No repair was found necessary - clearly demonstrating
the excellent fire resistance of concrete.

Concrete is normally considered to be one of the best fire proofing materials available, a factor of
unquestionable importance for an offshore oil or gas platform/storage. There are many instances, both
ashore and afloat, of fire causing no more than local to no damage to concrete structures. As an example
constituting the most impressive testimonial that could possible be called for, Derrington (ref. 11) reports
how two concrete barges survived the Bikini Atoll nuclear bomb tests in good shape when their cargo of
fuel oil was set alight - moored only 100 yards from the test centre.

Wartime brought the additional hazards of bombs and mines. Morgan ref. 12 reports that in 1944 a 1000-
tonne German concrete barge hit a mine, which exploded under the stern - the vessel was able to reach
shore by being repaired while afloat with underwater concreting. Lusteveco, operator of Yees concrete
barges, was quite pleased with their performance and say one of the most endearing aspects of pre-
stressed concrete hulls is their ease of repair. The barges serviced the Vietnam War area for a period
of nine years and a number of barges were rocketed or damaged by plastic bombs. The damage was
usually confined to severely cracking of concrete within a limited area of 1m x 2m on the surface of
the hull - a damage consequence limitation credited to the rigid pre-stressed concrete hull. In March
1973 one of Lustevecos 2000 dwt dry cargo barges, L-1960, hit a mine at the starboard side transiting
the Mekong River fully loaded with rice intended for Phnom Penh. After some temporary repairs, the
barge was towed safely to the Philippines for permanent repairs. The cost of this 10 days repair job
was US$ 4381.

Pre-stressed concrete was chosen as the hull material for the ARCO barge because of its
seaworthiness, competitive cost, fire resistance, durability and speed of construction. After almost
twenty years of continuous service, various tests were carried out for the concrete barge. Due to its
excellent condition, ARCO has given its barge an indefinite lifespan - a solid proof of the excellent
performance of concrete in a marine environment as well as its good fatigue resistance.

There are also examples of premature failures for concrete structures in coastal areas (e.g. bridge piers
and quay structures) - suggesting that the marine environment is demanding and imposes special
requirements on materials and workmanship. It is in this context important to distinguish between the
onshore and offshore concrete industry. The problems experienced in coastal areas for the onshore
concrete industry is caused by, for example ref. 13: improper cover, misplaced reinforcement,
improper handling, placing of concrete or poor quality of concrete (e.g., seawater contaminated
aggregates, improper concrete mix proportions).

In Norway, the experiences with coastal bridges have shown that the principal causes of failure are the
same as reported above. In general, however, marine structures built by the onshore concrete industry
have suffered very limited from degradation - refer for example list of surveys presented in FIPs state
of the art report on inspection, maintenance and repair of concrete sea structures, ref. 14.

In 1999 a large Norwegian research program, ref. 10, investigated the durability of concrete structures,
covering bridges, industrial structures, quays and offshore platforms. Main emphasis was set on
chloride penetration and reinforcement corrosion. Six offshore concrete structures were investigated:

Statfjord A (16 years in operation at time of inspection)
Gullfaks A (7)
Gullfaks C (4)
Oseberg A (8/9)
Troll B (2)
8
Ekofisk Tank (17/22)

Calculations based on the chloride profiles showed that the investigated offshore platforms were in
excellent condition and that there would be no risk for corrosion within their expected lifetime. Two of
them would theoretically not reach chloride concentrations representing risk for corrosion at the
position of the reinforcement bars, until having serviced for more than 200 years.

The good performance of the offshore concrete structures is attributed mainly to high quality concrete
(i.e. high strength / low permeability concrete in situ), proper design including sufficient cover to
reinforcement, good workmanship & construction techniques and thorough quality assurance.

1.4 Considerations for new field development
The general conclusion drawn from service performance of the offshore concrete structures is that they
have proved excellent behaviour and require significantly lower expenditure for inspection,
maintenance and repair than steel structures. Experience has shown that offshore concrete structures
currently in use are virtually maintenance-free.

Over the years wide experience has been gained in the field of post-tensioned concrete offshore
structures. The successful construction of the Heidrun TLP, the Troll Oil Semi and the Nkossa barge
has opened for interesting potentials to the offshore industry as to the suitability and economics of
concrete floating structures. Recent studies also conclude that floating concrete structures are well
suited for floating LNG plants.

The increasing importance of local content in the development projects is favouring concrete as the
building material in countries with limited number of offshore steel yards. Concrete structures can be
built in greenfield areas with very little infrastructure. The majority of the workforce does not need
special education and can be recruited locally. Hence, choosing concrete may significantly increase
the local content of a project.

1.5 Design aspects

Design Life and Reuse: The offshore concrete structures installed to date have been designed for 25-
70 years. The Troll GBS was designed for a 70-year life and the Heidrun TLP is designed for 50 years.
There is not a significant additional cost related to extension of design life from for instance 30 years
to 50 years or 70 years. One reason is the fact that reinforced and pre-stressed concrete is not sensitive
to fatigue. With the extensive design life possible for a concrete platform there is obviously a very
good possibility for reuse. The investigations carried out on durability and conditions of existing
concrete platforms clearly prove a great potential for reuse.

Stiffness: Concrete structures generally have large stiffness. The result is less flexibility and less
deformation applied onto outfitting steel etc.

Robustness: Under maximum credible accidents, such as major leakage, collision or fire, a properly
designed and constructed pre-stressed concrete vessel has better inherent safety than a comparable steel
vessel. This is one of the conclusions from a technical feasibility and safety study of a 297 m (974 ft) long
storage/processing vessel carrying LPG in free-standing tanks performed by Gerwick et. al., ref. 15. Here
a pre-stressed concrete vessel was designed and compared with an existing steel vessel designed
according to the ABS requirements. It was also found that the concrete hull, being stiffer, developed
9
significantly lower dynamic amplification and had a lower risk of failure than the steel vessel. The
concrete hull was found to have adequate safety to justify its use for vessels in hazardous cargo service
without limitation as to length.

Impact Resistance: The concrete material has excellent resistance to impact loads. This has been
proven through history, and the result is that concrete is widely used in military installations, shelters,
in buildings which need to be failsafe and which are regarded as exposed to terror attacks etc. The
concrete hull of a concrete floater will typically be designed for impact loads from any possible
dropped object. Still there will be a design requirement to design for accidental filling of any
compartment adjacent to sea, or adjacent to piping, which is connected to sea.

Fire Resistance: As mentioned above concrete is normally considered to be one of the best fire proofing
materials available. Two fires inside shafts of North Sea concrete structures have been reported, and
damages have been too small to decide any repair work to be done. The combination of excellent fire- and
impact-resistance is of course very important for units producing hydrocarbons.

Maintenance Free: Appropriately designed and constructed concrete hulls in the marine environment
are almost free of maintenance. Regulatory inspection of the concrete structure is mainly limited to
visual inspection and entails no significant cost. Recently constructed concrete platforms have been
designed for an operational life of 50-70 years. The maintenance/OPEX aspect was decisive in Elf
Congos decision to chose a concrete barge on the Nkossa project, ref. 6 and 7, as the concrete hull
offered significant savings in expected maintenance cost. The barge will fulfil its functions on site
without interruptions for 30 years and there is expected virtually no maintenance.

To quote Campbell, American Bureau of Shipping Surveyor ref. 16: The history of concrete for
marine construction is very favourable. There is little doubt that a well designed, well built, concrete
structure will have a longer service life than a comparable steel structure.

Motion Characteristics: The motion characteristics of a concrete hull are typically better than for a
steel floater designed for the same purpose. This conclusion can be drawn based on reports from ship
captains (World War II ships and Yees barges), several studies and recently confirmed by both
analyses and model testing for very large FPSOs (BP Atlantic Frontier Stage 2 / Schiehallion, hull
length 280 m). The generally somewhat larger mass and draught, result in improved motion
characteristics. For the very harsh environmental conditions West of Shetland (the Schiehallion
FPSO), the mooring size and cost was reported nearly identical for steel and concrete hulls (ballasted
condition governing). The general picture, however, is that the mooring costs for concrete
vessels/semis are approximately 10 per cent more expensive than for a steel hull - illustrating that the
mooring costs must be included in cost comparison steel versus concrete.

Material properties; strength and weight: It is obvious that the weight of the platform is of
importance. A vessel must carry its own weight plus a payload. For the concrete platform the payload
is the topside and equipment, as well as any ballast required for hydrostatic and/or geotechnical
stability.

In ref. 17 Jan Moksnes presents some of the results of Norwegian research on concrete over the past
20 years. The benefit of this research has been and is significant for the concrete construction industry.

In brief relevant design aspects of importance for the type of structures under consideration are:

o High stiffness, providing a stable foundation for tanks and other attachements
o Good resistance to environmental loading
10
o Excellent behavior at low temperatures
o Favorable in ice-infested waters
o Robust with respect to accidental loading such as ship impact, dropped objects or terrorist
attacks
o Good resistance to oil and gas process hazards
o Functional and safety features common to a land based plant.
o Good resistance to cold spot incidents
o Enhanced material properties with decreasing temperature
o Excellent fatigue resistance
o Good durability, and basically maintenance-free
o Standard offshore concrete quality applied
o No need for skilled labor for the bulk of the construction work, enabling local execution
o Good resistance to seismic loading
o May be decommissioned and removed, possibly reused

Important also is the cost of the structure. Key qualitative parameters for cost of concrete structures
are summarised below:

o Low complexity structures are both faster and more cost effective to construct.
o Close integration of engineering and construction as well as main operations
o Local availability of labour and materials
o Design basis requirements (waves, soils, functional requirements)
o Generally cost effective to complete as much as possible in the graving dock. Unnecessary
stops in slip forming should be avoided
o Preparation of the graving dock may add cost to the project. However, it may prove
economically sensible to extend and/or deepen the dock to increase the completion grade.
o Construction schedule. Construction time is related to simplicity and concrete volume. For
LNG terminals, assembling the tanks from pre-cast elements may decrease the length of the
schedule.

For small structures the initial construction may be performed on barge(s). After float off from the
barge the remaining construction is performed while afloat. However, in most cases a dry-dock has
been used for the initial and also sometimes the complete construction phase.

All concepts developed are designed to be removed from the offshore location in a controlled way.
Followin g the removal the structure may be reused or deconstructed and recycled.
11
2 Offshore Concrete Structures for the Oil and Gas Industry

Since the Ekofisk Tank was installed in 1973, 41 major offshore concrete structures have been built,
see ref. 18.

Fig.2-1 shows the tow of Beryl A in 1975, from its construction site in a sheltered Norwegian fjord, on
its way to the harsh environment of the North Sea, fig. 2-2.

Figures 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate some of the design criteria for offshore structures, and at the same time
indicate why concrete may be the best choice of construction material.

Many offshore locations are calm and friendly, but not all. Fig. 1-3 shows an example of an ocean
where it is not straightforward to build. The platforms may then be prefabricated elsewhere, installed
and possibly completed with respect to the foundation (piling, ballasting, grouting) and topside
installation. The degree of inshore completion influences the cost and safety of the field development.

The typical offshore concrete structure is of the caisson type, often termed Concrete Gravity Structure,
CGS. The caisson provides buoyancy in the construction and towing phases, and acts as a foundation
structure in the operation phase. The caisson may also provide storage volume for oil or other liquids.

This multiple usage of the structure may prove very economic, particularly when storage is required.

Steel structures may of course also be built to provide buoyancy and storage, but buoyancy at large
water depth is complicated and expensive for steel structures as they are exposed to significant
pressure loading.

Figure 2-1. Beryl A during tow to installation site, in 1973

12

Figure 2-2. The environment of the sea.

The offshore concrete structures for the oil and gas industry are located at various and very different
parts of the world. There are structures in ice-infested waters, in seismic zones and in very harsh
marine environments, but also in relatively calm areas. Some are located at large water depth, others in
shallow areas. The foundation conditions vary from very stiff sand to very soft clays, and some of the
structures float permanently.

Some of the structures have storage facilities, and all have a hydrocarbon processing plant facility of
some kind.

Such various conditions for the offshore concrete structure call for different designs.

As stated previously the offshore concrete structures behave very well, and perform their task of
supporting the oil and gas processing facility. The oil companies are frequently evaluating extension
of operational life, and modifications to enable further facilities as the offshore field may contain
additional hydrocarbons.

13

3 The Norwegian Experience and Know-how

3.1 The structures

The inshore construction of concrete offshore structures provides good conditions for quality
construction. The construction site of Aker Kvrner at Hinna, near Stavanger in Norway, was likely
the best and most professional and effective construction site in the world. The construction of 17
large offshore concrete structures, created a large amount of expertise, see Fig. 3-1. Multidisciplinary
groups of specialist companies participated in design of these platforms and their various units and
outfitting. Some of the companies contributing considerably were Aker Kvaerner with their designs of
topside, mechanical outfitting and marine operations, Multiconsult, Aas-Jakobsen, SWECO Grner
and Dr.techn.Olav Olsen designed the concrete substructures, both concept and detail designs, and
NGI designed the foundation.

Figure 3-1. Concrete Structures Constructed at Hinna, Norway
The structures built by Aker Kvaerner represents, in terms of concrete volume, approximately half of
the total volume of the offshore concrete structures of the world.

14
Many of the concrete platforms built by Aker Kvaerner are rewarded, in Norway and internationally.
In 1976 and 1995 the Condeep platform was awarded the Norwegian Betongtavlen, in 1990 and 1998
FIPs prize for outstanding structures. In 2000 the readers of Teknisk Ukeblad (a Norwegian
engineering magazine) elected Troll A the engineering achievement of the century.

Olav Olsen was the first Norwegian recipient of the prestigious FIP medal and the Gustave Magnel
Golden Medal, mainly due to the pioneering work of designing offshore concrete structures.

Of the more impressive structures is the Troll A platform, shown in Fig. 3-2. The Troll A platform, a
gas wellhead and processing platform, was complete with skirt piles and topside when towed out and
installed in the North Sea, see fig. 3-3.

Figure 3-2. The Troll A Condeep, with other structures.

The lower part of the Troll A structure was subjected to a water pressure of 350 m (1150 ft) during
construction, and carried the topside weight of 22 000 t 150 m (490 ft) above the sea level during tow
from construction site to the offshore installation site.

15

Figure 3-3. The Troll A Condeep during tow-out.
The soil condition at the site of the Troll A platform is very soft, popularly termed yoghurt. For this
reason the base of the platform (more than 16000 square meters in area) is equipped with 36 m long
skirts to enable the safe foundation of the structure. The 100-year design mud line moment is 100 000
MNm.

Most of the existing CGS s are resting on dense sand with short steel skirts penetrating the sand for
protection against scour. For soft soils, deeper skirts are required. This skirt pile principle was
developed for Gullfaks C in the mid 1980s. The soil conditions with very soft clay, required skirts
penetrating down to stiffer layers of soil. Gullfaks C has skirts penetrating 22 meters into the soil.
Troll A has skirts as mentioned, so does Draugen (fig. 3-4), with concrete skirts penetrating 9 meters
into the soil. The GBS platforms Gullfaks C, Draugen and Troll A are all located in the North Sea.

16

Fig. 3-4. The Draugen CGS-MONO

In recent years the principle has been used also for TLP foundations (Snorre, Heidrun), jackets
(Europipe 16/11, Sleipner T) and suction anchors for floaters as an alternative to ordinary piles.

Provided feasible soil conditions, skirt foundations have many advantages both economically and
technically compared to other solutions:
o Lower material and fabrication cost
o Reduction of foundation area
o No piling or need for heavy subsea hammers
o High position accuracy
o Short installation time
o Reduced need for solid ballast

3.2 Research and development

Many of the offshore concrete structures of the world are located in moderate waterdepths. As is seen
in fig.3-1 most of the Norwegian built platforms are located in medium to large waterdepths, with the
foundation structures for the Heidrun tension leg platform being deepest, at 345 m of waterdepth.

For installation by bouyancy it is very important to use high strength concrete. For this reason a
considerable amount of research has been performed in Norway, as described by Moksnes in ref. 17.
17
This research has been very successful, and the results benefit not only the oil and gas industry, but the
entire concrete industry.

One inherent benefit is that high strength concrete is also very durable in the marine environment.

In the general sense, pushing the limits for the application of offshore concrete structures required a
vast amount of development in many areas, such as construction techniques (slipforming etc.), marine
operations, analyses for environmental loads and structural response, soil testing and instrumentation,
etc.

3.3 Decommissioning of offshore concrete platforms

Even though the structures may be fit for many years, international regulations will put constraints on
the use of the oceans. Particularly important here is the OSPAR (OSlo PARis) Convention. In July
1998 it was decided that all platforms in the North Sea should be removed after completing their
duties. An exemption was made for concrete platforms, because of the believed complexity of the
operation.

Extensive work has been performed on the subject, particularly JIP work that has proprietary rights.

The international fdration internationale du bton, fib, initialised work on the subject, in their Task
Group 3.2 Recycling of Offshore Concrete Structures.

The conclusions were:

It is feasible to remove the offshore concrete structures.
Due respect is required; we shall be humble to the task.
Removing the entire installation is most likely the safest and most cost efficient way to
remove the topside.
The Task Group 3.2 realises the political and economic aspects of the issue.
Several joint industry projects have addressed the subject, but their conclusions are not, as of
now, publicly available.

The OSPAR Convention requires that the topside of the concrete platforms must be removed.

The work of TG 3.2 is described in Ref. 18 and 20.

The OSPAR applies to the North East Atlantic Ocean, including the North Sea. Other parts of the
world will have different rules to relate to, but the essence is likely to be similar.

18

4 Project Execution Typical

Typically the execution of offshore concrete structures consists of several main project phases. Some
projects may constitute all the below phases whereas others may just include a few of these. After
completion of front end engineering design and decision to develop the project and award of
contract(s) the projects may go through the following main phases:

- Detail design of dry dock and construction site
- Detail design of concrete structure prior to concrete structure construction start
- Dry dock and construction site development
- Construction of lower part of concrete structure inside the dry dock
- Float out of dry dock and mooring at inshore wet construction
- Construction of upper part of the concrete structure at wet construction site
- Installation of topsides facilities and/or other type of outfitting
- Tow to installation site, positioning and installation at location

The main typical construction phases are shown in the below figure.

Construction in dry dock (Draugen) Float out from dry dock (Troll)

Construction at wet site (Draugen) Installation of topsides (Draugen , deck mating)
19

Tow to offshore installation site (Draugen) Installation at offshore location (Troll)
Figure 4-1: Typical main construction phases

Detail design of dry dock and construction site
During this phase detail design of the dry dock and the construction site facilities are performed. The
geotechnical design of the dry dock should be given special attention, as this is the key to ensure a
water tight and safe dry dock. The floor in the dry dock is normally located 10 to 15 meters below sea
level and hence the dock is exposed to this differential pressure. This phase is normally on critical path
of the project execution schedule.

Detail design of concrete structure prior to concrete structure construction start
Prior to start construction a global design of the entire structure is performed to define all wall
thicknesses and prestressing layouts etc. as well as overall quantities and layout of reinforcement.
This phase also includes an overall design of all the mechanical systems that should go inside the
concrete structure. Further local design and detailing of rebar arrangements and the mechanical
systems for the lower parts (the first casting sequences) has to be completed before start of any
construction work. If the project includes development of a construction site this design work is
normally conducted concurrent to the completion of the construction site and dependant on the
duration of this work, this phase may be on critical path of the execution schedule. If the project does
not include construction site development this phase will be on critical path.

The remaining part of the concrete and mechanical systems detail design will be performed with an
overlap to the construction work. This part of detail design is not normally on the critical path of the
execution schedule.

Dry dock and construction site development
During this phase the dock will be excavated or digged out. Further all the facilities needed to support
the concrete structure construction work will be established. This phase will normally be on critical
path of the execution.

In some cases it is possible to use an existing dry dock and only minor adjustments and mobilisation
activities will be required.

20

Construction of lower part of concrete structure inside the dry dock (See Figure 4-1)
When the dock is established construction of the lower sections of the concrete structure can
commence. Normally as much as possible would be built in the dry dock as the access and logistics is
better that at a wet construction outside the dock or any other nearby location. However, in some cases
it may be more economic to complete more of the structure at the wet site rather than to establish a
deeper dock. Normally the concrete construction work will be on the critical path for most of
execution schedule following start concrete structure construction.

Float out of dry dock and mooring at inshore wet construction (See Figure 4-1)
Following completion of the construction work inside the dry dock the dock will be flooded with
water to the same level as the external sea. Then the dock berm or gate will be removed and tugs/
winches attached to move the structure out of dock and tow the structure to a wet construction site or
in some cases directly to the installation location. To get the structure afloat internal water ballast will
be removed and the lift off carefully monitored. To ensure a sufficient under base clearance and a
controlled lift off a comprehensive weight control system is used.

Construction of upper part of the concrete structure at wet construction site (See Figure 4-1)
When moored at the wet construction site the construction work will continue to complete the
structure. For structures to be installed in deeper waters, say 50 metres or more, a wet construction
site would be required. During this phase a floating rig will be established to support the construction
work, this normally consists of a number of storage and other type barges. The construction crew will
normally be shuttled from shore during this phase. A well organised and planned logistics is of utmost
importance to ensure an efficient construction during this phase.

Installation of topsides facilities and/or other type of outfitting (See Figure 4-1)
Upon completion of the concrete structure the topsides facilities (deck) may be installed at the wet
site. If installed at the wet site this is normally performed as a float over (deck mating) operation. The
deck will arrive to the wet site supported on one or two barges. To transfer the deck onto the concrete
structure the structure is ballasted down with just a few meters remaining above sea level. Then the
deck is floated over the structure, which will be gradually de-ballasted to transfer the weight of the
deck from the barges onto the concrete structure.

Alternatively the topsides facilities can be installed at the offshore site. This may either be performed
as a high deck float over or by lifting of modules.

Tow to installation site, positioning and installation at location (See Figure 4-1)
Following completion of the concrete structure end possibly installation of the topsides facilities the
structure will be towed to the offshore installation location where it will be positioned and installed.
The towing operation is normally conducted by utilising 3-5 ocean going tug boats and average tow
speed is in most cases around 3 knots. At the offshore location the tugs will be reconfigured to some
kind of a star formation to control the positioning of the structure. When in position the structure is
ballasted down to the seabed by sluzing in of water.

The in place foundation stability will either be ensured by sufficient weight and friction or by
penetrating the lower parts of the structure (skirts) into the soil skirt piling.

Project execution methodology and strategy
The complexity of this type of projects requires a clear execution strategy and a well developed and
systematic methodology. Aker Kvaerner and the Norwegian know-how cluster have over the years
developed a systematic and efficient way to execute this type of projects.

21

The main elements of the project execution strategy are:

- Develop and maintain one single integrated project team.
- Provide management focus and emphasis on the final result through Improvement Leadership.
- Empower and align team members through team buildings.
- Organise the project in distinct phases to continuously control schedule and divide the product
into manageable parts with clear objectives and delegated responsibility for the economical
result.
- Focus on improved standard of HSE and quality in work from day 1.
- Systematic technology transfer and training of local personnel.

Each of these bullet points are further outlined below.

Develop and maintain one single integrated project team.
The project shall develop a competent organisation supported by effective systems and specialists for
key performance areas such as Cost, Schedule, Quality and Safety.

The organisation will be structured for project execution through effective control and co-ordination of
the main process from Engineering, Procurement and Construction through to Marine Operations.

The organisation should be staffed by highly qualified personnel, expatriates and locals based on the
principle of best man on the job. The integrated project management team should be responsible for
and have the experience to manage the total EPCI process, see Figure 4-2 below.

Figure 4-2: Integrated Project Management

An overall project risk assessment shall form the basis for prevention based programs to ensure that
project milestones and key targets are met.

Identification and management of the project schedule critical path will hold the key to a timely
delivery of the project. Extensive work will therefore be performed to identify the critical path and
review measures to reduce its length and consequential effects.

Integrated
Project
Management
Civil
Construction
Engineering
&
D i
Finance
&
Accounting
Facilities
&
Maintenance
Materials
&
Logistics
Project
Control
Procurement
Mechanic
l
Installation
22

Improvement Leadership
In general, an Improvement Leadership process should be established. This process should
focus continuous improvement effort on all key result areas such as cost, schedule, HSE,
quality and regulatory compliance.

Early in the project a plan for Improvement Leadership shall be established to support the key result
areas given by the project objectives. This plan shall contain the Management Improvement Policy,
the goals and the approach for each key result area as well as how the achievement of the goals will be
measured. The Improvement Leadership is a continuous process that will support prevention-based
programs such as risk assessment, technology transfer, value engineering, constructability reviews,
potential problem analysis and quality improvement.

These leadership and management principles are currently applied with great success for the ongoing
Sakhalin II project under construction in Far East Russia.

Team Building and Alignment to Project Goals
Team building sessions shall be arranged to develop the project organisation into a single integrated
team focused on the project processes and goals and to establish a common understanding and
acceptance of cultural differences, organisational goals, responsibilities and good working
relationships. Team strength means empowered team members promoting personal quality and having
the confidence to openly discuss problems.

Local Content
The Construction of a offshore concrete structure will provide many jobs to the local society. In
addition to direct employment, a project will give many indirect benefits to people and businesses.
Individuals will develop new skills improving their job prospects. For business, this type of work will
translate into new hiring and additional training of staff, enhancing new skill levels, capabilities and
competitiveness of many companies. This will enable them to attract additional oil and non-oil related
work on a local, national and international scale.

Such projects should lead to a major transfer of technology to the local society.

Based on previous experience from Norway, Newfoundland and Southeast Asia the value of the local
content will typically be in the range of 50 to 90 % of the total project value

The local content will normally be related to staff and labour man-hours expenditures, local material
supply, rented services and equipment and comes in the following categories:

Personnel resources
- Management.
- Supervision.
- Labour force.

Materials
- Civil.
- Mechanical.
- Materials for dock and site construction.

Equipment for site development and operation
- Camp.
23
- Transport.
- Stores.
- Offices.
- Security.

Labour for such projects will be recruited from the local area and supplemented with handpicked
skilled labour. An extensive training and induction program will be put in place to prepare the labour
and local supervision for the task and to secure a proper transfer of technology.

Local supervisors will be employed to directly supervise the local workforce under the control of
specialist expatriate supervision.

A number of specialist personnel with extensive construction experience will be included in the
management and supervision of the project. An important role for the experts is the transfer of
knowledge to the local supervising staff and to the work force. Training sessions and mock-ups of
some parts of the structures will be used in this context. The learning curve is reasonably short if a
proper information and training system is established.

In general, therefore, it is not necessary to bring in especially skilled labourer for the construction
work. It will, however be required to use a limited number of hands-on foremen or lead hands in the
start up phases of new construction operations, for example for rebar installation in different parts,
slipforming operations, pre-stressing and other special work operations.

All commodity bulk materials such as Cement, Fly Ash, Concrete Aggregates and Reinforcing Steel,
Post -Tensioning tendons and equipment, Wood and Plywood in addition to structural steel and piping
related to mechanical outfitting should to the extent possible be procured locally.

Materials for concrete production and the properties for fresh and hardened concrete shall be qualified
in due time before start of construction. The qualification is a relatively comprehensive exercise that
could be combined with mock-ups for training purposes.

All supplies are to be sourced on a competitive bidding basis.

Materials for temporary facilities including the construction camp, site office, workshops and stores
and associated services will be procured locally. Specialised materials and equipment will be tendered
internationally if not available locally.

Execution Methodology

Aker Kvaerner has together with partners over several years developed a compressive project
execution model that is focused on the quality of the end delivery to the clients. To achieve this
attention has to be given to the following items:

Predictability!
More effective work processes
Building commercial awareness
Effective communication and utilisation
Enhanced risk management & control
Zero mindset HSE philosophy
Common approach provides the basis for continuous improvement

The below figure gives a high level overview of the execution model. The core of the model is to
control quality of information at all levels. Further stringent gates are introduced to check out that
24
sufficient quality of the information is reached to move forward into the next phase or sub-phase of the
project. A high degree of automatisation of this process is obtained by using state of the art IT/IS
tools.

Figure 4-3: Project execution model, phases and levels.

STRATEGI C
EXECUTI ON
CONTROL
SPECI FI C WORKPROCESSES,
SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES
Cor por at e
Busi ness Ar eas
Pr oj ec t
25

The philosophy of the model is to ensure end product quality for all parties. This is best obtained by
focusing on the system definition and maintaining a system focus all the way through to final
completion of the product. This philosophy is illustrated on the below figure.

Figure 4-4: Project execution philosophy.

Each of the phases as shown in Figure 5-3 is further divided into sub-phases and detailed work process
for each discipline is developed. The end product is divided into a large number of quality objects on
which the completion (or quality level) is constantly monitored by detailed checklists.

Utilisation of this systematic and comprehensive model has proven to give predictable and reliable
project execution.
System Design Completion Operation
Procurement
Fabrication
Construction
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t

A
w
a
r
d
T
a
k
e
-
o
v
e
r
Client requirements:
- operation
- maintenance
- HSE
Client specs & rules
Client experience
SYSTEM FOCUS
Internal knowledge &
lessons learned
26
5 Ongoing Projects

Offshore concrete structures has to be considered niche products that are especially well suited for
some special applications such as:

Structures for harsh environments such as ice and iceberg infested waters
Structures for LNG facilities due to the good behaviour of concrete when subjected to cryogenic
temperatures
Structures that require local construction

Over the last 10-year period there has typically been 1-2 project ongoing at any time. The last
structure completed was the Malampaya project that was installed in 2001.

Presently there are 2 construction projects ongoing constituting a total of 5 concrete structures. An
additional 2-4 projects are in the front-end engineering phase and most of them may hopefully be
approved by the end of next year, some of these are outlined in the next section.

The two projects currently under construction is the Sakhalin II project for Sakhalin Energy
Investment Company (SEIC, with Shell being the lead party) and the Adriatic LNG Terminal (ALT)
project with ExxonMobil as the lead party. Both these projects are executed using the Norwegian
know-how cluster with Aker Kvaerner being in a lead role.

5.1 The Sakhalin II Project

SEIC is currently developing phase II of the Sakhalin II block outside the Sakhalin island in far east
Russia. The development comprises eight main items; The PA-B Platform, PA-A Platform, an
Onshore Processing Facility, the Lunskoye Platform, an Infrastructure Upgrade Project, Onshore
Pipelines, an LNG Plant and an Oil Export Terminal. Concrete structures will be utilised for the PA-B
Platform and Lunskoye Platform as also shown below.
Figure 5-1: The Sakhalin II Phase 2 development. Concrete structures for the PA-B and Lunskoye platforms
27

Construction work is currently ongoing at the construction site in Vostochny Port about 4 hours car
ride from Vladivostok. The construction site has been developed and construction of the two concrete
structures is well underway and the project is on schedule. The picture in Figure 5-2 below shows the
site prior to site development (April 2003).

Figure 5-2: Concrete structures construction site in Vostochny Port prior to start site development

The pictures in Figure 5-3 below shows the status in April 2004 (one year after start site development)
and September 2004. As can be seen the lower parts of the two structures are completed and
preparations are ongoing to start construction of the concrete towers (shafts).

Status April 2004: Dock completed and construction of both structures started.

Construction Site Location
28

Status Sept. 2004: Lower parts of both structures completed. Preparations for construction ongoing
Figure 5-3: Sakhalin II construction work
The below Figure 5-4 identifies the locations where the main portions of the work are performed. As
can be seen the majority of the work is performed locally and in Russia. However, design, intial
procurement and work preparation is performed outside Russia (Norway and Finland).
Figure5-4: Main work locations
Offshore Field
LUN-A and PA-B
Tow
18 days
CGBS WorkSite
Vostochny Port
CGBS / Mechanical Outfitting Detail engineering
Work preparation/Procurement
Mechanical Prefabrication
Mechanical Prefabrication
29

Major achievements on the project so far includes:

One lost time injury approaching 4.000.000 hours since lost time injury
The project is on schedule
More than 90% local labour at site
More than 95% (weight) of material purchased in Russia
Technology transfer program is working well and the need for expatriates is gradually reduced

5.2 The Adriatic LNG Terminal Project

ExxonMobil, Qatar Petroleum and Edison Gas is currently developing a facility to receive, store and
regasify LNG in the Adriatic Sea about 15 km off the coast of Italy. The gas will be piped to shore
and sold in the Italian market. The LNG is shipped from Qatar through the Sues channel as shown on
the below figure.

Figure 5-5: LNG shipping rout and terminal location

The facility will be developed based on a bottom fixed concrete structure with internal LNG storage
tanks and the regasification plant on the top deck, see Figure 5-6 below. Aker Kvaerner is executing
the project under a FEED & EPCI contract.

LNG
Terminal
Location
LNG Plant
LNG
Transport
Rout
30

Figure 5-6: The Adriatic LNG Terminal general configuration

The FEED has been completed and detail design has commenced. The concrete structure as well as
installation of the LNG storage tanks and the regasification plant will take place in Algeciras, Spain.
Deepening of the dock is completed and establishment of the facilities to support the construction
work is due to start.

Figure 5-7: The Algeciras construction site modification work ongoing

Work is performed at several locations as shown on the map in Figure 5-8 below.

Footprint Concrete Structure
31

Figure 5-8: Main work locations

Following the work in at the construction site the completed structure will be towed to the installation
location in the Adriatic Sea where it will be installed and made ready for receiving LNG. The LNG
carriers will be moored directly to the side of the structure. The mooring and berthing facilities are
displayed in Figure 5-6 above.

Client HQ
Project Management
Topside Engineering
LNG Tanks Engineering
Project Management
Technical Co-ordination
GBS Engineering
GBS Construction and
Terminal Assembly
Pipeline Engineering
Topside modules - Europe,
Korea etc.
Tank fabrication - Europe or
Japan
Installation, Commissioning
and Start-up
32

6 Novel Concepts

Over the last couple of years we have seen a growing interest for offshore concrete structures. This has
mainly been driven by the oil companies desire to start developing oil and gas fields in more harsh
environmental regions such as outside the Sakhalin island (Russia), in the Barents (Russia) and at
Grand Banks outside Newfoundland (Canada). Further it has also been driven by the need to develop
more LNG export and import terminals, especially we see a number of terminals being considered for
the North American market. In addition there is a growing desire to increase the local content for
these types of developments. Concrete structures are well suited to meet all of these three demands.

Aker Kvaerner and our partners are constantly monitoring the market to be in front with regards to
developing the concepts and technology required to respond to the market demand. Three areas are
considered to be of special interest:

Further developments outside the Sakhalin island, where we may see a need for more that 15 new
platforms over the next 10-15 years. If so it should be possible to develop a long-term sustainable
business in the region.
On Grand Banks outside Newfoundland it is very likely that we will see another large oil field
being developed on the basis of using a large ice berg resistant concrete structure.
LNG terminals may represent the most promising market for this type of structures over the next
5-10 year period. It is likely that we will see a number of these terminals being developed for
North America, Mediterranean region and also for far east countries such as Japan and Korea. Just
now we are working on a number of possible prospects where the two most advanced are:
The Port Pelican terminal (ChevronTexaco) in the Gulf of Mexico, and
The Baja California terminal in Mexico.
Both these terminals are currently in the front end engineering design phase.

In addition to the near term project opportunities briefly outlined above we are constantly striving to
develop new and novel solution targeted for the somewhat more distant future. Some examples are
given below.

6.1 Floating LNG Terminals

As the gas fields to be developed is situated at deeper and deeper waters the industry is looking for
solutions to liquify the gas (make LNG) at the field rather than build long and expensive pipelines to
shore. Together with some key technology partners we are trying to develop solutions for this. The
main challenges are:

LNG transfer in the open sea sufficient regularity
Sloshing of LNG inside the tanks for partly filled tanks
Vessel motions and in impact on large rotating equipment on topsides
Significant topside facilities large weights

33
An example of such a concept is shown in Figure 6-1 below:

Figure 6-1: Floating LNG export terminal with concrete hull

6.2 Floating airport or navy base
A few years ago we worked with US Navy to develop a concept for a relocatable US Navy base. The
concept is based on four large self-propelled semisubmersible hulls that could be connect together to
create a complete navy base. The idea is that is will be much more economic and faster way to
mobilise large military forces. This would also reduce the need for regional presence. The concept is
shown in the below Figure 6-2. The same basic principle may be applied for regular airports.

Figure 6-2: Mobile Offshore Navy Base.
34

6.3 MPU Heavy Lifter

As mentioned previously there are requirements to remove offshore steel platforms (OSPAR
Convention). For the North Sea alone this represents a market value of some 10 billion $. This market
potential initiated the development of a robust, inexpensive Heavy Lifter that utilises the simple
principle of Archimedes in order to lift straight up.

One solution is a concrete U-shaped semi-submersible Heavy Lifter, designed based on the principles
Simple, Safe, Robust and Cost-effective. Dr.techn.Olav Olsen developed the design; the ownership
is by MPU Enterprise (ref. 21, 22 and 23.)

Figure 6-3. The MPU Heavy Lifter for removing and installing offshore structures.

Figure 6-4. The MPU Heavy Lifter in the tank-test.
35

6.4 MPU Semo

The experience from the hydrodynamic tests of the Heavy Lifter in fig. 6-4 gave strengthened
confidence in the MPU SEMO, shown in fig. 6-5. The SEMO is a floating mono-hull structure, built
of concrete. The incentive of the design was the complexity of the moored ship solution, currently a
popular option for offshore field development. Such ships are swivelling around a turret that is moored
to the seabed. The design philosophy of the SEMO is that it may be round, and not ship-shaped, as it is
not going anywhere. It may also be considered an enlarged turret, without a complicating body
attached to it.

Local content will be more important in the future, and the MPU-SEMO creates interesting
opportunities with regard to local fabrication and assembly. For many countries it is important to build
new industry and to further develop the economy. The fabrication of an MPU-SEMO can give
significant amount of work locally, which could give such a concept a political advantage compared to
solutions built in SE Asia or Europe.

Figure 6-5. The MPU SEMO.

36
6.5 Other novel concepts

Figure 6-6. Fixed /floating LNG storage

Figure 6-7. GBS Nnwah-Bilah LNG Project

Figure 6-8.
A proposal for an offshore terminal, containing
storage for oil, condensate and gas.

37

Figure 6-9. Submerged Floating Tunnel
A solution for future infrastructure,by the
Norwegian Submerged Floating Tunnel Company
(ref.25)

Figure 6-10. LNG Terminals

Figure 6-11. Suction anchors
Built for the Snorre TLP.
38

Figure 6-12.Urban development on floating
concrete structures, developed by Marfloat
Figure 6-13. Urban development. High rise on
prefabricated stranded cellar/parking structure.
Yogamid developed by Finn Sandml

39
7 Project Execution in Mexico

ChevronTexaco is currently developing a solution for an offshore LNG receiving terminal to be
installed inside the Coronado island outside Rosarito in Mexico, Figure 9-1 below shows the overall
configuration of the proposed terminal. Aker Kvaerner and our partners are supporting
ChevronTexaco in this effort and one of our tasks is to assist in assessing project execution in Mexico.

Figure 7-1: The proposed Baja California terminal configuration

7.1 Engineering and Design

7.1.1 Conceptual design
The success of conceptual design requires an overall understanding of the key elements that is
governing for the offshore concrete structure. Most of these elements are described in this paper, such
as functional requirements and close relation with the construction methods.

In this respect conceptual design of offshore concrete structures is similar to any other conceptual
design of structures. The main difference is the required understanding of the water, both as an acting
load and as a medium for floating.

7.1.2 Detail design
A typical construction project may require somewhere in the range of 1000 drawings, for the concrete
structure only. These drawings do not only describe the concrete geometry and reinforcement, but all
40
details of connections, anchors, pipes, openings etc. Such projects are multidisciplinary, and it is a
considerable task to organize and manage them.

For the structural design specialized tools have been developed for analyses and design. These tools
are generally commercially available.

7.1.3 Rules and Regulations proposed for concrete projects in Mexico

There are several recognized international rules and regulations pertaining to the design and execution
of offshore concrete structures. The overall common requirement is that the structure shall be
designed, executed, transported and installed in such a way that:
The reliability level of the installed platform meets the intended reliability level.
All functional and structural requirements are met.

The present draft ISO/CD 19903 Petroleum and natural gas industries - Offshore structures - Fixed
concrete structures, lists all those areas of design that are particular to offshore concrete structures,
and acknowledges that design may be performed according to national standards provided it is
supplemented with additional rules for all those areas not properly covered by the national standard. It
then in a note states that the Norwegian Standard NS 3473, ref. 24, is recognized to meet all those
requirements relevant for the design of offshore concrete structures. This Norwegian Standard is
available in the English language.

To the best of our knowledge, there should not be any special difficulties with respect to rules and
regulations for a concrete offshore structure constructed in Mexico. National regulations and standards
applicable in the place of use of the structure can be different from those given in international
standards, such as the ISO suit of standards. In such cases it must be ensured that the requirements of
safety and durability are met. This applies to all phases of planning, design, execution, transportation,
installation and possible removal.

In Norway the following main class notation is used for ship-shaped floating structures complying
with Det Norske Veritas (DNV) class requirements and the Norwegian rules and regulations as issued
by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate:

+1A1 Oil Production and Storage Vessel (N)

The analyses and design will then follow the extended calculation procedures for hull structures -
additional class notation CSA-2.

The wave loading experienced by a permanently moored barge is quite different compared to that of a
sailing merchant ship (may in general vary some 25 to 35% above that of the response calculated from
DNV rules for merchant ships). This calls for a separate hydrodynamic analysis, independently of the
fact that concrete barges are unusual and cannot easily be fitted into existing standard steel
categories.

The analyses and design of a concrete hull will therefore follow the traditional approach for offshore
concrete floaters, as demonstrated and approved in detail engineering of the ARCO barge, Heidrun
TLP, Troll Oil Semi and the Nkossa barge:

Hydrostatic analyses (drafts, internal/external water levels, still water moments and
shear forces, afloat stability - intact and damage)
Hydrodynamic analyses (global responses and hydrodynamic wave pressures)
41
Mooring analyses and design
Structural response analyses (finite element analyses)
Structural design verification (code checking according to Norwegian standard
NS3473 or DNV concrete design rules harmonized with the rules in NS3473)

We are not aware of any offshore concrete structure that has been built to other national standards than
the Norwegian NS 3473, without the need of extensive supplements. Areas normally not adequately
covered for offshore structures are such as; fatigue, tightness, design provisions for shell type
members, design for durability and cracking etc. Elf Congos Nkossa barge has been designed to
Bureau Veritas shipbuilding specifications, using the NS3473 for the concrete design verification,
where it is registered as a certified hull. The Canadian Hibernia platform and the Australian West
Tuna, Bream B and Wandoo platforms have all been designed according to NS 3473.

The detail design of the Sakhalin GBS is carried out in accordance with the approach set out by Det
Norske Veritas Rules for Classification of Fixed Offshore Installations (DNV Rules). The reference
standard for concrete design is British Standard BS8110, but according to what stated above, specific
interpretations and additions have been necessary in order to make this standard applicable for
offshore structures. For this purpose the Norwegian standard NS 3473 is used as supplement. BS8110
is most likely used because the initial conceptual phases were performed by a UK consultancy.

The reference standard to be used should be agreed at an early stage in the project, as the choice of
standard might strongly influence the platform geometry and dimensions, while standards not intended
for offshore use might be unnecessarily conservative on certain aspects relevant to offshore conditions.

The reference standard shall give the design parameters required for the type of concrete, e.g. normal
weight or lightweight concrete, and strength class used. For high strength concretes and lightweight
concrete, the effect of reduced ductility shall be considered. This in particular applies to the
stress/strain diagram in compression, and the design parameter used for the tensile strength in
calculation of bond strength, and transverse shear resistance.

7.2 Fabrication Site
A general concrete substructure construction facility is described previously. It should have reasonable
supporting infrastructure facilities and labour resources, to support the scale of construction required.
Detailed evaluation of specific sites would allow cost and land availability issues to be determined.

42

Figure 7-2. A typical construction dock for a GBS facility.

By way of example, the green-field construction facility prepared for the Malampaya concrete gravity
substructure is illustrated in Figure 7-2. The construction facility was located in a remote part of Subic
Bay in the Philippines.

7.3 Options for fabrication

A medium size concrete platform built in concrete will require a fabrication dock with an area of some
140 x 140 m, and a water depth of 10-12 m. The concrete hull can be completed in the dock if a
sufficient water depth is available, or it can be completed in a floating condition at a place outside the
dry dock, with sufficient water depth.
The cost of a fabrication dock will depend on the soil, size, depth etc. In Australia and in the
Philippines a gravel dock was prepared for the Wandoo and the Malampaya platforms at the cost of
US$ 8 mill.

43
There is also a possibility that the concrete can be built on flat land and skidded into the sea. The
lower hull may be built to a level when it can float, and the remaining of the hull will be built while
floating.

7.4 Construction and Methods

The small concrete platform is ideal for slip forming of the vertical walls. Slip forming is a very
effective fabrication method for high concrete structures. Even the lower hull with an assumed height
of some 10-12 m will most likely be slip formed. There are advanced slip-forming systems allowing
for changes in slip forming geometry over the height of the structure. I.e. the upper hull can be built
with a sloping outer and/or inner wall. In Figure 7-3 below one slip forming system is presented.

The mechanical outfitting will be placed during construction, in sequence with other construction
activities. All steel will be attached to the concrete at preinstalled embedment plates. Such plates are
placed during the slip forming, and after slip forming steel pipes etc will be welded onto embedded
steel plates. Penetrations through walls or slabs will also be placed during cast/slip forming.

Figure 7-3. Interform slipforming system

7.5 Material Qualities

Any concrete platform and all appurtenances, piping and fitting shall be fabricated from materials
suitable for the service and life of the facilities. The concrete contractor shall develop a concrete mix
that satisfies strength, durability requirements in their operating environment and construction
methodology. Steel elements shall be selected to resist the factors of design stresses, fatigue, corrosion
and brittle fracture. Additional factors shall be considered with respect to hot and cold working and
weld ability including resistance to lamellar tearing.
44

The concrete mix designs shall be in accordance with the concrete specification given by the civil
contractor. As a minimum, the concrete specification shall cover the following items: mechanical and
chemical strength, mix design, batching, workability, durability, testing, reinforcement corrosion,
warm weather concreting and quality control.

For small concrete platforms there are 2 types of concrete, which can be used; normal density (ND)
and light weight aggregate (LWA) concrete. The LWA-concrete has about 20% less density than the
ND-concrete, which is an advantage for floaters. However, small concrete platforms are partly weight
stable platforms and needs weight in the base. Hence it may be beneficial to use ND-concrete in the
lower part and LWA in the upper part. The advantage must be compared to the possible disadvantage
of dealing with 2 different materials at the site and in engineering. In a feasibility study the design of
the concrete hull is recommended to be based on Normal Density (ND) concrete grade C60 and
lightweight aggregate concrete (LWA) concrete grade LC55, both as defined by NS3473. These
concrete qualities are well proven in many countries, and are regarded as fairly straightforward to
produce. For ordinary and pre-stressed reinforcement the grades KT500TE (NS 3570) and St
1570/1770 (EURONORM) are recommended.

7.5.1 Concrete
Concrete grade : ND C60 LC55
Structural material strength f
cn
(MPa) : 36.4 33.6
Design compressive strength, ULS f
cd
(MPa) : 29.1 26.9
Nominal structural tensile strength f
tn
(MPa) : 2.375 2.25
Design tensile strength, ULS f
td
(MPa) : 1.90 1.8

Modulus of Elasticity
Plain concrete, ULS E
cn
(MPa) : 29 399
Plain concrete, SLS E
ck
(MPa) : 30 534 23 226
Plain concrete, FLS (0.8E
ck
) E
ck
(MPa) : 24 427 18 581
Static, short-term loads (incl. reinf.) E
c
(MPa) : 35 000 25 000
Dynamic E
cdyn
(MPa) : 40 000

Poisson's Ratio, Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Poisson's ratio = 0.20
The coefficient of thermal expansion
T
= 1010
-6

o
C
-1

Density ND C60 LWA C60
Plain concrete: 24.0 kN/m
3
(2.45 t/m
3
) 19.3 kN/m
3
(1.95 t/m
3
)
Reinf. concrete:
150kg/m
3
300kg/m
3

500kg/m
3

25.0 kN/m
3
(2.55 t/m
3
)
26.0 kN/m
3
(2.65 t/m
3
)
27.5 kN/m
3
(2.80 t/m
3
)

20.4 kN/m
3
(2.08 t/m
3
)
21.1kN/m
3
(2.15 t/m
3
)
22.6kN/m
3
(2.30 t/m
3
)

7.5.2 Ordinary reinforcement
Design Strength, Grade K500TE
Yield stress :f
y
= 500 MPa
Design strength, ULS :f
s
= 435 MPa
The yield strain is
y
= 2.5 x 10
-3

45
Nominal diameters are 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 25 and 32 mm.
Modulus of Elasticity
E
s
= 2.010
5
Mpa

7.5.3 Prestressed reinforcement
General
The pre-stressing steel to be used is Grade 270 according to ASTM A 416-85.
Strand Properties
The properties of pre-stressing strands are tabulated below.

Strand type 15 mm (0.6")
Nominal diameter 15.2
Nominal area 140
Nominal mass 1.10
Yield strength 1670
Young's Modulus 1.9510
5

Tendon units: 6-7, 6-12, 6-19, 6-20, 6-27 and 6-37 may be used.
For this study a pre-stressing force of 150 KN/strand will be used.

7.6 Cathodic Protection

In a concrete structure there is a considerable amount of reinforcement steel. For a concrete offshore
structure the reinforcement steel is covered by minimum 50 mm of concrete to protect against
seawater penetrating into the reinforcement and subsequent corrosion. In addition to a significant
concrete cover the reinforcement steel is connected to a cathodic protection system together with all
other steel structures attached to the concrete structure. The reinforcement steel is acting as wires
between the different anodes, usually made of aluminium.

The steel outfitting will, in addition to being connected to anodes, be surface protected according to
regulations and design life requirements.

The aluminium anodes are mounted onto steel rods, which are welded to embedment plates. Such
anodes can be spotted on the upper part of the Snorre TLP anchors in Figure 7-4 below.

46

Figure 7-4. Snorre TLP anchors with anodes mounted in upper part

The design of the corrosion protection system is usually based on the following assumptions:
there is no electrical insulation between topside structural steel and mechanical
outfitting (MMO and CMO), risers, moorings etc., attached to the hull
all steel in flooded tanks, cells/shafts is electrically continuous with the reinforcement
via the embedment plates

7.7 Steel/Concrete Connection Methods
Steel/concrete connections are generally based on the principle of embedding steel into the concrete
behind reinforcement steel layers so that the embedded item becomes a part of the structure. In order
to reach behind the layers of reinforcement typically dowels with heads, steel rods with shear keys or
similar can be used. Examples of steel/concrete connections are connection between topside and hull,
connection between concrete lower hull and steel upper hull, attachment of risers, fairleads, towing
and mooring brackets, piping support, support of external and internal steel decks etc.

7.7.1 Riser support
The riser support will be attached to the concrete hull via embedment plates described below. The size
and capacity of the embedment plates will be selected to resist the loads from the riser system. In case
of steel catenary risers the flexi-joints may be attached to the upper edge of the lower hull. This will
give a good load-bearing capacity.

7.7.2 Mooring brackets / Towing brackets / Fairleads
Pre-stressing tendons are used to attach the steel plate to the concrete. In addition the rear steel surface
may be fitted with shear keys etc.
47

7.7.3 Embedment plates
Figure 7-5. The plate is connected to the concrete via dowels with forged head. Behind each plate
there will be an additional amount of ordinary reinforcement. Typically there are many types of
standard plates designed covering the full spectrum of loads. Some embedment plates have shear
profiles embedded into the concrete, which make them able to resist large shear forces. Towing and
mooring brackets are also a type of embedment plates usually connected to the concrete with post
tensioning cables instead of, or in addition to, dowels.

Figure 7-5. Typical embedment plate
48

References
[1] Morgan, R. G. Development of the concrete hull. Concrete Afloat, Proceedings of the
conference on concrete ships and floating structures organized by The Concrete Society in
association with the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and held in London on 3 and 4
March, 1977.
[2] Gloyd, C. S. Concrete Floating Bridges. Concrete International, May 1988.
[3] Anderson, A. R. Design and Construction of a 375.000 bbl Prestressed Concrete Floating LPG
Storage Facility for the JAVA Sea. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 2487, 1976.
[4] Sannum, H. Heidrun, The First Concrete TLP. The Future Development of the North Sea and
Atlantic Frontier Regions. OCS, Aberdeen 25 and 26 January 1995.
[5] Ruud, M. The Troll Olje Development Project. Vision Eureka, New Technology for Concrete
Structures Offshore. Lillehammer 13 & 16 June 1994
[6] Valenchon, Nagel, Viallon, Belbeoch, Rouillon: The NKOSSA concrete oil production barge.
OMAE 1995 - Copenhagen - 14th International conference - June 18-22 1995.
[7] Valenchon, Nagel, Viallon, Belbeoch, Rouillon: The NKOSSA concrete oil production barge.
Paper presented at DOT, 30 Oct. / 1 st Nov. 1995, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
[8] Sare and Yee Operational experience with pre-stressed concrete barges Concrete Afloat,
Proceedings of the conference on concrete ships and floating structures organized by The
Concrete Society in association with the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and held in
London on 3 and 4 March, 1977.
[9] Fjeld (NC), Hall (Phillips), Hoff (Mobil), Michel (Doris), Robberstad (Elf), Vegge (Norw.
Petrol. Directorate), Warland (Statoil): The North Sea concrete platforms - 20 years of
experience, OTC 1994, Houston
[10] Bech, S., Carlsen, J.E.: Durability of High-Strength Offshore Concrete Structures.
Proceedings - 5th. International Symposium on Utilisation of High Strength/High Performance
Concrete. Sandefjord, Norway, June 1999.
[11] Derrington, J. A. Prestressed concrete platforms for process plants. Proceedings of the
conference on concrete ships and floating structures organized by The Concrete Society in
association with the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and held in London on 3 and 4
March, 1977.
[12] Morgan, R. G. History of and Experience with Concrete Ships. Proceedings of the conference
on concrete ships and floating structures, Sept. 15-19, 1975 / Berkeley, California, Ben C.
Gerwick jr. Editor.
[13] Nanni, A. and Lista, W.L. Concrete Cracking in Coastal Areas: Problems and Solutions.
Concrete International, Dec. 1988
[14] FIP (Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte) state of the art report: The inspection,
maintenance and repair of concrete sea structures, August 1982
49
[15] Gerwick, Mansour, Price & Thayamballi. Feasibility and Comparative Studies for the Use of
Prestressed Concrete in Large Storage/Processing Vessels. The society of naval architects and
marine engineer. Paper presented at the annual meeting November 16-18, 1978, New York.
[16] Campbell, R. Classification of Concrete Vessels. Proceedings of the conference on concrete
ships and floating structures, Sept. 15-19, 1975 / Berkeley, California, Ben C. Gerwick jr.
Editor.
[17] Moksnes, J.:20 years of R&D into HPC has it been a Profitable Investment? 6th
International Symposium on Utilization of High Strength/High Performance Concrete,
Leipzig 2002.
[18] Olsen T.O.:Recycling of offshore concrete structures Structural Concrete, 2, No.3,
September 2001
[19] Fjeld, Hall, Hoff, Michel, Robberstad, Vegge, Warland (1994) The North Sea concrete
platforms - 20 years of experience. OTC, Houston
[20] K.Hyland, T.O.Olsen.: Recycling of Offshore Concrete Structures. International
Workshop, Consec 98
[21] Maage M., Olsen T.O.: LETTKON - A major joint Norwegian research programme on light
weight aggregate concrete. Proceedings - Second International Symposium on Structural
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete. Kristiansand, Norway, June 2000.
[22] Olsen T. O.: Heavy Duty Floating Unit for the Offshore Industry. Proceedings - Second
International Symposium on Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete. Kristiansand,
Norway, June 2000.
[23] www.mpu.no
[24] NS 3473 Norwegian Standard: Concrete structures - Design rules, 5
th
edition, 1998.
[25] www.nsft.no

Offshore Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Offshore Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XIV National Conference on Structural Engineering,

You might also like