FPSO DESIGN AND CONVERSION PRACTICE

Foresight in
Offshore

OGP Conference
London, March 17, 2003

T. Terpstra
IHC Gusto Engineering BV
FPSO: ship or offshore structure?
Foresight in
Offshore

• Consequences in design procedure

• Applicability tanker gained experience

• Restrictions

• When apply offshore standards and how combine?

Contents
Foresight in
Offshore

• Design procedure and approach

¾ Offshore and shipbuilding approach
¾ FPSO hull design procedure
• Specific design issues
¾ Hull design features
¾ Design loads
¾ Hull / topsides interface
¾ Materials
¾ Hull fatigue aspects
¾ Corrosion allowance
• Specific conversion issues
¾ Steel renewal criteria
¾ Novelty in FPSO conversion
Shipbuilding and offshore approach
Foresight in
Offshore

• Offshore approach
¾ Strong focus on design reliability
¾ Extensive adoption of direct calculation principles
¾ Use of multi-disciplinary design teams

• Shipbuilding approach
¾ Focus on production process, keen on costs
¾ FPSO part of shipyard’s mass production, less flexibility during
8 -12 week dry dock assembly time
¾ Implications of building offshore structures not always clearly
realised
¾ Clear division between disciplines
 FPSO Hull Design Process
Foresight in
out for tender, Offshore

s
consultant further
ek
8
we develops design
–
6

Concept Design
Design consultant

- Global FEA
s
ek Basic Design
we
0
-2 -Detailed Finite Element Analysis
16
-Detailed Fatigue Analysis
-identification of critical structural welds

Confirm with shipyard critical structural details

Shipyard

Detailed Design
- production drawings
- welding details to further develop
Operator

Operational phase
- Hull condition monitoring and survey program
- Newbuilding supervision and site management
FPSO Hull Design Process
Foresight in
Offshore

• Concept Design
¾ Overall dimension
¾ Tank arrangement
¾ Global hull structure
¾ Global finite element analysis

Analytical Tools:
a) Rules based calculations
b) FEA, 3-tank model

Global structural analysis

objective:
a) Examine strength
b) Determine hull flexibility
c) Accurate steel weight
estimate
FPSO Hull Design Process
Foresight in
Offshore

• Basic Design
¾ Mooring system integration
¾ Riser system integration
¾ Detailed transverse strength
analysis
¾ Local strength and fatigue
analysis
¾ Identification of critical welds
¾ Topsides / hull interface plan
¾ Class Approval

Courtesy by Bureau Veritas

Local structural analysis
objective:
a) Fatigue performance of
stiffener connections
b) Transverse web end
connections
c) Riser integration structure
Hull Design Features
Foresight in
Offshore

• New build designs tend to excessive hull proportions:

¾ L/B = 5.1 (Tanker > 5.5)
¾ L/D = 9.2 (Tanker > 11.0)
¾ CB = 0.97 (Tanker < 0.9)

• Excessive hull proportions lead to:

¾ High still water loads, ample buoyancy at the ends /
large topsides weights amidships
¾ Increased freeboard for smaller ship length
¾ Hull size shall match shipyard dock capacity
Hull Design Features
Foresight in
Offshore

• Tank Arrangement Newbuild FPSO

ballast in side tanks

3CT ballast tank – reduce SWBM

Machinery space Disadvantage is empty tank in fully Machinery space

laden condition
Hull Design Features
Foresight in
Offshore

Buoyancy Curves
New Build and Conversion FPSO
1,2

0,8
Buoyancy [-]

New build FPSO

0,6
Conversion FPSO

0,4

0,2

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Length of Vessel x/L [-]

Ample buoyancy
induce high SWBM
Hull Design Features
Foresight in
Offshore

Still Water Bending Moments New Build FPSO

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000
Bending Moment [kNm]

0
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00 Hogging Rules Design
Sagging Rules Design
-2000000
Hogging Actual
Sagging Actual
-4000000

-6000000

-8000000

-10000000

-12000000

Length of Vessel x/L [-]

Hump/hollow due to
ballast tank
Design Loads
Foresight in
Offshore

• Still water loads exceed tanker standard design values

¾ SWBM and SWSF for newbuild exceeds tanker design
values by 95%
¾ SWSF for conversion exceeds design values by 77%
¾ Normal tanker practice not directly applicable

• Concentrated topsides loads

¾ Single deck module Fz = 130Te
¾ Double deck module Fz = 2000Te
¾ Concentrated loads may result in local overturning
moments at supports, ship structure not designed for
Hull / Topsides Interface
Foresight in
Offshore

• Difference in dimensioning of plate sides:

¾ Shipbuilding ⇒ moulded plate side
¾ Offshore ⇒ center of plate

• Offshore and shipbuilding standards conflict in weld

design for topsides supports
¾ FP or PP weld details to be applied according to offshore
standards
¾ Shipbuilding use fillet welds, throat thickness ≥ 0.17*t
¾ Special weld details at specific locations disrupt
shipbuilding production
Hull / Topsides Interface
Foresight in
Offshore

• Midship Section 2.2 mbls storage

Long. BHD’s to line up with
topside supports

Width approx. 5m
Hull / Topsides Interface
Foresight in
Offshore

Tank loading deformation Tank loading deformation

Two adjacent tanks, one LBHD Three adjacent tanks, two LBHDs

Difference in deformation to be
addressed in conceptual design
Hull / Topsides Interface
Foresight in
Offshore

• Regions with enhanced scantlings (transverse web frame)

main deck

t = 12.5mm

long. BHD
side shell

long. BHD

Increase upper plate

strake BHD t > 22mm Increase to t = 15mm
minimum

¾In order to support topsides modules, enhanced scantlings of upper

strakes of BHDs and transverse web frames to cope with high
concentrated loads
¾Use of local plate inserts to be avoided, since this would disrupt the
yard’s production process
Hull / Topsides Interface
Foresight in
Offshore

Support stools on main deck Side view support stool

SUPPORT
Fz LOADS

FP WELD

My

PP WELD
Hull / Topsides Interface
Foresight in
Offshore

Flexible Supports Process Module: 4-point-support

Elastomeric pads account for hull

flexibility and are rotational free,
less bending moment introduced in
hull structure
Hull / Topsides Interface
Foresight in
Offshore

Tubular supports
Materials
Foresight in
Offshore

• Difference in material selection procedure

¾ Shipbuilding based on zones and class, “I” - “V”
¾ Offshore based on function and criticality

• FPSO hull material selection

¾ Main hull structure based on shipbuilding standards
¾ Special structures based on offshore approach
9 Topsides supports
9 Turret/mooring integration
¾ Offshore and ship selection criteria can be combined in a
transparent selection table

• Special requirements
¾ Reserve on material qualities, use of Z-quality for
enhanced flexibility
¾ Higher material grades on owner request for improved
fracture toughness
Hull Fatigue Aspects
Foresight in
Offshore

• Safety factors shall be increased to values between

2 < FS < 10 depending on criticality & inspectability,
deviation from tanker rules where FS = 1.0

• Other details like topside supports and mooring & riser

integrations shall also be verified

• Note that not included in the analysis are:

¾ Local corrosion which has a large impact on cracking
(void side tanks coated or dehumidified)
¾ Workmanship (alignment and weld quality) which has
large impact on cracking
Hull Fatigue Aspects
Foresight in
Offshore

• Hull Fatigue Details Side Shell

TSCF as guideline for details

add backing bracket

avoid these details

transv. web

transv. web
side
shell
Hull Fatigue Aspects
Foresight in
Offshore

Engineering Approach
• FPSO hull according to CN 30.7
¾ First screening based on World Wide data, FS = 1.0
¾ World Wide FS = 1.0 corresponds to FS ≈ 3.0 for benign
environment
¾ Limited experience analysis software

• Use of different S-N curves for ship and offshore

structures
¾ Basic S-N curves for ship structures, excluding SCF
¾ Series of S-N curves for offshore structures
Corrosion Allowance
Foresight in
Offshore

• Tanker experience: nominal Rule corrosion rate

¾ Rules state nominal corrosion rate 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 based
on 20-year design life
¾ Analysis software use these default corrosion values

• Ship rule allowances may not be sufficient

¾ Consistency required between Rule design values and
measured / TSCF values

• Apply corrosion design allowances on plating and

stiffeners based on (in-house) FPSO measured data
and/or TSCF

• Corrosion allowance to be based on offshore design life,

not on ship repair life
Steel Renewal Criteria
Foresight in
Offshore

• Inspection and survey of tanker hull is still often based on

marine practice

• Marine practice refers to a 5-year regular special survey

• Consequently it is common practice that often hull

structural details are approved with 5-year inspection
period as reference

• No special survey for FPSOs applicable, special survey is

equivalent to FPSO design life

• Solution is to provide “conversion steel renewal” criteria

to be derived from fatigue analysis
¾ Check on plate thickness and section modulus
¾ Proportionality of existing stiffeners is limiting factor
Steel Renewal Criteria (case study)
Foresight in
Offshore

• Severe pitting corrosion in • Repair in yard: $3/kg

stiffener flange
• Initially approved based on 5- • Repair offshore: $30/kg
year survey experience
Novelty in FPSO Conversion
Foresight in
Offshore

• Conversion of a suezmax tanker to equivalent VLCC size

FPSO

• Production capacity is 100,000 bbls, installed on small

deck area

• Congested deck area due to module supports, cable tray

supports and spread mooring arrangement

• To overcome these problems sponsons are added to:

¾ Increase deck space area
¾ Support of process modules
¾ Increase of deadweight
Novelty in FPSO Conversion
Foresight in
Offshore
Conclusions
Foresight in
Offshore

• FPSO to be considered as an offshore unit, ship design

gained experience forms the basis
• Enhanced level of detail in concept and basic design
• Differences in tanker and FPSO design
¾ Hull design
¾ Loads
¾ Structural design criteria
• Ship and offshore approach can be combined for effective
design
• Tanker Structure Coorporative Forum (TSCF) shall be
more frequently applied in FPSO design
FPSO DESIGN AND CONVERSION PRACTICE
Foresight in
Offshore

OGP Conference
London, March 17, 2003

T. Terpstra
IHC Gusto Engineering BV