Jeff Baker

FPSO Hull Structure, Design and Survey
INDEX page
1 Introduction 1
2 New Build and Conversion 3
3 Rules and Regulations 6
4 Some Project Outlines 12
5 Global Hull Strength 12
6 Hull Fatigue Design 21
7 Additional Structural Aspects 26
8 Design for Specified Service 37
9 Fabrication 38
10 Survey 42
11 Some In Service Incidents 43
Note: These outline notes are intended to compliment the

course presentation including Powerpoint slide show.
1. Introduction
1.1. Lloyd's Register (LR), established in 1760, is one of the world's leading
ship classification societies and a leading independent technical
inspection, certification and advisory organisation, operating from over
200 offices worldwide, and employing around 5,000 staff.
1.2. LR has worked in the offshore industry for more than 30 years and has
a thorough understanding of the challenges and risks typically
Course Title: FPSO Training Course

Author Name: Rob Potthurst Page 1 of 47
encountered during the many stages of asset development from

concept evaluation, design and construction through to operations,
decommissioning and abandonment. LR continues to develop a

portfolio of services tailored to helping clients address their risks.
Being committed to providing a range of value-added, risk-based
integrity assurance and verification services, LR can assist clients in
the management of their assets and ultimately their business
performance.
1.3. LR has extensive experience of all types of offshore installation, both

fixed and mobile, with services covering:
• Fixed platforms – steel and concrete.
• Gravity-based structures and tension-leg platforms.
• Drill ships, jack-ups, semi-submersibles, heavy-lift vessels and
pipelaying barges.
• FPSOs, FPUs and FSUs (newbuild and conversions).
• Turret and mooring systems, buoys and loading arms.
• Underwater systems.
• Subsea pipelines, risers (fixed and flexible) and flowlines.
1.4. LR was a founder member of the International Association of

Classification Societies. The Association was founded in 1968 and
Lloyd’s Register remains a full member of the Association.
1.5. LR is recognised as a Certifying or Verifying Authority by national

administrations world-wide and assists clients to achieve compliance
with all types of national maritime, health and safety, and oil and gas
regulatory requirements. For offshore assets in countries not having
detailed national regulations, LR’s Rules for fixed and mobile assets
can provide the basis for certification. For mobile assets operating
world-wide, possession of an LR certificate or LR Class will satisfy
most national regulations and enhance the mobility of the unit.
1.6. With the introduction of FPSO and FSU technologies to the Offshore
Oil and Gas Industry in order to satisfy marginal and major field
extraction LR’s experience of certifying requirements for Offshore
Structures has been naturally adapted to FPSOs/FSUs.
LR provides a comprehensive range of services for both new-build and
conversion projects, including:
• Conceptual Studies.
• Candidate Vessel Survey.
• Design Appraisal.

• System Integrity and Risk Management.

• Construction & Installation Surveys.
• In-Service Periodic Surveys.
• Risk Classification Services.
1.7. A summary of LR experience with recent FPSO installations is

included in the powerpoint slide show.
1.8. Some typical arrangements are also given in the powerpoint slide
show.
2. New Build and Conversion
2.1. General
2.1.1. The relative merits of choosing a new build unit or tanker conversion
for a specific field development are widely documented in the
technical press.
2.1.2. The final choice will primarily depend upon commercial factors,
including operator preferences, life cycle costs, project schedule and
availability of a suitable vessel for conversion at an acceptable price.
2.1.3. The view generally held within the industry is that properly
maintained tankers built between 1970 and 1980 (typically of mild
steel) can provide suitable candidate vessels for conversion,
particularly in more benign environments. However for extended
field life or harsh environments a relatively new tanker may be
required.
2.1.4. Of the FPSO/FSO units installed to date, the majority have been
based on tanker conversions.
2.1.5. Some examples of both new builds and conversions are illustrated in
the powerpoint slide show.
2.2. New Build
2.2.1. Use of a new-build vessel clearly allows compliance with the latest,
more stringent, requirements regarding structural and other design
considerations. Structural design of a new construction offers scope
for the specification of appropriate margins consistent with

requirements for continuous long term operation at specified

location(s).
2.2.2. Experience gained regarding fatigue performance of structural

details and fatigue life calculations for various designs can readily
be incorporated and account taken of all major contributory factors.
2.3. Conversion
2.3.1. Generally, the use of converted tonnage can offer a faster and
lower cost route to first oil, with the associated cost savings
allowing economic advantages in the development of the field.
Other deciding factors would include:
• Availability of suitable tonnage ;
• New building market situation ;
• Environment and field life ;
• National regulations to be applied.
2.3.2. The overall arrangement of a conversion candidate vessel must

comply with the appropriate National Authority regulations. This
should be fully investigated at the earliest opportunity, particularly
where the vessel may be required to operate in more than one
location during its lifetime.
2.3.3. Primary selection criteria for suitable tankers will include the
expected flow rate for the areas of operation, which, in conjunction
with the desired shuttle tanker size and offload frequency, will
determine the required storage capacity. The minimum freeboard
required will define overall capacity.
2.3.4. The selection of suitable tankers will also be based on historical

information, covering:
• Original design and basis of design (design criteria,
methodology, codes) ;
• Age and condition ;
• Maintenance and operational history.
This information should be reviewed in conjunction with the design,

inspection, maintenance and repair requirements for the intended
production service. The relative importance of each of these
aspects is influenced by the intended service, strength/fatigue
requirements and applicable regulatory requirements

2.3.5. An FPSO conversion should generally comply with the latest

applicable class rules. It is recognised, however, that full
compliance with current rules and standards may be impractical.
Where full compliance is not achieved, the intent of the current
rules and standards should be complied with by alternative means
to the satisfaction of the class society.
This particularly applies in the areas of personnel safety and

evacuation, damage stability, ballast systems, fire monitoring and
fire fighting, and environmental pollution prevention and control.
Deviations between specific rules and standards in effect at the

time of the design and construction of the existing floating structure,
and current rules and standards, should be identified, and the intent
and rationale for the changes assessed. Rule issues can arise in
cases where old tankers are to be used as to which standards are
to be met.
2.3.6. It is important that the requirements of the appropriate National

Authority are established at the earliest opportunity.
As an example, the Marine Environment Protection Committee of
the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) permits dispensation
from the provisions of MARPOL regulations 13 to 13G subject to:
• The tanker being used solely for storage and
production of oil;
• The tanker being moored on a fixed location except
in extreme environmental or emergency conditions ;
• The relevant National Authority not requiring
compliance.
i.e. double-hulled construction would not be necessary unless
specified by the National Authority.
2.3.7. The main activities conducted during a tanker conversion will vary
depending on the individual project. An overall summary is given in
the powerpoint slide show.
2.3.8. Structural strength and fatigue evaluation are major issues to be

resolved for conversions. Experience clearly demonstrates that, for
a permanently moored FPSO conversion, the extent of upgrading
and structural enhancement to satisfactory standards will largely
depend on the age and condition of the vessel, and specific project
parameters, and may require a substantial investment.

2.3.9. Modern newly built tankers may already be structurally compatible

with relevant site specific hull strength and fatigue life requirements,
and therefore be suitable candidates for conversion without the
need for extensive structural enhancement, particularly for less
onerous environments. However, for harsh environments and
conversion of older vessels it is likely that an enhancement scheme
will be required.
2.3.10.The main technical issues which must be addressed by the project

are also outlined in the powerpoint slide show.
3. Rules and Regulations
3.1. General
3.1.1. To operate within the territorial waters of most countries, a floating

installation will require to comply with a number of regulations,
including those of :
• Coastal State Authority;
• Flag State requirements;
• Classification rules;
• International Statutory Regulations;
• Other relevant codes and standards.
3.1.2. In some territorial waters, generally where a mature regulatory

regime exists (e.g. UK, Australia, etc.), vessels which remain on
station need not be classed. However vessels would normally be
built to Class Rules since there is no other suitable standard to
cover hull structure, machinery and essential marine systems. It
should be noted that Classification is a requirement in some
territorial waters (e.g. Brazil, Nigeria).
3.1.3. Classification can also assist in fulfilling the requirements of safety

and the new “goal setting” regulations now in place by many
national authorities.
3.1.4. An overview of regulatory aspects is outlined in the powerpoint slide

show.
3.2. Coastal State Authority Regulations (certification)

3.2.1. Unlike seagoing ships, installations intended for operation at a fixed

location have to satisfy the regulations imposed by the national
authorities of the Coastal State on whose continental shelf they are
installed. As there is no special need for these regulations to be
compatible with those of other States, there tends to be some
diversity of approach. Some National Authorities have extensive
prescriptive requirements (e.g. Canada) while others have little in
the way of formal requirements for Safety and Integrity.
3.2.2. Approval is based on compliance with the National Administration

regulations (Flag and Coastal State), class rules and regulations
and operator standards as appropriate.
By virtue of their worldwide organisation and the absence of

commercial involvement, classification societies play a major role in
certification schemes and can be delegated the authority to act on
behalf of the national administration. This procedure is generally
known as “Certification” and the organisations authorised to carry
out the work are known as Certifying Authorities (CA’s). Whether or
not there is a formal requirement, it is usual for a Certificate of
Fitness to be issued with a stated validity to confirm compliance.
3.2.3. Most National Administration’s certification requirements do not

provide any specific details with regard to ship type units. Therefore
whether an existing ship or one purpose built, the structure would
normally be required to comply with the relevant requirements of
class rules and regulations.
3.2.4. In offshore waters where no national requirements are applicable,

class rules can provide an independent standard acceptable to the
authorities concerned, insurers, charterers and other interested
parties.
3.2.5. Some production installations are designed to disconnect from their

moorings and manoeuvre under their own power during storms
above a defined level. Such installations are normally ship type
units and require to be classed as well as being certified as an
offshore installation. This will also apply to dynamically positioned
units.
3.3. Verification
3.3.1. Many National Authorities now encompass the requirement for a

safety case or other risk analysis concepts. As an example under

the statutory requirements for offshore installations sited in

Australian and UK waters the operator must submit a safety case.
3.3.2. Verification regulations are based on the identification of elements

of the installation that are critical to safety and the application of
suitable performance standards (commonly risk-based) to those
elements and thus are applied together with a safety case.
3.3.3. The UK regulations make the Duty Holder responsible for two
important issues:
• Set and define the role of non-prescriptive safety goals
which are particular to the installation and establish the
performance standards required by the project to
achieve these goals.
• Establish a through life verification scheme (employing
an independent party) which audits all the critical issues
affecting the design, construction, installation, and
operation of the installation.
3.3.4. Classification is effectively a Performance Standard and thus fulfils

many of these requirements and caters for the lifecycle of the
development. It is concerned with the safety integrity and quality of
marine structures and is recognized as providing compliance with
the verification regulations subject to Safety Case requirements.
Classification society rules are regularly updated to take account of
the developments arising from service experience, new design
techniques and material and construction methods. In addition,
classification society status fulfils the requirements of an
independent and impartial verification body.
3.3.5. Where there are no national verification requirements,

classification rules can provide the independent standards and
prescription guidance acceptable to government authorities,
insurers and other interested parties worldwide. Lloyd’s
Register’s classification is recognised throughout the world and
is formally accepted by the Governments of Australia, Canada,
the Peoples Republic of China, Denmark, Indonesia, the Irish
Republic, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New
Guinea, the USA and the UK.
3.4. Flag State Requirements
3.4.1. Classification Rules and Regulations do not, in general, cover such

matters as the unit’s intact damage stability, life saving appliances,

pollution prevention arrangements and structural fire protection,

detection extinction arrangements. Nor do they protect personnel
on board from dangers connected with their own actions or
movement around the installation. These requirements are
generally covered in various IMO Statutory Regulations applicable
to marine vessels (such as the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea ) which depend on the Flag State and location
of the installation (although the class rules do contain some
minimum requirements). If risk-based standards are to be applied,
either as part of the Installation ‘Safety Case’ or application of the
risk-based rules, it should be noted that the requirements identified
may be in excess of those required by Statutory Regulations.
The handling of these aspects is the prerogative of the National

Authority and the marine administration of the country in which the
unit is registered (flagged). However, a great many of these
authorities delegate such responsibilities to the classification
societies who then undertake them in accordance with agreed
procedures.
3.4.2. If the installation is to be classed and not flagged, agreement on the

equivalent standards to be applied should be sought at the earliest
opportunity with the class society and the National Authority. For a
floating unit, LR will need to be satisfied that the performance
standards for safety aspects, normally controlled by the flag state,
are considered equivalent to normal safety standards for a flagged
vessel.
3.5. Classification
3.5.1. Classification is primarily concerned with the integrity and safety of

ships and mobile offshore units where freedom of movement is of
paramount importance and involves a process of approval and
survey based upon the class societies Rules and Regulations.
3.5.2. Classification may be regarded as the development and world-wide

implementation of published rules and regulations which, in
conjunction with proper care and conduct on the part of the owner
and operator, will provide for:
• The structural strength (and where necessary the
watertight integrity) of all essential parts of the hull and
its appendages;

• The safety and reliability of the moorings, propulsion and

steering systems;
• The effectiveness of those other features and auxiliary
systems which have been built into the unit in order to
establish and maintain basic conditions on board
whereby appropriate cargoes and personnel can be
safely carried whilst the unit is at sea, at anchor, or
moored.
3.5.3. Formal classification is issued following appraisal of all relevant

plans and supporting documentation together with on-site survey
during construction and installation / commissioning at the offshore
location and confirms that rule requirements have been met.
Special dispensation, from compliance with certain rule
requirements may be granted where a suitable equivalent standard
is deemed to be met.
3.5.4. Class is maintained in service by way of periodical visits by its

Surveyors as defined in the rules and regulations in order to
ascertain that the Installation continues to comply with those rules
and regulations. Should significant defects become apparent or
damages be sustained between the visits by the surveyors, the
owner (and/or) operator are required to inform class without delay.
Similarly any modification which would affect class must receive
approval by class.
3.6. Classification Rules

3.6.1. LR Offshore Rules covers all types of floating offshore units which
operate at a fixed geographic location, including ship and barge
type units, column stabilised, tension leg, deep draught caisson,
self-elevating and buoy type units. Concrete floating units are also
included. They are largely self-contained but do cross-refer to the
Ship Rules as appropriate e.g. for the basic main hull structure of
surface units. Detailed requirements for special offshore aspects
and unit types not covered in the Rules for Ships are also given.
e.g. positional mooring systems, mooring turrets, buoys etc. and
special areas of surface type units.
3.6.2. The basic LR Class Notation would cover:

Basic description of the installation, facilities provided and field
location.
Hull and marine systems.
Propulsion and mooring system.

3.6.3. Detailed design, procurement, construction, site integration and

commissioning activities regarding topsides facilities are typically
subject to certification by LR to recognised national and
international codes, or equivalent engineering standards.
Alternatively, the topsides could be subject to verification to an
agreed written scheme, such as that operated under UK
regulations. These facilities will be installed on a vessel with a
classed hull, marine systems and mooring system. Process
facilities are not required to be classed by LR, however, if the client
wishes the Process Plant Facility to be included in the Class
Notation for the Installation an appropriate notation can be
assigned.
Certification or verification of the topsides facilities is the minimum

requirement for assignment of an LR class notation for a complete
floating offshore installation.
3.7. IMO/Marine Regulations
3.7.1. The following International Marine Codes and Regulations are likely
to be applicable:
• International Load Line Convention 1966 (ILLC).
• Regulation of International Tonnage Measurement of Ships
1969.
• SOLAS, 1974 and Protocol of 1978, with amendments
thereto.
• Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Code.
• Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) 1972, possibly together with
IALA requirements.
• MARPOL 1973/78, with amendments thereto.
• IMO resolutions A167 and A562.
The applicability of the above marine regulations would be a matter

for consideration also by the National Authority and flag state - in
particular exemptions may be granted to significant parts of the
regulations.
3.8. Risk Assessment

3.8.1. The offshore class rules contain guidelines for classification using
risk assessment techniques. Such an approach may be applied to
the whole of an installation or to individual systems, sub-systems or
components, and may also be considered as forming the basis for
the in-service inspection/maintenance philosophy.
3.8.2. Risk assessments should be undertaken in accordance with the

guidelines given in the class rules and should identify the hazards
to the safety and integrity of the installation and evaluate them
considering both consequence and frequency. All elements that are
critical in relation to the hazards should be identified and
performance standards defined. For critical systems or elements
the performance standards must meet to prevent, detect, control,
mitigate or recover from the identified hazards.
4. Some Project Outlines
4.1. General
4.1.1. Some examples are indicated in the powerpoint slide show.
5. Global Hull Strength
5.1. General Requirements
5.1.1. Both longitudinal and transverse hull strength require evaluation.

General procedures and criteria are given in the class rules and
outlined herein. (see also section 8)
5.1.2. The minimum requirements for hull girder strength of an FPSO

installation are based on those defined in the class rules for ships
supplemented with additional requirements which are related to site
specific service.
5.1.3. A site specific wave loading assessment is to be carried out. The

combined effect of site specific still water, mooring and wave loads
should not in general exceed the stress levels and requirements
given in the class rules.

5.1.4. Where the unit is intended for limited duration marginal field
development, or operation at more than one location, the most
severe design criteria are to apply. To provide flexibility for future
operations when the relevant site specific wave loadings are below
ship rule requirements the owner may wish to specify the latter for
design purposes. This should be discussed with the owner at an
early stage.
5.1.5. For long term operation at a specified location, when the FPSO site
specific wave bending moments and shear forces are below the
ship Rule requirements for unrestricted sea-going service, the site
specific value may be adopted subject to certain restrictions.
5.1.6. Basic hull structural strength parameters should always meet or

exceed the minimum requirements of the ship rules for hull girder
bending including:
i) Minimum hull section modulus
ii) Permissible still water bending moments
iii) Permissible hull vertical bending stress
iv) Local reduction factors
v) Hull moment of inertia
(Requirements relating to shear forces should be complied with in a

similar manner).
5.1.7. In no case should the site specific wave bending moments and
shear force be taken as less than 70% of the rule requirement for
unrestricted sea-going service.
5.1.8. When the site specific loading exceeds the ship rule requirements,
design stress levels should normally comply with the requirements
given in the class rules.
5.1.9. Consideration should be given to temporary loading conditions

such as towing/transportation and installation.
5.1.10.The allowable still water bending moment and shear forces can be
increased for maintenance and inspection conditions as such
activities will be restricted to reasonable weather conditions.
5.1.11.All relevant loading conditions and limitations are to be clearly

stated in the loading manual.

5.1.12.An on-board approved loading instrument should be installed to

monitor still water bending moments and shear forces and ensure
they are maintained within the approved permissible limits.
5.2. Site Specific Factors

5.2.1. Hull strength of ship-type installations are required to comply with
the requirements of the class rules for ships. Installations intended
to operate only in sheltered waters could be subject to special
considerations at the request of the owner.
5.2.2. The dynamic loads to which the hull may be subjected will be
expected to vary from those associated with seagoing trading ships
and will require assessment. This assessment may be based on
results of model testing or by suitable direct calculation methods to
predict the actual wave loads on the hull at the service location,
taking into account site specific service related factors including
relevant non-linear effects.
5.2.3. For site specific service, factors which may influence basic global
strength include the following:
a) Site specific environment: For ship shaped units of normal

form, the strength standards formulated in the class rules for
ships are based on environmental criteria relating to a world-
wide trading pattern, which may not be as onerous as the site
specific conditions;
b) Effect of mooring system: Static and dynamic mooring and
riser loadings can be substantial and their effects on the hull
girder longitudinal bending moments and shear forces should
be considered;
c) Long term service at a fixed location: Seagoing ships would
generally spend a proportion of their time in sheltered water
conditions. Permanently moored units normally remain on
station at all times, and disconnectable units would only move
off station in certain conditions and would generally remain in
the local area. In addition the expectation of the field life may
be in excess of 20 years;
d) Wave heading: For seagoing ships in severe weather, steps
would generally be taken to minimise the effects of such
conditions such as altering course or alternative routing.
Moored production/storage units cannot take avoiding action
and will weathervane due to the combined effects of waves,

wind and current, which will result in a greater proportion of

waves approaching from bow sector directions;
e) Zero ship speed: The effect of forward ship speed would
enhance static predictions of hull bending moments and shear
forces, and other factors such as slamming. Due to zero
forward speed this enhancement would not apply to moored
production/storage units;
f) Range of operating loading conditions: Ocean going tankers
traditionally have a fairly limited range of operational loading
conditions and would typically be fully loaded or in ballast.
Due to their oil storage capability moored units potentially
have an almost unlimited range of loading conditions. These
effectively cover a full spectrum of cases from ballast through
intermediate conditions to fully loaded returning to ballast via
offloading;
g) Tank inspection requirements: Ocean going ships would
generally periodically dry dock for survey and repair. Moored
units must ideally be inspected on station. Thus a full range of
conditions covering each tank empty in turn should be
addressed. These conditions may be combined with
appropriate site specific environmental loadings;
h) Change in return period from normal rule requirements:
Normal ship class rule requirements have been based on
providing adequate safety margins using a 20 year return
period. The specified design life for an FPSO is often higher
than this and design criteria based on a return period of
100years are required.
5.3. Steel Grades

5.3.1. Steel should be manufactured and tested in accordance with class
rules or other acceptable standards. The strength and grades
(notch toughness) of steel required will depend on the following:
• Design temperature;
• Thickness;
• Substance being stored/processed;
• Structural category;
• Location.
5.3.2. Steel grades adopted for structures should comply with the class
rules. The Minimum Design Temperature (MDT) should be taken as

the lowest daily mean temperature at the site based in a 100 year
return period. A design temperature of 0°C is generally acceptable
for determining steel grades for structure normally underwater.
5.3.3. Structural components may be grouped into categories based on

applied loading and stress levels, critical load transfer points, stress
concentrations and consequence of failure. Categories may be
summarised as follows:
• Special : Structural elements in way of critical load
transfer points and stress concentrations;
• Primary : Elements essential to overall structural integrity;
• Secondary: Elements where failure would be unlikely to
affect overall structural integrity.
5.3.4. Material where the principle loads or welding stresses are

perpendicular to the plate thickness should have suitable through
thickness properties.
5.3.5. Where attachments are located on special or primary components

subject to high stresses, the attachment is to be the same material
as the plating to which it is attached, with welding to the same
standard as the main structure.
5.4. Loading
5.4.1. The effects of all life-cycle loadings should be evaluated to ensure
that all relevant design loadings are considered. These would
include:
a) Construction: To avoid application of excessive stress
levels and deformations to structural members;
b) Transportation: A transportation assessment should be
carried out to include determination of limiting
environmental conditions, motion response and induced
global hull loadings;
c) Installation and decommissioning: In general these
operations would be carried out during relatively mild
weather conditions and global loadings would not be
critical;
d) Operational: Intact still water and site specific
environmental loadings including wave effects (additional
dynamic loadings such as slamming, green seas and
sloshing are described further below);

e) Accidental: Accidental loadings including collision,

dropped objects and blast.
5.4.2. All modes of operation should be investigated using a full range of
realistic loading conditions. All anticipated pre-service and in-
service conditions require evaluation to determine the most
unfavourable design cases. For units intended for multi-field
developments the most onerous still water and site specific
environmental loadings should be considered.
5.4.3. Still water bending moment and shear force distributions should be
determined for full load, intermediate operating conditions,
minimum load conditions (including ballast) and inspection
conditions with each tank empty in turn.
5.4.4. A unit may be kept on station by various methods, including several

different types of station-keeping system such as internal and
submerged turret systems, external turret, CALM buoy, fixed
spread mooring and dynamic positioning. Each mooring system
configuration will impose loads into the hull structure which are
characteristic to that system and should be considered.
5.4.5. Loading from the topsides should also be addressed for the most
onerous scenarios, including environmental loads, equipment
operating weights, and inertial loading due to vessel motions.
5.5. Direct Calculations / Finite Element Analysis
5.5.1. Structural assessment is generally based on direct calculation

methods although results of model testing can also provide design
data in certain instances.
5.5.2. Finite element analysis of the hull structure and other major
structural components will normally be required using appropriate
finite element models and analytical methods, as described in the
rules.
5.5.3. Dynamic analyses may be required for slender structures, such as

flare towers, when natural frequencies are likely to be excited by
cyclical loading such as wind gusts.
5.5.4. All relevant loadings should be adequately accounted for. The

complexity of mathematical models of the structure, together with
the associated computer element types, connection fixities and

support conditions used, should be sufficiently representative of all

the parts of the primary structure to enable accurate stress
distribution to be obtained.
5.5.5. A combination of global and local analytical models may be

necessary, particularly when the global model does not fully
account for local load effects or does not contain sufficient detail to
ascertain response to the level required.
5.5.6. Account should be taken of boundary condition effects on the

structural evaluation. Particular attention should be given to
structural evaluation in way of critical interfaces and abrupt
changes of section such as the mooring structure and its integration
within the hull.
5.5.7. The scope of structural studies would typically encompass:

• Representative portion of the hull and cargo tanks
• Hopper knuckle connection (where applicable)
• Mooring structure and integration of the mooring system
• Topside facilities support arrangements / integration
• Turret deckhouse / access tower
• Helideck with supporting structure
• Main crane pedestals and supporting structure
• Flare tower and supports
• Offloading station support structure
• Riser porches and supporting structure
• Other major discontinuities and identified safety critical
structure
5.5.8. A 3-D plate element model of the hull should extend over a
sufficient length of the cargo tank region to minimise boundary
condition effects. A minimum of 2 or 3 cargo tank lengths is
required, modelling the full breadth of the hull where port/starboard
differential loading is a feasible load condition.
5.5.9. The size and type of elements should provide a satisfactory

representation of deflection and stress distributions within the
structure. Element properties should represent the actual proposed
scantlings.

5.5.10.In general the plate element mesh should follow the plate panel
stiffening arrangement with a finer mesh being incorporated at
points of stress concentrations. Alternatively areas of high stress
concentration may be investigated by separate local fine mesh
models.
5.5.11.Suitable boundary supports and restraints should be applied.
5.5.12.A full range of loadings conditions should be developed and applied

to the structural finite element model, including loading
combinations due to the following:
• Self weight gravity loads
• Mooring and riser loads
• Process equipment loads
• Hydrostatic pressure loads
• Hydrodynamic wave loads
• Operational tank filling loads either symmetrical or
asymmetric as relevant
• Basic still water bending moments and shear forces
including proposed permissible values
• Appropriate tank empty cases
5.5.13.Limitations regarding maximum deflection of an individual primary

member and relative deflections for primary transverse members
are given in the rules.
Where relative deflection criteria are exceeded special attention
should be paid to the design of member end connections.
5.5.14.Resultant stress levels from the finite element analysis should not
in general exceed the values defined in the class rules.
5.5.15.A verification report should be submitted for approval. This should

contain the following information:
• List of plans used including dates and versions
• Detailed description of structural modelling including all
modelling assumptions
• Plots to demonstrate correct structural modelling and
assigned properties
• Details of material properties used
• Details of boundary conditions

• Details of all loading conditions reviewed with calculated SF

and BM distributions
• Details of applied loadings and confirmation that individual
and total applied loads are correct
• Plots and results that demonstrate the correct behaviour of
the structural model to the applied loads
• Summaries and plots of global and local deflections
• Summaries and sufficient plots of von Mises, directional and
shear stresses to demonstrate that the design criteria are
not exceeded in any member
• Plate buckling analysis and results
• Tabulated results showing compliance, or otherwise, with
the design criteria
• Proposed amendments to structure where necessary,
including revised assessment of stresses and buckling
properties
5.6. Mooring Structure
5.6.1. Internal turret and circum-turret structures are made up of an

arrangement of stiffened plates with bulkheads and ring frames as
appropriate. Castings may be used to reduce the amount of
welding in complicated detail joints.
5.6.2. The diameter of the turret is decided by a variety of factors,

including the size of FPSO, the number and size of risers, the
number and size of mooring lines, and access requirements.
5.6.3. Structural analysis for the integration of the mooring system within
the structure of the unit should be carried out in accordance with
project and class requirements. Structural strength should be
evaluated considering all relevant, realistic loading conditions and
combinations.
5.6.4. In particular load combinations due to the following should be

accounted for in the design:
• Mooring and riser system loads
• Overall hull bending moments and shear forces
• Internal and external pressure loads

Where relevant, load enhancement due to green seas and

slamming should be included.
5.6.5. Particular attention should be given to the design of critical

interfaces. Scantlings of turret structure (internal/external) and hull
integration of mooring support structure should be evaluated in
accordance with rule requirements. Continuity of primary
longitudinal structural elements is to be maintained as far as
practicable in way of the turret opening and mooring support
structure.
5.6.6. Any reduction in hull section modulus should be kept to a minimum

and compensation fitted where necessary.
6. Hull Fatigue Design
6.1. General
6.1.1. Fatigue life evaluation is an important design consideration for

FPSO structures, particularly for vessels intended to remain on site
for an extended period without scheduled dry docking, and requires
thorough assessment.
6.1.2. Experience from vessels in service has highlighted the mechanisms

causing structural fatigue damage. Since fatigue cracks can be
possible points of initiation for structural fractures or costly repair it
is essential that fatigue design is given careful consideration.
6.1.3. For new build hulls a fatigue assessment will confirm the suitability
of critical structural details for site specific design criteria. For
conversions an assessment will indicate critical areas of the
structure requiring modification and confirm that the proposed
changes are sufficient.
6.1.4. The level and approach of detailed fatigue analysis which is

acceptable is given in the class rules.
6.1.5. Fatigue damage is a complex process and the development of

fatigue cracks may be influenced by many variables, not all of
which are quantifiable. Fatigue cracking normally commences in
welded connections at points of stress concentration resulting from
an adverse combination of factors. Fatigue life calculation of
structural connections is a cumulative process largely based on the

environment and loads experienced. Where stress concentrations

are present in association with significant magnitudes of stress
variation then fatigue cracking may occur.
6.1.6. Factors which influence performance, in that they affect the

magnitude of stress ranges and stress concentrations, are as
follows:
• Loading experienced
• Quality of detail design
• Standard of workmanship
• Corrosion rates and magnitudes
In addition, similar structural details may differ in construction

method, local material properties, alignment, workmanship and
level of inspection, which may lead to variation in the service
performance of a particular detail.
6.1.7. The development of fatigue cracks in stressed welded steel

structure is influenced by a number of parameters including:
• Geometry of the connection and its welds
• Steel material grade
• Type, amplitude, mean level and distribution of applied loading
• Applied stress history
• Fabrication and construction procedures
• Post fabrication processes e.g. corrosion protection
6.1.8. Structural fatigue life evaluation together with experience gained

from existing project survey records can also provide a valuable
means to target inspections towards those areas demonstrated to
be most at risk.
6.2. Structural Details
6.2.1. An important consideration related to fatigue performance in-

service is the quality of detail design and construction. It is apparent
that in many cases premature fracture can be traced to inadequate
detail design. Class rules provide recommended details for
standard hull connections.

6.2.2. Fatigue strength is affected by abrupt change in geometry of

welded structural elements or the presence of stress raisers (such
as notches, doubler plates or penetrations).
6.2.3. An effective way of minimising fatigue cracking is by the reduction

of avoidable stress raisers through careful design and the
prevention of accidental stress raisers by careful fabrication
together with attention to the relative stiffness of structural
members to avoid secondary local restraint effects.
6.2.4. The most common type of imperfections are:

• Misalignment of structural member, poor fit up
• Welding defects (e.g. undercut, lack of penetration, slag and
porosity)
• Materials defects
• Poor manufacture and fabrication procedures resulting in
stress concentrations
• Unfairness of plating
6.2.5. Abrupt changes in shape or section should always be avoided, and

for certain fatigue prone areas butt and full penetration welds are
preferred to double fillets. Where practical the use of symmetric
stiffener sections would also be advised.
6.2.6. Particular attention is required during design and construction when

higher tensile steel material has been specified. Use of this material
implies higher applied nominal and maximum stress levels with
possible reduced fatigue performance.
6.3. Fatigue analysis overview
6.3.1. Fatigue life for a welded connection may be evaluated by reference

to the long term distribution of stress ranges, determined by a
suitable analytical technique, in combination with an appropriate
S/N curve from which endurance can be found.
6.3.2. Assessments may be based on the Miner’s summation method

using appropriate stress ranges, which are to include stress
concentration effects where these have not already been
accounted for within the joint classification.

6.3.3. All significant stress components should be considered. These can

usually be divided into global and local components, the global
component resulting from the effects of hull wave bending
moments, and the local component from the effects of the localised
fluid pressure.
In general, the global and the local stress components differ in
amplitude, phase and location, and the method of combining these
stresses should account for such differences.
6.3.4. Deterministic or spectral analysis methods may be used.
6.4. Scope of Assessments
6.4.1. The extent of the analysis will be dependent on the mode and area
of operation. For hull structure the analysis should be performed
using the long-term prediction of environment for the site and
account for directionality. An appropriate range of wave approach
directions and wave energy spreading should be considered.
Where significant, the effects of low frequency forcing should also
be accounted for.
6.4.2. A representative range of loading conditions should be included. It

is generally acceptable to consider three loading conditions,
typically: ballast (or light load) condition, 50% loaded, and the fully
loaded condition, with appropriate amount of time at each condition.
6.4.3. For conversions, due allowance should be made of previous

operational history of the vessel. Data relating to previous service
may be based on a study of vessel records, or where these are not
readily available, on an appropriate simplified representation of
trading history.
6.4.4. The analysis should address the primary hull structure, mooring
structure and other primary structure subject to significant dynamic
loading e.g. flare tower, and account should be taken of all
important sources of cyclic loading. Particular attention should be
paid to the welded connection details of the following:
• Main hull shell, bottom and decks primary butt welds
• Main hull longitudinal stiffener connections to transverse
frames and bulkheads (particularly those of the side shell)
• End bracket connections of bottom and deck transverses
and horizontal stringers

• Major openings in main hull (e.g. caissons)

• Integration of the mooring system with hull structure
• Mooring system structure
• Structure of flare tower and its welded attachment to the
main hull
• Major process equipment seat connections to hull
• Crane pedestals, riser support structure etc.
6.4.5. Variations in the static and dynamic load components generated by

topsides modules at the points of attachment to the hull are
dependent upon the motion characteristics of the vessel.
Sufficiently robust underdeck reinforcement should be provided in
the way of the welded connection of the topsides connections to the
main hull.
6.4.6. Tall slender structures, such as flare towers, require special

attention in respect of fatigue analysis. The summation of fatigue
damage due to each of the following should be considered:
• Vortex induced vibration of individual members
• Individual member loading due to roll, pitch and heave
motions of the FPSO, allowing for the member’s vertical,
longitudinal and transverse centre of gravity
• individual member loading due to wind load, allowing for
wind variation with height and site specific wind data
6.4.7. Assessment of the mooring system may be based on the site

specific fatigue loading spectrum determined from model testing
results and associated analyses for a range of wave heights, using
typical values for operating draft, and current.
6.4.8. Fatigue appraisal should be carried out on the following items:
• Turret structure
• Main bearing
• Main bearing attachment and support structure
• Mooring lines
• Mooring line chain stoppers and support structure

6.4.9. Castings are often used in the turret structure to simplify

complicated weld detail joints. Special consideration needs to be
given to these castings in the assessment.
6.5. Fatigue Design Life
6.5.1. The minimum design fatigue life for structural elements should not
be less than the intended field life, but in general should not be less
than 20 years, as stated in the class rules. The cumulative damage
ratio for individual components should take account of the degree
of redundancy and accessibility of the structure and also the
consequence of failure.
7. Additional Structural Aspects
7.1. Corrosion Control
7.1.1. An important factor regarding in-service strength and fatigue

performance is the degree of protection against corrosion afforded
to the structure. The combination of significant local cyclic stresses
combined with corrosion effects has led to a large number of
structural fatigue problems, particularly on tankers and VLCC’s.
The most severe corrosion has occurred in ballast tanks and slop
tanks
7.1.2. To combat this, appropriate coatings and other means of protection

should be installed, together with comprehensive periodic
inspections intended to monitor the condition of coatings and
steelwork corrosion, as detailed in the rules.
7.1.3. To mitigate against the effects of corrosion, all structural steelwork

is required to be suitably protected. In general suitable protection
systems may include coatings, metallic claddings, cathodic
protection, corrosion allowances or other acceptable method.
Combinations of methods may be used. Consideration should be
paid to the design life and the maintainability of the surfaces in the
design of protective systems.
7.1.4. Ballast tanks should be protected by suitable coatings and may

also be fitted with cathodic protection. Storage tanks and other
compartments require suitable protection where the stored product
may be corrosive. Account should be taken of the likelihood of

water in the bottom and corrosion vapour at the top of oil storage
tanks. Suitable measures may include coatings, corrosion inhibitors
together with the biocides. It should be noted that impressed
current cathodic protection systems are not to be fitted in tanks.
7.2. Model Testing
7.2.1. Model testing will generally be necessary, as the overall FPSO

configuration is usually too complex to be reliably analysed by
numerical methods alone. It therefore forms an essential stage in
the design process and should be capable of assessment of loads
and motions for all critical components.
7.2.2. Most installations will need project-specific model testing, with

supporting dynamic analysis, which will be carried out to establish
and/or verify the riser and mooring configuration, vessel responses
and sizing of anchor lines.
7.2.3. Model tests also provide the opportunity to investigate the potential
for green seas and wave impact loading.
7.3. Motions and Accelerations
7.3.1. Hull motions and accelerations are of prime importance in

establishing design criteria for topside structure. All six degrees of
freedom can contribute, although heave, pitch and roll effects
generally dominate.
7.3.2. It is important to recognise that maximum accelerations depend

upon both motion magnitude and period. A range of significant
wave heights and periods should be investigated to model the
extreme events, ideally based on a Hs/Tp contour applicable to the
site. Particular attention should be given to resonant modes, which
may be excited in seas with a significant wave height somewhat
less than the maximum, but with a critical period.
7.3.3. Design accelerations should include vertical, transverse and

longitudinal components. Components of motions should be
combined in a rational manner using appropriate analytical or
model test data.
7.3.4. Model tests should also be used confirm the validity of results
obtained from analytical methods.

7.3.5. Account should be taken of all relevant factors which may have a
significant influence on vessel motions and accelerations. These
include the following:
• Site specific design environments, including directionality
• Draught range and loading conditions
• Motion response amplitudes and associated periods
• Heading
• Mooring / riser systems influence
• Location of item on floating unit
• Towing criteria
7.4. Green Seas
7.4.1. Green water is the overtopping by water in severe wave conditions,

resulting in loading on the deck and any exposed equipment.
7.4.2. Recent experience indicates that green water loading can occur on
FPSO’s operating in harsh environments and account of this must
be taken in the design. Significant amounts of green water will have
an impact on the vessel deck structural design, accommodation
superstructure, equipment design and layout and may induce
vibrations in the hull.
7.4.3. Green water loading is difficult to predict. The rules for ships
incorporate allowances for superstructures, deckhouses and
bulwarks, and also incorporate an allowance within deck design
heads.
7.4.4. Extensive studies have been undertaken to define green water

loading and indicate the likely extent. Primary factors include:
• Hull geometry (Cb);
• Draft to depth ratio;
• Froude number;
• (Longitudinal) position on deck;
• Incident wave length and height;
• Relative motion at bow.

7.4.5. Recent joint-industry work e.g. F(P)SO Green Water Loading, has
investigated the relationships between hull shape, extent of
bulwarks, and resulting wave drift forces and motion responses,
with site specific seas reflecting extreme harsh environmental
conditions.
7.4.6. Appropriate measures should be considered to minimise green

water effects on the structure and critical equipment, including bow
shape design, flare, breakwaters and other protective structure
such as turret housings. Adequate drainage arrangements must
also be provided
7.4.7. It is recommended that provisions are made during the model

testing program for measurement of pressures which can be used
for local structural design.
7.4.8. Recent model test observations indicated horizontal/vertical

pressures in the region of 10 to 35 tonnes/m2.
7.4.9. Particular attention should be given to significant wave height and

period combinations (contours).
7.5. Slamming and Wave Impact
7.5.1. Slamming occurs when wave impact causes an impulsive pressure

effect, which in turn produces a dynamic loading and possible
vibration of the hull, and has often been seen to result in structural
damage.
7.5.2. The most important location to be considered with respect to

slamming is the forward bottom structure, and thus slamming
forces should be taken into account for both hull and turret design.
Other locations on the hull which may be subject to effects of wave
impact include the stern structure, bow flare and bow side, masts,
crane posts, piping etc.
7.5.3. The frequency of occurrence and severity of slamming are

significantly influenced by the following:
• Vessel operating draughts, particularly the minimum
(ballast) draft
• Hull form, particularly bow flare and entry angles
• Site environment
• Heading

• Current or forward speed
7.5.4. Class rules contain minimum requirements relating to draft,

pressure, extent and scantlings. However, it is recommended that
model testing is undertaken in order to provide suitable data on
pressure loading for structural design of units operating in harsh
environments. Care should however be taken to obtain appropriate
mean values and reduce conservatism arising from differences in
vessel conditions, exposure time and structural stiffness.
7.5.5. Again recent joint-industry projects have investigated wave impact

loading and design tools developed.
7.6. Sloshing
7.6.1. Trading tankers are normally operated so that cargo tanks are
typically either full or empty. For a floating production unit, in
general no restrictions are imposed in partial loading of cargo tanks
and some tanks may be partially full most of the time thus requiring
assessment of sloshing effects.
7.6.2. Sloshing is defined as a dynamic magnification of internal

pressures acting on the boundaries of cargo tanks etc. to a level
greater than that obtained from static considerations alone.
Sloshing occurs if the natural periods of the fluid and the vessel are
close to each other.
7.6.3. Major factors involved are:

• Tank dimensions
• Metacentric height (GM)
• Draught
• Natural periods of ship and cargo in roll and pitch modes
• Filling level of tank
7.6.4. The likelihood of sloshing arising from both ship roll and pitch
motion should be investigated. A range of filling levels should be
addressed, for example from 10% to 95% in intervals of 5%.
Estimates can be made of natural periods for the tank fluids and the
ship.

7.6.5. The acceptability of hull components such as transverse and

longitudinal bulkheads, wash bulkheads and deck plating should be
demonstrated. Pressures obtained can be compared with ultimate
strength formulations for the plating and stiffeners. All tanks likely to
be partially filled or filled at a slow rate should be reviewed.
7.6.6. For new build vessels the scantlings of some plating and stiffening
may be required to be increased, in excess of the basic class rule
minimum scantlings, to sustain resultant higher pressures.
7.6.7. Other options such as placing restrictions on filling ranges or

imposing limitations on GM and draught for particular fill levels may
be available depending on vessel operational considerations. A
further solution would be to designate certain tanks for partial filling,
and increase the scantlings of these tanks only.
7.6.8. Sloshing is an important consideration for tanker conversions and

in some cases the fitting of wash bulkheads or other baffling
devices may be necessary together with some limited operational
restrictions.
7.6.9. In the future, double hull tankers designed to the United States’
OPA (1990) may be considered for conversion. In this case,
problems may be encountered if the vessel has not been designed
for partial filling of tanks in a seaway. These tankers generally have
less structure internal to the tank and when combined with the large
tank size is likely to result in significant sloshing effects.
7.6.10.Sloshing analyses demonstrate that high impact pressures may be

experienced at the top of longitudinal and transverse bulkheads,
and on deck plating adjacent to bulkheads. As most vessels will be
surveyed on site, particular attention should be given to these areas
during development of survey and inspection schedules.
7.7. Topside Structure
7.7.1. Topsides structures should meet the general requirements of the

class rules and agreed industry standards. Structural assessment
should cover all loading phases, including loadout, transportation,
lift, and operation. It should be noted that access arrangements and
protection are the owners responsibility, and they should be
designed in accordance with a recognised code or standard.

7.7.2. The following items would normally be identified as safety critical

elements (SCE’s) and require detailed structural assessment:
• Process deck primary elements and support structure
• Skid mounted structures (identified as SCE’s)
• Flare stack
• Crane pedestals
• Helideck
7.7.3. The design of skid structures, should take account of loadings due
to bending of the hull, and vessel hull / skid structure interaction.
The main support members of skid structures are in general
regarded as primary structure. Support plating and stiffening is
regarded as secondary structure.
7.7.4. For tall slender structures such as a flare tower, an appropriate

analysis should be carried out to determine the natural frequency.
A dynamic analysis should also be carried out when any resultant
natural frequencies are in the range of any forcing frequency due to
wind gusting, vessel motions, etc.
7.7.5. Helideck structural design and arrangements should be verified.

The helideck arrangement should be developed paying particular
attention to the following:
• Access arrangements
• Helicopter type specified
• Required deck size for the proposed helicopter
• Markings, lighting, obstruction free zones, windsock,
floodlights etc. to comply with the relevant requirements
Requirements for markings are contained in national regulations.
7.7.6. The structural arrangements and welding details at interfaces and

the hull deck in way of supports should be specially considered.
7.7.7. Structural analysis and design should be carried out and take into
account appropriate loading combinations due to the following:
• Gravity loading
• Dynamic loadings, due to hull motions and accelerations
• Hull deflection
• Wind loading, including vortex shedding
• Snow and ice loading

• Fatigue loading
• Live loads
7.7.8. In addition loading cases accounting for static angles simulating

the vessels inclination in a damaged conditions are to be
considered
7.7.9. The determination of dynamic loads should take account of the long
term distribution of ship motions.
7.8. Accidental Loads and Blast Protection
7.8.1. As part of the verification process, the effects of accidental loadings

on the design of structural elements should be addressed.
7.8.2. Appropriate design loadings include:

• Collision and vessel impact, due to supply boat or shuttle
tanker
• Dropped objects, from deck cranes
• Fire and explosion assessment.
7.8.3. Collision should be considered for all elements of the unit which
may be impacted by sideways, bow or stern collision. The vertical
extent of the collision zone should be based on the depth and
draught of attending vessels and the relative motion between the
attending vessels and the unit.
7.8.4. Minimum impact energy levels and loading combinations are

outlined in class rules and National Authority requirements. The
energy absorbed by the unit during a collision impact will be less
than, or equal to, the total impact kinetic energy, depending on the
relative stiffness of the relevant parts of the unit and the impacting
vessel, and also on the mode of collision and vessel operation.
7.8.5. The accidental impact loads caused by dropped objects from

cranes should be considered when the arrangements are such that
the failure of a vital structural member could result in the local
collapse of the structure.

7.8.6. Critical areas for dropped objects shall be determined on the basis
of the actual movement of crane loads over the unit. Structural
damage resulting from dropped objects should be evaluated taking
into account the nature and size of the likely loads to be lifted
during operations.
7.8.7. Blast overpressure loadings and duration are dependent on a

number of variables, including:
• The stochiometric composition of the explosive mixture;
• The position and quantity of equipment, piping etc, in the
area;
• The venting arrangements, configuration of confining
bulkheads, etc;
• Position of ignition within the area under consideration;
• Dimensions of area where blast is expected to occur etc.
7.8.8. The range of over pressures encountered in respect of hydrocarbon

explosions in offshore oil and gas structures is normally about 0,5
bar but in certain circumstances may reach 2,0 bar or higher.
7.8.9. The structure of a blast wall can be composed of stiffened flat steel
plates or alternatively by rolled or pressed corrugated steel
sections. However it should be demonstrated that the fire insulation
remains effective for the duration of the fire/blast scenario. The
scenario should be defined; e.g. fire followed by blast followed by
fire; or blast followed by fire etc.
7.8.10.Blast resistance requirements shall be addressed concurrently with

fire resistance requirements, taking into account probability of
occurrence, blast safety evaluation, layout and area of importance,
venting system, missile damage and access to escape etc. The
resistance to fire after blast should also be addressed.
7.8.11.The blast resistance system comprises the blast walls, the floor and
ceiling, the cladding and the supporting structure and the venting
arrangements. Details of supporting the blast walls and the
transmission of the blast load into the main structural components
should be taken into account. Effectiveness of connections and the
possible outcome from blast such as flying debris should be
studied.

7.8.12.The resistance of the structure may be based on the ultimate

strength and estimated in terms of collapse pressure, maximum
deformation, maximum ductility ratio, energy absorption or brittle
failure, whichever dominates. Calculations are required to
demonstrate the integrity of the system in accordance with relevant
requirements.
7.9. Local Strength and Structural Details
7.9.1. Design for local strength and structural details including

connections, continuity and alignment, tolerances, closing
arrangement, vents, welding etc. should comply with the class rules
and the requirements of the Coastal Authority and Flag State,
where applicable.
7.9.2. The following areas should be addressed in detail design:

• Proportions of built-up members to comply with
established standards for buckling strength;
• Design of structural details (such as those noted below)
against the effects of stress concentrations and notches:
• Details of the ends/intersections of members and associated
brackets
• Shape and location of air, drainage, and lightening holes
• Shape and reinforcement of slots and cut-outs for internals
• Elimination or closing of weld scallops in way of butts,
“softening” of bracket toes, and reducing abrupt changes of
section or structural discontinuities
• Proportions and thickness of structural members to reduce
fatigue damage due to engine, propeller or wave-induced
cyclic stresses, particularly for higher strength steel
members;
• Thickness of internal structure in locations susceptible to
excessive corrosion;
• Structure supporting the components of the mooring
system such as fairleads, winches, etc. to be designed to
withstand, as a minimum, the stresses corresponding to a
mooring line loaded to its breaking strength;
• Scantling requirements necessary to maintain strength in
way of large openings;
• Deck support structure for process and other equipment,
including the connections to the existing hull frame to

include provisions as necessary to allow for hull

deflections;
• Strength of the unit should be evaluated in the transit
condition. For a unit turret-moored or with a moonpool
well, the plating of the well should be suitably stiffened to
prevent damage in transit. Particular attention should be
given to design in way of structural discontinuities;
• Yoke-moored units and external turrets, finite element
analyses of attachments to the hull should ensure
satisfactory stress distribution of concentrated mooring
reactions into the hull structure.
7.10. Transit and Installation
7.10.1.The effects of transit and installation loadings should be addressed

to avoid excessive stresses or deformations. The unit may
complete the transportation voyage to the installation site under its
own power (if fitted) or by tow.
7.10.2.A transportation assessment should be carried out which includes

determination of the limiting environmental conditions, evaluation of
intact and damage stability, motion response of the global system
and the induced loads. All aspects of the transportation, including
procedures, preparations, seafastenings and marine operations
should comply with the requirements of the appointed Warranty
Surveyor (WS).
7.10.3.The environmental criteria must also be agreed with the appointed

WS and the verification body. For particularly critical operations, it
may be necessary to impose strict environmental limits to achieve
an adequate safety margin. In this case it is normally necessary
that sheltered areas along the route are identified, to be used as a
refuge in case of conditions exceeding the design limits being
encountered.
7.10.4.The occurrence of dynamic fatigue loads, when significant, should

be taken into account.
7.10.5.The installation of the unit consists mainly of the installation of its

station keeping system (the foundation at the seabed and the
mooring element, e.g. chains or articulated tower), and the hook up
of the floating vessel to this system.

7.10.6.Installation of the foundations (drag embedded anchors, piles,

suction anchor or dead weights) should be evaluated from the point
of view of the static and dynamic loading, considering the maximum
metocean conditions expected for the operation. Generally, the
installation operations are carried out in relatively mild weather
conditions, and therefore global loading is not critical. However,
stability and dynamic loading on mooring connections may be
critical to the operation and require consideration.
7.10.7.Analysis is normally carried out to establish the operability and

limiting environmental criteria. The loads induced by the marine
spread involved in the operations and the forces exerted by the
positioning equipment, such as fairleads and padeyes, should be
considered for local strength checks.
7.10.8.In most cases the abandonment or decommissioning operation is

opposite to the sequence of the activities for installation, and similar
considerations apply.
8. Design For Specified Service (summary)
8.1. General
8.1.1. This section summarises some major issues to be addressed

during the hull structural design process.
8.1.2. Reference is also made to section 5.
8.1.3. Reference is made to section 7.2 regarding model testing.
8.2. Structural design
8.2.1. Environmental loads should be based on the long term prediction of

100 year site specific criteria. Loading mechanisms which should
be addressed for the hull design include wave bending and shear
force, rigid body motions and accelerations, and dynamic fluid
pressures.
8.2.2. Wave bending moments and shear forces should be derived from
consideration of 100 year Hs/Tp contour plots. (NB minimum limits
apply)

8.2.3. A full range of operating loading conditions and drafts should be

accounted for. These should also address credible accidental
conditions together with tank inspection and repair cases.
8.2.4. Mooring, riser and topside loadings are to be included.
8.2.5. Individual load components should be combined in a rational

manner.
8.2.6. Corrosion control and fatigue design life should take into account
the specified service, accessibility for inspection and design life.
8.2.7. Construction tolerances and fabrication inspection should also

account for severity of operating environment and long term service
without scheduled dry docking.
8.2.8. Some Local authorities have additional mandatory requirements

regarding hull strength and material margins.
8.2.9. Account must be taken of requirements to facilitate in water survey,

where relevant.
8.2.10.General requirements regarding direct calculations are given in

section 5.5. Acceptance criteria are given in the class rules.
8.2.11.Rational envelopes of still water permissible bending moments and

shear forces should be developed.
9. Fabrication
9.1. General
9.1.1. Construction practices are to comply with class rule requirements

for offshore installations. Some general points are indicated below.
9.1.2. It is recommended that detailed weld procedure specifications, weld

procedures and welder qualifications are established before the
start of construction activities to ensure that acceptable codes and
standards have been specified. It is also recommended that review
of material and fabrication specifications by class specialists should
be carried out at an early stage once the build location is known.

9.1.3. The level of detail and format of the required offshore installation
certification documentation needs to be agreed at an early stage in
the detail design process. For example, it is a common requirement
for piping systems to be divided into Isometric packs complete with
materials, welding, NDE, hydro-test and commissioning data all
assembled
9.1.4. Electrical installation requires special attention to detail, since such

offshore installations are generally more complex than typical
trading tankers and the system ratings are generally higher.
9.1.5. Personnel safety arrangements, such as the requirements for

ladders, stairs, access ways, handrails, ladder hoops etc may be
more stringent under local offshore regulations than under class.
Similarly, painting and non-slip coating of escape routes can also
be more stringent.
9.1.6. Standards of NDE to be applied to the structure will require special

consideration. The NDE levels proposed by the builder and any
fabricators will need to be agreed during the detail design appraisal
process to ensure that sufficient attention is paid to highly stressed
areas.
9.2. General Construction Practices

9.2.1. The class rule requirements for fabrication/construction encompass
the following:
• Welding connection details
• Practices and sequences
• Consumables and equipment
• Procedures
• Workmanship and inspection
• End connection scantlings and details
• Primary member proportions, stiffening and construction
9.2.2. Class rules give requirements for the construction of various

structural configurations /connections, and include:
• Butt welds, including taper requirements and welds in way of
stiffening
• Overlapping plate connections (generally not to be used when
connecting plates will be subjected to high tensile or
compressive loadings)
• Closing plates, weld and slot requirements

• Welding of studs
• Fillet welds, including applicable weld factors and geometric
arrangements
• Primary structure, welds at connections and notches
• Primary and secondary member end connection weld
requirements
• Welding of aluminium alloys
• Welding of tubulars (to comply with agreed international or
national requirements such as AWS or API)
Rule requirements for fabricated steel sections are also given.
9.2.3. Fatigue aspects of welded connections are discussed in detail in

the class rules and construction measures which can be adopted
for increasing fatigue life are also given.
9.2.4. Additional Rule requirements for the structural arrangements and

connections for specific hull components are also given in class
rules and cover:
• Secondary member end connections, including bracket
scantlings
• Primary member geometry, penetrations, end connections and
web stability
• Continuity and alignment
• Arrangements at primary/secondary member intersections
• Penetrations
• Various other attachments to the hull
9.2.5. The rules also have specific requirements for components of the
FPSO system other than the hull which may be applicable on a
case by case basis, including:
• Welded steel machinery structures
• Riser systems
• Drilling Plant Facility
• Process plant facility
• Mooring and Anchoring equipment
• Mooring System components
• Machinery, including engines and pressure vessels

9.3. Welding
9.3.1. Plans of main welded structural connections, including type and
size of weld are to be submitted for approval during detailed design.
Recommended connection details are described in class rules.
9.3.2. Careful consideration is to be given to assembly in order to aid

ventilation, preheating and maximum use of downhand welding.
The sequencing of welding is to take into account shrinkage, joint
preparation and intersections of special and primary members.
Precautions are also to be taken to protect the general and local
weld area from environmental factors. The proposed sequence of
welding is to be agreed with class prior to construction.
9.3.3. All welding consumables/plant and appliances are to be approved

by the class society and are to be suitable for the purpose intended.
Special consideration may be given for welding consumables used
for joints between different steel grades and steels with high carbon
contents.
9.3.4. All aspects of weld procedures are to be agreed with the local class
surveyor, and cover the following aspects:
• Weld process used
• Material type and grade
• Details of joint and edge preparation
• Material thickness
• Welding position
• Details of welding consumables parameters and sequences
• Details of pre-heating and post weld treatments
• Treatment of tack welds
• Applicable codes of practice
9.3.5. Welding procedure tests are to be carried out in order to ensure

that the material and methods proposed will produce adequate
welds for the intended application. Test pieces are to be prepared
in each welding position which may be encountered. After
completion of welding, which may include post weld heat treatment
they are to be subjected to non-destructive and destructive
examinations as required by the class rules.

9.3.6. Generally impact test are required where the materials being
welded are impact tested. The location, orientation and test
requirements are to be in accordance with class rules.
9.3.7. Welders and welding machine operators are to be qualified in

accordance with class rules or a recognised code of practice which
meets class requirements.
9.4. Non-Destructive inspection (NDE)

9.4.1. Class rule requirements specify the extent of NDE required,
including both volumetric and magnetic particle checks. However,
these are the minimum required inspection levels, and where weld
defects are repeatedly observed further examination will be
required.
9.4.2. Acceptable levels of weld defects should be agreed with class prior
to fabrication, general requirements are given in the class rules.
9.5. Fabrication Tolerances

9.5.1. Fabrication tolerances in general should be in accordance with
good practice and agreed with the class society before fabrication is
commenced. Tolerances are to comply with an appropriate standard.
9.6. Fatigue Sensitive Areas

9.6.1. Special consideration may be required for fatigue sensitive areas,
and for such areas weld defect acceptance levels and fabrication
tolerances should be agreed with class. Enhanced NDE levels will be
necessary for identified fatigue sensitive areas.
9.6.2. It should be ensured that the assumptions used in fatigue

assessments are consistent with construction tolerances.
10. Survey
10.1. General
10.1.1.It is a requirement of classification (and of most Verification and

Certification Regulations) that offshore installations are subject to
periodic surveys during service. For classification, these surveys
take the form of annual, intermediate, docking or in-water surveys

and special surveys undertaken over a period of five years. At the

request of the owner the special survey may be carried out on a
continuous basis.
10.1.2.For Certification or Verification periodical survey, different intervals

may apply and the use of risk-based techniques to establish which
items must be inspected at specified intervals is common.
10.1.3.As indicated earlier a risk based methodology for scheduling of

maintenance activities and periodic survey inspections is also
available to the owner, subject to compliance with class
requirements.
10.1.4.For an offshore installation a planned survey procedure is to be

submitted for approval. This planned survey procedure is to
incorporate all the survey requirements related directly to the
inspection of the hull structure, mooring system and facilities for
annual, intermediate, docking or in-water and special surveys.
10.1.5.Where it is not practical to dry-dock these units for routine surveys,

a programme of In-Water Surveys (IWS) would be agreed to allow
inspections to be carried out on location. The IWS should provide,
so far as practicable, the information normally obtained from dry-
docking. The vessel may remain on station without dry-docking
provided the IWS confirms that the vessel’s condition remains
satisfactory. Special consideration should be given during design to
ensure that the facilities provided will enable in-water surveys to be
undertaken in a safe and effective manner.
10.1.6.Machinery survey requirements are also given in the rules.

All machinery surveys are dealt with either on continuous survey
machinery basis or on an engine special survey basis both with 5
year cycles.
11. Some In service Incidents
11.1. General
11.1.1.In common with other marine structures these installations have

experienced a number of in service problems. Statistically such
incidents are likely to relate to each major component of the
installation and seriousness of the occurrence.

11.1.2.A considerable amount of information is published in a generalised

form by regulatory bodies.
11.1.3.Some general information is also available from class survey

records
11.1.4.Some examples are indicated in the powerpoint slide show.
11.2. Interfaces
11.2.1.Interfaces between the various design and fabrication contractors

are an area of primary concern, particularly when these occur
between classed marine and certified topsides facilities. It is
essential that the project team recognise the importance of effective
management and control of all such interfaces and an appropriate
system should be used to facilitate this.
11.2.2.Design, inspection and testing requirements could all be affected

and there may be an impact on procured equipment: for instance, it
is possible that classification rule requirements will apply to certain
topsides systems (such as when an Integrated control and
shutdown system is purchased as part of the topsides facilities).
Whether or not classification is a requirement it is strongly
recommended that all such issues are identified and solutions
agreed as far as possible during the initial phases of the project, at
least during the class review of the project Design Specifications.
11.2.3.Risk-based solutions to interface design problems may be accepted

by class as far as the applicable rules and regulations allow, but
relevant justification will be required. Throughout a project, as far
as is possible within our responsibilities, LR commonly assists in
the identification and management of interfaces and will highlight
any matters where problems may develop.
11.2.4.Identification of interfaces would be project specific but typically for

an FPSO installation, the main sub-assemblies of an installation
would include:
• Hull – Tanks, cargo containment, machinery spaces,
accommodation, helideck, cargo offloading.
• Process/topside – PAUs, flare, cranes, metering, subsea
controls.
• Mooring system – anchoring system, fluid piping manifolds
and controls, supporting structures.

• Subsea system – risers, PLEM, subsea pipelines and

wellheads.
11.2.5.Common interface issues, which have arisen in past projects

and which will require careful consideration during the formal
class procedure for such an installation are indicated below.
• Hull/Topsides. Topsides support structures interface at main
deck cruciform connections; agreed loads should include all
dynamic effects (including hull deformation), configuration
and material selection for through thickness properties.
• Hull/Topsides. Alignment of stools and foundations for

topside structure (including cranes, flare tower, offloading
station etc.) and hull supporting structure.
• Hull/Systems/Moorings. Interaction of hull structure/systems

and mooring integration structure/systems including effects
of loading, motions and deformations.
• Hull/Topsides. Escape and access routes from topsides for

compatibility and suitability for a marine vessel, including
physical configuration of ladders, handrails, etc.
• Hull/Topsides. Any electrical equipment which has to remain

operational under potentially catastrophic (high level ESD)
conditions has to be of a safe type certified suitable for use
in a hazardous area.
• Hull/Topsides. Cargo tank venting requirements due to

proximity of process hazards (separate system required from
process vent system). Also venting/isolation arrangements
for tank entry for periodic inspections, to prevent accidental
ingress of inert gas or hydrocarbon vapour, particularly
where a common vent and IGS system is used.
• Hull/Topsides. Bunding/prevention of spillage to main deck.
• Hull/Systems. Piping systems on main deck and on process

units; allowance needs to be made for expansion and hull
hogging and sagging deflections (option of expansion loops
or flexible couplings which are a potential leak source).

• Hull/Topsides. Structures and systems may need to be

designed for green seas impact where this is an identified
hazard for the location of the vessel.
• Hull/Topsides. Integration of fire fighting systems - materials

of construction, configuration and capacities.
• Hull/Topside systems. Integration of control and power

supply systems: any power supplies and control systems for
essential marine systems, such as bilge, ballast, firefighting,
emergency power, etc., will need to comply with class rule
requirements.
• Hull/Topside systems. Physical interfaces between marine

and topsides piping systems (e.g. Fire fighting, utilities,
cargo transfer and offloading): the class rules include piping
classification, design, materials and NDT requirements,
which can differ from ASME B31.3 etc. It is important to
agree the governing standard and code break, but generally
ASME B31.3 is most onerous. Care will also be needed in
material selection for systems which link to marine systems
for material compatibility (cathodic protection, etc), especially
if mechanical couplings are to be used - particular care and
consideration of any GRP materials used is needed.
• Hull/Topside systems. Electrical design and installation:

there are variations between class and industry practise, but
the latter tends to be more onerous - the effect of vessel
deflections on cable runs should be considered.
• Hull/Topside Safety. All safety aspects will be influenced by

Statutory and Risk Analysis factors. However, regardless of
Risk Analysis results, concessions to the Regulations can
only be granted by the National Authority. As a minimum the
arrangement and separation of living quarters, storage tanks
and machinery rooms, should be in accordance with the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974
(as amended) Regulations.
• Hull/Topside Safety. As a basic principle the design should

adopt where possible aspects of inherent safety in order to
prevent occurrence of hazards. Factors to be addressed
include:

-Adequate separation/segregation of hydrocarbon

inventories.
-Reducing the level of confinement in a hazardous area.
-Minimising the size of hydrocarbon inventories available for
escalation.
-Suitable location or protection of essential systems and
equipment.
-Use of passive systems, i.e. fire and/or blast walls and PFP,
including protection against spills.
-Use of active protection systems, i.e. fire fighting ESD,
PSD.
• Hull/Topside Lifesaving equipment. Requirements for such

Installations have not been addressed, to date, at IMO;
consequently various Flag Administrations have different
requirements. Generally, compliance with the 1989 MODU
Code and/or SOLAS 74, as amended, as applicable and
appropriate, is required.
Additionally some National Authorities have requirements for

such installations operating in their territorial waters, further
to those required by the Flag State with which the installation
is registered.
• Hull/Risers. Riser systems are not normally classed

(although the rules contain provisions for this). Such
systems are more likely to be certified in accordance with
appropriate industry codes and standards. It is important to
note that the positional moorings and risers may be
designed as an integral system and account must be taken
of interactions and potential clashing. It is also important to
ensure that full account is taken in design of hull/riser
motions and loading interactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jeff Baker

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Jeff Baker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FPSO Hull Structure, Design and Survey

FPSO Hull Structure, Design and Survey

Note: These outline notes are intended to compliment the

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

encountered during the many stages of asset development from

decommissioning and abandonment. LR continues to develop a

1.3. LR has extensive experience of all types of offshore installation, both

1.4. LR was a founder member of the International Association of

1.5. LR is recognised as a Certifying or Verifying Authority by national

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

• System Integrity and Risk Management.

1.7. A summary of LR experience with recent FPSO installations is

2. New Build and Conversion

2.2. New Build

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

requirements for continuous long term operation at specified

2.2.2. Experience gained regarding fatigue performance of structural

2.3.2. The overall arrangement of a conversion candidate vessel must

2.3.4. The selection of suitable tankers will also be based on historical

This information should be reviewed in conjunction with the design,

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

2.3.5. An FPSO conversion should generally comply with the latest

This particularly applies in the areas of personnel safety and

Deviations between specific rules and standards in effect at the

2.3.6. It is important that the requirements of the appropriate National

2.3.8. Structural strength and fatigue evaluation are major issues to be

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

2.3.9. Modern newly built tankers may already be structurally compatible

2.3.10.The main technical issues which must be addressed by the project

3. Rules and Regulations

3.1.1. To operate within the territorial waters of most countries, a floating

3.1.2. In some territorial waters, generally where a mature regulatory

3.1.3. Classification can also assist in fulfilling the requirements of safety

3.1.4. An overview of regulatory aspects is outlined in the powerpoint slide

3.2. Coastal State Authority Regulations (certification)

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

3.2.1. Unlike seagoing ships, installations intended for operation at a fixed

3.2.2. Approval is based on compliance with the National Administration

By virtue of their worldwide organisation and the absence of

3.2.3. Most National Administration’s certification requirements do not

3.2.4. In offshore waters where no national requirements are applicable,

3.2.5. Some production installations are designed to disconnect from their

3.3.1. Many National Authorities now encompass the requirement for a

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

the statutory requirements for offshore installations sited in

3.3.2. Verification regulations are based on the identification of elements

3.3.4. Classification is effectively a Performance Standard and thus fulfils

3.3.5. Where there are no national verification requirements,

3.4. Flag State Requirements

3.4.1. Classification Rules and Regulations do not, in general, cover such

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

pollution prevention arrangements and structural fire protection,

The handling of these aspects is the prerogative of the National

3.4.2. If the installation is to be classed and not flagged, agreement on the

3.5.1. Classification is primarily concerned with the integrity and safety of

3.5.2. Classification may be regarded as the development and world-wide

Course Title: FPSO Training Course

• The safety and reliability of the moorings, propulsion and

3.5.3. Formal classification is issued following appraisal of all relevant

3.5.4. Class is maintained in service by way of periodical visits by its

3.6. Classification Rules

3.6.2. The basic LR Class Notation would cover:

Course Title: FPSO Training Course