MARIN Seminar 04oct2016 v2

HiLoad LNG Parallel
Loading System
Erwan AUBURTIN – Naval Architect

Houston, 4th October 2016
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Presentation of HiLoad Parallel Loading System
3. Validation step 1: time-domain simulations
4. Validation step 2: Full Mission Bridge Simulator
1. Overview
2. Normal operations
3. Emergency events
4. Alternative: use of LNGC rudder
5. Conclusions
2 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

Introduction

Introduction
Technip France – recent projects for Naval Architecture dept.
 Floating units
 Prelude FLNG
 Floatover
 HRD
 FMB
 Modules transport & installation

 Yamal LNG

Introduction
Other expertise related to FLNG
 Green water and slamming

 SPH method coupled with
non-linear potential solver
 Validated with wave basin
tests
 Wind loads CFD calculation

 Validation with wind tunnel
tests
 Validation of the porosity
levels to be applied by
comparison with detailed
model (3D-printed)
 Isolated module and complete
FPSO

Presentation of HiLoad Parallel
Loading System

FLNG offloading state of the art
Side-by-side or tandem offloading…
Tandem

Side-by-side offloading
 All current FLNG projects under realization adopt side-by-side

offloading of LNG into unmodified LNG carriers using marine
loading arms
 Side-by-side offloading with articulated arms is an appropriate

method in calm/mild environments
 For FLNG projects with persistent severe environments a
different method is required

Tandem offloading
 Tandem solutions proposed by the industry are designed to operate

in harsh environments
 Stern-to-bow offloading systems do require a dedicated fleet of LNGC
with Bow Loading Systems and, if required, DP systems

Tandem offloading
 Stern-to-midship manifold systems do require the use of long length
LNG flexible hoses
 The LNG carrier midship manifold cannot sustain the loads imposed
by high diameter LNG floating hoses
 No existing qualified floating flexible hose technology

Side-by-side Tandem HiLoad LNG Tandem
Midship loading Bow loading Midship loading
LNGC Fleet Conventional Dedicated Conventional

(no DP, midship manifold) (w/ or w/o DP, Bow Loading System) (w/o DP, midship manifold)
Waves/
Operability Up to Hs 2.5 m Up to Hs 5.5 m Up to Hs ≥ 4 m
Separation distance
(Collision & Process upset) Close vicinity Large Large
LNG Transfer
Length/Efficiency ≈ 30 m ≈ 150 m ≈ 350 m
MLA Aerial flexible pipe Floating flexible pipe

LNG Transfer Technology
Qualified Qualified Under qualification
Current side-by-side and tandem offloading

systems do not satisfy all wishes…

HiLoad LNG Parallel Loading System (PLS)
A smart solution meeting expectations
HiLoad LNG PLS
Midship loading
LNGC Fleet Conventional

(w/o DP, midship manifold)
Waves/
Operability At least Hs 4 m
Separation distance
(Collision & Process Large
upset)
LNG Transfer
Length/Efficiency ≈ 100 m
LNG Transfer Aerial flexible pipe & MLA

Technology Qualified

HiLoad LNG PLS – Layout

HiLoad LNG PLS – Layout
DP2 FLNG Support Vessel

w/ Constant Tension Winch
~40 tons pull
LNG Loading Arms

No relative motion
DP2 Station Keeping of

Reels LNG Carrier by HiLoad LNG
150 tons bollard pull
3 x 18” LNG Aerial flexible Pipes
FLNG w/ Heading Control Conventional LNG Carrier

No modification required
Proven or qualified technologies
DP station keeping – HiLoad DP
HiLoad DP No 1 Friction Attachment System
Field Operations in Brazil 100 + Successfully Operations Completed

DP station keeping – HiLoad DP
 4 x 2800 kW diesel engines

(CAT C175/60, MTU 20V4000P83, or
similar)
 Diesel electric propulsion
 4 x 2300 kW azimuth thrusters (4 x 50%)
Compact Azipod or mechanical thruster

DP station keeping – FLNG Support Vessel
FLNG Support Vessel:

 40 tons pull from Constant Tension Winch
 Typ 120 tons bollard pull
 DP2 – high redundancy

LNG transfer – Marine Loading Arms
 3 x 16” identical LNG Loading Arms
 Standard design – Available from
several suppliers
 No relative motion – Short arms
 Interchangeable – Redundancy Typical LNG Carrier Manifold
 Emergency Release Couplers

LNG transfer – Amplitude-LNG Loading System
Ship Connection
 Connection System – Connectis manifold winch
Guiding
devices
QC/DC
Emergency
Release
System
LNG Flexible Pipe
Flexible pipe
Connection System
Connectis
© Gaz de France – Direction de la Recherche
Emergency Release System based on two field proven high performance

butterfly valves by KSB Amri, double offset disc, metal to metal seat, fire
safe, long tightness life and strong autoclave characteristics.

 LNG Flexible Pipe Mk1
LNG Flexible Pipe
Connection System
Connectis
© Gaz de France – Direction de la Recherche

 LNG flexible pipe Mk 1 qualified according to

EN 1474-2 & Type Approval Certificate by
Bureau Veritas
 Connection system Connectis qualification
based on EN 1474-1 requirements & Type
Approval Certificate by Bureau Veritas
 ALLS Fitness for Service by DNV
Strength & cryogenic test rig
Fatigue bending tests under pressure up to MBR:

 1,000,000 cycles at -160 °C.
 1,000,000 cycles at ambient temperature.
 With and without induced torsion. Guiding & alignment test rig

 Pilot unit installed on the GDF SUEZ LNG
import terminal of Montoir-de-Bretagne
 Full scale dynamic test bench to
reproduce waves up to Hs = 5.5 m
 Connection/disconnection tests: static
and dynamic conditions, with and without
torsion in the flexible pipe
Flexible pipe length 50 m, I.D. 16”

Maximum vertical offsets ±6.5 m
Vertical accelerations up to 4 m/s²
 Qualification of operating modes with
LNG (cooling down, ramp up/down, purge,
inerting, storage...)
 Operations of the system performed by GDF
SUEZ operators
 Risk analysis, HAZOP, HAZID
 LNG circulation up to 3000 m3/h during a
commercial unloading of the LNG carrier
Edouard L.D.
 Emergency disconnection tests: static and
dynamic conditions, with and without LNG

HiLoad LNG PLS feasibility study outcomes
 Relevance of the selected
arrangement documented by HAZID
method and involving:
 Technip experts: HSE Design, Piping
Layout, Naval, LNG offloading,
Process
 HiLoad LNG, Teekay & Kongsberg
experts
 Requirement for station keeping
validation studies
 Safe emergency departure
procedure documented by time
domain analysis of failure scenarios
(DP black-out and hawser failure)
and squall events
Next steps:
● Time-domain simulations
● Bridge simulations
Station keeping philosophy
FLNG Support Vessel

~ 40 ton pull by “Constant Tension Winch”
Typical Operational Envelope for the FLNG Support Vessel

To follow instruction from Mooring Master
DP Set-point
(at center LNG Flexible)
Green Normal Operation Green Sector: 20 m x 37 m
Yellow ESD1: stop LNG transfer and close valves
25
Red
Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization
ESD2: disconnect the LNG flexible pipes and prepare to move LNGC away from the FLNG
Validation step 1: time-domain
simulations

Validation step 1: time-domain simulations
Configuration alternatives
 Alternative 1: HiLoad LNG + Tug for

Heading Control of the LNGC
 Alternative 2: HiLoad DPS (DP

Positioning Control) + HiLoad FTS
(Fluid Transfer System + Propulsion)

Steady
environmental
conditions
 2 wave partitions
 Wind & current
 Hstotal = 4 m

Dynamic environmental conditions
Wind Sea Swell Initial Wind Current

Env. Gamm
Hs Tp Hdg Hs Tp Sigma Hdg Speed Hdg Speed Hdg
# a
[m] [s] [-] [deg] [m] [s] [-] [deg] [m/s] [deg] [m/s] [deg]
1 0.5 6.0 1 0 0.0 - - - 0.46* 0 0.25 0
2 3.5 8.5 1 0 2.0 14.0 0.015 0 12.6 0 0.6 0
3 3.5 8.5 1 0 2.0 14.0 0.015 0 12.6 0 0.6 0
Environment No. 1: Environment No. 2:

Squall wind Constant speed, direction
(speed normalized with 20m/s) shifting 180° clockwise
within 45 min
Environment No. 3:
Constant speed, direction
shifting 180° counterclockwise
within 45 min

Station keeping philosophy
FLNG
ESD2 when parallel to FLNG
5o
ESD1
5o
ESD1

Change of FLNG Heading
20o
107 m
(FLNG)
90o
120 m
(HiLoad)
90 m
(FLNG Support Vessel)

aNySIM
 MARIN’s multi-body time domain simulation tool

 Different modules:
 Time domain integration of equation of motion
 Wave forces (1st and 2nd order)
 Current forces
 Wind forces
 Fenders
 Lines
 Anchor lines (quasi static and dynamic)
 Thrusters and rudders
 Kalman filter
 DP controllers
DP controller
 aNySIM built-in DP control system taking into account:

 Kalman Filtering
 Wind feed forward
 Target heading: “optimal heading” with environment forces pushing 10 tons
towards LNGC starboard
 Horizontal loads from flexible hoses

Results – Steady environments – Alternative 1
System remains in green sector (position & heading)

Most challenging environments are No.3 and No.5
Results – Steady environments – Alternative 2
Larger thrust requirement due to more moderate “arm”

between HiLoad vessels
Results – Changing environments – Alternative 1
OK with environments No. 1 & 2 (moderate wind)

Results – Changing environments – Alternative 1
 Dynamic environment No. 1 (squall wind)

 Wind rotates 135° to the left inducing beam-on conditions during peak speed
→ Without proper action, thrusters are overloaded resulting in loss of position
 A solution is found with preventive tug action to have peak wind in stern-on
condition
Bridge simulations recommended for the detail procedure of

how to operate the LNGC and tug during squalls
Black-out cases
 Alternative 1:
 Black-out of HiLoad at T = 0s with normal operation of FLNG support
tug
 Black-out of FLNG support tug at T=0s with normal operation of
HiLoad
 Alternative 2:
 Black-out of HiLoad FTS with normal operation of HiLoad DPS
 Black-out of HiLoad DPS with normal operation of HiLoad FTS
 Flexibles are disconnected after 20 seconds of the black-out
Simulations showed risk of collision is low

Conclusions
 40-ton constant tension from tug is recommended, with 150 m hawser

 Use of “optimal heading” to have 10 tons lateral resultant forces to
push LNGC away from FLNG in case of HiLoad black-out
 Motions remain within green envelope for all steady environments
 Pro-active tug action was required for dynamic environment No. 1
 Black-out scenarios show low risks of collision
Good station keeping is achieved, but further validation with

bridge simulations is recommended

Validation step 2: Full Mission
Bridge Simulator

Overview

Validation step 2: Full Mission Bridge Simulator
Overview
 September 17 2015 in Wageningen, Netherlands

 Simulation session to demonstrate the HiLoad LNG PLS in various
challenging scenarios
 Demonstration hosted by Technip in cooperation with HiLoad LNG
AS and witnessed by representatives of oil and energy companies
 Some features of MARIN’s Full Mission Bridge Simulator:
 Complex realistic simulation environments
 Based on in-house-developed software
 Six-degrees-of-freedom models
 Wind, waves and current
 Based on previous model tests

Overview of the set-up
HiLoad bridge
LNGC bridge Tug bridge

DP control system
 HiLoad is equipped with a Kongsberg Maritime DP2 System

 Automatic or manual joystick control
 Kongsberg DP system was connected to the MARIN simulator network
(interface following the NMEA standards)
 The DP system receives the following sensor information:
 Position reference systems: 2 DGPS and Artemis
 Gyro compasses, used for heading and position calculations
 Wind sensors, used for correction of wind forces on vessel
 Vertical Reference Sensor, used for pitch / roll / heave correction
 Two draught sensors
 Hawser load (manual input)
 Hose load input
 The functionality of the DP system is identical to the onboard system on the

vessel HiLoad DP No. 1 (owned by Teekay)

Normal operations

Bridge simulation – Approach

Bridge simulation – DP station keeping

Bridge simulation – Rotate environment

Bridge simulation – Rotate environment
 Rotate FLNG
 Follow w/ HiLoad/LNGC

Emergency events

Safety barriers – Emergency escape
Technip Generic FLNG: Loa = 395.6 m, B = 65.0 m

Emergency Quick Release of
LNG Flexible Pipes within 8 seconds Safety barriers in case of emergency escape:
A HiLoad thrusters, 150 ton instant bollard pull in any direction
B Environment
= Sum of Wind, Wave and Current B LNGC engine in standby
A C AFT FLNG thrusters
D LNGC bow thruster (if any)
D E FLNG Support Vessel
HiLoad LNG PLS is a Fail Safe solution E

Bridge simulation – Black-out of HiLoad
T value given below is time in seconds after black-out.
• t0 = Blackout of HiLoad
• t10 = Initiate Emergency Release of LNG Flexible Pipes
• t17 = LNG Flexible Pipes released
• t20 = Start moving/rotating FLNG Support Vessel to STB
• t120 = LNGC full astern
• txx = Release 40 ton pull from Tug

Bridge simulation – Hawser breakage
(or black-out of FLNG Support Vessel)
T value given below is time in seconds after black-out.
t0 = Hawser breakage (or blackout of FLNG Support Vessel)

t10 = Initiate Emergency Release of LNG Flexible Pipes
t17 = LNG Flexible Pipes released
t20 = HiLoad to provide 150 ton pull 45o AFT STB on LNGC
t120 = LNGC full astern

Bridge simulation – Squall

Alternative: use of LNGC rudder

Alternative: use of LNGC rudder
 Alternative methods for heading control (w/o tug) were tested

successfully in the bridge simulator:
 Use of LNGC Rudder and Main Engine in constant “Dead Slow
Ahead” (LNGC Bow Thruster in back-up)
 Use of LNGC Bow Thruster (Rudder in back-up)
 Use of rudder + engine seems very promising in harsh conditions
Most LNGC can be used without modification
 Use of bow thruster is less promising, but could be more efficient
Note that some LNGC might not be equipped with bow thrusters

Conclusions

Conclusions
Validation of HiLoad Parallel Loading System
 Successful two-step validation of the PLS:

 Checked with time-domain simulations
 Confirmed with Full Mission Bridge Simulator
 Technip and HiLoad LNG AS now consider the PLS to be “project ready”
based on qualifications, studies and simulations carried to date
 Advantages:
 LNG loading of conventional/unmodified LNG carriers
 High operability (up to at least Hs = 4 m)
 Safe separation between units providing protection against risk of collision &
process upsets
 Minimized LNG transfer lines length (→ minimized pressure drop/BoG)
 Use of proven or qualified technologies

Thank you
www.technip.com

MARIN Seminar 04oct2016 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARIN Seminar 04oct2016 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HiLoad LNG Parallel

Erwan AUBURTIN – Naval Architect

2. Presentation of HiLoad Parallel Loading System

3. Validation step 1: time-domain simulations

4. Validation step 2: Full Mission Bridge Simulator

4. Alternative: use of LNGC rudder

2 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

3 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 Modules transport & installation

4 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 Green water and slamming

 Wind loads CFD calculation

5 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

6 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

7 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 All current FLNG projects under realization adopt side-by-side

 Side-by-side offloading with articulated arms is an appropriate

8 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 Tandem solutions proposed by the industry are designed to operate

9 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

10 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

LNGC Fleet Conventional Dedicated Conventional

MLA Aerial flexible pipe Floating flexible pipe

Current side-by-side and tandem offloading

11 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

LNGC Fleet Conventional

LNG Transfer Aerial flexible pipe & MLA

12 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

13 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

DP2 FLNG Support Vessel

LNG Loading Arms

DP2 Station Keeping of

3 x 18” LNG Aerial flexible Pipes

FLNG w/ Heading Control Conventional LNG Carrier

15 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 4 x 2800 kW diesel engines

16 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

FLNG Support Vessel:

17 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 Emergency Release Couplers

18 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

© Gaz de France – Direction de la Recherche

Emergency Release System based on two field proven high performance

19 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 LNG Flexible Pipe Mk1

LNG Flexible Pipe

© Gaz de France – Direction de la Recherche

20 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 LNG flexible pipe Mk 1 qualified according to

Fatigue bending tests under pressure up to MBR:

21 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

Flexible pipe length 50 m, I.D. 16”

23 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

FLNG Support Vessel

Typical Operational Envelope for the FLNG Support Vessel

Green Normal Operation Green Sector: 20 m x 37 m

Yellow ESD1: stop LNG transfer and close valves

26 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

 Alternative 1: HiLoad LNG + Tug for

 Alternative 2: HiLoad DPS (DP

27 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

28 Confidential – Property of TECHNIP – Do not disclose without authorization

Wind Sea Swell Initial Wind Current

Environment No. 1: Environment No. 2: