671 views

Uploaded by sun6968

- ABS Rules & Guides.pdf
- Parque Das Conchas - Special Edition
- Sesam Hydrodynamics Training Oct 2012
- FPSO
- FPSO Guidance Notes
- API RP2A.
- Turret Operations in North Sea Statoil and Akersolution
- Workhorse of the Fleet
- Guide for Building and Classing High Speed Craft
- Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations
- What is machine design.ppt
- Brochure IntecSea Marine Risers
- Finding Petroleum
- assetintegrityassessmentfpsopresadsapacomae0716rev0-160719030741.pptx
- MODU_Part_6_e-Jan17
- fibre optic cable fatigue and stress analysis.pdf
- Kolkata Metro
- mim-gn-e-july18
- tig dressing.pdf
- Failure Mechanisms of Automotive Metallic All

You are on page 1of 12

OMAE Specialty Symposium on FPSO Integrity

Houston, USA 2004

FPSO FATIGUE AND STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

American Bureau of Shipping American Bureau of Shipping

16855 Northchase Drive 16855 Northchase Drive

Houston, TX 77060, USA Houston, TX 77060, USA

evalenzuela@eagle.org jwu@eagle.org

American Bureau of Shipping American Bureau of Shipping

16855 Northchase Drive 16855 Northchase Drive

Houston, TX 77060, USA Houston, TX 77060, USA

hsun@eagle.org tliu@eagle.org

Presented at the FPSO Workshop, OMAE Specialty Symposium on FPSO Integrity (OMAE-FPSO 2004)

and published in the Proceedings of OMAE-FPSO 2004, Houston, Texas, August 30 - September 2, 2004

Reprinted with the kind permission of American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY

ABS Guide for Buckling and Ultimate Strength

SafeHull (SH) is a system that comprises Rules and Assessment of Offshore Structures [4] applied to FPSOs

software programs, as depicted in Figure 1. The ABS and makes comparison with the ABS Rules for Building

Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production and Classing Steel Vessels [3], which uses the net scantling

Installations [2] (herein after called ABS FPI Guide) and concept to determine buckling of structural members.

the associated SH-FPSO software system have been in

INTRODUCTION

use for over 3 years in the design classification of FPSO

new builds and conversion from existing tankers. This ABS introduced the SH criteria for new construction

paper provides information about the new FPI Rule tankers in 1993 and formalized into Rules in 1995. The

change (April 2004) regarding the classification process next step was to extend this technology to tanker

of FPSO conversions as an ongoing effort to address the conversions already in service. ABS uses the Site-

needs of clients. It highlights the impact of the changes Specific Environment Assessment System (SEAS), which

on the two typical conversion processes – the basic is based on the Environmental Severity Factors (ESFs)

Ordinary Conversion and the optional SH (CS) concept in 1997. The main function of SEAS is to assess

Conversion. The paper focuses on the new requirements the remaining fatigue life of the hull structures, taking

for fatigue assessment, i.e., the Environmental Severity into account the site-specific environment and the fatigue

Factors (ESF), and strength including loading cases that damage accumulated during the trading history. Based on

apply to SH phase A and B as a requirement for the experience gained from actual conversions and further

structural review process, which is carried out by the research, this ESFs approach was refined in 1999 and

classification society. Class requires not only the SEAS was made part of the SafeHull FPSO design

certification of the project but also future surveys of the criteria and analysis system, which was introduced to the

vessel. FPSOs are also considered offshore structures, industry in 2000. New design criteria introduced in 2004

ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment 81

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

have been published in the latest version of the ABS FPI panels and compares the results to the one obtained using

Guide. the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels.

The concept and details of ABS ESFs approach for

extending the SafeHull tanker design rules can be found PHASE A AND PHASE B REVIEW

in papers by Zhao et. al.[8,9] Basically, the ESFs are a The SafeHull Phase A criteria contains SafeHull

measure of severity of route-specific or site-specific wave loads, global and local scantling requirements. The

environment relative to the unrestricted service wave scantling review includes strength evaluation for site-

environment, which is the North Atlantic environment. specific environment and fatigue assessment taking into

Two sets of ESFs are derived for the FPSO fatigue and account previous trading history as a tanker. SH/FPSO

hull strength design. The α–factors are used to adjust Phase B is a verification of the initial scantlings through a

spectral fatigue strength performance between total strength finite element stress analysis for a set of

unrestricted ocean going tankers and the long-tern site standard load cases with defined SafeHull loads. This

environment. The β–factors are used primarily to adjust FEM strength analysis is only required for classification

the dynamic component of loads that are used to assess for FPSO seeking SH(CS) notation or new build. The

the hull strength and fatigue capacity of connection detailed Phase A and Phase B review procedures are

details. Therefore, the base for both factors is the described by Tam et. al.[6]

unrestricted service, which uses equal probability to

account for the heading effect. The new enhancements FATIGUE ASSESSMENT ENHANCEMENTS

introduced in the FPI Guide make now a distinction Fatigue is one of the important elements in the

between spread moored and turret moored FPSOs to classification of the FPSO hull structure, and it is even

better account now for the wave heading effects. more so for FPSO vessels converted from existing

tankers. For FPSO conversions, the estimated remaining

fatigue lives of welded joints and critical structural details

must be accurately assessed, especially for areas where

The SafeHull System

Consist of Rules & high strength steel is used. The minimum acceptable

Software Programs target life for converted FPSO is the greatest of the on-

site design life of the FPSO, the time to the next Special

Survey, or five years.

Rules

Tankers The Definition of Environmental Severity Factor

Rule for Building SafeHull Phase A

and Classing Steel

Bulk Carriers

Container Ships

SafeHull Phase B (ESF) α Factors in SEAS

Vessels - 2004

FPSOs

The first step in the SH/FPSO Phase A review is to

Floating Production

Installation (FPI) - 2000

establish the ESFs for the route, transit and site

Supplement 2 -2003 environments. With the trading route history data and the

Supplement 3 - 2004

FPSO site environment inputted, the SEAS program

Spectral-Based Fatigue

SEAS

Version 9 - 2003

module is executed to determine the α factors for fatigue

Analysis for Floating Version 10 -2004 damage.

Production, Storage and

Offloading (FPSO) The general concept of this type of ESF is to

Systems - 2002

compare fatigue damage resulting from different

SafeHull FEA Guidance

environmental conditions. The alpha type ESFs are

for Hull Structures

Global 3D Analysis

obtained for six regions of the hull structure. This set of

(Draft - 2004) six structural locations with related alpha factors is

compared with the base case for each environment. The

six structural locations are:

The SafeHull criteria are a written set of equations or • Longitudinal on bottom plate.

requirements published in the ABS Rules and Guides. • Longitudinal on side shell.

The software programs are tools that facilitate the use of • Longitudinal on longitudinal bulkhead.

the Rule requirements, which may not reflect all the • Longitudinal on inner bottom.

requirements covered by the Rule. When applying the • Longitudinal on centerline bulkhead.

SH criteria, it is understood that the design approval is

not limited to the execution of the SafeHull software. The ESF α factor is defined in SEAS as:

Often this misconception of some designers needs to be

clarified. DU

This paper also illustrates the application of the ABS α= (1)

DS

Guide for Buckling and Ultimate Strength Assessment of

Offshore Structures to determine the buckling of stiffened

where

82 ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

DU = fatigue damage based on the base environment for environments. The fatigue life values calculated for Site

the hull structural regions, which is also called ABS and Unrestricted Service environments are consistent

base-1, and corresponds to the North Atlantic with the vessel headings. This means that for any

environment. structural detail, if head sea is used for Site, the same

DS = fatigue damage based on the considered heading is also used for Unrestricted Service.

environment of historical routes, historical sites or Comparison between alpha factors obtained from

intended site, for the hull structural regions. current SEAS approach and new approach is shown in

Figure 2.

New SEAS Spectral Fatigue Approach

SN F2 curve was used in this study. The environment

The SafeHull simplified fatigue approach had been for this study is a bimodal sea state with Bretschneider

calibrated with tanker fatigue data. In order to take spectrum for local wind generated waves and JONSWAP

advantage of this proven approach and to utilize the spectrum for swells. The cosine4 wave spreading is used

spectral fatigue analysis, a combined approach is used to for swell, and cosine2 spreading for waves. As shown in

calculate the fatigue life for an FPSO at a specific site. the figure, the current SEAS approach and the new

This approach employs the concept of ESF factors. The approach give the same trend for the equal probability

spectral fatigue approach can be calibrated against the case. However, the SEAS current approach predicts more

simplified approach based on the Unrestricted Service conservative results than the new approach does for

environment as: oblique, head and following seas.

S-N Curve Effect on ESF α Factors

LUSimplified (SN curve, Equal prob.)

(2) The α values calculated by SEAS are based on the

= f (SN curve) ⋅ LUSpectral (SN curve, Equal Prob.)

F2 SN curve. However, the SN curve applicable to an

where L is fatigue life, U represents the Unrestricted individual structural detail is not always an F2 curve. For

Service (base) environment, and f (SN curve) is the different SN curves, there are adjustment factors in the

calibration factor between the simplified fatigue approach current SafeHull-Phase A as shown in Table 1. The

and the spectral fatigue approach. In equation (2) the factors given in the table are applied to α factors

fatigue life refers to unrestricted service but the same calculated in the SEAS program.

calibration factor is applicable to environments other than

Unrestricted Service. Table 1 S-N curve adjustment factors for α-factors

C3 (applied to α’s C2 (applied to α’s

The SN curve is fixed to F2 curve in SEAS spectral

of intended and of historical

fatigue analysis. The difference between F2 curve and

Curve historical sites) routes)

other structural details that use other SN curves is

corrected by the S-N curve correction factors that are D 1.10 1.10

presented in Figure 2. In the current SEAS approach, E 1.10 1.05

equal probability wave heading is always used to F 1.05 1.025

calculate fatigue damage in the Unrestricted Service F2 1.0 1.0

Environment. Therefore, the remaining fatigue life LR for G 0.925 0.975

site-specific environment can be expressed as: W 0.85 0.95

(3) consider the B and C detail classifications.

f (E - Curve) ⋅ LSpectral (E, requried heading)

Site With these curve adjustment factors, the remaining

fatigue life can be finally written as:

and the ESF α factor in Equation 1 can be written as:

⎛ NR

Si NS Sj ⎞

LSpectral ( F2 , required heading) L R = α 3 C3 ⎜ LSH α 1 − ∑ −∑ ⎟ (6)

α= Site

(4) ⎜ α C α C ⎟

LUSpectral ( F2 , equal prob.) ⎝ i =1 2 , i 2 j =1 2 , j 3 ⎠

where:

In the new spectral fatigue approach, the remaining

NR ,NS represent the numbers of historical routes and

fatigue life is expressed by the following formula:

sites, respectively

Si, Sj represent the service year of the vessel on their

LSpectral (E, required heading) i-th route and j-th site

L R ( E - Curve) = Site

LUSEAS ( Spectral ) (E, required heading) (5) α1 is the ESF fatigue calibration factor between

⋅L Spectral

( E, requried heading) spectral fatigue and SafeHull fatigue

Site

α2i is the ESF fatigue factor between the I-th

The new approach does not use calibration on the

historical route and the ABS Base-2 wave data

spectral fatigue method, because the purpose is not to

cancel the simplified fatigue result, but to use it adjusted α2j is the ESF fatigue factor between the j-th

by a factor that represents the relative severity of the historical site and the ABS Base-1 wave data

ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment 83

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

S-N curve correction factor C3 for Deck S-N curve correction factor C3 for bottom

5.000 6.000

4.000 5.000

New approach

New approach

4.000

C3 (Deck)

C3 (bottom)

3.000 Factor used in SEAS Factor used in SEAS

3.000

2.000

2.000

1.000

1.000

0.000 0.000

B C D E F F2 G W B C D E F F2 G W

curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve

S-N curve correction factor C 3 for side shell S-N curve correction factor C3 for LBHD

5.000 5.000

New approach

4.000 4.000

Factor used in SEAS New approach

C3 (side shell)

C3 (LBHD)

3.000 3.000 Factor used in SEAS

2.000 2.000

1.000 1.000

0.000 0.000

B C D E F F2 G W B C D E F F2 G W

curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve

S-N curve correction factor C3 for Inner bottom S-N curve correction factor C3 for Centerline

Bulkhead

5.000 4.000

4.000

New approach 3.000

New approach

3.000

C3 (INBM)

C 3 (CLBH)

2.000

2.000

1.000 1.000

0.000 0.000

B C D E F F2 G W B C D E F F2 G W

curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve curve

84 ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

Figure 3 shows the comparison results of a study that has For SN curves of D and E type, the current SEAS factors

been conducted for the SN curve correction factors using are more conservative than the results obtained for the

the new approach. It is noticed that the correction factors new approach. In addition, the new approach gives the

are very close between the current SEAS approach and correction factors for SN curves of B and C type, which

the new approach for SN curves of F, F2, G, and W type. are not included in the current version of SEAS.

New approach

25.000 25.000

SEAS current approach New approach

20.000 20.000 SEAS current approach

Alpha3_bottom

Alpha3_deck

15.000 15.000

10.000 10.000

5.000 5.000

0.000 0.000

head sea Following sea Equal Oblique head sea Following sea Equal Oblique

probability probability

25.000 25.000

New approach New approach

20.000 SEAS current approach 20.000 SEAS current approach

Alpha3_stbd_shell

Alpha3_port_shell

15.000 15.000

10.000 10.000

5.000 5.000

0.000 0.000

head sea Follow ing sea Equal probability Oblique head sea Follow ing sea Equal probability Oblique

25.000 25.000

New approach New approach

20.000 SEAS current approach 20.000 SEAS current approach

Alpha3_stbd_shell

Alpha3_stbd_shell

15.000 15.000

10.000 10.000

5.000 5.000

0.000 0.000

head s ea Following sea Equal Oblique head sea Following sea Equal Oblique

probability probability

Figure 3 Comparison of alpha factors obtained from current SEAS approach and new approach

bi-modal sea state. The essence of this approach is to

A new update in the SEAS program is the bimodal assume that waves and swells can be separated by

wave application. A sea state that comprises coupled decomposing a given wave scatter diagram into two

contributions from both seas and swells is better independent sections: one on the high frequency side

represented by a sea spectrum in a double peak form, such representing waves, and another representing swells. Each

as Ochi-Hubble 6 parameter spectrum. The current section, which is modeled by a single peak spectrum, can

version of SEAS (V10) only accommodates two single- be viewed as a new scatter diagram associated with an

peak wave spectra (Bretschneider and JONSWAP). An occurrence probability. The inverse of the calculated

ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment 85

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

α−factors represent the damages for waves and swells. Get element thickness and maternal property

These two separated wave scatter diagrams are to be data for each element from NASTRAN

combined to obtain the final damage, as per Equation (7). output data file.

1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞

= ⎜⎜ + ⎟ ⋅ C0

⎟ (7) Get element stress range data for each

α final α

⎝ Seas α Swells ⎠ element from SAFEHULL Phase B output

where: data files for unrestricted sea and site cases.

occurring at the same time. Input SN curve type, Input number of

Weibull shape historical route and

parameter, number of site, number of

SEAS has also implemented the Ochi-Hubble double

stress cycles, stress service years for each

peaked spectrum. This allows using the scatter diagrams concentration factor historical route and

without decomposition, and allows to use a different (SCF) and thickness site and their

heading for swells and waves for each cell in the scatter correction data for associated α2 factors.

diagram in the same SEAS run. unrestricted sea and site

cases.

Remaining Fatigue Life Calculation

Compute permissible stresses using

New updates for remaining fatigue life calculation for

simplified method for each plate

transverse members have been implemented into thickness

SafeHull-FPSO phase B. A rapid fatigue calculation

scheme for connection details in way of transverse

members has been developed for remaining fatigue life

Compute α3 factor for each

calculations for transverse members in phase B. The element based on F2 SN curve

calculation scheme includes the following steps: using simplified method.

site. Compute remaining fatigue life for

• The α3 at intended site is then computed based on each element.

two FE results.

• Assume the α2 (historical site) is close to α3

(intended site). Print fatigue life and fatigue check

• The α2 can be calculated separately. result for each element.

for FPSO is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 Flow chart for remaining fatigue life

calculation for transverse members in Phase B

86 ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

SEAS STRENGTH ASSESSMENT As mentioned before, the Beta values are a direct

ENHANCEMENTS function of the environmentally induced loads at the

installation site compared to the unrestricted service

The Definition of Environmental Severity Factor

environment that is the basis of the Rules. The Beta

(ESF) β Factors values can also address other differences and factors

between the design basis of a sea going vessel and a

Environment Severity Factor (β) is a severity moored vessel. These include:

measure of the intended environment relative to the base

i) Different design basis return periods for

environment in SH in terms of extreme loads, or it is environmental loads (20 vs. 100 years).

sometimes called the ratio between the design case and

ii) Major effects of mooring system on predicted

the base case. It is defined in SEAS as

vessel load effects (including weathervane type

LS behavior of a turret moored system).

β= (8) iii) Different assumed wave energy spreading

LU

characterization between the open ocean and a

where site-specific situation.

iv) Different basis of extreme design storm

LS = the most probable extreme load based on site- characterization (e.g., long-term winter storm vs.

specific environment with 100-year return period for the hurricane dominated characterization).

dynamic load parameters, this is the ‘design case’. v) Different assumed wave spectra between the

LU = the most probable extreme load based on open ocean and a site-specific situation.

unrestricted service environment with 20-year return

period for the dynamic load parameters, this is the ‘base The Loading Condition Used to Determine ESF β

case’. In practice, the hull is loaded over a large range of

A β value of 1.0 corresponds to the unrestricted tank loading patterns and external drafts. To determine

condition of a seagoing tanker. A value of β greater than the β factors for tankers, it is assumed that the hull

1.0 indicates a more severe wave induced load loading representing a condition at, or near, the full load

environment than the unrestricted case, and vice versa. case is most appropriate and compatible with the SafeHull

criteria of the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel

Approaches

Vessels.

There are two approaches to calculate base case load For FPSOs, local loads become important as they are

LU. affected by individual tank filling levels and vessel drafts.

The user can input actual loading patterns to reflect these

Approach 1 (current SEAS approach): Equal cases, which can be different from those specified for a

probability wave heading is used to calculate LU. tanker in the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel

Vessels.

Approach 2: New enhancements introduce in the The ability to input user defined local loading cases

FPI Guide. The values calculated for LS and LU are to be can be especially important for an FPSO, which in

consistent with vessel headings. This means that for any comparison to a tanker may have reduced local scantlings

dynamic load parameter, if head sea is used for example due to calmer sea conditions. Then otherwise secondary

on the calculation of LS, the same heading is to be used load cases, such as those representing tank testing and the

for the calculation of LU. FPSO’s transit voyage to the installation site may become

significant, even controlling some aspects of the structural

For each dynamic load parameter, the severity design for FPSOs.

measure β is to account for the vessel headings as

follows: NEW FPSO RAO DATABASE AND

• For the intended site, the worst case between USER DEFINED RAOS

head seas, following seas and equal probability SH/FPSO system contains a reference RAO database

• If no rosette information regarding the of global motions and load responses of typical tankers,

environment directionality is available for the which are used by the SEAS ESF program module for

transit condition, the worst case between head determining the ESFs. This database is has been built

seas and equal probability between head seas and from seakeeping analyses of five tankers with lengths

oblique seas (60 degrees from the bow), with between 150 m to 350 m. A major assumption in the

oblique seas coming either from the port or the analysis is that the vessels are taken as free floating, and

starboard side no topside structure has been considered. For FPSOs, the

There are 13 β factors corresponding to the 13 mooring system and topside structure can affect certain

dynamic load parameters specified in ABS FPI Guide. global motions and loads considerably[9]. The

The applications of these β factors are given in Appendix mooring/riser system applies restraints on the global

2 of the FPI Guide. motions of the FPSO, which can no longer be considered

as free floating and the topside structure adds weight to

ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment 87

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

the hull, affecting the FPSO’s hydrostatic characteristics Both, the ABS Ship Rules and the Offshore Guide

and thus the motion-induced dynamic inertia response. contain the buckling and ultimate strength assessment for

When the system RAOs is used, the results may not be plates and stiffened panels. In order to establish the

conservative, as each FPSO can have quite different and difference between them, a comparison study is made for

unique turret position mooring and topside arrangements. a converted FPSO hull. The main characteristics of the

The water depth at the installation site is also another FPSO are given in Table 2.

factor that can have an influence on the RAOs. SEAS has

added an RAO database based on 3 FPSOs with lengths Table 2 Main Characteristics of the Converted FPSO

between 320 m and 350 m, besides the database based on

tankers. The FPSO database includes the effect of the Length overall, L 334.0 m

topsides mass distribution. In addition, ABS encourages Length between perpendiculars, LBP 320.0 m

designers and shipyards to perform their own seakeeping Breadth molded, B 54.5 m

analysis to obtain the FPSO RAOs. When using user’s Depth molded, D 27.0 m

RAOs, the RAOs of thirteen (13) DLPs are to be Design draft, T 21.4 m

calculated and inputted into the SEAS ESF program Block coefficient, CB 0.83

module. Steel grade Mild

PHASE B BUCKLING AND ULTIMATE

STRENGTH ASSESSMENT To determine the global response of the hull

structures, a 3-hold FE model of the hull structure within

Buckling and ultimate strength assessments for the 0.4L was created. The total loads of the 18 SafeHull

hull and topsides structures of an FPSO system are to be standard load cases were automatically generated and

performed incorporating Phase B stress analysis. ABS applied to the 3-hold model by SafeHull system. The von

current practice for buckling and ultimate strength Mises stress contour and deflection to Load Case No. 2 is

assessment for the hull structures of an FPSO system illustrated graphically in Figure 5.

should be based on Ship Rules [3] meanwhile the criteria in

the ABS Guide for Buckling and Ultimate Strength

Assessment for Offshore Structures (hereafter called

Offshore Guide)[4] are to be followed for the topsides

structures.

The buckling and ultimate strength criteria between

ABS Ship Rules and the Offshore Guide are different. The

criteria from Ship Rules are based on the concept of ‘net

scantling’, which is the Rule minimum design thickness

of as-built ships . The β -factors are introduced to

consider site-specific environmental conditions. The

stresses obtained from SafeHull with the load condition

modified by the β -factors are substituted into the

buckling and ultimate strength criteria from Ship Rules to

assess the buckling and ultimate strength of plate and Figure 5 von Mises Stress Contour and Deflection

stiffened panels. The material reduction factor is to be to Load Case No. 2

taken into consideration to define the permissible stresses

in the criteria. Figure 6 provides the comparison of buckling and

The buckling and ultimate strength criteria in the ultimate strength assessment based on Ship Rules and the

ABS Offshore Guide are based on the gross thickness, Offshore Guide. Some observations from the comparison

which is the Rule minimum thickness plus the Rule study are given below:

corrosion margin or minimum as-gauged value, • The ratio of plate buckling for the deck panels

whichever is smaller. Load conditions representing the and bottom plates is very stable, which lies

operation or most unfavorable loads are to be considered. between 0.83 and 0.85.

In the ABS FPI Guide, the primary loading conditions are • The small slenderness ratio (β = 1.15) of bottom

the ‘Normal Operations’ and ‘Severe Storm’. The former panels and biaxial stresses (σx,σy) located in the

is defined as the operating environmental loading shaded region as shown in Figure 7 cause plate

combined with dead and maximum live loads appropriate ultimate strength difference relatively large

to the function and operations whereas the latter is the compared with others.

design environmental loading combined with dead and • The buckling and ultimate strength ratios are

live loads appropriate to the function and operations significantly affected by the ratio of nominal

during the design condition. The different allowable design corrosion value to nominal design

utilization factors to be used to calculate the permissible thickness. Therefore, they are distributed more

stresses are specified depending on the structural widely for side shell and longitudinal bulkhead

component geometry, loading type and failure modes [4]. panels because the plate thickness and stiffener

dimensions of side shell and longitudinal

88 ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

bulkhead vary frequently along the vertical • When SafeHull standard loads are applied,

direction. the Offshore Guide is generally more

• The effect of nominal corrosion design value on conservative than the Ship Rules.

tripping of angle-bar stiffeners is more • ABS will use the Offshore Guide to

significant than flat bar and T-bar stiffeners. The determine buckling of stiffened panel after a

tripping ratio of angle-bar stiffeners shifts toward Rule Change Notice (RCN) is conducted to

1.0. Some of them are even greater than 1.0. modify the FPI Guide.

100% 100%

Number of Panels = 672 Number of Panels =576

Load Cases =18 Load Cases =16

80% 80%

Percentage

Percentage

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0%

0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

Ratio = Ship Rules/Offshore Guide Ratio = Ship Rules/Offshore Guide

PLAT E BUCKLING (Mean=0.8358 COV=0.29%)

PLAT E BUCKLING (Mean=0.8409 COV=0.69%)

PLAT E ULT IMAT E ST RENGT H (mEAN=0.8259 COV=0.94%)

PLAT E ULT IMAT E ST RENGT H (Mean=0.7852 COV=6.30%)

ST IFFNER BEAM-COLUMN BUCKLING (Mean=0.8313 COV=0.41%)

ST IFFNER BEAM-COLUMN BUCKLING (Mean=0.8417 COV=0.28%)

ST IFFNER T RIPPING (Mean=0.8462 COV=0.12%)

ST IFFNER T RIPPING (Mean=0.8507 COV=0.14%)

50% 70%

Number of Panels =744 Number of Panels =600

Load Cases =10 60% Load Cases =18

40%

50%

Percentage

Percentage

30% 40%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

0% 0%

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

PLAT E BUCKLING (Mean=0.8910 COV=7.22%) PLAT E BUCKLING (Mean=0.8711 COV=1.62%)

PLAT E ULT IMAT E ST RENGT H (Mean=0.8725 COV=6.78%) PLAT E ULT IMAT E ST RENGT H (Mean=0.8618 COV=2.34%)

ST IFFNER BEAM-COLUMN BUCKLING (Mean=0.8622 COV=1.23%) ST IFFNER BEAM-COLUMN BUCKLING (Mean=0.8668 COV=2.51%)

ST IFFNER T RIPPING (Mean=0.9758 COV=3.47%) ST IFFNER T RIPPING (Mean=0.9646 COV=1.48%)

ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment 89

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

1.0 (site of Installation) notation as applied to ‘ordinary

l /s =5.65 Ship Rules conversions’ is mandatory. Notice that a new build FPSO

β=1.15 Offshore Guide relocated to another location cannot be considered

0.8 τ/τ0 =0.50 anymore as a new build. Therefore, for this case still the

RFL(year) Year in (site of installation) applies.

0.6

0.4

CONVERSION”

Survey Record Review

Ordinary conversions refer to vessel conversions that

0.2

have been previously classed. Prior to structural review,

the survey reports for the vessel that are related to

0.0

structural fractures, repairs, or modifications during its

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 service history should be obtained. The service records

should be reviewed to identify whether fractures have

occurred in the hull structure and/or whether the structure

Figure 7 Ultimate Strength Interaction Curves details have been modified during its service life. In

of Bottom Plate Panels addition, it should be noted whether major structural

modifications have taken place that will affect the

OPTIONAL NOTATIONS FOR FPSO INCLUDING scantling review and analysis.

FATIGUE LIFE NOTATIONS A Floating Installation is expected to remain moored

For a new-build ship-shaped FPI (i.e., FPSO, FPS or on site during the entire service life, and it is therefore

FSO) hull structure, the SafeHull criteria are meant to without the ready access to the repair and maintenance

provide a minimum design fatigue life of 20 years. Where facilities used by a ship. The drydocking survey and

a vessel’s design calls for a fatigue life in excess of the special survey of the hull are to be carried out in

minimum design fatigue life of 20 years, the optional accordance with the requirements of ABS Rule

class notation FL (year) will be assigned at the request of Requirements for Survey after Construction. All

the applicant. This optional notation is eligible provided modifications to the vessel are to be carried out in

accordance with ABS approved drawings and follow the

the excess design fatigue life is verified to be in

IACS Shipbuilding and Repair Quality Standard

compliance with the criteria in the Rules for Building and

requirements. All renewed material should be replaced by

Classing Steel Vessels. Only one design fatigue life value

steel of the same or higher grade and to the approved

is published for the entire structural system. Where

design scantling or greater. Workmanship is to be carried

differing design fatigue life values are intended for out in accordance with the ABS Guide for Shipbuilding

different structural elements within the vessel, the (year) and Repair Quality Standard for Hull Structures.

refers to the least of the varying target lives. The ‘design What needs to be emphasized is that in this new

fatigue life’ refers to the target value set by the applicant, update, new bottom plate pitting repair specifications are

not the value calculated in the analysis. The notation FL recommended. The specifications apply to pitting found

(year) denotes that the design fatigue life assessed in both ballast and cargo tank bottom plating. There are

according to the Rules for Building and Classing Steel four main approaches used for dealing with severe bottom

Vessels is greater than the minimum design fatigue life of pitting.

20 years. The (year) refers to the fatigue life equal to 25 (a) Partially Crop and Renew Affected Bottom

years or more (in 5-year increments), as specified by the Plating. Partial cropping and renewal is primarily a matter

applicant. The fatigue life will be identified in the Record of proper welding technique, selection of an adequately

by the notation FL (year); e.g., FL(30) if the minimum sized plate insert and appropriate non-destructive

design fatigue life assessed is 30 years. examination (NDE) of repaired areas.

When an existing tanker is converted to an FPSO, (b) Clean Pitted Areas and Cover with Special

FPS or FSO, in the process referred to as an ‘ordinary’ Coating. Cleaning out and covering with special coating

conversion, and the FPSO, FPS or FSO is classed under without use of filler or weld build-up need only be limited

the provisions of Chapter 4, Section 4 of the ABS FPI by the maximum allowable depth of the pits (or allowable

Guide, the expected minimum remaining fatigue life of minimum remaining thickness of the bottom plating)

the structure is to be documented by recording its value in permitted from a strength or pollution risk standpoint. The

the Record. The RFL notation will be followed by the allowable loss of bottom cross-sectional area must also be

value of the expected minimum remaining fatigue life in considered.

years, the year of maturation of fatigue life and the (c) Clean Pitted Areas and Fill with Plastic

specific site of installation. For example, RFL(15), 2018 Compound Use of plastic compound filler, such as epoxy,

in Gulf of Mexico indicates that the expected minimum can be considered similar to (b) because no strength credit

remaining fatigue life of the structure is 15 years, which is given to the filler material.

will be matured in the year 2018 for conditions

90 ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

(d) Fill by welding. Filling with welding warrants welded areas and at intersections of the welded areas and

consideration that is more serious. existing structural welding. Also, for welds of higher-

Suggested welding practices for bottom plating are strength steels, the NDE method is to be suitable for

noted below. detecting sub-surface defects.

For pitting up to 15% of bottom plating thickness, no (h) Coating. In order to reduce the likelihood of

immediate remedial action is necessary. However, if the possible galvanic attack at the boundaries of built-up

surrounding tank bottom is specially coated, corrosion areas, coating over the area with a compound such as

progress in the pitted areas may be very rapid due to the epoxy/glass flake should be considered. Also, where the

area ratio effect of protected versus non-protected pitting is in small areas of coating breakdown, it is

surfaces, therefore, as applicable, the coating is to be essential to restore the coating intact in order to avoid the

repaired. possible rapid corrosion of small bare areas in large

Scattered pitting up to 33% (1/3t) of bottom plating protected areas (area ratio effect).

thickness may be filled with epoxy or other suitable (i) Doublers. Fitting of doublers over pits is not

protective compounds, provided the loss of area at any considered a satisfactory repair. Cleaning and using non-

transverse section of the strake in question does not strength contributory fillings to fit doublers is considered

exceed 10%. Any areas that have been repaired by this a temporary solution subjected to surveyors approval.

method must be “mapped” and noted for close-up survey

in the Survey and Inspection Plan required by ABS FPI

NEW UPDATES IN ABS SAFEHULL-FPSO V10

Guide.

Pitting of any depth may be welded provided there is RULE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

at least 6 mm (0.25in.) remaining original plating

thickness at the bottom of the cavity and there is at least The ABS SafeHull FPSO approach uses the

75 mm (3 in.) between adjacent pit welding areas. The Environmental Severity Factor (ESF) concept to adjust

the tanker unrestricted service criteria of the ABS Steel

maximum nominal diameter of any pit repaired by

Vessel Rules. To maintain some degree of minimum safety

welding may not exceed 300 mm (12 in.).

standards, the FPI Guide has set minimum requirements

The new requirements for the welding of pits are also

specified in the new update and listed below. for certain key design parameters. It is worthwhile to

(a) Pit Welding. It is recommended that pit welding in mention them here.

In the application of the criteria, no individual value

bottom plating be built up at least 3 mm (0.125 in.) above

the level of the surrounding plating and then ground flush. of a strength β factor is to be less than 0.5 and no

This is mandatory for higher-strength steels grades D and minimum required values of any net scantlings is to be

E, for very small areas (less than 75 mm (3 in.) in less than 85% of the value obtained for the unrestricted

diameter and for such welding done afloat. service condition. In particularly, ABS require that the

(b) Surface Preparation. Pitted areas are to be minimum hull girder section modulus of an FPSO shall

thoroughly cleaned of rust, oil and cargo residues prior to not less than 85% of that required for unrestricted service.

welding. This 85% limit is imposed to prevent excessive loss of

(c) Filler Metal. When welding, the filler metal grade hull girder strength due to corrosion as a vessel ages. The

appropriate to the pitted base metal and preheating, if new FPI Rule Change (ABS FPI Guide, April 2004

applicable, are to be employed. version) has released the 0.5 beta limit considering that

(d) Welding While A Vessel Afloat. For welding below now it is a requirement to verify the FPSO transit

the waterline of a vessel afloat, properly dried low condition as well as the tank test condition at the site with

hydrogen electrodes are to be used. The pitted areas an associated 1-year storm environment. Therefore, by

against water backing are to be preheated sufficiently to imposing the 85% limit on the hull girder section

drive off any moisture that might be present. The preheat modulus, it has been verified that the 0.5 limit on the beta

is to cover at least 102 mm (4 in.) of the material factors were redundant.

surrounding the welding or four times the material Therefore, based on the ABS recent experiences on

thickness, whichever is greater. FPSO conversion projects, the following enhancements

(e) Layer of Welding Metal. A layer of weld metal is have been introduced in the SH/FPSO criteria and

to be deposited along a spiral path to the bottom center of software:

the pitted excavation. The slag is to be completely • Calculate loads and required Rule minimum scantling

removed and the next successive layer is to be similarly for transit condition, which now is included in the

deposited to build up the excavation at least 3 mm (0.125 FPI Rule Change. This Rule Change also adds

in.) above the level of the surrounding plating. minimum heading requirements for spread and, or

(f) Extensive Pit Repairs. For extensive pit repairs, turret moored FPSOs.

i.e. greater than 20% intensity, of steel grades D, E and • Calculates fatigue life using as-built scantling

higher strength steel, welding against water backing is not (Tanker) and Rule reassigned / Gauged for FPSO on-

recommended. site service;

(g) Nondestructive Examination. All welds to pitted • Provide program flexibly to add special load cases

areas in bottom plating are to be subject to nondestructive for transit, flooding, offloading and tank inspection,

examination, with particular attention to boundaries of the etc. in Phase B finite element analysis.

ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment 91

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004

wave conditions that an oil tanker has experienced on

[1] ABS, 1998, Hull Thickness Measurement (Gauging

route records in past services. SafeHull SEAS provides

Surveys), American Bureau of Shipping

users the convenience to obtain the approximate wave

[2] ABS, 2003, Rules for Building and Classing Steel

conditions from the global wave database, which is called

Vessels, American Bureau of Shipping.

ABSWAVE. For the assessment of pre-existing fatigue

[3] ABS, 2004, Guide for Building and Classing

damages of an FPSO conversion, the wave conditions are

Floating Production Installation, American Bureau

retrieved from the ABSWAVE database along the routes

of Shipping.

that a vessel serviced in the past.

[4] ABS, 2004, Guide for Buckling and Ultimate

In current version of SafeHull SEAS program, the

Strength Assessment for Offshore Structures,

number of canned routes has increased from six to 25.

American Bureau of Shipping.

Table 3 shows the 25 canned routes.

[5] Tam, G and Wu, J.F., 2002. A Rational Approach for

Table 3. Twenty-five canned routes in SH-FPSO V10 the Evaluation of Fatigue Strength of FPSO

1. Dover Strait to New 13. Persian Gulf to Gulf of Structures, The 14th OSEA International Oil & Gas

York Mexico Industry Exhibition and Conference

2. Los Angles to 14. Persian Gulf to Red [6] Tam, G and Huang, W, 2004. SafeHull Application of

Yokohama Sea Existing Tankers to FPSO. OMAE2004-51017, 23rd

3. Valdez to Los Angles 15. Red Sea to Persian Conference on Offshore and Arctic Engineering,

4. Yokohama to Persian Gulf Vancouver, Canada.

Gulf 16. Persian Gulf service [7] Wang, Ge, 2003, A Study of Allowable Reduced Hull

5. Gulf of Mexico to 17. Red Sea service Girder Section Modulus of Ship-Shaped FPSOs, RD

Persian Gulf 18. Med Sea service Report 2003-06, American Bureau of Shipping

6. Dover Strait to Persian 19. Gulf of Mexico to Med [8] Zhao, C., Bai, Y. and Shin Y., 2001, Extreme

Gulf Sea Response and Fatigue Damages for FPSO Structural

7. Dover Strait to Gulf of 20. Med Sea to Gulf of Analysis, Proceedings of the 11th ISOPE Conference,

Mexico Mexico Vol. 1, pp.301

8. Europe to Persian Gulf 21. Africa to North [9] Zhao, C., Wu, J.F, Huang, K, and Shin Y., 2002,

9. Med Sea to Persian America Environmental Severity Factors and their Application

Gulf 22. Persian Gulf to in FPSO Hull Design, OTC 14231, Offshore

10. Persian Gulf to Med Singapore Technology Conference

Sea 23. Singapore to Persian

11. Europe to Med Sea Gulf

12. Gulf of Mexico to 24. Persian Gulf to Korea

Persian Gulf 25. Korea to Persian Gulf

CONCLUSIONS

This paper introduced enhancements to FPSO fatigue

and strength assessment procedures that have been

included in the ABS FPI Guide rule change. The

enhancements include new spectral fatigue approach and

bimodal wave application for fatigue assessment and new

buckling and ultimate strength criteria. In addition, the

new ABS FPI Guide introduced optional notations for

FPSO including fatigue life notations and survey

requirement for an “ordinary conversion”. These new

updates represent part of our continuous effort to better

serve our clients as well as the offshore industry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank their colleagues who

provided comments. The views expressed in this paper

are those of the authors and are not necessary those of the

American Bureau of Shipping.

92 ABS Floating Production Installations Guide Rule Change: FPSO Fatigue and Strength Assessment

- ABS Rules & Guides.pdfUploaded byJorge Adrian Rojo Ubeda
- Parque Das Conchas - Special EditionUploaded byduduque
- Sesam Hydrodynamics Training Oct 2012Uploaded bytt3340
- FPSOUploaded byNoolOotsil
- FPSO Guidance NotesUploaded byKrasimir Margaritov
- API RP2A.Uploaded byKrutarth Purohit
- Turret Operations in North Sea Statoil and AkersolutionUploaded bycxb07164
- Workhorse of the FleetUploaded byMoe Latt
- Guide for Building and Classing High Speed CraftUploaded byHamish Adamson
- Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production InstallationsUploaded by陳孟慈
- What is machine design.pptUploaded byPavan Kishore
- Brochure IntecSea Marine RisersUploaded byDonVic
- Finding PetroleumUploaded byNoor Virliantarto
- assetintegrityassessmentfpsopresadsapacomae0716rev0-160719030741.pptxUploaded bysafutra
- MODU_Part_6_e-Jan17Uploaded byPat
- fibre optic cable fatigue and stress analysis.pdfUploaded byRafael Sánchez Crespo
- Kolkata MetroUploaded byparamarthasom1974
- mim-gn-e-july18Uploaded byArdy Mans
- tig dressing.pdfUploaded bySergio Muñoz
- Failure Mechanisms of Automotive Metallic AllUploaded byAndri Ode
- wee.pdfUploaded bysunil
- Separation InternalsUploaded byAlexsander Suryawan
- Dunlin Alpha CGB Refloat Report 4 August 2011 - Appendix F ODE CapabilityUploaded byAlberto darian
- What is Machine DesignUploaded byPavan Kishore
- 00093507Uploaded bymsmsoft90
- INSDAG presentation on Fatigue in Steel StructureUploaded byNIBEDITA DEY
- Placi curbeUploaded byCristian Blanaru
- Citation_2_4_18Uploaded byKanishka Wijesekara
- World s First Offshore LTE Based Wireless Broadband Network--Norwegian North Sea LTE Wireless Coverage CaseUploaded byVarlan Dragos
- rifestplus_demo_en[1].pdfUploaded bydeepali0305

- om08_04Uploaded byJohn Rong
- 85209-GasTurbineBroUploaded byJayson Mercado
- Fundamentals of Offshore Field Development - TT112Uploaded byengineershoaibqazi
- Challenges for FPSO Exection_ Masters ThesisUploaded bykingsleysplace
- om05_sepoctUploaded bySơn Nguyễn
- Total Productive MaintenanceUploaded bynajieyuya
- oilfieldUploaded byFSBoll
- Subsea Production System - Overview.pptUploaded byMuhammad Nursalam
- Technip KT India Ltd 0Uploaded bysgrsth
- Total Deep Offshore (Brochure)Uploaded bydhruvarora
- Deepwater Poster 2007Uploaded bysyamsul_mansur
- Gas-Monetization Kbr PresentationUploaded bytmharish
- Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading Vessel ContractUploaded bylawzamm
- Layout FSRUUploaded byPasquale Cutri
- Keppel - Pareto Presentation 2013Uploaded bydafoozz
- D6-400 LEWA Oil-gas-Industry en UsUploaded byAlberto
- NSR288_20140827Uploaded bysrpadron
- Marlim Field Development OverviewUploaded byViknesh Govind
- Samsung Profile 2013Uploaded byAdam Hamdan
- Custody Transfer References PromassUploaded bywilmanzito
- Offshore Drilling Lecture 2016 Unit 3Uploaded byAbderrahim HAMDAOUI
- OSEA2014_InternationalConferenceBrochureUploaded byMinh Nguyen Van
- Ruby Terminal Handbook Revision 6Uploaded byDinhNguyenNhat
- Andarko Petroleum UBS 2013 Global O&G Conference PresentationUploaded bykaranx16
- 3. PTK007 Socialization Rev 3Uploaded byMuhammad Wildan
- Afiche Offshore MooringUploaded bySharon Freeman
- Eni Ghana2017Uploaded byGyimah Samuel
- Measurement of Petroleum on Board Marine Vessels 2310.1 (1)Uploaded byCRT Services
- Cabarcas_16 - Retos en El Diseño de SeparadoresUploaded byYazuhakin Cuesta Garcia
- Coarse Strainer Sea-Screen 2001Uploaded byVijay Rajaindran