Dib Epsy STR RPT Pwo 000 00001 00

Reviewed / With Comments
CAKASA
POPHAM WALTER ODUSOTE
Dibi Long Term Facility Project
Dibi Swamp Queen Living Quarters Structural Evaluation Report FEED

Contract No: FAC-2008 638545 Work Authorization: WA-006
DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001-00
E02 E01
REV APPROVED BY:
8-7-10 28-5-10
DATE
RE-ISSUED FOR CLIENT APPROVAL ISSUED FOR CLIENT APPROVAL

ISSUE PURPOSE
WA WA
ORIG
EA EA
CHK
WB WB
APPR
COMPANY APPROVAL:
DATE Project Document Control No. DIB Area EPSY Discipline STR
DATE: Type RPT Originator PWO Package 000 Sequence-Sht 00001-00 Revision E02
Dibi Swamp Queen Living Quarters Structural Evaluation Report
DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001- 00 Rev E02
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION.. 3 1.1 1.2 General Overview of the Project.. 3 Objectives / Scope of the Work 4
2.0
GENERAL STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS... 5 2.1 2.2 2.3 Vertical Structural Steel Elements 5 Horizontal Structural Steel Elements.. 6 Steel Plate Elements.. 7
3.0
STRUCTURAL DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY EXECUTION RESULTS.... 9 3.1 3.2 Diagnostic Survey Through Visual Inspection 9 Deck Plate Evaluation And Thickness Measurement... 11
4.0
WEIGHT ESTIMATES OF EMPTY LIVING QUARTERS BOX.. 13 4.1 4.2 4.3 Structural Steel Frame... 13 Deck and Wall Plate.. 17 General Computation Of Approximate Total Weight 19
5.0
INSTALLATION METHOD EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED BLAST WALL. 5.1
20
Method Evaluation. 20
6.0
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. 22
7.0
RECOMMENDATIONS.. 23
8.0
APPENDIX25
Appendix I Existing Structure Survey Photographs Appendix II Existing (As Built) Structural Layout Drawings Appendix III Deck and Shell Plates Layout Drawings Appendix III Deck and Shell Plates Thickness Measurement Report
DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001-00.pdf
Page 2 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0
INTRODUCTION Chevron Nigeria Ltd (CNL) is undertaking a project to develop its Dibi Operational Area in the optimum way to meet its required 20 year production needs and has, through Cakasa Flour (CF), engaged Popham Walter Odusote (PWO) to carry out a comprehensive structural assessment of the existing Swamp Queen Living Quarters. This assessment will help determine its structural integrity as well as establish the design basis for the replacement / refurbishment of the Living Quarters. This assessment will study and
evaluate the overall structural adequacy of the accommodation by examining factors like overall stability, strength, durability, impermeability, extent of corrosion, etc. This has been performed via a Non-Destructive Testing and visual inspection as well as subsequent desk study and structural analysis of the as-built structure, eventually forming the basis for recommendations on any remedial measures needed for the upgrading work.
1.1
General Overview of the Project
The Living Quarters under consideration, located on the Swamp Queen / EPS barge, was constructed with conventional barge type welded stiffened plated decks and comprises six (6) different levels namely Barge(hull) deck, Middle Deck, Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Helideck which are all supported on the Barge (hull) deck. The vertical structural elements are composed of universal columns, circular hollow, and square hollow sections (UC, CHS and SHS) while the horizontal structural elements are composed of universal beam sections (UB) and cold formed plate angles. The structural framing system varies from level to level and the floor decks are steel plate typically welded to steel beams and stiffened with unequal angle steel sections at approximately 610mm (24 inches) centres. The
stiffened with cold formed angles?
exterior walls use steel plates for the purpose of weight reduction as well as contributing to the global strength of the structure while the interior partition walls are non-load bearing insulated light partitions.
During the investigation, we were able to examine via thorough visual inspection the extent of deterioration on the structural steel components, and deck and wall plates of the Living Quarters. Special attention was also given to wall plate connection to deck plate and base of steel stanchion connection to check for corrosion and weld cracks. It was observed that structural steel elements were in fairly good condition with the exception of +/- 70% of the steel deck plates which had suffered extensive crevice and pitting corrosion and
approximately
Page 3 of 24
DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001- 00
Rev E02 was undertaken ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
perforations due to age, inadequate protection, and poor maintenance. Base connections of steel stanchions were also observed to have corrosion and weld cracks. As structural drawings showing the general arrangement of the floor decks are unavailable, we undertook a physical measurement of the plan layout for each deck level as well as identified all the structural elements supporting them in order to develop an as-built structural scheme of the floor decks. The thicknesses of all the main structural elements were determined with the aid of vernier callipers and ultrasonic testing equipment. The section type and weight of each element were obtained and this information allowed us to compute the approximate self weight of the living quarters box. Similarly, a structural model and analysis of the as-built structure under self weight was undertaken to further verify the previously computed weight for comparative purpose.
1.2
Objectives/Scope of the Work
The objectives/scope of the diagnostic survey and assessment consisted of the following:
General structural survey of the accommodation through visual inspection. Identification and evaluation of the condition of deck plating and structural steel elements to determine the extent of corrosion (limited to items in view).
Physical measurement of as-built living quarters. Determination of the thicknesses of as much of the steel deck and wall plate and structural steel elements as accessible using Ultrasonic equipment. as-built
Preparation of the schematic structural arrangement of the as-it-is floor deck layout. Estimation of the approximate weight of the structural components of the living quarters box.
Structural investigation / evaluation of the possibility of removing some columns on Level 1 to permit larger spaces for the galley, etc.
for
Identification of the possible position and evaluation of the erection method of the proposed blast wall.
Page 4 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0
GENERAL STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS
A site survey was undertaken on the 22nd 27th April 2010 by a PWO team of Structural
Is this supposed to be an approximate figure? please clarify
Engineers and Inspectors accompanied by Eric Thompson (CNL). During the survey, the structural components of the structure appeared to be in good condition with the exception of +/- 70% of the external (outdoor) deck plate (Levels 1-3, Middle deck and Barge deck) where extensive corrosion, perforation and depletion of plate thickness were noticed. These defects identified can be attributed to age, inadequate protection, poor maintenance, exposure to unfavourable environmental conditions, etc. These structural inadequacies occurred on some parts of all deck levels.
universal columns
It was found out that all the H - Section (152 x 152 x30kg/m) beams (see Plates 7 10 in Appendix I) supporting the Living Quarters from middle deck upwards and also the connection interface of the structural frame to the Barge (hull) deck were welded on steel beams supporting the Barge (hull) deck, hence the removal of the box (if desired) can be achieved by cutting at the stanchion points.
base connection?
2.1
Vertical Structural Steel Elements
The vertical structural steel elements (column stanchions) supporting the structure as well as resisting the lateral loads due to wind are steel stanchions and in-plane vertical bracing respectively. The steel stanchions are of different sections such as universal column (HSection) 152 x 152 x 30kg/m, circular hollow sections ranges from 88.9mm to 193mm and square hollow section 100 x 100mm. See structural layout drawings in Appendix II for the location of the column stanchion supporting each level. The vertical bracing providing
are these cold formed angles from 8mm thk. plate?
lateral restraint for the steel wall plate are rolled steel unequal angle 100 x 75 x 8 (RSEA).(RSUA) These entire vertical elements were found to be physically in good condition. However, their capacity to withstand additional loadings due to the proposed added-on structural work and change of floor usage must be verified in the course of the engineering design.
or relocate
It has been proposed to remove some of the column stanchions (88.9mm) on Level 1, as shown on Plate 1, which are the supporting elements for part of Level 2, to allow for column free and larger spaces at this level.
Page 5 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Add: This will also involve replacing the retained pipe column sections on Level 1with universal column sections or encasing such existing pipes with channel sections. The removal and/or relocation of the some Level 1 column will increase the stress level on specific columns on the Middle Deck Level, supporting Level 1 deck. The affected columns on Middle Deck Level shall be strengthened.
Plate1:88.9mmCircularHollowSectiononLevel1
This concept is achievable. However, there is a need to introduce some I-Section beams (to be designed to satisfy its purpose) to support the deck Level 2. The load distribution path will definitely be altered all the way down to the Barge (hull) deck. Members above the Barge deck can be modified or strengthened as needed, but the effects to the hull deck structure are not considered as part of this scope of work.
2.2
Horizontal Structural Elements
The horizontal structural elements are comprised of universal beams and columns of different sectional sizes and cold formed steel plate angles of sizes 300 x 90 mm which are used basically for the purpose of weight reduction. Virtually all these beams supporting the deck levels were found to be in good condition. The major exception is the steel beam (203 x 203 x 46kg/m UC) supporting the middle deck along grid line 7 (see Structural Layout Drawing Middle Deck in Appendix II) which has completely deteriorated, as shown in Plate 2, and therefore requires replacement. Rolled steel unequal angle placed at approximately 610mm centres provide stiffening for the deck plates.
Page 6 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Plate2:DeteriorationofEdgeBeamSupportingtheMiddleDeck
universal columns
The Middle and Level 1 decks are typically supported with primary beams of 203 x 203 x 46 kg/m UC, and 305 x 165 x 40kg/m UB along the shorter span and equally distributed at approximately 2450mm centres with cold formed plate angles 300 x 90 x 8mm thick along the longer span. Similarly, Third and Helideck levels are majorly supported with 300 x 90 x 8mm thick cold formed bent angles used as primary and secondary beams while the edge beams are 254 x 146 x 31kg/m UB.
2.3
Steel Plate Elements
Steel plates have been adopted to form the floor deck and exterior wall of the structure under consideration. Some portions of the floor deck steel plates that were accessible to us during the survey show varying thicknesses which can be attributed to continuous depletion of the plate as result of age, inadequate protection, poor maintenance, exposure to unfavourable environmental conditions, etc. Besides the depletion of plate thickness, structural defects such as pitting, corrosion (as shown on Plate 3), perforation (as shown on Plate 4) and deck plate panel buckling was evident on the some portions of the floor deck plate.

DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001-00.pdf Page 7 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Plate 3: Pitting Corrosion on Steel Plate (Deck Level 1)
Plate 4: Perforation of Steel Plate (Middle Deck)
Page 8 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0
STRUCTURAL DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY EXECUTION RESULT The diagnostic survey of the structure under consideration was undertaken generally through visual assessment to identify areas of surface defects particularly on the floor deck plates and wall (shell) plate as well as other structural elements while their residual thicknesses were taken using ultrasonic testing equipment. All the identified areas of defects showing deterioration in wall plates, floor deck plates, and other primary structural steel members were tested using non-destructive test method so as to evaluate the actual extent of degradation of these structural components in accordance with AWS D1.1 requirements.
3.1
Diagnostic Survey through Visual Inspection
Visual inspection of
Having walked through the Helideck, Levels 3, 2, 1 and Middle Deck of the Living Quarters for visual inspection of the suspected areas of defects on the structural components, we were able to observe the following:
to assess
A. Helideck
revealed the following for each level:
The helideck, measured approximately 18.1 x 15.6 metres (282.36 square metres), was found to be satisfactory by visual inspection of its deck plate surface. No severe evidence
However it was structural support
of surface corrosion was observed. It was further noticed that the guard railing provided for
were
the helideck safety netting was not in good condition and therefore requires replacement. Note that this assessment is not currently part of the scope.
B. Level 3
Several areas, especially the walkway areas of this level deck plate, were obvious with crevice corrosion (See Plate 5) which must have affected the structural strength and in turn the integrity of the deck plate. Moreso, the wall plate for the external wall of this level appeared to be in good condition with unnoticed depletion of the plate thickness while some wall plate to deck plate weld connections at the base were detected with corrosion and weld cracks. Structural defects such as corrosion and weld cracks were noticed at the base portion of the circular hollow section along the walkway area. All structural steel elements, with the exclusion of the stiffened deck plate and the circular hollow sections supporting this deck level, were found to be in good condition.
Page 9 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Plate 5: Crevice Corrosion on Walkway near the Conference Room

C. Levels 1 and 2 Observations made on these two deck levels were similar to those on level 3 and their description can be related as above.
D. Middle Deck Level
The middle deck level is supporting two generator control buildings, the production control room, and the water maker equipment. A large percentage of the deck plate on this level was noticed with severe pitting, crevice corrosion, and perforation of the deck plate. These conditions have reduced the structural strength and integrity of these areas, thus, replacement of these deteriorated portions must be ensured (See Deck Plate Layout in Appendix III). Apart from the defects noticed on the deck plate, perforation at the base of the wall (shell) plate, as shown in Plate 6, was also noticed. All structural steel elements (column stanchion and steel beams) at this deck level were found to be in good condition.
Page 10 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Plate 6: Opening at the Base of the Middle Deck Wall Plate

3.2 Deck Plate Evaluation and Thickness Measurement
Evaluation and thickness measurement of the deck plate for all the floor decks under consideration were undertaken and the results showed that virtually all the deck plate has experienced depletion in their thicknesses. We were unable to compute the percentage diminution of the deck plates because of the unavailability of information as to the original thicknesses of the deck plates. See Appendix III for the results. Based on the results of the ultrasonic thickness measurement of the steel deck plate, it was observed that none of the areas sampled measured up to 10mm thick which is the minimum requirement for steel plate floors (as specified in CIV-SU-1.10-A:Section 6.2). Hence, if all the steel deck plates are not completely overhauled, then the objective of upgrading to meet Chevron safety and engineering standards as well as a 20 year design life is defeated.
A. Helideck The ultrasonic thickness measurements of the deck plate which were systematically taken at random points showed thicknesses range from 6.9mm to 8.1mm with the exception of two points with thicker plates having thicknesses of 13.5mm and 14.3 mm (see Appendix III Helideck Plate Layout).
B. Levels 3, 2, and 1
3, 2 and 1
The deck plate thicknesses taken for the levels three, two and one vary from 2.1 to 6.9mm, 6.5 to 6.9mm and 4.4 to 7.3mm respectively as shown on the Deck Plate Layout
add: particularly for Deck plates within the building in plates supporting level 2 and 3 are in good condition. DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001- 00 externalRev E02 walkways However, for other areas,
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Recommend repair will therefore require replacement especially in areas with very low thickness values. methodology for salvageable deck plates C. Middle Deck Level
in Appendix III. These plate thicknesses show that the level of depletion is extensive and
Thicknesses obtained for the Middle Deck plate range from 4.7 to 6.8mm. These thickness values shouldnt be considered adequate to support this floor deck in its long term objectives and specification required. Therefore, we recommend that they should be
State repair options
removed and replaced with new.
it is recommended that these plates
D.
General Evaluation of Structural Steel Members
Based on our evaluation of all the structural steel members (which include steel beams and column stanchions, cold formed plate angles, unequal angle sections etc.) that formed the frame of this structure, we confirm that they are in good condition with the exception of a few circular hollow sections (CHS) of sizes 3 on Levels 1 and 2 which showed extensive corrosion at their bases and therefore must be replaced.
Page 12 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0
APPROXIMATE WEIGHT ESTIMATION OF THE EMPTY LIVING QUARTERS BOX The technical approach applied for the approximate estimation of the empty living quarters box was to generate a schedule of all the structural elements from previously prepared asit-is structural layouts of all the deck levels of the structure considering their individual weight, thickness and length. The steel plate weights for the floor deck and wall were also computed based of the coverage area of the floor, perimeter of the wall and the floor height, thickness and density of plate (which is7850kg/m2).
3
as built
4.1
Weight Estimation for Structural Steel Frame As earlier mentioned, this weight was computed based on the schedule of approximately all the structural components making up the frame for the living quarters as identified during the survey undertaken. Tables 1 to 5 show the structural components schedule and the respective weights as approximately estimated.
NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
TABLE 1: STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND WEIGHT FOR HELIDECK UNIT LENGTH QTY TOTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION WGT. (m) (No) WGT. (kg) (kg/m) MAIN FLOOR BEAM HLE-1- 254X146X31UB 15.60 2 31 967.20 MAIN FLOOR BEAM MAIN FLOOR BEAM MAIN FLOOR BEAM HANDRAIL HANDRAIL HANDRAIL HANDRAIL HANDRAIL HANDRAIL HANDRAIL SECONDARY BEAMS HLE-2- 254X146X31UB HLE-3-300X90X8 BP HLE-4-300X90X8 BP HLE-5- 254X146X31UB HLE-6-48.3 DIA PIPE HLE-7-48.3 DIA PIPE HLE-8-48.3 DIA PIPE HLE-9-48.3 DIA PIPE HLE-48.3 DIA PIPE HLE-48.3 DIA PIPE HL-100X75X8L 18.05 15.6 18.05 18.05 20.49 19.08 18.04 16.64 1.19 0.84 15.6 2 5 4 1 2 2 2 2 47 23 25 31 24.5 24.5 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 11 TOTAL
pls check unit weights ie 254x146 UB36 = 31kg/m
1119.10 1911.00 1768.9 559.55 179.08 166.76 157.67 145.43 244.41 84.43 4134.00 11,437.53kg
163.92 152.64 144.32 133.12 223.72 77.82 4290
11,510.75kg
Page 13 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Check
NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
TABLE 2: STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND WEIGHT FOR LEVEL 3 LENGTH QTY UNIT WGT TOTAL WGT DESCRIPTION SECTION (m) (No) (kg/m) (kg) MAIN FLOOR BEAM M5B- 300X90X8 BP 12.25 5 24 1470.00 STANCHION STANCHION STANCHION STANCHION FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM SECONDARY BEAM SECONDARY BEAM VERTICAL BRACING d- 114.3X6.3 DIA CHS f - 100X100X10CHS g - W100X19.3 h - 203X203X46UC 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 7 7 6 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 7 18 88 17 28 19 46 24 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 11 11 11 358.68 595.67 353.19 280.60 1952.64 1261.08 436.48 379.75 75.95 310.00 283.96 201.19 1044.74 2337.30 2855.60
???
M5 -300x90x8 LTR1 - 254X146X31 LTR2 - 254X146X32 LTR3 - 254X146X33 LTR4 - 254X146X34 LTR5 - 254X146X35 LTR6 - 254X146X36 LTR7 - 254X146X36 M10(A) 100X75X8 M10(B) 100X75X8 L3-100X75X8L 20.34 20.34 14.08 12.25 2.45 10 2.29 6.49 14.08 12.25 2.95
TOTAL
14,196.82kg
14,325.36kg
Page 14 of 24
Check all
Dibi Swamp Queen Living Quarters Structural Evaluation Report DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001- 00 Rev E02
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
TABLE 3: STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND WEIGHT FOR LEVEL 2 UNIT TOTAL LENGTH QTY WGT DESCRIPTION SECTION WGT (kg) (m) (No) (kg/m) STANCHION d-114.3X6.3DIA CHS 3.05 25 17 1281.0 STANCHION STANCHION STANCHION STANCHION FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM SECONDARY BEAM SECONDARY BEAM VERTICAL BRACING f - 100X100X10 CHS c - 88.9X5.0 DIA PIPE g - W100X19.3 UC h - 203X203X46UC L2-1-254X146X31UB L2-2-254X146X31UB L2-1B-203X76X23.82 L2-3-203X76X23.82RSC L2-4-UPN 160 L2-4B - UPN 160 L2-5-300X900X8 L2-6-254X146X31 L2-7 UPN 160 L2-8 UPN 160 L2-9-100X75X8 L2-10-100X75X8 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 20.28 14.65 14.69 15.20 15.59 14.40 20.28 8.17 7.27 2.89 16.75 1.08 4 5 12 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 27 44 28 10 19 46 31 31 24 24 19 19 24 31 19 19 13 13 340.4 157.1 706.4 280.6 1886.0 1362.2 349.9 362.2 293.1 270.7 1946.9 253.1 136.7 54.2 5880.0 617.8
18
L2-100X75X8L
2.95
92
11
2985.4
TOTAL
19,163.58kg
Check
Page 15 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001- 00 Rev Check all E02
NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
TABLE 4: STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND WEIGHT FOR LEVEL 1 UNIT LENGTH QTY WGT DESCRIPTION SECTION (m) (No) (kg/m) STANCHION a - 193.7 DIA PIPE 4.275 15 56 STANCHION STANCHION STANCHION FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM VERTICAL BRACING b - 168.3 DIA PIPE c - 88.9 DIA PIPE e - 152x152 UC 30 ? M1 - 203x203x46UB M2 -305x165x40UB M3(A) 305x165x40UB M3(B) 406X178X54UB M4 - 350X250 UB M5 - 300X90X8 BP M6 - 406X178X54UC M7 - 406X178X54UC M8 - 203X203X46UC M9 - 203X203X46UC M10 - 100X75X8 RSEA 4.275 4.275 4.275 19.6 21.705 21.1 20.1 6 2 40 2 5 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 24 25 10 30 46 40 40 54 67 24 54 54 46 46 11
TOTAL WGT (kg) 3584.59 646.38 88.07 5130.00 1803.20 4341.00 844.00 1085.40 1346.70 2894.40 603.72 249.48 133.45 295.41 5011.68
???
20.1 20.1 11.18 2.31 2.901 6.422 19.7
16
L1-100X75X8L
2.95
68
11
2206.60
TOTAL
30,264.07kg
Check
Page 16 of 24
Check all
Dibi Swamp Queen Living Quarters Structural Evaluation Report DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001- 00 Rev E02
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
TABLE 5: STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND WEIGHT FOR MIDDLE DECK UNIT TOTAL LENGTH QTY WGT DESCRIPTION SECTION WGT (kg) (m) (No) (kg/m) STANCHION a - 193.7 DIA PIPE 3.66 15 56 3068.91 STANCHION STANCHION STANCHION FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM FLOOR BEAM VERTICAL BRACING b - 168.3 DIA PIPE c - 88.9 DIA PIPE e - 152x152 UC M1 - 203x203x46UB M2 -305x165x40UB M3(A) 305x165x40UB M3(B) 406X178X54UB 3.66 3.66 3.66 19.6 21.705 21.1 20.1 6 2 40 2 5 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 24 25 10 30 46 40 40 54 67 24 54 54 46 46 11 553.39 75.40 4392.00 1803.20 4341.00 844.00 1085.40 1346.70 2894.40 603.72 249.48 133.45 295.41 5011.68
???
M4 - 350X250 UB M5 - 300X90X8 BP M6 - 406X178X54UB M7 - 406X178X54UB M8 - 203X203X46UC M9 - 203X203X46UC M10 - 100X75X8 RSEA 20.1 20.1 11.18 2.31 2.901 6.422 19.7
16
MD - 100X75X8L
4.15
48
11 TOTAL
2191.20 28,889.34kg
Check
The approximated weight estimation for virtually all the structural components making up the framing system of the Living Quarters = 103,951kg which is equivalent to approximately 104 Metric Tons.
Update
4.2
Weight Estimation for Deck and Wall Plates
As earlier mentioned, the weight of the deck plates was estimated by determining the product of the area of the floor deck plate, the thickness and the density of steel while the weight of the wall plates was estimated by determining the product of the perimeter of the
Page 17 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
this assumes no wall plate stiffeners?
wall, the floor height, the thickness and the density of steel. Tables 6 10 are showing the approximate weight of floor deck and wall plates for all the levels.
THICKNESS (m) 0.008
is this true?
TABLE 6: APPROXIMATE WEIGHT OF FLOOR PLATE FOR HELIDECK NO DESCRIPTION AREA (m2) DENSITY (kg/m3) 7850 TOTAL TOTAL WGT (kg) 18,058.77 18,058.77kg
FLOOR PLATE
287.56
Please state assumption for using 8mm floor plate thickness
TABLE 7: APPROXIMATE WEIGHT OF FLOOR AND WALL PLATES FOR LEVEL 3 NO DESCRIPTION AREA (m2) THICKNESS (m) 0.008 0.005 DENSITY (kg/m3) 7850 7850 TOTAL TOTAL WGT (kg) 16,164.09 7,079.53 23,243.62kg
1 2
FLOOR PLATE WALL PLATE
257.39 180.37
1 2
328.7 182.42
1 2
430.42 45.63
TABLE 10: APPROXIMATE WEIGHT OF FLOOR AND WALL PLATES FOR MID DECK TOTAL WGT THICKNESS DENSITY NO DESCRIPTION AREA (m2) (kg) (m) (kg/m3) 1 2 FLOOR PLATE WALL PLATE 371.1 102.46 0.008 0.005 7700 7700 TOTAL
23,305.08 4,021.55 27,326.64kg

Page 18 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The approximated weight estimation for all the floor deck and wall plates = 125,253kg which is equivalent to approximately 125.3 Metric Tons.
4.3
General Computation of Approximate Total Weight
The approximate total weight of the living quarters empty box is estimated as shown in Table 11 below.
TABLE 11: APPROXIMATE TOTAL WEIGHT OF LIVING QUARTERS' EMPTY BOX S/N 1 2 3 4 5 STRUCTURE COMPONENT DESCRIPTION STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAME WEIGHT FLOOR DECK AND WALL PLATES WEIGHT LEVEL 3 CARAVAN WEIGHT (13,000Lbs) LEVEL 1 CARAVAN WEIGHT (20,000Lbs) MIDDLE DECK CARAVAN WEIGHT (20,000Lbs) ALLOW 15% OF TOTAL WEIGHT FOR OTHER NONSTRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENTS/STEEL BRACING) APPROXIMATED TOTAL WEIGHT WGT. (M Tons) 104 125.3 5.9 9.1 9.1
38.01 291.41 M Tons
update
Following the weight computation as shown above, the total weight of the living quarters empty box considering virtually all the structure components as reflected on the as-it-is structural layout prepared (See Appendix II) is approximately 291.41 Metric Tons.
as-built
Update
Page 19 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0
INSTALLATION METHOD EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED BLAST WALL Sequel to any potential hydrocarbon explosions associated with the EPS barge facility which could cause damage to the Living Quarters as well as to the personnel on board, a
Vapor Recovery Unit (VRU) and
safety barrier in the form of a blast wall has been proposed to be installed between the Living Quarters and the process area interface of the EPS. From the blast analysis study document made available to us, we understood that the potential ignition sources of
hydrocarbon explosion on the EPS are the Turbine Generator, surge tank and the shipping pumps. The result of the analysis indicated that an overpressure value at the nearest wall facing the source to be about 1.6 psi (0.11 bar or 11kN/m2). However, it was recommended that the proposed safety barrier should be designed to withstand a 3 psi (0.21 bar or 21kN/m2, rise and fall time not specified in the analysis result) overpressure to allow an adequate margin for occupant safety in the improbable occurrence of such a magnitude of hydrocarbon explosion.
buy for the blast overpressure are
5.1 Method Evaluation

required to protect the Living Quarters
The blast barrier proposed to be installed is expected to retain its integrity against any blast
any subsequent
loading and fire that may subsequently follow. Therewave energy loading by formationwalls occur but absorb blast pressure are many forms of blast of available, such as the stiffened or unstiffened panels and composite sandwiched panels.
Please clarify. Is this based on the LQ external wall taking the blast loading which is not practical. The blast wall is to be spaced off the LQ building. Blast walls and firewalls required certification by recognized authorities and most of this paragraph is irrelevant.
permanent large plastic deformation/ rotations and deformations.
The major feasible challenge to the installation of the proposed blast wall is the problem of large plastic rotations and deflections at the connections which can occur if the connection details that can provide the high rotational ductility are not accounted for. Besides, the anticipated overpressure from the likely ignition sources might cause an unbearable displacement at the mid span of the wall which can be critical and subsequently generate secondary projectiles which may escalate the event.
In view of the above challenge associated with erection of the blast wall, the adoption of fire/blast wall for the external walls adjacent to the process area, where there is potential ignition source of hydrocarbon explosion, should be explored. This structural cladding which shall be designed to resist a peak blast pressure of 3 psi (0.21 bar) may be from austenitic stainless steel grade 1.4401 (S31600) with a 2B standard mill finish in accordance with EN-10088-2 (1) or mild (coated) steel that will exhibit adequate retention strength and stiffness after 60 minutes exposure to hydrocarbon fire (H-60 fire rating), good energy absorption characteristic for considerable blast impact and impulse without fracturing and high ductility.
Page 20 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alternatively, a specialist contractor/vendor for blast wall design and fabrication, who has carried out various blast loading tests and possesses adequate previous experience, can be involved to recommend accordingly the appropriate steel material for the proposed fire/blast wall considering the magnitude of the anticipated overpressure from the likely ignition source. The vendor will have confirming test data and certifications by recognized agencies as Lloyds Register, DNV, etc.
please note that this is the only way forward to obtain valid fit for purpose certificates for the installed wall covering blast & fire rating.
Based on the current Living Quarters structural layout, there will be 5 vertical blastwall panel spans starting at the barge deck, followed by middle deck, 1st deck, 2nd deck, 3rd deck through roof level of deck 3. In the event of a blast, the blast wall panels will undergo major plastic permanent deformations and induce major horizontal forward reaction forces into the deck plating and support structure. This loading will have to be cascade down via inclined forward/ aft bracing from deck to deck until it reaches the barge deck and eventually transfer via internal barge substructure down on to the sand pad. At present, there is only forward/ aft bracing between the barge deck and underside of middle deck and so all other deck spacing will have new force/ aft bracing installed which will restrict the current LQ layout. Such modifications to existing corroded steelwork will be very difficult and probably should not be attempted insitu and if a blast wall is really required, an offsite purpose fabricated unit should be employed.
Page 21 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Following the structural diagnostic survey and subsequent analytical desk studies undertaken in order to evaluate and ascertain the structural integrity of the Swamp Queen Living Quarters, we have been able to confirm based on good engineering judgment and logical conclusion that:
1. The structural steel frame components (UC and UB Sections) are fairly in good condition, at the time of this survey, with the major exception of the UC beam supporting the middle deck along grid line 7 (see Structural Layout Drawing Middle Deck in Appendix II). This beam is completely deteriorated and requires replacement. All circular hollow sections require complete replacement because corrosion defects have already been triggered at the base portion as well as weld cracks at the base connection on these circular hollow sections. temporary supports will be required during column
removal & replacement.
2. Virtually all the steel deck plates at the external areas are under distress due to crevice and pitting corrosion, depletion of plate thickness, perforations, dampness, etc. Their integrity can in no way meet the long term purpose as required. It is to be noted that an
these will be removed with the deck plate and new stiffeners will be required.
attempt to remove the affected areas of the deck plates will also affect the underside deck cold formed angle stiffeners. This will compound the remedial work and result in increased cost and time. Only highly experienced contractors should be engaged for the work. 3. The total weight (this include all the steel frame members, the wall and deck plate and the vertical bracing members) of the empty Living Quarters box has been approximately estimated to be 291.41 metric tons.
update
4. The proposed removal of some column stanchions (or possibly repositioned) on Level 1 to permit larger and column free space is possible. Larger spans which would result from this will be supported by a structural steel beam section that would be designed to serve this purpose considering the floor head room as well as the need for weight optimisation. However, thorough structural analysis should be done to determine redistribution of load paths and subsequently check for vertical members that will require additional strengthening so as to withstand increased loads transferred to them. Further, reactions transferred to the Barge deck will need to be investigated, to ensure the Barge framing is still adequate.
Page 22 of 24
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Further to the observations during the structural assessment and the results of the
the following options are presented
thorough evaluation of the structural integrity of the Swamp Queen Living Quarters, and considering good engineering judgment and the requirements of applicable codes and standards, we are recommending the following options with their respective pros and cons.
OPTION A
A. Structural Renovation of the Existing Living Quarters
merits and demerits
Structural refurbishing of the existing Living Quarters, through replacement of the corroded structural steel components is not encouraged. Although some of the steel sections (columns and beams) are still in fairly good condition but the following remain our concern:
a. Large percentages (70%+) of the steel deck plate at all floor levels, especially at the external area, have been severely corroded, perforated and buckled and will
and exposed
absolutely require replacement. Owing to this, the removal of these affected deck plates will also require the removal of associated steel angle stiffener which will eventually result into great amount of work in terms of cost, time and methodology to be employed by the contractor. However, it is not impossible if those factors are not constraints.
b. Based on the results of the ultrasonic thickness measurement of the steel deck plate, it was observed that none of the areas sampled measured up to 10mm thick which is the minimum requirement for steel plate floors (as specified in CIV-SU1.10-A:Section 6.2). Hence, if all the steel deck plates are not completely overhauled, then the objective of upgrading to meet Chevron safety and engineering standards as well as a 20 year design life is defeated. c. Integration of blast wall to the existing Living Quarters (facing the process area), as it has been proposed, will remain a challenge because the overall residual strength of the all stiffened deck plates (which contribute to the global strength of the entire structure) cannot be guaranteed to withstand the secondary blast impulse that will be transferred from blast wall to this stiffened deck plate which might eventually impair the stability of the entire structure. d. The introduction of an independent blast wall is then desirable. It is recommended that a pre-engineered, tested, and certified blast wall be obtained and constructed between the Quarters and the Production area. Vendors that specialize in blast and fire walls can provide the wall system.
DIB-EPSY-STR-RPT-PWO-000-00001-00.pdf Page 23 of 24 But the support of blast wall panels off the existing structural steelwork/stiffened decks will present major challenges to the nominated designer.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OPTION B
B. Removing the Living Quarters and Helideck
This concept will involve the removal of the living quarters (from Level 1 to 3 and the Helideck) with the intention of replacing it with a new one. Comparatively, this option is less costly than option A above and is recommended as being more reliable than the latter. However, our concern is that the existing middle deck plate is also severely corroded and buckled, hence, requiring replacement. Due to this, if the decision to remove the living quarters including the Helideck, then, the middle deck plate floor, which is supporting the generator control and production control centre and other equipment, also requires replacement.
OPTION C
C. Removing the Entire Living Quarters to the Hull Deck Level
than options
This concept involves the removal of the entire Living Quarters, Helideck, Middle deck completely to the Barge deck and replacement with a newly designed and constructed building. Comparatively, this option is less costly that A or B above, it remains the most structurally reliable option. The only concern will be to design it to closely follow the foot
will permit to: print of the existing living quarters. This option will afford usthe following as a minimum:
a. Design the Living Quarters to meet the minimum requirement as stated in all relevant codes and CNL standards as well as meet the 20 year design life span; b. Determine the actual weight of the structure to be supported on the existing hull deck for weight optimisation/balancing purposes; c. Coordinate the design of the proposed blast wall by others into the new design on all floors.
For this option, it should be noted that the current control room is located within this structure and it will have to be relocated prior to total removal.
In summary, owing to the findings from our analytical evaluation of the existing Swamp Queen Living Quarters, we recommend a replacement of the entire Living Quarters (see sections B and C above), which will ensure design and construction to full compliance with relevant industry and Client standards.
the
options
is recommended
PROVIDE APPENDICES
APPENDICES
Page 25 of 64
APPENDIXI
EXISTINGSTRUCTURESURVEYPHOTOGRAPHS
Page 26 of 64
Plate1:PARTOFLEVEL2DECKSTRUCTURALARRANGEMENT
Plate2:PORTIONOFLEVEL1DECKPLATESHOWINGTHEPLATETHICKNESS
Page 27 of 64
Plate3:PORTIONOFLEVEL1DECKWITHPERFORATIONNOTICEABLE ATTHESOFFIT
Plate4:PORTIONOFLEVEL2DECKWITHDAMPNESSNOTICEABLE ATTHESOFFIT
Page 28 of 64
Plate5:PITTINGCORROSIONEVIDENTONSOMEPORTIONSOFLEVEL1 DECK
Plate6:SOMEAREAINTHECHANGINGROOMOFLEVEL1EVIDENT WITHCREVICESATTHEFLOORDECK
Page 29 of 64
Plate7:BRACEDCOLUMNSTANCHIONATTACHEDTOTHEBARGEDECK
Plate8:COLUMNSTANCHIONATTACHEDTOTHEBARGEDECK
Page 30 of 64
Plate9:COLUMNSTANCHIONATTACHEDVIABASEPLATETOTHE BARGEDECK
Plate10:STRUCTURALFRAMINGARRANGEMENTSUPPORTINGTHE MIDDLEDECKLEVEL
Page 31 of 64
APPENDIXII
EXISTING(ASBUILTS)STRUCTURALLAYOUT DRAWINGS
Page 32 of 64
10'-6" 12'-6" all steelworks indicated is ASTM Grade A36? 10'-0"
dimensions in ( ) are in inches??
please check all dimensions.
Note that these comments are typical for all drawings.
8'-1/16"
Page 33 of 64
66'-0" ?
please state top of steel elevation (+) 18'-4" T.O.S. ?
See previous sheet for comments
Page 34 of 64
TOS Elevation ??
See previous sheet for comments.
Page 35 of 64
TOS Elevation = ??
see previous sheet for comments.
Page 36 of 64
TOS = ??
see previous sheet for comments
Page 37 of 64
TOS = ??
Page 38 of 64
Page 39 of 64
spacing??
Page 40 of 64
the columns on the deck below do not coincide with the N ~ S long beam crossing points on this deck.
Page 41 of 64
TOS = ??
Note: most of these columns do not match positions of columns below this deck
Page 42 of 64
TOS = ??
Columns generally mis barge N~S frame lines
Page 43 of 64
TOS = ??
columns & long beams are miss matching barge n~S frame lines
Page 44 of 64
TOS = ??
APPENDIXIII
DECKANDSHELLPLATELAYOUTDRAWINGS
Page 45 of 64
for general comments, see first sheet
all steel plate indicated on this drawing is ASTM grade A36?
Page 46 of 64
enlarge
main motor workshop
2440?
8'-1/16 "
96.0625 EL.?
EL. ?
Page 47 of 64
for general comments see first sheet
Page 48 of 64
cl of barge in on line D TOS
150"
10'-0"
120"
10'-6" All plating is ASTM grade A36
10'-6"
12'-6"
A 10'-0"
12'-6"
120 10'-6"
150
G
Note: all plating is only~ 1/8" thk., there should be intermediate stiffeners for panel size of the lengths shown.
10'-6"
EL.
8'-1/16"
8'-1/16" 96.0625
2440
2440
Page 49 of 64
cl of barge is on grid line D
Presume these internal floor areas were covered with tiling/ screed, and could not be checked for corrosion, if so please add note.
Page 50 of 64
state top of plate EL.
all plate is ASTM grade A36

cl is on grid line D
10'-6"
12'-6"
10'-0"
10'-0"
12'-6"
12'-6"
10'
10'
12'-6"
10'-6"
the windows & doors must be framed with plate stiffeners

Page 51 of 64
Please note these are large panels with thin plate less than 1/8" thk., there should be plate stiffeners between columns?
10'-6"
12'-6"
10'-0"
No access to deck plate in rooms? covered with tiles & screed?
8'-1/16" typ. spacing
Page 52 of 64
top of plate elevation ??
correct these dimensions
safety netting support corroded?
Page 53 of 64
Top of Plate Elev (+) ??
APPENDIXIV
DECKANDSHELLPLATETHICKNESS MEASUREMENTREPORT
Page 54 of 64
Report on THICKNESS MEASUREMENT

CNL SWAMP QUEEN LIVING QUARTERS
MIDDLE DECK PLATE

STRUCTURAL MEMBER: LOCATION OF STRUCTURE:
at Elevation ?
Deck Plating between Framelines MIDDLE DECK PLATE Item No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 Org. Thk. mm Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 8.7 8.7 8.9 7.0 8.1 6.9 6.9 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.6 6.8 4.7 5.0 4.6 6.9 6.6 6.6 6.6 Starboard 8.7 8.7 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.6 6.5 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.6 5.0 5.1 5.2 4.6 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 mm Diminution (Portside) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? mm Diminution (Starboard) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION MUSTER POINT AREA MUSTER POINT AREA MUSTER POINT AREA MUSTER POINT AREA MUSTER POINT AREA/BTW. GENERATOR 1 AND 2 MUSTER POINT AREA MUSTER POINT AREA NEAR WATER MAKER NEAR WATER MAKER /BTW. GENERATOR 1 AND 2 NEAR WATER MAKER NEAR WATER MAKER /BTW. GENERATOR 1 AND 2 BTW. GENERATOR 1 AND 2 NEAR WATER MAKER/CONTROL ROOM BTW GEN. 1 AND CONTROL ROOM /CONTROL ROOM BTW. GEN. 1 AND CONTROL ROOM /CONTROL ROOM AFT SIDE NEAR THE PROCESS AREA AFT SIDE NEAR THE PROCESS AREA AFT SIDE NEAR THE PROCESS AREA AFT SIDE NEAR THE PROCESS AREA
Comment Original plates thickness not known, therefore the level of substantial corrosion and diminution cannot be obtained or calculated.
Operators Signature: _________________________________
??
Page 55 of 64

MIDDLE DECK PORT SIDE SHELL PLATE

STRUCTURAL MEMBER: LOCATION OF STRUCTURE: Item No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Shell Plate between Framelines MIDDLE DECK PORT SIDE SHELL PLATE Org. Thk. mm MIDDLE DECK PORT SIDE SHELL PLATE Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.9 Starboard mm Diminution (Portside) % mm Diminution (Starboard) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION
Page 56 of 64

LEVEL 1 DECK PLATE at elevation??

STRUCTURAL MEMBER: LOCATION OF STRUCTURE: Item No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 Org. Thk. mm PORTSIDE WALKWAY/A/C ROOM EMERGENCY BASE/EMERGENCY ROOM MAINTENANCE ROOM/A/C ROOM MAINTENANCE ROOM EMERGENCY ROOM LAUNDRY ROOM/EMERGENCY ROOM EMERGENCY ROOM EMERGENCY ROOM EMERGENCY ROOM Deck Plating between Framelines LEVEL 1 DECK PLATE Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 7.3 4.4 6.8 7.0 8.2 5.9 6.7 7.0 6.9 Starboard 6.7 7.1 7.0 6.8 8.2 6.9 6.7 mm Diminution (Portside) % ? ? ? ? mm Diminution (Starboard) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION
Page 57 of 64

LEVEL 1 AFT AND FORWARD VIEWS OF THE VERTICAL SHELL PLATE

STRUCTURAL MEMBER: LOCATION OF STRUCTURE: Side Shell Plating between Framelines A - G LEVEL 1 AFT AND FORWARD VIEW OF THE VERTICAL SHELL PLATE Org. Thk. mm VERTICAL SHELL PLATE (LQ) VERTICAL SHELL PLATE (LQ) VERTICAL SHELL PLATE (LQ) VERTICAL SHELL PLATE (LQ) VERTICAL SHELL PLATE (LQ) VERTICAL SHELL PLATE (LQ) P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Aft Side 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 Forward Side 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 mm Diminution (Aft Side) % ? ? ? ? ? ? Diminution (Forward Side) mm % ? ? ? ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION
Item No.
Page 58 of 64

PORTSIDE AND STARBOARD VIEWS OF VERTICAL SHELL PLATE ON LEVEL 1

STRUCTURAL MEMBER: LOCATION OF STRUCTURE: Shell Plate on Framelines C2 C6 PORTSIDE AND STARBOARD VIEWS OF VERTICAL SHELL PLATE ON LEVEL 1 Item No. P1 P2 P3 Org. Thk. mm VERTICAL SHELL PLATE Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 3.1 3.0 2.9 Starboard 3.1 3.0 3.2 mm Diminution (Portside) % ? ? ?
at elevation??
DESCRIPTION
Diminution (Starboard) mm % ? ? ?
Page 59 of 64

LEVEL 2 DECK PLATE THICKNESS

at elevation ??
Deck Plating between Framelines LEVEL 2 DECK PLATE THICKNESS Item No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 Org. Thk. mm Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.5 6.9 6.7 6.5 6.8 6.9 6.5 6.8 Starboard 6.6 6.5 6.6 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 6.8 6.7 6.5 6.7 6.5 mm Diminution (Portside) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? mm Diminution (Starboard) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION FORWARD SIDE WALK WAY PORT SIDE /STARBOARDWALK WAY PORT SIDE/STARBOARD WALK WAY PORT SIDE/AFT SIDE WALK WAY PORT SIDE/AFT SIDE WALK WAY PORT SIDE/AFT SIDE WALK WAY AFT SIDE WALKWAY AFT SIDE WALKWAY/ROOM 13 AFT SIDE WALKWAY/ROOM 12 ROOM 16/ROOM 11 ROOM 15/MESS ROOM ROOM 14/GALLEY ROOM 9 ROOM 10 MESS ROOM RECREATION ROOM
Page 60 of 64

LEVEL 2 FORWARD VIEW SHELL PLATES

STRUCTURAL MEMBER: LOCATION OF STRUCTURE: Item No. P1 P2 P3 P4
at elevation??
Shell Plating between Framelines LEVEL 2 FORWARD VIEW SHELL PLATES Org. Thk. mm Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 Starboard 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 mm Diminution (Forward) % ? ? ? ? mm Diminution (Aft View) % ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION LEVEL 2 FORWARD VIEW SHELL PLATES
Page 61 of 64

LEVEL 2 AFT VIEW SHELL PLATE THICKNESS

STRUCTURAL MEMBER: LOCATION OF STRUCTURE: Item No. P1 P2 P3 P4 Org. Thk. mm LEVEL 2 AFT VIEW SHELL PLATES
at elevation ??
Shell Plating between Framelines LEVEL 2 AFT VIEW SHELL PLATE Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 Starboard 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 mm Diminution (Forward) % ? ? ? ? mm Diminution (Aft View) % ? ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION
Page 62 of 64

LEVEL 3 DECK PLATE THICKNESS

STRUCTURAL MEMBER: LOCATION OF STRUCTURE: Item No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 Org. Thk. mm ROOM 8/ROOM 5 ROOM 7/CATERING ROOM PIC OFFICE/CORRIDOR HSE OFFICE/CORRIDOR INFRONT OF CONF. ROOM PASSAGE AREA/ROOM 5 PASSAGE AREA/ROOM 3 AFT SIDE WALKWAY/MEDICAL ROOM AFT SIDE WALKWAY/ CORRIDOR INFRONT OF CONF. ROOM ROOM 7/AFT SIDE WALKWAY FACILITY SUPERVISOR OFFICE/AFT SIDE WALKWAY AFT SIDE WALKWAY AFT SIDE WALKWAY Deck Plating between Framelines LEVEL 3 DECK PLATE THICKNESS Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 6.5 6.5 6.8 6.7 6.5 6.9 3.1 3.4 6.6 6.6 Starboard 6.5 6.7 6.3 7.1 6.7 6.5 6.6 6.9 4.4 3.5 6.8 2.1 mm Diminution (Portside) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? mm Diminution (Starboard) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION
Page 63 of 64

HELI DECK PLATE THICKNESS

at elevation??
Deck Plating between Framelines HELI DECK PLATES Item No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Org. Thk. mm Max. Dim. mm Gauged Thickness (mm) Portside 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.1 13.5 Starboard 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.3 8.1 7.1 14.3 mm Diminution (Portside) % ? ? ? ? mm Diminution (Starboard) % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
DESCRIPTION HELI DECK PLATES
? ?
Page 64 of 64

Dib Epsy STR RPT Pwo 000 00001 00

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Dib Epsy STR RPT Pwo 000 00001 00

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reviewed / With Comments

Dibi Long Term Facility Project

Dibi Swamp Queen Living Quarters Structural Evaluation Report FEED

RE-ISSUED FOR CLIENT APPROVAL ISSUED FOR CLIENT APPROVAL

Dibi Swamp Queen Living Quarters Structural Evaluation Report