PTTEP Arthit CPP

Fabricated at JRM Batam, Indonesia

20 July 2005 to 3 December 2007

Structural lessons list. Steve Woodwards

Neale Daglish

The following list was generated during the fabrication of the Arthit CPP top sides, and were borne of the
belief that the majority of the items could have been avoided by better communication, improving the
education of personnel, improved procedures and an aim to doing a job ‘right the first time’ without
cutting corners.
There are three items, which re occurred in various forms, these are from direct clashes of opinion and
avoidance of specific specification requirements. There is a strong belief that JRM will continue with an
incorrect sequence, probably unwittingly by some participants, and coerce the client into accepting a sub
standard product.
The grey area and hand over between fabrication and coatings are so important to an offshore structure.
Unfortunately many onshore personnel are not familiar to the corrosive atmosphere encountered offshore
and are equally unaware of the subsequent corrosion. By good team work and a common understanding of
minimum requirements, a good product can be achieved.

Release of items from the fabrication shop

After a sub assembly has been fabricated, it requires a stage inspection release, which allows the item to
move to the next stage, this is usually weld blasting and painting.
Much care is taken to minimize weld defects and edges at the inspection stage release, though as often the
case, when the item is blasted, revealed are pin holes, undercut or surfaces not suitable for coating, though
acceptable to the structural code AWS D1.1. These defects are required to be removed prior to coating,
AGS 13 Rev. 1 Sec: 4.11
JRM tried, over a protracted period of time, insist these are welding defects and the inspection release at
the fabrication shop is based on AWS D1.1, therefore the defects are acceptable and do not require
rectification at the painting stage.
The JRM view was never accepted on items removed from the fabrication shop, though on other projects,
it is understood that the JRM preferred method of release has been accepted.

Reluctance to produce a 2mm radius and break beam edges

During the cutting of steel and rolling/forming of sections, sharp edges are produced. To maintain coating
protection and the correct film thickness of paint, these edges are required to be broken at the fabrication
stage, to a minimum radius of 2mm. This requirement is clearly specified in TS 1 Rev. 1 Sec: 7.2 and TS
9 Rev. 1 Sec: 4.6
From the outset of fabrication, JRM appeared to be determined on reducing this requirement, and
maintained a belief that a smaller radius would be adequate. The PTTEP requirement prevailed.

Release at yard erection

When the deck pancakes are fabricated and prior to stacking, the section is subject to a stage release for
blast and painting. This is a similar scenario to the release from the fabrication shop, though with an
elevated importance as much of the structure at this stage will put in top coat.
When the deck plate and supports etc are welded from under the deck, the welding fumes and smoke have
no escape route, over time with the addition of humidity the welds corrode. Even with wire brush
cleaning, the welded areas are not clean enough for complete inspection. The preferred method is to
sweep blast the welded underside and conduct a comprehensive inspection. This method clearly highlights
the defects, often acceptable to AWS D1.1 requirements but not acceptable to the coating surface
requirements.
Again JRM required the structural inspectors to completely hand over the deck without any subsequent
grinding or hot work. An example was provided by JRM whereby an area of pancake was inspected to the
extreme until viewed as acceptable, and then blasted. The later as blasted surface was witnessed by
several senior JRM managers and supervisors and conclusively proved that many cut and welded surfaces
were not suitable for subsequent coating, further touch up grinding and welding were required.
The pancakes were sweep blasted, repaired and further blasted and painted.

The List
JRM cut the plate girder web and flanges to the exact length.
Due to weld shrinkage, and coupled with JRM management insistence to bevel both ends at the
fabrication shop, resulted in 67 lower deck girders short which required buttering to rectify, out of a total
99 lower deck girders. This was repeated on the main and upper decks.

Welded lower deck legs outside of WPS parameters, resulting in re qualification by an additional PQR.
Unable to carry out further deck leg welding until qualification, first attempt failed.
This was the start of a determined attitude, welding the deck legs from one side only, even at the extent of
using the incorrect WPS

Repeated operator error cutting main deck plate girder web and flanges, at east yard. Eventually PTTEP
requested JRM to stop further cutting until the problem was resolved. Excessive re work required.
Adequate supervision could have easily avoided this situation.

Incorrect bevel details on shop drawings which resulted in WPS conflicts due to CTOD requirements: leg
cans, star plates and transition cones. Better communication and a clear understanding of what is required
between the JRM structural and welding engineers would have avoided these errors.

The supplied plate material had sheared edges, as normal, JRM included the sheer edge in the weld
preparation for single bevel welds. Resulting in production test and splitting many joints.
A site production test was carried to back up SQ for acceptance of some welded joints, re nesting required
prior to further cutting.

Extended period of re work required on rat holes due to JRM engineering not issuing details on cut sizes.
When the mold loft issued the templates, they were incorrect, which resulted in further re work.

Incorrect material used on main deck brace landings. Material tests carried out at DNV, Singapore, to
upgrade material to give supplementary Z grade.

Extended re work at the fabrication shop beam line, this was due to JRM unable to comply with the 2mm
radius edge requirement. JRM repeated reluctance to follow the specification created a large back log in
the shop and removal of a QC inspector, at PTTEP request.

Failure to issue a method statement for the welding of the box sections resulted in distortion and extended
re work. When the sequence was submitted and accepted, the welding engineer verbally told the
production to carry out the work in a different sequence. Eventually after repeated errors and a determined
attitude not to follow project specifications, the welding engineer was removed from the project, at
PTTEP request.
Repeated use of de oxiluminate painted over rust and dirt. High levels of re cleaning required, always
same supervisor and crews!!

Incorrect priority of lower and main deck box girder sections resulted in delays for layout of centre boxes.
A mistake which all parties failed to notice.

NGL access platform fabricated with beams straight from stock yard, incorrect cutting resulted in 133
locations with excessive gaps which required refit and buttering, cheek plates or splices.
As the beams had not been released from the beam line, the edges had no shop radius and neither painted,
the additional work became protracted.

Due to delaying the rectification of deck plate ponding, prior to erection. The deck plate between stringers
was rectified by heating after painting.

Lower deck A – A’ and B – B’ leg braces were cut too long, this was recognized by JRM engineers who
did not address the problem. JRM proceeded to fit the braces resulting in them later being dismantled and
cut close to situ. Later to re fit.

From stacking the main deck JM3 – 2 – 1 section, it took 44 days to attain a fit up and DC within a
reasonable tolerance for welding. This was due to working without a firm plan and driven by schedule
concerns.

An overall very good standard of work and positive quality attitude shown by JRM supervisors and hands
on workers. An excellent record of hard gained achievement.

PTTEP inspectors mobilized at the last minute due to Bangkok’s difficulty with sanctioning employment,
resulted in site team regularly understaffed.

Due to poor communication between JRM management/engineers and shop floor, for notification and
rectification items, a method statement system was requested by PTTEP.
This proved to be a very effective tool which gave direct information to the foreman and direct worker.

PTTEP inspectors requested the sniped beam angle change to 45 deg. Which later facilitated the ease of
blasting and painting.

PTTEP inspectors requested change to under deck stiffeners to remove drafted rat hole and subsequent
cover plates.

PTTEP inspectors requested change to snipe beam connection detail to remove 1” x 1” snipe hole. This is
a standard drafting detail which at fabrication creates cleaning and painting concerns.

Equipment support drawings were issued late to JRM due to lack of specific vendor data.

Plate girder web material ordered to the incorrect size resulting in an additional 450 + web splices.

Late submission of pipe support drawings from KBR, future painting issue due to out of sequence
fabrication.
Large amount of material trace errors on access platform, series 202 ndt drawings. The root causes of
these errors lay with the JRM method of recording material item, lack of education regarding various
material grades used on the project.

The KBR typical grating fixing detail specified 316 stainless steel, galvansized clips wear better on
galavanised grating

The JRM engineering for grating panels was to a very poor standard, extensive rework required for
fabrication. All panels over 3 square meters were re ordered and smaller were fabricated by JRM and later
galvanized.

The equipment and skids provided by PTTEP was to a general poor standard, experienced inspection
personnel could have greatly improved the quality and helped to maintain schedule. Not wanting to be
flippant, but the maxim ‘you get what you inspect, not what you expect!!’ is a reminder of the potential
pitfalls in the sub contractor market.

Neale Daglish 5 December 2007

Rejected Jotun PU Flexi due to new product in this area, nobody has the
experience of this product, PTTEP suggested to use Hardtop PU, after
number discussion with JRM, JRM accepted and replaced with hardtop
PU (Paint problems, defects opacity, sagging and uncured use by other).

Due to progress payment, PMT was in the hurry to install generator and
compressors on upper deck, PTTET inspector advice JRM and PTTEP
management to complete blasting and painting on the deck floor areas
prior to installing all the equipments, PTTEP management and PMT did
not take the advice and overrule the inspector, deck painting was in
complete before installing the equipments; problems started due
blasting dust entrapment to equipments, some of internal parts has to
dismantle for cleaning and this very hard to complete clean-up.
(This is due to inexperience construction management/operation and
lack of perseveration control.) Human error!

Upper Deck Compressor Skid/structure Incomplete welding on

structural, E/I supports and piping supports installed, due to incomplete
hot works at early stage, the blasting and painting works was carry out
after installation of equipments which causing blasting dusts
entrapment and damaged to equipments.

Deck painting was delay due to installation of piping and hyro-testing

was behind schedule.
Using two coat of low grade epoxy paint on some spools paint system
without primer coat, this will curse early corrosion this was
change/recommended by Peter Hoy.

PFP certification was not properly covered for this installation; hiring
wrong PFP applicator which is not familiar with the construction/painting
sequence.

PFP contractor was approved by QA/QC manager, contractor insist to

use single leg pump which will cause double work due to paint defects,
low DFT, paint bubbles and solvent trap, etc. PTTEP rejected single leg
pump, finally no single leg pump was use, all application was done by
twin legs pump.

Hiring wrong peoples.

John Yeo
Coating Inspectro