New Built Versus

Technical Challenges and Cost Effective Ways For Conversion of Double Hull Tankers: Lessons Learnt from Conversion
of Single Hull Tankers
The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010
Marina Bay Sands, Singapore 27th - 30th September, 2010
TECHNICAL CHALLENGES AND COST EFFECTIVE WAYS FOR CONVERSION OF DOUBLE HULL TANKERS: LESSONS LEARNT FROM CONVERSION OF SINGLE HULL TANKERS
IBIBA EMMANUEL DOUGLAS DEPARTMENT OF MARINE ENGINEERING RIVERS STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PORT HARCOURT, NIGERIA
1
Technical Challenges and Cost Effective Ways For Conversion of Double Hull Tankers: Lessons Learnt from Conversion of Single Hull Tankers Marina Bay Sands, Singapore 27th - 30th September, 2010
CONTENTS
Objectives The FPSO: New (Purpose-built) versus converted (Fast Track) Vessel Conversion Phases/Processes Conversion Requirements/Specifications: Single and Double Hull Technical Challenges in FPSO conversion projects Integrated design Format Application of Design Software Systems Regulatory Regimes Safety and Quality Design Methodology for Enhanced Life-cycle Management (A New Paradigm) Techno-economic Appraisal/Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Highlight Technical difficulties in Tanker to FPSO conversion and discuss solutions Outline basic differences between single hull and double hull tankers conversion Establish efficient Quality-Safety Interface in the specific processes of the conversion Examine gainful utilization of single hull conversion experience for the case of double hull Explore efficient conversion methodologies from Feasibility Studies through Engineering to Construction Introduce a new Design paradigm for enhanced Tanker-FPSO conversion ( a new frontier for FPSOs optimal conversion) Introduce efficient combined Techno-economic optimization procedure for Tanker FPSO conversion
The FPSO: New Built versus Converted

Converted
Advantages Marginal field development Better Construction Schedules environment lower Capex(<1/3 cost of NB) Low severity environment Favourable regulatory regime standards Limitations Stringent selection criteria Service life extension is limited
New Built
Advantages For higher volume development Used in highly severed Lower Opex & more flexible for field life extension Optimal Design and latest
in construction safety rules

Limitations Longer Project Schedules Much higher Capex
Technical Challenges in FPSO conversion projects

Design and Engineering Insufficient Design Documentation ie drawings of vessel for conversion Adaptation of existing hullform and general arrangements to required specifications and safety and quality standards Harmonization of detailed Engineering features Complications in matching new features with old structures Construction Lack of accurate as-built drawings and some design data Non availability of 3-D as-built models which are required by some design application softwares Insufficient fatigue analysis in the design of connections for primary and secondary members: especially for older generation vessels
Possible solutions to the conversion problems

Design and Engineering Phase Lack of accurate as-built drawings and 3-D models can be overcome by the use of laser scanning technology. This is currently being used in various fields. Most of the design associated problems can be resolved by the use of modern engineering application software systems that integrate geometrical and numerical modelling for all aspects of structural and hydrodynamic analysis. Construction Phase Carry detailed fatigue analysis for all connections involving primary and secondary members Increase of structural stiffness and corrosion margin Use of High Tensile Steel (HTS)
FPSO Conversion - Integrated Design Approach

Project Specifications Hull Type Storage Capacity Cargo and Ballast Tanks Layout Permanent or Disconnectable Systems Deck /Topsides Equipment/Facilities Layout Materials of Construction Mooring Arrangements Environmental Conditions of Service Location Required Service Life
Tanker Hull Types

a. Single Hull b. Single Bottom Double Side
c. Single Side Double Bottom d. Double Hull
STRUCTURAL DESIGN PROCEDURES The structural design/analysis is implemented in 6 main steps namely; Determination of hull structural arrangement Determination and computation of loads Analysis/computation of structural response Analysis/computation of limit states Evaluation /assessment of structural adequacy Optimization of design
Important Considerations in the Selection of Tanker for Conversion

Structural drawings Trading history Previous thickness measurements Condition and extent of protective coatings Classification status including any outstanding conditions of class Previous repairs Typical load conditions and purpose of tanks (i.e. cargo, clean ballast, dirty ballast, segregated ballast) Typical defects: Corrosion Buckling Cracks
Parameters for Intact Stability Code
GM GZ
GZ max E 30 30
0
57.27o
Heeling angle
INTACT STABILITY CRITERIA
The main design criteria of the code are: 1. E30 0.055m.rad; E30 is the area under the static stability 0 curve up to 30 0 E40 0.09m.rad; corresponding to area up to 40 0 E40 E30 0.03m.rad; corresponding to area between 30 and 0 40
INTACT STABILITY CRITERIA CONTD
If the angle of flooding f is less than 40 f instead of 40 is to be used in the above rules. o o o 2. h30 0.20m; h30 is the righting lever at 30 heel. 0 3. The maximum righting lever must be at an angle 25 4. The initial metacentric height GM0 = 0.15m or greater.
WEATHER CRITERIA
Restoring lever D GZ AR
LW2
AH
LW1
0 B
3 0
Flooding Angle
1 = 3 - 0
PARAMETERS OF WEATHER CRITERIA
0 initial heel angle under the action of steady wind with lever LW1 constant heeling lever which is independent of the heel angle. 1 maximum angle of roll on the weather side due to side wave action. 2 limiting roll angle on the lee-side enclosed to the left and right sides respectively.
PARAMETERS OF WEATHER CRITERIA CONTD
AR, AH areas enclosed to the left and right sides respectively between the restoring lever curve and a constant heeling lever lw2 due to wind gust. The value of lw2 is given as 1.5 lw1.
Components/Items requiring detailed analysis in FPSO design( New built and Converted)
Hull Midship Section Bow Structure (against Slamming pressures) Cargo Tanks (against Sloshing pressures) Turret Station Keeping System Fluid Transfer System Deck and Topsides Helideck Helicopter Landing Platform Fatigue ( for Hull, Supports/Foundations, Connections, Fluid Transfer Systems etc) Stability: Intact and Damaged
Owners Requirements: comparison of primary and converted designs

S/No 1 Design Element Owners Requirements Primary Ship INPUT Specifications missions and General requirements for primary ship -specifications/ mission and general requirements for conversion options (secondary ships) OUTPUT Representation set of owners requirements obtained by harmonization of owners requirements for all specified candidate ship; the primary ship is given full weight Secondary Ship INPUT Representative set of owners requirements generated for the primary ship design Owners requirement specific to the proposed conversion OUTPUT Important differences harmonized requirements between for the primary ship and those specific to the proposed conversion option.
Wave Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures are Complex and difficult to analyze Require efficient Fluid-Structure Analysis/Computational methods Reliable and cost effective design and operation of a ship or offshore structure requires proper analysis of waves and other environmental loads as well as internal loads on the structure.
HULL GIRDER STRENGTH DETERMINATION

3 2.5
2 1.5 1
0.5 0
1 2 0. 2 0. 6 0. 4 0. 8 1. 2 1. 6 2. 4 2. 8 1. 4 1. 8 2. 2 2. 6 3
Wave spectra: Pierson and Moskowitz (1964)
Derivation of Seaway Wave Spectrum

8 6 4 2 0 -2 0 -4 -6 -8 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Spectrum area = S()d S j j

0 j =1
( )
Period sec 31.42 15.71 10.47 7.85 6.28 5.24 4.49 3.93 3.49 3.14 2.86 2.62 2.42 2.24 2.09
Freq rad/sec 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
Amplitude MeanSq 1.69 2.20 4.29 7.35 6.79 5.09 3.35 3.81 3.26 2.14 3.20 2.03 2.90 1.35 1.05 1.43 2.43 9.20 27.00 23.04 12.94 5.61 7.27 5.30 2.30 5.12 2.06 4.21 0.91 0.55
Superimposition of simple waves

Simple wave Wave Superposition
8 6 4 2 0 -2 0 -4 -6 -8 1 00 2 00 3 00 4 00 50 0 6 00 7 00 8 00 9 00 10 00
A j cos(k j x jt + j )
j=1
Superimpose waves travelling in various directions (k) to simulate a short crested sea
= A j, k cos k j (x cos k + y sin k ) j t + j

k =1 j=1
Determination of Modification Options and Requirements

Determine tanker requiring minimal modification from list of candidate tankers Assess stability and strength characteristics of selected tankers Determine modification requirements Carryout preliminary design analysis of proposed modifications; i. ii. Hydrostatics/Hydrodynamics Analysis Structural Analysis
Final Design
Determine deck and internal hull arrangement Determine Hydrostatics/Hydrodynamics characteristics and carry out stability analysis Carry out structural analysis Iterate to converge at required design
Structural Modification Requirements

Create extra deck space for process facilities, pipe rack, additional accommodation and office space Strategies and options for increasing deck space are; i. Increase Hull breadth ii. Increase Hull Length Either option will require re-evaluation of stability and strength characteristics. Due to the substantial increase in deck load required, modifications of Tankers to FPSOs require extensive structural analysis
Application of Ship Structural Design Software

Most of the software systems for ship structural design utilize a first principle approach to the design and analysis of Hull Structures. However, since they are also required to satisfy the requirements of the classification societies, the they can be used in two phases: The first phase establishes the initial minimum required scantling for a vessel using the applicable Classification Societys rules which includes consideration of ; Hull girder longitudinal bending and shear strength Local strength of shell and bulkhead plating and associated stiffeners. Strength of main supporting members and fatigue assessment. This is used generally for conceptual design, feasibility studies and design definition
The second phase employs the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) method to assess the strength of major portions of the hull and to confirm the minimum scantlings in the phase. The main use of the second phase is for detailed strength analysis and final design validation.
Elements of the ABS SafeHull Design and Analysis Processes

Phase A.
generates midship section geometric model Calculates stiffener spacing, plating spacing, unsupported span, corrosion margin Calculates Hull girder section modulus Calculates required minimum value for longitudinal scantlings according to the applicable ABS Rules Calculates required minimum value of the main supporting members and the transverse scantlings according to the Rules. Calculates the minimum required scantlings for the double bottom floors and girders.
Phase A continues Calculates required thickness based on shear force and allowable still water shear force Performs simplified fatigue assessment based on the relevant ABS Rules; the combined load range and corresponding stress range are determined, permissible stress range is determined based on the ships length, structure type, and fatigue classification (S-N) Performs both a simplified and detailed (if needed,) sloshing check Calculates the required minimum value for the longitudinal scantlings (according to the Rules) based on sloshing pressure requirement Calculates required scantlings of side shell plating and side longitudinals in the fore body region. Calculates the required scantlings of side transverse and stringers in the fore body region
Phase B
Finite element analysis
Generates wave loads and/or external Local point Loads for the 3D model Generates sloshing loads for the 3D model Generates ballast loads for the 3D model Checks the 3D model against yielding criteria for small panels Check the 3D model against buckling criteria for small panels Generates tabular reports for small panel yielding and buckling assessments
Phase B continues Check s the 3D model against buckling criteria for large panels Check s the 3D model against buckling criteria for local corrugated panels Checks the 3D model against buckling criteria for large corrugated panels Checks local model against yielding criteria Check s local model against buckling criteria
ECONOMIC EVALUATION Important Cost considerations in a conversion project include; Revenue loss during off-trade period Cost for Initial Vessel Selection Feasibility studies Design, Engineering and Certification costs Actual Conversion Costs (i.e. Materials and Labour) Cost of Towing and site installations and Commissioning
Expressing Cost of Items as functions of Time gives for the L-th Cost Component, the Cumulative costs for k-years as; CC(l,k)=
For item 1
=1
1, 1, 2,
= = =
,1 + 1,1 + 2,1 +
,2 + + 1,2 + + 2,2 + +
, 1, 2,
CC(1,k) =
For item 2;
=1
CC(2,k) =
=1
For item m;
CC(m,k)=
=1
,1 +
,2 + +
Similarly Total variable Costs for the First year can be expressed as;
=1
,1
For the Nth year the Total Variable Costs for all the items will be;
=1
Cumulative Variable Cost in V years will be;
CC(j,v) =
=1{
=1
Total Cost inclusive of initial Costs in V years will be;
CCT(j,v) = CCIN +
=1
DERIVATION OF REVENUE FUNCTION INVESTMENT EVALUATION EQUATION

The Cumulative Revenue function for k-years can be expressed as;
RC(k) =
=1
+ +
Putting
CCT(j,v) = f1(t) and RC(k)=f2(t)
Gives the following Investment Evaluation Equation;
f2(t) - f1(t) = 0 Solution of this equation gives the Pay Back Period(PBP)
N
Input Pre-Processing
Ship & Wave Description
General Post-Processing Statistics RAOs Visualization Derived quantities
Ship Motions Calculation
Wave Frequency Loads
LAMP
SYSTEM
Ship Motions
Slamming Calculation
Impact Forces
Wave Frequency Pressure
Impact Pressure
Dynamic Beam Calculation
Finite-Element Interface
Total Main Girder Loads
Loading for FE Analysis
Finite-Element Analysis
Detailed Stresses
CONCLUSIONS
FPSOs offer clear technical and economic advantages over other competing options in area of exploiting marginal fields and those located in deep/ultra deep waters. Building new FPSOs are generally associated with higher costs and longer construction periods than converting existing trading tankers to FPSOs. It is clear that a poor choice of tanker for conversion, and inefficient project planning and implementation can erode most of the benefits of the conversion option It is possible and will be beneficial if FPSO conversion designs adopt more holistic approach that incorporates other conversion option
Conclusions continues
Conversion of trading Tankers to FPSOs to high standards will generally require proper evaluation of the stability and strength characteristics of the converted vessel. There are presently computer software systems that have the capacity to handle detailed hydrodynamics and structural analysis efficiently and cost effectively.
Thank you

New Built Versus

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

New Built Versus

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Technical Challenges and Cost Effective Ways For Conversion of Double Hull Tankers: Lessons Learnt from Conversion

of Single Hull Tankers

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Marina Bay Sands, Singapore 27th - 30th September, 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The FPSO: New Built versus Converted

in construction safety rules

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Technical Challenges in FPSO conversion projects

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Possible solutions to the conversion problems

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

FPSO Conversion - Integrated Design Approach

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Tanker Hull Types

c. Single Side Double Bottom d. Double Hull

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Important Considerations in the Selection of Tanker for Conversion

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Parameters for Intact Stability Code

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

INTACT STABILITY CRITERIA

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

INTACT STABILITY CRITERIA CONTD

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

PARAMETERS OF WEATHER CRITERIA

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

PARAMETERS OF WEATHER CRITERIA CONTD

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Owners Requirements: comparison of primary and converted designs

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

HULL GIRDER STRENGTH DETERMINATION

Wave spectra: Pierson and Moskowitz (1964)

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Derivation of Seaway Wave Spectrum

Spectrum area = S()d S j j

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Superimposition of simple waves

= A j, k cos k j (x cos k + y sin k ) j t + j

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Determination of Modification Options and Requirements

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Structural Modification Requirements

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Application of Ship Structural Design Software

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Elements of the ABS SafeHull Design and Analysis Processes

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

The 11th Annual FPSO CONGRESS 2010

Cumulative Variable Cost in V years will be;